I have a prediction to make, even though I’ve learned to be careful about doing so: The next few months (or more) of the Landis case are going to bring forth more strange twists and turns, some of them far stranger than I can possibly imagine. Far stranger than any movie I’ve seen or book I’ve read. Certainly far stranger than any screenplay I could write. (And, yes, I’ve done that once or twice, but that’s another story for another time.)
The speed and pace of developments during the last few days has been dizzying. Starting with the news conference on Wednesday to the AFLD hearing to the revelation that USADA has been trying to test the B samples from Landis’ other urine specimens given during the 2006 Tour (and apparently two other samples given at other times) — the case seems to have shifted into overdrive (or for bike geeks into 53×11).
The B sample story has blown up to the point where Team Landis released a statement earlier this evening responding to the revelations from L’Equipe’s story. (You can read the full text of the press release here.) Given the newspaper that published the story and the lab involved in the story, it’s easy to believe that the leak of this information came straight from someone inside the hallowed halls of LNDD.
The press release contains some interesting, and previously unknown information, such as:
The original request for re-testing came from United States Anti-Doping Agency ( USADA ) general counsel Travis Tygart in late December and proposed further testing of the “B” portion of cleared “A” samples at the Labaratoire National Depistage de Dopage’s (LNDD) laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry. Landis and his team are concerned about this latest strategem, which involves retesting samples that have previously tested negative for any performance enhancing substances at the very same laboratory whose procedures are at issue in the upcoming case.
This information is interesting for a few reasons. First, we find out that the original request had been made before Travis Tygart did the interview with the Daily Peloton, in which he castigated defense lawyers for wasting time and money on what he termed “fishing expeditions.” All while knowing he was off on his own little fishing expedition. One that would delay the proceedings, while costing the defendant time and money. Hypocrisy, anyone?
In addition, because the LNDD’s procedures, protocols and methods are an issue in this case, the “evidence” that Tygart might get from his expedition would be clouded in controversy and of dubious value.
Floyd Landis’ reaction to these latest revelations is this:
With all that we have learned, however, I am very concerned regarding the LNDD’s handling of my samples over the last six months as well as the Anti-Doping Agencies’ (ADA) complete and consistent disregard of their own rules and procedures.
He goes on:
With the steady stream of news flow regarding serious problems at the LNDD, it’s impossible to understand USADA’s motivation for this move, unless it’s simply another way to drain my resources in this fight to clear my name.
Indeed, it is hard to understand USADA’s motives. Since they have blocked Landis’ access to documentation from the A samples of the other TdF urine specimens, how can they then make the case that they need these samples retested?
Are they trying to bleed Landis dry? Or are they simply trying to pressure him into settling quickly? A blackmail attempt, if you will, by saying, “Look, if you settle, we’ll be nice. If not, we’re going to dig up all the nastiest, dirtiest evidence we can find (or perhaps manufacture?) and smear your name from now till Kingdom Come.”
As cliche as that last bit sounds, there’s the kind of stench emanating from the USADA offices that suggests they’re up to something that’s not kosher. But we’ll come back to this in a bit.
Team Landis’ press release notes that the proposed testing is a clear violation of both WADA’s and the UCI’s rules, and goes on to say:
USADA’s illegal initiative would also cause the Landis team to expend unnecessary resources to halt a clearly prohibited activity — resources that have already been unduly and unfairly stretched by the ADA’s unethical approach to their pursuit of unsubstantiated allegations against Landis.
They also note that given the manner in which USADA has denied the Landis team access to relevant discovery materials, they have no expectation that they would receive the data that comes as a result of the retesting. By withholding evidence necessary for Landis’ defense, USADA can hardly be said to have any interest in a fair hearing. They appear to be more interested in getting another notch on their six-shooter as another alleged doper bites the dust.
Maurice Suh, the lawyer who represented Landis at Thursday’s AFLD hearing, says:
Illegal re-testing of these cleared samples is designed to further injure Floyd by costing him and his team substantial time and money, more deeply invading his privacy and destroying evidence that may later on be valuable in his defense. USADA continues to dramatically demonstrate that they have no interest in providing Floyd with a fair and just outcome to this process.
It does seem that way. This seems to be game-playing of the highest order. Tygart told the Daily Peloton that he was ready to proceed. If that’s the case, what is he trying to prove by this stunt? Whatever it is, it appears to be punitive, and it appears designed more with the goal of getting a win rather than determining the truth.
Tygart had to know the Landis defense team would work hard to quash such a scheme. And if his case is so solid, he doesn’t need this additional “evidence.” And he had to know the kind of PR pressure it would put on Team Landis. So it’s hard to escape the conclusion that this is more about forcing Landis into accepting what amounts to a “plea bargain” in return for not totally destroying his reputation, finances and ability to make a living. Not very sporting for an agency that is supposed to ensure fair play, is it?
Team Landis addresses the Stage 17 sample that is the basis of this whole debacle thusly:
The sample that is the basis for the unsubstantiated allegations against Landis was confirmed to be contaminated, yet the LNDD proceeded to test this sample, in violation of WADA protocols. The results of testing this contaminated sample did not meet the criteria for a “positive” test based on the standards of the world’s leading anti-doping laboratories in the US, UK and Australia.
This is an interesting comment, about which I want more information. Are they suggesting that LNDD knew at the time of the tests that they were testing a contaminated sample and proceeded anyway? I’d like to see the documentation on that, or get some clarification. If this is true, then I can’t see how this case could hold together at all.
I can imagine the pressure on LNDD to complete the testing, given that the whole story had already blown up in the media by then. LNDD has a serious information security problem, a leak they need to plug. Had the Landis case followed proper protocol, and had the story not broken out, then come the time of the B sample test, everyone could back down without having to save face. By the time of the B sample test last August, the time for saving face had passed. The pressure was so intense, I can easily imagine that the lab felt the tests had to continue.
Or, once they had all the data and knew the sample was contaminated (assuming they ran all the tests at once), then the person interpreting the results should have thrown his hands up and said, “Game over. The sample is contaminated. We’re done. Nothing else to see here.”
Except, given the notoriety the story had achieved by then, it would appear that Landis was getting off on a technicality. The ASO didn’t want that. WADA didn’t want that. The UCI didn’t want that. What they wanted was proof that the system worked and that cheaters caught would pay a high price. They may not have actively conspired, but by their actions they chose to spin the story that Landis was a cheat.
Hard to say what happened. But after reading the press release, I started thinking of a passage in Chapter 19 of Deuteronomy:
16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Put simply, the Biblical penalty imposed on someone for bearing false witness is the punishment their victim would have received or did receive for the same offense.
Floyd Landis has lost his reputation, his good name, his job and all that should have come to him as the winner of the Tour. In addition, he’s had to shell out large amounts of money to defend himself. This is the punishment he’s been dealt for an offense he likely didn’t commit, all because someone may be covering their ass (a/k/a bearing false witness against Landis) in order to protect themselves, their organizations, or their reputations.
That someone should thank their lucky stars that the punishment for doing so today isn’t what’s proscribed in the Tanakh (Old Testament). But there’s a part of me that thinks when this is all over, the people who have acted vindictively should be dealt the same hand they dealt Floyd. That would be justice.
Re your comment on the contamination documentation, it’s in Arnie’s slide show (slides 9-12), which is posted on our web site. If you’d like to walk through the data, which comes directly from the lab, we’d be happy to do so with you.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian,
Thanks for the offer. I’ve actually been through the slide show several times. The way I was reading the press release at the time, I wasn’t sure if it was referring to Arnie Baker’s slide show, or whether you had additional information (such as someone who might have told you, “Yeah, we knew it was contaminated, but we went forward with the testing anyway.”). What I get from his slide show is that the evidence is there, the sample was clearly contaminated by WADA’s own standards. The person who was reviewing the data at LNDD either didn’t look at the contamination issue, or chose to ignore it. I’m just not sure which is was. Either way, it doesn’t speak well for the lab. In the movie version, I can imagine someone seeing the data, raising the issue and someone above him or her saying, “That doesn’t matter, we’re doing these tests until we get the results we want.” In real life, I’d like to know if that actually happened. But be that as it may, it’s clear that due to the contamination, the test should not have been taken any further and it should not have been a positive.
– Rant
I think this whole fishing expedition, as so elegantly described above, is exactly because the stage 17 WAS contaminated prior to the analysis, and that means the data from those tests is invalid, plain and simple.
USADA, thus, has two choices: either throw out the tarnished data (and the whole case) or look damn hard for another example of cheating so they can state there is a “pattern of cheating” and thus not have to pin their prosecution only on the #17 data.
My prediction is that if no othher dirty samples come to light, that this case will be settled out of court before the hearing, and that Landis is given a clean bill of health.
I wonder when the LNDD analysts knew that the B sample was contaminated. And did the Landis representatives know at the time of testing that it was contaminated? Did they get to look at all the 270 pages of documentation before they signed off on the test?
I get concerned when I read some of the ASO or other French cycling and drug testing eminences saying that the Landis team at the B sample analysis “signed off on the test”. What does that mean? What did they sign and what did they get to see? How does the representative(s) signing off play out in the hearing? And who was the non-lawyer representative? A fellow who used to be with a WADA lab who now lives in the Netherlands (I must have read this somewhere but I can’t track all the labyrinthine details)?
Rant – off topic but you might link it anyway
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/02/is_cycling_read.html
Rant, brilliant post as always! I’ve always felt that if someone is dragging their feet, and putting off scheduling something, they are either hiding the fact that they are not ready, or hiding the fact that they have nothing of substance. The USADA is playing games with Floyd and the rest of us, and I hope they live to regret it. Just as the Old Testament says…..
Dan, you and TBV complement each other in terms of Landis coverage: extensive AND in-depth. Why look elsewhere 🙂 … Appreciative, Pommi.