cycling.web.net

Once again, an AP headline not only trumpets a factual inaccuracy, but also biases the casual reader in a case already fraught with misinformation by press coverage. How does the USADA PROSECUTING the case against Floyd Landis constitute a taxpayer burden attributable to the defense team? Answer - it doesn't; as plainly stated in the article, private funds alone are being used for the defense. All in all, the tone and facts of the article are fair and balanced, but the one-liner intro is emblematic of the problem in this case. Don't forget this is the case of an American athlete, who has never failed a drug test in any cycling event in the USA, who is being prosecuted by our own USADA on the findings of a controversial French laboratory. Somewhere along the way, the guilty until proven innocent edict has been adopted by the press and everyone has just piled on. And just because the USADA decided to spend a great deal of funds to prosecute this case, it isn't fair to imply that Landis is to blame for spending my tax money. I just hope that the Court of Arbitration for Sport is more frugal than the USADA has been and less biased than the press seems to be in this case.