Martina Hingis shocked the tennis (and sports) world today by retiring from the sport, rather than spending years fighting doping allegations. Hingis apparently tested positive for cocaine on June 29th at Wimbledon, but did not learn of the initial result until September, with an analysis of her B sample confirming the result a few weeks later.
According to news reports, Hingis hired an independent firm to do a different form of analysis, using some hair samples to test for the presence of cocaine in her system. Fox News, ABC and a number of other outlets have reports on her retirement.
“I am frustrated and angry,” the 27-year-old Hingis said at a news conference in Zurich, Switzerland, her voice breaking as she fought back tears. “I believe that I am absolutely, 100 percent innocent.”
Hingis also said:
“I find this accusation so horrendous, so monstrous, that I have decided to confront it head-on by talking to the press.”
According to an earlier report, provided by commenter “Put up or shut up!“:
Hingis said it could take years to fight her case and decided it was time to retire.
‘’I have no desire to spend the next several years of my life reduced to fighting against the doping officials,” she said. ‘’The fact is that it is more and more difficult for me, physically, to keep playing at the top of the game.
‘’And frankly, accusations such as these don’t exactly provide me with motivation to even make another attempt to do so.”
She ended her press conference by vowing, “I have never taken drugs.” And then she left, without taking any questions.
So this is what the anti-doping crusades have come to: An athlete supposedly tests positive, and rather than face almost certain financial ruin in an attempt to prove her innocence, she chooses to walk away, instead. It’s as if she’s followed some other case that’s been going on over the last year, and she saw the writing on the wall, which says “We will destroy you if you fight. It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent. We will destroy you just the same.”
Interestingly, this sounds like one of the first times that an athlete has chosen to go the outside testing route to try and prove her innocence. And using a hair test could certainly do that, in terms of proving or disproving whether she used cocaine during a specific period of time.
There’s a reason some employers prefer this method of drug testing — it’s harder to cover one’s tracks. I’ve worked for two companies that required this kind of test prior to being hired. And the first time I encountered it, the person taking the sample told me that it could detect use going back quite a way … in some cases months after the last contact with a drug. A scary proposition to someone using illicit substances, as the likelihood of being caught is much greater. But as Dr. Gary Wadler notes in the Fox News article, these tests can’t determine whether the use has been recent.
Wadler, who used to be the U.S. Open’s head doctor, said that although cocaine is generally not thought of as a performance-enhancing drug, it theoretically could help.
“The acute effects of cocaine probably, overall, would impair and not enhance performance. But within a two-hour window, you may actually have some enhancement – overcoming fatigue, reaction time, and so on,” said Wadler, an associate professor of medicine at New York University and a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Hingis said her family and management suggested she take a test that examines a person’s hair to check for cocaine use and the result was negative, although she didn’t say when or where she was tested. Wadler said hair tests usually are not used in sports because they don’t necessarily show recent drug use.
It’s a sad end to Martina Hingis’ career. But given the nature of how the current anti-doping system works, perhaps all too predictable. At least in the sense that once accused, the burden of proving one’s innocence is so high — and the cost so great — that it’s a rare person, indeed, who can overcome the built-in bias against the athlete. Hingis made the choice to walk away rather than spend all her time and resources fighting.
I can’t say that she’s made the right decision, as my nature would be to fight if I believed I’d been wrongly accused. But I can understand the calculus, and with the odds so heavily weighted against her, I can understand why Hingis has chosen to switch rather than fight. It’s a sad, sad day for tennis to see an athlete of her stature forced to make such a choice.
Say What?
From CyclingNews.com (also pointed out by “Put up or shut up!”):
The director of the WADA-accredited Swiss Laboratory for Analysis of Doping in Lausanne, Switzerland, has told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws that he believed there was still widespread doping in the Tour de France this year. “47 out of 189 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO,” Martial Saugy alleged. “We have been able to show this from the samples taken at the health controls.”
Still, Saugy added that these test results did not fulfil the requirements to be declared as ‘positive’. “It is appalling, but we find so many test results that undoubtedly point to manipulation,” he continued. “But there is a big difference between a suspicious sample and one that can be declared positive.”
Saugy also found indications for the use of testosterone and growth hormone. “Especially the latter product is very popular at the moment,” he added. “As soon as there will be a water-proof test for growth hormone, it will show that 80 percent [of the peloton] is taking it. I am disillusioned: the use of growth hormone is as bad as was the use of EPO and blood doping in the 90’s.”
I find it interesting that the director of the anti-doping lab in Lausanne would have access to such information that he can quote a statistic about how many riders were using EPO or were blood doping in this year’s Tour. Not that it’s impossible, mind you, but exactly how does he know? What samples taken at which health controls?
If, as M. Saugy maintains, such results were true, the first place I’d be expecting to read about them would be in an online edition of L’Equipe (or a translation of the same). The tidbit he offers that the results don’t fulfill the requirements for a positive test point in the direction of hematocrit tests (which determine the percentage of red blood cells in one’s blood), done with portable equipment during the tour. By WADA’s own rules, such test results cannot be used to prosecute a doping case. The reason is fairly simple: The portable test is not nearly so accurate as the more expensive test required by the anti-doping agency.
M. Saugy is right to point out, however, that there is a big difference between a suspicious sample and a positive result. Many factors can affect the hematocrit level, including dehydration. The more dehydrated you are, the higher the number will be. Suspicious results don’t automatically mean a person doped, however, so one cannot immediately assume such results prove any sort of manipulation. M. Saugy, if he’s the scientist he’s purported to be, knows better than to say that.
His comments on growth hormone, too, betray his own bias. Yes, no doubt there are cyclists using growth hormone. Just as there are cyclists who use EPO and cyclists who use testosterone, and probably even a few who are using “Clark Stanley’s Snake Oil Linament.” But how does he know that it’s 80% and not 8%? Or any number in between? The short answer is: He doesn’t.
Maybe the use of growth hormone is just as bad as the use of EPO in the early 90s. Maybe it isn’t. When a test comes along that can detect growth hormone, we’ll get a better picture of the extent of the problem. Before then, it’s all speculation. The esteemed director of the anti-doping lab in Lausanne should know better than to pour gasoline on the fire that is the modern fury against doping by tossing out statistics without the data to back them up.
“Lausanne should know better than to pour gasoline on the fire.”
–
I agree with you Rant – Lausanne should know better — and maybe they do and the reality is they want to throw the gas on the fire.
–
Wouldn’t surprise me — think of it like the first “shot” fired to get the “blood passport” rammed through and “naming” every one who gives them opposition dope supporters.
–
As to your points about, M. Saugy may make statements as he wishes — after all, he’s part of the WADA protectorate. They have a “free ride” card to do just about anything. Media assassination of athletes is not beyond them.
–
If I was a suspicious type — I’d even point out that Lausanne also happens to be where CAS is housed. Now — I couldn’t imagine Dickie Pound missing the chance to try a “squeeze” on the CAS itself. CAS has not been showing much “toe the party line” attitude, as WADA and the UCI and ASO would like to insist on.
–
I am not dismissing your take on Hingis — as far as I see it — it’s her right to do as she chooses. She simply has had enough of the circus. I can believe that. Have you noticed how many pros have quit cycling careers this year? For those of you who choose to see this as “old pros who dope” — good riddance and we are glad that they are gone attitude and belief, there is this you should consider.
–
I don’t think that most Pro-Riders object to being tested or controlled for doping. I do think that many pro riders are realizing that the deck is stacked against them. Most of them are barely young adults — who think they found a way to get good pay for doing what they love.
–
But consider what you get when you get rid of the “old pros” and are left with a bunch of inexperienced pros? I would think that a young biker or any athlete who has only just started would have the cajones to “stand up and be counted?” I don’t think so. I think what you get is a “pro-elite” who are more easily manipulated and bullied.
–
Who exactly benefits from that?
Hingis’ case has some similarities with Landis: an athlete is accused of doping, the alleged drug used is one which would be of little if any known benefit, and the athlete vigorously and emotionally denies the charges. It would be easy to dismiss her as just one more doper who got caught and is guilty, so of course, why contest the charges? But can she possibly be right? Her own tests could be evidence she is innocent, and her actions are consistent with that.
–
Ii presume since this was Wimbleton, the lab is question is the British one. I have no idea on their level of competence, but I have never heard anything bad about them. We can only speculate why, if Hingis is indeed innocent, why a positive result was reached on both A and B tests.
–
As regards M. Saugy’s remarks: I think he is indeed deliberately pouring gas on the fire. Not surprising, as this seems to be a common WADA tactic, especially with respect to cycling. I wonder why they have in it for cycling. Is there some history of UCI or some other cycling organization being reluctant to get fully onboard with the WADA program? Could WADA be afraid that come sports are going to tell them to take a hike?
William,
I’m not sure what lab actually does the drug testing for Wimbledon, but the company hired to do it is a Swedish company called International Doping Tests & Management. Perhaps they contract with various WADA-accredited labs, or perhaps they have their own labs. I find it odd that it took two-and-a-half months for Hingis to find out the results of the A test, and a few more weeks to find out the results of the B. Was the lab where the tests were performed on holiday from late June through early September? Surely, it doesn’t take that long to finish an initial screening, or to run a B sample test for cocaine.
Dr. Wadler is certainly toeing the line.
…
He wrote an article, published in the American College of Sports Medicine “Current Comment”
…
http://forms.acsm.org/health fitness/pdf/currentcomments/cocaine.pdf
[Edit: If URL above doesn’t work, try this link. — Rant]
…
In the article he wrote: “Most observers report athletic deterioration with the use of cocaine; there is no evidence of its being a performance enhancer.”
…
Later in the article: “Feelings of grandiosity may distort the athlete’s perception of actual performance.” “At higher ambient temperatures, especially during exercise, cocaine causes a rise in body temperature, so the athlete exercising in the heat may be susceptible to hyperthermia. This may be related to cocaine-induced changes in the body’s thermoregulatory set point and to a decrease in heat loss secondary to peripheral vasoconstriction.”
…
I’m consistently and constantly amazed at the sheer number of high level health care professionals and scientists who are willing to compromise their credibility to kneel at the feet of WADA.
…
Jello
Focusing on the Martina Hingis portion of this post …
…
Some quick observations. First, testing for cocaine is relatively simple, compared to the procedures we’ve learned about for detecting use of exogenous testosterone, or EPO. The chances for false positive tests are smaller here. False positive tests are always a possibility, of course.
…
The other question being examined here is, should cocaine be a banned substance under the WADA rules? As Jello points out, cocaine is probably not performance-enhancing. Cocaine can act as a stimulant — one of the oldest sports doping “cases” on record goes back to 1876, when an American long-distance walker was found to have chewed cocoa leaves during the course of a 24-hour race. http://cocaine.org/cokestrut.html So, I guess that if Ms. Hingis was chewing cocoa leaves or was taking otherwise indulging in cocaine during her tennis matches, the drug could have some performance-enhancing effect. Otherwise, the possible beneficial effects of any cocaine use would have worn off long before she took the court. Besides, as Jello points out, the negative effects of cocaine on a tennis player would far outweigh any possible positive effects.
…
But before we conclude that cocaine should be removed from WADA’s list of banned substances, we should all note that cocaine is NOT a drug that anyone should use, and that it’s probably particularly dangerous for athletes (who push their cardiovascular systems harder than the rest of us do). Some of you may remember the story of Len Bias, the young basketball star whose death was caused by cocaine abuse. So there’s a question: if WADA can act to prevent athletes from using a dangerous drug like cocaine, would that be such a bad thing? I know, this raises questions about whether WADA should be acting to protect athletes from themselves, or whether WADA should strictly limit its focus to performance-enhancing drugs. I probably lean in the direction of limiting WADA’s focus, given how badly they do even this limited job, and the terrible consequences that follow when an athlete is falsely accused of cocaine use. But if WADA drug testing had been able to save the life of Len Bias … that would be at least one good thing we could have said about WADA.
Larry, I’ll save you the trouble of concluding anything with regard to taking it on or off of the list – people on very high horses (higher than any you’ll ever be on if your online personality has any correlation to who you are in real life) have already decided.
…
The new code, which ironically comes into effect the day after my birthday, will move cocaine and it’s metabolites into the specified category of substances, which will provide the benefit of lex mitior to anyone accused or convicted of an AAF involving the substance – the potential penalty will be a sanction of a reprimand and a warning with no public disclosure……(and no wrecking of lives/careers).
…
To that point – cocaine is emphatically NOT performance enhancing for any activity involving cardiovascular stress. It is a vasoconstrictor, which limits and has a detrimental effect on the body’s ability to process oxygen and eliminate lactates.
…
Any perceived benefit is illusionary, as is Dr. Wadler’s credibility after contradicting himself so blatently.
…
Jello
Jello, thanks for reminding me … I think you’d already pointed out that you (and now, Ms. Hingis) have been victimized by a rule even WADA can no longer justify.
Larry and Jello,
I suppose it’s a good thing that even WADA can change its position on various drugs when change is warranted. But what Jello is telling us is not that cocaine has been pulled from the list, just that the way of handling a positive finding has changed — for the better, I think.
…
Good that change happens. Not so good (terrible, actually) that Jello’s life and Martina Hingis’ life (and likely others, too) have been negatively affected before hand. One hopes that perhaps WADA will learn a lesson here about being more careful before adding new drugs to their prohibited list.
I might point out that, while based on Jello’s post above, WADA is going to treat cocaine violation differently, at the time of Hingis’ tests, this new rule was not in effect, hence any sanction she would have faced had she not retired would be under the old regulations. We would not want WADA to sanction an athlete who took a substance not banned at the time he took it, only to have it banned later. This cuts both ways.
William,
It is a double-edged sword, indeed.
WADA does in fact ban athletes for substances not on the list.
…
They have a clause in the Prohibited List that references “and related isomers”, and they’ve sanctioned people under the “spirit of sport” clause.
…
That’s how the THG stuff was dealt with, and the amphetamine-like stuff that Kelli White was on – modafinil.
…
She was the first non-analytical positive – sanctioned for THG without a positive test for a substance that was not on the list at the time.
…
I don’t disagree with the “related isomers” part of the code, if they’re legitimately performance enhancing, but this is also how Alain Baxter got jobbed. He tested positive for methamphetamine, but the substance that he took was actually Levmetamfetamine, whick doesn’t have any performance enhancing effects, but is closely related in chemical structure.
…
The point here I think is that the new WADA Code, is putting cocaine on the “specified” part of the list. In doing so, they’re tacitly admitting that cocaine is not performance enhancing – if it was, they wouldn’t be moving it. The extension of this is that the current Code is incorrect.
…
While you’re right that this was not in effect when Martina and I tested positive, it’s frustrating that the changes in the code have been in the proposal stages since well before my test, which was almost two years ago now, and it’s their inability to make changes quickly that has caused at least these two careers to be ended. Held up against the rapidity with which they add new substances to the list, this is frustrating.
…
And if the code is in need of revision, and it’s recognized that there were some errors made by WADA in not putting some non-performance enhancing substances on the specified list, then to continue to truck along and ruin people’s careers using admittedly erroneous rules or parameters for substances is unacceptable.
…
These prosecutions for non-performance enhancing substances are done entirely in spite, which is in itself contrary to the “spirit of sport”.
…
Jello
Hang in there Jello – It ain’t a fair world – but we are doing our best to change it and make it better, one day at a time.
–
Spiteful people – yeah – I don’t think we can expect much “fairminded” thinking or action from such as those. Man there is a lot of garbage to clean up in the cycle world, ain’t it?
–
I don’t think it can be done all at once – or in a span of a short time – the people who are in positions are not going to give up that easily on holding on to their cush jobs.
–
As long as athletes get their “cases” into the public domain – we the public have a chance to “do something” – I can’t believe that anyone is aactually buying into the “keep it in the family” bs that WADA and the UCI both put out about drug cases…let
me get this straight – “we the public” don’t have to “know” about a case – we just have to accept the decision of the decider’s…wow! I think I just had a de ja vu experience.
Jello,
Well put. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to know that the revisions to the Prohibited List that affect your case have been in process long before your case started, and would have made a huge difference in how it would have played out if the WADA gang were nearly as quick to make such changes as they have been to add new drugs to the list.
…
I agree that if the related isomers are performance enhancing, then they should be covered by the list. But as you note, Alain Baxter was nabbed for using an isomer of meth that isn’t performance enhancing (and the amount in his system was miniscule, too).
…
I think it’s a fair assessment to say that the code is in need of major revisions. And I agree, some of the prosecutions that have occurred in the recent past have been handled in ways that are at crossed purposes to the spirit of sport.
…
As you said, ruining people’s careers over non-performance enhancing drugs is something done out of spite. Especially to make a public spectacle over how well the ADAs are bringing “justice” to those “evil dopers.” There are aspects of that justice, however, that strike me as evil — or darn close to it.
If there is a clause in the rules which bans “related isomers” and someone is sanctioned for having used a related isomer, than legally speaking, this was a case of being sanctioned for something that was already banned. One can argue whether or not any particular related isomer is really of benefit and should be banned, but one could make that arguement about substances specifically banned, as witness the discussions about whether or not testosterone would have been of benefit to a cyclist. But if the substance was banned, either specifically or by something like the related isomers clause, than taking action against an athlete where that was detected is not a case of prosecuting someone for something not on the list, IMO.
–
This is perhaps a rather legalistic argument. But we have been debating various legal aspects of the Landis case in particular and the WADA system in general. We cannot expect WADA, or UCI or whoever to only follow the laws, rules, and regulations when doing so benefits our particular case.
–
This is not to say that the WADA system is perfect or even good. There is much that needs to be changed, IMO. Perhaps the prohibited substance list needs to be throughly reviewed, and substances that are of little or no benefit to an athlete removed. Perhaps it should be made clear whether or not arbitration panels have the power to administer reduced penalties if the fact in a case seem to warrant such. But we can’t have them going back in time and saying “Well, even though this rule wasn’t in effect at the time, we’re still going to use it in your case.” That would be total chaos.
Before Rant moves on to the NEXT outrage in the world of the ADA’s, let me comment briefly on the statements of M. Saugy, head of the Lausanne ADA lab.
…
First and foremost, M. Saugy’s statements are idiotic. They’re idiotic whether he’s right or wrong. If he’s wrong, he’s an idiot to be wrong on a topic he’s supposed to know something about. If he’s right, he’s an idiot because he’s completely missed the point. The most conservative reading of his statement is that 150 TdF riders were doping, and that LNDD caught about 2-3% of the dopers. If he’s right, then the ADA system is a complete failure, and THAT’s what M. Saugy should have announced to the press.
…
There’s no point in continuing the current anti-doping system if M. Saugy’s facts are correct. There’s no point in running an anti-doping system if nearly everyone is doping and you can catch only 2-3% of the dopers. You’re not promoting fair competition in sport, since everyone is cheating anyway and your efforts allow 97% of the cheaters to compete. You’re clearly not DETERRING anyone from cheating if 80% or more of the peleton are cheating. Moreover, if this is the best that WADA can do, after years of effort, there’s not much hope for the future of anti-doping. If WADA takes giant steps and doubles its effectiveness, then (by M. Saugy’s count), they’d be able to catch 6% of the cheaters.
…
My own guess is that M. Saugy’s statistics are a wild exaggeration. But if I’m wrong and he’s right, then he (and everyone else in the ADA world) should go into a different line of work, because they’ve failed miserably at their current line of work.
…
The second question (and I don’t want to pretend that their are only two questions) is, HOW did M. Saugy come by this information? He works for the Swiss lab; the TdF testing was done in the French lab. And why don’t any of these questions come up when people like M. Saugy have their press conferences?
I am amazed at the number of riders that choose to do blood doping, whether their own, or via Tyler, some one else’s. Now word comes that the doc’s administering the blood doping don’t even know how to keep the blood from clotting. You all “in the know” of cycling will remember the names, but I certainly remember a number of young healthy riders that have died suddenly of mysterious circumstances ; i.e., natural causes. Small blood clots kill well and leave little trace. And what better way to generate small blood clots than shitty transfusions.
From Cycling News:
“Bad blood” at T-Mobile in 2006
The investigation into doping practices at the T-Mobile team took a bizarre turn Friday when it was disclosed that at least one blood transfusion had to be cancelled because the stored blood had clotted, the prosecutors revealed on Friday. To transfuse it could have been fatal for the recipient.
“Mr. Sinkewitz said that after the first stage of the Tour de France 2006, the accused Dr. Schmid did not transfuse blood, because this blood was dangerous or unclean,” Freiburg head public prosecutor Wolfgang Maier told the dpa press agency. Sinkewitz testified that he was at the Uni Clinic three or four times last year “in order to give blood and then to be freshened up with a transfusion of blood that he had given up before.”
The German investigators are looking at whether former T-Mobile doctors Andreas Schmid and Lothar Heinrich can be charged with bodily injury, which could bring a possible jail sentence of up to five years.
dw, one thing that truly scares me is the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs on the amateur level. We’re giving our kids the message that the only way to succeed in professional sports is to dope. And the amateurs don’t get drug-tested.
There are no “checks and balances” in the present system. What ever checks and balances the present system “claims” is nothing but a sham. May I remind you all of the “health tests” that were supposedly run on the pros — using their old samples. How is this nothing more then a “fishing expedition?” As William states
I think that is exactly what the “health tests” real purposes were.
–
Personally I am not against a “WADA” organization. I think that if you are going to “fight” doping then you need to establish a central body that cuts across national boundaries and makes the issue a world problem — which by the way it is. The problem with WADA as it is today is simply that it is “guilty” of the very thing it is purported to uphold — FAIRNESS and an EVEN PLAYING FIELD in sport.
–
The WADA organization is not transparent, in fact it “works” at being obtuse and encourages codependents on the riders with selling the idea of “keeping everything in the Family” – this is like accepting that the “sacredness of the family” disallows the “public” to note when someone goes home from work and proceeds to beat the wife and kids into submission because they want to feel like their life is important. How is WADA’s behavior any different? There is no difference.
–
As Larry astutely observes
Perhaps they don’t come up because the reporters don’t really know to ask such questions. Or perhaps “asking” such questions would soon get them cut off from “accessibility.” A dysfunctional parent who beats his wife and kids — is not a parent who “understands” FAIR PLAY. Such people are petty tyrants and won’t stop till they are stopped. WADA, the UCI and the IOC have proven themselves to be “abusive” in their responsibilities. They won’t stop until it is made clear to them that their activities can’t be tolerated.
–
Larry, you are right — the kids are getting a tough lesson with this one. But you know what — lucky for your kids that you are there to explain the situation to them. Children are tougher then we adults tend to think of them. No doubt there will be children who look at what is going on now and come away “thinking” — this is how the “game is played” and will be influenced to do the same. Nothing can be done about this. But we can do something about WADA, the UCI and the IOC and their “rationalized” belief that whenever someone becomes a “procyclist a pro athlete” he or she is automatically a doper.
–
dw — If something comes of the doctors getting a jail sentence — it will be the first time that the “medical” part of the codependent Family is actually going to get prosecuted — but to be a bit perverse — I do believe that the Germans are instituting new laws to get this done. Something along the lines of — “Well it wasn’t illegal before but it is now.”
Hi Rant, I don’t know if you have seen this about the Kashechkin case but it pretty much sums up what everyone here is saying and the tack that his defense team will take. “Kashechkin and his lawyers contend the tests are illegally stacked against athletes and that federations have no right to impose heavy sanctions that damage a competitor’s career.” The whole article is here http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-kashechkindoping&prov=ap&type=lgns.
Morgan:
You are exactly right about checks and balances. WADA says a rider cannot contest the science behind a test. Perhaps the tests, at least some of them, are good, but true science does not shy away from being questioned. WADA says the labs are presumed to have done the work correctly, but we see from LNDD that that isn’t always the case. WADA says that anyone working for a WADA lab cannot testify in behalf on an athlete. (Would this be allowed in a criminal and/or civil case in US courts?) This almost seems an admission that there may be problems which WADA would not like to be brought out.
–
WADA should allow an athlete to make any reason sort of defense, based of course on facts of the case and of good science. If some test used against an athlete is flawed, and an athlete can show that by testimony of experts, that should be allowed. If someone from a WADA lab has testimony that would help an athlete, that should be allowed.
–
Larry:
This past June we visited one of our daughters who is in grad school in Houston. Texas had recently passed a law authorizing drug testing of students involved in extra-curricular activities, including sports, band and choir, etc. One of the school districts in the greater Houston area had released figures from their testing. While there was some PEDs detected, the greater amount was “recreational drugs” like marijuana. Bases on those figures, it seems that most high school athletes are not into PEDs. It kind of surprised me, I’d have thought there would have been much more use of steroids, what with HS football in Texas being what it is.