If it's a lie then we fight on that lie.

Slim Charles
"The Wire, Season III"

Slim Charles

This job isn't about picking the stories we like best

Bunk Moreland
"The Wire, Season IV"

(While the Self did get to sit and talk with Floyd and his staff there is nothing in what follows that came from Floyd or his loyal and selfless staff. All comments are based on facts known to anyone who takes the time to read. Admittedly that is an increasingly small group.)

I.

Dope Fiends and Dirty Hippies

As you know, Henry J. Anslinger was the very first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a post he held from almost the beginning of the Jazz Age right up to Mick Jagger singing about "Mother's Little Helper"-which by the way was how heroin was advertised back before anyone realized how much money there was in making the stuff illegal. He was also a self proclaimed man of religion and a violent racist; he spent his lifetime pursuing his goal of a nationwide manhunt of sub human jazz musicians whose primitive music he preached "drove white girls to have sex with Negroes." (Heroin and the Demonization of the Dope Fiend"). But, what you may not know is that Henry only became concerned about marijuana when the Dupont family recognized that the suppression of hemp production would serve the chemical business quite well. And so, the story of the drug war began right where it should-the place where visionaries see money to be made from creating mass hysteria. And during this long period of our "reefer madness" the public looked aside as the Bureau of Narcotics waged a very expensive and by even the most generous measure a completely farcical waste of money. And what does this have to with bicycle racing-well not a lot really-but these are the Chronicles and did you really expect otherwise?

However, we will point out that one of the consequences of this indulgence has been that when it comes to drugs America long ago conceded there is no process that is due anyone. So, as we asked in the title: 'why are cycling fans all of sudden writing idiotic web postings about the unfairness of the Floyd Affair?" We really have no idea. But, what we do know is that cyclists like to believe in fairy dust and glass slippers; and thus see no irony in the notion that a cyclist who is not even going to jail should get more process than some poor junkie whose car is illegally searched.

But, we here at the Chronicles have always found comfort in hypocrisy, succor in inconsistency; and peace is the notion that fairness is for those who can afford it-otherwise it is just wasted. Thus despite the almost certain futility in pressing rationality against the fantastical, the Chronicles will just this one time indulge the hallucination that USADA is more than the lunatic errand boy of Dick Pound and make the effort to explain why Floyd is being made the fawn in Mr. Pound's increasingly evangelical crusade against immorality. As you already know it is the same old story of the moronic drug war; when money necessitates that a crime be committed the criminal becomes the policeman.

II.
Arbitration and Scorning of Law

Maybe cognitive effort was precisely the point.
Maybe, in fact, belief was the default position for the human mind,
something that took no cognitive effort at all.
Darwin's God

Don't Embarrass Yourself
Kima, "The Wire, Season 3"

A Man's Got to Have a Code

Omar Little, "The Wire, Season 4"

The scene: Four men in video-conference.
The subject: The upcoming Landis Arbitration.
The players: Three USADA Selected Arbitrators and USADA Approved Lawyer

It went something like this:
Arbitration 1: "Okay, has anyone tried the green tea with lemon? I find it really gives my thinking a lift.

Arbitrator 2: "Does it contain caffeine. I am really trying to 'just say no' to caffeine these days.

Arbitrator 2: "I am drinking nothing these days except filtered water and am of course eating only clean foods. The way I figure is you can't be serious about drugs unless you are willing to be an example.

Lawyer: "We have a Starbucks in our reception room and have warmed pecan rolls and cashews in the conference rooms. It is what clients expect these days. But, maybe we should talk about this upcoming hearing."

1. "I thought we were only supposed to discuss the format."

2. "That's fine for you but I was selected by USADA and I have no intention of going into a public hearing without having figured out a way not to be embarrassed by questions."

3. "Well, I was selected by you two and it is only my swing vote that counts so no one is going to be concerned about you anyway. You are just there for show."

Lawyer: This is a private meeting and I am here to tell you that while you might have to have a public hearing there is no requirement that you answer any questions while in there or even pay any attention. You all have wives, right? Well, just act like you are interested and nod knowingly every now and again. Why, you don't even have to respond if Floyd's lawyers ask you to respond. Just say: "That is for our private meeting where we make our decision."

2. Wouldn't it be easier to just vote now; I mean we all know the evidence.

1. Well, I don't know aren't there rules about what evidence we can consider.

Lawyer: You are confusing arbitration with a real legal proceeding. The beauty of arbitration is that you guys get to make all the rules.

1. But, I was lead to understand there are limits to what scientific evidence can be used in any legal proceeding. I was reading about the Federal Judge's decision in the Greg Strock case. You remember the case the kid brought against USA Cycling and some Jr. Team Coach for giving him cortisone shots that caused him to be immune compromised and thus acquire some virus that ruined him career.

3. Yes, I remember the Judge said he didn't think the medical proof could meet some standard of admissibility and some time after he wrote this the case mysteriously settled.

Lawyer: The Judge was talking about the Daubert case. Essentially, in Federal trial courts science evidence is not admissible unless the underlying science has been peer reviewed and is generally accepted in the science community as true.

2. Oh yeah, I recall reading about that is some scurrilous column called the Racing Chronicles.

(He is probably referring to the perversely prescient 2002 Racing Chronicle "A Crash at Manhattan; A Fall in the Park.")

It really infuriated me the way some guy named "Self" predicted how the case would turn out before it even happened. Don't tell me he is going to write about this case. I mean will we have to give out our real names?

3. Well, how would this Daubert thing apply to Landis?

Lawyer: Oh, his attorney is going to argue that a fundamental rule of science is that protocol be followed in testing and that testing has to be repeatable. For example, he is going to try to convince you that because the samples were clearly not numbered correctly that they may or may not have been his. He will tell you that not only is this the basic rule in lab testing but that the UCI rules proscribe such labeling errors.

And he is also going to argue that different WADA approved labs would have interpreted the results differently; and that if two scientists can't look at the same thing and reach the same conclusion then the results are by definition not valid.

1. Well, wouldn't that pretty much end the case?

Lawyer: It would but fortunately for you rules of evidence have no place in arbitrations. Arbitration is about getting to the truth; not about courtroom tricks.

3. Okay, but are there any limits on what evidence we can consider.

Lawyer: You can consider anything you want.

1. But is that fair? I mean should we punish Floyd based on evidence that could not be used in Court?

Lawyer: Of course it is fair. And besides you are missing the point.

2. What is the point?

Lawyer: Keeping our jobs. USADA is paying my bills.

1. But, if you were defending Landis what would you argue.

Lawyer: Oh, I'd concede that the science is infallible, that the tests were carried out in a vacuumed environment in which all laboratory protocols were followed, that the testers had no idea it was Floyd's filthy urine, and that Valerie Plame is an Islamo Fascist Spy bent on destroying the Tour of Georgia. You use what works.

1. But, all that is not true. I mean just this last year USADA more or less had to conclude that the EPO Positives on Genevieve Jeanson and Marion Jones were wrong. Also, the UCI cleared that European guy because of the French lab's breach of protocol.

2. Yes, but that was EPO and this is a testosterone case.

3. Precisely, the UCI hasn't ruled that testosterone testing has to be carried out according to accepted protocols.

2. Yeah, and aren't those women athletes.

1. Yes, but what does that have to do with it?

2. Everything. Floyd won the Tour de France. You think we'd be here if he won the Tour de Sun Dial.

3. So different rules apply.

1. No, only the results.

Lawyer: Now you are getting it.

1. But, I thought you just told us that arbitrations were about getting to the truth.

Lawyer: Yes, but it's all about what "truth" you want to find. You are not bound by materialistic notions of science. I mean nothing in the USADA rules requires you to be bound by man created notions of science. You can and probably should consider the bigger truth.

2. Which is?

3. That cycling is bigger than just one man-Lance being the exception of course.

1. I concede that Floyd is no Lance.

Lawyer: Yes, so now tell me what it is about.

2. Whether USADA will send me to the Tour de France?

3. Whether Dick Pound will send me a bonus?

1. Whether, riders need to fear us? That they need to know they are not in control of their destiny.

Lawyer: Exactly, we get to decide who are the heroes and heels. Think of it this way. The riders are cattle and we are the veterinarians.

1. But, getting back to the Hearing. Didn't that guy Mionske have a law student write in Veloflull that in order to find against Floyd we had to be comfortably convinced that the evidence was reliable. How, can that be if it if the test procedures didn't stand up to WADA's own standards.

3. Hey, science can't prove everything. At some point you either believe man lived on the Earth with vampires and angels or you don't. I refuse to be the one to give up the mission to win the war on drugs. If a few innocents have to die well just think of the chaos if we give up now.

Lawyer: You really are insane you know.

3. I serve at the pleasure of USADA.

1. Anyone ever get sick after drinking green tea?

The connection breaks.

CODA

Next week we will return to more important things. The Self will write about his bondage fantasies and the Computrainer, Terry and Self's winter rides, Hampton Inn versus Marriott Courtyard, eating in MKA's Entertainment Room; the use of Hazmet Suits while flying and of course "Chasing the Dragon." Truesport only seeks the high end market.

Find Your LIFE COACH.

Billy Stone,
In the Seventh Year of the Reign of Terror.