http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/landis_defense

Thank you cyclingnews.

A powerpoint does not an arbitration case make.

Philippe

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/landis_defense

Thank you cyclingnews.

A powerpoint does not a court case make.

Philippe

Good article. I feel the case may hinge on the contamination issue.

So let me see, the contamination (by bacteria not spiking of the sample?) issue at this point is pure speculation on Baker's part and can readily be addressed by the Lab, and there is data (the pH) that already suggests the sample wasn't contaminated.

The carbon isotope "all 4 metabolites must be positive" is Jacob BS.

Amazing how Landis' ironclad defense looks to have holes all thru it with just a cursory bit of critical analysis.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/landis_defense

Thank you cyclingnews.

A powerpoint does not an arbitration case make.

Philippe

the thing that pisses me off most is the emphasis Landis and his lawyers keep putting on the fact that his name was released early, and supposedly before it was allowed by the rules. My answer to that is who the %@$# cares when his name was released? That doesn't change the ratio or cause the existence of synthetic testosterone in his sample.

Furthermore, it was Landis and Phonak who first made the announcement. The UCI only said a TdF rider had tested positive.

Furthermore, it was Landis and Phonak who first made the announcement. The UCI only said a TdF rider had tested positive.

That's being disingenous. McQaid announced that a rider tested positive and said it was the "worst possible scenario." What's that supposed to mean? Kloden took amphetepeps on stage 12? Nope. He collared Landis, the only thing he didn't do was mention his name directly and that is f***ing pathetic.

The article mentions the debate over the rationale for the 4:1 ratio of the T:E test, but without citing sources or research papers.

It does not mention any published research or rationale for the selection of 3 delta units to determine a positive 13C/12C test (often called the “exogenous” testosterone test).

Furthermore, it was Landis and Phonak who first made the announcement. The UCI only said a TdF rider had tested positive.


I thought mcquaid was a bit more specific, saying it was "the worst possible result" or words to that effect, or at least that's what landis's slideshow said.

I thought mcquaid was a bit more specific, saying it was "the worst possible result" or words to that effect, or at least that's what landis's slideshow said.

If that's what they say I'll buy it, and the lab didn't follow protocol for correcting ONE of the numbers. Screw it, "if the glove doesn't fit, we must acquit".

Seriously, these are smoke and mirror issues, that have very little if anything to do with the only real question that matters. Was Landis doping with T and did they catch him doing it.

So let me see, the contamination (by bacteria not spiking of the sample?) issue at this point is pure speculation on Baker's part and can readily be addressed by the Lab, and there is data (the pH) that already suggests the sample wasn't contaminated.

That's not how I read it. Maybe I missed something. Here's what I see:

Floyd's team states the concentration of epi and/or testosterone present was greater than the WADA allowable. They have copies of the documents where the numbers came from in the presentation. They did the calculation themselves rather than having it provided by the lab.

Are the samples are considered contaminated if the 5% ratio is exceeded, regardless of what the pH indicates? If so, this may prove to be a very important point in the proceedings.

The article mentions the incorrect numbers with respect to sloppy protocol. A larger issue may be the chain of custody. The lab may have tracked a different sample for an indefinite period prior to the test, assuming they tested the correct sample eventually.

That's being disingenous. McQaid announced that a rider tested positive and said it was the "worst possible scenario." What's that supposed to mean? Kloden took amphetepeps on stage 12? Nope. He collared Landis, the only thing he didn't do was mention his name directly and that is f***ing pathetic.

maybe so, but to fixate on that as some kind of excuse(?) or defense is much more pathetic.

maybe so, but to fixate on that as some kind of excuse(?) or defense is much more pathetic.

I don't think that's even remotely his argument for innocence but the fact remains that the UCI regularly breaks their own rules whenever they feel like it and they never pay a price. A person subject to such arbitrariness is allowed to ***** about it all he wants in my book. What else can he do?

Sloppiness and failure to follow protocols and adhere to standards is grounds for dismissal. Otherwise why have standards and protocols at all? They are there for a reason right?

I don't believe the failure of the UCI to follow their protocol has any relationship to Landis' case before the USADA. This aspect of the case is pure PR. In fact, I seem to recall reading that the UCI can announce whatever they like in relation to a doping case if they deem it necessary.

I don't believe the failure of the UCI to follow their protocol has any relationship to Landis' case before the USADA. This aspect of the case is pure PR. In fact, I seem to recall reading that the UCI can announce whatever they like in relation to a doping case if they deem it necessary.


Figures they would have a weasily "deem it necessary" clause that allows them to say to the press whatever they want.

But I'll agree it's possibly a separate issue but there should be consequences for the sloppy lab and big shot mcqaid.

If that's what they say I'll buy it, and the lab didn't follow protocol for correcting ONE of the numbers. Screw it, "if the glove doesn't fit, we must acquit".

Seriously, these are smoke and mirror issues, that have very little if anything to do with the only real question that matters. Was Landis doping with T and did they catch him doing it.

It seems that you have read only abridged version of defense, the complete one contains enough proof to be aquited ten times.

I don't think the cycling news article wanted to be neutral. Journalism thrives on controversy so taking a different position from Howard Jacobs makes good print. Also Dr. Ayotte from WADA is on the side of the labs so her comments and opinions I believe are biased. She doesn't want to see the testing labs brought down a notch by Landis's lawyer. They are sticking together with their story of tight procedures and adherence to them.

Nevertheless I feel less confident about his chances and more doubtful of his innocence after reading it.

I hope Floyd's team have a few more attacks left for the high passes. They are gonna need em.

Actually the article reads as pretty balanced on just presenting facts and not taking a stand on either side. Cyclingnews has a pretty strong policy of attempting to not editorialize the news and just report it. However the issue is such a hot button I think its hard to read almost anything about it with out trying to see it as coming from one side or another - pretty natural reactions from people who feel strongly about the issue (what ever side you come at from).

I don't think the cycling news article wanted to be neutral. Journalism thrives on controversy so taking a different position from Howard Jacobs makes good print. Also Dr. Ayotte from WADA is on the side of the labs so her comments and opinions I believe are biased. She doesn't want to see the testing labs brought down a notch by Landis's lawyer. They are sticking together with their story of tight procedures and adherence to them.

Nevertheless I feel less confident about his chances and more doubtful of his innocence after reading it.

I hope Floyd's team have a few more attacks left for the high passes. They are gonna need em.

the thing that pisses me off most is the emphasis Landis and his lawyers keep putting on the fact that his name was released early, and supposedly before it was allowed by the rules. My answer to that is who the %@$# cares when his name was released? That doesn't change the ratio or cause the existence of synthetic testosterone in his sample.

No supposedly about it the UCI broke their own rules and announced the result before the rider was even formally notified. Since hes being tried in the court of public opinion it matters a pretty good amount since he had to respond to the result with no documentation to base his comments on. It seems that the UCI feels it can break any of the rules it wants in regard to doping and the procedure set up to follow in doping cases, makes you wonder what other rules and procedures the violated and draws the whole process into question. Of course actions like that provide the riders (guilty or not) a conveniant defense point while doing nothing to further the fight aginst doping since it draws all the results of investigation into question. As far as the " existence of synthetic testosterone" if you read the article its actually has not been proved in fact it appears that the labs have different ways of read those results which is also a major mess up by the testers.

Now with all this I am not saying those facts prove Landis is clean or that that I believe he is but is does draw all the conclusions reached in the web of doubt that would be less of an issue if WADA and the UCI and the UCI Labs would follow the damn rules that THEY SET UP, if the rule makes break the rules chasing the cheaters who the heck can we believe?

Now with all this I am not saying those facts prove Landis is clean or that that I believe he is but is does draw all the conclusions reached in the web of doubt that would be less of an issue if WADA and the UCI and the UCI Labs would follow the damn rules that THEY SET UP, if the rule makes break the rules chasing the cheaters who the heck can we believe?

The lab is a WADA accredited lab, it has nothing to do with the UCI. The reason for WADA is that sport governing bodies like the UCI or US Track & Field were at best doing little to combat doping, or at worst, they were complicit in covering it up.

That's not how I read it. Maybe I missed something. Here's what I see:

Floyd's team states the concentration of epi and/or testosterone present was greater than the WADA allowable. They have copies of the documents where the numbers came from in the presentation. They did the calculation themselves rather than having it provided by the lab.

Are the samples are considered contaminated if the 5% ratio is exceeded, regardless of what the pH indicates? If so, this may prove to be a very important point in the proceedings.

I also see that as a huge problem with the prosecution case. If the stuff on the defense website is accurate, chain of evidence is another major issue. The documents reproduced in Baker's PP make it look difficult for the prosecution. The lab documentation (inc. violation of documentation rules for corrections of entries) & results interpretation appear sloppy at best- and hardly sufficient IMHO to destroy someone's career. IF (and at this point- a big IF) the documentation on the website is truthful the case should stand a high likelyhood of dismissal. That degree of inconsistency/illegibility of documentation along with the sample being outside the prosecution's (i.e. WADA) own published standard (>5% glucuronoconjugates= WADA's own evidence of contamination) would likely prompt a judge to instruct a jury to disregard the lab evidence as unreliable. I know this would not be a jury trial (at least in the sense of US civil law), but there must be some standard applied. I will not comment on the isotope criteria (& which metabolite is the "strongest evidence" of exogenous testoserone use) except to note that WADA tech docs state that 4/4 metabolites should be positive to declare a positive test. To apply a lesser standard to an individual athlete gives the appearance of impropriety. If an organization violates its own rules, what credibility does it have? (And I do NOT believe that the initial announcement of the preliminary positive test consituted a significant rule breach- callous perhaps, but not crucial to the main issue)

Is doping a problem in sports? Absolutely, but participants as well as fans must have confidence in the enforcement and judicial process to clean it up. That is sorely lacking at present. Cover-ups in some cases, inconsistency between A & B test in others (e.g. Jones case), and alot of sloppy lab documentation suggest that the guilty often go free and the innocent can be unjustly accused. Even the 4:1 ratio threshold on T/E testing is called into question by at least one reference provided on UCI/WADA's own websites. The study by Mats et. al from Sweden documented a number of athletes who had baseline T/E ratios over 4. The same investigators also gave testosterone to 7 volunteers as a test, and 3 of those had T/E ratios BELOW the magic 4. Taken together, those results do not inspire confidence that one-time T/E testing is particularly sensitive or specific. Better testing methodology is clearly needed. Ultimately, fans (and sponsors) must have a reasonable degree of confidence that the guilty will be detected & the clean athlete will not be unjustly accused.

Regarding PR- IF Floyd is innocent, the best defense move so far may be their position to demand the proceedings be public. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty should be maintained. WADA's case against Floyd may be solid, it may be too sloppy to hold up, or (less likely) it may be a hatchet job on a non-Lance American who won the TdF. Let both the prosecution & defense have their arguments in an open forum.
If the case holds up, then so be it..........