Boy, so much has gone on in the last 24 hours, the question tonight is: Where to begin?
Let’s start with the latest bombshell revelation emanating from a French newspaper — LeMonde. A story run in LeMonde, translated by TBV’s Paris correspondent Marc, says:
“We validate the laboratory’s results,” the experts conclude in their report. “The set of our verification tests,” they continue, “show that LNDD worked in a professional manner and that the quality of their analyses cannot be faulted.”
Since the start of the case, Floyd Landis’ side has claimed that “numerous errors” were committed: identification errors of the A and B samples, or the presence of two different persons during the handling of those samples. [Yes, the French says precisely that. The writer is confused.]
The experts considered these details as “without effect” on the results of the tests.
Floyd Landis, to whom a copy of these expert results was sent, refused to transmit them to the USADA.
According to our information, the USADA nevertheless received the conclusions of the report on Friday May 11, and will not fail to use them at the rider’s hearing.
So, what we have here (based on the limited information printed in LeMonde) is a story that claims the results show the lab’s work is impeccable. It seems that Pierre Bordry has gotten the CYA he wanted from the independent reviewers.
Now, there’s one question that sticks out in my mind: Exactly how did the reviewers determine that the lab’s work on the Stage 17 results was by-the-book, done in a professional manner, or whatever? A retrospective inspection can only look at whatever documentation exists. And if the people involved knew they were going to be inspected, what do you bet they cleaned it up to look all pretty and nice? Not, of course, that LNDD has ever modified any official reports or anything, mind you.
Perhaps LNDD’s work was all professional and perfectly done. There’s still the matter of how the data was interpreted. Is LNDD’s interpretation correct? That’s one of the key issues in the coming hearings. If not, then the whole case is shot. From what I’ve seen and read of the lab documentation pack, I’d say there’s a pretty strong case to be made for the interpretation being incorrect.
But I’m not sure whether any of the scientific arguments will matter to the panel. I was looking at quickrelease.tv the other day, and Carlton Reid, who writes the blog, linked to the PDF file of the arbitration award from the Hamilton case. The interesting part, he said, was Chris Campbell’s dissent (it starts on page 14). Carlton’s right, we may very well see similar issues play out in a similar way in the Landis case.
Campbell is often maligned as an arbitrator who consistently sides with athletes. Perhaps that’s because he is a former Olympic athlete, so people think he automatically sides with the accused. Campbell, who was the oldest US wrestler to win a medal at the Olympics at age 37, has actually voted against the accused athlete 15 out of 18 times. Or, put another way, he votes in favor of the accused athlete less than 20% of the time. That’s not what I would call a strong bias in favor of the athletes.
Reading Campbell’s dissent gave me a strong sense of deja vu. Campbell, citing some of the expert’s testimony, takes issue with the quality of the science behind the test at issue in the Hamilton case, the test that supposedly detects homologous blood transfusions. He cites a number of problems, with the test, with the lab’s procedures, and with quality assurance. Enough issues to make one question just how accurate the test is, or whether the test does what it is purported to do.
Arguing against the science behind the tests, however, is a big no-no in Anti-Doping Land. The rules say the tests are assumed to be accurate. (Remember the old saying about when you ass-u-me?) And in Hamilton’s defense, they argued against the science. Bad idea.
Team Landis has learned from Hamilton’s experience, and they are not arguing against the science behind the test (but, from what I’ve seen, the science behind it is arguable). They’re arguing about the data’s meaning. That’s an important distinction. The thrust of Landis’ argument is that the results don’t show a positive test at all. In other words, the lab’s interpretation is wrong. But M. Bordry now apparently has an independent report that says everything is hunky-dory at the lab. And USADA will likely use that as part of their effort to refute Landis’ arguments.
So that leaves me wondering if Mr. Brunet and Mr. McLaren will ultimately use Bordry’s report as a justification for ignoring Team Landis’ very valid arguments against the lab’s interpretation. I can even picture the general reasoning they’d use:
- The lab’s technique is impeccable (as per M. Bordry’s independent review), therefore
- The lab’s interpretation must be impeccable, therefore
- Landis is a witch … burn him! … burn him!
And if that’s the case, the result will be every naysayer’s dream. It will also be to the great detriment of all who fall into the clutches of the anti-doping machine in the future.
Come Monday, we’ll see if this will be a fair hearing that results in a fair decision, or whether this is nothing but a kangaroo court. Mr. McLaren and Mr. Brunet’s handling of the panel’s May 1st decision, which has raised a number of ethical concerns, gives me pause. Perhaps the attention focused on their behavior will cause them to be more careful in the future.
But I wonder if they will be more fair. TBV has run two posts on Arbitrator’s Ethics (here and here). It makes for interesting reading, to say the least, as the articles outline the rules, as well as when and how an arbitrator can be removed. Even if Team Landis doesn’t ask for it, the American Arbitration Association should take a good look at Mr. Brunet’s and Mr. McLaren’s behavior. Something about it doesn’t pass the smell test.
One can only hope that with the glare of a spotlight shining brightly upon them, the arbitrators will actually do what it is they are supposed to do: Judge the case fairly, on its merits. As Floyd said at his press conference yesterday:
I see it as an opportunity for the arbitrators — Mr. Campbell, Mr. Brunet and Mr. McLaren — to demonstrate to their colleagues in the legal profession and the arbitration profession that they can make a decision based on the facts, based on the science provided by both sides — by us and and by USADA. All of which demonstrates that I won the Tour fair, and I deserved to win the Tour. And in the end, having done that, having come to the right decision, they will have changed the system for the good of all athletes who go through this in the future.
The world will be a bit better place if they do.
Chris Campbell eh? I about fell over when I read he was on the Landis case.
I didn’t know Chris was a lawyer. We started undergraduate at the same time. He wrestled for Dan Gable; I didn’t :-). Incredible wrestler. He was so fast we called him ‘The Shadow’.
Fantastic person. I see he went to law school at Cornell.
You probably could not ask for a more fair person on the case.
I followed that same thread and was equally impressed by Campbell’s dissection of the science and the law. I do know something of the flawed science used to convict Tyler and realized, in reading that PDF, that the crappy science was just a tail that they could pin on Tyler. They had observed blood anomalies with him previously and had warned him that they were watching him. And with this set of tests for homologous blood doping (your blood into me) they were able to nail him.
But after reading that PDF I am now more than ever convinced that he did not engage in homologous blood doping for two reasons (outside of my problems with the science): first, it is a very dangerous practice that I can’t see a bicycle rider doing just to go faster and, second, he was probably engaged in autologous blood doping (his own blood into him) which would give rise to the high “˜crit levels that had previously been observed.
This, to me, is WADA and USADA in a nutshell: convict at all costs on what ever flimsy data that you can come up with. Some may argue that nailing Tyler on blood doping regardless of the test was the real and noble goal and that they accomplished that goal. But does the end justify the means??
People have argued Landis is using a spagetti defense: throw it all on a wall and see what sticks. I would argue that WADA and USADA are using spagetti offense: if you smell a cheater, throw enuf tests at them until some reading comes back enuf out of the norm that you can go to court with.