Caution: Wild Ride Ahead

It’s a wild ride today in Landis-land. We began with news that Landis’ representatives had been shut out of LNDD over the weekend, and that their access during the testing over the last week has been limited, in stark contrast to the access afforded USADA and their representatives. We also found out that the arbitration panel did not, in fact, have independent observers present during the testing. Which means that the order of the arbitration panel regarding the conditions of the testing has been thwarted by USADA.

And then came the leaks of information to L’Equipe. LNDD (or their designated leaker) has wasted no time in getting word to their favorite reporter that the test results were “positive.” Of course, just like in July and August of last year, that information was released before any data was passed on to Landis’ defense team, and without any of the scientific material that backs up such assertions. So we merely have their word that these are the results.

But given both USADA’s behavior in this matter, and LNDD’s history, it would come as no surprise if the results are similar to the “positive” they declared last year. In other words, “positive” by LNDD’s warped standards, but not by others.

According to Paul Scott, one of Landis’ observers, he and fellow observer Simon Davis were barred from observing various phases of the testing over the last week. Scott was quoted in the Landis press release as saying:

“In my years at the UCLA lab, I’ve never seen anything like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed on me and Simon [Davis – an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of objectivity in this process, USADA’s interest in controlling and limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that I have experienced.”

This should give anyone concerned with fairness in the process, regardless of his or her individual beliefs about Landis’ innocence, pause.

Scott went on to say:

Good science does not fear being an open book. Any science that is not neutral and objective is not science at all. Labs acting under the direction of prosecuting Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) are, by definition, not independent. As service providers hired by ADOs, they have a vested interest in the results desired by their client. In this case, the client is USADA and the lab is the LNDD. From what I have witnessed so far, I have significant concerns that their analysis will render results that are scientifically invalid.

Yes, good science does not fear open observation. But who ever said this was a lab that practices good science? Given their further inability to maintain confidentiality, and their willingness to deny access to Landis’ observers, it appears they have something to hide.

Floyd Landis and his team will be holding a press conference at 1 p.m. Eastern time. Expect more coverage here after the press conference is over.