Friday, September 28, 2007

Another side of Euro Press

An emailer sends along a babelfish version of a story in the Swiss WeltWoche:

A judgement, which is not
Hanspeter Born

Did he dope now or not? The question, whether Floyd Landis won the route de France only by artificial Testosteron, remains disputed.

After months-long consultation an American arbitral tribunal with 2:1 voices, consisting of three lawyers, found the winner of the route de France 2006, Floyd Landis, guilty of doping with synthetic Testosterone and two years closed. The majority of the committee granted that numerous procedural errors were suffused to the French laboratory LNDD that it made itself guilty “sloppy practices” and that, “if such practices persist”, in the future doping analysises of the laboratory be rejected could. Arbitral tribunal found also that the results of the original doping analysis, with which a too high quotient was determined from Testosterone to Epitestosterone (above 4:1), an examination do not withstand. Nevertheless the arbitral tribunal Landis holds for guilty, because the additional carbon isotope test proved the income of exogenous Testosterone.

The arbitral tribunal majority trusts thereby the scientific experts of the “accusation”, i.e. the US-Anti Doping Agency acting on behalf the World Anti Doping Agency WADA, which regards the results of the carbon isotope test as “unambiguous”. In a deviating minority opinion the third member of the arbitral tribunal, a former olympic Ringer, holds the opinion that the documents submitted by the French laboratory are in such a manner filled with errors “that they do not support an offence against the Doping Rules” and that “Mr Landis should be found innocent”.

The judgement of the arbitral tribunal raises more questions, than it answers. Contrary to (embarrassed) the directors of the Wada laboratories from Landis called scientifically expelled forensic chemists explained the results of the carbon isotope test for “unreliably”. One this expert, who had Andrologist John Amory, stated that the “strange” raised from the LNDD would contradict, from day to day varying values the results of all scientific studies, in which exogenous Testosterone was given to subjects. The arbitral tribunal majority did not deal with this argument. On the other hand it called from the experts of the defense, Dr. Wolfram Meier eye stone and Dr. Simon Davis, in the field offered proofs “scientifically completely unacceptable and fundamentally flawed”. These two with the devices chemists trusted used with the tests closely will not simply swallow this honour-active reproach.

Landis invested over two million dollar into the procedure. If it wants to further-pull the decision to the Lausanner sport arbitral tribunal TAS, it this dollar will cost estimated 800000. For the set off route winner, who still regards itself as a “legal winner”, the Anti Doping System is “corrupt, inefficient and unfair”. With this opinion he does not stand alone. In a thorough analysis of the submitted evidence the forensic chemist Robert D comes. Blackledge (in the specialized organ the California Association OF Criminalists) in the end: “The data of the LNDD in an actual criminal procedure before jurors in the American court system were submitted, bet I that the procedure would not even reach the stage that of conclusion final speech. After conclusion of the proof of the public prosecutor's office the judge would find that the accusation had not furnished a Prima-facie-proof, and the jurors to instruct to impose a non--guilty verdict.”


Mike Solberg said...

TBV, you should highlight the line, "These two with the devices chemists trusted used with the tests closely will not simply swallow this honour-active reproach" also. I hope that's true. I'm waiting. Have you tried to contact them?


Ken ( said...

Is there someone who would be willing to do a human translation of the article that is a little more readable? Babblefish can make things a little confusing.

Unknown said...

My German is not that good, but ...

the conclusion is that it will cost $800k to appeal and he is not alone in thinking that the system is corrupt, inefficient, and unfair. The analysis of Robert Blackledge concludes that this case would never make it past the prima facie stage in the US court system.