# Landis the hacker?



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

International arrest warrant issued against Landis 
U.S. cyclist is accused of hacking into an anti-doping laboratory computer




.A French judge has issued an international arrest warrant against American rider Floyd Landis for suspected hacking into an anti-doping laboratory computer, French anti-doping agency head Pierre Bordry told Reuters on Monday. 

“French judge (Thomas) Cassuto from the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nanterre informed us that he had issued an international arrest warrant on Jan. 28 against Floyd Landis, who tested positive for banned testosterone during the 2006 Tour de France, after our laboratory computer system was hacked,” Bordry said in an interview. Landis, 34, was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title after a positive test for excessive levels of the male sex hormone testosterone. 

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejected his appeal that the positive test was due to procedural mistakes by the laboratory


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

shades9323 said:


> International arrest warrant issued against Landis
> U.S. cyclist is accused of hacking into an anti-doping laboratory computer
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty serious charge if true.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

They've got it all wrong, he's a hack, not a hackER.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Pretty serious charge if true.


True or not, who's going to pay for this mess?

I can't believe that Floyd has much left.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Oh jeeze. Let it go. What could possibly be gained by anyone here? 

Wasn't the information "hacked" from the computer proof that LNDD was fast and loose with the facts? Didn't Pierre Bordry and the AFLD admit it was true?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/29/1s29landis215559-landis-case-twist-hacking-lab-com/


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mohair_chair said:


> Oh jeeze. Let it go. What could possibly be gained by anyone here?
> 
> Wasn't the information "hacked" from the computer proof that LNDD was fast and loose with the facts? Didn't Pierre Bordry and the AFLD admit it was true?
> 
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/29/1s29landis215559-landis-case-twist-hacking-lab-com/


When I saw that they got their info from the news source Le Monde, I stopped reading. I'll cite The Onion before I'd take anything from Le Monde seriously.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

Guess he won't be racing in France anytime soon.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

DrRoebuck said:


> Guess he won't be racing in France anytime soon.


They can have Landis when we get Polanski!


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> They can have Landis when we get Polanski!


I agree with that in theory  but they can't just let it go. the charge (like polanski's) is a fairly serious one. If everyone were free to hack into lab's, as it seems is all the rage these days, the justice system would be even more broken as would scientific procedure.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Oh jeeze. Let it go. What could possibly be gained by anyone here?
> 
> Wasn't the information "hacked" from the computer proof that LNDD was fast and loose with the facts? Didn't Pierre Bordry and the AFLD admit it was true?
> 
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/29/1s29landis215559-landis-case-twist-hacking-lab-com/


I don't recall, wasn't part of the issue the fact that Baker changed the documents to favor Floyd's story?


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

blackhat said:


> I agree with that in theory  but they can't just let it go. the charge (like polanski's) is a fairly serious one. If everyone were free to hack into lab's, as it seems is all the rage these days, the justice system would be even more broken as would scientific procedure.


+1 

They can't just let something like this go. I think that there would be too much lost if this turned out to be true and he just got away with it. It's not just about Floyd Landis either --- any accusations of this magnitude should be followed up on.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

If I were Landis I'd be more worried about the fact that his time trial time at the Valley of the Sun race was only good enough for third place - in the Senior 3 field (22nd in the pro field)...


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

Floyd can't go to jail! He's supposed to be changing the cycling world forever this year.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> I agree with that in theory  but they can't just let it go. the charge (like polanski's) is a fairly serious one. If everyone were free to hack into lab's, as it seems is all the rage these days, the justice system would be even more broken as would scientific procedure.


There is a rather liberal use of the word "hack" in play here. What really happened in this case is that someone paid off someone inside LNDD and got unauthorized access to the computers. As long as there are insiders willing to grant outsiders access for whatever reason, computers will never be secure, regardless of how many people you prosecute. 

But I also think that in this case, should Landis choose to respond (which I doubt he will), this could be considered a defensible action for Landis. It is not likely that LNDD would have produced the stolen documents on their own, and I don't know if Landis could have compelled them to do so. And the documents revealed a lot in regards to the mistakes made at the lab. It was evidence.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwaynebarry said:


> I don't recall, wasn't part of the issue the fact that Baker changed the documents to favor Floyd's story?


I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me that they took all the good and none of the bad for their presentation. But I know the original documents were emailed from LNDD directly to various journalists and people around the world. The raw information was out there, so whatever Baker did could easily be refuted.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Errr.... the Swiss have Polanski.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

philippec said:


> Errr.... the Swiss have Polanski.


Yep, but only because he stepped out France.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> There is a rather liberal use of the word "hack" in play here. What really happened in this case is that someone paid off someone inside LNDD and got unauthorized access to the computers. As long as there are insiders willing to grant outsiders access for whatever reason, computers will never be secure, regardless of how many people you prosecute.
> .


That version of what happened is not an accurate description of the complaint at hand here. In the court documents, there is a confession from a computer "consultant" that planted and activated a back-door trojan horse programme (for some good €€). Then someone from a remote IP address connected via the password-protected trojan horse back door, rummaged around the lab's root server and transferred files. The judiciary police investigating determined the IP address to be the same as Arnie Baker's. Then copies of documents copied from the lab show up in the court case but with some changed numbers!

So it would seem that "hack" is an accurate description of what is at hand.

But really, what I take from this is that the Landis camp is woefully ill equipped to stealthily use 21st century communication technologies -- witness the oh-so-elegant prank call to Lemond (phone number id anybody?) and what seems to be Baker's pathetic attempt at computer break-and-entry (without an IP address anonymizer -- hello????) -- or that someone has really set up Landis for an elaborate trap...... ummm, naaah. I'll go with the Occam's razor and the Keystone cops explanation.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

In fairness, he had stepped out of France plenty of times before getting nabbed in Switzerland. In fact he had already been to Switzerland plenty of times before... and had lived in plenty of countries besides France.....


----------



## ronnoX (Mar 30, 2009)

If they stay after him he will change the cycling world forever this year. He'll start by throwing a few people under the bus.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> There is a rather liberal use of the word "hack" in play here. What really happened in this case is that someone paid off someone inside LNDD and got unauthorized access to the computers. As long as there are insiders willing to grant outsiders access for whatever reason, computers will never be secure, regardless of how many people you prosecute.
> 
> But I also think that in this case, should Landis choose to respond (which I doubt he will), this could be considered a defensible action for Landis. It is not likely that LNDD would have produced the stolen documents on their own, and I don't know if Landis could have compelled them to do so. And the documents revealed a lot in regards to the mistakes made at the lab. It was evidence.



Im not sure that's entirely true. Joe Lindsey, as usual, has a good synopsis- http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/02/15/on-the-run-from-jean-y-law/


----------



## Zipp0 (Aug 19, 2008)

Wouldn't the info obtained by the "hacker" been a part of routine discovery in a US court?

Oh, and 4 years? Really? It takes that long to file charges in this case? The whole thing seems a bit screwy.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Zipp0 said:


> Wouldn't the info obtained by the "hacker" been a part of routine discovery in a US court?
> 
> Oh, and 4 years? Really? It takes that long to file charges in this case? The whole thing seems a bit screwy.


from lindsey's blog piece- 



> As is customary in anti-doping adjudications, Landis was provided with a documentation package of his test that included items like machine calibration data and chain of custody information. Landis, however, wanted more information, which LNDD and the US Anti-Doping Agency claimed wasn’t relevant to the case.
> 
> So, goes the allegation, someone hired a former French secret service agent to hack into LNDD’s servers.


it's irrelevant anyways. just because he thought he _should_ see the info doesn't give him license to hire someone to break into a network to lift it.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Zipp0 said:


> Oh, and 4 years? Really? It takes that long to file charges in this case? The whole thing seems a bit screwy.


It took the US 10 years after she left the country to charge a Danish woman with extasy trade charges.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

spade2you said:


> When I saw that they got their info from the news source Le Monde, I stopped reading. I'll cite The Onion before I'd take anything from Le Monde seriously.


Le Monde is a well respected paper, and rightfully so. Do you bury your head in the sand often?


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Le Monde is a well respected paper, and rightfully so. Do you bury your head in the sand often?



Exactly. Le Monde is a French newspaper. They ARE well respected, just not by those that hate all things French. Just FYI, the Landis story was also reported by ESPN as well. The guy who made the uninformed comment probably thinks ESPN is not a legitimate either.


----------



## nims (Jul 7, 2009)

rook said:


> Exactly. Le Monde is a French newspaper. They ARE well respected, just not by those that hate all things French. Just FYI, the Landis story was also reported by ESPN as well. The guy who made the uninformed comment probably thinks ESPN is not a legitimate either.


ESPN is as legitimate as the National inquirer


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

philippec said:


> In fairness, he had stepped out of France plenty of times before getting nabbed in Switzerland. In fact he had already been to Switzerland plenty of times before... and had lived in plenty of countries besides France.....


Yeah, but the admitted raper still fled to France and lived there openly under France's protection.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

nims said:


> ESPN is as legitimate as the National inquirer



I presume you mean the Enquirer. Not that the paper of record matters in this case. A judge signed the warrant, not an editor.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

nims said:


> ESPN is as legitimate as the National inquirer



Ridiculous assertion. I guess then that Velonews and all other sporting news agencies are not legit either then, huh?


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Zipp0 said:


> Wouldn't the info obtained by the "hacker" been a part of routine discovery in a US court?
> 
> Oh, and 4 years? Really? It takes that long to file charges in this case? The whole thing seems a bit screwy.


wait, so does this mean Landis won't be at the TdF this year, taking back his title?


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*Sb*



stevesbike said:


> If I were Landis I'd be more worried about the fact that his time trial time at the Valley of the Sun race was only good enough for third place - in the Senior 3 field (22nd in the pro field)...


and that could also be taken as indirect proof of doping in the Master's 3 Field too.

Just sayin'

bt


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> it's irrelevant anyways. just because he thought he _should_ see the info doesn't give him license to hire someone to break into a network to lift it.


That depends. If there is no process where he can challenge LNDD and the US Anti-Doping Agency claims that the information wasn't relevant to the case, then I think he has the right to get that information through other means.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> then I think he has the right to get that information through other means.


He has no "right" to do so via illegal means -- in the US or in France.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

philippec said:


> He has no "right" to do so via illegal means -- in the US or in France.


The rules of the game are well established. In any country that supports due process, he has the right to see all evidence that directly pertains to his defense. And LNDD and the US Anti-Doping Agency do not have the right to withhold it. When one side breaks the rules by deliberately withholding relevant evidence, I don't see a problem with the other side breaking the rules to get it. Fair is fair. La règle du jeu.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> That depends. If there is no process where he can challenge LNDD and the US Anti-Doping Agency claims that the information wasn't relevant to the case, then I think he has the right to get that information through other means.


that would seem to be a procedural issue wouldn't it? surely there's some sort of standard dictating what's relevant.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> that would seem to be a procedural issue wouldn't it? surely there's some sort of standard dictating what's relevant.


I don't know what the actual rules in doping procedures are. But generally, in procedure like this, if one side says evidence isn't relevant and the other says it is, a judge gets to decide. That's what judges are for. But you have to know or at least suspect that the evidence exists in order to ask for it, and I have no idea if Landis did ask for it, or if the rules even allow asking for it.

From what I've read, it sounds like Landis was given a standard packet of info and that was it. But I have no idea.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> I don't know what the actual rules in doping procedures are. But generally, in procedure like this, if one side says evidence isn't relevant and the other says it is, a judge gets to decide. That's what judges are for. But you have to know or at least suspect that the evidence exists in order to ask for it, and I have no idea if Landis did ask for it, or if the rules even allow asking for it.
> 
> From what I've read, it sounds like Landis was given a standard packet of info and that was it. But I have no idea.


totally agree. presumably there would be recourse if the info were relevant and later came to light. I think that's grounds for a dismissal or retrial in criminal court, but IANAL.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> And LNDD and the US Anti-Doping Agency do not have the right to withhold it. When one side breaks the rules by deliberately withholding relevant evidence, I don't see a problem with the other side breaking the rules to get it. Fair is fair. La règle du jeu.


Quite a bit of conjecture there....

I am aware of no evidence that LNDD witheld any information that Landis' defense should have had according to the rules pertaining to *doping* (not legal) procedures. So, no, there seems to be no evidence that the "règles du jeu" have been breached.

I *am* aware of a *criminal breach of law* pertaining to accessing LNDD's computers alledgedly with the knowledge of Arnie Baker (indeed, from his computer) and the *criminal breach of law* pertaining to the falsification of said stolen data. La "loi" (as opposed to "les règles du jeu"), clearly has been breached and this is a more important transgression in any case. Even if the rules of the arbitral hearing were breached by LNDD, the proper recourse was to file a CAS appeal and then a court case against LNDD, not break the law.

I repeat, Landis' camp has no *legal* standing to support the breaking of the laws of a sovereign country in order to support their side in an arbitral hearing on his doping offence...


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

philippec said:


> Quite a bit of conjecture there....
> 
> I am aware of no evidence that LNDD witheld any information that Landis' defense should have had according to the rules pertaining to *doping* (not legal) procedures. So, no, there seems to be no evidence that the "règles du jeu" have been breached.
> 
> ...




I agree. If anything, Landis' camp is more vulnerable on the basis of their unethical behavior that has been well-documented and even admitted to. Ex: blackmailing Lemond, withholding of court-sensitive documents, attempts to contaminate lab tests, etc. Not only is there no legal standing in which Landis can support breaking federal laws in an effort to obtain information, now he is in a lot more trouble than he bargained for. Breaking federal laws of another country has very serious consequences and there is little to no protection that a US citizen has if it is shown that he did commit an offense in another country.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I don't know the whole story here, and I suspect we will probably never know. But I stand by my point. IF the only way the Landis team could get access to the evidence they needed for their defense was to steal it, then I absolve them of that crime. In a truly fair and open process, that is a completely unnecessary act. So, while I don't know the actual details, the fact that Landis had to steal the information leads me to believe that the process was not open, and information was concealed from him. And I applaud him for making public what LNDD clearly did not want anyone to know.

There are plenty of examples throughout history where crimes and atrocities were uncovered through dubious or illegal means. The history of this country would be different, for example, were it not for a guy named Mark Felt, who had a much better sounding nickname.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> The rules of the game are well established. In any country that supports due process, he has the right to see all evidence that directly pertains to his defense. And LNDD and the US Anti-Doping Agency do not have the right to withhold it. When one side breaks the rules by deliberately withholding relevant evidence, I don't see a problem with the other side breaking the rules to get it. Fair is fair. La règle du jeu.


Only problem is you're looking at this from a criminal court point of view. Landis was not in that situation.
Thankfully the chances of him returning to Europe just dropped below zero. His actions and subsequent protestations of innocence cost cycling dear in terms of publicity not to mention almost exhausting CAS's entire budget.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

*Is hacking a prison offence in France?*

And if it is what type of prison? Minimum security? Or do hackers get sent off to Devil's Island??


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*ronnoX = FL?*



ronnoX said:


> If they stay after him he will change the cycling world forever this year. He'll start by throwing a few people under the bus.


How on Earth did you predict this in February?


----------

