Does Floyd have a leg (or hip) to stand on?

From: http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/2006/09/11/183/

Los Angeles, September 11, 2006 – Howard Jacobs, attorney for 2006 Tour de France Champion Floyd Landis, today submitted a Motion for dismissal to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Independent Anti-Doping Review Board. The specifics of the submission support Landis’ long-held innocence and argue that tests conducted on the athlete’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ urine sample from Stage 17 of the Tour de France do not meet the established World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) criteria for a positive doping offense.

Made without access to complete documentation and other test results, today’s Motion is by no means an exhaustive recitation of all defenses. Nonetheless, Jacobs’ request for dismissal still provides the scientific and legal basis to vindicate Landis.

“I did not take testosterone or any other performance enhancing substance and I’m very happy that the science is confirming my innocence. I was relieved, but not surprised, when I learned that scientific experts found problems with the test,” said Landis. “I look forward to restoring my good name so that I can focus on my hip replacement and begin training for next season when I want to return to France to defend my title.”

Based largely on the carbon isotope ratio (CIR) – the test that has been characterized by the anti-doping authorities and the UCI as a fool-proof method for detecting the presence of exogenous testosterone – the Motion focuses on three issues with the testing protocol and results provided by the LNDD lab at Chatenay-Malabry. In summary, these three arguments demonstrate that the CIR test conducted on Landis’ stage 17 urine samples does not show a positive result:

• WADA’s own protocols require that all testosterone metabolite differentials provide clear evidence of testosterone usage to find an athlete positive. Given the data, three of the four testosterone metabolite differentials tested in Landis’ sample are reported as negative considering the margin of error.

• The only testosterone metabolite that can even be argued as positive under the WADA Positivity Criteria resulted from an unknown laboratory error and is not the result of testosterone usage.

• The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis’ urine samples.

In addition to the analysis of the testing documentation, Jacobs argues “the single [positive] T/E [Testosterone/Epitestosterone] analysis in this case is replete with fundamental, gross errors.” These errors include markedly inconsistent testosterone and epitestosterone levels from testing on the ‘A’ sample as well as multiple mismatched sample code numbers that do not belong to Landis. In the case of the mismatched sample identification codes, the alleged confirmed T/E data on the ‘B’ sample is from a sample number that was not assigned to Landis. The differences in sample identification numbers also point to issues in the chain of custody of the Landis sample.

“Clinical laboratories making these types of gross errors could easily find themselves answering to a wrongful death lawsuit, and often do,” said Jacobs. “At a minimum, those laboratory errors must go to the defense of the athlete and must result in a finding that the T/E results are wholly unreliable.”

The ADRB is expected to make its recommendations to USADA within a week of Jacobs’ submission to the review panel.

Hmmmmm