Monday, October 22, 2007

Monday Roundup

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., 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.'' 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.

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.

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


m said...

Bill Hue invited me to write up some arguments in support of the majority decision. It's taken me a while, but I have some now and will send them to you if you are still interested in posting them.

In particular, I discuss the burden of proof issues and why I think there was no IS violation with respect to the GC-IRMS retention times.

Tom Anhalt said...

Mayo B-sample negative?

I guess now we know why it took so long to get the results.

Tom Anhalt said...

Oops...let's try that link again:

RobWoolley said...

Mayo is clear. There was an error with his A sample test? Remind me again which lab did that A sample test?

DBrower said...


We're happy to run your piece as a post. Please send via email


DBrower said...

An emailer who prefers to be anonymous sends the following, which I'll probably repost with illustrations when I get a chance.


"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.

"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. 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. 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. 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. ??????

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.

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. 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?

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

Fraction F3:

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

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

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.

"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.

"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."

Unknown said...

I've wondered about the graphs in the majority decision. They looked cut and pasted in the decision. They didn't look like they were reflective of scientific documents, especially considering there was very little if any labeling on most of the graphs to prove they came from Floyd's lab packet.


Unknown said...


I, for one, am very interested in your opinion and analysis. In addition, I am very interested in your background/experience. You may have posted it previously and I apologize if I have missed it. TIA.

Bill Mc said...

An interesting Floyd related question was posed to Scientific American magazine about the effects of Testosterone on athletic performance. The URL for the question and the response is:

It reinforces my belief that Floyd is being railroaded.

GMR said...

Between Mayo's B sample being negative and Phil Liggett's apt comment of the underlying motivations. Best news ever!

DBrower said...

Michael, the graphs are from the LDP. If you don't like their quality in the award, they are the same in the original.


Unknown said...

Thanks TBV. I really didn't like the presentation of the graphs in the Majority decision.

You'd figure something as important as this decision would have looked somewhat professional.

Just my opinion.