cfforum

Read on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070920/ap_ ... s_decision

My preferred source for cycling news:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /sep21news

Another year of 100 mile mountainbike races for Landis. I miss the good old days already...

Ok I'll start. I will admit I'm not that schooled on the case, but I did wade through Floyd's powerpoint presentation (summary of his case) and read the decision.

I think that the rules should state that if there is substantial doubt, that the nod should go to the athlete. They are being far to lenient on the lab in this case and far too tough on the athlete when by all admissions (including the two judges who cast their votes against Floyd) the lab tests and methods were flawed and did not follow WADA guidelines.

This is not only the career of an athlete, but those of his trainers, and frequently sponsors on the line here. If you are going to base your rulings on the "integrity of the sport," then you have to pay attention to the integrity of the adjudication process and give the benefit of the doubt to the athlete, not to the lab, because after all, the lab has little to lose in this.

What has lost out here is Cycling...not just because now all the media is talking about is Drugs (again) but because there will always be a cloud of doubt hovering over this incident and great companies who would otherwise sponsor teams and events will stay away from this.

It should have been quick and decisive and most of all, fair. If there is one scintilla of doubt about the lab results, Floyd should retain his jersey.

Mi dos centavos....