There’s Something Happening Here

There’s something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a syringe over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down

“For What It’s Worth”, with apologies to Buffalo Springfield

A couple of days ago I talked about the parallel case against Floyd Landis being pursued by the AFLD, France’s anti-doping agency. And in an article over at VeloNews comes word that Landis, or his legal representatives, must appear at a hearing in France on February 8th, which is about four weeks away.

There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

The VeloNews story, apparently, is based on a story published by the French newspaper LeMonde (regular reader Marc’s translation of the original story is here). From the translation:

According to our sources, the American has been summoned to appear in front of the French Anti-doping Agency (AFLD) on Thursday, Feb. 8. The AFLD has begun a disciplinary procedure against him. The rider faces a possible two-year suspension, as well as subsequently being stripped of his TdF victory. The verdict could be delivered as early as Feb. 8, and would have as its immediate consequence prohibiting the American from being at the starting line of the 2007 edition of the Grande Boucle [Rant’s note: that’s a French nickname for the TdF, perhaps it should be changed to Grande Debacle].

My reading of the article is that this is not just a hearing to consolidate the case with the one being pursued by USADA, but is a full-fledge disciplinary proceeding with the possible outcome that Landis could be banned from racing in France.

This adds some new players to the list of those who can appeal a decision in the Landis case, as far as the French proceedings go. Those new players are the governing body for cycling in France, as well as the French Olympic Committee. While these organizations would not be able to appeal the hearing results in North America, they will be able to appeal the outcome in Paris. So when you consider the proceedings in France and North America together, it’s not really one against 6, it’s one against 8. In other words, this is multiple jeopardy on steroids.

Talk about having the deck stacked against you. And one thing you should know about AFLD is this: In essence, they own LNDD. That’s right, on October 1st, 2006 LNDD became the analytic division of the French anti-doping agency. So it’s pretty hard for me to imagine that the hearing in Paris will be unbiased, given where the evidence against Landis comes from. Then again, if it is, the French could well teach us a few lessons about jurisprudence. (Not that some in our government don’t already need a few lessons, but that’s a whole other rant.)

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

And in a further development, some turf battles over therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) seems to be shaping up, as well. Another story that Marc translated (full text available at Trust But Verify), from Agence France Presse, talks about the AFLD looking into some of the TUEs at last year’s Tour. In discussing 12 TUEs that benefitted riders in the Tour, the article says:

This practice has multiplied in recent years, to the point of raising some suspicion. Pierre Bordry, the head of AFLD, has confirmed that certain test results warrant a deeper examination. “There are a certain number of important persons in the TdF who have tested positive, some of them several times, but who have a TUE. It isn’t enough to have an administrative document issued by an international federation. We would like to know if it corresponds to a specific treatment.“

It appears that the AFLD is going to be closely examining every one of the TUEs to make certain that the riders were being treated for the specific condition claimed on their paperwork. In September, Pierre Bordry (the head of AFLD) wrote to the UCI seeking the supporting documentation for those TUEs. According to the story, the supporting documents for some riders are missing. Also:

AFLD doctors will check whether the authorization corresponds to the quantity of the product measured in the positive test, and to a real condition being treated.

It appears that the AFLD has now appointed itself the enforcer and arbiter of who gets TUEs — at least the TUEs for competition in France. While the current system is ripe for abuse, and may even be a backdoor to “legal” doping in sports, whose job is it to make sure that the system of granting TUEs is run properly? The anti-doping authorities in each country, or the international sporting federations? Perhaps TUEs should be administered by a central authority for all sports (like WADA or the IOC), instead.

There is some good that could come from looking into the practice of issuing TUEs. If it has actually become a backdoor way to dope without suffering sanctions, then some serious changes need to be made. Is AFLD the right organization to do the digging? I’m not sure. I would prefer that whoever investigates be free of any real, or perceived, conflicts of interest.

AFLD seems to be trying to wrest power away from the UCI and the other international sports federations, so that they would become the group to decide TUEs for sport in France. While that may be a workable solution for amateur athletes who compete solely in France, this would become a nightmare of a system for international competition. Each athlete would have to get TUEs for every country where he or she competes. One centralized source, or one centralized source per sport makes much more sense.

Given the current strict liability rules and draconian enforcement methods, it’s easy to imagine that the athletes would be paranoid about the whole anti-doping process. Add in multiple agencies creating their own rules for TUEs or other aspects of the anti-doping process and it would be hard not to be terrified of ever crossing swords with the system.

Circling back to the VeloNews story, they note that the disciplinary proceedings against Floyd Landis by the AFLD are highly unusual:

The AFLD move is unusual in that most national anti-doping agencies defer to the international process and do not normally make localized decisions affecting riders from other countries. The AFLD case could further hamper any hopes that Landis might have of returning to the 2007 Tour, even if he were to be cleared by USADA this spring. While a rider cleared by his national federation could reasonably assert that he has the right to compete anywhere, he would still have to take the case to CAS in order to overturn any decision by the AFLD.

As the song says,

We better stop, hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down