FINA’s Got Some Explaining To Do

by Rant on April 3, 2007 · 7 comments

in Doping in Sports, Floyd Landis, Ian Thorpe, Lance Armstrong, Swimming, Tour de France

You’ve got to hand it to L’Equipe, if there’s a story about a high-profile athlete who is or will be accused of doping, they are often the ones to break the story. Being the scandal sheet of the French sports press, one would expect them to be off the front with those kinds of articles.

But they can’t do it without sources who have access to the information, unless they’re completely making things up. Unfortunately, more often than not there is at least some substance to what L’Equipe reports.

They are so well connected in some places (like France’s anti-doping lab, LNDD) that Pat McQuaid felt he had to leak the story about Floyd Landis’ positive result last July, because … well if he didn’t do it, someone at the lab would. That was a lesson McQuaid seems to have learned from the Armstrong dust-up in 2005, when someone at the lab passed information to a L’Equipe reporter about some research that suggested Armstrong may have used EPO in the 1999 Tour de France, when he won the race for the first of seven consecutive times.

The current story about Ian Thorpe was broken by none other than L’Equipe. The culprit who gave them the information most likely works at one of the following places:

  • The Australian anti-doping lab
  • The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA)
  • FINA, the international swimming federation, based in Lausanne, Switzerland, or
  • The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), also based in Lausanne

The head of ASADA, Richard Ings, has stated that he believes the source for the story isn’t in Australia. And it does seem awfully unlikely (though not impossible) that a French reporter based in Paris would have a source inside either the lab or the agency. But not impossible.

Since they are much closer to home, my hunch is that someone at FINA or the CAS passed information to L’Equipe. It’s much easier for a reporter to cultivate sources in Lausanne, where French is spoken, than in Australia. If not for the language, then consider the time difference. Calling across so many timezones takes some planning at both ends. Of course, email can solve that problem quite handily.

FINA, it seems, is hiring a private investigator to find out who leaked the information. Interesting. Is this to find and punish the person, or to divert attention from the possibility that it was one of their own who did the deed? If they find the person, will they release that information to the press and the public? Will the person be prosecuted?

Ian Thorpe certainly deserves to know who the person is that’s been defaming him, and the public deserves to know whether this is a highly placed official at FINA, or someone lower down in the organization who’s breaking confidentiality rules. But if it does turn out to be someone from FINA, will we ever hear about it, or will the story quietly die away?

If it turns out the leak came from the CAS, what then? That certainly paints the whole system in a different light, doesn’t it? Fairness and impartiality may well be out the window — or at least, our perception that the CAS system is fair would be out the window. Certainly, there are parts of the anti-doping process that are neither fair nor particularly interested in true justice, as we’ve seen in the Landis case.

The reporters at L’Equipe are doing their jobs very well in digging up this dirt and disseminating it throughout the world. Think what you will of them, what about the people dishing the dirt? These are insiders with an axe of some sort to grind. Do they have personal vendettas against certain athletes? Do they have a warped sense of justice? Do they have some narcissistic need to see stories they’ve leaked — true or not — in the press? Do they have some sort of sick, twisted need to see star athletes thrown to the wolves because of doping allegations? Are they frustrated, bitter people who are jealous of the success of others?

Whatever the case, these people seem intent on causing real harm. And while these people may be getting their jollies watching the damage caused by the stories they leak, it’s not just the accused athletes who are being damaged, it is the anti-doping system and all of sports. Every time the media tar and feather someone with the epithet “Doper” — whether rightly or wrongly — it’s not just the person accused who is the victim, it’s everyone who participates in sports. These days there are some, exemplified by Dick Pound, who believe all athletes are dopers and it’s only a matter of time before they get caught.

That is hardly fair to the vast majority who compete cleanly. And it leads to the development of systems (like WADA’s anti-doping process) which assume guilt and deny athletes due process and fair adjudication, as we have learned in the Landis case, among others.

So the next time you see a story break — and it will very likely be in L’Equipe — ask yourself, “What does the person selling the story to the media get out of all of this?” Is it the “pleasure” of watching someone suffer (and it’s a sick individual who takes pleasure in that), or does this person have some sort of misguided view that he or she is helping rid the world of cheaters?

There’s a very good chance that Ian Thorpe raced cleanly, and that his name should not be smeared with the muck L’Equipe so dearly loves to rake. And the same is true for Floyd Landis, though L’Equipe can’t be blamed for breaking Landis’ story, that honor goes to Pat McQuaid. Neither of these athletes deserved the kind of attention the leaks to the press thrust upon them.

In Landis’ case, he should have been allowed due process before the information was made public. By maintaining confidentiality, everyone would have been able to move forward with the rest of the world none the wiser until the process was complete. At the very least, Landis and his team would have had the time to actually review the allegations and prepare a response, rather than have to improvise. Assuming the process found him innocent (or at least “not guilty”) of the charges, no damage would have been done to his reputation or his ability to earn a living.

In Thorpe’s case, there’s not even an adverse finding. How unfair is it that he should be tarred and feathered by the press before he’s even been accused of anything by the anti-doping agencies? It will be very interesting to see if FINA’s investigator is able to determine who, if anyone, is the source who leaked Thorpe’s name to the press. But FINA has something else to answer for, and it’s this: Why are they appealing to the CAS when ASADA is still investigating the case?

It’s not just the leak of Thorpe’s name that smells fishy. Since their actions have brought about the story, FINA needs to explain why they took the extraordinary step to go to the CAS before ASADA’s investigation was complete. 

trust but verify April 3, 2007 at 11:39 am

“FINA needs to explain why they took the extraordinary step to go to the CAS before ASADA’s investigation was complete. ”

/My guess is the same reason AFLD started their proceding — the official process looked like it was going slow, and needed a prod.

If it was the Elbonian Swimming Federation, we might all think they were protecting their dirty doper, and that’s why the system allows the Global federation or WADA to intervene.

The irony here is watching the Ozzies squirm, because they have been very intolerant of athletes of other nations that have been accused, witness Chris_t at DPF.

-dB

Rant April 3, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I suspect there’s a great deal of truth to the idea that FINA was giving the process a little push. At least the AFLD admitted they were concerned about the slow process over here. If that’s true for FINA, then I’d like to see them do the same.

Debby April 3, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Surely the whole anti-doping machine is going to implode at any moment?

Question for you: do you think it’s likely that Floyd’s camp may have those missing documents that you mentioned in a previous post, but that they can’t or won’t go public yet with the information that they have them? The arbitrators made USADA turn over some of the documents already, so I’m wondering if these are cards that the lawyers are not putting down on the table yet.

just bitch slap me please April 3, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Of course, if L’Equipe was really on their game they would have broken the Jan story today. Maybe they don’t have connections for the real doping stories, only the ones that exit people’s mouths by inuendo and gossip.

This is not on topic but I do think Jan’s goose is cooked in this affair. He may have never blood doped in a race setting (but of course we will nnever know) but the fact they do have his blood in those bags is tantamount to a smoking gun with his fingerprints on it and gun powder grains in the skin of his hand. And once again this has been accompanied by a operatic chorus of “I’m innocent” as if he gained 300 lbs, grew massive boobs, and is wearing one of those hats with horns. Who to believe, indeed. And, of course, O.J. moved to Florida to look for the killers.

Rant April 3, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Debby,

Actually, what’s missing is the raw data behind the GC/MS results. Without the raw data, the reported results can’t be verified. I haven’t heard anything about the Landis side receiving the data, but it’s possible. If they have, I’m sure they’ll get it analyzed right away. But my hunch is that USADA hasn’t produced it yet, and they won’t until the last possible moment.

Slap,

True on both counts. L’Equipe has connections with those who wish to sell certain scandals, hearsay and innuendo, but not necessarily with those who have their fingers on real stories. Jan Ullrich does look like one well-cooked goose at this point. If the DNA really is a match, then he’s got some serious `splaining to do, starting with why Fuentes had those bags of blood. And, “well, it wasn’t a crime in Spain” isn’t going to do the trick.

Atown, Tx April 4, 2007 at 5:02 am

Debby & Rant,

Here is my gut feel on the raw data for the GC/MS results. It does not exist. Why would I jump to such a conclusion? If I remember right this was the same data that was requested by Landis’ rep at the B sample analysis and was not produced. If the lab was trying to be transparent with the other requests why not that one? Either it is horribly flawed or it does not exist. I’m going with it does not exist and this is another example where LNDD decided to break the rules because they feel it is to their benefit.

If I were Landis I’d be calling their bluff on the raw data in the press. Tell everyone (the press) it does not exist and hopefully force them to produce it or fold. If its that big of a card, I’d be making a HUGE stink about it trying to call them out.

Rant April 4, 2007 at 5:19 am

Atown,

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the data doesn’t exist. I’m guessing that this is probably something Team Landis is trying to get in the discovery phase. If they don’t get the data, they will be arguing that since the lab can’t/won’t produce it, the results aren’t valid because the results can’t be verified. And they’ll argue that because WADA’s own rules require that the raw data must be presented to justify the lab’s conclusions, the results aren’t valid. Right now, I suspect it’s a waiting game to see whether or not the data will be delivered.

– Rant

Previous post:

Next post: