Dick Pound seems to have a prescription for dealing with the lambasting that certain organizations have been taking during various doping cases in the past year: Let the ADAs shoot back.
An Agence France Presse article appearing in a number of places quotes Pound as saying that WADA is considering relaxing restrictions that bar agencies like USADA from commenting on ongoing cases. Pound’s rule change would allow anti-doping agencies to fire back whenever they believe an athlete or the athlete’s representatives have made false claims.
“If something is completely nonsense where someone is challenging evidence by saying there is no reliable test for X and there is, then it would be nice to be able to say the test is reliable,” Pound said on Monday.
It sounds reasonable enough, except when you consider how it is that athletes who are involved in anti-doping cases come under the media spotlight. Usually, it’s because someone involved in the anti-doping process said something to the media. The Floyd Landis case is a perfect example of this.
As rumors swirled around about a postive doping test at the 2006 Tour de France, Pat McQuaid, head of the UCI, spoke of a “worst case scenario.” His comments effectively leaked Landis’ name. Later, McQuaid said he spoke out because he was afraid someone at LNDD would leak the information first.
LNDD, of course, is part of France’s anti-doping agency, the AFLD. These are people who, by the rules, are supposed to maintain athletes’ privacy. But in the Landis case, the rumors that were flying by the time McQuaid spoke were indication enough that someone was speaking out of turn.
People like Mr. Pound piled on, adding high-impact quotation after high-impact quotation. It wasn’t long before Landis’ name and reputation were completely dragged through the mud and trashed. Contrast Landis’ case to the Gatlin case. No one heard a peep about Gatlin until the case was in its final stages — months (not days) after the supposed infraction occurred. Gatlin was afforded at least some of the privacy and due process that Landis has never had.
And loudmouth heads of international federations or global anti-doping bodies were nowhere to be heard. Given the public embarrassment Pound took for defending Ben Johnson back in 1988, you’d think he’d be jumping up and down with glee when an American runner got busted for doping. But no, Pound said nothing for months. Perhaps he didn’t even know the case was going on. (Not likely, but perhaps.)
From day one, Landis has been subjected to trial by media, with some of the loudest voices coming from the anti-doping establishment. To try and salvage his reputation and name, Landis has had to fight back in public. What would you expect? That he’d just lay down on the tracks and allow the anti-doping machine to run him over?
Had this case been handled properly to begin with, and were there a fair system of adjudication, we’d all be none the wiser. Floyd Landis (and others like him) would only suffer the punishment for doping if found guilty. But today, an athlete accused of doping is punished through all the attendant bad publicity and trial by media long before his or her case gets heard.
So, to allow the anti-doping agencies to comment further is not only unwise, it makes the drubbing an athlete would take before being found guilty even worse.
The best thing that WADA could do is to strictly enforce their own privacy rules, and provide a fair system that respects athletes’ rights to due process, not allow the anti-doping agencies to get drawn into a verbal pissing contest every time a doping case is being conducted. Of course, this means real reform to the system, which Dick Pound is unlikely to do in his remaining months as world doping czar.
But Pound should consider this: Even though his term as czar will come to an end in about 6 months; historically, czars have been overthrown. How much abuse will athletes take before they revolt? If Dick Pound has his way, the revolution may come sooner. Than again, perhaps that would be a good thing.
MyTwoCents’ comment yesterday has me thinking. He said, “…when it believes athletes are making false or misleading statements about an ongoing probe.” I am not a lawyer (just married to one, LOL) but the use of the word statement (or a word of similar meaning) begs a question here.
People shoot their mouths off all of the time in the press — aka their *opinion.* If Floyd or any athlete shares their comments on DPF or in a daily paper, isn’t that considered sharing their opinion, their personal view of the case or test, or making a statement? I think of statement as something you give under oath, your on-record, official, in writing testimony. Anything else is your opinion, no matter how outrageous or wrong others may think it is.
Looking at Pound’s quote from above:
“If something is completely nonsense where someone is challenging evidence by saying there is no reliable test for X and there is, then it would be nice to be able to say the test is reliable,” Pound said on Monday.
Doesn’t this happen *all the time* in the medical field? Some doctors feel a certain test or procedure is reliable or necessary, and others don’t. They are allowed to give their opinions — often contradictory, which drives us, their patients, crazy — of said tests in medical articles or on TV, and the AMA isn’t coming after them. This gets a little messy when, in their professional capacity, they’re making misleading statements that could harm someone’s health, but this is not that type of situation.
To make the point, when Floyd says the test is unreliable, most people of common sense know he’s not speaking as a lab technician or a doctor, and take it as his opinion. It is up to us to follow up on that, and see what actual scientists and doctors say or don’t say (hello Mr. UCLA lab tech, and Dr. Arnie Baker!). I notice Dick Pound has not directly challenged their statements as professionals, at least not yet.
Sorry for going on and on. Blame it on the caffeine or lack of sleep. Or both. 🙂
I should say this more often, but thanks Rant, for speaking my mind, and doing it so well! (Not to hold any claim over your ideas, mind you, it’s just that they get me saying “Yes!” more times than Meg Ryan in a deli…)
Debby,
Good points. I hope that it was good caffeine, like Peets Major Dickason’s Blend. One of my all-time favorites, from America’s best coffee supplier (IMHO). 😉
Owlie,
Thanks. I think that’s the first time my writing has ever been compared to that Meg Ryan scene in the deli. The funniest line, to me, was Estelle Reiner’s (Rob’s mother) when she said, “I’ll have what she’s having.”
– Rant
Wishful thinking out loud:
WADA (or a centralized professional bicycling authority) is made responsible for all out-of-competition testing.
Individual race organizers are made responsible for their own event testing.
If an athlete fails a WADA test the athlete is innocent until the end of the appeal process and can participate in any competition during that time.
If an athlete fails a test during competition then they’re thrown out of that competition. No appeal.
The athlete can appeal in civil court any positive result during an event but only after the event is over.
The athlete can appeal in civil court any WADA positive result.
Rant: I agree, what a dumb idea on Pound’s part. He doesn’t need to relax the rules — he breaks them whenever he feels like it. Remember the Wired article — virgins, Harley’s, ‘roid Floyd? If that isn’t commenting on an ongoing case, what is? His most recent comment, “If something is complete nonsense” is more of the same. We all can fill in the blanks and know that he is talking about the Landis case and trying to link Landis with phrase “complete nonsense”.
Jennifer Hughs piece yesterday underscores what many of your readers have already said — namely, the mainstream media are often manipulated by pro’s like Pound. It’s sites like yours where people come to get well considered reporting.
In a way, who cares what Pound says as long as we have Rant? While Floyd has suffered tremendous damage by Pound’s manipulation, more and more people are “on to him”. You should take great satisfaction in having a hand in that.
Steve,
The best satisfaction is knowing that people are willing to open their minds and look at the whole picture, rather than a poorly-reported version common to many in the mainstream media.