Landis Guilty Of Doping, Loses Tour Title

Arbitrators Uphold Results Showing U.S. Cyclist Used Drugs; Rule He Must Forfeit 2006 Tour De France Title

(CBS/AP)  "You never want to win a competition like that," Pereiro said. "But after a year and a half of all of this I'm just glad it's over."

Landis insisted on a public hearing not only to prove his innocence, but to shine a spotlight on USADA and the rules it enforces and also establish a pattern of incompetence at the French lab where his urine was tested.

Although the panel rejected Landis' argument of a "conspiracy" at the Chatenay-Malabry lab, it did find areas of concern. They dealt with chain of command in controlling the urine sample, the way the tests were run on the machine, the way the machine was prepared and the "forensic corrections" done on the lab paperwork.

"... the Panel finds that the practices of the Lab in training its employees appears to lack the vigor the Panel would expect in the circumstances given the enormous consequences to athletes" of an adverse analytical finding, the decision said.

The majority repeatedly wrote that any mistakes made at the lab were not enough to dismiss the positive test, but also sent a warning.

"If such practices continue, it may well be that in the future, an error like this could result in the dismissal" of a positive finding by the lab.

In Campbell's opinion, Landis' case should have been one of those cases.

"The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding," Campbell wrote. "Mr. Landis should be found innocent."

And in at least one respect, Landis, who spent an estimated $2 million on his defense, was exonerated because the panel dismissed the T-E test. But in the arbitration process, a procedural flaw in the first test doesn't negate a positive result in follow-up tests.

In his dissent, Campbell latched onto the T-E ratio test, among other things, as proof that the French lab couldn't be trusted. He said the T-E test is much more simple to run than the IRMS test.

"If the LNDD couldn't get the T-E ratio test right, how can a person have any confidence that LNDD got the much more complicated IRMS test correct?" he wrote.

It was confusion like this that led to the system receiving the harsh review Landis was hoping for during his nine-day hearing in May.

But Landis also took his share of abuse, and ultimately, USADA still improved to 35-0 in cases it has brought before arbitration panels since it was founded in 2000.

This was a nasty contest waged on both sides, with USADA attorneys going after Landis' character and taking liberties in evidence discovery that wouldn't be permitted in a regular court of law. Landis accused USADA of using a win-at-all-costs strategy and prosecuting him only to get him to turn on seven-time winner Lance Armstrong, who has long fought doping allegations that have never been proven.

More than the complex, turgid scientific evidence, the May hearing will be remembered for the Greg LeMond brouhaha.

The hearing turned into a soap opera when the former Tour de France winner showed up and told of being sexually abused as a child, confiding that to Landis, then receiving a call from Landis' manager the night before his testimony threatening to disclose LeMond's secret to the world if LeMond showed up.

LeMond not only showed up, he also claimed Landis had admitted to him that he doped. That was the only aspect of the LeMond testimony the panel cared about.

"The panel concludes that the respondent's comment to Mr. LeMond did not amount to an admission of guilt or doping," the majority wrote.

[keithle1]

Oy. This is exactly what the Europeans, particularly the French, were looking for. I can''t believe it. What a disgrace. When he won, I thought to myself, "Great! the third American to win the
Tour de France. Way to go!"

I take it the chances Landis will win the appeal are slim to none.

[tmn]

"Champions" don''t need to get doped to win.

[Krazcarl]

Is anyone but me getting tired of this doping thing it is to the point of stripping everyone of thier title. I don''t aprove it''s hazardous and unhealthy but it has become a excuse to look down your nose at a champion.

[thatgirl702]

This is so unfair. In our legal system there are set rules that must be followed in order for a conviction to hold up. Those rules were not followed in this case. Whether or not he is guilty only he knows, but if procedures are not adequately followed, tomorrow it could be any of us who are wrongly accused and subsequently convicted.

[reporter14]

Read about the Missing Knife in O.J.%u2019s Memorabilia and more at:
www.poconocommunitynews.com