Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

MavKikiNYC · 08-25-2005, 10:00 AM

Fishier and fishier......

Who're you gonna trust---a Texan named Lance, or some Frog-f*cker named Jean-Marie?

Armstrong doping storm moves from science into law
Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:00 PM BST10
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Francois Thomazeau

PARIS (Reuters) - As is often the case when doping allegations are made, the debate over whether seven times Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong took EPO in 1999 is rapidly moving from the scientific sphere into the legal.

Whatever the truth of the matter, and Armstrong strongly denies any wrongdoing, the report in L'Equipe that the American's urine samples contained the banned blood-boosting substance is very unlikely to lead to any retroactive sanctions.

Officials from the organisations involved - cycling's ruling body, the World Anti Doping Agency, French sports ministry officials and Tour de France organisers - agree normal anti-doping proceedings have not been followed.

Jacques De Ceaurriz, the head of the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory which conducted the tests, made it clear they were carried out for only scientific purposes and had no legal value because only one sample was tested.

According to WADA rules, no sanction can be taken against an athlete if one sample, rather than the normal two, shows traces of a banned substance.

The samples have been frozen since being taken during the 1999 tour, the first won by Armstrong. A test to detect EPO did not exist at the time.

Armstrong, who has denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs during his career and has never failed a dope test, summed up the legal implications on Wednesday.

"Ethically, how can you put a guy's name or prosecute a guy like that when he has no defence?

"I know two pieces of the WADA code that are very important. Number one, if an athlete only has one sample left, it is strictly mandated that that sample must always remain anonymous.

"If any WADA-accredited laboratory wants to use that sample, for experimentation or scientific research, they must have the approval of the athlete.

"So right there, you have two serious violations of the new WADA code," he said.

REPEATED ALLEGATIONS

Armstrong, who has had to face repeated doping allegations by French media since his first victory in 1999, hinted he might not take legal action over the French newspaper report. He is currently suing the authors of a book alleging he took drugs.

"Who do you take action against in this case? Is it WADA? Is it the (French sports) ministry? Is it L'Equipe? Is it the laboratory? Who is it? They're all at fault there," he said.

The Texan, a cancer survivor deeply involved in working with others suffering from the disease, said he had better things to do with his money than indulge in another costly court battle.

Armstrong is currently involved in a legal case against a Texas insurance company who have refused to pay him bonuses he was entitled to after his 2002, 2003 and 2004 Tour victories after arguing the legitimacy of the wins could be questioned.

Regardless of their scientific validity, the way in which the results of the tests on Armstrong's 1999 samples have been obtained is in breach of anti-doping procedures.

WADA chief Dick Pound said Armstrong might have to "give explanations" about the tests but said the agency could not "do anything concrete" for the time being.

Pound passed the baton to the UCI, saying it was up to the world cycling body to act. UCI chief Hein Verbruggen said there was "nothing official" and it was waiting to find out whether the report was true.

As for Tour organisers, they insisted they had no power to ban or suspend an athlete on doping offences because UCI and WADA were the only institutions entitled to take action.

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc suggested retroactive sanctions might be the future weapon against doping.

"This case brings a new element in the fight against doping - retroactive testing, which is now possible and could, in my opinion, be used as another tool," he said.

RETROACTIVE SANCTIONS

Leblanc agreed, however, that current WADA or UCI rules made it impossible to sanction a rider retroactively.

Comparisons have been made in France with the BALCO doping case which led to American sprinters being banned for taking the THG steroid.

The athletes did not fail dope tests for the steroid at the time of racing as it was unknown. They were banned after tests were carried out in secret.

Tour de France deputy director Christian Prudhomme said the big difference was that in the BALCO case, U.S. athletes were banned after being shown undeniable evidence of testing which had been properly carried out. Some also confessed.

By comparison, confusion rather than clarity surrounds the L'Equipe accusations.

Armstrong quoted "four or five anti-doping experts around the world that have gone on the record and said this is crazy".

De Ceaurriz, the man who devised the EPO test, insists he is one hundred percent sure the tests were valid.

The problem is that the French scientists tested bottles bearing numbers on them, not names, and these names would never have been leaked if proper protocol had been followed.

08-25-2005, 10:00 AM	#44
MavKikiNYC Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 8,509	RE:nickelodeon Fishier and fishier...... Who're you gonna trust---a Texan named Lance, or some Frog-fcker named Jean-Marie? Armstrong doping storm moves from science into law* Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:00 PM BST10 Printer Friendly \| Email Article \| RSS By Francois Thomazeau PARIS (Reuters) - As is often the case when doping allegations are made, the debate over whether seven times Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong took EPO in 1999 is rapidly moving from the scientific sphere into the legal. Whatever the truth of the matter, and Armstrong strongly denies any wrongdoing, the report in L'Equipe that the American's urine samples contained the banned blood-boosting substance is very unlikely to lead to any retroactive sanctions. Officials from the organisations involved - cycling's ruling body, the World Anti Doping Agency, French sports ministry officials and Tour de France organisers - agree normal anti-doping proceedings have not been followed. Jacques De Ceaurriz, the head of the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory which conducted the tests, made it clear they were carried out for only scientific purposes and had no legal value because only one sample was tested. According to WADA rules, no sanction can be taken against an athlete if one sample, rather than the normal two, shows traces of a banned substance. The samples have been frozen since being taken during the 1999 tour, the first won by Armstrong. A test to detect EPO did not exist at the time. Armstrong, who has denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs during his career and has never failed a dope test, summed up the legal implications on Wednesday. "Ethically, how can you put a guy's name or prosecute a guy like that when he has no defence? "I know two pieces of the WADA code that are very important. <u>Number one, if an athlete only has one sample left, it is strictly mandated that that sample must always remain anonymous.</u> <u>"If any WADA-accredited laboratory wants to use that sample, for experimentation or scientific research, they must have the approval of the athlete.</u> "So right there, you have two serious violations of the new WADA code," he said. REPEATED ALLEGATIONS Armstrong, who has had to face repeated doping allegations by French media since his first victory in 1999, hinted he might not take legal action over the French newspaper report. He is currently suing the authors of a book alleging he took drugs. "Who do you take action against in this case? Is it WADA? Is it the (French sports) ministry? Is it L'Equipe? Is it the laboratory? Who is it? They're all at fault there," he said. The Texan, a cancer survivor deeply involved in working with others suffering from the disease, said he had better things to do with his money than indulge in another costly court battle. Armstrong is currently involved in a legal case against a Texas insurance company who have refused to pay him bonuses he was entitled to after his 2002, 2003 and 2004 Tour victories after arguing the legitimacy of the wins could be questioned. <u>Regardless of their scientific validity, the way in which the results of the tests on Armstrong's 1999 samples have been obtained is in breach of anti-doping procedures.</u> WADA chief Dick Pound said Armstrong might have to "give explanations" about the tests but said the agency could not "do anything concrete" for the time being. Pound passed the baton to the UCI, saying it was up to the world cycling body to act. UCI chief Hein Verbruggen said there was "nothing official" and it was waiting to find out whether the report was true. As for Tour organisers, they insisted they had no power to ban or suspend an athlete on doping offences because UCI and WADA were the only institutions entitled to take action. Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc suggested retroactive sanctions might be the future weapon against doping. "This case brings a new element in the fight against doping - retroactive testing, which is now possible and could, in my opinion, be used as another tool," he said. RETROACTIVE SANCTIONS <u>Leblanc agreed, however, that current WADA or UCI rules made it impossible to sanction a rider retroactively.</u> Comparisons have been made in France with the BALCO doping case which led to American sprinters being banned for taking the THG steroid. The athletes did not fail dope tests for the steroid at the time of racing as it was unknown. They were banned after tests were carried out in secret. Tour de France deputy director Christian Prudhomme said the big difference was that in the BALCO case, U.S. athletes were banned after being shown undeniable evidence of testing which had been properly carried out. Some also confessed. By comparison, confusion rather than clarity surrounds the L'Equipe accusations. Armstrong quoted "four or five anti-doping experts around the world that have gone on the record and said this is crazy". De Ceaurriz, the man who devised the EPO test, insists he is one hundred percent sure the tests were valid. The problem is that the French scientists tested bottles bearing numbers on them, not names, and these names would never have been leaked if proper protocol had been followed.