Vrijman revisited

[sniper]

I'm not sure how much you guys have already chewed on the vrijman report in the past.
But I thought having a second look at vrijman's report might be interesting, now with new details surfacing about to surface regarding the marriage between Lance and UCI.

Will Vrijman's name (or better, the report) resurface in the USADA-Armstrong case? I assume the 1999 EPO positives are among the hardest proof they have against LA.

I'm not sure how much the UCI paid Vrijman, but it must have been enough for him not to worry too much about his future as a scientist.

Could Lance's 2005 payment to the UCI have been related to the Vrijman report rather than to the 2001 TdSwiss positive?

Also, Vrijman was assigned by Pat, not by Druggen. So did Pat really inherit all Verdruggen's debts towards, and committments with, LA? Looks like it.

 

[KingsMountain]

The Vrijman report

I haven't read the report in the last couple of years, but when I did read it and the WADA response, I was very surprised to conclude that Vrijman had been factually correct, while WADA's response was not.

The important thing to notice is that Vrijman discussed whether the tests could be used to sanction Armstrong according to rule. He steered completely clear of discussing whether Armstrong doped. Of course, lots of people erroneously felt that the Vrijman report "cleared" Armstrong. That's like saying the the baseball player Ryan Braun was cleared by the arbitrator when he found (also erroneously) that the sample handling had been improper.

I suppose that WADA felt compelled to reply to the report to counter the impression that Armstrong was cleared by the report.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Haven't read it for a couple of years either, but I agree that it is factual and looks at whether the findings are sanctionable or not. However, there was some commentary in the report, especially in the closing remarks. This comentary put considerable Lance friendly spin on the report, generally by posing unanswered questions that cast the Lab's actions into the worst possible light.

Vrijmans conclusion was the results were non sanctionable. But what he said to the press afterwards was that the report "entirely exonerates Lance". Vrijman was biased, he proved it with that statement alone IMO.

 

[ElChingon]

Anyone know the date of this report? Saw some 2006 references but no date of print.

 

[sniper]

True, the Vrijman report doesn't explicitly clear Armstrong, but just points out procedural errors.
It says stuff like this:

the conduct and statements of WADA and its President, the LNDD and its Director,
have effectively asserted that Lance Armstrong committed an anti-doping rule
violation when they all knew or should have known that there was no evidentiary
basis for such an assertion and that the current rules and regulations would not
afford Lance Armstrong the opportunity to respond to these assertions by means of
a fair hearing.

This UCI link offers the Vrijman Report in full, as well as excerpts:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NjA2OQ&Menuld=MTI2Mjc

another link (below) offers three downloadable documents:
1. WADA's Official Statement on (i.e. reply to) the Vrijman Report
2. Vrijman's response to WADA's Official Statement in the shape of a journal-article (the document is called "Vrijman Report" on the website, but it's not the original report)
3. Olivier Niggli (Director, Legal Affairs of WADA)'s response to Vrijman's journal article
http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=11&level1=13914&level2=13931&level3=&textid=36035

WADA's Official Statement is an interesting read and clearly shows they were ****ed off:

In most jurisdictions around the world, this blatant demonstration of bias and lack of proper and professional process is seen as a breach of natural justice. This breach of natural justice is further exacerbated by Mr. Vrijman’s allegations that WADA refused to participate in the inquiry.

This is from the Vrijman Report:

Had the LNDD conducted its testing in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and reported its findings accordingly, any discussion about the alleged use of a prohibited substance by Lance Armstrong would not have taken place.

to which WADA responded as follows (in the Official Statement):

The process used by the French Laboratory in conducting its research was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of sanctions. Mr. Vrijman, at all times, confuses this fundamental difference and seems to indicate that, in conducting research, the laboratory was required to carry it out in the same manner as for analysing samples for adverse analytical findings. This is not the case, and Mr. Vrijman, in directing himself to the rules relating to samples collected for analysis rather than understanding the difference for research, has totally misdirected himself in his inquiry. This very basic error leads to ill-informed and incorrect outcomes. The laboratory has indicated publicly that it has no doubt whatsoever in the results of its analysis, and that no sample used for the research project was
contaminated, manipulated or interfered with. There may be appropriately
stored residue still available for DNA and other further analysis.

etc.

So Emile Vrijman then responds to the WADA Official Report in an official journal article, blaming WADA of spinning and bending it.
WADA's response to that article is the following:

WADA has read the above-mentioned article and is deeply troubled that a journal of the International Sports Law Journal’s standing could publish such an obviously self-serving document, in which the author of a supposedly independent report that was fatally flawed in all respects - methodological, legal and factual - makes an inherently biased attempt to justify and critique his own report.
WADA commented publicly on the so-called Vrijman Report one year ago, upon its release. That statement, which was published on WADA's website, is attached to this letter. Vrijman claims in his self-serving article that “WADA reserves no more than four pages for its criticism” of his investigation. To be accurate, WADA's official statement includes twelve pages of detailed criticism. Although Vrijman's completely unprofessional report arguably did not deserve such attention due to its lack of impartiality, independence, and total disrespect of proper legal process, WADA felt it was necessary to correct the record.
We are concerned that your journal has allowed itself to be manipulated by affording Vrijman an apparently credible platform to defend his exceptionally unprofessional work.
WADA respectfully requests that you publish this response.

 

[sniper]

Anyone know the date of this report? Saw some 2006 references but no date of print.

there is no date not even on the report itself.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Anyone know the date of this report? Saw some 2006 references but no date of print.

It appears to have been leaked/released the end of May or first of June 2006.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/first-edition-cycling-news-for-june-1-2006


Susan

 

[ElChingon]

there is no date not even on the report itself.

It appears to have been leaked/released the end of May or first of June 2006.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/first-edition-cycling-news-for-june-1-2006


Susan

Seems odd for a lawyers report to have no date, no case or reference/record number on it.

Then at the end:

Emile N. Vrijman MCL
Scholten c.s. Advocaten ©
The Hague

All rights reserved.
This report is protected by international copyright law.
No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in retrieval, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the author(s).

Did they even ever authorize it to be out in that form? Can't say its useful if so (not allowed).