Saturday, March 31, 2007

Saturday Roundup

Tha Alameda Newspaper Group went to a CycleOps event in SF last night, and the same story shows up in various forms in several of their publications. All focus on the on the BHR Landis received to repair his deteriorating hip in September and how it has improved the quality of his life. This longest version has more comments on the current situation inside his doping case, and whether or not he'll race again any time soon:

But whether Landis will ever face a race again is in question.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency hearing in May will determine if Landis is suspended for two years from competitive racing for using performance-enhancing drugs during the 2006 Tour de France, and will be disqualified from the race retroactively and hence stripped of his title. The hearing is expected to last one to two weeks.

A panel of three independent arbitrators will then consider the evidence and return a decision, likely by mid- to late June, said Michael Hensen, a spokesman for Landis.

If they rule in his favor, the World Anti-Doping Agency may appeal, which will still block him from racing, as Landis said no professional biking team is permitted to hire a rider under investigation for using performance-enhancing drugs.

And if the arbiters rule against him, Landis is doubtful he'll appeal the decision.

"I don't think I'll have the money to appeal it," Landis said.

Landis said he's confident in the facts of his case, but is concerned that the procedures for the hearing will lead to an unfair outcome.

"I know I didn't do it," he said of the doping allegations. "Second, (my) case is very strong. My only concern is the process" of the proceedings, he said.

A shorter version has pictures of Landis smiling on the CycleOps trainer, wearing CycleOps kit, and running a bunch of happy spinners into the ground.

The's Greg Baum is wringing his hands over the Ian Thorpe controversy as well as the loss of innocence in sport. He also manages to get Floyd Landis' current situation incredibly wrong , sigh:

Floyd Landis, last year's tour winnner, fared worse: he was stripped of his title the next day upon returning a positive drug test.

Recovox News tells us that NO ONE could keep up with Floyd Landis' power output Friday night in San Francisco. He posts some great pics to prove how hard everyone was working.

Heather and Dave really enjoyed spinning with Floyd Landis last night in San Francisco. They have a slideshow of additional pictures; Landis appears to be enjoying his Anchor Steam, the local brew, probably before the sweaty exertion shown above.

PelotonJim feels as though he has passed through a time warp and it's last July again, only the name he is reading is Ian Thorpe instead of Floyd Landis:

Ian, you should give Floyd a call. I’m sure he will welcome you to hell. Bad enough that this past week saw most of your records broken, now you need to endure this. For all of you, forgive me if I don’t readily jump on a story broken by L’Equipe.

Pommi found a new video, mostly from the FFF San Jose Town Hall, about the purpose of the FFF, and some clips of Landis around the ToC. He also discusses the dustup at DPF surrounding the banning of gadfly chris_t.

The final call tomorrow...

Cindy at Knitting Park still remembers being falsely accused of stealing candy in second grade, and sees it happening with Landis too. We get a plug.

Velochimp reports the case has been dropped, with Mr. Pound's apologies. Could be a joke, we'll wait for verification.

Full Post with Comments...

Friday, March 30, 2007

TBV March Report

It seems nobody noticed we forgot to do the February report. The excuse is that it's due on the 29th (or 30th, ahem) of the month, and February, well, you know...

Since the January report, the following events of interest have happened, February first:

  1. John Lelangue popped up again, saying Landis "betrayed him".
  2. Bradley Wiggins lost his place on Landis' Christmas card list.
  3. The Kick-Ass brownies are let loose on the public.
  4. Landis responded to a member of the peloton (read: Wiggins).
  5. Hamilton returned to action.
  6. We ran through the agendas of most of the parties.
  7. An appearance before the French AFLD was hotly anticipated.
  8. First FFF town hall meeting held in Brooklyn, Landis in leather.
  9. The USADA hearing was set for May 14, and arbiters empaneled.
  10. There was a new slide show, version 2.1 that started to use the "whistleblower" documents, gingerly.
  11. The AFLD proceeding ended up a postponement, after Landis agreed not to race in France this year.
  12. We heard USADA wanted to test other B samples at LNDD despite no positive A's, and Landis refused.
  13. Landis put out a press release about the suggested B sample tests, saying they got it wrong the first time, the can do it again, so no thanks.
  14. We discovered a great legal article discussing flaws in the WADA/arbitration system.
  15. Discovery Team loses sponsorship, blaming environment tainted by doping and not helped by the Landis case.
  16. While DPF discusses the B samples, Duckstrap notes missing MS data from the S17 test.
  17. Telegraph (UK) discusses the idea of having the police do raids for doping enforcement.
  18. Landis book "Positively False" announced for June publication, Amazon taking pre-orders.
  19. We looked again at the contamination argument, not yet sold.
  20. We discover Landis is going to shadow the Tour of California at the Smith and Nephew (purveyors of fine hip replacements) booth.
  21. Mr. Pound says, You can't be prudent in the fight against doping."
  22. 1000 Fans in Oscar's hometown stage a protest demanding he be crowned.
  23. Before the Tour of California, McQuaid and Landis traded shots.
  24. The FFF Town Hall series resumed in SF after the ToC start; we reported in detail.
  25. Press coverage of Landis around the ToC was mostly positive. He started odd-man-out, and ended up on the stage, warmly welcomed.
  26. We did a better job covering the FFF in San Jose. Landis is wearing a suit. We learn the arbitrators are ordering some discovery, about near the same sample numbers, the two-tech issue, and inlet pressures.
  27. You3 dissects the T/E test at DPF, raising enough points it might be discredited.
  28. LA Times' Hiltzik extensively covers developments.
  29. ESPN's Bonnie DeSimone outdoes Hiltzik by quoting us.
  30. We wondered how the case could be closed without arbitration.
  31. A Landaluce-like possibility of the same technicians working on Landis' A and B samples is raised, and left unresolved as we write.
  32. During the ToC, the FFF town halls are dubbed the "Tour of Innocence", which sticks.
  33. Tygart complained about the "wiki defense" and wants to change the WADA code so he can shoot back too.
  34. FFF San Pedro.
  35. Chris Fortune of Saris comes out publicly with a letter to many industry people encouraging them to support Landis.
  36. We look at the 0.8 uncertainty Baker wants to subtract from a CIR value, and don't know what to think, even looking at his reference, Spirito and Botre.
In March, we got:

  1. A steroid ring bust in Florida.
  2. Independant (UK) runs a sympathetic piece, perhaps indicative of mood swing in Europe.
  3. We consider "getting off on a technicality."
  4. We begin a series on legal issues, assisted by the Hon. William F. Hue, "Judging Floyd"
  5. Madden is retiring from USADA, and Tygart is in line to take the reigns.
  6. The UCI announces a new anti-doping program.
  7. FFF Chicago; Rant and Steroid Nation attend and report.
  8. FFF Denver.
  9. Catlin is retiring.
  10. Operation Puerto goes on perhaps permanent hiatus.
  11. Landis appears at National Bike Summit.
  12. You3 starts new thread about CIR Mass Discrimination problems.
  13. FFF Lancaster sells out, another event is added.
  14. Mr. Pound thinks he'd be a great head of CAS after he leaves WADA.
  15. FFF Lancaster is a major weekend, complete with prayer.
  16. Slide Show 3.0 defends Morzine,
  17. We ask "where are the data files?"
We never heard details of whatever rulings the Arbitrators made on the discovery motions or USADA's B sample test request.

The hearing is still scheduled for May 14th.

Full Post with Comments...


Two -- the number of times more often LNDD declares positives than the average WADA lab.

Two -- the number of times LNDD declares a steroid positive compared to its other AAFs.

Two -- the number of times more stuff appears in the measured Landis samples than ought to be present.

Two -- the number of times more acetylation sites a cortisol metabolite has than a testosterone metabolite for attachment or strongly negative derivitization compounds.

Two -- the number of times the -6 metabolite is over the threshold.

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Roundup

News's Bonnie DeSimone charts the latest developments in the two year long doping case of tennis player Guillermo Canas. Last week his doping sanctions were voided by the Swiss Federation Tribunal and his case is set to go back to the CAS in what is being described as "uncharted territory" No one at this time seems sure what this unprecedented action may mean. In light of the ongoing Landis case and the attention being paid to WADA and it's policies, this could have real significance:

It is the first successful appeal in the 23-year history of CAS, whose panels have considered 750 cases since 1984, according to the court's secretary general, Matthieu Reeb. The Swiss Federal Tribunal has jurisdiction over appeals because the CAS is located in Lausanne, but few athletes have gone to that court of last recourse.

"We don't know the grounds for the ruling yet," Reeb said. He said he expects the three-man panel that originally heard the case will reconvene sometime in the next couple of months.

"The sanctions could be maintained, changed or annulled" by CAS arbitrators, Reeb said. He added that any potential damages sought by Canas would likely have to be considered in a different arena, probably a civil court.

The latest twist in the Canas case comes at a time when the anti-doping adjudicatory system is being re-evaluated from within and challenged from the outside, most notably by Tour de France winner Floyd Landis, who is accused of using synthetic testosterone.

In reading further through the article it is clear that there are some similarities to the Landis, case, among them the time and money spent by the athletes in question.

Rant is wondering IF the "Thorpinator" is being "Landisized" and if true, will Ian put it out there the way Floyd has done?

The Sports Scoop wonders if ANY recent great sporting performance can be trusted to be what it seems at face value.

PaigeDunn teases us with promises of an interview with Floyd Landis tonight after the fund raiser in which he is participating in San Francisco. We'll check back later.

Floyd posts Floyd's 6 month hip surgery progress report, and he is very satisfied with his results:

I can describe some of the things I’ve been able to do in the past few months that would have been impossible, or downright dangerous before my BHR procedure:

  • Mountain Biking – I have been getting on the trails with some frequency. Before, falling was too big a risk
  • Running – Now, I’m not saying I am a runner in any sense, but since my BHR procedure I have been able to hustle through airports or chase a taxi in a way that just was impossible previously.
  • Sleeping – Here is where my quality of life has gone up. I can get full, restful nights sleep without being awoken by the nagging pain in my hip that would pulse and throb in the past.

Bicycling's Boulder Report, after bemoaning airlines, talks about management of a number of teams doing the Mark McGwire-like "not talking about the past" regarding doping.

Spokes 'n' Folks gives a short report on the National Bike Summit from earlier this month and mentions that Floyd Landis was a suprize speaker.

Neil@Road gives us the pertinent details about tonight's fund raiser in San Francisco where the new CycleOps indoor power trainer will be launched through a benefit challenge between Landis and local athletes. One presumes that Floyd will not be riding the bike pictured below. columnist is skeptical of drug testing in that sport, largely because of Mr. Pound, citing his Landis sliming as an example of what you would not want to see. Link from Kyle,rescued from the spam bin.

Gibbies Bioscience World is just catching up with the science of the Landis case, and thinks that injecting testosterone might be a stupid thing to do. He also thinks that the whole case is a total distraction from what was an amazing performance on Floyd's part.

Jessie Bartholomew promises a belated writeup of the January Power Camp that he helped run. If he wants, he can point to the Nessy Burger Memorial.

DPF is still wrestling with the Mass Discrimination in the IRMS. OMJ is not sold there is excess stuff in the F3 fraction, but even he is getting frustrated with the absence of data that would settle it one way or another. Tom Fine begins a thread to collect ranting about the absence of data to leave the science thread to science.

Thought for the Day

" He who does not heed the call of his own passions will inevitably end up somewhere he did not intend to go."

Full Post with Comments...

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Thursday Roundup

The Daily Peloton's Sara Best interviews Oscar Pereiro and clears up once and for all the rumor that Floyd Landis and Oscar had breakfast together before stage 17 of last summer's Tour de France.

Lancaster Online talks of Landis in a story about ... grocery bagging(?):

Professional bicycle racer and Lancaster County native, Floyd Landis, was once a teenage bagger at Oregon Dairy, along Route 272.

"He was focused, not a social butterfly," Oregon Dairy co-owner, Curvin Hurst said of Landis who spent roughly a year working part time as a bagger before moving to the dairy department.

News 8/WGAL's Ann Shannon scored an interview with Landis in Lancaster. (The story at Yahoo doesn't have the video links working.) It's a good piece with archival video and pictures, but a bit simplistic about the defense details -- citing sample numbers and contamination, which don't seem to us the strongest arguments. The frame grab shows it to be at the Farrington's Green Mountain Cyclery. The site also has a lot of other archival Landis news.

FLITM showers us with an abundance of Free Floyd apparel. Get 'em while they're hot:

Adding to the basic t-shirts the FLITM shop now has long sleeve shirts, sweatshirts, and colored shirts. As always 100% of the proceeds from all FREE FLOYD product sales are donated to the Floyd Fairness Fund. Stop on in to to see whats new with the FREE FLOYD gear. has a fantastic article that runs down the PR part of the case, and the disingenous comments of the witchfinder generals. Don't know when this was from -- it's one of the apparent victims of my spam filter problem. Thanks to Tom_A for being persistent. blog compliments Bonnie DeSimone on not only her great articles on Floyd Landis, but also her current piece on the inspirational Saul Raisin.

LooseCrew thinks he may have spent some of his time badly, and while he ponders this he also wonders if we'll ever know the truth about Floyd Landis?

Rant considers repeatability of the data analysis pretty darned important -- and you can't do it without the data.

Science for the Impatient (Spanish), looks at the case, and hasn't caught up to the fallibility of the CIR.

At DPF, demonstrating either rumor propagation or the continued excellent confidentiality maintained by laboratories, the UCI, and teams, we had hints there may be A sample positives on some riders. We shouldn't have heard anything about anything pending a B sample positive, and TBV thinks the reports are dubious. Links removed to protect the likely innocent, and DPF nuked the threads. One of the stories has shown up in another cycling forum, reported to us by mail, and we're going to leave it. But we will note that this can be a kind of sabotage by innuendo and speculation.

Full Post with Comments...

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Darn that spam

Doing a bit of housecleaning in the old email folders, I found a heaping pile of mail from lots of people that had been swept into my collection of Junk mail. If it seems like you've sent stuff that has been ignored, it is quite likely that it got thrown in the bucket with various opportunities to share in foreign funds transfers and to obtain certain prescription medicines without bothering to see a doctor.

I think I've straightened out the filters, so I hope not to go through this again.


Full Post with Comments...

Where are the data files?

Among the things missing from the LDP, and so far not produced by USADA, are the computer data files collected during the confirmatory T/E and GC/MS CIR tests. Evaluation of these is critical for proper interpretation of the results, as we shall see.

At the time of the B sample, Dr. de Boer, Landis' expert, had a problem with the tests as executed and reported:

The identity of the compound(s) belonging to the peaks has not been established according to minimal WADA requirements.

(USADA 368, 369, 370)

This seemed like quibbling at the time to many people. Now, seven months later, some of the implications of this are coming clear in discussion at the Daily Peloton Forum, even to those who have been skeptical of various defense claims.


The CIR is complicated in many ways, from sample preparation, complexity of the machine setup, and interpretation of the resulting measurements.

The sample preparation is finicky because it is necessary to filter out compounds not of interest, because they can interfere with the results. LNDD runs the sample through various steps to produce three different "fractions", each of which is supposed to contain less of the wrong stuff, and more of right stuff than its predecessor. (Less inclined readers may skip the next two paragraphs.)

The subsequent fractions should have more of the particular target substances than the other fractions. In LNDD's IRMS test there are seven target substances: an internal standard, two endogenously produced reference compounds, and four metabolites of testosterone. The internal standard appears in all fractions, since it is added to each by the lab, and the other six substances are each measured in one particular fraction.

The GC-MS instrument is designed to identify compounds in an unknown sample on the basis of two independent properties: 1) the amount of time required for it to emerge from a gas chromatography column (this is the "retention" or "elution" time), and 2) the characteristic size of molecular fragments arising when the molecule is bombarded with electrons (this is a molecule's "Mass Spectrum").

The retention time is not good enough on its own because many different molecules can have the same or very similar retention times--this is called "coelution".

The time measured by GC is similar to dropping things off a tower and seeing how long it takes for them to hit the ground. The speed will be affected by the aerodynamic and mass relationships. While two whiffle balls are likely to hit the ground at the same time, and hardballs much more quickly, table tennis balls might land at the same time as whiffle balls, and meatballs the same time as the hardballs. You need to look at something other than the impact time to distinguish completely, and you need to look elsewhere to determine if you have meatballs and table tennis balls mixed in to your samples.

The mass spectrum is similarly almost unique for each molecule, but not in cases of particular interest here. Epitestosterone and testosterone share the same mass spectrum, but have different GC retention times. Because of the possibilities of interference by unwanted molecules in one measurement, its necessary to look at both properties to be sure that the assay is measuring only the intended substance. The output data need to be carefully examined to ensure that no unintended substances interfered with the measurements.

If, and only if, the compounds in the peak are exclusively of the desired compound will the resulting ratio be correct. If an additional substance is also in the peak, then the result will be wrong, and invalid.

The LDP, as provided, gives only some of the data to justify the claim that the peaks measured were indeed the compounds they are claimed to be. Essentially, LNDD have identified compounds on the basis of the GC retention time alone, and have not used the mass spectra effectively to eliminate the possibility of interference. And some of the data provided in the LDP suggests that the fractions were, in fact, contaminated by other compounds, perhaps even some of the metabolites of Landis' TUEd cortisone.

The answers to these puzzles would be revealed by the data that was collected by the instrument at the time of the test -- the data USADA has so far refused or been unable to produce.

We can think of the following possibilities.
  1. USADA produces the data files, and they show LNDD did the right thing, leaving us with the previous set of arguments.
  2. USADA produces the data files, and they show LNDD didn't do the right thing, invalidating the results.
  3. USADA doesn't produce the files claiming they are not relevant. This is problematic, because WADA technical document TD2003IDCR requires the data to make the positive claim.
  4. USADA doesn't produce the files, claiming they don't exist. This could be because of a "document retention policy" in force at the LNDD.
In the case of data files that show LNDD did the right thing (case 1), we are forced to ask whether they may have been tampered with. Inasmuch as they were not produced before various theories of their relevance were floated, and we have seen LNDD make "corrections" to ostensibly "original" documents already in this case, and in Landaluce have admitted to breaking rules when it seemed expedient, there is now reason to question the veracity of anything that is produced from now on.

In the case of data files that turn up "missing", we are left wondering what to do. They have been identified as quite possibly containing information that proves Landis' case, and their inclusion is supposed to be mandatory for a positive test finding. The arbitrators would be right to throw the case out if they were not produced. We'd then be left with the question whether this would be perceived as a win on a "technicality" or an exoneration.

It certainly seems like the absence of the files would be a violation of the test and reporting protocol that have great relevance on the reliability of the test results, so it is hard to imagine the case being proven without them.

Where are the data files, and why hasn't USADA produced them?

(With assistance from Duckstrap)

Full Post with Comments...

Wednesday Roundup

The Herald Sun tells us about this year's presentation to the stars of the AFL ( Australian Football League) in which the Floyd Landis situation was harshly used as a cautionary tale:

In a rare insight into the league's war on drugs, the AFL's medical heavy-hitters and a hard-nosed cop ran selected journalists through a presentation shown to every player in recent months.

It was a serious message.

Page one of the power-point presentation, steered by AFL medicos Dr Peter Harcourt and Dr Harry Unglik, featured disgraced American cyclist Floyd Landis.

The graphic talked about the shame heaped on cycling in the wake of last year's Tour De France controversy.

"Another Tour, another drug scandal," it read.

There is a warning that AFL tests are "state of the art . . . the most sensitive available".

"We're clipping at the heels of people like this (Landis)," the presentation goes on.

There follows other examples akin to movies shown to high schoolers with gruesome results of traffic accidents as a warning. "Signal 30, Signal 30"...

Sports Illustrated on Campus writes in a blurb:

There's good news for collegiate bike racing fans who feel that Indiana's Little 500 doesn't involve enough alcohol. This weekend Rice University will be holding its 51st annual Beer Bike. The competition involves teams of bikers racing around a track, with the added rule that designated chuggers must chug beers before their team's bikers are allowed to start. This year's race will go on despite the constant warnings from Floyd Landis that combining drinking and bike riding will lead to positive steroid tests.

Snark O' the Day
The Central PA Gazelle posts a "snark of the week" candidate in a spoof of the wiki defense. Just don't try the Power Punch please!

Paige Dunn reports on some Landis appearances in San Francisco Friday and Saturday, tickets to Q&A still on sale.

Spinnin Wheel is able to enjoy his her DVD set of the 2006 Tour.

Rant asks where the 18.5 minutes have gone and uses this Watergate reference to point to important data needed but thus far deined the Landis team by USADA and the LNDD:

But going back to the data, it’s incumbent on USADA and LNDD to provide the data in order to establish whether or not the lab’s claims of a positive doping test are correct. They can’t just hide the data and hope that the case will go away. And if they can’t — or won’t — produce the data, then the arbitration panel should do the right thing and throw out the case on the grounds that the lab has not sufficiently proved their claims of a positive test. To do otherwise will show the world that anti-doping cases aren’t about following and enforcing the rules, they’re about punishing the unfortunate souls accused of doping by our current witchfinder generals.

One has to wonder just who plays the part of Rose Mary Woods in this current scenario.

Things I think About read with interest "Where are the Data Files?" and thinks the whole thing is a full blown circus. He wonders just how many "technicalities" one case needs to achieve a dismissal?

FLITM is dancing in the streets to announce the return of the Free Floyd T shirts at cafepress. The dude abides!

Durham in Wonderland cites the Landis case as an example of how badly handled investigations can be, and compares this debacle to the Duke rape case.

North Star Mental Fitness blog appreciates Floyd Landis' secrets for success,which boil down to just plain old fashioned hard work. These are Floyd's secrets for making successful changes in your life:

1. Taking care of you and achieving your goal has to be a priority. Every day you must have a commitment to do what is necessary to reach your goal.

2. Taking care of you and achieving your goal must be motivated by what you want for yourself. You must be motivated by what you want for yourself and not because you feel you have to or should.

3. You must work harder than you normally work on achieving success and more than most people would work to be successful. Pushing yourself and working hard is the secret of success. isn't sure about the Landis case, but takes some inspiration in his hip work (machine translation):

Since a fall some years suffered had driven round Floyd Landis in the peleton with “kapotte” hip. After its touroverwinning of 2006 - or he who that tour now did win? - Floyd under the knife went and got an art hip. At present weet I not much concerning the sport-loving verderzetting of its professional wielercarriere, but that he on the bicycle sits and is train, is certain. Marco, duatleet undergo now by the end of April a similar intervention. After many years' with pain to have trained, there also an end comes to its current sport-loving career for Marco. Much sterkte, and hopelijk returns you with your new hip, this time without pain and can we together work for the road to Kasterlee!

Thought for the Day

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write a sonnet, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
--- Robert Heinlein---

Full Post with Comments...

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Judging Floyd, Part III

Hearing Overview

In Part III, we give an overview of the hearing process, discussing what the parties must provide beforehand, who participates and observes, how the arbiters evaluate materials, controlling law, burden of proof and presumptions; the form of a decision, and the nature of an appeal. This is introductory material and will be expanded in later parts of the series as we come upon events.


By the Hon. William Hue and David Brower

Copyright 2007 by William Hue and David Brower. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is allowed when accompanied with a clearly legible attribution before the reproduction using the words, “Courtesy of Trust But Verify,"

Starting the Hearing Process

The Procedures require that the Landis hearing take place in the United States. The parties and arbiters agreed to hold the hearing at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California on May 14, 2007. USADA may invite the International Federation and WADA (World Anti-Doping Association) to participate either as a party or as an observer. Neither of these entities has been designated a party but we assume they will observe the proceedings. Landis may invite the Athlete Ombudsman to observe; we don’t know if he has done so. If Landis had not exercised his sole right to a “hearing open to the public”, only these entities would have been participants/observers in the hearing process.

As we know, Landis did request a “hearing open to the public”, and there has been some question as to what that means, exactly. Although the Supplementary Procedures define many terms, “hearing open to the public” is not one of them. They explicitly leave that definition to the discretion of the Panel by permitting the Panel to impose “limitations” (unencumbered by reasonableness or other criteria) on that right. Current speculation anticipates that 500 or more people may attend this hearing. The logistics alone will require the Panel to institute some control over the proceedings.

The United States Olympic Committee will pay the costs of using the facility and other costs associated with the administration of the case. The Panel will be paid for “study days” as well as attendance at hearing and for the deliberation and preparation of their decision. Full time AAA arbitrators earn a sliding scale of $115,000 to $150,000 per year and part time arbitrators receive a percentage of the amount in dispute in commercial cases or set their own fees paid by the parties, equally. CAS-AAA arbitrators are not full time and their fees and costs (lodging, transportation, some supplies and meals) are also paid for by the United States Olympic Committee and not by USADA or the athlete. We do not know what these three arbiters are charging for their services, but we can guess that their fees are significant, given the scale mentioned above.

You may wonder how three human beings, even those as knowledgeable as the three arbiters in this case are (as highlighted in Part 2 of this series), manage to wade through the bulk of highly technical laboratory analysis and other written materials in an expeditious manner. Of course, as pointed out above, the arbiters are paid for “study” time. We don’t know if the arbiters are receiving any additional staffing help, or have any staff at all, as the Supplementary Procedures are silent on this topic. Lacking such resources, the panel may be on its own, making it more difficult to address complicated technical issues.

Should the case be appealed, CAS Appellate Division arbitrators have CAS employed clerks to brief and summarize the complicated issues for them. Speaking from experience, it is very nice to have the help of a clerk, to compile, summarize and synthesize material.


Both sides are required to submit their positions to the panel in writing. USADA started first, by submitting a statement of its claim, the written evidence (including testing results) that it will rely upon at hearing and a list of witnesses and experts it will call. Landis responded to the claim, denying the premise that he doped. Some athletes do not deny this, but seek to shorten their suspensions for the few allowable reasons permitted for such argument. Landis was also required to submit the written evidence he would rely upon and list the expert and lay witnesses he intends to present at trial.

We know that each party made requests for discovery as we indicated and identified in Part 2 of this series. Pending resolution of the discovery issues and completion of the process, no party will be able to fully and completely disclose all written submissions and witnesses each will rely upon. The system contemplates this -- there is a further requirement that each party respond to the other’s submissions. That requirement likely remains in process pending completion of discovery, under the authority and discretion of the arbiters to alter the proceedings as the circumstances warrant as long as each party is treated equally and has a fair opportunity to present its case. The management and control of the proceedings are left to the good judgment of the Panel.

Under the CAS-AAA Supplementary Procedures, there is no time limit for completing the arbitration process and that is what we are seeing in the Landis case. While the Panel has authority to “expedite” procedures where doing so protects the athlete’s right to a fair hearing, a fair hearing in this case has apparently required significant delay.

What Law Applies?

One of the procedural questions that must be resolved is what rules are used when there is ambiguity in the Supplementary Procedures. This is called “controlling law”, and there are choices to be made as to what law applies when the Procedures do not speak to the issue.

The Supplementary Procedures of CAS-AAA govern procedure and substance in the Landis hearing. During the hearing, the substantive rules governing the question of whether a doping offense has occurred is governed by the WADA Code. These rules leave much to the good discretion of the Panel, and the Supplementary Procedures do not specify domestic or national law to fill any gaps. This is different than the CAS Code, which designates Swiss law to govern its arbitration procedures.

Nevertheless, we have heard that the issue of controlling law is the topic of pre-hearing motions and discussion, and has not been resolved as we write. For reasons unclear, there is the suggestion that USADA is arguing for the application of Swiss law.

But, Floyd Landis isn’t a Swiss citizen and this hearing is being instigated by a US agency on US soil. Without going into extensive examination of this subject, we believe that the United States Constitution forbids application of Swiss law in this proceeding, and that United States law is appropriate to fill in gaps in procedure and substance. Neither Landis nor any other United States athlete bargained in some equal position to choose the laws of Switzerland to govern his case so the selection of Swiss laws, in our opinion, under these circumstances, likely violates public policy as well.

While the forgoing discussion might seem fairly academic, the distinction might become important in the Landis case for example, in the resolution of the meaning of the term “metabolite(s)” as used in the WADA code. How the Panel interprets that term will depend on the controlling law because the Code does not define it. In the ADRB Filing, Jacobs urges the Panel to resolve that issue by using rules of construction found in US law and published precedent. Those rules, if used to “fill in the blanks” require that once a term is determined to be ambiguous then the phrase should be read to favor the party that did not write it, in this case Landis, arguing for the “all” metabolites argument. Believe it or not, Swiss law or some other law may deal with the issue in an entirely different if not diametrically opposite manner.

Another practical example of where the selection of laws might become important is the standard the Panel adopts in evaluating the testimony of experts. CAS-AAA panels have often been unable to resolve conflicts in the opinion of experts in cases such as Landaluze and Hamilton. At some point, a Panel will find itself obligated to do that and in so doing, will establish a law to apply and thereby a standard adopted by that law to resolve that issue and others as well.

In previous CAS-AAA proceedings, Christopher Campbell is the only arbiter that has cited United States law on substantive issues, in the Ina and Neben cases. It is also interesting that in those and other cases the Panels are starting to cite other Panels’ rulings as precedent (also known as “case law”), even though they are not bound by precedent as in normal court practice.

This is important because, as a practical matter, issues such as what substantive law applies to fill gaps might be resolved for the first time by a single Panel and then that decision would then be honored by future Panels in other cases. The wheel would then not have to be reinvented on a case-by-case basis.

Moreover, if no back up domestic law is designated and no domestic law adopted, then the personal notions and experience of each panel member as to substantive matters, even those of fairness and due process will become a wholly ad hoc and therefore unpredictable determination.

Thus, it will interesting to see whether this Panel will use the law of the United States or Switzerland or some other law or decide all issues ad hoc, based upon their own experience or finds some other back up law such as the Federal Arbitration Act to supplement the “Supplementary Procedures”. The selection of the individual arbiters plays an important role in the way in which such issues will be resolved in this case, if they arise.

Hearing Process

Patrice Brunet as Chair of the Panel will preside over the hearing. We don’t know if he’ll have an actual gavel, but he will be the one who opens and closes proceedings.

In a CAS-AAA proceeding, the standard rules of courtroom evidence do not apply. This is important because the procedure will be much less formal and indeed less “technical”. Each side should be able to get its case in and its points across without much difficulty. A more relaxed set of procedural rules is in force. The Panel has much discretion as it relates to the presentation of evidence. The rules say
  • Evidence presented at hearing must be relevant to the submissions presented pre-hearing. The completeness and accuracy of the pre-hearing submissions are very important as they establish the foundation of all evidence at hearing.
  • Testimony must be concise and relevant, and may the scope may be narrowed to relevant topics, or ruled out of order.
  • Witnesses are “invited” to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.

Like a court in the United States, the Panel is permitted to call its own witnesses, order the production of documents or hire experts to evaluate the evidence according to its own needs.

In many published CAS-AAA cases, the parties were permitted to make opening statements and closing arguments. It further appears that much of the material submitted pre-hearing is accepted into evidence at hearing. This serves to expedite matters considerably.

Burden of Proof and Burden Shifts

The Supplemental Procedures assigns the burden of establishing that the anti-doping rule violation has occurred to USADA to “the comfortable satisfaction” of the Panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that has been made.

This burden is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, and is greater than a mere balance of probability. It is most like the “middle burden” in U.S. law of “clear and convincing” evidence. On the surface, this doesn’t sound too bad for the athlete.

However, important elements are caught up in rules that are less friendly to a defense.

The transportation, custody and testing of an athlete’s sample is presumed to be properly performed and performed according to prevailing scientific standards. The Supplementary Procedures explicitly state that WADA accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis. The Supplementary Procedures define International Standards as a standard adopted by WADA in support of the code. It notes further that compliance to the WADA standard, as opposed to another alternative standard, practice or procedure, is sufficient to conclude that the procedures addressed by the WADA standards were properly performed. That is, the lab need not perform to some national standard, or to, for example, the WADA-predecessor IOC requirements.

It is therefore a given that the arbiters must comply with these explicit anti-doping provisions designed to give validity to WADA approved scientific procedures and tests as a matter of policy. Simplified, by rule, the athlete doesn’t get to question the validity of the system, or the validity of the essential test protocol. That is, walking into the hearing, the athlete is, in fact, presumed guilty by the positive test results

The athlete may rebut the presumption by establishing part of the ISL was violated and that the violation is enough to call into question the correctness of the analytical result. To do this, the athlete must present evidence that demonstrates these things by a “balance of probability” (more likely then not) test.

One example of this in the Landis case is the issue of whiteout on a summary sheet. If Landis shows that this occurred, he would also have to prove by a balance of probability that the whiteout calls into question the results. This may or may not be enough of a violation to shift the burden to shift the burden back to USADA. No one could seriously argue that a whiteout significantly calls into question results when that is all there is to it. But, couple the whiteout with another rider’s similar number from a different stage, tested in the same lab at the same time and Landis might have enough if the facts warrant, calling into question the results. Or he might not, depending on how the Panel sees and interprets the issue. If the Panel determines the whiteout issue calls into question the test’s results by a balance of the probabilities, then the burden shifts back again to USADA to prove that the testing departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding, presumably by showing that the sample was, in fact, Landis’ to the Panel’s “comfortable satisfaction”.

Another example is the issue of whether the same analyst “tested” both the “A” and “B” samples. In Landaluze, the Panel determined the deviation to be so significant that “as a matter of law” the test result could not be relied upon to be correct. Presumably, somewhere in between actually performing the analysis of both samples by a single technician and having each sample entirely analyzed by two different technicians is a single technician’s involvement in some aspect of both tests. Assuming that involvement is not enough to invalidate the test completely but calls into question the test’s results by a balance of probability, then the burden shifts again USADA to prove to the Panel by a “comfortable satisfaction” standard that the testing departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding.

The final issue we wish to comment on as it relates to this burden shifting issue in the Landis case is whether exogenous testosterone exists in his samples. On that issue, Robert Mionske, at Velonews observes:

At a high enough ratio, an endogenous substance like testosterone is presumed to be exogenous. In order to rebut this presumption, the rider must prove that the prohibited substance is attributable to a physiological or pathological condition. However, if "based on any reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS), the laboratory can show that the prohibited substance is of exogenous origin" the Sample will be deemed to contain a prohibited substance. The rider must then rebut the presumption that the sample analysis and custodial procedures were conducted in accordance with WADA's International Standard for Laboratory Analysis. If the rider rebuts this presumption, the UCI or the National Federation then have the burden to establish that the proven departure from the International Standard did not cause the adverse analytical finding.”

In Mionske’s example above, the burden shifted 4 separate times after the initial premise was offered. To observe the area is complicated barely glosses the surface! There are no answers when in something seemingly so simple as the example, the burden shifts four times. That is kind of silly, and not much of a system. Here's how you might solve it: leave the comfortable satisfaction standard to be proven by USADA, don't mess around with burden shifts and decide at the end of it all. The thing about burden shifts that benefits a fact finder is the ability to just call it off after any of the 5 turns (in the Mionski example) and hear no more.

It seems difficult to believe the Panel will be inclined to accept questions about whether the WADA approved test process achieves a reliable result. The Supplementary Procedures seem to exclude challenging the test itself once WADA adopts it, and this is where Tyler Hamilton found his Panel to be particularly unresponsive except for Campbell, who is on this Panel, as well.

In particular, we do not have any idea how the panel will react to the suggestion that variance in positivity criteria between labs is a violation of the ISL sufficient to call the results in question. Are positivity criteria part of the WADA test protocol that may not be questioned, or part of the test execution that may be challenged? If positivity criteria are part of the individual lab’s implementation of the protocol, will the Panel allow Landis to attempt to rebut the presumption that this lab’s interpretation of the standard is correct?

Many other issues have come to light in the Landis case concerning alleged deviations from the International Standards and we will cover some of these in detail in future Parts of this series.

The Decision

The Panel’s decision is by majority vote. The decision must be written, and the Panel is required to state its reasoning. Should it conclude a violation has occurred; the Panel has the additional important task of setting forth the sanction. The decision must be made public, unless the parties agree otherwise, but only some decisions are actually published. Our difficulty in finding copies of some decisions has been amply demonstrated in the 2nd part of this series, for example.


The Panel’s final decision remains in effect even if an appeal is requested. Such an appeal is to CAS, and may be made by any party to the CAS-AAA case. Do the observers, WADA and the International Federation have the right to appeal as well? That is an interesting question as typically, only those with standing, parties, have the right to appeal. Observers are not parties but WADA in particular, may have a right to appeal. So, should Landis prevail and USADA lose its will, WADA may take over the prosecution of the appeal. The hearing of an appeal shall take place in the United States. The appeal Panel will hear the arguments and evidence de novo, meaning it is able to revisit everything as if it were a fresh case, essentially being another trial.

The Appeal Panel may increase decrease or void the sanctions imposed by the CAS-AAA Panel, and regular CAS rules under Swiss law apply. A second prosecution kick, under Swiss law, may await Mr. Landis should he prevail. It isn’t going to be over even with a victory and as pointed out above, a change in the recognition of underlying law may compel a completely different result.

Next time: Part IV, Looking at the first Interlocutory Award.

Previously, Part I and Part II.


William Hue is a Wisconsin State Circuit Court Judge (Branch 2 of the Jefferson County Circuit Court). His views are strictly his own.

David Brower is the publisher of Trust But Verify,

Full Post with Comments...

Baker's Slide Show 3.0

Arnie Baker has posted version 3.0 of his slide show, reflecting what he said in Lancaster on Sunday. We won't go over it slide by slide, but give a rundown of the changes from previous versions. For the most part, the changes are refutations of arguments that have been made against Landis, and extended documentation of charges that Baker has previously made about the testing procedure.


Page 2 begins an argument against the claim that Landis' performance on Stage 17 to Morzine was somehow "superhuman" and therefore evidence in itself of doping.

Baker argues it was a combination of factors, mainly tactical, that led to the win. The physical effort was not extraordinary for Landis (or probably any other contender who had been equally willing to take the risk.)

Page 3 documents similar power outputs from Landis at other races, to document the point that is was not out of line with previous race efforts.

Page 4 tries to show that Morzine wasn't even out of line for a training run, showing a "commute" from Landis's home in Murrieta over Mt. Palomar to San Diego, concluding with some hill intervals.

(The folks at Saris will be disappointed to see Baker is using CyclingPeaks WKO+)

Page 9 shows an example of changes to "original" documents between the version of the LDP provided to USADA and then to the AFLD. Baker calls this "scientific misconduct".

Page 13 has been seen at TBV before, isolated, but is here in context. Baker is showing raised stakes on what had previously appeared to be a simple typo on a sample number might be confused with an actual sample.

It's not clear this is a real problem when one looks at the timelines of when the samples were processed, but Baker dodges that complaint by suggesting this was why USADA fought so hard to delay giving the information to Landis.

Page 14 makes another charge about the "original" LDP sets, because one of the pages of the USADA pack cited in an early slide show has somehow gone "missing" from the version in the AFLD LDP.

This raises the question about what other exculpatory material might be intentionally missing from either LDP.

Page 26 goes over a page that seems ripe with errors, compromising its documentary value.

What becomes particularly interesting in this page are the things boxed in green, which appear to document errors in the reference solutions used in the process. This is important, because unlike many other typos, it speaks directly to the proper or improper execution of the test protocol, and could significantly affect the analytical results.

It raises questions about all the reference solutions and the concentrations used in all procedures.

Page 36 documents an argument that the apparent LNDD criteria would declare known-to-be-clean members of the control group in the UCLA validation study to be dopers.

This argues against interpreting the -3.57 value as a positive indication in an absolute sense, but still runs into the WADA criteria of 3.0 that is supposedly beyond question by the rules of the process. It also doesn't address the metabolite that came in at -6.

Nevertheless, there appear to be questions about the "single metabolite" theory that LNDD ought to answer.

Page 37 shows a two lab report from UCLA, where onet has a -4.4 reading for one metabolite and another a -3.5, and neither was declared a positive, where the LNDD criteria would apparently call both dopers.

Baker is complaining about unequal interpretation of results between labs. The larger question may be unanswerable by the hearing, and it may or may not be useful in arguing against LNDD's criteria.

Page 48 documents that LNDD admitted in Landaluce, a previous case, to breaking rules when it considers it expedient to do so.

Page 49 documents the possibility of a problem similar to Landaluce, where Operator 18 appears to have worked on both Landis' A and B samples.

This has been argued in various forums, and it is not clear from the records what Operator 18 did on both. So far, Landis has not been able to ask questions that would resolve the issue one way or the other.

Baker says they are less concerned about the duplicate operator than they are the Landaluce admission of a lab willing to break rules, and the equity of a system that doesn't let them get the information to resolve the open question.

This leaves us with the impression Baker is tuning the public presentation of existing arguments to address criticisms that have been heard on previous versions. It doesn't, to us, add appreciable weight to the factual arguments already known. However, it is still an important evolution, because testing the presentations of the arguments has two important goals.

First, much of the public still remains oblivious to the details of the case, and may only see the final version as summarized by various media at the time of the hearing. Bolstering good arguments and weeding week ones or ones subject to ridicule ("vanishing twin") will make the ultimate version more persuasive.

Second, there is only a limited amount of time for case presentations at the hearing, and practicing points to be made and organizing the message are important. While we believe some of the big arguments are being hidden at this time, every bit of practice with the weaker arguments is still useful.

It is troubling to see that the agencies appear to be willing to alter "original" evidence to address criticisms made in public, and admit to breaking procedural rules when it appears to be convenient.

Full Post with Comments...

Tuesday Roundup

They look up to Floyd in Lancaster

The Yale Daily News Nicholas Thorne asks if any if us would "juice" up if we felt it necessary for success? He worries about the poppy seed bagel he ate before a recent drug test, and in a bit of a snark thinks that this constant need to win at all costs may be why Floyd Landis cheated if indeed he did:

Now take Landis. His is a compelling testament to the power of living in another’s shadow. Faced with hundreds of miles of grueling competition and weighed down by the burden of America’s expectations, ol’ Floyd decided a little testosterone was all he needed to win the Tour de France and step out from Lance Armstrong’s shadow. He was right.

When called on it, Landis just pointed fingers and looked over his shoulder, as if to say, “Who? Me?” The result: No one is yet sure as to what type of indiscretions Landis participated in, and some, if not all, are probably willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Potholes and Roadapples got an exclusive interview with Landis, under the title "Floyd Landis Challenges the Emperor."

But no other athlete has so aggressively maintained his innocence. Even if they are innocent, Landis believes other athletes have looked at the cost of defending themselves — Landis expects to spend more than $2 million — and they have accepted the suspension.

Landis faces being stripped of his title and a two-year ban from the sport. The lack of challenge is why the USADA has 158 notches on its gun, Landis believes. “Of course, now, they come into it with this arrogant attitude, like we’re just going to stomp all over this guy, like we do every other time. … Sooner or later, they were going to pick the wrong guy,” he said in an exclusive interview.

“How many can you go through before you find a guy who is just not going to take it.”

Mark was not only impressed with the Dr. Baker's slide show Sunday night at the FFF event in Ephrata,PA, but also with the wonderful people who live there. And even though he is a photographer and took pics of everyone else with Floyd, he discovered that he doesn't have one with Floyd and himself. Doh!

Paul Landis watches his son sign autographs.
More pictures by Mark

Dugard thinks about the case again, and hears "wiki defense" for the first time.

Cheeky Bastard is looking into hip replacement and is starting to think about the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing procedure. In his research he found that Floyd Landis has more in common with Barry Manilow than you might think!

Potholes and Roadapples thinks that AOL Fanhouse was not only way snarky, but also inaccurate. Also

AOL Fanhouse article deconstructed by P and R above.

Matt was very excited to finally get the chance to meet Floyd Landis at the Saturday night casual event in Ephrata,PA. He felt that what you see is what you get with Floyd, and he found that Floyd was gracious and humble. He also got to meet and speak with other people involved with the FFF.

Bicycle News
says don't write Floyd Landis off yet, he still has plenty of fight left in him. The link to "more" seems broken however

Durham in Wonderland rips the media for coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case, then misrepresents the Landis defense, seemingly blind to the similarities.

At DPF, after having conferred with Arnie Baker in Lancaster, Duckstrap is extending some of the observations made by You3 about errors in the CIR execution:

Just to add further fuel to the speculative fire, I will point out that metabolites of cortisol have four acetylation sites, instead of the two found on metabolites of T. The number of carbons in cortisol metabolites is 21 vs. the 19 in T metabolites. If a peak containing primarily cortisol metabolites were a significant contaminant or were misidentified, then because of the highly negative CIR of the acetic anhydride used for derivitization (-53 per p. 351), a cortisol metabolite with a corrected CIR of -24 would have an uncorrected value of -32 in the IRMS, exactly in line with the observed CIR of the mystery "5bA" in the Landis F2 sample, and with the putative "5aA" sample in his F3 sample.

Tom Fine's revisiting possible effects of alcohol on CIR is now available, with additional citation, and some support from Dumas and jr.

Full Post with Comments...

Monday, March 26, 2007

Monday Roundup

LancasterOnline reports on last night's fund raiser for Farmersville, PA native Floyd Landis held in Ephrata, PA. It not only notes the humility of Landis, but also the overwhelming support of the hometown crowd:

When the Farmersville native was introduced to the capacity crowd, he received a standing ovation, a roar of applause that lasted more than a minute.
Taken aback by the support, Landis greeted the group.

"That means a lot," he said, while modestly looking down at his shoes.

While Landis' reception Sunday in Ephrata may have been unique,compared with his previous stops in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Landis said it was just what he expected.

"Going home is always the same," he said. "It hasn't changed since I was born.

In a further update the afternoon edition of LancasterOnline notes that last night's event was unique due the the added elements of offered praise and prayer. It was also reported that according to FFF executive director Michael Henson the amount of money raised for the weekend stood at approximately $18,000.00:

Along with the sold-out event on Sunday, a reception at the same venue on Saturday night drew about 200 people.

The combined events raised about $18,000, Landis' spokesman Michael Henson said this morning.

Landis' Floyd Fairness Fund has raised about $400,000 with the eight previous events. Landis said Sunday that he anticipates having to spend $2 million on his defense.

The Sentinel Online posts a few snippets about Sunday's fundraiser at the Ephrata Performing Arts Center noting that Paul Landis feels Floyd may need a bit of a rest.

WHP CBS 21 has a video report from the Sunday evening event in Lancaster, with a snip of the press conference. It suggests looking for a more detailed page with expanded coverage; there are extended raw clips of the press conference, which seem to pretty much cover all of the substance. For us, the most interesting stuff is in Part 3.

The cites the AP and the Intellingencer Journal of Lancaster on last night's FFF hometown fund raiser.

Dugard got a call yesterday from someone wanting to know about the Landis Wiki Defense, then he remembered that Floyd was supposed to speak to his track team who need inspiration.

Rant admits that even though an alleged doping infraction is worth more than spit, it would still behoove those in power at the UCI to follow the well considered example set by the PGA.

Potholes and Road Apples remembers the old fable about the Emperor who had no clothes, and notes that Floyd Landis is one of the few who sees that reality. In an update, P&RA gives a listing of some relevant facts gleamed from Floyd's homecoming weekend in Farmersville.

The Fanhouse presents a bit of a snark when he says that "you", meaning us, will have to pay for any possible hope of Landis being recognized as the Tour de France champion.

Pommi notes last nights coverage.

At DPF, one-mint-julich (OMJ), a skeptic, is thinking that either the F3 fraction is reasonably pure, and a good indicator, or, "people running these tests are either highly incompetent or highly fraudulent", and that if so, it "would be something major, not a simple lab error."

Also, Tom Fine retools his "alcohol may affect the CIR theory", gets some help from Dumas, and disbelief from others. But DPF is having MySql problems again, so we can't get the link to work.

Thought of the Day
We need people who are bigoted, racist, war mongers, tyrants ... whatever. This forum has demonstrated that when those people are active and vocal, they induce an equal response from those who are against those negative attributes. That way, the otherwise mild mannered good citizens get motivated to say what they feel. Without the provocation of extremists, the true feelings of the populus remains unknown. (link)

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Sunday Roundup

AP via of Landis in Lancaster, suggesting the process is taking it's toll mentally as well as financially and physically.

TBV was present in force at both FFF events in Lancaster, and we thought both were more upbeat than presented in the AP story above. The Sunday crowd was rapturous, and Landis seemed quite relaxed in front of the hometown crowd, though a little hesitant to participate in the yes-it-is-Lancaster prayer offered at the end of questions on behalf of the crowd that was invited to stand and join in. Arnie Baker ran through the slides, with a few new ones will discuss when back home with the new set promised on his site for tomorrow. Sunday was sold out/packed with over 300 present. Saturday was lower key with no formal presentations, with about 150 or so present, quite a few of whom were children in awe, a rare sight at previous events. We'll have more tomorrow along with pictures.

These tidbits tonight: Dad Paul Landis taught Floyd to ride backwards sitting on handlebars, and claims it's easy as long as you don't look backwards to look ahead or use the brakes too much. Floyd figured if his dad could do it, he could too. Also, Mr. Landis thinks that Floyd's first bicycle probably wasn't a Huffy BMX, but might have been a 16" wheeled girls bike found on the side of the road.

Mom and Dad, Arlene and Paul.

Paul wears his Phonak podium hat with the bill facing forwards, and he has his reasons.

We also learned places are pronounced Lancuster and Ephruhta, make no mistake about it.

Miami Herald via RedOrbit has toxicologist David Black, author of
"Drug Testing in Sports'' saying a one-day testosterone dose isn't silly:

"I have injected myself with testosterone in doing research, and I can tell you from personal experience that within hours, you feel a profound psychological change, a sense of well-being, aggression and energy," Black said.

"You feel strong and powerful. And your endurance is definitely improved. So, it's not peculiar to me that a cyclist would take testosterone after a bad day. What does seem peculiar is that an athlete of that caliber would put himself at such great risk, knowing that they test for testosterone."

A comment is added by a participant at DPF, reading:
Posted by swimyouidiot on 03/25/2007, 22:13
Personal anecdote is not evidence.

Pommi notes last night's meet and greet and is waiting for more substantial news from tonight's FFF event.

Rant runs over the science discussion going on at DPF mainly between You3 and Duckstrap.

The discussion of elution at DPF with you3 and duckstrap continues, making fascinating progress. You3 is making some excellent analysis, highlighting reasons why the computer data files of the IRMS CIR tests are needed, both by rule and to demonstrate whether the tests were done correctely. Analysis of the graphs provided seems to suggest co-elution (contamination) of something other than Testosterone in most of the "fractions" in both the A and B exists, because the graphs look nothing like those of the reference samples, and they should. Further, the presence and amount of the contaminants may account for the skewed negative values that have been turned into positives. One- mint-julich, often a skeptic, is now admitting that looking at the data is essential for learning the truth.

Swimyouidiot (also above) reads the theory and says this analysis will place the burden of proof to USADA to show the conclusions they reached are correct, which can't be shown from what's in the LDP as it stands today.

Dumas from DPF sends us a cleaner PDF of USADA-007 from a account, supporting arguments he made in this thread there. Correspondent Marc, posting there, analyzes the newly legible copy.

Full Post with Comments...