Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 51-3

Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 6

EXHIBIT 30

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 51-3

Filed 08/09/12 Page 2 of 6

INTERNATIONAL CYCLING UNION

President WADA Mr. David Howman Director General Stock Exchange Tower 800 Place Victoria (Suite 1700), P.O. Box 120 Montreal (Quebec) H4Z 1B7
Sent by email only david.howman@wada-ama.org

Aigle, 9 August 2012

Ref: Presidency

Dear David, Re : USPS cases (your reference) I thank you for your considerations on article 15.3 of the Code. Please be assured that we are aware of that article that states indeed that results management and hearings shall be the responsibility of and shall be governed by the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed Sample collection (or, if no Sample Collection is involved, the organization which discovered the violation). In the first place our reading is that as soon as a sample collection is involved, the responsible ADO is the ADO that initiated and directed sample collection. We understood that USADA is relying, inter alia, on samples collected by the UCI, in particular blood samples collected under UCIs blood passport programme. USADAs letter of 12 June 2012 to the respondents alleges: Dr Saugy stated that Lance Armstrongs urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland were indicative of EPO use and Lance Armstrongs doping is further evidenced by the data from blood collections obtained by the UCI. The term involved is quite wide and cannot be limited to a violation being premised upon a specific sample. On the contrary, the Code says that as soon as a sample is involved, the jurisdiction is exclusively with the ADO that initiated and directed sample collection. There is logic in that, as a sample can be linked easily to a given ADO whereas the discovery of the violation for non-analytical violations is subject to discussion (discussion that the UCI has tried to avoid in its rules). Therefore as soon as in a case a sample is involved jurisdiction lies with the ADO having initiated and directed sample collection, even if non-analytical violations are involved in the same case. Further the question is what has to be understood under the terms discover the violation. The Code does not provide guidance for that. There is no comment to article 15.3 on the subject. (I expect that now WADA will propose to add a comment that supports the interpretation that you are defending now for the purpose of the case of USADA, just as

CH 1860 Aigle / Switzerland +41 24 468 58 11 fax +41 24 468 58 12 www.uci.ch

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 51-3

Filed 08/09/12 Page 3 of 6

WADA is proposing the concept of conspiracy to be included in the Code. For WADA it is quite easy to serve itself). If you state that discover the violation is very clear and leaves no room for interpretation, can you explain please what it means? Does one not even have to say that a violation cannot be discovered as the question whether there is a violation or not will be decided by the hearing body? You write that discovering the evidence supportive of a rule violation is not discovering the violation. What can be discovered other than evidence supportive of the violation? Where does the Code draw the line between evidence and violation? Can you explain how the Code is violated when the UCI rules designate the UCI as the ADO having discovered the violation if it is an athlete of cycling, holder of a UCI license, that reports alleged violations to a UCI member federation? Do you consider that these links are not enough to consider UCI as the ADO having discovered the violation? And if not, why? I also remind you that UCIs anti-doping rules where thoroughly scrutinized by WADA, including by WADAs external legal counsel. UCIs anti-doping rules were found in compliance with the Code as formally confirmed by WADA in its letter dated 29 September 2010. Such finding includes articles 10 to 12 of UCIs rules. So there are three articles in the UCI rules that deal specifically with the issue. If there would be a problem of compatibility with the Code why is it then that none of these articles were mentioned during the examination by WADA of UCIs anti-doping rules, examination that lasted for more than a year, involved both WADA staff and external legal counsel, detailed correspondence and meetings? We remind you that when the UCI had answered all the questions of WADA, WADA came back with new remarks in an effort to find incompatibilities. None of them concerned the articles on jurisdiction for non-analytical cases. So why do you state now for the purpose of this particular case that UCIs rules run counter to the Code? We wouldnt dare to think that it is because of WADAs anti-cycling and anti-Armstrong tradition. You refer, just as USADA did, to elements that were allegedly discovered by USADA prior to the e-mail of Mr Landis. Why do you take this claim by USADA for granted whereas USADA refuses to communicate these elements, at least to the UCI? Did you see these elements? You state that you understand that USADA has authority over Mr Armstrong based upon USADAs own rules. Assuming that USADA has such authority based upon its own rules (which will not depend on the wording of the scope of those rules but above all on the question whether they are binding upon the person concerned), then article 15.3 of the Code will indicate which ADO will have authority in this case. My understanding is that article 15.3 of the Code regulates jurisdiction of ADOs which have disciplinary authority and not of ADOs that dont have such authority. So if USADA has independent authority, we are back to article 15.3 of the Code. Would you agree with that?

2/5

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 51-3

Filed 08/09/12 Page 4 of 6

Do you also understand that USADA has jurisdiction over the five other respondents? If so, can you explain why? You write that any ADO has the right to rely upon and enforce the anti-doping rules of another ADO (at least we suppose that what you write applies to all ADOs and not only to USADA). With all respect but we dont see a basis for that in the Code. Each ADO will apply its own rules and each ADOs rules should be in compliance with the Code. So there is no need for an ADO to apply another ADOs rules. And if under the Code an ADO could apply another ADOs rules, what is the sense of, for example, the default jurisdiction of the IFs? The rules that an ADO can apply are those that are validly accepted by those to whom they apply. And if you state that USADA is entitled to enforce UCI rules then it should also enforce articles 10 to 12 which give jurisdiction to the UCI. USADA cannot pick out the articles that it likes. In fact USADA has been investigating into the case on behalf of USA Cycling just as other national federations have been investigating at the request of UCI. USADAs position in the USPS cases is similar to that in the Hamilton and Landis cases, i.e. USADA is acting, via USA Cycling, on behalf of the UCI. Therefore also the UCI is entitled to withdraw USADAs right to rely on UCIs rules, in particular when UCI finds that USADA is violating these rules and refuses to respect UCIs authority in the case. I also dont understand your statement that an ADOs rules are required by the Code to be adopted for general applicability and reliance by other ADOs. As is indicated in the introduction of the Code an ADO has to adopt rules in order for these rules to be binding upon athletes and other persons under its authority. Each ADO applies its own rules on the athletes and other persons under its authority, not another ADOs rules. These rules should also be limited to the ADOs relevant sphere of responsibility (article 23.2.1). You refer to USADAs role in the Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis cases. I certainly will not underestimate USADAs role and merits in those cases but I dont see why this is relevant for claiming that results management authority in the USPS cases is with USADA. In both the Hamilton case and the Landis case UCI was the testing and results management authority and acted as such. Under UCIs rules the jurisdiction for hearing the cases lied with USA Cycling. It is UCI that referred the cases to USA Cycling after UCI terminated the results management. It is USA Cycling that mandated USADA. So USADA acted on the authority of the UCI rules and had to apply UCI rules. Can you explain then how the role of USADA in the Hamilton and Floyd Landis cases can constitute a valid basis for USADA having results management jurisdiction in the USPS cases? Can you explain how the quality of an ADOs work in a case where it is acting according to the applicable rules can be the basis for granting that ADO jurisdiction where it has no such jurisdiction under the applicable rules? I am quite surprised that you state that there is nothing in the Code that requires USADA to turnover its witnesses and evidence in advance of the arbitration process. Does that mean that the principles of fair trial have to be applied only to the extent prescribed by the Code?

3/5

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 51-3

Filed 08/09/12 Page 5 of 6

Can you explain why in a case that is claimed to be a case of multiple non-analytical antidoping rule violations during a period of fifteen years and allegedly constituting a huge conspiracy none of the respondents have the right to see the evidence that allegedly exists against them? none of the respondents have the right to see the evidence and comment on same in the stadium of results management whereas such comment may lead to a decision that the case should proceed no further and the respondents are protected against the opening of disciplinary proceedings that should not have been opened? none of the respondents have the right to see the evidence when invited to take position before the USADA review board that is supposed to review the evidence? respondents are banned for life for the sole fact that they did not answer to a letter of incrimination sent by the incriminating body that put together the incrimination and that incrimination was not reviewed by an independent body?

the more as the Code in the case of results management of an adverse analytical finding, prescribes that the respondent shall receive the laboratory report, has the right to have and attend a B analysis and has the right to receive the documentation packages, including for adverse analytical findings that may be sanctioned with a warning instead of a life ban? the International Standard for Testing prescribes that during results management for whereabouts failures the athlete shall have the right to be informed of a whereabouts failure, to send a justification for the failure and to ask for an administrative review if the justification is not accepted, bearing in mind that a whereabouts failure is not a violation but will be the element of a violation if in a rolling period of 18 months two other failures occur with the same rights (information, justification, administrative review)? And the maximum sanction is a suspension during 2 years and not a life ban?

And where the Code in its comment to article 7 requires that the results management process should ensure fundamental fairness and stipulates in article 7.4 that the person concerned must be promptly informed of the anti-doping rule violation and of the basis of the violation, and where the Code and the Standards impose that the person concerned is informed and can react during the results management of issues that can be sanctioned with a warning or lead to no sanction at all, it would not be required for non-analytical cases that the person concerned has his say on the evidence already during results management, especially when a life ban is at stake? Is this fundamental fairness under the Code? You state that the UCI received more information than USADAs letter of 12 June 2012. I cant remember of information that was provided by USADA before that. There has been correspondence afterwards containing the discussion on jurisdiction and fair trial, but any information on the case itself has been refused by USADA. So I would like you to indicate to me what information you are referring to.

4/5

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 51-3

Filed 08/09/12 Page 6 of 6

In all your efforts to depict UCI as the bad guy you forget that the UCI has the sole intention of having its rules as an international federation respected, regardless of what is in the USPS files. Your trial of intent that UCI would try to delay or hinder the USPS case to proceed is wrong and insulting. The UCI is not defending any of the respondents, the UCI is defending its position as an international federation, as an anti-doping organisation and indeed as a signatory of the Code. We can only conclude that in this conflict of jurisdiction between USADA as a national anti-doping agency and UCI as an international federation, WADA takes the position that the international federation should give up its rights and authority and give the application of its own rules out of hands. The UCI has also tried to defend the fundamental fairness of the results management process. David, you will find some more considerations in the letter that I send to William Bock and a copy of which you will find enclosed. In that letter there is a cross-reference to this letter as well. Best regards,

Pat McQuaid President

Cc: Mr William Bock III, General Councel, USADA Mr Steve Johnson, Secretary General, USA Cycling Mr Mike Morgan, counsel to Mr J. Bruyneel Mr Mark Levinstein, counsel to Mr L. Armstrong

5/5