WADA Is Reality Challenged

When WADA was in Madrid they could not refrain from drafting a new WADA code that was certain to straighten out deficiencies in the present code. Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draft World Anti-Doping Code With the Fundamental Rights of Athletes written by Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler and Dr. Antonii Rigozzi considers aggravating factors and considerably larger penalties for athletes who are engaged in conspiracy or trafficking of prohibited substances and for attempts to subvert the anti-doping process. A noble aim, indeed.

Reading the new WADA code draft revealed this astounding gem, however. Under 2.3Plea Bargain 110(115) Page 38. "Minutes of the WADA Executive Committee Meeting of 19 Nov 2006. Page 29 referring to the notorious fact that some athletes, particularly wealthy athletes, consider that they have nothing to lose by putting forward all imaginable defenses in the hope that one or the other may work with the result that anti-doping organizations spend significant amounts of money defending the validity of clear laboratory results."

It would be an absurd presumption to include cycling and cyclists as the wealthy athletes with nothing to lose who would resort to any tactic to subvert clear laboratory results! I have a difficult time recalling a cyclist who resorted to obstructionist tactics to defeat a clear laboratory test result. But then again I have a hard time recalling a clear laboratory test result.

The WADA Executive Committee could not possibly be referring to Floyd Landis as the ultra rich athlete who has nothing to lose by contesting a flawless lab performance? Floyd Landis has spent over two million dollars and will spend eighteen months of his life fighting the United States Anti-Doping Agency over a case be-fret of sound scientific evidence. Much of the money was raised through donations and auctions. The sight of Floyd Landis begging for alms like a pauper to defend himself was appalling. At present, with no resolution of his case in sight, Mr. Landis is destitute. USADA is doing quite well, thank you, with an operating budget of twenty million dollars funded by American tax payers.

Travis T. Tygart who currently runs USADA must agree with WADA over the huge amounts of money spent by Anti-Doping Organizations over appeals to the CAS. Tygart would certainly agree with the WADA Executive Committee that a conspiracy is afoot among wealthy athletes to drain precious resources from Anti-Doping Organizations in fruitless appeals to the CAS. Alan Abrahamson of NBC Sports.com would agree. Abrahamson's logic concerning doubters of the AAA Majority conclusion reads "There are those, even in the face of compelling scientific evidence, who want to believe Floyd Landis didn't dope." Abrahamson might also add, since the evidence is so compelling why support a man who is obviously guilty. Why would a guilty man want to appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport and cost USADA so much more money?

I would agree with Alan Abrahamson if he would provide me with a convincing summary of this scientific evidence that was not derived from sloppy lab practices, errors, omissions, or deletions of evidence.

More realistic and contrary to the WADA Executive Committee meeting remarks concerning the clear laboratory results is the conclusion of the Floyd Landis AAA arbitrators.

First the Majority.

Errors in Preparation of Laboratory Documents Page 76 Paragraph 290.

"The Panel does, however note the forensic corrections of the Lab (LNDD) reflect sloppy practice on its part. If such practices continue it may well be that in the future an error like this could result in the dismissal of an Adverse Analytical Finding by the lab (LNDD)."

And the Dissent.

Paragraph 1 and 2.

"From the beginning LNDD has not been trustworthy. In this case, at every stage of testing it failed to comply with the procedures and methods for testing required by the International Standards for Laboratories, version 4.0 August 2004 (ISL) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2003 (WADA Code). It also failed to abide by its legal and ethical obligations under the WADA Code. On the facts of this case, LNDD should not be entrusted with Mr. Landis career."

"Mr. Landis is only required to prove the facts he alleges in this case by a mere balance of the probabilities. In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent."

I fail to discern the clear scientific evidence referred to by Abrahamson or the WADA Executive Committee in these conclusions. I also fail to see the systematic attack of trivial points in an attempt to circumvent the anti-doping process by a hate driven wealthy athlete who has employed an army of lawyers to bore holes into a rock solid base of evidence. Fact, the only real conclusion from the Landis fiasco is that LNDD is incapable of measuring prohibited substances in a competent manner. If an Anti-Doping Authority is spending an inordinate amount of money defending questionable Majority decisions in the Court of Arbitration of Sport the fault lies with WADA and WADA accredited labs, notably LNDD. Not the athlete!

A word of advice to Travis T. Tygart, USADA and other Anti-Doping Authorities, if you want to save money on needless challenges to arbitration awards insist that WADA improve the accreditation criteria for laboratories. Otherwise you will continue to face an escalation in appeals to the Court of Arbitration of Sport.

A word of advise to WADA, stop blaming innocent athletes for challenging your lousy lab work, initiate corrective action immediately, educate your personnel, train people to perform testing correctly. That way you can avoid the faux threat of case dismissal by arbitration Panels and also save Anti-Doping Organizations unnecessary spending to defend your bad lab work. A win-win proposition all around.

I would like to thank Drew Schafer, JD author of WADAWATCH for his assistance by converting the proposed WADA Article 10.6 from a .pdf format to .doc format so my computer could access the file. I am very grateful for his help.
Jon

Landis CAS Appeal Ennui

Lately it is difficult not to feel ennui with the Landis case. Landis did appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport. The Arbitrators have been selected. The briefs have been filed. A date has been set. Sometime in March the CAS case will be heard. The mainstream press has continued to vilify Floyd as a bad example. Yawn.

The UCI wants biological passports with longitudinal blood and urine values for athletes. It is supposed that if some minor variation occurs this may be a possible parameter of doping. I sometimes wonder about the simplicity of these people. How many untested variables will occur throughout a Grand Tour. How many will be accounted for by this biological passport?

What happens if a single metabolite shows some variation? With the crazy WADA lab methodology the simplest answer will be a long argument. Natural variation due to unspecified variables or doping? Go over to Trust but Verify and examine the current argument of LNDD IRMS lab practices. Take a look at IRMS columns some of which are polarized, some unpolarized. You have to hand it to Arnie Baker who found that mass-spectra changes in substances do occur depending upon which column is used. So why did LNDD erase parts of the mass-spectra from the laboratory hard drive? Is this a violation of WADA code? Of course, LNDD forgot to record which IRMS columns were used in the alternate "B" tests. They also forgot to record possible temperature variations in IRMS ramps within and between tests. LNDD also forgot that IRMS pressure differences can cause a departure and cause an AAF! Are WADA accredited labs required by WADA code to record these variables? Also, notice the missing metabolites in the calibration mix. Is this a violation of WADA code? Be amazed by the anchor metabolite argument. Does the position of one metabolite account for all metabolites in the absence of a complete mass-spectra? Why flog an old horse to death? The beat goes on! No possible resolution of the issues is in sight. No argument either pro or con, no matter how eloquently presented, is convincing. We are stalling waiting in vain for something to happen. The ennui, like a ground stratus cloud, is starting to creep in again.

Which takes me off to the next point. Hey, WADA, how come the main stream press refrains from vilifying your "sloppy lab practices"? Clearly, except for a select few who have followed the Landis case from the start and understand the issues, most people are out to sea. They find it impossible to believe that LNDD violated WADA code and escaped unpunished. They refuse to believe that the numerous departures from the WADA code caused the Landis Adverse Analytical Finding. But WADA is at fault. Why? Because even when a WADA accredited lab made repeated errors which were documented by the UCI commissioned Vrijman Report, no action was taken. WADA should accept responsibility for this inaction. This refusal of WADA to strip accreditation from labs who violate WADA code must be considered negligence and should be a legal basis for liability judgements by international tribunals such as the Court of Arbitration of Sport. I sincerely hope that the CAS agrees to dismiss the Floyd Landis case on appeal. I also hope that the CAS will agree to allow Floyd Landis to sue WADA for refusal to dis-accredit LNDD in light of the UCI commissioned Vrijman report. WADA is responsible for negligence because if LNDD would have been closed and a competent lab had been awarded the task of doping testing by ASO, Floyd Landis' reputation and earning power would have never been in question. Never forget, departures in LNDD lab practices in violation of WADA code caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. I also hope that the CAS orders WADA to pay Floyd Landis a substantial monetary award.

If you want to straighten out the methodology arguments once and for all how about writing the code to harmonize and standardize your labs. We can call it a methodological passport. Like the biological passport your labs will be proficiency tested with true double blind samples and the results will be published. Conformity with the new code will be the factor that determines your WADA accreditation. It will also give athletes a chance to contest your false positive results when they occur.

Because as things stand right now your presumption is assured. Due process is denied to athletes. Labs like LNDD are exempt from following WADA code. When Vrijman wrote his report red flags should have alerted you to the fact that LNDD is a bad lab. What did you do WADA? Did you strip LNDD of WADA/IOC accreditation? Or did you live in denial? When Floyd Landis was reamed in the press because of that 11:1 T/E ratio "cherry picked" by LNDD and Dick Pound was shouting "Roid Floyd" to anyone who would listen, did you people ever stop to think that the T/E tests would be discarded by the AAA Panel Majority? Why was Jacques de Ceaurriz never called to testify about the "B" test result leak to L' Equipe?

You know what WADA? Let us track your lab performance, all of them, and look for trends, shop and compare, and dump the bad ones.

Yes indeed, just when you want to die from Floyd Landis case ennui someone comes along and injects enough venom to wake you up again. Doping athletes are intolerable and should be punished for sure. People caught up in a web due to an error by a WADA accredited laboratory and denied due process rights should continue to fight and be exonerated. There is a difference! So fight on Floyd, you will continue to be my hero.