Velogal's Blog

Monday, April 23, 2007

OMG! This is outrageous and appalling.. Unbelievable! USADA jumps right into the Chataney-Malabry Cesspool and rolls around in the CYA crap with them.

Press Release from Floyd Fairness Fund today -

Retesting Conducted Without Independent Observer Oversight

New York / Paris, April 23, 2007 – Under the order of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Paul Scott, expert consultant to 2006 Tour de France champion Floyd Landis and observer at the illegal retesting of Landis’ already cleared Tour de France samples, was yesterday denied entry to the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) at Chatenay-Malabry. As such, the analysis of two samples was conducted without a Landis representative as witness. Such behavior constitutes a clear and direct infringement of Landis’ rights while casting severe doubt on the integrity of an already dubious process.

This latest incident comes on the heels of a week in which Landis’ observers have been repeatedly and improperly restricted from accessing key phases of data processing and analysis while USADA’s expert and lawyer were able to have free lab access and directed the retesting process of LNDD.

Per the pre-arbitration process, there was to be an independent expert appointed by the arbitration panel whose role was to determine if the testing methodologies are flawed and to provide an additional degree of protection for Landis. USADA knowingly directed that the testing begin April 16 despite the fact that no such expert had been named.

According to Scott, LNDD lab director Jacques de Ceaurriz did not allow him to enter the facility Sunday morning. Ceaurriz cited direct orders from USADA to prohibit any further observation of the ongoing retesting.

During the analysis, USADA observers regularly provided specific direction to the LNDD, over-ruling the Landis observers’ objections and conferring with LNDD staff in private during sample processing. Landis and his team find this behavior to be particularly troubling as these deliberate actions confirm their position that the samples have been subject to mishandling, further malfeasance and potential results falsification.

Scott, former director of client services at the UCLA Olympic Laboratory, left UCLA last October and shortly thereafter was added as a consultant to the Landis defense team. Early on, Scott cited the poor handling of Landis’ Stage 17 sample as the primary example of the deep problems in scientific method and fact finding in this case.

Scott said, “In my years at the UCLA lab, I’ve never seen anything like what I experienced at the LNDD yesterday. The limitation placed on me and Simon [Davis – an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry expert also selected by Landis to observe the retesting] demonstrates the lack of objectivity in this process, USADA’s interest in controlling and limiting our observation of the retesting is an example of one of the most egregious problems in the fundamental science of anti-doping that I have experienced.“

Given the indisputable conflicts and documented incompetence at the LNDD, testing Landis’ “B” samples there without witness or Panel appointed independent expert highlights USADA’s out-of-control prosecution. The outrageous and improper limitations placed on Landis’ observers reinforce the injustice inherent to this entire process. This is particularly evident in the case of this unprecedented retesting, where both USADA and the LNDD have a vested interest in colluding to corroborate the flawed results of Landis’ Stage 17 sample.

Scott added, “Good science does not fear being an open book. Any science that is not neutral and objective is not science at all. Labs acting under the direction of prosecuting Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) are, by definition, not independent. As service providers hired by ADOs, they have a vested interest in the results desired by their client. In this case, the client is USADA and the lab is the LNDD. From what I have witnessed so far, I have significant concerns that their analysis will render results that are scientifically invalid.”

By exhausting sample material during the retesting without providing the checks and balances necessary to protect the interests of the athlete, USADA has willfully destroyed evidence that can be used to independently verify whatever results come out of the conflicted LNDD facility.

“This is yet another in a series of malicious actions by USADA that tramples my right to have my case heard in fair and just way,” said Landis. “How can I be expected to prove my innocence while USADA endeavors to break their own rules at every turn? I’m infuriated by the behavior of USADA and the LNDD. Together, they have turned this proceeding into a full-scale attack on my civil rights and a mockery of justice.”


And, once again, L'Creep's hired hands in the Cesspool have leaked the "news" that Landis' B Samples show synthetic testosterone. Once again, confidentiality is breached, more like raped, and the results leaked. And Pierre Bordry, president of the French anti-doping agency, pretends that he doesn't know what the results are. Please, does he think we are all idiots?

And does USADA think we are all idiots that we can't figure out real quick-like that if somehow the two USADA agents didn't show up for the testing that Paul Scott wouldn't be allowed in? Yes, that was the agreement, that Scott and two USADA agents would observe the B sample testing. So, Oh Gee, What A Surprise... The two USADA henchmen somehow just didn't show up, and the LNDD very smugly refused to allow the Landis expert to observe and witness the "testing"...

My God, what flagrant misconduct that these Anti-Doping Agencies are shoving down our throats. What a total abuse of power and arrogant flicking off the entire cycling world. This is truly the Dark Day in the cycling world, not last July, but today.

Labels: , ,


  • Here's the actual Order from the Landis Arbitration Panel concerning Landis' right to be present at the additional "B" sample testing. Can anyone tell me where it says that he can only have representatives present if USADA representatives are present?

    25. In view of the foregoing determinations, the Panel finds that should any additional testing be carried out by USADA through the authority of the UCI that the Athlete have the same rights of attendance and participation as were extended to him at the time of the confirmation analysis of the “B” sample at issue in this proceeding.

    By Anonymous Bill Hue, At 8:13 PM  

  • Bill -
    Head on over to one or both of these sites and I'm sure you can get an answer.

    Both these guys are really on top of the entire proceedings.

    By Blogger velogal, At 8:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home