[Note: Just as I was finishing up this post, TBV added a comment to the previous post along the same lines, only his is much more succinct.]
As the whole Lance vs. AFLD story is shaping up, it appears to be one of those cases that ultimately boils down to a he said/he said scenario. From what I’ve read and seen, two things seem pretty clear:
- Lance made a mistake by leaving the AFLD collection agent’s sight, and
- The AFLD collection agent made a mistake by letting Lance out of his sight
My own guess at this point is that the following happened: The AFLD’s man was waiting for Lance when he and Johan Bruyneel returned home from a long day of training. Not being convinced by the documentation presented, Bruyneel calls the UCI to verify if the person on Lance’s doorstep really is authorized to take samples. This was a prudent thing to do.
The AFLD’s collector, perhaps being new to the job or perhaps not thoroughly understanding that he needed to keep a constant surveillance on Armstrong until the sample collection was done, allowed Armstrong to go take a shower. This pissed off the collector’s boss, who (according to Bruyneel’s account) made it quite clear he was upset during a phone conversation with the collector.
The collector, perhaps being a meek individual, was afraid of his boss and on returning to the lab with the goods tried to cover up his own culpability by saying that he’d tried to keep Armstrong from leaving his sight, but Armstrong left anyway. The boss insisted on a written report, and that’s the basis of the letter that the AFLD sent to the UCI.
Meanwhile, one wonders why Armstrong — who should know better — would try to leave the collector’s sight. Here’s a novel idea: Perhaps, cagey person that he might be, Lance was testing the tester. If this was a real AFLD collector, the response to the shower request should have been an unequivocal “Non!” Asking to go take a shower might have been a way to see whether this guy was legit, while Johan did the legwork by making the necessary phone calls. Of course, maybe Lance was just feeling kind of scuzzy after a long day in the saddle and he wanted to freshen up a bit. Or maybe he was a bit brain-dead from a hard day at the “office” and forgot that he shouldn’t leave the collector’s sight until the sample-taking was completed. [Update: TBV has an interesting variant of the “brain-dead” theory in this comment to the previous post.]
Bottom line: Two mistakes of roughly equal proportion were made. Lance shouldn’t have gone and taken that shower, and the AFLD collector should have insisted that Armstrong not leave his sight. In a fair system, one might think that the two mistakes would cancel each other out. But the anti-doping adjudication system is not exactly fair. It’s rigged in favor of the ADAs, not the athletes.
Which brings me to this: The way I see this playing out is that the AFLD will pursue some sort of case against Lance for violating the WADA code. If it’s handled in a speedy way (don’t bet on it), then the case will be decided within days or weeks of the Tour’s start in early July. The initial decision, given how the system works, will go against Lance. No disrespect meant to the AFLD, but given that they will not only prosecute, but a panel of theirs will also adjudicate the case, it’s no real stretch to figure that when the decision comes down it will favor their side. That means the AFLD will impose some sort of sanction — if it can do so for a breach of protocol during an out-of-competition test. The sanction, very likely, will apply only to participating in competitions on French soil, so Lance will be able to compete at the Giro and in other races.
If the decision occurs with enough time, I would expect an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. And if their decision came down quickly, Lance might be reinstated for competition at Le Tour. But I wouldn’t bet on that. The system is rigged, as I said before.
I hate to say it, but the likelihood is that Lance won’t be racing at Le Tour. Which is a shame. I’d like to see him competing there again, to see if he’s still got what it takes to win the biggest, baddest bike race after a four-year layoff. This may come as good news for Alberto Contador, who won’t have to wonder about who Astana’s team leader will be for the event.
If you’ve got tickets to go to France for this year’s Tour, and if you bought them for the sole reason of watching Lance Armstrong compete in the fabled event once again, you might want to double-check whether those tickets are refundable. Same for any organized tours you might be taking over there.
Now, on the upside for Lance, Aspen is truly beautiful during the summertime. If he doesn’t already know the area (he’s got a house there, which he bought last year or the year before), I can recommend many good hikes, mountain bike trails and maybe even even a few road rides he might want to do to occupy his time and train for the next big thing on his comeback tour. Which could be Leadville. It’s only a couple of weeks after Le Tour ends, and it would be his chance to kick Dave Wiens’ tail, all while setting a record for the event. Even better, it’s wickedly good training for the Vuelta a Espana, too.
Unless the AFLD finds a way to save face and back down from purusing a case against Lance for leaving their collector’s sight, Much as I’d rather things were different, I don’t think he’ll be competing at the 2009 Tour de France. Then again, I could be wrong.
Here’s a point of order. Lance isn’t supposed to leave the tester’s presence after the tester shows up. But legally, when does the tester “show up”? When any warm body says “let me take a shower with you”, or when proper credentials are established?
I’m curious about timing. Under new rules, athletes have to provide an hour or two every day when they can be tested. Did the tester show up during this block of time?
At any rate, I find Lance’s story entirely credible. AFLD testers might well be more clueless about the rules than regular UCI testers, and once in trouble with their boss might easily lie to save their own job – nothing unusual there.
On the other hand, just try to imagine things going down as the tester claims. He advises Lance not to leave his sight, and Lance says, no thanks, I’d rather have a giant scandal blow up in my face because I’m sweaty?
I do have to agree with TBV’s assessment about lance being an idiot. Not for the shower though. He’s an idiot for not seeing this whole thing coming. If I were Lance, I’d be video-taping every encounter with anti-doping. Whip out the tape verifying Lance’s side of the story, and Lance wins big, makes AFLD look stupid.
I am amused by the whizzinator theory, but since blood was also taken, did Lance also perform a complete blood replacement during that shower?
tom
Clueless is the key word. AFLD will be forced to back down.
Someone needs to drum up the financial impact statements of a Tour with or without Lance or even an American in contention. I had the information in the early ought’s, but it’s got to be either updated by now or available in more detail.
And I’ve said this before as well. If the French don’t want us, well, I see no reason why we can’t get a number of THEIR sponsors, get them to dump the silly event thanks to such crappy management, and have a Stage Race here in the US, at the same time, and just throw tons and tons of money at the thing, so that every single ProTour team would be SORELY tempted to send their “A” squads stateside and turn the Tour in to a backroom sideshow to a better event.
We’ll even hold the athletes to the WADA rules, and I’ll guarantee that we won’t have any crazy arrests or publicly embarrassing moments of Gendarme ineptitude. Better event, better location, better payout… what’s not to like?
The economic engine for the future of cycling is COMPLETELY in the hands of the US and the Western Hemisphere. Europe is not replacing its’ own population, so it’s simple demographics. We have more people riding than ever, more people interested in riding than ever, and a much larger population. We’re even changing around our infrastructure to be more bike smart and friendly. France, Italy, and Spain are great places to ride, but honestly, if the NGB goons don’t get their act together, someone stateside will pick up their slack, come up with something better, and wipe their backsides with it. My only regret is that The TofC sold half their shares to the ASO. They should’ve weighed better options to keep more control.
Tom,
TBV offers a bit more on what might have happened in this comment, if you haven’t seen it already. Bike racing can be like a chess game on wheels, and no one’s played it better than Lance and Johan during their seven-year winning streak at the Tour. What surprises me is that one or both of them didn’t think a few more moves ahead and see how the scenario that day might play out. It was a boneheaded move to walk away from the guy until Bruyneel had established whether or not he was really who he said he was.
We all make mistakes. I think this was a mistake on Lance’s part, and it’s opened an opportunity for AFLD to drop the hammer on him — or at least a sanction for violating the rules. It was a mistake on the collector’s part not to latch onto Lance like superglue for the time he was there. But when it comes down to whose word to believe, the system will probably believe the tester and not Lance. Hard to say exactly what really happened, but given the immense publicity this has generated, AFLD has no way to back out and save face. Or, at least, none that I can see.
Wow, I should have read that more carefully last night. TBV seems to be implying an intentional setup. That’s the kind of edgy speculation that he usually reserved for… me. Makes perfect sense though.
But I think my idea on the technicality of when the tester “shows up” is valid. Otherwise, what’s to keep say ME from showing up and being Lance’s new best friend for thirty minutes, recording his every naked move with my button cam? Seriously there’s people out there that do that kind of thing (so I’m told, pay no attention to that odd looking button on my shirt).
Still, Lance really should’ve been able to see this one coming.
tom
Tom,
I expect that just the kind of technicality you’re suggesting will be the central issue, should this case go forward (and I expect it will). If Lance’s legal team can convince the ALFD’s panel that the athlete isn’t really under any obligation until the collection agent’s identity is verified, then he might prevail and still be able to race the TdF. I’m afraid I wouldn’t bet on that, however.
Both Lance and Johan should’ve seen this coming a mile away. I hate to see this kind of stuff happening, especially since it’s so predictable. Meanwhile, Pat McQuaid is registering some disappointment with French officials for the way this has been conducted.
Rant,
CyclingNews is reporting that L’Equipe is reporting that AFLD will come to a decision sometime in early May.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr10news2
2009 WADA Code for anyone interested:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf
(Please note the self-serving circular nature of the code, which would have done a German government official in the early 1940’s proud)
Jeff,
Thanks, when I get a moment, I’ll add that link to the latest updates on the previous post, too.
WADA Code 14.2.5 now allows the ADA to respond to an athlete’s comments.
Does anyone have information on a definitive timeline regarding who fired the first shot here?
If it was AFLD, then they are in violation of 14.2.5
If it was LA, then they are not.
I may be wrong, but from the sequence of stories that I’ve read, the AFLD appears to have fired the first shot.
My take is that until until the the moment that the testers crediantials had been verified, Lance had no obligation to remain in his sight. However, from the moment that his creds WERE verified is when the clock starts ticking and all rules apply.
What if he was a fraud trying to get something on Lance? He of all people must surely be careful here…as undoubtedly people would try something like that.
SO…by going to take a shower WHILE Johan was verifying said testers creds, was Lance going against any rules? I think not. Just my 2 cents worth..and surely AFLD will be getting this argument if they try to impose any sanctions.
Rant:“Unless the AFLD finds a way to save face and back down from purusing a case against Lance for leaving their collector’s sight, Much as I’d rather things were different, I don’t think he’ll be competing at the 2009 Tour de France. Then again, I could be wrong.”
It’s hard to believe I could still have some naivete left in me after following the Landis case, but I think the case against Lance is so embarasslingly petty that even AFLD will realize they have to drop it in order to save face.
Hmmmm. Now that I’ve said that out loud, even I don’t believe it.
But still, AFLD could save face by blaming their collector. Or they could try to make themselves look magnanimous by letting Lance off with a slap on the wrist.
I agree with Tom about having audio or video recordings of these sample collections. I’m surprised that isn’t done as a matter of course by both the rider and the collector.
I haven’t had the chance to read all the comments but do agree absolutely with Tom – Lance should videotape ALL his dope testing & post on his Twitter account along with all his other photo ops ( :). I also agree with Matt that Lance absolutely had the right to verify the guy was legit. Plus, LA & Johan apparently ASKED the UCI & the tester if it was ok if he took a shower while they were awaiting the verification & he was given the go-ahead.
This whole thing is ridiculous. It’s just the AFLD trying to show how (cough) IMPORTANT & (cough, cough, haccccck, haacccck) POWERFUL they are. Growing up on a farm, I saw the exact same behavior from our roosters. They all wanted to show THEY were the biggest COCKS…. on the roost…. 😉
Anyway, I do NOT believe for one single moment that Lance will not be at the Tour if he is physically able. After the last two years of PR NIGHTMARE at the Tour, Lance’s return is a gift from GOD for cycling & especially that race. Even an idiot can see it will be the biggest moneymaker & media-magnet for the ASO in YEARS. Even in this time of economic collapse, sponsors are probably lined up!
The AFLD is just pathetically ruffling their feathers & strutting on the barn rafters.
Hey, Pierre – COCK-a-doodle-doo to you, too!
I wonder if AFLD would say it was fair for them to comment because Lance tweeted about the test happening, and complained about the hair sample?
By the way, I highly recommend listening to the audio on that BBC sports web page – I almost missed it. McQuaid more or less agrees that the French seem to be out to get Lance.
Very different treatment than what Floyd got, eh?
tom
We need fairness and discretion.
We’re getting neither.
Tom,
Interesting point. Could tweeting that one just underwent a screening count as the first shot? Hmm.
RW,
Bingo.
Sometimes a facination with the latest techno gadget du jour will get you into trouble.
A tweet counts.
Jeff,
I suppose that would be true. Whaddaya bet that a certain someone becomes more careful in what he tweets about his tests?
http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/video/5345-update-lances-injury-response-drug/5345/
Watch with an honest, open attitude, and tell me what you think…
He seems truthful to me. And he seems to realize that the Tour may not be in the cards for him this year. It’s a shame.
Odd that only one collector was sent, when normally there’s a witness. I’d like to hear the AFLD’s explanation for that — not that they would comment on such things.
“Lance’s return is a gift from GOD for cycling…”
This is almost certainly not the case for leTour. It is very, very clear that ASO considers leTour *their property* and they will not, under any cicumstances, allow anyone to interfere with it. They seem to have the full force and backing of the Government of France (a nuclear power, mind you) in this regard. LAs return to ASO is in a sense a *curse* from god.
I am most interested to see what kind of brinksmanship will play out in the coming weeks. LA has considerable global influence, representing a cause many people (including myself) rightfully feel very strongly about. LeTour is a piece of national French culture, that a great many people care deeply about. Both want to use the spectable of the tour to promote their own personal agendas.
Irresestible forces and immovable objects. What will happen? This latest round is merely a continuation of the battle where Floyd was the first casualty. As RW points out, fairness and discretion have also been tossed aside. NB: professional sport is a business, first and foremost. There is little that is fair about a business that the parties beleive to be zero-sum, and that what we have here.
I’m surprised LA/Bruneeel couldn’t see this coming. They’ve been *set up*.
And hey, wasn’t LA a medalist at a prior Olympics? Doesn’t the IOC retain samples like…forever now? I wonder if AFLD is holding some trumps for…just…the…right…time.
Now that I’ve made the original argument that tweeting crosses the line, I’ll argue the other way. The whole point of the tit-for-tat rule (can we call it the Floyd rule?) is that when an athlete says bad stuff about the anti-doping system they have a right to defend their position.
This is clearly not that.
tom
The testers will not let you photograph or videotape the control session.
They are required to inform the athlete of their responsibilities (including not leaving the testing area) (7.3.2).
They also must consider any reasonable request from an athlete to leave the control environment (7.3.4), and are required to document in detail any anomalies that have the potential to compromise the sample (7.5.2), and then institute Annex A, failure to comply – this must be done on the spot, because the athlete is required to sign paperwork associated with the Annex A violation.
7.4.5 says that they must document any irregularities in the procedure.
Seems like the tester didn’t inform him not to leave, then didn’t document the alleged departure from his responsibilities, then didn’t institute the proper paperwork to document the alleged violation.
Sad thing is that if Lance had been wise to this setup, and if nothing got recorded by the tester in the section on the forms that deals with irregularities (which seems to be the case based on his self-interview), he should have just denied leaving and going to take a shower (forgetting whether it happened or not is always a good way to get to where you need to go) – then given the fact that the tester didn’t write it down, it would have ended there. Hindsight.
Rule of thumb with the drug testing fascists…….shut the fu&k up and assume that they’re going to play dirty. Multiply that by a gagillion for Lance.
Hey jello,
It’s bizarre that you can’t tape the control session. Do you get a copy of the control forms when they leave? It seems like the most basic and obvious of protections. If not, then given that they’re going to play dirty, do you think it matters what lance saw on that form when it left his presence?
tom
@tom:
You’re right, it’s bizarre that you can’t record the session……but not surprising.
I had a control not so long ago where the DCO had credentials, but the chaperone didn’t (often if the DCO is the opposite gender, they bring a same sex chaperone to witness the actual production of urine), so I made a few calls before submitting to the test, because I figured that all of the personnel would have to have credentials from the ADO, but it turns out that the chaperone (who gets to watch me pee from as close up as they like) doesn’t need any kind of credentials or any formal training beyond being instructed by the DCO.
Athletes do get a copy of all the forms, so if what Lance is saying is accurate – that the DCO/lab tech didn’t put anything down in the comments section, and didn’t fill out an Annex A, it should go away for him, but it’ll cost him a bunch of dough, which is one of their key strategies.
I’ve also taken showers after being marshalled, and before producing a sample or having blood drawn – usually under the watchful eye of the DCO or the chaperone, but a few times I was left to myself.
There is actually a case (I can’t be fussed to find it right now, if you want to find it google Ainsley Robinson) where the athlete tried to say that the substance came from his hands being contaminated (he worked as a bouncer and confiscated illegal drugs for a living). The tribunal found that if an athlete doesn’t take the care to wash him/herself, that they are at fault for any positive test that may result.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t….it’s the foundation of the WADA manifesto.
Jello.
Here you go:
http://www.adrsportred.ca/resource_centre/pdf/Summary/NR-315228-summary.pdf
Astana was not invited to the TdF last year for doping infractions in 2007, and it was only lack of additional doping infractions that got them the invitation for 2009.
If there was a violation of the rules in AFLD’s eyes, if they are going to find Lance guilty of evading the sample collection, didn’t Johan Bruyneel participate in the evasion?
How could ASO possibly invite a team that has a star rider and its DS involved in a doping infraction?
Cub,
That’s probably what they’ll say if they revoke the invite. It won’t, however, be the truth.
Of course, they could also do what they did to Bjarne Riis a couple of years ago, back when his team was still sponsored by CSC. Let the team race, but ban the boss. But given the animosities and egos in certain quarters, I could see the ASO uninviting Astana. And then Contador would be hosed for a second year in a row. I can only imagine what racejunkie would have to say about that. 😉
Then again, Madame Amaury sacked Patrice Clerc last October, so maybe the ASO will focus on the euros rather than the posturing. Having Astana and Contador there would probably give at least a small boost to the Tour’s fortunes, compared to how some fans might react if the whole team is prevented from racing.
So what are the politics like between ASO and AFLD?
It’s looking more and more like ASO is going to find itself in a situation it doesn’t at all want. Recent history would suggest that they block the entire team, especially since Johan was involved in the situation. But blocking Alberto and a very strong team over a shower would ultimately be a very unpopular choice throughout the cycling community, as McQuaid has already demonstrated.
This showergate situation has a small possibility of mushrooming into this year’s big cycling politics mess. Whether or not that happens depends on how the ASO and AFLD resolve what is at this point still a small internal political mess.
tom
I’ll vote for no Lance, no Bruyneel, and Astana/Contador show up, and maybe win.
AFLD doesn’t care what happens to ASO, really. They’re the government, there to help. ASO will want to take it out on someone, and that’ll be Johan. Taking out the whole Astana team may be one retaliation too far for them over a non-positive, so I don’t think they’ll do it, though I won’t be surprised if they do anyway.
Don’t know if we’ll see Valverde either, but he’s never been worth squat in a three week tour.
TBV
Here is an interesting video clip from AFLD which purports to show what happens during a control:
http://www.afld.fr/video_controle_antidopage.php
A couple of interesting things I note:
1. There is only one guy, no witness or chaperone.
2. The collector show a lapel pin for credentials. This pin is the AFLD logo, available on the website. Many people have enough skills to make, or have made, such a pin.
Of course, this video may be more schematic than an exact representation of what happens. But how many of us would let someone watch us pee just on the basis of a lapel pin?
Hi Rant,
How was your winter :-)?
Lance may have found an unwitting ally in: WADA itself.
http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-wada-aiding-and-abetting-lance.html
“Is WADA ‘aiding and abetting’ Lance?”
Another long post (mine) regarding the recently decided CAS CONI/Cherubin case: WADA may have erred in seeking an appeal when the DCO staff were not specifically clear about providing NOTICE of consequences when the footballer went to take an unsupervised shower…
WADA, in its perennial efforts to seek ‘judicial interpretation’, came in after the National Appellate case confirmed a one-month suspension (WADA sought two years on grounds of Art. 2.3), seeking a full two-year suspension.
I argue that Lance is lucky that Cherubin suffered the wrath of WADA: now there’s precedent to explain to WADA, and its Signatories, that the DCO has a legal obligation to expressly ‘refuse’ (if that be the law) someone like Lance from taking a shower, and more: they most explain clearly the legal consequences if Lance (or any other) acts contrary to that command.
I used the simplified classic TV example:
“Police!!! Halt or I’ll SHOOT!” =
A) State Actor (with authority)
B) Command
C) Consequences (allowing recipient to decide)
Even more beneficial to Lance, is this specifically involves the case where multiple team members (soccer match in Italy: two players from each team were notified… ‘the opponents’ were allowed to shower, while Cherubin’s teammate was ‘controlled’, and great ambiguity exists in the account of how Cherubin believed he had the right to shower also, yet since 3/4ths of the DCO team were ‘observing’ two opponents, and the remaining DCO was taking the teammate’s sample, … well read the opinion (link at my post).
This isn’t to say that Bordry’s vendetta cannot arrive at its illogical (FR?) conclusion… but Lance should win his appeal (Unless WADA ‘buys’ another CAS Panel/Decision).
Nice to be back :-)) last day of skiing in one hour!
ZENmud
sorry for the six AM typos… 🙁
must NOT most… etc…
All I want to say, is that the Tour of MO starts Sept 7, Astana is going to be there, and Lance is an American rider.
Most teams will try to let the riders ride their home country races, and since Georgia is no more, CA and MO are the biggies this year!
Sorry, off-topic***** But Quick-Step is bringing a team to MO!!!