Better Late Than Never, Dept.

Oops, we just looked in our junk mail folder, and found a pointer to the Fat Cyclist's Fake News Service coverage of Peirero's Yellow Jersey ceremony. Sorry it took so long to link!

It's worth the wait, really. Don't know how this could have slipped our minds:

News Flash! Pereiro Crowned 2006 Tour de France Champ!

- Fat Cyclist

Full Post with Comments...

SoCal Fires

There were some annoying rumours earlier on Weds that Landis' house was a victim of one of the fires burning in Southern California. It's not true, there is nothing immediately near or threatening Murrieta. The Palomar training climb and the location where the "hip incident" happened are in danger, but no one has been riding near them to look.

An emailer did send us some pictures of the vicinity, suggesting an air quality that is not consistent with good training -- unless one is anticipating the atmospheric conditions near Beijing.

Not your usual smog.

But far enough in the distance not to be considered threatening.

Schools remained open. No "Fire Days" built into the schedule in California.

Full Post with Comments...

Wednesday Roundup

News
The NY Times writes about the results of yesterday's doping summit in Paris where there was nothing but praise for the biological passport program to be instituted for the 2008 cycling season. Dick Pound, outgoing president of WADA, is convinced cycling needs to do something to curb doping and save itself:

“I think the cycling federation looked into the abyss last year, after the second consecutive nightmare in the Tour de France, and saw the sponsors leaving and saw that they were looking at extinction if they didn’t do something immediately,” Pound said yesterday from Paris. “Now we finally have a live federation that is committed to making a big change. They are doing something to save themselves.”

Don Catlin, now head of WADA's Anti-Doping Research Institute, expressed some reservations about the program, though he feels it is a step in the right direction:

Don Catlin, head of the Anti-Doping Research Institute and part of WADA’s Health, Medical and Research Committee, said that thousands of biomarkers could be monitored; determining which ones to analyze is one of the program’s many mysteries.

The VeloNews posts a conversation with the UCI's Anne Gripper at the conclusion of this week's anti-doping summit in Paris.. She describes the "biological passport" program:

It's really a series of tests that enable us to make a determination as to the likelihood of doping based on that rider's individual profile. So rather than comparing one single sample to a population norm, we're comparing a range of samples to an athlete's expected profile. So it gives us a lot greater sensitivity, enabling us to determine that this rider is likely to be doing something that manipulates their blood, or likely to be doing something that relates to steroid use. We may not actually be able to say what it is, whether it's autologous blood transfusions or micro-dosing with EPO, but what it will show is that this rider is highly likely to have been doing something illegal. So it's a whole new approach; it's using that forensic approach, assessing evidence to the point where you believe you've got a quality set of data that can take us to the use or attempted use into doping

Another discussion at the conference was the need to accurately determine the whereabouts of riders for out of competition testing. Team Slipstream will issue Blackberries to all of its riders which will have GPS capabilities allowing the movements of riders to be monitored.

The VeloNews Wednesday Mailbag is full of comment on bio passports, anti-doping czars, the LNDD, and more.

Bicycling's La Scene also reports on the anti-doping summit completed yesterday in Paris. The conclusions reached by the attending agencies are that a bio passport, or baseline profile, will be required for each rider, and a new system will be devised to keep track of the whereabouts of riders in order to facilitate out of competition testing. Cost may however be a stumbling block and details of the new programs need to be worked out.

YAHOOSport UK posts a preview of the proposed 2008 Tour de France route which will be announced tomorrow, and mentions that anyone who participates should have a "biological passport". The piece mentions in passing that Floyd Landis was stripped of his 2006 TdF championship in September, but fails to note the Landis appeal to the CAS.

Bike Radar.com posts an item about the just completed doping summit in Paris and uses some "interesting" adjectives and syntax to describe the Floyd Landis saga, the misspellings are theirs:

Cycling is in the midst of a massive spring cleaning operation following two years of disastrous doping stories that have tainted the sport and affected most notably the sport's blue riband event, the Tour de France. Last year the event was hit by a positive doping test submitted by its initial victor Floyd Landis, destroying the myth of his miraculous recovery from a pitiful day in the mountains to a triumphant resurrection the next day that launched him to victory.

The Daily Princetonian wants to know where all the "Michael Jordans" have gone and asserts that the cheaters, such as Floyd Landis, are not only inappropriate role models for kids but are also taking their future opportunities in sport from them.

Blogs
Rant surmises that the UCI will test and retest Iban Mayo's disputed "B" sample until it gets the results it wants. McCarthyism is alive and well.

The Nashville Cyclist read "The Greatest Beatdowns in History" on ESPN's Page 2 and thinks that IF Floyd Landis had not tested positive after the 2006 TdF his name would have appeared on the list for the ride he did on Stage 17 of the Tour.

Say Hi clears up some confusion about Floyd Landis and his choice of careers.

Racejunkie discusses the fact that the UCI wants to "shop around" until they get just what they want. Gotta love those long vacations.

The Boulder Report's Joe Lindsey is wondering, what with the increasingly odd case of Iban Mayo and the Floyd Landis affair, if the current anti-doping system passes the smell test:

We – and athletes – need to have resolution on a test in much less than three months, or a verdict – in Landis’ case – in much less than a year. The whole sorry Mayo situation doesn’t necessarily point to a way out of the mess as much as it does a need for one. As of this writing, most of the stakeholders in cycling just finished a summit in Paris to address that very question, and everyone emerged saying the right things (it appears that the UCI even patched up its relationship with the Tour de France). That no riders are present is a huge red flag that this may not produce the badly needed solution to the problem, but there’s some hope yet. The question is whether a modest rise indicates a recovery for anti-doping in all sports, or just the last bounce of a dead cat.

PJ has been on the road and is catching up. Wonder if/when we will all be back in the piazza again soon awaiting more smoke.

Forums
Apparently Floyd Landis is speaking at a triathlon club meeting tonight. No details on where this is othet than the LA area or what it involves.

From an emailer, thanks!:

Floyd is talking at a meeting of the Los Angeles Triathlon Club at the Proud Bird restaurant near LAX. Non members can get in at the door for $40. Not sure if you must be accompanyed by a member; the e-mails I received are unclear on that point. The schedule is as follows:
6:00P - doors open7:00P - dinner7:30P - Floyd speaketh

Full Post with Comments...

Commenter "M": Majority was correct

Landis Case Review by Commenter "M"

1. Introduction
2. The Arbitration Decision
3. Burden of Proof
4. T/E Ratio Test
5. IRMS Test
6. Amory testimony
7. Concluding Remarks

1. Introduction

I was invited by Bill Hue to present the case supporting the majority decision. Unfortunately, I can only go into a few of the issues raised by the parties. As TBV has observed, it appears that the key legal issue is whether the IRMS retention times violated the applicable technical standards.

I was trained as a lawyer, although I haven’t practiced for a long time. I also have training in statistics and economics, but no biological sciences training whatsoever. So understanding the science here was difficult and possibly imperfect. I read large portions of the transcript (but not all), some of the legal briefs that where available, and tried to understand the exhibits. But I certainly might have missed something.

[MORE]


2. The Arbitration Panel’s Finding of Doping.

USADA charged Landis with using a prohibited substance, artificial testosterone, based on 2 test results from his stage 17 urine samples: 1) elevated testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E) ratios, and 2) IRMS tests showing artificial testosterone in his urine. Additionally, IRMS retests of Landis B samples from other stages were positive for artificial testosterone as well, even though no elevated T/E ratios had been found in the initial A samples. The IRMS test is a direct test, it can determine whether the testosterone is artificial. The T/E ratio test is indirect; elevated T/E ratios most likely result from doping, but could occur from other causes. The majority decision sustained the doping charge on the basis of the IRMS test results on stage 17, but found that the T/E test results were defective because the lab failed to “monitor” 3 ions as was required by one of the technical standards (IS). The majority found some other lab errors including at least one IS violation, but concluded that none of these impacted the IRMS test results.

The dissent agreed that the T/E tests violated the IS, but also found that the IRMS test was defective because of testimony that the T/E ratios and certain metabolytes did not behave as predicted by scientific studies, and because some labs used a more stringent criteria for finding exogenous testosterone. These defects however did not violate any technical standard. The dissent also argued that various and cumulative lab record keeping and other errors discredited all the test results including the IRMS test results.


3. Burden of Proof and Requirements for Finding a Doping Violation

A doping violation may be proved by any credible means including confessions or admissions, testimony, or more relevantly lab testing results. The anti-doping organization (here the US Cycling Federation and USADA, or “USADA” for short) has the overall burden of proof to show a doping violation to the “comfortable satisfaction” of the arbitrators. This is more than a “balance of the probabilities” (analogous to preponderance of the evidence in US civil trials), but less than beyond a reasonable doubt as in US criminal trials.

What do these differing burdens of proof mean? Some people have claimed that they cannot feel comfortable convicting Landis unless they are 99% to 100% sure. This is clearly not realistic or appropriate. We know that scientific tests have error; they give false positives and false negatives. I’ve read that doping tests give many more false negatives than positives. That’s why so many confessed dopers have never tested positive. In court cases, proof by a preponderance of the evidence the standard used in civil trials technically means only a 51% probability of assurance, although studies have shown that judges usually require something more like 55%, and jurors require even more. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction of a crime usually requires around 80% assurance by jurors up to a high of 95% for murder. So proof by a “comfortable satisfaction” of a doping violation should probably only require 70% to 80% assurance if that.

(See, Handbook of Jury Research)

3A. Presumption that scientific test results valid


Where a finding of doping is based on lab tests, both the A sample and B sample must test positive. In such cases, USADA is aided by the legal presumption that the WADA labs have conducted their scientific analyses in compliance with scientific standards, as laid out in the WADA International Standard for Laboratory Analysis (ISL), that is, the scientific results are valid. The athlete may rebut this presumption by showing a departure from a WADA international technical standard (IS). The athlete need only show such a departure by a “balance of the probabilities” (preponderance of the evidence). If such a departure is shown then the burden shifts back to USADA to prove that the departure did not “cause” the doping finding. It is unclear to me whether the burden of proof on USADA in this regard is the “balance of probabilities” or a “comfortable satisfaction”, but the majority decision seems to have adapted the “balance of probabilities” standard. If USADA can’t prove that the departure did not cause the doping finding, they lose.

The key point I would point out here is that the departure from an International Standard should be causally connected to the finding of doping, otherwise the doping finding should stand. As a general proposition the violation of technical rules or sloppy lab procedures should not invalidate the test results unless causally connected to those test results. I think this is a reasonable rule. We should not let off an otherwise guilty athlete as a prod to improve unrelated sloppy lab work. The remedy for sloppy lab work is the yearly testing during accreditation process or other administrative penalties, not letting off guilty athletes. The Landis majority decision seems to adopt this view in stating that the arbitration panel must “weigh the evidence” to determine whether an IS violation “affected” the finding of doping:

“Therefore, violations of the ISO 17025 or of WADA Technical Documents can be violations of the ISL for purposes of rebutting the initial presumption favouring the Lab that an AAF has been established. However, that of itself does not mean that the AAF does not amount to an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel must weigh the evidence to determine if the violation affected the AAF. If that is the case then the anti-doping rule violation may not have been made out at law.” (emphasis added)

If an IS violation is established it is not clear what sort of proof is required to show that the violation did not cause the finding of doping. In the Landaluce case before CAS, the majority decision found a violation of the IS mandating that the same person cannot perform the A sample test and the confirmatory B test. In that case the person performing the IRMS confirmation test, had done some minor work on the A test. This was said to be due to workload and understaffing. On its face this violation would seem to have little factual causal connection with the IRMS doping finding. It has more to do with the appearance of impartiality. The majority also found that UCI failed to show that this violation did not cause doping finding. The UCI presented no evidence to show that this violation did not cause the doping finding, but just argued that it didn’t. So it’s unclear what showing would be required. Is it sufficient to show that the B tests were performed up to standard and that there was no evidence of bias or impropriety? Or must one completely throw out the B and even the A tests because the same person worked on both tests, and prove the doping by other means. In nearly all cases this would be impossible. I would argue that the former is appropriate. The latter would let off an otherwise proven doper on a technicality and would undermine the confidence of non-doping athletes in the fairness of the system. It would be an incentive for others to dope to keep up with the dopers.

Assuming no IS violation is shown, what weight is to be given to other scientific evidence aimed at discrediting the doping finding? Landis presented evidence of other lab errors, evidence of alternative laboratory practices, alternative more stringent positivity criteria, and general scientific evidence suggesting that the tests results were inconsistent with doping (the Amory testimony). The WADA rules appear to bar the use of such evidence to rebut the presumption and the majority agreed. Article 18 reads:

“Compliance with the International Standards (as opposed to other alternative standards, practice or procedure) shall be sufficient to conclude that the procedures addressed by the International Standards were performed properly.”

The majority decision stated that an IS violation “is the only relevant evidence to determine if the Athlete’s attempt to rebut the presumption of Article 18 may be successful. Proving some other procedure, practice or alternative standard is of no consequence in rebutting the presumption favouring the Lab.”

On the other hand, assuming an IS violation is shown by the athlete, is other general scientific evidence not constituting an IS violation now generally admissible and relevant for the general purpose of discrediting the test methodology and results? The rules on this don’t seem to be clear. If USADA only presents evidence to show that the IS violation was not causally connected with the doping finding (as it might have in the Landaluce case), then I would argue that the scientific evidence should be limited to that issue. If USADA tries to show the doping violation by rehabilitating the test results or by other test results, then the permitted scientific evidence should be expanded to address those issues, and this might include general scientific challenges like the Amory testimony. So whether, and for what purpose, this additional evidence may be relevant will depend on the facts of the case. This appears to be an open question, and its possible a panel might permit general scientific evidence to attack the overall validity of the testing results. Campbell in his dissent seem to treat this type of evidence as relevant to discrediting the IRMS results even though he found no specific IS violation with respect to those results. I think he was wrong to do so.



3B. Are the WADA procedures unfair?

The arbitration rules and procedures reflect a compromise between cost, accuracy and speedy resolution on the one hand, and an athlete’s ability to contest a finding on the other. I don’t think that that line was drawn unreasonably. WADA scientists have developed scientific tests for the presence of doping compounds that take into account cost and the probability balance between false negatives and false positives. The WADA detailed technical standards reportedly resulted from the legalistic advocacy of USADA which sought to impose uniformity. I wonder whether this is an overly legalistic approach. Its possible that science involves too much variety and moves too fast for codified standards to give the answer in all cases.

The presumption of scientific validity is reasonable and removes the need to litigate the scientific validity of a test in every arbitration, which would be expensive and wasteful. There are limitations on the right to discovery in this arbitration, but the arbitrators seem to have the discretion to order additional discovery. This is typical of many if not most arbitrations. Again I think this is a reasonable limitation in the interest of expediting the hearing process. Discovery as a matter of right in civil court proceedings can be incredibly time consuming and costly. It is also possible that revealing too much scientific information publicly, e.g. the background testing and validation behind the tests, could aid dopers in devising ways around the test. Most employees fired for violating a drug policy, don’t enjoy anywhere near the contractual due process rights that the athletes do here. I do find the rigidity of the WADA strict liability rules at times unreasonable, and I think more discretion should be given in this respect. I’ve read that the WADA code was heavily influenced by the USADA’s legalistic, rule bound, and inflexible approach to achieve uniformity.
­­

4. The T/E Test Results

The T/E tests were thrown out because of an IS violation, i.e. three ions were not monitored in the confirmation tests as required by TD2003IDCR. I don’t really disagree with this, so the crucial issue will come down to the validity of the IRMS results discussed below. I did go through the T/E arguments and summarize them here for my own understanding. You can skip this if not interested.

The T/E ratios on the B samples were found to be 11 to 1, and those on the A sample 6 to 1. Both exceeded the 4 to 1 threshold for positivity, however only one ion was monitored. The majority decision (and dissent) found an IS violation of TD2003IDCR because the lab did not monitor 3 ions for identification purposes in their confirmation tests of the T/E ratios. The lab monitored only 1 ion, the m/z 432 ion, in both its screening tests and confirmation tests. USADA failed to show that this violation did not result in the doping finding, and accordingly the majority threw out the T/E results.

TD2003IDCR governs the identification of compounds and reads:

“The laboratory must establish criteria for identification of a compound. Examples of acceptable criteria are:
.....................................................
“In some cases it may be necessary to monitor selected ions to detect the substance at the Minimum Required Performance Limits. When selected ions are monitored, at least three diagnostic ions must be acquired.”

On the other hand TD2004EAAS governs testosterone testing and defines a threshold T/E ratio as follows:

The T/E value is given by the peak area or peak height ratio of testosterone and epitestosterone ......obtained by measuring the ion at m/z 432 by GC/MS analysis in a Single Ion Monitoring mode (SIM)..... The confirmation of the identity of any steroid reported with abnormal properties must be made (refer to technical document TD2003IDCR).”

TD2004EAAS specifies a specific ion, m/z 432, for testosterone testing, but only requires that 1 ion to be tested. Since this standard refers to TD2003IDCR for confirmation tests, the majority found that 3 ions were required for those tests. Was it “necessary” to monitor multiple “selected ions” in the confirmation tests? The majority “interprets” TD2003IDCR to mean this, but it’s not apparent to me on its face that that is the only reading. TD2003IDCR states that “in some cases it may be necessary” to use multiple “selected ions”. What was the evidence that this was such a case? The majority stated that if only 1 ion was required that the technical standards should have specified this with more “precision”. In requiring greater precision for the confirmation test, the majority decision was persuaded by Dr. Goldberger’s testimony that ion m/z 432 was contained in at least 10 substances other than testosterone and that it was “normal” practice to monitor 3 ions. I didn’t read any contrary testimony. USADA apparently argued that the lab’s single ion positivity criteria was documented for ISO inspection, and implicitly approved by ISO and since the ISL incorporated ISO standards, this approval meant that the labs positivity criteria met ISL standards. The majority’s reading took the position that the specific (IS) controlled over the general ISO certification.

Three ions were reportedly “acquired” in the tests but only 1 was “monitored” or analyzed. I wasn’t able to find any explanation from the testimony about why only 1 ion was monitored. Did the testers fail to follow known lab procedures, or did the lab and/or testers interpret the standards to only require 1 ion? I wasn’t able to find this out, but maybe I missed something. Campbell in his dissent rhetorically implies that if the lab couldn’t get the T/E test right, this is evidence that they couldn’t get the IRMS tests right. I think this is a pretty weak evidence entitled to little or no weight, since there is no causal nexus between the missing ion results and the validity of the IRMS tests. The IRMS results must be judged on their own.


5. The IRMS Test Results

The majority’s decision is based on the IRMS results showing artificial (“exogenous”) testosterone in both the A and B samples of Landis’ stage 17 urine sample. In addition, IRMS results showing exogenous testosterone in Landis B samples in other stages is offered as corroborating evidence. GC-IRMS testing isolates certain metabolites of testosterone, and then tests their carbon 13 to carbon 12 ratio to determine whether the source of the testosterone is artificial or natural (“endogenous”). If the measured ratio is sufficiently different, here “3 deltas”, from the ratio for natural testosterone, then a doping violation is found.

There seem to be 3 major challenges to these results: A) the metabolites were not correctly identified because retention times did not meet standards, B) the carbon ratios of those peaks were not correctly measured, C) other labs require the carbon ratios of at least 2 metabolites to exceed the 3 delta threshold.


5A. Retention times violated TD2003IDCR

Landis argued an IS violation in that the retention times (RTs) and relative retention times (RRTs) of the metabolites as measured by the GC-IRMS didn’t match closely enough to the respective RTs and RRTs measured by the GCMS as specified by the international standard TD2003IDCR, e.g. within .2 minutes or 1%. Consequently they claim that the metabolites were not adequately identified and any IRMS calculated carbon ratios were invalid.


TD2003IDCR reads in relevant part:

“The Laboratory must establish criteria for identification of a compound. Examples of acceptable criteria are:

Chromatographic separation

For capillary gas chromatography, the retention time (RT) of the analyte shall not differ by more than one percent or +/- 0.2 minutes (whichever is smaller) from that of the same substance in a spiked urine sample, Reference Collection sample, or Reference Material analyzed contemporaneously. In those cases where shifts in retention can be explained, for example by sample overload, the retention time criteria may be relaxed.”

Retention time (RT) is the time it takes for a specific analyte/metabolite to travel through the gas chromatographic (GC) apparatus until it is detected. RT can be measured from various starting points including the retention time of another known substance (“internal standard”, “chromatographic reference”). Relative retention time (RRT) is the ratio of the retention time of the analyte to the retention time of some other substance such as the internal standard. Different metabolites will have different RTs and different RRTs so in principal they can be distinguished and identified based on their RTs, although some different substances may have the same RTs making identification more difficult.

In general retention times for the same analyte performed on the same machine will vary depending on various GC factors, including the column, flow rate, column pressure, carrier gas, temperature, and dead volume. (Shimadzu website) So these factors need to be made and remain constant on the same machine for the retention times to always match within the limits. Retention times may also vary on different machines of the same type because the GC factors cannot always be made identical. Clearly retention times will also vary for different types of machines.

Landis’ expert Meier-Augenstein (“Meier”), testified that the retention times (RTs) of metabolites measured in the GCMS and the RTs of the same metabolites measured in the GC-IRMS varied by up to 8 minutes, and the RRTs varied by up to 7%. Meier appeared to measure the metabolite RTs from the 5a Androstanol, although I’m not absolutely sure about this. It’s not clear from the transcript how Meier calculated his RRTs. For example, did he adjust for the longer combustion time of the GC-IRMS. Landis argued that both the .2 minute standard and the 1% standard were violated, however Meier did concede that as between two different machines only RRT should be used as a basis for comparison. Meier also testified that he might expect RTs for the same analyte to vary by 1 to 2 minutes between different GC machines in his lab.

Both the majority and minority decisions take the position, based on the testimony of Brenna, that the 1% standard doesn’t apply to GC identifications made on different types of machines as in this case, but only to GC identifications made on the same machine. So there was no IS violation. The majority states that the RTs and RRTs when measured on each machine individually met the .2 minute and 1% standard.

Brenna testified that the IRMS process involves an additional combustion and drying processes which adds to the RTs of the analytes. He stated that accordingly neither the straight RTs nor RRTs could be compared between GCMS and GCIRMS. The majority decision characterized this additional time as “constant”. Some have argued that if that is the case, then in principal one can subtract out that constant time and thus make the RTs and RRTs comparable. However, there is little evidence on this issue and the majority decision seems to have mischaracterized it. Meier said that one must compare RTTs but said nothing about the time added by IRMS, or how such added time would affect the calculation of the RRT. He does not say whether he corrected for this additional time in calculating his RRTs. I wonder whether he wasn’t being deceptive by this omission. Brenna said that the added time would be “approximately” the same.

Brenna:

A,......“Because in the GC, molecules move through the GC
at a rate which is characteristic of each individual molecule, so a molecule that moves through the GC slowly will move through it at
that rate, and compared to a molecule that moves through the GC more quickly. So, and then when it emerges into this region here, all the molecules move through this region at approximately the same rate. So there is what we call "differential retention" here, but not here, and that has implications for calculating retention times and also relative retention times.”

“Q. So, for example, in your laboratory, would you expect the retention times for your GC to correspond with -- your GC/MS to correspond with your GC IRMS?
A. No. And we run GC/MS every day, and GC/C-IRMS every day, and we match our peaks 25 every day.
Q. And how about relative retention times?
A. No, for the reasons I've outlined.”

According to the testimony of Brenna (and Ayotte if I recall), identification of the substance can be achieved by matching their peaks against the known chromatographic standard which is identified by it’s retention time, as well as comparing those peaks to the peaks in the GCMS of the identical sample. Retention times may be used to aid in this matching, but don’t have to match within the 1% standard. So far, I have read no testimony or other commentary that explains why an accurate identification cannot be made on this basis. When I, with my untrained eye, look at the peaks of the respective chromatographs they match and map onto on another despite their RRTs being off by 4%. Violation of the 1% standard, even if applicable, doesn’t seem to prevent identification in this particular case. I suspect that the arbitrators were similarly persuaded. Seemingly knowledgeable scientific posters on Daily Peleton, especially “onemintjulep” and “rational head” explain why the visual match is clear. So far nobody has been able to examine the peak correspondence and explain specifically why those peaks don’t match. Meier did testify that in the general case one could have visually identical chromatographs where completely different substances were being measured. But in this case the same sample, with the same substances, was run through the two machines. So all major peaks had to be accounted for. The only way to account for all major peaks was to map the analytes in the GC-IRMS onto those identified in the GCMS. There appear to be no alternative mappings possible.

I did want to examine some additional arguments about the retention time arguments since these may come up in the CAS trial.

Several things stand out in reading TD2003IDCR.

a. Arguably the lab can establish other criteria than those specified in TD2003IDCR.

The 1% retention time standard is an “example” of “acceptable criteria”. . However, at least with respect to the three ion requirement, the majority read TC2003IDCR to be mandatory where it was found to apply, and to exclude alternative standards. I think this was a generally reasonable result in this case, since USADA did not really offer scientific evidence justifying an alternative “one ion” standard. However, I think it must be clearly shown by scientific evidence that the technical standard applies to facts of the case. In this regard, I think the arbitrators must rely on scientific testimony as to the meaning of the standard, and should not rely on their own “interpretation” of the language. I would have like to have seen testimony from those who drafted the technical standards whether the three ion requirement applied here.

In the case of the 1% standard I would like to see testimony that it was intended to even apply to GC-IRMS testing, before claiming it was mandatory. IRMS testing on a separate machine seems to present special problems for using retention times. I found an 1998 Olympic technical committee draft of the 1% standard and it was limited to specific substances not including those tested here. This raises the question whether the 1% standard evolved before IRMS testing.

b. The 1% standard may not apply to relative retention times RRT.

The 1% standard applies by its terms only to “retention time” (RT), a direct measurement, but not to “relative retention time” (RRT), a ratio. The majority decision seems to assume, at least for the sake of discussion, that it applies to “relative retention times” also. Again, how can arbitrators decide whether the term “retention time” incorporates “relative retention time” without scientific testimony. How can we assume that the specific 1% standard, as applied to retention time, should also be applicable to relative retention times without scientific testimony. The Shimadzu website explanations of relative retention time, that I’ve read, state that the error in RRT increases for an analyte that elutes farther from the reference standard.. This suggests that an accuracy standard applicable to straight retention times may not be applicable to relative retention time.

c. Even Meier in his own lab could not meet the 1% standard.

The 1% standard is not absolute; it may be relaxed where shifts in retention time can be explained. In this case not only were different types of GC procedures used, GCMS and GCIRMS, but some of the GC conditions were probably not identical, in particular temperature. So even if the 1% standard might in some cases apply to RRTs between machines, this is a case where the 1% criteria should be relaxed.

Meier’s testimony suggests that even using the exact same GC conditions it would be impossible to meet the 1% standard for relative retention times between different machines whether of the same type or completely different types as in the Landis case.

Meier:

A. “....You use -- you use a retention comparison because that is usually a bit difficult because, at the best of times, no two GCs and no two identical columns, even if they're the same manufacturer, will give you identical retention times. You go for what's called relative retention times. You add an internal standard to which you relate the retention time of everything else.” (T – 1362)

“A. We've got Hewlett Packard's trace gas, Agilent, I think we even have an old 7 Varian. Probably, four -- four or five different types of GCs.

Q. Okay. And if I took an internal reference compound like 5-alpha androsterone --did I get that right that time -- 5-alpha androstenol AC, and I ran it in two of your different GC instruments, would you expect me to get the exact same retention time?

A. Not the exact same retention time, no. But if you used the same temperature break and the same helium flow, the same column, or, at least, let's say, because you can't have the same column in two instruments at the same time, so you're using the same column time from the same manufacturer, even ideally from the same batch, you should, within reason, such as, for instance, the plus or minus of one or two minutes, you should get the same retention time, yes”. (T- 1503)

Clearly “one or two minutes” exceeds the .2 minute standard. Some people have claimed that labs routinely can achieve retention time precision in the thousandths of seconds. This is clearly not possible in the type of chromatography conducted here.

And if you add two minutes or 120 seconds to the RT of 866 seconds for the 5A Andro internal standard and to the RT of one of the metabolites, your RRT could be off by as much as approximately 2 to 3%, again exceeding the 1% standard. Thus, even Meier in his own lab probably could not meet the 1% standard. It really appears that the 1% standard is too stringent for comparison of retention times across different machines. Even, Meier seems to concede that the standard can be and should be relaxed.

Q. It's supposed to be not more than plus or minus one percent?

A. It's not supposed to be -- I mean, in duplicate cases I think there's a bit of leeway. I have no idea what the leeway is, but I can't imagine it's 600 percent. Because from one percent to 6 percent, that's -- well, 500 percent difference. I can't -- I can't see that. So I have no confidence in the data in terms of peak identification whatsoever. (T – 1409-10)

5B. Carbon Ratios not measured correctly.

Landis claimed that the IRMS measurements were not accurate because of linearity and other problems, and because of manual adjustment of peaks. The majority decision discussed these in detail and rejected these arguments, and the dissent didn’t really discuss the scientific issues at. I don’t have time now to discuss these arguments in detail.

5C. Other labs require at least 2 metabolites to test positive

Landis argued that the lab should require positivity for all four of the metabolites tested, and the dissent argued that the lab should require positivity for two metabolites as is done in the UCLA WADA lab. However, the language of TD2004EAAS does not appear to require positivity for multiple metabolites. “The results will be reported as consistent with the administration of a steroid when the 13C/12C value measured for the metabolite(s) differs significantly i.e. by 3 delta units or more from that of the urinary reference steroid chosen.” Landis argued that positivity for only one metabolite was shown although this is disputed as explained below. The majority did not appear to rule on this question explicitly. It simply found that the IRMS results were valid. So it’s decision could be interpreted as requiring only 1 metabolite positive, or interpreted as finding that 2 metabolites had been positive. The dissent on the other hand claimed that the more stringent UCLA standard discredited the IRMS test results.

The IRMS test showed 6+ delta units for the 5Alfa diol- pdial pair in both the A and B samples, and 3.51 delta for the Andro 11 ketol pair in the B sample and 3.99 delta units in the A sample. The dissent accepted the argument that the 3.51 delta did not exceed the 3 delta threshold when one took into account the lab’s measurement error allowance of .8 units. While the lab as a matter of procedure appeared to use the error allowance, it does not appear that it was legally required to do so by the ISL. If it had not done so, the 3.51 delta would have met the threshold and two metabolites would have been positive in the B sample. Moreover, the 3.99 from the stage 17 A sample did pass the 3 delta threshold even if one took into account the .8 unit error. This along with the multiple positive delta results on the B samples from other stages leaves little doubt in my mind that positivity was shown, even if technically only one metabolite in the stage 17 B sample may have exceeded the delta threshold. Clearly requiring 2 metabolites, or all 4 metabolites as the Landis team argued, to test positive would result in fewer false positives. But it would also result in many many more false negatives. No scientific testimony was presented to show why using only one metabolite was not an adequate standard. In any case, WADA rules state that compliance with a more stringent alternative standard was not required.

6. Amory Testimony

Campbell in his dissent argues that the testimony of Amory raises sufficient doubts in his mind that he cannot be sufficiently confident in the IRMS test results. Since the testimony of Amory shows no IS violation in connection with the IRMS test, this was not sufficient legal grounds for rebutting the presumption that the IRMS test results were valid. This is why I think Campbell’s reasoning was contrary to the law, and this is probably why the majority decision did not even discuss the Amory testimony. Nevertheless, I want to examine the persuasiveness of the Amory testimony since much has been made of it.

Amory testified based on a review of the literature that the IRMS testosterone components, in particular the 5a-diol and 5b-diol,always moved in tandem, and further that above normal T/E ratios persisted over time especially if there was repeated doping. According to Amory, on stage 17 the 5a-diol tested positive, but the 5b-diol tested negative, and thus were not close enough to one another in value as predicted by the studies he had reviewed. The Landis T/E ratios did not test high in the stages other than stage 17. Amory argued that these facts were inconsistent with Landis having ingested artificial testosterone. Based on this testimony, Campbell concluded: “When you consider all the errors and ISL violations in this case, the fact that the results also do not comport with known science is dispositive. I cannot be comfortable satisfied that LNDD’s results are correct.”

However, there was other testimony that was inconsistent with Amory. There was testimony that micro-dosing and oral doping as opposed to injections would not lead to the persistence of above normal T/E ratios. Amory conceded these points but then commented that if the dosages were that low there would be no benefit to the athlete. This was humorous, since he had previously testified that testosterone couldn’t help a cyclist during the race even if administered at high doses. There was testimony that T/E levels fell during the course of a long race, so taking low doses of testosterone might just maintain one’s T/E levels.

Shackleton, (the leading expert on testosterone metabolism, but a bumbling witness) testified that theoretically it would not always be the case that the 5a and 5b diols would move in the same direction as claimed by Amory when someone had ingested testosterone. Several case study examples were introduced showing 5a and 5b diol values similar to Landis by subjects who had ingested testosterone. Landis claimed that these studies had not been refereed and thus should not be admitted, but this fact did not mean that the data was unreliable, only that the case study may not have been of sufficiently wide interest so as to justify publication in a journal. Moreover, the refereed articles quoted by Amory appeared themselves to be in the nature of case studies and thus anecdotal, although involving many more subjects over time. Amory offered little or no theory to explain why the components must always move together over time. Both Shackleton and Amory stated that the metabolic breakdown of steroid components by the body was an incredibly complex process. So given this, Amory’s claim was weak, not at all conclusive, and overstated.



[BACK FROM MAIN BODY]

7. Concluding Notes

From the evidence in the record, I believe the majority’s finding that the 1% retention time standard set out in TD2003IDCR was not applicable to the GC-IRMS was correct in this case. Accordingly, the GC-IRMS tests should legally be presumed to be valid. If Landis is able to present specific evidence that other labs use something like the 1% standard or even some relaxed standard in their GC-IRMS analyses, or specific evidence explaining why the visual peaks don’t match, then I might revise my opinion. That would be something he might want to attempt in the CAS appeal.

Whether or not any of the test results should have been thrown out on technical legal grounds, I came away from reading the evidence with something like an 80% subjective assurance that Landis had doped. The IRMS tests for the other stages were persuasive in this regard. Given that, I would not want Landis to get off on a technical violation of some legal rule.

The majority decision discussed in great detail many of the key scientific and legal issues. I wasn’t able to go through each of those issues in detail or to determine whether all of the legal questions were decided correctly, but it does appear that the majority acted diligently and conscientiously in going over the evidence. I was less impressed with the dissent. Campbell really did not address the scientific evidence in any detail, and much of his argument was rhetorical and ignored the legal rules he was supposedly interpreting. Perhaps this reflected his difficulty in understanding the scientific evidence. He claimed various procedural and rule violations but did a very poor job of showing any causal nexus with the testing results. The very first argument in his dissent claims bad faith cherry picking of evidence by the lab and documentation violations, but as to the cherry picking he doesn’t cite to the transcript so I couldn’t figure what he was talking about. To my mind the strongest arguments questioning the lab results were made in the doubts expressed by the majority decision, not the arguments raised by the dissent. Campbell was clearly biased in favor of the athlete, and I will take it as a given that at least one of the other arbitrators was biased in favor of USADA. In this regard, I can understand an arbitrator not wanting Landis to get off on some legal technicality, when he might have the subjective conviction that Landis doped. But my analysis above has been based on what was expressed in the written decisions and my attempt to understand the evidence.

Full Post with Comments...

An Emailer looks at the chromatograms

An emailer sent the following. We've inserted the illustrations, captions, other links, and emphasis. The text was previously a comment in the Monday Roundup.

I am a technical lead in a radiochemistry laboratory. We are involved with a completely different type of spectroscopy and analysis. I am not expert in anything to do with organic analysis.

I am not by any means a chromatography expert, and small apparent discrepancies may be normal for the technique..... But, the graphs displayed in the majority decision look odd and inconsistent.

[MORE]

Fraction F1:

1. The 5AC peak is a relatively small peak in the GC/MS, but nearly equal to the peak attributed to the analyte in the GCCIRMS than the GC/MS.

Majority Award page 31; circle added; click for bigger.
The 5aAC is about 1/2 the height of the 11k.

Majority award Page 32, circles added, click for bigger. The 5aAC is about the same height as the 11k

In my unexpert eyes, either:

(1) These are not aliquots from the same sample, or,

(2) two instruments are so different that relative peak height is not a reliable indicator of pattern.

2. The GC shows two distinct doublets at about 20.4 and 21 minutes. The GCCIRMS shows 4 evenly spaced peaks. If the GCCIRMS was simply higher resolution, you should still have 2 sets of double peaks.

Majority Award, page 32 zoomed in; click for bigger. Two major peaks.

Majority Award, page 32, zoomed; click for bigger. Four peaks.

Either :

A). These are different samples, or

B) the characteristics of the two instruments are different such that the elution rate is not consistent. Peaks could even swap positions.



3. The A sample GC/MS shows peaks at 9.6 and 13.2 that are much stronger in relative intensity than the B sample.

Majority Award page 31; A sample peaks at 9.6 and 13.2 minutes; click for bigger

Majority award page 37, B sample peaks at 9.6 and 13.2 minutes. Click for bigger.

Either:

A) The separation chemistry was very inconsistent between samples, or

B) the A&B samples are from different people.

Fraction F2:

1. The small peak at 16.6 on the GC/MS shows a relatively small shoulder on the right side and both A and B are similar on the GC/MS. On the A sample GCIRMS, the doublet has changed such that the large and small peaks are the same size, however, on the B sample GCIRMS, the doublet looks similar to the GC/MS. ??????

Majority award, page 33, A sample F2 peak at 16.6 minutes has a right shoulder fractionally smaller than the main peak. Click for bigger.

Majority award page 34. In the A sample F2, the corresponding peaks in the F2 GCCIRMS are close to the same height, so peak heights don't seem to correspond. Click for bigger.


Majority award page 39, B sample F2 GCMS peaks at 16.6 are about the same as the A sample, with lower right shoulder. Click for bigger.

Majority award page 40, B sample F2 GCCIRMS peaks at 1400 have same relative height as GCMS, which is different than the A sample GCCIRMS, where they were nearly the same height. Click for bigger.

2. The peaks at 16.6 and 18.2 on the GC/MS are about ½ the height of the analyte peaks, but are relatively much smaller in the GCCIRMS.

Majority Award, page 33. A sample F2 GCMS peaks are about 1/2 size of the target peaks.

Majority award page 34, A sample F2 GCCIRMS peaks are much smaller than in the GCMS. Peaks heights don't seem to be relatively the same between instruments. Click for bigger.

3. The two analyte peaks on the GC/MS are very close together and spaced from the larger peak at 15.2. On the GCCIRMS, all 3 peaks appear to be evenly spaced.

Majority award, A sample F2 zoomed in; two peaks spaced from third major. Click for bigger.

Majority award page 34, zoomed in. Peaks are about evenly spaced.

Given F1 #2, above, could these peaks have swapped positions?

4. The peak at 15.2 looks to have a low side shoulder. Could the shoulder have moved under the Andro peak in the GCCIRMS? What if the GCCIRMS shoulder grew in intensity?

Majority award, page 34. Peak at 15.2 has left shoulder; Click for bigger.

5. Does the Eito peak have a high side shoulder, or the Andro peak have a low side shoulder?

Majority award, page 33, zoomed in. Potential right shoulder on left peak? Left shoulder on middle peak? Left shoulder on right peak?

Fraction F3:

1. On the GC/MS, the 5b-pregnandiol peak is broader than the 5a and 5b diol peaks.

Majority award page 35, A sample F3 GCMS. Pdiol peak looks wider than other analytes.

I think it may actually be 2 superimposed compounds?

2. It is extremely difficult to tell which peak on the GCCIRMS is the 5AC peak.

Majority award page 36, zoomed in. Which of these is the 5aAC peak?

3. The B sample peak at 12 min. is missing on the A sample.

Majority Award page 34, A sample F3 - very small peak at 12 seconds. Click for bigger.

Majority Award page 41, substantial peak at 12 seconds. Click for bigger.

4. The observed difference in peak heights in peak heights between the GC/MS and GCCIRMS (above) combined with the shift in peak position also described above, would make me concerned about the small baseline jitters around the 5a and 5b diol peaks.

Majority Award page 34, A sample F3 GCMS zoomed in. Baselines around the peaks of interest jittery?

Majority Award page 41, B sample GCMS zoomed in. Jitters in the baseline?

All said, I am not at all a GC expert. Maybe such details are normal for the field. I hope you guys can spend a bit of time in the lab and work it out.


[BACK FROM MAIN BODY]

By the way, in our lab, we look for exotic inorganic elements. If anybody were ½ as sloppy as the LNDD paperwork, I would expect to be fired, along with several others. If I saw that paperwork, I wouldn't give it a plug nickel.

Full Post with Comments...

Tuesday Roundup

News
The VeloNews says hold everything and not so fast, the Mayo "B" sample is not negative, it has not yet been completed according to Anne Gripper of the UCI:

The second sample is not negative," UCI anti-doping coordinator Anne Gripper told AFP at Tuesday's doping summit in Paris. "The analysis of it has not yet finished."

There were some reports that labs botched the test, but Gripper insisted that testing methods between labs in France, where the "A" sample was tested, and follow-up tests in Belgium are not the same. Officials now want a second sample to be re-tested at the Chatenay-Malabry lab in France.

She said it would be another "five or six weeks" before the second round of tests is completed. Even if the follow-up tests are negative, the UCI said it might consider an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

They want them tested at the LNDD? Mayo seems to remain in the crosshairs, and comments below try to decode the authority for multiple tests. The B was sent to Ghent for primary analysis, and confirmation by Australia. Gripper and McQuaid are saying the results were inconclusive, but don't mention Australia, only Ghent. The re-testing at LNDD by the UCI has the aroma of a bunch of apparatchik's sending the test to a "politically reliable" lab, which ought to raise eyebrows. The benevolent reading is that the Ghent/Australian test were officially reported as inconclusive, but even then it is hard to see why the original lab is involved in an EPO test, which has special status as we understand it under the WADA code requiring a second lab confirmation.


The Courier Journal writes about the culture of suspicion that now surrounds sport where doping is concerned, specifically in the case of Paul Byrd from baseball.

MSNBC reports on today's final meeting at the anti-doping summit in Paris where Dick Pound of WADA declares a new day has dawned:

"There has been a lot of harsh language back and forth about how cycling got to where it is today,'' Pound said. "This is a new day. We are trying to work with cycling to help in insofar as we can - to get cycling back to where it should be.''

Pound said he hoped that some day, historians would look back on the 2006-07 seasons as the years that cycling officials "looked over the edge of a very deep chasm, pulled back, and said, 'No, enough.'''

The UCI's Pat McQuaid is a bit more cautious calling the much ballyhooed "blood passport" program just one more element in the fight against doping.


But, if you read the Mirror.co.uk you'll find Pat McQuaid and the UCI being portrayed as more enthusiastic about the new era in doping controls, the blood passport


The CyclingNews writes up today's conclusion to the doping summit in Paris at which Dick Pound, Pat McQuaid, and Christian Prudhomme once again became friends thus assuring McQuaid and the UCI a welcome at the 2008 Tour de France launch later this week. All represented organizations agreed that the "blood passport" was to be instituted for the 2008 competition year:

The program, based on half a dozen blood analyses to determine each rider's blood profile, is considered by all parties (UCI, WADA and ASO) as a real weapon against blood doping. "We hope if it's successful in cycling that once we know it is successful, we'll use it in other sports after 2008," Pound said. The biological passport will not be compulsory at the start of all races but "the main ones". It will concern road riders only when it's put in place on January 1 and McQuaid added: "I'd like to think we'll do it in other disciplines than road possibly before the Olympics in Beijing."

ESPN posts the AP report on the conclusion of the doping summit in Paris which ended today.



Blogs
Rant is disturbed by the lack of harmony between the UCI and WADA when it comes to dealing with doping cases such as that which now finds Iban Mayo cleared of doping charges due to a negative "B" sample result. Rant also thinks that ALL positive "As" should be tested at labs other than those which found the "A" samples positive, as was Mayo's.

I Pull 400 Watts gives Floyd Landis the "quote of the week" about training:

"If you overtrained, it means that you didn't train hard enough to handle that level of training. So you weren't overtrained; you were actually undertrained to begin with. So there's the rule again: The guy who trains the hardest, the most, wins."

—Floyd Landis

High Voltage Report feels the Landis legal team must just LOVE the Iban Mayo story since it illustrates that testing suspected "B" samples at a lab other than the LNDD can produce results different than found from the "A" sample. HV is of the opinion that this can do nothing but help Floyd Landis in his appeal to the CAS.

Sara Best saw a spoof ad on the CBC. that referred to "that guy who won the Tour de France last year".

KanyonKris says get ready for the circus now that the Mayo "B" sample has come back negative after being tested at labs other that the LNDD, which had found the "A" sample positive. KK trusts the anti-doping agencies less and less and finds it all turning into a witch hunt, and quotes from the Hippocratic Oath:

So when the anti-doping agencies make accusations but don't have their act together, they're making a bad situation worse. Of course the anti-dopers say the fallout from this current "purging" phase is the price to be paid to have the sport clean in the future. But if the therapy cripples or kills the patient, more has been lost than gained and the course of action was wrong. "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."

Tarheel22 rants about cycling's credibility with reference to "Floyd (doped-to-the-gills) Landis".

Kable Access does an "A-Z" exercise reminiscent of something elementary kids would do for Mother's Day. "L" is for Landis, and he wants Floyd to just give it up.

Bike World News feels the UCI should be all set to move its headquarters to Salem, Mass. as the "witch hunt" is definitely on.

By the way, how come there is enough of the "B" Mayo sample left to send to the LNDD? No problems, though, the LNDD used up all the Landis B samples so their final results couldn't be second guessed by anyone else. Think there will be enough after LNDD gets done with this test for another facility to confirm?

Full Post with Comments...

Monday Roundup

News
VeloNews/AFP says Mayo is cleared by negative B samples. This must say something about the LNDD's positive A sample, and the delay in the announcement of the B sample results. It took 62 days after the B sample results were due back to make any announcement. Landis's' positive B's seemed to have been leaked in hours.

Reuters via Grauniad says Mayo made a statement, reported at Marca below:

"It was a very bad experience because I didn't understand what was happening.... but everything has turned out as I expected," Mayo was quoted as saying on the Web site of Spanish sports daily Marca

"It doesn't seem logical nor credible," he said. "I've spent many years cycling and I can't chuck it all in but sometimes you feel like it because there are so many injustices.

Marca.com, en Espanol, courtesy an emailer.

The CyclingNews reports this morning that CPA president Cedric Vasseur is not happy with the ancillary role the few invited cyclists will be playing at the Anti-Doping Summit taking place in Paris today and tomorrow:

The 37 year-old was also wary as the confidentiality of the data produced for the biological passport, which the UCI wants to implement as soon as January 2008. "This subject was invoked without being discussed with the riders," he continued. "This passport can serve as a tool to combat doping, but it shouldn't be used by the media. It should remain the business of the doctors, the UCI and WADA. The medical parameters are confidential. We have seen that anonymous data has been revealed to the public. The Anti-Doping instances have shown that they are not afraid to exclude and sanction - you can't say that they don't fight [doping]."

An increase in the amount of doping controls would not save cycling, either, Vasseur commented. "Quantity does not necessarily mean quality," he said. "Of course there have to be controls, but it shouldn't come down to harassment. In between sending schedules to the team and the other instances, the repetition of controls, the rider has less and less time to focus on the next competition. But just like the team directors, the riders are willing to prove their good faith."

The IHT posts an AP story about the first day of the anti-doping summit being held in Paris. No cyclists were on hand at the start of the conference, David Millar pulled out due to personal reasons:

But the two-day conference — at least for its opening — was missing representation among those who may matter most: the riders themselves. None was on hand, and the one who had been scheduled — British cyclist David Millar — pulled out for personal reasons, organizers said.

The conference starts with various recriminations among the parties who did attend. WADA, the UCI, health officials, and team doctors were on hand most of them pointing fingers of blame at each other:

Many in the sport have traded accusations over who is to blame — and they'll be called upon to put aside their differences.

Pat McQuaid is scheduled to sit on a panel Tuesday with World Anti-Doping Agency head Dick Pound and Patrice Clerc, who heads the company that runs the Tour — two men who have been sharply critical of the UCI over doping.

Reuters via Yahoo says the UCI is increasing tests next year by 50%, going from 9790 this year to 8000 in-competition and 7000 out-of-competition, which is about 10,000 to about 15,000. They're in favor of the biological passport idea.

The VeloNews posts its Monday Mailbag which contains a suggestion that cycling needs a "czar". There is also a letter from a former ostrich who now knows how wide spread cheating is in the pro peloton.

The Morning Call reports on a recent talk in New Jersey by Versus cycling commentator Phil Liggett in which he expressed his belief that Floyd Landis is innocent. The crowd apparently applauded in agreement:

And Liggett had words that brought cheers from the crowd at the banquet regarding Floyd Landis, who won the 2006 Tour de France but lost the accomplishment after being found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs.

''The Tour de France is trying to kick the Americans out because of jealousy,'' he proclaimed. ''I don't believe Floyd Landis is guilty of anything.''

GayWired.com claims that a convict named Jonathan Lee Riches has filed a number of bogus lawsuits against various celebrities and sports figures, handwritten no less, and among them is one filed against Floyd Landis for "allowing E.T. to use his magical powers on to help him win the race." Floyd must be shaking in his boots.


Blogs
Neil@Road posts the "official" statement from the FFF on the unfortunate arrest of Kid Rock at the Atlanta Waffle House Saturday night. The FFF wants it made very clear that they will NOT be raising funds in Mr. Rock's defend but:

This statement was received directly from the FFF. “Contrary to rumors being circulated, the Floyd Fairness Fund will not be used to defend Mr. Rock in his arrest at the Atlanta Waffle House. He was married to Pamela Anderson, so it is apparent that he has the monetary means to properly defend himself in a court of law. That said, Dr. Baker is prepared to analyze any and all drug or alcohol related testing that might have been preformed on Mr. Rock.”

Su Mining1 rambles about American cyclists who have and have not tested positive for doping, and about how cycling in the Sates has just never been quite mainstream enough to have really lost that much popularity.

WADAwatch previews this week's anti-doping summit in Paris.

Lij is wondering about Floyd Landis at Hogwarts, since people are landing at her site while searching for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phonaks" See article about Jonathan Lee Riches above.

Racejunkie says "Sue them Iban sue"! And while we're at it, Free Floyd, because those jokers at the lab couldn't analyze Pixie Stix.

Erik, after seeing the results for Iban Mayo's negative "B" sample, is inclined to believe Floyd Landis more and more.

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

News
The San Francisco Chronicle posts a column that comments on everything from the NFL holding the Superbowl in London, to a mock ceremony with Floyd Landis handing over the 2006 maillot jaune to Oscar Pereiro.

ADN.com writes about an Alaskan mountain biker who may be considering turning pro, and the description of his tenacity and strength is reminiscent of another mountain biker who went to the roads a long time ago.

The Denver Post provides an interesting piece today about athletes over 40 who continue to stay strong and competitive, including Dave Wiens who beat Floyd Landis in this year's Leadville100.

The CyclingNews reports that Spanish Secretary for Sport Jaime Lissavetsky is pleased with the Spanish Civil Guard's handling of Operation Puerto, but that the courts will have to sort out what will be the ultimate result of the investigation:

Commenting on the judicial process, Lissavetzky explained that the judge who authorized the Operación Puerto had discontinued the affair based on the uncertainty of whether or not there was a crime against public health; the current law was not yet developed and the criminal code did not include a doping offense. Appeals have been made by the UCI and the World Anti-Doping Agency to re-open the affair.

ESPN publishes a story about an Olympic committee panel discussion attended by those who fight against doping, such as Travis Tygart of USADA, as well as those who have been affected by its consequences. Just one of the topics was what to do with the names and sports records of those who took steroids and were discovered in the files of the providers. One of the participants was Don Hooton whose son committed suicide after he ceased taking steroids:

"When we're talking about whether someone should have an asterisk by his record or not, we're missing the point," Hooton said. "We ought to be talking about how many years in the penitentiary some of these boys could be spending if they use this stuff. We need to quickly get into that discussion and see that the discussion starts changing in texture."

A Herald Sun columnist claims that Floyd Landis has put money and self interest ahead of winning fair and square. Ask Floyd where all that money and fame are now after his proclamations of innocence, as opposed to just fading quietly into the background and keeping what he had acquired already.


Blogs
Rant has decided that it's probably a good thing that we saw Jean-Francois Lamour's true colors when he walked away from the competition for WADA president.

Full Post with Comments...