Friday, January 25, 2008

Improved translation of AFLD Decision

Marc sent us the following right away, but we've been too busy (lazy) to post it. Apologies to all. This improves the machine translation of the decision in the AFLD case against Landis made in November 2007, which was made available earlier this week.

Marc's notes:

Pp. 1-3 are the various pieces of the code that make doping illegal in bicycling, and a summary of what was claimed was found in FL's urine. Bottom of p. 3 -top of p. 4 summarizes FL's arguments against the charges.

The important stuff is last paragraph p. 4 and first paragraph p. 5, which tell us that experts assigned to examine FL's charges of LNDD errors concluded that LNDD did the tests right, was professional its actions, and that therefore all of the reported results are reliable and establish FL's guilt. Article 1 on p. 5 sustains FL's conviction and the sanction against him.

The use of italics in the original document reflects direct quotation of those experts' reports.

Note that the experts had finished their reports even before FL's case was heard by the arbitration panel--therefore presumably before they'd have heard what problems had specifically been identified in LNDD's lab work/practices. But even without knowing what FL was going to complain about, they knew everything was hunky dory.


P. 1, para 1-7: “Whereas . . . “ all of the applicable national and international statutes and decisions outlawing doping and establishing authority of AFLD;

para 8-12 and P. 2 para 1-3: getting the Morzine findings to FL; his agreement not to race in France; assigning the case to USADA;

para 4-7: letters from AFLD to the people the want to appoint as experts, and their responses;

para 8-13: FL’s arbitration decision, its transmission; FL summoned to appear before AFLD;

para 14-16 and P. 3 para 1-5: resume of these authorizing documents and events;

para 6: summary of FL’s countercharges against LNDD;

P. 4, para 1–2: what had been decided by USADA, and AFLD’s respect of the decision and UCI authority, leading to:

para 3: that AFLD designated independent experts “to examine the quality of the analytic work done by the national anti-doping laboratory on the sample taken from [FL]”;

para 4: “Considering that Mr. ___________ and Mr. ___________-—both acknowledged experts from the Appellate Court were given the mission of ‘verifying that the analytic and technical procedures as well as the AMA [i.e. WADA] version 4.0 norms from [the lab’s] accreditation (Cofrac 1-14) were respected, and [checking[ the opposing interpretations in the context of establishing the relation of the first and second analyses of samples A and B for analysis of 995474’; and [considering[ that in a report signed on May 2, 2007 these experts concluded that the erasures noted on the analytic lab documents were ‘inconsequential, since the sample is perfectly traceable’; and that ‘the instrument conditions for the measurements made through gas chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy’ were in conformance with practices; and that, more generally, ‘the overall procedures and AMA recommendations’ were respected, and that this laboratory had ‘worked in a professional manner’, the ‘quality of [its]analyses can not be disputed’;

P. 5 para 1: “Considering, moreover, that Mr. ___________, an expert in mass spectroscopy at the Pierre and Marie Curie University, University Professor of Molecular Chemistry, and education director at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), was given the mission of examining ‘aspects specifically relating to the isotopic analysis IRMS of the relations of the first and second analyses of the A and B samples concerning the analysis of urine samples 995474’; and [considering] that, according to Mr. __________’s report of April 25, 2007, ‘the work done [by the national anti-doping laboratory] was performed with the required professional quality control guarantees’; and that ‘the mass spectroscopy analysis of samples A and B shows (. . .) very clearly the exogenous origin of testosterone (. . .)’; and that ‘the analytic methods are reliable’ and that it ‘is possible, with virtually no risk, to consider that the conclusions drawn by LNDD cannot be disputed’;

para 2: “Considering that it follows that the aforesaid expert conclusions that the analyses performed by LNDD on the urine samples taken July 20, 2006 from Mr. __________ [i.e. FL] were performed while respecting the rules imposed by WADA; that it should be stated explicitly, in fact, that this laboratory, which has been accredited for many years by the highest sporting authorities. is the recipient, moreover, of certification from the French Accreditation Committee (recently renewed); and that, from these reasons, Mr. _____________’s [i.e. FL’s] argument, aiming at disputing the quality of work performed by LNDD must be rejected”;

para 3: (paraphrase) Considering that only a therapeutic use exemption can justify the presence of banned substances, and that what turns up in FL’s urine is strictly forbidden; and considering that the facts brought forward against Mr. ____________ [FL] are such as to warrant application of article 232-23 of the Sports code;

para 4: “Considering the nature of the facts and the circumstances,

[the Committee] decides:

Article 1: This sanction is pronounced against Mr. ____________: [and so forth].”


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.