What happens when the Comeback Kid crashes out of the Castilla y Leon bike race in Spain and the media have “nothing” to cover in the cycling world? Apparently, old stuff that is on a constant state of slow simmer begins to bubble to a boil.
As strbuk noted at the end of the previous post, it appears that Sir Lance is caught up in a bit of a tempest in a French teapot. What I find puzzling about this is that it’s taken a bit before Pierre Bordry and company dashed off a letter to the UCI inquiring/complaining about Lance’s “behavior.” To hear the story from Armstrong/Johan Bruyneel’s perspective, at least, there was no great tension or problem, they just wanted to be sure that the person showing up at Armstrong’s rented home was who he said he was, and that he had the authority to do what he was requesting.
Given who we’re talking about, the history of allegations against him and where this all happened, I can understand Armstrong and Bruyneel’s concern/paranoia. As Bonnie Ford reports for ESPN.com:
“Someone like Lance has to be careful,” Bruyneel said.
“At the end of the day, I can’t hide my feeling that this is a witch hunt. He was giving blood, urine and hair. What is he going to do, shave his head?”
On the point of whether the AFLD had the right to test Armstrong, being as he was in France, I believe they did. The hair sample is non-standard and I’m not sure that any results from that could be used against him anywhere outside of France, but the rest of it seems like a pretty straight-forward out-of-competition test. If AFLD has the authority to conduct out-of-competition tests on foreign athletes who are living/training/competing in France, they were within their rights.
It seems that a small breach of protocol may have occurred, in that AFLD’s collections agent didn’t have Armstrong in his sight the whole time. Instead, he waited outside until Bruyneel and Armstrong had verified that he was, in fact, legit.
“He was very friendly, we were very friendly,” Bruyneel told ESPN.com from a Spanish hospital where he was visiting his wife and newborn son. “I asked him to show us his documents and credentials, and he did.”
…
“I was on the phone for maybe 10, 12, 15 minutes,” Bruyneel said. “Lance took a shower and put on shorts and a T-shirt, and then he gave the samples, which took about an hour and a half.”
…
“There was never any feeling of tension, of ‘I have to get in,'” Bruyneel said. “It was always a very friendly conversation.”
Meanwhile, Pierre Bordry is playing this in a fairly circumspect manner. Bordry won’t comment on the contents of the report his agency sent to the UCI, or whether it represents an infraction. Over time, we’ll see how this all plays out. I’ve got to wonder if, tucked away at his Aspen home, Armstrong ever finds himself asking whether his return to cycling was worth the melodrama and accompanying tempests. In the meantime, he’s issued a pretty strongly worded statement about the whole kerfuffle, which can be found here.
Speaking of melodrama…
A familiar Armstrong nemesis shows up in the latest interview over at NYVelocity.com. For intrepid readers who wish to get a good glimpse of Michael Ashenden’s thoughts on EPO, blood doping, Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton (among other things), take the time to read the interview. (Be warned: It’s lo-o-o-o-ng.)
Andy Shen certainly has produced a very wide-ranging and well written interview. Ashenden, the Australian anti-doping researcher, has a very clear — and very skeptical — point of view about Armstrong. It’s probably fair to say that he’s not a fan of Big Tex. Like any interview, not every question that could have been asked was asked. Exactly why Ashenden is speaking up again (other than because Shen asked for an interview), I’m not sure. I’ll be back with detailed commentary and analysis of the interview in a separate post.
Updates
As if this wasn’t predictable, The (London) Times Online and Yahoo Sports, among others, are reporting that the AFLD may impose some sort of as-yet-undefined sanction on Armstrong for not staying within their collection agent’s sight. According to the Yahoo Sports article:
AFLD said cycling’s governing body has given its permission to open disciplinary procedures against Armstrong, but did not say what the punishment could be.
AFLD president Pierre Bordry noted that the statement does not say that Armstrong is guilty of an infraction. AFLD is expected to make a decision on whether to proceed with sanctions after its nine-member ruling committee has considered the tester’s report.
Anyone want to take a guess what the panel’s result will be? Seems to me that Lance’s plans to race Le Tour may be as much affected by his recovery from the broken clavicle as by whatever sanctions the AFLD chooses to impose.
Meanwhile, over at The New York Times, George Vescey offers his take on l’affaire de collections agent. Vescey observes:
He [Armstrong] had to know it was coming, the French Foreign Legion coming over the hill, bearing a syringe, a paper cup and a cute little pair of scissors. He was a marked man ever since daring to win seven consecutive Tours, beating out assorted Europeans and Americans, some of whom would be tossed out for doping while Armstrong never quite tested positive for anything. The nerve.
Note: Thanks to strbuk for the assist, by pointing me to the Yahoo Sports and NYT articles.
Latest Updates
Turns out, a certain Mr. Pat McQuaid is bothered by how the AFLD has handled the Armstrong matter.
… McQuaid criticised the AFLD’s handling of the Armstrong case.
“The French authorities decided to make up a report on the testing procedure, forward it to the UCI, knowing the UCI have no jurisdiction on the case and at the same time that report has leaked to the press,” said the former Irish cyclist.
“I would have to question why that is the case.
“Normal proceedings between institutions such as national anti-doping agencies, the international federation and Wada are normally done in a professional and confidential way until a decision or sanction has been taken.
“In this case it was leaked to the press and I do find that disturbing.”
Trial by media? We don’t need no stinkin’ trial by media…
Over at CyclingNews.com, McQuaid says:
“I sent them a letter yesterday saying we don’t have jurisdiction in this matter,” confirmed McQuaid, backing up the assertion by the AFLD that the UCI said it was allowed to start a proceeding. “It is a French national affair under French law.
“At this point in time, it is up to the AFLD whether they want to progress with this or not. If they do, if they give a sanction, then I will ask our lawyers to look at the case as to whether a sanction would be applicable [worldwide] under UCI rules or not,” said McQuaid.
“We will wait and see what happens. As far as we are aware, he hasn’t broken either UCI or WADA rules,” he continued.
The AFLD is certain to contest this point…
Meanwhile, in a comment, Jeff points us to another story at CyclingNews.com that gives us an approximate timeline of when the AFLD might make a decision.
French Anti-Doping Agency AFLD is currently deciding whether or not to open a disciplinary procedure against Lance Armstrong. According to L’Equipe, it will take several weeks before the cycling world will know if the seven-time Tour de France winner will be sanctioned for delaying an anti-doping control some three weeks ago.
The decision to open or not to open disciplinary proceedings should be taken in “early May” according to the paper.
Of course, that’s when the AFLD expects to decide whether or not to open a case against Armstrong. If they do, then it will be sometime later that a final decision and/or sanction is handed down.
