Goodbye Berlinger? I’m lodging a complaint with FAS
Anyone who is following the doping scandal is for sure wondering about the spurious Berlinger bottles. I suggest we move on from speechifying to taking practical steps: I’m going to arrange an expert examination using my own resources and file a complaint with the FAS today.
Richard McLaren’s report has become a death knell to the reputation of the former textile manufacturer. According to him, tampering with a sample bottle is as easy as pie: zippy fingers, a flexible strip, “bam!” and Berlinger’s reputation is up in smoke. After all, WADA has already looked asinine in 1992. The attorney of the German runner Katrin Krabbe opened the “tamper-proof” sample bottle right in front of the judge at the time, freeing Krabbe from all accusations. Decades later Berlinger is right where it started but it has now made itself look like a fool before the whole world.
Moreover, McLaren’s report states that if the strip is made of plastic then tampering might not even leave any scratches or marks, however microscopic. So anyone with a piece of plastic could have unsealed any bottle in any WADA lab and swapped it without it ever being discovered.
I leave to your imagination what a heap of 5 million Berlinger bottles will look like. That’s roughly how many of them are stocked in WADA’s vaults.
Berlinger VS McLaren
Berlinger won’t stop insisting that its bottles are tamper-proof. They officially claimed exactly that to Novaya Gazeta a week before McLaren’s requiem for Russian sport. The press secretary Hans Klaus is implying that McLaren and Rodchenkov are lying. “Berlinger bottles used in Sochi 2014 Olympics are in compliance with the highest modern safety standards and cannot be tampered with. They are subject to regular inspections carried out by an independent external organization that controls the quality of our product and subsequently certifies it as ‘tamper-proof’”.
What exactly is this “independent external organization” that doesn’t possess even a piece of plastic? On Berlinger’s website one can find a link to an anonymous independent institute in Switzerland; the details are thoroughly blurred on the company’s certificates of quality.
A certain Sulzer Innotec AG, Switzerland, is also mentioned in the online source publications but only in relation to Berlinger bottles for blood samples. It is possible that this laboratory performed expert examinations on questionable urine samples as well. Berlinger’s attempt to deliberately keep the audit company off the radar speaks to the fact that McLaren most probably has got it right.
Another argument in support of it is the fact that WADA discreetly informed Berlinger about the deficiency of the bottle’s integrity, and the latter fixed the product for the Rio Olympic Games. Experts of Russia’s Channel One couldn’t crack the bottle. Maybe they didn’t try hard enough or purchased an improved bottle from Rio. There are many among my acquaintances who are fairly competent in sample bottle safety who are suspicious of McLaren’s methods.
Only a videotaped opening of a bottle performed by a panel of professionals can resolve the controversy over the sample bottles. For this reason I take it upon myself to head such a panel. The minimum objective would be to open up a bottle with a strip. The maximum goal would be to open it up without any scratches or marks. Experts and attesting witnesses are welcome. I’m on my way to get the bottles.
Ptichnik from Vologda - a partner of Berlinger?
Looking for the bottles, I was naïve to assume that Berlinger had a representative office in Russia. I didn’t find one so I surmised that Berlinger bottles were supplied under terms of direct contracts between them, RUSADA and the Moscow Anti-doping Center in Russia. But I was wrong. It looks like Berlinger uses a chain of shady companies for their sales in Russia. For instance, in December 2013 Rodchenkov held a tender for Berlinger caps and declared it void. Berlinger didn’t make a bid for it, nor did any other firm. And this despite the fact that tender documentation openly required a Berlinger product.
Here’s a link for the inquisitive: http://zakupki.gov.ru/223/purchase/public/purchase/contractInfo/view-subject.html?contractInfoId=187919&purchaseId=754606.
Before long one particular company, ZAO Akrus, came out of nowhere and Rodchenkov finalized the purchase order with them.
(http://www.acrus.ru/about/struktura-kompanii/)
But it wasn’t Akrus that had a direct contract with Berlinger but OOO AnalitLab (taxpayer ID number 5046075826). Currenly AnalitLab - along with a few dozen insolvent parties - is merging with OOO Ptichnik (taxpayer ID number 3525359349, Vologda). AnalitLab features the usual feature set of shell corporations. Now this rings a bell. Does Berlinger practice tax and customs “optimization”? The final buyer in Russia is known, so why would Belinger need an army of obscure middlemen in Russia?
I didn’t make a call on Ptichnik from Vologda, Berlinger’s partner company. If any of the readers have some “pre-Rio” sample bottles, I ask you to sell them to the professional bottle panel for the public experiment.
The bottles drip into whose pockets?
Representatives of Berlinger have repeatedly made statements that their bottles can’t be tampered with. It is substantiated with the European patent DE4318311 (A1) from 8.12.1994. Records show that the bottle’s inventor and owner of the patent Berlinger & Co AG is Karl Egli Lichtensteig (1936-2012). He was a minority shareholder of Berlinger AG and a childhood friend of Jurg Berlinger. His granddaughter Monika Egli is still employed by Berlinger as Head of Customer Relations. In 2008 Karl Egli sold his share and launched a company for electromechanical machines Electro Egli. (http://www.egli.ch/).
Nothing is known about Karl Egli’s other patents. Why would the muses of bottle design favor to him? That indeed is a mystery. From that time on, however, the textile factory hit its stride by introducing special glass containers to the market, created by WADA. One would be under the illusion to think there is no invested patron behind such success. Berlinger’s promotional materials name Matthias Kamber as co-inventor of the bottles. Maybe he is the one promoting Berlinger’s product? There’s also one Nicki Vance, member of the International Paralympic Anti-Doping Committee since 2006, WADA manager and owner of the company Nicki Vance Consulting.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickivanceconsulting).
He has been a consultant for Berlinger & Co AG since October 2002. Lobbying and possible corrupt or even criminal practice of these WADA officials should be the subject of a separate review. I hope our mass media will put him under needed scrutiny, as WADA for its part doesn't seem to be motivated to do so.
A bottle as a spiritual bond
Berlinger’s monopoly could be justified only if their bottles were safe and secure. Any other reason would be based on corruption. According to McLaren, Berlinger is deceitful and vulnerable. My take on the issue is that their monopoly kills technological development. A tamper-proof bottle would have been long invented if not for Berlinger’s monopoly because the bottle’s vulnerability creates temptation for rascals, and risks to honest athletes. Shall we then demolish this unnatural and wrongful monopoly?
I ask of Igor Artemyev, head of Federal Antimonopoly Service, to take this article for an official complaint and examine on what grounds Grigory Rodchenkov framed Berlinger’s product specs in tender documentations. There is at least one rival firm certified by WADA, Versapak. So the documentation can only contain product requirements for the bottles but not specifically name Berlinger as the manufacturing company.
http://versapak-anti-doping.com/our_products/
I’d like to remind you that Russia holds a course on import substitution. I reckon that it is within the power of our manufacturers to produce tamper-proof patriotic bottles for local urine, which would be a new bond for the spirit of our sports. Fortunately, there are about a hundred factories belonging to the Russian Union of Glass Container Manufacturers. Finally, we have Skolkovo and Rosnano. They should go ahead and design a sample bottle. If they make more effort they’ll surely manage to make one. We can hire Rodchenkov as an expert to test to what extend it cannot be tampered. In this regard WADA believes him more than us. So it’s going to be easier to obtain their certificates.
Valentin Balakhnichev
Richard McLaren’s report has become a death knell to the reputation of the former textile manufacturer. According to him, tampering with a sample bottle is as easy as pie: zippy fingers, a flexible strip, “bam!” and Berlinger’s reputation is up in smoke. After all, WADA has already looked asinine in 1992. The attorney of the German runner Katrin Krabbe opened the “tamper-proof” sample bottle right in front of the judge at the time, freeing Krabbe from all accusations. Decades later Berlinger is right where it started but it has now made itself look like a fool before the whole world.
Moreover, McLaren’s report states that if the strip is made of plastic then tampering might not even leave any scratches or marks, however microscopic. So anyone with a piece of plastic could have unsealed any bottle in any WADA lab and swapped it without it ever being discovered.
I leave to your imagination what a heap of 5 million Berlinger bottles will look like. That’s roughly how many of them are stocked in WADA’s vaults.
Berlinger VS McLaren
Berlinger won’t stop insisting that its bottles are tamper-proof. They officially claimed exactly that to Novaya Gazeta a week before McLaren’s requiem for Russian sport. The press secretary Hans Klaus is implying that McLaren and Rodchenkov are lying. “Berlinger bottles used in Sochi 2014 Olympics are in compliance with the highest modern safety standards and cannot be tampered with. They are subject to regular inspections carried out by an independent external organization that controls the quality of our product and subsequently certifies it as ‘tamper-proof’”.
What exactly is this “independent external organization” that doesn’t possess even a piece of plastic? On Berlinger’s website one can find a link to an anonymous independent institute in Switzerland; the details are thoroughly blurred on the company’s certificates of quality.
A certain Sulzer Innotec AG, Switzerland, is also mentioned in the online source publications but only in relation to Berlinger bottles for blood samples. It is possible that this laboratory performed expert examinations on questionable urine samples as well. Berlinger’s attempt to deliberately keep the audit company off the radar speaks to the fact that McLaren most probably has got it right.
Another argument in support of it is the fact that WADA discreetly informed Berlinger about the deficiency of the bottle’s integrity, and the latter fixed the product for the Rio Olympic Games. Experts of Russia’s Channel One couldn’t crack the bottle. Maybe they didn’t try hard enough or purchased an improved bottle from Rio. There are many among my acquaintances who are fairly competent in sample bottle safety who are suspicious of McLaren’s methods.
Only a videotaped opening of a bottle performed by a panel of professionals can resolve the controversy over the sample bottles. For this reason I take it upon myself to head such a panel. The minimum objective would be to open up a bottle with a strip. The maximum goal would be to open it up without any scratches or marks. Experts and attesting witnesses are welcome. I’m on my way to get the bottles.
Ptichnik from Vologda - a partner of Berlinger?
Looking for the bottles, I was naïve to assume that Berlinger had a representative office in Russia. I didn’t find one so I surmised that Berlinger bottles were supplied under terms of direct contracts between them, RUSADA and the Moscow Anti-doping Center in Russia. But I was wrong. It looks like Berlinger uses a chain of shady companies for their sales in Russia. For instance, in December 2013 Rodchenkov held a tender for Berlinger caps and declared it void. Berlinger didn’t make a bid for it, nor did any other firm. And this despite the fact that tender documentation openly required a Berlinger product.
Here’s a link for the inquisitive: http://zakupki.gov.ru/223/purchase/public/purchase/contractInfo/view-subject.html?contractInfoId=187919&purchaseId=754606.
Before long one particular company, ZAO Akrus, came out of nowhere and Rodchenkov finalized the purchase order with them.
(http://www.acrus.ru/about/struktura-kompanii/)
But it wasn’t Akrus that had a direct contract with Berlinger but OOO AnalitLab (taxpayer ID number 5046075826). Currenly AnalitLab - along with a few dozen insolvent parties - is merging with OOO Ptichnik (taxpayer ID number 3525359349, Vologda). AnalitLab features the usual feature set of shell corporations. Now this rings a bell. Does Berlinger practice tax and customs “optimization”? The final buyer in Russia is known, so why would Belinger need an army of obscure middlemen in Russia?
I didn’t make a call on Ptichnik from Vologda, Berlinger’s partner company. If any of the readers have some “pre-Rio” sample bottles, I ask you to sell them to the professional bottle panel for the public experiment.
The bottles drip into whose pockets?
Representatives of Berlinger have repeatedly made statements that their bottles can’t be tampered with. It is substantiated with the European patent DE4318311 (A1) from 8.12.1994. Records show that the bottle’s inventor and owner of the patent Berlinger & Co AG is Karl Egli Lichtensteig (1936-2012). He was a minority shareholder of Berlinger AG and a childhood friend of Jurg Berlinger. His granddaughter Monika Egli is still employed by Berlinger as Head of Customer Relations. In 2008 Karl Egli sold his share and launched a company for electromechanical machines Electro Egli. (http://www.egli.ch/).
Nothing is known about Karl Egli’s other patents. Why would the muses of bottle design favor to him? That indeed is a mystery. From that time on, however, the textile factory hit its stride by introducing special glass containers to the market, created by WADA. One would be under the illusion to think there is no invested patron behind such success. Berlinger’s promotional materials name Matthias Kamber as co-inventor of the bottles. Maybe he is the one promoting Berlinger’s product? There’s also one Nicki Vance, member of the International Paralympic Anti-Doping Committee since 2006, WADA manager and owner of the company Nicki Vance Consulting.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickivanceconsulting).
He has been a consultant for Berlinger & Co AG since October 2002. Lobbying and possible corrupt or even criminal practice of these WADA officials should be the subject of a separate review. I hope our mass media will put him under needed scrutiny, as WADA for its part doesn't seem to be motivated to do so.
A bottle as a spiritual bond
Berlinger’s monopoly could be justified only if their bottles were safe and secure. Any other reason would be based on corruption. According to McLaren, Berlinger is deceitful and vulnerable. My take on the issue is that their monopoly kills technological development. A tamper-proof bottle would have been long invented if not for Berlinger’s monopoly because the bottle’s vulnerability creates temptation for rascals, and risks to honest athletes. Shall we then demolish this unnatural and wrongful monopoly?
I ask of Igor Artemyev, head of Federal Antimonopoly Service, to take this article for an official complaint and examine on what grounds Grigory Rodchenkov framed Berlinger’s product specs in tender documentations. There is at least one rival firm certified by WADA, Versapak. So the documentation can only contain product requirements for the bottles but not specifically name Berlinger as the manufacturing company.
http://versapak-anti-doping.com/our_products/
I’d like to remind you that Russia holds a course on import substitution. I reckon that it is within the power of our manufacturers to produce tamper-proof patriotic bottles for local urine, which would be a new bond for the spirit of our sports. Fortunately, there are about a hundred factories belonging to the Russian Union of Glass Container Manufacturers. Finally, we have Skolkovo and Rosnano. They should go ahead and design a sample bottle. If they make more effort they’ll surely manage to make one. We can hire Rodchenkov as an expert to test to what extend it cannot be tampered. In this regard WADA believes him more than us. So it’s going to be easier to obtain their certificates.
Valentin Balakhnichev