tasmart said:OK, Having read the lawyer produced document referenced, can any one of you explain to me, just how does failure to follow reporting protocol in any way affect the results of laboratory analytical results? Sure, Landis may get off on a technicality, but does that change the analytical result? Unless there is evidence to show that sample were tampered with or that the analyses were flawed (IE false positives), then all the rest is "lawyer speak". This has nothing to do with whether or not Landis cheated. It has solely to do with his culpability for cheating. Its time we recognised the difference, legal is not right and moral. As far as I am concerned, if the press reports are correct, and the IRMS indicates exogenous testosterone, the Landis is guilty. IF he gets off is another story.
I don't think improper conduct from the UCI will have a bearing on the final outcome of Floyd's case. However, the UCI could sanction or discipline some of its employees if they find they were in violation of their rules.
The "golden opportunity" for Floyd is to prove that the lab violated rules by identifying specific riders' samples prior to testing. If Floyd can prove LNDD knew they were testing his sample then he may get off the hook. That may be a large task to prove, but Floyd seems to be making bold statements regarding this claim. If I were him I would be somewhat careful, because if this is not true, he could be liable for defamation.
Overall I found much of the article informative, but the analysis at the end seemed biased, coming from the perspective of a defense attorney. It is also somewhat unclear to me if the UCI officially violated any of its rules. The rule he cites states:
"License-Holders who are asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules shall in principle not be publicly identified until it has been determined [at a hearing] that an anti-doping violation has occurred."
Remember, the UCI didn't publicly identify Landis. They only mentioned that a positive test occured. It was Phonak who told the world it was Landis' positive test. I'm not saying what the UCI did was smart nor were McQuaid's immediate statements, but I would question whether it broke the rules. Clearly, someone within the UCI did break the rules by leaking to the NY Times the bit about exogenous testosterone being found in the A sample. I hope they find out who did it and discipline them accordingly, but I don't think/remember the UCI officially stating this.
He also states, "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."
In this particular case there is no evidence (publicly presented at this time) that the lab leaked ANY information nor that they knew which rider they were testing. The leaks, given to the NY Times, came from the UCI. So I think the article tries to imply that the lab acted improperly when I haven't seen evidence presented to support that claim.
I think the author's final statement shows some bias. "Right after it starts following the Rules that are already in place."
I did find his analysis of the current holes in the rules very good and I hope the UCI does try to fix these.
