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/