# LNDD Altered Computer Files



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

LNDD altering computer files is just another indictment against the lab. They have to be stopped. Whether you think that Landis is guilty or innocent, you have to agree that the lab is not following the WADA protocol. Please sign this petition asking WADA to remove accreditation from LNDD, as they have proven total disregard for the rules.

Brian
TheRoadBike.com
Petition


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Proven? What do we know?

Personnaly, all I see is some claims from Landis or from journalists, far from facts IMO.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

you can't really blame Landis for playing all this out in the media when the lab in question has a direct line to L'Equipe and every piece of incriminating evidence is leaked along with officials prejudging every move.

As a scientist, if these charges are accurate then it is a damning piece of evidence against this lab and everything that comes out of it. It was already a terrible move to base all follow-up lab work at this lab. It should be a requirement of a doping conviction that B samples are tested at a separate lab from A samples in a double blind manner-if half the stories that are circulating about this lab are true, then it is a realy, really shoddy place. I hope tampering with data like this is a criminal offense in France and someone goes down for it.


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

Ignore the claims from Landis if you want. The fact of the matter is that the lab acted irresponibly on more than one occasion. The claims are from more than just Landis. The most recent computer claims were documented by USADA. The reason that Floyd is the most vocal is that he is the one accused. Don't forget that I am not defending Floyd in any way. I am defending the system that was set up. Doping will never go away if both sides are breaking the rules.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

coinstar2k said:


> Ignore the claims from Landis if you want. The official lab documents show his testosterone level to be 45.4 ng/ml where an average person is around 100 ng/ml. WADA's rule is that a high level would be around 200 ng/ml. Even WADA doesn't dispute this fact. For you to levy another claim against Floyd, that even WADA hasn't charged him with, is more irresponsible than the things that Dick Pound has done.


I'll continue to ignore them...thanks for permission.

I also ignored Hamilton, Lance, etc. So far so good.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

I see stupidity in this round from the lab, but perhaps not criminality.

I'm guessing from the reports that the raw data spit out of the machines was either removed or erased. If it's like the lab I work in, the raw data is fed into a second program like Excel, where a spreadsheet does the calculations. 

I don't think this is a smoking gun, but seriously - this band of yahoos at that lab are truly laughable. Mishandled samples, white out on offical forms, and the leaks and general breach of all decorum and professional conduct make it darn near impossible to put this thing to rest, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable evidence against Landis now. 

Good God - send the samples out to a third party, blinded, and wait for an official report from WADA and we'd not be talking about this anymore. Open, shut.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

txzen said:


> Good God - send the samples out to a third party, blinded, and wait for an official report from WADA and we'd not be talking about this anymore. Open, shut.


Yes we would because Landis' team has adopted a strategy of spin, misconstrue, slander, obfuscate, etc until we're are all left a bunch of blithering idiots so that if he's found to have doped we are left with no choice but to conclude he was framed or the incompetance of the lab resulted in a wholely improbable series of false positives.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

this lab is making the Landis defense team's work a lot, lot easier by violating what appears to be very basic principles of scientific rigor and WADA increasingly looks partisan by not sending out samples to another lab to replicate the results. Replication is the key to scientific validity. If another lab replicated these results Landis's team would then have to go after the test itself. That's a lot harder (and a failing strategy as per Hamilton). Relying on what appears to be a really crappy lab that can't follow basic procedures and now appears interested in replicating their own results by tampering to protect their reputation is just not a connection an official sporting body needs.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

the lab <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2853851&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines">has asked</a> for an apparently independent review. Feel free to get out the conspiracy hat and suggest the review is going to be an anti-landis kabuki dance.....


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the point is, WADA shows complete comtempt and disregard for due process-it's not about one particular case but whether there's a system in place that can be trusted. The UCI is supposedly the riders' representative (a rider can lose their license if they try to create a rider's union, which is what is really needed) but is strongly anti-rider and has come out condemning Landis before the process is over. If you were really interested in a due process, A and B samples would not be tested at the same lab and apparently by some of the same people, nor would you erase hard drives! That's about as bad as it gets in any lab. The problem is the system that is in place doesn't correct for what appears to be major deviations from accepted standards.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yes we would because Landis' team has adopted a strategy of spin, misconstrue, slander, obfuscate, etc until we're are all left a bunch of blithering idiots so that if he's found to have doped we are left with no choice but to conclude he was framed or the incompetance of the lab resulted in a wholely improbable series of false positives.


I think this claim, if true, goes far beyond spin and obfuscation. The lab is essentially saying Landis tested positive with nothing to back it up but their word. Once the original lab data was destroyed, there's no way to audit the validity of the result. Computer files get corrupted all the time, people make mistakes making copies. How can anyone propose ruining someone's career based on a data file with a time stamp months after the test was performed? The time stamp proves the file was touched in some way at that late date, and there's no way of knowing now just how much the file was changed. Maybe Landis is guilty, maybe he's innocent, but as far as I'm concerned once that data file was destroyed it comes down to his word against LNDD and neither one of them has proven trustworthy enough to impose the kind of penalties Landis would suffer.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

blackhat said:


> the lab <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2853851&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines">has asked</a> for an apparently independent review. Feel free to get out the conspiracy hat and suggest the review is going to be an anti-landis kabuki dance.....


"He [Bordry] also said that, even before Landis' latest criticism, the lab had asked for a separate outside review of how the lab handled that case.

" 'What interests me is the positive B sample from August," Bordry said. "I have asked experts outside the affair to tell me if the analyses of this sample were conducted correctly.' "

If the director of the lab isn't absolutely certain that the analyses were conducted correctly, how could he present the results as an adverse analytic finding? What is this? The lab says we got a positive number and we're not sure if it's right or not, but go ahead and use the data as evidence to convict Landis?


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

asgelle said:


> "He [Bordry] also said that, even before Landis' latest criticism, the lab had asked for a separate outside review of how the lab handled that case.
> 
> " 'What interests me is the positive B sample from August," Bordry said. "I have asked experts outside the affair to tell me if the analyses of this sample were conducted correctly.' "
> 
> If the director of the lab isn't absolutely certain that the analyses were conducted correctly, how could he present the results as an adverse analytic finding? What is this? The lab says we got a positive number and we're not sure if it's right or not, but go ahead and use the data as evidence to convict Landis?


Perhaps, it's not that he's doubting his lab but rather to make sure they are to be trusted, credible, he wants an outsider's view of their procedures to shut up the critics.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dan Gerous said:


> Perhaps, it's not that he's doubting his lab but rather to make sure they are to be trusted, credible, he wants an outsider's view of their procedures to shut up the critics.


That's clearly not what his words say, assuming the translation is accurate. He didn't use a word like "confirm" the analyses, He explicilty said "tell" implying new information.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

asgelle said:


> That's clearly not what his words say, assuming the translation is accurate. He didn't use a word like "confirm" the analyses, He explicilty said "tell" implying new information.



I think you're reading <i>waaay</i> too much into the choice of words, especially in light of translation.


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

blackhat said:


> the lab <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2853851&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines">has asked</a> for an apparently independent review. Feel free to get out the conspiracy hat and suggest the review is going to be an anti-landis kabuki dance.....



You are wrong on this one. The lab hasn't requested anything. The head of the French Anti-Doping Agency has asked for the review. Quite a big difference seeing how the lab and the agency aren't the same thing. This would be similar to the head of USADA asking for an investigation into the UCLA lab. Does USADA own or run the UCLA lab? Didn't think so.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

coinstar2k said:


> LNDD altering computer files is just another indictment against the lab. They have to be stopped. Whether you think that Landis is guilty or innocent, you have to agree that the lab is not following the WADA protocol. Please sign this petition asking WADA to remove accreditation from LNDD, as they have proven total disregard for the rules.
> 
> Brian
> TheRoadBike.com
> Petition


Sorry, not buying anything Landis and his spin team is spinning these days. Been there, done that with Hamilton, Ulrich, Basso, etc... oh, wait -- Landis is different. Riiiiiight. Step up here, I've got some kool-aid for the true believers!

I'll still be on the side of the road cheering whoever is left racing after alkl the spin plays out -- how sad is that?


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Sad but understandable, I'd be there too.*



philippec said:


> Sorry, not buying anything Landis and his spin team is spinning these days. Been there, done that with Hamilton, Ulrich, Basso, etc... oh, wait -- Landis is different. Riiiiiight. Step up here, I've got some kool-aid for the true believers!
> 
> I'll still be on the side of the road cheering whoever is left racing after alkl the spin plays out -- how sad is that?


You would be watching the Tour because you like bike racing and the tradition no matter how badly all the parties involved are screwing it up now. I am not sure what it would take for me to quit being a fan but all the fools in charge of everything race related are sure testing my limits.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

coinstar2k said:


> The head of the French Anti-Doping Agency has asked for the review.


This seems like part of the normal review process of the lab's procedures. From CN, "The French Anti-Doping Agency has requested that independent experts review testing procedures carried out on Floyd Landis' doping samples, but said that it was a regularly scheduled review and not related to recent accusations of wrongdoing from the Landis camp."

It was apparent in the Hamilton case, despite the picture Landis paints, that the labs do go to some lengths to ensure that their procedures are legit.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Philippe, it's not simply about whether Landis is guilty or not. I personally wouldn't be at all surprised if he was involved in some PED program. The point is whether there is due process. I don't intend this to start a cultural flame, but I do think there's a big difference in how this is perceived between Americans and Europeans. Perhaps it is because of the difference between Napoleonic and Common law. Napoleonic law is often regarded as a de facto presumption of guilt, and it certainly seems like it's OK for officials in Europe (Pound, while Canadian, is from Quebec, which inherited the Napoleonic tradition) to start with the presumption of guilt and disregard the due process that is more central if one starts with presumption of innocence. All sorts of seemingly egregious violations of due process are swept under the carpet because officials 'know' he's guilty anyway...

There is no question that this entire process is slanted on the side of the prosecution. There's no transparency, due process is ignored, rules are clearly violated. For example, has there been any outrage on the part of WADA/UCI that the results of the extra samples were leaked to the press from this lab? Is it OK for this lab to break rules with seeming impunity?

We won't know whether there's any exculpatory evidence from this lab because they have apparently destroyed the original data. We don't know whether data was tampered with becuase their analysis is done in secret without Landis representatives present. That's not spin-if these accusations are accurate, it signals a profound disregard for due process and a strong indictment against this system's ability to discover the facts...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> The point is whether there is due process.


The due process in this case is what is laid out by the WADA code, which Landis accepted when he took out his racing license, and that is what will be used as the criteria for accepting or rejecting his multitude of claims.

It's all fine if people what to change this for the future, but Landis in many respects is complaining about something he agreed to and serves no basis for a rejection of his positive.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

But that is exactly what is in question-whether WADA has followed it's own code, and whether the lab operated neutrally and without bias, or whether the lab was part of the prosecution. It certainly seems like these questions are secondary because the presumption of guilt was made right at the start and so violations of their own procedures are just ignored...


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The due process in this case is what is laid out by the WADA code, which Landis accepted when he took out his racing license, and that is what will be used as the criteria for accepting or rejecting his multitude of claims.
> 
> It's all fine if people what to change this for the future, but Landis in many respects is complaining about something he agreed to and serves no basis for a rejection of his positive.


i've heard this argument put for a few times and is BS.

What choice did Landis have exactly since he determined that he was a talteneted bike rider? Annouce that he had potential to be a star but would not ride til they changed the system.? More likly he like most of use was not awear of all the facets of the system til he ran afoul with it. I don't like alot of what USA cycling does I do hold a licence tho because I want to race. Many people are involved with systems they don't like because the allow then to work at something they do like or are good at. Saying that he knew the risks of a crappy system so he shouldn't ***** is a lame argument at best. If it were you assuming you were innocent would you simply put your hands up and say "oh well" dispite my massive talent I guess I should have built barns instead".


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> But that is exactly what is in question-whether WADA has followed it's own code, and whether the lab operated neutrally and without bias, or whether the lab was part of the prosecution. It certainly seems like these questions are secondary because the presumption of guilt was made right at the start and so violations of their own procedures are just ignored...


Then lets wait for the hearing and stop playing it out in the public where USADA/LNDD can't respond to all these charges of wrong-doing. There is a presumption of innocence until the B sample is positive at that point the rider is guilty. He can then either accept the finding or opt for a hearing. Landis opted for the hearing where it is up to him to explain why he was positive, USADA doesn't have to "prove" it was a legitimate finding. Like it or not that is how it works and that is what Landis agreed to.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Not sure what you mean by BS. I agree it is not an equitable system but it is the one Landis' case will be evaluated on. So we may not like it but that is the way it is.


----------



## DriftlessDB (Jul 29, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Then lets wait for the hearing and stop playing it out in the public where USADA/LNDD can't respond to all these charges of wrong-doing. There is a presumption of innocence until the B sample is positive at that point the rider is guilty. He can then either accept the finding or opt for a hearing. Landis opted for the hearing where it is up to him to explain why he was positive, USADA doesn't have to "prove" it was a legitimate finding. Like it or not that is how it works and that is what Landis agreed to.


When exactly then would FL get to respond to the leaks to the media before he has even seen any evidence? When would he get to respond to McQuaid saying "Its the worst case scenario?" When does he get to respond to Pound's "like he was on a goddamned Harley" comments? How about Tygarts comments about accused athletes asking for more info amounting to nothing more than a fishing expedition? (He didn't say FL's name though)

Come on - the deck is stacked and FL has pulled the curtain back a bit to show us all how it works. Yeah he's spinning it, but even if a little bit of the spin winds up being true, it will show how unfair this current system is.

Dave


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Didn't Floyd said he would bring down the UCI at some point? My guess is it's just what he is trying to do. He doped, he knows he's screwed but like a crappy Hollywood movie, Floyd thinks: "If I'm going down, you are going down with me."


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Floyd has repeatedly responded to his critics. But McQuaid or Pound or anyone else has no influence on the outcome of his hearing.

The deck is not stacked in the sense you're portraying it to be.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DriftlessDB said:


> Come on - the deck is stacked and FL has pulled the curtain back a bit to show us all how it works. Yeah he's spinning it, but even if a little bit of the spin winds up being true, it will show how unfair this current system is.
> 
> Dave


Floyd isn't only responding to general comments by the other side or leaks, he is attacking specific aspects of the testing with a PR campaign when he knows full well that they can't respond. If his positive is upheld it will be due to those latter factors and little if anything to do with the former. Almost no one will ever read the report where many of those objections are likely to hold no water at all (if Hamilton's case is anything to go by) yet he's created perhaps a false impression of complete incompetence if not criminal behavior on the lab's part.


----------

