Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) The same expert Beke used in his case to "prove" his EPO
>>>>>> positive was a false positive was the same expert who claimed both
>>>>>> Bo Hamburger and Geneviéve Jeanson's EPO positives were likewise
>>>>>> false positives. In fact, the legal argument was the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you make that up?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude, give me some search terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Schwartz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Search #1 = Joris Delanghe Beke
>>>> Search #2 = Joris Delanghe Jeanson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both cases rely on showing the antibody used in the EPO's ELISA test
>>>> is not mono-specific and therefore cross reacts with natural
>>>> proteins, thus causing a false positive. He also alleges that
>>>> contamination of the urine increases a false positive rates, which
>>>> is why it is essential that couriers immediately mail their samples
>>>> for overnight shipment.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if Beke actually used Delanghe in his case, but he
>>>> consulted with him prior to the case and the defense he used ended
>>>> up being nearly identical to the one Jeanson used if not absolutely
>>>> identical.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the search terms.
>>>
>>> Jeanson never used that defense. She paid him some money, he did
>>> some tests. He said he had evidence of a false positive (remember,
>>> he was paid to do this) but no one ever saw it and then she took
>>> two years. So maybe Delanghe was just jerking people off. But
>>> USADA allowed the penalty to be negotiated down, which is not
>>> something you do when you have absolute confidence in the test.
>>> Is it?
>>>
>>> And it shouldn't be a surprise that everyone points to the same
>>> documented flaw in the test, a flaw that was pointed out by
>>> WADA's own audit.
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>> Jeanson did use that defense to USADA. There was never any CAS
>> hearing. And Jeanson did not pay Delanghe any money.
>>
>> USADA did not negotiate her penalty down. Jeanson received the full 2
>> year ban.
>
>
> Jeanson had a prior offense when she skipped out on the test
> in Belgium. She initially got life.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov29news
>
> "In what may be regarded as a landmark decision by the United
> States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Genevieve Jeanson, banned
> for life after testing positive to EPO in July 2005, has been
> awarded a reduced sentence of just two years."
>
> On her relationship with Delanghe...
>
> "The agreement between USADA and Jeanson, dated November 1,
> 2006, comes after a recent expert report submitted by Belgian
> doctor Joris Delanghe, hired by Jeanson, who questioned
> Jeanson's test results from the 2005 International Tour de
> Toona, claiming it to be a false positive."
>
> Everyone knew Jeanson was guilty. Yet Delanghe was still able
> to bluff them into reducing the penalty.
>
> Moninger tried something similar. USADA ripped him and his
> lab results apart. That's what happens when USADA is confident
> of their results.
>
> When they are not confident in their results, they blink.
> Even when everyone knows the party involved is totally guilty.
>
> You get the last word, I don't have time for this.
>
> Bob Schwartz
-----------------------------------------
Read this, Bob:
After this letter was posted on Velonews.com I received an email from
USADA council Travis Tygart asking permission to give USADA's point of
view. I was more then happy to hear what USADA had to say as I wanted to
find out how they could in this specific case lessen the sanction of Ms.
Jeanson for what appeared to be their own benefit. I wanted to hear that
they were an anti-doping organization dedicated to eliminating the
practice of drugs in sport, and that they had not acted in their own
selfish needs to avoid more costly and lengthy appeals by reaching a
settlement with Ms. Jeanson.
<snip>
After listening to Mr. Tygart I am convinced that USADA acted in the
best manner that they could and I stand corrected. I was very
disillusioned after the contract came out, but what myself and probably
most everyone does not know, and what USADA probably needed to write in
conjunction with their contract, is that a two-year sentence was the
most that Ms. Jeanson was ever going to receive. Why? Because her first
infraction in April, 2004 (when she missed the post race drug test at
Fleche Wallonne) was ruled a "no fault" violation. Even though this is
considered her first offence a "no fault" ruling means that a period of
ineligibility (in the case of a missed drug test this can be from three
months to two years) is eliminated.
This elimination of any ineligibility in Ms. Jeanson's first violation
means that her second violation cannot receive the sanction of a period
of lifetime ineligibility according to the WADA Code. Technically this
is Ms. Jeanson's second violation but the WADA Code has a loophole in
this specific case to not impose the lifetime ban. At most she can only
receive two years. These loopholes in the WADA Code are there to allow
flexibility in individual case management. WADA, according to Mr.
Tygart, is currently working to rewrite a new code (which will not be
completed for at least another year) as they evaluate such loopholes, in
order to further advance anti-doping efforts.
So while this contract signed between WADA and Ms. Jeanson gives the
appearance that USADA "gave in" and lessened the sanction of Ms. Jeanson
this is not the case. USADA was able to achieve the maximum sentence for
Ms. Jeanson and was also able to avoid thousands of dollars in appeals
and another year or more of their time in fighting another doping
infraction. What I have learned in all this is that often there is more
going on behind the scene than we, the general public and athletes,
realize. I have in the past pointed my finger and wrongly accused USADA
in not doing enough to combat the use of drugs in cycling, when actually
they are doing all they can within the current system. It is really the
system that has it’s flaws and loopholes which in certain cases allows
violators an easier way out. No system is perfect and WADA has done it's
best up to this point to make the Code as fair as possible. They are
currently reviewing the Code to build on the experience gained to date
in order to make improvements.
I have also learned that we as athletes cannot sit back and say nothing
and then complain of continual drug use in our sport. We need to work
with organizations like USADA, WADA and CCES (Canadian Centre for Ethics
in Sport) if we are serious about winning the battle against drug use.
As athletes we need to take a stand and make our voices heard. One way,
possibly, is to request an increase of the current sanctions. Mr Tygart
suggested that the athletes should demand more then a two-year period of
ineligibility for the first offence. I agree. If we want to really clean
up sport and rid it of drug cheats we need to impose greater penalties.
It is far too easy for offenders to make their way back into competition.
In the end, it’s up to us.
Anne Samplonius
http://www.pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=8999
