Tour chiefs upset at Landis test

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
Innocent until completely proven guilty??? How does a positive drug test not prove your guilty? Or funnier yet, not "completely" guilty? BOTH samples showed a T/E ratio eleven times that of a normal human being!, Not to mention the presence of SYNTHETIC testosterone! And without reading "everything I you can about Floyd Landis", It could all paint him as the greatest person on earth, but would all that mean he couldnt have cracked after stage 16 and given in to the temptation of taking something to help get him back into the race? Of course not! You wouldnt think a pedophile would come in the form of a priest either but thats been blown out of the water as of late hasnt it?

Here is the report on the 1999 Drug Testing and the reading is vary interesting!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2006/jun06/vr...

Sorry to disagree, but the burden is on the lab to run efficiently and accurately in order to prove innocence or guilt!

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
I like to think I have kept an open mind to this whole situation. I truly believe Floyd gave it all he had throughout the race. And I too was on the Landis bandwagon even after his performance on stage 16. He had finally shot his wad, but gave all the boys one hell of a run for their money. But then his will turned to ego and he made a wrong turn at the proverbial fork in the road. Integrity took a back seat to anger and contempt, you could see it in his face at the end of stage 17. As for what the media says, I could care less and the facts in this case are in the test results. BOTH of them. To dismiss the results is to imply that either the scientists dont know what their doing or the conspiracy theories. Either of which I find much harder to believe than a guy with his back against the wall, possibly his last chance at a TDF win because of his hip, pissed as hell because he came within 3 stages of pulling it off, in the midst of drinking beer and whiskey, deciding the hell with it and chance it to get back into the race.

I'm going to rest my case with my last post. If anyone PROVES the lab messed up TWICE let me know. Otherwise I'm going with my gut and the facts presented so far.

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm going to rest my case with my last post. If anyone PROVES the lab messed up TWICE let me know. Otherwise I'm going with my gut and the facts presented so far.

That sound like progress in the discussion to me. This admits the possibility that the Lab could be proven to have messed up, and that he'll listen to that proof if it appears.

I think that's all anyone can be asked.

TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com

TrustButVerify wrote:

<quoted text>
That sound like progress in the discussion to me. This admits the possibility that the Lab could be proven to have messed up, and that he'll listen to that proof if it appears.
I think that's all anyone can be asked.
TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com

than please hold to that...and please do not move the bar.

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
I like to think I have kept an open mind to this whole situation. I truly believe Floyd gave it all he had throughout the race. And I too was on the Landis bandwagon even after his performance on stage 16. He had finally shot his wad, but gave all the boys one hell of a run for their money. But then his will turned to ego and he made a wrong turn at the proverbial fork in the road. Integrity took a back seat to anger and contempt, you could see it in his face at the end of stage 17. As for what the media says, I could care less and the facts in this case are in the test results. BOTH of them. To dismiss the results is to imply that either the scientists dont know what their doing or the conspiracy theories. Either of which I find much harder to believe than a guy with his back against the wall, possibly his last chance at a TDF win because of his hip, pissed as hell because he came within 3 stages of pulling it off, in the midst of drinking beer and whiskey, deciding the hell with it and chance it to get back into the race.

Yes, you are right. The look on the face of Landis at the finish of stage 17, was not the face of a man just finishing a mountain stage of the TDF. As soon as he crossed the line many people were asking, "What was HE on" and NO not because he is American

Come on, he had the stuff in his system and so was immediately 'guilty' Now, if he can get a good lawyer, he may win but the sport will lose

A great pity, as I admired the guy

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, you are right. The look on the face of Landis at the finish of stage 17, was not the face of a man just finishing a mountain stage of the TDF. As soon as he crossed the line many people were asking, "What was HE on" and NO not because he is American
Come on, he had the stuff in his system and so was immediately 'guilty' Now, if he can get a good lawyer, he may win but the sport will lose
A great pity, as I admired the guy

Where can I get a crystal ball like the one you have there? Or are you using the latest sneaky pete X-Ray glasses that the CIA recently came out with? I guess my brother-in-law in England must have been watching an entirely different cycling race than all the rest of us were watching. The commentators he listened to were former cycling stars Stephen Roach and Sean Kelly of Ireland. Interesting that they were not accusing Floyd Landis of illegal doping after completing Stage 17. Oh, that's right, OLN's Phil Leggitt, Paul Shewin and Bob Roll never mentioned illgale doping when Floyd Landis finished Stage 17! Gee, you really think that these five cycling commentators with all their cycling experience could be that stupid? NOT!!!

Better go back and get your money you wasted on that crystal ball or those sneaky pete spy glasses!

My Opinion_El Paso_TX wrote:

<quoted text>
... The commentators ... were former cycling stars Stephen Roach and Sean Kelly of Ireland. Interesting that they were not accusing Floyd Landis of illegal doping after completing Stage 17. Oh, that's right, OLN's Phil Leggitt, Paul Shewin and Bob Roll never mentioned illgale doping when Floyd Landis finished Stage 17! Gee, you really think that these five cycling commentators with all their cycling experience could be that stupid? NOT!!!.....

Yours is such an unintelligent post -- you rant about how Chris must be using a crystal ball or special glasses, and then you go on to suggest that commentators can definitively rule out doping by Landis just by looking at him. According to YOU then, WATCHING a cyclist is superior to drug-testing the cyclist when it comes to detecting the presence of prohibited substances in a cyclist's body -- what an idiotic point you make.

My Opinion_El Paso_TX wrote:

<quoted text>
Where can I get a crystal ball like the one you have there? Or are you using the latest sneaky pete X-Ray glasses that the CIA recently came out with? I guess my brother-in-law in England must have been watching an entirely different cycling race than all the rest of us were watching. The commentators he listened to were former cycling stars Stephen Roach and Sean Kelly of Ireland. Interesting that they were not accusing Floyd Landis of illegal doping after completing Stage 17. Oh, that's right, OLN's Phil Leggitt, Paul Shewin and Bob Roll never mentioned illgale doping when Floyd Landis finished Stage 17! Gee, you really think that these five cycling commentators with all their cycling experience could be that stupid? NOT!!!
Better go back and get your money you wasted on that crystal ball or those sneaky pete spy glasses!

do you relly think that Leggitt and Roach would say anything like that on TV? No, of course not and what has your brother in law got to do with anything. get the cheats out and on the way get all of those that support them out , the guy was found with the stuff in his blood/urine, he says that is normal for him, then says he does not know where it came from, what a load of weird excuses Landis and you lot over there come up with! Which one do you think? cream on the chamois! in a drink haded up? The booze that he drank? The lousy French Lab? The jelous French? Maybe the idiot lad from PA had something to do with it

Well like i said earlyer The Salem Witch Hunt.Yes i think the (pOWERS THAT BE) messed with the samples.
Why all of a sudden after the race he get's two test
But your not happy with the results, so you search
more and more(you will find something) to base your
reason on.Then Look how they talked about Marion
Jones even before the second set came back,OH WELL
THE WANT A EUROPE WINNER ANY WAY THEY CAN.

Antoinne Patton wrote:

Well like i said earlyer The Salem Witch Hunt.Yes i think the (pOWERS THAT BE) messed with the samples.
Why all of a sudden after the race he get's two test
But your not happy with the results, so you search
more and more(you will find something) to base your
reason on.Then Look how they talked about Marion
Jones even before the second set came back,OH WELL
THE WANT A EUROPE WINNER ANY WAY THEY CAN.

you are right, no europeans were penalized prior to the start of the TDF...

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, you are right. The look on the face of Landis at the finish of stage 17, was not the face of a man just finishing a mountain stage of the TDF. As soon as he crossed the line many people were asking, "What was HE on" and NO not because he is American

Chris, you didn't mention that he pelted his bidon at somebody - not the actions of a happy man!
You are correct, he was on the juice!

Antoinne Patton wrote:

Well like i said earlyer The Salem Witch Hunt.Yes i think the (pOWERS THAT BE) messed with the samples.
Why all of a sudden after the race he get's two test
But your not happy with the results, so you search
more and more(you will find something) to base your
reason on.Then Look how they talked about Marion
Jones even before the second set came back,OH WELL
THE WANT A EUROPE WINNER ANY WAY THEY CAN.

No, you are wrong, we in Europe don't care from where the winner is from, as long as he is not cheating. How about you? will you do anything to have a rider from the USA win?

Attorney Submits Motion for Dismissal to USADA
Landis Camp Makes Public Specific Detail of Errors and Inaccuracies in Testing of Landis ‘A’ and ‘B’ Sample

Los Angeles, September 11, 2006 – Howard Jacobs, attorney for 2006 Tour de France Champion Floyd Landis, today submitted a Motion for dismissal to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Independent Anti-Doping Review Board. The specifics of the submission support Landis’ long-held innocence and argue that tests conducted on the athlete’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ urine sample from Stage 17 of the Tour de France do not meet the established World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) criteria for a positive doping offense.

Made without access to complete documentation and other test results, today’s Motion is by no means an exhaustive recitation of all defenses. Nonetheless, Jacobs’ request for dismissal still provides the scientific and legal basis to vindicate Landis.

“I did not take testosterone or any other performance enhancing substance and I’m very happy that the science is confirming my innocence. I was relieved, but not surprised, when I learned that scientific experts found problems with the test,” said Landis.“I look forward to restoring my good name so that I can focus on my hip replacement and begin training for next season when I want to return to France to defend my title.”

Based largely on the carbon isotope ratio (CIR)– the test that has been characterized by the anti-doping authorities and the UCI as a fool-proof method for detecting the presence of exogenous testosterone – the Motion focuses on three issues with the testing protocol and results provided by the LNDD lab at Chatenay-Malabry. In summary, these three arguments demonstrate that the CIR test conducted on Landis’ stage 17 urine samples does not show a positive result:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

In addition to the analysis of the testing documentation, Jacobs argues “the single [positive] T/E [Testosterone/Epitestosterone] analysis in this case is replete with fundamental, gross errors.” These errors include markedly inconsistent testosterone and epitestosterone levels from testing on the ‘A’ sample as well as multiple mismatched sample code numbers that do not belong to Landis. In the case of the mismatched sample identification codes, the alleged confirmed T/E data on the ‘B’ sample is from a sample number that was not assigned to Landis. The differences in sample identification numbers also point to issues in the chain of custody of the Landis sample.

“Clinical laboratories making these types of gross errors could easily find themselves answering to a wrongful death lawsuit, and often do,” said Jacobs.“At a minimum, those laboratory errors must go to the defense of the athlete and must result in a finding that the T/E results are wholly unreliable.”

The ADRB is expected to make its recommendations to USADA within a week of Jacobs’ submission to the review panel.
__________
Hudson
www.floydlandisfans.com

The ADRB is expected to make its recommendations to USADA within a week of Jacobs’ submission to the review panel.

So, MOEP TX, Instead of making unintelligent posts why not wait until you have something of substance to add to this discution. Your reply to Chris was hardly that.

Further, will you accept the final outcome of this sad saga, whichever way it goes? I know I will.

Will, you are truelly amazing. On one hand you state that no one can just look at someone and clear them of doping, yet you support Chris for doing just that when he stated that he could tell by the face of Floyd Landis at the Stage 17 finish. And you acuse me of ranting!

Oh Chris, you stated you there in Europe do not care where the winner comes from! That's Ballocks and you know it. The people in the UK are just as much sporting fans as anyone in any other country and they truelly care about their atheletes winning as any of us do.

In fact, I was rooting for George Hancapi of the Discovery Team during the TDF, but I also enjoyed the accomplisments of Robbie McEwen during his sprints. I believe that he's from Australia and is not an American cyclist!

NO, before you go putting words in my mouth, try seeing what I'm say before you react. As I have stated previously, I don't like cheaters in any sport and I do hope that the WADA and UCI can clean it up. But, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to completely realize that they have problems within their organizational structure and that they have a lot of improvement to accomplish before we will see Illegal Doping cleaned up.

Believe it or not, but all of you have made good points in this forum. But, many of the cycling fans who have written into this forum's threads were quickly convinced that this years TDF would not be worth watching. Vary WRONG here as this year's TDF was not only excelent, it was totally exciting as it has been every year.

Antoinne Patton makes some good points here. Marion Jones was accused of doping and than proven that she didn't use illegal drugs. Yet, many fans were quick to say just the other about her when they jumped onto the Band Wagon of those who are to quick to accuse before giving the athelete a chance of clearing themselves.

So, try looking at yourselves before you go accusing others of ranting and being fanatics!

My Opinion_El Paso_TX wrote:

Will, you are truelly amazing. On one hand you state that no one can just look at someone and clear them of doping, yet you support Chris for doing just that when he stated that he could tell by the face of Floyd Landis at the Stage 17 finish. And you acuse me of ranting!
Oh Chris, you stated you there in Europe do not care where the winner comes from! That's Ballocks and you know it. The people in the UK are just as much sporting fans as anyone in any other country and they truelly care about their atheletes winning as any of us do.
In fact, I was rooting for George Hancapi of the Discovery Team during the TDF, but I also enjoyed the accomplisments of Robbie McEwen during his sprints. I believe that he's from Australia and is not an American cyclist!
NO, before you go putting words in my mouth, try seeing what I'm say before you react. As I have stated previously, I don't like cheaters in any sport and I do hope that the WADA and UCI can clean it up. But, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to completely realize that they have problems within their organizational structure and that they have a lot of improvement to accomplish before we will see Illegal Doping cleaned up.
Believe it or not, but all of you have made good points in this forum. But, many of the cycling fans who have written into this forum's threads were quickly convinced that this years TDF would not be worth watching. Vary WRONG here as this year's TDF was not only excelent, it was totally exciting as it has been every year.
Antoinne Patton makes some good points here. Marion Jones was accused of doping and than proven that she didn't use illegal drugs. Yet, many fans were quick to say just the other about her when they jumped onto the Band Wagon of those who are to quick to accuse before giving the athelete a chance of clearing themselves.
So, try looking at yourselves before you go accusing others of ranting and being fanatics!

to bring up marion jones as an example...uhhh, even within the sport of track and field, she is not considered to be a "respectable" athlete. more importantly, her situation was way, way different than landis's, as her "B" sample came up negative, thereby, providing a good example of the A and B sample and the protection it provides the athlete,as it should.(go do some research about the shelve life of EPO, which is what came up positive in her A sample...very short, in fact, that is what lance armstrong used as a defense in one of his doping allegations, the shelve life of EPO is inconsitent. the testing procedures they have for EPO are under scrutiny, because they feel that the short shelve live impacts the results between A and B samples. hope i explained that one)
your thoughts about nationalism are a little off base...just because it is important to you what country the winner is from, does not mean that everyone thinks like you. i live here in the united states, and yes i root for americans at times, but it is not a priority (in fact i would categorize it as a tertiary item), and would definately not influence me to do something unethical to help an athlete win. i like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of nationalism and such just because they are from france....because they know how to put on one hell of a party/race!(that would be the TDF)

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.(;->)

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.