Friday, 30 May 2008

Riders! On the Tour...

Riders on the Tour...

Riders on the Tour...
Into this house were born;
Into this Lab were thrown:

Like a dog without a bone;
An actor out on loan -
Riders on the Tour...
(Parody of the Doors: "Riders on the Storm")

Riders of the Tour!

The Tour de France beckons (unless you are with Astana: then this won't concern you, we are sad to state)...

How do you feel, Riders of the Tour de France, about the French National anti–doping Laboratoire, the LNDD?

Is it the best in the world?

Or is it the most over–ruled anti–doping Laboratoire in the WADA system?

Do the names Armstrong, Landaluce, Landis, Mayo, if found in the same sentence as “LNDD”, fill you with some mixed emotions? That sinking feeling in your gut?

If you are a Pro Tour or 'other' team cyclist whose group have been invited to the Tour 2008,
its time to think about the newly-devised race control system that is about to be offloaded onto your shoulders. You, who we admire if and when we know you are clean, are entering the Biggest (cycling) Show on Earth, which for the first time perhaps in its modern history, shall be organized and implemented outside the UCI Rules.

Riders of Paris–Nice already have their experiences. Same for the Paris–Roubaix... and we can only hope that the experiences of March and April have given the French enough input that they can put on the race that they think is best achieved away from the UCI.

In fact, be aware that there remains a question as to whether the Fédération française de cyclisme, or FFC, can in fact host a race that is not run within the structure of the UCI.

Anyone reading the FFC rules, which control any French, non–UCI event (local citizens' races, cyclosportifs, and junior national programs, etc), must be aware that nearly every clause makes at least one reference to 'the UCI rules', whether those be 'under the UCI', 'as established by the UCI', or any of the hundreds of stipulations.

But since the Amaury Sport Organisation, or ASO, broke ranks by leading a revolt against the UCI, and 'promised' to hold its race independently of the global cyling organization, the turbulence promised by such acts falls, ultimately, upon your shoulders. Where does that leave a rider?

If the UCI is officially 'unwelcomed' by the ASO group that owns the Tour de France, and if events happen that call the FFC rulebook into question, how is any rule, with a reference to the corresponding UCI Rules, going to be interpreted?

Only subsequent justice would answer that question, and a swift read of the AFLD Decision (Mais bien sûr! C'est en français) involving a second, and perhaps–illegitimate process taken against Floyd Landis, from 2006 to 2007, reveals that 'French Administrative Justice' comes down to being 'whatever we want it to be'.

In the Decision that emerged from this extraordinary second French case against Landis, no judges are named, no expert's testimony appears to have been cross–examined, and the sum total of damning evidence that is contained in that record, was that the Agency published its 'Decision' (Derision?), miraculously on the same calendar day as it received the bulk of Landis' Attorneys' legal filings.

Unclear as these legally damning items were, even more so is the questionable legitimacy of the legal regulation under which Landis was prosecuted in France. The one clear part of this ultralight decision, is that it states categorically that France holds jurisdiction over this man as an 'unlicensed cyclist'.

But, you, as a peer of Floyd, know that he has always held a license from USACycling. He has been a 'licensed American pro cyclist' every year his foot touched a pedal in the Tour. How then, can the French Agence française du lutte du dopage, or AFLD, prosecute him as unlicensed? How could any French Appellate Court, whether administrative or otherwise, not overturn such a blatantly unreal reality?

Boggling the mind...

So this is the Strangelovian world you all enter, as our friends, our heros, or... as goats if found 'positive'.

And as the focal point of the French anti–doping world, the LNDD laboratoire – that will process your collected tests for doping control purposes – is only the most notoriously incompetent laboratoire in the system of WADA–accredited labs.

LNDD already lost one case from 2006 (Landaluce: failure to uphold ISL testing requirements), lost a contract to run doping controls on the ITF's tested players at Roland Garros last year, to the WADA–accredited lab in Montreal (only 3400 km from the stadium, itself being no more than 18 km across Parisian suburbs from LNDD!), and, the real topper: it went on vacation in the middle of its busiest testing season of 2007, perhaps as an un–notified 'work stoppage' action (?!) in protest of the growing animosity between anything French that is related to Cycling and the UCI.

SIDEBAR: The UCI had published the famous Vrijman report, in the spring of 2006, which objectively and neutrally thrashed that laboratoire's infamous 'research' that had led to an article against Lance Armstrong, which was published in the French sports–rag l'Equipe. Vrijman noted, in a very linear and clear fashion, how French government officials, the former WADA president Dick Pound, and the l'Equipe journalist had unanimously appeared unable or unwilling to assist the UCI to investigate the Armstrong allegations. Recalling paragraph 1.14 of Vrijman is very important:

Despite the recognition of the proper jurisdiction of the independent investigator by all individuals and organizations that were contacted, the French Ministry, the LNDD and WADA, all refused to provide the investigator with the documents and full cooperation necessary to reach definite conclusions on certain issues that remain unresolved. The refusal by the LNDD, the French Ministry and WADA to provide documents and information that are necessary for the proper conduct of a complete investigation is extremely troubling and is inconsistent with the principles of the Olympic Movement. The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD’s Professor De Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results in great detail with the media, while they at the same time were unwilling to cooperate with a proper investigation by the organization with jurisdiction over this matter, raises substantial questions regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one wonder as to what complete cooperation would disclose.”

Consequent to the sum total of these events, it remains astonishing that ASO could even consider opening its organizational 'voice' against violations against the WADA CODE, as it has, consistently throughout the years, through its one – hundred per cent ownership of the l'Equipe paper, been in continuous recidivism as to violations of WADA regulations that guarantee Athletes' rights to confidentiality, by 'scooping' information about not only Tour riders' A Sample doping control results.

As a internationally–contracted laboratoire in the WADA system, perhaps it is a good thing that it proved, once and for all in 2007, which of its priorities were the most dear:

Going on vacation?

By stopping the process, after unveiling an A Sample positive control held against Spanish rider Iban Mayo, and shutting down its facility “because we are French, and this is the French vacation month” (which WADAwatch is unaware that it ever 'stopped' work on previous years' samples), its outrageous acts forced the UCI, the IF that had contracted and paid it for more than these manifestly sub–standard services... to track down another facility, which was itself an unjust act, falling outside the conditions of WADA ISL Articles ”B” Sample analysis should occur as soon as possible and should be completed within thirty (30) days of notification of an ”A” Sample Adverse Analytical Finding. AND Article “B” Sample confirmation must be performed in the same Laboratory as the “A” Sample confirmation.).

Leaving the details of these matters aside, there is only one common element that runs throughout: an
entity within the French Government, which is accredited by a global international Sporting association (which isn't per se in the business of 'accrediting' Labs: it's happy to take the word of any national body that belongs to ILAC...), has much support from WADA, in its quest to achieve convictions... if only they could remember that they themselves have strict rules to follow.
(PHOTO: Professeur De Ceaurriz and M. Lamour,
ex-Ministre de la Jeunesse et Sports, colleague unknown)

Here at WADAwatch, we consider it a good thing that the 2012 Summer Olympics were awarded to the British.

After all, how could you run a
Summer Games when the laboratoire
staff are all down in St. Tropez,
over in Guadalupe or up in Chamonix,

how important their work is?

But hopefully you follow me...
"Riders of the Tour... daa da-da da daaaa..."


The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Watching WADA, and LNDD... and more,


2008 all copyrights reserved

Thursday, 29 May 2008

A comment to Landis Star Decision...

This brief post is to point, once again, to a valuable comment and link to a serious article that we'll be reading over the weekend...

Just the first paragraph makes this a must-read for anyone annoyed or discomfited by the lack of progress in the system WADA 'owns'.

Supplement Testing: Who is Watching Out for the Athletes?

Most professional athletes wake up every day faced with a dilemma. They ask themselves “Will today be the day that I inadvertently consume a supplement that’s been tainted with a prohibited substance? Or should I go through my day working at a less-than-optimal level so I don’t risk a false positive drug test?” The mental games go on with “I’m being told that it’s my responsibility to watch what I eat and anything that is found in my urine or blood is my fault, but nobody is giving me the tools to help me determine if what I’m eating is safe. Will today be the day?” Thankfully, for the vast majority of athletes, this nightmare never becomes reality. But really: Who is watching out for athletes?

Thanks to correspondent Whareagle for this pointer, and his comment bears coming on the front page here:

"I don't know if you saw this, but this was just published on slowtwitch. You may want to read it and contact the PhD.

Thanks to readership in the know, Ww can continue to help Athletes, who sometimes are left wondering how WADA views them...


The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Watching WADA...


2008 all copyrights reserved


Thursday, 22 May 2008

WADA long trip it's been: Landis Star Destiny

This article is dedicated to the memory of Albert Hofmann, a man whose career had nearly as much impact on our times, distinctly different but, in certain aspects similar, to those impacts of the 'great' names of the Atomic Age: for Albert is the first researching scientist to have discovered LSD.

It has been said, amongst friends of WADAwatch, that Hofmann was to the neuron, what Robert Oppenheimer was to the atom.

But give thanks to the Source of your Beliefs, that Herr Hofmann wasn't linked to any sports–medicine scandals, later in his career.

As researching scientist and inventor of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), Albert's own discovery (a discovery first rejected, then resurrected) lay dormant for several years after his initial researches ended by rejecting that unknown substance, for its incapacity to do what had been predicted. However, Hofmann claims to have suffered 'an epiphany', and either re–made his formulae or pulled 'Batch A' out of the deep freeze; some four years or more after his first analysis, one drop fell on his arm, and the rest of psychodelia is now history).

Yet it's a good day to take a small 'trip' through 'what–if' land: hang on to these sardonic, ironic or satirical thoughts...

What if WADA could accredit more labs that work to the highest degree of scientific purity of knowledge and results–management: just like the French LNDD lab?

What if, thanks to the due diligence of those Laboratories (who don't really have to prove their accreditation exists by putting valid documentation about themselves online...), we find another FORTY major Star Athletes, whose defense (because, of course, they were 'busted' for being just one little smidgeon over the limit, in one of Several factors that make up a true and defendible positive) takes a wee bit longer than the swift and simple Justice for which WADA (cough) is renowned: just like the 'simple' Landis cycling–testosterone Tour de France 2006 case?

What if WADA chose to proceed with aiding (without any solid legal WADA CODE basis for these off–budget expenditures) in financing the legal costs: just like the Landis cycling–testosterone Tour de France 2006 case?

What if
WADA's Director General cannot have his desired system of 'loser–pays lawsuit costs' implemented by his many many many friends in CAS and the IOC, and thus would have to pay up to $1.3 million in appeals costs: just as was prejudicially and publicly proposed during the appeal of the Landis cycling–testosterone Tour de France 2006 case?


The fact is, WADA is paying five percent of its forecasted and approved 2008 budget revenue for the solidification of its 'theory' (whatever that may be has stayed silent) as to Landis' culpability. Following the link above, will show that WADA attributed 7.73 per cent of its budget to 'legal and finance'. At this rate, they won't be able to go to Beijing, without a drastic influx of cash.

IF WADA had 5 – 10 more similar cases annually, WADA would have at least half of its budget devoted to CODE litigation 'enforcement'. Remember, we're talking about a budget made up of contributions offered by Signatories and States, and then matched by the IOC, the expenditures of which, one pre–supposes, must fall in accordance with the Roles and Responsibilities of WADA (CODE Art. 20.7).

WADA could go out of business, if the above scenario was NOT hypothetical. It cannot sustain the legal costs of its ADOs through its annual budget, and is certainly broaching the boundaries of just causes, by discrimination as to whose cases must be won through the subsidization of ADOs' legal costs... When will countries 'up' their donations, if they see the money being used to fight a losing battle?

Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier (taking imaginary words out of the mouth of its past President, Dick Pound), safer and less antagonizing, to




WADAwatch is committed to this ideal; we do not offer empty ravings (very often, it is hoped). Here are five steps to WADA CODE achievement.

{These short excerpts may, as
this month turns to June, become
individual WADAwatch articles}


Remove the systemic legal conflict of interest that surrounds the private arbitration system.

Once, a decade or more ago, the Internet itself was going through a governance 'phase–shift', which included a determination that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) would be the proper venue for a 'industry–sensitive' arbitration body for Domain name/trademark owners' resolution panels. Within two years or so of that being established, and thus having been given its own 'monopoly income source' for this globally–interested service, the ICANN Corporation agreed with its critical detractors and allowed at least two other bodies to hear Domain–name/TM disputes.

WADA could do the same, and open the world of arbitration to more than one 'family'; with due respect, CAS is not the only body of arbitrators that could hear these cases.


Shift arbitration panels from the current 'two against one' to a universal standard of Four. The Athlete would be allowed to appoint two of the panel; the opposing ADO party would still appoint one arbitrator, and whichever 'house' (see ONE) could also appoint one; the ADO party would have two vetos for the names proposed by the 'house'.

Combining that radical change, with a rule that conviction takes Three or Four Arbitrators, should make this biased system become more fair, and provide eloquence to persuasive decisions, and drafting them could be more unassailable. Having the power to both appoint two arbitrators, it would then behoove either side to have convinced at least one of the opposite side that their case didn't hold.


Redraft the loophole–ridden, inquisitorial WADA CODE 2007, and demonstrate for the first time in a decade that WADA wants to 'bring' the Athletes into compliance, rather than 'inquisitioning' them. The damage having been extended recently in Madrid, the likelihood of this happening are...?


Find a better way to integrate the past dopers (who lived in the eras of Winken, Blinken and Nod), who WANT TO CONFESS, an opportunity to be treated as 'courageous' rather than, at best, hypocritical, and at worst: criminal.

It is wrong for an Athlete to dope. No argument.

But if people that DO confess, are strung out to dry, then an inherent systemic problem augments, instead of turning to the good that such a 'weapon' could be.

For WADAwatch, one of the heights of hypocrisy is to see someone like Christian Prudhomme, now director of the Tour de France, casting aspersions against former victor (of the 1996 Tour de France) Bjarne Riis.

As a former sports journalist, Prudhomme: a) earned his living writing about Riis' exploits in the Tour; b) never once wrote a word about suspicions of his doping (we presume, perhaps too much so).

If the response by those 'in power' to today's trends towards 'confession' mean anything, it is obviously this:

If you ever DOPED, don't ever tell anyone:
you'll lose your job, your status, shame your family...
just keep it a secret.

That is the wrong approach, but it is the approach 'endorsed' by WADA (via former president Pound), the Tour de France (who hands out nearly as many 'persona non grata' cards than VIP invitations), and others.

Inviting Confession, and Absolution, is the way to create peer–pressure for positive ends.


Break the WADA 'Omerta', that disallows Lab Specialists and Directors from being called as experts against other laboratories whose positive AAFs are being analysed in these sports–doping hearings.

Rather than hiding behind a self–protective system, these people should be able to stand in 'court' and justify the 'standards' other labs must uphold, rather than justifying the inexcusable 'manquements' that arise in any human endeavor.

This goes to the core of a systemic problem: WADA should not be paying laboratories to mutually protect 'evidence of guilt'. They should be encouraging an 'open–source' concept, in which the science and standards are clearly derived, and the human failure (similar to the 'human failure' of a doping Athlete) to uphold the science should be severely punished: two years for an Athlete, two years suspension for a laboratory facility that failed its job.


Patents. There is an aspect to the system of patenting new bio–medical advances, that can be explored, perhaps through UNESCO, in concert with the World Intellectual Property Organization. This idea stems from this author's previous professional experiences (six years as a Consultant contract staff at WIPO); and it's a real–world systemic proposal being developed here at WADAwatch.

When the right time comes, or in front of the right audience, the 'Epiphany' will be revealed.

We're waiting at the phone, Mr. WADA...

WADA, for reasons that do not appear (to this observer) totally coherent, dumped its $1.3 million dollars into the appeal of Floyd Landis, and thus has taken upon itself perhaps as much as eighty percent (80%) of the costs for a process in which it has 'no say'. Remember, WADA may appear as a party to an appeal, through the generosity of CODE Article 13.2 (et seq.).

That isn't to state that WADA handed USADA a blank check, it's a little more clear than that. Richard Young, who wears so many hats in this ring that he's become a one–man carrousel, is:

  1. The shining light attorney who had directed the drafting of WADA's original CODE; and,

  2. Has been, for many a year, on the CAS list of attorney–arbitrators (Click on -Y-); and

  3. Lead prosecutor of the Original Legal Landis hearing (we must differentiate between the legitimate, and the illegitimate: the latter is a purely French recipe), held in California in May of 2007;

  4. President of the Committee that achieved, in Madrid last November, the new! and improved! WADA CODE 2007, scheduled for rapid integration to the Signatory International Federations that make up and represent the active players (FYI: the Athletes) within the WADA family.

Yes, Mr Young, has apparently not found any conflict of interest in running a prosecution under the rules he indirectly drafted (the UCI cycling Federation, certainly, is a historic and once–enthusiastic Signatory for WADA), in front of a panel in which he knows every participating arbitrator (They may even be 'roomies' in Beijing later this summer, running the on–site CAS arbitrations of rules–violations or doping situations), is trying to win a case that he already won once. But, for this spin around the merry-go-wrong, his fees appear to have been paid by WADA not the USADA that had first engaged him.

We, the many 'Children of the Damned–Floyd–Case', are still sinking our teeth into the lethargic and painfully slow–moving world of International Diplomacy, in the Olympic Movement sense (it's not any better in the UN, if past personal/professional experiences are permitted). And when Mr Young was first engaged by USADA, perhaps they did it knowing exactly that 'Richard' knew nearly everyone in the entire system.

It remains scary to know how far one can get in the law, with a 'wink' between friends.

In watching WADA, instincts must help.

The 'smells bad' test is a primary tool, nearly a hammer.

Richard Young being paid by WADA to redo the case he won once, which is a case 'de novo' (not a review or reversal of the prior decision), in front of his 'select few' peers, doesn't exude the pure aroma of justice

And of course, for Floyd Landis, one can only say 'oh what a long, strange trip it's been...'


The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Watching WADA...


2008 all copyrights reserved

Monday, 19 May 2008

Pistorius to 'run' in Olympics... barring the ???

With all the attention that WADAwatch is forced to provide, due to an overeager 'prosecutorial' penchant from the World Anti-Doping Agency (aka WADA), in following CAS, in its various rulings, the news from Lausanne, across the lake, is of a different 'colour' today: the colour of black graphite.

Oscar Pistorius, he of the nickname
'Bladerunner', due to having excelled at running very very fast, in spite of being a double-below-the-knee amputee, has been accorded a chance to run in the Beijing Olympics. Details will follow, but there are already signs that Pistorious will face some unanticipated competition if he succeeds in marking the right qualifying times.

Now, remember, this is a man who weighs about 10 per cent less, for his height, than those who he'll be competing against; he'll never fall over a shoe-lace or loose shoe, he has 40 per cent fewer 'joints' than they (after all, what is 'a foot' but jointed toes, ankles, and flexible feet-bones in between?), and even benefits from a lower coefficient of aerodynamics.

But hey! Good luck... Read Reuters' assessment here: Double amputee Pistorius wins appeal over ban ...

AND: did CAS take this decision, to 'allow a show to go on'? Do the TV coverage numbers in Beijing, for this spectacle, supersede justice?

Or did it do the 'right legal thing'? Analysis of the decision to come...

AND a preview of his anticipated competition:

Watching the world, finite and closed, of WADA, CAS and the oh-so-pure Commercial Media POWERS THAT BE...


The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.


2008 all copyrights reserved

Friday, 16 May 2008

SEQUEL on supplements...

We at WADAwatch would like to thank a reader for a comment, of such value, that we are going to make a post out of it, to extend the reach of the audience of 'those who follow WADAwatch'...

From yesterday's post, Watch your Supplements Daily... (or just scroll down: there it be!), an informed reader (in the system) wrote:

As a coach, I've been forced to self-educate myself on the topic of supplements for years now. Do some digging on the DSHEA act, an oxymoron for a bill if there ever was one, and the result of it... Billions for the supplement industry (a lot of it centered in Orrin Hatch's home state), and a paltry enforcement code and funding for it on the Federal side.

I've said for years that I could sell you sawdust in a capsule under some extraordinary claim, and before you ever got around to figuring out that it was useless, I'd have your money, and several thousand other folks' money, in an offshore account, and I'd be sipping drinks with an umbrella on a beach somewhere safe.

Supplements can and are an unregulated and tainted industry whose products are prone to 'contamination', either accidental or intentional, with no protection for the consumer. Educate yourself via this website -, and go to "Education". It's an interesting read. And ask ANY supplement company for government-backed proof of Purity, Potency, and Delivery. They make Tylenol do that, why not your wonder pills?

So some of us might do a bit of reading this weekend, and as Ww replied to our reader, we hope to put online in the next two weeks, an interview with a company representative that markets nutritional supplements... stay tuned.

+ + + + + + + + +

On another matter ...

Information provided by the UCI several days or more ago, indicated some rider in its biological passport program revealed parameters above established norms.

the spiteful reasons for which WADA decided to withdraw support, showing the stains of animosity that fester still, now long enough after the passing of Pound from Power at WADA)

Curiously, the UCI announced one rider, and then said that he (presumably "Mister, Herr or Monsieur X") was one of 23 riders that had suspicious factors to be followed and studied.

WADAwatch, now sadly habituated to the scandals offered through French journal l'Equipe, has waited with baited breath for an appearance of the national origin of this suspected violator of the WADA CODE, or the UCI program.

Nothing yet...

Two possible conclusions reveal themselves by the absence of 'scandal'; the rider himself is being protected as he should be, by proper (finally? Has it sunk in at last?) results management procedures.

OR... could WADAwatch stoop to the level long known at l'Equipe, and insinuate spectacularly that, MAYBE, perhaps, there's a possibility... of this rider being ... gasp... French???

As was discussed over some legal Rioja last evening: "How could l'Equipe not publish, given its long history of knowing the sales-power of 'les Scandales du dopage' (in terms of boosting its revenue through publication of illicitly received and prematurely published information regarding A Sample doping control results), such news... unless it may be a French rider?"

This is a test: this is only a test - of the New, Improved Results management system... had this been a real scandal, you would have been informed.... etc.


The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Watching WADA pursue Nutrient Suppliers...


2008 all copyrights reserved

Thursday, 15 May 2008

Watch your Supplements daily...

A quick review of some recent news items, that beg for a question to the World Anti-Doping Agency.

That question is: "If your mandate calls for cleaning the world of Sport from Doping, whose responsibility is it to police the purveyors of Nutritional Supplements?"

And that isn't even THE harsh question, which would be reserved to the purveyors of 'so-called' Athletic Nutritional Supplements:

"Dude! Would you rather keep your profits, or see them lost in another Court Case?"

With that introduction, WADAwatch points to this recent article...

Austrian skier wins settlement with drug company


The case was about to go to trial in U.S District Court in New Haven when the skier's American lawyer, Howard Jacobs, won a dismissal with the settlement, the terms of which are confidential.

"I can tell you that Hans was very happy with the terms of the settlement, and he's looking forward to the next thing," Jacobs, who represents numerous athletes accused of doping, told the Daily News. "That's one of the things that doesn't get talked about. A lot of the athletes have positives not because they're trying to cheat. It's because of inadvertent things."

Inadvertent things, which do happen to be 'the responsibility' of the Athlete, no doubt about it. But their task of monitoring 'supplements' should be easier.

Governments that have signed the UNESCO Convention (Article TEN), which treaty helped to justify
legally the existence of WADA and its mandate(s), are theoretically charged with efforts to (amongst many other things):

● Encourage producers and distributors of nutritional supplements to establish ‘best practice’ in the labelling, marketing and distribution of products which might contain prohibited substances

WADA's work on this topic, vital to its established goals, seems to have no coherent recent measures taken, if searching by its website for 'nutritional supplements' is any indication (the majority of the top ten 'hits' for that search reveal documents from 2004, 2005, 2003: where's the BEEF?).

When will WADA convene the Member States to start this huge snowball rolling? Working within the intergovernmental systems, such as the UN, are not rapid engagements.

And don't forget: a State not in compliance with ALL the WADA-System, is ineligible to bid, after January, 2009, for the Olympics. WADA CODE 20.1.8 reminds us of one of the responsibilities that WADA has charged to the International Olympic Committee:

To accept bids for the Olympic Games only from countries where the government has ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the UNESCO Convention and the National Olympic Committee, National Paralympic Committee and National Anti-Doping Organization are in compliance with the Code.

So there's no time to be a-wasting, friends.

Before ONE MORE Athlete is screwed for life, by a hasty and ill-timed purchase, it would be nice to see WADA working with the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory, of England (see our piece from October 2007), to put together such a program that makes profit-seeking nutrient sales companies aware of the damage they do, to some innocent, some purposeful customers.

NB: the details of the above settlement that Jacobs engineered, are confidential, but it wouldn't surprise us if skier Knauss could afford to buy himself and his family a nice little Austrian Alpine Hotel... he deserves no less.


The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Watching WADA... and Nutrient Suppliers?


2008 all copyrights reserved

Tuesday, 13 May 2008

WADA ... Dear John letter

WADA announced to the world's press that, in pursuit of its much-needed conviction of American cyclist Floyd Landis, it wished that it could seek remuneration by the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner, for its expenses (of some +/- $1.3 million) contributed towards the CAS appeal costs of USAD.

The CAS decision, stemming from Floyd's March hearing in New York, apparently involves the review of (behind well-closed doors) some 400 pages of depositions (FR term '
témoignages'), and some 6,000 pieces of evidence, throughout the five-day hearing process.

But make no mistake about the hidden message therein:

WADA is bankrupting (In our opinion, at least morally, if not financially) itself, NOT to prove Landis doped.

It is draining its litigation account (the legality of which remains to be determined, as WADAwatch argued in its Revised Amicus Brief from early April) for one simple reason:

WADA is fighting to prove itself NOT GUILTY - in our neutral opinion:

... of permitting tortious laboratory malfeasance, of committing gross ethics violations by itself (through former president Dick Pound) and its French laboratory, and of submitting and enforcing: incredibly, poorly, Machiavellianly, its biased drafting (not once but twice) of the WADA CODE.

WADA is failing softly, falling swiftly, through its continual support of the worst accredited lab in its family.

WADA is rolling the dice, on a $1.3 million crapshoot, desperately attempting to salvage some form of credibility, of which it had lost its grip through the mis-administration of Dick Pound.

Floyd Landis, whose case has been described by WADAwatch as: "
a profound assessment of what WADA is, what WADA does, and how WADA implements both, through documents and its Signatories.", is paying this unannounced 'tax', as the price for probing the limits of WADA's legal capacities to govern a process that has proven, time and again, to be solely contingent on an accredited laboratory's (link in FR) ability to

do their job...

Perhaps the saddest thing that is happening in the sports world, regarding the "which-end-in-sight?" battle against 'le dopage' (which WADAwatch supports 100 per cent, so long as the origins of evidence are immaculately derived...), and the international, intergovernmental, inter-agency systems providing this, were announced from a Press Conference surrounding the WADA Foundation Board meeting that occurred this last weekend.

If it wasn't clear before, it is getting clearer and clearer: WADA appears to be entranced with the idea of capturing a global market, monopolizing that market, and wreaking the havoc that is a familiarity of most monopolistic systems:

A sports-doping control monopoly?...

In lieu of creating a fair, efficient, LOW COST and strictly balanced system, that satisfies every sentence of the CAS decision that gave us the Quigley-rule (See WADAwatch's 'Revised Amicus Brief', Argument III), WADA invented a biased system, and implemented that, allowing laboratories to accuse Athletes without having the proper systemic checks on their functions.

Since 2003, WADA has striven to mark its territory, and no one helped the cause more than the tandem aspects of Dick Pound, the most biased and unprofessional former president, and the world's sports journalists, who made him their starring-source of quotations.

Today, in the aftermath of Poundism, WADA has imposed on the world's International
sports Federations (e.g.: FIS for Skiing, UCI for Cycling, etc.) a New! and Improved! CODE.

These IFs are, perhaps, nervously awaiting the lasting effect of the new draft CODE, which contains several on-running "bulls", the newly energized 'CODE on STEROIDS' negotiated with
WADA in Madrid last November...

It is truly a monopoliser's dream document:

Athletes, who formerly had rights to a B sample, now face a CODE that has worded in a legal basis that can avoid offering the Athlete that long-held standard.

Athletes who formerly would be facing a maximum two-year offence, now are almost certainly liable to be slammed by the undefined WADA Article 10.6: AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES, which surreptitiously boosts first-offence suspensions into a four-year ban.

Worse: WADA has,
through its CODE redrafting exercise, offered NO legitimate assurance (as of yet) to these Athletes, OVER NINETY-FIVE (95) per cent of which have never failed a doping control (when the evidence is sourced from a WADA-accredited laboratory), that the proper test was properly performed at EVERY WADA lab, with a standardized methodology, harmonized criteria, and, penultimately: uniform and ETHICAL results management.

WADA also has demonstrated recently, from whoever's advice and or request, that it is willing to spend its money (perhaps without protection of its CODE Article
20.7, that delineates and governs WADA's 'roles and responsibilities'), not to stand legitimately as an Appellate party, on its own force, but instead to discriminate against Federations and Athletes together, 'bailing' out one of the richest (comparatively-speaking) nation's ADO.

This has the feeling of the Alpha Male Elk herd Leader, herding its family forward, and distorting thereby the role of Justice to render a decision on the Landis case. But the damning evidence is mounting, and WADAwatch may have to hedge any enthusiasm for this new post-Pound era, evermore so since WADA chose to 'invest' in the USADA's prosecution of appeal, against cyclist Floyd Landis.

Read here
, where we feel Pound has infringed his own WADA rules (from our crystelZENmud blog);

Read our crysteZENmud endorsement of John Fahey, prior to his election in Madrid last fall;

Read here, in the Revised Amicus Brief (E.g.: Argument IV:
WADA's participation in financing a majority of the USADA appellate costs), where WADAwatch believes that WADA is on thin legal ice, in its biased and discriminatory subsidizing of the Floyd Landis appeal to CAS.

Arguably, WADA has no other choice, apparently believing (and announcing so in an arguably prejudicial period, while the Arbitrators of CAS are deliberating) that 'others' should be subsidizing this witch-hunt. By 'Others', WADA left it clear that they wanted to spin the situation onto the back of the UCI, a legitimate and historic IF that regulates the many cycling sports.

Monopoly is as monopoly does...

For the first time, the recently-concluded WADA Foundation Board session was presided over by Australia's John Fahey, who WADAwatch had picked upon his nomination, as perhaps the right man to re-establish a proper balance at WADA, once chosen to replace the boisterous and WADA-rule breaking first president, Dick Pound.

After last weekend's session, Fahey repeated an earlier WADA proclamation, in an article appearing in the International Herald Tribune on May 12, 2008, about their perception that the UCI was failing its obligations, and 'injuring WADA' itself, through a legitimate lawsuit that simply aims to dissect the rights of an International Organization's president, while serving elective office, and while responsible for establishing the Rules that he (Pound), his Organization, and the stakeholders must all adhere to, to have failed - in his duty:


No one other than Dick Pound is responsible, the UCI has already commented in the past about 'cycling being Dick Pound's bête noire to advance his political agenda' (which, WADAwatch assures its readership, has not ended: try a test! ... Google 'Dick Pound' and 'Beijing' and 'Canadian athletes' and read the 12,100 web items... "Shut up or stay home" was a popular headline) and WADA's current press claims, in these weeks awaiting the Landis decision by CAS,
are only as prejudicial TO THE SAME DEGREE as were Pound's claims about Floyd Landis, within days of the early release about Floyd's A Sample.

Why can't this Organization do the right - and dignified - 'thing'? It boggles a logical, legally-trained mind...

Reverting to the WADA claim about the UCI...

While the UCI could potentially be a party to an appeal of this nature, the established rules should always prevail. The case, brought by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), set new boundaries for un-ethical behaviour (neither side being innocent of that charge, admittedly, and this author is, due to the intervening events, forced to include 'conflict of interest' into the ethics equation), although prosecuting attorney Richard Young proclaimed that, no doubt, this case was to be ruled on 'science'.

Turns out it did: to WADA's detriment...

The "Science", and the derived evidence therefrom that USADA offered as proof, as noted in our Revised Amicus Brief (Argument I: paragraphs 5-9), was duly and notably unreliable: both the Majority Decision (against Landis) and the Minority Dissent castigated the French laboratory LNDD: hypothetically by the Decision, categorically and emphatically by the Dissent.

Thus with the new CAS 'de novo' trial in New York, another monstrous series of deliberations is underway. CAS must be aware that, more than at any other time in its history, the results from its deliberative processing of the evidence will reverberate through every WADA Signatory, every world-class Athlete, every UCI cyclist, for a generation.

The proper outcome of a CAS-Landis case, as we argued, should produce a NEW landmark Landis Rule.

The scope of a hypothetical Landis Rule, however, would be a mysteriously severe rebuke to the organization that had been charged, de facto, to fulfil the plain language of the Quigley Rule.

More tragic to the sporting world than perhaps is doping itself, WADA, having admitted in these articles that it is spending its Signatories' donations to prosecute ONE cyclist (without appearing as an Appellant: Hmmmmmm? Was that a conscious decision? Taken, perhaps, to avoid cross-examination of The World of Wada?), announced its intention to "take up with the CAS" in June, said Director General David Howman: "the issue of costs in very expensive cases ... because there can be very good examples in civil law where the costs fall with the party who has been determined to be at fault." This position at WADAwatch is not uniquely rabid to the position taken time and again by WADA: this comment from our dear friends at TrustbutVerify serves well to mark the pertinent points:

"Good thing for WADA that they have to ability to acquire more working capital with the establishment of a "special fund" for cases just such as this, the same cannot likely be said for the athletes vainly attempting to find some "justice" within a system that seems more stacked against them every day. Due process, equal standards for all parties? Apparently WADA is not required to follow such arcane rules."

'Tragic', would be if CAS responded favourably to the hollow complaint offfered by the DG of the World Anti-Doping Agency. 'Ecstatic' would be a cyclist such as Landis, being awarded some 2 or 3 million dollars in lost wages and legal fees, after the proof is publicized, to the far degree from objectivity that this trial has passed.

Tragic again would be in watching a (future) broken Athlete being forced, by a private arbitration panel, to pay beyond the 'legal drafting Tax' that WADA has already imposed on Landis this former champion, a tax based on WADA's blind faith in 'judicial interpretation' of the massive failures (omissions of language in Articles that define how laboratory failures are disciplined) of and by WADA, through its CODE, to implement what the CAS called for
, in its landmark Quigley decision, exactly fifteen years ago.

Remember, the Quigley rule is the backbone for a system that has functioned decently for the last 15 years. CAS cases invariably turn, on inclusion and with their interpretation of the cases' facts, in light of this rule.

For the purposes of ending this article, WADAwatch will dissect this singular quotation into its prime elements for argumentation purposes (The Quigley rule is set forth mostly in individual
sentences, in brown):

The fight against doping is arduous and it may require strict rules."

And so, after announcing this need for a process in 1993, no IOC action occurred, until after the infamous Festina Affair
scandal at the 1998 Tour de France. That wide-ranging nephast system impelled the IOC to 'do the right thing', and thus these high-minded idealists at the IOC (who were staunchly planted in their own imbroglio about Olympic City Host bribing of IOC Members for voting corruption issues) begat WADA, whose immortal(ized) president (he who lost to Jacques Roggé a chance to become the IOC president) chose his preferences, in priorities and selection of the individuals that made up the team, which drafted and imposed the first WADA CODE, establishing their paradigm for global implementation of these rules...

But the rule-makers and rule-appliers must begin by being strict themselves."

Thus the eternal question that the CAS must address: "How will WADA demonstrate, through its CODE, that it has created a self-policing system projecting self-policing integrity to its participating Signatories and Athletes?"

Regulations that may affect the careers of dedicated athletes must be predictable."

People familiar with the Landis case science know that his original accusation came from a
process of Testosterone testing, which requires the WADA-accredited labs to find 'a positive' from among the four 'metabolites' that actually are tested. Sadly, in the five years (or more) since WADA implemented the Technical Document for Testosterone testing protocols, it has NEVER promulgated a standard of reference precisely addressing these four metabolites.

Landis is 'guilty', if you believe the French lab, because one of his metabolites was just over the threshold of measurement uncertainty. NO OTHER laboratory in WADA's system appears ready to destroy an Athlete's career based on a 25% verdict (one of four metabolites).

The labs seem free to come up with their own standards: WADA didn't care about the UNPREDICTABILITY that may result from having a laboratory find a positive case, from one, or two, or three, or four of metabolites being over the established threshold. No greater failure exists at WADA (other than the mouth of Pound...), than that of its lack of standardization and harmonization of these criteria, and those of the other similar Tech Docs.

They must emanate from duly authorised bodies. They must be adopted in constitutionally proper ways. "

No argument here: WADA has proven itself effective in the pursuit of worldwide adherence to a malignant CODE; only the BIG CASH sports (FIFA, as well as the US sports leagues) have determined WADA's strict system to be anathema to their quest for sports domination. WADAwatch has no argument where Signatory IFs have chosen to follow WADA; whether they were blinded to the problems inherent in this drafted CODE, they all agreed in the majority last fall, in Madrid, to the advancing efforts of WADA to become more strict against the Athletes, and more lenient to the laboratory failures that provide 'evidence' against those Athletes.

They [Ww: the Rules] should not be the product of an obscure process of accretion."

But, time and again, WADA expounds its preferences for 'judicial interpretation' (this means that any private Arbitration panel can 'add' to what a WADA CODE Article stands for; it betrays the faith in its Signatory IFs who pay WADA their contributions in the belief that WADA stands for the words in its FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE) rather than proper, strict and FAIR drafting of an Universal CODE that provides a basis to stop bad Science from distortions of the truth regarding the infinite variables found in the physiologies of extremely hard-pushing Athletes.

"Athletes and officials should not be confronted with a thicket of mutually qualifying or even contradictory rules that can be understood only on the basis of the de facto practice over the course of many years by a small group of insiders." [Ww: emphasis added]

(CAS: USA Shooting & Quigley v. UIT, 1995 (CAS 94/129))


This is exactly what WADA HAS ACHIEVED.

The real question, is how has WADA achieved such a biased system that protects labs from any recriminations, while jeopardizing any number of Athletes' (especially world-ranked cyclists?) careers?

It cannot deny that its internal processes are off-kilter. Via a lack of controlling language that could allow any NADO (National Anti-Doping Organization) to stop a WADA-accredited laboratory-derived accusation against any Athlete or Cyclist, it has failed demonstrably to create a checks-and-balances system, that would FORCE laboratories to do their job.

How? When a conscientious ADO may, in its careful fulfillment of Articles 7.1 and 7.2, determine that a laboratory departure had (in the words of the old CODE) "... undermined the validity of the Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF), WADA, perhaps deliberately, perhaps unconsciously, perhaps maliciously, determined not to need an Article 7.3, that could balance out the equation when a lab failed in its performance, thus rendering its Doping Control evidence unworthy for use in a prosecution.

How can WADA not see this?

Simple: it seems to have failed to reading between the lines of the CAS decision in the Landaluce case. Unlike in the USA, the Spanish ADO with results management responsibilities decided that a clear violation of the WADA CODE, had occurred, through examination of the French facility's , 'laboratory documentation package' which was produced by the same lab that later accused Landis.

In its WADA-given discretion, it (the Spanish Cycling Federation) chose to close the case. For whatever reason that the UCI determined it needed to appease WADA, and reopen the case, nevertheless CAS ruled convincingly that the faults produced from the evidence of LNDD scientific incapacities were sufficiently egregious to stop the process against Landaluce.

Although one could argue that, because the Landaluce decision had not (of course!) been decided in time for the Lab to adjust its procedures, it shouldn't be held accountable for the same errors in the Landis case, the opposite argument bears the weight of reason and logic: here is presented, in two events only several weeks apart, proof certain of a distinct and pathological inability of one French Lab to


So Landis waits and pays, legitimately but unnecessarily, to observe whether a private justice system can, in fact, be that, and offer that: Justice.

And WADA waits and pays, without assurance that its expenditures are ethical, and with a world watching, that wonders how it can issue protection-money to boost the possibilities of burying Landis under a pile of bad science, which only the WADA-lab directors seem capable of substantiating?

It will not be long, before WADA returns to the drafting board, to come up with a NEW CODE, even as IFs are racing to implement the revised Madrid CODE (as did FINA last month), in time to have it ready for BEIJING.

A new and balanced CODE, that could:

  • define "Aggravating Circumstances" so that other civilizations can explain and translate its meaning, to their non-Western language-speaking Athletes;
  • revert to the 'standard' that was found in Article 7.2, prior to Madrid, where WADA encouraged mightily its Signatories to approve the replacement of the phrase concerning 'departures', being '... which undermine the validity of the [AAF]...' to the nearly legally impossibility to prove 'which caused the AAF.';
  • create Article 7.3: "Laboratory Departures Resolution" that would add the 'missing link' by allowing any ADO that received a bogus LDP to halt instantly the process against an Athlete, and turn to WADA for implementation of an (for lack of a better name) "Evidence Justification Hearing", sponsored and funded by WADA alone, in which the Lab Director, and his or her science-technology staff, will explain how and why 'clear international Standards' were violated, and with only two possible outcomes:

  1. the 'departure' is explained away (with a very high burden of evidence proof), and thus substantiating the claim of an AAF by the Athlete, or

  2. the 'departure' is proven to have been the cause of the AAF (WADAwatch uses the new, tougher standard that was imposed, again in Madrid, that eliminates another balancing point that would have aided Athletes to survive these Inquisitions)

To WADAwatch, a parenthetical comment, above, has been reverberating in our collective minds:

WHY didn't WADA take on its allowed Appellate Party role, as it has done dozens of times, with results that imply Major League Baseball 'batting averages' (and not record-breaking ones at that), being less successful than it would perhaps desire? Why did it take the 'financing' route with money for USADA, instead of holding a seat at the table?

Only one answer appears logical, outside having a microphone-wire into the offices at WADA: something may be very accurate, about our position at WADAwatch, claiming the whole Landis circus has created a prismatic lens that focuses on, as we wrote above (and earlier):

what WADA is,
what WADA does, and
how WADA implements both,
through documents and its Signatories.

It may only be this: WADA as a party, would raise arguments that would allow examination and cross-examination of witnesses that may better serve WADA's cause by remainging SILENT.

WADA, perhaps, cannot afford an examination of its precepts, morals, actions. It may, with a 'Landis Rule', be forced to admit that its system, which should be strong, predictable, and harsh against 'ALL Violators', has failed to do so.

CAS, one hopes, will rise to this occasion and return a verdict of not-guilty against Landis, castigate WADA severely for its financial intervention of the USADA appeal, introduce a ruling that forces WADA to redraft its CODE in an emergency session prior to July 31st, and suspend the French Laboratory LNDD prior to the running of this year's Tour de France.


The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Watching the legal WADA,


2008 all copyrights reserved

Add to Technorati Favorites