There’s an interesting discussion going on over at Trust But Verify on the subject of whether the lab documentation package that France’s anti-doping laboratory, LNDD, provided to the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) at the beginning of the Floyd Landis case contains information about various standard operating procedures. The latest round goes over what documentation exists, and where.
That discussion got me thinking about the case from a slightly different perspective, one which I missed when first looking at the documentation in October 2006, after Landis posted the whole package on the Internet.
My first impulse, like many people, was to look at the data and try to figure out what the data meant. But even before analyzing the data, there were some questions that should have been examined, and which weren’t — at least, not by the Review Board who first looked the documentation over to determine whether there was a case to be had. And probably not by the arbitrators and their science advisor, either.
These questions need to be answered, even before one should start interpreting the data:
What did the lab do? This we know, because the case against Landis alleges the use of exogenous testosterone. LNDD performed both T/E screening tests, and IRMS (carbon istotope ratio) tests to determine whether the testosterone was natural or synthetic.
What were they supposed to do? Being that the use of testosterone is the issue, they were supposed to do the tests listed above.
How were they supposed to perform the tests? This is where it begins to get a little murky. In the LDP, you can find procedures for the T/E testing and the IRMS testing. But, as has been pointed out already, some of the documentation is missing. That would be the standard operating procedures for one or both of the GC/MS testing and the GC/IRMS testing. The part of the information that’s known shows some step by step procedures for preparing samples, and so forth. But does that include the setup and use of the GC/MS and GC/IRMS equipment?
Now, why would that be important? In order to verify that the tests have been run properly, you need to see the documentation on how they were supposed to be run, and that includes how the instruments are supposed to be set up, any calibration information, operating conditions and so on. This all leads to the next question.
How did they run the tests? Again, this is a murky area. But it shouldn’t be. Back in the early 90s, I briefly held a job at a biotechnology company which manufactures probes for various uses, both in medical research and diagnostic work in your local hospital. The nature of the manufacturing is such that each probe is essentially a one-off piece, and needs to be accompanied by very detailed information about its construction, calibration and more. The level of detail we had to record was excruciating, but crucial to the proper use of the probes. It was almost to the point that if you sneezed while performing a calibration test, you needed to record it.
It is, quite simply, good lab technique to carefully record each step of an experiment, regardless of what the experiment is. Even more so if someone else’s life or livelihood depends on what you do. That said, if LNDD keeps proper records, those records should be detailed enough that they should allow us to completely reconstruct what the lab techs did, moment by moment, for a given test. And by reconstruct, I mean reconstruct everything. So, for instance, if one of the lab techs mixed a reagent, then the preparation of that reagent should be recorded in enough detail so that we can verify that it was the specified concentration in a large enough volume for the test to be carried out, and on and on.
So, even before we look at the data, itself, do we have all the necessary information to properly interpret the data? Are all the details of how the tests were performed documented in the lab documentation package? Are there any gaps in the records? Do we have all the records of how the GC/MS and GC/IRMS instruments were calibrated? How they were set up? Exactly what equipment was used? Was the proper equipment used? What were the operating conditions?
Once we’ve figured out what the lab was supposed to do, how they were supposed to do it and compare it to what they actually did and how they actually did it then we’re ready to move on to the data — but only if we find that they did what they were supposed to do, and they performed those steps how they were supposed to. If we don’t have clear proof of that, the data is essentially meaningless, because we can’t prove that it is what it claims to be.
And before taking a deep dive into the data, the first thing that needs to be evaluated is: Is all the data there? Not just a summary, but the raw data, too. Without the raw data, you can’t verify whether any of the summaries, or graphs or charts actually represent what was recorded or observed.
Do the results make sense? Not for a preconceived notion of what the results should be or what they should mean, but for how the human body actually works. If not, then what? Do we have a person who’s a freak of nature, or is there something wrong with the way the data was gathered or processed? How would we determine the former, and what should we do if the answer is the latter?
Once you’ve got all of these questions satisfactorily answered, then you’re ready to start diving into the details and determine what the data shows. So the final question of the night is this: Does the lab documentation package from Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour have all the information we truly need to make an informed determination of what happened? I have a hunch about the answer to this question, but I’ll leave it as an assignment for those who are interested to fish through the LDP information and see if it’s all there.
Good luck.
Some well thought out questions here Rant. As I recall, there is a presumption in the WADA protocols that a lab does things correctly and the burden is on the athlete to prove otherwise. Also there was the motion made by Landis team for further discovery of lab documents that was shot down by the arb panel, who stated basically that what Landis had received at that time was all that was required to be discovered. During the proceedings there were various gaps revealed in documentation, to which various USADA witnesses basically said “Trust us, we did it this way”. Now we have the question about the columns used. It has been suggested over at TBV that parhaps LNDD might try to explain this away by saying “We actually used the right column, just made a clerical error in the documentation”. I raised the question of how do we believe LNDD on such a claim, lacking any corroboration. Larry suggested that perhaps the statement of the lab tech that the right column was used would be corroboration, or that perhaps there is something in the raw data produced that would indicate the column used. I can’t comment on the second possibility, but to me the statement of the tech is not corroboration. Perhaps if the corroborating tech was not the one running the test, but someone else who just happened to pop in the lab, maybe to ask the tech if she wanted to go to the corner bistro for lunch or whatever. I don’t think you can corroborate yourself by a simple statement.
Lack of proper documentation by LNDD is a big problem to me. There have been a number of problems and errors that have been definitely revealed, and other possibilities that weren’t really dealt with during the May hearing. This makes it hard for me to accept the results that LNDD did. Most troubling to me is the “accidental” erasure of the hard drive containing some of the data. Erasing a hard drive generally requires definite action by a user with a caution/confirmation dialogue, it is really beyond me how someone could “accidentally” erase a hard drive. Possibly someone intended to erase HD A and inadvertantly did HD B, but why are they erasing HDs in the first place, at least without backing up the data for future use. It looks very much like they were trying to hide something.
If we were trying for the truth here, then we’d do exactly as you have specified. By I fear the response from the ADAs well be, “The lab is assumed to have followed SOP. The athlete must prove otherwise. We’ve already given the athlete all we’re required to give him. If that’s not enough information for the athlete to prove an SOP violation, that’s not our problem.”
This response would fly in the face of Travis Tygart’s “USADA staff have the utmost integrity, would never want to falsely convict an athlete, etc., etc., etc.”, but I never really bought into those self-serving statements of his anyway.
I personally don’t blame USADA quite as much for this, because they have been used to getting their data from UCLA, rather than LNDD, and I think they got boxed in prosecuting the case before they realized that the information they’d get wouldn’t be to the same level, and then the WADA “omerta” of not speaking ill of other labs kicked in and they were stuck.
(Could they have taken a higher road, yeah probably, but I don’t think they were on a totally low road either.)
BannaOj,
I agree. It was LNDD’s responsibility to provide full and complete documentation. If the documentation isn’t up to snuff, I think LNDD’s the group that bears responsibility for that, not USADA.
Now, USADA could have gone back to them and said, “Hey, guys, this isn’t complete.” But whether LNDD would have been required to do anything more is subject to interpretation. WADA’s rules seem to be a bit contradictory on this matter. In one place, they require that the lab provide the proof of their claims, in another place they say, well, but the labs don’t have to provide SOPs and other documentation. It may be that the CAS panel will look at that issue and give us their take (I certainly hope so). If they do, it would certainly add a bit more clarity to the process.
If there was documentation that LNDD had, and was available to USADA, that would have either been exculpatory or at least been of assistance to Landis in mounting a defense; and USADA didn’t make it available, that is tending towards the low road. They could have turned it over without comment, thus not directly attacking LNDD. If everything was hunky-dory in the stuff they didn’t reveal, why not show it? If there was a problem, then hiding it under the guise of “we already turned over everything we have too” is kind of weaselly, IMO.
Notice how often this case comes down to the lack of proper documentation by LNDD. If they had documented (and made available such documentation) everything they did, it would have been much easier for either the prosecution to show that whatever errors made were inconsequential, or alternatively for Landis to prove otherwise.
William,
I think your last point is spot on. If there was more documentation available, it would definitely have been a help to one of the sides. Which one, of course, is anybody’s guess. But it should have been provided to both sides, regardless.
If an athlete’s only real defense is to show that the lab’s procedures or data is faulty, then the athlete and his/her lawyers need access to all of the potentially exculpatory evidence. Full lab documentation would fall into that category, most definitely.
And as you observe, if the nature of the information was to back up USADA’s case, that might have enabled them to counter some of Team Landis’ arguments (without the two arbs and Dr. Botre having to resort to some mental gymnastics when writing the majority decision).
Either way, it should all have been in the lab documentation pack. If it’s a case of CYA, then no wonder they didn’t provide the info. How likely would they be to admit mistakes and cause the case to be thrown out? Especially after so much had already played out in the media. Now, if it had been an obscure athlete in an obscure sport, I can easily see a whole different outcome.
I have argued from the start that WADA is the problem. Not in conception, but in reality.
They are a political entity that has stacked the deck in their favor and still, self-admittedly, can only catch a miniscule number of riders who they claim are cheating. The rules are so skewed in their favor that people should be uncomfortable at their lack of interest in justice. WADA labs are not even required to prove an AAF. All they are required to do is to report an AAF. Look how hard it’s been to locate this apparently egregious error in the Landis testing.
If WADA were any good at accomplishing their mandate, they would dare the riders to find errors in the testing. A lab pack would include everything even remotely important, right on down to the hand soap in the employee lavatory. Dare the riders to find a plausible explanation for a positive A and B sample (which of course WADA wants to do away with – further eroding their credibility). But WADA is afraid that the athletes might be able to find errors or negligence by their labs. WADA, with their restrictive rules regarding discovery, is admitting that they don’t completely trust their lab results to withstand scrutiny. I would be willing to accept that the actual test procedures are beyond legal scrutiny (assuming that they are accepted by the scientific community at large), if the lab pack at least indicated compliance with these procedures.
It would seem that the WADA wall of silence has accomplished exactly what the riders’ wall of silence has accomplished: sporting results that can’t be trusted.
Michael thanks for reminding me. Not only is WADA a political organization — it was adhoc pasted together by the IOC — which just happens to be one of the worlds largest SPORTS MONOPOLY’S and it created the concept of WADA to shunt attention away from itself when it got “busted” for bribe taking — a few short years ago!
Yet this seems to “ring no bells” for most people. Why is that exactly? I wish I had an answer for that, I really do. Does anyone out there?
Consider that it may be safely assumed that much chicanery has happened in most pro-sports — yes, cycling included, doping just happens to be the newest “flavor of the month” by which we address this. But to react with Fascistic governance and hide behind the oft sprouted — “doping must be stopped” because it is “ruining the sport ” or endangering the lives” of athletes — leaves out the single most important part of that message. The proponents seem to feel justified to ignore what little civilized behavior we have managed to get to and feel themselves safe to encourage mob mentality and practice the discarding of fair justice for all.
I believe doping should be stopped! Period. It is unsafe and dangerous to the health and well being of people who practice it. If, we as a society have come to decide that we do not want doping — this is the right of the majority. I have no problems with this — in fact I support it.
What I absolutely oppose is the blatant attempts at manipulation by “special interest” groups who on the surface claim that they are working for the benefit and good of the whole — all the while practicing non-ethical behavior of their own, and slyly working towards their own personal agendas.
As Rant points out — if it was an obscure athlete — not a Floyd Landis — who this group of “righteous” drum beaters had taken on — NOBODY WOULD KNOW IT EVEN HAPPENED. The news medias are interested in selling their stories, The UCI wants to be the big dog and control Pro-cycling. The ASO’s of the milieu want to run their own business, the Sponsors want cheap advertisement. People — “pro-sports” has always been about money.
It seems to me that WADA wants to be sitting right in the middle — judge – jury and law giver to it all. I would call that ambitious. Would anyone else? By the way — who are the “founding members?” Can anyone recall? What exactly do these members get out of this deal? It may be a very good idea to contemplate this for the moment.
That is — if you have gotten past the idea that all this lousy mudslinging is done for the “benefit” of all. That it is not acceptable to stick your head in the sand and ignore your reason merely because — you think this issue in pro-cycling and sports in general is only about doping. Or is it more the question: is it “justifiable” to fight doping by “any means” including – underhanded methods, stacked rules, and “JUSTICE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!” The only thing anyone gets behind closed doors is what the strongest in that room is allowed to get away with.
So – sorry WADA — IOC — I ain’t buying into it!
wild conspiracy theory here…. could the hardrive data in question have been erased when a column got changed?
Actually, erasing the data when changing a column would make the data erasure less of a conspiracy, and more of a bumbling mistake, which fits more in character with LNDD.
Not that bumbling mistakes are good mind you, but I find them more likely than major conspiracies at the LNDD level.
At the upper WADA level I think it is more of a case of people with good intentions obtaining power, without realizing how power can be a corrupting influence on good judgement. Being ambitious doesn’t equal being diabolical, but can start someone down a slippery slope.
One thing that occurs to me, is that in most actual countries, the legislative, and judicial brances are separate from each other which are separate again from the police force. Creating these sorts of divisions of power in WADA might help in opening things up, and making them more transparent.
If you’ve ever accidentally overwritten one file with another by using the same name, raise your hand. Probably everybody here’s hand should be up – I know I have. Have you ever accidentally totally erased, or re-formatted, or whatever it is called in your choice of OS, a hard drive. I never have, never came close. I have done it on purpose on both Mac and Windows computers. Both require starting an appropriate program, either that supplied with the OS, or a second party program, selecting one of several options, and proceeding through a warning dialogue which asks if you really want to do this. I very much doubt that changing out a part of a peripheral would cause an erasure. Would your HD get wiped if you put a new cartridge in your printer, even if you put the wrong type of cartridge in? No, I can think of no other explanation except the HD in question was deliberately erased.
I will admit the possibility of some inadvertent action. Perhaps the data was supposed to have been backed up, but wasn’t. Perhaps the wrong HD was erased. I once knew someone who referred to de-fragging a HD as re-formatting it, perhaps someone mis-understood an instruction from his/her boss. Or maybe there was something to hide that wasn’t related to the Landis case. Maybe someone at LNDD was downloading porn, or writing hot e-mail to a co-worker. But maybe there was something on there that would help or even definitely clear Landis. We’ll never know.
It is important that we understand that “good people” are “good” only as long as they shoulder their responsibilities without sacrificing their intelligence in the name of a cause or a personal belief.
When a person or group is put into a position of power where said power has the ability to “decide” the fate of individuals — then it is not acceptable to say that “power corrupts” and therefore their actions “may be understandable” in this light.
The question of “their goodness” has long past when their actions are the very cause whereby people they are ruling over are used – as mere “statistics” in their “good cause!”
The INDIVIDUAL that make up the body of WADA or the USADA or CAS – were originally given the benefit of the doubt – that they as individuals are “good people” – that these “good people” are conscious enough to not abuse the power handed to them.
Some may feel that my “rant” here is too aggressive or radical. Why is it “too radical” to expect that people in power “act responsibly?” It is not too radical to expect that justice and fair play be not forgotten merely because a person or a group has a “good cause” to fight for. Or is it? I do not think so.
Lest people feel that my “rant” is merely “too idealistic” — that my expectations of “leadership standards” are colored by “idealism” — may I point out that peoples lives are being thrown in the garbage dump — with no thought or feeling of responsibility for such actions. I do not feel comfortable with such egocentric rationalizations. Neither should any one else for that matter.
Leadership and responsibility is not an easy mantle to wear. We are all human and we are all prone to mistakes — but some mistakes need to be understood as inexcusable. “Good people” stop being “good” when their actions are motivated by self-interest or the furtherance of their power over the people they are RESPONSIBLE for. I am not ready to forgo ETHICS as the price I pay for accepting the rule of one person or a group. No sir.
So if we are considering WADA, USADA, CAS the UCI as responsible “good people” then it behooves us not to forget FIRST and foremost that they are not allowed to rationalize away justice and fairness, merely because they wear the mantle of authority. These “good people” are the ones to sit in judgment of PEOPLE and livelihood. Such “good” people must always hold personal “beliefs” under a microscope — lest they themselves become like the people they purport to be fighting.
Yes – these are fighting words and I take responsibility for them.
Morgan,
I applaud your ideals, however I’m more cynical when it comes to Human Nature in general, particularly when bureacracy is involved. For a slight clarification, I’d like to note that I didn’t say “good people” I was deliberately avoiding making that judgement call when I wrote “people with good intentions”.
As the old saw says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions… The good intention of catching dopers, should not be used as a cloak of moral superiority that somehow makes the ends justify the means. But I’m afraid is has been.
AJ
In a ideal world, we don’t need WADA, labs and testing or Police and Justice… so if they exist it’s just because we are in the “real world”.
Now if someone would say there is no doper or just a few, he just have to explain where are all the PED producted and why Fuentes said “It’s not possible to make a GT at an average of 42km/h without PED”
There could be people involved in the anti-doping “business”, either at WADA, USADA, LNDD, UCI, etc., etc., who have good intentions: they believe that doping is a serious problem that requires aggressive action to stomp out and whatever they do is based on the idea that it is necessary to reach the end of eliminating doping. There can also be people who are motivated by baser things: they like the job and think that by hyping the doping problem, making rash statements about riders and the sport in general, and railroading suspected dopers, they are increasing job security, the truth be damned. Or some may enjoy the power trip: “I have the power to totally mess up someone’s life.” My guess is that there is a mixture of all 3 types, and that often in one individual you will find a mixture of motivations.
The thing is that the system should be such that there are checks and balances so that it is hard for someone, whether thru good intentions or evil ones, to destroy a rider’s career without good evidence that rider has actually done something. That type of system does not exist at this time.
I don’t expect people in a position of power to act responsibly. That’s why I have argued that the people in power cannot have any authority over the testing procedures without stringent checks supporting the rights and interests of the racers, sponsors, and promoters. A race promoter cannot have the power to target a rider because they don’t like him. The UCI cannot target a particular team because they don’t like the way they work. Organizations cannot be allowed to penalize riders based on innuendo. These methods create huge openings for the abuse of power.
If the testing labs do their work properly, and the lab pack is fully documented (as if someone’s livelihood depended on it) then do we expect that they will catch FEWER dopers? Less than the tiny fraction that they claim they are getting?
On a more philosophical note, seeing as this is the only world that I am aware of, I feel free to call it ideal, as is.
Michael,
You are right with
“I don’t expect people in a position of power to act responsibly”
We have seen Bush go to Iraq with just a picture of a truck.
The most tragic is : his predecessor could have been impeached for recreationnal sex in White House and the smart GW has never resigned despite his responsability in more than 300000 deaths!
BannaOJ – Michael – William,
BOJ — Please do not take my expedient use of the term “good people” as any sort of attack or critique of your comment. It is not intended so. You state how I personally feel about the condition of governance in cycling in particular and in sports in general.
“The good intention of catching dopers – should not be used as a cloak of moral superiority that somehow makes the ends justify the means.”
There is no contention between your statements and mine. On the contrary — I am stating the very same principle in my own way. I chose the description of “good people.”
I do feel though that to relegate the concept of responsibility – in each individual – to consciously be responsible for his/her actions – to the mere philosophical concept of idealism is to miss the point.
Understand BOJ — it is not your observation of my stance that I speak of — rather that to be “responsible” for ones’ actions and behavior – is not merely a concept of philosophy – in the realm of “idealism.”
If this were to be the truth — then responsibility can and will be ignored and personal agendas in public offices could be rationalized away as acceptable.
A public servant — no matter how far removed he or she may consider their tasks to be from the actual public — must not give themselves over to personal egocentric behavior.
As William astutely points out,
“The thing is that the system should be such that there are checks and balances so that it is hard for someone, whether thru good intentions or evil ones, to destroy a rider’s career without good evidence that rider has actually done something. That type of system does not exist at this time.”
And as Michael adds,
“I don’t expect people in a position of power to act responsibly.”
I agree with both Williams’ and Michaels’ statements — only adding the old saw — “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
We have LAWS and RULES — Laws and rules are the means by which, we attempt to hold people responsible.
Law may be looked upon, and I am afraid many do see law in this light, as a means only of “punishment.”
But LAW is much more then this. It is the very means by which a fair system of “checks and balances” may be achieved in a world where SOCIETY is basically COMPETITIVE based.
So when Michael further elucidates his stance — he is presenting the very ideas that propel the concept of “checks and balances.”
So it is when “rules” are made to cover the shortsighted ideas of “good intentions” — that the LAW is PERVERTED.
By ACCEPTING “rules” that favor one person or one group — by SACRIFICING “fair play” and “equal justice” – that we lose sight of what is right and wrong and we open our social equilibrium to manipulation by special interest individuals or groups.
It is the RESPONSIBILITY of every thinking individual to oppose such ABUSE of public position. In my way of thinking — this has little to do with “idealism” being a philosophical stance — rather it is based in complete practicality.
As some people like to toss in political accusations — as a means of argument — I find this means of arguing rather ineffective. Since upon close inspection such arguing of issues is based on the concept that “the end justifies the means.” — I whole-heartedly disagree with the stance.
Similarly using the technique of repeating oft repeated personal beliefs as a means to argue an issue is not effective. Not only is it not effective — it merely allows the perpetrator of such “public slander” the illusion that he or she has made a clear point. Taking such a habitual stance serves no constructive service to any public forum.
Let me be perfectly clear here. I do not see WADA or the USADA as “evil organizations.” I do see them as being mismanaged by self-serving individuals who have clearly their own personal agendas to follow.
It is not acceptable that organizations that cloak themselves as servants for the “betterment” of the whole — be allowed unimpeded progress in following their public agendas as representative for “good” — and if one finds that they are “lacking” in their purported purpose and someone speaks out against it or them — that organizations or individuals not be allowed to continue such behavior — these organizations may “brand” them as “anti-good.”
Such “branding” behavior is completely unacceptable and should be resisted with determination and consistency until such a situation is resolved!
And just to make it perfectly clear, I am addressing the “injustices” that are in place at this moment as far as WADA and pro-cycling is concerned. Such behavior in the “real world” is referred to as public slander. Thanks but no thanks — I do my own thinking — thank you.