LANDIS and the chemistry...

WADAwatch needs some help, admittedly so...

This author was perusing the Floyd Landis AAA Arbitrators' Majority Decision, and he thought he noticed something, for which the only choice was to work out the situation graphically.

So the following JPG, shows the case of the 're-processing of data' as delineated in the above Decision, at and below paragraph 139. That re-processing allowed the defense to analyze how the French lab LNDD ran its data, in trying to reduplicate the results that created the AAF against Landis.

Before you get there, my point is simply, I would expect the BLANK A and B samples to parallel the 'delta-deltas' in the Floyd A and B samples.

To assist in analysing these, any A sample number that was "more negative" than a B sample value, was coded green. Conversely, any value that was "less negative" in the A sample than in the B sample, was coded red.

HINT 1: click on the photo, to see it in a larger, separate screen format...
HINT 2: compare "Floyd A" to "Blanks A" and "Floyd B" to "Blanks B"



What appears asymmetric, are how the values for Floyd show a certain regularity, with consistent, 'across-the-board' valuations, while the 'Blanks' that were tested may indicate this value or that one, becoming more (or less!) negative, in NO CONSISTENT pattern...

It troubles the author, for example, that all the '5alphadiol - pdiol' values in Floyd's A samples re-processing (Except under the MassLYNX processing) were more negative than in B while, in the Blanks the '5alphadiol - pdiol' values were both more or less negative... Thus: inconsistent.

This may be no important information, but it makes the author wonder why the blanks wouldn't match the nearly-perfect visual symmetry displayed above?

Any clues, come back and help

Watch! WADA
..........@..........WADAwatch

WADA - LNDD - USADA - LANDIS and deuterated androsterone

In the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing, paragraphs for the Majority Decision discuss the finding, in Floyd's A Sample T/E test, by the LNDD laboratory (now called 'le département des analyses'), of deuterated androsterone.

Here's an excerpt from that Decision:

166. The Respondent also points out that during the T/E test LNDD identified deuterated androsterone, a compound that should not have been present in this particular test. Deuterated androsterone does not appear naturally in human urine and is sometimes used as an internal standard. The Respondent therefore argues that this provides the Panel with further evidence that the T/E results as presented by the LNDD may be inaccurate.

167. The Panel finds that the Respondent has a legitimate concern in its submission in respect of deuterated androsterone. However, the Panel does not accept that this is evidence of inaccurate or sloppy work on behalf of the LNDD. The Lab detected the problem and discarded the results as a consequence. [.....] In this particular case no deuterated androsterone was added as a control but the instrument generates numbers on the printout even if nothing has been added to the compound. The machine is automatically set up in such a way that it looks for deuterated androsterone in every sample, knowing the substance was not present in the sample (as it was not added to the sample), the lab analyst took out its identification. This occurrence is an indication of signal interference, but in no way affects the machine’s ability to identify testosterone. What the machine produces in such a case is not relevant information and should be ignored. That was done in this case and was the proper way to conduct the analysis. (Italics by WADAwatch)

How could a substance, which "...does not appear naturally in human urine...", and is "... sometimes used as an internal standard....", appear in a WADA-accredited laboratory testing incident?

WADAwatch's expert Sherlock says:

"Remember the well-tested adage, my Son: 'When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'"


There is an incredibly fishy context to this conclusion: a PARADOX, even.

The LNDD-dépt des analyses Testing Machine says 'Deuterated androsterone in Landis' A Sample'.

An A Sample of human urine cannot have this.

The Lab analyst took out its identification.

Is this not 'tampering with evidence'? Is this not destroying evidence, within the Landis urine A Sample, of a gross malfeasance?

What is impossible, what remains? What truth?

If Floyd Landis' A and B Samples had been doctored, with urine that had been previously tested positive for testosterone, his Tour de France samples 'could' have had deuterated androsterone within them, when tested for the first time.

Scientists? Need your help soon... How can a legal Decision admit that the machine was wrong, and the analyst right, towards a Decision that lays guilt on the Athlete, and ignores the evidence presented in these paragraphs?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

WADAwatch will endeavour to produce by Monday, an in-depth analysis of the Landis Majority opinion, simply to identify further, those critical, timely laboratory-performance issues that really are at the heart of the battle to clean up Sport.

WATCH? WADA,

..........@..........WADAwatch