[Old Runner Guy]

The International Association of Forensic Scientists are having their triennual meeting July 21 to 25 in News Orleans. This meeting will bring together leading lights of Forensic science to discuss their most important issues. And what will they talk about?

Below is the very first presentation of the meeting.

http://www.iafs2008.com/b_seminar1.asp

Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Time: 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.

#1 Bad Science: The Floyd Landis Case
Bruce A. Goldberger, PhD
University of Florida
Department of Pathology
College of Medicine
Gainesville, FLRobert D. Blackledge, MS
Retired Forensic Chemist
El Cajon, CA

Floyd Landis, a professional bicycle racer from Murrieta, California, won the 2006 Tour de France. However, not many days after the race's conclusion, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) announced (actually the information was leaked to the press) that a urine sample obtained from Floyd after stage 17 had been found to be positive for a form of synthetic testosterone. If this finding were to be upheld, Landis would be stripped of his title and also banned from participation in the sport.

Landis denied any sports doping and his strategy in fighting these charges has been to try to generate public support and to make all of the documentation of the LNDD tests available to the public. GC/MS is used by LNDD for preliminary sample screening, and carbon stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry is used for final confirmation.

From the standpoint of a forensic analytical chemist with experience in forensic laboratory accreditation standards, this presentation will examine the analytical data and correspondence from the Landis case in terms of chain of custody requirements, World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) guidelines and LNDD SOP, and reasonable standards of good laboratory practice.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another respected voice weighs in

http://www.weltwoche.ch/artikel/?AssetID=2...;CategoryID=100

After the ruling was released Dr Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, Senior Lecturer in Stable Isotope Forensics at Queen's University in Belfast, restated his view that the work of the French lab LNDD had been "attrociously bad." He deems the CAS-ruling "a tragedy for the sports community and a travesty of science and justice" and sees it as "a victory of corporate ego and politics over justice." Meier-Augenstein is so seriously disappointed with the unprofessional sloppy work of the LNDD that he plans to dedicate a whole chapter of his forthcoming textbook "Forensic Stable Isotope Analysis" to the Landis case under the heading "how not to do it".

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: 03 July 2008 - 02:35 PM

[Roadent]

He still doped, ORG. You might do better to help him raise the 100K....

[Old Runner Guy]

He still doped, ORG. You might do better to help him raise the 100K....

If it makes you feel better keep saying that to yourself. (remember my position is I don't know and the science in this case was so bad nobody knows so he should have been not guilty.)

In the meantime, can you show me another doping conviction anywhere that gets world-recognized experts in the field of forensic science to devote this much energy to explain to their peers how this decision was all wrong and what they can learn from the mistakes? I thought the AAA and CAS said their was nothing wrong with the science.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: 03 July 2008 - 11:46 AM

[bodomaniac]

Perhaps Floyd and his legal goons should attend this seminar and tape everything that is said for use as evidence in their next trial. Would have saved them a lot of money to go this route than pay for the expert witness testimony that all but blew up in their face in the CAS trial.

[Old Runner Guy]

Perhaps Floyd and his legal goons should attend this seminar and tape everything that is said for use as evidence in their next trial. Would have saved them a lot of money to go this route than pay for the expert witness testimony that all but blew up in their face in the CAS trial.

Glad you feel that way as both Goldberger and Meier-Augenstein did testify in Mailbu last year on behalf of Landis. It seems you think they are credible (as do I) but the Arbs decided they did not matter. They elected to listen only to WADA employees when deciding this case. Now remind me again why Landis' experts "blew up in his face"?

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: 03 July 2008 - 01:17 PM

[fab]

Glad you feel that way as both Goldberger and Meier-Augenstein did testify in Mailbu last year on behalf of Landis. It seems you think they are credible (as do I) but the Arbs decided they did not matter. They elected to listen only to WADA employees when deciding this case. Now remind me again why Landis' experts "blew up in his face"?

Could you us recall the costs of the travel of Herr Meier-Augenstein?

Can he be taken seriously after that?

[Velo]

However, not many days after the race's conclusion, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) announced (actually the information was leaked to the press) that a urine sample obtained from Floyd after stage 17 had been found to be positive for a form of synthetic testosterone.

My, such sloppiness and incompetence. The LNDD never announced anything, nor was the information that it was Floyd ever leaked to the press, either. And just in general terms, no drug testing lab ever "announces" that so and so failed a drug test. Ever.

Surely then the results can't be trusted if they get such simple and basic information wrong? God only know's what else they've screwed up.

[sundaymorning]

Perhaps Floyd and his legal goons should attend this seminar and tape everything that is said for use as evidence in their next trial. Would have saved them a lot of money to go this route than pay for the expert witness testimony that all but blew up in their face in the CAS trial.

Dr. Goldberger was a witness for Floyd at both hearings. And that was a problem for Floyd.

Goldberger is very experienced and credentialed, his opinions should definitely carry some weight. But...

He was an awful choice to lead Floyd's defense on lab standards. He has never worked in a lab that carries the international accreditation that the WADA labs have. He has no experience at all in those standards. His lab at the University of Florida carries no major accreditation.

At the CAS hearing he used a chain of custody document from the UCLA lab as an example of good labwork. However, under cross examination the USADA lawyer was able to show that there were issues with the UCLA chain of custody document, given the criteria that Goldberger had used to express displeasure with the LNDD work. That goes to a point I've made before. Floyd's team would have ripped apart the results no matter what lab they came from.

Wolfram Meier-Augenstein didn't invent the IRMS machine, it was Simon Davis (another of Floyd's witnesses) who worked on the machine's creation. WMA is a top notch guy in the field of IRMS work and his opinion should carry serious weight. We've had much discussion over WMA's testimony and how it much of it was unclear, a bit muddled. He's the kind of guy who can turn a simple answer into a soliloquy. He did not testify at the CAS hearing.

Both these guy are good examples how Floyd's team presented experts whose testimony drifted off the direct focus of identifying international lab standards violations. I understand people who have an issue with the process being so dependent on only those standards, but anybody who doesn't place a great bit of the failure on Floyd's defense strategy is fooling themselves. Add what I've pointed out above to the vast amount of time they spent trying to prove the lab engaged in fraud (where none was evident) and you've got a poorly planned and executed defense.

This post has been edited by sundaymorning: 03 July 2008 - 01:46 PM

[vanishingPoint]

He still doped, ORG. You might do better to help him raise the 100K....

ORG, Your posts are much appreciated. The french could sniff out synthetic T in a truffle.

[fab]

The french could sniff out synthetic T in a truffle.

That will never kill hundreds thousands of persons, not like to sniff WMD

[Jimmy]

Dr. Goldberger was a witness for Floyd at both hearings. And that was a problem for Floyd.

Goldberger is very experienced and credentialed, his opinions should definitely carry some weight. But...

He was an awful choice to lead Floyd's defense on lab standards. He has never worked in a lab that carries the international accreditation that the WADA labs have. He has no experience at all in those standards. His lab at the University of Florida carries no major accreditation.

At the CAS hearing he used a chain of custody document from the UCLA lab as an example of good labwork. However, under cross examination the USADA lawyer was able to show that there were issues with the UCLA chain of custody document, given the criteria that Goldberger had used to express displeasure with the LNDD work. That goes to a point I've made before. Floyd's team would have ripped apart the results no matter what lab they came from.

Wolfram Meier-Augenstein didn't invent the IRMS machine, it was Simon Davis (another of Floyd's witnesses) who worked on the machine's creation. WMA is a top notch guy in the field of IRMS work and his opinion should carry serious weight. We've had much discussion over WMA's testimony and how it much of it was unclear, a bit muddled. He's the kind of guy who can turn a simple answer into a soliloquy. He did not testify at the CAS hearing.

Both these guy are good examples how Floyd's team presented experts whose testimony drifted off the direct focus of identifying international lab standards violations. I understand people who have an issue with the process being so dependent on only those standards, but anybody who doesn't place a great bit of the failure on Floyd's defense strategy is fooling themselves. Add what I've pointed out above to the vast amount of time they spent trying to prove the lab engaged in fraud (where none was evident) and you've got a poorly planned and executed defense.

That's a bit surprising that they didn't have an expert with the necessary experience - ISO experts are pretty common (certainly in Australia they are); it's not really a niche field because all kinds of labs are accredited using that standard. And I'd guess they'd also come pretty cheap - you could probably employ one fulltime for months for the amount they paid for that one charter flight. Is there any indication they consulted with one at all?

[ZigZagged]

...Both these guy are good examples how Floyd's team presented experts whose testimony drifted off the direct focus of identifying international lab standards violations. I understand people who have an issue with the process being so dependent on only those standards, but anybody who doesn't place a great bit of the failure on Floyd's defense strategy is fooling themselves. Add what I've pointed out above to the vast amount of time they spent trying to prove the lab engaged in fraud (where none was evident) and you've got a poorly planned and executed defense.

I think most who hoped Floyd were innocent are torn between thinking the defense was faulty and that no matter what, he had no chance. I think both are true. It seemed that USADA was able to operate in an "ends justify the means" manner carte blanche and was rewarded for it- if they asked for rules to be bent or interpreted a certain way, if they denied discovery at their whim, if they dismissed potentially faulty procedures, the panels bought their arguments almost 100%. When Floyd's team took what could be seen an "ends justify the means" approach by being so aggressive, they were eviscerated in the CAS decision and possibly "fined" $100k.

If fraud is another word for "cover your ass" behavior, it seemed pretty obvious to have taken place on the lab's part. But even if the witnesses had stayed totally on point and done all possible to prove ISL violations, it wouldn't have mattered- this case was decided the minute Floyd's T/E ratio came back high. It's ironic that his T/E finding was the one thing proven bogus, especially since it made no difference at all.

This post has been edited by ZigZagged: 03 July 2008 - 02:19 PM

[smug]

I think most who hoped Floyd were innocent are torn between thinking the defense was faulty and that no matter what, he had no chance. I think both are true. It seemed that USADA was able to operate in an "ends justify the means" manner carte blanche and was rewarded for it- if they asked for rules to be bent or interpreted a certain way, if they denied discovery at their whim, if they dismissed potentially faulty procedures, the panels bought their arguments almost 100%. When Floyd's team took what could be seen an "ends justify the means" approach by being so aggressive, they were eviscerated in the CAS decision and possibly "fined" $100k.

If fraud is another word for "cover your ass" behavior, it seemed pretty obvious to have taken place on the lab's part. But even if the witnesses had stayed totally on point and done all possible to prove ISL violations, it wouldn't have mattered- this case was decided the minute Floyd's T/E ratio came back high. It's ironic that his T/E finding was the one thing proven bogus, especially since it made no difference at all.

i think it would be fascinating if a clean rider could really ride a doped up peloton off of his wheel like that.

[sundaymorning]

That's a bit surprising that they didn't have an expert with the necessary experience - ISO experts are pretty common (certainly in Australia they are); it's not really a niche field because all kinds of labs are accredited using that standard. And I'd guess they'd also come pretty cheap - you could probably employ one fulltime for months for the amount they paid for that one charter flight. Is there any indication they consulted with one at all?

No indication I can find that they had an ISO expert on their staff. Paul Scott, who didn't testify but assisted the defense was a chemist at the UCLA anti-doping lab for "several years" before he became a lawyer and returned to the UCLA lab as it's director of clients. I don't think that helped much.

When you look at the CAS decision, the terms "accredited", "accreditation", "International Standard for Laboratories" and "ISL" are repeated over and over.

[Old Runner Guy]

i think it would be fascinating if a clean rider could really ride a doped up peloton off of his wheel like that.

You think rubbing a little T gel on your chest makes that much of a difference?

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: 03 July 2008 - 02:29 PM

[sundaymorning]

But even if the witnesses had stayed totally on point and done all possible to prove ISL violations, it wouldn't have mattered...

But how do you know? The defense spent a million plus dollars and didn't even present an expert on those standards.

[Old Runner Guy]

No indication I can find that they had an ISO expert on their staff. Paul Scott, who didn't testify but assisted the defense was a chemist at the UCLA anti-doping lab for "several years" before he became a lawyer and returned to the UCLA lab as it's director of clients. I don't think that helped much.

When you look at the CAS decision, the terms "accredited", "accreditation", "International Standard for Laboratories" and "ISL" are repeated over and over.

SM,

Do you think Landis lost because of his lawyers tactics? Or, do you think that no matter what tactics he used, the ruling would have found other reasons to convict? I think the latter.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: 03 July 2008 - 02:31 PM

[sundaymorning]

SM,

Do you think Landis lost because of his lawyers tactics? Or, do you think that no matter what tactics he used, the ruling would have found other reasons to convict? I think the latter.

I think Landis lost because the test results were compelling. I think his lawyers bad tactics gave him no chance to overcome those compelling results.

[vanishingPoint]

That will never kill hundreds thousands of persons, not like to sniff WMD

I'm with you there.

[smug]

You think rubbing a little T gel on your chest makes that much of a difference?

you are right. all the dopers are idiots for doping since if has no positive effects and they risk their careers.