Decision Watch: Day ??

by Rant on July 9, 2007 · 6 comments

in Doping in Sports, Floyd Landis, Tour de France

A thought occurred to me over the weekend. While the arbitration panel’s decision as to whether they believe Floyd Landis doped or not at last year’s Tour de France is widely anticipated to come any day now, no one has any firm information as to when the panel will make their announcement.

That’s because no one knows (or at least no one is saying publicly) when the arbitration panel formally closed the hearings. Once the hearings are formally closed, they have 10 days to render their verdict. In the Landis case, they have a huge volume of information to go through. Thousands of pages of transcribed testimony from the hearings, along with whatever other evidence was submitted by both sides. And that includes the final, written arguments both sides had to file, presumably by June 25th.

So here’s what occurred to me: What if the panel decides to give itself plenty of time to go through the records of the hearing, as well as the evidence filed, and they decided not to formally close the hearings until they’re ready to make their decision.

In other words, when they think they can write up their opinions in 10 days time, that’s when they will close the hearings, and not a day before. Could it be possible? Sure. I’m not sure, however, if the rules surrounding the arbitration process will allow for such a maneuver. But the longer the wait goes on, the more likely this scenario is correct.

When Is A Gag Order Not A Gag Order?

With the publication of Floyd Landis’ book Positively False, a number of commentators have suggested that because it was released before the arbitration panel announced their decision, the book somehow violates the gag order placed on both sides while the panel deliberates. Taking the time to read the book, you would discover that there is no information about the case — other than some of the behind the scenes drama — that hasn’t already made it into print. So it’s a hard sell to convince me that Landis violated the gag order by releasing his book on June 26th (well, that’s the official release date, my copy arrived about a week early).

On the other hand, the San Diego Union Tribune’s Mark Zeigler published a story yesterday that does appear to contain new information. The results of some health screening tests performed on Landis before and during last year’s Tour.

For months, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency asked Landis to release results from blood screens that the UCI, cycling’s international governing body, periodically performs on professional riders. Landis kept saying he didn’t have them.

The issue came to a head during his testimony at the May arbitration hearing, when USADA attorneys produced e-mails from UCI officials indicating they had long since sent the blood data to Landis. The next day, the Landis camp handed over a spreadsheet of eight blood screens from 2005 and 2006.

USADA said it received them too late to incorporate in its prosecution, but the data was entered into evidence nonetheless and, as such, became available to the public. The Union-Tribune obtained a copy last month from the arbitration panel.

Remember that last month is June, during the time where the panel may be deliberating over their verdict. (I don’t know if any formal deliberations would occur before the two sides presented their final, written arguments. But certainly the panel members could be mulling things over before then.) Zeigler says he got the information from the panel, because it’s part of the public record. Could this material be part of the official transcripts (roughly 1800 pages long), or did he get them from another source?

Because, if it’s not in the transcripts that would suggest that while a gag order applies to both the Landis and USADA sides, someone on or close to the panel thinks that the order doesn’t apply to themselves.

Zeigler goes on to describe the tests and their results:

The blood screens aren’t considered a formal doping test and can’t produce positive results. Instead the UCI uses them as health checks, issuing a 15-day suspension for male riders with hematocrit levels, which measure red blood cells, over 50 percent and hemoglobin concentrations above 17 grams per deciliter of blood.

Landis has no readings above the 50 and 17 thresholds, but an internationally respected blood doping expert from Australia did find unusual patterns after reviewing a copy of Landis’ results, particularly when their corresponding dates are taken into consideration.

In a pre-Tour blood screen from June 29, two days before the 2006 race began, Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1.

This caught the attention of Michael Ashenden, project coordinator for an Australian research consortium called Science and Industry Against Blood Doping, because the body’s concentration of red blood cells naturally decreases during an exhausting competition such as the Tour de France.

“Going from 15.5 to 16.1 (in hemoglobin) is not that unusual when not competing,” Ashenden said by phone from Australia. “But it is very unusual to see an increase after a hard week of cycling. You’d expect it to be the reverse. You’d expect that to fall in a clean athlete. An increase like this in the midst of the Tour de France would be highly, highly unlikely.

“There’s nothing where I could point to one value and say, ‘This guy definitely doped.’ But it raises red flags for me. I would definitely recommend to anti-doping authorities that an athlete presenting these values should be target-tested for blood doping.”

One explanation is that readings can fluctuate depending on the machinery or other variables.

“It’s hard to compare them,” says Jacobs, Landis’ attorney who has handled blood doping cases with other athletes, “because you can get different readings depending on the machines that were used. You can’t draw any conclusions unless you look at all the calibration data. That’s why they are health checks and not anti-doping tests.”

The more cynical explanation is that the July 11 test came the morning after the 2006 Tour’s first rest day, and actual doping diaries seized in last year’s Operation Puerto investigation in Spain indicate rest days are the preferred time for reinfusion of blood bags during the Tour.

“This would account for the unusual variations in (Landis’ 2006) blood values,” says Ashenden, whose research group is currently pursuing a test for autologous blood doping, or when a person reinfuses his own blood. “And it’s not detectable.”

What’s important to take away from all this? First, that Floyd Landis did not show any levels that, by themselves, were suspicious. Second, that someone is using this information to suggest he might have been doping — in other words, it’s another bit of character assassination from an inside source.

As Howard Jacobs observed, if you don’t know the calibration data, you can’t draw any firm conclusions. And that, in part, is why the tests are health checks and not anti-doping tests. The technicalities — like how the tests are performed, and what the data really means — are not just technicalities.

To Zeigler’s credit, he provides both sides of the story. Zeigler walks a fine line in doing so. While the section above gives a good idea he believes that Landis did blood dope (look at who gets the last word), in the rest of the article, he balances that out to some extent. And at the end of the story, it’s Landis who gets the last word.

“It’s illogical to think that a clean guy can win,” Walsh said, speaking by phone from Bermuda. “It is circumstantial evidence, but it is very strong circumstantial evidence. If guys were doped and people were beating them, they weren’t clean. That’s just an opinion, of course, but it’s an opinion with a deep amount of conviction.”

Not buying it is Landis. He addresses the issue midway through his book in a chapter entitled, “Presumed Guilty”:

“When the doping topic came up among riders, I never engaged in the conversation,” Landis writes. “To me it was boring. The riders who talk about it are the ones who complain because they’re not winning. Instead of taking action by training harder or using better strategy, they blame others for cheating.

” ‘I came in 48th, but there’s no way I can keep up because they’re all juiced,’ I’d hear. That kind of whining is one of the things I find most annoying about professional cycling. . . . Instead, I always figured, ‘OK, I need to work harder.’

“And I got on my bike and pedaled.”

One thing to say about Walsh’s comments, above. No matter how strong the conviction, an opinion is just an opinion. Before we brand people as dopers, we should have real, solid scientific evidence to prove such claims. Otherwise, branding someone a cheat is merely defamation of character.

In some countries, believing what you say to be true might be a defense against a libel or slander case, and in some countries journalists and others may have the right to say what they please about public figures. But journalists the world over should strive to publish the truth — and not just what their deeply held conviction (opinion) might be. Sometimes, our deepest convictions may actually be wrong.

One question about Mark Zeigler’s  story that comes to mind for me is this: Will others who pick up this story be balanced in their coverage, or will this new information just become another way the mainstream media smears Floyd Landis? Unfortunately, I’d bet more on the latter.

just bitch slap me please July 9, 2007 at 7:23 am

Just a couple of thoughts.
First, slapping a T patch on your scrotum will have NO effect whatsoever on your hemoglobin/RBC (hematocrit) counts. So now they are saying he may be cheating two different ways? Come on, let’s at least try to be consistent here. The only way these two match is that when Floyd took his blood for cold storage in April he was also hitting the ‘roids. If he is that stoopid, then we are all fooled.
Second, yesterday we saw a super human feat as Rocket Mc went from a fall ten miles from the finish, to a blazing win leaving the rest of the pack lengths behind. Truly super human!! He must have been doping, right??? Some might argue that he won from superior racting skills or that the others didn’t see him take off until it was too late, but as we learned last year, when people win stages like this is is not because the peleton was sleeping but because the dope crazed single rider simply blew away the field! I hope the french are on this like flies on shit.

Rant July 9, 2007 at 7:42 am

JBSMP.

It seems to me that things like trying to introduce the blood tests, as well as the additional B sample tests, is part of a desperation move by USADA to pin a doping charge — any doping charge — on Landis. Whether it works or not, we’ll find out when the arbs rule.

– Rant

Dumas July 9, 2007 at 9:10 am

Hey Rant,
first of all: thanks for all this coverage, great job and always a pleasure to read!

It´s a shame, that USADA is trying so hard to taint his character.
The number you get measuring hematocrit depends
1. of the methode
2. of the mashine
3. of the volume taken
4. conditions of the “patient”, e.g. bleeding (unrealistic), exsiccation (e.g. caused by diarrhea), hyperhydration, medical treatment (e.g. antibiotics) and a lot more.

For me it´s negligent to assume blood doping without knowing more about the circumstances, particulary for a scientist.
But I´ve learned in the last year that scientists and so called experts love seeing their names in the press- no matter what.
It´s so sad.

LuckyLab July 9, 2007 at 9:28 am

Somewhere, somebody dropped a comment a while back suggesting Landis popped a positive because of a dirty reinfusion. I can’t for the life of me remember where, if it was TBV, here, the Daily Peloton Forums, or one of the news sites (and am too lazy to look it up right now). Hmmm… the skeptic in me wonders, though I’m still inclined to believe Floyd because the science behind the charges was shoddy at best. I’ll reserve outrage, joy, disgust, elation, etc. until the final verdict and will remain a bit skeptical of both sides.

Walsh’s “logic” isn’t real solid in his comment. Some claim he does excellent work as an investigative journalist, but offering an opinion as fact (and that’s what the”illogical” part does despite the caveat of “opinion” in the next sentence… sort of like “I don’t mean to be rude, but…) leads me to question his motivation a bit. Perhaps he should be a bit better schooled on making logical conclusions from incorrect factual information, including the bit about everybody’s natural ability starting from different places.

Rant July 9, 2007 at 11:09 am

LuckyLab,

It wasn’t me who first published that claim. It’s been floating around the web since August, as best I can tell, but I don’t know where it first appeared. No-one’s ever been able to offer any proof that such was the case, however. On that count, it’s all sounded like rampant speculation to me.

Dumas,

Thanks. And thanks for the information about the hematocrit. It helps to know more about what the number means and the many variables that have an impact on the measured values.

– Rant

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: