The Vrijman Report

The Vrijman Report

posted in: Blog | 1

The “Vrijman Report” was the UCI’s response to L’Équipe article detailing how Armstrong had tested positive for EPO several times in the 1999 Tour de France.  Publicly it was Emile Vrijman’s report but privately the report and press releases were written by Armstrong’s lawyers.

It turns out Vrijman was a slacker, taking months to produce little. Leading the UCI to try to terminate his contract on at least two occasions. Vrijman preliminary report was subsequently revised by Lance Armstrong’s lawyer, Mark Levinstein, who inserted substantial amounts of text into the interim report to make it more critical of WADA. Mark Levinstein’s second mark-up of the report included an entirely new section to the report entitled “Confidentiality”. This section was highly critical of Dick Pound and Jacques De Ceaurriz (Director of the LNDD) In addition, this version of the report concluded with a list of 20 questions that needed to be answered which concerned specifics about the LNDD’s research and the communications between the LNDD, WADA and the French government in its regard.

Vrijman continued his delays. CIRC has a lot of back and forth, emails, and dates but the facts are that finally, On 29 April, Vrijman sent a final draft report to UCI for its review and comment.  Hein Verbruggen was not happy

a very disappointing feeling” that “The only party you really dare to tackle with hard hitting conclusions is the UCI. You are running with such an incredible bow around WADA that I am asking myself if they are the client…”

Hein Verbruggen reiterated his disappointment with the report to Mark Levinstein, stating that the report was totally unacceptable

since there is no one definite conclusion in the whole report about the very doubtful role that WADA has played”. ….. “there is full evidence that Dick Pound has been targeting [Lance Armstrong] and they just dodge any conclusion in that direction”.

Mark Levinstein reassured Hein Verbruggen confirming that he spoke to Emile Vrijman and that he would work with him. Armstrong’s agent, Bill Stapleton, also sought to reassure Hein Verbruggen that the report was good and that:

“[T]he document is going after WADA as I know you (and we) want them to do and as they should.”

Emile Vrijman did not give UCI notice of his intention to publish the report. On 31 May 2006, a pdf version of the final report was emailed to all of the interested parties and the “official version” was published the following day. The same day, Lance Armstrong said

for all their hard work and diligence in this processHe added that hehad not had an opportunity to study the report yet”

UCI then refused to pay Vrijman and manufactured several internal reports and public statements that denied the significant input of Armstrong’s legal team into the report. Vrijman’s law firm sued the UCI. The arbitrator’s decision was issued in May 2007 and was revised in July 2007, requiring UCI to pay EUR 70,046.00 (out of the outstanding EUR 136,775.65) to Scholten/Vrijman.

One Response

  1. well like we knew it was so. Corrupt. RR time to change the cycling and sausage saying lol

Leave a Reply