By Kenneth Barbalace

As I detox from two weeks of intensely following the Floyd Landis hearings and shift my reporting back to my normal topics, I want to know why the mainstream media outlets can not do good science reporting? This question is not new to me, but the coverage of the Floyd Landis hearings did really highlight how little the traditional media cares about science. If there was ever a story that needed good science reporters, it was these hearings. They were all about science and it was well know in advance that science would be the center piece of the testimony. Unfortunately, mainstream media chose to report this as a human interest story as if this were a story better told in the tabloids.

The tragedy of this is that the science aspects of the story transcend Floyd Landis and professional cycling. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the French testing laboratory Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD), who are at the heart of this case, are also responsible for testing and prosecuting athletes across a wide segment of sports that fall under the umbrella of the International Olympics not just cycling.

Thousands if not tens of thousands of athletes, both famous and not so famous, depend upon good laboratory practices to accurately test their samples. Yet as our detailed analysis of the science testimony in Floyd Landis's hearings showed, the testing procedures at LNDD were seriously flawed and completely incompetent. CNN, New York Times, Sports Illustrated, et al, there are serious science issues underlying this case and they affect the lives of many, many athletes beyond cycling. This story needs to be covered by competent science reporters and not treated as another tawdry tail from the cycling world.

Thus far one of the very few "mainstream" reporters to not get suckered in to the tawdry smear tactics employed by the USADA was Craig Medred, in a must read opt-ed piece in the Anchorage [Alaska] Daily News titled "Anti-doping show trial is bicyclists' circus". Come on NYT, Chicago Tribute, et al, throw your reporting might behind this issue and push past the tabloid headlines to report on what is passing as science at WADA and LNDD--the public needs to know. Do not leave this job to small website publishers like myself who do not have your reporting resources or your audience reach.

Do we really want an incompetent testing lab like LNDD testing the athletes at the next Olympics and then have those athletes railroaded by WADA's anti-doping inquisition? Would you want to have to submit your career and reputation or that of your family members to the whims of WADA's sense of justice and/or LNDD's laboratory practices?

Our coverage of the science side of the Floyd Landis hearings:
When science, peer review & independent experts are anything but, by Ken Barbalace (Me, enjoys watching Tour de France)
LNDD: The Chain of Custody was broken, by Roberta Barbalace (relation mother, non-cyclist and no interest in TDF)

By Anonymous

Chain of Custody (COC) is a paper trail that describes events from a beginning point to an end point. As a hazardous waste chemist, I used a manifest to document the passage of the waste from “the cradle to grave”, which means from the point that the waste was generated to the time that it was properly disposed of and a “certificate of destruction” was issued. When cleaning up the hazardous waste from clandestine drug operations for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), we had COC documentation that identified every point at which the chemicals were passed on to another individual or agency. In fact, if the cargo compartment of the vehicle, in which the chemicals were being transported, was opened, both a lock AND a number coded seal had to be removed before entry, and the removal of the seal had to be documented, dated and signed by the individual removing the seal. When the compartment was closed and locked again, the code on the new seal had to be listed on the same line as the code on the seal that had been removed.

There was an unbroken line of all activities relating to the clandestine lab chemicals. In addition, there was a number coded seal on each container. If the seal was broken for any reason, it had to be entered and a new seal had to be recorded. Generally speaking, the seal was never broken from the time it was placed on the container until it went to final disposal. If it was broken, there had better been a really good reason. As a result of 9/11, a chain of custody is now standard for any shipment of hazardous materials, not just chemical wastes.

During my years in the hazardous waste industry, I was Transportation Compliance Manager for a regional fleet of hazardous waste vehicles and drivers. Every potential driver was drug tested prior to being hired. If they failed the test, they were not hired. We were all subject to random drug testing throughout our careers; if anyone failed the random tests they were immediately moved to a non-safety sensitive position and could under the discretion of upper management be given an opportunity for rehabilitation or be dismissed. The COC was even stricter for the drug test samples than hazardous waste. Under no circumstances could there be any way that the name of the individual could be associated with a drug sample until the test was completed and the results recorded. The reputation and careers of me and everyone I worked with depended upon the reliability of the testing labs' procedures. I have always felt fairly confident that lab procedures are carried out properly--until now.

I am not a cycling enthusiast, but my connection to drug testing and COC protocols has drawn me to the drug doping hearings of last year's Tour de France winner Floyd Landis. Given what has been exposed during the hearings over the past week and a half, if I were being tested now, by the WADA accredited French testing laboratory LNDD I might not be so confident my tests were being handled properly. I was absolutely horrified to read the testimony of the witnesses and what it has exposed about LNDD. I was especially appalled by what was exposed during the testimony of Dr. Simon Davis, who has a PhD in mass spectrometry and did much of the designing of the mass spectrometer in question (including writing parts of its procedural manual).

Up until Floyd Landis's samples arrived at LNDD and the seal was broken the chain of custody seemed to be handled appropriately. From that point on the COC totally breaks down. There are many missing entries, and hence opportunities for mistakes to have occurred, switches of samples to be made, and the integrity of the sample and test results to be fatally compromised.

Aside from the lack of certainty in the COC, the procedural errors that occurred in the laboratory were too numerous to mention. The technicians even admitted that they knew that they were testing samples from Floyd Landis. It appears, in fact, that many of the errors have been built into the procedures from day one of operation and that the mass spectrometer was set up or calibrated properly to begin with. LNDD's procedures were so inadequate that one would have to question every drug test result that ever came from that laboratory.

Missing data, re-running of analysis, switching of samples within a lot, manual correction of data, inability to retrieve data that should have been saved are errors that I would have questioned in procedures conducted by my freshman college chemistry students. In fact, when my students found that analysis of computed generated data was questionable or when they had made an error in procedural errors, they reported it to me immediately so that we could remedy the situation if possible. Those errors were recorded as required and reported in the final document.

It seems to me that LNDD's forgetting to carry out specific procedures, such as determining reference peaks, was common enough that several “I forgot to do it” events occurred in the analyzing of specimen A and B of Floyd Landis alone. Do these mistakes happen as frequently with other samples?

Floyd Landis's attorney summarized in his closing statements (unofficial non-literal transcripts by "Trust But Verify", video recordings can be viewed here):

Errors build one on top of one another. Pattern of mistakes, necessary to cover the previous mistake, which creates a need to do something else.

...

Lab documents, crossouts, improper procedures. Our point has never been that these were someone else's samples. It was about sloppiness and lack of care. Seven errors on one page. What does that tell you about quality and training? It's no good.

In March of this year there was a discovery dispute, and LNDD produced in March. This [log] was one dealing with preparation of reference solutions. We saw some strange things. This is supposed to be a living documents. Supposed to be a conteporanesous log, but the handwriting is the same all the year.

It appears that the individual who was training other employees didn’t understand the procedures. One could only assume that her trainees knew less than she did about the procedures. I am horrified to think of how many innocent people have lost jobs, sports titles and had their lives destroyed because of errors that have taken place in this testing laboratory. No wonder they report 300% more drug positive tests than any other lab. Could it be that up to 2/3 of their positive tests were in error? Given what we know from the testimony of Davis and others during Floyd Landis' hearings, it would seem that all data ever generated from the LNDD testing lab should be suspect.

Had this testimony ever been documented in a US Court against a testing lab in the United States, one would expect that the lab would have been shut down until the mass spectrometers were properly installed and calibrated, the laboratory technicians were properly trained, procedures were in place and it could be demonstrated that employees understood the procedures, including COC.

This is a day in court for every athlete that LNDD has accused. Right now at LNDD, we may have lab techs with 6 months training who think what they are doing is right.

Can we approve of this work? Deleting files, changing data, not being able to identify the substances in questions.

Would you want the fate of your life and career in the hands of LNDD?


[Roberta Barbalace's Bio]


Further Reading
Our analysis of the first part of the hearing: "When science, peer review & independent experts are anything but"

Relevant testimony in this case in chronological order (from "Trust But Verify"):

• Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein - I
  
• Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein II
• Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein III
• Hearing - Mon Meieir-Augenstein Cross
• Hearing - Tue: Davis Direct
• Hearing - Tues: Davis Direct II
• Hearing - Tue: Davis Direct III

By Kenneth Barbalace

Due to the practice of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies many infants who are fed powdered or reconstituted baby formula are getting too much fluoride in their diet, which may lead to health problems. Among other recommendations parents or caregivers who are on municipal water supplies that are or may be fluoridated should consider using bottle water to reconstitute baby formula. Small children should also be monitored while brushing their teeth to make sure they spit out toothpaste and do not accidentally swallow it. Read entire article at EnvironmentalChemistry.com

By Kenneth Barbalace

Adding fluoride to public water systems stirs up a great deal of debate and controversy and much of this controversy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fluorine and Fluoride are. Another fundamental misunderstanding is that whether something is harmful or helpful all depends upon the quantity consumed/ingested. For instance we have to drink water to survive, but drinking too much water can screw up the electro light balance in our body and kill us. Read more

By Kenneth Barbalace

A few weeks ago I came across a great chemistry forum with some really knowledgeable members who were able to dig up some really arcane information related to an element of the periodic table that I was researching. If you are looking for a place to discuss all things chemistry related go to: http://www.chemicalforums.com

By Kenneth Barbalace

It was delayed by my Google disaster on July 27th, however; I have completed one of my periodic updates to my Periodic Table of Elements. Every time I do one of these updates I wonder what I was thinking to put a periodic table on my site to begin with back in 1995. Updating and validating existing data on my periodic table takes a tremendous amount of work and over the years I've built up quite a collection of books and charts related to chemistry and the periodic table. I even have two books in Russian on this topic (I made my wife go through those).

One of the most important things I have learned about compiling my data has been to rely on or at least validate against printed sources like books and charts rather than rely on other online periodic tables. In part I do this because they often times used my table as their primary reference so in effect I would be validating my data against a partial copy of my data (not very wise). I have also found that data errors abound in periodic tables especially those published on websites due to clerical errors and omissions. Even books have errors but with enough printed references one can usually isolate out most bad data.

Some of the interesting things I learned during this update are:

1) The IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) has now officially named elements 110 (darmstadtium ? Ds) and 111 (roentgenium ? Rg).

2) Contrary to popular belief plutonium has been found in nature. In fact, in 1970 Dr. Darleane C. Hoffman discovered traces of naturally occurring primordial plutonium-244 in Precambrian bastnasite. This means that plutonium is the heaviest element to have been found in nature on Earth. That should be of some use as a trick question on a chemistry test somewhere.

3) Although credit for the discovery of platinum is typically given to Antonio de Ulloa of Spain in 1735 or Wood in 1741, platinum (which can be found as pure/native nuggets) had been known to and used by the pre-Columbian Indians in South America long before its "discovery". This was one of many instances I found where social political or academic intrigue usurped the true discoverer or first user of an element. Zinc is another example where a European scientist took claim for discovering an element that had been known to and/or used by non-European people. Zinc had been known about in India and China since before the 1500s even though most sources try to credit Andreas Marggraf with its discovery in 1746.

I actually found the intrigue surrounding the discovery of some of the elements to be quite fascinating and I may delve into this side of the elements more in future updates. I have also having someone work on an article that helps explain why one can sometimes look at three our four highly reputable sources and get three or four different answers for a single data point on a given element. The inconsistency that is common with certain data points can be one of the more frustrating part of validating data.

If you haven't checked it out already, take a look around my periodic table of elements, it is one of the most comprehensive on the Internet (although I don't have any photos of elements yet) and I'm always working on adding data points not found on other online tables. Visit Periodic Table of Elements