Professional Cycling - Landis accepts test result

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug09news


In an interview with CNN's Chris Lawrence last Monday, August 7, Landis appears to have accepted the test results that, according to the French national doping laboratory in Châtenay Malabry, found not only an elevated testosterone:epitestosterone ratio from his Stage 17 urine sample, but the presence of exogenous (synthetic) testosterone.

Hint: He's capitalising on Armstrong's conspiracy theories which create doubt (in the US) about the 1999 EPO positives.

Pathetic. He's trying to claw back a tiny bit of potential marketability. Maybe there's some money in TV appearances in the next few years? He's not going to be able to do much else...

Why he didn't insist that a 'C' test was done in a US lab is beyond me :)

My question is why the UCI procedure doesn't provide for a different lab for the B sample. U.S. D.O.T. drug testing procedure gives the employee the right to select an accredited lab for the B sample test. This goes a long way to preclude arguments that there is some negligent, or even intentional wrong doing, by the Lab. It would appear in the UCI's interest to have the B sample tested by a different accredited lab. I'm surprised their procedures don't provide for it.

By the way, I don't suscribe to the theory that the Lab screwed up the test, or purposely doctored it. Just that a second lab would have put a whole lot specualtion and arguments to rest.

My question is why the UCI procedure doesn't provide for a different lab for the B sample. U.S. D.O.T. drug testing procedure gives the employee the right to select an accredited lab for the B sample test. This goes a long way to preclude arguments that there is some negligent, or even intentional wrong doing, by the Lab. It would appear in the UCI's interest to have the B sample tested by a different accredited lab. I'm surprised their procedures don't provide for it.

By the way, I don't suscribe to the theory that the Lab screwed up the test, or purposely doctored it. Just that a second lab would have put a whole lot specualtion and arguments to rest.
Wouldn't you need four samples then? Two for the first lab, and two for the second? Though I suppose that would get all kinds of messy.

Wouldn't you need four samples then? Two for the first lab, and two for the second? Though I suppose that would get all kinds of messy.

No, Lab 1 tests the A sample. Lab 1 doesn't touch the B sample. Lab 2 tests B sample. Still only 2 samples.

Wouldn't you need four samples then? Two for the first lab, and two for the second? Though I suppose that would get all kinds of messy.


No the first lab tests the A sample. Then they send the B sample to the lab of the employee's (or here it would be the athlete) choice. It doesn't rule out that the B sample could be tampered with while at the first lab, but there are chain of custody, and tamper resistent seals for that.

Dog Boy you type faster.

No, Lab 1 tests the A sample. Lab 1 doesn't touch the B sample. Lab 2 tests B sample. Still only 2 samples.
Right. But you would need a second sample each to make sure that both Lab 1 and Lab 2 conducted the tests properly. Otherwise why have a 'B' sample to begin with?

Right. But you would need a second sample each to make sure that both Lab 1 and Lab 2 conducted the tests properly. Otherwise why have a 'B' sample to begin with?

Wondering about the protocol too.. my fiancee monitors clinical trials, and while she has already passed judgment on Floyd, she has filled me in on the processes she has to follow here in the US, as well as when her company works overseas.

Seems that if you wanted to catch someone - or at least come off as being "holier than thou" - the UCI, WADA, whomever, would try to do this with clinically and scientifically acceptable standards - which would have chain of custody protocal as well as alternate labs doing the work.

Wonder if Floyd can demand that his previous tests be isotope tested to further cloud the discussion. (or maybe that would be the nail in the coffin?)

Wonder if Floyd can demand that his previous tests be isotope tested to further cloud the discussion. (or maybe that would be the nail in the coffin?)

Yeah, seems to me if he's truly innocent and wants to pursue the "my sample from Stage 17 was tampered with" angle, that would be the thing to do...show that there's no synthetic testo in the other samples. Wouldn't prove anything decisively, but might introduce enough doubt to get him off the hook. He'd still have to explain the T/E ratio on Stage 17.

But my guess is there's not a chance he'll go that way. Who knows what else they'll find when they start looking more closely at those samples...

If the athlete was given a choice of lab to use then you would have a situation where corruption could be rife. An athlete could choose a lab where they know someone can be bought or influenced or even worse to a lab affiliated with the source of the drug. Could lead to a situation where "b" samples would never come back positive.

If the athlete was given a choice of lab to use then you would have a situation where corruption could be rife. An athlete could choose a lab where they know someone can be bought or influenced or even worse to a lab affiliated with the source of the drug. Could lead to a situation where "b" samples would never come back positive.

One could have an approved lab list. Also rememebr that very few if any labs make any reasonable percentage of their income from athletic tests.

One would think a second lab, any second lab, would be a good idea. It would not kill conspiricy theories, but it forces one to believe the whole world is in on it.

By the way, I don't suscribe to the theory that the Lab screwed up the test, or purposely doctored it. Just that a second lab would have put a whole lot specualtion and arguments to rest.Assuming that the sample wasn't tampered with between the control station and the lab.

If the athlete was given a choice of lab to use then you would have a situation where corruption could be rife. An athlete could choose a lab where they know someone can be bought or influenced or even worse to a lab affiliated with the source of the drug.You mean bought like the French lab?

You mean bought like the French lab?

Proof?! Evidence?! Of course not. Just allegations.

Proof?! Evidence?! Of course not. Just allegations.I think those allegations began with L'Equipe...

Assuming that the sample wasn't tampered with between the control station and the lab.

I'm going to go ahead with the assumption that pro cyclists dope.

I'm going to go ahead with the assumption that pro cyclists dope.I think that's a safe assumption, and one that I share. However, it's a big leap from that assumption to a conclusion that Floyd Landis dopes. A positive test is evidence, but it's not conclusive evidence until Landis has made his defense and a hearing panel has concluded that it is conclusive evidence.

However, it's a big leap from that assumption to a conclusion that Floyd Landis dopes.
That isn't my only assumption, it's just one of them.