As many people know, I was reluctant to get involved in the Landis case as I do not work for (and never have) an anti-doping laboratory. I have been practicing forensic toxicology for more than 25 years and much of my work has focused on novel analytical techniques and quality assurance/quality control procedures.
But, when given the opportunity to study the materials from the LNDD laboratory, I immediately agreed to work with Howard Jacobs and Maurice Suh. I was distressed by the quality and interpretation of the analytical data, chain-of-custody documentation, etc. If the Landis case was prosecuted in a U.S. Court of Law, the data would have never met the Frye and/or Daubert standards of evidence.
Also, I learned quickly that the WADA Anti-doping program was constructed to such a degree that accused athletes are greatly disadvantaged when defending themselves. For example, WADA Laboratory Directors cannot consult for an accused athlete; and defense experts like myself are criticized because of a "lack of expertise and experience". Further, the WADA IST and ISL are woefully inadequate to ensure a fair and equitable system which protects the rights of the athlete while ensuring the success of an anti-doping program.
Finally, I want to thank TBV for maintaining a blog devoted to the Floyd Landis doping allegations. It has been a valuable source of information.
Bruce Goldberger, Ph.D., DABFT
And thank you, Dr. Goldberger. You were always a voice of reason and real science in this crazy case. I appreciate that you took the time to be part of this. It's sad that your expertise and testimony was not taken seriously.
ReplyDeletesyi