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

Lord of the Leaks (Bordry déchainé)

FLASH SIDEBAR: French Secretary of State for Sport Rama Yade, announced yesterday (in Amaury Editions' daily newspaper Le Parisien (en français)) that she wanted a 'rapprochement' between the UCI and the AFLD... and that this was 'important'; meanwhile she (as are we all) also awaited the responses from the UCI as to the substance of the AFLD allegations, contained in its early–October report. Maybe this is a positive sign, and/or a signal to the AFLD of its lack of professionalism? After all, Bordry's attack via the press certainly exacerbated the quest for official response(s) through ordained WADA channels.

The rest of this article is somewhat of a follow-up to our series
Ethic Cleansing /Nettoyage éthique,
analyzing another article from a partisan
(if not biased) French media

October's end is coming soon...

Around the Northern world the Oaks turn red, the Maples yellow, and their leaves fall to the ground in quiet forests... more poetic than the falling 'leaves' in Paris: this series of supportive articles from Stéphane Mandard, flattering his new source and alter–ego: Pierre Bordry. The Directeur of the Agence française du lutte contre le dopage (AFLD). Only Damien Ressiot could be jealous, whose anti–cycling history remains premier in the annals of French coverage of 'le petit rein' (EN: 'the little Queen' aka the sport of cycling). Many others are feeling growing outrage or disgust, with sincere doubts as to the motivation that instigated this 'bombshell' lobbed from AFLD towards the UCI. But which side of the issue?

A third salvo from Mandard, appearing on the Le Monde web–site and dated October 7, 2009, was overlooked in preparing our three–part special on CW II (Cycling War Two).

At this point in time, this author would rather have a diploma in Psychiatry than Law, to be able to diagnose with certainty the pseemingly psychotic ramblings of Plucky Pierre Bordry, the AFLD's scrupulous boss, dutifully transcribed by Le Monde's partisan journalist.

Does this statement shock you? Maybe you've missed previous gems cast up by Mandard's unilateral faith in Bordry's position. However, the underlying story about all this hum-drum, would be 'how did the newspaper Le Monde become the new voice for Plucky Pierre?'

Here's the finest example, from the Mandard article of mid-October:

"Une fois de plus, le président de l'UCI, Pat McQuaid, crée une polémique générale mais ne répond pas aux questions que nous soulevons, déclare au Monde le président de l'AFLD, Pierre Bordry. Le rapport que nous avons établi s'appuie sur des faits précis et des témoignages qui mettent en avant des dysfonctionnements que nous avions constatés depuis le départ du Tour de France et dont nous avions alerté le président de l'UCI."

Translated:

"One more time, the president of the UCI, Pat McQuaid, creates a general polemic but doesn't respond to the questions that we underscored, declared the president of the AFLD, Pierre Bordry to Le Monde. The report that we established pushes on the precise facts and witness statements that put forward the dysfunctions that we observed since the start of the Tour de France and of which we had alerted the President of the UCI."

POLEMIC

It truly appears that Mandard has seriously confused the meaning of the phrase 'creating a polemic'. Especially since he is personally and professionally involved in the birth of this controversy; there would be no 'polemic' had the AFLD 'Report' first gone to its two official recipients.

That's one nicely drawn prejudicial determination, Monsieur Mandard.

As in the 2005 AFLD/LNDD 'Affaire Armstrong', a 'report' or 'results' leaks to the press, far in advance of any proper WADA Signatory protocols for establishing 'fault' by a fellow Signatory (2005: alleged 'EPO' findings against Armstrong; 2009: alleged 'complacency' against UCI). The first meaning of this, is that the AFLD and LNDD have collaborated to violate the WADA Code as to 'cooperation' between Signatories that are by Treaty and Signature members of the same family.

The Legal Advisory staff of (or to) the AFLD, one must acknowledge, are 'aiding and abetting' the AFLD Directeur by professing through the French Press, their total ignorance of obligations as to the Role of a National Anti–Doping Organization within WADA's family (delineated in Code Article 20.5).

Timing?

The first Le Monde article was published on October 5, discussing a report 'being delivered' to the UCI. Only in a twisted mind, would one (of course) demand a response from the opposition regarding allegations (that means 'unproven') emanating from a blind–siding report that that the recipient (or allegedly non–compliant) received 48 hours prior (which certainly was at least a week after Mandard received it, non?).

RESPONSES

Bordry's tawdry allegations don't involve the professional integrity of Mr. McQuaid, president of the UCI. They allege complacent behaviour of those employees (or other contracted agents), on the one hand, and alleged that the police 'found' 'team medical waste' that 'is being tested for DNA' etc., etc..

Yet Bordry couldn't accord (bien sûr que non!) a fellow Signatory sufficient time to make inquiries and determine whether the Bordry allegations were legitimate. Whatever Mandard's previous journalistic competence and experience at a great paper, they don't seem to preclude his obvious pushing of an agenda to 'sway opinion' and 'corrupt' that process.

More quotes, this one from Bordry (via Mandard/Le Monde), regarding the UCI announcement of a new partner for Tour de France doping controls (ie.: not the AFLD in 2010):

"Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire, un partenaire neutre ?", interroge Pierre Bordry. "Si cela signifie se taire, alors ce ne sera pas l'AFLD. Si on veut vraiment lutter contre le dopage, il faut une politique rigoureuse des contrôles. Or, sur le Tour de France, cet été, pour ne reprendre qu'un seul exemple, des échantillons ont été transportés en dehors de toute précaution de bonne conservation. C'est tout à fait inadmissible. Et c'est notre rôle que de le dire."

In English:

“What is that trying to say, 'a neutral partner'?” asks Pierre Bordry. "If that signifies keeping silent, then that will not be the AFLD. If one wants to really fight against doping, there has to be a rigorous policy for the controls. However, on the Tour de France, this summer, to take only one example, some samples were transported outside the boundaries of all precaution for proper conservation. It's really inadmissible. And it's our role to state this.”

Has the thought occurred to others, that if the French laboratory is whinnying about poor transport, why hasn't it trumpeted the 'results' that 'prove' that Samples were degraded? If it tested 185 urine Samples, and of that number, all the Samples received were degraded, on the day in which this allegation from its scrupulously–copied witness statements, voilà(!) the proof of one of Bordry's allegations. Yet Team Bordry–Mandard certainly wouldn't go so far as to mention that corroborative proof? Nor does Bordry congratulate either the UCI or itself for the other 20 days of properly–transported Sample deliveries: which one presumes were seemingly in compliance with the WADA IST.

Keep in mind another legal aspect: the AFLD analysed 185 urine Samples from the TdF 2009; the Swiss laboratory analyzed 352 blood samples. One presumes that AFLD's département des analyses and the Swiss lab operated in all conformity with the WADC, its ISL and Tech documents. If A Samples were 'positive', by the WADC we should not know that until after the B Samples' re–examination process was finished: confidentiality being a stipulated requirement (all too often ignored by most Signatories) is mandated under WADA Code Articles 6.4, 7.1 & 7.2, and 14.2.

Thus one can specify that, had no Controls been announced at this late date as positive, then the AFLD and Swiss laboratories found no positives. That's a far step from 'remaining silent' as if submitted to any alleged 'UCI authority'.

Until an anonymous friend (hint?) sends to WADAwatch a copy of this official AFLD Report, we are left gleaning the web for allegations contained therein. A quote from the Ministre de la santé et des sports, Rosalyne Bachelot, offers not–unexpected total support to the Agency, of which she offered a reminder in pre-Tour publicity, is “funded 95pc by my Ministry" (a rare WADAwatch 'pearl' in French):

"Il faudrait que l'UCI présente des arguments extrêmement sérieux pour discréditer l'AFLD en ne lui confiant pas les analyses. Ce ne serait pas, je pense, en faveur de l'UCI."

English:

“The UCI is going to have to present some extremely serious arguments to discredit the AFLD by not conferring [2010 Tour] analyses to them. This would not be, I think, in favour of the UCI.”

Rest assured, Madame Bachelot, that the UCI is on notice for the seriousness of replies that it must offer, year after year, to the allegations brewing in Bordry's creative mind. ("Restez–vous bien rassurée, Madame la Ministre Bachelot, que l'UCI est bien au courant, à propos le niveau du sérieux des réponses qu'il doit fournir, année après année, aux allégations que brouillaient dan l'esprit créatif du M. Bordry”) Proof comes from the 2005 Vrijman report, a massive response to the tawdry and unsubstantiated allegations that ricocheted around the world, regarding Lance Armstrong and alleged EPO use in 1999.

Mandard also noted that, in the renegade 2008 Tour de France (under guidance of the FFC, not UCI), seven riders were captured by the AFLD. Readers of this column should have in their memory the fact that the new generation EPO: CERA, was the 'dopage préféré' last year, and found through cooperation with Roche, the pharmaceutical company that had developed this new red blood cell–augmentation treatment. (below is a repeat of our favourite 2008 cartoon, from sister-blog crystelZENmud ...)

We applaud the one appearance of journalistic neutrality appearing in this October 7 article: Mandard reminds us that the ITF (Tennis Federation) has run its Roland Garros doping controls through a Swedish company (IDTM) for the 'Testing' (Sample acquisition and transport to lab), which delivered them to the Montreal WADA-accredited laboratory. for analysis Mandry doesn't question, however, why the AFLD isn't decrying the lack of professionalism by his Montreal counterpart, nor the ITF.

Le Monde's reporter ends his article with another twisted, AFLD-serving rendition of the 2003 WADA Independent Observers report on the Tour of that year:

Dans leur rapport, ces derniers avaient pointé un certain nombre de faiblesses qui se retrouvent dans celui de l'AFLD six ans plus tard, et émis des recommandations afin d'améliorer l'efficacité des contrôles. [.....]

We offer this translation:

In their report, these [Observers] had pointed out a certain number of weak points that are found again in the report of the AFLD six years later, and emitted some recommendations in order to ameliorate the efficiency of the controls.

WADAwatch reminds (tirelessly) that, when the UCI responded to that WADA IO report, it noted numerous occasions when the IO rapporteurs mistakenly derived 'proper procedures' from UCI regulations: it was up to the UCI to respond, reminding that new authority (WADA and its authors) that the UCI operated under French law, to conform its performance with that required by the legal authority on French territory: la belle France. We hope that the UCI would not have to remind Plucky Pierre Bordry of the same responses and those same French laws.

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

copyright 2009 Ww