That is the title of this column by Sally Jenkins about Floyd Landis:
Former cyclist Greg LeMond’s revelation that he was sexually abused as a child was powerful, but it was irrelevant to the Floyd Landis case — until the misconduct of Landis’s manager made it relevant.
The hearing will continue, with lab technicians murmuring in French about carbon-isotope ratios, mass spectrometers and troubling time gaps, but one verdict is already in: Whether Landis is guilty of doping, he is a dumbbell who belongs in the same category of people who take chainsaws to tree limbs they’re standing on.
LeMond’s testimony was a dramatic moment in the Landis hearing, the only one likely in this tedious case. It seriously undermined Landis’s posture of innocence and possibly his entire defense against accusations that he doped in last year’s Tour de France. For this he can blame no one but himself and his pal Will Geoghegan.
Previously, the case revolved around arcane science. Now it revolves around the question of character. Was Geoghegan just making a drunken crank call to LeMond when he threatened to unveil his childhood trauma? Or did he and Landis try to coerce LeMond into not testifying?
She goes on to explain that, until LeMond’s testimony, “Landis’s lawyers had actually made some headway in his case.” Namely, they had “successfully framed the hearing as an inquiry into the science and testing methods used at the Chatenay-Malabry lab outside Paris. It wasn’t Landis on trial, but the lab technicians.”
After LeMond’s testimony all that has changed. Suddenly, at least to the public, Landis does not appear to be some innocent victim. They tried to make Landis appear to be the victim, after hearing LeMond’s testimony, however, many people believe that Landis isn’t as innocent as he likes to portray himself to be.
The tactic of Landis’ lawyers was to make this case about the lab: his lawyers were well on their way, or so it seemed, to argue that the lab results could not be trusted. However, LeMond’s testimony made it less about the lab and more about Landis’ character. Sally concludes:
What started as a needed hearing about the integrity and judgement of the Chatenay-Malabry lab has now become a hearing about Landis’s integrity and judgment. The case is supposed to be about pure science, but the arbitrators are human, and at some point, they may ask themselves, which is the more reliable and believable, the French lab results or Landis’s character?