UCI and WADA: Recuse Yourselves

There are some odd and curious developments occurring in the anti-doping realm that frankly defy description.  First, is the weird stipulation in the code that the alphabet agencies, WADA and the UCI have the discretion to appeal a case to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, to challenge a prosecutorial decree, the Reasoned Decision, if the athlete declines to take the case to arbitration.  In a normal situation of an adverse analytical finding, the normal process would be flawlessly applied, the laboratory would be deemed infallible and the test results would be deemed incontestable.  But the Lance Armstrong doping case is based upon a non-analytical positive that was generated from testimony of past teammates, the prosecution has deemed these witness statements "irrefutable evidence" even though the anti-doping test results generated by WADA support an opposite conclusion, irrefutable evidence of clean competition.

Second, overlooked by everyone is the continuing scandal of the UCI and the continuing accusations that Hein Verbruggen accepted payola in the form of bribes to falsify a positive test and to destroy the sample [thus rendering the opportunity for further testing with improved methodology obsolete] and that Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid endeavored to cover up this chicanery with lies and denies.  The athlete who payed the bribes?  Lance Armstrong.  The race?  The 2001 Tour of Switzerland.  Now it should seem perfectly obvious to everyone that an agency that has the option to either challenge or waive an appeal of a prosecutorial decree to the Court of Arbitration of Sport has no business doing so, under suspicion of accepting bribes from the defendant.  The UCI executive committee should have recused themselves, appointed an independent board of impartial people [not a group of people affiliated with a WADA signatory] to examine the Reasoned Decision presented by USADA, and the entire unabridged case file, and only after a thorough examination of the evidence make a determination whether to proceed!  The fact that the UCI refused to appeal the Reasoned Decision to  the Court of Arbitration of Sport suggests an attempt by the UCI to continue the cover up by denying the prosecution the opportunity to call Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid to the witness stand, to invite Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid to testify truthfully under oath, and confess.  The fact that the UCI executive committee has called an emergency meeting to deal with crises, after the fact, suggesting that an independent agency investigate the UCI, [the independent agencies suggested were WADA or the Court of Arbitration of Sport; both of whom could technically be considered players who have a stake in the outcome of the proceedings, and who should therefore be disqualified from participation] to determine the fate of Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen [why all the phony dramatics? why not just resign now?]

WADA should also have recused themselves from exercising their opportunity to waive the appeal of the Reasoned Decision to the Court of Arbitration of Sport.  The Lance Armstrong case has everything one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase.  With an adverse analytical finding based upon a positive test the burden of proof rests solely upon the athlete to prove that the laboratory finding was in error.  The WADA accredited laboratory and test results that it generates are considered infallible and incontestable, based upon solid science, and the tests are considered impervious from generating false positive results. But in the Lance Armstrong case WADA is forced to admit that five hundred and fifty WADA accredited laboratory negative test results are incorrect.  Lance Armstrong insists that the WADA generated test results are infallible and incontestable.   Who would of expected such a pole shift?  But people should realize that USADA, WADA, the UCI, are primarily prosecutorial entities, they were never created to defend the athlete.  Why would WADA expend money in an attempt to defend their test results as infallible in defense of Lance Armstrong, a man who they have always wanted to brand a cheater?  This cognitive mind set, the insane hatred of Lance Armstrong and the desire to be rid of him at any cost by WADA and it's signatories constitutes a conflict of interest and grounds for recusal.

You know some of the statements you read in the newspapers can't be true.  For example Bradley Wiggins, Mark Cavendish, and David Millar are all existing on continuing the myth of the infallibility of the WADA anti-doping tests, even after WADA has shamelessly fleeced the UCI and other signatories out of millions of dollars by fraudulently charging fees for service.  [The UCI has paid WADA money for anti-doping tests that do not detect the presence of prohibited substances.]  Wiggins, Cavendish, and Millar base their argument upon the following premises: 1) There no longer exists doping in the peloton and if anyone were stupid enough to dope they would be caught because there have been great improvements in the science of doping detection. [If so, what purpose would there be in a Truth and Reconciliation Committee?]  2) The UCI Biological passport can detect doping in the absence of a failed test and is the perfect stop gap measure to detect deception.  Well, we can all see the fallacy of these arguments.  1) Bury your head in the sand and you will have another U.S. Postal disaster staring you in the face, next time it might be called U.K. Postal.  2) If I were duping the fools, cheating by establishing artificial baseline scores on the worthless UCI Biological Passport by micro dosing with undetectable amounts of prohibited substances and thus allowed freely to dope during a grand tour race; then yes, I would praise the worthless WADA testing to the skies and I would succeed in getting away with everything; unless USADA pointed a gun at one of my teammates and ordered him to sing like a nightingale.

Oh yea, Quickstep dumped Levi Leipheimer.  One rat fink down, twenty to go.