U.S.A.D.A. - they're even slower than me.

psychiatricblues

How long does it take to decide Floyd Landis doped? Are they waiting till 2 years after he was suspended, so he doesn't get banned?

iainf72

Complex case and the hearing isn't closed yet.

In all the Lemond noise what got lost was that they're argued a very good case.

As soon as the hearing is offically closed they will decide within 7 days.

psychiatricblues

If they were serious about anti-doping, they would have decided by now. If he's innocent, where's the justice in delaying the verdict for more than 12 months? If he's guilty, get it over with.

I can't remember a time when a failed drug test took so long to reach it's conclusion. Oh yes I can, when U.S.A.D.A. dragged their feet over Tyler Hamilton.

iainf72

psychiatricblues wrote:

If they were serious about anti-doping, they would have decided by now. If he's innocent, where's the justice in delaying the verdict for more than 12 months? If he's guilty, get it over with.

They are serious. They've had to spend a couple of million dollars so far on this case (apparantly)

Remember, the LNDD made the same procedural mistakes with the Landis tests they did with the Landaluze tests and CAS cleared him.

drenkrom

And we haven't been through the obligatory CAS appeal, whichever way it goes. They should introduce the 1-hour quiz show format for these things. It's not like it's any less ridiculous now, anyways.

psychiatricblues

They might be serious, but they're obviously not very efficient at they're job. No other nation drags its heels so long in deciding the guilt or otherwise of riders.

andyp

psychiatricblues wrote:

They might be serious, but they're obviously not very efficient at they're job. No other nation drags its heels so long in deciding the guilt or otherwise of riders.

No other nation has as high a ratio of lawyers to one hundred thousand people either.

bigdawg

but are we all forgeting no athlete (be it cyclist athlete or whatever) has ever been roven innocent after a usada trial..

iainf72

bigdawg wrote:

but are we all forgeting no athlete (be it cyclist athlete or whatever) has ever been roven innocent after a usada trial..

True. So either they're good or the system is weighed so heavily in favour of the ADA's that they don't stand a chance.

A lot of the Landis case could've been resolved if the A and B samples had been tested in different labs But then, there seems to be the slight problem that a few labs would've called it negative.

iainf72

Apparantly the French Open switched their doping testing away from LNDD this year in favour of Montreal

Of course, it's all ecomonics and nothing to do with the fact they keep cropping up in doping trials as a weak link.

hevipedal

bigdawg wrote:

but are we all forgeting no athlete (be it cyclist athlete or whatever) has ever been roven innocent after a usada trial..

I take it that should have been proven?

When did we start having to prove innocence, it is for the prosecution to prove guilt. And that's where problems arise when the procedure is as slack as a busy pro's knickers

Monty Dog

Sorry, under the absolute liability rule, it's up to the athlete to demonstrate that he's innocent - this isn't a court of law. There's a very strong argument sto say that these days you don't need an A & B sample either - one positive - ppfft - you're gone. In Floyd's case, as soon as he was tested for exogenous T, that was it - instant ban. Regardless of how the tests were conducted, protocols etc, but he's never presented a compelling argument as to how the stuff got there - the mass-spectrometer results show that - unless you're going to say it wasn't his blood?

iainf72

Monty Dog wrote:

Regardless of how the tests were conducted, protocols etc, but he's never presented a compelling argument as to how the stuff got there - the mass-spectrometer results show that - unless you're going to say it wasn't his blood?

Respectfully, bollocks.

You may as well get a soothsayer to drink some of their urine and say they tasted the testosterone in that case.

These are technical tests, protocol is everything. A doping test should yield the same results on the same sample every single time. If it doesn't, then that should be a huge worry. If the test is not performed to the standards set out by WADA then the results are meaningless.

It cracks me up that people think that bodies enforcing rules should be above rules themselves. If you're competent, how hard is it to follow the correct protocols? Things like not correcting labels which were mislabled in the prescribed manner, using the same people on A/B samples (oh, but we're overworked) , not having calibration data on the instruments etc etc. It's pathetic and no wonder athletes lawyer have a field day with these clowns.

ash68

don't think i'll be applying for that job thanks ian. May have a point there though for a new drugs test.After all they do say women can tell if you've had a curry just by a man's taste!!!!!

bigdawg

Monty Dog wrote:

Sorry, under the absolute liability rule, it's up to the athlete to demonstrate that he's innocent

I do agree with you but as has been proven by the extremely fair trial by bikeradar forum, this is an impossibility.

start a thread titled armstrong proved innocent and see what replies you get :shock:

top_bhoy

hevipedal wrote:

bigdawg wrote:

but are we all forgeting no athlete (be it cyclist athlete or whatever) has ever been roven innocent after a usada trial..

I take it that should have been proven?

When did we start having to prove innocence, it is for the prosecution to prove guilt. And that's where problems arise when the procedure is as slack as a busy pro's knickers

.

Once the sample has been returned as positive the prosecution have proven guilt. It is then up to the athlete to prove their innocence as the positive means they are guilty!!! This is no difference to normal court of law proceedings.

psychiatricblues

And remember, we're not talking about courts of law, we're talking about sporting courts, so the burden of proof is not as onerous.

iainf72

They have announced there will be a decision by the end of September.

They have a meeting with their technical expert in about a weeks time and will then close the hearing. Expect an announcement within 10 days of that.

Peakraider

Best outcome: Landis loses and admits all, bringing the biggest fish in with him.

Perhpas he could surrender some of those pictures he has of the refridgerated motorbike panniers in which his (and other people's) blood was delivered.

Kléber

I reckon he'll get off, OJ Simpson style.

iainf72

Peakraider wrote:

Best outcome: Landis loses and admits all, bringing the biggest fish in with him.

Perhpas he could surrender some of those pictures he has of the refridgerated motorbike panniers in which his (and other people's) blood was delivered.

What about a complicated verdict - Something like the WADA expert in the case agreeing with the Landis team that the sample was not positive?

That could make for some big fun time.