Arnie Baker Cycling

The Wiki Defense

ABC Books: [ Order All eBooks ] [ Altitude Climbing Endurance ] [ Bicycling Medicine ] [ Bike Fit ] [ High-Intensity Training ] [ Nutrition for Sports ] [ Psychling Psychology ] [ Running Injuries ] [ Skills Training ] [ Smart Coaching ] [ Smart Cycling ] [ Strategy & Tactics ] [ The Essential Cyclist ] [ The Wiki Defense ]

About Floyd Landis
The Wiki Defense 2.0.
How the French Lab (LNDD) & US Anti-Doping Agency Failed
 

By Arnie Baker, MD

Free. Download the Book, PDF (Wiki 2.0, 14 MB)

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 

About the Author

How I Became Involved 

Publication Notices 

Forward: Why the Wiki Defense? 

What’s What / Who’s Who 

Part 1: The Issues 

Burden of Proof

Top Issues 

They Lied 

They Botched the Test

They Never Even Identified Testosterone Properly 

Negative Test

1.1. Vanishing Acts 

1A. Electronic Data Records Destruction 

1B. Overwriting of Files 

1C. Document Doctoring 

1D. Document Omission 

1.2. Magical Appearances 

1E. August 2006 Linearity Testing 

1F: GC/MS Instrument Column Log 

1G. Methyltestosterone Solution Log 

1H: Fraudulent Witness Declaration

1I: Expert Matthews Told “Facts” by USADA  

1.3. Misdirection/Lies 

1J. USADA Denies Needs for Chain of Custody Location :: Evidence Shows Need 

1K. USADA States Chain of Custody Documents Intact :: Evidence Shows Contradictions 

1L. USADA Denies Need for Validation Studies :: Evidence Shows Otherwise 

1M. USADA States Results Positive at All Labs ::  Test Results Would Not Be Positive at UCLA  

1N. USADA States All Controls Were Accurate :: Evidence Shows Otherwise 

1O. USADA/Lab Denies Manual Corrections or SOP :: Evidence Shows Manual Methods Routine/SOP 

1P. USADA/Lab Denies Need to Consider Uncertainty :: Evidence Shows Requirement

1Q. USADA Denies Time Gaps :: Evidence Shows Multiple Time Gaps 

1R. USADA Denies Illegitimate Deletion of Data :: Evidence Shows Undocumented Deletion of Data 

1S. USADA/Lab States Operating Pressure Okay :: Green Light Fraud 

1T. USADA States Accreditation a New CAS Issue :: Accreditation Raised at AAA Hearing 

1U. USADA States Identification Method in IRMS :: Method Fails --> USADA Changes Story 

1V. USADA States IRMS Columns Different :: SOP Violation --> USADA Changes Story 

1W. USADA Denies Bad Chromatography :: Admits Co-Elution of Peaks Were a Problem  

1X. USADA Expert: Internal Standard as Quality Control :: Failure --> USADA Experts Change Testimony 

2. It Does Not Make Sense 

2A. Testosterone Level Normal, Not High 

2B. Results Were Normal Before and After 

2C. Urine is Concentrated 

2D. Testosterone Does Not Work In One Day 

2E. Was Something Fishy Going On? 

2F. Lab is Error-Prone 

2G. Presumption of Guilt Wrong Approach 

2H. Power Within Range 

3. Lab Accuracy: General

3A. Lab Errors, General

3B. Laboratory Standards 

3C. The Lab Puts Garbage In, It Gets Garbage Out

3D. Electronic Data Files Defective 

3E. Trivial Tests Do Not Guarantee Accuracy 

3F. Accreditation Testing Does Not Guarantee Ability 

3G. Lab Not Accredited For Accurate IRMS Test

3H. Proficiency Testing Does Not Guarantee Ability 

3I. Inadequate Documentation 

3J. Operators Have Minimum Education/Experience 

4. Lab Accuracy: Procedure 

4A. Chain of Custody 

4B. Timeline with Chain of Custody, Other Notes 

4C. Document Package Riddled with Errors 

4D. Wrong Sample Numbers 

4E. Obsolete Hardware and Software 

4F. Reprocessing Samples 

4G. Unexplained Time Gaps 

4H. Batch Results Don’t Match Individual Reports 

4I. Lack of Controls 

4J. Variation in Negative Control Values 

4K. Lack of Replicates 

4L. Contamination/Degradation

4M. Procedures Wrongly Verified 

4N. Reference Solution Errors 

4O. Lab Knew it Was Landis 

4P. Same Operator 

4Q. Inadequate Lab Security 

5. GC/MS: Testosterone, Epitestosterone, Ratios 

      T/E Testing Summary Results 

5A. Bad Identification: Single Ion 

5B. Bad Identification: Matrix Interference 

5C. Bad Identification: T/E Peaks Misidentified 

5D. Bad Identification: Deuterated Androsterone 

5E. No Controls in Run 

5F. T and E Values Vary (‘A’ Sample) 

5G. T/E Ratios Not Accurate (‘A’ Sample) 

5H. T/E, T, and E Uncertainty 

5I. Poor Linearity 

5J. Lab Cannot Quantify Reference Steroids 

5K. Confirmation Not in Triplicate (‘A’ Sample) 

5L. Testosterone Level Not High (‘B’ Sample) 

5M. Longitudinal Testing 

6. IRMS: Carbon Isotope Test

Compound Specific Isotope Analysis Requirements 

      Does LNDD Have Identification Criteria? 

      Identification Failure 

6A. Bad Identification: Lack of Machine Coupling 

6B. Bad ID: Retention Time Shift: 995474 

6C. Bad ID: Retention Time Shift: Retesting 

6D. Bad Identification: Different Method Files 

6E. Bad Identification: Wrong Column Used 

6F. Bad Identification: Bad Chromatography 

6G. Bad Identification: Internal Standard Failure 

6H. Bad Identification: Results Not Reproducible 

6I. Only One Metabolite Abnormal

6J. LNDD Has No Reference Range Population 

6K. No Positive Controls in Run 

6L. Negative Control Positive 

6M. LNDD Has No IRMS Operating Manual

6N. Pressures 

6O. Poor Linearity 

6P. Measurement Error: Internal Standard 

6Q. Measurement Error: Erroneous Conclusion 

6R. All Metabolites Within LNDD Negative Range 

6S. Metabolites Dependent

6T. Absolute Androstanediol Values Negative 

6U. No Replicates 

6V. Mass Balance Formula Wrong 

7. Retesting Tour Samples

7A. ‘A’ Samples Negative ---> ‘B’ Samples Negative 

7B. Observers Denied Access 

7C. Smell Test

7D (1-6). Why IRMS at LNDD is Inaccurate 

7E. Bad Chromatography Characterizes Retesting 

7F. Time Gaps 

7G. Deleted Log Files 

7H. Inability to Accurately Determine SI

7I. QC Negative Fails Accuracy Testing 

7J. Landis’s Samples Different Than “Controls” 

8. Due Process Issues 

8A. The WADA System  

8B. Early Release of Sample Results 

8C. Media Comments By WADA And Other Officials 

8D. Hiding and Moving the Ball 

8E. Lies and Fraud

8F. Report Documentation 

8G. Provision of Document Package 

8H. Timing 

8I. ADRB Dismissal Timing 

8J. Scientific Misconduct. LNDD Errors 

8K. Release of Other Athletes’ Results 

Appendix A: ISL and Other Violations 

Appendix B:  Metabolite Positivity 

Appendix C:  Statistical Arguments 

Appendix D:  Whistleblower Documents 

Appendix E: Error List

Appendix F: Longitudinal Data 

Appendix G: Test Procedures and Problems 

Appendix H: Testing Terms 

Appendix I: Discovery Docs 

Appendix J: Doc Pac Table of Contents 

Appendix K: References 

Free. Download the Book, PDF (Wiki 2.0, 14 MB)

Part 2: Arbitrators, Attorneys, and Witnesses 

The AAA Arbitrators 

Patrice M. Brunet

Christopher L. Campbell

Richard H. McLaren 

AAA Panel Expert

Francesco Botrè 

The CAS Arbitrators 

David Williams 

Jan Paulsson 

David Rivkin 

Landis’s Attorneys 

Maurice Suh (AAA and CAS) 

Howard Jacobs (AAA) 

Daniel Weiss (AAA and CAS) 

Paul Scott (AAA and CAS) 

Landis’s Testifying Experts 

Amory, John, MD, Andrologist

Davis, Simon, PhD, IRMS Instrumentation Expert

Goldberger, Bruce, PhD, GC/MS Expert

Goodman, Keith, PhD,  IRMS Expert

Landis, Floyd, Respondent

Meier-Augenstein, Wolfram, PhD, IRMS Expert

USADA Attorneys 

Richard R. Young 

Matthew S. Barnett

Daniel J. Dunn 

Jennifer Sloan 

USADA Testifying Experts 

Ayotte, Christiane, Dr., Canadian Anti-Doping Laboratory Director 

Brenna, Tom, Dr., IRMS Expert

Buisson, Corrine, Dr., IRMS Supervisor 

Catlin, Don H., Dr., Former USA Anti-Doping Laboratory Director 

Frelat, Claire, Analytical Chemist

Garcia, Myriam, Analytical Chemist

Jumeau, Janine, IRMS technical Writer 

LeMond, Greg, Three-Time Tour de France Champion 

Le Petit, Gérard, Machine Maintenance Service Agent

Mathews, Dwight E., PhD, IRMS Expert

Mongongu, Cynthia, Analytical Chemist

Papp, Joe, Admitted Doper and Drug Trafficker 

Schänzer, Wilhelm, PhD, German Anti-Doping Laboratory Director 

Shackleton, Cedric, Steroid Metabolism Expert

Part 3:  Selected Press and Blog Coverage 

Final Words: Improving Fairness 

Free. Download the Book, PDF (Wiki 2.0, 14 MB)

Acknowledgments

I thank the numerous contributors to this Wiki Defense, supporters of the Floyd Fairness Fund, and independent journalists and bloggers who have helped shine a bright light on egregious laboratory practices and failings of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) system.

I especially thank Floyd Fairness Fund executives Brian Rafferty and Michael Henson; former UCLA Olympic Laboratory Director of Client Services Paul Scott; testifying experts John Amory, Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, Simon Davis, Bruce Goldberger, and Keith Goodman; consulting experts Don Berry and Dale Glaser; Wiki contributors Alan Brandon, Kevin Dykstra, Thomas Fine, Andy Phillips, Jim Seely, Stephen Previs, Rajkumar Thirumalainambi, David Thompson, Chris Whalen, and Dan Wulbert; journalists and bloggers David Brower, Michael Hiltzik, William Hue, Jennifer Hughes, and Dan Rosen.

I thank Barbara Baker, Bobby Carter, Jennifer Eggers, Josh Gruenberg, Gero McGuffin, Graham Milner, and Teresa Mueller for general editing and proofing.

Free. Download the Book, PDF (Wiki 2.0, 14 MB)

How I Became Involved 

Arnie behind Landis at a Los Angeles press conference, May 10, 2007.

I met and started coaching Landis over a decade ago.

Landis was a mountain biker when he started with me, and a good one at that. He had already won the Junior National Cross-Country championships.

Landis was obviously talented and willing to work very hard. At the time, I was also coaching Tinker Juarez, multiple mountain biking National Champion and Olympic Team member.

Up a 9-mile dirt climb, Tinker was about 2 minutes faster than Landis was. However, off-dirt, it was the other way around—Landis was ahead by several minutes.

The difference was remarkable. Landis had a bigger engine—however, Tinker was smoother on the dirt and was able to use what he had to better advantage.

I knew Landis could obtain even better results on the road. At the age of 20, I had already timed Landis up Mt. Palomar several minutes faster than Vuelta a España and Giro d’Italia winner and Hour-Record holder Tony Rominger.

When sponsorship in mountain biking dried up, Landis switched to road.

Landis began his road career with a district rep-approved instant upgrade to Cat 3. His first road race, he flatted. Carrying a spare tube and pump, mountain-biker style, he stopped, fixed his tire, was passed by the entire field, caught up, and went on to win the race by five minutes.

In his next road race, I started in the Cat 1,2s. Landis, again as a Cat 3, starting 15 minutes behind, passed my entire field, inside, on the dirt, in our first 12-mile lap, and went on to win his race by more than 30 minutes.

With an upgrade to Cat 2, he raced a Pro-Am race full of Mercury riders. Solo, he tore the field apart, and John Wordin, Mercury racing team manager, signed him.

The Postal years, a broken hip, Phonak.

Those years flew by.

During the 2006 Tour, like many others, I was glued to the television watching Stage 17—for me the most fabulous day in cycling.

At the Tour’s end, amid doping allegations, I did not speak to the press—though my phone rang nonstop for three days, and more than 30 media outlets contacted me.

Like Landis, I really had nothing to say—I did not know what the situation was. Unlike, Landis, I could keep to myself.

David Witt, Landis’s father-in-law, died in late August, 2006. I had introduced Landis to David, and I had performed the wedding ceremony for Rose (the mother of Floyd’s wife Amber) and David some years before.

After I said a few words at David’s memorial service, I saw Landis, and offered to look at his laboratory document package when he received it.

I had had no background in reviewing doping document packages. I had no background in anti-doping testing.

I did have a decade of experience in looking at medical records, auditing charts for quality control—for my medical group, for my hospital, and for the State of California.

When I received Landis’s document package, I was appalled at the lack of quality. Sample numbers were mixed up. Sample numbers were overwritten. Results made no sense, and at times were mutually exclusive.

Fairly quickly, I told Landis that if the standards for anti-doping laboratories were anything like the standards for medical laboratories and medial record keeping, this was not a positive test. This was a test that should be thrown out.

Landis decided early to have an open arbitration. Athletes have the right to request an open hearing, but it had never been done before. Landis already knew that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) system was a closed one, without standard checks and balances, where the writers of the rules could also be the prosecutors and the arbitrators.

Moreover, hardly anyone knew about anti-doping testing, and those who did generally worked in anti-doping laboratories and were prohibited from assisting athletes.

Early on, we decided on an approach not favored by most attorneys: We would post everything we could about the case on the internet. We would call it the Wiki Defense.

We would show what we had, and figured we might obtain some help from interested readers.

Here is one analogy of the WADA system:

Imagine you are driving your car on the freeway, and a traffic officer pulls you over.

Officer: “I’m going to write you a ticket.”

Driver: “How fast was I going?”

Officer: “I’m not going to tell you.”

Driver: “What’s the speed limit?”

Officer: “I’m not going to tell you.”

Driver: “Can I go to court and fight this?

Officer: “Yes, but you can only choose from judges that I’ve preselected. After you’re found guilty, we’ll charge you court costs.”

Driver: “Officer, I wasn’t speeding”

Officer: “Nonsense. Of course you were. You’re driving a red car. Everyone knows that people who drive red cars speed.”

For me, this is about the science, and the science fiction of the anti-doping laboratory that analyzed Landis’s sample.

I have now spent about 3,000 hours on this case. I have looked at the documents. I have learned about the science. I have read the operating manuals for the machines. I have conferenced with attorneys and with experts. In addition, I have given a public slide show about the case, across the United States, more than 25 times. All pro bono. All at no charge.

Working pro bono has afforded me an advantage not easily available to anyone paid for by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) or Landis. I am not bound by the WADA Code of Ethics (also called the WADA Code of Silence, and the WADA Omerta). I can assist an athlete. I can say what I want to. Most importantly, anytime I want to, I can walk away.

Helping Landis over the last 22 months has been part of my motivation.

However, my personal history has provided another motivation.

I have been a cycling coach and author for almost twenty years, and was a practicing physician for about the same period. My more fundamental background is that of a scientist and a logician. For me, science is about truth and the search for truth.

For over a decade, I wrote annual reviews of the literature of bicycling medicine and science. Each year I typically reviewed several thousand articles and abstracts.

The disregard for scientific rigor—shown by the laboratory and those who support its work—is an affront to me as a scientist. The work of the laboratory is a blot on science as much as it is on Landis’s career. To me, any confusion about the failure of the laboratory is also confusion about science, is also confusion about truth.

I have read many thousands of e-mails, on-line posts, and other articles about this case. I have read opinions about doping in cycling, doping in sport, the character, or lack thereof, of witnesses for USADA and Landis.

I have read the opinions of numerous scientists, who like me, are appalled by the lack of quality in the work of the laboratory.

What I have not read, is a single non-WADA-biased scientist defend the work of the lab.

When a traffic officer tickets a speeder, it must be because the driver is speeding, not because the officer has profiled a driver of a red car.

When a laboratory accuses an athlete of doping, it had better be, it must be about an accurate test that proves doping.

Bruce Goldberger, a laboratory expert (President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Analytical Toxicology) has stated: “This is the worst chromatography (in an official report) I have ever seen.”

In the case of this lab, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD), Landis’s test proves numerous violations of laboratory standards and incompetence.

Furthermore, (1) the many documents that appear to me to be fraudulent and (2) the many statements made by USADA, the LNDD laboratory, and USADA’s witnesses that appear to me to be outright fabrications suggest scientific and legal misconduct and, for me, completely undermine the whole document package and process.

Free. Download the Book, PDF (Wiki 2.0, 14 MB)

Forward: Why the Wiki Defense?

Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France.

The Wiki Defense is about the science debunking Landis’s allegedly positive test for testosterone on Stage 17.

 It is also about the numerous apparently fraudulent documents and false statements provided by the LNDD laboratory and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Coincident with the first edition of The Wiki Defense, Landis published his story, Positively False.

We coined the term “Wiki Defense” for our open defense of this fatally flawed test.

We posted, online, the entire 370-page document package (doc pac) outlining the details of the claim of the lab, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) against Landis.

We also posted the What’s Fair is Clear slide show outlining some of the readily apparent problems with the claim.

With this document, we outline details of procedural and interpretative problems with the claim.

The document was very much our working defense, often written in point style, rather than as a narrative.

“Wiki wiki,” is a term that translates to “quick” or “hurry up” in Hawaiian. Of course, it is also the root word in Wikipedia, the online collaborative encyclopedia.

The vast majority of anti-doping scientists in the world work for World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratories and are prohibited from assisting athletes in their defense.

By posting Landis’s case publicly, we were able to rapidly send out to the public details of the flaws in the report as well as receive from the public comments that helped us learn more about the lab’s errors.

This document represents the collaborative effort of our defense team. The nucleus of our team included Landis (who was very involved at every step); his ex-manager Will Geoghegan; attorneys Howard Jacobs, Maurice Suh, Kay Reeves, and Daniel Weiss; ex-UCLA Olympic Anti-Doping Laboratory Director of Client Services and attorney Paul Scott; and public relations experts Michael Henson and Brian Rafferty.

Key roles were also played by Landis’s personal physician Brent Kay and Phonak team physician Denise Demir.

Our roughly dozen experts each made substantial contributions within their respective fields. Many of these experts worked pro bono—at no charge—because they were committed to righting an injustice.

David Brower, initially a complete stranger to Landis, independently posted multiple daily news reports, research, and commentary on a website devoted to Landis’s case, Trust But Verify—http://trustbut.blogspot.com/index.html?com.

Finally, truly, our defense team included the public contributions made by readers of our online defense—including scores of scientists.

Make It Personal

Imagine that you have a check-up with your doctor.

Your doctor finds a spot on your arm, says it looks “suspicious” and says that it might be a skin cancer—specifically, a malignant melanoma.

Your doctor says: “Let’s take a biopsy.”

You ask: “What is going to happen?”

The doc says: “We’ll have to see.”

1.      “If it’s melanoma, and not too deep, we can just take a few inches of skin and tissue around the spot.

2.      If it’s a deep melanoma, we may have to amputate your arm. It’s drastic, but it could save your life.

3.      Of course, if it is just a mole, nothing more needs to be done.”

The biopsy report comes back. It is a deep melanoma.

However, there are problems.

The laboratory did not use the proper procedure in processing your biopsy, and the improper staining procedure made it uncertain that the pathologist could make a correct analysis. He notes that he is calling it a deep melanoma—to be safe—but he is not certain.

In addition, there was a sample number mix-up. Although the laboratory is pretty sure that it was your tissue they were looking at, they are not absolutely certain. However, the lab had manufactured documents, after the fact, showing that the test was okay.

In addition, instead of processing your tissue immediately, it sat out in the open air a little too long, and the tissue was degraded—it broke down and could not be analyzed according to standard protocol.

Oh, and by the way, the tissue stain solution was twice as strong as it should have been. This may have made cells seem darker and more dangerous than they really are.

Would you let your arm be amputated?

You find out: This laboratory has had problems before, many problems, many times.

One time, the laboratory had called a biopsy melanoma, and suggested amputation—then had to withdraw its conclusions when it realized it had mixed up some samples. The correct sample was normal.

Another time, the laboratory had called a biopsy melanoma, and suggested amputation—then had to withdraw its conclusions when it realized that it had overstained a tissue sample. The redo, with proper staining, was normal.

Now, might you think: I could have lost my arm, and others may have lost theirs—who should not have. If there is some good that can come from this, maybe I can help make sure this does not happen again. Maybe I can improve the system, help bring public awareness to the need for better laboratory controls, better testing, better checks.

That is what we are doing here:

·        Bringing the details of Landis’s allegedly positive doping test out into the open. For all to see.

·        To show the massive number of procedural and interpretative errors.

·        To show the fabrications.

·        For Landis, and for all athletes.

·        For fairness.

Free. Download the Book, PDF (Wiki 2.0, 14 MB)

What’s What / Who’s Who

The Alphabet Groups

AAA: The American Arbitration Association.
“Services to individuals and organizations who wish to resolve conflicts out of court.” Link.

AFLD: L’Agence française de lutte contre le dopage.
The French anti-doping agency. Created April 5, 2006. Link.

CAS: Court of Arbitration for Sport.
“[P]rovides for services in order to facilitate the settlement of sports-related disputes through arbitration or mediation.” Link.

COFRAC: Comité Français d'Accréditation.
The laboratory accrediting agency.
Link.

LNDD: Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage.
The French National anti-doping laboratory. Link.

UCI: Union Cycliste Internationale.
“[A] non-profit-making organization founded on 14 April 1900, is the association of the National Cycling Federations. Its headquarters are in Aigle, Switzerland.” Link.

USADA: United States Anti-Doping Agency.
“The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is the national anti-doping organization for the Olympic movement in the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as ‘the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States.’” Link.

WADA: World Anti-Doping Agency.
“[T]he international independent organization created in 1999 to promote, coordinate, and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms.” Link.

Arbitrators, Attorneys, Witnesses

Amory, John. Landis testosterone expert.

Ayotte, Christiane. USADA expert. Lab director, Montreal.

Barnett, Matthew. USADA attorney.

Botre, Francesco. AAA panel expert.

Brenna, Tom. USADA IRMS expert.

Brunet, Patrice. AAA arbitrator. Chair.

Buisson, Corrine. LNDD IRMS supervisor.

Campbell, Christopher. AAA arbitrator. Landis selection.

Catlin, Don. USADA expert. Lab director. UCLA.

Davis, Simon. Landis IRMS machine expert.

de Ceaurriz, Jacques. LNDD director. Did not testify.

Dunn, Daniel. USADA attorney.

Frelat, Claire. LNDD IRMS operator.

Garcia Myriam. LNDD lab operator.

Goldberger, Bruce. Landis lab-procedure and T/E-ratio expert.

Goodman, Keith. Landis IRMS expert.

Jacobs, Howard. Landis attorney.

Jumeau, Janine. USADA IRMS instrument expert.

Le Petit, Gerard. LNDD machine outside-service agent.

LeMond, Greg. USADA witness. Ex professional bicycle rider.

Martin Laurent. LNDD lab operator.

McLaren, Richard H. AAA arbitrator. USADA selection.

Meier-Augenstein, Wolfram. Landis IRMS expert.

Mongongu, Cynthia. LNDD IRMS operator.

Papp, Joe. USADA witness. Ex professional bicycle rider.

Paulsson, Jan. CAS arbitrator. Landis selection.

Reeves. Kay. Landis attorney.

Rivkin, David. CAS arbitrator. USADA selection.

Schänzer, Wilhelm. USADA expert. Lab director. Cologne.

Scott, Paul. Landis consulting expert.

Shackleton, Cedric. USADA steroid expert.

Sloan, Jennifer. USADA attorney.

Suh. Maurice. Landis lead attorney.

Tygart, Travis. Former USADA inside counsel. Now CEO.

Weiss, Daniel. Landis attorney.

Williams, David. CAS arbitrator. Chair.

Young, Richard. USADA lead outside attorney.

Other Acronyms

ISL: International Standard for Laboratories.
WADA standards.

ISO: International Organization for Standardization.
International standards adopted by WADA into its ISL.

SOP: Standard Operating Procedure.
A lab’s own standard.