Bacciagalupe

https://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=2871865

DMF 

Thanks. I kinda stopped reading about it after the panel ruled.

Au contraire:

And since they didn't test for it, they did not find synthetic T; they found a suspect T:E ratio.

Care to amend your earlier post?


Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but wasn't the ratio 6:1? (lowered from the previous 8:1?) And given the sloppy methodology of the lab, the actual ratios found would have been informative.

prathmann

According to the article they did test for it using the carbon-isotope test. What your ellipsis above hides is the phrase "during the Tour"; they weren't tested initially since the A samples came out negative. These other B samples were only tested later as a result of the post-Tour hearings.

But the testing was done by the same lab that had reported the initial positive findings.

Bacciagalupe

Yep, re-read the article. The T-E ratio does not prove the presence of synthetic T, it only indicates an imbalance.

His T-E ratio on Stage 17 was 11:1. The max allowed is 4:1.

DMF 

You are correct; I should have read more closely. NO isotope testing took place "during the Tour". However, the article does not say that the other seven B samples were subjected to isotope testing. (Nor does it say specifically what tests were done. I was under the impression that the lab wasn't equipped for isotope testing, which was done elsewhere.)

Perhaps you picked that up from another article?

Bacciagalupe

The lab at Chatenay Malabry has the equipment and did all of Landis' tests, including all of the carbon isotope tests. The T-E ratio is a bit interpretive, while the CI tests are generally considered rock-solid and very reliable. They're also more expensive, so they aren't usually done in the first line of tests.

I'm sure I heard about it through other sources, and that article isn't terribly explicit, but those were the tests they ran.

jaxgtr

I still think they should test the B samples in another lab to insure that everything is done without the specter of possible foul play.

DMF 

Agreed.


Bacciagalupe, thanks for the update!

Bacciagalupe

Too late, you can't retest a used sample.

That's what the hearings were about, by the way. All the procedures were documented, it was all reviewed by the hearings to make sure protocol was followed and the tests were done correctly, and examined thoroughly by the arbitration panel. The panel found that although there were errors, they did not invalidate the core finding; and the CAS agreed. CAS, by the way, has in fact overturned other rulings due to factors like protocol violations.

And let's face it, after an exhaustive set of hearings and an 80 page ruling, anyone who doubts the ruling was not going to change their mind due to any sort of additional evidence.

daxr

My thoughts on Landis? Tired. I read his book and followed the legal stuff, but don't get much out of it either way.

It is a sad state of affairs where you have to have an "official position" on doping to really enjoy following the sport, particularly in the winter when I watch a lot of old races on the trainer. But I have an official position - a rider who has tested positive I don't really have much interest in seeing anymore. On the other hand, a rider who never tested positive but was suspended through guilt-by-association or some unclear involvement gets the benefit of the doubt. That would include Vino, Ullrich, and Basso, among others.

gvonne

Kind of off subject. But is it just me or did Landis all ways look pretty chubby for someone who would (or wouldn't) win the Tour de France?

USAZorro

Scratch Vino from that list. He was definitely caught for homologous blood doping.

dwc032

140 and 5'10 doesnt seem chubby to me? I met him at the Cascade Cycling Classic this summer and he is rail thin. None the les he's still better then 99.999999% of all the people on this forum.

CatSkratch

I saw Landis race at the Manhattan Beach grand prix this summer. I was excited to see him race and glad he was back in racing.
I was hoping that since he always claimed he was innocent of doping that he would use his return to professional cycling as redemption and proof that he could race clean and do well.
Before the race started there were lots of people in and around the racer staging area who were cheering Landis and saying things like "go Floyd" and "good luck Floyd". They were ALL very supportive and encouraging.
When they called the racers to the line Landis looked apathetic and disinterested.
The race started and on the first lap he was in second place. From that point on he fell back and never once looked like he was trying to race hard.
Most guys had suffering and determination on their faces and Floyd looked like he couldnt care less.
I think he finished about 50th out of about 75 racers.
Pretty lame in my opinion.

I never had an opinion on his innocence or guilt in the TDF issue but I really gave him the benefit of the doubt in his return and was fully prepared to let him redeem himself.
He didnt.

I dont expect much from this guy in the future except more excuses.

dwc032

When I saw him at the Cascade Cycling Classis Crit, he looked exactly the way you described him apathetic and disinterested. He was in second place and soon fell back to close to last by the time the race ended. No matter what hes still one of my favorite riders. He isnt doing to well in the Tour of Southland, I think hes like 75th out of a 125?

gvonne

OK, here's what happened. He signed a one year deal with the devil to ride for OUCH because they fixed his hip for a rock bottom price. He thinks the team is full of scrubs not worth his empty water bottle so he figures "I'm going to throw out the boat anchor for a year and come back to tear it up in 2010 on a different team." I kid, I kid. I like the guy.

Blaireau

The story above is probably true. He seems to be a user.

--Pun very much intended.


I don't why anyone has any patience with him anymore. The guy really has a really a lot of balls to whine about politics in cycling recently --as if it could explain why he likely won't ride the Tour de France anymore. He's a cheat who got caught. He lost during a protracted appeals process where he and his team of guys showed their true colors... And still he refuses to admit any wrongdoing. What a jerk.

Trakhak

Still, you have to appreciate the comedy provided during the Landis hearings by, among others, the French lab technician who admitted that she'd whited out a test result "because she knew it was wrong" and wrote in another value that she liked better. Or words to that effect; it's a while ago now.

Blaireau

Lets add this gem to the already impressive list of flimsy/inaccurate pro-Landis argument.

dwc032

I also like him and hope he comes back in 2010 and does well. I heard that he might be going to Rock Racing?

monosierra

I don't get it. Assuming he was always a very strong rider, surely a lack of heart and capable team mates alone can't explain how rubbish he is now? Or are we to assume that he's always a mediocre rider jacked up by doping?

Bacciagalupe

I'd assume it's a lot of factors: hip replacement, weaker team, less motivation, extensive time off the bike etc. Doping may be a part of it, but I have some doubts that doping alone really constitutes the difference between a domestique and a Tour winner. Also, if you look at some riders who were caught and are likely/allegedly currently clean (e.g. Basso, Millar) their standings didn't drop nearly as precipitously as Landis'.

monosierra

True. He seemed a very optimistic and self-depreciating guy in interviews. Thought he would have more fight in him. He certainly sounds like the world owes him now. Maybe he feels it is unfair that he has been singled out?

Trakhak

281. WADA TD2003LCOC requires that,
Any forensic corrections that need to be made to the document should be
done with a single line through and the change should be initialled and
dated by the individual making the change. No white out or erasure that
obliterates the original entry is acceptable.
282. The testimony reveals that a forensic correction is a term used to deal with
correcting mistakes on a laboratory document. In particular, if a mistake is
made on a document, this error must be crossed out, initialled and corrected.
There should be no obliterations or use of whiteout. The purpose for these
forensic corrections is so that it can be read in the future.
283. At Exhibit 24, USADA0200 there are several improper corrections made to the
laboratory documents including improper crossing out, missing dates and
initials when crossing out occurred. There is another error at Exhibit 24
USADA 0008 where the wrong sample number is written down. In total, the
Respondent alleges that the LNDD has committed 39 different errors within the
lab documentation package. For the sake of expediency the Panel will not refer
to each individual error.
284. Dr. Goldberger the director of a forensic toxicology laboratory and the current
president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in his testimony
indicated that the pattern of mistakes in the data packages concerns him. It was
his opinion that he would as a result not trust the reliability of the report and
test results in this case.
285. In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the LNDD’s non-forensic changes
are not in accordance with the ISL and WADA Technical Document and a
departure has been established. The Respondent has therefore rebutted the
presumption in favour of the Lab found in Article 18 of the UCI Regulations.
Under the same Article it is now for the Claimant to establish that the departure
did not cause the AAF.

monosierra

Sounds like solid evidence. I like it when people actually bother to post proof to back what they're saying, instead of just relying on a perceived notion of what's going on.