“It is strange that history repeats itself before the OI”: Blazheev about WADA charges, conclusions of an independent commission and the outcome of the executive committee

- The Russian side completely denies the allegations of the compliance committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency ( WADA ). What exactly do experts disagree with?

- We do not agree with the approach of the WADA investigation department, which limited itself to a comparative analysis of the LIMS database and the data transmitted by Grigory Rodchenkov. We believe that on the basis of this it is impossible to draw conclusions for a reliable clarification of all circumstances. This also applies to raw files containing initial research data. They are recorded automatically, unlike the LIMS system, where information is entered by a person. In addition, the commission received biological samples A and B. Only with the combination of these materials can objective conclusions be drawn.

We are reproached for having committed some manipulations with the system. Yes, we do not deny that the system administrator did some work with it, including deleting duplicate files. But it is worth noting that he had to act without technical documentation, since its developer Oleg Migachev left Russia for the USA in 2015 and did not leave any certificates confirming the authenticity. In this regard, errors may have occurred, but there was no intentional deletion of data.

We worked in a difficult situation, as we were not familiar with the informant base and the technical report. All things considered, the harsh conclusions of the investigation department are not true. Therefore, we want our position to be heard and taken into account when making the decision. To this end, our report was sent to 350 addresses, including WADA, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), national committees and international federations.

• Blazheev about deleted files

- What were you based on when preparing the report?

- All WADA claims are not confirmed by the real circumstances of the case. Their categorical conclusions are not proven. This is a deliberate manipulation, but the specific culprit is not called. It is necessary to understand under what circumstances the deletion of information occurred. But the investigation department is not interested. They got hooked on the fact itself, which is absolutely unjustified.

- WADA claims that changes to the Moscow database were made between 2018 and 2019, but your report does not say anything about this. What did the experts find out about this?

- In WADA, they do not take into account that the entries related to the work of the system administrator occurred in other periods. So, in the absence of the developer, he had to turn to the data of 2015. In addition, the base has a certain history. From 2015 to 2017, she was at the disposal of Rodchenkov, and he could do anything with her. Until 2016, 400 penetrations from abroad were recorded. This is an established fact. But the commission is not interested.

It is worth adding that LIMS is considered a reference system, but the informant took it illegally. In 2014, he destroyed 1,417 samples, which also raised claims from WADA. Should such a person be trusted? Therefore, we do not agree with the recommendations of the compliance committee, which is ready to apply collective responsibility to the whole of Russia, and not to a specific athlete. We admit that someone really could use dope. Prove it, and then fair sanctions will follow, the offender will not go to the Olympics. But in order not to let the country go, good reasons are needed, which, from our point of view, are not.

- Do you know how exactly the WADA experts determined that from December 2018 to January 2019, changes were made to the Moscow database? Can this be considered an established fact?

- We do not deny that the occurrences took place, and certain work was carried out with the files, the base needed to be maintained in working condition. Another thing is that there was no deliberate manipulation. At the beginning of each year, the system administrator deletes something based on the previous period, frees up memory. We are accused of the fact that the material was completely zeroed, and all information was destroyed. But the employee was in the system for 17 seconds, during this time it is technically impossible to clean the disk. We do not know about deeper conclusions.

- In 2017, the laboratory database was sealed. Who had access to it after that?

- After access to the database was blocked, only the system administrator Evgeny Mochalov worked with it. No one else had such rights. But until 2016, it was accessed from abroad, so the information contained there could be changed. When the WADA commission came to us in 2019, we gave them the opportunity to get any information that was on the servers.

- If Rodchenkov, Migachev and Sobolevsky made changes to the database, why, in your opinion, they did not bother to delete their correspondence, where allegedly corruption schemes were discussed?

- In order to do this, you need to shovel huge material. This question should be asked to Rodchenkov, but I think that they still had a limited time for penetration and they acted purposefully. Not sure if they remembered all the correspondence. Probably, some were destroyed, and some simply did not have time.

• Blazheev: “Experts might not see something, not understand something”

- Is it possible that an organization like WADA employs people who do not know how to conduct technical research, like the ones you did?

- For this you need to know the base well. In full, only its creator Migachev could orientate in it. In order for the expert to give comprehensive information about the functioning of the system, he needs to ask the right questions. Apparently, their experts did not see or did not understand something. Initially, we suggested conducting a joint examination, suggesting something if necessary. But colleagues from WADA refused this, and no one acquainted us with the materials. Therefore, many points have not been established, and the technical conclusions are one-sided.

- Why did not WADA doubt the authenticity of the copy provided by the informant?

- It's hard to say, you have to ask them. The base was moved illegally, Rodchenkov’s objectivity is in doubt due to past offenses. It is not clear why the system that has been at the disposal of the informant for a long time is taken as the standard.

- In your opinion, Russia has done everything necessary to prove its non-involvement in fraud?

- Yes. We clearly followed the roadmap developed by the WADA Executive Committee. They passed the LIMS database, raw files, biological samples that were pointed out to us. We offered to participate in the investigation, at each meeting we reported that we were ready for cooperation, but this was rejected. At each meeting, we said that we were ready for cooperation. As a result, having fulfilled all their obligations, we got such a result.

- What is your forecast on the decision of the WADA executive committee on December 9?

“I hope that the executive committee will hear our position and make an objective decision, weighing the evidence provided by the investigation department.” If it is not in our favor, I think the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) will not agree, then WADA will be forced to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). I hope that he will figure it out, give us the opportunity to get acquainted with all the materials and make reasoned conclusions. Therefore, there is hope that Russia will win this case in court. We are all very worried, because history repeats itself before the Olympics, which in itself is very strange. Athletes may be without a flag. For children, this is a very strong emotional blow that can affect the results.