Iron Pol

On Friday, September 21, the arbitration panel reviewing the doping case of Floyd Landis ruled that the positive test result that has stalled his career would stand.  This ruling, which will result in a 2-year ban from the sport of cycling and his being stripped of his Tour de France title, is laced with controversy.

(Picture at left, Floyd Landis after his Tour de France victory.  AP Photo)

First, there was a dissent in the ruling.  While the majority held that the errors committed by the testing lab do not automatically nullify the second positive, the minority opinion raises an interesting question.  Can a lab notorious for administrative and procedural errors, testing discrepancies, and flawed results be trusted?  More importantly, if the lab screwed up the simple initial testing process, how can they be trusted to have properly complete the secondary testing, an admittedly more complex and challenging process?  In the opinion of the minority, that trust cannot be granted.

Also intersting is the stance that Landis' lawyer has taken.  If Floyd Landis is unable to vindicate himself in this case, it is senseless for anyone charged (rightly or wrongly) to even attempt to clear their name.  Let's face it, the majority opinion admitted in their decision that mistakes were made, and the lab may well see future rulings dismissed if they continue the same practices used in this case.

Say what?!?  Future cases will face dismissal, but this one stands?  Here's an analogy.  "We acknowledge that the evidence used to convict this death row inmate may be flawed.  And we acknowledge the methodology used to convict said inmate may have been improper.  In the future, such cases will face dismissal.  But in this case, carry on with the execution."  How would you like to be that inmate?

I don't know if Floyd Landis used illegal substances to fuel his amazing victory in the Tour de France.  I do understand that there are valid and compelling questions about his recovery that tend to lend credence to the theory he did.  There are equally compelling arguments that tend to support negating the testing as potentially flawed and untrustworthy (note, I didn't say "inaccurate," simply untrustworthy).

One thing is certain, though.  Cycling (and hopefully triathlon) will not follow the same path taken by many sports, baseball in particular.  Negative drug tests will not be met with a lackadaisical attitude.  There will be no hearings 10 years from now about whether so-and-so was on steroids.  The use of illegal substances, when identified, will be dealt with quickly and harshly.  And defending oneself against such charges will be difficult.

That, of course, is the real challenge.  How do we balance strict enforcement with equitable treatment?  If a case riddled with inconsistencies and errors such as this one are still indefensible, has enforcement outweighed justice?

Leave a Reply