- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
The USADA letter claims that Armstrong’s blood values from 2009/10 are consistent with manipulation. This raises an obvious question: if they are so suspicious, why wasn’t he sanctioned, or at least flagged, before?
The first thing to note is that during the period of LA’s comeback UCI was in charge of the passport program. While measurements of blood parameters were often carried out in WADA-accredited laboratories, WADA ordinarily was not itself given access to these data. And this resulted in some friction between the two bodies. In August of 2010, the WSJ reported that while the passport system had flagged eight riders and begun proceedings against three of them, the UCI had not taken any action on the remaining five. WADA reacted sharply to this news:
Ten days later, however, UCI issued a press release saying that the correct number of flagged riders was six, not eight, and that one of the remaining three had already been suspended as a result of a positive test (presumably for EPO), while they were still pursuing the other two cases. It also took pains to smooth over or minimize its differences with WADA, saying that the anti-doping organization had
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-still-investigating-two-passport-cases
The correction of eight riders under review to six is interesting. I find it hard to believe the WSJ originally misheard the UCI official. One wonders if initially UCI did find eight riders suspicious, but later dropped two of them.
In any case, since that time, I believe a total of five riders have been sanctioned solely on the basis of passport abnormalities. They include Franco Pellizotti and Tadej Valdavec, who were two of the three named in the WSJ story, along with Pietro Caucchioli, Igor Astarloa, and Francisco DeBonis. The third rider mentioned in the WSJ story, Jesus Rosendo, AFAIK, escaped sanction. In addition to these five riders sanctioned solely for passport violations, at least three others--Antonio Colom, Thomas Dekker and Ricardo Serrano—tested positive for EPO, subsequent to being targeted by passport abnormalities. IOW, their blood values alone were not sufficient to sanction them, but were sufficient to justify a closer look, retesting stored samples in some cases, and this turned up positive tests that became the basis of their sanctions. This is important, because it means that values that do not trigger the criteria for a sanction may still form part of a case against a rider.
Beginning in January of this year, the passport program has been managed by Lausanne Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU). WADA recommended this, and I believe they now have full, or at least easier, access to all passport data. including LA’s samples. This would explain why only now are they claiming abnormalities in these parameters, though it does not explain, as I noted earlier, why UCI did not.
A key figure in any hearing that might take place is likely to be Michael Ashenden. He has been closely associated with the passport program since it began in 2008, but he resigned a few months ago, because he was unwilling to sign a clause that prevented him from speaking out about it. At Contador’s CAS hearing, he claimed he had data that was consistent with blood transfusions, but was prevented from presenting all of it. AFAIK, he has been silent about the USADA claims that Armstrong’s data are also consistent with manipulation. I find this very interesting. He is obviously aware of the charge. He did speak out specifically about another charge mentioned in the USADA letter, the alleged EPO positive in 2001 that might have been covered up. I think his analysis must be the one USADA is basing their claim of manipulation on, and that he will be testifying at the hearing, assuming there is one.
The first thing to note is that during the period of LA’s comeback UCI was in charge of the passport program. While measurements of blood parameters were often carried out in WADA-accredited laboratories, WADA ordinarily was not itself given access to these data. And this resulted in some friction between the two bodies. In August of 2010, the WSJ reported that while the passport system had flagged eight riders and begun proceedings against three of them, the UCI had not taken any action on the remaining five. WADA reacted sharply to this news:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-voices-concerns-on-uci-biological-passport
Ten days later, however, UCI issued a press release saying that the correct number of flagged riders was six, not eight, and that one of the remaining three had already been suspended as a result of a positive test (presumably for EPO), while they were still pursuing the other two cases. It also took pains to smooth over or minimize its differences with WADA, saying that the anti-doping organization had
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-still-investigating-two-passport-cases
The correction of eight riders under review to six is interesting. I find it hard to believe the WSJ originally misheard the UCI official. One wonders if initially UCI did find eight riders suspicious, but later dropped two of them.
In any case, since that time, I believe a total of five riders have been sanctioned solely on the basis of passport abnormalities. They include Franco Pellizotti and Tadej Valdavec, who were two of the three named in the WSJ story, along with Pietro Caucchioli, Igor Astarloa, and Francisco DeBonis. The third rider mentioned in the WSJ story, Jesus Rosendo, AFAIK, escaped sanction. In addition to these five riders sanctioned solely for passport violations, at least three others--Antonio Colom, Thomas Dekker and Ricardo Serrano—tested positive for EPO, subsequent to being targeted by passport abnormalities. IOW, their blood values alone were not sufficient to sanction them, but were sufficient to justify a closer look, retesting stored samples in some cases, and this turned up positive tests that became the basis of their sanctions. This is important, because it means that values that do not trigger the criteria for a sanction may still form part of a case against a rider.
Beginning in January of this year, the passport program has been managed by Lausanne Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU). WADA recommended this, and I believe they now have full, or at least easier, access to all passport data. including LA’s samples. This would explain why only now are they claiming abnormalities in these parameters, though it does not explain, as I noted earlier, why UCI did not.
A key figure in any hearing that might take place is likely to be Michael Ashenden. He has been closely associated with the passport program since it began in 2008, but he resigned a few months ago, because he was unwilling to sign a clause that prevented him from speaking out about it. At Contador’s CAS hearing, he claimed he had data that was consistent with blood transfusions, but was prevented from presenting all of it. AFAIK, he has been silent about the USADA claims that Armstrong’s data are also consistent with manipulation. I find this very interesting. He is obviously aware of the charge. He did speak out specifically about another charge mentioned in the USADA letter, the alleged EPO positive in 2001 that might have been covered up. I think his analysis must be the one USADA is basing their claim of manipulation on, and that he will be testifying at the hearing, assuming there is one.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram