Landis and Doping in Sports

A while back Ann Killion was panning Landis for testing positive and tooting the horn for doping. I wrote to her and asked if she had considered the possibility that Landis had told the truth and that his samples had been tainted. This seemed particularly likely in the face of comments that the drug(s) whose signature(s) were evidenced in his sample would have worked over a long period of time, not a short one, thus suggesting that it would have made no sense for Landis to take that particular kind of drug in the last moments of the Tour. Such action on his part would suggest that Landis is an idiot, which seems unlikely. Yesterday I wrote to the Mercury News Sports Department with the following:
----------
Sir/Ma'am,
I just read the article Exonerated Jones calls for change from the Associated Press. The last two paragraphs read as follows:
``Only governments can make sure someone is stopped at the borders,'' Diack said on the eve of the two-day World Athletics Final in Stuttgart, Germany.``Only governments can make sure hotel rooms are searched. Only governments can stop cars.''
``That is where everything has to happen. With the governments we can reinforce the fight.''
So tell me, is this why we have testing in sports in the first place? So that we can eventually have governments get involved in enforcement? So that the establishment of a totalitarian New World Order can be emphasized and accelerated? Is this the real reason behind doping? Lately it seems that government enforcement is the answer to virtually everything. Do we really want what Diack is describing above? Really? This maniacal push to stop doping will get us exactly that. Do we have New World Order stooges both in sports news groups, the IAAF, professional sports, etc.? To listen to Diack's comments, one would certainly think so. Sports venues are becoming like concentration camps, and athletes are constantly on the defensive. Think Nazi Germany! Think long and hard about this.
Is this the sort of change that Jones really wants? I seriously doubt it. But I can easily believe that she feels the need to say such things to placate the New World Order stooges that control sports. I wonder how Armstrong feels about doping in sports? Or Landis? Or...?
Care to comment?
Alan Painter, Arizona
----------
Yesterday I heard that Marion Jones was cleared of doping.
Now, this morning I hear that samples may have been confused with someone else and that Landis is suing. Gee, what a surprise. Would the confusing of samples come under the heading of "tainted samples"? Close enough, perhaps?
Is there a message here regarding doping? I think so. I think it is high time we reconsider doping and the Gestapo enforcement tactics being employed. Has anyone considered that an athlete's body is his or her own? That it is no one else's business what he or she puts in it? That doping policy is outright Orwellian? And that such practice is one more precursor of the New World Order?
Is there a sportswriter alive who has the gumption to suggest this idea? Even push it?
Alan Painter, Arizona

You make some interesting points regarding people having the right to ingest anything they want. But governments have been charged by the people to enact and enforce drug laws to protect them. It is clear that drugs like cocaine, heroin, tobacco, alcohol, pot, speed, etc. all take a toll on the quality of life and the majority of the people want these substances controlled or banned. Performance enhancing drugs like EPO can also be dangerous to a person's health and in my opinion should be banned. Of course a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I would prefer to watch athletes do their best without the aid of performance enhancing drugs, but the line between what should and should not be permitted is fuzzy. Should caffeine be banned? How about alcohol? How about all those goofy energy drinks?

ricky rider wrote:

You make some interesting points regarding people having the right to ingest anything they want. But governments have been charged by the people to enact and enforce drug laws to protect them. It is clear that drugs like cocaine, heroin, tobacco, alcohol, pot, speed, etc. all take a toll on the quality of life and the majority of the people want these substances controlled or banned. Performance enhancing drugs like EPO can also be dangerous to a person's health and in my opinion should be banned. Of course a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I would prefer to watch athletes do their best without the aid of performance enhancing drugs, but the line between what should and should not be permitted is fuzzy. Should caffeine be banned? How about alcohol? How about all those goofy energy drinks?

Good Post, I dont know what the effect of the "energy drinks" are, or for that matter Caffeine. However, Alcohol has a negative effect for cyclists. For me at least lol

Doping is cheating. I want to see a real effort to have dope free competition. The question is how do we make that happen? I have made a long case for why the ongoing testing is horribly flawed in other threads by virtue of the tests not having any established statistical evaluation. The participation in world class competitive sport is voluntary, and the athletes have the choice of participating or not. If they chose to participate then they must accept rules the sport imposes. In the case of cycling it is time to carry out enforcement of doping by identifying the sources of doping expertise and materials. This should be done using standard investigative techniques ie informants, undercover investigators, and selective use immunity/reduced punishment. Above all it must be recognized that the athlete is the end of the chain and under the current enforcement is the only one at risk of punishment and adverse effect of doped agent. Everyone supporting doping needs to face the music.

At the limit, we can give every athlete a 24-hour monitoring by a team of guards to observe everything. the only problem with that is the expense. Short of that we have a cost/benefit tradeoff, which requires us to know what methods of monitoring/testing have the best effect on the competition at what cost.

WADA is now busily fear-mongering genetic doping, as if that (a) an immanent treat; (b) likely to be used; (c) cost effective to use; and (d) cost-effective to combat. It seems mostly like an excuse for WADA to get money to me.

There's a lot to be said for criminalizing some aspects of doping, particularly the enabling parts that could be seen as falling under RICO rules.

The sad part is, the athletes get screwed under any system.

TBV

obviously from your post, you do not understand about the kind of drug that he took nor the masking that the athletes utilize to prohibit detection...suggest going back and reading posts concerning the use of steriods throughout a cycling season.
i think you are a little overboard concerning the new world order and such in this case (though i would be willing to discuss it in regards to politics, oil, war, cars/energy etc....) major difference is....well, yes, i think that a person has the right to do what they want to with their body. when they choose to enter/join/engage in an event/work/organization, they enter an agreement and usually for some form of compensation. with that, they agree to predetermined set of regulations. example, when an airline pilot has to fly, he is not allowed to have alcohol in his blood system and i do believe they have to have a certain amount of sleep/rest between flights. so...the companies control their/the pilots' body and what they do with it...
if these guys want to put banned performance enhancement drugs into their bodies, fine, do it on their own time, in their own race, with their own money....it is their own business when they do not accept any help from anyone else, when they choose to not participate with anyone else...part of playing a game is agreeing what the game is. if you are on the soccer field, you play by the rules of soccer not basketball, that is agreed upon at the start. the minute an athlete accepts money, he comprimises his independence...

THRESHHOLD. That's the word for the week...THRESHHOLD.


The Independent Review Board is charged, under Article 9 of the USADA Protocol, with determining "whether or not there is sufficient evidence of doping to proceed with the adjudication process" -- in other words, whether USADA can show evidence of doping violations sufficient to get over the THRESHHOLD of making a prima facie case. The AAFs that we know about from the stage 17 urine screening are: 1) the presence of synthetic T, as confirmed by the IRMS/CIR test, and 2) abnormal T/E ratio, as detected in the A sample test and confirmed in the B sample test. These AAFs constitute a prima facie case, that is, a case on its face, of doping violations; PROVIDED ALL THE REQUIRED FACTUAL ELEMENTS OF THE AAFS ARE SHOWN TO THE REVIEW BOARD, the "sufficiency of the evidence of doping" THRESHHOLD" will have been overcome and the Review Board will recommend that adjudication proceed.

So how, if at all, does Landis' "dismissal motion" affect the required factual elements of the AAFs? Let's consider them in order:

A) The Stage 17 CIR Test for Synthetic T:

"• WADA’s own protocols require that all testosterone metabolite differentials provide clear evidence of testosterone usage to find an athlete positive. Given the data, three of the four testosterone metabolite differentials tested in Landis’ sample are reported as negative considering the margin of error." ANSWER: I think I've developed some sense of the applicable WADA protocols regarding testosterone metabolite testing, but nowhere have I found a protocol which "requires...clear evidence to find an athlete positive", nor have I found language for reporting metabolite tests as "negative considering the margin of error". This means one of two things to me -- either Landis is referring to a WADA testing protocol for CIR testing that I am unfamiliar with or, more likely, LANDIS IS "CHARACTERIZING" LANGUAGE FROM A WADA PROTOCOL THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH. In either case, Landis' ASSERTION that 3 of 4 tested steroid metabolites were reportedly negative is just that, an assertion, NOT A FACT; and even if true would that make USADA's doping charge for synthetic testosterone INSUFFICIENT, if even ONE steroid metabolite tests positive for synthetic T? NOTHING IN THE WADA CIR TESTING PROTOCOL THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH REQUIRES THAT A POSITIVE FINDING FOR SYNTHETIC T REQUIRES THE DETECTION OF MULTIPLE STEROID METABOLITES. Which naturally leads us to Landis' next assertion....

"• The only testosterone metabolite that can even be argued as positive under the WADA Positivity Criteria resulted from an unknown laboratory error and is not the result of testosterone usage." ANSWER: The best Landis can do to try to negative that 1 positive steroid metabolite is to "argue" that the positive resulted from "an unknown laboratory error and is not the result of testosterone usage" -- but this is arguing CONCLUSIONS, NOT FACTS WHICH WOULD INVALIDATE THE 1 POSITIVE STEROID METABOLITE THAT LANDIS ASSERTS EXISTS; even without seeing the report myself, I cannot believe that the report notation in fact states "Results: Unknown laboratory error - NOT the result of testosterone usage". LOL ! I'm pretty sure that the report notes a positive finding for the steroid metabolite in question and, if so, the "sufficiency of the evidence of doping" THRESHHOLD" will likely have been overcome with respect to the presence of the prohibited substance of synthetic T, notwithstanding Landis' arguments or conclusions to the contrary.

"• The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis’ urine samples." ANSWER: NOTHING IN THE WADA CIR TESTING PROTOCOL THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH REQUIRES THAT A POSITIVE FINDING FOR SYNTHETIC T REQUIRES THE DETECTION OF A PARTICULAR STEROID METABOLITE; if the Review Board is presented with a positive AAF for synthetic T that includes at least 1 positive CIR-tested steroid metabolite, the "sufficiency of the evidence of doping" THRESHHOLD" will likely have been overcome with respect to the presence of the prohibited substance of synthetic T.

B) The Abnormal T/E Ratio:

Landis tries to argue that there is only a "single [positive] T/E [Testosterone/Epitestosterone] analysis in this case [which] is replete with fundamental, gross errors" -- he does this by implying that the confirming B sample (and to some extent, the A sample as well) suffers from identification number mismatches that somehow render the confirming B sample's identification to Landis UNRELIABLE.

The long answer is: well, what was your representative at the B sample unsealing and testing doing? Was he acting as a POTTED PLANT when the B sample was unsealed? Why didn't he jump up and down and holler "Whoa --STOP! ARRETEZ!! You can't proceed with testing, because I just checked the sample ID numbers here AND THEY DON'T MATCH!!! WHAT IS THIS? I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION!!! GET THE LAB MANAGER OVER HERE, RIGHT NOW!! MAINTENANT!! ALLEZ!!....(pardon my French!)

The short answer is this: UCI's Anti Doping Rule (ADR) Article 17 states that "facts related to anti-doping violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions." -- which means that anything from DNA TESTING down to having a credible technician with personal knowledge of the specific handling of these samples may constitute reliable means of establishing sample identification, depending on the facts and circumstances. Landis' ASSERTIONS may affect the presumption that WADA-approved labs act correctly in their analysis and custodial procedures, which may in turn shift the burden onto the lab to prove that any procedural departures did not CAUSE the AAF, but this falls short of INVALIDATING the AAF for abnormal T/E ratio AT THIS PRELIMINARY STAGE, so the "sufficiency of the evidence of doping" THRESHHOLD" will likely have been overcome with respect to a T/E ratio in excess of the 4:1 THRESHHOLD.

I could go on, but let's save something for later.(;->)

croation princess wrote:

obviously from your post, you do not understand about the kind of drug that he took nor the masking that the athletes utilize to prohibit detection...suggest going back and reading posts concerning the use of steriods throughout a cycling season.
i think you are a little overboard concerning the new world order and such in this case (though i would be willing to discuss it in regards to politics, oil, war, cars/energy etc....) major difference is....well, yes, i think that a person has the right to do what they want to with their body. when they choose to enter/join/engage in an event/work/organization, they enter an agreement and usually for some form of compensation. with that, they agree to predetermined set of regulations. example, when an airline pilot has to fly, he is not allowed to have alcohol in his blood system and i do believe they have to have a certain amount of sleep/rest between flights. so...the companies control their/the pilots' body and what they do with it...
if these guys want to put banned performance enhancement drugs into their bodies, fine, do it on their own time, in their own race, with their own money....it is their own business when they do not accept any help from anyone else, when they choose to not participate with anyone else...part of playing a game is agreeing what the game is. if you are on the soccer field, you play by the rules of soccer not basketball, that is agreed upon at the start. the minute an athlete accepts money, he comprimises his independence...

Well-put -- another excellent post!

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Well-put -- another excellent post!

and thanks for the footwork/breakdown of the legalese concerning the testing proceduresssssss.

i would take what i wrote a step further...when an athlete chooses (and i think that is such an operative word we have forgotten in regards to this whole affair) to participate in a game/sport, he agrees to the regulations/rules that are predetermined...that includes the game rules as well as uniform, time limits, wearing of jewelry, usage of drugs...etc. if you do not want to play by the rules, then take your ball home and start your own game...i have been known to do that!

Zeek wrote:

Doping is cheating. I want to see a real effort to have dope free competition. The question is how do we make that happen? I have made a long case for why the ongoing testing is horribly flawed in other threads by virtue of the tests not having any established statistical evaluation. The participation in world class competitive sport is voluntary, and the athletes have the choice of participating or not. If they chose to participate then they must accept rules the sport imposes. In the case of cycling it is time to carry out enforcement of doping by identifying the sources of doping expertise and materials. This should be done using standard investigative techniques ie informants, undercover investigators, and selective use immunity/reduced punishment. Above all it must be recognized that the athlete is the end of the chain and under the current enforcement is the only one at risk of punishment and adverse effect of doped agent. Everyone supporting doping needs to face the music.

I pretty much agree with your comment. I have 2 points of disagreement that perhaps are more quibbles than anything else: 1) I'm not sure that I would prioritize achieving statistical predictability right now, if I were setting priorities for antidoping organizations; a systemic rework to achieve statistical predictability could well ultimately involve testing EVERYONE, or at least substantially more than are tested currently, and cost and logistics for this are daunting. On the other hand, we KNOW the sports-doping problem is HUGE, so why not prioritize detection and enforcement efforts along the lines you suggest, with measured steps to quantify as follow-on efforts?

2) Regarding detection and enforcement, anti-doping organizations can certainly partner with governmental law enforcement against doping higher-ups, but the governments have to take the lead. The scope of the problem is international, so that means that the solution will have to be in part inter-governmental. The governments in Germany, Spain and Italy, to varying degrees, pursue the dope-doctors and trainers who support widespread doping; if the US administration had the will and saw it as a legitimate problem, it too could more aggressively pursue doping's higher-ups. For their part, the anti-doping organizations' penalties on their face apply to athletes "and other persons involved", so I think the non-athletes could be more aggressively pursued for doping penalties under the current rules. Finally, in light of the TUE abuse that's being uncovered, I think the anti-doping agencies as well as governments should pursue ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE AGAINST ATHLETES' DOCTORS for "selectively" certifying medical conditions that they know or should know are enabling athletes to cheat as dopers -- just a few official letters of reprimand against a few doctors that impact on the doctors' MALPRACTICE INSURANCE PREMIUMS should be enough to made them think long and hard about enabling athletes to cheat by doping based on a bogus or lax certification of medical necessity; this lax process by doctors should be equated with casually writing narcotics prescriptions.

Will,
To clarify my earlier comment, I did not mean to imply a large amount of resources should be poored into obtaining the statistical value of the various tests imposed. I believe it is nearly impossible to get that information, because you are testing a group that will make every effort to avoid detection. That being the case testing is only of value as a deterent. The results are really pretty meaningless without the stats (sensitivity, specificity and prevalence of doping) If I were FL's attorney I would attack the tests on that basis, because they are crap.

Zeek wrote:

Will,
To clarify my earlier comment, I did not mean to imply a large amount of resources should be poored into obtaining the statistical value of the various tests imposed. I believe it is nearly impossible to get that information, because you are testing a group that will make every effort to avoid detection. That being the case testing is only of value as a deterent. The results are really pretty meaningless without the stats (sensitivity, specificity and prevalence of doping) If I were FL's attorney I would attack the tests on that basis, because they are crap.

good point about the testing as deterent...never thought of it that way.
brings this back to my question whether the riders really want to be tested/clean or they would rather just be left alone concerning the doping thing...

Zeek wrote:

Will,...testing is only of value as a deterent. The results are really pretty meaningless without the stats (sensitivity, specificity and prevalence of doping) If I were FL's attorney I would attack the tests on that basis, because they are crap.

Don't you REALLY mean that test "results are really pretty meaningless without the stats" FOR PURPOSES OF PREDICTION AND GENERALIZATION BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL TESTEE? Otherwise, how could testing have value for deterrent purposes, as you rightly claim?

The meaning for the individual is lost as well. That is if your test does not have a known separation of those who have doped from those who have not what value does it have? If you do not know that the threshold for positive that is established has a 30%, 50% or 90% false positive rate, how can you draw any conclusion about the individual being tested? Your quite right once the lack of statistical support for doping tests is known and cases are lost because of it, the deterent value will be gone.

Zeek wrote:

The meaning for the individual is lost as well. That is if your test does not have a known separation of those who have doped from those who have not what value does it have? If you do not know that the threshold for positive that is established has a 30%, 50% or 90% false positive rate, how can you draw any conclusion about the individual being tested? Your quite right once the lack of statistical support for doping tests is known and cases are lost because of it, the deterent value will be gone.

No, I'm NOT saying that the deterrent value will be gone, I simply agreed with you that testing HAS deterrent value -- you seem to be back-pedalling away from the claim of deterrent value, but I'm sticking to it. The reason WHY drug testing has deterrent value is right here before your very eyes in the Landis case -- DRUG TESTING IS A DETERRENT BECAUSE FAILING DRUG TESTS HAS CONSEQUENCES TO THE FAILED TESTEE AND, BY EXAMPLE, TO OTHERS, WHO REASONABLY WANT TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING A FAILED DRUG TESTEE LIKE LANDIS.

...oops, another echo....

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm NOT saying that the deterrent value will be gone, I simply agreed with you that testing HAS deterrent value -- you seem to be back-pedalling away from the claim of deterrent value, but I'm sticking to it. The reason WHY drug testing has deterrent value is right here before your very eyes in the Landis case -- DRUG TESTING IS A DETERRENT BECAUSE FAILING DRUG TESTS HAS CONSEQUENCES TO THE FAILED TESTEE AND, BY EXAMPLE, TO OTHERS, WHO REASONABLY WANT TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING A FAILED DRUG TESTEE LIKE LANDIS.

Will, I sure wish your Caps lock key would break, in the "off" position. If you had anything truly useful to say you wouldn't need to shout.

Pearl wrote:

<quoted text>
Will, I sure wish your Caps lock key would break, in the "off" position. If you had anything truly useful to say you wouldn't need to shout.

Some people need the caps lock to get the message Regards Raymond