so maybe it's not pereiro's jersey yet. apparently floyd has <a href="http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13495.0.html">appealed</a> to CAS.

Of course he would. If I were in his place I would do it too. Worst that can happen is they say no as well and then he is in the same spot he is in now.

He's come this far. It seems silly not to go all the way.

Of course he would. If I were in his place I would do it too. Worst that can happen is they say no as well and then he is in the same spot he is in now.

I agree, he should appeal if he thinks he has a case. but the worst that could happen, per the article, is that he has his suspension stretched out to august 09 to account for his participation in leadville so there's seemingly some risk. that and he's got to come up with the $.

how broke he's become...I wonder if he's come up with additional funds from teh book sale or public speaking engagements to continue the legal fight.

from my perspective, if he was guilty and broke, I doubt he'd continue to put himself and his family through it all.

I wish him luck...I think his point about the WADA/UCI testing protocols is a good one, just don't know how far I'd take it to prove that point...

from my perspective, if he was guilty and broke, I doubt he'd continue to put himself and his family through it all.




Tyler Hamilton did.

Landis should have admitted last year and said it was a moment of weakness. He would be welcomed back for the Vuelta next year.

He will spend ten percent of entire yearly budget of wada on this.

Guilty or not, he needs to keep bringing up the point that the French lab was incompetent while testing his samples. People around the world need to be outraged by the sloppy way they handle these tests. While I agree that there needs to be more testing, it needs to be done precisely so there isn't a chance that they can make a mistake and ruin the career of an innocent person in the future. So far, Landis has at least done a good job of bringing the lab mistakes to the fore-front.

He has to appeal.

Anyone choosing a stategy of bare face lieing has to keep up the charade until the bitter end...if he gives up now his supporters would wonder why.

yawn.

yawn.

says the guy with the quote from basso under his name.

says the guy with the quote from basso under his name.

The whole thing is tired...just like Basso's constant "I'm innocent...oh wait, nevermind." "Oh wait, I was just 'preparing to dope'." More crap...

Does anyone know what the expected timelines would be for this appeal? When would the appeal be heard, how long to deliberate, etc?

JSR

Does anyone know what the expected timelines would be for this appeal? When would the appeal be heard, how long to deliberate, etc?

JSR

it took ~9 months for Tyler. from hamilton's website:

04/18/2005 Tyler is found guilty, suspended 2 years

05/18/2005 Tyler files appeal with CAS

09/06/2005 CAS appeal begins, Denver, CO

09/08/2005 CAS appeal is adjourned. USADA, LAD, Athens and Sydney are provided 3 weeks to produce validation documents

09/29/2005 Only part of document request is provided. LAD and Athens inform Tyler he must come to the labs if he wants to see the data because it was too much work for them to produce the documents on their own

10/00/2005 LAD receives ISO accreditation to run the HBTT 13 months after declaring Tyler positive

10/20/2005 CAS upholds lab offer to Tyler - he is told he must go to the labs if he wants the validation documentation

11/28/2005 Tyler attends Lausanne lab for documents

11/29/2005 Tyler attends Lausanne lab for documents

12/01/2005 Tyler attends Athens lab for documents. Tyler is provided suppressed emails detailing issues with the test

12/02/2005 Tyler attends Athens lab for documents

01/10/2006 CAS appeal continues, Denver, CO

01/12/2006 CAS Panel requests USADA, WADA, LAD and UCI provide documentation of the LAD's accreditation status in Sept 2004

01/13/2006 No certification is provided that LAD was accredited to run the HBTT in September 2004.

02/10/2006 CAS dismisses Tyler Hamilton's appeal upholding his suspension through September 22, 2006

Guilty or not, he needs to keep bringing up the point that the French lab was incompetent while testing his samples. People around the world need to be outraged by the sloppy way they handle these tests. While I agree that there needs to be more testing, it needs to be done precisely so there isn't a chance that they can make a mistake and ruin the career of an innocent person in the future. So far, Landis has at least done a good job of bringing the lab mistakes to the fore-front.

exactly. doper or not, i think hes proven the labs are underqualified and the system is messed up. reasonable doubt anyone? hes got it in spades. i actually think it would be good for cycling if floyd was a doper and he got off on a technicality. hopefully that would spur change.

it took ~9 months for Tyler. from hamilton's website:


09/29/2005 Only part of document request is provided. LAD and Athens inform Tyler he must come to the labs if he wants to see the data because it was too much work for them to produce the documents on their own


If it took the same amount of time they would return the verdict on about mi-July - two years from the infraction. What a system.

Anybody think LNDD will be bending over backward to provide documentation to Floyd?

reasonable doubt anyone? hes got it in spades.

Even in American juries the idea of reasonable doubt has often come to mean any doubt. Landis' team apparently couldn't provide a valid reason for the IRMS test detecting exogenous testosterone in his system.

Landis' team apparently couldn't provide a valid reason for the IRMS test detecting exogenous testosterone in his system.

Have you read Bill Hue's analysis of the hearings? He explains why the issue was never whether or not exogenous testosterone was present, but only whether LNDD followed WADA protocols. The question of whether following those protocols inevitably led to a true result was never examined.

Have you read Bill Hue's analysis of the hearings? He explains why the issue was never whether or not exogenous testosterone was present, but only whether LNDD followed WADA protocols. The question of whether following those protocols inevitably led to a true result was never examined.

No I haven't read it. My understanding regarding your last sentence is that the athlete has no right to question the validity of the test once WADA has accepted it as a legit test. So if LNDD follows protocol and gets a positive, it is a positive unless Landis can show they did something wrong or provide some other evidence as to why it is a false positive. Is that what you're referring to?

At least that is my understanding from Hamilton's case. So I don't know what good going to CAS will do, as the "due process" and rules will be those laid out by the WADA code, which Landis agreed to when he took out his racing license.

Have you read Bill Hue's analysis of the hearings? He explains why the issue was never whether or not exogenous testosterone was present, but only whether LNDD followed WADA protocols. The question of whether following those protocols inevitably led to a true result was never examined.

I have yet to hear a valid explanation for 5 of Flandis' samples testing positive for synthetic testosterone. It appears his supporters just try to point fingers at the other tests and deflect from the obvious positives of the IRMS test.

Two days before the 2006 race began, Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1. Only one way to make it increase like that DURING a race.

I am stepping outside my area of expertise, but that hasn't stopped me from commenting in the past. My understanding of the appeal process is that it cannot be a rehash of the evidence, thus a retrial, but can only be a questioning of legal procedure used in the trial process. So what basis do they have to appeal?

I am stepping outside my area of expertise, but that hasn't stopped me from commenting in the past. My understanding of the appeal process is that it cannot be a rehash of the evidence, thus a retrial, but can only be a questioning of legal procedure used in the trial process. So what basis do they have to appeal?

probably the same thing the UCI was claiming in the landaluze positive, just in the opposite direction. in that instance the UCI appealed for a reversal of the spansish fed's decision to let landaluze off the hook for his T positive at the 05 Dauphine which they claimed was not a + because of testing errors. UCI appealed claiming the errors weren't grave enough to dismiss the test, they lost. apparently the presence of the same lab worker at the A and B test played a role in their decision, Id guess that might factor into Landis's appeal.

Two days before the 2006 race began, Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1. Only one way to make it increase like that DURING a race.

I don't believe testosterone has anything to do with elevating hematocrit, so why didn't he test positive for anything else? Other than the testosterone, all the extra testing they must have done on his samples since July 2006 has apparently turned up nothing.

I don't believe testosterone has anything to do with elevating hematocrit, so why didn't he test positive for anything else? Other than the testosterone, all the extra testing they must have done on his samples since July 2006 has apparently turned up nothing.

The same reason the multitude of known dopers never turned up positive. The system can be gamed, some drugs/techniques are simply undetectable and finally the approved tests don't appear to be terribly sensitive.

If good tests exist the athletes just switch their techniques. E.g. When was the last time a rider failed a test for a proper amphetamine or anabolic steroid? Remember all the riders that used to get "sat down" for exceeding the 50% hematocrit, hardly ever happens nowadays.

I don't believe testosterone has anything to do with elevating hematocrit, so why didn't he test positive for anything else? Other than the testosterone, all the extra testing they must have done on his samples since July 2006 has apparently turned up nothing.

Remember if his T/E wouldn't have been off on that one test, the exogenous T for the sample in question and the other ones would have not been detected. Seems pretty clear based on the multiple riders caught or admitted to using the T-patches that they game the system by using them at a level that doesn't trip the T/E ratio test and then use of the more sensitive isotope test.

The same reason the multitude of known dopers never turned up positive. The system can be gamed, some drugs/techniques are simply undetectable and finally the approved tests don't appear to be terribly sensitive.

If good tests exist the athletes just switch their techniques. E.g. When was the last time a rider failed a test for a proper amphetamine or anabolic steroid? Remember all the riders that used to get "sat down" for exceeding the 50% hematocrit, hardly ever happens nowadays.

My point was that bigpinkt implies that Landis has some more 'splaining to do, and he doesn't. He doesn't have to explain anything that isn't flagged as a violation. Also, as you say, the tests have gotten better, but they also still have his samples, and new tests have revealed nothing. Everyone got excited when Lance's 5-year old samples supposedly turned up EPO. On Landis, so far, nothing.

I have yet to hear a valid explanation for 5 of Flandis' samples testing positive for synthetic testosterone.

Then you must not have been listening. There have been many explanations of how lack of a reliable cal mix failed to identify the proper retention times for identifying peaks. The best being at trustbutverify Without an accurate retention time for each metabolite, it's impossible to know if the calculated ratio's are really for the correct compounds or not.

Then you must not have been listening. There have been many explanations of how lack of a reliable cal mix failed to identify the proper retention times for identifying peaks. The best being at trustbutverify Without an accurate retention time for each metabolite, it's impossible to know if the calculated ratio's are really for the correct compounds or not.

Could you supply a real source? Trust But Verify is simply a Landis month piece.

And while you are at please explain the jump in HCT.....of course I already know the answer badtestinglabfrenchconspriacy Blah Blah Blah

My point was that bigpinkt implies that Landis has some more 'splaining to do, and he doesn't. He doesn't have to explain anything that isn't flagged as a violation. Also, as you say, the tests have gotten better, but they also still have his samples, and new tests have revealed nothing. Everyone got excited when Lance's 5-year old samples supposedly turned up EPO. On Landis, so far, nothing.


Who are you Dr. Ferrari? He famously said "If does not turn up in the controls it is not doping"

Problem is additional testing did revel something, synthetic testosterone...in multiple samples.

Could you supply a real source? Trust But Verify is simply a Landis month piece.

The plots are reprinted from the arbitrators' decision, the analyses come from outside commentators challenging and supporting the conclusions. You can read them and make up your own mind. To discount the discussion out of hand just because of where it's posted seems short sighted.

Problem is additional testing did revel something, synthetic testosterone...in multiple samples.

Additional testing produced IRMS plots with lots of peaks. It's a big leap from producing peaks to revealing exogenous testosterone. Maybe the plots show this maybe not.

The plots are reprinted from the arbitrators' decision, the analyses come from outside commentators challenging and supporting the conclusions. You can read them and make up your own mind. To discount the discussion out of hand just because of where it's posted seems short sighted.

I have read both the decision and the dissent. Unlike the gullible Mr. Campbell I found Flandis position unbelievable. If I am an athlete who gets caught I am certainly asking for Campbell on my arbitration as he will buy pretty much everything....I wonder if he feels just a little foolish after dissenting on Tyler's case, then seeing Tyler's "Doctor" bills?

I still do not see explanation for the big jump in HCT, 10 days into a grand tour

Problem is additional testing did revel something, synthetic testosterone...in multiple samples.

We already know that. You are claiming something more, and there's no evidence of that. They've had plenty of time to test the samples for all kinds of things, and apparently they have found nothing.

We already know that. You are claiming something more, and there's no evidence of that. They've had plenty of time to test the samples for all kinds of things, and apparently they have found nothing.

If Landis's hematocrit level increased significantly during the first ten days of the Tour, that is the evidence. It's evidence of autologous blood doping, which is undectable with the tests currently being used.

We already know that. You are claiming something more, and there's no evidence of that. They've had plenty of time to test the samples for all kinds of things, and apparently they have found nothing.

Your kidding right?

What did you expect to find, EPO? The athletes, and their doctors are pretty ahead of the game. They know when then need to stop taking things and what to take to make sure your ratios are correct. I certainly would not expect anything new, unless they suddenly found out how to test for HGH or Auto blood doping via a urine test.

Here is what I see

Stage 17 A sample positive for high testosterone-Testosterone level

Landis response: The lab screwed up


Stage 17 B sample positive for high testosterone-Testosterone level

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 17 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 10 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 15 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 19 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Stage 20 B sample positive for exogenous testosterone

Landis response: The lab screwed up

Two days before the 2006 race began, Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1. This should have triggered an automatic expulsion according to Phonak's own rules which state that none of its riders can have a HCT of over 48

Landis response: The lab screwed up

So I am expected to believe the lab screwed up 8 times? even LNDD is not that bad and I would assume that if this was the case they would have much more positives from he 1000's of test they perform per year.

So I am expected to believe the lab screwed up 8 times? even LNDD is not that bad and I would assume that if this was the case they would have much more positives from he 1000's of test they perform per year.

I'm not talking about lab screwups. But since you brought it up, we all know the lab screwed up at least once. The panel agreed on that. Could the lab screw up 8 times? Of course it can. If your procedures are wrong, or if your techs aren't trained properly, or your equipment isn't working right, or if you interpret the results wrong, then the expectation is repeated bad results, and correct results are the exception. Is that what happened? I don't know, but don't be naive. Of course this could happen. Mistakes are repeated every day, by all kinds of people working in all kinds of fields, because the people making them don't know any better.

Do you think there is any chance LNDD would ever admit they made any mistakes?

I'm not talking about lab screwups.

You are not, but Flandis is

it is a stretch of the imagination. It's it too bad, Floyd could have told the truth, wrote a book, and saved his $2 million....instead of giving it to Jacobs so he can buy a new house

I'm not talking about lab screwups. But since you brought it up, we all know the lab screwed up at least once. The panel agreed on that. Could the lab screw up 8 times? Of course it can. If your procedures are wrong, or if your techs aren't trained properly, or your equipment isn't working right, or if you interpret the results wrong, then the expectation is repeated bad results, and correct results are the exception. Is that what happened? I don't know, but don't be naive. Of course this could happen. Mistakes are repeated every day, by all kinds of people working in all kinds of fields, because the people making them don't know any better.

Do you think there is any chance LNDD would ever admit they made any mistakes?

that seems in my opinion to be landis's only hope. If he can convince CAS that these "screwups" were enough to make the tests out of accordance with WADA code maybe they invalidate the results. I think it's <i>very</i> unlikely but I guess he already convinced one arbitrator what's another slightly less gullible 3? except that now his dream team is going to have go against Tygart himself instead of his minions, so I'd say the odds are against him.

I think it's <i>very</i> unlikely but I guess he already convinced one arbitrator what's another slightly less gullible 3?

He didn't convince that guy. He is an ex-athlete who thinks the process is fundamentally unfair. I would be interested to know if he's ever sided against an athlete.

As far as retesting Landis' samples, I'm not sure they looked for anything other than testosterone since that is what he was accused of doping with and they found it with the more sensitive test. I don't think any new tests have come on board (unlike Armstrong's samples which were pre-EPO test era).

I'd put good money on a new HgH test catching guys left and right if they went back and retested samples from the past couple of Tours. Same with if they suddenly had some test that could definitively show blood doping or EPO use, neither of which is going to happen.

I would be interested to know if he's ever sided against an athlete.

"While Christopher Campbell has ruled against athletes more often then has he ruled in their favor, he is a reliable believer in justice and due process."

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/10/hues-review-serving-master.html and if you're concerned about Hue's objectivity, you might want to check his CV.

"While Christopher Campbell has ruled against athletes more often then has he ruled in their favor, he is a reliable believer in justice and due process."

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/10/hues-review-serving-master.html and if you're concerned about Hue's objectivity, you might want to check his CV.

I do question Hue's and trustbut's objectivity. They have a clear agenda, one that tosses objectivity and context out the window.
before you say it, yes, I know Hue is a Judge.... judges get fooled, and are biased, just like us normal people

I do question Hue's and trustbut's objectivity. They have a clear agenda, one that tosses objectivity and context out the window.
before you say it, yes, I know Hue is a Judge.... judges get fooled, and are biased, just like us normal people

No matter how biased or what agenda someone might have, I believe they can still count.

If Landis's hematocrit level increased significantly during the first ten days of the Tour, that is the evidence. It's evidence of autologous blood doping, which is undectable with the tests currently being used.

I am interested in the source you got his blood values from could you link that?

I am interested in the source you got his blood values from could you link that?

The Flandis camp deliberately withheld it until the last minute so USADA could not introduce during the actual trail, but it was included at the evidence for the case. The UCI sent it to Flandis and for months they lied and said they did not have them but the UCI emails proved that they were lying. Once Flandis lie was exposed the results suddenly appeared.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20070708-9999-lz1s8landis.html

If he was riding for T-Mobile, CSC, or Slipstream he would pulled from the race. Phonak own rules should have had him pulled as well. Despite his values being under the 50% threshold the dramatic jump can be only explain one way, blood doping.

Hmmm... Perhaps an alternative interpretation

I believe the whole panel agreed that the T/E test was not positive. Process should end right there – period!

But here is what happened. LNDD prematurely leaks FL (non-positive) T/E test to the press. The only way to cover for this leak is to find the IRMS positive. Add to the fact that the entire LNDD (and world) knows the test is Floyds – BTW I would like to hear one single logical argument for no bias here? This is the very essence of bias – the lab techs know what/who they are testing – they are therefore - by definition - biased. In addition to cover for the biased IRMS interpretation the lab techs (again ALL biased) later find other samples positive – big surprise. And we haven’t even mentioned all of the other documented mistakes that have taken place.

At this point whether he doped or not is irrelevant - In the interest of fairness (not to mention due process) alone, even if FL doped (and IMO I think he did), one must find for him in this case. LEAKED test results, a NON-POSITIVE T/E and blatant BIAS.

So I guess you can count me biased against an obviously (gasp) broken process…

…and BTW I can think of several (legit) reasons for an increase in HCT – dehydration being the most obvious. And we all know he wasn’t dehydrated at any point in the race…

Hmmm... Perhaps an alternative interpretation

I believe the whole panel agreed that the T/E test was not positive. Process should end right there – period!

But here is what happened. LNDD prematurely leaks FL (non-positive) T/E test to the press. The only way to cover for this leak is to find the IRMS positive. Add to the fact that the entire LNDD (and world) knows the test is Floyds – BTW I would like to hear one single logical argument for no bias here? This is the very essence of bias – the lab techs know what/who they are testing – they are therefore - by definition - biased. In addition to cover for the biased IRMS interpretation the lab techs (again ALL biased) later find other samples positive – big surprise. And we haven’t even mentioned all of the other documented mistakes that have taken place.

At this point whether he doped or not is irrelevant - In the interest of fairness (not to mention due process) alone, even if FL doped (and IMO I think he did), one must find for him in this case. LEAKED test results, a NON-POSITIVE T/E and blatant BIAS.

So I guess you can count me biased against an obviously (gasp) broken process…

…and BTW I can think of several (legit) reasons for an increase in HCT – dehydration being the most obvious. And we all know he wasn’t dehydrated at any point in the race…

While your conspiracy theory sounds interesting, it has no basis in fact.

-The IRMS test can be run at any time, even if the ratio test is negetive
-LNDD did not leak that Flandis had tested positive. Flandis suddenly did not show up for post tour criteriums that he was being paid $150,000 each to ride his team issued a release that he had tested positive, LNDD released nothing.
-Please provide some supporting evidence that dehydration can cause a 4 point swing in HCT. Don't waste your time, as it is not possible.

I'll play a bit.

>>The IRMS test can be run at any time, even if the ratio test is negetive<
Agreed - but clearly it would be better for the test to be unbiased - that is for the lab techs to not know it is Floyds and that the T/E test was reported to be positive.


>>LNDD did not leak that Flandis had tested positive. Flandis suddenly did not show up for post tour criteriums that he was being paid $150,000 each to ride his team issued a release that he had tested positive, LNDD released nothing.<<
OK LNDD did not leak/release - but the test was leaked by someone at LNDD - as are many tests from this lab.

>>Please provide some supporting evidence that dehydration can cause a 4 point swing in HCT. Don't waste your time, as it is not possible.<<
We'll I didn't dig to hard but it is unlikely for those tests to be run on humans, however I did find one study on rats (I know the irony, lol) that shows over a 10 pt swing in dehydrated rats (Effects of water deprivation on the pharmacokinetics of DA-8159, a ...blah blah blah...). You can do a search on the topic and see for yourself.

My points are - broken process - toss the results. IMHO plenty to cast doubt on the accuracy of the test results - again not saying he isn't guilty just not enough evidence in my book to find him guilty. BTW it would be interesting to run a test on elite cyclist regarding effects of deyhdration and extreme exercise on T/E ratios and other related hormonal HPTA systems. Would be interesting to say the least...

FWIW I doubt FL will win with CAS.

Cheers...

Agreed - but clearly it would be better for the test to be unbiased - that is for the lab techs to not know it is Floyds and that the T/E test was reported to be positive. .

Even the Flandis team was unable to fault the methodology of the secondary tests, remember they were there for six of them. They even tried that silly "we got locked out" stunt, which only served to enhance that they were willing to lie and misdirect in order to create confusion in the case.


OK LNDD did not leak/release - but the test was leaked by someone at LNDD - as are many tests from this lab.

This is a common misconception, that many tests were leaked from the lab. the leak came from the UCI then was confirmed by Phonak


We'll I didn't dig to hard but it is unlikely for those tests to be run on humans, however I did find one study on rats (I know the irony, lol) that shows over a 10 pt swing in dehydrated rats (Effects of water deprivation on the pharmacokinetics of DA-8159, a ...blah blah blah...). You can do a search on the topic and see for yourself.

Sorry, we are not talking about rats, we are talking about professional cyclist. This was the same excused used by Pantani, it did hold water then nor does it now. If it was the case then you can trow out the anti doping programs of Slipstream, T-Mobile, CSC, and Astana as they all are based on tracking rapid changes in blood values.

BTW, the test where Flandis show the big jump in HCT was taken on the morning of July 11, this was the morning AFTER the rest day (A common day to "top up") The idea that he was critically dehydrated the day after the rest day and prior to racing is silly at best.


My points are - broken process - toss the results. IMHO plenty to cast doubt on the accuracy of the test results - again not saying he isn't guilty just not enough evidence in my book to find him guilty. BTW it would be interesting to run a test on elite cyclist regarding effects of deyhdration and extreme exercise on T/E ratios and other related hormonal HPTA systems. Would be interesting to say the least...

FWIW I doubt FL will win with CAS.

Cheers...

It appears that the Flandis legal team has done its job. No, they didn't prove him not guilty but they were able to use enough smoke and mirrors to create reasonable doubt in the casual fan.