The Rest Of The Story — And More

Yesterday, someone leaked news that there had been three “non-negative” test results from this year’s Giro d’Italia. Two were Italian riders who tested positive for salbutamol, and were subsequently found to have therapeutic use exemptions, or so we’re told. The third rider was a Spaniard — later identified as Iban Mayo — who may have tested positive for testosterone. Mayo, apparently, has a history of widely fluctuating T/E levels, which is known to the UCI.

Now comes a newsflash (from a comment by Cam) that Mayo has been cleared of any wrong-doing. VeloNews quotes a press release from the UCI which states:

The UCI has noted press reports about three purportedly abnormal analysis results linked to the last Giro d’Italia. While regretting the premature publication of this news item, the UCI wishes to clarify the following points.No breach of the UCI antidoping rules was committed by the Spanish rider Iban Mayo of the Saunier Duval team. A further examination conducted by IRMS has enabled any possibility of testosterone administration to be ruled out. This further analysis was requested by the UCI following the notification by the Rome laboratory of a T/E value in excess of the norm laid down in the rules; that finding made further examinations necessary. The history of this particular case shows the vital need to await the closure of the relevant investigations before reaching conclusions.

In the other cases, the analyses requested by the UCI are still in progress.

Somebody jumped the gun when he or she tipped off the press about the “non-negative” results. Same as when Floyd Landis’ initial test results came back and before the B samples had been run. The common thread in a number of these leaks is the UCI. That doesn’t prove someone there is leaking these results, but it certainly points a finger in their direction. So I find it someone ironic that the UCI’s statement says, “The history of this particular case shows the vital need to await the closure of the relevant investigations before reaching conclusions.”

Why, yes, yes it does. But that’s true for every case where the results are announced or leaked to the press prematurely. And that happens way too often.

Yet to be explained is why the IRMS tests were outsourced to Barcelona, when the Rome lab is perfectly capable of performing such tests. Were their lab techs on vacation, sick, or on strike? Or was their testing instrument down for repairs. This is a rather odd twist to the whole affair.

And judging by that comment about ongoing analyses, it appears that the UCI is still investigating the cyclists who tested positive for salbutamol. Petacchi and Piepoli aren’t out of the woods, yet. But it wouldn’t surprise me too much if sometime in the near future we hear that they’ve been cleared, too.

A Preview Of Coming Decisions?

At Trust But Verify there’s a link to a post about the recent judgment against Jeff Adams, a Canadian paralympic athlete, who tested positive for a very minute trace of cocaine metabolites. In the blog entry, the writer mocks Adams’ explanation of how traces of cocaine metabolites appeared in a urine sample from a recent competition. Adams received a two-year suspension from competition. The WBRS Sports Blog, quoting The Toronto Star’s online edition, says:

Adams argued unsuccessfully at a hearing that it was inadvertent doping. He claimed that an unknown woman approached him at a Toronto bar in May of 2006 and forced cocaine in his mouth.

He said that the catheter he used after the incident at the bar was the same one he used to give a urine sample a week later after a race at the Canadian wheelchair marathon championships in Ottawa. Adams said that contaminated catheter caused his positive test for a cocaine metabolite.

At first blush, Adams’ explanation sounds fantastical and hard to imagine. Adams has been posting comments on a number of discussions at the Daily Peloton Forums under the alias “jellotrip.” He’s posted his side of the story, which is definitely worth a look (thanks again to Cam). In it, he says:

The story boils down to this: I was in a bar, sitting next to a woman who was on cocaine – I had been talking to her, and at some point, I stopped being interested in doing that. I told her that I was really tired, and didn’t want to talk to her any more. She got pretty upset about that, and in her head, I think she thought that she would be helping me by giving me cocaine (I would no longer be tired). In the drug culture, people share cocaine all the time, and taking cocaine orally is quite common in public (I’ve learned), because all that needs to happen is for the substance to get to a mucous membrane, and taking it orally is a much less obvious way to do it. She turned to me, and put her hands up near my face – I had no idea what she was going to do, and she had been quite “touchy feely” up to that point, so I really didn’t see it coming. She put her fingers in my mouth, and that’s how it happened.

There were two witnesses – a woman who works for the Crown Attorney of Ontario, and the photo editor for McLeans magazine – they are credible witnesses who are not my friends, and their testimony was unimpeached.

The tests actually prove that the substance was not in my system at the time of the test, and indicate contamination as the likely cause. They found less than 3 ng – as an aside, even an incarcerated federal inmate in the Corrections system needs to have 300ng to test positive (because the Charter applies to them, and the Fed. Human Rights Commission requires thresholds for all substances, but athletes somehow don’t get those same benefits).

Adams also notes that telling his story may have been a strategic mistake:

Telling them the truth about what happened was the worst strategic mistake that I could have made, but to be anything less than upfront and honest with them was not an option for me. Had I denied ever ingesting the substance, and just claimed departures from the rules, I would have had a better chance of getting off on a technicality. Alternatively I could have claimed that someone who used cocaine left a catheter in my room and I used it instead of my own – there are about a million other stories that I could have invented that would have served me better in this case.

And he notes:

The most frustrating thing is that the system sets athletes up for this – the messaging has been diligent and unrelenting that athletes are always guilty, and always lie.

To put this in context, women get constant warnings from law enforcement to not leave their drinks unattended – we don’t call bull#### on them when date rapes happen, because we know that these terrible things happen.

Adams summarizes the arbitrator’s ruling by saying:

The Arbitrator found as fact that:

My testimony was “unshaken” through cross-examination.

The scientific evidence was unequivocal that the substance was not in my system at the time of the test.

This is not a case of cheating.

This is not a case of attempted performance enhancing.

The substance WAS NOT in my system at the time of the test.

The kicker to this story? The arbitrator was Richard McLaren, who’s also serving on the panel for the Floyd Landis case. Given how McLaren ruled in Adams’ case, my hunch is that he will rule against Landis, regardless of the evidence. He basically did that with Adams. If ever there was an illustration of Dick Pound’s infamous “Nazi frogmen” defense, this would be the one. If this isn’t a case where the arbitrator should rule in the athlete’s favor, I don’t know what is.

I won’t hazard a guess as to who the final decision in the Landis case will favor (Patrice Brunet is the wildcard in all of this), but for the moment I’m going to stick with my guess that either way, it will be a 2-1 decision.

Adams’ post at the Daily Peloton Forums is worth reading in full. It’s a scary story of a system run amok. Again.