According to an article on CyclingNews.com, the World Anti-Doping Agency has asked Spanish Judge Antonio Serrano to admit the anti-doping agency as a party to the Operation Puerto investigation. This action comes two weeks after the UCI won an appeal that allowed them to become a party to the investigation, and if granted will allow WADA access to the Operation Puerto case files.
In a statement released on Tuesday, WADA said that it wants to ensure that disciplinary proceedings are taken against those involved in doping. “Since Operation Puerto broke last May, WADA has been in contact with the Spanish government to encourage strong measures against doping and coordination of information with sports authorities,” read the communication. “More recently, in January, WADA President Richard W. Pound met with Spanish authorities in Spain.
“If WADA’s request is accepted, the Agency should have access to the case file. Following appeal of an initial refusal by the judge, the International Cycling Union (UCI) was accepted two weeks ago as a party to the case. The UCI also confirmed last week that it will proceed with its own investigation and with the determination of possible anti-doping rule violations. However, it is not clear which evidence can be used as of now, since the judge ruled last year that the evidence garnered from the investigation could not be used by sports authorities as the basis for punishing athletes until the criminal investigation is completed.”
WADA, in its statement, also contends that “anti-doping organizations such as the UCI can sanction ‘non-analytical’ violations, i.e., violations which do not involve a positive doping control test, such as use or possession of prohibited substance and methods, trafficking or tampering.”
The concept of “non-analytical” violations is an interesting, and somewhat troubling, idea. While there are certainly circumstances under which an athlete, coach or other individual might be involved in doping — for example, the distribution of banned substances — it can also be broadly interpreted to include hearsay accusations against athletes, as with some of the anti-doping sanctions levied against figures in the BALCO case.
Just because one or more people testifies that they saw an athlete doping, or heard him or her admit to doping doesn’t really prove the athlete committed any such offense. And a system that would punish people based on such hearsay is not a system of justice, it’s something else entirely.
Individuals who are caught with doping supplies are most often distributing medications through improper means. Most countries have laws against such activities, and perhaps the best use of the limited resources anti-doping agencies have would be to let the appropriate legal authorities and legal system handle the matter. And it would be more likely to ensure true justice for the accused — regardless of whether that person is found guilty or not.
While someone who possesses a large amount of supplies that have doping applications may be up to no good, is it the proper place for anti-doping agencies to sanction that individual if they can’t prove he or she actually doped? Given some of challenges of the current system, such as anti-doping tests that are less than perfect, perhaps it would be a better use of the agencies’ resources to fund research into newer and more accurate means of detecting violations.
The CyclingNews story goes on to say that WADA “hopes that the judge will allow the entire file to be used for a sporting investigation.” I’m not sure what they mean by a “sporting investigation,” but if the manner in which certain recent investigations have been conducted is any guide, the investigation process is not “sporting.”
Of course, no story about Operation Puerto is complete without mentioning that the UCI would like to have a glance at the case files. CyclingNews talked to Pat McQuaid, who heads up the UCI, and he had this to say:
“It is unacceptable to the UCI and the sport that something like [Operation Puerto] can cause so much damage and yet there is absolutely nobody held responsible for it.”
Yes, indeed, a lot of damage has been caused. But as I’ve said before, a lot of the damage comes straight from the halls of the UCI and other locales, where information that should have remained confidential made its way into the press. Many riders have suffered because of yet-to-be-proven allegations, and at least some of those riders may have been wrongly accused. But all who’ve been accused have suffered from the taint of the scandal.
It’s easy for McQuaid to demand accountability, but is he willing to fall on his own sword for the damage he and his agency have done to the sport of cycling in the last year? I think not.
Regardless of the judge’s decision,” [McQuaid told CyclingNews], “if you consider that there was evidence that there was tampering with the blood of these athletes and so forth, that in itself has to be a health risk. So too the fact that the blood was stored in incorrect conditions.”
“That in itself has to be a health risk to the individual. Just because the judge asks the various riders involved if they ever felt that their health was being compromised, it is incorrect to base his decision on their response.”
I’m not sure how McQuaid knows what conditions the blood was stored in, or whether or not it was stored properly, or whether the blood had been tampered with. His argument sounds to me like a person grasping at any line of reasoning that might help his cause, regardless of whether he’s got his facts straight. Certainly, if he’s correct, then it could be a health risk for the riders. But I’m going to withhold judgment on that point until more of the facts are available.
It’s not like the judge said no doping occurred. Judge Serrano said that it probably had, but at the time of the investigation doping wasn’t illegal in Spain. What needs to happen is that calmer heads need to evaluate the case files, should they be available, and proceedings should be filed against only those athletes where there is clear and compelling evidence that they had been doping.
Without actual tests to prove the athletes were doping in specific events, I think it would be hard to prove such a case. But other charges, based on the evidence and based in Spanish (or appropriate) law, might be possible, provided those cases are filed in the proper jurisdictions. Until the final word is spoken on whether the Puerto investigation stays shelved, and whether other agencies will have access to the files, it’s hard to know what, if any, charges could be filed against the implicated athletes or other individuals.
If the case remains shelved, it may be unlikely that anyone would face any legal consequences — and perhaps anti-doping consequences, either. It may be that in this instance, athletes who were cheating will get a pass. And that’s not something any of us who care about the issue of doping in sports would like to see. But if those who are guilty do go free, let’s hope they are sufficiently chastened by the Operation Puerto scandal that they will go forth and dope no more.
If these agencies cannot agree on analytical testing (why is UCI going to create its own testing program?), or see that it is done correctly (LNDD) and consistently (LNDD standards vs. UCLA et al), I shudder to think what they will do with “non-analytical” testing…it sounds as if they are grasping at those straws to prove that someone, anyone, has doped, to legitimize the mess this has all created.