the AFLD--termath... on Lance's test

Anyone that devotes any part of their days to, first: cycling, second: anti-doping issues, and third: this blog, should be well aware that AFLD has, once again, thrust itself forcefully, dare we say Bordrilly, onto the anti!doping!scene! ... as world leaders offering to WADA Signatories, worldwide their very own, new meaning of the word:

Vindictive
(en Français: vindictif)

Themselves? Sacrè Bleu...


It's a sad day to think that, according to the Head of the French Agence Française du Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD), and in spite of the evidence coming out (as to what actually transpired in the house from which Lance Armstrong was conducting a training session), Pierre Bordry believes himself to have 'finally, fairly and most of all,

French-ly':


... convicted his 'lifelong' antiChrist-like nemesis of the last 11 years:


Lance Armstrong.




AFLD: incapable of reasonable levels of objectivity (as WADAwatch sees it), incapable of eliminating the Alaska-pipeline-sized path through which someone forwards Super-Sized leaks to the French newspaper L'Equipe.

When it comes time to award Olympic-sized medals to WADA Signatories who have repeatedly violated the WADA CODE...

Are there, seriously, any other contenders than AFLD?

Think about this phrase, from Yahoo! and the Associated Press (for whom, in light of their drumbeating cause to flurry the Web with lawsuits , we would like to remind you, faithful reader, that our borrowed content is protected under the 'Educative purpose' exception in copyright law):

"In France, drug testers take an oath before a court to discharge their duties honestly before they are allowed to work."

Wouldn't that be a logical starting point for AFLD to undertake investigating what happened, before having the 'ducks in a row' it would need to 'discipline' Lance Armstrong? The Tester can lose his or her job for lying, deception or negligence...


After AFLD's unseemly (we're trying to be nice, WADA) second prosecution of Floyd Landis (in 2006 and 2007; see 'CRIME AGAINST SPORTSMANITY'), which, in every respect of known law should have been sufficient grounds for an internal or public WADA investigation, one would have thought they'd remembered their status as one of the most active member States of WADA.


(for out-of-towners: Athletes should be 'disciplined' by the IF with authority)


As an American-licensed Cyclist: Floyd Landis was 'disciplined (and How!?) by the combined competent authorities: USACycling (the NF), and USADA (the ADO) in front of an AAA arbitration Panel, 'confirmed' by a most unusual CAS-AAA 'appeal', which did much more than rubber-stamp the first Decision, yet AFLD had decided in 2006 the undertaking of its own national-only procedure, which it then delayed until 2007; being their mind was that Floyd would indubitably not be banished from any French racing possibilities, under the prospective situation (which did occur) that the UCI-Jurisdictions would not have legal effect if the Tour de France 2008 was undertaken only under French authority.


There has been no other worse example, in the monopolistic world of WADA's 'sport-doping legal disciplinary arbitration', of a clear violation of WADA CODE Article 15.4.


This link to the 2003 CODE (Article 15.4), in force under the Landis affair; and this link to the 2009 CODE, (Article 15.4.1) now in force and regulating actions by WADA Signatories today, both contain an identical phrase regarding MUTUAL RECOGNITION. One would like to believe its mandates include France's AFLD.


Reading either is so clear, one wonders about the French language version. Here's the newest English sub-Article:

15.4.1 Subject to the right to appeal provided in Article 13, ... and hearing results or other final adjudications of any Signatory which are consistent with the Code and are within that Signatory's authority, shall be recognized and respected by all other Signatories.

How's that?


A Signatory, or member State having any stake in WADA, should be acknowledging the authority and actions taken by the country, of whom its NF or IF from which the Cyclist has the authorized License to compete.


WADAwatch contends that this has not happened, in the French process against Landis, and both France and WADA are remiss for, respectively, inflicting and not rectifying the second of the double prosecutions undertaken on Floyd (when France had full authority to join the Appeal to offer an added question in this sense (that's the ignored CODE Article 13 APPEALS).


With apologies for continuing the long list, necessary to prove the evident lack of objectivity at AFLD, a letter was sent by the ASOIF to WADA, during the period after the so-called research produced L'Equipe's August, 2005 article against Lance. Was this their apparent 'thank you' for the millions of Euros in profit that Lance's enthusiasm and talent had brought to the Tour (especially in sponsorships, more than paper sales: it's all one family company, after all) for seven years?

Vitriolic responses awed and shocked, from the desk of Dick Pound, the entire interchange was mentioned in the Vrijman report (NB: apparently the UCI found it beneficial to recode the link to the Vrijman report: check your bookmark links eventually; we will):

"... the ‘General Association of Summer Olympic Federations’ (hereinafter: ‘ASOIF’), together with the ‘IOC Athletes Commission’ (hereinafter: ‘Athletes Commission’), sent a joint letter to WADA on September 20, 2005..."

... who had found it necessary to request of Dick Pound and WADA, an urgent investigation of ALFD's lab LNDD, in light of perceived, evidenced inclusions of identifiable (as to Armstrong, it really matters not how this happened) Samples, violating the Helsinki Agreements on guarding anonymously any tissue samples made available for 'research':

As this [Ww: the necessary and compromised anonymity of Armstrong's samples] was clearly not the case here, we demand that WADA conducts a thorough Investigation in order to establish the violations committed and to identify and sanction those responsible. We also demand that, pending this investigation, WADA suspends the accreditation of the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory.

One might think that when requested by the elected representatives of the entire body of Olympic Athletes, as IFs and Signatories, they would have received satisfaction from the Organization - WADA - that enjoys its salaries and travel benefits expressly from accumulated dues received from these IFs, and others.


Their formal request went nowhere, with harsh replies from Pound that really, in essence, stated 'watch what you say, watch what you do'...


Let's repeat that phrase from the AP article above, discussing Lance's 'test' this week:

"In France, drug testers take an oath before a court to discharge their duties honestly before they are allowed to work."

How is this relevant? Simply, Lance contended that the following occurred:

At question is a 20-minute delay when Armstrong says the tester agreed to let him shower while the American rider's assistants checked the tester's credentials.

Yet the world now knows through AFLD, L'Equipe and the train of sports reporters (who would probably prioritize the Drudge Report if American politics were their focus), that AFLD 'accused' Lance of 'procedural irregularities' by 'non-conformance' with its Rules (which parallel those of WADA's).


If, however, the 'tester' dispatched by AFLD, who works under the above Court-adminstered oath to discharge their duties honestly, allowed Lance to shower, and thus (we presume) remove himself from the presence of the 'Tester', which Tester then claimed to Bodry that, by doing so Lance violated AFLD/WADA/UCI rules, it appears one to four violations have occurred under Pierre Bodry (not in any order implying probability):

1. Conscious violation of Testers' oath: if true, would be a serious ethical infraction. WADA has had one such case already. In Floyd's CAS appelate case, USACycling claimed Floyd had 'violated' his suspension for riding in the Leadville 100 mountain bike race (conveniently forgotten, and then established by Floyd, was the permission granted by express written letter from USACycling to Floyd, to do so(?)).
   
   
2. Unconscious violation of Testers' oath: if the Tester simply was negligent, that should be sufficient grounds for AFLD to halt its 'March to Court' against Lance. Any leaks to its publicist L'Equipe should be publically retracted. AFLD also should have to request a thousand pardons from Lance for having the gall (Do Gauls have 'gall'?) to have, once again, slandered him for no reason.
   
   
3. The leak itself. Will AFLD ever get it? (sigh) Riders have rights, and one absolute right ignored, although in the CODE, is to have results handled by the ADO (AFLD) discretely. One can imagine that some people in France, who've had marital indiscretions, do understand the term 'discretion', but this has never been a French cycling-doping-press related strength. One can understand in the Depression-style economy that we have, a newspaper's desire to shock and awe readers that may have dispensed with purchases, in favor of food for their children. But it's wrong, and WADA knows this. They did take responsibility, certainly, from the IOC to produce a viable system.
   
   
4. Whose plan was this? It would not appear seemly to place preponderant weight on the 'conscious violation' theory. If in any way that were what happened (An under-oath Tester asserts Armstrong can leave and shower (thus violating the required constant presence), and then returns to AFLD, to file a report claiming it was Armstrong's unilateral and violative choice to 'disappear'), the powers at be would have to know if that happened in AFLD, or on personal initiative of the Tester, or by 'any outside intervention', which would have to include the 'usual suspects': why would anyone possibly suspect the world's leading WADA CODE-confidentiality violating newspaper?
   
   
   
   See, it couldn't be that, could it? (wink)
   

Fifty-five years ago US Senator McCarthy, he of the Army-McCarthy hearings, which pretended to rout out Communists in the US Government, Hollywood and elsewhere, was forced to listen as US Army attorney Welch responded, with impassioned rhetoric, as McCarthy finished demanding information about a colleague in his Boston Law offices.


WADAwatch takes no pleasure in adapting these words to request the same soul-searching by Pierre Bordry, head of the AFLD:

"Until this moment, Monsieur Pierre Bordry, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]"

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Monsieur. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?

"Have you left no sense of decency?"

If Lance is able to prove the contention that the Tester allowed the shower, AFLD has absolutely no grounds to contend that a violation of AFLD and French regulations occurred. But the newspapers containing this story are selling 'comme des petits pains' (EN: like blueberry muffins) wherever L'Equipe is sold.

It's Pierre Bordry's nightmare ('Mais quel cauchemar!!)

Wiley E Coyote-Bordry v. Lance RoadRider...

................@............WADAwatch

copyright 2009 Ww