Saturday Roundup
We now find ourselves at Day 4 in the Landis "decision watch". Or could it only be Day 3? See below. For now we'll believe Hiltzik that the Panel found themselves another day and say today was the 3rd of intense word-smithery
News
The LA Times' Michael Hiltzik reports that the hearings were formally closed on Thursday this week making the final day in the 10 day span accorded the arbitrators to render their verdict September 23 rather than the previously reported September 22:
Arbitrators in the doping case against Tour de France cyclist Floyd Landis said they formally closed the hearing record on Thursday, a procedural step that requires them to issue a ruling within 10 days, or by Sept. 23. That would mark four months since the three-member panel ended a nine-day evidentiary hearing May 23.
NPR ran a cheaters timeline yesterday on "All Things Considered" and as has been the case all too frequently lately, Floyd Landis is on their list of infamy.
CyclingNews, a ways down in the page, talks of the hearing close, then talks about Mayo's B sample -- being split, and sent to Australia and Ghent, Belgium. What changed between 2006 and now that allowed splitting and sending samples to labs other than the single one that did the A sample analysis? The Landis case, and scrutiny of the LNDD are about the only things that come to mind. We're unaware any rules have been changed. Thanks to JRD for the tip.
Blogs
Cycling Fans.com wouldn't want to predict the final outcome of the Landis /USADA hearings.
Dimitri's Case Files wonders, with all the cheating and cheaters out there, what sports have come to. Does no one in sports have any honor or dignity anymore?
Triple Crankset thinks this could be it, and publishes the worst possible picture he could find of "Bad Boy" Floyd. Sigh.
PJ notes that the first ballot was already taken this morning and the smoke is still black. He feels this bodes well for Floyd Landis. The longer they take the better for Floyd? Maybe.
4 comments:
Interesting news about Mayo:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep16news
(Scroll down about 3/4 page, just below the peice on Floyd and his hearing being closed - old news now)
"The B sample was then sent to the laboratory of the University of Gent (Belgium), which finished its analysis on Friday, August 24. Since then, there was no news about the results, but Saturday, Diario Vasco announced that the B sample has been sent to Australia to comply with regulations that every EPO test has to be run in two laboratories."
Interesting that the race was in France (TdF) and the B-Sample(s) were tested in Gent, Belgium and then the B-Sample(s) were sent on to Australia. I wasn't aware EPO tests had to be run in two (2) laboratories? I'm not complaining. It sounds like a more sound practice than having the same lab run both A and B-Samples, like they did with Floyd's samples. I realize EPO is not Testosterone, but I gathered from reading hear, elsewhere, and from following the hearing at Pepperdine, that testing for T is quite complicated. EPO testing may be complicated too, but why the elevated status for EPO testing???
It would, of course, been great had USADA managed a way to have Floyd's samples tested at multiple labs, at least one of his own choosing from the WADA pool, rather than going so far as to ram B-Sample testing and the testing of B-Samples associated with negative A-Samples (the latter being quite a coup for USADA) at the disfunctional LNDD.
Might the way Mayo's sample testing is being handled also be an indicator that WADA and/or UCI and/or the French sporting authorities have found LNDD lacking and have moved testing away from LNDD, similarly to testing for the French Open (tennis) being re-routed to Montreal???
jrd,
One can also add: Might this be a sign of lessons learned from the Landis debacle, and that the increased scrutiny is forcing a change of ways?
I wonder what happens if the one of the B samples is positive and the other negative? Throw it out or does the "majority rule"? Maybe this is what the hold up on Mayo's results is about.
Rational Head provides some info over at DP Forums. Not sure I agree with him about WADA / alphabet soup learning, at least, some lessons from Floyd's hearing.
Rational Head quote;
"I don’t know if Floyd’s case had any impact on Mayo’s case but it does not look so me. Or at least, that's an opinion of some of us who regularly follow anti-doping science and news.
EPO testing is indeed a special case. WADA identifies 3 samples. They call them: A screening, A confirmation, B confirmation. Check this WADA Technical document TD2004EPO.
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2004epo_en.pdf
Per the below-quoted statements (they are WADA's explanatory notes as to EPO questions), ever since January 2005, it was required for a second lab to review the results. That’s when new criteria was formally introduced - Jan, 2005.'
QUOTE(WADA)
Consistent with the advancing science in anti-doping, work is done on an ongoing basis on all detection methods to refine the method and interpretation of results. In the case of EPO, this led, based on expert consensus, to the introduction of new interpretation criteria for a more discriminant reading of EPO results in January 2005. At the same time, laboratories were advised to have their adverse EPO results confirmed by another laboratory with extensive experience of the method.
QUOTE(WADA)
...WADA was informed of this phenomenon by accredited laboratories in the spring of 2005. As a result, WADA instructed all accredited laboratories to integrate this information into their interpretation of results. In addition, laboratories are required to seek a second independent opinion before reporting any adverse result. There is no risk of a false positive reading; all accredited laboratories are in a position to distinguish between this rare profile and exogenous EPO.
Post a Comment