Martina Fights; Thorpedo Cleared

by Rant on November 7, 2007 · 9 comments

in Doping in Sports, Ian Thorpe, Martina Hingis, Swimming

Almost every time I write one of these articles, I have an idea of what subject or subjects I want to cover. Just as often as not, something happens before my fingers hit the keyboard that winds up shooting a hole in my plans. Today, I was going to take a further look into more of the cortisone articles from the 2005 Cologne conference, as I actually did find one that begins to address the idea of a threshold value, below which it wouldn’t be a doping violation, and above which it would.

The gist of that article is that the limit mentioned in WADA’s Minimum Required Performance Limits would be useful only as a threshold value for a screening test, and not for confirmation or proof of doping. And, it’s only good in a very specific time window after the medication has been administered (within the first 24 hours). Still, I’ve found no official WADA document that lists an official threshold value. More on that another time.

There are two doping stories that have hit the news cycles today that are screaming for my attention. So, without further ado (and I will get back to the whole cortisone discussion another time, just like I will finish up and publish another “Rant Interview” someday soon):

Martina’s Gonna Fight

Reader Morgan Hunter left a comment earlier today that he’d just heard that Martina Hingis plans on fighting doping charges stemming from an alleged positive test for cocaine when she competed at Wimbledon last June. I immediately took a few moments to go look for the story and found one version on South Africa’s IOL website. Morgan heard about it from CNN Europe. We have CNN International on our cable system here, and they’ve been carrying a report for the past few hours. But the story still hasn’t made it to the CNN International web site. Strange.

The long and the short of it is that Hingis’ manager is now saying that Hingis will challenge the charges that she used cocaine during Wimbledon.

[H]er manager Mario Widmer told BBC Sport: “She will be fighting this, of course. You can be clear about that. The matter is currently with her lawyers.”

Australia’s Herald Sun adds that Hingis will be represented by Tony Morton-Hooper, an English attorney who helped runner Diane Modahl successfully challenge doping charges stemming from a case where she was alleged to have tested positive for testosterone doping, and who also successfully defended triathlete Spencer Smith against charges of testing positive for nandrolone in 1998.

The Herald Sun notes:

In both instances, Morton-Hooper attacked the “chain of custody” documentation of the urine samples, which ensures that the sealed test tubes can be tracked accurately throughout the testing procedure.

When she announced her retirement last week, Hingis was firm in her denial that she’d used cocaine. The problem is, if you’re going to deny you did something and you just walk away, it’s going to appear to many that the charges are warranted. The only way to preserve one’s name and reputation (as much as can be done, given the damage that occurs when a doping story hits the media) is to stand and fight. The problem with that, though, is that many’s the time an athlete has loudly proclaimed innocence only to sheepishly admit later on that, well, yes, he or she really did dope.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. If that’s the way it’s going to be, then in my book the best approach for the long term is to at least try to clear one’s name. Good on Martina for having the guts to fight the charges against her.

It’s Finally Over For The Thorpedo

Also hitting the newswires today is word that FINA, the International Swimming Federation, is throwing in the towel on the Ian Thorpe case for lack of evidence. As a Reuters story published by the Guardian Unlimited notes:

“We are not continuing the case,” FINA executive director Cornel Marculescu told The Australian newspaper on Wednesday.

“There’s not sufficient evidence to take further action.

“We have informed CAS (the Court of Arbitration for Sport) and ASADA.”

The BBC adds that:

“The case is now closed and there is no question of it being opened again,” a Fina spokesman told BBC Sport.

Back in August, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency determined that Thorpe had no case to answer, regarding an out-of-competition sample taken in May 2006 which was said to show abnormal (and somewhat elevated) levels of testosterone and leutenizing hormone.

The story broke when Damien Ressiot of L’Equipe wrote an article in April claiming that the Australian swimming superstar had tested positive for banned substances in 2006. In fact, ASADA had never concluded that the May 2006 test results warranted an adverse analytical finding against Thorpe. Ressiot’s story, however, was timed for maximum impact so that it would appear at the same time the World Swimming Championships were occurring in Australia, of all places.

The Herald Sun notes that Thorpe may be considering legal action.

Swimming Australia chief executive Glenn Tasker said he would fully support Thorpe if he decided to take the issue further.

“We would encourage him to do that,” Tasker said.

“Leaks like that are no good for anybody, no matter what the sport is. If he can take it further, we would encourage him to do that. My guess though is that he could only do that in Europe.”

ASADA chairman Richard Ings said confidentiality was crucial.

“Confidentiality is absolutely critical. In this case confidentiality was breached,” Ings said.

“ASADA conducted a full and comprehensive internal investigation at the time and we are confident the breach did not come from our organisation.”

Good news, today, for Ian Thorpe. Better still would be if the source of the leaks can be found and held responsible. Whoever tipped Ressiot off appears to have been attempting a hatchet job on the Australian swimmer. Having dropped the case, FINA should now work to find the person or persons responsible for the leak, as well.

The person or persons who breached Thorpe’s confidentiality should be held accountable, as should any organization that may have been a party to the leak. For the anti-doping fight to have credibility, all those involved must respect the rules.

William Schart November 8, 2007 at 5:43 am

The Aussie ADA seems to have handled the Thorpe affair with a more open mind then the USADA did with Landis. None of this “We’re batting 1.000” posturing, but rather more “Let’s look at the evidence and see what is really happening”. Of course, to be the devil’s advocate for a moment, it could be that they were protecting their golden boy, but if there really was a good case, would FINA have dropped it? Anyway, does this bode well for the admisstration of the Aussie president of WADA, whose name escapes me at the moment?

Rant November 8, 2007 at 6:10 am

William,

Fahey. John Fahey. He’ll be the man who replaces Dick Pound, when the D-man steps down in about 9 days’ time. I’ve written about this before. The way ASADA handled Thorpe’s case has been much more open-minded and in the spirit of seeking truth than USADA’s handling of most cases, including the Landis case.

William Schart November 8, 2007 at 5:27 pm

John Fahey, that’s it. You know, there was a guitarist, now dead, that same name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fahey_(musician)

To put this on topic, are all musicians dopers?

Larry November 8, 2007 at 5:50 pm

William, following Jean’s link, I guess we’d have to see the musician’s wattage figures. Didn’t “Spinal Tap” go all the way to 11?

Doping musician November 8, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Could someone please explain this to me:
*
Rasmussen defended himself, saying that the missed controls were from the Danish federation, which he said did not have the right to test him as his license is from Monaco. “They were Danish [Federation] controls. They don’t have the right to make them,” explained Rasmussen in August. “I was not in Denmark and my license is from Monaco. I did not miss the WADA or UCI controls. The UCI even made one when I was in Denmark for the national championships on June 30.
*
*
What value is there for Ras to have his license with Monaco? Is this a tax dodge, a doping dodge, or does he just want to hang with skanky chicks?

Daniel Peterson November 8, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Rant,

I have a basic question about Landis’ therapeutic exemption use of glucorticoids:

Was it cortisone (hydrocortisone) injected intra-articularly (I assume intra-articular delivery for hip osteoarthritis, as opposed to oral or IM as you presumed in a previous post)?

Cortisone has inferior potency compared to methylprednisolone and triamcinolone acetonide -both glucocorticoids apparently also have longer lasting effects and are more often used for intra-articular injections, as far as I can tell.

Determining the actual corticosteroid injected should be clarified, since it (and/or it’s metabolites) are potential coeluting substances, and thus potential confounders to estimating the carbon 12-13 difference in peaks coeluting with the glucocorticoid (and/or it’s metabolites).

I just left a post over at DPF with the same question, alluding to a previous discussion with OMJ that I had regarding his thoughts on the cortisone question:
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5883&pid=101169&st=60&#entry101169

So, was it actually a cortisone injection -or another glucocorticoid like methylprednisolone or triamcinolone? I think the medical literature would suggest more arthritis benefit from the latter two. Would his therapeutic exeption form spedify this? Is this form viewable anywhere on the web? You think Floyd actually knows what was injected? Who is his doctor who was doing the intra-articular injections?

thanks!

Dan

Rant November 8, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Doping musician,

The Danish paper Politiken did an article a while back (don’t have the cite at the moment) about Rasmussen’s use of “countries of convenience” for his racing license. Two examples: Mexico and more recently, Monaco. The speculation is that because these countries have no real established anti-doping programs that this may have been a way to avoid a great deal of out-of-competition tests. Rasmussen isn’t saying why he chose to license there and not in Denmark. But he doesn’t reside in Denmark much. He owns a home in Italy, and perhaps one in Mexico (where his in-laws live). He also owns a bike shop near his Italian home.

Could be a tax dodge, may well be a doping dodge, and if he likes hanging with skanky chicks, he’s going to be in trouble with his wife. 😉


Dan,

I’m working on finding out the answers to your questions about the particular drug and how it was administered. Floyd may know, but if not, either his personal physician or the Phonak team physician might know. Now, the question is whether Floyd will allow this information to be released. But given how open he’s been so far, who knows? He might.

I’ve found references to various corticoids that have a half-life of up to 54 hours, which is pretty long acting, and would probably be detectable for a very long time. But that’s with IM administration, and I’ve heard some rumblings that perhaps the metabolism of an IM drug is different and less detectable via urine specimens. Lots of stuff to track down. If only I could do this full-time and not worry about the day job, I’d have all of what I’m looking into done much sooner.

The TUE paperwork might have the name of the drug, as you suggest. I haven’t seen it posted anywhere, but there’s a lot of stuff out there, and it would sure be easy to miss.

By the way, that drug with the 54-hour half-life? One of the side-effects would be to exacerbate the problems Floyd was having with his hip. One hopes that wasn’t the drug being used.

doping musician November 9, 2007 at 7:33 am

I must have meant “swanky chicks”.

Rant November 9, 2007 at 8:36 am

Yep, I’m sure you did. But if he’s hanging with the swanky chicks, he’s still gonna have some `splaining to do when he gets home to his wife. 🙂

Previous post:

Next post: