Hello ZENers: a post without fun fotoz and graphix, mostly fact-based!
Starting with the address you should use...
http://www.usada.org/contact/ (I wrote to 'Media') :-)
...if you want to contact USADA, after reading this:
As one involved in extensive reportage about WADA, the Tour de France, the French governmental laboratory (LNDD) and the Floyd Landis case, I would respectfully request answers to the following questions, by someone familiar with the Floyd Landis case (Mr Tygart, if he's available, would be perfect).
1. In the Landis case, either anomalous and irregular testing at LNDD, or theoretical mis-application of 'masking agents' on Floyd's part, would seem to be the only two plausible sources of the one 'positive' test that LNDD produced.
Yet USADA has systemically disallowed Landis' attorneys' requests for information, while seeking extensive extraneous data from Landis: why does it seem that you are favouring procedurally the French LNDD over the American Athlete?
2. There is not one WADA CODE provision that calls for 'B Sample re-testing': what legal authority at USADA allows for the circumvention of WADA rules and CODE, to which USADA is a Signatory?
3. Would Mr Tygart be willing to allow the press to examine any telephone call-list from his office, to WADA, arbitrators, LNDD, the French Ministry of Sport, or any individual official of those organizations (naming Dick Pound, Professeur De Ceaurriz, amongst others), for the purposes of establishing illegal 'ex parte' communications regarding the Landis case?
4. On what legal basis or grounds (article of Hiltzik, LA Times, Apr 12 2007) is USADA comfortable with LNDD performing NON-blind 'testing' of one rider: Landis, when his identifiable samples relative to this case may, if again 'tested' negative, would likely provoke LNDD to face a process of dis-accreditation on grounds of:
a) illegal testing (requested illegally by USADA) no matter what the result;
b) improper testing and diffusion of confidential information (if new and illegal 'tests' are negative for the seven previously negative Samples);
c) if 'validation' of LNDD prior results (one positive) are 'substantiated' through the bias of LNDD being allowed, without independent corroboration, to perform, against the WADA CODE (of which USADA, LNDD and UCI are Signatories), these non-blind tests?
5. In the Hiltzik article, the follow quote appears:
"USADA wishes to subject the samples to an ostensibly more rigorous test than had been done."
Question: is an "ostensibly more rigorous test" implying the acknowledged failure of LNDD to perform according to the WADA CODE, and ISL/IST standards?
Or is the implication that a newly-promulgated test is available?
IF the latter, is that test already certified through the adoption by more than two WADA-accredited laboratories, as set forth in WADA Rules and Regulations?
If THAT is true, is the entire proposed re-testing procedure yet another violation of the WADA CODE, of which the USADA is a Signatory?
6. If requested by Mr. Landis, is the USADA willing to have the CAS/TAS give an 'advisory opinion' prior to May 14th, as to the presumed legality that USADA has adjured regarding these extraordinarily unprecedented requests made in the Landis case?
I have posted these questions on my blog, and am anxiously awaiting your replies: I have sent a copy of this email to various, concerned US citizens.
Thank you in advance for your replies, I will respect your decision whether or not you would choose to allow me to post them on my blog.
COURAGE, friends of Floyd!
ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç