WADA decision – The Landis case

If 'legalese' numbs your senses, better stop reading. Here at ZEN Central, the overtime hours (unpaid, volunteer, weekend-absorbing at that) are accumulating.

As the 'verdict heard 'round the world', you are by now aware that 'Floyd lost'. As of this writing, I am unclear whether Floyd will, can afford or has chosen not to pursue his appeal to the Cours Arbitral de Sport in Lausanne, Suisse.

I could have written 'Floyd doped', or 'Floyd cheated' or another phrase, but we really don't know that yet. The focus of this blog remains on the future, and if Floyd wants to appeal his case, he has the right to.

Yet before the dry antiseptic review... (anti-skeptic review?), a couple thoughts...

In having read my fair share of legal opinions, I noted a difference in this arbitration decision, which includes the Decision, penned by the two-arb majority of Attorneys Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren, as well as the Dissent written by Attorney Christopher Campbell. This 'For/Against' decision displays one very disconcerting aspect.

Namely, one often reads, in US Supreme Court or Appellate Court decisions (that often contain Dissents) reference is customarily made to the other side's writing, which serves as a signpost of collegial discussion and, ultimately, adds depth to their disagreements.

The Majority can write their contentions concerning the items discussed in a Dissent, while those Judges or Justices who contribute to the Dissent can attribute their legal reasoning to counter that of the Majority.

There is no sign, as far as my twice-through readings this weekend of each part of this decision have found, that the majority wanted to discharge the emphasis of Mr. Campbell's points. As well, Mr. Campbell displayed minimal integration, or rather counterbalance, of his Dissent to that of the majority's Decision.

What am I on about? It could very well be that, from nearly the debut of this case's decision-writing session, that the majority had not shared, nor admitted, any of Mr. Campbell's points. More upsetting, is it stimulates the thesis that, from nearly the moment of writing both parts of this one Decision, that the minds of the Majority were not disposed to entertain the contentions of Mr. Campbell.

The best example of this, from my first, early analysis of a total of 103 relevant pages (of some 110 total), is found in the Campbell Dissent, and concerns the topic of 'cherry picking through separate sequences for ICRS evidence' (see Campbell, paras. 4 – 12).

In the majority's Decision, there is no mention of 'cherry picking' of evidence from the vital testing sequences that resulted in the Floyd decision of positive. Why not? Why ignore the most powerful statements made by the third member of this Arbitration panel?

Furthering that dichotomy, the Campbell Dissent passes from 'cherry picking' into the potentially perjurious testimony by certain WADA experts (Campbell, paras. 13 – 17).

As Campbell stated (concerning the USADA 'expert witnesses', all of whom are or were WADA-accredited laboratory directors): “The Laboratory Directors in this case were Dr. Ayotte, Dr. Wilhelm Schänzer and Dr. Catlin. They all testified they had carefully reviewed the documents provided by the LNDD. None of them disclosed the problem associated with the cherry picking of data.”

Thus one is left to ponder wherein the justice flows? Were Brunet and McLaren even aware that the Decision they produced did not address the central tenet of the Dissent?

More to come, ZENers... analysis of a massive brief, such as the Floyd Landis Tour de France case, will take a week or two, as more information is gleaned from... 'The Record'.

But I leave you with two thoughts, by Mr. Christopher Campbell. These come from the first paragraph of his Dissent, and nearly the last (para. 61) paragraph. I myself, would not write these words if I didn't have one-hundred percent certainty of my conviction as to the veracity:

“1. From the beginning, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage et du Dopage (“LNDD”) has not been trustworthy. In this case, at every stage of testing it failed to comply with the procedures and methods for testing required by the International Standards for Laboratories, Version 4.0, August 2004 (“ISL”) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2003 (“WADA Code”). It also failed to abide by its legal and ethical obligations under the WADA Code. On the facts of this case, the LNDD should not be entrusted with Mr. Landis’ career.”

“61. These doping adjudications can cause substantial harm to a human being financially, physically and emotionally. It can destroy families. If, from time to time, WADA's mission obligates it to inflict such harm, it should be obligated to get it right – all of it. As athletes have strict liability rules, the laboratories should be held strictly liable for their failure to abide by their rules and sound scientific practice.”

Simply put, inarguably true. As the crystelZENmud Questionnaire stated, regarding WADA, its CODE and the various official derivative documents (and which was published Tuesday, prior to the Decision being rendered on Friday):

“I am convinced, and hope to convince readers, that the upcoming session will not focus, as it should, on the most important, heretofore ignored aspect of the WADA CODE: full harmonization of laboratory procedures, and further tightening of sanctions against laboratories that do not display adherence to the scientific International Standards, or who fail proper, 'results management' procedures by allowing premature releases (or leaks) of 'A Sample' results, prior to the 'B Sample' testing/confirmation of those, to the press.”

And read this post (“PART III: WADA questionnaire – analytical wrap-up...”), published on Wednesday, for a more in-depth analysis of what WADA must do this November, if it wants to retain credibility amongst an athletic world that will be aghast at what actions were taken to “convict” Floyd Landis.

COURAGE, friends!!!

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

Floyding Frenzy : day TWO

Good Morning Europe,

Floyd Landis, victorious in last year's Tour de France, and who was tested 'positive' (barely hours before "L'Equipe" leaked the results... as is its dishonorable role in French society), has again begun its attacks against Floyd, the second consecutive victor from the United States (thus with Lance Armstrong, the pair has won eight of eight Tours de France since 1999).

Don't forget that friendly TbV has all the daily information! (in a classic Black-on-white blogsite design... heh heh)

Translated from their site by ZENmud himself, is the following article:

L'Equipe:

"I am really content that this is finally beginning. I am confident. We have a good legal team and an exceptional file. I only hope that the judges (Ed: the three arbitrators on an AAA panel) will be fair." Floyd Landis hasn't budged one iota. At the opening of his ten days of hearing by the American Arbitration Association following his positive test from the Tour de France 2006, the past leader of the PHONAK team once again denied having made use of doping products. From this hearing at Pepperdine University, the rider once again has put the onus on the analytic procedure that revealed this positive test, but hasn't, yet, brought forward the proofs that he announced last week as being "contradictory".

But his attorney has once again brought forward the presumed errors of the Châtenay-Malabry testing laboratory. "This case is a disaster without name," affirmed Maurice Suh. "And this disaster is not the result of one or two things gone wrong. It is the result of many combined things which aren't right." To which, the attorney for the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Richard Young replied "In spite of the attention that this case has received, the case is really nothing special. It's one case among many similar. Little matter the fashion in which the results are received, the results are positive." And the attorney concluded by reminding that the eight urine tests were all positive.

The 23rd of May, three expert arbitrators must determine whether or not Landis had taken testosterone. If they respond in the affirmative, the American will be subject to two years of suspension and the loss of his title as victor of the Tour de France.
****************************************

So there you have it folks: notice the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph: "... the eight urine tests were all positive."

Sad to see sad journalism sadly supported. Floyd, as we all know, was tested eight times. ONLY ONE of his eight Tour-tests had revealed positive results after the urine testing of the A samples. Yet here again rises an insinuation, from what used to be a valiant and honorable French sports journalism source, revealing again the malediction that it has carried since becoming a subsidiary of the Amaury Sports Group, owners of the Tour de France.

The insinuation of eight positive tests, can only be a sloppy pass at reminding its brainwashed followers that the Arbitration Panel allowed certain "re-testing" to be performed at the LNDD facility, which itself is under contention. The 'evidence' gathered (and which may not be permissible as evidence in this hearing) was based on IRMS testing, not urine testing.

And while the urine tests were never eight times positive, what was revealed, through the misadventures of Floyd Landis' official witnesses to the process, was conspiratorily achieved through secrecy, lockouts and disappearing hard-drive data-sets, an evocation of 'positive' test results MANIPULATION.

But it's early in the process, and it appears that the stunning logic and determination displayed and combined throughout the united Floyd defense team, may give rise to hope that this Arbitration is going to proceed with some honor heretofore denied to the new American hero of world cycling.


COURAGE ... to Floyd Fans around the world!

ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud *””*ç*”*”*””*ç

WADA is as WADA does... USADA is as...

Zenistas...

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!

QUOTE:
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.
ENDQUOTE.

:-(

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

WADA do about L'EQUIPE?? BOYCOTT!!!

ZENfriends:

There comes a time when the people of a country must rise against the oppression...

Doesn't sound like we're talking about a Sports-newspaper? Well, in France the tradition to take to the streets is omnipresent, and with the latest scandal-ridden spew published by L'Equipe, the French journal that was the original sponsoring paper behind the Tour de France, the farce continues...

Floyd Landis, valiant and memorable victor of the 2006 Tour de France, has been spared no pain in the on-going witch-hunt produced by the following listed entities:

LNDD: the French Laboratoire nationale du dépistage du dopage;

WADA: the World Anti-Doping Agency;

USADA: the United States Anti-Doping Agency;

L'EQUIPE: French sporting journal.

My various in-depth articles have described in depth how each of these agents has individually failed to officiate over any process of drug-testing, based on what is happening to Floyd Landis.

See:

Part One: WADA do about Floyd???

Part Two: WADA do about Floyd???

Part Three: WADA do about Floyd???

As well as these other subsequent, sequentially-listed articles:

FLOYD GOES FREE under the Pound Doctrine (March 7, 2007)

How not to Laugh with Floyd... Landis (March 8, 2007)

WADA do about WADA? (March 21, 2007)

WADA do about the (Landis) Chain of Evidence? (March 21, 2007)

Pound's new CRUSADE against justice in SPORT (March 22, 2007)

WADA do about Strict Liability... (April 5, 2007)

WADA do about USADA??? (April 13, 2007)


WADA has failed, the LNDD has failed, and the USADA also has; in its quest for success, the US taxpayer-financed Organization, has failed to protect the rights of a falsely-accused (so this legally-trained author believes) cyclist/athlete.

The ongoing case, slated for a hearing in two weeks, on May 14th, took a bizarre twist with the request by USADA for further 'B Sample' testing of remaining Landis urine samples, using IRMS technology designed to discern exogenous testosterone.
(Jacques de Ceaurriz, director of LNDD, Jean-François Lamour, and Colette Besson, president of CA; photo from French Gov't)

Any OBJECTIVE person may think, that with a Laboratory under the gun for past ... well 'shoddy' is the most scientific term I can think of... past shoddy work, with numerous errors at hand, well: that the USADA would have a compromise venue, another laboratory possessing a reputation of total integrity, to perform these 'longitudinal' studies, which could serve to allow a graphic display of Landis' naturally fluctuating Testosterone levels.

Didn't happen that way.

OH! Did I forget to mention, that the French l'Equipe has leaked each very prominent rider's result produced by LNDD? In every case presented to the Lab, in contravention (as to the Lab) of a WADA 'Code of Conduct', which places the strictest confidence on the Lab?

Here's what Netherlands attorney Emile Vrijman said about L'Equipe, writing about its collusion in the Lance Armstrong fiasco of 2005:

The investigator does not know how the research reports of the LNDD came into the possession of Mr. Ressiot, the journalist of L’Equipe. These reports however, must have been provided either by the LNDD, the Ministry or WADA, as WADA and the Ministry had received copies of reports drafted and sent by the LNDD. The investigator regrets the lack of cooperation of these three bodies. It is clear that only a thorough investigation within each of them might find the answer to this important question, that affects the confidence that athletes, ADO’s and the public are entitled to have in these bodies. (UCI Vrijman report, p.121: para 5.1)

So when l'Equipe published Monday (in FR), its most recent leak on the Landis case, its article was totally slanted towards erasing the memory of Landis' (as well as Lance Armstrong's) accusations of malfeasance:

"Floyd Landis, qui s'est évertué depuis plusieurs mois à décrédibiliser le laboratoire français, aura bien du mal, cette fois-ci, à user de cet argument : les nouvelles analyses, effectuées la semaine dernière et clôturées ce week-end, ont été réalisées en présence de deux experts désignés par le coureur américain, et de deux représentants de l'USADA."

[Floyd Landis, who has for several months lost all virtue in trying to discredit the LNDD, will have some illness, this time, to use the same argument again: these new analyses, which took place last week and finalized this last weekend, were undertaken in the presence of two experts designated by the American racer, and two representatives of the USADA.]

The article claimed that Landis' experts, as called-for in the WADA and USADA regulations, were to be allowed full and complete access to all aspects of the testing...

That is not what Floyd's named experts are claiming.

IF
... the world depends on one journalistic, European voice, for the source of the most important information from the world of cycling, that source IS the French l'Equipe;

IF
... the voice of that paper, its authority, its staff, is rank with the festering wounds of losing circulation, odoriferous with the pus of leaks, incapable of registering right from wrong, whether by potentially paying for information or providing a government sponsored and sanctioned violation of the WADA CODE and the ISL Code of Ethics;

IF
... the accusing French laboratoire in which Floyd Landis has been 'found abnormal in ratio of Testosterone to Epitestosterone', has failed in prior occasions to uphold standards, the failure of which is potentially a violation;


Then the boycott of l'Equipe should be organized, its reporter Ressiot should be dismissed, as a call to the sensibilizing of the sport to the science that is not as far into the cutting-edge as certain Pounds, or de Ceaurriz' (Director of the LNDD) might have indicated.

And the implementation of the investigation that would decide on a sudden, necessary dis-accreditation of the French LNDD lab should be initiated by WADA, as requested already by two Olympic Federations, the President of the ASOIF, and the President, IOC Athletes Commission, whose letter was a forceful but neglected request to WADA to rectify the errors of LNDD.

Please consider:

Ending Floyd's career is only justifiable if he was doping.

Ending the careers of reporters who buy or repeatedly acquire leaked confidential (think of YOUR doctor's records?!!) information, and their associated 'Confidential info Dealers/Leakers located variously in French governmental divisions, or in world-renowned Intergovernmental or international non-governmental organizations (WADA, USADA or UCI), is a much more noble goal.

Ending ambiguity, as seen in many articles of WADA's several controlling documents, is also the worthiest task ahead, for parties that represent the falsely, or 'inacurately' accused,such as the Alan Baxters of the world, or Floyd Landis.


When the Police need to be policed by those who are 'protected', then the wobbling imbalance may be too gone, too radically far to re-direct.

WADA already has signs of Roid-rage and overexertion, as directed now by Dick Pound, and (if rumours are true) to be directed by the French Minister of Sport Jean-François Lamour after November 2007.

Due to its haste to install itself as the top-pissing wolf in the Sports Forest... its future is now cast in doubt, as Machiavellian aspects, similar to the Bush-invasion of Iraq, now are riding Floyd Landis into a clear contest of evidence, of will and political support.

Floyd needs your objective and clear opinions.


COURAGE, Floyd - Champion of the Tour de France 2006

ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud *””*ç*”*”*””*ç

Pound's new CRUSADE against justice in SPORT

Dear ZEN-Readers!

You may love or hate:
Lance Armstrong;
Floyd Landis.

But you cannot deny the name of ONE man, who's illegal, premature and slanted opinions have cast a dark pall over those two Cyclists' reputations: Dick Pound.

Pound, long-time IOC Committee Member, former losing candidate for the Presidency of IOC (won by Jacques Rogge of Belgium: a Count, and a Surgeon!), has been at the Presidency of WADA since its inception. This is an unpaid post with extraordinary travel benefits, as ZEN-conjectured on March 21, 2007: WADA do about WADA?

Pound has been applauded for his zeal, in the fight against doping: sadly, he has slandered and libeled various athletes, contravening WADA CODE rules that limit publicity and confine the dissemination of information under strict confidentiality rules; to the point where he recently was chastised officially by the IOC for comments rendered against Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France winner who was unjustly accused in the French media for 'doping in the 1999' Tour.

You can read the Vrijman report, which chastised WADA, the French LNDD Lab, and L'EQUIPE newspaper reportet.

You can read also, the WADA retort, here. (NB: ZENmud is now reading it for you!)

What the Hell's NEXT for the world's biggest Sport-Ego?

For Dick Pound, a relentless, media-orchestrated, pre-meditated campaign is underway, to avail himself of the ONE JOB in Sports, that he has proven incapable of mastering: President of the CAS.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport, in Lausanne, Switzerland, is the final destination of any sport-initiated legal action for doping, as well as other non-doping, sport issues.

Why would the world entrust CAS to a man that has proven himself incapable of restraint, unable to refrain from manipulating the world's Press to influence already on-going sport litigations?

In his defense, he has stated that he would recuse himself from any litigation that came to CAS, as a result of his seven-year presidency of WADA. This is an interesting statement, since he would never act as an arbitrator while sitting as CAS President.

You can read about Pound's campaign here: http://www.edmontonsun.com/Sports/OtherSports...

You can read about CAS here (ENG):
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/histoire/frmhist.ht...

If you agree that the basis of fighting doping in sports begins with CLEAN athletes, and even-cleaner scientists, Labs and associated Anti-Doping Organizations, then you must take a pen and join in the fight against the nomination of this prejudiced individual to that post.

COURAGE

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”