Yesterday, we reported that the source of Cielo’s supplement contamination had been found and confirmed to be a labaratory where his supplements are prepared. Today, however, the Portugese-language site Swim.com.br says that the lab is singing a different tune today.
They are saying that they always take very careful sanitation measures, including never using the same tray on the same day, and that the cross-contamination was not their fault. The lab, which could be facing heavy civil or criminal charges, says that the only cross-contamination would have been through the air, but that they still feel as though it was not their fault. This runs contrary to what the official CBDA release said that the lab told them during its investigation.
They are now mulling over whether or not to sue Cielo and the CBDA for the Brazilian equivalent of slander.
More new information has come out in support of Cielo’s claims, however, as Cielo’s standard, legal supplements provided to a WADA-certified lab in Brazil were confirmed to have trace amounts of furosemide that Cielo, along with Henrique Barbosa, Vinicius Waked, and Nicholas Santos tested positive for at the Maria Lenk Trophy.
The head of the pharmacy in question, that has been kept confidential, has said that she was surprised that there was supplement to be tested, as she was told that he had already used all of the supplement.
The case becomes much more convoluted at this point, and probably opens up the door for a full FINA investigation into the matter. This search will have to quickly kick into high gear, as there’s only three weeks left until swimming begins in Shanghai. The disaster scenario would be for FINA to let the Brazilians begin competition and then decide that sufficient evidence existed to give them a suspension.
(UPDATE 7/3): The CBDA has not released their documentation yet, but they’ve indicated that a statement signed by the lab splits the difference between reports of full fault and those of no-fault. The CBDA claims to have paperwork that indicates that the pharmacy in question would not blatantly accept blame, but wouldn’t rule it out either. More information as it becomes available.