USADA chief executive Travis Tygart has described as "sordid" Lance Armstrong's lawyer and agent heavily influencing and writing sections of a UCI-commissioned report into Armstrong's alleged EPO use.
The head of the organisation that ultimately brought down Lance Armstrong has described as “sordid” some of the actions of former UCI presidents Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen in relation to the banned rider.
USADA chief executive Travis Tygart was commenting on a section of the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) report, published this week by the UCI.
“A stunning example of deceit found by the CIRC is that the UCI, under the explicit direction of Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid, commissioned a supposedly ‘independent’ investigation of Armstrong’s positive samples from the (1999 – Ed) Tour de France,” he said in a statement.
Advertisement
“According to the CIRC, the UCI then conspired to allow what was sold to the public as an ‘independent’ report to be re-written by Armstrong’s own lawyer and sports agent in order to conceal Armstrong’s doping.
“USADA will work with the current UCI leadership to obtain the evidence of this sordid incident to ensure that all anti-doping rule violations related to this conduct are fully investigated and prosecuted, where possible.
“The CIRC has also confirmed that during USADA’s case against Armstrong in 2012, and under the direction of former UCI President Pat McQuaid, the UCI intentionally adopted an inaccurate position on its own anti-doping rules in order to try to derail USADA’s case against Armstrong and his co-conspirators.
“Here again, McQuaid’s actions were intended to prevent the truth about Armstrong’s doping and the UCI’s complicity in it from being exposed.”
The background
Emile Vrijman is a former director of the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs. He was asked to investigate allegations made in the French newspaper L’Equipe suggesting Armstrong had tested positive for EPO in the 1999 Tour de France.
The story appeared on August 23rd, 2005; one month before McQuaid (above, left) was elected president of the UCI and took over from Verbruggen (above, right), who stayed on as vice president.
On October 6th, two weeks into McQuaid’s first four-year term as president, the UCI issued a press release announcing Vrijman had been asked to conduct his inquiry.
It was to examine potential breaches of the relevant rules and procedures and how private information became public.
The CIRC report says the press release announcing the inquiry was written with the assistance of Armstrong’s agent.
The CIRC also says when a message was sent by McQuaid to Vrijman, it contained an instruction that “this investigation must clearly be restricted to the formal irregularities which have led to the revelations (in L’Equipe)”.
The CIRC states:
“It could potentially be read from the message that UCI’s primary concern was not to examine the veracity of the allegations and the consequences that derive thereof, but rather to restrict the inquiry from the outset to procedural issues and alleged breaches committed by other stakeholders.
"Pat McQuaid’s direction to Emile Vrijman appears to contradict the undertaking that he gave to WADA on 29 September 2005 and 6 October 2005 to the effect that “[t]he UCI is concerned [with]...investigating all aspects of this case”.
"It was equally in contradiction with Emile Vrijman’s proposition to the UCI that, among other matters, the reliability of the EPO test used by LNDD (which tested the contentious Armstrong samples) should be examined.”
The UCI had originally asked Vrijman to have his report concluded by the end of January 2006. However, the UCI later purported to end his contract on the basis of delays and a resultant loss of confidence in him.
On January 16th, 2006, Vrijman met with Verbruggen – who was by now UCI vice president – and Lon Schattenberg, the former head of the UCI's Athlete Doping Unit.
The CIRC says that arising from those discussions, it was determined that Vrijman would produce two reports; an “interim report” and a “preliminary report”.
The CIRC says that later that week Vrijman presented the UCI with his preliminary findings and drafts of both reports.
It added the report found the tests on Armstrong’s contentious Tour de France samples carried out by the WADA-accredited ‘laboratoire national de detection du dopage’ (LNDD) “do not qualify as adverse analytical findings”.
Armstrong team writing "independent" report
The CIRC noted that this first report by Vrijman contained no references to WADA’s role in relation to the research or to communications that may have taken place between WADA and LNDD.
The CIRC then says:
“The preliminary report was subsequently revised by Lance Armstrong’s lawyer, Mark Levinstein, in collaboration with Emile Vrijman, during the following week.
"Emile Vrijman had personally sent Mark Levinstein a soft copy of the report. Mark Levinstein inserted substantial amounts of text into the interim report to make it more critical of WADA and criticising in detail the credibility of the LNDD’s methods and procedures from a doping control perspective, citing numerous alleged deficiencies and inconsistencies.
"Mark Levinstein’s second mark-up of the report included an entirely new section to the report entitled “Confidentiality”. This section was highly critical of Dick Pound (WADA president – Ed) and Jacques De Ceaurriz, the then Director of the LNDD.
"In addition, this version of the report concluded with a list of 20 questions that needed to be answered which concerned specifics about the LNDD’s research and the communications between the LNDD, WADA and the French government in its regard.
"Mark Levinstein provided his mark-ups of the interim report to Hein Verbruggen on 8 and 9 February 2006, respectively.”
Completion of Vrijman report
After Armstrong’s lawyer inserted content into the report “to make it more critical of WADA” and inserted a new section “highly critical” of Dick Pound and LNDD, Vrijman on February 24th, 2006, informed the UCI the final version of his preliminary report would be sent to the organisation the following day.
He said it would be 55 pages but the CIRC said the report was never sent. And on March 17th, when still nothing had been sent by Vrijman, he informed the UCI he no longer intended to issue a “first report” into the contentious Armstrong drug tests.
Instead, he said in order to treat all parties involved equally and safeguard the independence of his process; he would request further information and materials from LNDD and WADA and issue a final report.
Related News
Three days later, Verbruggen – now UCI vice president under president McQuaid – sent Vrijman a letter purporting to terminate his mandate.
However the Dutch official continued his work, liaising with Armstrong’s lawyer Levinstein about recent correspondence he had received from WADA and LNDD.
In April 2006, UCI legal counsel Philippe Verbiest started to review the final report by Vrijman, producing proposed amendments for it but saying what he was producing was merely for submission to Vrijman for his consideration.
Verbruggen proceeded to draft an executive summary of the report for “which he received input from Mark Levinstein”.
Between April 22nd and 29th, the CIRC says, Vrijman and UCI legal counsel Verbiest continued to exchange further drafts of the report.
And on April 29th, 2006, some seven months after the process was formally announced in the first weeks of the McQuaid presidency, a final draft report was sent to the UCI for its review.
Verbruggen replied to Vrijman the next day, saying he was very disappointed with the report and contending the only body “tackled with hard hitting conclusions” was the UCI to the extent he wondered if WADA was Vrijman’s client.
However, Armstrong’s lawyer Levinstein reassured Verbruggen he would continue to work on the report with Vrijman.
During the following week, Verbiest, Vrijman and Levinstein – the UCI’s legal counsel, a man appointed to independently review contentious drug test findings against Lance Armstrong and Armstrong’s lawyer respectively – continued to work on the report.
Verbruggen on May 9th told Vrijman he wanted the report completed for two days later because the WADA board – with whom the UCI had a very poor relationship – was meeting that weekend.
When that deadline passed with no report, Verbruggen terminated Vrijman’s contract. However, Levinstein again said he would work with Vrijman on finishing the report.
At that point, Armstrong’s agent Bill Stapleton sought to reassure Verbruggen, saying:
“(T)he document is going after WADA as I know you (and we) want them to do as they should”.
On May 31st a PDF version of the report was emailed to all parties and an “official version” was published the next day.
Letter sought by McQuaid during 2013 election
When dealing with the protracted process around work on the Vrijman report, the CIRC makes no mention of McQuaid.
And for most of the period after Vrijman was appointed in October 2005 and McQuaid told him to ensure the process focused on “the formal irregularities which have led to the revelations” in L’Equipe, it is Verbruggen who is presented by the CIRC as the main player on the UCI side.
However, the CIRC says during 2013 when McQuaid was fighting the UCI presidential election against Brian Cookson, the Irishman made an intervention after the fact, which it outlines thus:
“Lastly, during the lead-up to the UCI Presidential elections, on 19 July 2013, Pat McQuaid wrote to Paul Scholten (whose legal practice Vrijman was attached to - Ed) in his capacity as UCI President.
"In the letter, he asked Paul Scholten to make a statement or send a letter which Pat McQuaid could forward to the UCI Management Committee.
"The statement/letter should include confirmation that the Vrijman report was compiled independently from the UCI, that Lance Armstrong’s lawyers wrote no part of the report, and that indications to the contrary would lead to legal action against any party that suggested it.
"Paul Scholten replied by letter that Emile Vrijman was solely responsible for the content and conclusions, logically because it was called “The Vrijman Report”.
"He further stated that when Emile Vrijman had told him that suggestions had been made to Emile Vrijman to put [information] into the report, he had warned Emile Vrijman to stay independent, but could not confirm whether he had precisely done that.
"He stated he reserved his rights regarding any allegations made against himself. Finally he stated that UCI refused to pay his invoices until settlement at arbitration, that he had never received monies from Lance Armstrong’s “camp”, and stated he had sacked Emile Vrijman immediately after the arbitration proceeding.”
Some CIRC conclusions
In its conclusions on the Vrijman report saga, the CIRC said the UCI had “purposely limited the scope” of the process.
It had also “specifically excluded” an examination of the EPO tests carried out by LNDD “meaning that the allegation that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France could not be directly considered”.
It further concluded:
“UCI, together with the Armstrong team, became directly and heavily involved in the drafting of the Vrijman report, the purpose of which was only partly to expedite the publication of the report.
"The main goal was to ensure that the report reflected UCI’s and Lance Armstrong’s personal conclusions.
"The significant participation of UCI and Armstrong’s team was never publicly acknowledged, and was consistently denied by Hein Verbruggen.”
The CIRC adds of the Vrijman process:
“UCI had no intention of pursuing an independent report. UCI leadership failed to respect the independence of the investigator they commissioned by restricting the mandate of the investigator, allowing the primary subject of the investigation to participate in the drafting of the report and, by constantly influencing the content of the investigator’s work and the conclusions reached.
"This is again consistent with UCI leadership’s approach of prioritising the fight against WADA and the protection of its star athlete.”
Topics
