Agency cleared to retest Landis' backup urine samples

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by cheapie, Apr 11, 2007.

  1. cheapie

    cheapie New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    is this a good thing or not? i don't understand why they'd use the same lab to test the sample. doesn't that leave the door open to speculation that they'd either jack the process up again or taint the sample to cover their collective rears? why wouldn't they use an independant lab?

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=2834353
     
    Tags:


  2. poulidor

    poulidor New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    With Floyd's advisors or witnesses, I think it would be very difficult to taint a sample.
    The results of the A and B samples are very coherent despite all allegation of lab's mistakes. Before the test, equipements are calibrated with particuliar samples which results are known.
    As I understand, labs have different methods linked with their own equipment. And some labs cannot use the same threshold because of their technics, and "abilities".
    Even if they are making the test in an other lab, and results are positive, Floyd's fans will say WADA are screwing Landis!

    Maybe tests done by technicians from another labs, under regards of Floyd's advisors and LNND in LNDD would be a good choice.
     
  3. cheapie

    cheapie New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    makes sense. but are the samples currently being held in such a way that tainting them is not an option?
     
  4. helmutRoole2

    helmutRoole2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,948
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, you could get the US Special Ops down there to taint them.

    But seriously, I think Landis is going to beat this.
     
  5. cheapie

    cheapie New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'm serious. i don't know much about the manner in which they're handled. are they sealed in some sort of way that makes it obvious if it's been opened anytime between when the sample leaves the rider's sight and when the lab opens it for testing?
     
  6. helmutRoole2

    helmutRoole2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,948
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Dick Pound keeps the important samples in his backpack or breast pocket. I think it's pretty flimsy. A friend of mine said he saw Pound eating chop suey at a Chinese restaurant and grabbed what he thought was soy sauce and poured it on his plate before realizing it was actually Tyler Hamilton's B sample.

    You know, they said they froze it, but really Pound poured it all over his chop suey. That organization, WADA, it's really haphazard the way they do business.

    As for Landis' sample? Pound probably got drunk one night and "accidently" drank it. He's friends were probably all, "I can't believe you just drank Landis' B sample," and Pound was all, "Don't worry, there's plenty where that came from." And then they were probably all, "Make him pee again! Make him pee again!"

    These people are a bunch of savages.
     
  7. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    WIthout the testing of the samples I would have bet that Landis would beat the rap. The reason the USDA wants the other samples tested is because they feel the issues that Landis has raised cloud the issue enough that a decision against him would be questioned.

    My guess now is that IRMS testing will reveal testosterone use in his other samples, just like it would if you tested other riders' samples with IRMS instead of first requiring the sample to fail the ratio test. If those samples get tested then FLandis is fucked.

    It does show that the fight against doping is pretty much flying by the seat of its pants. They are making it up as they go along. I would not say it is fair to the athletes. Waiting nine months to get your hearing is ridiculous. Testing the other samples gives an absurd situation where the testing cannot be deemed a positive so it cannot be used for sanctioning, but it can be used as evidence in to back up the decision in another case. I don't think this sort of thing has ever been done before. Landis is sure to appeal to CAS about it.

    It seems to me that Landis needs to find a good lawyer and start filing civil suits.
     
  8. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if the other samples show that Landis had synthetic testosterone in them USADA/WADA/CAS/UCI cannot do anything with them, as they are B samples only... there own rules stipulate nothing can come from the testing of these samples - the hearing is ONLY about the 2 positive tests.

    What the testing of the other samples will confirm is that there was no lab mix up, there was no tainted samples on the two positive tests and that Landis's urine is clean in all of his tests (clean as in non-tainted). All of his urine sample will show exactly the same molecular structure which will prove that the two positive samples are in good order, fresh and contained synthetic testosterone. They are not trying to prove the other samples were drug ridden (they would prefer if they weren't) they just want to show that the samples in question are good samples ie not been tainted.

    Landis is doing he's all to discredit the samples and the testing procedures. He'll have a hard time when the lab produces the results from not 2 but 9 samples and shows that the urine is in good health and not tainted like he claims it is. It will come down to science not that the wrong number were written on can. Remember USADA are yet to have their day in court. Only Landis has spoken. Can he really say that the lab made an error on all nine samples ? or that they sabotaged them ? even on the non-positive tests ?

     
  9. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    That is what I said. I still think it is absurd to enter evidence that cannot be used by itself to buttress another case. When has this ever been done by the UCI/federations?
     
  10. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    It’s not evidence and will not be used as evidence. USADA have clearly stated that even if they find a shit load of EPO in his other samples nothing will happen on these findings. It will be used to build a case on the two positive samples. Landis and his team question the lab. They question the methodology on the two positive tests. They have questioned the ethics of the lab. Landis and team have based their entire case on the two positive samples. Now what happens if we discover that the other seven samples are in exactly the same condition as the two positive samples ? It means that the two samples are not tainted and that Landis can no longer bring foul-play into the equation. That is his case and he just lost. Game over. What’s left ?

    For the record this is normal practise in all of our courts of law.
     
  11. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    I will place a bet that if (when) the other samples come back positive for testosterone they use it to bury FLandis no matter what issues he brings up about the sample he is being sanctioned for.
     
  12. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    If he did transfuse just prior to Morzine then the other samples may not have the high concentrate of T..... its not what they are looking for....
     
  13. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    If the other samples were clean it would be FLandis who would be calling for them to be tested. Dont' tell me that the moment the results come back McQuaid won't be in front of the the press saying the test of the B samples proves Landis was doping all along.

    It seems to me that if the existing paper trail on the sample that Landis failed is insufficient to prove that the positive is valid and the sample was not contaminated then the test or its protocol is not worth a damn.
     
  14. fscyclist

    fscyclist New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gotta agree with you on this one. When the case goes into appeal/arbitration, I believe it opens up a lot of new avenues of discovery. Floyd brought these issues to the forefront, and it seems fair for the USADA or UCI to then defend itself through multiple defenses. When you read the CAS decision on Hamilton, they reference the values found at the Olympics, blood abnormalities prior to any positive, etc. even though he was only found guilty of the positive at the ToS. In an appeal/arbitration, much more evidence may be brought to bear, especially when the plaintiff opens the can of worms.
     
  15. cheapie

    cheapie New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    i just find the ongoing breaches of protocal absolutely amazing. i mean, this is a scientific lab. if they can't follow their own process and rules, what good is a supposed scientific procedure if it's not followed.

    while i am/was a fan of armstrong/basso/landis, i am not willing to overlook SOLID evidence of doping just to feel good about riders i like.

    get rid of the doping. but for the love of God, make the rules, stick to the rules, and treat all riders equally.
     
  16. cPritch67

    cPritch67 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well stated Cheapie...... :)
     
  17. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    The criticism of the LNDD is largely a smokescreen. Armstrong's charges were completely bogus; he and the UCI accused the lab of not following protocol when doing a research project where they were not required to follow any protocol whatsoever. It was a strawman constructed by Vrijman to excuse Armstrong's use of EPO. Landis' charges have not yet been shown to have a material affect on the results of his tests and in some cases are a red herring. For example, he continues to harp on a sample number error that appears not in the testing procedure but a summary of the results.

    The important issue in the Landis case is whether the testing, sanctioning, and appeal processes are fair. An effective fight against doping must have a bulletproof system. It is corrupt to have Armstrong giving money to the UCI under the table and then the UCI paying for a whitewash report of his drug use while an athlete like Hamilton, who did not pay money, is targeted in a season long effort to catch him.

    The current testing system was designed by morons. The testing of A and B samples should be done in different labs. Ideally the sample would be split into three parts. If the first part tested positive, the two B samples would be sent to different labs and the test would only be deemed positive if all three agreed, not in terms of whether they are positive or negative but also the tests' internal values. All test paperwork should be available to the athlete.

    Hearings should be scheduled within a reasonable time frame. Getting your day in "court" nine months after testing positive is not reasonable. Let's say for the sake of argument Landis is cleared in May. His 2007 has already been destroyed. Hamilton did not get all the way through the appeals process until three quarters of the way through his two year sanction. In Landis' case it looks like the USADA is deliberately drawing out the process to financially bleed the defendent white so he can no longer continue the fight.
     
  18. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    If all the samples come back positive Landis will come back and say the test itself brings about false positives on him. USADA would prefer negative test on the rest and show the differences between the test results on good quality urine on all samples. The fact that Landis may have been doping all along is irrelevant in this case as it only centres on the two samples in question. The other samples will be used to prove that the two samples that returned a positive were in good working order and that the urine was not tainted in anyway by the testing procedures or by the fact that the number on the samples were incorrectly labelled etc.

    Its a coup for the UCI and drug testing world wide.... finally Landis gets it in the butt for all his mud slinging and bullshit..... serves him right.... you can't beat science with bullshit....
     
  19. poulidor

    poulidor New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we need solid proofs to catch a doped athletes we need stronger proofs to accuse a lab or WADA. Where are they?
    Only implicated athletes are claiming that system is flawed, they never spoke from their multiple negative tests... are they flawed too?

    It's not easy to do and needs more money. It appends new escape possibilities with technicality like chain of custody, inadequate storage or transportation,...
     
  20. poulidor

    poulidor New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    +1 with WBT's analysis
     
Loading...
Loading...