OMG! The French LNDD cesspool continues to stink with the arrest warrant for Floyd Landis. How ludicrous is this charge? Goal: To harass Floyd and keep him out of races in France. Chatanay-Malabry is a sewer pit of lies...

Floyd gets flicked by CAS and is ordered to pay USADA $100k. Disgusting that CAS took so long to just follow the party line, which is what everybody expected them to do... ASO's tentacles are reaching everywhere. Now even to the Amgen Tour of California...

Speaking of ASO, the Tour de Farce starts on the 5th, without Astana and their top riders. I wish all the American riders well, but without Astana, it's going to be pretty bland...

Guess it took this appalling decision to shake me into posting after such a long absence...

So Floyd Landis gets screwed by the majority of the good ole boys panel of arbitrators, Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren. How absolutely disgusting and appalling to see that those two arbitrators just followed the party line. CYA at all costs. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, if you know what is good for your career in the anti-doping bureaucracy...

Christopher Campbell was the only person who had the cojones to stand up and speak the facts and the truth. "In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Campbell wrote. "The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent."

CAS appeal? Forget it... The tentacles of the anti-doping political machine have already wound around anyone and everyone involved with CAS... There is no hope there... USADA, WADA, LNDD, ASO - they all float in the same cesspool...

"...Keep the lash knotted; keep the brand and the faggots in waiting, for prompt work with the next "n-----" who may be suspected of any damnable crime! Wreak a swift vengeance upon him, for the satisfaction of the noble impulses that animate knightly hearts, and then leave time and accident to discover, if they will, whether he was guilty or no."
Mark Twain - August 26, 1869

Vino is my hero... Yes, I think Alberto Contador is awesome, and I agree with Johan that his talent will likely be as close to the next Lance Armstrong that any rider could be. But Vino has suffered so much and has risen from the ashes in such a fierce, undying way that he deserves hero status in my book.. I so totally admire his courage, perseverance, and just plain guts. I swear, anyone else but Lance would have called it quits with all those stitches and pain. What a guy - he has really pulled off the impossible.

Wait, hasn’t that happened to another rider in the past year? Another rider at the Tour de France? Didn’t another rider came back from the arms of defeat to win a stage in the Tour last year? And didn’t I hear braying voices saying that it absolutely proved that he had taken testosterone the night before? Are any of these voices now saying, “Golly gee whiz, maybe it is possible after all that a rider can come back from total depletion and injury and win a spectacular mountain stage”. And a spectacular Time Trial...

Does this give any of the nay-sayers food for thought that the human spirit, unbelievable courage and the ability to endure suffering can bring an injured rider to the winner’s circle? Could any of these folks (and you know who you are) maybe say that it could be true that Floyd won that stage last year clean. Yes, clean riders do perform miracles and do the impossible... Ask Vino, and ask Lance, and believe Floyd...

Bravo Vino and, as I watched you on the Podium this morning, I couldn’t help but think that, in a way, you were standing there and standing up for Floyd, too...

Here we go again...Song of the WADA - second verse: same as the first. Now it is Patrik Sinkewitz from T-Mobile. Has the Cesspool at Chatenay Malabry struck again? Is that where the testing was done? I kinda think so...

His A sample results released to the press, with the non-specific information, only that the testosterone level was something like six times normal. That kind of result is nearly impossible, from what we’ve read with the Floyd Landis situation. And they have not even tested the B sample yet. But Sinkewitz, who is in a hospital awaiting surgery from his accident with a pedestrian at the Tour, is now tried, convicted and condemned, not only by the Media, but by his own team management...

And German television has immediately stopped their telecasts of the Tour.. McQuaid is already talking about Sinkewitz giving back his salary, Stapleton is talking about what they did wrong, and the Media is reporting that T-Mobile may pull their sponsorship... Thumbs down to Bob Stapleton, who is showing no support for his T-Mobile team guy at all.

All I can say is thank God we don’t hang the guys who dope, or poor Sinkewitz would already be dangling from the end of a noose... Lynch mobs in the South didn’t care if the guy (usually black) was guilty or innocent, did they? Now the guy is symbolically lynched in the Media and it is usually a cyclist at the end of the rope.

Every rider left in the Tour should be should be shit-scared that if they are tested, they will get some off-the-wall result that will be the death of their career.. Nobody is immune from shoddy and inept testing, and antiquated, poorly-operated equipment, by poorly trained “technicians”.

Fireworks last night, and expect more fireworks when the USADA decision about Floyd Landis is announced on Friday. This particular display is called Smiley Face in pyrotechnic speak. I hope we will all have smiling faces after the announcement, but honestly, I’m scared... There’s just too much good ole’ boys CYA and corporate CYA involved here to maintain hopes that Floyd, or any other rider, will be given a fair shake. I so hope I’m wrong and a rotten pessimist. I actually did a typo and originally wrote “pissimist”, and Jeeze, maybe that’s a better word...

And, will we suddenly see a Le Creep sensational leak about the findings? Or maybe nobody at USADA wants to be paid off in Euros? Or Le Creep doesn’t have any buddies there? Or USADA actually has control to prevent “anonymous sources”.

Anyway, I am so lucky to have a good friend whose boss is in charge of all the pyrotechnics at Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View, here in California. We got to go into the restricted area and shoot fireworks from about 30 yards behind the launching area. It was so awesome to be that close! I had one camera on a tripod with a remote release, and handheld another camera. Looking up through the lens, it looked like the fireworks were falling right on our heads. Hopefully, I’ll find time to put up a few shots in my Smugmug gallery, but remember this was my first serious attempt at shooting fireworks.

Here is the latest from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren regarding Floyd Landis and the USADA hearings at Pepperdine University:

”I wanted to follow up on my June 6, 2007, email regarding the United States Anti-Doping Agency ( USADA ). My previous email contained an error: in further investigation of the USADA , I have uncovered that while the USADA is not a governmental body and operates independently of direct governmental influence, it does, in fact, receive some federal money in the form of a grant in the yearly Congressional appropriations process along with other, mostly governmental, anti-drug programs. I have included a copy the USADA's annual audit report detailing the amount of federal funding in the previous five years.

I've also enclosed the transcripts of three Congressional hearings in which a representative officer of USADA has testified before Congress on matters of performance-enhancing-drug control policy. I thought this material may be of interest to you.

In addition, I've also shared your concerns regarding the Floyd Landis case with my colleague Congressman Henry Waxman, who is chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is the committee that would have jurisdiction on this issue.

Again, thanks for being in touch. Please do not hesitate to be in contact on other issues of importance to you.


Sincerely
Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress “

I do want to thank Congresswoman Lofgren for taking the time to send me several documents...

The USADA financial statements sent to me were from 2002 through 2006. Federal Grants were $6,225,929 in 2002, and up to $8,415,000 in 2006. USOC is their second major source of income: $3,700,000 in 2002, and up to $4,104,967 in 2006.

Legal Expenses were listed in 2002 as “Adjudication” at $1,034,282 and listed as Legal Expenses in 2006 at $1,801,739. It will be interesting to see what the Legal Expenses are for 2007...

General and Administrative Expenses were $1,121,613 in 2002 and dropped to $833,109 by 2006, but that was an increase from the 2005 number of $741,334...

USADA shows Investment Income with “Gains on Investment” in 2002 of $17,239 and steadily rising to Investment at $131,404 in 2006. Hmmm - wonder what companies they invest in?

USADA has income from Third Party Testing. In 2002, it was $116,677, rising to $291,466 in 2006.

Note this document: S 529 To Authorize Appropriations for the US Anti-Doping Agency. This was before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the United States Senate. May 24, 2005. This is a 28-page document. Barbara Boxer is on this committee from my state of California. I have not received a response from Senator Boxer to the letter that I sent... Maybe she forgot that she was there, too...

The Anabolic Steroid Act of 2004 Hearing was before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary - House of Representatives on March 16, 2004. Among the members of the Committee of the Judiciary is listed one Zoe Lofgren of California...(Obligatory Editorial Sarcasm: How quickly we forget...) This is a 43-page document.

Congresswoman Lofgren’s staff sent a 150 page document from the Hearing on Steroid Use in Professional and Amateur Sports by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the US Senate in March 2004. Wonder what their expertise was in Sports? Silly me...

Letter writers take note: According to Lofgren, the person to communicate with is Congressman Henry Waxman, who is chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is the committee that would have jurisdiction on this issue.

And the committee that approves USADA budget appropriations appears to be the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the United States Senate .

Here is a follow up on my post yesterday about the Floyd Landis/USADA hearing, and the reply to my letter to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. I received some excellent information from Daniel of rant-your-head-off.com. As I suspected, the info that I received from Zoe Lofgren’s staff was substantially incorrect. From Rant’s blog:

"USADA receives approximately two-thirds of its annual budget via a pass-through appropriation to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. What does this mean? Simple: Congress approves (or not, their choice) the appropriation that passes to USADA as a Federal grant. They have full power of the purse strings. They can fund USADA, or they can choose not to fund USADA. And if they do fund USADA, they can choose how much, and what strings are attached. And that means they can exercise oversight. Period. It’s taxpayers’ money. We, the taxpayers, should have a say in where it goes and how it’s spent."

Right On and, in addition, Daniel/Rant sent me contact info for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy:

Scott Burns
Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D.C. 20503

More info can be found at:
http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/get-involved.php

So, if enough of us write to Mr. Burns, maybe he might have a look at USADA’s practices, rather than their policies... But then again, I don’t think that Mr. Burns is an elected official, so what is his incentive to open a can of worms? How does he answer to us taxpayers? Who is he responsible to? The Prez? And so the bureaucracy rolls on...

Leaving us to a Congress, who apparently doesn’t know or care about appropriations to USADA... What’s in it for them, politically, to know or care - that’s the core question...

Thanks, Rant - you are always on top of it... Follow the link to read Rant's blog, it's a good one to bookmark.

I don’t know how many of you wrote to your elected officials about Floyd Landis and the USADA hearings, or what you might have received back from them... I wrote to a few political folks, and received only one response. This is from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren:

“Thank you for contacting me with your comments and concerns about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts with me.

According to the USADA , it is "the independent anti-doping agency for Olympic related sport in the United States . It was created as the result of recommendations made by the United States Olympic Committee's Select Task Force on Externalization to uphold the Olympic ideal of fair play, and to represent the interests of Olympic, Pan American Games, and Paralympic athletes." The only governmental connection the USADA has is that the U.S. Congress has recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States ." The U.S. government, however, does not provide any funding for the USADA , nor does it have oversight power over this independent agency.

If you would like to send your comments to USADA directly, you may contact them through their website:

http:// www.usantidoping.org/contact/feedback.aspx .

Again, thanks for being in touch. If I may be of assistance to you or your family, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely
Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress “

So, according to Lofgren’s staff, there is no oversight from any US Gov branch over the goings-on at USADA. If this is true, they do not answer to any US agency? No accountability to any government entity, or to the public? Nobody looks at their expenditures and expense accounts? No public entity audits their financial records? Nobody looks at how much USADA spent on lawyers to try to crush Floyd and his team and obliterate the truth?

My question is, then, from who and where does their seemingly endless, deep-pockets financing originate? Who created USADA? “It was created as the result of recommendations made by USOC”, but who created it and who funds it? Why, then, are the words “United States” used in their title? It sure makes me think that it is some kind of offspring of a federal agency, but I guess not... We do not fund it and we have no voice in it, I guess. Sounds like our idiotic Congress has given their stamp of approval to another bungling agency that is above and beyond the public reach. Or maybe the info I received is not correct - I kinda hope so...

No oversight and no accountability. Incredible... That should be really, really scary to all athletes here in the US who want fair, impartial justice. While we have been out happily cycling in the sunshine, it seems that a powerful bureaucratic monster has been created right under our noses. And then there is WADA, but that's another story... or is it?

Maybe we've all symbolically crashed and didn't even realize it until Floyd and his team took a stand against USADA.

Another excellent article on the Floyd Landis hearings by Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times. Thanks to the LA Times for this posting. Particularly note the last sentence in the article...

Landis Case Succeeds in Exposing Faults

Cyclist's appeal hearing reveals rules that make it possible to conceal lab errors and standards that fall short of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

By Michael A. Hiltzik, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2007

It could be weeks before an arbitration panel reveals whether American cyclist Floyd Landis has a chance to retain his Tour de France title in the face of doping allegations, but one thing was clear even before marathon public hearings ended last week: Landis succeeded in putting the international anti-doping enforcement system on trial.

The open proceedings raised very public questions about the competency and test procedures of the Paris lab that ruled Landis' urine samples positive for illicit levels of testosterone. But they also exposed a rigid anti-doping enforcement system that could conceal lab errors and mistakes.

One of the arbitrators bluntly questioned World Anti-Doping Agency rules, suggesting that WADA's labs shared a code of omerta rather than a code of ethics.

Earlier, a copy of the agency's bylaws had been beamed to a large screen in the Pepperdine University hearing room. One clause notably forbade officials at all 34 WADA labs around the world from giving testimony to assist accused athletes or dispute the work of any other WADA lab.

"You've got a code of ethics that essentially states [the labs] can't point out mistakes," said Christopher L. Campbell, the arbitrator who had been selected for the panel by Landis.

"I think it's a real problem."

The restrictive clause was previously disclosed in "Presumed Guilty," a series of reports by The Times in December that found the doping enforcement system favored accusers over athletes. It also found the WADA program to be based on flawed science, afflicted by faulty and inconsistent lab procedures and resistant to outside scrutiny.

The cyclist's defense focused on many of the same issues. His attorneys painted, brushstroke by brushstroke, the picture of a forensic system with procedural and documentation standards far short of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Landis forced the hearings to be held in public, providing a uniquely open forum that also has raised the political stakes in the case.

The reputation of the Paris lab, one of WADA's busiest, was pummeled by critical testimony from eminent scientists and admissions of mistakes by its own staff.

The potential effect of even minor mistakes in lab practice came into focus when hearing evidence showed that the case against Landis ultimately hinges on a single number — minus 6.

As explained by experts in the case, testosterone breaks down in the body into four compounds, known as metabolites, which can be identified and measured in a urine sample. An anti-doping lab subjects these molecules to various analytical procedures to generate a so-called "delta-delta" value for each.

Under WADA rules, an athlete can be judged guilty if this value drops below minus 3 for any metabolite. Landis' delta-delta value for the metabolite 5-alpha-androstanediol (5A for short) was minus 6.

Landis' task at the hearing was to cast doubt on that figure. Lawyers for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, prosecuting the doping case against him, sought to protect its credibility.

USADA's basic argument was that Landis' number was so unnatural — one of the lowest ever encountered — that no concatenation of laboratory errors could have produced it from an innocent urine sample.

No matter how many retests the lab performed before expert witnesses, that figure always held up, observed USADA attorney Richard Young, adding that it was sufficient evidence all by itself.

"My opinion is that doping was going on," testified Don H. Catlin, the recently retired head of the WADA anti-doping lab at UCLA. "It's just inescapable."

Raising doubts about the 5A result, the defense argued that in the context of Landis' entire urinalysis profile, the figure looked more like a laboratory error than a credible analytical finding.

Defense witness John Amory, an expert in testosterone medicine at the University of Washington, pointed out that the 5A value always tracks closely the value of another metabolite, known by the shorthand 5B. No published study — either of those not testing positive for doping or known dopers, including two published by expert witnesses who appeared for USADA at the hearing — have ever found them to be more than two units apart, he observed. In Landis' results, the gap was four.

"That doesn't look like anything we've seen in studies of men who've been given testosterone," Amory said.
That led to the issue of whether the Paris lab was capable of analyzing Landis' urine with any accuracy whatsoever. Defense exhibits and testimony established that an enormous amount of the lab's analysis involved subjective judgments by technicians — so much so that when asked to rerun their tests, the technicians were unable to duplicate their original results.

Despite the disparities, USADA argued, the subsequent analyses still established that Landis was guilty.

Among the flaws Landis identified in the lab's procedures was that it failed to calibrate its instruments properly, reducing its results to mere guesswork — possibly skewed by a desire to find the results it was looking for. Christiane Ayotte, the director of WADA's Montreal lab, who had characterized the lab's errors as mere "boo-boos" that shouldn't invalidate its findings, acknowledged under cross-examination that in one analysis of a Landis sample, the lab actually had identified a compound that wasn't there.

"What is it?" Landis attorney Howard Jacobs asked as the witness frowned at an errant analysis page.

"No clue," she replied.

Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, an expert on the analytical process used by the Paris lab, LNDD, testified for the defense that such sloppy work placed in doubt any number the lab produced, especially one as extreme as the 5A result.

"How do you know you don't have spurious results?" he asked. "If I was running this lab, before I was on the phone to say this guy's positive, I would rerun the tests to make sure the results stand up."

Under cross-examination by Landis' attorneys, Catlin and Ayotte acknowledged, if begrudgingly, significant flaws in the work of WADA's Paris lab.

Landis' own witnesses, predictably, were even harsher, pinpointing myriad disparities between the Paris lab's procedures and those of forensic labs whose results have to stand up to the scrutiny of a civil or criminal court.

If Landis prevails with the arbitration panel, the outcome would almost certainly be seen as a blow to the reputation and credibility of the French lab. It could also raise doubts about other LNDD cases.

But Landis still faces an uphill battle for exoneration. WADA rules require arbitrators to treat the lab results as accurate unless they find proof of significant departures from international standards. The WADA code defines the standard of proof necessary for a finding of guilt to be simply the "comfortable satisfaction" of the arbitrators.

With few exceptions, arbitrators in previous cases have dismissed allegations of poor lab procedures as immaterial to the final results.

Unlike any previous cases, however, this panel of arbitrators is conducting its deliberations under a spotlight of public attention.

They also will be drafting their ruling amid a highly charged atmosphere over fresh public disclosures of doping in cycling. In the last week, three leading European cyclists confessed to doping with EPO, a blood hormone, during the 1990s. Although that period predates Landis' rise to prominence, the confessions underscore cycling's reputation as a drug-ridden sport — a point USADA attorneys made repeatedly during the hearing.

USADA also departed from scientific argument in the Landis case to take advantage of another development during the nine-day hearing — the appearance of former Tour de France champion Greg LeMond, testifying for the prosecution. LeMond's appearance was widely judged to be a debacle for Landis, largely because his then-business manager was revealed to have made a salacious, anonymous call to LeMond, supposedly to deter him from testifying.

But the incident also could be viewed as a problem for USADA. On one level, it showed the willingness of the agency, which maintained throughout the hearing that its accusation was based strictly on scientific evidence, to impugn an athlete's character with testimony that was unsubstantiated and scientifically irrelevant.

LeMond testified that Landis had implicitly confessed to him, in a phone conversation shortly after the doping charge was made public. He drew this conclusion when Landis, after hearing LeMond urge him to "come clean," replied simply, "What good would that do?" But Landis testified that he had explicitly denied the doping charge to LeMond.

When Landis attorney Jacobs attempted to cross-examine LeMond, the cyclist's lawyer intervened. He instructed LeMond not to answer, while acknowledging he had no legal grounds to do so.

Jacobs erupted. "This is completely unfair."

The arbitrators unanimously rejected Jacobs' motion to strike LeMond's testimony, although they offered no indication of how much weight they ultimately would give it. Arbitrator Richard McLaren, who was appointed to the panel by USADA, did speak up for the process, however. "Mr. Jacobs," he said in one of his rare comments during the hearing, "we don't accept your proposition that the proceeding is unfair."

michael.hiltzik@latimes.com

The Floyd Landis hearings are over, and it’s time for a Standing Ovation for Rant, TBV, Bill Hue, and the crew for their hard work and dedication to the public truth. We were hanging onto every word..Thanks a zillion, guys - next best thing to being there.

Thumbs up for the Landis team for a brilliant job of presenting the facts, and exposing a shameful cover-up all the way from the techs at the Cesspool to the top honchos at WADA and USADA.

Thumbs down and shame to USADA and their hired attorneys, who cared nothing for truth, ethics and integrity. Their win-at-any-cost strategy was disgraceful and appalling. Their desperate focus on that unfortunate incident, by a stupid member of the Landis team, and their attempt to turn it into further character assassination of Floyd was pathetic. Trying to turn what Floyd wore to the hearings into more character assassination gave us a window into even more cheap, two-bit tactics - distract from the facts when they're not in your favor...

And more thumbs down to USADA for the small fortune that they spent on hiring outside attorneys while their highly-paid, in-house attorney sat it out. And a huge thumbs-down for their very revealing, farcical perversion of their own Mission Statement in this hearing.

Excerpts from the USADA Mission statement on their website:

“Testing: A major goal in testing is to achieve quality and consistency in the collection process and prompt, efficient handling of results.

“Results Management: USADA's adjudication process was designed to eliminate the conflicts of interest inherent with the involvement of National Governing Bodies (NGBs) in prosecuting and sanctioning their own athletes, and to simplify procedures and reduce the time and financial burdens associated with appeals.”

Shame on you, USADA...

Favorite Quote from yesterday’s Floyd Landis hearing, during the examination of expert witness Dr. Meier-Augenstein by USADA-hired attorney Richard Young”

“Q: Where is it in the spec it matters if it’s outside the spec?
A: They must have some criteria. How do they choose? Divine intervention? I’m amazed. You’re left with the GCMS, which has mass spectra, then you get to retention time, and it doesn’t match in the IRMS. How do you identify one unknown peak among 5 unknown peaks? I don’t know how they do it.”

No, my dear Doctor Meier-Augenstein, not Divine Intervention.... Dick Pound /WADA Intervention.... That Cesspool LNDD lab knows what the answers must be...They know who pays the rent and the salaries, and renews the contract.

Is anybody surprised about the selective memory of Cynthia Mongongu in the Floyd Landis hearing? The lab technician for the Cesspool at Chatenay-Malabry seems to clearly remember the facts from a well-rehearsed script, but suffers from very poor memory at convenient times, about the same topic, when questions are directed toward finding what really happened. This recent intern-turned-expert knows damn well that she is going to get her fanny fired if she says the wrong thing - - anything that might get the Landis team toward the truth. And there is no reason to think that the testimony of the other lab tech will be any different.

You can bet that that these two women know their jobs are on the line. You’d be pretty naive to think that they won’t say whatever is necessary to CYA and keep their jobs in France. This is the real world, where sworn testimony from the LNDD is a farce. There is no reprisal for lying on the “witness stand” in the USA when you live in France. You think they are gonna sit there and rat out on the LNDD and expect to go home and have a job waiting for them? I betcha those women’s bosses are monitoring every word of their “testimony” and are gonna nail their fannies to the wall when they get back home if they say the wrong thing...

The hope is that the Landis legal team will trip up the lab techs so badly in their “testimony” that even the USADA panel, yeah, I said USADA panel, will not have the cojones to ignore or gloss over the serious screw-ups that happened.

So Greg Lemond and Joe Papp are appearing at the Floyd Landis hearing? What in the Hell are they doing there? Smoke and Mirrors BS: that’s what it is. These two men have nothing whatsoever on earth to do with this hearing. They had nothing to do with Floyd and the 2006 Tour de France. . They bring no relevant knowledge to this hearing. Their experiences have nothing to do with Floyd and this case. Nothing! A ludicrous, pathetic farce with the goal of nailing Floyd at any cost...

What a bunch of crap that this stacked panel is letting their “bosses” get away with. This is just ludicrous that Greg Lemond again gets publicity about crusading against doping. Hmmm... Methinks the man doth protest too much and too quickly...

Their appearance is just a farcical attempt to legitimize what pathetic crap that USADA is bringing to the hearing, with the obviously scripted testimony from the USADA followers. Talk about Kangaroo Court... In fact, I’ll put the damn image up again today...

It seems that the stench and scum from the French Chataney-Malabry Cesspool has made its way to the USADA American soil. Good luck, Floyd - We're with you, but we all can see that this is looking like an unbelievable, disgraceful, unethical Kangaroo Court hearing next week...

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 -

USADA ORDERS LNDD TO DENY FLOYD LANDIS’ OBSERVER ACCESS TO “B” SAMPLE RETESTING
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.

Courtesy of Lancaster Online (click the Link to view)

Sunday's Landis reception sold out
Second event added to aid Tour de France champion

By Morning Update
Lancaster New Era

Published: Mar 19, 2007 10:35 AM EST

LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - Call it "chill with the champ."

For people interested in just meeting and mingling with Tour de France winner Floyd Landis, those who are already convinced of his innocence and don't need to hear his defense presentation, or for those who could not get tickets to Sunday's sold-out event, a second event has been added.

Floyd Landis' Floyd Fairness Fund will hold a "champion reception" on Saturday at the Ephrata Performing Arts center.

The unstructured event was quickly planned late last week when it appeared that tickets to Landis' town hall-style fund-raising event would sell out. The last of those 300 tickets were gone Friday afternoon, less than 72 hours after the event was announced.

"The hometown crowd is definitely turning out for Floyd," said Mike Farrington, a long-time friend and mentor of Landis, and owner of Green Mountain Cyclery bike shop in Ephrata.

Farrington is selling the tickets for the events.

Tickets to the Saturday reception, at $25 each, officially went on sale this morning. But, Farrington said he and his wife, Jen, have already contacted people who were unable to get tickets for the Sunday event. They sold about 40 tickets already and Farrington expected to sell many more today.

"There are already four people in the parking lot waiting to come in and buy tickets today," Farrington said shortly before the store's 10 a.m. opening.

"The phone has been ringing off the hook. I'm confident that we will have a very good turn out for Saturday's event too," he said.

For more, see the full story in today's Lancaster New Era or this afternoon at www.LancasterOnline.com

Alberto Contador took the stage win at Stage 4 of Paris-Nice in an awesome finish. Two seconds ahead of Rebellin, Alberto’s face was a mixture of agony and determination. Davide Rebellin had a great ride into the Yellow Jersey. Levi Leipheimer came in eighth. What a finish on cycling.tv.

Contador also picked up the Best Young Rider Jersey - he well deserved it, and the whole Discovery Pro Cycling team worked their butts and legs off for him. Great job for all the guys. Pic of Alberto is from the Solvang training camp this year.

I notice now that the Floyd Landis buzz is now that maybe another rider’s piss was used instead of Floyds in the testing process. When the FFF had the question session in the town meeting in San Jose last month, I stood up to the mic and posed that question to Floyd. I asked if he had any comment on the possibility that he was taking the rap for another rider who had juiced. That maybe there is some other rider out there who is sweating this out and staying silent and hoping to Hell that nobody notices that it is his number that was tested. I kinda felt like my question was minimized in the response, but I think it is a vital point. The slides clearly show another number on the testing documents... Yeah, there were tons of Cesspool errors, but Jeeze, maybe it wasn’t even Floyd’s sample, or it got mixed with some other sample.

If The Piss Don’t Fit, You Must Acquit...

Are you watching Paris-Nice on cycling.tv? If so, you saw Stage 3 just ending with Alexandr Kolobnev of CSC staying away for over 200km to take the long downhill finish. Even with the little kick at the end, his legs held out. I guess Kolobnev was away for so long that Tom Boonen forgot all about him, because ten or so seconds later, Boonen sprinted across the line with this arms up in victory. Do riders feel like a fool when they do that? Jeeze, they all have the radios in their ears, so how could he not know about the breakaway and that Kolobnev hadn’t been caught? Kinda funny... Maybe Tom was listening to his MP3 player instead...

So the beat goes on in the cycling world - asinine power squabbles between UCI and the Pro Tour poobahs continue, Unibet getting flicked, Operacion Open Mouth getting milked down to the last drop for innuendos and accusations, and the biggest open mouth, The Dick (Pound) keeping his closed momentarily.

The Freedom Tour of Floyd Landis continues to march across the States, and more power to him and his dedicated associates. Their presentation is so compelling in the slide show that I can’t wait to hear the other sixty pieces of evidence, revealing the gross incompetence and sloppy, schlocky errors by the Chatenay Malabry Cesspool lab technicians, that will be presented at Floyd’s hearing.