Landis Case Information Now Online

[PaulE]

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/

Los Angeles, October 12, 2006 – Floyd Landis, 2006 Tour de France winner, has made public his case documents that use fact-based science to support his innocence in the alleged positive doping test of July 20, 2006. The following documents are available for download from http://www.box.net:

Attorney Howard Jacobs’ motion for dismissal, submitted to the Anti-Doping Review Board (ADRB) on September 11, 2006
The complete World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) document package, inclusive of the testing information from Landis’ ‘A’ and ‘B’ samples
A PowerPoint presentation created by Arnie Baker, M.D. with specific reference to:
The details of the carbon isotope ratio test (CIR), demonstrating that the CIR conducted on Landis’ urine sample does not meet the WADA criteria for a positive doping test
Demonstration of an unacceptable variation in sample testing results
Errors in fundamental testing procedure and protocol
Landis received notice on September 18 that the ADRB has recommended that the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) move forward in the disciplinary process related to the cyclist’s alleged positive drug test. Howard Jacobs, attorney for Landis, has requested an open hearing by the American Arbitration Association to contest potential sanctions against the athlete.

Landis, who underwent the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing procedure on September 27, is fourteen days into a physical rehabilitation program and is steadily increasing strength and range of movement in his right hip. Doctors anticipate that he will be able to begin training in two weeks for the 2007 season, when he hopes to return to France to defend his Tour de France title.

The case files can be downloaded by going to http://www.box.net, clicking “LOGIN” and using PublicAccess as both the Login and Password.

[Lunar Probe]

He should be able to sue for damages after he is cleared.

[SC Will]

I just read through the presentation. I have always liked Arnie Baker and his books. The presentation is very interesting reading and makes a very persuasive argument that (1) there are serious concerns about sample identity (2) the B sample was degraded and doesn't meet criteria for valid testing, and (3) the test results for synthetic testosterone (reported to be positive) do not actually meet criteria for a positive test result.

This makes me wonder ...

[nick0137]

Er.....I'm no scientist so I can't comment on the technical stuff. But I am a lawyer (barrister if anyone cares). And the Landis submission is hardly inspiring stuff.

He accepts that of the 4 metabolites tested, one fell outside the acceptable criteria. (One other he says cannot be said to fall outside the acceptable criteria because of a plus/minus 0.8% inaccuracy in the testing but he must therefore accept that some of the "negative" tests might in fact be positive?)

Anyway, as regards the accepted positive test, he says that the WADA rules require ALL metabolites to be positive for there to be a positive test. But his reading of the rule is not, I think, correct - it does not say that all must be positive, not least because there is no (so it appears) express requirement to test any particular (or any particular number) of metabolites. So, here the French lab could have just tested the one metabolite that was positive and that would have been that.

I think that FL's lawyer recognises the weakness of his argument cos he then goes on to say that, well the rule isn't clear and any lack of clarity should be resolved in favour of FL. In other words, "OK maybe we're guilty on your view of the rule but the rule ain't clear so we get off". A triumphant declaration of innocence. Not.

Now, as I said, I can't comment on the second half of the submission which seeks to state that of the metabolites tested, the "best" test was negative. And, in any event, FL may well not have doped. I just don't think this is a stirring defence - I can't see Jimmy Stewart or Henry Fonda mouthing this stuff......

[Elefantino]

I thought the part about the one-armed man was particularly interesting.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . I find the part about the sample numbers not matching to be the most interesting, even though having just skimmed through the pdf document I didn't see much about that.

If they cannot reliably prove a chain of custody, then to me the other issues are moot. If the sample numbers truly did not match, or had been changed, then it opens up the very real possibility that the samples were tampered with or substituted.

But regardless of his real guilt or innocence, I expect the UCI and WADA to do all they can to railroad this in the interest of the same issues I have brought up before--their desire to make it look like they are getting tough and doing somthing about the problem.

BBD

[Serpico]

good stuff nick, thanks

good to hear someone in the field explain this

I like Floyd but I'm not willing to spend the time (or suspension of disbelief) required to go through his "defense"

I'm guessing others feel the same way

[Lunar Probe]

For me its not about believing or not believing, its about strict adherence to proper forms and protocol which are in place to protect the riders from incompetence or corruption.

[Kevan]

clear as mud. Otherwise, if you can't convince'm, confuse'm.

[Sandy]

So Kevan, does Mike Mets and the rest of your cycling buddies ever have you tested for performance diminishing drugs to determine just what makes you so darn slow?? :)



Speedy Sandy

[Kevan]

there's something wrong with me both on AND off a bicycle. I think it is petty evident to most folks here too.

That's why you and I get along so well, Sans-mans. Yes, you and I should both be scared.

[BBB]

good stuff nick, thanks

good to hear someone in the field explain this

I like Floyd but I'm not willing to spend the time (or suspension of disbelief) required to go through his "defense"

I'm guessing others feel the same way

Indeed.

I'm guessing the alcohol (or varying quantities), dehyradtion, naturally occuring high testosterone and consipracy theories didn't make it in the "defence".