Oh No, Not Vino, Too!

OK, everybody, how many of you who have been following the Floyd Landis scandal thought today would be the day the arbitrators announced their ruling as to whether they think Landis doped or not at the 2006 Tour? It was a rest day, after all, and what with doping scandals being the order of the day when it comes to bike racing, it would have been a good day for that, wouldn’t it.

Everyone who thought the Landis verdict would be announced today, raise their hands. Be truthful, now.

Well, it turned out to be a day for doping stories, that’s for certain. This time the subject of the story is Alexander Vinokourov. And great surprise that it is, Damien Ressiot of L’Equipe broke the story, citing a source within France’s anti-doping laboratory, LNDD. And, of course, this is all based on the results of Vino’s A sample from tests taken on the day he powered to an impressive time trial win.

Pundits, sports writers and a number of folks on the blogosphere have already pronounced Vino guilty, taking the A sample results as being incontrovertible proof that he doped. Trial by media has already occurred and Vino has already been pronounced guilty.

Nobody in the media (at least in the stories I’ve read so far) has dared to examine how Ressiot gets his information, and whether, given the lab’s controversial past, the results can actually be trusted. And though the test is said to be, well, almost foolproof, no one in the media has really taken the time to research that yet, either.

Unless Vino pipes up and says, “Yeah, it’s a fair cop,” then the results of the A sample test are not proof of anything. WADA’s procedures require that the B sample must confirm the A sample’s results for an adverse analytical finding to be considered proof of doping.

And even then, it’s not necessarily proof. Vino, if the B sample agrees with the A sample, will still have the right to appeal any findings against him through the same arbitration process that Floyd Landis has been working through since word of his positive results started leaking out … exactly one year ago tomorrow. It’s only when the case comes to a final conclusion that we can say, with any degree of certainty, that Vino doped. Because until then, we don’t have all the evidence on which to make a judgment. Unless, as I said before, he admits to it.

But that doesn’t seem to be what he’s doing. Reports have it that he’s already requested the B sample be analyzed. If this were any lab other than LNDD, I might be able to believe that the results are accurate. But it is LNDD we’re talking about, and as the testimony in the Landis hearings showed, there’s a certain laxness to the training and conduct of the technicians at France’s anti-doping laboratory that is nothing short of appalling. So the results are a bit suspect, to begin with.

Not that Vino might not have doped, mind you, but LNDD is not exactly the gold standard for by-the-book lab technique, no matter what kind of lab you’re talking about. And information security at the lab is lax, to say the least, as well.

You can’t fault Damien Ressiot too much. As a reporter, his job is to dig up stories. And sometimes those stories are sensational and sometimes the information that he gets is information that he shouldn’t have been allowed to see. What’s deplorable is that WADA has certain rules preventing the release of information before a B sample confirms the original test results. And time and time and time again, someone at LNDD thumbs his or her nose at the rules and passes information to Ressiot.

Why that person does so is anybody’s guess. But Ressiot’s source must be getting something out of the deal. What is it? Money, perhaps? (And by the way, paying your sources for information not only makes that information less trustworthy — the source might just be looking to make a quick buck, after all — but it is also unethical. Period.)

Ressiot and his employers certainly get something out of the deal. More newspapers sold equals more profit. So he has an incentive to stir up controversy. And, for whatever reasons, the ASO — who own both L’Equipe and the Tour — must be getting something out of it, too. This one’s harder to figure, at least just a bit. After all, they do make more profit at L’Equipe, but it’s also a way of getting publicity for the Tour, and a way of discrediting the UCI, WADA and anyone else they wish.

WADA, by not sanctioning a serial violator of its rules of conduct, has shown that while they’re happy to make the rules, they only wish to enforce those rules when it is convenient to do so. How else can you explain the fact that LNDD has never been sanctioned for repeated violations just like the one today?

In a bizarre twist to the story, Pat McQuaid has actually acted in a somewhat statesman-like manner and been cautious in his commentary.

Pat McQuaid, president of cycling’s world governing body, the UCI, said he couldn’t comment as long as the backup B-sample result wasn’t confirmed.

“We have a process in place, and we have to see this process through,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

What a change that is, since almost exactly a year ago McQuaid was speaking about a “worst-case scenario,” effectively naming Floyd Landis as the athlete who tested positive during the 2006 edition of the Tour.

Before we go convicting Vino of anything, we need to wait and see whether the B sample’s results confirm the A sample’s results. And even then, we need to see whether or not the tests were properly conducted and properly interpreted. All the more so since the lab that’s conducted these tests is LNDD.

And we would do well to remember that this test has not been without controversy in the few years that it’s been used. Tyler Hamilton mistakenly tried to argue against the science behind the test when his case came up in 2004. Big mistake, since WADA deems the science behind the tests to be correct — regardless of whether it is or not.

Although I can’t find the references now, it seems that scientists (and not just those who worked in Hamilton’s defense) have raised questions about whether the test was rushed into use before it had been fully evaluated and perfected (perfection being a relative thing, especially in the world of anti-doping science).

I can understand the frustration cycling fans feel with yet another positive drug test being trumpeted throughout the media, yet again casting aspersions on the sport that they (and I) love. But before we go and toss Vino (or anyone else who allegedly tests positive) to the wolves, we need to hold the anti-doping system to the same high standards that they hold the athletes.

Rules must be enforced, even when that means sanctioning or revoking the accreditation of a prominent anti-doping lab. Privacy must be upheld. Continuing leaks from a lab to a particular reporter must stop. Just as doping must stop.

And, when all the evidence is in, and when we can all see that it was properly and fairly evaluated, then — and only then — can we decide whether or not Vino, or Floyd, or any other athlete is guilty of the charges against them.

Trial by media must stop. And those who aid and abet it must be found and dealt with. In the case of LNDD, the leaker needs to be found and fired. And charged with and tried for violating the privacy of the individuals whose results have been improperly released.

While the many doping scandals make a mockery (in many fans’ eyes) of cycling, the many violations of rules, standards and protocols by LNDD make a mockery of any pretensions of fairness in the anti-doping system. We all deserve better than what scandal-mongers like Damien Ressiot scoop up and hurl upon our sport.