Thursday, October 12, 2006

It's Here

The released documents have arrived on We've copied them to, and done some additional housekeeping that should be useful for discussions. On the archive, these are available as large files and also as individual pages that are suitable for linking into commentary.

The ADRB Submittal is a 16 page document which we knew before only by summary. It argues the case should be dismissed by the ADRB, and they either rejected or didn't seriously consider the arguments made. Individual pages are available on for linking.

The Presentation is 25 pages of mixed powerpoint slide and descriptive text, arguing the results should not have been considered positives. Individual pages on

The Laboratory Documentation Package comes as 11 PDF files of 370 scanned pages inside a zip archive. We've turned them into a single PDF file, also burst into individual pages on

Our thanks to Landis for having the testosterone to make this release, which shows faith in people's ability to sift and judge information on their own.



Anonymous said...

I'm not sure it's helpful to have started the presentation with a discussion of ID mismatches. One question I have is, do the mistaken numbers match to another rider? If not, they're clearly typos/misprints, so who cares -- that's not enough to exonerate a rider.

If, on the other hand, they match another rider's number, shouldn't we be talking about sanctioning that rider? But wait, we see later that the tests were negative. So, again, who cares.

If Floyd is innocent, I want to see his name fully cleared, and I'm afraid this focus on typos or minor mistakes will make it look like he's trying to get off on a technicality. It seems like the strongest part of the presentation concerns the lab failing to follow WADA's standards for what constitutes a positive test.

Anonymous said...

You cannot dismiss differences in numbers as "clearly typos/misprints" because you cannot say with any certainty that it was a typo or what the right number was. It destroys the audit trail between the test, the sample and Landis As soon as you destroy the audit trail, all you have is a sample result of an unknown person. You might guess it was Landis but it would only be a guess and a case like this should not be decided on guesses.

Anonymous said...

Very well done TBV. Today was a step up in terms of the importance of the case. And you hit it out of the park with your coverage. I also like the fact we are seeing a little more of the lighter side of TBV with the Podium Girls and the Poltergeist reference.

Keep it up!


Anonymous said...

So much is being made of the mismatched numbers, and many are missing the point. The importance of the white outs and missmatched or differing numbers shows a distinct lack of care in the handling and preparation of the sample and testing proceedures. If you cannot at minimum properly document a proceedure, the rest is suspect as well. We are not talking about a local criterium here. The facility charged with testing of an event of this caliber should at the minimum be able to document and handle prospective samples far better than what has been presented in Floyd's case. It is disgraceful to send through documentation in such a state of dissaray. Remember, careers and reputations hang in the balance. I for one am embarrassed to be involved in a sport that treats its professionals with such dis-respect. Floyd is, was, and always will be one of the cleanest, most honest men I know. Thanks again TBV for all your work. Michael Farrington, Green Mountain Cyclery. Ephrata, PA.

zbicyclist said...

I think starting with the mismatched numbers and whiteout was good. Rhetorical theory would suggest that if you have an audience that agrees with you, you start with strength, but if you have a hostile audience you start with some point of agreement, even if it isn't the strongest part of the argument.
Here, they've started with sloppy record keeping and not following protocol. The other side can hardly claim the records weren't sloppy or that they did follow protocol.

Cheryl from Maryland said...

Work interference has stopped me from getting to the posts until now (I know, how devoted am I?). Anyway, thanks to Mr. Landis and his team for opening this up, and congratulations to Mr. TBV for the insistence from Day 1 for transparency. We cycling fans do have a stake in this, and I think we feel better about the sport for being able to participate. Now for some Powerpoint bedtime reading.

Anonymous said...

That's interesting, zbicyclist ... I had an employer who always pounded on me to make my strongest argument first, so I'm biased to present information that way. Well, whichever way you present it there's some compelling arguments there -- I hope the authorities agree!

DBrower said...

cheryl, I am crushed. Not a word about the picture I put in just for you.

zb, I read it a different way. I thought he was snobbishly presenting the idea that they were going to listen and examine all that was presetnted. It actually sounded like a concession to me.

Anon, et. al.; I think the whiteout sample stuff is a red herring. A lot of chemists and lab people think it's serious, so I don't know what to believe. Rationally, it ought to make a difference in a US proceeding. In a doping case, (a) it doesn't seem to matter to the case; and (b) comes off as snivelling excuses of a doper. So I don't think it helps except to support some deeper, critical error that is revealed at the last moment. It's about putting us in the mindset that these people could very well have roostered the important stuff up as well as the little stuff.

PJ, you are too kind. I don't know nuthin, I just spread it around.


Anonymous said...

The whiteout is not a red herring which is what the lab people are telling you. The reason is that lab processes should be tightly controlled under GLP - Good Laboratory Practice. The lab tech has ignored the written procedures and has uncontrolled substances in his work area - if the whiteout fluid is not allowed, as is standard lab book practice, then it clearly should not be in the work area and someone has broken the rules to bring it in. Having done compliance inspections in my past, things like this are always strong indicators of deeper problems. If they don't obey these rules what other rules and procedures have they ignored or shortcut. When added to the errors in recording other numbers the alarm bells start ringing that here is a situation that is broken and management is failing on their responsibilities. If this were a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant and lot numbers didn't tally, uncontrolled substances were in the work area and results were changed without being signed off, the FDA would probably shut it down until it got its act in order.

DBrower said...

Anon, I agree with you in principle, but I don't know that the public or the arbitrators will. We are faced with quotes like this from a big article in the Mercury News:

"Arne Ljungquist, a World Anti-Doping Agency board member, dismissed claims of laboratory errors.

"It's unfortunate if athletes are blaming individual laboratories," the former chairman of the International Olympic Committee medical commission said from Sweden. "The labs are extremely well controlled and under very close supervision - to attack the labs is not the best type of defense."

Except he doesn't say what the best would be, because attacking the lab results is about all you are allowed to do. Oh, wait, I get it: the best defense is no defense, to just accept your guilt.

I also think the public needs a lot of convincing to believe he's clean, and that paperwork errors alone aren't enough. With only three samples from the stage, and his having very different numbers than the other two, I don't think John Q. is going to believe they were really mixed up.


Burt Friggin' Hoovis said...

That's the point that I've been trying to make - when you find examples of failure to follow procedure for simple things like documentation, its usually a sign that, overall, the quality systems of the laboratory are not working. You're trusing the laboratory and the analysts to run relatively sophiscated biological assays, using comlicated equipment, and to do it correctly. The most basic thing that most analysts do in a day is WRITE THE SAMPLE NUMBER DOWN. Everyone makes mistakes, but if you can't get that part correct (and document it correctly when you do screw up), it really begs the question "what are these guys paying attention to?"

Anonymous said...

But Ljungquist is wrong. Here is clear evidence that the labs are not "extremely well controlled and under close supervision". Even the most junior regulatory auditor would spot that from the data presented.

Unfortunately I think we have reached a stage, post Vrijman and this data release, where drugs testing will not have any credibility until the testing system itself is cleaned out from WADA down and put under proper regulatory control.