An All-Too-Familiar Pattern

The 2007 edition of the Tour de France has been an exciting race, given that the defending champion is unable to compete and the pretenders to the throne are duking it out on the highways and byways of England, Belgium, Spain and France. Watching the live coverage on Versus (I prefer Phil and Paul’s commentary — no disrespect to Bobke, however), the stage finishes have been dramatic and exciting.

But deep in the back of my mind, I’ve been unable to stop wondering, “Who’s next? Which of these riders is going to become the target of doping allegations?”

Well now we have an answer: Patrik Sinkewitz, a rider on the T-Mobile team. According to an Agence France Presse article on the VeloNews website, an A sample of Sinkewitz’ given back in June tested positive for testosterone. The AFP article doesn’t say whether that means an elevated T/E ratio, or whether IRMS analysis suggests the presence of artificial testosterone. What it does say is this:

The German Cycling Federation (BDR) announced on Wednesday that the 26-year old’s A sample, taken on June 8, had a raised testosterone level and he must now decide if his B sample will be tested.

Sinkewitz is currently in a Hamburg hospital, recovering from injuries suffered in a crash with a spectator as he rode to his team’s hotel after Sunday’s stage. According to the article, Sinkewitz’ reaction was one of bewilderment:

“Me? Why me? I don’t know anything about it. This can’t be,” was his reaction, reported in German on-line sports magazine Kicker. “I am due to have an operation and I can’t think about it now.”

He has five days to decide whether to have his B sample tested. Sinkewitz has been suspended by T-Mobile. If the B sample confirms the A sample, Sinkewitz will be fired from the team, and according to the article the German Cycling Federation (BDR) will ban the cyclist from “all teams.”

What hasn’t been published, yet, is in which lab the tests were conducted. But the release of information fits an all-too-familiar pattern. Despite rules to prevent the release of information before a B sample confirms an initial test, information is finding its way into the media as soon as an A sample tests positive. Frequently, the paper to break the story is L’Equipe, and the journalist is Damien Ressiot. But my current search at Google News isn’t showing anything from L’Equipe. Yet.

[Update: Actually, L’Equipe has a short article on the subject. No author listed. It’s a short synopsis of the story. Here’s a machine translation of what they say.]

German state television, apparently disgusted with the situation, has pulled the plug on live Tour broadcasts, according to Supersport.

German state networks ARD and ZDF on Wednesday stopped their live broadcasts from the current Tour de France with immediate effect after the latest doping case involving German rider Patrik Sinkewitz.

ZDF spokesman Thomas Stange told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa that the Tour boycott will stay in effect until the case has been cleared up. Both networks have the German broadcast rights for the famous three-week race.

And according to the International Herald Tribune, the German telecommunications company T-Mobile may consider dropping it’s sponsorship.

T-Mobile company spokesman Christian Frommert would not rule out that the telecommunications giant could decide to stop sponsoring the team.

“We’ll sit down after the Tour and calmly analyze the situation,” he told ARD. “I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Later on, the IHT article adds:

Frommert said the latest case, if confirmed, was a “clear setback” in the team’s anti-doping policy.

“We’ll have to look where we made mistakes. We’ll have to be self-critical,” he said.

“It’s very hard for us because he is one of the young riders we were building our future on,” he said. “This is very disappointing for German cycling.”

Sinkewitz, like all riders competing in the Tour, signed onto the UCI’s pledge, which would require him to give up a year’s salary if he’s found guilty of doping, which is in addition to the two-year ban he would receive.

Pat McQuaid, speaking to the Associated Press, said:

“If he is (positive after the B sample), he’s ultimately sanctioned and he gets a ban and he’ll have to face the music as far as the charter is concerned,” UCI president Pat McQuaid said.

What little we do know about Sinkewitz’s test results appears in the IHT/AP article:

While elevated testosterone levels do not necessarily indicate doping, Sinkewitz was reportedly six times over the limit.

The Times Online tells us:

Bob Stapleton, the team manager, confirmed that Sinkewitz’s contract with the German team would be terminated if his ‘B’ test confirms the result of the initial test result.

“We heard from the media that he tested positive during our Pyreenean training camp before the Tour,” Stapleton said. “It shows that we support independent testing. We do everything we can and it shows, ultimately, that athletes that do this suffer hard consequences.”

“Sinkewitz is subject to the full sanction of the sport and I think this shows that out of competition tests work. He’s been caught and that‘s healthy for the sport. It’s good for the sport in the long term. The team is completely devastated because they really believe in the team’s policy and they’re heartbroken about this.”

Until the B sample confirms the A sample, nothing is confirmed. But trial by media has already begun, and even T-Mobile is forcing their rider to walk the plank and fall into shark-infested waters. One question the media aren’t asking is this: Why did it take T-Mobile’s vaunted anti-doping program more than a month for T-Mobile to learn the results of the A sample test? What lab are they using, anyway?

Sinkewitz was supposedly tested on June 8th during a T-Mobile training camp in the Pyrenees, and he found out about the test results on July 17th while laying in a hospital bed. Something’s fishy about that. It doesn’t take that long to determine those test results. T-Mobile should have known sooner, and they should have kept Sinkewitz off the Tour team if there was a problem.

Also, Stapleton heard from the media and took action? If this is his anti-doping program, shouldn’t he have heard directly from the lab? Wouldn’t he want to see the data for himself, rather than act on what might be rumor or innuendo?

Shades of the Floyd Landis case. It looks like poor Mr. Sinkewitz is being convicted in the media before the tests are complete and the facts are all known. I have this feeling of deja vu, all over again.

One final thought: What if Sinkewitz’ B sample were to come back negative? Who’s going to be lining up to say, “Sorry about that, mate. Didn’t mean to trash your reputation.”? Anyone?

From Daner at North American Flyers

Reader Daner sent the following graphics as a way of explaining why the media need to be careful in their coverage of complicated stories, such as doping stories.

Caption: As a test becomes more complicated and the likelihood is greater that the drug has little or no performance-enhancing effect, the potential for false positive interpretations increases.

Rant’s editorial comment: Given that no research exists to prove that the use of micro-dosing with testosterone (as USADA alleged during the Landis hearings through Joe Papp’s testimony) has any effect on recovery, this graph illustrates the need for careful and balanced reporting on the subject by the media.
Caption: As the likelihood that the audience is uninformed about the subject increases, and the effect on an athlete’s career increases, the greater the need for good judgment regarding the timing and content of any announcements about a case.

Rant’s editorial comment: Leaking information about a positive doping test can damage an athlete’s career. Reporting on that information, without seeing or understanding the testing or data behind it, is something the media should be cautious of, as it could lead the readers/viewers to make wrong conclusions about an athlete. Thereby, damaging the athlete’s career. Cases in point: Floyd Landis and also Patrik Sinkewitz
Caption: The four possibilities for the outcome of doping tests, counter-clockwise from upper left: A clean athlete with a negative test = justice. A doped athlete with a negative test = fraud. A doped athlete with a positive test = justice. And lastly, a clean athlete with a positive test = a miscarriage of justice.

Rant’s editorial comment: We all need to be mindful of the four possible outcomes of a case. Until all the facts are in, it is better to presume someone innocent, rather than presume them guilty.