Saturday Ramblings

Book `Em Dano

Been a while since I’ve gone so long without writing a Rant. There’s a good reason I’ve been writing a bit less on the blog. No lack of stories to comment on, however. There always seems to be something going on in the world of sports doping, doesn’t there. It would be a good year if there are fewer of these stories going `round, but I have an awful hunch that such will not be the case.

While I’ve been spending less time here at the blog, I’ve still been tapping away on the keyboard something fierce. In the past 6 weeks I’ve cranked out an amazing amount of work on my other project, which is a book on the history of doping in sports. The working title (subject to change) is Dope: A history of performance enhancement in sports from the 1800s to today. It will be published sometime in the late spring or early summer. I don’t have a firm date, yet, but when I do I’ll let you know. It’s being published by a press in Connecticut called Praeger, which is an imprint of Greenwood Press. It will be under my actual name, not “Rant,” by the way. Although I did briefly entertain the idea (very briefly, like a fleeting thought), it’s not an opinion piece. Instead, it will present various episodes and the overall history of doping in a “just the facts ma’am” kind of way.

So that’s the mysterious side project I’ve mentioned from time to time. I’m finishing up the last chapter this weekend (revisions, mostly) and finalizing a timeline (had to update the entry for Justin Gatlin given Monday’s developments), but otherwise, it’s done. Once I send those two items off to my editor, it gets pretty mechanical from here. No more new stuff, except for an afterword that will be written shortly before the book goes to press.

And, thanks to all who made suggestions in November, when I asked what stories stuck in people’s minds. Several of them were ones I hadn’t planned on. Other suggestions that folks made were covered in different parts of the book. Unfortunately, I couldn’t cover everything. There are several stories that I couldn’t put in due to space limitations — and still I went over the maximum word count in my contract. Well, there’s always the copy editing process. Perhaps that will tighten it up a bit. All the suggestions were greatly appreciated.

This is “leniency”?

Anyway, on to today’s main topic, which (as it happens) is Justin Gatlin. Gatlin, one of the top 100-meter sprinters in the world — and someone who has been very vocally anti-doping in the past — tested positive for testosterone at the Kansas relays in April 2006, for those who don’t know or need a refresher. He claims that the positive result was due to sabotage, perhaps through a tainted massage cream that a disgruntled massage therapist may have used.

Apparently, the arbitrators weren’t convinced that Gatlin’s explanation was the reason he tested positive, and by a 2-1 vote, they found him guilty of doping. Gatlin’s case is further complicated by a positive test for amphetamines that he had while in college, due to the use of a prescription medication for attention deficit disorder (ADD), which he’s had since he was nine years old. Ultimately, Gatlin was reinstated by the IAAF. But that leaves a mark against him on his record, which makes deciding a sanction for Gatlin’s 2006 positive tricky.

As many news reports have noted, Gatlin is (or was) coached by Trevor Graham, one of the people at the heart of the Balco scandal. Gatlin has assisted the Balco investigation by wearing a “wire” to record his conversations with Graham, and apparently those conversations will be used as evidence against the coach in an upcoming trial. So Gatlin ought to get some positive consideration for helping out.

Gatlin has done as much as he can to play nice with authorities. He’s helped the Balco investigation, and he’s been a vocal opponent of doping (which makes this case all the more ironic). And, he’s kept a low profile while the case has been going on — which is as long as the Landis case, give or take a day or two. News about Gatlin’s positive test didn’t come out until July 29, 2006 — just two days after the Landis story blew wide open.

And like Landis, he had to wait a long time for his arbitration hearing. Longer, even, than Floyd. Gatlin’s hearing occurred in July. Almost one year after news about his test results first broke. And like Floyd, he had to wait a long time for the arbitrator’s judgment. Longer than Landis. According to news reports, the judgment came out on New Year’s Eve. This is not exactly speedy justice, regardless of whether he’s guilty or innocent.

In what appears to be some very contorted logic, the majority found that because of Gatlin’s first positive (remember, because it was due to a prescription medication he was reinstated), they had to give him a longer suspension. Now, this incident occurred before the World Anti-Doping Code came into effect in 2003. Since when do we apply laws — even the laws of sport — retroactively? Especially when under the current rules, his first result might never have resulted in a sanction or an official positive result.

Chris Campbell, in his dissent, is said to have suggested that Gatlin may be the subject of discrimination in this case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you consider ADD to be a type of disability, I can see where Campbell is coming from. It’s certainly not right to punish Gatlin based on that first “offense” when it clearly came from his use of a medication to treat ADD. A two year ban seems more appropriate, as from a fairness perspective this should really be considered Gatlin’s first doping offense. And considering that he’s done everything he can to assist with the Balco investigation (which USADA has been involved with at times), they ought to cut Gatlin a break.

USADA’s lawyers tried to argue that the sprinter should be given the full eight year ban required by a second offense because none of his work had resulted in a new anti-doping case. Technically, this may be true. But as even the majority noted, that is in part because USADA didn’t ask for his help. He certainly seemed to be willing to help federal prosecutors. Perhaps if Bill Bock or Travis Tygart had asked, he would have helped USADA, too.

So, in their “leniency,” the majority imposed a four-year ban on Gatlin, which will run out in 2010. Somehow, it doesn’t seem like much leniency to add to his punishment based on a result that predates the law under which the case was decided.

One lesson that other athletes may take from this case is, why bother helping at all? It doesn’t seem to be of much consideration when a case is brought against the same athlete in the future, judging by Gatlin’s situation. Word is that he’s appealing to the CAS, and possibly going to go into the US courts, too.

Whether the CAS will decide his case in time for Gatlin to compete in the Olympic trials is questionable. It seems that regardless of whether you play nice with the authorities, as Gatlin did, or whether you challenge them openly, as Landis did, either way the system will beat you down. As Shaun Assael at ESPN.com’s article says, Gatlin’s cooperation nets him next to nothing (give it a read if you haven’t seen it, it’s worth it).

It doesn’t seem to matter much which approach an accused athlete takes. The message that USADA and their lawyers deliver is that if you dare to challenge us at all, rather than do what we say, we’re going to hammer you and hammer you hard. This is not about searching for truth. It’s about wins and losses.