Science testimony in Floyd Landis Case

[KLB]

Has anyone else been monitoring the progress of the Floyd Landis doping hearings via the blog Trust But Verify? They have been maintaining a running transcript of the testimony, and I have found it interesting how science is used (or abused your choice) in the hearings. I also find it interesting how a particularly relevant scientific witness can be overshadowed by an irrelevant "monkey dance" (as it has been called on TBV) from a completely irrelevant but headline grabbing witness.

[Realitycheck]

Not sure if many of you all really want to read this, but it really shed some light on me about the whole dynamics of doping in the professional cycling world. It really looks to me like cycling is a sport like bodybuilding, where you simply must dope to win. Only thing is, the governing bodies have not accepted doping like bodybuilding and are really clamping down. I would really like to believe Armstrong and co., but this really flies in the face of what really seems like people sticking to their story.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/09/12/armstrong/

Of the 500 cyclists he'd worked with over the years, only two had ever failed a drug test. "A racer who gets caught by doping control is dumb as a mule," Voet told me.

 

And how many of those 500 cyclists he worked with did not take drugs to enhance their performance? "I can count them on two hands. Maybe two hands and two feet if I'm generous," Voet said.

 

And where did the clean ones finish? I wondered.

 

"The back of the pack," Voet said.

 

Armstrong never finished at the back of the pack. Neither did his onetime teammate, Tyler Hamilton, the '04 Olympic champion who was suspended for two years for blood doping. Neither did another former teammate, Floyd Landis, who failed a doping test after winning this year's Tour de France. Neither did Italy's Ivan Basso, or Germany's Jan Ullrich, or Spain's Francisco Mancebo, who finished second, third and fourth to Armstrong in the '05 Tour, all of whom have been implicated in the Spanish doping investigation that rocked the start of this year's Tour. Each disputes the allegations.

 

 

Here is an excerpt from Greg Lemond, 3 time winner.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/07/29/lemond_urges_landis_to_speak_truth/

Three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond says the doping charges against fellow American Floyd Landis could be "what cycling has needed for many years" in order to discourage cheating.

 

"If he is confirmed positive, I hope he has the courage to tell the truth," LeMond said in an interview with French weekly Le Journal du Dimanche released on Saturday. "He alone can change the face of the sport today. His example could be a symbol of change."

 

In a veiled reference to seven-time winner Lance Armstrong, long dogged by doping allegations, LeMond added: "I hope that (Landis) won't do what another American did: Deny, deny, deny."

 

 

Lastly, here is a play-by-play about what happened in Landis' case, in case you never got a chance to read the details.

 

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/06/224839.php

 

In the course of pursuing a long breakaway, Landis, the Tour leader, had missed connections with his team car to take on food and drink. In the course of a mountain stage like Stage 16, a rider needs to take in about 10,000 calories. On the final climb of La Toussuire, Landis “bonked,” totally run out of fuel, and finished over ten minutes behind the winner. He was now over eight minutes behind the new leader, with only three meaningful stages left.

 

...

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If he doesn’t try enhancement his dream is gone. He had been humiliated on La Toussuire. What a laughable thing. He had forgotten to eat, to drink. The basics. He had come so far to be cast down into this pit of ridicule, this hell, still being laughed at for his socks. If he accepted this offer he might still win, saved from laughter by selling his soul.

 

The next morning Landis told his trainer, “I’m going to go ape shit on their heads.”

[KLB]

The biggest problem with cleaning up doping in cycling is going to be transparency and due process with the "prosecution" of drug cheats. The science must be iron clad without any potential for accusations of self confirming bias. Right now it is a witch hunt where WADA is judge jury and executioner. I don't really know if Landis is guilty or innocent and we will never know because of bad control measures in the case. How can we trust a system where the same drug testing lab (let alone the same technicians) are testing both A and B samples? How can we trusts testing results where the technicians knew who's samples they were testing (yes the technicians admitted this in the hearing)? How can we trust labs that admits to overwriting files, failing to log all steps, has breaks in the chain of custody, and labeling errors on samples? These is a basic breakdown of scientific processes.

 

If we are to eliminate asterisks from the history books and to ensure that individuals are not falsely accused or wrongly exonerated there must be absolute certainty and transparency with the testing and prosecution process. At the very least there needs to be very robust scientific controls where labs are not validating their own work thereby avoiding the appearance of cover up.

 

Furthermore how can these cases be prosecuted without the basic rules of law and discovery, and where the rule makers are not required to abide by their own rules? No matter the outcome of the Landis case, everyone loses because no one will ever truly know the truth except for Landis and if he is truly innocent there is no way for him to prove it.

[KLB]

besides the "Trust But Verify" (TBV) blog another site that has been running play by play coverage of the trial is http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/.

 

TBV has been covering this story with a tenacity that deserves a Pulitzer Prize, and has become a primary go to source for all other outlets reporting this story, but the "Rant your head off" blog is doing a good job of providing another perspective. Both sites work and coverage on this story has been far superior to anything in the mainstream press, which only shows up for the side shows (like LeMond).

[swansont]

Has LeMond admitted to doping?

[KLB]

Has LeMond admitted to doping?

 

No, he absolutely denies ever doing it. Someone more cynical might add the comment "like everyone else".

[Realitycheck]

If you read the full article about Landis, I would say that Landis was more likely than most to overcome an 8 minute deficit in a day or two, even against a bunch of other professionals. However, having a hip joint that was shot really starts coloring things even more. It's really hard to believe that he accomplished what he did with his injury, regardless of potential doping.

[swansont]

No, he absolutely denies ever doing it. Someone more cynical might add the comment "like everyone else".

 

So that flies in the face of the idea that one must dope in order to win the Tour. Or he's a big ol' hypocrite.

[Realitycheck]

I should point out that LeMond won 3 times between 1986 and 1990, at a time when doping was probably not nearly as prevalent, or at least not nearly as technologically sound. I don't think we will ever really know for sure.

[KLB]

If you read the full article about Landis, I would say that Landis was more likely than most to overcome an 8 minute deficit in a day or two, even against a bunch of other professionals. However, having a hip joint that was shot really starts coloring things even more. It's really hard to believe that he accomplished what he did with his injury, regardless of potential doping.

 

In the hearings the USADA has tried to use another cyclist who admitted to doping to claim that testosterone is used to help with overnight recovery, not to actually improve performance directly. Also, Floyd Landis rides with special rear hub on his bicycle that measures his power output, which he routinely released to the public. His power output on the stage he had that amazing recovery was not out of line with his normal performance.

 

It is not uncommon on endurance sports for someone to have an off day (especially if they screw up and not eat enough) and then to be back at 100% the next day. It is almost like the body is enforcing a rest day so that it can recover. The only odd thing about these bad days is that we are seeing fewer and fewer of them in professional cycling over the years. Even Lance Armstrong got hit by bad days.

 

Floyd's amazing recovery in the standings really came down to tactics and suckering the main field who had written him off because of the previous day. Floyd was never a favorite to win the Tour de France to begin with so when he cracked and hit the wall the rest of the peloton simply thought their suspicions had been confirmed and wrote him off. Thus Floyd's win on that day was as much a tactical coup on his part as tactical disaster by the other teams. By the time the other teams realized Floyd wasn't bluffing it was too late for them to do anything more than limit the damage.

 

These types of one stage breakaways do happen in cycling, its just not common that they upset the top standings in the race as normally teams pay closer attention to riders they deem to be a serious contender.

[KLB]

Well the hearings are done for now, which means I can take a break from ten days of nearly constant reading of transcripts and commentary (at least 10 hours per day, probably more). For those who were following the hearings and commenting on them via Trust But Verify the science part of the hearings was the most interesting. Contrary to what the mainstream media tried to portray, the soap opera moments were just irrelevant and annoying detritus.

 

What the hearings uncovered about procedures inside of the French testing laboratory LNDD are extremely disturbing and should cause great concern by anyone who ever has to have a drug test especially if it is being processed at LNDD.

 

As a result of what I saw uncovered during the hearings I was compelled to write and publish (this past Tuesday) an extensive article which is mostly based on the cross examination of prosecution witnesses titled: "When science, peer review & independent experts are anything but"

 

This article was followed up by a commentary by another member of my family who is not a cycling enthusiast but is a scientist and intimately familiar with good "chain of custody" practices and the need for carefully followed drug testing procedures. Her article is titled: "LNDD: The Chain of Custody was broken"

 

If you are a scientist, athlete or someone who is occasionally drug tested due to your occupation, I think you will find both articles very disturbing especially considering most of the anti-doping efforts in sports (including this case) is being funded via your taxes regardless of the country you live in.

 

If based on what you have read in the mainstream media you believe Floyd Landis is guilty, read my two articles then after words ask yourself this question: "Would you trust the fate of your life and career in the hands of the French drug testing lab LNDD?"

 

At the end of those articles if you can not honestly say you absolutely would trust your fate in LNDD's hands, how can you have any scientific certainty that Floyd Landis's samples were truly positive and that he is guilty? Remember Floyd Landis's guilt is supposed to be based on pure science, not speculation, hunches, character traits or hearsay.