floyd found guilty
- Thread starter ulockjustice
- Start date
so why are they choosing Jan. 2007 to start the countdown for his punishment? Every other doping case the penalty starts from the day they were 'excussed' from their team.
And why the heck do the Labs have no checks and ballances to themselves? I still don't get it....
And why the heck do the Labs have no checks and ballances to themselves? I still don't get it....
I didn't get the Jan. 2007 thing either, it should be end of the Tour '06. The labs follow the rules WADA lays down, so if it doesn't require a checks and balances system they don't do it. Just to be clear, I don't know the lab procedure or what WADA has been making the labs do, I just know they follow what WADA says.so why are they choosing Jan. 2007 to start the countdown for his punishment? Every other doping case the penalty starts from the day they were 'excussed' from their team.
And why the heck do the Labs have no checks and ballances to themselves? I still don't get it....
Surprize!
Yeah, it's pretty amazing, I've been working my way through the document. The chose to blow off some big things. One thing is for certain, if the rules of criminal court where in effect he woulda not even come close to being found positive.
It's pretty interesting, even the majority has some major issues with the way WADA operates it's labs.
It's pretty interesting, even the majority has some major issues with the way WADA operates it's labs.
No kidding. No cyclist has ever won in court while fighting a positive test.
I have read both the detailed summary of Landis' defence, and the hearing panel's report. After reading Landis' defense, it seemed like they made a strong argument that the LNDD lab made numerous serious errors.
I am not at all an expert in these matters. So when reading the following comments, keep in mind that they are the thoughts of an interested cyclist and not a technical expert. The panel's report is highly technical. I am usually good at reading legal or technical reports, but some parts of this report are way beyond my ability to understand, particularly in terms of the chemistry and lab procedures.
Landis' defense was not a total failure in that the panel dismissed one of the two charges. WADA charged that Landis exceeded the allowable T:E ratio (Testosterone to Epist). The panel agreed that LNDD made unacceptable errors in this test, and dismissed this charge.
While a high T:E ratio tends to indicate testosterone use, it is not considered a perfect test. It is instead often used as a screening test. If an athelete has a high T:E ratio, then an IRMS test is performed. The IRMS test is a chromotology test which can distinguish between naturally ocurring testosterone and exogenous (pharmaceutical) testosterone. The panel concluded that LNDD' test result "unquestionably indicates the presence of exogenous testosterone in (Landis') A and B samples." However, when WADA had seven additional 17th stage Landis B samples tested, four came back positive for exogenous testosterone. That doesn't seem very consistent to me.
The panel also agreed that LNDD did not consitenly test its IRMS equipment for linearity on a monthly basis, as requird. But it found that it had been tested within 30 days prior to both Landis' A and B sample tests, so that was dismissed as an issue.
The panel very much stuck to analyzing the science and procedures of the testing, as it should have. As far as Lemond's testimony, it found that when Lemond claimed that Landis confessed over the phone, that Lemond clearly misinterpreted what Landis said, so the panel found that there was no admission of guilt.
The report did not try to find a motivation for Landis to use testosterone, or try to explain why all his previous tests did not show testosterone use in the days preceding stage 17. This has ben an issue because testosterone is typically used over a several month period to promote muscle growth. Joe Papp testfied that he used testosterone during events for recovery, but the panel did not consider this testimony relevant. A Landis technical witness testified tat testosterone can raise the hemoglobin count (similar to EPO).
There were three panel members. The member selected by Landis' attornies refused to sign the report. But two out of three is a majority opinion.
I am not at all an expert in these matters. So when reading the following comments, keep in mind that they are the thoughts of an interested cyclist and not a technical expert. The panel's report is highly technical. I am usually good at reading legal or technical reports, but some parts of this report are way beyond my ability to understand, particularly in terms of the chemistry and lab procedures.
Landis' defense was not a total failure in that the panel dismissed one of the two charges. WADA charged that Landis exceeded the allowable T:E ratio (Testosterone to Epist). The panel agreed that LNDD made unacceptable errors in this test, and dismissed this charge.
While a high T:E ratio tends to indicate testosterone use, it is not considered a perfect test. It is instead often used as a screening test. If an athelete has a high T:E ratio, then an IRMS test is performed. The IRMS test is a chromotology test which can distinguish between naturally ocurring testosterone and exogenous (pharmaceutical) testosterone. The panel concluded that LNDD' test result "unquestionably indicates the presence of exogenous testosterone in (Landis') A and B samples." However, when WADA had seven additional 17th stage Landis B samples tested, four came back positive for exogenous testosterone. That doesn't seem very consistent to me.
The panel also agreed that LNDD did not consitenly test its IRMS equipment for linearity on a monthly basis, as requird. But it found that it had been tested within 30 days prior to both Landis' A and B sample tests, so that was dismissed as an issue.
The panel very much stuck to analyzing the science and procedures of the testing, as it should have. As far as Lemond's testimony, it found that when Lemond claimed that Landis confessed over the phone, that Lemond clearly misinterpreted what Landis said, so the panel found that there was no admission of guilt.
The report did not try to find a motivation for Landis to use testosterone, or try to explain why all his previous tests did not show testosterone use in the days preceding stage 17. This has ben an issue because testosterone is typically used over a several month period to promote muscle growth. Joe Papp testfied that he used testosterone during events for recovery, but the panel did not consider this testimony relevant. A Landis technical witness testified tat testosterone can raise the hemoglobin count (similar to EPO).
There were three panel members. The member selected by Landis' attornies refused to sign the report. But two out of three is a majority opinion.
I always said that this all hinged on this year's Tour. I figured if an American, or a US team won, they would find Floyd guilty. I was right.
WAY TO MAKE AMERICA PROUD, FLOYD!!
Friggin nut rope.
Friggin nut rope.
It's what I expected atleast. 
Not very surprised.
A bit far stretched don't you think?
?????
Basically the majority opinion criticized WADA and they way the do things. They have some questionable practices when it comes to lap procedures. They do far less documentation than most "controlled" labs such as a pharmaceutical, clinical, forensic types. It's assumed since they have a certification they did things right even though it's not written down.
The system is rigged, it's always assumed the lab is correct an didn't make any mistakes, even if they can't prove it on paper.
You would loose your job, or be in jail in many of lab environments if you did many of the things they do as SOP.
As I read it, the problem is not with WADA per se, it is with the LNDD lab. WADA set protocols and LNDD did not follow the protocols. I would think that this report would cause WADA to drop LNDD. WADA has several other labs, including UCLA in CA, that they use in addition to LNDD.
From what I've read the labs test are always right and its basically impossible to challenge the tests. Really in this case, I think it should have been tossed. They didn't do the first correctly so the carbon isotope test should never have been administered. Instead the panel tossed the first test, but kept the results of the test as valid. Guilty or not, I think it should have been tossed on this technicality.
This is Floyd's response to the panel's decision, from his website:
September 26th, 2007
Dear Friends and Supporters,
Im of course disappointed and in fact angry about the split decision ruling against me last week.
If any good has come out of this, we have shown that the anti-doping system is corrupt, inefficient and unfair. The content of this decision unfortunately highlights this once again. The straightforward and clear dissent in support of my case contrasts sharply with the scientifically flawed and illogical majority decision against me not to mention the nonsensical ruling regarding when my proposed two-year suspension should start. I still have hope that the system can, and will be, changed so that no other athlete has to suffer through this process only to be denied a clean chance at justice.
I can sleep well at night knowing that I won the 2006 Tour de France fair and square. I hope that my campaign to clear my name still means something to all of you who have kindly donated to my legal defense fund. Every single contribution to the FFF made a real difference. For your constant support and generosity, I thank you.
At the end of the day, I am proud of what I accomplished in winning the Tour and Ill always consider myself the rightful winner of the Tour. Whatever the way ahead, it will be good to be moving forward with my life, and at this point I will take some time to review my options.
Thank you for all of the support and encouragement,
Floyd
September 26th, 2007
Dear Friends and Supporters,
Im of course disappointed and in fact angry about the split decision ruling against me last week.
If any good has come out of this, we have shown that the anti-doping system is corrupt, inefficient and unfair. The content of this decision unfortunately highlights this once again. The straightforward and clear dissent in support of my case contrasts sharply with the scientifically flawed and illogical majority decision against me not to mention the nonsensical ruling regarding when my proposed two-year suspension should start. I still have hope that the system can, and will be, changed so that no other athlete has to suffer through this process only to be denied a clean chance at justice.
I can sleep well at night knowing that I won the 2006 Tour de France fair and square. I hope that my campaign to clear my name still means something to all of you who have kindly donated to my legal defense fund. Every single contribution to the FFF made a real difference. For your constant support and generosity, I thank you.
At the end of the day, I am proud of what I accomplished in winning the Tour and Ill always consider myself the rightful winner of the Tour. Whatever the way ahead, it will be good to be moving forward with my life, and at this point I will take some time to review my options.
Thank you for all of the support and encouragement,
Floyd