Armstong dopes AGAIN

[mitosis]

Read this and weep lance haters:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep09news3

Well, you've changed my thinking. He's obviously been wronged in this instance.

So instead of being an arrogant, bullying, loud mouthed proven drug cheat he is just an arrogant, bullying loud mouthed alleged drug cheat.

I'm starting to like the guy.

 

[mitosis]

Shut up Flyer!

Your only hope is cutiing more albums with pederast producers who sleep with your mother.
Deal with it.
You and the Lance detractors are over.
Sad, eh?

I suppose if you accuse everyone of being flyer you are bound to be right sometime.

 

[limerickman]

didn't mcquaid sit on the late late show and mouth off against kimmage and walsh when they accused roche and kelly of doping?

the sport is dead
i agree with jean rene bernadeau- the only hope is wada and **** pound

McQuaid did - in fact McQuaid actually suggested that the 1998 TDF drug bust
was a conspiracy (I have it on tape).

Pat McQuaid trained my team for 5 years back in the 80's - he's a good coach but as far as being in denial, he's right up there.

 

[limerickman]

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not WADA had access to the samples. WADA did not experiment on the samples, the lab did..

......the lab, Chatenay-Malabry is a WADA accredited lab.
WADA is an organisation that retains specialist labs for testing.
Chatenay-Malabry is one of many WADA labs.

WADA believes that they have no jurisdiction over this matter, given that it apparently relates to urine samples collected in 1999, before WADA was created. Moreover, WADA has told the UCI that on the basis of the reports of the research done and methods used in this case, no disciplinary procedure could be opened against the riders concerned and that in their view, the organization responsible for investigating is the UCI. In light of WADA’s position on this matter, the UCI has assumed all responsibility for investigating the matter.

By signing up tot he code in July 2004, all UCI samples came within the remit of WADA.
The UCI tested in 1999 one sample.
That sample was then destroyed.
the remaining samples was retained at Chatenay-Malabry under the direction of the UCI.
Once the Code was signed up to by the UCI - WADA then had jurisdiction over the retained samples and the lab tested the samples.

I'd break a freehub if I tried to backpedal as hard as WADA did on this one. In any case, the UCI could not possibly have leaked the results of the lab's experiment, because the UCI did not, and as of today, still does not, have the results of the experiment.

Well then tell me if the UCI did not get the test results, as it now claims, how come three copy results were issued to the FFC, UCI and the French Ministry of Sport simultaneously ?
Copies of the six positives were issued to only three parties - and the only party that has stated that it never got the result is the UCI !!!!!!!!!!

The UCI reiterates that at this point we have no information at all about the testing apparently done in Châtenay-Malabry, who authorized or commissioned that testing, the reason for the testing or the manner in which the testing was conducted.

The authority to test - or not to test - is not within the sole remit of the UCI.
The UCI mandates the collection of the samples at races.
The UCI then has to transfer those samples to WADA, at an accredited lab
(Chatanay-Malabry, for example), for testing.
This is in compliance with the WADA code which the UCI signed up to in July
2004.

:
So how did the results of the experiment on the remaining samples, ostensibly to remain forever anonymous, and ostensibly not to be used without the athlete's permission, get into L'Equipe's hands? Since WADA is the current authority until they decided to bow out, I will assume that the results of the experiment were sent to WADA. That is the most likely source of a leak.

The retro samples were tested by Chatanay-Malabry and found to be positive.
CM sent the results to UCI, FFC and the Ministry of Sport.
Someone at the UCI leaked the data to L'Equipe (L'Equipe re-printed the UCI
documents after all).

When the news broke about the six positives, Jacques de Ceauriz of CM stated that, because they had only one sample to test (the other was destroyed in 1999), his test was only conclusive in respect of that one sample (for each of the six urine samples tested).
WADA then stated, on the very day that the L'Equipe published the results, that it (WADA) could not act because it required two positive results, for each single urine sample tested.

Whatever the history of the UCI has been, they seem to be a lone voice of reason right now. **** Pound accuses based on unverified information in contradiction to his own regulations, WADA itself is running for cover, and L'Equipe publishes a focused attack and tries to palm it off as objective and thorough investigation. The lab's actions are suspicious, in the samples they picked to play with, and their violation of custody rules by doing so without obtaining permission. Or did they? And if they did, from whom? Labs live and die by the custody of samples, they knew exactly the implications of unauthorized experiments. It will be interesting to see if the lab rolls over and identifies someone at WADA as the authorization to proceed. (for sure, they didn't get it from LA) Then the fat is really in the fire.

Chatanay-Malabry - as an accredited WADA lab - have full jurisdiction to test
contemporaneous and retrospective samples, as mandated by the UCI's signing of the WADA code in July 2004.

For you or the UCI to suggest that WADA or any of it's labs, violated protocols in respect of samples it can or cannot test, is an attempt to rollback on what was signed up to in July 2004.

The point of tracing this back is to establish whether this was, as the lab and L'Equipe insist, just an experiment that had some interesting results by pure happenstance, or as is quite possible, a deliberate attack on LA by more than one organization. If it were a deliberate attack by L'Equipe and people at the lab, or people at WADA, or all of the above, then alteration of the results to produce the desired accusation becomes a distinct possibility. Switching the results at the lab to match the doping sheet L'Equipe has also becomes a possibility.

However, if the lab and WADA acted in good faith, and within the bounds of the regulations that govern them, then there might be some truth to what L'Equipe says. At this point though, it's looking like at least one of those two organizations would have to act improperly in order for this sequence of events to transpire. And if they have already broken two or three rules, what is to stop them from breaking two or three more?

I will agree with you to the extent that the L'Equipe journalist who published the result did state that he was only interested in the Armstrong positives.
My own view is that L'Equipe, if it had the names of all the cyclists whose samples were positives, should have published all positive cyclists.

But let's be clear here : the UCI are making statements that seem to imply that what they signed up to in July 2004 is up for negotiation.
It isn't.
The Code is clear - all UCI jurisdiction as to what is or isn't tested is waived.
WADA - as mandated by sovereign goverments - is the sole authorative testing agency.
That mandate was given to WADA because individual sporting federations have been found wanting - and the UCI found wanting more than any other international body - in the fight against cheating in sport.

You've got to remember that the UCI don't want bad news - the UCI didn't want WADA.
It's bad news for the UCI that six samples from LA have been found positive.
But let's be clear, WADA stated that it could do nothing to indict Armstrong because it never had two urine samples to test in the first place.
In addition, by finding the 1999 samples to be positive, it also embarrasses the UCI because they tested the 1999 samples and found them to be clean.

Bottom line : the UCI is livid and they're trying to apportion blame for the cheating that has been on going in the sport of cycling.

 

[MJtje]

Mystery 1999 EPO riders outed (europort)


Le Journal du Dimanche has outed three other riders who tested positive for EPO along with Lance Armstrong on the 1999 Tour de France: Denmark's Bo Hamburger, Spain's Manuel Beltran, and Colombian rider Jose Joachim Castelblanco were named by the French Sunday newspaper.


The Journal du Dimanche reveals that the incriminated riders happen to be the three riders randomly selected for the daily dope test on the Puy-du-Fou prologue won in dramatic fashion by Armstrong one year after his return from cancer treatment.

This week, the head of the world cycling body UCI Hein Verbruggen said he knew the identity of the riders whose 12 frozen 1999 urine samples came back positive for the banned drug.

French newspaper L'Equipe, which broke the story, had said that 12 samples, including six from Armstrong came back positive.

Sunday's report does not specify how many samples come from which riders or whether there could be still more riders implicated.

UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCES FOR HAMBURGER

Beltran who rode for Armstrong, is currently part of Discovery Channel's team on the Vuelta. At the time, the Spaniard was at the service of Alex Zülle at Banesto.

On that same Tour, Hamburger was the leader of the Cantina Tollo team. He now rides for Acqua e Sapone while Castelblanco, who rode for Kelme this year finished a two-year suspension for an entirely different affair.

Scientists only later developed an EPO urine test.

Hamburger's case certainly raises eyebrows:

The Dane tested positive for corticoids in that same race, but delivered a doctor's certificate for ventolin and cortisone. At the time, it was standard practice to use corticoids in conjunction with EPO.

Note that following the 2001 Flèche Wallonne, Hamburger was to become the very first rider to test positive for EPO use under the UCI's then-new urine test.

He was exonerated due to irregularities in the handling of Hamburger's B sample analysis, one of which fell below the 80% threshold, and efforts by the Danish federation to exclude from the 2004 Olympic team were thwarted.

Armstrong also produced a medical certificate for a cream, Cemalyt, which made him test positive for corticoids.

LANCE LAUDS UCI

With questions surrounding the lack of a b-sample six years after the fact, Verbruggen cleared Armstrong this week, criticizing the manner in which the story was leaked to the press without further proof. He also issued a veiled attack on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA):

"The publication of these results constituting a WADA infraction, did WADA approve this leak? The Union Cycliste International expresses the wish that governments, sporting authorities, and anti-doping agencies ask themselves what sanctions should be adopted if infractions on the part of one of these bodies is unveiled."

WADA and its boss, Canadian **** Pound have yet to react.

Seven-time Tour winner Armstrong has himself praised Verbruggen for "asking many of the right questions."

"I'm pleased the UCI is investigating this entire matter thoroughly, because any professional investigation will reveal that the allegations made by a French sports tabloid have no basis because I never used any performance enhancing drugs."

 

[CharlotteChurch]

Mystery 1999 EPO riders outed (europort)


Le Journal du Dimanche has outed three other riders who tested positive for EPO along with Lance Armstrong on the 1999 Tour de France: Denmark's Bo Hamburger, Spain's Manuel Beltran, and Colombian rider Jose Joachim Castelblanco were named by the French Sunday newspaper.


The Journal du Dimanche reveals that the incriminated riders happen to be the three riders randomly selected for the daily dope test on the Puy-du-Fou prologue won in dramatic fashion by Armstrong one year after his return from cancer treatment.

This week, the head of the world cycling body UCI Hein Verbruggen said he knew the identity of the riders whose 12 frozen 1999 urine samples came back positive for the banned drug.

French newspaper L'Equipe, which broke the story, had said that 12 samples, including six from Armstrong came back positive.

Sunday's report does not specify how many samples come from which riders or whether there could be still more riders implicated.

UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCES FOR HAMBURGER

Beltran who rode for Armstrong, is currently part of Discovery Channel's team on the Vuelta. At the time, the Spaniard was at the service of Alex Zülle at Banesto.

On that same Tour, Hamburger was the leader of the Cantina Tollo team. He now rides for Acqua e Sapone while Castelblanco, who rode for Kelme this year finished a two-year suspension for an entirely different affair.

Scientists only later developed an EPO urine test.

Hamburger's case certainly raises eyebrows:

The Dane tested positive for corticoids in that same race, but delivered a doctor's certificate for ventolin and cortisone. At the time, it was standard practice to use corticoids in conjunction with EPO.

Note that following the 2001 Flèche Wallonne, Hamburger was to become the very first rider to test positive for EPO use under the UCI's then-new urine test.

He was exonerated due to irregularities in the handling of Hamburger's B sample analysis, one of which fell below the 80% threshold, and efforts by the Danish federation to exclude from the 2004 Olympic team were thwarted.

Armstrong also produced a medical certificate for a cream, Cemalyt, which made him test positive for corticoids.

LANCE LAUDS UCI

With questions surrounding the lack of a b-sample six years after the fact, Verbruggen cleared Armstrong this week, criticizing the manner in which the story was leaked to the press without further proof. He also issued a veiled attack on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA):

"The publication of these results constituting a WADA infraction, did WADA approve this leak? The Union Cycliste International expresses the wish that governments, sporting authorities, and anti-doping agencies ask themselves what sanctions should be adopted if infractions on the part of one of these bodies is unveiled."

WADA and its boss, Canadian **** Pound have yet to react.

Seven-time Tour winner Armstrong has himself praised Verbruggen for "asking many of the right questions."

"I'm pleased the UCI is investigating this entire matter thoroughly, because any professional investigation will reveal that the allegations made by a French sports tabloid have no basis because I never used any performance enhancing drugs."

these match up with the names of 3 of the 4 riders who i heard, the 4th was richard virenque

 

[limerickman]

If Virenque is one of the other positives from the 1999 TDF - it wouldn't surprise me.

I've said it before and I will keep saying it - the UCI ought to be scrapped.
Life bans for dopers is the only solution.
I'd even go as far as suggesting criminalising doping in sport.

 

[bobke]

If Virenque is one of the other positives from the 1999 TDF - it wouldn't surprise me.

I've said it before and I will keep saying it - the UCI ought to be scrapped.
Life bans for dopers is the only solution.
I'd even go as far as suggesting criminalising doping in sport.

It appears that you and Lance agree.
In the original atricle interview in Le Figaro with Verbruggen, he said that he and Lance dont always see eye to eye. For example, he said Lance had always argues strongly for far harsher penalties that a mere 2 year suspension. Heiny suugested LA wanted suspensions that would virtually end careers...

 

[MJtje]

The editorial of L'Equipe 10 sep 2005: (from RBR)



SEVENTEEN DAYS.


Seventeen days, from tuesday August 23rd until yesterday, friday
September 9th: that's how long it took the UCI and its president, Hein
Verbruggen, to respond to the Equipe's revelations that EPO, a
heavy-duty doping product banned since the early 90s, was present in
six different urine samples taken from Lance Armstrong which had been
preserved since the 1999 Tour de France.


It's not unreasonable, since Lance Armstrong is after all merely the
winner of the last seven Tour de France, and as such hold the record
for the most prestigious and the signature event of the sport of
bicycle racing, of which the UCI is the governing body. And the
evidence published in the Equipe of August 23 didn't show anything
vitally important: only that Armstrong had cheated to win his first
Tour de France, and that throughout his career he had lied in asserting
that he had never consummed any doping products in the exercise of his
profession.


Was such information worth enough to make the UCI and its president
ponder fundamental questions on the rules and ethics of sport, and on
the key issue: did Lance Armstrong cheat or lie? Of course not. The
UCI and Mr. Verbruggen have other worries: who are responsible for this
new attack on the integrity of bike racing and its foremost champion?
Who leaked information that was supposed to remain confidential? By
what right does Richard Pound, the president of the World Anti Doping
Agency, express an opinion on the subject, etc?


The attitude of the Union cycliste internationale has often perplexed
us as to its prioritization of struggles. This time, we're confounded.
Hein Verbruggen himself conceded, with a touch of fatalism, in the
pages of yesterday's Figaro newspaper: "I already know there will be
criticisms claiming that we are only attacking the procedure."


Yes, when it comes to the Armstrong dossier, one can legitimately
accuse the UCI and Mr. Verbruggen of not caring about the future of
their sport, which is surely faced with serious trouble.


Along the way, needless to say, they have also called into question the
rigor and the objectivity of the Equipe's work. Our readers will juge.
It's well known, of course: doping isn't an abomination among the
peloton, but in the pages of newspapers.
Claude Droussent

 

[Ullefan]

So ****, you going to respond?

 

[meehs]

One-all I believe.

Erm... Agreed.

 

[noonievut]

If I'm riding the Vuelta right now and I'm behind by a bit, I would definately dope! There won't be anyone there to conduct tests and what not because they're all busy with LA.

I love to cycle, but can't say I love the sport of cycling. It's not because of doping (I like other sports where this exists and it doesn't phase me much), it's because of all the time everyone (you, the media, etc.) has to spend on this subject. You clog forums, waste my time and others.

Unless you lost a race to a doper, GET A LIFE.

 

[whiteboytrash]

comments from the super coach...

Saiz: "The future of cycling's bright"

Manolo Saiz, manager of Liberty Seguros, has a lot to be happy about; not only is his man Roberto Heras in pole position for a record fourth Vuelta victory, the Spaniard is optimistic about the "positive" future of cycling. On the race's rest day, Saiz spoke to l'Equipe ahead of Tuesday's stage 16.

In the midst of fresh doping scandals involving six riders, including the emblematic seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, Saiz nevertheless remains upbeat about the future, and present state of cycling, citing the new-look ProTour as a definite plus side to the sport.

"Cycling is more than the Tour"

"This year, we brought in the new ProTour, which is positive," Saiz told French sports daily l'Equipe. "We showed that cycling is not just the Tour de France.

"In 2005, the level has improved. The Giro (d'Italia) is better, the Vuelta is more international, both the Tours of Germany and Romandie have progressed.

"The project is in full flow. You must remember that we brought in the new ProTour in 2005 to be perfect come 2008. Cycling is not intelligent enough to get everything done in the first year, come on!"

One sure sign of the lack of intelligence within the sport is, of course, the on-going doping debacle. Here, Saiz admits there is still a problem, but underlines that it is on the mend while vouches for the integrity of the man in the centre of the media headlights.

"I have confidence in everyone, even you (journalists)," Saiz said. "I don't think, for example, that Armstrong takes medicaments. I'm an educator; I know the effort that he made in training. My judgement has not changed regarding him. And if he returns, I'll be happy."

"Armstrong has done nothing wrong"

Asked whether he believed that the American had "stolen" his victories, Saiz was adamant that this was not the case.

"Armstrong stole nothing. I accept the fact that in 1999, EPO was undetectable and that it was possible that other riders might have taken it.

"Today, we search for the drug, we find it and the number of positive urine tests has diminished over the last six years.

"Cycling today is better than in 1999, that's to say, the battle is almost won. The past does not interest me."

"The society is at fault"

In fact, Saiz condemns the illegal, underhand methods of the latest drug revelations in the sport as equally bad, if not worse, than the initial problem itself.

"Doping, for me, is not just about taking products, it's also a lack of ethics. In this affair, the urine samples were handed over anonymously and the laboratory, the government, the AMA and whoever else was involved, have themselves, in their own way, deceived their world.

"Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but with this affair it has not been possible. Every society defends the rights of its citizens, and you tell me that the world of cycling should act differently?

"And why do people not look into other sports, why don't we look elsewhere? The day when we accept that doping is a problem stemming from society, we will be fully capable of overcoming the problem."

 

[whiteboytrash]

Oh dear...... is this thing is not going away..... is Armstrong running the New York Mafia as well.... pay off's, tip offs and rough house tactics..... its reading like a DeNiro movie....

"Schenk noted further that since 1998, much has been done to combat doping in cycling, "But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as to the American market." "
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep15news3

 

[whiteboytrash]

She goes on to say:

SPORT1: Are you suggesting he has a personal ‘drug ring’ for a performance drugs user ? President to user ?



Schenk:: The performance drugs-analysis of the French laboratory is secured after the announcements of professor Schänzer and also other well known expert scientific. There there are no doubts. If Verbruggen or his ‘ring’ could suggest that the analysis-method was in doubt, they would have done so a long time ago. However the UCI searched only for the informants, that brought the affair at the light. Sports legal cannot be used a or to impose sanctions because of the missing B-samples. (no a and b samples together)

(http://www.sport1.de/coremedia/generator/www.sport1.de/Sportarten/Radsport/__Berichte/Interview/rad_20sylvia_20schenk_20interview_20mel.html)

Oh dear...... is this thing is not going away..... is Armstrong running the New York Mafia as well.... pay off's, tip offs and rough house tactics..... its reading like a DeNiro movie....

"Schenk noted further that since 1998, much has been done to combat doping in cycling, "But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as to the American market." "
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep15news3

 

[MJtje]

Like Lim allready said UCI leaked the documents to ressiot......Pound even suggest it was verbruggen himself.......from velonews!


Pound says Verbruggen gave critical info to L'Equipe

[size=-1]World Anti-Doping Agency president **** Pound says UCI president Hein Verbruggen was the probable source of documents linking anonymous urine samples to Lance Armstrong revealed three weeks ago by the French newspaper L'Equipe.[/size]
[size=-1]In conference call with reporters on Thursday, Pound referred to an as-of-yet-unreleased letter from Verbruggen that acknowledges that he had given reporters at least one document that provided L'Equipe with the critical information linking six samples that had tested positive for EPO to the seven-time Tour winner.[/size]

[size=-1]"It is obvious where the information came from," Pound said. "Mr. Verbruggen said to us that he had shown to all the documents signed by Mr. Armstrong and his team to the journalist, and that he had given that reporter a copy of at least one of those files."[/size]

[size=-1]In expose' titled "Armstrong's Lies" L'Equipe provided images of documents linking the numbered-but-anonymous samples, taken during the 1999 Tour de France, to documents containing those same numbers signed by both Armstrong and team director Johann Bruyneel.[/size]

[size=-1]The UCI has since announced that it intends to investigate the matter, but emphasized that much of its focus would be on tracking down the source of the leak.[/size]

[size=-1]Pound, who said that WADA has no jurisdiction in a case that occurred prior to its November of 1999 creation, said that the doping agency would assist the UCI in its investigation, but had "no interest" in participating if the leak issue was the UCI's sole focus.[/size]

[size=-1]"We're waiting to see whether they have a commitment to get at the truth and the whole truth before we decide to participate further in the investigation," Pound said. "We're certainly prepared to help and if one of the issues that the UCI wants to explore is how some of this information became public, well that's fine. But we're not prepared to sit by and participate in an investigation that focuses only on how the information became public."[/size]

[size=-1]Pound quickly added, however, that it was already apparent that the only possible source of that information was the UCI itself.[/size]

[size=-1]"It's quite clear that the only way there could have been a match between the code numbers and a particular athlete was on the basis of information provided by the UCI," he said. "They did remove the code numbers from the information they provided to the media, so I don't understand why they're not stepping up and saying ‘well, I guess we do know how the names got public. We made it possible.'[/size]

[size=-1]"It certainly wasn't WADA and certainly wasn't the French laboratory, which didn't have any of the names," Pound added. "Neither of us had that information."[/size]

[size=-1]In response to a question to a French journalist, Pound said that Verbruggen "at least showed all six (critical documents) to the reporter from L'Equipe and he gave at least one copy... I don't know if there was more than one copy or not."[/size]

[size=-1]Pound said it was strange that cycling's governing body has focused so much of its response on the source of the information.[/size]

[size=-1]"That's our suggestion that's been to him, asking ‘why are you looking farther than the UCI in respect to disclosure'" Pound said. "As far as I understand it, the forms are distributed so that one copy goes to the UCI, one goes to the athlete, one goes to the national federation, one went to the French ministry and then there's the blind one that goes to the lab."[/size]

[size=-1]"The French ministry destroyed its copies two years later," Pound said. "I have no idea whether the French federation still has theirs or, if so, where, but the UCI has kept them. I don't what their view is of their own requirement that those forms be destroyed two years later, but they obviously haven't."[/size]

[size=-1]Under further questioning from reporters, Pound said that it was his impression that it was Verbruggen who personally offered the documents that allowed L'Equipe to make the connection, adding that the UCI president as much as conceded that point in a letter to the doping agency.[/size]

[size=-1]"That's what I understand from the letter he sent to us," Pound said.[/size]

[size=-1]Pound said the revelation would have had to have come prior to the publication of the L'Equipe story because "that copy appeared in the article on August 23rd."[/size]

[size=-1]Pound said that the agency had not yet released the text of the Verbruggen letter, but added "we might."[/size]

 

[Ullefan]

Bang, Bang....Verbruggen has just been shot down in snow. Ouch!

 

[whiteboytrash]

Bang, Bang....Verbruggen has just been shot down in snow. Ouch!

Ouch alright ! What is going on here ! Armstrong is running out of friends and Verbruggen could be two timing him ! LA better get his $500,000 back !

...you get the feeling that there is still another big twist to come...

 

[whiteboytrash]

EPO is not created in frozen urine

**** Pound also rejected any doubts concerning the age of the tested samples. "If you find EPO in a frozen urine sample, it means that it's been there since the beginning. There might be certain substances that even if the urine is frozen for a number of years that might disappear, but there aren't substances that appear. So if it's there it was there all along."

Finally, Pound didn't rule out that retrospective testing could one day serve in a disciplinary manner. "Within the Anti-Doping Code, we now have a provision that allows us to go back eight years on retesting samples, whether they have been taken in our out of competition. What we have to make sure now is the appropriate legal rule. So that if we do find something in what would then be the B sample, that we have the ability to impose a sanction. But you have to provide the athlete with some means of assuring that it's been properly done - either be keeping enough of the B sample to allow for retesting, or by checking the DNA markers of the urine or blood for identification. We're going to work on that because it is a feature that will become increasingly important."

As far as Cyclingnews understands, the 1999 B samples still provide enough material for yet another test.

 

[whiteboytrash]

From cyclingnews.com 16/09 (AEST); Can someone tell me what's going on here ? Has Verbruggen hung himself and taken Armstrong with him ?

The Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), **** Pound, has told reporters in a telephone press conference on Thursday that it was UCI president Hein Verbruggen himself who leaked the doping control protocols of the 1999 Tour de France to French sports paper L'Equipe, which in turn provided the basis for the allegations that Lance Armstrong took EPO for the first of his Tour victories.
"It certainly wasn't WADA," Pound replied when asked who provided the official forms to L'Equipe. "And it certainly wasn't the French laboratory. Neither of us had that information.

"It's quite clear. Mr. Verbruggen told us that he showed all six of Armstrong's doping control forms to the journalist of L'Equipe and that he gave them a copy of at least one of the forms. As I understand it, one of the forms goes to the UCI, one to the athlete, and another one to the National Federation, one went to the French Ministry [of Sport]. The French Ministry destroyed its copies, I think, two years later. I have no idea whether the French Federation have them or if so, where, but the UCI has kept them. I don't know whether they have kept their own requirement to destroy the forms two years later but they obviously haven't."

Interestingly, the forms reproduced on the L'Equipe headlines of August 23 show the mention "Feuillet 1" (literally Sheet 1). Cyclingnews understands that the first sheet of the protocols always goes to the UCI.

So it was really Verbruggen himself who gave the documents to the L'Equipe journalist? "That's what I understand from the letter that he [Verbruggen] sent to us," Pound replied, adding he didn't know whether Verbruggen knew of the purpose the information would serve. "They certainly knew who [the journalist] was. But I certainly don't know how it was that the UCI would have made available those forms with the code numbers on them. If they were worried about confidentiality and so forth, you would have thought that would be a fairly routine and precautionary step."

Asked if he would be willing to publish the letter, Pound, replied, "If the investigation is thorough and the report is clear, then the exchange of correspondence doesn't mean too much. But if it's not a complete report and we have to comment on it, then the correspondence would probably be quite relevant."

Pound also said that WADA was concerned about the way in which the UCI conducted its investigation of the affair. "We're working with the UCI and we're willing to continue to work with them as long as we are convinced that they're going to do a full and complete investigation on this," he continued. "But if it's simply a matter of them looking for some kind of a scapegoat, then that, to us, is not an investigation."

Pound's allegations are quite surprising, given that Verbruggen himself has been calling for the head of whoever it was that leaked the information to L'Equipe. In light of next week's UCI presidential elections, it doesn't look good for the current president.