Tuesday Musings

Several things caught my eye yesterday, while trolling the Internet for the latest happenings in the world of cycling.

First, at VeloNews, I found an article published last Thursday where Alberto Contador talks about Michael Rasmussen’s bizarre exit from the Tour. From Contador’s perspective, what happened was unfair.

“I don’t know what is really behind it, but I do know that what should not be possible is to be told in the middle of the race that you can’t participate when there was no problem at the beginning,” Contador said in an interview with radio Cadena Ser.”I would have liked to have won in another way,” he added.

That’s a pretty classy thing for an athlete to say. Contador, undoubtedly, would rather have won the Tour by besting Rasmussen, rather than the way things transpired. Good for him for acknowledging the situation. Contador is, unfortunately, no stranger to controversy these days, as German anti-doping activist Werner Franke claims to have evidence that Contador was involved in Operacion Puerto, the Spanish blood-doping scandal that seems to never die.

The second thing that caught my eye was a story in Australia’s The Age. In that story, Cadel Evans talks, briefly, about Contador and the allegations Franke is making against this year’s Tour winner.

Star Australian cyclist Cadel Evans regards Spanish rival Alberto Contador as “innocent until proven guilty” over his Tour de France win.

Asked on Monday if Contador had won the race fairly, Evans said he deserved the benefit of the doubt.

“There’s a bit of a shadow over his win and his reputation … innocent until proven guilty is always my attitude,” Evans said on the ABC’s Enough Rope.

“Just because you win the Tour de France doesn’t mean you’re a cheat and people always need to remember that.

“If something comes out, solid evidence – yes – but until now, no solid proof has come out so I will leave him innocent until proven guilty.”

Evans’ level-headed comments are another breath of fresh air in what has become a toxic debate over doping. He’s absolutely right, just because someone wins the Tour doesn’t mean that person is a cheat. Good on you, Cadel, for saying so. We need to hear more of that from riders at your level — and from sports writers and fans, too.

And the last thing that caught my eye was an article in the Times Online, which raises the question Have athletes lost out in the frenzy to find drug cheats? Also under discussion is whether those charged with eliminating doping have lost sight of the ultimate goal, to ensure fair competition, by creating a system that has at least the appearance of being stacked against the athletes from the get-go.

Inevitably, in the clamour for heads to roll, there is a danger that the rights of athletes in doping allegations will be jeopardised. Indeed, the Tour and Landis case are part of a series of events conspiring to place fairness in the World Anti-Doping Code under the microscope.

Exactly. And for the system’s long-term viability, that’s precisely what needs to happen. One can’t preserve fairness by creating an unfair system of “justice.” It’s like the saying anti-war protesters of the Viet Nam era used to proclaim, “Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity.”

The author talks about several infamous miscarriages of justice, citing Alain Baxter’s experience at the 2002 Winter Olympics among his examples. In Baxter’s case, he occasionally used Vicks inhalers, which in the UK didn’t contain any banned substances. The US version, however, contains a small trace of a chemical isomer of methylamphetamine.

Baxter tested positive, even though the isomer contained in the inhaler is not known to have a performance-enhancing effect, and certainly not in the minute concentration present. And given that the UK version was known to be safe, he had no reason to think that there would be a problem with the American version. In short, this was not a case of intentional doping, or even a case where a performance-enhancing effect could be shown.

Ultimately, Baxter was stripped of his bronze medal — the first medal of any sort ever won by a British downhill skier in Olympic competition. His suspension was relatively short, but given the situation, only a true believer in strict liability could argue that Baxter was treated fairly.

The article’s author also discusses the desire by some to take an even harder line when it comes to doping offenses and punishment.

But this harder line may fall foul of European law. A warning shot has been fired across the bows of those who prosecute doping cases by the European Court of Justice in a landmark ruling in the case of the little-known swimmer David Meca-Medina, where it was decided that anti-doping law should be subject to the rules of European Union competition law. Previously, it had appeared that sporting rules were not expected to follow the same rules as business. Meca-Medina may become as renowned as the Bosman ruling on football transfers.

This is an important precedent, to be sure. With anti-doping law now being subject to the rules of EU competition law, things could get very interesting for the anti-doping agencies, including WADA. Although a European ruling might not have any weight in the United States, one can well imagine that similar arguments that swayed the EU’s courts could be brought to bear in the US, as well. How long it would take for such a case to work its way through the system, on the other hand, would be an open question. It could take a long, long time. And cost a great deal of money.

As one commenter (“m”) at TBV noted, the Meca-Medina case took somewhere around 6 or 7 years to reach its conclusion. How long would it take, and how much would it cost for an appeal to wend its way through the US courts? Hard to say, but given the precedent in Europe, this is a prospect that should keep people like Dick Pound awake at night. And not that I’d want to see the Floyd Landis case take that long, but depending on how the arbitrators and the CAS rule, this may well be the kind of case that could present such a legal challenge to the WADA/USADA gang.

And if legal challenges won’t have those at the top worrying, as the article’s author also points out, the continued scrutiny by some major journalists such as the Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hiltzik may well cause a sleepless night or two. Scrutiny is exactly what the process needs if it’s going to evolve into a system that the athletes and the public can trust and believe in. Right now, the anti-doping movement is at a crossroads. Where it goes from here will determine whether the ultimate goal — ensuring fair competition — is achieved.