Blinded Leading The Blind

"What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes."
- John Travolta (Gabriel) from Swordfish

"The eyes are fascinating. Physically, the variance in size, shape and hue, makes the eyes as individual, and beautiful, as the person to which they are attached. Spiritually, people regard them as being windows into the soul. Scientifically, the way in which the eyes process information makes them seem “alien-like,” or offers up proof of the existence of a higher power.

With all these special characteristics and mysticism surrounding these tiny anatomical structures, it would be easy to answer all of life's questions with a ubiquitous "abre los ojos" (open your eyes).

But as we've seen lately, things in life, as in cycling aren't that simple. The eyes, like the person to which they are attached, can be easily deceived. And as John Travolta's character, Gabriel, suggests by an act of simple misdirection.

Over a month has passed since the adjournment of Floyd Landis' arbitration hearing for alleged doping during the 2006 Tour de France. His livelihood, his career, and his place in history resides within the reasoning capabilities of three men; each of whom are bound by the same human constraints of their faculties.

As adjudicators of the law its incumbent upon these men to seek out the truth and meter out justice as if it were blind. But they, along with those of us in the jury of the court of public opinion, have perhaps seen and heard too much during, and after, the hearings to remain impartial.

In my field of clinical research, impartiality toward an investigational agent (a drug, device, or biologic) can be artificially created by "blinding" not only the investigators, but also those receiving that specified agent. Although the system isn't perfect, with the possibility of "unblinding" or biases creeping into the process, impartiality can be built into the system rather than it hinging on having taken root through an individual's charge.

John F. Kennedy once charged America's leaders to separate church and state. He did so in order to quell the rising tides of skepticism that his own religious convictions might influence his secular and political decisions. The idealism that a man's inherent biases could be separated from his decision making capabilities turned into a foundation for Camelot. And although those thoughts aren't completely lost or forgotten, recent headlines bare out the opposite. Impartiality it seems is weighted heavily by the influence of a group(s).

Since the Landis adjournment, two competing books, Positively False: The Real Story of How I Won the Tour de France and From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France, have hit the shelves, while a host of doping allegations, positives, supsensions, and most notably, an influential rider in the form of Jorg Jaksche, has come out and named names.

So how is it possible for these non-sequestered and inherently biased arbitrators to render any type of decision based solely on the facts of the case?

The easy answer, arbitration cases occur all the time. The process isn't new. A decision will be rendered and Floyd, along with the rest of us, will go on with the rest of our lives. Cue Doug Luellen.

Can it be that easy? Or are we just shutting our eyes hoping that the scary part is almost over?

According to Cyclingnews.com, we'll all be able to open our eyes this Friday!