Technicians allowed improper access to alleged Tour de France doper
Floyd Landis may retain his Tour de France title after all.
The French laboratory that produced incriminating doping results against Landis may have had several errors along the way, including allowing improper access to the cyclist's urine samples, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The same lab committed a similar error in 2005, which resulted in the dismissal of doping charges against against Spanish cyclist Inigo Landaluze.
Two technicians from the French-government owned lab were involved in the original urine analysis, and a second validating test, lab records turned over to the Landis defense lawyers and reviewed by the paper show. International law lab standards don't allow technicians from taking part in both tests — it prevents them from validating their own findings, the paper reported.
It's unclear in the records if the technicians, Esther Cerpolini and Cynthia Mongongu of Laboratorie National Depistage du Dopage, played significant roles in both tests to disqualify the findings.
Landis' attorneys have asked arbitrators to let them question the technicians.
Even if they didn't play a prominent role in Landis' case, it could still bode well for the U.S. cyclist, the paper reported. In a decision issued Dec. 19, 2006 regarding the Landaluze case, arbitrators said the risks of technicians violated lab standards. "The applicable rule is clear and devoid of any flexibility," they wrote.
Other potential errors from the lab include:
A document that was altered anonymously after Landis questioned its accuracy. The altered version was certified as "original," the paper reported.
The lab reportedly operated one crucial piece of equipment under conditions that violated manufactures' specifications — possibly because they didn't have the operating manual. The software installed on the machine was 10 years old, based on an operating system no longer in use and was designed for a different piece of equipment, the paper reported. The lab insists the machine was in proper working order.
The lab was in possession of documents clearly linking Landis to his sample, a possible violation of anti-doping rules requiring that all samples handled by a testing lab be anonymous, the paper reported. At least one such document was provided by the French anti-doping agency to Landis' attorneys.
Much is at stake for both sides. The cyclist faces a two-year suspension and loss of his Tour title if the doping charge is upheld. In his defense, Landis has launched the most serious and sustained attack on the international sports anti-doping program and its procedures since it was established in 2000.
A three-member arbitration panel is scheduled to hear Landis' appeal of doping charges at a public hearing beginning May 14.
Filings in the arbitration case also shed light on the anti-doping agency's rationale for asking the French lab to also retest nine of Landis' urine samples taken during and after the 2006 Tour de France. The samples at issue are B samples corresponding to A samples found to be clean.
The USADA contends that the previous tests did not "definitively establish" that the samples were clean, and the agency wants to subject them to the more sophisticated carbon isotope test.
Because the A samples have already been ruled negative, and in most cases no longer exist, the required match between A and B cannot be present, Landis argues.
Floyd Landis may retain his Tour de France title after all.
The French laboratory that produced incriminating doping results against Landis may have had several errors along the way, including allowing improper access to the cyclist's urine samples, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The same lab committed a similar error in 2005, which resulted in the dismissal of doping charges against against Spanish cyclist Inigo Landaluze.
Two technicians from the French-government owned lab were involved in the original urine analysis, and a second validating test, lab records turned over to the Landis defense lawyers and reviewed by the paper show. International law lab standards don't allow technicians from taking part in both tests — it prevents them from validating their own findings, the paper reported.
It's unclear in the records if the technicians, Esther Cerpolini and Cynthia Mongongu of Laboratorie National Depistage du Dopage, played significant roles in both tests to disqualify the findings.
Landis' attorneys have asked arbitrators to let them question the technicians.
Even if they didn't play a prominent role in Landis' case, it could still bode well for the U.S. cyclist, the paper reported. In a decision issued Dec. 19, 2006 regarding the Landaluze case, arbitrators said the risks of technicians violated lab standards. "The applicable rule is clear and devoid of any flexibility," they wrote.
Other potential errors from the lab include:
A document that was altered anonymously after Landis questioned its accuracy. The altered version was certified as "original," the paper reported.
The lab reportedly operated one crucial piece of equipment under conditions that violated manufactures' specifications — possibly because they didn't have the operating manual. The software installed on the machine was 10 years old, based on an operating system no longer in use and was designed for a different piece of equipment, the paper reported. The lab insists the machine was in proper working order.
The lab was in possession of documents clearly linking Landis to his sample, a possible violation of anti-doping rules requiring that all samples handled by a testing lab be anonymous, the paper reported. At least one such document was provided by the French anti-doping agency to Landis' attorneys.
Much is at stake for both sides. The cyclist faces a two-year suspension and loss of his Tour title if the doping charge is upheld. In his defense, Landis has launched the most serious and sustained attack on the international sports anti-doping program and its procedures since it was established in 2000.
A three-member arbitration panel is scheduled to hear Landis' appeal of doping charges at a public hearing beginning May 14.
Filings in the arbitration case also shed light on the anti-doping agency's rationale for asking the French lab to also retest nine of Landis' urine samples taken during and after the 2006 Tour de France. The samples at issue are B samples corresponding to A samples found to be clean.
The USADA contends that the previous tests did not "definitively establish" that the samples were clean, and the agency wants to subject them to the more sophisticated carbon isotope test.
Because the A samples have already been ruled negative, and in most cases no longer exist, the required match between A and B cannot be present, Landis argues.
