Springing Leaks All Over

Check out the latest CyclingNews, and you’ll find an article about three “non-negative” results from this year’s Giro d’Italia. Two of the results were from Italian riders who tested positive for salbutamol, and who may have therapeutic use exemptions for the drug. It’s the third result that’s most interesting, as it involves an unnamed Spanish rider who may have a result that indicates the use of synthetic testosterone — or not. The article suggests that the result is for an elevated level of testosterone, but no details are given.

Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re thinking, “LNDD does it again. They leaked more results.” But that would not be the case. The leaks came from one of two possibilities: The UCI or the Italian Federal Sports Medicine anti-doping lab in Rome. The impression the article gives is that these are results from A sample tests, not verified by B sample analysis. And interestingly, the Spaniard’s additional testing will be done by the anti-doping lab in Barcelona. TBV asks some interesting questions:

Are these “non-negatives” T/E or CIR related? It is proper for a lab to outsource it’s confirmation IRMS testing if they do not have the capability. Rome can do IRMS on it’s own — Dr. Botre, the director, is the “Independant Expert” for the Panel in the Landis case. Does this mean Rome’s machines are down for maintenance like UCLA’s were earlier this year?

This is quite the turn of events, isn’t it? None of the riders involved, according to the article, appear to be the top finishers in the stage race. Still, it’s disturbing that any information was released before the B samples or the TUEs were verified. And it looks like another violation of the standards WADA-accredited labs are supposed to follow.

As TBV notes, Dr. Botre is also currently serving as the independent science advisor to the Floyd Landis arbitration panel. If the source of the information was someone in the Rome lab, that draws into question whether lab personnel at any lab actually believe they must follow the rules. More likely, however, is that the leak came from inside the UCI. And that raises the question of whether the UCI is willing to follow the rules requiring confidentiality or not.

Perhaps they believe that such rules only apply when it’s convenient, and not when they wish to show how effectively they’re fighting doping. Leak a few results here and there, and the media will think you’re doing a great job, right?

This, of course, is exactly the kind of thing that caused the Landis case to blow up so publicly. It was Pat McQuaid, himself, who effectively leaked Landis’ name to the press. Sure, split hairs and say he didn’t mention Landis directly. Any reporter worth his or her salt knew how to read between the lines last year. The “worst case scenario” comment said it all. And now, it may well be that someone at the UCI (McQuaid, perhaps?) has done it again.

Pity the poor soul who gets fed to the wolves this time. At some point, his name is going to make it into print. It shouldn’t happen, of course, unless the B sample backs up the A sample’s results. Call me a cynic, but I’m guessing it will happen before then.

Abdicating Responsibility

In the past, I’ve encouraged readers to write their elected officials with their concerns about USADA and their practices. When I did, I got replies from several officials. One, a Senator, wrote me back that there was no pending legislation involving USADA — three days after the latest budget including the appropriation for USADA had passed. Thanks for getting back to me in a timely manner, Senator. Did you bother to ask any questions about their appropriation? I didn’t think so.

And my Congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), was also kind enough to write back to me. His response was along the lines of, “I don’t really want to get involved in this matter. Take it up with USADA if you have any concerns.” Thanks for the effort, sir.

But the response that takes the cake, as far as I’ve heard, is the one that VeloGal got from Zoe Lofgren, which said:

According to the USADA , it is “the independent anti-doping agency for Olympic related sport in the United States . It was created as the result of recommendations made by the United States Olympic Committee’s Select Task Force on Externalization to uphold the Olympic ideal of fair play, and to represent the interests of Olympic, Pan American Games, and Paralympic athletes.” The only governmental connection the USADA has is that the U.S. Congress has recognized USADA as “the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States .” The U.S. government, however, does not provide any funding for the USADA , nor does it have oversight power over this independent agency.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

USADA receives approximately two-thirds of its annual budget via a pass-through appropriation to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. What does this mean? Simple: Congress approves (or not, their choice) the appropriation that passes to USADA as a Federal grant. They have full power of the purse strings. They can fund USADA, or they can choose not to fund USADA. And if they do fund USADA, they can choose how much, and what strings are attached. And that means they can exercise oversight. Period. It’s taxpayers’ money. We, the taxpayers, should have a say in where it goes and how it’s spent.

So Representative Lofgren (or more likely, one of her staff) copped out by saying there was no connection between the Federal government and USADA. In 2005, there were about 7.5 million connections, in the form of dollar bills. That grant comes from all of us. Our Representatives and Senators can, and should, look into how our money is being spent. And if the answers aren’t satisfactory, the funding should be cut off.

I’m sure there’s some folks in New Orleans who could use the help getting back on their feet, instead.