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.

Doubting Martin Dugard Part 1

Martin Dugard has appointed himself as all knowing in
the realm of cycling psychology and he has an opinion
as expressed in an article, DOUBTING FLOYD. Dugard
expresses his opinion that Floyd Landis doped to
recover from the Stage 16 "bonk" and he considers the
Stage 17 "recovery" as physiologically impossible
without dope. As a matter of fact Martin Dugard
opines a masterful piece of disinformation. Dugard
maintains that Landis has such a unique physiology
that a topical testosterone cream can speed recovery
from a bonk. The amount of additional recovery testosterone adds to a bonk that is based on glucose depletion is a constant source of debate, some experts claim testosterone provides insignificant improvement, others claim testosterone provides no improvement at all, and some even claim that testosterone would reduce performance after a bonk not improve it. I challenge Dugard to ride a course, bonk, replenish glucose, apply a topical testosterone solution, re-ride the course after "recovery" and measure his riding performance. The probability of a Landis like improvement based upon glucose + testosterone is zero. If your power output is 425 watts under normal training conditions acute applications of a topical testosterone is not going to make you into a 600 watt superman.


Where Were The Other Teams?

Dugard should re-view the Stage 17 Landis attack. The
chasing teams did nothing, merely rode tempo hoping
Landis would "bonk" again. There was no attempt to
chase until the gap to Floyd Landis was 9:00, far too
late to reel him in.

Why Did The AAA Majority Discard the Chatenay-Malabry
Testosterone/Epitestosterone Ratio?
Dugard maintains that Landis' testosterone level was
so high that Dick Pound decided that he could service
every virgin in a radius of fifty miles? Sorry Martin
but the AAA majority did not agree with you or Dick
Pound. Read the AAA decision next time and stop
misleading people. Fact is LNDD ran four Stage 17
testosterone/epitestosterone screen tests, 4.9:1,
5.1:1, 11.4:1, and one was discarded. Guess which one
Chatenay Malabry used as a basis for the Adverse
Analytical Finding? 11:1. The 11:1 result was not
accepted by the AAA majority and the two
and a half year suspension was based on a single
metabolite delta/delta score, remember Martin?
Another thing, if Landis was so full of testosterone
why did not all of the metabolites show similar
scores? Why were three metabolites below the 3 per
mil threshold? This indicates no use of synthetic
testosterone. Even Campbell in his dissent commented
on this fact. If Chatenay-Malabry would have taken
the published uncertainty of +/-.8 mil into account
and admitted that the laboratory measurement may have
been in error, then there is a high probability that
the IRMS measurements would have been declared
inconclusive. Then WADA TD 2004 EAAS would have
called for longitudinal studies by out-of-
competition tests to determine base line scores unique
to Landis' physiology. If an IRMS is deemed inconclusive,
WADA TD 2004 EAAS calls for a measurement of
Testosterone/Luteinizing hormone as supportive evidence.
As a matter of fact two blood tests of Landis were taken
during the 2006 Tour de France. The evidence was available.
And Floyd Landis did request longitudinal tests which
USADA, the UCI, and WADA refused to conduct.

Why Did the Blood Profile Data Not Find A Suppression
in Luteinizing Hormone?

Now I could accept the delta/delta score as accurate
if the gonadotrophin luteinizing hormone; measured by
blood sampling not urine would have been suppressed.
If Landis was using topical synthetic testosterone
luteinizing hormone would have been suppressed. Even
Don Catlin admitted that this did not happen. Why?
More of the Landis miracle physiology? I have yet had
a single person explain how a man can raise the level
of testosterone in his system by introduction of
synthetic testosterone and not suppress luteininzing
hormone from stimulating the Leydig cells to produce
endogenous testosterone. Even though this directly
contradicts the LNDD single metabolite theory of synthetic
testosterone use by Floyd Landis.

Why Did the Anti-Doping Review Board Ignore the
Testosterone/Luteinizing Hormone Evidence?

This medical impossibility was completely ignored by
the AAA majority because there was a single metabolite
above the 3 per mil threshold for exogenous
testosterone. The Carbon Isotope Ratio was accepted a
"bullet proof" and the people who ran the test were
considered to be "infallible." Chatenay-Malabry as a
WADA accredited lab could not back down and admit that
an error might have been made. Even if Paul Scott
stated in his testimony that proper testing with an
GC/C/IRMS could not be done without an operating
manual. The manual was missing when the Stage 17 tests
were done, of course.

COFRAC, AFLD, and the Landis French Suspension

The COFRAC auditors were supposed to check for these
things, under contract for AFLD, right? These audits
were required for accreditation of Chatenay-Malabry as
a WADA/IOC laboratory, correct? This is probably why COFRAC
certified the Chatenay-Malabry results as
correct in the AFLD decision. Please. The AFLD
Landis decision is very complex and would probably
require a very detailed legal analyses. For more
information concerning the Landis AFLD decision please
visit WADAwatch.

Where do I go to study all of the Landis Case
Scientific Issues?

Unfortunately the scientific issues are very complex
and long winded and it would take a very large book to
compile them all. Issues I mentioned in this article
have bothered me the most although they may be some of
the more trivial ones. For a more in depth look at
the scientific issues in the Landis case I would
suggest everyone visit the Landis case information blog
Trust but Verify.

Forget the Science Let's Attack Landis' Character

Once again Martin Dugard like so many other sport writers
who are experts in the Landis case ignore the scientific
issues of the case and instead dwell into the character issues.
First, Dugard mentions Landis' upbringing in the Mennonite
culture and how Floyd defied his father by escaping at night
to train on his mountain bike. Reading between the lines we
can almost discern a sinister suggestion that if the black sheep
of the family would resort to disobeying the biblical injunction
of "honor thy father and mother" and to revolt against the cannons of his faith to "renounce the material world" that it would be no small matter for Floyd to use a topical testosterone cream in order to cheat the competition and win the Tour de France. Dugard seems to delight in Floyd Landis' defiance of his father and later he makes a weird analogy to defiance of his cycling mentor "father figure" Lance Armstrong. Dugard is giving us all an implication that if Floyd Landis would abandon his mentor in the quest for money and glory then certainly he is falling into temptation of athletic greed and avarice. Floyd Landis suddenly is a man without a qualm who would resort to any tactic, even "lies" to become a "legend" of cycling.

Astana, Tailwind Sport, Discovery Channel, Rest in Peace

This time Pat McQuaid is right to stand up to the ASO.
Every time the UCI backs down Grand Tour organizers
fancy they can make new demands. McQuaid gave the
Grand Tours a waiver from the Pro Tour. Then the UCI
backed down when Unibet was excluded from 2007
Paris-Nice.

Then Astana was forced to abandon the 2007 Tour de
France at ASO insistence after Alexander Vinokurov
tested "positive" for homologous blood doping. As a
result of this doping "violation" and withdrawal
Unipublic denied Astana an invite for the 2007 Vuelta.
In every instance McQuaid and the UCI did nothing to
intervene even though Astana was an official UCI Pro
Tour Team. After all Astana deserved to be punished
for doping offenses and nobody was ready to rush to
the defense of dopers.

Even when Angelo Zomegnan of RCS excluded Astana from
the 2008 Giro d' Italia citing Astana's "disrespect"
did McQuaid and the UCI remain mute.

Nothing would have compelled the UCI to act if ASO
would have let Alberto Contador defend his Tour de
France and Paris-Nice titles. But Christian Pruhomme
and Patrice Clerc went too far when they announced
that Astana was to be excluded from the Tour de France
and other ASO organized events.

Finally Pat McQuaid realized the danger.

How Did We Get Here?

The original problem was the number of Pro Tour teams.
The UCI started the Pro Tour with twenty teams. The
Grand Tours objected saying the rider field of 200
riders was too large. Quick Step manager Patrick
Lefevere agreed as spokesman for the International
Professional Cycling Teams (IPCT) with this
concern. The Grand Tours also wanted room to invite
non Pro Tour wild card teams.

When the reduction of the number of the Pro Tour teams
was discussed cycling fans were skeptical of
Lefevere's motives. At the time the Tour de France
was dominated by Lance Armstrong and US Postal, soon
to be Lance Armstrong and Discovery Channel.

I had a suspicion that Lefevere was hoping that the
reduction in Pro Tour teams would be aimed straight at
Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sport. It is common
knowledge that the Europeans hated Armstrong's
domination of the Tour. It is also common knowledge
that the Europeans hated an American team winning the
Tour year after year. When Alberto Contador won the
bizarre 2007 Tour de France for Discovery Channel by default;
under the tutelage of Johan Bruyneel and Levi
Leipheimer placed third on the podium; the European
cycling powers must have decided that a new course of
action was needed.

Much to the relief of European cycling Discovery
Channel changed management and decided to end their
cycling sponsorship. Unless Lance Armstrong could
secure a new sponsor Tailwind Sport was out as a
cycling competitor. It soon became apparent to
everyone that Tailwind Sport and Lance Armstrong were
not going to find a new sponsor. It was later
reported that Armstrong warned off potential
replacements for Discovery Channel probably sensing
another senseless onslaught by the European cycling
power structure.

Enter Astana As A Replacement Sponsor For Discovery

When Discovery Channel left the fold a void was
created. The defending Tour de France champion
Alberto Contador and third place finisher Levi
Leipheimer were left without a team to race for.
Director Sportif Johan Bruyneel was also left without
a team to direct.

Team Astana saved the situation by signing Contador,
Leipheimer, and Bruyneel to racing and managing
contracts for 2008. In addition, Astana signed
Andreas Kloden after T-Mobile ended their sponsorship
in 2007.

Oh No Here We Go Again.

Just when everybody was savoring the demise of Lance
Armstrong and Discovery Channel, Astana comes along
and assembles an even stronger team with many of the
same cast that has dominated the Tour de France for
eight of the past nine years.

Panic! Get Out The Cannons!

The non-invite by Angelo Zomegnan and RCS to the 2008
Giro d' Italia was no accident. What Patrick Lefevere
and the IPCT could not do by design (probably to
protect the economic interests of Quick Step in
forcing out Tailwind and Armstrong) Zomegnan did by
ruse to punish Astana for the Alexander
Vinokurov/Andrey Kashekin homologous blood doping
"positives." Ignored was the re-organization of the
Astana team and the implementation of a new internal
team anti-doping program run by Dr. Damsgaard.
Ignored was the 400,000 euro team commitment to the
UCI biological passport by Astana. Zomegnan also based
his exclusion of Astana on a flimsy excuse that
Leipheimer only wanted to race the Giro as a
conditioning exercise. Andreas Kloden's racing goals
were completely ignored, of course.

ASO Goes Too Far

Christian Prudhomme announces that Astana, including
defending Tour de France champion Alberto Contador,
and past podium finishers Levi Leipheimer and Andreas
Kloden are to be excluded from the Tour de France.
ASO also announces that team Astana and defending
Paris-Nice champion Alberto Contador will be excluded
from Paris-Nice.

McQuaid Awakens

Suddenly, the UCI awakens. McQuaid declares that ASO
is trying to undermine the UCI's authority. McQuaid
declares that ASO is trying to dominate the racing
structure in Europe. McQuaid demands a rider and team
boycott of Paris-Nice. McQuaid threatens sanctions of
riders and expulsions of teams from the UCI Pro Tour
who participate in Paris-Nice.

Fall Out

It is almost laughable that when this planned and
approved destruction of Astana as a Pro Tour team came
to fruition the fatalities may be the entire UCI Pro
Tour organization. And the UCI as a regulatory body.

Don't Think Twice -Bob Dylan

Please don't consider loss of sponsorship, loss of fans,
loss of respectability, loss of revenue, and general
disdain for the Grand Tour organizers and their races.
Please don't think of the riders careers which are in
jeopardy. Think only of yourselves, ASO, UCI, RCS,
Unipublic, IPCT, as the selfish power hungry
narcissists you truly are. Go on with your power wars
and see how many causalities you have next year in
team sponsorships and revenues. See how long you can
offend us the fans before we turn our televisions and
radios off!

ASO and France might finally get racing parity and
even a French Tour de France winner some day if the
UCI Pro Tour goes with the wind. Even if people laugh
at the poor quality of the riders and teams in the
"new" Tour de France.

A warning to cycling teams everywhere: don't dominate
the Tour. People will think of any reason to be rid of
you. Your team and riders will be victimized next.
Your sport might not survive next time.

To Astana. If ASO takes over you are done. All that
will be left is to stick in the fork. You will never
get an invite to the Tour de France again. The
destruction of U.S. Postal, Discovery Channel,
Tailwind Sport, and Lance Armstrong will be complete.

Congratulations!

Paris-Nice: Cyclists Strike!

Enough! It is time the riders took matters into their own hands. All of the invited team riders should show up for Paris-Nice, ride one kilometer, stop, lay down their bikes and refuse to ride another inch. Strike! Just like they did in the 1998 Tour de France. If the ASO and the UCI can not immediately resolve their issues and write a joint communique of agreement, the teams should pack up and go home.

I have no sympathy for either side in this fight. As far as I am concerned both the ASO and the UCI can drop dead. The riders are being shoved around the board like chess pieces. Blackmailed and threatened by the UCI with sanctions if they ride Paris-Nice, threatened and blackmailed by ASO if they refuse to race. No Olympics or World Championship. No UCI sanctioned track events. If riders don't ride Paris-Nice ASO will refuse to invite their teams to the Tour de France. Other ASO organized classics are out too. Clerc, Prudhomme, McQuaid, they all are thugs.

Micheal Ball is right. It is time for the riders to organize a union with teeth. They should pay union dues so if a rider should encounter problems he/she will have people who will represent their interests!

The team sponsors need to organize and grind out multiple year non-negotiable contracts with these insane people. RCS, Unipublic, ASO, and the UCI. Astana, never again. If the sponsors are willing to make multiple-million dollar commitments to cycling they should be assured that the team will be invited to race no matter what an individual rider may be accused of doing. The only exception to this rule would be systematic doping by a team like Festina. These theater like exclusions of riders and teams that have been going on since the 2000 Tour de France must end, now.

If there is not a resolution of the Paris-Nice conflict soon I am considering a boycott of the Tour. I want Levi Leipheimer. I want Andreas Kloden. I want Alberto Contador. I want Cadel Evans to prove he can win the Tour de France against the best riders in the world. No gifts. Otherwise, I may spend July looking over old films of past Tours and do some historical research.

Back in the day the Tour was a race, not a circus.