We now know three things with full certainty, thanks to the legal system(s) in play:
1. We know (not?) who killed John F Kennedy;
2. We know (not?) who killed Nicole Simpson;
and
3. We know (not?) who cheated: Floyd Landis** or the French LNDD lab.
...
Legal analysis of this CAS Decision against Floyd Landis, for the benefit of those who care about the 'system' WADA created, should hopefully be posted by the end of this week.
One sneak preview: CAS started out by quoting a discussion between Richard Young and the Panel, in which they appear to castigate the author of the WADA CODE for his failure to abide with the concept of 'de novo' review (which simply means 'a do over' on the case itself, as opposed to a review of a 'lower court decision')...
... and it ends its Decision in castigating Floyd, his legal team and his witnesses, for their having "re-argued the same-old' same-old'".
Why? Is not a question that this author can respond to in less than forty-eight hours.
Another point that sticks in the craw: all the publicity that Floyd was 'outspending USADA'?? A reminder that Landis' legal fees are acknowledged to have been +/- $2 million, while:
When 'the system' has to spend maybe up to SIX MILLION dollars to prove its rules, its players, and its 'Fundamental Rationale' are worthy, in a 'simple' WADA-Accredited laboratory 'AAF' case, it cries glaringly against that 'system' being anything close to 'standardized and harmonious'.
** We, in the same 'taste test' from this final Landis appeal, don't really know whoever won the 2000 Presidential Election in the USA... BUT: we know who the Court wanted to see winning that mess...
1. We know (not?) who killed John F Kennedy;
2. We know (not?) who killed Nicole Simpson;
and
3. We know (not?) who cheated: Floyd Landis** or the French LNDD lab.
...
Legal analysis of this CAS Decision against Floyd Landis, for the benefit of those who care about the 'system' WADA created, should hopefully be posted by the end of this week.
One sneak preview: CAS started out by quoting a discussion between Richard Young and the Panel, in which they appear to castigate the author of the WADA CODE for his failure to abide with the concept of 'de novo' review (which simply means 'a do over' on the case itself, as opposed to a review of a 'lower court decision')...
... and it ends its Decision in castigating Floyd, his legal team and his witnesses, for their having "re-argued the same-old' same-old'".
Why? Is not a question that this author can respond to in less than forty-eight hours.
Another point that sticks in the craw: all the publicity that Floyd was 'outspending USADA'?? A reminder that Landis' legal fees are acknowledged to have been +/- $2 million, while:
USADA spent between three and four million;
WADA spent $1.3 million.
WADA spent $1.3 million.
When 'the system' has to spend maybe up to SIX MILLION dollars to prove its rules, its players, and its 'Fundamental Rationale' are worthy, in a 'simple' WADA-Accredited laboratory 'AAF' case, it cries glaringly against that 'system' being anything close to 'standardized and harmonious'.
** We, in the same 'taste test' from this final Landis appeal, don't really know whoever won the 2000 Presidential Election in the USA... BUT: we know who the Court wanted to see winning that mess...
Disclaimer
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.
a much-needed Victory... for WADA, a great loss for the Quigley rule...
.................@...............WADAwatch
No comments:
Post a Comment