Has the USADA violated WADA CODE Article 8 (link to PDF for downloading) in its hearing against Floyd Landis?
“Busted” for a positive Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) from the 17th Stage of the 2006 Tour de France, Floyd and concerned observers await the forthcoming decision to be announced by the panel of three Arbitrators that were mutually appointed, between Floyd and the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA), to hear his case in May 2007.
This case, an international doping 'scandal' (in what sense we await to know...) is governed by USADA's status as a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA. Under the WADA CODE, Article 8, titled “RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING”, it is stipulated that any Anti-Doping Organization shall...
SIDEBAR: the use of 'shall' in an English-language legal sense, creates a mandatory obligation, without derogation: 'shall' begets an undeniable duty on the party to whom the clause refers.
“I, NAME 1, shall pay you, NAME 2, the sum of $100.00, on Tuesday morning, the 3rd of August 2007, at the xxx County Courthouse, between 10 and 11am.”
Such a sentence is legally unassailable (presuming the entirety of the agreement is a legally binding obligation).
... “shall provide a hearing process for any Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.... The hearing process shall respect the following principles:”
“a timely, written, reasoned decision.”
Hearings regarding Floyd Landis' alleged doping in the TdF 2006, were held from May 14 to 20, 2007. Initial indications were that the decision would be announced sometime prior to this year's Tour de France, which debarked on July 7th of this year. The world waited as the decision was being addressed by the Arbitration Panel.
Now, in late August – three months later – no timely, written, reasoned decision has been pronounced. See Environmentalchemist for a good, timely, reasoned article...
Floyd, the USADA, WADA, and Amaury Sport Group (owners of the Tour de France (TdF)) are all waiting. As well, the French Anti-doping Agency (AFLD: link to a French-language page) also waits... they who had announced, no matter the outcome of the USADA case, would also be prosecuting Floyd for his offense as it occurred on French soil.
What's customary or standard, or is this case overly-delayed?
Is USADA, the ADO which brought the case against Floyd, in violation of Article 8?
To know this, we would have to know whether the Arbitrators have been interfered with by USADA pressures, or whether outside influences, from perhaps the French Ministry of Youth and Sport (which oversees the former LNDD, the French Anti-doping Laboratory), or WADA itself, have conducted unlawful ex parte sessions?
“The answer my friends, is blowing in the wind, the answer is..."
COURAGE, Floyd, as we stand with you, awaiting your Fate...
ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”