I didn't say I like the system at all times, in fact in my home state of TX, our system of providing for the defense of indigent clients is horrific. OJ got off partly because he could afford the best defense team money could buy, but also because of incompetence on the part of prosecutors and problems with the investigation. Here's an interesting back and forth on the 10th anniversary of the case: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...es/impact.html . One point I particularly like in that exchange is that money is no guarantee that you will get off (though it can certainly help).

Just out of curiosity -- how would you develop a legal system? No juries? Juries with only a certain level of education? Only panels of judges? Are they appointed, elected? How do we handle illegally obtained evidence? How about evidence collected in a way that ignores procedure? Coerced confessions? Etc.?

Back to the original point of this thread: Landis. Even if he is found guilty, which I think he probably will be, WADA and WADA accredited labs would be well served to make sure procedure is followed to the T to prevent the type of objections raised by Landis, and extra care should be taken to avoid the leaking of results. But we are already seeing results leaked again -- look at the Giro.