About That Wiki Defense

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.