WADA: an open Letter to you and the 34 laboratories...

Dear ZENfans, darling ZENdetractors,

Below you may read the letter which has just been sent, to the 34 WADA-accredited laboratories (contact your favorite local laboratory HERE), as a second correspondence towards the burning issues for the upcoming redrafting exercise, scheduled for Madrid, the 15 - 17 November, 2007.

After a mild spanking by the Floyd Landis Arbitration Decision, as well as a Guantanamo-strength waterboarding by the Minority Dissention offered by Christopher Campbell (at least as far as the French 'département des analyses' is concerned), I, your Humble Narrator and Champion of International Justice, have sent the following:

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Dear WADA, and accredited laboratories,

One week ago today, I sent to the 34 WADA-accredited laboratories, via the email addresses provided to the public through the WADA-AMA website, a Questionnaire that I personally developed, to help your facilities move forward, stand higher and broadcast to a troubled world, that you are collectively aware of the URGENT need to re-draft the WADA CODE, the International Standard for laboratories, and the International Standard for Testing.

In that email, I stated I would send a second copy if I had not received confirmation of the receipt of the first transmission. I have the pleasure to send to your facilities, the same, identically-worded Questionnaire, today.

Since I first sent to your facilities the Questionnaire regarding Laboratories, the Floyd Landis Decision has been published and discussed world-wide.

I do not need to remind you how that Decision (both the Majority Decision, and the Minority Dissent) has opened the doors to the world, for all to see the various lacunae that exist currently, as they operate under the documentation of which you are all aware. The words of Attorney Christopher Campbell are, nevertheless, worth your time to become familiar with his vital, and on-point concerns.

However, I feel it even more urgent to reach you, as the weeks to come are your last chance to show the world that you care about correct scientific determinations, derived at through adherence to the standards you subscribe to, and are accredited by.

I end this second transmission, by quoting my own blog on this issue:

QUOTE:

Given the anticipated, returned questionnaire responses, hopefully prior to mid-October, from WADA-accredited Laboratories, international Federations or other Signatories, three vital steps will have been achieved:

* Participants to the Madrid redrafting session will be 'on notice' that the current WADA CODE lacks transparency in procedures of discipline and accountability, as to the Signatories that work together to promote a drug-free sporting world;

* They can go on record, prior to the Madrid session, as being in favour of increased discipline and accountability concerning those WADA CODE imbalances, and;

* They have now, the opportunity to arrive in Madrid with an 'action plan' to create a finely-tuned, and better-harmonized body of regulatory procedures that will enforce the transparency and accountability of Signatories, as they have mandated towards the Athletes whose world they serve and control.

ENDQUOTE

PLEASE find attached the same questionnaire you were provided one week earlier.

PLEASE respond with your fully transparent observations, so that the world is aware of your position in favor of making the Sporting world cleaner, and more transparent to observers such as myself.

I remain your faithful correspondent,

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

WADA LOSER: the Presumption...

Quoting (not!) Christian Prudhomme, Director of the Tour de France:
“Whaaaaah, the legal process is too long...”

Quoting (not!) Patrice Clerc, President of Amaury Sport Group, owners of the Tour de France, and French Sporting newsjournal L'EQUIPE:
“Bwwaaaaah, why the agony of waiting? The testing was finished months ago...”

Les Guignols de France (the clowns)...

Dear ZENers, there's really only one reason why Floyd and supporters are out $2 million, and fifteen months have flown by (on snail's wings) as the phases – the Process, the Pre-Hearing, the Hearing, the Post-Hearing and the Decision – stretched on from last August through this September, 2007.

Only one reason why the Decision, and the Dissent, are 110 pages of legalese, legal mumbo jumbo, whatever description you'd prefer.

One word, actually...

That reason, is simple: the WADA 'presumption' of ISL compliance that benefits, that protects beyond rationale reason, the actions of a series of mostly second or third rate laboratories around the world.

Strong words? Yes, based on the evidence.

If, as ZEN Central has postulated in this post: PART III, the Analytical Wrap-up , WADA had formulated its CODE, ISL and IST with the standard of Strict Liability for Laboratories (identical as a standard to which it holds Athletes: evidence of drug presence need not be supported by evidence of intent, or otherwise: proven in the system of the body is sufficient), there would be two effects...

Firstly, WADA-accredited laboratories worldwide, would stand in equal light with forensic and clinical laboratories around the globe. Their standards in training experts, running tests, preserving Samples and data would show them to be 'institutions of excellence', a title reserved today for only a few of the 34 laboratories now associated to WADA.

Secondly, and pertinent to our studies of the Floyd Landis case, a laboratory such as LNDD, now infamous for incompetence, verging on the edge of losing its WADA-accreditation, would not have been supported throughout the process recently concluded (Barring appeal to the CAS in Lausanne, Suisse). Its case against Floyd Landis would more than likely have been thrown out.

Presumption(s)...

In WADA CODE 3.2.1 (2003), the pertinent phrase reads: “WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard for laboratory analysis. ...”

Had the ZEN Central hypothesis been in place, LNDD may have lost its chance to 'convict Floyd' in offering scurrilous evidence, 'cherry-picked' test results from different sequences (Not MY words: see the Campbell Dissent at paras. 4 – 12)

The WADA CODE, as it stands today, prior to the coming redrafting session (which may already be 'in the bag' as to further changes, which would be a TRAVESTY of Justice for Athletes), is a mockery of Justice. It condones LAX laboratory practices, far below those of Forensic Scientific standards, while judging Athletes who, due to the 'Strict Liability' standards, may have innocently or negligently absorbed a Prohibited Substance.

Laugh all you want, those who 'KNOW' that 'Floyd doped' and the 'Lab tests proved it'...

I wish you the same reality, some day, that you enjoy now in facing Mr. Landis... nothing yet proven, millions spent, and one word: PRESUMPTION, is the winner!

PS: need some good news? French Minister Jean-François Lamour, formerly the SHOE-IN candidate to replace Dick Pound, now must face an election 'primary' against Australia's John Fahey.

ZENmud supports John Fahey 100 per cent, and urges you to write your NADA (Nat'l Anti-doping Agency) in his favour!!! Time is short!

;-)

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

WADA decision – The Landis case

If 'legalese' numbs your senses, better stop reading. Here at ZEN Central, the overtime hours (unpaid, volunteer, weekend-absorbing at that) are accumulating.

As the 'verdict heard 'round the world', you are by now aware that 'Floyd lost'. As of this writing, I am unclear whether Floyd will, can afford or has chosen not to pursue his appeal to the Cours Arbitral de Sport in Lausanne, Suisse.

I could have written 'Floyd doped', or 'Floyd cheated' or another phrase, but we really don't know that yet. The focus of this blog remains on the future, and if Floyd wants to appeal his case, he has the right to.

Yet before the dry antiseptic review... (anti-skeptic review?), a couple thoughts...

In having read my fair share of legal opinions, I noted a difference in this arbitration decision, which includes the Decision, penned by the two-arb majority of Attorneys Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren, as well as the Dissent written by Attorney Christopher Campbell. This 'For/Against' decision displays one very disconcerting aspect.

Namely, one often reads, in US Supreme Court or Appellate Court decisions (that often contain Dissents) reference is customarily made to the other side's writing, which serves as a signpost of collegial discussion and, ultimately, adds depth to their disagreements.

The Majority can write their contentions concerning the items discussed in a Dissent, while those Judges or Justices who contribute to the Dissent can attribute their legal reasoning to counter that of the Majority.

There is no sign, as far as my twice-through readings this weekend of each part of this decision have found, that the majority wanted to discharge the emphasis of Mr. Campbell's points. As well, Mr. Campbell displayed minimal integration, or rather counterbalance, of his Dissent to that of the majority's Decision.

What am I on about? It could very well be that, from nearly the debut of this case's decision-writing session, that the majority had not shared, nor admitted, any of Mr. Campbell's points. More upsetting, is it stimulates the thesis that, from nearly the moment of writing both parts of this one Decision, that the minds of the Majority were not disposed to entertain the contentions of Mr. Campbell.

The best example of this, from my first, early analysis of a total of 103 relevant pages (of some 110 total), is found in the Campbell Dissent, and concerns the topic of 'cherry picking through separate sequences for ICRS evidence' (see Campbell, paras. 4 – 12).

In the majority's Decision, there is no mention of 'cherry picking' of evidence from the vital testing sequences that resulted in the Floyd decision of positive. Why not? Why ignore the most powerful statements made by the third member of this Arbitration panel?

Furthering that dichotomy, the Campbell Dissent passes from 'cherry picking' into the potentially perjurious testimony by certain WADA experts (Campbell, paras. 13 – 17).

As Campbell stated (concerning the USADA 'expert witnesses', all of whom are or were WADA-accredited laboratory directors): “The Laboratory Directors in this case were Dr. Ayotte, Dr. Wilhelm Schänzer and Dr. Catlin. They all testified they had carefully reviewed the documents provided by the LNDD. None of them disclosed the problem associated with the cherry picking of data.”

Thus one is left to ponder wherein the justice flows? Were Brunet and McLaren even aware that the Decision they produced did not address the central tenet of the Dissent?

More to come, ZENers... analysis of a massive brief, such as the Floyd Landis Tour de France case, will take a week or two, as more information is gleaned from... 'The Record'.

But I leave you with two thoughts, by Mr. Christopher Campbell. These come from the first paragraph of his Dissent, and nearly the last (para. 61) paragraph. I myself, would not write these words if I didn't have one-hundred percent certainty of my conviction as to the veracity:

“1. From the beginning, the Laboratoire National de Dépistage et du Dopage (“LNDD”) has not been trustworthy. In this case, at every stage of testing it failed to comply with the procedures and methods for testing required by the International Standards for Laboratories, Version 4.0, August 2004 (“ISL”) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2003 (“WADA Code”). It also failed to abide by its legal and ethical obligations under the WADA Code. On the facts of this case, the LNDD should not be entrusted with Mr. Landis’ career.”

“61. These doping adjudications can cause substantial harm to a human being financially, physically and emotionally. It can destroy families. If, from time to time, WADA's mission obligates it to inflict such harm, it should be obligated to get it right – all of it. As athletes have strict liability rules, the laboratories should be held strictly liable for their failure to abide by their rules and sound scientific practice.”

Simply put, inarguably true. As the crystelZENmud Questionnaire stated, regarding WADA, its CODE and the various official derivative documents (and which was published Tuesday, prior to the Decision being rendered on Friday):

“I am convinced, and hope to convince readers, that the upcoming session will not focus, as it should, on the most important, heretofore ignored aspect of the WADA CODE: full harmonization of laboratory procedures, and further tightening of sanctions against laboratories that do not display adherence to the scientific International Standards, or who fail proper, 'results management' procedures by allowing premature releases (or leaks) of 'A Sample' results, prior to the 'B Sample' testing/confirmation of those, to the press.”

And read this post (“PART III: WADA questionnaire – analytical wrap-up...”), published on Wednesday, for a more in-depth analysis of what WADA must do this November, if it wants to retain credibility amongst an athletic world that will be aghast at what actions were taken to “convict” Floyd Landis.

COURAGE, friends!!!

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

WADA do about ... Corrections!

Hi ZENguys, and ZENdears,

Some astute readers have commented on my last post of late August, and I want to correct the record as much as possible.

Thus, comments included that I didn't have anyone on the UCI on my list: I didn't, this is true, but I don't feel that the UCI per se, is to blame for anyone's problems as of this point.

Head of the USADA, is Travis Tygart, not TAGGART (my apologies, Travis: But that error kept me off your radar screen until this comes through - heh heh)

The Equipe, master of the universe as to leaked cycling information, did not exactly do so as is their usual nefarious modus-operandi: in the Floyd Landis case, news was released from the UCI (perhaps because they knew that the Equipe would do its naughty work in a matter of short hours?)...

Pierre Bordry, is either past president of the LNDD, or current president of the LNDD, or past Minister of Sport and Youth... the French government wouldn't want you to be clear on this, and I will try and determine which is paying him his overly-generous salary, sooner or (yawn....) later!

There are some FONT size problems: I try to fix them but there are risks to reopening and re-editing these posts: basta!

Thanks for your input, to my friends that read these...

Courage, mes amis, amies!

........................................................ ZENmud

WADA do about THE BIG PICTURE...

[Dear ZENers, this column has been CORRECTED and REVISED, with those actions shown in yellow text Sept. 7 2007]

Dick Pound, Floyd Landis, Patrice Clerc (nom?), Lance Armstrong, Jacques de Ceaurriz, Pierre Bordry, Emile Vrijman, Christian Prudhomme, Travis Tygart...

What do these nine names have in common?

They comprise three Americans, one Canadian, a Dutchman and four French... Two Tour de France victors, six blatantly biased detractors, and one objective investigator...

President of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA: Pound); Winner of the 2006 Tour de France (Landis), President of Amaury Sport Organisation (Clerc), Seven-time Winner of the Tour de France (Armstrong), Directeur of the former Laboratoire nationale du dépistage du dopage (LNDD: de Ceaurriz – LNDD was recently 'Phoenix-ed' into the “Département des analyses”, under the French Anti-doping agency: AFLD), former Minister of the French Ministry for Youth and Sport (Bordry: scroll to EN translation of a FR press release from AFLD), former Director of the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs (Vrijman: download the PDF report), Directeur of the Tour de France (Prudhomme), General Counsel for the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA: Taggart)...

Is it possible that they are a mixed salade: of manipulators, profiteers, victims and a white Knight, all due to the current RAGE against doping in cycling?

A righteous rage gone haywire, an ignoble pursuit of a noble goal, that is currently displaying the dark underbelly of the Anti-doping movement. Unarguably, the cleansing of cycling is overdue: cycling is one of the oldest sports of the modern era, a sport which, all admit, has experienced a long, historic system of doping, through seven generations.

The summer of 2007 fades: it is three months now, since Floyd Landis faced the modern equivalent of a medieval Inquisition against witches and heretics... his hearing for an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) 'found' by the French LNDD, pursuant to its tests (in its Châtenay-Malabry labs, a Parisian suburb) on participants of the Tour de France.

Floyd faced this armada of legal talent as David faced Goliath, armed with scientific data and legal analysis, paid for by thousands of believers who have chosen to fund his legal fight for legitimacy towards his victory of 2006.

This hearing was to be a slam-dunk against Landis, in the words of USADA attorney Richard Young, because of their evidence: "The science is solid."

What appeared to have actually happened, could perhaps be better described as a 'farcical comedy', 'charade' or 'fraudulent', perhaps, concerning the Prosecution's case.

Entering a world of anti-doping CODES, evidence and Standards for laboratories, 'aliquots', urinalysis, and the several hundreds of thousands of Euros in testing apparatus, the Prosecution was victim of itself, victim of a legal 'Rope-a-dope'. Only the Landis defense itself was able to do, what the Prosecution claimed they would: offer testimony of cold, hard science that was turned inside out, as the Defense showed time and again that the Châtenay-Malabry lab had failed in its duties to uphold worldwide scientific standards, of competence and confidentiality.

Past readers perhaps can recall this writer's angle on the affair, however it bears to be updated here: that there is a disbelief in certain circles of France, and elsewhere of course, that America could produce, in the talents of Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis, eight consecutive victories in the Tour de France – without recourse to 'le Dopage'. These outstanding results by Landis and Armstrong relegated two national French heros, Jacques Anquetil, and Bernard Hinault, to glorified runners-up as five-time winners of the Tour de France (At least one of whom had admitted in his lifetime to ingesting 'assistance' of a chemical nature).

In the case of Lance Armstrong, the LNDD facility produced a dubious report, citing his alleged 1999 EPO use, concerning his remaining 'B Sample' urine specimens remaining from the 1999 TdF. 'Dubious', in that the testing that was achieved was 'novel', done under the guise of 'research', the use of which (for doping-control purposes) was illegal according to WADA rules and preceding IOC rules (WADA itself became an official entity in 2003: it had no jurisdiction over the 1999 samples that remained in LNDD custody), and of the bright-line separation of 'research testing' from 'doping control testing'.

In subsequent press articles, Dick Pound supported 'his' laboratory, the LNDD (Pound is far from being the most neutral mouth on the planet, as would befit the stature of his post as WADA President, and this Organization that he strove to legitimatize), and argued privately and publicly that the Union Cycliste International (UCI) should take action in light of this incriminating evidence against Armstrong.

Emile Vrijman, noted Netherlands sports law attorney and former Dutch Anti-Doping Agency Director, was mandated by the UCI to draft and produce an independent review of this 'case'.

The LNDD, and the French Ministry which controls LNDD, were never 'transparent' or accommodating, as to requests by Vrijman for documents and data concerning the 2004-2005 testing of the 1999 B Samples they retained. De Ceaurriz and Bordry, in harmonized language, denoted the impossibility of cooperation with an 'independent investigation' (Ie: not supported by a French Court's legal order to comply).

(see Vrijman report, pp. 50 (!), as well as 16, 20-22, 37, 47, 121, 126, 128)

It is not beyond objective suspicion, after publication of Vrijman's UCI-mandated report, or the timing of its release in May, 2006, to link the subsequent backlash by WADA President Dick Pound, due to its overly-negative contents, with certain following events affecting Landis and the TdF.

In apparent eagerness to avenge the Vrijman report, could cycling's heavyweights and the Gods of Anti-doping take barely conceivable steps, of which even the most lax observer could barely believe any of the actual evidence originating from what has become 'L'Affaire Landis'?

Jumping ahead, we pass over the Stage 17 victory by Landis, his epic solo breakaway, a majestic tour of assorted Haute-Savoie cols that ended in Morzine (where this author stood applauding, less than one hundred meters from the finish line).

Remember: Floyd was tested EIGHT times in the Tour, and seven of his A Samples were returned negative (four times prior to Stage 17, and three times afterwards).

We fast-forward past the critical urine test of his Stage 17 A Sample, that resulted in his positive AAF. Unlike other, typically suspicious announcements of TdF testing results being leaked by the French sporting newspaper L'Equipe, Landis' A Sample test result was announced publicly by the UCI, presumably in anticipation of publication in l'Equipe, of information that should have remained confidential until the confirming B Sample examinations had occurred.

Nevertheless, Floyd's test result was announced: apparently revealing an abnormally low level of epitestosterone, which skewed his T/E ratio (Testosterone/Epitestosterone) to 11:1, far beyond WADA's allowable 4:1 ratio.

The witch hunt began... and L'Equipe sold quite a few papers in those slow-sports-news days of August. Oh: you do know, of course, that the company run by Monsieur Clerc. ASO, owns both the Tour de France AND the Equipe journal? Interestingly for past readers, M. Clerc is a past French Tennis champion, and also former Director of the tennis club-stadium Roland-Garros, which was referred to in this column regarding the ITF's dispatch of tournament drug samples to Montreal's anti-doping facility. Read it here...

Hmmmm...

According to Floyd, he was contacted in August or September, 2006, by staff of the USADA, and offered the following 'option'. In return for a simple one-month suspension, atypically far shorter than the WADA CODE-proscribed two-year suspension for a first-time doping offense, Floyd would 'simply' have to help USADA, by turning in former teammate Lance Armstrong for his supposed doping practices, presumably while they were teammates at the formidable US Postal team during his historic streak of TdF victories.

Something in there, smacks of premeditation.

Something in there, tears asunder the threads of logic...

Could a laboratory in France, under its Ministry of Youth and Sport, which had been legally reamed by the Vrijman report only a month or two before the commencement of this 2006 TdF, seek revenge against Lance Armstrong through the person, the reputation, of one Floyd Landis?

The mind boggles... if true.

A simple recap:

1999 – 2005:
Lance wins seven consecutive Tours de France.

NB: Which relegated the five-time winners: two French, one Belgian, and one Spaniard to the new second-place tier...

2004-2005:
LNDD performs 'research' on samples from the 1999 TdF, for EPO, samples that then were five years old.

NB: previously, in 2000, LNDD published the results of similar research it had performed, on retained B Samples from the 1998 TdF. Those results were published in the scientific journal 'NATURE' in June, 2000: no athletes were known to have complained (where 28 of 102 tested anonymous B Samples showed evidence of r-EPO presence of over 0 – 3.7 IU per liter). It remains disturbingly unclear why LNDD did not choose to have its second analysis of the 1999 B Samples also published in NATURE or another scholarly journal: unless this 'research' was not scientifically sound.

23 August, 2005:
French journal l'Equipe published its scathing article entitled (FR) 'Le Mensonge d'Armstrong' (“Armstrong's Lie”), spun out of LNDD and French Ministry information, and pinpointing Lance Armstrong, and no other rider, as being one of six 'authors' of positively-tested 1999 TdF samples.

NB: Which instantly generated a thunderbolt of negative press against Lance, his teammates and his sponsors, one month after his glorious moment in Paris, on the Champes Elysées.

NB TWO: This article is no longer traceable by title on the 'l'EQUIPE website (Title above), but you can read about it here, in FR. Mostly listing reactions to the shock, of their scandalous false "testing".

Autumn, 2005 to Spring 2006:
Based on LNDD 'research' and the incriminations in the disparaging article published by l'Equipe, WADA adamantly suggested that the UCI initiate investigations as to the feasibility of disciplinary hearings against Lance Armstrong. WADA did so, knowing well that its suggestions were reproachable, per its own regulations.

UCI contravened, however, and announced its 'independent investigation' under the mandate issued to Emile Vrijman, attorney from the Hague, and former Director of the Dutch Anti-doping Agency.

WADA, LNDD and the French Ministry, who'd thus promoted 'convicting' Lance through the press (l'Equipe), in the intervening months began to withhold cooperation from the UCI-mandated report.

(Entities acting in concert, both together and independently, to trumpet the (Illegal) use of 'research results': See Vrijman, pp. 18, 26, 43, 55, 75, 94, 96, 101, 122, 128, 129)

May – June 2006:
The Vrijman report was published several weeks before the 2006 TdF;
Dick Pound reacted quite strongly in the press.

July 2006:
Floyd wins the TdF this one and only time, following a massive 'bonk' or loss of energy in Stage 16, and a gloriously historic, spectacular solo breakaway in Stage 17, along with a fantastic final Time Trial finish that sealed his lead, and gave him his victory over runner-up Oscar Pereiro.

(TdF trivia: no 'Grand Champion', between Armstrong, Indurain, Hinault, Merckx, Anquetil, EVER won a TdF in a year ending in xxx6)

Late July – early August 2006:
Floyd is pronounced as Positive for an excessive testosterone/epitestosterone ratio, from the Stage 17 A Sample test, a blow which subsequently forced his team, PHONAK (Swiss manufacturer of hearing aids), to withdraw from the cycling-sponsorship business.

September 2006:
Floyd alleged that he was approached by USADA staff, who offered him a 'sweetheart' deal if he turned informant against Lance Armstrong; according to Floyd he emphatically dismissed the idea of squealing.

Fall of 2006 – to Spring of 2007:
Floyd prepared for and submitted, in May 2007, his arguments and evidence before a panel of Arbitrators belonging to the American Arbitration Association, while facing USADA 'evidence' and hearsay testimony by Greg Lemond, also a three-time winner of the Tour de France.

Summer 2007:
Floyd and his supporters, WADA, the AFLD and USADA await a timely, reasoned written decision by the Arbitration Panelists. Once announced as coming out prior to the 2007 TdF, this article is publishing in the last week of August.

+ + + + + +

LNDD, the same lab that failed to conduct proper research, as required under the Declaration of Helsinki and the WADA ISL and IST documents, nevertheless used those results to damn Lance Armstrong in the court of public opinion.

LNDD, which declined to assist in the Vrijman investigation as to how those results became known to the reporter from l'Equipe, is the 'player' that provided the only positive test result against Floyd Landis in his long career, a positive result that, by the testimony of experts in the Arbitration Hearing, had exceptionally disregarded most of the scientific and investigative norms found in the WADA CODE and International Standard for Laboratories.

Is this evidence of a massive State machination, by elements under the Chirac government, to cut down – to surgically remove – from the glorious, illustrious annals of the Tour de France, the greatest living racer of all time (Armstrong)?

Is this evidence of intergovernmental and inter-Agency collusion, feeding on the blind ambitions of prosecuting attorneys and specious public servants? They who, at any cost, and damn the rules and regulations that control such efforts, lusted to create scandal and seed more doubt, in hopes of bringing down these two Americans victors, Lance and Floyd?

Were their hopes restricted to restoring the mythic 'Five Victories' threshold that stood so many years?

Or, conversely, maybe perversely, is this case merely a publicity stunt? A stunt that simultaneously increases awareness and thus financial support for the Anti-doping entities that are growing fat on increasingly available public money, and demeans the efforts of the UCI Federation, through serial victimization of presumptively-innocent, distinguished World Class Cyclists?

Should an Athlete like Floyd Landis, who had to raise legal funds exceeding $2 million to fight a case against a lab result generated by a facility with a litany of seriously egregious errors, be entitled to recuperate those funds in the case where the decision falls towards his innocence of these charges, through laboratory, government or ADO malfeasance?

Questions unanswered, as of yet...

And furthermore, even more incomprehensively, is this:

If in fact Floyd's Positive AAF is reversed by the AAA Arbitrators' decision, he could be forced to face appeals, by virtue of the WADA CODE, that could or would be lodged not only by the prosecuting Agency USADA, but also from:

b– the French AFLD (if WADA CODE Article 13.2.3, which states “...and any other Anti-Doping Organization under whose rules a sanction could have been imposed;...” is the basis under which AFLD has repetitively announced that it awaits the decision of the USADA arbitration before commencing actions against Floyd on its own),

c– the UCI (doubtfully would they enter the case), and

d– WADA.

Is that clear? Here's an imperfect analogy: if your brother is found 'not guilty' in Minnesota for stealing a car, this WADA CODE provision might allow Wisconsin, Manitoba or Mexico to appeal the case to the Swiss Tribune Federal!

WADA, aka Pound, is dripping with vitriol against Armstrong and Landis: what portion of WADA's annual budget would be subverted into chasing the appeal against Landis?

AFLD, as mentioned, remains bloodthirsty for Landis, and has merely 'extended a courtesy' to its American counterpart – USADA – by delaying their own 'prosecution' until the American Arbitration decision: this potentially allows them a supra-legal status: as initiator of a 'double-jeopardy' attack against Floyd, a potential 'Appellant' in the USADA v Landis case, and as potential 'Appellant' in the potential AFLD v Landis case...

Heavy stuff...

This reeks, with the bile of disgust rising in the throats of above-average sporting-litigation observers.

We wait, pensively...

We don't understand the longevity of deliberations that continue to foster tensions, towards an announcement of this decision, now perhaps the equivalent of a seismic event of 9.9 on the open-ended Richter scale...

Changes, chances...

This fall will bring to a motley end, the First Dominion of WADA, as Dick Pound abandons the scepter of power (and benefits: unlimited First Class Travel to EVERY World Class global sporting event, anti-doping seminars, etc., which more than make up for his 'selfless' choice to draw a salary of 1 Canadian dollar/year). Pound leaves the helm of a ship that is decidedly adrift, and losing the moral support of Athletes.

Scheduled this fall are important redrafting sessions for the WADA CODE, to be held in mid-November, in Madrid, Spain. You can download a REDLINE v2 of the revisions document here.

This session will theoretically address the apparent shortcomings of these Inter-Agency documents, hastily implemented in 2003 and 2004, which have created certain innocent victims, while providing initial steps to global harmonization, an as-yet unattained goal. It would be interesting to ascertain how WADA will seek to reduce the Conflicts-of-Interest created as the WADA CODE superseded the IOC Medical Code, and began funneling 'research funds' to the 34 accredited laboratories.

As Dick Pound leaves WADA in November, a bit sullied, rumours abound that Monsieur Lamour, former French Minister of Sport, will 'win election' to replace him.

Dick... Who had himself hoped that, despite his fury, his belligerence, his bellicosity, and his disregard for his WADA CODE, that his stature would make him a natural, victorious candidate for the Presidency of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS/TAS). The news from CAS/TAS this summer, however, was for continuation of the appointment of its Interim President, apparently squashing the hopes of Mr. Pound to continuously inflict the world of Sport with his personal 'duty' to create injustice.

Egos? On the line; every day, everywhere, in each press report...

Winners? Displays of the finest and worst definitions of 'winning'...

Losers? Will we ever really know who actually loses, from the Floyd Landis case outcome?

Consequence(s)????

........................................................ ZENmud

Is USADA in Violation of WADA CODE Article 8?...

Has the USADA violated WADA CODE Article 8 (link to PDF for downloading) in its hearing against Floyd Landis?

“Busted” for a positive Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) from the 17^th Stage of the 2006 Tour de France, Floyd and concerned observers await the forthcoming decision to be announced by the panel of three Arbitrators that were mutually appointed, between Floyd and the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA), to hear his case in May 2007.

This case, an international doping 'scandal' (in what sense we await to know...) is governed by USADA's status as a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA. Under the WADA CODE, Article 8, titled “RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING”, it is stipulated that any Anti-Doping Organization shall...

SIDEBAR: the use of 'shall' in an English-language legal sense, creates a mandatory obligation, without derogation: 'shall' begets an undeniable duty on the party to whom the clause refers.

“I, NAME 1, shall pay you, NAME 2, the sum of $100.00, on Tuesday morning, the 3^rd of August 2007, at the xxx County Courthouse, between 10 and 11am.”

Such a sentence is legally unassailable (presuming the entirety of the agreement is a legally binding obligation).

... “shall provide a hearing process for any Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation.... The hearing process shall respect the following principles:”
[.....]
“a timely, written, reasoned decision.”

Hearings regarding Floyd Landis' alleged doping in the TdF 2006, were held from May 14 to 20, 2007. Initial indications were that the decision would be announced sometime prior to this year's Tour de France, which debarked on July 7^th of this year. The world waited as the decision was being addressed by the Arbitration Panel.

Now, in late August – three months later – no timely, written, reasoned decision has been pronounced. See Environmentalchemist for a good, timely, reasoned article...

Floyd, the USADA, WADA, and Amaury Sport Group (owners of the Tour de France (TdF)) are all waiting. As well, the French Anti-doping Agency (AFLD: link to a French-language page) also waits... they who had announced, no matter the outcome of the USADA case, would also be prosecuting Floyd for his offense as it occurred on French soil.

What's customary or standard, or is this case overly-delayed?

Is USADA, the ADO which brought the case against Floyd, in violation of Article 8?

To know this, we would have to know whether the Arbitrators have been interfered with by USADA pressures, or whether outside influences, from perhaps the French Ministry of Youth and Sport (which oversees the former LNDD, the French Anti-doping Laboratory), or WADA itself, have conducted unlawful ex parte sessions?

“The answer my friends, is blowing in the wind, the answer is..."

COURAGE, Floyd, as we stand with you, awaiting your Fate...

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

Tour de France syndrome 2007... part I

ZENers, my apologies for bein' damn silent. My apologies, I want to post this and will have to do the links later... (memory moment!)

My deepest regrets for not providing a nearly 'You were there' type of commentary on this year's Tour de France.

And 'chagrin total' that you are reading something different, perhaps negative, about this Tour, from ZENcentral.

It could have been different, this is true.
It could have been cleaner, also true.

But as far as we know today, of the 189 riders who were designated 'apt' to start their Tour, 2007, only //three// (watch this number change) were controlled 'positive' while on this Tour. Yet four riders left the race, ostensibly due to 'les affaires du dopage'.

One racer, Patrik Sinkowitz from the German T-Mobile team, was controlled positive in early June and announced positive July 18, 2007, was already sidelined from a post-race, severe collision with a spectator, was in the hospital and 'hors combat' before the news fell. T-Mobile stayed in the race.

Alexander Vinokourov, wearing the thorny crown of pre-race favorite, was victim of a fall, severely impairing his chances for “GC” (general category) victory, and, upon winning the Stage 12 time trial in Albi on Saturday, July 21, apparently was tested positive for homologous blood transfusions by the same laboratoire that impugned the 2006 Tour de France Champion, Floyd Landis, on his testosterone test.

//update: Iban Mayo controlled positive for EPO //

Astana, the team for whom “Vino” races, was requested to withdraw from the 2007 test, based on the information provided to it, and to the public by: L'Equipe. Astana did withdraw. Vinokourov is a man without a team.

L'Equipe: aka “The World Cycling PRESS Authorized Source of (Bona Fide) Test Result Leaks” is the national French daily sporting newspaper,. It alone provided the announcement of Vino's positive A Sample test result; this came prematurely, and illegally, on July 24, 2007, through L'Equipe. This came through the long-established fact that L'Equipe is without equal in having sources in at least the French national laboratory: the Laboratoire Nationale du dépistage du dopage, from which it culls and illegally publishes premature and unconfirmed A Sample test results.

That fact, combined with another fact, creates a huge Conflict of Interest. The other fact, is that the paper 'L'Equipe' is owned by Amaury Sport Group, owners/promoters of the Tour de France business.

The paper L'Equipe, being owned by the same group that owns the race, is perenially in violation of the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) rules concerning 'Results Management' and their International Standards for Laboratories Appendix 'Code of Conduct'. Savour that thought-sequence, as we continue to surmise in the greatest French tradition of insinuation(s)...

Returning to our saga, Vino was the first of //three // controlled racers to be forced out of the competion, based on the positive results from A Sample tests; the second was Cristian Moreni, an Italian who rides for the French team COFIDIS. Third Mayo.

Also prematurely announced through the L'Equipe paper, from leaked, unconfirmed A Sample results, his test for testosterone 'revealed' him as being 'positive'.

COFIDIS happens to be a French team that has long pronounced itself in favor of draconian reprisals against teams that harbour dopers... it was obliged to withdraw based on its own damning attitude announced publically: that Astana should not stay in the Tour after Vino's 'positive'. Falling on its own sword, it nearly instantly announced its departure upon public disemination of this news.

Yet the pièce de resistance was the news-media-tornado that occurred when the Danish Cycling Federation announced, on July 19, 2007, that the current Maillot Jaune, Danish cyclist Michael Rasmussen, had missed at least two unannounced doping controls, which resulted in two warnings (ed: a third warning in an 18-month period would have incurred the equivalent of a confirmed doping test violation: a two-year suspension).

The furor around this incident was inflamed by the constant inuendo and rumour-mongering of L'Equipe and French TV. Added to it were other factors that appeared to augment these charges.

The case was built on a factoid, that the Union de Cyclisme International (UCI) had not received the mandatory quarterly submission of Rasmussen's actual whereabouts; he, as a professional racer, must offer the UCI accurate data concerning his location, so that these unannounced controls are not wild-geese chases, depleting the valuable financial resources of the UCI in their quest for clean sport.

Problem was that his claim of being in Mexico, and being only guilty because the Italian Post system had 'lost his mail', was countered by the submission of Italian reporter Davide Cassani of RAI, that he'd seen Rasmussen in Italy at the same time that the team Rabobank cyclist announced he'd been in Mexico, with his Mexican wife and her family. Further insinuations published by the L'Equipe, proferred evidence that a US-based Mtn Bike racer, accused Rasmussen of requesting his aid in bringing 'doping substances' into Europe in his luggage, under the guise that the box contained some new 'cycling shoes'.

A rumour and a case of lost mail, some leaked A Sample results (actually two: one (Vinokourov: blood transfusions) was the same 'modus operandi' that effectively ended Tyler Hamilton's career; second (Moreni: Testosterone) was the same as Floyd Landis), and ONE verified result (Sinkewitz' June tests based on A Sample, and B Confirmation results), were the nexus for all four to exit the Tour via la petite porte. Two of the known best (Vinokourov and Rasmussen), and Moreni, one of the domestiques (the worker bees of the peleton, who support team leaders, sprinters and climbers with various talents they may bring to a cycling team), while Sinkewitz was reaping the 'joy' from his hospital bed.

Now don't come down on ZENcentral, yet: all ZENmud people are against “doping” by pro athletes for temporary physical and professional advantage (in quotes because the term has expanded from substances (amphetimines, cocaine, etc) to include hormones, steroids, and “blood-packing” (transfusions from one's own stored blood or, from compatible human sources).

What the greater picture of MACRO-ZENism reveals, is that somehow, a very secret link exists, between the French Government, which oversees le Ministèrie de la Santé de la Jeunesse et des Sports (Ministry of Health, Youth and Sport: thus also the Agence Française de la Lutte contre le dopage (AFLD), which directs the LNDD), and Le Tour de France, via the leaking tandem of source provider and reporter (Marc Ressiot of L'Equipe). This exposed link via leaks has direct bearing on the Tour and its outcome.

Stand by, however, because the end of the Tour came about with the succession of Alberto Contador, a young Spanish star who was recently drafted into the Discovery Channel team, and who quickly became the next victim of French insinuendo. Given that this team, directed by Belgian Johan Bruyneel, has won eight of the last nine Tours de France, flames the questions that arose from Contador's association with Manual Saiz, who was forced out of cycling from the esteemed 'Operacion Puerto' case that has cast an evil light on a large number of cyclists and other sporting individuals.

A 2007 Tour, which began with the promulgation and signing of the newly-drafted UCI Charter, and the requisite pre-Tour testing for all 189 riders (all tested negative), ended with the second-best mountain rider (as long as we saw Rasmussen besting most of Contador's efforts, as and when needed) being awarded the prize. A 24-year old vanquished a decimated field of predicted leaders, some who 'fell by the wayside' by injury, others staggering under the race's demands, by imperfect training, improper mental focus or tactical errors.

And veritable bombs were lobbed between the ASO company and the UCI Federation, that will assuredly become the focus of these next two months of ZENtalk. ASO described UCI directors as 'incompetent, or bent to destroy the Tour', while UCI vented about its rôle and its desire NOT to be a (paraphrased) “Dick Pound toy for political use and gain”.

If we are to be assured of a future of cycling, my ZENfriends, and we are talking about the cleanest sport in all sports (3 of 189 of the Best cyclists in the world, my friends: find me 189 tennis players, NFL, NBA, MLB, soccer, track and field, or swimming stars, and we'll compare notes!), what has to happen is a fantastic ZEN experience.

An Epiphany, between those who cry “SCANDAL”, those who promote events, and those who promote the racers themselves: they share a Golden Egg that only they can break.

A Concord, the ZEN Cycling Concorde, if you will, that stipulates in any order you wish, that:

Racers will be clean, through force or voluntary methodologies to be determined, improved or repaced;

The WADA Codes and other Rules documents will be re-drafted to represent the better and best use of financial resources, to increase the burden of proof by laboratories of their honest efforts in following the mandatory and efficient ISO and WADA Standards at all times, with severe institutional and personal penalties accruing to the dangerous aspect of false, or negligent results and results-management, as is required.

The UCI will continue to apply the pressure necessary to change the culture of cycling, offering in its rôle, support to the redrafting of WADA Codes and Rules, and increased vigilance within the 'family' of cycling, the rather in-bred group of former cyclists that create the mechanics, the coaches, the medical and therapeutic staffs, the directors sportif, media announcers and cycling products sponsors or sales.

The UCI will re-consider its ProTOUR concept, and refine and revise with current membership how to insure licensing fees and Team promotions are to be objectively reformed and reviewed, in liaison with...

The major and minor event sponsors, from the ASO to the other Grand Tour directors, who all must continue to prepare in harmony with the UCI the proper means of promoting the sport and the races that define who The Best of The Rest may be, from tomorrow and the tomorrows to come.

Little time remains, and ZEN is going to publish here, and wherever else he can, the ideas that spring from an 'outside the box' mentality, or maybe...

An OUTSIDE THE PIE point-of-view.

Because even as the World of Cycling exists in its glory and history, cyclists earn nearly minimum wage, unless they are an Undestroyed Hero in a cycling world gone mad.


COURAGE ...

ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud *””*ç*”*”*””*ç

Teva Mountain Games post-script...

ZENfriends, ZENreaders, welcome...

News around the world for me is centered on the Floyd Landis case, as regular readers are aware. Floyd has been enjoying some high-altitude hospitality in my ex-home town of Vail, Colorado, site of the TEVA Mountain Games.

However, here in the French-speaking side of Switzerland, one of our two free local morning papers from a couple days back, published a photo showing a woman standing along the roadside above Vail, in support of Floyd. She held two signs, one in each hand.

The first? “FREE FLOYD”
The second? “F**K the FRENCH”

If only she had added the words 'LAB' or 'PRESS' to the second, she'd have earned megaZENpoints...

In the small paragraph accompanying the photo, one could read that Floyd 'certainly has the supporters that he merits'.

In this sense the Suisse Romand (francophone region of this country with four national languages) publication parrots (as well may be expected) the venomous and blind devotion of the francophone world to walk in lock-step with their sister publication L'EQUIPE.

Any long-term readers of this blog will remember that ZEN is not a fan of the French sporting journal, long an embarrassment to and of itself, for its almost-impressive ability to destroy athletes' careers by receiving leaked confidential information on nearly every doping case around the world.

So the post that precedes this one, is an 'open letter' to Le Matin Bleu, in French, castigating them for their blind devotion to the WRONG side of this earth-shaking story.

Floyd was 'chewing' up the hillsides of Colorado last weekend, placing eighth as a participant in the Teva Mountain Games, held in my old town of Vail, Colorado. The road course that they use was my all-time favorite hill-climb (outside of Flagstaff Mountain Road above Boulder); it was also the scene of my worst accident to date (drunk rental-car employee driving over 110km/h)...

NB: do your 'FIND' command for Landis or Floyd! The Mountain bike course I have no idea... :-)

Twas also the road homeward for several beautiful months.


SHIFTING GEARS

Visual candy, the Gore Range mountains impose a majestic horizon, the first flat, straight kilometers rocket the riders past the Vail Golf Course, winding upward slowly from the East Vail interchange on what was once US Highway 6.

In closing my eyes, I still recall the many times I would turn a corner, surprising deer in groups of three, or seven, startled by the hardly-silent beast that huffed up, or swiftly spun downward, passing their grazing yet attentive stares.

Floyd's results in the hill Climb (he was eighth and 2'58" behind Ned Overend, a high-altitude rider who OWNS this race since I lived there in the 80s and 90s) reveal the state of his physical recuperation from his potentially career-ending surgery.

Floyd, who may or may not merit the form of attention that is rivetted on him nearly every day, unlike other TdF winners, donated his winnings to cancer victims: another quality he shares with the previous TdF winner Lance Armstrong.

As always, seeking justice, thank you for reading.


COURAGE ... to ethical Sports fans around the world!

ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud *””*ç*”*”*””*ç