Procedure is usually the guilty man’s argument, but not this time
Working in a law enforcement office, when a person makes a procedural argument, it is usually a guilty man’s argument. I have to write though, I don’t think this is true in Landis’ case. First, the nice powerpoint presentation points out some horrific errors in the handling, labeling (actually mislabeling) and use of ID numbers made by the French lab in the testing of Floyd Landis’ samples from the Tour de France that are in question. Now, the French newspaper L’Equipe is reporting that the French lab has admitted to making “administrative errors” in the handling of the B sample.
Something is wrong. There are so many errors with the lab it is ridiculous. They have destroyed a man’s reputation yet they cannot even get samples labeled correctly or follow the proper procedure for the re-labeling of samples. Meanwhile, Dick Pound, President of WADA, continues to defend the mistakes. After all, this guy doesn’t care who he tramples in the process of boosting his own ego. He is still bitter from not being named head of the IOC. So, he has made it his personal goal just to ruin sports for his own gain.
At some point you have to state enough is enough. Pound needs to respect the rules that are in place if he is to have any credibility. The French lab needs to start answering for how it leaked information about Landis, how it mislabeled the samples and even how it let out the information on Armstrong. Isn’t there a pattern here? The lab is not reliable.
The rules also need to be changed under WADA. A and B samples cannot be tested by the same lab. It would help solve a lot of these problems and prove that some of these labs are not as accurate as they are thought to be.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
More info on the case is available at http://trustbut.blogspot.com, which is collecting just about all there is to be found.
This is now linked into the daily roundup.
TBV