Speaking of Lance’s 1999 cortisone positive, the “guilty or not” discussion always focuses on proving the prescription was backdated. What’s usually ignored is that even without backdating, it is undisputed – even by the UCI* – that their rules were broken.
- Lance was tested at the 1999 Tour and both A and B sample showed cortisone.
- AT THE TIME OF TESTING, Lance did not reveal he had a medical authorization for cortisone.
- According to the rules, only medical authorizations revealed AT THE TIME OF TESTING can be considered.
- So it doesn’t matter if a medical authorization is produced later on, even if it is dated (honestly or otherwise) before the test.
- The only way a medical authorization is acceptable under the rules is if it is revealed at the time of the test.
So by accepting a medical authorization that was not presented at the time of testing, the UCI broke its own anti-doping rules. If according to your own information you broke your own rules, surely it’s time to go.
* When I say “undisputed even by the UCI”, I mean that I sent this to the UCI more than 2 weeks ago for verification. You may remember they once chastized me for not doing so, although in the same breath they said “the result of UCI’s anti-doping work has been unanimously recognized by international experts”, so I am not entirely sure if their offer for verification was entirely serious. At any rate, they didn’t have any comment on the chain of events that I describe.