|
||
|
Who watches the watchers Floyd Landis has failed in his bid to have his two-year ban for doping overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Landis won the Tour de France in 2006 after a remarkable comeback, one day he seemed to be out of it completely and the next his strength returned and he rampaged to an astonishing breakaway victory. Cycling has become an increasingly suspicious sport and almost immediately eyebrows were raised. Landis had, to all intents and purposes, “cracked” (when a cyclists legs go, usually as he’s trying to climb over a mountain) and it’s the kind of thing that you don’t come back from, especially not to entirely destroy the field. |
|
|
|
Traces of synthetic testosterone were subsequently found in samples that Landis gave to the tour’s doping control and he was stripped of his title and handed a two-year ban. Almost from that moment Landis has been fighting to get his good name restored without much success. He has maintained his innocence from the first moment and has cited any number of inconsistencies, malpractices and underhanded behavior from the world’s doping organizations during the course of his defense. It is hard to argue that Landis has been badly treated. The results of his samples were leaked to French newspaper L’Equipe that effectively made Landis guilty with no hope of proving his innocence, he was also, sensationally offered a deal that would see his own ban significantly reduced if he handed over information on drug-taking by Lance Armstrong (who has, I should add, never failed a drugs test in his life). Maybe in a different era Landis would have been cleared, but by now everyone is far too suspicious. The man was, essentially, broken on the Tour and came back to win, it was an amazing turnaround but just a little bit too far to be entirely credible. It is difficult to see how he managed it without some sort of artificial help, but, at the same time, the organizations who have overseen his ban have acted disgracefully. It is another problem that the sport
has to sort out. The people who are conducting these tests have to adopt a
series of protocols that will mean they are above suspicion. They have to
have independent adjudicators, they have to have every method possible of
showing that they have done everything correctly otherwise these sorts of
protests will always happen. Sportsmen and women will always protest their
innocence, and it merely drags the sport through the mire even more every
time one of these things happens. |
|
|
|
|
|||