Bizarre interview with FL

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Mr. Rogers Neighborhood: A dialogue between Floyd Landis and Steve Johnson
By Neal Rogers
VeloNews senior writer
Filed: January 11, 2008

Earlier this week, I wrote a piece about controversial domestic team Rock Racing, discussing the departure of Frankie Andreu, the signings of Oscar Sevilla and the relationship between team owner Michael Ball and suspended 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis.


In happier times: Landis at the 2006 Tour de France.

photo: Graham Watson (file photo)

As part of that story, I contacted Landis about the possibility that he might have some role with the team in the coming season. Specifically I wanted to know if he was concerned about section 10.9 of the World Anti-Doping Code, which specifically prohibits a suspended athlete from participating within the sport in "any capacity" until that suspension is over.

I didn't hear back from Landis before it was time to go to live with the story, and to be honest, after seeing a few of his "no comment" responses in other stories, I didn't necessarily expect to hear back from him at all.

But I did, and his reply included an unusual offer: He would answer my questions if I would ask USA Cycling chief executive officer Steve Johnson a few questions regarding an interview velonews.com editor Charles Pelkey conducted with Johnson a week earlier.

I admit it's an unusual situation. To be sure, I was going through Johnson to get to Landis and Landis was going through me to get Johnson to speak about his case on the record. As long as Johnson was willing, I was willing. After all, who is going to turn down the chance to be in the middle of a dialogue like that?

A bit of background
For those who have lost track of what is happening with Landis, or how this all works, here's a primer. As an Olympic sport, professional cycling falls under WADA code. Participating sports - cycling included - are bound to adhere to the Code.


Johnson agreed to field questions from Landis.

photo: Casey Gibson (file photo)

The Code places enforcement duties on national governing bodies, which is why, for example, the recent cases of Iban Mayo and Alexander Vinokourov were handled by their respective national cycling federations. But here in the U.S., governing bodies, including USA Cycling, have given those duties to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Athletes charged with violating anti-doping rules have the opportunity to have those cases heard by two independent arbitration panel hearings; American athletes first have their cases heard through the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Either side is then allowed to appeal the verdict to the Court of Arbitration or Sport (CAS), which is where the Landis case currently sits.

The first Landis hearing began on May 14, 2007, and on September 20 the AAA panel ruled two to one against Landis. The committee ruled that "the charge of an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratio from the sample was not established in accordance with the WADA International Standards for Laboratories," and dismissed the charge. However the panel also ruled that "the charge of exogenous testosterone found in the sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations" and that an anti-doping violation had occurred. The panel ordered Landis to be suspended for two years, retroactive to January 30, 2007. Landis is currently appealing the case to CAS.

Landis was clear about what he was looking for from Johnson. "I want short and direct answers, no spin or political bullshit," he told me. "I made them yes/no questions and those are the answers that I want to hear. [Get those answers] and I'll answer any questions you ask."

I can't say I succeeded in getting those yes/no answers, but I gave it a shot. Johnson informed me that he'd heard from Landis in the days after the original interview had been posted. Told of the unusual parameters of this three-way exchange, Johnson agreed, but warned me before we began, "Yes or no questions might not always be possible."

The following dialogue represents a "conversation" that took place via email. Landis felt that some of Johnson's answers warranted a follow-up question, so I've marked those and the answers in response with a "(2)," so you will see some of these entries marked with "FL (2):" and "SJ (2)."

You'll also notice that the original questions actually refer to Landis in the third person, while the follow-up questions come from Landis in the first person.

I know it's an unusual format, but then again, this was an unusual situation. I'm sure you'll be able to follow what's happening, though.

Floyd Landis: After watching the Floyd Landis case and looking at the evidence, do you think Floyd Landis took testosterone during the 2006 Tour de France?

Steve Johnson: I have no idea, and frankly I don't have enough information to form a personal opinion because I don't have knowledge of all the details of the case. I haven't reviewed all the evidence that was presented. I didn't attend the hearings, and frankly, that's not my role.

As a national federation, we respect the established structure for adjudicating anti-doping cases. Both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence to a panel of arbitrators. That panel of arbitrators considered and reflected on the evidence, and made their determination. It's my job to respect and enforce that decision.

I think Floyd's primary concern was that I made the comment in my interview with Charles that I am personally comfortable with USADA's approach to the process of managing doping cases and the relationship we have, which is true. We have a great working relationship with USADA. And then I went on to say that it's a very difficult path to walk where you must balance the rights of the athletes with, really, the war to catch cheaters. I think Floyd interpreted my comments as saying that I was comfortable with the way USADA approached his case in particular. And that is not what I meant, because that was not the question. All I was saying is that USA Cycling has a perfectly good relationship with USADA. We have a good dialogue, we share information, but I certainly acknowledge that on a case-by-case basis, protecting the athletes' rights to a fair hearing and catching cheaters is a difficult balancing act.

FL: Do you think that in all of the cases that USADA has prosecuted, the athletes were given the deserved punishment?

SJ: In all of the cases? No. And that goes both ways. But a board of independent arbitrators, not USADA, determines those penalties.

FL: For example, do you think that Floyd Landis should have been given a suspension that began on the date six months after the offense when the basis for it is a court that does not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS] or USADA?

SJ: I think Floyd is referring to AAA, the American Arbitration Association, but that's not CAS, so I'm not sure what he's talking about.

FL (2): USADA based my suspension start date on the day in January 2007, when I was forced to agree to not race in France in order to delay the Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD) case. The AFLD has subsequently convicted me and notified me that the suspension in France stands regardless of the decision in CAS.

So, my question remains: Why would the Canadians on the [AAA] panel start my suspension based on that date when the French AFLD has publicly announced that neither CAS, nor USADA, have jurisdiction in France? Do you believe that double jeopardy is acceptable?

SJ (2): All athletes have the option of accepting a provisional suspension at any time after they have been accused of a doping violation. If an athlete does accept a provisional suspension and is later convicted of a doping violation, the clock on the suspension penalty is usually started from the time the athlete accepted the provisional suspension. Because Floyd elected not to accept a provisional suspension, the panel of arbitrators was under no constraints with regard to starting the clock on his suspension, and could have even elected to start his suspension in October of 2008.

While I don't know what considerations the AAA panel used to establish the starting date of Floyd's suspension, I can only assume that they elected to start his suspension in January of 2007 because that was the first time Floyd had officially agreed not to race in any country. I don't think the panel intended to acknowledge any sort of jurisdiction by the AFLD, but I do think they gave Floyd the benefit of the doubt because of his agreement with AFLD and started the clock six months earlier than they could have.

FL: Should strict liability be applied to the athletes and not the labs?

SJ: I think the labs have every obligation to manage these cases at the highest level. I think it's fair to challenge the labs' procedures and handling of samples. They should be able to produce documentation that they have followed their own rules in managing and testing doping samples. Frankly that gets right back to this balancing act between protecting the rights of the athletes and catching cheaters. You have to do it correctly, and the labs should be held to the highest of international standards.

FL: For example, is it reasonable that the panel admitted in the Scott Moninger case that he was not intending to cheat but convicted him, while the panel in the Landis case admitted to substandard lab practices and convicted him?

SJ: I don't know enough information to make that comparison, frankly. I would assume in Floyd's case that arbitrators determined that any substandard lab practices had no impact on the outcome of the test for exogenous testosterone, but I don't know for certain.

FL (2): Here's another way to ask it: Should the athletes be responsible and punished when they make a mistake and when the lab makes mistakes? Scott Moninger was banned as a cheater when there was no intent to cheat. In my case the lab followed none of its own rules, causing the result, and I am held responsible to explain what happened. What I'm trying to understand is why the athlete is judged as the only party who can be dishonest.

SJ (2): Unfortunately the science of human physiology is based on ranges, thresholds and probabilities. Remember, an elevated T/E triggers additional tests for exogenous testosterone and in Floyd's case it was these additional tests that were ultimately considered in determining his guilt or innocence, not the T/E tests. That said, I go back to my original answer in No. 4, and repeat that I absolutely believe drug-testing labs should be held to the highest possible international standards. In that sense, I think a "strict adherence" policy for anti-doping labs - one that could be considered analogous to the "strict liability" policy athletes are held to - is something that should be considered.

FL (2): Do you think that my two-and-a-half year suspension had a basis within the rules?

SJ (2): First off, Floyd received a two-year suspension, not a two-and-a-half year suspension. I assume his reckoning is based on the fact that his suspension started six months after he was first accused of a doping violation. As I pointed out in my answer to question No. 3, because Floyd never accepted a provisional suspension, the panel could have elected to start his suspension in October of 2008, which would have been a three-year suspension by his method of counting.

FL: Do you think, as you stated last week, that USADA has a fair and reasonable adjudication process with which they prosecute cyclists and do you think that they treat cyclists the same as all other sports?

SJ: I do.

FL (2): Is it possible for you to know that when you did not even pay attention to the most important case (for cycling) that USADA has ever heard? Please explain.

SJ (2): It is. The fact that I do not feel qualified to form a personal opinion on Floyd's guilt or innocence is a simple statement of fact. Remember, Floyd's case was so technical that the panel of arbitrators ultimately required four months to consider all of the evidence at the level of detail required to form an opinion.

One last thing - a quick thanks to both Floyd Landis, for initiating, and to Steve Johnson, for agreeing to this unusual, but hopefully revealing, dialogue. Check back soon for my follow-up interview with Landis, where he speaks about his relationship with Rock Racing, his ongoing case with the Court of Arbitration of Sport and life since the 2006 Tour de France.

One thing is for sure from this. Landis is not going to retire. Otherwise he would not be so concerned about when his suspension starts.

He also has a point about the start of suspensions. There should be a simple rule, like suspensions are backdated to last time the rider competed.

Landis will do more stupid things. That is for sure.

Yeah he seems to be losing it. Pantani-esque.

He just comes across as ignorant. He doesn't know what double jeopardy is, he doesn't get why his suspension started when it did (because that's when he agreed to not compete). He doesn't seem to understand due process. UCI, USAcycling, and the athletes all agreed to the WADA code which establishes the rules for doping infractions including the strict liability, burden of proof, etc. issues. You can't wait until you're caught and then BITCH because the arbitrators fairly apply the rules you agreed to when you took out your UCI racing license. He's going to be even more bitter when CAS rules against him (most likely, and probably 3-0).

When he was caught Landis would have been better off saying, "So what? I didn't do anything the other contenders weren't doing." He then should have detailed what was going on at Postal and Phonak.

You can tell he is so pissed off at his situation he cannot think clearly.

When he was caught Landis would have been better off saying, "So what? I didn't do anything the other contenders weren't doing." He then should have detailed what was going on at Postal and Phonak.

You can tell he is so pissed off at his situation he cannot think clearly.He seems to not be arguing much over his guilt. He seems more upset that the convicting authorities are not losing enough face or getting enough blame over their shoddy testing procedures. He also seems to feel they have a vendetta against him. He doesn't like other people controlling his fate, that's for sure.

He seems to not be arguing much over his guilt. He seems more upset that the convicting authorities are not losing enough face or getting enough blame over their shoddy testing procedures. He also seems to feel they have a vendetta against him. He doesn't like other people controlling his fate, that's for sure.I agree. He is trying to reduce his sentence and not argue about his innocence in this article.

Bizzare interview :

Landis speaking about him self in the third person.
Bizzare.


I reckon the Marion Jones outcome and verdict is weighing on a lot of US cyclists who face allegations of doping.
I, for one, welcome the federal authorities stance on Jones :
bad enough she doped..she thought she could lie her way out .....and now she has to pay the price for that perjury.
Might persuade other dopers not to continue to lie.

He seems to not be arguing much over his guilt. He seems more upset that the convicting authorities are not losing enough face or getting enough blame over their shoddy testing procedures. He also seems to feel they have a vendetta against him. He doesn't like other people controlling his fate, that's for sure.I agree. He's focusing on the 'fairness' of the process and not addressing the evidence. Maybe he should consider the 'fairness' of taking people's money and handing it over to his lawyers.

Bizzare interview :

Landis speaking about him self in the third person.
Bizzare.


I reckon the Marion Jones outcome and verdict is weighing on a lot of US cyclists who face allegations of doping.
I, for one, welcome the federal authorities stance on Jones :
bad enough she doped..she thought she could lie her way out .....and now she has to pay the price for that perjury.
Might persuade other dopers not to continue to lie.On one hand I think prison time is a little severe, but as I think about it more, it's really no different than other 'white collar' fraud. If Martha Stewart got prison time, then so should Jones.

Maybe he should consider the 'fairness' of taking people's money and handing it over to his lawyers.
That is fraud. How much money? 1/2 million dollars? More?

Floyd Fairness Fund website has gone. Floydlandis.com has changed. The link to FFF has gone away recently. Was FFF afraid of police?

He is just bitter. He is getting more and more entrenched. To me, it seems as if he thinks he is wrongly accused. Not that he didn't do it. Just that he shouldn't have been caught. This bitterness is destroying him and his reputation. Whoever is encouraging him to fight is not looking out for his best interests.

I agree. He's focusing on the 'fairness' of the process and not addressing the evidence. Maybe he should consider the 'fairness' of taking people's money and handing it over to his lawyers.
hear hear fsc

I agree. He's focusing on the 'fairness' of the process and not addressing the evidence. Maybe he should consider the 'fairness' of taking people's money and handing it over to his lawyers.At this point I think he realizes he won't prove himself innocent so he is focusing on a very serious problem in the sport.

I reckon the Marion Jones outcome and verdict is weighing on a lot of US cyclists who face allegations of doping.
I, for one, welcome the federal authorities stance on Jones :
bad enough she doped..she thought she could lie her way out .....and now she has to pay the price for that perjury.
Might persuade other dopers not to continue to lie.
Maybe not. Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Martha Stewert made the mistake of lying to the feds. You don't want to lie to the feds, better to just clam up. With the doping being caught in Europe, there might not much of a chance the feds would take an interest.

At this point I think he realizes he won't prove himself innocent so he is focusing on a very serious problem in the sport.
actually House, that is expedience.

The real problem is doping.

Those guys have no interest in protecting the sport. The reason why they appeal post hoc to due process, is because they got nabbed.

Fix doping first. Then fix due process. On the weight of things, the due process argument is insubstantial.

If you wish to talk about due process and human rights, lets talk G-Bay.

These cyclists can go get a gig on a construction site. When was their liberty denied?

Maybe not. Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Martha Stewert made the mistake of lying to the feds. You don't want to lie to the feds, better to just clam up. With the doping being caught in Europe, there might not much of a chance the feds would take an interest.

Perhaps.

But if an American athlete lies in an American court, then they leave themselves open to charges of perjury.

Watch that space.

Perhaps.

But if an American athlete lies in an American court, then they leave themselves open to charges of perjury.

Watch that space.
well, Armstrong lied.

lets see Floyd testify before some Senate inquiries, like Jones et al. Lets see Armie called up.

Landis wanted his fans to petition congress.

Landis has made some really interesting choices in his defense. My favorite was his threat to come looking for financial payback if he was exonerated. Or as I like to think of it, "If you find me innocent then I'll sue you."

I think the thing that he is most concerned about now is when his suspension ends. Maybe that is why he appealed after wavering on whether he would or not. It will suck for him if CAS starts his suspension after the MTB races he did last summer.

well, Armstrong lied.

lets see Floyd testify before some Senate inquiries, like Jones et al. Lets see Armie called up.

Landis wanted his fans to petition congress.

Armstrong lied, of course.
But he didn't lie in formal proceedings.......that's why he wouldn't go to France to challenge David Walsh (despite saying that he would bring libel charges).
The French courts await Mr Armstrongs appearance - should he feel so emboldened to live up to his promise to sue Walsh for alleged libel.

With the Jones judgement........I would suggest that dopers would be less inclined to lie in American courts now.
If they're found guilty.......