A different take on baseball’s doping challenges
Zev Chafets in The New York Times offers up an interesting point of view about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. The headline to Chafets’ article, Let Steroids Into the Hall of Fame, pretty much sums up what he has to say. In his op-ed piece, Chafets notes:
Since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better, heal faster or relax during a long and stressful season.
Rewrite that sentence a bit and you could apply it to almost any other sport, or even sports in general. Fact is, performance-enhancement through drugs and/or other methods has been around as long as competitive sports. It’s a part of human nature that some will try to find ways to get a leg up on their competition. He goes on to observe that:
On any given day, the stands are packed with youngsters on Adderall and Ritalin (stimulants used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and college students who use Provigil (an anti-narcolepsy drug) as a study aid. The guy who sings the national anthem has probably taken a beta blocker to calm his stage fright. Like it or not, chemical enhancement is here to stay.
Yes, I’m afraid that the use, and sometimes overuse, of various medications is almost endemic in our society. Performance-enhancement for the masses is not going away any time soon. Chafets ends his piece by saying:
If [the Baseball Hall of Fame] surrenders to the moralists who want to turn back the clock to some imagined golden era, and excommunicates the greatest stars anyone has ever seen, it will suffer the fate of all battlefields located on the wrong side of history. Obscurity.
Chafets certainly has an interesting take on the subject. Roland S. Martin’s recent column at CNN.com offers a similar point of view.
OK, got it. Baseball had a terrible drug problem. Now they have a drug testing plan in place that has some teeth in it. So, can we just move the hell on?
…
All of baseball pulled a Robert Johnson, as in the legend of the classic blues singer who supposedly got his gift for music by making a pact with the devil. Or maybe more like Judas. The sport turned in its integrity for a few pieces of silver.
Let’s just accept this as a fact, acknowledge those were the dark days and move on. It’s just tiring to keep going back to what happened then. It’s done. It’s over. So let it go.
There are those who won’t let it go, however. But if we did just “let it go,” will we even learn something from the whole experience? At a certain point, it’s right to move on. Has professional baseball and its fans reached that point? I don’t know.
Tilting at windmills?
Alejandro Valverde filed an appeal last week to overturn the Italian Olympic Committee’s (CONI’s) two-year ban imposed as a result of the Spanish cyclist’s alleged ties to Operacion Puerto. In a press release issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Valverde asks the CAS to rule that CONI had no jurisdiction in pursuing a case against him, and to lift the sanction imposed by CONI.
Going by the usual WADA/UCI results management rules, the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) should be the agency to prosecute Valverde for any violations regarding Operacion Puerto — unless Valverde is licensed through a different federation. (Which was the case with Michael Rasmussen, who was licensed through Monaco’s cycling federation, rather than the Danish Cycling Union.) If the RFEC refused to do so, despite evidence of Valverde’s involvement, then perhaps the UCI or WADA could take the matter up with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
CONI’s claim of authority stems from a blood test taken during the 2008 Tour de France, when the race ventured onto Italian soil for a day. Supposedly, the DNA from that sample matches DNA from a blood bag taken from Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes’ office during the Puerto investigation. Assuming this is true, it would still be up to the RFEC to prosecute Valverde.
The question to be answered is whether or not the CAS will agree that CONI has the authority to go after Valverde. Depending on how the body rules, the UCI may or may not be able to institute a world-wide ban, as Pat McQuaid has indicated he might do after reviewing CONI’s case.
Under the existing rules, the issue seems pretty clear-cut. But that doesn’t mean the ruling will be. Currently, the CAS has not given any indication when or where Valverde’s case will be heard.
The Saga of Vladimir Gusev
Back in July 2008, Vladimir Gusev was fired by the Astana cycling team for what were reported to be “irregular test values.” As Agence France Presse reported in an article on July 25, 2008:
The three-time Russian time-trial champion showed “abnormal values” during an internal doping check, according to the release.
Though the results “do not indicate the use of banned substances,” the release continued, “the team has therefore applied the contractual terms based on these physiological and biological abnormalities,” dismissing Gusev “with immediate effect.”
The CAS ruled last week that Astana should not have fired Gusev based on the Russian rider’s results. Astana will also have to pay Gusev his salary, as well as damages and legal costs.
Given that Astana’s own announcement of Gusev’s dismissal noted that the rider’s test results didn’t indicate the use of banned substances, one has to wonder exactly what reason Astana let Gusev go. Apparently, whatever the reason, the CAS panel decided that Astana should not have taken the action they did.
No announcement and no written ruling in Gusev’s case is currently available on the CAS’s web site, which makes the the arbitration panel’s reasoning a bit of a mystery. Maybe at some point the CAS panel will release their full decision. But don’t bet on it.
And finally…
Strange things turn up in Google ads. Apparently, Microsoft is advertising their Bing.com search engine using their competitor’s ad placement service. I saw this on VeloNews.com just a bit ago, when I was researching Vladimir Gusev.
Bing ad via Google
I think I am getting a clearer picture of the Gusov affair. Let’s put this in a bit of context: cycling in general and the Astana team in particular where perceived by many as drug-ridden. So Astana wanted/needed to do some image-building, hence they hired Damsgaard to conduct a testing program. Whether this was solely for PR purposes, was intended as a good faith attempt to control PED usage, or was a method of ensuring that riders who doped did so in a manner designed so as to not be caught cannot be determined based on available information.
However, I suspect that team officials took the position that it would be better to err on the side of caution in terms of taking action against riders who exhibited “questionable values” even if there was no (usable) evidence of PED usage, and that language was put in the contract implementing such as approach. Firing Gusov under these circumstances could be seen as a powerful statement to both other riders on the team, as well as both the general public and UCI/WADA that Astana intended to run a clean team.
I also suspect that perhaps if they had taken a more reasoned approach, suspending Gusov for a period of time both as a penalty and to time for the questionable blood values to return to normal (or alternatively, determine that such values were normal for Gusov) and then allowing him to return to competition would have been more favorably received by CAS.
William,
Back when the ACE program existed at Garmin/Slipstream, that more reasoned approach prevailed. If an athlete had “suspicious results” he would have been held back from competition. And they would have run more tests to see what the source of the suspicious results was. Given the overall hysteria about doping and the pressure to “do something,” I can easily see how other teams would rid themselves of riders at the first hint of a hint of a problem. It’s never been clear what part of the contract between Gusev and Astana that Gusev actually violated. I’m guessing that’s at the root of the CAS decision, but until (if) their full decision is ever published, we’ll never know.
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/93767/no-tour-for-valverde
Valv has been chickened this year. The parallel in the main post to Rassmussen is complete – Casse d’Espargne pulled valv from the team, almost for sure on the insistence of ASO. I’d be willing to bet the substance of the conversation was “get him off the team. If he starts, this will be your team’s last participation in any ASO event.” IOW, pretty much the same thing they did to Rassmussen 2 years ago.
And as to the Google ads, it does make me laugh: as I am typing this, the ads to the right give me the opportunity to contact a local federal defender with “25 years exp. knows system ins/out Federal drug, fraud and other charges” (maybe pass the link to valv?); an opportunity to buy Human Growth Hormone (Buy 2 get one free – wonder what would happen if I gave them Lance’s address for shipping?) ; 2 links to find out about ADHD. And 2 links about ADHD.
It sure does seem like Valverde has either been “Chickened” or “Roostered,” to be sure. And speaking of chickens/roosters … Le Coq Sportif used to make the yellow jerseys that the Tour leaders wear during the Grand Boucle. Not sure if they still do. Their logo, for those who don’t know, is a crowing rooster.
As far as those Google ads here go, if you notice one like the HGH ad, send me a bit of the details, like the domain name for the purveyor. I try to block those ads, actually, using Google’s “competitive ads” filter. Some of those ads can be very amusing when they show up, especially given that almost everyone who reads this blog would not be inclined to buy that type of product. 🙂
8-0,
ASO running 2009 TDF is very different in their approach of doping than the Clerc management. Clearly today they are most permissive, with Clerc Armstrong would not have been on the next TDF.
Armaury family prefer to adopt a lower standard.
Jean,
Perhaps what you say is true. But keeping Tom Boonen out of the Tour for an out-of-competition positive for cocaine (not something that can be prosecuted under WADA/UCI rules, and pretty stupid on Boonen’s part, given his experience last year) doesn’t quite follow the idea that the new management of M. Prudhomme is more permissive. Different management between years, same result for Tommeke. I’m not seeing the lowered standard in that instance.
On the other hand, since Armstrong started his comeback, he hasn’t tested positive for anything. Sure, there are suspicions about his past. But even in that instance, no official sanctions despite some disputed test results that hit the press in 2005. Even for Patrice Clerc, if he were running this year’s show, he’d be hard pressed to explain keeping one of the biggest spectator and news media draws out of the race — unless and until Armstrong actually had a positive anti-doping test result in the meantime.
My grandfather would slap me on the back of the head for being grateful pro baseball is a dying game, so it’s hard for me to care, but the approach does seem more healthy than draconian penalties, dwelling on the recent past, reviving the sport of witch hunting, and repetitive self flagellation. A dying game has a healthier attitude. How ironic is that?
I wasn’t aware ASO had an approach to doping. I thought that was the responsibility of the UCI/WADA and/or AFLD? To be serious, the current management and that of Clerc are a bit different, but only by a matter of degree.
Valverde isn’t welcome in the 2009 TdF and fair enough, it runs through part of Italy where Valverde is prohibited from racing. We’ll see where his CAS case goes. It should be reversed as CoNI has zero business sanctioning a rider with a Spanish license. If Valverde goes free because the system is broken, then fix the system. It’s farcical for CoNI to run an end around and is ultimately dangerous to its own athletes who could face retribution if/when competing in Spain. Should CAS do what is correct, Valverde might ride the 2009 TdF yet? However, my money is on a CAS decision coming too late for that to happen, regardless of the decision.
Meanwhile, Boonen is left twisting in the wind for his OoC indiscretion. Something is supposed to happen with that in a French court tomorrow (Thursday). It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
As for LA and showergate, there was irregular activity on both sides of the issue. It was probably right to call it a draw and move on. We wouldn’t want the poor pooper scooper to lose his job afterall.
Also, good for Gert Steegmans for not giving in to Katusha’s demands for an amended contract that amounts to extortion. If they really wanted him to sign, management should have offered similar penalties should they be found to have violated the terms of their employment. Goose/gander.
And my rant for today: The IoC is all about protecting the monetary value of the brand and keeping the money train on track. It does not care about the health of the athletes, or anything else about the athletes so long as they do not negatively impact the image of the olympic (bowel) movement. If the IoC is interested in the athletes, they have an opportunity now to speak out and take action supporting the Iranian soccer/football players who “retired” after wearing green armbands in a match. If they have, then kudos and I stand corrected, but I have not seen/heard anything but silence from the IoC. That said, I’m not expecting to be wrong and won’t hold my breath waiting for the IoC to do something selfless or noble.
(I wish I could respect much related to the olympics. It’s a pita to type in lower case o’s corresponding to acronyms with upper case letters, but worth the effort.)
Ever noticed how motorists are inconsiderate… Some cyclists are morons. Share your thoughts with me at my blog. http://www.cyclingsafely.com
The context is a criminal case, but the issue nonetheless interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26lab.html
eightzero,
Interesting article. I saw it before I left for work and didn’t finish reading it til just a bit ago. Shades of a certain arbitration hearing a couple years back, eh?
Yep. Those were the days, hunh? And here’s another one:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jeff_pearlman/06/25/steroids/index.html