Gripper goes South, Rossi crosses the Alps

News from the Union Cycliste Internationale acquiring a new head of the Anti-Doping Service has surfaced, with the announced appointment of Francesca Rossi, of Italy, to replace Anne Gripper.


Ms Gripper, who joined the UCI in October 2006 with the title of Manager of the UCI Anti-Doping Service, returns to Australia for personal reasons, having overseen the various high- and low-points that rocked the cycling world since her appointment. WADAwatch honours her work efforts. A two-week old article with her comes to you, also from Cyclingnews.


Read more about Ms Francesca Rossi at an interesting interview provided by Cyclingnews. Her background with the IAAF is highlighted, and it is very pertinent to note that the IAAF holds the UCI's anti-doping efforts in high regard.


Ms Rossi served on the WADA 'laboratory committee', according to the article; its true title is the Laboratory Expert Group. WADAwatch hopes that Ms Rossi, as she gets up to speed, can help boost the organization's capabilities and competences for the standardization and advancement of laboratory practice, and precision.


Another short update from the snowy, sunny heights of Colorado. Enjoying this final week of winter,

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

copyright 2010 Ww

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

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

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

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

The 'Phone-y War': updates on AFLD v UCI 2009

Two new articles appeared nearly simultaneously with our publishing of the three part series Nettoyage Ethique / Ethic Cleansing

The first is more amusing than 'damning', and written by a true master of French journalism, Claude Drousset. Former writer for l'Equipe, editor of Vélo Magazine (French monthly cycling mag), Drousset amused his audience by reminding his French readers (and Francophiles worldwide) of the location, during the week in which the AFLD 'bombarded' the UCI through Le Monde articles (as noted above), of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy was on official state visit in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan, and 'home' of the Swiss–licensed, Kazakh–sponsored team Astana, in the 'collimator' via the AFLD 'UCI Report'.

Follow the link above to read these translated gems from the keyboard of a master:

“I imagine this little fictional scene. Astana, capital of Kazakhstan, day before yesterday. [Ww: implying Tuesday, 6 October] The Grand Auditorium of the Presidential Palace. Nicolas Sarkozy at the side of his homologue Nursultan Nazarbaïev. Before them, a group of Ministers, elected representatives, directors of multinationals and grands medias all together. Object: the signature of an engagement of some four billion Euro in contracs, beween Kazakhstan and the largest French entreprises. Until now, this writing is true. The fictional touch? Nazarbaïev, at the point of signing the accord, who lifts his pen and turns toward Sarkozy:

“One second, Mister President, what is this story, in your country, of the favourable treatment of which our racers benefited from the last Tour de France?”

Astana is also a conglomerate of entreprises, sponsor of the team of Contador and Armstrong. This team is targeted in a report of the AFLD, which was leaked Monday. The eve of the Astana Summit. One can imagine the light agony of our hyper-cool President.

[.....]

The ears of Pierre Bordry, AFLD patron, must have been burning since Monday and the publication by www.lemonde.fr of the contents [of the 'UCI Report']. Not only because of the responses from Pat McQuaid, UCI president, furious to be placed one more time (by the French) before its ambiguities in the face of doping. Not only because of the embarrassment of Roselyne Bachelot and Rama Yade, Minister and Secretary of State (de tutelle (?)), called upon to make comments but who also remembered personally that Nicolas Sarkozy had publicly qualified Lance Armstrong in July as a “formidable example”. Four billions of contracts and the admiration of a President of the Republic, facing ten pages of report and some medical waste.

How will this end? We await details, facts and responses from concerned parties, especially the UCI?

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Also an insightful article was published October 21, comes from the South; South African site IOL.co.za has an AP feed article with 'all the details' regarding what was found by the 'French police' in the medical waste from the 2009 Tour. The title:

Armstrong doping suspicions are suspicious

A company named Cosmolys is said to have been contracted by many Tour teams to dispose of their 'medical trash', which one can understand means legitimate used bandaging (for 'road rash' accidents) and other such items (in an age where AIDS is a legitimate concern, responsible authorities have altered the concept of 'trash disposal, and should be applauded). French police seized 15 'containers', stated an anonymous 'French judicial official'.

Apparently 14 boxes were 'what one would expect', but curiously, the Astana box was claimed to be stuffed with 'large quantities' of syringes and intravenous infusion apparati. We are reminded that, under the WADC, IV drips are banned without Therepeutic Use Exemption (TUE). the IOL article from AP tells us that a different company has been engaged to examine this 'evidence', for 'evidence' of its origin, through DNA analysis. The company is TOXLAB, which was part of the '... investigation into Princess Diana's death.' (TOXLAB does not appear to have a website; one of its staff maintains an email through a 'French web-email-service (similar to GMail or Hotmail))

SIDEBAR: The actual investigation is being run by the vice-Procureur Dominique Pérard (Ww leaves his title in French, it is the equivalent of 'Vice Prosecutor' (meaning 'second', not 'addictions'). The agency investigating this 'sordid story' is the OCLAESP: l'Office central de lutte contre les atteints à l'environnement et à la santé publique (roughly the Central Office for the Fight against the Offences to the Environment and Public Health)

The article gets to a point we had discussed at WADAwatch the same day, how unusual it seems that the French police searched and found this group of items:

Did they have legitimate reasons or are they being manipulated by people seeking to embarrass Armstrong and the UCI?
[.....]

Would they have gone to such lengths with other sports?
[.....]

What is clear is that the probe was kept quiet for three months until last week, when word leaked to French media just before Armstrong flew to Paris for the unveiling of next year's Tour route.

An important fact that was 'conveniently ignored' by Stéphane Mandard, the agente–provacateur for this year's Tour scandal, is mentioned by the AP and IOL. Doctors from other Tour teams stated that the Cosmolys' system for medical waste disposal is not sealed, thus access by third parties is conceivable.

SIDEBAR: This makes a legitimate question arise: should Cosmolys, whose contract calls for the safe disposal of medical waste for Teams on the Tour which, themselves, and thanks to information derived from mostly French sporting news journalists, are targeted in a high–visibility and unsecured sport [Ww: No stadiums, or permanent facilities] reasonably foresee that a third–party could acquire access to its meds-waste facility, and thereby compromise the integrity of a team or teams? IOW: Are we assured that sufficient cautions were taken by this contractor to the Tour?

One could think of a word: 'negligence', and a question: 'why isn't legitimate medical waste collected and analyzed through the global 'anti–doping' family for ALL sports? Ponder that...

The AP – IOL article has this to say in conclusion:

“... if Astana is exonerated, will the same people who put Armstrong and cycling in the spotlight by leaking word on the probe say sorry? Don't count on it.”

Well, mes amis, AFLD seems to have much in common with Oliver, whose words defined a classic American film. LOVE STORY: “... means never having to say you're sorry'"

We remind readers that the French judicial system is slogging through the worldwide-crisis presented by 'a 2006 hacking' case, which is purported to be involving a certain Tour winner who was stripped of his title, and a Doctor that was or is his trainer' and that that case is now three years old. WADAwatch wrote an extensive history, which leaves a perplexed reader wondering how a Doctor in California could have employed the 'authorized' French government Hackers (who were also responsible in cases brought by Greenpeace FR, and an independent attorney who represented 'small-investor-class' shareholders, against two of France's biggest State-owned (or majority minority shareholders) corporations.

This story is growing folks: is it unravelling against the French Agency AFLD? Stand by for a weekend wrap up of other news from the CW II... and the Lord of the Leaks...

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

copyright 2009 Ww