Its official -- Landis Guilty??

helmutRoole2 said:

I could be wrong, but I don't think the lab ever knew whose sample they were testing. The UCI is who released the name, right?

Make up your own mind...

velonews.com10679.0.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted post said:

Furthermore, McQuaid offered a secondary rationale for violating the Rules: "Also, we know that the French laboratory has a close connection with L'Equipe, and we did not want this news to come through the press, because we are sure they would have leaked it." That comment raises another set of violations of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. Under UCI Rules, samples are supposed to be anonymous-the laboratory is not supposed to know which sample belongs to which rider. If the lab in question had any information that would allow it to identify the samples, that would be a clear violation of UCI Rules, and would present Landis with a golden defense opportunity. Additionally, as McQuaid observed, the French lab has a history of leaking sample results to L'Equipe; these leaks are in violation of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules and the WADA Laboratory Code of Ethics. From the standpoint of due process, one would ask why the UCI violated its own rules, given the history of this lab, rather than requesting that WADA sanction the lab for past violations of the Anti-Doping Rules, as required under the WADA International Standard for Laboratories.

Finally, these leaks reveal some problems inherent in the UCI Rules. First, the Laboratory Code of Ethics prohibits laboratories from discussing or commenting "to the media on individual results prior to the completion of any adjudication without consent of the organization that supplied the sample to the laboratory and the organization that is asserting the adverse analytical finding in adjudication." While it would clearly be a violation of the Code of Ethics for the lab to comment on individual results, it would apparently not be a violation for the lab to leak news that "one of the riders" tested positive. Furthermore, the lab would not be in violation of the Code of Ethics if it commented on individual results before adjudication, if it had the consent of the race organizer-in this case, the parent company of L'Equipe-and the UCI.

My contention is how could they leak the name (to the press) if they didn't KNOW the name?

helmutRoole2 said:

I could be wrong, but I don't think the lab ever knew whose sample they were testing. The UCI is who released the name, right?

They're not supposed to of course.

It's entirely conceivable that they did, or that they could have if they wanted to. They certainly knew whose B sample they were testing in overtime at the end of July on the weekend before a three week vacation.

If I were a lab tech and I wanted to spike somebody's sample or find out whose test was positive and leak the info, I'm sure I could do it. No reason to think those guys are any less cunning than me.

DiabloScott said:

They certainly knew whose B sample they were testing in overtime at the end of July on the weekend before a three week vacation.

Well they really SHOULDN'T have known. They should have run blanks and duplicates so they didn't know which sample was "real".

I guess for me it comes down to this. Here we've got an athelete who's never tested positive in his life, vs a lab that has been ripe with scandal. Where does the benifit of the doubt go...

L

Lonnie Utah said:

Well they really SHOULDN'T have know. They should have run blanks and duplicates so they didn't know which sample was "real".

L

That's exactly right ! If I were in charge I would have had them test a dozen samples, one of which was Floyd's, some of them would have been from testosterone users, and even Floyd's legal team (who was there watching the whole thing) shouldn't have known which was which until it was all over. Labs in my experience have pretty good protocols for the integrity of the testing and reporting of the results, but secrecy of the source is an afterthought at best and relies too heavily on the integrity of the individuals working there.

Lonnie Utah said:

Make up your own mind...

velonews.com10679.0.htmlOpen ↗

McQuaid observed, the French lab has a history of leaking sample results to L'Equipe; these leaks are in violation of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules and the WADA Laboratory Code of Ethics. From the standpoint of due process, one would ask why the UCI violated its own rules, given the history of this lab, rather than requesting that WADA sanction the lab for past violations of the Anti-Doping Rules, as required under the WADA International Standard for Laboratories.

My contention is how could they leak the name (to the press) if they didn't KNOW the name?

McQuaid is likely referencing the Armstrong leak, which the lab in question only leaked the coded numbers of the samples to L'Equipe whose journalists crossed referenced with the UCI provided signed uninalysis forms and pieced the rest together. In the Armstrong case -- and again I'm not an expert -- but I believe the lab never had any knowledge of whose sample they were testing/releasing only the number.

helmutRoole2 said:

McQuaid is likely referencing the Armstrong leak, which the lab in question only leaked the coded numbers of the samples to L'Equipe whose journalists crossed referenced with the UCI provided signed uninalysis forms and pieced the rest together. In the Armstrong case -- and again I'm not an expert -- but I believe the lab never had any knowledge of whose sample they were testing/releasing only the number.

From the article:

Quoted post said:

Furthermore, McQuaid offered a secondary rationale for violating the Rules: "Also, we know that the French laboratory has a close connection with L'Equipe, and we did not want this news to come through the press, because we are sure they would have leaked it."

Sure sounds to me like McQuaid thinks the lab knew who they were testing, and that someone there was sure to leak it to the press. The ironic thing is that the UCI chose to violate its own rules by leaking the information first.

helmutRoole2 said:

McQuaid is likely referencing the Armstrong leak, which the lab in question only leaked the coded numbers of the samples to L'Equipe whose journalists crossed referenced with the UCI provided signed uninalysis forms and pieced the rest together. In the Armstrong case -- and again I'm not an expert -- but I believe the lab never had any knowledge of whose sample they were testing/releasing only the number.

Possibly, but in that case, the 2005 EPO experiment was so loosely done that L'Equipe could easily have leaked back to the lab who the doping control numbers belonged to. Remember that was a clinical trial of a new EPO method, not a doping control under the usual oversight. In any case, either LNDD or someone at WADA (who funded the experiment) leaked the results of the experiment - which were supposed to be confidential.

In the Landis case, the lab was most likely the source of the leak on the CI test. Had to be - L'Equipe published it on Sunday when the CI test supposedly wasn't completed until Saturday. In order to make Sunday print (the results were printed on Sunday, not released on their website - gotta make that money), the information would have to have been communicated late Saturday night, and would have to have come from someone in LNDD.

That in itself is not an absolute indication of malfeasance, but it speaks volumes about the character of the people running the tests. When one of their primary duties is confidentiality, and they seem to be having trouble keeping results confidential, it tends to make one wonder what else they're being slipshod about.

JohnO said:

That in itself is not an absolute indication of malfeasance, but it speaks volumes about the character of the people running the tests. When one of their primary duties is confidentiality, and they seem to be having trouble keeping results confidential, it tends to make one wonder what else they're being slipshod about.

RIGHT!

Again, whom am I supposed to believe in all of this?

wineandkeyz said:

From the article:

Sure sounds to me like McQuaid thinks the lab knew who they were testing, and that someone there was sure to leak it to the press. The ironic thing is that the UCI chose to violate its own rules by leaking the information first.

I think the UCI knows that the time of cover-ups is over..... (but that's wild speculation...)

cyclingheroes said:

I think the UCI knows that the time of cover-ups is over..... (but that's wild speculation...)

I doubt it, considering the UCI's behavior in the Landis case. Again, I don't understand the attacks on the lab when there is no proof that the leaks originated from them, or that they knew which person's test they were testing. There are two issues which I think people are spinning.

1. The leaks regarding the A sample. The first leak came from the UCI, specifically McQuaid. In my opinion, his "pre-emptive strike" was merely a political stunt to deflect attention away from the UCI for their abhorent mishandling of past cases and blame the lab. How convenient to leak information only to state that you leaked it so you could beat someone else to it...does anyone else find this unbelievable? His statement was unprofessional and immediately undermined the credibility of the lab, as this forum discussion readily proves. I think he should resign both for that statement and for the way the UCI has handled the case since. The second leak again came from the UCI. The NY Times reported that the A sample contained exogenous testosterone and they cited someone in the UCI as their source. Those are the two leaks, both came from the UCI, not the lab.

2. The idea that the lab knew it was Landis' test they were testing. Again, where is the proof. The way the tests are handled, the only way the lab could have known it was Landis' test is if someone from another organization gave them the drug control number. The lab receives a sample with a number that has no relevance to a name. If people are going to make accusations that the lab violated protocol, they should have evidence to support it. Perhaps Landis' attorneys have such evidence, I don't know, but I do know they haven't revealed any such information to the public.

I think there is great pressure to discredit the lab by many parties. If people can discredit Landis' test then think of the other tests they can discredit. The UCI certainly has a stake in discrediting the lab after the Lance EPO fiasco. The UCI has egg all over its face right now and anyone else they can blame deflects attention from their own incompetence.

fscyclist said:

....Again, I don't understand the attacks on the lab when there is no proof that the leaks originated from them, or that they knew which person's test they were testing....

2. The idea that the lab knew it was Landis' test they were testing. Again, where is the proof.

I think the proof is the the 400 page report that Landis and his lawyers got over the weekend. I think that is why they are going down that road because "there are too many contradictions for the two to be the same sample."

[font=Verdana]I did some further reading of CycleSport magazine and Jens Voight, Brad McGee and Bradley Wiggens say they won't let Landis back in the peleton if he gets off on a technicality. They say that what he did at Morzine was unfair to the riders who finished almost outside the time limit. By using drugs and doing what he did means that riders who get cut can also have their contracts cut and that’s makes a big difference. McGee and Wiggens amongst others say the saw the gears Landis was riding and said it just wasn't humanly possible to do what he did and they knew he was guilty well before the test. I don't think Landis will get off but even if he did there is no way the peleton want him back. The tide really has turned.[/font]

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]I did some further reading of CycleSport magazine and Jens Voight, Brad McGee and Bradley Wiggens say they won't let Landis back in the peleton if he gets off on a technicality. They say that what he did at Morzine was unfair to the riders who finished almost outside the time limit. By using drugs and doing what he did means that riders who get cut can also have their contracts cut and that’s makes a big difference. McGee and Wiggens amongst others say the saw the gears Landis was riding and said it just wasn't humanly possible to do what he did and they knew he was guilty well before the test. I don't think Landis will get off but even if he did there is no way the peleton want him back. The tide really has turned.[/font]

Bull. And his powertap can prove it. Sastre put out more power than Floyd over the final climb. How can you say it was "superhuman"?

tow.comlandis training ride compared to stage 17Open ↗
[indent][left]Training Ride:
[/left]
[left]Duration: 6:04 (hrs:min)
Distance: 115 miles
Average Speed: 19.0 mph
Perception of Effort (1-10): 7
Average Power: 247 Watts
Total Work from Power: 5394 Kjoules
Peak Power for 1 min: 545 watts
Peak Power for 5 min: 470 watts
Peak Power for 30 min: 391 watts
Peak Power for 1 hour: 377 watts
Peak Power for 2 hours: 372 watts
[/left]
[/indent][indent][left]Here’s Floyd’s data from Stage 17 (source: Allen Lim, Bicycling.com):
[/left]
[left]- 5 hours 23 minutes and 36 seconds.[/left]
[left]- Covering 200.5 kilometers (130 km alone in the wind).[/left]
[left]- At a speed of 37.175 km/hr.[/left]
[left]- Averaging 281 watts when moving for the whole ride and 318 watts over the last two hours.[/left]
[left]- Averaging 324 watts while pedaling for the whole ride and 364 watts over the last 2 hours.[/left]
[left]- At an average cadence of 89 rpm.[/left]
[left]- 5456 kj[/left]
[left]- Attacking about a quarter of the way up the Col des Saisies for 30 seconds at 544 watts, which settled into a 5-minute peak of 451 watts, which continued for 10 minutes at an average of power of 431 watts, and left everyone in his dust after 30 minutes at an average power of 401 watts.[/left]
[left]- Spending 13.2% of his time or 43 minutes coasting like a rocket on the descents and another 60% between 4 to 7 watts per kilogram of body weight (aka, the pain cave).
[/left]
[left]- Holding onto 373 watts over the Col de Joux-Plane.
[/left]
[/indent]

I didn't attackthe lab and i am critisizing the UCI on a regular basis (bt icritize WADA as well...)

fscyclist said:

I doubt it, considering the UCI's behavior in the Landis case. Again, I don't understand the attacks on the lab when there is no proof that the leaks originated from them, or that they knew which person's test they were testing. There are two issues which I think people are spinning.

1. The leaks regarding the A sample. The first leak came from the UCI, specifically McQuaid. In my opinion, his "pre-emptive strike" was merely a political stunt to deflect attention away from the UCI for their abhorent mishandling of past cases and blame the lab. How convenient to leak information only to state that you leaked it so you could beat someone else to it...does anyone else find this unbelievable? His statement was unprofessional and immediately undermined the credibility of the lab, as this forum discussion readily proves. I think he should resign both for that statement and for the way the UCI has handled the case since. The second leak again came from the UCI. The NY Times reported that the A sample contained exogenous testosterone and they cited someone in the UCI as their source. Those are the two leaks, both came from the UCI, not the lab.

2. The idea that the lab knew it was Landis' test they were testing. Again, where is the proof. The way the tests are handled, the only way the lab could have known it was Landis' test is if someone from another organization gave them the drug control number. The lab receives a sample with a number that has no relevance to a name. If people are going to make accusations that the lab violated protocol, they should have evidence to support it. Perhaps Landis' attorneys have such evidence, I don't know, but I do know they haven't revealed any such information to the public.

I think there is great pressure to discredit the lab by many parties. If people can discredit Landis' test then think of the other tests they can discredit. The UCI certainly has a stake in discrediting the lab after the Lance EPO fiasco. The UCI has egg all over its face right now and anyone else they can blame deflects attention from their own incompetence.

Your right except Landis had ridden 5 and half hours on his own !!!!!! and [font=Verdana]Sastre recognised mountain climber [/font]who had ridden protected in the bunch all day was only just ahead of him on the final climb ?! Jesus Christ get off the gear man ! You just proved my point ! :p

Besides I'm just reporting what Landis's fellow cyclists are saying... that is they don't want him back in the peleton......

Lonnie Utah said:

Bull. And his powertap can prove it. Sastre put out more power than Floyd over the final climb. How can you say it was "superhuman"?

tow.comlandis training ride compared to stage 17Open ↗[indent][left]Training Ride:

[/left]

[left]Duration: 6:04 (hrs:min)[/left]
Distance: 115 miles
Average Speed: 19.0 mph
Perception of Effort (1-10): 7
Average Power: 247 Watts
Total Work from Power: 5394 Kjoules
Peak Power for 1 min: 545 watts
Peak Power for 5 min: 470 watts
Peak Power for 30 min: 391 watts
Peak Power for 1 hour: 377 watts
Peak Power for 2 hours: 372 watts

[/indent][indent][left]Here’s Floyd’s data from Stage 17 (source: Allen Lim, Bicycling.com):

[/left]

[left]- 5 hours 23 minutes and 36 seconds.[/left]
[left]- Covering 200.5 kilometers (130 km alone in the wind).[/left]
[left]- At a speed of 37.175 km/hr.[/left]
[left]- Averaging 281 watts when moving for the whole ride and 318 watts over the last two hours.[/left]
[left]- Averaging 324 watts while pedaling for the whole ride and 364 watts over the last 2 hours.[/left]
[left]- At an average cadence of 89 rpm.[/left]
[left]- 5456 kj[/left]
[left]- Attacking about a quarter of the way up the Col des Saisies for 30 seconds at 544 watts, which settled into a 5-minute peak of 451 watts, which continued for 10 minutes at an average of power of 431 watts, and left everyone in his dust after 30 minutes at an average power of 401 watts.[/left]
[left]- Spending 13.2% of his time or 43 minutes coasting like a rocket on the descents and another 60% between 4 to 7 watts per kilogram of body weight (aka, the pain cave).[/left]

[left]- Holding onto 373 watts over the Col de Joux-Plane.[/left]

[/indent]

cyclingheroes said:

I didn't attackthe lab and i am critisizing the UCI on a regular basis (bt icritize WADA as well...)

My response about attacking the lab wasn't directed at you, and I'm sorry you thought it was. I think your posts on this forum are generally well reasoned and articulated.
I used your post as a reason to point to the UCI as the cause for much of the current propaganda being circulated about the LNDD. To be honest, I didn't know if your statement about the UCI wanting to clean things up was sarcastic or not.

Lonnie Utah said:

I think the proof is the the 400 page report that Landis and his lawyers got over the weekend. I think that is why they are going down that road because "there are too many contradictions for the two to be the same sample."

Maybe you are right, but unless you have seen the 400 page report, I don't know how you can make the claims you do against LNDD.
Judging by Landis' statement as reported in Velonews, my suspicion is he will attack the validity of the results, not the idea that the lab knew it was his sample they were testing. However, I will freely admit this is pure speculation, and not assert it as fact.

Lonnie Utah said:

Again, whom am I supposed to believe in all of this?

Clearly not Phonak, they have a far worse history than the lab.

whiteboytrash said:

Your right except Landis had ridden 5 and half hours on his own !!!!!! and [font=Verdana]Sastre recognised mountain climber [/font]who had ridden protected in the bunch all day was only just ahead of him on the final climb ?!

His fellow cyclists are just kicking themselves for not chasing that day. Watts are watts. They don't care if you've been in the wind or not. I think the whole point is that Landis did nothing that day he hadn't done before, except, the rest of the peleton NEVER CHASED HIM! They screwed up by thinking he'd explode. He never did. That was their fault, not his.

And of course they they want him back in the peleton. They don't want their asses kicked for the next 6 years (just like the last 7, err 8....)

L

fscyclist said:

I doubt it, considering the UCI's behavior in the Landis case. Again, I don't understand the attacks on the lab when there is no proof that the leaks originated from them, or that they knew which person's test they were testing. There are two issues which I think people are spinning.

1. The leaks regarding the A sample. The first leak came from the UCI, specifically McQuaid. In my opinion, his "pre-emptive strike" was merely a political stunt to deflect attention away from the UCI for their abhorent mishandling of past cases and blame the lab. How convenient to leak information only to state that you leaked it so you could beat someone else to it...does anyone else find this unbelievable? His statement was unprofessional and immediately undermined the credibility of the lab, as this forum discussion readily proves. I think he should resign both for that statement and for the way the UCI has handled the case since. The second leak again came from the UCI. The NY Times reported that the A sample contained exogenous testosterone and they cited someone in the UCI as their source. Those are the two leaks, both came from the UCI, not the lab.

2. The idea that the lab knew it was Landis' test they were testing. Again, where is the proof. The way the tests are handled, the only way the lab could have known it was Landis' test is if someone from another organization gave them the drug control number. The lab receives a sample with a number that has no relevance to a name. If people are going to make accusations that the lab violated protocol, they should have evidence to support it. Perhaps Landis' attorneys have such evidence, I don't know, but I do know they haven't revealed any such information to the public.

I think there is great pressure to discredit the lab by many parties. If people can discredit Landis' test then think of the other tests they can discredit. The UCI certainly has a stake in discrediting the lab after the Lance EPO fiasco. The UCI has egg all over its face right now and anyone else they can blame deflects attention from their own incompetence.

Good summary.