Reap What You Sow Department

A short article over at CyclingNews.com, pointed out by eightzero in a comment to the previous post, may give us a glimpse of where the fight against doping in sports is headed next. Or, perhaps better put, what the consequences of doping in the future may be.

Seems that a company who sponsored Patrick Sinkewitz, the German cyclist who was caught using synthetic testosterone at a training camp prior to the 2007 Tour de France, is seeking to recover damages from the cyclist. As CyclingNews.com notes:

Patrick Sinkewitz, the former T-Mobile rider who was found positive for testosterone prior to the Tour de France two years ago, was ordered by a German court on Thursday to pay damages to one of his former sponsors.

A court in Fulda, Germany awarded 100,000 euros in damages to Förstina, a beverage producer which cancelled an advertising campaign based around Sinkewitz after his doping positive was revealed.

Assuming that Sinkewitz neither appeals the court’s judgment, nor tries to find a creative way out (bankruptcy, anyone?), it looks as though Förstina might actually collect a fistful of euros from the admitted doper whose actions helped remove one of the longest-term sponsors (T-Mobile) from the sport of cycling. With the worldwide economy the way it is, I wonder if they would still be in the game regardless.

Turns out, Sinkewitz had been a spokesman for Förstina for several years before the incident.

The company began its advertising contract with Sinkewitz in 2004, but argued that it had “invested money in someone who claimed to ride clean”, but that the rider failed to live up to that image.

This could be the kind of approach that would hit those who dope right in the pocketbook. Sponsors suing athletes who test positive for banned substances? That would be a serious incentive to not only talk the talk of competing cleanly, but also to actually do so. I can’t imagine too many who would want to risk giving back the sponsorship money (and perhaps more, if damages were assessed), were they to be found guilty of a doping violation.

Of course, some safeguards might need to be in place to ensure that innocent athletes aren’t caught in the crossfire. And it raises questions about whose labs or test results would qualify as proof. I suspect that the official WADA-approved labs would probably be part of the mix. But what about other labs, like independent labs who perform some of the team-based biological profiling. And it raises questions about whether the so-called biological passports under development could be used in court to prove doping.

However those issues get worked out, this new approach taken by Förstina certainly raises some interesting possibilities.

More reaping and sowing

Just down the page from the Sinkewitz article is a brief snippet giving just a bit more information about the Schumacher/AFLD case. Just about a week ago Schumacher announced that AFLD had suspended him from competition in France for the next two years. But at the time, the exact dates of the suspension were not known. CyclingNews.com is reporting that AFLD has confirmed Schumacher’s suspension (hat tip to Jeff for pointing this article out):

French anti-doping agency AFLD officially confirmed on Thursday that it has given a two-year suspension to former Gerolsteiner rider Stefan Schumacher for doping during the 2008 Tour de France. The agency declared Schumacher positive for the EPO variant CERA after performing targeted blood analyses on samples taken during the Tour.

AFLD announced that the German’s ban will last until February 11, 2011.

So, it appears that AFLD probably informed Schumacher on the 12th that he would be banned for two years. He’ll be able to return to competition (in France) in early 2011. No word yet on whether the UCI will recognize the suspension. Very little has come out publicly about the case against the German cyclist.

But we can, perhaps, draw some conclusions from the small tidbits of information in the CyclingNews.com article. First is that, unlike the practice in many hearings, Schumacher’s suspension begins on the day the judgment was rendered. In many cases (but not all, just ask Floyd Landis), suspensions have been dated from the time that the cyclist has not been allowed to compete.

That’s not the case here, however. And technically, the AFLD’s judgment conforms to WADA’s rules. Whether it conforms to the spirit in which those rules have been enforced over the years may be another matter. In many cases, the national anti-doping agency has asked for an athlete’s suspension to begin on the day the judgment is decided. Sometimes it is, but as I said, often the suspension’s beginning is pegged to whenever the athlete was forced to sit out of competition, either by his team, or due to a federation’s policy.

What’s not clear from the CyclingNews.com story is when a disciplinary hearing for Schumacher was held. Presumably, it must have occurred either on the 12th or sometime before. And we don’t know exactly when the AAF against Schumacher was officially declared. Unlike Floyd Landis’ case, very little of the Schumacher case has played out publicly.

A potential complication — whether the UCI will recognize the AFLD sanction — leaves Schumacher in a state of limbo right now. But it may yet be that Schumacher will not be racing anytime soon. As CyclingNews.com also says:

In similar cases the international cycling federation (UCI) has followed the ruling from AFLD. UCI president Pat McQuaid said in January that “I don’t think we will see Schumacher as a professional cyclist anytime soon.”

Supposing the UCI declines to follow suit. Schumacher may still not be competing for some time to come. Regardless of his eligibility to compete, cycling teams may well avoid hiring him. Even if Schumacher could race, would any sponsor want to help pay his salary? Or would they put the kibosh on plans to hire him?

I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of teams would hesitate before bringing Schumacher on board, fearing that they might be the target of a Förstina-style lawsuit should he become involved in another doping scandal. In fact, short of Rock Racing, I’m not sure of any team that would be interested. Then again, stranger things have happened.