Cheating To Win

No one likes a cheater. Whether an athlete cheats by doping or some other means, or a motorsports team performs illegal modifications to their car, or someone copies answers from the person next to them at school, cheating is frowned upon. The uproar over doping in sports boils down, on some levels, to our universal dislike of cheaters. We feel, well, cheated when we find out that someone won without having to go through the hard work necessary to achieve.

In a way, we expect cheaters to cheat. It’s their nature. At the same time, however, we expect that the people who enforce the rules are above cheating. That these people are the Upholders of All Things Good and True. So when they cheat in order to win, it’s even more troubling than those who dope or are accused of doping. Whatever else happens in sport or life, we expect the Upholders of All Things Good and True to play fair (or to use WADA’s slogan “play true”), and our disappointment is greater when they don’t.

Which brings me to Travis Tygart and the Floyd Landis case. When Landis was accused of using performance enhancing drugs, many people were outraged that he could have done so. The winner of arguably the toughest bike race anywhere proven a cheater? Unimaginable! Of course, these were merely accusations, the proof wasn’t in, and various officials broke their own rules by releasing the information that resulted in the whole scandal.

We’ve known for some time that Tygart sought to test the remaining B samples from Floyd Landis’ other tests at the Tour de France, and it turns out a couple of out of competition tests conducted in the United States, too. Landis has sought access to the data from his other A sample tests at the 2006 Tour, with the hope that it will show his testosterone and epitestosterone levels remained fairly stable, with the exception of the Stage 17 epitestosterone level being an abnormally low reading, amongst more consistent data.

Tygart, back in October, denied Landis’ request for that data, claiming the rules didn’t require him to turn it over. Now the matter has been decided by the arbitrators, and Landis has that data. Whether it will bolster his defense, as it is expected to do, will be seen in time.

What’s come to light that shows the brazenness with which Tygart, himself, is willing to cheat to win is the flap over Landis’ other B samples. As TBV reported yesterday:

In December, USADA informed Landis that they had scheduled tests of the B samples at LNDD, and that he could, if he liked, provide an observer for three weeks of testing. They had already shipped the out-of-competition samples [collected in America] from UCLA to LNDD. This was not a request for permission — USADA was just going to go ahead and do it. There was no explanation why this was being done, or statement about the authority under which it had been planned.

Landis responded by reminding USADA it was only allowed to test B’s if there was a positive A, for which he had not received any notification or documentation, and wondering, was it going to require an injunction to get USADA to follow the rules? With the spectre of escalation into court litigation raised, USADA backed down.

Once again, your tax dollars at work.

Tygart’s action, sending samples off for testing without Landis’ permission and arranging for the testing of the other B samples was brazen, to say the least. Provocative, even. He didn’t just think Team Landis would roll over on this, did he? What he did cost time and money, neither of which is in unlimited supply for either side.

Well, guess what? Tygart is at it again, this time asking the arbitrators to allow the tests. Michael Hiltzik, of the Los Angeles Times, wrote in an article published yesterday:

USADA contends that the previous screening tests did not “definitively establish” that the samples were clean, and the agency wants to subject them to the more sophisticated carbon isotope test.

USADA acknowledged in papers filed with the arbitrators that it would expect to use any positive results from the retests as evidence against Landis.The cyclist’s lawyers maintain that this would violate USADA and World Anti-Doping Agency regulations, which state that an analytical sample can be deemed positive only if the A and B results match. Because the A samples already have been ruled negative, and in most cases no longer exist, the required match between A and B could not be present, Landis argues.

Since when does USADA have the right to retroactively declare that an athlete’s samples, having tested negative by an accredited laboratory (even one as “procedurally challenged” as LNDD), are not “definitively” clean and demand more testing? Tygart is on a fishing expedition here.

Tygart, who had told Team Landis that the other tests didn’t matter, is now asking the arbitrators to allow him to break the rules and regulations of both USADA and WADA — in other words to cheat — in order to win his case. If Travis Tygart can’t win on the merits of evidence legitimately obtained he should not resort to cheating, he should do what’s appropriate: Either suck it up and take the loss or drop the case. Simple as that.