View Single Post
Old 04-09-09 | 12:44 PM
  #127  
patentcad's Avatar
patentcad
Peloton Shelter Dog
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 90,508
Likes: 32
From: Chester, NY

Bikes: 2017 Scott Foil, 2016 Scott Addict SL, 2018 Santa Cruz Blur CC MTB

Sounds like he said/she said:

The WADA code article in question states, "when initial contact is made, the ADO [anti-doping official], DCO [doping control officer] or Chaperone, as applicable, shall ensure that the Athlete and/or a third party (if required in accordance with Clause 5.3.8) is informed.... of the Athlete's responsibilities, including the requirement to... remain within direct observation of the DCO/Chaperone at all times from the point of notification by the DCO/Chaperone until the completion of the Sample collection procedure."

Earlier this week, Armstrong responded to news that the AFLD had raised objections to the incident. He issued a statement saying that he was approached by the and team manager Johan Bruyneel were attempting to verify the validity of the person requesting the samples and Armstrong was permitted to leave.

"We told the tester we wanted to check with the UCI to confirm who he was and to make sure he wasn't just some French guy with a backpack and some equipment to take my blood and urine.

"Johan stayed with him and in his presence called the UCI to find out what was going on. We asked if it was OK for me to run inside and shower while they made their calls and the tester said that was fine."

The AFLD statement directly contradicts, this, saying that, "Mr Armstrong, despite being repeatedly warned by the examiner, did not meet the obligation to remain under direct and permanent observation."
patentcad is offline  
Reply