A Cautionary Tale

by Rant on June 8, 2007 · 16 comments

in Doping in Sports, Floyd Landis, Swimming

Or: Even When You Do Everything Right, You Can Still Lose

Imagine this: You’ve done everything right, at least as far as you know, and yet you still wind up caught in the claws of the anti-doping machine. Worse, you lose what you fought so hard to achieve. Admiration. Respect. An Olympic gold medal.

Never could happen, you say? Oh, but it did. To a young 16-year-old swimming sensation from California’s Bay Area in 1972. In Munich. At the Olympics.

Now, for most people who remember the 1972 Olympics or who learned about it in school, two events stand out. One pleasant, the other grotesque. The one story would be Mark Spitz and his seven gold medals. The other, of course, is about the terrorists who killed 11 Israeli athletes and trainers.

But there’s another story, the story of Rick DeMont. In 1972, Rick DeMont was a certified swimming star. He held the world record in the 1500-meter freestyle, and was a very good middle-distance swimmer, too. DeMont suffered from asthma since early childhood, but with the help of medication had been able to compete successfully for a number of years prior to the Olympics. And never once did he run into any problems related to his medication.

In preparing for the Olympics, DeMont filled out a medical history questionnaire sent to him by the US Olympic Committee. On it, he detailed his medical history, including the asthma and the medications that he had been prescribed — Marax and Actifed — to deal with both the asthma and certain allergies. And he returned the form to the USOC, thinking all was well.

In the middle of the night before the 400-meter finals, DeMont woke up wheezing. So he took Marax, an anti-asthma drug, to ease his breathing. The following morning, he took another pill. That night, DeMont raced in the 400-meter freestyle finals. He wasn’t expected to win. But it was an exciting race, right down to the wire. As DeMont told Steven Pegram, in an article on the US Olympic Team web site:

“No one took it out really fast, everyone was pretty cautious and that just played into my hands,” said DeMont, known for his ability to negative split races (swimming faster in last half of a race). Last at the 100-meter turn, DeMont moved up into sixth at the 200-meter mark. As his splits improved, he leaped into second at the 300-meter turn, only trailing Australian Brad Cooper.

“At the 350, we flipped even and I thought I can get this guy on the last lap,” DeMont recalled. “He was a lot stronger than I thought he would be. We were toe to toe the whole length.”

DeMont dug his head down and out-touched the Aussie by a mere .01 seconds to win the gold medal.

“I skipped one breath in there and I think that gave it to me,” he said.

Afterwards, like all medalists, DeMont had to submit to a drug test. Then, he went back to the Olympic Village to celebrate his victory. The celebration wouldn’t last very long. Two days later came news that he’d flunked the drug test. His sample showed the presence of ephedrine, a stimulant that has been banned since the first prohibited list was drawn up by the IOC Medical Commission in the late 1960s. It turns out that Marax, the medication DeMont took, contained a small amount of ephedrine.

But DeMont had let US Olympic Team officials know that he was taking Marax, so what went wrong? It turns out, none of the team physicians reviewed his medical questionnaire, and as a result, the information had not been passed on to IOC medical officials. In between the time DeMont submitted his urine sample after the 400 and the announcement of his positive result, he had qualified to swim in the 1500-meter freestyle finals.

A meeting was held with IOC officials, and after the meeting DeMont continued his preparations. Only moments before the 1500-meter final, DeMont was pulled from the race, suspended from further Olympic competition, and the decision to strip DeMont of his gold medal was announced. DeMont was forced to return his medal in order to maintain eligibility for further international competition.

The IOC initially decided not to award DeMont’s gold medal to Brad Cooper, the Australian he’d narrowly beaten. But after a protest by Australian officials, Cooper was given the gold. Cooper’s time in the event is listed among the Olympic record times for the 400-meters, with the current record-holder being another Australian, Ian Thorpe.

In 1973, DeMont channeled the anger and disappointment he felt at Munich into a new world record. As Pegram wrote:

“Prior to the Olympics, I was powered by optimism, dreams, and desire,” [DeMont] said. “After that, I was pretty much just powered by anger.”

So much anger, that one year later at the World Championships in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, DeMont smashed the world record in the 400-meter freestyle, becoming the first swimmer in history to break the magical 4-minute barrier (3:58.18). The feat earned him World Swimmer of the Year honors.

In setting the new record, he beat Brad Cooper a second time. For a number of years after Munich, DeMont and his family fought to clear his name. It wasn’t until early 2001 that the USOC finally cleared DeMont.

“It was nice to be acknowledged, to be recognized, and for the truth to come out,” [DeMont] said. “It wasn’t just me. It was my coach. It was my family. Everyone had to live with this stigma.”

One week later, at an International Olympic Committee meeting, DeMont’s case came up for discussion. Despite the actions of the USOC, the IOC decided not to clear DeMont, or offer him any special recognition. They let the results of the 1972 race, as decided long ago, stand. Among the members of the committee discussing DeMont’s case were IOC members involved in the original case all those years ago.

The moral of the story: Even when you do everything right, the actions (or inaction) of others can still lead to a doping violation and cost you a hard-won victory.

For those who see a parallel to current doping stories: Let’s hope whatever the outcome of the Floyd Landis case that we won’t find out 30 or so years from now that, oops, someone made a mistake and that Landis didn’t really test positive after all.

As a side note, in researching this story, I ran across an interesting quote from Jacques Rogge, in an article by Alan Abrahamson which originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 2002:

“The IOC, I can say this, under my presidency, will be a witch hunter in doping,” Jacques Rogge, a Belgian physician elected IOC president last year, said recently. “Zero tolerance. Pushing relentlessly to test, and to catch the cheats. And we support WADA wholeheartedly.”

For those who’ve been observing the Landis case and other doping cases and called what’s going on a witch hunt, there it is. Dick Pound is, in fact, Witchfinder General, according to none other than M. Rogge.

Rick DeMont, by the way, went on to become a painter and well-respected swimming coach at the University of Arizona.

Mc June 8, 2007 at 10:24 am

Thanks for digging up this story. It is extremely relevant to our cyclist de jour. USADA and WADA must change.

snake June 8, 2007 at 10:37 am

Kudos Rant for recalling Rick DeMont. I thought of him too.

I was a high school swimmer in ’72 (decent but not Olympic material). I remember his story and photos in Life magazine to this day (“Winner by a Split Second, Loser by a Pill”). Me and my swim pals were completely disillusioned by what happened to him. Sadly things haven’t changed for the better. We’re still stuck with athletic overseers lacking in honor, compassion and reason.

Rant June 8, 2007 at 10:43 am

Mc,

You’re right. It’s a very relevant story.

Snake,

Back in `72, I was a junior high school student on our local AAU swim team. I watched all of the swimming events that I could. I don’t remember the Life magazine story, however. Unfortunately, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

– Rant

cam June 8, 2007 at 11:50 am

thank you, Rant. i remember only a fleeting bit from when it happened (i was a sleep-away camp and we didn’t have teles) and am now outraged decades later. how can things not have changed after all this time???

especially enlightening was this quote from Dick Pound:

“What the survey found was pockets of extremely brave athletes who have apparently overcome asthma. Canada, Australia, Britain and Germany were the countries mentioned. That is where they have an inordinately high number of athletes who appear to suffer from this condition but bravely put it behind them.”

i am so disgusted by that i can’t tell you. call me childish, but i can only wish that Dick Pound have a very bad asthma attack of his own sometime soon. then see if he has the bombast to make such an ignorant statement.

pelotonjim June 8, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Thanks Rant, When you have two polar visions of that Olympics Mark Spitz and the image of the terrorist standing on the balcony, you may push other memories to the background. Thanks for keeping it towards the front.

Ken Barbalace June 8, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Wow that was some good research and reporting. Kudos.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Mc June 8, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Rant,

Were there numbers or levels associated with the banned substance ephedrine in 1972? Or was it any amount was considered doping?

Thanks

Rant June 8, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Mc,

My understanding is that any presence of ephedrine, no matter how small, was considered a doping offense in 1972 (unless you had a medical exemption). I believe that is still the case.

– Rant

cam June 8, 2007 at 9:57 pm

you are correct about the ephedrine. Alan Baxter was stripped of his gold Medal in the 2002 Olympics for having a trace amount of methamphetamine in his blood. it was caused by a using Vick’s Inhaler purchased in the US which had slightly different ingredients than the UK one. it was appealed and lost. interestingly Catlin was involved in this case as well. there were calls for changes then, but no one listened.

also interesting to note is that Actifed (one of DeMont’s eds), even though still an over-the-counter drug, is now only able to be purchased in limited quantaties. it seems to contain ingredients that make it a favourite for illicit meth labs.

will June 9, 2007 at 4:14 am

witch hunt
–noun an intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence. — dictionary.com

So, how would the story have changed had his med records made it to the IOC?

Rant June 9, 2007 at 6:11 am

Cam,

Baxter’s case is a good illustration of the need for more rational rules. While doping shouldn’t be allowed, we need to build in more flexibility when it comes to incidental or minuscule exposure. A trace amount of methamphetamine (or a related compound, which I believe was what happened to Baxter) might not be enough to give anyone a performance benefit, large amounts on the other hand, might. Strict liability needs to be revisited, and in my opinion changed. Given all the possible ways a person could be accidentally exposed to a banned substance, athletes should not be punished unless the amount in their systems is enough to have a real influence on how they perform.

Will,

In DeMont’s case, it would have been the equivalent of a therapeutic use exemption. Assuming they allowed him to compete after being informed of his condition and the medications he was prescribed. Of course, if they were out to catch a big fish, a gold medalist in swimming would be a good choice, wouldn’t it?

– Rant

catherine June 9, 2007 at 7:13 am

Very apt comparison in your post on DeMont, for all athletes, not just Floyd. Although I am sure that there is quite a lot of illegal drug use going on in cycling, in light of the gross laboratory failings pointed out in Floyd’s hearing, it only leads one to believe they need a major overhaul of the whole testing system.

Thanks for the Google link on steroid use as well. Interesting information, especially since I am a nurse and a cycling fan. Did you check out the SI remix video on Floyd as well? What a bunch of goofballs.

eightzero June 9, 2007 at 7:15 pm

There is also the curious case of Andrea Raducahn (sp?), a Romanian gymnast at the Sydney Olympic games. She won the all-around competition, only to have it taken away when she failed her subsequent drug test. The drug on the list was not a “performance enhancer” per se, but a drug that could disguise other PED by blocking the known tests. The drug is common in cold medicines, and it was given to her by a coach.

OK, so the strict, zero-tolerance policy has to have this result. But the odd turn on this one is that after those games, drug testing technology improved to the point where that drug would no longer mask the PEDs, and it was removed from the list. So should her gold medal be returned? How about if there were still remaining “B” samples that could be retested ala Floyd’s LNDD samples?

IIRC, the Sydney Games also had the bizarre incident where the vaulting apparatus was *set up wrong* only to be discovered half way through the competition. And also IIRC, they had no way of annulling the scores of the competitors that had competed on the improperly set up equipment. How’d you like to train for years to have it wiped out in an instant like that? Ugh.

Julie June 9, 2007 at 9:12 pm

And then of course there’s Butch Reynolds:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=2866609

So what ever happened to the Honchar mix-up theory? I guess it would’ve looked desperate for the Floyd side to put it forward without more proof, but isn’t it still a possibility? Don’t the wildly varying numbers suggest it? Especially with what we’re hearing about Honchar these days. What I wouldn’t give to have Honchar’s B tested, and see if the numbers are similar to “Floyd’s” A.

Rant June 10, 2007 at 5:05 am

Catherine,

I found that SI Remix video. You’re right, they are a bunch of goofballs.

Eightzero,

One of the interesting things about the Landis hearings was the bit of testimony from Don Catlin regarding finesteride in another case. WADA calls it a masking agent, Catlin disagreed. Sounds like the “science” of masking agents is mostly whatever someone says — not based on any real science.

Julie,

I think you’re right, bringing Honchar into the mess would have looked desperate. And wasn’t needed. After all, if Landis’ defense wanted to make that a big part of the case it was only necessary to show that you don’t really know who’s sample was tested. They only need to show the mix-up, and not bring the other individual into court. But I would like to know how Honchar’s test results would compare to those of “Floyd.”

– Rant

Mc June 10, 2007 at 8:44 am

Thanks for stories of Rick DeMont and Butch Reynolds.

If restesting other athlete’s samples were on the plate, I would have like to seen the IRMS results on the 12 2006-TdF riders who had TUEs for testosterone. This might end the debate of 1 metabolite versus 2 or more as well as other anomalies.

Previous post:

Next post: