Blah…Blah…Shut this guy up!

Recently Trust but Verify  (http://trustbut.blogspot.com) linked to a discussion with LA Times report Michael Hiltzik.  The discussion was very enlightening.  It seemed that there is a segment of the cycling population that thinks the only way Landis can get off is on a “technicality.”  That is just ridiculous.

A technicality would be if the arbitrators state something like this, “We believe both the A and B samples to be positive, but due to the fact the A and B sample were tested by the same technician, thus a violation of WADA procedures, we are forced to dismiss the case.” 

Compare the above to the following, “Due to the fact the same technician tested both the A and B samples, we are unable to determine the accuracy of those results and thus the case must be dismissed.”

 The first one is a technicality.  The second is not.  One states the evidence is untrustworthy, the other states a procedural rule had been violated.  Sometimes, a procedural rule can be violated that makes evidence suspect.  That is not a technicality.

It doesn’t have to be the circumstance stated above, it can be any of the defenses.  Some of Landis’ arguments are “procedural” and others bring the evidence under suspicion.  If Landis wins this case due to the evidence being untrustworthy, it is not a technicality.  After all, if the positive test is untrustworthy, it could mean that either Landis doped and the evidence doesn’t prove it to a high enough burden, or it means that the test was just plain wrong.  There is no way to tell and thus Landis should get the benefit of the doubt.  If Landis wins on a procedural out, even though the arbitrators think the evidence points to his guilt, Landis will lose in the court of public opinion anyway.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 9:06 pm and is filed under Cycling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.