Listen, friends, we're going to follow my other great love today: cycling!
So be aware, as we've no doubt been overexposed to innuendo, that:
If you are a successful, non-French racer that enters the Tour de France, be assured that:
You have NO GUARANTEE:
- that the French testing lab will be able to transcribe your official UCI testing ID number onto relevant sample bottles, as well as verification and chain-of-custody paperwork;
- that your urine samples will pass into sterile containers;
- that your test results will be handled scientifically;
- that your samples will be tested on accurately calibrated machinery;
- that achieved results will be analysed according to WADA rules and regulations;
- that your case will remain confidential according to WADA rules and regulations;
- that WADA will maintain any semblance of neutrality.
Here is my summary of Attorney Howard Jacob's submission to the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA):
1) Confidentiality destroyed:
2) Carbon isotope results (CIR) do not satisfy WADA positivity criteria:
a- only one of four metabolites tested clearly exceeds the 3% threshold provided by WADA;
b- best indicator / measurement value proves FL did not use testosterone;
c- the 5α-Androstanediol 13C-values reported by French lab LNDD are inaccurate.
3) Without a positive CIR (method referred to is Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry) there is no case for testosterone doping.
WADA Tech Doc TD2004EAAS controls, requiring that the values be compared between metabolites believed to be affected by exogenous testosterone use, and those metabolites that are not so affected.
Sparing you all the mind-numbing (to me :-) science jargon, a point made is that LNDD only calculated the 'measured differences' based on the 'corrected values' *as they determined*, and ignored comparison of the 'true values'...
WADA declares that positivity is established for these purposes 'when the metabolites 13C/12C value differs by 3 delta units or more from the urinary reference standard chosen.'
The key phrase is 'the metabolites' (there are four, I believe).
LANDIS four values (corrected, then true) were:
C -2.02% -3.51% -2.65% -6.39%
T -1.83 -3.18 -2.63 -5.72
(Sidebar: in most 'Rule of Law' countries (whether or not US still qualifies is another issue), “ambiguities in the law as written must be construed against the drafting body (WADA)...”)
The WADA criteria displays ambiguity by not specifying “all the metabolites” OR “each and every metabolite”, or, conversely "any number of the metabolites" OR "any of the metabolites".
Implied is that LNDD/L'Equipe/WADA 'declared' LANDIS positive based on the one metabolite reading of -5.72 or -6.39%, and that appears to negate or twist the essence of this testing rule.
Published scholarly articles all point to one measurement ( the 5βAdiol – 5βPdiol measurement) as being most reliable. And that ratio should be **higher** than measured differences 5αAdiol – 5βPdiol. (this constitutes the T/E ratio we've read about).
LANDIS 'A' Sample
5βAdiol – 5βPdiol : -2.15% (Line 1 should be greater than 6% !!!) 5αAdiol – 5βPdiol : -6.14%
LANDIS 'B' Sample
5βAdiol – 5βPdiol : -2.65% (Line 1 should be greater than 6% !!!)
5αAdiol – 5βPdiol : -6.39%
Sparing myself and you all the math, I simply cut-n-paste Jacob's statement regarding a variation of sampling with values of >-28.31% : “These figures are inconsistent with reported figures as shown above, and in fact, are more consistent with measurement or calibration error.”
“The LNDD readings for 5αAdiol in the negative control urine are so low that they must be inaccurate. In fact, those readings look more like positive control urine values that negative controls. If the negative control urine readings for 5αAdiol are excessively low, it must be the case that the LNDD readings of the Landis sample for 5αAdiol are also excessively low and inaccurate, thus explaining the large difference in the 5αAdiol - 5βPdiol measurement. As this measurement in the Landis sample is totally at odds with any of the other measurements as discussed above, it is submitted that the result must stem from laboratory error.”
FOUR (you'll love this)
Not one document in this charade uses LANDIS UCI testing number! Jacob points out that “Clinical laboratories making these types of gross errors could easily find themselves answering to a WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT (caps added). Simply stated, if LNDD cannot get the sample code number correct, how can they be trusted to accurately report quantitative test results?”
LANDIS is (for testing purposes) racer 995474.
Sample A is labeled 994474. (inaccurate)
Corrections to lab test results are supposed to be stricken through with one single stroke and initialed. LANDIS lab test results have White-Out and no initials for corrections.
In the chain-of-custody papers, the ID number is 995476 (inaccurate).
On the summary page for the lab record, the number is 995475 (inaccurate).
(those thinking I or Jacob are 'nit-picking' should refer to his quoted line, above).
(SIDEBAR: it was mentioned that because of LANDIS' special dispensation for cortisone for his hip pain, any intelligent lab staffer could immediately recognize/ID any sample, as being taken from LANDIS)
WADA rules (this is from a PowerPoint prepared by LANDIS' (former?) doctor Arnie Baker, MD) “are that if contamination or degradation levels of free testosterone or epitestosterone exceed 5%, the sample should not be analyzed.” LANDIS ratio (on this) = 7.7% ; and he colorfully added “Just like food WITH MOLD or MAGGOTS, such a sample should not be used.”
Based on: a- ambiguous rules,
b- tests not in any way conclusive of positivity,
c- a strong likelihood ('preponderence of the evidence'?) of laboratory mis-calibration, incompetence, malfeasance or negligence, and contamination of the base samples, along with
d- breaches of confidentiality by ALL parties: the French lab, French media, UCI, Tour de France, and Dick (“IDIOT”) Pound / WADA;
The verdict to follow! (But I'd rather read yours!)
Thanks for reading...