Pounding Away — Again

It’s a strange time in the world of cycling. There are more things happening worthy of rants than there is time to rant about them. Patrick Lefevere and Johan Museeuw (who resigned his PR job on the QuickStep team, after essentially admitting to doping) come to mind. And then there’s the whole mess with the Landis situation and the AFLD summoning Floyd to Paris for a hearing on February 8th.

And now comes news that WADA asked the AFLD to hold off on prosecuting Landis until the USADA proceedings are done. According to VeloNews:

“In December we asked the French agency to suspend its inquiry into Floyd Landis until the end of the American anti-doping procedure,” said WADA’s Pound. “They seem ready to do that, although without renouncing their judicial rights.”

Indeed, although agreeing to a temporary suspension, AFLD is due to convene on February 8 to consider Landis’s case. And it is in a hurry to have the case brought to a conclusion.

“The test happened in July; we’re almost in February,” a spokesman for the agency said. “As far as we know, USADA’s next meeting is scheduled for March and we don’t know how long it (the Landis inquiry) will take.

“WADA has made a request, but we will apply the law.”

Is it just me, or are those last statements from the AFLD representative the sound of the agency saying, “Thank you for your input, but we’re going to do our own thing anyway. Shoo!”

So who is running this show, anyway? The more this tug-of-war between the AFLD and WADA/UCI goes on, the more I think I’m watching an old Marx Brothers movie, or Abbott and Costello’s Who’s On First? routine (more info about Who’s On First? can be found at Wikipedia).

Meanwhile, another article posted on a Belgian website (and translated by reader Marc) offers this:

Doping more heavily sanctioned
The president of the World Anti-doping Agency, Richard Pound, gave his opinion Wednesday that the new world antidoping code, which is to be adopted next November, should consider sanctions [which are] “more flexible, more coherent,” and better adapted to infractions.

Mr. Pound, speaking at a WADA conference in Lausanne, predicted the end of the “two-year law,” the standard suspension for a first offense against an antidoping regulation. The new version of the code considers that the use of substances called “specifics”–such as beta-2-antagonists, salbutamol, corticoids, and stimulants–could be given lighter sanctions.

Moreover, “it is hard to inflict two years on someone who is not consciously guilty,” the Canadian argued, as is the case when one takes forbidden products unintentionally–from contaminated food supplements, for example, or through the action of a third party– when this is proven in an indubitable manner.

“But a sanction cannot be reduced except in clear circumstances. The athlete will have to prove his innocence. The goal (of flexibility) is most of all to increase sanctions,” he added.

Much has been written over the last couple of days about Dick Pound softening his tone and advocating greater flexibility in sanctions. And being able to give athletes reduced sanctions, rather than the current mandatory 2-year suspension, in certain circumstances seems only fair. But what’s been missing in a lot of stories has been that last paragraph.

Dick Pound doesn’t want greater flexibility in order to be fair to those who have committed minor offenses, he’s looking for the flexibility to inflict greater punishment on those who he (or the system) deems have committed more serious offenses. So, for example, an athlete facing a doping charge who is alleged to have used steroids (like, say, testosterone) could be given a ban longer than two years for a first offense.

Then there’s the Reuters story, in which Dick Pound is quoted as advocating mandatory “B” tests within 48 hours of an initial adverse finding on an athlete’s “A” sample. The article contains this gem (and others):

“The athletes or their representatives could still attend the ‘B’ test, as they are able to now,” Pound told Reuters during a WADA conference in Lausanne. “But this would speed things up and an automatic ban would also encourage the faster resolution of any questions that might hang over a particular case.

Faster resolutions are good. But I rather doubt that the athletes could even gather the requisite experts to watch the B test within 48 hours — even if they were phoned up immediately after the A sample results were complete. Also, Pound is frustrated by the slow progress of the Operation Puerto and Floyd Landis cases. About Operation Puerto, Pound told Reuters:

“I cannot understand how a new season can be about to get under way without any decisions being made,” Pound said.

“In the Puerto case, the evidence has been produced under the criminal justice system which aims to protect privacy until the case comes to trial.

“What we have to do is create models where we can get the relevant information to sports bodies without slipping into the area of criminal law.”

Let’s see, the Spanish criminal justice system protects an accused person’s privacy until a case comes to trial. Sounds good. But does Pound’s last statement mean he wants to find a way to circumvent privacy laws and due process in order to prosecute doping cases? It certainly does to me.

But, of course, Mistah Pound (or perhaps it was the Reuters reporter) saves his best for last:

“The source of the scepticism is the Landis entourage itself which wants to create some doubts about the process, the labs or the tests.

“But we at WADA have never said anything about the guilt or innocence of [Floyd Landis]. We just say that the process has to run its course, and we will see what decision is taken at the end.”

Well, yes, given the conduct of LNDD, various Tour officials, Pat McQuaid, Dick Pound and others in the manner the allegations against Floyd Landis have been addressed, if I was in Floyd Landis’ shoes, I’d be casting some doubt upon the whole process, the lab and the tests. The whole affair is a grand farce. Actually, scratch that. A Tour de Farce.

But really, Mr. Pound, don’t you even read your own press? You certainly came off as, at the very least, implying Floyd Landis’ guilt in what you told Michael Sokolove for his article in the New York Times Magazine a while back. (Or, for that matter, the Wired piece by Mark McClusky.) Just to refresh your memory, Dick, didn’t you say this?

“He was 11 minutes behind or something, and all of the sudden there’s this Herculean effort, where he’s going up mountains like he’s on a goddamn Harley,” [Pound] said.

And this?

“It’s a great story,” Pound said. “Wonderful. But if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

Perhaps WADA, as an organization, hasn’t implied Landis’ guilt. But taken together, I think these two statements by Dick Pound certainly did. Mr. Pound’s departure from WADA in November won’t come soon enough.