Floyd Landis Sentenced For Hacking Test Lab

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."

Comments

The important part is missing from the summary

[EmagGeek]

"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...

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[d4fseeker]

The reasoning is more like that he wouldn't have doped with such a trivial method if he had known he would be found in the test.
And you can't honestly believe he hoped for "some luck" to make his test results look normal...

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many things about France which are shocking to anyone who has not spent much time in France. To take three examples:

In the field of education, medicine involving taking in over ten times the number of people you expect to graduate then expelling all but the top tenth in first year exams.

In the field of business, I was surprised at the number of government-owned or government-propped French businesses which have taken over following privatisation in other EU countries.

In the field of justice, the lack of jury availability except in the most severe cases means some absurd rulings from a weak judiciary.

They have a very classist approach to society and they're even more hypocritical than England with their good-sportsmanship-equality-under-the-law bullshit.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Brett Buck]

Can't let lack of evidence interfere with how the French feel about themselves. They're still pissed off from Lance Armstrong.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

> We shall assume his guilt on the bases that he would have benefitted from committing the crime and we are already prejudiced against him over other stuff.

The French have a history of judging people like that. People living under common law systems don't realise how good they've got it until they try engaging with the authorities elsewhere.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Peter H.S.]

"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

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[hedwards]

Unfortunately because of the debacle that surrounded the last tests of Lance's samples it's hard to say what the truth is. Without testing both samples you can't rule out contamination, which is why they have an A and a B sample to begin with.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Peter H.S.]

Can't let lack of evidence interfere with how the French feel about themselves. They're still pissed off from Lance Armstrong.

The French media just loved Lance Armstrong, as anybody who actually knows anything about the subject can attest. But of course when it turned out that he was just a cheating doper, some journalists began to write critical articles about him and the entire doping circus he represented.

Lance Armstrong is a cheating doper, no doubt about that; he has simply failed too many doping tests that anybody can deny that. But for technical reasons he can't get a doping sentence because retro-testing can't be used as evidence.

--
Regards

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

At least someone intelligent on slashdot. I have lived for many years in France *and* in the US and I have grown extremely tired of the constant misrepresentation of what happens in France by US media (and vice versa, unfortunately). The unavoidable subsequent avalanche of xenophobic comments by people who obviously do not have a clue is no less appalling. It generally takes me no more than 5 minutes to debunk 95% of lies spreads about France/US in the media, too much work apparently. Sigh.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Aighearach]

That's what happens when you refuse to show up for your trial. It is presumed that whatever evidence the prosecution introduces is as they say it is, as nobody says otherwise.

In civil court that happens every day in the US.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[hedwards]

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.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Baloroth]

Ever heard of circumstantial evidence? Doesn't directly link them, but can easily be enough to land a conviction in many cases. Hard to say much without more information, of course. Quick check at the WSJ link for that quote shows that Landis' trainer, a Mr. Baker, had stolen files up on his website from the lab, given to him by Landis' attorneys. Pretty damning evidence.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what happens when you refuse to show up for a criminal trial is that it's adjourned. If you were absent without good reason then you can enjoy being charged for failing to turn up. If you don't make yourself known then you'll be arrested and forced to turn up.

Nothing else is presumed about your absence because it goes against natural justice to convict you without the opportunity to defend yourself.

Civil trials, where the purpose is to provide specific compensation for loss rather than to protect society, are a completely different matter.

I can't speak for non-common-law jurisdictions. Some of them deliver something very much unlike justice.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Nimey]

...and here in the States we have radicals who want to do away with the common-law system. They're the idiots who howl about "activist judges"; no doubt most of them don't understand what the end result of their desires would be.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.

You're probably looking for Federal Rule 43 of Criminal Procedure, clarified by the Supreme Court's opinion after Crosby in 1993. You can sometimes excuse yourself from a trial after it has commenced and it might be inferred that you're still in the courtroom but simply not saying anything, i.e. the trial continues as if you're there. But if you refuse to show up for a trial then, like I said, you will not be convicted in your absence.

Excusing yourself after the trial has begun, a voluntary decision made after you have been fully informed of proceedings, is completely different from simply not showing up. To lose the right to defend yourself without knowing what is going on, or because your excuse for being late wasn't quite good enough to satisfy a judge, would be to deny natural justice. The only way the court can be satisfied that you have had the chance to defend yourself is to require you to turn up - no number of snotty, officious French letters form an acceptable substitute. I'm not surprised that anyone defending the French system doesn't quite understand this.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary

[Runaway1956]

The United States is innovative. Congress is finding innovative ways to usher in an Orwellian nightmare. Have you protested SOPA today?

You left one out:

[Shakrai]

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perfectly okay, yet tacky, to do so. The Flag Code has no penalties and is non-binding.

Re:You left one out:

[icebraining]

Etiquette is just a word for controlling people's behaviors. Not allowing "flag desecration" simply because you find it offensive is just censorship.

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

Since when is it OK to desecrate the flag by wearing it as a shirt, cupcake?

December 15, 1791.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

You're an idiot. Study the word laic before writing nonsense.
French institutions are laic, and that includes the public school system.
On the other hand you can bloody worship whoever or whatever you want in your private sphere.

In the US on the other hand, you mix religion and politics like ice and whiskey.
So you're the last people that should speak about the benefits of a laic state.

Re:You left one out:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong.
In California, the 'fag' is indeed sacred. ;)

Re:You left one out:

[jd2112]

I don't think of it as disrespectful... more just unintentionally offensive. I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.

Personally I am against flag burning except for when people wrap themselves in one.

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

This. It boggles my mind that the average loudly patriotic type is OK with utterly disrespecting his flag by wearing it as an item of (ratty) clothing, or by flying it in all weather without a spotlight, or by never replacing it once it gets torn and faded. I see that all the time in my area.

Re:You left one out:

[chaboud]

I'm not going to deify the flag to the point of trying to determine what is okay for others. That you can wear the American flag as a diaper is what makes that flag so special in the first place.

Nationalism is a disease. Reverence for a symbol is religion. Be careful how you project your values onto others.

Re:You left one out:

[bashibazouk]

Some of can appreciate the meaning of a symbol without the brain washed devotion to it.

I much rather people understand what the US flag stands for even if they wear, burn, make cake out of or whatever than exercise devotional purity and in doing do completely miss it's meaning...

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

I doubt kids are really stopped from wearing "patriotic" shirts. More likely it's one of those memes from the conservative commentariat designed to keep their listeners afraid and angry, and thus more easily led.

Re:You left one out:

[Ravon Rodriguez]

http://hyenacart.com/cuties/st/3448/91172/Onesize-American-Flag-Fitted-Pocket-Diaper-w-insert

and for that matter...
http://www.etsy.com/listing/50473469/american-flag-reusable-cloth-maxi-pad

Re:You left one out:

[Nimey]

No, I expect people who are all LOOK AT ME I'M SO PATRIOTIC to walk the walk.

Re:You left one out:

[jensend]

Whatever you may think the core of the cause you're espousing is, if you really want to allow people the freedom to choose, "secularism" is the wrong word. Secularism as an ideal was born out of the French Revolution's persecution of Catholics; ever since then secularism has involved a government hostility towards religion which at least tries to bar religious peoples' voices from the public sphere (extremely anti-democratic) and usually extends to various other kinds of persecution.

I'll give a little background by quoting a previous discussion:

If you think the French Revolution was about "the dignity of human life, rejecting oppression and supporting freedom and free will" then you need to go back to high school history class and try again. How much did the revolutionaries care about the dignity of human life? Enough to guillotine ~40,000 people without trial. How much did the revolutionaries care about freedom of thought and free will? Enough to outlaw public and private worship and religious education, to beat women in the streets for trying to attend Mass, and to outlaw the word "Sunday", the ringing of church bells, and displays of the cross; enough to force priests to give up their vows and to simply kill thousands of them; enough to institute the "Cult of Reason" and then the "Cult of the Supreme Being" as established religions; enough to kill ~400,000 people in the Vendée for refusing to provide 300,000 conscripts to fight for a cause the citizens of the Vendée almost universally opposed (this has been called the first modern genocide). The atrocities were far too numerous for me to list here.

The revolutionaries paid lip service to the so-called Enlightenment values, but people enjoyed more human dignity, less oppression, and more freedom of thought and speech during just about any other period of French history than they did during 1789-1799.

That's laïcité for you.

Re:You left one out:

[EdIII]

Well you're a hypocrite sweet cheeks.

A true patriot will shed his own blood to defend the freedoms for other people to scream at the top of their lungs, that which you would scream at the top of your lungs in opposition to.

Freedom is not selective. You either fight for all freedoms, or for none at all. Fighting for just those you agree with makes you an enemy of freedom, and in this case just a hypocrite.

You're love of freedom is not represented by a simple symbol, but your actions. Get over it.

Re:You left one out:

[Sique]

Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.

That's exactly wrong. Laicism is about the state not sponsoring any religion. So the "as long as it is not state sponsored" itself is contradicting Laicism, because the state is explicitely forbidden to sponsor religion.

And that means that showing religious symbols in state operated buildings is considered advertisement of religion and this is frowned upon there (not in the public itself, just on governmental premises).

The case is differently with the burqa, because hiding your face in public is considering wearing a mask, and this runs afoul the ban on concealment. The same is valid for ski masks, or motorcycle helmets or whatever. The burqa is not any different from a legal viewpoint.

Re:You left one out:

[drinkypoo]

A small tasteful patch != a T-shirt whose design is an enormous flag.

No, no it really isn't. Wearing the flag to make yourself more grand is what you're railing against, right? Putting the flag on your outfit to make yourself seem more patriotic is a misuse of it by your own standards.

It's also more than a little pathetic. I own an australian outback coat and wear it in the season, as we often get sideways wind and rain. My dad bought me a little flag pin for it so people would think I'm a patriot. Great, now if they think I'm concealing a shotgun, they'll think I'm planning to blow up some Iraqis with it. I don't wear it. I'm not particularly proud of my country. In fact, it hasn't done anything I can be proud of since WWI. Our timing entering WWII and our actions once we got there prove that our motivation for delay was financial gain, which means we can't really feel good about finally entering the conflict. Meanwhile, about five of our first ten naval actions involved bombarding central american towns with cannon fire to force them to sell to United Fruit Company, which is known as Chiquita down there, and known as Bonita up here because we finally noticed that they were evil. When we notice again, they'll change their name again, but they're still Chiquita to the latins because even though they know their country and their selves are being poisoned, they need the work.

This country is predicated upon the suffering of others. Our colors should really be black, blue, and blood.

Re:The french need to just admit it.

[larry bagina]

But they're great at anal hygiene.

I like doping!

[bartoku]

Why does doping get such a bad rap?
The anti-doping groups are terrified of new doping methods they cannot detect.
This is great, if the doping has no adverse side effects and is not detectable then I want some!
I want these athletes testing out drugs and the long term affects and me benefiting from watching their performances and some day using safe versions of the drugs

Anti-doping is a waste of money. They should be putting money into making doping safe.

Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster. Some have more money for better training, coaching, and equipment.
No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway

Re:I like doping!

[kamapuaa]

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway
Please. I'd love for you to name a single sport that wouldn't be assisted by the use of steroids. Strength is a fundamental basis of every sport and if it isn't, it's an activity, rather than a sport. In which case, there's also drugs for that - beta blockers, caffeine, etc.

Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."

Re:I like doping!

[bartoku]

I agree strength is important in about every sport i can think of, and sure steroids would assist an athlete in obtaining greater strength; but in most highly skilled sports it would never make or break a winner.

I do not care how strong or fast you are, if you cannot dribble and shoot a basketball doping is going to do nothing to make you an NBA star.
A little doping may make an NBA star faster or jump higher, but then we would expect the younger stronger players to always dominate.
Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.

The same with baseball, sure some bigger arms might help you crank the ball a few more feet.
However you have to have the hand eye coordination to make the connection of ball to bat first, and then you need to apply that strength in a smooth coordinated fashion at the right angle to achieve a home run.
On top of that you need to read the pitch, curve ball, fastball, what not.
Pumping up on beta blockers, caffeine, etc...will still not make you a home run king, otherwise we would have seen more than just McGwire, Griffy Jr., Sosa, and Bonds competing for the record.

Beyond that I would say sports like golf or tennis as other examples were skill beats strength in victory by a long shot, the list could go on.

But we do have track records set by steroid pumped woman that cannot be touched today.
100 meter dash, you just run, it takes some skill, but nothing like basketball, golf, baseball, and the like.

I am not convinced doping hurts the real skilled sports.
The ones based purely on feats of strength, it will. But that is the point of those sports, to see how fast a man can run and jump; let them dope.

Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."

Agreed. But the reason new doping techniques are getting harder to detect is because they seem to be more natural and occur safely in nature.
Myostatin inhibitors are very exciting across the board.
The way I understand it is that there are people out there who do not have the ability to break down their own muscles.
So if these people sit on their butts, their muscles do not atrophy like a normal person.
Of course normal humans atrophy their muscles because maintaining muscles is expensive to the body, so we naturally break them down.
But most of us Americans are quite well feeds these days and could use a bit more muscle mass instead of fat.
As far as I know those people who naturally lack mysotatin have lived happy healthy long lives.

Re:I like doping!

[kamapuaa]

Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.

Well he's retired now, right? And if he attempted a comeback this year, it would be a weird joke, he couldn't even play bench. He hasn't lost the skill and the NBA hasn't overtaken the skill level Michael Jordan once had. So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.

There's millions of kids who aspire to the NBA, and tens of thousands of very skilled basketball players. 300 make it to the NBA. With such a large talent pool, there's plenty of player who are 98% as good, but just not quite there. I sincerely believe that these players who didn't make the NBA, if given unfettered access to steroids, would be better than Kobe Bryant. Even if they didn't, Kobe would no longer be such a dominating player, unless he also started juicing. Steroids are just that effective, and strength that important.

Think about Barry Bonds, who at the age of 37 had a sudden power surge and shattered batting records. A hundred years of baseball history tells you, baseball players don't dramatically increase their power in their late 30s. They do what A-Rod is doing in his mid 30s, getting dramatically less powerful and with less ability to recover sufficiently. Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie. Jose got more into juicing and won unanimous AL MVP and had a near Hall of Fame career, Ozzie Canseco was never a regular starter.

Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good. I think steroids deserve more study than they receive, maybe in the future all old people will take HGH, but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.

Re:I like doping!

[mvar]

THIS. Anti-doping is a joke. Every single athlete that competes in word-class level is on drugs one way or another. Or if he isn't NOW, he will be in a few years when another scandal erupts and he gets stripped of his medals (Marion Jones is the brightest example). This anti-doping hypocrisy must stop, if the athletes want to risk their health for world records and money, well let them have it, its their choice.

Re:Old news?

[FPCat]

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3220968 Nuff said....

Convicted for embarrassing the WADA

[wanax]

Landis is being punished for daring to defy the anti-doping authorities, insist on his rights to a public hearing (no longer allowed), and embarrassing the hell out of the USADA and WADA by absolutely demolishing their scientific credibility with regard to the testosterone case (after they had to dig in their heels because they had already illegally released the preliminary reports, pre-B sample test to the media). I would note that in the original (and appealed) decisions, the panels through out the initial T-E ratio test as being hopelessly compromised. The mass spectrometry tests were allowed to stand, despite being the quality of lab work that would get laughed out of a college chemistry class, because both panels chose to totally disregard the testimony of John Amory. (see: http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=383 or http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/12/winnowing-john-amory.html)

Now, as it turned out, Landis later admitted to doping with HGH that season, and testosterone in previous seasons. But I really think that's incidental to this case. He's being punished because he showed the WADA and UCI are just as corrupt as the cyclists, and the Chatenay-Malabry lab technicians are too incompetent to run a mass spectrometer that undergraduates successfully use thousands of times a day in research labs.

Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[0WaitState]

Recently Ryan Braun (rookie of the year, Major League Baseball) has been disputing a positive drug test that appears to be the same one Floyd Landis disputes, namely an abnormally high epitestosterone/testosterone ratio. In Braun's case, it appears that MLB's testing protocol involves doing a cheap but prone to false-positives first test, then a more costly and accurate second test if the first is positive. In Braun's case, what has gone horribly wrong is that the results of his first test (positive) were leaked BEFORE the second test was run. Now everyone has lawyered up and the assclowns who run MLB have some explaining to do. This is discussed at length with all available public info here:

Braun Banned for PEDs

What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers, and under the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result

[rve]

What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers,

You do know that he has admitted doping, right? He has since described how it happened: The suspicious blood levels and performance spike were the result of a transfusion with blood carelessly taken too shortly after taking testosterone during training. Blood transfusions can be detected by the presence of blood preservatives and plastic weakeners from the blood bag, but tests for these are not considered conclusive evidence on their own, if i understand correctly from the Alberto Contador case last summer.

Another sign is a skewed balance between mature and young red blood cells. Floyd Landis described how this was masked by taking small doses of EPO immediately after the doping test, to give the body enough time to break down the evidence before the next test.

and under the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.

I thought the code mainly concerned itself with mandating death by anal rape for speaking French insufficiently fluently, but I wasn't sure, so I looked it up

Hacking a test lab? Really?

[VortexCortex]

Sounds like he was testing a hacked lab to me...

About justice

[Sudline]

I have heard of some persons condemned to pay millions $ for downloading some songs in USA, that is definitively a better justice.