Another Perspective on 2008 WADA Laboratory Statistics

When the Honourable John Fahey presided, last November 2008, as Chair of the WADA Executive Committee, his remarks included two important concepts.

First, as to the problem or situation of full Signatory 'compliance', that WADA had “... certainly watered down the black and white approach that many believed should have been taken...”, and secondly, how results achieved via the various Floyd Landis cases proved “... that the system was there and worked properly...”. Our Ww list (of 'Landis Decisions') includes USADA I, USADA/WADA II, AFLD and the settled US Fed. Court case, not to mention the 'Hacking' case still waltzing through the French court system (although Mr Fahey may not have been counting beyond the three US-based cases). Of course, the 'system' to which Mr Fahey refers is the entire WADA system. A question arises, however, as to the consistency of that system's 'efforts'.

In the previous WADAwatch post, legal anomalies for the basis of WADA's statistics reporting for the 2008 Lab Report, were aptly highlighted. That Report included, as an explanation, Footnote 2 (FN2), which justified the inclusion of (within the statistics on legal AAFs) past numbers of “AF (Atypical Finding) results” from 2003 through 2007. Their legal basis to do so (ostensibly to offer well-founded comparative results), remains unclear.

WADAwatch noted three major problems incorporated by this act of Reporting: by including 2008 AF findings in a 2009 official Report, from statistics gleaned from its family of 'accredited laboratories', WADA is 'jumping the gun' by reporting these. AFs were not legally in existence until the ISL, WADC and Tech Docs came into force after January 2009, thus compiling statistics one year early doesn't make sense. Second problem, was that WADA evidently 'knew' (as clear reading of the FN2 reveals) some of its previously-proclaimed AAF Sample analyses (and of course, Athletes) were not AAFs, but had been publicly disclosed as such for those first five years (2003 – 2007), while (now) apparently only being 'AFs', which are lower -threshold anomalies: a 'non-positive', a 'report' provoked by 'atypicality of findings' of a Substance, from whichever body fluid(s) were examined, and for which the Lab's Senior Management wishes to find more information or investigate further. Yet inclusion of the AF stats calls into question how this WADA system appears to be working. The third problem is either moral or legal; if WADA is denominating previously reported AAFs as AFs, up to six years after those AAF were announced, it may have a legal obligation to at least publish the numbers, or identify individual cases that were the basis for these abracadabrasque, statistical sleights-of-hand, now in the end of 2009.

As long as WADA has been operating under its Code, it has promoted the concept of 'laboratory standardization'. To assist in analysing (for our own understanding) the statistics provided by WADA, we developed our own Table of WADA lab statistics, which ranks from 1 to 34 the WADA laboratories by their percentage of achieved 'Findings'. We hesitate to rail against the fact that labs under a 'unified' system, are offering percentages that range from nearly five percent, to barely one-half percent. Take a look at WADAwatch's table, first...

(Save a copy! You have permission; it shows better enlarged.)

The underlying issue resulting from this disclosure of WADA laboratories and their annual reporting of 'Findings', remains pre-eminent: what statistic confirms that WADA has produced a 'standardized system'?

It comes as no surprise which laboratory takes First Place, the systemic Gold Star, by holding the highest percentage of AAF (plus AF) findings. The AFLD 'département des analyses', formerly the French LNDD, holds this 'chapeau'. Following closely are Madrid, Ghent and Prague; these four laboratories complete the group that have 'Findings' results higher than four percent (4pc). Five other labs fill the ranks of labs showing between three and four percent. Nine labs share eight places in labs producing 'Findings' within two to three percent: Lausanne and the newest ('Welcome!') WADA lab from New Delhi, show an identical 'Findings' result (2.46pc). En suite, eleven labs float between one and two percent levels; the lowest group itself, between 0.50 and one percent, includes five labs. See our Table's lower left corner to capture the 'Regional Subtotals', and the lower right shows subtotals by 'percentile'. The 'Top Four' labs, are eleven (11pc) percent of the family of labs (4/34ths) yet created 707 AAFs, a number which equals 23pc of the total 2008 AAFs.

More astonishing analysis comes, however, from examining the number of 'Samples' that were run, by percentile of 'Findings'. The four 'most positive' labs ran just over nine percent of the Samples: 26,115 in sum. The five 'least positive' labs ran 39.84pc of the 2008 Samples: 109,406. The labs that report less than two (2pc) positives but more than one percent, ran 74,723 Samples. That equates to 184,129 Samples, or barely over 67pc of the annual number, showing less than two percent positive 'Findings'.

All four of the 'most positive-findings' laboratories are in Europe; none of the 'least positive-findings' are in Europe: two are from the USA (L.A. and Salt Lake City), two from Asia (Tokyo, Beijing) and Ankara (Turkey: we define 'Europe' as does Nicolas Sarkozy). Our presumption is that WADA is currently questioning these disparate statistics at great length, internally and with correspondence with its Signatories, for the stats call into question 'by what sense' the WADA system is functioning, under the title of 'Laboratory Standardization'. As to the 'champion of positives', under the guidance of AFLD and Pierre Bordry, one might think WADA would add this 'achievement' by that Agency to its analysis, pertaining to various counter-charges levied against the AFLD by the UCI response-report of late October.

The phrase 'the Beauty of Science' has a regular place in texts posted by WADAwatch. When the Beauty of Science is surrounded (Suborned? Submerged?) by national politics, international politics, and the World of Sport, it becomes hard to imagine whether a majority of labs' Sample analyses, which show 'low positives', are 'falsely reporting negatives' that should, de facto be 'positives', or whether the opposite is true.

Standardization of laboratories does not mean, ipso facto, that all must have the same IRMS machine; it should mean that whichever IRMS machine, in all WADA labs, when given a Sample (for control/test purposes) in pristine condition, containing an identical concentration of, let's say Testosterone metabolites such as 5-alpha diol and 5-beta diol, ought to be able to identify those metabolites, and their concentrations, at the anticipated level (within scientifically-accepted, statistically acceptable norms: like 0.001 to 0.0001pc).

It does not mean that all labs should operate (within the variations of linguistic or legal necessity) with the identical Laboratory Chain of Custody (LCOC) form (wouldn't that be nice, though?); it does mean, however, that any legal evidence derived be acceptably sufficient, satisfying WADA (or higher) standards for disciplinary hearings. These are necessities, if the system is not to be perceived as a hodge-podge of 'don't touch my Science!' participants.

Is the Los Angeles laboratory, which ran over seven times as many Samples in 2008 (72,394 to 10,194) and found 'AAF Findings', at a rate over seven times less frequently, (0.64pc to 4.98pc) as did the AFLD lab, a much 'better lab'? Could it be 'full of deceit', and 'aiding Athletes to cheat'? Not likely, is this author's opinion.

Is a perfect laboratory at some median level in between these two 'extremes'? Are they 'Standardized'? WADAwatch certainly cannot answer the dilemma this question provokes.

It can only pose the questions... and salute the true fact: cheating Athletes (rather 'doping Athletes': cheaters still exist, for 'handballs' that allow a trip to the World Cup, or 'betting scandals' that are ricocheting across European football (soccer) leagues) are, evidently, barely one percent of the total (okay: Athletes who are elite enough to reside 'within the international anti-doping system', and using Substances (or Methods) detectable under today's testing/analysis environment) at 1.08pc (1.84pc by adding in the 'premature' AF numbers). That's a far cry from the 'mob mentality' which claims 'they're all doped!'. And it does ignore the 'migration' by doping Athletes, into medical substances that have yet to be prohibited.

It is in the best interests of Sport: as a joy, as a business, a spectacle or a career, that this progress is acknowledged as a fact.

WADA should not mask its successes under statistics that seem to imply promotion of the inverse.

To be continued... "And..... action!"

..........@......... WADAWATCH
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

Just a tribute to John F Kennedy

This post is now a simple memorial to John F Kennedy, having served its previous purpose. Sunday, 22 November.





In grateful Memory of John Fitzgerald Kennedy

To be continued.... "And.... action!"

..........@......... WADAWATCH
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

The Beau-jo (Lab stats) Nouveau est arrivée

[Edited twice to reformulate our own massive math errors, from
cross-references to 'Olympic' or 'Overall' statistics: we'll
accept any offers of editing on math... and to discuss Footnote 2 Ww]

On request from a correspondent, WADAwatch is thinking about 'Atypical Findings', that bear influence in WADA's 2008 Laboratory Statistics Report...

From the Laboratory Statistics Report 2008:

“Atypical Finding” is defined in the World Anti-Doping Code as “a report from a laboratory or other WADA-approved entity which requires further investigation as provided by the International Standard for Laboratories or related Technical Documents prior to the determination of an Adverse Analytical Finding.” Atypical Findings may correspond to multiple measurements performed on the same Athlete, such as in longitudinal studies on testosterone.

Legally, there seems to be no justification for any inclusion of 'Atypical Findings' within that 2008 Report, for the simple reason that 'Atypical Findings' were never a part of the 2004 International Standards for Laboratories (ISL).

As the ISL 2009 and Code 2009 first took effect in January 2009, one would think two alternatives were pertinently apt: a) that WADA would include a footnote in the Lab Report cited above, which offers its reasoning for inclusion of a statistical measurements that isn't legally in force; b) that the inclusion of AF statistics would not appear before the Lab Report 2009, which of course will be issued in the fourth quarter of 2010.

But that procedural anomoly ignores the series of deeper, substantive problems that lay within the 'Definition' itself. And these go to our least favourite WADA problem, recurring regularly within its legal Documents: the language.

There is first one term that grates our senses, being this:

“... a report from a laboratory or other WADA-approved entity...”

There are thousands of laboratories around the world, and there are 33 (currently) WADA-accredited laboratories. So we have no rational reason for this ambiguous drafting WADA 'carefully' chose to make official. It would have been so easy, and preferable, to write and approve the following:

“... a report from any of the current WADA-accredited
laboratories or such entities as receive ad hoc or official
approval from WADA for the specific time period or event, which...”

Beware, Athletes under WADA's guidance: there's more 'judicial interpretation' en route, which is liable to expand your legal costs resulting from any CAS, NADO or Federation disciplinary procedures against you, if the Atypical Finding 'definition' is a factor in your case. We've chosen to 'bracket' the 'definition', because we spent a good part of this weekend trying to really define what 'IS' an AF.

We still don't 'know'...

The 2009 Code Definition, which you see above, incorporates the 2009 ISL 'definition': they are identical. That means, by reference from the Code, inquisitive Athletes or others (people that are bored on a Sunday afternoon?), are constrained to 'follow the breadcrumbs'. Since the wording of each 'definition' is identical, all we know is that an AF equals 'a report'... we aren't yet aware of the basis for that 'Atypical' status. The researcher seeks the Tech Docs, therefore, to elucidate the Code and ISL Definitions.

The WADA system has nine downloadable Tech Docs (two of which actually take effect in five weeks: 1 January 2010): they are all listed here. Another one, listed twice, will be superseded on 1 January, as well. The Tech Docs are listed (here) in two sets: those which mention 'Atypical' and those without mention (each set, in chronological order of first 'in force' date):

• TD2009LDC (January 01, 2009: on laboratory documentation packages for AAF cases):

this TDC only mentions Atypical Findings in the sense that a the LDC provides a 'summary table... [with] criteria utilized to identify and/or quantitate the target substance(s) to report [an AAF or AF];

• TD2009EPO (September 21, 2009: on harmonization of the method for the identification of recombinant erythropoietins (i.e. Epoetins) and analogues (e.g. Darbepoetin and Methoxypolyethylene glycol-epoetin beta)):

this document only mentions “... may ... be an atypical profile (shifted towards the basic area) ... additional scientific evidence may be needed to arrive at a final conclusion.” (although that continues, suggesting complementary processes to “... confirm the exogenous or endogenous origin of the finding.”).

• TD2009MPRL (January 1, 2010: on Minimum Required Performance Levels for detection of Prohibited Substances):

the three-page document concludes with this catch-all phrase “At any time relevant anti-doping organizations may conduct any additional investigations as they deem appropriate in assessing an atypical sample.”

• TD2009NA (January 01, 2010: Harmonization of analysis and reporting of 19-norsteroids related to nandralone):

this document states: “If the Sample does meet one of the conditions discussed in sections 3.3 and 3.4 below, then it shall be reported as an Atypical Finding and both the Testing Authority and WADA shall be notified of the results as a comment in the test report.”

As the following TD have no reference to the word 'atypical' they are merely listed by title:

• TD2003IDCR (January 1, 2004: Identification criteria for qualitative assays incorporating chromatography and mass spectometry);
  
  

• TD2004EAAS (August 13, 2004: Reporting and evaluation guidance for testosterone, epitestosterone, T/E ratio and other endogenous steroids);
  
  

• TD2004NA (August 13, 2004: will be superseded by above 2009NA, with title change (above includes “19-norsteroids related to” ));
  
  

• TD2009MRPL (January 01, 2009: will be superseded by above TD2009MRPL);
  
  

• TD2009LCOC (January 01, 2009: Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody).

Now we remind our audience we're still trying to find out what 'IS' an 'Atypical Finding'.

Frankly, answering that question is only clear, if we are asked what an AF is for 19-norsteroids related to nandralone, next year. Sections 3.3 reminds us of female subject protocols, and §3.4 discusses 'unstable urine' Samples. The AF would relate to findings for women, or when the Sample shows signs of instability. So an AF in NA is related to either pregnant woman (presuming our readers actually refer to the provided TD links), or unstable urine samples. This opens a door, when someone delays or poorly packages a Urine Sample for transport, that an Athlete could be found 'Atypical', and then 'positive', if the Laboratory refuses or ignores (or never receives) evidence of bad transport.

One is absolutely left in wonder, legally, at the realization that an AF may be just what any lab director wants it to be, based on the catch-all phrase in the 2010-effective Tech Doc on Minimum Required Performance Levels: most of the other Tech Docs do not add any coherent (and consistent!) definition, which should be complete and identical to those in both the WADC or ISL. Notably, however, the TechDoc on Measurement Uncertainty leaves 'AFs' undefined.

With such a legal dilemma, procedurally and substantively, we now can turn to the 2008 Lab Statistical Report, and look at the precocious inclusion of this data.

We've written before about the 'growth industry' aspects of anti-doping control, assuring our readers that we recognize that fact's validity, and still hoping that WADA goes 'black and white' as to the control of laboratories, NADOs and/or Anti-doping Agencies. The first statistic shown, defines that growth: 'Olympic Sports testing' grew at 15.8pc, while 'non-Olympic Sports testing' grew at 46.8pc, providing an overall industry progression of 22.7pc (actual 'A Sample analyses' hit the global sum of 274,615).

Of the 202,067 Olympic Sports A Samples analyzed, there were 1,974 AAFs, yet a total of 3,715 'findings' were counted. This is claimed to be an increase of 10.1pc in findings from 2007. However, the associated footnote reminds, under the column comparing 2008 to 2007, that the AF stats are included.

However, astute researchers find that AF, per se, are not included in the 2007 Report (whether they should actually be in the 2008 report, as they were not a legally-supported item until 'in force', remains on the table). A second footnote (FN 2), also reminds us in the 2008 Statistics Report, that it shows 2003-2007 AAF numbers, which 'include findings that are defined in the 2008 Report as Atypical Findings'. This becomes so very disconcerting: could someone at WADA please inform Athletes when an AAF IS an AAF, and when an AAF is NOT an AAF? What their legal bases are, for acting as nonchalantly as they appear in this report, are not those for which a Quigley-Rule-based CAS Panel would express its admiration.

One thinks that WADA Signatories would request finite conclusions, finite inclusions, in the official reports that are 'signed-off' by the Secretariat for publication, and we wonder how anyone would ever know if their previous AAF was legally invalid, based on footnote text from WADA found in this report? Last point... if 'some' pre-2008 (actually pre-2009, but it's WADA in the driver's seat on this legal SNAFU) AAF actually were AF, but preceded any legal obligation to be announced as AF, does WADA have a legal and moral obligation to assign numbers (quantitative) to the assertion in FN 2? Does WADA want the world to know, or not, if Athletes were prosecuted (persecuted?) by false AAF?

It thus appears that WADA is claiming a 15pc growth in total findings, only justifiable when including the 2008 AF numbers. Overall, there were 2,956 AAF in 2008, with 5,o61 'findings'. In the 2007 Lab Report, there were 4,402 AAF. Now we presume there is a rational reason for WADA's assertion of 'growth', yet 2956/4402 presents a different ratio to this bad mathematician.

We believe, on this singular 'global' statistic, that it is more realistic to state that AAF went down, in 2008, by a factor of nearly 32pc. And if we concede WADA's inclusion of the precocious AF statistics (obviously the numbers are 5,061 – 2,956 = 2,105 AF), we find a claim of '15pc growth from 2007' that truly reflects (in the 'global' sense') odd logic: we see premature inclusion of a legally-unfounded component, provoking odd, 'new-math' conclusions. By inclusion of the legally-unfounded AF component, the stats work as WADA claims. Without AF in the equation, the reduction in AAF is obvious. And WADA should be trumpeting its efforts.

As a percentage of total testing, the 'facts' seem to prove that WADA is being effective, even though its mathematical conclusions tend to show the opposite: why is this, or where is our math analysis wrong? In 2008, AAF percentages 'overall' were 1.08pc of all A Samples. Including the AF component, we have 1.84pc. In 2007, the annual Lab Report, regarding AAF stats, offers 1.97pc (?=?). From a 2007 level of roughly 2pc, the AAF number has nearly been cut in half, and inclusion of AF renders a five percent drop. Yet FN 2 destroys any analytical comparisons, in our view.

If the 'numbers' don't lie, conclusions flock into WADAwatch's cogitative center. Are the Athletes, as is usually claimed, slipping away from Laboratory analysis due to ever-newer medications, some even not out of Phase II clinical trials (as we reported via AFLD's claim in Le Monde: see AFLD Steps Up a Notch)? Or are they 'cleaner' (but 'Atypical'??)? Wouldn't WADA want the Athletes to receive Kudos for cleaning up their sports?

Is there a justification for examining, as Pierre Bordry suggested to WADA president John Fahey, “The limits of classic antidopage controls, in the face of the growing sophistication of doping activities...”? We would agree, in questioning the continuous preoccupation with end users, instead of attacking the traffickers of these boutique products. If an Athlete is receiving a Phase II Clinical Trial product, which are not yet on the publicly-available market, are not yet subject to WADA-approved (or Nature-approved, or JAMA, etc., for that matter) laboratory analyses, the focus should be on the Pharmaceutical Industry, and their sports-fan research staff driving Maseratis (non?).

When a country's authorities (police, border/Customs agents) bust some smuggler with 4kilos of Afghani hashish, heroin or Peruvian cocaine, they deprive a portion of the 'end market' with a percentage of available 'stock'. The market, which in sports doping ends at the Athlete, begins 'far far away'.

So, for once in WADAwatch's existence, we could find ourselves agreeing with Monsieur Bordry, that WADA should be re-prioritizing, re-focussing a portion of its fight. And improving, or clarifying its mathematical analysis of its family's performance that equates with our vision of (minimalist at that) Reality in Statistics... which parallels our focus on the 'Beauty of Science.'

To be continued.... "And.... action!"

..........@......... WADAWATCH
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

A Belated WADAnniversary present...

[the text of this blog-post has been edited, with this colour]

On November 10, 1999... well, let us quote the 'new' WADA web page itself:

The IOC took the initiative and convened the Firts World Conference on Doping in Sport in Lausanne in February 1999.

Some four years later, the WADA Code (sometimes known as 'WADC': signed in 2003, with legal effect January 1, 2004) came into force, and in 2007 it was revised and updated, with the foremost idea (fresh, no doubt, from the legal 'complications' that derived from the Floyd Landis case (of which any reader of this blog is well aware: USADA and WADA spent over five million dollars to procure two 'guilty' awards via the private system of legal arbitration that oversees doping cases)) to make doping penalties longer, to make 'convictions' easier, to add a matrix of penalties that seem to add confusion (thus legal expenses?) to any appeal, and to add the undefined 'Aggravating Circumstances' clause.


So WADAwatch honours this occasion (belatedly, due to post-production delays), in a very special way: we have created our first VIDEO-report, under the new name...

That's one of the titles, above... and the actual show appears below (with fingers crossed for blogger.com !).
(requested consultations from Tom Brokaw, Clint Eastwood, and Stanley Kubrick received no replies... (satire Mode OFF))

Our inaugural show strives to compare the 'strongly dispatched, widely distributed' AFLD allegations, brought in early October, against the UCI, and its late-October response regarding its Tour de France anti-doping efforts. By insinuation, the French media, led by reporter/journalist Stéphane Mandard, created a polemic concerning the team ASTANA, and Plucky Pierre Bordry's personal 'bête noire', Lance Armstrong.


In response, the late-October UCI reply/report was curiously, quietly received outside the dedicated cycling-sports journalism world. And thus WADAwatch charges into that void, offering UCI some small component of 'equal time' by generating our own program.


The report offered by UCI, which we first analyzed at this previous post (Cycling War II: the UCI shows its honour ), offers substantive responses and puts forth damning claims against the AFLD, which apparently is the only NADO (National Anti-Doping Organization) that seeks to disrupt the world in which its efforts are received. Pierre Bordry, who stands alone amongst anti-doping publicity-mongerers, is the Directeur whose words seem to provoke a need to understand how WADA intends to bring the concept of compliance into the forefront of the battle(s) it wages...


But 'we' at WADAwatch believe a great many readers would rather watch an online video than to read the long, legally-oriented 'briefs' that we dispatch from this blog.


We hope you find it entertaining, truthful, and with a sufficiently-necessary impact, and we look forward to providing more, from our series of video-pieces to come.

To be continued.... "And.... action!"

..........@......... WADAWATCH
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

Cycling War II: the UCI shows its honour

The UCI has responded to the AFLD report (a report which has never been published on its web site by the accusing French Agency) with a fact-based series of observations that stimulate the thought, previously expressed here at WADAwatch, that there is an agenda at AFLD.

WADAwatch notes an interesting presse communiqué dated 30 October, 2009, from the AFLD web site. It's text was short:

L’AFLD a pris connaissance des réponses de l’UCI à son rapport sur le Tour de France 2009.

Elle remettra des observations détaillées sur les réponses de l’UCI au Ministre chargé des sports, à l’UCI et à l’Agence mondiale antidopage. D’ici là, elle s’abstiendra de tout commentaire public sur ces questions.

Our in-house translation:

The AFLD has taken note of the responses from the UCI regarding its report on the Tour de France 2009.

[The Agency] will submit detailed observations on the UCI responses to the Ministry controlling Sports, to the UCI and to the World Anti-Doping Agency. Until then, [the Agency] will abstain from all public commentary on these questions.

Before analyzing the confident observations emitted by the UCI, one should note that it is interesting to find the AFLD has now found it 'sage' to withhold premature public commentary. That distinction wasn't evident when it engaged the shrill pen of Stéphane Mandard to write his series of biased, and immature articles in Le Monde, regarding Plucky Pierre's rages against cycling.





One should also hope that the French Secretary of Sport, Rama Yade, draws up a list of questions that call into question the competence, and continued support, through which Pierre Bordry sustains his prominent, if not illustrious, career as head of the Agence française pour le lutte contre le dopage. She has been quoted as 'demanding responses' from the UCI, and 'hoping for a rapprochement' between the French Agency, and the UCI, especially as to future collaboration.


But Yade's priorities may now be leaning towards hoping that the UCI would consider collaborating with such a treacherous 'partner' in the future. And, with a career pharmacist as Minister of Health and Sport, in the person of Mme Rosalyne Bachelot, one can wonder how long the maintenance of AFLD as a 'monopoly anti-doping agency' can exist.


A second recent communiqué from AFLD discussing a recent French meeting, between Plucky Pierre and WADA President John Fahey. In short summary, those issues, which appear to have not been specifically oriented towards this Cycling War II, are:

• The evolution of respective competences of the International Federations and the NADO, and the research of a new equilibrium;
• The support of demands by NADOs addressed to IFs once they have a possibility to effect additional controls;
• The limits of classic antidopage controls, in the face of the growing sophistication of doping activities, which situation incites recourse towards complementary procedures of a judicial nature, and with closer collaboration with Customs and police Officials.
  

Interestingly, the 'general' nature of those 'discussion points' run in strict parallel with the leaked AFLD 'findings', of which we now have the UCI response (a 12p report on-line since the weekend), to the mystery AFLD report (evidently the only thing that Bordry and Le Monde refrained from publishing).


The UCI response offered an anticipated disappointment - that the AFLD has degenerated once again - and catalogues the IFs that are not using AFLD's 'services' at this date (without naming them, although clues are attached: we know that one is the ITF for tennis, and are guessing another might be the Fédération internationale de ski, whose World Championships were in Val d'Isère last February; we won't guess if that is the second or third listed example). But take it from the source:

[...] the UCI is aware of at least three other major International Federations who have experienced significant problems working with AFLD. One International Federation now arranges sample collection and analysis of samples by parties outside of France for its premier event on French soil; another International Federation had to severely reprimand AFLD for failing to conduct sufficient tests on the French national team members before a major World Championships in 2009. Yet another International Federation experienced the same breakdown of anonymity of a sample sent to the laboratory with the athlete’s name included.

UCI's report writer (who Ww congratulates for her or his objectivity) starts by noting the concept of 'partnership':

A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, for the achievement of a specified goal.

The only component missing would have been a citation to the WADC, Article 20.5.2, as we had written two weeks ago: To cooperate with other relevant national organizations and agencies and other Anti–Doping Organizations. It is evident from reading these 12 pages, that the UCI has a long history of 'AFLD stories'.


Start with the comment that the AFLD had requested information so that it could carry out 'extensive pre-Tour testing':

On 14 May 2009, Mr Bordry and some of his staff members met with the UCI and ASO in Aigle. AFLD and ASO expressed a desire to conduct a large number of targeted out-of-competition tests in the six weeks before the Tour de France. We agreed to provide AFLD with whereabouts information of teams who were training in France during this time. This was to enable AFLD to conduct the large scale out-of-competition testing that they considered necessary. By the start of the Tour, UCI had conducted 190 out-of competition tests on riders short listed for the Tour, while AFLD had conducted 13 tests. Of these, 6 were on French riders whom they have access to test all year round.

Sacré bleu, Pierre!

Where, between all the press conferences and your constant 24/7 tracking of Lance Armstrong, did you find the time to send your staff out to test seven foreign riders on French soil (in two months)?! The UCI commentary that six of those thirteen tested riders were "... French... whom they have access to all year round." seems compelling evidence that, as one once said about GW Bush (and as is said about half of the Western-clothing-wearing transplanted 'ranchers' to Texas), Plucky Pierre is...

'All Hat No Cattle'

The UCI response reminds us, that in the two months in which AFLD took to 'verify' and publish it's 'J'Accuse!' report, it failed to remind itself that the Tour was in Barcelona on 9 July, not the 7th.


It reminds readers that UCI was accused of 'speaking of forthcoming tests in public in a loud voice (we are not aware of the specificity with which AFLD cast that observation)', and responds in saying that "... on the night of 9 July [Ww: not the 7th], the UCI DCOs shared a dinner table with UCI race commissaires and did not discuss their anti-doping activities at all."


(Maybe the AFLD staff were not at the next table?)


The UCI response recalls AFLD allegations that 'chaperones were not used for early morning blood tests', while the UCI asserts that its standard procedure mimics those of 'team sports', where the Team Manager (or director, coach: responsible) is notified, commenting that if you have to do 200 tests in one morning, it's not efficient to have individual notification. Sadly, AFLD didn't seem aware of that possibility, and Ww suggests that more collaborative relations would rendered moot the 'point' raised by AFLD's accusations.


The UCI presents its own allegations, in several places. It responds to the comment regarding no chaperones on 11 July, by stating that there were fears in the UCI contingent that there could be leaks from the AFLD chaperones regarding which riders would be chosen, and a more simple explanation: "because the chaperones were lodged a long way away from the hotels at which testing would occur." Maybe the AFLD report should have faulted ASO for assigning lodgings so far from its work zone? Hmmmmm...


Another day AFLD chose for this type of complaint, was the Team Time Trial stage, and (we were not aware of this competence) due to the fact that UCI DCOs also are fully-vested Race Commissaires, and their presence was required and fulfilled to ensure a proper race control. The UCI did acknowledge one of its DCOs informed one team director about an upcoming control, and that this was originated only five minutes before that stage ended, in the effort to make sure the director knew to look for the AFLD chaperone. UCI discussed this seeming 'impropriety' with that DCO, and takes the stance that such information 'was not a necessity', and thus is preferable to avoid. Hardly seems, as one instance out of some 700 to 800, to require the cry of 'scandal!' that AFLD's initial acts of war generated.

SIDEBAR: The AFLD six-months' activity report, of which WADAwatch posted a summary here, discussed a total of 537 samples being submitted (185 urine and 352 blood samples, of which 180 from the start of the race) by the riders: in the UCI response, the number cited was 762 (185 urine samples, 246 blood samples and 331 'biological passport samples').

Has anyone noticed the discrepancies in these variously-published numbers? Are we missing some 106 blood samples? One would think the numbers, of anything, could match between these two control-oriented bodies...

The points in the UCI response continue ad infinitum, and we encourage the faithful to read that report, linked here (again). We prefer to use our independent (and under-funded) status to offer a series of quotes that the UCI offers, regarding the unprofessionalism of the AFLD report, and its manner of publication to the press, prior to receipt by this fellow WADC Signatory and WADA itself. A long page-worth of extracts follow:

The role of the AFLD according to the agreement was modest. In short, they provided the doctors to assist our Doping Control Officers.

[...]
The AFLD’s unilateral decision to conduct an informal observer programme, with the unfortunate result of an untimely, incomplete, misinformed and inaccurate report is puzzling and disappointing. It calls into question the motives of AFLD.

[...]
Most importantly, a true partner in the fight against doping in sport does not take actions which may substantially undermine athlete and public confidence in the harmonisation of the international anti-doping effort.

[...]
One of the gravest and most unfounded of AFLD’s assertions relates to favourable treatment given to Astana riders. This was an issue which was raised by the AFLD during the Tour in mid July. President Pat McQuaid investigated this issue immediately upon becoming aware of it during the Tour and responded in detail to Mr Bordry. The fact that he raises the issue again shows his complete disregard for the facts and the partnership.


[...]
Astana riders, who comprised 5% of the total number of participants, were subjected to 81 antidoping tests, or over 10% of the total tests conducted. In fact the top individual Astana riders received more than three times the number of tests of most other riders in the race.

[...]
Before responding in detail to the public assertions made by the AFLD against UCI staff, the UCI wants to make two things clear. Firstly, these sort of unfounded criticisms should not be raised in public.

[...]
However, with the UCI’s reputation already shattered by Mr Bordry’s actions and rhetoric, there is no recourse but to set the record straight in the UCI’s correction of his mischievous and misinformed statements.

[...]
Secondly, it is important for everyone to understand that AFLD is far from perfect in the implementation of their own anti-doping activities. The common saying which seems relevant here is “people in glass houses should not throw stones”.

[...]
... five [Ww: of the six tests carried out on French riders, all from the same team, all on the same day] were declared invalid [Ww: due to improperly labelling (by AFLD) of the sample containers with “full names and details”] makes us question the competence of the AFLD and their authority to point the finger at others.

[...]
The leakage of highly confidential anti-doping information from French authorities is well known in anti-doping circles and UCI has experienced this for many years. This may be a structural deficiency in that AFLD encompasses both the testing department and the laboratory, which it openly refers to as its analysis department. Even as recently as the 2009 Tour de France, the UCI continued to suffer from a lack of confidentiality from AFLD. As an example, immediately following an early morning blood test, an AFLD staff member informed a representative of ASO, the race organiser, about issues relating to one particular rider and his sample provision.

The UCI did not make this public.
The UCI did not put AFLD in the pillory over this.
(Ww: emphasis added)

[...]
In addition to matters arising from the Tour de France, on 8 June 2009, the UCI President had previously written to Mr Bordry expressing concern over the unreliable manner in which AFLD doctors were undertaking their role at UCI events. These concerns were mostly related to AFLD doctors simply not attending races to which they had been assigned or to giving riders completely incorrect instructions about the nature of their sample provision. Several UCI international races went without adequate doping control because of the failure of AFLD to fulfil their commitment to the French Cycling Federation and the UCI to send doctors to conduct testing.

It serves now, to recall that WADA has a problem with non-compliance from Signatories, and this has evolved into a systemic problem: Italian Football leagues misunderstand rules-implementation, small IFs have not the funding to perform out-of-competition testing as required, a certain country has been known to arrest DCO on official sample collection trips, and confiscate duly-acquired samples... and now we seem to read that a Agency head has acted in such a way as to have the 'victim' IF wondering what possible motivations exist?


And thus, by the benefit of AFLD trying to accuse the UCI of 'malingering' in its duties, we spot evidence that it may, in fact, be the accuser, AFLD, who should stand at the Bar', facing the first-ever WADA 'Compliance Investigation'... or would Bordry be forced to stand down, and resign from the AFLD director's chair?


What outcome from WADA, would result from the unprofessionally-dispersed allegations publicized by the AFLD, and its analysis of these proper UCI response(s)?


This is a separate issue from the 'Case of the Medical Waste', in which one hopes the 'DNA evidence' that comes out, goes as far as to investigate any fingerprints found on the material itself: after all, one of the parties that became aware of this case, has full access to riders' blood and urine samples, and could easily plant such damning 'evidence' on materials that were collected from who-knows-where, and introduced as potentially incriminating evidence.


Mr Fahey, whose visit to France wasn't (highly) published until the AFLD published its communiqué, may have also visited the UCI while on the Continent. WADAwatch would hope that to be the case. And WADAwatch does not see the need for WADA to conduct an 'open trial' of Bordry... there are times when political discretion can achieve more, especially when superiors, or former superiors of someone like Bordry would show lingering regrets for the publicity that has attached to this boding situation.


Fahey may have to call in the services of someone like Hans Blix, world-renowned legal 'weapons investigator' authority, whose competent services in Iraq were acknowledged by all the world, other than the US administration of Dick Cheney and GW Bush.

Chère Madame la Secrétaire Rama Yade,
on serait ravi d'entendre que
vous en avez eu assez ;
le temps pour une décision est maintenant :
quel avenir pour l'AFLD?

[Dear Mme Secretary Rama Yade,
we would be happy to hear that
you've had enough;
the time for a decision is now:
what future for the AFLD?]

To be continued....

..........@.........WADAwatch
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

Lord of the Leaks (Bordry déchainé)

FLASH SIDEBAR: French Secretary of State for Sport Rama Yade, announced yesterday (in Amaury Editions' daily newspaper Le Parisien (en français)) that she wanted a 'rapprochement' between the UCI and the AFLD... and that this was 'important'; meanwhile she (as are we all) also awaited the responses from the UCI as to the substance of the AFLD allegations, contained in its early–October report. Maybe this is a positive sign, and/or a signal to the AFLD of its lack of professionalism? After all, Bordry's attack via the press certainly exacerbated the quest for official response(s) through ordained WADA channels.

The rest of this article is somewhat of a follow-up to our series
Ethic Cleansing /Nettoyage éthique,
analyzing another article from a partisan
(if not biased) French media

October's end is coming soon...

Around the Northern world the Oaks turn red, the Maples yellow, and their leaves fall to the ground in quiet forests... more poetic than the falling 'leaves' in Paris: this series of supportive articles from Stéphane Mandard, flattering his new source and alter–ego: Pierre Bordry. The Directeur of the Agence française du lutte contre le dopage (AFLD). Only Damien Ressiot could be jealous, whose anti–cycling history remains premier in the annals of French coverage of 'le petit rein' (EN: 'the little Queen' aka the sport of cycling). Many others are feeling growing outrage or disgust, with sincere doubts as to the motivation that instigated this 'bombshell' lobbed from AFLD towards the UCI. But which side of the issue?

A third salvo from Mandard, appearing on the Le Monde web–site and dated October 7, 2009, was overlooked in preparing our three–part special on CW II (Cycling War Two).

At this point in time, this author would rather have a diploma in Psychiatry than Law, to be able to diagnose with certainty the pseemingly psychotic ramblings of Plucky Pierre Bordry, the AFLD's scrupulous boss, dutifully transcribed by Le Monde's partisan journalist.

Does this statement shock you? Maybe you've missed previous gems cast up by Mandard's unilateral faith in Bordry's position. However, the underlying story about all this hum-drum, would be 'how did the newspaper Le Monde become the new voice for Plucky Pierre?'

Here's the finest example, from the Mandard article of mid-October:

"Une fois de plus, le président de l'UCI, Pat McQuaid, crée une polémique générale mais ne répond pas aux questions que nous soulevons, déclare au Monde le président de l'AFLD, Pierre Bordry. Le rapport que nous avons établi s'appuie sur des faits précis et des témoignages qui mettent en avant des dysfonctionnements que nous avions constatés depuis le départ du Tour de France et dont nous avions alerté le président de l'UCI."

Translated:

"One more time, the president of the UCI, Pat McQuaid, creates a general polemic but doesn't respond to the questions that we underscored, declared the president of the AFLD, Pierre Bordry to Le Monde. The report that we established pushes on the precise facts and witness statements that put forward the dysfunctions that we observed since the start of the Tour de France and of which we had alerted the President of the UCI."

POLEMIC

It truly appears that Mandard has seriously confused the meaning of the phrase 'creating a polemic'. Especially since he is personally and professionally involved in the birth of this controversy; there would be no 'polemic' had the AFLD 'Report' first gone to its two official recipients.

That's one nicely drawn prejudicial determination, Monsieur Mandard.

As in the 2005 AFLD/LNDD 'Affaire Armstrong', a 'report' or 'results' leaks to the press, far in advance of any proper WADA Signatory protocols for establishing 'fault' by a fellow Signatory (2005: alleged 'EPO' findings against Armstrong; 2009: alleged 'complacency' against UCI). The first meaning of this, is that the AFLD and LNDD have collaborated to violate the WADA Code as to 'cooperation' between Signatories that are by Treaty and Signature members of the same family.

The Legal Advisory staff of (or to) the AFLD, one must acknowledge, are 'aiding and abetting' the AFLD Directeur by professing through the French Press, their total ignorance of obligations as to the Role of a National Anti–Doping Organization within WADA's family (delineated in Code Article 20.5).

Timing?

The first Le Monde article was published on October 5, discussing a report 'being delivered' to the UCI. Only in a twisted mind, would one (of course) demand a response from the opposition regarding allegations (that means 'unproven') emanating from a blind–siding report that that the recipient (or allegedly non–compliant) received 48 hours prior (which certainly was at least a week after Mandard received it, non?).

RESPONSES

Bordry's tawdry allegations don't involve the professional integrity of Mr. McQuaid, president of the UCI. They allege complacent behaviour of those employees (or other contracted agents), on the one hand, and alleged that the police 'found' 'team medical waste' that 'is being tested for DNA' etc., etc..

Yet Bordry couldn't accord (bien sûr que non!) a fellow Signatory sufficient time to make inquiries and determine whether the Bordry allegations were legitimate. Whatever Mandard's previous journalistic competence and experience at a great paper, they don't seem to preclude his obvious pushing of an agenda to 'sway opinion' and 'corrupt' that process.

More quotes, this one from Bordry (via Mandard/Le Monde), regarding the UCI announcement of a new partner for Tour de France doping controls (ie.: not the AFLD in 2010):

"Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire, un partenaire neutre ?", interroge Pierre Bordry. "Si cela signifie se taire, alors ce ne sera pas l'AFLD. Si on veut vraiment lutter contre le dopage, il faut une politique rigoureuse des contrôles. Or, sur le Tour de France, cet été, pour ne reprendre qu'un seul exemple, des échantillons ont été transportés en dehors de toute précaution de bonne conservation. C'est tout à fait inadmissible. Et c'est notre rôle que de le dire."

In English:

“What is that trying to say, 'a neutral partner'?” asks Pierre Bordry. "If that signifies keeping silent, then that will not be the AFLD. If one wants to really fight against doping, there has to be a rigorous policy for the controls. However, on the Tour de France, this summer, to take only one example, some samples were transported outside the boundaries of all precaution for proper conservation. It's really inadmissible. And it's our role to state this.”

Has the thought occurred to others, that if the French laboratory is whinnying about poor transport, why hasn't it trumpeted the 'results' that 'prove' that Samples were degraded? If it tested 185 urine Samples, and of that number, all the Samples received were degraded, on the day in which this allegation from its scrupulously–copied witness statements, voilà(!) the proof of one of Bordry's allegations. Yet Team Bordry–Mandard certainly wouldn't go so far as to mention that corroborative proof? Nor does Bordry congratulate either the UCI or itself for the other 20 days of properly–transported Sample deliveries: which one presumes were seemingly in compliance with the WADA IST.

Keep in mind another legal aspect: the AFLD analysed 185 urine Samples from the TdF 2009; the Swiss laboratory analyzed 352 blood samples. One presumes that AFLD's département des analyses and the Swiss lab operated in all conformity with the WADC, its ISL and Tech documents. If A Samples were 'positive', by the WADC we should not know that until after the B Samples' re–examination process was finished: confidentiality being a stipulated requirement (all too often ignored by most Signatories) is mandated under WADA Code Articles 6.4, 7.1 & 7.2, and 14.2.

Thus one can specify that, had no Controls been announced at this late date as positive, then the AFLD and Swiss laboratories found no positives. That's a far step from 'remaining silent' as if submitted to any alleged 'UCI authority'.

Until an anonymous friend (hint?) sends to WADAwatch a copy of this official AFLD Report, we are left gleaning the web for allegations contained therein. A quote from the Ministre de la santé et des sports, Rosalyne Bachelot, offers not–unexpected total support to the Agency, of which she offered a reminder in pre-Tour publicity, is “funded 95pc by my Ministry" (a rare WADAwatch 'pearl' in French):

"Il faudrait que l'UCI présente des arguments extrêmement sérieux pour discréditer l'AFLD en ne lui confiant pas les analyses. Ce ne serait pas, je pense, en faveur de l'UCI."

English:

“The UCI is going to have to present some extremely serious arguments to discredit the AFLD by not conferring [2010 Tour] analyses to them. This would not be, I think, in favour of the UCI.”

Rest assured, Madame Bachelot, that the UCI is on notice for the seriousness of replies that it must offer, year after year, to the allegations brewing in Bordry's creative mind. ("Restez–vous bien rassurée, Madame la Ministre Bachelot, que l'UCI est bien au courant, à propos le niveau du sérieux des réponses qu'il doit fournir, année après année, aux allégations que brouillaient dan l'esprit créatif du M. Bordry”) Proof comes from the 2005 Vrijman report, a massive response to the tawdry and unsubstantiated allegations that ricocheted around the world, regarding Lance Armstrong and alleged EPO use in 1999.

Mandard also noted that, in the renegade 2008 Tour de France (under guidance of the FFC, not UCI), seven riders were captured by the AFLD. Readers of this column should have in their memory the fact that the new generation EPO: CERA, was the 'dopage préféré' last year, and found through cooperation with Roche, the pharmaceutical company that had developed this new red blood cell–augmentation treatment. (below is a repeat of our favourite 2008 cartoon, from sister-blog crystelZENmud ...)

We applaud the one appearance of journalistic neutrality appearing in this October 7 article: Mandard reminds us that the ITF (Tennis Federation) has run its Roland Garros doping controls through a Swedish company (IDTM) for the 'Testing' (Sample acquisition and transport to lab), which delivered them to the Montreal WADA-accredited laboratory. for analysis Mandry doesn't question, however, why the AFLD isn't decrying the lack of professionalism by his Montreal counterpart, nor the ITF.

Le Monde's reporter ends his article with another twisted, AFLD-serving rendition of the 2003 WADA Independent Observers report on the Tour of that year:

Dans leur rapport, ces derniers avaient pointé un certain nombre de faiblesses qui se retrouvent dans celui de l'AFLD six ans plus tard, et émis des recommandations afin d'améliorer l'efficacité des contrôles. [.....]

We offer this translation:

In their report, these [Observers] had pointed out a certain number of weak points that are found again in the report of the AFLD six years later, and emitted some recommendations in order to ameliorate the efficiency of the controls.

WADAwatch reminds (tirelessly) that, when the UCI responded to that WADA IO report, it noted numerous occasions when the IO rapporteurs mistakenly derived 'proper procedures' from UCI regulations: it was up to the UCI to respond, reminding that new authority (WADA and its authors) that the UCI operated under French law, to conform its performance with that required by the legal authority on French territory: la belle France. We hope that the UCI would not have to remind Plucky Pierre Bordry of the same responses and those same French laws.

..........@.........WADAwatch
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

The 'Phone-y War': updates on AFLD v UCI 2009

Two new articles appeared nearly simultaneously with our publishing of the three part series Nettoyage Ethique / Ethic Cleansing

The first is more amusing than 'damning', and written by a true master of French journalism, Claude Drousset. Former writer for l'Equipe, editor of Vélo Magazine (French monthly cycling mag), Drousset amused his audience by reminding his French readers (and Francophiles worldwide) of the location, during the week in which the AFLD 'bombarded' the UCI through Le Monde articles (as noted above), of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy was on official state visit in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan, and 'home' of the Swiss–licensed, Kazakh–sponsored team Astana, in the 'collimator' via the AFLD 'UCI Report'.

Follow the link above to read these translated gems from the keyboard of a master:

“I imagine this little fictional scene. Astana, capital of Kazakhstan, day before yesterday. [Ww: implying Tuesday, 6 October] The Grand Auditorium of the Presidential Palace. Nicolas Sarkozy at the side of his homologue Nursultan Nazarbaïev. Before them, a group of Ministers, elected representatives, directors of multinationals and grands medias all together. Object: the signature of an engagement of some four billion Euro in contracs, beween Kazakhstan and the largest French entreprises. Until now, this writing is true. The fictional touch? Nazarbaïev, at the point of signing the accord, who lifts his pen and turns toward Sarkozy:

“One second, Mister President, what is this story, in your country, of the favourable treatment of which our racers benefited from the last Tour de France?”

Astana is also a conglomerate of entreprises, sponsor of the team of Contador and Armstrong. This team is targeted in a report of the AFLD, which was leaked Monday. The eve of the Astana Summit. One can imagine the light agony of our hyper-cool President.

[.....]

The ears of Pierre Bordry, AFLD patron, must have been burning since Monday and the publication by www.lemonde.fr of the contents [of the 'UCI Report']. Not only because of the responses from Pat McQuaid, UCI president, furious to be placed one more time (by the French) before its ambiguities in the face of doping. Not only because of the embarrassment of Roselyne Bachelot and Rama Yade, Minister and Secretary of State (de tutelle (?)), called upon to make comments but who also remembered personally that Nicolas Sarkozy had publicly qualified Lance Armstrong in July as a “formidable example”. Four billions of contracts and the admiration of a President of the Republic, facing ten pages of report and some medical waste.

How will this end? We await details, facts and responses from concerned parties, especially the UCI?

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Also an insightful article was published October 21, comes from the South; South African site IOL.co.za has an AP feed article with 'all the details' regarding what was found by the 'French police' in the medical waste from the 2009 Tour. The title:

Armstrong doping suspicions are suspicious

A company named Cosmolys is said to have been contracted by many Tour teams to dispose of their 'medical trash', which one can understand means legitimate used bandaging (for 'road rash' accidents) and other such items (in an age where AIDS is a legitimate concern, responsible authorities have altered the concept of 'trash disposal, and should be applauded). French police seized 15 'containers', stated an anonymous 'French judicial official'.

Apparently 14 boxes were 'what one would expect', but curiously, the Astana box was claimed to be stuffed with 'large quantities' of syringes and intravenous infusion apparati. We are reminded that, under the WADC, IV drips are banned without Therepeutic Use Exemption (TUE). the IOL article from AP tells us that a different company has been engaged to examine this 'evidence', for 'evidence' of its origin, through DNA analysis. The company is TOXLAB, which was part of the '... investigation into Princess Diana's death.' (TOXLAB does not appear to have a website; one of its staff maintains an email through a 'French web-email-service (similar to GMail or Hotmail))

SIDEBAR: The actual investigation is being run by the vice-Procureur Dominique Pérard (Ww leaves his title in French, it is the equivalent of 'Vice Prosecutor' (meaning 'second', not 'addictions'). The agency investigating this 'sordid story' is the OCLAESP: l'Office central de lutte contre les atteints à l'environnement et à la santé publique (roughly the Central Office for the Fight against the Offences to the Environment and Public Health)

The article gets to a point we had discussed at WADAwatch the same day, how unusual it seems that the French police searched and found this group of items:

Did they have legitimate reasons or are they being manipulated by people seeking to embarrass Armstrong and the UCI?
[.....]

Would they have gone to such lengths with other sports?
[.....]

What is clear is that the probe was kept quiet for three months until last week, when word leaked to French media just before Armstrong flew to Paris for the unveiling of next year's Tour route.

An important fact that was 'conveniently ignored' by Stéphane Mandard, the agente–provacateur for this year's Tour scandal, is mentioned by the AP and IOL. Doctors from other Tour teams stated that the Cosmolys' system for medical waste disposal is not sealed, thus access by third parties is conceivable.

SIDEBAR: This makes a legitimate question arise: should Cosmolys, whose contract calls for the safe disposal of medical waste for Teams on the Tour which, themselves, and thanks to information derived from mostly French sporting news journalists, are targeted in a high–visibility and unsecured sport [Ww: No stadiums, or permanent facilities] reasonably foresee that a third–party could acquire access to its meds-waste facility, and thereby compromise the integrity of a team or teams? IOW: Are we assured that sufficient cautions were taken by this contractor to the Tour?

One could think of a word: 'negligence', and a question: 'why isn't legitimate medical waste collected and analyzed through the global 'anti–doping' family for ALL sports? Ponder that...

The AP – IOL article has this to say in conclusion:

“... if Astana is exonerated, will the same people who put Armstrong and cycling in the spotlight by leaking word on the probe say sorry? Don't count on it.”

Well, mes amis, AFLD seems to have much in common with Oliver, whose words defined a classic American film. LOVE STORY: “... means never having to say you're sorry'"

We remind readers that the French judicial system is slogging through the worldwide-crisis presented by 'a 2006 hacking' case, which is purported to be involving a certain Tour winner who was stripped of his title, and a Doctor that was or is his trainer' and that that case is now three years old. WADAwatch wrote an extensive history, which leaves a perplexed reader wondering how a Doctor in California could have employed the 'authorized' French government Hackers (who were also responsible in cases brought by Greenpeace FR, and an independent attorney who represented 'small-investor-class' shareholders, against two of France's biggest State-owned (or majority minority shareholders) corporations.

This story is growing folks: is it unravelling against the French Agency AFLD? Stand by for a weekend wrap up of other news from the CW II... and the Lord of the Leaks...

..........@.........WADAwatch
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

Ethic cleansing / Nettoyage éthique – Part I

[This is a three-part series regarding the French Anti-Doping Agency AFLD, and the current events it has instigated. Part I offers the escalating situation as viewed by the French Press, Part II reveals information published by AFLD itself, as a report of activities is analysed, and Part III suggests that WADA has sufficient information to act objectively in investigating a 'rogue' Signatory...]

AFLD – “Absurdly Foul, Legally Deceitful”?

What happened to petit Pierre at the school playground?


Was he pulled off the 'balançoire' (FR: 'teeter-totter') too many times by some Parisian bully? If you could read his mind, would you see the malveillance (EN: 'spitefulness') festering? That's roughly what's happening in France and Switzerland this month...


Eddy Merckx said “It's all just publicity from them - it's crazy,” from the Cycle Show in Earls Court. (article from morethanthegames.com)


Laurent Jalabert was slightly more humerous: “These are wet firecrackers.”


What subject united the Cannibal and Jaja last week? Their common deception arose from the media frenzy over an 'official Report' issued by the 'rancunière' (EN: 'spiteful') Agence française pour le lutte contre le dopage (AFLD), and its Directeur 'Plucky Pierre' Bordry, which was published in Le Monde. The premier salvoes in this new Cycling War Two (CW II), were launched from the AFLD–France towards UCI–World.


The AFLD lobbed accusation-bombs from its position, safe behind a new, press–enabled ligne Maginot, towards the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) in Aigle, Switzerland. Those bombs are provoking reverberations, perhaps a tsunami in a teapot, at WADA, in Montreal. Do not doubt it: phone lines are burning, between scandal-per-day Paris (President Sarkozy: and his son, or Minister of Culture, the Clearstream case, France Telecom suicides and/or the dairy farmers), Montreal and Aigle, Switzerland (UCI HQ). WADAwatch charts this affair, in escalation since the unseemly publicity of cher Pierre's 'J'accuse!' UCI Report in the French press two weeks ago, while 'said Report' was still in transit to WADA and UCI. Evidently Le Monde has replaced l'Equipe as the AFLD agente-presse of choice, ending an ignoble era. A torch-passing, if you will...

SIDEBAR: we prefer to believe that equitable reasoning was what motivated the Amaury family's new-found 'compliance', as a Major Event Organizer within WADA. If true, Ww would applaud this. However, our past article mentioned alleged 'quids pro quo' through the 'good offices' of Jean–Claude Killy, an ASO director as well as International Olympic Committee member, who 'may have had some influence' as to who in France received TV rights for the 2014 Saatchi Winter Games (hint: they own Really Big Bicycle Races in France) in Russia, in return, it was suggested, for Amaury Editions agreement to desist chasing cycling/doping stories.

Whether or not ASO has clean motives for ceasing publishing 'premature, illegally–leaked A Sample control results' in its own paper, l'Equipe, it has ended this conflict-of-interest. In publishing those A Sample results, source(s) become culpable for WADA Code violations, which were no less substantial than any Athlete's AAF.

WADA has never publicly taken a decision to interdict those violations. Leaks of positive A Sample results, even if prohibited through the WADA Code ('WADC'), were certainly good publicity for its fund– and awareness–raising. Yet any leaks of this nature are the bane of accused Athletes – innocent or guilty – whose rights are violated every time WADC Article 7 Results Management, and/or Article 14.2.1 (Article 14.2 Public Disclosure; part of Article 14 Confidentiality and Disclosure) are expressly ignored. If WADA is working 'behind the scenes' to clean up these bad acts, so be it, and good luck. However, unless it does occur, it remains just one of many documented 'non–compliance issues' for WADA.

Le Monde published a second Stéphane Mandard article in mid–October. The new piece amplifies the detail regarding AFLD allegations from his previous story, which WADAwatch covered on 5 October 2009: UCI methods attacked by AFLD. Mandard starts with a slam:

Est-ce pour fuir les gendarmes et l'Agence française de lutte contre le dopage (AFLD), que le Tour de France, dont le parcours de l'édition 2010 a été dévoilé mercredi 14 octobre, s'élancera de Rotterdam en juillet prochain ?

Ww translation:

Is it to escape the (French) police and the AFLD, that the Tour de France, of which the route for the 2010 edition was revealed on Wednesday, 14 October, will launch from Rotterdam next July?

Anyone thinking: 'what a prejudicial (and ignorant) question!'? Le Monde, usually an insightful journal for world and financial affairs, chose not to explore these angles: it's common knowledge that this year's Vuelta de Espagna earned some €3 million (Euros) to begin its 2009 race in Holland, the Netherlands. And if starting the Vuelta in Holland can generate €3 million, no doubt the cachet of the Tour de France will ratchet that up higher: perhaps €4 to 6 million?


But 'obviously' Le Tour needs to 'flee the AFLD' (?)... curious, how Mandard associates 'Le Tour' with the UCI in this setting.


Casual cycling observers would have no problem conjuring up the next image – a battalion of French gendarmes taking position next July. Their target? Perhaps hotels in the two French village(s) that the Tour 2010 will first invade: Arenberg Porte du Hainaut, where the Tour ends the 3rd stage, and nearby Cambrai, where the 4th stage starts, respectively the 6th and 7th July, 2010.

But who watches the watchers?

The owners of the Tour are very interested in profits, Monsieur Mandard: it's their business. Why write about a technicality-filled subject without displaying the competence to be taken as an authority on it? The AFLD UCI Report seems likely to become an escalating affair: if not against the UCI, then perhaps through a long-overdue WADA inquiry into AFLD motivations. One notices that Mandard's role is less than that of a fine journalist: he appears as a shill, parroting the position of one side in an effort to stir up an international 'conflict'.

Madame la Secretaire d'État de Sport Rama Yade !
Madame la Ministre Roselyne Bachelot !

Vous ne voulez pas retenir cette grande gueule de
l'AFLD – Monsieur Bordry?

('Do you not want to hold back this big-mouth
from the AFLD – Mr Bordry?')

The Le Monde article continues its master-of-insinuation account:

Si aucun coureur n'a été rattrapé par la patrouille cet été, c'est que, contrairement à 2008 – où le Tour ne s'était pas déroulé sous l'égide de l'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) en raison d'un conflit ouvert avec l'ancien patron d'ASO, Patrice Clerc, l'AFLD n'était pas seule aux commandes des contrôles.

Ww translation:

If no single racer was trapped by the patrols this summer, it's that, unlike 2008 – where the Tour was not run under guidance from the UCI, by reason of an open conflict with the ancient ASO patron, Patrice Clerc, the AFLD was not alone at the commands for the Doping Controls.

Finally, author Mandard's pièce de résistance:

Et l'enquête préliminaire ouverte par le parquet de Paris après la saisie de centaines de seringues et de matériel de perfusion auprès de plusieurs équipes, dont Astana ? Les organisateurs ont appris la nouvelle "par la presse".

Again:

And the preliminary investigation opened by the Paris court after the seizure of hundreds of syringes and transfusion material (found) near several teams, including Astana? The organizers (ED: UCI) learned the news 'by the press'.

Holy Insinuendo, Batman!

This would be funny if it weren't serious...


Recall, that the 'First Cycling War' (for which an Armistice was 'signed' in late fall 2008) was the result of ASO reactions to UCI's action begun years ago, when the UCI received a request by the major cycling Team sponsors, who'd found themselves denied entry to one or more of cycling's Grand Tours (of Italy, France and Spain). ASO contended that the UCI ProTour team license concept had taken away its ability to 'manage' their own choice of teams. Both the Spanish and Italian organizers lined up in league with this complaint. Yet this French author wants us to orient our thinking towards the UCI as 'renegade'... a classic case of 'revisionist history'. However, in every year since Festina (n'oubliez-vous pas ça, quand même!), there have been 'cases' found, and in every year but one, UCI directed those efforts. So Mandard's shrill effort is without foundation.


We are not offered the meaning behind his statement that those items were found 'near the teams'; he offers no analysis of how AFLD knew about the flasks and syringes if UCI staff didn't, and how UCI staff never took notice of the French gendarmes that flocked around Pierre's boys (and girls?). But wait!

SIDEBAR: “... hundreds of syringes?” Hundreds? Recollection of the original article was 'some syringes' and 'medicine bottles'; has Mandard inflated the claims since early October, now to huge quantities ('Festina-style'?), boxes and boxes of dirty needles? 'Hundreds' means at least two hundred: is Mandard claiming there was the equivalent of one needle for every rider in the Tour?

Are certain teams so insanely possessed by the quest for victory, that they forgot to dispose the evidence discretely, far from the snooping eyes of the honourable French police? Really, this seems ludicrous beyond the imagination of anyone but a seemingly-demented AFLD director, and a too-eager-to-please journaliste. We are loathe to conceptualize French police 'planting' evidence, but are not remiss in thinking that some 'third–party sympathizer' could have done so...

“Coach! Coach! What should I do weese our team's
used syringes? Zee ones from zee room of
Jean-Pierre Pedalstrap*, le Directeur sportif adjoint,
where all our dopers shoot up zere drugs,
z'EPO and zere Blood transfusions?”


“Sacré BLEU, I have not zee time for you, idiot!
You must to fill zee cars with zee gas! Fill zee
water bottles, and leave zose syringes in
zee trashbins here in zese hotel!


“Merd-uh! No one eez going to find zem if
you cover zem over weese z'Equipe from yezterday...”
*ficticious name

Next we read: “... (UCI) learned the news 'by the press'”?





We count on Bordry to convince a fellow French journalist to 'act shocked', à la Claude Raines in CASABLANCA (“...shocked! To learn that gambling is going on in this club!”), that the UCI didn't find out anything from its contracted French partner, prior to the AFLD screeching ('wailing cat' syndrome?) its accusations to the press, expressly to embarrass the International Federation. If the UCI found out by 'the press' of this official Report and its allegations, that fault can only be due to seemingly deceitful tactics and publicity-mongering (thanks Eddie Merckx) by the AFLD. The Mandard insult only compounds Bordry's neurotic display.


For good measure, dramatic effect and without taste, Mandard reminds us that Frank Vandenbroucke died mid-month (with an insinuating question mark). Although his death in Africa, while on vacation with a male friend, doing Jesus-knows-what, has nothing to do with the UCI, the Tour de France, or ASO, it certainly imports substantial suspicion on cycling, furthering the agenda in this article promoting the AFLD's 'righteous purity'. (Unlike Mandard, we offer our condolences to a Vanderbrouke family that is suffering an untimely loss...)


And how does Mandard conclude this drama?


Hang on (!):

"On va droit dans le mur. Il va y avoir un drame. Un mec va claquer sur son vélo. Et là, on n'aura plus d'autre choix que de réagir, commente sous couvert d'anonymat le directeur sportif d'une équipe française. ASO avait une occasion unique de s'en sortir avec les honneurs en rompant avec l'UCI. Cela s'est transformé en occasion ratée." Le patron d'ASO a bien promis de "tout mettre en oeuvre pour promouvoir un dialogue responsable entre les acteurs de la lutte antidopage". Mais l'AFLD a déjà annoncé qu'elle ne s'aventurerait pas dans une nouvelle collaboration avec l'UCI sur le Tour 2010. Le duel annoncé entre Alberto Contador et Lance Armstrong n'en sera que plus "magnifique".

Translated:

"We're going right into the wall. There's going to be a drama. A guy's going to crack on his bike. And there, we won't have any other choice but to react, comments under anonymity the director sportif of a French team. ASO had a unique occasion to get out with honours by rupturing with the UCI. That's been transformed into an blown opportunity.” The ASO patron really promised to “put everything to work for promoting a responsible dialogue between the actors for the anti-doping fight.” But the AFLD has already announced that it wouldn't adventure into a new collaboration with the UCI on the 2010 Tour. The announced duel between Alberto and Lance will only be more than “magnificent”.

Certainly our writing at WADAwatch is no less sarcastic than the Le Monde extracts above.


Why didn't Mandard mention that the 'anonymous' Directeur sportif probably represents one of two French teams who were recently 'slapped down' by UCI, which denied renewals of their 2010 ProTour elite licenses: is this only more French raisins amers ('sour grapes')? On the other hand, how would a clean team's DS know so much about what other teams are doing, and the wall that riders may face one day? If they 'know', we should have seen police taking riders away in handcuffs: is this 'anonymous witness' reminding us that the Omerta amongst cycling teams is ever stronger?


Here's a hypothesis (hypothetical, outrageous, but incorporates all the 'facts'):

Some French 'agent(s)', tired of 'imported victors' winning its historic Tour, found access to teams' hotel room trash cans, in order to hide fake evidence, by creating a 'red Herring' police investigation, protected by a French hierarchy. A complacent press aided in that effort, complementing the AFLD report implicating the UCI and Astana.
(Well, that may display more 'Watson' than Holmes...)

The Directeur Sportif quoted anonymously, above, advocates a permanent rupture, evidently, between the UCI and the Tour owner ASO. To what end, whose benefit? Maybe those two teams who no longer hold ProTour status? If AFLD succeeds in creating a new schism, and the Tour 2010, as was in 2008, reverts to a National Event under FFC control (la Fédération française de cyclisme), then AFLD gets to write its own ticket, a conquest built on its history of hysteria to the media, and Really Bad Science.


We recall that it's been years since a French rider was 'busted' for doping, although (sadly) Laurent Fignon joined a Legion of historical cycling figures, by admitting his personal Tour–doping legacy, during 2009, on the occasion of revealing his life–threatening cancer. NB: no Tour official ever requested Laurent's Yellow Jersey (as they had for Bjarne Riis). Fignon's loud sobbing overwhelmed his sportscasting team from France 2 TV last July, in their booth at the Champs-Élysées within minutes of the sprint won by Mark Cavendish: perhaps a 'reality' moment in which the proud champion looked upon this human spectacle for the last time. Ww hopes not.


Finally, the one–sided Le Monde pseudo–news story ends with a last insinuation: the AFLD announced it wouldn't collaborate in 2010 on the Tour. The UCI press release of 5 October, 2009, however, already mentioned that the UCI would 'study the options' (as to finding another laboratory). Given that the UCI stated that immediately, the Monday following the original AFLD 'J'accuse' attack in Le Monde, Mandard reinforces his role as parrot, for this AFLD 'moi aussi!' rant.

Mesdames la Secrétaire Yade et la Ministre Bachelot,
un de ces jours aimeriez–vous faire du nettoyage ethique
chez votre Agence française du lutte contre le dopage?

(“Mesdames Secretary and Minister, one of these days would you
like to do some 'ethic cleansing' at the AFLD?”)

[The die is cast... how AFLD and Plucky Pierre actively sought media–covered reinforcement for their provocative attack against the UCI, in the months following the first Tour de France since the 'renegade' Tour of 2008. Stay tuned for Part II and Part III]

..........@.........WADAwatch
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

Nettoyage Éthique / Ethic Cleansing – Part II

[In Part I of this three-part post, WADAwatch analysed the newest Le Monde article regarding the escalating CWII (Cycling War II) declared by the AFLD against UCI. In this second installment Ww presents AFLD documentation regarding its efforts in the first half of 2009 (especially the Tour de France), to integrate that information with the Le Monde series of articles; Part III discusses the role of WADA in defraying this conflict, should it undertake doing so.]

Unethical acts are not (seemingly) de nouveau at Plucky Pierre's AFLD. M. Bordry has a well–documented penchant towards 'assassination by press leak' (a fine French 'art', relying on blind loyalty from the press), to which the world has habituated itself since 'l'Affaire Armstrong' of 2005–6. Incisive responses were offered by the UCI, whose President, Press and Legal Office(r)s have weathered numerous machinations by the French Agency Director's (seemingly Viagra® stimulated?) obsessions. The UCI responses are in line with the goals it shares, as an IF and Signatory of WADA, which itself has been no stranger to past conflicts regarding the UCI.


Monsieur Bordry, enjoying his up–scale, insider status inside France, has perhaps not realized, given his prior history of press–induced hysteria, how the world may legitimately question the nature of those 'AFLD doctors' deployments.

Cinema buffs fantasize Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) with his magnifying glass, although that would be an insult to fine English actors...

And thus WADAwatch has a 'scoop' for its readers: a recently published report from the AFLD 'vault' documents their first six months of activity for 2009 (let's give them a silver medal: they published this faster than WADA Executive Committee reports...).


Here's a portion of their Report (title translated):

CONTROLS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AFLD
DURING THE FIRST SEMESTER 2009

We offer verbatim extracts (in FR) from the section Tour de France 2009 (full translation in English follows; Francophiles should follow this link and read the report's first two pages):

[.....] TOUR DE FRANCE 2009 :

Le Tour de France cycliste 2009 était une compétition internationale, inscrite à ce titre au calendrier de la fédération cycliste internationale, l’UCI.

Un protocole d’accord détaillant les modalités des contrôles, basés sur le ciblage comme le préconise l’article 5.1.3 du Code [.....

Ce protocole s’est inscrit dans le cadre du code mondial antidopage - notamment son article 15.1 - reconnu par les deux parties, [.....]

Durant la compétition, l’AFLD a missionné deux médecins préleveur, dont le référent au niveau national, pour réaliser les prélèvements urinaires et sanguins à l’arrivée des étapes et, de manière inopinée, dans les hôtels des coureurs. [.....]

Les analyses des prélèvements urinaires ont été réalisées par le département des analyses de l’Agence, laboratoire de Châtenay-Malabry, mais les analyses des prélèvements sanguins ont été, à la demande de l’UCI, conduites par le laboratoire antidopage de Lausanne.

L’UCI étant responsable de la politique antidopage et de la gestion des résultats, l’AFLD n’a pas eu communication des résultats des analyses. [.....]

Our translation:

The 2009 cycling Tour de France was an international competition, inscribed at that status on the UCI calendar.

A protocol of agreement detailing the modalities of controls, based on targeting as ordained by Code Article 5.1.3 [ED: WADC Article on Target Testing], was signed as a consequence on 10 June, 2009, by the presidents of the UCI, Mr Pat McQUAID, and of the AFLD, Mr. Pierre BORDRY.

This protocol is inscribed within the frame of the WADA Code – notably its Article 15.1 [ED: That's 'Event Testing' under Article 15 – Clarification of Doping Control Responsibilities] – recognized by the two parties, according to which the UCI is the competent antidoping organization and responsible for the antidoping controls from the cycling events on the international calendar, as well as the common wish of the IF and the Agency to coordinate their efforts in order to put into action an efficient policy in the matter of the fight against doping.

During the competition, the AFLD had conferred the mission to two doctors (for taking samples – préleveur), of which the referral to national level (?), to actualize the urinary and sanguine sample-taking at the finish of stages and, in the no-advance-notice manner in the racers' hotels. The Director of Controls for the Agency was a participating party in decisions to select targeted riders, in collaboration with the antidoping officers of the UCI. At the demand of the AFLD, a team of eight independent escorts from the competition Organizer were present during the whole of the competition to effectuate the notification of the designated sportsmen and accompany them under surveillance all the way to the antidoping location.

The analyses of urinary samples were realized by the département des analyses of the Agency, Châtenay-Malabry laboratory, but the blood sample(s) analyses were, at the demand of the UCI, undertaken by the antidoping laboratory of Lausanne (Switz.).

The UCI being responsible for antidoping policy and results management, the AFLD didn't have (any) communication of the results from these analyses. In total, 537 samplings were realized (185 urinary et 352 blood, among which 180 from the start of the race). A report regarding the process of these controls was elaborated from source notes taken by the sampling doctors (AFLD staff), that was transmitted to the UCI as well as, for information, to the WADA and the Ministry of Health and Sports.

To begin with, note that two-thirds of the Samples were not analyzed in France – the Lausanne lab directed by Martial Saugy did all 2009 TdF blood work-ups. Perhaps that is due to the Swiss facility having newer equipment (recalling the LNDD's vintage IsoPrime machine; a 'bastion of reliability' since... 1986?)?


We also find the mathematics interesting: of the 352 blood samples taken, 180 were done prior to the first day's departure. That leaves 172 blood samples extracted during the race period. Yet 185 urine samples were taken. Should we not presume that every in-competition test required a cyclist to give urine and blood? Then why have 13 fewer blood samples, or 13 extra urine samples? Ponder that...


To note from the AFLD semester report, is that AFLD drew some 5,594 Samples from Athletes, of which only 887 (or 15.8pc, they state) were done for International Federations or other international organs (such as the Association of National Anti–Doping Agencies: 'ANADO'). In this four page report, as in other past French official documents we've signalled (such as the Floyd Landis 'renegade' AFLD 'prosecution', or the COFRAC–LNDD 'ISO 17025' report), specificity is not a prime commodity: we are not sure whether the 597 samples pulled from the Tour participants were separate from, or included in, the 887 number above. If included, that makes the TdF the overwhelming leader in diligent sampling. If separate, it still offers a robust percentage of their total 'international' numbers (remember, France had the Skiing World Championships for a fortnight, in Val d'Isère, Feb. 2009). AFLD apparently performed some 24 'supplemental' tests during the ITF Roland Garros tennis tourney, stating that ITF was conducting its own program (presumably elsewhere) as well.


Of the 5,594 samples undertaken, some 73.2pc were 'inopinée' or 'no-advance-notice'; without specificity, we offer the following statistics as, perhaps, reflections as to the large number of national Associations' tested participants:

• Soccer: 14 infractions (AAF) for 261 controls (5.3pc); cannabinoïdes* (cannabinoids) were the substance most often present;

• Ice hockey: 12 AAF for 173 controls (6.9pc), also majority of cannabinoïdes;

• Field hockey: 8 infractions (of which 4 AAF) for 68 controls (12pc), also cannabinoïdes;

• Cycling: 10 infractions (9 AAF) for 308 controls (3.2pc), most often 'Beta-2 agonistes and glucocorticoïdes';

• Basketball: 8 AAF for 248 controls (3.2pc), most often cannabinoïdes;

• 'English' boxing: 7 infractions (of which 6 AAF) for 166 controls (4.2pc) – cannabinoïdes;

• Water–polo: 5 AAF for 285 controls (1.75pc) – Beta-2 agonistes, cannabinoïdes and glucocorticoïdes;

• Track and Field: 5 AAF for 533 controls (0.9pc) – glucocorticoïdes (2), stimulants and cannabinoïdes (1 each);

• Triathlon: 4 AAF for 49 controls (8.1pc) – (no information given);

• Tennis: 4 infractions (of which 3 AAF) for 124 controls (3.2pc) - (no information given).

*cannabinoids (marijuana component) are in the WADA list of Prohibited Substances
(the S8 class).

A comparison raises interesting observations: why does Plucky Pierre (and his preferred agente-presse du jour) display such wrath against the UCI, when there appear to be bigger 'problems' with other sports IFs or NFs? Athletes were more often found doping in five of the ten sports listed sports above (Soccer, Ice and Field Hockey (both), Boxing and Triathlon); two are identical (interestingly so) to cycling (basketball and tennis), and two are very low (Water Polo, and Track and Field). In the many years of discussing 'cycling' as 'doped', there's few articles about Pierre Bordry writing reports (and spreading publicity) about the massive problems in Boxing, or Soccer, nor of the scourge to health of Cannabinoids... pourquoi ('why')?


Maybe WADA would find it interesting to run an investigation regarding the prejudice against cycling and its origins, when other sports evidently are in need of its enlightened sagesse ('wisdom')?


Meanwhile 'back at the cycling ranch', the AFLD Semester Report said it “didn't have the results” (perhaps meaning 'access to identifying information, permitting them to trace samples to the cyclists'?) from its Tour analyses. Something is unclear, since the 'results' it 'didn't have' were produced in its 'world-class, WADA-Accredited' laboratory, which had developed the current urinary-EPO analysis. Very interesting, the Report phraseology; surely they knew whether any urine controls were 'positive' or 'negative'. However, without having the names to whom those Samples attached, is AFLD only complaining (to the Gouvernement français that funds AFLD, and for whom this report was presented?) they couldn't access the 'information' needed to leak more results this year?


The UCI press release (October 5) said, long before Eddy Merckx and Laurent Jalabert, that the AFLD report contained “accusations made by the AFLD against officials sent to the Tour de France...”, which were “... completely unfounded and indeed very serious.” 'Serious'... to the point of defamatory?

SIDEBAR: The UCI decried the unilateral nature of the AFLD 'UCI Report', issued “... without giving the UCI the opportunity to study it and correct any erroneous comments that it may contain...” Our 'elephant's memory' (and requisite polite manners: to cover our face while smiling), recalls similar AFLD/LNDD complaints regarding the 2006 Vrijman Report, which the UCI issued sans commentaire by those affected French Agencies.

UCI's investigation team had denied (with due cause, we believe) the French agencies an opportunity to comment on that Spring 2006 report, because those agencies refused to cooperate completely, denying both requested documentation and answers. So here the AFLD returns the favour: a petty tit-for-tat (UCI should have ignored announcing this).

The AFLD 2009 First Semester report (a portion of which is translated above) doesn't mention the number of involved UCI officials, but we do know there were ten AFLD officials: two doctors and eight 'independent escorts'. Without a copy of the AFLD 'J'Accuse!' UCI Report, one cannot be sure how extensive the AFLD accusations are, regarding UCI efforts connoting 'preferential treatment (towards Astana and/or other teams)' that inhibited the work of the official AFLD staff.


One can refer, however, to WADC Article 20.5 – Role and Responsibilities of National Anti-Doping Organizations, and its sub–Article 20.5.2: To cooperate with other relevant national organizations and agencies and other Anti–Doping Organizations. Comparable language for IFs such as the UCI comes from sub–Article 20.3.12. One could picture the diligent work performed by the UCI (as claimed and presumed) staff, under a protocol of agreement with the AFLD, while the French Agency's minions were lectured by cher Pierre to maintain silence if they saw 'infractions' and to take those 'scrupulous notes', instead of 'cooperating'?


Or...

Picture a Keystone Kops sequence from Mack Sennett, as UCI 'cops' pursued the Teams, and AFLD 'cops' pursue UCI 'cops'; eternal triangular scenes of frustration and... scrupulous note-taking.

How would AFLD respond to this UCI release, and its objective, fact-based commentary:

This attitude is not appropriate and does not give credit to the enormous amount of work carried out by many people during the three weeks of the event under the scope of an intensive anti-doping programme that is the most complete and sophisticated implemented for any sporting event outside the Olympic Games.

One wonders how the AFLD series of accusations, insinuendos and acrimony, against UCI responses, will play out, in face of the silence that wafts across the French media regarding the other, 'dirtier' sports? We are reminded by each Le Monde article, that the AFLD doctors were 'scrupulously taking notes' of UCI staff processes... when were they able to take notes?


Weren't they supposed to be in their on-site trailer (aka Doping Control Station), receiving the daily urine and/or blood samples (and... packing them in proper transit containers)? Did AFLD observe UCI officials telling Team Directors to 'stay out of your hotel from 07h30 to 08h45, so your guys won't be controlled'? Or were these 'notes' of UCI wrongdoings showing them deliberately getting stuck in traffic, thus missing rendezvous times? Do they have phone records from France Telecom of cellular phone calls, identifying personnel by their numbers? More importantly, does AFLD not understand its 'Roles and Responsibilities'?


In the Grand Scheme of cycling's latest internecine combat, the long and gory-ous history of the Cycling Wars merits review of current and past accusations. The credibility of this French Agency is completely tied to its laboratory, which in 2007 couldn't respect its contracted service provisions, by 'going on vacation' mid–contract, and leaving Iban Mayo's B Sample examinations in a mid-August limbo. That situation presented UCI Chief Anti–Doping Officer Anne Gripper with the dilemma of finding a substitute lab (Ghent, Belgium) that could perform Code–mandated B Sample analyses (which choice was against the WADA ISL: B Sample analyses must be performed by the same lab: ISL Article 5.2.4.3.2.2 (2004)) on Mayo's purported A Sample 'positive' result.


Let the Record reflect that the UCI didn't whine to the press and issue an 'official Report' about those major AFLD/LNDD failures to comply with the WADC then, nor do we know whether prohibiting another 'mid-contract vacation' was covered in the 2009 contract between the UCI and this French Agency. WADAwatch called that 2007 failure by LNDD a 'work-stoppage/protest/strike'; nothing since has changed that opinion.


Other errors, from the Landaluce case and the 'sloppy' evidence offered in the Landis inquisition, and of course the 2005 Armstrong fiasco, remain in the public memory. Given that a majority of the French lab's work seems to be honestly performed, and yielding straightforward results, how can one understand the 'dérapage' ('skidding out of control') that abounds between AFLD, its lab, the UCI and cycling in general? A theory remains, which could be summarized as 'a French agenda to circumvent or replace the UCI' (?)... as was attributed, in our Part I, to the quote from Mandard of a French team's 'anonymous source'.

The first Le Monde article had stated that questionable transportation practices were noted (scrupulously) by the AFLD UCI Report; yet there have been 'questionable' transportation situations previously. When the WADA Independent Observers' report of TdF 2003 documented similar 'incidents', WADA's Rapporteurs evidently presumed that the functions they had observed were controlled by UCI Rules. Yet the annotated UCI response repetitively cited the controlling French Law; they evidently operated in full compliance (or strove to comply with) of French national legal requirements.


Whether Sample transport, via 2009 contract provisions, is a responsibility assigned to UCI or AFLD (or TdF organizers ASO, or subcontracted), is not a factor for which we have complete information. Yet we doubt that the legal requirements known to UCI in 2003 have been amended through French law, to pass away from French legal authority. Thus a major question arises: should AFLD staff be helpful towards a foreign entity with which it holds a cooperation contract, to understand and conform its practice(s) with French Law?


Should AFLD and Plucky Pierre be fulfilling their obligations under the WADC Article 20.5.2, as to cooperation with the UCI, a foreign IF working its event upon French soil? Or should AFLD be hiding behind trees (our imagination runneth over), scrupulously noting every deviation therefrom?


If considering vendetta or conspiracy theories, one could have predicted such a dénouement to a great Tour, anticipating such news of these last three weeks: total war... CW II

If I stab you in the back, you may not see my smile...

The UCI press release concluded strongly:

Consequently, the UCI will now study the options for collaborating with a neutral partner for anti-doping controls on French soil. Such an option has already been implemented by other International Federations.

The International Tennis Foundation was one such IF, that sought out Montreal's lab for the 2007 Roland Garros (French Open) championship, and evidently maintains its Doping Control obligations away from the AFLD. Martial Saugy (Lausanne's impressive laboratory director) could well be working harder next July; the Swiss lab in Lausanne would only have to ramp up its commitment fifty percent, to absorb the one-third of the analyses (the urinary samples) that AFLD's département des analyses had done. Labs in Madrid, or Germany are also available. The UCI has several months to put out a 'Request for Bids' and select a working partner transparently?

Perhaps Plucky Pierre can aspire to a long–deserved retirement.

Revisit our June article When is a leash not a noose?, to remember how the French legislature amended pertinent legislation, putting a 'government observer' into the AFLD last summer...

Perhaps Bordry decided, as a 'watched government official', to externalize the sentiments ('étouffement'? In EN: 'suffocating') he is suffering? Perhaps he's the point–man for a French 'Mutiny' in the world of Cycling. However, the next journalistic rants, from a scornful French press, will probably castigate the 'dastardly UCI', as well as the 'cowardly, profit-oriented' ASO and the 'doping riders', against whom AFLD has an evident vendetta (more against cycling, than soccer, etc.), and in support of which Le Monde and its writer Mandard slant nearly every sentence.

WADAwatch endorses Ethic Cleansing in
le Gouvernement français...

Chère et belle Rama Yade: on peut pas
vous aider à voir claire?

('Dear and beautiful Rama Yade: cannot
someone aid you to see clearly?')

Unfortunately, especially because of his recidivism in public, French Agency Director Plucky Pierre Bordry appears able to say anything, do anything, or ordain anyone (under him) to do anything, and unless a case is forthcoming from 'on high', it seems to be perfectly okay...

with the wait-until-2010-for-compliance World Anti-Doping Agency

[Part III of this series will discuss WADA's role in light of
'serious allegations' by AFLD, and what should
transpire if those are found specious, as UCI claims...]

..........@.........WADAwatch
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

Nettoyage Éthique / Ethic Cleansing, Part III

WADA Hot Lines...

[In Part I of this three-part post, WADAwatch analysed the newest Le Monde article regarding the escalating CWII (Cycling War II) declared by the AFLD against UCI. In Part II WADAwatch presented AFLD documentation regarding its efforts in the first half of 2009 (especially the Tour de France), to integrate that information with the Le Monde series of October 2009 articles; in this Part III Ww discusses whether WADA will take up an objective role in defraying this conflict.]

Last month, WADAwatch recalled WADA Code Article 13.5 (Appeals from Decisions under Part Three and Part Four of the Code), which provides an avenue for adjudication of non–compliance issues, etc., from its Signatory Agencies, ADOs or others (IFs?). We now remind our readers of the final clause in that Article, regarding appeals by Signatories found to be non–complying:

“... [they] shall have the right to appeal exclusively to CAS in accordance with the provisions applicable before such court.”

In the last month, more than enough 'evidence' has been offered for an objective organization, such as one expects of the World Anti–Doping Agency, to initiate an investigation regarding cycling. If comfortably satisfied (the legal threshold that prevails in WADA world), WADA must either discipline the UCI, or Plucky Pierre (aka 'Pierre et le Loup') Bordry (of the AFLD), if his charges against the UCI were inaccurate. His 'UCI Report' presented accusations against the UCI, which were viewed by the French newspaper Le Monde reporter Stéphane Mandard, and published, while the official 'UCI Report' was in still transit (or only just received at) to UCI and WADA headquarters.


Yet if WADA found otherwise, that there were no substantive bases for such an inquest against its Signatory UCI, it could find itself running an inquisition regarding the rogue AFLD French Agency. Given the decision made by AFLD to go public with the above–mentioned UCI Report, prior to official submission to UCI or WADA, and given its long history (at least since 2005) of subverting 'international cooperation' to the interests of the French cycling aristocracy – ASO and the French Cycling Federation, WADA may have to undertake its first 'Signatory compliance procedure', with the anticipated result being some form of 'chastisement' against that French governmental agency.


Hypothetically, either AFLD has presented bona fide 'evidence' of a certain nonchalance by the UCI, vis–à–vis the cycling team Astana and its leaders Armstrong and Contador, amongst others, and thus WADA has a case (as Bordry promotes) against UCI, or the UCI (and WADA?) has a case (at last?) against AFLD for a (another?) violation of its Code–derived duties.


Did AFLD take into account the 'media circus' surrounding the Lance v Alberto sideshow drama, highly promoted throughout the French media, which promoted the evident discord between the two riders, making Astana's peaceful attention to its duties somewhat complex? Perhaps a finely–discerned line was maintained by UCI, displaying a savoir–faire that passed unperceived by the AFLD doctors 'stalking' the UCI anti–doping teams? Did the AFLD report remind WADA and the UCI of the discrimination clearly promised to Lance, by Madame la Ministre Rosalyne Bachelot? Recall that she promised, in her showboating pre–Tour welcoming invitation to Lance, that he would be 'particularly, particularly, particularly' surveyed? Perhaps she should have included 'the UCI'?


Objective analysis might suggest a reticence on the part of WADA to support a Signatory who, by clear evidence, has at least violated a discretionary role for WADA, to pursue an investigation of the AFLD's charges against UCI. What might have been, had AFLD not initiated the affair through another 'à la Lance' insinuendo–crescendo to prominent French daily papers, and so the world, however, no longer exists as an available option. Two French teams were recently refused ProTour License renewals (BBox Bouygues, and Cofidis), and not a few cycling aficionados believe Pierre Bordry's 'official Report' is no more than a smokescreen, for a renewed French 2010 agenda of independence from the UCI for their Tour de France.


Merci encore, M. Bordry...



However, should WADA undertake any 'compliance discipline' against the ADO of a State Party to the UNESCO Convention, some complications lay in its path, that WADA may not have foreseen. Some 102 or more Governments (as of late 2008) are Parties, by signature of the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport ('ICDS'), which promotes WADA in its mission, and provides legal standing for governments to support WADA, as an essentially private, international Foundation.


ICDS Section II (Anti–doping activities at the national level) Article 12.1–3, and Section III (International Cooperation) Article 13, place as primary components 'cooperation' and 'facilitating', in delineating the State Party mandates. Other Articles mandate support by State Parties to support the Code (as revisited below). WADAwatch is of the opinion that the WADC Article 13.5 wording, mentioned above, is hardly enforceable against a State organ such as AFLD (especially a French Agency...).


WADC Article 13.5 restricts a Government Agency, under the national authority of its government and facing some 'investigation' by WADA for its 'unethical', 'uncooperative' or 'incompetent' acts, when facing undefined 'disciplinary measures' by such a foreign, private institution, to utilize the services of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 'case of appeal'. Should WADA ever accuse a 'State Agent' of improprieties or non–compliance, rare are the occasions when the Government of that State would permit 'justice' to be rendered against that State's ADO or other Signatory, through a roster of private international (and respected) attorneys (aka 'a small group of insiders').


While there is no wording in the ICDS that mandates States Parties to enforce disciplinary actions in the WADC, which are limited (and 'undefined' as to formal proceedings) towards use of the CAS for appeals, Section I, Article 4 of the ICDS offers this:

1. In order to coordinate the implementation, at the national and international levels, of the fight against doping in sport, States Parties commit themselves to the principles of the Code as the basis for the measures provided for in Article 5 of this Convention.

We are not aware of a Government that would prefer (or submit... or authorize?) to arbitrate international disciplinary situations involving its own Agencies, by a trio of private attorneys in a system that provides no appeal of those decisions. Nor would it, while assuring its support of the Code, be averse to stating that they would continue to 'commit themselves to [its] principles' without agreeing to submit their Agency to private international arbitration. Offered hypothetically, a commentary from WADA's Legal Office (the 'Code development Division' or Committee):

“Oops, we didn't think of that... hmmm”

There are (at least) two strong arbitral bodies dealing with State v State issues that come to mind: the WTO Trade Dispute system, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. We do not suggest that 'UCI v AFLD' would be a State v State question of International Law, but it certainly possesses a different weight than do the more common (sadly) disputes centered on Athletes' AAFs, their IFs, and the ADOs that inculpate them through doping controls.


Thus WADAwatch suggests that a void exists between the UNESCO ICDS and the WADA Code, lacking definite language framing a prosecution for discipline or an 'enforcement' action against any entity other than individual Athletes (or Teams, or Support staff). Perhaps this creates further grounds to assert that the implementation of the WADA Code serves only a portion of its true needs. The word 'lacunae' rears its head again; an unavoidable word when dealing with WADA's controlling documents. Rules that don't exist in writing cannot be 'objectively clear' and 'predictable', as the Quigley Rule suggested fifteen years ago.


If WADA perceives a case either way, investigating UCI or the AFLD, the applicable WADA Code Articles are:

• 20.3 Roles and Responsibilities of International Federations;

• 20.5 Roles and Responsibilities of National Anti–Doping Organizations;

• 20.7 Roles and Responsibilities of WADA.

Article 20.5.2, under which AFLD holds its status in the WADA family, states inter alia:

[.....]

To cooperate with other national organizations and agencies and [sic] other Anti–Doping Organizations.

SIDEBAR: Were Dick Pound still reigning at (or holding the wagon reins of) WADA today, he would inevitably (we presume) be telling someone that 'there's no violation in the Code, so your insinuations are baseless' (paraphrasing his scathing response to ASOIF and the IOC Athletes Commission letter in 2005, regarding their legitimate concerns over use of Lance Armstrong's B Samples as research, then attributed against the person for disciplinary measures), and he could be right. But that would be a shallow response to a deep question, and an international situation, for which WADA was granted and ordained to be the institution that foresaw, promulgated and implemented a valid Code, in detail, that responded to such concerns.

Remember, doping was a propaganda war only a generation ago: there's no reason not to prepare for the day when a State's ADO allegedly shows bias through activities undertaken in the name of the 'fight against doping' that project towards foreigners.

Cautiously, would we counsel WADA to find the means to implement Signatory Discipline, in line with the underway plan for Laboratory Discipline.


Unfortunately, at the present, we repeat that uncertainty exists, as to how or through which disciplinary mechanism WADA could investigate either the UCI or AFLD, or both. Perhaps Dick Pound never envisaged this, as he pushed for WADA to become a powerhouse enterprise, with mock concern for a just system; perhaps he thought it was something one should (or could) handle diplomatically; far from evidentiary hearings, transcripts and 'the world'.


The Honourable John Fahey seems to prefer 'Black and White' clarity; we hope his influence remains objective, in the face of these French renegades. This author personally requested a reply to a similar question at the February 2008 WADA Press Seminar, so the Agency is on notice that the issue hasn't gone away.


Without clarity as to which Code Article either Organization would/could be judged 'non–compliant' due to 'irregular Signatory behaviour', how is such a decision to be taken? If a WADA 'committee' found one of these two parties 'guilty as charged', how would that decision result in an appeal to CAS? It is easier to foresee UCI being obligated to render itself to CAS if it chose to appeal some 'decision' by some 'body' within WADA. As to AFLD, one presumes that the AFLD would not submit itself to such private arbitration.


In the case of the French AFLD, and its 'très supportif' Ministry of Health, Sport and Youth, these entities that advised investigator Vrijman (in l'Affaire Armstrong, 2005-6) not to expect further administrative cooperation, as he was an 'opposing party' (when no litigation was en route; that deflection of responsibilities under judicial cover appeared to be falsely–based, a self–serving premise) to whom the only recourse would be under proper French judicial authority. Is this a case of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'? WADAwatch sees the signs of discordance, and merely wonders if others are waiting to see how this legal 'dance' plays out.


The AFLD stated, in response to the UCI announcement of earlier this month, that it was not interested in further collaborations with the UCI. The UCI had proclaimed two weeks earlier, that it would explore performance of Tour de France testing through another party than AFLD. These announcements presage CW II: a re–opening of the 'War' between France's government Agency and Ministry, against the UCI, as we wrote in Parts One and Two of this series. Will the UCI commission Swiss, Belgian or Canadian lab(s) to undertake TdF 2010 laboratory analyses?


Or might the UCI 'lose' its re–integrated role as IF–in–charge of the Tour de France? Remember, this event went 'renegade' in 2008 for the first time in modern times, the first time since UCI was the Federation charged with the sporting regulation of the race. It could happen again, whether or not the UCI is found to have performed as insinuated by Bordry in his Report.


In 2008, French entities unilaterally withdrew the TdF away from UCI supervision. Was the temporary reconciliation for the 2009 TdF only a vehicle that served to offer Plucky Pierre sufficient time to 'accumulate stronger evidence'? We know what 'evidence' means, at least as to France's conception of the Beauty of Science. Has AFLD offered its 'Report' to the press as a fait accompli, prior to an official submission to a co–Signatory and the parent Organization WADA, simply to justify unilateral action (whether or not WADA acts, this could happen!). How will WADA react, knowing that it should have had full access to an official Report, prior to reading about this in the press?


Laboratories are (it is now evidently clear) not the only 'entities' for which WADA CODE document–development Committee(s) have omitted definitive administrative rules – clear, precise, predictable and thus Quigley–compliant – under which a Sporting world can cooperate, to produce the work in the field for which they are engaged. WADA finally is verging on implementation of Laboratory disciplinary process regulations, in the Tenth Anniversary year of WADA's inauguration. Soon it will be six years since the first version of the Code was written (implemented 1 January 2004); yet it is doubtful that, by the opening of the Winter Olympics at Vancouver, a complete legal family of WADA–derived disciplinary systems will be in place: one could hope such were finalized before London 2012?


Another objective question:

Is Pierre Bordry the only person capable of
directing the AFLD?

One wonders who supports his egregious actions in the French hierarchy that supervises him? Between Pierre Bordry, Ministre Rosalyne Bachelot, Rama Yade (Secretary of State for Sport), Jean–François Lamour (ex–VP of WADA) and Dr Olivier Rabin (the Science Director for WADA), one has to imagine to what length, and end, their telephone lines were burning up this month.


NB: even if he is correct in substance, Bordry seems very culpable for undertaking the procedure he chose, via Le Monde, against the UCI.


France, whose two (of four) ProTour cycling teams were denied UCI license renewals two or three weeks ago, may be bringing out its big guns in retaliation. Police actions in July, of which not one word had been announced in timely, official 'police' fashion (WADAwatch remembers the swift 'justice' offered in prior hotel dustbin investigations from Tours in 1998 through today), are only now confirmed, precisely after two French teams: Cofidis and BBox Bouygues, found themselves relegated to national–level status. The AFLD Report, itself, in development since at least the end of this year's Tour, surfaced within days of that UCI announcement. When might the world have known of this Report, had the UCI not announced a reshuffling of ProTour licenses this month?


The timing: suspicious; the manner of publicizing it: illegitimate?


The hard work accomplished in late 2008, that brought reconciliation between WADA, UCI, ASO: is that all for naught? Is Bordry's report a defiant act against all the world, or with full support from his superiors (reminding readers again, of the French government decree that put a Ministry 'overseer' into the AFLD, earlier this year)?


Last reminder: when John Fahey was nominated, the 'loser' in that affair was French national Jean-François Lamour, who'd been Vice President of WADA under Dick Pound. He exited the scene, with some hasty words that said, in effect: “WADA is obviously going in the wrong direction; we may have to create another 'WADA' for the European region.” One can only ponder whether, via the Tour de France, some portion of that conceived disruption has any substantive basis?


Hopefully this isn't another 'oh Jesus!' moment for the Honourable John Fahey...?


Consequences for UCI, if found 'complacent'? One might think the UCI has suffered enough from the AFLD and its laboratoire.

Consequences for AFLD, if found 'defamatory' towards a fellow WADA Signatory? When might their Signatory cup runneth over?

Will WADA undertake the publicly transparent, necessary course of action, in the hopes that one of these two 'in the headlines' Signatories will...

Comply?

..........@.........WADAwatch
one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww