Floyd Landis Speaks Out

Floyd Landis and members of his defense team held a press conference at 1 p.m. Eastern time today in order to respond to reports leaked from the French anti-doping laboratory, LNDD, that several of his other B samples from the 2006 Tour de France had tested positive for synthetic testosterone.

Landis defended himself, saying, “First of all, I won the Tour fair and square. And I’m disappointed, but not surprised, to hear of the leaks from the lab or USADA to L’Equipe.”

Landis went on, “This leak, itself, confirms a total lack of ethics within the anti-doping world.” He also told the press, “It’s just another example of the very few rights an athlete has are being completely ignored by the anti-doping authorities.”

In addition, Landis said, “Much like the Ian Thorpe leaks, this represents a massive failure on the part of WADA to manage the critical fight against doping. These failures, in any other industry, would be construed as criminal negligence.”

Maurice Suh, one of Landis’ attorneys, said Landis’ team would have welcomed the testing at the U.S Olympic Lab (UCLA) or a neutral facility, but he went on to say, they have consistently opposed testing at LNDD, due to LNDD’s known problems and conflicts of interest.

Suh said, “Our concerns were this: LNDD is a lab which is now fighting for its reputation. Any results that came out of these re-tests that continued to be adverse were results that would, in effect, save [LNDD’s] reputation.”

Suh likened the testing at LNDD to “the fox guarding the henhouse” going on to say that with today’s developments their concerns have been borne out.

Suh also said that the Landis defense team don’t yet know the full results of the additional testing, though they expect to receive the documentation of those results over the course of the coming days. According to Suh, USADA has announced they intend to use the results of the past weeks’ testing in the arbitration hearing on May 14th.

Suh described the testing process as clearly one sided, with Landis experts not allowed to see all portions of the testing, and in particular the analysis of the testing. Landis observers were not allowed to see the most critical parts of the testing process, he continued. Suh went on to say that the Landis observers’ access was “in sharp and startling contrast” to the access afforded to USADA’s observers and lawyer.

USADA had free reign. They were allowed access to all aspects of the testing, Suh said. All aspects of whether Landis’ experts had access to the testing was directed by USADA’s outside lawyer, who, Suh went on to say, provided direction to the director of LNDD. The director of the French lab confirmed this, according to Suh, as Professor de Ceaurizz stated on numerous occasions during the past week that direction came from USADA.

At a certain point, Suh said, USADA observers decided to leave — even though testing was not yet complete. Afterwards, Landis observers not allowed in, even though testing was continuing unobserved by any expert from Landis’ defense team. The Landis expert shut out had to wait on curb for results.

In addition, no independent expert representing the arbitration panel was present for any part of the testing, Suh stated.

At this time, the Landis defense team doesn’t have all of the records or documents from the testing. Landis’ lawyers and advisers, therefore, can’t give a reasoned analysis of information being spread through the rumor mill (such as the leak of information to L’Equipe), until they get test results from either LNDD or USADA.

Both Suh and Howard Jacobs, another of Floyd Landis’ attorneys, emphasized that today’s leak only could have come from USADA or LNDD. Suh went on to say that this leads to the logical conclusion that during the testing LNDD knew whose samples were whose, and the tests were not blinded in any way.

“We are not surprised that LNDD would turn around and declare adverse findings, not withstanding the fact that they have seen fit at a time when they were not under attack, that they would declare those same samples, that same urine, negative. We will see whether USADA and LNDD will fairly allow us to have access to documents, to records, to be able to show what really happened in this case and not what they would like everyone else to think has happened.”

Howard Jacobs added that the source of the leak is relevant to some of the improprieties that occurred during this retesting. He went on to say that the Landis legal team intends to ask our arbitration panel over the coming days to require that USADA and LNDD provide affidavits under oath that they were not source of leaks. Jacobs cited a similar requirement in the BALCO case, which ultimately exposed who leaked grand jury testimony.

In answering questions from ESPN’s Bonnie DeSimone, Suh said, “The arbitration panel could not have foreseen how the retesting would be done. Any fair analysis of how USADA has conducted this testing … would lead the panel to view the results for exactly what they are worth, which is nothing.”

When asked whether the Landis defense team will seek a delay in the arbitration hearings, Suh answered, “More time would be terrific.” He went on to say that the Landis defense team will decide in the coming days whether to pursue their objections about the testing process with the arbitration panel, or whether they will go to the courts.