The 'official statement from WADA on the Vrijman report': unintentional proof to the contrary?

• Author: Vrijman, Emile

1. Introduction

   1.1 It is surely nothing less than remarkable that there has, to date particularly in view of the media attention which the matter of the alleged use by American cyclist Lance Armstrong of prohibited substances itself received at the time--been little or no substantive response to, let alone criticism of, the findings of what has become known as the "independent investigation of all facts and circumstances regarding the analyses of the urine samples of the 1999 Tour de France conducted by the French WADA-accredited laboratory, the 'Laboratoire Nationale de Depistage du Dopage' (hereinafter: the 'LNDD') in Chatenay--Malabry, France", as reported in "the Vrijman report" (1). In spite of the very strong criticism expressed in this report regarding (the quality of) the research it conducted and its subsequent behaviour in this matter, the LNDD has, to this day, not responded to any of the findings of the investigation, while the French newspaper 'L'Equipe'--responsible for publishing the relevant article in which Lance Armstrong was accused of using the prohibited substance "recombinant erythropoetin" ("r-EPO") during the 1999 Tour de France (2)--merely stated in an editorial that it continued to support fully the findings of its own investigation.

   "There is nothing to retract from the revelations. [...]. For our part, we remain convinced of the need to battle without compromise against mafialike tendencies that still and always threaten the sport of cycling. Both in the method and the substance, L'Equipe stands firm." (3)

   1.2 Procedural aspects

   Where there has been criticism in respect of the investigation that has been conducted, it usually related to the procedural aspects of that investigation. The premature publication of the most important findings of the investigation in the Netherlands newspaper "de Volkskrant" on May 31, 2006, in particular appears to have been the cause of this (4). For some, also my reputation as being pro-athlete--earned because of the role I allegedly played according to some in the doping affair involving the German athletes Katrin Krabbe, Grit Breuer and Silke Moller--as well as my being acquainted with Mr. Hein Verbruggen, the current Vice-President of the "Union Cycliste Internationale" ("UCI"), the International Cycling Federation, did already provide sufficient reason to criticise (the results of) the investigation that had been conducted, in particular as far as its "independence" and "impartiality" were concerned (5).

   1.3 WADA's response

   Apart from Lance Armstrong (6) and the UCI (7), the only other party directly involved in this matter that did respond to (the substance of) the findings contained in the "Vrijman report" has been the "World Anti--Doping Agency" ("WADA").

   In its initial response on May 31, 2006, WADA carefully re-iterated its position that, as far as this investigation was concerned,:

   "an investigation into the matter must consider all aspects--not limited to how the damaging information regarding the athletes' urine samples became public, but also addressing the question whether anti-doping rules were violated by athletes" (8) and that:

   "WADA will respond in due course once it has fully examined the report" (9).

   However, on 2 June 2006, barely two days later and almost three weeks before the results of WADA's examination of the Vrijman report were published, WADA Presient Richard Pound, already concluded in an interview with the press agency "Agence France--Presse" ("AFP") that the investigation report was full of holes. "They put as facts things that are suppositions, suspicions and possibilities", said Pound (10). He also announced that WADA rejected the "Vrijman report" and "will consider legal action against Vrijman and any organizations including the UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions" (11). On 19 June 2006, WADA eventually published its so-called "Official Statement From WADA On The Vrijman Report" (hereinafter: "the Statement"), "highlighting a number of unprofessional, inaccurate, unfair and misleading elements of the [Vrijman] report" (12).

   1.4 Purpose of this article

   Based on a general analysis of (the content of) the Statement itself, this article will examine in detail WADA's criticism regrading (the conduct of) the investigation in general and, more specifically, its results, in particular as far as the assessment of (the extent and nature of WADA's involvement in this matter and the legitimacy of that involvement are concerned. Furthermore, this article will show why both the manner of WADA's response, as well as the arguments it has put forward in the Statement, appear to confirm--it must be assumed unintentionally--rather then deny the investigation's findings and assessment of WADA's involvement in this matter.

   Finally, this article will consider whether, and to what extent, the investigation's findings regarding WADA might, at the same time, provide a possible explanation for the absence of any response or reaction, let alone action, by the "International Olympic Committee" ("IOC"), "International Sports Federations" ("IFs") and national governments. Given the fact, however, that almost one year has passed since the "Vrijman report" was first published, I will begin by briefly summarising the principal facts and events which prompted the ("UCI"), the coordinating International Federation responsible for the sport of cycling, at the time to commission the independent investigation concerned, before proceeding to consider the main findings of the investigation in this matter as contained in the "Vrijman report".

2. The reason for an investigation

   2.1 An article in a newspaper

   On 23 August 2005, the French (sports) newspaper, L'Equipe, published an article headlined "The Armstrong lie" written by the French journalist Damien Ressiot (13). In this article, Ressiot accused the American cyclist and seven times-winner of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong, of having used the prohibited substance r-EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. According to Ressiot, six of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly tested positive for r-EPO when analysed by the LNDD as part of ongoing research to further improve the existing detection method for r-EPO. In addition, Ressiot alleged that six urine samples, from six other riders, had also tested positive for r-EPO (14).

   Ressiot was able to make this accusation against Armstrong because he not only was aware of the contents of the relevant research report of the LNDD, but also had in his possession copies of all doping control forms relating to the urine samples collected from Lance Armstrong during the 1999 Tour de France. According to WADA, Ressiot had, at his own request, obtained the copies of these forms from the UCI itself (15). These copies revealed the original code numbers present on the glass bottles that had been used during the 1999 Tour de France to collect and store the relevant urine samples for each separate doping control that had been carried out at the time on Lance Armstrong. As the LNDD had, at the express and repeated request of WADA, in addition to the analytical findings for each urine sample, also specified in its research report for each of these urine samples--as "additional information" (16)--the aforementioned original code numbers, it was simple for Ressiot to establish--by comparing the code numbers appearing on the aforementioned doping control forms with the code numbers reported as such in the LNDD's research report which of these urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France had been obtained from Lance Armstrong and what the result of the LNDD's analysis that been (17).

   Ressiot's article triggered a storm of (widely varying) responses in the international sports world. While Lance Armstrong, in his initial response, expressly denied ever having used any Prohibited Substance and questioned the manner in which the LNDD apparently had conducted the analyses of these urine urine samples, Tour de France director Jean--Marie Leblanc, by contrast, stated in an interview with L'Equipe that, as far as he was concerned, it was a "proven scientific fact" that Armstrong had used a banned substance during the 1999 Tour de France (18). WADA chairman Richard Pound also considered that "doping" was likely to have been used (19), while Professor de Ceaurriz, director of the LNDD, in an interview with the Netherlands newspaper "De Volkskrant" expressed having no doubt whatsoever as far as the results of his laboratory's analyses were concerned (20).

   Within days, heated debates were conducted in the media regarding the credibility of the article in question, as well as the nature, the reliability and--above all--the purpose of the analyses conducted by the LNDD (21). All sports organisations and anti-doping bodies, both national and international, that had become involved in this affair in one way or another quickly agreed therefore, in the face of the public commotion that had arisen, on the necessity of conducting an investigation in this matter. The same could not be said, however, or at least to a far lesser degree, with regard to the objective(s) of such an investigation.

   2.2 An investigation?

   WADA and the UCI in particular strongly disagreed with one another regarding the objectives of the investigation. According to WADA, the only aspect of this matter the UCI was really interested in to investigate was the question of how confidential information in this matter could have been disclosed. WADA however, took the position that such an investigation should be concerned with all aspects of the matter--including such questions as to whether the LNDD's research findings in this matter were correct, if the riders concerned had in fact committed an "anti-doping rule violation" as well as the extent of the use of r-EPO, during both the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France, including the identification of those riders implicated in the use of...