Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Some inconsistencies

Yesterday, the B Sample test was scheduled, and even that couldn't be done without confusion and controversy.

  • News reports said the UCI had demanded the test without Landis's letter.
  • Landis spokesman said letter had been faxed to the UCI
  • UCI denied receiving the FAX
  • On Larry King and earlier, Floyd said the FAX was to be sent to the USCF (the US federation), not the UCI, and that he was going to do it on Friday or Saturday.
I did not see the reports from the Landis spokesperson about the fax on Google News until well after the reports of the UCI demand to the lab. The UCI wanted the test started immediately before the lab closes for a scheduled vacation. (As we know, scheduled vacation is sacrosanct in the EU, and even more so in France.)

If the test had not been scheduled on Monday for later in the week, it's possible it might have been delayed for several weeks. If Floyd had sent the FAX on the latest possible day, Wednsday, and the UCI not acted, it might have gotten strung out. No explanation has been given why Floyd's FAX didn't go out as originally indicated, nor has there been clarification whether the UCI received the FAX, nor an explanation of why last week it was to go to the USCF and this week the UCI.

There are also the bombshell reports from back channels that the A sample tested positive for exogenous testosterone. This raises other questions:
  • Is that information in the initial result given to Landis, Phonak, USCF and the UCI?
  • If not, in what result is it present?
  • If so, why didn't the Floyd camp discuss it last week?
As always, it's a cover up that ruins credibility. If the Landis people knew last week, they should have been forthcoming with the ratio and the IRMS findings of the A sample report. If they didn't know, or were only given partial results, then the protocol seems to have been violated. That is, if the UCI received and held onto IRMS results without telling him, they have violated his process rights -- how could he organize his response without knowing?

In the best case, there is no positive IRMS result, and someone has been feeding, garbage to L'Equipe and the NY Times to smear Landis, and he only needs to defend on the T/E ratio.

In the worst case, he knew of the positive IRMS. He lied through his teeth last week both about what he did and what he knew. Then, he tried to delay the B test for another two weeks while dithering with his defense strategy with a dog-ate-my-fax story.

None of the latter seems consistent with what we believe of his historical directness. I'm still holding onto theory A, he's being smeared, but has some testing to do on the T/E ratio.

5 comments:

jrmal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jrmal said...

good post... if nothing else this validates my confusion and helps me believe that I am not missing something that has been reported...

wasafloydfan said...

Check out:

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10613.0.html

Landis' lawyer seems to clearly suggest that the UCI did not know of (or inform) Landis' that the testosterone was exogenous before the lab leaked the info to L'equipe.

xoflib said...

"If Floyd had sent the FAX on the latest possible day, Wednsday..."

I think your timeline needs amending. As I understand it, Landis had 5 business days after notification of the positive result to request the testing. He was notified on Wednesday, July 26. That means he had until end of business Monday, July 31, to file his request. Presumably, EOB meant Paris time as the UCI only contacted the lab after receiving no response from Landis by the deadline.

Ya know, if I were confident about my innocence and eager to prove it, I would have asked for the B-sample to be tested the next day. Just sayin'.

trust_but_verify said...

I've heard and believe that 5 business days from Weds is the next Weds. The widely reprinted NY Times report says,

Landis, who was in New York after canceling or postponing several talk-show appearances, could not be reached for comment yesterday. His spokesman, Michael Henson, said that Landis sent a request yesterday for the French lab to test his B sample. Landis had five business days from last Wednesday to do so.

Pat McQuaid, the president of the cycling body, which is known by its French acronym, U.C.I., said last night that the organization had contacted the French lab at 5 p.m. in Paris to see if Landis’s request had been received. When the lab said no, McQuaid said U.C.I. asked the lab to analyze Landis’s B sample, which he said was allowed under the organization’s rules. McQuaid wanted the test to be concluded before the lab closed for a two-week vacation this Friday. If the tests cannot be finished before then, the results may not come until late August or early September, he said.



This presents a very confusing timeline of possibilities that we probably won't get to unwind.