Four. How many more?
Anti-doping case against Landis may be in jeopardy
Possible errors by French laboratory could compromise findings that
have threatened U.S. cyclist's Tour de France victory
By Michael A. Hiltzik, Times Staff Writer
February 23, 2007
The French laboratory that produced incriminating doping results
against Tour de France champion Floyd Landis may have allowed improper
access to the American cyclist's urine samples, lab documents show -
one of a number of errors that could jeopardize the case against
A similar error, committed by the same lab in 2005, resulted in the
rare dismissal of doping charges against Spanish cyclist Inigo
Landaluze in December.
Lab records turned over to Landis defense lawyers and reviewed by The
Times show that two technicians from the French government-owned lab
were involved in both the original urine analysis and a second,
validating test. International lab standards prohibit technicians from
participating in both tests to prevent them from validating their own
It was not clear in the records whether the technicians - Esther
Cerpolini and Cynthia Mongongu of Laboratorie National Depistage du
Dopage - played roles significant enough in both tests to disqualify
the findings. Landis attorneys have asked arbitrators to let them
question the technicians.
In a decision issued Dec. 19, 2006, the arbitrators in the Landaluze
case underscored the risks of technicians violating the lab standards.
Their written finding said it is "forbidden that the same analyst
handles or manipulates" both the original and validation samples. "The
applicable rule is clear and devoid of any flexibility," they wrote.
Based on tests of urine samples by the lab in the Paris suburb of
Chatenay-Malabry, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency accused Landis of doping
with testosterone during last summer's three-week French road race.
Much is at stake for both sides. The cyclist, who lives in Murrieta,
faces a two-year suspension and loss of his Tour title if the doping
charge is upheld. In his defense, Landis has launched the most serious
and sustained attack on the international sports anti-doping program
and its procedures since it was established in 2000.
Lab records produced in the legal battle show a number of potentially
troublesome procedural problems that could undermine the case against
Landis. For example:
· A document in the case was altered anonymously after Landis
questioned its accuracy. The altered version apparently was certified
The document was in the files of French anti-doping authorities, who
have brought a separate case against the cyclist. It is unclear
whether lab employees or anti-doping officials made the changes.
· The lab may have operated one crucial piece of testing equipment
under conditions that violated its manufacturers' specifications,
possibly because it did not have the operating manual. Furthermore,
the software installed in the machine was 10 years old, based on an
operating system no longer in use, and was designed for a different
piece of equipment. Landis contends improper operation could produce
The lab has insisted the instrument was in proper working order. The
machine produced a carbon isotope ratio mass spectrometry reading
purportedly showing the presence of artificial testosterone in Landis'
urine sample, the key analytical evidence against the rider.
· The lab was in possession of documents clearly linking Landis to
his sample, a possible violation of anti-doping rules requiring that
all samples handled by a testing lab be anonymous. At least one such
document was provided by the French anti-doping agency to Landis'
attorneys, who contend it came from the lab.
But potentially most troublesome were questionable procedures
involving handling of the urine samples. Landis attorneys have filed
an extensive request for more lab documents and are seeking
depositions of lab personnel.
A three-member arbitration panel is scheduled to hear Landis' appeal
of doping charges at a public hearing beginning May 14.
USADA General Counsel Travis Tygart declined to comment on the points
raised in the discovery request, citing agency rules forbidding him to
discuss ongoing cases.
Filings in the arbitration case also shed light on the anti-doping
agency's rationale for asking the French lab to also retest nine of
Landis' urine samples taken during and after the 2006 Tour de France.
The samples at issue are B samples corresponding to A samples found to
The USADA contends that the previous tests did not "definitively
establish" that the samples were clean, and the agency wants to
subject them to the more sophisticated carbon isotope test.
The agency acknowledged in papers filed with the arbitrators that it
would expect to use any positive results from the retests as evidence
against Landis. The cyclist's lawyers maintain that this would violate
USADA and World Anti-Doping Agency regulations, which state that an
analytical sample can be deemed positive only if the A and B results
Because the A samples have already been ruled negative, and in most
cases no longer exist, the required match between A and B cannot be
present, Landis argues.
The arbitration panel held a closed-door session Thursday to consider
Landis' request for documents and for testimony from lab employees.
The panel also considered the USADA's request to retest the nine
That's right, you don't. Kenteris wasn't suspended for failing a drug
test, he was suspended for
never showing up for 3 of them. His case has no similarity to any of
the others you cite since
the objections in those cases has to do with the validity of tests and
That's what a good lawyer will do for a guilty client. Fight the case
As a defence lawyer once told me, they are all guilty, the trick is to
show that they are not guilty of what they
were charged with.
Since when was piss poor adherence to test procedures a technicality.
The answer is ........never.
If what the paper is reporting is true... then the UCI and WADA should
just 'fess up that they fucked up, tell Floyd they're sorry, and help
him find a team for the rest of the year!
If what the paper is reporting is true, there NEVER should have been a
declaration of a positive test in the first place.
From this moment on, the Wednesday following the tour (July 26th)-
The Irishman (McQuaid) refused to divulge the identity of the rider in
question but was quoted as saying: "It's the worst case scenario."
The UCI, WADA and, more specifically, the "leadership" of those
organizations (McQuaid and Pound) painted themselves into a corner from
which they could not gracefully exit. And these people are anything but
Nobody considered even the remotest possibility of the testing being
incorrect, or flawed in any way whatsoever. From that moment on, their every
waking hour seemed to be devoted to backing up their initial statements. And
they've continued backing up those statements despite many opportunities to
add a bit of well-placed concern that something might not have gone quite
Chain Reaction Bicycles
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Imagine anyone taking testosterone and then going for a win the next day! It
requires the IQ of Asher or someone to believe anything that stupid.
The parallels to Nifong and the Duke lacrosse team are interesting.
> If what the paper is reporting is true... then the UCI and WADA should
> just 'fess up that they fucked up, tell Floyd they're sorry, and help
> him find a team for the rest of the year!
> If what the paper is reporting is true, there NEVER should have been a
> declaration of a positive test in the first place.
Like this. Much more readable, eh ? Thanks for listening.
Fuck, they are well qualified to run for political office.
I don't think the "stupidity defense" is a smart move. It's well known that
criminals get caught because they're... stupid. Smart people don't (usually)
get caught. Thus, if you already think someone's a criminal (doper), you
also already believe they're stupid (since they got caught).
You're not going to change the minds of anyone who matters with the
"stupidity defense." Most likely the opposite.
How about someone named "Kunich"?
>to believe anything that stupid.
He got drunk and forgot to take the patch off in time, according to
the usual "dope and don't get caught" protocols.
(sarcasm, devil's advocate off)
I think you should expand on your assertion that the sample was
contaminated. This is an angle I haven't seen explored much; it's much
stronger than having the same techs do A and B sample testing, I would
think-- unless it points to the source of contamination, of course.
Well, this could turn into a marvelous black eye for The Testers, and
one well deserved, too. "The tests are good"-- well, maybe they're not
so good. Maybe they're not good enough to use, if coupled with "death
penalty" punishments. --D-y
No need to apologize for standing on technicalities.
All due process and rights of the accused are
technicalities. Treating a technicality as an unfair
impediment to a prosecution is a prosecutor's way of
poisoning the well. Speaking of which, where's Lafferty?
> > Imagine anyone taking testosterone and then going for a win the next day!
> > It requires the IQ of Asher or someone to believe anything that stupid.
> I don't think the "stupidity defense" is a smart move. It's well known that
> criminals get caught because they're... stupid. Smart people don't (usually)
> get caught. Thus, if you already think someone's a criminal (doper), you
> also already believe they're stupid (since they got caught).
> You're not going to change the minds of anyone who matters with the
> "stupidity defense." Most likely the opposite.
I agree. How often have you heard "Why would I chop her
into pieces and throw the bags into dumpers all over
town? I loved my wife."
You're playing into the hands of Al Qaida.
Your point illustrates what's wrong with the legal system. It's too
dependent on the aptitude of the prosecutor/defense. Perfect record
indeed; statistically you would expect some of those to be innocent
unless she only prosecuted cases that were a slam dunk
Just a few finishing touches to the Content Misdirection module.
You guys are not going to be happy. The only escape will be to
recognize and avoid potential death spiral threads. Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
CNN would be a better place if that dried-up old c*** were to be
replaced with a dried up sponge. The only difference is the sponge has
You mean Dick Pound has been making insinuations about Jeff Jones'
results at the World Press Cycling Championship?
What a dope (as usual).
> On Feb 24, 7:53 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <kICdndrVV5OWHkLYnZ2dnUVZ_revn...@comcast.com>,
> > "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> > > <dupedcycl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1172252468.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Feb 23, 8:27?am, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >That's what a good lawyer will do for a guilty client. Fight the case
> > > >on technicalities.
> > > Since when was piss poor adherence to test procedures a technicality.
> > > The answer is ........never.
> > No need to apologize for standing on technicalities.
> > All due process and rights of the accused are
> > technicalities. Treating a technicality as an unfair
> > impediment to a prosecution is a prosecutor's way of
> > poisoning the well. Speaking of which, where's Lafferty?
> Tell that to Nancy Grace.
She already understand it. It is others that need to