Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-20-06, 08:12 PM   #1
stevecaz
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
stevecaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A MUST READ-CAS acquits Landaluze on technicality. Floyd perfectly placed.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ec06/dec21news

As many of you probably already read, but I thought I'd post just in case, Landaluze was just acquited on his testosterone charge by the highest authority (Court of Arbitration for Sport), on a technicality. The same person who analyzed the A sample also ran the B sample, which is a violation of protocol. To me however, the "technicalities" alone in the Landis case are far, far more serious than this one. I think this all but puts to bed the verdict that many of us had been predicting - that Landis will be acquitted at the very least on technical merits and will be cleared to race. This ruling places a solid precident right before the Landis trial, and will certainly be looked at by the US anti-doping agency. Of course, Landis also has very good evidence that he is truely innocent. We all hope he wins that arguement, but at the very least he will not get any suspension and should be clear to defend his title.

What gets me though, is how a higher entity can challenge a ruling. If a murderer is acquitted, a higher court can't step in and re-try the case. Yet in cycling, the UCI can step in and appeal. But, no we have the Landaluze case. The UCI will know they have no grounds/hopes to win on appeal, although they might try just to be ******.
stevecaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-06, 08:17 PM   #2
botto 
.
 
botto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 40,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
What gets me though, is how a higher entity can challenge a ruling. If a murderer is acquitted, a higher court can't step in and re-try the case. Yet in cycling, the UCI can step in and appeal.
1. they don't play by the same rules.

2. while i'm not very familar with Napoleanic Law, perhaps this is the case? Any lawyers who actually paid attention during those classes in Law School?
botto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-06, 08:23 PM   #3
DrPete 
Dirt-riding heretic
 
DrPete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Bikes: Lynskey R230/Red, Blue Triad SL/Red, Cannondale Scalpel 3/X9
Posts: 17,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And from the same day's news...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...06/spanish_mag
__________________
"Unless he was racing there was no way he could match my speed."
DrPete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-06, 09:13 PM   #4
Bacciagalupe
Professional Fuss-Budget
 
Bacciagalupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 6,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevecaz
To me however, the "technicalities" alone in the Landis case are far, far more serious than this one....
You may be right. But really, that's for the USADA and/or CAS to decide.


Quote:
I think this all but puts to bed the verdict that many of us had been predicting - that Landis will be acquitted at the very least on technical merits and will be cleared to race. This ruling places a solid precident right before the Landis trial, and will certainly be looked at by the US anti-doping agency.
No "precedent" is set. The rules are the rules, and it's well established that if the lab genuinely did not follow them, the results can't be used. It is absurd to suggest that because the lab made a single mistake that all of their test results are null and void.



Quote:
Of course, Landis also has very good evidence that he is truely innocent. We all hope he wins that arguement, but at the very least he will not get any suspension and should be clear to defend his title.
Landis has not offered any evidence that he is innocent -- only a lawyers' analysis that the lab was sloppy. And I don't care whether he wins or loses per se; if he doped and it can be proven, he should be banned for 2 years. If he did not dope and/or the lab did not perform the tests properly, he should ride.

More importantly, the CAS clearly indicated that Landaluze was not exonerated -- only that the protocol violations prohibit the UCI from using the test result to sanction him. The CAS more or less said that they believe Landaluze doped and that he is only getting off due to a technicality. Not a ringing endorsement of innocence.



Quote:
What gets me though, is how a higher entity can challenge a ruling. If a murderer is acquitted, a higher court can't step in and re-try the case. Yet in cycling, the UCI can step in and appeal....
What's the problem? Last I checked it's the UCI's job to present doping cases to the national federations. If either the UCI or the accused athlete does not like the results, they appeal to the CAS. Everyone's doing their job.

As far as I can tell, Landaluze's case is over. All the UCI can do now is earmark him for additional investigation.
Bacciagalupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 08:16 AM   #5
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Bikes:
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First, the USAC will decide Landis's case not USADA. CAS is simply the appellate authority.

Second, CAS has shown with this case that they will throw out a case for a lab mishandling the tests- this is a precedent because national federations will not want to risk such an overturn in the future. Hopefully this decision will encourage the national federations to more strictly follow evidentiary rules.

Thirdly, the pronouncement by CAS and others that this is not a declaration of innocence is simply sad. It is a statement that "although we can't prove you guilty, we know you are." It is a meaningless statement that simply wastes breath. The truth is that the lab made it so no one really knows about this guy- the procedural rules exist to prevent framing people. The two scenarios for this case are that either Landaluze cheated and the lab screwed up or that the lab framed him for unknown reasons- we cannot know which but the UCI assumes that Landaluze doped. Sadly we will likely never know the truth but instead of admitting that they don't know the UCI sill assumes the worst from the rider and continues to believe he doped. If he is a doper they will have further chances to catch him. The UCI's weak assertion of continued guilt is irrelevant and just pathetic.

Lastly, while the the UCI is not a judicial authority and not bound by the same rules they are, however, subject to the rule of law. They cannot violate civil laws to pursue an anti-doping agenda. Earmarking Landaluze for additional investigation most likely violates employment laws in several places with jurisdiction and would likely violate the testing procedures of WADA. Such earmarking may simply result in more lawyer fees and another thrown out charge- making a mockery of the anti-doping system. Honestly, all anti-doping authorities should learn the far more judicious lesson that they should simply follow their own procedures and not risk CAS overturning the case.

The Landis case may reinforce this point as the testing of his urine was screwed up (admitted by Pound). WADA, the UCI, and the others should work towards ensuring airtight cases rather than ranting about technicalities.
Trevor98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 08:26 AM   #6
El Diablo Rojo
Banned.
 
El Diablo Rojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ATX, Ex So Cal
Bikes: Ridley Noah-Scott Addict-Orbea Ordu
Posts: 11,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey Trev I believe USADA will be the ones who will hear Floyds case not USAC.

USA Cycling deferred to USADA for ajudication.
El Diablo Rojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 08:26 AM   #7
Grasschopper
He drop me
 
Grasschopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Central PA
Bikes: '03 Marin Mill Valley, '06 Cannondale Rush, '02 Eddy Merckx Corsa 0.1, '07 Bottecchia Euro Sprint Tour Comp Elite Pro 1000
Posts: 11,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To me the biggest thing here I STHE FACT THAT THIS SAME LAB COMES UP OVER AND OVER FOR SCREWING THINGS UP BUT IS STILL ACREDITED. WTF is that about? They again and again they show that they don't follow the rules, have security leaks and botch tests. How in the hell do they let this lab continue to do any testing?
__________________
The views expressed by this poster do not reflect the views of BikeForums.net.
Grasschopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 08:31 AM   #8
El Diablo Rojo
Banned.
 
El Diablo Rojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ATX, Ex So Cal
Bikes: Ridley Noah-Scott Addict-Orbea Ordu
Posts: 11,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasschopper
To me the biggest thing here I STHE FACT THAT THIS SAME LAB COMES UP OVER AND OVER FOR SCREWING THINGS UP BUT IS STILL ACREDITED. WTF is that about? They again and again they show that they don't follow the rules, have security leaks and botch tests. How in the hell do they let this lab continue to do any testing?
I agree, one thing that I have tried very hard to do is not project American legal system views on the rest of the world. Our legal system (in theory) would not allow much of the 'evidence' produced in this lab to ever get to trial. Nor would it restrict a defendant to have his/her own independent analysis done.
El Diablo Rojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 09:19 AM   #9
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Bikes:
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The continued questionable performance by this lab is pathetic and their continued accreditation deserves scrutiny. The American legal system is moot here as these cases do not come to any legal system. The bigger question is why anyone believes any results that this lab produces.

Labs are only useful when credible and this lab has credibliity problems.
Trevor98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 09:33 AM   #10
Bacciagalupe
Professional Fuss-Budget
 
Bacciagalupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 6,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor98
CAS has shown with this case that they will throw out a case for a lab mishandling the tests- this is a precedent because national federations will not want to risk such an overturn in the future....
You're not reading closely enough.

The Spanish cycling federation did not sanction Landaluze, specifically because the lab did not follow the proper protocol. The UCI appealed. The CAS agreed with the original ruling. I.e., the national federation did follow the rules.



Quote:
Thirdly, the pronouncement by CAS and others that this is not a declaration of innocence is simply sad. It is a statement that "although we can't prove you guilty, we know you are." It is a meaningless statement that simply wastes breath....
No, it's an acknowledgement that the rider is very likely guilty but the evidence does not meet the proper standards. The CAS rejected Landaluze's other arguments against the adverse finding.

It's similar to a cop who bursts into an apartment and finds John Doe with several large bags of marijuana, and the judge throws out the case because the cop didn't have a warrant. The judge is still justified in saying "it's pretty clear John Doe is a drug dealer."

Based on the claims, I'd assume Landaluze did dope. But the lab screwed up, so he should ride.



Quote:
The truth is that the lab made it so no one really knows about this guy- the procedural rules exist to prevent framing people. The two scenarios for this case are that either Landaluze cheated and the lab screwed up or that the lab framed him for unknown reasons- we cannot know which but the UCI assumes that Landaluze doped. Sadly we will likely never know the truth....
C'mon, man.

It is true that lab protocol is designed to reduce and hopefully eliminate tampering. But there is zero evidence at this time that the technician was involved in foul play. The lab made a procedural error which resulted in a Landaluze walking off scott free, and hopefully the UCI will tear them a new one over it.

Unless you know something no one else knows, I think it's clear which of the two scenarios is more likely to be the case.



Quote:
Lastly, while the the UCI is not a judicial authority and not bound by the same rules they are, however, subject to the rule of law. They cannot violate civil laws to pursue an anti-doping agenda. Earmarking Landaluze for additional investigation most likely violates employment laws in several places with jurisdiction and would likely violate the testing procedures of WADA....
Sorry, it's 100% legit, as long as they follow national laws. It's exactly what they did with Hamilton after he failed his "A" test but his "B" test was mishandled by the lab. Not to mention that the UCI is not Landaluze's employer by any stretch of the imagination. The most likely practical results is that he will have to take more tests, and the UCI will be ticked off at anyone who hires him.

And if you engage in suspicious behavior at your job, your employer is more than justified in opening an investigation into your behavior. I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US your employer can legally do things like read your corporate email, search your work computer, check your work phone records, install a keystroke recorder on your work PC, supervise your work Internet access, and request that you voluntarily take a drug test. So, uh... try not to send personal emails through your work email account.
Bacciagalupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 10:30 AM   #11
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Bikes:
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1) So you don't necessarily with my point just my details. The point still stands as CAS has shown a precedent that lab procedures need to be followed (else they would have found in the UCI's favor). Other national federations are going to consider this case.

2) The judge can say what he want and it can still be meaningless. I would blame the cops for getting the dealers off rather than the dealers for getting away with dealing.

3) Why are you willing to give the lab the benefit of the doubt after multiple screw ups but not riders accused by this lab? I don't know the truth and sadly, neither does anyone else here. If this guy did dope (very probable) then blame the lab for screwing up the case as well as him for doping. Both can be in the wrong.

4) Hamilton was a different case and as far as I know they didn't actually target him for extra testing. He got busted during routine testing following a stage win. For his win he was tested and couldn't contest any "extra" testing.

The UCI is not his employer but the national federation controls his employment (through his license) and the UCI attempted to control them through CAS. As such labor laws can apply.

The US does NOT have homogeneous labor laws so any assertion that they do is moronic. However, you are correct that your work can search "your" work computer, email, phone records, etc. This is becasue they are not yours but theirs and they have the right to search their own stuff. My work contracts have even said so.

Employers cannot violate employment contracts willy-nilly. These riders have drug-testing clauses in their employment contracts and those clauses must be followed.

Some places have different labor laws (google them) with different protections. Additionally it is virtually pointless to test this guy extra if they continue to use this lab. This lab has proven that it cannot follow established procedures and thus very likely to have future cases thrown out.

How much future debate would be avoided if this lab were simply cleaned up or decertified. You are allowed to dislike the lab and the dopers. The first step to cleaning up dopers is to be able to believe the accusers.
Trevor98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 10:43 AM   #12
Shortrider06
Senior Member
 
Shortrider06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chula Vista, San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oj Simpson
Shortrider06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 10:45 AM   #13
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Bikes:
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Too bad the LAPD framed a guilty man.
Trevor98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 10:49 AM   #14
DrPete 
Dirt-riding heretic
 
DrPete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Bikes: Lynskey R230/Red, Blue Triad SL/Red, Cannondale Scalpel 3/X9
Posts: 17,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortrider06
Oj Simpson
I just had a funny vision of Johnnie Cochran demonstrating in a crowded courtroom how to apply a testosterone patch...
__________________
"Unless he was racing there was no way he could match my speed."
DrPete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 11:04 AM   #15
timmhaan
more ape than man
 
timmhaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Bikes:
Posts: 8,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
damn it, now i have that in my head. get out of there!
timmhaan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-06, 11:09 AM   #16
botto 
.
 
botto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 40,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
botto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-06, 09:32 AM   #17
Kadowaki
Senior Member
 
Kadowaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Quote:What gets me though, is how a higher entity can challenge a ruling. If a murderer is acquitted, a higher court can't step in and re-try the case. Yet in cycling, the UCI can step in and appeal.


1. they don't play by the same rules.

2. while i'm not very familar with Napoleanic Law, perhaps this is the case? Any lawyers who actually paid attention during those classes in Law School?
A "higher authority" (State, US) in American criminal (murder as in the example) law would only appeal if a Defendant is found "not guilty". The US Constitution prevents the higher authority from appealing by not allowing anyone to be tried twice for the same crime.
As has been pointed out, American Criminal Law is different than the regulations and governing bodies here and the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is a very American concept.
Kadowaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-06, 11:45 AM   #18
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Bikes:
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadowaki
the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is a very American concept.
Wrong. Many other Western governments share this standard making it is western concept rather than a US one. Specifically the EU shares this concept and all member states are required to adopt it.

You are, however, correct in asserting that this presumption specifically a legal system right but you overlook that it is also a moral and ethical standard. Most popular legal systems are based on wider ethical and moral values- either directly or through historic change. The presumption of innocence underlies many western outlooks on interpersonal dealings and therefore extends far outside the courtroom.

Presuming the worst of people is always bad and that is exactly what happens with a presumption if guilt. A presumption of innocence is merely giving someone the benefit of the doubt on suspicious behavior.

Often both the UCI and WADA come across as if they presume everyone is guilty but not yet caught. What a deplorable world-view.
Trevor98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-06, 12:00 PM   #19
El Diablo Rojo
Banned.
 
El Diablo Rojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ATX, Ex So Cal
Bikes: Ridley Noah-Scott Addict-Orbea Ordu
Posts: 11,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor98
Wrong. Many other Western governments share this standard making it is western concept rather than a US one. Specifically the EU shares this concept and all member states are required to adopt it.
I think what most people confuse as a difference between our (American) legal system and the rest of western law is the writ of habeas corpus. Further more the UCI and WADA are not working within any 'legal' system. They a have established a set of rules and athletes are subject to those rules. If you break those rules you will be punished. What has happened is that in WADA's over zealous approach to halt doping in cycling, WADA, the UCI and now the teams are taking measures that basically convict a rider if he or she is implicated in a doping investigation. What is hard for some to separate is that the WADA code of ethics is not the same as a set of laws as we (Americans) know them. Once an athlete or team agrees to this code of ethics and to abide by the punishments that are imposed by breaking this code then any semblance of 'law' is forfeited. This makes it doubly hard when there is evidence that the lab or it's technicians failed to follow proper protocol in establishing an athletes 'cleanliness' after he's been tested. In just agreeing to be suspended once implicated a rider is now viewed as guilty and must now prove his/her innocence.
El Diablo Rojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-06, 02:13 PM   #20
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Bikes:
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The UCI and WADA do not work with in a single legal system but are subject to many. They, like everyone else, are not allowed to violate laws. Slander/libel (differing meanings everywhere) is illegal in many countries and the UCI and WADA routinely violate those laws.
Trevor98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:50 AM.