Talkin’ Travis T.

After months of refusing to comment about on-going cases, Travis Tygart broke his silence somewhat by granting an interview to Ferren Christou of The Daily Peloton. The article doesn’t get into the specifics of the Landis case, but there are questions and answers that relate to the process and how it continues to unfold.

And while there parts of the interview that Christou could have handled better, and which would have made the article stronger, the article is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the mind-set of the man charged with prosecuting the Floyd Landis case.

A good beginning discussion of the article appears in yesterday’s round-up and comments at TBV, including comments from Christou. And even more discussion about the article is going on over at the Daily Peloton Forum. Before we get into that, however, let’s look at some of the things Tygart says.

First, let’s look at what Tygart says about USADA’s approach to doping cases:

The bottom line is that when bringing a case, USADA’s sole objective is absolutely a search for the truth. No athlete who has not engaged in doping behavior has any reason to fear or otherwise attempt to avoid the USADA process.

The entire adjudication process is designed to ensure that only athletes who have committed doping offenses are ultimately sanctioned.

Perhaps this is true, but later in the interview, Tygart gives the impression that it’s more about wins and losses, and re-iterates that of the 157 cases brought to arbitration, USADA has never lost. That makes it sound more like a contest than a search for truth to me.

In the following section, Tygart addresses why USADA does not publicly comment about ongoing cases, unlike others who are involved in the anti-doping process, like Dick Pound. Also of note, Tygart makes mention of the idea that the athlete is innocent until proven guilty. We’ll come back to this in a bit.

USADA does not make statements to the press about the merits of pending cases. We do not comment even when baited to do so by athletes and their professional publicity machines. We have a rule that does not allow us to comment on the specifics of an alleged doping case until after the case has been resolved and we believe in and abide by that rule. Further, every athlete regardless of their stature is innocent until proven guilty through the established process. [italics added for emphasis] Again, we firmly believe in the process and the rule of not commenting to the press to preserve the rights of athletes. No individual case is worth compromising the integrity of the process.

Unfortunately, sometimes accused athletes seek to manipulate this rule to gain favor in the eye of the public by making claims to the press about their case, knowing that we will stick to our rule and not comment to expose the false claims or at least give proper balance to them. This does, at times, put us in a frustrating position and leads to the public being mislead. It is equally unfortunate, that sometimes there are people outside of USADA, associated with anti-doping efforts who comment publicly about particular cases. Often these comments serve only to provide fodder for those wishing to attack the integrity of our process. [italics added for emphasis] While I believe the arbitrators who decide the case are more than capable of ignoring the public statements of both the athletes and anyone who responds to the athletes, it does create a perception of unfairness that is regrettable. This is precisely why USADA will not make comments about the merits of pending cases even when we and the evidence are unjustly attacked publicly by the accused.

Tygart’s comments about people outside of USADA commenting on current cases is a direct criticism of Dick Pound’s habit of speaking out about ongoing investigations. Later on, Tygart returns to the question of which way the system is biased:

First, every athlete accused of a doping violation is innocent until proven guilty. The ADA has the burden to prove the athlete is guilty.

In a perfect world, perhaps this would be the case. Certainly, if I could design the anti-doping process, this is how I would do it. However, the anti-doping system currently does no such thing. It places the burden of proof on the athlete, not on the ADA. The ADA makes the charges and prosecutes them. To paraphrase Dick Pound, it’s up to the athlete to prove his or her innocence. In the very next paragraph, Tygart contradicts himself, by saying this:

As a matter of practice, a denial to a doping charge is the common currency of the guilty and the innocent. This is exactly why an athlete with a pending positive test needs to provide the panel with something more than a bald denial of doping to be exonerated or receive a reduction.

OK, let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Tygart says the system in based on innocent until proven guilty, but then he goes on to say that the athlete must provide the arbitration panel with proof that he or she didn’t do it — or didn’t knowingly do it. In this last quote, what he appears to be saying is that it’s not the anti-doping authorities who have to prove someone doped, it’s the accused who has to prove he or she didn’t. That’s most definitely not innocent until proven guilty. That is exacty what Dick Pound says about the system. Guilty until proven innocent.

One improvement to the interview, if Christou had the time, would have been to follow up on these comments to see if Tygart could explain the apparent contradiction — and how. In doing so, we would learn even more about Tygart and his approach to prosecuting anti-doping cases.

There are other places within the article where some follow-up would have made it stronger. Christou offers Tygart a chance to respond to arguments that question the validity of the science behind some testing procedures. Tygart brushes aside such criticism this way:

In my experience the arguments you hear about tests being rushed into service or the defense counsel’s favorite refrain of “junk science” are again usually employed in an effort to distract the public from holding an athlete accountable for choosing to dope. The reality is that WADA and every other organization involved in the anti-doping process work very hard to make sure that the science used to catch dopers is appropriately researched, scientifically validated and properly implemented.

I’m sure that WADA and the other ADAs work hard to develop good tests, but the fact of the matter is that some tests are rushed into service before they have been fully researched and validated. The EPO test is a good example of such a test. Even Christou calls it, “the poster child for this kind of argument.”

I would have liked to see Tygart explain just how WADA and the other agencies, “make sure that the science used to catch dopers is appropriately researched, scientifically validated and properly implemented.” A good follow-up question, such as one TBV poses: Were the tests as statistically validated as they should be? would have given Tygart the chance to explain himself — or expose flaws in Tygart’s argument.

Another instance where some follow-up would have been useful is when Tygart dismisses accused athletes’ requests for documents pertinent to their cases as “fishing expeditions.” Perhaps they seem that way to Tygart, the prosecutor. But if this is system dedicated to the search for truth, what harm is there in providing any material the defense deems necessary? I’d like to have seen how Tygart would answer that.

After all, in a real judicial system, Tygart would be required to provide the documentation, and in a timely manner (or face sanctions). In this arbitration model, he doesn’t have to provide information. There’s no power that can force him to do so.

And recall that in the Landis case, he specifically turned down a request for more information by saying, “the rules say I don’t have to give you what you want, so I won’t.” That hardly seems like the answer that a person searching for truth would give.

In some comments over at Trust But Verify, Christou takes some heat for asking “softball” questions, but answers back. At least one question does sound like a lob:

Ferren: I am very impressed at the professionalism, openness and good faith that goes into the WADA and USADA policies and procedures. Could you speak to the leap the US anti-doping movement took when USADA (aligned with WADA) replaced the USOC in 2000?

Perhaps it wasn’t intentional, but Christou does seem to be sucking up to the subject just a bit here. Over at TBV, Christou explains that the intention of the article was to let the readers see what Tygart has to say for himself, and let the them decide what they think.

Pretty standard stuff, journalistically speaking, but where I disagree with Christou is in whether some follow-up would amount to skewering the interviewee. Good follow-up doesn’t have to be antagonistic, it merely needs to challenge the subject to back up his or her assertions.

All things considered, Ferrren Christou’s article is well worth reading because it gives a great deal of insight into how one of the principle players in the Floyd Landis saga approaches his work.