Decision on Landis Coming Monday

I first saw this on Yahoo Sports, but TBV pointed me to the actual time of the announcement. Looks like 10:00 am on Monday. You'll find it here.

Last Chance Appeal

Floyd Landis's appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will be on March 19. I've not been keeping up with for months so I'll just point that date out and refer you to TBV for all (and I do mean all) the details.

I wonder what major league baseball would look like if their approach to doping were the same as cycling's?

Failed Photos

Last March, I saw Floyd Landis at a picture framing studio in suburban Chicago. I took a lot of photos with mixed results. There was this one shot, though, that I was able to crop and it would have been a really fun shot, but I happened to take it either a moment too soon or too late. Had I noticed just what was next to him, I would have taken a few shots to make sure that he at least had his eyes open. Hope he has better luck with his hearing (pun not intended, but left in anyway). Oh well. At least I got to drink some Three Floyds beer.

Doping at the Tour

"It ain't cheating if you don't get caught." --Billy Martin

Yeah, but if you cheat to win, it's an empty victory. Don't believe me? Consider where Bjorn Riis kept his yellow jersey from his 1996 tour victory. It wasn't displayed in a prominent place. It was "in a box at home."

That's one reason the Floyd Landis situation bugs me. No matter what you may think about whether he doped or didn't, we will never know. The flaws in the lab's procedures and documentation shown in public by the mediation hearing make it impossible to know if he was doping and got caught or wasn't doping and his results were a false positive (remember that the 'B' sample was known to be Floyd's and the lab analyst was confirming her supervisor's 'A' result. A clear conflict of interest and poor laboratory procedure). Even if you think Floyd doped (and I don't) you have to hope he is cleared by the arbitrators. It is the right result and it just might help reform the system or at least open WADA's eyes to a problem it must fix. One of many before the Tour can recover.

"I win on my merits; my opponents win by cheating." --Mason Cooley

Why So Much Doping This Year?

A thought occurred to me this morning. Aside from the weirdness of how and why Michael Rasmussen was pulled from the Tour, what if there is another reason why so many cyclists are testing positive this year? Why is this year different than last year? After all, riders signed the pledge not to dope this year, penalties are stronger and riders were prohibited from starting the race if even suspected of doping. So why is it worse this year?

If there is one thing we learned from the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing it is that LNDD has lax chain of custody controls and problems with their equipment and testing procedures. Can it be that riders thought they would be able to get away with more this year because LNDD won't risk additional embarrassment to their now-damaged reputation?

I don't know if this is the case, I just know that as much as the UCI, ASO, WADA, and AFLD say they want to clean up the sport, it's not just the athletes that they should be looking at. And let's face it. The athletes want the sport to be clean as well. Let's hope this year is a turning point.

Let's hope, I don't accidentally write that last line again next year, too.

The Appearance of Guilt

I've been thinking about the decision to not have any rider wear bib number 1 this year. This makes sense since it is not yet resolved if Floyd Landis will be stripped of his win. Without a confirmed winner from 2006, no one should wear bib number 1. This sends a message and is true to the process. For the same reason, no team will be wearing the numbers 1-10, the tradition for the team of the winning rider. What I disagree with is that bib numbers 11-20 will be worn by the Caisse d'Epargne team, the team of the rider, Oscar Pereiro, who came in second in 2006. This is flat out wrong. It sends the message that Floyd is guilty, and Pereiro is the winner from 2006. The only possible solution that would be fair to the process would be either to let Discovery I'm not sure who should wear 11-20 since Floyd is still the winner of the 2006 Tour (and will be unless he loses all appeals) and Phonak has disbanded (thanks, Bob for pointing out my cognitive lapse). Who wears #1 when the previous tour winner does not compete? What team wears #1-10 when the team of the previous winner is not in the tour? What if it is both? Has this happened before? Maybe the solution is to select team bib numbers randomly. Search for the truth Mr. McQuaid, indeed. I thought I had a clever post. Now I just have questions...

Landis Hearing - LNDD

The hearing is in closing arguments now. I understand it will be a couple of weeks before a decision is announced. Then there might be an appeal to CAS and there is also the AFLD (the French Anti-doping Agency which is also the parent of LNDD) case in France. Some other things that stood out about the test. LNDD tests come up with an AAF three times more frequently than all other WADA labs. Does this mean that the population of athletes (primarily French?) that they test are three times more likely to dope or is there something wrong with their equipment, personnel or procedures that leads to false positives in two of three AAFs? I believe that what we have seen in this hearing would lead one to believe in the latter conclusion.

Floyd Landis Hearing

Something big (if I understand this right) just happened at the hearing. Over at TBV the testimony of Dr. Simon Davis looks very bad for the lab. Dr. Davis, who was, among other things, Isoprime development project leader and was present during reprocessing (b samples?) has testified that the lab results at LNDD were "totally unreliable" (I am quoting TBV who is live blogging this, so this may not be Dr. Davis' exact words) for a number of reasons. It gets technical, but one thing that stands out is that there were magnets out of place on the unit which will screw up the results. All of a sudden, it appears that the Landis case can be attributed to a false positive. Wow!

USADA vs. Floyd Landis

I've been following this case over at Rant and TBV somewhat obsessively (is that an oxymoron). My thinking is that the only reason that USADA had Greg LeMond testify is that they a) know their case is weak on the science and there are problems with the lab results and b) wanted to take advantage of the fact that the hearing is open to the public. Their case should simply be 1) There was an 'A' sample that was positive for high T/E ratio and then positive for synthetic testosterone 2) the 'B' sample results matched the 'A' sample. 3) Both samples are from Floyd Landis 4) Prove chain of custody. That should be it. Landis' defense has to be either to demonstrate that the lab results are inaccurate due to faulty procedure or equipment, the chain of custody can't be proven or some other related problem.

So why add LeMond to the mix? The only reason I can tell is that up to that point the testimony was technical (and in Landis' favor, I believe) and would not make for an easy sound bite for the news. However, a stunning revelation by the first American to win the Tour de France coupled with his accusation that Landis is guilty will get press, is a quick sound bite and will stick in people's minds. Never mind that their phone conversation (which took place 9 months ago) was not recorded and there is no proof what Landis said or in what context he said it. In addition, (perhaps the primary reason) his testimony gives the arbitrators cover to find Landis guilty. They can reason that even if the science is questionable, and/or the lab made mistakes, maybe enough so that in an open hearing it would be difficult to find against Landis, that since LeMond says that Landis admitted guilt then no one will care enough about the science to question a guilty verdict. And Will Geoghegan's behavior the night before make that even easier.

Merckx vs. LeMond

Martin Dugard agrees that he would rather have Eddy Merckx testify on his behalf over Greg LeMond. The group I ride with has a joke (for which I claim authorship) that every time we pass a LeMond bicycle we hear a distinct whining noise. And yes, I plan to keep my day job.

Greg Lemond and Eddy Merckx to Appear

According to the AFP at Yahoo News, Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx are going to appear in the arbitration hearing of Floyd Landis. The report says that Merckx is on a list submitted by Landis' legal team and LeMond is on the USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency) witness list. I imagine Merckx is on the list to testify, if needed, that Landis' stage 17 performance was not unexpected for a rider that had cracked the previous stage. Indeed, I've read that it was because he had cracked that he did not have to recover as much for the next day. LeMond, who I greatly respect for his ability and cycling achievements, has been increasingly vocal over the past few years accusing, without specific knowledge, other cyclists of doping. My guess is that his testimony will go something like this:

Mr. LeMond, how do you know that Mr. Landis doped?

Because he is faster than me.

No further questions.

Floyd Landis

The public arbitration hearing of USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) vs. Floyd Landis begins today at Pepperdine University School of Law. The Trust-but-verify blog is possibly the best resource for information on the case. Info on the hearing video stream is here. Finally, my favorite blog with commentary on this is Rant Your Head Off (great name, that). I'm inclined to believe that Floyd won without doping. First of all, I believe in innocent until proven guilty (call me an idealist), then there's been too many things that USADA and WADA have done to demonstrate that that they want to convict Floyd at any and all costs and not find out what really might have happened. The most recent of these is not having an independent lab test the additional 'B' samples they got permission to test. Instead, LNDD got to test them without Floyd's observers present during the entire test (that's actually two problems--Rant did an excellent analysis of this here.)

LNDD

The dog ate my homework.

Floyd Landis

I do not think Floyd used performance enhancing drugs during the Tour de France. First of all, it makes no sense. He had way too much to lose if he got caught. Winning the stage guaranteed that he would be tested and the penalty for doping meant he would lose everything. Second, this whole incident spun out of control the moment the results of his "A" sample were released. UCI released the positive result (a high testosterone:epitestosterone ratio due to a low value of epitestosterone, not a high value for testosterone) before a confirming "B" sample was completed. This is counter to their own rules and the WADA code. It had the effect of raising the stakes for everyone. UCI, WADA and the lab lose credibility if the "B" sample does not confirm their announced results and Floyd loses everything if the "B" sample does confirm. Of course, the "B" sample did confirm the "A" results (did the lab test the "B" sample blind? I haven't been able to find out). Now, this culture of guilty-until-proven-innocent at WADA means Floyd has already lost nearly everything.

Floyd's website is here.

There is very complete coverage of the case and enough links to keep you busy for days at Trust But Verify. I have spent many a lunchtime here and learned more than I dreamed possible.

Factual information about the case is at the Landis Case Wiki.

Best of luck to Floyd.