Bizarre interview with FL
- Thread starter helmutRoole2
- Start date
I'd think that Landis wouldn't want his name with held. I think it's someone wanting to stay out of the doping projected limelight. I'm thinking Leogrande.Bro Deal said:
helmutRoole2 said:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFsVLkwT235nqdmPBdUzrB3bpCngD8UD99T81 - not without fun & games...... these guys are a little silly aren't they ?
______
DENVER (AP) — The plaintiff in a lawsuit against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is Rock Racing cyclist Kayle Leogrande, two people familiar with the case told The Associated Press on Friday.
In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of "John Doe" in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the cyclist claims USADA broke its own rules and damaged him by outing him as a doping suspect. His identity was sealed in the suit to prevent his name circulating more widely.
Two people with direct knowledge of the case told the AP that Leogrande was the unnamed cyclist, and that sworn affidavits about Leogrande had been provided to USADA, which was using them in building a case against the 30-year-old.
The cyclist claims USADA planned to test his backup urine sample even though the original 'A' sample test came back negative, and the lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent USADA from ever testing the 'B' sample.
USADA general counsel Bill Bock would not confirm the name, citing agency rules that forbid him from discussing specific cases.
A message left by AP on Leogrande's cell phone was returned from that cell phone. The angry caller said: "Lose my phone number. Don't call me again. ... I don't know how you got my phone number, but lose it," then hung up.
Plaintiff attorney Maurice Suh did not immediately return messages left at his office by AP.
The samples in question were taken during the International Cycling Classic last July, the two people familiar with the case said. Leogrande won three events, finished second at three more and finished second overall at the event, also known as Superweek.
Leogrande is a member of the Rock Racing team, which is owned by Michael Ball, the CEO of jeans-maker Rock & Republic. His bio on the team Web site said using the "same signature aggressive approach, he now plans to change the face of the racing world."
He most notably has hired Tyler Hamilton, who served a two-year suspension for doping, and had been in conversations with Floyd Landis, who is fighting doping charges of his own, to work in some management capacity for the team.
But Landis, who's serving a two-year suspension while his appeal is pending at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, is prohibited from working for a cycling team.
Landis said Ball was "someone who is going to speak his mind and not always be politically correct about it."
"But he's not out there to break the rules," Landis said. "He sees it the same way I do. If a guy is going to ride, he wants them to follow the rules."
Landis said he didn't know Leogrande and wasn't familiar with the case. The plaintiff's attorneys in this case, Suh and Howard Jacobs, are the same team that represent Landis.
On Thursday, when asked about the lawsuit, Bock called it "utterly frivolous and morally bankrupt."
The lawsuit calls for a jury trial and seeks to recoup damages the plaintiff claims were incurred when the anti-doping agency revealed the case to race organizers and the UCLA testing lab.
The suit alleges USADA notified the plaintiff last Nov. 15 that the 'A' sample came back negative. Despite that negative finding, the agency directed the UCLA testing lab to test the 'B' sample, "thereby violating the applicable rules and regulations governing anti-doping control and testing."
USADA originally planned to test the cyclist's 'B' sample Jan. 15, the lawsuit says, but after the plaintiff's attorneys demanded the agency scrap that test, the agency canceled it.
Well that took all of 24 hours for "John Doe" to be outed. Now that he's suing USADA, does that mean those affidavits will now become public? If more dirt comes out, Leogrande may get his team disinvited to a lot of races, even if he isn't officially suspended.
Sounds like he's got a point. If the B test comes up hot, what are they going to confirm it with?
Never mind the fact that its a blatant violation of the rules, but who's counting.Bro Deal said:
Has some similarities with the Iban Mayo incident. They essentially split the B sample in that case for the re-test at the French lab, right?C'dale Girl said:
Or there is already an A & B positive from another test and they are just looking for corraborating evidence here. Isn't that what they did with Floyd? They went back and retested all his B samples with the isotope test and found exogenous T in all of them, no?Bro Deal said:
Doesn't make much sense though as there has been no announcement and he is still racing.
What is the due process for bringing a doping case against someone in the absence of a positive test? There must be something as many riders have now been suspended without a positive dope test.
Collectively, all of these cases and issues point to one obvious conclusion. There doesn't appear to be any due process in the world of WADA and cycling. Welcome to the wild, wild west, where anything goes.Wayne666 said:
Are not the agreements for suspensions confined to the ProTour and the Pro Continental teams? Rock is only a Continental. What U.S. races will act like the european ones and not invite Rock if they don't suspend Kayle?Wayne666 said:
There may be little downside for Rock here unless they truly plan to expand into europe.
If they have a positive result from another day's result, or for another test, then IMO, it is fair game to test the B sample. But here, there is no report of any positive test; just that they, for no apparent public reason (I'm sure they have unrevealed reasons), want to test the B sample, although the A sample is negative. BTW, the fact that the cyclist went to the effort of blocking his B sample from being tested legally tells something, no? I mean, if he really didn't dope, why would he be worried?Wayne666 said:
Well the WADA code which all the riders agree to when they take out their UCI licenses lays out the due process for dope testing, etc.C'dale Girl said:
If you read any of the arbitrator's decisions for USADA cases or CAS decisions this is clear. Landaluze got his suspension thrown out because of a violation of these rules.
However, I believe WADA only deals with dope tests. So building a case against a rider in the absence of a positive dope test must fall under some other rules. This appears to have been a USADA case and the reason they backed off may be that they realized they had no legal write to do what they were trying to do.
I heard he tested positive at elite crit nats the year he won, 2006, but again the B test proved negative.Bro Deal said:
Anyone else hear that?
Similar threads
