Lots of stuff going on the past few days. First off, the WADA conference in Madrid, which WADAwatch has provided excellent coverage. Big new from there, of course, is that John Fahey was elected WADA president for the next three years, despite some last minute palace intrigue and the last minute almost entry of an alternate candidate named Guy Drut. That maneuver failed, given that his name was submitted well past the deadline for nominations, as did a move to try and postpone the election for six months while keeping the current president on in a caretaker capacity.
Then there’s the ongoing story about Barry Bonds’ indictment on perjury charges a few days ago. A New York Times story published today talks about possible problems revolving around Jeff Novitsky, IRS agent who collected the evidence against Bonds and others associated with the Balco scandal and how Novitsky did so. One interesting aspect of Novitsky’s investigation technique for this case is that he didn’t tape record his interviews he conducted with various individuals. Rather, it appears he wrote detailed reports from notes and memory.
While that may give a reasonable facsimile of what was said, it’s not an ideal way to get exact quotes — or to back up one’s claims as to what someone said. Whenever I interview people, if the batteries on my tape recorder fail and I have to go by my written notes, I try to double-check with the interviewee to make certain that the quotes I have are accurate. Of course, one can’t exactly do that in a law enforcement sense, because if the subject of the interview realizes what the implications of a given comment are, he or she will change stories.
And for those following the Rasmussen story, it appears (according to an article on the Politiken.dk website, machine translation here) that the UCI will begin their disciplinary case against the Danish rider this coming week, by getting in touch with Monaco cycling officials and encouraging them to open proceedings related to his alleged whereabouts violations and his false statements to the UCI about where he was training in the run-up to the 2007 Tour de France.
Gripper was mum on what action the UCI would be taking, but told a reporter for Politiken:
I can only say that the decision wasn’t difficult for us. And if we open a case against Rasmussen, we will hand over the file to the national authorities in Monaco, where he has license, and ask them to start the case against him. If we aren’t satisfied with their handling of the case, we can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA can do the same [appeal to the CAS, that is].
Judging by the rest of Politiken’s story, it appears pretty certain what the UCI will be doing regarding the Rasmussen case. Suffice it to say that it would be a real surprise if they choose not to pursue a case against him.
To finish up, there’s also Patrick Sinkewitz, who will be serving a one-year suspension due to his positive testosterone result dating back to June. Sinkewitz has been cooperating with German investigators looking into various allegations of doping within the German professional cycling community. For that cooperation, Sinkewitz received a reduced sanction. According to Cyclingnews.com, he may try to get the sanction reduced to 6 months, based on some changes to the WADA code passed in Madrid a couple of days ago. Changes that won’t actually take effect until January 1, 2009. Never hurts to ask, I guess, but from where I see it, Sinkewitz should be happy with his reduced sanction. He could have been sitting out for 2 years. Sinkewitz also was socked with a 40,000-euro fine. Again, he ought to breathe a sigh of relief at that. It could have been much worse — like his entire year’s salary, said to be in the hundreds of thousands of euros.
I’m on holiday for the next week, working on a large writing project that happens to be another of my “spare time” hobbies, if you will. So, while I’ll be writing, I may not have much time for ranting my fool head off. I suspect this may come as good news to some folks. 😉
What I’ll be writing about over the next week is doping during the years since 2000, from an historical perspective (as opposed to the news/commentary that this site features). I’m going to give my loyal readers an assignment, for those who are willing to participate. And the assignment is this: Name some of the most important doping stories of the last seven years. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is about what happened in a given case (pro or con, guilty or innocent), just what the stories are.
Here’s my list (so far):
- The development by Robin Parisotto and the Australian Institute for Sport of an EPO test based on blood markers (LNDD’s urine test dates to 1999)
- The first EPO positive in 2001, Bo Hamburger (though, on further analysis, the case was dropped) Hamburger has recently admitted to doping, but not in 2001 when the test result occurred.
- Alain Baxter and the Vicks Inhaler incident at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics
- Steroid use by members of the Carolina Panthers in their quest for the Super Bowl
- Oil for Drugs
- Balco, and all that entails (e.g. Tim Montgomery, Kelli White, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and on and on and on)
- Jose “Juiced” Canseco (a baseball player, for my readers outside North America)
- The development of a test for homologous blood doping (that is, using another person’s blood)
- Tyler Hamilton, sanctioned as a result of the homologous blood doping test above
- Greek athletes Kenteris and Thanou stage a motorcycle accident to avoid a dope test
- Tennis pro Guillermo Canas suspended in 2005 for two years for testing positive for a diuretic that is thought to be a masking agent (Note: corrected after a tip from an emailer)
- Lance and the L’Equipe allegations of EPO use during the 1999 Tour
- Operacion Puerto
- The Floyd Landis case
- And many of the cases from 2007
What I’d especially like to get is input from readers in other parts of the world regarding scandals in sports not mentioned above. When leaving a comment, if there’s an especially good article about the subject, leave that information, too. For those who don’t wish to leave a comment, but would rather just send an email, you can do that, as well.
I’ll talk more about the full extent of this project in a later post (like when it’s finally done). For the next week, I’ll be concentrating on cranking out about 25,000 words on the subject. Somewhere in there, I’ll try to write a post or two. For my readers in the US, have a good Thanksgiving holiday.
Formation of WADA.
…
Doping related deaths: Marco Pantani, Chris Benoit, possibly Florence Griffith Joyner.
…
Possibly Team Slipstream – the idea that a team could be successful by making winning less important than riding clean.
…
Mark McGuire, Rafael Palmerio and baseball’s ill-fated testimony before Congress on doping.
…
I’ll add more as I think of more.
So Jean C — do you still think that the Rant Line is only about “biased” commentary?
Do not take my comment as a rebuff — it is not intended, in this manner.
–
Not being connected to Rant in anyway, other then as one of his readers — I point out that this is why I found Rant and his rants above the “usual” venting blogs.
–
I may be stating the “obvious” to all the other participating individuals — but the Rant Line has always struck me as most interested in INFORMING the public, standing up for fairness and having the ability to express and offer a forum for all concerned to have “dialogs.” I think this needed to be stated.
–
YES — THIS IS A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE RANT LINE — COMPLETELY UNABASHED!
–
I can only react personally to those out there who may feel “afraid” that the issue of Floyd Landis and my belief in him has changed. Rest assured — I still feel Floyd was given a kangaroo trial. My hope is that the CAS trial will be more in line with actual jurisprudence — rather than arguing WADA’s rules.
–
If you all have been keeping track of current events — you may have noticed that WADA is becoming, at least, I hope — more of the Testing arm of sport, as it should be and that CAS will be made the Judicial arm of the process.
–
If this continues — I see this as a great improvement.
–
As I have said in previous blogs, the issues of doping and cheating in cycling and other sports are NOT IN QUESTION. What is in question is “fairness” and respect of individual rights. The pro cyclist MUST HAVE ACCESS to fair hearings — NO MATTER how much money he/she might be making. Equal Justice is not a question of one’s monetary worth.
–
Because the question of cheating and doping is a WORLD WIDE issue — not merely one of individual countries or groups — if we hope to have any possibility of “cleaning up” cycling and sports in general — we have to be responsible for our own actions.
–
We cannot afford to allow our own biases to make us into “cheaters” merely because there is a perception that the “enemy” is using unfair tactics! Cheaters always use the weaknesses and loopholes that exist in the rules. To interpret this as some form of “cleverness” on their part is to over estimate them and “excuse” the creators of the rules to hide the fact that their own short-sightedness create the “possibility” of the “cheaters” to get away with cheating.
–
The biggest blind spot in dealing with the doping/cheating situation has been the fact that “developments” — new facts, articles, opinions – in the situation are not always getting around the world.
–
WELL FOLKS — with such forums as the Rant Line and TBV — this scenario is changing and doing so fast. The computer is not merely for playing games — as it should be obvious to anyone.
–
I am honored to have gotten to know the participants in the Rant Line — Each of these people have proved themselves to be honest and sincere people — who have most excellent intellects that shine brilliantly. I thank you all for doing what is right to help solve this present problem of doping and cheating in sports.
–
Rant — you may count on me for whatever small support I may have the ability to provide. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK YOU ARE DOING.
How about the Rutger Beke case? I’m not sure whether there’s a lot about the case in english, but it seems an interesting subject.
I remember well the Finnish skiers getting caught in 2001, here is a link.
http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20010301IE6&pvm=20010301
Im Finnish so if translation needed, Im happy to help.
What about Rijs ‘fessing up? Probably could throw others who have also confessed to PED use in the past.
As a fan of the two hardest sports – cycling & cross-country skiing (including biathlon) – I thought of the doping scandal at the 2002 & 2006 Winter Olympics. I don’t have a link, but I’m sure one could “Google” or “Wikipedia” either of them.
To me the biggest “doping” story is the growth of anti-doping hysteria which in my opinion is more of a threat to the existence of some sports (cycling in particular) than actual doping ever was or will be.
It seems to me that my first awareness of blood doping was Lasse Verin in the 80s. This seemed at the time to be unique. Certainly Ben Johnson and perhaps the rumours of Carl Lewis are also a part of the history in track and field…
A full story would probably have to start in the 60s and 70s when anabolic steroids were not illegal. During this period, I was aware of international athletes who admit to using steroids, yet I understand there was no rules against this, nor any testing ( and perhaps little awareness of the risks and possible side-effects ).
I would probably include Shawn Merriman of the Chargers. He was the NFL Defensive MVP when he was busted. Also, I think you might mention the differences in punishment. Merriman got 4 games (25% of the season), while Landis gets 2 years and Justin Gaitlin (sp?) got 8 years.
Lasse VIREN worked with Dr EKBLOM, one of the father of blood doping by transfusion. At this time it was “legal”. Since Ekblom has done a lot of studies about blood doping (transfusion and EPO). It was one of the first to measure the improvement obtained by blood doping, 15 to 20% for just blood manipulation.
..
Johann Mühlleg, the Spanish from Germany won the 3 races as invincible before to be caught for EPO abuse, the 2 Russians Lazutina and Danilova were caught too for the same reasons, but Lazutina kept his first gold medals, no positive for the first race! It was a wonderful demonstration of the 2 speeds between EPO doped and not doped or less doped athletes.
—
In the First Edition Cycling News for November 19, 2007 Edited by Sue George with assistance from Greg Johnson with Antonio J. Salmerón contributing – you can find a small article, that may have a big impact on the way Wada and the UCI are planning to handle doping cases. The title of the piece is: “Valverde continues to defend himself,” the article begins.
–
“Lawyers of 2006 ProTour winner Alejandro Valverde have been asked by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to respond Monday to a case against him presented by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is seeking to sanction the Spaniard.”
–
Interestingly enough CAS had ruled in favor of Valverde, on WADA’s accusation against Valverde. Recall the Worlds Championships, as reported on September 27, 2007 in Cycling News. Now — here is the really salient point folks: His lawyers will argue a lack of new tests or evidence supporting a case against Valverde and that “no international federation can go against the decisions of the national organization.”
–
Valverde’s defense team will argue that he is not currently sanctioned and continues to race with the approval of the Spanish Superior Council of Sports. In other words Valverde and his team with the full support of The Spanish Superior Council of Sports feel that they can ignore the case against him in the sense that he does not have to stop racing, even though there is a WADA case being presented in front of CAS by WADA.
–
Interesting no? — So as I see it — and please tell me if I am wrong, Larry, William or whom ever is a lawyer here — the situation is that the “national council of Spain” is testing WADA’s right to say who can or cannot race.
–
Meanwhile Pound is accusing Valverde in the presses of being involved with Operacion Puerto and Valverde is responding with that he will ignore these attempts by WADA to “disrupt his inner peace” and concentrate on preparing for the Tour and Bei-Jing.
–
So what’s my point? Well — none of this media spin could be happening and hitting us in the face if the CAS cases and all cases in cycling and other sports were not held behind closed doors. No doubt — we would be subject to other types of spin — but as the “public” we would have some means of knowing for ourselves a little more clearly what the heck is actually being argued!
Let’s not forget the organized blood doping by the surprisingly successful 1984 US Olympic cyclists.
TBV
Cub’s got it right.
Jean C – You cannot draw conclusions like that – if you go to this site –
–
http://playthegame.org/Knowledge Bank/Articles/Blood
–
You will find a comprehensive article on the blood doping and EPO abuse at the time – THE ISSUE WAS – as it is today – the TESTING APPLIED were patched together and had not been properly vetted.
–
No one is arguing that there is doping – what is of conflict is that the “testing” procedures be valid and accredited.
Morgan, I don’t understand exactly.
My first part of the post was in reference to Bruce post about Lasse VIREN… At that time, blood doping was not banned.
The second part was in reference of Chris’ post referring to 2002 Salt Lake City JO, where EPO test was available. Maybe you are confusing with Sydney in 2000 ?
Jean C — I understood that your comments were directed at Bruce and Chris — but from a report by Jim Ferstle titled ” Blood is thicker” — one has to draw a conclusion that the testing has been “optionally” agreed on by the IOC :
–
“The Australian researchers used what they called on ON model, markers that, when measured, could indicate someone was taking rHuEPO near the time the test was administered. They also developed an OFF model that detected rHuEPO for a period of time after the athlete had stopped taking rHuEPO. The ON model derived its name from the fact that its formula detects the use of rHuEPO when an athlete is taking it and is effective in detecting use for several days. The OFF model is so named because it can detect rHuEPO only after the athlete has stopped taking the substance, but it can track use for several weeks.”
–
“Critics of the methods argued that the EPO testing in Sydney was really not an effective deterrent to rHuEPO use since the increased red blood cells produced by rHuEPO use can last for 120 days, while even the OFF model of rHuEPO blood testing could only catch someone who used it within 21 days – The tests being used in Sydney, they said, were really only effective as an out-of-competition test.”
–
“Further, the tests had not been properly validated within the scientific community. They would not stand up to a legal challenge. All of this debate went on behind the scenes in Sydney. None of it really surfaced until the Yegorova affair in Edmonton. Yegorova had been tested at an IAAF meet near Paris on July 6. The athletes were not blood tested and were not told that their urine would be analyzed for rHuEPO. The A sample test was determined to be positive. That result was leaked to L\’Equippe, the French sports daily, and the story was spread over the news wires.”
–
“Arne Ljungqvist, the IAAF medical chief, explains what happened in Edmonton. “As you know, the IOC was put under some pressure, particularly from Australia, to have an EPO test in place for the Sydney Games,” said Ljungqvist. “For that purpose a blood test was developed in the Sydney lab, and a urine test in the Paris lab.”
–
“I told him, and many journalists who asked the same question, that the standard way for a new test to be scientifically accepted is that (A) it has been published in an internationally recognized journal using the peer review system, and (B) it has been confirmed (reproduced) by other researchers in a different laboratory and their report likewise published as under A or, at least, accepted for publication in such a journal.”
–
“The following happened. Instead of waiting for the studies in Sydney and Paris to be properly published and confirmed, a review panel with quite many international experts from various fields was convened by the IOC in Lausanne in the summer of 2000.”
–
“Since, however, the blood analysis only gives an indirect information on possible rHuEPO use (similar haematological alterations can be produced by e.g. high altitude training) it was felt that the On model could not stand alone. It would require some sort of direct confirmation.”
–
“This was done by them outside our authority and with reference to the well known French law which allows for French doping controls to be conducted on any athlete competing in France. One could expect the French authorities to consult us (IAAF) before taking such an initiative at our competitions or, at least, inform us beforehand but this was not done.”
–
“This meant that the only EPO test valid at the time was the combination of blood and urine analysis accepted at the expert meeting in Lausanne in the summer of 2000.”
–
The conclusion: this is again a very good example of a lack of harmonisation. The IOC supporting a combination of the Sydney ON urine test, the WADA and International federations conducting a combination of blood screening – with less parameters than the Sydney model – and urine test, the French government doing only urine testing and the UCI having the health haematocrit levels, the blood and urine or only urine test. All of which are very good if properly supported by written regulations but somewhat confusing to the observers. ”
–
Jean C — the article is much more in depth and is annotated with references. Basically the WADA scientist in charge of the testing procedure had questioned the tests being done”¦
–
As Of now — I have no idea what procedures WADA applies to their testing methods. Do you? So we come back to another “murky rules situation” plus unvetted science being applied. You should read the whole article Jean C — I think it is worth the time.
–
It does not claim that the athletes were NOT doping — just that if we follow the existent rules of applying “bullet-proof science” to testing — NOBODY may cut corners.
–
My response to you is not intended as an attack or critizism – merely trying to get at rooting out the whole story.
Innocent infractions by Canadian athletes (sorry, 2 are outside your time frame):
–
Jeff Adams — Canadian wheelchair athlete and Olympic champion for cocaine
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/2007/06/12/adams-test.html
–
Jose Theodore — NHL goalie for Propecia
http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=154231&hubname
–
Ross Rebagliati — Canadian snowboarder for marijuana
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011527
–
Silken Laumann — Canadian rower for pseudoephedrine
http://www.canoe.ca/OlympicsCanadaLaumann/mar95_laumann.html
Wait – snowboarders are permitted to compete without marijuana?
_
How about Vaughters leaving the TDF because of a bee sting; the UCI wouldn’t permit him to get a cortisone shot for the allergic reaction.
http://www.velonews.com/race/tour2001/articles/1265.0.html
Are our perceptions of cycling as dishearteningly cynical as politics? Is our only response – tongue in cheek sarcasm or mere witty quipping? Or branding the people we see as “good guys or bad guys.” Cynicisms and comic book understanding of the human condition may well allow us to vent frustration, but it seldom seems to be able to supply solutions.
–
We may have to approach WADA, through sharp criticism — but we still need a WADA to be responsible for doing dope testing.
–
What we don’t need is doping rules that are formulated by burrocrats with no scientific knowledge. What we don’t need is “collusion” when rules are being formulated in the hands of “parties” with varied vested interests of their own.
–
Dope cheating in the peloton did not appear merely because “pro-cyclists are willing to do anything to win.” Accepting such public defamatory statements of character may allow us to feel superior but alas it also leads to nowhere.
–
Because we allow ourselves to think of doping as a weakness of moral character in the individual cyclist, we are blinded to the fact that “Juicing” is big business.
–
As I see it – it has been allowed to become big business because we refused to see it as a threat to health and wellbeing. A blind eye was turned on the grounds that “we must beat the “bad guys” at their own game, since there is proof that the enhancing benefits of “doping” is real and concrete, the “good guys” rationalized they had to do it to be competitive. Individual athletes did not make such decisions; it had to have been made by governing bodies! — WORLD WIDE!
–
Our own “morally superior” attitudes have allowed doping in cycling to turn into this present day monster. The fans love their “heroes.” They love the spectacle that these heroes perform for the fans entertainment — but how many fans actually “know” what the price of this level of entertainment cost?
–
In standing up for the rights of the athlete — I am not being an “apologist” for them. I am accepting that there is doping in the peloton or on the field or in the rink or ring. A professional athlete has no less or more character then John Doe on the street. Just as John Doe will pounce on an “apparent” edge to claw his way higher on the survival chain — the pro athlete may not be expected to behave better! That is why as societies, we try to make laws that treat the individual “fairly.”
–
Does this make my view of the world “jaded?” Perhaps it does — but it does not discount the way the nature of people seems to be competitive. So if socially we have all turned a corner and have decided once and for all that doping is cheating and we don’t want it. I can live with that — what I refuse to be a party to – is placing the burden of blame on a small group of people. The athletes. All the while ignoring the fact that “doping” as it has come to pass is so sophisticated that an individual athlete needs the support of the people – not in the spotlight – to do it!
–
Maybe it is high time to get the heck off that “moral high ground” and do something constructive — like treating everyone fairly and accepting that whatever nationality or social status they are — we are all first and foremost human. That creating fair rules usually starts with people discovering that unfairness exists! That “creating” fair laws is messy business, not always a pleasure, sometimes bloody, and the worst prejudices and biases come out of the very people who are trying to make the system better!
Dear Jean C and Morgan,
Your are both pretty well on the money.
I would concur that Jim Ferstle’s article is one of the best that describes the blood test and how it has been used. Jim is probably one of the most astute journalists on the topic of doping.
FYI a while ago I wrote a book Blood Sports which gives an ‘inside’ account on how the blood tests were developed and how its been used since Sydney 2000 and by whom. But the book is more than that describing the history of blood doping which had its beginnings in the 17th Century! Viren and all the Olympics from Sydney onwards are covered.
I hope I am not out-of-line for ‘self-promoting’ the book but if you want the true story on the EPO blood test, probably better that it comes from the ‘horses mouth’ so to speak.
Rob Parisotto
EPO researcher
robparis – Hi! – welcome to the Rantline – this may seem a rather rude question, but since I am interested in expanding my knowledge base on this topic, I must ask you – what makes you an authority? I realize this may sound undiplomatic – but I have no idea who you are or what your credentials are to write on such a theme.
–
So please, be gracious enough to give me/us your creds – (:-)) consider this a good sales opportunity for “Blood Sports” at the least. And I do apologize for my lack of awareness of who you are – although, I have run across the title while reading, I am not certain though where. Again, forgive my lack of knowledge.
–
Morgan:
You have some good points. We tend to blame riders for doping, both there are a lot more people involved. The teams who either turn a blind eye to what’s going on or are actively involved in promoting doping. National federations and even UCI are equally guilty of ignoring the problem for many years, even if they now are attempting to get things under control. Doctors who provide the medical knowledge as well as the substances. And drug companies who many be making more stuff than is required for legitimate medical needs. If, as many believe, doping is almost universal in pro cycling, it is not simply the individual riders who are responsible, and getting tough on the individual riders will not work. Even if it is less prevalent than the most negative opinions, just cracking down on riders while ignoring the others will not work.
–
Take a look at the Rasmussen affair: Rabobank knew that there were problems before the Tour started, but did nothing. They could have asked Ras to explain what was going on, checked with the UCI and Danish federation to get their input, and given the fact that it is well established that Ras missed a test within the 45 day limit, held him out of the Tour (as a minimum). But instead, they chose to ignore things, apparently only sending him a letter telling him only to get things straight with UCI. I assume that Rabo was hoping that nothing would come of things and they would get away with allowing their star rider to compete.
–
This type of attitude is quite common in sports, extending to other areas besides doping. Look at Sprewell, the basketball player who choked his coach. Although he was suspended for the season, he come back after the suspension. Do you think you could choke your boss and still have a career in your chosen field? But teams are willing to recruit, draft, trade for, etc., any player who they think will help them, regardless of what’s in the player’s past. This goes all the way down to the youth level (Little League, etc.) where all sorts of shenanigans are pulled to get certain players on certain teams, and continues through high school and college sports. (Now I am not saying that all youth, HS and college teams are so tainted, but I do know that it is not just an isolated thing.) And let’s don’t forget the general public, who supports these things by their attendance at sporting events. Consider the common attitude in SF about Bonds this past season.
Greetings everyone,
Lots of good suggestions, some of which will fit into other parts of the project than the one I’m working on this week. More about that later.
…
Sara: If I need help with Finnish, I’ll get in touch. Thanks for the offer, most appreciated.
…
Rob: Welcome. Quite an honor to have you drop by. No problem promoting the book here.
…
For those who doesn’t know, Rob Parisotto was the principal researcher on the project to develop the EPO test in the run-up to the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. His book is a well-written, engaging, fast-pasted read that covers blood doping in sports. In particular, he gives a behind-the-scenes view of the development of the blood-based EPO test by researchers at the Australian Institute of Sport. If you’re interested in the topic of blood doping, Rob’s book is a must-have.
William, as ever you are a cool breeze on a hot summer day. As you astutely point out – human beings are insanely competitive. Now don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against competition – it does seem to be an entrenched part to human nature. The problem, when observed from a humanistic point of view is that not all human beings have had the chance or the opportunity to discover that there is such a thing as “ethics” – or as my old grand father used to tell me – “just grow up and be a decent fellow” everything else will fall into line. What he couldn’t verbalize was how exactly I should accomplish this. Then one day an old teacher said to me – “Do you know the difference between right and wrong?” – I of course rather snottily answered back that “of course I knew.” Then he asked me to explain right and wrong to him.
–
He was a most excellent teacher – he never gave me the answer – just kept pointing out what I didn’t actually know. Making me struggle to find out the “answers” – I consider myself very fortunate to have run into such a human being – I am afraid that sadly, we are not all fortunate or are ready to meet such teachers. And in my opinion – THIS IS WHY we must have fair rules to live by. Otherwise we are never going to grow out of the young and childish habit of “this is my ball and you can’t play with it!
–
When we approach the current problem of doping and speak of it merely as the “failing of character” of a small group – we are blinded by the fact that this happens all around us.
–
As you point out William – Rabobank is an esteemed racing organization – but being esteemed is not a guard against egocentric behavior. No amount of prestige or prominence or wealth will teach a human being ethics – not if he/she has been distracted by being fully involved in becoming wealthy or prominent – having said this – I do not wish to use this forum to advocate lessons in “ethics.”
–
As I see this forum – it is really a chance for all of us to use our intellects to correct a lousy situation. And the important work is to encourage every participant to get involved in adding their intellect to solving the problem. I believe that this is more then merely “doable.” Don’t you?
Rant,
Some of the most essential stories…..
Festina. I know this is 1999, but this is the mother of all doping stories, and ought to be required reading for anyone writing about doping today. It’s important to understand what cycling got wrong re. Festina.
Rumsas. Nuff said. Important story–never tested positive.
Pantani. Pantani’s story gets to the essence of the potential tragic consequences of doping, and how enforcing doping rules can create resentment. For background, read Matt Rendell’s book “The Death of Marco Pantani”.
Manzano. The ultimate whistleblower–the way the UCI and the rest of the peloton dealt with him is very instructive. This is the omerta in action. Yet he has been proven right time and time again–no one believed him at the time but his list of drugs turns out to be accurate.
Armstrong, Simeoni, and Ferrari. An inexaustable resource.
In short, Rant, the important stories in doping are not about the tests. It’s about the doping networks, omerta, conspiracy, etc.
Rob Perisotto – – finally the penny did drop – for give my “twit” state – have absolutely no excuse. I’M out the door and ordering your book here in Austria – the sled dogs are panthing – a meter of snow will not stop me! That’s why this is Rant’s forum – he knows everything – forgive me. And thank you for your kind comment.
Rant,
Some doping stories,
—
Jérome CHIOTTI, ex-world champion moutain bike who gave back his medals years after when he learnt that the others were not on PEDs as in cycling roads.
—
Christophe BASSONS who wanted to ride clean but was bashed by other pro-riders and forced to retire.
—
For me Flo-Jo still is the picture of what who can do with doping, even if it was never proved that she doped!
Christophe Bassons wasn’t bashed because he wanted to ride clean. He was bashed because he felt some weird need to tell us all that he was the clean one.
_
And JeanC leave the dead alone unless you have facts. It’s bad karma.
Rant and Morgan,
Rant – happy to be on board.
Morgan – not a problem. I sincerely hope that the book fills in many of the details that are not found in any news reports and that its worth sledging thru the snow for.
Look forward to future rants.
PS. Other big doping stories: Lee Sweeneys “Schwarzenegger mice” and the recent report about ‘super-mice’
What a bunch of idiots. You just couldn’t make this crap up could you??? So UCI does not believe the Belgians nor the Aussies (maybe I don’t blame them for that, funny hats and all) but they DO trust LNDD??? What a bunch of idiots.
*
Mayo’s B sample to get B test
*
By Monika Prell
*
The counter analysis of Iban Mayo’s B sample will be carried out today in the French Châtenay-Malabry laboratory, regardless of whether the Saunier-Duval Prodir rider or a representative is present, according to todociclismo.com. The French laboratory received world wide attention after its practices were scrutinised during an American arbitration hearing over the positive test returned by Floyd Landis, who won the 2006 Tour de France before being striped of the title following the hearing.
*
Mayo tested positive for EPO on the second rest day of this year’s Tour, with the A sample also analysed in the French laboratory. The B sample was sent to the University of Gent, in Belgium, as Châtenay-Malabry closed its doors for holidays, but the B sample analysis gave a negative result. An analysis completed in Sydney also found the samples to be negative, which prompted the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) to declared Mayo innocent.
*
RFEC requested that the case be closed, however the sport’s international governing body, the UCI, didn’t trust the Belgian analysis, which has lead to today’s the counter analysis in France. Mayo has reportedly objected to the counter analysis and has sent various letters of protest to the UCI.
*
The UCI’s anti-doping chief Anne Gripper has said the counter analysis will go ahead today, even if neither the rider nor any of his representatives will be present.
Ludwig as you write: “the important stories in doping are not about the tests. It’s about the doping networks, omerta, conspiracy, etc” How I wish that were the ONLY TRUTH. I am afraid I think that there is much more then only this aspect of the situation going on.
–
I have been doing “research” on everything to do with “gene-doping” — and at one point, I realized that I may have “stumbled on” to what the new “bio-profiling” testing is really about. Are any of you out there “up” on this topic? If not, may I suggest that you “check these out.”
–
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041030/bob9.asp
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E7ACE-5686-10CF-94EB83414B7F0000
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/gene_doping.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23101/
–
No doubt about it Ludwig — everyone of your points is of concern and importance — but if you think that making certain that we have deep attention for the state of the governing rules in sports, is not of primary importance — you are not seeing the whole picture.
–
From my readings — please note especially — this piece which is going on now”¦http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23101/ – “the train has left the station” and we had better perk up and realize we are playing a catch-up game!
–
Mere “righteous indignation” or moralistic arguments about the state of affairs in sports is not enough to adapt to this new circumstance. Time to break out our brains and start using them. It may be very well that we feel frustrated because “the cheaters” are getting away with murder — but the “blame” cannot be placed merely on their shoulders.
–
While we have been “looking at our sports” with innocent old ideas — the world has rolled on and man, it has really changed, and we had better learn fast and adapt or we are going to get “lost” in our own concepts.
–
As it appears to me – what we have to accept first and foremost is that the athletes have become “willing guinea-pigs” – The moral and ethical questions of this should be of our concern, yes.
–
The fact that the most recent developments in science and medicine has taken “doping” way beyond the “pill popping” or “shooting up” or “super-supplement” stage is obvious.
–
To find resolutions and answers for our “doping in sports” problem – we are going to have to accept that the “possibilities” available out there have taken this situation to the point where we must address this on more then a mere “social sports level” question.
–
As it seems to exist at this moment – The Concept of a “pure-clean-athlete” is slowly sinking into the sunset – as one scientist said: “we may just have to accept that we have to have two different leagues of sport – one, the “clean athlete league” the other – “the Enhanced League.”
–
We had better have it absolutely clear in our heads and hearts what we are talking about. Pandora’s Box has been opened – it doesn’t look like it will be closed, and maybe closing is not the “answer” – perhaps – this issue is what we should address too. Or we could try to sit in judgment of the past 50 years in sports and only see it as “people cheating” and getting away with it.
–
I think there is much more going on here folks.
There is more to doping in the future than drugs and the obvious candidate is genetic therapies. But there are also other methods utilising biotechnologies that will impact on sport in the future. Ever heard of DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Project Agency) in the USA who research and develop biotechnologies for use by soldiers in ‘combat’ which will have implications for sport (see link to a story posted some time ago at http://www.sportingo.com/more_sports/sport_biotechnology_future_is_almost/1001,966).
A pain vaccine is but a few years away also – no more ‘pain barrier’!
More food (doping) for thought.
Rob Parisotto
Ah – Rob…I think my brain just started to melt – I have just finished reading your commentaries on your site. . . Now – just because my brain is frying – it’s frying in a “good way”- If you know what I mean…(.-))
–
The Info on DARPA alone – should make any sane person start to drivel…Would you think it a bit strange if I did not “immediately” comment? I really do need time to “process” this stuff. But in the meantime – I do wonder at why you are still breathing? If you follow my drift.
–
One thing Rob, if I may call you Rob – I have been trying to “find” the group that “gains” the most from the situation that exists in “sports” today……I believe I may have gotten a small inkling…
–
So let’s see – how do you get a good set of prime test animals – that happen to be human and are “willing” to be guinea pigs? Let me think about this…Some one, somewhere – has been very clever indeed.
–
You do realize of course that the majority of people who would run into your commentary will consider it “borderline” or maybe “cutting-edge” sci-fi? And isn’t that exactly what our present problem is – getting at the “truth” behind the “spin.”
–
Hey Rob – ever get the feeling you are seldom “alone?” Man, hats of to you buddy.
Keep up the good work.
Michael,
You say:
“Christophe Bassons wasn’t bashed because he wanted to ride clean. He was bashed because he felt some weird need to tell us all that he was the clean one.”
Um, wtf is fair about that? We all know now that Bassons’ era was most definitely not clean. He tried to raise awareness about doping in sport and create a space for people like himself who wanted to race clean. The omerta snuffed him out. How is that his fault? Isn’t asserting one is clean in a credible fashion essentially what we are demanding of contemporary riders?
In short, your statement reeks of omerta logic–for the omerta, it’s ok to ride clean, as long as one keeps one’s mouth shut about all the cheating going on around one.
Morgan,
I’ve been critical for a long time of slandering doping athletes as immoral. This is of course the favorite status quo strategy for explaining away doping: when a rider tests positive, it was caused by the individual rider’s own lose morals and degraded desire to win. But the reality most sport, including cycling, takes place in a team structure. In cycling in particular, the money is concentrated at the top, where the DSes, doctors, and top riders bank. Indeed, for years if you made a certain amount of money in cycling, you were expected to dope–it was part of the game. So until we start changing the structure of the game so the clean guys have a chance, nothing is going to change, except a “immoral” sacrificial lambs going down here and there.
Personally I’m less worried about the future of doping than some people–I think gene manipulation may be a normal thing by the end of this century. What pisses me off is that sport is being degraded. IMO, sport is here to reinforce the values of fairness and honor–it’s here to uplift us. As long as those values are being trashed by cycling sport fraud and the inevitable attendant lies, media, sponsors and fans will rightly be pissed as hell. It won’t be easy to fix the situation but the first thing we need is honest recognition of the problem.
Ludwig — do my words and thoughts come across as if I disagree with the point of view that “doping” cannot take place — especially in the last 20 years without the aid and abetting of the people behind the scenes? If so — let me correct this.
–
I do believe that the pro-athletes have to have had considerable “professional” help to do any doping that appears to be missed by the present-day testing. I believe that it would not be possible for them to have singly or in small fractional groups to accomplish what appears to be happening. I also don’t happen to “buy-into” the spin, that the “dopers and the enablers” are such geniuses that the governing bodies should have the “power” to ignore “fair and just” rules or Jurisprudence.
–
What especially bothers me is the prevalent use of “imminent fear” to keep the public constantly heading in the wrong direction. Whether “cheaters” are winning or not — and I would point out — that if what the “powers that be” keep hitting the public over the head with, is that the cheaters are EVERYWHERE and they are CLEVERER THEN THEY ARE! Therefore we must accept “draconian solutions” to combat them.
–
It seems to me that the governing bodies are all very busy “spinning” their own version of the “truth.” — The public is left completely off balance because the problem is complex and daily getting more so. Let’s be honest here Ludwig — in your opinion — what percentage of the “fandom” actually KNOWS the very complexity of the present problem? I do not wish to seem elitist — but I do not think the average fan cares enough to learn what is going on. THEY ARE FANS — like people going to the theater — they want to be entertained. Pro-Racing is on one financial level — pure entertainment.
–
You are upset because “pro-sport” does not meet with “ethical” standards — I totally agree with you. BUT — I do think that this has always been so. The point of pro-sport is not to provide role models — that little bit of fantasy was always and still is perpetrated by the media reporting on it — but I think — the public needs to take some responsibility here too. Now please don’t think I am being an apologists for cheating. I am against it. But the public is responsible, especially fathers and mothers who point to “celebrities” and hold them up to be heroes. Don’t you think?
–
There is one other point here that one should consider — simply put — WE ARE NOT ALL BORN WITH THAT SOMETHING EXTRA that allows us to do something better then the rest of the world population. We cannot forget this. Hey — the truth is — most everybody is just one of the crowd. EVOLUTION IS NOT DEMOCRATIC Ludwig. This – for the public is one tough reality to accept, since we all have “desire.” Well — the reality is still that only a small percentage of athletes can be referred to as 1%’rs – in the entire WORLD population. DOPED OR NOT such people are still physically more gifted then the people who “desire” to emulate them.
–
Dope — we are led to believe counters this — and it may very well. After all, why would the world military, not just the USA military be experimenting with “enhancers” of performance otherwise?
–
The worst rider out of the 200 or so racers who ride the Tour are still better genetically equipped then Joe Schmoe who is a spectator. That is it. It is probably true that “juiced” athletes do have an edge — but it seems to me that if “everybody is juicing” among the 1% “˜rs – then where exactly is there the question of “immoral cheating?”
–
One other thing Ludwig — I don’t buy into the idea that the “testing” isn’t there yet — how do the developers of the different drugs manage to do their tests — just to get it passed for human consumption? Something to consider, the developers must have testing procedures to get them to market.
–
You are absolutely right Ludwig – we must have “honesty” as our guide to “fix” sports for the better.
Morgan:
In general the type of testing that drug companies do in order to get their products approved for the market is different than testing to detect the use of same. Drug companies are testing to see that the drug does what it is claimed to do (cure cancer or whatever) and secondly that it is “safe”, whatever that might be. When doing this research, it might or might not be useful to be able to detect presence of the drup – I could imagine that they might want to know how long it remains in the system or whatever, but even there it would be rather different than trying to detect the presence of something in the system of an athlete who might be trying to hide the presence of the substance. For example, if you were studying the therapeutic use of testosterone, you would probably make sure your test subjects weren’t using anything which might interfere with detecting the T (like cortisone).
–
One thing that I suspect is different about top athletes from us mere mortal is the psychological factor. Human beings in general do not approach their genetic potential for performance. I suspect that the top athlete is more driven and hence able to closer approach his maximum potential. This comes out in the form of both longer and more intense training as well as during actual competition. Probably true in other areas too; top musicians are probably the ones more driven to practice than those of us who play for fun and relaxation do. Maybe I could have been as good a guitarist as Segovia or Clapton if I had put the hours in they did.
–
On a side note, there has been speculation about official use of PEDs by military. I came across this while doing a bit of research on blood doping on Wikipedia:
–
Military Use
–
In 1993, U.S. Special Forces commanders at Fort Bragg started experimenting with blood doping, also known as blood loading. Special forces operators would provide two units of whole blood, from which red blood cells would be extracted, concentrated and stored under cold temperatures. Twenty-four hours before a mission or battle, a small amount of red blood cells would be infused back into the soldier. Military scientists believe that the procedure increases the soldiers endurance and alertness because of the increase in the bloods capability to carry oxygen in the blood.
–
In 1998, the Australian Military approved this technique for the Special Air Service Regiment. Senior nutritionist at the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organization, Mr Chris Forbes-Ewan, is quoted as saying that unlike in sport, “all’s fair in love and war”. “What we are trying to gain is an advantage over any potential adversary,” Mr Forbes-Ewan said. “What we will have is a head-start.”
In this study, over 50 performance enhancing drugs and techniques were rejected. The six approved were caffeine, ephedrine, energy drinks, modafinil, creatine and blood-loading. (REFERENCE; Canada’s Secret Commando’s, David Pugliese. ISBN 1-895896-18-5)
Morgan,
Rob is fine.
The thing about DARPA is that these are probably only a few of the things they are researching. What else is going on there?
The usual suspects are gaining from doping; the athlete (AKA celebrities), managers, clubs, corporations, even governments. Don’t need to say anymore about that.
While athletes who dope are ‘guniea pigs’ in a sense at least most if not all drugs have been studied on humans so an athlete working with doctors and scientists (eg. T-Mobile) can assess risks based on publised studies. One of the problems that doping by gene manipulation will be is that an athlete who chooses to use gene therapy will be doing it ‘blind’, because there never has and probably never will be any study done on the manipulation of performance genes in humans. No ethics committee would ever approve such a study anyway, so it is likely that this sort of ‘experimentation’ will be done largely ‘underground’. The risks will be unknown and an athlete dabbling with gene therapy will really be playing Russian Roulette with their lives. A wrong ‘snip’ here or there in the genes can have devastating and fatal consequences which has been shown in a number of medical cases already.
Ye, look even in the face of damning evidnce we continue to get the ‘spin’ from the cheats, ala Armstrong, Landis and Hamilton. Nothing has changed and nothing will and I believe that the day will never come that drugs can ever be removed from sport. Anyway with the pace of modern technologies doping in the future may well be done without drugs. It may well be legalised also and our drug addled society may look back in fifty years time and say what was all the fuss about!
For me though its a loud and deafening NO because I just don’t like the idea of having to shove drugs down our kids throats to play sport. They already have enough junk shoved down there.
Good reading
Rob
William,
I can concur with your comments regarding doping in the armed forces. I attended a seminar presented by Canadian and Australian armed forces officials a few years ago at the Australian Institute of Sport (where I used to work) and they spoke about what drugs they (the Canadians) were experimenting with and which ones were best in combat situations (Caffeine, steroids, stimulants and blood doping including EPO).
It was strange though that when I approached the Australian armed forces after the seminar to be ‘guinea pigs’ for our research to develop the EPO blood test they said no! Chris Forbes- Ewan was just puffing a lot of hot air at the time.
Happy Thanksgiving – William, everyone.
–
Thank you William for pointing out my murky statement concerning testing, what I should have written and what would be closer to what I was trying to express, is that the manufacturers own need to test for their substances in the human body and to discover how the substance works and how the body responds to the substance from theory to actuality — affords a springboard to develop more specific testing procedures. In reality — I think I allowed myself to extrapolate, and you are right William — my hypothesis is not scientific enough to make such a statement. I apologize to everyone. Thank you William for pointing this out to me.
–
As to the defining differences between elite athletes, musicians, or top brick layers, etc — their psychological state does seem to include the ability to rest the concentration longer then the average person. But there appears to also exist an existent proclivity to practice their particular activity and they derive a “pleasure” feedback from doing so, rather then mere willingness to bear extra pain in discipline.
–
Perhaps you have heard of or had experienced how not all people react to stress, panic or life threatening situations the same way. The average person, when confronted by danger or difficulty seems to react with a “flight to safety” response or a “”freezing” mode — then there are those, and this group appears to contain the “elite” personality type who under difficult situations appear to become calmer and hyper concentrated, automatically. The elite designation — is not merely psychological, but also physical in nature.
–
So it is not a question of you becoming as good as a Segovia or a Clapton if you had merely “put in the hours of practice,” William. It appears, that Segovia and Clapton are elite because they have an edge or a proclivity to experience music more intensely. It is not certain in fact if the people actually “know” that they have this advantage, rather they are more drawn to performing the activity.
–
For instance William — you must know this about yourself too. You have a wonderful ability to think harmoniously and clearly on command, so to speak. You have a better then average ability to “perceive” abstract lines of thinking. Yes, you may have “learned” in your education how to shape and sharpen this — but you already came to the education with a gift for it. Your experience of learning to sharpen and shape your “thinking” is quiet different from the person who is struggling just to survive the process of education of this nature.
–
Good teachers, coaches, counselors – instinctively “see” this in students. It is one of the barometers that help them to judge a student appropriate for what they are aiming to learn. My reference to “elite” should not be interpreted as “overall” better to the average person — since among the average group, “elite” abilities” seem to exist — the trick is to find what a person is elite in and encourage them in that direction. So in a very real sense — while we all may admire an elite athlete, musician or brick layer — mere training, no mater how strenuous or difficult or how much suffering the practitioner is willing to put up with – will not bring about the same results if our “ability” does not lean in the particular direction.
–
It is an open secret, one that is seldom spoken of in the military — but putting a weapon in the hands of a person, dressing him in body armor, teaching him/her how to fight, thinking tactically, follow orders with intelligence — does not make an elite soldier. All it makes is an average man dressed as a soldier going through “learned” paces (practice). An elite soldier is much more then that. He/she seems to be wired for soldiering — as Segovia or Clapton is wired for music or you who is able to formulate and express complex thought elegantly and clearly. So when Mr Forbes-Ewan says: “What we are trying to gain is an advantage over any potential adversary,” — it may be better to “understand him as saying — “we juice our soldier because it physically boosts his capabilities.” I do not disagree with this. But in battle conditions — the “juiced” (average) soldier coming face to face with an elite soldier still has a less then 50/50 percent chance against him. If one really wants to increase the odds of their soldier winning — then they had better send in an elite soldier of their own.
Morgan:
Some good thoughts about the “elite”. I read a book this summer called “This is Your Brain on Music” which was a psychological and neurological look at what happens as people are involved with music, playing/singing as well as simply listening. One statement I remember is that to be an “expert” at anything requires devoting (AIR) 10,000 hours. This was supposedly based on studies done on “experts”. I believe that there is more involved than simply chalking up the hours. The expert musician has something within, whether it is some innate ability, or some desire for expression, or what I don’t know. I do know that when I played in a band a few years ago, I was more driven to practice – I felt I had an implied bargain with my bandmates (and our public, such as it was) to live up to. But, although I have dabbled at composing, I don’t have the desire or need or whatever that must have driven Bach, Beethoven, Lennon and McCartney and so on. The same thing is probably true with elite athletes: they have something inside which drives them. Drives them to train longer and harder than we would, drives them, when the chips are down and they are “dying” to dig deep within and tap into some hidden reserves. Drives some on occasions to dope.
–
Your comments about elite soldiers are quite thought provoking. Since I was drafted and served in the infantry, I know a little about soldiering. At one time, infantry was in fact largely cannon fodder, who only needed some basic knowledge of how to use his rifle, obey orders, etc. Although at one time the Army liked to think that US soldiers were distinguished by their marksmanship, it is now known that in battle conditions, many hundreds of rounds are fired for every hit registered on an enemy. But this may be changing with technology. I see the reports from Iraq and there is not much in common with my combat experience: GPS, computers, guided munitions, and so on. There may well be a developing elite soldier as opposed to the elite general.
–
Anyway, I hope all of you who celebrate the holiday a happy Thanksgiving, and to those of you in countries who do not celebrate this holiday, best wishes anyway.
Rob,
In Velonews I read that the White house “deputy-drug-czar” Scott Burns blasted U.S. sports leagues, for failing to join WADA. He accuses their leaders of being enablers for dope cheats”¦according to the article the deputy-drug-czar “indicated” but did not actually use the word accused, I used it.
–
Moreover — Burns is quoted — “They don’t want to sign on because it’s tough and it’s specific and there are consequences and it will be monitored and cheaters will be caught and exposed.” It is of import to know also that Burns was the U.S. government representative to last week’s Madrid WADA meeting,
–
I think Mr Burns knows very little about what he is commenting on. Why? Because to address his statement –” WADA is tough and it’s specific,” is not exactly the truth. Not to anyone who has been keeping track of the past years incidents and what has become public knowledge through the Floyd Landis case – about WADA, its rules and its way of operating.
–
Understand please, I do believe in the need for a WADA body in sports. But such a body may not be allowed to function, or to get away with creating rules that would not stand up in a proper legal court of law. Ethically — WADA should not be allowed to feel invulnerable and unanswerable for “character assassination” of an accused individual as proof – that their accusations are to be considered righteous and true — merely because they say so!
–
Mr Burns’ comment “indicating” that the WADA is “specific” – happens to be true only if you think that covering up their mishmash of testing procedures and rules that deny due legal process to the accused – can be interpreted as being “specific.” I don’t. Just because it is “sport” – a ruling body may not ignore “fair and just jurisprudence.”
–
WADA has a very tough job indeed. They have to “police by testing” an international group of athletes, teams, promoters and sponsors — who all seem to have as part of their agenda to create murkiness in the athletic environment. Allowing such “flexibility” in WADA’s behavior — with no “accountability for it – flies in the face of good governance and legitimacy and clear reason. Simply put — if you can’t trust the cops to be honest — then there is no rule of law possible.
–
To create “fear and mistrust” in the people being governed – to justify this behavior in public and in private as “a necessity to fight the cheating dopers” – is nothing but a sham. Dictatorial governments have been using it for eons — and it is being used to this very day, “for the good and betterment of the people they have power over.” I don’t buy into this particularly nasty piece of politics.
–
What are your thoughts on this matter Rob.
William,
Let’s look at Mozart — I think we could safely call him an elite musician, no? The very boundaries of musical knowledge and experience was expanded by what this individual “seemed able to pull out of the great nothing.” Then there was a contemporary of his named Soliarie (I am not certain of this name) — Now Soliarie was “socially” considered an “expert master musician” of the time — BUT just because his “social status” was designated as a master musician — he was simply not in the same league as Mozart. Mozart was elite — Soliarie was a very good learned musician. I suppose we could call Mozart gifted and Soliarie learned. The one thing I noticed is that the “elite” in anything do not experience “training/practice time” the same as those who are not so gifted. The important thing is to realize that the elite person comes into the world “purpose” made — he or she doesn’t merely act on his gift — rather he “fulfills” it.
–
So to compare “elite” to the norm is not quiet fair or accurate. The individual in question is superior, not from conscious choice or desire – but by a gift of talent from birth. Perhaps we can refer to it as the luck of the draw in gene combining? The average person may very well desire to emulate the elite — but they lack the gift to reach the same heights as an elite being. But I must tell you — I do not like the term “elite” — it is merely an expedient word to refer to a specific type.
–
I believe that the “desire” of the average person to achieve what a few may be naturally able to do — is the very root cause of why people dope and cheat. But than as you know I am certain, this is a philosophical answer to the problem. Sadly philosophy is shaped from the substance of social beliefs rather then concrete knowledge.
–
As to soldiering — and the manipulation of their chemistry — I am not for it. The majority of soldiers are just plain good people — who have not even a vague idea of the question of function and existence. To use them as guinea pigs with the rationalized idea that they become elite by doing so — serves no purpose — except to instill a false belief in said soldier that he has a better chance of surviving war conditions. An “idea” that propels the concept of doping, if you will. I do not have “trust” for government — since government is composed of individuals with great varying personal goals. Just consider what our own government pulled with the “testing of virus spread” on its own people.
–
I very much enjoy our discussion William — but I fear we have wandered far afield from why this forum exists. As I perceive — the Rant Line is a forum for dialogue concerning the issues of “fair governance” in sport. To discuss openly and with candor this topic which heretofore has been avoided in the media. To try and arrive at solutions that are logic and scientific based. To work through our individual biases openly and come to sane and fair solutions. Having said this William — I am not reproaching or accusing you of anything. I have too much respect for your thinking to insult you or anyone by doing so. I am merely refocusing myself on the theme of this forum. I am afraid we lose many of the other people if we continue with our “elitist” philosophizing — (;-)).
–
So what do you think of the Burns proselytizing?
I would like to hear more about Operacion Puerto. Athletes, law, ethics, government sanctions and cover-ups—Every aspect of doping seems to fall under or into OP.
I find your statement a bit vague PJ –
Can you elucidate a bit on what you mean?
OP was and still is an explossive point in the present situation – but one could say that “every case” may have the same elements – one could say it – but without backing up the aligations you seem to imply –
I certainly can’t address your question – I guess I am asking you “for an example” of what you mean.
Happy Thanksgiving to my American neighbours. Here is something to digest, as you digest.
–
I was searching “unfair WADA decisions” and found this interesting spin on how music could give athletes an unfair advantage. If WADA considered banning hypoxic tents for not meeting the “spirit of sport”, then the same could be applied to music.
–
http://www.cansport.com/blog.php?blog_id=94
–
Peter.
OK Morgan, back to more on topic discussion. As to Mr. Burns comments, I think first of all he has a bit of truth, perhaps, about US Pro sports leagues. They have not signed on to the WADA program. I think that is because they want complete control of their drug programs. They can be as hard or as easy as they want, they can time the release of information on positive drug tests so as to do as little damage as possible. As to whether or not the leagues are actively or passively promoting PED usage, I don’t know, although I would guess that they are not actually actively involved. But they may be, at times, turning the other way. Certainly the penalties for PED usage are far less stringent that would WADA and UCI dish out. As pointed out, Shawn Merrimen of the Chargers only got a 4 game suspension.
–
As to his remarks about WADA, I think he has just swallowed the WADA story hook, line and sinker, as have most people who have not delved into the story behind the story.
Morgan,
I have not heard of Scott Burns until very recently but I would agree that the US leagues have been less than active participants in the anti-doping area given the myriad of busts and arrests of traffickers, doctors and athletes in the past few years. Unless the Football, Basketball and Baseball leagues are ‘tied’ to government funding there is probably no real imperative to sign up to WADA.
Here in Australia most of the major sports are funded in one way or another though government funds and so they are ‘obliged’ to sign up to the WADA code or risk loosing that funding because the Australian Govt. is a signatory to the WADA. And unless the WADA ‘legislates’ that sports who do not sign up will not be allowed to participate in the Olympics many will remain ‘passive’ observers only.
I don’t blame the WADA for the situation the ‘cheats’ find themselves in. There is a ‘checks and balances’ system in place through the CAS so the WADA are not completely running roughshod over all athletes. Its just that some yell louder than others (like Lance Armstrong who is a proven cheat – scientifically anyway). Quite a few athletes have been found ‘not guilty’ also and have got the WADA system to thank, but you don’t hear them making a song and dance about it.
It is not lost on me that the big three complainants of the WADA in the recent past have been Armstrong, Hamilton and Landis. Hmmm! These three don’t have much empathy for USADA either.
Nonetheless I do believe that some of the labs need a kick up the backside and after the Landis case in particular this is an area WADA really needs to improve if it is to gain back public confidence (I don’t think the laboratory ‘errors’ made in the case of Landis though were that significant that it would have quantitatively affected the results either way but I haven’t read the findings in detail. Hopefully the CAS will sort this out once and for all)
William,
As I’ve stated — I DO think WE NEED a WADA —- BUT — NOT with the “fuzzy” rules that they seem to manufacture. NOT with “behind closed doors proceedings” — that is just “asking for a fix to take place.”
–
The “issues” with having testing procedures HAS TO BE SETTLED. If they don’t have a “standardized test protocol” that will stand up to legal questioning — then they should not be able to force it on the system simply to have something in place.
–
ALL TESTING must meet accepted international highest standards. This may not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience, or because some countries will bulk at having to adhere to such standards.
–
WADA itself may not be allowed to be an “independent” governing body that is not answerable to existing laws. Being as they are — there exists no “checks and balances” for them. If they wish to be a legal body — then they need to adhere to at the least “international law.”
–
As to Mr Burns — he’s a middle tier politico — not an expert.
–
I ask myself — in any given situation where some one is asked to join a club or a party — the potential member should gain a return that is good for them — YEAH — pro sports seem rife with doping, as the revelations come pouring out. BUT, setting aside all the rhetoric for the moment — I think pro sports would be suicidal to join WADA as it is now.
–
YES — pro sports need “protection from abuse” — doping is abuse — more abuse then merely cheating — if the stories of pro athletes who leave the game and drop dead at 40 or are cripples by the time they reach it OR THEIR CHILDREN ARE BORN WITH DEFECTS AND DEFORMITIES DUE TO THEIR DRUG USE. This is a horrendous problem — one that must be addressed.
–
An organization like WADA should not be empowered through the use of mere “public opinion pressure” — We are after all discussing an extra-legal body that is writing it’s own rules as it goes along — with no democratic input — with a tremendous amount of potential power — We must HAVE a way to make them responsible for their decisions and actions — anything less would be completely idiotic.
–
If we want to do the “right thing here” — then we must insist that the WADA is created with the idea that its purpose is to stop “abuse” — how much sense then does it make to have in place an organization battling abuse — that itself is abusive of the legal rights of its members?
Rob,
I think that there is a problem of not seeing that we are really discussing two issues. On the one hand the very real situation with doping and how it has been used to cheat in sports. The other is the issue of the governing body responsible for ensuring that fair play and safe conditions exist for the participating athlete. Would you agree?
–
As I see it — we have a governing body that is basically peopled by ties to the largest sport monopoly that exists on earth — the IOC. Yet the “public perception” — their “understanding and expectation” from this body (WADA) — is that it is a “legal” based entity. In otherwords — that it has what the people think of as a foundation defined by the laws they are living under. You have to admit that this is not so.
–
As it stands now — if we really want to find out whether an accused athlete is guilty or not — we never get a chance to answer this question! BECAUSE the “trial” of the athlete does not address guilt or innocence—but rather the issues argued is the self created rules that are bent on finding the accused guilty. WADA made the rules this way – the athlete didn’t! It’s like gambling in a gambling establishment and the “rules are fixed” so that the house wins 99% of the time. What is wrong with this picture?
–
What is wrong with the picture is that this system is not fair — and people will not trust it. They may not all be able to articulate their mistrust but it is there.
–
I certainly don’t want people doping — it is dangerous — we have no “long-term” studies to really say WHAT significant dangers the drug use will result in, we do know that all of them have “side effects” — Amongst the dopers — there is an apparent belief that they are doing it within some “safe parameters” — You being a scientist and a researcher know this better then I — this assumption of “safe parameters” on the dopers part is completely self delusional behavior!
–
Perhaps you should reconsider the issue of “blame.” I agree — WADA is not responsible or the cause of doping and cheating.
I have never ever stated that I thought this was so. BUT — WADA is or should be held responsible for its actions and ways. Anything less and we create just another governing body that is nothing more then in “name” – a responsible, accountable law abiding entity. That situation must not be allowed to happen, if we are serious in “doing something about doping.”
–
I must strongly disagree with you about the issue of “checks and balances” in existence when you present CAS as an example. Perhaps the ideal of what CAS is supposed to be could be possible if the “members” of CAS were not selected and vetted from only a group of WADA “accredited” lawyers and judges — who under WADA rules may not aid an athlete in anyway to prove his innocence — you see nothing a bit one sided about this? I do.
–
At the present time — the slim chance of fairness comes from individuals that are willing to “buck” that system and actually apply proper ethical jurisprudence. Let me make this clear — I do not think it a fair system when the judgments are based on rules created by a body that is basically considered not a “legal” body but a private organization. Who’s checking on the watchers?
–
AS to Armstrong, Landis and Hamilton being the biggest loud voices against the present system. Why do you blame them if WADA has not been able to present bulletproof evidence of the guilt you imply? Should the “accused be held responsible for shoddy testing, testing that seems to be conducted differently from one lab to another? Sorry — but this doesn’t cut the mustard. It is the governing bodies responsibility to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty — we may not allow “expedient Rules and rulings” merely because the governing body has failed in providing concrete proof, then compounds the wrong by creating fuzzy rules to hide behind. That is not fair.
–
To ease your mind — I am for catching cheaters. But I cannot be party to doing the catching with cheating. This way leaves the way for total chaos down the road. Rob — if you are doing your “testing” in a lab — you have very specific rules and regs you have to follow, don’t you? If you don’t then whatever “result you get — will not stand up to questioning, is this not so? — Well — what is so wrong with expecting this same protocol when a person is accused — after all — the result if found guilty — means that their livelihood is over. As far as their careers are concerned — they’re dead.
–
I am not a research scientist like you Rob — but I have been following the “deconstruction” of the lab procedures in the Landis case — I would suggest that you do look it over — check out Trust but Verify — to start with — You will see that the lab protocol has been legitimately found wanting by expert scientist like yourself — along with certain judicial protocols broken as far as chain of custody is concerned by legitimate legal experts that are not necessarily Landis fans themselves.
–
We are at a cross road in time as far as what kind of governing body will be fair and acceptable to ALL concerned — we should not let this chance go easily. We need to fight for it with tooth and nail — if we really are serious about having clean sports.
Morgan,
I don’t profess as I said to have an intimate knowledge of the legal and jurisdictional aspects of the WADA. I am really delving into an area I have little or no expertise but I will try to explain my perspective (probably not very well though).
As a ‘condition’ of playing sport at the elite level each athlete must do so on the condition of playing by the rules and one of the rules is not to dope. Therefore if its in the rules and the rule is broken there has to be a means by which athletes are punished. Its debatable whether this process should be conducted in a truly legal context or in its current form (in some countries doping is a criminal offence).
It might be worth considering dopers as criminals and having their cases heard in criminal courts which in your view have more exacting procedures. In reality though there is no test that is 100% foolproof and even in a real court of law dealing with forensic testing there is always that ‘one in a million’ chance that a result is wrong. And if the courts took the view that unless all tests were bullet proof every criminal would be freed on this basis. On the other hand we have seen many examples of accused murderers etc being wrongly convicted on the basis of ‘dodgy’ DNA tests etc so even in the truly criminal system some are going to fall thru the cracks.
When doctors diagnose patients they do so on the balance of probability. There is no known 100% diagnostic test and the doctor makes a diagnosis on corrobrating evidence eg. family history, patient history, symptoms, test results and etc.
It could be argued then that the WADA process is analagous to the diagnosis of disease. There is no known doping test that would ever be 100% accurate but on balance of probabilities most if not all positive tests are probably suggestive of doping for eg. Tyler Hamiltons defense rested on the probability that he was a chimeric twin of which there a few dozen documented cases in the world (or about a 1:60,000,000 occurence). In light of the testing evidence – positive for homologous blood doping, previously suspicious blood test results and the fact that two other members of his team had also tested positive the probability was that he had doped with homologous blood rather than being a chimeric. I wouldn’t know how balance of probabilities are quantified though, I am not a statistician.
I think that whether an athlete is tried in court of sport or court of law there would still be flaws but I do concede that at least in a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty whereas its the other way around in a court of sport. Thats a debate for legal eagles though not for me.
If you test negative you have nothing to fear but how many false negatives slip thru the net – Marion Jones was tested 160 times before she confessed to doping. So it probably works both ways and I think more slip thru the net because the tests are not good enough rather than the few that may be wrongly accused because of any flaws in testing. Neither situation is satisfactory though.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly that the CAS needs to be completely independent from WADA and it certainly is a big flaw in the system. I have never cast a close eye over the composition and/or the ‘brief’ of the CAS. Perhaps I should now that you have brought that to my attention.
The system is not perfect but then again there is no such thing as a perfect system. All I would suggest is that every athlete should stand up to the WADA if they think there is a problem, not just the few who find themselves accused of doping.
WADA are probably not going to change the rules unless they are challenged by the ‘silent majority’ of its stakeholders.
Obviously you have a much better grasp of the legal nuances of the whole anti-doping system so perhaps its better you direct future discussions regarding this area to people who have far better knowledge and appreciation than I have or ever will.
Nevertheless its good to ‘chew the fat’ so to speak over issues other than the science of doping as I learn new things from these exchanges as well, so thank you for your comments.
I am a little wiser for it now.
Rob
Rob,
I do not wish to represent myself falsely. I am not an expert at law. If I have given you this impression through my words, allow me to set the record straight. I am not a lawyer or an expert in jurisprudence. I am nothing more than an ordinary person; I was at one time an actor by profession, now I work as a digital printer. I also happen to be a passionate fan of cycling. I did at one time hold a UCI license, but that was a very long time ago.
–
Your comments are eloquent and convey your thoughts clearly — I thank you for sharing them with me and anyone else who may be reading this. I hope my own passionate thoughts do not give the impression that I have no respect or am not attentive to yours.
–
If I do come across as having some small knowledge of the legal stances in this present situation — You will have to hold other persons who participate in this blog at “fault.” People like Rant – an excellent scientific oriented journalist, Larry – a lawyer, Judge Hue – a district court judge, William – of the “clear thinking” and many others who are very intelligent people and who each care about racing and sports, the law, science and who all look at the concept of “fair play and justice”- with more then a mere glancing attention. They have been my most excellent teachers.
–
Most of them are probably not pleased with me for allowing my own passionate expression to use, as you so astutely point out, expressing myself so ineptly as to infer that I seek a !00% perfect test. Such use of terminology betrays my actual small understanding of the proper language of the law. Believe me — if Rant was here and not busy preparing a new article, he would be straightening me out pronto — as would the real lawyers in this group — sadly at the moment, you have only me to suffer. I have no idea what the others are up to. But they would certainly be yanking my leash if they were reading my hyperbole.
–
Therefore I think if I were to have used the term “world wide accredited” testing — I would have been more true to the point. YOU are absolutely right and I agree 100% that there is no test that may be deemed a hundred percent accurate, but the tests have to be accepted as “legit and fair” therefore come the lawyers to argue this difference in their inimitable manner. But that is just the point. Rules-laws have to be “fair” in that they protect the individual rights against the many — so that this system of intelligent confrontation may occur. The “public” trusts that the laws they are governed by are in the most part fair and equal and when perceived as not — they have the ability to voice “their situation” and the law will allow them to do so. Without causing them to go into bankruptcy, or the fear of being ostracized from their society. I do not feel that this is existant in the rules and behavior of WADA at this point.
–
Your example of how doctors make decisions in medicine is really fantastic and very apropos to how WADA should make their own decisions on who is doping and who is not. BUT — even doctors have to accept that they will be held accountable for the decisions they make — because they have to follow the same rules as the general public — they are not allowed to consider themselves outside of or above this set of laws. It is difficult to be a doctor — he/she holds lives in their hands — as does WADA when it accuses an athlete. But unlike doctors — WADA behaves as if it has a right to be the sole judge of its actions — and then proceeds to garner power by media pressure and back room non-public dealings to get away with it. This is unfair.
–
I would love to support WADA – if it behaved fairly. But my intellect and small understanding tell me that this is not the case. That the concept of “innocent till proven guilty” is sacrificed to the cause that doping must be stamped out. Well I want doping to cease — but I will not give over on the concept of innocent till proven guilty. That price is way to high to pay.
–
As I read your thoughts above, I do not think we are at odds about the heart of the matter. We both agree that doping is bad and should be fought to the bitter end. I do not think that your stance is to sacrifice “fair play” for merely winning either.
–
As you so quaintly put it — we are “chewing the fat” — how true — and how grand this is that we are doing it in this public forum — my only goal then — if I have to say I have one is that this “fat chewing” process not be impeded — because it is necessary for the development of well thought out “fair rules.” A pleasure to be chewing the fat with you Rob, thank you for your generosity and caring to actually invest your time to do it. Allowing me to further my own education.
Morgan,
The respect is mutual.
I am enjoying this debate and have learnt a lot already.
You are absolutely correct, we are at one against doping and through your perspectives I acknowledge that the system could be viewed as being skewed to favour the ‘prosecutors’.
However, perhaps someone who is an expert in jurisdictional and procedural law could enlighten readers (and me) further also.
I shall certainly look at future cases with a little more circumspect.
Thanks again
Rob
Rob:
If you haven’t already, you might want to pop over to TrustBut.com and look up the Hon. Judge Hue’s contributions. He has analyzed both the arbitration process itself, as implemented by WADA, as well as the actual proceedings in May.
Thanks William.
I will read with interest.
Rob
Morgan,
You said…
“The worst rider out of the 200 or so racers who ride the Tour are still better genetically equipped then Joe Schmoe who is a spectator. That is it. It is probably true that “juiced” athletes do have an edge — but it seems to me that if “everybody is juicing” among the 1% “˜rs – then where exactly is there the question of “immoral cheating?”
–
One other thing Ludwig — I don’t buy into the idea that the “testing” isn’t there yet — how do the developers of the different drugs manage to do their tests — just to get it passed for human consumption? Something to consider, the developers must have testing procedures to get them to market.”
1. The people who argue the loudest that they wouldn’t cheat because its immoral, and that anyone who cheats is doing it on their own, are usualyl the accused dopers. The anti-doping crowd trying to fix the problem usualyl points to doping’s systematic nature, while the omerta finds away to blame any positive or drug scandal on the individual riders. This is one of the many ways the Landis case damages cycling–it sets yet another precedent that the way to fight doping charges is to mislead the public about the nature of the problem and the attitude of cyclists to doping.
It’s true that if “everyone” among the elite in cycling is doping than it is unrealistic to seriously argue these guys are immoral for practicing their profession. Still, if the cyclists and their supporters don’t have the courage to argue for toleration of their PED use, then the fact is cycling is better off without the drugs, because the lies and manipulation necessary destroy the sport for everyone.
2. It’s simply a fact that many, if not most doping products cannot be detected by the tests that exist, and that the WADA code and list of banned substances are always going to be behind the latest advances.. It’s only the extreme cases like Vinokourov and Landis where new testing methods have an impact., or surprise testing as in the case of Sinkewitz of Kasheckhin. Obciously if there was more testing it would be a lot harder for the dopers, but the science has a long, long way to go.
2
Ludwig –
…
I have not been able to keep up lately with everything here at RYHO. I am following the Sinkewitz case with great interest. Sinkewitz seems willing to tell everything he knows (and maybe some stuff he doesn’t know) in an effort to get his sanction reduced. Clearly, this is going to be the new line of attack by the ADAs, to pressure the people they catch to rat out higher-ups. This is a very good tactic, one that has been used successfully against the original “omerta”, as you probably know. There’s a danger with this tactic, of course: the testimony you get from people trying to save their own, er … , SKIN, is not always trustworthy. But it shows that the ADAs are starting to attack the doping issue the way the police might attack the problem, and on balance this is probably a good thing.
Ludwig,
Sorry for my lateness in responding – but here it is.
–
My response to your 1 comment – I tend to believe also-“that while the omerta finds a way to blame any positive or drug scandal on the individual riders.” In fact one need not really waste too much energy on comming to this conclussion – simply follow the “news-blips” and it is inescapable.
–
Ast to this statementof yours – “The anti-doping crowd trying to fix the problem usualyl points to doping’s systematic nature..” believe it or not – I agree that there is “systatic approaches” being used to pull it off-Doping in todays world NEEDS the support of organization to be pulled off.
–
Where I completely disagree with your point is that the attempt of Mr Landis to have a “fair heqaring” can be construed as some form of “subversive act” on his part. Perhaps you feel that you KNOW that Mr Landis is guilty of doping – I do not know how you can assume this stance – since all our dialouges are questioning the validity this accusation.
–
There has been no EMPIRICAL proof of doping – yes – an unbelievable amount of biased opinions and baseless insinuations have been floated throughout the world.there is even questionable science being involved. BUT the one time Mr Landis was taken for judgement – we discovered that WHATEVER the status of Mr Landis may be – the hearing – proved only that the set up of the “system – is not exactly unbiased.”
–
If you have followed some of the deconstruction of the LAB WORK that passes for science at LNDD on TVB – you may just have to question your belief that the “science” and the apllication of rules as being used is fair – and actually repeatable scientific.
–
Understand – I believe the “methodology” of both rules and “science” have been brought into question by Mr Landis’s case – I for one do not see this as a polution of the state of cycling – actually – it is the FIRST – public “trial” where WADA, USADA and the UCI application of their own rules – was brought to public light.AND they have showed themselves to be wanting.
–
On this point Ludwig – I am inflexible to argument. To accuse a person in public without proof is slander – The “proof” that has been presented by USADA – using rules that were created by WADA to ensure of its “victories” does not make it proof. It only makes it a governing body acting complete irresponsibly.
–
So if you want to bring Mr Landis in as an example of a “guilty rider” – who’s actions are damaging to the sport – then – step up please and prove it. NO – the results from the “admited shoddiness of the LNDD lab can not be considered proof” the “ruling” against Mr Landis has also been called into question – ergo the CAS appeal.
–
2 – it may very well be true that the “doppers are ahead of the controls” – if it is as prevelant as some believe – they must be – but THIS does not justify our own behavior being less then fair and legal.