Let’s deconstruct this letter:
1) “there was no positive test”
60 m didn’t say there was. They said “That letter reveals that the lab found the initial test of a urine sample "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use." Tyler said it was a positive test, but 60m was just reporting what TH said LA told him.
2) “there was no secret meeting at the Swiss lab during the TdS”
60m never said there was. They said “We have also learned that the lab director met with Johan Bruyneel, the U.S. Postal Service team's manager, and Armstrong…the meeting with Bruyneel and Armstrong was arranged by the International Cycling Union itself.” Saugy confirmed that his meeting was arranged by the UCI. TH said it was at the lab, but again, 60 m was just reporting what Tyler said LA told him. Since LA can’t seem to recall the meeting, he can’t contradict him.
3) “there was no coverup of any test result”
60m didn’t say there was. They said “the lab director told the FBI that a representative of the International Cycling Union wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further.” Maybe Rivier said that to the FBI, or maybe even Saugy did. Saying that you don’t want a suspicious result to go further is not the same as covering up. If someone pointed out that it was in the 70-80% range, and that >80% was needed for a positive, they might well conclude that they didn’t want the matter of this test to go any further.
I think Peters may be half wrong and half right here. He is wrong in accusing 60m of being “false” or “incorrect”, particularly by accusing them of the “assertion” that LA tested positive. The word positive was never used in this story, except in Tyler's words, and in fact, 60m never even said that the suspicious samples, described in the letter, belonged to LA. Everything that 60 m sourced has been basically confirmed by Saugy. All the points of difference--the location of the meeting, the claim that the sample was positive, that it was dismissed--are from Tyler.
OTOH, 60 m did present it in a way that implicated LA. The clear implication was that a) the samples were positive; b) they belonged to LA; c) UCI met with LA and JB to discuss these samples; and d) UCI arranged to have the positives dismissed. I think most people who watched the broadcast came away with these conclusions (even people who questioned the truth of these conclusions weren’t questioning that this is what 60 m was saying). Yet nothing 60 m (Pelley) said actually demands any of these conclusions. They are mostly implied by Tyler's story of LA saying a positive had been taken care of. The hard facts that 60m reported, from other sources, only suggest these conclusions when juxtaposed with Tyler's statements.
It seems to me that the key figure here, then, is Tyler. Tyler is the one saying it was positive, and that it was taken care of. Tyler's testimony seems very much at odds with Saugy's. Some here have suggested LA may have just been exaggerating, pretending he had a lot more control of samples than he did. But the fact that both TH and FL said the same thing about TdS suggests this remark of LA's was connected to some suspicious samples.
Sorry, everyone, for the long-winded verbosity.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram