USADA denies UCI request to take control of Armstrong/USPS doping proceedings

Re: Your two letters dated July 13, 2012

Dear Mr. McQuaid:

I write in response to your two letters dated July 13, 2012, one sent to United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Chief Executive Officer Travis Tygart and one sent to me as USADA’s General Counsel.

In your letter to Mr. Tygart you primarily address USADA’s case against Lance Armstrong, adopt some of the arguments now being advanced by Mr. Armstrong’s lawyers and public relations consultants, and ask for a pre-hearing disclosure to the Union Cycliste Internationale (“UCI”) of USADA’s complete case file.

In your letter to me you make many of the same arguments applying them to the three (3) respondents, Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Mr. Jose “Pepe” Marti, as to whom USADA has announced rule violations. As your two letters set forth overlapping claims and arguments, they are most efficiently addressed in a single response.

USADA’S JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT RESULTS MANAGEMENT IN THESE CASES

The basic position in your letters appears to be that the UCI and not USADA has results management authority over each of the cases. This is a complete “about face” from the UCI’s prior public statements regarding this case within the past month. Indeed, you were even publicly quoted as stating that USADA had jurisdiction and could impose sanctions against each of the Respondents. With all due respect, and as explained in this letter, you were correct in the first media statements that you made in which you opined that USADA is the correct results management authority and can impose sanctions in these cases.

It is also surprising to us that you are taking the position that the UCI has results management authority for the first time in your letters dated July 13. You have known since June 12, 2012, that USADA had initiated anti-doping proceedings against Mr. Armstrong, his team manager and team trainer and three doctors associated with his cycling team. On June 12 Travis Tygart personally called you and informed you of USADA’s intent to initiate proceedings and told you exactly who the proceedings were to be initiated against. You did not at that time or at any time subsequently and prior to your July 13 letter express to Mr. Tygart or anyone else at USADA any concerns over USADA’s jurisdiction or authority to proceed.

Additionally, you received two formal notice letters on June 12, 2012 and June 28, 2012, in which USADA asserted its jurisdiction over the six respondents, including Armstrong, and in response to these letters you did not raise any objection to, or concern about, USADA’s assertion of jurisdiction. In fact, at no time during the pendency of USADA’s proceedings before issuing charges did you ever raise any issue with USADA’s jurisdiction. These facts, as well as your prior public statements, undermine the statements in your July 13 letters regarding the UCI rules and reflect a waiver of any right by the UCI to conduct results management in this case.

Interestingly, the precise claim that you make for the first time in your July 13 letters to Mr. Tygart and to me is the same claim that Mr. Armstrong’s lawyers have been making in his court case from the time his case was filed on July 9. Nevertheless, whether the claim comes from Mr. Armstrong or from the UCI it is equally without merit.

USADA has Authority to Initiate Results Management Proceedings Against Mr. Armstrong under the USADA Protocol and the USOC National Anti-Doping Policies

USADA has independent results management authority over Mr. Armstrong under the USADA Protocol and the USOC National Anti-Doping Policies based on his violations of the substantive anti-doping rules of USADA and the USOC and its members, including USA Cycling. In addition to the UCI ADR, and as set forth in USADA’s June 28, 2012, charging letter, domestic rules under which Mr. Armstrong was accountable also proscribed doping by him. USADA has authority under its rules and pursuant to the authority conferred upon USADA in the USOC’s rules and in the rules of its members to prosecute Mr. Armstrong’s anti-doping rule violations. This basis for USADA’s jurisdiction over Mr. Armstrong was described in USADA’s recent motion to dismiss Mr. Armstrong’s case in federal court. A copy of USADA’s motion to dismiss is provided for your review and incorporated herein as if fully set forth.

USADA has Authority to Initiate Results Management Against both Mr. Armstrong and the Foreign Respondents under the UCI ADR

As explained in USADA’s June 12, 2012, notice letter on which the UCI was copied and to which the UCI did not timely object, pursuant to the UCI ADR arts. 11 and 13, USADA has results management authority, including authority to conduct hearings, for any anti-doping rule violations where no sample collection is involved and where USADA is the Anti-Doping Organization which discovered the anti-doping rule violation.

Also pursuant to the UCI ADR, the results management and hearing process in such cases is to be administered by and under the USADA Protocol. See UCI ADR, arts. 11 and 13. USADA’s jurisdiction extends to both UCI and USA Cycling license-holders and also to:

a) Any Person who, without being a holder of a license, participates in a cycling Event in any capacity whatsoever, including, without limitation, as a rider, coach, trainer, manager, team director, team staff, agent, official, medical or para-medical personnel or parent and;

b) Any Person who, without being a holder of a license, participates, in the framework of a club, trade team, national federation or any other structure participating in Races, in the preparation or support of riders for sports competitions[.]

UCI ADR, art. 18. This provision extends USADA’s jurisdiction to non license holders who participated in the framework of a team preparing riders for competition.

You claim that UCI has exclusive results management jurisdiction over these cases because the “discovery” of these anti-doping rule violations occurred with Floyd Landis’s email of April 30, 2012. That assertion is simply not correct. First, even focusing on Mr. Landis’s email, USADA’s receipt of that email was not the first evidence it received from Mr. Landis. Second, it is preposterous for UCI to claim that the Landis email resulted in it discovering “evidence of facts that apparently constitute an anti-doping rule violation” (UCI ADR, art. 10) when, as described in detail below, UCI’s response to the Landis email was to vehemently deny the truth of his evidence. UCI even went so far as to sue Mr. Landis in Swiss court on account of that email. Having publicly asserted that Mr. Landis’s evidence is false, UCI has abdicated any authority to conduct results management based on that evidence. Third, the facts alleged by Mr. Landis are not the first facts, nor are they even close to being the only facts, upon which USADA’s cases against the Respondents are based. As USADA’s notice and charging letters of June 12 and June 28, 2012 make clear, the information provided to USADA by Mr. Landis (which goes far beyond the contents of the April 30, 2010 email) is just a small fragment of the evidence of the numerous anti-doping rule violation that were committed by the Respondents.

Finally, even if Article 10 of the UCI ADR were to give UCI results management jurisdiction in these cases (which it does not), then Article 12 of the UCI ADR expressly recognizes that a national anti-doping organization like USADA has concurrent jurisdiction to bring the same case:

Where apparent evidence for the same anti-doping violation is found by persons or bodies referred to both in article 10 [referring to UCI and its member federations] and article 11 [referring to other anti-doping organizations such as USADA] or when such evidence is found by persons or bodies referred to in article 10 whereas another Anti-Doping Organization having jurisdiction over the Person concerned under the Code opens result management or hearing process based upon such evidence, UCI may decide to leave the case to the Anti-Doping Organization concerned.

UCI ADR, art. 12.

Thus, UCI ADR, art. 12 supports the concept of concurrent jurisdiction involving both the UCI and a national anti-doping organization and closes the door upon the incorrect argument made in your letters that results management decisions for “anti-doping violations where no sample collection is involved” resides only with the UCI. Therefore, it is plainly not the case that the UCI rules provided that USADA needed to seek the approval of the UCI or to submit the case file to the UCI before proceeding to results management in the cases at issue. Rather, this UCI rule expressly acknowledges that there will be cases where another anti-doping organization “opens result management or hearing process based upon such evidence” and under the UCI ADR without the prior consent of the UCI.

Moreover, as provided below, in this particular case where the UCI is barred from conducting results management due to its conflicts of interest, UCI ADR, art. 12, provides a clear indication that under the UCI ADR (and in combination with the USA Cycling rules which confer all results management authority of the national federation upon USADA) the only available results management authority under the rules is USADA. USADA is the only anti-doping organization which can be said to have discovered anti-doping rule violations where no sample collection is involved and which is not barred from conducting results management in this case.

Even if UCI had Results Management Authority over the Armstrong Case, that Case Would in all Events End up Being Brought Forward by USADA

As explained above, UCI does not have results management authority over the Armstrong case because of USADA’s independent results management authority under the USADA Protocol and the USOC Anti-Doping Policy, and because you are incorrect in asserting that the anti-doping rule violations by Mr. Armstrong were “discovered” by the UCI through the Landis email. However, even if you were correct that the facts in the Armstrong case should first go to UCI for review (a hearing is not required under Art. 230 of your rules), USADA would end up being the party to bring the case against Mr. Armstrong anyway. Under UCI ADR 234, if UCI concludes that an anti-doping rule violation has taken place, the case would be sent back to USADA to instigate disciplinary proceedings—which is right where we are now. On the other hand, if UCI were to conclude that no anti-doping rule violation took place, then under UCI ADR 233, USADA has the right to appeal that decision to CAS and USADA would then be the party initiating an anti-doping rule violation proceeding against Mr. Armstrong before CAS based on all the same evidence.

USADA’s Authority to Impose Sanctions Against a Respondent Who Chose Not to Contest USADA’s Proposed Sanction

Your July 13 letter to me states that even if Drs. del Moral, Ferrari, and Celaya, and team trainer Marti failed to timely respond to USADA’s notice of the right to request a hearing that it was required that a hearing have been held. However, your statement is inconsistent with Article 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code which provides that the “right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s or other Person’s failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred with the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules.”

As you know, USADA’s procedural rules, set forth in the USADA Protocol, do permit USADA to impose a sanction against an individual who does not timely request a hearing to contest the sanctions which USADA seeks to impose exactly as permitted by the World Anti-Doping Code. There is no requirement that a hearing be held in the event that a Respondent chooses not to challenge USADA’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation occurred by failing to timely request an arbitration hearing.

UCI’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISQUALIFIES IT FROM CONDUCTING RESULTS MANAGEMENT IN THESE CASES

I will begin the discussion in this section by observing that USADA was established as an independent anti-doping organization not subject to the control of any sports organization precisely for situations such as this where a sports organization with manifest conflicts of interest is attempting to impose its will on the results management process. USADA does not suffer from the numerous conflict of interests that the UCI has in this case.

I understand that Mr. Tygart has previously discussed with you the difficulties of UCI becoming involved in a case such as this where many could legitimately contend that UCI’s involvement in the results management of the case would suffer from a structural concern sometimes referred to colloquially as “the fox guarding the henhouse.” In numerous instances the inability of a sports organization to effectively police doping within its sport has been noted.

For instance, in the well known Mitchell Report, an independent investigation into what has been referred to as “the steroid era” in Major League Baseball, Senator George Mitchell recounted baseball’s ineffectiveness in policing steroid use in its sport. Unfortunately, the evidence is even stronger that cycling under the management of the UCI has been enmeshed in its own EPO and blood doping era. By our count, of the twenty-one (21) podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005 only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI. The rest of the podium finishers were implicated by law enforcement investigations. Unfortunately, cycling’s doping era did not end in 2005 as the cases of more recent Tour de France podium finishers Floyd Landis, Andreas Klöden, Bernhard Kohl, and Alberto Contador and many other top cyclists serve to illustrate.

Like any sports federation under similar circumstances, the UCI has conflicting interests when one of the highest profile athletes in its sport is accused of anti-doping rule violations. Doping by high profile athletes in a sport undermines corporate sponsorship opportunities and jeopardizes public support for the sport. For this very reason, independent anti-doping agencies such as USADA were established. USADA’s fundamental purpose is clean sport and, unlike the UCI, USADA can pursue evidence of doping unhindered by conflicting goals related to the perceived financial interests of the sport.

You are well aware of the efforts of USADA on behalf of clean sport from the Floyd Landis case, USADA’s approximately seventy-five other successful prosecutions of cyclists for anti-doping rule violations since 2001, the regular attendance of UCI’s staff at the annual USADA Symposium on Anti-Doping Science and through many other activities.

For better or worse, a finding that Respondents engaged in doping as alleged by USADA will likely further undermine public confidence in the UCI’s anti-doping efforts. This is in part the case because Mr. Armstrong, his team manager, trainer and team doctors are being accused of engaging in a pervasive and long running doping scheme. It is also because the UCI has repeatedly taken public positions which have placed the UCI irretrievably in the camp of those accused of doping in these cases and those prior positions taken by the UCI now commit the UCI to a negative position on the evidence in these cases.

For instance, at the time in 2010 when Mr. Landis publicly raised his allegations of Mr. Armstrong’s doping, in an Associated Press article you stated that Mr. Landis’ allegations in his April 30, 2010 email were “nothing new” and that, “he already made those accusations in the past.” It is, therefore, shocking to us that you are now making the inconsistent claim that Mr. Landis’s allegations conferred results management authority upon the UCI under the UCI rules. It is frankly dumbfounding that the UCI now claims to have the authority to conduct results management on the basis of evidence which the UCI previously said that it had investigated, rejected and decided not to proceed upon. By prejudging Mr. Landis’s evidence in the press, whatever results management authority the UCI may have had to consider his evidence has been abdicated.

Similarly, when Tyler Hamilton publicly explained his knowledge of Mr. Armstrong’s doping in a 60 Minutes interview nationally telecast in the United States and reported around the world in May, 2011, the UCI’s Honorary President and current UCI Management Committee Member, Hein Verbruggen, stated:

That’s impossible, because there is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. And I say this not because I am a friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I’m sure.”

These comments during the pendency of USADA’s investigation by the UCI’s Honorary President, who also currently serves on the UCI Management Committee, are further evidence that even before USADA’s investigation was complete the contention that Mr. Armstrong engaged in doping was pre-judged and rejected by the UCI despite the fact that neither you, nor Mr. Verbruggen, nor any other representative of the UCI, have met with Mr. Hamilton or with any other of USADA’s numerous witnesses concerning these matters.

In response to Tyler Hamilton’s public allegations, on May 23, 2011, the UCI issued an official statement expressing that the UCI “categorically rejects the allegations made by Mr. Tyler Hamilton, who claims that Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and had the results covered up after one of his representatives approached the Lausanne laboratory responsible for analyzing the test results from this event.” This is yet another example of the UCI taking a public position on the evidence in this case, during the pendency of an ongoing investigation and before a decision to prosecute had ever been made and it provides further support for the conclusion that by its own actions the UCI has disqualified itself from any role in this case.

Moreover, as you know, in this particular case it has been alleged by several athletes that information exists suggesting that the UCI may not have aggressively pursued evidence of Mr. Armstrong’s doping that may have been within the UCI’s possession. According to these athletes, Mr. Armstrong told them that he made one or more payments to the UCI following when Mr. Armstrong allegedly had a positive or suspicious test result.

In response to Mr. Landis’s claims regarding a cover-up of Mr. Armstrong’s test results and alleged favoritism towards Armstrong, you, former UCI President Hein Verbruggen and the UCI have filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Landis in the Swiss courts. You took this action despite the fact that an investigation of Mr. Landis’s claims was pending. Having filed a lawsuit against Mr. Landis it is inconceivable that the UCI could expect that it retains the authority to conduct results management and, if necessary, the authority to present the evidence in an anti-doping case where one of the witnesses in that case is, at the same time being sued by the UCI. For this reason as well the UCI has a clear conflict of interest in this matter which disqualifies it from playing a results management role.

You complain that USADA did not share its case file with you in advance of initiating the proceedings against Mr. Armstrong and the other respondents; USADA was under no obligation to do so. Moreover, as explained above, it is clear that the UCI has for some time had a clear conflict of interest in relation to USADA’s investigation of Mr. Armstrong. The UCI has plainly prejudged a portion of the evidence in this case and engaged in legal proceedings directly adverse to a witness. For these reasons, it is readily apparent why it would have been inappropriate for USADA to provide the UCI its investigative file before proceeding with results management, why transfer of the file to the UCI is foreclosed at this time and why any results management role for the UCI is barred.

Finally, as explained below, there exists yet another strong additional reason why the UCI is not in a position to be involved in any way in the results management of this matter.

Armstrong’s Payments To UCI

In the April 30, 2010, email from Floyd Landis to USA Cycling President Steve Johnson (that is referred to in both of your letters and discussed above) Mr. Landis alleged that while winning the Tour of Switzerland Mr. Armstrong “tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr. Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial arrangement with Mr. [Verbruggen] to keep the positive test hidden.”

As part of its investigation concerning alleged doping by Mr. Armstrong USADA met with Lausanne laboratory director Martial Saugy who confirmed various communications and meetings he claims to have had with UCI personnel, Johann Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong concerning EPO test results for a sample that Mr. Armstrong provided at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. Mr. Saugy told USADA that representatives of UCI were aware of both the indication of EPO use from Mr. Armstrong’s 2001 Tour of Switzerland sample and of the meetings involving Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Bruyneel.

In May 2011 Tyler Hamilton appeared on the 60 Minutes news program and stated Lance Armstrong had told him that Armstrong had a positive test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and that Hamilton was told that “Lance’s people and the people from the . . . governing body of the sport figured out— figured out a way for it to go away.”

In addition, USADA has reviewed statements attributed to you concerning the foregoing and Mr. Armstrong’s payments to the UCI and noted certain apparent inconsistencies. For instance, we understand that on May 23, 2010, you confirmed that Mr. Armstrong did make a payment to the UCI, stating:

The UCI received $100,000 from Lance Armstrong in 2005. Four years after this incident [the Tour of Switzerland] is supposed to have taken place. So they are completely separate. That money was given to the UCI to buy a Sysmex machine because we needed to go more into blood controls and we needed a Sysmex machine which cost something like $88,000. It was given to the UCI to buy that machine and the UCI is still using that machine at international events on a daily basis.

In your May 23, 2010, statement you apparently did not mention any meeting involving both Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong and you relied upon an alleged four year gap between the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, (which took place from June 19 through June 28, 2001), and Mr. Armstrong’s 2005 payment to UCI as demonstrating the absence of a connection between Armstrong’s 2001 Tour of Switzerland test results and his subsequent payment to the UCI.

However, in a subsequent article, on May 25, 2010, you apparently conceded that a meeting with Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Armstrong did take place at UCI headquarters less than a year after the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. We understand that you stated:

We are looking into it to be fully transparent, by the end of it we will have the full facts available. That will include the invoice of the Sysmex machine, when it was bought. My understanding, without having examined the full detail, is that during 2002 Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel visited the UCI headquarters in Aigle. It had just opened in April 2002, it was some time after that. They got a guided tour of the centre. They were impressed by what they saw and Armstrong offered $100,000 to help the development of cycling. The UCI decided to use the money on a Sysmex machine, my understanding is that the machine cost around $88,000. We did nothing more about this until 2005 when it was realized that the money had not been paid by Armstrong. A phone call was made and the money came in.

The foregoing statement appears to be inconsistent with your earlier statement regarding the timing of the communications with Mr. Armstrong and concerning Mr. Bruyneel’s involvement. Also, you initially stated that there was only a single payment to UCI from Mr. Armstrong totaling $100,000.

However, you thereafter stated that Mr. Armstrong made two payments to the UCI. According to you, UCI received from Mr. Armstrong “in May 2002 . . . a personal cheque, signed by himself and his wife, for $25,000” and in 2005 a check for $100,000 “from his company CSE.”

Yet, in the arbitration between Mr. Armstrong and SCA Promotions, Mr. Armstrong was questioned regarding his payments to the UCI and provided responses inconsistent with your explanation. While Mr. Armstrong referenced various possible amounts of payments in his testimony, he ultimately testified that he may have made a payment or payments to the UCI totaling as much as $200,000 and that he may have made pledges of additional payments to the UCI. Therefore, Mr. Armstrong’s prior testimony under oath appears to conflict with your statements regarding the amount of the payments made by Armstrong, also indicating that he may have made additional promises of payments to the UCI.

Mr. Armstrong’s payments to the UCI create a further conflict of interest for the UCI. In addition, given that there exists evidence that the payments relate to evidence and claims in these very cases it is apparent that the UCI may be called upon to provide evidence in the eventual arbitration hearing. For this reason as well the UCI is foreclosed from participating in the results management of Mr. Armstrong’s case.

CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION TO ADDRESS DOPING IN CYCLING

In your July 13, 2012 letter to Mr. Tygart, you proposed that the Armstrong case be referred to what you call “an independent panel who shall decide if the Respondents have a case to answer.” You then claim a role for UCI in setting up the panel you propose, stating that “[w]e can discuss the modalities for setting up such a panel and assuring their independence.”

However, as explained above, the UCI has waived any right to proceed as a results manager in this matter and is barred from seeking to prevent USADA from doing so. The UCI’s public statements, prior conduct and myriad conflicts of interest foreclose any results management role for it. There exists abundant evidence confirming that the UCI has prejudged the evidence without even seeing it, foreclosing any right to be involved in deciding whether disciplinary proceedings should be opened or how they should be conducted. Consequently, it would be highly inappropriate at this juncture for USADA to turnover any case file to UCI as you demand, much less for USADA and UCI to participate in setting up an extra-judicial review panel not provided for in any applicable rules.

USADA’s results management of these matters will not be diverted to a panel controlled in whole or in part by the UCI. The USADA Protocol, USOC National Anti-Doping Policies and the UCI’s own rules all fully support USADA’s results management role in this case.

At the appropriate time when these matters are in arbitration and as provided in the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Testing (the “USADA Protocol”) the UCI will be invited to join the proceedings as a party or as an observer. By participating as an observer in such proceedings as may go to a hearing the UCI will be afforded an opportunity to review the evidence exchanged in the case in accordance with the time frame determined by neutral arbitrators.

What is needed is not a panel to hear these cases. That mechanism is already underway, as provided for in the USADA Protocol, the USOC Anti-Doping Rules, and the UCI ADR. What is needed is a Truth And Reconciliation Commission to clean up the sport of cycling once and for all. As previously noted, in recent history, doping in cycling has been epidemic. Many of the same individuals who were involved in that epidemic are still entrenched in the sport. That is why the cases against Messrs. Bruyneel and Marti and Drs. Celaya, del Moral and Ferrari, who were involved with doping cyclists in the past and are still working with cyclists, are particularly important. If UCI is truly interested in setting up a special panel to deal with doping, it should not be for one case, rather UCI should ask WADA to establish an independent body akin to a Truth And Reconciliation Commission, where the skeletons of doping in cycling can all come out of the closet, the many cyclists who have doped can come clean, and cycling can go forward with a fresh start.

I trust that the foregoing adequately addresses the issues raised in your two letters dated July 13, 2012. Now that these matters have been addressed, as explained below, I have a request that I would like to make of the UCI.

USADA’s REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE UCI

We understand from your prior statements, some of which are collected above in this letter, that the UCI maintains in its possession documents that are relevant to USADA’s ongoing proceedings against various Respondents, including Mr. Armstrong. You have previously stated that in connection with the investigation of Mr. Armstrong and the United States Postal Service Cycling team you would cooperate with USADA and would welcome any inquiry asking to review the UCI’s records.

You have also stated:

The UCI take seriously the accusation that the UCI took a bribe to hide the positive test of Lance Armstrong in 2001. . . We’ve contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say . . . that there is no way that the UCI or its former president Hein Verbruggen could have accepted a bribe. It’s just not possible.

We understand that in August of 2010 you said, “the UCI conducted a review in which it contacted laboratories that had done testing at the time [i.e., during 2001] and found that each EPO test was followed up.” You were further quoted as stating, “We have a very clear file that will show to any investigation that the UCI did everything correct and did not and could not have hid a positive control.”

Accordingly, USADA will now take you up on your invitation to provide relevant documents in the UCI’s possession to USADA. USADA requests that UCI provide USADA with the following:

1. The statements from laboratories referred to in the foregoing quotations.

2. The complete “file” referred to in your statement above regarding an investigation of laboratories.

3. The complete file from your investigation of statements made by Floyd Landis.

4. The complete file from your investigation of statements made by Tyler Hamilton.

5. Complete documentation from each EPO analysis conducted on Lance Armstrong’s samples from each UCI event in 2001 (including the Tour of Switzerland), including, but not limited to, all doping control forms, reports of analyses, densitometry results, and electropherograms.

6. All communications between UCI and each laboratory regarding the foregoing results.

7. Any emails or other correspondence since 1999 with any current or former official in the sport of cycling or any representative, agent or lawyer of such an official regarding testing of any Lance Armstrong sample at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

8. All communications between you and/or Hein Verbruggen and/or Philippe Verbiest and/or Mario Zorzoli and Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel or any representative of Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Bruyneel since 1999.

9. All documents created as a result of any investigation relating to Lance Armstrong’s test results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

10. Information on all blood collections and results associated with blood samples provided by Lance Armstrong in the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 including copies of doping control forms associated with his samples, his answers to questions related to the blood passport, athlete medical declarations, supplementary report forms, chain of custody forms and laboratory certificates of analysis.

11. If, as part of the UCI biological passport program, any historical reviews have been completed by your independent ABP expert panel on Mr. Armstrong’s hematological profile and/or .abp files created for evaluation within the WADA ABP Software, please provide this information. Please also include laboratory documentation packages from Mr. Armstrong’s samples if you have requested them, or alternatively grant USADA permission to request this information directly from the laboratories at our own expense. Further, if it is more convenient for USADA to contact the Lausanne laboratory Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) or any other laboratory for any of this information, please grant us permission to receive all relevant information.

12. All of Mr. Armstrong’s license applications in your possession (whether made to USA Cycling or to UCI).

With respect to each request above, to the extent that any information sought by this request is in the possession of the Lausanne Laboratory or any other laboratory USADA respectfully requests that you authorize any such laboratory to provide this information directly to USADA.

If you have any questions regarding this request please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,

UNITED STATES ANTI-DOPING AGENCY

William Bock, III
General Counsel

WB/ljm

Enclosure (Motion to Dismiss in Armstrong v. USADA)