A letter over at CyclingNews.com reminds us of some testimony by Dr. Christiane Ayotte, of the Canadian anti-doping lab in Montreal, during the Floyd Landis arbitration hearings at Pepperdine University’s Law School a couple of months back. The letter by Bill Kinkead, under the heading WADA Vigilantes, says:
The rest of the [Floyd Landis] story [from last year’s Stage 17 of the Tour] is well known by now; although in this case it was not necessary to actually do anything other than be “creative” in their testing methods. This was well documented during the Landis arbitration.
Given what they’re up against, I would hope that a certain amount of creativity would exist among the scientists who actually develop the tests used by labs like LNDD. But not the kind of creativity displayed by the two lab techs, Cynthia Mongongu and Esther Frelat. Creative interpretation of the data without solid training on the tests or the equipment used in those tests, or without any solid reasons for those interpretations is not what’s needed in the fight against doping. (The answer, “I’m using my scientific judgment” or something to that effect is not a good explanation for why a lab tech is performing a certain task a certain way.)
The kind of creativity we need is the kind that drives innovation. Finding a more accurate, more elegant, more reliable way of determining whether or not someone is, in fact, doping. As they stand right now, the tests used are too vulnerable to human foibles and subjective interpretation. Or as Eddy Merckx said in another article on the CyclingNews website:
Everyone is able to make a mistake, even the judicial authority.
Sometimes even the best labs make mistakes, too. And sometimes they get caught in difficult situations because someone got “creative” with the rules and released information about an A sample result before the rider or his team had been notified (Mr. McQuaid, are you listening?).
Creativity doesn’t mean singling riders out because they train in neutral outfits to avoid fans. If they want to train in peace, let them. And it doesn’t mean targeting riders for greater scrutiny without some sort of incriminating evidence. If the authorities suspect someone of cheating then they should have probable cause before they start scrutinizing that person more closely. (And just because someone is having a good year does not automatically mean they should be suspected of doping.)
No, the creativity we need in the anti-doping world is the kind that develops better, more accurate tests. And the kind that builds a system that punishes proven cheaters, but respects the right of those accused to due process before punishments are imposed.
The Check Your Facts Department
Phil Taylor, of the New Zealand Herald, wrote an interesting piece today about doping, the state of cycling and the Tour de France — or the Tour de Farce as some called it. Taylor makes some good points, especially at the beginning of his piece:
The Tour de Farce it was called, and farcical it was the favourite and the yellow jersey-holder among five doping scandals. The biggest crisis in cycling, they said.
Well, no, it wasn’t. That was a decade ago when doping, cheating and lying was the norm and when nobody got caught.
Cycling is on the rack but there is reason for hope. The code of denial is broken and doping is beginning to be acknowledged for the cancer it is.
Taylor gives some good insights into the players in the world of cycling, including the previous and current heads of the UCI. The most interesting tidbit in his article, which escaped my memory, is this about Pat McQuaid:
We trust McQuaid’s judgment has matured from when, as a racing cyclist, he went to South Africa under a false name and in breach of the anti-apartheid boycott.
McQuaid has said he doesn’t regret it – despite it resulting in him being banned from the 1976 Olympics – as he got to see the situation in that country the republic for himself and benefited from an extra two months of racing. It sounds like expediency and expediency has helped cycling into the mire.
McQuaid crossed an ethical line by racing in South Africa at the time. Interesting, no? If he’d really just wanted to see the situation for himself, he could have gone there on holiday for a few weeks, couldn’t he? Well, we all make mistakes and wrong judgments, especially when we’re young. Wisdom comes because we learn from our missteps. But McQuaid’s statement about not regretting what he did shows that perhaps he didn’t learn anything from his experience way back when.
Taylor steers off course when he gets to the last section of his article. In describing the flap over LNDD’s testing of Armstrong’s 1999 urine samples a number of years later, he says:
The statute of limitations regarding six alleged EPO positives from Armstrong’s 1999 Tour samples expired last month. In the week before the Tour de France began, the Herald asked McQuaid why the UCI hadn’t seen fit to have the CAS test the evidence, thereby putting the debate to rest about the athlete who, through his victories (on the bike and over cancer) has brought more money to cycling than any other.
Now, whether or not Armstrong doped will be a bone of contention between cycling fans from now until the end of time. Armstrong vehemently denies it, and so far, no one has been able to offer solid proof to the contrary.
But the mistake Taylor makes is that there simply wasn’t a case to be made vis-a-vis WADA or the UCI on anti-doping grounds. The tests that allegedly showed Armstrong used EPO in 1999 were for research purposes, not anti-doping purposes. There were no B samples to be counter-analyzed at the athlete’s request (and you can bet your last dollar, euro, peso or pound that Armstrong would demand a B sample test in that situation). Also, the quality of the test and those doing the testing is a subject of great debate.
The official Vrijman inquiry into the whole mess chastised LNDD for a number of practices, including the leaking of the alleged results. And WADA for demanding to know, from the research findings, who it was that gave the particular samples that tested positive. (Notably, a number of other riders were said to have positive tests during that research, but none have been named publicly. Hmm. I wonder why?) By WADA’s own rules, there was no case that could have been made. And certainly not one that would have stood up during the arbitration process.
Pat McQuaid could have explained all that to Taylor, but as Taylor’s article notes, McQuaid hasn’t responded to emails requesting comment on “his mistakes.”
It would be a better world if accusations, such as those against Lance Armstrong, could be settled once and for all and we could put the debate to rest. But that’s not likely to happen. Sometimes life is messy, and the whole dustup over the 1999 samples is one of those times. The same may well be true in the Landis case, whenever the final ruling is made. Given the passions of people on both sides of the case, I wouldn’t be surprised if — no matter how the arbitrators rule — the argument will never truly be settled.
Nice piece Rant – I believe you are right that cycling will need the time to be changed, if that is what the “public” wants. But is there a difference between changing cycling for the better or are we just trying to rehabilitate a “cult of idols”? One must consider this question with great care.
*
When we are in search of a “clean” pro cycling sport, then we must not mix up what we are trying to accomplish. If on the other hand we are trying to sanitize the “image problem” that our pro cyclists are having, well then we have to deal with the petty ego’s of individuals who are in power.
*
Since this “issue” is completely mixed up in todays’ sport reporting, we need to read every journalistic piece to find out what may actually be behind the “downfall” of our favored champions .
*
I submit to you two examples of the issues connected here, one from Eurosport and the other Velonews. Both “report” the same event and both FAIL as journalists. Why? Because in reality – only a part of the story is being reported.
*
—“De Rooij resigns as Rabobank boss Eurosport – Sat, 04 Aug 00:06:00 2007
Theo de Rooij has stepped down as general director of the Rabobank team that sacked Danish rider Michael Rasmussen during the Tour de France.”
*
—“Rabobank manager, Theo De Rooij has resigned, according to a team statement issued Friday. Friday’s EuroFile: De Rooy leaves Rabobank; Filed: August 3, 2007
De Rooy became the center of some controversy on July 25th, when he dismissed Michael Rasmussen from the team, while the Danish rider was leading the Tour de France. The team said that de Rooy had “decided to step down, in consultation with the Rabobank.” De Rooy fired Rasmussen for allegedly lying about his whereabouts in an attempt to avoid out-of-competition doping tests. Rasmussen, who has vehemently denied the accusations, missed tests in May and June.”
*
As an interested party – I find myself completely unsatisfied with what both news agencies put out. Both taut themselves as representing world cycling readership interests. Yet from these pieces, all we get is exactly what is written. They are nothing more then “shock” headlines.
*
If a person is half intelligent – one has to be questioning a move by “De Rooij / De Rooy” in which he fires the “undesignated” rider Rasmussen, while Rasmussen is winning the Tour. We are expected to accept that he did this to be “following the rules”.
*
One doesn’t have to be a genius to come to the conclusion that the Rabobank bosses did not FIND his, “De Rooij / De Rooy,” actions benefiting Rabobank. Since the ongoing struggle between Rasmussen and said manager have been ignored, shall we ever get to know what happened? What actually was the struggle between the two about? Not likely. Because we cannot make a clear decision of what the real situation actually is when presented with “supposed” news articles such as these.
*
I think of Floyd Landis as a great champion. My “belief” that he is a great champion is then brought under attack by rumors and innuendos. If I am found to be a none thinking person, then my belief in Floyd is slowly washing away.
*
But as a thinking person, I still feel that Floyd is a great champion as is Armstrong. I do not mix up “Shock-Headlines” for news and I try to not practice knee-jerk reacting. Give me a “testing” procedure that is bullet-proof, national-bias proof, and not open to individuals egocentric behaviors – then I can judge for myself whether Landis or Armstrong are really only “black-sheep” in a flock of all whites. Otherwise – I may very well believe that I may just be being manipulated with my own emotional biases to pick a side, that I don’t even know exists.
Rant as always your writing is superb. It is the level of writing I wish we would see in the mainstream media on the subject of doping in sports. As always your post is very thought provoking as is Morgan’s comment. I found the bit about Pat McQuaid as disturbing as doping is now.
Too bad your writing is not showing up in a paper like the New York Times. I’m sick of shock journalism and would really like to see more thought put into the way the news is reported in general.
Morgan,
Interesting about De Rooy/De Rooj. I saw your comment before seeing various news articles. It all makes me wonder, did he really resign, or was he pushed out the door? And if it was the latter, what precipitated that move? The Rasmussen affair, or something else? I’m not sure we’ll ever find out.
Ken,
Thanks for the compliment. Most appreciated. I think that bit about McQuaid gives us an insight into his character that we haven’t seen before. It is disturbing the way he chose to violate that ban. And cowardly, too. By sneaking in under an assumed name, one can only wonder if he was trying to avoid getting caught and taking the consequences. Kind of looks that way, doesn’t it? For me, that casts his crowing about dopers and doping in a whole new light.
– Rant
Rant, Great post contrasting the need for creativity in the generation of new tests, but not in the analysis of said tests.
If a scientist comes up with a new test (and he/she does not have any financial interest) then, in most cases, their objectivity on what the test does and does NOT do is excellent and can be used to define the parameters of its use. Such scientists (who used their creativity to generate the test) will usually have little patience for technicians who freely alter the tests and mis-interpret the results. I think we heard this in spades during Floyd’s hearing.
I agree that more creative science is needed to test for the new drugs out in the cycling public, but I also think we need deeper and wider testing. Every rider in the Tour, for example, should be subjected to multiple urine and blood tests. Such tests should not be limited to only a relative few riders but to all riders: if it costs money then figure out how to generate said cash from the broadcast rights, etc.
I agree more extensive testing needs to be done, that is test more riders, both to catch more dopers as well as to better define the true extent of the problem. However, I think that by using statistical sampling procedures, the same ends could be achieved without the expense of 100% testing. It should be possible to design a sampling protocol that would 1. give a statistically valid and reliable estimate of how many riders are clean or dirty, 2. make sure that each rider was tested at least once during the course of the tour, on a random basis so the a rider could not predicate if and when he would be tested. This could and should be extended over the course of the entire year, including OoC tests during preseason training and testing during winter racing, like 6 day races, cyclo-cross, southern hemisphere racing, etc.
At present, unless a rider is good enough to either win a stage or the Yellow Jersey, the odds a strongly that he won’t be tested.
It can be much simpler then doing very expensive testing all the time on the riders. We just all have to agree that we are going to test – all the racers during the races.
*
Naturally than we shall have to stop having fits every time someone shows up positive, in any race, including the Tour. That is if we ever get to the point where we can trust that the testing is scientifically correct and irrefutable.
*
I personally find all the year round testing, surprise testing, testing by sporting bodies, by teams, race organizers,etc – a bit on the incredible side. Consider why this is happening – it is happening due to the various bodies feeling insecure about our present testing procedures. No one can or does seem to trust that what comes out of our present “certified labs” by WADA, UCI, IOC – take your pick people, as “trustworthy”, ergo, all the different parties are trying like mad and spending millions on their “own” testing procedures. In the end, we will wind up in courts with one lab calling another apt or inapt. Oh – I forget – THIS is happening right now!
*
Let’s agree, we do not want doping taking place. Fine and good! But does this give us a right to go crazy, ignore personal liberties of the individuals? No it does not. The funny thing about law and people. A law does not prevent people from breaking it – it is simply what we all have come to agree on as a group; that in this group, society, “this law” will be used to judge, right and wrong. That is all.
*
So if we want to spend money on testing riders, test the lot of them in the race! IN EVERY RACE! No spot checking, no statistical sampling procedures (sorry William) – Just test every rider in every stage. Spend the money where it counts. Not where some organization or some individual can use the “testing process” as a control mechanism for who is in or who is out, be it an individual or an organization, or a team.
*
My understanding about “doping” is simple. Doping has to be done over time and once the doping procedure is stopped, performance levels go back to the individual organisms “natural” capabilities. Therefore – to do any kind of “boosting” it has to be done for the events one wishes to achieve a high standing in or win. If we therefore test each rider in every race, and we have ACCREDITED labs that everyone can trust…where is the big problem?
*
As Rant writes – you don’t have to be “some kind of genius” to ride a bike. Okay – I agree. But may I suggest; IF THERE WERE SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRANSPARENT testing – all us none geniuses would understand that “oh boy! I know they’re gonna test, I can’t dope!” – Yeah – there are also going to be simple morons who will rationalize to themselves – “Duh, maybe I’ll get away with it.”
*
This kind of thinking can only exist when only “spot testing” is performed.
*
If Deutschland is spending a small fortune in trying to prevent riders from doping, why not apply this money to Stuttgart and the Worlds? Instead of acting like there are two class of riders, those who dope and those who don’t. Every rider that is clean will test clean, every rider who is being slick – will get busted. Naturally we are going to have absolute trust that the procedures are not flawed. But isn’t this a natural control of the scientific labs? Aren’t labs supposed to be on the edge, at the very forefront of human knowledge? If they are not – GET THEM OUT OF THE PICTURE, immediately!
*
Rant – about De Rooy/De Rooj. – What kind of genius gets rid of his winning horse, in the final laps? So one can only assume that – De Rooy/De Rooj is normally not a stupid man, as far as running a “team” is concerned – I have no idea about his personal life and I don’t care. If I extrapolate on the Rasmussen situation, I have to ask myself: WHO GAINED by having this happen? Rabobank? Nope, not in anyway seeable…If we then recall that the entire Rabobank Team was in turmoil, and all the other teams knew about it, WHAT WAS GETTING THEM UPSET?
–
As I figure it – Rasmussen crossed the line – He went public and told the media, he was intending to win the Tour and it will be done in the mountains. I think he did show us that he was serious. That is if we can trust our eyes, yes?
–
WHY DID HE GO PUBLIC? Because he, Rasmussen was not the “designated” winner/champion of Rabobank…who designates or chooses who will be the “designated ” champ for the team? The Team manager. So simply put – this whole fiasco is nothing more then De Rooy/De Rooj being in a position to WIN over Rasmussen, the upstart, who had the temerity to go for the crown without getting Mr De Rooy/De Rooj blessings…
*
Is this what actually happened? I cannot say for sure – but looking at the whole picture and how things transpired – I think it is a fair guess, as good as anything else that may be “spun” for our consuming pleasures.
*
Naturally, we must then also consider how teams function in a very controlled environment – I do not call for “mass” rebellions in the ranks – but as a real cycling fan of the Tour and racing – I get pretty fed up with being spoon fed who the best riders are – as a viewer with two eyes and two ears – I can make this decision myself. How? Simply by watching the race and seeing who rides the knee caps off of every one else. I have nothing against teams. No individual can win a Tour by himself/herself.
*
For me, I watch the Tour for that very special moment – when an individual or individuals have come to a point in their thinking and stop having merely a “pack-mentality” – it is these moments that give us all such pleasure.
–
When the single or the few – assert themselves and are willing to put everything on the line – no guessing, no games – just – “I am better” then all of you, and proceeds to prove it.
–
That is how we have legends like Armstrong, Hinault, Mercxk, etc…And just to remind us all – Landis could have been one of the legends! I am a big fan of Floyd – I think he has it in him to be a legend – but to become a legend – one has to be able to race, no?
Just some word above Vrijman’s report.
This report about LNDD was chastied by WADA too ;D . We need report about the report of the report …
Vrijman is a very close friend of Verbruggen , president of UCI. The same President who received money from Lance Armstrong to buy some alleged machine to test blood doping. Where are the machines? Where is the money too?
How is it possible to obtain an independant investigation with Vrijman who is a close friend of Verbruggen?
As lawyer Vrijman was unable to respect french laws so he was not allowed to enter into LNDD.
Do we need a report to conclude that this scientist studies were not following UCI procedures?
Vrijman’s report was just used to put under the rug the real state of doping in cycling.
Jean.
Hey Jean -“We need report about the report of the report “¦” THIS IS THE FUNNIEST THING YOU HAVE SAID TO DATE(I am not making a joke of you) – I just find it very funny and very poignant…..isn’t this just our very problem? No one believes anybody – everybody is connected…one way or another. How true.
*
I have a question for you please – explain to me how Vrijman did not respect French law? This is news to me…thanks.
All french doping system is a part of Sport Minestry. For an extern investigation an authorization is required. Vrijman came one day to LNDD saying he want to investigate and of course his entry was refused and he received the motive. But never Vrijman sent a such demand to french minister, he prefered to write in is report that LNDD didn’t want collaborate with him. If my memories is good, he wrote the truth somewhere in small but for people who are reading the report they can only conclude that LNDD refused to collaborate. Good lobby from Vrijman.
Vrijman’s report could have stated that for the same study on 1998 samples 40 of its were found postive.
It could have asked, Who gave the name of Castelblanco and Beltran, the 2 others riders who had EPO in their samples?
Who are really accountable for anonymity of samples?
Greetings Jean – I am reading the Vrijman Report right at this moment. I have a problem with what you state: “Vrijman came one day to LNDD saying he want to investigate and of course his entry was refused..” You also state that the LNDD is part of the Sports Ministry of France – I understand this and will take your word for it – BUT- here is my problem:
–
In the executive summery – sections 1.1 and 1.2 – it states that LNDD is WADA accredited. WADA accused the UCI of being more interested in “finding the leaks” then with finding out if Armstrong was guilty of using EPO in the 1999 TdeF. There was a “media” circus and the UCI gave a “Letter of Authority” to Vrijman to investigate. Being that Vrijman is a lawyer himself, he also had Dr Adriaan van der Veen a Dutch scientist who specialized in testing doping labs and their use of the tools involved -and Paul Scholten a specialist attorney who practices sports law. HERE IS MY PROBLEM –
–
The investigation did not “just pop into existence” over night. ALL PARTIES were aware of what was happening. Since LNDD is accredited by WADA – even though it is a “part of the Sport Ministry” this lab has a responsibility to fulfill its contractual obligations to their accreditors-(WADA)….I am having a bit of trouble understanding HOW exactly LNDD could be “surprised by Vrijman’s visit?
–
No lawyer who is worth anything would “simply approach” an institution without formal letters. LNDD had to be aware that Vrijman was coming with his team…So – do you see why many people including myself feel that LNDD was simply using a bureaucratic technicality to avoid being gone over. In other words – the tester was avoiding being tested by an official tester…
–
As to your comment about Vrijman writing the truth “somewhere in the small print”-
is this true or is it merely your feeling? If true please direct me to this section of the report…
*
*
Hey Rant – did you see this blip in Cycling news? It’s five days old but but this should clear the air concerning the “moving on of Mr Rooij – I enclose it for you:
–
“…Rabobank to investigate Rasmussen affair
–
Rabobank, the sponsor of the same-named cycling team, has announced that an independent expert will investigate Michael Rasmussen’s firing from the team. Bank spokesman Rene Loman told the Germany’s dpa will also look into the open questions about Rasmussen’s whereabouts in the time period leading up to the Tour de France. The banking giant said the investigation is needed: “to assess what happened before and during the Tour. Everyone knows that a lot happened.”
–
The team fired the Danish rider last week during the Tour, claiming he lied to them as to his whereabouts in the weeks leading up to the Tour.
–
Loman noted that Rabobank does not intend to withdraw from sponsorship. “We have been sponsoring since 12 years,” he noted. “Radsport is a typical Dutch sport and we will remain as sponsor.” Loman added that the company is proud of the team’s performance at the recently concluded Tour.
Draw your own conclusions – can’t wait for the next “edition”!
Morgan,
An accredited WADA lab is not a UCI or a WADA lab. It’s the french minister who owns it and who pays.
Can you imagine what would have been written by Vrijman if he could have entered without the required accreditation? Maybe Vrijman didn’t know that, but how could he manage a such investigation without a minimum knowledge?
I don’t want to read again the Vrijman’s report but his content was discussed many times by pro and anti Lance, so you have better to find a cycling forum for these points.
Jean – you may not want to read the Vrijman report, but perhaps you had better. You make impassioned statements and when you are confronted with a conclusion different from yours, you recommend that one seeks a different cycling forum. Perhaps you feel that you have expressed and backed up your ideas and feelings completely. I find your conclusions biased and flawed. If you cannot back up your statements with anything other then your own opinions – then – you are arguing in a manner such as : “What is the color black?” Answer: “Well, the color black is, you know…black”. While on the surface such an answer is true – it does not penetrate to the heart of the matter. It does not give a true answer, as you are not able to respond to a logical question, with a logical answer, you react with passion and assume this makes your conclusions correct. Get your act together.
Morgan, my english skills are not enough to be able to make long discussion, and it takes me too much times. So it’s for me better to give some food as the following.
—————
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article2204200.ece
Dick Pound, the president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), has blamed Hein Verbruggen, the former International Cycling Union (UCI) president, for the worsening doping crisis in professional cycling.
“I can remember, long before I was involved in antidoping, discussing cycling’s ethical problems with Hein Verbruggen, when he was president of the UCI, before the Festina Affair,” Pound said. “I was saying, “˜Hein, you have got a real problem in your sport and you don’t seem able to deal with it.’ He said, “˜Well, listen — if people don’t mind the Tour de France at 25 kilometres per hour, the riders don’t have to prepare — but if they want it at 42 kilometres per hour, then I’m sorry, the riders can’t do it without preparation,’ as he called it.” The Festina Affair is considered the most significant scandal in modern Tour history. It revealed the extent of abuse of erythropoietin (EPO), the blood doping agent, during the 1998 event.
….(more on web site)
————–
Some riders have broken omerta and if management are breaking their own ormerta it’s a big step.
Now I am waiting what will respond Verbruggen!
Jean,
It will be easier for us to understand if you state your case in fluent French than if you write very little in broken English (I think that you are doing just fine so far.)
Dick Pound has thrown away his right to be considered a fair and impartial source of information with regard to any of this. His propensity to repeatedly make incorrect and leading statements that reveal both his bias and his misunderstanding of basic scientific principles behind the testing. He has continued to do so despite having been reprimanded by the IOC Ethics Committee for having done so.
Verbruggen may have been responsible for the problems of the past, but Pound has done enough to make him very much responsible for many of the problems of the present and near future.
OK Daner I will write in french, sorry for people who don’t understand.
Vrijman met en avant dans son rapport le non-respect des protocoles utilisés lors des tests par le laboratoire. Par la même il enfonce une porte ouverte puisque les tests ont été faits dans le cadre d’une étude, et ne nécessitaient donc pas de suivre la procédure UCI. Son rapport aurait donc pu s’arrêter là : cette étude menée en dehors des procédures UCI ne peut pas être considérée comme un test positif.
Vrijman préfère habilement énumérer les points non respectés pour laisser l’impression de négligence de la part du laboratoire.
Il reproche même au laboratoire son manque de volonté de collaboration puisqu’il n’a pu avoir accès au LNDD alors que c’est de son entière faute. Il signale ce point juste en quelques lignes noyées dans son flot de reproche.
Ce rapport s’arrête seulement sur le côté légal et mais évite de s’étendre sur la validité de l’étude menée à des fins scientifiques. Une UCI responsable aurait aimé avoir les réponses à ces questions:
– est-il scientifiquement possible de trouver de l’EPO dans ces urines?
Рest-ce que le proc̩d̩ est-il consid̩r̩ fiable?
– l’EPO détectée peut-elle être le résultat d’une métabolisation?
– y’avait t’il du dopage dans le peloton en 1999?
Рque peut-on en d̩duire au moment de la r̩daction du rapport?
Reconnaître qu’il y avait au moins 13 coureurs dopés à l’EPO aurait terni la réputation de l’UCI et de Verbruggen qui proclamaient régulièrement que les cas de dopage n’étaient que quelques cas isolés.
J’ai l’impresion que ces gens-là ne se sentent pas responsable de la propagation du dopage parmi les plus jeunes qui utilisent déjà les anti-asthmatiques.
Bref, je trouve que ce rapport n’avait qu’un but : essayer de rétablir la crédibilité d’Armstrong, qui a versé de l’argent à Verbruggen et dont nous n’avons plus de traces.
[Edit: Machine translation from Google follows. – Rant]
Vrijman proposes in his report/ratio the non-observance of the protocols used during the tests by the laboratory. Consequently it inserts an open door since the tests were made within the framework of a study, and thus did not require to follow procedure UCI. His report/ratio could thus have stopped there: this study undertaken apart from procedures UCI cannot be regarded as a positive test.
Vrijman skilfully prefers to enumerate the points not respected to leave the impression of negligence on behalf of the laboratory.
It reproaches even the laboratory its lack of will of collaboration since it could not have access to the LNDD whereas it is of its whole fault. It announces this point right in some lines drowned in its flood of reproach. This report/ratio stops only on the legal side and but avoids extending on the validity from the study led to fine scientists. A responsible UCI would have liked to have the answers to these questions:
– is it scientifically possible to find EPO in these urines?
– the process is it considered reliable?
– can the detected EPO be the result of a metabolisation?
– y’ had to you it doping in the group in 1999?
– what can one deduce some at the time from the drafting from the report/ratio?
To recognize that there was at least 13 [cyclists] doped with the EPO would have tarnished the reputation of the UCI and Verbruggen which proclaimed regularly that the cases of doping were only some isolated cases. I have the impresion which these people-there do not feel responsible for the propagation of doping among young people who use already theasthmatic ones.
In short, I find that this report/ratio had only one goal: to try to restore the credibility of Armstrong, who paid money with Verbruggen and of which we do not have any more traces.
[End edit]
Hey Jean Culeasec – If the LNDD is a part of the French Ministry – does the lab also do work for the police in criminal investigations?
–
Forgive my “outburst” Jean – I am also just trying to crawl through all the “information” concerning our sport – be it French, American or from the planet Pluto…sorry – the scientists now say; pluto is not a planet(;-))
WADA: Tests are valid (don’t look behind that curtain). Riders must submit to our will because they cheat. UCI cannot be trusted because they accepted money from Armstrong (AKA Darth Vader). We’re going to set up a Doping Summit with the ASO just to make the UCI look impotent. PS: we all ultimately want to work for the IOC (the babes are hotter and the money better) and figure the best way there is to make a name for ourselves at the expense of cyclists.
XXX
UCI: WADA is a loose cannon. The Grand Tour companies have too much power. We should run things because . . .Well I don’t have a good reason but we should. PS: We’re going to provide to the LNDD the rider ID numbers so that the results can be leaked to the French media, just to screw the ASO.
XXX
Grand Tour Operators: We run the races, we should be allowed to control what happens at the races. When the UCI starts running races they can decide for themselves how they want them managed. We’re going to align with WADA just to screw the UCI. So what if WADA can’t be trusted.
XXX
Fans: Please provide us with a system that is transparent and trustworthy. We cannot accept this situation where riders are targeted and assumed to be guilty regardless of protocol. Right now there is nobody and no organization beyond reproach.
XXX
When we argue about who is right we accomplish nothing. None of the organizations in cycling is worthy of my respect. I certainly am not going to defend them.