More Doping Politics

To help keep the momentum going for those who want to work towards reforming the anti-doping system, tonight I’m going to offer up a couple of sample letters that you could send to Senators Daniel Inouye (the incoming chairman of the Senate’s Commerce Committee) and John McCain (a vocal supporter of the anti-doping agencies and possible candidate for President). If I have time, and I don’t fall asleep at the keyboard, I may even tackle a sample letter meant for the other Senators or Represenatives in Congress.

Before getting to the letters, let’s think about what some realistic goals are for this campaign. In my mind, what I’d like to see accomplished are these reforms:

• Changing the system to allow for greater protection of an accused athlete’s right to due process. Because USADA is a federally-funded quasi-judicial organization, those who are brought up on allegations of doping should have the same rights as would someone charged in a criminal court.
• Require the testing labs to use peer-reviewed scientific testing protocols and procedures that at the very least meet the same standards of reliability and quality as commercially-produced medical testing.
• Ensuring that punishments are truly proportional to the infraction. Trace quantities of banned substances due to contact with tainted supplements, for example, would not require a two-year ban. In other words, modifying the “strict liability” standard in favor of a standard that recognizes that accidental exposure to banned substances may occur.

Ready? Let’s start with Senator Inouye, the incoming chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Here we go:

Dear Senator Inouye,

As the incoming chairman of the Senate’s Commerce Committee, you will have oversight of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. USADA has been in the news recently in relation to doping allegations against Floyd Landis, Justin Gatlin, Marion Jones and a number of other athletes.

As you may know, on December 10 and 11, 2006 the Los Angeles Times ran an investigative series dealing with abuses in the anti-doping system, written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Michael Hiltzik. I’m enclosing a copy of each article for your reference.

Mr. Hiltzik’s stories raise some disturbing questions about how the anti-doping system in general, and USADA in particular, function. No one I know would argue that we shouldn’t be addressing the problem of athletes using performance-enhancing drugs. However, as the enclosed articles illustrate, the current system is one where the deck is stacked against accused athletes and is rife with abuse, such as:

• Athletes being punished before their cases have been heard or decided
• Athletes are subject to tests of varying reliability, including a number of tests developed by the anti-doping labs themselves that may not have been fully researched, developed or subject to proper scientific peer review
• Athletes subject to a “strict liability” rule, meaning no matter how the banned substance got into their systems, they are responsible and will be punished
• Athletes having to submit to arbitration to decide their fate, under rules set by the anti-doping agencies, which are designed to greatly favor the anti-doping agencies
• Athletes denied access to the experts, information and data relevant to their defense
• Harsh, sometimes career-ending, punishment for minor offenses, such as the offenses described in the Los Angeles Times articles.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, you will be in a unique position to influence anti-doping policy in our country. As the articles point out, USADA is a quasi-judicial organization which receives the vast majority of its funding from the Federal government. It is my belief that as such an organization, because it is supported by taxpayers’ hard-earned money, it should afford athletes accused of improprieties the same rights as individuals facing trial in the United States judicial system.

Mr. Hiltzik’s articles tell the stories of a number of athletes who have suffered greatly under the system for relatively minor mistakes. Others have been punished because they could not afford the expense to fight the charges against them. In both cases, it’s hard not to call the outcomes miscarriages of justice. Senator Inouye, you are in a position to ensure that no further miscarriages of justice occur.

You can do so by holding USADA accountable for their actions, and by demanding that their system be modified so that:

• Punishment is not handed out until guilt has been properly determined
• Anti-doping tests must be fully developed and peer-reviewed, and validated by independent scientists and organizations
• Athletes intentionally doping are punished, but not athletes who were accidentally or unknowingly exposed to banned substances
• The arbitration process is neutral and follows established legal frameworks and precedents
• Athletes are given full access to the experts, information and data needed to defend themselves against doping charges, including the ability to question the science behind the testing and the competence of the labs and individuals performing the testing
• Athletes found guilty of doping should be punished in proportion to the offense committed

I would appreciate it if the Commerce Committee could take the time to look into the issues raised by Mr. Hiltzik’s articles. While it is important to ensure that sports are free of athletes who dope, it is also important to ensure that accused athletes are given due process and the opportunity to fully defend themselves against doping charges. The anti-doping system we have in place does not guarantee due process, and it needs to be reformed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Your Name
Your Address
Your Town, State ZIP

———-

Now let’s turn our attention to Senator McCain.

Dear Senator McCain,

You recently voted to extend the funding for the United States Anti-Doping Agency. While I applaud your support for anti-doping programs in sports, I wish you had the opportunity to read several articles in the Los Angeles Times which showed that some of the current practices and policies of the anti-doping agencies clearly violate basic Constitutional protections. Unfortunately, the articles appeared in the December 10 and December 11, 2006 editions of the LA Times — after the vote on the USADA appropriation had already occurred. However, I’m enclosing a copy of each article for your reference.

These stories raise some disturbing questions about how the anti-doping system in general, and USADA in particular, function. No one I know would argue that we shouldn’t be addressing the problem of athletes using performance-enhancing drugs. However, as the enclosed articles illustrate, the current system is one where the deck is stacked against accused athletes and is rife with abuse, such as:

• Athletes being punished before their cases have been heard or decided
• Athletes are subject to tests of varying reliability, including a number of tests developed by the anti-doping labs themselves that may not have been fully researched, developed or subject to proper scientific peer review
• Athletes subject to a “strict liability” rule, meaning no matter how the banned substance got into their systems, they are responsible and will be punished
• Athletes having to submit to arbitration to decide their fate, under rules set by the anti-doping agencies, which are designed to greatly favor the anti-doping agencies
• Athletes denied access to the experts, information and data relevant to their defense
• Harsh, sometimes career-ending, punishment for minor offenses, such as the offenses described in the Los Angeles Times articles.

The stories that the author, Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Hiltzik, outlines demonstrate a system that does not respect an athlete’s rights to due process or basic Constitutional rights. As a quasi-judicial organization supported by taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, USADA should be required to adhere to the same standards as the United States judicial system.

While it is important to ensure that sports are free of athletes who dope, we also need to ensure that those who are accused are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against the charges against them. I hope you will join me in calling for reforms in how USADA handles athletes accused of doping violations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Your Name
Your Address
Your City, State ZIP

———-

Well, that’s it for tonight. Feel free to use these letters as is, or to modify them as you see fit.