The Winnowing: Wolfram Meier-Augenstein

Wolfram Meier-Augenstein testified for Landis at the AAA hearing. He is an expert in isotope ratio spectrometry, invented a number of the techniques, and is widely published. He sent us some short, direct responses to the topics we suggested, and a longer piece which we'll publish separately.


On the Merits of the Landis case

The data produced by LNDD are scientifically flawed (ambiguous peak "identification"; no matrix matched positive quality control, no matrix matched negative quality control; only one parameter being used as qualifier to declare a failed test) as well as biologically / biochemically (results make no sense from a biochemical point of view regarding testosterone metabolism).

[MORE]


Conduct of the Landis case?

It was a witch hunt; the accused is presumed guilty; WADA lab employees are under WADA orders not to testify against another WADA lab; the panel of 3 is comprised of 2 WADA appointees and 1 independent. At present WADA is judge, jury and executioner, which is unacceptable in any civilised society.

Wisdom, merit and effectiveness of anti-doping as currently practiced?

Anti-doping control is sadly a reality and will remain so to ensure fair competition as best as this can be achieved. However, turning the screws by lowering thresholds and tolerances below researched and published conservative thresholds and tolerances based on population statistics and the natural variability, even intra-individual variability of the human body increases the number of false positives. More innocent athletes are labelled as drug cheats for the sake of catching "all" real drug cheats. One almost suspects another motive for doing this is so WADA can continue to justify its existence (and the money spent by and on them).

What could be done in anti-doping that might work better?

Anti-doping should be more open to scrutiny; anti-doping labs should be monitored and quality controlled by organisations independent of WADA. Like any forensic service provider anti-doping labs must be open to peer assessment and participate in proficiency tests (international laboratory exercises). If 13C isotope analysis is to be used this ought to be carried out only by qualified staff on GC-IRMS/MS hybrid systems (available commercially "only" since 1995!!!), i.e. instruments that can measure 13C isotopic composition of a peak AND identify the compound causing the peak AS WELL AS probing for peak overlap with minor components under IDENTICAL analytical conditions during the SAME analysis.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Aldous Huxley, "Proper Studies", 1927

Dr W Meier-Augenstein, CChem, FRSC
Senior Lecturer - Stable Isotope Forensics
Centre for Anatomy & Human Identification
University of Dundee

Principal Scientist - Stable Isotopes
Stable Isotope Laboratory
SCRI
Invergowrie
Dundee, DD2 5DA
United Kingdom

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Dan Rosen

Dan Rosen's Rant Your Head Off predated us by a few days, but he was smart enough to avoid being daily, and to have a wider focus. The experience led to a book. The wisdom of being sporadic helped him avoid burnout, and the wider focus lets him evade the sell-by-date that came with our narrower interests.

You Can’t Fight City Hall

There’s a certain genre of Hollywood B movies and pulp fiction novels that have the following story line:

Corrupt City Hall official makes a decision that steps on the toes of a Little Guy. One who can’t afford to fight city hall, and even if he could, it’s a fight he’s destined to lose. But despite the obstacles, through perseverance and strength of character, the Little Guy mounts his quixotic quest for justice. Along the way, more bad things happen, life gets tougher, his friends desert him, and he’s driven to the brink of destruction and despair. Undeterred, he fights on. Eventually, his luck turns and the corrupt official’s bad dealings come to light. People rally to his cause and he eventually proves the old adage, “You can’t fight City Hall” wrong.

[MORE]


It’s a story line that we love. It’s a great idea to believe that you can take on the rich and powerful, have truth and justice on your side, and eventually prevail. But old sayings come from a certain amount of truth. Most people who are wronged by the powerful never get that sense of justice and satisfaction that our Little Guy does in those Hollywood movies.

In thinking about Floyd Landis’ case, it seems to me that we have been witnessing the same kind of underdog story. Unless you were a fan of professional cycling, you probably hadn’t heard Floyd’s name before July 2006. Or if you did, it was in passing. Those non-cycling fans who knew of him probably did because he’d been one of Lance Armstrong’s cadre for a few seasons during Big Tex’s remarkable seven-straight Tour victories. Lance’s feat is not likely to be repeated for a long, long time to come, and Floyd had a part in that.

Every American who’s won the Super Bowl of cycling has a story of overcoming adversity. Long-time cycling fans know Greg LeMond’s story. Almost bleeding to death after his brother-in-law accidentally shot him while they were turkey hunting the winter after winning his first of three Tour crowns. After two intervening years, he came back to win again, with perhaps the narrowest margin of victory ever. His is the original “American overcoming great obstacles to win the greatest bike race in the world” story. Virtually everyone knows Lance’s story – the comeback from a cancer that advanced and spread far enough in his body that it would probably have killed mere mortals. Like “The Terminator,” Armstrong has a steely determination to overcome all obstacles in his path. (If I were a pro cyclist, the words I’d dread hearing most would be the phrase “you’ve tested positive.” A close second would be Armstrong saying, “I’ll be back.” But that’s another story for another time.)

Just like the other two Americans to win the Tour, Landis overcame a pretty daunting obstacle to claim victory. Floyd had a bum hip, with necrosis and osteoarthritis so bad that he would eventually need a hip replacement – the after-effects of an injury suffered during a training accident in 2003. Landis also has the character and determination one needs to endure a great deal of pain and discomfort while performing as a top-flite pro cyclist.

There’s something about Floyd’s story that was different than the other two. Perhaps it was the background. The Mennonite roots. It’s hard to pinpoint what it is, exactly. But unlike the other his predecessors, Floyd Landis comes across as an Everyman who – through sheer force of will, grit and determination – made it to the pinnacle of his profession. I’m not quite sure why neither Greg nor Lance has that Everyman quality about them, but neither one strikes me as a guy you’d want to meet at the local pub for a brew. Not in the same way that it would be fun to hang out with the happy-go-lucky Mr. Landis. (And that’s not meant as a criticism of either.)

The euphoria of Landis’ victory and the inspiration of his example lasted but a short time before everything came crashing down. The positive anti-doping test results, leaked by none other than the head of the UCI because, as Pat McQuaid said, someone else would have leaked them, anyway. Landis, who was not used to the kind of media attention a Tour winner gets, was thoroughly unprepared for the media onslaught that came next.

McQuaid, he of the “worst-case scenario” leak, offered up some advice to Landis not long afterwards. You can’t beat City Hall, he told the 2006 Tour winner. Save your money. Serve out your suspension quietly. Cooperate with the anti-doping authorities and they won’t rip you a new one.

From the start, Landis maintained his innocence. Admitting to something he didn’t do would be abhorrent and out of character. He wanted to clear his name and restore his reputation. Perhaps it really was a quixotic quest, because once the news of his positive test results hit the fan, both his name and reputation were splattered with a type of muck which can’t easily – or ever – be washed away. Most people in his circumstances wouldn’t have had the resources to mount such a fight. Instead, they would be forced to swallow hard and accept the cruel handout that Fate dished up.

Losing the battle meant that Landis would become the first cyclist to be stripped of his Tour de France crown because of a doping violation. And he didn’t want to become that guy. (Landis, however, would not be the first maillot jaune to be disqualified. That would be Maurice Garin in 1904. Nor would he be the first cyclist who might have used testosterone on his way to victory– that honor likely belongs to Bernard Thevenet, who admitted to using testosterone in pursuit of at least one of his Tour victories in the 1970s.)

Landis would not just roll over and accept defeat. Over the last 28 months, he did everything he possibly could to right the wrong done to him. Though he didn’t succeed, he can look himself in the mirror secure in the knowledge that he did his best. He took on City Hall, but outwardly, it appears he didn’t win.

On the surface, the procedures of our current anti-doping system look fair. No doping charges are filed unless testing of a second portion of the original sample shows the same results as the original tests. In theory, this eliminates the possibility of lab errors. If the two test results don’t match, no case is filed. If doping charges are filed, the athlete has the right to appeal his or her case. And failing the initial appeal, the athlete has the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Unless you dig deeper into how the actual system is structured and how it operates, it would be easy to assume that an athlete charged with a doping offense has a fair shot at proving his or her innocence – assuming he or she really is innocent.

City Hall – in this case, the World Anti-Doping Agency – has set things up differently, however. This is not your ordinary form of justice. There are limits on what evidence you’re allowed to have as an accused doper, while there are no limits on the evidence that the anti-doping agencies can produce to bolster their own cases. WADA has said that the only evidence that an accused athlete is entitled to is the material in the lab documentation package provided to the athlete. If it’s not in the materials provided, you’re not entitled to it. And yet, as the Landis case showed, the ADAs have an almost unlimited ability to bring other evidence into the hearings to prove their case. It begs the question: If this is how things work, can you beat City Hall?

In the system they’ve set up, you can’t argue that the science behind the testing is wrong. WADA deems that science is correct. What you can argue, however, is that the lab either didn’t interpret the results correctly, or they didn’t perform the tests correctly. Maybe there’s a shot at beating City Hall after all.

For the interpretation argument, you’ve got to find scientists who will explain to the satisfaction of the arbitrators why the results don’t mean what the prosecutors say they mean. That’s a classic battle of the experts, and almost always the prosecutor’s experts win. OK, then, so you can argue that the tests weren’t performed correctly. Except for one small detail: WADA says the labs don’t have to give you their standard operating procedures. Catch-22, anyone? Can you defeat City Hall?

Anti-doping appeals are heard by a panel of arbitrators, rather than by judges in a traditional court setting. Each side gets an equal amount of time to make their case. Sounds fair, doesn’t it? Except, in practice, that’s not the case. For the prosecution’s side, they merely have to prove that the results are accurate and they mean what they say they mean. For the defense, they need to overcome the huge advantage given to the prosecutors. In a complicated case, the time limitation works to the prosecutor’s advantage, because the defense needs much more time to overcome the prosecution’s advantages. Again, you can’t fight City Hall.

Landis’ case seemed simple enough. Either he used testosterone as the lab claims, or he didn’t. But to prove he didn’t involved complicated arguments over just how certain scientific instruments should be operated, how the data should be analyzed, and what the results mean.

For the prosecutors, it was enough to say, “These are the results and they mean what I say they mean.” For the defense, it was not so easy. They have to convince the arbitrators that their experts are more credible, that the experts’ knowledge of how to interpret results is more reliable, and they must do so in a way that the experts appear as disinterested observers who are merely trying to help the panel understand this incredibly complex scientific stuff.

And, of course, there’s the starting assumption of guilt. Justice systems can be built starting with the assumption of guilt or innocence, and as long as they give the defendant the opportunity to confront their accusers, challenge the prosecutors’ assumptions, and as long as the defendant is given full access to any potentially helpful evidence, the system can come to the right result more often than not. When one side is hamstrung by lack of access to such evidence, then the scales tip in favor of the other side. If the scales of justice are unbalanced, is it a fair fight?

A couple of cases have been thrown out by CAS panels on appeal, as it happens. Both Inigo Landaluce and LaTasha Jenkins managed to avoid suspensions, based on the same error in protocol. In both cases, a lab technician involved in the testing of each athlete’s A sample was also involved in the testing of the B samples, which is a clear violation of WADA’s rules. Maybe you can fight City Hall, but only if there is an egregious error by the lab.

The coup de grace in Floyd’s case was the CAS panel’s written decision. In that decision, they summarily threw out every argument Landis’ defense team made. The panel’s decision said that the scientists who served as Landis’ witnesses strayed into the territory of being advocates rather than dispassionate experts seeking to help the panel’s inquiry merely for altruistic motives. But if you’re taking the stance that the tests weren’t done correctly, or that the equipment wasn’t operated corrected, or that the data wasn’t analyzed correctly, exactly where is the line that can’t be crossed? Shouldn’t someone be allowed a vigorous defense? Or is one limited in how to strong a defense can be used to fight City Hall?

Landis’ attorneys’ behavior was so bad, according to what the CAS panel wrote, that they deserved to be sanctioned. And because some witnesses were made available by USADA so Landis’ defense team could question them, and because they weren’t called to testify (perhaps due to time constraints?), Landis’ was assessed a $100,000 penalty – ostensibly to cover USADA’s expenses. (The panel failed to note, however, that had they allowed those witnesses to be deposed ahead of time, the testimony could have been entered into the record with a minimal impact on the amount of time spent during the hearings and a minimal impact on the witnesses’ own lives.) Not only can’t you fight City Hall, but they’ll fine you if you do.

At least during the original arbitration hearings (which lasted approximately twice as long as the CAS appeal), the panel did find some points in favor of Landis’ arguments. In their decision, the original panel noted that certain problems in the lab’s conduct could, if not corrected, lead to cases being thrown out in the future. Maybe others might be able to beat City Hall in the future, even if Landis couldn’t?

The CAS panel, however, gave no credence at all to any arguments made by Landis’ defense. Except they didn’t extend his sanction further, as USADA requested.


We’ll probably never find out, but perhaps Landis got some satisfaction in the settlement of the lawsuit he filed in September, which sought to vacate the CAS panel’s decision, including the $100,000 penalty. Among his lawyers’ contentions was that there were numerous conflicts of interest among the CAS panel members who heard his case and at least one of USADA’s attorneys. A system where an arbitrator can sit in judgment of a case one day, while being the judge on a different case the next, and where the roles of judge and prosecutor may be reversed from time to time, and where these individuals may interact with each other in different roles on different cases at roughly the same time hardly favors the defense. Fight City Hall? Maybe it would be better to shut up and take the sanction – even if you know you’re innocent.

No official word has been spoken about that settlement, and given that confidentiality agreements are often part of the deal, it’s unlikely that whatever Landis did receive in the bargain will come out. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there is a confidentiality agreement about the confidentiality agreement. As in, “I can neither confirm nor deny that I can confirm or deny the existence of any such agreement – if such an agreement exists.” Could it be that, in private at least, Landis did beat City Hall? At least a bit?

In the end, it seems to me that the biggest lessons of the Landis case are these:
1. The anti-doping system is structured to give the appearance of fighting doping, to protect entrenched interests at a higher level. As Mark Felt, the FBI official who was known as “Deep Throat,” once advised two young Washington Post reporters to do, follow the money. Where the trail leads will show you whose interests are really being protected. It more a case of “Anti-Doping Theater” than a serious effort to confront the problem in a thoughtful and rational manner.
2. The basic structure of the anti-doping system has to be changed to better reflect the possible scenarios that may be encountered and to ensure greater fairness. Slapping all first-time offenders with the same harsh punishment has failed to diminish the number of athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs, while at the same time inflicting severe punishment on cases of unintentional exposure. This is the argument I’m putting forth in the “Towards A New Anti-Doping Approach” series on my own site.
3. The expense of fighting City Hall is so great that we’re unlikely to ever see a case like Floyd Landis’ again. Not because the tests are getting better, or that only guilty people are being charged with doping offenses. The former might be possible, but the latter almost certainly isn’t. In any system of justice, some innocent people will be put on trial. It’s the nature of the game.

Floyd Landis fought the good fight. He took on City Hall. And in doing so, he made us aware of how things really work in WADA-world. In that sense, his fight was a success. But as for clearing his name and his reputation, that didn’t happen. And given the nature of the system as it currently stands, the end result was probably a foregone conclusion. In that sense, the outcome of his case seems to illustrate the old adage. Sometimes, you really can’t fight City Hall and win.

It’s time to move on, even though it might be hard to do so. There are forces Floyd’s case set into motion that will continue on, though perhaps in a different form. Because of his openness in his struggle to clear his name, people are aware of the flaws in the current anti-doping system. Some of those people are thinking about and discussing ways to make the system more effective. At some point, perhaps those thoughts and discussions will percolate upwards. And maybe, just maybe, some day the system really will change for the better.

In the coming year, we will get to see Floyd Landis racing. Rather than arguing about his case, we will be able to Monday-morning quarterback about how well he’s doing. Many of us may even get to see him race in person, rather than on television. There will, however, be people who won’t be accepting of his return. That’s a shame. He’s spent his time in purgatory. It’s time for Floyd to get on with racing and with life.

We owe a debt of thanks to Floyd for making his case public. It’s been an education. Those of us who’ve spent our time researching, reading, and arguing about his case – on both sides – have certainly earned our own personal master’s degrees in doping studies by now – even if none of us have one from a formal academic institution. That’s the power of the web, and the power of blogs., especially this one. It’s been a place where we could all go to learn and explore this particular subject in depth, to our hearts content.

Many thanks to TBV and the whole TBV crew for bringing this valuable site to life. It’s been a pleasure to be associated with you all – even the folks I disagree with. I look forward to crossing paths (and sometimes crossing swords) with everyone I’ve met here in the future. Perhaps at Rant, or the impending Rant 2.0, or perhaps at some other site.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Joe Papp

Joe Papp is an American sometime-professional cyclist who was busted for testosterone use and testified for USADA at the AAA hearing. He has openly admitted his own guilt.


When TBV invited me to share my thoughts on the puzzle that was the Landis Affair, I eagerly accepted – though weeks passed before I could finally articulate my perspective on the case.

[MORE]


As I said during the arbitration hearing in Malibu last May, I didn’t – and don’t – have any ill-will towards Floyd Landis. I understood how my testimony as a witness for USADA could have been perceived by Landis and his supporters, but I took the stand to share with the world my own story, and to state for the record that testosterone, along with many other drugs that wouldn’t seem ideal choices for endurance athletes, are hungrily gobbled-up by professional cyclists and used exactly as I described.

The claim that there is no “scientific” evidence to support the use of testosterone for recovery by professional cyclists during multi-day stage races is a red herring – scientists and medical professionals are ethically-prohibited from carrying out the very research studies that would be required to support or disprove the theory that Androgel® works beyond having a placebo effect. Besides, with finite resources available to support the anti-doping movement, would that research represent the best allocation of funding in pursuit of the goal of “clean-sport?” I would rather see money spent to improve the efficiency and the integrity of the testing and reporting process, to ensure that other athletes accused of doping don’t suffer the same injustice that befell Floyd.

Yes, even though he was convicted of doping, I think that the anti-doping system failed Floyd Landis.

I don’t place the blame on USADA – an agency that treated me justly and respected the basic tenets of fairness during the adjudication of my case – but rather, with the foreign parties who violated Landis’ rights as an athlete and precipitously disclosed the results of his A-sample to the media.

Floyd was criticized for his public “wiki” defense, and I think he erred tactically in some of his statements, but if parties to the case other than Landis hadn’t violated their legal and ethical obligations of confidentiality, there would have been less questioning of the integrity of the entire testing process.

The anti-doping agencies should aggressively fight cheating in sport, but in a manner that leaves no room for conspiracy theories or the challenging of test results based on gross violations of an athlete’s privacy. The laboratories charged with analyzing samples must be held to the same standards to which accused athletes are subjected, because when a process and protocols are intentionally contravened (as in the case of LNDD’s leaking Landis’s results to the media), one can reasonably question the motivation and reliability of those who should be scrupulously neutral.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Arnie Baker

Arnie Baker MD (ret.), is a prolific author of cycling training and medical information. He was Landis' first coach in California. On hearing the accusations, he worked actively on interpreting the available information for the defense, and prepared the well known presentations and various versions of The Wiki Defense publication.

Landis’s Legacy
Exposing a Flawed Anti-Doping System

(For more complete documentation see: http://arniebakercycling.com/books/wiki.htm.)

By Arnie Baker, MD

Background

I met and started coaching Landis more than a decade ago.

During the 2006 Tour, like many others, I was glued to the television watching Landis’s Stage 17—an epic, daring, long solo breakaway; a fabulous day in cycling.

At the Tour’s end, amid doping allegations, I did not speak to the press—though my phone rang nonstop for three days, and more than 30 media outlets contacted me. Like Landis, I really had nothing to say—I did not know what the situation was. Unlike, Landis, I could keep to myself.

When I examined Landis’s document package, I was appalled at the lack of quality. I told Landis that if the standards for anti-doping laboratories were anything like the standards for medical laboratories and medial record keeping, this was not a positive test. This was a test that should be thrown out.

[MORE]


Landis decided early to have an open arbitration. Athletes have the right to request an open hearing, but it had never been done before. Landis already knew that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) system was a closed one, without standard checks and balances, where the writers of the rules could also be the prosecutors and the arbitrators.

Moreover, hardly anyone knew about anti-doping testing, and those who did generally worked in anti-doping laboratories and were prohibited from assisting athletes.

Early on, we decided on an approach not favored by most attorneys: We would post everything we could about the case on the internet. We would call it the Wiki Defense.

We would show what we had, and figured we might obtain some help from interested readers.

Here is one analogy of the WADA system:

Imagine you are driving your car on the freeway, and a traffic officer pulls you over.

Officer: “I’m going to write you a ticket.”
Driver: “How fast was I going?”
Officer: “I’m not going to tell you.”
Driver: “What’s the speed limit?”
Officer: “I’m not going to tell you.”
Driver: “Can I go to court and fight this?
Officer: “Yes, but you can only choose from judges that I’ve preselected. After you’re found guilty, we’ll charge you court costs.”
Driver: “Officer, I wasn’t speeding”
Officer: “Nonsense. Of course you were. You’re driving a red car. Everyone knows that people who drive red cars speed.”

For me, this was about the science, and the science fiction of the anti-doping laboratory that analyzed Landis’s sample. Here is what I found:


The Authorities Lied^*

• There was evidence of scientific misconduct/malfeasance.
• Vanishing acts: Records disappeared.
• Magical appearances: Documents missing or full of errors were “found” or “corrected” and appear to have been fabricated.
• False statements: USADA, its experts, and the lab appear to have repeatedly made false statements.

They Botched the Test

The report was so full of errors that other conclusions are impossible. For example:

• Sample numbers were wrong.
• The chain of custody was flawed.
• Quality control standards failed, and the failures were ignored.
• Files were overwritten/erased.

They Never Identified Testosterone Properly

Two types of tests were performed: The T/E (testosterone/epitestosterone) ratio test and the IRMS test.

The T/E ratio testing was non-compliant with basic science and WADA regulations and so did not meet the criteria for a positive test.

• Peaks were not identified according to minimum standards.

The IRMS (isotope ratio mass spectrometry, also called carbon isotope, synthetic, or exogenous) test results did not meet basic science or WADA criteria for a positive test.

• The lab had no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) or validation study for peak identification.
• Peaks were not identified according to minimum standards.

The Arbitration Hearings

The arbitrations hearings went against Landis.

At the American Arbitration Association hearing, confirming Landis’s position about scientific misconduct, dissenting arbitrator Chris Campbell noted: “From the beginning, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage et du Dopage (“LNDD”) has not been trustworthy.”

It was only after the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing that we confirmed some of the extent of the conflict of interest in the proceedings. For example, when Jan Paulsson and David Rivkin were selected to serve as arbitrators on the Landis panel, Rivkin was serving as president of a CAS panel considering the IOC’s enforcement action against Austrian cross-country skiers, proceedings in which Mr. Paulsson represented the IOC.

Summary

In my view, the test should have been thrown out.
The lab should have been sanctioned.

Landis provided us a legacy, at least two gifts:

• He gave us Stage 17.
• He opened our eyes to the conflicted, opaque, and flawed testing of the anti-doping establishment, a system in need of reform.

---

^*The evidence shows documents that appear to have been fabricated and documents and testimony that have been shown to be false. A “lie” or “fraud” implies intent. Without direct admission on the part of USADA, LNDD, or its witnesses, the determination of intent is a judgment. It is my belief and judgment, based on a review of the evidence, that there was intent to deceive.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Bruce Goldberger

Bruce Goldberger Phd, is prominent forensic toxicologist, and lab director who testified for Landis at both hearings. Prior to involvement in the Landis case, he'd been invited to apply as a candidate to replace Catlin as Director of the UCLA WADA laboratory.


As many people know, I was reluctant to get involved in the Landis case as I do not work for (and never have) an anti-doping laboratory. I have been practicing forensic toxicology for more than 25 years and much of my work has focused on novel analytical techniques and quality assurance/quality control procedures.

But, when given the opportunity to study the materials from the LNDD laboratory, I immediately agreed to work with Howard Jacobs and Maurice Suh. I was distressed by the quality and interpretation of the analytical data, chain-of-custody documentation, etc. If the Landis case was prosecuted in a U.S. Court of Law, the data would have never met the Frye and/or Daubert standards of evidence.

Also, I learned quickly that the WADA Anti-doping program was constructed to such a degree that accused athletes are greatly disadvantaged when defending themselves. For example, WADA Laboratory Directors cannot consult for an accused athlete; and defense experts like myself are criticized because of a "lack of expertise and experience". Further, the WADA IST and ISL are woefully inadequate to ensure a fair and equitable system which protects the rights of the athlete while ensuring the success of an anti-doping program.

Finally, I want to thank TBV for maintaining a blog devoted to the Floyd Landis doping allegations. It has been a valuable source of information.

Bruce Goldberger, Ph.D., DABFT

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Spinopsys

Spinopsys Phil, an Australian self-described Floyd-basher, sent these regrets, and made good on his promise of mention at Cycling Central.

[Back to the Introduction]


I really appreciate you asking. First off congratulations of a fine blog and more importantly a fine example of what media might look like in the future. You've demonstrated that long form journalism in the digital age does not end with a 10,000 word article in a major magazine or newspaper but will be done a few hundred words at a time by a team of experts and amateurs contributing their knowledge. Yours will be an important historical archive for years to come.

Unfortunately I won't be able to contribute, busy as I am now as cycling content editor/producer for Australia's Tour de France broadcaster SBS at their brand spanking new cycling site Cycling Central.

Anyway, you can bet that I will be making note of the passing of TBV in a weekly piece I write for the site.

Regards,

Phil

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: John Amory

John Amory MD, is a leading andrologist (male hormone specialist) who testified for Landis in both hearings, arguing the metabolism of testosterone as documented in all reviewed studies does not have divergences between the adiols claimed in the test values.

Amory had served on USADA anti-doping review boards prior to the Landis case. In response to a specific question, he replied, "I would considering serving on an ADRB again, but part of me is very glad to be focusing on my clinical duties and my research (male contraception, oral testosterone development), and out of the contentious world of doping. "

[Back to the Introduction]

My thoughts about the Landis case are as follows:

1) The results of his IRMS were scientifically indeterminate. There is a nice discussion of this in the article by Berry from Nature which makes this case more eloquently than I can.

2) The criteria for positivity of the IRMS should be standardized between labs based on larger normal samples. For example, the UCLA lab requires the delta of both the 5-alpha-androstanediol and the 5-beta-androstanediol to be significantly elevated, but WADA only requires that a single metabolite be elevated. The latter approach reduces the specificity of the test, thereby increasing the risk of a false positives, which is probably what happened in this case (5-alpha abnormal, 5-beta normal).

3) Testing of the "B" sample should be performed at a centralized reference lab and the results from the B sample should corroborate the results from the "A" sample before a positive result is resulted. Using replicated results from two labs would vastly improve confidence in the results as it is unlikely both labs would be wrong in the same way, and it would defused "the lab is out to get me defense."

4) Only peer-reviewed published literature should be considered as evidence. In the Landis case, the prosecution argued that the 5-alpha/5-beta discrepancy was secondary to the use of testosterone gel by Mr. Landis.

They hypothesized that the use of the gel specifically increased 5-alpha reduced metabolites of testosterone. To support this, they referred to a very small unpublished study that administered testosterone gel in normal men by Schanzer and colleagues. However, in this study only two men had undergone IRMS testing and only one of whom had the isolated elevation in his 5-alpha metabolite. To my knowledge, this study has still not been published, despite that fact that this group has been very active in publishing in this area. Was the original hypothesis correct? Does testosterone gel use selectively increase 5-alpha metabolites? Clearly, it is preferable to use peer-reviewed published papers to try to understand this, and prevent erroneous and premature conclusions from being reached.

John K. Amory MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Medicine
Division of General Internal Medicine
University of Washington

Full Post with Comments...

Penultimate Irregular Report 49

La Cronica de Hoy says Landis/OUCH-Maxxis will participate in the Tour of Mexico in March, following the Amgen Tour of California.

Lancaster Online's big news of the year roundup has Landis' loss at CAS an also-ran story, behind: the economy, the election, some murders and fatal accidents, a politician retiring, a fraud case, and closing of a local landmark retailer. And the Phillies.

Cyclisme Review.eu (translated) passes on a rumor from Les Dessous du Sport that L'Equipe has been told to tone down the doping coverage, to the disappointment of the staff, and suggests this is bad news for the readership.

411mania posted a letter from Chris Bell about the death of his brother Mike. Bell's documentary film Bigger Faster Stronger included a visit by Chris to Floyd Landis' (legal) altitude chamber.

My older brother Michael aka MAD DOG in the wrestling world, passed away yesterday from unknown causes. He was residing at a sober living place in Orange County and was celebrating 60 days of being clean and sober from any drugs or alcohol. His roommates found him dead in his room at about 2:30pm yesterday and he was pronounced dead on the spot by medical experts. The cause of death is unknown and does not appear to be self inflicted.

My brother was my true hero growing up and I always wanted to be big and strong like him. He was the inspiration for me to make my movie Bigger Stronger Faster* because I saw how the American Dream negatively affected his sense of self worth. I will always remember my brother as the nicest guy in the world that sometimes got caught up in the wrong things. I am so sad right now over his passing. He was on his way to getting his life back on track and he was taken away from us at such a young age. My family thanks everyone who has sent emails and called. It really means a lot.

I Love you Michael.

Your little brother,
Christopher

In a development that can only be described as exploitive, uninformed, agenda-driven and typical, Bleacher Report headlines Bell's death as, "Breaking News: Two Years After Benoit Tragedy, 'Roids Claims Yet Another Victim". The article itself is more circumspect:

In the film, Mike Bell was said to have previous health issues, but no cause of death was known at release time. Once the film went public, the media went crazy claiming that Bell had attempted suicide in the past.

As we noted in Pause, Mike Bell was bi-polar. The Bell's hometown paper, The Poughkeepsie Journal has the best article.

Full Post with Comments...

Pause [updated and corrected]

I'd gotten "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" for Christmas, and was watching it in the morning. I'd paused it yesterday at about the 1:05 mark, when filmmaker Chris Bell's brother Mark was talking about lying to kids on the football team he was coaching about whether he took steroids.

Last night, we see the news that other brother Mike "Mad Dog" Bell was dead at age 37.

This morning, as I unpaused the film, and watched a confession to the Bell parents about trying steroids, I read that Mike had been found at a California rehab center, and that he'd been "clean" for 60 days. He'd been in treatment for alcohol and pain killer (ab)use.

While I read that, his dad was talking about Mike's delusions, how he wasn't facing up to what he was doing, and how he was afraid one day, Mike would be found dead.

His mother agonized over what could have made her boys be unsatisfied with their bodies, and not content with the perfection God had given them as they were.

Email informs us that Mike had been diagnosed as bi-polar, and had been on and off medications intended to treat it.

Our condolences to the Bells.

If anyone would like to attend his memorial service in the NY area it will be held on January 10 at 10 AM at Faith Assembly of God, 254 Spackenkill Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Maurice Suh and Daniel Weiss

Maurice Suh and Daniel Weiss represented Landis at both the AAA hearing and the CAS appeal. Rather than write anew, they pointed us to a piece in the Los Angeles Daily Journal in January 2008, from before the CAS hearing. We hadn't seen it before.

[Back to the Introduction]

Playing Hardball

by Maurice Suh and Daniel Weiss

Some extracts:

The phrase ``presumed innocent until proven guilty'' is not just a tag line for le­gal dramas such as ``Law and Order'' --- it is a core principle of our legal and societal fabric. The practical effect of this principle is remarkable, but one that is largely lost in doping cases. Presuming that an athlete is guilty based on the test result alone assumes that the anti­doping tests are infallible. This is not true. As seen in recent months, ac­credited laboratories do conduct tests improperly. For instance, the two European World Anti­Doping Agency­accredited laboratories that tested American sprinter LaTasha Jenkins were found to have vio­lated a clearly established test­ing standard. Anti­doping systems must take into account the fact that the laboratory results and methods are not always correct, and should place the onus, in each and every case, on the testing authority to es­tablish not only that a valid test for performance ­enhancing drugs was positive, but also that the test was performed in a scientifically reli­able manner.

and

What has been lost among the scandals, admissions and deni­als of the last several weeks [Jan 2008] is the great oppor­tunity that all sports have to craft a compre­hensive system that achieves clean com­petition without sacrificing the rights of the athlete.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Rational Head

Rational Head took long part in the scientific discussions at the Daily Peloton Forums. He, like Christiane Ayotte, found he had no time to say more.

[Back to the Introduction]


Thanks for the invitation.

At various times I expressed my thoughts at DPF on all the topics you listed. Unfortunately, I am going through a period when I simply don’t have much time to participate even in the DPF discussions.

Your blog was quite informative and is appreciated.

Best of luck.

RH

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: John Gilliland

US Air Force Major (for identification only, yada, yada) John Gilliland wrote an overlooked piece for us dealing with prosecutorial discretion. He is an Air Force judge advocate, involved in numerous drug prosecutions involving urinalysis testing.

[Back to the Introduction]

In a cover letter, he writes:

A bit of context for my piece: my office, which is the prosecution function for my Air Force base, just finished some litigation in which there were some defense shenanigans involving discovery material. This coming week we have a court-martial that entails a controversial discovery request. I made the decision to provide that information knowing that it isn't admissible but that the defense may work that information into the court anyway. We're still smarting from last week's fiasco, but the case this week is an apples to oranges comparison.

It's irritating when other folks don't play fair, but there's a big difference between playing unfair and playing in ways you're not used to seeing. I've seen both in the last couple of weeks, and I keenly understand the importance of understanding that difference. Justice, someone's career & freedom, and our reputation depends on the prosecutor's ability to make that distinction. You call foul against the former; you just do your job (and don't whine or mischaracterize it, a la Mr. Tygart) when confronted with the latter.

I think the best word to describe both sides in the Floyd Landis case is intransigence. So I thought it a bit odd that they actually reached a settlement concerning Landis’ recent federal court lawsuit. While the two sides will likely never kiss and make up, at least now there may be a détente as Landis regains his freedom to race at the end of January.

[MORE]


The real question is whether USADA’s agreement to the settlement reflects a change in attitude, however slight. Based on what we’ve seen and heard from USADA throughout the proceeding, including this settlement, I think not.

As the governing/enforcing authority, USADA is essentially has a prosecutorial role. A prosecutor’s obligation is to seek the truth, regardless of what we see on television. Part of that obligation entails supporting an accused’s right to relevant documents, information, and to access experts. Yet USADA was consistently uncooperative on this issue, yielding on significant points only when it believed it had no choice. And the WADA rules it must follow concerning use of expert witnesses is patently contrary to the concept of fairness.

Another prosecution responsibility is to always act in a way that’s above board, both in reality and in perception. USADA’s strident attempts to prohibit Landis from publicizing information and the process - even though USADA’s rules explicitly allowed for it - clearly suggest a steadfast unwillingness by USADA to be open. This attitude points to a philosophy that is inherently contrary to fair play.

Admittedly it’s hard for a prosecutor to keep these obligations in mind when he has a perfect record to protect and when he hires private attorneys to fight this fight for him, but it’s still his obligation. In my opinion, USADA wanted to win at all costs and unhesitatingly abandoned its obligation to the truth.

Floyd Landis’ defense team, on the other hand, had every right to be unyielding. Their job, just as with every defense attorney, was to zealously represent their client. Only this defense team had to try to overcome something criminal defendants doesn’t: the presumption of guilt. So when Landis’ defense team dug in its heels and didn’t back down, it was because it was their right to do so, and they had no choice if they wanted to clear Floyd.

No reasonable person can take them to task for standing their ground.

After all the problems with the testing process that this case brought to light, we could at least hope to see a slight leveling of the playing field. Unfortunately, we haven’t. When CAS announced its decision, USADA could have sent a positive message by publicly waiving the $100,000 award, citing any number of reasons that would’ve been good for its image. But it didn’t.

It also could’ve gone public with the settlement agreement in order to demonstrate a (newfound?) dedication to fairness and openness. But it didn’t. Therefore, regardless of the settlement terms, the perception of USADA as an unyielding, unfair organization remains.

On a different note, please take the time to thank TBV, Judge Hue, and all the others for all the work they’ve done with this case over the last couple of years. The quality of work, analyses, and their dedication to a fair fight are all commendable, and are also exceedingly rare.

Best of luck to you all!

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Duckstrap

Duckstrap is a consultant to pharmaceutical companies on setting up statistically useful and regulatory compliant development evaluation. He's looked at the available data along with us and heavily participated in the discussion. He too makes reference to the Berry argument.

[Back to the Introduction]


How does the Landis case look from the vantage of two years’ perspective? Muddy. I submit that nobody knows for sure whether Floyd took testosterone on that fateful day in July except Floyd. Not me. Not the folks from the ex-LNDD, and certainly not USADA or CAS. Or perhaps more pertinently, that nobody (again excepting Floyd) who strenuously purports to know, actually knows what they, in fact, do not know. I believe that CAS verdict was influenced by the politics of anti-doping much more than a strong scientific case; that by the time the case got to that point, the science was almost an afterthought. That is wrong in my view.

[MORE]

Here are the things I am convinced of:

1) The statistics of the anti-doping testing are flawed. This is Don Berry’s argument, and, for me, it is convincing. The essence of it is this: if you believe that a relatively small fraction of riders dope with a particular agent, then the test for that agent needs to be very very specific, with a very low false positive rate. From screening to confirmatory T:E ratio to IRMS, LNDD’s procedures never came close to that standard. The new tests for CERA, where there is a specific molecular signature to the molecule allowing its distinction from endogenous EPO may approach that standard.

2) Overall, LNDD’s assay procedures and methods were inexcusably slipshod. The lack of adherence to procedures for sample custody were symptomatic of a broader scientific sloppiness that saw really bad chromatography in the screening procedure, unidentifiable peaks in the “confirmatory IRMS chromatography”, and finally, actually different chromatography conditions in the IRMS chromatography, so there was no definitive identification of the molecule(s) whose IRMS signature was measured. These are systemic, methodological issues with the assays as they were run in that lab. It does not mean that this tecnology could not produce a definitive answer, but in the hands of these hacks it did not. It doesn’t mean they didn’t get the right answer, but it also means they couldn’t know that they had—hence neither can we.

As for Floyd, whether he did or didn’t, I wish him all the best. If he did it, then he has taken us all for quite the ride, but has also paid a huge price for it. If he didn’t do it, then I believe he has done about all a person could do to exonerate himself, and appears, wisely, to have chosen to move on. It is couragous to fight the fight, but also couragous to put it behind you and get on with the business of living life. I’m glad to have played a small part in the drama, and am even more grateful to TBV for providing a forum for civil and knowledgable discourse of the subject.

Kevin Dykstra, PhD
aka “Duckstrap”

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Klaas Faber

Klaas Faber is a widely published author on statistics for accreditation of chemometry measures. He's looked at the Landis case since it became public. He cites below the editorial in Nature by Donald Berry. (Our posts referencing Berry)

[Back to the Introduction]


Laboratories have arranged that they don't need to give the full data, in the WADA TD2003LDOC. In contrast, the Dutch Forensic Institute, for example, is obliged to give everything the defense needs, because that's arranged by law - a law that holds for governmental bodies (i.e. not for a lab that is paid by sport organizations and/or anti-doping agencies). For that reason, I was never able to have a good look at Floyd's data. And neither was the defense. During the hearings before the CAS, for example, the analyst of the laboratory was not able to reproduce the numbers that have led to the blue 'dot' in Figure 1 of Berry's Commentary in Nature! However, they were able to meet the required burden of proof ('...to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body...') on all occasions.

(click for larger)

[MORE]


"Plots show the distribution of 167 samples of the metabolites etiocholanone and 5 -androstanediol (a, b), and androsterone and 5 -androstanediol (c, d). Panels b and d show samples the French national anti-doping laboratory (LNDD) designate to be 'positive' (red crosses) or 'negative' (green dots); the values from Landis's second sample from stage 17 is shown as a blue dot. Axes display delta notation, expressing isotopic composition of a sample relative to a reference compound." (source: Nature)


A final comment on WADA's TD2003LDOC. Note the sentence "Quantitative Data or ratio data and uncertainty estimation, if applicable.". First, ratio data makes a statistical treatment very complicated. That's my comment because anti-doping research don't use a lot of statistics and are therefore not troubled. Note, however, that it is often not even necessary to work with ratios because there is always an internal standard. The reasons to work with ratios are historical, not technical. Second, uncertainty estimation is always applicable. However, the people who drew up this document probably don't know (because of their lack of statistical insight). How to change this practice once it is fixed in documents?

There was a meeting of the Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention technical advisory group on 11-July-2006, with minutes issued on 31-July. On p.2 (3d paragraph) you can read that researchers themselves have doubt about the IRMS method. ["Moreover, given that reservations have been expressed on the validity of the IRMS method, scientific background for its use would also be appreciated."] Compare the dates of the document and the 17th stage. Rather cynical.

T-DO (2006) 29, page 2

At the moment I am setting up a think tank that involves anti-doping experts but also for example a forensic statistician. Currently, there is not a single test for which the risk of a false positive is known. In forensic statistics one is trying for the last twenty years to have Bayes determine the weight of the evidence (likelihood ratio: likelihood of evidence given guilt vs. likelihood of evidence given innocence). It appears to be successful, at least here in the Netherlands. Don't know about other countries. What helps is that we don't have a jury. Here, one only needs to train judges and prosecutors on how to (correctly) interpret Bayes.


- Klaas

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Carlton Reid

Carlton Reid is a UK-based cycling media mogul.

[Back to the Introduction]


Trust But Verify is closing, but I don't feel closure.

And if I also feel somewhat bitter and twisted, that's nothing to how Floyd Landis must have felt since the beginning of this sorry saga.

I came into this subject equipped with standard-issue, media-myopia goggles. WADA was pure, accused athletes were dirty, cheating scum.

I'm saying my goodbyes to TbV a whole lot more cynical about the anti-doping process. As TbV demonstrated, the anti-doping movement is enclosed, self-perpetuating and omnipotent. It resembles a religious cult. Leaders who brook no opposition; acolytes willing to do or die for the leadership; a central, easily-absorbed, hard-to-refute moral tenet ('you're bad, we're good'); exterior, no-strings funding; hair-trigger lynch-mob mentality; and Spanish Inquisition style jurisprudence.

Fanciful? A touch. But viewed through this prism it's now clear Landis never stood a chance. You can't attack a faith-based system with rationality or science, a faith-based system operates to its own, bendable rules.

Landis may have lost, but his fight - documented so well by TbV - opened a lot of people's eyes, mine included. Injustice is in the DNA of WADA. Without a major overhaul of how accusations can be refuted, innocent athletes will continue to be ensnared alongside guilty ones. This isn't right, it isn't fair. Welcome to WADA world.

Carlton Reid

Editor

www.bikebiz.com

www.bikeforall.net

www.quickrelease.tv

www.biketoworkbook.com

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: WADAwatch

WADAWatch was started because the sometime-jurist author was taken aback by what he believes is the horrible wording of the WADA Code. It intrigued him enough to take vacation time to go to a WADA Conference for the press and meet and speak to many of the principals. His meta-legal analyses of The Code seem to us essential reading to anyone interested in rationalizing The Code. (Unfortunately, that may not include many of the current stakeholders.) One of the points he finds most troubling is the abandonment of the Quigley rule, something which seemed to have formed good guidance to CAS panels before the adoption of the WADA Code.

[Back to the Introduction]


As Trust but Verify prepares to shut down this superb Encyclopaedia Floydia, many of its readers are still awestruck at the outcome(s) of the Floyd Landis case(s): a victory fully enjoyed by 'the anti–doping movement' in arbitration, and withdrawal of his US Court case. It was late–summer 2008, when WADA president John Fahey announced WADA's contentment: the 'aggressive campaign against' that movement by Floyd Landis came to its arbitrated end.

And only two weeks ago, Landis withdrew his US Court case, leaving unexamined a vital, major scrutiny of the explicit conflicts of interest that permeate the private world of major sports legal arbitration.

The facts and evidence of Floyd's case stood for something profound: the fundamental concept that even Athletes have civil rights, and that a quasi–legal system of Jurisprudence/private arbitration that sought to retain monopoly control of those Athletes' lives, should uphold Western legal ideals in according those rights.

[MORE]


The Landis Decisions offer proof that such is not to be, as long as a 'small group of insiders' is permitted to prioritize the protection of their own livelihoods, and the incestuous legal fraternity holding this monopoly power, throughout WADA, and Agencies, Labs and ADOs.

Those of us who were aghast that Dick Pound, former WADA president, might be installed as president of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, may wonder at what influence the man had had, in the CAS Decision confirming Floyd's positive Testosterone test. With the Landis Decision, CAS moved away from its prior legal basis, expressed in the famous Quigley Rule. That 15 year–old ruling called for implementation of a fair system, where 'rules are clear' and deviations from their meaning were often quashed, as we'd seen in the Landaluce case. WADAwatch believes, but certainly cannot prove, that the Landis Decision issued by CAS had some profound ex parte input from Pound: the former “Voice of WADA”, former candidate to become CAS' president. A Pyrrhic victory for the Omerta of WADA.

However, because Professeur de Ceaurriz and his LNDD lab techs, obsolete machines and tainted laboratory documentation, their pro forma COFRAC certification, the whitewashing French AFLD Ministry, vocal Dick Pound and WADA, with its 'independent expert witnesses' and institutional discrimination(s), supported by the USADA and Richard Young, who altogether (USADA and WADA) spent several millions of dollars, were fully supported by both the AAA Panel (majority), and the CAS Panel:

We do not know how, when, where and, to what degree
Floyd was ingesting Testosterone, if at all;

Thanks to Floyd Landis' legitimate, unnecessarily–expensive defense and appeal:

We do know how LNDD, USADA, WADA, AAA and CAS
confirmed theWADA Code's systemic viability
– in spite of having exposed its every
substantive and procedural flaw.

In other words: we don't know 'how Floyd was wrong', but we do know 'why WADA was right'.

Perfectly.

We may also never know, what honest inadequacies are, legally, nor what differentiates the acceptance of a WADA accredited lab having followed the concept(s) of rules (CAS Decision), rather than following the 'letter of the law'. Gone forever, are French accusations that Floyd's friends 'hacked' into the French lab's computer system (which some surmise was a way to disinform how evidence was destroyed, to erase traces of French shenanigans...), and gone, for some time, are the concepts expressly displayed in the WADA Code Fundamental Rationale.

We will never know why France was allowed to bring its renegade case against Floyd without being in violation of WADA Code Article 15.4, nor why its lab, in violation of Article 6.4, received full support throughout Floyd's disciplinary process. We will never know why USADA was not required to inform WADA of 'departures' (Article 7.1/7.2) before Floyd had to spend millions trying to prove those multiple, inexcusable LNDD failures. And the list goes on...

Someday Athletes may realize that the present system only serves to act as an Insurance Policy, protecting Event Organizers from Sponsorship withdrawal. WADAwatch hopes to aid Athletes, by simply encouraging WADA to enforce internally, the words of its Fundamental Rationale, not the least of which being: “Respect for rules and laws”.

Thanks to our friends, who made Trust but Verify THE daily Floyd site.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Christiane Ayotte

Christiane Ayotte is the director of the Montreal WADA lab, and testified for USADA at both the AAA and CAS hearings. She quickly sent a brief reply to our solicitation.

[Back to the Introduction]


Thanks for the invitation.

All what I had to say in relation to the findings reported by Paris, the interpretation of the results, all the arguments raised by the athlete's experts is totally contained in the declarations submitted to the CAS Panel. [...] I have no desire for polemic and see no reason to challenge the faith that is yours. Friends must trust, not verify.

All the best!

Christiane Ayotte, Ph.D.
INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Race Junkie

Race Junkie is a blogger who is most truly resplendent in the full-foaming rant. On this occasion, she takes off the rabid mask and adopts more respectable form, reflecting her day job as a civil rights attorney.

[Back to the Introduction]

In the two-odd years since Operacion Puerto broke bang in the middle of the Giro d’Italia, bringing a good hundred cyclists into disrepute and effectively ending the careers of, well, Jan Ullrich mostly, the big questions remaining in the fight against doping seem to be: should it be done, are we doing it the right way, and, on a related note, does it seem to be working?

[MORE]


Should it be done? Of course.

Leaving aside the moral argument that winning through cheating is a cheap two-dollar watch of a victory, which it is, I don’t think a very young or very flush rider—or team manager, for that matter--with history-in-the-making riding on his or her choice is in the best position to make an objective judgment as to whether taking some dubious concoction of unknown long-term safety or efficacy is a good idea—that’s right, I think we need to protect riders from themselves, as well as the avarice of those who literally profit off their success.

Are we doing it the right way?

Sometimes. I’m no scientist, but rigorous out-of-competition doping controls seem to be a good idea to keep some folks from amping up their pre-race training only to reap the benefits by racing clean at showtime, and during-competition controls are unquestionably the right thing to do for the sake of the riders—dirty and clean—and the sport itself. I think the problem is in the process: as in the Landis case, setting up the “right” outcome through press blitz only obfuscates the truth, and not requiring an independent lab to analyze the “B” samples guarantees that the lab and the people who hired it have a vested interest in proving they got it right in the first place. For my money—and I say this as someone who benefits from gross rumormongering—confidentiality and objectivity should be the top priorities to ensure both perceived and actual justice.

Finally, is it working?

Well, certainly the governing bodies’ argument that snagging so many dopers only proves the controls are working is ludicrous, in that to me it only proves that (1) the new generation whose mindset we’ve presumably changed is just as dirty as the previous ones, and (2) as soon as one method’s detectable, the race is on to find the Next Big Thing that’ll outwit the tests.

But can we stop, just because human frailty so often outpaces science? No. Because one day, once again, I’d like to gasp at the beauty and power of a spectacular win without having to wonder, just a little bit, whose guiding hand, or needle, is behind it.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: One Mint Julich

One Mint Julich is a frequent contributor on the Daily Peloton Forums, and heavily participated in the productive scientific discussion there. At our request, he summarizes it all from his point of view as follows.

[Back to the Introduction]

I’m a scientist who is fairly familiar with, though not expert in, the methodology used to test Floyd. I was fairly impressed with the evidence against him in the IRMS test, including:

1)the size of the delta values for one of the metabolites;

2)that this metabolite also exhibited a large delta value in Floyd’s samples after several other stages of the TDF;

3)that a second metabolite also had a sizeable delta value (after both stage 17 and as I recall, several other stages), above or very near the 3.0 criterion (depending on how one treated the standard error for the procedure)

4)that the delta values for the remaining two metabolites, though not reaching the 3.0 criterion, were still substantially negative;

I did not feel that the various technical errors pointed out during the trial were that damning against WADA’s case. For example, the evidence was very compelling that the metabolites were identified correctly, and while contamination was possible (which could skew the delta value of a correctly identified metabolite), it seemed to me unlikely to exist to the extent needed to account for the high delta values, and there was no evidence raised during the trial to indicate there might have been such contamination. Certainly the amount of sloppiness should raise some concern, since if the lab consistently made this many errors, sooner or later they would likely significantly affect the conclusions of some doping test. But I did not think they did in this particular case.

I also believe that the conclusion was strengthened by the initial positive T/E test. Granted, there were problems with that test, too, and in the end it was actually thrown out by the panel. But calling results inadmissible does not mean the conclusion they point to is false, any more than failing to read a defendant his/her rights means the defendant didn’t commit the crime. Floyd did have a fairly high T/E value, I think that’s very clear, and given that the T/E test is an independent indicator of synthetic testosterone, I think it provides greater reason to believe in the IRMS results.

Having said all this, I never felt the case against Floyd was slamdunk, and had this been a capital crime, where guilt must pass the beyond reasonable doubt test, I would have been somewhat conflicted. I felt the biggest problem was the lack of consistency among the delta values for different metabolites. The literature generally indicates that the delta values of these metabolites follow each other closely, and given the origin of these values, that is what one would expect. WADA did produce some evidence that this would not be the case following transdermal application of testosterone, but this was preliminary data, based on only a few cases, has not yet to my knowledge been published, and still lacks, I believe, a strong conceptual basis.

The bottom line for me, though, was that one very high delta value. Barring contamination, I don’t see how it could indicate anything but exogenous testosterone.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Dirt Roadie

Dirt Roadie is a 56 year old attorney, "practicing until he gets it right." When cycling, he says he prefers riding the high mountain and low desert terrain of Colorado and Utah, on or off-road. He participated in our analysis of the CAS appeal.

[Back to the Introduction]

Floyd, and allegations of doping. So, looking back, what happened and what have we learned?

Human behavior is, on a large scale, dictated by faith (think Islam, Taoism, Buddism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity). But even in secular issues, one is often faced with taking one side or the other based largely on just such faith, since the "truth" may never be known.

[MORE]


I've never met the guy. I have no idea if a conversation with him would get beyond "Wow, you're Floyd Landis. Cool!" I will note that the only person who is likely to truly know whether Floyd used testosterone claims he did not. 'Nuff said. However, I am also not inclined to accept the "legal" conclusion that he did, partially because I also see nothing in his miracle ride that cannot be readily accounted for by the events of the two days as described by StarrTrek's saga of the magic water bottle.

If, as I am strongly led to believe, he did not use testosterone, his story is one of the great travesties of sporting history.

And if he did use testosterone, it may still be.

Indeed, there were never any allegations of blood doping, use of EPO or other similar and blatantly egregious offenses. But I'll use the word innocent in the broader sense of meaning either truly innocent or at least not guilty of anything more than a minor infraction when compared with the "industrial strength" offenses noted above.

In the 2006 Tour de France, Floyd Landis had a VERY bad day (a "jour sans") followed by a VERY, VERY good day when Floyd put all his remaining chips on the table and won the hand.

Then came the extended bad period commencing when Floyd was accused of doping based upon LNDD lab tests of, shall we say, questionable validity. See Arnie Baker's The Wiki Defense.

There were two independent arbitration hearings, AAA/CAS and CAS. But in contrast to typical legal proceedings where an appellate court reviews a lower court decision for "error," the second arbitration hearing started over from scratch. Each time the arbitrators did little more than rubber stamp the allegations of USADA, despite the AAA acknowledging clear problems with the lab work and one of three arbitrators ruling in Floyd's flavor. The written CAS opinion resonated with a decidedly less-than-objective tone.

I was reminded of a case I dealt with many years ago involving "scientific" data in the context of a "bottom of the bureaucracy" DMV administrative proceeding (NOT a trial in a court of law). Very simply, the ONLY issue was whether the blood alcohol content was above .15 %.

A machine had shown a BAC of .155%, .005% over (two zeroes after the decimal). BUT, the machine's "accuracy" was considered acceptable if it read within ± .01 (just one zero after the decimal) of the presumed value when testing a specially prepared "control" sample.

So, the machine read over the legal limit by just HALF of the acceptable error of the device. (Think of trying to measure to the nearest inch using a yardstick marked only in feet.)

Nonetheless, that issue clearly sailed right over the head of the DMV hearing examiner (next step up from the guys who give driving tests) who pounded his gavel (Yes, he had a freaking gavel) and proclaimed, "These machines are very accurate!"

In Floyd's case, both the AAA and the CAS might just as well have pounded their gavels and announced, "These labs are very accurate." Indeed, the CAS panel explicitly stated "LNDD benefits from the presumption that it conducted sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards." Sort of a Nixonesque, "if a certified lab does it, it's not improper."

All the while, Floyd's "guilt" was taken to heart by the Floyd critics, many of whom were part of the anti-doping system, happy to have a scapegoat. The word "witchhunt" has been used repeatedly and accurately.

Is/was there a doping problem in cycling? Yup, no question. Should an innocent cyclist be sanctioned? Seems like an easy enough question with an obvious answer, but the anti-doping crusaders seem to think that destroying the reputation and livelihood of an innocent individual is acceptable "collateral damage." Yup, capital punishment for jaywalking. That'll stop 'em.

In a final step, Floyd presented extensive evidence and asked a U.S. Federal Court to acknowledge flaws in the CAS under applicable legal standards, suggesting a system seemingly dedicated only to achieving "convictions" and not necessarily based upon justice or accuracy. But alas, we will never know how this challenge would have played out. In itself, this may be a systemic travesty equivalent to that endured individually by Floyd.

In the end we may have only learned that bad things can happen to good people and that "truth" is only a relative concept. And in a witchhunt where the target is the Wicked Witch of the West, the victim may unacceptably be Glinda, the Good Witch of the South.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Larry's Last

Larry, the loquacious, has been a frequent contributer and commenter here and at Rant. He's taken full advantage of the lack of length restrictions here in the blogosphere. A banking attorney, his calling card here was "Larry's Curb Your Antitipcation", a researched series considering various legal issues, anticipating things in the CAS appeal.

He originally wrote most of the following in comments at Rant, though this is revised here.

[Back to the Introduction]


I was sorry to hear about the end of the blog, but I guess it’s time.

My primary emotion is a certain kind of relief. Like most legal disputes, the Landis case dragged on past the point where it made any sense. Floyd deserves credit for finally putting an end to this chapter in his life. Sometimes it takes more courage to end a fight than to continue it.

I am grateful to Floyd Landis for providing us with a detailed examination of the anti-doping system at work. It is the closest such examination we’re ever likely to see. Whatever you may think of the outcome of the Landis case (and my thoughts on this are on the record), Landis and USADA funded millions of dollars of legal process, producing a considerable body of information, most of which is publicly available. This body of information is not complete (and no body of information is ever complete), but with enough time and background knowledge, anyone can dive into this information and reach a reasonably informed conclusion about the Landis case, and about the anti-doping effort in general.

[MORE]


I come away from this experience convinced that the anti-doping effort is a failure. For the most part, the ADAs do not catch the dopers, nor do they deal fairly with the athletes they accuse of doping.

I think the main reason the ADAs are failing is that their science is not up to the job of catching dopers. In the Landis case, the media was fond of saying that the ADAs “found” artificial testosterone in Landis’ system, but this was not even close to the truth. Artificial testosterone is chemically identical to natural testosterone, and even on a subatomic level, you cannot tell the difference between a molecule of artificial testosterone and a molecule of natural testosterone. This is the way it works with the current crop of performance-enhancing drugs: they mimic natural human biochemistry, and they look for all the world like stuff that humans produce naturally. Finding performance-enhancing drugs in a human body is NOT like finding a plum in a pie, or a fly in a bowl of soup.

It turns out that the anti-doping tests rely heavily on statistical analysis. The tests look for a statistical anomaly – a measure of stuff found in an athlete’s system that is supposed to be so unusual that it could not have occurred by chance. Then the scientists try to prove that the measurement would NOT be unusual if the athlete doped. This is not a bad way to conduct science, so long as the scientists proceed carefully.

But as we’ve seen, the ADA scientists have not proceeded carefully. The measurements they took of the stuff in Landis’ system (even if these measurements were reliable and believable) turn out NOT to be so unusual after all. It turns out that the scientists have not done the testing they needed to do to determine what is usual and what is unusual … and worse, the scientists have drawn improper conclusions from the little testing they HAVE performed.

An optimist might conclude that the ADA’s science will improve in time, and that the anti-doping effort will improve along with the science. But I am not an optimist. It is obvious that performance-enhancing drugs are “improving”, becoming both more performance-enhancing and more difficult to detect. Even today, the use of most performance-enhancing drugs goes undetected, and many of these drugs are simply not detectable by any means. It may simply be the case that the science does not exist for the detection of some of these drugs. Moreover, even if there is a scientific means to detect the current drugs and the new drugs, there is no present ability to fund the development of this science. Contrast the budget of an outfit like USADA with the billions and billions of dollars spent each year for research and development of new drugs.

There is no realistic hope that sport can be made drug-free by urine testing, or by blood testing, or by any variety of scientific test. All that’s left for the anti-doping effort is to deter drug use by other means, by ramping up the punishment for athletes sanctioned for drug use (or alleged drug use), and by relying on traditional police efforts (wiretaps, informants and criminal penalties) to catch the dopers. The criminalization of anti-doping may have its advantages, but I have no interest in being a fan of any sport that relies too heavily on criminal law to stamp out cheating. It is not my idea of entertainment to watch cyclists being carted off in handcuffs. I’d rather tolerate the doping than watch the Tour transformed into some kind of multi-national “sting” operation.

We’ve talked about how the anti-doping system can be improved, but in the current state of the anti-doping movement, the only change being considered is how to get “tougher” on dopers. There will be no reforms to improve fairness to the accused athlete, or testing accuracy.

Where does this all lead? It is obvious that doping is an integral part of nearly every sport, as is anti-doping. Most athletes will get away with doping; a few athletes will be caught and will face different degrees of punishment, depending on the sport. A few athletes will be wrongly accused of doping, and will have no realistic avenue for self-defense, nor will we have any way to tell (short of an honest confession) which accused athletes are guilty and which are innocent. Those of us who are sports fans will have to put up with this situation as best we can. Those who choose to become athletes may have to dope in order to earn a living, and will have to live with the unfairness inherent in the anti-doping effort.

As for me, while I’ll probably never enjoy being a fan as much as I used to, I will take the attitude that every athlete is competing clean, except for a handful conclusively proven to have doped. If I’m unable to take that attitude, then I won’t watch, because what would be the point?

Take care and see you down the road.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Howard Jacobs

Howard Jacobs, AthletesLawyer.com, actively represented Landis through the AAA hearing, and is well known for his defending many doping cases. Not wanting to dwell on specifics, he wanted to highlight some of the unique things about the atmosphere of the case:

[Back to the Introduction]

I think the Pepperdine hearing was a unique experience for those who were interested enough to follow a doping case from start to finish, even if the doping case at issue was atypical of most such cases. The fact that everything was made available - from the laboratory documents themselves, to the briefs and evidence, to the actual examination and cross-examination of witnesses, allowed those who were interested to draw their own informed opinions about the accuracy of the test results, the quality of the laboratory work, the fairness of the rules, and the fairness of the arbitration process itself.

[MORE]


Not surprisingly, different people viewing the same evidence came to markedly different conclusions on each of these subjects. While I have my own opinions, they are based on the same evidence and the same testimony that has resulted in such exhaustive and detailed debate on your blog site and others. What I do hope is that this process revealed that drug testing and the anti-doping process is not as black and white as most people previously believed.

It is doubtful that such a public hearing will ever occur again, as it is doubtful that such unique circumstances will repeat themselves in the future.

The public leak of the "A" results, the online posting of the "B" results the moment they were reported, and the intense media scrutiny around a positive drug test of the Tour de France champion created a situation where a public hearing made sense. Those same factors also created a situation where the media actually cared enough to attend and cover the Pepperdine hearing.

Those factors are not likely to combine again.

In fact, if the rules regarding disclosure of positive test results are followed, no athlete will ever request a public hearing, as the test results and the existence of the hearing would remain confidential until after the arbitration decision is rendered.

Best regards,

Howard Jacobs

Full Post with Comments...

Winnowing Words - Introduction

When we decided to roll up the tent at the end of the month, we thought it would be good to have some final thoughts on the matter, and not just from us.

To that end, we've contacted a number of people from all sides of the discussion, and asked them if they had anything they'd like to say. Some said yes, some said no, some hoped to participate but found they could not, and some didn't answer in time for us to include. We regret the submissions fall towards one side of the debate. We did try to send a balanced set of invitations, but response is beyond our control.

In order to entice those who didn't want to make too big a commitment, we suggested "a few paragraphs" of perhaps 500 words, and if struggling for particular topics, we offered as suggestions:

• Merits of the Landis case;
• Conduct of the Landis case;
• Coverage and discussion of the case;
• Wisdom, merit and effectiveness of anti-doping as currently practiced
• What could be done in anti-doping that might work better
  

Some people took these are marching orders, and others just wrote what they felt they wanted to address.

We're going to roll them out a few a day until the end of the year, when we hit the big red button. We hope you find them interesting -- we did.

• Howard Jacobs
• Larry
• Dirt Roadie
• One Mint Julich
• Race Junkie
• Christiane Ayotte
• WADAwatch
• Carlton Reid
• Klaas Faber
• Duckstrap
• John Gilliland
• Rational Head
• Maurice Suh and Daniel Weiss
• John Amory
• Spinopsys Phil
• Bruce Goldberger
• Arnie Baker
• Joe Papp
• Dan Rosen
• Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, part I.
  
• Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, part II.
  

Full Post with Comments...