Urine or You're Out

So the Floyd Landis public relations team rolls on. They're now claiming that the lab that performed tests on Landis' pee that ultimately showed that he had violated rules by taking prohibited performance enhancing drugs "may" have broken some rules by using the same technicians to perform both the "A" and the "B" sample tests. I guess there is a rule that says different technicians should do the testing so that a single technician has no reason to falsify a test simply to validate his/her prior faulty testing. Confusing? It's supposed to be. It's supposed to be confusing because the Landis team goal is to make it sound as if everyone involved in this case is a moronic dufus with an axe to grind. Read about it HERE in an article that also refers to a similar technicality that allowed doper Inigo Landaluze to go scott free.

First, isn't Landis the guy who cried foul last summer when his own team "outed" him by confirming that his pee was the stuff that failed? He claimed that the information was supposed to be confidential and cited that reason as one of many in his attempts to get the case dismissed. If he really believed in the sanctity of the proceedings and the confidentiality of the information then he wouldn't be out there bla, bla, bla-ing about his case every day.

Second, if he were confident that his pee was clean he would not only allow but insist that it be re-tested. He has fought this at every turn. He is even refusing to allow re-testing on pee that tested clean during the 2006 Tour as well as any testing on pee he provided one week after the Tour. Now why would a clean rider refuse such testing? Sure, this is against normal procedures but remember, those procedures are in place to protect the riders from being subject to too many runs of a test. The rules state; two samples, if the first sample tests clean, all testing stops. It helps prevent abuse by aggressive anti-dope proponents. But in this instance it could only help Floyd (if he were truly clean). It seems to me that Floyd's perspective should be the more testing, the better. Any claim by Landis that he won't allow further testing because of procedural reasons is pure crap. He's hiding behind procedures that are there to help dopers, not clean riders. Maybe he risks even more failed tests with all of the scrutiny any such re-testing would be under. Is that why he is so afraid of further testing? But I re-iterate; if you are truly clean you have nothing, nothing to be afraid of.

He is also claiming that the operating manual for the testing equipment wasn't in the lab and therefore proper operating procedures were not followed. One does not necessarily follow the other. When is the last time you opened an operating manual? Real life and death medical tests and procedures happen in thousands of hospitals around the U.S. with nary a technician or doctor sticking their noses in an operating manual. They are highly trained individuals who may look at the manuals as a reference for unusual or unique circumstances, but not every day. Same with pee testers. They are highly trained, licensed and certified. I would be more concerned if they had the operating manual out and open. That would indicate an inexperienced and unskilled technician, not the other way around. Again, it's just more noise from the Landis camp.

All of this could be leading up to Landis getting off on technical minutiae. But not because he rode clean. He's been making so much noise and throwing so much crap up against the wall it looks as if something might actually stick. A victory for Landis would be a defeat for cycling. More dopers would follow his lead and look for technical issues to confuse matters. Before you Floyd backers get too excited, please note; the US Anti-Doping Agency, in reference to Landis' most recent claims has said, "Our mission to protect clean athletes requires that we follow the evidence and only the evidence to get to the truth, and not to be influenced by any external pressures". In other words, they're looking at the facts, not the noise Landis is making. They are moving forward with the case and you have to ask yourself why. If the Landis team is so convinced of technical errors and faulty readings, why isn't the USADA? I presume that they have a reputation to uphold and if they come out of this looking silly or vindictive it would only hurt their position. Not that Elvis hasn't seen organizations and individuals do stupid things (almost every day, actually) but surely the USADA must feel confident in their position. And they know a lot more about the facts than the public does. All we hear and read is what Landis has been blathering on about. The lawyers and others on the other side don't hold press conferences and travel around the country in fund-raising dog and pony shows disclosing only that information which appears to be helpful to their side of the case.

Speaking of which, have any of you actually gone through the Power Point slide show that Landis and his crew are running around the country showing? Download and read it HERE (near the bottom of the web page). Here is a sampling of what Landis is claiming; sample mislabeled, specimen contaminated, testing unreliable, tests were not positive, pee wasn't Floyd's, undecipherable handwriting on reports, improper notation, inaccurate chain of custody paperwork, specimens were contaminated (not just "A" sample, but "B" sample too), testosterone levels too high for further testing, results inconsistent, flawed process for testing, test not infallible, test criteria not met. Whew! And all of that is only through slide 23 of 44. They might as well have said, "Floyd wasn't there. And if he was he didn't do it. And if he did you can't prove it". If you're going to waste your time reading it like I did just keep one thing in mind; it is wildly skewed to one side of each issue. The presentation is not an open debate, just one guy's desperate attempt to confuse you into thinking it's a slam dunk case in Floyd's favor. Noise. Open your eyes and look around. Both the French and the American doping agencies have reviewed all of the information and still believe that it's prudent to move forward with banning Landis. If it were as open and shut as Floyd suggests this would have gone away long ago. And keep in mind, it has been Landis at every turn seeking to delay hearings and procedures. It's only dragging on because he wants it to.

The solution in the Landis case is quite simple if we'd stop focusing on all of the noise and get down to the pee. Under the scrutiny of Landis' vast defense team a neutral lab could perform tests on Landis' pee from the following; all samples provided just prior, during and shortly following the 2006 Tour. Even if all of Landis' claims regarding procedural deviations are true, and assuming that such deviations led to two false positives, wouldn't having a neutral lab, following tightly controlled and observed procedures get to the truth of the matter? Isn't that what we want and what cycling needs? Since Landis is refusing such testing we are left wondering; is the truth what Floyd Landis wants?

The same goes for Lance Armstrong; stop your childish bickering with World Anti-Doping head Dick Pound and have your pee from all seven Tours that you won re-tested in a similar manner. And offer to keep the pee available for testing in the future as the tests for finding drugs improve. If, as you are fond of saying, you've never taken performance enhancing drugs, you should have no concerns over having your pee re-tested with the more sophisticated testing that will be developed and available in the future. It mystifies me why you wouldn't be demanding such a scenario. Come on, you're a big boy; what are you afraid of?

Note; when I say pee I mean; urine, blood, saliva, hair follicles and anything else needed to determine the lack or presence of performance enhancing substances.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Notes on the Tour of California

Don't kid yourself, this race is simply a showcase for American riders. It will never compete with the one day Spring Classics or a single stage victory in the Tour de France, contrary to the claims of race organizers. Most teams and riders use this event as an early season tune-up, they are not at peak form. As a venue to allow Americans an opportunity to see pro cycling up close and personal it's great. As an event on it's way to become prestigious, there's a lot of work to do.

And they can start by not making crazy rulings that serve no purpose other than to protect the year's chosen favorite. This year the race organizers gave the same finishing time to the riders that were affected by a crash ten (ten!) kilometers from the finish. Take a guess at who was in the pile-up? That's right, the organizers favorite, Levi Leipheimer. The international rule on this is that crashers within three kilometers of the finish will receive the same time as the main pack. But ten? Read the race organizers sorry excuse HERE. The fact that no one other than Elvis seems to care about this just proves my theory that this race will never compete with the big continental races. Can you imagine the uproar if someone tried to make this kind of ruling at the Tour de France?

I worked in the TT, why should I work anymore?

The hills along the course aren't challenging enough to break up the main group of 40 riders. If you win the time trial you win the race. Happened in 2006 and again this year. Why run seven stages when the overall victor is just the guy that won the time trial? With the exception of the time trial Leipheimer doesn't have a single mile with his nose in the wind. If Bernard Hinault were dead this lack of panache would have him rolling over in his grave. Like I said, a showcase not a prestigious international event.

And of course it doesn't help when the major sponsor is Amgen, a manufacturer of EPO, the cyclists preferred illegal drug of choice. No conflict there. And on top of that, USA Cycling won't even run drug testing during the race even though the major sponsor requested it (or so they say). How is any of this good for the long-term health of a very dysfunctional sport? Do you think the race organizers feared what would happen if a rider tested positive for using Amgen's drug? You bet they did. It would kill the event and the only sure way to prevent that was to refuse to provide testing.

The race coverage was terrible. Choppy video that made you sea-sick, footage that froze and garbled signals. Since they replay the race hours after the event occurs how difficult would it be to edit out the lousy video? Much of it was cleaned up by the final stage but you'd think that they would have done a little preparation. Still, it was fun hearing the voices of Phil Liggett, Paul Sherwin and Bob Roll again. A sure sign of Spring. Unlike this weather forecast;



Over twenty inches of the white crap on my driveway. The added snow will push regular spring riding back another two or three weeks as the snow-cover will keep the roads slippery and dangerous and the temperatures lower. Which will force us into more sad rides like this;