USADA Orders LNDD To Deny Floyd Landis' Observer Access To 'B' Sample Retesting

Retesting Conducted Without Independent Observer Oversight

    NEW YORK and PARIS, April 23 /PRNewswire/ -- 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 Depistage 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."
 
 

SOURCE Floyd Fairness Fund