The Floyd Landis Controversy

I have to confess that I was a little dismayed when I read about Landis' A sample testing positive after stage 17 of the Tour de France. Part of my dismay I think was due to how the headlines and lead couple sentences read.

cyclingnews.com:
"UCI Reports One Tour Positive: The UCI has announced that there was one case of an "adverse analytical finding following an anti-doping test carried out at the Tour de France 2006." That means that one rider has had his A sample test positive for a banned substance." {note: of course this isn't what the result means at all.}

velonews.com:
"UCI says Tour 'A' Test Comes up Positive: Anti-doping tests conducted during the recently completed 93rd Tour de France have turned up an "adverse analytical finding," the UCI confirmed Wednesday."

More dismay came from the reactions of those who are part of this great sport, most of whom seemed to have decided that whoever the rider was, they are guilty.

" "It's a catastrophe, a real disaster," said Quickstep manager Patrick Lefévère. "We have to wait for the result of the counter-analysis, but most of the times it is the same as the first test. Some will never learn; these sorts of people kill the sport of cycling. They refused to let Astana start in the Tour - now, it's time that the UCI reconsider Phonak. Eight or nine positives in three years - that can't be coincidence anymore." (Sporza)"

"Erik Breukink, Rabobank team director: "It's a black time for cycling; this is dramatic. The Tour started badly, and now we can erase the winner, too. Was he that desperate after stage 16? It resembles an everything-or-nothing move. Actually, it doesn't surprise me that he got caught after stage 17. His ride to Morzine was exceptional." (Sporza)"

" German Udo Bölts, who used to be Jan Ullrich's domestique at Team Telekom, is afraid that the sport is facing his biggest challenge yet. "Cycling had the noose around its neck and the Landis case pulled it tight," he told Cyclingnews."

And so on. Granted there were comments that showed restraint and indicated that we won't know anything until the 'B' sample is tested, but it seemed that the most prevalent feeling was "He's guilty, and my how it makes thigns look bad for the rest of us."

When you start actually looking at what the test showed and what it actually means, all of the above seems to be very premature at best. There is a great article on the testing for testosterone to be found here.

More interesting information can be found here.

Basically it amounts to the fact that the testing protocol used in this particular case isn't a very good one as far as actually showing that someone has used steroids or other artificial versions of testosterone. When you combine that with the fact that using artificial testosterone at that point in the race would have been meaningless as far as performance goes, and the fact that Landis had been tested several times before that stage and two times after that stage and apparently none of them showed positive, I think the likelihood of Landis actually having used a banned substance is pretty slim.

Chances are, though I hope I am wrong, the 'B' sample will come back positive (especially if they use the same test and not the more expensive and accurate one), after which he will appeal to CAS and get the ruling overturned after showing his normal T/E ratio is higher than the testing limit or that there is a natural physiological reason for the high reading (ie the thyroid problem he is being medicated for). But that will be months down the road and the damage will have been done to his reputation.