A year ago today, in the very early hours of the morning California time, the results of Floyd Landis’ B sample analysis at the French anti-doping laboratory, LNDD, were announced to the press. Trial by media had, for the most part, already occurred and Landis had been judged guilty by many. For a large number of reporters, the announcement of the B sample results merely confirmed what they already “knew.”
But at that point in time, no one really knew — other than the leaks to the press — any of the details of Landis’ alleged positive result. By that point, leaks to the New York Times suggested that Landis’ T/E ratio on his A sample was 11:1, about 3 times WADA’s allowable level. That leak may well have come from one Mr. Dick Pound, given Michael Sokolove’s chronology in his New York Times Magazine article The Scold, which appeared in early January.
The high T/E ratio, some sources suggested at the time, was due to a low epitestosterone value (E), rather than a high testosterone value (T), suggesting that Landis didn’t have too much testosterone in his system, but too little epitestosterone to give a legal T/E ratio. In time, it turned out that this assertion was correct. But leaked information also suggested that the more powerful testing carbon isotope ratio method, also known as IRMS, had found traces of synthetic testosterone, which would be a clear anti-doping violation, if true.
But in all of the reporting of the Landis case to that point, two things were decidedly missing. First, the actual data behind Landis’ test results. And second, any real analysis of the story by a science journalist capable to separating the wheat from the chaff as far as the Landis story goes, and capable of explaining what the data behind the tests means.
There was actually one other thing missing from the reporting at the time, as noted by Michael Hiltzik in a recent interview on NPR: A skeptical attitude towards the claims by the anti-doping agencies on the part of the reporters covering the story. The job of a journalist is to find out both sides of a story and report that back to the readers. But, as Hiltzik notes, most sports reporters approach their job from the fans’ perspective, and often that means when a doping story breaks, they take the word of the authorities that the accusations must be true.
It would two more months before the actual data behind the accusations against Landis would become public, as he and his defense team embarked on what quickly became known as the Wiki Defense (not Wikipedia Defense, as has been mistakenly reported in a number of venues).
And once that information became known, most of the discussion as to what the data means occurred not in the mainstream press but in places like The Daily Peloton Forums (fair warning to the uninitiated: once you fall into the rabbit hole, you may find it hard to emerge, there’s lots of stuff to read through) and on blogs like Trust But Verify or this one. But by then many reporters in the mainstream media had lost much interest in the Landis story on a daily basis. They only followed the story when major events occurred, like the mysterious letters last November that contained copies of correspondence from LNDD to various agencies.
The upshot of the discussions that raged on (and at times still rage on in various places) is that the test results and meaning are not so crystal clear. In addition, the lab’s procedures and documentation were not as good as one would expect from an ISO-accredited lab, which all WADA-accredited anti-doping labs must be. Eventually, some of the problems with the lab data, outlined in discussions at the DPF and other places, became a part of Landis’ defense at the hearings in Malibu in May.
As of today, the Landis case is still unresolved. Who would have thought that a year after the B sample results (at least, in summary) became public knowledge, we still wouldn’t have a decision one way or another on whether those results were correct? It’s been about two and a half months since the arbitration hearings finished, and as far as anyone knows, the panel has still not formally closed the hearings, which means the 10-day clock to reach a decision still hasn’t started ticking.
If the idea of using arbitration, rather than the courts, is to reach a speedy conclusion to doping cases, then what we’re seeing today flies in the face of that goal. So what could be holding up the decision?
And along the same lines: If the hearing isn’t closed, then both sides are free to submit new evidence, at least in theory. Are the arbitrators giving one of the sides more time to find more evidence to support their arguments? If so, which side would that be? And if closing the hearings means no more evidence can be submitted, then both sides should be made aware when the hearings do close, and thus know roughly when to expect a decision.
That the arbitrators are taking longer to craft their decision makes me wonder if the delays are due to the volume of information they must wade through, whether they have already taken a straw poll and are working on their opinions to justify the vote, or whether they’ve been tied up with other obligations (or even vacations). If it’s just a matter of the volume of information, why can’t they hire enough staff to help them get through it quickly? They already have Dr. Botre, of the Rome anti-doping lab, to help with the scientific issues. Shouldn’t they be able to hire staff to help them come to a decision quickly? Or do they have a limited budget?
In the second possibility, if they do already know what their decision will be, but they’re carefully crafting their opinions, then I suspect the momentum swings towards Landis. Given previous rulings, if this was their typical 2-1 ruling against Landis (as happened with many of his defense’s motions), I would think that a 2-1 ruling against Landis would already have come by now.
So that leaves me thinking that the likely scenarios are a 2-1 or 3-0 ruling in Landis’ favor, with the arbitrators carefully crafting opinions to minimize the damage that such a ruling might cause to the anti-doping system. Granted, any ruling in his favor will doubtless be appealed to the CAS, in which case everything starts all over again. But a ruling in his favor will mean that he would be free to start racing again, and the onus of proving Landis a doper will fall on the hands of whoever (WADA, the UCI or USADA) appeals the ruling.
I’ve seen discussions in places where people are wondering if the arbitrators are looking to write an opinion that will hold up on appeal. But if I understand the process correctly, the appeal is like a whole new case, starting at the very beginning. It’s not like in a standard judicial system, where the appeals are limited to challenging the basis of a lower court’s decision. So on that count, I don’t think the arbitrators are quite as concerned.
But I do suspect that they will be concerned about the impact their ruling will have on future cases and how future athletes accused of doping will defend themselves. That being the case, as one person suggested to me recently, the decision could well be of the form, “Well, due to the lab’s sloppy procedures, we have to let him go. That’s what the rules require. But we really think he was doping, just the same.” In other words, a Landaluze-style ruling.
One other effect of dragging things out so long: Landis has in effect, already served a year’s suspension at this point. Dragging things out may well ensure that no matter the result at the CAS, Landis will be out of competition for close to two years by the time everything is all said and done.
A year later, and still no final decision. And if there is a CAS appeal, the ultimate decision may still be something that is on the distant horizon. Let’s hope that this time next year the final decision will be made. It would be a good thing if before the start of the 2008 Tour we find out the name of the official winner of the 2006 Tour.
I think of necessity, any decision in favor of Landis must be framed on technical grounds. There is really no way for Landis to prove he didn’t take testosterone. Unlike a crime, where a defendant has the possibility of providing an alibi that he was somewhere else, or showing that someone else in fact committed the crime, Landis has no option but to attack the evidence against him, showing (hopefully) that it was unreliable. Rather different than showing he didn’t take any prohibited substance.
But there is one difference between the Landis case and the Landaluze one, I think. If what I have read regarding the later is true, there was little doubt that he had taken a PES, and the case was overturned simply because the same tech was involved in both A and B test. However, in Landis case, the defense was that the lab not only violated CoC protocol, but also that the procedures used in running the tests and analyzing the results were so flawed that the no reliable conclusion can be drawn.
Cynic that I am, I think the classic way here to rule in favor of Landis, but save some face for USADA, WADA, and UCI at least is to make the little guys take the fall. That is blame it on the 2 lab tech from LNDD who actually did the tests. LNDD could claim “Gee guys, we didn’t know they were messing up like this” and report a “correction” by way of retraining or re-assigning to different duties the techs at little cost to them, or they could go the extreme of firing or demoting them. The ADAs and UCI could claim “we have a good system and LNDD is a good lab, just some people didn’t do it the way they were supposed to”, make a few mutterings about Landis “getting off on a technicality, and vow to be sure to get the dopers next time.
William –
I don’t doubt that what you have described is a likely scenario. If that happens I just hope that somebody in the mainstream media will hold WADA’s feet to the fire and tell the story about how the entire system is built to close ranks and prevent any oversight or questioning of such sloppy procedures.
When WADA bylaws prevent the heads of other WADA labs from criticizing LNDD procedures that do not come close to matching the professionalism of those employed in other WADA labs even though other scientists in fields with similar needs for security and precision are appalled by the laxity and sloppiness exhibited, we have evidence of a system that needs to be changed.
Floyd may or may not be guilty, but LNDD and WADA proved nothing more than how badly the system needs to be rebuilt.
I have bounced between thinking the Arbs were delaying to avoid the ire of the powers that be, then worried about bad press for their decision, then waiting for the right moment (read, best press and impact) and finally, thinking they must have decided to find against Floyd, but don’t really have the facts to do it, so were waiting to sneak in their unsubstantiated decision. My worst scenario was, Floyd guilty on technicalities, but he’s served his time. A wimpy ass compromise.
Certainly things were crazy enough during the Tour to make everyone feel like the issue of doping (and PEDs) is being taken seriously. I just wish they would announce already! I am sure Floyd feels the same way… squared.
My hope would be that the power struggles would cease, and everyone would decide it really would be more fun to let athletes compete on an even playing field. They kick ass more than any other group of athletes. What the hell are the sponsors/owners/managers/et al, worried about????? I keep watching AND telling my uninitiated friends about why it’s the best sport to watch. And I’m just a nurse without riding cred.
I don’t see how a ruling can just blame the technicians. The fatal flaws are in the protocol itself, which doesn’t use positive controls in the IRMS to result in retention time matches that meet the WADA spec. There’s nothing the technicians can do about that — even if they execute it perfectly, the protocol is broken that way.l
Similarly the non-production/analysis of 3 ions in the T/E testing — it’s not just sloppy execution, it is a flawed protocol.
The importance of the flawed protocol is also that is wipes out the implications of all the B sample tests that “confirmed” the S17 positive.
If it’s just sloppy technicians, the confluence of “similar” results on all the tests could still lead to a “comfortable satisfaction” that he was doping.
So if he’s going to win, the lab protocol is going to have to take a beating. Unless there is some /very/ creative writing going on.
TBV
I think it’s ironic that the Arbitrators have “left the hearing open” – for whatever reason.
Essentially, whether it’s because of the volume of work to do or the difficulty of arriving at a decision or for any other reason, they’re doing exactly what they anti-doping authorites hate the most – they’re stretching the rules to the breaking point, and using a loophole to circumnavigate doing their job according to those rules.
I understand that it must be really really hard to be an Arbitrator, and the 10 day rule is difficult to follow, but it’s really really hard to be an athlete without breaking the rules too, and these same guys are the ones who don’t care about that…….they’re rules guys……….who don’t seem to care or have to care about following their own.
TBV, I thought i had a reasonable grasp of the proceedings and thought the issue revolved more around the sloppy lab work and not the lab protocol. I thought that if the lab technicians had followed the proper protocols then the data should not have been declared a positive. Can you or someone (rant) clarify this for me.If it is an issue of protocol then i don’t think FL has a chance at all as WADA LNDD etc could simply declare ‘ that is the way we do things, so there’. But if it is a question of the way the lab work was done and interpreted then i think he has a very good chance.
One of the problems is that the way that LNDD does (did) things does not come close to matching the standard that is employed at a number of other WADA-accredited labs, but the WADA charter prevents any of those other labs from pointing out or even verifying the practical discrepencies between their methods in a way that can be interpreted as being potentially damaging to the case at hand.
You can be sure that UCLA, Huddinge and others will do all that they can not to be tarred with the same brush when and if the procedures and practice at LNDD come under fire, but at this point they are bound by the WADA charter to keep quiet about it.
Luc,
If you think of the lab’s protocol as the steps they follow to perform a test, and if they skip over or fail to perform certain steps that could reasonably be expected (such as TBV notes), then the protocols, themselves, can be challenged.
*
What can’t be challenged is the “science” behind the test. So, for instance, if WADA deems that IRMS is capable of distinguishing natural testosterone from synthetic testosterone based on certain studies, theories, conjecture or whatever, then you can’t challenge that in an anti-doping proceeding. But if WADA leaves it up to each lab to implement the test without a standard set of instructions on how it should be performed, and without standards related to the interpretation of data, then you have issues that can be challenged.
*
So, to put it another way: You can’t argue that IRMS testing can’t find synthetic testosterone, but you could argue that the way LNDD performed it doesn’t prove they found synthetic testosterone.
*
I hope this helps.
– Rant
Hey Rant – I think there may be another big factor to consider when trying to anticipate what will or will not be said about the LNDD’s performance. If the LNDD is a government sponsored/owned lab – I am wondering if they are also doing criminal investigative lab work? If this is so – then we have a real problem –
–
In essence as I understand it – We/Landis are in effect are saying that the lab is basically useless as a scientific tool of evidence – due to the sloppy protocol adherence of the technicians and or their possible lack of understanding of their work tools, I apologize to all who know more of the legal situation then I – but my point is this:
–
If Floyd wins and the lab is shown to be incompetent – and it has been doing work for the law in France – this will be catastrophic for any and all cases they have been involved in to date. By Floyd “winning” – LNDD is shown to be more then fallible – it opens the door for every litigation they may have been involved in – no?
–
If this is correct – then French law enforcement section along with their prosecution sections will fight to the end to not have this happen – I would think – no?
Morgan,
I really don’t know if LNDD is ever involved in criminal cases. That’s probably something one of our regular readers in France could answer. (Jean, perhaps?) But if the arbitrators and the subsequent appeal to the CAS find that LNDD’s work was substandard, and that this was the reason for the alleged positive test, then that could throw a number of anti-doping cases they’ve been a part of in doubt. That, alone, could be catastrophic for the lab, if others were to pursue legal action against them. But I don’t know if French law would allow such a thing. Certainly, any finding that shows the lab’s work to be substandard or incompetent will put pressure on the lab to improve their processes and procedures, as well as the training of their staff. We’ll just have to wait and see what the decision brings. Whenever that is.
– Rant
The Landis’ case is just a sport case… it’s not very important. When you play a sport you have to accept that referee could be false. Without this agreement sport is not possible. Look at football worldcup, even in the greatest sport event of the world, there is major errors: hands of Maradonna, Schumacher agression, many trickeries by players despite movie cameras,…
Doping control are just an enlargement of the referees’ action.
I just would try to quote Mr Suh, Floyd’s lawyer, who said that too much money was spent on this case…
*
LNDD has satisfied many controls (WADA, french, OSI,…), no problem were found. A doping case and a criminal case require different protocols, and maybe different people. So I don’t see matter here.
Despite the Landis’ experts, a lot of scientists give always credit to LNDD. As I pointed earlier Landis’ experts have not proved that LNDD measurements were false, they have just tried to bring doubts on the process measurement. If there was clearly an error, it was impossible to mask and no other scientists would support a such error because his carrier would be in jeopardize after a such act.
When people are saying that testing are flawed, they have to know that their healthy testing (I read it somewehere) are less accurate in USA, Canada and probably in Europe too.
Eventually , the first sample could be have bad handled, but I am sure that for the retesting of the samples of others stages, LNDD had certainly reviewed his proceedings with eventualy extern people. Don’t forget that USADA were already preparing their hearing so if they had found some loopholes, they would have warned LNDD for the retesting.
Why would I give more credit to an athlete
– who had a AAF and 6 samples with T too
– T was found in all major cases of doping (Puerto, Festina, Rumsas, Museuw,…)
– T is know to be use by cyclists (see Joe Paps testimony)
– who had an extraordinay performance after a bonk
– who had no support of other riders
– who seems to run a blood doping program (see USADA )
– who practise a sport where doping is widespread (many testimonies of riders, …)
– for whom riders said that he was boastful before the stage
– who had rather aggressive behavior after the stage, pushing well wishers (do you remember Zidane’s headbutt?)
– who was member of a team with many doping cases (11?)
– who was able to challenge a doped rider like Virenque as scientists gave a boost of 20-25% for a EPO or blood doping program (see Ekblom studies http://www.google.fr/search?q=Ekblom blood doping&hl=en)
– all recent winners of a GT have doped
– culture of denials in cycling (Virenque, Hamilton, Basso, Ullrich, …)
Who is speaking from the sloppiness of LNDD?
– Armstrong because EPO was found by the lab in 6 of his samples
– Landis
– ?
I’m tired I stop here…
Hey Rant – this is great – you got people all over the world and they are sincerely trying to come to understand this whole mess. It’s 4:30 in the morning and I’m just out the door to go to work – so this is going to be short.
*
Thanks Jean – and Michael from yesterdays blog – I think that this closed system that WADA has set up is becoming more and more obvious as a monster. If nothing else , we are at least getting closer to being able to see who the shadow characters are in this melodrama.
*
I for one find myself incensed that riders are being thrown to the media dogs, merely to satisfy the hungers of one power nabbing bunch or another. If we keep at this uncomfortable situation – we shall succeed – and hopefully we can “minimize” the “collateral damage”, that the powers that now be, seem to have completely forgotten about.
Morgan (and everybody else),
I think it’s pretty cool that people from around the globe are carrying on this conversation. It’s pretty enlightening to see people with diverse opinions carrying on a good discussion of what’s currently happening. I hope these kinds of comments continue.
– Rant