What a week for cycling scandals, eh? First, the Lance Armstrong investigation gets dropped on a late Friday afternoon with barely 30 minutes notice to the people doing the actual investigating. Then, on Monday Alberto Contador received a two-year (but effectively only six month) ban from the Court of Arbitration for Sport for his positive test result at the 2010 Tour de France. And this morning (US time), Jan Ullrich was handed a two-year ban for his involvement in the Operacion Puerto scandal from way back in 2006. (Press release is available here and the full decision here.)
To put it in perspective, Ullrich’s involvement pre-dates the Landis scandal that erupted in the wake of last-minute withdrawals (banishments?) from the 2006 Tour de France of riders connected to the Puerto investigation.
The CAS press release makes some interesting (if brief) reading. Among the highlights:
… the CAS panel ruled that it was possible, under the UCI rules, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Jan Ullrich even if the athlete was no longer a UCI license-holder.
I have to say, my initial reaction to this could be summed up as, “WTF?” But in some sense, there is a bit of logic to this statement. As it might pertain to actions he took while being a licensed pro, it seems reasonable that the UCI could take action against Ullrich if the circumstances warrant.
And then there’s this chestnut:
Given the volume, consistency and probative value of the evidence presented by the UCI, and the failure of Jan Ullrich to raise any doubt about the veracity or reliability of such evidence, this Panel came to the conclusion that Jan Ullrich engaged at least in blood dopping in violation of Article 15.2 of the UCI Anti-doping Rules.
Ullrich didn’t try to refute the evidence presented? That’s another “WTF?” moment. Judging by the press release, the German rider didn’t attempt to present any sort of defense, except one on procedural grounds. Perhaps he’s paving the way for an appeal in the Swiss or European courts? Of does he not care too much the outcome?
On one point, at least, Ullrich’s legal team won. The UCI had been pressing for a lifetime ban, based on Ullrich’s out-of-competition positive test result for amphetamines from 2002. Arguing that since the use of amphetamines is now banned during competition, the panel chose to ignore that test result and impose the standard two-year ban for a first offense.
But we’re not done, yet. Ullrich’s ban is dated from August 22, 2011, which was the date of the CAS panel’s hearing on the matter. Contrast this to Alberto Contador’s ban, which was pegged at January 25, 2011 and credits time served, so that he will be back in action on August 6, 2012 (assuming he has a team, but that’s probably not too much of a stretch). By this panel’s logic, Contador’s ban should have been pegged to the November date of his hearing, which would have meant he would not be back to cycling until about May 2013.
Now that we’ve got the date of Ullrich’s “ban” squared away (he’s been retired for five-plus years, mind you), there’s the matter of what to do about his results. The panel chose to negate his results from May 1, 2005 through to the time he retired, stating they had chosen this start date “as it is established that Jan Ullrich was fully engaged in Dr. Fuentes’s doping program at least from that date.”
So, despite the lengthy delays, the UCI finally got closure on the Jan Ullrich affair. While it is certainly a victory, given the fact that Ullrich is long-since retired, the penalties seem somewhat toothless to me, except as a notice, perhaps, to athletes who are currently engaged in a doping regimen (or who were in the past) that no one can escape the long arm of the UCI.
I wonder, is this the end of the line for Operacion Puerto, or will some other athlete be penalized for his/her involvement in the affair?
If you’ve got the time and inclination, take a look at the CAS panel’s full decision.
Apparently if you’ve ever had the misfortune to hold a UCI license, they and CAS have rationalized you are theirs for life. (maybe beyond?) Sounds more difficult to rid one’s self from the clutches of the UCI than it does to secure a contested divorce in Italy. It’s much easier for a bank robber to be freed of U.S. jurisdiction by fleeing to somewhere like Brazil. When you consider the perspective, it’s tragic comedy.
HvB probably gave Floyd excellent advise when he told him he should just save his money and keep quiet? But given the messenger is such a p%k, I can understand how Floyd felt he had to fight it. That’s why it seems so strange that the UCI developed a Viagra induced h@d-on for Ullrich. (Poor UCI. Keeping it up that long surely resulted in irreversible tissue damage) But seriously, Ullrich retired and looked, from all public accounts, to have tried to go away quietly.
I’m not referring to a Vino style retirement. Ullrich went away, stayed away, and never looked like he’d attempt a comeback. He didn’t try to get involved in team management or race management. He stayed away from UCI sanctioned racing and limited his involvement to some charity rides. There has to be something more that went on behind the scene? The effort and expense the UCI went to in seeking a lifetime ban on Ullrich is absurdly out of proportion. Maybe they were counting on using the Contador fine money to help pay for the Jan Ullrich persecution?
I only jest a bit about the fine money. I have spent more than a few hours searching UCI online publications. It’s relatively easy to find out who can be fined for what and when. However,
I CAN FIND NO MENTION OF HOW THE UCI UTILIZES THE FINE MONEY IT COLLECTS.
Jeff,
Actually, I think it was HvB’s protege Patty McQ that told Floyd to shut up and take the suspension (or words to that effect). I have no clue where the fine money goes. Perhaps it helps recoup the cost of the prosecutions? But why not be transparent about what the money pays for? I haven’t done the research, but I’m also curious about where the millions (?) of euros that the UCI receives each year for WorldTour/Pro Continental/Continental team licenses goes.
The ban is rather devoid of dentition, unless Jan has any intentions of getting involved in cycling again. His racing career is over, but perhaps he could have signed on in some other capacity with a team.
Voiding results could also be merely symbolic. Quick now, how many here can name the affected results? No fair looking up online! I can think only of the 2005 TdF off hand. So who really cares about old results. I suppose some might have some sense of justice being done and that you can’t escape, but realistically, whatever joy, pride, satisfaction, etc. Jan got from those results might not be something that UCI can touch. Since it isn’t mentioned in Rant’s post, I am assuming that UCI isn’t going after any monetary winnings. I’m not sure how they could force Jan to pony up anyway; they don’t have the hold of denying a license since he doesn’t seem interested.
It’s not surprising he didn’t contest anything, what’s the point?
This might be the wrong place to post this one, but some of the “facts” are so amazing I had to share!
http://www.itv.com/tourdefrance/2011/news/analysis-of-cas-alberto-contador-clenbuterol-doping-ban-ruling-by-matt-rendell-36542/
Some of the legal arguments on both sides were just amazing…
In my opinion, the CAS decision to sanction Contador is the correct one, but the reasoning behind it is wrong. It may be that such convoluted logic was made necessary by the various rules and regulations, but I don’t know.
To me the case is simple: there was a banned substance and the only way out for AC was to show some no fault way it got there. The beef story had absolutely no corroboration. Hence he’s guilty, by the rules of the game. Perhaps the rules need changing, but until they are, we operate by the way they are currently.
Rant,
You are right and I stand corrected. In my defense, since McQ was anointed…..I mean appointed…..no, must have been selected……now I remember, they say he was elected…..
Anyway, please excuse my confusion. HvB and McQ seem so interchangeable.
Lots of opportunity for graft and corruption within the UCI when there is a lack of transparency with so few checks and balances.
William,
As unscrupulous reporters won’t let the facts get in the way of a good story…….
WADA/CAS seldom passes on ignoring or bending its own rules to ensure the desired outcome…..
And in other news:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/uk-olympics-italy-idUSLNE81D03220120214
Italy passes on olympic host bid.
Now, if there were only more examples of sanity like this in the world…………..
Well, Rant, I promised myself no more doping discussions because it was taking years off my life and you literally wrote the book on the subject. But my biggest WTF is that MLBs Ryan Braun’s conviction was overturned because the collector mistakenly followed the weekend protocol on a Friday thinking the FedEx office was closed. Braun does not dispute that his testosterone levels were the highest MLB has seen since they started testing. I know he is plays for your backyard team but….
On a lighter note, the ESPN writer who broke the story is named Mark Fainaru-Wada. Where is Dick Pound!!!!
Jim,
Yeah, they are the local team, but when I follow baseball (which isn’t often…) I’m a – gasp! – Cardinals fan. Funny thing about FedEx. They’re open on Saturdays, too. At least, they used to be. Many’s the time I dropped off film from a Saturday photo assignment that needed to be in an editor’s hands come Monday morning.
Mark Fainaru-Wada. Hmm. Name’s familiar. Wasn’t he one of the writers who broke the Balco and Barry Bonds stories? And didn’t he co-author Game of Shadows?
Imagine, by the WADA standards, Landis’ Stage 17 sample was spoiled (because the level of “free testosterone” was too high). If his case had followed the same type of logic, he’d have been cleared on a technicality, just like MLB did for Ryan Braun. Gotta follow them rules precisely. Big oops for that collector. Bet he won’t be doing that type of work in the coming year. 😉
Funny thing about those technicalities, most people are against them, until it affects them. People may rant about Braun “getting off on a technicality” but if they were to blow a .08 on a breathalyzer, I’d bet they’d look for any and every technicality they could.
I’ve been doing some more thinking on this, and have some additional comments.
One, I don’t think we should be so quick to hang the collector, assuming his error was well-intentioned. I don’t think it was all that unreasonable to assume that FedEx was closed for the weekend. My only experience with shipping something via FedEx was returning computers for repair. I called in, was delivered a shipping box with prepaid label and instructed to leave at a dropbox at a given, nearby location. The pickup time was something about 5:00 pm or so Monday-Friday. Since I also know that FedEx doesn’t deliver (at least with standard delivery) on weekends, I would tend to assume they are only available during the business week. Now, I don’t have any idea as to what instructions the collector received, both in general and as to this particular collection. But he simply might have been trying to make the best of the situation as it presented to him.
It also seems to me that the lab is somewhat, perhaps even more, to blame here. It is quite likely that if they had reviewed the paperwork associated with both the collection and the shipping, they should have realized the poetential problem. They then would have had a couple of options: test, but ignore a positive; or simply throw out the sample and get another from Braun.
William,
From reading a few articles telling the collector’s side of the story, it appears that he was following a practice that had been used at other times when it was not possible to get a sample shipped out the same day. It’s beginning to look to me like the real “fault” here may be with MLB and the folks who designed/run their testing program for not elevating that ad-hoc practice to a part of the written protocol. In other words, this is more of a case of a bureaucratic f*ck-up than a mistake by the collector.
Some very educational reading over at NYVelocity:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden
The “DEHP bags best for storing red blood cells, and non-DEHP bags are best for storing plasma” is a fascinating explanation for why you would find a higher level of plasticizers on a given day, depending on what might have been transfused to keep blood markers in a “normal” range!
Mike,
Thanks for posting the link. Ashenden is always an interesting interview, and the folks at NYVelocity do some wide-ranging and thorough interviews. Most appreciated!