Tuesday, January 22, 2008

AFLD Decision, Machine Translated

As reported by WADA Watch, the AFLD decision in the Landis case is now available online, in PDF/French.

A quick Google translation follows. In quick summary, they claim jurisdiction, outline the offense, believe their own investigation that their laboratory did reliable work, and find Guilty.

[MORE]



Decision No. 2007-52, November 29, 2007
AGENCE FRANCE to combat doping,
Mindful of Law No. 2006-405 of 5 April 2006 on the fight against doping in
Protection of athletes' health;
Given the code of sport, in particular Articles L.230-1 to L.232-31 and R.232-10 to
R.232-98;
According to the decree No. 2006-1204 of 29 September 2006 on the organization and
Operation of the French Agency in the fight against doping;
According to the decree No. 2006-1768 of 23 December 2006 on procedures and sanctions
Discipline in the fight against doping human;
Mindful of Decree No. 2006-290 of 9 March 2006 publication of the amendment
In the Annex of the Convention against Doping adopted by the monitoring group at its
22nd meeting on 15 and 16 November 2005 in Strasbourg;
Given the deliberation No. 68, October 4, 2007 of the French Agency for Combat
Doping accepting the World Anti-Doping Code;
Because of the World Anti-Doping Code, in particular Article 15.4;
Given the record of doping control, established on July 20, 2006 at the end of
The 17th stage of the Tour de France cycling in Morzine (Haute-Savoie), on
Mr. ………………………;
Considering that the analysis reports drawn up on July 25 and August 5, 2006 by the Laboratory
National screening of doping in the wake of control mentioned above;
Given the letter dated November 2, 2006, sent by Mr. Daniel FARGE,
Rapporteur appointed by the President of the French Agency for the fight against doping on
Oct. 26, 2006, Director of the Department for analysis by the Agency;
Because of the letter of 27 November 2006, addressed by Mr. Daniel FARGE, rapporteur,
Director General of the World Anti-Doping Agency;
Given the letter dated January 10, 2007, sent by the French Agency for Combat
Mr. doping ………………………, Inviting him to attend the meeting of the College of
Agency on Feb. 8, 2007, during which the record of the person concerned should be
Reviewed;
2 / 6
Considering the fax Master……………, counsel for Mr. ………………………, Handed
General Secretariat of the French Agency for the fight against doping on December 22, 2006;
Given the letter from Master…………… .. transmitted by the General Secretariat bearer
Of the French Agency for fight against doping on 1 February 2007, transmitting to the Agency
A letter from Mr. ………………………, Dated January 30, 2007, whereby the latter
Voluntarily undertakes not to participate in competitions or events
Authorized or organized sports in the territory french until 31 December 2007;
Given the record of the meeting of Feb. 8, 2007, during which the College
The French Agency for the fight against doping, disciplinary training, decided to
Postpone further vetting of the person on a date fixed at the end of
The hearing before the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the issuance of its
Award;
Given the letter dated April 3, 2007, sent by Mr. Daniel FARGE, rapporteur,
MM. ………………… And…………………, experts approved by the Court of Cassation;
Because of the letter of April 4, 2007, addressed by Mr. Daniel FARGE, rapporteur,
Mr. …………………, Professor universities, designated as an expert in spectrometry
Mass;
Considering the report dated April 25, 2007, addressed by Mr. ………………… To the French Agency
In the fight against doping and received by the Secretariat General of the Agency on May 4, 2007;
Considering the report dated May 2, 2007, sent by MM. ………………… And………………… to
The French Agency for the fight against doping and received by the Secretariat General of the Agency
May 4, 2007;
Considering the award of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport dated
September 20, 2007;
Given the letter from Master…………………, provided by the General Secretariat bearer
Of the French Agency for fight against doping on November 26, 2007;
Given the letter from Master…………………. Transmitted by the General Secretariat bearer
Of the French Agency for fight against doping on November 29, 2007;
Considering other written evidence;
The procedures provided for in Articles R.232-88 to R.232-98 code with sport
Been observed;
Mr. ……………………… Regularly summoned by registered letter and ordinary letter
16 October 2007, which his lawyer, Maître……………………, acknowledged the
Oct. 19, 2007, did not appear;
The discussions were held in non-public meeting on November 29, 2007;
After hearing Mr. Daniel FARGE in its report;
Considering that under article L.3631-1 of the Public Health Code,
Force at the time of the facts - now Article L.232-9 code of sport: "It is forbidden,
In the course of sports competitions and events organized or authorized by the
Sports federations or to participate: - use of substances and processes
Likely to alter artificially capacity or hide the use of substances or
3 / 6
Processes with this property - to use those substances or processes which
Use is restricted when these conditions are not
Met. -- Substances and processes mentioned in this article are determined by
Order of the Ministers responsible for Health and Sports;
Considering that at the end of the 17th stage of the Tour de France cycling
Mr. ……………………… Has been, on July 20, 2006, a doping control, organized
Morzine (Haute-Savoie), the results of which are prepared by the National Laboratory testing
Doping on July 25, 2006, revealed the presence of a report on testosterone
Epitestosterone abnormally high, estimated at 11.4, the analysis by
Mass spectrometry report indicating an isotope of exogenous origin
Metabolites of testosterone, consistent with a testosterone or one of its
Precursors; that the analysis of control, conducted from 3 to 5 August 2006, confirmed this
Result; that the substance, which belongs to the class of anabolic agents,
Prohibited by the list annexed to the Decree No. 2006-290 of 9 March 2006 referred to above;
Considering that under 1 an item number L.3634-2 of the Public Health Code,
The Council for prevention and fight against doping was "competent to punish
Persons not licensed part in competitions or sports events
Organized or authorized by sports federations or drives them
Preparing "Mr. ……………………… Is not a licensed federation
French organ, in this case the French Cycling Federation; thus, the Agency
Has jurisdiction to hear directly from the facts against the person
In the terms of any such provisions;
Considering that on the basis of the provisions of 1 ° of article L.232-22 of
Code of sport, the French Agency for the fight against doping, which replaced the Council
Prevention and fight against doping, "shall have jurisdiction to impose sanctions
Disciplinary to persons not licensed participating in training,
Competitions or sporting events organized or authorized by the
Sports federations delegated;
Considering that, pursuant to the provisions of Article IV of the Act 25
No. 2006-405 of April 5, 2006: "The sanction procedures before the Council
Prevention and fight against doping in progress at the date of the first meeting
The College of the French Agency for fight against doping continued full
Right before the agency "that the first meeting of the board of the Agency took place on
October 5, 2006;
Considering that, by virtue of the provisions of article L.232-23 of the code of sport,
The French Agency for the fight against doping, in the exercise of its powers of sanction,
May impose, against a person who has used a substance appearing on the
Above list during a competition or a demonstration or
Authorized by a sports federation or to participate, a temporary ban
Or to participate in the final competitions and sporting events organized or
Authorized by the French sports federations;
Considering that, in its conclusions, Mr. ……………………… Has challenged the results of
Analyses conducted on July 21 and August 3, 2006 by the National Laboratory testing
Doping which, he stated, would not have taken place in accordance with
International standards for laboratories accredited by the World
Doping; he has made mistakes as typed and handwritten
Contain reports issued by the laboratory and that would be likely to cause
Doubts as to the traceability of samples analysed, he added that the latter
Have been contaminated by bacteria, thus distorting the results reported; he
Also asserted that the results relating to the determination of the report on testosterone
Epitestosterone seemed lacking in coherence, on the grounds to affirm
4 / 6
That isotopic analysis by mass spectrometry (IRMS), in these circumstances,
Should not have been made; Finally, he argued that the criteria for interpretation
Results of IRMS have not been met;
Considering that, pursuant to Article 224 of the anti-doping rules of the Union
Cycliste Internationale (UCI), "it is up to the national federation of licensee (…)
Implement disciplinary proceedings "in this case, Mr. ……………………… Being
Licensee with the American Federation of Cycling (USA cycling), it was, according
That rule, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), acting on behalf of USA
Cycling, on the basis of regulations of the UCI, to rule on the charges against
The person; that, on this basis, the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport had to
Know of this case, that a sentence dated September 20, 2007, this
Court stated that the analysis by mass spectrometry report
Isotopic indicated an exogenous origin of the metabolites of testosterone, constitutive
Of a breach of anti-doping rules and gave proceedings against Mr. …….…
A ban on participation for two years in any competition organised
Or authorized by the UCI or a federation affiliated to the latter, as of
Jan. 30, 2007, when he, as promised in its letter received
February 1, 2007 the Secretariat of the Agency, has voluntarily ceased to participate in "
Some cycling race amateur or professional whatsoever on the territory french
By 31 December 2007, and especially in the Tour de France 2007 ";
Considering, on the one hand, that Article 15.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code provides that
"The decisions of the hearings and any final order of a signatory are
Recognized and respected by all the other signatories, to the extent that they are
Consistent with the Code and are within the scope of powers that signatory "that the
Steering Committee of the UCI, at its meeting on 22 and 23 July 2004, decided to accept
The World Anti-Doping Code and incorporate it in the introduction of title 14 of its
Regulation, which is dedicated to the fight against doping; that deliberation by No. 68 of October 4, 2007,
College of the French Agency for fight against doping has pledged to abide by the "
Principles enshrined in the World Anti-Doping Code and, in its fields of
Competence to implement its provisions "that in the College of the Agency,
Disciplinary training, took note of the award of Sept. 20, 2007, cited above;
Considering, on the other hand, by letters dated 3 and 4 April 2007, the Agency
French anti-doping through the rapporteur record
Mr. ……………, Proceeded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Decree of
December 23, 2006 cited above - now Article R.232-94 code of sport - the designation
Of independent experts to study the quality of the analytical work done by
National Laboratory testing of doping on the urine sample taken the
July 20, 2006;
Considering that MM. ………………… And…………………, both experts approved by the
Court of Cassation, have been given the task of "verifying compliance with the procedures
Analytical and technical standards as well as AMA version 4.0, 1 Cofrac Accreditation --
1174 and binding interpretations in the context of the establishment of [the] reports
Analysis and counter-analysis of the incoming samples A and B analysis
Urine 995,474; that, in a report signed May 2, 2007, these experts concluded that
Erasure found in the laboratory analytical documents were "without
Therefore, since the sample is perfectly route "that" conditions
Instrumental for the determination made by gas chromatography coupled to
Mass spectrometry "were consistent with the practice and that, more generally,
"All procedures and recommendations of the AMA" had been observed and
That the laboratory had "worked in a professional manner", "quality of [its]
Analyses that can not be called into question ";
5 / 6
Considering, in addition, that Mr. …………………, An expert in mass spectrometry
University Pierre et Marie Curie, Professor skilled in molecular chemistry
And is responsible for training at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), was
Entrusted with the mission of "examining aspects relating specifically for isotopic analysis
IRMS analysis reports and counter-analysis of the incoming samples A and B
On the urinalysis 995474; that, according to the report prepared by Mr. …………………
April 25, 2007, "the work done [by the National Laboratory testing of doping]
Proceeded with the guarantees required professional quality, "that" analysis
Mass spectrometry samples A and B (…) shows very well the exogenous origin of
Testosterone (…), "that" the analytical methods are reliable "and that" it is possible,
With minimum risk to consider that the conclusions given by the LNDD not
Can be called into question ";
Considering that it is thus of the experts' conclusions that the above analysis
Conducted by the National Laboratory testing of doping samples of urine
Taken on July 20, 2006 on M. ………………, Have been completed in accordance with the rules
Imposed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, it should be pointed out, however,
That the lab accredited for many years by the highest authorities
Sports, also receives certification by the Committee french
Accreditation, which was recently renewed and that, therefore, the argument
Mr. ………………… Aimed at the quality of work done by the LNDD must
Be rejected;
Considering Finally, and outside the event that proof is given a prescription
Medical for therapeutic purposes is justified, the existence of a violation of the provisions
Laws and regulations relating to doping is established by the presence in a
Urine sampling, one of the substances listed in the annexes to the
Decree of March 9, 2006 supra; that under the annex, "the use of any
Drug should be limited to medically justified indications "that the
Consumer testosterone is strictly prohibited; that the facts in
Against Mr. ……………………… Are of a nature to justify the application of the provisions of
Article L.232-23 of the code of sport;
Considering the nature of the facts and circumstances of this case,
Decides:
Article 1 - It is pronounced against Mr. ……………………… The sanction of
The prohibition to participate for two years in any competition and sports event
Organized or authorized by a French sports federation, net of the period
Current since Jan. 30, 2007, the date of the letter of the person, received on February 1, 2007
By the French Agency for the fight against doping, in which it has voluntarily
Pledged to no longer participate in competitions or sporting events organized or
Allowed on french territory, until the date of effect of this decision.
Article 2 - This decision shall take effect from the date of its notification
The person concerned.
6 / 6
Article 3 - This Decision will be published:
-- The "Official Gazette" by the Ministry of Health, Youth and
Sports;
-- From "La France Cycling", a publication of the French Federation of
Cycling;
-- From "Cycling", a publication of the French Federation of
Cycling;
-- From "Tri" on the front, a publication of the French Federation of triathlon.
Article 4 - This decision will be notified:
-- M. ……………………… And his lawyer, Maître…………………… ...
-- To the Minister of Health, Youth and Sports;
-- To the French Cycling Federation;
-- To the Federation of French cycling;
-- To the French Federation of triathlon.
A copy of this decision will be sent for information to the World
Doping and the International Cycling Union (UCI).
Under the provisions of Article L.232-24 of the code of sports, this decision
May be the subject of a substantive appeal before the Conseil d'Etat dans un délai
Two months after its notification.


5 comments:

("Eightzero") said...

Renault: "I'm shocked, *shocked* to find there's gambling going on in here."

cashier: "...your winnings sir...." [hands him cash]

Renault: "Thank you very much."

-Casablanca, 1942

Jon said...

When was the last time COFRAC did a mandatory yearly accreditation audit on LNDD? 1986? LOL! This would explain why the Carbon Isotope Ratio was processed by OS/2software. LOL! Where are these audits and how does one access them for examination? Dear Mr. Landis, I must apologise on behalf of AFLD for this outrageous decision.

ZENmud productions said...

The key ...
(and my post on this is suspended, now that the decision was finally put online (oh how forgetful one can be when holding ANY reins of power (reigns? heh heh)))

...is CODE Article 15.4:
"15.4 Subject to the right to appeal provided in Article 13, the Testing, therapeutic use exemptions and hearing results or other final adjudications of any Signatory which are consistent with the Code and are within that Signatory's authority, shall be recognized and respected by all other Signatories."

As far as 'we' understand this, it means a Signatory (such as USADA), which undertakes a case/arbitration, under the WADA CODE, is to be 'recognized and respected' by another Signatory (such as AFLD/FR).

Part of the post I'd started Monday, was negated by the response from AFLD ('mea culpa'), so it's in revision...

Notice, if you can follow TbV's translation, that they 'refer' endlessly to things that are not put into the text (as I did insert 15.4 above)... the 'decrees' and 'rules' all have to be found via Google or AFLD.fr etc... not easy!!! (that's an endorsement for Anglo-Saxon 'common-law'). Even the 'experts' are 'hearsay'...
(judge: "zee experts said LNDD did everything by the rules, so zey are right!")
...evidence!

This merits a Sheeeeeeeeeesh...
Zm

Mike Solberg said...

It has always hugely bothered me that AFLD pursued this. How can you have a system in which a guy is subject to multiple disciplinary procedures? That's ridiculous. What if they disagree? Presumably that would not be too good for the system.

Zm, thanks for quoting 15.4. The key phrase there seems to be "...which are consistent with the Code..." You mean to tell me that AFLD did all this in a way that was consistent with the Code? Proper notification to parties? Proper representation? Proper consideration of evidence? etc. etc. I doubt it.

I seriously doubt Floyd will fight this, though. The ban ends at the same time as the USADA one, right? (Unless he wins at CAS, or if CAS changes the beginning date of his ban.)

syi

jrdbutcher said...

I beleive AFLD's loophole is that the French did not officially recognize the WADA code (become a Signatore/Signatory?) until after the 2006 TdF, and they are milking that circumstance for all it's worth.

I'll look to others to confirm or correct me.