Floyd Landis Doping Case; In Retrospect

The conclusion of the Floyd Landis 2006 Tour de France doping accusations was so unspectacular. A settlement in U.S. Federal Court conducted in secret. No statements from USADA or Floyd Landis. People obsessed with the case are left in the dark, again.

Nothing new about a lack of information. The Court of Arbitration of Sport hearing was conducted in secret and no testimony of the proceedings were ever released. But as "Baltimore Will" argued in the Floyd Landis topix.net cycling forum -- most sport arbitration is conducted in secret, so what is the problem? The Floyd Landis public Pepperdine University arbitration hearings were a exemption to the rule and something USADA would prefer to never repeat. Why? Too much exposure of how WADA labs work and how the WADA code is enforced. Independent experts howled in pain when they examined the Lab Document Package. There were too many mistakes that WADA and LNDD could not explain away.

People interested in the case howled when reading the testimony. There was Dr. Brenna trying to explain away "mini peaks" in the CG/C/IRMS records as non-eluting or carbon containing compounds. Christiane Ayotte made a fool of herself trying to justify LNDD's methods as valid. Suddenly cataracts fell from skeptical eyes. How long has this nonsense been going on? How many athletes? The AAA panel won't accept this nonsense surely? Even if they do, on appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, Floyd Landis should prevail with a slam dunk.

LNDD could not measure a simple testosterone/epitestosterone ratio. The Carbon Isotope Ratio test is much more complicated. Christopher Campbell was right when he questioned LNDD's competence. Campbell's dissent fell on deaf ears...

Retro Reasoning

One fine summer day back in 2006 I was climbing Little Mountain in Emigration Canyon when I spied two fine cycling ladies ahead. When I got into hearing range one lady said to the other "I hope an American wears yellow in the Tour de France this year." "Think Floyd Landis," I said.

Back before Operation Puerto I constantly debated the 2006 Tour de France in my mind. Ivan Basso was the obvious first choice, but there was Jan Ullrich to consider since Lance Armstrong had retired. Franciso Mancebo, a rider whom I loved for his climbing skills was also a remote possibility. Then there was Floyd Landis, my personal choice. Even odds to be sure.

Who can forget when on the way to the start of the 2006 Tour de France the cars containing Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, and Franciso Mancebo turned around and went back to the team hotels. Operation Puerto had surfaced with accusations of blood manipulation by Dr. Fuentes under contract by elite cyclists. Records and blood bags found in Dr. Fuentes offices implicated Ullrich, Basso, and Mancebo.

Bang! The favorites were eliminated with one fell swoop, with one exception; Floyd Landis.

At the very first time trial Floyd Landis missed the start by several seconds. The team mechanic found a cut in a tubular tire on Floyds time trial bike and decided to replace it. On the second time trial Floyd had to replace his bike because of a mechanical problem. Searching the web for Floyd Landis news I found topix.net and started a forum topic "Time Trial Mishaps" lamenting the lack of preparation of the Phonak team mechanics. "Floyd Landis could be in yellow at this point except for these time trial mishaps," I wrote.

Much like David Zabriskie, alienated by the local culture and seeking escapism in cycling the canyons around Salt Lake City, I wanted to talk racing with someone.

Then the nightmare. Floyd Landis bonked on Stage 16 of the 2006 Tour de France while wearing yellow. It was so painful watching Floyd bonk, his cadence moving in slow motion. Floyd dropped from first to eleventh in general classification. It is all over, no man could make up that much time on a mountain stage, except Marco Pantani or Charley Gaul.

Wrong. On Stage 17, Floyd Landis in a brilliant move attacked and never looked back. His team car by his side, Floyd drank water bottles, ate gel packs, and poured water bottles over head by the dozen to stay hydrated and cool. The peloton was distanced by an astonishing nine minutes and he was virtual "race leader" on the course before anyone responded! Wow! The most amazing feat of racing I had ever seen or will ever see again!

On Stage 18 an announcement was made that everyone had passed doping control, Floyd was wearing the red numerals of "most aggressive rider" grinning with satisfaction. There was only one challenge left, the final time trial. Floyd trailed Oscar Pereiro by :36 and he was a stronger time trialist. Barring a catastrophe Floyd Landis looked certain to make one of the greatest comebacks in Tour de France history.

And so it was. Standing on the Podium in Paris on the Champs Elysees Floyd Landis had won the 2006 Tour de France.

A fantastic Tour, the best in years. This sentiment would not last long though. One night listening to BBC News I learned the bad news. Tour de France champion Floyd Landis has tested positive for a prohibited substance. "Oh, no." "Impossible!" Considering what happened to Ullrich, Basso, and Mancebo at the start of the 2006 Tour de France and considering what Greg LeMond was spouting about "the cleanest Tour in history" and considering the announcements that all riders had passed the doping screens.......well this news about Floyd Landis failing a doping test makes no sense at all!

Conclusion

Makes no sense now, either. After two and a half years of blogging and arguing with people on cycling forums; study of testosterone metabolism, and WADA code, the Court of Arbitration of Sport conclusions make no sense at all! Floyd Landis was cheated by a corrupt system that presumes "guilt until proven guilty" with a healthy dose of trial by media, character assassination, leaks to the press, propaganda, outright lies, incompetent lab tests, and biased analyses of scientific data. Only a fool like Dick Pound, John Fahey, or Greg LeMond would proclaim from the highest tower that Floyd Landis is living in denial at this point. People who did the research and worked to understand this unfair system know better. We will never trust WADA, USADA, or the CAS ever again. Every Adverse Analytical Finding WADA files against an athlete in future will be regarded with mistrust.

Special thanks to TBV and Zenmud who were a great help; men who were a great source of information and wisdom during these strange days. Good luck to you both and happy cycling!

I hope we never have to go through something like this again!

Floyd Landis, USADA Settle Lawsuit

Trust but Verify has reported that the lawsuit Floyd Landis filed against the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) has been settled in United States Federal Court with prejudice. The case hinged on a $100,000 fine imposed on Floyd Landis by the Court of Arbitration of Sport, a fine that would have had to be paid to USADA before USA cycling would issue Mr. Landis a license to race in UCI sponsored events. Mr. Landis also sought a order from the Federal Court to vacate the CAS suspension and revocation of his 2006 Tour de France title.

Although no details of the settlement have been released, this agreement in U.S. Federal Court may mean that the Floyd Landis legal saga is over. With prejudice means that no further filings can be entertained by a U.S. Federal court. Mr. Landis may have had recourse to legal relief in a Swiss court since the Court of Arbitration of Sport is located in Switzerland and must abide by Swiss law. But the deadline for filing a Swiss appeal may have passed.

A settlement of the case by USADA, even if the CAS ordered $100,000 imposed fine cannot be collected, may have been the best option for the CAS and USADA. The jurisdictional issues of by whom and where Court of Arbitration of Sport imposed sanctions may be litigated were obviously avoided. But it is assumed that if the fine is not collected then the Federal Courts do have jurisdiction over USADA and USA Cycling.

The Court of Arbitration of Sport may be exempt from U.S. Federal Court action (an untested premise). Portions of the award of the Court of Arbitration of Sport may be exempt from legal recourse in the United States; the entire award was not vacated; (an untested premise). But apparently portions of the CAS award that apply to entities in the United States, such as CAS ordered fine that Mr. Landis had to pay USADA as a condition for a USA Cycling license is under jurisdiction of U.S. Federal Courts and may be rescinded.

Of course, Travis Tygart and USADA have ended the examination of the other issues asserted by Floyd Landis. The back room deals; the vote rigging on high profile cases; the corruption of officials of the Court of Arbitration of Sport.

And Mr. Landis will never recover his Tour de France title or his prize money.

USADA and the CAS have won another victory. Floyd Landis is the clear loser even though he may race again.

This surrender by both sides fills me with loathing.

WADA Athlete Passport Operating Manual; Ten Months Later

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has announced the development of a "Athlete Passport Operating Manual" to coordinate transportation, storage, and chain-of-custody of athlete urine and blood samples to conform to WADA code and International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) for the UCI Biological Passport Program.

Amazing. Imagine a WADA lab with a manual anywhere on the premises. As Dr. Paul Scott pointed out in the Floyd Landis case, Chatenay-Malabry, WADA, and the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) seem not to recognize that a operating guide is "critical" in making precise measurements. This arrogant disregard of ISL and WADA code by Chatenay-Malabry, WADA, and the AFLD did not matter to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) who dismissed the lack of an operating manual for the GC/C/IRMS as trivial. The French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) came to the same conclusion after consulting a phantom COFRAC accreditation audit. In a rational world lack of an operating manual for the IRMS would be considered a serious violation of WADA code, ISL and would serve as a basis to revoke the Chatenay-Malabry WADA accreditation. So, don't be surprised if and when WADA completes the "Athlete Passport Operating Manual" that one won't be found anywhere in sight.

The future accreditation auditors will face a dilemma.

Q:accreditation auditor: "Where is the Passport Operating Manual, Mr. DeCeaurriz?"
A:DeCeaurriz: "Not needed, we are WADA!"
Q:accreditation auditor: "Of course, I must report this violation to AFLD."
A:De Ceaurriz: "Nothing will be done to us, we are infallible!"

What to do? Call L'Equipe with a news scoop? Pretend nothing is happening? Call John Fahey? Write another Vrijman Report? Go fish?

When the defense lawyers are litigating the Adverse Analytical Finding generated from these laboratories, pour through thousands of pages of Lab Document Packages finding errors, and after testimony of hundreds of WADA lab personnel in arbitration hearings, costing millions of dollars to athlete and anti-doping agencies problems will emerge.

Example:

Q:defense lawyer: "What did you do at this step?"
A:lab tech a: "I did X."
Q:defense lawyer: "What did you do at this step?"
A:lab tech b: "I did Y."
Q:arbitrator: but the results are always the same, oui?"

Amazing. Even though the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announced the biological passport program at the first of the year and many profile tests have been conducted there is still no standardization of lab procedures. Perhaps WADA was too busy denouncing the program, refusing to provide funding, and suing the UCI to think about quality lab tests. Back then knives were inserted into backs and accusations flew, but now that WADA and the UCI have given up the pissing contest and accepted a harmonious existence it is time to get down to serious work.

Yes precious time was wasted, but in the era of the "non-analytical positive" what use is there of quality lab tests? Find a witness who will testify to anything, and presto, problem solved. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) will triumphantly declare another victory based on circumstantial hear-say evidence. The CAS will be satisfied that a doping offense has occured, and everyone will save a ton of cash.

UCI Biological Passport Problems

After being called an apologist for questioning the UCI biological passport concept I want to set the record straight.

(1) I agree with Anne Gripper that the goal of the UCI biological passport is to reduce doping within the peloton to <99.9%.
(2) I agree with the concept that detection of sophisticated doping methods by rouge doctors who attempt to manipulate biological parameters by introducing prohibited substances with the goal of establishing artificial baseline scores must be detected and those responsible must be punished. The last thing cycling needs is a cheater doping freely in a race because his biological profile has been manipulated to the point where tests appears "normal."

Problems:

(1) Of concern is the expansion by the UCI of the WADA non-analytical positive. If a correlation by Bayesian Statistical Model is to be accepted in place of a positive test for a prohibited substance, then this by implication expands the non-analytical positive concept. If a correlation coefficient is to replace a positive lab result then what is considered acceptable? >.90? Even this high correlation does not explain all of the variance. A 100% certainty is impossible to obtain, so it is certain that athlete(s) will be mistakenly prosecuted.
(2) The UCI must admit the possibility of false positive lab results.
(3) Evaluations of biological profile results must take into account individual differences.
(4) The UCI must establish standardized parameters of what constitute a doping violation. Is this possible when a rider profile is examined by a committee of experts? Very unlikely.
(5) Anne Gripper stated that the biological profile data would be established by tests in ten different WADA laboratories so they could all measure the same thing? Are you serious? In the Iban Mayo case LNDD claimed they found EPO. The WADA lab at the University of Ghent returned a "non-negative" on the same sample even though they consulted an Australian WADA accredited lab for a second opinion. When LNDD re-tested Mayo they confirmed their original finding of EPO. LNDD claimed that their results were correct because they were more experienced in EPO detection. Does the UCI have stringent testing criteria that WADA labs must adhere to? Never seen any reference to the UCI testing criteria, but if we are relying upon WADA criteria, anything goes.
(6) An anonymous cyclist states: "I hope these biological profile results hold up in court." I have no disagreement with this statement except to point out that in all cases the Adverse Analytical Findings that may result from a suspicious profile will be arbitrated. If the UCI would agree to resolve disputes in a court of law instead of in a Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) kangaroo arbitration hearing, with a jury trial and due process rights afforded to the defendant, fine. A court resolution of the case would force WADA to lay all of their cards on the table, including standard operating procedure records, accreditation audits, or any other documents that might be requested to validate their test results. The Richard Young WADA code would have to be abandoned, omerta would be replaced by transparency.
(7) The UCI should be very exacting on plugging leaks of sensitive information pertaining to lab results of an athlete. No more LNDD leaks to L'Equipe before the athlete is informed of his/her test results. No more leaking of identification numbers of athletes to the press as was done by LNDD in the 1998 Tour de France Lance Armstrong EPO "scientific" tests.

Need more reasons? There are thousands of other problems to discuss, but alas, no time. Why don't you think of something?

I am interested in protecting the athlete from abuse only. WADA cannot be trusted, neither their lab work or their agenda. The UCI is aware of this fact, another Vrijman Report is not recommended. If the UCI thinks that action is required against an athlete they should act alone and with prudence.

Floyd Landis Bandwagon Effect

Rant writes an interesting article of press reaction to suspected dopers who protest their innocence too much. In this context it is important to look at the case(s) in detail for items of interest rather than to stereotype people.

Floyd Landis is a different case; compare to a person caught using the new red blood cell receptor activator (CERA) or traditional EPO. A confirmed test for EPO is a far cry from someone with a single suspect metabolite IRMS score above threshold for synthetic testosterone.

Blood doping cases, like Tyler Hamilton, are even harder to be certain about because if you consider the cost/benefit ratio, infections or allergic reactions to another persons' blood, you must ask this question; is a transfusion with the blood of another person worth a small increase in performance considering the risks to your health? There are simpler ways to blood dope. Use your own stored red blood cells. Hard to quantify why a doctor would use two blood cell populations and run such risks, except for a lack of a test to detect such things, of course.

And as is the case with the Floyd Landis testosterone case, the methods used by WADA labs were uncertain and of questionable scientific value in the Tyler Hamilton case.

Even so, in the Landis case, as Oliver Starr pointed out in Floyd Landis and the Magic Water Bottle III why use synthetic testosterone that can be detected when endogenous testosterone can be isolated and used? Is not endogenous testosterone undetectable? And as Oliver Starr so correctly said -- Landis was doping with power gels and water bottles. Hydration and replenishment with glucose at a whim from his team car, while his competition was dehydrated and spent. Very strange tactics from a doper who needed synthetic testosterone to win the Tour de France.

So there is the distinction; known prohibited substances with exact chemical signatures where a known performance enhancement is documented versus exogenous substances where a team doctor is rolling the dice with an athletes' professional career. Alexander Vinokurov caught manipulating his blood and suspended, the Astana team withdraws from the Tour de France in disgrace. Tyler Hamilton caught also, he denies the accusations, is suspended for two years. The Olympic time trial gold medal he won would have been stripped from him except for a frozen blood sample. Hamilton comes back to win the Stars and Stripes as national road race champion then refuses to race in the Worlds. Damn doper. Tyler Hamilton may be a disgrace but he served his suspension so he deserves a second chance with Rock Racing. Last summer at the Tour of Utah I applauded everyone, including Tyler Hamilton and Rock Racing during the downtown Salt Lake City criterium stage. When Floyd Landis returns with OUCH as the bionic man, if they race the Tour of Utah, I will applaud him also.

Because if there are distinctions between those who should be condemned and those who should be pardoned it is all in context. Kayle Leogrande allegedly doped with EPO and then he tried to defeat the test by handling soap. The United States national criterium champion, no less. Rock Racing refused to extend his contract, what a surprise. Disgraceful. Others have admitted their subterfuge and deserve condemnation. Eric Zable, cheated to win the sprint point jersey, retired. David Millar, cheated to win the UCI time trial championship, suspended. Ivan Basso of Operation Puerto fame, blood manipulation, winner of the Giro d' Italia, suspended. Terrible these people who cheated to win but who are allowed to continue in the professional peloton. Others of note who were lauded by cycling fans, Richard Virenque, of Festina Affair fame. Willey Voet caught at the French Border in a team car loaded with EPO and other performance enhancers. Tearful denials by Virenque until he confessed. The beloved French rider continued to race to the cheers of French cycling fans and win several King of the Mountain Prizes, none taken away by ASO, in spite of his crimes. Sure, punish the dopers without exception, they all deserve equal treatment.

Which leads me back to Floyd Landis.

Floyd Landis has signed a contract with OUCH and is ready to race in 2009. But first the Court of Arbitration of Sport has insisted that Floyd Landis pay USADA a $100,000 fine before Steve Johnson and USA Cycling will issue him a license.

Floyd Landis has been dealt a bad hand since the first. An extended suspension of six months because he raced the Leadville 100, although the race was not officially sanctioned by USA cycling and the money raised was donated to charity. After Leadville Floyd Landis signed a declaration that he would voluntarily end competition, thus the additional six month suspension. In most cases the suspension starts at the time the "B" sample confirmation test.

Then Mr. Landis was denied documentary evidence by USADA he requested to prepare his defense. Thus Mr. Landis was required to engage in unnecessary discovery battles at great expense. The AAA Panel said in the Award that this sort of legal wrangling was normal, nothing to be concerned about. The AAA Panel certainly was not prepared to punish Travis T. Tygart and USADA for obstructionist tactics no matter how much Floyd Landis paid his defense team for wasted time and effort to combat the Chatenay-Malabry shotgun approach of adherence to WADA code and ISL standards.

But, the Court of Arbitration of Sport used a different tactic and punished Floyd Landis with a $100,000 fine because he contested Chatenay-Malabry causing USADA to spend large amounts of cash to defend a WADA lab. If the test results and the methods to derive them would have been incontestable there would have been no reason for Floyd Landis to fight. USADA, WADA, and AFLD would have not needed to defend. AFLD would not have had to run to a COFRAC audit to explain away everything. The CAS would not have had to condemn Maurice Suh and Floyd Landis for causing USADA unwanted expense to defend a "defamation" of Chatney-Malabry.

So, who can blame Floyd Landis for suing to restore his honor under these circumstances? Without the International Olympic Committee umbrella which allows approximations to WADA code by WADA labs, who knows, maybe the United States Federal Courts will tell a United States taxpayer funded organization like the United States Anti-Doping Agency to vacate the fine and the award.

Meanwhile people who weigh the evidence first and condemn the dopers based on facts, not speculation, or psychological stereotypes, want to tell you that not everyone who tests positive is a punk bent on deception, greed and avarice. Landis is innocent and deserves respect. David Millar is guilty and deserves contempt. Landis deserves a USA racing license, Millar deserves to be expelled from UCI sanctioned races. Very simple, non?

So, the bandwagon stereotype effect does not work in cycling. The dopers motivations are different, the reactions to dopers are different, the outcomes are different. Some like David Millar, Eric Zabel, and Richard Virenque are praised. Some like Floyd Landis are vilified. Dopers caught red handed and who confess are praised as saints. Cyclists who are caught in a web of bad science and questionable results are spoken of as liars. The innocent doth protest too much. Go figure.

Maybe Floyd Landis should have followed the advice of Pat McQuaid; shut up and take the punishment. Others would have been expected to do the same. All would be suspended, the guilty and innocent. The UCI, WADA, AFLD, and USADA would continue to win cases unchallenged.

Sadly, unlike a convicted murderer who is exonerated after twenty-five years on death row by DNA evidence after untold suffering...life for a "doper" would go on.

Author note: See the action photos of Floyd Landis at the Leadville 100 (see comments) provided by Ultra Rob. Ultra Rob also pointed out an obvious error, the Leadville 100 is sanctioned by NORBA, which is a part of USA Cycling. Since Floyd Landis signed a voluntary non-participation agreement after the Leadville 100 race, this may have been the basis for the extra six month suspension given Landis by the AAA and CAS Panels.

UCI Biological Passport: A Nonstarter

Anne Gripper czarina of the International Cycling Union (UCI) doping prevention has announced that a UCI sanctioned biological passport system is ready to produce results. These results will be based on a collection of in-competition and out-of-competition test measures of athletes conducted to establish "normal" longitudinal parameters considered essential to athletic performance. The biological passport also is intended to pinpoint suspected anomalies that would suggest possible use of prohibited performance enhancing substances.

Anne Gripper explains that the International Cycling Union (UCI) has initiated a "no start rule" where riders may be excluded from competition for fifteen days if biological parameters appear suspect.

Gripper also stated that the biological passport data has been stored on a secure Internet based computer software program; the Anti-Doping Administration Management System (ADAMS).

The biological longitudinal data for riders will be analyzed by Bayesian Statistical Model. The Bayesian Statistical Model will assign a probability of doping by an athlete based on suspect biological parameters. This probability will then be studied by a panel of nine medical experts selected by the UCI. If the panel concludes that the biological anomalies are the probable result of prohibited substance abuse an Adverse Analytical Finding and possible suspension from professional cycling could result.

The UCI biological passport is a dangerous experiment and it is destined to fail. Anne Gripper admits that no action could possibly be taken against a rider unless a probability is 99.9% that a change in a biological parameter is a result of prohibited substance abuse. This probabilistic fantasy of 99.9% can not hold up in court without direct evidence of the suspected substance being present in an athlete, however. For example, CERA (Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator) provides "a potent and sustained stimulation of red blood cell formation with longer dosing intervals" according to ROCHE. CERA has a long plasma half-life and is expressed by identifiable precursors, markers, or metabolites. An exact and detectable chemical signature of CERA is available. Without an identified prohibited substance detected in blood or urine at the time that a suspicious parameter is correlated by a statistical model the "evidence" amounts to hypothetical bunk and useless speculation.

Speculation as to the cause of a change in a biological profile will never result in a suspension from a national cycling federation in the absence of evidence of a prohibited substance. This is a fallacy.

However, as is true in all cycling anti-doping cases, the International Cycling Union (UCI) or the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) could appeal a national federation decision to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). If successful, WADA, the UCI, and the CAS could lower the bar of what constitutes a doping offense. This would be a travesty. The standard for suspension of an athlete would be based on a probability based statistical model and speculation, not on concrete evidence, or on reasonable doubt, or even on comfortable satisfaction.

The UCI Biological Passport is a nonstarter. Protect the human rights of all athletes and end this madness now.

End International Olympic Committee Sport Arbitration

Arbitration to determine whether an athlete used a performance enhancing substance to gain an unfair advantage is an abysmal failure. Currently, athletes have no choice but to arbitrate cases through entities created by the International Olympic Committee.

The Olympic Committee created the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). WADA is an agency that controls anti-doping testing and also acts as a de-facto prosecution body. The laboratories are accredited by WADA under International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) and Testing (IST). Therefore their results are presumed to be correct. WADA rules preclude an athlete to challenge this presumption of correct results unless obvious laboratory violations of ISL and IST "caused the Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF). Unfortunately, laboratory directors and employees of WADA are precluded from testimony that would benefit the athlete, even if they know of or suspect violations. The game favors WADA, the cards are stacked.

The arbitration hearing in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the North American Court of Arbitration of Sport (AAA). Unlike American courts where points of law are written based upon merits of cases argued in court arbitrators have an unlimited amount of power to write "law" at their whim. For example, in order to file an Adverse Analytical Finding, urine or blood samples must be split in half and tested separately. This is done to protect the athlete from false positive results, or results that falsely indicate prohibited substance use. A fire alarm without a fire is a false alarm.

Unfortunately, in the Floyd Landis case, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) asked for and the AAA granted USADA alternate "B" tests on Tour de France stages where Mr. Landis passed the initial testosterone/epitestosterone screen tests <4:1. These tests violated the safeguard of eliminating false positive results and as Emile Vrijman would say "constitute nothing," because the "A" portion of the urine samples were not IRMS tested. However, even though there was no confirmation IRMS tests of these alternate "B" urine samples, some results were used as "evidence" to support the contention that Mr. Landis used synthetic testosterone.

An independent scientific expert is to be provided to the arbitrators to weigh the contentions of the prosecution and defense in an impartial manner. In the Landis case the independent scientific expert was a director of a WADA accredited lab. As we have noted previously; an employee of WADA cannot testify in favor of an athlete in an arbitration hearing; therefore the independent scientific expert becomes a de-facto fourth arbitrator that sides with the prosecution. In the Floyd Landis case the lab technican Ms. Frelat injected a calibration mix into the IRMS, she forgot to close the carbon dioxide valve. She had a result on the first calibration mix where the "peaks did not look right." She overwrote the results of this injection with the results of a second calibration mix injection on the same file and in the process destroyed the data of the first calibration mix. She left the second calibration mix in the IRMS for seven hours unattended, therfore violating the chain-of-custody requirement. Her results of the second calibration mix when done manually were in error by 2 delta units in a positive direction (less negative) than the results derived by OS/2 automatic processing. Both OS/2 and Masslynx found the calibration mix to be above threshold for synthetic testosterone >3delta units. Yet the AAA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) found her carbon content and delta/delta scores "valid" for the Stage 17 Floyd Landis urine samples. The independent scientific expert was precluded by WADA rules to disagree with the AFLD contention that because Ms. Frelat passed an old COFRAC accreditation audit she was competent to evaluate the Landis metabolite peaks. The fact that she may have made an error and manipulated the peaks as was contended by Dr. Davis was ignored and dismissed. Dr. Ayotte, Dr. Brenna, and Dr. Catlin were also precluded from stating that an error by Ms. Frelat may have been made during the testing. One problem remains with Ms. Frelat. We have no idea what she did during the testing, we have her word only that she performed the tests correctly even though LNDD did not have an operating manual for the IRMS at the time. Dr. Davis said that the operating manual was essential for the IRMS test to be conducted correctly. Of course, there were other problems besides the unsophistication of Ms. Frelat, improperly adjusted jets, tubes sucking up atmosphere from the laboratory, poor peak separation. Dr. Davis declared in his testimony that all of these factors were essential to derive precise results with an IRMS, proper jet pressure, proper tubing routing, good peak separation...at the risk of sounding sarcastic.

Of course, all of the WADA experts ignored the fact that the processing of the metabolites returned large errors that reflected problems of the software or the manual configuration of the peaks; all of the delta/delta calculations were incorrect by a large margin. Certainly, the results of the automatic processing were outside of the stated +/-.8 mil error rate published by LNDD when compared to each other. The data is only as good as the instrument measuring the data (or the person) and even if you agree that the IRMS is a very precise in rendering measurements in the billionth of mils 0/00 if the processing is garbage this fact is moot.

It is time to do away with the Olympic Committee arbitration model. A prosecution and arbitration hearing within a specific country is marginal. But appeals of awards should be done in National Federal Courts where the athlete resides, not in a Court of Arbitration of Sport in Switzerland. This would stop a "second arbitration" that is done from scratch, with a new set of testimony and arbitrary rules. This would stop jurisdictional questions between countries if an athlete appeals a CAS award to a court of law. Example: Where is the "seat", the United States or Switzerland. Unnecessary conflict of interest of CAS arbitrators would also be avoided.

Most important of all the blackmail that USA Cycling and the International Olympic Committee uses to coerce athletes into signing away their legal rights as a condition to participate in athletic contests under dubious contractual agreements would cease.

The current anti-doping model was created to combat designer drug use by athletes as happened in the Victor Conte BALCO scandal. The concept was good; but it has become corrupted by monopoly of amoral people who cherish victories in arbitration rather than discovering truth. The athlete denied due process has no chance of success in arbitration. It is time to end this charade and invite the courts to intervene where the athlete resides as a citizen.

The Return of Lance Armstrong and the Floyd Landis Lawsuit

Lance Armstrong decides to return to the peloton and old retired slime balls resurface from the depths of the swamp.

Greg LeMond, who everyone wishes would just go away, points his accusatory sanctimonious finger at Armstrong for alleged but unproven doping. Not satisfied with this LeMond also accuses former UCLA WADA accredited lab director Don Catlin of conflict of interest. LeMond thinks Catlin is a scoundrel for taking money from Armstrong to do biological profile testing. The results of these biological profile tests, which are to be paid for by team Astana, are to be posted on the Internet for transparency to quell all doubts. Good luck with that.

Yes indeed. Lance Armstrong draws the criticism of the disaffected. Jean Marie LeBlanc piped up with his old doping accusations and his disappointment that Armstrong was never detected. Former WADA president Dick Pound agreed with LeBlanc. AFLD, the French doping authority went even further. They proposed to Armstrong that he allow further testing for rEPO of the 1999 Tour de France urine samples frozen in the vault of LNDD. These tests of the old 1999 Tour urine samples could, if found positive for rEPO, result in an Adverse Analytical Finding. AFLD is suggesting that if Lance Armstrong has nothing to hide he should agree with this nonsense. Wrong. AFLD and LNDD cannot be trusted to ensure that the samples are not compromised, tainted, sabotaged, degraded. Read the UCI Vrijman Report and dare to suggest that AFLD, WADA, and LNDD can be trusted. But even if the 1999 urine samples are still pristine, the offer of AFLD allowing the samples to be tested by any WADA accredited laboratory anywhere in Europe except LNDD is moot. Why? Because as we have seen, WADA, LNDD, and the CAS have a history of doubting any laboratory result except for the ones derived at LNDD. The 1999 Tour de France urine tests done for scientific research purposes at LNDD supposedly contained trace amounts of rEPO, traces that were found in the urine of Lance Armstrong. Any new finding that contradicts this finding by a different WADA accredited lab anywhere in Europe would be contested by AFLD as demonstrating incompetence, inexperience, lack of testing equipment, poor methodology, etc. Ask Iban Mayo. Lance do the sensible thing and refuse.

I commend Lance Armstrong for wanting to return to professional cycling to raise awareness of cancer. But I fear that the slime ball coalition of Greg LeMond, Dick Pound, Jean Marie LeBlanc, AFLD, and LNDD have a different agenda. They want to discredit you as a doper, past and present. Armstrong has a difficult decision to make, does the benefits derived from raising cancer awareness outweigh the costs of a bad laboratory urine sample test result, character assassination, hounding, and public humiliation that was foisted upon Floyd Landis and Iban Mayo. I think Lance Armstrong is making a mistake and perhaps he should reconsider.

Floyd Landis is suing in Federal Court to have the 2006 Tour de France CAS doping suspension overturned.

It appears that USA Cycling will refuse to issue Landis a racing license unless he pays a CAS ordered $100,000 fine. Reasonable people believe that Landis' case will be dismissed in United States Federal court because the CAS operates under Swiss law and only courts in Switzerland can rule on athlete/CAS legal disputes. Perhaps an expert in international arbitration law can explain how a quasi legal body like the CAS has international jurisdiction in sport arbitration, but be exempt from legal decisions anywhere else in the world except Switzerland. If a national or international court rules in favor of an athlete and against the CAS in a legal dispute citing national or international points of law outside of Switzerland is this invalid and non-binding? It seems obvious that the CAS should have no jurisdiction to arbitrate cases except for cases where an athlete has a Swiss license or in cases where a Swiss Anti-Doping Authority has a dispute with an athlete. Under this logic Landis could argue that the Court of Arbitration of Sport had no jurisdiction to rule in his case and impose sanctions. Therefore, the CAS ruling has no legal standing.

Perhaps someone could explain how the International Olympic Committee who originated the Court of Arbitration of Sport was allowed to declare that the CAS operates only under Swiss law because it is physically located in Switzerland? How is the CAS exempt from international points of law that originate outside of Switzerland when they have international jurisdiction in sport arbitration? Is this a legal swindle?

Floyd Landis has a valid argument. The CAS Panels do rule exclusively for the Anti-Doping Authorities. It is reasonable to assume that CAS Panel members do this in order to drum up more business for themselves. It is also a well known fact that members of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Court of Arbitration of Sport share the same people. Dick Pound was president of WADA while also serving on a CAS board. The conflict of interest of having the president of WADA acting as a board member of an "independent" CAS should be self evident.

What happens if the United States Federal Court accepts Landis' case, rules in his favor, and orders Steve Johnson to comply with the order to issue Floyd Landis a USA cycling racing license? What would happen then?

Something to ponder.

CAS Landis Decision; CAS Fraud?

After a long hiatus from the blog sphere and after some tough reflections on cycling matters, I have come to the conclusion that some comments are required about the CAS Landis decision.

First: The Floyd Landis CAS decision was an injustice. The CAS arbitration Panel not only dismissed every point of contention offered by the defense concerning the unacceptable behavior of the Chatenay-Malabry personnel; the testing methods; the poor lab work; the clerical errors; the lack of chain-of-custody; as irrelevant in causing the Adverse Analytical Finding they added insult to injury by lecturing the Landis defense team for pointing out these errors. Absurd.

Why the CAS spent so much time defending Christiane Ayotte's impartiality was shocking. True, from the beginning, when Landis tested "positive" for synthetic testosterone on the "A" test, Christiane Ayotte as director of the WADA accredited laboratory in Montreal, began a media campaign telling anyone who would listen that Landis' test results showed the "precursors, markers, and metabolites of synthetic testosterone." These statements were part of an organized attempt by WADA "trial by media" to poison the case against Floyd Landis. Christiane Ayotte was an active part of this disinformation campaign along with former WADA president Dick Pound, UCI president Pat McQuaid, ASO owned L'Equipe, a publication that was provided leaked test results by LNDD, et al. As a result of these biased and untruthful attacks against Floyd Landis, Maurice Suh should have requested and been granted exclusion of Christiane Ayotte from testifying in arbitration hearings because her statements showed a callous disregard of ethical conduct and blatant violations of WADA protocol.

Later Christiane Ayotte became a focus of concern in the Floyd Landis AAA arbitration hearing because as a director of an accredited WADA laboratory her judgement seemed to be tainted by a need to protect WADA more than admitting that LNDD testing methods may have produced "false positive results" of delta delta scores. Christopher Campbell commented that in any other context than a doping result generated by a WADA accredited laboratory; Ayotte would have admitted that the method used by LNDD to configure the origin and termination of a Gaussian peak measured by Carbon Isotope Ratio (CG/C/IRMS) by a inexperienced laboratory technician could and probably did result in human error that generated fatal "false positive" results. Instead Christian Ayotte defended the Standard Operating Procedure of LNDD as sustainable even arguing that the WADA accredited laboratory at Montreal used the same methods in calculating carbon content of metabolites of exogenous and endogenous origin. The CAS arbitration Panel agreed with Ayotte saying that Dr. Davis would have had to have used extreme manipulations of the origin and termination of a metabolite peak to arrive at the conclusions of errors that he demonstrated to the Panel as mistakes in delta/delta calculations. In any case, the CAS Panel argued; even though the person who did the manual estimation of the carbon content of the metabolite was inexperienced; she was certified by COFRAC in an accreditation examination done previously to the Floyd Landis Tour de France LNDD testing ; therefore her results were valid. Even if her manual configuration of the metabolite peaks did contain some error; the error was not large enough to cause the Adverse Analytical Finding. This contention is incorrect, however. If one examines the AAA Panel decision one will find very large errors in carbon content scores and delta/delta values depending on which process and by which software was used to determine these values. Manual Processing, OS/2, or Masslinx. There also was a problem found on the Total Ion Content files of the Floyd Landis LNDD Stage 17 "B" tests, a small "peak" as Dr. Brenna would describe it; or a "blurb" as Dr. Ayotte would describe it; a "peak" or "blurb" never satisfactorily explained by Dr. Brenna that would have influenced the peak origin and termination points even if the small "peak" would have been noting more than random background noise and would have contained no carbon at all. This would have distorted the delta/delta valuations. The CAS was completely out of line when it dismissed this fact as not enough to produce the Adverse Analytical Finding.

The CAS was completely out of line by defending Christiane Ayotte as a "fair and balanced" actor in the Floyd Landis arbitration hearings. By her own admission Christiane Ayotte admitted that she would have never participated unless she was convinced that Floyd Landis used synthetic testosterone and this conviction of Landis' guilt made her opinions suspect as regards to the testing methods used by LNDD. The CAS was irresponsible in defending Dr. Ayotte in the most in objective way imaginable.

The CAS was also irresponsible in cheer leading WADA players in the Landis case. Even though Dr. Brenna, Dr. Catlin, and Dr.Botre are all WADA accredited lab directors, the CAS considered these people impartial, unbiased, and infallible in doping testing. Possible conflicts of interest of these people forcing them to defend WADA for financial or other reasons rather than to examine the evidence in an impartial fashion was never considered by the CAS. Or if the conflicts of interest by WADA players were considered in the Floyd Landis case; they were deemed insufficient to cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.

Quite a distinction from people who defend innocent athletes from abuse of the WADA juggernaut. The CAS Panel condemned Maurice Suh, Dr. Davis, et al., in a vicious written attack as attempting to undermine the current anti-doping crusade by introduction of trivial objections to LNDD and WADA testing protocol. In this matter the CAS Panel could and must be considered irresponsible as every person, even athletes, enjoy due process protections and an opportunity to present their defense by experienced professionals. It is a requirement of any defense in doping arbitration hearings to attack sloppy laboratory work, incompetence, mistakes, anything that might have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, especially when any one factor or combination of factors probably did cause the Adverse Analytical Finding; as did happen in the Floyd Landis case. Floyd Landis' defense of his innocence should have been praised by the CAS Panel not condemned. This is inexcusable and sets a bad precedent for other accused athletes who wish to defend their honor from senseless predatory defamation and bad laboratory science. The CAS Panel should be ashamed of their conduct and apologize to Mr. Floyd Landis and his defense team now.

Did Floyd Landis dope? The AAA said yes and the CAS confirmed it. But until I look Floyd Landis and the eye and ask him, "did you Dope?" Call me foolish but I am convinced still that Floyd Landis would not dare to lie to me. So, the answer for me until I ask the question and get an answer from Floyd Landis is "I don't know." Maybe I will never know.

WADA to Sue Floyd Landis to Recover 1.3 Million

Trust but Verify www.trustbut.blogspot.com has reported that if Floyd Landis loses his appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) then WADA intends to sue him to recover 1.3 million dollars WADA spent in legal expenses to defend the AAA Majority decision.

Well. This should prove very interesting and informative. If WADA does sue Floyd Landis for damages the case will enter a legal realm where some interesting new questions will be asked. WADA for the first time will be outside of the realm of the IOC umbrella. WADA and the CAS are both inventions of the IOC and several players, including Richard Young and Dick Pound served both WADA and the CAS at the same time. This incestuous relationship insures conflictual interests beneficial to prosecution involved in sport doping arbitration. This incestuous relationship offers unheard of protections to prosecutors to withhold evidence critical to the defense. This incestuous relationship allows WADA accredited laboratories the opportunity to destroy evidence without sanction. This incestuous relationship allows WADA accredited labs to perform tests without a semblance of competence. This incestuous relationship allows WADA accredited labs to make mistakes without correction. This incestuous relationship allows "departures" in International Standards, which cause Adverse Analytical Findings. This incestuous relationship allows laboratory personnel to work on both "A" and "B" samples in violation of WADA code. All is lawful as long as USADA in cooperation with WADA and the CAS "win" cases against athletes.

Outside of the protective sphere of the IOC, WADA may find life a little harder. To sue Floyd Landis a jurisdiction would have to be selected outside of the IOC domain. Floyd Landis would for the first time be afforded due process rights and the option of cross-examination of witnesses. Floyd Landis would be able to ask to see evidence in the possession of WADA, USADA, and LNDD that were denied by USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart and AAA Panel Majority members Partice Brunet and Richard McLaren.

Floyd Landis would be able to interrogate Jacques de Ceaurriz laboratory director of WADA accredited Chatenay-Malabry laboratory LNDD about possible LNDD laboratory personnel press leaks to tabloid magazine l'Equipe. Floyd Landis could also find the person or persons responsible for the "white out" and other deletions found on his Lab Document Package. Floyd Landis could also question Jacques De Ceaurriz and others about deleted mass spectra files from the Stage 17 GC/C/IRMS tests. Floyd Landis could force the French government to release the identity of the person or persons who hacked the LNDD laboratory computers. Floyd Landis could interrogate the people who attempted to frame Floyd Landis as the hacker of LNDD's computer and publicly examine their motives. Landis could question the person or persons who attempted to lock out Floyd Landis' representative Paul Scott during the alternate "B" sample testing. Floyd Landis could ask to see all of the COFRAC LNDD WADA accreditation audits. Floyd Landis could ask the person or persons who wrote the AFLD decision what scientific basis the decision was based upon and why his defense submission was ignored by the AFLD arbitration panel. Floyd Landis could expose the so secret volume of scientific evidence Francesco Botre and the AAA arbitrators found so critical to the AAA Panel Majority decision. Barring a bizarre gag order by the court, any point germane to the Floyd Landis case would be fair game for public examination. Can WADA, USADA, and the CAS risk such exposure?

John Fahey please sue Floyd Landis. There are so many unanswered questions about this case. Inquiring minds want to know. But don't be surprised if the real world does not work like the WADA world. WADA stands to lose allot more than money. The reputation of USADA, WADA and the CAS will be sullied. Floyd Landis spent more than a million dollars on his defense to expose your incestuous relationships. Floyd Landis wants the world to know the truth about USADA, WADA, and the CAS. What better place than a court of law?

False Positive Tests are Real

The bizarre tempo of cycling has not slowed a bit. Poor David Millar is depressed; time flies so quickly. Poor David is so overwhelmed by his future participation in the 2008 Tour de France. Millar has invested so much time and energy, "blood, sweat, and tears." Somehow it is hard to feel empathy for poor David Millar, a confessed EPO user and cheat. Especially when Levi Leipheimer, a rider above reproach is denied an invite to ride the 2008 Tour de France by ASO.

But Millar seems a bit off his rocker these days in spite of his expertise in doping. Millar expects us to believe that WADA has simplified the approach to doping and he blames the athletic federations for complicating the issues. Right. WADA has simplified the process of banning athletes from competition by writing an incoherent code which denies athletes' due process rights and by using antiquated science expressed in vague WADA Technical Documents. WADA refuses to admit that steroid research has found that individual genetic differences in testosterone enzymes have many effects on testosterone/epitestosterone screening tests. Including "false positive" results in the absence of doping. These "false positive" results were reported by Jenny Jakobsson Schultz of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. These "false positive" results were ignored by most main stream media because Dr. Schultz also found that some people can take synthetic testosterone and not be detected by standard testosterone/epitestosterone screens. Typical of the anti-doping crusade is the hysteria and focus on the issue of people who have a "license to dope" without detection. However, it is taboo to mention people who test positive although they never use PEDs. Reform of the present anti-doping structure is impossible as long as the anti-doping crusade refuses to admit that "false positives" are an inherent factor in PED testing. People will be falsely accused who are innocent. This is a fact of life.

John Fahey of WADA might be considered leader of the "black knights" a group of WADA anti-doping fanatics who refuse to accept this "false positive" reality. Dr. Jenny Jakobsson Schultz and her colleagues the "white knights" should be invited to re-write WADA Technical Document 2004 EAAS and other portions of the WADA code that pertain to her expertise in testosterone testing. Dr. Schultz and her colleagues should emphasise new scientific discoveries in steroid research and their applications to WADA accredited lab testing, including genetic testing if applicable.

Are we expecting too much for WADA to admit to the reality that scientific research is proceeding at such a fast pace that it is almost impossible to keep pace with the new discoveries in PEDs and the methods to detect them? Yes WADA does recognize the threat of Victor Conte and BALCO, designer steroids, masking agents, techniques of blood doping, and the possibility of genetic engineering of future athletes to enhance performance. But what WADA refuses to adknowledge is that they make mistakes too, based on outdated information and outdated criteria for testing. If one athletic career is destroyed because of a WADA mistake which results in a "false positive" test result whether based on incompetent lab testing or by ignorance; then the whole system is failing. Pretending that the problem does not exist will not make it go away. Better is to address the issue with an open mind and formulate a plan to deal with the problem. Only then will the anti-doping crusade work ensuring fairness for everyone.

Project Believe: Be Very Afraid

The Associated Press has reported that the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has announced a new pilot longitudinal testing program which will measure blood and urine values of twelve participating athletes. This program was patterned after the UCI biological passport and may become a requirement to participate in the upcoming Beijing Olympics. In theory changes in an athletes' biological profile may indicate performance enhancing drug use.

Participate with enthusiasm or else

At present, in the adversarial nature of the anti-doping crusade athletic contests are presumed to be filled with athletes who resort to any method to succeed, including doping. In an attempt to reverse the doping scourge, USADA now measures virtuous athletes by demanding overt vocal enthusiasm of chances to participate in new anti-doping strategies. Athletes are cowed into a state of fear and loathing by WADA labs and USADA prosecutions where athletes never win. As a result of this unfair system of arbitration, athletic paranoia has become manifest. Bryan Clay a selected subject of the new USADA longitudinal pilot program "Project Believe" says, "I'm anxious to let people know hey look I'm clean." Allyson Felix echoes the fear, "Whatever I can do to prove I'm clean, I'll do it, no matter what time I have to wake up, where I have to drive. I'll do whatever possible to prove I am a clean athlete." And former director of WADA accredited lab UCLA, Don Catlin, cheer leads "It's no surprise that good athletes, clean athletes, will jump up and down for this thing."

Be very afraid

So, if ghoulish vampires appear to collect your blood and urine at a crematorium where you are attempting to inter your infants' remains, like they did to Kevin van Impe, you had better cloak your grief and submit a sample with elan. Otherwise, you will be regarded with suspicion of attempting to subvert the anti-doping process.

Project Believe: Any change in physiology could constitute a failed test

The Associate Press article states the rational of the new longitudinal testing pilot program thus, "These tests wouldn't necessarily look for specific substances, but could detect changes in body chemistry that would indicate use [of performance enhancing substances.]" This is a very dangerous departure from current criteria needed to establish an Adverse Analytical Finding. At present an Adverse Analytical Finding can only result from a positive test of a performance enhancing substance. Changes in biological parameters do not constitute a failed test. However, the anti-doping crusade is attempting to negate clear evidence of doping by positive tests. They are attempting to file Adverse Analytical Findings based upon changes in biological parameters. Danilo DeLuca can attest to this new policy. DeLuca was measured after Stage 17 of the Giro de Italia with hormone levels "of a child." The Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) dismissed the allegations against DeLuca because he did not test positive for a prohibited substance. But as is always the case, WADA and the UCI can appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). If the CAS were to imply that an medical method was used to evade detection of performance enhancing drugs by DeLuca or his doctor based on low hormone levels, then any "abnormal" change in an athlete's profile, no matter how small, could be used in future cases as a rational to file an Adverse Analytical Finding. In these cases there would be no defense since the locus of the change in a biological parameter could never be determined.

Down the slippery slope

How many more promising athletic careers will be destroyed? How many more lives? Changes in biological parameters of urine and blood without a locus cannot substitute for a positive test for exogenous performance enhancing substances. Think. A "biological passport" scheme to detect doping in absence of a "positive test" is useless. Longitudinal tests should only be used when a WADA lab result is inconclusive, or in cases where a valid concern exists that the Adverse Analytical Finding was caused by a departure in International Standards by a WADA accredited lab.

USADA, WADA, and the UCI should never water down the criteria needed to establish an Adverse Analytical Finding by intimidation of athletes. USADA abandon the "Project Believe" pilot program now.

Genotype Variations in Enzyme UGT2B17: Implications

Dr. Jenny Jakobsson Schultz et.al, of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, have published a study examining inherited variations of enzyme UGT2B17 and their effect on testosterone/epitestosterone ratio testing. Variations in UGT2B17 genotype may cause a false positive in the absence of doping or a false negative even after exogenous testosterone use.

Well, at least someone has found that individual differences in genotype does cause different testosterone/epitestosterone ratio results. WADA would have never conceded this: the golden standard of 4:1 is written in stone and "bullet proof." Yes. WADA is stubborn as an ox with these standards of what constitutes a doping violation and are very resistant to change. Even though most peer reviewed papers that deal with testosterone doping warn of subjects who have been found with natural testosterone/epitestosterone levels greater than 4:1.

One day scientific papers may warn of people who have one testosterone metabolite(s) above a 3 delta per mil threshold on an IRMS test is due to variations in genotype. They may warn of people who have variations in genotype expression of hepatic enzymes, or in first, second, or third messengers, or in G-proteins. WADA will have to alter their testing methods to accommodate this new information.

WADA Remains Resistant to Change.

WADA refuses to worry about trivial genetic factors. WADA is loath to do longitudinal tests of athletes. WADA might find a variable that might refute their laboratory findings or challenge their presumption of laboratory perfection. WADA would never invest time and money doing pedigree studies to determine if a single metabolite above threshold for exogenous testosterone is a trait common in a family, or among a group of people found in a geographical region. But idiosyncratic individual differences in medicine have been documented in many pedigree studies. For example, hematocrit levels above 50% have been found in fathers and sons of elite cyclists. These hematocirt levels are inherited tendencies, not based on EPO doping. The same is true for testosterone/epitestosterone ratio(s) and may be true for Carbon Isotope metabolite delta/delta scores.

No matter. WADA world can't even agree among the laboratories as to what criteria constitutes a positive IRMS result. The WADA Technical Documents are vague. Testosterone metabolites measured are selected at random. Uncertainty in measurement(s) are ignored. Laboratory personnel are unqualified in testing sequences, inexperienced, prone to make errors. But WADA will never invest the money needed to correct these problems. Why? Because WADA would rather budget to pay for prosecutions against athletes who appeal their bad lab results. WADA would rather defend idiots like Dick Pound from lawsuits. WADA would rather waste time with nonsense than to invest in hard science.

WADA abandoned the UCI biological passport system. Astana has more commitment and money invested in the UCI biological passport than WADA. Yet WADA maintains a myth of total commitment to anti-doping in sport.

Conclusion: The IRMS is an instrument that requires very precise controls of operation. The results of an IRMS is only as good as the laboratory performing the tests. Inexperienced laboratory personnel who cannot follow sequential steps in testing cannot be expected to arrive at the correct results. A valid IRMS is also only as good as the science behind the tests. A valid IRMS is only as good as the criteria required in WADA technical documents, by international standards, and by standardized criteria as to what constitutes a positive result. WADA has failed in all these areas.

One hundred years from now will the scientists of the future shake their heads in amazement at our ignorance. Will they abhor the stupidity and mistakes of the anti-doping crusade? Will they be forced to restore the honor to "fallen" athletes?

An appalling prospect, indeed.

USADA, LNDD, and the Alternate "B" Tests

In a previous Velo Vortmax article, "Landis CAS Appeal Decision, June?" VV had started to develop a theory as to why USADA decided to send the alternate "B" tests from the UCLA accredited laboratory, located in Los Angeles, California all the way back to Chatenay-Malabry, located outside of Paris, France. Other suitable accredited WADA laboratories were much closer in geographical proximity, say in Salt Lake City. The chain-of-custody issues in transferring the samples would have been simplified. The storage of the samples at -40C=-40F would have been minimized. So, why did USADA insist that the alternate Floyd Landis "B" samples be sent back to Chatenay-Malabry?

A Convoluted Trail

Facts we know:
(1) USADA argued that the remaining samples Floyd Landis provided during the 2006 Tour de France should be Carbon Isotope Ratio tested even though they all passed the inital testosterone/epitestosterone screening tests.
(2) Christopher Campbell was excluded from the decision making process by the other two Floyd Landis case AAA arbitrators, Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren.
(3) Brunet and McLaren ruled that the alternate "B" tests could be tested because after an athlete gives a urine sample the sample becomes the property of the UCI. Although the additional testing could not result in additional Adverse Analytical Findings because they did not "confirm" an "A" finding. If a delta/delta score from these alternate "B" tests showed delta/delta scores of metabolites above the three delta unit threshold this could be used by the Panel as supporting evidence of "doping" with exogenous testosterone by Floyd Landis.*
(4) Christopher Campbell writes a vigorous dissent.*

Facts that we wonder about.
(1) Floyd Landis requested that the alternate "B" tests be done at the USADA testing laboratory UCLA where his alternate "B" samples were being stored.
(2) USADA agrees with this proposal.
(3) For unknown reasons the UCLA IRMS is unavailable. Routine maintenance of the IRMS is cited.
(4) USADA offers Floyd Landis an alternative. The WADA accredited laboratory in Montreal. Floyd Landis refuses because Christiane Ayotte had stated in numerous media outlets that she was convinced that the Chatenay-Malabry tests showed "the precursors, markers, and metabolites of elevated exogenous testosterone." Such public proclamations by a director of a WADA accredited lab in advance of the AAA hearing is unacceptable. If not unethical. Ayotte's obvious bias against Floyd Landis and her obvious support of the LNDD findings made her laboratory unsuitable as an alternative to UCLA for the testing.
(5) Efforts to reach a suitable compromise on another WADA accredited laboratory for testing of the alternate "B" samples does not materialize.
(6) The alternate "B" samples are returned to Chatenay-Malabry even though Floyd Landis accuses USADA of returning the samples to an incompetent laboratory. Floyd Landis also accuses USADA of unnecessary testing to destroy evidence, his urine, in the combustion process required by GC/C/IRMS. Urine is vaporized into Carbon Dioxide and destroyed in testosterone Carbon Isotope Ratio testing.

Questions Maurice Suh should have asked at the AAA hearing, but didn't:

(1) Why were the alternate "B" samples sent to UCLA and what use they had for USADA. Samples for future research purposes? Did USADA dream of a Lance Armstrong type Chatenay-Malabry EPO fiasco. Retroactive punishment when science catches up with doping methods?
(2) Why did not Maurice Suh ask Don Catlin under cross-examination to explain why the IRMS needed maintenance at a critical moment in the Floyd Landis case?
(3) Why did USADA only mention Montreal as a suitable alternative WADA lab for UCLA and no where else? USADA did recognize the bias and public statements of Christiane Ayotte? Did USADA expect the Montreal WADA accredited laboratory to challenge the LNDD results or to make every effort to confirm them? Did USADA recognize that the Montreal WADA lab run by Ayotte would signal an obvious conflict of interest?
(4) Did USADA know that Chatenay-Malabry had failed to identify three diagnostic ions on the Stage 17 testosterone/epitesterone ratio confirmation test?
(5) Was Floyd Landis aware of the failure of Chatenay-Malabry to identify three diagnostic ions on the Stage 17 testosterone/epitestosterone ratio confirmation test? Or was this fact learned from post-facto discovery battles and orders from the AAA panel to surrender documentary evidence to Floyd Landis?
(6) If USADA was aware that the diagnostic ions were not identified, and they must have been aware of this fact since they had all of the pertinent Chatenay-Malabry lab documentation, why did they return the alternate "B" samples to LNDD?

If USADA would have answered "no" to question 5 that Landis had no knowledge of the failure of LNDD to identify three diagnostic ions on the Stage 17 testosterone/epitestosterone confirmation test and "yes" to post-facto knowledge obtained after discovery requests. And if USADA admitted to having privileged information denied to the Landis defense under question 6, but USADA sent the alternate "B" samples to be tested at LNDD anyway. Then USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart should resign. It is unconscionable that USADA could return alternate "B" samples for Carbon Isotope Ratio testing to a lab that could not even do the minimum required to confirm a simple testosterone/epitestosterone ratio test. One might infer that the logic of USADA was, well, if they are incapable of doing a simple T/E screen then they are certain to fail at a more complicated IRMS. Because the WADA lab findings can only be discredited by what the AAA arbitration Panel deems scientifically acceptable under the comfortable satisfaction rule, there is no danger of losing our case because the additional "B" tests would add more evidence of "doping." This would obscure the issues of the original Stage 17 IRMS results and the original "departures." And everyone would be convinced of the "truth."

What effect did the alternate "B" tests have on the Floyd Landis AAA Panel?

The alternate "B" tests did return above threshold delta/delta scores for certain metabolites on various tests. The Panel met with "independent scientific expert" Rome WADA lab director Franceso Botre in a secret meeting where they discussed a "critical volume of scientific evidence." What the contents of this "critical volume of scientific evidence" were and how much this influenced the Majority decision is unknown. What role this evidence will have in the CAS decision is also unknown. Why the AAA Panel resorted to secrecy to examine this evidence after conducting an open hearing is impossible to understand.

Conclusion: To the critics who say Americans refuse to believe Chatenay-Malabry, but these same Americans would believe the results of an American lab if the results did not confirm the results of LNDD. Hey, there are WADA accredited laboratories all over the world. Pick one.

But there may never be a need for alternate "B" tests again. Right?

*To find the AAA decision and dissent on the alternate "B" test issue see: "April 07: First Arbitration Decision." http://www.trustbut.blogspot.com/

Morally Bankrupt Anti-Doping Crusade

The anti-doping crusade is morally bankrupt and in need of drastic reform. From the start the athlete is considered guilty until proven innocent. The athlete is required to refute a presumption of correctness of laboratory analysis by proving through scientific argument that a "departure" in the laboratory practice caused an Adverse Analytical Finding. This burden, placed upon the athlete may be insurmountable due to the trauma that an athlete experiences when he/she is informed that he/she has failed a test for performance enhancing drugs. The threat to his/her professional career in sport, the thought of expensive litigation, the stigma and ridicule, may render a professional athlete psychologically incapable of functioning enough to even assist in his/her defense.

While the anti-doping agencies co-operate to hire outside counsel, the athlete in most cases does not have the financial means to defend him/herself. The athlete must hire an expert in forensic toxicology to observe confirmation testing in order to safeguard the athletes' interests. The athlete must hire a lawyer to present his/her case. If the athlete appeals additional expenses can be expected. This is an inherently unfair to the athlete.

In addition WADA has determined that the mere presence of a banned substance, whether taken intentionally or not, is an inexcusable crime, under strict liability. If any amount of a banned substance is detected, this is a crime. If the quantity detected is insufficient to enhance performance, this is a crime. Both cases still constitute doping offenses. Even if a banned substance was taken by accident, the athlete can still expect a one year suspension. LA Times columnist Michael A. Hiltzik has written a brilliant summary of the problem of "no tolerance" "strict liability" WADA doctrine for athletes, and the impossibility of obtaining a fairly reasoned decision in Arbitration. "Athletes' Unbeatable Foe." Anyone wanting to understand the fundamental unfairness of the current anti-doping crusade to the athlete must read this article.

The deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution in arbitration cases. The most egregious example is in the selection of the arbitrators. The athlete is allowed one arbitrator while the federation (USA Cycling) gets one arbitrator. The third arbitrator is supposed to be neutral. But because of the inherent nature of the selection process of the third arbitrator from a pool of eligible association arbitrators, such as the AAA, this rarely happens. Most times the prosecution is rewarded with two arbitrators.

In arbitration cases with scientific complexity an expert in forensic toxicology is needed to examine the evidence. The expert should be independent from the IOC/WADA certified labs and the athletic federation. The expert should function as amicus curiae or "neutral representative." There may also be amicus briefs filed on behalf of an athlete by neutral parties who argue relevant points of law. For example, "WADAworld, WADA case for CAS...An amicus brief to the CAS in the Floyd Landis case..." by Drew Schafer. http://www.wadawatch.blogspot.com/

Why Did Floyd Landis Lose the AAA hearing?

The scientific expert in the AAA hearing was none other than head of the WADA accredited lab in Rome. Dr. Botre. Dr. Botre's opinion was the single most important factor in determining whether Floyd Landis' defense met the burden of proving that a "departure" on the part of LNDD caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. Botre decided that the forensic evidence did not prove that the methodology LNDD used in the Landis case was serious enough to invalidate the delta/delta Carbon Isotope Ratio findings. Allowing a director of a WADA lab to serve as "independent scientific expert" when WADA is paying the legal expenses of USADA is a very dangerous precedent.

Next article will expand on the danger of having a director of a WADA lab as an "independent" scientific expert based upon the testimony of Christiane Ayotte and the AAA dissent of Christopher Campbell; who pointed out the obvious conflicts of interest of Ayotte in the Landis case. This will be compared to the logic of Bruce Goldberger, professor in pathology, immunology, and laboratory medicine at the University of Florida who felt compelled to testify because he believed that "when I looked at the [LNDD LDP] documents my gut feeling was this is wrong. I am here to exonerate Floyd because I think what was done was outside the standard of analytical toxicology." No ulterior motives, Dr. Goldberger did not "know Floyd." A perfect example of a true "independent" science expert, with no "dog in this fight."

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.

Cycling News of the Weird

It's official, no Astana invite for le Tour. Christian Prudhomme and Patrice Clerc of ASO have snubbed the petitioners of let Alberto Contador and Levi Leipheimer ride with an extended hand with upraised middle finger. All those hard core cycling fans, not the "quasi" fans like Martin Dugard who don't understand racing tactics or care who wins, are pissed off, naturally. Christian Prudhomme says the twenty best teams were invited, sans Astana. Prudhomme is starting to sound like former WADA president Dick Pound, living in a bubble somewhere over the rainbow. Let's say nineteen of best teams were invited to le Tour and leave it at that. Astana on paper probably is the best le Tour team, the defending le Tour champion Alberto Contador has a jersey marked Astana, so does Levi Leipheimer, Andreas Kloden, and Chris Horner. Johan Bruyneel drives an Astana team car and is director sportif. But to Prudhomme these factors were not considered in the Astana team non-invite, nothing personal Alberto, ASO has nothing against you, but your jersey does say Astana. Maybe next year after Astana folds up and quits, maybe we will re-consider.

ASO would be rid of a thorn in the paw if it could be rid of Astana. Alberto Contador, Levi Leipheimer, and Andreas Kloden would be on different teams! Better yet Contador, Leipheimer and Kloden might retire from cycling! Even better ASO may get rid of Johan Bruyneel! Bruyneel would have difficultly in obtaining a job for another team if Astana quits as a sponsor. ASO has made it clear by now that if you hire certain people or have certain riders on your team you will be subjected to blackmail. ASO may bleat about lack of "respect" for le Tour, but in truth all they want to do is intimidate cycling teams, riders, and sponsors by threats of exclusion. Nobody wants to take a "risk" and hire a person who has been black listed by the mad men of ASO.

Well, team Slipstream did get an invite and we are supposed to feel better because the team is American. No General Classification contenders to worry about though. Jonathan Vaughters says "If we get the leaders jersey for a stage that would be incredible. I don't think we'll have a General Classification rider honestly." Ah, I appreciate an honest man who concedes the race in advance. Encouraging news for American cycling fans. Slipstream does have first rate time trialists. Former UCI World Time Trial Champion and confessed EPO user David Millar. Millar did wear yellow long ago. Millars' time trial performance has declined in recent years so he probably should not be considered much of a threat. David Zabriskie also managed to best Lance Armstrong to wear yellow in le Tour. However, Zabriskie has suffered physical problems from injuries he sustained when he tangled with a Suburu in Millcreek Canyon outside of Salt Lake City. Zabriskie's time trial performances have also declined. Vaughters probably thinks that Millar or Zabriskie could win the prologue time trial and keep yellow through some of the flat stages. ASO are counting on mediocre performances of teams like Slipstream, no General Classification riders to challenge the podium. How exciting.

Team High Road formerly Team Telekom (T-Mobile) has George Hincapie who won one le Tour stage in his career, and could possibly be considered a weak threat for General Classification if he can find his legs.

Anyway the 2008 le Tour will not be the cliff hanger of 2007 with the closest podium finish in history. With two of the three podium finishers not racing many hard core cycling fans complain that le Tour will be boring. Le Tour pre-race favorite Cadel Evans will attack during the mountain stages adding on time and probably win le Tour by six to ten minutes. Bored fans will fight off tedium. ASO can add an asterisk to the ceramic jug given to the "winner." And historians will argue forever as to what would have happened if Alberto Contador and Levi Leipheimer would have been allowed to race.

Australian fans take heart. If Cadel Evans wins le Tour and Robbie McEwin takes the points jersey; even with an asterisk; you can rejoice in your accomplishments. Cyclingnews will never forget to remind us of Australian cycling superiority.


In Other Cycling News of the Weird


ASO and the UCI are fighting over Astana and the UCI has threatened to not sanction le Tour. More nonsense to contend with from ego maniacal idiots. FFC may sanction the event on a French national calendar, and Chatenay-Malabry will do the doping tests. AFLD will handle the discipline. Hopefully nobody will test positive or real legal issues will emerge.

Floyd Landis CAS appeal is underway. No press releases from either side. The experiment in transparency that Landis insisted upon in the AAA hearing has been abandoned for secrecy. We are all waiting for a press release from the CAS. The decision has to be written within four months from the day the CAS hearing ends according to CAS rules. More waiting and waiting to know the final outcome of this "trial de novo."

Hein Verbruggen has sued former WADA president Dick Pound for slander and libel and for making statements that mis-represent the UCI commitment to anti-doping. Surreal.

Turns out that American taxpayers may not be paying for USADA legal expenses in the Floyd Landis CAS appeal after all. In case the anti-doping process is new to you, athletes pay their own legal expenses. WADA may be paying most of the USADA legal tab. I have always maintained that Travis T. Tygart and USADA were nothing more than WADA lap dogs, useful only in licking the jack boots of WADA presidents. So much for USADA independence from WADA. Follow the money.

As a footnote one has to ask: who paid the legal expenses for AFLD in the Landis French version of an arbitration decision. WADA? NB: In France there is no need for a hearing. The French can't be bothered with examining evidence or considering departures by Chatenay-Malabry that may have "caused" the Adverse Analytical Finding. No. The decision reads like it was dictated out of the office of WADA president John Fahey. AFLD probably has as much independence in anti-doping decisions as USADA. None, nada, zilch.

Finally. The Martin Dugard revelation that Floyd Landis told him that Lance Armstrong used PEDs over salsa and chips is a great invention by a deranged person. It is impossible for me to believe that Floyd Landis would turn down the offer of USADA and Travis T. Tygart of the "shortest suspension in history," if he would aid USADA and Tygart in exposing the alleged U.S. Postal Pro Cycling Team/Discovery Channel doping tactics during le Tour. Landis refused Tygart's offer. Instead Floyd Landis spent two million dollars on his hopeless defense, maintained his innocence in the face of character assassinations for eighteen months. But according to Dugard the stress became so great that Floyd Landis broke down and told Dugard that Lance doped. Fantastic fairy tales.

In the current cycling climate with the war raging between the ASO and the UCI more weird news is on the way.

Landis Appeal Expenses: Bill AFLD

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.

Doubting Martin Dugard Part 2

Whew! Martin Dugard is in a defensive stance since his bomb shell revelation that Floyd Landis "confessed" to him that Lance Armstrong used PEDs. I want to know more, Martin. How about providing us with more information? Tabloid style.

Because if you made this Armstrong accusation in order to sensationalize yourself then you deserve whatever punishment you get. So, no, the story is not over. It does not end with the Court of Arbitration of Sport for you Martin. You have to answer for yourself.

How dare you call us cycling fans "quasi?" You think we live in a bubble unaware of the realities of life? Let me set the record straight for you Martin. When Tyler Hamilton was suspended for blood doping I thought he was very guilty. I laughed outright at his refusal to admit to the "truth" and I thought his Tyler Hamilton Foundation was a joke. "Believe Tyler!" sure, you bet. But after a M.D. in blood doping made a forum comment that a transfusion of another person's blood would not improve your performance, that people are born with foreign antibodies, that the foreign antibodies found in Tyler Hamilton's tests were no greater than random events, and that DNA strand testing would have proved the issue once and for all, I began to have doubts. The M.D. also swore that the testing method's used by WADA were insufficient to prove the Adverse Analytical Finding. Campbell argued the same issues at length in his Tyler Hamilton case dissent. I doubt that Alexander Vinokurov and Andrey Kashekin are positive as well. So, Martin, you have to accept new information with an "open mind."

Unlike ASO and AMGEN who have passed judgement upon the un-repentant, un-washed, un-confessed dopers in our mists be they American or otherwise. I speak of Tyler Hamilton that AMGEN refused to allow to race the Tour of California although he had clearance to race from USA Cycling. Alexander Vinokurov who refuses to confess even though Chatenay-Malabry discovered a "double red blood cell population." Astana was forced to withdraw from the 2007 Tour de France over this blood doping accusation and now Astana is being prevented from racing in RCS and ASO events. The testing methods are insufficient to prove the AAF and teams are being denied invitations to racing, after the fact? Smoke and mirrors, Martin. This is no bubble world of denial of what is happening in cycling these days. These truths are self evident and if someone does not monitor the situation and ask questions the abuse of power will continue.

So, Martin, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I don't believe you. I don't believe that Floyd Landis told you in confidence that Lance Armstrong used PEDs. Also, I do not believe that Floyd Landis told Greg LeMond that he used PEDs in the 2006 Tour de France. In America a man has the opportunity to confront his accusers. This is called due process. This opportunity was denied Floyd Landis in the kangaroo court of an AAA hearing. LeMond was whisked out of the court room in a rush before anyone could cross examine his motives and agenda. What a farce.

I am flabbergasted by Will Geoghegan and his deplorable phone call too, Martin. I don't know if Floyd Landis and Will Geoghegan were drinking shots of whiskey at the time or not. I don't know if the phone call was intended as a practical joke or not. I don't care. You can call it black mail or witness tampering if you want to. You can base Landis' lack of character on this call if you want to. Some people have said that if Floyd Landis can sit in the same room with a fool of a business manager who would prank call Greg LeMond in such a crass fashion then he sure can use dope. Okay, I have heard that argument a thousand times. I disagree because I don't know how much control Floyd Landis had over Will Geoghegan at the time. But I do concede this: the damage to Floyd Landis' character will last forever. I do agree with you here Martin, Floyd Landis sowed the seeds of doubt in everyone's minds. Nobody is to blame but Floyd Landis, enough said.

I am disgusted most by the opportunity Floyd Landis gave Greg LeMond to continue with his crusade as the "saint" of cycling. Greg LeMond recently told an audience that the Will Geoghegan call was the worst thing that had ever happened in his life. Right. Worse than being swindled out of a Tour de France victory by Hinault, worse than being shot by his cousin, much worse than being sexually molested by his uncle, and much, much, worse than being threatened by Lance Armstrong. Allegedly. Floyd how could you do such a stupid thing? Never give a big baby like LeMond a soap box to cry from. People might begin to feel sorry for Greg LeMond and blame you, Floyd Landis. How could you?

Bottom line Martin. If Floyd Landis confesses that he used synthetic testosterone then I will apologise to everyone that I have argued with over the past eighteen months. I will admit that I am a fool. Otherwise, no. I don't flip flop on issues like you do without convincing proof. And I don't drag in comparisons to Marion Jones or Barry Bonds unless it is to illustrate a point about the deplorable state of journalistic integrity today. If you want to write an article about Marion Jones or Barry Bonds, the clear, BALCO, and deceit, do so. But stop mixing apples with oranges. Don't equate Floyd Landis with Marion Jones or Barry Bonds. Landis, Jones, and Bonds have nothing in common.

Now then Martin, I can appreciate that you have an opinion, but in future do the rest of the cycling family a favor and keep your unconvincing, narcissistic, ego driven opinions to yourself.