Numbers Lie: How the Media Failed Floyd Landis

by Rant on August 11, 2006 · 4 comments

in Doping in Sports, Floyd Landis, Media

Everyone loves a winner, and no one loves a cheater. When Floyd Landis won the Tour de France, he briefly became the golden boy of the sports world. Unfortunately Landis didn’t get to bask in the glow of his achievement very long. Four days after the tour finished, the UCI announced that abnormal results of Landis’ urine test immediately after an epic comeback on the 17th stage of the Tour de France suggested Landis cheated.

While everyone who is interested in bicycle racing, or merely the Tour de France, now knows that the results of Landis’ follow-up test confirm the results of the original analysis, other than reporting Landis’ testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E) ratio of 11:1, few in the media have reported on the numbers behind the ratio. Mostly, the media’s reaction has been, “Holy Toledo, Batman! Floyd Landis had 11 times the level of testosterone he’s allowed.”

Not so fast, Robin. When taken literally, the test results looks really bad for Landis. Given that athletes must have a T/E ratio of 4:1 or less, it suggests he’s been caught cheating. The thing about numbers and statistics is that when taken out of context they can be used to “prove” just about anything.

Since only a few reporters have written about the numbers behind this result, let’s take a look the information available on floydlandis.com.

On his own web site, Floyd Landis states that the testosterone level in his tests came back in the normal range. However, his epitestosterone level was so low that it skewed the results of the T/E ratio.

Generally speaking, someone who’s cheating would be expected to have a testosterone level that comes back above the normal levels. Cheaters, however, know that the numbers aren’t reported. Only the ratio is reported, so they also take enough epitestosterone to make the ratio appear normal.

It’s now up to Landis and his medical/legal team to explain why his epitestosterone level was so far below normal. The media who’ve reported on this story should certainly be able to find sources who could give possible explanations for how this could occur. As responsible journalists, they owe the public the opportunity to hear the full story, including Landis’ side.

A few, at least, are stepping up to the plate. Lynne Kiesling, on knowledgeproblem.com, addresses whether the doping labs and the media understand statistics.

Carl Bialik, who writes The Numbers Guy column for The Wall Street Journal Online, adds a thoughtful voice to the topic, but says the numbers don’t bode well for Floyd Landis. Still, he gives Landis the benefit of the doubt, and seems to believe that Landis is innocent.

ESPN commentator John Eustice, quoted in an article on lancasteronline.com, stands up for Landis.

Even Phil Liggett, the renowned narrator of professional cycling, believes that Floyd Landis may clear his name.

Sadly, many in the media — pundits, editorial writers and sports commentators, and even hard news reporters — ridicule Floyd Landis as he tries to answer how this result came about. Without examining the details of the case, many in the media have branded Landis a cheater. To my eyes, at least, Landis appears to be an innocent man grasping at straws trying to explain what’s happened.

The results that have been made public are far from conclusive. In fact, the “carbon isotope ratio” test, which is widely reported as proof positive, isn’t necessarily so rock-solid. These results may have come from poor lab technique, improperly cleaned equipment or some other contamination of the sample.

Tom Fine, who’s added a comment to this post, has written a highly informative piece on the carbon isotope ratio test. If you don’t have time to read it, here’s a Cliff Notes-style summary: The test is not quite as black and white as the UCI and the testing lab would have you believe.

Bialik’s article mentions that the carbon isotope ratio test is a very difficult test to perform, and very easy to mess up. Who’s to say the lab didn’t mess up either the test or the interpretation of it?

The announcement by the UCI of Landis’ B results was vague, making only statements but offering no data to back up their “findings.” This, at least to me, is hardly proof positive.

The UCI and the Tour de France organization, in their rush to root out all the cheaters appear willing to discredit and disgrace any and all who have a even the hint of an allegation of cheating about them. They’re certainly willing to drag a man’s name through the mud before he’s even given an opportunity to learn the charges against him and defend himself.

In the media’s rush to get the story out, regardless of whether the full story is presented, a man who may indeed be innocent has been left with his character destroyed, his reputation shattered, his job taken away, and will be known to many as a cheat – regardless of the outcome of his appeals.

When Floyd Landis clears his name, will it be trumpeted with the same fanfare as the stories up to now? I doubt it. Who is going to be able to give him back his good name and reputation? Or the opportunities he’s lost? Or the money he’s going to have to spend on his defense? Or even the ability to make a living?

Back when I was in journalism school, we were taught to understand and verify the facts before we wrote our stories. That means all the facts, not just the ones that an organization such as the UCI finds convenient. It seems that many media outlets have only done half the job in this regard. A ratio is just a couple of numbers, unless it’s placed in the proper context.

Lev Raphael August 11, 2006 at 7:28 pm

Finally something substantive about Landis’s tests! I suspected the MSM stories were missing a lot because they seemed too vague, and it looks like that’s the case. And I’m glad to see an answer to the question as to why there was the presence of artificial testosterone in his system. People always seem to end with that as damning proof.

Thomas A. Fine August 15, 2006 at 10:55 am

Hi, please take a look at my web page, which explains the details of the isotope test and explores possible problems with it:

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/testosterone_d13C.html

david brower August 17, 2006 at 12:13 pm

A roundup of news is being kept at trust but verify

-dB

grace August 25, 2006 at 11:28 pm

Here’s a good story from California:

http://temeculavalleynews.com/story.asp?story_ID=16915

Landis still a hero
By Nancy Fay

8/19/2006 5:31:35 PM

Even in a world where some professional or even low-level athlete gets busted for using performance-enhancing drugs just about every day, Floyd Landis stands alone.

Landis is probably the first guy to be accused of doping when there was no way he could benefit from taking the illegal drugs. Performance-enhancing drugs do help. That’s why so many athletes take them. But you have to take them over a period of several weeks to actually increase strength and speed up recovery time. Landis, according to the French lab that tested him seven times during the race, only took steroids in the 17th stage of the race “” three days before it ended “” hardly enough time to reap any reward.

So why would he?

Like every other bicycle racer in the Tour de France, Landis knew one thing for sure: He would be tested for drugs several times during the race. And he was. Six times before the seventh ill-fated test.

Landis tested negative, so it’s easy to conclude he wasn’t doping at all at least up until the 17th stage.

The point is, Landis knew he would be tested and he knew if he took performance-enhancing drugs it would be detected.

So why would he?

It’s no secret that the French loathe the thought of an American winning the Tour de France again, or ever, even “” especially an American with a malady. Greg LeMond, the first American to win, finished the race with shotgun pellets still lodged in his body from a hunting accident. Lance Armstrong took the title seven years in a row and at least part of the time he was racing he endured excruciating pain because he had cancer. Then comes Landis, who can’t run, can’t walk up stairs and walks with a limp. And he wins the race. Of course the French aren’t happy about that.

Why would they be?

Next thing you know, Landis is accused of doping, an accusation he vehemently denies. But the French are adamant. After testing negative all those times, our hometown hero finally came up short: They found some in his urine.

For his friends, it won’t really matter that much: Landis has been an inspiration, not for riding a bike but for his pursuit of excellence.

For his admirers, probably the same: We might not know him, but we are proud our area is hospitable to world-class talent of any kind. And that still includes Landis.

But some local folks may not be too happy with our adopted favorite son. Fair enough.

He is at the mercy of the French. The same French who accused Lance Armstrong of doping every single time he won the tour but lacked the evidence. The same French who haven’t yet but undoubtedly will come forward with some flawless chain of custody of the urine sample.

Though having the French enforce rules is like putting Willie Sutton in charge of bank security: They are not really into rules over there, unless it is convenient. So now it is convenient for them to say that somehow our hometown hero is tarnished. They said he broke the rules and now they want him stripped of his title.

But Floyd Landis, who gave that race everything he had in order to win, has asked us for just one thing: Don’t rush to judgment.

Either way, he’s still the best bicycle racer on the planet.

Comments or Questions about this piece?

editor@temeculavalleynews.com

Next post: