As we wait for the announcement of the USADA vs. Floyd Landis decision, another rider’s future sits in limbo, too. Iban Mayo is learning all too well that the hardest part is waiting. Mayo continues to wait for the results of the counter-analysis of his B sample from a test earlier this summer, on the second rest day of the Tour de France, that is reported to have come up positive for EPO. As cyclingnews.com reports:
The Saunier Duval rider talked yesterday to the Basque television channel ETB. “I don’t know anything about the result of the counter-analysis.” He confessed that he is not very happy. “I would like to know something as soon as possible, because this wait is despairing. Waiting for such a long time is hard. Every day you believe that this will be the day or that the following will be the day, but the days pass and you don’t know anything, and this is despairing. I hope to know the result as soon as possible”, said Mayo according to Noticias de Gipuzkoa.
Mayo’s team, Saunier Duval, was required by the ProTour Code of Ethics to suspend the rider once a positive A sample test occurred. Since that time, Mayo has been able to train, but not race. Unlike the lower ranks of the professional peloton, where an initial A sample result may be kept confidential, the ProTour’s requirements pretty much ensure that a rider’s A sample results will become public knowledge. And the code ensures that an accused rider will be kept out of racing until a positive A sample test is either contradicted by the counter-analysis, or until the appeals process is complete, or until a suspension is served. There is simply no way for a ProTour cyclist to quietly disappear until the results of the B sample come back.
In effect, Mayo is being punished before being found guilty. This is the same position many athletes who confront the anti-doping system find themselves in, and it flies in the face of our standard notions of justice. The good news for Mayo, wrapped in with the waiting, is that apparently WADA’s own rules regarding EPO tests require that the B sample be analyzed at other labs. In Mayo’s case, the two labs are the University of Gent in Belgium, and an anti-doping laboratory in Australia.
Apparently, the counter-analysis tests are conducted at both labs. The University of Gent has completed their work, and now it’s up to the Australian lab. Once the Australian lab’s testing and analysis is complete, Mayo will learn whether or not he will be charged with a doping violation.
One of the interesting things to come out of this is the discovery that WADA’s own technical documents regarding EPO testing require counter-analysis by different labs. We know from the Floyd Landis case and others that this is not a standard requirement for all testing. Actually, it appears to be a deviation from the usual practice of the same lab conducting the B sample tests.
Judging by cyclingnews.com’s report, it appears that the B sample was sent to Australia for testing only after the University of Gent finished their tests. From a practical point of view, if both labs are performing the same tests, shouldn’t the sample have been split and the two labs then would perform their testing and analysis at the same time. Regardless of the outcome, Mayo (and any other rider in the same circumstance) would find out his fate sooner. Especially in the case of the B sample not confirming the A sample results, this would put a rider back into competition sooner.
It would be a good thing, too, for WADA to change their testing rules to consistently require counter-analysis at different labs. The problem with the same lab performing the counter-analysis — no matter what type of test we’re talking about — is that if there are systemic errors causing the result, those errors won’t be detected. The same result will come back on the B tests as the A. It’s a sound scientific practice to send samples elsewhere to see if a different lab can achieve the same results. That one change could go a long way to shoring up the credibility of the anti-doping system.
Another change needs to happen, however, regarding the ProTour Code of Ethics. I can understand the motivation behind requiring an immediate suspension of a ProTour rider when an A sample comes back positive. But that flies in the face of any confidentiality that the rider should normally be entitled to. Consider Joe Papp. After he initially tested positive, he was able to continue racing. It was only when his B sample confirmed the A sample results that he had to stop.
One can always void results later. And insist that prize money be returned and then paid to the rightful winners. But one can’t make up for lost income for a rider who’s been held out of competition only to find out that the counter-analysis doesn’t match the original results. And in Mayo’s case, given what came out at the Landis hearings in May, one has to wonder just how carefully was the original test performed.
Also, once a rider has been branded as a suspected doper in the media, it’s very hard to regain his or her prior reputation. A simple, “Oops. We’re sorry, you weren’t doping” won’t suffice. Once the story gets out into the wild, the rider’s reputation is damaged. It would be much better to wait until the B sample is returned — at the very least — before any action is taken against a rider. While that can’t prevent a case like Floyd Landis’ from eventually going through arbitration (although, requiring a different lab to perform the counter-analysis could), it can prevent the smearing of athletes whose B tests don’t confirm the initial results.
Perhaps much (or even most) of the time an athlete whose samples come up positive on the A sample will also come up positive on the B sample. Be that as it may, it’s more important to protect the rights of the innocent. The guilty will eventually get punished, but punishing the innocent before they’re proven guilty inflicts harm that can never truly be repaired.
Whether Iban Mayo is innocent or guilty, like every rider, he deserves due process and the presumption of innocence. What he doesn’t deserve is to be punished before all the facts are in.
Rant, your argument will set off a lot of people who believe that “A doper is guilty until proven innocent.” We cannot ignore the thinking of such people or organization.
–
The only way to “fight” such a point of view is to look at “real” numbers. This brings up another present day problem. The authorities that be, get all righteous and claim that “releasing” actual test numbers will infringe on the individual rights of the riders.
–
Personally, I think this a load of convenient baloney. All this “keeping” actual records from the “public domain” – prevents people from looking and discussing actual numbers – turning such discussion into what opposing parties may call biased judgment calls, or mere onesided opinions. And you know what – this accusation would be true.
–
If we have come to “not trusting” the accreditation of a labs, then we need to admit it. The WADA people need to admit it, along with the UCI. It would seem to me – much more cost effective if we could simply TRUST the labs to do what they are claiming to be able to do. Can you imagine the extra cost Mayo will incur if he wishes to have a “representative” in the testing of the “b” sample?
–
Being not a believer in the purity of motives as far as WADA and the other governing bodies of today – I can just see them sending “lab work all across the globe,” – just to make it even harder for an athlete to defend him/herself…
–
Is it too much to as, to demand that the organizations maintain a standard that all labs have to follow, rather then playing this flying samples all over the world? To releasing data that should be available to all parties concerned?
If indeed Mayo’s B sample was sent to the second lab in Australia only after the results from the Ghent lab were received, this raises the question “did WADA not get the results they wanted from the Ghent lab?” If you wanted 2 different labs to test the sample to increase the confidence is the results (hopefully both labs would come to the same conclusion), then why not test both at the same time? However, if you want to find Mayo guilty, but the Ghent results were negative, then maybe you might try another lab and hope you get the results you want there. Sort of a version of the LNDD trick of wiping everything away and running the test over again, if you didn’t like the results.
What will WADA do if the Ghent and Australian results are different? One could argue that if one of the B sample results matches the A, then the “majority” rules. Or one could argue that if one of the B samples results is negative, then Mayo must be acquitted. A third argument is that only the first B sample result is relevant and if negative, again Mayo must be acquitted, even if the Australian result is positive. Want to bet if Ghent is negative and Australia is positive, Mayo gets banned and we never here what the Ghent results were?
On a second matter, of suspending riders following an A positive: when I was a teacher I was subject to being placed on administrative leave if I were to be accused of various misdeeds, particularly inappropriate behavior towards students. Depending on the circumstances (and possibly the whim of the administration) just admin leave might be paid or without pay. I would suppose if someone were to be suspended with pay, and subsequently clear, lost pay could be recovered, but who knows? Fortunately, I never was accused so have no first hand experience. The question of suspending a rider following a positive A sample is tricky. Part of the problem is that cycle racing is so interactive; riders react to what other riders do. Would Contador have won the tour this year if Rasmussen had not started, or had been pulled when the issue of missed OoC tests first came up? Hard to say. However, if riders are going to be suspended on an A positive, then the B test needs to be done ASAP so that the rider can either get back to racing or deal with the suspension as he see fits (accept or appeal).
I’m torn here Rant. You know my feelings on the need for due process and fairness. You also know my disdain for trial by media. Where my inner conflict comes into play is the time frame between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ sample. Here is the potential other side. During this time, Mayo would have been allowed to race. In theory, he could have continued in the Tour and won. He could have also won the Vuelta (unless the lab comes back within the next few days).
In this scenario, if the ‘B’ was positive he would have been stripped of his two Grand Tour titles and those titles and prize monies given to the rightful winner. In our current time, the real prize money comes from endorsements following a big win. By waiting until September to declare the Tour winner, he loses that windfall since his 15 minutes is over. How do you protect that rider as well as the accused?
In the end, I’ll have to come down on fairness for the accused but I can’t do it lightly.
Yes, the easy way is to demand faster testing but until that happens, we need to work with what we have.
Morgan,
It’s an odd thing that WADA’s own requirements for this particular test state that the confirmation testing should be done this way. I don’t think it has to do with the accreditation of the labs, so much as it has to do with how complicated this particular test must be. I actually think it would be good if all confirmation tests were performed at a different lab. It would remove the possibility of a systemic error within one particular lab, which leads to consistent but potentially incorrect answers, as a source of error in the overall findings. The Landis case is a prime example of a lab doing things consistently — but doing them consistently wrong.
William,
I see your point, and it’s a good one. Exactly how will they determine whether the B confirms the A? This thing about two labs appears to be by WADA’s own technical document. One could also ask the question, if a test is so tricky that it needs to be verified this way, is it too complex and too unreliable to be used at all?
Jim,
It’s not easy to find the best solution. Speed is necessary, because without that, an innocent rider can suffer from being wrongly accused. And we have to protect those who aren’t accused, as well. It’s a tough balancing act, isn’t it? I would hope that these kinds of situations could lead to some positive changes within the anti-doping system. But as you say, in the meantime, we have to work with what we have — and try to make it better.
Rant:
If the double test is mandated by WADA’s already established protocols for this particular test, then I retract my implications of an ulterior motive; however I still wonder why the sequential testing rather than concurrent testing.
William,
I agree. They ought to be doing concurrent testing in order to bring about a quicker resolution — regardless of which way it goes.
Anybody named for a condiment must be used to some level of disrespect.
*
Have those flukies come up with a decision yet? I need some sleep.
jbsmp,
Nope, no decision’s been released. Get a good night’s rest. You never know what tomorrow might bring. 😉
Hey Rant, Even at the risk of being called a “pro-doper/cheater” I just can’t get around the fact that Floyds’ trial had called into question LNDD – but if LNDD which is a WADA certified lab produces questionable work – then I cannot ignore the logical conclusion that there are other WADA accredited labs that have shoddy working habits.
–
I realize that taking such a stance, calls into question all labs. I cannot see how anyone would feel secure with the WADA accreditation? If we do not have a set of labs that the racers or the public can point to and say – this lab is unbiased – it is world standard accredited for its work – then how is any of these testings to be taken seriously? Does it matter that a test is complicated? No. Because the original question of the work itself has not been addressed, as far as I can see.
–
I have nothing against testing in two different labs – but aren’t we just deluding ourselves if the accreditation is in question? How are we to trust any results if this situation exists?
–
So there is no misunderstanding – I am not against testing. I do have some doubts as to what the new “idea” of “keeping” samples for future testing that is being put forth being that I see this as just more “keeping” the fear of god in the racers – and little more. It is just “them” trying to hedge their lack of present day testing levels against a future test development.
I think the logic is, if two labs are needed to confirm the “B” test, then if either lab fails to confirm the “A” test, the rider would be cleared. I’m not a scientist, but it can’t possibly be a matter of “polling” a lot of labs to see what everyone thinks. Science is not something you put to a vote. This would also provide a logic for NOT testing concurrently at the two “B” labs: if the first “B” lab fails to confirm the “A” test, then there’s no need for the second lab to do testing (thus saving money and avoiding the embarassment of possibly having the two “B” labs disagree).