A story about (non) doping and the consequences of standing up to the powers that be.
Faithful readers of this blog will be familiar with the surreal story of Jeff Adams. If a stranger story in the annals of anti-doping history has ever occurred, I haven’t heard it. Yet. The Clifs-Notes version of his original story goes like this: Adams, one of the top competitors in paralympic wheelchair events, was assaulted by a woman at a Toronto goth bar a few years back, when she stuff some cocaine into Adams’ mouth. The woman had been bothering him for a while, and he had tried to brush her off, apparently to no avail. In her mind (maybe), she was trying to do him a favor and give him a little “pick-me-up.” But he wasn’t interested, and the pick-me-up was something that — had he been competing at an event — would have resulted in a doping suspension.
Flash forward to a competition Adams participated in not long afterwards. As luck would have it, he was selected for a doping control. The sample collectors didn’t have (or didn’t offer) a catheter for him to use, so he used one that he had with him at the time. A slightly used one, that turned out to have trace amounts of a cocaine metabolite from the incident at the goth bar. Not surprisingly, the trace amounts were detected during the drug testing.
Canadian authorities brought an anti-doping case against Adams, who lost the first round of arbitration, but ultimately won on appeal. You can find more complete descriptions elsewhere on this site, as well as in other places.
So what has happened to Jeff Adams since all that transpired? Well, he managed to qualify for the Canadian team that competed in Beijing in 2008. And he hasn’t competed much, if at all, since then.
Although Adams considers himself retired from competition, Canadian anti-doping authorities have continued to try to test him. Emphasis on the word try.
As the old phrase goes, “once bitten, twice shy.” In Adams’ case, that means he tries to hold the testers to the rules they are supposed to live by. One of which happens to be that they are supposed to supply clean catheters to athletes who need them. When you stop and think about this for a moment, it makes sense. The testers are (or should be) interested in getting as un-tainted a sample as possible. For most of the population, that means providing a sterile cup to pee in. For those who need catheters, the collection process requires (or should require) sterile catheters, too.
The question is: Whose responsibility is it to provide that sterile catheter? Under Canadian rules, it’s actually pretty clear. The testers.
In the past couple of years, testers have shown up to collect samples from Adams. When questioned about whether they would guarantee that their catheters were sterile, the testers apparently weren’t of the impression that they had to do so. Which led, in two instances to a stand-off between Adams and the testers.
As Adams’ attorney, Timothy Danson, said in a press release today:
“I’ve been involved in a number of high profile prosecutions against athletes, but I’ve never seen anything like this. In the middle of the drug test in question, I was on a speakerphone dealing directly with the anti-doping officials who were on site, specifically to make sure that our demand that they comply with their own rules would never be characterized as a refusal. To guarantee this, I directed Jeff to write on the CCES’ [Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport] supplementary report form that he was not refusing to take the test, which he did. Even in the face of all that, the CCES proceeded to charge and prosecute a hopelessly misconceived case.”
The long and the short of it is that Adams made clear to the testers that he wasn’t refusing to take the test, only that he was asking them to guarantee that the catheters they provided would be sterile. They wouldn’t, so the tests weren’t conducted.
After the second instance of this sort, Canadian authorities brought an anti-doping case against Adams, seeking a two-year ban from competition for refusing to cooperate with the drug testers. More puzzling, as Adams tells the story, is that he retired from competition in 2008, and the tests at issue were attempted in September and November of 2009.
“I really don’t understand why they’re still testing me. I haven’t raced since Beijing, I’m 40 years old, and I have absolutely no interest in ever racing again. The CCES is entirely funded by the Government of Canada, so it just seems like a huge waste of taxpayer money,” Adams said.
Once the whole matter came before an anti-doping tribunal, the arbitrator ruled in favor of Adams, finding that the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses was lacking. When costs were considered, the arbitrator awarded $40,000 to Adams as a contribution to his total legal bills of about $82,000.
“I’m not being critical of the award, and it’s great to get some of my money back, but I really struggle to understand how the CCES can live with themselves – they bungled two routine drug tests by not following their own rules, presented evidence at the hearing that was not credible and stuck an innocent athlete with forty two thousand dollars in legal bills.
If someone can explain to me how that’s ethical, or by any stretch of the imagination a win for me, I’d listen with open ears. The message is that even a completely innocent athlete has to expect to be damaged financially, if not ruined, if they go up against the publically funded anti-doping authorities. Unfortunately, under this regime, athletes just can’t win.” Adams said.
Kind of makes me wonder: Was the CCES out to get Adams, or was this just a case of bungled tests or and/or a misunderstanding of who is responsible for doing what?
If you’re interested in learning more about Adams’ latest case, follow these links:
- Background information about the case can be found here
- The full decision on the merits of the case
- The decision on costs
- Adams’ submissions and reply submissions on costs can be found here and here
Rant, I can’t get the links to work.
Larry,
My bad, I copied the links from the wrong PDF document. I found the correct links just a bit ago and updated them. Sorry about that.
I’m a little confused about this. If Adams is retired from competition, what hold does the CCES have over him? Since he apparently does not intend to compete again, a 2 year ban seems to have as much meaning as the ASO banning me from the Tour. Or did he drop $42k on just a matter of principle?
I don’t know what to make of this case. Honestly, it sounds like a case between clueless testers and an athlete that was seriously teed off. Did anything get accomplished other than attorneys getting fees?
The decision indicates that the Canadian ADA acted like a bunch of morons. Then again, it also seems that all concerned would have avoided a lot of grief if Adams had just provided the urine sample. The ADA showed up at the November test with catheters, the way they were supposed to; the testing procedure broke down over who was supposed to ensure that the catheters were free from contamination. I don’t know what either party was supposed to do about this. Presumably the ADA showed up with catheters purchased from the catheter store. There was no evidence that anything seemed to be wrong with the ADA catheters. There was no evidence that the ADAs could reasonably have done anything to ensure that these catheters were free of contamination.
Honestly, I don’t know the facts here. I’ve read the decision twice and I still don’t know the facts here. But this sounds like a case where Adams acted like a jerk (but within his rights) and pushed, and where the ADA (not liking being pushed) pushed back. From my limited encounters here with Jeff, I know him to be a good guy, and I can understand why all this struck a nerve, but I think Jeff’s attorney might have steered him towards a less confrontational path.
Allegedly (reference from Good Will Hunting), you can largely thank Dick Young, Esq. for setting up this mess and many others.
He is reported to be a primary author of WADA’s quasi anti-doping system/code/thingy that runs roughshod over devilish, unethical, ethical, & saintly athletes, without any particular discrimination…allegedly.
Now, the part w/o (much) sarcasm. This is what happens when a technically gifted attorney is charged by an evil bureaucracy (IoC, allegedly) to author a Code to protect their bottom line (allegedly) and he dutifully/skillfully supplies such a Code, which is devoid of meaningful checks and balances that would help mitigate corruption and manipulation by authoritarian entities (IoC’s & WADA’s evil minions, allegedly). Stack the arbitration deck and shop a national court that is anxious to rubber stamp stacked deck decisions, if forced to do so, and there you have it.
It seems to me that Jeff Adams is the victim of a system that has virtually nothing to fear from committing misdeeds, and I’m not talking about the minor, technical, nit picking variety. It’s clear they have little to fear when committing major, negligent, premeditated violations of their own policy. Thanks Dick!
This is a complicated story in some ways, but very basic in others, and I’ve had a couple of people make similar comments – “why not just do the test?”
First, to frame it a little, here is a quick synopsis from a backgrounder that can be found here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21818127/1%20Backgrounder%20-%20Timeline%20Adams%20v.%20CCES.pdf
++++++++
Jeff Adams and the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport CCES) have been in a dispute that dates back to May of 2006. Adams has been prosecuted by the CCES on two occasions, winning both cases, the first on appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the second in front of a single Arbitrator before the Sport Dispute Resolution Center of Canada (SDRCC).
In both cases, the CCES witnesses provided evidence that was either untruthful or not credible to the tribunals.
In the first case, the CAS exonerated Adams, finding him to be completely innocent, and without fault.
In the decision, they characterised him as being a person “of high character”. After the CAS decision, evidence came to light that contradicted the testimony of CCES witnesses Anne Brown and Joseph DePencier on a material point.
This triggered a $6.2 million dollar lawsuit that was filed by Adams against the CCES.
After the lawsuit was filed, and more than a year after Adams retired from competition, the CCES attempted to test Adams.
The first test was cancelled by the CCES and did not result in any allegations against Adams. The second test was also cancelled by the CCES, but allegations that Adams refused to take the test resulted in a “Failure to Comply” anti-doping charge being made against him.
The decision to assert the second anti-doping rule violation against Adams was made by Anne Brown, who would also testify as a witness in the hearing.
In the second case, Arbitrator Larry Banack rejected the evidence of the CCES witnesses Brown, Iheme, and Smyth as he found it to be not credible, and found Adams to be innocent of the charges against him, and the CCES case to be “without merit”.
++++++++
So the backdrop of this case is that the CCES (specifically Anne Brown and Joseph DePencier) witheld material evidence (the existence of a case of contamination of a catheter prior to mine) in order to convict me before the domestic tribunal, and in order to avoid a human rights code (Ontario) violation in the second, then Anne Brown was party to the decisin to assert the second anti-doping allegations against me, on evidence that the Arbitrator found to be “without merit”.
(It’s SUPER hard to get a judge to use those words by the way)
The issues that I raised in both attempted tests were not small things.
The first time they showed up without proper accreditation, and refused to show me I.D. – not “didn’t have I.D.” – the Chaperone (who wanted to witness the passing of the sample) actually refused to show me any I.D., or even tell me his name.
If a police officer showed up at your house to ask a few questions, but forgot their badge in their other uniform, would you answer the questions anyway?
The second time, they tried to reverse the onus of responsibility for whether the equipment they were providing was contamination free onto me – and overtly told me that “if there is a contamination problem, it’s on you”.
If you went to the hospital for a procedure, and the nurse practitioner set out all of the equipment that the hospital was providing, and told you that it was up to you to make sure that it was sterile, and that if it was contaminated that “it’s on you”, then contacted the doctor on call and came back and refused to confirm that it was the responsibility of the hospital….would you still let them go ahead?
The thing that bothers me the most is that instead of taking a step back and making the rules fair (they’re the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport after all), they’re clawing away.
They put in an “amendment” that didn’t require the re-adoption by the Sport Orgs – because according to them:
“Sport organizations are not required to re-adopt the CADP. The program’s revision rules (1.28-1.30) allow changes to be made providing there is stakeholder consultation and substantial agreement.”
The new rule is:
“1.35 Existing Law: The Code shall be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of Signatories or Governments. [Code Article 24.3]”
So according to WADA and the CCES, the rules shall be interpreted INDEPENTLY OF LAW.
Truth be told, I understand in a certain way – the law can really cramp a guy’s style….’speciallly if a guy needs to break it to do what he wants to do. WADA can’t drug test without contractually obligating athletes to set aside certain rights (which I’m fine with) – this doesn’t mean that they can trample them all wholesale.
Listen, the bottom line is that if there is to be no flexibility on the rules, then it cuts both ways.
They’ve convicted tons of people on the premise that the athletes must be “ever vigilant” and have to know the rules inside and out, so sorry, but this is for all those athletes.
They should have watched at least one of my races before they picked this fight – I won some races by being faster and fitter on a particular day, but I won a lot more times by just being the guy that gave up last.
Jello.
Jeff Adams –
It is terrific to hear from you again. Your case gets discussed here, a lot. Also, your post confirms what I’ve always thought, based solely on your posts, of course: you’re a rare and top quality human being. We’re lucky that you come here to talk to us.
That being said, I always speak frankly around here. I used to make my living as a lawyer, and back in those days I prided myself on doing everything I could to keep my clients out of formal legal disputes. Court (or arbitration) is one of the worst ways I know to spend one’s time. It’s rare for anyone to emerge from that experience feeling good about it.
So I DO look at your situation, add up the costs and wonder why you would put yourself through all this a SECOND time.
Agreed, no question about it, I’m not letting anyone into my house without the proper identification.
Also agreed, if the hospital tells me that it’s up to me to make certain that their equipment was sterile, I would walk away. But this is because (1) there is no federal or state law guaranteeing me a sterile hospital environment, (2) there is no way I can make this determination, and (3) the hospital DOES control whether their environment is appropriate for the practice of medicine. This is precisely where your case confuses me.
You ARE protected by a law making the CCES responsible for providing you with a contamination-free catheter. There’s nothing that the CCES representatives could have said to you back in November 2009 that could have changed their responsibility.
Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the CCES is not doing anything as complicated as running a hospital. Their responsibility is to provide your with a contamination-free catheter (paragraph 318 of the decision). There isn’t any practical way for the CCES to independently verify that a catheter is sterile. In practical terms, they can’t do anything more than you can do, or for that matter what a hospital could do: you buy the catheter from a reputable source, and you rely on the statement on the packaging that the catheter is sterile.
What I’m trying to figure out is what else the CCES was supposed to do that would have been worth anything to you. Suppose that the CCES representatives had sworn up and down that the catheter was sterile and that they were responsible in case the catheter was not sterile. What then? They clearly did not KNOW that the catheter was free of contamination, any more than you could have known.
This is why I don’t think that your case is like the case where I go to the hospital and they tell me to verify that their equipment is sterile. Honestly, if I go to the hospital and they tell me to verify that their equipment is sterile, I’m probably risking my health by remaining in that hospital. In your case, you were going to end up being offered the identical catheter no matter what the CCES representatives were willing to say to you.
So I’m left wondering: was this case simply a matter of principle to you? That you were willing to devote another 18 months of your life and tens of thousands of dollars simply to uphold the principle that the CCES representatives who do this testing must understand their responsibilities and your rights? If so, then I guess I should congratulate you, but also express the hope that this did not cost you too much.
Dear Mr. Adams, it is hard to know what to say except, have you ever seen Brazil, that masterpiece of modern cinema directed by Terry Gilliam? because you certainly lived it.
@Larry – It was a “principled” position to take for the case in one way.
I’ve spent all of my adult life working on equity issues for people with disabilities at a pretty high level, so putting another 18 months in isn’t that big a deal to me – as an example of the work I’ve done, I sat as Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Council that advised the Minister of Citizenship on the implimentation of the first legislation in Canada that codified a requirement for accessibility – similar to the ADA in the US.
I’d like to continue to do that kind of work, so on a personal (and in some ways professional) level, it would have been hard for me to:
a) do the test in the face of what I saw as a human rights violation, and;
b) back down from this fight.
On that same topic, I never did sport for the sake of it – I never wanted to cross a finish line first just to see if I was the fastest (or luckiest) that day. It was always with the idea that in getting to that finish line first or last, that I would learn things along the way that would help me become the person I want to be.
If I can share the lessons that sport teaches with kids when I speak at schools, or to business when I speak to corporate audiences, all the better.
I speak about growing up using a wheelchair (and with red hair), and how I dealt with bullying and stereotyping (to both kids and corporate audiences). One of the things that I talk about is how important it is to stand up to a bully without reacting in anger, and that although it’s an impossible task to always overcome every barrier that we face, that it’s really important to always having the courage to stand up to all of the barriers that we face (bullies being one kind of barrier, injustice to ourselves or others another).
So, I can’t in good conscience not stand up to a bully, or turn my back on what I think is an injustice, particularly if it stems from inequity or ignorance (or some combination of both), nor could I continue to work as a speaker and deliver these messages if my actions didn’t match up to my words.
Having said that, I’m no martyr. I had 6.2 million reasons to defend. If they had succeeded in convicting me of an anti-doping offence, it would have seriously damaged the civil case that is currently in the courts. And to put a fine point on it, I truly believe that any reasonable person would believe that the keystone cop-esque gathering of evidence, and the ham-fisted and ultimately bungled case against me was an attempt to do that.
My priorities are:
1. Get my money back.
2. Help other athletes.
3. Help the sport system live in the real world, where real law applies.
If for whatever reason I had to pick only one of the three, or two of the three, it would be in the order above.
Here is the time-line, which might help explain my most recent $82,000 decision:
May 2006 – allegations of anti-doping made by CCES.
Sept-Dec 2006 – Anti-doping hearing – CCES witnesses testify that this is the first time any athlete or sport organization has ever told them that a catheter could be contaminated.
June 2007 – McLaren finds me guilty.
July 2008 – CAS finds “no fault or negligence” on my part, and reduces sanction to zero, but still finds me guilty (thanks “strict” liability!) of an anti-doping offence.
Before the CAS, the CCES repeats assertion that this is a “novel” issue, and they had never considered the possibility of contamination. In asserting this, they avoid an Ontario Human Rights Code violation (the panel overtly mentions in the decision that they accept this position and that the CCES would have faced a violation had they not acted on such knowledge).
Anne Brown is the key witness. (Remember this name, it’ll come up again).
September 2008 – I race in Beijing – on the team is a guy named Colin Mathieson, who mentions to me that in 2004, he tested positive for Prednisone, but that he took a deal from the CCES to reduce his sanction to zero partway through the hearing, and that he told them that he thought the positive test was caused by a contaminated catheter.
Because he took a deal partway through the hearing (after the evidence of the catheter is adduced), there was no written decision, and because there is no sanction, there was no public disclosure.
Here’s the kicker – in order to reduce a sanction, in the WADA and Canadian Codes, there is a threshold issue – the athlete must prove how the substance entered their body (WADA 10.5.1).
Colin had no explanation for how prednisone got in his body, other than through contamination of his catheter.
So the CCES not only knew about the possibility, but ACCEPTED his explanation of contamination of his catheter to satisfy the requirement of 10.5.1.
October-November 2008 – I get my hands on the affidavit of Jeremy Luke, who testified in the Mathieson case, which provides documentary evidence that I need to make a case.
May 2009 – I file a notice of civil action in the Ontario courts.
June 2009 – I file a Statement of Claim for $6.2 million dollars against the CCES, the Government of Canada, and Athletics Canada.
September 2009 – For the first time (believe it or not) since my test in May of 2006, and a full year after my last international race, the CCES shows up at my house, late at night on a Sunday to test me, and refuse to show me identification. I tell them that it’s a clear violation of their own rules, and that they should contact their superiors and decide what to do. They tell me that they’re leaving, we fill out paperwork, and everyone is friendly.
Dan Trahn is the manager in charge of the test, no allegations are made, because according to the CCES in their recent media release, they cancelled it because their people didn’t have the right accreditation.
November 2009 – The CCES show up to test me again. This time, they tell me that I’m responsible if the equipment is contaminated. Again, I tell them that they are violating their own rules, and the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that they should consult with their superiors, and decide what to do. They tell me that they’re leaving, we fill out paperwork, and everyone is friendly. No mention is made of this being a “refusal”, and I write on the supplimentary form “This is NOT a refusal”, and tell the DCO what I’m writing down as I’m writing it down – the DCO accepts the supplimentary form, and still says nothing about it being a “refusal”.
This time, with Anne Brown as the lead, allegations are asserted. She signs the letter to AC telling them that the anti-doping offence will be prosecuted by the CCES.
In the hearing, she testifies that they didn’t cancel the September test because of the I.D. issue, but instead because I was behaving in a “threatening” manner, and made the doping control officers feel “unsafe”.
This was contradicted in cross-examination of the doping control officers who were there who said that I was “friendly”, and “calm and polite”, albeit “sarcastic at times”.
When asked if they ever felt “unsafe”, the answer was “absolutely not”.
When asked why the CCES wouldn’t have asserted an anti-doping allegation if an athlete had acted in such a threatening manner, the answer was that the decision had been made in the internal review process – when pressed to divulge how the decison was made, the CCES claimed “solicitor-client privilege”.
The arbitrator finds me innocent (again), and finds the CCES case to be “without merit”, and I’m pretty sure this is going to ultimately be helpful in the civil case, which makes the $82k an investment.
-Jello
Jeff Adams –
That’s an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent response. Thank you.
You’ve clarified my main question: you were fighting to uphold a principle, and not so much because the November testers were doing anything you could identify that might have jeopardized your health if you’d decided to cooperate. Of course, if the CCES doesn’t understand its responsibilities, then there IS a risk that the CCES WOULD act in other cases in a way that could jeopardize the health of athletes, or the right of athletes to fair and accurate testing. I agree, this is a principle worth upholding.
Jeff, I’m a funny kind of lawyer. Of course I’m aware of the many legal cases that have established significant rights and corrected important public policies. It’s simply my experience that the litigants pay a terrible price in these courtroom and arbitration conflicts, and I try to avoid them whenever I can. Whenever I can, I try to advance the interests of my clients through negotiation and consensual agreement. You mention the importance of standing up to the barriers we face, and I agree, but it’s my experience that most barriers can be overcome by meeting and reasoning together. I ALSO believe that it’s important to teach people that this is the best way to solve problems.
To be sure, I always try to negotiate from a position of strength, sort of a “speak softly but carry a big stick” kind of approach. I’m not THAT nice a guy. I like to win. Because I like to win, I prefer an approach that allows for a win-win.
This is where I have a problem with the model adopted by WADA and others to combat doping: it is a purely confrontational model. WADA’s brand of strict liability means that nearly all anti-doping cases effectively end when the lab finds a positive test result. WADA fights ferociously to render meaningless any discussion that might follow a positive test result. WADA is so adamant on this point that they would impose the same penalty on a habitual cocaine user as they tried to impose on you.
For an athlete like you that has grounds to challenge his positive test result, all meaningful avenues for challenge require confrontation. I don’t know anything about the Colin Mathieson case you mentioned, but my first reaction to his case is that I wish there were more anti-doping cases like that, where the authorities agree to drop the case (even though there was a technical violation of the strict liability rules) because the prosecution makes no sense.
Your dispute with CCES has probably progressed past the point where it can be resolved amicably. You’ll just have to fight it out. Perhaps this dispute reached the point of no return many years ago, when the powers that be refused to listen to your story that began with a strange night in a Toronto “goth” bar.
I wish you the best of luck, and I hope you check back here often … and not just when we’re talking about you.
Larry
Jeff:
Were you retired at the time this all was happening or were you still competing on occasion. My reading of Rant’s post seemed to indicate you effectively retired following the 2008 Olympics and hence my confusion as to why you were subject to testing. But perhaps we were still competing when they attempted to test you.
I was “effectively” but not “officially” retired – I hadn’t raced internationally since Beijing, and had raced only once domestically – n June of 09, at a race in Toronto just for fun – I was off the national team mailing list, not eligible for funding and not invited to any training camps.
To be fair though, I hadn’t (and still haven’t) submitted an official “retirement form”.
This is me being inarguably pig-headed about it, the retirement form was implemented about a year after the last time I raced – I had a back and forth with Athletics Canada where they sent me a retirement form in July of ’10, and told me to submit it – two years since they had pro-actively removed me from the training camp list and email list – I told them to take a hike.
Again, this is just me being difficult because at this point I can be, and I refuse to let them bully me even a tiny little bit – also the retirement form is in part an undertaking to never race again, without specifying at what level.
This was essentially them ordering me to sign a document that provided zero benefit to me, and me telling them to go fish…for no real reason beyond some satisfaction at not letting them tell me what to do anymore. I also want to reserve the right to race at local road races and so on, which the retirement form would possibly prevent me from doing.
To be clear, in September and November of 09, they absolutely had the right to test me – because I had raced in June of 09.
What they didn’t have the right to do was to keep me on the Registered Testing Pool (RTP) list of athletes in absence of a funding contract and in light of my not racing internationally.
That’s the other thing about “random” testing – it’s not “random” – it’s weighted – they have a bunch of different pools of athletes – Domestic, International, International RTP, and International RTP High Risk – we’re still trying to get them to tell us which pool they had me in when they “randomly” selected me in September of ’09.
One more thing we’ll hopefully find out in discoveries for the civil case.
OK, that makes it a lot clearer for me. You were still subject to their jurisdiction, although one certainly can argue whether or not you were really a big enough fish for all that effort.
There has been some speculation that various “random” testings are perhaps not so random and may be targeted. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. One suggestion is that perhaps riders in the TdF, for example, who don’t either win a stage or wear yellow, but still seem to be performing well, might have been the subject of “random” tests, and one does not have to come out on top having used PEDs. But there is also a possibility that some “random” tests have been aimed at athletes who have made problems for the ADA authorities or otherwise incurred official displeasure.
So in Canada, at least, you are either fully, completely, and irrevocably retired, or still subject to the authority of various athletic bodies? What if someone wants to get out of competition, perhaps to pursue a life, yet wants to leave the option to return at a later date?
It depends on who you talk to, and how you “retire”.
The official form is essentially an undertaking to “permanently” retire, but it also reads from “national competition” – but the French version of the retirement form (it’s on one page in both English and French, as are a lot of our domestic documents) doesn’t contain the “permanent” reference, and it gets the rules wrong, citing 6.6 and 6.10 instead of 6.87 and 6.88.
There should only be one rule in the WADA and domestic code:
1.1 Athletes and other Persons shall be subject to the arbitrary and illogical decisions of Anti-doping authorities, and shall have no recourse to such decisions. There is no requirement for the authorities to demonstrate even the most basic of competencies.
Note to Rule 1.1 – Heads we win, tails you lose.
Here is a link to the document, with the pertinent bits copy/pasted below.
http://www.cces.ca/files/pdfs/CCES-FORM-RetirementNotification-EF.pdf
“I hereby certify that I have decided to permanently retire from national competition and I request that my name be removed from the CCES Registered Testing Pool.
I hereby acknowledge that I am aware of Canadian Anti-Doping Program Rules 6.87 and 6.88 which, in part, state that athletes are subject to doping control for a period of 18 months after retirement.”
“Je déclare par la présente que j’ai décidé de me retirer de la compétition nationale et demande que mon nom soit retiré du groupe cible enregistré du CCES.
Je confirme avoir pris connaissance des règlements 6.6 et 6.10 du Programme canadien antidopage, qui en partie, expliquent que les athlètes sont sujets à des contrôles du dopage pour une période de 18 mois suivant leur retraite.”
I get it, it’s like this fridge magnet my kids got my wife (paraphrased somewhat)
Rule #1: WADA et al is always right.
Rule #2: If WADA et al is wrong, see Rule #1.
So if you (the general you) truly intend to permanently retire, but you are still subject to testing, what hold is there over you? A 2 year ban from competition you have no intention of entering anyway is a rather hollow penalty to my mind.
To not comply with a contract would not be ideal going into the civil case, nor would an anti-doping conviction for refusal have been.
The two year ban from competition wouldn’t really bother me, except that I couldn’t do any local fun runs or even some fundraisers that I’d like to show up to without putting the organizers in an awkward position, and because I still technically have an anti-doping infraction on my record from the CAS decision, they’d push for a lifetime ban I would think.