UCI Lawyer says Armstrong should be cleared of EPO accusation!!

[musette]

As I said, how can you disprove a negative if you really didn't do the thing? How do you disprove you're not ugly?

UCI has an interesting response:

"The International Cycling Union has learned with great surprise de declarations conveyed to the Dutch press by Mr. Emile Vrijman, independent investigator within the frame of the urine sample analysis during the 1999 Tour de France case. The UCI firmly deplores the behaviour of Mr. Vrijman, who has prematurely voiced, offending the agreements that foresaw that all parties implied would be informed before any public comment on the report content would be done. Still waiting the receive the definite version of the said report written by Mr. Vrijman, the UCI underlines its deep displeasure with regards to the regrettable development of this case. Upon reception of the document, the UCI will study in details the content before publishing it in its whole."

 

[JRMDC]

I think what galls many is that the situation is being widely misreported as clearing LA of drug use. To quote espn.com, a mass market all-sports website in the US, perhaps the one most visited:

"Report clears Armstrong of '99 doping allegations"

So casual fans in the US who know only of LA and the TdF and who may have never seen more cycling than a half-hour recap on a US TV network will think that this is over. Well, it may be over, but it isn't resolved. It will perhaps always remain an open question from a truth basis, as opposed to a legal basis. Such is the state of this sport.

 

[rejobako]

Here's some more detail on Vrijman's report -- apparently he did establish gaps in the chain of custody:

The report said tests on the samples were conducted improperly, and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results "constitute evidence of anything."
It said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity, and no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances

http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2464102&name=FPT-2464102-053114&srvc=sz

Pound's response, detailed in the article, is interesting, because he's apparently upset that "here was no interest in determining whether the samples Armstrong provided were positive or not". What he fails to consider is that if gaps in the chain of custody are established, the results of the tests themselves are irrelevent, because the integrity of the samples themselves are called into serious question.

Finally, I laughed out loud at this one:

In a separate statement, WADA expressed "grave concern and strong disappointment" over Vrijman's reported comments.

"Elementary courtesy and professionalism would have dictated that WADA should have been provided with a copy of the report before interviews were given to the media," the statement said.

Someone point me to where WADA was up in arms about "elementary courtesy and professionalism" when they greased the skids for the clandestine hit-and-run hatchet job against Armstrong in the first place.

 

[wolfix]

but the effort to formally discredit Armstrong's accomplishments is effectively over.

And now we can start demonizing the ones in the recent scandal that were caught with the blood in the bag.....

With 100 riders involved that should be enough forum material to last 3 years.

 

[davidbod]

Yawn!

F'in Hilarious!

 

[davidbod]

I cannot go back to the link, but no....It can not be tainted later. I read a long document on this way back when the mess started.

But the chain of custody could be a rather large issue.

You could add someone elses urine with EPO in that to the sample, no problem. There are plenty of ways to screw with the sample.

 

[bobke]

Two responses. First, you are correct in stating that the report doesn't state that EPO was not found, but I disagree that the conclusion is that Armstrong "gets off" on a technicality. The article also states:


Without seeing the report, we can only speculate on what his list of "handling" deficiencies details, but it sounds to me like he's saying the manner in which these samples were utilized casts serious doubt on the integrity of the results themselves, not only the manner in which they can be used or the pretense upon which they were collected. As I said earlier, I'm eager to see the actual report.

Second, I take issue with your suggestion that Vrijman's "subjectivity" should cast doubt on his findings. His credentials are substantial and his reputation unquestioned, and to my knowledge no one had any problem with him being selected to collect the evidence and make these findings. Now that his report is complete and some people do not like the results, there is already an effort to discredit him. I think UCI's little foot-stamping press-release bemoaning the "leak" of the results before they had a chance to spin-job them is hilarious.

One thing I agree with you about is this: this doesn't prove Armstrong didn't dope. The only thing we know is that an independent investigator has determined that no competent substantial evidence exists to prove he did dope. That being the case, the war of public opinion can continue ad infinitum, but the effort to formally discredit Armstrong's accomplishments is effectively over.

I think the point that is being missed is fairly obvious: which is that if multiple individuals, acting either alone or in concert, broke multiple ethical and possible legal guidelines, that taken together, the sum of these multiple violations indicates serious questions as to the motivations and integrity of the individuals acting either alone or in concert. Legally it comes close to the definition of conspiracy.

Violation #1.
Lab studies 1999 urines without riders permission and without ensuring complete anonymity.

Violation #2.
L'Equipe asks for Lance's consent to UCI records under false pretense.

Violation#3.
UCI incorrectly and probably illegally releases medical documents to L'Equipe under false pretext.. Leading to suspension of UCI physician

Violation#3.
Lab allows access to L'Equipe to see and match anonymous lab samples with doping code sheets, violating UCI procedure and possibly health privacy law.

Violation #4.
L'Equipe publishes supposed results in press violating riders signed confidentiality, UCI protocol, and lab protocol.

Violation#5.
Head of WADA violated neutrality and comments publically on Lance's supposed guilt violating ethics of WADA neutrality and is complicit in the whole process.

Violation #6.

Pound and UCI do not cooperate with independent investigation of Dutch lawyer.

Taken all together, this does in fact raise significant questions about the integrity of the individuals, whether money exchanged hands, and who did the tests, who verified they were in fact as published etc etc.

Put it this way, if a lab employee in the US allowed confidential material to leave the lab which then got published in the press, in the U.S. this person would be fired, be subject to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and probably lose their license to practice. Unethical from start to finish.

I dont expect anyone to be swayed but that is the truth.

 

[JRMDC]

As I said, how can you disprove a negative if you really didn't do the thing? How do you disprove you're not ugly?

Perhaps one can't; that's life.

As long as there are six vials of urine with EPO indicators in them that have linkage to LA, then, regardless of LA's legal status as regards to innocence or guilt, or the legal ability of future investigations to transpire, one can reasonably have suspicion, and there is little that LA can do.

Well, he can do one thing, he can submit to a DNA test that would verify whether the 6 samples are his. If not, then he is free, if so, then he faces the further issue of how six separate single samples from six different days can, as they currently do, show signs of EPO. And then we get into the science of specimen storage, multiple samples, possibility of tampering, etc. etc. etc.

That's the situation!

 

[musette]

Or ADD EPO to the sample. The bottom line is that there were no controls and no procedures in place to protect the cyclist. The specimens were not intended to be valid for any purpose and they were old and unreliable.

 

[rejobako]

You could add someone elses urine with EPO in that to the sample, no problem. There are plenty of ways to screw with the sample.

According to the article I read earlier today, you wouldn't even necessarily need to be that devious. Just leave the sample at an inappropriate temperature for awhile and it skews the patterns that allow the tester to differentiate between synthetic EPO and naturally occurring enzymes.

If chain of custody was compromised, it doesn't matter what the results are. They are worthless. **** Pound knows that, but now the tables are turned and he needs to save his own ass, so he's deflecting attention by *****ing about Vrijman releasing the report early. To what end? Did he think the words on the pages were going to change if he got to see them first?

Hmmm . . . in light of the underlying issue, maybe he thought he could get that accomplished.

 

[JRMDC]

I think the point that is being missed is fairly obvious: which is that if multiple individuals, acting either alone or in concert, broke multiple ethical and possible legal guidelines, that taken together, the sum of these multiple violations indicates serious questions as to the motivations and integrity of the individuals acting either alone or in concert. Legally it comes close to the definition of conspiracy.

...

I dont expect anyone to be swayed but that is the truth.

All true. Sadly, that is not a defense of the question of whether LA used EPO in 1999.

I think the chain of custody issue is important, however. Nonetheless, from what I read here, it appears that the urine could not have been tampered with, merely misattributed, as apparently it isn't possible to spike the sample ex post. If that is true, then it remains only to determine whether the samples connect to LA. If the chain of custody is broken, that may not be possible.

LA is perhaps legally exonerated; it is hard to tell without reading the report exactly what was concluded. WADA/Pound and the UCI hardly inspire confidence. But, sad to say, there are reasonable grounds for maintaining (non-legal system-based) suspicion, and perhaps there always will be.

 

[JRMDC]

Or ADD EPO to the sample. The bottom line is that there were no controls and no procedures in place to protect the cyclist. The specimens were not intended to be valid for any purpose and they were old and unreliable.

The extent of reliability is a scientific question. I have no idea as to what studies have been done regarding what happens to urine after 7 years of storage.

 

[rejobako]

apparently it isn't possible to spike the sample ex post.

I'm convinced of this as well from what Lim and others posted earlier. But as I mentioned in my last post, you wouldn't necessarily need to add anything to the sample to neutralize its integrity. Temperature changes can accomplish the same thing.

 

[JRMDC]

I'm convinced of this as well from what Lim and others posted earlier. But as I mentioned in my last post, you wouldn't necessarily need to add anything to the sample to neutralize its integrity. Temperature changes can accomplish the same thing.

Haven't sports become complicated over the last 20 years? First we have needed to become financial specialists to understand salaries, team profitability, salary caps, etc., and now we need to become scientists, able to understand chemistry and biology.

 

[davidbod]

Here is a good areticle with several quotes in it:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13062398/

Note the first paragraph below where he states "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France".

I'm not sure how more clear to everyone that needs to be said. Mind you also this guy headed the Dutch Anti Doping agency for 10 years, so he probably knows what he is talking about.


Vrijman said Wednesday his report “exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France.”

The report said tests on the samples were conducted improperly, and fell so short of scientific standards that it was “completely irresponsible” to suggest that the results “constitute evidence of anything.”

It said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no “chain of custody” guaranteeing their integrity, and no way of knowing whether the samples had been “spiked” with banned substances.

 

[rejobako]

Haven't sports become complicated over the last 20 years? First we have needed to become financial specialists to understand salaries, team profitability, salary caps, etc., and now we need to become scientists, able to understand chemistry and biology.

LOL. I thought of that earlier today. Sad that the topics I find interesting include esoteric discussions of chemistry and diagnostic testing procedures the likes of which had me asleep and drooling on my desktop in college.

Part of me says hell with it -- let 'em all dope as much as they want. That way we can go back to just enjoying the racing, and we can have a separate podium for team doctors/chemists.

 

[wolfix]

I just read the Eurosport article......
This was written ......

" Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman, assigned by the International Cycling Union (UCI) to investigate the newspaper allegations, said on Wednesday testing procedures were insufficient to label Armstrong's sample positive and he pointed to "misconduct" by WADA and the French national doping laboratory LNDD. "

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that this says the the procedure used was not able to say that EPO was used. I know it also points out that the procedure does not eliminate EPO either.

So, with that said, there was no positive EPO test. This is not a technicality that Armstrong slipped by on. Thsi is a case of only telling half the story to get the results you wanted.

I think the lab and whoever knew this was an improper procedure that lead to inconclusive findings need to be fired. This has the markings of a witch hunt.

 

[sonicman]

Of course we´ll never know if Lance really juiced, but one thing is for sure: No one will ever prove he has juiced, and all the ones that tried to do this lost and regreted.

And Lance-haters/Jan-lovers, remember, Lance was never caught in a valid anti-doping test (I don´t believe in this french test from 1999).

Jean Marie LeBlanc did everything he could to kick Lance out of the Tour, and I wouldn´t be surprised if this test was manipulated to destroy Lance´s image as a Tour winner.

So now he is INNOCENT and will likely be for the rest of his life, so lets forget all this stupid and senseless doping acusations and let the legend of his name rest in peace.

After all, we need someone to be inspired by the legend of his name to try to get close to the legend of his name.

 

[MJtje]

There is still the walsh-armstrong case...........and I believe he still has some problems with that insurance company who didn't want to pay his bonus, because of doping...........

 

[doctorSpoc]

I think the point that is being missed is fairly obvious: which is that if multiple individuals, acting either alone or in concert, broke multiple ethical and possible legal guidelines, that taken together, the sum of these multiple violations indicates serious questions as to the motivations and integrity of the individuals acting either alone or in concert. Legally it comes close to the definition of conspiracy.

Violation #1.
Lab studies 1999 urines without riders permission and without ensuring complete anonymity.

Violation #2.
L'Equipe asks for Lance's consent to UCI records under false pretense.

Violation#3.
UCI incorrectly and probably illegally releases medical documents to L'Equipe under false pretext.. Leading to suspension of UCI physician

Violation#3.
Lab allows access to L'Equipe to see and match anonymous lab samples with doping code sheets, violating UCI procedure and possibly health privacy law.

Violation #4.
L'Equipe publishes supposed results in press violating riders signed confidentiality, UCI protocol, and lab protocol.

Violation#5.
Head of WADA violated neutrality and comments publically on Lance's supposed guilt violating ethics of WADA neutrality and is complicit in the whole process.

Violation #6.

Pound and UCI do not cooperate with independent investigation of Dutch lawyer.

Taken all together, this does in fact raise significant questions about the integrity of the individuals, whether money exchanged hands, and who did the tests, who verified they were in fact as published etc etc.

Put it this way, if a lab employee in the US allowed confidential material to leave the lab which then got published in the press, in the U.S. this person would be fired, be subject to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and probably lose their license to practice. Unethical from start to finish.

I dont expect anyone to be swayed but that is the truth.

..of course... just like OJ Simson's lawyers established that an LAPD officer who they firmly established as a racist and in all likely hood planted evidence (the bloody glove) and that the collection of the DNA evidence was sloppy and didn't follow proceedure etc, etc. so from a legal stand point of course you have the let the guy go... legally it's the right decision.. whether the legal result of "innocence" equates to truth is another question and the same thing is true in this case.. people for some strange reason put the legal system on some pedistal... that in necessarily leads to truth, when it is just a process designed to reach truth with a certain probablity... there is no legal basis for saying Armstrong doped... did he dope is an entirely different question.