I was going to offer up some sample letters to Senators and Representatives tonight, but a couple of quotes I saw at TBV caught my eye. I’ll come back to those letters tomorrow. In the meantime:
[WADA policy states that every athlete is responsible for everything he or she ingests or applies to the body. In the case of adulterated supplements], If you didn’t know what was in there, it’s your own damn fault.
Dick Pound, quoted at Trust But VerifyIf a man or woman is responsible for what ends up in his/her body, I suggest you talk to the families of those who lost loved ones due to the recent E.Coli outbreak in spinach, those who became gravely ill (or died) from allergic reactions despite intense questioning of chefs re: ingredients in restaurant dishes, those who became ill from mad cow disease. I’m sure these people would be very interested in your theories.
Regular Rant Reader Debby, in a comment at TBV
Not to stretch Dick Pound’s point too far over the edge of ridiculousness (he doesn’t need any help, anyway), but what if …
You’ve just passed away and you’re at the waystation just in front of the Pearly Gates waiting to find out where you’ll be spending eternity. It’s a nice place, very comfortable, a warm Scandinavian feel. Lots of beautiful Danish furniture. Angels mill about, playing beautiful music on their lyres. The guy in front of you looks a bit familiar, dressed in stylish clothes with wrap-around sunglasses. You can’t quite place him, though.
“Next,” the attendant, who bears a striking resemblance to John Cleese, calls. The guy in shades walks up to the desk where the attendant is filling out paperwork. “Just a minute,” the attendant says without looking up. “Got to finish up something.” Shades guy waits patiently. Finally, the attendant directs his attention to the man standing before his desk.
“Ah, yes. St. Bono. I guess you’ve finally found what you’re looking for.”
“Bloody hell! Really?”
“Yes. But I’m afraid you’ll have to watch your language around here. Wouldn’t want to get You Know Who mad.”
“Brilliant. Fuckin’ brilliant. Guess I’ve got to change the lyrics then.”
“Perhaps. But only the people here will get to hear them.”
“Is the rest of the band here?”
“No. It wasn’t their time.”
“Damn. It’s going to be a bloody bore without the Edge around.”
“Right, off with you then. Proceed to the gates.”
Bono walks to the gates, and as he enters the sky is filled with the opening chords of “Where the Streets Have No Name.” After a few moments the gates shut, and only the faintest of sounds can be heard.
The attendant fills out paperwork for what seems like … well … an eternity. Finally, he calls out, “Next.”
It’s your turn. You step right up.
“Was that … ? Did you call him Saint .. ?”
“Yes,” the attendant says, almost sarcastically.
“Right, well I’m glad I’ll be spending eternity around him. Always loved U2’s music.”
“What makes you think you’re going through the gates?”
“Why wouldn’t I?”
“You committed suicide.”
“What? I did no such thing! I would never!”
“I’m sorry, but you most certainly did.”
“No. No. Never!”
“`Fraid so.”
“How, then?”
“Taco Bell. Burrito Supreme with green onions.”
“Right. That was my last supper. What’s that got to do with … ?”
“That’s how you killed yourself. It was laced with E. Coli.”
“Well, that’s not my fault. How was I to know? It didn’t come with a warning label saying, ‘Beware, bloody E. Coli inhabits this burrito!'”
“Doesn’t matter. We have a strict liability rule here. You ate something that killed you, therefore, you’ve committed suicide.”
“Bloody hell!”
“Nope. In your case, fiery Hell. You’ve always like hot stuff, and now you get to experience heat for all eternity.”
“But! But!”
“Sorry. Strict liability. Zero tolerance. If you didn’t know what was in the burrito, it’s your own fault. You shouldn’t have eaten it. Off you go, then.”
“But … ” A couple of angels escort you to the elevator …
———-
As you probably know, the strict liability rule in the anti-doping world says that if it (dope, that is) is in your system, it’s your fault. The problem with the rule is that not everything is marked with all the ingredients or trace compounds or elements contained within.
So, how can an athlete possibly live up to the rule? Well, you could hire a personal taster, just like the ones used by kings and other royalty in the middle ages and beyond. (“Well, sire, you can’t have this sirloin. It tastes like it contains traces of synthetic testosterone metabolites. You wouldn’t want to fail your drugs test tomorrow, would you?”)
Or, scrupulously control everything that you consume.
Not many athletes have the finances to hire a personal taster, and even if you scrupulously control everything, the issue still remains: How do you determine exactly what you’re consuming?
Perhaps you should hire a microbiolgist or an organic chemist to evaluate the contents of everything you’re eating? You see, the problem is that even when food and other labels (like medication labels) list the ingredients, they may not contain information on every last little trace element, hormone or compound that might be contained within.
Remember back when candy bars weren’t labeled “This product was produced on equipment that may have handled nuts.”? Not so long ago, right? So how’s an athlete supposed to know that the American version of a Vicks Vapor inhaler contains trace amounts of a banned stimulant when the British version doesn’t?
For Dick Pound’s assertion about responsibility to be true, everything– food, drugs, toothpaste and any other health care items — would have to be marked with every ingredient, no matter how insignificant those ingredients might be. Like trace amounts that find their way into products produced in the same factory as other products. We don’t really require that all athletes — amateur or professional — need to be PhD biochemists, microbiologists or organic chemists, or to have someone of that ilk on staff, do we?
I didn’t think so. Perhaps a more sane solution would be to be a little more flexible in the rules. Bend a little. Understand that not every athlete who shows trace amounts of a banned substance is some evil doper out to cheat his or her way to the top. Set thresholds that detect the use of illegal compounds in the amounts that would have a significant effect on performance.
A little flexibility could go a long way to bringing some sanity into the anti-doping process.
Flexibility is the magic word. But I don’t think it’s going come from Mr. Pound. What happened with Dick being replaced?? I haven’t heard anything for a while. They are still going to do it, aren’t they? That Tygart guy needs to go, too. Let’s clean house!!
I’m still not sure why there is a problem with assigning personal responsibility? Especially when so many modern athletes come armed with entourages of trainers not to mention the backing of state apparatus, and Balco Puerto has show us that there is also an enterprise version to doping.
In these circumstances WADA is right to impose a system of strict liability. However……
Article 10 — Nutritional supplements
States Parties, where appropriate, shall encourage producers and distributors of nutritional supplements to establish best practices in the marketing and distribution of nutritional supplements, including information regarding their analytic composition and quality assurance.
The above is from the International Convention Against Doping which has just been ratified, much of it’s direction is coming from WADA.
Yes, there is zero tolerance, however this is not at the expense of recognising that there are sometimes other circumstances that lead to a positive, the above acknowledges that. There are many instances where athletes have received reduced sentences where it’s obvious an unintentional ingestion was involved.
I like Dick Pound, but recognise that it’s time for him to move on (which he is) in favour of a more circumspect technocrat (which is happening), however it is unlikely that WADA will back away from it’s brief on this score.
Phil,
I’m all for personal responsibility. Don’t get me wrong on that. And for highly-paid pros with entourages that should be able to check on all manner of things, I suppose that strict liability may be appropriate, as long as there are adequate labeling and information to let people make informed choices.
The problem I see is that the labeling of many products is inadequate, and even for familiar products, the ingredients or trace components may be different in different places (just ask the British skier who tested positive for a stimulant because the American version of a vapor inhaler contained some traces of a banned stimulant where the British version didn’t — and it wasn’t labeled as containing any). It’s the lesser athletes who get caught up in this system that I suspect suffer the most. Fewer resources to help steer clear of trouble, and fewer resources to defend themselves if, despite their best efforts to avoid it, they wind up in hot water.
What I’m afraid of is that the system often loses sight of the circumstances, and merely imposes harsh sanctions because that’s the way the rules are written. It’s good that there are times when sentences are reduced (and hopefully most of the time, when circumstances warrant), but like with Puerta and the two-year ban for accidentally ingesting a minute amount of stimulant, the punishment often seems overly harsh. Perhaps he should have been sanctioned for that one event, or maybe one or two following events. But two years knocked down from eight still seems pretty tough.
So, all that said, I guess you could say I’m in favor of a “modified” strict liability system, where it’s recognized that there may actually be circumstances beyond an athlete’s control that lead to inadvertent positive tests. And in those circumstances, the punishments should be modified accordingly. My impression is that right now the system is not so flexible.
As for Mr. Pound, my main concern about him is that the person in his office should stay above the fray and not make comments about on-going cases. Once a case is finished, he could say whatever he pleases. But during a case it casts a bad light on the objectivity and fairness of WADA. And they don’t need any more bad press than they already get. My view is that the leader of WADA needs to ensure that the system is fair to all sides — the accused athletes as well as the accusers.
– Rant
This may be a little off subject but I think it is time for all of the sanctimonious, holier than thou people involved in cycling and the fight against doping to take a walk. This includes Dick Pound, T. Tygart, Pat Mcquaid, Christian Prudhomme, the Tour of Denmark director, The Tour of Germany director, Jens Voigt (who I used to admire) and Patrick Lefevere. According to all of these people an ACCUSATION of doping should result in a lifetime ban no matter what the outcome of the judicial process is. Voigt was quoted as saying Basso’s return to racing was bad for cycling. I wonder how he would feel if he were accused of something without enough proof to prove it. Would his return be bad for cycling? And if Lefevere is such a staunch anti dope crusader why a few years back did he sign that beloved french doper Richard Virenque?
Good points rant I’m with you 100%
Phil, I don’t think anyone wants a free for all and let dopers have there way, But to blindly wheld out death sentences to someones sports carer for an innocent mistake or unproven acusations is unexcusible. Especialy if the science behind the verdict is questionable and unproven. if you do that it should be a death sentence to your career.
I personaly want to see a congressional hearing on USADA, and WADA’s vaibility. They apear to me to be two corrupt organizations that have only one interest and that is self preservation. They have no interest in protecting sports. they are hunting cheeting dopers and will do everything including shoot the innocent atheletes to find them.
If they wanted to protect the sport they would be seeking the truth which includes questions like How and why. The only question they are interested in is Positive or negative? and life/sports is just not that simple especialy if we are talking about trace amounts of a banned substance that wouldn’t even help a lab rat run faster.
Welcome to Bicycarthyism!
If you beat riders we merely suspect are dopers, you are a doper.
If you have a good day after a bad day, you must be a doper.
If you’ve ever shaken hands with LA, you are a doper.
If you deny being a doper, you are clearly lying and are a doper.
If you contest our accusations, you are obviously guilty of doping.
The eleven riders who qualify to ride in 2009 will verify the success Sixteen Ounce Dick’s crusade against all those cheaters!
Yol,
Well put. Have you been listening to Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck” material? Your comment has the same kind of pacing as Foxworthy.
– Rant