A Dutch investigator's report that purports to clear Lance Armstrong of using performance-enhancing substances in the 1999 Tour de France ignited a controversy that roared through Europe and across the Atlantic on Wednesday, spotlighting the complexities and schisms that have riven a sport awash in allegations of doping.
The report, commissioned last year by the International Cycling Union after a French news account that six Armstrong urine samples from 1999 had tested positive in 2004 for the blood-booster EPO, asserted those tests were conducted so improperly it would be "completely irresponsible" to suggest they amounted to "evidence of anything."
The 132-page report, made public Wednesday, was not immediately available. But according to news accounts, Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman said his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely" with regard to the 1999 allegations. Armstrong, who has repeatedly denied the use of banned substances, said in a statement that Vrijman's report "confirms my innocence."
But the World Anti-Doping Agency, in Montreal, issued a statement expressing "grave concern and strong disappointment." WADA, the statement also said, "continues to stress its concern that an investigation into the matter must consider all aspects," including "the question of whether anti-doping rules were violated by athletes."
WADA Chairman Dick Pound, who has long asserted the cycling federation, which goes by the acronym UCI, leaked the 1999 doping forms to the French newspaper L'Equipe, questioned how Vrijman had reached the conclusion that one of the top anti-doping labs in the world -- the French national lab, near Paris -- had so thoroughly botched tests. The lab is known by its French acronym, LNDD.
Vrijman's report, for instance, asserts there is no way to know if the samples had been spiked with a banned substance, according to news accounts, which also said the report raises the possibility of misconduct by WADA and LNDD.
In a telephone interview, Pound said of the cycling federation, "They weren't interested in what happened, only in how the information became public and -- surprise, surprise -- cleared the only organization that made it possible for this thing to happen. To say that UCI had no role -- that's nuts."
Swiss-based UCI also issued a statement. It said its officials had "learned with great surprise" the "declarations conveyed to the Dutch press by Mr. Emile Vrijman," making clear the report's release was "prematurely voiced" and the UCI was still "waiting to receive the definite version."
