Saturday, September 8, 2012
Cyclingnews forum commenters occasionally come up with some interesting info that deserves close scrutiny:
Below extracts are from the WADA Director General’s report (Mr David Howman) at 2 specific meetings
from 19 Nov 2011 meeting:
“ WADA had had informal discussions with them (ANADO) along the lines that WADA might be prepared to consider funding in the same way as it had funded SportAccord (it provided 160,000 Swiss francs annually to SportAccord under certain conditions that had been followed very properly by SportAccord, to the benefit of all concerned).” …“WADA provided the money to SportAccord on the basis that it was not to be spent for doping tests (it was to be spent only on overheads in relation to the operation of the unit, which included the salaries of those employed by SportAccord) and that WADA had a position as an advisory member of its committee and received audited reports from the body in relation to its activities.”
Discussion of the outcomes of the WADA research programme on pg 46 of the meeting minutes Pat McQuaid asked
“Dr Rabin had mentioned autologous blood transfusion, and he saw that it had been number one on the list of priorities for 2011, and WADA was now heading into 2012. Where was WADA with that and how did Dr Rabin see it in the short term in terms of WADA having an actual validated test for it? The second question, which was somewhat related to that, was about plasticizers: where was WADA with a test for plasticizers?”
from 1 Dec 2009:
Another issue that WADA faced in terms of the laboratories was that there were antidoping organisations sending samples to the laboratories with the request to have them analysed under a selective, and quite a reduced, menu. WADA did not have access to these contracts, but it should have, and again he asked the Executive Committee to consider a direction to the Laboratory Committee to examine the issue to see whether there were ways and means of WADA having access to the contracts that the laboratories had as part of the accreditation or reaccreditation process.
Another area on the subject of doping control and collection of samples was that it had been brought to his attention that some samples collected in competition were designated on the doping control forms as out-of-competition tests, which obviously led to the samples being collected for the out-of-competition testing menu, perhaps avoiding substances. That would be a breach of the standard and could lead to the board considering this a matter of non-compliance. There were no details as yet, and the only way in which it would be possible to get details was through access to more information from the laboratories.
He had included bribery and corruption again in his report just for this meeting, but he would not repeat it the following day at the Foundation Board meeting. WADA had been working with the Austrian authorities about the allegations raised about individuals at that laboratory being open to bribes and helping athletes’ agents. The inquiry had not finished, but WADA had been told that there was nobody directly engaged in the laboratory activities who might be involved. The bigger question was whether there was somebody on the periphery, and that inquiry was still ongoing and he could not provide any update until it was completed, but it showed that the very core of what was being done in the fight against doping in sport could be undone in a fashion that bordered on bribery and corruption.
What strikes me as odd , is that there are a range of tests that can be applied to " Athletes " , in a variety of scenarios ! WHO makes the decision to subject Athlete X to Test A , B , C or D ? Who makes the decision to use a variety of " printed forms " to attach to these " Test Results "? Does not mixing the " Tests " and " paperwork " not cause some " tests " to become " Invalid " when challenged ? Surely in these days when " Lawyers " are butting in at ALL levels of Sport , there needs to be a " Uniform Test " for ALL Sports with a " Standard Form " , correctly filled to avoid a test result being rendered " Invalid "? These Tests now cost considerable sums of money whether taken at Competition Venues or as OoC and thus greater care needs to be exercised !
Whilst Fat Pat sits on the Foundation Board of WADA , should WADA not be more careful about their funding of " SportAccord "? Here , i am sure , are grounds for some to think that there is a conflict of interests . Yes there are 38 or so members making input to any decision but some speak with more weight than others ? With Jacques Rogge being viewed world wide sitting with Fat Pat at an Olympic Track Cycling Event and the IOC decision to give Fat Pat another IOC role in connection with the 2020 Olympic Games , he is now a much sought centre of influence by those with an agenda !
John Fahey , an Australian Politician , who rose to be Premier of New South Wales , The most Populous state in Oz , must be aware that WADA is in a place where EVERYTHING has to be done correctly so that ALL of it's decisions are final and binding ! When i look at the extracts above , i see too many loopholes and i am not a " Lawyer " seeking to overturn a " Doping Conviction " for a paying client .