Letter Writing Response
Back in November, I suggested that if people didn’t like the way USADA treats athletes accused of doping they should write their legislators. I even offered up Sample Letter you could use to write your Senators or Representatives. Not being one to advocate but not follow through, I sent email messages to my Representative in Congress, and to the two Senators from Wisconsin.
Amazingly, I got a reply dated December 14 (about 18 days after I’d sent my email), from Senator Russ Feingold. Whoever wrote the letter (probably a staffer), thanked me for my concern and said that they knew of no pending legislation involving USADA at that time. Yes, that’s true. The appropriation for USADA had already passed on December 8th, I believe. So nothing was still pending.
Anyway, the moral of this story is this: It’s never too early to make your voice heard. Sometimes it takes a while before they wade through all the correspondence, and you’ll want to be sure that they see your letter before any appropriation or legislation is enacted.
Still waiting to hear back on my latest letters (here and here).
————
Irony, Thy Name Is Dick
Wired has a long article about Mr. Pound, our fearless leader of WADA. TBV has a good selection of quotes from the article, which you can see over there, or by reading the story.
One of my favorite quotes (an expanded version of one offered at TBV) is this:
Pound insists that he chooses his words carefully and always includes a disclaimer. “If you’re caught, then I’m enough of a lawyer to know that you’re innocent until proven guilty,” he says, “even in cases where there’s a moral certitude that you’re dealing with somebody who’s doped. You sort of have to let the system deal with it.”
Sometimes, though, those disclaimers fall short. Late in our conversation, I tell Pound that I’m going to talk to Landis.
“‘Roid Floyd?” he says. “His nickname on the circuit was ‘Roid Floyd. But I repeat it as hearsay only.”
These are the last three paragraphs of the article, in their entirety. The article strives for a certain balance between Pound’s legitimate accomplishments, and his inability to live up to the rules he, himself, created. To analyze the reporting a bit, one common technique in journalism is, rather than inject your own opinion, let the subject, him/herself, do the job of pointing out their own foibles. Dick Pound fell right into that trap.
His comment about being enough of a lawyer to recognize that a person is innocent until proven guilty wouldn’t be so laughable, if it weren’t for his own statements about on-going cases, as the article recounts. You merely have to look at the things he’s said about Marion Jones (as mentioned in the article and at TBV):
Pound wasted little time reminding people of Jones’ long-rumored involvement with Balco, saying, “People have a tendency to judge you by the company you keep.”
Lance Armstrong:
Two weeks after L’Equipe‘s story came out [claiming Lance Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour de France], Pound told a German online newspaper that he thought that there was “a very high probability” of doping by Armstrong.
or Floyd Landis:
“It’s always disappointing when you see something like this,” Pound told the Associated Press [shortly after word of Landis’ A sample results was leaked to the press]. “You build up and create a new hero, and he gets slapped down. It’s a serious blow.”
to see that while he may preach innocent until proven guilty, he practices something quite different. And the comment about “`Roid Floyd” is totally uncalled for. But then again, it offers a certain insight into Pound’s personality.
Dick Pound, in his own words, shows us why it will be better for WADA that he move on at the end of 2007. Only 11 or 12 months to go.
————
The James G. Watt Shoot Yourself In The Foot Award Goes To …
The Court of Arbitration for Sport, for their decision in the case of Aitor Gonzalez. Having recently gotten it right in the Landaluce case, the CAS comes back with a decision that makes me scratch my head and wonder what the heck the CAS stands for, anyway.
For those who don’t know, Gonzalez tested positive for the steroid methyltestosterone at the 2005 Vuelta a Espana. Subsequently, it turned out that the source of the steroids was a contaminated supplement he had taken.
In a very fair and reasonable approach to the situation, in May 2006 the Spanish federation imposed a fine on Gonzalez as punishment for the infraction. While Gonzalez probably should have known better than to take a supplement purchased at a fitness center, the Spanish federation’s judgment seems reasonable. It balances the nature of the infraction with the need to uphold the rules.
The UCI, however, saw things differently, and appealed to the CAS. This highlights a difference between the anti-doping system and most legal systems. In the anti-doping world, either side can appeal to the CAS if they don’t like the ruling. In essence, either side can ask for a new trial.
In many justice systems, however, there is the concept of double-jeopardy. Gonzalez had already been found guilty and punished. It’s just that the UCI didn’t like the punishment, so they went after getting a harsher sentence imposed. From this quote attributed to the CAS on the BBC’s web site, it certainly sounds like an entire new trial was held:
“The CAS arbitrators have admitted the facts presented by Aitor Gonzalez.”
“But the arbitrators have considered that he did not act without fault or negligence in using a doubtful food supplement, prescribed by an occasional doctor and purchased in a fitness centre.
“The athlete could not ignore the risks related to such an ingestion taking into account the repeated warnings given in this regard by the sports authorities.”
Sounds an awful lot like the process started from the beginning, rather than merely challenging the punishment, itself. But to be certain, one would need to read the entire CAS judgment.
I don’t know how this lends credibility to the anti-doping fight. They got the guilty verdict the first time, and the rider was given a punishment that was in line with the severity of his offence. So, the initial outcome seems quite fair to me. The final outcome seems excessive. And a waste of resources.
After all, the UCI doesn’t have unlimited funds. Shouldn’t they be concentrating on using the resources they have more wisely and effectively?
In the end, the CAS’ judgment may be moot. According to the BBC, rumors are floating around the European pro cycling world that Aitor Gonzalez has retired. Bravo, CAS and UCI. Well done.
Reading the Pound article in Wired reminded me of a memo written by a great ad man of yesteryear, Bill Marsteller.
The Marsteller memo, entitled “The day Marilyn dropped in” was about a fantasy visit Marilyn Monroe makes to Marsteller’s office. Marsteller uses every bit of his copy writing skill to describe Monroe — the seductive way she moistens her lips as she looks at him, the sultry voice asking if she can come in, the arousing form-fit of her knit dress as she walks over to a chair. Then, as she sits and crosses her legs, Marsteller notices something — Marilyn hasn’t shaved her legs and has thick hair curling out of her stockings. Marsteller ends the fantasy saying, “I threw up in my wastebasket”.
I know how Marsteller felt after reading the Pound article in Wired.
Let’s assume for a moment that Pound is right about Floyd’s nickname. About the best you can say for Pound is that he made an inappropriate joke. More realistically, the comment (and the article itself) demonstrates Pound’s consistent bias and his juvenile nature — poor personality traits for the head of a world organization whose mission is to restore the creditability of sport.
With all of the rope given Pound, and the way he leaps into the noose, it amazes me that he survives. The LA Times / Wired articles all mildly condemn Pound and WADA. That’s a good start. And, there can be nothing wrong with writing to our elected representatives — although it does have the feel of urinating into a strong headwind. Maybe it is time to mobilize the people who have the most money and the most risk — athletes themselves. And, maybe it’s time to hire some professionals — PR and advertising — to make the message brief, powerful and viral. Pound has to go and WADA must be reformed.
The more I think about it, the more I think Floyd is right — it will take millions to restore creditability to WADA.
By the way, the Marsteller / Monroe memo was sent to everyone in one of the largest ad agencies of its time. And, it had a point — if Monroe couldn’t pull of unprofessional attire, why should anyone in Marsteller’s agency think they could? Marsteller was a master communicator and, in this case, he not-so-subtly reminded his people of the importance of being professional.
Steve,
Interesting story. And I agree that the athletes, themselves, also need to mobilize and demand change. But while writing elected officials may feel like peeing in the wind, it’s also an exercise in influencing those who control the purse strings. Without the 70 percent contribution that Congress makes to USADA’s funding every year, they’d be sunk. And if they feel the fear of losing their funding, they’ll either need to look elsewhere for money or modify their policiies to be acceptable to those who provide the money. That’s at least something each of us can contribute, if we’re so inclined.
Granted, it wouldn’t change WADA, except if enough pressure bubbled up from the national ADAs. But at least it would be a start.
Though I don’t know for certain, I suspect that you will be seeing some PR and advertising types getting a viral message going in the not too distant future.
– Rant
Rant,
Ever since you suggested it, I have been working on a letter. I don’t know why it is taking me so long to finalize and send … I keep thinking it needs to be better written (or something). And, I don’t think it will do much good (hence the peeing comment) but, that’s no excuse.
I don’t know if you remember, but I left the post about McCain’s comment that WADA / USADA needed more funding. In the post, I asked that you marshall your readers into action. And then, look at me, still no action.
So … thanks for (1) being such a consistent / positive advocate of change and (2) a great site — most every morning I read your rants.
OK, back to my letter (I promise to send you a copy when I finish the $*@! thing)
Steve,
I remember your suggestion very well. I’d already been thinking about doing a letter writing rant, and your comment prompted me to do so sooner. It is definitely one thing we can do, or at least try to do, to influence those who hold the purse strings. Perhaps that can get some action. If not, at least we’ve tried to make a difference.
Thanks for the original suggestion, and good luck with your letter writing.
– Rant
Rant,
I finally finished my letter. I know it is much to ask, but, I was wondering if you would give me your opinion. I believe I have most of the facts right and there may be a few rant-angles for you to consider. But, I don’t know where to mail the draft. You can contact me at swbalow@hotmail.com if you have time for a read.
BTW, good idea on separation of power today (although I am not sure there is a role for Mr. P in any “branch” of the new world order).
{ 1 trackback }