Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Floyd Landis Sentenced For Hacking Test Lab

Posted by timothy on from the thrill-of-victory dept.

McGruber writes with some news that slipped by in December: "Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France, but was later stripped of his title after testing 'positive for an unusually high ratio of the hormone testosterone to the hormone epitestosterone (T/E ratio).' In February 2010, Slashdot covered the news that Landis had been accused of hacking into the laboratory that detected the unusually high T/E ratio. Since then, Landis was 'convicted in absentia by a French court for his role in hacking into the computers of a French doping lab,' according to National Public Radio. Landis and his former coach Arnie Baker both received 12-month suspended sentences, according to USA Today."

2 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The important part is missing from the summary by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Judges said that although no evidence directly linked Messrs. Landis and Baker to the hacking of the antidoping lab, both men benefited from the illegal intrusion."
    So, basically, anyone who benefits from a crime is somehow culpable whether or not they actually had anything to do with it.
    Gotta love that French "justice" system...

    So some clueless blogger totally misrepresent the case and the submitter gives it a flat out wrong headline.

    Landis, a known lying doper and cheater, hasn't been convicted for hacking, but for being in possession of stolen documents. Landis, when he was still lying about his doping, was showing these documents to everyone interested, claiming that they showed his innocence, so there is no arguments about him being in possession of these documents.

    So Landis escaped a hacking charge and mere got a sentence for being in possession of stolen documents. I am sure that any US citizen publicly showing medical lab records stolen in an hacking accident, would get into trouble with US laws, and rightly so.

    --
    Regards

  2. Re:The important part is missing from the summary by hedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was one positive test and there wasn't the normal second sample to validate against. The French paper managed to dig up results that weren't supposed to be released of a B sample that tested positive. The reason he wasn't charged was that there was supposed to be a second sample that could be used to verify that the sample hadn't been contaminated.

    It has nothing to do with a ban on retro testing and everything to do with the poor quality of evidence.

    Personally, I think he probably did it, but in civilized society you can't randomly lower the bar because you didn't get the result you wanted.