Lots of news in the world of doping — and just plain dope — these days. Turns out, Alex Rodriguez did use some performance-enhancing drugs back in the early 2000s. Why am I not shocked by his admission? Maybe it’s because I’m not a Yankees fan? Or perhaps it’s because I last watched a baseball game in the early 90s, pre-strike era. Yep, I’m one of those who walked away from the sport in 1994. Haven’t followed it with any regularity since then. That said, I’ve seen more than a few stories about A-Rod over the last few days. Thomas Boswell, of the Washington Post, sums things up pretty well.
Alex Rodriguez may actually be telling something close to the truth. Not the public relations version of the truth, which heretofore has been A-Rod’s first, as well as final, standard. But maybe the actual true facts.
Boswell takes a look at Rodriguez’s stats over his career and opines that
Rodriguez may have taken performance-enhancing drugs for only three years — never before, never after.
For one thing, his statistics, as we’ll show, indicate that he may be coming clean. He hit 33 percent more homers in his dirty Texas years — from 2001 to 2003 — than in the other 10 seasons of his career. That’s a huge leap, similar to the numbers that first incriminated Barry Bonds in many baseball minds.
And then in the next paragraph, he tells us why he’s inclined to believe Rodriguez’s confession.
Also, Rodriguez’s character — or his lack of it — lends credence to his confession Monday. A-Rod’s defining quality, beyond his physical ability, is that he can’t take the heat in any situation. He doesn’t just crumble in October (when he has one RBI in his last 58 at-bats in the post-season in that infernally scalding Yankee uniform).
Over the rest of the article, Boswell offers up a jaundiced-eyed view of Rodriguez’s home run stats and concludes that it just may be possible that Rodriguez is telling the truth. He only doped for a few years, and when he tested positive, it scared him straight. For that, Boswell suggests, A-Rod may find himself not exactly in the fans’ good graces, but he won’t be the kind of player who is almost uniformly shunned, either.
“The truth will set you free,” some great prophet once said. Perhaps, in Rodriguez’s case that will actually be the case.
I’m Free? Really?
Eagle-eyed reader David Olson tipped me off to an interesting article published at CyclingNews.com yesterday. Turns out, Triki Beltrán may get to race his bicycle this year. You remember Beltrán, right? He was one of the cyclists who supposedly tested positive for the blood-boosting drug EPO.
Spaniard Manuel Beltrán may have tested positive for EPO during last year’s Tour de France, but that may not mean he will be denied a racing license, according to reports on Saturday. The former Liquigas rider revealed that the UCI and the Spanish federation have communicated to him that he would be allowed to race anywhere except the Tour de France, much to his surprise.
“It is a surprise after I have been treated so badly. But the truth is that I do not mind. I was really depressed after the show that set up around me. It’s something I would not wish on anyone, and frankly, I do not know what will happen in the future,” Beltrán said in the local newspaper Ideal.
Interesting turn of events. Allowed to race everywhere except the Tour? Call me a cynic, but doesn’t that suggest his test results were not quite so positive as has been reported up to now. This is the kind of thing that immediately makes me think that the anti-doping testers may have admitted to making a bit of a mistake (like that happens), and to save face (read: not embarrass the Tour and the ASO) a compromise was struck. We’ll let him race, but just not at the Tour. Too many uncomfortable questions would have to be answered if he were allowed to race there, dontcha know. I did a bit of looking around, and as far as Google News goes, the CyclingNews.com story is the only one in English that’s out there at the moment.
I’ll certainly be interested to see how this story develops. Something’s very curious about this. Especially if Beltrán really does start racing again. I can’t imagine how the Spanish cycling federation and the UCI are going to be able to explain the turnaround.
Operación Puerto the Endless, part dos — or tres — or quattro — or … oh, hell, it just never ends.
You don’t have to go any further than the next article down the page at CyclingNews.com to find out that Operación Puerto, the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again ad nauseam scandal that just won’t die, still refuses to pass into history.
Proceedings have been opened against eight persons involved in Operación Puerto, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported Saturday. The group includes Eufemiano Fuentes, the doctor at the centre of the affair, and directeurs sportifs Manolo Saiz and Vicente Belda. However, anyone hoping for a speedy resolution to the case which has been debated since May, 2006 will be disappointed. Hearings are scheduled to be held this autumn at the earliest, and there could be additional delays with possible appeals.
Just in time to cast some sort of shadow over the 2009 professional cycling season. But wait! There’s more.
… Fuentes, Saiz and Belda, Jose Luis Merino, Alberto Leon, Ignacio Labarta, Alfredo Córdova and Yolanda Fuentes are accused of a crime against public health. The eight face a maximum of two years in prison, besides losing their respective work licenses, according to Spanish paper El Pais.
Seems to me at least a few of the defendants named above have been subject to these charges before. Guess there’s no concept of “double-jeopardy” in the Spanish legal system. Or if there is, apparently it doesn’t cause quite the same concerns as over here. Wasn’t Fuentes previously charged with “crimes against public health”? Wasn’t the case either thrown out, or decided in his favor? (Though, I suppose if it was thrown out, it would depend on whether the judge left a door open to future charges, should new evidence emerge.)
By the way, the judge who reopened the case was … are you ready … the same judge who actually scuttled the Puerto case twice before. Although Judge Antonio Serrano re-opened the case, another judge will preside over the legal proceedings.
Given how long Puerto has dragged on, I fully expect that it will be a long, long time before this story is finally over.
Parting Shots
Michael Phelps should be glad that swimming isn’t the kind of national obsession that baseball is. At least he doesn’t need to fear a Congressional investigation over “Bong-Gate.” So far, Phelps’ is not suffering huge damage because of a certain photo of our favorite amphibian taking a hit at a party some time in November. Kellogs dumped their sponsorship agreement with him (which “conveniently” ended this month, anyway) and USA Swimming says he has to sit out of competition for three months. Of course, as some wag suggested, telling him to sit out and do … well … nothing, is probably the wrong messge to send to someone who’s been known to take a toke or two.
And, at least Phelps didn’t lie about what he’d done. Miguel Tejada, on the other hand, is expected to plead guilty to charges that he lied to Congressional investigators when he told them that he had never spoken with his Oakland A’s teammates about their use of steroids and human growth hormone. Apparently, the feds are letting Tejada off fairly easily.
It was not clear why federal prosecutors, who could have taken five years to investigate Tejada because of the statute of limitations, and had evidence that he used steroids and human growth hormone, agreed to let him plead to lesser charges.
Gee, I dunno. Lemme guess. Perhaps he’s agreed to spill the beans on others? Bigger fish, maybe? Or maybe the feds are just cutting him a break. Which is more likely? I’m guessing Miguel Tejada will be starring in a prosecution or two, somewhere down the road.
Just One More …
And finally (for tonight), there’s this article from today’s New York Times business section. Turns out, athletes who blame positive drug tests on contaminated “natural supplements” may sometimes be telling the truth. Food for thought.
Hi Rant,
About Beltran, he is not allowed to take part at any sport event on french soil!
It seems to have no doubt about his positive case but that is more a battle between UCI and AFLD. UCI wants to control next TDF testing but AFLD wants to do more than UCI and french minister of sport recently said that next TDF testing should be done by AFLD.
We will see how all of this will be played by WADA.
Jean,
That Beltran would be barred from any sporting competition seems in keeping with previous doping cases there. It does seem like some sort of tug-of-war between various agencies. The UCI/AFLD battle over control of the anti-doping testing at the next TdF will be interesting to watch. And, as you point out, WADA is in the background, lurking.
The last TdF was a parocial event, int international, but French with many non-French players.
WADA seems to side with AFLD while AFLD/TdF make a mockery of the notion of unified standards within the anti-doping movement.
More politics and keystone cops. If this were chess, cycling would be a pawn.
Jeff,
If this is a chess match, would that mean that the cyclists and/or the fans are getting “rooked”? 😉
(Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun…)
Beware Operation Puerto bearing (even more) gifts:
http://www.velonews.com/article/87585/italians-summon-valverde-on-puerto-doping-suspicions
Will the Basso Defense be offered? Maybe The Phelps/Clinton Defense (“I didn’t inhale”)? Maybe the Rodriguez defense (“I was young.”) The Beltran Gambit (“um…this was a test by AFLD and inapplicable to UCI rules.”)? The OJ Defense (Reasonable doubt, but he probably did it)? The Heras Kerfuffle (This lab says yes, this lab says I dunno, this lab thinks maybe…Ha! Gotcha!)? The Bonds Approach (“I figured it was flax seed oil or whatever”)?
One thing for sure that won’t be offered: The Floyd Wiki. (“Show me the results of the test. Hey look, it is negative and mostly made up shiat. WTF?) That defense (e.g. “Truth”) is a sure loser.
And so it goes.
Jeff,
For me there is something wrong here.
WADA is the world wide anti-doping agency supporting one of its national agency.
Yes I agree there is a mockery, that is the UCI anti doping fight, unable to catch the known doped riders. Maybe you were referring at the smoke-screen made by UCI about their doping fight…
In just a few months, AFLD showed that it was possible to improve slightly anti-doping fight. But UCI prefers bribes as in the old days.
Rant,
Yes. Anyone interested in following the sport is getting rooked. I was being overly generous with my pawn comment. The riders are being walked all over. The better analogy is the riders as the chess board, the table under the chess board, or better yet, the stale old gum stuck to the underside of the table.
Jean C,
I’m not going to defent the record of the UCI. In different ways, AFLD’s and WADA’s records are similarly indefensible.
WADA has stated one important aspect of their mission was to unify the standards involved in anti-doping. That has not happened on several levels. A most basic example is that the standards that trigger AAF’s can vary from one WADA approved lab to another. WADA/UCI recently conducted AAF shopping at WADA approved labs located in at least (3) different countries to sanction a Basque rider. Another example of the failure of the WADA unification notion is the fact that riders still can face sanctions stemming from the actions of multiple national federations. Floyd Landis facing diaplinary actions in both the U.S. and France is one example. There is a German rider and the Quick Step team left twisting in the wind due to the inaction of AFLD, a WADA approved lab. Then there is the Triki B issue that Rant and others have written about. There is a common thread here. AFLD is in the thick of all of those examples. They are doing a fine job of mucking things up. Real pros at what they do!
Eightzero,
It wasn’t a Beltran gambit. Beltran is licensed in Spain. The Spanish authority is not recognizing AFLD’s result/report on Beltran. The 2008 TdF and the anti-doping measures taken associated with the event were done only under French authority. That edition of the TdF was a national race, abet with an international field of riders and teams. No one has significantly questioned the posted results of the race. The Spanish are now on record questioning the validity of the results of the anti-doping results outside of France. They, however, don’t question French authorities’ right to act upon what happened within French borders. Like Vegas, the Spanish are saying, “what happened in France, stays in France”. As the race/anti-doping were not international, here we have the political fiasco. And AFLD is in the thick of it again Jean C.
Jeff,
Unifying standards requiert some bases: to have the same equipments for every labs, to have people able to perform every tests, moneys, and so… That needs time.
That points was the main reason about the Mayo’s case… the Gent’s lab was not able to perform a testing like was able to do LNDD: equipemnt less performant and people less skilled for EPO testing.
Of course you can choose to lower the standard at the level of the lowest lab, equipment and technicians, but that would be a big money loss.
(the 3 rd lab that you are referring was an australian lab which didn’t perform the testing, they just looked at the Gent’s results and conclude that the testing was inconclusive (not negative or positive).
If Lance was subjected to 2 prosecution that is because when Landis doped the new WADA law was not agreed by French Assembly yet … As you can see WADA cannot unify everything in no time, they are depending of the will and the speed of governments.
About Schumacher, I don’t see a problem, the guy was caught stealing fame and money from other riders. He was fairly caught, but if UCI prefer to drop and push the case under the rug that is their problem… I don’t understand why you put the responsability under AFLD who has just done his job.
You are targetting the bad people instead of focusing on people who are not doing their job. The record shows that UCI is the thick in all mess. AFLD does testing for all others sports…
What are your thoughts about the death of that poor belgian rider?
Jean,
I haven’t seen any reports about what caused that rider’s death. Have you? I hope it was some freak cause, rather than other reasons. It’s always a shame to see young people lose their lives through the use of drugs — whether by doping in sports, or by overdosing on “recreational” drugs.
Jean C,
While I don’t agree with you, your response was civil until the last paragraph. There has been nothing reported to suggest the deceased rider was involved in any sort of doping. That was particularly low to include considering he is not among us to defend himself, not to mention that should in no way be owed to you or anyone else, and his family in in mourning.
I’ll stipulate the UCI turned a blind eye toward doping for too long. I’m not arguing that point with you, but I will say they are not alone, although they are still one of the few international sports sanctioning organizations being called out for it.
You might do well to stipulate AFLD has been shown to have engaged in shoddy testing practices and that there have been serial leaks that have originated from AFLD in contravention of WADA rules and good lab practices…just for starters.
AFLD’s claims that they are EPO testing experts is little more than a gratuitous assertion. Outside of WADA World’s closed system, show us another international organization that recognizes their expertise. The French Open does not. They arranged their testing through their cousins in Quebec. That doesn’t show much confidence in the local lab.
Schumacher may or may not be guilty. There is no way for you, me, the German Federation, or the UCI to be able to tell. AFLD has not forwarded the appropriate documentation to the German Federation or the UCI. AFLD seems to think news reports of an AAF regarding testing they did on Schumacher’s samples is sufficient to trigger a sanction. It isn’t. At this late date, AFLD has not even begun to get its act together.
Hi Rant,
Haven’t followed as many Rant’s as in the past so a little behind but just thought I’d throw in a wish of good luck to Floyd Landis on his return to racing at the Tour of California. It would be great if he turned in a podium performance. Tough field and if LA is only providing support for Liepheimer then there is definitely a possibility there. I hope FL’s accident wasn’t too serious. Didn’t Ullrich have an accident the day before the start of one of the tours? All the best to FL.
Rant,
When that sad death was announced, media reported that his family wanted an autopsie. But it seems that they have changed their mind if the first reports were correct.
Doped or not the doped athletes or riders are the victims of doping. Some of them have no choice, they have to be on the first speed. And riders who are on the “low speed” have harder race days.
Jeff,
Shoddy pratices from LNDD, maybe but everyone can do mistakes, the only question is : is there damage caused by that mistake? We have all to deal with our shoddy practise sometimes.
You are accusing LNDD of leaking name of positif case without proof. You have to explain us how a lab can leak the name of an athlete when they have just anonymous samples. Only federations and WADA can match samples.
Free shoots are easy… why would be a WADA lab well-know outside of his expertise domain? Do you know none-WADA labs working on EPO testing?
About the testing of the French Open, if there is a lack of confidence why the FFT is still doing the testing of other ATP tournaments (like Bercy, Lyon, Marseille at LNDD,…)
What about all other federations and so? Where have been done the testing of rugby world cup? of athletic events?…
You are drawing conclusions with few elements.
Schumacher’s case is only a problem for him and his team which has signed a stupid contract with Schumacher. To do his ban he should have a licence. Clearly there is some problem but without informations it’s difficult to conclude.
Maybe there is some other problems with the french doping law too for Schumacher.
At the moment, Schumacher seems to have not sue AFLD as he has promised.
Luc,
I’ll have some Floyd commentary later on today. I certainly wish him well at the ToC and in all his races this year. Good to see him back.
Jean,
True enough, what you say about doping. But with regard to that young cyclist who died during the Tour of Qatar, all we can really be certain of is that he died way too young. Without an autopsy or official cause of death, we’ll never know what happened. I don’t blame the family for not doing an autopsy, though. That’s a private decision.
As for the EPO testing at LNDD, that’s actually said to be one of their fortes. I’m not sure what to make of the French Open taking their drug testing to Montreal, rather than having it done at Chatenay-Malabry. It’s certainly a matter of speculation, though. And, despite the official reason (lower cost), it does leave one wondering if perhaps the event organizers don’t have as much faith in LNDD as other event organizers in France (or does the FFT actually organize and promote all tennis competitions over there?). But as you point out, other sports and other events have their testing done at LNDD, with seemingly little controversy.
Someone is leaking information to the press. Perhaps from the UCI, perhaps from the lab, perhaps a little of both. (As in, the reporter’s contact at the lab tells him when a sample tests positive and what for, and then has another contact in the federation that matches the sample number to a name. Not as far-fetched a scenario as it might first seem, by the way.) No conspiracy theory there. Just a bit of speculation about a certain reporter’s sources. If he’s a good reporter, he’ll have a number of sources in a number of different places. And, whatever else you can say about Damien Ressiot, he’s definitely good at digging up stories.
By sport there is one uniq federation, a free and non-profit association, managing that sport, and they are in charge of that sport under the control of the sport minister.
Sometimes there is other federations for one sport but with few power. For example, they can award national titles, they have to deal with the main federation for their competitions, they cannot challenge the main federation. That is like the UCI which have just one national federation in each country.
The French Federation of Tennis manages, directly or not (by a city club), all tennis tournaments of France, and of course is responsible by laws of the antidoping management.
Sure Ressiot is a fox, he has his own stamp at his glorious!
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2162/ressiotlaph9.jpg
Jean C
It’s not a simple as characterizing WADA, LNDD/AFLD, UCI, or the riders as wearing white or black hats.
WADA’s publicly stated goal is a positive one. Portraying itself as having a system that employs a fair quazi-judicial process, when it, in fact, has stacked the deck in its favor, is not positive. Consistently giving the benefit of the doubt to the labs and not requiring the labs to provide full documentation packages to accused athletes is not positive. WAADA’s “good neighbor policy” and lack of significant peer review wrt the science behind its test is not positive. I could go on. On a whole other level, WADA’s true purpose has much more to do with protecting the “Olympic brand”,and the income that is derived from that brand, than it is about anti-doping, but I digress….
LNDD/AFLD have a long and storied history of questionable testing practices, problems with chain of custody, problems with leaks of confidential information, too cozy a relationship with a local reporter & L’Equipe, and several instances of disagreements with other WADA approved labs concerning what constitutes an AAF. Other notable WADA approved labs (In LA and Australia), that do a high volume of testing, don’t seem to have the same sort of serial problems that plaque LNDD/AFLD.
I’m not going to defend past practices regarding UCI. They did a poor job with anti-doping and are now paying the price via a perfect storm of bad politics resulting from personal vendettas, professional differences, and the opportunity to lash out at an ideal whipping boy. I’m not a fan of the UCI, but they have recently been pushed to fight doping in their sport with vigor largely absent in others.
Riders have been involved in practices now described as “doping” since shortly after people began racing two wheeled non-motorized contraptions. Some riders have doped and skewed shat would have been the natural order of the results of competition. As such, they have cheated riders who did not dope, or engage in other categories of acts of cheating. No one knows the exact amount of cheating that has taken place in cycling, or any other sport. Characterizing all, or most, of the riders of any era as having doped is unfair as it is unsupported. Implying a recently deceased rider engaged in doping, when there is nothing that suggests he did, is unfair, unsupported, and cowardly on a level that is beneath contempt.
Schumacher’s case points out, again, LNDD/AFLD’s arrogance and sloppy work. AFLD claims Schumacher’s samples triggered multiple AAF’s in July of ’08. It’s now almost mid-February, over six (6) months the date when his samples were reported to trigger multiple AAF’s and AFLD has still not forwarded its official report to the appropriate agencies (UCI & German Federation) to trigger a possible sanction. In the meantime, the press, Schumacher & Quick Step, cycling rags, and people like you & me argue about whether Schumacher should be issued (or not have it pulled) a license to race until AFLD’s official report is finally forwarded to UCI/German Federation, the appropriate agencies.
I don’t give a rat’s rear end if Schumacher races again, or not. I care that AFLD is again involved in a process that denies even a pale reflection of due process to a professional rider.
Given that the lab’s practices in the Floyd Landis matter were sufficient to trigger a significan sanction while at the very same time, similar lab practices would trigger a poor or failing grade to a Chemistry 101 student, I can’t fathom how this lab stays in business or is not significantly disciplined. I can only surmise they are politically protected and it will take much more than a publicly witnessed airing of filthy laundry to trigger meaningful corrections.
To each his own. I view Ressiot as an hard working opportunistic troll. But that’s just me.
Jeff,
I am not interested to discuss with someone unable to distinguish facts from allegations.
Jean,
Perhaps you and I understand things a bit differently. ASO is the promoter/organizer of the Tour, from how I understand their role. Now, I rather doubt that the are the promoter/organizer for all other professional and amateur bicycle races in France (unless they’ve already bought everyone else up…). The UCI or the French cycling federation provides the sanction/rules/race commissaires/anti-doping enforcement and so forth. Doesn’t it work similarly in tennis over there? Is there a company who puts on, say, the French Open, and perhaps other companies who put on the other events?
By the way you describe it, it almost sounds like the French tennis federation not only provides the usual things a sports federation does, but that they are also the promoter of the event. Is that correct? Or am I not understanding correctly?
I can agree to disagree with you. Given we see things differently, it may be impossible for me not to address you if you participate on this forum. I’m not ready to give up the privilege to post here because you prefer not to engage in a discussion with me, but I will try to avoid you in the future.
Your last post is somewhat confusing. I tend to think similarly about your posts.
Jean C,
Previous post addressed to you: BTW, If need be, I can support my previous lengthy post. Should you ask me to go to the trouble, and should we engage in further discussion, I would expect the same of you.
Jeff