Thursday, March 8, 2007

Thu, Mar 9

Long awaited, finally here: Part 2 of "Judging Floyd". The article covers in detail selection of the arbitrators in the chosen panel-of-three. Each of the arbitrators is profiled, including their "track record" on convictions or overturns of previous cases. Both TBV/Hue and Rant highlight, that Landis' choice, Christopher Campbell (previously chosen by a number of other athletes to be "their" arbitrator on the panel), has decided on guilt of the athlete in 15 out of 18 cases. Now what do we make of that ? Among the cases is Tim Montgomery, banned not because of a positive doping test, but rather due to his involvement in the BALCO scandal, abnormal reading from blood and urine tests obtained at other occasions, and lastly, considered the fatal blow to the case, Kelli White's testimony. TBV/Hue also note that Campbell has written dissents for his three "not-guilty" decisions, one of them about Kyoko Ina (No, I'm not adding to the Tyler Hamilton saga), a U.S. figure skater. Ina was accused of refusing a late-night drug test, and made believe she could take the test the next day. Despite not having failed a drug test, she was threatened with a 4-year suspension. In his dissent, Campbell wrote:

"Yet when any organization, including the United States Doping Agency ("USADA") turns this fight against doping on innocent athletes, that behavior is unacceptable. [...] Ms. Ina is an innocent athlete. USADA has no compelling evidence to impose a sanction against her."

Nevertheless, Ina received a 2-year suspension. Both of Campbell's decisions sound fair to me, but we have to just look closer at case by case in order to judge Campbell better. However, Landis picking Campbell certainly must have good reasons.

No comments: