As with the Duke lacrosse scandal, the evidence in Floyd Landis's drug testing is starting to unravel. This CJR article looks at the issue from a journalistic ethics point of view: Did the journalists reach their condemnation too soon? Remember that not even landis knew what the WADA evidence was or what factors go into concluding that the sample tested positive.
The article then discusses the so-called Wiki means of getting ideas from professionals in the field just to be able to begin a defense of Landis's rejected claim of innocence. Neither Landis nor his attorney knew where to look until the Wiki contributors stepped up.
Kind of fascinating. There seems to be a hearing scheduled this month, though I don't think the article gave a date.
Landis's hearing began yesterday.
Here is a report form the LA Times:
I've followed the Tour de France for years. And truly I can't even imagine that Landis took drugs. I hope that he is exonerated completely. This is another witch hunt. Floyd L is not guilty -- but all of this will still taint his accomplishment.
For the uneducated-- does the final decision come from the USADA or is it some international cycling body?
Call me a cynic if you want, but I think the odds of an American who won the Tour de France getting a fair shake from an international body are pretty slim. Most of the world hates the US right now and international cycling really hates American cyclists.
-Jason "I have though Floyd was innocent all along" Evans
Lab tech's testimony:
Last edited by hughgs; 05-16-2007 at 05:52 PM. Reason: Punctuation
I haven't looked to CyclingNews for any info. Maybe I should. Why don't you track Cycling News and I'll try to keep up with the LAT? Sound like a plan?
Maybe we should get Evans to put CNN on the case.
I've been reading velonews for all things cycling related for years now. They're an excellent site and have quite a few articles up.
EDIT - BRILLIANT! He's been wearing a yellow tie for the hearing!
Last edited by Cavlaw; 05-16-2007 at 06:34 PM.
I'll start reading the LA Times coverage and post Cyclingnews articles or links that offer anything new (like the Landis presentation). Thanks.
By the way, I didn't realize you lived in Atlanta? I do to, but only for the next 9 days
LAT headline above
Looks like Landis's lawyers are making some progress.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the lab's machine has been defective all along? This LAT story has the tech testifying that she has frequently had to get the machine's factory rep out to recalibrate it.
The incorrect or unacceptable results being produced by the machine tended to involve calibrations or verification runs, rather than readings on Landis' samples. But the defense may be intending to argue that the inadequacy of the machine casts doubt on Landis' results.
Mongongu's testimony suggested that the performance of the machine had been erratic for years; under questioning by Howard Jacobs, another lawyer for Landis, she said that she had had to summon a manufacturer's technician roughly 10 times since September 2003 to repair the hardware.
However, from the standpoint of a scientist, there is no excuse for the gaps that are decribed in that article. YOU WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN! EVERYTHING. For me, someone who makes thier livelihood at a lab bench, there is no doubt in my mind that, at best, these results are flawed, and, at worst, the gaps in time are from tampering with Landis' samples.
Plain and simple. The lab appears to have totally screwed up and/or falsified results.
It seems to me that in such a huge case, following up on the "B" sample on the leader of the Tour would not it make much more sense to send it to another lab? This could solve all sorts of problems and if the second lab gave the same result it would be much more powerful. In fact perhaps the top leaders should have the "B" samples sent directly to a second lab without delay or additional handling.
One of the lab techs testified she knew the sample was Landis's.
So much for the lab's rule about confidentiality and blind testing.
However, Greg LeMond has testified that Landis has admitted he doped up. Worse, he has accused Landis's uncle of witness tampering, threatening to reveal that LeMond had told Landis about being molested as a child, and that the way to break from that was to admit the truth (i.e., that Landis had doped up. Apparently the uncle intended to coerce LeMond so he would not testify.
The article does not quote LeMond's testimony constituting the admission. In fact, what this article recites is more ambiguous. ("What good would it do?") There may be testimony the article did not include, so the issue remains murky from here.
Last edited by Jim3k; 05-17-2007 at 06:51 PM. Reason: clarity
Looks like that 'confession' LeMond was talking about isn't much of anything at all. It might even get stricken if LeMond won't submit to cross-examination.
LeMond seems like an odd witness to have been called in the first place. How does he add to the USADA's case if all he can cite is something ambiguous? He doesn't really know anything and he doesn't come across as much beyond a busybody who is sure he knows what happened, but has no real knowledge. Kind of a father-confessor wannabe. But why?
Besides, Landis and LeMond don't really know each other. That being so, why would Landis, if guilty, admit anything to LeMond...'implicitly' or otherwise? It doesn't seem likely to me. If LeMond was asking him to confess, regardless of actual guilt, at least one response would be the one Landis supposedly gave: "What good would it do?" That can easily be taken as not any sort of confession, but an 'Isn't that just pointless?' kind of answer. Neither a confession nor a denial, just an observation that LeMond's idea had no merit.
And, the 'threat' against LeMond looks like a severely misguided manager (not uncle) who got himself fired over it. Part of a dishonest culture? Excessive loyalty? Or just stupid? Well, maybe all three...
Last edited by Jim3k; 05-18-2007 at 03:58 AM.
Personally, I believe Lemond would not survive cross-examination.