Over the past week or so an interesting thread has emerged over at the Daily Peloton Forums, which centers around whether or not the carbon isotope ratio tests performed on Floyd Landis’ sample were run properly. Pommi has posted one of the more interesting posts, from Duckstrap. The Cliff’s Notes version of Duckstrap’s post says:
You3, I think you may have found something important. Bottom line for those who don’t feel the desire to wade through the following is that I believe there is evidence of significant chromatographic interferences in the GC-IRMS analyses that could lead to skewing of the CIR results.
To see the whole thread from the beginning, go here. Duckstrap goes on to say that he thinks it’s crucial for the Landis defense team to get the raw data, so that it can be further analyzed to determine whether other compounds were showing up in Landis’ test results in roughly the same spot as the compounds the lab is interested in. And further on in the discussion, duckstrap points a finger at what might be contaminating the results of Landis’ isotope ratio tests: metabolites of cortisol.
For the carbon isotope test to be a valid indication of doping, not only does the lab need to show a certain result, but it also has to show that what they claim to have found was the only reason for the result. If the testing was done improperly and the wrong compounds moved through the system at the wrong times, then the results don’t have much real meaning. So if Duckstrap is right, then contaminants in the CIR test may have given data that made it appear as if Floyd Landis had one or two metabolites of synthetic testosterone, when in fact he didn’t.
What has me concerned about these arguments, while they may be correct, is how much they would help the Landis defense. I would like to think that these types of arguments would be a big help, but the Landaluze case had a couple of interesting twists to it.
First, by showing that standard protocols and procedures were violated, the case got tossed. This is good, because labs must follow the correct protocols and procedures in order to ensure data integrity. One certainly doesn’t want a lab tech validating his or her own work, as at the very least there’s a bit of bias. The lab tech is very likely to validate his or her own work, either by repeating the same mistakes or in order to look good.
What’s disturbing about the Landaluze decision, especially as it applies to the Landis case, is that the CAS basically punted when it came time to consider for the scientific and technical arguments. In essence, they threw their hands in the air and said, “The scientific experts can’t agree about this stuff, so how can we be expected to make a decision?” [Hint: What part of “that’s your job” don’t you understand?]
From what I’ve seen of the Landis case and the arguments, the Landis team are focusing not on whether the science of the testing is correct, but rather whether the tests were conducted correctly and whether the data has been interpreted correctly. And whether, in the case of the free epitestosterone percentage of the B sample, the tests should have been performed at all.
Interestingly, Arnie Baker was able to calculate the value for the free epitestosterone percentage from the B sample data, but I’ve not found any place in the lab documentation where the percentage of free T and/or free E is noted. (Perhaps I haven’t been looking in the right place, after all there’s 370 pages of lab documentation to wade through.) Given that WADA’s standards call for the percentage to be below a certain level, shouldn’t that show up in the lab documentation pack somewhere? Shouldn’t the determination of that percentage be a part of the lab’s protocol?
But going back to whether the isotope ratio tests were conducted appropriately: The crux of the discussion between You3 and Duckstrap (as I understand it), along with a few others, is whether the CIR testing was actually performed correctly and whether or not the results can be trusted. This is a valuable and important discussion. And if you can follow the technical details, it’s well worth the time to follow as it may well be an important line of defense for the Landis side, assuming the arbitration panel is willing to listen to, and consider, the arguments.
What has me concerned is whether the arbitration panel will perform a similar move as the CAS did in the Landaluze case and punt on the arguments over data interpretation and whether or not tests were performed correctly. So, while the Landis side needs all the scientific arguments it can put together as to why the test results aren’t valid, I hope they also have one or two slam-dunk arguments related to protocols and/or procedures to ensure a positive outcome.
And although I’d rather they win on the scientific merits of arguments like the ones Duckstrap makes, along with You3, if the judgment occurs due to what some call a “technicality” (like the same person performing the A and B sample analysis, ala Landaluze), so be it.
My guess is that somewhere in those 60+ arguments that Arnie Baker has are one or two slam-dunk arguments. And not slam-dunks in the George Tenet sense of the phrase. More like Vince Carter’s move from the 2000 Olympics in leaping over Frédéric Weis, France’s 7-foot-2 center, to score. In case you don’t remember, the French media dubbed that move “le dunk de la mort” — the dunk of death.
I fear you are right Rant. It may well be that nobody will be able to prove if the test was done correctly or not. Lord knows there have been a lot of smart people spending a lot of time debating the matter — with, as yet, to clear conclusion.
If the test is so difficult to perform and to interpret, why have it? It increasingly seems that the ADO’s and their associated infrastructure are determined to make a difference — regardless of whether they have the means in place to do so. Maybe, instead of trying to convict Landis and re-open Puerto, the ADO’s would better serve their mission by devoting more research dollars to devising simpler and cheaper tests. I dunno, it’s just an idea.
Also, if a procedural “le dunk de la mort” is what the Landis team needs, why does the argument of negligent maintenance and operation of the GC-IMRS seem to have been discounted by most everyone? I know that some have argued that Landis cannot prove those factors had an impact on the test results (which admittedly seems virtually impossible). However, from a procedural standpoint we have all the evidence we need: we know LNDD ran sophisticated equipment on 8 year old software, mismatched hardware/firmware and without a manual. There seems no way such operation could be considered “reasonable care”. I would really appreciate any arguments explaining why LNDD’s procedural negligence is not “le dunk de la mort”.
The argument of LNDD’s procedural negligence in the Landis case has a chilling corollary: if guilty in Landis they are equally guilty in every GC-IMRS test run for the last 8 years!
You said is Steve B., “Procedural Negligence.” This whole case seems to add up to procedural negligence from a-z or at least E to T. Every which way you turn there are more errors. And after all I’ve read and heard, 60 errors in the quiver of team Landis seems reasonable if not low. It will be interesting which error(s) will resonate with the arbs, like a board breaker a la Shaq. I just hope the Arbs have the balls to really let LNDD and WADA have it when the ruling comes down. however I doubt it, I’m sure the wording will be less than scathing and sweeping the errors under the rug like the Landaluze case ruling.