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)

A Belated WADAnniversary present...

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

copyright 2009 Ww

Cycling War II: the UCI shows its honour

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

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

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

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

Our in-house translation:

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

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

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





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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Sacré bleu, Pierre!

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

'All Hat No Cattle'

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

To be continued....

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

copyright 2009 Ww

Nettoyage Éthique / Ethic Cleansing – Part II

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

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


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

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

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


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

CONTROLS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AFLD
DURING THE FIRST SEMESTER 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


Or...

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

The UCI press release concluded strongly:

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

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

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

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

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

WADAwatch endorses Ethic Cleansing in
le Gouvernement français...

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

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

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

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

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

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

copyright 2009 Ww