Good News, Tempered With A Cold Shot Of Reality

It’s certainly been an interesting day in Anti-Doping World. Lots of activity. Let’s begin with the decision in the Landaluce case (announced by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in this press release), which shows it is possible to win in a system where the deck is very much stacked against athletes facing sanctions for doping violations. Peloton Jim does a good job of explaining just how biased in favor of the prosecution the system is over at Endless Cycle.*

*Disclaimer: Peloton Jim is not responsible in any way for the contents of this rant. The opinions contained within belong solely to the author — unless you happen to agree, in which case they can be yours, too. 😉

Athletes pay a high price for fighting the system. To start, they can’t compete during the appeals process, which is effectively a ban — a punishment — before the system has made a final decision on their cases. And no matter whether you’re a highly-paid professional or a local star, sitting out for 18 months or more while appealing a doping allegation can take a serious bite out of your personal finances.

Today’s CyclingNews has an interview with Genevieve Jeanson where she alludes to the high financial cost of an appeal, saying she decided to accept a reduced sentence rather than continue to fight the allegations against her in part due to the cost of continuing. The agreement, between USADA and Jeanson, amounts to both sides trying to come out with something they could reasonably call a victory. For Jeanson, it’s the reduced sentence. For USADA, the case wasn’t completely overturned.

Jeanson, who now owns and operates a restaurant in Arizona, says in the interview that she won’t be returning to professional cycling. Although she sounds happy with her life, it seems to me she’s making lemonade out of lemons. Good for her. But it sounds like the whole process has left a bit of a sour taste in her mouth, where dealing with the anti-doping agencies is concerned.

And then there’s the case of Gareth Turnbull (warning: registration required), the Irish middle distance runner whose case sparked concerns over the effect of alcohol on T/E ratios. Turnbull, who was accused of doping after a test revealed a high T/E ratio, was ultimately acquitted of the charges against him. The whole process, and the treatment by the Irish federation leaves him bitter. In the article, we see this:

If you need to know one thing, it is this. While prosecutors talked about the testosterone in Turnbull’s sample being outside the normal range found in humans, you should understand that due to a lack of detailed research, nobody actually knows what the normal range is. “I keep hearing that scientists’ question in my mind,” says Michele Verroken. “What is the normal range? The answer is we don’t know.”

Verroken is a former director of anti-doping at UK Sport as well as a former member of the Irish Sports Council’s anti-doping committee. Testosterone cases and their intricacies have always fascinated her and since the start she has kept a close eye on the progress of Turnbull’s case. “Testosterone cases are very complex,” she says. “We need far more scientific certainty about what constitutes normal ranges.”

Now that’s a damn good bit of reporting on the writer’s part. Balanced. Factual. Understandable. This writer could teach a number of American journalists a thing or two about how it’s supposed to be done. And it casts a bit of a different light on Floyd’s case, too.

What’s distressing, however, is how the CAS ruled on all the scientific challenges that Landaluce’s defense raised during arbitration.

According to the CAS Landaluce decision (rendered into English, with some interpretation over at TBV), all of the scientific arguments put forth by Landaluce’s defense team were summarily rejected. Some of the arguments sound very much like arguments made in Floyd’s favor in a number of quarters. Whenever it was a case of a Landaluce expert’s opinion versus an LNDD person’s opinion, the CAS found in favor of LNDD. Needless to say, this is not the best of news for Floyd Landis.

The thing that bothers me most about the CAS’s decision is that it suggests they are partial to the labs, rather than interested in determining the truth of the matter. If you give someone unchallenged authority, it’s awfully tempting to that person to use it to his or her advantage.

Allowing the science and the interpretation of the data to be challenged would ultimately lead to more accurate tests and fewer cases of innocent victims being punished for crimes not committed. The test developers would be spurred on to make their tests more reliable, knowing full well that if they didn’t they would continue to lose cases in arbitration.

Moving on. It’s encouraging to read Martin Dugard’s blog and see that Floyd is out riding and in good spirits. (I’ve always found that a good ride is the best way to work off stress and stay sane.) Dugard quotes Will Geoghegan, Floyd’s manager as saying the other day,

We’re just heading into the mountains.

As those who follow the Grand Tours know, it’s in the mountains where the race is won. Like on Stage 17 to Morzine. Without that gutsy move, Floyd’s goose would’ve been quite well cooked. And regardless of which side you’re on, it’s a damn shame that one of the greatest performances in the history of the Tour has been sullied as it has by these doping allegations.

But it’s going to be a long, tough slog from here until the end of the road at the CAS. And an expensive one. That’s why the Floyd Fairness Fund and the Athlete Fairness Organization are coming into existence. To help provide Floyd, and other athletes accused of doping violations, with the resources to fight on. It’s not a matter of desperation, as some have wondered, so much as a matter of building up the warchest for the battles to come.

Circling back to the Landaluce story. Landaluce won, but it was on a technicality. An LNDD staff member who tested the A sample was also involved in testing the B sample, which is against the established protocols and procedures. It’s a big enough deal that it invalidates the results of the B sample. But the CAS goes out of its way to make the comment that the judgment is not one of innocence. It’s a “not guilty by reason of technicality” victory.

The good news from this story for Floyd is that it’s possible to win. Personally, I’d like to see it be more of a resounding victory than in the Landaluce case. But that’s going to depend on 6 people. The three AAA arbitrators who hear the case in the coming months, and the three who hear it at the CAS.

I hope that calm and rational heads prevail, and that Floyd will be back racing sooner rather than later. If it takes as long as the Landaluce case, we’ll be hearing a decision about this time next year. It would be nice to see it resolved long before then.

That said, a win is a win — let’s hope for Floyd that it’s not on a technicality.