Wednesday, 19 March 2008

WADA trial, de novo with a twist: WADA sandbags Landis

It is Day ONE...

FLASH: WADA helping USADA pay for Landis prosecution! A sign of 'neutrality'??? (see below, AND tomorrow)

Somewhere in a legal office in Manhattan, men and women will gather in one location, to hear, once again and perhaps for the last time, some five days of testimony, by participants and expert witnesses alike, the facts and theories, the tests and the complaints thereto, of the Floyd Landis case concerning possible testosterone abuse by the last American cyclist to have stood on a podium in Paris, on les Champes Elysées, to receive the Yellow Jersey, awarded to victors of the Tour de France.

Nobody in France knows how many of Floyd's predecessors were 'doped'; nobody in the world, may ever know the true history of LE Tour...

But certainty is as certainty does, and since 1986, Americans have worn the victor's Jersey eleven out of 21 years (3 for Lemond, 7 for Armstrong, 1 for Landis).

On trial today, is a defendant, yet an entire system is also at risk. When the decision falls, we will voraciously read the logic of a reversal*, in which Floyd is exonerated due to 'errors of procedure', or 'incapability of staff in a lab to follow clear rules, and use precision tools' (up to more than 500 thousand Swiss francs, or similarly in dollars).

OR, we will read an affirmation* that the substantive evidence, in spite of the known, acknowledged, and minimized errors found therein, are still sufficient proof of a digression from purity in sport.

* While the case in front of the CAS is technically a 'trial de novo' (or 'new trial') and not an appeal per se, where the 'errors' of the 'lower instance' are hashed and rehashed, still the outcome, based on new arbitrators hearing perhaps repeated or new arguments from Floyd's attorneys and the USADA lawyers, will share the legal reasoning of the USADA, which was prevalent at the first hearing, or it will tack to the lee side, and concur, perhaps, with the reasoning of Christopher Campbell, the single arbitrator who sided with the theory presented by Floyd, that the sum total of work product issued by the Laboratoire nationale du dépistage du dopage, or LNDD, was not competent to rise to the level of inculpating evidence.

Out of the wordwork now, are coming new statements via authors that 'know Floyd', such as this article by Martin Dugard, who passes long paragraphs in support of Floyd, and their common history as one writer and an Athlete-cyclist, and let's us know that Floyd DOES state 'Lance doped', and at the end of his long story, that he believes Floyd 'did it also'.

The trial starts sometime Wednesday morning, in New York City.

WADAwatch reminds readers everywhere, that one simple fact has come out of the Floyd Landis case: the entire 'œuvre' created by WADA, has made itself examined as nearly in depth as a competent gynaecologist may...

Are lab errors given the same disciplinary weight as an Athlete whose tests 'may reveal' doping products or procedures?

Are Signatories, whose subordinate agencies disregard evidence of 'lab irregularity', to be rewarded or punished, to the same degree, or more severely than an Athlete?

Are Signatories who ignore prime Articles in the CODE, and thereby instigate secondary and duplicitous procedures (as well as prosecuting the Athlete under the wrong section of applicable law) against an Athlete who has already been duly investigated, prosecuted
and penalized in a properly-constituted forum, doing so in all impunity from WADA?

Is WADA, now in the implementation phase of its newly-revised CODE, preparing to 'secure' more cases, and offer less Justice, through its sidestepping distancing from the classic burden of 'A Sample, B Confirmation' testing procedures?

The words of Director General Howman, spoken to WADAwatch in person, at the Third Press Symposium, assured that the ideals of WADA were the opposite, that Justice should prevail, over 'winning at any cost'.

FLASH: part two... how can Mr Howman declare in February, that WADA is more interested in JUSTICE than victory, and then 'come to the rescue' of USADA, against Floyd Landis? The hypocrisy is reaching a climactic dénouement, mes amis... how much of that money from WADA is sourced from the bank CREDIT LYONNAISE? Via France? A new definition of outrageous conduct, has been entered into the WADAwatch lexicon of sporting justice.

[Now we return to our previously-written column...]

We shall see, perhaps, in the next five to eight weeks. We should know, before mid-May, if CAS does what it normally does.

This is beyond a 'last chance' for Floyd, beyond a 'final conviction' or 'loss of his appeal'; this case is an affirmation that the WADA CODE affects all of its constituent components with a broad brush painted...


A quote from Floyd, which made the news last week, may be self-serving, or may be the Ultimate Truth... "

"to wrongly strip a champion of his victory due to a flawed test is much worse than to have an athlete cheat his way to victory."

Feel free to quote WADAwatch also:
"To support erroneously a system that seeks hypocrisy over Justice, who implements imbalance over fairness, who supports Signatory countries which are acting
illegally and contravening its CODE with rampant insouciance, is an egregious act of a compliant press, and an ignorant public."

Mr Howman, you can't have the butter, and the money from the butter also.

WADA's investment in USADA prosecution sets a very, very bad precedent.

LIVE with it...

The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the highest possible level of objective, neutral science in sport-doping control.

Aghastly watching New York,


© 2008 ZENmud productions

1 comment:

Rubber Side Down said...

I am sure you have seen the Kolinska University Hospital study on the impact of genetics on T/E ratio where "The production of TG from testosterone, however, is primarily controlled by an enzyme (UGT2B17), which is produced by a specific gene. Common variations to this gene may give rise to wildly different testing results, even when the same dose of testosterone has been taken."

This all suggests to me that not only in WADA unscientific in running drug tests and certifying labs, but are also negligent in selecting the best test methods for detection of doping. In rushing to develop a sound system, they have failed to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s and have failed athletes in not being duly diligent in their charter.


Add to Technorati Favorites