CAS ICAS elects new president: G'day Mate!

Welcome back to WADAwatch... just one voice discussing the international regulatory agencies whose livelihoods derive from the valiant and strident efforts to reduce and / or eliminate the scurge of doping in Sport.


Our hiatus served to refresh the enthusiasm that has always been a bedrock of the WADAwatch credo. As readers can imagine (those whose memories exceed the average American's short span), the hiatus also has spanned this summer of 2010, which began with Floyd Landis' assortment of confessions, and comes towards winter with Jeff Novitzky entertaining zealous prosecutors from at least Italy, Belgium and France at Interpol HQ in Lyon, France.


Yet our opening 'Fall 2010' blog-post is to reflect on the new changes at CAS/ICAS, which announced last week the election of a new president: John Coates AC of Australia. WADAwatch hesitates to point out the obvious... yet it must be so. Did anyone know that Mr Coates was opposed by Dick Pound, former president of WADA, who ran his second campaign much farther below the radar-screen than his first attempt?
(photo credit 'sort of' to 'Moderately Left', an Australian political blog)


WADA is currently headed by an Australian: the Honourable John Fahey, a former Australian government minister. Now ICAS (the International Council of Arbitration for Sport) has elected its very own Australian to lead the Council that oversees CAS' operations.


Some WADAwatch followers remember our vehement outcry against the candidature of Dick Pound for that very post as ICAS President, when he first ran, loudly and boisterously, and lost: Mario Auletta became the new CAS President in April 2008:


Pound LOSES CAS presidency


Our fear of a Pound presidency was based on his public statements regarding CAS getting 'lost' in a sea of arbitration panels, as well as his rumoured involvement in the events (nebulous, ambiguous) surrounding the 2005 Lance Armstrong 'EPO case' promoted via the French newspaper L'Equipe. Auletta's election, and statuatory changes that were effected under his leadership (the 'conflict of interests' were eliminated: see "WADA" rule from CAS & ICAS...) have helped assure the Athletes whose cases come to this august body would, henceforth, suffer less from the 'revolving door' of Advocates who wore two hats, as Arbitrators or Advocates for either Athletes and International Federations.


Now who is John Coates?


The Olympic Movement, which states so often and so publicly how much it wants Sportsmen and Sportswomen to be 'healthy and pure', seems to have an incestuous (strong word?) reliance on internalizing campaigns to its prominent roles... First there was Dick Pound, who valiantly defended Ben Johnson before spearheading the investigation regarding the Salt Lake City Olympics bidding process. Pound then became the 'White Knight' who headed the movement that became the World Anti-Doping Agency.


And where was John Dowling Coates, while Pound was investigating Salt Lake's bidding shenanigans? According to the Wikipedia, Coates "played a key role in bringing the 2000 Olympics to Australia and in its delivery". Yet this story overlaps with Dick Pound's investigation of the Salt Lake City bid scandal, and wiki tells us that:

In January 1999 John Coates released documents revealing that he, and other officials, had been involved in extensive vote buying in 1993 to secure the Olympic Games for Sydney. He admitted that the night before Sydney won the 2000 Games, he offered more than $A50,000 each to the national Olympic committees of Kenya and Uganda and provided their delegates with expensive hotel accommodation in London and other gifts. Coates also organised a place for the daughter of the Swaziland IOC delegate at a Sydney tertiary education facility. African IOC delegates were also promised that sports training would be provided for African athletes at the Australian Institute for Sport in Canberra, if Sydney won.

Now humanity is known for errors, retributions and forgiveness (unless you're an Athlete who doped), and WADAwatch is not judging Mr Coates for admitting to zealousness in a system (then) which rewarded such behaviours.


We are, at WADAwatch, simply back to observe what happens to Athletes around the globe, who are bound to a system which affords ZERO tolerance, generally. And we are still (as an independent writer) bound to recall the immortal words expressed in the Quigley case:

The fight against doping is arduous, and it may require strict rules. But the rule-makers and the rule-appliers must begin by being strict with themselves. Regulations that may affect the careers of dedicated athletes must be predictable. They must emanate from duly authorized bodies. They must be adopted in constitutionally proper ways. They should not be the product of an obscure process of accretion. Athletes and officials should not be confronted with a thicket of mutually qualifying or even contradictory rules that can be understood only on the basis of the de facto practice over the course of many years of a small group of insiders.

(CAS 94/129, USA Shooting & Q./International Shooting Union (UIT), award of 23 May 1995, CAS Digest I, pp.197-198)

John Dowling Coates takes the reins of power at ICAS in January 2011. He is stepping up from Vice President to assure fairness and tranquillity in the halls of arbitration of Sport. He vanquished Dick Pound, from an undisclosed number of votes.


He will be able to continue policies that were promulgated under Mino Auletta, and perhaps one of his first tasks will be to voice an opinion on Jeff Novitzky's FDA investigation of Lance Armstrong. Much to unravel, as facts replace hyperbole and judicial opinions outweigh the Court of Public Opinion.


"Welcome aboard, Admiral Coates"... good luck .

.........@............WADAwatch
copyright 2010 Ww

Where have all the WADAwatchers gone?

Hello WADAwatchers...

We missed you also!


In the high country of Colorado, as the spring suns melt the winter snowpack, it recently dawned on our Editorial Panel (of one) that very little 'insidious' information is coming out of the world regime for anti-doping in sport...


Has 'WADAworld' gone over the top, into a high and lofty plateau founded on good judgement, rightful pursuit of a balanced system, and (perhaps?) even Laboratory Disciplinary Rules (which we first found mentioned, and wrote about in our post...


Wednesday, 12 August 2009

WADA true story in Black and White...

Wherein we wrote:

Director General Howman offered this comment to the ExCom on that item:

... in relation to the disciplinary committee for laboratories mentioned at the September meeting. There had been a request for WADA to prepare the rules for such a body. The management had done that, and a paper had been tabled, detailing the process to be followed in relation to this specific committee. It was working pursuant to the ISL, and was not a matter requiring formal Executive Committee approval [.....] This was to deal with situations whereby accredited laboratories were not performing properly and were therefore subject to potential or partial suspension and, rather than leave this responsibility to the Laboratory Committee, which comprised experts, he felt that there should be a proper process. Secondly, he had wanted make sure that everything was established in a proper legal fashion.

Yet WADAwatch returns to this issue, especially to the concept that the institution of a 'laboratory disciplinary committee' (by whatever name) "was not a matter requiring formal Executive Committee approval" (!!??).


WADAwatch apologizes for a somewhat lax approach to keeping our faithful band of readers informed throughout these last few months, as life's necessities got in the way of constant updates and data-mining... We hope to make up the slack in this 'off-season' in the Rockies!


Such as missing the publications of the May and September, 2009, 'Minutes of the Executive Committee' (May's report is here, and that of September)!

Quel horreur!

Interesting facts are gleaned out of these two pre-Cataclysm reports ('cataclysm' being the rift induced by a seemingly-demented attempt by the French Agency AFLD's Director to stain the reputation of the most prolific anti-doping IF (UCI), in last October's reports regarding 'accusations' by the AFLD, and the countering Report by the UCI, which we summarized in gentle video fashion (and shows up better on YouTube) at this post).


As to the two 2009 ExCom Reports, let's highlight some fascinating factoids, and assure you of follow-up coverage,


... after a word from our sponsor!

Have you already purchased
your souvenir WADAwatch schwag
from the WADAwatch 'stores' at Cafe Press?

An interesting array of products have been designed to show your support for the only (we think) English-language blog that is concerned with the international regulatory aspects of the anti-doping problem.


How about a beautiful beer Stein?

Which holds, we must remind you, other libations than Beer! Note that the logo-caption ("100pc Pure") is also available across a range of products in Black; such as the T-Shirt, long-sleeve, that you can order here, or the Black, hooded long-sleeve sweatshirt, pictured below (click on photos to display page (use 'in a new tab' for best results!).




Thank you for shopping at WADAwatch! We now resume to a brief analysis of the two 2009 WADA ExCom Reports, whose links are posted above.


Good news, for cities that want to sponsor future Olympics; the May report showed that, to date, 112 UNESCO States had ratified the International Convention against Doping in Sport (link in our right column, and here), and by September that number had risen to 124 (D-G. David Howman expressed that that number represented "nearly 90pc" of the world's population).


As we had pointed out in our previous look at the ExCom report of 2008, it was a concern of the organization that Russia posed considerable problems, in that Testing teams or DCOs had faced 'many incidents', which were not elaborated but one could 'surmise' involved the ADOs or DCOs being 'inhibited' when approaching certain National Federations' Athletes... Can WADA find a means to support the non-violent (we offer a hypothetical) collection of Russian Athletes' Samples?


IT may come as no surprise to many readers, but we missed the implementation of the 'so-called' laboratory disciplinary rules', which is discussed in this Report under heading 6.3 "Report on Disciplinary Procedure for Laboratories" (which do not seem to appear as a searchable item at the WADA-AMA site). To the point, two labs have already been found 'non-conforming' (our Ww term) and suspended: they are Malaysia and Turkey; both labs were hoped to be back and eligible for reinstatement 'at the end of the (unknown?) suspension period' (see p. 17/30 of this document).


Chers amis d'AMA, dear friends at WADA; cannot these Rules or Procedures be transparently available through your website?


Cannot the procedures, evidence and hearings against such labs be transparent? Are Athletes' cases affected by the suspension of laboratories? We *Do Not Know*...


It was also noted, in this May 2009 report, that Compliance was again deferred, to a first official reporting in 2011. Coupled with that, was an outline of new CODE reforms to be undertaken in 2012, with a next World Conference to be held in 2013, and that that reformed CODE would be in force in 2015. Nevertheless, an official of WADA did report on the 2003 CODE implementation (by noting that ExCom members could consider this Report as 'complete', amongst the discussion points), and offered an interim assessment of the 2009 CODE.


So the four-year period that existed from inception of the original CODE in 2003, to its revision in 2007 (the Madrid Conference), and implementation in 2009, seems to have been drawn out to a six-year interval, with a shorter period for review and comments. Heads up! To all you IFs, and NADOs, who are interested by the subject of international anti-doping reform and revision...


On a positive (Ww hopes) note, two new labs were in a 'probationary phase', from Kazakhstan and Romania. If these facilities gained membership, it would boost the number of existing facilities from 34 to 36 (Ww presumes the suspended labs in Turkey and Malaysia are still counted as 'lab facilities' for this count).


Turning to the September ExCom Report, we find some interesting news:

• WADA was seeking to liaise with Interpol, which requires national legislation on the trafficking and distribution of doping substances (for which a survey of national legislations is a prerequisite);
  

• A 'Thought Leadership' seminar in Oslo, in June was a success, according to D-G Howman, as two aspects came out of their discussions: compliance and monitoring of practice and rules implementation, as well as pursuing the goal of 'quality rather than quantity'. (WADAwatch will return to this important announcement in a future post);

• It was announced, for purposes of Blood Passport and laboratory analysis, that Samples had to get to a lab for analysis "within 36 hours, and ... that such measures were impossible in some parts of the world". This meant that some analyses may have to be performed at facilities NOT accredited by WADA (thus not of the 34);

• Bribery in Austria was an issue! An Athlete's Agent was allegedly involved in an attempt, and apparently succeeded in accessing Samples in a lab facility, although this was not elaborated;
  

• Dr Alan Garnier of France, a man whose implications in the WADA/Equipe/Lance Armstrong 'affaire' were never fully vetted, or disproved, and whose obvious loyalties to comrades and compatriots within the French Lab and AFLD Agency were much more than 'circumstantial', was 'no longer WADA's Medical Director'.
  

Sacré bleu, one thinks: after the human errors of Pierre Bordry at the AFLD, creating an embarrassment for La France and the Sarkozy government, after the human tragedy of the loss of Prof. Jacques de Ceaurriz, whose professional life ended at age 60 from a heart 'incident', and the loss of Jean-Pierre Lamour to the Honourable John Fahey as WADA's president in 2007, we now consider the 'changing of the Guard' at the helm of WADA's Medical division?


He's replaced by Alan Vernec, who was the 'official doctor for the Canadian track team in Sydney', and as WADA puts it:

Dr Vernec joined WADA in October 2009, as the Agency’s Medical Director. A graduate of the University of California, San Diego (Bioengineering) and McGill University, Montreal (Medicine), Dr Vernec has worked extensively in clinical sport medicine and has taught at both l’Université de Montréal and McGill University in Montreal (Canada). Having extensive experience with elite-level sport, he has worked as team physician for several professional and national sport teams, at many international competitions, as well as served as physician for Team Canada at three Olympic Games. For the past 16 years, Dr Vernec has also served as Director of Athletics Canada.

Thus we end this 'Welcome Back' WADAwatch posting, with a hope that the world continues to ascribe to the Fundamental Rationale that WADA portrays in its 2009 CODE... and that Dr Vernec appreciates the quality now sought over quantity, as discussed in Oslo last June 2009.


Additionally, we hope to create more frequent posts, now that we are not shepherding li'l skiers into a better, snow-loving future, as a ski Instructor for one of Colorado's most prestigious Ski Schools.


Remember! There's No Schwag like WADAwatch Schwag! Buy yours today!

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

copyright 2010 Ww

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

VANCOUVER: "Dopening Ceremonies"...

A new Angel from Georgia

No one can smile on this Opening Olympic day that began, early and cloudy, with the violent death of a bright Georgian star, Nodar Kumaritashvili:

CREDIT: Peter Parks, Getty Images

Words cannot express the family's, the colleagues', the World of Sport's sadness: he shouldn't have gone that way. Yet a dangerous sport (when things go wrong) is compounded by the indecisiveness of a (our regulatory opinion) track or Federation management that does not understand physics, dynamic G forces, and geometry.


But for a couple thousand CAD of reinforced nylon barrier tarpaulins, designed to absorb and redirect the free-falling body back into the hard icy cocoon that consittutes his track 'universe', this young man would be alive, bruised and discussing his next run.


Announcements of a investigation can not ignore that exposure (similarly when Swiss skier Silvano Beltrametti hit the mid-finish line (later banned) vertical pylon several years ago, he was paralyzed for life...) to a non-secure, impressive steel structure (surely it will be protected tomorrow: isn't that the way?)... and although no express rules discuss the utility of a safety harness (would the weight of his sled kept him away from Death's Out-Post?), the organizers are going to have to satisfy the second paragraph of the FIL-Luge Rules, Article 3.5:

3.5 Safety regulations

The track layout and components such as curves, walls, bridges, tunnels, transportation set-ups, etc. as well as all facilitities originally belonging to the track must be provided in such a way, that they meet the internationally recognized safety standards.

If the safety regulations on a track are neglected so that the participants in FIL competitions are exposed to a typical danger to their health, the track may only be released by the technical delegate for further use if these deficiencies are removed.

If the steps taken are not sufficient in order to guarantee that the internationally recognized safety standards are followed during a competition, the jury, in accordance with the technical delegates is empowered to shorten the track.

As of midnight, indications are that the luge competition will go on tomorrow. This seems distressing, even to a casual admirer of the sport: what about the other lugers? What about their families? Addressing that situation will transpire away from WADAwatch: we turn to the news of the opening day.


CBS News tells us that "Thirty Athletes Out of Olympics for Doping". The article expresses an interesting thought:

[WADA President John] Fahey confirmed Thursday that more than 30 athletes had been excluded for breaking anti-doping rules over recent months and that the cases include a mixture of positive samples and failure to comply with testing protocols. He refused to give details of the athletes, sports or nationalities but noted that more than 70 athletes were prevented from competing at the Beijing Olympics for violating anti-doping rules in the similar period leading into the 2008 Summer Games.

Now don't take this personally, President Fahey, but obviously there are no cyclists in this group. If any one of those thirty were cyclists, some paper in Europe (whose name escapes us at the moment) surely would have allowed for heady headlines, juicy exposures of suspicions, hunches and insinnuendo.


Noted were the comment made by Fahey, that more than 70 in Beijing had been 'tagged' and withheld from competitions prior to the 2008 Summer Games. Russian athletes "will be under tight scrutiny" after six had been suspended in the last 12 months or so.


Another unique factor: Scott Burns, former Bush Administration Deputy White House 'drug czar' will be leading an international observer commission, that will "for the first time, have the ability to meet on a daily basis with the IOC to report any concerns about the testing process."


Scott, there's still time to bring in an independent expert! Someone that knows the WADA Code nearly as good as its original drafter (maybe better). Just call... WADAwatch is available. We promise not to show up in either of our WADAwatch hooded sweatshirt(s), available in Black or White!


After all, how complicated can a simple urinalysis be?


Is there more to a urinalysis that meets the eye (of any trained bureaucrat)...? Just ask the good Doctor's office in Avon Colorado!


Sometimes the best wayy to experience what these Athletes are going through is to experience yourself the necessity, embarrassment (how crass can one be in joking with the nurse about photographic evidence (pre-sealing of the containers)?), and 'faldoral' of the whole process?


Imagine being a known cyclist; who may be tested once per week or more? Yes, they must. Yes, they should. Yes, they agree. But if it is a different person every time... does it not get old?


But Hey! We're watching Vancouver, with you,

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

one hundred percent pure
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

WADAwatch corrections for December

Friends and readers,

In haste to publish, and in receipt of well - intentioned if inaccurate information, WADAwatch published two posts this week that have undergone revisions.

In yesterday's post, my laptop suffered from ghostly highlighting-shifting-text syndrome, and it wasn't noticed until a late-night 'proud of myself' review session.

Friday, 18 December 2009

WADAwatch: the transition begins...

In Wednesday's post, biographic data for Mr Blackledge was forwarded and thus updated, and we thank Robert for providing that so that our readers know of his serious and competent expertise that applies to the ever-pressing question of topics relating to "WADA Laboratory" issues.

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

WADA concept: good Sciencemanship

From the banks of lac Léman, a cold and snow-blown Saturday, this update is provided for our serious, professionally-oriented following who have WADAwatch posts delivered via email: The appreciation for the quality of this blog's audience demands, sometimes, that they be informed of such corrections.

In addition: WADAwatch is on the move! Our 'new World Headquarters' is previewed, for mid-January, to either Vail Colorado, Breckenridge or an 'undisclosed location'! This move, on the one hand unanticipated, and on the other hand deeply motivated, will not lessen our grasp of the essential qualifying issue:


WADA must live up to the demands of the Quigley Rule: there is no other option under which it can perform to the satisfaction of its Signatories, supporting Governments, and the Athletes whose careers depend on its maintenance of high standards of medical, analytical, legal and publicity-oriented ethics: after all... if WADA cannot do what it promised to, it is replaceable.


What are WADA's 'New Year's Resolutions'???

From your grateful hosts

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

one hundred percent pure

copyright 2009 Ww

WADA concept: good Sciencemanship

Sportsmanship... a well–respected and rewarded characteristic since oases were shared, and WADA communicates 'playing fair' in its Fundamental Rationale; but where is its good sciencemanship? Remember Christopher Campbell's Dissent to the Landis AAA hearing Award?

“Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. . . So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches ...” (Luke 16:10)

[CORRECTIONS v.2: Below, the original text implied that the link into the COFRAC audit of the AFLD département des analyses, would show the 2006 audit (as it once did) document. The link is LIVE, but the report you'll find is from this year: 2009. Based on a nice email, I have updated my brief 'bio' on Mr Blackledge; my apologies for haste and creating confusion]

[CORRECTIONS v.2.009: Due to one very diligent reader, and long-time science guru for the Landis case, I've been reminded to not use the argument that Landis was 'convicted' based on the 'one of 32 metabolites' argument. Ww stands corrected; proper protocol for ISL analyses under 2006 WADA/UCI/AFLD Rules, called for the T/E test *alone*; only if it was positive (Floyd's was 11.4, apparently after an initial 'finding' of 4.7) would follow-up IRMS studies be undertaken. Thus Floyd's conviction was on the one of eight T/E tests: the seven A Samples that were 'negative' normally would never see a lab-rat's face again... unless the AAA Panelists accepted the use of those seven B Samples as 'further evidence'; and that led to mystery 'non-AAF positives.

So the resulting 'bad arguments now port this color... Ww]

Larry Bowers of the United States Anti–Doping Agency blasted a scientific article concerning the Floyd Landis case evidence, in the journal Clina Chima Acta (“CCA”). Ww received the two articles thanks to a diligent correspondent. We offer a limited analysis of this scientific brouhaha, while dancing around the science itself. He has the weight of two USADA/WADA/AAA/CAS anti–Landis decisions behind him; but does that equate with justice?

Bowers responded to Robert Blackledge's Bad Science: The instrumental data in the Floyd Landis case, with his own Advocacy versus impartial scientific review: A problem for science and the courts, both of which appeared on the CCA website last May. Blackledge holds a MS and was Senior Chemist at the real–world NCIS Regional laboratory in San Diego; Dr Bowers works for USADA. Ww certainly cannot analyze their scientific assessments; yet there are other issues in play. That someone from USADA argues for impartiality in the manner Bowers wrote, is astonishing. That they do so regarding the Landis case is more startling, since Landis was 'doomed' only hours after his A Sample result was first released by the UCI. Within hours, WADA president Dick Pound nailed the coffin, showing the world his idea of impartiality:

“with the levels of Testosterone they found in him, I'm surprised there are any virgins within 100 miles...
(paraphrased: WADA is not USADA, that's true... but they are 'the system')

Implications from Bowers and Blackledge's titles ferment fond memories. Bowers implies to a scientific audience that the 'other guys' distorted the disciplinary process and infers that USADA and its attorney(s) fought clean. He doesn't maintain the high road in this article, however. Ww addresses several of Bowers' complaints, ignores his disrespect of Blackledge, and may surprise our readers with a conclusion offering an optimistic twist. That comes from a very recently decided CAS arbitration case, the format of which substantially alters the situation that created the Blackledge–Bowers blow–up.

Preliminary comment: Ww thinks of Floyd's case as an analogy to 'climate change'... Meaning that a majority of the world's scientists within one area of expertise, have looked at the amassed evidence and see travesties of justice, yet there's one minority group arguing vehemently against the tide: in anti–doping, that group is Team Omerta, the 'our mission is busting athletes' association.

Bowers' impartiality fails outside of the science. No reminding his audience that Floyd's interminable case nearly went to Federal Court for a claim of US Arbitration Act violations, pertinent to Bowers' attempt to boost the 'honour' of the Arbitrators. Landis argued blatant conflicts of interest deprived him of a fair hearing, with very persuasive arguments: his legal brief gave a true lesson in the US Arbitration Act and the effect from the 'revolving door' of CAS Arbitrators. Bowers also argues against the only rational explanation for the duration and expense of the case: the Science was not... Beautiful. Bowers caches ambiguity problems in the WADC, and how his Agency should have (under WADC Art. 7.1 & 7.2) informed WADA regarding multiple severe departures in the LNDD dossier. Those sub–Articles ostensibly protect the rights of someone in Landis' position against bad science. Bowers doesn't discuss that which is (affectionately) called the WADA Omerta: the ban on WADA labs' staff from testifying on behalf of Athletes, against other WADA labs competence. But the science? That should be impartial, n'est–ce pas?

An early complaint from Bowers slams Blackledge for relying on “only the opinions of Landis' experts, ...” which Bowers perceived from Blackledge's acknowledgement section. Bowers ignores Blackledge's statement early in his article, which qualified much of the AAA hearing 'evidence' as inadmissible hearsay; Blackledge clearly relied on evidence from the actual hearings, that was sustainable: “instrumental data and instrument conditions supported by actual LNDD printouts”. Bowers then cherry–picked a ripe quotation from the Landis CAS Panel decision, revealing the basis for his article: partisan expertise. The CAS Panel quote is para. 261, followed by Bowers' comment (the Respondent being USADA, financed by WADA; Landis is the Appellant):

261. The Panel also finds much force in Respondent's contention that “Appellant's experts crossed the line, acting for the most part like advocates for Appellant's cause and not as scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for the truth.”

For those who are not experienced in providing expert testimony, this is as stern a rebuke from the bench as one is likely to encounter. The 3 jurists who heard Landis' appeal of his initial American Arbitration Association (AAA) conviction to CAS are extremely well respected international arbitrators who also hear cases outside of sport.1 (Bowers, p.1)

Bowers omits that USADA enjoyed the benefits from the aforementioned 'appearances' of conflict of interest (aka 'COI'), which emanated from those four 'well respected international arbitrators' whom he so admires (the CAS Panel Three, and their friend and colleague, USADA–hired gun Richard Young). Blackledge and his sources happened to be from outside WADA–world: have we read any defense of the WADA–USADA victory that was not from within WADA–world? Bowers certainly does not show how USADA 'expert witnesses' were any less partisan for their own cause; well, he did (once), about Brenna's purchase of two columns to test prior to the CAS hearing. Nor does he mention or justify the Omerta.

Mini–SIDEBAR: Explain Conflicts of Interest? Someone walks into divorce court, and finds his soon–to–be–ex–wife's attorney is the Judge's niece (and husband will be paying her fees after the Decision is announced): should the Judge a) hear this case, b) award his niece's request for a higher than reasonably anticipated fee? Or 'recuse' himself because it's a blatant COI? The husband's attorney should have caught that COI and requested the Judge's recusal (withdrawal in the interests of Justice) long before the hearing date...

Bowers swerves around the fact that lead USADA attorney Richard Young also crossed the line (is love blind?), although his friends on the CAS Panel didn't rebuke him severely, for improper presentation of the legal issues (lightly rebuked with nearly the first question), improper admission of evidence in his closing statement (Issue of 'costs' never argued, until Young slipped it in his post–hearing brief; yet the Panel awarded $100K against Landis; in apparent violation of CAS rules on costs), improper testimony by Young, whose quote, concerning non–chronological entries in LNDD evidence regarding mandated chronological forms (“I certainly wouldn't jump from that to the conclusion that the last entry was a fraud.“), framed the basis for that section of the CAS Award.

Bowers writes: 'this is as stern a rebuke...', yet Ww likes to recall the admonishment by Christopher Campbell, against LNDD in the opening paragraph of his Dissent: “From the beginning, the ... (LNDD) has not been trustworthy.” Different spokes for different folks: 'Being an advocate' or 'not trustworthy': which label would readers prefer? When endorsing impartiality one should refrain from arguing via the opposite.

Another extract from Bowers:

It should be pointed out that GC-C-IRMS was within the scope of LNDD's ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation and that an external GC/C/IRMS expert had assessed their procedure only months before the Landis sample was analyzed. According to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, accreditation is “a formal recognition that an organization is competent to perform certain specified tasks.” [6] The LNDD staff has also published GC-C-IRMS articles in the peer-reviewed literature [7–10]. (p.2)

Bowers extends a common presumption without basis in fact. Accreditation doesn't guarantee flaw–free work efforts: that's what case documentation reveals. Accreditations serve to confirm that a lab is capable of properly implemented work, if performed as the auditor witnessed and approved. What about the COFRAC French agency's audit, anyway? They made an error (the famous EC-31 method“20pc or 0.8mil”) in May, took seven months to determine the error existed, and issued a retroactive revision (which neatly solved an ugly problem) on 1 December 2006. Was its review of LNDD scientific procedures actually thorough, competent, and well–documented? The record shows that the COFRAC audit report on which Bowers leans, shows rarely more than minimalist, pro–forma confirmations: maybe Bowers never read it? C'est la vie... See the WADAwatch post Post script on Landis: LNDD off the map? (link in text to the actual COFRAC document; confirmed today). Another point could be slimmer: might events at LNDD, between the audit and the Tour–testing period, affected their analyses (the 'Mickey ears' situation? Do COFRAC audits authorize recommencing a run twenty times or manual peak integrations?)? Slimmer still: who audits the auditors?

Another impartial Bowers statement:

Mr. Blackledge demonstrates his lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts of quality control by asking why... 'its OK to screw up 1 of 4 measured values for a blank sample…' when 1 positive result in an athlete's sample is a doping violation. (p. 2)

Bowers does not confide that he took that phrase, tortured its context and modified it. Let's first read the entire Blackledge sentence:

In essence LNDD is saying that for quality control purposes it's okay to screw up on 1 of the 4 measured values for a blank sample, but if one of 4 values on an athlete's sample is outside range then he is guilty!

Bowers prefers to adapt Blackledge's quote to the argument Bowers wants to advance. That action avoids and confirms the odor emanating from the true issue Blackledge invoked: all excuses are valid to protect against charges of WADA lab incompetence, and no rational argument protects Athletes being charged with doping from a similar display of alleged 'incompetence'. The AAA Panel advised USADA and LNDD that, given similar “sloppy” circumstances, to beware: 'the next Athlete (victim of LNDD untrustworthiness) might be acquitted...'. Blackledge correctly states that the French LNDD lab is widely recognized for its “... rate of detecting exogenous testosterone that is >300% that of other certified WADA labs and over 6 times that of the UCLA lab.” Bowers seems to think 'oh shucks, never mind'; he ends this paragraph with a statement that brings tears:

So there is no possibility that an analytical error, particularly in the light of the quality control measures undertaken by LNDD, resulted in Mr. Landis' adverse finding.

Maybe there's no possibility that an analytical conspiracy resulted in Landis' AAF. Yet quality control can not account for White-Out errors, errors admitted by COFRAC's audit agent, missing hard drives, etc.

Bowers compounds confusion by extrapolating from the Landis Award a rule unknown to WADA: should he cite a source for his rule in a Journal article (?): “... 1 positive result in an athlete's sample is a doping violation.”, the Tech Doc (TD2004EAAS) contains no such specific reference. He provides no guidance to the controlling Code, ISL, Prohibited List or other Tech Docs' Articles or Definitions. The ISL mentions Metabolites and Metabolite(s) with equal (and deplorable) imprecision. Ww offers this astonishing ISL sub-Article:

5.4.4.1 Selection of Methods

Standard methods are generally not available for Doping Control analyses. The Laboratory shall develop, validate and document methods for the detection of substances present on the Prohibited List and for associated Metabolites or Markers or related substances. Note that for many substances, the associated Metabolites are detected, thereby confirming the metabolism and the administration of a Prohibited Substance. [Ww: emphasis added]

Note the opening phrase: 'generally not available'? Why fund a Laboratory Standardization Division, if the ISL states that 'Standard methods are generally not available.'? Do the popular initials CYA come to mind?

Next a necessary break down of that final phrase: is Testosterone a Prohibited Substance? Yes. Is it one of the 'many substances' for which Metabolites are detectable? Yes. Are its Metabolites the analysis component whose measurements confirm exogenous Testosterone 'guilt' or 'innocence'? Yes.

By any stretch of logic, one in Mr Bowers' position should use the second highlighted sentence above to construct the foundation that, if three of four Metabolites do not confirm the '... metabolism and the administration of a Prohibited Substance', then the appearance of a minority positive (one) Metabolite should not be sufficient to convict. Or would that be... too logical? Remember another factoid: when WADA took over responsibility for establishing Prohibited List and medical limits from the IOC Medical Committee, it deliberately lowered the T/E magic number from six to four. WADA also eliminated the IOC MC's mandatory longitudinal study prior to announcements of any AAF for Testosterone. So much time spent, making it easier to bust Athletes on Testosterone analyses; so little time to establish the number of Metabolites necessary to do so.

While other Articles in the ISL are equally or more ambiguous; some ambiguity is removed in Code Article 2.1.2:

2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample. [Ww: emphasis added]

It is not Mr Bowers' fault (Ww suggests Mr Young?), after years of drafting (pre–2004), and two years of redrafting (Chaired by Young, 2006–2007), that no competent resolution – between WADA and its Signatories – promulgated clear Metabolite analysis regulations. One could suggest, in Articles where the the word 'Metabolites' is consistently used, and not printed as 'Metabolite(s)', that this clausal construction disallows a solitary Metabolite Finding from ruining an Athlete's career. Only if one is a member of the 'small group of (legal) insiders' who benefit from resulting ambiguities, such as Young (as Chair for WADA, and USADA Landis trigger–man), does it make sense to uphold this lacunae. USADA/WADA reputedly expended between $4 to 6 million for the Landis Inquisition(s); what was Young's cut: ten percent? Twenty or more?

SIDEBAR: WADAwatch rectifies ambiguity with this hypothetical Code Article:

“For the purpose of establishing an Adverse Analytical Finding against an Athlete based on laboratory analysis of the Athlete's A Sample (and B Confirmation), when the analysis of Metabolites is requisite to affirming such a result, the minimum number of Metabolites values required to pronounce an AAF shall be [one more than half the total number of] Metabolites which correlate to confirmation of use of that Prohibited Substance or Method.”

NB: Testosterone has four Metabolites; 'one more than half' would be three; this would solve one of WADA's most neglected 'children'. Its vast human resources, including staff, Signatories, Foundations, the IOC (and WADAwatch, etc.), ought to be able to agree on a Standard: 'more than one'... 'two'... 'at least two' (the UCLA and Australian standard), 'three', 'four' or 'all relevant' Metabolites as a harmonized Laboratory Standard. The only possibly justifiable reason not to do so, would be disparate national legislative obligations... yet the UNESCO Anti–doping Convention mandates member State support and harmonization of the Code mandates: so what is holding hostage the WADA no–standards system?

No doubt Bowers is aware of SOP at the UCLA laboratory, which performed 26.36345pc of all 2008 WADA A Sample analyses (2008: 72,394 A Samples); the UCLA lab insists on an at–least–two Metabolite standard (according to Blackledge: Ww thought that was three) for Testosterone 'convictions'. Bowers nonchalantly offers his audience his one–Metabolite rule, but curiously doesn't claim that the UCLA ≥2 Metabolite standard violates WADA rules, so thousands of Athletes are skating (no pun) away. Readers witness his repetitiously unilateral stance, and may even realize exactly why he maintains it.

One last point on the WADA non–standard of Metabolites: 'legal construction'. Under Anglo-American common law, attorneys and judges seek guidance against ambiguities from the 'Canons of Construction' (regarding contract and law interpretations). Those logical rules remind us that laws, written by humans, may need 'interpreting' [Ww: This argument is different to our usual, anti–judicial interpretation stance; it makes a difference when one is victim of the System, whose conscious choices created, funded and benefited from those ambiguous draftings]. When rules are ambiguous, a reputable judge (or conscientious Arbitration Panel) should always construe those ambiguities against the Party or Parties that wrote them; that concept denies advantaging the drafting party. Yet some WADA ambiguities seem deliberate...

Bowers continues:

As yet another example of Mr. Blackledge not getting his facts right, he states than [Ww: sic] Dr. Simon Davis was present for the analysis of Landis' B sample. Had he actually studied the documentation available to him, Mr. Blackledge would have seen that Dr. Douwe de Boer (along with two of Mr. Landis' lawyers and two additional scientific experts) attended the B analysis (LNDD “B” documentation package, pages USADA 250-1). Dr. de Boer noted in his report (page USADA 368) that “The impression of the expert regarding the analytical performance of the B-sample analysis was that the LNDD worked in a transparent and professional way and according to transparent and professional procedures.” (p.4)

Interesting to witness the extent to which 'cherry picking' becomes a habit for anti–doping officials. Bowers seized upon the only phrase above (written by a non–native English speaker) which implies 'good sciencemanship' (to coin our very own anti–doping term–of–art: in honour of Copenhagen).

To interject a cultural hypothesis, European 'adverse legal parties' are rarely as antagonistic as one sees in the post–Clinton US legal system. Bowers is indubitably aware of this. It is not at all unusual to see such a compliment to a Lab's Director and staff for being transparent and professional, as a professional courtesy, prior to (softly) bearing witness to failures to provide certain information, such as documentation and data. Does Bowers correlate those two or three items? No. Sadly Dr De Boer didn't use his two–page 'expert witness statement' to reveal upon whose authority, incompetence or downright nasty withholding, the information sought was missing, destroyed (erased?), hidden in desks, or altered?

In justifying all aspects of LNDD 'science' Bowers dismisses numerous related issues. He glosses over the body of Dr de Boer's brief, two-page evidentiary submission (Bowers extracted one phrase – 'A)' of USADA 368), the body of which was much more negative:

[...] B) The identity of the compound(s) belonging to the peaks has not been established according to the minimal WADA requirements.

Therefore, any official conclusion regarding to the T/E ratio as well as of the concentration of testosterone and epitestosterone is and will be premature. As such any official conclusion in relation to the above mentioned parameters of the respective sample is non–conclusive. (USADA 368) [Ww: emphasis added]

And:

B) During the B-Sample analysis it was not possible to see documentation and data regarding the uncertainty of the GC/C/IRMS analysis, which was reported to be 0.8‰ [per mil]... [or] regarding the historical data of blank urine pool no. 4.

(USADA 369) [Ww: emphasis added]

Bowers assures us that De Boer's concerns were 'addressed in the hearings', but not how, and reminds that Landis didn't call on Dr De Boer as a witness. The record shows that CAS Panelists were comfortably satisfied with the COFRAC retroactive correction, which wiped clean one of De Boer's major issues. What reason(s) for Bowers' mischievous allegation of Mr Blackledge's mistake, regarding Dr Davis (who testified as having been blocked out of certain LNDD procedures, which Bowers fails to reveal)? The truth: a) Davis wasn't in France for the A Sample analyses; b) the evidentiary record contains Davis' personal photos of the 'Mickey ears' magnets on the IsoPrime machine inside LNDD, and; c) Davis was surely one of the two 'additional scientific experts' whom Bowers himself mentioned? So he seems to be very confused, suffering from 'keyboard rage', or deliberately confusing.

Had Bowers' diatribe impartially offered the good, the bad and the ugly, with some conjecture as to the diametrically opposite meanings: 'transparent and professional' versus 'not possible to see ...', '... non–conclusive' or 'premature...', it might have influence. It otherwise seems a farce to discuss whether Davis was there, or give an impression that he wasn't; Bowers spends zero time discussing Davis' Iso–Prime/LNDD procedures testimony; why?

There's a bigger–picture aspect to this story, however.

The anti–doping world 'proved' Landis doped, as Bowers stated, because of one Metabolite being 'positive' on the day Floyd ripped across the Alpes in spectacular fashion towards Morzine (and “I was there...”), overcoming his previous–day bonk on Stage 16 and thereby recapturing eight of the (ten or so) minutes he had lost. The focused rage against Landis (and in support) is due to our differing opinions as to the validity and meaning of an AAF, based on only 1/32nd (or 1/4*8) of his testosterone Metabolites, analysed at the world–infamous LNDD laboratory. A fractional focus on one Metabolite, measured via the Beauty of Science as understood in France.

Long before WADAwatch began, this author derived the Pound Doctrine from statements made the first WADA president. Too few people remember how LNDD's Directeur De Ceaurriz, Pierre Bordry of AFLD, and WADA president Richard Pound (as well as, perhaps, two other French officials at WADA) and L'Equipe newspaper, ensemble, mounted an energetic campaign to force world opinion against Lance Armstrong, via the 2005 'tar–n–feather' investigation of his alleged 1999 EPO abuse. Yet their smear lingers; ask non–cyclists about Lance and doping. Dick Pound shot from the hip (his favourite pastime):

“If he had one [Ww: “Armstrong” and “positive result”], you could say it was an aberration. When you get up to six, there's got to be some explanation.”

Words that ripped around the world, and forged widespread support. Pound may not realize he created the Pound Doctrine ('Doctrines' are usually bestowed on their author after the fact), and Ww interprets: because the 2004–2005 EPO analyses of Lance's residual 1999 B Samples allegedly 'proved' (by unanimity of LNDD results) his guilt, one had to admit it was true, and a 'singular result' could constitute an aberrant deviation: a non–conclusive result casting doubt on its analytical bases. (See Floyd goes Free under the Pound Doctrine). Pound's statement carried demagogic power with a salivating sporting press: as if President Monroe issued another warning to European Powers to refrain from New World incursions.

The Pound Doctrine should be a two–edged sword... yet Landis (the case) proves that this simple corollary was never accepted by Pound, AFLD or USADA, as Blackledge complained above. WADA president Fahey said the Landis case outcome proved “... the system is working” (Fahey, WADA Ex Comm: November, 2008) and that conclusion seems Halloween–esque. However, the mathematics made Landis' 2006 TdF experience a 96.875pc clean (for Testosterone) effort. That is the truest, most impartial fact that Bowers can never deny. The other 31 Testosterone Metabolites from Landis' eight TdF 2006 A Sample analyses were not positive.

Floyd's single Metabolite conviction is really not 'WADA rule–based', as Bowers suggests. Our readers know how clearly this Award remains diametrically opposite the Quigley rule: friends at TrustbutVerify had nailed that issue with a post called Seven Paragraphs. The AAA Award mentions 'LNDD positivity criteria' not a 'WADA rule'. Does this fit with Bowers' idea of 'impartiality' claimed in his title? Concerning Landis, French hysteria was very influential in the outcome: WADA had to spend (announced one week before the CAS hearing) well over a million dollars – a 'financial bail–out' to USADA – to prove this French lab worked clean, and that “the system was working”. WADA also supported (by not prohibiting) the AFLD renegade (third) Landis trial, which remains a clear contradiction to Code Article 15.4 (Mutual Recognition). WADA claimed that French renegade process was permissible, due to its falling under a prior French law (Howman, directly answering a Ww question, 2008). Yet “That dog don't hunt...” (said the American President more than ten years ago).

In WADA–world, however, the Pound Doctrine only serves to indict Athletes, not to exonerate. Blackledge claimed 'bad science'; Bowers claimed 'partisan advocacy chills legal solutions': take your pick. Ww agrees with Bowers' claim: we do not believe he presented a non–partisan case supporting that, and we think his omissions and dismissals prejudice his presentation. Bowers only succeeded in demonstrating that he is far from impartial, in his desire to promote unbiased expert testimony...

You know what you're really thinking: LNDD doesn't keep its
1986 IsoPrime wünder–machina because 'they know how it works':
they keep it because 'they know how to work it'...

Postscript: Ww understood little from the IRMS 'data' seen in LNDD chromatography: the one symmetric UCLA chart that Blackledge offered in his article (p. 9) does more to render objective how 'different' LNDD and UCLA seem to be, in WADA's non-standardized laboratory family.

AFLD ought to stop seeking headlines, and work on perfecting its sciencemanship. Consider this: either all the Labs in the WADA family are not as perfect as LNDD, or... the opposite is true. If LNDD is the best, there's soon going to be a shortage of vintage Cold War (1986) IsoPrime machines; and Ww will write about the new WADA International Standard on Manual Peak Integrations...

SIDEBAR: if Ww had engaged Sherlock Holmes as consultant, he may make the following observations...

“Did you notice the curiosity within the Landis AAA transcript? The cyclist was never asked about Prohibited Methods. Weren't four or five other Phonak cyclists 'busted' for blood packing? What if this whole body of evidence was designed, constructed, to 'bust' Landis for something that he hadn't done (Testosterone), because they 'knew' what he had done, but couldn't prove it (the blood packing)? That would neatly explain the bad science, abnormal values, missing hard-drive, non–chronological data entries, bad chromatography, time gaps, manual integration... and the outcome(s)! The French 'hysteria' over the case... c'était une farce!

In the alternative; wasn't Floyd offered a 'light suspension' if he outed Armstrong?

There, Watson: two different theses that offer an explanation as to the genesis of these lab findings. The anti–doping movement may have felt a moral right to back and invest in such a pissant evidentiary case; even if they were legally wrong to do so. 'The ends justify the means...' Where's my pipe?”

We leave aside the scholarly debate, to remind about two very relevant, positive innovations at CAS, which serve as a potential conclusion. Had they come three years ago, they would have greatly helped the Landis disciplinary processes, perhaps taking the wind out of Bowers' sails.

Ww already wrote about the first CAS innovation their October rule change. CAS Arbitrators must choose to serve forever more only on Arbitration Panels, or act as attorneys before those Panels. They are no longer permitted to operate as both: the former 'revolving door' system has been closed. Systemic conflicts of interest thus are resolved for future litigants (although the professional friendships remain). Think of it as Landis' legacy: to increase Athletes' reasonable expectation of fairness in future anti–doping disciplinary hearings. We could call it the Landis Rule...

Suggestion: could CAS please improve their fax–to–web-PDF file transfers, for Awards it posts on its web site; or will they scan harsh fax photocopies forever?

The second CAS innovation comes from the recently–decided Pechstein case, a German speed skater who was suspended from her Blood passport evidence (Ww is still mulling over the substantive ramifications of this 'test case'). That case instituted a new (to Ww) procedural device that WADAwatch loudly applauds. The Pechstein Panel innovated by receiving the Parties' expert witness testimony en bloc, after accepting the two parties' lists, and 'coordinating' those to be heard in conference format (or a 'Battle Royal').

Being an appeal of Frau Pechstein's initial 'prohibited Method: biological passport evidence of blood doping' suspension, the twelve proposed Experts were formed by the Panel into four groups, addressing different areas of 'expertise': 'haematological issues'; 'Advia 120 machine and other measurement issues'; 'International Skating Union data processing and procedures'; and, the 'factual (non–expert) issues' (to hear the ISU Anti–Doping Administrator solo). The Panel accorded full rights to the attorneys to “... examine and cross–examine” in groups the Panel constructed.

One is left breathless –awestruck– at this streamlining process: the possibility for swift comprehension, shifting away from lawyerly sparring toward compromise and consensual acquiescence. If it was only an ad hoc innovation, CAS should determine its potential for systemic implementation. Judging expert groups as peer groups could be a stimulating revision offering reduced costs for anti–doping Arbitrations. Given that millions were spent by (>2?) and against (>5?) Floyd Landis, and nearly two thousand pages of the first Landis AAA hearing transcript document dozens of hours of (some agonizingly bad) Expert Witness testimony deliveries (or delaying tactics?: “what page is that? Could the Panel instruct Counsel to wait until we find the page?”) and evidence of pure partisanship by both parties.

CAS seems to be acting as Guide for WADA, finding the way out of its pain–in–the–morass Code–created deficiencies...

CAS displays an action–oriented application of lessons learnt from the Landis case: if only WADA could match those efforts, such as by transparently publishing and implementing the long–retarded WADA 'laboratory discipline rules', proposed in 2008, would be a start....

The Beauty of Science...

Laboratory Standardization...

Clear regulations replacing ambiguous Articles...

Reduced legal costs...

Clean(er) sport...

... Ten Years (more?) After

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

copyright 2009 Ww