It's more than just Grey Cup weekend

As I mentioned in my introduction post, I have closely followed CIS (Canadian university) football for some time. Although I do not intend to provide much comment on that sport here, I thought it would be appropriate to give mention this week, heading into the two national semi-final games. Besides, I could argue, outside of curling, CIS football could be the most watched amateur sport in the country (there will be more than 20,000 people at the two games this weekend and they will likely be watched by about 150,000 people on television.

The Uteck Bowl, played annually in the eastern most location of a Bowl game, pits the Laval Rouge et Or against the Acadia Axemen in Ste. Foy, Que.. Laval is the heavy favourite, having defeated Acadian 34-7 earlier in the year. Additionally, the Atlantic league went 1-7 in inter-league competition against the Quebec loop this season.

For those unfamiliar with CIS football, Laval operates off of a unique private-public partnership model. What that means is that the institution does not cover the operating costs of the football program. Instead, the football team is run by a private investor. As a result, Laval is able to spend a great deal more than most other programs in the country. It’s been successful. Laval captured the national championship in 1999, 2003 and 2004 It’s successful off-the-field as well, attracting about 18,000 fans per game.

It’s success has spurred three other football programs ( University of Regina Rams, University de Montreal Carabins and University de Sherbrooke Vert et Or ) and a hockey program ( Lakehead University Thunderwolves) that operate off of a simular model.

It isn’t without controversy. There are many people who feel that programs in the hands of private investors are more likely to circumvent CIS rules, particularly as they relate to academic requirements. However, there are others who point out that the model allows schools who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford certain sports the opportunity to participate in those sports. It also, supporters say, generates revenue, which can be used to help smaller profile sports at the institution.

It’s an intriguing debate with wide-reaching ramifications.

The other match-up, the Mitchell Bowl, takes place in Ottawa and features the University of Ottawa against the University of Saskatchewan.

Throughout the last decade, Saskatchewan has consistently been a contender for the national championship. The Huskies play host to the Vanier Cup this year in Saskatoon, so the pressure is on to ensure that their is a home team in the big game.

The biggest question with Ottawa has to do with the league it plays in. Prior to last year’s win by Wilfrid Laurier, it had been 11 years since an OUA team had captured the Vanier Cup. Actually, Ontario is 3-10 in its last 13 playoff games against out-of-province competition. The likely reason for the poor record is that Ontario has traditionally offered less scholarship money to its athletes and has recruited fewer players with junior football experience (who are therefore older).

There is a school of thought that suggests that WLU’s win in ‘05 was a one-off thing and that Ontario is still far behind the rest of the country. Many people are unwilling to consider Ottawa on the same level as the nation’s other top ranked programs until they beat a team from outside the province.

Both games go Saturday. For more information than you will ever need go here

A Pipe Dream

In Canada, if you don’t deliver in 21 years, you’re out of luck. We’re tough that way.

Such was the case with Kevin Pipe, relived from his duties as Chief Operating Officer of the CSA last week. The interesting thing about this isn’t that Pipe was let go--he was more or less seen as the devil by the few people in this country who actually care about the sport domestically.

No, what’s amazing is that the bloated, bickering, not-interested-in-anything-unless-it-benefits-themselves bureaucracy that runs Canadian soccer actually had the gumption to do something.

During the 21 years that Pipe ran things, soccer grew from a niche sport played by the children of immigrants, to something much bigger. As you likely have heard, there are more people registered in soccer in Canada that there are people registered in hockey (a misleading statistic and a topic for another day).

However, the performance of the Canadian national team went from playing in the World Cup, to being ranked a bit behind Oman in the men’s ranking (Women’s soccer is doing much better, but Canada’s performance has slipped there in recent years as well).

Despite that freefall, Pipe remained. During the last two decades, if pressed, he would talk about the participation rates and would lament the lack of investment in the game by corporate Canada. He--and thre CSA--rarely took any blame him/themselves.

So, you can understand how stunned people were when Pipe’s firing was announced. “No,” people said, “The CSA can’t be looking in the mirror, can it?”

It’s hard to say, but it is clear that something had to give. The purpose of an organization like the CSA is to produce, develop and foster elite teams. The failure of the men’s national team to qualify for the World Cup during a time when the participation rates in the sport was skyrocketing is, if not unacceptable, then at least exceptionally hard to understand.

And make no mistake. Making a World Cup would benefit everyone, from the four-year-olds chasing butterflies on your neighbourhood pitch, to the elite kid looking to play at a high-level without having to leave the country.

Is firing Kevin Pipe the magic bullet? No, but bringing in a fresh face is a start.

That is if the CSA is interested in a truly fresh face. That's not something that should be taken for granted.

This is a story that we will be keeping an eye on.

A new voice

Like many readers of Now That's Amateur I had ambivalent feelings when I saw that its author had taken a new position with the COA. I was thrilled that the COA had hired someone so clearly passionate about amateur sport for such an important role, but I was disappointed that the great resource that is Now That's Amateur could potentially be lost.

In Canada, the amateur athlete is too often overlooked. With the MSM seemingly more interested in covering Tie Domi's sex life, it's up to sites like Now That's Amateur to pick up the slack. When I saw that the site may have to be put on hiatus, I was compelled to offer my assistance.

And Now That's Amateur was crazy enough to take me up on my offer.

My name is Duane Rollins and I am a journalist. I currently am the news editor at a weekly newspaper in SW Ont., but I'm better known (relatively speaking) as the CIS football guy. I publish the website CollegeColours.com, the only news source in Canada dedicated to covering university football in Canada, year round (please forgive the look of the place, it's currently undergoing some renovations and is being housed on a very basic blog skin in the meantime).

I won't bore you with all the things we have accomplished with CollegeColours, but it has taught me a great deal about covering a "niche" sport in this country. I hope to bring some of that knowledge here.

To be clear, I'm not taking over. I'm just helping out. I invite you to visit often as we endeavour to provide you with the same high-quality coverage of Canadian amateur sport as you have come to expect from Now That's Amateur.

Starts and Finishes

Today the COC announced that I have been appointed Assistant Chef de Mission for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

Fortunately for our athletes, the job doesn't involve any cooking. The Chef de Mission is Sylvie Bernier, an Olympic champion and Assistant Chef for the 2006 winter Olympics. As spelled out in the Olympic Charter (PDF), Rule 38:

During the Olympic Games, the competitors, officials and other team personnel of each National Olympic Committee are placed under the responsibility of a chef de mission appointed by her National Olympic Committee and whose task, in addition to any other functions assigned to her by her NOC, is to liaise with the International Olympic Committee, the International Federations, and the Organizing Committee of the Games.

My job will be to, well, assist Ms. Bernier in this role. I am really, really excited and at the same time a little bit awed by the responsibility.

I will say, though, that I feel quite proud to have been selected. Sylvie did not name any of the other candidates that she considered for the position, but I am sure that there were a number of very worth candidates. I like to think that all of the volunteer work I have done and experience I have gained in the last six years counted in my favour. I think of this new job as the next level of my volunteer career in Canadian sport, and I am really looking forward to it.

On a sadder note, I've decided to go into blogging semi-retirement until after the Games.

Partly this is because of the increased time commitment that I will have to make as assistant chef. The job will require more time away from home and more hours of work, and those extra hours will be subtracted from the time I usually spend working on this blog.

More importantly, however, this change of status is also going to put new limits on what I can write about.

I want to make it perfectly clear that these limits are self-imposed. This is my own personal decision, and not something dictated to me by the COC. I have been very open about my blog with Sylvie Bernier, and I know that many people within the COC are aware of my identity. They have all been cautiously supportive of the idea that their new assistant chef is also a blogger, and I think that shows a remarkable degree of trust on their part.

There has always been a Do Not Write list on Now That's Amateur. There are things I Do Not Write about because I would be revealing information that has been entrusted to me, in confidence. There are things I Do Not Write about because I have to maintain an impartial stance on an issue. And there are things I Do Not Write about because to do so would undermine the consensus opinion of the groups that I serve as a volunteer.

In my new role I will be one of the leaders of the Canadian Olympic team. I will represent the team to the media, to the Canadian public, and to the rest of the world. Last week I came to the difficult realization that my Do Not Write list is about to get quite long. So long, in fact, that it excludes most of my favourite topics of discussion. I will still have plenty of opportunity to express my views, both publicly and privately, in places where it will have a concrete influence. The trade-off for that influence is that I cannot continue to make those expressions in this forum.

I also want to avoid the possibility that this blog, or my opinion, could become the centre of media attention because of my position. I think that would be regrettable. For the past two years I have tried to provide a different perspective on some of the stories of the day. I do not want my perspective to become the story of the day. Attention should be focused where it belongs, on the Olympic team itself.

As to what's going to happen in this space, I am not quite sure yet. At the very least, I will return when the Games are over, with new insight into the Olympic movement and the freedom to discuss it with you. In the meantime, I hope to turn this blog over to a team of guest contributors. Whether this comes to pass or not, I want to thank all of you who have been reading over the past two years. Blogging has broadened and deepened my understanding of amateur sport, what it means to me and what it means to others. Your blogs, your e-mails and your comments have been part of that journey. Hopefully we can pick up where we left off in September 2008.

Two Years of Being Amateur

Two years ago today I started this blog, and I wanted to say a few words about that.

Posts

I wrote 116 posts in the past year, down twenty from my first year of blogging. Here are some of my favourites.

• Kurva Jó! put one Candian team's 2006 success into a personal perspective.
• Centralize This was my experiment with Google Maps.
• WADA Doping Statistics parts 2 and 3 got a number of mentions on various message boards.
• Why Women's Hockey Should Stay was my defense of our national game at the Olympics.
• The Deep Cut and the Free Stuff was another personal story, this time about being cut from the 1992 Olympic team.
• The Professionalization of Nationality explored the issue of citizenship and the Olympics.
• Soldiers in a Larger War marked the anniversary of the 1980 boycott.
• The Italian Job discussed WADA's handling of the Mayer incident at the 2006 Olympics.
• In Amateur Medal Prediction I underestimated Canada's probable performance in Turin.

Traffic

Last week I very nearly had my first week with more than 1000 unique visitors, according to StatCounter, thanks to a link from Trust But Verify and a mention in the Daily Peleton Forums. That's not typical, as you can see in the plot above, but the general trend is upward and fairly steady. The 2006 Winter Olympics generated three or four weeks of pretty good traffic, and my post about Michelle Dumaresq got a link at There's Your Karma, Ripe as Peaches.

These numbers don't include people who read this blog at Cansport.com.

Comments

Haloscan tells me that this blog has a total of 439 comments. There were 103 in the first year, which must mean that there have been 336 in the second year. You can assume, again, that almost half of those have been by me, since I tend to get drawn into the discussions.

The post that generated the largest number of comments was my second post on the 2014 Halifax Commonwealth Games bid, I'll stop the HRM Games, Because I Know What's Good For You. That post has drawn 33 comments so far.

Other Developments

On the technical front, I switched to te Beta version of the new Blogger and had a few adventures with my template. In the end, though, that's been a very positive change.

On my one-year anniversary, I annnounced that this blog was going to be cross-published at CanSport.com. One year later, it's clearly been a positive development for the blog, and I think it has had a lot to do with the increase in traffic and the increase in the number of comments.

In the comments to this post, James Dunaway told me that without my real name attached, my writing has "zero credibility." I later had a short e-mail exchange with Mr. Dunaway, who has written extensively about athletics as an author and a journalist.

I had planned to write more about the issue of identity and credibility on my two-year anniversary. However, for various reasons I am going to cut that discussion short. I have added my real name to my Blogger profile, and it now appears in the sidebar to this page. I do not consider this an admission that Mr. Dunaway was right, although I will say that several other people I have spoken to have taken his side in the debate!

The reason for my decision doesn't have anything to do with credibility, which I still think should be based on the writing and not on my name. This decision is about accountability. My role in the Olympic Movement is about to change, becoming significantly more public. In light of this news (which will be clarified tomorrow), I have decided that my past writing should be a matter of public record.

As for my future writing, I will have more to say about that after tomorrow.

Why False Positives Mean So Much

Why do some people believe that Floyd Landis is innocent, while others believe that he is guilty? Why do the same people reach the opposite conclusions about Barry Bonds, or Marion Jones?

Let's talk about Bayesian Inference. Bayesian Inference is a mathematical approach that can be used to estimate how evidence influences belief in a hypothesis.

The basis of Bayesian Inference is an equation known as Bayes' Rule, which is widely applied in the study of probability. Bayesian Inference is the somewhat controversial application of Bayes' Rule to discussions of belief. In Bayesian Inference a person's degree of belief in a hypothesis is treated mathematically as if it was an estimate of the probability of the hypothesis.

Rather than go through the general background, I'll leave you to the Wikipedia article and get right to our specific example. In this case, the hypothesis in question (which I'll call H) is that an Athlete is guilty of doping. The hypothesis is either true or false, but the truth is usually not known with one hundred percent confidence. The evidence in the case (E) will be the results of anti-doping tests. The quantity that I want to calculate is a person's degree of belief in H in the face of the collected evidence E.

To do this we need to know three things. First, we need to quantify the person's prior belief in the athlete doping hypothesis. That is, what probability would you assign to the hypothesis before the presentation of the anti-doping test results? I'll denote the prior belief by P(H).

The other two quantities we need to know concern the conditional probabilities of the evidence. We need to know the probability that the evidence would arise if the athlete was guilty, which we might call the probability of detection (P_D). We also need to know the probability that the evidence would arise if the athlete was innocent, which we might call the probability of false positive (P_FP).

The posterior belief in H — in other words the probability of H being true after the evidence has been taken into account — is written as P(H | E), and can be calculated as:

   P(H | E) = P_D × P(H) / [P_D × P(H) + P_FP × (1 – P(H))]

The following calculator allows you to enter these three inputs as percentages, and calculates your revised belief in the doping athlete hypothesis.

The Doping Athlete Bayesian Inference Calculator

P(H): Prior belief, before you saw evidence E, that Athlete was doping:		%
PD: Probability that evidence E would be found against a doping athlete:		%
PFP: Probability that evidence E would be found against an athlete who is not doping:		%
Revised Belief that Athlete is Doping:		%

Let's look at a hypothetical example. Let's say there's a positive test in a sport where you have reason to believe that 10% of athletes are doping. And let's say that the test that the athlete has failed is known to be 60% effective in detecting cheaters. And finally, let's say that the probability of a false positive is 0.1%. If we put these three numbers into the calculator we find that our revised belief in the athlete's guilt has risen to 98.5%. That's probably more than enough to meet the burden of proof in an anti-doping case.

In fact, as long as the probability of false positives is low, the other parameters really don't make much difference to the outcome. For example, consider the case where P_FP = 0.01%, equivalent to one false positive test result out of every 10,000 tests. Then even if the prior belief of guilt is only 1%, and the probability of detection is only 20%, the posterior belief of guilt is greater than 95%. If we take this to the extreme case where there is zero probability of a false positive, then the posterior belief of guilt will always be 100%!

You can try some examples for yourself, and you will see that the weight of the evidence in the case depends very strongly on the probability of false positives. This number must be kept small if we want to treat positive tests as conclusive.

Now, what happens if you really would rather not modify your belief based on the new evidence? Is there any way, in the face of a positive anti-doping test, that you can go on believing in your favourite athlete's innocence?

Bayesian inference does allow for this possibility, if the evidence is poor enough; and in fact the mathematical treatment defines for us what "poor enough" means. If the test's probability of false positive rises, or the probability of detection sinks, to the point where both are equal, then the posterior belief in the athlete doping hypothesis will be exactly equal to the prior belief.

In most doping cases, the public receives very little hard information about the reliability of the evidence; neither P_FP nor P_D are well-known. In the Landis case, for example, anti-doping authorities were quick to state that the chances of a false positive on the IRMS test are very small. Many of Floyd's fans still doubt that claim.

If anybody out there tries this calculator for the Landis case or any other, let me know in the comments. I'd like to hear your assessments of your prior belief and the conditional probabilities, and to see if the Bayesian inference of posterior belief at all matches with your actual belief.

Morning Finals, and That's Final

It was basically confirmed weeks ago, but now it's official: all of the swimming and most of the gymnastics finals at the 2008 Olympics will be held in the morning, Beijing time.

Scott at Timed Finals has been all over this story, and I've expressed my opinion before, too. I don't want to go over old ground, but I have had a few more recent thoughts.

I've been a bit skeptical about predictions that the schedule change will cause performances to suffer, and I said so in the comments at Timed Finals. Scott sent me a couple of interesting and swimming-specific links in response:

Influence of time of day on all-out swimming, British Journal of Sports Medicine, C. Baxter and T. Reilly (1983):

Fourteen subjects performed maximal front crawl swim tests on separate days over 100 m. and 400 m. at 5 different times of day between 06.30 h. and 22.00 h. Performance showed a significant linear trend with time of day in close though not exact association with the circadian rhythm in oral temperature … It was concluded that maximal swimming trials are best scheduled for the evening and worst in the early morning.

Morning vs. Evening Maximal Cycle Power and Technical Swimming Ability, Journal of Strength and Conditioning, V.J. Deschodt and L.M.Arsac (2004):

… maximal power (+7%) and technical ability (+3% in stroke length, +5% in stroke rate and changes in underwater hand coordinates) were greater in the evening. The present study confirms and specifies diurnal influences on all-out performances with regard to both maximal power and technical ability.

I'll consider myself rebutted! It seems that Scott and others are right to worry that performances will be a bit off in Beijing. Of course times and world records are a big deal in swimming, because the environment can be tightly controlled and the times are a reliable indicator of the quality of a performance.

One consequence of this fact is that the FINA Olympic qualifying procedures rely heavily on time standards. Those time standards must be achieved at Continental Championships, national Olympic trials, or other international competitions approved by FINA in advance. So if you're organizing your national Olympic trials, do you try to mimic the Beijing schedule so that you test your swimmers under Olympic conditions, and give them every opportunity to get used to it? Or do you stick with evening finals, giving everybody a better shot at making the FINA time standards?

The schedule changes are given a brief mention in the latest IOC press release, but there are few details forthcoming. There's also no mention of specific changes to other sports. According to some earlier reports out of Australia rowing finals are going to be held in the evening. That's an unprecedented change, as far as I know. Will it mean faster times for the rowers? Maybe, but it probably won't have much to do with basal temperature or circadian rhythms. In rowing, like canoe-kayak, the dominant factor is the wind. Whether conditions will be better or worse in the evening remains to be seen.

Gold Medal Plates

Last Tuesday night my wife and I attended a fundraiser called Gold Medal Plates. The series kicked off in Halifax and will be held in six other cities across Canada in November. The Halifax event was very well-attended and raised a good chunk of money for the Canadian Olympic Foundation, which will direct the proceeds toward Own the Podium 2010 and Road to Excellence.

The event is a clever mixture of sport and haute cuisine. Eight of the city's best chefs were paired with high-profile local athletes (an Olympian or Paralympian or Olympic hopeful) and charged with preparing their "ultimate chef's creation." For $225 per ticket, attendees could taste those creations, sample Canadian wines, and schmooze with Olympians and other sports VIPs. While enjoying dessert and coffee guests were treated to speeches by two of Canada's top athletes, and given the opportunity to spend more of their money on silent or live auction items. The finale of the evening was the awarding of bronze, silver, and gold medals to the winning chefs. In the 2004 edition of this event, the paying guests voted for their favourite dish. This time, the winners were chosen by a panel of expert judges.

Not having been assigned to a chef, I was free to wander around, tasting everything and doing some schmoozing myself. I know it's kind of shallow (possibly pathetic) to say so, but I still find it fun to wear a name tag that says "Olympic Athlete."

The athletic guests of honour, meanwhile, were excellent. Sledge hockey gold medallist Paul Rosen and two-time Olympic champion Catriona Lemay Doan gave powerful speeches about their own experiences at the Paralympic and Olympic Games.

(As an irrelevant aside, I remembered during dinner that one of the first photographs I ever saw on the Internet was a picture of Catriona Lemay at the 1994 Olympics. It's pretty amusing to go back and see what the first Olympic Games web site looked like just twelve years ago.)

The culinary star of the evening was Chef Ray Bear, who was teamed up with canoeist Mike Scarola. I was not surprised that the chefs appeared to be quite engrossed in the culinary competition. I was a little bit surprised that the chefs got behind the fundraising effort as strongly as they did. After winning the gold medal, Chef Bear offered a nine-course meal, cooked in your home, for auction. He and Scarola ended up selling two such meals for the cause.

Stone Cast: Olympian Struck

Three-time Olympian and world championship silver medallist Tamas Buday Jr. needed three stitches to repair a cut below his left eye on Saturday. Buday was hit by a rock thrown from a railway bridge across the Credit River while he and his brother Attila were paddling in Mississauga.

Tamas (a very young teammate of mine in 1996) is extremely lucky that the damage was not more serious. He is lucky that he was paddling in C-2, and therefore didn't go into the water. He is lucky that he was accompanied by his coach (also his father), which isn't true for every workout. And he is lucky that the rock struck him a relatively glancing blow and did not do more permanent damage.

The young morons who perpetrated this crime were chased off by Tamas Sr. The Buday brothers made some solicitous comments in the Star article, suggesting that the youths are "just kids" who "don't understand the consequences" of their actions. According to an e-mail I received this morning, their delinquency goes a bit further than the usual restlessness of youth:

… probably we scared enough the guys that they felt to respond: Today morning the two north door of the canoe club was full with graffiti including a bunch of swastika, mafia, fuck the canoe club, Hitler my god, and rock band names … Larry and I removed those.

(Thanks to Sean for the Star link.)

Floyd Landis: the Editorial

By now you will have heard that Floyd Landis has gone public with the documentary evidence against him in his anti-doping case. Landis, you will recall, tested positive for testosterone after Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France. He is contesting that positive finding on the basis that the laboratory and anti-doping agencies departed from applicable international standards. I have written before about Floyd's chances in this case but I thought I would revisit the issue now that I have more facts in front of me.

The full laboratory documentation has been released by Landis' team and you can find the download instructions at FloydLandis.com. The download includes a PowerPoint presentation created by one Dr. Arnie Baker, and the letter that Landis' lawyer submitted to the ADRB asking that the case against him be dismissed.

Alternatively you can also access the documents at archive.com, where the blogger at Trust But Verify has made all three hundred and seventy individual pages available as separate PDFs. TBV has become an excellent clearinghouse for information on the case.

Before I get to my analysis of the evidence, I have a little bit of editorializing to do.

Providing all of this information to the public is certainly a novel approach. To many internet-savvy cycling fans this move (and his request for an open hearing) has cemented the perception of Landis as an honest man in a crooked system. There has not yet been any technical response from the LNDD, the UCI, or WADA, and I would not expect one until the hearing. However, it would be foolish to assume that Dr. Baker's PowerPoint slides are the last word on the subject. Unfortunately there are few people who have shown a willingness to be skeptical towards both sides of this story. I'm going to try.

There are two separate but related issues that we could debate here, and I'd like to distinguish between them. The first question is: did Floyd Landis use prohibited Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs)? The second is: will he be sanctioned for using prohibeted PEDs?

The answer to the second question is not completely dependent on the answer to the first. Landis may be innocent, but if he has had a valid positive test then he will be punished anyway. By a "valid" positive, I mean one that is positive under the anti-doping rules and procedures that were in place at the time the test was performed.

Of course, the opposite scenario is also possible; Landis might be guilty of using PEDs but still get off on a technicality. Again, the answer to this question rides on the validity of the positive test. If Landis' positive is ruled to be invalid, then he will not be sanctioned.

Part of Floyd's very public campaign of self-defence is aimed at convincing the public and his sponsors that he is not a cheater. It would make me very happy if that was true; however, I think that the answer to this question is essentially unknowable and I am not going to spend any time debating it. If some day Floyd admits that he cheated, or an LNDD technician admits that (s)he cooked the test results, then we can resolve the issue one way or another. I don't think anything I can say in the meantime will change anybody's mind.

The technical portions of Landis' defence, on the other hand, wisely concentrate on challenging the validity of his positive test. In other words, leaving the question of guilt or innocence out of it, Landis will attempt to escape sanction by demonstrating that he did not have a valid positive test. It is this question — the validity of the test results and Floyd's chances of being found "not guilty" — that I will try to address here.

One last point: if you are one of those Floyd Landis fans who thinks that this whole thing is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the Tour de France, UCI, French media, LNDD, and/or Dick Pound, then nothing in the laboratory documentation package is going to change your mind one way or another. A perfect documentation package, after all, would only be evidence of a perfect conspiracy! In fact if you are one of those conspiracy theorists I would recommend that you don't even look at the evidence — it's just going to be a lot of hard work for nothing.

Now: onward to the analysis!

Floyd Landis: the Evidence

(See the preamble to this post.)

The case assembled by Floyd Landis' support team aims to prove that the athlete's alleged positive test result should be invalidated. In particular, Dr. Baker's PowerPoint presentation and Howard Jacobs' argument for dismissal present a number of points of evidence supporting that claim. I have combed through the laboratory documents to see whether that evidence might lead to Landis' exoneration in this case.

I should say up front that I used the aforementioned two documents (and especially Dr. Baker's slide set) as my guide; I did not go through page by page assembling evidence from scratch. As a result, this is not necessarily a complete argument, as Landis' team claims that there are "dozens of problems" with the tests.

I should also say that I am a physicist, not a biochemist, so I do not have a very deep understanding of the technical data presented in the laboratory documentation. I understand the basic idea of mass spectrometry, but I can't really interpret the raw data. I am not really sure if this is a great hindrance, though; most of the people who review this case (either at the AAA or ultimately at the CAS) will not be medical or scientific experts, either.

In what follows the references of the form "USADA 0000" are to individual pages in the laboratory documentation package. These pages have been provided on archive.com by the blogger at Trust But Verify.

More References:

• WADA Code (PDF)
• International Standard for Laboratories (PDF)
• International Standard for Testing (PDF)
• Reporting and Evaluation Guidance for Testosterone, Epitestosterone, T/E Ratio and Other Endogenous Steroids (PDF)
• Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody (PDF)

As I noted before, Landis' defence here is based on Article 3.2.1 of the WADA Code. I will repeat that article here to remind you who bears the burden of proof in this matter:

WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis. The athlete may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard occurred.

If the athlete rebuts the preceding assumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard occurred, then the anti-doping organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding.

The arguments in Dr. Baker's PowerPoint presentation and Howard Jacobs' letter are divided into four rough categories. I will deal with each of these in turn.

1. Bad laboratory documentation: Dr. Baker's presentation shows a number of specific examples of sloppy record keeping by the lab, and I have found at least one more which I will discuss later. The laboratory identification number was incorrect on Landis' T/E results page. The athlete identification number was incorrect — that is, not Landis' — on the same document. The athlete identification number was also incorrect on the specimen transport record, which records the chain of custody of the sample between the collection point and the lab, and on the lab's summary record of the test results.

Another page shows that the sample identification number has been overwritten in a manner inconsistent with the Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody (reference above) — although technically the modification was not made on the Chain of Custody documentation, so the cited reference is not really applicable.

Nevertheless, these mistakes are very embarassing for the lab, and somebody's wrist should definitely be slapped. However, it's probably not going to get Landis off the hook. The lab and sample identification numbers appear dozens (if not hundreds) of times throughout the document; a few errors here and there do not create a significant doubt that the tested samples came from Landis.

To put this in terms of Article 3.2.1, Landis has shown that a departure from the international standard has occurred, but the UCI will not have to work very hard to demonstrate that these errors did not cause his positive tests. If an arbitration panel dismisses Landis' positive over this issue it will be the most technical of technicalities. It's not impossible, but I consider it unlikely.

2. Unexplained variability in the T/E ratio:

In all there were nine vials of Landis' urine subjected to GC/MS (Gas Chromatograph / Mass Spectrometer) analysis at LNDD.

Table 1 — Floyd Landis urine samples subjected to measurement of T, E, and T/E.

Vial	Testosterone Concentration (ng/mL)	Epitestosterone Concentration (ng/mL)	T/E (Raw)	T/E (using Concentration)	References	Comment
A Sample Screening Procedure (GC/MS), Aliquot ES04, 2006-Jul-21
11	60.60	13.70	4.9	4.9	USADA 0054, 0055, 0056	T/E exceeds screening threshold (> 4)
A Sample First Confirmation Analysis (GC/MS), Aliquot EC24D, 2006-Jul-22
10	172.23	17.59	10.7	9.8	USADA 0212, 0213	Sample with hydrolysis
11	1.06	0.10	11.2	10.2	USADA 0214, 0215	Sample without hydrolysis
A Sample Second Confirmation Analysis (GC/MS), Aliquot EC24D, 2006-Jul-24
4	61.37	5.20	11.4	11.8	USADA 0092, 0093	Sample with hydrolysis
A Sample Re-Screening Procedure (GC/MS), Aliquot Unknown, 2006-Jul-25
2	49.70	11.10	5.1	5.1	USADA 0057, 0058, 0059	Test not described in aliquot chain of custody table
B Sample Confirmation Analysis (GC/MS), Aliquot EC24D, 2006-Aug-3
4	63.15	5.94	10.9	10.6	USADA 0278, 0277	Sample with hydrolysis
5	61.64	5.75	11.0	10.7	USADA 0279, 0280	Sample with hydrolysis
6	60.18	5.55	11.1	10.8	USADA 0281, 0282	Sample with hydrolysis
7	1.22	0.44	3.6	2.8	USADA 0283, 0284	Sample without hydrolysis

In the table above the "Raw" T/E ratio is calculated using the response amplitudes from the instrument, and the "Concentration" values are calculated after first converting the instrument response to a concentration using a calibration curve. The values don't differ significantly in any case.

The first sample noted was subjected to the Screening Procedure for Natural Hormones. Screening procedures for threshold substances like testosterone are meant to flag a sample for further study; in this case, when the T/E ratio exceeds 4. A sample could also be flagged as suspicious if it showed a high concentration of either testosterone or epitestosterone (> 200 ng/mL). There are no numerical accuracy requirements for Screening procedures.

The sample I have called the "A Sample Re-Screening Procedure" is odd for a couple of reasons. First, it was performed after all of the confirmation tests, including the IRMS confirmation. At that point in time, the screening procedure would appear to be more or less irrelevant, so I am not sure why this was done. The handwritten note on the summary results page (USADA 0057) appears to read "vial de conf reinjecte pr screening." Another odd fact is that this test does not appear on the Aliquot chain of custody table (USADA 0011, 0012, repeated USADA 0255, 0256). This is a very clear violation of the Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody (reference above) and therefore another error in the documentation. Add it to the pile in item 1 above.

The Confirmation Analyses are used to definitively assess the T/E ratio in a sample once it has been identified as suspicious by the screening procedure. The samples I noted as "with hydrolysis" are the ones we should focus on, for now. These samples are subjected to hydrolysis to cleave testosterone and epitestosterone from the various compounds that they form in the urine sample (that's this physicist's understanding). The GC/MS then detects the total concentration of T and E in the urine.

The Confirmation Analysis (with hydrolysis) was run on five different vials of Landis' urine sample; two from the A sample and three from the B sample. Of those, four were very self-consistent: the A sample aliquot tested on 24 July, and the B sample aliquots tested on 3 August all showed T concentrations between 60.18 and 63.15 ng/mL, E concentrations between 5.20 and 5.94 ng/mL, and T/E ratios between 10.6 and 11.8. The LNDD claims (e.g. USADA 0101) that the uncertainty for these results is 30% for E, 20% for T, and 30% for T/E. All four of these measurements fall well within those expectations.

The fifth sample, which was actually the first one tested, is way, way off, with T = 172.23 and E = 17.59. It is true that the ratio of T/E is consistent with the rest of the samples, but the variation in steroid concentration remains unexplained.

It is possible that the LNDD will respond with a valid explanation for this variability. At any rate, by itself I do not think it is sufficient to doom the case. It might suggest that the confirmation procedure was run incorrectly in one instance, but it does not directly imply that all of the other results are invalid.

This brings me, however, to Dr. Baker's third claim.

3. Contamination of the sample: Dr. Baker makes a case that Floyd's B Sample was not suitable for testing. The Reporting and Evaluation Guidance for Testosterone (reference above) has this to say about microbial contamination of urine samples (emphasis mine):

The urine Sample is not collected under sterile conditions, and where the circumstances are favourable, the microbes present in the Sample can cause changes to the profile of the urinary steroids. Initially there is cleavage of the glucuronides and sulfates followed by modifications of the steroids’ structure by oxido-reductive reactions. To report an Adverse Analytical Finding of an elevated T/E value, testosterone or epitestosterone concentration or any other endogenous steroid parameters, the concentration of free testosterone and/or epitestosterone in the specimen is not to exceed 5% of the respective glucuroconjugates. Elevated amounts of 5ALPHA- and 5ß-androstan-3,17-dione in the free form also indicate microbial degradation.

The "free" testosterone in a urine sample is provided by running the Confirmation procedure on a sample without subjecting it to hydrolysis. Only T and E that exists "free" in the urine shows up in the GC/MS traces.

So let's go back to Table 1. There were two aliquots subjected to the confirmation procedure without hydrolysis. One of these was the first A sample confirmation on July 22, which showed acceptable levels of free T and free E (about 0.6% in both cases). The second was from the B sample on August 3 — but that sample showed 2% free testosterone and 7.7% free epitestosterone, calculated as a percentage of the mean of the results from the samples with hydrolysis.

Unless I am misreading the documentation or misinterpreting the science (both possibilities) it seems fairly clear to me that Floyd's B Sample should have been ruled too contaminated for testing. The paragraph I quoted above is quite clear on this: with a concentration of free epitestosterone this high, the B sample could not be used to report an adverse analytical finding.

And if the B Sample cannot confirm the A Sample results, the International Standard for Laboratories (reference above) states clearly that the test is negative:

5.2.4.3.2.3 The B Sample result must confirm the A Sample identification for the Adverse Analytical Finding to be valid. The mean value for the B Sample finding for Threshold Substances is required to exceed that threshold including consideration of uncertainty. (International Standard for Laboratories)

If the “B” Sample confirmation does not provide analytical findings that confirm the “A” Sample result, the Sample shall be considered negative and the Testing Authority notified of the new analytical finding.

It is also interesting to consider the hypothesis of contamination with respect to the sample-to-sample variability I discussed in point 3 above. No measurement of free T and E was made in the A sample second confirmation analysis, so there is no evidence of contamination in that sample. However, the concentration results are consistent with the B sample results, which do show evidence of contamination. It might be that the only uncontaminated sample was the first confirmation of the A sample. Note that the aliquot used in the second confirmation of the A sample was prepared for confirmation on the afternoon of July 23 and not tested until almost 24 hours later (ref. USADA 0256).

This speculative explanation does not cover the B sample contamination; however, any microbes present in the sample had an additional 10 days to act on the refrigerated B sample while it was stored at LNDD. Perhaps this was sufficient time to degrade the sample.

4. CIR results did not support a "positive" finding: I've already stated that I think that Landis is ultimately going to win his appeal due to the evidence that his B sample was contaminated when it was tested.

That outcome, however, might still leave the public with the feeling that Landis was a cheater who "got lucky" on the test. After all, his clearly uncontaminated A Sample showed a T/E ratio of approximately 11/1, and the IRMS results on that same sample showed evidence of exogenous testosterone. The IRMS results have been treated by most (including me) as the "smoking gun" in the case.

Landis has an answer for that, too: the IRMS test results do not show evidence of exogenous testosterone, by WADA's own standards.

The argument hinges on the fact that the IRMS test was performed on four different hormone ratios, and more than half of them came up negative when the laboratory standard is applied.

Table 2 — Floyd Landis urine samples subjected to IRMS testing

Metabolite-Reference	Blank Urine Δ‰	Sample Δ‰
A Sample IRMS, Aliquot EC31, 2006-July-23 (reference USADA 0186)
Etio - 11 Kétoétio	-0.87	-2.58
Andro - 11 Kétoétio	-0.48	-3.99
5ß Adiol - 5ß Pdiol	-0.55	-2.15
5α Adiol - 5ß Pdiol	-1.59	-6.14
B Sample IRMS, Aliquot EC31, 2006-Aug-3 (reference USADA 0352)
Etio - 11 Kétoétio	-1.08	-2.02
Andro - 11 Kétoétio	-0.08	-3.51
5ß Adiol - 5ß Pdiol	-0.67	-2.65
5α Adiol - 5ß Pdiol	-1.60	-6.39

The threshold for a positive IRMS finding for exogenous testosterone is Δ‰ = -3.0. The IRMS uncertainty, according to LNDD, is 0.8. That means, according to the International Standard for Laboratories (reference above), that a positive must show Δ‰ of -3.8 or less.

By this standard, the A sample shows two metabolites as positive, and the B sample shows only one.

Landis' team asserts that this is not enough; they argue that all four ratios must exceed the -3.8 threshold to make a positive test. The Reporting and Evaluation Guidance (reference above) is ambiguous on this point; it neither specifies which metabolites should be measured, which reference steroids should be used, nor does it specify how many or which pairs must exceed the threshold.

Depending upon the nature of the endogenous steroid suspected to have been administered, the metabolites analysed could be testosterone, epitestosterone, androsterone, etiocholanolone, the androstanediols, DHEA, or other relevant metabolites while the urinary reference steroid usually analysed by the Laboratories is one of, pregnanediol, pregnanetriol, cholesterol, 11-hydroxyandrosterone or 11-ketoetiocholanolone. …

The results will be reported as consistent with the administration of a steroid when the 13C/12C value measured for the metabolite(s) differs significantly i.e. by 3 delta units or more from that of the urinary reference steroid chosen.

It seems pretty clear, under the Reporting and Evaluation Guidance, that the LNDD could legitimately have tested for a single ratio; and if they had chosen to use the 5α Adiol - 5ß Pdiol ratio as their single measure, it would have returned an unambiguously positive result.

But they didn't do that, and I can't really predict how things are going to go here. It will come down to a question of precedent, I think; whether there is an undocumented standard for the choice of metabolites and the application of the threshold, and whether the LNDD can prove it. This will become an important question if my prediction is incorrect and the B sample results are ruled to be valid.

Chris Cochrane on the Commonwealth Games

There have been woefully few comments around here lately. It must be time to write another post about the 2014 Commonwealth Games.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot new to say. There has recently been a big increase in visibility for the bid here in HRM, with an extensive marketing campaign on billboards, buses, and newspapers throughout the city. It's been very well done but doesn't do anything to address the anti-Games crowd's most significant sole point of contention.

Today the Herald ran a piece on the subject by Chris Cochrane, and as usual he makes a lot of sense:

Without the facts and figures about costs, cost-sharing and the return on investment, it’s arrogant of anyone to say with certainty that the Games will be good or bad for us.

Why are we in this situation?

One reason is the international bidding war, a time-honoured battle based on a covenant of secrecy that not only keeps bidders in the dark, but taxpayers as well. One would think that in these supposedly more enlightened times, such cloak-and-dagger methods would be dropped in favour of a more open and predictable process. Why not one in which specific regions would host the Games in designated years, reducing the bulk of the international courting?

The other culprit is a Canadian one, that being the game played by our federal government. Like a practised gambler, Ottawa is keeping its cost-sharing cards close to its vest, forcing the host city to make a wager without knowing for certain whether there’s enough money in the bank to cover its bet.

Letting Go

A couple of weeks ago, national team rower and Olympic medallist Barney Williams wrote a piece for the Toronto Star about his recent decision to continue competing through the 2008 Olympic Games.

Williams and his wife Buffy (née Alexander) are both Olympic medallists in rowing. Buffy won a bronze medal in the eight in Sydney, to go with five world championship medals over her career. Barney won a silver in the four in Athens and a world championship gold in the same event in 2003.

They were married in the fall of 1999 and spent much of the next five years apart:

From the spring of 2002 until the 2004 Games, we spent less than eight months together as Buffy trained in London, Ont., and I with the men in Victoria. Much of this time together was on training camps or during competition and was therefore hardly quality time given that we were often living in separate hotel rooms and single-mindedly focused on competing.

That single-minded devotion paid off for both Williamses when they made the 2004 Olympic team. Barney describes their time in Athens as "one of the most amazing experiences to date in our marriage … truly a dream come true." The results of the racing were something less than a dream come true, however; Buffy's pair finished fourth, and Barney's four — defending world champions in the event — were nipped at the line for the gold.

After the Olympics the Williamses moved to Oxford to pursue post-graduate education and (in Barney's words) "begin the next chapter of [their] lives … positioning [themselves] for life in the real world." To most people this would imply a certain separation from competitive rowing, but Barney competed at the 2005 and 2006 world championships. He also became captain of the Oxford Crew and won two victories against Cambridge in the world's most famous rowing race. Buffy, in the meantime, has been out of competitive rowing entirely (as far as I can tell) but did win the Oxford-Cambridge Varsity triathlon in 2005. In early 2006 she gave birth to a baby boy (Tavin Alexander Hammersmith Williams).

Now Barney and Buffy have decided that they want to have one more kick at the Olympic can. They're both going back to full-time training with the goal of winning a gold medal or two in Beijing. That means another two years of living apart, delaying their "life in the real world," and relying on others to help share childcare duties.

I find this story both inspiring and unsettling; I feel envious and insulted at the same time.

At the end of my own competitive career — a career in which I reached the Olympic Games, but never matched the achievements of Barney or Buffy Williams — I was twenty-six years old. I got married, finished my Ph.D., and got my first real job at age 29. We now have two children with a third on the way, and all of the run-of-the-mill trappings; dog, debt, and station wagon.

My life since retirement has been pretty similar to the one that Mr. and Mrs. Williams have embarked on and now decided to postpone. I'm not here to question their choices — but am I being too sensitive if I feel like Barney Williams is questioning mine?

I don't mean that personally, of course. Barney Williams doesn't know me and I am sure he did not intend to criticize my life. But he makes it pretty clear that it wouldn't be enough to satisfy him right now. He knows that this pursuit of an Olympic gold medal will be difficult for his young family and for their "life in the real world." He might not admit that the odds are against him, but he knows that many determining factors will be out of his direct control. And still, Barney Williams can't resist the desire to chase that Olympic gold one more time; anything else would be not quite good enough:

Our future appeared bright as we returned to Canada and began the search for a lifestyle that would continue to challenge and inspire us the way that our Olympic pursuit had. We talked about promising career options … and how through triathlons, marathons and even masters mixed rowing we could continue to experience the excitement of training and competing.

However, as the discussion progressed the reality set in that nothing would ever replace the rush of emotions that overcome you when sitting on the starting line for a race that you have focused all your time and energy towards. It is this singular focus that separates Olympians from weekend warriors and makes the transition so difficult for many full-time athletes.

Williams has hit on a great point here. Most adults do not live their lives like high-performance athletes. They cannot point to a moment in the near future and say, "Everything I do today is designed to get me there." Most people do not know the date and time that they will arrive at their moment of truth, and they are not even sure how they will be measured when they get there. That's what makes the transition to regular life so difficult for so many athletes; it's not that the goals are less worthwhile, it's that they are not so simple or so clear.

Since I retired from competition, my dreams and goals have changed to be, well, more like everybody else's. When I succeed, nobody puts me up on a podium and plays the national anthem. In most cases, the finish line is ill-defined and the final result is unmeasurable. But I don't think that ambiguity makes this life — my "life in the real world" — any less worthwhile. Maybe that's just a rationalization from a thirty-something obso-lete that never reached the top of the podium. Maybe the things that have replaced high-level sport in my life are actually much less than what I had before.

I don't really believe that, though. I don't begrudge the Williamses their last shot at their dream; I even envy them a little bit, and I'll definitely be rooting for them. But for my own part, I'm glad that I didn't postpone this life to pursue that one.

UBC in the NCAA?

Scott at Timed Finals has the story of the University of British Columbia's application to become the first Canadian member of the NCAA. Josh at the Double-A Zone addressed the idea last spring; reports suggest that UBC expects an answer any day now.

I think that UBC could be competitive if it's selective in the choice of sports it plays. If approved, UBC will participate in at least seven men's and women's sports. They have indicated that they feel that they could be immediately competitive in golf, baseball, volleyball, soccer, swimming, and rowing. That seems like a pretty sensible list.

I'd be curious to learn more about the financial implications of the move, though. In particular, what will be the impact on tuition and fees for the general student population?

The numbers show clearly that athletic departments at state-funded universities in NCAA Division I lose money:

Athletic departments at taxpayer-funded universities nationwide receive more than $1 billion in student fees and general school funds and services, according to an Indianapolis Star analysis of the 2004-05 athletic budgets of 164 of the nation's 215 biggest public schools. Without such outside funding, fewer than 10 percent of athletic departments would have been able to support themselves with ticket sales, television contracts and other revenue-generating sports sources. Most would have lost more than $5 million.

Undoubtedly UBC's athletic department costs students money in the same way right now, and it isn't clear whether the move will make the situation better or worse. What is clear is that NCAA Division I will offer UBC's student athletes a higher level of competition, and that would be good news for Canadian athletes in a number of Olympic sports.

Oh Sure, But Is It a Sport?

Back in the May budget the Canadian federal government proposed a Children's Fitness Tax Credit, intended "to promote physical fitness among children." The proposal went on to say that "the credit will be provided on up to $500 in eligible fees for programs of physical activity for each child under age 16."

[An eligible program of physical activity is] an ongoing program suitable for children in which substantially all of the activities undertaken include a significant amount of physical activity that contributes to one or more of cardio-respiratory endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, flexibility and balance.

Of course, that still leaves a little room for interpretation. So for the last two months, an expert panel, appointed by the Minister of Finance, has been touring the country. They've been hearing from Canadians about what they consider meaningful physical activity, aiming to use that feedback to set the criteria for what should (and should not) be eligible for the tax credit.

As you might expect, Canadians think that everything their own children are involved in should be eligible. The panel has heard appeals for everything from ballet, to music and art, to "free-form play." The recommendation of the expert panel is due to the Minister on October 6.

I've written before that I don't want to get drawn into a debate about whether such-and-such activity is or is not a sport. In this case, however, we're debating whether specific programs should qualify as "physical activities."

The case for ballet seems like a no-brainer to me, although Linyee Goh takes a backhanded swipe at organized sports in the Vancouver Sun article, saying that ballet is "the best physical exercise for children, because it's both physical and mental." Unlike, say, soccer, where you just turn your brain off, is that it?

As my contribution to the debate, here are Amateur's suggested guidelines for eligibility for the Children's Fitness Tax Credit:

• In eligible programs, increased physical activity should be seen as an accomplishment in itself. I'll concede that you can achieve a good workout by playing the violin, but you can't achieve playing the violin by just increasing your level of physical activity.
• The incurred expense should include some element of instruction; that is, it should be something more than just the opportunity for exercise. Buying a bike or a Y membership isn't enough. And when I say instruction, I don't mean supervision — if you're paying money so that your children can engage in "free-form play," I say that's just "child care" under another name. And we know that you've already got plenty of money for that.
.

Rules of the Game

Scott at Timed Finals had an interesting post a few days ago about the various different sets of rules in effect at swimming competitions in the United States.

Scott examines the use of the butterfly kick in breaststroke events and points out that some young swimmers are bound by one set of rules at USA Swimming events and a different set of rules at National Federation of High Schools events. (The former organization runs the US national team and development programs, and the latter governs high school swimming competitions.)

This high school season, the National Federation Swim and Dive Rules Committee changed its rules to allow butterfly kicks, but to the dismay of many coaches and athletes, the rule is different from the USA Swimming rule. The butterfly kick - in which the leg bends and the legs move together in unison - allowed in high school swimming this year permits a swimmer to take a dolphin kick only after the arm stroke, not at any point in it.

What’s the problem then? The high school swimmers who swim for USA Swimming clubs are taught to take the dolphin kick at whatever point in the arm stroke they feel comfortable.

Scott goes on to express the opinion that the competition rules should be uniform and charges the various governing bodies "to come together to discuss these rules in order to keep everyone on a level and similar playing field."

I myself have a role in one of those governing bodies — not for swimming in the United States, but for flatwater canoe-kayak in Canada. I am currently the chairman of the committee that has responsibility for setting the racing rules for national team trials.

Members of the Canadian national canoe-kayak team have to race under at least three different sets of rules during a season:

• Domestic racing rules established by CanoeKayak Canada and in force at regional and national championships, where athletes race for their clubs;
• National team trials racing rules established by the High Performance Commitee of CKC and in force at national team selection trials, where athletes race for selection to international competition; and
• International racing rules established by the International Canoe Federation and in force at international competitions, where athletes race for Canada.

The domestic competition rules are quite different from the international rules. That's partly because those rules are determined by majority vote of the member clubs of CKC, and there is no higher governing body "handing down" rules that must be followed. And partly it's because the scope and objectives of domestic competition are very different from the scope and objectives of international competition.

As I noted, I have some responsibility for setting the second set of rules. The primary purpose of the national team trials is to select athletes for international competition. To do that, we need to let the athletes perform on a fair and level playing field, and we need to collect objective data (rankings and times) that are used to make the selections. A secondary purpose of the trials is to prepare athletes for international competition. In this respect we want to simulate ICF-sanctioned regattas as closely as possible.

In general, then, we stick closely to the ICF rules (PDF) because it clearly supports the secondary objective. But sometimes strict adherence to ICF rules undermines the primary objective.

For this reason there are a very few ICF rules that we do not enforce at our trials; for example, rule 14.1:

At least three kayaks or canoes must be entered before the race can be held. …

We sometimes hold races with two crews, or even only one crew, for example in cases where a crew has yet to meet some minimum performance standard. We also sometimes hold events (usually women's canoe races) that are not yet recognized by the ICF.

This is a relatively minor variance, to which nobody objects. Other cases are not so clear-cut. Here's an example of a very unpopular ICF rule (16.3) that we do enforce at our Trials:

If the competitor does not start, and has no valid reason approved by the Competition Committee, he shall be disqualified for the whole regatta. A competitor, who arrives too late at the start, shall be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn and shall be disqualified under this rule.

ICF rule 16.3 was most famously invoked at the 1988 Olympic Games. French paddlers (and heavy favourites) Philippe Boccara and Pascal Boucherit missed the semi-final for their K-2 1000m semi-final, which was held a short time after Boccara had qualified for the K-1 1000m final. Under rule 16.3 Boccara was disqualified not only from progressing further in K-2, but also from racing the final in K-1 (more here under "Distraits," if you read French).

The rationale behind rule 16.3 is somewhat convoluted. Basically the rule tries to prevent athletes and teams from corrupting the seeded draw by entering events they have no intention of racing. In our case, most of the athletes who run afoul of this rule are young paddlers at their first trials who miss the start of their first heat and then are not allowed to race the entire weekend in any event — singles, doubles, or fours at any distance. By enforcing the rule, we are eliminating the opportunity to evaluate those athletes (and for them to evaluate themselves) against their peers. In other words, we're undermining the primary purpose of the competition. If the enforcement of the rule is not making a significant improvement in the fairness of the competition, then its only purpose is to "teach athletes a lesson" about ICF rules, and that has to be balanced off against the detrimental effects.

Other variances can arise if we start to think that an ICF rule is itself unfair or open to manipulation. Lately I've been starting to wonder about ICF rule 9.3, which concerns boat weighing and measurement following each race:

… Three or more boats according to the decision of the Competition Committee and on a random system shall be re-controlled [weighed, measured, and inspected] immediately after the race.

Usually at the trials we call four boats to boat control; if we call them "on a random system," you have a 5/9 chance of not being checked after your race, even if you win. Part of the primary purpose of the trials is to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of our athletes, and I am not sure that rule 9.3 safeguards that fairness well enough. I would feel more comfortable with a system where the top finishers are always checked — or possibly where all boats are checked.

In such an event, the committee must deal with a temptation to modify the ICF rule and make it "better." Probably something like this is sentiment is the cause of the minor rule difference that Scott pointed out from US swimming. There will always be some tension between the desire to make the rules uniform and the desire to make the rules suit your specific purpose.

Marion Jones and WADA Code Article 6.4

This week I am taking a look at three recent high-profile doping cases in the United States. In each instance I'll frame the athlete's case in terms of the WADA Code (PDF) and associated anti-doping rules. Each of the cases provides a slightly different perspective on anti-doping rules in sport.

This is part 3 of the three-part series, concerning the case of sprinter Marion Jones. In Part 1 I discussed the case of sprinter Justin Gatlin, and in Part 2 I discussed the case of cyclist Floyd Landis.

Marion Jones is a five-time Olympic medallist and three-time World Champion in athletics. She has been dogged by doping allegations for years, but had never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs until June of this year.

At the 2006 USA Track and Field Championships, Jones provided a urine sample that tested positive for EPO. A test of her B sample this month produced a negative result.

By now everybody knows that Marion Jones has been "cleared" of any doping violation as a result of her non-negative B sample. But what exactly is a B Sample, and what does the non-negative result really mean?

I have written briefly about B Samples once before, in the context of the Bernard Lagat lawsuit, but I wanted to expand a bit on the topic. Some of the consequences of a non-negative B sample are addressed peripherally in Article 7 of the WADA Code (Results Management), but the meat of the subject is covered in those International Standards we learned about in part 2. Article 6.4 of the WADA Code, "Standards for Sample Analysis and Reporting," states that:

Laboratories shall analyze Doping Control Samples and report results in conformity with the International Standard for laboratory analysis.

Let's talk about analysis of samples and reporting of results, then.

The B Sample Defined: The International Standard for Testing

The WADA Code International Standard for Testing (PDF) describes in detail how anti-doping tests are managed and performed, including the creation of the so-called A and B samples.

When an athlete produces a urine sample under the direction of a doping control officer, it is divided into two parts; one labelled as the A sample, and one marked as the B sample. The bottles are sealed separately, and then pass into the custody of the anti-doping organization.

I should emphasize that the B Sample is not really a separate sample of an athlete's urine; the A and B samples together make up a single bodily specimen, collected from an athlete at a single instant of time.

The Meaning of the B Sample: The International Standard for Laboratories

Most drug screening tests are performed on multiple aliquots, or portions, of the A sample. The International Standard for Laboratories (PDF), paragraph 5.2.4.3.1.1, states:

Presumptive identification from a Screening Procedure of a Prohibited Substance … must be confirmed using a second Aliquot(s) taken from the original “A” Sample.

So if the routine calls for testing the A Sample more than once, and the B Sample is just more of the same urine, what's the point? Why split the urine sample at all?

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the B Sample is collected and stored in a separate, sealed container. This offers at least some degree of protection against inadvertent or intentional contamination of the athlete's urine sample.

The second reason relates to an interesting rule that I didn't know about before, namely paragraph 5.2.4.3.2.2 of the International Standard for Laboratories:

The “B” Sample confirmation must be performed in the same Laboratory as the “A” Sample confirmation. A different analyst must perform the “B” analytical procedure. The same individual(s) that performed the “A” analysis may perform instrumental set up and performance checks and verify results.

So the B Sample is the same urine as the A Sample, collected at the same time, and stored and tested at the same lab; but it is stored in a different container, and tested by a different analyst, at a different time.

Still, this doesn't amount to a great deal of sample independence, and as you might expect it is pretty rare that a B Sample result fails to confirm the A Sample result (more on that later).

However, on those rare occasions, the Standards are quite clear about the result:

The B Sample result must confirm the A Sample identification for the Adverse Analytical Finding to be valid. … If the “B” Sample confirmation does not provide analytical findings that confirm the “A” Sample result, the Sample shall be considered negative and the Testing Authority notified of the new analytical finding.

Without a positive B sample, there is no positive test. This includes, by precedent, the case where the B sample cannot be tested — most famously during Tyler Hamilton's positive at the 2004 Olympics. If I can backtrack for a moment, this has important implications for Floyd Landis. As I noted in Part 2, there seems to be a possibility that the confirming B sample in his case cannot be conclusively identified as the one that he provided at the Tour de France. If that is the case, the B sample positive will probably be annulled, and Landis will be exonerated.

Getting back to Jones, the negative B sample has raised a few questions. Dick Pound says that WADA wants to look into what happened, but it's well-known that the urinary EPO test is, shall we say, imperfect. WADA has a defense of the test on its web site, but Pound's initial reaction to Jones' negative B sample says it all, I think:

It's a question of interpretation and the benefit of any doubt goes to the athlete.

Public Disclosure: WADA Code Article 14.2

Several news stories have reported that there has been only one previous instance of an EPO positive being overturned on B sample analysis, that being the Bernard Lagat case I referred to above. That might be true, but I doubt it. The fact is that many A sample positives are not publicly disclosed. In Jones' case, the initial reports were leaked to the press by unnamed USADA officials. That may have been a violation of the WADA Code, although I can't tell for sure. Article 14.2 of the Code, "Public Disclosure," states that anti-doping organizations may make public disclosure of adverse analytical findings "no earlier than completion of an administrative review of [the A sample positive]." The anti-doping organization is not required to make public disclosure of positives until 20 days after an anti-doping rule violation has been determined, which in turn requires either a B sample positive or a waiver of B sample testing.

I don't like the first part of this rule much. I agree that there is a lot of value in public disclosure as a deterrent; indeed, I think that the threat of public shame is a more powerful deterrent than the threat of suspension from competition. But public disclosure before an anti-doping rule violation has been confirmed by due process is not fair, in my opinion. People have been so suspicious of Marion Jones for so long that they're not going to feel a lot of sympathy for whatever she's got left of her reputation. But the rules state quite clearly that there are no positive tests without B sample confirmation. So why are some positive tests disclosed before B sample confirmation?

Floyd Landis and WADA Code Article 3.2

This week I am taking a look at three recent high-profile doping cases in the United States. In each instance I'll frame the athlete's case in terms of the WADA Code (PDF) and associated anti-doping rules. Each of the cases provides a slightly different perspective on anti-doping rules in sport.

This is part 2 of the three-part series, concerning the case of road cyclist Floyd Landis. In Part 1 I discussed the case of sprinter Justin Gatlin.

Floyd Landis is an American cyclist, 2006 winner of the Tour de France. A urine sample collected during that event came back positive for an elevated T/E ratio. His specimen also showed evidence of exogenous testosterone via the carbon isotope ratio test.

Last week Landis' lawyers filed a request with USADA to have the doping charges against their client dismissed. This request is based on a claim that the tests performed on Landis' urine sample were invalid.

This is an interesting contrast to the Gatlin case I discussed in part 1. Gatlin has conceded that his positive test constitutes an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1 of the WADA Code. His defense will apparently attempt to establish "exceptional circumstances" with respect to that violation.

Landis, on the other hand — and I should repeat again that I have no inside knowledge of the athlete's case, and am basing my comments on the public statements of the various parties — appears to be concentrating on Article 3 of the WADA Code, "Proof of Doping," denying that he had a banned substance in his specimen at all.

WADA Code Article 3.2

Article 3 of the Code clearly states that anti-doping organizations (the UCI in this case) bear the burden of proving that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof is described as "greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt." In general, a positive urine test by a WADA-accredited lab is assumed to meet that standard. But this assumption can be challenged by the athlete:

WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis. The athlete may rebut this presumption by establishing that a departure from the International Standard occurred.

If the athlete rebuts the preceding assumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard occurred, then the anti-doping organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the adverse analytical finding.

     —WADA Code Article 3.2.1

It appears that this clause will be the crux of Landis' defense. He and his lawyers will attempt to establish that the WADA-accredited laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry did not follow the International Standard during the analysis of his urine sample from the Tour de France. I should point out Landis, as the athlete, faces a lower standard of proof than the UCI. He only has to establish a departure from the International Standard "by a balance of probability." If he is successful, the UCI will then be called upon to demonstrate that the lab's failures did not cause Landis' positive test. If they are successful in turn, then the positive test will be treated as proof of doping in spite of the departure from the International Standard. However, putting the burden of proof back on the UCI would be a significant victory for Landis. Let's see if he's likely to succeed.

WADA Code International Standards

The WADA Code International Standard for Laboratories (PDF) contains 45 pages of requirements and rules concerning the conduct of laboratory tests. Annex C makes reference to WADA Technical Document TD2004EAAS, Reporting and Evaluation Guidance for Testosterone, Epitestosterone, T/E Ratio and Other Endogenous Steroids (PDF), which is particularly relevant to the Landis case. There are a number of areas where an athlete might choose to challenge the way that their test was conducted, and Landis' lawyers have given us some hints about where their defense is heading.

Any challenge to the science of urine tests will necessarily be quite technical, but I think we can break the argument (as laid out in the Yahoo! News article) into two main thrusts:

1. The test results do not constitute sufficient evidence of exogenous testosterone under the International Standard. In particular, Landis' appeal makes some specific technical claims about the results of the carbon isotope ratio (also called an IRMS) test performed on his A sample. The Reporting and Evaluation Guidance explains that a number of different urinary metabolites and reference steroids can be measured via IRMS. Landis' team is claiming that although one of those metabolites had a ¹³C/¹²C differential that exceeded the threshold for a positive finding, the combined test results for all metabolites were not sufficient for a positive finding.

The Reporting and Evaluation Guidance is rather vague on the interpretation of results, stating only that "the results of IRMS analysis and/or of the steroid profile measured by GC/MS [the test used to measure the T/E ratio] shall be used to draw conclusions as to whether a doping violation may have been committed." I'm not a medical expert, so it's difficult to predict whether this defense will be successful, especially since I've only seen a brief summary of one side of the argument. But I think that those who want to believe that Landis is innocent (and I am one of them) can find some reason for hope here.

2. The urine tested was not Landis' specimen. When urine samples are collected, the vials containing the A and B samples are labeled with unique identifying numbers. Both vials are sealed, and then sealed together within another labeled container. The number on each sample ensures that the test results are properly assigned to the appropriate athlete, and are also supposed to ensure anonymity of the sample within the lab. The lab documentation would report the positive test by sample number only.

Landis' attorney, Howard Jacobs, claims that the laboratory documentation shows that the B sample that tested positive had a sample number that was not assigned to Landis.

Under the International Standard it is the clear responsibility of the anti-doping organization and the laboratory to ensure proper identification, documentation, and chain of custody of samples. This is critical to the integrity of the anti-doping effort. It will be extremely embarassing for the lab if it this error is confirmed.

More importantly for Landis, this would probably invalidate the results of the tests on the B sample. And if that happens, Landis is going to walk away from this doping charge.

But I'll have more to say on that subject in Part 3.

Bonus Topic: WADA Code Article 4.4

Although I don't expect it to be part of Landis' defense, I should also address the issue of therapeutic use. Earlier this week it was revealed that Landis' infamous positive was only one of thirteen at the 2006 Tour de France. The other twelve adverse findings were not reported as doping violations because the riders in question held Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) for the substances in question. A doctor for the French Council to Prevent and Combat Doping expressed concern about the fact that of the 105 riders tested at the 2006 Tour, 60 held TUEs for at least one banned substance:

This statistical indication leads us to think that there are a lot of still uncontrolled excesses in the peloton. It is quite troubling. Sixty percent of medical justifications on the Tour raises serious doubts and leads one to think that they could be hiding doping

Article 4.4 of the WADA Code states that "Every IF shall ensure … that a process is in place whereby athletes with documented medical conditions requiring the use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method may request a therapeutic use exemption. … Such requests shall be evaluated in accordance with the International Standard on therapeutic use."

The International Standard for Therapeutic Use (PDF) states that a TUE will be granted "only in strict accordance with the following criteria:"

• An athlete must face a "significant impairment to health" if the drug or treatment is withheld;
• The therapeutic use of the drug or treatment may enhance performance only to the degree that a return to normal health would enhance performance; and
• There must be no reasonable therapeutic alternative.

This is only a partial list of the criteria, actually, but the three points above outline the medical case that needs to be made before a TUE will be granted. Section 7 of the International Standard describes the detailed application process. The requesting athlete must provide a medical history, results of examinations or imaging studies, and statements from medical professionals. The anti-doping organization has 30 days to review the application after it is received.

For two very specific classes of banned subtances a TUE can be granted through an Abbreviated TUE Application Process. This process, described in section 8 of the International Standard, is just what it sounds like: a very simplified application for a TUE. In this case, the TUE is granted more or less automatically upon receipt of a medical notification from the athlete, stating the "name of the drug, dosage, route of administration and duration of the treatment." The process is only applicable for two categories of substances, in acknowledgement that "some substances included on the list of Prohibited Substances are used to treat medical conditions frequently encountered in the athlete population." The two substance classes are beta-2 antagonists (commonly used to treat asthma) and glucocorticosteroids (commonly used as an anti-inflammatory). Landis himself held a TUE for cortisone during the Tour de France, which he used for treatment of his hip.

At the end of the Sports Illustrated article I referred to above, the French doctor reveals that the thirteen positive tests at the 2006 Tour de France were for three classes of banned substance. One of them, of course, was anabolic steroids — we knew about one case already. Care to guess what the other two classes were?

I don't think we should to be outraged that Floyd Landis and some of his competitors hold very limited and specific exemptions required for their medical treatment. Is it surprising that more than half the riders in the peleton hold TUEs? I was surprised, yes. Is it possible that some athletes are abusing the TUE process to cheat the system? Well, it wouldn't be that hard to fake the application, really. All you would need is a cooperative doctor or two. But it would not be easy to get a TUE for the really serious stuff — AAS, HGH, EPO — under the criteria in the International Standard. If there's a doping epidemic in cycling, I think that bogus TUEs play a very small role.