Paris, We Have A Problem

Today’s big news is that the director of the “infallible” LNDD has admitted to some mistakes in the Landis case. [Incidentally, this story is big enough that there’s a link to this article about it over at The Drudge Report.] Of course, Jacques de Ceaurizz, director of the lab at Châtenay-Malabry, insists that these “typing errors” have no effect on the outcome of the tests. He said,

These little mistakes happen. They are corrected, and noted.

Well, of course. Maybe I missed something in the lab package that’s been released, but the fact that they were noted is news to me. And a lot of other people, I suspect. If someone can show me where in the 370-odd pages of documentation the lab mentioned these little mistakes, I’ll be glad to print it here. Somehow, I don’t think those notations exist.

Or perhaps the corrections are noted on documents that haven’t been handed over to Landis’ defense team?

Now, I realize that it’s possible that a lab technician wrote down the wrong sample number on an aliquot. And that when reporting the results that wrong number was transcribed into the report. But there are actual procedures for correcting the mistakes that the lab must follow. Last I checked, whiting out the mistake and writing over it isn’t an accepted method. Nor is holding a press conference and saying, “Oops, looks like we got a few things wrong.”

Were the proper procedures followed in this case? I’m guessing not. If they had been, this wouldn’t be news. But this particular lab has a history of cavalier behavior in terms of recording data, so the news is, sadly, also no great surprise.

The problem I have with this little admission is this: Perhaps these were the only mistakes made, but it leaves me wondering whether other mistakes were made when recording Landis’ data. Like say the values for testosterone, epitestosterone and the all-important T/E ratio that functions as the canary in the doping coal mine. At the very least, it’s indicative of sloppy work. That, alone, is enough to question the accuracy of the reported results of Landis’ tests from Stage 17.

Just imagine, what if a lab tech at LNDD recorded those values wrong, and by doing so recorded a “positive” T/E value where none existed? It’s possible, isn’t it? So who do you choose to believe? Landis, who has consistently proclaimed his innocence, or the “infallible” lab at Châtenay-Malabry, which now admits that they made a few errors?

I have to say, the tide is turning. The whole hacker story to me is suspect. Isn’t the timing of it ever so convenient? Just a couple of days after Floyd’s interview on Stade 2 airs. And the allegation that the hacker is someone who’s part of Floyd’s inner circle is just plain ludicrous. But, of course, they’re just trying to draw attention away from the charge Landis made, and the lab director has in essence admitted to, that the lab made some errors.

I’m not sure what other cards Landis has yet to play. He indicated at one point that he and his team weren’t going to show all their cards at once. It will be interesting to see what comes out next — both from the Landis camp and from the other side. Never a dull moment in this saga.

Finally, a brief comment on the Pound story I linked to in today’s previous post. Dick Pound is being sued for libel in Austria as a result of comments he made about a raid on Austrian ski coach Walter Mayer’s house shortly before the 2006 Winter Olympics. Pound told an Austrian newspaper that equipment used for doping had been found in the raid and that Mayer was “the man who organizes doping.” Turns out these statements were incorrect. A follow-up investigation by the Austrian Ski Federation cleared Mayer of the doping allegations. But, like Floyd Landis, the ruckus caused Mayer to lose his job.

Now, I’m not saying that Walter Mayer is a saint. He’s been a controversial figure in the Austrian skiing community for some time. But Pound was incredibly out of line to make any statements about what was found in the raid, or what those items could be used for. It wasn’t his place to do so. And how would he know exactly what was found or what it was used for? Was he there? And if so, why? When did Dick Pound become a law-enforcement officer? Should we call him Sheriff Dick, or would Super Dick suffice?

Whatever. Pound is now getting pounded for verbally pounding someone who was implicated — but subsequently cleared — of doping allegations. Too bad he didn’t mouth off about someone in the UK to the Sun or one of the other tabloids. British libel laws are pretty liberal compared to the US or, say, France. If that had been the case, Pound would certainly have to pay many pounds to stay out of the pound. (I suppose I’ve probably pounded the Pound puns into the ground at this point.)

I have to say, the libel case gives me some hope that perhaps there is some justice in this world, after all.