T.T.T.(a Grook by Piet Hein) |
|
| Jeg har skrevet et sted, hvor jeg daglig maa se, det manende tankesprog: T.T.T. Naar man foler hvor lidet |
Put up in a place where it’s easy to see The cryptic admonishment T.T.T. When you feel how depressingly |
About ten days ago, a front-page, above the fold headline on the New York Times trumpeted Cycling Ready to Use Blood Profiles in Doping Case. As I commented that day, it seemed like a bit of a non-story to me. It had taken ten days or more for the story to get printed, and no reporter other than the Times’ Juliet Macur had run with it before then. Macur reported that
Pat McQuaid, the group’s president, said it was in the final stages of gathering scientific data and legal paperwork to bring a doping case against at least one rider whose blood profile had shown evidence of doping.
He said it would be the first case born purely from evidence that an athlete’s blood profile, called a biological passport, had changed in comparison with a baseline drawn from earlier tests.
And not a peep has been heard out of Mr. McQuaid’s mouth on the subject since that press conference, as best I can tell. Shane Stokes, of CyclingNews.com, decided to follow up on a related topic, and managed to get some interesting admissions the UCI’s leader. Stokes’ story focuses on the “15-day No Start Rule” announced last summer. Basically, that rule says that riders with “suspicious” blood test results would be barred from racing for a period of 15 days, a similar approach as the international federation took when testing riders’ hematocrit levels (a measure of the percentage of red blood cells to total blood volume) in the 1990s. At that time, any riders whose hematocrit exceeded 50% would not be allowed to race for a period of time out of concern for the rider’s health.
But as Stokes reports:
[T]he UCI has said that it is currently holding off on implementing the so-called ‘No Start’ rule approved by its Management Committee last June.
Apparently, the UCI has decided to change their approach. Rather than hold back riders whose test results are — shall we say — unusual, the UCI has decided to perfect the program to catch the cheaters first and go back later to figure out how they might implement the “No Start” rule.
“We are concentrating on finding athletes who might be liable for an ADR sanction,” McQuaid told CyclingNews.com. “When we have progressed to the sanctioning process we will then start examinations as to how we might give suspensions such as the ‘health suspensions’ under the 50 percent limit.”
As Stokes correctly points out, the No Start rule would be easier to get up and running, and if it were billed as a health precaution, it might be less susceptible to legal challenges. What he doesn’t point out is that by holding riders back, additional testing could be done to determine if something is amiss. And by that, I don’t necessarily mean doping. It could be that a real health problem was occurring and that the rider might need attention. Or it could be doping. But under a “health suspension” there wouldn’t be an automatic accusation of doping. Though, it would be fair to point out, many people might assume as much.
McQuaid defends the new approach, as Stokes reports.
“We are first concentrating with the experts on finding positive cases. Bearing in mind the workload and the limited number of world-renowned experts in this field, we have requested they concentrate on the more important element first,” [McQuaid] explained.
Right, then. So, having seen Macur’s story based on what McQuaid said in California, when will a case based on the biological passport brought forward. Ol’ Mistah McQuaid is being a tad bit coy in that regard.
“I have repeatedly said we cannot give an exact date as to when we might be commencing a process against a cyclist or cyclists under the Biological Passport programme,” McQuaid said. “When we are ready and are sure we have a strong case we will proceed.”
Sounds like the case that McQuaid was trumpeting in California, if it exists, is not quite ready for prime time. The UCI’s president, with his propensity for making early announcements about the biological passport, is fast becoming akin to Chicken Little. [[The Sky Is Falling (fable)|The sky isn’t falling]], apparently. At least, not yet.
McQuaid is a fraud and the UCI biological passport is a farce. If and when the UCI suspends a person under the health proviso for suspect biological parameters, or under non-start rule, mud will fly…..doper! As we all know the biological passport does not even have a proper operating manual much like the LNDD GC/C/IRMS and we all know how that went. The UCI and WADA are likely to be sued for defamation this time and the athlete may win because speculation is no substitute for evidence, false positives included.
You’ve got a point there, Jon. Any rider held back for a “health suspension” could well be tarred and feathered with the “doper” label. Speculation is no substitute for real evidence, and it leads to ruined reputations and careers.
Health check? You really can drop dead when your crit reaches the high fifties. But is there any legitimate and immediate cause for concern if your reticulocyte count is unusually high or low?
And I can’t help but wonder about how much care they’re taking, and how much of that has to do with Floyd’s case. You can reasonably argue Floyd’s case will scare off future athletes from doing what Floyd did, but the anti-doping community might still worry about increased scrutiny. Like from the press, or possibly even people like us.
Of course, they’re the ones the keep trying to get more press on the subject, which I’ve always thought was stupid or self-serving. But that fact, together with all the care they’re taking in solidifying a case, makes me think they will make their first new case a big one.
tom
I would hope that the authorities have taken some lessons from the Landis fiasco. Like being more careful and thorough in how they develop and implement testing regimes. From a purely tactical point of view, I think making their first case a big one is risky. Sure, it gets them lots of PR, but if the athlete successfully defends him/her-self, then they’ll look like a bumbling bunch of bozos.
I think the better choice, for what their goals are, is nabbing someone who can’t afford to fight. The Landis case reinforces the notion and perception that it’s futile to fight an anti-doping case. And, by establishing their precedents in an obscure case, the ADAs can make a future big case against a big name a slam dunk, given how the arbitration panels appear to function.
But I don’t expect actual strategic thinking from the likes of Pat McQuaid. His own failure to understand the implications of his actions was the reason he was sanctioned for racing in South Africa (under an assumed, but easily detected, name) back in the late 1970s. I’m not convinced he’s developed much in that regard since then.