Rising From the Ashes/Who Could It Be?

Like A Phoenix, Puerto Rises

Those celebrating the end of Operation Puerto earlier this week will probably be dismayed to learn that Spanish prosecutors have filed an appeal in an attempt to keep the case against Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes and others alive. On Monday, Spanish Judge Antonio Serrano shelved the case, on the grounds that no law against doping existed at the time of the investigation, and that no grounds for endangering the public health had been demonstrated by the prosecution.

On Wednesday, prosecutors decided to try a slightly different tack, citing the Spanish public health ministry’s guidelines on handling blood and performing transfusions in their appeal. The appeal stated that the blood bags were handled and manipulated “in violation of the Spanish law on blood donation and blood banks,” and that these types of treatments could “only be performed under the authority of the institutions appointed by the ministry of health,” according to an article posted at CyclingNews.com.

Prosecutors are asking Judge Serrano to obtain a report from the Madrid center for blood transfusions on outlining the sanitary conditions required for blood transfusions, as well as for the transport and storage of human blood, the CyclingNews story says.

Prosecutors are also claiming that the Judge’s investigations were “not enough to shed a light on the facts, which appear to be of criminal nature.” They also want the Judge to allow an analysis of the computer hardware seized at the beginning of the Operation Puerto investigation.

Assuming the Judge upholds his earlier ruling, prosecutors may then appeal to the Madrid Provincial Court for a decision to keep the case open.

And, of course, the usual suspects are lining up and trying to figure out how to find ways to impose anti-doping sanctions on the riders implicated. “Let us, the UCI, WADA and IOC, all study the legal possibilities together to get the investigation files, and also the blood bags,” said Jean-Francois LaMour, France’s sports minister who is also the vice-president of WADA.

There comes a time when losses should be cut, lessons learned and everyone should move forward. Operation Puerto may well become the textbook example of how not to conduct a criminal anti-doping investigation in the future, but at the moment it looks like it’s going to be the case that would not die.

Who Can It Be?

First of all, let’s put this out there: The information that has come out, that there was another rider whose sample number from Stage 19 is the same as a sample number written in Floyd Landis’ lab documentation package from Stage 17 is not a slam-dunk argument that could get the Floyd Landis case tossed out. If any of the 60+ arguments that Dr. Arnie Baker has documented while assisting Landis’ defense team are true slam-dunks the chances are that they are being held back for the hearing.

Why not show those cards now? First, given that there were some, shall we say, not fully ISO-compliant changes to the AFLD documentation in the French proceedings after Landis posted the USADA information for all to see, why would his side risk tipping off the other side in advance? If they did, the other side just might find ways to change their documentation in order to re-inforce their point of view.

And secondly, even if the Landis side thought releasing the information could persuade USADA to drop the matter, what’s the real likelihood that the case will be dropped before the hearings begin on May 14th? Right now, I’d say it’s unlikely that USADA would just roll over, unless they had a clear fall guy they could pin the blame on for the whole debacle. And the only way I can imagine that happening would be if LNDD issued a retraction. While they’ve done that before, I can’t imagine they will do so for such a high-profile case. Talk about egg on their faces, this would be an entire world-class quiche.

But the possibility that data from someone else got mingled in with Landis’ data leaves open another possibility. Could there be someone out there who was cheating, and who knows he’s the guilty party, watching this whole saga unfold. An honorable person might step forward and say, “Sorry all, it was me. I’m the guy you’re looking for. Landis is innocent, let him go. I’m the one you want.”

But, of course, that would jeopardize his own future as a bike racer. And if he’s one of the lesser paid riders, with no great career prospects once his cycling days are over (which is to say, most of the riders in the pro peloton), it would be tempting not to speak up. Perhaps he figures that Landis may be able to fight his way out and that no one will bother to come looking for him.

After all, whoever it might be, right now he’s still free to go about racing and earning his living. In comments to yesterday evening’s post, we’re reminded that on Stage 19 not only was Floyd Landis tested (and we know his sample number from the stage — 994080), but Serhiy Honchar (the stage winner) and one other randomly picked rider were tested. But since Honchar was tested at least three other times during the Tour and nothing came of it, the most likely candidate is the mysterious randomly picked rider.

Interestingly, when Pat McQuaid made his initial statement about a “worst-case scenario” he probably didn’t think about another worst-case scenario: That someone may have tested positive, but that the wrong person may have been accused of the infraction. Was someone doping at the Tour? If you take the percentage of adverse findings for the A samples of cyclists as an indication of the extent of pro cycling’s doping problem, somewhere around one in every 25 riders might be doping. (Although, since we don’t know how many B samples confirmed those initial findings that may vastly overstate the problem.) Given the size of the field at the Tour, that means perhaps 7 or 8 riders might have been doping.

So, yeah, there may have been some riders racing who were breaking the rules. And one of them may have slipped through the grasps of the anti-doping authorities as they tried to pin the offense on the biggest fish in the Tour. The man who won. While it’s not a 100% sure thing, there’s a very distinct possibility that somewhere out there is another rider who knows the truth about what happened. If this really is the case, will the other rider come forward? I doubt it.