Landis Hearings: Day Two

In a few hours, day two of the Landis case will begin.

Reviewing the case so far: Yesterday’s testimony by Dr. Cedric Shackleton and Dr. J. Thomas Brenna (Brenna’s testimony will conclude this morning) sheds some light on USADA’s theory about Floyd Landis’ alleged use of testosterone during the 2006 Tour de France.

As pointed out by TBV, Richard Young, the lead prosecutor appears to be operating under the theory that Landis used multiple different methods of administering testosterone. This theory is based on a couple of items, neither of which can be found in Landis’ test results from Stage 17, where he supposedly tested positive for the use of artificial testosterone.

First, are the data from the more recent B sample analysis done at LNDD at USADA’s behest. Second, from a research study — as yet unreviewed and/or unpublished — conducted on 5 or 6 male subjects. This research appears to look at metabolites found in a person’s system over time after the administration of testosterone.

The data from the April test at LNDD, from what’s been said about it, appears to be rather confusing. Several samples appear to have elevated results for a single metabolite of testosterone, similar to the single metabolite of testosterone on Stage 17 that tested “positive.” The problem with the data appears to be that it’s not all the same metabolite each time, it’s a different metabolite each time.

Conveniently, in the unpublished research that USADA is basing their argument on, one particular individual shows a pattern of results similar to the claimed results for Floyd Landis. The problem with such a small study is that it’s far from definitive. Using such a small population may give you an idea of directions for future research, but true science would not draw global conclusions from such a small data set. And finding one individual amongst the subjects whose results look similar doesn’t prove anything one way or another regarding what Landis did or didn’t do.

What’s interesting about all of this is that, while earlier this year Travis Tygart told The Daily Peloton that he was ready to proceed, USADA is building their case on information they didn’t have at that point. More to the point, they appear to be building a large part of their case on the results of those additional B sample tests. Why would they be doing this? Most likely because the case based on just the Stage 17 results is too weak for them to be able to win.

If the Stage 17 results were a slam-dunk, you can bet that Richard Young and company would have led off with that part of the case, rather than the additional B samples. Yesterday, while listening to the testimony, I wondered why the arbitrators were allowing the discussion to go on. It turns out, on May 8th, the panel reconsidered their original decision (the one where Brunet and McLaren froze Campbell out), and they came to the same conclusion, a 2-1 vote to let the LNDD evidence in. TBV linked to a copy of that decision after my final post yesterday.

This theory that Young seems to be building on is pretty complicated, and it requires a leap of faith that the study it’s based on is even close to correct. It is neither simple to explain, nor particularly elegant. Occam’s razor is the old saw that the simplest explanation is often the most correct. So what would the simplest explanation for the conflicting results of the B samples be?

More likely than not, one of these alternate possibilities:

• Sample contamination
• Poor experimental technique
• Equipment and/or software problems

Any one of these options is a simpler, and more logical explanation than the cock-and-bull theory that USADA appears to be offering up. I would expect to see Landis’ lawyers hammer away at one or all of these possible explanations in the coming days. In addition, as TBV noted, it appears that some of the “blanks” run during these additional B sample tests showed a positive result. This may suggest a problem with lab technique, if those blanks weren’t created to give a positive result. The idea of a blank is often to see if you can get a false positive. It appears that this may have happened during the April tests, which would throw further doubt on USADA’s case.

Coming up today: Cynthia Mongongu and Claire Frelat, both analytical chemists at LNDD are expected to testify, and depending on time, Dr. Christiane Ayotte, the head of Canada’s anti-doping laboratory in Montreal, will testify. Expect Maurice Suh and Howard Jacobs to be pretty sharp in their cross examination of Cynthia Mongongu, who is one of the staff members alleged to have worked on both the Stage 17 A and B samples. The other was Esther Cerpolini, who may testify later in the week.

If either Ms. Mongongu or Ms. Cerpolini played a significant role in both the A and B tests, that would be a violation of the International Standards for Laboratories that LNDD must meet as part of its WADA certification. This is the error that caused the Landaluce case to be thrown out.

Coming up later in the week: Greg LeMond is slated to testify, as is a former cyclist named Joe Papp. LeMond, the first American to win the Tour, in recent years has taken to claiming that he was forced to retire from the sport due to the rampant effects of EPO on the peloton in the early 1990s. At the time he retired, however, his story was that he suffered from a disease called mitochondrial myopathy.

Mitochondrial myopathy is a condition (if I remember correctly) affecting the energy factories of a person’s cells, which among other things causes the person to lose strength. Mitochondrial myopathy neatly explained LeMond’s problems in his last couple of seasons, where he had difficulty performing at the level he had previously achieved. Even if the peloton were all juiced up on EPO at the time, I suspect that LeMond’s latest story is designed more to ingratiate himself with certain people than to explain the real reason he quit racing — his body could just no longer do it. Who knows, perhaps Greg wants to become the next Dick Pound?

For more information about LeMond’s changing story, see this article I wrote back in November.

Joe Papp apparently will be testifying about his own use of testosterone. My guess is that he’s going to say he did the things that USADA is alleging that Floyd did. That is, took testosterone in a number of different ways. I suspect that neither LeMond nor Papp has any direct knowledge that could implicate Landis in this case. Papp’s presence will be most likely to show that USADA’s theory is possible because someone did it. LeMond’s presence beats the heck out of me.

As best I can tell, LeMond has talked to Landis no more than a handful of times. He’s clearly not a close friend. The only thing that comes to mind is that LeMond’s testimony may be just another attempt at character assassination, similar to the way he’s spoken of Lance Armstrong in the past. That wouldn’t surprise me at all.

If the fireworks don’t heat up before LeMond’s testimony, I’d expect them to shortly after he begins testifying.