Summer Reading

If you’re looking for more information about the Floyd Landis case, and information that relates to his case (as well as others), two new books and a post at EnvironmentalChemistry.com are worth the time and effort.

First is Floyd Landis’ new book Positively False, co-authored by Loren Mooney of Bicycling Magazine. I received my copy last week, while I was away, and have now started to dig into its pages. My first impression, having gotten to about page 60, is that Mooney does an excellent job of capturing Floyd’s voice. So far, the book is well-written and engaging, with interesting stories about Floyd’s life before the 2005 Tour. While it is obviously told from Landis’ point of view, he allows tidbits about himself, some that aren’t always the most flattering, to come through. This adds to the overall feeling that Landis has nothing to hide, and is willing to open his life up for all to see. I’ve got another 240 pages or so to go until the finish, but the book has me pretty much hooked already. Were it not for such mundane details as work and other projects that need my attention, I’d probably have the book finished by now. Once I’m finished, I’ll give it a more thorough review.

Next up, and much more dense reading is Arnie Baker’s eBook, The Wiki Defense, which details Baker’s analysis of the science behind the Landis case and includes items not presented in the town hall meetings held earlier this year, and information not included in the Wiki Defense slide show. Baker actually divides the book into three parts.

The first part covers the Wiki Defense, itself, and includes information from the discovery phase of the Landis hearings, as well as Baker’s analysis of the test results. New information previously alluded to, but not published, appears within this section of the book.

The second part covers testimony at the arbitration hearings. In this section Baker offers his assessment of the testimony by various people on both sides of the case. In this section, he also includes information that did not come out during discovery, among which is this interesting tidbit highlighted by Trust But Verify:

“[P]riming the liner” is an obsolete procedure now frowned on by the FDA as an indication of likely data fudging.

Manipulating data, of course, is something regulators frown on, of course. Especially when it comes to medical treatments, drugs, and so forth. One certainly wouldn’t want an unsafe drug or inaccurate test being run on the general population. I’m surprised that such manipulation could even be entertained by such a highly esteemed anti-doping lab as France’s LNDD.

Another revelation is that Joe Papp appears to have sought Baker’s help in his own anti-doping case, but Baker rebuffed Papp’s request.

In the third part, Baker goes over press and blog coverage of the case. I haven’t had enough time to see who all is included, but TBV tells us:

Baker quotes some press and blog coverage, pointing to some work by our Bill Hue, Environmental Chemistry, LA Times/Hiltzik, Washington Post/Jenkins, ESPN/DeSimone, Independant (UK)/Fotheringham, NY Times Magazine/Sokolove among the ones that get it.

Baker’s work is an important addition to any serious fan’s collection of information about the Landis case, regardless of what a person believes about Landis’ guilt or innocense. It’s going to take me some time to get through it, as there are other things tugging at my time, but my initial impression is that it’s well worth the read. Just as with the Landis book, when I’ve given it a more thorough read, I’ll post a full-length review.

Of course, there’s another summer cycling book out — David Walsh’s From Lance to Landis, which recycles much of the information that came out of the Armstrong vs. SCA Promotions lawsuit. Judging by reports I’ve read elsewhere, the book breaks no new ground. Rather, it rehashes and repackages stories, rumors and innuendo from other places. Perhaps some of it is true, but Walsh’s track record doesn’t suggest that it will be long on facts. If you’re looking for a bit of cycling fiction, however, I’m sure it will be an entertaining read. Haven’t decided whether I want to throw any of my hard-earned dollars that way.

And among one’s summer reading should be EnvironmentalChemistry.com’s post about chain of custody, as it relates to the Landis case and beyond. Some have lamented the fact that chain of custody problems in the Landis case could lead to the American cyclist’s getting off on a technicality. Ken Barbalace and company have pretty well written the definitive analysis of chain of custody and its’ importance to the case.

Here it is in a nutshell: This aint no small technicality. Sure, it may sound like one, but the integrity of the testing process must be maintained at all times. And that means being able to account for the whereabouts of samples, and who’s handling or transfering samples for every moment from the start of the testing to the finish. If the chain breaks, any number of problems could occur.

That’s not to say that problems definitely did happen. Nazi frogmen may not have broken into LNDD during a five-hour lapse in the chain of custody and spiked Landis’ sample. But without knowing who had the sample, and what actually occured when they had it, one can’t have the same faith in the results as if the process had been properly documented. Actually, due to the many breaks in the chain of custody, it’s hard to have any faith in the results at all. And by WADA’s own rules, if the chain of custody isn’t properly maintained, the results are questionable — which isn’t nearly good enough for an anti-doping case, where the test results need to be beyond reproach.

Barbalace also points out that a person’s memory of what might have happened regarding chain of custody, and when things might have occured is not good enough, either. The long and the short of it is that Ken and company have written a valuable piece which discusses why the lapses in the chain of custody in Landis’ case should cause the results to be thrown out. We’ll have to wait for the arbitrator’s decision to find out how much weight they put on the chain of custody problems. It’s too bad that this wasn’t written before. But it makes me wonder if there is still time for Team Landis to use his piece, which is quite thoroughly footnoted, as part of their final written arguments. But if not, it’s still an important article for any athletes who get caught in the grips of the anti-doping machine.

And it’s important for the rest of us to understand just how crucial it is for proper chain of custody to be maintained, whether that’s in an anti-doping case or any other situation. Barbalace and company have done a top-notch job in describing the importance, in language that we can all understand.