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.

It seems to be a common theme throughout his quotes and the mantra for the Floyd Fairness Fund is that the sytem he is going through is patently unfair.  Once again, I will state that I think Floyd is going to come out of this okay, but this role of playing the victim is just absolute nonsense.  The system seems to actually protect athletes.

The system goes like this.  You test positive on your A sample and you are informed of the positive test.  So is your national federation and the athlete has the right to have a representative at the second test.  If the B sample is positive, it is referred back to your national federation for review.  The USADA has an independent review board that analyzes these results.  It is impossible to determine how many athletes have positive A and B tests as the USADA doesn’t release those results.  Why? Who knows, but my guess is to protect the sports and athletes.

 Looking at some stats from WADA, in 2005, the UCLA lab had 538 athletes had tests that produced A and B positives.   World Wide there were 3909.  Assuming just as many US athletes test positive overseas as foreign athletes test positive in the US, we can estimate about 538 US athletes has Adverse Analytical Findings (A and B positives).  Assuming that number is somewhere in the ballpark for US athletes, over 500 of them are dismissed at the independent review board for one reason or another.  Only 32 of them in 2005, made it to the prosecutorial stage we find Landis at now.  According the to the USADA 6 were referred back to the international governing bodies for disposal.  Leaving 26, reaching the USADA prosecutors.  Twenty-six out of over 500.  We are talking about less than five percent.

So, where is the unfairness in the system?  When 95 percent of all cases are dismissed where the A and B sample test positive at the independent review board, how is that unfair to the athletes?  At that point, almost all didn’t even have to hire a defense team (which Floyd has already done before that point).

Plus, why the heck if Floyd’s defense costing over $500,000?  I mean even if the Landis defense team has three attorneys on the case at $500 and hour, assuming they each bill 2000 hours, that is only $300,000.  Throw in some expenses and you are at $400,000.  Remember though, that is assuming there are 3 attorneys working full-time on one case for an entire year.  That is crazy.  No drug case could take that much time.  This isn’t the OJ Simpson murder trial.  Am I doubting Floyd is spending that much?  No.  After all, OJ spent more than the average murder suspect spends on their defense.

What it comes down to is that the average athlete that reaches the Floyd Landis stage isn’t spending $500,000 on the defense.  Most probably don’t spend more than $10,000-$20,000.  The truth is that of the 26 that made it to the Floyd Landis stage of arbitration, about 50 percent were found not guilt and 50 percent guilty.  So, maybe 13 athletes out of over 500 that tested postive in both A and B samples did get screwed and have to spend $10,000.  That doesn’t mean those 13 were innocent, there just wasn’t enough to convict. 

Also, anyone who has been in a prosecutorial office knows the resources aren’t vast.  It isn’t like you are fighting the Pentagon or the NSA.  They have some attorneys, they may have a slim budget to hire an expert and to fly some of the testers in for the arbitration hearings, but they don’t have hundreds of thousands to spend on prosecuting a case.

It isn’t as if Floyd is up against some agency that has unlimited resources.  In fact, he probably has more resources than the agency he is fighting.  So, please Floyd, stop portraying the system as being unfair.

If there is something inherently wrong with the system, and this is not a USADA problem, but a WADA problem, it is that the A and B samples are tested at the same lab.  That needs to be changed.  Other than that, we know 95 percent of US athletes have their cases dismissed by the independent review board.  Seems pretty fair to me.

Name three players on the University of Wisconsin Basketball team.  Time is up.  Yesterday, the No. 2 Badgers lost a heartbreaker to the No. 1 Ohio State Buckeyes.  Tenacious defense is what UW is all about and it was evidenced by the low scoring game that ended 49-48.  Bo Ryan doesn’t even have a player that people think is an All-American, yet his team is No. 2 in the Country.

 When I was a rabid NCAA fan, despite going to Illinois, you couldn’t help but admire Bobby Knight’s accomplishments as a coach.  Now, I sit and watch the Badgers with the same admiration I had for the Hoosiers in the 80’s and early 90’s.  They play tough defense.  They take smart shots.  They play hard and they give it their all each game.

So, now that Illinois has abandoned the Chief, I need to find a team to root for in rebellion.  Madison is closer than Champaign.  The city is nicer.  It is a better academic university (see latest US News and World Report rankings).  So, all I can say is, “Go Badgers!”

I went to University of Illinois when the Chief controvery started.  I was naive back then and had an unreasonable stand to blindly support the Chief.  Working at the Daily Illini, and being pro-Chief, put you in the minority back then, and now I am sure.  In fact, there was a time when they wanted to change the name of the newspaper to be more PC.

As I moved away from college, I felt that I grew.  I felt that I matured in a way where I didn’t live and die with an Illinois loss.  I always thought I would be fine when the Chief finally left the university as I knew it was just a matter of time.  I should have gotten a hint that I had not come as far as I thought when Luther Head back-rimmed the open three pointer that most likely would have been enough to win the national championship and I was depressed.  I was happily surprised though that I felt good about a season that didn’t end in a win.  So, I must have grown some.

With growing up and being more mature, other things happen and the most significant of those was having children.  Your entire paradigm of life changes at that moment.  You realize the idealistic fights give way to the pragmatism of providing and protecting the little eyes that trust you for everything.

Somewhere in there, my oldest son, who is only 2 years 8 months at the time I am writing this, has been telling me for about 8 months that he wants to go to Illinois.  He wants to see the Alma Mater.  He can sing the Alma Mater and he wants to see the Chief.  If you ask him if he wants to go to Harvard, he will tell you, “No! I am going to Illinois.”  This “brainwashing” wasn’t purposeful on my part, in fact I would rather have him, and my younger son, aspire to Harvard.  The problem has always been that I would like for both to go to Illinois.  I wanted them to walk on the quad.  I wanted them to sit in Follinger and listen to a boring lecture that has way to many people and not enough learning. 

Even before that though, with his excitement for the University of Illinois, we intended on going down to show both the campus, the Alma Mater, and most of all show them the greatest halftime show in sports.  That included the Chief and the singing of the Alma Mater.

I cannot help the fact that in some way I feel that has been ripped away from me by the Politcal Correctness Police and the power-abusing NCAA.  I want the people that were so anti-Chief, saying it was offensive, to produce one member of the Illini Tribe that finds the Chief and his halftime dance offensive.  Oh, they cannot.  Why?  The Illini were slaughtered and forced off their land, not by the white man, but by other Native-American Tribes.  This didn’t happen only once, but many times until the Illini were eventually disbanned and the remaining forced out to Arizona where they absorbed into another tribe.  So, although there may be a bloodline link somewhere to the Illini Tribe, nobody will ever be able to establish it.  Why?  The Illini were slaughtered by the same people that now claim the Chief is offensive.  I guess a guy dancing around in a head dress, bringing thousands of people together in unity is offensive, but genicide is not.

 I hope I can convince my sons in the next 16 years to be Badger fans or hopefully a Crimson fans. 

The big news was announced recently that the USADA hearing with Floyd Landis will not be held until May.  Thus, it appears he will not race the Tour de France as by the time the hearing takes place, the decision comes down, the appeals are finished, the Tour will be over. 

 There is so much out there it is hard to know what is accurate.  Is Floyd still the Tour de France Champion?  Is the USADA causing delays?  Is Landis’ side causing delays?

There is something that the public just doesn’t seem to get about this whole thing.  The USADA is an enforcement agency.  It is not the job of the USADA to determine the guilt or innocence of an athlete.  It is the job of the USADA to prosecute all viable cases.  Do they have a viable case in the Landis’ case?  Who knows?  Landis’ side will obviously tell you no; however, there are two sides to  every story and we only know one side.  We don’t know the USADA’s side because they will not tell us their side.  Why?  They have ethics.  They are following their own rules not to comment on pending cases.  This just gives Landis’ camp, and his supporters, fuel for the fire.  While PowerPoint presentations are being made, revised, and sent all around the world via the internet, the USADA must patiently wait for a hearing date.  These same people supporting Landis will be the first to fire off on Dick Pound when he violates his own rules and runs at the mouth.

Do I think Landis is guilty?  No.  I do know this though, I have only heard one side of the story.  I also know that the USADA would not be pursuing this case if they did not thing their case was viable.  The power to prosecute is almost as important as the power not to prosecute.  All prosecuting agencies know this and don’t take their jobs lightly.  So, unless the USADA is a bunch of unethical cheats, which I would say they are not, they must believe their case is enough to prove Landis guilty.  If anyone thinks they are prosecuting Landis for any other reason than this, they have never worked in a prosecutors office.

I am sure people work at the USADA because they are sports fans.  They don’t want a national hero like Landis to be guilty.  However, they have been charged with the unenviable task of not being judge and jury, but a prosecutor.

Today is a special day in the sports world.  It is the day that the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees are announced.  This year Tony Gwinn and Cal Ripken Jr.  were elected into the Hall of Fame.  One eligible member was conspicuously left off.  His name was Mark McGuire.  Although sports-news outlets are trying to focus on the good, they would be irresponsible in not stating the obvious.  McGuire has the “magic” numbers to be in the hall of fame.  He hit over 500 homeruns and broke the single-season homerun record which stood for 27 years.

Why didn’t he make it into the Hall of Fame?  One could only speculate, but it is not a far reach to think the sports writers are of the opinion he used PED’s.  Is it right?  I do not think so.  McGuire was never cited for breaking a rule.  He was never charged in a crime involving illegal performance enhancing substances.  His two downfalls are admitting to using “andro”, which can be bought at any GNC and was not on baseballs “banned substance” list, and weak testimony in a congressional hearing.

Although I agree the “innocent until proven guilty” axiom does not apply to sports, it is an ideal our country is founded upon.  Unfortunately, the sports writers missed that day in junior high.  The have decided it is their duty to punish someone even though there is no proof of their allegations.

Maybe the sports writers would realize the error in their ways if every time someone sued them for libel for one of their articles or columns, they were assumed guilty because of rumors.  Maybe they should have to prove that everything they write is the truth before it is published.

I do not blame sports-news outlets for stating the obvious as to why McGuire did not get into the Hall of Fame.  I blame the sports writers who have taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury.  They will continue to do so over the next two decades as the “steroid era” has a plethora of players up for induction.  In judging without fact on McGuire, they have taken interest away from the real story and diminished the game they are supposed to love.

In the movie, Demolition Man, Dennis Leary goes off on a rant about how he is not participating in the new world order because he might want to clog his arteries with a cheeseburger with a side of greasy bacon.  It was funny at the time, because it seemed so far-fetched that you wouldn’t be able to eat what you want at a restaurant.  Not any more. New York City passed an ordinance banning restaurants and bakeries from using trans fats under the guise that they create health problems.  Hmmm… anybody else worried about this.  It isn’t bad enough we have seatbelt laws for adults, some states have helmet laws for motorcyclists, now you cannot even order cake in a restaurant because a group of yahoos deemed you couldn’t decide for yourself what is healthy and unhealthy. 

I hate to say this, but the smokers were right.  At least I can understand the argument for banning smoking.  I mean second-hand smoke at least affects the people around.  Now the government wants to tell you that they need to protect you from trans fats.  It isn’t as if when you eat them you expel them into the people around you. Of course I will hear from those that obesity has societal cost in the terms of health care…. blah… blah.  So does not exercising, driving a car, watching television, ect.  There are always societal costs to not being the healthiest you can be. 

I wonder if NYC is so concerned about health that it is banning alcohol?  Hmmm… I bet not.  Kind of hypocritical don’t you think?  After all, there are only health problems associated with alcohol and it has a high societal cost.  Liver  damage, drunk drivers, alcoholism, ect.  Of course not.  Why would they ban that?  It is so much easier to hear a buzzword like trans fats and think that the public is too stupid to make decisions for themselves.   I am not saying trans fats aren’t bad.  In fact, I do think most of society is oblivious to the problems they cause and even what foods contain them.  Education and information might be more helpful.  Maybe restaurants and bakeries should have to print the amount of trans fat in each item on any menu or display.  This way you can make an informed decision. After all, aren’t we all about freedom of choice in this Country? 

This morning I was driving into work and while stopped at a stoplight looked to my left.  It was a standard minivan.  Two kids in the back and the mom driving in the front.  On the dash were a couple of religious statues.  Nothing too out of the ordinary.  Then I saw a minature, Phillipene flag hanging from the rearview mirror.  Why is the hanging of flags from other countries so popular?  I mean isn’t it enough that this country has afforded this woman the opportunity to be driving her two kids around in a $30,000 car?  She still has so much allegiance to another country that she is hanging a foreign flag in her car?  I just don’t get it.  If people are so proud of these other countries, why aren’t they living there?  If these other countries are so great that they hang that flag instead of Ol’ Glory, why do they choose to stay here?

 Another question on this whole car thing that I don’t understand is when did cars become rolling memorials?  Why the heck would you want to put a person’s name and lifespan on the back window of a car?  Is that really honoring someone who died?  I do understand that sometimes there are reasons, like the creation of a foundation or charity in a persons name.  Generally, though, why would a person want to put the name and dates of birth and death on their car?  Is this generational?  Is it cultural?  Please explain it to me.

Okay, in text the title doesn’t come off with the sarcasm I am heard in my head as I typed it.  I am referring to this:

 http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11252.0.html

Another athlete, accused of doping, claims she never took anything.  Listen, sometimes people in any type of discplinary proceeding, whether at work, school, criminal, licensing board, ect do accept plea bargains when they haven’t done anything wrong.  Once you are accused of something, you have to weigh the risks of losing versus the offer in front of you.  So, even innocent people are forced into plea bargains.  I am just sick of every athlete telling me they are innocent.

I guess that is status quo.  Reagan knew nothing about Iran-Contra.  Clinton didn’t inhale or have sex with that woman.  Bush jr. really thought there were WMD’s.  Deny enough and people eventually will believe you.

Aren’t we lucky that all the athletes that have tested positive are innocent?  What are the odds?  After all, it is normal for a guy that is 6′6″ and 310 lbs to be able to bench 500 lbs and move from one side of the offensive line to the other in like half a second.  It is normal for a baseball player to enter the league weighing like 190 and leave weighing like 230 with 40 lbs more muscle mass.  It is normal for a sprinter to have the upper body mass of a NFL cornerback.  After all, they need those chest, back and arm muscles to do that 100, 200 meter dash.

 I hate to say I believe this, most athletes, in any sport that pays a signficant amount of money, is on some type of performance enhancing substance.  Heck… if I had the money I probably would take HGH.  After all, by all reports it makes your feel 20 years younger and has great health benefits, on top of athletic improvement.  It is a banned substance though… fortunately for athletes there is no easy test to detect it.

I do believe there is a sliding scale.  The less money an athlete can make in a sport, the less likely they are on something.  At least that is my opinion.  Money corrupts.  Baseball, football, and even cycling has enough money for the top athletes to consider doping a necessary “evil”. 

 I believe that Carl Lewis, and the more I read Greg LeMond, marked the end of an era.  Those are the last champions I will look at and believe they were not doping.  Everyone else, I will always wonder.

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.