Friday, 10 April 2009

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


5 comments:

Jon said...

Drew:
Welcome back! Pat McQuaid would agree with your conclusion that L'Equipe may have been behind this whole affair. AFLD wrote a summary of the Armstong violation to the UCI who has no jurisdiction in this case and this report was leaked to the press. McQuaid called the French "unprofessional."

whareagle said...

"Lance RoadRider!" COmplete with punked tongue! CLASSIC!

Oh, and the scripting is impeccable as well. Good arguments, all 'round.

Thank you again for your continued diligence and attention.

Thomas A. Fine said...

The AFLD statement specifically references WADA code, not french law. So that leads to some questions:

Where exactly in WADA code do they have the authority to run this OOC test?

Are witnesses/observers required under WADA code?

Are testers required to notify athletes of irregularities at the time of the test, and should Lance have copies of these forms? (jellotrip says this is the case)

What does the new code say about when agencies can comment on cases and to what degree? There seems to be an implication in the AFLD statement that they're allowed to comment, because Lance complained about his haircut on twitter.

tom

ZENmud productions said...

Thanks for these three comments, guys.

I'm watching Paris-Roubaix at the moment, they have 136,90km to go (someone just dumped at 1kmh into a ditch, heh heh)

Thomas, I'll start by providing some Articles (after this link to the CODE itself), with some semi-coherent 'insights'... if I don't get distracted by cobblestones:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf

OH: I wrote here 'years ago' (heh heh), that in my professional belief, the CODE is poorly drafted IN STRUCTURE, legally, because it starts immediately in discussing CODE Violations by Athletes or Entourage members, rather than establishing Laboratory and ADO requirements, that follow the chronological déroulement of the events sequentially.

This may in fact be trivial, but I don't know why 2003 CODE Article 3.2.1, which placed the burden on an Athlete (aka Floyd) to prove 'departures', was allowed to dominate, when Article 6.4 mandates without express exception, compliance with the ISL (by labs!), and confirmation of same, by the ADO from Articles 7.1 and 7.2 (Results Management)

There are no exceptions to the simple CODE-based fact that NO press should have ANY information available about ANY 'violation', when its origin is in lab analysis, before the B Sample has been analysed.

Clearly the mentality of ADOs, as perverse as has been proven to be the AFLD, in cohorts with certain French companies whose name is synonymous with Cyle Racing (they know who they are, and we do as well), has a rational component to be discussed, which is:
"ZUT alors! You expect us to be silent, when zees criminals are in our Race? You sink we should allow zem to posture and put on zee legal brakes while zay continue to take zee prices and zee glory?

IOW: a race Organizer thinks as soon as someone's suspected of doping, they should leave the race.
But, back when CAS opinions carried legal authority (pre-Landis-appeal), their consistent commentary was 'you write the rules that are followed by those under your jurisdiction. We apply them as we see them: change them if they do not serve your purposes.'


Now the CODE ARTICLES:

Article 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

ART. 2.3
Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to Sample collection after Notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules, or
otherwise evading Sample collection

(AND WADA's Comment in CODE: "... Thus, for example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation if it were established that an Athlete was hiding from a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of "refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Athlete, while "evading" Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Athlete."

ART. 2.4
Violation of applicable requirements regarding Athlete availability for Out-of-Competition Testing, including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests which are declared based on rules which comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an eighteen-month period as determined by Anti-Doping Organizations with jurisdiction over the Athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation

WADAwatch comment: The CODE does not Define 'Missed Test', to the greater glee of the 'small group of insiders' who like legal parasites have ample employment opportunities to seek 'judicial interpretation' regarding same (smile).

Am going to stop here: IST clauses will follow in a second comment!

ZENmud

ZENmud productions said...

Regarding the International Standard for Testing, aka IST, it is certainly a different 'beast'.

And the Articles (with which I admit less familiarity) are too long to c-n-paste here... but if you take this link:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/IST_En_2009.pdf

The applicable, updated version is available, and one should look at the following clauses: NB: where the CODE mandates through use of 'shall', much of the IST 'suggests' or 'recommends' through use of the conditional verb form 'should' or 'could':

ART 4.4.2 Requiring 'Target Testing', which lists 15 factors ranging from "Abnormal biological parameters ... behaviour indicating doping ... Athlete test history ... Athlete reinstatement after a period of Ineligibility ... Reliable information from a third party.

(Ww note: here, Ineligibility is not 'retirement', but 'suspension' or otherwise)

NB: this is clearly the legal basis for AFLD's testing of Lance, since he was training in France, not in a Competition.

5.4.1 I note to begin with, that this sub-Article does not begin by expressly mandating the presentation of 'Tester's Credentials'...? (which come from 5.3.3: ... Personnel shall have official authorisation documentation...)

TROUEE D'ARENBURG (big SMILE)

That (failure to express 'presentation of ID by Tester') is a serious omission by Richard Young or WHOever drafted the IST... IMHO.

See the list: d) Athlete's rights, including 'the right to: ... Request a delay ... for valid reasons;

e) ... Athlete's responsibilities, including the requirement to: Remain within direct observation of the ... at all times, Produce identification in accordance with Clause 5.3.4 (Ww: but not Tester as mentioned above?)

5.4.1 (e) Comply with Sample collection procedures (and the Athlete should be advised of the possible consequences of Failure to Comply)

Guys, I 'was famous' in Law School for my unique (first student in 8 years to win the Moot Court case for the 'defendant') because of the Notice requirement: if you don't tell me I could lose custody of my children by a failure to appear at a Hearing regarding their welfare, you (the State) cannot take my children away from me (legally), even if I am in Prison at the time!

If the perhaps-unidentified (why else would Bruyneel have to call WADA for confirmation?) agent-Tester DID NOT TELL Armstrong that taking a shower while waiting would have grave consequences, due to AFLD future legal actions, AFLD (via its Agent-Tester) has failed to provide information vital to Lance's ability to reason and decide.

"Can I shower while Johan is calling?"

"sure go ahead (mentally rubbing his hands in glee), no problem if you want to take zee shower..."


I'm going to watch the race...

ZENfunINmud

Add to Technorati Favorites