JohnO said:
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.
JohnO said:
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.
JohnO said:
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 !!!!!!!!!!
JohnO said:
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.
JohnO said:
:
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.
JohnO said:
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.
JohnO said:
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.