In a few hours, the Floyd Landis hearings will start up again, with a full day of hearing from various witnesses. Before we preview what’s to come, let’s take a look back at yesterday’s hearings and testimony.
On Friday, we heard from four witnesses. The cross examination of Dr. Christiane Ayotte concluded, with Landis attorneys getting Dr. Ayotte to admit that there were some problems with LNDD’s documentation. Point for the Landis side, there. Dr. Bruce Goldberger, a witness for the Landis side, went on to detail a number of errors that he found upon reviewing the lab’s documentation package detailing Landis’ test results from Stage 17 of last year’s Tour. Goldberger told the panel that for him, the problems in the documentation were enough to seriously question the lab’s ultimate conclusion — that Landis had doped. Point for the Landis side. Goldberger spoke in great detail against the idea that a single metabolite could determine a positive doping infraction. Potential point for Landis, depending on today’s testimony.
On cross examination, USADA’s lawyers got Goldberger to admit that the testosterone testing his own lab does is actually sent out to another laboratory. Point for USADA. And they got him to admit that his lab is neither ISO or WADA certified. Potential point for USADA, but the lab standards his lab follows were written with Larry Bowers, who’s working for the other side at this hearing.
Joe Papp, a professional cyclist who accepted a ban on Thursday for using performance enhancing drugs (details of the ban have not yet been released, but should be out early in the week), testified for USADA as to how he used testosterone and other doping agents. Papp told the panel that by using testosterone, he felt like he got better recovery during multi-day stage races. Maurice Suh asked him whether or not he knew what the placebo effect was, and whether that might be the reason for his recovery. Point for Landis, and I’ll go into a bit of detail here.
Back in March, I wrote an article called Can You Win The Tour De France By Doping? In the article, I talked about some research I did on PubMed into the question of whether anabolic steriods (like testosterone) improve an athlete’s recovery. I found only a couple of articles on the subject. The answer, which has to do with Suh’s line of questioning is surprising. First, what I found:
One article (whose authors include scientists who work at the anti-doping lab in Lausanne, Switzerland) from the November 2006 issue of the European Journal of Applied Physiology had this conclusion in its abstract:
In the present study, no effect of multiple oral doses of AAS [anabolic androgenic steroids, such as testosterone] on endurance performance or bioserum recovery markers was found.
While the study was looking at oral drugs, rather than the patch Dr. Moosburger cites, the conclusion is what’s interesting: No effect on recovery. But that wasn’t the only article I found. Another article from Sports Medicine has this to say in its abstract:
Little data about the effects of AAS on metabolic responses during exercise training and recovery are available and, therefore, do not allow firm conclusions.
So at best, there’s no firm data one way or another. Perhaps using the patch has a placebo effect, leading an athlete to believe he or she has recovered better, and is then able to go out and perform better. Perhaps it has a real effect. The point is, no one knows for sure.
There you have it. There is no research that backs up Papp’s (or anyone’s) contention that microdoses of testosterone actually have an effect on recovery. Period. This is what Team Landis have been saying all along. So, although Papp was a useful tool to tell USADA’s theory of what Floyd Landis did, the theory is full of holes. Like there’s no documented proof that it works.
Papp, however, by testifying yesterday may be exposing himself to more sanctions. In addition, Papp has been cooperating with Federal officials conducting an investigation in San Diego. He does not know if he’s a target of the investigation. So his testimony yesterday may come back to haunt him. Either in the form of new USADA sanctions, or by being charged with crimes under Federal law.
If either is the case, then we’ll see that Bill Hue’s comment in an article at TBV yesterday was correct. USADA is willing to throw anyone under the bus in order to win. That sure sounds like winning at all costs — and the costs to those who help you be damned. From Judge Hue’s afternoon observations:
Barnett’s back up. Gets him to admit EPO, cortisone and caffeine use. Barnett goes to his “feelings” from his testosterone use. Again, this could be established by a scientist but then a human being couldn’t be sacrificed that way. What a shame. I’m sorry for Mr Papp. The bus is right there, Mr Papp, can you get under it, please?
So that’s yesterday, in a nutshell. Today could be another exciting day. It starts out with Wilhelm Schnäzer, Phd (via conference call), who is the director of the Institute of Biochemistry of the German Sports University in Cologne. I’m not sure what to expect from his testimony, but I believe he’s one of USADA’s witnesses (someone will correct me if I’m wrong, I hope), so expect questioning along lines meant to help USADA’s case.
Next is Don Catlin, MD, professor emeritus of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology and former founder and director, Olympic Analytical Laboratory at UCLA. Dr. Catlin will be a USADA witness, and his testimony could be pretty contentious. USADA will want to hear comments that back up their interpretation of Landis’ results, however, Team Landis have cited articles by Catlin, along with lab standards at UCLA, as being in conflict with LNDD’s interpretation of the cyclist’s test results. Expect the cross examination of Dr. Catlin to be detailed, thorough, and hard fought.
The final witness of the day is the man whose future hangs in the balance. Floyd Landis. Landis will be on the stand to tell his story, but I believe it’s USADA that’s called him as a witness. Expect their line of questioning to be very intense. They’re going to be working hard to find any inconsistencies in what he tells them today, and they’re going to try and use some of the “excuses” offered in the early days after the scandal broke against him.
I’ve seen Floyd handle some difficult questions from reporters and remain calm. Today’s questions from Team USADA will be as difficult as they come. The challenge (which I believe he can accomplish) will to not get ruffled by USADA’s questions or tactics.
Landis attorneys will no doubt use their turn at questioning the cyclist to minimize any damage USADA’s questioning might have inflicted, or to further strengthen Landis’ testimony if no damage has been done.
This will make for some of the more dramatic moments from the hearings. Assuming the lawyers get through the first two witnesses, that is. It’s going to be an interesting day at Pepperdine, to be sure.
Thanks for the sane overview.
Will courtroom view be streaming today? The login on floydlandis.com does not work.
Paul,
I was able to log in, but I’m not seeing anything. I used the credentials supplied at floydfairnessfund.org to get in.
Good luck.
– Rant
We are going to have to disagree with you some. In our view the use of androgen will produce dramatic short term effects in particular persons (animals).
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/05/update_in_landi.html
Behavioral pharmacology, something we have done for over 30 years, is not absolute. Thus, any argument is never going to cover every case. However, we strongly suspect that androgens can increase aggressiveness in acute dosage. It does in suspectable animals.
The problem with all this is that no ethical scientific research can ever reproduce the conditions or the doses that athletes dope with and under. Many of the answers rely on expert synthesis of reearch and experience.
Experience with androgens, the hormones of aggression and reproduction tells one that they are exteremly powerful influences on behavior and psychology.
GRG,
I suspect we’re both right. You’ve got the behavioral part, and that may be important, too. The claim that it speeds physical recovery when used in low doses, by my reading of those papers, is not established.
So, sure, a jolt of T could increase the aggressiveness of a rider and contribute to a day like Floyd had on Stage 17. Then again, he’s been a pretty aggressive rider at times before that, and his victory on that stage had as much to do with the pack not chasing as it had to do with his bold move.
So, if USADA’s theory is that he used it to speed recovery, they are likely wrong. But if they claimed he used it to be a bit more aggressive the next day, well, that might hold more water.
– Rant
It does not matter if the person believed it would work or not or if the drug “works” or not; it is on the prohibited list. If someone wants to do studies to show that there is no benefit, then let the studies begin (hard to do these kinds of studies), and the persuade WADA/UCI to take the drug off the list or raise the limit in T:E case.
Not telling,
You’re right, it doesn’t matter whether it works or not. If it’s on the banned list, it’s banned. There have been studies on using low doses of steroids to aid in recovery. To date, none have found that they help. WADA/UCI need to make some adjustments to the list. Raising the T/E ratio back to 6 to 1 would also be good. Statistically speaking, less than 3 out of 1000 tests where T/E was between 4 and 6 have resulted in violations. That’s a lot of work and expense for little benefit.
– Rant