Sport & Auto
- About Future
- Digital Future
- Cookies Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Investor Relations
- Contact Future
Race-ready with a proportional fit
Rachel makes the move to 27.5in wheels
Ratboy's all-new 27.5in-wheeled downhill demon
Baby blue race rocket with lots of neat touches
Late Monday, Floyd Landis' attorney Howard Jacobs submitted a motion for dismissal of Landis' case...
Late Monday, Floyd Landis' attorney Howard Jacobs submitted a motion for dismissal of Landis' case to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Independent Anti-Doping Review Board.
According to a statement from Jacobs, the motion focuses on problems with the tests that showed Landis as positive for exogenous testosterone after stage 17 of this year's Tour de France. In particular, the Landis camp alleges flaws in the carbon isotope ratio test which allegedly proves that Landis' elevated testosterone:epitestosterone is caused by exogenous testosterone.
Jacobs's submission alleges that:
"WADA's own protocols require that all testosterone metabolite differentials provide clear evidence of testosterone usage to find an athlete positive. Given the data, three of the four testosterone metabolite differentials tested in Landis' sample are reported as negative considering the margin of error.
The only testosterone metabolite that can be argued as positive under the WADA Positivity Criteria resulted from an unknown laboratory error and is not the result of testosterone usage.
The one metabolite that has been identified by WADA-accredited laboratories as the best, and longest-term indicator, of exogenous testosterone usage was reported as negative in Landis' urine samples."
Jacobs argues that "the single [positive] T/E [Testosterone/Epitestosterone] analysis in this case is replete with fundamental, gross errors. These errors include inconsistent testosterone and epitestosterone levels from testing on the 'A' sample as well as multiple mismatched sample code numbers that do not belong to Landis. In the case of the mismatched sample identification codes, the alleged confirmed T/E data on the 'B' sample is from a sample number that was not assigned to Landis. The differences in sample identification numbers also point to issues in the chain of custody of the Landis sample.
"Clinical laboratories making these types of gross errors could easily find themselves answering to a wrongful death lawsuit, and often do," said Jacobs. "At a minimum, those laboratory errors must go to the defense of the athlete and must result in a finding that the T/E results are wholly unreliable."