mr. Saugy, you have said a year ago to the nzz, there was in the tour de suisse 2001, no positive epo sample. Now it is claimed in the u.s., they had wiped out that tour suspicious samples of lance armstrong at the table. This could have been positive. Were there any type of suspicious results?
There were. If i remember correctly, there were four samples. They were taken at various stages, so i do not know if they dealt with four different drivers and all came from an athlete. The tests have not been swept under the table, and it is also not true that the results would be positive can be interpreted. They were suspicious, and with this argument but you have no chance in court.
Display:
Why put then ever suspected?
I have to explain that from the time out. 2001 was the year in which the epo test was introduced properly. Although they had worked at the summer games in sydney in 2000 with it, but there were still problems. The paris laboratory in châtenay-malabry formulated then, could be discussed under the criteria of positivity. It was: If 80 percent were found for the typical signs of synthetic epo, was an athlete positive. Then there were the first cases very quickly, especially bo hamburger and roland meier.
And what was regarded as suspicious?
If between 70 and 80 percent of the epo-typical bands were found. This meant that a fairly high probability existed for doping. But just because a picture can also be caused by natural causes, it was necessary to exclude so-called false-positive cases. We informed the relevant association then the abnormality.
Who knew, who involved the suspicious samples?
Only the association, in this case, the charge of the uci cycling. In our laboratory, the samples were provided as usual with codes. We could and could not know who they were assigned. Until the early summer of 2002, we knew absolutely nothing, to who it is. Then there was some evidence that lance armstrong might be affected.
The uci has been accused time and again they kept prominent riders. What role do they play?
She was in terms of epo test above all, a pioneer. The method was first introduced at the request of the association in cycling, later, the athletics. Around the turn of epo was widespread, it was a serious problem for the sport. Without the financial resources of the uci, we would not have the method to implement.
And then hamburgers and meier went into the net. How important were these two cases?
They were regarded as a breakthrough, but it also sparked debate among scientists. In early summer 2001, shortly before the tour de suisse, counter-reports were submitted. In specialist circles, many critical questions were asked, because the test was entirely new.
Hamburg in 2002 acquitted by the court of arbitration for sport tas.
That was a defining moment. The sample of the danes was just 80 percent, and in the course of the proceedings said the paris laboratory that it was safer to formulate a limit of 85 percent. They wanted to rule out a miscarriage of justice altogether. Hamburger did come away without penalty. Later, however, he admitted that he had used epo.
If the acquittal of the discussions about the test was fueled?
The test was considered reliable, but the issue of suspect samples was still current. I am therefore in 2002 occurred on several occasions as a scientific expert and the epo test had stated, inter alia, before the italian sports doctors, and before the u.s. Anti-doping authority. In this connection, the uci came up to me and said i should also explain the direction of armstrong's u.s. Postal team of the method. They want to know what this means, if i draw attention to suspicious samples. Shortly before i had heard it in connection with the samples from 2001 were suspicions about armstrong.
It came to you the alleged conversation with lance armstrong and johan bruyneel, the sports director of u.s. Postal?
Yes, the two were at the information there. But this was not as alleged in the laboratory in lausanne, but during one of our trips to collect blood samples. And it was also not about to discuss a specific result or even something to sweep under the table. I explained how the epo test and why are there besides the positive and suspicious results. The latter was an implicit part of the talk i gave at various places.
How did you come out to explain the method in a cycling team?
During the negotiations in the case of hamburg, a judge had told the court of arbitration for sport cas, it can not be that a test for the athletes representing a black box. They had a right to know on how the methods work for you. In that time the climate of uncertainty was understandable. I did so because i was convinced by the epo test and wanted to counter the criticism.
Lance armstrong to his former teammates floyd landis and tyler hamilton have said it was the trial been told that he could adapt.
That was never ever the case. It is absurd to ask me something.
How are you today to the fact that results were then officially called suspicious?
The caution in the interpretation of the results was justified. We learned in the years 2002 and 2003 that the urine can change benefits or by improper storage so that even tests with more than 80 percent of typical bands of epo may be false positive. But what the term "suspect" relates: We were not then aware of how sensitive it is legal to formulate suspicions. That would be unthinkable today.
Can you judge the current knowledge about whether the cases of the tour de suisse in 2001 were positive?
The epo detection has since been refined and highly specified. The urine of 2001 could theoretically result in positive cases, but in retrospect this is not to judge. And the urine does not exist anymore.
What if the four samples were from a single driver, for example, often controlled by the tour de suisse winner armstrong?
That would be more of an indication that the urine was not positive. This may sound strange, but when four times in four independent samples produced the same abnormal image that speaks for a natural, physical cause. For it is not possible to achieve with doping to four times the exact same test result, even if one tries to heranzudopen the limits of the test. But i think not that the four samples came from an athlete, this is more a theoretical possibility.
You talk about that one approaches dopes on a test. Precisely for this reason, the question arises whether it primarily helps the fraudsters when they declared a detection method in detail.
This is indeed a big problem in the fight against doping. We must be absolutely transparent and our methods also detailed scientific publishing. We know that these publications can be used to make us work even harder. Similarly, if we have to disclose to all proceedings before the cas to the last detail. We give the scammers every time a little more information. But so does the right: We are the plaintiff and must be transparent to the defense.
This was especially in the cases of hamilton and landis case. What do you say to that now take just these two former professional cyclists confessions and accusations formulated against you?
This is very special. In both cases, all resources were used to prove the alleged innocence of the athletes. The effort of the defense was huge, and our laboratory had to invest heavily to defend the test results. At the time i first saw what may be set for a machinery in motion in order to overturn a result that is unique to us. We won both times. And a few years later, then give all the athletes to look and with new allegations of publicity. The whole story has a bitter irony that is difficult to accept for me.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram