in the news lately..... Lance Armstrong might not be allowed to ride in the tour de Fance because he left the sight of a French tester for 30 minutes after being told by the tester that he could. I am a US citz, and Mary is a French citz. As a Frenchy Mary feels the need to defend all things French (her mother included) and I like to opose her on this for the sake of argument. however I feel that the stupid French testers don't have an ethical leg to stand on for this one... here is our emails back and fro.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM, the Frenchy wrote:
> Here is an article to let you know that it's not always the bad of the
> French:
>
> Pound: Armstrong was wrong
>
> By Shane Stokes
>
> Richard Pound weighs in on Armstrong
> Photo ©: AFP
>
> Former World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Chairman Richard Pound has given his
> opinion on the Lance Armstrong - AFLD situation, saying that the American is
> aware of the rules and that he was wrong to disappear from the tester's
> sight for a period of time.
>
> "I think it is pretty clear. If you are selected for testing, you have to be
> chaperoned from the time you are notified until the time you provide the
> sample," he told Cyclingnews in recent days. "Lance, who calls himself the
> world's most tested athlete, certainly knows that. Yet on some kind of
> pretext that they didn't recognise the tester - or whatever it was - his
> manager stays down with him while Lance disappears for half an hour. That is
> totally contrary to the rules."
>
> The test was taken on March 17th in the South of France. The AFLD announced
> on April 9th that it was considering sanctioning Armstrong, and will
> announce the outcome next month.
>
> Since the situation was made public, certain elements of the media - plus a
> large proportion of Armstrong's fans - have said that the incident was blown
> out of all proportion. The Texan has furthered the notion that this is much
> ado about nothing, playing on anti-French sentiment which built up in the US
> before the second Gulf War, and suggesting that this is simply sour grapes
> on the part of that nation.
>
> Pound doesn't agree. Leaving the sight of a tester [or appointed chaperone]
> once an athlete has been notified of a test runs contrary to article 5.4.1
> of the World Anti-Doping Agency's International Standard of Testing. He is
> clear that if an athlete wanted to defraud an anti-doping examination, half
> an hour would provide ample opportunity to do so.
>
> "You can catherise [using clean urine - ed.], you can drink tons and tons of
> water, you can do all sorts of things to spoil or affect the test. So that
> is exactly why you have this rule," he said.
>
> "There are just too many things that can happen that can affect the
> integrity of the test. That is why the rule is very clear - you must be
> chaperoned. And anybody who has been tested before knows that.
>
> "So to still leave the proximity of the tester knowing that point....well, I
> can see why the AFLD is saying ‘hey, wait a minute, that's either a missed
> test or a refusal or something.' You can't trust the test [results] in that
> case."
>
> In terms of a possible sanction, Pound said that it depends on what charge
> the AFLD levies against the rider. "If it counts as a refusal, that is the
> same as a positive test. If it just counts as a missed test, then three of
> them in the space of 18 months would count as a positive as well.
>
> "Initially it is the AFLD which makes that distinction. If they see it as a
> refusal and call for sanctions, then I guess there would be an appeal
> process triggered. We will see what happens in that case."
>
> Cyclingnews will feature an extensive interview this week with Richard
> Pound. Come back soon for his thoughts on Armstrong's return, the biological
> passport, Operación Puerto plus the general anti-doping fight.
>
The angry USmen wrote:
Yea, but it's not mentioned that Armstrong asked the tester if he could shower, and the tester said he could no problem. The other piece is that no matter how much water he drank, or if he was able to use clean urine, the blood tests taken would have shown the results.... Armstrong should not be banned from the tour and the french should just test him again! the should only be enforced to the max penalty if the tester had given Armstrong a no answer to the "can I shower first" question... that is my stance. if they ban him there should be a notation to the winners name that Lance Armstrong was banned from the tour that year, and that the guy who won did not compete with the best in the world. I'd like to see the stats on French riders tested vs each other country. My bet is the average is far lower, and that the international group should be in charge of the testing not a single country that can create serious judgment calls. These testers, and the group have historically and recently shown their lack of tack and professionalism, which in my humble opinion is a symptom of a very poorly run group.
