"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Arbitrator in Landis Case Kept in the Dark

Wow. An arbitrator, who is described as "Landis' arbitrator" (which i assume means Landis got to "ok" him being added to the panel), was excluded from a key ruling last week.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-landis9may09,1,6043487.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-sports


The excluded arbitrator, Bay Area attorney Christopher L. Campbell, vehemently protested in a written dissent that the others had not informed him they intended to confer on the matter before they issued the ruling May 1.

The "unprecedented and entirely inappropriate" action, Campbell wrote, "sends a clear message that the majority is unwilling to hear and consider valid arguments regarding a dispute."

Experts in arbitration law said Tuesday that the exclusion of one party's arbitrator from any deliberation is highly unusual and could raise doubts about the panel's commitment to fairness. "It's perplexing why the panel would not want to make sure every ounce of due process was afforded to Landis," said Robert G. Bailey, an arbitration expert at the University of Missouri School of Law.

Well, I can answer Mr. Bailey's question. Why would they exclude this guy at the risk of not appearing unbiased? Because they wanted to make sure they could include more "positive" tests to guarantee Landis would lose the case. And according to another news report, this arbitrator has been a "dissenter" in favor of an athlete a few times before. Landis is being set up here.

Isn't this the same Campbell that was the lone dissenter in the decision to ban Hamilton?

Why would they exclude this guy at the risk of not appearing unbiased? Because they wanted to make sure they could include more "positive" tests to guarantee Landis would lose the case. And according to another news report, this arbitrator has been a "dissenter" in favor of an athlete a few times before. Landis is being set up here.This may help:

guys ... guys ... you don't really think he's innocent, do you?

two words ... "exogenous testosterone"

Mark

I was always under the impression that an arbitrator, much like a mediator, is supposed to be a neutral third-party that works out a disagreement between two parties to arrive at a solution. If that's the case, Landis isn't supposed to have his own arbitrator.

I was always under the impression that an arbitrator, much like a mediator, is supposed to be a neutral third-party that works out a disagreement between two parties to arrive at a solution. If that's the case, Landis isn't supposed to have his own arbitrator.

Speaking from memory here. There are 3, or is it 5?, arbitrators in Landis's case. Landis picked 1 (or 2 if the total # of arbitrators if 5), USADA picked 1 (or 2 if 5) with the final arbitrator being independently selected. So the final vote will be 2-1 or 3-2 w/o the chance of a deadlock.

I'm pretty sure Campbell is one that was selected by Hamilton as well.

guys ... guys ... you don't really think he's innocent, do you?

two words ... "exogenous testosterone"

Mark

I have no idea if he's innocent but as for that "exogenous..." According to UCLA's anti-doping lab (which is one of the most respected in the world and does more tests for WADA than any other lab) it takes FOUR markers to be ruled "exogenous." However, the French lab that tested Landis ruled his a positive with only ONE marker. The UCLA lab stated that they found people who were completely natural who showed up one, two or three markers for exogenous testosterone so after a LOT of testing they determined the only accurate test was for FOUR markers.

I was always under the impression that an arbitrator, much like a mediator, is supposed to be a neutral third-party that works out a disagreement between two parties to arrive at a solution. If that's the case, Landis isn't supposed to have his own arbitrator.

It's like picking a jury. You get to OK some and the prosecutor gets to ok some.

guys ... guys ... you don't really think he's innocent, do you?

two words ... "exogenous testosterone"

Mark
:(

Isn't this the same Campbell that was the lone dissenter in the decision to ban Hamilton?


Does that have something to do with this instance?

Does that have something to do with this instance?

Yes!!! "Expert for hire" doesn't ring a bell to you?

My understanding of arbitration is that party 1 picks someone, party 2 picks someone, and then the two selected arbiters select the third.

Yes!!! "Expert for hire" doesn't ring a bell to you?
Do you know anything about what goes into being certified as an arbitrator? These aren't guys picked up off the street. They are trained, tested, and their rulings reviewed. Hardly "expert for hire".

Do you know anything about what goes into being certified as an arbitrator? These aren't guys picked up off the street. They are trained, tested, and their rulings reviewed. Hardly "expert for hire".

So are umpires, and they all call their own strike zone.

It's like picking a jury. You get to OK some and the prosecutor gets to ok some.



Actually, its not like picking a jury. You don't get to "pick" a jury; you get to deselect some jurors. Each side gets a set number of premptory strikes. (i.e. strikes other than for cause) After each side uses its strikes, the remaining jury panel members make up the jury that hears the case.

Typical arbitration, each side picks one arbitrator, and the 2 arbitrators selected by the parties select the third arbitrator.

So are umpires, and they all call their own strike zone.
Exactly, and if an umpire is calling strikes at ear level, he won't be in the major leagues for too long.