Ethic cleansing / Nettoyage éthique – Part I

[This is a three-part series regarding the French Anti-Doping Agency AFLD, and the current events it has instigated. Part I offers the escalating situation as viewed by the French Press, Part II reveals information published by AFLD itself, as a report of activities is analysed, and Part III suggests that WADA has sufficient information to act objectively in investigating a 'rogue' Signatory...]

AFLD – “Absurdly Foul, Legally Deceitful”?

What happened to petit Pierre at the school playground?


Was he pulled off the 'balançoire' (FR: 'teeter-totter') too many times by some Parisian bully? If you could read his mind, would you see the malveillance (EN: 'spitefulness') festering? That's roughly what's happening in France and Switzerland this month...


Eddy Merckx said “It's all just publicity from them - it's crazy,” from the Cycle Show in Earls Court. (article from morethanthegames.com)


Laurent Jalabert was slightly more humerous: “These are wet firecrackers.”


What subject united the Cannibal and Jaja last week? Their common deception arose from the media frenzy over an 'official Report' issued by the 'rancunière' (EN: 'spiteful') Agence française pour le lutte contre le dopage (AFLD), and its Directeur 'Plucky Pierre' Bordry, which was published in Le Monde. The premier salvoes in this new Cycling War Two (CW II), were launched from the AFLD–France towards UCI–World.


The AFLD lobbed accusation-bombs from its position, safe behind a new, press–enabled ligne Maginot, towards the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) in Aigle, Switzerland. Those bombs are provoking reverberations, perhaps a tsunami in a teapot, at WADA, in Montreal. Do not doubt it: phone lines are burning, between scandal-per-day Paris (President Sarkozy: and his son, or Minister of Culture, the Clearstream case, France Telecom suicides and/or the dairy farmers), Montreal and Aigle, Switzerland (UCI HQ). WADAwatch charts this affair, in escalation since the unseemly publicity of cher Pierre's 'J'accuse!' UCI Report in the French press two weeks ago, while 'said Report' was still in transit to WADA and UCI. Evidently Le Monde has replaced l'Equipe as the AFLD agente-presse of choice, ending an ignoble era. A torch-passing, if you will...

SIDEBAR: we prefer to believe that equitable reasoning was what motivated the Amaury family's new-found 'compliance', as a Major Event Organizer within WADA. If true, Ww would applaud this. However, our past article mentioned alleged 'quids pro quo' through the 'good offices' of Jean–Claude Killy, an ASO director as well as International Olympic Committee member, who 'may have had some influence' as to who in France received TV rights for the 2014 Saatchi Winter Games (hint: they own Really Big Bicycle Races in France) in Russia, in return, it was suggested, for Amaury Editions agreement to desist chasing cycling/doping stories.

Whether or not ASO has clean motives for ceasing publishing 'premature, illegally–leaked A Sample control results' in its own paper, l'Equipe, it has ended this conflict-of-interest. In publishing those A Sample results, source(s) become culpable for WADA Code violations, which were no less substantial than any Athlete's AAF.

WADA has never publicly taken a decision to interdict those violations. Leaks of positive A Sample results, even if prohibited through the WADA Code ('WADC'), were certainly good publicity for its fund– and awareness–raising. Yet any leaks of this nature are the bane of accused Athletes – innocent or guilty – whose rights are violated every time WADC Article 7 Results Management, and/or Article 14.2.1 (Article 14.2 Public Disclosure; part of Article 14 Confidentiality and Disclosure) are expressly ignored. If WADA is working 'behind the scenes' to clean up these bad acts, so be it, and good luck. However, unless it does occur, it remains just one of many documented 'non–compliance issues' for WADA.

Le Monde published a second Stéphane Mandard article in mid–October. The new piece amplifies the detail regarding AFLD allegations from his previous story, which WADAwatch covered on 5 October 2009: UCI methods attacked by AFLD. Mandard starts with a slam:

Est-ce pour fuir les gendarmes et l'Agence française de lutte contre le dopage (AFLD), que le Tour de France, dont le parcours de l'édition 2010 a été dévoilé mercredi 14 octobre, s'élancera de Rotterdam en juillet prochain ?

Ww translation:

Is it to escape the (French) police and the AFLD, that the Tour de France, of which the route for the 2010 edition was revealed on Wednesday, 14 October, will launch from Rotterdam next July?

Anyone thinking: 'what a prejudicial (and ignorant) question!'? Le Monde, usually an insightful journal for world and financial affairs, chose not to explore these angles: it's common knowledge that this year's Vuelta de Espagna earned some €3 million (Euros) to begin its 2009 race in Holland, the Netherlands. And if starting the Vuelta in Holland can generate €3 million, no doubt the cachet of the Tour de France will ratchet that up higher: perhaps €4 to 6 million?


But 'obviously' Le Tour needs to 'flee the AFLD' (?)... curious, how Mandard associates 'Le Tour' with the UCI in this setting.


Casual cycling observers would have no problem conjuring up the next image – a battalion of French gendarmes taking position next July. Their target? Perhaps hotels in the two French village(s) that the Tour 2010 will first invade: Arenberg Porte du Hainaut, where the Tour ends the 3rd stage, and nearby Cambrai, where the 4th stage starts, respectively the 6th and 7th July, 2010.

But who watches the watchers?

The owners of the Tour are very interested in profits, Monsieur Mandard: it's their business. Why write about a technicality-filled subject without displaying the competence to be taken as an authority on it? The AFLD UCI Report seems likely to become an escalating affair: if not against the UCI, then perhaps through a long-overdue WADA inquiry into AFLD motivations. One notices that Mandard's role is less than that of a fine journalist: he appears as a shill, parroting the position of one side in an effort to stir up an international 'conflict'.

Madame la Secretaire d'État de Sport Rama Yade !
Madame la Ministre Roselyne Bachelot !

Vous ne voulez pas retenir cette grande gueule de
l'AFLD – Monsieur Bordry?

('Do you not want to hold back this big-mouth
from the AFLD – Mr Bordry?')

The Le Monde article continues its master-of-insinuation account:

Si aucun coureur n'a été rattrapé par la patrouille cet été, c'est que, contrairement à 2008 – où le Tour ne s'était pas déroulé sous l'égide de l'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) en raison d'un conflit ouvert avec l'ancien patron d'ASO, Patrice Clerc, l'AFLD n'était pas seule aux commandes des contrôles.

Ww translation:

If no single racer was trapped by the patrols this summer, it's that, unlike 2008 – where the Tour was not run under guidance from the UCI, by reason of an open conflict with the ancient ASO patron, Patrice Clerc, the AFLD was not alone at the commands for the Doping Controls.

Finally, author Mandard's pièce de résistance:

Et l'enquête préliminaire ouverte par le parquet de Paris après la saisie de centaines de seringues et de matériel de perfusion auprès de plusieurs équipes, dont Astana ? Les organisateurs ont appris la nouvelle "par la presse".

Again:

And the preliminary investigation opened by the Paris court after the seizure of hundreds of syringes and transfusion material (found) near several teams, including Astana? The organizers (ED: UCI) learned the news 'by the press'.

Holy Insinuendo, Batman!

This would be funny if it weren't serious...


Recall, that the 'First Cycling War' (for which an Armistice was 'signed' in late fall 2008) was the result of ASO reactions to UCI's action begun years ago, when the UCI received a request by the major cycling Team sponsors, who'd found themselves denied entry to one or more of cycling's Grand Tours (of Italy, France and Spain). ASO contended that the UCI ProTour team license concept had taken away its ability to 'manage' their own choice of teams. Both the Spanish and Italian organizers lined up in league with this complaint. Yet this French author wants us to orient our thinking towards the UCI as 'renegade'... a classic case of 'revisionist history'. However, in every year since Festina (n'oubliez-vous pas ça, quand même!), there have been 'cases' found, and in every year but one, UCI directed those efforts. So Mandard's shrill effort is without foundation.


We are not offered the meaning behind his statement that those items were found 'near the teams'; he offers no analysis of how AFLD knew about the flasks and syringes if UCI staff didn't, and how UCI staff never took notice of the French gendarmes that flocked around Pierre's boys (and girls?). But wait!

SIDEBAR: “... hundreds of syringes?” Hundreds? Recollection of the original article was 'some syringes' and 'medicine bottles'; has Mandard inflated the claims since early October, now to huge quantities ('Festina-style'?), boxes and boxes of dirty needles? 'Hundreds' means at least two hundred: is Mandard claiming there was the equivalent of one needle for every rider in the Tour?

Are certain teams so insanely possessed by the quest for victory, that they forgot to dispose the evidence discretely, far from the snooping eyes of the honourable French police? Really, this seems ludicrous beyond the imagination of anyone but a seemingly-demented AFLD director, and a too-eager-to-please journaliste. We are loathe to conceptualize French police 'planting' evidence, but are not remiss in thinking that some 'third–party sympathizer' could have done so...

“Coach! Coach! What should I do weese our team's
used syringes? Zee ones from zee room of
Jean-Pierre Pedalstrap*, le Directeur sportif adjoint,
where all our dopers shoot up zere drugs,
z'EPO and zere Blood transfusions?”


“Sacré BLEU, I have not zee time for you, idiot!
You must to fill zee cars with zee gas! Fill zee
water bottles, and leave zose syringes in
zee trashbins here in zese hotel!


“Merd-uh! No one eez going to find zem if
you cover zem over weese z'Equipe from yezterday...”
*ficticious name

Next we read: “... (UCI) learned the news 'by the press'”?





We count on Bordry to convince a fellow French journalist to 'act shocked', à la Claude Raines in CASABLANCA (“...shocked! To learn that gambling is going on in this club!”), that the UCI didn't find out anything from its contracted French partner, prior to the AFLD screeching ('wailing cat' syndrome?) its accusations to the press, expressly to embarrass the International Federation. If the UCI found out by 'the press' of this official Report and its allegations, that fault can only be due to seemingly deceitful tactics and publicity-mongering (thanks Eddie Merckx) by the AFLD. The Mandard insult only compounds Bordry's neurotic display.


For good measure, dramatic effect and without taste, Mandard reminds us that Frank Vandenbroucke died mid-month (with an insinuating question mark). Although his death in Africa, while on vacation with a male friend, doing Jesus-knows-what, has nothing to do with the UCI, the Tour de France, or ASO, it certainly imports substantial suspicion on cycling, furthering the agenda in this article promoting the AFLD's 'righteous purity'. (Unlike Mandard, we offer our condolences to a Vanderbrouke family that is suffering an untimely loss...)


And how does Mandard conclude this drama?


Hang on (!):

"On va droit dans le mur. Il va y avoir un drame. Un mec va claquer sur son vélo. Et là, on n'aura plus d'autre choix que de réagir, commente sous couvert d'anonymat le directeur sportif d'une équipe française. ASO avait une occasion unique de s'en sortir avec les honneurs en rompant avec l'UCI. Cela s'est transformé en occasion ratée." Le patron d'ASO a bien promis de "tout mettre en oeuvre pour promouvoir un dialogue responsable entre les acteurs de la lutte antidopage". Mais l'AFLD a déjà annoncé qu'elle ne s'aventurerait pas dans une nouvelle collaboration avec l'UCI sur le Tour 2010. Le duel annoncé entre Alberto Contador et Lance Armstrong n'en sera que plus "magnifique".

Translated:

"We're going right into the wall. There's going to be a drama. A guy's going to crack on his bike. And there, we won't have any other choice but to react, comments under anonymity the director sportif of a French team. ASO had a unique occasion to get out with honours by rupturing with the UCI. That's been transformed into an blown opportunity.” The ASO patron really promised to “put everything to work for promoting a responsible dialogue between the actors for the anti-doping fight.” But the AFLD has already announced that it wouldn't adventure into a new collaboration with the UCI on the 2010 Tour. The announced duel between Alberto and Lance will only be more than “magnificent”.

Certainly our writing at WADAwatch is no less sarcastic than the Le Monde extracts above.


Why didn't Mandard mention that the 'anonymous' Directeur sportif probably represents one of two French teams who were recently 'slapped down' by UCI, which denied renewals of their 2010 ProTour elite licenses: is this only more French raisins amers ('sour grapes')? On the other hand, how would a clean team's DS know so much about what other teams are doing, and the wall that riders may face one day? If they 'know', we should have seen police taking riders away in handcuffs: is this 'anonymous witness' reminding us that the Omerta amongst cycling teams is ever stronger?


Here's a hypothesis (hypothetical, outrageous, but incorporates all the 'facts'):

Some French 'agent(s)', tired of 'imported victors' winning its historic Tour, found access to teams' hotel room trash cans, in order to hide fake evidence, by creating a 'red Herring' police investigation, protected by a French hierarchy. A complacent press aided in that effort, complementing the AFLD report implicating the UCI and Astana.
(Well, that may display more 'Watson' than Holmes...)

The Directeur Sportif quoted anonymously, above, advocates a permanent rupture, evidently, between the UCI and the Tour owner ASO. To what end, whose benefit? Maybe those two teams who no longer hold ProTour status? If AFLD succeeds in creating a new schism, and the Tour 2010, as was in 2008, reverts to a National Event under FFC control (la Fédération française de cyclisme), then AFLD gets to write its own ticket, a conquest built on its history of hysteria to the media, and Really Bad Science.


We recall that it's been years since a French rider was 'busted' for doping, although (sadly) Laurent Fignon joined a Legion of historical cycling figures, by admitting his personal Tour–doping legacy, during 2009, on the occasion of revealing his life–threatening cancer. NB: no Tour official ever requested Laurent's Yellow Jersey (as they had for Bjarne Riis). Fignon's loud sobbing overwhelmed his sportscasting team from France 2 TV last July, in their booth at the Champs-Élysées within minutes of the sprint won by Mark Cavendish: perhaps a 'reality' moment in which the proud champion looked upon this human spectacle for the last time. Ww hopes not.


Finally, the one–sided Le Monde pseudo–news story ends with a last insinuation: the AFLD announced it wouldn't collaborate in 2010 on the Tour. The UCI press release of 5 October, 2009, however, already mentioned that the UCI would 'study the options' (as to finding another laboratory). Given that the UCI stated that immediately, the Monday following the original AFLD 'J'accuse' attack in Le Monde, Mandard reinforces his role as parrot, for this AFLD 'moi aussi!' rant.

Mesdames la Secrétaire Yade et la Ministre Bachelot,
un de ces jours aimeriez–vous faire du nettoyage ethique
chez votre Agence française du lutte contre le dopage?

(“Mesdames Secretary and Minister, one of these days would you
like to do some 'ethic cleansing' at the AFLD?”)

[The die is cast... how AFLD and Plucky Pierre actively sought media–covered reinforcement for their provocative attack against the UCI, in the months following the first Tour de France since the 'renegade' Tour of 2008. Stay tuned for Part II and Part III]

..........@.........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

Nettoyage Éthique / Ethic Cleansing, Part III

WADA Hot Lines...

[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 Part II WADAwatch presented 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 October 2009 articles; in this Part III Ww discusses whether WADA will take up an objective role in defraying this conflict.]

Last month, WADAwatch recalled WADA Code Article 13.5 (Appeals from Decisions under Part Three and Part Four of the Code), which provides an avenue for adjudication of non–compliance issues, etc., from its Signatory Agencies, ADOs or others (IFs?). We now remind our readers of the final clause in that Article, regarding appeals by Signatories found to be non–complying:

“... [they] shall have the right to appeal exclusively to CAS in accordance with the provisions applicable before such court.”

In the last month, more than enough 'evidence' has been offered for an objective organization, such as one expects of the World Anti–Doping Agency, to initiate an investigation regarding cycling. If comfortably satisfied (the legal threshold that prevails in WADA world), WADA must either discipline the UCI, or Plucky Pierre (aka 'Pierre et le Loup') Bordry (of the AFLD), if his charges against the UCI were inaccurate. His 'UCI Report' presented accusations against the UCI, which were viewed by the French newspaper Le Monde reporter Stéphane Mandard, and published, while the official 'UCI Report' was in still transit (or only just received at) to UCI and WADA headquarters.


Yet if WADA found otherwise, that there were no substantive bases for such an inquest against its Signatory UCI, it could find itself running an inquisition regarding the rogue AFLD French Agency. Given the decision made by AFLD to go public with the above–mentioned UCI Report, prior to official submission to UCI or WADA, and given its long history (at least since 2005) of subverting 'international cooperation' to the interests of the French cycling aristocracy – ASO and the French Cycling Federation, WADA may have to undertake its first 'Signatory compliance procedure', with the anticipated result being some form of 'chastisement' against that French governmental agency.


Hypothetically, either AFLD has presented bona fide 'evidence' of a certain nonchalance by the UCI, vis–à–vis the cycling team Astana and its leaders Armstrong and Contador, amongst others, and thus WADA has a case (as Bordry promotes) against UCI, or the UCI (and WADA?) has a case (at last?) against AFLD for a (another?) violation of its Code–derived duties.


Did AFLD take into account the 'media circus' surrounding the Lance v Alberto sideshow drama, highly promoted throughout the French media, which promoted the evident discord between the two riders, making Astana's peaceful attention to its duties somewhat complex? Perhaps a finely–discerned line was maintained by UCI, displaying a savoir–faire that passed unperceived by the AFLD doctors 'stalking' the UCI anti–doping teams? Did the AFLD report remind WADA and the UCI of the discrimination clearly promised to Lance, by Madame la Ministre Rosalyne Bachelot? Recall that she promised, in her showboating pre–Tour welcoming invitation to Lance, that he would be 'particularly, particularly, particularly' surveyed? Perhaps she should have included 'the UCI'?


Objective analysis might suggest a reticence on the part of WADA to support a Signatory who, by clear evidence, has at least violated a discretionary role for WADA, to pursue an investigation of the AFLD's charges against UCI. What might have been, had AFLD not initiated the affair through another 'à la Lance' insinuendo–crescendo to prominent French daily papers, and so the world, however, no longer exists as an available option. Two French teams were recently refused ProTour License renewals (BBox Bouygues, and Cofidis), and not a few cycling aficionados believe Pierre Bordry's 'official Report' is no more than a smokescreen, for a renewed French 2010 agenda of independence from the UCI for their Tour de France.


Merci encore, M. Bordry...



However, should WADA undertake any 'compliance discipline' against the ADO of a State Party to the UNESCO Convention, some complications lay in its path, that WADA may not have foreseen. Some 102 or more Governments (as of late 2008) are Parties, by signature of the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport ('ICDS'), which promotes WADA in its mission, and provides legal standing for governments to support WADA, as an essentially private, international Foundation.


ICDS Section II (Anti–doping activities at the national level) Article 12.1–3, and Section III (International Cooperation) Article 13, place as primary components 'cooperation' and 'facilitating', in delineating the State Party mandates. Other Articles mandate support by State Parties to support the Code (as revisited below). WADAwatch is of the opinion that the WADC Article 13.5 wording, mentioned above, is hardly enforceable against a State organ such as AFLD (especially a French Agency...).


WADC Article 13.5 restricts a Government Agency, under the national authority of its government and facing some 'investigation' by WADA for its 'unethical', 'uncooperative' or 'incompetent' acts, when facing undefined 'disciplinary measures' by such a foreign, private institution, to utilize the services of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 'case of appeal'. Should WADA ever accuse a 'State Agent' of improprieties or non–compliance, rare are the occasions when the Government of that State would permit 'justice' to be rendered against that State's ADO or other Signatory, through a roster of private international (and respected) attorneys (aka 'a small group of insiders').


While there is no wording in the ICDS that mandates States Parties to enforce disciplinary actions in the WADC, which are limited (and 'undefined' as to formal proceedings) towards use of the CAS for appeals, Section I, Article 4 of the ICDS offers this:

1. In order to coordinate the implementation, at the national and international levels, of the fight against doping in sport, States Parties commit themselves to the principles of the Code as the basis for the measures provided for in Article 5 of this Convention.

We are not aware of a Government that would prefer (or submit... or authorize?) to arbitrate international disciplinary situations involving its own Agencies, by a trio of private attorneys in a system that provides no appeal of those decisions. Nor would it, while assuring its support of the Code, be averse to stating that they would continue to 'commit themselves to [its] principles' without agreeing to submit their Agency to private international arbitration. Offered hypothetically, a commentary from WADA's Legal Office (the 'Code development Division' or Committee):

“Oops, we didn't think of that... hmmm”

There are (at least) two strong arbitral bodies dealing with State v State issues that come to mind: the WTO Trade Dispute system, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. We do not suggest that 'UCI v AFLD' would be a State v State question of International Law, but it certainly possesses a different weight than do the more common (sadly) disputes centered on Athletes' AAFs, their IFs, and the ADOs that inculpate them through doping controls.


Thus WADAwatch suggests that a void exists between the UNESCO ICDS and the WADA Code, lacking definite language framing a prosecution for discipline or an 'enforcement' action against any entity other than individual Athletes (or Teams, or Support staff). Perhaps this creates further grounds to assert that the implementation of the WADA Code serves only a portion of its true needs. The word 'lacunae' rears its head again; an unavoidable word when dealing with WADA's controlling documents. Rules that don't exist in writing cannot be 'objectively clear' and 'predictable', as the Quigley Rule suggested fifteen years ago.


If WADA perceives a case either way, investigating UCI or the AFLD, the applicable WADA Code Articles are:

• 20.3 Roles and Responsibilities of International Federations;

• 20.5 Roles and Responsibilities of National Anti–Doping Organizations;

• 20.7 Roles and Responsibilities of WADA.

Article 20.5.2, under which AFLD holds its status in the WADA family, states inter alia:

[.....]

To cooperate with other national organizations and agencies and [sic] other Anti–Doping Organizations.

SIDEBAR: Were Dick Pound still reigning at (or holding the wagon reins of) WADA today, he would inevitably (we presume) be telling someone that 'there's no violation in the Code, so your insinuations are baseless' (paraphrasing his scathing response to ASOIF and the IOC Athletes Commission letter in 2005, regarding their legitimate concerns over use of Lance Armstrong's B Samples as research, then attributed against the person for disciplinary measures), and he could be right. But that would be a shallow response to a deep question, and an international situation, for which WADA was granted and ordained to be the institution that foresaw, promulgated and implemented a valid Code, in detail, that responded to such concerns.

Remember, doping was a propaganda war only a generation ago: there's no reason not to prepare for the day when a State's ADO allegedly shows bias through activities undertaken in the name of the 'fight against doping' that project towards foreigners.

Cautiously, would we counsel WADA to find the means to implement Signatory Discipline, in line with the underway plan for Laboratory Discipline.


Unfortunately, at the present, we repeat that uncertainty exists, as to how or through which disciplinary mechanism WADA could investigate either the UCI or AFLD, or both. Perhaps Dick Pound never envisaged this, as he pushed for WADA to become a powerhouse enterprise, with mock concern for a just system; perhaps he thought it was something one should (or could) handle diplomatically; far from evidentiary hearings, transcripts and 'the world'.


The Honourable John Fahey seems to prefer 'Black and White' clarity; we hope his influence remains objective, in the face of these French renegades. This author personally requested a reply to a similar question at the February 2008 WADA Press Seminar, so the Agency is on notice that the issue hasn't gone away.


Without clarity as to which Code Article either Organization would/could be judged 'non–compliant' due to 'irregular Signatory behaviour', how is such a decision to be taken? If a WADA 'committee' found one of these two parties 'guilty as charged', how would that decision result in an appeal to CAS? It is easier to foresee UCI being obligated to render itself to CAS if it chose to appeal some 'decision' by some 'body' within WADA. As to AFLD, one presumes that the AFLD would not submit itself to such private arbitration.


In the case of the French AFLD, and its 'très supportif' Ministry of Health, Sport and Youth, these entities that advised investigator Vrijman (in l'Affaire Armstrong, 2005-6) not to expect further administrative cooperation, as he was an 'opposing party' (when no litigation was en route; that deflection of responsibilities under judicial cover appeared to be falsely–based, a self–serving premise) to whom the only recourse would be under proper French judicial authority. Is this a case of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'? WADAwatch sees the signs of discordance, and merely wonders if others are waiting to see how this legal 'dance' plays out.


The AFLD stated, in response to the UCI announcement of earlier this month, that it was not interested in further collaborations with the UCI. The UCI had proclaimed two weeks earlier, that it would explore performance of Tour de France testing through another party than AFLD. These announcements presage CW II: a re–opening of the 'War' between France's government Agency and Ministry, against the UCI, as we wrote in Parts One and Two of this series. Will the UCI commission Swiss, Belgian or Canadian lab(s) to undertake TdF 2010 laboratory analyses?


Or might the UCI 'lose' its re–integrated role as IF–in–charge of the Tour de France? Remember, this event went 'renegade' in 2008 for the first time in modern times, the first time since UCI was the Federation charged with the sporting regulation of the race. It could happen again, whether or not the UCI is found to have performed as insinuated by Bordry in his Report.


In 2008, French entities unilaterally withdrew the TdF away from UCI supervision. Was the temporary reconciliation for the 2009 TdF only a vehicle that served to offer Plucky Pierre sufficient time to 'accumulate stronger evidence'? We know what 'evidence' means, at least as to France's conception of the Beauty of Science. Has AFLD offered its 'Report' to the press as a fait accompli, prior to an official submission to a co–Signatory and the parent Organization WADA, simply to justify unilateral action (whether or not WADA acts, this could happen!). How will WADA react, knowing that it should have had full access to an official Report, prior to reading about this in the press?


Laboratories are (it is now evidently clear) not the only 'entities' for which WADA CODE document–development Committee(s) have omitted definitive administrative rules – clear, precise, predictable and thus Quigley–compliant – under which a Sporting world can cooperate, to produce the work in the field for which they are engaged. WADA finally is verging on implementation of Laboratory disciplinary process regulations, in the Tenth Anniversary year of WADA's inauguration. Soon it will be six years since the first version of the Code was written (implemented 1 January 2004); yet it is doubtful that, by the opening of the Winter Olympics at Vancouver, a complete legal family of WADA–derived disciplinary systems will be in place: one could hope such were finalized before London 2012?


Another objective question:

Is Pierre Bordry the only person capable of
directing the AFLD?

One wonders who supports his egregious actions in the French hierarchy that supervises him? Between Pierre Bordry, Ministre Rosalyne Bachelot, Rama Yade (Secretary of State for Sport), Jean–François Lamour (ex–VP of WADA) and Dr Olivier Rabin (the Science Director for WADA), one has to imagine to what length, and end, their telephone lines were burning up this month.


NB: even if he is correct in substance, Bordry seems very culpable for undertaking the procedure he chose, via Le Monde, against the UCI.


France, whose two (of four) ProTour cycling teams were denied UCI license renewals two or three weeks ago, may be bringing out its big guns in retaliation. Police actions in July, of which not one word had been announced in timely, official 'police' fashion (WADAwatch remembers the swift 'justice' offered in prior hotel dustbin investigations from Tours in 1998 through today), are only now confirmed, precisely after two French teams: Cofidis and BBox Bouygues, found themselves relegated to national–level status. The AFLD Report, itself, in development since at least the end of this year's Tour, surfaced within days of that UCI announcement. When might the world have known of this Report, had the UCI not announced a reshuffling of ProTour licenses this month?


The timing: suspicious; the manner of publicizing it: illegitimate?


The hard work accomplished in late 2008, that brought reconciliation between WADA, UCI, ASO: is that all for naught? Is Bordry's report a defiant act against all the world, or with full support from his superiors (reminding readers again, of the French government decree that put a Ministry 'overseer' into the AFLD, earlier this year)?


Last reminder: when John Fahey was nominated, the 'loser' in that affair was French national Jean-François Lamour, who'd been Vice President of WADA under Dick Pound. He exited the scene, with some hasty words that said, in effect: “WADA is obviously going in the wrong direction; we may have to create another 'WADA' for the European region.” One can only ponder whether, via the Tour de France, some portion of that conceived disruption has any substantive basis?


Hopefully this isn't another 'oh Jesus!' moment for the Honourable John Fahey...?


Consequences for UCI, if found 'complacent'? One might think the UCI has suffered enough from the AFLD and its laboratoire.

Consequences for AFLD, if found 'defamatory' towards a fellow WADA Signatory? When might their Signatory cup runneth over?

Will WADA undertake the publicly transparent, necessary course of action, in the hopes that one of these two 'in the headlines' Signatories will...

Comply?

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

copyright 2009 Ww