Ex ASO President Attacks LA - Compares Him to Nixon

by Willj on Jul 3, 2009 1:20 PM EDT

The French newspaper Le Monde is featuring an interview with Patric Clerc, ASO president (TdF organizers) from 1998 - 2008.

Link to Article

The nastiest excerpt:

il n'a jamais été sanctionné pour dopage et il tente un come-back comme peu de sportifs en ont réussi. Mais, sur le long terme, on rouvre le dossier du doute, un chapitre que je croyais fermé avec son dernier Tour en 2005. Or le doute, il n'y a rien de pire.

Le président de l'Agence française de lutte contre le dopage (AFLD), Pierre Bordry, lui a tendu la perche en lui proposant de faire tester de nouveau les échantillons d'urine du Tour 1999 (dont le journal L'Equipe avait révélé en 2005 qu'ils contenaient des traces d'érythropoïétine (EPO)). Lance Armstrong n'a pas voulu. Il s'est enfermé dans ses affirmations en disant en substance "c'est archifaux" alors qu'il s'est sûrement passé des choses. Cette attitude est très américaine. Souvenez-vous de Nixon et du Watergate. Aux Etats-Unis, le parjure est pire que le crime. Si on change d'avis, on est mort. S'il disait " OK, je l'ai fait" après avoir toujours affirmé " je n'ai rien fait", il serait mort.

LOOSELY TRANSLATED:

"He (Armstrong) has never been sanctioned for doping and he is attempting a come back that few athletes have succedded at. But, in the long-term, we are reopening the dossier of doubt, a chapter that I believed closed with his final Tour in 2005. And yet, "doubt," there is nothing worse."

"The French president of AFLD (French anti-doping agency) - tendu la perche (tightended the line??? made the offer? upped the ante?) by proposing to Armstrong that he have tested again the uirne samples from the 1999 Tour (of which l'Equipe had revealed contains traces of EPO). Lance Armstrong didn't want to."

"He has surrounded himself with the claims that this (the claims of l"Equipe") is completely false, while he surely did things." (I might have misrepresented the meaning here).

"This is a very American attitude. Remember Nixon and Watergate? In the USA, perjury is worse than the crime. If one changes views/opinions, one is dead. If he was saying, "Ok, I did it" after always saying "I have never done anything", he would be dead. "

My guess is that LA will not be answering many questions in French during this Tour .....

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don’t know a whole lot about this, but wasn’t Clerc basically ousted in a power struggle? LeMond talks about this in the infamous conference presentation from a few weeks back – how he wanted to get back into the sport, but then the “good guys” (Clerc and a guy named Gilbert, don’t know who he is) basically lost and the “bad guys” won… Anyways my point is that I guess Clerc feels like he can speak more freely now.

by plinytheelder on Jul 3, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions

I guess

although he had previously promised to keep quiet until after the Tour …. ;)

sometimes life is a false flat

by Willj on Jul 3, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

MEOW!

by ursula on Jul 3, 2009 2:58 PM EDT reply actions

Clerc believes there is nothing worse than doubt?

So he thought the race and the whole doping situation was better in 2006?

by Katiek on Jul 3, 2009 6:09 PM EDT reply actions

Quick translation note (and comment):

“Il s’est enfermé dans ses affirmations en disant en substance “c’est archifaux” alors qu’il s’est sûrement passé des choses."

Possibly render this as:

“He is firm in his claims saying, in substance, “this is utterly false,” whereas things surely happened."

I have to say this seems a bit crappy. He’s having lots of fun with the overall assumption that LA must have done something and trying to imply that his refusal to allow a retest of the 1999 samples is evidence for that. Surely yes, it does cast some doubt on the claim that the accusations are completely false, but that doubt hardly translates into “things surely happened.” In the end, all he has is the assumption that LA must have done something. There may well be some evidence to support that claim, but the sections you quote, at least, don’t make clear what, if any, evidence Clerc has in mind. It’d be nice, if he’s so very sure, if he’d enlighten the rest of us about the grounds for that.

Failing that, this seems like pot-stirring and an attempt to manufacture doubt, and then claim it’s the worst thing in the world. Self-serving? Ummmmm….

by Ed K on Jul 5, 2009 6:03 PM EDT reply actions