About That Wiki Defense

by Rant on May 29, 2007 · 10 comments

in Doping in Sports, Floyd Landis, Tour de France

One thing a number of people have commented on in various places is: What happened to all those arguments presented in the Wiki defense slide show created and presented by Arnie Baker? How come we didn’t hear more about them during the Floyd Landis arbitration hearings?

Whenever Dr. Baker presented the slide show, he would comment that what he was showing were not the strongest arguments in the Landis arsenal, and that there were approximately 60 arguments (when I saw the presentation in Chicago) overall, and that some would come out during the arbitration hearing. No doubt some of those other arguments did come out, in the testimony by the various Landis expert witnesses on the quality of the documentation and issues related to the test results.

We’ll get a chance to see the full set of arguments from Dr. Baker’s analysis in about a month, when he releases his eBook on the subject. But a couple of other things happened that had an impact on the arguments presented by Team Landis.

First, while it sounds fair on the surface, each side was given 23 hours to make their case to the arbitrators. As I said, that sounds fair, but the reality is it’s not. The greater burden of proof really falls on the defense when it comes to these kinds of cases. And while each team had equal time, better yet would be for each team to have the time necessary to present its full case. Team USADA merely had to present their lab findings, find a few technical witnesses to vouch for their accuracy and the correctness of the testing, and they were pretty much done with their obligation.

They added a few elements to their case, in the guise of testimony from Greg LeMond and Joe Papp. LeMond, while not saying directly that he heard Landis admit to doping, was clearly there to suggest that’s what their conversation was about. And also, even before Will Geoghegan’s phone call, to cast aspersions on Floyd’s character, vis-a-vis the infamous Daily Peloton Forum posting. Papp was there to testify that a number of pro cyclists think doping with low doses of testosterone helps speed recovery, and that he thinks it helped him. Papp’s testimony was useful to USADA to present their theory of how and why Floyd would have been doping. But since Papp doesn’t know Floyd, never rode with him and knew no members of Phonak, his evidence was more by implication than direct knowledge.

But the equal time stipulation bit Team Landis in the backside when it came to the cross-examination of Cynthia Mongongu and Clair Frelat. Especially with Mongongu’s testimony, it took a long time for Team Landis to get her to answer questions directly, when her memory allowed her to do so. That ate up crucial time, time which could have been used on presenting more of their own witnesses. But in the end, it probably didn’t hurt their case too terribly much.

What really changed Team Landis’ case presentation was an unexpected gift, and one they fought hard against. And that was the additional B sample testing at LNDD in April. In what may be one of the greatest ironies of this case, having those samples tested at LNDD probably helped Team Landis’ case more than Team USADA. How so? Two experts for the Landis side got to carefully watch the process. Now, granted, Landis had Dr. Douwe de Boer observe the original B sample tests back in August 2006, and he saw some things that raised questions, things noted at the end of the original lab documentation pack sent to Landis at the end of August.

But the two people watching in April (Paul Scott and Simon Davis) had additional expertise, one in how the tests were supposed to be done, and the other in exactly how the machinery was supposed to be set up and run. What they saw in April were things that would not be so easily seen in the dry notations of a lab documentation package. They saw LNDD’s technicians in action, in all their glory. And in so doing, they got ammunition for the Landis side even more important than the errors noted in the original lab pack.

Because, while the lab pack and its data hinted at certain problems, in April they were able to see exactly how (badly) things were done. So Team Landis clearly made a decision to emphasize that in their presentation. What appeared to be violations of lab standards in the earlier documentation were one thing. Actually observing and being able to cite chapter and verse exactly what was done wrong is another.

Combining what Davis and Scott saw with expert testimony from Dr. Wolfram Meier-Augenstein and Dr. Bruce Goldberger, Team Landis was able to go at the kinds of violations that should invalidate the findings. Remember, they can’t argue the basic science of the tests, but they can argue whether the tests were done correctly and whether the data has been interpreted correctly.

As a complete package, the case put on by Team Landis is very compelling. The contamination issue, for example, that Arnie Baker talked about at the town hall meetings, turned out to be less important that the pattern of gross violations of lab standards and protocols. Even before looking at the data or whether or not a sample was contaminated, if the lab isn’t following proper standards and protocols, their work can’t be trusted. It boils down to that.

If you consider the Landaluze case, one violation of international standards was enough to toss out the charges — the work of the same technician on both the A and B sample analysis, in effect validating her own findings, which is a big no-no. In the Landis case, his defense team showed multiple violations of standards.

Now, whether or not the case they presented convinces the arbitrators that Landis should be found not guilty is another matter. The independent science advisor to the panel, who works at the WADA-affiliated lab in Rome, is bound by WADA’s own rules to speak no evil about LNDD. So if the arbitrators depend heavily on his advice, then he will have to show enough courage to challenge WADA’s omerta for Team Landis to win this case.

But going back to the Wiki defense and the town hall meetings. Those who were there and those who read the summaries should remember, Arnie Baker always said there were stronger arguments to be made than the ones presented in the slide show. Clearly some of the Wiki defense arguments were made, as chain of custody and poor documentation were issues in the hearings. What Dr. Baker couldn’t anticipate at the time he was barnstorming the country with Floyd, Michael Henson and others was just how much of a gift the April B sample tests at LNDD would turn out to be. That had a huge impact on how Team Landis presented their case to the arbitrators. And potentially, being able to observe those tests may have a huge impact on the ultimate outcome of the case.

For those who want to see the full Wiki defense story and compare it to the testimony at Pepperdine University, Dr. Baker’s book will be released on June 26th.

Luc May 30, 2007 at 1:55 am

Hi Rant,
Thanks for the great coverage before during and after the arbritation hearing. I managed to watch several hours of testimony and found it surprisingly riveting but it was great to have yours and tbv’s analysis. I have a question though. In light of the new if not unsurprising revelations about Bjarne Riis and the rest of the telekom team, does this in any way plant seeds of doubt regarding FL? I recall having a discussion with a friend about Lance Armstrong just after he retired and all the suspicions surrounding him and i replied that if he doped then how about the next five who finished closely behind him. Maybe i’m a bit prescient as we now know what happened to the next five with regard to the puerto affair.
I would like to believe FL and all the evidence seems to point towards shoddy lab work but……
Luc

Will May 30, 2007 at 4:14 am

This guilt by association and innuendo has got to stop. Otherwise, we might as well just shut down professional cycling. McQuaid needs to take the lead on this. He needs to say that if WADA can’t do better than LNDD then professional cycling will take its tests elsewhere. The French Open Tennis Tournament did.

Zipster May 30, 2007 at 4:59 am

“But the two people watching in April (Paul Scott and Simon Davis) had additional expertise, one in how the tests were supposed to be done, and the other in exactly how the machinery was supposed to be set up and run. What they saw in April were things that would not be so easily seen in the dry notations of a lab documentation package. They saw LNDD’s technicians in action, in all their glory. And in so doing, they got ammunition for the Landis side even more important than the errors noted in the original lab pack.

Because, while the lab pack and its data hinted at certain problems, in April they were able to see exactly how (badly) things were done”

To the contrary – Davis’s presence at LNDD and testimony HELPED the USADA case immensely. Remember Davis’s testimony and his cell phone pictures of the two large magnets (that looked like “Mickey Mouse hats”) that were supposedly sitting on top of the IRMS that was used for the test that could cause potential errors in the results ???? Oops – As was pointed out by prosecution council – the magnets were on another machine entirely !!! Davis’s testimony was obviously a lie, a fabrication, an obvious and ham handed attempt to mislead the tribunal – a point that was then hammered home by the prosecution council. At that point, Davis’s entire credibility went to 0.00000000. Do you think this point was lost on the tribunal ??? Not hardly. That’s the problem with getting caught in a lie – once your credibility is gone – nothing you have said or will say is going to be believed. Do you think this point reflects on the rest of the defence case ? You bet it does. It clearly shows a defence team (The Tonya Harding gang) in desperation mode.

Zipster

Rant May 30, 2007 at 5:04 am

Luc,

What happened with Telekom in the 90s predates Landis’ entry into European road racing. Even though their doping casts a stain on the sport and on winners of the Tour from that time period, I don’t think it has much relation to Landis.

Every once in a while, an athlete comes along who has the natural ability to dominate the competition. We’ll never know for certain whether that’s the case with Lance, or for that matter, Miguel Indurain. But since both never failed doping tests while on their winning streaks at the Tour, the possibility is that they both had the natural ability. Just because the riders who finish close to someone like Armstrong admit to doping doesn’t prove anything about Armstrong, himself.

Of course, the cynics will always argue that he just had a better doping program. But without any actual proof, it’s just allegations. With Landis, since a number of other strong contenders weren’t there last year, it left the race wide open for him — and a bunch of others. Most, if not all, of those contenders won’t be racing any time soon, but if they had been on form last year and racing, the outcome might have been much different.

Given what came out at the Landis hearings, I think that shoddy lab work may be the best explanation for what happened with his test from Stage 17. Also, since Landis will never be able to recoup what he’s spent defending himself against the charges, it would be financial suicide to fight a case this hard if he was guilty. Even if he wins, there’s no guarantee that he will ever recover his legal expenses, or ever earn the money he would have received from sponsorships, appearances, and so forth had this scandal not taken place. The best course, if he was truly guilty, would have been to quietly settle the case, take the punishment, hold on to what money he could and come back in a few years.

Floyd is a strong rider, no doubt. I’m sure he’d rip my legs off if I rode with him. When he gets back to racing, it will be interesting to see what toll his layoff from competition will have taken. Hopefully little, so we can get a chance to see him win a few more races before it’s time to hang up the cycling shoes.

Will,

Absolutely. Guilt by association needs to come to an end, post haste. And I think the example set by the French Open should be taken to heart in other quarters. But whether the ASO (owners of the Tour) or the UCI contracts for the anti-doping lab, I don’t know. If it’s the ASO, I doubt that they will change. If it’s the UCI, then Pat McQuaid should consider changing to a different lab.

Zipster,

Point taken about the magnets on the new machine. But that illustrated quite well that LNDD were not paying attention to how things should have been done, and not running their equipment properly. The bulk of Davis’ testimony centered on the use of the older IRMS machine, and on that, he’s entirely credible. Bottom line for all of this is whose experts you believe. WADA’s experts are not allowed to criticize each other, so of course they will say everything was OK. Landis’ experts have some very sharp criticisms of the lab and how the tests were conducted. We’ll see how the panel decides. But you should be comforted. Botre, who works at the WADA-affiliated lab in Rome, is their science advisor. If he adheres to WADA’s “speak no evil” code, the case will be decided against Landis, rather than for him.

– Rant

Will May 30, 2007 at 11:49 am

Rant, can you clarify? Did Davis specifically say that these magnets were on top of the equipment in question and caused invalid results in this case, or was he suggesting that sloppy lab practices like leaving powerful magnets around could alter test results? Thanks.

Rant May 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Will,

Here’s roughly what Davis was talking about. During his initial examination (summarized by TBV here about 1/4 or 1/3 down the page), he was shown a picture of LNDD’s equipment, where some magnetic rings used for positioning the instrument had not been removed. Davis testified that this could alter the results.

On cross examination, this is TBV’s summary of the questioning of Dr. Davis by Richard Young about the magnets:

q: when you talked about this picture about the magnets, you said you put your hand over your heart, and said you couldnt’ trust the results
a: I said I didn’t know what the results would be. My point is not that it would change the results, but that it shows a complete lack of understanding of the instrument.

q: I want to make it clear this has nothing to do with the isoprime1?
a: it has to do with the understanding of LNDD about the use of an IRMS machine.

So, yes, Davis admitted the photo was not of the machine used for testing Landis’ samples, but he withstood the onslaught by sticking to his narrative about LNDD’s failure to understand how to use the equipment.

– Rant

the Dragon May 31, 2007 at 6:25 am

Rant,
The issue of the “mouse ears” seems to have taken a life of it’s own.

When the picture was shown Suh asked a question, which PRECISELY identified the machine “the Isoprime 2”. I think that was used on the B samples, NOT the A samples.

We are in the Legal arena here, in that Suh and Young get to pick the questions they ask and Davis answers. This WAS NOT a lecture by Davis.

Tegards,

Rant May 31, 2007 at 6:37 am

Dragon,

You’re right, those mouse ears have taken on a life of their own. When Suh asked his question, it was clear he was talking about the Isoprime 2. I’m not sure, but I think the Isoprime 1 was the machine used on all of Landis’ samples. But I could be wrong on that. Young would want to make the distinction that the mouse ears didn’t affect the machine used to test Landis’ samples, as a way of countering the impact of Davis’ testimony. Young’s point is that if the Davis wasn’t talking about the Isoprime 1, then his comment about how the mouse ears could affect the test results wouldn’t apply to LNDD’s data acquired with the older machine. I take Davis’ answer to effectively counter that assertion, however.

-Rant

the Dragon May 31, 2007 at 7:26 am

Rant,

I realize that is Young’s point.

Suh’s/Davis’ point was the general laxity of the lab, and by inference, how can one be sure similar HAD NOT happened with other machines.

It becomes clearer if you were lucky enough to see the testimony. I happened to in this case, and the point was quite obvious. Whether it is enough in that one instance to establish lax LNDD practice, I doubt it. Coupled with other evidence like minimal or no paperwork, maybe helpful.

Regards,

AMc June 1, 2007 at 8:07 pm

The isoprime1 was used on S17 A and B samples tested in July and August 2006. The isoprime2 (with Mickey Mouse ears) was used on the other “B” samples retested in April 2007.

From tbv (of course):

“Next, Davis had a look at the “isoprime2″, the new machine used on the retesting.”

Previous post:

Next post: