Truth is Stranger than Fiction Dept.
You just can’t make this kind of thing up. Oscar Freire and Julian Dean suffered minor injuries in today’s stage of the Tour when they were struck by some small calibre bullets (alternately describe as pellets in this article). From what I gather, they were hit on the descent from today’s Category 1 climb. As Aladair Fotheringham reports in The Independent, the last time riders were attacked in the Tour, it happened in the same area.
Eight years ago, after a stage won in Colmar by the French idol Laurent Jalabert, an enraged spectator drove his car through the race barriers into the finish area.
The spectator had been denied access to Jalabert by race security so opted to take the area by force, injuring four people before he was arrested. The Tour used the winner’s podium as a makeshift ward before the injured were rushed to hospital.
Other attacks on bike races include fans throwing pepper at cyclists during a Tour of France in 1999 and a British holidaymaker hurling rocks at cyclists during a Tour of Spain – which earned the Briton a police-escorted trip on the next ferry back to the UK.
Fotheringham points out that it’s not always spectators attacking the cyclists.
Riders attacking the public is not unknown either: when protesters stopped a stage of the Paris-Nice bike race in the 1980s, Bernard Hinault got off his bike and punched one of them, who hit the deck. The race continued.
Presumably, none of this happens too often.
Vindictiveness, Thy Name WADA
… Or, Eight is apparently not enough.
Seems that the legal eagles at the World Anti-Doping Agency have nothing better to do than to contest a judgment that actually falls within their own rules, thus spending money that might be put to better use for such things as developing better testing protocols. Yesterday, WADA filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, seeking a review of the penalty imposed on Tyler Hamilton after he tested positive for the testosterone-precursor DHEA in February.
After the positive test, Hamilton admitted that he’d taken an herbal anti-depression supplement that contained DHEA, which is a banned substance. Hamilton has struggled with depression over the years, and in a collosal lapse of judgement, took the Mitamins supplement in the hope that it would help alleviate his condition.
After he admitted responsibility, he chose to accept whatever punishment that WADA imposed. The agency, in an uncharacteristic bit of leniency, chose to give Hamilton an eight-year suspension, which is on the low end of what should be meted out for a second offense.
According to VeloNews.com:
In June, Hamilton signed an acceptance of sanction form and USADA agreed not to pursue the case further.
At the time, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart said the agreement was enough to ensure that Hamilton would not participate in competitive sport again.
“In the sport of cycling, eight years’ ineligibility for a 38-year old athlete is effectively a lifetime ban, and an assurance that he is penalized for what would have been the remainder of his competitive cycling career,” Tygart said in June.
According to recent revisions to the WADA Code, penalties for a second doping offense can range from eight years to life. The revisions give anti-doping officials a degree of latitude when considering factors such as an athlete’s cooperation, age and other factors.
Tygart told VeloNews on Thursday that the eight-year agreement was a reasonable outcome of the case, particularly considering Hamilton’s age.
A WADA spokesman, offers this by way of explanation for the agency’s actions.
“A full legal consideration of this case pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code shows that the applicable sanction for a second offence of this nature (in combination with the athlete’s first offence) is between a minimum of eight years to a lifetime ban,” [WADA spokesman Frédéric] Donzé wrote in an email. “Given that the eight-year sanction was the result of an agreement between USADA and the athlete, WADA considers that it warrants scrutiny from an independent tribunal. WADA has consequently appealed the agreement reached on a national level to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.”
The sanction imposed by USADA seems reasonable. Well, given what the possible sanctions are, handing him punishment on the low end seems in keeping with his offense. It’s not like he’s going to come back and race professionally at the age of 46. Heck, if cyclists routinely competed professionally into their 40s, Greg LeMond might not have retired yet. (Well, if it weren’t for the small matter of mitochondrial myopathy that he claimed to be suffering from back in the mid-1990s, that is.) And Lance Armstrong wouldn’t be making a comeback — yet.
Hamilton’s attorney told CyclingNews.com:
“WADA’s insistence on a lifetime ban against Tyler is a vindictive, personal and ruthless attempt to destroy a man who suffers from a serious illness, has ended his career, and has already accepted the penalty imposed upon him,” said Hamilton Attorney of Record Chris Manderson.
…
“There is no reasonable basis to have the maximum penalty imposed upon Tyler Hamilton for taking an herbal anti-depressant that happened to contain DHEA,” he said. “Tyler has been diagnosed with and is battling clinical depression, an illness which many people suffer from, and which took the life of his grandmother and has afflicted his mother and sister.”
Manderson was clearly unimpressed with WADA’s handling of the announcement. The attorney highlighted WADA’s announcement questions the actions of one of its own members in the settlement.
“Even worse, WADA has stated that the eight year sanction ‘warrants scrutiny from an independent tribunal’ because ‘it was the result of an agreement between USADA and the athlete’, as though Tyler and USADA had somehow colluded in wrongdoing by agreeing to a sanction within the acceptable range under the WADA code,” he added. “WADA did not even notify Tyler nor myself of its intent to pursue this action; we learned of it through the media.”
There seems to be no good reason for this exercise in “judicial review,” other than to waste money and impose even further legal fees onto Hamilton. Since WADA has the resources to mount this challenge rather than focusing on more important matters, perhaps they could spare a few Benjamins to pay USADA’s and Hamilton’s legal fees, too.
But that’ll never happen. Right?
Enough is Enough?
Eagle-eyed reader Mike G. sent me an interesting link. Responding to remarks by French sports minister Roselyne Bachelot, Lance Armstrong said:
“Enough is enough. This is ridiculous. … [E]nough of the (outcry) in the media.”
Armstrong is apparently reacting to a story regarding an incident that occurred in Andorra that recently appeared in L’Equipe.
According to French sports daily L’Equipe, a UCI official drank coffee with officials from Astana in Andorra last Saturday and didn’t test the riders for nearly an hour.
“There was a little bit of avoidance going on,” Bachelot said Thursday. “I hope it won’t happen again.”
Big Tex sees the hand of politics in Bachelot’s comments, saying that his remarks are “slightly political.”
“Those are political statements, and they help to get attention – and perhaps it reinforces their commitment to the fight against doping,” Armstrong said. “But again, the facts are the facts.
“We are controlled more than anybody else. We are never positive. Our biological passports – compared to anybody else – the quote-unquote ‘clean teams,’ I will put them side by side every day of the week.”
Whatever the case may be, if Ms. Bachelot believes that Astana has violated any rules, he would be better served to go through the proper channels and file a complaint, rather than turn this into a media-fueled pissing contest.
I’ve Got to Admit It’s Getting Better, It’s Getting Better All the Time
Another link that Mike G sent, although this article was written over a week ago, it also bears a bit of discussion. As of this writing, it still holds true that no one (so far) has been accused of doping at this year’s Tour. John Leicester of the Associated Press, offers his opinion as to why this Tour is cleaner than years past. I think Leicester kind of mashes up some of his facts, but still, his conclusion seems pretty solid:
… the evidence suggests that cycling’s long-tarnished image is due a degree of rehabilitation and that those fans along the Tour route who shout “all dopers” — are wrong.
If things keep going the way they are, we may see fewer high-profile doping scandals in cycling this year. At least, it would be good if we did. Something’s happening. Either the cheaters are getting better at avoiding the tests, or the tests are getting good enough to discourage the cheaters. Or perhaps a bit of both.
And finally…
Sorry to hear that Levi Leipheimer had to withdraw from the Tour after breaking his wrist in a crash yesterday. Bike racing is a cruel mistress. It’s a shame to see him heading home before the race ends.
In other Tour news, Heinrich Haussler of the Cervelo Test Team put on a heck of a show today, winning today’s stage with plenty of time to spare. And keep an eye on the youngster who finished third today. Brice Feillu may be the Great French Hope. A few years from now, he could be a real serious contender for the overall victory. If he does win the Tour someday, he may be the first French rider to win cycling’s biggest race since Bernard Hinault donned his last yellow jersey in 1985.
No, really, this is it…
Readers who are within driving distance of Phoenix, Arizona have a chance to rub shoulders with cycling “superstars” Floyd Landis, Rory Sutherland and perhaps a few other members of the OUCH presented by Maxxis professional cycling squad at an event on Saturday.
Regarding Hamilton – you need to remember that Hamilton has angered a lot of people in cycling. The conventional wisdom (and I have no reason to doubt the conventional wisdom in Hamilton’s case) is that (1) he blood-doped, (2) he was given a number of warnings before he was finally accused of testing positive, and (3) he fought the accusation as hard as anyone had ever done before (arguably, only Landis fought the system harder than Hamilton did).
WADA was not vindictive in the Hamilton case. WADA is vindictive, period. They believe that they are the underdogs in a relentless fight against doping in sports, and they believe that they are on the side of right and truth against the forces of evil and darkness. In their view, you’re either for them or against them, and Hamilton is against them. You cross WADA at your own personal peril.
Hamilton will have to swallow the longer ban, not that it matters, since even the shorter ban forces him into retirement. It’s one additional piece of humiliation for Hamilton to cope with, as he tries to cope also with his depression, the loss of his marriage and who knows what else. Sure, WADA didn’t have to add to Hamilton’s woes, but this is their standard operating procedure.
Regarding the Leicester piece, is anyone else troubled by the idea of attempting to validate the EPO test using unknown samples? Apparently the testors assumed that samples from 1998 would be largely clean but did not in fact know that the samples were clean. Nor did they have anyway to independently test said samples besides the test procedure they were trying to validate. So they were surprised that most of them tested dirty, but once over their shock, it seems they came to the conclusion that their test was good and almost everyone in 1998 was doped.
Admittedly, Leicester may have left a lot out, but attempting to use samples whose status in regard to what you are testing seems to me to be very unscientific. How do we know if the results obtained bear any relation to the actual truth if we do not know what that truth is and do not have any other way to determine the truth? Suppose the tests had come back that all the 1998 samples were clean, would that indicate the test was good and the Tour was clean, or that the test was flawed? Nor do we have any way of knowing whether or not the results that were obtained actually show that 1998 was a very dirty year, or that the test results were way off? Other than the fact that many people are pre-disposed to judge the Tour and hence to judge anything that supports that position as being gospel, however reliable.
Now it may in fact be the case that 1998 was dirty and it may well be that the test in question is good, but how do we know based on this information?
Is it my imagination, or can we now assume the TdF has conquered its PED problem? No news at all about any positives at all for 2 weeks.
I guess the ends justified the means? Or…do I hear a shoe being held above the floor?
William, of course. You cannot verify a test by trying out the tests on samples when you don’t know whether the samples are positive or negative. Leicester said that the labs had trouble finding clean urine to test back in 1998 … as if urine is scarce! The labs have “blank” urine pools that are presumed (probably correctly) to be clean … and of course any of the lab technicians could pee into a cup and test their own clean urine (assuming that they’re not ALL on drugs themselves). The only reason to test an old stored urine sample taken from an athlete is to screw around and make trouble.
8-0, the athletes that want to cheat have learned how to do so without getting caught by the current tests. The tests aren’t all that good, and the biological passport is not all that good. It’s likely that the cheaters cannot cheat as egregiously as they were once able to cheat, and that’s a good thing, but there’s no reason to assume that we’ve got fewer cheaters now than before.
On the subject of cyclists who strike back:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/caravan-gone-wrong
This one doesn’t usually make it into the Tour guide issues. Maybe it should.
William,
About testing, validating a procedure is always similar: do tests with known samples then tests with unknown samples.
For exemple: a car is tested in factory, then on factory track and finally the car is driven on real road.
The retesting of 1998 and 1999 samples were the final part of the validation process!
Today we know that it’s not strange to have found 80% of 1998 samples positive by EPO tests. That was a confirmation of Festina affair and of the confession done later by riders like Riis, managers or soigneurs!
Hey Rant,
Just ‘reminding’ you that the French Minister, Bachelot, is ‘Roselyne’ aka Madame…
(And I linked to your Friday round-up)
Good article, mine’s late due to Fulcrum wheel problems that prevented me from being at Verbier… sigh…
ZEN
Jean:
Testing a car on test track and also on the road is quite different than testing a drug detection test on unknown samples, at least in my opinion. Testing unknown samples is problematic because you have no way of knowing if the results you obtain are correct or not. At least scientifically. Sure, you may suspect, based on other evidence, that the peleton was heavily doped in 1998, and perhaps it was. But there is little scientific basis to confirm that. Statements by riders, etc., may be motivated by other things than telling the truth, besides, no rider, manager, etc., was in a position to know for a fact what was going on outside his own team.
William, it’s even worse than you’ve said. The EPO test was validated on recently provided samples. It was not validated on older samples frozen in a lab and stored under undocumented conditions for a number of years.
EPO testing performed on long-frozen samples is scientifically meaningless, absent validation testing performed on positive and negative samples frozen in a comparable way.
It is normal to test with many different kinds of samples if they have, that is to test the behaviour of the process within its limits and eventually oustide.
Computer science is a good exemple, first software are delivered to computer geeks then to a limited real users. The computer geeks use oftenly correctly the software but they are not doing stupid thing difficult to predict that crash the sofware or the system.
I am pretty sure that scientists know what they are doing.. the results have probably been questionned: is the test correct? state of samples? what is wrong? Is it the reality? and so…
There is a lot of possibilities to check their results, for exemple it’s not difficult to have a look at the hct levels of the riders. How much EPO used outside of hosptital? …
ZENMud,
Ooops! I’ve corrected that now.
Liggett junkie,
Thanks for that link. Interesting bit of Tour history. Sad, too.
Larry,
Regarding Hamilton, it kind of strikes me that he’s become a guinea pig for the ADAs twice now. In his first case, the intial test procedures were for a threshold test (that is, if more than 5% of the cells were “foreign origin” a positive result would be declared). Through judicial review, WADA got that changed to a “yes/no” (a/k/a Boolean) test. If any foreign cells — even one — are found, then a positive result is now declared. There’s a whole post (or even a book) in explaining political forces within the ADAs pushing for one interpretation of the results over the other, and it’s a good illustration of how politics plays a role in science and the application of science.
With this second go-round, they’re again going the judicial review route. This time, it appears that they want the general precedent to be that a second offense results in a life suspension, regardless of the flexibility they put in their own rules. And regardless of the circumstances surrounding either a first or second suspension. A part of me wonders whether they’re really going after the suspension they would have liked to give Hamilton the first time, for daring to question the science and for fighting that first case, when WADA, et. al., would rather he just folded his tent and walked away and never returned to cycling.
eightzero,
The cynic in me believes there’s a shoe dangling somewhere, waiting to drop.
Regarding lab testing…
Eventually, in developing any test, you need to try it out on some “unknowns” from “the real world” to see if it works. Perhaps that’s what the folks at LNDD were doing … or were trying to do? Just a bit of food for thought.
Rant, there is no conceivable reason to thaw out and test old urine samples that are not known to be positive or negative as part of the process of validating a test to be performed on new urine samples. There’s nothing useful that can be learned about the test from taking such an action. Even if you DO feel the need to try out the test on “unknowns from the real world” (and I would question the soundness of the lab’s validation procedures if there IS a need for a real-world test), the thawing out of long-frozen urine samples is not a “real world” test of a procedure to be performed on new samples. Moreover, science requires that lab tests be verified against objective criteria. What were the objective criteria used by the lab in trying out their test on old frozen urine samples?
The conclusions drawn by the lab (and much of the rest of the world) was NOT that there was something wrong with the test, but that the test was sound and that there were an unexpectedly large number of doping cyclists. That may or may not be a valid conclusion, but it is a conclusion that assumes (rather than evaluates) the validity of the test.
Regarding Hamilton: sure, there’s a possibility that Hamilton did not blood dope. No test is perfect. However, the case against Hamilton was very strong. Hamilton’s scientific defense was based on the possibility that he had unique blood chemistry and could flunk the blood doping test without actually blood doping. If this is the case, then Hamilton should also have flunked the blood doping test at every race he entered after his comeback. It’s always seemed to me that Hamilton could have proven his innocence in a controlled scientific experiment, where he would be placed under observation for a period of weeks (to assure that he was not blood-doping) and periodically tested for blood doping. If he continued to fail the test, that would have told us something.
If memory serves, Hamilton had numerous warnings from the ADAs that they were suspicious of his blood test results. The biggest warning, of course, was when his “A” sample tested positive at the Olympics (Hamilton’s “B” sample could not be tested owing to a lab screw-up, so Hamilton was permitted to keep his Olympic medal.) Honestly. Any sensible human being (PARTICULARLY a human being who was not blood doping) would have reacted to these warnings in some reasonable fashion. Hamilton chose to ignore the warnings.
I feel badly for Hamilton too, but it’s hard for me to avoid the conclusion that he brought much of this on himself.
Larry,
Good points on the test development. I’ll retract that portion of my previous comment.
It does appear that Hamilton ignored the warnings. What I haven’t seen is whether he was given anything more than a vague warning, (“We have tests that aren’t coming out the way we expect them to.”) or a specific warning (“We have blood tests that appear to indicate you’ve been blood doping…”). And, on the surface, your logic on failing future tests seems pretty solid. But in regards to the threshold vs. non-threshold interpretation of the data, there must have been some reason for originally pegging the test at anything above 5% “foreign origin” vs. the standard of any presence of a foreign cell or cells is an indication of doping. I’d like to know more about the justifications for each of those standards, and the percentage found in Hamilton’s samples.
From what I read, Hamilton’s percentage found during the Vuelta was extremely low, much lower than the 5% cutoff. But it’s all academic at this point. WADA has their blood-doping standard, via judicial review, and they will soon have another standard for second offense punishment, via judicial review. I’d be truly surprised if the CAS rules against WADA’s request. So in the future, anyone caught on a second offense — no matter how minor — will be out of his/her sport for life.
I think it’s a bit of a charade, putting in the appearance of flexibility on the sanctions. WADA should just be honest about their intentions, write the rules as they see fit, and then go forward. Writing rules and then using judicial review to justify the use of the more extreme punishments is a waste of everyone’s time and money — including their own. But methinks there’s a political component to all this, as successfully prosecuted cases make it look more like they’re vigorously enforcing the rules. And it justifies the requests for more money from those who finance the operation.
Rant, according to the CAS decision, UCI held several meetings with Hamilton and members of the Phonak team in 2004. At these meetings, Hamilton was told that his blood checks showed an abnormal profile and strong signs of possible manipulation. He was warned that he would be closely monitored and that the UCI was validating an anti-doping test to detect a homologous blood transfusion. At one meeting, the UCI presented test results to Hamilton that were said to be proof of blood doping. It’s hard to imagine a more explicit warning than the one Hamilton received. In fact, it’s hard to believe that the UCI would have given any athlete a warning this explicit. It’s almost as if UCI was warning Hamilton that he needed to cheat more covertly. I think Jean C would say that in the Hamilton case, the UCI (at least at first) seemed more concerned about protecting the athlete, and less about enforcing its own rules. In this case at least, based on what I’ve seen, I’d agree with what I think Jean C would say!
One of Hamilton’s arguments was that the blood doping test was supposed to meet a “5% objectivity criteria”. I don’t fully understand this criteria, but it has something to do with detection limits. The CAS found that WADA had never adopted such a criteria, and that there was considerable scientific basis for a lower criteria. Of course, I have not studied the Hamilton case in depth, and Hamilton’s scientific arguments might be stronger than what one would understand by reading the decision.
Larry,
I can’t imagine a more explicit warning than that. And, by that account, it would support the point of view that the UCI (at times) has acted to protect the riders, rather than enforce its own rules.
The scientific arguments are something we only get a smattering of in the CAS document, compared to the fully fleshed out arguments that can be found in all of the documentation for Landis’ case (and I would suspect the full scientific arguments were also on view in the full transcripts, etc. of Hamilton’s case). I’ve seen some scientific articles which suggest that some of the criticisms made by Hamilton’s side have a fair amount of merit, and that the test used doesn’t adequately account for some very possible natural occurrences of mixed populations.
While the popularized “vanishing twin” characterization of Hamilton’s defense sounds ridiculous to many eyes and ears, there are some related conditions that are neither ridiculous nor impossible, nor even all that unlikely. One of the biggest problems is that there appears to be no reliable data on how often those related conditions occur, which means that for the test used in Hamilton’s case, there’s also no way to know how often it comes up as what we might call a “false positive” when the results are applied to athletes via anti-doping tests.
Given the records of Hamilton’s case that are available, it’s hard not to draw a conclusion that Hamilton was blood doping in 2004. Of course, if Floyd Landis hadn’t pursued his case as openly as he did, and if all we had to go by were the written AAA and CAS decisions, and only those decisions, most people would say the same of Landis.
Rant, good points all.
One problem with doping tests is that they must be validated by testing on a population sample. The sample may or may not be representative of athletes like cyclists, and it cannot possibly account for all of the natural human variations that might not test true. The best possible tests would be based on methods already in common use in medicine, since the ADAs would have the benefit of our real world experience outside of drug testing.
I’m no expert on the Hamilton case, but my understanding is that the test relied upon in the Hamilton case IS in common medical use. The test is used in connection with bone marrow transplants, for example. Not only is the test familiar in medicine, but also problems associated with mixed blood populations are familiar in medicine.
The test is the Hamilton case is quite different from the test in the Landis case. To my best knowledge, there’s no medical reason (apart from drug testing) to measure human carbon isotope ratios, which as you know is the basis for the Landis testing. We have no medical experience (apart from drug testing) with these tests, and the little we know about natural human variations in carbon isotope ratios is based solely on the testing performed to validate this doping test. (Moreover, these doping tests do not themselves agree on what carbon isotope ratios we can expect to see in a human sample.)
Of course you are right, I only know about the deficiencies in the Landis testing because so much of the Landis case was made public. More information might reveal that the Hamilton drug testing was every bit as deficient as the Landis testing. To be certain, the ADAs have done little to earn our trust.
I am (pleasantly) surprised at the lack of doping stories out of this years tour. There are several possibilities, none mutually exclusive:
1. The peloton is now clean as a whistle. By golly, they got the message loud and clear, and this is now pure sport! No more dope, no more cheating, it’s everything we dreamed of; or
2. The peloton is now a whole lot smarter, thanks to the blood passport. Micro dosing that’s undetectable, some new “cream” or rub” from a BALCO-offshoot, and no test for any of it exists. Open season, everyone does it, and the omerta makes for a safe haven for everyone; or
3. The ADAs have screwed up by the numbers. They’ve tested exactly the wrong riders, dropped samples on the floor, frozen blood, or who knows what. They’ve lost their “experience” because they had to lay everyone off at LNDD because of the downturn in the world economy, all the samples are in a freezer awaiting analysis; or
4. Bwahahaha! We’ve nailed the biggest prize of all – LA’s samples are all full of stuff no one knew we had a test for, and we’re finally gonna nail the son of a bitch; we’re just waiting for the right moment, because we really, really hate him.
When will the truth be revealed? Like the number of licks in a tootsie roll pop, “the world may never know.”
eightzero,
Of course, there’s possibility #5. The ASO paid off the lab rats at LNDD to not find anything, because they are sick and tired of negative publicity ruining the Tour’s good name (never mind that doping in the Tour is a “tradition” that goes back decades.)
And even, possibility #6. The ASO has instructed L’Equipe — the usual breaker of all things doping at Le Tour — that no doping stories shall run in their pages or on the web site, for similar reasons to #5. 🙂
Larry,
Good thoughts there. I’m cooking up a response, but I have to get to work soon, so I won’t be able to write it all down until later.
Uh, oh. Di Luca.
As far as TdF goes, could be that the lab is backed up. It seems like a lot of samples are being collected, and the lab may not be able to keep pace. So like with Di Luca, we might not find out about TdF doping until the race is long over.
Cub would appear to have the correct answer with his possibility #7. It took 2 months for the labs to process DiLuca’s positive. Meaning that we may not hear about Tour de France positives until late September?
Yup; Cub has answered the daily double correctly! A variant on #3 I think.
DiLuca*
Makes a load of sense. ASO is protected dring the Big Spectacle, and can claim they now have a clean race to watch. Who cares about it 2 months from now? The ad revenue will be paid, all is well. The dancing monkey is alive and well! The ADAs know they have the motherlode of buried treasure in the vault, and can Use Their Experience(tm) to nail the big kahunah when the time comes. If not, the mere threat of busting out a sample when new tests are announced (whether or not they work at all) will suffice for their ends too.
But man, how much are you hating life if you’re DiLuca? You doped and still lost. And what is Menchov thinking right now?
CERA is an EPO with a delayed effect, we can perfectly see it with Di Luca!
As pointed earlier by cyclismag, riders’ performances were still high on last GIRO, so we can only be surprise ti have just one rider caught.
8-0, it’s not at all clear that ASO would want to delay the announcement of positive test results. Last year, when ASO essentially ran the testing, we had plenty of positive results announced during the Tour. The biggest nightmare for ASO is to find out after the race is over that the winner tested positive (Landis).
In any event, ASO had nothing to do with the delay in the announcement of DiLuca’s result (I don’t think — the Giro is run by another company, is it not?).
One must still wonder why it took 2 months to get a CERA result on DiLuca when it took just days to get CERA results in last year’s Tour.
Jean C, it’s a shocker that ANYONE was caught using CERA. How dumb do you have to be to use CERA now that the test for CERA is well known?
ASO owns at least part of the Giro, IIRC. Maybe CONI requires them to use a non-LNDD lab? ASO’s first choice is to take action before the race ends. That’s what they did to The Chicken. “Withdraw him now, or you (rabobank) will never race an ASO event ever again.” Then they shot down Astana in 2008 to show they were serious. No one will ever question ASO’s resolve to enforce their demands. Note Rabobank is still in ASOs good graces, even though the Chicken won his suit against Rabobank. They even paid him damages.
If that is not possible, ASO would prefer the DQs happen on page 14 of the French Tabloid L’Equipe, long after sponsor pictures are taken in Paris. It is about The Money.
ASO also owns part of the AToC; in 2010 the latter will be held during the last week of the Giro.
Hey, I got an idea how the Tdf can save a bunch of time and money on testing.
1. Wiggins is well known as the poster boy for clean cyclists.
2. Per our bon ami Jean, we know it is utterly impossible for a clean cyclist to beat anyone who dopes.
3. Therefore, you only need to test those who are ahead of St. Wiggins.
As of today, that is only Kloden, Armstrong, the Schleck brothers, and Contador. Not many tests to do afterall.
Larry,
Probably Di Luca used some russian or chinese CERA… Some people are saying that he could have used an old blood bag with CERA, maybe his doctor had forgot to pour it last year.
So not so dumb but a mistake of the chain of custody ;D or of the supplier!
8-0,
Since Armaury have accepted suspicious riders on TDF you can name their newspaper a tabloid.
Rasmussen won his suit but the internal report of the bank clearly was not in favour of the team and of Rasmussen.
And hey, just for entertainment purposes, there’s this:
http://msn.foxsports.com/boxing/story/9839636/Barnett-fails-drug-test;-Fedor-needs-new-opponent
I particularly like the part where the CA commission refused to tell the athlete what the test was positive for. Looks like someone else likes to Use Their Experience(tm).
Another off topic rant: I am amused by the speculation regarding Contador’s tactics that appear to be contrary to team unity. Think back a few weeks and months, and put yourself in AC’s shoes. First, the team brings in an unpaid LA, clearly not in a “support” role. Then the sponsors stop sending paychecks. Just before the start of AC’s tour defense, Vino claims “his team” a claim not refuted by any of AC’s employers, after they clearly demanded a Kazakh rider be put on the team ahead of a superior Horner. Brunyel then pulls a Sarah Palin and quits in a huff. Sure, the report is “AC has a contract to ride for Astana through 2010.” But this is the same employer that failed to pay for some period of time. That’s not a material breach of contract?
And AC is supposed to wait on a climb to be sure LA and AK make podium spots? Right.
eightzero,
I have a different take on the Astana riders. It’s a tough situation for sure, but they have all acted pretty damned professionally.
Today LA marked several attacks to AC’s benefit. Later, when he left Wiggins, he didn’t bring anyone dangerous to the team’s ambitions up with him. (LA showed both strength and team play with his timely accelerations yesterday and today)
AC’s attack on the Schlecks @ ~2k from the final summit dislodged Kloden and that didn’t appear to be a good move. However, we don’t know if Kloden had whispered into his radio that he was fried or not, so AC taking an experimental dig might not have been so unreasonable? In the end, the Schlecks proved up to the challenge of staying with AC, but couldn’t put any time into him. As for AC, he very professionally didn’t take part in pulling down to the finish. If the Schlecks were to put time into AC’s team mates, he quite rightly made them do the work for it.
In the heat of battle, the Astana guys made some quite reasonable and highly professional choices today.
In other news:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simeoni-suspended-four-months
I’m neither enthusiastic about the guy as a rider or a person, but he’s getting shafted. He earned the jersey and should be able to do what he wishes with it. If his federation doesn’t like it, pass it on the the runner up like they do in beauty pagents.
The soup is full of itself and the riders take the brunt.
Larry,
To get back to what I alluded to this morning, the thing that concerns me about the tests being used in Hamilton’s first case is not the test itself, or even it’s accuracy or reliability. Maybe I’m willing to cut the commercial medical testing labs more slack, but those tests are run many more times, on average, than any of the anti-doping tests. And they have regulatory hurdles to climb before they’re allowed for general use. So, from that perspective, I have more confidence in the testing methods themselves.
What concerns me is the interpretation of the data, though. Flow cytometry (which is used to detect homologous blood doping and many other things) is a well established procedure. But how do we know for certain that the interpretation of the data that the anti-doping labs use to declare someone positive for blood doping is the best, or only, explanation for the data acquired from the testing? I’m not sure that’s been so well established. And, because this isn’t a commercial use of the test, it’s not subject to the same kind of hurdles before use. It may be well validated, it may not. From what I’ve seen, there is a tendency to rush new anti-doping tests into use before the science behind the tests is fully validated (think IRMS/Carbon Isotope Ratio testing, for example).
I think that Hamilton raised some of these issues in his defense, but since the bulk of the transcript, etc., is not public, we can’t see how solid his side’s arguments really were versus how good the arguments on the other side were. Maybe the test, as applied to blood doping, is valid. Maybe not so much. There are some things that seem to be unaccounted for in the way the testing is currently applied, and that leaves open the chance that someone who didn’t dope will be busted for doing so. I can’t say whether that’s the case with Hamilton or not — not enough information to judge.
Doesn’t matter, in a sense. The ADAs have “validated” the test via judicial review. So, until a better, cheaper test comes along, it’s the one that will be used. And Tyler Hamilton — rightly or wrongly — will be known as one of the first athletes busted for blood doping by this type of testing.
Everyone,
I’ll be writing up some thoughts about Di Luca in just a bit. Interesting that it took two months for this to happen. I can only imagine what this bodes for the riders on the Tour. Suffice it to say that September will be interesting, and not just because of the Vuelta.
Jeff,
Since when did something like returning a jersey in protest become a sanctionable offense? I’m no fan of Simeoni, but that seems a bit over the top.
Recall Floyd’s description in “Positively False” of bitching about not being paid his salary and then being punished for it. Simeoni launches a very public bitchfest about being left out of the Giro, and he doesn’t expect the Powers to retaliate?
These guys need a union.
Rant –
Let’s put aside the possibility (which did not exist for Landis) that Hamilton might have proven his innocence by placing himself under surveillance for a month (to show that he didn’t blood dope for that month) and then testing positive under WADA’s flow cytometry test. With that put aside, I share your concerns.
There are two big issues with drug testing. First, by design these tests do not prove that an athlete doped. They prove that it is highly probable that the athlete doped, or looking at it another way, the tests prove that it’s highly unlikely that the athlete did not dope. As tests are performed repeatedly, at some point the highly unlikely WILL occur, and athletes will be falsely accused of doping.
Second, as you point out, no doctor relies on a single test result (even with “A” and “B” samples) the way the ADAs do. If I go to the doctor and get a bad test result, my doctor will repeat the test, and will look for other evidence to confirm the diagnosis revealed by the test.
There’s not much we can do to get around these limitations, or some of the other limitations you mentioned (like rushing tests into place to address new forms of doping). If we want an anti-doping regimen, we have to live with the possibility (a likelihood, really) of false positive test results. To my mind, this means that doping sanctions should be made much less severe and that the ADAs should tone down their rhetoric. If I ran an ADA, you’d see press releases like this:
“Larry the Lawyer announced today that cyclist Joe Topgear tested positive for SDD (super duper drug) at the latest stage of this year’s Tour of Power. Based on this test result, it is likely but not certain that Topgear actually used SDD. Topgear will be given a Manny Ramirez style suspension, where he will not be permitted to race for two months, after which we will welcome him back with open arms and distribute a Topgear bobble-head doll to all of his fans.”
Larry the SuperLawyer existed already in the 80’s, that resulted to Festina,…
Many times, things are cycles; sometimes too weak then too harsh. The levels of the punishment should be adapted with the whole situation.
Jean C, I get that just about no one agrees with me about reducing doping penalties. Still, it’s a virtual certainty that our anti-doping system will report false positives, no matter how well it’s run. I guess that’s just a problem that athletes (and fans) have to live with.
Hey! I gave you CREDIT earlier for your relentless criticism of UCI. Don’t I get credit for giving you credit?
Well, Larry, I guess I’m “just about no one,” because I agree with what you said regarding penalties. And it seems that we have a rare convergence of opinion between you, me and Jean C on that count — if I’m following Jean correctly. The punishment should definitely take into account the circumstances of the infraction, and I believe that until the science really is fool-proof, the penalties in general should not be so severe as they currently are. Of course, if the labs were to suffer similar penalties for infractions of the rules, that could even things up a bit. Two breaches leading to a “lifetime ban” from testing? Hmm. Maybe that would force the labs’ performance upward, for fear of losing their license to test. (And, no, I’m not kidding about that, either.)
This from the Cyclingnews.com regarding the Chicken’s return:
The UCI noted that, while it will not oppose the return of the two riders, it “strongly rejects the attitude displayed by Messieurs Vinokourov and Rasmussen; despite committing serious violations of the anti-doping rules, they have rejected any form of reparation by refusing to contribute to the costs of anti-doping procedures.”
Yeah. UCI is pissed they didn’t get charged $100k like He Who Must Not Be Named In France.
Sorry Larry,
I had read your post rapidly but could not respond at that time, and then forgot it.
But you don’t have to give me credit to have my credit. Even if we can disagree on some points we are not really so far, maybe because I am an retired elite athletes I know better how “we” react when the rules are too weak.
Rant,
My point is more about the current state of doping in sport and its effects that ban clean athletes of the wins, so force most of them to dope. So the penalties should be enough harsh to dissuade them to jump on the dark side.
Of course, I would prefer to have different sanctions linked with evidences and clues: there is a big difference between Moreni and Landis, (even if we disagree about that specific case, its an exemple): Floyd was caught with T but a lot of clues indicated that he was blood doping too, so no need to reduce his sentence, Moreni who was appaently just using T could have received a 6 month ban.
About baning Lab , that is imossible, would you do the same thing with police? Of course not. Like police there is competent entities that have to control and test them. Don’t forget, who would ban a lab? Could we have clean labs accused unfairly by some sloppy Vrijman without fool-proof evaluation of labs? We need someone to ban the sloppy Vrijmanand someonelse to verify someone… and so
Jean,
Although I would use a different example than Landis (you and I don’t agree on what the evidence shows in his case), in general I agree with your concept. More flagrant examples of doping should get greater punishment than accidental exposure (Alain Baxter, for example) or the use of a technique that gives limited results, at best.
Regarding banning the lab, it’s a bit extreme, I’ll grant you that. The idea behind it is the age-old question, “Who watches the watchers?” While we need to trust in the labs’ work, there should also be consequences for when the labs violate established rules and protocols. Of course, there need to be clear rules, standards and protocols, consistently implemented and followed, so that we can have faith that an adverse finding at one lab would result in an adverse finding at any of the WADA-accredited labs.
Jean C: “About ba[n]ning Lab , that is im[p]ossible, would you do the same thing with police? Of course not. Like police there is competent entities that have to control and test them. Don’t forget, who would ban a lab? Could we have clean labs accused unfairly by some sloppy Vrijman without fool-proof evaluation of labs? We need someone to ban the sloppy Vrijmanand someonelse to verify someone… and so ”
You have hit the nail on the head. In the US, we call such a competent entity that control and test police a “court.” Courts require stringent proof. When the police do not provide it, the accused are acquitted, and the record expunged. In a sense, we do ban police. An alternative was tested in the 1930’s. I saw a documentary about it, but it was hard to follow – the actors all wore funny brown uniform shirts, and the dialog was in German.
There is no comparable entity to check for sloppy lab work in the anti-doping movement. We need a *real court* that *understands science* to evaluate the competency of labs. This is routinely done in the testing and manufacture of drugs for pharmaceutical marketing. Only when a lab meets the requirements of the regulatory agencies are their analytical products acceptable for drug approval. We routinely insist on high levels of proof in the use of scientific results. Why is it different for athletes? Simple: because the athletes have no power to change the system that is structured to keep them subservient to their corporate masters.
A thought occurred to me this morning while I was out on my ride. We know that in cases like Marion Jones, the relay teams she was part of were DQed, even though there is no evidence that the others doped. Makes sense, they definitely benefitted from her enhanced abilities, even if they didn’t know of it.
But what about a cycling team? Should the TdF winner in 2010 be disqualified if one of his domestiques is busted for doping? (I deliberately choose a future event so as to not be bogged down with questions about whether or not any recent winner was doping.)
It is conventional wisdom that a GC contender benefits from a strong team, and in general, past history bears this out. But such benefit is more indirect than the benefit a relay team receives from an improved performance in one of the legs. Might DQing the winner be a bit unfair, especially if there is no good evidence either the winner or the team management didn’t have any knowledge of the doping, or at least such knowledge can’t be proved?
Then I thought “to what extent might there be some version of a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule in effect”? A team manager might not specifically order a domestique to dope, but also might not do anything to discourage it. But suppose that, if in any race, if one or more team members are found to have doped, in addition to whatever penalty the doping rider receives, the entire team’s individual and team results are cancelled. No suspension, just DQed for that particular event.
If so, then team management as well as team members might be more concerned about doping. So our mythical 2010 clean winner would be concerned that his win might be lost because of some action by a supporting rider. Other riders on the team would also be PO if this were to happen. It just wouldn’t be a case of Dominique Domestique, who finished in 150th place, getting suspended with little if any damage to the team, now such would be potentially very damaging to the team.
I know from my personal work experience, that is a company and its management can be held liable in some manner for the misdeeds of one employee, companies go to often considerable lengths to preclude such behavior. During the course of my working life, sexual harassment became one form of misbehavior for which a company can be held liable, in some cases even though it had little if any knowledge that such behavior was going on. One result is I have been subjected to numerous training about sexual harassment, and in some cases work rules were put into place in attempt to reduce possible complaints which.
Along with this idea, I too am in favor of a more graduated approach to sanctions: lesser penalties for first time violators, especially if there are mitigating or extenuating circumstances (which in some cases should not be any penalty at all except perhaps for a DQ from a particular event), and progressive penalties for repeated and/or more severe violations.
8-0, whoa!
First of all, they have courts in France. I have every reason to believe that the French courts “control and test” the French police every bit as much as U.S. courts control and test U.S. police. Actually, I hope that the French courts do it better, because in my limited experience the U.S. justice system does little to monitor and control the activities of law enforcement. The testimony of a police officer is given GREAT weight in nearly every courtroom in the U.S., and few defendants have the wherewithal to challenge the apparent authority of police evidence.
When it comes to monitoring the activities of U.S. police labs, our courts do almost nothing. You talk of “real courts” that “understand science” – care to name one? All of the “real courts” in my experience rely on a “battle of the experts”, just like in the Landis case, producing a comparably poor level of scientific understanding.
I think that Jean C is essentially correct: there is a difference between a violation of law by an ordinary citizen and a screw-up by a police officer. True, the U.S. has a limited “exclusionary rule”, where evidence illegally gathered by police may be excluded in court. So if a police officer fails to advise a criminal suspect of his constitutional rights, this may lead to charges being dismissed against the defendant. It does not lead to the conviction of the police officer. It may not even lead to his suspension. It would certainly not lead to the dismantling of the police department.
This is pretty much life as we know it. If I’m audited by the IRS and they find something wrong, I can go to jail. If they find nothing wrong, this does not require someone at the IRS to go to jail. If I’m strip-searched by a sadistic guard at the airport and they find nothing on me, I don’t get the right to strip-search the guard!
As far as the testing of alternatives, you need not look all the way to Germany. I also saw a documentary about it, where the dialog was all in English, and I also had trouble understanding, the setting being in some American-controlled part of Cuba.
(Sorry, 8-0. I don’t like it any more than you do. But you and I live in a country that sanctioned the imprisonment without trial and torture of thousands of prisoners in a manner illegal even under our law. If we ever possessed the right to lecture the citizens of any other country about the rule of law, we’ve lost that right.)
If you are looking for entities to control the activities of doping labs, these entities already exist. They’re the same entities that control the activities of the labs that test your blood samples, and mine. It’s a scary thought, how poorly this system seems to work overall. As for the protection afforded by regulatory control of pharmaceuticals, I remember sulfanilamide, and thalidomide. There are plenty of critics who think that the U.S. FDA ALSO has its corporate masters.
Just a reminder that I remain just as outraged as ever about the loaded, Catch-22 system put in place by the anti-doping authorities. And I agree that athletes would be better off (if only slightly) in front of a jury, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (or its French counterpart). I just don’t idealize courts, or U.S. courts, the way some of my friends do. I think that a change in the rules would do more good than a change in the identity of the rule-enforcers.
William,
Though I don’t like the prospect that an entire team could be eliminated from a race’s results based on the misbehavior of a single rider, I’ll grant you that such a rule would exert a whole lot more peer pressure and, I suspect, be more effective at eliminating doping than the current rules. I wouldn’t suspend a team for an extended period of time in this type of system, just disqualify their results from the race. That has repercussions with the sponsors and fans, and too many escapades like that would lead to a team’s demise. For the individual who doped, the suspension should be commensurate with the crime.
In other words, there has to be a clear set of rules and a graduated system of punishments for the riders, rather than the draconian system currently in place. While at times the draconian punishments give the appearance of besting the dopers, I often wonder if that’s because they become better at beating the tests.
No system is perfect, though. And a system where teams are DQ’ed for the bad behavior of Dominique Domestique might also give rise to very organized and sophisticated team-based programs geared at beating the anti-doping tests.
There are no easy answers, much as I wish there were.
Larry: “As far as the testing of alternatives, you need not look all the way to Germany. I also saw a documentary about it, where the dialog was all in English, and I also had trouble understanding, the setting being in some American-controlled part of Cuba.”
Well said. Touche’.
The only real courts I refer to are the ones not composed of hand-picked arbitrators that have a vested personal interest in the outcome of their cases. I’m ok with the battle of the experts. We have a huge investment in federal and state courts, yet we require athletes to give up their rights to avail themselves of it in favor of “arbitration.”. Just because you’re a bike racer, you get treated like an enemy combatant? Yeesh.
In the end, I’ll bet you and I agree. Are our courts the perfect answer? Nah. But they are all we have. The alternative is watching someone make sausage. 🙁
I like your strip-search analogy. I was standing in line at a TSA checkpoint when I noticed a sign that promised me that, should I be selected for “enhanced screening” (i.e. a extra special Terry-esque pat down) I could request that this be conducted by someone of my own gender. Great. The same federal government that enacted the “Defense of Marriage Act” that seems to deny people the right to do certain things in the privacy of their own homes with someone of the same gender (?) now actually requires me to be groped by a federal employee of the same gender. Go figure.
8-0, good point! I wonder if homophobes can request an “enhanced search” by someone of a different gender?
For better or worse, a good number of cases once handled by courts are now decided in arbitration. It is NOT taken as a given in the legal community (at least, not where I live) that judges and juries reach better decisions than arbitrators. True enough, the courts are an essential part of our democracy, and an important pillar in the system (such as it is) that protects our freedom. But given the overwhelming demand for dispute-resolution, we ALSO need creative and effective ways to settle disputes out of court, if only to preserve the ability of the courts to hear and decide our most important disputes. Arguably, the world of sport could be one area in society capable of fairly resolving its own disputes.
Yes, you and I agree. The present anti-doping system is neither fair nor just. I personally tend to focus on flaws in the WADA rules, and the WADA science. Others (like Judge Hue — so you’re in good company, 8-0) focus on the identity of the folks that enforce the rules. In the end, there is no realistic prospect that the ADA system will be changed to afford greater protection to athletes.
Again, well said Larry.
And lest we forget, we now have the recent US v. Herring to guide us. Even the exclusionary rule as applied to protect constitutional liberties has been…explained:
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/exclusionary_rule_us_v_herring.shtml
Mere negligence by the police is now OK. I guess they can now Use Their Experience(sm) where necessary.
8-0, that (sm) cracked me up.