Loser Pays

Back when I was a mere pup growing up in a sleepy midwestern college town, my friends and I used to hang out at a pinball joint called The Roost. The Roost was a seedy place, in an old Victorian home located in a neighborhood that was mostly student slums with a few stalwart families still trying to live there, only a few blocks from our house.

It was the kind of place, truth be told, that no parent would ever want his or her kids going near. Inside, there were two floors of pinball machines and other games, like air hockey. On a Friday or Saturday night, the crowd would be a mix of college students swilling Schlitz Malt Liquor from long-neck bottles and high school (and some junior high school) students trying to find ways to get the college kids to buy beer for them. The floor was sticky from spilled beer, and the place reeked of beer and a certain type of “cigarette” smoke. But it wasn’t a dangerous place, at least in the sense of violence. Most patrons were too stoned to be able to throw a decent punch.

Given the drinking age at the time, 21 years old to be legal, there was most likely not a single legal drinker in the place. Same for the smokers, only more so, if you get my drift. Blaring from the KLH speakers was Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon, or the latest Zeppelin album, The Faces, or The Who. Sometimes, but not all that often, even the Stones. And occasionally, even album-oriented rock from the local FM radio station, back when FM was still relatively new. No static at all, as Steely Dan would say. One thing you would never hear at The Roost: sappy music like the Partridge Family, Neil Diamond, or Barry Manilow.

The name of the game at The Roost was “Loser Pays.” So whoever were playing on a particular machine (8-Ball was my favorite pinball game, air hockey was another favorite — and if I ever have a “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” house, there will be a pinball room), the loser paid for the games. Back then, two games cost a quarter. If you were really good, like my friend The Rodent, you could play all night for a buck or two. Actually, most nights Rodent could play for free, once he started working there.

When we tired of pinball, the next stop would be Pizza King, which was conveniently located about two doors down. A large pepperoni and green pepper pizza (and the pepperoni was among the spiciest I’ve ever had) would set us back a whopping $2.50 or so. But that was a long, long time ago.

Last time I was in the old hometown, 5 years ago, The Roost and Pizza King were long gone. Replaced by an ugly “modern” building housing the local phone company. Oh well, those days live on, at least in my memory.

What has me thinking about loser pays is a story coming out of Ireland that the Irish Sports Council will be covering Gareth Turnbull’s costs in an anti-doping case where Turnbull’s side came out victorious. Turnbull successfully fought charges that he used testosterone, as you may recall. There are a few similarities between his case and Floyd Landis’ case. One aspect which is not similar is this: I’ve heard from one source that when Turnbull was rousted from his slumbers after a night of drinking, he was not completely alcohol-free. One story has it that he was so much under the influence that he had to be helped to stand up while providing his sample.

Given the massive costs that an athlete can incur to fight doping allegations, it’s good when he or she can recoup those costs. Turnbull told the BBC that he’s happy he will be receiving compensation for the money spent to defend himself against the doping allegations. I’m sure he is.

What if the whole anti-doping system was changed to a modified version of “loser pays,” wherein athletes who successfully fight doping allegations receive compensation for their expenses as a matter of course? [Edit: The reverse would not be true in the system I envision. The anti-doping agencies could not go after “guilty” athletes to recoup legal expenses. That’s their job. It’s what they’re funded to do.] I think it would take just one or two judgments against the anti-doping agencies before they would become more careful about leaking information to the press and about bringing cases built on shaky evidence that can’t stand up to scrutiny. And I think that the labs who make the findings should be required to contribute to that reimbursement.

One or two million-dollar judgments against a lab like LNDD would put a certain amount of pressure on them to clean up its procedures and processes. The people funding the labs would be none too pleased to see a substantial portion of the labs’ budgets going to reimburse athletes who were wrongly accused. Once such a judgment occurred, the pressure on the lab and its leadership would be enormous — heads might roll and protocols and procedures might be changed. Staffing levels might change, and staff might be trained to perform a wider range of tests in order to broaden the pool of potential testers and minimize Landaluze-like occurrences. At least, one would hope.

It’s unfortunate that the Irish Sports Council’s action probably won’t set a precedent. Assuming that Floyd Landis wins his case, it would be good to see the other side have to reimburse him for the financial hit he’s taken. That would teach a number of organizations — LNDD, WADA, USADA and the UCI — to be more careful of their procedures and protocols the next time they bring a major case.

Hard to say if that will happen, but then again, maybe that’s one of the reasons why Maurice Suh was added to the Landis defense team.