News
Landis hearing flips in rider's favour
Carlton Reid May 22 2007, 7:15am
Eminent experts have called into question the reliability of the tests done on the urine of Floyd Landis at the 2006 Tour de France. International lab standards have been breached, said one independent scientist. And a highly-placed anti-doping specialist said point-blank Landis's samples did not contain artificial testosterone. UPDATE: Tuesday's expert witness shows LNDD results to be "totally unreliable."
USADA, the US anti-doping authority, has never lost an athlete hearing. To date it's 34-0. That result may become 34-1, if USADA is not able to rebut the expert testimony from two witnesses yesterday.
It's now LNND – the French anti-doping lab - and USADA on the defensive.
Professor Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, an associate professor at Queen's University, Belfast and an expert in carbon isotope measuring upon which this case swings, said LNDD's measurement of key metabolic ratios violated WADA's own technical standards.
It's now up to USADA to convince the three arbitrators hearing the case that the lab standard violations do not exist, something USADA's external counsel was unable to prove yesterday in cross examining Professor Meier-Augenstein.
"I have no confidence in the data," the professor told Landis' counsel.
"You can't go by appearances. You have to go by data. If someone's life or career depends on it, you don't work on assumptions."
The professor said LNDD's findings were way out of line with results found in the clinical literature and they raised serious questions about the lab's testing procedures.
Another key witness also took the stand yesterday and further damaged USADA's case. John Amory is a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle and works with testosterone deficient patients. He's no patsy, he sits on a USADA expert panel which decides whether doping cases go forward. In short, his testimony carries weight.
"I don't think [Landis's test results] confirm that doping occurred. I can't say there is a physiological process that would give these results. It's quite puzzling to me what exactly is going on here."
Many of those who have sat through the proceedings in the flesh, or via the online video, or via the minute-by-minute transcript on Trust But Verify believe they do know what is going on: the main assertion is that technicians at LNDD fouled up but were unable to later withdraw the Adverse Analytical Finding because it had already been leaked to l'Equipe.
There's an excellent summary of the science behind the testimony given prior to yesterday at the long-established EnvironmentalChemistry.com. The site is scathing of LNDD's scientic methods, including shocking lapses in sample chain of custody.
UPDATE:
It might now be dry, scientific data being discussed at the hearing, and not Greg Lemond's non-scientific evidence, but it's still explosive. Here, from the transcipt provided by Trust But Verify, is USADA counsel asking questions (very reluctantly) of the Isoprime machine and software developer is answering:
q: based on observation, do you believe the isoprime is linear?
a: drifts in and out of linearity. If the system is non-linear, the isotope ratio will change solely due to peak height, not according to the actual substance.
q: if it's not correct, what happens?
a: you get wrong results.
q: when at lndd, did you look at the isoprime2?
a: yes.
GDC 734.2
q: what is it.
a: picture of it?
q: is this one you are familiar with. What are therse?
a: magnet lifting rings.
q: what are they?
a: things to help you pick it up and put it onto the machine.
q: there'a a magnet there?
a: this is the analyzer, the most important part of the instrument. If it's wrong, the instrument doesn't work. It's what causes the ions to separate and spin.
q: is the magnet important?
a: most crucial. Faults in source and detectors can be worked around.
q: did it shock you to see the rings there?
a: yes.
a: magnets are produced to .01mm precision, and it's needed for a precise magnetic field. If wrong, ions go all over the place. Those rings affect the magnetic field.
q: are they supposed to be there?
a: no, they are only supposed to be there to move it.
q: USADA brief page 62, paragraph 107 claims they have a light that shows no leak, proper pressure. green light, yellow, red.
a: yes.
q: this picture - this light in the back is a warning light?
a: it shows a complete lack of understanding. that unit is a control unit to switch pumps on and off. The light shows the speed of the pumps. If there's a huge leak, the light will go out. The leaks in question are those at molecular levels.
Discovery response, para c, says [LNDD] don't have [a manual]
q: important to have the manual?
a: it's essential. they aren't washing machines. they are very complex. you can't keep the details in your mind. the best way is in an electronic document. most users are not machine experts, and they require instructions and procedures to ensure the machine is working correctly and properly.
q: does the manual contain useful information for operation. Penning gauge?
a: gives you a reading of pressure in the instrument.
q: what is that?
a: when analyzing atoms, you can't have anything else there, you need a vacuum. If there's CO2 from elsewhere, you'll be contaminated.
....
q: so when LNDD determined the results from S17, the program had a way to save points, so they could have been exactly reproduced?
a: yes.
q: never done?
a: yes.
q: when watching lndd techs reprocessing, did they do it over and over agin?
a: yes.
q: did you note them?
a: yes, here's a chart showing what I noted them doing.
q: what?
a: number of times peak end changed, new point to BG trace, BG point dragged, times reprocessed.
[ bunch of changes -- need to see chart to see the details ]
q: in your opinion, why was this being done?
a: she was struggling to get the line to fit the way she liked. When I asked what she was doing, she said she was "using her experience"
q: did this change the CIR results?
a: yes, significantly. sometimes so much they gave up and reloaded.
Q: you watched Mongongu and Frelot conduct their procedures.
a: yes.
q: did you see them during retesting?
a: yes.
q: concusion about their ability and competence to operate the instruments.
a: they clearly did not understand the instrument. I had to help them load the software on the machine. They were obviously trying to help each other during the reprocessing and did not generally know how the software worked.
...
There's much, much more over at Trust But Verify. LNDD is now well and truly in the dock, accused of ignorance at best, malpractice at worst.
TESTIFY
In a historical sidenote of relevance to a case revolving around the use of testosterone, the word 'testify' may be derived from 'testes' and could refer to the Roman jurisprudence method of giving evidence under oath: men had to grasp their testicles. However, as is the way with etymology, this theory is far from settled. But there's a possible Old Testament back-up. In Genesis 24:9, a servant swears by placing his hand "under the thigh" of Abraham, a probable euphemism for grabbing you-know-what.
