What USADA Can Learn From The Australians

For those who haven’t been following the Ian Thorpe story, an interesting couple of items have appeared in the Austalian media over the last few days that also have some bearing in the Floyd Landis case. In one story, John Coates, the president of the Australian Olympic Committee points a finger at an unspecified European lab as the source of the leak about Thorpe’s unusual test results.

Coates also happens to be the vice-president of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and denies that the CAS was responsible for the leak, after Australian Swimming officials had suggested the CAS was a possible source of the information.

Coates told The Daily Telegraph that the leak shouldn’t have happened, and that:

“Ian Thorpe’s not a cheat. I have absolute confidence in him, he’s an athlete of the highest integrity. I have the fullest confidence in him and the outcome.”

Coates did not identify the lab that he suspects, however. What is known is that ASADA officials contacted some outside experts in order to get their opinions about the meaning of Thorpe’s test results from May 2006. Most likely, some (or all) of those outside experts are associated with other anti-doping labs around the world. It’s not clear how much information the outside officials had, for instance, whether they knew Thorpe’s identity.

Apparently, L’Equipe’s source knew enough about the case to identify Thorpe as the athlete involved. And apparently, that person was willing to divulge the information to the reporter, in spite of rules to the contrary. Hopefully, when all is said and done, the source of the leak will be found and held to account.

While the first story doesn’t directly affect the Landis case, the leak of confidential information in an unfinished case is a disturbing similarity, which may lead some to conclude that the leaks came from the same place. We don’t really know enough about the leaker in the Thorpe case to make that conclusion, however. All we can conclude is that L’Equipe’s reporter is very good at finding people who are willing to break the rules and dish dirt about various people’s anti-doping test results.

Without the Thorpe story being broken by L’Equipe, other information about how anti-doping agencies handle irregular test results wouldn’t have come to light. In another story comes the information that ASADA’s approach to investigating Thorpe’s result is not unusual. In fact, a number of athletes have been asked to answer why they showed unusual testosterone or related hormone findings before the agency went on to determine whether or not a doping violation had occurred. According to the Adelaide Advertiser:

A NUMBER of high-profile Australian athletes have been asked to explain elevated testosterone levels – but their cases have been kept confidential and no action taken.

In a significant development in the Ian Thorpe drug investigation, The Advertiser has learnt the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency has issued warnings to star athletes over high testosterone levels.

No action was taken in those cases after sufficient medical evidence was presented to legitimately justify the high readings

Thorpe has been asked to explain an elevated T/E ratio and a high level of luteinizing hormone. Luteinizing hormone is commonly used to drive ovulation in women, according to the article. It goes on to say:

The questions over LH and Thorpe are the principal concerns for drug testers in Thorpe’s case.

“You don’t usually associate it with males but over the last six years, LH has become available in a synthetic form,” [Dr. Peter] Larkins said.

“But in Thorpe’s case that could well be naturally driven and this is a man who’s different to normal. He is an exceptionally talented athlete and to be that good, you have to be genetically different and gifted.”

The way ASADA is handling the Thorpe case (and has handled similar cases) is a significant departure from how USADA/WADA/LNDD have handled the Landis case. In Landis’ case, the initial results of his T/E screening tests appeared to be high. But on subsequent investigation, the reason for the elevated ratio was found to be an abnormally low epitestosterone reading.

At that point, prior to doing further analysis on Landis’ urine sample, the lab and the anti-doping agencies, using the Australian model, would have looked into what might have caused the abnormally low epitestosterone reading and given Landis a chance to explain the result prior to announcing an adverse analytical finding. (In fact, this is similar to the old approach when the International Olympic Committee was leading the anti-doping charge.)

This is a radically different approach to the one LNDD, WADA and USADA followed, but one that balances the need to catch and punish dopers with the need to determine the truth of what happened. And in the Australian approach, athletes who’ve been able to successfully explain their results have not been tainted with the label “doper,” or had their reputations damaged, or their career prospects shattered.

We all know how the Landis case has played out. The lab immediately performed the CIR/IRMS tests, producing results that at the Australian lab or UCLA would not have been declared a positive result. (And it’s worth remembering that UCLA was the lab that developed the CIR/IRMS testing methods for testosterone, epitestosterone and their metabolites, to begin with.) The sensationalized manner in which the story broke made it clear from the start that the interest at LNDD, the UCI and WADA is not in determining truth or being fair, it is in railroading anyone who runs afoul of those esteemed agencies.

Travis Tygart, USADA’s counsel who is prosecuting the Landis case, has said in the past that the anti-doping agency’s goal is to find the truth. And yet, the manner in which they have dealt with the Landis case makes it appear that truth is not their goal so much as carving another notch in their six-shooter. If determining truth is really USADA’s goal, and ensuring that athletes are treated fairly by the anti-doping system, they would do well to follow the Australians’ lead and change the manner in which they investigate abnormal test results and alleged doping infractions.