Integration for Idiots, Part V: What Wolfram Meant

Part V: What the Doktor Meant

Series by Ali and TBV

In Part IV, we worked toward a result that surprised many. The presence of an unexpected peak with an unremarkable value can have significant effects on the computed values of our peaks of interest.

Let's go over what we've learned.

First, that with a single peak we can pretty easily mark the left and right integration marks, and handle a sloping background. For these purposes, peaks that are so far apart they are not visible are single peaks. There were a couple in our examples over at 1600 seconds, but they don't matter.

Second, when peaks get close enough together to interfere, things become very complicated, and all sorts of significant errors can be introduced. The kinds of interference that can occur include:

• Interference between two clearly distinguishable peaks.
• Invisible interference in a pure, undetected co-elute at the same time as a peak of interest.
  
• Confusing interference causes by an unexpected, undetected peak between close peaks of interests.

It is evident that we cannot simply mark the integration points and adjust the background to get "correct" values in these cases if we are dealing with peaks that have unknown CIR values. This is true whether we do it by hand, or use software which will make a best-guess.

Now let us turn to some slides from Dr. Meier-Augenstein's presentation at the hearing, which hasn't received much attention since it was released last Friday. It is all very relevant, but we'd like to highlight some very important points that may not have been sufficiently clear during the hearing, having gotten lost among other issues. (Transcript beginning on PDF page 1137 or so).

WM-A Slide 10, circle added.

This points out the fundamental premise: that you know what you are looking at is a single compound of interest. We've seen in our examples above the various kinds of interference that can result if there are things you do not expect in the vicinity of the peak you are trying to measure - either contained in the peak, or close enough to overlap.

WM-A Slide 11

We've also shown in our examples above what happens when peaks overlap, and if minor peaks are contained in the peak of interest. We will end up asking questions about what LNDD has assumed, or perhaps presumed, or maybe even deemed to be the invariants of their methodology, and whether they are in fact, true.

But, let us turn our attention to the key point:

Software will not separate your peaks.

In the presence of overlapping peaks, the software, even the automatic software on the IsoPrime 2, cannot do computation that leads to correct results. If peaks of known substances overlap, the results will be wrong. If there are hidden peaks of unknown substances, the results will be wrong.

Basically, if the chemical and chromatographic separation isn't good, your results aren't good either. You can't do anything after the fact with your collected data to correct it.

Let's be completely clear about the relevance of this observation to the alternate B samples and the Stage 17 data reprocessed on the IsoPrime 2. If the conditions of chemical and chromatographic separation lead to consistently overlapped data sets, consistent results from automatic methods can still be incorrect. Consistency just means it repeatedly made the same unresolvable decisions.

WM-A Slide 16

After a few examples, the Doctor addresses an alternate formulation of the same problem in slide 16:

Manual Processing Won't Work Either.

Once there are overlaps, of either known or unknowns, the results are not reliable. It's possible the software will pick the similar points and get consistent numbers, or that manual processing will allow you to get values in an "expected" range, but you won't know the truth.

With this background, we encourage you to look, perhaps for the first time, at Meier-Augenstein's presentation. Then, re-read his testimony beginning on PDF page 1131, and see if it doesn't make much more sense.

This concludes Integration for Idiots.

Our next series will be, "Idiots look at the Data". Based on our newfound understanding, do the data we see produced in the Landis case seem good enough to lead to reliable results? Are there unfounded and untested assumptions built into the collection conditions and the data set?

Full Post with Comments...

CIR Spreadsheet and Instructions

Our series on integration has been made possible with a spreadsheet by contributer Ali, which we have made available in the archive for download, inspection and use. Here is a description and instructions.

[MORE]

By Ali

Specifying Peaks and Background

The spreadsheet provides facilities for defining three peaks.

For each peak, the o/oo value, the peak response and the peak time can be controlled (rows 6 to 9). The time difference between m45 and m44 can also be defined (cell C9). Published material suggests that a suitable mean value for this would be 0.15 s. That can’t be accommodated as the time resolution is 0.1 s, so either use 0.1 or 0.2. It makes a difference! Our examples have been generated with the smaller value, while the larger one produces more pronounced effects, so we've erred on the conservative side.

The background noise level can be set (rows 29 to 31). The level, slope and o/oo parameters can be entered.

Generating Data

A template peak profile, conforming to a Normal (Gaussian) distribution is stored in the spreadsheet. Depending on the values entered against each peak, the template peak is scaled to produce a m44 peak which matches the defined peak height and time shifted to match the peak time. The entered o/oo values are then used to produce the m45 peaks which are vertically scaled down versions of their m44 counterparts so that the ratio of their area correspond exactly to the o/oo values. They are placed at the same points in time, then shifted by the m45 to m44 time difference (cell C9).

The m45, m44 and m45/m44 plots are generated from this tabular data. At each point in time, the background, peak1, peak2 and peak3 contributions are then summed to produce the net m44 and m45 responses.

The instantaneous m45/m44 plot is simply the ratio of net m45 divided by net m44 at each point in time.

Integration Limits

With the peaks defined, their integration limits can be set. Provision is made for t1 and t2 times for each peak. Integration occurs between these two times (rows 11 to 12).

Our understanding is that both human operators and software typically select integration points by looking at the 44/45 trace. The spreadsheet is completely manual for this operation.

Background Removal

Background removal in the spreadsheet is automatic, unless manualy overridden.

In automatic mode, for each integration interval, a straight line is fitted between the intersection of t1 and the m44 plot and the intersection of t2 and the m44 plot. The same happens for the m45 plot. Everything below this line and outside the integration interval is discarded. The display and methodology is consistent with what we've observed in various documented examples.

Automatic mode can be overidden by entering a value in cell C21. Clearing this cell returns to automatic mode.

Result Calculation

The calculated o/oo values (row 24) are generated by performing numerical integration over the selected t1-t2 interval on both the m44 and m45 plots (after the desired background has been removed). The ratio of m45 area to m44 area defines the C13/C12 ratio which in turn leads to a calculated o/oo value for the peak based on the relationship: o/oo=1000*((C13/C12)-PDB)/PDB (where PDB is an international standard).

Generating Plots

The plots shown in the Series on TBV have been generated by setting up the desired conditions in the spreadsheet, copying the Excel chart and pasting it into the standard Windows accessory MSPaint (any other equivalent application would be suitable). They are then sized, shaded and annotated as required.

That’s it really. No smoke and mirrors involved. Any observations on either the implementation or the assumptions made are welcome.

Full Post with Comments...

Integration for Idiots: Part IV: Three peaks

Part IV: Three Peaks

Series by Ali and TBV

In Part III, we looked at "co-elution" (overlap) of two peaks. Now, we'll see some things that may happen when a third is involved.

Figure 14 reverts to the minor co-elution scenario from figure 11. In addition, a small peak with a o/oo value of -50 is shown. What would the effect be if this peak occurred at the same time as our original peak ?

Figure 15 shows what would happen if the small -50 peak occurred at the same time as our original peak. We show the peak in red, but it doesn't show up that way on the display, only as a higher peak in grey. The measured value is now -32.1. It is really -27.

Figure 16 again reverts to the minor co-elution scenario of figure 11. This time we have a small peak with o/oo value of -25, which is less negative than our peaks of interest. Harmless enough, you may think. What would happen if this peak occurred between our minor co-eluting peaks?

Figure 17 places the small -25 peak between the two peaks with minor co-elution. It’s presence has masked where our original peak begins. The measured value for the peak is now -31.6. The true value remains -27.

This series of figures illustrates how the interference between peaks can dramatically alter the measured o/oo value of a peak. In many of the above cases, it would not be possible to determine the true o/oo value.

In Fig 17, is our peak sitting on a sloping background? No, it isn’t, but it may look like it is in context.

As demonstrated in Figure 9, if it had been genuine linear sloping background, we may have recovered the true o/oo value of -27. Instead, we measured a value of -31.6.

Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the effect of a small but significantly negative peak co-eluting with our original peak. Again, this would not be detectable from the data that is available, the M=44 and M=45 traces.

In Part V, having gotten all this background, we'll look at what Herr Doktor Professor Wolfram Meier-Augenstein was saying in just a few slides of his presentation at the hearing.

Full Post with Comments...

Tuesday Roundup

News
The Wisconsin State Journal says sorry but you can't have it both ways. You can't make fun of Floyd Landis for aggressively fighting doping charges leveled against him and then rag on Martina Hingis for refusing to fight even though she denies any substance abuse.

CyclingNews says T-Mobile is denying reviewing their sponsorship. No matter where you look, it's "deny", "deny", "deny".

The CyclingNews Letter section, dated Friday, is for some reason just showing up today. Many respondents have questions about the competency of WADA labs in light of the Mayo mess.

Blogs
Zach recounts a classroom discussion on doping that occurred yesterday and feels that most athletes will do anything they can to gain a competitive advantage over their opponents. Most athletes that is, except maybe Floyd Landis who Zach feels may be the one lone voice of innocence.

Rant notes the rumored exit of T-Mobile from cycling, and says that yes indeed theoretically anything is possible.

So Quoted says reading TBV's "Integration for Idiots" is making his head hurt, strbuk knows exactly how he feels. Thanks for the nice plug.

Ahem is back, no doubt to the delight of millions.

Full Post with Comments...

Integration for Idiots, Part III: Adjacent Peaks

(The Perils of Two) Adjacent Peaks

Series by Ali and TBV

In Part I, we learned the effects of altering the left and right integration limits, and in Part II, we learned about background and background subtraction, both involving a single peak.

Here in Part III, we'll see some of the surprising results when you have more than one peak and they get close enough together.

Figure 11 shows the addition of another peak with identical o/oo value to our original peak )-27). They are positioned so that their tails just overlap. Although not perceptable to the naked eye, this has raised the left hand tail of our original peak slightly. This minor co-elution has resulted in a measured value of -27.4. The true value for this peak is -27.

Figure 12 shows a more significant co-elution. This has caused a measured value of -29. The true value for this peak is -27.

Figure 13 shows a significant co-elution. This has resulted in a measured value of -32.8. The true value for this peak is -27.

In Part IV, we'll see what can happen when there are three peaks (and you only think there are two).


Reminder: you can try scenarios yourself with our spreadsheet. (It's hours of Fun!)

Full Post with Comments...

Integration for Idiots, Part II: Background and Background Subtraction

Series by Ali and TBV

In Part I, we saw how selection of the left-right integration limits affects the computed and reported results of a peak with a known value.

Having looked at left and right, let's look at up and down.

Up is defined by the top of the peaks in question, so there is nothing to be done there. But down at the bottom, unlike the clean theoretical examples in Part I, there is in reality background noise, and we need to decide what to do about it.

Figure 6: Illustrates the addition of background noise to the peak. The background has been given a true o/oo of -50 (similar to that present during Floyds analysis). With good background removal, the measured value is -27. The true value for this peak is -27.

Figure 7: Illustrates the effect of incomplete background removal. The residual background in the peak results in a measurement of -30.9. The true value for this peak is -27.

Figure 8: Illustrates the effect of no background removal. The residual background in the peak results in a measurement of -38.6. The true value for this peak is -27.

Figure 9: Illustrates the addition of sloping background noise to the peak. The background has been given a true o/oo of -50 (similar to that present during Floyds analysis). With good background removal, the measured value is -27. The true value for this peak is -27.

Figure 10: Illustrates the effect of incomplete background removal. The residual background in the peak results in a measurement of -30.2. The true value for this peak is -27.

Therefore, we see clearly that decisions made for background subtraction have significant effects on the computed results, and that sloping backgrounds complicate matters making the background subtraction more difficult to select.

These complications are true in the simplest, clearest possible examples with peaks having known values.

In Part III, we'll look at the confusing effects of neighboring peaks.

Full Post with Comments...

Monday Roundup

Over the weekend, we've put up quite a bit of new material folks may not have noticed, so we'll add pointers here.

• Major release of documents (Friday)
• Continuing legal discussion on identification (Saturday)
• More documents (Saturday)
• Still more documents (Sunday)
• Tutorial on Integration (Sunday)
• Legislation to change Arbitration (Sunday)
  

News
AFP reports T-Mobile is considering giving up on cycling, mainly due to the Sinkewitz revelations. (tip from an emailer)

The CyclingNews, in a late update, says that Team T-Mobile denies that the communication giant is pulling its sponsorship.

The CyclingNews earlier reported that Patrik Sinkewitz says he didn't invent doping, we didn't think he had. And Jorg Jacksche has asked that his doping suspension be further reduced so he can race again even sooner. He feels his cooperation with authorities should be the ticket to that shorter penalty. In the PM Update the CyclingNews continues to reveal the Patrik Sinkewitz interview which may have far reaching effects on the cycling world. Sinkewtiz appears to have little conscience or remorse about his foray into the world of doping, though the moralistic tone of the CyclingNews piece seems a tad disingenuous as well:

The lack of guilt feelings or of understanding that he did wrong runs through the interview – he knew it was wrong, but did it anyway. "That's the way we cyclists have always handled it. I didn't think about it when I put the stuff on," he admitted. "But taking something in order to improve my performance was simply a part of my life."

The VeloNews writes that the Andrey Kaschechkin lawsuit could "rock the foundations" of the anti-doping movement and change cycling and how it is run forever:

Kashechkin's lawyer is Luc Misson, who co-defended Jean-Marc Bosman after the Belgian footballer took his team to the European Court of Justice and won over "restraint of trade" in 1995.

In essence, he believes that sports organizations, because they are run privately and are not public bodies, have no legal right to interfere in the lives of individuals.

"The Kashechkin case, as regards anti-doping, could be viewed in a similar vein as the Bosman ruling," said Misson. "It's a case of who wins loses."

He added: "If we lose, we will go to the court of appeal, then the Supreme Court of Appeal, then the European Court of Human Rights. And then we will be in a very good position. At the human-rights court it would lead to a (favorable) decision at a world, if not a European level.

Roanoke.com provides a litany of "liars" and says Floyd Landis is one of the few who has not fessed up, yet.

Pedal Magazine features an editorial by Landis arbitrator Patrice Brunet in which he advocates for tougher treatment of the accused athlete's entourage for encouraging and or facilitating doping in the first place. Brunet also suggests the possible criminalization of doping in Canada.

Blogs
Rant writes about the Andrey Kaschechkin human rights violation case which is due to be in court in Liege tomorrow. Kaschechkin claims that WADA violated his human rights with an out of competition doping test this past summer, and the court action may have wide ranging implications for the ADAs as well as the athletes they test.

GMR posts the response that he got from the letter he wrote to his representative David Dreier concerning the Landis case:

You may be interested to know that H. R. 2829, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2008, provides $9.6 million for the United States Anti-Doping Agency for anti-doping activities and the $1.7 million for the United States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping Agency H.R. 2829 passed the House on June 28, by a vote of 240 to 179, without my support. This legislation currently awaits consideration in the Senate.

Full Post with Comments...

Too Late For Landis...

Too Late For Landis:
Arbitration Landscape May Change In U.S.

Bill Hue

We missed this release from Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s Office in July;

“Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) today both introduced comprehensive legislation in the Senate and House, respectively, to ensure Americans are not forced into mandatory arbitration agreements to resolve employment, consumer, franchise or civil rights disputes. The bicameral Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 amends the Federal Arbitration Act to make pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes unenforceable.

[MORE]

“Arbitration can be a fair and efficient way to handle disputes, but only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties,” Feingold said. “People from all walks of life – employees, investors, homeowners, those enrolled in HMOs, credit card holders, and other consumers – often find themselves strong-armed into mandatory arbitration agreements. We need to make sure that all Americans can still have their day in court.”

"For consumers, mandatory arbitration is an albatross. And despite what companies may say, it' is not more affordable than going to court, should not require consumers to travel to an appointed location for arbitration, should not contain hidden costs, should not threaten complainants with a 'loser pays' proposition to discourage them, should not shorten the notification period, or block class action status, as some clauses do," said Congressman Hank Johnson.

"Consumers Union thanks Senator Feingold and Congressman Johnson for leading the charge to protect consumers from mandatory binding arbitration. In doing so, we will be restoring justice and fairness to the system and putting consumers on a more even playing field in disputes with far more powerful corporate interests," said Sally Greenberg, Senior Product Safety Counsel for Consumers Union.

"With mandatory pre-dispute arbitration privatizing our civil justice system - a system we fought a revolution for - fairness in the marketplace is undermined and consumers are denied any remedy for fraud and deception," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook.

Arbitration is billed as an inexpensive alternative to civil lawsuits. The opposite, however, is often the case. Filing fees and other expenses in arbitration can result in much higher costs for the parties than civil actions. Attorneys’ fees, whether hourly or based on a contingency, are similar regardless of forum.

The Feingold-Johnson bill is supported by a host of consumer advocate organizations including Consumers Union, Public Citizen, American Association for Justice, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings, Home Owners for Better Building, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Consumer Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the National Employment Lawyers Association and Public Justice.”

Feingold: "Consumers and employees have little bargaining power and are effectively forced to accept arbitration. This report (the result of an investigation into nearly 34,000 California cases conducted by the group's Congress Watch division, revealing that buried in the fine print of a billing insert, employee handbook, health insurance plan or dealership or franchise agreement are clauses that waive one's right to access the courts, diverting cases to a costly private legal system) sheds new light on problems, and it should come as no surprise that arbitration firms who get paid by companies rule in their favor. One CA arbitration company ruled in favor of credit card companies in 94% of cases, which shows what consumers are up against.”

Feingold said that because public courts can reverse decisions in only the most egregious cases, arbitrators feel free to ignore the law undermining the statutory protections that Congress has so carefully provided for American workers, investors and consumers. Congress can stop companies from using their unequal bargaining power to force consumers into pre-dispute arbitration clauses in contracts.

Feingold said his bill, which has Sen. Richard Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois as a co-sponsor and is sponsored in the House by Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, will allow an arbitration selection to made only after a dispute arises, not as a pre-condition to the original agreement, which a consumer cannot refuse if they want the credit card.

"The bill would make arbitration more fair and represents a chance to restore fairness into system," Feingold said.

Joan Claybrook, president of PC, and Laura MacCleery, PC's Congress Watch division director, provided narrative to the hard evidence they collected from California, the only state that mandates that data on mandatory binding arbitration be made available to the public showing that about 96 percent of such cases are won by companies who funnel millions of dollars to private arbitration firms who, not surprisingly, rule in their favor.

According to PC's Website, the report focuses particularly on predatory practices in California, the only state that requires arbitrators to publicly disclose information about their practices. The findings, nonetheless, provide a snapshot of how arbitration traps consumers throughout the country in unfair, secret proceedings where for-profit arbitrators make the rules.

MacCleery said Feingolds bill would not just apply to credit card companies but to all binding mandatory arbitration contracts. She closed her comments by saying that she considers the law as having gone astray, based on a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Federal Arbitration Act which said a consumer can waive the right to court when they sign a contract that provides for binding mandatory arbitration. "We think this is a miscarriage of justice and will be corrected by the bill," she said

USA Cycling and USADA will definitely have to look at the mandatory arbitration clause each cyclist agrees to in taking out a license to ride professionally. That unilateral arbitration requirement is same kind of clause the proposed Act would make unenforceable.

For those of you comfortable in the notion that the right to jury trial and access to justice was so simply “abandoned” by Floyd Landis in the pursuit of his chosen employment, perhaps the knowledge that lawmakers might soon find such a notion abhorrent in the United States of America might give you some pause as to whether that requirement was actually in any way, fair.


[BACK FROM MAIN BODY]

Here is a link to an online letter you can send to your Senator or Congressman if you support the Act:

Online letter here.

Full Post with Comments...

Integration for Idiots, part I: limits

Integration for Idiots
Part I: Exploring integration limits

Series by Ali and TBV.

Integration is the process by which we get the carbon isotope ratios out of the IRMS peaks. The sample gets burned up into carbon dioxide, ionized, and detectors for the m=44 and m=45 ions determine how many of carbon 12 molecules vs. the number of carbon 13 molecules there are.

Because they are of slightly different mass, the heavier 13 comes through a before the 12, by a little bit, so the resulting peak is not completely symmetrical, but carries a lopsidedness dependent on the ratio of the carbons. As a result, you need to be careful where you start and stop counting molecules for determining the ration.

This is explained for smart people in the Meier-Augenstein paper starting in GDC 1101 at GDC 1107. It has this picture showing the offset:

Figure 0: Slight offsets in C13 and C12 arrival, from W-MA.

To explore integration, we've created a spreadsheet to make the following simplified examples that illustrate the issues. The spreadsheet is in the archive here, and you're invited to use it to play with values yourself, and to find any errors we've made in it.

Starting off with a well separated and perfectly formed peak, the following series of examples illustrates the sensitivity of the o/oo value to integration limits, background noise and interfering peaks. In part I, we're going to show the effects of changing left and right integration limits on the computed isotope (o/oo) ratio.

Figure 1: A normal peak with no interference from adjacent peaks. The true o/oo value is -27 and the measured value (indicated on the graph) is also -27.

Figure 2: The effect of moving the left hand integration limit in. The measured value is now -28.9. The true value for this peak is still -27.

Figure 3: Keep moving the left hand integration limit further in, and the computed value is now -33.3. The true value for this peak is still -27.

Figure 4: The effect of moving the right hand integration limit in. The measured value is now -25.7. The true value for this peak is still -27.

Figure 5: Keep moving the right hand integration limit in and the measured value is now -22.2. The true value for this peak is still -27.

In showing this, we are not saying or suggesting anybody or anything is doing anything wrong of this sort in the tests. The automatic selection of limits has the same set of issues. We're just showing the kinds of effect changing the limits does have on computed results.

Next in Part II, background and background subtraction.

Full Post with Comments...

More Docs, alternate B samples

Some more; consolidated index in the main post on this series of released documents.

Ex 86 - April testing of 825428 - LNDD 824 (Landis from 28-Jul)
Ex 87 - April testing of 825429 - LNDD 922 (Landis from 22-Jul)
Ex 89 - April testing of 825423 - LNDD 1193 (Aguilera control)
Ex 90 - April testing of 825425 - LNDD 1207 (Landis from 14-Jul)
Ex 92 - April testing of 993865 - LNDD 1398 (Landis from 3-Jul)
Ex 93 - April testing of 825427 - LNDD 1492 (Aguilera control)

We don't see why Ex 92 on LNDD 1488 gives no value reported for the 5aA -pdiol. There are plenty of peaks in the region on LNDD 1466/1467, including one at 1358s reading -28.28 (w/pdiol -26.94 == -1.34). Was there a peak identification problem or a perception of matrix interference? If it's matrix interference, what criteria were used to decide that had happened?

Also, on Ex 92, why was peak 3 at 881 selected as the 5aAC IS instead of peak 2 at 873, when the SOP says to adjust the pressure to the IS is at 870s. Similarly, looking at Ex 86, we don't see how on LNDD 894/895, "peak 10" at 882s was selected as the 5aAC instead of "peak 9" at 874.3s, or why the two peaks following the "peak 22" "pdiol" were not identified and computed.

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

News
The Gainesville Sun interviews Professor Bruce Goldberger who testified at the Landis vs USADA hearings in May and is more than vocal in his criticism of the lab which determined that Landis had exogenous testosterone in his urine sample collected after Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France. Goldberger has remained silent since the end of the hearings, but feels now is the time to make some noise and states that the French scientists' work at the LNDD was "inexcusable" and "garbage.". Still, he will likely not be involved in the CAS appeal:

Landis has decided to appeal his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sports, the world's top sports court in the Swiss city of Lausanne. Goldberger, who probably won't be involved in the appeal because it concerns the second test, said he definitely thinks Landis should take the time and expense to make the appeal. That said, Landis' reputation has already been sullied beyond repair, Goldberger said.
"In this case, bad science has ruined the career of Floyd Landis," he said. "The damage has been done."

The CyclingNews has more today from a published interview with former T-Mobile rider Patrik Sinkewitz who gives details of his career as a PED using cyclist. The VeloNews covers the same story.

The San Francisco Chronicle's Scott Ostler tells Martina Hingis that she's a baby for not fighting substance abuse allegations, but then says Floyd Landis is weasely for declaring his innocence loudly and fighting on. Huh?

The Boston Globe reviews "Steroid Nation" a book about PEDs in and out of professional sports, in which Floyd Landis makes what is probably an inevitable appearance.

Mike Lupica of the Daily News, in a piece largely about Isiah Thomas in denial, thinks Martina Hingis sounded just like Floyd Landis did at first in trying to make excuses for herself and her positive test for cocaine.


Blogs
LumgoweeLand hates cheating and thinks we, as Americans, are better than that. The Floyd Landis scandal made him feel embarrassed to be from this country.

Velo Swiss had a late night with LSU, but takes some training advice from Floyd Landis to heart.

Thought for the Day

It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice. There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia.

--Frank Zappa--

Full Post with Comments...

More Documents

There are more documents in the archive, and the consolidated index is in the updated main post. Here's what is new in this batch. It's correspondence, pre-trial conferences, and related matters.

[MORE]


4-Apr-2007 transcript of conference over B sample admissability and representative exclusion.
Ex 50 27-Dec letter from USADA saying they will test other samples on Jan 8.
Ex 51 29-Dec letter from Suh saying additional testing is illegal.
Ex 52 2-Jan letter from Suh reiterating illegality, and calling it destruction of evidence.
Ex 53 3-Jan letter from USADA saying offices were closed, and asking who is counsel?
Ex 54 3-Jan letter from Suh threatening US Federal suit over testing.
Ex 55 4-Jan letter from USADA saying Federal court would have no jurisdiction, but offers delay.
Ex 56 4-Jan letter from USADA agrees to delay.
Ex 57 13 page position paper from USADA following 10-Jan conference, with 47 pages of exhibits.
Ex 75 30-Apr Dunn declaration about April testing.
Ex 76 30-Apr Catlin declaration about Paul Scott and behavior by reps during B testing.
Ex 77 30-Apr Aquilera declaration describing B sample testing and observation.
Ex 78 24-Apr call transcript excerpt about representative exclusion.
Ex 79 Copy of Westin v. Union arb decision, apparently supporting USADA's "did it to yourself" position.
Ex 80 Copy of Union v. Honeywell, where court declines to review arb decision.
Ex 81 Copy of City v. Union arb decision,
Ex 82 Copy of County v. Teamsters arb decision

Full Post with Comments...

Legal Discussion Continues, part II

Continuing the previous discussion, Larry and M are cogitating over the recent document release, and Larry is trying to get at the identification issue one more time.

TBV is hoping to have a major look this week with a new collaborator working over integration issues, including contaminated peaks, so keep that in mind.

Larry wrote (in part):

I think we now have the definitive statement of USADA's final position on how FL's S17 IRMS peaks were identified by LNDD. You and I, and everyone else who is interested, needs to go to p. 46, Section H, at the following link:

USADA's Final Word

This link is to USADA's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. I need to read this more carefully, but it appears that:

1. FL's S17 IRMS peaks were identified at LNDD (a) by using RTs or RRTs to identify the IRMS peak representing the internal standard 5aA-AC, (b) then counting large IRMS peaks to the right of the internal standard peak and idenfifying each peak by reference to the large peaks identified in the GC/MS test.

2. So, probably the best way to characterize LNDD's criteria here is not to call it "pattern matching", but "large peak counting".

M, we can go on with this discussion a while longer if you like, but I have another idea. Why don't you and I take this opportunity to "rebrief" our respective positions, using the new material available here and all of the stuff we've learned over the past few weeks. Here's my proposal:

1. You and I would "stipulate" that the method used at LNDD to identify IRMS peaks is the one described in the USADA document cited above. We might agree in advance to a short statement of the facts in the case, so we wouldn't have to repeat that in our briefs.

2. Then each of us would write a relatively short brief setting forth our respective positions. The brief would be limited to whether the LNDD's IRMS identification of FL's S17 sample is an ISL departure sufficient to overturn the FL doping finding. We'd agree in advance to keep our briefs under a specified word limit.

3. I would propose to write my brief here on TBV, in stages, so that everyone could comment. I'd reserve the right to make the final edits.

4. We could limit these briefs to whether there was an ISL violation. This way, we wouldn't have to address the burden shifting kinds of arguments we'd have to make on causation, should the ISL departure be established. We could save THAT argument for later.

5. We'd each write out briefs in as non-formal way as our training will allow. We'd keep the tone friendly and respectful.

M wrote (in the document release comments):

I'm making a vow to take a break from reading all the exhibits.

and TBV is personally giving him permission to take a break, at least for Saturday :-).

Mr. Idiot tweaks us not to belabor this much more:

Two things:

First, M wrote:
"I tend to agree that the blank urine shouldn't be used as a GC-IRMS RT reference material (spiked urine sample) for the same reason I don't think that the Cal Mix Acetate even if it had contained all the metabolites should or could be used as an IRMS reference sample. Since there are no mass spectra, if you include all the metabolites, some of them are so close together that you can't be sure if you've identified them correctly by retention times alone in your Cal Mix."

Sure you can sure, as long as the chromatographic conditions are the same. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done (or at least one of the ways)?

Second, before you guys do a whole lot more work, can one of you step back and remind me why you are arguing this out? TbV sort of started this discussion by saying that there was a violation of TD2003IDCR. Are you still arguing that fairly narrow (although by no means unimportant) legal issue, trying to decide whether there should have been a burden flip or not?

OR, Larry, in trying to show the unreliability of the IRMS peak identification, are you suggesting the (stronger) point that the peaks themselves really are misidentified? As in, "There is no 5A in the one labeled 5A, or 5B in the one labeled 5B" ?

OR, am I missing something altogether and this is really about the possibility of CONTAMINATION of the peaks.

Ms favorite DP poster, OMJ, has called this peak identification argument a red herring. And although I don't ultimately agree with OMJ, I think he's right about this (unless it is a matter of establishing the burden flip, as TbV originally suggested). The real issue is contamination of the peak(s), isn't it?

Full Post with Comments...

Saturday Roundup

News
The CyclingNews is full of doping stories and court actions today with everything ranging from the Kashechkin human right violation lawsuit to Patrik Sinkewitz testifying that stored blood had to be discarded due to clotting.

Sherdog.com posts a story about Howard Jacobs latest fight against doping allegations and an athlete with the all too familiar chain of custody issue central to his case.

SF Chronicle's snarky Scott Ostler, who lives near TBV, digs into Hingis, finishing:

By fighting - or having your attorneys fight - you might prevent the bottom line of your legacy from reading: "Busted and banned."

And since you discovered that the testing system is either corrupt or dangerously inept, by letting the evil testers off the hook you leave the door open for other players to be framed and wrongly defamed. Some of them won't have the money to fight back.

By the way, I can guess what comes next: Your withering scorn for the media and fans who don't buy your story.

FYI, Martina, many of us are sick of the Marion Jones/Floyd Landis/Rafael Palmeiro bluster-and-bombast defense. It's pathetic, it's weasel-ly, and it goes down like rancid castor oil.

We don't get it. First he bitches that Martina's a wuss who should fight, then he lays into Landis for doing what he seems to say Hingis ought to do instead of lay down like a dog.

Blogs
Larry Brown Sports writes about Martina Hingis, and as in seemingly all high profile sports/doping stories now there is the requisite Floyd Landis reference.

Cebu Sports Blog presents a well written, beautifully illustrated post, worth a visit for that alone. It reveals yet another sports fan who is disillusioned and discouraged by perhaps having put too much faith in another human being, and who now has to decide whom to believe, listing the usual suspects and now Hingis.

Full Post with Comments...

Major Release of Hearing Documents

Landis has provided and we have archived what is hoped to be a complete collection of machine readable exhibits and other filings from the hearing. If there are things that appear to be missing, ask and we'll try to do more digging. Some things that are not present don't exist in digital form, and we're in no position to demand they be scanned for our benefit.

We thank Landis and his team for carrying through on their pledge of openness in the process. It was work to collect these materials and make them available to the public.

As others look and find out what things are, please post comments that will help others navigate, thanks!

• Raw downloads, best place to start browsing
  
• Main page, useless until indexed.

• A zip file of everything (90+M) NOW INCOMPLETE
  

Some ones of interest, especially to M and Larry, who have been asking:

• Meier-Augenstein's powerpoint.
• Landis' closing powerpoint
• USADA's closing presentation
• Landis' post-hearing proposed findings
• USADA's post-hearing proposed findings

Various Documents

ExhibitlisttoUSADAResponseBrief - an index to exhibits, some of which aren't present in this collection.

USADAPRE-TRIALRESPONSEBRIEF... - another index to exhibits, some of which aren't present, some of which aren't present here

115-134 exhibit list. TBV post about Landis on DPF is ex 118.

RespondentWitnessList - summary of Landis witnesses and proffered testimony.

USADAWitnessDesignation - summary of USADA witnesses and proffered testimony.

ViolationofPanelsOrders - 9-May letter from HRO complaining about Landis violating Panel orders regarding an article by Hiltzik about Campbells pre-hearing dissent.

MotionToStrikeInLimine - Landis motion, including 16-0ct-2006 discovery request to USADA.

RespondentsSupplementalWitnessList - adds more witnesses not called.

RespondentsSupplementalPre-TrialBrief

preventadmission - USADA motion to prevent introduction of Landis' medical condition as a defense.

Base Exhibits

Exhibit A -- 4-May letter from HRO to Suh requesting additional discovery material from Landis.

4-Apr-2007 transcript of conference over B sample admissibility and representative exclusion.
Ex 50 27-Dec letter from USADA saying they will test other samples on Jan 8.
Ex 51 29-Dec letter from Suh saying additional testing is illegal.
Ex 52 2-Jan letter from Suh reiterating illegality, and calling it destruction of evidence.
Ex 53 3-Jan letter from USADA saying offices were closed, and asking who is counsel?
Ex 54 3-Jan letter from Suh threatening US Federal suit over testing.
Ex 55 4-Jan letter from USADA saying Federal court would have no jurisdiction, but offers delay.
Ex 56 4-Jan letter from USADA agrees to delay.
Ex 57 13 page position paper from USADA following 10-Jan conference, with 47 pages of exhibits.
Ex 75 30-Apr Dunn declaration about April testing.
Ex 76 30-Apr Catlin declaration about Paul Scott and behavior by reps during B testing.
Ex 77 30-Apr Aquilera declaration describing B sample testing and observation.
Ex 78 24-Apr call transcript excerpt about representative exclusion.
Ex 79 Copy of Westin v. Union arb decision, apparently supporting USADA's "did it to yourself" position.
Ex 80 Copy of Union v. Honeywell, where court declines to review arb decision.
Ex 81 Copy of City v. Union arb decision,
Ex 82 Copy of County v. Teamsters arb decision

Ex 84 - April testing of 825424 - LNDD 633 (Landis from 23-Jul) on the IsoPrime2. LNDD 705 is the Landis F3 IRMS, with 17 identified peaks. It doesn't look particularly clean.
Ex 85 - April testing of 825426 - LNDD 730 (Aguilera control)
Ex 86 - April testing of 825428 - LNDD 824 (Landis from 18-Jul)
Ex 87 - April testing of 825429 - LNDD 922 (Landis from 22-Jul)
Ex 88 - April testing of 993855 - LNDD 1015 (Landis from 13-Jul)
Ex 89 - April testing of 825423- LNDD 1193 (Aguilera control)
Ex 90 - April testing of 825425 - LNDD 1207 (Landis from 14-Jul)
Ex 92 - April testing of 993865 - LNDD 1398 (Landis from 3-Jul)
Ex 93 - April testing of 825427 - LNDD 1492, the ocean blue, (Aguilera control)

Ex 95 - 19-Mar-2007 HRO letter complaining Suh hasn't presented all defenses.
Ex 96 - CAS decision on FILA v Aanes.
Ex 97 - CAS decision on FILA v Leipold
Ex 98 - 1-0May-2007 from UCI/Gripper to Young about case statistics.
Ex 99 - ISL
Ex 100 - CAS decision, Cycling Australia v. French; McLaren chair.
Ex 101 - 22-Feb-2007 Landis hearing transcript, USADA 1562

Ex 106 - Landis Doping Control forms sample 3-Jul-2006 995462, USADA 1590; 11-Jul sample 994203; 13-Jul sample 994277; 14-Jul sample 994276; 18-Jul sample 994075; 22-Jul sample 994080; 23-Jul sample 994171
Ex 107 - "Table 3", plus scatter plots of various calibration results over 2006 and2007. Looks like a USADA pitch to show everything was all-right.

"Table 3" from Ex 107

Ex 108 - Blank doping control form.
Ex 109 - AAA award, USADA v. Tammy Thomas; Brunet on panel.

GDC Exhibits

The GDC exhibits DO contain relatively clear chromatograms of some of the reprocessing on 5-May-2007.

GDC00871 - appears to be screenshots of backups.
GDC00881 - ditto.
GDC00891 - ditto
GDC00901 - mostly ditto, but a reanalysis on 4/7/07 of a 23/7/06 mix cal acetate with CG and 2/1 trace, legible.
GDC00911 - Looks like continuation of 6-Jul-06 calibration runs, reprinted in Apr 07 as part of the reprocessing. Some are auto, some are zero subtracted, etc.

GDC 921-980 appear to be missing.

GDC00981 - more reprocessing.
GDC00991 - more reprocessing.
GDC01001 - more reprocessing, stability runs.
GDC01011 - more stability, linearity, and CIR values.
GDC01021 - more CIR values, one larger but badly scanned IRMS CG
GDC01031 - more CIR values
GDC01041 - more CIR values
GDC01051 - some 44/45 traces; 1056 starts log files.
GDC01061 - logfiles; 1075-1079 is a description of reprocessing.
GDC01080 - Lim's power reports from the tour, stage by stage.
GDC01091 - More power reports. S15 1091, S16 1092, S17 1093; 1098 Shackleton paper.
GDC01101 - Shackleton cont'd; 1107 WM-A overview paper
GDC01111 - WM-A paper con't
GDC01121 - WM-A paper con't, Hall/Barth/Kalin paper
GDC01131 - Hall con't; WM-A paper about split systems; 1140 Kazlauskas et. al paper start.
GDC01141 - Kazlauskas con't.
GDC01151 - Kazlauskas con't; Brenna paper on quantization errors, also explaining background issues.
GDC01161 - Brenna con't.

I think that's everything currently in the archive except the CV's of various people, which are obvious.

If anyone finds things with specific interest or import, please share the observations.

TBV

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Roundup

Landis has released exhibits and documents from the hearing. We've gotten them into the archive, and started to index them. This ought to help answer some of the questions that have been floating around out of ignorance because the documents weren't available.

News
The CyclingNews reports that no evidence was found linking Jan Ullrich to systematic doping activity at the Freiberg clinic in Germany yesterday. The VeloNews notes the same results from the raid which had sought evidence that Jan Ullrich had used the clinic for his alleged doping program.

Bicycling briefly debates whether or not it's a good thing for elite cyclists movements to be monitored by GPS devices as part of an anti doping program.

The Toledo Free Press talks about societal pressures to win at all costs, and how many athletes think the gamble they take when they cheat is worth the eventual price they may have to pay.


Blogs
Rant looks at Hingis' retirement over cocaine allegations, and thinks it reveals some truths about doping charges. He also looks at Saugy's claim that, “47 out of 189 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO,” and wonders how, where and why he would have acquired data to make such a claim.

The Big Lead snarks on Hingis, with passing dis on Landis. Comments center on discussion of how "hot" Hingis is or isn't.

Larry Brown Sports does much the same with Hingis and Landis.

Karen's PR Blog can't believe athletes, like Hingis (and Landis) are still denying, denying, denying.

Full Post with Comments...

USADA refs in comments

In some of the discussions, it might be helpful to have links to the cited USADA pages.

Each page is available in PDF and Image form at the archive. You might want to favorite/bookmark that location.

To insert a link to a page in a comment, copy the link from the archive, insert text like this, removing the underscores, and paste in the link URL:

<_a_href=_LINK FROM ARCHIVE_> USADA nnn<_/_a_>

like this: USADA 149

Full Post with Comments...

Thursday Roundup

News
Fox News reports tennis player Martina Hingis is retiring following a positive test for cocaine at Wimbledon. She says she had a private test done that was negative, but is unwilling to take two years at age 27 to fight the charges. She'd been in a second-act after a long layoff early in her career, and doesn't think she has the motivation to do it again.

The VeloNews reports that a University clinic and two doctors residences in the Freiberg area of Germany has been searched by police in the continuing investigation of doping at T-Mobile. This could just be the beginning of problems facing the doctors and the clinic:

Germany is due to implement a new law on November 1 (today) aimed at battling against doping in sport. It includes provision for a prison sentence of up to 10 years for those involved in the supply of doping products

The CyclingNews quotes sources within the WADA accredited lab in Lausanne who say that despite the negative publicity of the Landis affair in 2006 and the UCI "pledge" there was still widespread doping at the 2007 Tour de France. Lab director Martial Saugy cites EPO, testosterone, and especially HGH use, but none of the samples were found to be at a levels high enough to constitue a positive:

The director of the WADA-accredited Swiss Laboratory for Analysis of Doping in Lausanne, Switzerland, has told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws that he believed there was still widespread doping in the Tour de France this year. "47 out of 189 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO," Martial Saugy alleged. "We have been able to show this from the samples taken at the health controls."

Still, Saugy added that these test results did not fulfil the requirements to be declared as 'positive'. "It is appalling, but we find so many test results that undoubtedly point to manipulation," he continued. "But there is a big difference between a suspicious sample and one that can be declared positive."

There are also further details on the Freiberg clinic raids in Germany that took place yesterday.

Bloomberg posts comments from outgoing WADA president Dick Pound who spoke recently in London. He states that doping continues to increase in sports due to the governing bodies who are "drifting along" and taking too little action. Pound predictably saved his harshest criticism for cycling:

"They reaped as they sowed,'' said Pound."They let it happen and now they have to try to get rid of it.''

The Times Online presents a first for even marginally Floyd Landis related posts, an article about snow skiing. A new device called the ski-mojo sure sounds like performance enhancement to us, but do we really want to take all the fun out of suffering on the slopes?


The NY Times writes that USA Track and Field has banned ipods and other similar devices not just for safety reasons. Can "Badlands" really be considered a PED?

Blogs
Mike Cass read an article about the uneven justice meted out over doping offenses throughout the sports world and feels that baseball players suffer far too few consequences for their action in comparison to cyclists accused of doping.

Go Faster Jim is a bit dubious about the announcement coming out of Lausanne this morning that many riders doped at the Tour de France this year. He wonders if someone merely wants to see his name in print, and cites some in the Landis case who he feels were seeking publicity.

Phekimian has posted more pics on Flickr of Floyd Landis at a recent LA Triathlon Club dinner. Nice shots.

Full Post with Comments...