Comments on: Why does Landis claim the system is unfair? http://www.ionresistance.com/myBlog/2007/02/26/why-does-landis-claim-the-system-is-unfair/ by Lonnie Renda Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:21:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: John Doe http://www.ionresistance.com/myBlog/2007/02/26/why-does-landis-claim-the-system-is-unfair/#comment-612 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:06:40 +0000 http://www.ionresistance.com/myBlog/2007/02/26/why-does-landis-claim-the-system-is-unfair/#comment-612 Missed a zero in the math: 2000 hrs billed at $500/hr x 3 lawyer = $3,000,000 (not $300K) Missed a zero in the math:

2000 hrs billed at $500/hr x 3 lawyer = $3,000,000 (not $300K)

]]> by: trust but verify http://www.ionresistance.com/myBlog/2007/02/26/why-does-landis-claim-the-system-is-unfair/#comment-48 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:26:31 +0000 http://www.ionresistance.com/myBlog/2007/02/26/why-does-landis-claim-the-system-is-unfair/#comment-48 Hi, This is linked into our roundup of Landis news at http://trustbut.blogspot.com I think you are misreading a number of statistics. In particular, I don't believe it's possible to account for the UCLA AAFs vs. USADA cases the way that you do -- I've tried, and there's no simple explanation. In particular, we do not know how many of the UCLA AAFs were B samples, or how many cases got to the ADRB, or how many the ADRB passed on or cleared at that stage. I have asked USADA for such statistics, and they have not been forthcoming. See for discussion http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/09/aaf-statistics.html In terms of fairness, the ADRB process can be reasonably questioned. The accused athlete has 10 days to interpret what material is offered in the LDP, and can present only a brief. There is no hearing, no witnesses, no discovery, and no rationale provided for whatever decision is reached. Yet this step is considered the initial adjudication, from which the athlete makes an "appeal" to a hearing. I'd also point out that Landis is engaged in two separate legal cases, one with USADA, and a second with the French AFLD. This will inflate his expenses. As Mr. Tygart is so fond of pointing out, every case he has taken to hearing has resulted in a USADA "win." One might reach a number of conclusions from this statistic. First, that most charged athletes are guilty; two that the process is stacked against them even if they are innocent; three, that most athletes do not have the wherewithal to attempt to win fairly against the system, and take their sanction guilty or not as the cheapest of the alternatives. I appreciate your attempt to have reasoned discussion about the issues -- it is an important and difficult topic. cheers, TBV Hi,

This is linked into our roundup of Landis news at http://trustbut.blogspot.com

I think you are misreading a number of statistics. In particular, I don’t believe it’s possible to account for the UCLA AAFs vs. USADA cases the way that you do — I’ve tried, and there’s no simple explanation. In particular, we do not know how many of the UCLA AAFs were B samples, or how many cases got to the ADRB, or how many the ADRB passed on or cleared at that stage. I have asked USADA for such statistics, and they have not been forthcoming. See for discussion http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/09/aaf-statistics.html

In terms of fairness, the ADRB process can be reasonably questioned. The accused athlete has 10 days to interpret what material is offered in the LDP, and can present only a brief. There is no hearing, no witnesses, no discovery, and no rationale provided for whatever decision is reached. Yet this step is considered the initial adjudication, from which the athlete makes an “appeal” to a hearing.

I’d also point out that Landis is engaged in two separate legal cases, one with USADA, and a second with the French AFLD. This will inflate his expenses.

As Mr. Tygart is so fond of pointing out, every case he has taken to hearing has resulted in a USADA “win.” One might reach a number of conclusions from this statistic. First, that most charged athletes are guilty; two that the process is stacked against them even if they are innocent; three, that most athletes do not have the wherewithal to attempt to win fairly against the system, and take their sanction guilty or not as the cheapest of the alternatives.

I appreciate your attempt to have reasoned discussion about the issues — it is an important and difficult topic.

cheers,

TBV

]]>