Finally, Someone Gets It

I’ve been a harsh critic, at times, of the mainstream media’s coverage of the Floyd Landis case. As someone who’s been around the journalism block a time or two, and someone who knows how things are supposed to be done, I often despair the poor quality of work that masquerades as journalism in this day and age.

Finally, however, a top-notch investigative reporter has turned his attention to the mess that is the anti-doping process in competitive sports. Michael Hiltzik, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the Los Angeles Times, sank his journalistic teeth into the story with yesterday’s Athlete’s unbeatable foe, where he looks at the World Anti-Doping Agency and the manner in which the anti-doping authorities behave as prosecutor, judge and jury, with a frequent result being innocent athletes paying an enormously high price for supposed doping violations.

And in today’s paper, Hiltzik continues on with Athletes see doping case appeals as futile exercise. In this article, he looks at how the arbitration system is heavily biased in favor of the accusers, and the harsh penalties meted out for accidental or trivial exposure to banned substances. And in a related piece, Hiltzik looks at the charges and case against Tyler Hamilton.

For Floyd Landis fans, there’s long been a sense of outrage at the blatant unfairness of the system and the conduct of those at the highest levels of the anti-doping machine. But when a first-rate investigative reporter at one of the largest papers in the country takes the time to delve into the subject, the picture that emerges is that of a system drunk on its own power and clearly out of control.

While no one I’ve met, talked to, or received comments from on this blog has condoned cheating or doping in sports, Hiltzik’s stories make me wonder which is worse for sports right now: The people cheating, or the people who’ve crafted such a fascistic, totalitarian system to deal with the cheating?

Yes, intentional doping or cheating is wrong. And someone proven to do so deserves to be punished. But there are genuine cases where athletes have been exposed accidentally or unintentionally to banned substances. The deliberate cheaters should be getting harsher treatment than those who’ve accidentally or unintentionally crossed the line. The cases of Torri Edwards, Mariano Puerta and Zach Lund, among others mentioned in Hiltzik’s articles, should serve as cautionary tales about how the system can run amok.

Mariano Puerta’s case is unique among the ones Hiltzik discusses, in that the arbitration panel gave Puerta a lower sentence, due in part to the extenuating circumstances surrounding his positive test. He had shared a glass of water that his wife had used to take some medication that contained a banned stimulant. Puerta subsequently showed minute traces of the stimulant when he was subjected to anti-doping tests.

Puerta still received a stiff penalty — a two-year ban from tennis — but it was not as stiff as the eight-year ban that could have been imposed. Had the more harsh sentence been the punishment, Puerta’s tennis career would have been effectively ended. All for a minute trace of a banned substance that he accidentally ingested.

An anti-doping system that:

• Denies accused athletes access to the materials and evidence necessary to defend themselves before an arbitration panel, and
• Limits the arbitrators to those who the anti-doping authorities deem acceptable, and
• Uses questionable science and test procedures that have not met the same criteria for the development, certification and quality control as tests used for commercial purposes (such as HIV tests), and
• Does not allow the defense team the right to question those methods and tests, and
• Does not allow the defense to question and examine the competence of the lab to perform those tests

is a process that is grossly unfair to accused athletes and needs to be reformed. Hiltzik’s articles certainly go a long way towards making the case for reform.

Doping in sports is just plain cheating. But to be fair, the anti-doping system needs to set realistic thresholds for what constitutes doping, and it needs to provide a level playing field for those who are accused. If the science isn’t good and the tests aren’t fully developed then neither should be assumed to be perfect, unless the object of the exercise is to convict all who fall into the system’s trap without regard to what the truth of the matter may be. Convicting innocent athletes of doping is another form of cheating — cheating people out of the opportunity to participate in the sport they love, whether purely for the enjoyment as an amateur or to earn a living as a professional.

A system that allows the defense to challenge and probe and question results and conclusions will eventually lead to tests that are better, more accurate and less prone to false positives or errors of interpretation.

Unfortunately, as things stand right now, we have an anti-doping system in place with rules that make a mockery of the sporting ideals that they are supposed to be defending.

Michael Hiltzik has done a great job of opening eyes and showing the rest of the mainstream media how real investigative reporting should be done. One can only hope that the rest of the journalistic pack will follow suit. If enough people make enough noise for enough time, maybe some changes will be made. If no one speaks out, however, nothing will change and competitive sports as we know it will be doomed. How ironic that WADA, who were created to ensure fair play, may actually bring down the whole of competitive sports — both amateur and professional.