CN report: Landis refused more IRMS tests. Why? Options

[rational head]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...eb07/feb08news2

Meanwhile, French newspaper L'Equipe reported on Thursday that Landis refuses to let the American Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) carry out IRMS (detection of exogenous testosterone) tests on the remaining B samples that were taken from the rider at the Tour de France last year. Landis submitted urine samples six times during the 2006 Grand Tour, of which five came back negative for an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratio and were thus shelved. Now, the USADA asked Landis to approve the IRMS testing of these five B samples, which could be an important factor in the hearing in front of the Arbitration Commission currently scheduled for May 14, 2007.

[quote]
Interesting…very interesting.
Is USADA insecure about the evidence they already have?
Is Floyd concerned about USADA finding something?
Is the CN report incorrect?
……………

[Maddog2]

This is interesting. At present not sure what the significance is

[Thomas A. Fine]

Lawyers tend to be pretty skittish, and like doctors, they believe in the notion "first do no harm". if you were Floyd's lawyer then either:

You think he might be guilty, in which case you believe the test, and why risk more true positives?

or

You think he's innocent, in which case you don't trust the test, so why risk more false positives?

tom

[rational head]

This is interesting. At present not sure what the significance is

It is too early to make any conclusions of the news but if the news is true and if I was Floyd I would find at least few good reasons to seriously consider additional IRMS testing considering that Floyd’s team questioned many findings:

1. I’d ask for another lab to analyze my samples. For example the Swiss WADA lab that Jacobs asserts uses the positivity criteria supposedly favorable to Floyd’s case.
2. I’d ask to run DNA tests to make sure that the samples are mine as Baker’s slides referred to massive misidentification.
3. Since Baker’s slides insist that Floyd’s samples, as tested by LNDD, were useless and contaminated, I’d want to prove that when my sample is uncontaminated it is 100% dope-free.
4. I’d also want to run confirmation quality T/E test to prove that passing screening test in other stages (under 4) was because I had no dope and to show that stage 17 test was a fluke.
5. I’d want to show that any inconsistencies found in the additional IRMS test speak to my assertion that LNDD botched up my urine.

At least from this angle I’d say a clean secure rider has more to gain than to lose from the additional testing.

[sundaymorning]

In the Hamilton case, his Vuelta samples were tested for DNA as a response to his defense, although this happened (I believe) during the appeal. Hamilton originally asked for the DNA tests, he still claims that he is the first rider to demand DNA testing, but opposed USADA's tests and opposed the results at the CAS. He was asked to have a respresentative at the DNA testing, but declined.

[faustus]

If the B samples are tested by a different lab Landis should have no reason to oppose testing. Particularly if they are tested by UCLA, a non-French lab with different standards. The probability that there is another false positive or contaminated test would be virtually non-existent. Coupled with DNA it would be certain that these are his samples and he could show that the Malabry testing was faulty. This would be very strong empirical (circumstantial) evidence supporting the theoretical (circumstantial) evidence he has right now.

The only reason to oppose the testing is if he is afraid they will find something.

[rational head]

If the B samples are tested by a different lab Landis should have no reason to oppose testing. Particularly if they are tested by UCLA, a non-French lab with different standards. ..snip...
The only reason to oppose the testing is if he is afraid they will find something.

If I was Floyd I would take a very strong negotiating position that my permission would only be given if I had a choice of which lab would test MY sample.

The only reason to oppose the testing is if he is afraid they will find something.

I am not sure this is the only reason. For example Tom’s opinion of legal workings should not be discounted.

[faustus]

I am not sure this is the only reason. For example Tom’s opinion of legal workings should not be discounted.

I was talking on a more analytical basis. Certainly for legal finagling he can refuse the tests simply because he may think USADA is showing that it has a weak case. Or he can keep it as a bargaining chip. But that's strategery. PR-wise it looks bad and logically it seems like a bad move.

[OAR]

Simple really from my point of view, he should get the testing done with a lab he has confidence in. This would help his case to prove innocence of the doping charges brought against him. If he does not either get it done by his council or have it done through USADA then I would be disappointed in that line of defense. Yes it is a risk but what are the chances really that a independent / mutually agreed upon lab would botch up the results.

I would like to know something that is very basic. Maybe you deep doping mensa’s can help me out. Here it goes--- The A test and B test were screened at the lab in France. Did they still have some of the samples left from those tests? Or do they destroy or use the entire sample when running the test? Why not save some of the A and B and give it to the accused athlete for them to have additional testing done for exoneration purposes?

[Cal]

The only reason to oppose the testing is if he is afraid they will find something.

I had my post all ready to go and RH said many of the things I was going to say, so I will forgo my response.

Yes, what are the technical thoughts? Will having these results somehow impact the results of his positive test after Morzine? Since the half-life of testerone is so short, is it still possible FL took testerone one time and it would not show in any of the other tests? From a scientific viewpoint, would negative CIR tests in the other 6 tests be more convincing to the scientists that Floyd is telling the truth?

Cal

[Thomas A. Fine]

The only reason to oppose the testing is if he is afraid they will find something.

Again, this is true for the innocent athlete who has lost trust in the testing, just as much as it is true for the doper who knows he doped.

Bottom line: The current situation is that all the other tests are negative. Further testing can also show that they are all negative, which amounts to a huge waste of time and money for everybody with no change in status. Or, further testing can convert one of these negatives to a positive. Even if the odds are miniscule, why risk it? There is no upside to testing.

Her'es a similar deal. Let's both put $100 in a pot, and then see who can pee the farthest. If you win, we burn the money, if I win, we also burn the money but I get to punch you in the face too. Would you accept that offer?

tom

edit: removed excess quoting

This post has been edited by Thomas A. Fine: Feb 8 2007, 04:51 PM

[OAR]

Again, this is true for the innocent athlete who has lost trust in the testing, just as much as it is true for the doper who knows he doped.

Bottom line: The current situation is that all the other tests are negative. Further testing can also show that they are all negative, which amounts to a huge waste of time and money for everybody with no change in status. Or, further testing can convert one of these negatives to a positive. Even if the odds are miniscule, why risk it? There is no upside to testing.

Her'es a similar deal. Let's both put $100 in a pot, and then see who can pee the farthest. If you win, we burn the money, if I win, we also burn the money but I get to punch you in the face too. Would you accept that offer?

tom

edit: removed excess quoting

I like the analogy!

When put to me that way I would say hell no. Then again I may have trouble taking a leak in front of you! (size and shape troubles !!!)

[Velo]

Simple really from my point of view, he should get the testing done with a lab he has confidence in.

And what happens to the "lab was at fault" defense argument if a second lab vindicates the findings of the first? I doubt any lawyer would be willing to allow his clients samples to be re-tested at another lab when so much of the defensive strategy rests in the first place on blaming the lab.

[RADUSA]

This is not a search for truth, it is a legal case.

Floyd has nothing to gain.........unless there was a guarantee for WADA that if the other samples turn up negative, the case is dropped. But that won't happen. All this does is hurt FL in the PR department, as they are calling his bluff about wanting to find out the truth.

[rational head]

................

I would like to know something that is very basic. ......The A test and B test were screened at the lab in France. Did they still have some of the samples left from those tests? Or do they destroy or use the entire sample when running the test? Why not save some of the A and B and give it to the accused athlete for them to have additional testing done for exoneration purposes?

We discussed this issue at some point. Keep in mind that the issue news here is about samples from other than stages 17. As to your question, I am of the opinion that if Floyd was determined to re-test some of his urine from stage 17 it could be done. There should be at least 10-15 mL of B-sample left (based on my count of aliquots LNDD already tested.

[faustus]

Again, this is true for the innocent athlete who has lost trust in the testing, just as much as it is true for the doper who knows he doped.

Bottom line: The current situation is that all the other tests are negative. Further testing can also show that they are all negative, which amounts to a huge waste of time and money for everybody with no change in status. Or, further testing can convert one of these negatives to a positive. Even if the odds are miniscule, why risk it? There is no upside to testing.

Her'es a similar deal. Let's both put $100 in a pot, and then see who can pee the farthest. If you win, we burn the money, if I win, we also burn the money but I get to punch you in the face too. Would you accept that offer?

tom

edit: removed excess quoting

I believe (and may be wrong) your description of "current situation' is slightly faulted. Those samples were never tested for exogenous testosterone because such a test would only be conducted after there had been an AAF on T/E ratio. So, no the tests are NOT negative for exo test, they are not tested. This is, in fact, more comparable to LA's '99 samples being tested for EPO. They were 'negative' at the time, however, at the time there was no test for EPO. So they were, in fact, positive scientifically, if not legally.

And by the way, your pissing in the pot example lacks so many similarities to the actual situation, I don't even know how to rebut it...

This post has been edited by faustus: Feb 8 2007, 05:12 PM

[OAR]

And what happens to the "lab was at fault" defense argument if a second lab vindicates the findings of the first? I doubt any lawyer would be willing to allow his clients samples to be re-tested at another lab when so much of the defensive strategy rests in the first place on blaming the lab.

I’m confused....... are you insinuating that I said the "Lab was at Fault" ????? while I understand the legal / ambulance chasers dilemma, I really think this should be rather easy for Floyd to have done independently with a neutral arbitrator handling things.

Still I am confused………Maybe you just wanted to make sure to get your argument in on me for the day?

[MacRoadie]

Lawyers tend to be pretty skittish, and like doctors, they believe in the notion "first do no harm". if you were Floyd's lawyer then either:

You think he might be guilty, in which case you believe the test, and why risk more true positives?

or

You think he's innocent, in which case you don't trust the test, so why risk more false positives?

tom

Or, you simply believe that the A sample tests were performed to the satisfaction of the testing lab and came back with results that did not require additional testing, end of story. Allowing them to go back and test B samples when no AAF was found makes no sense to the defense on any level. A little thing called double-jeopardy comes to mind. The whole question of asking permission to perform unnecessary tests on previously unchallenged samples is ludicrous on it's face.

Would you mind being found not-guilty in a court of law only to have the prosecutor come back and ASK you if you'd mind them re-trying the case because they think they might do better next time? They'd like to try to present their case differently, or might impanel a "better" jury?

[OAR]

We discussed this issue at some point. Keep in mind that the issue news here is about samples from other than stages 17. As to your question, I am of the opinion that if Floyd was determined to re-test some of his urine from stage 17 it could be done. There should be at least 10-15 m of B-sample left (based on my count of aliquots LNDD already tested.

Thanks RH that is what I thought or was thinking. (in my mind (small brain) I say he should do this testing)

[rational head]

I had my post all ready to go and RH said many of the things I was going to say, so I will forgo my response.

Yes, what are the technical thoughts? Will having these results somehow impact the results of his positive test after Morzine? Since the half-life of testerone is so short, is it still possible FL took testerone one time and it would not show in any of the other tests? From a scientific viewpoint, would negative CIR tests in the other 6 tests be more convincing to the scientists that Floyd is telling the truth?

Cal

Cal,
I think a negative IRMS would not be required...an inconclusive or even some small inconsistencies could suffice to throw off USADA/LNDD case. As to the testosterone half-life, we simply don't know much yet. Some forms/doses are very short lived and if they are what's suspected then, yes, multiple use could not be detected unless one dose...just one dose.. was mis-timed.