Lutte contre le dopage : avoir une longueur d'avance : Tome I: Rapport / Commission d'enquête sur l'efficacité de la lutte contre le dopage. - M. Jean-François Humbert (Président); M. Jean-Jacques Lozach (Rapporteur). - Paris : Sénat, 2013. – 238 p. : ill., fig. graf. - Rapport n° 782 (2012-2013)
Rapport remis à Monsieur le Président du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Enregistré à la Présidence du Sénat le 17 juillet 2013
Dépôt publié au Journal Officiel – Édition des Lois et Décrets du 18 juillet 2013

A French inquiry into sports doping has uncovered proof that 1998 Tour de France champion Marco Pantani and runner-up Jan Ullrich used a banned blood booster to fuel their performances.

After a five-month investigation focused on fighting sports doping, the France’s Senat Commission released a report, on Wednesday 24 July 2013, that reveals what many have long suspected: use of the banned substance EPO was rife in cycling in the late 1990s, before a test for the drug had been developed.

Pantani was suspended in 1999 from the Giro after failing a random blood test, and his career was damaged by several doping investigations. He died in 2004 at 34 of an accidental drug overdose. Ullrich has admitted to blood doping and last year was stripped of his third-place finish in the 2005 Tour.

The 1998 Tour de France was notable for the major scandal that emerged with the discovery of widespread doping on the French Festina team. The subsequent police crackdown led to seven of the original 21 teams either withdrawing or being ejected from the Tour.
Other star riders whose positive doping tests were disclosed by the senate report include double stage winner Mario Cipollini of Italy and Laurent Jalabert of France. Kevin Livingston, an American who finished 17th in that year’s Tour, also tested positive for EPO, according to documents included in the senate report. Third-place finisher, American Bobby Julich, last year admitted to his own EPO use during the 1998 Tour.

Senators took pains to point out that the 1998 Tour de France disclosures represented only a few pages of the 800-page report released, which mainly focused on establishing the size of
the sports doping problem and identifying ways of improving anti-doping measures.

SOMMAIRE:

La commission d'enquête a fait le constat que la France conservait une politique antidopage de qualité mais rencontrait néanmoins des difficultés réelles, expliquant pourquoi la lutte a encore souvent un temps de retard sur le dopage :
- les pouvoirs publics n'ont pas une bonne connaissance statistique, ni des pratiques dopantes, ni des trafics qui y sont liés;
- en matière de prévention, notre politique est à la fois trop peu dynamique et mal ciblée. Le ministère des sports, en charge de la prévention, n'a pas su dégager des lignes directrices pertinentes ou des outils efficaces;
- le dispositif de contrôle est plutôt solide, notamment en termes de quantité, mais il mériterait de gagner en qualité et en originalité;
- le laboratoire d'analyse français est toujours reconnu au niveau international. Néanmoins ses efforts en matière de recherche sont clairement insuffisants par rapport à d'autres laboratoires, notamment européens;
- la politique de sanction mériterait quant à elle d'être clarifiée. Le partage des compétences actuelles entre les fédérations et l'AFLD nuit clairement à l'uniformisation des sanctions, mais surtout à leur diversité;
- en matière de lutte contre les trafics, la France bute notamment sur une définition restrictive du sportif et sur une certaine complexité de nos dispositifs juridiques;
- enfin, les instances en charge de la lutte contre le dopage peinent fortement à travailler ensemble. Pour avoir une longueur d'avance sur le dopage, la commission d'enquête a fait 60 propositions.
Ces propositions peuvent être analysées ou commentées de manière isolée, mais elles sont construites dans un cadre cohérent de redynamisation de notre politique antidopage sur la base de sept piliers : une meilleure connaissance du dopage, une politique de prévention à rebâtir, un ciblage renforcé des contrôles, une optimisation des analyses, un panel de sanctions plus étoffé, une pénalisation des trafics plus fine, et surtout une coordination beaucoup plus organisée entre autorités antidopage et services de police et de gendarmerie.

SOMMAIRE

AVANT-PROPOS DU PRÉSIDENT
INTRODUCTION DU RAPPORTEUR
PROPOSITIONS DE LA COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE : LES SEPT PILIERS DE LA LUTTE ANTIDOPAGE
PREMIÈRE PARTIE - LE DOPAGE : UN ENJEU ÉTHIQUE ET SANITAIRE

I. LE CONSTAT D'UN PROBLÈME PERSISTANT
A. LE DOPAGE DES SPORTIFS, UNE RÉALITÉ DIFFICILE À COMBATTRE
1. Un phénomène qui traverse l'histoire du sport
2. Le règne de l'omerta, facteur de complexité de la lutte contre le dopage
3. La médicalisation de la performance : un contexte porteur d'ambiguïté et de dérives
B. UNE PRÉVALENCE DU DOPAGE PLUS FORTE QUE LA RÉALITÉ STATISTIQUE
1. Un phénomène qui n'épargne aucune discipline ni aucun pays
2. Une réalité statistique qui sous-évalue largement l'ampleur du problème
3. Les sportifs amateurs et les non-licenciés : des pratiquants particulièrement touchés

II. LES OBJECTIFS SANITAIRES, ÉTHIQUES ET D'ORDRE PUBLIC
A. LES DANGERS DU DOPAGE
1. Un développement continu des substances et des méthodes interdites
2. Une liste des substances et méthodes interdites dans le sport qui ne donne pas entière satisfaction
3. Des risques sanitaires majeurs
B. UNE PÉNALISATION TARDIVE DU TRAFIC DE PRODUITS DOPANTS
1. Un dispositif pénal orienté vers les trafiquants de produits dopants
2. La difficile appréhension du trafic de produits dopants
III. UNE QUESTION PAR NATURE TRANSNATIONALE
A. UN ENJEU INTERNATIONAL
B. UNE RÉPONSE NÉCESSAIREMENT MONDIALE
1. Le rôle moteur de l'échelon européen
2. Un corpus de règles aujourd'hui négocié au niveau mondial

DEUXIÈME PARTIE - VOIES ET MOYENS DE LA LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE

I. RENFORCER LA PRÉVENTION
A. LE RÔLE DE L'ÉTAT
1. Une responsabilité inscrite dans le code du sport
2. Une responsabilité interministérielle
3. Des outils de prévention faiblement mobilisés
4. Redonner à l'AFLD un rôle majeur dans la prévention
B. LA PRÉVENTION, MISSION NATURELLE DES FÉDÉRATIONS
1. Une responsabilité inscrite parmi les obligations des fédérations
2. Un rôle essentiel de promotion de la santé par le sport
3. La surveillance médicale réglementaire, une prévention contre le dopage qui ne dit pas son nom
4. Un contrôle insuffisant des calendriers des compétitions
C. UN MESSAGE DE PRÉVENTION QUI DOIT S'AFFINER

II. DE LA LOCALISATION À LA SUSPENSION : L'EXTENSION DU DOMAINE DE LA LUTTE ANTIDOPAGE
A. MIEUX CIBLER LES CONTRÔLES
1. Les acteurs du contrôle
2. Les contrôles en compétition
3. Les contrôles inopinés hors compétition
4. Améliorer le ciblage du dispositif de contrôle
B. OPTIMISER LES ANALYSES
1. Les moyens et les limites de l'analyse
2. Le département des analyses, une référence mondiale à mieux valoriser
3. L'échange d'informations avec les laboratoires pharmaceutiques
C. ASSURER L'INDÉPENDANCE ET L'EFFICACITÉ DE LA SANCTION DISCIPLINAIRE
1. Un dispositif de sanction inadapté
2. Retirer le pouvoir de sanction aux fédérations
3. Rendre les sanctions plus dissuasives
4. Accroître le nombre de sanctions sur la base d'éléments de preuve non analytiques
5. Encourager le repentir
D. RÉFORMER LA GOUVERNANCE DE L'AFLD
1. Faire du président de l'AFLD un pilote de la lutte antidopage en créant une commission des sanctions
2. Confier les enquêtes au département des contrôles
3. Créer un département de la prévention du dopage
4. Instaurer un financement paritaire entre la subvention publique et les financements privés
5. Fusionner l'AFLD avec l'Arjel : une fausse bonne idée

III. LA COOPÉRATION, MAÎTRE MOT DE LA RÉPONSE PÉNALE DE LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE
A. UN DÉLIT D'USAGE DE PRODUITS DOPANTS, UNE SOLUTION INADAPTÉE
1. Une incrimination particulièrement difficile à mettre en oeuvre
2. Une incrimination inutile en tant que telle
B. UN IMPÉRATIF : MOBILISER LES NOMBREUX ACTEURS DE LA LUTTE ANTIDOPAGE
1. Des acteurs nombreux, aux buts différents, parfois divergents
2. L'impérieuse nécessité de mieux coordonner les structures qui luttent contre le dopage
3. La sensibilisation des juridictions à la problématique du dopage
C. UNE COOPÉRATION INTERNATIONALE À GÉOMÉTRIE VARIABLE
1. La coopération internationale, un facteur clef de la lutte antidopage
2. La prise en compte progressive de la question de la lutte contre le dopage par l'Union européenne

CONCLUSION : UN COMBAT PROTÉIFORME
EXAMEN EN COMMISSION
LISTE DES ACRONYMES

Composition de la commission: M. Jean-François Humbert, président ; M. Jean-Jacques Lozach, rapporteur ; M. Alain Dufaut, Mme Chantal Jouanno, MM. Michel Le Scouarnec, Stéphane Mazars, Alain Néri, Jean-Vincent Placé, vice-présidents ; M. Dominique Bailly, Mme Marie-Thérèse Bruguière, MM. Jean-Claude Carle, Jean-Pierre Chauveau, Jacques Chiron, Vincent Delahaye, Mme Frédérique Espagnac, M. Ronan Kerdraon, Mme Danielle Michel, MM. François Pillet, Bernard Saugey, Michel Savin, Jean-Marc Todeschini.

by Soek, Jan Willem
Doctoral Thesis
Erasmus University Rotterdam: Erasmus School of Law (ESL)

Athletes who achieve extraordinary feats on the pitch stir up the imagination and enjoy a unique position within society. However, laurels received one day, may be just as quickly snatched back the next if it becomes known that the athlete achieved his or her exceptional performance with the aid of doping. Manipulating the body by the use of substances and methods that unnaturally enhance athletic performance is considered a violation of several fundamental principles related to sport. The arguments by which sports organisations have sought to justify their fight against doping have been discussed in Chapter 1. Doping is considered a health risk, but also a threat to both athlete’s integrity and that of sport as a whole, and consequently, given the position in society occupied by sport, of that of society itself. None of these arguments, however, is entirely convincing. Perhaps this is why many sports organisations have declined to state reasons for their anti-doping policies in their anti-doping regulations. The fight against doping in sport is considered self-evident and the arguments which are advanced in its favour merely serve to illustrate this fact. It was only a relatively short time ago that the systematic fight against doping in sport through legal rules began. As a separate body of disciplinary law besides their regular disciplinary rules the sports organisations established special anti-doping regulations for the prosecution and punishment of doping offences. As opposed to under general disciplinary law where unwritten minimum standards usually apply, the disciplinary law of doping uses detailed material rules which define the act of doping and the way in which it is to be punished. As such, the disciplinary law concerning doping resembles the statutory disciplinary rules that exist for certain professions, but is also comparable to public punitive law. What sets disciplinary doping law apart however is that the material rules do not aim to regulate the actual exercise of a profession, but are based on the ideological aspects which prevail in the environment where an athlete's activities take place. In disciplinary doping law, for example, there are hardly any examples of professional error, but rather of acts which undermine the image and ethics of the sport. This is an aspect which it has in common with criminal law. Disciplinary doping law which mainly aims to regulate the relevant offences and their prosecution and punishment should therefore be organised along the same lines as criminal law and entitle athletes to certain rights to counter the demands of the collective. This is necessary, as in sport the interests of the collective are often valued above those of the individual.

On July 8, 2010, the Royal Dutch Baseball and Softball Federation (Koninklijke Nederlandse Baseball en Softball Bond, KNBSB) Disciplinary Committee decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine)

Person stated in his defence that he had used a supplement with the prohibited ingredient geranamine (methylhexaneamine), but didn’t know it was since 2009 on the prohibited list.
In September 2010 WADA published the 2011 prohibited list. The status of 4-methyl-2-hexanamine (methylhexaneamine) changed to ‘specified substance’. This status change was made after request of a number of anti-doping authorities, including the Dutch Anti Doping Authority, because free available supplements contain this substance.
This status change gives the committee the possibility to reduce the sanction due to the lex mitior. On 12 October 2010 the committee already lifted person’s ineligibility and on 8 February 2011 the KNBSB Appeal Committee decides to reduce the period of ineligibility until 12 October 2011. Fees and expenses for this Appeal Committee shall be borne by sport club.

Report on proceedings under the World Anti-Doping Code and the USADA protocol

Mr. Lance Armstrong is a former professional cyclist from 1992 through 2011 and rode in the professional teams of Motorola, Cofidis, U.S. Postal Service Team, Discovery Channel Team, Astana and Team RadioShack.

USADA exists to enforce the rules against cheating through the use of performance enhancing drugs regardless of whether those rules are broken by the famous or the anonymous.
In this case USADA had found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance Armstrong engaged in serial cheating through the use, administration and trafficking of performance enhancing drugs and methods and that Armstrong participated in running the U.S. Postal Service Team as a doping conspiracy. Armstrong and his co-conspirators sought to achieve their ambitions through a massive fraud now more fully exposed. So ends one of the most sordid chapters in sports history.

USADA has found that Lance Armstrong violated the applicable anti-doping rules, that his competitive results achieved since August 1, 1998, should be, and are, disqualified and that he is properly and appropriately ruled ineligible for life pursuant to the terms of Article 10.10.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code.

USADA REPORT CONTENTS:

I. SUMMARY OF USADA’S REASONED DECISION

II. CHARGES AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG

III. BACKGROUND
A. Commencement of USADA’s Broad Investigation of Doping in Cycling
B. Criminal Investigation
C. USADA’s Notice of Anti-Doping Review Board Proceedings and Notice of Opportunity to Contest USADA’s Charges in Arbitration
D. Armstrong’s Filing of Federal Lawsuit
E. Federal Court’s Order Dismissing Armstrong Lawsuit
F. Armstrong’s Refusal to Contest Charges Against Him in Arbitration Hearing Before Neutral Arbitrators

IV. DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING USADA’S CHARGES
A. Introduction
1. Standard of Proof
2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence
B. Chronological Review of Evidence of Lance Armstrong’s Possession, Use, Trafficking and Administration of Banned Performance Enhancing Drugs and Other Relevant Events
1. 1998
a. Possession and use of EPO at the Vuelta a España
b. Possession and use of cortisone
c. Use of a saline infusion at the World Championships
2. 1999
a. Focus on the Tour de France
b. The “A” Team
c. Getting serious with Dr. Ferrari
d. U.S. Postal drug delivery system
e. Possession and use of EPO
f. Motoman and the plan to deliver EPO at the Tour de France
g. The Tour de France
h. Positive for cortisone
i. EPO use at the Tour de France
j. Testosterone use and administration at the Tour de France
k. Sestriéres
l. Christophe Bassons
m. Seven witnesses and scientific corroboration
3. 2000
a. Armstrong’s involvement in the U.S. Postal Service blood doping program
b. Armstrong’s use of testosterone and avoiding drug testing at race in Spain
c. Armstrong’s second Tour victory
d. Blood doping at the 2000 Tour de France
e. French investigation and “Actovegin”
4. 2001
a. Ferrari attends USPS training camp
b. Armstrong’s continued involvement in blood doping in 2001
c. Armstrong’s possession, use and trafficking of EPO in 2001
d. Armstrong’s suspicious test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland
e. Armstrong’s possession and use of testosterone in 2001
f. Controversy concerning Armstrong’s relationship with Ferrari and Italian law enforcement investigation of Ferrari
5. 2002
a. Floyd Landis
b. Landis begins working with Ferrari
c. Armstrong’s possession, use and trafficking of testosterone in 2002
d. Armstrong’s continued use of blood doping in 2002
e. Armstrong’s enforcement of the team doping program
6. 2003
a. Armstrong’s continued use of blood doping in 2003
b. Armstrong’s blood doping and EPO use at the 2003 Tour de France
c. Armstrong gets help from Tyler Hamilton
d. Armstrong’s possession, use and trafficking or administration of EPO and/or testosterone in 2003
7. 2004
a. Armstrong continues to work with Ferrari in 2004
b. Armstrong’s use of testosterone in 2004
c. Armstrong’s blood doping and EPO use at the 2004 Tour de France
d. Armstrong’s altercation with Filippo Simeoni at the 2004 Tour
e. Dr. Ferrari’s October 1, 2004, conviction for sporting fraud and Armstrong’s public
termination of professional relationship with Ferrari
8. 2005
a. Armstrong’s use of blood transfusions in 2005
b. Possession, use and administration of EPO
c. Hincapie’s post Tour drug sweep of Armstrong’s apartment
d. Ferrari fabrication
e. SCA Testimony of Bill Stapleton and Lance Armstrong regarding Dr. Ferrari
9. 2009 – 2012
a. Continuing Ferrari fabrication
b. Evidence of blood doping
10. Weight to be given to Lance Armstrong’s refusal to testify
C. Overwhelming Proof that Lance Armstrong’s Support Staff Participated in Doping
1. Dr. Michele Ferrari’s involvement in doping
2. Johan Bruyneel’s involvement in doping
3. Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral’s involvement in doping
4. Dr. Pedro Celaya’s involvement in doping
5. Jose “Pepe” Marti’s involvement in doping
D. Consideration of the Credibility and Reliability of USADA’s Fact Witnesses
E. How Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team Avoided Positive Drug Tests
1. Avoiding testers during window of detection
2. Using undetectable substances and methods
3. Understanding limitations to the testing methods
4. Use of saline infusions and micro-doping of EPO

V. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT CORROBORATES LANCE ARMSTRONG’S DOPING VIOLATIONS
A. Armstrong’s Blood Test Results During the 2009 and 2010 Tour de France are Consistent with His Continued Use of Blood Doping
B. 1999 Tour de France Samples
C. 2001 Tour of Switzerland Samples

VI. EVIDENCE OF ARMSTRONG’S EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS
A. Perjury and Other Fraudulent Conduct to Obstruct Legal or Judicial Processes
1. False Statements Under Oath in SCA Arbitration
2. False Statements in French Judicial Investigation
3. Attempts to Procure False Affidavits
4. Efforts to Prevent Witnesses From Testifying
B. Retaliation and Attempted Witness Intimidation
1. Filippo Simeoni
2. Tyler Hamilton
3. Levi Leipheimer
C. Retaliation Against Witnesses
1. Betsy Andreu
2. Prentice Steffen
3. Jonathan Vaughters
4. Christophe Bassons
5. Floyd Landis

VII. THE EIGHT-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN ARTICLE 17 OF THE CODE WAS SUSPENDED BY MR. ARMSTRONG’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF HIS DOPING AND OTHER WRONGFUL ACTS

VIII. USADA’S RESULTS MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
A. Armstrong is bound by the USADA Protocol
B. USADA discovered the anti-doping rule violations under Article 15.3 of the Code
C. Armstrong’s assertion that UCI has exclusive jurisdiction is meritless and belied by UCI’s conduct
D. Waiver

IX. CONCLUSION

ADDENDUM – PART ONE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF USADA’S FACT WITNESSES
1. Frankie Andreu
2. Michael Barry
3. Tom Danielson
4. Renzo Ferrante
5. Tyler Hamilton
6. George Hincapie
7. Jörg Jaksche
8. Floyd Landis
9. Levi Leipheimer
10. Emma O’Reilly
11. Filippo Simeoni
12. Christian Vande Velde
13. Jonathan Vaughters
14. David Zabriskie

ADDENDUM – PART TWO: ANALYSIS REGARDING INDIANA HOSPITAL ROOM INCIDENT

WADA - Play True Magazine
2004, issue 1
Regional Support - Wada’s regional offices and the increased efforts of committed national governments are helping to bring the anti-doping message to the global stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
R.W. Pound: The Lessons of THG

Cover Story
02 Regional Support
05 Support from Washington
07 Government Assistance

Features
09 FIFA Magazine Interview: Jiri Dvorak
11 Athlete Profile: Beckie Scott
13 WADA Outreach: IPC World Skiing Championship

WADA Updates
14 UNESCO Convention
14 The Code
15 Education Survey
15 Prohibited List
15 Funding

WADA - Play True Magazine
2005, issue 3
Harmonization - How Sport and Government synchronize efforts to wage a comprehensive and global fight against doping.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 R.W. Pound Editorial: Remembering why

Cover story
02 Harmonization
03 The mechanisms of harmonization
07 The mechanisms of harmonization (2)

Features
05 Overview: The World Anti-doping Program (WADP)
09 Department profile: WADA Standards and Harmonization
10 Harmonization: An historic convention
11 USADA/USOC PSA Campaign
13 Athlete Focus: Sarah Ulmer

WADA Updates & Calendar
15 Web Site and Doping Quiz
15 China National Games
15 Doping Control DVD/Leaflet
16 2006 List and New Guide
16 Staff Announcements
16 Record Research Budget
17 Calendar

WADA - Play True Magazine
2007, issue 1
Beyond the athlete - The fight against doping arms itself against large-scale doping schemes and trafficking with new strategies
and partnerships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content

Editorials
01 R.W. Pound: Beyond the Athlete
02 Interpol: Committed to the Fight

Cover story
03 The Way Forward
09 Highlights from a Study on Trafficking
10 The Australian Model
12 Trafficking: What the Code and Convention Say
12 UNESCO Conference Update
13 A Parent's Perspective

Code Review & Consultation
15 Consultation Update
15 IAAF Conference
16 WADA Athlete Committee Input

Features
17 Open Letter to Those Who Promote Medical Supervision of Doping
18 WADA President in Beijing
19 Athlete Profile: Rosa Mota
21 Partner Profile: FIBA
23 WADA Outreach
23 WADA’s “Level the Playing Field” DVD
24 WADA Coach’s Tool Kit

WADA Updates & Calendar
25 RADOs
25 ADAMS
25 Staff Announcements
25 2007 Prohibited List
26 New Lab Accreditation
26 Athlete’s Passport
27 WADA Event Calendar

In this case involves respondent's first alleged anti-doping violation:
- assisted or incited others to use prohibited substances or prohibited technique thereby committing a doping offense in violation of the World Anti-Doping Agency Code or International Amateur Athletic Federation ("IAAF") rules and regulations
- traded, trafficked, distributed or sold prohibited substances in violation of the applicable WADA and IAAF rules and regulations
- engaged in covering up his rule violations during these proceedings thereby violating additional rules.

Respondent is related to BALCO/Victor Conte, evidence is provided. Respondent administered the drugs Modafinil and Repoxygen (EPO) to other Athletes. Modafinil especially to his wife Zhanna Block in out of competition periods.

Decision and award: respondent had committed a doping violation under each rules: Article 7.2 of IAAF rule 19 and violated IAAF Anti-Doping Rules 32.2(h), 56.3, and 56.4.
The sanction is a ten year period of ineligibility commencing January 1, 2009 and ending on January 1, 2019.
Respondent is prohibitted from participating in and having access to the training facilities of the USOC training Centers or other programs and activities of the USOC.