It's been widely reported today that cyclist Lance Armstrong, to be blamed for starting the rubber bracelet fad, has been cleared by Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman of charges of doping in connection with the 1999 race. Armstrong has taken Vrijman's findings as a sign of his absolute innocence, although Vrijman's findings actually seem a bit more cautious. Vrijman concludes that the lack of a "confirmation" test rendered the lab work on Armstrong's samples insufficient from a procedural perspective. That is to say, Vrijman doesn't seem to have concluded that Armstrong's samples were free of EPO, just that the procedures weren't sufficient to make a case for a doping violation. I look forward to reading Vrijman's report, which I haven't been able to find on-line so far.The weirdest thing about this story is the press release issued by the International Cycling Union (UCI), which hired Attorney Vrijman. Here's their take: "The international Cycling Union has learned with great surprise de (sic) declarations conveyed to the Dutch press by Mr. Emile Vrijman, independent investigator within the frame of the urine sample analysis during the 1999 Tour de France case. The UCI firmly deplores the behaviour of Mr. Vrijman, who has prematurely voiced, offending the agreements that foresaw that all parties implied would be informed before any public comment on the report content would be done."
Maybe "deplores" has a different connotation in Dutch than in English? This seems a rather strong statement to make about one's own investigator. And UCI, how about hiring someone who speaks English to proof de press releases from now on? My Dutch sucks, and that's why I don't post on de blog in that language.
UPDATE: The full report is now on-line at the UCI web site.