davidbod said:
I understand your desire not to have the lab or WADA implicated in this affair, but one of the main sticking points is the fact that labeled samples were shown in the initial story that broke. By WADA code any report coming from the lab on purely B samples has to remain anonymous and of a statistical nature only. The report should have said something like "we tested x number of samples and found y number to contain EPO". Instead they produced a report that had actual sample numbers in it. This is a clear violation of the WADA code. Someone at the lab is obviously in on this at the ground level and complicit through how many unknown others on the way to l'Equipe.
I know some of you don't care as to what means to an end has occured here, but the process is there for a reason. It is there to protect both the riders and the doping control officials from unfair persecution and to remain above reproach. It is rather sad to see that nailing one particular man would be worth throwing that process down the drain and reach the point where we have the lab, WADA and UCI all pointing fingers at each other the way they are now.
Dave, I hear what you're saying.
But let's look at WADA, they tested samples and sent the results to the three
places, FFC, Ministry of Sport and the UCI.
WADA did not break a rule in doing this - they found results and they informed the appropriate authorities.
Separately, L'Equipe managed to get hold of the results and they managed to
match the results to Armstrong.
In printing it's story L'Equipe re-printed the UCI headed documents.
Not the FFC docs or the MOS docs - the UCI docs.
So there are two distinct issues. WADA and L'Equipe.
WADA's actions (in informing the appropriate authorities) may well be an issue
for those who deem that the failure to follow protocol was not adhered to.
I am not sure that there was any protocol to follow because the test's which were done could not be used to enforce sanctions (they only ever had one same).
So the protocols that people quote are probably only in effect if two samples
of the same specimen are examined, and not when one sample is examined.
The other issue of L'Equipe : it is now clear because the UCI itself tells us that they (UCI) had contact with L'Equipe. the UCI tipped L'Equipe in the case of at least one document.
It is evident that the docs re-printed in L'Equipe are UCI docs.
I think it is stretching it to suggest that WADA fed L'Equipe.
WADA fed the UCI, who in turn fed L'Equipe.
All of which is secondary to the fact that EPO was found in 6 separate samples.
If Armstrong isn't a doper how did EPO materialise in 6 of his samples ?