Thursday, May 17, 2007

Hue-Frelat Admits She Knew She Was Testing Landis' Samples

Frelat just admitted she knew she was testing Landis' "B" samples in August of last year.

This will test the WADA Code requirements that testing be "blind" although there WERE Landis observers there. At the break, we will check out the WADA Code to see whether this is significant, although the information certainly is.

[MORE]


Suh immediately moved on to questioning on April "B" sample re-tests .

Commenter pommi got his exactly correct and it took us some rereading of TBV's verbatim transcription prior to the morning break to confirm.

Thus, this post has been edited.

In reading the International Standards, there may be a violation, here. However, the violation, if any, pertains to confidentiality for sure and to science, maybe. If there is a violation,USADA has to show that it didn't "cause" the adverse analytical finding. So, if the violation breached confidentiality, did that "cause" the adverse analytical? Not likely.


If the testing was to be blind and the WADA code allows the athlete or his representative to be present, how "blind" can it be? But, if USADA can show that knowing Landis' identity did not "cause" the adverse anlytical finding then he will be "convicted". The fact that "B" testing wasn't blind may be offensive to some, but the Code allows that rule violation, unless it "causes" the adverse analytical finding.

An anonymous contributor echos TBV's concern about how lack of "blindness" may have "caused" the adverse analytical finding. He/she says;

"Moreover, as I think Landis' team is trying to establish, it certainly raises the specter that knowing the identity of a sample (especially in a case as pivotal as this)'could' give rise to curious manual calculations in order to validate the results from earlier tests."

We think the observation is spot on, so we include it, herein.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

What!? Just as suspected and as I was told here in Austin last month, it wasn't "blind". Tell me more. I'm dying here.

Atown,Tx.

pommi said...

I thought they were referring to the S17 sample that was tested in August.

Anonymous said...

But wasn't the fact that 3 non-Landis samples were in the April 07 batch susposed to make it somewhat blind? Does Frelot means she knew that Landis' samples were among those tested or that she knew which were in fact Landis' and not the dummy samples?

Of course, as reported here, it apparently was pretty obvious which was which.

Cal said...

anon-12:09
TBV reported some time back that Baker and Landis were asked this question at an FFF. Baker stated that the 3 non-Landis samples were in different style containers or sealed in a way unique to Landis'. They said at that time the 3 non Landis samples would be obvious to any person.

Cal

Anonymous said...

Seems to me; while the knowledge that a sample was a specific athlete's might not "cause" an AAF, it certainly brings up grave questions about the integrity of the testing process. Moreover, as I think Landis' team is trying to establish, it certainly raises the specter that knowing the identity of a sample (especially in a case as pivotal as this)'could' give rise to curios manual calculations in order to validate the results from earlier tests.

Anonymous said...

Am I missing something here? If USADA/ARBS wanted the truth shouldn't they have retested the b samples and also try to determine at the same time if LNDD was doing an accurate retest conforming with WADA rules and regs. This seems so unfair and egregious.

ilsanjo