What happens when the attorneys of the world find a new, great-publicity machine to drive their careers forward?
I'll suggest this: their caprices will find them losing their positions, their authority and their Bar membership (if from the USA; equivalents exist in many other countries).
Where they sought GLORY, they created DECEPTION, and reap SCORN.
What ZEN is driving you towards, is the acknowledgment that, in the Floyd Landis Case, we have literally had revealed that this case has at last entered Alice's Wonderland.
You can read the best coverage of the latest pre-hearing developments, by following these three links:
Landis arbitrator hopping mad USA Today discussing how Chris Campbell issued a scathing rebuke of the latest act by his co-panelist arbitrators of the Floyd Landis case;
Landis: USADA Wanted to Get to Armstrong Revealing AP report that the USADA has 'suggested' that they would give Floyd a 'light suspension' if he turned in Lance Armstrong (based on some other reports that you can seek on your own: I know not the source, other than one named cyclist, who may or may not be seeking his own glory-moment)
A Peek Over the Edge, and a Retreat Once again, great compilations and masterful knowledge is presented at TrustButVerify, the best Web source for FloydFans' news reviews and blogs...
These three articles will highlight for you the egregious and reprehensible, if not unethical or illegal actions. concerning the 'ruling' handed down last weekend, which excluded minority dissenting Arbitrator Christopher L. Campbell's dissent, which you'll find again through TBV.
My take, is written below. I've posted it in several TOPIX.net Floyd Fora, and also once, at the Daily Peleton Fora.
My posted comments follow:
This comment by Brunet is 100% disingenuous!
According to an e-mail to the parties made available to The Times, Brunet said he later informed Campbell that he had been excluded because Landis had merely ask the arbitrators to clarify their original order allowing the retests. Because Campbell did not join in the original order, Brunet argued, he had no right to participate.
That order was on the biggest issue in contention, and was the brunt and focus of Campbell's dissent on the merits. "Clarifying the issue" on the merits on the table, includes REFINING what they wrote, which means REWRITING what they wrote, and which could have great import on the quality of the Campbell dissent!
Greater legal minds than mine (which is a fairly low threshold):-) can be certain that if any ORDER is being rewritten, the panel in toto should have ample time to find consensus were possible, and reasoned dissent could bring Brunet and the other panelist into a centrist position.(Me! Presuming fairness governs???)
If Interloc.Order ONE had said "The sky is blue." and Campbell dissented by saying "not where clouds appear", and the 'REVISED' Order said "The sky is blue except where clouds appear", "but we didn't need to consult Campbell to arrive at our REVISED Order", anyone could see the specious and frivolous treatment of this action by biased and non-neutral Licensed arbitrators.
Fortunately Brunet and McClaren will be off future WADA arbitrations as a result of egregious "détournement de pouvoir" (abuse of power)...
Who thought this summer was going to be boring???
(and my apologies to TBV, who hates my black-screen effect (certainly there are a million similar sites?)
COURAGE ... to the respecters of law in our world!
ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud *””*ç*”*”*””*ç