Jean-Francois Lamour, the former French sports minister who was also a World Anti-Doping Agency vice president and presumably the man who would replace Dick Pound, made news this week by angrily dropping out of contention for the top job at WADA. Lamour tossed a few verbal grenades as he skulked out the door.
From CyclingNews.com, quoting an article in Thursday’s issue of L’Equipe:
“I don’t want to be the president of a World Anti-Doping Agency which has no clear and straightforward vision of its mission, and which cannot stand firm against outside pressure,” Lamour told L’Equipe on Thursday, discrediting especially the Anglo-Saxon members of WADA.
“Every year, we fight to keep the list of banned substances coherent: that corticoids, against the will of the Anglo-Saxons, remain forbidden; that the detection of exogenous testosterone remains at a first threshold of four (4:1) when the Anglo-Saxons want to return it to six. I also note that the New Zealanders have been battling for the authorization of cannabis for a while now… And those who praise the liberalisation of doping aren’t very far away.”
What on earth caused Lamour to act like a little child, take all his marbles and storm out, hurling insults at his (now former) friends as he left? For that matter, where on earth is any of this coming from?
Last month, Australian John Fahey managed to maneuver his way onto the ballots, which will be cast at next month’s WADA conference in Madrid. This apparently angered Lamour, who was no longer a shoe-in as Dick Pound’s replacement.
But what is all this crazy talk about “Anglo-Saxons” not being serious about the fight against doping? If there are particular individuals who are not fighting doping in the manner Lamour feels is the right way, why not name those individuals, rather than resorting to name-calling? (And Lamour quite clearly is using the term Anglo-Saxon as an insult here.)
The thing is, individuals can have differences as to what the proper approach to the fight against doping in sport happens to be. To cast one group in the position of the right approach to fighting the problem (i.e. anyone who supports Lamour), and to cast an entire group of people in the position of the wrong approach (apparently the entire English-speaking world) is to ignore the fact that there has been and continues to be a strong debate amongst those concerned about doping in this country, as well as other English-speaking nations. One need merely look at some of the Internet forums, read a range of mainstream media stories, or read a wide variety of blog postings to realize that there is no global consensus among the “Anglo-Saxons” as to what is the right approach to eliminating doping.
But, according to Lamour there is a clear delineation within the WADA organization, as CyclingNews.com also reports:
One, more Anglo-Saxon, is for a more minimalist role of WADA which would stay a service provider for international federations and tempted to say ‘the less doping cases there are, the better for us’. On the other side, there is a more political and more European vision of the Agency, holding on to ethics and the protection of athletes, fighting trafficking – a sort of international police officer in the fight against doping, as IOC president Jacques Rogge wishes. That’s also my concept of the fight. I am ready today to build this new entity [a European Anti-Doping Agency].
We don’t often get a glimpse into the inner workings and machinations of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Could Lamour’s sudden departure indicate some greater rifts between the member countries and organizations? Or is this just the noise made by a politician who’s been bested by someone else?
Lamour claims that Fahey’s nomination was in some manner improper, as VeloNews.com reports:
The Frenchman claimed the September 22 WADA vote to approve Fahey’s candidacy was taken by a block including representatives of New Zealand, United States and South Africa “without any mandate from their member governments”.
I’m not sure how Lamour knows this. It would be interesting to see him provide some further proof than just slinging accusations. Switching gears a bit, from reports it sounds like he was mad that WADA turned down an offer funds to help the anti-doping fight from several European television companies.
I would not – contrary to what WADA just did – reject the offer of financing by the European Broadcasting Union, which has proposed to make TV stations participate in the fight against doping. How can you just reject this offer if you’re not trying to sideline Europe?
Hard to say, but perhaps there were some strings attached that made the offer unpalatable? Or perhaps the decision was a short-sighted one, as Lamour seems to be saying. (Interestingly, CyclingNews.com’s story — linked in the quote above — doesn’t say whether or not the offer of funding has been accepted or not.) Even if it’s true that WADA has turned down that funding, I think it’s a huge stretch to say that rejecting the offer is meant to sideline Europe. That’s just crazy, angry talk.
Lamour apparently wants to form a European Anti-Doping Agency, perhaps to challenge WADA’s anti-doping hegemony. Dick Pound, quoted in another CyclingNews.com story shot back at Lamour’s idea of creating a separate European agency, saying:
The whole purpose to this international agency is to harmonize rules and policies, yet Lamour’s recent proposals go counter to the entire premise behind the organization of which he was an active vice president until his resignation this week.
Pound also had some choice words for Lamour’s critiques of WADA.
Pound denied that there is an English-speaking bias at WADA, saying, “Mr. Lamour’s suggestion that there is an “Anglo-Saxon” conspiracy against him is incorrect, inappropriate and neglects the fact that represented in the decision-making are representatives of all five continents.”
Pound went on to say that Lamour’s criticism of WADA is unfounded because, “Not once during [his tenure] has he raised any concerns about the leadership and direction of the fight against doping that had been led by WADA. His sudden about-face in his public enunciations regarding WADA is astounding, unfortunate and suspect, in view of his previous support and commitment.”
According to a Reuters report, Pound also said this about the now-former WADA vice president:
“I think Europe in general, and France in particular, are going to be so annoyed with this guy at having fought his way into being the candidate for Europe to walk away and leave Europe hanging,” Pound added.
Lamour was a leading contender to succeed Pound as president until the late candidacy of Australian John Fahey. His decision to quit leaves former Australian finance minister as the lone runner for the November 17 vote in Madrid.
“I just don’t understand why he (Lamour) would run from that fight,” said Pound. “I would have thought he could have won.
“He’s got all of the credentials and the experience as a sports minister and an Olympic athlete.
“He needs a majority of nine votes and he starts off with five votes already from Europe… all he needs is four more votes and he was home free.”
Lamour objected to the supposed backroom dealings by Fahey to get on November’s ballot, and sought help from Pound and Brian Mikkelsen, the European representative on WADA’s executive commitee to arbitrate the dispute. Apparently, neither man would intercede in the dispute. Earlier this year, I wrote this about Lamour being Pound’s replacement:
If Lamour does replace Dick Pound, we will get all the zealousness of Pound (and more) without the quotable quotes (or verbal cluster bombs, depending on your point of view).
Whatever his real reasons for quitting WADA, Jean-Francois Lamour has certainly proven that he is just as capable of launching verbal cluster bombs as the outgoing WADA head. Amusing, in a way, to see Dick Pound on the receiving end.
But what Lamour revealed about himself through his actions shows that it’s a good thing he walked away. Clearly, by his behavior, he has proven himself not to be qualified for the job. He could have critiqued WADA in much different terms, and made the same kinds of points, without having to resort to cheap shots like his “Anglo-Saxon” conspiracy theory.
Goodness knows, there are many things about the system WADA created that need to be corrected. Lamour could certainly have been a force for change within the agency. Even with Fahey’s nomination, he could have worked hard to get the votes to ascend to the WADA presidency. The only thing that was a given is that he would have some competition. But just because Fahey entered the picture, it was probably not a given that Lamour would lose.
That said, there may been a conspiracy against him, but if such a conspiracy exists it’s a conspiracy of individuals, not an entire people. Slinging racist-sounding muck petulant-sounding insults is no way for the president of WADA to behave.
Whatever Lamour goes on to do — in the anti-doping world or elsewhere — we can all be thankful that he won’t be leading the World Anti-Doping Agency. Let’s hope Mr. Fahey will be the kind of leader who is capable of seeing the problems within the agency and the WADA code, and who is capable of taking the actions necessary to strengthen the system where necessary while also ensuring that athletes’ rights are respected.
Rant, I may be reading too much or too little into the Anglo Saxon comment, but the way that the French use the term Anglo Saxon is to imply that the english speaking countries (anglophones) were moving against him as the successor to Pound. This may or may not be true and you are right that he would have been better served to have named names but I don’t believe that there was any racial slur intended. It would be similar to the way i would use the term to categories eastern european, latin american, North american etc.
Luc,
I have to admit, I wondered about re-writing that sentence a great deal before hitting the “Publish” button. I’m no expert in French, or French turns of phrase, to be sure. Perhaps it’s a case where the translation should have been a bit less literal, rendering the meaning as “English-speaking” instead. Making a statement about an entire group of people or countries sounded prejudicial to me. His beef is with particular individuals, and he really should have kept it that way, rather than making it more global. It’s certainly not a case where the US, as a whole, or the UK or Australia is out to get Jean-Francois Lamour (even if a few people from those countries or representing those countries really are organizing against him). I rather suspect that most people in the English-speaking countries haven’t got a clue who Lamour is, or why they should even care about what he says.
I have no idea what Mr. Fahey is like, so I an no including him in my discussion. But so far it looks like WADA lacks competent administrators and is run instead by big egos, more concerned with running up a big score than actually doing something to figure out what the problem is, and what should WADA’s role be. I can see an argument that WADA should just be a service provider, setting and ENFORCING standards for labs, national ADAs, etc., and I also can see an argument for WADA to take a wider role in the anti-doping.
–
Right now, we really do not have a good idea of what the true extent of the doping problem is, neither in cycling or in sports in general. In regards cycling we have those who believe that “everybody does it”; hence anyone with a positive test must be guilty. But on the basis of the available statistics from testing, only a small percentage are guilty. Which side is right? Maybe WADA attempt some kind of study to figure this out. The true extent of the problem should be factored into determining the strategy WADA takes. If large numbers of cyclists are doping and getting away with it, we need to know this is true and figure out how they are avoiding detection and how to get them. If we are getting most dopers with the current strategy, then perhaps we only need to fine tune it. Of course, we also need to revise procedures to be fairer to an innocent athlete, or even a guilty athlete caught by bad lab techniques. I say that last deliberately, no one should be convicted by shoddy lab work.
–
More importantly, we need to get good people who are more concerned about the well-being of cycling, and sport in general, involved in running all the various agencies involved: WADA, national ADAs, UCI and national federations, even the private race promoters like ASO. There’s too much in-fighting amongst people and groups only interested in promoting their own narrow interests and who don’t realize this is all adversely affecting cycling. I only hope Mr. Fahey can produce some changes for the better at WADA.
I think the French use the term “anglo-saxon” to refer to English-speaking countries and cultures. I don’t think this is necessarily a derogatory term from a French point of view. See, for example, http://french.about.com/library/motdujour/blmdj-anglo-saxon.htm. The term apparently is used commonly, in France and in other countries. It’s probably not the most polite term one might select, but I don’t think it’s meant as a slur either.
…
Of course, it’s suspicious behavior to paint all members of a large group in an unflattering way. For example, I think it would be prejudiced and bigoted to say that “all Martians are dopers”, even though there’s nothing derogatory in the term “Martians”.
…
The bigger question, though, is whether Lamour’s withdrawal of his candidacy is just a petulant act on Lamour’s part, or whether it is evidence of a significant rift within WADA. We don’t have much evidence to go on here. My suspicion at the moment is that there IS a widening split between the European and non-European ADAs and their representatives. I’m not sure whether this split is based on issues (for example, that the Europeans are more hard-line on doping and the non-Europeans are more tolerant), or whether this is a political battle over who will control WADA and who will provide the anti-doping rules for European sport events like the Tour de France.
…
From the little bit I’ve gleaned so far … it appears to me that the Europeans (in particular, the French) think that they were promised the WADA presidency. Also, there appears to be a growing movement to have European anti-doping efforts controlled by a European agency … and that European television may be playing a role in this movement.
…
More later. There’s a letter online from Lamour to Dick Pound, written in French, and I’m going to try and get my wife to translate it for us.
Larry and Luc,
On reflection, your point is a good one about the meaning of the phrase. I’ve edited that sentence slightly.
Rant –
…
Good correction there!
…
OK, let’s focus on what is going on here. As per usual, we really don’t know what the heck is going on. Not yet anyway. Here’s what I can figure out.
…
The issues around Lamour’s resignation appear to start with the rules governing WADA’s organization, so let’s begin there. WADA’s governing instrument (translated into English from the original French) is at http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/constitutive_instrument_foundation_En.pdf.
…
WADA is a foundation under Swiss law, with a 36-person Board (38 if you include the Chairman and Vice Chairman). The current membership of the Board is 11 “anglo-saxons” (delegates from the U.S., U.K., Canada, S. Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Barbados), 14 from Europe (including Russia and Eastern European countries, and including Mr. Lamour in this count), and 13 from Africa, Asia and South America. Interestingly, Richard Young, the prosecuting attorney in the FL arbitration, is one of the two U.S. delegates. There is also a 12 person WADA executive committee, consisting of 5 “anglo-saxons”, 4 Europeans and 3 others.
…
A critical principle for WADA’s organization is that power is to be divided equally between the “Olympic movement” and representatives of so-called “public authorities.” Public authorities are “intergovernmental organizations, governments, public authorities or other public bodies involved in the fight against doping in sport.” Example of agencies included in the Olympic Movement are the IOC, the ANOC (Association of National Olympic Committees) and the ASOIF (the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations). Examples of “public authorities” are the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy and the sports ministries of various countries.
…
The membership of the WADA Board and Executive Committee is divided equally between Olympic Movement members and public authority members. If you want the count, there are 5 European public authority members, 7 “anglo-saxon” public authority members, and 6 other public authority members. (In other words, most of the WADA “anglo-saxons” are public authority members, and most of the WADA Europeans are Olympic Movement members.) Moreover, the WADA chairmanship is supposed to switch periodically (at least every six years) from an Olympic Movement member to a public authority member, and back again. The current chairman, Dick Pound, is an Olympic Movement member, so the new Chairman has to be a public authority member.
…
Got it so far? Good. Because we’ve now reached the point in my explanation where things get a little, er, murky.
…
Article 7 of the WADA governing instrument governs the election of the WADA chairman (and vice-chairman). It clearly provides that these officials are to be elected by the WADA Board. The candidates do not have to be current Board members. And this year, as I explained above, the Chairman must be a person “nominated by the public authorities.” Article 7 goes on to provide voting rules in case more than one person is nominated for Chairman. Other than this, the rules are silent.
…
The WADA governing instrument leaves unaddressed one big question: how do the public authorities determine who the nominee or the nominees are going to be? This seems to be the essence of Lamour’s complaint: he believes that he was properly nominated (he was the candidate of the Council of Europe), and that Fahey was improperly nominated in an informal process by a coalition of English-speaking public authority WADA board members. And actually, despite all the commotion regarding Lamour’s use of the term “anglo-saxon”, no one seems to dispute his statement that Fahey’s candidacy was sponsored by a group of English-speaking WADA representatives who opposed Lamour’s candidacy.
…
In any event … Lamour apparently wanted WADA to invalidate Fahey’s candidacy, and WADA wouldn’t do it. Dick Pound’s position seems to be that it’s up to the public authorities to determine the identity of their candidate or candidates, and that WADA is happy to accept nominations from any and all of its public authority members.
…
While Pound’s position seems to be based on common sense and democratic principles, there may be something to Lamour’s position as well. I don’t know the entire history of WADA, but it does not appear that WADA’s executive positions have been contested in the past. It appears that there’s generally one nominee, and the nominee is unanimously elected. While this might not seem terribly democratic, this IS pretty much standard operating procedure for elections in the corporate world. The president of every major corporation (whether the corporation is for profit or not for profit) is elected by the corporation’s Board of Directors, but you don’t EVER see multiple candidates campaigning for the job. This is probably Lamour’s real point: that the mission of WADA is going to be compromised if the position of the WADA chairman becomes a matter of politicking between the different factions that comprise WADA. Also, if the intent of the rules is for this year’s chairman to represent the public authorities, it would be desirable to have the public authorities all agree on its candidate or candidates. Otherwise, you could have a situation where a person is nominated by a single public authority member, is opposed by all other public authority members, but is elected with the unanimous support of the Olympic Movement members.
…
OK. That explains the mechanisms involved in this dispute. The NEXT issue to address is WHY the “anglo-saxons” decided they needed their own candidate to oppose Lamour. A topic for another post, if I have time to get to it! But it could be a simple matter of the numbers: the “anglo-saxon” public authority members outnumber the European public authority members, and maybe they figured that this particular nomination belonged to the “anglo-saxons”.
I think that there must be more than simply English speaking public authorities figuring they have the numbers, why not have their own president. There must be something more they find wrong with Lamour other then his native language. I’d bet it has a lot to do with this idea of a independent European ADA. To the question here is why do the Europeans feel they need there own independent agency? Could Lamour’s comments indicating his belief that WADA is not strong enough in its anti-doping efforts?
–
His comments about 4 to 1 vs 6 to 1 T/E ratios may be something here. Could there be some non-public displeasure in WADA with LNDD set off by the Landis case? I can see WADA, via Pound, taking a public stance that Landis is a dirty doper who needs to be nailed to the wall, while secretly saying that LNDD is screwed up and has put WADA in a bad position where they are more or less forced to public defend an incompetent lab. If this is the case, Lamour does not want to bring this public resulting in more bad publicity for LNDD. We did see the French Open tennis tournament abandon LNDD, allegedly for economic reasons, but perhaps they wanted good solid evidence in case they had to DQ someone for doping.
–
Whatever the reason for Lamour’s departure, it shows a lack of class, IMO. He could have remained, maybe even still have won the election, although I do have no idea how the numbers would shake out there. Even if Fahey were to have beat him, he still could have remained in WADA working for what he believes in. Or he could have waited until after the election, and if it didn’t go his way, quietly leave, perhaps citing “personal reasons”. “I want to spend more time with my family.” Now, he just looks like a spoiled little boy who didn’t get his way.
Or it could be that ADO bid for power and control over who is called a doper, who races and who doesn’t simply flopped. ASO has a lot to lose – I would not be surprised that Lamour is ASO’s man on the inside.
–
If we really “follow the money” then we have to take into account that the French contingent would pull together — It is possible that the Anglo-Saxon contingent saw all that has transpired between the UCI and ASO as just that. WADA has been doing it’s fair share of skewering both.
–
Let us not forget that the AFLD has publicly stated that they support ASO — and that they would provide their own testing — Okay people, raise your hands, how many of you want LNDD to do your tests?
–
If the cycling world has Team Testing, UCI Testing, and Regional Testing — you know what is going to happen — they can all “claim” that their results are “better” — what you wind up with is that no one “trusts” any testing — convenient if you really want to muddy up the waters.
–
And all because EVERYBODY has been playing with getting the rules so vague, the testing so unreliable — that no one is trusting the results. I ask myself why? It couldn’t be that there are individuals and groups that actually benefit from all these murky rules, are there? I believe there are.
–
Larry that is a very nice breakdown of the ways and means of WADA, you always excel yourself.
–
William — you always ask the right questions.
A bit more information.
…
You all might enjoy seeing the correspondence between Lamour and Dick Pound of WADA that led up to Lamour’s resignation. You can find links to both letters at http://www.wada-ama.org/en/newsarticle.ch2?articleId=3115494. But good luck reading Lamour’s letter. It is in French, and in a highly formal style of French. I had my wife read the letter — she’s fluent in French, she’s taught French at a university level, and SHE struggled with the letter. If anyone wants a translation, I think I can provide one, but it’s not an easy letter to understand.
…
If I’m following Lamour’s letter, he seems to think that Fahey’s nomination was orchestrated by WADA’s Executive Committee. I described the WADA executive committee in my earlier post. The blog WADA watch (sorry, don’t have a cite) also indicates that the WADA Executive Committee was behind this nomination. However, Dick Pound denies this in HIS letter.
…
The WADA web site contains an explanation of how WADA’s chairman is supposed to be elected, and this explanation supports some of the arguments made by Lamour. The web site indicates that the public authorities are supposed to nominate a single candidate, and the candidate is supposed to be selected based on a process established by the public authorities. See http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/QA_WADA_Presidency_en.pdf. I think that Lamour referred to this web page in his letter to Pound cited above. Interestingly, this web page was updated on September 26, AFTER the date of Fahey’s nomination.
…
I still have no clue what’s behind all this. It’s clear that a bunch of WADA representatives were unhappy with Lamour’s nomination, but we don’t really know why. It might be a matter of personalities. I don’t think it has anything to do with Lamour supporting a European ADA — I think his support of a Euro ADA postdates his realization that he’d lost out to Fahey. There’s no way that Lamour would DARE support a Euro ADA while he played a role in WADA — WADA and IOC are both firmly opposed to a Euro ADA. I also don’t think that the rift indicates that Fahey will institute a kinder and friendlier WADA, one that would support reforms to make the ADA process more fair to athletes. Remember that the “anglo-saxons” who nominated Fahey include people like Richard Young, who prosecuted FL. And there does not appear to be any opposition within WADA to increasing doping sanctions to up to a 4 year suspension for aggravated cases.
…
Ultimately it may not matter WHY the “anglo-saxons” opposed Lamour. Their opposition may have added momentum to movements already in place to increase European and local control over the major world Tours. Note that the French anti-doping summit is underway as we speak, that Lamour is present at this summit, and that Fahey is not.
Larry, I would very much like to read the translated letter – since I do not speak French. But I do have patience and fortitude.
–
If Lamour Is ASO’s man on the inside – and I would be very surprised if the WADA’s Executive Committee did not know this. I suspect that everyone on those committees is connected to factional groups – My question is – why was Lamour dressed to take over the WADA leadership to begin with – He had to have support of quiet a number of people on both the executive committee and the public authorities.
–
The easiest way for the French faction to make the ASO’s problems go away is to head WADA – the UCI would then be completely neutralized.
–
There is another group that is a heavy hitter in all this – that would be the IOC – which to me seems to have its tentacles in every aspect of this circus.
Small day for justice – Mayo’s “B” sample was clean. Now, how the heck did HE get to use a second lab, when Landis and Hamilton did not?
Probably not the best place to put this. Sorry, just had to post somewhere other than DPF, where the wolves would get to it.
Whareagle,
Thanks for the tip. That sounds like a good topic for a future Rant.
Morgan, Lamour was the existing WADA vice-chairman (no. 2 guy), and in a few reports I’d seen, he was Dick Pound’s hand-picked replacement. However, if the other reports are correct and Fahey’s nomination was orchestrated by WADA’s executive committee, then it’s hard to imagine that Pound did not have something to do with Fahey’s entry into the picture. In any event, Lamour was nominated by the Council of Europe — the EC — so he appears to have had the support of a wide range of European sports organizations and not just ASO. And yes, the IOC is involved in this picture as well, and they’ve weighed in AGAINST any kind of European ADA. Finally, I’ve given you the link to both letters, good luck with the French letter. My wife, as I said, muttered her way through the rough sense translation she gave me, saying things such as “where the hell is the subject of this sentence?” and “this is one pissed off French guy!” (The reference here to “French guy” is not a slur — the French have a completely unique way of expressing themselves in writing when they’re angry. And my wife and I both adore France and the French.)
…
Whareagle, the initial report was that Mayo’s “B” sample came up for testing after LNDD (the French lab) was out on vacation in August. If you know France, practically the entire country is out on vacation in August. So the LNDD designated the lab that tested the “B” sample. This is what I’ve read, in any event. I don’t think Mayo or anyone connected to Mayo had anything to do with the choice of the second lab.
…
And yes, I BET we’re going to hear from Rant on the LNDD being proven wrong in the Mayo case! Though the EPO test is notoriously difficult to perform and, from what I understand, can legitimately be interpreted differently by different labs.
I find this idea of LNDD shutting down in August due to national holiday interesting. I have worked in a couple of different positions where our “busy” time came in the summer, when most people took vacations, and we basically couldn’t get time off during that time. The TdF generally takes place during the first 3 weeks of July, so if LNDD is going to shut down in August they pretty mcuh have a week to get the tests in from the last few stages.
_
This leads to some interesting speculations:
–
1. Could some of the sloppy work revealed by the Landis case be in part due to rushing through things in order to finish in time for vacation?
–
2. As I recall McQ went ahead and ordered the B test instead of waiting for Landis, who had I believe 5 days to make the decision, to request this. Could Landis have been waiting until the last minute to make the request in hope LNDD would be shut down and the tests be done by a second lab?
William –
…
Before going further, there’s evidently some confusion out there regarding why the Mayo “B” sample was sent to a second lab for testing. I’d read that it was done because the LNDD was on vacation, but Rant seems to believe that the WADA rules require the involvement of a second lab to confirm a positive finding for EPO. I’ve already posted on this question on the new Rant topic regarding the Mayo situation.
…
I’m not an expert on French culture, and I’ll say only that the French take their August vacation time very seriously. It MUST be the case that certain institutions in France are able to operate 12 months a year, but evidently the LNDD is not one of these institutions.
…
On your speculations: yes, LNDD itself admitted that they rushed the Landis testing in order to get it done before the August vacation, and that the rush led to “little mistakes.” Here’s the quote from the ESPN article on the reaction to the FL decision from Jacques de Ceaurriz, head of the LNDD:
“[de Ceaurriz] added the most tiresome aspect from the lab’s point of view was how cases drag out after the initial rush for results.
For example, he said the testing of Landis’ backup B sample fell the day before the lab usually closes for a summer break, after the finish of the Tour de France.
“We even had to requisition staff, change airplane tickets,” de Ceaurriz said. “We were made to rush, and it was in the rush that the staff made little mistakes. … We were put under pressure. What we see most of all is the disconnect between the demands that are placed on the lab, that it be very reactive and give responses immediately, and then the whole procedure that lasted more than a year,” he said.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=cycling&id=3029499
On who requested the FL B test … according to the NY Times at least, the sequence of events was as follows (1) FL requested the B test, (2) McQuaid followed up with LNDD to see if they had received FL’s request, and (3) McQuaid then directly requested the LNDD B test, in an effort to get the test performed before LNDD closed for vacation. The article implied that without McQuaid’s action, FL’s B test would have taken place at LNDD after they returned from vacation. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that FL’s B test could have been conducted by another lab.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/sports/othersports/01landis.html?_r=1&oref=slogin