A Ban In France, And Mayo May Be Toast

Now that the big work is done on my other writing project, I’ve got a bit of new-found time on my hands. Still more to do, and in a few days I’ll offer up a post that gives the whole background on that other work. But in the meantime, there’s a couple of very interesting stories hitting the news cycles today. First up:

AFLD Bans Floyd Landis Until 1/29/09

I hate to say it, but I’m not at all surprised by the decision by the French anti-doping agency (AFLD) in their doping case against Floyd Landis. Nor am I particularly surprised by the end date of the ban that they’ve imposed. It keeps Floyd from racing in the Tour and any other race on French soil until the 2009 season, even if Landis wins his appeal to the CAS.

A few things I find interesting about the case can be found in this quote from an Associated Press article.

Pierre Bordry, the head of the AFLD, said the French ban will be in place regardless of the CAS ruling.

“This ban includes all sporting activities in France,” Bordry said. “It is the same length ban as the American decision.”

Landis can appeal the AFLD’s decision in France, but is unlikely to do so until after his CAS hearing is completed.

“In that case, we would see,” Bordry said. “He (Landis) is more occupied with his case in front of CAS.”

Bordry said Landis’ legal team had presented its case in writing Nov. 29, and the AFLD’s decision to bar the former Phonak rider was made the same day.

So, assuming that there are any unsanctioned (by the UCI or the appropriate French federation) mountain bike races in France (like the Leadville or Shenandoah races that Floyd did this year), Landis would be barred from competing in those, too.

The more important detail, however, is about the timing of the presentation of written arguments and the decision. I haven’t seen the documents that Landis’ team presented in November (and I would imagine they would be in French, a language that is difficult for me), but my hunch is that they would be fairly lengthy. No details are provided about how long the panel deciding his case considered the documents before making their decision. Perhaps all day. Perhaps an hour. Or anything in between.

But it seems to me that if the decision wasn’t already a foregone conclusion, shouldn’t they have taken some time to carefully read what his lawyers submitted? Now, if it was a short document, or if they spent hours upon hours going through whatever was handed in, maybe a decision could be reached that quickly. Certainly this is a model of speedy resolution. Not having seen a translation of the ruling, I’m not sure what it’s based on or how just it is.

And, of course, the implications of this ban go further than where Floyd Landis can race next year. Suppose, for a minute, that he wins at the CAS level. Does that mean the Tour would have to recognize him as the 2006 winner? With the current ruling, I suspect not. And I suspect that Tour officials would not pay him the winner’s purse in such a case. Given that this case is probably out of the jurisdiction of the CAS, does their ruling matter — at least as far as the 2008 Tour is concerned?

Granted, Landis can appeal to the France’s highest administrative ruling body, the Conseil d’Etat, but that will take time and money. And as Bordry pointed out, it’s not likely to happen before the CAS ruling occurs. Which effectively rules out a 2008 Tour for Landis if the CAS ruling occurs in May. And perhaps he could even go into the EU courts if need be.

But this situation borders on the ridiculous. Landis is banned from competition (unless the CAS overturns the current ban) because of USADA’s case against him, so what’s the point of pursuing a second case? And if he is exonerated at the CAS level, wouldn’t fair play be to allow him to compete in any UCI sanctioned race, anywhere?

If the point of the World Anti-Doping Code is to harmonize practices around the world, then how is it that an athlete can be in this kind of quasi-double jeopardy? And how is it that a country who has adopted this code can also pursue their own case, outside the WADA framework? Is it because the US hasn’t adopted the WADA code?

Whatever the reason, my own personal opinion is that this case is more about vindictiveness than about justice. True enough, these proceedings are all perfectly legal under French law. But because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. If the highest sports body were to exonerate Landis, the right thing to do would be to allow him to compete (assuming he wants to). Now, depending on the full context of what Bordry told the AP, he may have left a window open to rescind the ban should Landis prevail. As he said, “In that case, we would see.”

Indeed we will.

On a final note, two thumbs down to CNN International’s Kristie Lu Stout, who made a remark about “a confirmed cheat being handed another ban” as she handed off the Landis story to Terry Badoo. Last time I checked, the case is still on appeal, Kristie. It might be a bit more civilized to wait until the CAS rules before branding someone as a “confirmed cheat.” Onwards to:

Is Iban Mayo Toast?

[OK, there’s probably a rule about using the same pun twice. But, hey, somebody had to do it.]

Today’s other big doping in cycling story is that leaks from LNDD to L’Equipe claim that Iban Mayo’s globetrotting B sample (which probably has more frequent flyer miles than Mayo does at this point) finally came up positive. Color me shocked.

Well, not really. It was bound to happen sooner or later. After all, if you keep looking for something, eventually you’re going to find it. Third time’s the charm.

Now, in all seriousness, Jean C left this quote in a comment to the previous post:

Iban Mayo’s B sample returned positive for EPO in a test performed by the French national anti-doping laboratory (LNDD) in Chatenay-Malabry this Wednesday. After the A sample was found positive for the performance-enhancer at the Tour de France’s second rest day last July by that same laboratory, the B sample was first analysed by a another accredited lab in Gent, Belgium. But scientists there found it to be “inconclusive”, which made the International Cycling Union (UCI) ask the French lab to re-test the remainder of the B sample after the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) announced the probe to be “negative”.

Anne Gripper, UCI anti-doping manager explained this discrepancy in October, saying, “In Gent, they use a slightly different technique [than the Paris laboratory].”

I’m not sure where he got the quote, yet. But when he lets me know, I’ll update the reference to it. Update: The original article from which Jean C got the quote can be found at CyclingNews.com.

Now, here’s the concern I have about Mayo’s tests. WADA’s mission is to harmonize anti-doping practices throughout the sporting world. What I think they need to do is not harmonize so much as standardize. In approving tests, they need to set standards for how the tests will be performed and how a lab (and its personnel) will be judged competent at the test. I’d leave some flexibility in for the quirks of various testing instruments, as I don’t think it’s necessary to specify the make and model of a device — unless it’s the only device capable of performing the work. When someone like Anne Gripper says they use different (even if only slightly different) techniques from one lab to the next, that gives me pause.

If a test is good enough to be approved, it ought to be one that everyone can (and should) be able to perform. As in, the same test no matter where you go. Which leads to greater consistency between labs (hopefully), and an easier time making heads and tails of the results. By having such a requirement, it then becomes easier to set up requirements for labs and lab technicians to demonstrate their competence.

Yes, I realize that this may mean that some labs with lesser budgets may not be able to perform some of the more sophisticated tests. I have a one-word solution to that: FedEx. Ship the samples where the expertise is, if not everyone can do it.

Getting back to the original subject of this portion of the post. If the news reports are correct, Iban Mayo is in for some trouble. Perhaps deservedly so. Perhaps not. But one thing is certain in this debacle. If WADA had set clear standards and requirements for the urine EPO test and how it was to be performed, and if they required that everyone use the same techniques (no “slight differences”), then Mayo’s case would most likely have been settled a long time ago.

Perhaps under Mr. Fahey’s guidance, WADA will move towards such standardization. If they do, it will be none too soon.