Armstrong doping storm moves from science into law

As is often the case when doping allegations are made, the debate over whether seven times Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong took EPO in 1999 is rapidly moving from the scientific sphere into the legal. Francois Thomazeau looks into the issue.

Whatever the truth of the matter, and Lance Armstrong strongly denies any wrongdoing, the report in L'Equipe that the American's urine samples contained banned blood-boosting substance EPO is very unlikely to lead to any retroactive sanctions.

Officials from the organisations involved - cycling's ruling body, the World Anti Doping Agency, French sports ministry officials and Tour de France organisers - agree normal anti-doping proceedings have not been followed.

Jacques De Ceaurriz, the head of the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory which conducted the tests, made it clear they were carried out for only scientific purposes and had no legal value because only one sample was tested.

According to WADA rules, no sanction can be taken against an athlete if one sample, rather than the normal two, shows traces of a banned substance.

The samples have been frozen since being taken during the 1999 Tour, the first won by Armstrong. A test to detect EPO did not exist at the time.

Armstrong, who has denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs during his career and has never failed a dope test, summed up the legal implications in midweek.

"Ethically, how can you put a guy's name or prosecute a guy like that when he has no defence?

"I know two pieces of the WADA code that are very important. Number one, if an athlete only has one sample left, it is strictly mandated that that sample must always remain anonymous.

"If any WADA-accredited laboratory wants to use that sample, for experimentation or scientific research, they must have the approval of the athlete.

"So right there, you have two serious violations of the new WADA code," he said.

Armstrong, who has had to face repeated doping allegations by French media since his first victory in 1999, hinted he might not take legal action over the French newspaper report. He is currently suing the authors of a book alleging he took drugs.

"Who do you take action against in this case? Is it WADA? Is it the (French sports) ministry? Is it L'Equipe? Is it the laboratory? Who is it? They're all at fault there," he said.

The Texan, a cancer survivor deeply involved in working with others suffering from the disease, said he had better things to do with his money than indulge in another costly court battle.

Regardless of their scientific validity, the way in which the results of the tests on Armstrong's 1999 samples have been obtained is in breach of anti-doping procedures.

Comparisons have been made with the BALCO case which led to American sprinters being banned for taking the THG steroid.

The athletes did not fail dope tests for the steroid at the time of racing as it was unknown. They were banned after tests were carried out in secret. Tour de France deputy director Christian Prudhomme said the big difference was that in the BALCO case, US athletes were banned after being shown undeniable evidence of testing which had been properly carried out.

By comparison, confusion rather than clarity surrounds the L'Equipe accusations.

The problem is that the French scientists tested bottles bearing numbers, not names, and these names would never have been leaked if proper protocol had been followed.