Mr. Idiot shows polarity affects isotropic skew

In a comment, Mike pointed us to observation that the isotropic skew is dependent on the polarity of the column, which we know to be different in the Landis GCMS and IRMS runs. He also pointed us to the reference, which we include a snapshot of below, because there is a lot interesting there in very little space.

Note particularly the observations that overlaps are trouble, peak and baseline separation are important, and that Brenna's software isn't used in practice.

Handbook of Stable Isotope Analytical Techniques, Volume I, parts of pages 168 and 169. Click for bigger.

This is a survey article by one Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, and is citing J. Brenna.

Small world.

Full Post with Comments...

Larry's Curb Your Anticipation, Part 1:Some General Questions

Up to the Introduction; On to part 2.

By Commenter Larry

Preliminary Questions

Why Are the WADA Rules Binding on International Cycling?

Let’s begin our discussion of anti-doping law at the most basic level. All professional cyclists are licensed by a national federation, such as USA Cycling in the U.S. The terms of a national cycling license require that the cyclist follow the anti-doping rules of the national federation, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

[MORE]

For example, the terms of the International License available through USA Cycling include the following:

I shall submit to disciplinary measures taken against me and shall take any appeals and litigation before the authorities provided for in the regulations. I accept the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the only competent jurisdiction of appeal in the cases provided for by the Regulations and in compliance with the terms thereof. ... I agree to submit to drug testing and to comply with and to be bound by the UCI anti-doping regulations, the World Anti-Doping Code and its International Standards to which the UCI anti-doping regulations refer as well as the anti-doping regulations of other competent instances as foreseen by the UCI Regulations, the World Anti-Doping Code, or the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), provided such regulations comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. …. I accept these conditions regarding blood testing and agree to undergo all tests required of me.

See http://www.usacycling.org/forms/intl_license.pdf.

The primary authority in international cycling is the UCI. WADA’s authority in cycling derives from UCI’s adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code (the WADA Rules). The WADA Rules are incorporated in the UCI Cycling Regulations (UCI Rules). See UCI Rule Part 14, Introduction, at http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/14ant-E.pdf.

Whenever possible, I will cite to both the WADA Rules and the UCI Rules in the following discussion.

A Brief Description of the WADA Rules and the UCI Rules

In an anti-doping case, the anti-doping organization (ADA) has the initial burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. UCI Rules Article 16, WADA Rules Article 3.1. However, once the Anti-Doping Organization introduces evidence of an anti-doping violation from a WADA-accredited laboratory, the results are presumed correct. UCI Rules Article 18, WADA Rules Article 2.4.3. The athlete is then entitled to rebut this presumption by establishing that the lab departed from the ISL. UCI Rules Article 18, WADA Code Article 3.2.1. If the athlete is able to prove an ISL departure, then the ADA must prove that the departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding (AAF) against the athlete. Id.

The process described above sets up what we’ve called the “burden shift” or “burden flip”. The athlete has the initial burden to show an ISL departure, at which point the burden “flips” to the prosecuting ADA to show that the ISL departure did not cause the AAF. In this article, we’ll focus almost exclusively on the first part of the “flip”: we’ll be looking at what it takes to prove an ISL departure. But keep in mind that this discussion is only half of the story: the ADA may be able to meet its burden of proof even if the burden is “flipped”. Remember that in the FL case, the FL legal team was able to prove a number of departures from the ISL, but USADA was able to prove (to the satisfaction of two of the three arbitrators on the panel) that these departures did not cause the AAF against FL.

Let’s look closer at the standard of proof required to establish an AAF. Under the UCI and WADA Rules, the ADA must prove the AAF “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.” According to the UCI Rules and the WADA rules, this standard of proof is greater than the mere balance of probability required to win a case in a U.S. civil court proceeding, but is less than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a U.S. criminal conviction. See UCI Rules Article 16, WADA Rules Article 3.1. In the case of USADA v. Montgomery, http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/CAS%20Decision_Tim%20Montgomery_Dec%202005[1].pdf, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) defined "comfortable satisfaction" to impose an “extremely high” level of proof on the prosecuting ADA. In the Montgomery case, the CAS ruled that there was “little, if indeed any, difference” between the standard of proof imposed on the ADA and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The FL legal team concluded that USADA’s burden of proof in the FL case was “very close to ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’", see http://ia351413.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_Case_Documents_14/RespondentsProposedFindingsofFact.pdf paragraph 2.4.7, and I think that this conclusion is correct.

Is An SOP Violation the Equivalent of an ISL Departure?

In our discussions on TBV, we’ve discussed instances where the lab in the FL case may have violated its own standard operating procedures (SOP) in conducting its testing. For example, we’ve discussed at length whether the lab’s machinery was set up in accordance with the lab’s SOP. See the discussion at http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/12/different-columns-detailed.html. If a lab violates its own SOP, is this treated under the WADA rules like an ISL departure, where the lab must prove that its SOP violation did not cause the AAF?

This issue came up in the FL case. The lab in the FL case, the LNDD, had a SOP requiring it to do a monthly check of the linearity of its Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer (IRMS). USADA admitted that LNDD did not make these monthly checks. The arbitrators ruled as a result that “the Lab failed to adhere to the ISL in failing to check the linearity of the IRMS instrument on a monthly basis as provided for in its ISO 17025 accreditation.” See FL decision paragraph 218 (emphasis added). Later in the decision, focusing on this same point, the arbitrators stated that “[t]he SOPs are part of the ISO 17025 accreditation”.

It’s clear from the FL decision that at least some SOP violations will be treated as ISL departures under the WADA Rules. The key appears to be whether the SOP is a part of the lab procedures that are reviewed in the ISO 17025 accreditation process. While this question is not clearly answered in the FL decision, I would argue that any violation of an SOP that can clearly be connected to a requirement under the ISL or ISO 17025 should be treated as an ISL departure. For example, the LNDD’s failure to do its monthly linearity check of its IRMS machine arguably violated ISO 17025 Rule 5.4.5.3, which requires the lab to assess linearity as part of its method validation, and ISO 17025 Rule 5.5, which governs proper maintenance of lab equipment.

Can The Athlete Challenge the Scientific Basis of an AAF?

We’ve stated on TBV that the WADA Rules prohibit an athlete from challenging the science used by a WADA lab to prove an AAF. As it turns out, this statement is not 100% correct. As we’ll see, many anti-doping cases are based on the athlete’s argument that the AAF is based on bad science.

The actual rule in this area is as follows:

• The UCI and WADA rules establish a presumption that a WADA lab has carried out its anti-doping tests in accordance with acceptable current scientific standards. See USADA v. Bergman, http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/CAS%20Decision%20-%20Bergman.pdf, p. 12.

• This presumption of validity extends into three potential areas of challenge: the scientific basis for the test, the analytical result (for example, the chromatograms on which the FL AAF was based), and the interpretation of the analytical result. Id.

• The athlete can overcome this presumption of validity by presenting proof that the test as designed, performed or interpreted is not scientifically valid.

There are a number of anti-doping cases where the athlete has attempted to challenge the scientific basis of the AAF. For example, in USADA v. Hamilton, http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/AAA_CAS%20Decision%20-%20Hamilton[1].pdf, Tyler Hamilton challenged the scientific basis of his blood doping AAF, arguing that the blood doping test used to convict him was insufficiently validated, should have been based on a quantitative rather than a visual standard, and proved only that he had a “mixed red cell population” (which could be explained by circumstances other than blood doping). See Hamilton Decision p. 4. The arbitration panel in the Hamilton case rejected Hamilton’s arguments on scientific grounds, but there is no suggestion that Hamilton was precluded by the WADA Rules from raising scientific objections to the anti-doping tests.

Similarly, in the USADA v. Bergman case cited above, Bergman unsuccessfully challenged the scientific basis of the WADA lab’s interpretation of the rEPO testing used to prove Bergman’s AAF. As with the Hamilton case, the CAS rejected Bergman’s arguments on scientific grounds, and noted the presumption under the WADA and UCI rules in favor of the lab’s interpretation of Bergman’s rEPO tests. However, there is no suggestion in the Bergman case that the WADA or UCI rules barred Bergman from challenging the science behind the rEPO testing.

From the above, we learn that the WADA and UCI rules set up a presumption that all AAFs have a valid basis in science. The athlete can challenge this presumption – there is nothing in the rules preventing the athlete from challenging any aspect of the science behind an AAF. However, to my knowledge, no such challenge has succeeded to date.

Up to the Introduction; On to part 2.

Full Post with Comments...

Larry's Curb Your Anticipation, Introduction

By commenter Larry.

Back to the Preface, up to the Table of Contents; on to the next.

The anti-doping case against Floyd Landis (FL) presents us with an uncertain set of facts, to be judged against a baffling set of rules. Over the course of the past months, the TBV community (both the lawyers and the non-lawyers) have struggled to come to grips with these rules.

[MORE]

In most cases, we’ve come to the anti-doping rules with a specific question: is it OK to identify peaks with pattern matching, or do the rules compel the labs to analyze the full mass spectrum data, or should the lab’s failure to reproduce its original findings during the electronic data file (EDF) reanalysis result in the rejection of these original findings? We approach the rules with one of these questions in mind, and we locate provisions in the rules to address the question. For example, rules governing specificity seem to address the question of the mass spectrum data, and rules governing robustness and uncertainty seem to address the question of differences over time in lab findings.

But ultimately, the rules have defied our efforts to understand them. We’ve struggled to define key terms. While some rules seemed applicable to how a lab is supposed to perform its testing, other rules appeared to address different concerns, such as how a lab is to develop its anti-doping tests, or the criteria for lab accreditation. As a result, many of our basic questions about the anti-doping rules remain unanswered.

As a lawyer participating in the TBV community, I come to these questions with a different perspective. To understand a body of law, it’s essential to engage in the effort we’ve tried to undertake on TBV, that is, to try and understand the individual rules that make up that body of law. But it’s also important to see the body of law as a whole and not just as a sum of parts. It’s important to consider the intent behind the body of law, and how the body of law is structured. And it’s essential to carefully review how the body of law has been interpreted by others in authority.

In other words, before we consider how the individual rules address our individual questions, we should first look at the big picture.

My plan here is to take a big picture approach to understanding the anti-doping rules promulgated by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI). These are the rules applicable to the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) against FL, but my focus will be on understanding these rules, and not on trying to figure out how to apply the rules to the FL case. If you’ve come here looking for an argument that FL was wrongly convicted, or that FL was properly convicted, you’ve come to the wrong place. I will have occasion here to refer to the FL case, and to consider aspects of the FL arbitration decision, but I will do so as part of an effort to better understand the applicable anti-doping rules, and not to argue one side of the case or the other.

My goal is to lay out the rules in a broad and comprehensive way. My goal is to establish a framework that we can use to address some of the legal questions that have come up, and will continue to come up, when we try to make sense of the anti-doping rules

But in this article, I won’t look at all of the anti-doping rules. For example, I won’t consider the rules governing the arbitration of anti-doping cases, such as the restrictions on discovery and the selection of arbitrators. I won’t consider jurisdictional questions, such as the role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), or how FL’s doping case managed to be addressed by anti-doping authorities (ADAs) in two different countries.

Instead, I plan to address the following questions:

• How do the WADA anti-doping rules come to be the set of rules binding on anti-doping cases brought against international cyclists like FL?

• What general principles can we learn by examining the decisions in other anti-doping cases?

• What is the general structure of the anti-doping rules of the UCI and WADA?

Once we’ve covered these questions, we’ll shift focus to the WADA rules governing lab testing. This will require us to take a careful look at ISO 17025 and at the International Standard for laboratories (ISL) promulgated by WADA.

Whenever possible, I will provide internet citations to support my conclusions. I am a lawyer, but I’m not an expert in sports law, so you should feel free to question my conclusions. This article may be revised or supplemented as the TBV community moves forward in its understanding of this difficult and complicated area.

Back to the Preface, on to Part 1...

Full Post with Comments...

Larry's Curb Your Anticipation, Preface

Commentor Larry has been promising his in-depth legal analysis of many topics for a while, and has gotten into a "rewrite, read, add more" cycle. We've pulled it from his hands, and demanded that he get on with other things.

We also didn't give him a chance to make it short.

It came to us as a 30 page epic. Our quick breakdown into edibly sized pieces produced 16 parts. We're not entirely sure that many parts are more digestible than getting the whole load at once, but we're going to start with the smaller bits. We'll respond to feedback on this choice as things dribble out, probably two or three a day.

With that, here's a bit of the letter that accompanied the manuscript.

[T]his article is going to frustrate the hell out of anyone who reads it in the hope of better understanding the FL case. I’m not really talking about the FL case any more. I want to understand the damn rules. If we understand the damn rules, then maybe we can get somewhere. But it’s going to take a considerable effort for anyone to get through this article, at which point you’re pretty much left hanging for some more practical way to challenge an AAF. So, the 3 or 4 people on your forum who might have the tenacity to actually read this thing are probably going to be left feeling rather frustrated.

There’s not much we can do about this. In fact, IMHO, the only way to understand these rules is to follow a process like the one I’ve followed here. The WADA rules are the damndest set of rules I’ve ever encountered. They are based on the ISL, which in turn is based on ISO 17025, and ISO 17025 was never intended to be applied as the body of law to validate a particular lab finding in a legal context. It is something like saying that since baseball is the “American pastime”, we should apply the Bill of Rights to determine a close call at first base.

Also: in the end, it doesn’t matter what I think, or even what the ISL “really” means. What matters is how the rules are interpreted and applied by the people who count, in arbitrations, at the CAS, and at WADA and the ADAs. Fortunately or unfortunately, there’s not much of a body of “precedent” out there for the interpretation of these rules, so there’s probably room for idiots like me to speak our piece.

- Larry

On to the Introduction or the Table of Contents.

Full Post with Comments...

Idiots Return to Brenna and WM-A, Part II

Alasdair, once Ali, continues...

In Part 1, we managed to recreate Brenna's results. In Part 2, we're going to explain exactly how they occurred with reference to both the m45 and m44 signals and what happens when peaks overlap. However, before we do that, we need a little more background on what the software does.

Some of you may be thinking "We understand the logic, but m45 leads m44,not the other way round, you idiot."

Well, that's true, but hold on...

[MORE]


Brenna stated that his software compensated for the misalignment between m44 and m45, so we know that an attempt was made to align them perfectly.

That never happened though, because if it had, he would not have observed the results that he did. There are many factors which would make perfect alignment extremely difficult, including: The m44 and m45 signals are sampled quantities; In practise, they are not perfectly the same width and the same shape; The m45 peak is 100's of times smaller in magnitude than the m44 peak and more susceptible to chemical and electrical noise.

So Brenna's software tried but failed to achieve PERFECT alignment.

Older software may not even try to compensate for the m44-m45 time difference. Newer software may try but fail, resulting in a small finite misalignment either one way or the other. Consider this: To achieve perfect alignment and avoid errors when peaks overlap, you need perfect peaks.

At the end of the day, whether your software compensates or not, it looks like you're going to be left with an error in the alignment of m44 and m45. We don't know whether the OS2 software used for Floyd's Stage 17 compensates or not. We don't know if it behaves like Brenna predicted or whether it behaves like Meier-Augenstein predicted. After we've explained the results, we'll tackle that question.

---

Before we get into what can go wrong, lets see what is required for accurate CIR measurement. Figure 8 shows a m44 peak, with its corresponding m45 component superimposed on it. The two peaks are perfectly aligned. The integration limits are shown as two vertical lines. Remember, m44 and m45 exist as two separate signals, and we need to show both to explain what’s happening. The software needs to calculate the area under the m45 peak, calculate the area under the m44 peak and divide the m45 area by the m44 area. The result is the CIR for this substance.

Let’s say the m45 signal leads (occurs before) or lags (occurs after) the m44 peak by some small amount. As long as there’s no other peak interfering with our peak, that’s not a problem. We just position our integration limits so that they encompass both peaks and we’re good to go

Figure 8. m44 and m45 perfectly aligned. No overlap

---

Right, lets introduce another peak to the left of our first peak. Figure 9 shows two peaks of the same CIR overlapping by some arbitrary amount. We use the same method as Brenna to set up our integration limits. Lets examine what’s happening with Pk2 . We can see that our integration limits exclude the left hand tail of both the m44 and m45 peaks. That means that we’ve lost those areas from our calculation. That’s not a problem, because the m44 and m45 are perfectly aligned, so we lose the same relative proportions of each.

We’re also including the right hand tail of Pk1. Again that’s not a problem because in this case, both peaks have the same CIR so the contribution from Pk1 has the same relative proportions of m44 and m45 as Pk2 (it wouldn’t matter if Pk1 was much bigger than Pk2, the previous statement holds true).

Figure 9 m44 and m45 perfectly aligned. Overlapping peaks

So with perfectly aligned m44 and m45, it won’t matter how much those peaks overlap, because they have the same CIR.

---

Figure 10 shows our m45 leading the m44 by some amount (we haven’t labelled the peaks again as they are clearly identifiable from Fig.9). We’ve had to exaggerate this so that you can see what’s happening. What you’re seeing is m45 leading m44 by an enormously large 1 second. [To put that in context, if Figure 4 had used a 1 second lead instead of a 0.1 second lead, the measured value for that peak (which has a true value of –27) would not have been –28.4, it would have been –41.0 !]

We don’t need to look too hard to see that the m44 situation remains the same. We lose the left-hand tail of Pk2, but gain an equal amount of the right hand tail of Pk1. Total area same as before. It’s all going wrong with our m45 peak though. We’ve lost more of our Pk2 m45 than in Fig.9 and we’re gaining less of Pk1’s m45. That’s upset the balance. When we calculate our areas for Pk2 now, the ratio will make it look like we have less m45 than before. That makes our d45 figure more negative and it makes it look more probable that doping was involved.

Figure 10 m45 leads m44. Overlapping peaks

---

Figure 11 shows the opposite situation, m45 lagging m44. Again, all’s well on the m44 front, no change again.

So what’s happening with our m45 now?

We’re losing less m45 from Pk2 than in Figure 9 and we’re gaining more of Pk1’s m45. That’s upset the balance again, but this time it’s going to increase our m45 areas. That makes our Pk2 d45 figure less negative and it makes it look less probable that doping was involved.

Figure 11 m45 lags m44. Overlapping peaks

---

There you have it. The mystery of the overlapping peak and why the observations of Brenna and Meier-Augensten were both valid. It depends on the software system you’re using and how it performs with regard to aligning m44 and m45.

All very interesting, but what about the 64,000 dollar question … What is the LNDD system like?

The reprocessing of the Stage 17 EDFs provides our only real insight into the characteristics of the LNDD equipment. Specifically, we’re going to look at the results obtained from the blank sample. This is useful for us because: We know it shouldn’t test positive; It was processed in an automatic mode by the software; It was also processed in a manual mode by the technicians.

The F3 for the blank showed a degree of overlap between the 5bP peak and the 5aP peak (not to the extent that Floyd’s overlapped, but it was there).

In auto mode, the 5aP for blank came out as delta –3.65 (“delta” refer to the numerical difference between the d45 value for our substance under investigation and the d45 value of a reference substance generated by the athlete which is known not to be effected by the doping in question). The threshold for a doping positive is delta –3. Anything more negative is considered indicative of doping, however the uncertainty that LNDD claim is +/- 0.8 so more negative than delta -3 is suspicious, but delta –3.8 is the absolute threshold. As you can see, the known clean blank escaped testing positive only because it was within the uncertainty claimed by LNDD. That was when processed automatically by the software, without intervention. When LNDD redid it using their manual method, they got a result of delta –1.87. It is worth noting that they knew this was the blank and that it should not test positive.

So what do these results tell us?

Suppose the LNDD system behaved like the one Brenna used in his research and made the measured d45 appear less negative than it really is. That would imply two things. Firstly, the blank sample was a "positive", and really more negative than the measured delta –3.65. Secondly the LNDD manual method made the result worse, not better – they moved it in the wrong direction, away from the true value. (It also provides a stunning example of the influence of manual methods to achieve desired or expected results.)

This argues that we can’t accept that the LNDD equipment had the same characteristics as Brenna’s with respect to alignment of the m45 and m44 signals. If it did, the blank must have come from someone who had been doping with testosterone and the LNDD manual adjustment method is laughably inadequate.

Let’s consider that the LNDD system achieves perfect m45 and m44 alignment. Apart from the fact that it’s probably not achievable, it would mean that the blank, non-doping sample only just escaped a false positive. What does that say about the threshold of delta –3 ?. Also, it would mean that the LNDD manual adjustment method changed a correct result to become incorrect by more than delta –1.6. That’s way beyond their claimed uncertainty figure of +/- 0.8 and would call their competence into question.

We’re only left with one other option, and that is that the LNDD system results in the m45 leading the m44 by some finite amount, resulting in the 5aP appearing more negative than it really was. That would explain why the blank almost tested positive. That would explain why LNDD manually altered the result for the blank to make it look less negative. It would also explain why all of Floyd’s 5aP results appeared far more negative than they actually were.

Far more negative? We’ve established that the error is proportional to degree of overlap. Look at the blank F3 chromatograms. The degree of overlap between the 5bP and the 5aP is negligible, but that was enough to make the blank almost test positive. Now look at Floyd’s F3s.

Noticeably more overlap.

For those calling us idiots, let's remember that we are not talking about the actual lag between the peaks, but lags produced when the software attempts to account for the actual lag and fails to to a perfect job. Such software more or less works adequately when there are no overlaps in peaks. As we've shown, when there are minor errors in this compensation, overlapped peaks can be systematically measured with inaccurate results.

We've shown here that it is possible to reconcile Brenna's study and WM-A's theory in a way that leaves it less likely that LNDD got correct results.

Which seems like a perfect place to stop.

Full Post with Comments...

Monday Roundup

News
The CyclingNews details further the UCI talks to create an as yet ill defined parallel series which will run along with the Pro Tour and would consist of ASO, Unipublic, and RCS races, and four of the "monuments". One wonders how this will make things better, and how it will substantially differ from what was proposed last fall.

The NY Daily News reports on rampant use of the as if now undetectable HGH in the NFL, and apparently it's all part of the "freak show". The seemingly ubiquitous Don Catlin is quoted on the lack of reliable HGH testing:

In fact, no such test is forthcoming, blood or urine, according to experts worldwide, including Dr. Don Catlin, the master engineer of conventional screening technology, which he also labels as inherently flawed. HGH testing currently purported by world anti-doping officials lacks critical clinical data and independent scientific review.

"Any test that I do in my lab, I will be all over (documentation of reliability)," Catlin said a year ago, having already waited three years for information he'd been assured was forthcoming, "because if I report a positive (for HGH), I have to go to court. I have to defend the test. You've got to have hard-core evidence of (valid testing): ‘Here's the study. Here's what we did. Here's what we found. Here's the (data) on false-positives. Here's the false-negative.'"

The NYTimes is reporting Roger Clemons is trying to convince people of his cleanliness with career statistics. This seems to us like the same argument Landis has been making for what happened on Stage 17, and will probably be met with the same reactions.

Blogs
WADA Watch does an astounding dissection of the AFLD decision in their case against Landis, with his own translations of points he considers important. Good reading for those seeking a practical definition of 'arbitrary and capricious' in legal studies.

Oliver Starr posts his promised follow up to last week's post about Floyd Landis and the 2006 Tour de France. He thinks he has found a "smoking gun" in the following Landis quote, there's apparently more to come:

“I was struggling even on the climbs before that,” Landis said. “I tried to hide it, but I wasn’t good, and then on the last climb there was only a certain speed I could go, which wasn’t very fast.” Floyd Landis following his disastrous finish on the 16th stage of the 2006 Tour de France

Boulder Report/Joe Lindsay rehashes "John Doe" and Leogrande.

Steroid Nation remarks on the "freak show", and it is us, the public.

Demon Cats questions what Floyd Landis' real role on Rock Racing might be in the wake of the Kayle Leogrande vs USADA lawsuit filed by Landis case lawyer Maurice Suh. DC may be reaching a bit.

Red Hawk Cycling notes the NUE's invitation asking Floyd Landis to compete in the MTB series this year.

Full Post with Comments...

Bock's House

In a comment, Bill Hue thought through the "John Doe" case against USADA ...


I agree with TBV's analysis. By a vote of 2 to 1, the Landis Panel majority gave the go ahead to all ADAs to test any "B" samples, telling the ADA that they owned the "B" sample and could do whatever they wanted to with it, including testing it but that such a test couldn't constitute an adverse analytical, in and of itself.

That ruling certainly would embolden USADA to start testing "B"'s with impunity, as I suggested they would do as I analyzed that determination.

In this case, Pell indicates they also have two sworn statements from "reliable sources" against the rider. Bill Bock then amplifies that the brave new world of non-analytical positives is still viable as a prosecution technique.

Further, while indicating that testing the "B"'s was something the ADAs could do, the Panel majority further embolden the ADA's by accepting the results of the "B" testing into evidence in Landis' case. That was virtually unheard of and dare I say preposterous given the WADA Code provisions, previously.


Obviously, gilding the lily, the newest member of USADA's brain trust, Bill Bock, took the ball and ran with it, trying to mix the "B"'s from a non-positive "A" with his sworn statements to make a non-analytical positive case.

[The "non-positive" above was originally "non-negative" that I think was a typo. -TBV]


We'll see how that turns out for him.

I hear him whistling in the dark with his comments. He is one scared dude, for good reason. Maurice suh has had enough of this and found a way to get it into a court USADA doesn't own. He also gets to depose those guys now.

Katy bar the door. These USADA guys have no individul immunity for shenanagans like this. Hopefully Bock et al have done some planning because if they are liable, Maurice might take their house

Full Post with Comments...

Idiots return to Brenna and WM-A, Part I

Alasdair has returned from his Hermit's cave having shed his 'Ali' persona, and now revisits some key points in the battle of the experts.

Forward to Part II.

Let's pay a return visit to Brenna’s 1994 paper (Curve Fitting for Restoration of Accuracy for Overlapping Peaks …), which we first looked at in November.

Why are we doing this?

Well this paper formed the basis for a clear difference of opinion between Brenna and Meier-Augenstein during the hearing. All of Floyd’s IRMS F3 chromatograms showed a degree of overlap between the 5bP and 5aP peaks. If this resulted in an unknown error and that error biased the result in a more negative direction, it would/should have put those results in question (more negative equates to higher probability that testosterone was not generated by the athlete’s body).

Meier-Augenstein argued that the error was of unknown magnitude and in a more negative direction. Brenna argued that the error was very small and in a less negative error (i.e. the error actually made it look less probable that the athlete doped).

Meier-Augenstein’s opinion no doubt comes from his years of work and research in this discipline. We can trace Brenna’s opinion back to a paper he published which, amongst other things, detailed his observations when peaks of almost identical carbon composition overlap. His observations were that a systematic error occurs when peaks overlap and that error (not small, by the way) made the CIR for the substance being investigated look less negative than it really was.

What he didn’t investigate in that paper was why that happened. Understanding results is usually a prerequisite to applying them to different situations. Brenna chose not to take that precaution in his testimony.

[MORE]


Enter the idiots, tattered old spreadsheet in hand. We decided to finish this job off by solving the mystery of the overlapping peak and attempting to prise Meier-Augenstein’s fingers from Brenna’s neck.

Let’s start with a review of this test.

The GC/C/IRMS process separates the C12 and C13 isotopes and produces two individual signals, the m44 and the m45 peaks (corresponding to the C12 and C13 isotopes, respectively). The relative size of these two signals is proportional to the carbon isotope ratio (CIR) of the substance under investigation. The CIR is actually calculated as the area of the m45 peak divided by the area of the m44 peak, using integration. In an ideal world, the m45 peak can be thought of a scaled down version of the m44 peak (100’s of times smaller). In practice, these two peaks do not align on the time axis perfectly, the error is very small (typically 150 milliseconds for a peak that may be approximately 35 seconds wide at the base).

Brenna mentions in his paper that his software corrects the misalignment of m44 and m45. He also states that he uses the “perpendicular drop” method to separate peaks (a vertical line positioned at the minima of the intersection of the two peaks and drawn down to the background level). Can our spreadsheet cope with these demands?. Darned right it can !

The goal of this first part is to recreate Brenna’s observations, so let’s dust off our spreadsheet and fire her up. We’re going to define two peaks, each with a d45 value of –27. We’re going to set the time difference between m45 and m44 to exactly zero and then make sure we’re measuring them accurately. Figure 1 shows the output. Two peaks, no overlap, both reporting a correct d45 of -27. [note: d45 defines the CIR of a substance relative to an international standard in parts per 1000, so –27 reads as a CIR which is –27 parts per thousand less than the standard].

Figure 1. Exact m45 and m44 alignment. No overlap between peaks.

It’s worth noting here that we only show the m44 trace, as appears to be common practice when presenting these results, but remember that there’s another trace (the m45) not shown.

Right, let’s introduce some overlap. Figure 2 shows the results we get. Note that we’re still measuring the true value. No error there.

Figure 2. Exact m45 and m44 alignment. Moderate overlap between peaks.

Let’s increase the overlap. Figure 3 shows a big overlap. Unfortunately, there’s still no error. What’s happening here?

Figure 3. Exact m45 and m44 alignment. Significant overlap between peaks.

OK, in our ideal world with two equal peaks, both having perfect peak responses and perfectly aligned m45 and m44 responses, it would appear that overlap has no effect on our results.

The question now, is what factors were at work to produce the results that Brenna observed?

Let’s go back to the drawing board. We know that m45 tends to lead m44 so we’ll scrap our assumption of perfect peak alignment and allow the m45 response to lead the m44 response by some nominally small value, say 100 ms.

Figure 4 shows our two peaks again. Same situation as Figure 2, but with the m45 response leading the m44 response. Now we’re seeing something change. The measured value is wrong and it is more negative (remember, the true value of our peaks are both -27)

Figure 4. m45 leads m44 by 100ms. Moderate overlap between peaks.

Figure 5 shows an increased overlap. Same situation as Figure 3, but with the m45 response leading the m44 response. The overlap has increased and so has our error. This is starting to resemble Brenna’s research, apart from one major difference – our error is going in the opposite direction to his observations.

Having the m45 response lead the m44 response gives the results that Meier-Augenstein predicted – an error which makes the results appear more negative. That was also his stated reason for the response he predicted. He must have observed systems where the m45 signal lead the m44 signal by some finite amount.

Figure 5. m45 leads m44 by 100ms. Significant overlap between peaks.

Right, let’s review what we’ve observed so far. In our ideal world, with no other sources of error other than the alignment of the m45 and m44 responses, perfect alignment of m45 and m44 results in no error when peaks of identical CIR overlap. We can infer that Brenna could not have had perfect alignment of the m45 and m44 signals. Having the m45 lead the m44 results in a systematic error, proportional to degree of overlap, which biases the result in a more negative direction.

Let’s see what happens if we have m45 response lagging the m44 response by some small amount, again 100ms. Figure 6 shows the same situation as Figure 4, but with the m45 response lagging the m44 response. Right, now we’re getting somewhere. An error which makes the result less negative. So far so good.

Figure 6. m45 lags m44 by 100ms. Moderate overlap between peaks.

Figure 7 shows an increased overlap. Same situation as Figure 5, but with the m45 response lagging the m44 response. The overlap has increased and so has our error. This looks just like the results Brenna observed. A systematic error which is proportional to degree of overlap and results in a less negative bias.

Figure 7. m45 lags m44 by 100ms. Significant overlap between peaks.

OK, so we can provide an explanation which satisfies both Brenna’s observations and Meier-Augenstein’s predictions. It’s all to do with the relative positioning of the m45 and m44 responses. Perfect alignment and there’s no error. A small misalignment (in our case, approximately 0.3% of the peak width) and a systematic error is observed proportional to degree of overlap and biased in either the more negative or less negative direction (depending on whether m45 leads or lags m44).

This is probably a good point to establish some ground rules. Perfect alignment is unachievable. This is not an analogue system with continuous signals. It is a digital system which samples the m44 and m45 responses at some fixed frequency. Regardless of what algorithm is used by the software to try and align the two signals there will always be a finite error in that process. There are many other factors which make perfect alignment of m45 and m44 an impossibility in practice, e.g. slightly different peak widths, slightly different peak shapes, etc. All these factors conspire to make the job of the software a demanding one.

The next part will demonstrate why we observe these results and what we can infer from the LNDD results.

Forward to Part II.

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

News
The NY Times reports this morning that various prosecutors across the country are changing the way in which PED dealers are dealt with, they are making them partners in the fight against steroids:

Since then, prosecutors from San Diego to Rhode Island have been making deals with distributors to build their cases. The distribution networks for steroids are amorphous, unlike the traditional narcotics cartels led by strongmen. They thrive on the anonymity of the Internet, the discreet camaraderie of the locker room, and the reckless entrepreneurship of home laboratories and pharmacies.

“Our goal is to go after the bigger fish,” said Steve Robertson, a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration. “You start looking at other dealers, customers, things like that.”

The CyclingNews discusses the latest attempt by the UCI and various cycling federations to make nice. Apparently a compromise "special calendar" will be created. Stay tuned.

The Lufkin Daily News gives out the "Goofi" awards each year and for 2007 Will Geoghegan was nominated, along with a number of others, for the "prestigious" award. Don Imus was the eventual winner for obvious reasons.

Blogs
Rant wonders what USADA is really up to in the "John Doe"/Kayle Leogrande case and points people here to read the discussion.

Racejunkie has found a bit of time to catch Team High Road start off its "martyrly season of morally superior drug free play". RJ also muses on other subjects which include the mugging Milram gave a poor sprinter, Ivan Basso staying in shape by riding charity events, and the whole Kayle Leogrande vs USADA dustup.

Ramblings of Jason finally took back that library book that was so overdue, wonder if he got a visit from Mr. Bookman? While there he took out "Positively False" and promises to let us know what he thinks of it.

Duckman was sick yesterday and watched a Stallone movie that might just get him moving. He is looking forward to the NUE series this year with some excitement now that Floyd Landis will be riding in it too. Duckman is of the opinion that he will only get one view of Floyd this year during the races.

Greenjersey wonders if USADA is going after Kayle Leogrande because of tattoo prejudice. Probably not, but the post contains a colorful quote from Michael Ball of Rock Racing.

Neil@Road ran into Floyd Landis again and after another suggestion that Floyd seek a "swashbuckling" career Floyd called Neil an "idiot", and then apparently took his advice. Who's the idiot now?

Full Post with Comments...

Saturday Roundup

News
The CyclingNews' MTB roundup finds last year's NUE champ Chris Eatough anxious to defend his title, and he seems to be looking forward to racing against Floyd Landis:

"I'm sure Floyd Landis [Smith & Nephew] will be a factor. He has excellent fitness and takes these races fairly seriously," he said of his newly committed competition. The two raced at the Shenandoah Mountain 100 in 2007, but Eatough did not finish after suffering a severe mechanical within the first 20 miles. Landis finished third.

In other CyclingNews Tom Vannoppen confirms that he did test positive for cocaine, but that he did not rat out Tom Boonen as his supplier as was stated in the Belgian press. CN also runs a small piece on the Kayle Leogrande vs. USADA story still referring to him as the "anonymous" cyclist..

The Guardian Unlimited writes about cyclist David Millar's contribution in helping to "establish" Slipstream/Chipotle, and Floyd Landis' comments about Slipstream are included in the piece.

The Street lists the Sundance Film Festival's best entries this year and includes "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" in which Floyd Landis has a "cameo."

Blogs
Rant writes about "John Doe", now presumed to be Rock Racing cyclist Kayle Leogrande and the filing of a lawsuit on his behalf by Maurice Suh and Howard Jacobs against USADA for testing "B" samples when "A" samples have tested negative. Rant feels USADA is trying to run Leogrande (and maybe Rock Racing?) out of cycling, and Don Catlin's comments sound very discreet, approaching disingenuous.

VeloGoddess got to ride the perfect ride on the perfect day yesterday in California near Torrey Pines, and thinks she saw Floyd Landis, in black, with a group of riders in blue. If true, Floyd, please wear your helmet!

UltraRob mentions the fact that Floyd Landis will be running the NUE this year and even though UR thinks most of the top riders do ,or have doped, he feels Floyd got bad lab work. He cites comment on Landis going to the NUE here.

Super Rookie bets he knows who the "anonymous cyclist" is in the USADA lawsuit just filed by Maurice Suh. If he reads Rant (or us) this morning he will know with even more confidence."

Welcome to the Tea Boutique also reviews "Bigger, Stronger, Faster".

Dr. Joan Bushwell seems to have caught up on her reading here, glad she didn't take certain comments too personally, we'll be sure to do the same with hers. For the record, Strbuk drinks Peets.

Full Post with Comments...

AP Says it is Kayle Leogrande

The AP's Eddie Pells has been working the story about the suit against USADA, and reported that the John Doe is the rumored Kayle Leogrande. This comes from "two people familiar with the case," but not acknowledged by name.

These same people say there are affidavits about Leogrande filed with USADA, as part of a case USADA is developing against him.

One of the key points of the suit is the "confidentiality" rules of such investigations, which is why the suit would be filed sealed. It would be important for all sides to avoid clearly identifying the John Doe, or confirm the identity. USADA doing it would violate its policy, and perhaps subject it to suit and remedy for that reason alone. The representation for Doe would not want to confirm it because it would scuttle their own case.

It is not clear to us how Suh/Jacobs would know about affidavits filed with USADA about the Leogrande as part of an investigation, suggesting leaks are not coming from that direction.

We also remain puzzled about some aspects of the A samples that have been floating around. The rumors, reported by Neil Rogers and Joe Lindsay, suggest that Leogrande was caught at Superweek. But somehow, no case was brought forward against him by USADA at the time.

There are time limits in the USADA protocol from the report of an A sample. This means one of the following must be true.

1. There were no positives from Speedweek, as the reported suit implies.
   
2. There were inconclusives from Speedweek, which the USADA rules and the WADA Code don't really address, but which probably ought to be treated as negatives as in scenario #1.
3. There were positives from Speedweek that USADA did not pursue in a timely fashion. Were they overruled by the Review Board, or was there some exercise of previously denied prosecutorial discretion?

If there were no positives, (#1 above, and by extention, inconclusives #2) then there can be no AAF case under the WADA code. That is what the suit appears to be arguing.

Using the loophole invented in the Landis case, it's plausible that USADA is using its effective ownership of the samples to do B tests that would support a non-analytical finding. USADA has never before, to our knowledge, attempted to use analytical evidence to support a non-AF, which have previously been from testimony.

It's our opinion that arbitrarily testing B samples for non-AF support makes a mockery of what few procedural safeguards are present in the WADA code. Also that the record of CAS-related arbitration rulings suggests that this backdoor approach would be acceptable within the WADA system.

Thus, it makes sense to us that the attorneys for Doe would attempt to get an injunction against USADA. They learned from Landis there was little hope with an arbitration panel or an ADRB. At present, we presume there is no panel on Doe's case, so there is no place inside the system to turn to stop the proposed testing and that consumption of the samples presents an irrepairable harm.

(Should an injunction be obtained, we suspect the next move by USADA in another case would be to just go ahead and test the B samples anyway, without informing the athlete. Since they can't be part of an AAF, why go to any of the AAF-related B sample protocol at all? Then they can ignore the notification that led to this law suit, and all pretense there is any protection in the B sample protocol.)

Scenario #3 is perhaps the most interesting, because lots of people would end up caught having presented shaded versions of the truth.

If there were positives, then the premise of the suit is in error, and we'd expect to hear about that pretty quickly.

But if there were positives that USADA did not pursue, it would leave many puzzled why USADA did not continue the case as they were obliged by their charter and the WADA rules to do.

Are there positives that are overruled by the ADRBs? How many? Under what circumstances does that happen?

Are there positives that are not pursued because of prosecutorial discretion, and why would that happen?

Under what criteria could a bust by UCLA of someone at Superweek have been discarded, while, for sake of argument, the controversial lab work done in the Landis case was pursued vigorously and at great expense?

Could politics rather than facts and policy be involved in these decisions?

We have wondered for a very long time (Sept-2006) why the number of reported AAFs from the labs do not correlate well to the number of cases that USADA pursues. Attempts to get an explanation from USADA (Sept-2006, Jan 2007) have been ignored, and there is no transparency in the statistics as reported.

When do the depositions begin?

This is going to be very interesting.

Full Post with Comments...

Anybody in LA?

It would be interesting to wander down to the Los Angeles County Superior Court and pick up a copy of the filings in the case Suh and Jacobs submitted against USADA. AP/Eddie Pells seem to have gotten his 25-page copy this old-fashioned way.

If someone could do that, and get us a copy, we'd be obliged, and we'll post it up into the archive.

Full Post with Comments...

Improved translation of AFLD Decision

Marc sent us the following right away, but we've been too busy (lazy) to post it. Apologies to all. This improves the machine translation of the decision in the AFLD case against Landis made in November 2007, which was made available earlier this week.

Marc's notes:

Pp. 1-3 are the various pieces of the code that make doping illegal in bicycling, and a summary of what was claimed was found in FL's urine. Bottom of p. 3 -top of p. 4 summarizes FL's arguments against the charges.

The important stuff is last paragraph p. 4 and first paragraph p. 5, which tell us that experts assigned to examine FL's charges of LNDD errors concluded that LNDD did the tests right, was professional its actions, and that therefore all of the reported results are reliable and establish FL's guilt. Article 1 on p. 5 sustains FL's conviction and the sanction against him.

The use of italics in the original document reflects direct quotation of those experts' reports.

Note that the experts had finished their reports even before FL's case was heard by the arbitration panel--therefore presumably before they'd have heard what problems had specifically been identified in LNDD's lab work/practices. But even without knowing what FL was going to complain about, they knew everything was hunky dory.

[MORE]

P. 1, para 1-7: “Whereas . . . “ all of the applicable national and international statutes and decisions outlawing doping and establishing authority of AFLD;

para 8-12 and P. 2 para 1-3: getting the Morzine findings to FL; his agreement not to race in France; assigning the case to USADA;

para 4-7: letters from AFLD to the people the want to appoint as experts, and their responses;

para 8-13: FL’s arbitration decision, its transmission; FL summoned to appear before AFLD;

para 14-16 and P. 3 para 1-5: resume of these authorizing documents and events;

para 6: summary of FL’s countercharges against LNDD;

P. 4, para 1–2: what had been decided by USADA, and AFLD’s respect of the decision and UCI authority, leading to:

para 3: that AFLD designated independent experts “to examine the quality of the analytic work done by the national anti-doping laboratory on the sample taken from [FL]”;

para 4: “Considering that Mr. ___________ and Mr. ___________-—both acknowledged experts from the Appellate Court were given the mission of ‘verifying that the analytic and technical procedures as well as the AMA [i.e. WADA] version 4.0 norms from [the lab’s] accreditation (Cofrac 1-14) were respected, and [checking[ the opposing interpretations in the context of establishing the relation of the first and second analyses of samples A and B for analysis of 995474’; and [considering[ that in a report signed on May 2, 2007 these experts concluded that the erasures noted on the analytic lab documents were ‘inconsequential, since the sample is perfectly traceable’; and that ‘the instrument conditions for the measurements made through gas chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy’ were in conformance with practices; and that, more generally, ‘the overall procedures and AMA recommendations’ were respected, and that this laboratory had ‘worked in a professional manner’, the ‘quality of [its]analyses can not be disputed’;

P. 5 para 1: “Considering, moreover, that Mr. ___________, an expert in mass spectroscopy at the Pierre and Marie Curie University, University Professor of Molecular Chemistry, and education director at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), was given the mission of examining ‘aspects specifically relating to the isotopic analysis IRMS of the relations of the first and second analyses of the A and B samples concerning the analysis of urine samples 995474’; and [considering] that, according to Mr. __________’s report of April 25, 2007, ‘the work done [by the national anti-doping laboratory] was performed with the required professional quality control guarantees’; and that ‘the mass spectroscopy analysis of samples A and B shows (. . .) very clearly the exogenous origin of testosterone (. . .)’; and that ‘the analytic methods are reliable’ and that it ‘is possible, with virtually no risk, to consider that the conclusions drawn by LNDD cannot be disputed’;

para 2: “Considering that it follows that the aforesaid expert conclusions that the analyses performed by LNDD on the urine samples taken July 20, 2006 from Mr. __________ [i.e. FL] were performed while respecting the rules imposed by WADA; that it should be stated explicitly, in fact, that this laboratory, which has been accredited for many years by the highest sporting authorities. is the recipient, moreover, of certification from the French Accreditation Committee (recently renewed); and that, from these reasons, Mr. _____________’s [i.e. FL’s] argument, aiming at disputing the quality of work performed by LNDD must be rejected”;

para 3: (paraphrase) Considering that only a therapeutic use exemption can justify the presence of banned substances, and that what turns up in FL’s urine is strictly forbidden; and considering that the facts brought forward against Mr. ____________ [FL] are such as to warrant application of article 232-23 of the Sports code;

para 4: “Considering the nature of the facts and the circumstances,

“[the Committee] decides:

“Article 1: This sanction is pronounced against Mr. ____________: [and so forth].”

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Roundup

News
The VeloNews reports that Bjorn Leukemans was given a two year suspension for the use of testosterone despite his protestations that it was mistakenly administered by a team doctor. They VN also previews its new "Beta.VeloNews" page.

And in other VeloNews it looks like Astana's reputation may have ruined chances for the team's participation in this year's Tour de France:

"I've said many times, this is a new team. I cannot change what happened in the past but we're doing a lot to change the future of this team," (Johan) Bruyneel said Thursday. "I think we are doing all the right things. I don't know why we wouldn't be there."

Tour de France officials could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The CyclingNews says that Belgian police searched the home of sprinter Tom Boonen's parents on the tip that he was the drug dealer to cyclo-cross rider Tom Vannoppen. Vannoppen gave up Boonen's name to investigators who were looking into allegations of cocaine use. Nothing was found, and the incident was not to have been made public. Where have we heard that before?

CyclingNews' Friday Letters column is full of entertaining letters this week that run the gamut from Rock Racing, still/again, to the UCI's latest spat with the ASO. But, there is one note from a disillusioned mountain biker/magazine editor which is highly critical of Floyd Landis' participation this year in the NUE MTB series:

I am the editor of Norway's top MTB-magazine and an avid endurance racer. I have earlier raced the Crocodile Trophy, La Ruta, TransAlp and several marathons in Norway and Europe. I have been very intrigued by the 100 mile races in the states and was planning a trip over to race some events in 2009. I must say all that positive curiosity effectively went away when I read about the invitation of convicted doper Floyd Landis.

I was a big Landis-fan all the way up to his miraculous come back stage in the tour, but in a sport that desperately needs cleaning up it sends out all the wrong signals to invite a convicted doper. If the organisers think this will attract sponsors and participants I sincerely hope and think they are wrong.

Landis is banned from racing for two years. This should include all races. I was proud to say that Landis came from mountain biking when he did well on the road before his 17th stage. Now I will be embarrassed if the sport of mountain biking takes him back with open arms. I think, and hope that mountain biking is a lot cleaner than road racing. The sport has nothing to win if we start letting disgraced road racers fight for glory off the road.

If I were a potential sponsor, which I am not, I would for sure shy away from the NUE-series. If I were part of the press, which I am, I would discourage people to support those who hampers the fight against drugs. If I was planning to race in the NUE-series, which I also was, I would change my plans at once.

I hope the NUE-organisers changes their decision in this matter and supports the fight against doping and the dopers that tries to win us over and tries to portrait themselves as victims of conspiracies.

Øyvind Aas
Oslo, Norway

"Conspiracies" notwithstanding, Landis' CAS hearing is still to be heard, and that decision is still to be made.

ESPN publishes a report of support for new WADA president John Fahey from IOC head Jacques Rogge, but Rogge contends many challenges remain including the implementation of the new WADA anti-doping code.

BikeRadar.com posts Credit Agricole's decision to exit cycling as a sponsor, and says that the creation of the MPCC, or Movement for Credible Cycling, was a "direct result" of Floyd Landis' positive doping control form the 2006 Tour de France.

Blogs
Velo Vortmax thinks Levi Leipheimer may be next in line to win the Tour de France, and that Leiphiemer might be dependent on careful preservation of the new "bio passport" system:

May I make a suggestion to WADA? Do not use the WADA accredited lab at Chatenay-Malabry. As we saw from the Floyd Landis fiasco the computers at Chatenay-Malabry are not secure and prone to access by hackers. The criminal who hacked the Chatenay-Malabry lab was never identified by the French police. The documents leaked to the press although never authenticated suggested a cover-up of persistent incompetence. A vicious rumor as to the source of the leak as Floyd Landis or one of his entourage spread by l'Equipe was never verified. The story disappeared from the radar shortly afterwards.

A Warning to WADA and Pro Tour cycling teams. Biological passport information of riders, including DNA profiles would be an inviting target for hackers to manipulate the results of a Grand Tour such as The Giro d' Italia or the Tour de France by some malcontent who is not satisfied by the results of the race. Your security encryption should be subjected on a regular basis to simulated attacks to prevent tampering with biological passport blood or urine profile data, or to copy allele sequences of rider DNA.

Twister69bigd puts up an interesting excerpt from a TBV post of the past which is close to Strbuk's heart . Looks like another example of the Junk Blog phenomenon.

Rant is playing catch up again and covers topics from the Tour of California stepped up anti-doping tests, to Zen's proposed "Athlete's Bill of Rights".

"Dr. Joan Bushwell" is aware of many of the facts, and still takes a jaundiced, damning view of Gatlin and Landis. She's coming from the point of view that everybody at the top dopes. Perhaps there are openings at USADA.

VeloGoddess looks like she might have gotten the Landis sighting she was hoping for Monday on Palomar, but near Torrey Pines instead.

UltraRob chimes in on Landis doing the NUE, and points to an MTBR discussion. He thinks some of the NUE races are under NORBA, so how does that work?

MorePalaver read Landis' Velonews interview, wants him to shut up already, and dissects one of the things he finds most difficult to swallow -- any defense of Hamilton.

NorCalCyclingNews is learning to blog, and practices with a quote of the story about the suit against USADA. This is offset with a cartoon with a male and a female on either side of a table with a puppy. The man is holding a knife. The caption reads, "My recommendation for training your dog is this: when he does something bad, cut off a little piece of his tail and make him eat it. Then don't feed him for the rest of the day." WADA Code drafters take note.

The Long Ride has some comments about Rock Racing.

Emailers and Comments
Kayle Leogrande has been suggested as the John Doe in the suit Suh/Jacobs filed against USADA yesterday. In support of this, we've been pointed at two older stories.

One, at VeloNews, is a Mr. Rogers Neighborood interview with Michael Ball:

I asked Ball for an interview after hearing rumors from several sources that Rock Racing's Kayle Leogrande, the 2006 elite national criterium champion, had tested positive after the International Cycling Classic - also known as Superweek - where he won three events, finished second at three more and finished second overall by five points to winner Marco Rios of Kahala-LaGrange.

And this Boulder Report, citing Rogers, and the jungle drums:

Persistent rumors - which Rogers cited in his interview with Ball - link Leogrande to a positive doping test at last July’s International Cycling Classic (aka SuperWeek), but both Leogrande and Ball have denied that. When reached by phone Friday, United States Anti-Doping Agency general counsel Bill Bock declined to comment on Leogrande, citing agency rules prohibiting comment on any individual athlete's status, negative or otherwise. Leogrande won three of the fourteen SuperWeek events.

Full Post with Comments...

FLASH: Suh/Jacobs sue USADA, not for Landis

The AP/Eddie Pells is reporting that Suh and Jacobs are taking USADA to court to prevent testing of a cyclist's B sample in the face of a negative A sample.

The report says the case has been filed on behalf of a "John Doe", and Landis has denied it is him.

It sounds like another cyclist has run afoul of the gambit that USADA pulled with Landis' B samples, and turned to Suh and Jacobs to fight it.

If there's one thing Suh learned from Landis, it's not to expect much out of USADA and arbitrators in the way of due-process in evidentiary rulings. (Jacobs already learned that in Hamilton). Better to go to a real court before it's too late

USADA counsel Bill Bock calls the suit, "utterly frivolous and morally bankrupt."

He continues, "seeking to prohibit analysis of a sample certainly raises the question of, what are they hiding from? What are they seeking to hide?"

We could ask very similar questions about the EDF files and other discovery that USADA refused, and has still refused to produce for the Landis defense.

The "nothing to hide" and "we're looking for the truth" rhetoric seems to flow one direction from Colorado Springs. It's used when it suits their prosecutions, and never to protect the rights of a potentially innocent athlete.

"It's for da kids," don'tcha know.

Full Post with Comments...

Thursday Roundup

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Full Post with Comments...