Ashenden Interview: A Critique

Michael Ashenden is convinced that Lance Armstrong used rEPO during the 1999 Tour de France. In an interview in velocitynation he cites the results of the post-facto scientific tests LNDD did on the 1999 Tour samples as proof.

Ashenden may have made a number of unproven assumptions however. The lab personnel did a random blind test of samples that were coded with numbers unknown to the testers. In theory this would be the case if the sample was collected by AFLD then assigned a new number by the UCI. However, under WADA, transfer of samples seem to violate the true double blind standard. The Floyd Landis alternate "B" test samples were identified by UCLA with tape before they were shipped to Chatenay-Malabry. The testers were aware of whom they were testing. This fact was confirmed in the Pepperdine testimony. Stephen Schumacher claims that LNDD was aware of the identity of his samples. Stephen Schumacher claims that his "A" sample tested negative but that LNDD tested the "B" sample anyway. The "B" sample tested positive for rEPO CERA. The legal bases for Stephen Shumacher's claims should prove interesting in the Court of Arbitration of Sport.

That the 1999 Tour samples were stored properly, frozen at all times. Ashenden claims that if the samples were stored in an unfrozen state that the bands of endogenous EPO would have shifted, and this shift would have made the endogenous form indistinguishable from the synthetic. Ashenden claims that this did not happen citing some test that proved the samples integrity. The nature of this test was not explained in the interview, however.

It is not impossible to conclude that LNDD let the 1999 Tour samples lie about the lab unprotected. In the Floyd Landis case a calibration mix was injected in the GC/C/IRMS and left unattended for five hours, a clear violation of WADA chain-of-custody protocol. Unfortunately, there is no absolute proof that the 1999 Tour samples were stored in a warm environment, but there is no proof that the samples were stored correctly either.

Degraded samples would have caused rEPO molecules to disappear not to increase. Ashenden argues that all of the 1999 samples were in pristine condition, unchanged for the duration of the six years they were in storage. Ashenden also argues that the samples were of equal quality when they were tested. Ashenden also argues that the samples were secure with a clear chain-of-custody and that they were never tampered with. However, except for testimonial assurances from 'department of analyses' personnel (LNDD) or others involved in the collection, transfer, storage process, there is no absolute proof that the samples were not "spiked" in 1999.

If it was the intention of AFLD, the UCI or LNDD to prove that Lance Armstrong had used PED's all that would have been required is a presence of rEPO isoforms on a single sample collected during the 1999 Tour. The percentage of the rEPO found would be irrelevant. The mere presence of a prohibited substance is enough to establish an Adverse Analytical Finding under WADA code. If the samples were tampered with in the transport stage between race and laboratory then no complicated mathematical formula would have been required to account for the fluctuations in the isoform values measured between the stages by the laboratory personnel. No formula would have been needed to calculate the odds of a disgruntled person guessing from a coded number which samples belonged to whom, 1/300. The changes in isoform percentages measured at LNDD could have been accounted for by degradation of the samples stored for six years in LNDD's vault.

Even if a Currier would have been blind to the sample numbers, the people tested during the Tour de France is common knowledge. A list of people scheduled for testing during the stage is posted on the side of the doping control trailer. I distinctly remember a photograph listing Lance Armstrong, Jan Ullrich, the stage winner (person unknown) and perhaps a rider chosen at random, as people scheduled for testing that day. The odds of spiking the Armstrong sample in this situation is 1/4 or twenty five percent. The fact that the latter stages of the 1999 Tour de France Lance Armstrong tests showed no traces of rEPO may suggest that the person responsible was unsuccessful in some attempts, or he may have been replaced during the race.

Simply adding rEPO with an eye dropper would have precluded a need for a catheter needed to dispense micro quantities of rEPO to achieve a desired fluctuation of rEPO values that appeared plausible during a long term Grand Tour race. The rEPO value would have been 100% and the variations measured by LNDD would have been caused by degradation or decay as Christiane Ayotte suggested.

Ashenden seems to ignore a redundant problem at LNDD, coding errors. One look at the Lab Document Package of Floyd Landis is enough to convince anyone that the accumulated number of errors of any LNDD test is enough to invalidate the results. Perhaps when the 1999 samples were tested LNDD was more circumspect in their documentation.

Ashenden thinks that LNDD can conduct tests within the published margin of error. This did not happen in the Floyd Landis case. The CG/C/IRMS test results were expected to have an error rate of +/-.8mil. In fact, the tests had a margin of error closer to twenty percent.

Calibration. Ashenden assumes that all of the equipment used during the 1999 Tour tests were inspected and calibrated to render reliable and valid values. LNDD has a very bad track record of inspecting and calibrating instrumentation.

Conclusion

Michael Ashenden may have made a lot of unproven assumptions, but, he may be correct! Lance Armstrong may have used rEPO during the 1999 Tour de France. But Mr. Ashenden's argument as expressed in velocity nation is not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ashenden's argument that the samples could not have been "spiked" by LNDD, a disgruntled AFLD CDO or a person associated with the UCI are not resolved by his argument. There could have been plenty of means, method, and opportunity for tampering.

Relying on recall of witness testimony of events is never reliable, valid, or factual and never should be the basis for an argument.



Decide for yourselves, readers, if the Michael Ashenden interview is convincing enough to conclude that Lance Armstrong used rEPO during the 1999 Tour de France.

AFLD Accuses Lance Armstrong of Improper Sample Collection Etiquette

Lance Armstrong, the most tested man on Earth, was approached by surprise on March 17, 2009 by an French Anti-Doping Authority (AFLD) doctor demanding hair, blood, and urine as part of an out-of-competition test for prohibited substances.

Although hair tests are prohibited by WADA they are allowed in France. AFLD was looking for a testosterone precursor DHEA, a prohibited substance that seems to be abused with great frequency among French athletes. DHEA according to AFLD cannot be detected in blood or urine but may be detected in hair samples.

Apparently, during the collection process Mr. Armstrong interrogated the doctor demanding the samples because there seemed to be a problem with his credentials. According to L'Equipe, Mr. Armstrong was reported to have "asked questions" of the AFLD doctor to ascertain whether he were genuine or an impostor. Update: Apparently the questions were asked by Astana Sport Director Johan Bruyneel who telephoned UCI czarina Anne Gripper. Ms. Gripper confirmed the doctor and the out-of-competition test. Lance Armstrong claimed that he asked the doctor for permission to take a shower. Armstrong claims the doctor gave his permission for the shower. Lance Armstrong was alone and unobserved in the bathroom for twenty minutes.

The 3/17/08 out-of-competition test results were negative.

The laboratory doctor has filed a complaint with the AFLD citing a WADA regulation that stipulates that the athlete may not leave the presence of a doctor who is in the process of conducting an out-of-competition test. The AFLD is vowing to "punish" Lance Armstrong with some sort of ban from racing in France.

The International Cycling Union (UCI) has taken a position of neutrality in this AFLD/Armstrong dispute until the AFLD writes an official report of condemnation. Then the UCI may support the ban and make it international.

Get Real People

The Anti-Doping Organizations could not be more plain, if they can't test Mr. Armstrong to death, last count was twenty-four competition and out-of-competition tests since he returned from retirement, they will find another way to preclude him from racing in the 2009 Tour de France or perhaps from racing again period.

But. Lance Armstrong should have known better than to absent himself in the shower when the doctor conducting the tests was present. This opens the Pandora Box and allows skeptics to wonder what he was doing in the bathroom? Tampering with his samples?

This story is still developing so hang on to your hats!

The Vampires Are Here Where Are You?

In other news the International Olympic Committee (IOC) wants athletes to be available for one hour every day for testing. The location of the athlete must be known to the IOC in advance. If a vampire shows up and the athlete is not instantly available this constitutes a missed test. Three missed tests in a year will result in a two year suspension. Some Olympic athletes complain that this amounts to one hour of house arrest. This one hour requirement seems unreasonable but in the suspect everyone of doping culture, what do you expect? Deal with it.

Will Doping in Cycling Ever End? Non!

There would be no reason to continue with this blog if people would come to their senses and stop doping! Alas, this will never happen. The first look at cycling sport feeds today does not cover racing but reveals that former Gerlosteiner rider Bernard Kohl has accused his former team manager Stefan Matschiner of providing him with blood doping products, steroids, and rEPO-CERA. Bernard Kohl tested positive for rEPO during the 2008 Tour de France after winning the King of the Mountain jersey. He was doping long before that, but never detected, of course. Every time this happens, another revealing story of dopers who cheat to gain an unfair advantage, it feels like a mule kick in the gut, makes you want to puke.

TBV come back.....racejunkie.

Amen sister! But raising awareness of the folly of the anti-doping crusade is time consuming and frustrating process where repeated efforts will drain you of your sanity. After all the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

A Myth

Floyd Landis is banned from racing as a UCI Professional Team Racer for four years. Not so! Floyd Landis is eligible to race in the 2010 Tour de France if he is employed by a UCI Pro Tour Team. However, since the Tour de France is owned by Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) and with the history of ASO banning teams of past winners Marco Pantani and Alberto Contador don't count on any change. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result! Ivan Basso, well that is another matter, team Liquigas saw to that! Yes! Ivan Basso Italian cycling hero and past doper will win a Tour de France, while Floyd Landis will cool his heals in some trivial United States domestic race. Makes you want to puke! Sorry Floyd but you know better than to trust ASO in anything that makes sense. Floyd you have been branded as a doper by a vindictive group of people who will hate you forever for challenging their system and raising awareness of the problems inherent in the WADA monopoly. You should have done what Ivan Basso did, lay down and grovel, then you would have been given an opportunity to participate again. As it is you are Persona non Grata and you will remain so forever.

But, never an Ivan Basso victory in the Tour, please! As Franz Kafka said..."justice!"

AFLD Gives Lance Armstrong A New Hairdo

AFLD is sending the barber to Lance Armstrong for hair samples. AFLD claims that use of DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone) a precursor to male and female gonadotrophins testosterone and estrogen is rampant among French athletes. If this hormone precursor is rampant among French athletes then it is logical to assume that the drug would be prevalent among the professional peloton. Get out the clippers!

Okay. DHEA can escape blood and urine tests according to AFLD but it can be detected in hair samples?

Oh, oh. DHEA is produced synthetically from wild yams and soybeans. Carbon 12 background markers and Carbon 13 markers found in soybean and yams comes instantly to mind. So does delta/delta scores and an acceptable range before a threshold value of synthetic DHEA use is reached. DHEA is an endogenous substance and the synthetic form could only be detected by GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS.

The laboratory that will do the testing for DHEA hair sample of Lance Armstrong is none other than the WADA accredited laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry France. LNDD is best known for the Floyd Landis testosterone/epitestosterone test failures. LNDD is also known to have obtained a questionable Carbon Isotope Ratio single metabolite result, "proof" that Floyd Landis had taken synthetic testosterone. This "proof" was accepted by the Court of Arbitration of Sport even though LNDD was rebuked for sloppy laboratory practice. This single metabolite "proof" cost Floyd Landis a two and a half year suspension, millions of dollars in legal fees, and additional millions in advertising endorsement revenues.

Lance Armstrong is not complaining about the hair test. But when Chatenay-Malabry conducted tests on the 1999 Tour de France urine samples for research and when LNDD claimed to have found traces of rEPO in Lance Armstrong urine samples he was not laughing. No, indeed. When LNDD leaked the code numbers and results of his samples to L'Equipe Lance Armstrong was not amused. No. A very long and protracted lawsuit followed. The Vrijman Report followed.

Lance must enjoy his new buzz cut and if he is guilty of using synthetic DHEA then he should be very worried. Unfortunately, he should be more worried that Pierre Bordry, AFLD, Chatenay-Malabry, and the Comite Francais d' Accreditation (COFRAC) will have an agenda. Get rid of Lance Armstrong even if he is clean. Payback for all the years that Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France without testing positive.

Test Others

By the way since we are on the subject of random testing for performance enhancing drugs among the professional peloton other riders should be considered for the new hairdo. Bradley Wiggins, Ivan Basso, Saint David Millar, Tyler Hamilton, Alberto Contador, Levi Leipheimer, and Floyd Landis. Something bothers me about men who can put out super human efforts on a bicycle.

Some of the above mentioned riders have been implicated in doping, others protest too much. Test them all just to be sure. After all, to paraphrase Pierre Bordry, people are all the same and they all deserve equal treatment.

Floyd Landis Rides Again

Floyd Landis has returned to professional cycling with team OUCH, formerly known as Health Net Maxxis. Floyd Landis participated in the AEG Tour of California after a two and a half year suspension for alleged testosterone use. The Tour of California was won by ASTANA rider Levi Leipheimer.

USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart made an announcement in the New York Times that Floyd Landis has agreed to pay the Court of Arbitration of Sport imposed fine of $100,000 in installments as a condition to continue racing. The timing of this announcement during the Tour of California by USADA after months of speculation among cycling fans as to the outcome of a lawsuit filed by Mr. Landis against the Court of Arbitration of Sport in United States Federal Court seems to be another attempt at sensationalism by Travis T. Tygart and USADA. In the lawsuit Mr. Landis alleged conflict of interest among arbitrators involving back room deals, vote trading, and corruption. Mr. Landis argued that this malfeasance amounted to blatant attempts by the Court of Arbitration of Sport arbitrators to persuade Anti-Doping Organizations to assign arbitrators additional business where they could expect favorable outcomes against athletes in doping arbitration cases. Mr. Landis also argued that in his appeal against the ruling of the AAA Panel where he was found to have used a prohibited substance (testosterone) in a split decision, that the Court of Arbitration of Sport arbitrators placed future monetary reward in the form of selection and work by Anti-Doping Organizations above analyses of sound scientific evidence of incompetence and sloppy laboratory practice by Chatenay-Malabry WADA accredited laboratory LNDD.

The Floyd Landis case was dismissed without prejudice in U.S. Federal Court. Apparently a settlement was reached between the parties at the time. No announcement of the agreement was offered by either side; therefore an assumption was made that some sort of confidentiality agreement was ordered by the Court. This assumption appears to be incorrect speculation in light of the Tygart revelation to the New York Times of an agreement of a payment plan by Floyd Landis to USADA.

USADA triumphs again against a probable innocent rider, Floyd Landis, who with the existing evidence will never be proven guilty with one hundred percent certainty given the abhorrent conditions existing at the laboratory where his samples were tested. Mr. Landis seems to want to move on with his life and his career and he seems to recognize at long last that he wasted a great deal of time and money fighting a system blessed with an incredible amount of largess, where athletes cannot prevail.

Floyd has retreated into a world from where he originated into cycling, reportedly living in a cabin like Charly Gaul did, in seclusion, focused on training. His marriage seems to have ended, his father in law a suicide.

Race on Floyd and win! You are not alone. You will always have supporters in this world, chin up. And ride like the wind. VV

Lance Armstrong Scraps Internal Testing Transparency

The New York Times has reported that seven time winner Lance Armstrong will not publish the results of his internal team Astana biological profile results on the Internet as advertised. There seemed to be some concern of tampering with test results by miscreants (hackers) of the online data and speculation by people who will consider any natural variations in biological data (hematocrit values, others) as suspicious parameters suggesting prohibited substance use. Of course, Lance Armstrong has a valid argument since there has always been and will always be people with an agenda who consider his recovery from testicular cancer and his subsequent post cancer improvement as impossible without aid from prohibited substance use.

Fair enough. Longitudinal data of the sort provided by the UCI Biological Passport will encourage people to imagine things, even doping by people they hate. And the ADAMS system used by the UCI is how secure? Some cycling teams like Astana wanted to keep internal data on their riders not only to prevent team dopers from winning races, but as an insurance policy?

Why would some one suggest that riders may need additional evidence or insurance to defend themselves from unreasonable accusations when everyone knows that WADA is doing the testing and the UCI is in charge of the evidence? Christiane Ayotte, head of the Montreal WADA accredited laboratory, argues that internal longitudinal testing by teams is not necessary. Tests conducted outside of the WADA family are of questionable methods, hidden in secrecy, unreliable and invalid. Even if the testing is done by such luminaries of doping research like Dr. Don Catlin or Dr. Rasmus Damsgaard the results cannot be trusted. Dr. Christiane Ayotte also seems most annoyed with a lack of scrutiny of team rider data by WADA or the UCI. Dr. WADA argues that the testing will not conform to WADA accredited harmonious standards, the results will be a "shotgun approach" impossible to verify and even may be methods to mask doping strategies by villains intent on subverting the anti-doping effort.

Very weak arguments by Dr. Ayotte and WADA obviously. A professional cycling athlete has several valid reasons to want insurance from people like Dr. Christiane Ayotte, WADA, and the UCI. The most important reason is incompetence by the WADA laboratories and the lack of independent oversight. As Dr. Meier-Augenstein pointed out very clearly, the WADA accredited laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry France, the same laboratory that is responsible for testing of Tour de France riders, could not pass an independent accreditation audit outside of COFRAC. If LNDD is incapable of passing an independent audit for something as simple as a testosterone analysis how could anyone rely upon a WADA lab to complete correctly a complicated number of additional tests that would be needed to compile a biological profile?

Dr. Christiane Ayotte seems to think that people who question the methods and means of WADA are nothing more than sensationalists who want to make a name for themselves from the notoriety. Dr. Ayotte mentioned Dr. Paul Scott as a prime example of a seeker of "fifteen minutes of fame" by staunchly defending Floyd Landis from LNDD's sloppy lab work and illogical results. If Dr. Don Catlin defended Lance Armstrong from questionable UCI biological profile results with internal Astana team results or Dr. Rasmus Damsgaard did the same with Saxobank results WADA would accuse them of Paul Scott tactics.

Dr. Ayotte forgets that she probably testified at the Floyd Landis hearings to achieve the same result, notoriety.

Lance Armstrong probably has done the sensible thing by hiding his test results for the moment. If some parameter were to surface that might justify a investigation or possibly warrant a "adverse analytical finding" Mr. Lance Armstrong as any rider would have an opportunity then to defend himself with all available evidence.

Lets us not jump the gun on this issue and condemn Mr. Armstrong without just cause even though you may suspect him of subterfuge.

In a perfect world everyone could be trusted and secure. But this is not a perfect world.

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.