Sunday, October 7, 2007

Letter to Legislators

I have shamelessly used Bill Hue's article Serving the Master to compose a letter to my US senators and house of representative.


Dear Legislator

I am asking for your support and I am asking you NOT to spend money. While there are many issues that need your attention, I must ask you to take a moment and just say no to the funding of the United States Anti Doping Agency and the World Anti Doping Agency. While their mission is important, please recognize that these over zealous bureaucracies are abusing individual’s rights.

In their self proclaimed role as police officer, judge, and jury, the United States Anti Doping Agency and the World Anti Doping Agency are acting in a manner of a Star Chamber. A Star Chamber was first employed by the English Tudor and Stuart royalty to impart swift actions for political offenses. More recently, the United States Supreme Court in Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 821; 45 L.Ed.2d 562; 95 S.Ct. 2525 wrote that:

“(The star chamber) was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common-law traditions. For those reasons, and because it specialized in trying "political" offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights.” (Emphasis in
original).



The US Supreme Court, in Faretta, wrote such institutions should be abolished always:

“If our current "courts" wish to behave as if they are above or outside the Law, or as the American equivalent of the English Star Chamber; let us treat them like the British treated the Star Chamber: abolish the "court"”.

The USADA/WADA arbitration system has violated an individual’s rights and has ignored its own “Code.” In the article by Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge, William F. Hue he noted:

“Landis rights under the Code were violated because he was not afforded:
• A timely hearing;
• A Fair and impartial hearing body;
• The right of each party to present evidence, including the right to call and
question witnesses (subject to the hearing body’s discretion to accept testimony
by telephone or written submission);
• A timely, written, reasoned decision.
Landis rights were significantly compromised or unduly criticized in the flowing areas:
• The right to be represented by counsel at the Person’s own expense;
• The right to be fairly and timely informed of the asserted anti-doping rule
violation;
• The right to respond to the asserted anti-doping rule violation and resulting
Consequences.”



Please remember there are 130 death row inmates found guilty by the jury of their peers that have been exonerated by science and DNA evidence. An athlete by the name of Floyd Landis would also be exonerated, if the USADA arbitrators had also used science and reason and not politics to come to their conclusion. The lone dissenting arbitrator, Chris Campbell notes that the WADA system does not safe guard innocent athletes from improper method or procedure.

“1. From the beginning, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage et du Dopage (“LNDD”) has not been trustworthy. In this case, at every stage of testing it failed to comply with the procedures and methods for testing required by the International Standards for Laboratories, Version 4.0, August 2004 (“ISL”) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2003 (“WADA Code”). It also failed to abide by its legal and ethical obligations under the WADA Code. On the facts of this case, the LNDD should not be entrusted with Mr. Landis’ career.”



I am not a judge or a lawyer, just a common individual with common sense that can think through issues. Sometimes it takes a common individual to stand up and point out truth.

My request is to withhold money from the USADA and the WADA until a proper independent review can be conducted.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Saturday Ride

Each weekend I push a little farther up Glendora Mountain Road and I see a new vista each time. The weather is cooling down after the high of 115 September 2-3. Now its in the 70s. But going up the mountain is different than coming down the mountain when the cool breeze rips through the lycra. I have an outer shell and a ski ear band. They did well for me today.

The stats from the Polar CS600 tell me --
Time: 2:25 minutes
Distance 19.4 miles
Average Pace: 6.15 min/mile
Average Speed: 9.6 mph
Maximum Altitude: 3009 feet
Ascent 2402 feet
Average Heart Rate 136

Near the start of the route at Sierra Madre and Glendora Mountain Road I noticed a cycler stopped by the road. We ended up crossing paths multiple times up the road, and with much appreciation I must thank Jess of Covina for helping me with my brakes. The camera is a 7 Mega-bit pixel Casio Z-750 and I have 300 Mbytes of pictures from today. So here are a few. Click the picture for the full size.

View of Glendora from the second saddle with GMR cutting the hillside on the right.



Mount Baldy




Jess trying to find a cell phone satellite


I appreciate your help with my brakes!!



The San Gabriel Dam Area (Highway 39)

Mt Diablo


The Mount Diablo Challenge is set to start tomorrow. Floyd Landis, Pommi and TBV are set to ride this 10.8 mile bicycle road race that ascends for 3,249 feet. The weather is turning chilly and the temperature at the top of the mountain will be a brisk 34F. I will have to cheer for more than one athlete on this race.

The 2006 Mt Diablo Champion Robert Anderson, 51 of Mill Valley California breezed through the course with an average pace of 13.7 mph and a total time of 47:28.3. The first place female Jenny Slawta, 42 of Medford Oregon zipped up the mountain at 11.8 mph with a total time of 54.43.7. Another notable is the first "southerner" John Hann, 25 from Santa Barbara, 11.1 mph with a total time of 58.27.6.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Retention Time

The arbitration panel has awarded its ruling on the USADA versus Floyd Landis case. In its 2 to 1 decision in favor of the USADA, my mental cogs are still churning and the spurious rationale of the majority decision is emerging.

In the determination of the T/E ratio by the Gas Chromatography (GC), the panel found that the Lab failed to follow the procedure outlined by WADA TD2003IDCR. Therefore no adverse analytical finding could be rendered. Whoo hoo! That charged was dismissed.

It is on the second test the CIR or the GC/C/IRMS that is of issue. WADA TD2003IDCR states the difference in retention times will be 1% or plus/minus .02 minutes whichever is smaller.

The majority decision states the retention times of the two machines are different 25 minutes and 45 minutes. OK. Two machines -- absolute retention times won't be used. Clear enough. A logical conclusion is that the relative retention times of 1% should be applied. Dr. Wolfram Meier-Augenstein calculated the difference in the LNDD relative retention times at 7%. Um, 7% is outside of the 1% range in this universe. Clearly an exception to the International Standard of Laboratories or an ISL has occurred. But the majority says oh no, the TD2003IDCR does not apply since there are two machines involved.

What the? TD2003IDCR is a mere five page document. No where in the document does it say it applies to only one machine. No where in the document does it say if there are two machines then eyeballing it is ok. So either the relative retention times applies to what the LNDD does with its equipment, or the entire process of using the two machines is out of spec or "not fit for purpose" and is an exception to the ISL standard.

Clear to me. This decision is not based on science or process, merely politics.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Thursday, September 20, 2007

The weekend ride

I stood there. I stood there savoring the moment. My heart was still beating fervently pumping blood and oxygen not yet aware that I was now standing by my bike looking over the ridge. Feel good in my King of the Mountain moment after pedaling my way up the road.

The view to the south down the valley opened up into suburbia and civilization. The view to the north was the next line of mountains to conquer. It was a good stopping point - an hour and two minutes into my ride. It was a good turn around point as well. Enjoy the moment. The air was bluer here and my heart rate was slowing rapidly. The accomplishment needed to be applauded and a strange realization of my motivations reflected upon.

I squeezed water from the bottle on my head first. The cool rivulets flowing down my face and back were a welcoming sensation. The heat in my cheeks subsided. I gulped down the rest of the water.

Motivation. Inspiration. Heroes. Sometimes it’s winning the race that motivates others to get out ride. Sometimes it’s an arbitration battle. For me it is the David and Goliath struggle between big bureaucracy and individual rights between the US Anti Doping Agency and Floyd Landis. It is the fallen champion battling to take back what is rightfully his, in a crusade to educate the public on science, civics and cycling that has inspired me to write senators and representatives. Something I haven’t done since fifth grade. Floyd you have motivated me to purchase a bike and hit the road, visit Colorado and watch a mountain bike race. The cycling industry owes you big time, and I am just getting started. In spite of the AAA ruling you are still my hero. The USADA case was just the dress rehearsal and I am ready to be “gullible” again and support the next round.

In an instant my thoughts were back to the reality of the descent and curving fluctuations of pavement. It was a good ride. I hope you have many more good rides.

Monday, September 3, 2007

How Long does a Ruling take

While I have been waiting for the ruling in USADA versus Floyd Landis case, checking out the smoke on Peloton Jim's, and reading the daily musings of bloggers about the lengthy passage of time on Trust But Verify, I did my own digging into the facts of USADA verdicts. Having waded and traversed the rulings on the USADA web site, I have gleaned information on the opening day of past hearings to their arbitration awards. I was able to identify 39 cases where I could determine both start date of the hearing and signature or fax date of the award. Remember, no athlete has won against USADA. Although, I thought one athlete Genevieve Jeanson came pretty close to a reprieve in 2004 as she received a warning instead of a suspension for a missed test. Sadly though Ms. Jeanson was sanctioned in 2006.

So what is the news. As everyone can guess. The median point of the cases is 17 days. For Floyd his case is well beyond that point and if the ruling does happen by 30 September 2007 (thanks Bonnie D. Ford for that bit of info!) -- it puts Floyd's hearing to ruling length at 139 days. There are only four other cases longer. The 139 day demarcation is pictured above and circled in red. The four other longer running rulings were Chryste Gaines 155 days, Larry Wade 156 days,
Tyler Hamilton 157 days and Tim Montgomery 191 days.

In the mean time, check out the arbitrators' websites Patrice Brunet, Richard H. Mc Laren, and Christopher L. Campbell as we all wait patiently for this chapter to come to a close.