I have been following the Landis arbitration hearing closely and was as dismayed and disappointed by the testimony of Greg LeMond and the circumstances surrounding it as everyone. O'Grady's rant pretty well summed up my feelings on the matter until I thought about it a bit. I'm still disgusted. But my feelings about that testimony have changed.
My disgust is not with LeMond or his motivations (honorable, or as some have suggested, not). It's not even with Landis' loser friends, degenerates that they might be. It isn't even with Landis' alleged doping in the 2006 Tour de France. I'm still not sure he's guilty. In fact, What really disgusts me is that LeMond's testimony didn't really serve any purpose except to inspire the righteous indignation of those of us (like O'Grady) that are sick of the sullying of our favorite sport.
What is apparent to me, after seeing and reading about most of the hearing as a whole, is that the USADA (and by extension WADA and the UCI) hasn't got much science or objective evidence to support their case. For example, besides LeMond, their "experts" have a) seemed ignorant or uninterested in the work they are doing b) compromised by significant ($1.3 million) amounts of grant money or c) been forbidden to testify on behalf of an athlete by specific provision in the WADA Code (even if while in search of the "truth"). Even Papp's seemingly damaging testimony was purely anecdotal and functionally irrelevant.
All they seem to have left is an emotional appeal to our anger and frustration at the whole circus. It worked on O'Grady just like they wanted it to. I hope the three arbitrators are a bit more circumspect.
I haven't decided whether or not I think Landis is guilty of doping. The "LeMond Affair" didn't sway me in the end. What I have decided, though, is that in their current form, the national and world anti-doping institutions are at best disfunctional and at worst unethical to the point of being ineffectual.
And the dopers know it.