# Landis Hearing?



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

What ya think?

I'm thinking the USADA thinks it's got a pretty good case and that's why they've been rather gracious in granting Landis' requests (e.g., oversight of the review at the LNDD labs, public hearing) despite how he has bad-mouthed them, etc.

Anything can happen since it essentially comes down to convincing a single individual one way or the other. Although I would like to think if Landis can actually demonstrate that a fatal protocol deviation occurred the "USADA" arbiter would side with Landis as well.

Likely to go to CAS regardless.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it should be on cycling.tv....if I had to guess going into it, I'd put my marker on landis. I agree that usada has behaved like they think they've got a solid case. but so has landis. he seems way too confident for someone that doesn't know they're clear. espn.com says he had his parents there today. could be a gambit, could be drinking too much of his own koolaid, but he's not acting like he's worried. going to cas regardless though.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Pretty much in agreement with you Dwayne.

I'm excited to read a Floyd Landis press release about the corrupt panel in a month's time though...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

There appears to be some mechanism to actually watch it live but few people could get it to work. From what I gathered on other forums from a few people who were watching it, one of the WADA scientists was looking bad under lawyer questioning because he wasn't answering questions with definitive answers (in my experience probably a good scientist then because he realizes few things can be characterized in black and white terms, but lawyers will exploit that to the nth degree). 

Landis was doing a lot of snickering and derogatory laughing when his lawyer was scoring points and several posters were in agreement that it made him look bad (arrogant I think is what people said).

I have the forum marked on my favorites at work but not at home and I'm not sure which one it was, so I haven't seen it since about 3 this afternoon.


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

I was provided the entire thing from Landis. I would definitely say day 1 goes to the Landis defense team. The first witness had no business being at the hearing. Floyd's lawyer basically impeached his credibility in 30 seconds. The after lunch testimony was from a scientist from Cornell, who was very definitive in his answers to the prosecution, but was very shady when answering Landis's lawyer. He often would say that he couldn't answer a question because the page was in French. Earlier in the day he didn't seem to have any French/English problems. This "star" witness did agree that several readings from the lab were outside of the standard error limits. Way to go Landis defense team. You are worth the money. I will be watching again tomorrow. I am loving it.

Brian
TheRoadBike.com


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Could you post a link to this?

Edit: Nevermind, found it myself here: http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/


----------



## ejr13 (Dec 14, 2006)

I haven't tried it but this is from floydlandis.com

"As part of Floyd’s unprecedented campaign to mount a public defense in his efforts to retain his 2006 Tour de France title and exercise his right to a public hearing, the proceedings will be streamed online via Courtroom View Network can be accessed from the following web address:

www.floydfairnessfund.org
Username: FFund
Password: Tu8UseVA

or

www.floydlandis.com
Username: FLandis
Password: WrAse7A5

Additionally, the entire case documentation will be posted to the public domain at the following web address:

www.usocpressbox.org

Go to “News” and then click on “Floyd Landis Hearing” link."


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

Go to courtroomview.com
Use:

Username: FLandis
Password: WrAse7A5

Case Sensitive!

Look to the left of the viewer to find the Landis case. Keep trying if it doesn't play. It eventually will play, and it never had problems once connected. It will be live again tomorrow from 9:30 - 5:00 Pacific time. Go to FloydLandis.com to stream today's testimonies for review.

Brian
TheRoadBike.com


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

I think that he just might roast in hell. Probably not as a direct result of the hearing, though.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Can we all pitch in and buy him a razor or two. That whole George Michaels thing just looks out of place in an arbitration...


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

Wow....what did Floyd ever do to you? You don't have any direct knowledge of his guilt. I hope that you get accused of something one day and have to spend more than you will ever make to defend yourself, and then the judge assumes that you are guilty before he hears any of the testimony. I think that sounds like a fair thing to me.

I hope that we can all agree that one person that will be roasting in hell is Dick Pound. Talk about no ethics.

Brian


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

Is there a list of witnesses or transcript available?


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

trustbut.com did a good job transcribing today's testimony. It has some errors because it was transcribed on the fly, but it is very accurate. They have been the best coverage of the Landis affair, so if you are looking for info I would try there first.

Brian
TheRoadBike.com


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

The whole point scoring thing will work hugely against him - one thing Suh and his like forget is that this isn't a court of law where their antics might sway a few dumb hicks, it's an arbitration panel where their job is to convince a panel of 3 of their man's innocence. 

The results from the B sample retests show incontrovertibly that exogenous testosterone was present - this information is in the public domain.

The saddest thing - 100 people turn up, mostly journos, friends and family and the room for the expected overflow is dark before the preceding's end. Poor Landis, guess he never heard the one about not throwing good money after bad...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> The whole point scoring thing will work hugely against him - one thing Suh and his like forget is that this isn't a court of law where their antics might sway a few dumb hicks, it's an arbitration panel where their job is to convince a panel of 3 of their man's innocence.


The Landis team may win this case but I think their primary goal is to preserve Landis' marketability in the liklihood that he is found to have doped.

From cyclingnews:
"the Landis camp clearly outlines a series of eight points it feels are key to the American's case including one which claims testosterone is "a drug that does not have a beneficial effect during a race like the Tour". 

How can this really be a defense point? We know riders use this drug by their own admission, etc. And while I'm no expert I know enough that under the WADA code that this sort of arguement holds no weight at all. The only reason you raise this kind of point is for the public's consumption.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> it's an arbitration panel where their job is to convince a panel of 3 of their man's innocence.


You may want to brush up on where the burden of proof lies. Not being a few dumb hicks, the arbitrators certainly know this.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The way the rules are written the positive test results are proof of guilt, so the burden of proof is on the defendent to prove their innocence despite the positive results.

As the USADA said - he bet the farm on additional testing and lost, coming up positive for exogenous T all 8 times. Sucks for Flawed but even if they screw up 25% of the tests the odds of 8/8 are only a fraction of one percent.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> The way the rules are written the positive test results are proof of guilt, so the burden of proof is on the defendent to prove their innocence despite the positive results.


You're confusing burden of proof with presumption of accuracy.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

asgelle said:


> You're confusing burden of proof with presumption of accuracy.


From what I recall in the Hamilton case the WADA code which sets the ground rules for the "trial" is fundamentally different from our criminal codes. Again, IIRC, an athlete can't impeach a test, the fact that WADA excepts and uses the test means it's reliable, valid, etc.

Consequently Floyd is guilty because he failed the test. USADA doesn't have to prove the validity or accuracy of the test. Essentially what it comes down to is Floyd must prove that the positive is a false positive and demonstrate why that is, or demonstrate that some fundamental portion of the testing protocol was violated (e.g. that is how Landaluze got off).

We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if he beats the rap at the USADA level but loses it at CAS (I think the arbitrators here are all "neutrals" but I may be mistaken).


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> From what I recall in the Hamilton case the WADA code which sets the ground rules for the "trial" is fundamentally different from our criminal codes. Again, IIRC, an athlete can't impeach a test, the fact that WADA excepts and uses the test means it's reliable, valid, etc.
> 
> Consequently Floyd is guilty because he failed the test. USADA doesn't have to prove the validity or accuracy of the test. Essentially what it comes down to is Floyd must prove that the positive is a false positive and demonstrate why that is, or demonstrate that some fundamental portion of the testing protocol was violated (e.g. that is how Landaluze got off).
> 
> We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if he beats the rap at the USADA level but loses it at CAS (I think the arbitrators here are all "neutrals" but I may be mistaken).


The burden of proof is on USADA to prove that Landis violated antidoping regulations. That burden can be met by producing a positive test result from an accredited lab (the results are presumed accurate). However, that presumption can be challenged which is what Landis is doing. The test can be challenged in two ways: 1) the results of the test do not prove a violation either because procedures were not followed, putting the accuracy of the results in question, or the data was not interpreted correctly and so do not lead to the conclusion of a violation. The other way the test can be challenged is to challenge the validity of the test itself, claiming there is not sufficient science to support the claim that the test accurately reveal the violation of regulations. Both paths can be followed but the burden shifts to the athlete to prove the case.

Landis does not have to prove the results are a false positive. They can claim the data were misinterpreted and there never was a positive result to begin with. From what I've seen from yesterday's testimony, his team are going after the lack of separation between the peaks to say that's what happened and there never was a positive result.


----------



## mcfly (Feb 19, 2004)

i work in a machine shop at cornell and have done some work for the cornell prof. that testified.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

the burden of proof lies with Landis and he knows it.

As for the testosterone statement - they are simply laying themselves open to USADA bringing up other cases of testosterone doping - including one of Landis's own teammates, opening up the whole box of tricks re: doping at Phonak. Same with calling Axel Merckx, one time client of Dr Ferrari.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> The way the rules are written the positive test results are proof of guilt, so the burden of proof is on the defendent to prove their innocence despite the positive results.


Here's the view of a US lawyer:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12254.0.html

I just wonder if he is familiar with the WADA code or he is thinking in US criminal case terms? Maybe I'm mistaken but I'm pretty sure I'm correct that there isn't a burden of proof on the "prosecution". I thought in the Hamilton ruling from CAS they laid that out pretty clearly?


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if he beats the rap at the USADA level but loses it at CAS (I think the arbitrators here are all "neutrals" but I may be mistaken).


I thought USADA and Landis each picked one, and their picks selected the third.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Up until this point I think we are in agreement?

"The other way the test can be challenged is to challenge the validity of the test itself, claiming there is not sufficient science to support the claim that the test accurately reveal the violation of regulations."

Where is that coming from? I recall from reading Hamilton's CAS decision that that was not the case.

"Landis does not have to prove the results are a false positive. They can claim the data were misinterpreted and there never was a positive result to begin with. From what I've seen from yesterday's testimony, his team are going after the lack of separation between the peaks to say that's what happened and there never was a positive result."

Well in my mind a misinterpretation of the results would be a false positive, no?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

harlond said:


> I thought USADA and Landis each picked one, and their picks selected the third.


Right. But what happens at the CAS level? However it turns out it will most likely be appealed to CAS by whichever side lost.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"The burden of proof is on USADA to prove that Landis violated antidoping regulations. That burden can be met by producing a positive test result from an accredited lab (the results are presumed accurate)." 

Wasn't this what was decided at the first hearing some months ago? That the results did indicate that he tested positive? So at this point the burden of proof is on Landis, right?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Ah, the joys of the shifting burdens of proof and persuasion: 

Here's a good explanation from: http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12248.0.html 

VN.com: Explain more about burden of proof. Technically it's on USADA, but then they produce a test result and the burden changes? 

AG: Right, it's what they call a shifting burden. Initially the burden is on USADA, they show their test results and I'm sure they'll have their people talk about why the test results are valid. They wouldn't just sit on the test result and say, "Here you go." I'm sure they'll talk about that and they'll probably have some well-qualified people do that. Then, once that's out there, it's up to Landis to say, well, here's what went wrong with the testing and this is why that testing produced a false result. 

I think what Gallegos was referring to in the limits of the burden shifting mechanism. These shifting burdens, which are quite common all throughout the law, are really designed to structure a deciding judge's or panel's analysis. Wherer there are shifting burdens of proof and both sides put forth some evidence to support their case, it ultimately comes down to the basic questions of whose arguments and supporting facts are more persuasive.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

Thanks. It's interesting to see how this case plays out in the media. 

NYT's article described Landis' parents and what they were wearing, what Landis was wearing, his facial expressions, and what he was eating. It mentioned there were witnesses but it didn't say who they were or what they said. Otherwise they took a broad overview describing the opening statements and the affect of this case on cycling. Less fashion and more science would be helpful. 

LA Times had more details about the witness testimony.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-landis15may15,0,6578818.story?coll=la-home-sports
LeMond and Merckx will appear as witnesses.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Pablo said:


> I think what Gallegos was referring to in the limits of the burden shifting mechanism. These shifting burdens, which are quite common all throughout the law, are really designed to structure a deciding judge's or panel's analysis. Wherer there are shifting burdens of proof and both sides put forth some evidence to support their case, it ultimately comes down to the basic questions of whose arguments and supporting facts are more persuasive.


Perhaps it is just semantics people are disagreeing over? I just recall from the Hamilton decision that by the WADA code an athlete can't impeach a test, in general. So if they are positive, they are positive unless they can demonstrate why the positive is false. Which I believe is where we are at in the Landis case, no?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Perhaps it is just semantics people are disagreeing over? I just recall from the Hamilton decision that by the WADA code an athlete can't impeach a test, in general. So if they are positive, they are positive unless they can demonstrate why the positive is false. Which I believe is where we are at in the Landis case, no?


It seems like there mainly were semantics disagreements. There are probably additional evidenciary rules and rules about what types of arguments you can and cannot make in these arbitrations regarding the tests. It sounds like you know more than me about these specific ones. I was just applying some general legal principles. Nevertheless, from the little I know, it sounds like Landis has a colorable argument as to why the tests may be false. 

On the whole, I doubt Floyd will win, absent some incredibly damning evidence. I doubt that the arbitrators will be willing to risk undermining future doping investigations and enforcement without some smoking gun, otherwise, all athletes could cobble together a defense and get out of their punishment which could undermine enforcement. They have an incentive to push challeneges into what tests are used initially in rulemaking, as opposed to attching the tests in a case-by-case basis after the fact.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Pablo said:


> On the whole, I doubt Floyd will win, absent some incredibly damning evidence. I doubt that the arbitrators will be willing to risk undermining future doping investigations and enforcement without some smoking gun, otherwise, all athletes could cobble together a defense and get out of their punishment which could undermine enforcement.


Tygart also claimed that they find on the athlete's side in 20% of the doping cases (which I assume means they never get to the arbitration point). Which again tells me they think they have a good case vs. Landis.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Perhaps it is just semantics people are disagreeing over? I just recall from the Hamilton decision that by the WADA code an athlete can't impeach a test, in general. So if they are positive, they are positive unless they can demonstrate why the positive is false. Which I believe is where we are at in the Landis case, no?


I believe this is the biggest thing that I find problematic with the powers that be. The tests can not be challenged by the athletes and yet time and agine the test have been proven faulty. I am not saying thats what happened in Floyd's case (although there is some evidence to that argument).


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> I believe this is the biggest thing that I find problematic with the powers that be. The tests can not be challenged by the athletes and yet time and agine the test have been proven faulty. I am not saying thats what happened in Floyd's case (although there is some evidence to that argument).


It certainly seems like there could be a better system. From what I understand this is basically the point of the guy Landis' team picked as their arbitrator. He says the system is fundamentally unfair so he will rule against WADA everytime. I believe he is the same guy who sided with Hamilton in his case.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

32and3cross said:


> I believe this is the biggest thing that I find problematic with the powers that be. The tests can not be challenged by the athletes and yet time and agine the test have been proven faulty. I am not saying thats what happened in Floyd's case (although there is some evidence to that argument).


Really, time and time again the test's have proven faulty?

In what sense? Because the athlete said so?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well in my mind a misinterpretation of the results would be a false positive, no?


Not really. A false positive would be the integral under the peaks of the MS show a T:E ratio of 11:1, but the height of the T peak was affected by something other than the presence of testosterone. A misinterpretation of the results would be there is overlap between the T and E peak and the operator apportions the area under the two peaks so that the ratio comes out to 11:1, when proper protocol says to discard the entire run when there is separation between the peaks.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Really, time and time again the test's have proven faulty?
> 
> In what sense? Because the athlete said so?


No because the science said so - Re: Beke and others.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:



> No because the science said so - Re: Beke and others.


Now, now that was the EPO test. What's the evidence for positives in the T/E ratio or carbon isotope tests due to factors other than exogenous T use? And more critically how do they apply to Floyd's case?

In the case of the EPO false postives, athletes can exonerate themselves via repeated testing which is what Beke did. Same is true for elevated levels of various hormones.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

32and3cross said:


> No because the science said so - Re: Beke and others.


Kind of a funny way to put it. The test detected exactly what it was supposed to, the athlete was exonerated because it was a natural state after hard exercise.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

asgelle said:


> A false positive would be the integral under the peaks of the MS show a T:E ratio of 11:1, but...


I guess I don't see it, seems to me any explanation other than T doping that leads to a positive finding on the T/E test or carbon isotope test would then be a false positive, by definition?

For example the EPO false positives were measuring a real phenomena just that it could be explained by engaging in prolonged hard endurance exercise not EPO use.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Now, now that was the EPO test. What's the evidence for positives in the T/E ratio or carbon isotope tests due to factors other than exogenous T use? And more critically how do they apply to Floyd's case?


I didn't say that example applied to Floyds case I put it forth as and example of a how the tests were flawed dispite claims of no false positives 



Dwayne Barry said:


> In the case of the EPO false postives, athletes can exonerate themselves via repeated testing which is what Beke did. Same is true for elevated levels of various hormones.


Yes the can exonerate themselves to the tune of thousands of dollars in lab cost which thgey should not have to spend to defend themselfs aginst a faulty test. And if you don't have the money to challege you just SOL, sorry thats not an acceptable system.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

32and3cross said:


> Yes the can exonerate themselves to the tune of thousands of dollars in lab cost which thgey should not have to spend to defend themselfs aginst a faulty test. And if you don't have the money to challege you just SOL, sorry thats not an acceptable system.


If they didn't spend thousands of dollars on doping products and blood transfusions in the first place, they wouldn't have to challenge the tests and they would have money in their pockets.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> Yes the can exonerate themselves to the tune of thousands of dollars in lab cost which thgey should not have to spend to defend themselfs aginst a faulty test. And if you don't have the money to challege you just SOL, sorry thats not an acceptable system.


Yeah or they could spend hundreds of thousands (or is it over a million now?) of dollars in Floyd's case for lawyer fees to run a PR campaign and try to undermine the credibility of an entire system and process.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dan Gerous said:


> If they didn't spend thousands of dollars on doping products and blood transfusions in the first place, they wouldn't have to challenge the tests and they would have money in their pockets.


Your assumption of guilt typifies why I feel the current system is not one that can be trusted. Not saying the athletes can either.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yeah or they could spend hundreds of thousands (or is it over a million now?) of dollars in Floyd's case for lawyer fees to run a PR campaign and try to undermine the credibility of an entire system and process.


That not we are discussing here. 


We are discussing if the tests are good enough to be exempt from challenge, which it seems that they are not. The defendant should not have rich enough to defend themselves, not everyone tested positive and protesting their innocence has been a professional athlete with supposdly tons of disposable income.

The fact remains that many of the tests that system has put forth as "perfect" have not been and have produced false positives where they said it was not possible.

People run around telling us how we should not trust the athletes (and I agree) but to blinding trust the system when they have just as many issues seems plainly stupid to me.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yeah or they could spend hundreds of thousands (or is it over a million now?) of dollars in Floyd's case for lawyer fees to run a PR campaign and try to undermine the credibility of an entire system and process.


You say that as if it's a bad thing.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Are there any scientific tests for drugs that are fool proof? Isn't there always going to be some uncertainty given the nature of the scientific process?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Pablo said:


> Are there any scientific tests for drugs that are fool proof? Isn't there always going to be some uncertainty given the nature of the scientific process?


Which is why good science attempts to quantify uncertainty and tempers conclusions in light of the magnitude of that uncertainty.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

My understanding is that the Landis defense is not challenging the tests per se (as did Hamilton) but rather is accusing the LNDD of not following WADA procedures/standards in the administration of those tests. I guess USADA is allowed to call their witnesses first, who are essentially trying to make the case that from a detached perspective the results appear acceptable (although the Landis team has made some points, such as the calibrations being outside the range etc). 

Won't the real fireworks start when LNDD witnesses are called? It looks like from the witness team that everyone but the janitor at LNDD is going to be grilled. That should be some interesting testimony-I'm trying to get credentials to go as I live in the area.


----------



## WildBill (May 11, 2006)

Ok Isnt it true they found synthetic testosterone in his system. Also in all eight samples ? True or false ?


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> The results from the B sample retests show incontrovertibly that exogenous testosterone was present - this information is in the public domain.


I thought his whole defense was that it was controvertible, that the lab had problems, lots of them. I don't know if that's a good defense, but that's what I thought it was.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

WildBill said:


> Ok Isnt it true they found synthetic testosterone in his system. Also in all eight samples ? True or false ?


False. Not USADA, WADA, ASO, or UCI claim this.


----------



## CU155 (Mar 19, 2004)

You ever go up to Swan Cycles?


----------



## cheekybondi (Nov 2, 2006)

coinstar2k said:


> Wow....what did Floyd ever do to you? You don't have any direct knowledge of his guilt. I hope that you get accused of something one day and have to spend more than you will ever make to defend yourself, and then the judge assumes that you are guilty before he hears any of the testimony. I think that sounds like a fair thing to me.
> 
> I hope that we can all agree that one person that will be roasting in hell is Dick Pound. Talk about no ethics.
> 
> Brian


Oh Please, Coinstar. I still cannot believe the naiivity of Floyd's supporters or the power of Public Relations.

What did Floyd ever do to me? The guy is a cheat. He got caught cheating. The proof is there and it doesn't go away just because he has a good legal team to make it look like the lab screwed up.

If he is ever let back into the professional peloton, it will be a very sad day indeed. The fact is riders dope, some get caught, some don't. Whilst I don't condone Ivan Basso's alleged attempted doping, the point is he admitted it. 

I think what really bothers me is the smugness, and the spin that Landis has put on this whole affair. Floyd, you are not above international drug law and I cannot wait to see that smug grin slide off your face when they take you down in the most spectacular fashion.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Then please account for the data they have at the DP forums for the retests which clearly shows the presence of exogenous testosterone.

Guess you still believe in Tyler, too...


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> Then please account for the data they have at the DP forums for the retests which clearly shows the presence of exogenous testosterone.
> 
> Guess you still believe in Tyler, too...


Not that I believe Floyd (and certianly not tyler) but please account for all the mess ups the lab made and there are plenty. As far as accounting for that Data Floyds team is attempting too we'll see if they can.

I can understand peoles mis trust and anger toward the athletes due to all the doping and doping charges around but if you honetsly look at this process that was used and arn't just as pissed at the testers your not being objective. If they did these tests right we would stand more of a change of having clear guilt as it is they have cast enough doubt on themselves with their crappy lab work and defensivness that even if they get the guilty outcome they want there will always be a question mark over this case.


----------



## WildBill (May 11, 2006)

Its black and white to me also ! Either it was in his system or it wasn't. And it looks like it was ! Thats doping !! Right ? That is the issue !


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

WildBill said:


> Its black and white to me also ! Either it was in his system or it wasn't. And it looks like it was ! Thats doping !! Right ? That is the issue !



Science which is what is really turning into the focus of the case is not Black and White unfortunatly for you, me, cycling, and maybe Floyd.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yup*



32and3cross said:


> Science which is what is really turning into the focus of the case is not Black and White unfortunatly for you, me, cycling, and maybe Floyd.


This is the frustration for the sport in general.

The athlete questions the test. The Labs were lets face it, unprofessional and this means pronbably did the same type of work. 

Right or wrong, that has become the focus. HOWEVER, do I believe in his innocence or NON guilt? Oh hell no.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wildbill, your statement is an oversimplification of staggering proportions. Of course, either he doped or didn't, but that doesn't mean the scientific process to discover which of those is true is so clearcut (string theory is either true or false, but that doesn't make it a black & white issue either).

Having watched most of the hearing so far, it's clear that there are many substantive issues regarding whether the testing was done in an appropriate manner, whether the LNDD followed proper procedures, etc. Even the USADA expert witness (Brenna) indicated there were 'concerns' with the data, including USADA's disregard for error bounds on data.


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

There are a few blogs doing play-by-play of the hearing for those of us who don't have time (or quite enough interest!) to follow it all day online. I've been following it on www.trustbut.com and it's pretty fascinating. The lab is NOT coming off looking good. You get the feeling that this lab can barely be trusted with basic procedures. USADA hasn't looked much better. 

That doesn't mean Floyd is innocent, or that the ruling will go in his favor. (My general impressions is that angels could come down and surround him while singing choruses of his innocence, and two of the panel would still vote guilty.) But I sure know that if I was being tried for drunk driving, I'd hope the lab they sent my samples to had better protocols in place than LNDD.

It's kind of interesting that the International Tennis Federation has just announced that they're going to be sending samples from the French Open to a lab in Montreal as a "cost-saving measure." As a business owner, I regularly find that shipping costs make it better to deal with local suppliers, even if they're a little higher priced. But apparently, prices are so high in France that it's cheaper to ship samples _across the ocean_ than to have things done locally.


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

I agree with stevesbike. A major problem here is that the case cannot be black and white because of actions taken by USADA and the Lab. If it weren't for utter incompetency by those two groups, maybe this would be black and white. The system needs to be cleaned up to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

Brian
TheRoadBike.com


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> Then please account for the data they have at the DP forums for the retests which clearly shows the presence of exogenous testosterone.


There is no test which shows the presence of exogenous testosterone. Why do you think there is?


----------



## cheekybondi (Nov 2, 2006)

asgelle said:


> There is no test which shows the presence of exogenous testosterone. Why do you think there is?


My information says that there is a test which identifies the presence of exogenous testostone.

Why do you think there isn't? 

If they 8/8 tests say it was there, it was there. By nit-picking about minor issues of practise of the lab or to question the accuracy of a scientific machine is just clutching at straws.

Take it on the chin, Floyd and you would have a better chance of redeeming yourself in the long run, but going out this way (which you will) concretes your position as one of the biggest drug cheating villains in the sport's history.

Oh, when they find him guilty, wouldn't it be great if they could force him to pay back all of the money to the benefactors of the Floyd Fraud Fund?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cheekybondi said:


> My information says that there is a test which identifies the presence of exogenous testostone.
> 
> Why do you think there isn't?


A) Scientific - exogenous testosterone is chemically identical to natural.
B) Functional - no one connected with this case or drug testing has ever claimed there is a test to identify exogenous testosterone.

You need to look more closely at the 8/8 data to see what it is and is not.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Except that the synthetic form is processed through plants or bacteria and has different amounts of certain isotopes...or at least that is my understanding.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> Except that the synthetic form is processed through plants or bacteria and has different amounts of certain isotopes...or at least that is my understanding.


That is true. It doesn't change anything. There is no test to identify exogenous testosterone.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

From msnbc:

"The cross-examination was in line with the questions asked Wednesday of Frelat’s workmate, Cynthia Mongongu, who tested Landis’ positive “A” sample from Stage 17. Both women also participated in testing of the negative backup “B” samples that were done last month at the request of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Four of those seven negative tests showed abnormal testosterone profiles."

Four showed abnormal profiles, three did not. Not quite 50:50, but close enough to bring into question the validity of the testing as well as Landis' claims of innocence.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

StillRiding said:


> "Four of those seven negative tests showed abnormal testosterone profiles."


The press is inaccurate in reporting technical scientific details? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

A carbon isotope ratio (CIR) test is used to compare the ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12 in testosterone to this same ratio in another hormone such as cholesterol. If one ratio is more than three times greater than the other ratio the test is considered positive (by the French lab standards but not necessarily by other WADA lab standards). 

carbon-13/carbon-12 testosterone 
____________________________ > 3 may be considered a positive test by French lab.
carbon-13/carbon-12 cholesterol


Bicycling Magazine June 2006 has a good summary of the case, presenting USADA’s side as best as they can given limited public comments from people such as the director of the WADA lab in Montreal.

“Landis says: Had his sample been tested not at the French lab but at the WADA-accredited lab at UCLA (which performs four times more sample tests) he would have rightfully been declared clean. The CIR test yields readings on four metabolites (or breakdown products), which are rated on the basis of standard deviations from normal. Unlike the French lab, UCLA conducted a test with a control group of 73 normal males to determine appropriate criteria and decided that all four metabolite parameters must be over 3.8 standard deviations for a sample to be declared positive. In the French system, a single measurement over the limit results in a positive—and Landis exceeded just one. At the French lab, in fact, some of UCLA’s control group of non-drug-takers would have tested positive. (Another WADA-accredited lab, in Australia, would have declared the Landis sample clean as well.)”

The test produces data “not in numerical figures but in wavy lines that must be interpreted by technicians.”


----------



## LeDomestique (Jan 17, 2007)

Floyd does not need to prove that he is innocent. He needs to prove (and I think he will succeed) that the lab did not follow adequate procedures and therefore the whole thing will be invalidated. 

I think he'll get off the hook.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

LeDomestique said:


> He needs to prove (and I think he will succeed) that the lab did not follow adequate procedures and therefore the whole thing will be invalidated.


Again, from the previous WADA cases I've read or read about he either needs to show a gross violation of the protocol or that mistakes caused his now multiple false positives. 

Just showing they didn't "follow adequate procedures" will not invalidate the whole thing. In fact, if just one of the multiple positives holds up he's guilty still.


----------

