Dissenting Opinion Christiopher L. Campbell
The Respondent, Floyd Landis is an elite cyclist with many cycling
accomplishments during his career. In 2006, he was first overall in the Tour of Georgia, as well as Paris Nice, and Tour of California. The Athlete holds a US license and in signing the license the Athlete agrees that the sole jurisdiction for resolving any dispute that arises shall be in the courts of domicile of the UCI. The UCI Cycling Regulations provide that adjudication of matters shall be handled by the national federation of the athlete involved.
On 25 July 2006, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) reported to the UCI that there had been an adverse analytical finding with respect to the Respondent’s “A” sample, consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors. On 5 August 2006, the LNDD subsequently reported to the UCI that there had been a confirmation AAF on the Athlete’s “B” sample. The results of this second test were also consistent with the use of Testosterone or one of its precursors.
1. From the beginning, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage et du Dopage (“LNDD”) has not been trustworthy. In this case, at every stage of testing it failed to comply with the procedures and methods for testing required by the International Standards for Laboratories, Version 4.0, August 2004 (“ISL”) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2003 (“WADA Code”). It also failed to abide by its legal and ethical obligations under the WADA Code. On the facts of this case, the LNDD should not be entrusted with Mr. Landis’ career.
2. Mr. Landis is only required to prove the facts he alleges in this case by a mere balance of the probabilities. In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
- Safeguarding The Interests Of The Athletes
- LNDD Submitted Improper Evidence of a Doping Violation
- WADA’S “Code of Ethics” for Laboratory Directors has been Interpreted and Enforced as an Unnecessary Obstacle to the Search for Truth
- LNDD Failed to Follow ISL Procedure testing for three ions in the T/E Ratio test
- LNDD Did Not Have A Proper Chain of Custody for the Samples of Mr. Landis
- LNDD’s Failure to Properly Record Forensic Corrections Makes the
Documents Unreliable
- Additional Potentially Fraudulent Documents
- LNDD Did Not Abide by its Legal and Ethical Obligation of Confidentiality
- The LNDD Failed to Provide Complete Documentation of the Adverse Analytical Findings for the Additional Tests done on the B Samples from Stages 11,15,19 and 20
- The Document Package Supplied in Support of an Adverse Analytical Finding Does Not Comport with Known Science
- Even Using LNDD’s Questionable Numbers Landis’ Sample Would have been Reported Negative by a Reputable Laboratory
CONCLUSION
As this case demonstrates, even when an athlete proves there are serious errors in a laboratory’s document package that refute an Adverse Analytical Finding, it will be extremely difficult for an athlete to prevail in these types of proceedings. Therefore, it is imperative that WADA Accredited Laboratories abide by the highest scientific standards.
These doping adjudications can cause substantial harm to a human being financially, physically and emotionally. It can destroy families. If, from time to time, WADA's mission obligates it to inflict such harm, it should be obligated to get it right- all of it. As athletes have strict liability rules, the laboratories should be held strictly liable for their failure to abide by the rules and sound scientific practice.
Because everyone assumes an athlete who is alleged to have tested positive is guilty, it is not fashionable to argue that laboratories should comply with strict rules. However, if you are going to hold athletes strictly liable with virtually no possibility of overcoming a reported alleged positive test even in the face of substantial and numerous laboratory errors, fairness and human decency dictates that strict rules be applied to laboratories as s well. To do otherwise does not "safeguard the interest of athletes."
WADA should be writing rules that mandate the highest scientific standards rather than writing rules for a race to the bottom of scientific reliability so convictions can be easily obtained, as this case demonstrates. Given the plethora of laboratory errors in this case, there was certainly no reliable scientific evidence introduced to find that Mr. Landis committed a doping offence.
