In what certainly appears to be a case of interesting timing, the Associated Press is reporting that Pierre Bordry, head of France’s anti-doping agency (AFLD) has asked an independent French agency to look into whether LNDD, France’s anti-doping laboratory, correctly handled the Stage 17 tests that are the basis for accusations that Floyd Landis doped during the 2006 Tour de France.
The timing of this report is all the more interesting, coming hot on the heels of yesterday’s revelations that data related to those same tests may have been deleted or tampered with. Bordry, however, did not comment to the AP about those allegations. Instead, he told the news agency that the tests were part of a regularly scheduled review of the lab’s software and analysis procedures.
Bordry also told the AP that before this latest story broke, he had asked for a review of how the Landis case had been handled.
“What interests me is the positive B sample from August,” Bordry told the AP. “I have asked experts outside the affair to tell me if the analyses of this sample were conducted correctly.”
Bordry did not name the outside experts or agency that will be conducting the review. He did go on to tell the AP: “These results will be difficult to contest whatever their conclusion. I will forward the results to Landis’ lawyers when I get them.”
The report, as published in the International Herald Tribune, doesn’t mention when Bordry expects for the review to be complete, or whether that review has already begun. So it’s unclear whether the results of the review will be available prior to the start of Landis’ arbitration hearings in two weeks.
If the results are available before the beginning of the arbitration hearings on May 14th, and if they show improprieties in how the lab handled the tests (as well as the data from the tests), Bordry may be paving the way for the case against Landis to be dropped. A finding by an independent agency harshly critical of the lab’s procedures would almost certainly undermine the credibility of the lab’s originally-reported results that are being used to prosecute the case.
Should that be the case, both USADA and the AFLD (remember, there’s a separate case in France, currently on hold until the end of June) would have a way out — at least as far as the doping case goes. Whether USADA would be able to cover themselves in terms of any damage lawsuits that Team Landis might file later would be another matter.
Meanwhile, ESPN’s Bonnie DeSimone is reporting that Team Landis’ request to delay the hearings, so that they have more time to review the test results of the other B samples, has been denied. So, at this point, on May 14th it’s game on. That is, unless Bordry’s review panel comes back with some startling finding before then. In that case, all bets are off. Given the twists and turns the Landis case has taken so far, nothing would surprise me. Especially more twists and turns before the hearings begin.
Rant,
What is your feeling/instinct on this, or TBV’s, or anyone’s, if I might ask? Do you think Bordry is coming over to our side, or is that wishful thinking? How likely is it for his investigation results to come in time for May 14th? Not sure what to make of this.
Rant:
Here we go again — it is clear that LNDD cannot manage hardware/software technology.
To begin with, the first thing on the OS/2 page at the IBM website states, “For several years IBM has published an OS/2 Strategy. It stated IBM’s intention to reduce OS/2 support and made the recommendation that customers implement a phased transition from client-and-server environments to the WebSphere software platform.” To say the software is antiquated (as team Landis does in their press release) is an insult to antiquated software!
If you do a search of “GC/MS” “analysis software” (which yields 4,958 results) it is clear that the state of the art in analysis software is evolving rapidly. In fact, I followed a few links and saw an article about reducing analysis times and increasing confidence in results by using recently developed software. On the other hand, if you do a search of “GC/MS OS2” you get zero results. The point is simple: Even if the missing data is found and the mishandling is deemed trivial, the software that produced the analysis is suspect — in both its base algorithms and its level of defect removal.
So far, LNDD has (1) used old and apparently improperly installed equipment to determine the chemical composition of Landis’s samples (2) used outdated software to analyze the results and (3) followed sloppy procedures to manage the resultant data. I said it before and I’ll say it again — this is negligence pure and simple.
I have found it troubling that many have suggested that team Landis analyze the samples with more modern software. Maybe I don’t understand the arbitral process of USADA, but, such a step seems both unnecessary and impossible. Unnecessary because there is enough information to doubt the S17 and/or the re-analyzed B results — from archaic technology to faulty procedure. Impossible because there is no more B-sample (from the negative A’s) available and I’ve lost track of the B from S17 — is there any of that left? And, even if there was, why should we believe the samples haven’t been contaminated as we know they’ve been both mislabeled and mishandled?
While I appreciate the caution in your forecast of arbitral response, it sure seems that team Landis is focusing past the current arbitration and establishing grounds for criminal prosecution. It also seems that AFLD and Landis could come out of this re-united and both rightfully indignant at the damage done to their brands by WADA, USADA and LNDD. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see Floyd at the start of this year’s TDF — not as a racer but as the official guest of Pierre Bordry?
BTW, I got my Floyd-signed-and-personalized Maillot Jaune over the weekend. Somehow, I think this jersey is going to be more valuable over time!
My pessimistic feeling is that after completion of the review, Bordry will come out and say “We’ve identified some areas of concern, and they are being addressed as we speak. We have though not identified any problem areas that affected the outcome of Landis B sample analysis”.
Debby,
One other possibility is that Bordry is doing some sort of CYA maneuver. Not sure about that at the moment, but we’ll see how this plays out. I’ve heard rumblings that the review may be done by the 14th, but I haven’t gotten any hard info on that. Just a bit of commentary from some sources that I don’t have confirmation on.
Steve,
I think that in terms of reanalyzing, what’s been suggested is to take the raw data from the A and B samples of Stage 17 and see what a newer, more modern GC/MC analysis software would conclude. My hunch is that running the raw data through newer software could yield some different results.
Pommi,
That would be the CYA interpretation of this latest move. You may be right. We’ll see in due time.
Rant: This is a two-step process, right? The GC/MS machine does its thing and then the analysis software says how much of what is in the sample…yes? I understand why some folks would recommend using more modern analysis software, but, wouldn’t you question the accuracy of the raw data as well — given the (sadly) recurring examples of LNDD technology mis-management? If the raw data is messed up, couldn’t re-analysis just muddy the waters further? And lastly, does Floyd need to prove the sample doesn’t contain dope or does he need to establish reasonable doubt in LNDD’s analysis?
Rant:
Are we correct in assuming that Landis actually has the results of the other b-sample tests? Does he have all seven or only the “several” that showed “traces”? Does he have the entire report for those b-samples or just some of it?
The reason I ask is I was under the impression Landis had none of the results and that all we had was a press release and no hard evidence. THis was certainly the case last Monday when he asked for the delay.
This is why is motion was denied. He was trying to get a delay based on a press leak, not any actual new data. And, if so, the motion should be denied.
How much of this is correct and how much is wrong?
Steve,
That’s a good point about the validity of the raw data. Not sure how to answer that at the moment. I’d have to go and do a bit of research first. Certainly, if the raw data is messed up, you can’t draw any valid conclusions from that data. And in that case, re-analysis could very well muddy the waters. Floyd and his team have to refute USADA/LNDD’s assertion that his tests show synthetic testosterone. Reasonable doubt, unfortunately, isn’t the standard here. It’s the “comfortable satisfaction” of the arbitrators. If that sounds murky to you, you’re in good company. What might be the “comfortable satisfaction” for some arbitrators might not be to others. Let’s just say they have a lot of leeway to decide.
ORG,
I don’t know that we can assume that Landis and company have all the data from the new tests. I think one of the issues in seeking the delay is that they don’t have the info, and won’t get it until the 11th hour and 59th minute, leaving them precious little time to review, understand or be able to refute LNDD’s and USADA’s conclusions. I think he was trying to get a delay based on not having received this new evidence. I don’t know how likely the arbitrators would be to allow such a delay if Landis’ defense team walked in on May 14th and asked for one then, because they had only just received data from USADA. That would certainly reflect badly on USADA, but I don’t know if the arbs would delay the case.
Rant:
The problem is we don’t know if any new information is forthcoming. Yes, the l’equipe leak strongly suggests more data is coming, but Landis is not going to get a delay becuase it MIGHT be forthcoming. (remember that the panel will rule on admissiablity at a later time, presumably in the beginning of the hearing). Should they rule it is admissable, and this data is critical to USADA’s case, then yes, he should ask, and get a delay. Until then, he should be awared a delay based on a hypothetical.
Rant,
I apologize in advance for taking off on my own parallel, yet pertinent rant.
I have never believed the data about Tyler Hamilton blood doping with someone else’s blood. My disbelief is not because Tyler is some saint, but because the test is crap and the process quite dangerous. The test detects small differences in different peoples blood by detecting minor histocompatability antigens on the red blood cell. That means that we can always type A to A blood, of B to B, etc. but these other minor markers are much less important in worrying about blood typing yet are highly variable in the human population. The original tests consisted of mixing 10 cc of my blood with 90 cc of your blood, mixing them up, and using antibodies against these minor histo antigens to “find” the 10%. Works fine in the lab, but is highly, highly suspect in any real life setting (much less defined and accurate than, for example, detecting synthetic T). On top of this is the question: where you gonna get the blood?? You can’t keep using blood from the same person because after the second or third transfusion you are full of antibodies against their blood and transfusion poisoning can result (blood clots, kidney damage, etc). And you don’t want to just find any else’s blood due to hepatitis C and HIV and mad cow disease and a jillion other things floating around in unknown blood. So, no, his wife could not be giving him blood over the years: only a parent, a child, or his identical twin. Not likely for those three.
Now we find that he potentially has a bag of blood in the hands of the Spanish inquisition. Interesting, but he was NOT busted for doping his own blood: he was busted for doping some else’s blood. I would not be surprised if they do a DNA check and find that his DNA is in that blood, and that he is re-busted, but that means he was charged and convicted for a violation for which they claim they had a valid test for, but which he did NOT do.
So why do I care? I think Tyler was railroaded with a crappy lab finding because someone thought he “smelled funny”. They couldn’t quite figure it out what he was up to so they just framed him for what they could and then gave each other high five’s for kicking another doper out of the peleton. But if these “valid tests” are this INVALID then is any rider safe from a moralistic holier-than-thou set of lab or race directors (or newpapers)? I would argue using the doping system in this way undermines all faith in the process. And we have seen that lately in spades!
ORG,
You raise an interesting point. What if USADA doesn’t give Landis the info, but is allowed to use the new data in their case? How could Landis defend against that? I know what the rules in court would be, but in arbitration, would those rules apply? Or could USADA, with a nudge and a wink to the arbs, be allowed to use evidence that Landis’ team can’t review?
JBSMP,
Seems like you know a heck of a lot about the Hamilton case and the science (or lack thereof) behind the test that was used to convict him of doping. And there seem to be some parallels to a current case that’s drawing a lot of interest. Thanks for adding that info to the mix.
– Rant
That’s why Tyler said the biggest mistake he made was not asking for a public hearing as Floyd has.
Rant,
I’m sure you’ve seen this already, but there is news that WADA is considering relaxing its regulations to allow USADA to respond publicly when it believes athletes are making false or misleading statements about an ongoing probe. See: http://tinyurl.com/27kane .
How about we propose some changes of our own:
1) Any lab that releases any testing results (positive or negative) to any newspaper, magazine, web site, etc loses its WADA certification for one year. After this year, they can reapply for certification when they demonstrate that they have fixed the leak.
I’d write more, but I’m quite time constrained today…
MTS,
I saw a different version of that article earlier today. Thinking about making it today’s subject. Thanks for pointing it out.
– Rant