Now that the World Anti-Doping Agency has received documents from German anti-doping activist Werner Franke, WADA has announced that they are opening an investigation into Alberto Contador’s alleged links to Operacion Puerto, according to a report published at CyclingNews.com. Working with WADA’s investigators is Jörg Jaksche, a former teammate of Contador’s on the now-defunct Liberty Seguros cycling team.
“I don’t know if Contador was a client of Fuentes,” said Jaksche. “I only know that I used those doping products that are shown on that document.”
With this action, WADA is overturning the UCI’s earlier decision to acquit Contador of any involvement in the case.
Franke’s documents supposedly contain references to an “AC”, however, exactly what those references say has not been made public. Jaschke apparently will be of limited use to the WADA investigation if he has no knowledge of whether Contador was a client of Fuentes’ or not. Contador maintains that he was merely on the wrong team, at the wrong time, and that he had nothing to do with Fuentes.
If Fuentes was operating a doping program for Liberty Seguros, he may well have crafted schedules and plans for all of the riders on the team. Whether those riders actually knew about that, and whether they participated is another matter. Johann Bruyneel, Contador’s current manager at the Discovery Channel team, has doubts about Franke’s allegations, however.
“‘He defended Danilo Hondo, when he was caught in the Tour of Murcia for using the banned substance Carphedon, if you ask me he only speaks the language of the person paying him,” said Bruyneel.
Which raises the question: Is Franke being compensated (or hoping to be compensated) for his work with WADA? If so, that would raise some questions about the quality of his information.
Other questions about this investigation come to mind, as well. Such as: Since Spanish authorities cleared Contador of any involvement with Fuentes, and the UCI has (at the very least) been satisfied with the official explanations, what (if any) new evidence has come to light that warrants a second or third investigation into this matter? How many times must an athlete endure these kinds of assaults on his character before the matter is finally put to rest? Will that only come when WADA gets the result it wants to get (which may be different than what the facts support)?
Dick Pound must surely have wet himself when he received Franke’s documents. No doubt WADA could find a way to twist the information within to find a way of imposing a suspension based on a “non-analytical” positive, just for the fact that Contador’s initials appear on some pages here and there. And while that might suggest a connection between the two, if you look around the world there are plenty of people with the intials “AC.”
Unless they can find some more convincing evidence than that, they should let this matter drop. Since Jaschke doesn’t have any direct knowledge of ties between Contador and Fuentes, he’s not going to be a reliable witness with regard to what Contador did or didn’t do.
Having opened this can of worms, WADA needs to be open and transparent about their investigation — which, given how they have structured the world anti-doping process, is unlikely. What’s most likely to happen is that all of this “investigating” will go on behind closed doors. We will only hear something when those running WADA or those running the investigation want us to.
But by publicly announcing that they’ve opened an investigation, they’ve cast Contador and his win at the Tour in a negative light. Whether that is warranted or not is yet to be seen. But as Cadel Evans said on Australian television the other day, we should assume that Contador is innocent until proved guilty. Here’s my question for those conducting WADA’s investigation: Are you up to the task? Will you approach this investigation from a presumption of innocence, or a presumption of guilt?
If it’s the latter, I suspect that this investigation will find what the people running it will want to find, rather than what might be there. Especially so if this will not be an open process.
Meanwhile …
Over the weekend, news came out that Theo de Rooy (or de Rooj or de Rooij, depending on which publication you’re reading) “resigned” from Team Rabobank. According to an article on VeloNews.com:
The team said that de Rooy had “decided to step down, in consultation with the Rabobank.”
And as a short article on CyclingNews.com put it:
Rabobank’s general director Theo de Rooy has decided, in consultation with the squad, to step down. A team statement said, “After the disappointments of the most recent Tour de France, De Rooy wishes to have the time and rest to consider the future. Rabobank understands and respects this decision.”
De Rooy had been a member of the Rabobank team since its founding in 1995. First as a cyclist, before moving into the manager’s role in 2003, and finally as general director since 2004.
At the end of VeloNews’ article is a brief mention that Rabobank is investigating the circumstances surrounding the Rasmussen debacle. If the team knew of Rasmussen’s missed out-of-competition tests before the race, and were aware of the UCI’s rule requiring that he not be entered in the Tour, then this was an entirely preventable mess. The UCI, for their part, seemed to be OK with Rasmussen entering the Tour, so they bear some responsibility, as well.
And apparently, Rasmussen had already been fined for missing some out of competition tests. If those fines covered the tests in May and June that he missed, then throwing him out of the Tour on those grounds would have been punishing him twice for the same offense. The final straw appeared to be a news report that Rasmussen had been training in Italy rather than Mexico in June, and the spin was that he had been sent packing because he hadn’t been honest with his team. Maybe.
But the wording of the team’s announcement that De Rooy was resigning looks to me more like he was pushed out. And the fact that there’s an investigation into the Rasmussen mess makes me think the story of Rasmussen’s departure is a bit more complicated than it initially appears.
People above de Rooy must be very concerned about how Rasmussen’s departure from the Tour was handled, and perhaps concerned that de Rooy made some errors in judgment along the way. One has to wonder if the team is staring at a massive legal action that Rasmussen’s lawyer is threatening to bring, and whether he’s got a good chance of winning. It will be very interesting to see what Rabobank’s investigation brings.
Indeed, Rant, what is German anti-doping activist Werner Franke getting out of his tirades? Is this ego, love of the headlines, moral indignation, or just trying to position himself for cash? I can’t really see why Pound and his ilk need any egging on; they seem to self motivate themselves to be idiots just fine on their own. My guess is the quote stating that Franke speaks up best for whomever is paying the bill is right on.
The best way for this whole Puerto thing to be put to rest is DNA tests from the bags of blood and the riders. Just rule them out. It is simple, relatively inexpensive and very definitive. I have NO idea why UCI or WADA or whomever has not just done it.
Retroactive Justice is Killing Cycling
All this vigilante justice going on in cycling now is just getting rediculous. The UCI, WADA, and the various race organizers need to stand by their tests and draw a line in the sand. From now on we’re not going to tolerate any doping offenses and we’re going to test the shit out of every rider to the best of our ability. Ruining careers and reputations by going through bits of paper with initials on them is completely insane. Fail a test? You’re out, otherwise, its innocent until proven guilty. At least in a perfect world…
The relevant OP document is #31. It lists the entire “GC” version of the 2005 Liberty Seguros team. “A.C.” is listed as “nothing” or “the same as JJ” (Jaske). Fuentes said Contador was not a client. Jaske said in German and Swiss interviews that the team did not get together for a huge doping session anywhere in the world and that he knows (with personal knowledge) of no specific rider, only himself who “worked with” Fuentes.
So, if Jaske is now changing his story, his prior statements are troublesome for any fair minded evaluator. Fuentes is a liar only when he exculpates someone but is a truth teller when he implicates anyone.
Document #31 is referred to in the Spanish OP document summary, including its references to Allan Davis, Contador and Pauilino and the “products” recommended to each rider, yet apparantly, some new document of the same number showed up mysteriously in the professor’s briefcase. If it is the same document #31 referred to in the summary, it has been available for WADA/Federation?UCI review for some time. If it is a different document than #31 in the summary, then recall the forgery, investigation and conviction of a police officer in France falsifying the “confession” of Cedric Vasseur as well as Daniel Ressoit’s continuing involvement in French legal proceedings concerning that matter.
In the meantime, at least 1 race organization, based upon the open WADA file has excluded contador from participation because it does not want anyone “involved” in OP in its race.
One wonders as the UCI battles with ASO and WADA, how any “implicated” rider can ever be comfortable with some version of “being cleared”. and you are implicated by being referenced with the entire GC team team in a list, including the “fact” or notation that you receved “nothing” and that the Doctor at the center of controversy has indicated you were never a client.
Strange days. Someone needs to get into a “real” court to stop this fiasco quickly so that a politics free, fair and complete investigation of OP can occur. Otherwise, this is just the first drip in a waterfall of upcoming and continuing self serving activity by an organization which appears to be as corrupt internally as those it preports to investigate.
Also, Document #3 and Document #31 may be “supplemented” by specific client references in documents #9 to #29. In other words, the absence of specificity as to riders listed in general or riders on the 2005 Liberty Seguros GC team who are not the subject of additional client references as to money, program etc may exclude those riders from Fuentes’ clientele.
Is it too much to presume that all these things were considered and that they resulted in the “clearing” of certain riders? Or do 2 or 3 “juries” have to view the same evidence and if they reach different conclusions, then upon a single “conviction”, the rider has a non-analytical positive? What role does “double (triple? quadruple?) jeopardy play in the effort to catch “dopers”? Any???
Bill,
Thanks for the additional information. Most appreciated. I thought that was the case, but didn’t have the citations to double-check.
Very strange days in the world of cycling.
– Rant
Bite them Rant! – I think you got a big chunk of meat in this post of yours with a lot of tail too!…Sorry Rant – I’ve been doing a lot of cafine and I am aggressive – even on what they call coffee here abouts…
–
I agree with Just-bsmp. I think that he asks relevant questions. As are your observations concerning Franke – may I suggest that Franke is being used now by Pound and WADA as well as the “rumors” around Contador to create pressure on the ASO and the UCI. I think WADA and Dickie baby are absolutely convinced that the UCI is part of the doping problem so they publicly announce that WADA is looking into things – absolutely implying without having to say a word that WADA thinks ASO and the UCI are dirty.
–
If Jacksches’ statement is being reported in total – then he is no witness at all. He clearly states that he does not know anything about Contador being involved with Fuentes, period. Unless of course – Jacksche tells a different tale in private. As to Frankes’ motivation, I think he is a very bitter man. I think he got ousted when he helped with the “cleaning-out” of the East German doping regimen. He did the right thing – but in German, east and west – his name is mud. The man is not rolling in dough. He chose to do the right thing – but people around here have really long memories. Some would like nothing better then to see the Discos brought down, just because they are Americans and even though Contador is Spanish – he is riding for the Ami’s as we are referred to in some quarters around here.
–
Spend just a few days listening to Eurosport, German broadcasters views of American people, our culture, our very ways of life and values – can make one feel down right ready to kick some butt – I know – I’m completely being un-PC – but it is true. The idea that Americans have to be dirty to be able to beat and win the Tour is the main topic during the broadcasts. Naturally through sly innuendo and and what the Germans call humor – restructuring facts to support their position.
_
Just-bsmep – maybe the UCI and WADA can’t just walk over certain laws concerning the rights of individuals, they can’t use the DNA test without permission.
Heck – they’ve already managed to force people into signing a dubious affidavit concerning “intent” of doping – yahoo Dickie will just rewrite the very meaning of freedom for us all.
–
Rant – I bet they are scared at Rabobank about a lawsuit – especially since a “little -UCI birdie” has stated publicly that the rule was too harsh and that the UCI was thinking of altering it…setting aside the question of doping – and since Rasmussen was yanked for a rule infraction, and according to you he has paid fines for this breach – then Rasmussen with a good atterney can not only take Rabobank but ASO , UCI and WADA to the cleaners….may I just say – couldn’t have happened to a “lovelier bunch of people”.
Actually, the reason, as reported, for Ras’ sacking was that he alledgedly lied regarding his whereabouts when he missed tests, not that he missed the tests. Of course, I suspect that if he had made all his tests, and meanwhile took a hush-hush trip to Italy, for whatever reason, the outcome would be different.
If you apply for a job and lie about something material on your application, resume, or in an interview, and the company finds out after hiring you about your deception, they do have grounds for firing you, even if they might have hired you anyway if you told the truth originally. In this context, and the context of the total Ras story, I think Rabo could stand by their firing. Consider: Ras misses some OoC tests, and claims he was in Mexico training and didn’t have access to a computer. He also claims to have called Ann Gripper on the phone, but she wasn’t in the position she is now in at the time and doesn’t recall taking a call from him. So he backtracks a bit about that, might not have been Gripper but someone else. Then some retired cyclists recalls seeing Ras in Italy when he was supposed to be in Mexico. Rabo alledges him fessed up to this, he denies it but hasn’t been particularly forthcoming about backing up his presence in Mexico with passport stamps, ticket stubs, whatever. I think he’ll need to have some pretty solid evidence to support his statements that he was in Mexico, not Italy.
Re the UCI statement that the punishment for missing a test 45 days before a big tour is too harsh and needs to be changed. Maybe, but until it is, he should not have been allowed to race. If the rule had been enforced, then this whole mess could have been avoided.
In regards de Rooy, it may be that he knowingly allowed Ras to ride, hoping to slide by, since apparently in early July the UCU either did not know or care about the missed tests. When the knowledge of the missed tests came public, Rabo was put in a difficult situation, which only would have been compounded had Ras stayed and won. So maybe de Rooy was forced out for this.
William,
Rasmussen’s withdrawal and subsequent dismissal from Rabobank are a bit murky. The official line is he was let go for lying about where he was training. But this inquiry makes be wonder just how true that might be. One of the questions that needs to be answered is “What did Theo de Rooy know and when did he know it?” As in: Did he already know that Rasmussen had been training somewhere other than Mexico during that time period? It’s a messy story that needs to be sorted out. Once it is, we’ll see whose story holds up: Rasmussen’s or Rabobank’s. Seems to me that Rabobank management may be a bit nervous, given the actions they’ve taken. We’ll have to wait and see where this all leads, however.
– Rant
As Mr Hue points out – what body of law are they all following? It does not seem to be any law that any sane person would want to live under.
–
You are right Mr Schart – it is definitely explained in all job applications, if you lie about your information – it is grounds for dismissal. I am trying to wrap my head around the idea that people don’t exactly ever tell the plain truth in their application – but the situation within the cycling world is down right draconian now. Because guilt is presumed, the riders are treated as guilty. The rules are unfair and in a democratic system, they would be ruled unjust.
–
We are all ready to accept that the ex-bike racer “recognized” Rasmussen in Italy…must have been wearing his racing gear for everyone to see too, oh yeah – so now we are going crazy – questioning Rasmussen’s’ where abouts…because in the land of cycling, it is possible for me to say or point to someone and say anything about them without proof…
–
Any wonder why some bikers may just be “acting out” and not reporting – to show some defiance towards this system? Not everything has logic behind it – sometimes it is as simple as plain as giving the symbolic finger to those who oppress you.
The rules about the 45 days was imposed by GT because it’s the period for doping so OoC tests could obtstruct doping. Just look at Sinkewitz.
Do you remember Thanou and Kenteris, the 2 Greeks caught by an OoC before the OG of Athenes? Do you remember their false accident and their false hospitalization with the help of doctors?
I agree the rule is harsh, but non doped riders are fine with it and support this rule, even if a day they could be miss a GT. It’s better for them because there is less doped riders in peloton, so the field is fairer.
Rant”
The whole Ras business certainly is a tangled web, but I fail to see that Rabo has much too worry about. Even if Ras can prove he was in Mexico (hm, maybe he was training in Audrain County, so only would have US stamps in his Passport 🙂 ), there is no doubt he missed tests and I’d bet there is some anti-doping language in contracts that would cover, or at least be made to cover, missing tests.
Of course, I realize that often the stated reason and the real reason for leaving or being fired (and often the exact nature of whether someone voluntarily left or was fired and allowed to leave with the pretense of resigning) can be different. I rather wonder whether UCI brought pressure on Rabo to get rid of Ras following McQ’s statements that he’d rather Ras did not win.
Ras certainly is not helping his cause. Missing as many tests as he did, and providing such lame excuses for having done so, presents the appearance of wrong-doing. Even if he really could not find an internet cafe, or a hotel with wi-fi, plenty of ways besides email to let UCI know his whereabouts. And his story about phoning Ann Gripper sounds defiantly made up. “Let’s see, look up who’s in the anti-doping division at UCI, OK here’s a name” and not realize that she wasn’t actually in that position until after he was supposed to have made a call.
Now re de Rooy, certainly we need to know what did he know and when did he know it. Was he forced out because he knowingly allowed a rider to start when he shouldn’t have, was he forced out because he should have known, but didn’t, or was he merely a sacrificial lamb. I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.
Jean,
Agreed that the rule is harsh. For a number of types of doping (certain steroids, homologous blood doping), athletes would probably have stopped doping prior to that time period, but perhaps the effects of the doping would still be detectable. There’s one modification to the rule that I’d like to see, if it doesn’t already exist: Given that unforeseen circumstances can arise (death of a parent, child, or close relative for example), and given that most everyone has a mobile phone and/or Internet access, I’d propose that if a missed out of competition test occurs during that 45-day period, and if the rider can be found and tested within a certain period of time (24, 48, 72 hours, I’ll leave that for others to decide), then I’d allow the rider to race — assuming there’s no positive doping tests. On the other hand, if the rider is so well hidden that he can’t be found, then consider barring him from riding.
William,
I would think that Rabobank may still be on solid ground, assuming the story about lying to them is true. Most employers would fire an employee who lied on their application, as you pointed out earlier. As tangled a web as it is, I just wonder if Cassani’s story was a convenient excuse, rather than the real reason.
As I understand it, the whole Gripper story had to do with some documentation problems last year, rather than this year, so not only is it a bit confused and a bit lame, I’m not even sure how it applies to what happened on the Tour. (Other than to attempt to explain confusion around a missed test around that time, given the 3 missed tests in 18 months rule.)
And, now that you mention it, I thought I heard stories of someone who saw him riding near Mexico, MO in June. During a thunderstorm or a tornado, perhaps. I wonder if he flew through O’Hare, or if he found a direct flight to Lambert or KCI? 😉
– Rant
I don’t know if there is something in the rules about unforeseen circumstances, but I willbet that some agreements could be find for special unforeseen circumstances.
In France, Christine Arron (100-200m runner) received a warning for a missing test in winter, she was carrying his child to hospital. Despite of that she stated she was not anger, and she was just hoping that it should be the same for her contestant.
For UCI OoC, targeting the suspected riders it’s a good way for decreasing doping. The clean riders would have less OoC so they have less odds to miss one. And for the suspected riders, they are under pressure…it’s like terror but it’s a war.
I see a link between the work of Lausanne lab and the riders who are targeted by UCI, so Kashechkin caught is not surprising, Astana riders are suspected, and so targeted.
Morgan, some stuff about detection of blood doping.
http://www.dshs-koeln.de/biochemie/rubriken/07_info/UCI_Studie.pdf
JBSMP wrote, “The best way for this whole Puerto thing to be put to rest is DNA tests from the bags of blood and the riders. Just rule them out. It is simple, relatively inexpensive and very definitive.”
The problem I have with statements like this is the following. If a rider was blood-doping, then they would have used the blood that had been set aside for them, and it would not be there in storage, to be found and tested. On the other hand, if one finds a particular rider’s blood in one of the bags, then he obviously wasn’t using it, so cannot be accused, at least on that evidence alone, of blood doping. Maybe a rider was someday, possibly, planning on using the blood that they had set aside in storage, but that is not the same as actually having used it.
Great work Rant. Your blog has turned into my next favorite stop after my daily visit to TBV.
anybody want to take any odds on what this means??
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13062.0.html
wildiris, i get your point.
but this is not the same thing as setting your kids cord blood in liquid nitrogen for possible chemotherapy use: there is no medical reason to bleed yourself out in the spring and save the blood UNLESS doping is planned. If you are a rider and your blood is found in one of those bags that alone should be worth a 2 year expulsion (unless you get a lifetime like Ulli did).
Basso was suspended for admitting to having set blood aside, but he claims that he never used it and the test that might determine autologus transfusions has not yet been implemented by WADA labs (as far as I know.)
Think of it as being conspiracy to commit a crime. It is still a punishable offense even if no crime was committed. Thinking about cheating shouldn’t be enough, but a paper trail that can prove that an athlete took specific action in planning to cheat and paying somebody to help get ready to cheat is another thing.
Then you have people like Dr. Ferrari, with lots of useful information on effective training methods, some of which happen to be illegal. Most of the top trainers know about at least some of the illegal methods whether they employ them or not. The difference is that some choose to use them, and a smaller subset of that group actually gets caught. The fact that they were caught does not automatically mean that every athlete that they have ever or will ever be associated with should automatically be assumed to be guilty.
On De Rooij’s name:
Both de Rooij and de Rooy are correct. IJ is one letter in (older) dutch called the Long I (lange IJ) but nowadays, people are startying to use Y instead of IJ. The hip kids these days use Y instead of IJ. And generally, foreign newspapers will use Y cause its easier for buitenlanders to understand!
Rooj is just wrong. that’s like a totally different name/person!
But de Rooij and de Rooy are equivalents.
Jean,
Thanks for the link. Interesting article.
Wildiris,
Glad you’re enjoying the blog.
jbsmp,
I’m thinking that Contador and Bruyneel are either going to announce that he’s giving a DNA sample to prove he’s not connected to Operacion Puerto, or that they’re taking legal action against WADA and/or Werner Franke (but on what grounds I’m not certain). Not sure which it will be, but 24 hours from now, we’ll know.
Daner,
Good analogy between conspiracy and attempted doping.
i-hear-rien,
Thanks for the clarification. I certainly wouldn’t have known that about older Dutch. Most appreciated.
– Rant
Have you noticed that Thepaceline.com has removed its opening page tribute to AC?
I hope its not due to tomorrows announcement.
gian
Gian,
That’s certainly a rather strange development. I wonder what’s going on.
– Rant
Hi Jean C – thanks for the link – I’ve read it…I am not sure I’m qualified to make a “judgment call” on it. One thing that I can say I learned – it is that the various groups who were involved were trying to get a “scientific”- meaning unbiased statistical evidence that doping is going on. I am not discounting the value of the report – I am merely being truthful when I disqualify myself as being able to discuss it as the report is presented. I’m just an ordinary guy – not a scientist.
–
You know Rant – I’m wondering how much all the blood testing, the labs, the payroll for UCI and WADA is?
–
From the standpoint of trying to find out if people are doping or not – It would seem so much easier just to tail them. In any investigative situation – the collection of hard data, surveillance and just plain patient foot work is what gathers evidence. If X is suspected of being a doper – then just put a good team of watchers on him/her. Everything that is needed for proof the “subject” himself/herself would provide.
–
We seem to be spending so much energy “speculating” on who, what, where, how and why – with information usually that is being fed to the public for none obvious reasons. WADA, the UCI have only one goal and that is to keep the status quo – in other words, to keep themselves in a job.
–
We find that we know next to nothing concrete, at least not publicly about the whole doping scene. We seem to have great fun extrapolating using biased information – without having hard facts to work with. Doesn’t this make the whole thing nothing more than a waste of our abilities?
–
We have become obsessed with merely tossing one innuendo, politically motivated hyperbole assertion, spin headlines and hearsay around like they should be meaningful pieces of a real puzzle.
–
While it may not be as much fun as discussing, theorizing, “seeing” who guesses right and who guessed wrong – the issue seems plain enough. The doping culture in cycling, whether it exists or not is being tossed at us in “spun” bits and pieces. Can we really assume that by nailing a few doctors in Italy or Spain or Germany or even in the US – we actually have done something to stop doping? I would say that we are not.
–
Simple police procedures would serve us better, gain direct observed valid evidence and in the end – would cost a lot less then the methodology we are employing now.