USADA, WADA, and UCI eat fruit of poisonous tree, but the poison kills Landis.
Let’s get one thing straight. Landis cheated; however, the rules of the system bailed out LNDD, the USADA, UCI and WADA.
In English/American jurisprudence there is an argument known as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Simply stated if law enforcement’s original evidence, that leads to other evidence of guilt, is obtained illegally, then all the evidence of guilt that is obtained as a result of the original, illegally obtained evidence, is thrown out. Law Enforcement cannot let illegally obtained evidence lead to other, legally obtained evidence of guilt. A lot of time you will here people saying in that instance the criminal got off on a “technicality.”
Luckily, for cycling fans, the USADA, UCI and WADA, that rule doesn’t apply when trying to catch cheats in sports, nor should it. After reading the majority and dissenting opinions there are some obvious things. First, LNDD messed up the original testing of both the “A” and “B” samples through the GS/MS testing to the point that a positive based on that test alone would not have been enough to find Landis guilty of doping. It was enough though to start the process which led to the testing of numerous “B” samples through a more accurate process for testing for testosterone known as IRMS. These samples came back positive as well and were enough to bolster the testing of the original “B” sample which was tested by this process also.
In an American court, most likely none of that evidence would have been admissible as the original testing, known as the GC/MS test, was so fundamentally flawed it would have to be thrown out. Thus, under the “poisonous tree” argument, all the IRMS testing would have been thrown out as well. This is not an American court though. We are not talking about putting a person behind bars. We are talking about a system that is trying to ensure the integrity of cycling and other sports by catching people that dope. To me it is clear that Landis is guilty as charged.
There is no doubt from the majority opinion that they think LNDD is totally incompetent, even though they state on several occasions, that they think LNDD followed proper procedure on the IRMS testing. Reading between the lines, it seems clear that if not for the subsequent testing of the “B” samples, Landis could easily have won. But, since the evidence against him from the subsequent testing was so overwhelming, they couldn’t let a cheat go.
This isn’t unusual even in American jurisprudence. It is often stated that appellate courts, state supreme courts, and even the US Supreme Court, don’t like to let obviously guilty people go on technicalities. Attorneys arguing for clients on these technicalities, know that they need to at least cast some doubt onto whether their client is actually guilty, if they are going to win the technical issue. The more serious the crime, the more doubt you need that your client might not be guilt.
Well, Landis committed the most heinous of crimes in cycling and sports. He was accused not only of cheating to win, but to win the biggest race in his sport. Thus, after seeing the opinions, it would have taken a lot more doubt to let Landis walk away as innocent. It is clear that the majority opinion would like to have slapped LNDD into its place. It is also clear the majority wasn’t going to make an example of the lab and the system when the evidence clearly demonstrated Landis cheated to win the biggest race in his sport.
It should be noted, that Landis’ defense team did try to show that LNDD was incompetent in performing the IRMS, and I think they were quite successful. Just not to the point that the results on all the tests, on all the “B” samples could be overcome.
Landis is a doper and cycling fans were cheated. Deep down though, I still want to believe he did not. The evidence states otherwise.