Pound: "Verbruggen was the leak"



Turenne

New Member
Sep 11, 2005
89
0
0
From cyclingnews:

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. But in its defence, the UCI told AFP that L'Equipe journalist [Damien Ressiot] "came to the UCI on a false pretext and with the approval of Armstrong. He left the UCI with a copy of just one document."

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.
 
But in its defence, the UCI told AFP that L'Equipe journalist [Damien Ressiot] "came to the UCI on a false pretext and with the approval of Armstrong. He left the UCI with a copy of just one document."

So now we see that Damien Ressiot is, indeed, a liar.
 
Turenne said:
Funny how you take UCI's words as Evangiles' words...

No funnier than your and limerickman's naive acceptance of Ressiot's story. The fact that he lied to get information is now public knowledge. What else has he lied about?
 
wineandkeyz said:
No funnier than your and limerickman's naive acceptance of Ressiot's story. The fact that he lied to get information is now public knowledge. What else has he lied about?
1. We don't know if he lied in order to get the info
2. If so, it doesn't matter because it is investigative journalism in order to reveal the truth. La fin justifie les moyens.
 
Turenne said:
1. We don't know if he lied in order to get the info
2. If so, it doesn't matter because it is investigative journalism in order to reveal the truth. La fin justifie les moyens.

The "truth"? From a journalist? You are more naive than I thought. And if you think the ends justify the means, you have NO right to speak here of morals.

Trust Ressiot if you want to; I choose not to.
 
wineandkeyz said:
The "truth"? From a journalist? You are more naive than I thought. And if you think the ends justify the means, you have NO right to speak here of morals.

Trust Ressiot if you want to; I choose not to.
The "truth"? From a cyclist? You are more naive than I thought.

Trust Ressiot if you want to; I choose not to
Given the fact that L'Equipe never lied, never created a false scandal and is very skilled at investigating affairs (both french and foreign ones), given the fact Ressiot is a doping specialist and works for many years there...
yeah, I have more trust in them rather than in a cyclist denying he took forbidden substances, whatever the nationality of this cyclist.
 
Turenne said:
The "truth"? From a cyclist? You are more naive than I thought.

Again, since you seem to have missed it, I have acknowledged the possibility that Armstrong could be lying. You, on the other hand, blindly accept this reporter's story without question, even though he admits that he has been targeting Armstrong. He's also lied to get information, but you think he wouldn't lie to his readers?

Who's being naive here?
 
wineandkeyz said:
Again, since you seem to have missed it, I have acknowledged the possibility that Armstrong could be lying. You, on the other hand, blindly accept this reporter's story without question, even though he admits that he has been targeting Armstrong. He's also lied to get information, but you think he wouldn't lie to his readers?

Who's being naive here?
I accept his story because he is a respected journalists in a respected newspaper.
He was targetting LA? Well, if you discovered a scandal involving, say Bush and your neighbour... who will you single out? Bush or your neighbour?
In addition, he said he wasn't sure yet of the names of the three other.

However, you saw I posted an article containing the names of the three other cyclists: I don't know if the Journal du Dimanche's story is true. From L'Equipe, I have no doubts.
 
Turenne said:
I accept his story because he is a respected journalists in a respected newspaper.

And the NY Times was a respected newspaper, yet one of their reporters was caught making up stories out of thin air. And CBS News's Dan Rather was respected (by some), yet his network ran with an anti-Bush story based on forged documents.

As far as him targeting LA, in the article you yourself posted, he admits that he set out to prove that Armstrong doped.

By the way, you still haven't responded to my thread concerning the article in which the head of the Canadian testing lab questions whether EPO can be tested for after so many years.
 
wineandkeyz said:
And the NY Times was a respected newspaper, yet one of their reporters was caught making up stories out of thin air. And CBS News's Dan Rather was respected (by some), yet his network ran with an anti-Bush story based on forged documents.
I don't know how it is in the US. You don't have this kind of things (documents forged...) in french papers.
in sporting matters, all the scandals L'EQuipe revealed/wrote about were not forgeries at all.

As far as him targeting LA, in the article you yourself posted, he admits that he set out to prove that Armstrong doped.
He admits LA's stance was a kind of challenge for him. That doesn't mean he forged lies against Armstrong.

By the way, you still haven't responded to my thread concerning the article in which the head of the Canadian testing lab questions whether EPO can be tested for after so many years.
There's no problem with the "after many years" because EPO can disappear after years, but EPO never appears after years. If there is EPO now in LA's 1999 samples, it means there was EPO in 1999 in LA body.
you can check with the many labs/specialists from Italy, Germany etc... having recently confirmed this.
 
Turenne said:
There's no problem with the "after many years" because EPO can disappear after years, but EPO never appears after years. If there is EPO now in LA's 1999 samples, it means there was EPO in 1999 in LA body.
you can check with the many labs/specialists from Italy, Germany etc... having recently confirmed this.
Sure, and there's no other possible way for it to get in there over 5 years.

I guess you should quit your current job and run the Canadian test lab, since you seem to know more than the current head does. :rolleyes:
 
Quote: I don't know how it is in the US. You don't have this kind of things (documents forged...) in french papers.
in sporting matters, all the scandals L'EQuipe revealed/wrote about were not forgeries at all.


you mean to tell me the french havent discovered how to forge documents? Turrene you crack me up with your naivitee. Maybe what they reported is true, maybe not, the fact the reporter had an agenda, obtained the documents unscrupiously and the fact the lab controls can all be called into question leaves the story too murky to be believed as the gospel truth.
 
wineandkeyz said:
Sure, and there's no other possible way for it to get in there over 5 years.

I guess you should quit your current job and run the Canadian test lab, since you seem to know more than the current head does. :rolleyes:
Ans you, do you want to replace doping specialists in Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany... since you know better than they do?
 
nugsfan said:
Quote: I don't know how it is in the US. You don't have this kind of things (documents forged...) in french papers.
in sporting matters, all the scandals L'EQuipe revealed/wrote about were not forgeries at all.

you mean to tell me the french havent discovered how to forge documents? Turenne you crack me up with your naivitee. Maybe what they reported is true, maybe not, the fact the reporter had an agenda, obtained the documents unscrupiously and the fact the lab controls can all be called into question leaves the story too murky to be believed as the gospel truth.
Nugsfan, I don't want to be after you but I really wonder who is naive between us...
You remind me Virenque's supporters crying foul at L'Equipe when the paper wrote about the french climber cheating. You remind me myself when I was 18 and cried foul at L'Equipe because they dared make revelations about the VA-OM corruption scandal in football... Now I realised how stupid I was. Hope you'll realise it soon yourself.

You believe a cyclist suspected of doping while you don't trust a venerable newspaper, a performant lab, a good journalist... Just tell me seriously, Nug: who is naive?
 
wineandkeyz said:
No funnier than your and limerickman's naive acceptance of Ressiot's story. The fact that he lied to get information is now public knowledge. What else has he lied about?

There are two issues : one is that, as things stand, EPO has been found in 6 separate samples by a lab.

Second is that L'Equipe reported the six separate samples.

Two mutually exclusive issues.

Ressiot was given, according to Verbruggen one document by the UCI.
Ressiot was in possession of 6 separate UCI documents.

Did the President of the UCI supply Ressiot with the other five documents as well ?
 
limerickman said:
There are two issues : one is that, as things stand, EPO has been found in 6 separate samples by a lab.

Second is that L'Equipe reported the six separate samples.

Two mutually exclusive issues.

Ressiot was given, according to Verbruggen one document by the UCI.
Ressiot was in possession of 6 separate UCI documents.

Did the President of the UCI supply Ressiot with the other five documents as well ?
Again, we are back on track thanks to Lim.:)
 
It boils down to do you believe everything about how the test was conducted, verified, reported to be accurate and above board. Obviously Limerickman and Turenne do and thats your perogative to feel that way. I have read some of what L'Equipe wrote before and after and found their coverage to be negative to LA on more than one occasion, I believe the story to have come from a motivational agenda to take LA down a peg or two and that the possibility of tampering/flaws with the testing that do possibly exist as having been reported elsewhere, which leads me to not trust the article as published which is my perogative. Does that mean its inaccurate either on purpose or otherwise? I am simply among those who challenge what has been reported due to several things that dont add up as proof definitive in my opinion. Believe what you like, as those who believed this story from the onset are certainly not going to change their opinion on what someone posted on a cycling forum.
 
wineandkeyz said:
By the way, you still haven't responded to my thread concerning the article in which the head of the Canadian testing lab questions whether EPO can be tested for after so many years.
Wine, I just read it and I replied. You haven't written the full interview. Here is what she said:

The stablity of EPO in urine isn’t as long as five years according to our testing here in Montreal. It’s more a matter of months,” stressed Ayotte, whose testing centre is accredited to WADA, the world’s anti-doping agency. “If the lab in Paris claims to have identified categorically the presence of erythropoetin in this urine then I have no doubt that the identification’s adequate.

I'm disappointing in you that you transformed what she said... :( :mad:
 
Turenne said:
Wine, I just read it and I replied. You haven't written the full interview. Here is what she said:

The stablity of EPO in urine isn’t as long as five years according to our testing here in Montreal. It’s more a matter of months,” stressed Ayotte, whose testing centre is accredited to WADA, the world’s anti-doping agency. “If the lab in Paris claims to have identified categorically the presence of erythropoetin in this urine then I have no doubt that the identification’s adequate.

I'm disappointing in you that you transformed what she said... :( :mad:
I couldn't care less about whether or not you are disappointed in me. But I am growing grown increasingly impatient with your inability or unwillingness to accept anything that would contradict L'Equipe's tale.

Obviously, you are so convinced of Armstrong's guilt that you are either unable or unwilling to understand the gist of the story I linked. Perhaps if you'd read the entire article with an open mind, you could see how Ayotte is torn.

She is obviously uncomfortable calling her colleague's abilities into question. But have you ever known a doctor to be comfortable questioning another one? To paraphrase, she says, "EPO is unstable in urine, even if frozen. It breaks down in a matter of months, not years." She acknowledges that, if the French lab obtained a positive test, that EPO was present, but she's OBVIOUSLY uncomfortable with how it got there.

In other words, if it breaks down in a matter of months, she's wondering how the hell did it show up five years later. Perhaps someone tampered with it? Like an unscrupulous, lying reporter? Maybe someone needs to do some of that magic, investigative reporting you're so fond of writing about -- but focus on L'Equipe.

By the way, I didn't copy and paste the entire article, but I DID post the link. To insinuate that I was trying to hide something is reprehensible.
 

Similar threads