WADA blasts Dutch report

MONTREAL (Reuters) - The head of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) blasted
a report clearing seven-times Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong of
doping allegations as "bordering on farcical" on Friday.


Chairman Dick Pound said in a statement that WADA was considering legal
action after the investigation headed by lawyer Emile Vrijman and the Dutch
law firm Scholten accused the agency of behaving in ways "completely
inconsistent" with testing rules.

The independent investigation exonerated Armstrong of doping during the 1999
Tour, which he won, and determined the testing procedures at the French
national doping laboratory LNDD had been insufficient to label the
American's sample positive.

Vrijman also stated in the report that WADA and the LNDD had effectively
pronounced Armstrong guilty of a doping violation without sufficient basis.

Armstrong, who retired last July, has vehemently denied ever using
performance-enhancing drugs.

In a harshly worded statement, WADA said it completely rejected the
so-called "Vrijman report" and that its preliminary conclusion was that "the
report was defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as
the accredited laboratory involved."

The agency said it had taken legal advice regarding its recourses against
the investigator and any organization, including the International Cycling
Union (UCI), that may publicly adopt its conclusions.

"WADA is an independent agency, comprised of equal representatives from the
sports movement and the governments, which is concerned with the integrity
of sport and the health of the athletes who practice it," said Pound in a
statement.

"Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an objective
manner, whatever they may be.

"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it
borders on farcical.

"Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so
irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of
attention it deserves."

French sports daily L'Equipe reported last August that it had access to
laboratory documents and six of Armstrong's urine samples collected on the
1999 Tour showed "indisputable" traces of the blood-boosting drug
erythropoietin (EPO).

A formal test for EPO was first introduced at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

The UCI and WADA have waged a long-running feud over several doping issues.

WADA added more fuel to the fire on Friday, expressing its "astonishment
that the UCI would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the
objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report,
especially since UCI had had more than six weeks during which to review the
draft report and to correct the many factual errors contained in it."

The UCI were unavailable for immediate comment.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

tispectrum wrote:

"Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an objective
manner, whatever they may be.

Thanks. I needed a dose of humor today.

"tispectrum" wrote in message
...
MONTREAL (Reuters) - The head of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
blasted
a report clearing seven-times Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong of
doping allegations as "bordering on farcical" on Friday.


Chairman Dick Pound said in a statement that WADA was considering legal
action after the investigation headed by lawyer Emile Vrijman and the
Dutch
law firm Scholten accused the agency of behaving in ways "completely
inconsistent" with testing rules.

The independent investigation exonerated Armstrong of doping during the
1999
Tour, which he won, and determined the testing procedures at the French
national doping laboratory LNDD had been insufficient to label the
American's sample positive.

Vrijman also stated in the report that WADA and the LNDD had effectively
pronounced Armstrong guilty of a doping violation without sufficient
basis.

Armstrong, who retired last July, has vehemently denied ever using
performance-enhancing drugs.

In a harshly worded statement, WADA said it completely rejected the
so-called "Vrijman report" and that its preliminary conclusion was that
"the
report was defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well
as
the accredited laboratory involved."

The agency said it had taken legal advice regarding its recourses against
the investigator and any organization, including the International Cycling
Union (UCI), that may publicly adopt its conclusions.

"WADA is an independent agency, comprised of equal representatives from
the
sports movement and the governments, which is concerned with the integrity
of sport and the health of the athletes who practice it," said Pound in a
statement.

"Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an
objective
manner, whatever they may be.

"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that
it
borders on farcical.

"Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so
irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of
attention it deserves."

French sports daily L'Equipe reported last August that it had access to
laboratory documents and six of Armstrong's urine samples collected on the
1999 Tour showed "indisputable" traces of the blood-boosting drug
erythropoietin (EPO).

A formal test for EPO was first introduced at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

The UCI and WADA have waged a long-running feud over several doping
issues.

WADA added more fuel to the fire on Friday, expressing its "astonishment
that the UCI would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the
objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report,
especially since UCI had had more than six weeks during which to review
the
draft report and to correct the many factual errors contained in it."

The UCI were unavailable for immediate comment.

Text of the WADA Press Release:

WADA Completely Rejects Vrijman Report

Date: June 2, 2006


The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) today completely rejected the so-called
"Vrijman report" submitted to the International Cycling Union (UCI) in
relation to the publication appearing in L'Équipe in August 2005 that
concluded Lance Armstrong had used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.

WADA expressed its astonishment that the UCI would expect anyone to have the
slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or
conclusions of such a report, especially since UCI had had more than six
weeks during which to review the draft report and to correct the many
factual errors contained in it.

WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the
Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory
involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the
investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt
its conclusions.

"WADA is an independent agency, comprised of equal representatives from the
sports movement and the governments, which is concerned with the integrity
of sport and the health of the athletes who practice it," said WADA's
Chairman Richard W. Pound. "Our only interest in this matter is to determine
the facts in an objective manner, whatever they may be. The Vrijman report
is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on
farcical. Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so
irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of
attention it deserves."








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Allez1, Esq. wrote:
Text of the WADA Press Release: ...

WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the
Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory
involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the
investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt
its conclusions.

Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing
discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction
where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD
refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process.
For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of
exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against
Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.

I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly
adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean?
Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations,
WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the
report" trigger a lawsuit?

There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.

"Tim Lines" wrote in message
. ..
tispectrum wrote:

"Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an
objective
manner, whatever they may be.

Thanks. I needed a dose of humor today.

Just need to ask Stephen Swart, he knows.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Allez1, Esq. wrote:
Text of the WADA Press Release: ...

WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the
Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory
involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the
investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt
its conclusions.

Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing
discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction
where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD
refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process.
For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of
exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against
Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.

I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly
adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean?
Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations,
WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the
report" trigger a lawsuit?

There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.


Is Tommy Eunuch going to testify as an expert witness for the UCI and
Vrijman? :-)

Tim Lines wrote:
tispectrum wrote:

"Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an objective
manner, whatever they may be.

Thanks. I needed a dose of humor today.

What else was he going to say? Nixon wasn't a crook, Bush didn't cook
the intel, and Pound runs an objective, fair organization that is
scrupulously ethical and committed to proper procedure.
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tim Lines wrote:
tispectrum wrote:

"Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an
objective
manner, whatever they may be.

Thanks. I needed a dose of humor today.

What else was he going to say? Nixon wasn't a crook, Bush didn't cook
the intel, and Pound runs an objective, fair organization that is
scrupulously ethical and committed to proper procedure.
Bill C


And Dick Pound killed JFK.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bill C wrote:
Tim Lines wrote:

tispectrum wrote:


"Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an objective
manner, whatever they may be.

Thanks. I needed a dose of humor today.


What else was he going to say? Nixon wasn't a crook, Bush didn't cook
the intel, and Pound runs an objective, fair organization that is
scrupulously ethical and committed to proper procedure.
Bill C


Tyler was CLEAN, I tell you!

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...
Allez1, Esq. wrote:
Text of the WADA Press Release: ...

WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the
Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory
involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against
the
investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly
adopt
its conclusions.

Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing
discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction
where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD
refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process.
For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of
exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against
Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.

I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly
adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean?
Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations,
WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the
report" trigger a lawsuit?

There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.


Is Tommy Eunuch going to testify as an expert witness for the UCI and
Vrijman? :-)

Not sure, but I am sure Karl Rove and Dick Cheney will testify for Dick
Pound. All three seem to have equally impeccable integrity.