edit. for English link...

http://www.velonews.com/article/78938/floy...expected-monday

Are we to assume the decision is done and on a shelf waiting to be released? If so, where is l' equipe to tell us what it says this weekend? Everything else in cycling is leaked to the media before its released (see Tom Boonen for the latest example). Could it be good news for Floyd?

How about the AFLD's decision earlier this week not to use its lab but the Swiss lab for testing this year? Are they being pro-active in front of a coming bad decision for them?

Floyd, I have my fingers crossed for you. Good luck.

That's not correct:

Anti-dopage Pour Le Tour De France

The samples for HGH testing will go to Lausanne and I think some bio-passport type work.

It's also interesting that the AFLD is planning to do some targeted testing by IRMS. I hope the riders pay attention to that.

I wish the best to Floyd's passionate tifiosi. As for Floyd...bleh.

Hope it turns out well for Floyd, but either way, I still have that 2006 ride to enjoy. Damn, what a ride, like a goddamn Harley chasing after virginal french babes! In fact, tonight may be a good night to throw in S17 and just groove to it. And no matter what, I'll be able to do the same after Monday if the news is bad, as I am an admitted and obvious member of Floyd's tifosi. speaking of which, time to put on my Tifosis and go ride! Viva Floyd!

Let me just say few words. Mostly from memory.

Since I watched every minute of the hearing and read just about everything (including 1000+ pages of transcripts), in both languages, I still have lots of memory.

The open arbitration in California exposed just about all best arguments on either side. It's hard to expect new killer arguments. The litigants are the same. Tough and aggressive USADA against a resourceful and eloquent Suh and Co.


To summarize, the Panel decided 2 against 1 in USADA's favor despite them rejecting LNDD's implementation of all T/E tests. Two arbiters, mostly on the advise of the Panel's technical expert, Dr Botre, accepted that the IRMS test was a conclusive evidence of exogenous testosterone. It appears that USADA's ability to IRMS-test Foyd's samples from other stages (doggedly resisted by Suh) was the decisive collaborating evidence. The Majority rejected all arguments attacking the data validity. There were many and, IMO, some almost succeeded.

My opinion is known. I don't see technical justification for acquittal. Floyd came close with IRMS set up linearity calibration "almost" being outdated. Other arguments being less important IMO.

I think that Floyd got as friendly a CAS panel as he could have gotten. The arbitrators are: chair, New Zealander David Williams (with respectability record), Landis's choice - Swede Jan Paulson (who chaired Landaluze acquittal) and New York lawyer David Rivkin, the USADA guy.

It appears that the closed-door hearing was again extremely contentious as it lasted beyond expected and literally drained WADA and USADA resources.

Whatever the outcome, I hope everyone is cooled off by now.

CAS will not rule this case in Landis favour. So no need for the Landis-fans out there to hold their breath at monday.

This case hasn't been good for the sport. It shouldn't matter if you believe Landis doped or not, but there are a shame that a doping case lasts for two years. The athlete would be the looser irrespective of the verdict. There should be a rule that says that a case should have a judgement after maximum 3 months or so.

Probably true, I'm not very optimistic. A little held breath, but not much.
But I think the case has been good for cycling. Many issues have come up, besides the main one being that there was justifiably little trust in riders (and teams) playing fair. What was common knowledge to some was a dirty little secret to many, and until that secret came out to more folks there was no chance of actually working on it. I don't see this as another Festina-sweep-it-under-the-rug deal, nor do I see the overall effect of Puerto being insignificant in it's contextual impact. Things are changing and cycling is ahead of the game compared to other sports now.

I do hope CAS finds in Floyd's favor on valid grounds and my little held breath is vindicated. Whatever, though. 2 years of this stuff dulls the senses a bit. Nothing will change my enjoyment of the 2006 Tour and the brilliance of S17.

Well, if CAS rules for Floyd, then I'm with you. If against, then, yeah it was still one of the most exciting Tour moments ever, but it is sad for me.

I'm a fan too.

This case has not been good for cycling. I mostly blame the way the LNDD/WADA/Dick Pound ("Nazi Frogmen") have handled it.

They assured us they had air-tight testing procedures and infallible labs. If they did, this case would have never come to trail.

I blame the way Landis' A-sample was leaked to the public. If it was not, this could have been worked out in the first few weeks behind closed doors. By having it be world-wide news, WADA/LNDD was forced to defend a weak position and one wonders if they would have not dropped it all together had they been allowed to argue it in private before we knew anything. Maybe Landis would have had time to contemplate what he did and not fight it. We'll never know.

Instead, what was shown is the testers are borderline incompetent and literally make up their thresholds for a positive test. See the recent NYT article about the new urine EPO tests where the labs got most of the tests wrong. Doesn't matter, it will be used in this Olympics and Athletes career will end because of this test. I have zero confidence they will be catching cheaters. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html?ex=1372219200&en=9407c337abe531f2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I'm left with a feeling the WADA/USADA is randomly accusing athletes with positive tests and thinking that if they just bust enough athletes they will scare the cheaters straight and give the public the impression they are doing something about PEDs. In the end they are killing the sports they test for and ruining a lot of lives along the way.

Landis lost this case the day his a-sample was leaked. WADA/USADA lost this case when we saw the open trial of how poorly they run their process. Cycling lost long before this. The public turned cynical long ago (Festina?)

There are no winners in this case, only degrees of losing. Nothing the CAS can say will be "good" on Monday, just "less bad" for some. I hope it is less bad for Floyd.

I blame the athletes for doping

How do you know who they are?

Well, the ones that test positive, they'll do for a start. Because, on my planet, the evidence against Landis has not been discredited, and lots of false negatives do not a false positive make, and because on the planet where I live evil anti doping empires and their subservient minions do not manufacture multi-level conspiracies for no discernable gains. Also, on my planet it'd be a reprehensible thing to do to accuse a whole bunch of people of independently lying just because their results don't fit with the protestations of innocence of a single man who is believed to be incapable of such an act as doping, yet is willing to have an associate make fun of child sexual abuse for some perceived gain in the case!
The positives tests, the full open hearing and the arbitration. If they all say that Landis is one of the dopers, that's good enough for me. If they say he isn't, then that's also good enough for me. But don't come here with that BS line that there is no way to know who the dopers are. They don't always get caught, but that does not mean that the ones that do get caught are the more innocent for it.

Why why why does CAS wait until the week before the tour to render it's verdict? Why can't they wait till after the tour?

It's guaranteed to open wounds regardless of the decision.

An innocent verdict will taint next weeks tour.

A guilty verdict will taint next weeks tour.

On your planet is there such a thing as "paparazzi" or are there headlines that generate millions from the word "CHEAT"?

And Landis' doping tainted the 2006 tour.

And Rasmussen/Vinokourov/Moreni/Sinkewitz etc. tainted the 2007 tour.

Problem is the doping cops have accused a lot of athletes of violating laws that were innocent, or found not guilty. Here is a partial list off the top of my head.


LaTasha Jenkins
Bernard Lagat
Ian Thorpe
Gareth Turnbull
Santigo Boero
Inigo Landaluze

Not to mention the way Iban Mayo was jerked around.


I have zero confidence in the ability of the current system to catch cheaters. While I agree their are a number of false positive test that slip through, I don't even trust the positive test. Again, see the NYT article linked about that says the EPO test is bogus. Then see the announcement that WADA will have a HGH test in place by the Olympics. These are made up tests!

The ASO might as well say, "in conjunction with WADA and the AFLD, we have decided to randomly pick four riders and accuse them of doping. We believe this will improve the integrity of the sport and scare the real dopers straight."

Convince me that is not what they are essentially doing now. Tell me why WADA can break all kinds of rules and protocols and athletes are held to a zero tolerance?

I use to marvel at how people actually believed the priest in their hunt for the devil during the Salem witch trials. I use to think we "evolved" from that type of thinking. Most of the "anti-dopers" on this board are really no different than the Salem MA residences of 300 years ago. You use the same arguments and you're getting the same results.

Sorry, bad hair day ...

But the system let them off, which shows that it works if they were innocent or if there was ambiguity in the result. Yes the process needs to be speeded up, so that people are cleared more quickly. You seem to accept the outcome in those cases, will you accept it if the CAS says that Floyd doped?

"Due process" takes time.

If an athlete wants to exercise his/her right to defend against a doping charge then this will take a certain amount of time. The main stream legal system isn't any different, regardless of the country.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that an athlete is unable to compete the time factor is more of a concern than, for example, a bank robber. But somewhere down the line there is a choice to be made between expeditive justice and "due process". For those who believe in the accused, the system will be considered faulty no matter what the process is.

In preparation for today's big announcement TBV provides us each side's post-hearing briefs:

Landis
USADA

After a fairly quick reading, it seems to me there's not a whole lot new in general (although there are a lot of new details).

Landis is making the certification of the IRMS test a much bigger deal, hoping those details will spring a significant departure from the lab standards.

The identification of peaks in the IRMS are again pivotal.

Landis' team makes an issue of different GC columns being used. USADA provided two independent sources to rebut this.


Both sides want the other to pay costs.


One thing people not immersed in the science may be interested in is that USADA raised the issue of Landis riding in the USA Cycling sanctioned Leadville 100, which took place 5 months after Landis agreed to stop competing in UCI events. If Landis loses, that could affect the time his suspension ends. I'd guess they'd just add that one day to his suspension but there is the outside chance he could lose 5 more months.

Here is the full 1500-page CAS hearing transcript that TBV has not availed yet.

http://arniebakercycling.com/floyd/cas/CAS%20Transcript.pdf

It's another 5 hours till CAS release of it's verdict later today.

Below are my very first and preliminary impressions based on very quick glance thru 4 documents - Bakers E-book, USADA and Landis post-hearing briefs and the pertinent pages of the 1500- page of CAS transcripts. The things that stood out for me, are:


- It seems 3 new issues were brought up by Landis: "column", "accreditation" (more comments later), "spirit" of the same operator rule
Briefly: Appellant claims that LNDD performed improper maintenance on the GC column and attempted to hide the fact.. "Accreditation" refers to allegedly improper accreditation of LNDD's IRMS method by the independent accreditation body (even Tyler Hamilton cases is dragged in). specifically, Floyd insists that GC-MS portion of the IRMS procedure was not listed in COFRAC's accreditation papers. The "spirit of rule" refers to Landaluze-type alleged violation and, to me, it appears to attract the attention of the Panel's President, who acquitted Landaluze in the similar (but really different) situation.

- Catlin is not among the present witnesses. It seems (not sure yet?)USADA brought two new experts and more LNDD staff..

- Baker attacks Ayotte credibility, the WADA Montreal lab director,

- Baker attacks Brenna's statements regarding IRMS positivity criteria - attempts to present Branna's CAS testimony as contradictory to his AAA testimony (did not seem so to me, because GC peaks identification "controversy" seemed consistent in both Brenna's CAS and AAA testimony, and AAA panel conclusively killed the issue)

- Baker describes chain of custody evidence from new CAS witness (technician Martin, Laurent). But this seems pointless because Suh admitted at AAA hearing - they don't dispute that tested samples belonged to Floyd.

- Baker insists that USADA's new IRMS witness, Dwight Matthews, who invented IRMS, is not credible because he shared office space with a guy who committed fraud.

But the system presents itself as infallible. This is why athletes are not allowed the same "rights" as they would in a regular court of law. For instance, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather a "preponderance of the evidence.” If the burden of proof was beyond a reasonable doubt, then Landis would have walked by virtue of Campbell's vote. In a regular court you need all twelve jurors to agree or you walk, this is not the case with a WADA sanction arbitration, just a majority will do.

WADA tells us their system is so good that they can have the lower threshold. “Don't worry we know what we are doing so we will never accuse an innocent athlete.” That's crap. They do accuse innocent athletes all the time. And most of them do not have the resources or ability to fight. You think all the African distance runners that test positive can hirer Jacobs and Suh? No, they just end their career and go on to do something else never really understanding why they were told to leave.

Further, if you can fight, then WADA will do whatever is necessary to win. Then they change the rules, doctor reports (see page 33 of Baker’s new wiki), deny discovery and ruin your reputation (Pound, "goddam Harley" and "jump on every virgin within 100 miles"). Then they will drag your name through the mud by having Lemond testify. And, the arbitration rules say that after Lemond makes sensational claims, he will not subject himself to cross-examination. Because winning is more important than the truth to them, they will destroy you to protect themselves. They are Government funded and they need to constantly get "scalps" so they can continue to receive funding.

Lastly, if you need an example of an innocent athlete that did not walk, try this, Floyd Landis. Will I accept the outcome in the CAS? It depends on what they say. They have to convince me he doped. The USADA decision read like Bortre wrote it. If Landis is cleared, will you accept it?

It's actually probably worse for the bank robber as he also is "unable to compete" since it is quite likely he would be held on remand.



"Beyond reasonable doubt" relates to criminal proceedings. These are not criminal proceedings but are more akin to civil cases, where the "balance of probabilities" would be the term used. Sounds a lot more like "preponderance of evidence".

Yes.

Landis loses his appeal. I'd link but the CAS site is locking up. USADA is awarded 100 thousand dollars.

I love Swiss timing so much I married one (exactly on time)
Text from Cas.


Lausanne, 30 June 2008 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the American cyclist Floyd Landis and has confirmed the initial decision issued by a Panel of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on 20 September 2007. Consequently, Floyd Landis is disqualified from the Tour de France 2006 and is suspended for a period of two years starting from 30 January 2007. Floyd Landis has been ordered to pay the sum of USD 100'000 to the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA) as a contribution towards its costs in the CAS arbitration.

$100,000? ouch!

A small sum when you consider the overall costs and that both sides were arguing for awarding costs. (Hard to argue for one-way assignment only).

One could 'argue', that this was light.

Dave.

where the hell is an out of work rider going to get $100,000?

Now that is a pretty funny question coming from a lawyer.

Dave.

I'm assuming that the decision was unanimous, since the press release didn't say otherwise. Given that the selection of arbitrators was considered by some to be favorable to Landis (some even speculated that this was a condition for Landis' decision to go ahead with the appeal) maybe we can assume that the "facts" were actually against Landis.

Although some will undoubtedly cry injustice, maybe now we can put this behind us and concentrate on more positive things.

I would also think that the award for costs shows that the CAS panel found Landis' appeal somewhat frivolous.

Vive le....Giro.

from CN http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...un08/jun30news3

Landis loses final appeal

By Mark Zalewski, North American Editor
Floyd Landis had his two-year suspension upheld

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland announced today its decision regarding ex-Tour de France winner Floyd Landis vs. US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). The court ruled against Landis, ending his fight to clear his name and regain his Tour victory. Landis will have to serve the full two-year suspension that is back-dated to January 30, 2007. Additionally, Landis was ordered to pay $100,000 in costs to the USADA.

In a statement released by the CAS, it found that: "1. The LNDD is a WADA-accredited laboratory which benefits from the presumption that it conducted sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards. 2. The athlete has not rebutted this presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard occurred."

The panel then went on to conclude from the evidence presented that the "presence of exogenous testosterone or its precursors or metabolites in Floyd Landis' sample proved that he violated the anti-doping rules of the UCI".

This was Landis' final step in his bid to win back his Tour de France title, though the fight could go on in other legal areas, such as civil suits. Further, there have been some disputes over when Landis actually began serving his suspension, since he continues to race in non-UCI and non-USAC sanctioned mountain bike events. Landis told Cyclingnews in February that if his suspension date were changed to make his sanction effectively longer, then he would no longer try to return to professional racing.

Comments:

1. I'm quite sure the decision was not unanimous. Floyd's pick almost certainly sided with him. In fact, in cases like this, I think they could save a lot of time and money by just having one judge. The ADA pick will almost always vote against the rider, and the rider's pick will almost always vote for the rider, so it is always the judge they pick who decides. The only way that could not happen is if both the ADA pick and the rider's pick voted together, and the swing judge voted the other way, and I really can't conceive of a case with that outcome.

2. Let Floyd ride after the TDF. C'mon, two years is two years. This Jan. 09 is cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, it was unanimous. And much more firm than the AAA decision. One thing that struck me was the condemnation Suh and Jacobs got for entering a post-hearing brief full of fiery rhetoric and accusations of rampant fraud. Here is my advice for future riders who test positive:

1. If you can find a problem in the labwork relatively quickly fight it. If not, don't. All the extra digging doesn't work.

2. Don't hire Jacobs. He always loses. Maybe save your money and find some good law students to help.

3. Get an expert who is familiar with the ISO 17025 lab standards. Floyd's expert Goldberger led the accreditation arm of US forensic labs before they went to ISO 17025. Obviously they think the old way he knows was not good enough.

4. Get a Kazakh license. You'll be back in a year.

5. Just admit it. People love giving second chances.

Link to pdf
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/1...2008.06.30).pdf

The monetary award to USADA appears as insult added to injury. I very quickly read all 54 pages. It's unprecedented in its harshness and candid language. Main points that grabbed me.

- Panel used very harsh language regarding its displeasure of accusations of misconduct re USADA.
In fact, they accused Floyd's team of legal misconduct.
- They rejected in an uncharacteristically harsh language Floyd's accusations of forgery
-Panel literally said that the lab's minor errors should be distinct from lab practice. In point 258 they accused Floyd's technical experts of not being aware of such distinction (this is almost an insult to a proud scientist)
- Even more to the displeasure of Floyd's scientists, the panel said, (I think this unprecedented) that they
in fact find much force in USADA's accusations that they actted as advocates and not scientists

Maybe he should have thought about that before he started all of this. Wonder if Rock Racing will be keeping a spot open for him...

You see that Floyd's suspension now ends September 29, 2009?

The CAS ruled that Floyd’s participation in Leadville 100 was a violation of his sanction because it was a USA-cycling sanctioned event. So, they restarted the two years from that date

There is a section in the middle that discusses it in detail.

No, it still ends January 30. The Leadville race didn't matter because they didn't require licenses.

Rock Racing?

As pointed above, the Panel basically accused some of Floyd's scientists of being advocates in stead of presenting technical facts.

Let's remeber, that Mr. Scott, the former #2 in Catlin's WADA lab, one of Floyd's main scientist, is also
reportedly running RR's anti doping program that is supposed to emulate ACE's and Damsgaard's.

Scott Analytics thingy....

CAS

USADA

WADA

UCI

ASO



One hand washes the other.

Boy, I hope Ali has cashed all his cheques: wouldn't want to be in Fffloyd's employ right now...

Man, between this and Simeoni, you're having a tough couple of days, aren't you?

And this clearly was a factor in the monetary award against Landis.

What was not unprecedented is that from the beginning this has been a case of absurd and misleading rhetoric from Wiki to FFF to DPF postings, TBV and the hearings themselves. The pattern has been remarkably consistent. Finally, this has caught up with Floyd in not only the upheld judgement but the monetary award as well.

This was also cited in the FOX Spots Article

The CAS panel, noting the harsh nature of much of the Landis testimony, agreed with USADA's contention that Landis' witnesses "crossed the line, acting for the most part as advocates for the Appelant's cause, and not as scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for truth."

...

Thus ended the longest, most expensive and most bizarre case in modern anti-doping history.

It included some scandalous revelations during the public hearing, nothing more shocking than when former Tour de France winner Greg LeMond entered the hearing room.

Landis thus now inherits the title of 'Most Bizarre Case', taking over from Hamilton as well.

Thanks again for all the rational posts from RH & OMJ who took plenty of derision for simply trying to keep the facts straight.

Dave.

Yep. It's over.

Perhaps this whole topic can be shut down now on the DPF and the (inevitable) ranting against the decision left to TBV...

Agreed. But you and others don't care about the "facts" when the decision are the other way around or if the (w)ada's don't even find a reason for starting a case. At least be man enough to respect when the "facts" actually are for the rider.

Very good advice. I thought all along Floyd was paying far too much for legal (and scientific) services, given that there was such a low probability of winning. I'm no legal expert, but I didn't see anything Jacobs/Suh did to further the case for Floyd that some much lower paid legal type couldn't have performed.

I'm very surprised that the decision was unanimous. It's very telling that Floyd's own pick wouldn't side with him. I think in the end the panel saw that there were no new arguments on either side, and felt there was therefore no reason to reverse the original decision. Sort of like the instant replay rule: if you can't see definite evidence that the original ruling was wrong, you give it the benefit of the doubt. This doesn't mean the original arguments against lab procedure were invalid, just that they weren't strong enough to be fatal to the prosecution's case. I think the CAS panel wanted to avoid getting bogged down in that mess. If the original panel, after months of study and thousands of pages of testimony, could not find a clear-cut reason for acquitting, then this panel probably felt it couldn't, either.

Paragraph 282, Page 53 states:



Paragraph 283 follows with:



Underlining added by me.

Actually, it was a fresh sheet going in. Landis could not have asked for a better opportunity, as he would have had to have regarded this as a beneficial sitution. In the end, he ended up far worse off.

The hearing took place in March in New York, and was considered a "trial de novo" — not technically an appeal, but a chance to have the case heard anew. But the evidence presented over the five-day hearing didn't change the final outcome

Actually it did change the final outcome -- unanimous with a monetary award for abusing the court.

Dave.

Apparently, not only is de novo evidence permitted in a CAS appeal, it's required. Therefore, asking for an appeal simply because you think the first time they didn't properly interpret the evidence is abusing the court. Weird - I thought that thinking you didn't get a fair listen the first time around was practically a definition of appeal.

tom

I rarely laugh at my own posts but the Simonini was an exception.

The Landis case was impossible to prove in his favor so it was no surprise.

Yep, this was an exercise in futility from the get go. If Floyd had a shred of integrity or honor he would have owned up to his mistake instead of taking every desperate measure possible to clear his name and reduce the inherent shame that stemmed from disgracing the sport at the highest level. I feel bad for all of the folks that were duped into supporting the FFF, much like those that contributed financial support to Tyler's defense. But as the saying goes, there's a sucker born every minute and it appropriately applies here.