Road Bike Racing - You can actually score one for Landis

A French lab technician testified Thursday that she knew she was working on Floyd Landis’ positive doping test, breaching confidentiality essential to the testing process.

Claire Frelat, an analytical chemist who worked on the Tour de France champion’s positive backup "B" sample last August, said she knew it was Landis’ urine because of media reports she had read of his positive "A" sample test.


http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/47-05182007-1348744.html

That's the first clearcut, "no denying it" breach of protocol shown in the trial so far. There's no way around that. Still think he's going to be screwed here regardless of whether he's innocent or not, but he did score a point.

I agree that this automatically provides the "if it don't fit, you must acquit” moment. However, this case is more in the line of of a “civil” case and evidence requirements for such as case are more lax. As such it may help, but will not be the slam-dunk they may be hoping for.

Clearly the labs in question have made UCI-ASO & WADA and USADA’s work all the more difficult.

To all who keep asking "why would floyd take testosterone before stage 17, it doesn't work that fast etc" He didn't, He likely reinfused his own blood that was taken out after the Dauphine Libre (a pre TdF tune up race).

It's still common practice to Take a ton of PED's and withdrawl some blood and freeze it before the big races..

If you don't remove the traces of the PED's before the blood goes back in, you will still have trace elements of doping in your system..

This is why guys get popped for EPO the day they win the big TT etc.. Like Roberto Heras. They say "why would I take it, knowing I would be tested" to appeal to the publics common sense, but that masks the true reason why they failed the test.

Dr. Fuentes was supposed to be able to remove the traces, and thats why guys were paying big $$$ for his services.


If you believe some Instant Messages taken from some confiscated hard drives....USPS/Discovery had their blood delivered along the race route by motorcycle couriers, not sure about Phonak

To all who keep asking "why would floyd take testosterone before stage 17, it doesn't work that fast etc" He didn't, He likely reinfused his own blood that was taken out after the Dauphine Libre (a pre TdF tune up race).

It's common practice to Take a ton of PED's and withdrawl some blood and freeze before the big races..

If you don't remove the traces of the PED's before the blood goes back in, you will still have trace elements of doping in your system..

This is why guys get popped for EPO the day they win the big TT etc.. Like Roberto Heras. They say "why would I take it, knowing I would be tested" to appeal to the publics common sense.

Discovery allegedly had their blood delivered along the race route by motorcycle couriers. Nice.


Great point. But why would Landis have done something like this after such a great day prior to his ride to retake the Yellow Jersey?

To all who keep asking "why would floyd take testosterone before stage 17, it doesn't work that fast etc" He didn't, He likely reinfused his own blood that was taken out after the Dauphine Libre (a pre TdF tune up race).

It's still common practice to Take a ton of PED's and withdrawl some blood and freeze it before the big races..

If you don't remove the traces of the PED's before the blood goes back in, you will still have trace elements of doping in your system..

This is why guys get popped for EPO the day they win the big TT etc.. Like Roberto Heras. They say "why would I take it, knowing I would be tested" to appeal to the publics common sense, but that masks the true reason why the failed the test. Dr. Fuentes was supposed to be able to do this, and thats why guys were paying big $$$ for his services.


If you believe some Instant Messages taken from some confiscated hard drives....USPS/Discovery had their blood delivered along the race route by motorcycle couriers, not sure about Phonak

Yeah but you're missing the point. We're not saying that Floyd's innocent. We're saying that the evidence presented does NOT prove he's guilty. That's it. There's too many holes/problems with the work the lab did for it to be trustworthy results.

Great point. But why would Landis have done something like this after such a great day prior to his ride to retake the Yellow Jersey?

Not sure what you mean, or what time line you are refferring to.

Im assuming he re infused before stage 17, and maybe again before the final TT but that probably wasnt needed if he was topped off prior.. you never know though... But you can't go slamming it in there without doing the math, or you will trip the threshold for the offscore, or raise your hematocrit to fast, although this can be diluted quickly if your team is notified of blood checks that morning.

Seems that Phonak was a bit sloppy with the blood though, first Tyler and Perez, then Floyd..

Tyler had no trace elements of doping products in his blood, despite being a human pincusion if you read the charts and the invoices faxed to his wife. So I guess Fuentes was good at scrubbing it. Tyler instead just kept topping off too much or too often, and WADA started looking harder at him.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/47-05182007-1348744.html

That's the first clearcut, "no denying it" breach of protocol shown in the trial so far. There's no way around that. Still think he's going to be screwed here regardless of whether he's innocent or not, but he did score a point.

I agree with you that this scores them a point and this lab is making this case very difficult. But so far all Landis' camp has been able to prove is that certain procedural errors were made in the B sample testing. He has not been able to do that at all for the A sample and they had observers when the test was re-run, which also produced a positive result.

The fact that the technician had no problem admitting to this, probably means she wasn't tampering with the sample, as some here would like to contend.

To all who keep asking "why would floyd take testosterone before stage 17, it doesn't work that fast etc" He didn't, He likely reinfused his own blood that was taken out after the Dauphine Libre (a pre TdF tune up race).

It's still common practice to Take a ton of PED's and withdrawl some blood and freeze it before the big races..

If you don't remove the traces of the PED's before the blood goes back in, you will still have trace elements of doping in your system..

This is why guys get popped for EPO the day they win the big TT etc.. Like Roberto Heras. They say "why would I take it, knowing I would be tested" to appeal to the publics common sense, but that masks the true reason why they failed the test.

Dr. Fuentes was supposed to be able to remove the traces, and thats why guys were paying big $$$ for his services.


If you believe some Instant Messages taken from some confiscated hard drives....USPS/Discovery had their blood delivered along the race route by motorcycle couriers, not sure about Phonak


Read Joe Papp's testimony on www.trustbut.blogspot.com. Its a fascinating look into how they take PED's to avoid detection.

Smoothie,

4 of the previous 7 B samples were also found to have exogenous testosterone. Doesn't this imply that he was on a different program of doping besides infusing his own blood before stage 17?

Also, Smoothie, there's a powerlifter who's posted on another thread who claims testosterone will break down whether it's frozen or not. I don't know if that's true or not, but the fellow (goldenear) sounds like he knows his pharmaceuticals.

Based on the quote in the OP, I don't think it's a clear cut breach until we ask HOW she knew. Did she simply reach a conclusion on her own, from the testing results, or a label on the specimen?

Smoothie touches on something else entirely: Most dopers at the pro level seem to be caught by their own mistakes with logistics and material handling.

So there's news reports forever about them testing the B samples on whatever date. The lab tech shows up to work that day and there's a bunch of American lawyers looking over her shoulder all day. I don't see any way they would have expected her to not know it was Floyd's B sample she was testing.

The leaks to the press that made everything so out in the open is the most damaging aspect against the lab. Otherwise, the lab techs should have only known the samples by the code numbers. But after the press was involved, any confidentiality was gone.

Smoothie,

4 of the previous 7 B samples were also found to have exogenous testosterone. Doesn't this imply that he was on a different program of doping besides infusing his own blood before stage 17?

Sort of. They were found to have ONE marker for exogenous test, which according to the UCLA lab (which does more doping tests than any other lab in the world and is the #1 for WADA) is not enough for a positive test. They require FOUR markers. Again, not saying he's not guilty but one marker is rife for mistakes and exceptions. According to the UCLA lab, they found that people can naturally have up to three of the exogenous markers. Only four markers was determined to be statistically certain. The problem is WADA doesn't have guidelines for how many markers make a positive test. So if he'd been tested by an Australia lab, three markers would have been required and other labs require two or four. Kind of stupid I think.

[QUOTE=Smoothie104]Not sure what you mean, or what time line you are refferring to.




I was referring to his Stage 16 performance.

I cannot believe they allow each lab to have a different standard for determining positive; that is mind boggling

Sort of. They were found to have ONE marker for exogenous test, which according to the UCLA lab (which does more doping tests than any other lab in the world and is the #1 for WADA) is not enough for a positive test. They require FOUR markers. Again, not saying he's not guilty but one marker is rife for mistakes and exceptions. According to the UCLA lab, they found that people can naturally have up to three of the exogenous markers. Only four markers was determined to be statistically certain. The problem is WADA doesn't have guidelines for how many markers make a positive test. So if he'd been tested by an Australia lab, three markers would have been required and other labs require two or four. Kind of stupid I think.

Thanks for the explanation. Why then, was the UCLA lab not ready to test the B samples if they could have exonerated Landis? I believe USADA was ok with the testing of the B samples being tested at UCLA.

Sort of. They were found to have ONE marker for exogenous test, which according to the UCLA lab (which does more doping tests than any other lab in the world and is the #1 for WADA) is not enough for a positive test. They require FOUR markers. Again, not saying he's not guilty but one marker is rife for mistakes and exceptions. According to the UCLA lab, they found that people can naturally have up to three of the exogenous markers. Only four markers was determined to be statistically certain. The problem is WADA doesn't have guidelines for how many markers make a positive test. So if he'd been tested by an Australia lab, three markers would have been required and other labs require two or four. Kind of stupid I think.

Thanks for the explaination. Now let's switch from the pharma side to my specialization - statistics. There's a big difference between the statistical certainty that people use in labs and those used in criminal courts (criminal court standards are much higher). Can you really use a test with that kind of uncertainty to convict someone and level such an awesome punishment on them?

Please note from all of this, people. Truth (and guilt) are often very poorly lit.

Thanks for the explanation. Why then, was the UCLA lab not ready to test the B samples if they could have exonerated Landis? I believe USADA was ok with the testing of the B samples being tested at UCLA.

No, USADA rejected using UCLA to test them. Probably because WADA doesn't want to have a situation where 1 lab is verifying/critiquing the capabilities of another lab. That'd bring down their entire org.

I've reading the news archives...

- The Arbitration panel IS the entity that made the decision to have the testing of B samples done at the French lab, not USADA. The reasoning was that since the French lab's procedures and accuracy were in question they might as well perform the B sample testing there under observation from representatives from each camp.

- The UCLA lab took itself out from consideration since the one machine they have to perform the exogenous testosterone test wasn't in working order.

- The UCLA lab has the same standards for determining the presence of exogenous testosterone as the French lab given that they are both certified WADA labs.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr13news2

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr12news2

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/47-05182007-1348744.html

That's the first clearcut, "no denying it" breach of protocol shown in the trial so far. There's no way around that. Still think he's going to be screwed here regardless of whether he's innocent or not, but he did score a point.

Landis' guilt is irrelevant to the hearing- it is not about whether he was doping but rather whether USADA can prove he was doping with their evidence. Unfortunately for them, if the ADA system screwed up the evidence that should convict him then he gets off. There doesn't seem to be a definitive line of evidence credibility anywhere let alone in a USADA hearing. Some people may maintain zero tolerance of such errors and throw out any evidence with errors and others may be willing to overlook some some major errors for what ever reasons (e.g. prejudgment) but most people will fall some where in between those two examples. It is up to the three person panel hearing this case to decide whether this error, by itself or in conjunction with others, is enough to throw out the evidence. That information will likely only come out in the final case opinion(s).

Regardless of the outcome some people will be disappointed.

...
- The UCLA lab has the same standards for determining the presence of exogenous testosterone as the French lab given that they are both certified WADA labs.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr13news2

...
Procedure standards, and analysis standards are not necessarily the same thing.

No, USADA rejected using UCLA to test them. Probably because WADA doesn't want to have a situation where 1 lab is verifying/critiquing the capabilities of another lab. That'd bring down their entire org.
USADA put the head of a WADA-certified lab in Toronto on the stand and extensively discussed both the results and the procedures used by LNDD. (She basically said it was "very, very clear" that the results were positive and that the chain of custody for the samples are complete, btw). This is obviously an instance of one lab commenting directly on the "capabilities" of another lab.

There goes that theory.... ;)

Also, transportation of the samples could have caused possible complications. For example, the samples could be accidentally damaged, and therefore rendered useless, in transit. Also, Landis' PR / defense could claim, to the public at least, that moving the samples offered another opportunity for tampering.

Plus, as KramerTC pointed out, UCLA's machine was busted.


Anyway, I suspect Landis will need to score more than one point in order to invalidate the results. Unsurprisingly, many (although not necessarily all) of the claims of vast array of errors and protocol violations are withering under actual scientific scrutiny.

Procedure standards, and analysis standards are not necessarily the same thing.


Please provide some kind of proof or further explanation for this.

From one of the links I provided:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr13news2

" But former UCLA head Don Catlin, who recently stepped down, said that the laboratory could not provide what Landis was hoping for, anyway. "We couldn't do (the tests)," he said. "It was very clear and the reason we couldn't do them is that we had one instrument, and it was down." The particular test method needed is an instrument able to perform 'IRMS' testing to show evidence of exogenous testosterone.

Furthermore, Catlin said that the laboratory of Chatenay Malabry was bound to the same procedure standards than UCLA. "A WADA lab is a WADA lab," he continued. "I know they're card-carrying, full-fledged members of the (World Anti-Doping Agency) system. WADA holds everyone to standards. They do that with an iron club." "

Please provide some kind of proof or further explanation for this.

From one of the links I provided:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr13news2

" But former UCLA head Don Catlin, who recently stepped down, said that the laboratory could not provide what Landis was hoping for, anyway. "We couldn't do (the tests)," he said. "It was very clear and the reason we couldn't do them is that we had one instrument, and it was down." The particular test method needed is an instrument able to perform 'IRMS' testing to show evidence of exogenous testosterone.

Furthermore, Catlin said that the laboratory of Chatenay Malabry was bound to the same procedure standards than UCLA. "A WADA lab is a WADA lab," he continued. "I know they're card-carrying, full-fledged members of the (World Anti-Doping Agency) system. WADA holds everyone to standards. They do that with an iron club." "
I read your link.

When I hear the term procedure standards, it implies the steps that are followed in order to produce results. When I said analysis standards, I should have said interpretive standards. For example, see the earlier post about there needing to be three or four markers for exogenous testosterone to be considered a positive result if the analysis was being conducted in Australia or the U.S., but only one seems to have been found in Floyd's sample by LNDD. Have I read incorrect information about this?

Curious that the witness (Goldberger) who said the tests were performed/analyzed incorrectly is a guy who was asked by WADA to apply to take over the UCLA lab.

I read your link.

When I hear the term procedure standards, it implies the steps that are followed in order to produce results. When I said analysis standards, I should have said interpretive standards. For example, see the earlier post about there needing to be three or four markers for exogenous testosterone to be considered a positive result if the analysis was being conducted in Australia or the U.S., but only one seems to have been found in Floyd's sample by LNDD. Have I read incorrect information about this?

Curious that the witness (Goldberger) who said the tests were performed/analyzed incorrectly is a guy who was asked by WADA to apply to take over the UCLA lab.

Ok, I think you are referring to post #13 on this thread, right?

I can't find anything to corroborate what it says. If that is the case then WADA's standards/procedures are very poor and loosely defined. I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet in the hearing. I guess Landis' team will bring this up very soon.

Here:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12284.0.html

+++++++++
After Schnazer, it was Dr. Don Catlin's turn. The former director of UCLA's Olympic analytical lab said that his overall impression of the IRMS testing done on Landis's samples left no doubt that "doping was going on. It's just inescapable."

Catlin did concede some doubt, admitting he would "report them as positive" but write a side letter to the client and explain that the sample is positive according to WADA criteria but not his own lab's standards. Catlin also said that in his opinion "a low dose of testosterone could enhance one's ability to recover from major exercise."
+++++++++

What is the most damaging aspect of this whole fiasco? The fact that we're still awaiting a decision about who won the 2006 Tour de France less than 60 days from the start of the 2007 Tour de France. That's unimaginably stupid, destructive to pro cycling in every possible way, and unfair to all involved on all sides. Who the HELL thinks this makes sense, and WHY wasn't this hearing conducted last FALL??? Wouldn't 3-5 months have given everybody enough time to get their ducks in a row?

If I was heading up the UCI I'd tell them 'be ready, the hearing is Dec. 1' and damn the torpedoes. This is just over the top insane.

What is the most damaging aspect of this whole fiasco? The fact that we're still awaiting a decision about who won the 2006 Tour de France less than 60 days from the start of the 2007 Tour de France. That's unimaginably stupid, destructive to pro cycling in every possible way, and unfair to all involved on all sides. Who the HELL thinks this makes sense, and WHY wasn't this hearing conducted last FALL??? Wouldn't 3-5 months have given everybody enough time to get their ducks in a row?

If I was heading up the UCI I'd tell them 'be ready, the hearing is Dec. 1' and damn the torpedoes. This is just over the top insane.

Landis agreed to have this proceeding delayed so it would be tried by USADA here in the US rather than by the French anti-doping organization in France.

Feb 8th, 2007

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/feb07/feb08news2

+++++++++++++
Floyd Landis has agreed not to ride the Tour de France this year, and the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) has agreed to delay their disciplinary hearing against him, which had been scheduled for today.

"Mr. Landis has asked the AFLD, in a letter read by his lawyer during the hearing, to have the possibility to first defend himself in front of the American disciplinary body (the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency)," the AFLD said in a statement.

"He says in this very letter that he promises not to take part in any race in France until the end of 2007, in particular in the 2007 Tour de France.

"The AFLD subsequently decided to postpone the examination of his case to a date that will be set according to the course of the procedure before the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency."

Landis said in his letter, "Let me assure you that I fully share the goal of preventing illegal doping...", while asking that the French case be postponed "In this case, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree voluntarily not to participate in any professional or amateur cycling event in France until December 31, 2007, and in particular the Tour de France 2007."

Meanwhile, French newspaper L'Equipe reported on Thursday that Landis refuses to let the American Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) carry out IRMS (detection of exogenous testosterone) tests on the remaining B samples that were taken from the rider at the Tour de France last year. Landis submitted urine samples six times during the 2006 Grand Tour, of which five came back negative for an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratio and were thus shelved. Now, the USADA asked Landis to approve the IRMS testing of these five B samples, which could be an important factor in the hearing in front of the Arbitration Commission currently scheduled for May 14, 2007.

"The World Anti-Doping Code allows additional analysis on B samples only [as the A samples have already been used - ed.] when there is a need for it in the procedure," said WADA legal director Olivier Niggli. Although the testosterone/epitestosterone ratios found in the A samples of the rider all were below 4 and thus considered normal, any use of exogenous testosterone could only be proved - or proved wrong - using the IRMS testing method.
+++++++++++++

Landis agreed to have this proceeding delayed so it would be tried by USADA here in the US rather than by the French anti-doping organization in France.

That's not quit true. Only the USADA/USAC have the power to sanction Landis in general, AFLD only has the power over French races in this case. Landis pushed for the French proceeding to be postponed until after the USADA hearings to allow the USADA first chance. AFLD only had a chance to hear the case because of the USADA's delay (regardless of the cause).

The USADA case has president as they have licensure over Landis and CAS would need to harmonize any differing decisions.

Regarding the OP, the final outcome and Landis' actual guilt are irrelevant to show the pathetic state of the anti-doping system worldwide (purview of WADA). This admission by the UCLA lab's former director shows a powerful disconnect between the most used WADA certified lab and WADA itself. This system is broke. Landis is a minor character in this clash of incompetence.

That's not quit true. Only the USADA/USAC have the power to sanction Landis in general, AFLD only has the power over French races in this case. Landis pushed for the French proceeding to be postponed until after the USADA hearings to allow the USADA first chance. AFLD only had a chance to hear the case because of the USADA's delay (regardless of the cause).

The USADA case has president as they have licensure over Landis and CAS would need to harmonize any differing decisions.

Regarding the OP, the final outcome and Landis' actual guilt are irrelevant to show the pathetic state of the anti-doping system worldwide (purview of WADA). This admission by the UCLA lab's former director shows a powerful disconnect between the most used WADA certified lab and WADA itself. This system is broke. Landis is a minor character in this clash of incompetence.

What admission and what powerful disconnect between the UCLA lab (is that the one you are referring to?) and WADA?

I'm reposting the article from the testimony of the UCLA lab's former director. I posted in post #26 in this thread:

+++++++++
After Schnazer, it was Dr. Don Catlin's turn. The former director of UCLA's Olympic analytical lab said that his overall impression of the IRMS testing done on Landis's samples left no doubt that "doping was going on. It's just inescapable."

Catlin did concede some doubt, admitting he would "report them as positive" but write a side letter to the client and explain that the sample is positive according to WADA criteria but not his own lab's standards. Catlin also said that in his opinion "a low dose of testosterone could enhance one's ability to recover from major exercise."
+++++++++

The UCLA lab (if its testing machine was in working order), with an observation, would have still found Landis to be doping.

Is this what you are talking about?

What admission and what powerful disconnect between the UCLA lab (is that the one you are referring to?) and WADA?

I'm reposting the article from the testimony of the UCLA lab's former director. I posted in post #26 in this thread:

+++++++++
After Schnazer, it was Dr. Don Catlin's turn. The former director of UCLA's Olympic analytical lab said that his overall impression of the IRMS testing done on Landis's samples left no doubt that "doping was going on. It's just inescapable."

Catlin did concede some doubt, admitting he would "report them as positive" but write a side letter to the client and explain that the sample is positive according to WADA criteria but not his own lab's standards. Catlin also said that in his opinion "a low dose of testosterone could enhance one's ability to recover from major exercise."
+++++++++

The UCLA lab (if its testing machine was in working order), with an observation, would have still found Landis to be doping.

Is this what you are talking about?
That one.

That one.

:) Since you selectively bolded sections of the article... I'll selective
copy and paste the most important section, to me, of his testimony:


it was Dr. Don Catlin's turn. The former director of UCLA's Olympic analytical lab said that his overall impression of the IRMS testing done on Landis's samples left no doubt that "doping was going on. It's just inescapable."