Information that should be confidential seems to just pour out of a certain anti-doping lab in a certain Parisian suburb. The latest story to hit the news via the LNDD-L’Equipe nexus is a claim that Michael Rasmussen returned a “non-negative” result for Dynepo from one of his anti-doping tests at the 2007 Tour de France.
The story has been reported at VeloNews.com and CyclingNews.com, and it’s an interesting study in the differences between how two different observers can view the same circumstances. Here’s how VeloNews.com tells the story:
The head of France’s Anti-Doping Agency said Friday that Danish rider Michael Rasmussen submitted a sample that showed signs of the presence of Erythropoietin at this year’s Tour de France.
AFLD President Pierre Bordry cautioned, however, that the sample does not qualify as a positive, because the substance in question is a new version of the drug EPO that is much closer to human erythropoietin than the established version of the drug, Epogen.
“Traces of Dynepo, a biosimilar EPO, were found in Rasmussen’s urine,” AFLD President Pierre Bordry told the Reuters news service on Friday. “Rasmussen’s test could not be declared positive because of the positivity criteria of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).”
Currently, the EPO test can be declared positive only if the erythropoietin used is the older version of Epogen. Since Dynepo is made from human cells, WADA researchers said the risk of a false positive is too great since it could be mistaken with human EPO.
Rasmussen was leading the Tour de France when he was kicked out of the race by his own team, after they said he lied about his whereabouts in the weeks leading up to the race.
And here’s how CyclingNews.com tells the story:
While legally not a violation of the anti-doping code, Danish rider Michael Rasmussen was found to have taken Dynepo in the 2007 Tour de France. Dynepo is an EPO product based on human cells. Samples from this year’s Tour were analysed in the French anti-doping lab in Châtenay-Malabry, and its technicians have alerted the International Cycling Union (UCI) of the findings, French paper L’Equipe reported in its Friday edition.
Dynepo was found in a urine test of Rasmussen. Rasmussen had not been found positive during the Tour, but was kicked out by his team Rabobank, following his whereabouts affair.
For about a year the French lab has detected Dynepo, all in all about ten cases so far, according to Pierre Bordry, the president of the French Anti-Doping Agency. But none of the cases could have been declared as a positive finding, as the WADA criteria of positivity of a test are not yet adapted to the advances in the pharmaceutical market.
In the CyclingNews.com story, the writer leaves out an important piece of information, which is this:
Since Dynepo is made from human cells, WADA researchers said the risk of a false positive is too great since it could be mistaken with human EPO.
By leaving that bit of information out, the writer leaves the reader with a completely different interpretation of the story. As presented in CyclingNews.com, LNDD seems to be on top of the testing and ahead of the curve, while WADA seems to be behind the times. The criteria for what constitutes a positive test isn’t the problem, however. If the current state of testing is such that the test may mistake natural EPO for Dynepo, then using that test runs the risk of athletes being accused of doping violations when a false positive result may be to blame.
WADA rightly leaves this drug off of its testing routines right now, and in doing so protects athletes from having to deal with the fallout of a false positive result. Testing processes need to advance to the point where Dynepo can be differentiated from natural EPO before an accusation is brought against an athlete.
And for all we know, the 10 suspected cases of Dynepo use detected at LNDD may all be false positives. Or some of them may be. So the truth is, while the test results appear to implicate Rasmussen, the test itself is not good enough to give a definitive answer. In other words, Rasmussen may not have used the drug at all.
Both articles fail to raise one important question, though. And it’s a question that should be at the forefront of both writers’ minds. How is it that this story is winding up in the press? WADA’s own confidentiality rules forbid the release of such information. And yet, none other than Pierre Bordry, the president of the AFLD (France’s anti-doping agency), is confirming the story.
There is a consistent problem with confidential information leaking out of LNDD to the press. WADA rules forbid such leaks. If WADA wants to bolster the credibility of its anti-doping regime, they need to show the world that they enforce not only the rules that the athletes must live by, but also the rules that the labs are expected to live by.
WADA needs to investigate how and why this information was provided to the press, and they need to hold those who have done so accountable. Even if it means holding the president of France’s anti-doping agency accountable, and even if that means imposing sanctions on the lab (such as revoking its accreditation for a certain period of time).
Can we be certain that Michael Rasmussen used Dynepo? No, not with the current state of the art in EPO testing. Can we expect that a lab releasing such information to the press should be held accountable for doing so? Absolutely.
As we learned with the Floyd Landis case, the inappropriate release of information can have a very damaging effect on an athlete’s reputation. WADA requires that athletes be held to a standard of strict liability. If they want us to believe in their program, one step (of many that are needed) towards instilling that belief would be to hold the labs to similar high standards.
Strange that this story should be coming out now. It’s almost as if to say that Rabobank did the right thing by booting Rasmussen from the Tour, because the lab caught him cheating. No. No they didn’t. They think they did, but even WADA won’t accept that test result as proof. And for an organization that’s all too trigger-happy when it comes to accusing athletes of doping violations, that says a lot.
I can see the fine point of your comparison between the two press releases Rant. I even find your observations of the LNDD and the French doping Minister insightful — I come up short of wishing to discuss the lab or the Ministers commentary simply on the basis that the lab and the French minister are all behaving like what was found in the Landis case as nothing but partisanship and media spin.
–
Is this how we shall be reacting to a lab that has been brought into question for poor work ethics, sloppy lab technique and unsubtantiatble results? What happened to LNDD showing that it has corrected its “problems”? Have you heard anything about this? I haven’t. Has WADA corrected this problem? After all, WADA claims that the lab is running under international standards, the Landis case point to this as otherwise..
–
I am not surprised at all that VeloNews would run with a Le Equip story — that is their apparent habit. This “newest” EPO scandal seems to fit right in to their methods of creating “public” pressure to come out looking like they are “just doing their job” — Why was not the VeloNews or CyclingNews.com not asking about the French labs status? Before they print anything from the findings of this lab?
–
If the feet of these publications are not going to be held to the fire — then what do we wind up doing? We fall into the trap of simply perpetrating the “LNDD findings” as if they are legitimate. I don’t know about you — but this seems to me a central issue that needs to be addressed first.
–
If WADA and the UCI and the French lab, can get away with “acting like” nothing really happened in the Landis case — we should just all pack up and go home, because we shall bring about no change for the better. To be honest, when I read these “stories” what I get is simply the same old trash — “Look — the cheating cyclists are trying to get one past us again.” — And here is how it is presented.
–
“Look, we found this “substance” in the urine of (X); it appears to be a new form of doping, cheating. But we are “sorry” folks; we can’t do anything because it is not against the WADA rules to be using this, yet. But we want you to know, because we are going to “act” unofficially.” — once again back to the same crap that has started this whole madness. Making an accusation and then trail by media to follow.
–
I have just one question — why are we so quick to buy into the form of “attack” that is prevailing in the racing world? “All cyclists are potential cheaters and they will cheat at any opportunity to win” — What about — Every team will cheat and supply the means for riders to do so, to win? — What about — the Promoters having a foreknowledge of who is where in their doping cycles and therefore they have an edge of what the results should be? What about the teams and the promoters “fixing” the outcome of races to highlight a sponsor or a team? What about the gambling angle? Have you heard much about this subject at all — in the press?
–
No — we are chasing our own tails — discussing stories that we ourselves know to be put out for spin value.
To quote another Floyd: “Money, get away. Get a good job with more pay and you’re okay. Money, its a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, think I’ll buy me a football team..”
great reading Rant.. good points..
WADA aggregates yet another reason to rally additional funding. Prolonging the media circus.
A certain French newspaper sells more copies.
A certain lab technician gets a little more bread on the table from leaking the information.
This leaves the innocent athletes on a wooden boat floating in a sea of lava, the slow burn is all around, and occationally they sink right into the lava… just to find another wooden boat in a different level of hell..
The Velonews article seems pretty much to credit Bodry as the source. It’s possible he might just be reacting after the fact, but even that could be seen as a violation of confidentiality. He could have declined to make any comments about any specific rider, while at the same time he could have explained the facts about why a finding of Dynepo would not be considered a violation at this time.
It’s one thing if some low-level lab tech or secretary leaks confidential info on the sly to pick up a few extra Euros, not that I am condoning that. It’s an entirely different issue when the head of the organization publicly releases confidential info.
How long into next season before a Slipstream rider tests positive and we have a new case to discuss:
Slipstream’s test results vs. LNDD test results???
It’s amazing that one of the leaders, WADA, UCI, LNDD can’t step up the plate and make this nonsense stop.
Well, of course Slipstream’s tests results won’t count – after all, they aren’t a member of the “club”.
Hi William – you present a very possible result to the “teams” doing their own testing – the only way I can see it working is if the “team” labs are Certified not by WADA but by a legitimate certification body that is world wide accepted like crime labs.
–
My personal belief is that the “teams” went this route to be able to fight UCI and WADA – we can’t know how much clout this will have, till the first time it gets into a “court”. If the WADA is considered the only legitimate testing body – you are right – it will be spun into something.
–
Mike you state what many of us feel. Don’t get impatient, this “situation” in cycling is not going to be fixed over night – WADA-UCI-LNDD – ARE BEING ALLOWED TO REACT AS IF NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE SCENE. As long as no one calls them on this behavior – they will not change. Why should they?
–
No one gets upset when a rider is outed, using “leaks,” is then judged by the general public due to lack of reaction. Very few seem to really grasp that the supposed “court” and the rules by which this court is supposed to function is designed to squash the athlete who disagrees with them, not to find out the truth of the accusation. WADA, USADA, IOC,UCI are all sitting in the drivers seat – do you think these people can be expected to act fairly and justly?
–
I think this wish is much too easy to make, but, unless the “Club” develops some social consciousness, stop buying into the public character assassinations technique of top athletes.
If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.
Note to everyone: don’t get hung up exclusively on the fact that, once again, LNDD leaked information. Focus for a moment on the information that was leaked. LNDD is testing for Dynepo? Why are they doing that, given that WADA has not approved any test for Dynepo?
…
Is LNDD trying to develop a reliable test for Dynepo? Not likely, or else why would they be testing samples like Rasmussen’s, where you don’t know whether or not Dynepo is present? I mean, if you’re going to try out a new drug test, presumably you’d do it with samples you’d spiked with Dynepo, and samples you knew were clean.
…
More questions: if the LNDD “test” has found ten samples where Dynepo was present, why disclose only one of these tests? Yes, of course, they are not supposed to disclose ANY of these tests … but if they disclose one, why not disclose them all?
…
This is sadly reminiscent of the revelation that LNDD had found EPO in old samples from Lance Armstrong. Again, there was no decent explanation for why LA’s samples were being tested by LNDD. If memory serves, LNDD claimed that it was working on a better and more sensitive test for EPO (it’s been a while now, whatever happened to that improved test?), but again, why try out a new drug test on a sample, when you don’t know if the sample is contaminated or not?
…
If anyone can come up with an explanation for what LNDD is doing here, other than the obvious one, please let us know. Because, as bad as it is that LNDD cannot keep a secret, it’s worse if LNDD is engaged (actively or passively) in an effort to smear riders (like Rasmussen and Armstrong) who are someone’s “hit list.”
Larry:
As I recall, the explanation for the tests that involved LA samples was LNDD believed the test would pick up dopers who were slipping through the current (as of that time) tests. If that was indeed the case, it would at some point be logical to test samples that had come up negative under the then current testing regime. Whether that was indeed the case, or just a “likely story” cooked up when the real agenda was to implicate LA, your guess is as good as mine. However, it seems to me to be rather telling that the IDs of the samples somehow got into LNDD’s, or was it l’Equipe’s, hands. Seems to me it would have been very easy for WADA to remove or obliterate the ID numbers on the vials before sending them on to LNDD. Since WADA does not currently test for Dynepo, this rational would not apply. I suppose there might be some need/desire to do some testing on “real world” samples, but it seems to me there should be some limits an this.
In the present case, it sounds very much like an attempt by someone to further discredit Ras, or offer further justification for his dismissal by Rabobank and resultant removal from the Tour. “Look, he really is a dirty doper, so dirty he dopes with something that WADA doesn’t test for!” Could also be an attempt to counter any damage to their image from the Landis case, given the fact that even the arbs busted their chops. “We have much more advanced tests than WADA.”
I was involved for a couple of years in a medical study. My identify was too be kept strictly confidential. If LNDD is conducting legitimate research, they should likewise be keeping confidential the ID of anyone involved, in fact, they probably should not know the IDs period. Nor, for that matter, are they supposed to know the ID of samples submitted for testing from races or OoC testing.
Larry and William,
Back when the dust-up over Lance Armstrong’s supposed positive tests for EPO at LNDD hit the news (thanks to the indefatigable Damien Ressiot and L’Equipe), the story was that the lab was doing “research” to determine if the EPO test could work on samples that had been stored for some time.
…
One has to wonder what kind of “research” may have led to the “findings” that claim Rasmussen was using Dynepo during the Tour. It certainly smells funny, coming at this late date.
…
And whatever the case, Bordry should not be releasing (or even confirming) results to the press under the current rules, and as William points out, under any kind of rules that would likely govern a real research program. And William is also correct, LNDD should not even know the identity of the “donors” of the samples being tested. There’s a lot wrong with this picture, to be sure.
The more I think about it, the more I think WADA is involved to some extent. How else could LNDD get the identifies unless WADA was involved someway? Either they are feeding LNDD the IDs deliberately, or they are just so incompetent that they are inadvertently doing this. Inexcusable, in either case.
William,
Here’s an entirely different take on the story, from The Canadian Press. In this telling of the tale, Bordry seems to be more circumspect. Perhaps this is the one that’s closest to the truth.
Rant:
Indeed that article puts a much different light on Bordry’s comments. It looks like he did take what I would consider a correct approach: he did not comment about Ras in particular, but seems to have simply explained the criteria used in judging this type of result. Not that he is likely a reader here, but I will apologize for any slights I may have made regarding his role in this affair.
William,
I actually tripped across that article while researching something else. It’s interesting to see how much different it is than the Reuters report and the other report that VeloNews and CyclingNews based their stories on, and presents the story in a whole new light. If The Canadian Press story is accurate, it suggests that at least some of the information that L’Equipe published came from somewhere else. The logical places would be either the UCI (who would have both the rider’s ID number and name and thus able to say who was who) or WADA (who might also have such info, but less likely than the UCI).
…
Somebody is clearly trying to say that booting Rasmussen was the right thing to do, because this test suggests he was a doper. McQuaid wanted Rasmussen out and a younger rider to win. He got his wish. But if the UCI is stirring the pot again, why would they do so? Perhaps to score points before the anti-doping summit?
” “¦Somebody is clearly trying to say that booting Rasmussen was the right thing to do, because this test suggests he was a doper. McQuaid wanted Rasmussen out and a younger rider to win. He got his wish. But if the UCI is stirring the pot again, why would they do so, perhaps to score points before the anti-doping summit?”
–
Or Rasmussen is now going to go public with what is going on with his case. To get such a “specific” targeted article, no matter what its origin may be has only one purpose and that is to stop a development. Anybody else wondering what the hell is going on with Rasmussen since he got tossed from the Tour, I am. The man must have retreated into a monastery and spends all his time in meditation.
–
As far as this “doping summit” is concerned — How do they think it will work, exactly? As far as I can see, the UCI “says”- that they have given into the Grand Tours — and they are no longer part of the UCI pro Tour Calender”¦. So lets see what we got — We got the Tour of Italy, just at the end of the spring classics — that is a good 3 weeks there. A Month passes and then you got the TdeF around 4 weeks — In the meantime — the UCI is going to be “promoting” its “pro-tours” — does anyone else see a conflict here? I do not think of the Spanish Tour as relevant — the “powers that be” have been carving up the “creditability and honor” of the Spanish riders. I believe that is the real motivation for not letting “Operacion Puerto” go. They are smart enough to use a weapon that was handed to them.
–
So my question is — How is the UCI going to whip up its “pro-Calender” without the biggest pro races in it? I believe we have been shown that they will try to use the “money” angel, the “million-dollar” purse hook to get the pro-racers and teams. As far as I can extrapolate this situation — I cannot see it ending in harmony. The three Grand Tours are not going to give up on their cash cow and they are not the “share in the wealth” types as their actions have proved.
–
Too bad that the issue of transparency has not been forced enough into the public consciousness that we could actually “know” what will happen at this “summit” – The believers in the “party-line” will think it not unusual that “we the public” is being kept in the dark — “Dopers and Cheaters are Everywhere,” and no cyclist or teams can be truly trusted. For the rest of us “infidels” who think that when matters of rules and governance are to be discussed EVERYONE should be included”¦.well — we are “emotionally deluded and we are partisan because we do not accept the party line.”
–
On the other hand Rant, I do not give so much “leeway” to Bordry’s comments — The difference in news writing between VeloNews and Cycling News as compared to the Canadian reporting is significant. It should warn all of us that just because its in print — it may not be the truth, or nothing but a small part of the truth, if it is not downright hearsay.
To change subjects a bit, Lance has broken his vow of silence:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYiBO8YKv-cmD_MMcRJbDFFHUhYAD8S1CJ500
He thinks that Landis would have walked if this was a jury trial in the US, and also that FL should not be convicted on admittedly sloppy lab work.
“ƒ
Dear people
I am Dutch and write on a blog in the Netherlands.
We are very involved in the “˜Rasmussen case’ from last summer.
I came across this blog a few days ago and find it very interesting. There might a few things I can add and which might interest you concerning this subject.
First.
A Dutch (news) television station broadcasted on the day the Vogelzang rapport was made public that a second test on the sample which claimed to be “˜not negative for Dynepo ‘, turned out negative (for Dynepo).
There hasn’t been any publicity to that by any newspaper although known by every journalist present at the publication. (?) They just don’t talk about doping and Rasmussen any more (besides Damsgaard of course).
We fully agree of course that the test result coming out is something “˜not done, to say the least. That is without saying almost criminal to our idea, from a moral point of view, but also from the point of view of fairness to Michael Rasmussen.
We tried to find out what the status is of the test that the LNDD claim is testing Dynepo. We went to great length to find information and asked an expert. According to the expert there is not such a test available. Nobody but the French lab (and WADA) have any idea which test the French might be using to test for Dynepo. The expert hoped that that secret might be resolved on the WADA congress late November. So far there hasn’t been any announcement of such.
We thing it is fair to say that the French is experimenting which a certain test but has not enough credibility for it to announce it to there fellow colleagues. Making the test and the result to something very unscientifically.
In this light it is of course even more “strange” that a test result was made public.
In your posts you talk about the reason for the announcement of this so called “˜not negative Dynepo test’.
Besides the reasons already given in the posts there is another possibility.
As you already stated: on the moment of announcement the UCI came out with the new World calendar(leaving out the three big races).
In your posts it is also said that the UCI is officially the only one who can link the names to the samples. So who was to blame when something comes out? The UCI.
We think it might very well be possible that the whole thing had nothing to do with Rasmussen himself; it might be another round in the power struggle between the UCI and the ASO.
There is another possibility for how the name is attached to the sample.
The forms filled out by the test are papers on top of each other. On the first is written the name of the rider. It presses through (if that is the right English expression) on the second where it is supposed to be. But should not on the form meant for the lab. With a pencil it sometimes is possible though to find out the name of the rider.
In this case the lab (worker) is fully at fault.
Okay, that it concerning this topic.
Karuna,
Thanks for the information. I hadn’t heard about the second test. Most appreciated. And thank for the insight on how names could be known at the lab, too.
The pencil to bring out the impressions on the second sheet is a well known trick, a staple of many a movie/TV show. It is entirely possible this is the way Ras name became known. However, the lab should have a policy in place prohibiting such behavior. The evidence would be quite clear.
One might also be able to bring out the impressions using low-angle lighting, and possibly manipulating a digital image with a graphics program. Again the lab should have a clear-cut policy against this, and perhaps prohibit cameras in the lab.
Of course, that such shenanigans are possible doesn’t mean that they were done. It could very well be that the UCI leaked the name. Unless someone confesses, we’ll probably never know.
…from the Canadian Press article…
Asked about the case, UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said, “There is no positive result. Not at all. …. Nevertheless it can happen that a lab gives comments and additional information on a negative case, assuming it will help us in our work.”
…gives comments to whom (UCI?, WADA?), how? (email? fax? L’Equipe?) under what controls? (none?)…