AFLD: "Agence Francaise' Last Days"

Times are tough

... and the notion of attending to the foibles of the anti-doping world take some funny twists sometimes. Yet a recent (within the hour) search of information regarding the Tour de France 2010, came across this stunning article, by Cyclingnews:

Huge funding cuts threaten future of AFLD

According to the article, "the French government recently announced that it cancelled its plans to increase taxes on television rights in sports, which would have supplied the agency with 4 million Euro of its budget." Currently budgeted (according to the author) at Euro 8.7 million, the AFLD and its Directeur, Pierre Bordry, are facing budget cuts that threaten its very existence.

Could this be due to the fiasco between it and the UCI, as reported by WADAwatch and other media last fall? Could it be due to its six-month report for Q1 and Q2 2009, which revealed a huge amount of 'cannaboid' use amongst French athletes?

CONTROLS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AFLD
DURING THE FIRST SEMESTER 2009

(Report in FR)


How powerful (need one ask?) are the French Football (soccer) leagues and teams, as well as the networks that carry their games? Let Cyclingnews tell us:

Because there is no guarantee that the AFLD will still obtain the promised finance, Bordry questioned his government's willingness to continue an independent fight against doping in sports. When the government announced its plans to increase TV rights taxes, senior officials of French soccer declared that it wasn't up to them to finance the fight against doping in France.

No mention of French Rugby (nearly as widely broadcast as French football); nor the lesser TV sports like basketball, handball, equestrian and NOT Alpine skiing, which went off French TV many years ago.

More questions arise, and this brief post may require intense follow-ups in the near future.

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

copyright 2010 Ww

Floyd? What's next: Isle of Saint Helena?

Zee Frenchies sont very mad, évidemment... After the years of litigation, Floyd Landis is now 'under mandate of arrest' for the super-duper mysterious 'hacking case' that began in November, 2006, when AFLD Directeur Pierre Bordry had more influence in his small world.

By zee way... Saint Helena was the English-controlled Island to which Napoléon was banished, for the Last six years of his life

Things have not fared well, recently, for Monsieur Bordry; most recently he had (by circumstantial evidence) been roundly (or severely?) chastised for his 'biased accusations' (which appear now to be mostly unfounded) against the UCI, in claiming favouritism over Lance and the Team Astana.


Yet what you want to know now, is what charges Floyd faces, and based on what proof?




Let WADAwatch take you back to the summer of 2009, and our two (no - Three!) articles about this sordid affair. Their pertinence is one-hundred percent pure...


Remember! The 'paid hackers' were a French firm (now bankrupt) whose staff and contacts/agents were former French Secret Service operatives (????), whose other clients were MASSIVE French entities, and whose work efforts infiltrated lawyers or activists whose own efforts were in seeking to expose 'nasty French corporate or Government secrets'... and is not Loyalty one of the 'qualities' of the French culture?


One dark and foggy November night... read:

Friday, 5 June 2009

Le Pierre Ironie: on French Hacking case v Baker

INTERPOL FLASH ALERT:

Wanted: on international arrest warrants issuing from France, two dangerous hacking financiers;

Crime: allegedly funded computer hacking/theft of authentic, sub–quality laboratory documents that proved French anti-doping incompet... *some text missing* ... or Alive.

[....]
One might think that Bordry has become addicted to 'news–makers syndrome', à la Dick Pound, former WADA president and the veritable 'Mouth that never stopped'. Hearing Pierre Bordry and the names 'Lance...' or 'Floyd...' is liking hearing GW Bush saying 'Axis of Evil'... empty of meaning, truth very very questionable.

Actually, this recent 'Bordry news Flash' is twice very old news, centering on the claimed computer–hacking by 'someone' of the LNDD laboratory's computer system in 2006; a case which, of itself, took a two and a half–year submarine tour of the French legal 'instruction' system. However, as 'evidence' in Landis' original 'case', it was never mentioned by USADA and Richard Young, for reasons that can only be due to... the negative weight of these allegations?

[.....]
Did AFLD 'control' their data systems to a degree of professional security reasonable for their industry as demands the WADA ISL, and which is recognized as sufficient within its professional community? (if it's facing a hacking case, to prove it was not 'negligent' or 'insufficiently protected', AFLD /LNDD must offer evidence of its (their) control systems in place, and prove that the 'Hacking' from Kargus (who was paid only Euro 2,000) was of "an unexpectedly–sophisticated capability" to win)

Read more from our first article in this three-part series.

+ + + + + + + + +

Only three days later we made further information available, from an intense Internet search of French sites and much reflection:

Monday, 8 June 2009

Holes in the AFLD-zone...

This is a “thinking out loud” post, continuing a focus on the French Anti–doping Galaxy's apparent obsession with Floyd Landis. From a weekend of reflection, several salient points rebounded time and again. These are:


1 how (not to forget one big -IF-) did Baker first contact Kargus?

How easily could a Doctor in San Diego 'infiltrate' the French corporate–espionage culture, to find a well–situated 'partner in crime' such as Kargus consultants? Admittedly such could be done with a 'couple of phone calls', but it seems incredible that Baker would do this after Floyd's A Sample results were announced. What if Floyd (and thus Baker) didn't know the number (995474) before Kargus had infiltrated (with instructions from 'client' to seek documentation under the number?) we know that Judge Cassuto requested the 'date from which Landis had access to his Sample(s) 'control number'?

[.....]

6 Lastly, was Landis/Baker 'the client', or a silent 'third–party beneficiary'?

As touched upon in item #2, the alleged 'Anglo–saxon client' could have been someone that was willing to do anything that might help Floyd, without having a direct tie to Team Landis. As you may be a 'beneficiary' of your parents' life insurance policy, a contract can benefit an unnamed 'third party'. Anyone so inclined as to provide Landis with 'help' from outlaw–shenanigans, and set up the means to do so, ought to be smart enough to receive Kargus' discovered E–files and send them on a CD to Baker, so as to eliminate any network–traces. The only link between Baker and the hacked files is known through his having sent these outward after receiving them.

Read the full (long, dry and detailed) second of three WADAwatch post here

+ + + + + + + + +

Our third essay attempted to provide the English audience with even more detail on the 'French Société' that was at the core of this French hacking case:

Thursday, 11 June 2009

Surveying les French surveillance societés...

It is an interesting company: Kargus Consultants, the company that constructed the hacking transaction into the French laboratoire LNDD. A company offering industrial surveillance, according to Societe.com, Kargus Consultants was founded on November 14, 2003: it has been out of business since October 22, 2007, only two weeks short of its fourth 'birthday'. Paying the price of its success?

Kargus Consultants indubitably provided the sole alleged 'hacker' – Alain Quiros – offering an info–tech commando squad that has made news for three prominent French 'hacking cases': the LNDD–'Landis' affair, the EDF–Greenpeace case, and one involving an activist French attorney (counsel to a French association of small–shareholders), not in that order. The French magazine Médiapart published a detailed article [Ww: controlled access], which was re–posted on the website/forum linuxquimper.org.

[....]
Mediapart does not expand their inflection regarding EDF and Greenpeace, and how the revelations of the LNDD affair brought forth that EDF/Greenpeace process. Intriguing, tantalizing, and yet unfulfilling, as to the interrelationships regarding the three French targets. Using the word 'anonymous' as to the emails described above, seems contradictory to the claims of Baker's involvement, which are discussed throughout the article.

That was the third of three biting probing posts brought to you last summer, by WADAwatch.

Is Plucky Pierre Bordry charting his course of revenge from last fall's UCI/Astana 'J'Accuse!' debacle? Is the French gouvernement a neutral forum, a witting or unwitting player in the latest chapter of:

The Case that Wouldn't DIE?

In the L'Equipe article that appeared yesterday, it is VERY notable to record that the French sporting journal discusses (Translation service: Ww) "Baker and his accomplices".

They do not state that those 'accomplices' were French, were arrested in other affairs, were former French 'secret agents' and were 'very very close' to the French gouvernement.

Why would L'Equipe...

(we remind readers that we boycott linking to L'Equipe... you can find this article (if you read or translate from FR) at L'Express)

... not want it's readers to know the full truth? They should: they're the taxpayers that are paying both AFLD, and the Nanterre Court Judge Cassuto (a bio of him is in the first cited Ww post above...), to either expose or deceive about the involvement of the French former secret agents in this case.

What conclusion to this new-for-2010 state of French affaires?


More French publicity for Bordry, stoking the world Media Machine while all the world is focussing on Vancouver? At least, in this case, everything stated by Bordry is going to be 'On the Record', in court, and appealable to a Fair body without conflicts-of-interest.


Our opinion remains the same: there are more 'elements' in this case pointing to a Watergate-style inside operation, designed to 'add on to' the 'facts' against Landis, 'just in case' their 'Testosterone evidence' was not 'sufficient'.


That's the 'official WADAwatch' theory, at least... and there's certainly more to come

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

copyright 2009 Ww

Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword...

Cher Pierre, on va te faire prendre ta retraite ?


Dear Pierre, are they going to make you retire?


The decision is made, as of Friday 23 January, 2010. Pat McQuaid has announced, following the AFLD debacle of October, and the UCI reply that closed out that eventful month, that the AFLD will not be any part of the doping control for the 2010 Tour de France.

Imagine the chagrin now gnawing on naughty Pierre's psyche, and reputation, shot down by transparency and objective neutrality. No longer, will Tour Riders suffer to have their blood drawn by a French psychiatrist. The unconscionable actions of Plucky Pierre Bordry have met their just rewards.

News of this comes from The Independent Online website, Friday. We offer some of their quotations from Pat McQuaid, who was interviewed at the Tour Down Under (TDU):

"Next July, the UCI will carry out the tests and we are in discussion with WADA so that it sends its observers to supervise the UCI's work during the race... The Tour de France is the biggest cycling event in the world and we want to preserve it."

Hardly mentioned, it would seem natural that the UCI actually award the analysis of their riders' Samples to the Swiss Laboratoire, which had been involved in the 2009 TdF, for the analyses of all Samples sanguins.


This update will be revisited in a short while... it's noon in Switzerland, but only 04h20 here... in Denver Colorado (Home to Richard Young, neighbours with USADA).


Congratulations, riders on the Tour... you won't be kicked around by Plucky Pierre Bordry anymore!


And your rights will be protected, if not at all levels of the System, then...

..........@......... WADAWATCH

one hundred percent pure
copyright 2010 Ww

.

L'identité nationale et l'AFLD

Are you privy to the grand "Débate nationale" in France, about their "national identity" or... what it means to be French? This pre-election strategy, spawned by Minister of the Interior Eric Besson (a former 'Gauchiste' turned Sarkozyste, whom some observers have implied is merely gauging the times and shifting his alliances to selfishly further his political career opportunities), has become a national embarrassment to Nico, as their webpages devoted to the debate tend to have a high percentage of 'xenophobique' or 'raciste' commentaries that have been censored.


You may ask what any of this has to do with WADA, and doping in Sport?


Well, a recent article (today! In fact) in l'Equipe, discusses WADA's viewpoint of the efficiency and results accorded to the UCI's passport program. President the Honourable John Fahey, is quoted as saying "The results of last year speak for themselves," and "I believe - but I don't believe in a blind fashion - that the very solid program which had priorly been put into place (Ww: before the Tour), particularly the biological passport, has brought us maybe towards this that we observed."


Very interesting observation, because as we left the Old Continent for Colorado, shuttle diplomacy by Fahey was precisely our prediction, following the AFLD's scathing anonymous report and low-handed leaking of that into Le Monde's reputable (otherwise) newspaper (not to mention the UCI reply). See our October/November archives (to right), or our 2009 summary at this link, which contains links to most of those vital posts.


Now trust Ww, for the paper, l'Equipe, made a rare concession in the final paragraph in this article (when Floyd Landis expressed similar disparaging comments about the French lab, they were rarely reported, and if so, never analyzed properly), by expressing the UCI's charges concerning the "lack of professionalism" exhibited at multiple occasions. In light of the importance of collaborations between the UCI and the AFLD, Director General David Howman is quoted as stating that "they'd talked with both entities about these affairs", adding that the French Agency "would abstain from any further commentary (about the 'affair')."


Let us be lucid, in reflection now upon 'l'Identité nationale', as one may surmise it from Plucky Pierre Bordry, our esteemed French Directeur of the AFLD. Would he be inclined to add to the national debate, that 'Being French, iz to geeve uz zee right to accuze our parteenaires ov zee total favoritisme ov zees team Astana, ov Armstrong, ov Contador! And, after we accuze ze UCI, we have zee right to refuse all furzer commentary on zees now-embarrazzing issue!


Folks, if the legal theory of 'guilt by association' exists, there seems to be in this case (if we repeat ourselves, it's only because it seems 'vital to the cause'!) a case to be made for 'guilt by refusal to debate.' IOW: You have 'flaming accusations' by a French Anti-doping lab that will not publish those concerns directly, but WILL allow insinuations to be published by Le Monde and its shrill, obedient reporter Stephane Mandard. You have a follow-up report, within a delay of only 3 weeks and a few odd days, which is a) available worldwide; and, b) damning in its counter-accusations (A shrink drawing blood; accusations about 'Barcelona' that, though 'scrupulously reported', contained the Wrong Date, and of course, leaks to the press)


And now we glean from L'Equipe that, apparently, the predicted shuttle diplomacy is going on between AFLD and UCI, at the behest of WADA.


Our only question then, would be this: Is WADA using its 'best offices' activity, in resolving this issue, *with* Pierre Bordry, or with his boss(es)? In the 'Official Ww Playbook', all legitimacy falls on the side of the UCI, and hardly anything can be deemed credible from the nefarious, unpublished AFLD 'J'Accuse!' pseudo-report. Plucky Pierre should be given a 'demotion' from serving in a governmental function to which he has brought excessively-publicized dishonour.


A final note: remember we'd mentioned that the AFLD département des analyses had been responsible solely for the urine sampling of Tour cyclists, and that all blood analyses were performed by the Swiss lab, directed by Martial Saugy? One wonders how the UCI can ever trust Bordry's lab (now under interim direction by Mme la Docteur Lasne), with any urine samples?

The l'Equipe article had mentioned this:

"The former Australian Finance Minister also praised not only the biological passport, which permits detection eventual anomolies in following the blood profiles of racers, but also the new analyses made upon the Samples from the 2008 Tour, which had permitted to catch certain racers with a new test for CERA, a 3rd generation EPO."

Interestingly, l'Equipe makes no mention of the 'pagaille' (which we've previously, in good faith, and humour, translated as 'clusterfççk') concerning Stefan Schumacher's CERA case, which normally would have reached a decision months ago, and which we discussed in our post of 15 January (scroll down or 'find' "Schumacher"), seems to be heading for another weak, "Floyd-ish" decision (or acquittal, as Schumacher observed).


Our point is this: proclaiming a 'test' is 'valid' in a newspaper, is easy, swift and unjust. Awaiting the legal decisions, that of course weigh in on the validity of that test in quasi-legal formalities, with quasi-legal weight, and some form of precedent-setting continuity.


As writer for our sister-blog crystelZENmud, this question was contemplated, for the French 'national identity debate':

“How insecure does a nation have to be, to initiate a 'debate' on 'national identity'...? One could well imagine such a debate in Iraq, or Somalia, or Haiti, where discomfort, trauma and unrest outweigh the status quo of a prospering Western nation...

Silence from the AFLD, from Plucky Pierre Bordry, harkens from the similar events between Eric Besson and himself, each of whom launched, with ZERO Consequence Analysis, a report or a debate that are huge embarrassments for Nicolas Sarkozy. The French 'omniprésident' (as nicknamed by favoured paper Le Canard Enchainé), has not flown to Montréal yet, to promise millions if only WADA could help Bordry escape from the pain-in-the-morass in which he finds himself.


If you read WADAwatch because you 'have to', thank you anyway; if you read it because we're ramblingly legal, thorough and with unique insights, thank you even more... this author is suffering from the mother-of-all-headcolds, after transplant surgery (a life in Switzerland was extracted, and flown to Denver, Colorado, for reinsertion into a previously living organism). Your cards and letters, or upcoming purchases from the fine line of WADAwatch accessories (to be rapidly expanded from now until February), are very much appreciated...

..........@......... WADAWATCH

one hundred percent pure
copyright 2010 Ww

Interim Directeur named for AFLD-Département des analyses

[See below this story for some other items,
treated as 'updates' as our time commitments
lay elsewhere...]

Greetings from LandBase1... apologies to our faithful family of readers, for having taken a long week to migrate across the Atlantic Ocean, to the land of liberty, 24/7 Terror newscasting, and the USADA headquarters. Flights were smoother than the skin on these wretched fingers, damaged (and in need of a damn-good Denver manicure) by a series of sub-zero (C°) moving days, cardboard cuts and general abusive heavy-lifting practices. But force of habit exists: the news of this last week requires instant updating.


And many sad thoughts for the people in poor, abused, neglected, shaken Haiti. (A personal, ten-minute YouTube témoignage in French, from the Swiss TSR).. crises such as we have seen demands re-thinking US Foreign policy, driven by Pentagoniacal manias for wars, occupations and 'liberationizing'. This US Citizen would bring 130,000 US troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have that force available to Save Lives...


Diversions aside, the mourning over the abrupt death of Jacques de Ceaurriz on 5 January has not prevented the AFLD from naming an interim Directeur to run the laboratoire formally known as LNDD. The AFLD 'département des analyses' produced a document eight days ago, naming Madame la Docteur Françoise Lasne to the post. This news, which apparently has not even made the pages of the former 'AFLD press office', as we've annointed French sporting daily, l'Equipe in times past, has been officialized in the translated document below. Our photo of Dr. Lasne comes from the web site SCIENCE ACTUALITÉS.


Interestingly, the Ministry under Rosalyne Bachelot has not even issued any remembrance for the long-standing Directeur that passed away; this link (page in FR) shows all current January press announcements: the death of Philip Séguin is well-documented (an icon in French politics, for whom the word 'irascible' may well apply; most eulogies noted his acerbic wit and force, as well as a love of soccer), but not the loss of the eminent Dr de Ceaurriz.


A Ww service/translation of these complete, formal French legalities:

Deliberation n° 142 of 7 January 2010
bringing designation of the Director par interim
of the Department of analyses of the French
Anti-doping Agency (AFLD)

The French Agency for the fight against doping,

In view of legislation of the Code of sport, notably its articles L. 232-8 and L. 232-18,

In view of regulations of the Code of sport, notably its articles R. 232-14 and R. 232-18,

In view of the deliberation n 4 of 5 October 2006 concerning designation of the Directeur of the Department of Analyses of the Agency,

In view of the deliberation n. 133 of 18 June 2009 bringing new prorogation of the deliberation n° 4 of 5 October 2006 on designation of the Directeur of the Department of Analyses of the Agency,

In view of the decease of Professeur Jacques de CEAURRIZ,

On the proposition of the President of the Agency,

Decides:

Article 1st: The nomination of Docteur Françoise LASNE in the functions of Directeur par interim of the Department of Analyses of the Agency is pronounced counting from the 7th January until the nomination of the next directeur.

Article 2nd: This deliberation will be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic and on the internet web site of the Agency.

The present decision was deliberated the 7 January 2010 with the participation of M. Pierre Bordry, President and Mssrs. Jean-François BLOCH-LAINE, Claude BOUDENE, Jean-Michel BRUN, Laurent DAVENAS, Guy JOLY, Jean-Pierre GOULLE, members.

President
Pierre Bordry

{sig.}

[Ww: italics added // published 15 January 2010]

Dr Lasne's name should be known to the avid followers of the eternal pathos between the French Agency and the cycling world, as she is listed as co-author for nearly every scientific journal article on which Jacques de Ceaurriz' name was found. WADAwatch retains the full hope that new objectivity will come forth with Madame la Docteur's interim nomination.


Our last article, which briefly announced the news of the passing of Dr de Ceaurriz, did not include one thought, which came upon this author through this last week. It is truly sad that Dr. de Ceaurriz will be more widely remembered for positions taken against Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis, as trumpeted by l'Equipe... those shots 'heard around the world' through certain sports journalists' scorn-filled amplifications, rather than for the hundreds of scientific articles that he generated, with their scientific validities in Black and White.


Dr Lasne's long-standing role in the hierarchy of the LNDD/Département des analyses offers mysteries and hopes: will AFLD honour her position by removing its 'interim' aspects? When?


Will 'Science' take ascendance over 'Agenda' and 'Suspicion'?

+ + + + + + + + +

Laurent Fignon has gone through two chemotherapy sessions since last year's Tour de France, where this author was nearly in tears when he burst out sobbing himself, taking the entire squad of France 2/3 personalities with him, as the realization (we presume, with sensitivity and compassion) that he could be very well participating, as announcer, at the last Tour de France he would ever see. It was sad: more than one can describe.

In an article in l'Equipe, they excerpted an interview from magazine Paris-Match, regarding his medical treatments, his outlook on 'success' of those, and some personal reflections. Quick ly summarized, his first treatment was basically ineffective, necessitating a second process, which reduced his tumours "17 per cent", yet Laurent couldn't handle the physical effects of one of two medications that produced that good result: and it was the better of the two! Since recent scans revealed increasing growth, Laurent became philosophic, and we honour his courage by offering you his words, in French, and translated for his many English-language fans:

«J'espère que ce prochain traitement marchera, a-t-il déclaré. Quelles que soient ma bonne volonté et la force de me battre, si l'on ne trouve pas le bon médicament, il y a un moment où ça va m'emmener et je vais y passer. Je n'ai pas envie de mourir à 50 ans, mais si c'est incurable, qu'est-ce que j'y peux ? J'aime la vie, j'adore rigoler, voyager, lire, bien bouffer, comme un bon Français. Je n'ai pas peur de la mort, je n'en ai juste pas envie !»

"I hope that this next treatment will work, he declared. Whatever be of my good will and the force to fight, if one doesn't find the right medication, there's going to be a moment where this will take me and I am going to pass (away). I do not want to die at 50 years old, but if it is incurable, what can I do about it? I love life, I adore laughing, travelling, reading and eat well, like a good Frenchman. I do not fear death, I just don't want it!"

[sniff...]


WADAwatch believes, based on a FR3 interview last year (YouTube excerpt) in which the host Michel Drucker had brought in Laurent Fignon, on TV remote feed, to add drama to the pre-Tour telecast, that Lance and Laurent are working (through the Livestrong foundation) to find the drug, find the cure and find Laurent a future free from the pains of cancer.


If not, time is running out for the last French victor of the national Fete-race-Fetish: the Tour de France, and no one wants that.

Lance? Please?

+ + + + + + + + +

Whatever is going to happen to Alejandro Valverde, via an appeal to CAS/TAS, won't be known for two months yet. CAS has apparently (its Panel of Arbitrators, of course) proposed to publish its decision in March, and 'previewed' that this decision would or may announce the CAS Panel's legal 'incompetence' to entertain the extension of the suspension to a UCI-imposed worldwide status. The appeal is addressing whether Valverde can be banned on Italian soil, from an Italian suspension based on evidence provided from the Operacion Puerto 'sting' in Spain. As Valverde's original appeal was against CONI, the Italian Olympic Committee in charge of Italian anti-doping efforts, and CAS permitted joinder of UCI and WADA appeals seeking that extension, we await the legal reasoning for a clearer understanding of what CAS can, and cannot do, to address the decisions taken (or sought) against the Spanish cyclist...

+ + + + + + + + +

Lastly, concerning Stephan Schumacher, the French word 'pagaille' seems à propos (one could roughly and rudely translate the word as 'clusterF**K'). His hearing, in March 2009, has not yet produced any decision from the CAS Panel which heard his appelate pleas and arguments. Nine months later, the Panel just announced that their 'pre-Noël' decision, which had been bumped back to January 11, was now to be issued January 25th. See the French version in L'Equipe, where Schumacher's quoted as saying "They seem like they have to declare me innocent, but don't want to... I think there are intense discussions occurring between the Panellists, and that (legal) foundation is lacking for this suspension, due to procedural errors..." (obviously from the 2008 Tour de France, the 'renegade' Tour which banned the UCI and trumpeted the AFLD/Département des analyses 'glorious mastery of anti-doping science')

Interestingly, this is also a case where the UCI has sought 'universality' of the country-based decision to ban (it was the French AFLD that had banned Schumacher for two years; it was the UCI that sought 'world-wide extension' of that ban, similar to the Valverde Italian 'procedure' above).

+ + + + + + + + +

From our new roving Headquarters, now eight hours behind this Parisian 'Epicenter' of sports-doping news, we thank you for 'migrating' with us! Soon reports will be coming to you about Country X's speed skaters, or cross-country skiers, as we approach the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver...


Donate to WADAwatch: send an email and fund our presence in Vancouver. Surely WADA itself would like to have a legally-trained, former Treaty Committee drafts-person performing such a similar 'Independent Observer' service? All expenses included...

..........@......... WADAWATCH

one hundred percent pure
copyright 2010 Ww

WADA: Mandard of the Year Award

or: WADA perquisition complex

(Scroll down to the English version)

Au moment qu'on pensait que l'année était terminée, dans le sens d'antidopage, voilà que Pierre Bordry, ses minions et ses alliés policiers-judiciaires remontrent tous leurs acharnements contre l'équipe Astana et l'UCI, juste comme un pit-bull sur le 'visage' d'un enfant. Car le journaliste Stéphane Mandard est (voilà ! Qui en douterait ? ) encore sur le sujet du Tour de France 2009.

On avait offert notre commentaire en Octobre en regardant les articles par M. Mandard concernant Astana et des autres équipes, l'investigation mené par l'Office central de lutte contre les atteintes à l'environnement et à la santé publique (Oclaesp), contre les équipes du Tour. Cependant, l'article publié comme cadeau de Noël ce mardi 23 Décembre, titré Astana aurait commis une infraction pénale pendant le Tour 2009 nous rend encore une fois dans la salade mijoté par M. Bordry et ses confrères du gouvernement français.

Mais regardons-nous ensemble le logique du fabrique de cette histoire.

Avant même le Tour commencé, le Cour d'Arbitration de Sport français a décidé en faveur du coureur belge Tom Boonen, exclu par l'ASO (Amaury Sport Organisation). En cause, son incident printanier d'un analyse positif pour cocaïne. Les raisons du Cour étaient assez claires aussi : son exclusion aurait été discriminatoire, donc ASO a été, plus ou moins, forcé de le laisser courir. Ben dis-donc!

Le même jour, Mme Bachelot, chère Ministre française pour la Santé, Jeunesse et Sport, a fait passé par la presse française une avertissement clair, à propos la participation de Lance Armstrong: « ... qu'il serait particulièrement, particulièrement, particulièrement surveillé ». Bien. On n'as pas su de quelle manière cela se passerait. On le sait maintenant. Remerciements sont de rigueur pour M. Mandard. Mais pour continuer : le logique demandé par Mandard est si illogique, c'est de definir à nouveau le mot paradoxe.

Vous êtes coureur professionnel de long date ; vous êtes dans une équipe qui sera « ... particulièrement, particulièrement, particulièrement surveillé », et donc vous alliez continuer de faire des conneries, des tricheries dans vos chambres d'hôtel, et car vous 'avez fait' ça depuis des années sans jamais avoir été piqué, vous alliez jeter tous vos déchets médicaux dans les poubelles de chambre?

Mais 'ça va pas ! ... quoi'... Il nous prend pour des cons ou quoi (Bordry et/ou Mandard : ça m'est égal...) ?

Notons aussi que Mandard n'a jamais écrit quoi que ce soit à propos les réponses formels et publiques de l'UCI, publié dans un rapport mise sur le site web de l'Union Cycliste Internationale, disponible au monde entière. Ce n'était pas le cas pour l'AFLD : leur 'rapport' a été divulgué à ce reporteur avant même le courtoisie de le passer vers l'UCI. Personne, autre que Mandard, l'UCI et l'AMA, ne l'a jamais mis sur le Web. A quoi sert cette silence radio? Bien : ça sert l'agenda de l'Agence, évidement.

Quel qualité de reportage avons-nous en lisant cet article? On nous a déjà (de l'Australie!) informé que ce société français COSMOLYS, contracté pour organiser et disposer les déchets médicaux de 'beaucoup des équipes' du Tour, n'a peut-être pas agi avec un niveau de sécurité aux hauteurs qu'on puisse espérer si on était leur partenaire contractuel (c'est à dire les équipes qui l'ont contracté). Confus? Nous y sommes aussi.

Ces déchets médicaux doivent être protégé des gens indélicats qui voulaient, à tout prix, ternir l'image de quelques-uns des coureurs (ou équipes), n'est-ce pas? Car c'est bien évident que l'évidence maintenant utilisé contre l'équipe Astana, aurait pu été 'planté' par quelqu'un qui a voulu justement ternir l'image et faire disqualifier leurs résultats, aussi formidable que soit l'équipe Astana. Il nous faut rappeler, aussi, que nous sommes pas dupes. Il y a beaucoup d'incidents sur le Tour, pour lesquels les coureurs ont eu droit d'être soignés : accidents de la route, petits maladies intestinaux, et c...

Si on avait accès aux échantillons des coureurs... si on avait accès aux chambres des coureurs... si on avait accès au camion de Cosmolys... n'est-il plus probable que quelqu'un qui s'est acharné contre Lance Armstrong depuis des années, qui a des alliés partout dans la République française, qui pourrait convaincre la police que ces éléments d'évidence sont vrais, est la vraie source de ces évidences?

Sont-ils réels? Sont-ils authentiques? Ou... sont-ils plantés? Mais Mandard est bien convaincue de la véracité de l'évidence.

Peut-être qu'ils ont tous raison : peut-être l'équipe Astana est la seule équipe de ce dernier Tour de France qui était si stupide, si bête, si naïve, si idiote... bref : si nulle... qu'ils ont fait n'importe quoi avec leurs déchets médicaux douteux et illégales ?

Not bloody likely...

[English here]

Just when one thought that the year had finished, in the anti-doping sense, behold Pierre Bordry and his minions and police/judicial allies, remounting their furious attacks against the Astana team, as would a pit-bull against the face of a child. Because the journalist Stéphane Mandard is again on the subject of the 2009 Tour.

Ww had offered its commentary in October in regarding the articles by Monsieur Mandard, concerning Astana and other teams, the investigation brought by the Central Office for the fight against environmental and public health infractions (loosely translated), against the teams of the Tour. However, the article published like a Christmas present on this Tuesday, 23 December, entitled (translated) Astana may have committed a penal infraction (FR link above) puts us one more time in the story stirred up by M. Bordry and his colleagues from the French government.

But let us regard together the logic of the fabric of this story.

Before the Tour even started, the French Court for Arbitration of Sport decided in favour of Belgian racer Tom Boonen, excluded by the ASO (Amaury Sport Org.). In cause, was his springtime incident that produced a positive cocaine analytical finding. The reasons of the Court were clear enough: his exclusion would have been discriminatory, thus ASO had been, more or less, forced to let him race. Whaddaya say?

That same day, Mme Bachelot, dear Minister for Health, Sport and Youth, passed via the French press a clear warning regarding the participation of Lance Armstrong: “... that he will be particularly, particularly, particularly surveilled.” Hmmm... One didn't know in which manner this would manifest. We do know now. Gratitude is a must towards M. Mandard. But to continue: the logic demanded by Mandard is so illogical, that it redefines the word paradox.

You are a racer for many years; you are in a team that will be “... particularly, particularly, particularly surveyed”, and thus you would continue to do stupid acts, cheater's acts, in your hotel rooms, and because you 'have done' that for years without ever being caught, you are going to toss your medical waste in hotel room waste bins?

But “... bloody hell! Whot...” Does he take us for idiots or what (Bordry and/or Mandard: it's pretty equal)?

Let's note also that Mandard never wrote anything about the UCI's formal, public responses, which were published in a report placed on the UCI web site, available to the world. That wasn't the case for the AFLD: their report was divulged to this reporter (Mandard) before even they had the courtesy to pass it to the UCI. No one, other than Mandard, the UCI and WADA, ever put the AFLD report up on the Web. To what end, this intense silence? Oh well: it serves the Agency agenda, evidently.

What quality of reporting do we discern in reading this article? We were already informed (from Australia!) that this French society COSMOLYS, contracted to organise and dispose of the medical wastes from 'many teams' of the Tour, was maybe not acting with a level of security sufficiently high that one could hope as their contractual partner (to say the teams which joined in the contract). Confused? We are also.

It's well evident that the evidence now utilized against the Astana team, may have been 'planted' by someone who wanted to tarnish the image and results of a team as formidable as Astana had demonstrated. We have to remember, also, that we aren't dupes. There are many incidents on the Tour, for which the riders have a right to receive medical care: road accidents, infections or illnesses (intestinal), etc.

IF one had access to riders' blood samples... if one had access to hotel rooms of the riders... if one had access to the Cosmolys truck... isn't it more probable that someone who has had their teeth sunk into the flesh of Lance Armstrong for many years, who has allies throughout the French Republic, could convince the police that these elements of evidence are true, while being the true source of these evidence items? Are they real? Are they authentic? Or... were they planted?

But Mandard is well convinced of the veracity of the evidence.

Maybe they are right: maybe the Astana team is the only team from this latest Tour de France, who were so stupid, so crass, so naïve, so idiotic... briefly: so null... that they never even thought about their medical wastes?

Not bloody likely...

Tis the season, however, for Monsieur Bordry to distribute his Christmas season Bonuses: Astana takes the big box evidently...

..........@......... WADAWATCH

one hundred percent pure
copyright 2009 Ww

(Now back to our Holiday, which is already in progress)

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