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.