Armstrong’s 2001 Swiss Tour: no cover-up, “suspicious” tests

For nearly a dozen years, speculation has swirled that Lance Armstrong failed at least one doping test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, in particular for the blood-boosting drug erythropoietin, or EPO.

Even as Armstrong has in recent months acknowledged the serial doping that won him seven straight Tour de France championships from 1999 to 2005, the matter of the 2001 Tour of Switzerland has remained contentious.

Anti-doping officials have made plain their assertion Armstrong’s tests were “suspicious” for EPO. Many have wondered if there was a cover-up. Leaders from cycling’s international governing body, which goes by the acronym UCI, have said there was nothing to cover-up because Armstrong never tested positive.

Now, finally:

During the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, according to the lab reports themselves, Armstrong never tested positive.

At the same time, two of his samples were, indeed, categorized as “highly suspicious.” But after extensive testing – all of it conducted in the summer of 2001 – neither met the standard to be formally declared positive.

The lab results are included with a five-page letter sent Thursday from UCI president Pat McQuaid to World Anti-Doping Agency director general David Howman. USADA, copied on the letter, concerned with what it called “numerous inaccuracies and misstatements,” issued a seven-page response on Friday, signed by general counsel William Bock III.

Both letters, now circulating in the international sports community, were obtained by 3 Wire Sports.

In the UCI letter, McQuaid asserts the lengthy explanation and the documents themselves “finally puts pay to the completely untrue allegations” of a positive 2001 test and “any subsequent cover-up by the UCI.”

For the UCI, it must be understood, this is a – if not the – key point: no cover-up.

To emphasize that point, McQuaid says the UCI would be “very grateful” if WADA or USADA would make a public statement “confirming the information in this letter,” keeping in mind the “great damage” done to UCI’s reputation “by these false and scurrilous allegations.”

The USADA response: if UCI officials had “strong evidence” way back in 2001 that Armstrong was using synthetic EPO, why didn’t they do something about it then?

To that end, the USADA reply includes a “short list” of 10 “new concerns” and a request for seven buckets of new information relating to Armstrong tests for the years 1999-2010.

Its letter asserts the documents the UCI turned over were “quite incomplete” but also says, “USADA is thankful that the UCI has now belatedly come around to USADA’s position that it is appropriate for the UCI to share with USADA and others in the sports world Mr. Armstrong’s test results.”

As recited in the USADA “Reasoned Decision,” issued last October, which sets forth in detail Armstrong’s pattern of doping, the 2001 Tour of Switzerland – a warm-up for the Tour de France – took place from June 19-28.

Armstrong won the event.

Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis, both former Armstrong lieutenants, provided USADA with affidavits. Armstrong said or implied he had tested positive in the Swiss race but had been able to “make the EPO test result go away,” according to USADA’s case.

Armstrong’s conversation with Hamilton was in 2001, with Landis in 2002. Landis recalled Armstrong saying he and team leader Johan Bruyneel “flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement to keep the positive test hidden.”

It has long been public knowledge that Armstrong made a significant contribution to help the federation in its anti-doping efforts. UCI documented the payments last October, two contributions totaling $125,000, McQuaid saying then it was “absolute rubbish” to suggest they had been given to cover up a test.

In his January interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong said the donations were “not in exchange for help. They called and said they didn’t have a lot of money; I did. They asked if I would make a donation, so I did.”

McQuaid, last October, contrasting UCI’s finances with those of soccer’s wealthy governing body FIFA, said UCI would still accept such a donation – even now. “But,” he said, “we would accept it differently and announce it differently than before.”

The intent with regard to the lab documents, McQuaid said in the UCI letter, was to present them to a so-called “independent commission” that was under consideration after release of the USADA case against Armstrong. That commission, though, never got going, disbanded earlier this year after discussions with WADA.

Given that development and other issues related to USADA, UCI opted to send the lab results Thursday to WADA.

Armstrong’s “public confession has now lifted any confidentiality issues,” the UCI letter notes.

Armstrong was tested five times during the 2001 Tour of Switzerland – on June 19, 20, 26, 27 and 28.

Three of those five included EPO tests – June 19, 26 and 27.

The accredited lab at Lausanne, Switzerland, conducted the battery of tests.

“As you can see,” the UCI letter says, “every analysis result for Lance Armstrong is reported by the lab as being negative.”

Even so, both the June 19 and June 26 samples contain the same remark. Translated from the French: “strong suspicion of the presence of EPO, the positivity criteria are not all met.”

The June 27 sample simply says, negative.

The June 19 sample was originally tested on July 6; the June 26 sample on July 12. They were sent to and received by the cycling federation after the July 7 start of the 2001 Tour de France, the UCI letter says.

Both samples were then run through more extensive testing.

To simplify the complicated science:

The Lausanne lab considered a sample positive if what are called “basic bands” registered above 80 percent. It considered it “highly suspicious” if it fell above 70.2 and below 80.

Armstrong’s June 19 sample was numbered 106209.

The secondary report was done on Aug. 10, 2001.

The percentage: 75.1.

The July 6 test results from the June 19 sample, with the French notation for "strong suspicion" of EPO usage, triggering further testing

The July 6 test results from the June 19 sample, with the French notation for “strong suspicion” of EPO usage, triggering further testing

The results page for the June 19 sample, established Aug. 10, 2001, showing a 75.1 percentage: "highly suspicious"

The results page for the June 19 sample, established Aug. 10, 2001, showing a 75.1 percentage: “highly suspicious”

Armstrong’s June 26 sample was numbered 106106.

The latter report was done on Aug. 7.

The percentage: 70.0.

Even though it fell just outside the category of “highly suspicious,” it was nonetheless categorized that way.

To McQuaid, the conclusion was thus, as he declares on page 3 of the UCI letter: “I reiterate therefore that not one of Armstrong’s samples could in any way have been considered to be positive results.”

The USADA response asserts, in part, “It is now apparent that the UCI has long had in its possession multiple samples from Lance Armstrong which contained synthetic EPO and which raised strong concerns regarding the legitimacy of all of his competitive results since at least 1999. It is shocking and disheartening that the UCI would accept cash payments from Armstrong after the UCI had test results in its possession demonstrating that Armstrong’s samples contained synthetic EPO.”

The USADA letter asks why, among other issues, the UCI did not pursue a case against Armstrong based on those samples and samples from other races in combination with other so-called “non-analytical” evidence, such as witness statements. To not do so, the USADA letter asserts, “appears to have been grossly negligent or worse.”

Armstrong and Bruyneel were told about the suspicious tests during the 2001 Tour de France; Armstrong categorically denied doping, according to the UCI letter. He also questioned the reliability of the EPO test, which had been put into practice just four months before, on April 9, 2001.

During the 2001 Tour de France, Armstrong was tested 10 times, and five times for EPO at the request of the UCI, according to the UCI letter.

The French lab, outside Paris, reported all the results as negative. The highest percentage: 72. This result was not even reported as suspicious, the UCI letter says, noting that the Lausanne and French labs did not use the same criteria.

 

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Plusone Tumblremail

15 thoughts on “Armstrong’s 2001 Swiss Tour: no cover-up, “suspicious” tests

  1. ” April Fools Day ” is on the 1st ! Not on the 11th and certainly not on the day before phat mc splat was to seek his 3rd Nomination to the post of President of the UCI !

    For years now , WE , The Public and Cycling Fans , have had to suffer the continous shenanigans , of this cancerous growth , that deems himself , superior in intellect and cunning, to normal human kind ?

    With the Board of Cycling Ireland , now known as the Muppet Show , rolling over last friday and allowing ” good sense ” to be flung out the window , we are dragged back to the 2001 Tour de Suisse ? Even the Directors / organisers , of the TDS , do not need the publicity /reminder of what MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE ?

    Even the IOC , have reached the point where they were happy to see phat withdraw from the 2012 Candidate Committee ! WADA and a variety of other Official Bodies have also seen phat walk away from involvement in their affairs .

    WHEN , hopefully soon , will phat remove himself from involvement in UCI ?

    That ” Dancing Korean ” has just released a new Video , for me he reminds me of phat and his seeking of attention !

    Lets ALL hope that a member of the Cycling Ireland Board comes to their senses and calls an Extraordinary General Meeting and has the outcomes of the ” Muppet Show “, Thrown out , and with it , that Nomination !

    Paul Kimmage’s Lawyer needs to remind the ” Swiss Authorities ” that their file delivered in Novenber 2012 , requires an early answer !

  2. Dig out an old tape and watch Lance win. Watch an old “Road to the Tour” tape and see Lance train. Watch the faces of the competition as Lance out-suffers them. Eddy’s the best ever, but in my book Lance will always be in the breakaway with him.

  3. @Skippy
    I know, some of the tripe that PMcQ says is unbelievable. When you read some of the pompus and prideful letters he has written to WADA and USADA over the last year or two, you can see a man whom is continually covering his tracks. He also has started to employ LA’s method of attacking others credibilty and intent. He truly hates Tygart, but I think Tygart will have his day and watch PMcQ fade into obscurity in the coming years.
    Please Mcireland, review this latest material and find for a dropping of PMcQ. It’s obvious they knew Lance was cheating. How can someone have a SYNTHETIC substance in their system, oh, he ate a piece of steak from he Basque country..

  4. Give it up conspiracy theorists. (skippy) Your spending too much time reading the rubbish from the Cycling News Forum, The Clinic. Pat McQuaid is doing a great job. Get your facts right. Don’t hang on every word Paul Kimmage says. He has a habit of speaking before he thinks. The public are suckers for conspiracy theory’s. Don’t get caught up in that way of thinking.

  5. McQuaid’s mendacity is staggering and systematic. From the tip that has become visible to us the public we can infer the depth of his corrupting influence. How can he still be in charge? How could he be renominated? Where is the public outcry?

    A second concern is the ad-hoc modus operandi of the UCI. This is not acceptable in a sporting body. Strict rules have drawbacks (mostly in that it is difficult to come up with good ones) but clear rules, developed by a clear process involving all stakeholders that wish to participate, revised according to a predefined calendar, enforced by separate bodies, is the only way forward if we wish to curtail the cosy arrangements that spring from the peculiar concentration of power in sports federations.

  6. @Phil Baechler
    Hey Phil, while you’re at it find some old Cincinati Reds games to watch you know, the ones they lost when Pete Rose managed them. How about Ben Johnson in’88 ? He was wicked fast . Watch as he leaves Lewis in his dust. And what about a highlight reel of Barry Bonds hitting 500 ft home runs . What a true champion. Oh, let’s not forget those great Patriot teams that ,ahem, haven’t won anything since they got caught filming the other teams’ practice sessions. Lance is just like America – all shiny on the outside but rotten at the core

  7. So the donation was to get the IOC to turn a blind eye to Armstrong’s ‘highly suspicious’ samples rather than to cover up a failed test. Is there really any difference here? Clearly the IOC knew he was at it, but are still failing to own up to either being party to it, or not acting when there was significant evidence before them.

    Armstrong went on to win 4 more TdF titles after this evidence had been seen by the IOC. They could have had Lance years ago, so it’s a mystery why they didn’t. Incompetence or did they simply decide to sit on their hands and take no action? Either way, they still have a lot to answer for.

  8. Tygart is an over zealous maniacal creep . Capt Ahab pursuing Moby Dick. It is an obsession to justify $10 million dollars of your tax money going to a private agency. When asked by Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” what could Lance do to them when he spoke of intimidating everyone, he answered “incinerate them”. Why did Hamilton, Landis and other get busted for doping when they were no longer riding for U.S. Postal? Why did Tygart write a letter supporting Landis to the judge hearing Landis case for fraud? Was outraged because Levi was fired for having doped and handed six month suspensions to all who testified that started after the the TDF the Tour of Utah and the Pro Cycling in Colorado and before the racing season in 2013.

Leave a Reply