Saturday, September 08, 2007

Floyd Landis: Thought Control?

While Floyd may be Comfortably Numb, perhaps it is the arbitrators that should be getting further attention.

While the silence from the panel has been deafening since the proceedings in May, we learned recently that the panel intends to meet with their technical expert, Dr. Botre, on September 12. Dr. Botre runs the WADA accredited lab in Rome, and the meeting 9/12 will be in camera; what is discussed will not be known, unless the panel later decides to release that information.

What are the arbitrators thinking? While there may indeed be a lot of technical information to digest, it seems like ample time has passed for the panel to have completed significant review. So why the need for further education? And why from Dr. Botre, a person who may have a conflict of interest in pointing out errors made by a WADA lab (LNDD.) What will be going on September 12 behind "The Wall?"

Pink Floyd lends further enlightenment. While our panel hasn't posted any tidbits on bulletin/chat boards, surely they've heard the very famous "Another Brick in the Wall Part 2":


We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!"
"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you
have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"
"You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"


Could the panel believe they've established "The Wall" between themselves and the litigants, in an effort to assure us that their version of Justice is indeed blind? When Pink points out "we don't need no education," perhaps they already know the answer they seek - Floyd is guilty - it is predetermined. He's indeed just another "Brick in The Wall" that assures no need for deeper inquiry. On one side of The Wall, the powers in cycling already know what and who is guilty, and those who are guilty are responsible for The Wall.

Even perhaps more sinister is the reference to "we don't need no thought control." While an arbitration is very much not a courtroom proceeding in the sense we are used to them in the US Judicial system, they mirror courtroom procedures nonetheless. We use the "adversarial system" where each side presents is evidence and argues how these asserted facts demonstrate The Truth. Do the arbitrators think this is "thought control?" Are the arguments brought before them "dark sarcasm in the classroom?"

The admonition to "leave those kids alone" seems reminiscent of our desire to maintain a status quo - Floyd's "Team Wiki" has attempted to demonstrate the errors made in the lab procedures, and they're "teaching" us that not all evidence is fact. The "kids" need latitude to play. As Mongongu and Frelat seemed to assert at the hearing, they need to "use their experience" to arrive at the results they wanted. Kids have active minds, and play without structured rules is part of their development. Could the procedures of properly running chemical analysis merely be more "dark sarcasm in the classroom?" And when the results are wrong, they're told "do it again" to get the "right" answer, the one we know from "our experience" shows someone had their pudding first. Perhaps a bit chilling?

But in the end, could the panel be shocked that Floyd asked for pudding, even though he hadn't finished the meat? How can someone enjoy the accolades of victory without first consuming what everyone knows is good for you? Floyd bonks on stage 16, so when he crushes stage 17, do we assume he had his "meat," his "PEDs," overnight? How could he have that pudding without that "meat?" This seems to be the Dick Pound analysis - there's no way someone could go up that mountain as if they were on a Harley without consuming that "meat."

And lastly, the difficult to hear and interpret instruction to the laddy behind the bikeshed. Stand still indeed. Is this where the panel thinks Floyd belongs? Behind the bikeshed? Standing still?

Eerie coincidence? Perhaps we will soon see. Closed door meetings by judicial decision makers with individuals with a stake in the outcome of the proceeding make me worry. Tear Down The Wall! *buzz* *buzz* "Time to go-o!"*buzz* *buzz* "Time to go-o!"...

[With respect and admiration for the authors at Trust But Verify; most specifically Judge Bill Hue - thanks for giving reign to my satirical side.] :-)

-Eightzero

No comments: