Dans le message de news:
[email protected],
Mike Jacoubowsky <
[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Also, Armstrong does not own the samples and the owners of them can
>> do what they wish. The fact that the results were leaked a full year
>> after the tests were conducted, shows that at least some privacy and
>> security effort was in place.
>
> I'd want to know if that's really the case... that once you supply a
> sample, it may be used in *any* way wished. That might be the case,
> but I doubt it. Drug testing is always going to be a compromise, and
> part of that compromise will involve what the athletes are willing to
> sign their lives away for. Perhaps they did, but I wouldn't make that
> assumption.
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
From *current* UCI regs :
Property of Samples
167. The Samples collected under these Anti-Doping Rules shall become the
property of the UCI upon collection.
and
Sample transport
171. The Anti-Doping Inspector shall be responsible for:
- storing the Samples prior to transport;
- sending the Samples with accompanying documentation to the laboratory;
- sending the Sample collection session documentation for the laboratory and
the Anti-Doping Commission in accordance with the Procedural Guidelines.
I suspect that the only party legally able to complain, then, is the UCI,
presuming that the same rule was in place in all the relevent years.
The now baneful cry of "chain of custody" seems to point to both the UCI
inspector and the laboratory. However, there is no actual indication of a
feeble or faulty chain of custody.
Here, however, the old rules should be consulted, but just imagine how the
following would affect our current little debate :
Duty of confidentiality
292. Persons carrying out a task in Doping Control are required to observe
strict confidentiality regarding any information concerning individual cases
which is not required to be reported under these Anti-Doping Rules.
It is NOT clear, any lawyer would know, what "strict confidentiality" means.
It's just a fact - two (or more) points of view will arise.
Lastly, what is to be done with the results of testing, whenever that
testing is conducted ?
Public disclosure
293. Public disclosure shall be made by the Anti-Doping Commission or the
National Federation as described in article 295.
This seems to suggest that, had the UCI requested the laboratory to conduct
novel measurements, then a result which indicated a positive result is
necessarily to be published. It could be that the UCI, in order not to
appear the bad guy, facilitated a leak through a newspaper. No one wiser.
I trust that is not the case.
Again, these are the new rules - I was too lazy to look at the old ones.
But feel free to do that, if you like.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR