There has been some discussion of the amount of money spent by USADA to defend the Floyd Landis Adverse Analytical Finding. What is always forgotten is the deplorable state of Chatenay-Malabry testing and how expensive it is to defend bad lab work. WADA could correct these problems if they trained their personnel on how to do the lab work, how to keep records straight, and how to keep a strict chain-of-custody. In each case Chatenay-Malabry failed to even adhere to even minimal standards of the WADA Technical Documents or International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) or Testing (IST).
Document corrections with "white-out" are not allowed. Corrections require a line drawn through the error, the date and time must be entered, and initials of the person doing the correction must be included. Aliquots are not allowed to be transferred within or without the lab without signing a log specifying who had possession of the sample; of who takes possession of the sample; including time, date, people involved in the transfer, and signatures of the people involved. Chatenay-Malabry failed to adhere to these policies. There are several time periods where the Landis "B" sample was unaccounted for. This is a direct violation of WADA protocol that demands that the sample be "irrevocably linked to the athlete."
The best summary of the chain-of-custody problems are listed in several strong articles written at Environmental Chemistry including, "Floyd Landis, WADA, LNDD, Chain of Custody and Poor Lab Procedures" Other Landis related Environmental Chemistry articles are also listed, for example "Floyd Landis vs USADA verdict is in" all well written and worth reading. http://www.environmentalchemistry.com/. Environmental Chemistry also has links to other good articles, including responses by Judge Hue at Trust but Verify, http://www.blogger.com/www.trustbut.blogspot.com and Rant, at Rant Your Head Off. http://www.rant-your-head-off.com/. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the blunders committed by Chatenay-Malabry, the consequent legal challenges and why it is essential for Floyd Landis to appeal the AAA Majority decision, these websites are the best source of information you can find on the web. I encourage everyone to visit these websites daily for current information.
If USADA and the taxpayers are burdened with expensive litigation to defend the poor lab performance of LNDD then WADA should encourage the laboratories to train their personnel on how to run the tests, how to set up the equipment, how to code the data on the Lab Document Package, how to make corrections correctly, and how to maintain a credible chain of custody. Then these expensive and prolonged appeals would be prevented saving everyone money. U.S. taxpayer and athlete. Until WADA makes a valiant attempt to correct the existing problems appeals will continue since the laboratory results can not be relied upon to prove the Adverse Analytical Finding.
AFLD really needs a new accreditation contractor at this point since COFRAC seems incapable of meeting even the minimal audit standards required for an WADA/IOC laboratory. COFRAC accreditation audit 1 1174 was used to validate the Landis LNDD "B" IRMS tests done at LNDD in order to validate the AFLD suspension; in spite of obvious lab errors. For example, the IRMS operating guide was missing, the IRMS tubing was set up incorrectly. Frelat injected the "B" sample calibration mix into the IRMS five hours before the Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) was run. Between the injection of the calibration mix and the CIR the IRMS was left unattended, an obvious violation of the chain-of-custody requirement. Landis' "B" sample was degraded. Other violations are documented in the Lab Document Package and by witness testimony.
I am not sure if AFLD validated the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio which AAA dismissed. The language of the AFLD decision is ambiguous in this regard. But then again AFLD did not even consider the Landis defense legal brief submission. It is almost certain that the AFLD decision was written in advance of receiving Landis' scientific arguments. The decision was based on the COFRAC audit that concluded that the LNDD lab work was flawless. No reasonable person could agree with this conclusion.
If anyone should accept the burden of expense for the money spent by USADA to defend the sloppy lab work of LNDD it should be AFLD, COFRAC, WADA, and the French government. Not the American tax payer.
So my fellow American taxpayers, if you can't stand the expense of this Court of Arbitration appeal to FLoyd Landis and USADA insist that AFLD and WADA do something to ensure that this sort of a circus does not happen to another American athlete. Otherwise, get out your wallets and stop snivelling.
Document corrections with "white-out" are not allowed. Corrections require a line drawn through the error, the date and time must be entered, and initials of the person doing the correction must be included. Aliquots are not allowed to be transferred within or without the lab without signing a log specifying who had possession of the sample; of who takes possession of the sample; including time, date, people involved in the transfer, and signatures of the people involved. Chatenay-Malabry failed to adhere to these policies. There are several time periods where the Landis "B" sample was unaccounted for. This is a direct violation of WADA protocol that demands that the sample be "irrevocably linked to the athlete."
The best summary of the chain-of-custody problems are listed in several strong articles written at Environmental Chemistry including, "Floyd Landis, WADA, LNDD, Chain of Custody and Poor Lab Procedures" Other Landis related Environmental Chemistry articles are also listed, for example "Floyd Landis vs USADA verdict is in" all well written and worth reading. http://www.environmentalchemistry.com/. Environmental Chemistry also has links to other good articles, including responses by Judge Hue at Trust but Verify, http://www.blogger.com/www.trustbut.blogspot.com and Rant, at Rant Your Head Off. http://www.rant-your-head-off.com/. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the blunders committed by Chatenay-Malabry, the consequent legal challenges and why it is essential for Floyd Landis to appeal the AAA Majority decision, these websites are the best source of information you can find on the web. I encourage everyone to visit these websites daily for current information.
If USADA and the taxpayers are burdened with expensive litigation to defend the poor lab performance of LNDD then WADA should encourage the laboratories to train their personnel on how to run the tests, how to set up the equipment, how to code the data on the Lab Document Package, how to make corrections correctly, and how to maintain a credible chain of custody. Then these expensive and prolonged appeals would be prevented saving everyone money. U.S. taxpayer and athlete. Until WADA makes a valiant attempt to correct the existing problems appeals will continue since the laboratory results can not be relied upon to prove the Adverse Analytical Finding.
AFLD really needs a new accreditation contractor at this point since COFRAC seems incapable of meeting even the minimal audit standards required for an WADA/IOC laboratory. COFRAC accreditation audit 1 1174 was used to validate the Landis LNDD "B" IRMS tests done at LNDD in order to validate the AFLD suspension; in spite of obvious lab errors. For example, the IRMS operating guide was missing, the IRMS tubing was set up incorrectly. Frelat injected the "B" sample calibration mix into the IRMS five hours before the Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) was run. Between the injection of the calibration mix and the CIR the IRMS was left unattended, an obvious violation of the chain-of-custody requirement. Landis' "B" sample was degraded. Other violations are documented in the Lab Document Package and by witness testimony.
I am not sure if AFLD validated the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio which AAA dismissed. The language of the AFLD decision is ambiguous in this regard. But then again AFLD did not even consider the Landis defense legal brief submission. It is almost certain that the AFLD decision was written in advance of receiving Landis' scientific arguments. The decision was based on the COFRAC audit that concluded that the LNDD lab work was flawless. No reasonable person could agree with this conclusion.
If anyone should accept the burden of expense for the money spent by USADA to defend the sloppy lab work of LNDD it should be AFLD, COFRAC, WADA, and the French government. Not the American tax payer.
So my fellow American taxpayers, if you can't stand the expense of this Court of Arbitration appeal to FLoyd Landis and USADA insist that AFLD and WADA do something to ensure that this sort of a circus does not happen to another American athlete. Otherwise, get out your wallets and stop snivelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment