Who owns old samples?

[babastooey]

From a strictly legalese point of view, I'm curious. Who owns old blood and urine samples? Is ownership part of a contract signed by the rider somewhere?

I'm also curious about the recent article on here about Lance and his old samples being tested by USADA. Were they in the posession of USADA the entire time? If not, how did the samples come into their posession? Was it USADA who tested Lance back when the samples were taken? How were the samples handled/stored from then until now? Do they have evidence that seals weren't broken and the samples were untampered with? Does the contract authorize USADA to test B samples any time they feel like it, or can they only be tested under a certain circumstance? What do the written contracts say?

I have actually read two things recently that got these questions on my mind. The recent article on this site, and the book Slaying the Badger about the 1986 Tour. LeMond actually said he went so far as to press his thumb into the hot wax used to seal his doping control B-sample vial and take photos of everything because he was paranoid that the French would tamper with his sample in order to proclaim Hinault the winner of a record 6th Tour. (He did other things too, like grab musette bags not intended for him, and he started buying and eating all his own food the last few days of the race.)

Note that I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I am curious as to why the reporter who wrote the article didn't bother finding out the answers to some of these questions. It would be really helpful if we had total and complete information.

Some of you have better info than reporters. I was wondering if anyone felt like chiming in with what they know.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It depends on the year. The UCI has fought bitterly to stay out of full WADA compliance, so little by little, they've had to do it like the WADA procedure.

My limited understanding is WADA holds samples for 8 years. I don't know the particulars of jurisdictional details.

The further you go back, who owns what becomes complicated. Meaning, I don't have an answer.

 

[babastooey]

I have another question.

Can a rider be present or have a representative present when a B sample is tested in the lab? The reason why I ask is because of the Lemond story. I'm certain that if his A sample had been positive, he would have wanted to be there to make sure that the vial being tested was the one with his thumbprint in the wax. In addition, by being there he can be satisfied that nothing was done to contaminate the sample in between the vial opening and the test.

And if this is the case when testing B samples, could it also apply when testing them retroactively? Did USADA for example inform Armstrong that they were testing his old samples, so he could arrange to have a representative present?

It would seem sketchy to have all of this take place behind closed doors. The point here is not only to have evidence against someone, but to present it in a conclusive and thorough way so there is absolutely no doubt.

I was always amazed at the Landis thing where the lab had some screwups and vials were mislabeled/misnumbered. I mean, he was caught and later even admitted it, but the case was not exactly handled in the most thorough way possible.

 

[sittingbison]

...I was always amazed at the Landis thing where the lab had some screwups and vials were mislabeled/misnumbered. I mean, he was caught and later even admitted it, but the case was not exactly handled in the most thorough way possible.

Just because that is what his hugely expensive paid liars proposed. does not necessarily make it so. Do you think if it actually WAS the case, the prosecution would have succeeded?

PL: Your honour, I propose the DNA samples linking my client to the murder are from another person. The lab has mislabelled the vials.
Judge: Why would you suggest that?
PL: My client is a male, the DNA sample is female

 

[DirtyWorks]

I was always amazed at the Landis thing where the lab had some screwups and vials were mislabeled/misnumbered. I mean, he was caught and later even admitted it, but the case was not exactly handled in the most thorough way possible.

Wait a minute.... I thought Landis was a lying cheat who couldn't be trusted under any circumstances?

I think there's a new cargo cult on the horizon....

 

[MacRoadie]

I have another question.

Can a rider be present or have a representative present when a B sample is tested in the lab? The reason why I ask is because of the Lemond story. I'm certain that if his A sample had been positive, he would have wanted to be there to make sure that the vial being tested was the one with his thumbprint in the wax. In addition, by being there he can be satisfied that nothing was done to contaminate the sample in between the vial opening and the test.

Huh?

 

[babastooey]

Huh?

For those who do not know about Greg LeMond and the wax thumbprint story, I suggest you go to the recent book by Richard Moore called "Slaying the Badger" about the 1986 Tour.

I thought I already mentioned the story in an earlier post on this thread, but back then, doping control would use wax to seal the vials. Late in the Tour, Greg became paranoid that people might be out to screw him so that Hinault could break the record and win a 6th Tour. This was actually due to something the Tour director Goddet said to him once he got the yellow jersey. Greg took all kinds of photos of the doping control vials and even stuck his thumb into the hot wax on his B sample, so he could make sure that they wouldn't switch his vial out for a contaminated one. He was concerned that if an A sample tested positive (because the lab either contaminated it after opening it, or switched it with a positive test vial), he could request the B sample to be tested, and then he would be certain it was his because he had the thumbprint on it.

In other words, he would have wanted to be there to identify the correct vial. That is what prompted my question.

The Landis comment was kind of a throwaway comment about laboratory incompetence. It led to people being misdirected from my actual point. Yes, Floyd cheated. Did the lab do everything 100% correct? No, and they should have. It allowed Floyd's lawyers something to grab onto even though in the end it wasn't successful.

I think the key here is that it is beneficial to prove beyond not a reasonable doubt, but prove beyond all doubt. Don't give anyone's lawyers even an ounce of doubt that they can stretch and turn into reasonable doubt. My concern here is whether or not measures were taken with the utmost care to remove all doubt, in the minds of everyone. Otherwise, you simply aren't going to convince everyone, and the goal should be to convince everyone.

Everyone seems to think that if riders with a trustworthy image (like G.H.) testify and say Lance was on stuff, that will be the dealbreaker, and I believe it would be devastating. However, any good lawyer or judge knows that the physical evidence is far more important than eyewitness testimony. Steps should be taken to handle that evidence with the utmost care.