Rapporto USADA. Estratti

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Da

United States Anti-Doping Agency
5555 Tech Center Drive, Suite 200, Colorado Springs, CO 80919

REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODEAND THE USADA PROTOCOL
UNITED STATES ANTIDOPING AGENCY, Claimant,

v.

LANCE ARMSTRONG, Respondent.

REASONED DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES ANTI-DOPING AGENCYON DISQUALIFICATION AND INELIGIBILITY.



3 prove a suo carico, p. 2:

This Reasoned Decision includes a summary of the overwhelming evidence thatdemonstrates that Mr. Armstrong doped throughout the majority of his professional cyclingcareer. Among the evidence in this case are the sworn statements
TESTIMONIANZE of more than two dozen (24+)witnesses, including fifteen (15) professional cyclists, and a dozen (12) members of Armstrong’scycling teams, including eleven (11) former teammates and his former soigneur (masseuse). Nine (9) of the professional cyclists were, like Mr. Armstrong, clients of Dr. Michele Ferrari andhave firsthand knowledge of his doping practices.
RAPPORTI CON FERRARI DOPO AVER DICHIARATO DI AVER ROTTO CON LUI The evidence in this case also includes banking and accounting records from a Swisscompany controlled by Dr. Ferrari reflecting more than one million dollars in payments by Mr.Armstrong, extensive email communications between Dr. Ferrari and his son and Mr. Armstrongduring a time period in which Mr. Armstrong claimed to not have a professional relationshipwith Dr. Ferrari and a vast amount of additional data, RISULTATI DI LABORATORIO including laboratory test results and expertanalysis of Mr. Armstrong’s blood test results. This evidence is incorporated by reference intothis Reasoned Decision as if fully set forth.



l'USADA ha agito autonomamente, senza la giustizia ordinaria, p. 3 (si v. anche pp. 11-15 sui non rapporti di questo processo con la giustizia ordinaria:
None of the evidence USADA summarizes in this Reasoned Decision was obtained fromthe United States federal law enforcement investigation involving Mr. Armstrong. After theannouncement by U.S. District Attorney Andre Birotte on February 3, 2012, that he wasdiscontinuing the criminal investigation of Armstrong’s conduct, USADA formally requestedcopies of non-grand jury evidence from the case. However, no documents have been receivedto date.

le prove decisive sono quelle testimoniali, p. 4, il che comporta il coinvolgimento anche di Bruyneel e di vari medici e preparatori:

The most critical evidence assembled by USADA and discussed in this ReasonedDecision has come from Mr. Armstrong’s former teammates and former employees of the UnitedStates Postal Service (“U.S. Postal Service” or “USPS”) and Discovery Channel cycling teamswho decided that it was the right thing to do for clean sport to come forward and provideevidence to USADA regarding what they knew. As a consequence of a number of courageousriders willingness to break the Code of Silence—the “omerta”—after being approached byUSADA, by late May 2012 USADA concluded it had more than enough evidence to proceedwith charges against former USPS and Discovery Channel Team Director Johan Bruyneel, former USPS and/or Discovery Channel doctors Pedro Celaya, Luis Garcia del Moral and Michele Ferrari and Team Trainer Jose “Pepe” Marti and against Mr. Armstrong

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Al centro c'è un sistema, p. 6

As discussed in this Reasoned Decision, Mr. Armstrong did not act alone. He acted withthe help of a small army of enablers, including doping doctors, drug smugglers, and others withinand outside the sport and on his team.
Il colpevole però è uno solo.

Anzi NO: secondo l'USADA, p. 6, Armstrong padre padrone di ogni male, è responsabile ultimo dell'attività dell'associazione a delinquere, p. 6:

"the evidence is also clear that Armstrong had ultimate control over not only his own personal drug use, which was extensive, but also over thedoping culture of his team. Final responsibility for decisions to hire and retain a director, doctorsand other staff committed to running a team-wide doping program ultimately flowed to him. On paper, Armstrong’s team contract provided him with “extensive input into rider andstaff composition.” In practice, however, as a team owner and by virtue of the power his rapidlyaccumulating titles conferred, his effective control was even greater.Armstrong said, “we had one goal and one ambition and that was to win the greatest bikerace in the world and not just to win it once, but to keep winning it.”

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Le accuse: pp. 7 ss.:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, bloodtransfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containersand other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices),testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.

(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration
to others of EPO, testosterone,and/or cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity
involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping ruleviolations

(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in asophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope andcover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Punto importantissimo: standard di prova.

La prova presa non è quella penale (più del lecito dubbio),
né quella di doping (certezza scentifica della presenza della sostanza),
che viene usata solo in un secondo momento.
Si aggiunge anche come standard di prova quello meno stretta della grave negligenza professionale.

In questo modo ci sono 2 prove:
Lanza è giudicato come ciclista professionista,
Lanza è giudicato per doping.
Le due cose vengono separate.
Stratagemma per usare le testimonianze, che altrimenti, con lo standard di prova del doping, non avrebbero valore.


cfr. p. 15:
dall'Article 3.1 del codice dice: “[t]he standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfactionof the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.”
... this standard of proof is comparable to the standard which isapplied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. Thus, for example, in proceedings in the United States to take away the license to practice of a doctor or lawyer, theapplicable standard of proof is typically “clear and convincing evidence.”




a p. 16 emerge chiaramente che problemi avrebbe dato l'uso dello standard di prova per doping v. testimonianze:
here is, however, evidence from a number of Mr. Armstrong’s past samples thatcorroborate the other evidence of his doping. As explained below, had this matter gone to ahearing USADA would have asked the hearing panel to permit use of the scientific evidence tocorroborate the testimony of its witnesses. However, the witness testimony and other documentevidence is so strong USADA would have confidently proceeded to a hearing without anyevidence from samples had the panel accepted the UCI’s contention that only the UCI has jurisdiction to examine evidence gathered from samples collected by the UCI

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Vi è poi, p. 16 ss, una serie di rapporti cronologici (dal 1998 in poi) sulle pratiche usate.
Si comincia col 1998 e la menzione del 4 posto alla vuelta del Lanza, che girava con un thermos sotto braccio, e che si praticava Epo, cortisone, e soluzioni saline prima del test al mondiale.

L'analisi è lunga, per chi è interessato l'indice all'inizio del documento è dettagliato.

Per chi ha letto un po' di cose sul doping c'è poca roba interessante.

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Nella sezione dedicata al 1999 viene spiegata in un passaggio interessante la ragione della monopreparazione sul Tour (cose che già tutti avevano pensato.... fa un po' ridere leggerle nella sentenza. mi vengono in mente i giornalisti che commentavano la scelta di correre solo il tour come "eccessiva" specializzazione v. "ciclismo romantico che corre da marzo a ottobre")

pp. 21-22:
According to Bruyneel and Armstrong theyear started with an unlikely goal, win the Tour de France, and a unique plan, avoid most of theraces in the lead up to the Tour in exchange for a single minded focus on Tour preparation. Intended or not, the plan had several aspects that would decrease the risk and increase thereward of doping. First, the UCI had no organized out of competition testing program; so by avoiding most of the early season races Armstrong would be avoiding most of the drug testing towhich he could be subjected in the lead up to the Tour. Second, even if someone had wanted totest Armstrong it would have been next to impossible to do so, as there existed no whereabouts program that required riders to provide their training location for testing. Armstrong’s training program frequently took him far away from his residence in the south of France, to mountain training camps where the prospect of unannounced testing was even more remote. Third, thesheer length and severity of the Tour de France greatly increases the pay off of doping. A rider doping in the Tour has an even greater advantage over non-doping competitors than in a shorter competition.


Alle pagine successive ci sono riflessioni di Bruyneel sulla preparazione monoappuntamento,

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Alle pp. 23 ss si comincia a parlare di Ferrari. A p. 48, per esempio, c'è una bella lista di località che ci fa capire che i due amassero anche i bei posti...
"From teamtraining camps in Austin, Texas; St. Moritz, Switzerland; Alicante, Spain; Puigcerdà,Spain; and on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands, to personal training sessionsand meetings with Lance at those camps and at other times in Austin, Texas; Girona,Spain; Valencia, Spain; Milan, Italy; Sestriéres, Italy; St. Moritz, Switzerland; the islandof Tenerife, and along roadsides throughout Europe, on many occasions where Lancecould be found, Michele Ferrari was there also"
Non male la vita...

Alle pagine 23 ss ci sono descrizioni delle tecniche di dopaggio, così come accertate dalle testimonianze.

Non mi va di fare resoconti, c'è poco di interessante, più di morboso o folcloristico,
come la motostaffetta del giardiniere della casa in costa azzurra,
o la storia della pomata al cortisone.


Interessante, però, è quanto si dice su Bassons, a partire dalla straordinaria (e chi se la scorda quella performance...) ascesa al Sestriere, nel 1999, p. 35


After Armstrong’s performance at Sestriéres, Bassons wrote that the peloton had been“shocked” by Armstrong’s dominance.

The next day the stage finished on another famous mountaintop, this time at Alped’Huez. Armstrong again performed strongly, so strongly, in fact, that Kevin Livingston told areporter that Armstrong could have won the stage but intentionally did not because Armstrong “and the team did not want to appear greedy and make enemies among teams that circumstancesmight later cast as allies.”
In addition to Armstrong’s dominance on the bike, however, the stage was also marked by an Armstrong attack of a different sort. During the stage to Alpe d’Huez Armstrong rode upto Christophe Bassons, and berated him, calling him a disgrace and telling him he should get outof cycling.
Armstrong’s verbal attack on Bassons in the 1999 Tour echoed Armstrong’s anger after a Bassons stage win earlier in the year at the Dauphiné Libéré.

Jonathan Vaughters recalled, “Lance did not like Basson’s outspokenness about doping,and Lance frequently made fun of him in a very merciless and venomous fashion, much like a playground bully.”
In addition to reacting to Bassons’ comments about Armstrong’s dominant performance on the Sestriéres stage win, in attacking Bassons Armstrong acted in accordancewith a consistent pattern he has demonstrated of attacking those who speak out against doping incycling.

[Maìno della Spinetta]

in occasione dei problemi al test antidoping al Giro della Svizzera Bruyneel e Armstrong fanno vistita in Svizzera con 100 000 cucuzze per aiutare chi soffre, pp. 51-52:

Consistentwith the testimony of both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Landis, Pat McQuaid, the current president of UCI, has acknowledged that during 2002, Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel visited the UCI headquarters in Aigle in May 2002 and offered at least $100,000 to help the development of cycling. UCI vehemently denies that this meeting or payment was, as Mr. Armstrong told Mr.Hamilton and Mr. Landis, tied to a cover-up of the 2001 Tour de Suisse sample. In any case,what is important for the case is that substantial parts of Mr. Hamilton’s and Mr. Landis’srecollections of Mr. Armstrong’s statements have been corroborated.As discussed in more detail in Section V(C) below, Dr. Martial Saugy, the Director of theWADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland has confirmed to bothUSADA and the media that his laboratory detected a number of samples in the 2001 Tour deSuisse that were suspicious for the presence of EPO. Dr. Saugy also told USADA that he wasadvised by UCI that at least one of these samples belonged to Mr. Armstrong. Therefore, evenwithout any consideration of the laboratory test results for these samples, as set forth above,Tyler Hamilton’s and Floyd Landis’s testimony regarding Mr. Armstrong’s admission that heused EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland finds substantial corroboration in the statements of both Dr. Martial Saugy and UCI President Pat McQuaid

[Maìno della Spinetta]

Alle pp. 72-73 si parla del caso Simeoni. Cose note.


Dalle pagine che sto leggendo si nota che la stragrande maggioranaza delle informazioni viene da Landys, da Hincapie,
e solo occasionalmente altri corridori vengono citati.
Questo è un punto di debolezza del rapporto, a mio avviso.
Molte delle testimonianze di Hamilton e altri riguardano i loro rapporti con Ferrari,
non il doping di Armstrong. Di quello ne parla soprattutto Landys.


Nelle pagine seguenti si parla dei nuovi rapporti col figlio di Shumi Ferrarri, Stefano Ferrari, necessari dopo la pressione sul medico italiano (chissà perché Ferrari è diventato famoso, e Del Moral no).


Il nocciolo, il cuore dell'argomentazione della decisione perciò è:
molti vanno da Ferrari,
tra quelli anche Lanza che però fa finta di non andarci più perché è chiacchierato,
dalle prove vediamo che continua ad andarci,
e che lo paga, e che altri si dopnao.
Quindi Lanza va da uno che dopa tutti, cerca di nasconderlo, e quindi è professionalmente inaffidabile.

[Maìno della Spinetta]

alle p. 107-115 si parla di J. Bruyneel e di come abbia fatto crescere Zabrinskie, Hamilton, Van Develde...

Molto interessante alla p. 109 dove si dice:
Bruyneel wanted to be advised on what doping products the riders were using. He became displeased when he learned a rider was doping without his knowledge. LeviLeipheimer realized this was because doping unsupervised by the team doctor put the team at ahigher risk of a positive drug test.

Alla faccia dei direttori sportivi che si scandalizzano del corridore pizzicato,
e che lo scaricano grazie a delle clausole contrattuali in cui gli affibbiano l'intera responsabilità per doping....

Alle p. 115 ss. si sofferma sul passaggio di Bruyneel e del medico Del Moral dalla dopatissima ONCE alla dopatissima USPS,
cosa che mi fa chiedere perché beccato un corridore e sollevato il casino,
si sciolga la squadra e tutti possabo passare a un altra.
Giannetti, Riis, Bruyneel, Bordonali, ecc...

In seguito si parla di Pepe Marti e Celaya, altri preparatori e medici discutiili.

[Maìno della Spinetta]

p. 139 ss. si hanno le prove scientifiche su sangue del 1999 (Tour), del 2001 (Tour di Svizzera), e del biennio 2009-2010 (più abbondanza in questi casi). In tutte ci sono tracce alte di EPO (sopra il 70% di compatibilità).

P. 146 ss. si ha la decisione per condotta atta a inquinare prove e indagini contro di lui,
compresa l'intimidazione a Simeoni (a cui si dà rilevanza, p. 149), Hamilton, Leipheimer, e altri.

Alla p. 154 ss. si dice che gli 8 anni di prescrizione non sono stati tenuti in conto perché caratterizzati da pratiche illecite per differire le indagini:

The eight-year statute of limitation found in Article 17 of the Code is not absolute.

As the CAS panel in CAS 2005/C/841 CONI found, the “interruption, suspension, expiry or extension of such [eight-year] time-bar . . . . should be dealt with in the context of the principlesof private law of the country where the interested sports authority is domiciled.” (CONI, ¶ 78)As the anti-doping organization conducting results management, USADA is the “interested party” in this case. Thus, the statute of limitations issue should be analyzed according to U.S.law. Under U.S. law, the running of a statute of limitation is suspended when a person hasfraudulently concealed his conduct.

[Maìno della Spinetta]

La decisione si conclude con una parte dedicata al (non) conflitto giurisdizionale con l'UCI,
che viene liquidato drsticamente (e con argomenti convincenti),

e con la conclusione che non è copiabile,
e che posto come immagine,
la quale dice che Armstrong è colpevole di doping,
e che le sue prestazioni dal 1 agosto 1998 non sono lecite.