After two editions of the Tour de France cycling race in 1998 and 1999, the leftover samples from those tested as part of the anti-doping controls were preserved, with the agreement of the athletes, for scientific research purposes.
The French LNDD laboratory performed two studies for research purposes on these samples to improve the precision and reliability of the test results, particularly as regards the detection of EPO. The results of the first study (on the samples from 1998) were published in 2000 in the scientific journal Nature, without producing any reaction from the media or the athletes.
The results of the second study (on the samples from 1999) were made public, not by a scientific publication, but by a press article published in the French sports daily L’Equipe on 23 August 2005, under the title “le mensonge d’Armstrong” (“Armstrong’s lie”), revealing that traces of EPO had been found six times in the urine of American cyclist Lance Armstrong, winner of the Tour in 1999.
In the months which followed, the UCI tasked a Dutch lawyer, the former Director of the Dutch Anti-Doping Agency, with conducting an investigation. The report from this investigation did not succeed in proving how the journalist had been able to obtain the different information, even though it did wonder for what reason the additional information identifying the samples used had been included with the scientific report. As a result, the report recommended that the UCI take no disciplinary measures against the cyclists, and Mr Armstrong in particular, on the basis of the LNDD study results.
From all the press articles published after this affair, it appears that IOC-member Mr Richard Pound made statements to the media which were likely to enable journalists to draw negative conclusions concerning the integrity of Mr Armstrong.
On 3 July 2006, the IOC Ethics Commission received a complaint from Mr Lance Armstrong jointly against Mr Richard Pound, IOC member and Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and against WADA itself. Attached to this complaint was a copy of the report on the “independent investigation – analysis samples from the 1999 Tour de France” by Mr Emile Vrijman, a lawyer in The Hague (NL), and the appeal submitted by Mr Levinstein before the IOC Executive Board on 20 June 2006, based on the conclusions of this investigation.
Mr Armstrong’s complaint is founded essentially on the report of the “independent investigation – analysis samples from the 1999 Tour de France”. From reading the conclusions of this report, it is clear that there is no personal reproach against IOC-member Mr Richard Pound for his activity.
From the press cuttings attached to the complaint, it appears that Mr Richard Pound made personal statements which could have been regarded as likely to impugn the probity of an athlete, given the high profile of the sports personalities in question.
The IOC Ethics Commission recommends that the IOC Executive Board remind IOC-member Mr Richard Pound of the obligation to exercise greater prudence consistent with the Olympic spirit when making public pronouncements that may affect the reputation of others.
After deliberating in accordance with its Statutes, the IOC Ethics Commission decides:
1.) to declare itself to have no jurisdiction regarding the complaint made against the World Anti-Doping Agency;
2.) to recommend that the IOC Executive Board remind Mr Richard Pound, IOC member, of the obligation to exercise greater prudence consistent with the Olympic spirit when making public pronouncements that may affect the reputation of others.
