June 3, 2006 – The UCI took note of the official reaction by WADA on June 2 regarding the Vrijman report and of the reaction of D. Ressiot in L’Equipe on the same day.

What strikes one most is that WADA leaves aside the main questions and conclusions of the report. WADA should not be allowed to divert the attention on side issues, but asked publicly to answer the many pertinent questions in the Vrijman report and in particular the following:

1) is it correct that WADA has put pressure on the laboratory to include in research reports the original sample codes, thereby violating the confidentiality that is guaranteed to the athletes?

2) will WADA reveal which person within WADA has made this decision?

3) does WADA admit that the World Anti-Doping Code was violated in that the samples were analysed for research purposes without the consent of the athletes, as well as WADA’s rule in the doping control form that the origin of the samples must be made untraceable?

4) will WADA confirm or deny that there have been contacts between WADA and D. Ressiot prior to August 23, 2005 that explain statements made by D. Ressiot in L’Equipe of that day?

In L’Equipe on June 2, D. Ressiot chiefly fires at the messenger. Instead, the following questions should be answered by L’Equipe:

1) did L’Equipe have contacts with WADA regarding this issue prior to August 23, 2005?

If not, how did L’Equipe know or why did it write that WADA was studying which legal measures could be taken against the riders?
How did L’Equipe know that the research had been done in collaboration with WADA?

2) L’Equipe knew that the analysis method was not valid: does L’Equipe find it normal to state categorically, as it did, that L. Armstrong used doping?