Clear As Mud

Over the last couple of days, when I’ve had a few free moments, I’ve looked at a couple of discussion threads related to the Floyd Landis case. One of the threads, where I actually posted a couple of comments, gave me a new perspective on the whole affair.

The people who follow the Floyd Landis case are in some ways a microcosm of American society in general.

What struck me was this observation: There are people whose opinions seem to be based on what some authority figure has stated. For example, one post I read said something like this, “the scientists determined that Landis doped, and since they said it, it must be true.”

And, I suspect, there are people on the Landis side who are just as reflexively supportive of Floyd as this person is dismissive of Landis. But what both sides are missing is that this case is about how you interpret data, and whether the science behind the data is actually meaningful.

Now, when it comes time for the arbitration hearing, Landis’ side can’t argue against the science behind the tests. But they can argue whether the data from the tests supports the conclusion the lab reached. And that’s where things get to be clear as mud.

Certainly, each side can marshall the data (or manipulate the data) to support the conclusion they wish you to believe. But the dirty little secret that the folks on the extremes don’t want you to know is that it is unfortunately not a slam-dunk, open-and-shut, cut-and-dried case.

It all hings on what the data says and what it means. Or to quote an infamous line of Bill Clinton’s, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

The problem for LNDD, the UCI, WADA and the Tour organization is that the data isn’t conclusive. There are explanations that can account for Landis’ results other than the use of synthetic testosterone. For instance, the numbers behind the T/E ratios give a different picture than the ratio without those numbers. And the wide range of T/E ratios from different aliquots suggests some extreme variability with the tests.

And then there’s the CIR/IRMS data. To be a slam-dunk, the results would have to show that all four metabolites were clearly above the threshold. What they have, instead, is one that’s slightly elevated and one that’s definitely above the threshold, and two results that are below the threshold (as in “normal”).

The problem for Landis’ side is that there’s enough data to make things difficult for Floyd to prove his innocence. First off, the T/E ratios are above what the current WADA standards allow for. And there is at least one metabolite that shows a positive reading. Two if you take the lab’s word for it.

More and more, we seem to live in a black-and-white world. Or, at least, that’s what some would like it to be. We have pundits who write books that question the patriotism of people of the opposing political point of view. We have TV “commentators” who talk the same talking points, stir the same pots and go over the same tired old ground in order to keep the faithful watching, listening and buying the sponsors’ products.

And that black-and-white world view comes out in other places, such as the Landis case. Are the same folks who believe that Landis must have doped “because the scientists said so” also the same people who still believe that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or that he was somehow connected to the 9/11 atrocities just because government officials said so?

See, the truth is a little more complicated. Did Saddam Hussein once use chemical weapons against the Kurds and did he once want to have WMDs? Sure. Did he have any in 2003, just before the war started? Probably not. Certainly none have been found since we toppled his regime. And in the three-plus years since, wouldn’t you think we would have found something? And about that 9/11 connection, except for a few politicians who rigidly cling to their views, no one has ever produced a shred of believable evidence connecting Hussein to al Qaeda.

Regardless of which side of the fence you’re on for a particular issue, accepting an assertion “because some authority figure said so” is a dangerous thing. In doing so, you abdicate your mind to those who could well manipulate you into doing things that you wouldn’t favor, if you only took a few moments to consider the consequences.

And that’s the key: Taking the time to think about and understand the issues. In other words, critical thinking. I’m afraid that the people who see the world as black and white won’t take the time to look at the real facts and make informed decisions, they’ll just go along with whatever their authority figures tell them — regardless of whether the “authority” is Karl Rove or Karl Marx.

Critical thinking is especially important around election time, when the airwaves and newspapers get filled with a whole lot of static noise designed to distract voters from the real issues. Both sides contribute to the noise, it’s not just one party that does it (although, to be fair, one party does it much more effectively than the other).

Going back to the case of Floyd Landis, the facts (at least as much has been made available to us) leave some doubt as to whether he doped. You can choose to interpret those facts as a “not guilty” or an “innocent,” but my reading of the data makes me leary of anyone who proclaims that this data shows Landis doped.

Maybe I’m missing something, and maybe someone can show me otherwise, but until I see something pretty convincing the idea that Landis doped his way to victory on Stage 17 just doesn’t wash. But no matter which way you see it, it’s complicated.