Does USADA want theTruth or a Win?

When you write your congressman, keep in mind what is in here:

http://www.usada.org/files/active/who/form_990_2004.pdf

This is USADA's tax filing for 2004 (form 990). If you go into the details, you will see that, while this is a tax-exempt organization, virtually all the money comes from the USOC ($3.7 million in 2004) and the US Office of Drug Control Policy ($7.1 million). YOUR taxes are paying for this, and it SHOULD be the government's business to insure that basic rights of US citizens are being respected. We know in the several documented cases that this is not the case.

Take away the US Government funding and they likely go out of business.

The excuses that Landis gave are good enough in my book to tell me that he is guilty as charged. When he said that he went back and got hammered after his poor performance, I knew he was full of it. That is just what everyone does after they had a bad day and possibly blew the tour, we go get hammered cause we know that is the best way to recover from a hard day. BS......

If USADA goes chooses to do this, we are looking at a civil rights suit by Landis in U.S. courts that will effectively kill drug testing in the U.S. forever. Butch Reynolds took his case all the way to SCOTUS and got a favorable ruling.

Dumb move!

hang em wrote:

The excuses that Landis gave are good enough in my book to tell me that he is guilty as charged. When he said that he went back and got hammered after his poor performance, I knew he was full of it. That is just what everyone does after they had a bad day and possibly blew the tour, we go get hammered cause we know that is the best way to recover from a hard day. BS......

Landis posted 370 pages of detailed techincal specs on his case. These documents were provided by USADA to Landis.

The Daily Peleton Forum, and various website like Trust but Verify and "The Rant" (above) have gone through these documents page by page. When techical, Harvard Professors have weighed in to explain what these documents mean.

This the first ever open case and everyone that has looked at it says this case is NOT clear cut. Their are a lot of problems with USADA's case.

For instance the Paris lab has not disclosed what criteria they used to say Landis tested positive. The LA lab publishes their criteria and by that criteria, Landis was NEGATIVE on three of the four IRMS tests. Using the Austrailian lab criteria, he was NEGATIVE on only two. The documents are not clear as to whether he should be positive on all four test or some of the tests.

But none of this matters to you. He's guilty because a bunch of guys in a lab coat said and you cannot tell me why. More tests say he wasn't juiced than say he was juiced.

You're hung up on what he said the first three days, not the last 100. I might add that it was a clear violation of protocol for his results to have been leaked in the first place, and he was put in an impossible situation.

This is why his case is so important. Too many people like you have passed emotional judgment based on a few initial inaccurate press reports. Having this case open is showing us how poorly run these tests are and that they despertely need to be fixed.

Final question, someday one of you heros (Ritz, Webb, Teg or whoever) is going to test positive because of these bad tests. When that happens, are you going to read three paragraphs of an AP story, and say "go away scum" or you going to be the least bit curious? I'll bet you'll be curious.

Why not start now with Landis before other inncoent athletes are screwed by this flawed system.

Yet another example of how USADA is not really interested in cleaning up sports as they are in winning.

-------

11.08.2006

We'll start with the USADA scenario re: how I missed the test

http://www.jasonsager.com/blog/2006/11/well-start-with-usada-scenario-re-how.html

On July 8th of this year, I dropped out of the Deer Valley Norba, thinking we were racing 3 laps rather than 4. Truly, the dumbest move I've made in cycling. More dumb than missing the test. We were scheduled for 3, but that changed between when I asked, and when we started. Things started adding up when, after pinning it to the line for the "finish", the finish area was empty. I looked around obviously confused and was then informed I had 1 more lap.

I was so blown from racing the tank empty that when I found out about the 4th lap...there wasn't another lap in the legs. Absolutely deflated, I watched a few guys race through, chatted with friends and family in the start/finish area for several minutes, and eventually rode home.

Sunday, after the STXC, Frosty informed me that I missed a random control on Saturday after the XC. USADA wasn't on site for Sunday's events, so Monday I contacted USADA to investigate the situation.

I'd like to note that since Jan 01 of 2006, I've been on USADA's out of competition control list - meaning I have the responsibility of keeping USADA informed of my location 365 days a year, and to be within 2hrs of reporting to their testers on any day, regardless of location. When you get the call, the only option is to stop what you're doing and rearrange your life for USADA. Better hope you're not on a 6 hr bike ride in areas with poor cell phone coverage, like northern Utah. In fact you're required to have at least one back up phone number, preferably, another cell phone contact. Harriet got many of those calls when I was in the "sticks".

Though it's a burden, it's one I support in the effort to demonstrate that our sport is made of clean athletes. I'll submit to their tests, on demand, as they request.

Back to Deer Valley...

According to the chief USADA official's notes, the Deer Valley staffing was noted "inadequate". Signage was non-existent and there were only two male chaperons to help podium & random racers navigate 200 meters off site, in the 2nd basement floor testing station, dubbed "the dungeon" because of the myriad of underground staircases that had to be navigated to find the testing station.

This doesn't explain why I wasn't notified, however, but it does set the stage for the circumstances. I was in the start finish area before the finish, sitting on my bike adjacent to the fencing visible to everyone. I was static for 10 minutes during that critical time. On Sunday I was a moving target and Frosty still found me. There wasn't any notification on Saturday over the PA, no signage, and the board, a white dry erase board that's supposed to be posted on the right side of the start/finish scaffolding...well, who knows. Maybe it was there, but I couldn't find an athlete willing to testify that they physically saw it.

USADA eventually found a 3rd athlete at the end of the men's pro XC - he was the alternate random. I contacted the athlete, and he was willing to testify that he was only aware of testing because there was a chaperon who grabbed him in the finish chute.

I am not here to dispute missing the test, and I never have. I never made excuses for anything, but I do have to ask why we weren't notified in an adequate manner, and of course, I contested the sanction.

My first question I had regarding the missed test was...Why didn't the tester, who had my contact information readily available, make any attempt to contact me when I failed to appear at the control station for testing?

Why didn't USADA and the race organization do their best to notify the athletes about the testing and their need to provide a sample? We're here, willing and able to provide for the testers what they need, we simply need a dependable and reliable method for notification. I want to be tested. We're here for testing.

Here's how the system works after you miss a test that you didn't know existed: I made two phone calls to USADA on Monday, a few voice mails were left and on Wed morning USADA returned my phone call with a vague "don't worry about it" message regarding what's next.

Wed afternoon, the OCC testers came to the house and tested me for the 4th time this season. About two weeks later, a 20lb over night package arrived containing the WADA anti doping code, the UCI anti doping code, the USADA anti doping code, and a 2yr ban from racing penalty. Also included a form encouraging me to sign off now and not contest any charges or rulings that have been made or will be issued against me. It was with this package that the chief official's notes were shared, and there I read that I wasn't the only athlete that missed the random test. The notes also provided an insight to the operational challenges USADA faced at the Deer Valley venue - they were short staffed, testing stations were distant, and usual procedures were challenged.

USADA goes, in my opinion, to great lengths to dis-empower the athlete once a sanctioning process has been initiated. 20lbs of documents arrive in a difficult to process legal language. The Big One is thrown at you - a charging letter that issues you a 2 year ban from your sport, and a letter written in a strong language encouraging you to sign now, or simply delay the ultimately unavoidable punishment.

What's an athlete's next step? That's up to you to figure out.

Procedure is to write a letter of "compelling justification" as to why you missed the test. While it's impossible to know, I would estimate that it is extremely difficult to report to a random medical control at a NORBA, on time, without being met at the finish line by a USADA chaperon. This is the only procedure I've ever experienced - you're met by an escort, who's sight you never leave, until a sample is provided. When USADA agents visit my home, they go with me upstairs to do laundry, follow me to the garage..everywhere, every second. Post competition testing follows the same rules. Who knows what an athlete might do between finishing the race and arriving at the testing station, unsupervised, is their thinking I suppose.

I submitted my letter of compelling justification and it was rejected. An official sentencing letter was then issued leveling the official 2yr ban. Now its up to the athlete to contest this in the court of arbitration.

I consulted two attorneys who agreed to represent me for the arbitration and we contacted the USADA ombudsman who basically acts as the athlete's advisor regarding how USADA rules and processes operate.

The Ombudsman ran through how arbitration works - and here's how it does:

You have your choice of a single or 3 member arbitration. I can sum up these 40+ candidates as having a severe conflict of interest from the get go.

Imagine you're an attorney, who earns anywhere from $400/hr to who knows how much at your practice in the DC area, or where ever it is you live and work. If you're called to an American Association of Arbitration case for USADA, you're going to have to travel to Denver or Colorado Springs to work for less than $200/hr, tying up at least a day of your time to work for an hour or so. Fairly simple to establish this isn't about the pay for the folks on this list of arbitrators. The ombudsman then goes into depth about his opinion about each member -

"don't pick him, he's here for back stage Olympic benefits"

"don't pick her, she's brown nosing for a career move"

"don't pick him, he always sides with the athletes and USADA will never agree to that choice"

"don't pick him, you'll be guilty before he even gets on the plane because Tygart is his golf buddy".

I paraphrase here, but this is the system. If you pick someone USADA feels is too liberal for their tastes, then they'll insist on a 3 member panel so they can balance your choice with one who is more partisan to their line of thought. This is a legitimate legal battle once you initiate the arbitration proceedings.

Once the panel is chosen, a location, and general date is scheduled...and building your case begins. Identify facts - there's your word, and then there's the tester's word. How much money do you want to spend? The tester is not going to answer your phone calls. Any inquiry with USADA's council will insist that the tester did everything according to procedure. I's were dotted, T's were crossed. If you want to take this tester to arbitration and cross examine them, a USADA employee, about if their job was done correctly, good luck with that. All you have is your word vs, well, what is it against?

Its your word against their word, and a set of rules written such that the system is infallible. If they executed protocol properly, that's great. Should protocol not be followed, if chaperons aren't available, if signage is poor, away from the lines of sight, or generally undetectable, that's really more of the athlete's problem, because USADA is held to UCI code, which is held to WADA code - and protocol is really more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule.

End result, notification can be posted on a tree in downtown Salt Lake City, and if you're at the Deer Valley event, it's the athlete's responsibility to find that sign and then find off site testing control, on his or her own volition, after pushing their physical, emotional, and mental limits, at the end of a bike race.

The only case taken to arbitration where an athlete didn't lose was Genevieve Jeanson in 2003, under the old WADA code, and I think that was a "sweep it under the rug" situation because she provided a sample under the watchful eye of a male chaperon, then later skipped a control after a world cup event. Men and women in a bathroom during a sample is a big legal no-no.

Now you're faced with going to arbitration, in an arena where the history of athletes winning is practically zero, that's staffed by members who could possibly be there to better their Olympic Christmas party status, and who will be reviewing your case against rules written so that the athlete is burdened with the ultimate responsibility of being at the testing regardless of the circumstances. Oh, and they have only 3 levels of accountability available - no fault, not substantial fault, and substantial fault. Remember, only one case, ever has received "no fault". Jeanson's.

The lack of accountability on USADA's part and their inability to adjust sanctions based on circumstances relative to the wide range of testing procedure inadequacies is what really amazed me and those involved with fighting my original 2 year sanction.

If your not yet convinced, see part 5 of the correspondence between Landis and USADA.

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/11/yes-maybe-never-correspondence-part-5.html

At first USADA said they would provide Landis with all longitudinal data in his case. In english this means they would provide him with the data from all his tour samples. USADA said they requested, and received this data from the UCI. So they have it. Over time USADA changed its mind.

Now USADA position is they have allt he data, will cherry pick what they want to use to prosecute you, provide you with only that data, and not let you see what was not helpful to their case.

---

Again, what is USADA trying to do? Clean up sports or accumulate wins so they can keep, or increase, their government funding to stay in business? You make the call.