×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Floyd Landis Sentenced For Hacking Test Lab

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the thrill-of-victory dept.

Crime 173

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

173 comments

Oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559424)

So did he spoof his results to convict himself?

Cultural misunderstanding (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559510)

He's Amish. Not sure what that implies, but it's interesting.

Re:Cultural misunderstanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559606)

He's a Mennonite, not Amish. There's a difference. Up to you to figure it out for yourself.

Re:Cultural misunderstanding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559674)

Actually I think he's from some other sect of Mennonites. It's a square-rhombus subset relationship thing. Whatever you're implying may or may not still hold as various sects of Mennonites have different levels of restrictions on technology ranging from severe to none at all.

Re:Cultural misunderstanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560256)

Actually I wasn't implying anything. I thought I'd throw out a random innocuous fact and see what happened.

The important part is missing from the summary (5, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559436)

"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 (3, Interesting)

d4fseeker (1896770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559452)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559624)

> 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 (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560334)

...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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560700)

Why exactly do you think that switching from a common law system would automatically require a system where the judges are required to be complete morons such as in this case?

The french justice system is garbage. No one is saying that the USA should emulate them. I think that perhaps we could come up with something better than what is currently out there. This country is supposed to be an innovative one.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560780)

Nowhere do I say so.

I say that the idiots who cry about judicial activism are asking for a system where we don't have the protections of common law.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559516)

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.

You left one out: (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559582)

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: (1, Offtopic)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559778)

Crossed the line - try POLE-Vaulted the line. And unfortunately the same applies to parts of America. Try wearing an American Flag shirt to school in California. We are tolerant of all viewpoints, as long as they are the *correct* viewpoints.

        Brett

Re:You left one out: (1, Flamebait)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559884)

>Try wearing an American Flag shirt to school in California. We are tolerant of all viewpoints, as long as they are the *correct*

Why, because people in California are more educated about flag etiquette and everyone knows you should not wear Old Glory as a clothing item?

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

--
BMO

Re:You left one out: (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559924)

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

Re:You left one out: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559982)

It also would show such a shirt-wearer's disrespect for the US flag. It's offensive to the people who've given their lives so that an American can be free to be a douchebag.

Re:You left one out: (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560088)

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.

Re:You left one out: (5, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560234)

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: (3, Insightful)

bashibazouk (582054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560452)

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: (4, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559944)

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: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560420)

Not allowing people to come to school in a bikini is also "just censorship." Like it or not, institutions have a dress code.

Re:You left one out: (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559970)

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

December 15, 1791.

Re:You left one out: (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560364)

You're looking for "legal", not "OK". It's true that the Flag Code has no legal force (and I'm happy that it doesn't), but if one is going to be obnoxiously patriotic then one should treat the flag with respect.

Re:You left one out: (5, Insightful)

chaboud (231590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560432)

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: (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560492)

Oh, don't get me wrong. The sort who wear the flag would probably think me unpatriotic because I don't ape the usual ways of "proving" to all and sundry that I love my country. I just expect them to walk the walk.

Re:You left one out: (1, Informative)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559972)

Since always, the fag is not sacred.

Re:You left one out: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560146)

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

Re:You left one out: (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560018)

When did free speech require flag etfiquette be observed, you can burn the thing if you like I don't see a legitimate argument against issuing it as a shirt or panties for that matter. I also don't agree that attending public school should mean checking your civil liberties at the door.

Re:You left one out: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560080)

Except that its not a flag. Its a t-shirt paying homage to the flag.

Re:You left one out: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560314)

Absolutely nothing wrong with wearing the flag as part of clothing -- even the military do it. Are they desecrating the flag by having it sewn onto the arm of their uniform? Thinking this is someone offensive and disrespectful is moronic.

Re:You left one out: (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560370)

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

It's a bit like pornography, though; you know it when you see it.

Re:You left one out: (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560350)

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: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560626)

If you're getting bent out of shape over such a trivial issue, perhaps it is you who is the Jingo.

Re:You left one out: (3, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560792)

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

Re:You left one out: (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38561052)

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: (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559968)

I had an American flag shirt that I got one 4th of July. I wore it a lot, and it was one of my favorite shirts (not because I was overly patriotic or anything, just because it was comfortable). Granted, my high-school tenure was between 2000 and 2004, and it was in Arkansas, I was able to do it without any problems. In fact, at the time I didn't even think that it might ever become an issue... anywhere

If kids are being stopped for doing something so innocent... wow... What a crazy state.

Re:You left one out: (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560086)

You should read my post back there in this thread.

I implanted my tongue firmly in cheek and pointed out, that if you're going to be patriotic, you really don't wear the flag as a shirt, as that's what the actual flag etiquette says.

That's totally ignoring the fact that there is no actual ban on wearing a flag shirt to school in California as the previous poster stated and further implied that it's banned because somehow patriotism in California is banned (apparently he hasn't been to Orange County) because it's not politically correct.

--
BMO

Re:You left one out: (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560620)

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: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560618)

Try wearing an American Flag shirt to school in California. We are tolerant of all viewpoints, as long as they are the *correct* viewpoints.

Are you aware that the one day flag shirt banning was a racist gang color situation?

Are you against anti gang color policies in schools in general?

Re:You left one out: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560130)

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: (1)

Ravon Rodriguez (1074038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560902)

I believe, in fact, he was speaking against the practice of Laicism (though he didn't call it that by name), not speaking "about the benefits of a laic state." Very few people in the U.S., including atheists, would preach against being able to publicly display symbols of your religion. 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.

Re:You left one out: (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560136)

I am strongly for the advance of secularism, however part of that core is that people are allowed to choose. Thus, this kind of 'secularism' is incompatible with that.

Re:You left one out: (2)

jensend (71114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560802)

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 [slashdot.org]:

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: (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560468)

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

All of this is pretty new: was set recently by president Sarkozy.
That should change from May 2012...

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (5, Insightful)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559570)

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 (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559692)

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 (2, Interesting)

Peter H.S. (38077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559756)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559796)

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.

If this were a cycling forum, everyone would know that they are all doping and that beating the tests is part of the competition. Lance was the best cyclist in part because he was the best doper.

Lance has passed every test. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559830)

He is the most tested man in history, and he passed them all. Give up your jihad.

Re:Lance has passed every test. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559930)

Passed, as in tested positive, of course.

As in positively found to not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560114)

......use drugs, you are correct.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (5, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559864)

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 (5, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559684)

"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 (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559758)

No, you just claim that you're a reporter and can't divulge your sources!

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559786)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559842)

That's not the first time a Frenchman has used "intelligent" as a synonym for "agrees with me".

Peter H.S. stated:

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.

In doing so, Peter H.S. has shown, not unlike the French legal system, a fundamental disregard for justice.

Holding information which might originally have been obtained through a criminal act is absolutely not proof that the holder has committed a crime. Can you understand why it is impossible to have a free, just nation if you assume otherwise?

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559898)

I fear you do not understand. Landis never got condemened for hacking. *Never*. He got condemned for the "receipt of stolen goods" which, mind you, is also a crime in the US http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2315.html .

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559950)

That doesn't make sense either, unless someone physically broke in and took something, which then later fell into his hands.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560152)

Most people convicted of it thought the same thing, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560230)

Ignorance of the law may be no excuse but you still need a guilty act and a guilty mind to be guilty. And knowingly receiving stolen goods is very different from knowingly hearing/seeing naughty information.

Re:stolen goods are *his* medical records... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560116)

Of course, the "stolen goods" are *his* medical records, information about *his* body...which in any civilized society, he should have every right to possess...

Convicted for embarrassing the WADA (4, Informative)

wanax (46819) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560038)

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 [rant-your-head-off.com] or http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/12/winnowing-john-amory.html [blogspot.com])

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.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (4, Informative)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559822)

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 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560046)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560336)

If you were absent without good reason then you can enjoy being charged for failing to turn up.

And...

[...] it goes against natural justice to convict you without the opportunity to defend yourself.

If you're absent without good reason, as you so helpfully pointed out word for word, then you HAD the opportunity to defend yourself and you chose to pass on it. Else "not showing up" simply becomes "get out of jail free".

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

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560572)

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 (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38561048)

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

Usually it's to facilitate injustice.

When Ira Einhorn was being extradited from France, they objected to the fact that he'd been convicted in absentia and insisted that Pennsylvania grant him a new trial. So they understand it's unjust too.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559870)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560070)

Translation gotcha: they were convicted because they knowingly benefited from information they got through fraudulent means.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560642)

Gotta love that French "justice" system...

Who cares? He cheated for a title and for profit - he should be hung the same as every corrupt CEO, drug dealer and board member doing similar within their fields.

Re:The important part is missing from the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38561140)

Motes and beams, dude.

The French have a LONG history of cheating. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38559694)

But they only think it is cheating when they lose because
someone else cheated.

If they win because they cheated, it's perfectly acceptable,
and "vive la France" etc.

Those who follow F1 may recall how the then head of the FIA,
Jean-Marie Balestre, made a decision which allowed a French
driver to beat a driver from another country. It was blatant and
ugly. The French driver was Alain Prost and the other driver was
Aryton Senna of Brazil.

Of course the overwhelming probability is that Landis DID cheat, and
for that matter Armstrong's use of illegal doping will be probably exposed
in the next year or so as well. There's so much at stake in an event like the Tour that
not cheating is only for losers. It's just how the culture of bike racing works, and those
who believe someone could win the Tour without cheating simply have no depth of
knowledge about what really goes on and has gone on for decades.

Old news? (1)

FPCat (646737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559698)

This happened 2 months ago, really slashdot editors? It's sad when a dead tree newspaper has more current info

Re:Old news? (1)

hutsell (1228828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560568)

This happened 2 months ago, really slashdot editors? It's sad when a dead tree newspaper has more current info

The obligatory knee-jerk reaction: It isn't News until it's posted on Slashdot (including the obligatory smiley--if necessary). However, after putting aside the kidding and giving it some thought, it does bring about an idea that might be worth questioning based on the generally accepted definition of News.

News: A noun referring to newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events and made public through a broadcast or published report.
Synonyms: Tidings, Information, Report, or Message.

It appears the generally accepted definition of News is usually considered to be time sensitive with its value declining when one or more additional sources report the event. So ...

Does /. agree with this definition of News?
Should the criteria for relevant News having any useful value be an all-or-nothing time sensitive proposition?
Are there situations when dated News should be posted on Slashdot--allowing others to make comments and discuss the information?
Did the creation of Ask Slashdot (unintentionally) resolve the previous questions?

When the last question applies, perhaps a tweak interconnecting /. FireHose & Ask /. could minimize undesirable variations of the problem.

I like doping! (5, Insightful)

bartoku (922448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38559890)

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! (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560628)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560918)

golf?

Re:I like doping! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560928)

darts

Re:I like doping! (2)

bartoku (922448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38561110)

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! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38561122)

Because it is dangerous and these are role models for the future athletes? Maybe you should look into history of sport, or even history of doping in cycling before making ignorant comments. 22 year old died last year because their blood was consistency of jello. Or another former pro cyclist died because of complete failure of his cardiovascular system.

It's not about some retarded baseball player that takes steroids to hit home runs. It's about those hundreds and hundreds of 16 year olds that get a message that the only way they can ever compete is by screwing up their entire endocrine system.

Look at the olympics from 1960s (eg. weightlifting) and see what real doping gets you.

Cycling was a mess a decade ago. But today, with blood passports, they have made more progress than any sport in getting rid of the cheaters. Today you can say that cycling is as clean as any sport out there.

12-month suspended (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560098)

Let this be a lesson to anyone considering doing this. If we convict you then absolutely nothing will happen to you.

Re:12-month suspended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560186)

As opposed to America, where the prosecutor would have asked for 50 years. America: we lock you up!

Jack of all trades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560142)

If he'd been a better cyclist, he wouldn't have needed doping; if he'd been a better hacker, he might not have been caught. This is what happens when you dabble instead of specializing. :P

Re:Jack of all trades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560224)

"If he'd been a better cyclist, he wouldn't have needed doping ..."

You don't know shit about professional cycling.

All the riders dope. You cannot beat a rider who dopes if
you do not dope. That's the truth, and whether you are ignorant
of it or not it remains the truth.

Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result (4, Informative)

0WaitState (231806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38560244)

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 [baseballprospectus.com]

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.

Maybe he drank whiskey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560344)

Floyd drank some whiskey which caused his abnormal level. Maybe it happened here too.

Re:Ryan Braun is disputing a similar result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560930)

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 not true.

vWWOT... fp... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560286)

claim that BSD is a SurvZive at all beyond the scope of

Who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38560860)

Who cares about a liar and a cheat ?

If by some miracle Landis gets his doping conviction overtuned the damage is already done - he's already known the world over as a bald-faced liar and a cheat. All this superflous discussion about the merits of anti-doping technology and whether doping should be controlled is stupid. Doping will always exist in sport and many athletes will exploit new measures to evade detection. People are greedy, stupid and will never learn.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...