Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Wednesday Roundup

AP via IHT reports Landaluze victory;
CAS upholds acquital based on procedural errors by LNDD. That might be a first. AFP report via Supercycling. The press release on the CAS site is accessible on this page (thanks Gene). The decision is published in French only; TBV provides a pitiful machine translation, objective commentary, and an opinionated rant.

Responding quickly via his own press release,

Floyd Landis said, “The [Court of Arbitration for Sport] CAS decision to clear Iñigo Landaluze of testosterone doping charges on the basis of violations of testing procedure by the [Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage] LNDD strengthens my contention that the tests conducted on my sample were handled in an incompetent fashion and analyzed on the basis of flawed ‘science.’ The track record of scientific misconduct at Chatenay-Malabry seems to grow by the day. Between the CAS’s Landaluze decision, the Vrijman Report castigating the lab for its leak of false information regarding Lance Armstrong’s 1999 samples, and the major errors that we have pointed out in the handling and analysis of my Stage 17 sample any person committed to fairness and common sense should be able to look at this objectively and say that this lab should not be accredited and the case against me dropped.

Going through what I am now, I feel personally for Landaluze and hope that everyone recognizes that it has taken him 18 difficult months to clear his name from what was revealed to be a grievous error at the LNDD. With this development on the back of a similar decision by the Irish Sport Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel to clear Irish 1500 meter runner Gareth Turnbull of testosterone doping charges – after terrible personal cost to him and his family – it is difficult for any reasonable person to understand why Anti-Doping Organizations and International Sports Federations continue to waste huge amounts of public money and resources on vendettas that ultimately damage the cause of fairness and anti-doping in sport.”

AP picks up Landis' reaction; this story is all over the place, being picked up as much as any favorable article I can recall.

Bloomberg runs with the story and catches the implications.

Our instant analysis is this is good news that might get oversold. The decision is reported to be very skeptical of the claims of innocence, and says it is an acquittal on a technicality. That would not be a good result for Landis. The CAS release also says that the decision rejected all of the other defenses offerered. That might be bad new for Landis, depending on what the other defenses were, and why they were rejected. An english translation of the French decision would help.

EPSN Mag rates Landis #3 sports story of the year.

The Tucson Citizen carries representative version of the AP story about Landis competing in the Leadville 100 next summer. It's newsworthy, and picked up by Cyclisme, in French.

CyclingNews has a longish interview with Genevieve Jeanson, in which she touches on the cost of defense as a motivation in settling. She seems happy to be out of cycling. (registration required) on Dec 17 tells the story of Gareth Turnbull, an Irish middle distance runner accused of high T/E ratios. He was eventually acquitted, and is the case that sparks the "alcohol affects the ratio" concern. He's bitter and diappointed by his federation, which accepts no chastisement. [tip from emailer JAB]

At DPF, lively discussion about the FFF and the AFO. Major skeptic Chris_t is unhappy he doesn't get more attention here at TBV.

Dirt Pedaller notes confusion about Leadville sanctioning and Landis suspension issues in coverage at VeloNews. The race is NORBA sanctioned, but it's not a points race. If you understand the intricacies, it might be clear, but I don't get it yet. Is NORBA just providing insurance? Do you need a NORBA license to participate?

Magellan (Explore for Truth) notes that Landis sees the acquittal of Landaluze as positive and links the AP story...

Ramblin' Egg
notes the Landaluze descision and how it may effect people's opinions of FL and others thusly accused.

Dugard runs into Floyd getting coffee, and thinks he's looking pretty relaxed and confident -- and planning to win Leadville outright.

SportsPickle snarks up a Landis movie, with Merriman.

Rant first wants to know where to send the check to the FFF, then he goes over today's various stories. He's less characteristically pessimistic than TBV.

PJ makes a speeding analogy.

Vanderhoot mulls FLandis some more, refs TBV and Rant, but comes down again in favor of life bans. Also, first hand positive gossip, and second hand condemnation.

Nashville Cyclist
compares BALCO cases with WADA discipline, and likes BALCO better. Good read.

PodiumCafe passes on the story of Zabriskie's record non-attempt, and Landis trying a fixie.

Activeness (for endurance athletes) cites the Landis case, and plugs TBV. We linked there yesterday.



Anonymous said...

ORG Here ...


Can Jacobs use the Landaluze vitory in Landis' hearing to show a pattern of imcomptence/sloppy work at the LNDD?

Also, if the CAS just set the precednece that all T test conducted by the same person doing the A and B samples are invalid, do we know if the same thing happened with Landis case? If so (and I don't know if it is), does this make his hearing five minutes (conceptutally speaking), here is the CAS ruling, here is the evidence of the same person working on the a and b samples, case over.

Anonymous said...

I was confused by orgs wording, sorry org I have a simple mind.

So the ruling is if any lab rat, call him lab rat 1, (lab rat = worker, employee, scientist) preforms both the A & B sample. the results are then ruled invalid. I assume possible conflict of interest, was the reasoning?

so for the A & B samples to be considered conflict free you must have 2 different lab rats preform the test. Lab rat 1 preforms the test on the A sample and Lab rat 2 preforms the test on sample B correct?

how many lab rats performed the test for landis? SURVEY SAYS!!!!

Atown, Tx

Terry21 said...

Here is something Landis might need in the tour next year, if his hip isn't quit 100%.

Anonymous said...

I prefer that two different LABS test the A and B sample!! That's the way to do it! And I dancing the happy dance that Landaluze's appeal was upheld!! Floyd is gonna win, they just want it to take at least 18months to 2 years, so when he isn't suspended, he'll have had an unoffical ban, since he hasn't raced since July 23rd 2006.

Anonymous said...

suitable quote for the day:
"You can fight, but you can't win. The System's rules are written by The System, governed by The System, judged against itself by System appointed and approved members, and the sanctions are handed out by The System, which also is The System that wrote them."

-Jason Sager, feeling the pain of facing USADA & losing

Anonymous said...

Trislax here: If we follow th above logic, and now knowing that a single tester (rat) conducting the testing of the A and B sample would nullify the findings, don't we already know the answer? Wasn't that in the paperwork that has already been posted? I didn't pay attention, and I don't have time to re-read, so I am asking...was it one or two rats?