WADA You Mean?

Yes, this is about Floyd Landis. The great shame of U.S. cycling these days, it seems. And, if he’s guilty, rightly so. If he’s a cheater he needs to be dealt with accordingly. Just like all suspected dopers, Floyd is denying that he cheated. It’s a likely story. After all, it’s rare that anyone admits to being a cheat. Even if they are caught red handed.

Now, I’ll be honest I have no idea what I’m talking about here. I know nothing of UCI, WADA or any other rules. I’m just having an emotional reaction to what I think is a situation that unfairly assumes guilt and leaves little room for innocence. And, let’s face it, cycling has a checkered past so it’s not surprising that there is very little trust for a cyclist.

For the record, I want to believe Floyd and am inclined to believe him.

Again, this is all emotional. I am not speaking with any sense of authority. Just sadness and confusion. If you truly want to keep up with this case, make sure you check Trust But Verify, the online clearing house for all things Landis, all the time.

According to the UCI (cycling’s governing body), the organizers of the Tour de France and the leader of the World Anti-Doping Agency, Floyd did it. In fact, they were pronouncing his guilt before Landis had even seen the results of his own tests. Worse, they were touting to the media that he should be drawn and quartered before his B sample was tested. According to the rules that these organizations themselves set up to protect an athlete from a false positive, no one should have been told about a positive test until the B sample was analyzed. Instead, the story was in the media before the rider himself even knew. Go figure.

Now Floyd must defend himself to the anti-doping agency, his cycling federation and to the public. Only, the problem with that is the public has already made up its mind based on news reports that, in some cases, weren’t even reporting actual facts. Here’s what the public knows.

1. Floyd won the Tour.
2. Floyd cheated.
3. If he says he didn’t cheat he’s lying.
4. Any possible recourse he can follow is just a ploy.
5. If he’s trying to prove the test was flawed, he’s guilty and trying to get off on a technicality.
6. If he’s innocent then he has to prove it.
7. But he can’t prove it using any explanation that involves someone else giving him something, the test being flawed, that there was a natural explanation, nor can he say that the lab screwed up. Because none of these will prove he’s innocent, it only shows how guilty the lying son of a bitch is.

Here’s my problem with this. According to the court of public opinion, Floyd has been convicted. However, he still has the right to prove his innocence at a hearing with the USADA early next year, which is why he is currently mounting his defense and allowing a bunch of cycling geeks to analyze his test results. So, obviously, if he didn’t dope he can argue that at the hearing, right?

Not exactly. You see, he really only has two options: 1. That the test was right, but he accidentally took the banned substance, making him an idiot or 2. The tests were wrong, or compromised. Option two doesn’t clear Floyd, exactly. It just shows that there was a mistake.

So, if I understand the rules here, no matter what Floyd is guilty. He’s either guilty on purpose, guilty by accident or guilty but going to get away with it due to a faulty test or sample.

I’m not saying that Floyd is innocent. I’m just astounded by a process that is supposed to be a form of “justice”. Guilty athletes must be dealt with quickly and harshly. They mustn’t be allowed to cheat. However, no process is infallible. There is a chance that an innocent athlete could be caught up in a mistake, a lab error, or falsely accused. But, according to these guidelines, there is no innocence. According to these guidelines if you’re standing in front of a hearing you are guilty of something.

I guess that’s my problem. If, by chance, Floyd is telling the truth and he did not dope, there is nothing he can really do to prove it. The samples are gone; he can’t ask for a retest, he can’t pee again for that particular day. He can’t ask for the samples to be re-examined. All he can do is answer the accusations. There’s really no way for him to prove that he did not take anything before Stage 17.

In my mind he’s screwed. If he’s guilty, then forget it. It’s over. If he’s innocent and he didn’t do it, it’s too late. The only way he can get off is by proving that the lab screwed up. But in the eyes of the public, he’s still going to be the doper who got off on a technicality.

I guess that’s my problem. How can one defend one’s self in a situation where you can only defend yourself with “I cheated by accident” or “My pee was mishandled”.

Shouldn’t there be a system that could be used to protect an athlete who might actually be innocent? Again, I’m not saying that Floyd is. But what if he is? What if there’s another guy out there who gets caught up in something because samples were messed up?

It’s simply too late for them. The “lab messed up” defense is problematic because, even if they did and you are 100% clean, the public has already decided based on the accusations that you are guilty. Hell, I’ve read arguments that Floyd is guilty simply because he’s defending himself. Huh? If he hides, people assume he’s guilty. If he puts out all the evidence against him for people to analyze and distribute then, obviously, he’s guilty because it’s all a ploy.

So, if that’s the case, why have the hearing? Why give an athlete any opportunity to pretend they aren’t guilty? Because, based on the very system that’s supposed to “protect” them, they are guilty liars.