A Tale in Four Parts

Part 1, Where a certain cyclist ducks a bullet

(Not literally, of course)

On Friday Lance Armstrong ducked a major bullet. In a short statement on Twitter, Armstrong announced that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing by France’s anti-doping agency, the AFLD, stemming from a controversial out-of-competition screening conducted while the seven-time Tour winner was training in France in March.

As anyone who’s followed this dust-up already knows, at issue was the fact that Armstrong was out of the tester’s sight for a period of about 20 minutes while he took a shower. During that time, Johan Bruyneel made a few phone calls to verify the tester’s identity. Once everything was settled, Armstrong submitted to the tests, which included a bit of a haircut.

The big question in this case was whether or not Armstrong broke any anti-doping rules by leaving the tester’s sight. And, if he did break the rules, was he actively trying to evade testing, or was it a more innocent violation? If the AFLD had determined that Armstrong was actively seeking to evade testing, there was a possibility that he might be banned from racing in France. And that would have meant no Lance at the biggest bike race of the year, Le Tour.

Armstrong’s version of events was that the collector had given him permission to go take the shower. And, the collector had not recorded any concerns on the collection form at the time this particular test occurred. If that is true, then failing to record those concerns might well have been an error by the collector.

According to the AFLD’s press release, a letter from Armstrong to the board investigating his case appears to have helped determined his fate. Exactly what Armstrong’s letter said, I haven’t seen. But it must’ve been enough to convince the decision-makers that this was more of a misunderstanding than an actual attempt to avoid being tested. However the decision came about, all’s well that ends well for Lance Armstrong. And, not coincidentally, for the organizers of cycling’s equivalent of the Super Bowl. With the interest from fans and sponsors that Armstrong’s presence brings, the Amaury Sports Organization stand to rake in a few more euros than they would have if he were kept away.

Interesting sidebar: According to some of the articles that appeared on Friday, it turns out that Armstrong’s hair samples were not tested. And, the other samples take came up clean. Hmm. I’m thinking this was all a tempest in a teapot.

Part 2, Where another cyclist may not be so fortunate

Davide Rebellin and Stefan Schumacher are linked together again, and not because they were members of the former Gerolsteiner professional cycling team. This time, it’s because they are two of seven athletes who are alleged to have tested positive for the blood-boosting drug CERA at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Rebellin, the silver medalist in the men’s road race, now faces a possible two-year ban from cycling, given that the offense took place in 2008, under the previous edition of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s rules. Were such an offense to occur this year, and were the authorities to find the nebulously-defined “aggravating circumstances,” Rebellin could have been facing a four-year ban. In either case, given his age, a ban could essentially end his career.

According to an article at CyclingNews.com, Rebellin has been suspended from racing and he has been summoned to a hearing by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) on May 4th. Rebellin’s team has also suspended him. As CyclingNews.com reports:

“According to the line against doping, we have temporarily suspended him,” said Diquigiovanni team manager, Gianni Savio. “We are shocked and dismayed, we hope the counter-analysis proves he is innocent. We hope for this because since he joined our team at the beginning of the year he has shown his talents, but also his principles.”

Interesting comment about the counter-analysis (also known as the B sample tests). They haven’t been performed yet. Have the rules on public comment changed? Wasn’t it the case that the anti-doping agencies aren’t supposed to comment on ongoing investigations until the counter-analysis has been completed?

Rebellin, denies that he’s done anything wrong and will ask that his B samples be tested. From another story at CyclingNews.com:

“My conscience is clear, I did not take anything,” he told television reporters. “I will continue forward with all of my strength to demonstrate my innocence with respect to these charges.”

Meanwhile, the manager of Rebellin’s current team expresses confidence in his rider.

“It is a huge loss for us on a sporting level, for the Giro, but it is also big moral blow. Something seems strange,” said [Gianni] Savio to Cyclingnews.

Savio spoke Wednesday morning to Rebellin, who was at his home in Monte Carlo. He was preparing to leave for Verona, Italy, to speak with his lawyer.

“It seemed impossible that he could have committed an error like this. He is well respected, has high standards and knows clearly that doping is not only a sporting offence, but also a criminal offense.”

Depending on whether or not the B sample results match the initial results, he may have to answer charges that he used a banned substance at the Olympics. Time will tell.

Part 3, Where another cyclist faces an even worse prospect

While a two-year ban would effectively end Davide Rebellin’s professional cycling career, Stefan Schumacher faces the potential for an 8-year to lifetime ban for testing positive in Beijing. That’s because he is currently serving a two-year suspension for using CERA during last year’s Tour de France. Under the rules, a second offense results in a more severe penalty. Also, under the rules, each positive doping test is considered a separate offense. So, had Schumacher tested positive on two consecutive days for CERA at the Tour de France, that would be considered two separate tests. The fact that the drug remains in a person’s system for a good long time, and that both tests likely would have come from one injection of rocket fuel doesn’t matter a whit. Even if the two positive results came a couple of weeks apart, and even if those two positives came from the same instance of doping, it still wouldn’t matter. Two positive tests, if they’re both verified by B sample results, are going to lead to a hefty punishment.

While Schumacher is ten years younger than Rebellin, if he winds up being suspended for even 8 years, it’s hard to see how he could maintain enough fitness to re-enter the professional peloton and be competitive at a high level. Schumacher is currently appealing the two-year ban imposed for the positive test result at the 2008 Tour de France. If he were to win that appeal and lose this new case, he might only face a two-year ban from the sport.

But, given how the anti-doping arbitration system works, I wouldn’t bet on Schumacher winning this first appeal. Should he lose the second case, that would result in the more severe penalty. It will be some time before we see the results of this case, too. In a later report at CyclingNews.com, it turns out that Schumacher’s B sample hasn’t been tested, either.

“The BDR has passed along documents concerning a positive retroactive doping control to Stefan Schumacher. It is now up to him to request an opening of the B sample or not,” the federation said in a brief statement.

Like Rebellin, if the B sample doesn’t confirm the A sample result, Schumacher would be back in action sooner. But don’t hold your breath. However, for Davide Rebellin, if he is found guilty of doping and handed a two-year suspension, he might be able to come back and work in cycling after the suspension is up. For Stefan Schumacher, if he gets a lifetime ban, that career option will be completely out the window.

Part 4, Where we ask: What do all these stories have in common?

There is at least one small common thread to these stories, as well as the stories of other Olympic athletes implicated in this latest scandal. Unless WADA’s anti-doping rules have changed, no information is supposed to be publicized until after the athlete admits to doping or after a B sample test confirms the initial results. In Lance Armstrong’s case, no samples came up positive, but I believe the same degree of confidentiality would apply. Not having been formally charged with anything, the matter should have been kept confidential.

But confidentiality is something that seems to be in relatively short supply when it comes to stories of positive doping tests. Perhaps the rules have been changed to allow public comment by the anti-doping agencies after only the A sample results come back positive but that doesn’t make it right. Athletes’ reputations are at stake in all of this. If, on the odd chance that a B sample result doesn’t confirm the intitial results, how do the anti-doping agencies propose to undo the harm to the reputation of an athlete who’s already been tarred and feathered by doping accusations?

It’s not so easy to repair the damage done. Which is why we shouldn’t have heard about any of these cases until actual charges were brought against the athletes.