# Floyds full defense. He'll be exonerated.



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

After reading this it seems like he has a fighting chance of being not guilty. That lab is a joke. 

http://www.nyvelocity.com/Floyd_Landis_SS_final.pdf


----------



## blbike (May 12, 2006)

Agreed, I went through the powerpoint presentation. It definitely looks like the tests shouldn't even have proceeded, and a great amount of inconsistency of testing. It all looks like a joke. A lot of CYA. Kind of sounds like the same thing as with Operacion Puerto, jumping the gun and riders have wasted seasons because of overzealousness.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

It would be interesting to know what the labs response to the alleged test problems was.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I would hope hearing only his attorney's version of the truth would be at least a little persuasive, otherwise Flawed is paying him for nothing.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

OnTheRivet said:


> After reading this it seems like he has a fighting chance of being not guilty. That lab is a joke.
> 
> http://www.nyvelocity.com/Floyd_Landis_SS_final.pdf


Totally Agree.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

terzo rene said:


> I would hope hearing only his attorney's version of the truth would be at least a little persuasive, otherwise Flawed is paying him for nothing.


It's a simple slideshow for the general public in mostly laymen terms. These are facts of the case; and based on facts alone, how can you not believe it?

Good for him. I will never let down hope.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

terzo rene said:


> I would hope hearing only his attorney's version of the truth would be at least a little persuasive, otherwise Flawed is paying him for nothing.


Yeah, in a court case, when the defense says the prosecution's case is full of holes, the prosecution responds with force. We've only heard the defense, and you guys think the case is over? LOL!!

BTW, I haven't read any of it yet, maybe this weekend,

Silas


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

OnTheRivet said:


> After reading this it seems like he has a fighting chance of being not guilty. That lab is a joke.
> 
> http://www.nyvelocity.com/Floyd_Landis_SS_final.pdf


.

As someone who likes cycling and likes to see people succeed, I sure hope so. I would really love to see the lab's response, point for point, in simple language.


----------



## astroclimb (Aug 7, 2003)

*I'd be fired....*

...or better never given a degree if my work and documentation were as sloppy as that alledged in the presentation by A. Baker. First, a disclaimer, which is I assume here that the information provided by A. Baker is correct (i.e. he hasn't falsified the materials, presented information in english that is incorrectly translated from French, etc.). Given that, my observations are as follows.

As somebody who has spent his life making measurements of physical quantities (physics nerd, if you care), the poor quality of documentation, and the inconsistent results so presented, tell me that these results are shall we say only worth the paper they are printed on. If it were me in graduate school, my Nobel-prize winning PhD advisor would have laughed me out of his office and told me my future was more likely in fries at the local Golden Arches rather than in an etherial corner of particle physics and astrophysics. Not to spend a lot of time going through the details here. The inconsistent results reported for the E and T levels are well outside of the stated uncertainties; this tells anybody making the measurements that one or both are flawed and all must be rejected from further consideration. Thus, the only conclusion that any scientist that I know would draw is that the data do not rule out the so-called null hypothesis, assuming that the null hypothesis is that cyclists are not cheaters. [By the "null hypothesis" I mean to say "I assume XXX is true, I am trying to prove that this assumption/hypothesis is false". In this case, the null hypothesis is that the cyclist is clean/free of drugs. Of course, if you assume these guys are ALL cheaters, then you are looking for conclusive evidence that a particular cyclist is not a cheater; but that means all must always be tested...leading to a logical conundrum that WADA and TdF can not escape!]. 

Recall my disclaimer, and I'm definitely not inviting arguements for or against Floyd, his character, or his performance, simply making observations of the so-called quantitative data. 

Have fun reading! 

TH


----------



## stevecaz (Feb 25, 2005)

terzo rene said:


> I would hope hearing only his attorney's version of the truth would be at least a little persuasive, otherwise Flawed is paying him for nothing.


Forget the slick powerpoint presentation. Go through all the original lab documents and chromatograms without the lawyer speak. You come to the same conclusions. Which by the way, sloppiest lab report I've ever read. 

First point, there is no choice but to find him innocent and let him on his way. The facts (and errors) are black and white, if this were a murder case the guy would get off. 

Second point, right now at this moment he is 100% innocent, as there has been no trial. Only after the trial will he remain innocent or be found guilty. The trial will allow for counterpoint and we'll get to hear if he gets off on technicality, or is really innocent. As it stands with these documents he is really innocent, or you may see it as inconclusive evidence to prove guilt, unless new evidence is presented. 

Just my opinion, nothing more.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

OnTheRivet said:


> After reading this it seems like he has a fighting chance of being not guilty. That lab is a joke.
> 
> http://www.nyvelocity.com/Floyd_Landis_SS_final.pdf



Maybe Tyler could use some of this.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

If half of this is accurate, Floyd is owed a major apology and he should sue for damages.


----------



## JayTee (Feb 3, 2004)

Great post; great link. I'd be very interested in seeing any rebuttal.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*I'm torn.*

I know that doping is a problem in cycling, and I want it to be smacked down hard.

I also really really WANT to believe Floyd, and I know that biases me.

But this stuff certainly seems solid...


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

I fully agree. Cyclists don't dope. It's the system that's corrupt!
Please free Floyd and Ivan and Jan and Tyler and Raymondo and
Marco(ooops,he's dead!) from this terrible witch hunt
and let my heroes free!!!


----------



## madvax (Nov 6, 2005)

piano said:


> I fully agree. Cyclists don't dope. It's the system that's corrupt!
> Please free Floyd and Ivan and Jan and Tyler and Raymondo and
> Marco(ooops,he's dead!) from this terrible witch hunt
> and let my heroes free!!!


Your wish is coming true:

*Basso free to race again*
http://procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2501

And the article concludes with: _ this could also leave the way open to Jan Ullrich to return to racing._


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

As an aside, I've been thinking about this a bit and if I was a racer in a very important race next year, I would want a rep from my countries doping control present at any sample taking and the rep would also get a verifiable sample to use as a control for a later date if neccessary......that is if I'm clean.


----------



## PT (Mar 8, 2002)

*Spot on...*



astroclimb said:


> As somebody who has spent his life making measurements of physical quantities (physics nerd, if you care), the poor quality of documentation, and the inconsistent results so presented, tell me that these results are shall we say only worth the paper they are printed on.


I'm a biochemist myself, and I whole-heartedly concur. I am in the boat that a mislabeled sample by itself warrants scrapping of the test -- it would in my lab or I'd have the job of the person who continued forward with the test or experiment -- incorrect results are worse than no results. Then you get to the labs inability to get an acceptable error out of a standard test -- how is that lab even accredited?

True vindication will never come for Floyd, and that's just a shame...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> Yhese are facts of the case; and based on facts alone, how can you not believe it?


You mean like the "fact" in Jacob's defense of Hamilton that the blood doping test was unreliable because the LNDD had a false positive when they were validating their methodology?

Of course, Jacob/Hamilton were privy to the information that in fact there was no false positive in the validation study but that didn't stop them from claiming one.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

My unasked for .02 cents:

There was a huge rush to judgement condemning Floyd after the media leaks/Phonak announcements. Now there is a rush to exonerate after his legal team has released these documents.

The truth is that it will all come down to the 3 arbitrators (actually, 2; as Floyd will get to cherry pick one) and what they think.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Re: Basso

I'm not so sure he'll race again. Sure the Italian agency has decided not to go ahead right now, but who's to say what will happen over the winter. The UCI will place great pressure on anyone it can to get this taken care of.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

*The only problem*

The only problem I have with the presentation is that both Floyd and his lawyer admitted early on that the samples were his. They must have based that on something or why would they say it. Now they want us to believe otherwise. Makes me wonder.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Mootsie said:


> The only problem I have with the presentation is that both Floyd and his lawyer admitted early on that the samples were his. They must have based that on something or why would they say it. Now they want us to believe otherwise. Makes me wonder.


As I understand the way this works, Floyd has at least one test (T/E ratio) possibly two (carbon isotope test) that are positive for exogenous testosterone use.

The burden is now upon him to prove the positive is not legit.

He can either show:

1) The test is picking up something that is natural and therefore does not indicate exogenous testosterone use. They appear to have abondoned this issue, although early on there were metions of it.

2) Chain of Custody issues so the tested sample was not Landis'. They appear to be raising this issue yet are not saying the sample tested was someone else's. If it's Floyd sample that was tested, then he owns the postives regardless of how many numbers were erroneously recorded or corrected.

3) Methodology led to false positives (or maybe not even positives according to Jacobs?). Only with Floyd's sample, on two different tests, two different times with each? 

4) The "Evil French Conspirators" spiked his sample. Gotta provide some evidence this happened if he wants to get a pass here.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> 3) Methodology led to false positives (or maybe not even positives according to Jacobs?). Only with Floyd's sample, on two different tests, two different times with each?


This looks to be the crux of Floyd's argument. They seem to be making the case that the lab can't measure the same sample twice without getting wildly different testosterone results, so how can you trust any result the lab gives. Plus an esoteric argument about what actually constitutes a positive - one metabolite over the limit or all four?

All the chain of custody stuff seems to be there to support the notion that the lab is incompetent.

JR


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the variance across tests seems to be the most important evidence to me, given that replication is the most important criterion for experimental confirmation. Has anyone looked through the original lab results to see if this variability is as high as the Baker ppt suggests (e.g., what are the values of the B sample-is it only the B sample results that are relevant in terms of the appeal procedure?)

If Landis is found innocent, any lawyers here know whether he would have a case for a defamation suit against Pound and all the others that have publicly called him a cheat? That would be fun...


----------



## madvax (Nov 6, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> As I understand the way this works, Floyd has at least one test (T/E ratio) possibly two (carbon isotope test) that are positive for exogenous testosterone use.
> 
> The burden is now upon him to prove the positive is not legit.
> 
> ...


You missed an important one:
5) The sample was contaminated and therefore the results are invalid.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

You guys should check out trustbut.blogspot.com

Probably the best and most comprehensive coverage of the whole case.

His analysis of the recent powerpoint presentation seemed to hit the nail on the head. There are a couple issues which could prove him innocent. The question is, how real are these issues? We won't know until the hearing,

Silas


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

madvax said:


> You missed an important one:
> 5) The sample was contaminated and therefore the results are invalid.


That's either #3 or #4 depending on what you mean by contaminated. If #3 it would have had to have occurred independently with both the A sample (but no one else' A sample suffered this similar methodological error?) and the B sample.

If #4, what's the evidence for this? How did they get the B sample if Landis' representatives were there and observed the intact seal before it was tested.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

madvax said:


> You missed an important one:
> 5) *The sample was contaminated and therefore the results are invalid*.


understatement of the year.......:thumbsup:

Seems to me that test #1 should be to check for contamination, because you can run all the tests you want and generate all the results you care to, but if your sample is contaminated, you ain't got squat !!! ...Game Over...

IF, Baker is correct in concluding that the sample was contaminated, then it's case closed, Phloyd is still, and forevermore the TdF Champ. 

But not the end of teh story, because if this is true, then the LNDD & WADA just chucked their last bits of credibility out of the puerto. (oh, that's spanish not french )...

Hmmm, sample contamination, didn't we get a report this spring about this lab and sample contamination???

b0nk


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> Hmmm, sample contamination, didn't we get a report this spring about this lab and sample contamination???
> 
> b0nk


I don't recall, did we?


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't recall, did we?



...here's your recollection, it's called the Vrijman Report

...some of teh high points included findings of sample contamination, chain of custody issues, irregular procedures and compliance variences from teh WADA guidelines...

...a cynic might say it's a roadmap for Phloyd's defense...

...but I am not a cynic, just sarc*ass*tic...

b0nk


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

If the lab is so problematic, wouldn't these issues be relatively evenly distributed from a statistical perspective? Wouldn't many other riders have been caught up in the same mess? How is it that none of the other riders have had such wild results?

Theories?




SilasCL said:


> You guys should check out trustbut.blogspot.com
> 
> Probably the best and most comprehensive coverage of the whole case.
> 
> ...


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

filtersweep said:


> If the lab is so problematic, wouldn't these issues be relatively evenly distributed from a statistical perspective? Wouldn't many other riders have been caught up in the same mess? How is it that none of the other riders have had such wild results?
> 
> Theories?



Sounds like speculation asking for more speculation.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

filtersweep said:


> If the lab is so problematic, wouldn't these issues be relatively evenly distributed from a statistical perspective? Wouldn't many other riders have been caught up in the same mess? How is it that none of the other riders have had such wild results?
> 
> Theories?


This is not an isolated incident with this lab. The UCI petitioned WADA to suspend this lab for improprioties after the Vrijman report. 

http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

OnTheRivet said:


> This is not an isolated incident with this lab. The UCI petitioned WADA to suspend this lab for improprioties after the Vrijman report.
> 
> http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf




So if they give everyone sloopy treatment then it's ok.

-- sarcasm not directed at you, Rivet.


----------



## crossdude (Jan 28, 2005)

If I remember right his A sample was 4.5 to 1 witch is just over the 4 to 1 allowable level, and that can be explained by the alcohol the night before. 
But the B sample was split and tested 3 times’s and came up with a 11 to 1 ratio if I got it right? What’s up with that? the A and B sample were supposed have been taken at the same time so you should come up with the same level in the A sample as the B sample right? That’s a big difference if you ask me. Some thing is amiss here.
I’m not a conspiracy kind of guy but I’m getting close with this BS. 
Sounds to me like some one did not want Floyd to win the tour?
Dan…


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I dunno why this lab is still associated with cycling*

they (cycling) had to release Floyd's A sample (break in protocol) because they know the lad has a leak to L'Equipe. Most likely the same leak of the Lance 99 tests which showed not even undergraduate level of bench science standards. Now we have this, and from what every lab rat I know who's looked into it says is laughable.
furthermore with such ratio's of 11-1 on one day, and then legal ratios the following, something is highly suspect. Very hard to get that ratio back to normal in 24 hrs, plus why no sign of synthetics in the tests following the one where they found it?
Seems like they'd have a marker they could look for more easily in his following samples


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

*Reality*

The science in the documented analysis has been debated at quite some length on some high brow forums.

It is apparent from these pros' opinions that there was no contamination, the 4.5/1 move to 11/1 from "A" sample to "B" sample has scientific explanation and is acceptable. The only grey area is whether the wording of "metabolite(s)" in the WADA guidelines means it can be at least one metabolite, as was the FL case, or it must be all metabolites.

As far as discrediting the LNDD lab. Unprecedentedly in "B" sample testing there was a virtual scientific conference in attendance at the LNDD lab in observance. FL sent a Dutch testosterone expert, Douwe de Boer, the UCI sent an expert from the WADA accredited Lausanne lab and USADA sent an expert from WADA accredited Catlin LA Olympic lab.

There was three sets of anti doping experienced eyes and brains overseeing all stages of the testing, recording and interpreting.

Do you really believe a retired physician, Dr Arnie Baker, could trump 4 experienced experts, including LNDD lab, in attendance at the testing who may be called upon to present testimony in the Hearings? I would expect these four experts would have agreed at the coal face about the metabolite question.


----------



## aluminumboy (May 11, 2006)

*Picture Storybook*

Looks more like a picture storybook than a report.
Belongs in the fiction section of a bookstore.


----------



## DriftlessDB (Jul 29, 2005)

Veloflash said:


> There was three sets of anti doping experienced eyes and brains overseeing all stages of the testing, recording and interpreting.
> 
> Do you really believe a retired physician, Dr Arnie Baker, could trump 4 experienced experts, including LNDD lab, in attendance at the testing who may be called upon to present testimony in the Hearings? I would expect these four experts would have agreed at the coal face about the metabolite question.


Overseeing or merely observing. Big difference. Did the 3 observers conduct the tests? Take part in conducting the tests? Or did they just observe? Did they produce reports of their own, sign off on the LNDD reports, or just observe the testing procedures?

Before denouncing Baker, maybe we should wait and see what the 3 experts opinions actually are.

Dave


----------



## crossdude (Jan 28, 2005)

hey Veloflash
so what would the "Scientifc Explanation" be? and why and what of the tracking numbers? they used white out not a line through as per the proper process. 
i still feel that some thing is up and that we'll never get to the bottom of it usless someone got looking under the rocks!
Dan...


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

*Looking Under Rocks*



crossdude said:


> hey Veloflash
> so what would the "Scientifc Explanation" be? and why and what of the tracking numbers? they used white out not a line through as per the proper process.
> i still feel that some thing is up and that we'll never get to the bottom of it usless someone got looking under the rocks!
> Dan...


I think there is some belief from quarters supporting FL that all the parties involved in the assessment of the results are either inept or corrupt.

At three levels the results were scrutinised:

1. At that evil LNDD lab with three independent experts in attendance for the "B" sample.

2. The "A" sample results were reviewed by the UCI anti doping review board to review the findings of the LNDD lab before declaring an infraction of the Rules. The board are known to call upon external technical expertise.

3. Howard Jacobs filed a dismissal with USADA Independent Anti Doping Review Board. If you search through his Notice you will find curiously absent from his assertions were the claims of contamination and "white out" but which feature on Baker's PowerPoint presentation. The Board saw fit to dismiss Jacob's application and no doubt would have likewise sought scientific input.

I would have expected at these three levels they did more than look under rocks.


----------



## rideorglide (Dec 3, 2005)

Interesting, . . . on the white out issue for a moment, where I work (journalism-related) we use line thru as a matter of policy. 

White out is not allowed in the editorial department. Period. This is so that the rationale for any changes to text can be reviewed.[Sheesh, you never thought some journalists were so thorough did you?]

If no white out is the policy and it was not followed, then there's a problem.

Some reasons for breach of policy are in my experience:
a. policy not adequately enforced
b. a newbie employee who does not know policy 
c. 'relatively' new cavalier employee who flaunts policy.
d. policy not adequately posted, usually leads to a.

With sufficient investigation the reasons behind things can usually be uncovered.





crossdude said:


> hey Veloflash
> so what would the "Scientifc Explanation" be? and why and what of the tracking numbers? they used white out not a line through as per the proper process.
> i still feel that some thing is up and that we'll never get to the bottom of it usless someone got looking under the rocks!
> Dan...


----------

