The “Official Statement from WADA on the Vrijman ARTICLES Report”: Unintentional Proof to the Contrary? by Emile Vrijman* I. Introduction In its initial response on May 31, 2006, WADA carefully re-iterat- 1.1 It is surely nothing less than remarkable that there has, to date - ed its position that, as far as this investigation was concerned,: particularly in view of the media attention which the matter of the alleged use by American cyclist Lance Armstrong of prohibited sub- “an investigation into the matter must consider all aspects - not limit- stances itself received at the time - been little or no substantive ed to how the damaging information regarding the athletes’ urine sam- response to, let alone criticism of, the findings of what has become ples became public, but also addressing the question whether anti - known as the “independent investigation of all facts and circumstances doping rules were violated by athletes”8 regarding the analyses of the urine samples of the 1999 Tour de France con- ducted by the French WADA-accredited laboratory, the ‘Laboratoire and that: Nationale de Dépistage du Dopage’ (hereinafter: the ‘LNDD’) in Châtenay - Malabry, France”, as reported in “the Vrijman report”1. In “WADA will respond in due course once it has fully examined the spite of the very strong criticism expressed in this report regarding report”9. (the quality of) the research it conducted and its subequent behaviour in this matter, the LNDD has, to this day, not responded to any of However, on 2 June 2006, barely two days later and almost three the findings of the investigation, while the French newspaper weeks before the results of WADA’s examination of the Vrijman ‘L’Equipe’ - responsible for publishing the relevant article in which report were published, WADA Presient Richard Pound, already con- Lance Armstrong was accused of using the prohibited substance cluded in an interview with the press agency “Agence France - Presse” “recombinant erythropoetin” (“r-EPO”) during the 1999 Tour de (“AFP”) that the investigation report was full of holes. “They put as France2 - merely stated in an editorial that it continued to support facts things that are suppositions, suspicions and possibilities”, said fully the findings of its own investigation. Pound10. He also announced that WADA rejected the “Vrijman report” and “will consider legal action against Vrijman and any organi- “There is nothing to retract from the revelations. [...]. For our part, we zations including the UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions”11. On remain convinced of the need to battle without compromise against 19 June 2006, WADA eventually published its so-called “Official mafialike tendencies that still and always threaten the sport of cycling. Statement From WADA On The Vrijman Report” (hereinafter: “the Both in the method and the substance, L’Equipe stands firm.” 3 Statement”), “highlighting a number of unprofessional, inaccurate, unfair and misleading elements of the [Vrijman] report”12. Procedural aspects Where there has been criticism in respect of the investigation that has 1.4 Purpose of this article been conducted, it usually related to the procedural aspects of that Based on a general analysis of (the content of) the Statement itself, this investigation. The premature publication of the most important find- article will examine in detail WADA’s criticism regrading (the conduct ings of the investigation in the Netherlands newspaper “de Volkskrant” of) the investigation in general and, more specifically, its results, in on May 31, 2006, in particular appears to have been the cause of this4. particular as far as the assessment of (the extent and nature of) For some, also my reputation as being pro-athlete - earned because of WADA’s involvement in this matter and the legitimacy of that the role I allegedly played according to some in the doping affair involvement are concerned. Furthermore, this article will show why involving the German athletes Katrin Krabbe, Grit Breuer and Silke both the manner of WADA’s response, as well as the arguments it has Möller - as well as my being acquainted with Mr. Hein Verbruggen, put forward in the Statement, appear to confirm - it must be assumed the current Vice-President of the “Union Cycliste Internationale” unintentionally - rather then deny the investigation’s findings and (“UCI”), the International Cycling Federation, did already provide assessment of WADA’s involvement in this matter. sufficient reason to criticise (the results of) the investigation that had Finally, this article will consider whether, and to what extent, the been conducted, in particular as far as its “independence” and “impar- investigation’s findings regarding WADA might, at the same time, tiality” were concerned5. provide a possible explanation for the absence of any response or reac- tion, let alone action, by the “International Olympic Committee” 1.3 WADA’s response (“IOC”), “International Sports Federations” (“IFs”) and national gov- Apart from Lance Armstrong6 and the UCI7, the only other party ernments. Given the fact, however, that almost one year has passed directly involved in this matter that did respond to (the substance of) since the “Vrijman report” was first published, I will begin by briefly the findings contained in the “Vrijman report” has been the “World summarising the principal facts and events which prompted the Anti - Doping Agency” (“WADA”). (“UCI”), the coordinating International Federation responsible for *Former Director of NeCeDo (The Expresses Concern regarding Vrijman 6 Associated Press, “Report clears Armstrong both in nature, as well as in wording, to Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs). Report”, May 31, 2006. of ’ doping allegations”, May 31, 2006. those usually made by athletes reported 2 Damien Ressiot, “Le mensonge 7 UCI Official Statement, “Vrijman report: as having been been found guilty of hav- 1 The expression “the Vrijman report” was d’Armstrong”, L’ Equipe, August 23, 2005. statement of the UCI”, Aigle, Switzerland, ing committed a doping offence. To date first used to describe the report of the 3 L’Equipe, June 1, 2006. June 2, 2006. however, no legal action has been taken “independent investigation of all facts and 4R.Kerckhoffs, “UCI woedend op advo- 8 WADA Expresses Concern regarding either against the investigator, Lance circumstances regarding the analyses of the caat Vrijman”, de Telegraaf, June 1, 2006. Vrijman Report, supra note 1. Armstrong or any organization having urine samples of the Tour de France See also: J. Macur and S. Abt, 9 WADA Expresses Concern regarding adopted the conclusions of the investiga- conducted by the French WADA-accredit- “Investigator and Anti-Doping Group Vrijman Report, supra note 1. tion, including the UCI. ed laboratory, the “Laboratoire Nationale Clash on Armstrong Test”, New York 10 Agence France-Presse, “WADA rejects 12 WADA, “WADA Official Statement on de Dépistage du Dopage” (LNDD) in Times, May 31, 2006. report that cleared Armstrong”, June 2, Inaccuracies of Vrijman Report”, Châtenay - Malabry, France”, by the 5 Jens Jungermann, “Der Schatten einer 2006. Montreal, Canada, June 19, 2006. “World Anti-Doping Agency” (WADA). gefallenen Radsportlegende”, Die Welt, 11 Id. The response of WADA’s President See: WADA press release, “WADA July 13, 2006. Pound bears a remarkable resemblence, 2007/1-2 3 the sport of cycling, at the time to commission the independent inves- Within days, heated debates were conducted in the media regard- tigation concerned, before proceeding to consider the main findings ing the credibility of the article in question, as well as the nature, the of the investigation in this matter as contained in the “Vrijman reliability and - above all - the purpose of the analyses conducted by report”. the LNDD21. All sports organisations and anti-doping bodies, both national and international, that had become involved in this affair in II. The reason for an investigation one way or another quickly agreed therefore, in the face of the public 2.1 An article in a newspaper commotion that had arisen, on the necessity of conducting an inves- On 23 August 2005, the French (sports) newspaper, L’Equipe, pub- tigation in this matter. The same could not be said, however, or at lished an article headlined “The Armstrong lie” written by the French least to a far lesser degree, with regard to the objective(s) of such an journalist Damien Ressiot13. In this article, Ressiot accused the investigation. American cyclist and seven times-winner of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong, of having used the prohibited substance r-EPO during the 2.2 An investigation? 1999 Tour de France. According to Ressiot, six of Armstrong’s urine WADA and the UCI in particular strongly disagreed with one anoth- samples from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly tested positive for r- er regarding the objectives of the investigation. According to WADA, EPO when analysed by the LNDD as part of ongoing research to fur- the only aspect of this matter the UCI was really interested in to ther improve the existing detection method for r-EPO. In addition, investigate was the question of how confidential information in this Ressiot alleged that six urine samples, from six other riders, had also matter could have been disclosed. WADA however, took the position tested positive for r-EPO14. that such an investigation should be concerned with all aspects of the Ressiot was able to make this accusation against Armstrong because matter - including such questions as to whether the LNDD’s research he not only was aware of the contents of the relevant research report findings in this matter were correct, if the riders concerned had in fact of the LNDD, but also had in his possession copies of all doping con- committed an “anti-doping rule violation “ as well as the extent of the trol forms relating to the urine samples collected from Lance use of r-EPO, during both the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France, Armstrong during the 1999 Tour de France.