Is WADA 'aiding and abetting' Lance?

The previous WADAwatch post discussed our perception of the AFLD's actions vis-à-vis Lance Armstrong, and the French perception (as usual, coming from leaked confidential information provided to L'Equipe) of his 'violation', regarding a visit, a wait for confirmation, and a shower outside the view of the attending DCO (Doping Control Officer).

As of today's date, we are not aware of AFLD having provided a full copy of the report submitted by the DCO. We have read reports that indicate, from Johan Bruyneel, that 'all (the interchange between Lance and the DCO) passed as it should, cordially', we read online about Lance saying the cutting of his hair was 'brutalized', and we reported how the AFLD DCO was under oath as a job requirement.


We wrote:


"Simply, Lance contended that the following occurred:

At question is a 20-minute delay when Armstrong says the tester agreed to let him shower while the American rider's assistants checked the tester's credentials."

Now, thanks to our generally-available 'sources', we find that Lance may have acquired a formidable ally, indirectly.


WADA itself.


Through another** lost appeal, WADA appears to have offered Lance Armstrong enough ammunition (if the facts as we have gleaned them remain relevant to his case).


**On 17 December, 2007, WADAwatch published this post:

WADA appeals, loses ASADA – Karapetyn case

In which WADA pushed for a ruling at CAS, through judicial interpretation (aka 'a Tax' on litigating Athletes, who must argue against WADA regarding poorly drafted (or as-yet indeterminant) CODE (or ISL, IST) Articles), as we wrote then:

WADA based its appeal on seeking support at CAS for its ambiguous drafting language of WADA CODE 2003 Article 10.7 (“Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent to Sample Collection”), which calls on ADOs to strip athletes, who were determined to have violated an anti–doping rule, of their interim victories, results, prizes or medals. However, the CAS decision agreed with the Respondents' arguments, which invoked among other items, the language of the Article itself, which includes the phrase “...unless fairness dictates otherwise, ...”.

The CAS Decision came out against WADA's position:

In doing so, CAS refuted the World Anti–Doping Agency's apparent contention: that an ADO with the authority, via the WADA CODE, to 'disqualify results in competitions subsequent to sample collection' MUST do so, in spite of the clear wording “...unless fairness dictates otherwise, ...”.

CAS reasoned that ASADA had acted within the discretion provided specifically through the AWF's adoption of the WADA CODE into its Policy, when that discretion was “...applied in good faith, without bias, error, or undue influence.”

Specifically: “ASADA considered the athlete's inadvertent taking of the banned substance nine months before the Commonwealth Games, the fact that the stimulant in question has no lasting effect on the athlete's performance and that his doping control results one month before, during and after the Commonwealth Games were negative for any prohibited substances.”

Follow this link to that 17 December post.


So once again (if there were other adverse positions that WADA sought to appeal, following Decisions favouring Athletes, Ww has missed those...), WADA has searched to incorporate, through the prejudicial facts of judicial interpretation (translated another way: cases where Attorneys representing the Athlete must argue a point (driving up legal costs) which by definition must usually be unclear, ambiguous, or poorly drafted by WADA and its Signatories), the strict construction of Article 2.3.


The case?


CAS 2008/A/1551 WADA v. CONI, FIGC & Cherubin


As briefly as possible, this concerns the same issue now facing Lance Armstrong: "notice".


Notice is one of the most well-known and misunderstood legal principles. Anyone that ever watched a TV police show (at least from the USA), is at least subliminally aware of the concept. You see a criminal, at the same time the police (on camera) find them.


And what does the policeman (-woman) cry out?

"Police! Stop or I'll shoot!"

That is the legal principle involved.

An agent ("Police!") representing the 'State', has identified themselves.

He or she issues a command (One word: "Stop!") that advises the 'alleged criminal' to undertake a commanded action.

And then, the criminal (woe be it if he or she is deaf, or without linguistic competence), is put on NOTICE ("Or I'll Shoot!") of the CONSEQUENCES that will follow if the 'alleged criminal' does not comply.


In the Cherubin appeal by WADA (interested readers are strongly adviced to follow the link above, for the 18 p. Decision), Cherubin was 'referred' to the FCJ (the 'football league court') by the assigned prosecutor, NOT for violation of Articles 2.3 (Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification) and 2.5 (Tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control). However, the prosecutor did claim that Cherubin "showed a 'lack of cooperation'" in the completion of the anti-doping procedures, invoking a violation of Articles 6.2 and 6.5 of Italy's Operating Instructions of the Anti-Doping Commission.


At the first instance, all charges were dismissed. The prosecutor appealed, to the 'GUI' (in English: Panel of Judges of Final Jurisdiction on Doping Issues), requesting sanctions under Article 4.2 of the Operating Instructions of the Anti-doping Prosecutor's Office. As CAS notes, that provision calls for a "sanction between one and six months ineligibility [which] can be imposed on any licensed athlete who does not provide the required cooperation [...] without advancing acceptable justifications".


In this level of national appeal, Cherubin received a one-month suspension for the Italian Agency CONI rule (Italy has apparently suffered some recent changes to rules and Organizational titles: the CAS Decision reminds us of these: WADAwatch refers simply to Articles and Organs as presented); the body concluded that the Prosecutor's case was clear as to Cherubin's "negligence and incautiousness".


WADA received notice of this 20 March, 2008 decision on 11 April 2008, followed by an English translation on 8 May. WADA filed the discussed appeal with CAS on the next day, May 9th.


WADA's grounds can be read at this link (same again) to the CAS site, paras. 1 to 4.


Our notes summarize the CAS Decision that rejected WADA's appeal:

Background note: a football/soccer match in Italy, had two players from each team notified for doping control, in the closing fifteen minutes of their match. Four officials (it appears) were in charge of this action, under authority of the requesting ADO (CONI).

While three of the DCO officials (??!!) were 'occupied' with Cherubin's team-mate's urine Sample control, one other DCO official followed the two opponents (to stay as visual witnesses while they showered): Cherubin 'apparently presumed' he could do the same (some evidentiary conflicts on the various statements by Cherubin were resolved mostly in his favour, for reasons below). He then was apparently involved in a hostile TEAM-ONLY argument behind locked doors (not directed at his person), the amusing result of which was the dismissal of the team's Coach.

WADA contended, after the resulting disciplinary actions within Italy (described above) didn't satisfy its search for Justice, that the Decisions failed to incorporate Article 2.3 of the WADA CODE, by limiting the decision to rule 4.2 (renumbered since as 5.2)] "... under such rule the sanction between one and six month's ineligibility can be imposed on any licensed athlete who does not provide the required cooperation..." without advancing acceptable justifications.

Synopsis: WADA appealed a decision that was, more or less, favorable to the Athlete Cherubin (received a suspension (one month(!!)), much less than the two years that WADA exiged...) and for factual reasons VERY similar to Lance's case against AFLD (analyzed below).

Got that?

WADA demanded two years, while Italy gave the Athlete one month. The crucial question was found in how Cherubin went 'to shower' versus the requirement to provide 'notice why Athlete could NOT.' (start rubbing your hands, Lance!)

The following paragraphs reveal the status of how CAS interpreted these facts regarding Notice:

(para 64) ... the Panel finds the evidence given is not sufficient to satisfy it comfortably that the Player was unequivocally refused permission (to go shower) rather than just deciding to do so and not obtaining permission to do so. (...)

(para 65) (...) Further, the testers did not face the Player with the facts around his behaviour.

(para 66) (...) ... liability under article 2.3 has not been established because it has not been proven to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction that the Player actually refused or failed in the meaning of article 2.3 to give his sample at 22.25; but rather that he left the station without having been told not to do so in terms he could readily understand as being a formal injunction linked to a possible sanction and in circumstances enabling him to believe that if he immediately returned after taking a shower rather than waiting around while his teammate was being tested that would be sufficient.

KEY ANALYSIS: Without having been expressly told not do so, in terms he could readily understand as being a formal injunction linked to a possible sanction and in confusing (Three officials to 'observe' one of four taking his urine control, one of four watching two other individuals showering, and thus no one to follow Cherubin) circumstances that enabled him to believe that if he immediately returned after taking a shower rather than waiting around while his teammate was being tested that would be sufficient. It must be inferred that the above mentioned team brouhaha had some salient effect on the frustrations of the DCOs.

RELEVANCE: If Lance was not 'on notice' that going to take a shower could lead to a possible sanction (which would of necessity be expressed by the DCO who showed up alone at his house-training site in southern France), it shouldn't matter whether AFLD 'prosecutes' Lance "à la Française".

The CAS opinion, coming only a month before this AFLD 'situation' began, shows (in our Ww humble opinion) total similarities with Lance's case. As such, any disfavourable ruling by our favourite world-renowned ADO (AFLD), should be overturned by CAS if it goes that far (Although 'we' said that about Floyd's case)...

SIDEBAR: the Panel for CAS did not discuss the 'Equal Protection' aspects of this case (presumably not developed by Cherubin's legal counsel): one team's players were allowed to go shower, with an accompanying DCO (doping control officer) accompanying that pair of Players, while this DCO was inadequately and insufficiently staffed, to allow same for the player Cherubin, on the other team, who had to wait an identical time period for 'his turn' as did his two opponents (with people's careers and reputations at stake, one is hardly tempted to joke: "How many Italian DCOs does it take to arrive at one full urine sample receptacle?", with three observers for Cherubin's teammate)

This could be the first time in a Long Time that Lance would have grounds to thank WADA, for its diligent, repeated attempts to 'judicially interpret' the lacunae of the WADA CODE (what constitutes NOTICE?) and enforcing the resulting compliance by IFs and Signatories...

Our dearest Agence française du lutte contre le dopage (AFLD) is now, itself, 'on notice' that its oath-sworn DCOs must audibly REFUSE that the Cyclist remove himself to shower, with expressly communicated (and understood, and accepted) REASONS given, including that a failure to do so would result in possible disciplinary consequences.

Somehow, when WADA attempts to expand its legal arsenal, wherever judicial interpretations are concerned, through actions against Athletes whose cases are decided somewhat in their favour, these actions don't seem (at WADAwatch) to be very... appealing.

Remember!

Police do it all the time:

"STOP!! Or I'll shoot!!"

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

copyright 2009 Ww

the AFLD--termath... on Lance's test

Anyone that devotes any part of their days to, first: cycling, second: anti-doping issues, and third: this blog, should be well aware that AFLD has, once again, thrust itself forcefully, dare we say Bordrilly, onto the anti!doping!scene! ... as world leaders offering to WADA Signatories, worldwide their very own, new meaning of the word:

Vindictive
(en Français: vindictif)

Themselves? Sacrè Bleu...


It's a sad day to think that, according to the Head of the French Agence Française du Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD), and in spite of the evidence coming out (as to what actually transpired in the house from which Lance Armstrong was conducting a training session), Pierre Bordry believes himself to have 'finally, fairly and most of all,

French-ly':


... convicted his 'lifelong' antiChrist-like nemesis of the last 11 years:


Lance Armstrong.




AFLD: incapable of reasonable levels of objectivity (as WADAwatch sees it), incapable of eliminating the Alaska-pipeline-sized path through which someone forwards Super-Sized leaks to the French newspaper L'Equipe.

When it comes time to award Olympic-sized medals to WADA Signatories who have repeatedly violated the WADA CODE...

Are there, seriously, any other contenders than AFLD?

Think about this phrase, from Yahoo! and the Associated Press (for whom, in light of their drumbeating cause to flurry the Web with lawsuits , we would like to remind you, faithful reader, that our borrowed content is protected under the 'Educative purpose' exception in copyright law):

"In France, drug testers take an oath before a court to discharge their duties honestly before they are allowed to work."

Wouldn't that be a logical starting point for AFLD to undertake investigating what happened, before having the 'ducks in a row' it would need to 'discipline' Lance Armstrong? The Tester can lose his or her job for lying, deception or negligence...


After AFLD's unseemly (we're trying to be nice, WADA) second prosecution of Floyd Landis (in 2006 and 2007; see 'CRIME AGAINST SPORTSMANITY'), which, in every respect of known law should have been sufficient grounds for an internal or public WADA investigation, one would have thought they'd remembered their status as one of the most active member States of WADA.


(for out-of-towners: Athletes should be 'disciplined' by the IF with authority)


As an American-licensed Cyclist: Floyd Landis was 'disciplined (and How!?) by the combined competent authorities: USACycling (the NF), and USADA (the ADO) in front of an AAA arbitration Panel, 'confirmed' by a most unusual CAS-AAA 'appeal', which did much more than rubber-stamp the first Decision, yet AFLD had decided in 2006 the undertaking of its own national-only procedure, which it then delayed until 2007; being their mind was that Floyd would indubitably not be banished from any French racing possibilities, under the prospective situation (which did occur) that the UCI-Jurisdictions would not have legal effect if the Tour de France 2008 was undertaken only under French authority.


There has been no other worse example, in the monopolistic world of WADA's 'sport-doping legal disciplinary arbitration', of a clear violation of WADA CODE Article 15.4.


This link to the 2003 CODE (Article 15.4), in force under the Landis affair; and this link to the 2009 CODE, (Article 15.4.1) now in force and regulating actions by WADA Signatories today, both contain an identical phrase regarding MUTUAL RECOGNITION. One would like to believe its mandates include France's AFLD.


Reading either is so clear, one wonders about the French language version. Here's the newest English sub-Article:

15.4.1 Subject to the right to appeal provided in Article 13, ... and hearing results or other final adjudications of any Signatory which are consistent with the Code and are within that Signatory's authority, shall be recognized and respected by all other Signatories.

How's that?


A Signatory, or member State having any stake in WADA, should be acknowledging the authority and actions taken by the country, of whom its NF or IF from which the Cyclist has the authorized License to compete.


WADAwatch contends that this has not happened, in the French process against Landis, and both France and WADA are remiss for, respectively, inflicting and not rectifying the second of the double prosecutions undertaken on Floyd (when France had full authority to join the Appeal to offer an added question in this sense (that's the ignored CODE Article 13 APPEALS).


With apologies for continuing the long list, necessary to prove the evident lack of objectivity at AFLD, a letter was sent by the ASOIF to WADA, during the period after the so-called research produced L'Equipe's August, 2005 article against Lance. Was this their apparent 'thank you' for the millions of Euros in profit that Lance's enthusiasm and talent had brought to the Tour (especially in sponsorships, more than paper sales: it's all one family company, after all) for seven years?

Vitriolic responses awed and shocked, from the desk of Dick Pound, the entire interchange was mentioned in the Vrijman report (NB: apparently the UCI found it beneficial to recode the link to the Vrijman report: check your bookmark links eventually; we will):

"... the ‘General Association of Summer Olympic Federations’ (hereinafter: ‘ASOIF’), together with the ‘IOC Athletes Commission’ (hereinafter: ‘Athletes Commission’), sent a joint letter to WADA on September 20, 2005..."

... who had found it necessary to request of Dick Pound and WADA, an urgent investigation of ALFD's lab LNDD, in light of perceived, evidenced inclusions of identifiable (as to Armstrong, it really matters not how this happened) Samples, violating the Helsinki Agreements on guarding anonymously any tissue samples made available for 'research':

As this [Ww: the necessary and compromised anonymity of Armstrong's samples] was clearly not the case here, we demand that WADA conducts a thorough Investigation in order to establish the violations committed and to identify and sanction those responsible. We also demand that, pending this investigation, WADA suspends the accreditation of the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory.

One might think that when requested by the elected representatives of the entire body of Olympic Athletes, as IFs and Signatories, they would have received satisfaction from the Organization - WADA - that enjoys its salaries and travel benefits expressly from accumulated dues received from these IFs, and others.


Their formal request went nowhere, with harsh replies from Pound that really, in essence, stated 'watch what you say, watch what you do'...


Let's repeat that phrase from the AP article above, discussing Lance's 'test' this week:

"In France, drug testers take an oath before a court to discharge their duties honestly before they are allowed to work."

How is this relevant? Simply, Lance contended that the following occurred:

At question is a 20-minute delay when Armstrong says the tester agreed to let him shower while the American rider's assistants checked the tester's credentials.

Yet the world now knows through AFLD, L'Equipe and the train of sports reporters (who would probably prioritize the Drudge Report if American politics were their focus), that AFLD 'accused' Lance of 'procedural irregularities' by 'non-conformance' with its Rules (which parallel those of WADA's).


If, however, the 'tester' dispatched by AFLD, who works under the above Court-adminstered oath to discharge their duties honestly, allowed Lance to shower, and thus (we presume) remove himself from the presence of the 'Tester', which Tester then claimed to Bodry that, by doing so Lance violated AFLD/WADA/UCI rules, it appears one to four violations have occurred under Pierre Bodry (not in any order implying probability):

1. Conscious violation of Testers' oath: if true, would be a serious ethical infraction. WADA has had one such case already. In Floyd's CAS appelate case, USACycling claimed Floyd had 'violated' his suspension for riding in the Leadville 100 mountain bike race (conveniently forgotten, and then established by Floyd, was the permission granted by express written letter from USACycling to Floyd, to do so(?)).
   
   
2. Unconscious violation of Testers' oath: if the Tester simply was negligent, that should be sufficient grounds for AFLD to halt its 'March to Court' against Lance. Any leaks to its publicist L'Equipe should be publically retracted. AFLD also should have to request a thousand pardons from Lance for having the gall (Do Gauls have 'gall'?) to have, once again, slandered him for no reason.
   
   
3. The leak itself. Will AFLD ever get it? (sigh) Riders have rights, and one absolute right ignored, although in the CODE, is to have results handled by the ADO (AFLD) discretely. One can imagine that some people in France, who've had marital indiscretions, do understand the term 'discretion', but this has never been a French cycling-doping-press related strength. One can understand in the Depression-style economy that we have, a newspaper's desire to shock and awe readers that may have dispensed with purchases, in favor of food for their children. But it's wrong, and WADA knows this. They did take responsibility, certainly, from the IOC to produce a viable system.
   
   
4. Whose plan was this? It would not appear seemly to place preponderant weight on the 'conscious violation' theory. If in any way that were what happened (An under-oath Tester asserts Armstrong can leave and shower (thus violating the required constant presence), and then returns to AFLD, to file a report claiming it was Armstrong's unilateral and violative choice to 'disappear'), the powers at be would have to know if that happened in AFLD, or on personal initiative of the Tester, or by 'any outside intervention', which would have to include the 'usual suspects': why would anyone possibly suspect the world's leading WADA CODE-confidentiality violating newspaper?
   
   
   
   See, it couldn't be that, could it? (wink)
   

Fifty-five years ago US Senator McCarthy, he of the Army-McCarthy hearings, which pretended to rout out Communists in the US Government, Hollywood and elsewhere, was forced to listen as US Army attorney Welch responded, with impassioned rhetoric, as McCarthy finished demanding information about a colleague in his Boston Law offices.


WADAwatch takes no pleasure in adapting these words to request the same soul-searching by Pierre Bordry, head of the AFLD:

"Until this moment, Monsieur Pierre Bordry, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]"

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Monsieur. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?

"Have you left no sense of decency?"

If Lance is able to prove the contention that the Tester allowed the shower, AFLD has absolutely no grounds to contend that a violation of AFLD and French regulations occurred. But the newspapers containing this story are selling 'comme des petits pains' (EN: like blueberry muffins) wherever L'Equipe is sold.

It's Pierre Bordry's nightmare ('Mais quel cauchemar!!)

Wiley E Coyote-Bordry v. Lance RoadRider...

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

copyright 2009 Ww

WADA... journalistic coup?

NB: prior to finishing this Post, WADAwatch was reading (again), the brief presented by Floyd Landis in his US Court case, that which was 'settled' before going to court. We had not remembered, in light of our championing of the Quigley Rule, any article mentioning the attorneys who had been involved.

Thus it was with a knee-banging jawline, that we noticed that cher Richard Young was the attorney of record for USA Shooting, the NF which suffered a loss in the Quigley Case. It behooves us to wonder how it took RY at least fifteen years to have a decision 'overturning' that clean, strident and transparent (former) Rule offered by CAS, pre-WADA, in 1993.

Journalistic Coup d'Etat?

An interesting article was published in the French weekly paper Le Canard enchainé (literally 'the Duck enchained', hereafter 'LCE'), known for both sarcastic satire and probing investigations.

Dateline: February 4, 2009; its headline would translate as:

“Pedalling softly on doping at L'Equipe”

Authored by “Jérôme Canard” (Ed: hence the quotation marks), the story offers a viewpoint on a press communication of January 21, 2009, from the Société des journalistes (SDJ) de “L'Equipe” (and which made the French press across the week of its publication, in early February). Described as a relatively unnoticed document, Le Canard enchainé and author Canard published an excerpt. We offer their (LCE's) original text and our own translation versions.

Original

Lors de sa rencontre avec la SDJ, en mars 2008, Mme Amaury avait en effet exprimé son souhait qu'on ne s'attarde plus sur ce sujet. Souhait qu'elle a répété à plusieurs reprises ces derniers temps et qui a été largement relayé par plusieurs médias.

Depuis, des consignes ont été données aux rubriques, au sein du journal. Il a également été expressement demandé à Demion Ressiot de ne plus générer de révélations et de se contenter de traiter l'info dopage en réactivité, ce qui constitue une remise en cause de son poste et de sa mission.

La SDJ ne peut donc que s'inquieter du message catastrophique envoyé implicitement aux lecteurs. Et s'interroger : La rédaction est–elle indépendante ? Y a t-il volonté de détourner les yeux du dopage?
(Le Canard enchainé: N° 4606 4 février 2009)

Translation:

From her meeting with the SDJ, in March 2008, Mme Amaury had in effect expressed her wish that we wouldn't tarry on this subject. A wish that she repeated on several occasions during these last months, which were largely relayed by several media services.

Since [then], advice has been given to sections, at the heart of the journal. It was equally demanded expressly of Demion Ressiot to cease generating revelations and to content himself to treating doping info retroactively, which constitutes a devaluation of his job and its mission.

Thus the SDJ can only mull upon the catastrophic message sent implicitly to readers. And to interrogate itself : Is the editorial staff independent? Is there a willingness to turn the eyes away from doping?
(translation provided by WADAwatch)

In keeping with our wary viewpoint on the exceptional relationship of any French entity (official and commercial) and that entity's relationship with WADA, the ten–paragraph article may be summarized as being highly sceptical of the rational for Mme Amaury's piloting of her empire's flagship publication in a new direction.

An 'ethical new direction', WADAwatch would say; 'harshly censorial cover–up!' says SDJ. To summarize the article's thrust, it begins by offering the title of the SDJ communication:

“Doping, what doping?”

Witness the contrast between their description (mentioned above) of this communiqué being relatively obscure, while the communiqué claims to have been widely relayed throughout the (French) media. Thus, the LCE casts its slant instantly, claiming this notice bears witness to the journal's management's (lack of) respect for the independence of the editorial/writing staff.

The SDJ had met with Fabrice Jouhand, the managing editor ('directeur de la rédaction'), in a meeting whose ambience was described as 'hot' ('ambience chaud'). The SDJ reps in that meeting specifically asked how one could evoke Lance Armstrong's return to competition without evoking doping? (Ed: of which Armstrong was never tested positive)

Then the fun begins, as one French publication pointedly rides the waves of an international sporting 'scandal' (which works either way, if you think about it):

En août 2005, en effet, “L'Equipe” avait consacré une enquête fouillée aux potions magiques (EPO, entres autres) absorbées, en 1999, par l'Américain septuple vainqueur du Tour. Or, dans les deux pages consacrés au grand retour d'Armstrong, le journaliste spécialiste de ces prises de compléments vitaminés et fortifiants, Demien Ressiot, a été prié de laisser sa prose dans la seringue.

[In August 2005, in fact, L'Equipe had published a detailed investigation on the 'magic potions' (Ed: plural?) absorbed, in 1999, by the seven–time American Tour winner. in the two pages consecrated to the great comeback of Armstrong, the journalist specialized in these takings of vitamined and fortifying 'supplements'. Demien Ressiot had been beseeched to leave his prose in the syringe. (Ed: !!)]

LCE continues with its 'analysis', declaring that the SDJ, without a doubt, concluded that the directives offered by M. Jouhand were manifestly this: a request by Mme Amaury (head of the French conglomerate Editions Amaury, whose print journals include L'Equipe and Le Parisien):

... qu'il n'était plus question de faire du zèle sur ce sulfureux sujet.

[... that it was no longer a question of zealous work on this sulphurous subject.]

The LCE asks “why?”, and instantly blurts out the only (apparent) reason: “commercial reasons, of course” ('des raisons commerciales, bien sûr'). LCE reminds the readers of this page–five article, that the Amaury family has the rare position of being the Organizer of events upon which its papers write, such as the Paris Marathon, the Paris–Dakar rally, and cycling's Paris–Roubaix, as well as the 'Golden egg': the Tour de France.

Describing the accounts of this race Organization (la Société du Tour), and thus its profits a secret as tight as a Swiss bank account, it offers a view that 'various investigations' concluded that the Société du Tour runs a profit margin of over 20 per cent ('Et sans EPO...').

LCE surmises, via SDJ, that the current reigning attitude at L'Equipe is, that one shouldn't discredit such Tour giants as Armstrong prior to the event. Yet it describes readers and the TV audience as relatively blasé about the doping issue. Polls undertaken by Tour Sponsors (!!!) have concluded that people now follow the Tour as much for the doping scandals as for the event(!). And these sponsors hardly get amused at the repetitive doping controls. Meanwhile, the cyclists can lose their career from a positive test, or even decamp if the atmosphere of the Tour is infested by the police.

Author Canard and LCE consider the riders would 'defect' from the Tour to 'concurrent' UCI events (Ed: which?), with less regard for the money offered and more an eye to the other competitors. To 'avoid this defection of the calf muscles' (Ed: voilà a finely translated French idiom), Marie–Odile Amaury concluded a 'non–aggression pact' last year with the UCI, even 'sacrificing' her too–zealous President, Patrice Clerc. And:

Pas question de laisser les journalistes saboter ce gentleman's agreement en démoralisant les forçats de la route. Après tout, la triche fausse un peu l'exploit mais le rend tellement plus spectaculaire...

[No chance to let these journalists sabotage this gentleman's agreement by demoralizing the prisoners of the route. After all, trickery falsifies the exploit a bit, but renders it so much more spectacular... ]

END of Article

WADAwatch offers several observations.

Firstly, we generally hold a high regard for Le Canard enchainée: there really is no other publication in France that seems to put forty pages of truth in a slim eight–page weekly (Note to Self: today's the day to buy LCE's weekly edition...).

That being said, we admire, through the eyes of a French 'competitor' (NB: LCE has no 'sports coverage' at all), the power and eminence of L'Equipe, and especially its 'SDJ' (a construct of Ressiot's himself? One may wonder...), to turn against its superiors in this manner, pursuing its quest to continue...

aiding and abetting violations of the WADA CODE

Certainly not the SDJ or L'Equipe, nor Ressiot nor author Canard, posed a single sentence to describe how Amaury Sport Group, as a Major Event Organizer, has legal duties, the most basic being: to tell the Truth.

ONE:

Refer back to the portion describing 'Armstrong's magic potions'. Ressiot's 2005 article never mentioned anything but EPO, in its portrayal of the seven–time Tour winner, yet Canard does this for this LCE article. Faithful readers of WADAwatch and sister blog crystelZENmud can recall here (en français) or here how L'Equipe created its own 'magic portion', by claiming that unknown (unverifiable, unpublished?) 'research' of over–aged Samples (then five years old, and described elsewhere as '... unstable, even if stored at minus 20 degrees' (Montreal Lab director Dr. Christine Ayotte; Vrijman quoting Velonews article of Aug. 23, 2005)) was worthy enough to destitute the Tour's Greatest Champion of his 1999 title.

TWO:

There isn't a word about the authoritative UCI–Vrijman report, commissioned as an independent investigation by the UCI (and denounced with fanfare by Dick Pound's WADA staff), which reminds all who had read Vrijman's work, how utterly lame was the cooperation (really, the lack thereof) offered to the UCI, especially by the French authorities (at LNDD (lab) and the CPLD become AFLD), and WADA. Moreover, the 'science' – unknown, un–reviewed by peers, without chain–of–custody reports or B Samples (since this 'research' was on 'B Samples' to begin with!) – was in no way state of the art, nor had it any legal basis, in the end, to stand as either 'research', or as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF). It did qualify, simply, as a witch-hunt to destroy the reputation of the one man who single-teamedly restored the Tour to its glory, after the French, homegrown Festina Affair of 1998.

THREE:

By publishing Ressiot's 'pseudo–investigation', in August of 2005, Amaury Sport Group appeared, itself, to be aiding LNDD (or the French Agency AFLD?), to violate the WADA CODE's confidentiality requirements (LNDD and L'Equipe being situated in a Paris suburb not more than a few hundred meters from each other...?). However, neither SDJ nor LCE, nor author Canard probed the issues beyond the tautological model that centered the universe of what they 'knew'.

SIDEBAR:

Interestingly, the ISL on Laboratories' conduct may have an 'out' regarding 'confidentiality'. Here's the text of ISL Annex B, Article 1:

1. Confidentiality

The heads of Laboratories, their delegates and Laboratory staff shall not discuss or comment to the media on individual results prior to the completion of any adjudication without consent of the organization that supplied sample to the Laboratory and the organization that is asserting the Adverse Analytical Finding in adjudication.

One could surmise that an official, from the Agency under which that Lab is mandated to operate, may read this and assert the right to 'leak', since the obvious reading of this Article is directed to the Lab's head Officer, and those hierarchically underneath that person.

However, such people (AFLD (and its predecessor CPLD)), as Signatories to WADA, are bound by WADA CODE Article 14 in its entirety. Relevant text includes this portion of its chapeau paragraph:

Article 14 Confidentiality and Reporting

The Signatories agree to the principles of coordination of anti–doping results, public transparency and accountability and respect for the privacy interests of individuals alleged to have violated anti–doping rules as provided below:

[.....]

14.2 Public Disclosure

The identity of Athletes whose Samples have resulted in Adverse Analytical Findings, or Athletes or other Persons who were alleged by an Anti–Doping Organization to have violated other anti–doping rules, may be publicly disclosed by the Anti–Doping Organization with results management responsibility no earlier than completion of the administrative review described in Articles 7.1 and 7.2.

[.....]

FOUR:

Interestingly, this LCE article emphasizes an SDJ-described 'clamp–down' instituted from March 2008, by the person of Mme Amaury, which was reasserted in the events leading to this SDJ press communication. That would have begun in the weeks following the WADA Press Symposium held in Lausanne, Switzerland, in February 2008. It was at that Press Symposium that WADAwatch requested a response (scroll far down to paragraph starting: "It's not embarrassing...". to why France was not being 'admonished' for its multiple violations of the WADA CODE, as regards LNDD, AFLD, L'Equipe, Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis.

It would also parallel Ressiot's publication of the original damning 'investigation' story in 2005, which (informed authorities believe) must have been prepared long prior to the kck-off of the 2005 Tour de France: is Ressiot less complicit now, than in 2005 when he (apparently?) withheld his story for perhaps three to five months?

FIVE:

The SDJ communiqué itself deplores the lack of 'independence' this policy affords to L'Equipe journalists. Conveniently avoiding any self–examination of the ethics of premature disclosures of incomplete procedures, LCE expounds that this calls into question the 'mission' of Ressiot.

But Ressiot's mission is (IWwHO) apparently that of one in search of infamy, personally and to those who he 'outs' through a well–connected network of lab rats (or Agency senior officials?) whose desire to destroy a sportsman or sportswoman's career is manifestly more enticing than upholding confidentiality rules, to which they are all bound. Citizens of other nations than the USA, have enjoyed the small benefit that accrues to journalists that receive no leaks, prior to Article 7.1 and 7.2 being achieved.

However, we point out that such cases are rare in today's media-driven planet.

CONCLUSION:

WADAwatch watches the pendulum swaying, curious as to the sentiments that reign at Editions Amaury. Perhaps Mme Amaury realizes (more than WADA itself),the enduring value of the Quigley Rule, which was overwhelmingly repudiated by the CAS Panel that confirmed a previous decision against Floyd Landis.

While previous experience confirms that commercial interests indubitably play a role in this affair, Ww hopes that Amaury Sport Group, and its flagship publication L'Equipe, have 'come aboard' in support of Ethics in Sport, by turning its back on an unwritten policy of outing unconfirmed doping suspicions.

Perhaps Mme Amaury is aghast at the lack of morals embodied in her publication's penchant for leaks of premature, legally non–confirmed A Sample analysis results?

Sadly, however, Le Canard enchainée and its author Jérôme Canard appear to be guilty of that universal affliction of sports writers around the globe who rely (relied?) on L'Equipe: jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on these 'they must be right!' presumptions of unwarranted credibility.

France is currently exploring a potential return to NATO membership: maybe its “return toward WADA” is simultaneously underway?

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

copyright 2009 Ww

2009 Year of the Reformation...?

To all the WADAwatch friends...

Silence is sometimes a good thing. A means to 'reconstruct' the future, to aid change, to fulfill Rationales, etc.

Be ready for the big time, it's upon us, as Lance and Floyd revert to the world we lost, on cycles.

Cryptically yours,

Ww

WADA sensation in Spain...

It's too darn bad that the world of WADA, when it was so close to her home, hadn't invited Cristina Pérez to come and speak to the audience.

Cristina WHO?

(photo credit Stern of Germany)

She's the wife of Dr Eufemiano Fuentes, whose unsavoury practices apparently were the Golden Egg for more than Dick Pound, former President of WADA.

This next photo comes from an article in El Pais, the Spanish newspaper, showing his departure from Jan Ullrich's 2008 trial, that forced his last team to pay up a good percentage of the salary they'd withheld on basis of insinuations of blood doping practices.



Cristina, who met her soul-mate at the ripe age of 13, when he was already practicing medicine, announced to the sporting world that she could 'open Pandora's box'... to which we think or thank her, for having announced that she UNCHAINED the locked box of Pandora, a tale in Spain of pain for the many athletes who are now seemingly freed of a burden with the closure of the 'Operacion Puerto' affair. Her encounters with the doctor helped in some way, one assumes from the context, with her sporting career and the Barcelona Olympics of 1992.

A noted aspect from this observer, often in Switzerland, reflects on how the local media's obsession remains, to announce this as 'the cycling affair Puerto', a designation that certainly instills in the minds of all media-readers, a limitation that cycling never deserved.

For all the years since the first rumours were verified, that there existed this infamous Doctor and his 'Black Book' of addresses, the sum total of named athletes who are NOT cyclists is too small to be even funny: Spain had a 'Wonder year' in 2008, including Rafaël Nadal's tennis exploits, its EuroFoot futbal team, and many others. Are they simply the best? Without proof, this blog makes no assertions.

However, as a devoted cycling fan, the rationale for submerging other sports-Athlete's membership in 'Club Fuentes' seems to indicate a strong bias against Cycling per se, or an institutional attitude that, we could posit, stated during the relevant years:

"we cannot attack futball (soccer) or other Big Money sports,
until we can get them on board."

Remember, FIFA was as late as the US professional leagues, in finding a 'need' to endorse WADA, and integrate its mission as their own (See our Crimes against Sportmanity article, from earlier in 2008).

Cristina, what's going on? Bad day in divorce court?

WADAwatch has long supported a stronger emphasis in Confession. Following this link will take you to a Google-eyed view of several pertinent WADAwatch posts.

Only a confession by GW Bush (Or Cheney, or Rumsfeld...) could carry more weight than a cathartic cleansing of Athletes' souls... but WADAwatch reminds its readers and the World of WADA itself, that those who need to confess are more than a collection of Athletes gone wrong. Their personal and professional entourages, their Drug company suppliers, those governments whose bribed officials allow exportation of Testosterone and other substances while turning a blind eye... their wives? Daughters or sons?

Break the supply chains, put the fear of a God on someone, may always be a better strategy than to seek the end results from a plethora of laboratories who, in the long run, are not at all 'Standardized', 'Consistent' or simply: not able to follow the internationally-accepted Laboratory methodologies.


A post-script: WADAwatch will be attending (Amongst other delights in London and the Suffolk region) a small seminar presentation this coming week, in London, at the Birkbeck University of London, on

An evaluation of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA)
impact on the problem of doping in elite sport

Hopefully a meaningful discussion will engage several business and legal aspects.

More in December!


No less fervent, if slightly more irregular, we're still watching...

................@...................WADAwatch
copyright 2008 Ww