The following is a video that Lance Armstrong posted on the Livestrong.com web site, in which he addresses how he’s recovering from the broken collarbone and also the developments of the last few days. Take a look and let me know what you think. [Note: Hat tip to R Wharton for providing the link.]
Update on Lance’s Injury, Response to Drug Testing Allegations — powered by http://www.livestrong.com
“Antics.” No mistaking the deliberate choice of this word.
Yep, I’m sure that was a conscious choice of words. Sounds like he understands that the Tour may not happen for him this year. In an odd sort of way, that might be a blessing in disguise.
Interesting comment about the peloton reaching out.
Given WADA can’t get its own (AFLD) to follow WADA Code, in the case of a dispute, why don’t we put it to a vote where the riders have the final say.
2006 TdF riders would have gotten to vote about Floyd. Riders in Lance’s last race and next scheduled race get to solve the AFLD riddle. A simple majority might not be enough, but surely we can agree to 2/3rds carrying the day?
Jeff:
I think the problem would be idea of this omerta the peleton has, so the idea would be that of course they’d vote to let LA or even FL off.
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Leaving the tester’s sight could possibly allow the testee to do something to falsify the results, although I think it rather unlikely that LA could have actually done anything significant during that shower. Be that as it may, instead of banning him from racing, why not just subject him to a period of intense testing. “OK bub, you could have doctered up things on this test, so guess what? We are going to visit you daily for the next 2 weeks for repeated testing, and you’d better not even think about showering until we are done.” The testee gets punished by the extra hassle, plus if he is doping, he faces increased risk of detection or having to forgo doping for a period of time. Pick whatever period of time you think is appropriate. Repeated violations escalated thing and at some point might trigger a competition ban.
I wasn’t quite half serious about the vote thing, but am serious about the notion of giving some control back to the athletes.
See jellotrip’s recent posts on LA vs. AFLD: The Analysis Begins.
He has personal experience with showering/not showering after being marshalled, and surprise, it’s a catch-22.
Lance screwed up. The tour is gone for him. The PR machine will try to make it sound like an innocuous issue, and persecution, but that is a smokescreen. He messed up. He should not have left the sight of a possibly-valid Doping Control Officer until the matter was resolved.
The chaperon rule is there for good reasons. He is being disingenuous to suggest it doesn’t matter for him in this case. It’s a Big Deal.
He isn’t even admitting he made a mistake in judgment, even assuming he is telling the truth.
The only questions now are whether there will be something more than no-tour repercussions for Armstrong, whether Bruyneel will be allowed, and whether the whole Astana team will be dis-invited.
What a dumb way to go.
TBV
For what it’s worth, McQ seems to be on LA’s side here, according to an article in the local paper today.
I think you’re going to hard line TBV, especially based on some of the stuff jellotrip said in the previous post’s comment section – that testers have to notify the athlete that they must stay in sight, and that they must notify the athlete on the spot of any irregularities, and that such things apparently aren’t so uncommon after all.
Now, this wasn’t UCI or WADA testing as far as I can tell, so those rules may not apply in the strict sense, but in this setting you can hardly argue that Lance was really out of line with his expectations or actions.
That does all assume he’s really being honest. His best next move would be to post copies of the paperwork he received at the time of the test, assuming he was smart enough to actually keep them.
And by the way, according to cyclingnews, Prudhomme expects to Lance to race the Tour.
tom
From this article…
“the agency sent a man with 15 years of testing experience who teaches other would-be testers about the job and who has worked at the Tour, the Rugby World Cup and the athletics world championships, according to a French official closely connected to the affair, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter.
At the agency, the version of events is that only when the tester threatened to call in gendarmes did Bruyneel agree to let testing proceed, and the French official pooh-poohed Armstrong’s claim that the tester let him shower. The agency says the tester reported that he repeatedly warned Armstrong that he had to keep him within his sight at all times.”
I don’t know if the story told by Lance and Johan is true, but I think it is credible.
It is not credible (to me) that the collector would fail to note irregularities on the collection form if things played out as described above. I would also like to see Lance post the form on the internet.
Who’s the “French official closely connected to the affair”. Is it Bodry?
It isn’t clear to me which claims come from where? Is it the official or anonymous source that makes the claim about the threat to call gendarmes? Who makes the specific claim that he was warned repeatedly to stay with the tester?
Lance’s claim about making phone calls has already been corroborated, which would seem to contradict the statement that they only complied with testing because the tester threatened to call Johnny Law.
Is there a complete translation somewhere of the original AFLD press release?
tom
Here’s a google translation of the AFLD statement. http://tinyurl.com/clxoln
It contains the claim of repeated warnings, but no claim of calling the cops. I think it’s really interesting that it sites WADA rules. This should imply that the testing had to follow WADA rules to. Does this mean they were supposed to have an observer, or is that just a guideline? It would also imply that the usual documentation rules would apply, and so again I want to see Lance’s copy of the forms.
It’s also interesting that while the tester did not have any witness at all to back up his side of the story, Lance’s statement says that he had two other witnesses there besides himself and Johan (identities unknown, and it isn’t clear how much they witnessed). So in the he-said, she-said battle the AFLD might not do well, unless they can produce a video tape or a convincing document signed by Lance.
But I also have to wonder, if he received warnings on that day, if there were any significant sign then that he might be in trouble, he could’ve gotten out in front of it with some tweets that were more strategically written than haircut complaints.
And also, the document starts off by saying that Lance discussed the testing publicly, which I assume is their justification for being able to post their statement. So if an athlete says something, do the new rules allow anti-doping agencies to say whatever they want, or only to counter any statements from the athlete?
tom
Tom,
The applicable rule seems to be 14.2.5
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf
Read it over and tell us what you think, in regards to an answer to your question.
My opinion: it’s clear as mud, and if push comes to shove, will be interpreted to the ADA’s advantage.
Jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for posting that. For those who are interested, the section he’s referring to can be found on page 86 of the document.
That leaves it pretty vague, “in response to”. I don’t think their statement is in any substantive way a response to what Lance said regarding the test. But it’s vague enough for them to do what they want. As usual.
Here’s an interesting document:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/IST_En_2009.pdf
Looks like a lot of responsibility is placed on the tester for notification. And while the athlete can request a delay at his/her discretion, this is only true if the athlete can remain in view. I don’t find anything that says a chaperone or witness is required,
but so far I’ve had just a quick read.
The requirements for proof of testing authority and identity look pretty thin. Probably so thin that they wouldn’t hold up in a real court of law, but certainly sufficient for WADA’s use.
tom
I haven’t read all of the document Tom gave a link to, or all of the WADA code, but what I have read leads me to believe that Lance committed a “Failure To Comply” violation, which falls under section 2.4 of the code. It takes three of these types of violations in an 18 month period to make an anti-doping code violation.
AFLD seems to be following the steps in “Annex A – Investigating a possible Failure to Comply”.
Section 2.3 of the code is the one about refusal to submit to collection or otherwise evading collection. This is a one-strike-and-you’re-out violation, but I don’t think it applies in this case. I originally had some question about what “evade” means in this rule. Did it mean to attempt to avoid collection or to actually avoid collection? After reading more I think it is the latter. I don’t think this rule applies to this situation.
So, I think Lance, Johan and Astana are safe for now, though they need to be a little more careful in the future. Then again, I could easily be wrong.
Any thoughts?
I was having a bit of trouble cutting and pasting from the WADA site previously, but have since worked it out. Here is 14.2.5 for anyone not wanting to sift through the long document:
14.2.5 No Anti-Doping Organization or WADA accredited
laboratory, or official of either, shall
publicly comment on the specific facts of a
pending case (as opposed to general
description of process and science) except in
response to public comments attributed to the
Athlete, other Person or their representatives.
Cub, I agree with you on your interpretation. But if one believes in the witchhunt mentality, then AFLD could still try to press for 2.4, by arguing that by being out of sight where anything could happen, he may have successfully evaded real testing (for example, the refilling his bladder theory which I find ludicrous).
Jeff, what do you think – is Lance mentioning the control or complaining about the bad haircut on twitter sufficient to warrant an official response under 14.2.5?
tom
In the international standards for testing (IST) document I posted previously, direct your attention to section 7.4.5 (o), 7.4.6, and 7.4.7.
It all means that Lance should have a signed copy of the form that demonstrates what he alleges, that there was no procedural problem recorded during the testing. Or that demonstrates that he lied about what happened.
It also means that this is very bizarre, that one side is blatantly lying about what happened and contradicting the documents. Because whoever has the authentic document wins. Frankly it’s hard to imagine either side could be stupid enough to lie so blatantly.
It makes me want to spin all kinds of scenarios about the documents, about who had the opportunity to forge them and how. I’ll spare you the gory details and just give the most likely scenario:
Life always always always chooses the murkiest outcome (not a very scientific view, but Murphy’s law is hard to beat). And what outcome is that? Lance has no document, the AFLD does. AFLD document starts with or includes the word “no” in the section on irregularities, but contains lots of other words too. Lance claims AFLD never gave him his copy, and modified theirs, AFLD claims that Lance knew it all along and conveniently “lost” his copy.
If I’m wrong, somebody gets caught in a very very big and newsworthy lie.
tom
“It also means that this is very bizarre, that one side is blatantly lying about what happened and contradicting the documents.”
Imagine. As strbuk might say, “All this has happened before. And it will all happen again.”
*sigh*
Tom,
This is a bizarre story. One part both sides seem to agree on is that a delay of 20-30 minutes occurred. Pat McQuaid has, in his public comments, confirmed that Bruyneel contacted the UCI about who the tester was, and whether he had authority to test Lance. So that part of Lance’s story checks out.
If Lance goes the public disclosure route, and provides a copy of the doping control form, that would do a lot to bolster his version of events. If he doesn’t have a copy, shame on him. That’s something he should keep from now until forever. Never know when something will come back to haunt you.
If the form says what he claims, then the collector could have and should have noted the delay right then and there. From one standpoint, “if it ain’t documented, it didn’t happen.”
But, I fully expect that the AFLD’s investigation will back up their own person. Nothing sinister there, that’s just how bureaucracies tend to work. They protect their own.
The big question is, will they try to sanction him for “evading” a control, or will it be more of the “three strikes and it’s a doping violation” ilk.
As far as public comment goes, I think Bordry’s original snark about having to prove to Lance that he’s just like everyone else covers the comments Lance made on Twitter. Seems, from the reports I’ve read, that AFLD launched the first salvo in this part of the story by releasing info to the media about the letter they sent to the UCI. They upped the ante. Whether the rules actually allow them to do that is murky.
But, cynic that I am, I also expect the rules to be interpreted such that they won’t be sanctioned, criticized, or punished for making their letter public. It wasn’t a case until AFLD made it a case. And when they did so, they chose to do so in a public manner, rather than the more discreet, confidential manner one would expect.
Perhaps they’re doing this to show Lance that he is just like everyone else — and to send a message to everyone else that they’re going to be aggressive in their collection procedures.
As much as I would like to see a copy of the collection form, I think the best route for Lance is to keep quiet until AFLD makes a decision. I still think AFLD may drop the whole thing or just issue strike one of three against Armstrong, but not if Lance says much more over the next month than he already has.
Cub,
That’s a good point. Given the level of animosity between Lance and the AFLD, perhaps keeping a low profile is the best approach. Once the AFLD decides what they’re going to do (pursue a case or not), all bets may be off. But until then, there’s a fair amount of wisdom in not aggravating them further.
Hi Tom,
I’m not a Twitter fan and don’t use it, so I have to rely on others for the content of LA’s tweets on the subject.
It’ ironic when the alphabet soup supporters scream about the riders and omerta, that WADA wants a piece of the omerta pie for themselves. I think Cub’s right is suggesting the best tactic for LA is to keep quiet for a while, but I’d love to see a copy of the form.
Jeff
If he has the documentation he needs, he’s certainly better off giving AFLD all the rope they need to hang themselves. And if he doesn’t have it, shutting up is also a good idea.
As far as this just fading away, I think part of my point in the previous little rant is that one of the two sides has told a very big lie which SHOULD be easy to expose through proper documentation, and whichever side is the honest side is very unlikely to let the liar off. I’d say, zero chance of AFLD getting Lance caught in a lie and then just dropping it. Very low chance of Lance letting AFLD lie and then drop it, but in that case it may serve Lance to hold an Ace in the hole. If it was me, I couldn’t pass up the chance to say “look, I’m not paranoid, they did try to set me up”.
The only way this fades into the woodwork is if there is some kind of mutual embarrassment hiding in this mess.
And by the way, here’s Lance’s tweets that the AFLD “responded to”:
Yet another “surprise” anti-doping control. 24th one. This one from the French authorities. Urine, blood, and hair! Classic..
(11:31 AM Mar 17th from TwitterBerry)
So I’m clear – never complaining about these tests. Def part of the job. Feel targeted? Of course. But anything to prove I’m clean. Onward.
(1:38 PM Mar 17th from TwitterBerry)
tom
I posted this at Bruce Hildenbrand’s blog:
I think Lance should videotape himself 24/7 whenever he is in France, if he is clean. Someone with a phone camera at least should have been working it at the time the collector showed up. The samples tested were not positive so the fix isn’t in. Still, the idea that an athlete, who is not allowed access to samples submitted to anti-doping agencies for “independant” testing, could through his/her self or team, create “shadow” samples, whenever he/she is tested is interesting. I actually thought that was what the Don Caitlin failed experiment really was all about (i.e., that some alphabet would say his sample was non-negative and he’d have a sample of his own to use and test to counter and show he was not on peds).
You know, Bill, that raises an interesting idea. Given the comeback and what it’s supposed to be about (cancer awareness and all), a natural thing to do would be to create a documentary about the whole process. With documentaries come video/film crews capturing the “star’s” daily activities. I’d have thought Lance/Livestrong/LAF might have done such a thing. If they had, they would have just the sort of video you suggest. And it wouldn’t just be singling out one country, it would be chronicling his comeback wherever he went.
I think you’re all making it too complicated. To me this has relatively little to do with Lance Armstrong. It’s the consequence of the ASO-UCI struggle for world domination.
As you’ll recall, last year, shortly before Paris-Nice, ASO announced it was bypassing the UCI and using the AFLD for testing instead — making a cat’s paw out of the AFLD to dislodge the UCI, but also putting itself in the AFLD’s power. That probably made no difference when LeClerc was running ASO, because he and Bordry had similar views. Now Mme. Amaury’s son has replaced LeClerc, and the Amaurys treat the race like a business, not a soapbox. ASO also made up with the UCI and the AFLD no longer has exclusive control over dope testing at ASO races, which seems to irk AFLD.
Bordry has gotten himself and his organization some publicity and set up a war with UCI and ASO, and I think he’s made a serious error. I don’t see him winning a fight with ASO. If ASO wants Lance Armstrong in the race, a way will be found around this. And ASO wants Lance Armstrong in the race. He’s very good for business. The end result will be to make AFLD look foolish and incompetent … I mean, more foolish and incompetent.
Don’t cancel the hotel reservations and turn in those plane tickets yet. In fact, Prudhomme was quoted yesterday as saying he doesn’t anticipate a problem with Lance Armstrong’s participation at the Tour. How this miracle is to be achieved he doesn’t say. but I have confidence in him.
http://www.radsport-news.com/sport/sportnews_56038.htm
“The samples tested were not positive….”
Do we *know* that?
“….so the fix isn’t in.”
Do we *know* this (yet) either?
Just sayin’…
If Armstrong does have the documents which prove his story (at least as far as what was on the documents), I wonder why AFLD is trying to pull off this, knowing they have a big chance at getting egg on their face big time. The only thing I can see is that there seems to be no doubt that Armstrong did go off off 20 minutes to shower. If they can manage to spin this fact enough to cover up any malfeasance they might have done in regard to rigging documentation and/or failing to attempt at least to prevent Armstrong from leaving the collector’s sight, it is possible they might get some sanction against LA, or bad publicity for him. Or maybe just enough of something to hang their hat on for a ban from the TdF.
Could they be brazen enough to try to claim that any copies LA has are forgeries? I’d imagine that forensics could establish the validity of any documents Armstrong has, but who knows for sure.
There is a distinct possibility that LA might have regarded such documents as mere trash. In the video clip and the tweet he mentions this as the 24th test since he announced his comeback; as I recall the number 60 or so being mentioned as the number of times tested during his 7 wins. He has been tested a lot, even if the “most tested” claim is hype, and this is the first time there has been any mention of irregularities during the collection process itself; and if the collector did not indicate any problem at the time, Armstrong might have assumed this was just another routine collection.
Of course, it is also possible that LA is blowing smoke here. If the collector did indeed document all sorts of Armstrong shenanigans he is sure to have “lost” his copy, and will claim that AFLD’s copy has been altered after the fact. LA could play off the idea that I mention in the paragraph directly above: he regarded this as routine, with no need to keep the documents. And he does have witnesses apparently ready to corroborate his version of things.
With McQ so far on LA’s side, this might blow over with perhaps some slap on the wrist for leaving the collector’s sight, at least as far as UCI is concerned, and probably ASO banning LA from the Tour, which Armstrong seems resigned to.
Bill – jellotrip has stated that WADA does not allow athletes to tape the testing. Although I didn’t find this in the IST. As far as recording Lance’s story, I’ve wondered if it is typical on pro teams to have a dedicated staff member for press releases and such (Cathy Mehl in this case). Also, Lance reported two additional witnesses to the testing and we don’t know who they are.
eightzero – Lance has said the tests already came back negative (I didn’t actually realize athletes were notified of non-positive results).
William – isn’t that what I said earlier? There’s this class of movie where there’s a clever and complicated plot portrayed in the movie, and you don’t know how it all comes together until the end of the movie. Like “Arlington Road”. But the problem with some of these moves (like “Arlington Road”) is that if you try to think through the movie again, and ask yourself “what was the plan”, you can’t come up with any sensible plan that could have reliably produced the results shown.
I’m rambling about this, because it’ something that’s easy to forget in real life, and it’s why I like to spin these scenarios. What did people know and when did they know it, and how would that reasonably influence or even dictate their actions?
That’s what’s so incredible about this situation. The two stories being presented would seem to be completely contradictory, in terms of how you could expect the other side to act.
tom
Some athletes (typically those who are highly tested, myself included) have access to an online mechanism called A.D.A.M.S. (ironically for those who circumstantially have that last name).
It primarily allows athletes to update their whereabouts, but it also lets them track the tests that they’ve done (the test results are shown in a section titled “my recent tests”…..which always makes me think of a primary school reader….”See Billy Athlete pee. See him pee clean.”).
The tests either show “negative”, “positive”, or “no result” in cases of tests that are in the process of being tested or are positive but under appeal.
I’ve tried a few times to videotape and/or photograph my testing sessions, and have been told every time that I’m not allowed. I’ve challenged the DCO to show me where in the IST it says that it’s prohibited, and they always reply that they have the discretion to manage the session in any way that they see fit. I’ve also asked what the penalty for videotaping the session would be, and was told “you don’t want to find out”, which is probably correct.
Jello.
Liggett junkie,
My apologies. Your comment got caught in moderation and I just noticed it and approved it. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Liggett Junkie,
Thanks for that analysis. I’m not sure that yet another political clash in the alphabet soup of cycling is something I’d characterize as less complicated.
As for how much it has to do with Lance, could such a battle be mounted on the back of any other athlete?
tom
I’d be curious as to how LA was notified of negative results.
Jello – good to hear from someone that has first hand experience. I wonder though -if the athlete isn’t doing the taping (or controlling the taping by an agent) what tools would the DCO have to compel compliance? Suppose, I dunno, the American Cancer Society was making a documentary on LA, and refused to stop filming. Then what?
Indeed – who will watch the watchers?
Earlier I posted a link to an article that said the AFLD sample collector was about to call in the cops, apparently to force Lance to give the samples. In retrospect that sounds ridiculous. Doesn’t the athlete always have the right to refuse to give the samples, even though that would result in an anti-doping violation? They can’t call in the cops and force him to pee in the cup, can they?
Cub,
I’m sure Jean C will correct me if I’m wrong on this, but in France doping is actually a criminal offense. I’m not sure if refusing to provide samples is a misdemeanor or a more serious crime (if it is a crime at all) over there, but perhaps the collector would have been justified in calling the cops. On a slightly different note, as Tom Fine posted earlier, there’s such a wide divergence in certain points of the two stories that it makes a person wonder who’s telling the truth, or for that matter, what the truth might be.
If Armstrong really has paperwork that shows the collector didn’t note any irregularities at the time he was collecting samples, then he screwed up — if the AFLD version of the story is true. Which would be odd for someone who supposedly trained the other collectors. Maybe it’s an illustration of the old expression, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” But then again, truth is stranger than fiction.
Yes truth is stranger than fiction. Also less predictable. I should know better than to try to predict the how this will play out because it will almost certainly take some twists and turns that nobody ever thought of.
I hope Jean C can comment on the possibility of gendarmes being called in to enforce the sample collection. It sounds a little extreme to me, but the French do take doping more seriously than I do.
Even if the collector could call in the cops, in a way it doesn’t make sense that he would. If Lance refused to give the samples that would be evading a test which would get him a certain suspension. Forcing Lance to provide the samples would give him a chance to skate if the tests turned out negative. Maybe that’s what the collector and his supervisor were arguing about on the phone. 🙂
To be balanced, the reason why ADO would not want someone taping is probably similar to the reason they don’t want certain other details to be widely known — it may make it easier to plan evasive subterfuge to see how it is done.
It may seem silly when some is going through the 10th collection of the year, but if they do something different for some reason — say take some hair from there — they may not want visual evidence to confirm something not known by the witch doctors.
Yes, it is security through obscurity, but it is not a completely ridiculous line of reasoning if you believe that there are many dopers and masterminds who would look at tapes on youtube looking for an angle. And there would be.
TBV
It’s hard to imagine what could be secret about collection methods, but who knows? But even if there is no taping, what’s to keep one athlete from telling others what was done?
I’d rather think that the ban on taping (if one does exist) would be for protection of privacy of both the athlete and the collector. Maybe they want the collectors to be rather incognito, so someone who sees one sitting on his front porch doesn’t hang a U-turn and hid out until the collector packs it in.
And there’s always the Machiavellian possibility that they don’t want taping so that they can manufacture tales about what went on if questions are raised, as in this incident.
The thing that seems most wrong about the calling the cops threat, is that one of the few confirmed facts here is that someone did call the UCI to confirm that the tester was legit. This doesn’t really fit with not submitting to the test until threatened with a call to the cops.
This part was all from an anonymous source anyway.
tom
I doubt heavily that gendarmes could have forced the collection of a sample. For that kind of thing they very probably need an order of a judge.
To have the gendarmes in that affair is a bit strange for me:
First, because Armstrong alleged that he was not confident about the identity of the DCO. Why not to call the gendarmes to ask them to verify his identity?
Second, if LA refused to give a sample that was not a problem for the DCO, he would have finished his job and LA would have get a positive AAF.
So if the DCO wanted to call the gendarmes it would be for an other thing.
—–
About video taping, I think that no athlete wants to have his peeing filmed. To mus issues with storage of such videos ( blackmailing, publishing online and more)
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 must 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).
ZENmud
Jean,
As I understand the story, it was the AFLD’s collector who supposedly threatened to call the gendarmes. Which is odd. If Lance refused to be tested, once the collector’s identity and authority were established, then there would be an automatic AAF, as you note. I don’t see why he would have needed to call the police. With regard to Lance and Johan not being sure of who the person was, I don’t think it was a matter of proving identity (that is, he is who his driver’s license or passport says he is), but whether or not he had the authority to do the testing. JB’s call to the UCI confirmed that he had the authority, short of calling Pierre Bordry to find out if the guy was legit, calling the UCI seems a valid approach, too. Especially if the question was, “Does the AFLD have the authority to do out-of-competition tests?”
ZENmud,
That would be ironic, if WADA’s own actions wound up backing up Lance, wouldn’t it?
hi Rant,
For an IGO, whose budget took such a WHACK because USADA had drained their ‘rainy day, must-win litigation’ fund against Floyd, last year, you’d have thought that too many attempted extensions of their CODE through ‘judicial interpretation’ was a lesson learned in prior cases.
The fact that the Italian case was so nearly similar (the only point I could see that could ‘distinguish’ the two, is that the actual situation between notification and ‘fiasco’ had the team element:
Cherubin’s coach evidently went ‘postal’ against his team, for their performance, and the door was locked between time Cherubin entered, and DCO staff realized that, and were banging on the door! (I think that’s what ‘put them off’ as to his ‘comportment’) That coach being fired was even relevant to the CAS Panel’s reasoning.
If Bill or William have pertinent comments (‘Notice’ was my speciality in Moot Court, in 1995), especially if they think I’ve missed some component… I’m all ears.
But WADA (answering your Q again) lives and dies by ‘judicial interpretation’, and I think they ‘rolled the dice’ on this ambiguity too soon. If they hadn’t appealed Cherubin *and lost*, they could have been (not that they could have foreseen this) in a fun place (in their perverse, Omertoid view), to be appealing against LA, if AFLD lost. (as we know: the extended ‘parties who could appeal; although by the CODE even USADA could appeal of AFLD acquitted…
Now, thanks to Cherubin, that seems absolutely unavailable to WADA: they’d be repeating the exact claims for which they’d just lost. There’s still a slim chance that ‘precedent’ will prevail, as it should, if CAS is to maintain its monopoly in private ‘adjudication’ of sports-doping-case appeals.
Let’s wait and see what the Dark Lord’s Nine Ringwraiths decide…
😉
Z
Here’s what really went down:
http://lunarpoodle.blogspot.com/2009/04/original-afld-lancedrug-test-scene.html
ZM – Correct me if I’m wrong, but since Lance’s test was out of competition, doesn’t this mean it can’t be immediately sanctioned under Article 2.3, and falls under the three-strikes rule?
As far as notice, could you reasonable construe that the entire time they were verifying the identity, that they hadn’t gotten past the first step in your “police, stop or I’ll shoot” process?
At any rate, the AFLD side does claim that notice was given, so if they can document that, your case would not matter as much and very bad (in terms of PR at least) for Lance. And if they can’t document it or Lance can document the opposite, then very bad for AFLD.
tom
In the Cherubin case didn’t CAS actually uphold the one month suspension and reject WADA’s appeal to extend the suspension to a year or two? A properly timed one month suspension would keep Lance out of the TdF.
William and Cub,
William: I’d simply say that AFLD would be hard-pressed to win a 2.3 argument, as the IT prosecutor tried, where it didn’t fly in the first instance. As to being a ‘whereabouts’ ‘three-strike’ situation, I don’t think that the level of confusion (since by oath the DCO from AFLD should have been a bit more clear, as I argued) equates with a ‘testing control violation’ (and he’s been exposed to 24 tests already…)
True (‘police’ ID-check), but even a fleeing robber might stop, before questioning the ID. I think it’s important to retain that the whole affair was ‘confusing’. By ‘notice’, it’s important to express the ‘consequences’, and CAS clearly decided that insufficient ‘consequences’ were offered to Cherubin… as well, the concept of ‘refusal’ by the DCO was imperfect, and CAS rewarded that by confirming for Cherubin as to the IT-GUI decision.
I haven’t heard one word from Lance or Bruyneel stating that ‘he told us Lance could not shower, and if he did so, I would be forced to write on this form that ‘he was avoiding’ or ‘was uncooperative’. And (if we presume to believe the Lance-from-Aspen video), there’s the blank space on the form for the DCO to write down irregularities, which was left blank.
Cub: Correct, but I tried to express my POV that, AFLD now knows that it shouldn’t press this issue, being so nearly identical to the fact pattern under Cherubin. (I personally think that ASO is reminding AFLD that we’re in a global recession, and knocking Lance out of the Tour would have a strong, negative effect on revenues all around the world: saying that, I don’t think Plucky Pierre cares a wit about anything but ‘busting’ his nemisis… hence my cartoon (previous post at Ww))
ZENmud