Anarchy and Glass Houses

Spanish rider Oscar Pereiro Sio has been awfully quiet lately. Now, apparently, we know why. VeloNews carries an article that quotes a story in LeMonde that Oscar Pereiro is in a spot of bother with the AFLD, himself. The story in LeMonde alleges that Pereiro twice tested positive for traces of salbutamol, a drug used to treat asthma, during the Tour.

Pereiro apparently was covered by a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) issued by the UCI, however the French anti-doping authorities are looking into all riders who escaped sanctions at the 2006 Tour de France because they had TUEs. According to the article in LeMonde (translated by Marc):

According to our sources, the rider for the Caisse d’Epargne team also tested positive during the Tour de France, on two occasions: July 17 for the 14th stage Montélimar-Gap and July 19 after the 16th stage Bourg-d’Oisans-La Toussuire.

The substance that was found in the Spaniard’s urine was salbutamol, a product usually prescribed for asthma, but forbidden whether in competition or not. The International Cyclists Union (UCI), which granted Oscar Pererio an authorisation for therapeutic use (TUE) for salbutamol, declared his case “closed.” However, the French Anti-doping Agency (AFLD) considers that the TUE given the rider does not (so far) have any medical justification.

In a nutshell, the dustup is all part of a dispute between the AFLD and the UCI over TUEs and whether or not TUEs issued by the UCI are properly granted and documented. The AFLD believes it has the right to look into all TUEs issued for riders at the Tour, and that it can open disciplinary proceedings against riders whose documentation, though sufficient for the UCI, is not considered by the French anti-doping authorities to give sufficient reason for the medical need for a TUE. And, according to the article:

Since August, the AFLD has sent three registered letters to the Spaniard, asking him to send it medical evidence that would demonstrate that the rider really does suffer from an illness requiring the use of salbutamol, and that the TUE granted by the UCI is not concealing doping.

According to VeloNews, news of the proceedings against Pereiro was a surprise to Pat McQuaid:

UCI president Pat McQuaid told The Associated Press he was not aware of Le Monde‘s claims and would not comment.

“I haven’t heard anything about this,” he said.

But McQuaid added that “there always have been differences of opinion” between the UCI and the French agency on the medical waivers. UCI waivers follow WADA guidelines, he said, “and the French agency has a different view of this.”

McQuaid’s last comment raises some concerns about WADA and its effectiveness. If WADA exists to ensure the “harmonization” of anti-doping procedures around the world, how does one explain the discordant point of view on the issue of TUEs from the AFLD? If every national anti-doping agency follows the AFLD’s lead, then the anti-doping system will quickly devolve into a state of anarchy.

Whatever differences the French agency has with WADA, the two need to come to an understanding that there will be one set of procedures governing the anti-doping system. And if WADA is to be a truly universal oversight organization, then the AFLD needs to conform to WADA’s rules rather than the other way around.

So far, there is no sign of agreement between the two.

“We will not be satisfied with an administrative file,” Pierre Bordry (president of the AFLD) declared to Le Monde. On Thursday, January 25, the agency’s technical council will consider the Pereiro case. If the rider has not sent the agency the information it requested by that date, or if the information does not convince the experts, Pierry Bordry will then decide whether to open a disciplinary proceeding against him.

The AFLD only has the authority to ban Pereiro from competition on French soil. Assuming they decide to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Pereiro there is the possibility that he may not be able to race at the 2007 Tour, should Pereiro receive a ban. And he would lose his second place ranking in the 2006 Tour.

According to the LeMonde story, Pereiro and 6 other riders (including several French riders) face the prospect of disciplinary proceedings if their documentation fails to convince the AFLD that they received proper medical waivers to use banned drugs during competition. Five riders have already satisfied the AFLD’s demands to produce documentation and will not be subject to disciplinary action.

Pereiro’s team (Caisse d’Epargne) had this to say about their rider’s situation:

The Caisse d’Epargne team said Thursday that it considered that its rider, Oscar Pereiro, second in the last Tour de France, but suspected of doping, erred simply by negligence in not responding to requests for evidence from French anti-doping authorities.

Francis Lafargue (spokesman for Caisse d’Epargne): “Oscar (Pereiro) received two letters from the AFLD in October and November (asking) for additional medical information. He had the (requested) documents, but did not respond to the Agency. This was negligent. Recently, he received another letter, which threatened to forbid him from racing on French territory. It’s only then that he reacted.”

Pereiro must submit his documentation to the AFLD before their next meeting, to be held on January 25th, otherwise the AFLD may take action against him.

According to VeloNews:

Lafargue said the AFLD would receive “all the documents required” by the end of the week.

But he added that the tests amounted to “false positives” that showed only a negligible amount of salbuterol, and he chided the French anti-doping association for leaking the information to the media.

“Once more, confidentiality is not respected and that is most serious,” Lafargue said.

VeloNews also adds that the Spanish federation had not been informed about either Pereiro’s positive tests at the 2006 Tour or the fact that Pereiro had a TUE, which is surprising, given the treatment that other riders (such as Floyd Landis) have received.

In a related note, Christian Prudhomme told Agence France Presse (again via Marc’s translation):

“Pereiro is clearly in order with the UCI. But I understand perfectly the AFLD’s desire to have the precise details of the TUE granted. It does not seem illegitimate to me that a testing organization would want to know more about a medical case. I want to believe that this is a case of regrettable and culpable administrative negligence, and that everything will be in order again by next Thursday [note: the deadline set for Pereiro to complete his file]. That is certainly is very messy.”

Apparently, Prudhomme is willing to cut Oscar a fair amount of slack, after having recently said that he would keep riders tainted by the Operacion Puerto or other doping allegations from starting the 2007 Tour. Can you say “double standard”?

Pereiro has not yet commented on the allegations from the LeMonde story. His silence of late regarding the 2006 Tour results may indicate that he’s learned a lesson about not throwing stones when living in a glass house.