After news yesterday that Iban Mayo’s B sample came back negative, the UCI is saying it ain’t so. As VeloNews.com reports:
Officials from the UCI on Tuesday, however, insisted that follow-up tests of “B” samples aren’t completed yet and there’s more to be done before the once-mighty Basque is fully in the clear.
“The second sample is not negative,” UCI anti-doping coordinator Anne Gripper told AFP at Tuesday’s doping summit in Paris. “The analysis of it has not yet finished.”
Apparently, the analysis of the second sample is “not negative” because the testing is not complete. The international cycling federation is seeking to have additional tests performed, even though the counter-analysis was either inconclusive or contradicted LNDD’s original results. The UCI’s Anne Gripper claims that the testing methods are different at the Ghent, Belgium lab than at LNDD, and they would like to have LNDD test the sample to see if the Belgian lab’s findings (or lack thereof) can be duplicated.
As things appear to stand right now, the lab (or labs) that tested Mayo’s B sample did not reach the same conclusions as LNDD’s initial test results from July. Under normal procedures, this would mean that the case would be thrown out. However, the UCI appears, instead, to be bent on retesting until they get a result they want, rather than accepting the data as it currently stands.
Also, according to VeloNews:
There were some reports that labs botched the test, but Gripper insisted that testing methods between labs in France, where the “A” sample was tested, and follow-up tests in Belgium are not the same. Officials now want a second sample to be re-tested at the Chatenay-Malabry lab in France.
She said it would be another “five or six weeks” before the second round of tests is completed. Even if the follow-up tests are negative, the UCI said it might consider an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight: If the UCI ultimately doesn’t get the result they want (Mayo busted for using EPO), they’re going to appeal to the CAS? To do what, exactly? If the lab results don’t confirm an adverse finding, on what grounds are they going to ask the CAS to punish the Basque cyclist? The fact that someone at the UCI has it in for him? Are they going to offer up some “non-analytical” finding such as, “Well, your honor, Mayo looks like a doper.”
I wonder if they even have enough material left from Mayo’s original sample to do a proper test at LNDD, anyway. The test LNDD uses, and so far the only test for EPO detection that WADA has a published technical document about, is a urine test. This is a test that was developed (or at least partly developed) by the esteemed scientists at LNDD. Hopefully not ones named Mongongu or Frelat, given their performances (and what they revealed of their lab procedure) during the Floyd Landis hearings in Malibu last May.
So, given the attendant publicity surrounding Mayo’s case, and given the history of the lab involved, what do you bet that LNDD confirms their original results? I’d be quite surprised if they didn’t. In testimony last May, the two lab technicians gave the impression that they were willing to erase data and repeat tests, or modify data and repeat analysis until they got the result they wanted. Mayo’s is another do-or-die case for LNDD. That is, if they do further testing. LNDD has a reputation to maintain, and regardless of what the truth is for Iban Mayo, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see an adverse finding and a doping charge against him when all is said and done.
But on the off chance that LNDD doesn’t oblige the UCI and provide them with the results they want, the UCI sounds like they’re prepared to push through a case against Mayo, anyway. The idea that the UCI would pursue a doping case against someone when the lab results are either inconclusive or negative is frightening.
It reminds me of an earlier time, when people’s lives and careers were ruined not because of any solid evidence that they had committed a crime (or treason), but simply because a power-hungry Senator named McCarthy was bent on ridding this country of people he deemed to be “Communists.”
In the fight against doping, there may be times when the powers-that-be can’t pin a charge on someone they suspect — but can’t prove — to be a doper. Wise are those who know when to let a matter drop, knowing that some day they may have a different (and better case) against the suspected doper. Unfortunately, the people running the UCI are far from wise.
Gripper’s admission ” testing methods between labs in France, where the “A” sample was tested, and follow-up tests in Belgium are not the same.”, can be viewed as a bit encouraging in that they recognise that LNDD are unique onto themselves. You are right Rant, these develpments are truly frightening, no shocking. The question that comes to mind though is, if the labs are not testing to a common standard then why aren’t they?? We have already seen that if FL had been tested elsewhere then red flags wouldn’t have been raised, so why is this discrepancy in testing procedures continuing to be permitted. Does UCI and all the rest feel that because they are the hub of cycling in Europe they can make the rules as they please because they “know that all cyclists are doping, we just haven’t caught them yet.” This latest develpment is certainly entertaining reading.
Luc:
From what I have read recently, LNDD uses a urine test for EOP and are the only lab that does this. I sort of have a feeling that what I have read seems to indicate that LNDD is the only lab that is equipped to run this test, and for some reason UCI prefers this test. Other labs test blood. Assuming both types of test are scientifically valid, having 2 types of test seems to me to be a good thing. If you get the same results by different means, those results should be more reliable. If Ghent’s test, and the lab itself, were reliable enough for UCI to send the sample to test in the first place, the results should be deemed reliable now. Unless there was some problem with the blood sample itself. But that seeems unlikely, given the totality of Gripper’s statement.
–
Regarding the statement, does it seem to others that we now have, straight from Gripper’s lips, an admission that they are indeed result shopping. “…they just couldn’t get the results…” they wanted, so let’s try another lab. This time a lab where lab techs have admitted under oath they repeatedly run a test until they get the results they want, while destroying the evidence from the earlier tests, rendering a review of their work impossible.
Hi Rant, Just came across an article in LEquipe reporting that Mayo’s negative sample was not actually negative just “unreadable”. It’s in french if you feel like tackling it. http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2007/20071023_130131Dev.html
What in the world is “unreadable”. Why can’t the lab read it?? And if they can’t read it why will LNDD be able to?
Luc,
I’ll have a look at it this evening, when I have a bit more free time. I wonder if by “unreadable” they mean “inconclusive.” You’re right. If the lab in Ghent can’t make heads or tails of it, how could LNDD manage?
Rant,
There’s no basis whatsoever for you to claim Gripper and the UCI are “results shopping”, and you know it. You have this fantasy gain, with no basis) that the UCI is “out to get” Mayo. How do you know they aren’t doing what they can to clear him while other forces want to see him punished? The point is, you don’t.
Ludwig,
Quite the opposite. If they weren’t “results shopping” then they would take the findings of the Ghent lab (whether “inconclusive” or “unreadable”) and clear Mayo. It’s clear by their actions what they’re up to. Here’s a quote from Anne Gripper at CyclingNews.com:
That sounds an awful lot like they know the result they want, and they want LNDD to reanalyze the sample so they can get it. It certainly doesn’t sound like they’re going out of their way to clear Mayo. If the Ghent result doesn’t confirm the original result, the case should be closed.
Gripper is an Australian and many articles about her gratuitiously say she is a person who chooses her words carefully (i.e. “Men in Black”). Unless her English words were translated into French for a French article and then Cyclingnews translated the French article into English for its publication (and that is certainly possible), it is safe to conclude Gripper said exactly what she meant here, consistant with her reputation. If so, her words are disturbing at best and frightening at worst.
I would like to know How LNDD managed to be “recognized” to be a test on to themselves – since their incompetence and fraudulent behavior during the “testing” as discovered during the Landis case – This seems to have been completely ignored!
–
Now they are being presented as the only one “able” to get the “right” results – what in heck is going on here.
–
When Gripper says this – why is not the main stream media questioning it? This is about getting a fair system here in cycling.
–
When Ludwig attacks Rant, he sees it as if the only issue is Mayo, the real issue is that there is an obviously biased group of people writing arbitrary rules for everybody else but they themselves have to follow the same rules.
–
That is the issue Ludwig. Rant is saying that Everybody has to be subjected and governed by the same rules. It is harder to fight fairly – If you got a group of people who are “reinterpreting the rules to suit the occasion” then you got no fairness, you got a small group, lording over everybody else for their own gains!
Just so we all are clear on who said, it was I who used the phrase “results shopping” in my post above. Rant did not use those terms in this article of his, although he essentially made the same point using other words.
I’m not ready to reach any conclusions about UCI and Mayo until we have more facts. (I’m frustrated that we don’t have the facts.)
…
But I WILL point out that the latest WADA Technical Document on EPO testing is designed to make certain that all WADA labs test for EPO in a consistent way. Just look at the title of the TD and its first two paragraphs:
…
HARMONIZATION OF THE METHOD FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF EPOETIN ALFA AND BETA (rEPO) AND DARBEPOETIN ALFA (NESP) BY IEF-DOUBLE BLOTTING AND CHEMILUMINESCENT DETECTION.
The criteria presented herein have been established to ensure harmonization in the performance of the EPO urine test and the subsequent reporting of results across the Laboratories.
All the Laboratories are required to apply these criteria in the routine performance of the urine EPO test.
…
So, how can it be that the Ghent lab used a different testing method than the LNDD?
Larry:
Refering to a reply Bill Hue made to one of your posts over at TbV earlier this week, UCI only recognizes the urine test for EPO as developed by LNDD. WADA on the other hand accepts results from other tests. Ghent as all WADA labs does tests for many different sports, so maybe they have other tests that they use. If so, UCI should have taken care to specify what test they wanted used. On the other hand, my cynical side thinks maybe UCI was trying to be tricky here. If Ghent did a different type of test and had confirmed LNDD results, UCI could have said “Not only did 2 different labs come up with the same results, but 2 different tests did!” But they got caught when Ghent couldn’t confirm the desired result.
–
I’d bet that if Ghent had confirmed the results, UCI would not have been picky about what test was used.
Pierre Bodry, president of the AFLD was commenting on the spanish sports page Marca.com that he had no doubts about the reliability of the tests done at LNDD and called the lab “one of the most efficient in the world”. Interestingly he acknowledges that there are differences between labs and that the application of the newly planned biological passport will be quite difficult due to the lack of standardisation. Hmmm. I have just rudimentary spanish so if there is anyone else that wants to read this it is here. http://www.marca.com/edicion/marca/ciclismo/es/desarrollo/1049305.html
William, what you wrote about UCI just accepting LNDD’s EPO test is quite interesting. Do you have referrences for that? Because I’ve never heard of that and I was busy in that field.
Thank you.
Here’s the thing that’s really been bugging me for a while now. WADA was created at least partially to standardize testing and thresholds for non-negative findings.
_
Here we have not only organizations such as the UCI but the labs themselves saying that the testing and standards are different between labs. Moreover, the labs aren’t even using the same tests. And instead of this raising big 40’x60′ red flags, they instead propose stricter testing that in the view of most people would 100% depend on uniformity between the labs doing the testing.
_
I find it unfathomable that not only is there not an uproar from the media about this type of injustice, but that the riders and teams do not appear to care. They just seem to be going along with it like cows to the slaughterhouse.
_
If this were employers performing drug testing on their employees here in the US, it would be an investigative reporter’s wet dream. If this was happening at a GM or Ford plant the UAW would be staging a strike right now.
_
What’s wrong with this picture? Will the riders not stand up for themselves out of fear of lost income? Does the media not raise questions due to the perception that all athletes are cheats? Someone please explain this to me because it looks like there are only a handful of people (Floyd, Hiltzik, etc) are the only ones willing to expose what’s really going on here and that just doesn’t seem right. My feelings are that we should either be seeing people come out of the woodwork to expose injustices like this, or we are really being duped and taken for fools; and to be honest, I don’t feel like I’m being duped.
So all of this begs the simple question. If you were an up and coming rider, what would you do? Stay the hell away from professional cycling. It has become the ultimate joke. NO standards, NO controls, NO truth, and sadly, NO change on the horizon either.
H French,
I can get you a little further in your effort to continue researching UCI’s position on the urine EPO test because as Larry points out, we are woefully short on facts, from the authority for UCI to require tests under the WADA Code to the policy of UCI regarding the nature and types of tests it will require for it to pursue disciplinary cases related to EPO use among cyclists to the kinds of tests performed on Mayo’s samples to the kind of samples Mayo provided upon which testing is continuing to be implimented.
As tests designed to detect exogenous EPO were being developed, blood was initially used as the medium. However, the first blood tests were critized in some credible medical journals. Going “back to the drawing board” to resolve the issues with blood testing, the Lab at LNDD developed the rHuEpo test using urine. The Sydney Olympic Games used the combination of blood and urine to test for EPO and it was decided BOTH had to be non-negative for there to be discipline. That is where we think the notion that using a combination of blood and urine for EPO testing in disciplinary cases got its genesis. The WADA Code does not require that combination.
In 2001, by a Board decision, UCI decided to mandate use of the rHuEpo test as the exclusive test for cyclists. The LNDD lab had developed the tests and became the provider for rHuEpo analysis on cyclists’ urine samples as a result.
From that point on it gets to be more than a little cat and mouse because it isn’t clear if cyclists were being tested for EPO throughout the intervening years or not but if so how they were being tested and during what period(s)they were being tested seems to be at issue. When the information dries up, it is difficult to piece things together. When you piece things together, you may stumble upon the truth but chances are greater that you are off the mark. That is why some pointed questions to McQuaid would be very appropriate.
In the meantime, the WADA Australian lab has come up with an EPO test as has the WADA Montreal Lab (I’m not certain on that). Perhaps these are in use now in Ghent? Can the Ghent lab perform the rHuEpo test? Those are the questions we are asking from information we can piece together. That is not an acceptable or reliable way to assert truth.
All my speculation has been just that, until more factual information is obtained. Given the secrecy that seems to exist, most likely to keep the athlete’s on their toes, we may know all there is to know, unfortunately.
I am not so sure the the UCI is looking to crucify Mayo, and I would hope that Gripper’s comments were taken out of context or misconstrued. Perhaps an “unconfirmed” test is one in which the subsequent result is inconclusive?
—
In any case, I thought the same thing as you regarding the statements, but am holding out on judgment, because it just doesn’t seem logical that the UCI would be out to destroy Mayo’s career.
—
I just cannot believe that the riders haven’t unionized — at least in any meaningful way. These guys really need to get their act together.
Stephan, I know you’re on the side of right and good here.
…
I think WADA rule 7.5 could not be any more clear:
…
“If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent B Sample analysis does not confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Athlete shall not be subject to any further disciplinary action and any sanction previously imposed shall be rescinded.”
…
IOW, no confirmation, no case. My brain may be addled from reading too many WADA rules, but an “unconfirmed” or “inconclusive” test is not a “confirming” test.
…
I think that Gripper and the UCI will have to dance like hell to avoid the application of Rule 7.5 to this case. How are they going to claim that Ghent had Mayo’s sample for two months but did not manage to perform an “analysis” on the sample within the meaning of Rule 7.5?
Here’s another question. The Mayo sample was collected on July 24. On July 30 the A test results were released. SIx days. Then a B sample is sent to Ghent, as LNDD is closed. It takes months for them to release their results, or lack thereof. They apparently use a different test than LNDD’s, maybe the Ghent test does take a long time. Now UCI is sending the case back for LNDD to use the same test they used back in July, but now we have an ETA of 5 to 6 weeks. Why will LNDD require 5 or 6 weeks to conduct a test they were able to complete in 6 days in July?
William, good point! I’m hoping that when all the facts are in, we’ll learn what took so long at Ghent. Presumably something unexpected took place in Ghent — if they expected the B test to take this long at Ghent, then there was no reason to move the test to Ghent in the first place — LNDD could have performed the B test when they returned from vacation. But this does not even begin to explain why UCI anticipates that it will take LNDD 5-6 weeks to complete the B test. Is this test on “back order” at LNDD? Couldn’t UCI pay a little bit extra for a rush order, second-day delivery by UPS, and so forth?
If they bother to tell us what is going on. UCI has not exactly been transparent here. They did originally mention they were using Ghent because LNDD was on vacation, but never a word why it took so long there, either during the wait or now. This, along with the remark about not getting the results they wanted, leads to all kinds of speculations, many of which are not flattering to UCI. IMO it would have been better if the had said “We sent it to Ghent, here is what took so long, here is why the Ghent results are usable, here is why we think that further work needs to be done at LNDD, and here is why now it will take 5 to 6 weeks when the original test only took 6 days.” Assuming there are legitimate reasons for all this.
Larry:
–
Of course I am on the side of “right”! The side of “good”??? That is a too subjective a standard. 😉
–
If you look at the text of rule 7.5, there is justification for what Gripper said: That it wasn’t “complete” (whatever THAT means!). In addition, while I agree with your statements regarding an “inconclusive” or “unconfirming” test, according to the rules, the lab must do an “analysis” of the B Sample, which analysis has to be conducted “in conformity with the International Standard for laboratory analysis” (See WADA Sec. 6.4). Perhaps there is something in the test that wasn’t done correctly, which led to a result which cannot be used to confirm or “unconfirm” the results? This could be why it wasn’t “complete”?
–
Again, it doesn’t look good. It is a PR mess and it is certainly justifiable to reach the conclusions outlined here.
The reason it took so long to release the B sample results was because it’s been negative for so long.
The UCI/WADA held the results because they had to wait until after the Floyd decision. If Mayo’s B sample results had been released before then, Floyd probably would have been declared free to race.
It’s all politics – IN my opinion.
Oh, what the hell. I can’t resist beating a dead horse.
…
ISL Section 5.2.4.3.2.1: “the “B” sample analysis should occur as soon as possible and should be completed within thirty (30) days of notification of an “A” Sample Adverse Analytical Finding.
…
ISL Section 5.2.4.3.2.3: “The B Sample result must confirm the A Sample identification for the Adverse Analytical Finding to be valid.”
…
ISL Section 5.2.4.3.2.7: If the “B” Sample confirmation does not provide analytical findings that confirm the “A” Sample result, the Sample shall be considered negative …”
…
Stephan, I see your point, but I think there’s a limit on how long a lab or labs can diddle around with a “B” sample before we can say that an “analysis” has taken place. I’d say that if you give a “B” sample to a lab, and they give up trying to analyze the sample and send it back to you, then you didn’t get confirmation and case closed.
…
Unless there’s something relevant that we haven’t been told here … Mayo is effectively in the clear. UCI will never get away with this.
Along the strange-but-perhaps-true conspiracy thoughts: Perhaps the UCI was playing games knowing that the tests were messed-up. Realizing the error, they figured that the best they could hope for was to force Mayo to serve his defacto suspension until next season. Why they would do this? Maybe they “know” that Mayo is really guilty (just like Tyler and Floyd – you know they are cyclists) and are trying to get the most out of the pro-tour code without having to produce a positive test.
_
Or maybe the UCI is just incompetant.
Come on people, Mayo is guilty. Just ask, ASO president Patrice Clerc;
“We won’t give any freedom to the riders after the start of the race,” he added. “We also have the evidence that traditional doping tests work. It has worked with Mr. Vinokourov, with Mr. Moreni, with Mr. Kashechkin, with Mr. Mayo. The biological passport will prevent the important part of the doping during the six weeks before the race. There’s no universal answer to the plague of doping but it’s going to be very hard for the cheats to do what they have done in the past.”
Someone should test Mr. Clerc, ASAP.
Kashechkin is taking WADA and UCI to the European human rights Court.
Luc Misson, who co-defended Jean-Marc Bosman, believes Kashechkin is in a similar, if different, position to the Belgian who took football to court, and won, over the issue of the freedom of movement of players in the European Union.
“The Kashechkin case, as regards (the) anti-doping (rules), could be viewed in a similar vein as the Bosman ruling,” Misson told AFP.
Misson bases his argument on article 8 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and will use this premise when he steps up to defend the Kazakh rider at a tribunal in Belgium on November 6.
Article 8 states that only the public authorities can interfere in people’s private lives, and Misson added: “… and the sports authorities are not the public authorities.”
Misson will argue that even the principle of collecting blood samples runs contrary to the international charter on human rights, and is thus forbidden.
The Belgian lawyer said he is ready to take Kashechkin’s case through all the courts, and to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
“It’s a case of who wins loses,” he said. “If we lose, we will go to the court of appeal, then the Supreme Court of Appeal, then the European Court of Human Rights. And then we will be in a very good position. At the human rights court it would lead to a (favorable) decision at a world, if not a European level.”
I’ve been reading all your commentary’s and I have to say it makes me feel hopeful. I think all your comments enlighten and demystify the inner workings of our present cycling world and how its function is causing the very troubles we are facing.
–
Mr Hue, William, Larry and all of you are asking such pointed questions – questions that we must forcefully demand that they be answered and addressed.
–
I just wanted to tell you guys that you blow me away – I feel hopeful that we actually will wind up getting a decent cycling environment.
–
So what is going on with Floyd and the Team and CAS?
Mike:
The outcome of Mayo’s case had no legal bearing on the Landis case. It is theoretically possible that it could have an effect on the Landis arbitors, but I rather much doubt it. Mayo is accused of using EPO, Landis testosterone. Landis was accused of doping in the 2006 Tour, Mayo a year later. And if Mayo’s case was dismissed based on the Ghent results or lack thereof, that would have no bearing on whether or not LNDD committed violations in the Landis analyses. Michael may have it: they are dragging out the case as long as possible to enforce a de facto suspension even if Mayo is ultimately cleared. By the time projected for LNDD to complete this go-round of testing, the 2007 season will be over; Mayo has been under suspension since July 30.
Two points:
1) Much of the speculation here seems to assume that it would be rational or somehow understandable that the UCI is out to get Mayo, or they want to see him banned regardless of whether they can prove he doped. Why? There’s just no motive. So many dopers get away as it is–why not go after the sure things? Mayo already evaded high profile PED suspicion in the Giro just this year.
2) At the same time, it’s not secret that other factors are at play when a rider tests positive. There have been accusations of bribery of officials in cycling re. PED testing, and there is credible reason to believe many of them are true. In this game, the money is on the side of the cyclists, while cycling has little incentive to out dopers, which further tarnishes the sport in the eyes of the public.
Ludwig, once the ADA system has reached an adverse finding, they’re motivated from that point forward to justify their adverse finding. It’s not so much that they’re “out to get Mayo”. They’re out to prove that they don’t make mistakes and that they run a system that’s beyond reproach.