Landis Doping Ban Upheld
Two Year Competition Ban For Doping
From the Group News Blog Sports Desk
A 3 person U.S. Anti-Doping Agency arbitration panel stripped upheld a test showing Floyd Landis, the 2006 Tour de France champion, used synthetic testosterone on Stage 17 of the Tour.
Landis forfeits his Tour title and is baned from competing for two years, retroactive to January 30, 2007.
Landis may appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
AP
According to documents obtained by AP, the vote was 2-1 to uphold the results, with lead arbitrator Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren in the majority and Christopher Campbell dissenting.
It's a devastating loss for Landis, who has steadfastly insisted that cheating went against everything he was all about and said he was merely a pawn in the anti-doping system's all-consuming effort to find cheaters and keep money flowing to its labs and agencies.
Landis didn't hide from the scrutiny — invited it, in fact — and now has been found guilty by the closest thing to a fair trial any accused athlete will get.
Landis, who has a month to file his appeal, is still weighing his legal options, according to a statement released by his legal team.
"This ruling is a blow to athletes and cyclists everywhere" Landis said. "For the Panel to find in favor of USADA when, with respect to so many issues, USADA did not manage to prove even the most basic parts of their case shows that this system is fundamentally flawed. I am innocent, and we proved I am innocent."
Despite the result, it's hard to see this as a total victory for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which prosecuted the case. This was a costly affair for the agency, and it exposed flaws in the system.
In its 84-page decision, the majority found the initial screening test to measure Landis' testosterone levels — the testosterone-to-epitestosterone test — was not done according to World Anti-Doping Agency rules.
But the more precise and expensive carbon-isotope ration analysis (IRMS), performed after a positive T-E test is recorded, was accurate, the arbitrators said, meaning "an anti-doping rule violation is established."
"As has been held in several cases, even where the T-E ratio has been held to be unreliable ... the IRMS analysis may still be applied," the majority wrote. "It has also been held that the IRMS analysis may stand alone as the basis" of a positive test for steroids.
The decision comes more than a year after Landis' stunning comeback in Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour, one that many people said couldn't be done without some kind of outside help. Flying to the lead near the start of a grueling Alpine stage, Landis regained nearly eight minutes against the leader, and went on to win the three-week race.
"Well, all I can say is that justice has been done, and that this is what the UCI felt was correct all along," Pat McQuaid, leader of cycling's world governing body, told The Associated Press by telephone. "We now await and see if he does appeal to CAS.
"It's not a great surprise considering how events have evolved. He got a highly qualified legal team who tried to baffle everybody with science and public relations. And in the end the facts stood up."
Spanish rider Oscar Pereiro, who finished second to Landis in the 2006 Tour, said he hadn't officially heard the news yet.
"You never want to win a competition like that," he said. "But after a year and a half of all of this I'm just glad it's over."
Landis insisted on a public hearing not only to prove his innocence, but to shine a spotlight on USADA and the rules it enforces and also establish a pattern of incompetence at the French lab where his urine was tested.
Although the panel rejected Landis' argument of a "conspiracy" at the Chatenay-Malabry lab, it did find areas of concern. They dealt with chain of command in controlling the urine sample, the way the tests were run on the machine, the way the machine was prepared and the "forensic corrections" done on the lab paperwork.
"... the Panel finds that the practises of the Lab in training its employees appears to lack the vigor the Panel would expect in the circumstances given the enormous consequences to athletes" of an adverse analytical finding, the decision said.
The majority repeatedly wrote that any mistakes made at the lab were not enough to dismiss the positive test, but also sent a warning.
"If such practises continue, it may well be that in the future, an error like this could result in the dismissal" of a positive finding by the lab.
In Campbell's opinion, Landis' case should have been one of those cases.
"In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Campbell wrote. "The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent."
And in at least one respect, Landis, who spent an estimated $2 million on his defense, was exonerated because the panel dismissed the T-E test. But in the arbitration process, a procedural flaw in the first test doesn't negate a positive result in follow-up tests.
"An arbitration panel is entitled to rely entirely on the IRMS analysis as an independent and sufficient basis for finding that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred," the decision said.
In his dissent, Campbell latched onto the T-E ratio test, among other things, as proof that the French lab couldn't be trusted.
"Also, the T-E ratio test is acknowledged as a simple test to run. The IRMS test is universally acknowledged as a very complicated test to run, requiring much skill. If the LNDD couldn't get the T-E ratio test right, how can a person have any confidence that LNDD got the much more complicated IRMS test correct?"
It was confusion like this that led to the system receiving the harsh review Landis was hoping for during a nine-day hearing in Malibu, Calif., in May.
But Landis also took his share of abuse, and ultimately, USADA still improved to 35-0 in cases it has brought before arbitration panels since it was founded in 2000.
This was a nasty contest waged on both sides, with USADA attorneys going after Landis' character and taking liberties in evidence discovery that wouldn't be permitted in a regular court of law. And Landis accused USADA of using a win-at-all-costs strategy and prosecuting him only to get him to turn on seven-time winner Lance Armstrong, who has long fought doping allegations that have never been proven.
Cyclingnews
Campell's decision complained that the LNDD laboratory had "cherry picked" the data in order to find the adverse result, and stated, "From the perspective of 'safeguarding the interest of athletes,' any anti-doping system must be held accountable, like the athletes. If there are flaws in procedures for testing, as evidenced above, those flaws should be immediately disclosed [...] Drug testing agencies should not be playing hide the ball when athletes' careers are on the line."
VeloNews
Landis's case was argued in a public hearing in May, and a ruling had initially been expected prior to this year's Tour. Landis spokeswoman Pearl Piatt told Agence France Presse that he has not decided whether to press his case before CAS.
"We're still digesting the report," she said. "They are still reading the opinion closely and looking at it."
At one stage, Landis had said the cost of making such a fight might be more than he could afford, although he has maintained his innocence throughout the doping fight.
One of his lawyers, Maurice Suh, called the ruling "a miscarriage of justice."
"The majority panel's decision is a disappointment, but particularly so because it failed to address the joint impact of the many errors that the AFLD laboratory committed in rendering this false positive," Suh said.
"To take each of these errors singly is to ignore the total falsity of the result. The majority panel has disregarded the testimony of Mr. Landis' experts, who are pre-eminent in their respective fields, without analyzing the impact of the errors on the final result."
The USADA full decision is available to read.
This final selection is from people I personally believe have the best coverage of the Landis case.
I trust their judgment enormously. They are fair and careful journalists of the Landis case.
Trust but Verify will continue to update their report ongoingly -- I am quoting from their breaking coverage. Check back later for more in depth reporting. Quite simply, TBV has the best and least biased reporting on Landis anywhere.
Trust but Verify
Hue's View
INITIAL REACTION
I have said it before, in a "real" court, in Europe or in North America, the flaws identitfied by all 3 Panel members would cause the case to be dismissed before the fact finder would apply the standard of proof.Sad day for justice. Great day (and vindiction) for WADA, the Federations and USADA.
The decision is very technical and makes decisions on the science. The majority did not find the testimony of Joe Papp "helpful in determining the issues before it..." and held Papp's testimony "...in no regard ..."
Panel finds Landis's testimony on his conversation with Lemond did not constitute an admission of guilt. Calls Lemond's testimony "incohate" when he refused to answer questions the Panel determined to be proper. Panel accepts the statement and explaination of Mr Landis and rejects the testimony of Lemond to the extent he claimed Landis confessed to him.
Campbell says Landis not only proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence but in many ways, "beyond a reasonable doubt". Says LNDD has not "been trustworthy from the beginning". Finds LNDD violated International standards, fails legal and ethical standards and should not be "entrusted with Landis' career."
The Panel ordered USOC to pay its fees and Dr Botre's.
The decision is very technical and makes decisions on the science. The majority did not find the testimony of Joe Papp "helpful in determining the issues before it..." and held Papp's testimony "...in no regard ..."
Panel finds Landis's testimony on his conversation with Lemond did not constitute an admission of guilt. Calls Lemond's testimony "incohate" when he refused to answer questions the Panel determined to be proper. Panel accepts the statement and explaination of Mr Landis and rejects the testimony of Lemond to the extent he claimed Landis confessed to him.
Campbell says Landis not only proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence but in many ways, "beyond a reasonable doubt". Says LNDD has not "been trustworthy from the beginning". Finds LNDD violated International standards, fails legal and ethical standards and should not be "entrusted with Landis' career."
"62. Because everyone assumes an athlete who is alleged to have tested positive is guilty, it is not fashionable to argue that laboratories should comply with strict rules. However, if you are going to hold athletes strictly liable with virtually no possibility of overcoming a rcported alleged positive test even in the face of substantial and numerous laboratory errors, fairness and human decency dictates that strict rules be applied to laboratories as well. To do otherwise d doesn't safeguard the interest of athlctes."
63. WADA should be writing rules that mandate the highest scientific stantiards rather than writing rule for a race to the bottom of scientific reliability so convictions can be easily obtained, as this cased demonstrates. Givcn the plethora of laboratory errors in this case, there was certainly no reliable scientific evidence introduccd to find that Mr. Landis committcd a doping offense."
From paragraph 52:
"When you consider all the errors and ISL violations in this case, the fact that the results also do not comport with known science is dispositive. I cannot be comfortable satisfied that LNDD’s results are correct."
From footnote 13:
13. I was very concerned with my evaluation of the errors associated with Mr. Landis’ tests. To confirm that there was a problem with cherry picked of data I asked the Panel’s expert, Dr. Botrè to review my concerns. His response was that he could not figure out where the data came from. While this is certainly not evidence in the case, Dr. Botrè’s response is in accord with what both parties agreed, that the Panel could have an expert to explain complicated scientific information. His response confirmed my suspicion of the problem.
My view...
This is absolute bullshit.Campbell, Hue, even the two panel members who voted against Landis, all have clearly identified sufficient grounds that as has been said over and over again, in any court of LAW, the so-called evidence would have been thrown out as hopelessly contaminated, the laboratory records as so confused and possibly forged as unusable and potentially perjured.
No District Attorney or Federal Prosecutor in a criminal case (or their equivalent in west Europe), no matter how reckless or desperate their need to win,
would ever use this evidence (or would be allowed to by the Judge. And Gods help them if they tried. The Defense Attorney would ask to have them disbarred and thrown in jail on contempt charges; the Judge would do it.)
All the Landis evidence in any real court (not this rigged "guilty until proven otherwise and we can change all the rules on the fly till we get the verdict we want, plus we'll just freaking ignore anything that doesn't work for us", and no, sorry, I'm actually not kidding)
would be:
A) Thrown out.
B) Used to impeach the prosecutor's case.
C) Just the fact that the flawed tests and lab procedures existed
at all for anyone, would be a
massive, truly
fucking massive strike against the prosecution's case against
anyone, as forensic screw ups strike at the heart and soul, the fundamental integrity and credibility of the laboratory giving the tests for anyone.
D) Jammed up the ass of anyone stupid enough to have not hidden it far, far away from the prosecutor who now is forced to disclose the results to the defense, thus screwing her case completely and setting the defendant free, as I've just spelled out above.
E) Of course an ethical prosecutor interested in Justice, not her conviction record, would want to know about the problem so she could disclose it. And pigs might fly out my ass.
But all this only in a Court Of Law.
What Floyd Landis got was not a Court of Law. He got a 3 person U.S. Anti-Doping Agency arbitration panel. They voted 2-1 to uphold the evidence against him, even if they had to bend, break, and fucking torque with a crowbar the rule book to get the man they simply
knew in their gut to be
Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!We can not say Floyd Landis is innocent.
But we sure as shit can not say he is guilty.
Except perhaps, of actually trusting that "the system" might be trusted. Or that panel arbitrators might put truth and honesty before voting their paychecks.
This verdict is a travesty. It
is injustice.
From now on, every time you hear of an athlete who "is a doper", think of Floyd Landis and
know... you truly do
not know.
The system is rigged.
This has been a breaking news report and editorial comment LIVE from the
Group News Blog Sports Desk, Jesse Wendel reporting. Good Day.
There's more...
