A Lesson Lost: Landaluze and the New Rules

by Rant on December 26, 2007 · 64 comments

in Doping in Sports

When the doping case against Inigo Landaluze was tossed based on a procedural error by a certain anti-doping laboratory, an opportunity occurred whereby the World Anti-Doping Agency could bolster the credibility of the whole anti-doping system by holding the labs they certify to certain generally accepted scientific requirements (including their own International Standard for Laboratories). In the case of Landaluze, it was the fact that a lab tech worked on both the analysis of his A and B samples that caused the Court of Arbitration for Sport to uphold the original ruling by Spanish authorities, tossing out the case against him on a technicality.

In this particular instance, the error is said to have occurred because the lab was short-staffed, and the tests needed to be processed quickly. The lesson that could have been learned from the Landaluze case was that procedures and protocols matter, and that just as the athletes are held to a strict liability standard, the labs will be held to the published standards. Woe unto the lab that fails to follow such standards.

That was the lesson that could have (and in my opinion, should have) been learned. Rules matter, not just for the athletes, but for those who have the power to ruin an athlete’s career. It is quite possible, that in having to let Landaluze go, a guilty man may have gone free. But I hold to the idea (known as Blackstone’s Formulation) that it’s better to let 10 guilty people go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted.

From where I see it, when a guilty person is let free there are at least two possible outcomes. One, that he or she is sufficiently chastened and the person won’t repeat that mistake again. In which case, the system has done a good job. Behavior has changed. Maybe someone escaped punishment, but at least that person might then compete fairly — if for no other reason than the feeling that Big Brother really is watching over one’s shoulder.

The other outcome would be that the cheater keeps on cheating. Human nature being what it is, some people just can’t quit bad behavior. But in this case, with the authorities more attuned to the fact that said person is a cheater, it’s reasonable to expect a certain degree of greater scrutiny. Eventually (call me an optimist), that person will be caught — again. And the second time, that cheater may not be so lucky as to escape punishment.

So what lesson did anti-doping authorities learn from the Landaluze dust-up? Instead of holding labs to WADA’s own standards, they made it harder for athletes to argue that procedural errors occurred, further stacking the deck against the athlete. Even if 9 times out of 10 the athlete is guilty, for that 10th person who may not be, the system needs to ensure sufficient opportunity to prove one’s innocence (better yet would be a requirement that the ADA’s prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that’s a Rant for another day).

With the requirement that the athlete must now prove that a departure from proper protocols directly caused an adverse result, cases like Landaluze’s are more likely to go the ADAs way than the athlete’s way. It’s going to make things harder, in my estimation, because how, exactly, does one prove that the same analyst working on the A and B sample testing “caused” the adverse result? That’s a tough one.

There is a well-known effect, first written about in the 1950s or 1960s (one link I found is a reference to someone’s master’s thesis at the University of Dayton in 1967, but doesn’t give much more information), call “experimenter’s bias.” A simple definition is this: The person conducting the experiment knows what result should occur or expects a certain result to occur, and succeeds in producing that result. A more detailed analysis of how the result was achieved, however, might find that the experiment was conducted in such a way (perhaps unintentionally) that the result was all but guaranteed. But that doesn’t make it the right result. It only means the experimenter was able to produce certain results, not that he or she has done the job correctly.

As the Wikipedia entry notes, experimenter bias is more common in the social sciences and medicine than in the physical sciences. Anti-doping tests occur at the nexus of physical and medical science, and because of this, may well be affected by experimenter’s bias. (There is another form of bias, called systematic bias, where results are consistently off by a certain factor, such as a thermometer that is consistently wrong by several degrees because it wasn’t calibrated properly. But that’s another story.)

The possibility of experimenter bias is one of the reasons for the requirement that different individuals perform the A and B tests — to weed out erroneous or conflicting results due to improperly conducted experiments. When two people can repeat the same results, the degree of confidence that they’re correct is greater.

Not perfect, because there are other forms of bias, but better. (Not that it was argued this way in May, but due to errors in how a certain lab used their equipment in the Landis case, a certain type of systematic bias may have existed there that led directly to his results. But in the new WADA world, how can one effectively prove that proposition?)

By changing the rules to make it harder for athletes to defend themselves, rather than holding labs to higher standards, WADA has missed an opportunity to ensure greater fairness in the anti-doping system. Which leaves me less than optimistic about where the World Anti-Doping Agency is headed in the future. Exactly how the new rules will play out is yet to be seen (they don’t take effect for another year). But the new rules look more like they came from a stack-the-deck, win-at-all-cost mentality than an effort to create a fair system for adjudicating anti-doping cases.

Larry December 26, 2007 at 8:53 am

Rant –

I’m going to repeat here some of the analysis I already posted at TBV. The extent of the upcoming changes to the WADA code (effective in 2009) have been (IMO) overstated in Velo News and elsewhere. The actual change to the code is more subtle. I’ll be happy to discuss this further. (In fact, there ARE a few other points I’d like to make under this topic, but I think I’ll wait until the discussion here has had a chance to get going.)

Under the WADA code, in order for an athlete to successfully challenge the test results produced by a WADA lab, the athlete is required to prove a “departure” by the lab from the International Standards for laboratories (ISL). Under the existing WADA code, the athlete must prove that the ISL departure “might” have caused the adverse analytical finding. Under the revised WADA code, the athlete must prove that the ISL departure “could reasonably” have caused the adverse analytical finding. (See revised rule 3.2.1)

The revised standard does not require the athlete to prove that the ISL departure directly caused the particular adverse finding in the athlete’s case. The revised standard is a “could have” standard – it says in effect that the ISL departure must be of the kind or nature that COULD have caused the adverse finding. And if you ever read through the ISL, you’ll find a lot of rules that could not reasonably be connected up to any adverse finding: rules that govern the maintenance of the lab’s personnel files, for example. True enough, the change in the rule is intended to toughen the standard, but it’s not THAT much tougher a standard! Try to imagine for the moment an ISL departure that “might” have caused an adverse analytical finding, but that “could not reasonably have caused” the adverse finding.

As a lawyer, I’m not troubled by the requirement for the athlete’s case to be based on a “reasonable” ground. The requirement for reasonable-ness is pretty much implied anyway, in most every legal context. Judges and juries don’t go for unreasonable arguments. Even under the existing code, I can’t imagine that an athlete could argue for dismissal of an adverse analytical finding, based on an ISL departure that did not have some reasonable connection to the finding.

Nevertheless, the revised rule DOES present a tougher standard. It’s one thing to say that athletes were always required to make reasonable arguments, and another to say that the athlete must now PROVE that his or her argument is reasonable. The burden IS higher under the new rule – if the athlete’s argument had to be reasonable before, now it must be demonstrably reasonable.

The new requirement must also be seen in conjunction with the WADA rules restricting the athlete’s ability to obtain documents, take depositions and otherwise access the information in the possession of the prosecuting lab and ADA. Under the WADA system, the lab and ADA have significantly better access to the information relevant to the athlete’s case. Under such a system, it makes sense to allocate the burden of proof to the side with better access to the information needed to make the proof. To shift additional burden of proof to the athlete is unfair, unless the playing field is leveled and the athlete is given equal access to the information available to the labs and the ADAs.

ludwig December 26, 2007 at 9:32 am

No one has any problem with the Blackstone principle. The problem is this. There is not a single instance of a cyclist being wrongly convicted by WADA. There is, however, tons of doping that goes undetected and unpunished. This is the dynamic that needs attention.

How do you change the dynamic so athletes have less incentive to dope? That is the question that needs to be asked, not “how can we make it so we have more cases like Landis and Hamilton that humiliate cycling?. What you stand for means more arbitrations, more lies, more cases just like Landis. It’s hard to see how this is good for cycling or good for anyone.

Larry December 26, 2007 at 10:55 am

Ludwig, allow me to amend your statement: there’s not a single instance where an athlete has been convicted by WADA, and later the ADAs admitted that the tests were botched. As we’ve seen in the Landis case, it’s very very difficult to get the ADAs to admit that they’ve screwed up their testing.

Any time the CAS overturns a doping case, that’s proof either that the conviction was wrong or that the conviction was wrongfully overturned.

Ludwig, whenever we’re discussing fairness to the athletes accused of doping, you bring up the allegation that there are many, many athletes that get away with doping. Scientifically, these are two separate problems: the problem of the false negative, and the problem of the false positive. You want to link these problems, as well you should: they’re both indications that the testing is not as good as it needs to be. But you want to argue that any concern we might express here about false positives indicates a lack of concern about false negatives. That’s not a scientifically defensible position. Science is concerned about both false negatives and false positives.

From the standpoint of cycling, we need to be concerned both about doping, and about fairness. There’s no reason that concern about one should preclude concern about the other. In fact, they go hand-in-hand. Case in point: your statement that the Landis case “humiliated” cycling. You’re right that this happened. The Landis case revealed a fundamental lack of fairness in the system: shoddy lab practices and a system slanted against the ability of an athlete to defend himself.

I think that the fight against doping and the fight for a fairer anti-doping system go hand-in-hand. It’s a fight for doing things the right way: the right science coupled with the right process.

But if you disagree, and I’m reasonably sure you DO disagree, then let’s go in the opposite direction: let’s imagine a system with no arbitration whatsoever. Let’s imagine a situation where the athlete had no right to challenge an adverse analytical finding. A system where the lab had the final word and the only word. Would this put a stop to doping? The “tons of doping” out there – are you going to eliminate ANY of this doping by eliminating everything I think of as “fair”? Of course not. Landaluze (whoever HE is) will be banned from cycling, and that’s about it.

The distinction you’re offering between fighting doping and fairness to athletes is a false distinction. We don’t have “tons” of athletes who escape detection because the system is too concerned with “fairness”. Whoever is escaping detection is doing so because the testing is not good enough, and because the means available to cycling to combat doping are not sufficient, and because the powers that be in cycling and at the ADAs are not using the means available to them to combat doping.

Rant December 26, 2007 at 11:03 am

Larry,
I see you points and hope that you’re correct. I would hate to see these changes choke off any avenue an athlete who’s innocent might have of contesting a positive result.
Ludwig,
I don’t know that we can be certain that there are no instances of wrongly punished athletes. At least in USADA’s case, many choose not to fight the cases against them. Somewhere among those who chose not to fight may be an athlete or two that may have been innocent, but lacked the resources to contest the charges.
You’re right, at least anecdotally, there appears to be much more in the way of false negatives than false positives. But because there are false negatives doesn’t mean that the tests are good. In fact, it suggests that the current kind of testing can be easily defeated, or it’s in other ways inadequate. How to make the system better, to be more capable of accurately catching the cheats is a good question. Retrospective testing doesn’t seem to be working. Perhaps not enough is done. Perhaps the tests aren’t really good enough. Perhaps it’s a bit of both.
I don’t think that what I stand for will result in more arbitrations, not less. It could turn out to be so, but one of the lessons of the Landis case is that it’s bloody expensive to take on City Hall. Few have the means to do so. But consider this: Allowing athletes to contest their cases fairly could, in the long run, have a beneficial effect. By having to stand up to additional scrutiny, for example, labs would have to be more careful in their testing procedures. That benefits everyone (except those who are truly cheating, of course), as it makes the lab’s work more solid and it ensures the integrity of the whole system.
Not allowing athletes proper defenses, however, ultimately serves no one’s interests except those running the anti-doping system. Yes, the occasional high-profile case like Tyler Hamilton’s or Floyd Landis’ brings a certain notoriety to cycling, and one none of us would like to see another case of that magnitude again. In the long run, if the fight’s fair, and the system has integrity, we’ll sort out who the real cheaters are and they’ll be dealt with appropriately. What’s needed are two things:

  1. One, a system that enables athletes who may be innocent to prove that they are so, through access to all necessary exculpatory evidence and a fair process, and
  2. Two, a system that has testing methods that are capable of discerning correctly who is an isn’t cheating, and that are prone to both few false positives and few false negatives.

The cheats who are getting away clearly embolden others to cheat as well. If competition is going to be fair, we need to be certain that however we’re testing, we can be confident that when a test says someone is clean that he or she is truly clean, and when a test says the opposite it is similarly accurate.

Morgan Hunter December 26, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Ludwig – Perhaps the “tons of doping” that goes “undetected” would not go “undetected” if the WADA ACCREDITED labs actually ADHERED to the ISO standards? Rather then “picking and choosing” which rules to follow on what day of the week or in what particular situation?

As to the “punishment” that these so called “tons of doping athletes” are getting away with – could be HALTED — if the rules were not written so that when ANY ATHLETE who has been accused actually got to ADDRESS the accusation against him — rather then playing — “what moronic “˜loophole’ has WADA left in place so I can defend myself?”

Since the “Rules and Regulations seem to have been formed by psychotic
megalomaniac chimpanzees intent on controlling rather then governing — the PROBLEM OF DOPING in sports — may easily be interpreted as laying the “blame” of the chimps at the feet of the “doping riders” as nothing short of ingenious and imbecilic logic.

As to finding the right “dynamic” for solving the “cheating problem” — AND if the PROBLEM is “merely” one of “INCENTIVE.” — “That is the question that needs to be asked,” — since the COMMENTARY contains no solutions and in a word is little more then hyperbole and repetition of tired spin, we are ALL breathlessly-awaiting an original thought in the form of a solution.

The only “humiliation” that cycling has to put up with are the zealots who assume they speak for cycling.

I consider myself a “part of cycling” and the commentator certainly does not “speak” for me or any other individual that understands the normal process of contemplation and cognitive though.

ludwig December 26, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Rant,

You characterize my position inaccurately if you say I am against fairness, or against the right to arbitration. Of course the athlete should have the right to appeal the basis for any suspension, and of course the testing ought to be based on verifiable science. And yes, naturally, the testing needs to be better. I am simply against dragging the sport through the mud via bad faith defenses. This is the crux–how to discourage bad-faith defenses and encourage good-faith ones?

Think about it from Landis’ perspective. Admitting he doped doesn’t just harm him, it humiliates his sponsors and puts those riders close to him under suspicion. This is why he told Lemond that admitting would only harm the people close to him. As much as most people might disagree, from his perspective disputing the charge was the only rational course. So if it’s possible to get off a doping charge based on Landaluze type loopholes, then you are going to have arbitrations, whether waged in good faith or not. And this is a big problem both in terms of fairness and in terms of cycling’s reputation–if you make it too easy to invalidate a positive test, then you encourage more bad-faith defenses.

How do you change this dynamic? I have no idea–you could legalize the doping or take WADA out of the equation. But since no one is willing to do this, the solution seems to entail reforming the testing system and ethical standards so there is less incentive to dope. But you also want to dissuade athletes from disputing allegations in bad faith. So yeah–the system ought to be rigged so an athlete has to have a good reason to dispute a positive–not just PR tactics, crying wolf re. anti-Americanism, and pseudo-science. The arguments ought to be reasonable from the standpoint of an objective observer. And there ought to be fairness in the sense that if Landis and co. smears the USADA and WADA, or wage PR campaigns based on misinformation, then the WADA/USADA ought to have the chance to respond. That’s why it would have been a disaster for cycling if Landis won his arbitration–it would have legitimized those tactics. In the end, the discussion ought to be about science alone, without the propaganda techniques.

I don’t understand how you find anti-doping authorities have a vested interest (at least compared to the interest of the doped athlete trying to clear his name). What evidence is there that anti-doping authorites have anything to gain by finding people guilty?

As for false positives–if there was a case where an innocent cyclist was punished we would know about it. Do you think riders would stand for an innocent cyclist being banned from the sport for no reason? That would be something worth getting upset about, but there is no reason to believe anything like that has happened. What you can say is that many riders have been scapegoats (think of Pantani for example) while dopers get away without punishment–the solution for this problem is not pointlessly blaming WADA for factors they can’t control, but enacting reforms at the UCI and team level so doping is harder to get away with.

Rant the essential problem with the anti-doping system is that doesn’t have integrity–with the possible exception of the 2007 Tour, it has been a joke that only catches a few scapegoats. One of the many dumb and misleading Landis team arguments is that the anti-doping system is intent on bringing down cycling and smearing people–in reality cycling is bringing itself down, and it is journalists and police who are exposing it rather than laboratories. That’s why it’s better to concentrate on accurately describing, accurately diagnosing, and accurately reforming cycling in the real world, rather than spinning for the rights of cash-backed athletes to pull of an OJ. So yes, if you want to write about the need for better testing and more funding for testing, then more power to you. That is a worthwhile cause that can be waged with a clear conscience. But in the extensive period of time between now and when perfect tests emerge, the real test of whether you stand for fairness is whether you stand for the rights of clean athletes to not be forced to dope because the structure of cycling encourages doping. That’s where the real fight for fairness is taking aplce.

Morgan Hunter December 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Not to change the subject — but rather to proceed further with expressing concerns — some of you may have noticed that there was an article in 2 different news sources in the last 2 days, which may have a direct bearing on the topic today.

What may be looked at more closely is the first part, quote attributed to Ms Gripper:
—“The groups working together are to name a panel of seven experts to decipher the possible variations of the riders haematological levels,” she told AFP.

I am left “wondering” how exactly the “Panel of Seven” will be chosen?

Are we to assume that the UCI, WADA, TEAM REP, RIDER REP and the French Ministry of Sports 2 OTHERS — are able to supply “scientifically trained individuals” who will actually be able to INTERPRET the medical results of the “passports?”

What of the “SMALL” matter as to “CONFLICT OF INTEREST?” that will pop up IF the “panel” is to be comprised of individuals from the named groups cannot and may not be considered unbiased?

Or are we now all so far gone that we all have developed numbness to the idea/concept of proper science or for that matter — proper jurisprudence?

The other thing of note that I find interesting is how the same article is ended with two different endings?

Ending (A) — certainly leaves one with a different “understanding” as compared to “ending” (B) — perhaps you all can voice your opinions?

(A)—” The financial costs for the passport remains unclear, despite estimates of 6 million euros, 5 million euros more than the anti-doping program of 2007.”

(B)—“According to the UCI, the system is estimated to cost around 5.3 million euros in 2008 (3 million of which funds the haematological profile), and will be financed by the UCI, teams, riders, WADA and the French Ministry of Sport.”

Rant December 26, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Ludwig,
As with you, I think those who mount defenses in bad faith are to be reviled. We may disagree on who those people are, but I think we agree on the damage such actions cause not just to cycling, but to whatever sport the athlete may be a part of.
As for the anti-doping authorities having a vested interest in certain outcomes, given that they need funding from somewhere, some (not necessarily all) may operate from the notion that it’s about wins and losses. More wins equals better funding is how the calculus would go. Rigging the system for an incredible amount of wins would be one way to ensure perpetual funding. That would be a cynic’s approach.
I don’t know all of the cases that USADA or WADA has ever prosecuted, or the IOC and national federations before them. Many involve lesser-known athletes. I think it’s entirely possible that an innocent athlete has taken a doping sanction because he or she was not able to afford the time and money involved in fighting the case. Would we necessarily know who that person is? Only if the case somehow received some publicity. Or, if some researcher looked into each and every case, along with the relevant facts (assuming the information is available).
Certainly, there are reforms that need to happen both at the UCI and within team organizations if doping is to be reduced. Standing for the rights of clean athletes includes not only standing against forces that may lead them to dope, but also standing for fair treatment so that no innocent athletes are wrongly found guilty. The fight for clean sports is occurring in many venues. Ultimately, we need both. How soon that’s likely to happen is pretty hard to say.
If I implied that your position is against fairness, or the right to arbitration, my apologies. That wasn’t my intent, merely to point out that the whole system needs balance, and from my perspective, the adjudication system is becoming more unbalanced.

Jean C December 26, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Merry Christmas and happy end of year!
Rant,
I dont think that the WADA funding is linked with winning cases.
Because everyone has seen a lot of indices that doping is actually widespread in sport, losing doping cases would justify more fundings for the WADA system!

Jon December 26, 2007 at 6:12 pm

It is absurd for an athlete to prove that a departure by a WADA accredited lab caused an AAF beyond a reasonable doubt, while all that is required from a arbitration Panel is comfortable satisfaction to ban an athlete for two to four years. If the requirement for the athlete is increased to challenge bad lab practice then strict liability should also apply to the labs to prove that their behavior did not cause a departure serious enough to result in an AAF. To be precise, the certain lab Rant speaks of is LNDD, a lab with a serious history of flaunting International Standards for Laboratories (ISL), see Vrijman Report and Landaluce for examples. Of course, the new WADA code has no provision to correct this flaunting of WADA CODE by accredited laboratories to achieve a desired result by incentives to produce results favorable to the lab, or by cohersion.

Rant December 26, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Jean,
You may well be right about WADA and their funding. USADA, however, gets about two-thirds of their budget from the US government, and the politicians on this side of the pond like to see results for their investment (I’d guess that’s true in other places, too). To the people who control the purse strings in Washington, losing cases would make USADA look incompetent, and that could potentially put their funding in jeopardy. I’m not saying that’s definitely the case, but it’s within the realm of possibility.

There are definitely aspects of the anti-doping that need more funding, in my opinion. Research into new and better ways to detect doping would be at the top of my list. And research into ways to simplify the testing process so that the tests can be performed quicker and still be accurate would be good, too.

William Schart December 26, 2007 at 9:38 pm

I suppose that in some way an athlete who in fact is guilty and knows he is guilty, yet attempts to mount a defense may deserve some degree of contempt. Problem is, how do we know a priori whether any given athlete is in fact guilty? Perhaps in the Landaluze case, where I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that Landaluze did not actually challenge the fact of whether he doped, but just used the same tech did both tests defense, we can conclude he actually doped. But lets assume for a moment that L in fact did not dope. He might have not challenged that because he figured the same tech defense was his best bet (easy to prove), he might not have the evidence to challenge the test results themselves, so I don’t think that we can legally or scientifically assume that he doped just from the fact that he didn’t challenge that.

Now, for other atheletes, establishing their guilty or innocence a priori becomes much harder. Some of us here believe that the test results in the Landis case prove his guilt, and others of us here believe that they don’t prove it. Experts in the field disagreed too. Do we deny an athlete the opportunity to defend himself because it is believed he is guilty? There were plenty of people that at first thought the Duke lacrosse players were guilty, until they mounted a defense and showed up the problems in the prosecution’s case.

Common criminals are routinely allowed to defend themselves in court. Seldom do I hear a criminal criticized because he chooses to defend himself rather than plead guilty (although I do admit I hear some criticism of defense attorneys, although I personally do not). Should not an athlete have the same opportunity.

When I had a job which involved some law enforcement duties, I heard LE types questioning things like the exclusionary rule (which says that evidence improperly obtained by the authorities cannot be used in court). If we are to have rules for how the authorities are to conduct themselves, whether in criminal cases or athletics ones, there needs to be some way to enforce those rules. If we just say “Oh well, he was probably guilty anyway” and let things slide, will the authorities continue in their improper ways? Or, if someone “gets off” will the authorities attempt to improve their ways?

Also, if lots of athletes are doping and not being detected by the tests, that is a different matter entirely. Of all the riders accused by the WADA process, as far as I am aware, L is the only one to get off by the same tech defense. So, even if we eliminated this requirement entirely, it would make little if any difference in the number of athletes banned for doping violations. What is needed are better tests.

Morgan Hunter December 27, 2007 at 12:02 am

A “person/victim” is walking down a city street or a country road, is his head is filled with light or dark thoughts (?), we cannot know this. All we can say is that the person/victim is walking; the thoughts in his head are not accessible to us.

Suddenly — the person/victim sees that a brick is flying in the direction of his head. What does he do?

If he asks himself — (A)—“Why is that brick flying at my head?” By the time the he gets halfway through the question — the only “answer” he will get is “mixed brains and brick” for his troubles.

On the other hand — (B)— if he simply ducks to avoid the brick flying at his head, he is left to ask whatever questions he may wish.

Now the “other pedestrians” who were not the “target of the flying brick,” who were not even aware to begin with that there was a “flying brick” loose in their streets — begin to comment on the choices of the “person/victim” of the flying brick.

IF — “p/v” had chosen (A) — they say things like — “What an idiot” — “Why didn’t he duck?” — “The guy must have been not paying attention.” — “He deserves scrambled brains and brick for not being attentive.”

IF — “p/v” chose (B) – the comments may run something like this — “”Wow! That was close!” – “Are you okay?” — “Nice moves fella.” — and eventually even — “Where did that brick come from?” — “Who threw it?”

Being that “p/v” was the focus of the flying brick and he had chosen (B) — it is safe to assume that his thoughts would be closest to – “Where did that brick come from?” — “Who threw it?”

If the choice of “p/v” was (A) and the “subjective” observations and comments on “p/v’s” responses are taken up as legitimate — then it may safely assumed that the people of the (A) world have something greatly wrong with their connection to simple survival.

If the choice of “p/v” was (B) — then there is a “possibility” that eventually, the “thrower” of the “flying-brick” will be found — and exposed as being, at least, antisocial and self-serving.

Now the only question remaining that should be considered important is — does the city or country where all this has taken place have rules that allow the “p/v” to get answers to his logical questions? Or not.

ZENmud December 27, 2007 at 1:49 am

Hi Rant, and all correspondents,

WADA is, in effect, approximating the behavior of the class of athletes which it deplores: it is bending the rules towards its position, maybe a bit of ‘experimentors’ bias’ in and of itself…

BUT!

We’re arguing about a circularity, in the 2003 CODE.

The primordial problem, which some may call ‘semantic’, is that it places the burden on an Athlete to rebut a disputed AAF, WAY BEFORE it places the mandate on laboratories to do their job.

ART. 3.2.1 is the famous burden-shifting clause, embedded in the whole slew of things an athlete being tested must anticipate, expect or argue.

ART. 6.4 mandates that the labs perform under the ISL.

Thus I question why attorneys even bother (I, a humble jurist, who passed the NY Bar exam in 1997, and then ran like hell to Europe without terminating the NY Bar application (sorry Larry)), to argue the ‘presumption’.

I wouldn’t mention it.

I’d go straight to ART 6.4, and then claim that the case should be thrown out.

NEXT, I’d argue that the ADO failed its duty, if: a) it didn’t see (per ART 7.1) the ‘apparent departure’ (as maybe the Spanish cycling Fed will soon be arguing at CAS), AND throw out the case, or b) it didn’t apply “missing language” from ART 7.2 (“… If the initial review under Article 7.1 does not reveal an applicable TEU or departure that undermines the validity of the Adverse Analytical Finding…)

SIMPLY by rearranging the articles of the WADA CODE (referring back to my thought that some may only consider this semantic), the BURDEN goes first to the ADO v LAB, and never should be the ‘athlete’s burden’…

I’d expand this, but it’s a halfday skiday, and I gotta get on the bus!

ZENmud
OH: read more here…
http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/part-two-wada-laboratory-to-standardize.html

Rant December 27, 2007 at 6:34 am

William,
Point taken. On reflection, everyone deserves to be able to defend themselves, even those who know they are guilty. Since we can’t know whose hearts are pure and whose hearts are deceitful, it’s wrong to hold someone in contempt for exercising their rights. Now, that said, if we find out at a later time that someone knew he was guilty and was trying to game the system the whole time (rather than take responsibility for his actions), that could be worthy of a certain amount of scorn.
Morgan,
Interesting story you’ve penned there. I wouldn’t want to live in a place where the rules didn’t allow the “p/v” to get answers to those questions.
ZENmud,
I just re-read your article, having first looked it over shortly after you’d published it. Very interesting analysis of the whole framework and state of affairs in the WADA code. I’d encourage everyone to follow the link to the article in ZENmud’s comment. I’d be very curious to see what Larry’s opinions are on the structure of the WADA code, too. It sounds like they’ve left a lot of important things out, and gotten some other things arse-backwards.

Morgan Hunter December 27, 2007 at 9:57 am

ZENmud – Now that is something we can get our “teeth” into…Nice work man. Can’t wait to hear what Larry thinks – Your deconstruction looks great to me – but I’m beyond my depth here – I freely admit it. I’m hoping that after the 6th or 7th reading my brain will uncramp and understanding will trickle in…(:-))

I do enjoy visiting your site regularly. Keep up the good work.

Morgan

William Schart December 27, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Rant:

Point taken. However, should an athlete be expected to not take advantage of a possible defense? If Landaluze, knowing he was guilty (if that indeed is the case) but seeing that the same tech was involved in both tests, should he ignore that or should he avail himself of the out provided? If we accept the Blackstone formulation, it in fact (at least as I see it) requires that people in L’s situation take advantage of this.

There is perhaps an additional consideration. Depending on the country where the alleged doping took place, the alleged violation may also be a criminal offense too. If an athlete admits to the offense to an ADA or UCI, he could very well open himself up to criminal prosecution. Of course, it is possible that the local authorities could base a criminal case on the same evidence used in the ADA proceedings, but it also is possible that the evidence may not stand up in a criminal court. But if an athlete admits that he did dope, that could possibly be used against him. This is one reason why lawyers commonly advise their clients to say nothing, and why we have Miranda warnings.

Now, if an athlete attempts to cook up some totally bogus defense, like maybe he was highjacked by Nazi frogmen who shot him up with dope, I would draw the line there.

Rant December 27, 2007 at 1:59 pm

William,
I’m thinking that it’s unreasonable not to expect an athlete accused of doping not to take advantage of any possible defense. Especially so in countries where it is also a criminal offense, and admitting to it freely could cause worse legal problems than just losing an anti-doping case would. If an athlete loses an anti-doping case, at least he or she doesn’t automatically get fined or imprisoned, even if the person does have to sit out competition for a period of time. I’d see no logical reason for an athlete in such a place to freely own up to having doped, even when caught dead to rights, with the needle stuck in his arm, in such a place.
Frogmen injecting athletes with unknown substances, as you note, is a different story. And then there’s Leukmann’s case … where the doctor who should have known better injected him. Two questions I have about that: One, why was that particular drug treatment necessary? And two, before injecting Leukmann couldn’t the doctor have at least verified that there were no banned substances in the medication?

Morgan Hunter December 27, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Hey William – How can you say that! After a dozen Scotches and four six packs – Nazi Frogmen do tend to show up – a lot! I can provide you “true testimonials”!!! You know – if we looked earnestly enough – I bet we could actually find a web site that deals with nothing but Nazi-Frogmen Abductions – I am shocked William that you would take such a close minded approach to this “very real” problem!

ludwig December 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm

William,

I would concur with your comments and add also that an athlete has an enormous financial and professional incentive to fight doping charges rather than admit to them. In cycling, this is not simply a hypothethical—it is normal, especially for athletes who can afford expensive legal counsel. And this is exactly why it’s so important to make it very difficult to invalidate a positive test based on technicaltiies. Otherwise you have a whole crop of sports lawyers who game the system and cheaters who profit from its weakness.

In general, though, I don’t think your defense of bad-faith defenses takes into account the ethics of acquiring money and support from well-intentioned supporters through deception. I mean its one thing to simply deny the offense, but to set up something like the FFF where money is being solicited….that crosses the line and explains a lot of the hostiliy towards dopers. I think the cycling media and cycling leadership hasn’t really grasped that the deception–much more than the doping–is what exasperates fans and sponsors.

Rant December 28, 2007 at 6:52 am

Ludwig,
Given the nature of what an innocent athlete would have to prove to overcome an anti-doping case against them, it seems to me that guilt or not will be hard to prove to the average person, and perhaps even someone who follows a case closely. The eventual “victory” for an athlete, if it comes, usually takes the form of a technicality. Which for many leaves the issue of guilt or innocence unresolved. Yeah, so-and-so got off. But it was on a “technicality.” At least, that would be the refrain.
How are we to know who is truly guilty and truly innocent? Suppose, for a moment, that an athlete who had been strongly anti-doping, spoke out against it constantly, and so forth, were to be charged with a doping offense. Suppose it’s someone you’ve always respected, but he’s never been much of a star racer. You think he’s getting a raw deal (it would seem so, given his history). And he doesn’t have the money to fight the charges. Would you donate to help him? I would.
But what if, later on, it turned out the whole anti-doping stance was just an act? That he’d done it precisely to deflect any suspicion from himself, and that he had been doping all along. Would you feel cheated? I would, and I certainly wouldn’t support him in the future.
Now, I think we’d both agree that the cyclist was acting unethically in soliciting money from well-intentioned people knowing full well he’s guilty. But even guilty people are entitled to defend themselves. Ultimately, how do we know who’s ethical and who isn’t? And before a case is settled, how do we know who’s guilty and who isn’t? It seems to be a judgment call, to me.
So, at the end of all this, let’s say (for the sake of discussion) that the CAS comes back and says the original ruling against Landis was wrong, that the science clearly shows he didn’t cheat — even though some of it can be construed the other way. And, so, they clear him. Would that change your opinion of this case? Would that change your opinion of how he raised money to help his defense? Landis certainly didn’t have all the resources necessary to fight the case on his own, unlike some other, more famous cyclists who do.
Given all that’s happened — both in the Landis case and others — I understand how fans can feel exasperated. Perhaps I’m an idealist, but I chipped some cash to help Floyd defend himself, because I think he ought to have the resources to make his case. In part, I did so because I didn’t (and still don’t) think that the case against him is crystal-clear. Far from it. I think there’s a good case to be made that the lab goofed, but that the story hit the media before they could correct their mistake. I would do so for the hypothetical cyclist in my example, too, if his story sounded plausible. But if either one turned out to by lying about their innocence and just playing people for fools, I’d be mad as hell.

Morgan Hunter December 28, 2007 at 7:58 am

eth’ics —- 1. a system of moral principles 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. 3. moral principles 4. that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, wit respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Last night — 47 Harley’s fully tanked and juiced to the max, showed up at my doorstep, along with 47 Nazi Frogmen. At the time, I was having a few people over for a little party. The Harley’s and the Nazi Frogmen were very surprised by the presence of other people about, they seemed to be a bit confused by this turn of events. Being of a social nature, I of course invited them all in for a seasonal eggnog.

Their leader, a rather brutish stocky looking elderly fellow, immediately smiled at the mention of “eggnog,” pushed his bifocals onto his forehead and bellowed a hearty “Ohy!” and ended with, “Where are the women?” as he shouldered his way past me, along with 47 of his fellows. Other then the interesting fact that every one of them seemed to favor black rubber and leather for clothing, the only outstanding accessory they carried were clip-boards with cheap pens attached to them by a rather ratty looking string.

My guests, mostly couples of both sexes welcomed the newcomers with cordiality and seasonal spirit. My wife, being a superb hostess was ready with 10 gallons of extra sharp eggnog, dolling it out without hesitation. Everything was going exceedingly well, till one of the Nazi Frogmen, began insisting that his Harley should be able to attend the activities in the middle of my livingroom. As my better half heard this comment, all cheerfulness left her visage.

My other guests, being old friends and well mannered by nature, knew better then to ever insist that their Harley’s ever be permitted to join one of our festivities. I should mention at this point, that my wife’s extra sharp eggnog has been known to make grown men and women, often lose the power of clear speech and a great degree of motor coordination. Luckily, the other Nazi Frogmen silenced their ill-mannered member. The smile of my missus returned and the eggnog kept flowing. There was Mark Knopfler doing a duet with Chet Atkins, Nat King Cole snuck in to do his favorite Christmas medleys. The missus was out somewhere in the kitchen, I could hear her whisk whipping up another batch of eggnog.

I was feeling warm and fuzzy all over. Our party was a success. The guests mingled. There were uncalled for akkapella choir accompaniment to recorded music, which was cheered by all present. The missus finally found time to cuddle with me on our extra large couch. I was feeling like we were hosting the best get together of the Season. Around three in the morning, one of the Nazi Frogmen pulls out his clipboard and begins to solicit my other guests for donations to something called the Nazi Frogmen Fund for the Fight, or the NFFF.

Understand please, I was more then ready to let the party continue. It was once again the little missus, all five foot two of her that got riled. Voices were raised and accusations flew like swallows. The next thing I knew my missus had the Nazi Frogman with the clip board firmly by one much stretched ear scampering to follow his ear towards our front door. The other guests from both parties were silent. My missus returned to the middle of her living room and asked if there was anyone else who was interested in a piece of her action? Fortunately for every one else, they were all busy slurping down the last of their eggnogs and making polite excuses for the lateness of the hour, systematically bidding all a good night.

Thinking back on the party now that a few days had passed, I must say, it was still a success. One mustn’t take the ill-mannered behavior of one or two guests to judge an excellent party.

ZENmud December 28, 2007 at 9:22 am

hi Rant,

I’m humbled, thanks for your support… and Morgan!

Don’t sweat it, man: it’s harder to WRITE than to read that… those posts took me close to three hours each to develop, after the reading and note-taking… so a total of about 20 hours of ‘PRO BONO’ work that WADA is getting gratos… and ignoring so far… I keep anticipating they’re going to hire me just to stifle my blog (ego.showing.moment) 🙂

And if Larry is also out skiing, then I’ll keep hoping his reply is to come…

I am hoping to be able to participate in the CAS-WADA symposium for journalists at the end of February, here in Lausanne, across the lake from me, but that would mean coming up with a Bloggers pass, equivalent to a press pass! But since they accepted me in Madrid, hopefully I can attend without shenanigans.

ZENm

William Schart December 28, 2007 at 5:48 pm

One of the problems I see is that it is almost, if not totally, impossible for an accused athlete to actually prove he didn’t dope. This has nothing to do with the WADA system, arbitration panels, CAS, etc. It’s the nature of the offense.

If I am accused of having robbed the UMB bank on Chapel Hill last Friday, I can easily prove my innocence – I was in Carbondale Illinois at the time, and have a number of witnesses to prove it. It is also possible that the true prep will be identified, thus clearing me. There are possibly other ways to actually prove I didn’t commit this crime.

However, an athlete can neither alibi himself or have a different person ID’ed as the true offender (unless it is a case of mix up of either the blood/urine sample or results). The best any athlete can do under any system is to cast enough doubt on the test results that they are thrown out. This doesn’t prove the athlete is innocent of doping, just that the evidence is not good enough (however that is defined) for conviction. Some will look at this as “getting off on a technicality”, but the fact is there is no other way for an athlete to win.

On the other hand, it is very possible for the ADA system to prove an athlete is guilty. If the lab work is good and well documented, so that there is no question about the reliability of the results, I think there would be few to question the verdict, even if it was Rant’s well respected anti-doping talking athlete.

About the only way Landis could come close to proving he is innocent is for someone at LNDD to confess that they either deliberately cooked the tests or switched samples, or perhaps uncover uncontrovertibly evidence of the same. Not very likely. If LNDD was to admit that they messed up on the tests and the results are in fact not reliable, but only admitted to incompetence, not deliberate action, this would not prove Landis’ innocence. It is possible that test could be done wrong, be unusable, but still the athlete in question did dope.

As far as Landis raising funds through public appeal, I doubt that anyone who donated to the fund was not unaware of the evidence against him and the possibility he did in fact dope. I make a habit of checking out any charity I might donate to, and will not donate if I don’t like what I find out. I suspect that most if not all who donated to Landis did so because they felt, based on what they knew, Landis had a case. After, he put all the documents he had available to him up on the web for all to see.

Morgan Hunter December 29, 2007 at 3:30 am

William,

It is a delight how you are able to take us to points that most people will avoid examining closely. As you point out —“One of the problems I see is that it is almost, if not totally, impossible for an accused athlete to actually prove he didn’t dope. It’s the nature of the offense.” — The remainder of your comment succinctly points out why this is. I happen to agree with the observations and your breakdown. I would further stir the pot and point out that part of the problem is that the “expectations” of the “tifosi” is for absolute resolutions.

We may ask ourselves, are such expectations realistic? Are such expectations realizable? The tifosi in my opinion will not “like” the answers. As you point out —“This has nothing to do with the WADA system, arbitration panels, CAS, etc.” — This is a question that digs deeper then mere current event news. It addresses itself to the nature of “perceived reality.” Most tifosi wish only to hear that whatever they are “thinking or feeling” is based in what they refer to as “the truth.”

I ran across a most interesting set of commentaries on TBV — addressing this very same question in jurisprudence. Thursday, December 27, 2007 – Thursday Roundup, under the comments section. bill hue, Larry, (“Eightzero”) are discussing two different existing resolved cases – Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579)(1993) & Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) – in relation to human flaws in the application of science and naturally the law. It is not a long piece — but if read carefully, the reader will find that there is much to learn from the exchange. I highly recommend it.

Many who “argue” the cases of doping never bother to look at the situation deeper then from their own particular stance or point of view. They argue in this manner because it is easiest to “see” the situation from merely this narrow perspective — looking deeper would require them to ask much more difficult and frightening questions. When the human equation is added to any effort or enterprise, is it possible to get unequivocal “true” answers? No one likes to think that “human error” can make any well-designed work into absolute shambles. It is much more convenient therefore to accuse someone of “wrongdoing” and then become incensed when the accuser is called into question.

Rules and laws that we follow are man made and therefore cannot be held as “absolute” truths or “perfections.” The basic reasoning behind “transparency” in matters of judicial behavior is to be able to find and seek out the very human flaw element in them. The problem I have with WADA, the USDA, IOC and UCI behavior is simply that they have all done EVERYTHING to hinder this very process. All the while presenting themselves as “unbiased judges” of the athlete’s behavior.

In my opinion the tifosi that feel justified in siding with this twisting of judicial behavior seem to not realize that they are aiding and abetting and allowing it to be perpetrated on all who are outside of the above mentioned groups. No rules or laws in cycling or in any sport activity should be outside of the means to change and betterment. Once it is and it is “allowed” to function in this manner, the governing bodies no longer govern rather they turn into biased tyrants.

I believe that it is, even with the “human factor” included; possible to have a situation whereby a cheating athlete may be brought to justice. It is the most patently absurd situation that because the WADA rules are such as they are — the athlete’s innocence or guilt cannot be determined — because as the rules are written — it is impossible to determine and we are left with playing a “questionable game” of “technical gymnastics.”

I contend that when we insist on clear rules of behavior in sport — we are not asking for “absolutes” rather what we desire is the “means” to arriving at the truth of the accusation. Is it any wonder that we have been embroiled in “arguing” right and wrongs when the question before us is nothing to do with answering this simple question. Why is it that WADA, etc has been able to “ignore” the sited proofs of its shortcomings and continues to behave as if nothing was amiss? Is it any wonder that the tide of opinion will show more and more signs of dissatisfaction and grumbling? I think not.

We are told that the “dopers” are very clever. I put to you that it is not the dopers who are especially clever — rather that the “governing bodies” have proved themselves to be below par in their understanding of the situation. That forming a “governing body” that is basically denying “fair play” in their own behavior is the very thing that allows “loopholes” for the “dopers” to get away with doping. We may not like it — but to accept the “rationalized” fault ridden behavior of the governing bodies will only allow the dopers/cheaters to continue.

After all — one must ask oneself — what kind of rationale is behind the thinking — that a governing body whose job it is to “catch cheaters” fails miserably to stand behind its own accusation and tries to eliminate the chances of the accused in proving their innocence? This type of thinking is not clear or logical or for that matter productive.

ludwig December 29, 2007 at 11:07 am

Morgan=Conspiracy theorist.

I mean, this business has gone on for a year and a half. And in all that time, I have not encountered a single credible argument suggesting that the WADA authorities are anything other than earnest people trying to do a difficult job.

If you apply Occam’s Razor and look at this situation rationally, you might realize that while an accused doper has every reason to use deceit and propaganda to clear his name, there is simply no rational motivation for a conspiracy by the LNDD, WADA, USADA, and the UCI to bring down one cyclist for absolutely no reason.

Get real.

ludwig December 29, 2007 at 11:37 am

William and Rant,

Re, the issue of Landis’ public appeal for funds, I’m not sure everyone that contributed to his fund was really aware of the full context, especially whether it is likely that the winner of the 2006 Tour did so without doping. Many of the Landis supporters one encounters online are relatively new to the sport and aren’t aware of the extent of the doping problem or the fact that Floyd rode for a notorious doping team, or that many of his closest colleagues are dopers or suspected dopers. Sites like Trust But Verify, with links to FFF fundraising, presented the facts in a biased manner, and purposefully omitted much useful information. In short, while someone like Lance Armstrong contributed to the FFF without any illusions, from what I’ve seen many FFF contributors did not have the facts in hand to make an assessment whether it is likely that Landis was telling the truth.

Now legally speaking there’s nothing wrong with this… It’s just the ethics of it that is bothersome. As you are probably aware, this was a big bone of contention on the DP-Forums and was an issue that turned many of the old-time members against Landis.

Ultimately, if Landis is innocent, there is nothing wrong with FFF whatsoever. But that’s the issue that is most unsettling of all–given the media scrutiny, it’s almost as if an accused doper (if guilty) has no choice but to lie to everyone in order to give the impression that he is innocent. If he stays quiet, people will think he’s guilty. But if he claims innocence and is later exposed, fans feel betrayed and lose interest in the sport.

It’s a serious problem.

William Schart December 29, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Ludwig:

The number of FFF contributors who failed to exercise due diligence I have no way of knowing, nor does anybody really. However, they certainly had the opportunity to do so. I will admit that, if Landis is truly guilty, his actions in raising $ by pleading innocence is ethically questionable. Of course, the truly guilty appealing for $ while pleading innocence is nothing new, it has been done a criminal cases before.

But, my point is my previous post is that we never will know if FL is innocent. If CAS rules in his favor, most of the anti-Landis faction will say he got off “on a technicality” rather than he has proven his innocence, which he cannot do under any system. No one can look at all the “facts” available in the Landis case and say he is telling the truth. I personally believe that he is, but I will readily admit that it is just a belief. Others believe he is lying, and some of those formed that opinion way back in August or September 2006, before we knew little if anything beyond the fact that both the A and B tests, according to LNDD, were positive.

“Many of the Landis supporters one encounters online are relatively new to the sport and aren’t aware of the extent of the doping problem or the fact that Floyd rode for a notorious doping team, or that many of his closest colleagues are dopers or suspected dopers.”

All this may be true, but has little to do with whether or not FL used exogenous T on Stage 17. Is the entire FSU football team a bunch of academic cheats simply because some 30 members are? Guilty by association harks to much of McCarthyism to me.

Morgan Hunter December 29, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Ludwig,

Believing that the end justifies the means does not make a stance correct or justifiable. Repeating tired stale allegations, as proof of correctness is nothing more then the actions of an individual desperate for any original thought of his own. Ignorance is not an excuse for pseudo-intellectualism.

Repeated parroting of stale propaganda does not make it any truer. Attempting to label someone who has a difference of opinion holds no merit.

That, Ludwig, is about as real as your deserve.

the Dragon December 29, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Ludwig,

If you look through the history of Human Beings, some of the most heinous acts have been committed by the most ernest individuals.

Since, your proposition is that FL is by definition acting in bad faith. That may well be true. Yet, I watched a farce conducted by so called ernest people, with an outcome predetermined which had nothing to do with evidence or science, it had everything to do with a vindication of authority. Pure RAW Power.

It was Lord Acton’s Maxim in action “Power tends to corrupt, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely”.

WADA World is accountable to no one.

You say that no one can produce an innocent victim, an easy argument, difficult to refute since the “Black Box” which is WADA World has only had 1 “Open” Hearing (as far as I am aware). They (WADA) and LNDD refused to cooperate with the “Vrijman Report” which might have shed light on the inner workings of WADA World. I can find legalistic justifications for such refusal, yet if one is ernest and pure, subject yourself to review and vindication?

You seem to suspect a doper on every bicycle, I seem to suspect a fraud in every lab. I suspect neither position is accurate.

Since William has referenced the inability to prove one didn’t dope, I challenge you to prove that WADA World does not spike samples and “erase” uncomfortable test results. Is that an unreasonable challenge? I think not, no chain of custody records, Multiple undocumented tests over multiple hours could be circumstantial evidence of such. And, a US President resigned over 18 missing minutes in a tape.

The sad result of WADA Worlds intransigence is that we ALL should be on the same side. Working together to reduce doping. Instead, I am spending time getting signitures on petitions to get My congressman and Senators to either defund USADA, or to tie strings to their funding which insure that athletes have the most basic of rights, which WADA World will surely (and rightfully) claim if/when they are ever brought to the bar of a US Court.

Lastly, the fact that the dopers are ahead of the testing is nothing new in human experience. Even Organized Crime figures had/have rights. If memory serves, Al Capone and other early organized crime figures went to jail, not for murder or other tangible crimes, but rather for Income Tax issues.

It should have been easy to draw their names out of the hat (WADA style), yet the system doesn’t work that way, nor should it.

Regards,

BSMB December 29, 2007 at 3:33 pm

This from Velonews:

“”””Three-time Vuelta a España winner Roberto Heras, whose two-year suspension for doping ended in October, confirmed Saturday that he has decided to quit professional cycling.

Heras calls it quits.

“I’ve thrown in the towel, there’s no going back,” Heras, 33, told the Spanish sports daily Marca.

Heras said he has received several offers from European continental teams, but remains frustrated because he is still barred from joining a ProTour-level team for another two years. The UCI ProTour code of ethics prevents riders from being hired by top-level teams for a period double that of their original suspensions.

“I still don’t understand the code of ethics and why ProTour teams can’t hire a rider who like me has served his ban,” Heras said. “Other top riders will have to quit the peloton because they can’t find a team. “””

This is actually great news. Heras clearly, clearly doped and he paid for it with a career ending ban from the sport. THIS is the kind of punishment that will get pro cyclists attention and hold it. While I loved to watch Heras climb and climb and climb, I am glad he got this kind of punishment and is quitting: the sport is better for it. Millar was suspended in August of 2004. He should be banned until 2008.

Jean C December 29, 2007 at 5:02 pm

It’s not the first time that I said the top 20 of GT are full doped (blood doping, HGH, T,…)! It’s not an idea, it’s the result of all civil investigations on doping cases.

On this blog, I have provided some links about doping and how the performance are improved. So I am not surprised by Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Basso, Vino,… ‘s cases, their incredible performance are still laughable!

For the corruption, we have better to have a look inside the corrupted UCI (and IOC) and its cover up of doping for the last years!

Maybe we could follow the doping money and people who have big interest to destroy the anti-doping system…

Who want to try PEDs?
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html

Rant December 29, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Jean,
Sorry your post didn’t show up right away. Not sure what happened there.

Morgan Hunter December 29, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Jean C,

An excellent article you reference for us. If there are people who believe that doping is non-existent — this should dispel any doubts.

The drugs are out there and they are available. The medical professionals are also out there who are more then willing to sell them to the public, as long as they have the money for it.

Do people make use of the available drugs to advance their chances — there can be little doubt about it. YES.

Do I like it that it is this way? NO.

Do I feel that my stance on insisting that WADA, the UCI and the IOC create fair rules and test procedures to catch the cheaters as an indication that I support the cheaters? NO.

Do I think that insisting that the rules of WADA, the UCI and the IOC conform to proper fair jurisprudence aides the cheaters against being caught? NO.

Does pointing out that the slanted rules of the above mentioned governing bodies aides and abets doping and cheating indicate that I am for doping? NO.

Do I believe that there are individuals and groups who wish to hinder/destroy doping controls? YES.

Do I think that the way the present system to fighting doping is accurate and fair? NO.

Do I find it unacceptable to brand individuals in public without proof through media assassination, hearsay and unproven allegations? YES.

Is my voicing of these opinions and beliefs done with the aim of aiding doping/cheating? NO.

Does Floyd Landis deserve the right to be seen as innocent till proven guilty? YES.

Is Floyd Landis responsible for the state of our present methods of catching dopers and cheaters? NO.

Does pointing out that it is not logical or fair to hold the athletes responsible for the present state of rules set up by WADA make me a proponent of conspiracy theories? NO.

Do we need to dig hard and deep and follow the money trail for who actually benefits from the present state of affairs in doping and cheating in sports. YES.

Does coming to the conclusions that WADA, the UCI and the IOC have conflicts of interest and therefore should be suspect in creating this present state of affairs make me or anyone else who feels this way — aiding and abetting doping and cheating? NO.

Does William’s comment concerning the arse-backwards need of the athlete to try proving his innocence of doping/cheating champion the cause in support of dopers? NO.

Does having nothing but contempt for people who try to argue their cause through circular thinking, public unproven accusations and personal biases make me intolerant of free speech. NO.

Does my personal stand and belief that it is necessary to “practice” fair play and good jurisprudence make me naïve and ignorant of the state of affairs in sport and cycling in particular? NO.

There is a simple saying: “Two wrongs, do not make a right.”

If we want to have “clean” sports then we must be willing to fight for this. I feel and think that this is exactly what I am fighting for.

That when I call WADA, the UCI or the IOC on their behavior — my words should not be “reinterpreted” by anyone to imply that I am naïve or favoring doping.

Neither should anyone else be “labeled” or impugned to be in the wrong because they do not believe in using public accusation, slander or hearsay in arguing the present state of affairs in cycling and sport in general.

ludwig December 30, 2007 at 12:10 am

Dragon,

You seem to admit that according to your worldview, it’s reasonable to suspect WADA labs of fraud. But the problem is there is no reason, and no motive, for lab techs to deliberately set up innocent athletes. Lab techs have absolutely nothing to gain from it, and everything (ie professional reputation and livlihood) to lose.

It’s an absurd fantasy and a conspiracy theory. Sure, a dozen people on the Internet engaged in wishful thinking believe in it, but then a dozen people on the Internet believe in a lot of things.

ludwig December 30, 2007 at 12:42 am

Morgan,

You voice a lot of lofty sentiments, and I’m quite sure that your motives are as pure as white snow, and that all your self-righteousness seems justified given the fact that your sentiments are so lofty and noble (ie, justice, fairness, ends don’t justify the means, etc.) while my preference (the need for an honorable and fair cycling to emerge, and for the doping omerta to cease to exist) seems so base and short-sighted.

But it’s possible to be wrong. I’ll admit to the possibility of being wrong–for example if Landis is innocent I would be genuinely sorry to have intimated that he was guilty–I would write to him personally to apologize. Of course, since most of the arguments I make are based on empirical facts, there is only so much I’m likely to be wrong about. But certainly, some of my theories and conclusions could be wrong, and given my pessimism about the sport I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

But what facts would make you reconsider your worldview? If you discovered, for example, that Landis and his team have been acting in bad faith all along, and that all of their so-called fairness arguments were really just legal/PR strategies to undermine the system and get one cyclist off the hook–would you be prepared to admit the so-called solutions you advocate are mistaken? Or would you stick to your guns and say that “well, the Landis team stood for fairness, and I stand for fairness too, even if the arguments were based on lies”. That’s essentially what you would call a non-falsifiable thesis–ie there is no empirical fact that would make you reconsider your working theory. And in the real world, a theory that isn’t falsifiable is useless.

The real world is not just about intentions–we all, even the most evil among us, intend good things. But good intentions mixed with illusion and deception can lead to unsavory consequences. I understand perfectly well you don’t want more doping in cycling, but whatever your intentions, if your prefferred solution makes it harder for dopers to be suspended from the sport, then there will be more doping in the sport. This may be difficult to accept, but it is the reality. In real life, institutions have to make choices that have both good and bad consequences, and there are no ideal solutions.

No one is advocating a witch hunt. But without honest assessment of the facts– without discarding illusions and wishful thinking–then real progress towards enlightenment is simply not possible.

Morgan Hunter December 30, 2007 at 1:05 am

Ludwig,

My stance is not dependent on the guilt or innocence of Mr Landis. I believe that as things stand with the rules and their interpretations, the guilt or innocence of Mr Landis cannot be put to the test.

One does not have to have lofty ideals to believe that Fairness is quite simple. If one is accused then the accused deserves the right to defend himself against the accusation.

Perhaps ideation’s of grandiosity blind you to your perceptions. But I certainly do not feel a need to have you define mine.

Attempting to present your stance in “reasonable” wrappings do not make them so. No matter how often you present them.

Demanding fair play from a governing body is not mere philosophizing.

Your apparent “open-mindedness” to admitting that Mr Landis may be proved innocent by the CAS decision is contradictory and pompous.

Either Mr Landis can clear himself or he can’t – -the decision of the USADA and CAS follow the “rules” that WADA created from its imaginings and perceptions that are based apparently on the same philosophy you adhere to – “the end justify the means.” The accusations against him cannot be proven one way or the other, using the present system.

Making Mr Landis responsible for this state of affairs in the judiciary of sport is at best convenient and idiotic at worst.

Believing your own hyperbole as fact is not proof that you know what you are talking about, it only reveals your bias.

the Dragon December 30, 2007 at 7:22 am

Ludwig,

You state you would apologize to FL if he is innocent. A generous and useless act. Since WADA World has done everything in it’s power demonize FL. To ruin his reputation. If innocent, FL can make the demand Ray Donovan made after being vindicated in Court several decades ago…”Small wonder, then, that after his acquittal Donovan, rigid and pale, called out to Prosecutor Stephen Bookin, “Give me back my reputation!” Time Magazine

I find your PR argument amusing. Poor WADA World, they are subject to the FL PR machine with NO ability to get their own story out into the public. I realize “L’Equipe” is a backwater rag, with a readership of 10 or so. I realize Mr. Pound has to send out 10,000 press releases to get one journalist to pay attention. Interesting further that most in the press have bought the WADA World line, particularly since they have NO PR abilities.

Morgan has said it far more elloquently than I ever could. One does not have to support doping to see inconsistentcy and venality in WADA World.

I have no problem holding athletes to high standards. We differ in that I also believe that WADA World also must to held to the most minimal of standards. I do realize that requiring them to follow the rules which they themselves wrote is an unfair standard.

Whenever I start feeling sorry for the poor abused WADA World, I remember that if Mike Nifong had been operating under the WADA System, he would still have his law license, 3 people would be spending 30 years in jail for an event the Attorney General of North Carolina says didn’t occur. But heck, why should I care, rape is venal and we MUST set an example.

Regards,

ludwig December 30, 2007 at 9:50 am

JeanC,

That Stuart Stevens piece is a classic. I seem to run into into every year or so–it seems more relevant than ever.

Morgan,

So you’re saying that according to you, the guilt or innocence of Landis cannot be proven? Well, the scientific community and the arbitrators panel would beg to differ with you. But essentially, what you seem to be saying is the testing can’t be good enough to prove an offense, and one can never make a determination of guilt one way or another. If that is the case, why not simply argue for doing away with testing? Why should your arguments be limited to Landis–why not shill for poor abused Vinokourov?

You see, I think Landis got a fair trial. In fact, it was more than fair–I was amazed that they didn’t respond when Landis went public with that idiotic “Wada is out to get Lance Armstrong” story. Landis didn’t even submit his blood profiles until after the arbitration proceedings–give me a break…it’s not relevant that his hamotocrit went up in the course of a 3-week cycling race? The arbitrators did not base their decision on feeling or circumstantial evidence–they based it on the conclusion that they couldn’t see any reasonable explanation for those IRMS results than the use of testosterone.

You keep employing your bullying, disrespectful tone, as if my views are somehow way out of the ballpark. You keep saying I’m against fairness or people being able to defend themselves, despite all evidence to the contrary. The truth is your worldview is shared by about 15 people who frequent this blog and TBV. Mine is shared by the majority of long-time cycling fans. If you really want to test the rationality of your perspective, then you should start trying to convince people who disagree with you, and try admitting the possibility that you may be wrong.

Dragon,

Again, your post makes all sorts of silly assumptions. Try employing Occam’s Razor–stick to what is empirical fact. Is L’Equipe and official organ of WADA? No it isn’t–it’s simply a respected French paper with some reporters who are outraged by the doping culture. Is WADA out to get Landis? I’ll believe that when presented with actual evidence to that effect. As of now, there is no evidence whatsoever.

Comparing WADA sanctions to actual criminal justice is totally beside the point. This is about one profession trying to enforce sporting and ethical standards–no one is going to jail here.

ludwig December 30, 2007 at 11:04 am

To Rant and William,

It’s time for me to take a break from all this–I’m starting to feel guilty spending so much time writing about an obscure sports arbitration when there so many more important things to be doing. Besides, I dread reading the angry knee-jerk responses to my posts from Morgan and others–I don’t have the constitution for flame wars and Internet feuds, at least over something as relatively trivial as whether Landis gets a suspension. Ultimately, it’s not the fans but the cyclists who have to change the sport if it is to survive and thrive. If the sport remains dirty, I suppose I’ll still follow it, but without passion or any genuine enthusiaism.

My problem with this blog and with TBV is the same criticism I would put to many blogs about politics and other subjects. Namely–the writers and posters share the same worldview, and reading the blogs reinforces that worldview instead of testing it against the multiplicity of other views in the real world. That’s why I am critical of Dbrower for even linking to “civic journalism” on his website. Because reading TBV does not give its commentators the information necesary to form reasonable and coherent opinions about the doping problem in cycling. TBV certainly has the right idea when he says “sharing a diversity of viewpoints is the best way we know to arrive at the truth”. Yet whenever someone who disagrees with them posts, they are flamed mercilessly by intolerant and ignorant posters, and the blog owners do nothing about it. The result is people getting their information from limited sources, and then donating money to the likes of Landis based on mistaken assumptions. I’m sure you can think of an example of this phenomenon in some other discourse–think of right-wingers who only listen to Rush, or conspiracy nuts who only listen to Alex Jones. Any way you look at it, the lack of truly good-faith, intellectually honest, and fair sources is a potentially serious problem that is shared by all sorts of discourses that inhabit the Internet. And its up to enlightened individuals to do something about it–to have the courage to challenge themselves and challenge their audiences.

But getting back to the topic at hand, one of the first things I wrote on this blog was that the problem with arbitrations like Landis is that if they are pursued in bad faith, then they are bad publicity for cycling and sports in general, and drive people away from the sport. I don’t think this conclusion needs any elaboration. You objected that although bad-faith arguments are counter-productive, there still needs to be fair standards in case a false positive actually occurred. No one can disagree with this. Yet now, in the OP above, you seem to argue that WADA shouldn’t have changed the code to discourage Landaluze-type defenses, which don’t dispute the actual positive but rather point to meaningless technicalities behind how one arrives at it.

Let me rehash some of the facts and reasoning that makes this argument problematic IMHO.

1) There is a doping culture in cycling. There is a doping omerta in cycling (ie, silence is the norm, and most riders deny doping offenses). This is a serious problem, because fans and sponsors are insulted by the lack of honor displayed.
2) There have been several high-profile cases of doping suspects denying the doping offense for the sake of preserving their careers, and later being exposed as liars. Think of Virenque, Zulle, Basso, and Ullrich for starters. Each of these cases were horrible publicity for cycling, and have led to sponsors walking out. But in each case the cyclist felt that he had no choice. In short, I think we can conclude that there is enormous incentive in cycling for riders to deny doping offenses in bad faith, and we can agree that this has nothing but negative consequences for cycling. Consequently, I would hope we can agree that it is important for cycling to do all it can to prevent such cases from occuring.
3) If you make it easy for a good lawyer to get his man off on a technicality (ie Landaluze), then there will be more bad-faith arbitrations, which in turn will lead to more bad publicity. Similarly, if you make the criteria for a doping positive more stringent, then more riders will take advantage of the opening and use doping products. The solution is not enabling false positives–the solution is tackling the problem in good faith and really trying to make it harder to get away with doping.
4) Simply ignoring the problem will not work, as evidenced by the last 15 years of cycling, and the resulting police and journalistic investigations into doping scandals. Make no mistake, journalists and police have their pride and will take action to expose cycling if omerta persists.

At its core, the Hamilton and Landis cases have been bad for cycling. Their argument for fair process is made hollow by the fact that neither of them said anything for fair process or against doping prior to testing positive. On the contrary, they both rode for notorious doping teams (ie Postal, CSC and Phonak) and profitted from the omerta system in the form of enormous salaries and big endorsement deals.

Cycling has a right to survive. It shouldn’t have to die because it’s impossible to eradicate the doping culture, or because authorities can’t prove doping offenses. If it were true that the doping science is so good that offenses ultimately cannot be proven, then cycling should take courage in both hands and legalize doping–because anything is better than the lies and dishonor that currently characterize the sport. If legalization cannot be considered, then the testing regimine must improve to the point where reasonable observers can actually believe it has an effect.

In the end, IMHO the single best quote on the whole mess comes from the venerable Smug over on DPforums. He said,

“You ignore the fact that there will be no cycling if cycling continues down this path — races and sponsors will keep disappearing. we should not spend an inordinate amount of time on one matter but on rather how to make the sport respectable again. cycling’s a joke right now, so much that it would have been a miracle if landis was actually clean that day.”

There is no unbridgeable divide between justice and sporting integrity. There is simply a choice between facing reality or embracing illusion.

the Dragon December 30, 2007 at 11:49 am

Ludwig,

One final question for you. IF FL had provided the evidence from a lab with no chain of custody, erased files and many undocumented tests, would you accept it as truthful and reliable?

Regards,

William Schart December 30, 2007 at 11:54 am

Our discussions here, at TBV, DPF, etc. have covered much more than just the question of whether Landis is guilty and/or should be sanctioned based on available evidence. Much or our discussions are based on personal beliefs, backed up only in part by hard evidence. It’s kind of like arguing politics or religion: you can state your case but it is extremely unlikely you will convince someone with a different belief to change. Eventually, we stop trying. Maybe some will go away and not participate any more, others will drop out of one thread but continue on posting in other threads.

If you disagree with the views I have expressed here, that’s fine with me. We can agree to respectfully disagree.

Morgan Hunter December 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Ah — Ludwig tries to be the victim. Or perhaps because he can’t get the validation he seeks – he bails.

Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar; William of Occam – The principle states:

“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is:

“When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better.”

To quote Stephen Hawking: —” But uncertainty and the non-existence of the ether can not be deduced from Occam’s Razor alone. It can separate two theories, which make the same predictions but does not rule out other theories, which might make a different prediction. Empirical evidence is also required and Occam himself argued for empiricism, not against it.”

Ludwig — if you wish to impress us with your knowledge then do not make the mistake that we shall be, merely because you — well, let me put it politely, name drop.

Pseudo-intellectualism is as worthless as pseudo-science — neither have more purpose then confusing issues or the attempt at writing their own reality.

I personally take umbrage with your methods of expression — MOSTLY because trying to discuss a topic with you degenerates into nothing more then hyperbole.

When asked a direct question — you hide behind an avalanche of empty words that are only laced with acrimonious insinuations. Do not bother to “attack or criticize” the blog — when your problem is with me — but then — that is your method isn’t it, avoiding direct confrontation when someone disagrees with you. Guess what — nobody is buying into it.

As to your inference that TBV and this blog is populated by a handful of people are exactly the type of “snide commentary” on your part that defined the rules of how you communicate — why be a cry-baby, when you set the rules — if you don’t win — admit it — you are merely average Ludwig — nothing wrong with that. What do you think you will get out of putting the blame for your own inaptness on others?

As to the eventual downfall of cycling – perhaps you should warn the USAC – because their numbers according to Steve Johnson: —“In terms of membership and in terms of revenue from membership, we’ve never been healthier. We’ve seen growth trends start in around 2001 and 2002 and they’ve continued. This year we had about 5 percent more members than we did in 2006.” Would the USAC lie?

And finally – let me say once more – the issue is simple. To expect honor from cyclists – the governing bodies must play by example. To act and speak as though all cyclists are without honor is an insult to every individual, to behave in an autocratic way is far from democratic and unacceptable. To govern without transparency and then to discover that the populace will not take it lying down – is not an act of abetting doping or cheating, it is merely a statement of fact.

Rant December 30, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Ludwig,
Sorry I haven’t been as able to participate in this discussion as I would have liked. I’ve been finishing up another project, which has taken most of my free time over the last six weeks.
Personally, I’m sorry to see you take a break, because you’re one of the voices who challenge our assumptions and who makes the conversations here more interesting.
For much of what you say, I think there is some common ground. I certainly don’t want to see cycling continue down this road of constant doping accusations. As we’ve all seen over the last few years, these almost non-stop scandals have certainly done a lot to drag the reputation of the sport further through the mud.
With what WADA has done, I would have less of a problem with it if they enabled greater access to exculpatory evidence for the accused. If it’s necessary to toughen up the regulations to make a Landaluze-type case less likely, it’s also necessary to toughen up on the labs to make certain that such slip-ups don’t occur. That’s a much better solution, anyway, than procedural changes for the anti-doping adjudication, as it increases the reliability of the science. And it’s a sure-fire method to decrease such defenses. Don’t create the opportunity for those who would use what you term “bad-faith” defenses to begin with.
No doubt, there has been a doping culture within cycling. It’s been there for decades, to be honest. How pervasive it is, I don’t know. My own experience, as an amateur, leads me to believe that it’s not pervasive at the level I compete. (Although, I don’t doubt that there are few.) How pervasive it is within the pro peloton? Probably more than some would think, and less that others. Does everyone who races a bike for a living dope? I don’t think so. But just how many do, that’s a question none of us can answer accurately.
The cases you cite, given their notoriety, have all cast bad shadows on cycling. The cumulative effect is worse than any individual case. And for the sport to survive (at least with big-money sponsors and at the level it currently enjoys), these scandals have to become fewer and fewer.
But we also need to ensure that when someone is nabbed for doping, that it’s a fair cop. That means the science and testing needs to be as close to above reproach as possible, and that there are both few false positives and false negatives. It’s going to take some time before we get there — if we get there.
And certainly, it seems there are forces (such as the UCI and Grand Tour organizers) who seem intent on destroying each other, for some godforsaken reason (greed, perhaps, or power).
I would hope that all who comment here are able to be respectful of each other, and that on topics we don’t agree, we can be civil. Or as William just noted, that we can agree to disagree.
I hope, if you do take a break, that you will come back. Even if I don’t agree with everything you say, I enjoy reading your point of view and being challenged by how you see the world. But, as you said, there are many important things to be doing in the world. If you do choose to leave us for a while, I wish you the best in whatever you do.

ludwig December 30, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Morgan,

Seek help. I’m serious. Your posts display a narcissim that is out of control, and made worse by Rant’s apparent refusal to reign you in. Indeed, if you were making these posts on the DP-Forums or any moderated discussion, then you wouldn’t be able to post these remarks. As it is, it’s no fun to converse with you because you consistently resort to ad hominem attacks and name-calling. I’m sure you have good intentions and I’m sorry you are so angry, but venting on the Internet is not going to help you solve your problems. Personally, when I’m feeling angry I like to go for a jog or a long bike ride–it’s always a good way to get positive energy flowing.

Rant,

I appreciate your comments. No one disagrees that the science behind anti-doping tests needs to be fair and that practices should be held to standards that can be recognized as valid by other scientists. But it is absolutely essential that the system maintain integrity and that it is extremely difficult for monied athletes to game the system via legal counsel. In the end, it would probably be better if all of cycling agreed to a code that kept the lawyers and PR people out of the system–because there are just too many lawyers and PR types seek to profit from lies and deceit. If you create a system where bad-faith defenses are rewarded and expected, then you will get bad-faith defenses, whether that was your intention or not.

And you are also correct that doping scandals waged in bad faith need to decrease if cycling is to survive, much less thrive. This is why good-faith reform of the sport is so urgently necessary, and why it is important to fight those forces that would continue to enable doping and the resultant scandals. In order to have good-faith reform, cycling needs trustworthy leadership, and it needs credible, critical voices with the courage to speak truth to power. For me, that voice is best exemplified by Greg Lemond and those like him. That is–voices with a solid record of truth telling, and whose stance against doping is beyond doubt. Regardless, cycling will need all the help it can get to restore honor and respectability–I hope you will be on the side of those trying to promote the sport’s higher calling to encourage fitness and fair play, rather than those who look upon sport as mere entertainment and an opportunity for profits.

the Dragon December 30, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Ludwig,

You talk a good game. You actually say things I agree with, that the system must be above reproach.

Then you advocate a system more Stalinist then it is currently. Athletes are NOT allowed to defend themselves (ALL the problems are caused by the accused defending themselves). Labs, you should do good work, yet you CANNOT be questioned because of your good intentions.

I have no doubt in this new and improved WADA World, the athlete WILL NOT have a right to even know what they have supposedly done, since ALL of them dope…that alone is enough for banishment.

This should be a fun ride. I want to see the trial of the blank urine LNDD found positive. Should be a laugh a minute. I’m sure St. Greg will be there to opine on the evils of being a blank urine. I can’t wait.

Regards,

Jean C December 31, 2007 at 9:17 am

I agree on most Ludwig’s points.
Landis and other athletes caught have never protested against inaccurate testings…
Have they take part to the fight against doping as they should have been concerned as pro? Everyone or a majority of people react when they saw something that could harm their job…
What has been done by riders since Festina’affair? NOTHING.

Is the system unfair? We need to judge the whole system, not just a part! For the quality of testing, greater are the number of false negative, you have a better probability that the positive are tue positive. That seems the case in doping fight, I know few doping cases which were not from already suspected athletes ( Gatlin, Vino, Landis, …). If the caught riders were all the Morenis, we could have a lot of doubts!

Happy New Year.

William Schart December 31, 2007 at 9:54 am

There is a premise operating here that a large number of pro riders are doping and getting away with it. I will grant it is likely that the number of dopers is greater than the number actually caught, either by testing or investigations like OP. Whether or not the number of dopers is 90% or 50% or 25% or what is a matter of conjecture. But certainly there are riders who dope and are not caught. So that question is: what can be done about this?

Some people advocate permanent bans on dopers. Yet I doubt this would have much impact. The current 2 year ban (now apparently coupled with an additional 2 year ban from a Pro Tour level team) often amounts to a de facto lifetime ban, so I don’t think there is much added determent with this.

Some people also advocate closing up real or perceived “loopholes” like Landaluze that allow probable dopers to get off “on a technicality.” There may be some merit to eliminating the same tech rule, although I personally think it should be expanded to having a second lab do the B test. However, how many riders have gotten off because of such “loopholes”.

Many riders are possibly getting away with doping because they are seldom if every tested. In the TdF there are 4 riders tested daily amounting to a total of some 80 odd tests, depending on the exact number of stages. Half of these tests are done of the stage winner and GC leader, positions the vast number of the peleton will never achieve. The other half (40 tests are so) are supposedly random, but there is speculation they are used to target riders of interest who are missed by the leader tests. Even if a different rider won each stage and the “random” tests were in fact randomly distributed over the remaining riders, the fact remains the over half the starting peleton will not be tested. These odds are pretty good for the lower level rider, who may be tempted to dope to simply avoid the time cut off or the be strong enough to be of service to the team leader.

The only way to avoid this situation is to increase significantly the amount of testing. This, of course, will require significantly more money. Where will that come from? Teams could be assessed fees to support this testing, perhaps prize money reduced. I don’t really know enough about the economics of the TdF to tell if this is realistic.

The second problem is the idea that riders are devising doping schemes which are undetectable by currently methods. So we need to figure out how they are doing this and devise methods of detection accordingly. I am sure that if riders, aided by questionable doctors, are able to devise such schemes, legitimate researchers can do so to. But again there is a question of money.

Thirdly there is a question of the competence of some labs. Questions have certainly been raised about LNDD, and UCI in turn apparently had questions about the Ghent lab in the Mayo case. If labs are possibly turning out false positives due to poor methods, it is also possible they are turning out false negatives too.

In short, to improve the situation we need to look at the broader picture instead of making knee jerk reactions to particular cases. Of course, particular cases need to be carefully pursued according to the rules in play at the time to make sure that, as much as possible, justice is done. But changing the same tech rule in reaction to Landaluze is not going to change much if anything in whatever the current doping situation is in pro cycling.

the Dragon December 31, 2007 at 11:20 am

Jean & William,

We all have possible solutions to current problems.

While some of my comments have been quite strident, I spent my high school years in Missouri. That time rubbed off on me. The motto is “Show Me”.

I agree with William on most of his comments. I could easily advocate much more testing. I would gladly advocate more money for research, yet this comes with a very big caveat.

WADA World, ADA’s and Labs MUST be required to provide ALL testing efforts, SOP’s, documentation and results to BOTH the athlete and a scientific/medical panel (including a portion of the sample).

This scientific/medical panel would be chosen from experts in their fields and WOULD NOT be individuals beholden to either WADA World or athletes. In fact, any connection to either would preclude participation. This would include individual(s) with expertise in lab practice and proceedure, expertise in testing and equipment, and expertise in the actual medical aspects of possible substances.

One rule I would add in some form…draconian financial sanctions for WADA, ADA and/or lab for repeated violations of basic forensic lab practice (chain of custody & documentation). I am well aware that we are dealing with human beings, and I suspect that ALL, even me, have made mistakes. There is something ethical in WADA issuing a statement saying “XYZ Lab found a positive result, yet due to a failure to follow correct proceedures we have NO confidence in that result.” End of!

Think for a moment. Would Dick Pound have gone on his fishing expedition RE: the 1999 Tour if there was a 1 to 5 million euro sanction? I come to this because, as William noted, an athlete who is sanctioned either loses his/her whole career or most of it. One could have merely a similar ban for WADA World malfeasence, yet Dick Pound can just go do his law practice and suffer minimal consequences, other than to his EGO. A lab may lose WADA income, yet they can possibly/probably market their services to other customers. I want ALL players to have severe consequences for incorrect action.

I am happy to be a “Hanging” Judge if/when someone outside of WADA World, or a COMPLETELY transparant WADA World can certify that the results are correct. WADA World’s word IS NOT good enough for me.

Regards,

Morgan Hunter January 1, 2008 at 9:08 am

Jean C — I am NOT ATTACKING YOU! — But I would like to address your statements.

May I point out Jean C that as you say — “Landis and other athletes caught have never protested against inaccurate testings.”

NO ONE KNEW the problems that are occurring in the labs BEFORE this was revealed in the Landis case. BECAUSE it was always done with a “behind closed doors policy” and for the “maintenance of the athletes privacy” – according to the WADA — UCI rules! There is no “transparency” in the system Jean C. Not yet.

You also say this: — “Have they take part to the fight against doping, as they should have been concerned as pro? Everyone or a majority of people react when they saw something that could harm their job”¦What has been done by riders since Festina’ affair? NOTHING.”

Jean C — I make no apologies for the riders who have done nothing BUT — putting your comment in this light — is not fair.

Since we have learned what a “closed system” the cycling community was/is — I do not see what purpose it would have been to “do something about doping” by the riders. In such a system — any rider that “made waves” would be gotten rid of and fast — by the very people that were abetting the doping/cheating.

Understand — I am not for the riders doping or cheating. But you will have to admit that there are things that are taking place now in cycling that should be looked at more closely and it is more then merely “that the riders did not protest against doping.”

I think if we hold the riders “responsible” for not doing something or saying something about doping/cheating — THEN we should also hold all the other people who have been revealed to be aiding and abetting the doping and cheating. Don’t you think so? Why has no one “stood up” against doping and cheating in this part of cycling?

You ask a very good question and make an observation. — “Is the system unfair? We need to judge the whole system, not just a part!”

I completely agree with this. But let me clarify it a bit further. When you speak of the “system” you are speaking of,

(1) WADA=rules & testing —
(2) The UCI=the control arm of cycling —
(3) The promoters = who put on the races –
(4) The IOC= an external governing body that seems to have a lot of input in this whole situation –
(5) The separate national Federations —
(6) CAS — supposedly the final judge of any legal proceeding to do with sport. —
(7) Fledgling Riders Representative Bodies
(8) Team Representative Bodies —
(9) Sponsor Representative Bodies —

That is just a few controlling bodies that we are dealing with — yes? NOW — given that WADA is responsible for the creation of the rules mostly to do with drug testing and laboratory standards — I for one do not feel that I attack the WHOLE system when I find fault with the rules and standards. I am discussing the Rules and standards of the behavior and methodology of the controlling body — WADA.

It is NOT my wish that we have NO WADA — I believe that we need it — BUT — I do insist THAT the WADA body be transparent and fair. As it is — I do not think that WADA is.

It cannot be that “mere suspicion” – without proof is enough to target an individual or a team. I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE MAY NOT BE SUSPICIOUS — of course we can be — BUT — a suspicion may not be used to justify a public media blitz against riders or teams: In otherwords — “suspicion without proof” should not be accepted or allowed.

As to the arguments concerning “false-positives or false-negatives” – I believe these issues would go away if the labs were made to do their work to international standards. I do not find it an acceptable explanation that “some labs” cannot afford this. This is sheer nonsense. If we are to feel secure in the work of the labs then we cannot accept such rationalizations. NO LAB should be “accredited” by WADA that does not meet international standards! The question is simple — WHY ARE THEY?

Sara January 2, 2008 at 4:12 pm

When I was an active athlete, I was tested many, many times. My career ended when LNDD said that my A-sample tested positive. After demanding the B-sample, it showed that they had mixed my sample with an other athlete. Human mistake.
But even after my name was later (took months) “cleared” no one believed it, I was a doper in everyones eyes and was definetly treated that way, even though I never had anything to do with it.
It’s very easy to destroy an athlete’s career, be it bad lab work of false rumours. Sad
Sara

Jean C January 2, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Sara,
I am sorry for your story, but because you seem say that your case were public, maybe could you give a reference to it?
Thanks.

the Dragon January 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Ludwig,

You mention the fair mindedness of WADA World, and that ONLY athletes get off on technicalities. Enter the case of Justin Gatlin.

I have no truck for Gatlin, he is implicated in BALCO I believe, yet WADA World used the technicality of a previous doping conviction for a prescribed “Attention Deficit” medication. That prescription began at the age of 9…I am sure he searched to find a Dr. who would help him dope at age 9. The original arbs found the use innocent, yet in the Naziesque WADA World it was a conviction.

Now WADA world uses this previous “technical” conviction to attempt to get an 8 year ban. These people are lower than pond scum…my apologies to pond scum for using them as a reference point.

I have no love for athletes who dope, yet I expect a minimal level of ethics & integrity in governing bodies. I place the minimal threshold at 4 on a scale of 186,421; they can’t even achieve that lofty standard.

Regards,

Rant January 2, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Sara,
That’s a sad story, indeed. I’m sorry that you’ve had that experience. Humans are all too prone to making errors, but this is the kind of thing that should never happen to anyone.
Ludwig,
Although it’s a few days late, I would like to offer this: I think everyone who reads this site, and those who comment, are all in agreement that doping in sports is not good. Where we have differences are in the details of how we think the problem should be approached and how it should be solved. Ultimately, however, we’re all on the same side, even if the various individual perspectives on the matter might seem otherwise.

ZENmud January 3, 2008 at 5:53 am

Hi all,

one big breath of fresh air… (as Mr Pound exits the stage… for now!)

Dragon mentioned LNDD and the POUND/1999 TdF/Equipe ‘scandal’…

It’s very interesting to pursue that story… how LNDD ‘followed the rules’ in terms of the 1998 Tour, publishing its findings in Nature scientific magazine, with properly-followed protocols preserving the anonymity of the ‘implicated riders’ … here:
http://www.bio.indiana.edu/~palmerlab/Journals/181.pdf

Then, if ‘time’ was the only value… meaning in terms of creating a ‘newer’ test, in the years after… for some reason the de Ceaurriz (pronounced ‘de SORRY’S: ‘O’ like ‘beau’) team decided, with a lot of help and obfuscation from Pound/WADA/etc., to blow off ethics and pin Lance and no other rider.

If you have ten minutes:
WADA do about the Big Picture
http://crystelzenmud.blogspot.com/2007/08/dick-pound-floyd-landis-patrice-clerc.html

There are more implicated rules than WADA’s: the Helsinki protocol on human medical research testing, etc…

WADA is, I wager, in ‘hunker down’ mode, for two or three main reasons:

1) Give Fahey a chance to ‘case out the joint’ (smile: ties into #2)
2) See if CAS overturns Landis’ case (we don’t know if Landis can ‘ADD IN’ any appeal of the French AFLD decision, which NO one has read yet, as far as I know…)
3) (Maybe the most important) The CONTE confession conference: If Conte can convince Pound/Fahey that the labs are PUPPIES, to be played with constantly (M Jones’ hundred eighty tests all pure (but one A)), they would have to RETHINK their entire ‘process’… and they’ve no choice but to do so with the Oly’s coming to Beijing ‘any day now’ (as the diplomatic or scientific standardization clock rolls)

From clear, cold and hazy Geneva,

ZENmud

ZENmud January 3, 2008 at 6:11 am

A very short response to Ludwig, who had written on the 27th:

“there is simply no rational motivation for a conspiracy by the LNDD, WADA, USADA, and the UCI to bring down one cyclist for absolutely no reason.”

Taking what you say literally, I’d agree… ‘for absolutely no reason.’

But what if there IS a reason? Let’s ask Don Catlin, former head of the UCLA laboratory (Rant! I don’t want to be a link-hog, so this link is to the actual article, not what I’d written about at WADAwatch)

“The Inside Dope on Sports Testing
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119620795567805854.html

Here’s what Catlin (About FALSE POSITIVES):

… The two samples and method of appeal are an effort to avoid athletes being falsely punished.

“I’d like to think the odds of that happening are low — it’s a disaster when it does,” says Don Catlin.

“How often it [ZEN: false positives] does happen I can’t tell you, but nobody’s going to raise the flag and say I had a problem with a test in my lab. I have my ear to the ground and I hear of such things, but it’s hard to document.”

Catlin, in this statement, as a former witness AGAINST Landis, is stating that he KNOWS that labs produce false positives, that there’s a network of information that passes in the ‘dope testing world’, and that he finds this ‘hard to document’…

I HOPE that CAS takes note of this… it reminds me of the moment in Landis’ hearing, when Shackleton was testifying, and he almost blurted out an exonerating sentence, such as ‘IF I had been sent this chromatograph, I would have sent i…’

(he caught himself in time, to avoid saying ‘I would have sent it back’ (as unreadable)… not forcing him to repeat that statement was Suh’s case-losing point.

Ciao again,
Zm

Rubber Side Down January 4, 2008 at 6:58 am

It all boils down to alpha and beta risk on the testing protocols, ie. the risk of having a false positive when there is no doping and, conversely, having a false negative when there is doping.

From the standpoint of drug testing, the labs should be held to a higher standard to avoid a false positive that ruins an innocent rider’s career vs. letting dopers through the test process when they should be caught, convicted and banned from the sport.

The current system is catching too many dolphins with the tuna. We are ruining too many innocent riders to catch the real fish.

RSD

Jean C January 4, 2008 at 8:07 am

Who are the dolphins?

If you are looking at cycling… when you know Sinkewitz as other T-MoB riders was blood doped on 2006 TDF, when you can compare Riis results before EPO era and after, it’s easy to see that some dolphins are more sharks !
Especially when top athletes are requiering more testing… I doubt they want to ask that if they were persuaded of many false positive.

Testing could be not enough good but I see few undubious athletes caught, the only one would have been Moreni who confessed.

the Dragon January 4, 2008 at 9:38 am

Jean C.

Why do testing at all? Just sanction any athlete one desires.

Yes there are dubious athletes, yet with WADA Worlds “Black Box” we had NEVER been able to see how dubious the labs and ADA’s work actually is.

Currently “The ends justify the means”. Maybe that’s ok with some, I think we can do better.

How many confessions are legitimate? Are they made from actual guilt, or from a practical decision to get things behind them because they have neither the means or stamina to fight, AND WADA World will drag out any challenge to make sure it exceeds the time of an initial ban anyway.

Just for a look into corruption of WADA World (thinking of amending my endearing reference to FRAUDA World) check out the Gatlin case. Gatlin wore a “wire” to help Federal case in BALCO. Yet WADA World said he should get NO credit for helping because he didn’t help USADA. Technically accurate, since USADA NEVER asked Gatlin for any information or help.

Maybe you see that as fair. I don’t!!!

I realize this IS NOT about Fairness…It’s about convictions. Look in 2008 for WADA World to hire Mike Nifong as head of Ethics & Integrity. (remember you heard it here first).

Regards,

Morgan Hunter January 4, 2008 at 9:52 am

As long as WADA is allowed to withhold information about the specifics of cases – under the so called “protection of the privacy rights of athletes” All our arguing is for naught.

As long as WADA is allowed to avoid TRANSPARENCY in its behavior we have no hard facts to really discuss. We may all have feelings, one way or the other, but we cannot really address the problem.

The CAS hearing for Landis will be held “behind closed doors.” Whatever the result – there will be contention. Why – because there is no transparency in the system. I’m hoping Landis gets his title back – but then – I also wish for world peace. I am afraid, both desires will not see the light of day.

the Dragon January 4, 2008 at 10:22 am

Morgan,

I wish your hopes are realized…otherwise you can share my patron Saint…Don Quixote

Regards,

Morgan Hunter January 4, 2008 at 10:53 am

Dragon,

Ah yes – I know Don well… (think WC Fields)

But I am optimistic – and if nothing else – I am most persistent – I ain’t shutting up till I get attention! – Hey – I am an original “gadfly!”

Jean C January 4, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Dragon,
Are you saying that german authority are not able to sustain their inquest especially after visiting Freiburg University?
Today a lot of governements are using sport as subsitute to Coliseum, have a look on Operation Puerto you will see where is the real power… Don’t forget people who are “earning” money by selling drugs to heathy people, probably the same who will sell medicine to retired athletes become ill !

the Dragon January 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Jean C.,

I obviously did not express my thoughts precisely.

I have no problems with governmental authorities pursuing criminal activities (even though they can be quite heavy handed at times). The reason is that the accused have “Rights”…also, to the extent they use lab results, the accused has access to ALL records of ALL testing results, not just those the government wishes to provide, and possibly access to a portion of the sample for independent testing. This is a SIGNIFICANT difference from WADA World’s psudo-science and fairness.

The precise point of the Gatlin case is 2fold. 1st, WADA World used a PRE-WADA World non-guilty finding as a first offense to bring his current finding as a 2nd strike (including an 8 year ban). 2nd, He cooperated with the governmental investigating authorities by wearing a “wire” to record at least 10 meetings with a target of the government investigation. WADA World gave him NO BENEFIT for this effort because he didn’t help WADA World, even though they NEVER asked for his help. WADA World ethics make a Mafia “Don” seem quite benevolent IMHO.

Regards,

Previous post:

Next post: