Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: mr magnolia on 27 June, 2008, 10:18:32 pm
-
on Monday 15.00 BST (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7478019.stm)
I still feel a litle bit hurt inside when I think about the depths of deception associated with the whole drugs thing. And there's still a few of the 'associated' riders around from the Puerto thing...
maybe it'll take this years TdF to finally flush the system?
-
Who ?
-
I feel quite sorry for the guy. I suspect that he was on something, but not what they caught him for. It's my conspiracy theory that Lance was untouchable (I guess he took his own samples to cross reference the anti-doping labs results) and the French labs took it out on the next American they could.
He's also given the most magnificent performance that I've ever seen in a bike race on that day he escaped for the entire stage.
He has already declared that he has no intention of returning to the sport so why would he have bankrupted himself to prove himself innocent?
-
Did anybody else think that perhaps a shirt with horizontal black-and-white stripes was perhaps not the best clothing choice for someone claiming innocence at a trial?
-
He's also given the most magnificent performance that I've ever seen in a bike race on that day he escaped for the entire stage.
From what I have seen he didn't ride an exceptional performance, merely a good one, but no one believed he would stay away until too late. He caught them napping with a strong performance.
..d
-
I feel quite sorry for the guy. I suspect that he was on something, but not what they caught him for. It's my conspiracy theory that Lance was untouchable (I guess he took his own samples to cross reference the anti-doping labs results) and the French labs took it out on the next American they could.
He's also given the most magnificent performance that I've ever seen in a bike race on that day he escaped for the entire stage.
He has already declared that he has no intention of returning to the sport so why would he have bankrupted himself to prove himself innocent?
Gonzo, your niaivety astounds me. :-\
-
Oh, it was an amazing performance.
Juiced to the gills, but nevertheless a mighty ride. Best hour of bike telly I've enjoyed in years - since the old Lemond/Hinault cat and mouse climbs.
The disappointment was as huge. But that doesn't detract from the performance.
Are we starting a sweepstake on who's going to get kicked out for gobbling down the Astana beans this year?
-
Gonzo, your niaivety astounds me. :-\
All the debates have been held numerous times before, but I've yet to see any argument as to why he would take an incredibly obvious and easily tested drug that has questionable performance improvement.
-
He was doping and he got caught - just not for what he was doing though. :o
-
All the debates have been held numerous times before, but I've yet to see any argument as to why he would take an incredibly obvious and easily tested drug that has questionable performance improvement.
Possibly because he took it at that time by accident. Maybe as a byproduct of blood boosting with his own stored blood that had been taken at a time when he was using the testosterone to aid recovery in training.
Just a theory of course.
-
Just a theory of course.
Oh yeah, I'd forgotten that one, but it seems the only plausible option.
-
The argument is whether the tests that were peformed are valid, and what degree of certainty one is prepared to accept.
Lets be clear on two things.
1. This is not CSI. You do not feed a sample into a machine and have a big flashing sign and klaxon saying 'GUILTY'. The tests are complex and require careful interpretation and validation.
2. The process followed MUST give confidence that the complex tests have been performed in a reliable and reproducible manner.
The evidence provided indicates that the process was severely lacking. The debate is whether that is sufficient to compromise the results obtained. This then requires a very detailed technical examination of the raw data by those who are competent to assess the validity.
If the test is not valid (ie if there is insufficient confidence in the test) then he cannot be proved to have doped and should be exonerated.
I would claim to be marginally competent to examine the data (with a background in experimental science including protein mass spec.) Mrs Pingu is probably also competent. As far as others go, I am not sure.
..d
-
It's also complicated by the fact that doping in pro sport is a criminal offence (like fraud) in France, which makes it all a whole lot hotter.
-
Well I am not going to go over any of the facts or debate as it has been had many times before.
Gonzo's point about being sorry for him is valid, because getting caught for Testosterone was like a heroin addict testing positive for dope! Doping is (maybe was) endemic in the peloton and failed tests are generally a result of a mistake in the doping procedures the riders take to avoid testing positive, rather than some achievement of the testing procedure. So Landis gets himself loaded for an important stage as all the contendors would, some idiot makes a mistake in his dose or whatever, and before you know it he's tested positive for a dumb drug like testosterone.
-
Wasn't one theory that he'd had so much support from the team car that he been able to replace sweating by dowsing with water from bottles and that that had upset the rate at which his body was able to excrete the tell-tale matabolites, concentrating them in his blood and urine.
Damon.
-
Fourty something bottles he got through!
-
He was doping and he got caught - just not for what he was doing though. :o
Did he? The sample, which in any case produced inconsistent results, was not correctly labelled. There's not even convincing proof it was his.
-
Fourty something bottles he got through!
Yup, and he didn't just drink them.
If we want to hang someone out to dry as a drugs cheat then we should make sure that it is done properly. Half-assed record keeping and shoddy practices are not acceptable if we want to take the moral high ground.
..d
-
Fourty something bottles he got through!
Yup, and he didn't just drink them.
If we want to hang someone out to dry as a drugs cheat then we should make sure that it is done properly. Half-assed record keeping and shoddy practices are not acceptable if we want to take the moral high ground.
..d
I don't think there is a moral high ground, there are a set of rules governing the permitted levels of certain chemicals in the bloodstream at certain times, Landis seems to have discovered an unusual set of circumstances where those chemicals were not flushed out as anticipated, the Doctors have learned something and it won't happen again.
Damon.
-
Fourty something bottles he got through!
Yup, and he didn't just drink them.
If we want to hang someone out to dry as a drugs cheat then we should make sure that it is done properly. Half-assed record keeping and shoddy practices are not acceptable if we want to take the moral high ground.
..d
I don't think there is a moral high ground, there are a set of rules governing the permitted levels of certain chemicals in the bloodstream at certain times, Landis seems to have discovered an unusual set of circumstances where those chemicals were not flushed out as anticipated, the Doctors have learned something and it won't happen again.
Damon.
See my point 1 earlier. This isn't CSI where a big machine flashes guilty. The tests are technically difficult and prone to error. That is why there are specific procedures to follow.
It is not disputed that procedures were not followed. What is in dispute is whether the results of the tests are unreliable because of that.
The presumption of most of the people posting is that the tests are accurate and infallible. The machine goes ping and you win a suspension. It is not like that.
..d
-
I just assume they're all bent and that clever doping is like wind-tunnel time. It gets rid of the angst.
-
Do you think you could change the title of this thread? Every time I see it I think it's about the imminent demise of the Land Rover production line.
-
I don't think there is a moral high ground, there are a set of rules governing the permitted levels of certain chemicals in the bloodstream at certain times, Landis seems to have discovered an unusual set of circumstances where those chemicals were not flushed out as anticipated, the Doctors have learned something and it won't happen again.
What about Rob Hayles before the world cup?
-
See my point 1 earlier. This isn't CSI where a big machine flashes guilty. The tests are technically difficult and prone to error. That is why there are specific procedures to follow.
It is not disputed that procedures were not followed. What is in dispute is whether the results of the tests are unreliable because of that.
The presumption of most of the people posting is that the tests are accurate and infallible. The machine goes ping and you win a suspension. It is not like that.
Which makes you wonder why they have the procedures, if they can choose to ignore the fact that they have not followed them.
The whole point is that you have a rigorously defined technique, and you follow it to the letter, then no one can argue with the results (or not very easily anyway).
Ho hum, I'm glad it's not my problem.
I do wonder about andygates question earlier:
Are we starting a sweepstake on who's going to get kicked out for gobbling down the Astana beans this year?
For the last couple of years watching Le Tour, I've thought "At least this year it'll be clean", which has then been followed by multiple people being kicked out. Certainly not all of them have been clean, just due to the numbers, and the fact that some of them have never disputed things. Depressing n'est pas? Maybe this year will pass with nothing much happening.
-
Fourty something bottles he got through!
Yup, and he didn't just drink them.
If we want to hang someone out to dry as a drugs cheat then we should make sure that it is done properly. Half-assed record keeping and shoddy practices are not acceptable if we want to take the moral high ground.
..d
I really don't understand your point - Landis has spent a lot of money (>$1M if rumour is true) to try to demonstrate "half-assed record keeping and shoddy practice" and a bunch of folks with a lot more expertise than anyone on this forum have evaluated the evidence at least three times and concluded that the test results do stand up to scrutiny, and that Landis did indeed take an illegal substance.
He has had multiple opportunities to demonstrate the unsafeness of his conviction, had access to the finest legal minds and subject-matter experts, had unlimited time to present his case, but after due consideration his case has been rejected.
By any reasonable standards you must conclude that he did dope, that he is a cheat and a liar.
-
He was doping and he got caught - just not for what he was doing though. :o
Did he? The sample, which in any case produced inconsistent results, was not correctly labelled. There's not even convincing proof it was his.
I challenge you to justify this assertion.
-
From the BBC just now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7478019.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7478019.stm)
Most importantly....
In its ruling, the court said the laboratory "did not violate the International Standard for Laboratories".
It concluded that "the presence of exogenous tesosterone or its precursors of metabolites in Floyd Landis' sample proves that he violated the anti-doping rules of the International Cycling Union".
So let's drop the smokescreen of this and that about shoddy testing practices here and there. The case is proved beyond whatever doubt is required is it not?
-
Landis said he was "saddened" by the verdict.
"I am looking into my legal options and deciding on the best way to proceed," he added.
Pity he didn't choose that option at the start of 2006.
I know it's a flippant comment but I've tended to become more cynical as I've got older.
-
From the BBC just now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7478019.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7478019.stm)
Most importantly....
In its ruling, the court said the laboratory "did not violate the International Standard for Laboratories".
That is an intereting choice of phrase and one which smacks more of the legal than the scientific.
It concluded that "the presence of exogenous tesosterone or its precursors of metabolites in Floyd Landis' sample proves that he violated the anti-doping rules of the International Cycling Union".
So let's drop the smokescreen of this and that about shoddy testing practices here and there. The case is proved beyond whatever doubt is required is it not?
The case has been decided. I'll need to read the findings in full to see whether they have actually assessed the scientific evidence.
It would also be interesting to see whether you can support your assertion that the arbitration panel is qualified to examine the technical aspects of the science.
-
Fourty something bottles he got through!
Yup, and he didn't just drink them.
If we want to hang someone out to dry as a drugs cheat then we should make sure that it is done properly. Half-assed record keeping and shoddy practices are not acceptable if we want to take the moral high ground.
..d
I really don't understand your point - Landis has spent a lot of money (>$1M if rumour is true) to try to demonstrate "half-assed record keeping and shoddy practice" and a bunch of folks with a lot more expertise than anyone on this forum have evaluated the evidence at least three times and concluded that the test results do stand up to scrutiny, and that Landis did indeed take an illegal substance.
What is interesting about yACF is that you never know who you are going to come across. There are analytical chemists, Mass Spectroscopists, physiologists and so on. A substantial portion of the data was placed on the web. I would not argue that all of it was. From what I have seen (and I am, to some degree qualified to examine GCMS taces and the process used to evaluate them) the procedures were not particularly rigorously followed, calibration and interpretation were fast and loose and I am not confident in the results. Indeed, unless there is a wealth of missing data, several issues of a technical nature have been quietly ignored/shoved under the carpet.
He has had multiple opportunities to demonstrate the unsafeness of his conviction, had access to the finest legal minds and subject-matter experts, had unlimited time to present his case, but after due consideration his case has been rejected.
By any reasonable standards you must conclude that he did dope, that he is a cheat and a liar.
It is interesting that those whom Landis called in evidence were those with the most expertise in these systems. The chap who quite literally wrote the book on the Mass Spec used (who described the labs use of it as like an expensive random number generator)
I am disappointed by the report from USADA and now from CAS, not because they found Landis guilty - I couldn't care less about that- but because they failed to demonstrate at a technical level a reasoning that supported the conclusions drawn from the evidence. It is a scary precedent they set, allowing what appears to be flawed evidence to be accepted.
From my technical viewpoint it looks like a "we don't really understand this so we'll take the labs word as virtually nobody else really understands it either" whitewash.
..d
-
Completely besides what results the lab claim to have got, regarding the dodgy chain of evidence and protocols - people have had criminal convictions overturned for far less. Why should the same not apply for athletes?
Yes, by all means hunt down the cheats, but the hunters have to be whiter than white. There is no room for ambiguity of procedure.
And why not have the 'B' sample processed at a different lab than the 'A' sample?
Very little chance of the same technicians handling the evidence both times that way, and it would remove any bias in the results.
-
"From my technical viewpoint it looks like a "we don't really understand this so we'll take the labs word as virtually nobody else really understands it either" whitewash."
Possibly the CAS and USADA review panels were staffed by wishy-washy arty-farty types with no understanding of the scientific method, no training in analytics, no ability to separate fact from fairy story and a unwillingness to challenge lab findings.
Or maybe not.
-
<- snip ->
It is interesting that those whom Landis called in evidence were those with the most expertise in these systems. The chap who quite literally wrote the book on the Mass Spec used (who described the labs use of it as like an expensive random number generator)
I am disappointed by the report from USADA and now from CAS, not because they found Landis guilty - I couldn't care less about that- but because they failed to demonstrate at a technical level a reasoning that supported the conclusions drawn from the evidence. It is a scary precedent they set, allowing what appears to be flawed evidence to be accepted.
From my technical viewpoint it looks like a "we don't really understand this so we'll take the labs word as virtually nobody else really understands it either" whitewash.
..d
David - do you have any web links for the evidence presented? Not doubting you - just interested in the subject and like to know more of the procedures in use these days.
Ta
-
<- snip ->
It is interesting that those whom Landis called in evidence were those with the most expertise in these systems. The chap who quite literally wrote the book on the Mass Spec used (who described the labs use of it as like an expensive random number generator)
I am disappointed by the report from USADA and now from CAS, not because they found Landis guilty - I couldn't care less about that- but because they failed to demonstrate at a technical level a reasoning that supported the conclusions drawn from the evidence. It is a scary precedent they set, allowing what appears to be flawed evidence to be accepted.
From my technical viewpoint it looks like a "we don't really understand this so we'll take the labs word as virtually nobody else really understands it either" whitewash.
..d
David - do you have any web links for the evidence presented? Not doubting you - just interested in the subject and like to know more of the procedures in use these days.
Ta
Start at Floyd Landis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis) which has a lot of links.
The pro Landis website Trust but Verify has a strong condemnation of the finding. trust but verify (http://trustbut.blogspot.com/)
"From my technical viewpoint it looks like a "we don't really understand this so we'll take the labs word as virtually nobody else really understands it either" whitewash."
Possibly the CAS and USADA review panels were staffed by wishy-washy arty-farty types with no understanding of the scientific method, no training in analytics, no ability to separate fact from fairy story and a unwillingness to challenge lab findings.
Or maybe not.
I would ask whether you have looked at the evidence and have sufficient expertise to interpret it?
The report reads politically. And yes, when you look at the panel, I don't see many scientists there, let alone chemists with a backgorund in analysis. Do you?
..d
-
Thanks for that David.
-
David asks "I would ask whether you have looked at the evidence and have sufficient expertise to interpret it?
"The report reads politically. And yes, when you look at the panel, I don't see many scientists there, let alone chemists with a backgorund in analysis. Do you?"
Actually I see forensic minds with an expertise and experience in evaluating complex sports and doping issues. So I'm perfectly comfortable with the ability of both USADA & CAS panels.
But that's not really my point, because my view or your view of the evidence isn't material - what matters is the process.
For me the questions are:-
Did Landis have opportunity to challenge the findings, present his case openly and without obstruction, with access to all available evidence? Yes.
Was the panel(s) intellectually and experientially equipped to evaluate the evidence put before them? Yes (as above)
Is there documented evidence that due consideration was given to the arguments of the defence and the prosecution? Yes, findings are published and it is plain (to me anyway) that due consideration has been given.
Or in summary - did Landis get a fair hearing? Absolutely.
So Landis gave it his best shot and on the balance of probabilities (this is not a criminal court where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the yardstick) he was found guilty. And we should stick with that - the verdict is guilty, no maybes.ifs or buts, he done it.
Incidentally, anecdotally there are folks out there testifying to a history of abuse by Landis, and this probably colours my view :)
But I do agree with what I think is your primary point - apparent sloppy lab work makes this a lot more doubtful than it should be and opens loopholes whre none should exist.
-
David asks "I would ask whether you have looked at the evidence and have sufficient expertise to interpret it?
"The report reads politically. And yes, when you look at the panel, I don't see many scientists there, let alone chemists with a backgorund in analysis. Do you?"
Actually I see forensic minds with an expertise and experience in evaluating complex sports and doping issues. So I'm perfectly comfortable with the ability of both USADA & CAS panels.
But that's not really my point, because my view or your view of the evidence isn't material - what matters is the process.
For me the questions are:-
Did Landis have opportunity to challenge the findings, present his case openly and without obstruction, with access to all available evidence? Yes.
Was the panel(s) intellectually and experientially equipped to evaluate the evidence put before them? Yes (as above)
Is there documented evidence that due consideration was given to the arguments of the defence and the prosecution? Yes, findings are published and it is plain (to me anyway) that due consideration has been given.
On this point there is some dispute. The presumption is that the lab were correct and Landis had to prove they were not.
He had already shown in the USADA hearing that the lab results were wrongly interpreted for the elevated testosterone (as seen in the USADA report where they exonerated him of that).
He claimed and provided a body of evidence that the lab results were unsound. This was dismissed by the arbitration panel without a technical justification.
Or in summary - did Landis get a fair hearing? Absolutely.
I would submit not.
So Landis gave it his best shot and on the balance of probabilities (this is not a criminal court where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the yardstick) he was found guilty. And we should stick with that - the verdict is guilty, no maybes.ifs or buts, he done it.
Incidentally, anecdotally there are folks out there testifying to a history of abuse by Landis, and this probably colours my view :)
But I do agree with what I think is your primary point - apparent sloppy lab work makes this a lot more doubtful than it should be and opens loopholes whre none should exist.
This we do agree on. Unfortunately the only person to benefit from an exoneration would be Landis. Everyoen else would suffer. One is left with the feeling that a political decision has been made 'for the greater good' and it leaves a very bad taste in my scientific mouth.
As I said previously, If we want to take the moral high ground then it must be fair and seen to be fair. I do not think that was the case with Landis.
..d
-
He was doping and he got caught - just not for what he was doing though. :o
Did he? The sample, which in any case produced inconsistent results, was not correctly labelled. There's not even convincing proof it was his.
I challenge you to justify this assertion.
Take a look for yourself at the PDF of Arnie Baker's presentation (http://www.arniebakercycling.com/floyd/Floyd%20Landis%20SS%203.1.pdf). Look particularly at page 7.
This is the page summarizing the testosterone and epitestosterone results from the B sample.
The sample number has two parts: The lab identification number and the athlete's identification number.
The lab identification number is wrong.
The lab identification number is 178/07—not 478/07.
The athlete’s identification number, 994474, is not Floyd's number.
Floyd’s number is the number in the barcode label taken from his attestation page. It is 995474.
And from Arnie Baker's home page (http://www.arniebakercycling.com/) on the same site.
The Court of Arbitration of Sport upheld the findings of the American Arbitration Association in affirming a doping violation against Floyd Landis.
Having closely read the laboratory’s reports and the statements of its witnesses, I strongly disagree with the findings of these tribunals.
The evidence documents conclusively that not only did the laboratory (1) never identify testosterone in the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio test according to WADA criteria, it (2) had no written procedure to identify substances in the more sophisticated IRMS test.
Moreover, there is evidence of scientific misconduct/malfeasance. Records have disappeared and documents appear to have been fabricated. USADA, its experts, and the lab appear to have repeatedly made false statements.
I document the reasons for my opinions in the Wiki Defense 2.0. Source documents are provided. By all means download —it is free—and come to your own conclusions.
I disagree strongly with your conclusion that Landis had a fair hearing. The whole procedure smacks of a political one that is simply out to get someone and cover up its own failings. As to whether he was cheating in the Tour, I might have my suspicions but I have no way of knowing, and neither do you.
-
"Quote
Or in summary - did Landis get a fair hearing? Absolutely.
I would submit not."
Then there is nothing more to say.
I see an open, transparent process where all parties submitted evidence and arguments for consideration by an independent and expert judiciary, who published their findings openly. The essence of justice.
You don't, you see a "political" verdict that protects the establishment, that disregards evidence that you believe is crucial, and is invalid because the judiciary are not proper scientists.. I can see no way of bridging this divide, we must agree to disagree.
-
How about asking the question did Landis dope.
Yes.
Did he get caught?
Yes.
-
How about asking the question did Landis dope.
Yes.
Did he get caught?
Yes.
Perfectly expressed :thumbsup:
thanks
-
How about asking the question did Landis dope.
Yes.
The point of this discussion is NOT about whether or not Landis doped. It is whether the evidence presented is sufficient to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is acknowledged that the lab screwed up. (Read the USADA judgement if you believe he had an elevated testosterone - he didn't). It is known that the lab deviated from protocol. It is up to the lab to demonstrate that their deviations did not provide an AAF that otherwise would not be found.
Did he get caught?
Yes.
A difficult test was performed badly and it is claimed that it shows the presence of exogenous testosterone. There are strong technical reasons why the test results as presented are arbitrary and not sufficient evidence to convict.
These reasons were not addressed, just dismissed with the statement that the lab was certified and the tests were certified.
Chain of evidence issues were not addressed.
FWIW my background is in chemistry with experience in chromatographic separation. I am a scientist who is presently writing software for analysis of mass spectrometry results, including isotope label analysis. I do have a bit of a clue about the matter under discussion.
My verdict from the evidence I have seen is that it is suggestive of doping but inconclusive. There are inconsistencies in the data and failures in process.
..d
-
How about asking the question did Landis dope.
Yes.
Impossible to say from the evidence.
Did he get caught?
Yes.
To the standard required of a kangaroo court or a Stalinist show trial, yes. To the standard required by natural justice or a properly constituted court of law, most certainly not.
-
How about asking the question did Landis dope.
Yes.
The point of this discussion is NOT about whether or not Landis doped. It is whether the evidence presented is sufficient to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, it's not. As pointed out above, its the balance of probability. And, on the balance of probability, given the points that Rich makes above, the finding was that, yes, Landis doped. End of story.
Did he get caught?
Yes.
A difficult test was performed badly and it is claimed that it shows the presence of exogenous testosterone. There are strong technical reasons why the test results as presented are arbitrary and not sufficient evidence to convict.
These reasons were not addressed, just dismissed with the statement that the lab was certified and the tests were certified.
Chain of evidence issues were not addressed.
FWIW my background is in chemistry with experience in chromatographic separation. I am a scientist who is presently writing software for analysis of mass spectrometry results, including isotope label analysis. I do have a bit of a clue about the matter under discussion.
My verdict from the evidence I have seen is that it is suggestive of doping but inconclusive. There are inconsistencies in the data and failures in process.
..d
I think it is imperative that the testing authorities tighten up their act. I have no doubt that their bungling has, in the past, let dopers off the hook. Despite the wriggling of teams trying to avoid testing, there is no excuse for handling samples badly once collected.
However, returning to the point: Landis cheated, and no amount of money or lawyers he could throw at the system to try to intimidate them to back down succeeded. Floyd Landis is a cheat, and degrades our sport not only in commiting his breach of the rules, but in dragging out his doomed attempt to prove his alleged innocence, providing headlines for years about drugs in cycling.
Thanks Floyd. Now go away.
-
However, returning to the point: Landis cheated, and no amount of money or lawyers he could throw at the system to try to intimidate them to back down succeeded. Floyd Landis is a cheat, and degrades our sport not only in commiting his breach of the rules, but in dragging out his doomed attempt to prove his alleged innocence, providing headlines for years about drugs in cycling.
Thanks Floyd. Now go away.
This is what the argument's about; is there sufficient evidence to say that Landis did cheat in the manner they said? It sure as hell doesn't seem clear cut to me based on the arguments from those in the know.
I would have thought that you wouldn't be against someone standing up in court to defend themselves.
-
However, returning to the point: Landis cheated, and no amount of money or lawyers he could throw at the system to try to intimidate them to back down succeeded. Floyd Landis is a cheat, and degrades our sport not only in commiting his breach of the rules, but in dragging out his doomed attempt to prove his alleged innocence, providing headlines for years about drugs in cycling.
Thanks Floyd. Now go away.
I don't see how you can be that categorical on the extremely flimsy nature of the evidence against him. To deprive a man of his livelihood should require far more than a balance of probabilty, but I'm not convinced even that test has been met in this case.
-
How about asking the question did Landis dope.
Yes.
The point of this discussion is NOT about whether or not Landis doped. It is whether the evidence presented is sufficient to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, it's not. As pointed out above, its the balance of probability. And, on the balance of probability, given the points that Rich makes above, the finding was that, yes, Landis doped. End of story.
You are making a proof by assertion.
Let's look at the actual facts:
Somehow Landis ended up with a detectable level of synthetic testosterone but no elevated testosterone levels (finding of fact by the USADA). In itself this is remarkable as you would have to have a high proportion of synthetic vs natural testosterone for it to a) be detectabel and b) be worth doing. Furthermore that synthetic testosterone magically breaks down into one of the four metabolites but not the other three (Explain that and you get a Nobel prize).
Those are the recognised facts. The WADA regulations were poorly drafted and allowed the lab to declare an AAF on the basis of one sample which was internally inconsistent. It is a legal, not a scientific decision.
I would not expect the court to be technically competent in interpreting laboratory data. What they have done is to rely on the laboratory accreditation in order to push through a political decision.
Did he get caught?
Yes.
A difficult test was performed badly and it is claimed that it shows the presence of exogenous testosterone. There are strong technical reasons why the test results as presented are arbitrary and not sufficient evidence to convict.
These reasons were not addressed, just dismissed with the statement that the lab was certified and the tests were certified.
Chain of evidence issues were not addressed.
FWIW my background is in chemistry with experience in chromatographic separation. I am a scientist who is presently writing software for analysis of mass spectrometry results, including isotope label analysis. I do have a bit of a clue about the matter under discussion.
My verdict from the evidence I have seen is that it is suggestive of doping but inconclusive. There are inconsistencies in the data and failures in process.
..d
I think it is imperative that the testing authorities tighten up their act. I have no doubt that their bungling has, in the past, let dopers off the hook. Despite the wriggling of teams trying to avoid testing, there is no excuse for handling samples badly once collected.
However, returning to the point: Landis cheated, and no amount of money or lawyers he could throw at the system to try to intimidate them to back down succeeded. Floyd Landis is a cheat, and degrades our sport not only in commiting his breach of the rules, but in dragging out his doomed attempt to prove his alleged innocence, providing headlines for years about drugs in cycling.
Thanks Floyd. Now go away.
You again assert that Landis cheated, but without any scientific validation of that assertion. The data presented was severely flawed. It was incumbent on the doping authority to demonstrate that the flaws in the data do not preclude a positive finding and they have most emphatically failed to do that.
If you think I am being a bit Mr Loophole about this, then think again. It is not about having the border on a 30 sign 3mm too narrow, it is about performing delicate analyses which require extreme precision and careful control. A lack of rigour can skew the findings dramatically, leading to a false accusation (or conversely, failing to find a positive).
I won't delve into the technical details but am happy to answer tech questions to the best of my ability.
I remain convinced that the decision is primarily political rather than based on science.
-
Thanks for your words David as I don't really understand the science behind this, but what you've said has helped.
-
Maybe all this is true, I'm sure there is politics involved there always is. However, like all the other TdF winners and contenders Landis was well doped up. He got caught, they made him the scapegoat (though I have far more confidence in the CAS than some in this thread, even if they are far from perfect and they aren't scientists) if you like, and it seems to have been one message amongst others that pro cycling has take on board recently, and I think we can finally see some light at the end of the tunnel in this fight against doping in cycling.
-
SS - The problem was though that the method by which they caught him was decidedly dodgy.
How would you feel about police breaking a couple of bones to get a confession out of a suspect?
-
Of course Landis team did not try to black mail witnesses for example. Not the act of an innocent party. A judgment has been rendered, which may have a political element, but a sound one in that a measure has been taken. Finally. And Landis had a good go at defending himself too. It seems to me that too often the onus is on those who dare to do something about doping, than on the dopers. ASO and the French gvt have taken a lot of stick for trying to do the right thing, and for a long while.
-
Of course Landis team did not try to black mail witnesses for example. Not the act of an innocent party. A judgment has been rendered, which may have a political element, but a sound one in that a measure has been taken. Finally. And Landis had a good go at defending himself too. It seems to me that too often the onus is on those who dare to do something about doping, than on the dopers. ASO and the French gvt have taken a lot of stick for trying to do the right thing, and for a long while.
One member of the Landis team tried to blackmail a witness who had absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the test. It was despicable, but I couldn't see why Lemond was even at the hearing.
Landis prepared a thorough defence. He found experts in the techniques used and got them to examine what was done. He made the documents available for public scrutiny so that those who are competent in such matters can examine them. I am unaware of any independent experts (by which I mean people competent to examine the science) who have stood up and said that the tests as performed were valid.
These arguments were ignored in part by the first hearing and ignored totally by CAS.
I am loathe to say that 'something must be done. This is something, ergo it must be done'. That way lies the sus law, internment and all sorts of horrible things that we are supposed to rise above.
If we want to fight against doping we must do it properly. Having shoddy tests covered up by a politically inspired decision is not an appropriate way to do so. The methods used to convict should be above reproach. That includes chain of evidence, proper record keeping, and adhering to validated documented procedures. This case failed all three.
The Landis case is unique. Unlike many doping cases it does not claim that there is some mysterious biological anomaly, (which is a subjective argument and easy to discredit, whether or not it is you or your twin) but that the tests were performed incorrectly and/or incorrect inferences drawn and that the results should therefore not stand. At least in part this was shown to be the case, and the remaining part (the IRMS test) was also shown to not conform to the high standards one should expect.
..d
-
SS - The problem was though that the method by which they caught him was decidedly dodgy.
How would you feel about police breaking a couple of bones to get a confession out of a suspect?
I don't think that's a fair analogy. More like the found a suspect with the stolen goods, but they messed up the search of the property, and didn't follow procedure. The fact was there was synthetic testosterone in his system.
-
SS - The problem was though that the method by which they caught him was decidedly dodgy.
How would you feel about police breaking a couple of bones to get a confession out of a suspect?
I don't think that's a fair analogy. More like the found a suspect with the stolen goods, but they messed up the search of the property, and didn't follow procedure. The fact was there was synthetic testosterone in his system.
Or at least in the sample that was labelled with another rider's number.
-
SS - The problem was though that the method by which they caught him was decidedly dodgy.
How would you feel about police breaking a couple of bones to get a confession out of a suspect?
I don't think that's a fair analogy. More like the found a suspect with the stolen goods, but they messed up the search of the property, and didn't follow procedure. The fact was there was synthetic testosterone in his system.
Was there? There were a series of GC-MS spectra which the lab claimed to interpret to show a single metabolite of testosterone with an isotope ratio inconsistent with control compounds. The other three metabolites examined did not show this anomaly. The methodology the lab used to quantify the isotope ratios was not documented (ie no specific procedure). Instead they just took what 'looked right'.
There were issues with whether this was appropriate: whether the peaks identified as the metabolite had been properly identified, and whether they had been properly quantified, a difficult process when peaks overlap. These are the deviations from protocol which the lab have to demonstrate did not adversely impact upon the finding. They did not do so and the judgements illustrate this.
Sorry to delve into the technical, but there is no simple test to say whether there was synthetic testosterone. Instead it is based on inference.
Background:
Endogenous (human produced) testosterone is produced dynamically over a rapid timescale. The ratio of carbon12 to carbon13 in these peaks reflects that of the surrounding environment.
Synthetic testosterone is produced from plant material. This is biased in composition as it has been around a lot longer. So the testosterone it is alleged Landis used would have been marginally heavier - the carbon atom distribution would be slightly shifted.
The test does not examine testosterone. Instead it looks at a number of common breakdown products which are excreted in the urine. These can be separated on a gas chromatograph - feed a tiny bit of the sample in one end and different compounds will take different times to come out of the other end whereupon they are fed into a mass spectrometer. It has to be established that the retention time of the product analysed is sufficient to accurately identify the metabolite. Different metabolites may be isobaric (have the same mass) but have different retention times due to the chemical arrangement of the atoms in the metabolite giving them different properties.
In the mass spectrometer the distribution of the carbon isotopes can be measured by examining the peak area for the ion current in the mass to charge ratio. There will be a big peak, corresponding to predominantly carbon 12, and subsequent peaks corresponding to one atom being C13, two atoms being C13 etc. As the isotope ratio would be about 1% you can establish the approximate peak areas.
The difference between synthetic and endogenous testosterone is based on the relative sizes of these peaks. Any error in measuring the area will give an error in the final result. The machines have a non-negligible non-constant background signal that must be corrected for. It is obvious that the same error in measurement of the small peaks corresponding to the heavy atoms will have a significantly greater impact than any error in measuring the big peak. The difference one expects to see is very small. And it would be diluted by any endogenous testosterone. He did not have an elevated testosterone level (which one would expect to see with this) and the IRMS test should not be used independently, but to confirm that elevated testosterone derives from an exogenous source.
There are algorithms for automatically subtracting background, and for separating overlapping peaks. The LNDD techs used one called 'experience and judgement' (draw the line where they think it looks best) which is undocumented and inappropriate for this assessment as it leads to inconsistencies between runs. Conveniently the original trace data was destroyed/not retained so independent analysis is not possible. Neither was any assessment of error performed.
An adverse isotope ratio was observed in one metabolite, but not in the other three examined. Landis case is that this finding was not justified as the procedure was inappropriate to support those conclusions. Also that there were inconsistencies between the four metabolites from the same sample so the test was unreliable.
I don't know if he doped or not, but the testing as performed does not support the allegations because it was done badly.
Well done if you have managed to get this far.
..d
-
I don't know why you bother going to all those lengths to keep writing all that stuff, let alone expect people to keep reading it. It would be interesting to hear from someone from the lab, who would be able to put an argument counter to yours. As far as I can see you will always find something wrong, and what the Landis defence team did, as is common in finding a defence where you don't really have one, and that's to try and throw a blanket of as much confusion as you can over the evidence. Remember Hamilton's various defences. I see Rasmussen has just got a 2 year ban, are you ok with that?
There was plenty of evidence despite all the points you make, which is why the CAS ruled the way it did.
-
There was plenty of evidence despite all the points you make, which is why the CAS ruled the way it did.
What specifically?
-
I think it has been covered to varying degrees of bias in these pages fairly well already, I suggest you do a search on Evidence against Landis or something. But to give you a clue its something to do with the presence of synthetic testosterone.
-
I don't know why you bother going to all those lengths to keep writing all that stuff, let alone expect people to keep reading it. It would be interesting to hear from someone from the lab, who would be able to put an argument counter to yours.
It is not an argument, it is a description of the evidence. I would love to hear from someone who can demonstrate that the evidence supports the verdict. I've not heard of a qualified scientist who does. (Local MS expert just wandered through my office - he couldn't believe how poor the data was and that it had been accepted by the court),
It is a tenet of logic. If X then Y. If Y then Z. However valid all the subsequent steps may be, if the primary tenet is false (that the data support application of exogenous testosterone) then the whole case falls.
As far as I can see you will always find something wrong, and what the Landis defence team did, as is common in finding a defence where you don't really have one, and that's to try and throw a blanket of as much confusion as you can over the evidence. Remember Hamilton's various defences. I see Rasmussen has just got a 2 year ban, are you ok with that?
Totally different cases as I am sure you are well aware. The argument of 'others have been found guilty of similar offences therefore you must be guilty too' is not sound.
There was plenty of evidence despite all the points you make, which is why the CAS ruled the way it did.
CAS ruled that the procedures had been followed sufficiently and there was therefore no case to answer. They specifically did not address the technical issues.
It is politically the case that the anti doping labs cannot be seen to be making mistakes. Having the USADA case in open court was a brave move by Landis, and one which USADA despised. There are moves afoot to prevent open public arbitration hearings in future - the sound of a kangaroo court.
I think Landis may sue LNDD and/or USADA. This will then be in open court, with no political axe to grind and a test of the balance of probabilities that LNDD got it wrong. It will be very interesting if he does.
..d
Oh, and regarding
I think it has been covered to varying degrees of bias in these pages fairly well already, I suggest you do a search on Evidence against Landis or something. But to give you a clue its something to do with the presence of synthetic testosterone.
That is the whole point. What is the evidence that he had synthetic testosterone? The rather lengthy post previously explains how the test works and why the process is so important in ensuring the test is valid.
It isn't CSI. You don't have a machine with big flashing letters that says 'synthetic testosterone'.
So exactly what is the proof that he had synthetic testosterone in his body?
The reason that I get worked up about it is that it is bad science. People doing things badly and the consequences for that being huge.
..d
-
I think it has been covered to varying degrees of bias in these pages fairly well already, I suggest you do a search on Evidence against Landis or something. But to give you a clue its something to do with the presence of synthetic testosterone.
As detailed extremely well just above by David the evidence for the presence of synthetic testosterone is highly questionable. And as pointed out by me earlier the chain of custody of the sample is also highly questionable. So there may possibly have been synthetic testosterone in a sample which might possibly have come from him. That's your "plenty of evidence"?
-
I think it has been covered to varying degrees of bias in these pages fairly well already, I suggest you do a search on Evidence against Landis or something. But to give you a clue its something to do with the presence of synthetic testosterone.
As detailed extremely well just above by David the evidence for the presence of synthetic testosterone is highly questionable. And as pointed out by me earlier the chain of custody of the sample is also highly questionable. So there may possibly have been synthetic testosterone in a sample which might possibly have come from him. That's your "plenty of evidence"?
Unfortunately, part of the CAS ruling was that ILS includes dodgy analyses becasue they weren't specifically excluded. So crap like the manual integration gets through just fine.
..d
-
I can't believe they got away with submitting results that they don't have the original data for anymore! Any UKAS or similar accredited lab is expected to keep all original data for at least 3 years, I would expect something similar for whatever accreditation scheme WADA uses (hahaha).
David, I think you've done a great explanation and have been very patient, but there's going to be no persuading of people with their fingers in their ears going "la la la, I'm not listening!"
-
I can't believe they got away with submitting results that they don't have the original data for anymore! Any UKAS or similar accredited lab is expected to keep all original data for at least 3 years, I would expect something similar for whatever accreditation scheme WADA uses (hahaha).
David, I think you've done a great explanation and have been very patient, but there's going to be no persuading of people with their fingers in their ears going "la la la, I'm not listening!"
I was wondering when the local analytical chemist was going to chime in ;-)
Still on the hunt for a scientist who can explain why the test results should be taken as a definite positive. Any offers out there?
..d
-
And the result of a process that is not demonstrably and convincingly fair and open is that whether the right or the wrong result emerged, a top character is now out of the sport and a whole lot of people are significantly more distrustful of the machinery that is supposed to make it fair.
For my part I would far rather that some cheats get away with it than have the suspicion that honest athletes may be having their (oh-so-brief) careers truncated.
-
David, I think you've done a great explanation and have been very patient
2nded thanks for the educational experience
-
I don't know why you bother going to all those lengths to keep writing all that stuff, let alone expect people to keep reading it.
I think it's called participating in a discussion. I've enjoyed David's explanations and haven't found the discussion confusing at all, despite having virtually no formal science background. It's just a question, as David has said, of scientific procedure (evidence and proof) versus legal procedure (decision-making based on presumptions, in this case at least).
We've had multi-hundred-post threads about candy. Why not a few pages about this?
-
And the result of a process that is not demonstrably and convincingly fair and open is that whether the right or the wrong result emerged, a top character is now out of the sport and a whole lot of people are significantly more distrustful of the machinery that is supposed to make it fair.
For my part I would far rather that some cheats get away with it than have the suspicion that honest athletes may be having their (oh-so-brief) careers truncated.
This post summs it up concisely. FWIW I was racing against one of the local engineers who services our mass specs. I didn't raise the landis question (we were heading down a different line of post TT mind games whilst hoping the shower passed reasonably quickly.
..d
-
I know this analogy is contrived and doesn't quite fit the Mass Spec and carbon isotope parts, but lets see how close we can get it.
--
You don't drink alcohol, you never have done.
You drive a bunch of friends to the pub one evening and spend several hours there. You drink orange juice and/or water all evening and no-one spikes your drinks.
On the way home you are pulled over by the Police and they suspect you have been drinking (they saw you drive out of the pub car park). Being asthmatic (I told you it was contrived) you say that you can't do a breathalyser but you'll happily submit to a blood test.
Off to the station you go and provide a sample of blood. The blood testing machine at the police station is broken (again, this is contrived) and so your blood is sent off to a lab to be tested. You are released after waiting for several hours and go home. The police tell you they will contact you when they get the results.
Several weeks later you are summoned to appear in court for Drink Driving.
Since you know you hadn't been drinking you get a good lawyer and work on disputing the case. Your lawyer requests all of the evidence and goes through it with you.
The forms submitted with the blood sample aren't signed or dated as they should be.
The label on the vial of blood (with your signature on it) has a number "123456/7"
The results form indicates it is the result of testing the vial numbered "423456/4"
There are the results of 3 separate tests on the same specimen of blood (80mg alcohol in 100ml is the UK limit). The 3 results are: 1mg/100ml, 95mg/100ml, 265mg/100ml.
The results form dismisses the two extreme results (1mg/100ml and 265mg/100ml) with no justification leaving the final result as 95mg/100ml, over the limit.
Despite being able to show that the proper process was not followed, that the labels don't match, that there is major doubt over the validity of the test, you are convicted of drink driving.
Because of this conviction you lose your job (which involved a fair amount of driving). Worse still, all of your colleagues and some of your friends start saying things like "Well, we all knew he did the occasional bit of drink-driving. I think it's a good thing he's been caught."
?
-
I know this analogy is contrived and doesn't quite fit the Mass Spec and carbon isotope parts, but lets see how close we can get it.
I think your analogy is pretty close to the way I feel about the affair.
-
Because of this conviction you lose your job (which involved a fair amount of driving). Worse still, all of your colleagues and some of your friends start saying things like "Well, we all knew he did the occasional bit of drink-driving. I think it's a good thing he's been caught."
And some people will read in the newspapers of your plight then say things like "Well he must be a drink-driver - all drivers do it."
Thanks, David, for your explanation of the testing process (^ up there) - very enlightening and informative.
-
Because of this conviction you lose your job (which involved a fair amount of driving). Worse still, all of your colleagues and some of your friends start saying things like "Well, we all knew he did the occasional bit of drink-driving. I think it's a good thing he's been caught."
And some people will read in the newspapers of your plight then say things like "Well he must be a drink-driver - all drivers do it."
Thanks, David, for your explanation of the testing process (^ up there) - very enlightening and informative.
My explaination is probable not exactly correct, and skips some details, but provides sufficient information to give a representative flavour of the protocols and methods used.
I am glad you found it helpful.
..d
-
This "beyond reasonable doubt" angle smells bogus. We're not talking about murder here, we're talking about breaking the rules of a game.
The referee's decision is final. Sometimes it goes against you. You shuts yer yap and deals with it.
Quite how courts got involved is beyond me.
-
This "beyond reasonable doubt" angle smells bogus. We're not talking about murder here, we're talking about breaking the rules of a game.
Well it's not really just a game is it? Millions of pounds are at stake (not for the one man but the entire sport) - it's more like fraud.
Look at how all the really complicated and serious fraud cases take months and months to hear and need no end of experts to get through it all....
-
But the rules of the game are what is being discussed. And in every game I've ever played, "the referee's decision is final" with a caveat or two about the video ref or somesuch.
-
I know this analogy is contrived and doesn't quite fit the Mass Spec and carbon isotope parts, but lets see how close we can get it.
I think your analogy is pretty close to the way I feel about the affair.
+1. It's a fit-up >:(
-
But the rules of the game are what is being discussed. And in every game I've ever played, "the referee's decision is final" with a caveat or two about the video ref or somesuch.
If you're sent off in a game of football for a tackle that never was because the other guy dived, that's tough. It doesn't generally result in a long term ban from the sport and loss of your livelihood.
-
I know this analogy is contrived and doesn't quite fit the Mass Spec and carbon isotope parts, but lets see how close we can get it.
I think your analogy is pretty close to the way I feel about the affair.
+1. It's a fit-up >:(
Clearly I am in the minority, but it's not a fit up in my opinion. And I think there has been a fair bit of bending of the truth by those attacking the lab. It was his sample and it contained levels of synthetic testosterone. This is what the bottom line is, and is why despite the mistakes by the lab the CAS didn't let his appeal be successful. Why are there so many people on a cycling forum who think they are better qualified to judge than the people of the CAS who looked at ALL the evidence, and not selective parts with which those here are basing their arguments.
-
SS - the 'selective' parts are hugely important in this case. If the analytical method is dodgy and the chain of custody compromised then Landis has a very good case to say that the offence has not been proven.
Gut feelings and political necessity do not prove that he took performance enhancing drugs. Relying on them and ignoring the scientific shortcomings only brings the disciplinary process into disrepute.
If Landis takes this to court and wins then it may at least give the people on the scientific side of the process a well deserved wake up call.
-
The entirety of the USADA appeal was public. This 'sdditional evidence' somehow wasn't presented then. It is also most surprising that the lab would release flawed analyses in discovery and not release the ones that were performed properly (that noone except the arbitration panel has seen)
The CAS judgement was a legal one. Did the laboratory violate the ILS for doping control? If so, did this materially affect the outcome?
It ignores the technical nature of the argument. Because the ILS did not explicitly rule out subjective processes like visual peak matching and manual integration (To which the response locally amongst world reknowned MS experts was incredulity that such methods would be acceptable) the CAS ruled that LNDD did not breach ILS and the results should stand.
Legally they may be correct. Scientifically they are dead wrong.
..d
-
I'll try and persuade JimBob to have a look at this thread since she's got considerable experience as an analytical chemist (lab manager at two major national laboratories now).