Mayo B Samples Come Back Negative

In case you haven’t already heard, Iban Mayo’s B sample tests came back negative today. The tests were a counter-analysis of a sample taken during the Tour de France that allegedly tested positive for EPO when initially analyzed at France’s anti-doping laboratory (LNDD). It took about two months for the labs involved in the B sample tests to reach their conclusion– about half the time it took a certain arbitration panel to reach their decision in the Floyd Landis case — but still too long to reach a conclusion. Somewhere in Spain, Mayo must be breathing a few sighs of relief. The last two months could hardly have easy.

As the Guardian reports:

“It was a very bad experience because I didn’t understand what was happening…. but everything has turned out as I expected,” Mayo was quoted as saying on the Web site of Spanish sports daily Marca (www.marca.com)

The 30-year-old Saunier Duval rider, who was subsequently suspended by his team, failed the test on the July 24 rest day of this year’s Tour. He finished the race in 16th place overall.

Spanish media said that the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) had told Mayo’s lawyer that the ‘B’ test had been negative.

A spokesman for Mayo’s team, Saunier Duval, said that they had not yet been officially informed of the test results.

The news of Mayo’s result is a good illustration of one of the key problems with the way the current ProTour “ethics policy” and WADA’s anti-doping procedures conflict with each other. In the end, the riders wind up getting screwed.

On the one hand, the UCI’s ProTour ethics policy requires that teams suspend a rider when an A sample comes back “non-negative.” On the other hand, WADA’s rules guarantee an athlete’s privacy until the B sample comes back confirming an A sample’s results. Under WADA’s rules, we would not have heard about Mayo’s positive test unless there was confirmation of the results on counter-analysis.

But under the ProTour ethics rules, Mayo had to be suspended once the initial “positive” results of his tests came back. With any rider, suddenly being unavailable to race would seem odd. With a rider as well-known as Mayo, a sudden disappearance from racing without explanation would be taken by many to indicate his being caught up in a doping case. There aren’t too many ways to keep news of a rider’s A sample returning a positive anti-doping test quiet. Especially with the leakiness of certain labs and other organizations.

Under ProTour rules, it’s virtually a guarantee that the public will know about a rider’s positive result before the B sample comes back. Once news leaks out that a rider has been suspended, it wouldn’t take a genius to guess why. And given the tenor of the times, it’s virtually guaranteed that many will conclude the rider must be a doper, long before such a conclusion would be warranted. How many people assumed Mayo was guilty of using EPO long before the B sample results came back negative? How many still think he did it?

For the last two+ months, Mayo has been unable to race. No race, no prize money, no income — unless his team decided to pay his salary while waiting for the B sample results. Regardless of being suspended with or without pay, imagine being sidelined and unable to do your job for so long, wondering whether you’ll be cleared and able to work again, or you’ll be charged with a doping offense.

In either case, it’s bad. Being suspended without pay (which happens in “real life,” too) puts the punishment before the verdict. Mayo, being a highly-paid cyclist, probably didn’t suffer too badly in a financial sense (although this scandal could have had consequences as far as sponsorships and endorsements goes). For others of lesser means, however, even a couple of months taken out of the cycling season could be devastating. For an average person, a two-month suspension from work without pay could wreak havoc on one’s finances.

From where I see it, there is nothing ethical about throwing someone out of work before the evidence is strong enough to warrant a conclusion of wrong-doing. That the evidence came from a lab which has become notorious for less than stellar work makes taking such action even more suspect. Only if there’s a doping case to answer — which there isn’t until either the athlete accepts the A sample results or the B sample results confirm the original finding — can suspending the athlete can be justified. Before then, the rider should be allowed to race. If there’s a doping case, and the rider is found guilty, appropriate punishment can (and should) occur. But not before.

Consider the difference between two cyclists accused of using synthetic testosterone in 2006. In Joe Papp’s case, he was able to keep competing until the results of the B sample counter-analysis came back. In Floyd Landis’ case, he was hung out to dry even before his team had received any official word of his test results. With the required suspension, followed by the required dismissal after the B sample results were announced, Landis was effectively suspended — not just by his team, but from competition entirely — just days after his Tour victory.

In most countries, there’s a concept of equal protection under the law. In the world of the UCI and WADA, there is no such equal protection. If the goal of WADA’s anti-doping efforts is to “harmonise” the system, then all athletes should be treated the same way when facing anti-doping charges. As it stands today, they’re not.

Another twist to the Mayo case is the fact that his B samples were tested in two other labs, rather than at LNDD. The University of Ghent, in Belgium, and at the Australian anti-doping lab. Interestingly, this is a WADA requirement (the testing at other labs, not the particular labs where Mayo’s tests were performed), as the EPO test is a difficult test to perform and properly interpret. The analysis at the different labs is at least partly responsible for the lengthy delay in getting Mayo’s B sample results.

Having B samples tested at other labs should occur for all types of tests, not just the especially tricky ones. That said, with those tests that are of greater difficulty, the certification process should be much more thorough. Given the stakes, labs should demonstrate a very high level of proficiency before being allowed to perform such tests. If that means there are fewer labs able to do so, so be it. If that makes for logistical problems for the anti-doping labs, so be it.

For the athletes, the stakes are extraordinarily high. One bad result and they could be out of a job. One problematic result on the part of an ADA’s lab techs, on the other hand, doesn’t have such great consequences for those conducting the tests. Which is why the labs should be held to higher standards. If it was your job on the line, wouldn’t you want to know that the labs were required to meet stringent certification standards? I’d hate to lose my job because the tests were improperly conducted by poorly trained staff.

Which is not to say that this was the case in LNDD’s analysis of Mayo’s A sample. Given some of the revelations about LNDD over the last few years, the Mayo result does raise additional questions about the lab and their certification to perform the work. Good results can be repeated equally well by other labs. Poor quality results cannot.

It’s a safeguard in the system that B sample analysis is required before charging an athlete with doping. It’s a safeguard that some (like Dick Pound) would toss away, on the theory (not yet proven) that the tests are so good that merely the A sample results should be enough to convict someone of doping.

Iban Mayo dodged a bullet today. It leaves me wondering, who will the first person be to apologize to him for having to sit out the Vuelta, the world championships and a host of other races? Who can make it up to him? What’s happened here should be a cautionary tale for those who make the rules. It’s time to rethink requiring the pros to sit out while awaiting their B sample results, or to rework the testing protocols to enable quicker results that will get innocent riders back on the road, and guilty riders punished sooner.

I have a hunch that the powers that be won’t notice or heed such a lesson. Instead, I can picture certain individuals crowing about how fair the system is. Or the same individuals saying, “Well, he got away this time. But next time …”

Iban Mayo, quoted in the Guardian, commented on what’s happened to him over the last couple of months:

“I have never stopped training, but psychologically I had a very bad time although people have helped me. I’ve got a year left on my contract with the team and I hope to complete it.”

…

“[S]ometimes you feel like [quitting] because there are so many injustices.

“The fans who like cycling don’t want to see this sort of thing happen.”

Exactly.