Floyd Landis CAS Appeal Decision: June?

http://cyclingnews.com/ has just written a mis-leading March 25 article "Landis outcome months away." In the article the unknown author mentions "a comeback that defied logic" and "an abnormal testosterone/epitestosterone ratio." The Landis Stage 17 attack did not defy logic. The power output of Floyd Landis was well within his normal published range. This is a well known and much discussed fact. Floyd Landis won Stage 17 of the Tour de France simply because he attacked. If the chasing teams failed to reel him in this reflects bad racing tactics on their parts. You can't give a man who is a threat to the general classification a 9:00 gap. Any simpleton will tell you that.

Why people continue to preach the Dick Pound WADA myth that Floyd Landis had a higher than normal testosterone level at this point is inexcusable. The AAA Majority dismissed the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio simply because LNDD failed to identify three diagnostic ions for testosterone on the confirmation test. This is a violation of WADA scientific standards. LNDD is a WADA accredited lab. WADA accredited labs must follow rules because without the validation of the three diagnostic ions any number of substances could have been measured as "testosterone." If there was "an abnormal testosterone/epitestosterone ratio" the fault lies with LNDD not with Floyd Landis. Cyclingnews should read the AAA decision and write articles that reflect accurate information instead of resorting to journalistic inaccuracies typical of ASO owned l'Equipe.

Catch 22

Much has been made of the Landis CAS appeal expenses. WADA may be paying the attorney fees of USADA for outside counsel Richard Young. An argument exists that WADA paying costs for USADA signals a conflict of interest. Money could be better spent on efforts to ensure that poor anti-doping agencies, as exist in some African countries, have available resources to enable "clean" athletic competition. Some have said that "to rob Peter to pay Paul," a principal currently being used in the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing is an unacceptable allocation of scarce resources. Unfortunately, the United States contributes a great deal of money to the WADA budget. This American contribution of the WADA budget is being used by USADA to pay for legal expenses and attorney fees to fight an AAA Majority appeal to the CAS by American athlete Floyd Landis. Here is the rub. If WADA agrees with outraged American citizens who think WADA money could be better spent helping poor anti-doping agencies in developing countries to ensure "fair play" among their athletes instead of prosecuting an American athlete; and if USADA agrees to refund the WADA contribution then the American taxpayer will still have to pay. Richard Young will still collect his money. Either way we lose.

Split the Samples Between WADA Laboratories

One thing WADA should never allow for is a single laboratory to test the "A" and "B" samples at the same WADA accredited laboratory. This almost invites conflict of interest and it gives lab personnel an incentive to replicate lab findings. Confirmation "B" samples should be farmed out to a different WADA accredited laboratory for second opinions, the results should be compared and a blue ribbon panel of experts should draw a conclusion as to the reliability and validity of the intial finding(s). In determination tests for exogenous testosterone this approach is vital since the amount of urine used in synthetic testosterone detection by GC/C/ IRMS is limited in amount since Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) testing requires destruction of the evidence by combustion.

USADA Pulls A Fast One

Travis T. Tygart established a new set of rules by arguing for alternate "B" Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) tests for urine samples taken from Floyd Landis during the 2006 Tour de France, even though the initial testosterone/epitestosterone screening tests fell below the 4:1 threshold. The AAA Panel agreed to allow the testing even though arbitrator Chris Campbell was excluded from the decision making process. Floyd Landis asked that the CIR tests be done at the USADA testing laboratory UCLA where the urine samples were being stored at the time. The UCLA laboratory was run by Dr. Don Catlin and was considered the finest WADA accredited laboratory in the world. Author note: After Trust but Verify commented on some inaccurate factual statements contained in this article corrections are in order. See comments. Corrections are in bold type. (1) USADA did request UCLA to do the alternate "B" tests. For some odd reason the UCLA IRMS was taken off line for repairs, so the UCLA lab could not comply. (2) USADA did offer Floyd Landis an option to use the Montreal WADA accredited lab run by Christiane Ayotte. Floyd Landis refused because Ayotte expressed the opinion that the LNDD results showed the precursors, metabolites, of elevated synthetic testosterone in published statements. Ayotte was obviously biased against Mr. Landis so her lab work could not be trusted. A compromise solution could have been reached by using the WADA accredited lab at Salt Lake City or by any other WADA accredited lab world wide with the exception of UCLA and Montreal.

USADA Blows a Golden Opportunity

What if Tygart would have abandoned the WADA "circle the wagons around a single lab result" philosophy and split the sample confirmation between any WADA accredited laboratory except for UCLA or Montreal and LNDD; asked for a second opinion and blue ribbon scientific panel lead by anyone not affiliated with WADA? What would have happened if a second examination of forensic evidence was done in the Landis case? Would Carbon Isotope Ratio testing done at a seperate WADA lab have made a difference in the delta/delta scores found at LNDD? Would a second opinion have confirmed the findings of LNDD? Unfortunately, we will never know.

Never Trust A LNDD EPO RESULT...Or Anything Else

WADA must fear that the repeatability of LNDD's findings are impossible and that is why they are so resistent to change. Chatenay-Malabry declared Iban Mayo EPO positive on an "A" test result. Unfortunately for WADA, Chatenay-Malabry personnel were in such a hurry to go on holiday that they had no time to test the "B" confirmation sample. Anne Gripper of the UCI decided to send the "B" test to the WADA accredited lab at the University of Ghent in Belgium. The Ghent lab could not verify the LNDD Mayo EPO "positive" even though they asked for a second opinion from an Australian WADA accredited lab. WADA was not satisfied with the Ghent "non-negative" result. WADA sent the Mayo "B" sample back to Chatenay-Malabry for further testing. This became known as the Mayo "B" "B" test. People began to jeer that WADA was result shopping to meet their political agenda. Of course, LNDD "confirmed" the Mayo EPO "positive." When will this madness stop?

If the CAS decision is to be delayed until June this gives everyone a chance to wail on WADA for immediate change. Enjoy.