D-Queued said:
Why is that at odds with how Tyler was treated?
Tyler's interaction was with the UCI. The UCI did not even sign on to the Code until much later in 2004 (after the Tour, just before the Olympics).
Howman is talking about WADA practices, not UCI practices.
In the passage I quoted, yes. When Howman was interviewed by 60 minutes, though, he was asked specifically about the allegation in 2001. He did not say, "We at WADA would not do this, but UCI might". He simply said this would be a unique case in all of sports, and that this should never happen. He was either clearly saying that a meeting with UCI should not have happened, or 60 m was misrepresenting him, in which case he should have been at pains to point that out to the press after the show aired. My very strong impression from watching him was that he was indeed saying that this meeting should not have happened, regardless of whether it was the UCI or anyone else. I frankly don't know how he could have made that point any more clearly.
And given that he feels that way, he should feel equally strongly about the Tyler situation in 2004. Indeed, he never should have said to 60 m that if the alleged incident occurred in 2001 it would be unique in sports history, because the Tyler incident clearly indicates that notifying riders of suspicious samples is not unique. It does happen.
So I find Howman confusing, and saying things not in accord with the facts. Furthermore, while his more recent statement, quoted above, does not specifically say that WADA itself would notify a rider about a suspicious sample, it's really a moot point, because as WADA currently operates, there are no suspicious samples. A doping test is either positive or negative. Passport values can be suspicious, but that system is run by the UCI. And again, riders may be notified if their passport is suspicious, and again, I don't hear Howman pointing that out, which is also in contradiction to his claim that such notification would be unique in sports history.
Howman, I think, is confusing things by not clearly distinguishing between established tests, which are either positive or negative, with a rider only being notified if it's positive, and programs like the passport, which can have suspicious or borderline values, and which can result in rider notification. The EPO test today is clearly in the former category, but it may not have been in 2001.
If it was in the former category, an either-or proposition, then there should be no thing as a suspicious value, and yes, this might be a unique incident. I think this is what Howman was referring to on 60 m. But in that case, he should not have made his more recent statement about suspicious tests, because that clearly refers to the second category. When a rider takes an EPO test today, it is either positive or negative. It is not suspicious in the sense that the tester does not make a firm conclusion, but instead asks the rider to come in for further testing. That only happens with programs like the passport, which are not clearly either-or. So merely by making a statement referring to "suspicious" values, Howman is not only contradicting himself, but referring to scenarios that don't and can't occur in the current WADA system. IOW, Dave, Howman himself is blurring the distinction between WADA and UCI, keeping in mind that passport samples are sometimes processed at WADA labs.
Following the logic LA (and we can assume JB) would have been aware of the suspicious test when they met Saugy who did not know.
If this were the scenario then there is no contradiction between Saugy's and Howman's statements.
Yes, but if Saugy didn't know, and had reason to believe, from 60 m, that his predecessor did know, why did he make his statement to the press? If there is no contradiction among any of the statements, then Saugy should have realized that though he didn't know the identity of the suspicious samples, Rivier would have known. Even if Saugy chose not to believe or at least to question the 60 m story, he would have understood that it was possible that Rivier, who outranked him at that time, knew things that he didn't know. So again, why speak up? His statement strongly implied that he was speaking for the entire lab, IOW, that no one in the lab knew the identity of those samples.
He could have said nothing. If asked to comment by the press, he could have pointed out he was not the lab chief then, that they should ask Rivier. If they still insisted he make a statement, he could have said, I didn't know the identity of these samples, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't know. The same with the meeting set up by the UCI. Yet he jumps into the fire. If his statement didn't have "I speak for the entire lab when I say this" written all over it, it sure fooled me.
I find Saugy's statements very puzzling. Some in this forum might like to think Saugy is covering up, protecting LA. The problem with that view is that since he wasn't the head of the lab at the time, he can't be sure that Rivier didn't know the identity of the samples. If Rivier did know--and 60 m certainly seems to think he did know--then Saugy is contradicting Rivier by implying to the world that no one at the lab knew. I can't see Saugy saying what he said unless he was very sure no one at the lab could have known the identity of those samples.
At the very least, he should have asked Rivier following 60 m. Maybe Rivier refused to comment. But if he did, that would be all the more reason for Saugy to refuse comment, too.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram