Wednesday Roundup

Quote of the Day

I'm not sure what point I'm making here but I feel that there is one.... link

Slow day with fewer links. More quotes instead.

News

Telegraph UK covers defense in new article, mistakenly says title already stripped. I've given up fighting that incorrect reporting with letters to the editor. There's only so much time in the day.

SignOnSandiego, site of SD papers near Floyd, runs an article I misread until an emailer called my attention back to it. It considers a theory that charges against Landis are part of a crusade against Lance. There are suggestions Floyd has some beans to spill, and the case is a way to pressure him into giving it up against Lance. Floyd is quoted as denying. This theory is offered to explain all the folks who have begging Floyd to "come clean" from day one. Yow, it doesn't get more political or Byzantine than this. The same article on the San Diego Union Tribute site, probably the originator.

Blogs
Dugard talks about politics of dope testing, Lance; plugs TBV. Thanks!

Rant talks about Frankie and Floyd.

PelotonJim observes mainstream media starting to Get It, as defense narrative is tuned to something understandable (even if oversimplified).

Important discussion of defense, as seen from both sides, in last night's TBV. Several posters express confusion, outright rejection of the best metabolite argument against the CIR. This is followed late, at the end, by a new interpretation by a Mr. "LNDD", who spins some quite deeper meanings into what was released to the public on Monday.

Mr. LNDD says there was sabre rattling in the public statement. It's political. Maybe USADA doesn't really want to pursue this for lots of reasons, and the review board would give them cover to drop it relatively quietly. This might be why the filing hasn't been released. It may show some more things the Review Board won't like make visible.

Does the Review Board have that much discretion? Perhaps not officially, but there seems to be very little procedural constraint on its decisions. If it decides to drop, then WADA or UCI would need to appeal to CAS to overturn the Review Board decision, which is hardly ever done or successful because of the burden of proof required.

Forums

On Topix, Will and "LNDD" continue their live fire exercise. LNDD reads FL.com as saying that Landis has not gotten details of other Tour tests for a "longitudinal study". This hints (by absence) that other tests may contain evidence to support Landis' claims. The Review Board is entitled to all such data, and that it isn't available is suspicious.

We also get discussion about the role of the RB. It's not like a probable cause hearing, being another example of how the doping procedure is alien to American cultural DNA expectations. The RB gets all available evidence and rebuttal filings. It is essentially the "court of first impression", and gets to decide on proposed sanction, or to close the case. It is the first place where a decision is made, and subsequent action is to appeal this decision. However, the RB does not have a hearing, and only considers the written submissions in private. It has substantial power and seemingly little constraint. By rules, it is obliged to act before all data that could be mustered for an eventual appeal may be available. The side with the data (UCI, LNDD) can play run-out-the clock games

In general, the whole doping adjudication is oriented to processing guilty bastards as fast and as cheaply as possible, without much concern for picayune technicality. That's why FL is talking about "Gross Errors", to send the flags up early that this isn't going to be one of those "take the sanction and vanish" kind of case.

Bicycling Forum reads LNDD; BadgeJohn writes:

That was an excellent summary of the errors pointed out in Jacob's brief. IF and I say IF, the lab did make these gross errors, Lanids is going to get off and rightfully so. The question is whether or not the lab did. I don't know which would actually be worse for cycling and anti-doping attempts at this point, Floyd being proved a doper, or the lab being that incompetent. I think at this point I will ust hide under the blankets until its all over because either result would be a serious blow.

Regretably I don't know enough about chemistry to read 400 pages of lab reports and understand a dang thing so as to tell whether or not Jacob's statements, and thus Mr. LNDD's are valid.

I don't know the chemistry either, nor do any of us have access to the 400 hundred pages. I'm concerned that the level of science necessary to understand how the lab mucked it up is very complicated. This might leave a gobsmacked public with the feeling that a dismissal is on a "dubious" technicality rather than a substantive error that really vindicates Landis.

Fine Research on the CIR/Diet issue, in this sci.chem post, observes wide variations that make him wonder how the 3 mil threshold level was picked and validated. It doesn't appear to him that the data supports it, and he asks chemists for help interpreting.

Tom Fine later notes a couple of other things on the Daily Peloton Forum:

There's been talk about his cortisone treatments, and how that can't really be converted to testosterone, and how that can't affect the test. BUT, the reference compunds 11-hydroxyandrosterone, or 11-ketoetiocholanolone are metabolites of cortisol!

So they don't have to "convert to testosterone", they simply get metabolised normally, and screw up the reference value.

I don't know at this point if synthetic cortisol would have a delta 13C that is more or less negative - it would depend on what it was derived from. But one point that bothers me, probably nothing but I want to be reassured that SOMEBODY is looking into it, is that the testing protocol specified in TD2004EAAS* only says that you need a 3 per mil difference from baseline to testosterone metabolite. It does NOT specify in which direction.

This is exactly the sort of trivial detail that I could see being overlooked by professional after professional. It' s possilbe that his test results could show that his testosterone had a HIGHER (less negative) delta 13C value than his reference, which would indicate that perhaps something funky was going on, but such a result would almost completely EXCLUDE the use of testosterone.

Also, on that absolute -28 per mil absolute value offered as an alternative positive, that seems quite bogus, as one of the studies I came across said the typical range among their study subjects was -24 to -28 per mil.

*And why was that protocol written in May 2004, when they hadn't finished with their study of dietary influence, and it's potential for false positives?

Finally, a Blogger figures it all out, and we're done.