Down With The Dauphin?

For the past week or so, Oscar Pereiro has gotten a dose of what his friend Floyd Landis has been going through — although on a much smaller scale. News that Pereiro was one of 12 riders who tested positive for banned substances at the Tour de France, but who were covered by therapeutic use exemptions, flew around the cycling community and beyond.

Pereiro, who was gracious and cautious in his statements after the Landis scandal first broke, has of late become more vocal about his desire to be crowned the Tour champion. Some of the lambasting he’s undergone in the media — and the blogosphere — over the last week has been a bit of comeuppance for him, as the AFLD has (purposely?) showered him in barnyard muck.

Unfortunately for Pereiro, the muck that’s covered him will take a while to wash away — if it ever can be. What’s unfortunate for him is that unlike the other riders whose TUEs are being investigated, Pereiro has been publicly named. The rest remain anonymous. Including the details of what banned substance they tested positive for that was covered by a TUE.

Pereiro and the others are caught in a giant pissing match between the UCI and WADA on one hand, and the AFLD on the other. Each side claims the right to determine who gets a TUE and under what circumstances TUEs will be granted.

From Oscar Pereiro’s perspective, as quoted in EuroSport, this is all a big mistake:

“It’s been a massive misunderstanding and I hope those responsible for it apologize,” the Spaniard told Radio Marca.

“It’s true I took this product but it has been approved by the doctor and the UCI (International Cycling Union) and I am permitted to use it whenever I need to.”

Pereiro said both the Tour organizers and UCI were aware that he had permission to take the product.

“Since March 2005 I’ve been allowed to use it to combat allergies and when I have a cold. The permit has been renewed each season,” the Caisse d’Epargne rider said.

“I’m very calm about the whole thing and know it will be sorted out when I send the paperwork tomorrow, but I’m upset that my reputation might have been stained by this report.”

As I’ve said previously, I rather doubt Pereiro will get any apologies when all is said and done. And the real crux of this story is not whether he had a valid TUE from the UCI (my guess is that he did), but whether the AFLD will accept the TUE as valid.

Pereiro’s reputation probably has been stained a bit. There certainly are those fans (or even casual observers) who will assume that because he’s being accused (albeit implicitly) of doping, that he must have been doping. That’s not exactly the case, as reported in EuroSport:

French anti-doping agency (AFLD) President Pierre Bordry told L’Equipe: “This rider tested positive twice. Once in Gap and another time in La Toussuire.

“Each time, he wrote on the test report that he had a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption). But I am asking him to provide us with the medical elements that justify him taking salbutamol.”

Judging by the media’s reaction, there is not the kind of buzz being generated by Pereiro’s story as was generated when Floyd Landis’ results were leaked to the press. A number of publications (like EuroSport) are running stories stating that this may well be a collosal mix-up. CNN goes even further by noting that “careless” Pereiro has been cleared by the UCI, which really isn’t the case at all. The UCI issued his TUE to begin with — it’s the AFLD that are challenging Pereiro to prove that it’s a valid exemption.

What’s really going on? Rafael Blanco, the director of the Spanish Sports Council, sums it up with this observation:

“The whole thing seems to have occurred because of a conflict in responsibilities between two institutions (in France).

“If there had been any doubt about the authorization to take such substances then they make the checks immediately and if there had been the slightest suspicion about Pereiro they would already have made that clear.”

The reality is that Pereiro is most likely clean. He may very well have a form of asthma, and he may very well need to take salbutamol from time to time. And he may well have a valid medical exemption to use the drug. But Pereiro made a big mistake by not supplying the AFLD with the documentation they requested last autumn.

Had he done so, perhaps his name would not have been plastered all over creation last week. And he would not have to sit on pins and needles until Thursday (or whenever the AFLD announces their decision) to find out whether he’s going to be charged with a doping violation.

What’s disturbing about the Pereiro situation is that he is the only other person named for testing positive for anything at the Tour. Unless you’ve been living in a cave the last 6 months, if you’re interesting in cycling you already know about Floyd Landis’ situation.

We’ve known for some time that a number of riders tested positive but were covered by TUEs for the substances found in their systems. Until this last week, we didn’t know the identity of any of those riders. So why name Pereiro? Was it to shame him into providing the documentation that AFLD wanted? Or was it an opening shot to say, regardless of who you are or how well you did at the Tour, we’re gunning for you. And we don’t care who we take down — including the dauphin of the 2006 Tour de France.

The AFLD says it is reviewing the cases of the 12 riders who tested positive, but were covered by TUEs, because it is concerned about whether the TUEs are really for legitimate medical conditions. When word got out that as many as 60 riders at the Tour may have had medical exemptions of one kind or another, some people in positions of authority became concerned that the TUEs were just a way to do an end-run around the anti-doping system. And for some athletes, perhaps TUEs are just that.

But if the AFLD is really concerned about whether athletes are finding “legal” ways to cheat, why don’t they look into all 60 of those exemptions, instead of only the riders who tested positive? If they are that concerned about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in France’s most storied athletic contest, shouldn’t they look into all the TUEs for all the riders who raced the Tour? Perhaps this is nothing more than a glorified witch-hunt to rid the event of riders who’ve been deemed “bad influences” on the sport — regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.

In the end, the release of Pereiro’s name and the allegations against him to the press, seems to be taken from the same playbook used in the Landis case. The good news for Oscar is that (odds are) his case will be decided much quicker than the Landis case. And the damage to Oscar’s reputation will be much less than his friend in California has experienced.