Seems the battle lines are being drawn in the RFEC/Iban Mayo vs. UCI and WADA-world matchup. Today’s news is that the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) has refused to re-open the anti-doping case against Iban Mayo as a result of the second (or third?) re-test of Mayo’s globetrotting urine sample. You might remember that Mayo’s urine had an initial positive result for EPO on the A sample, before it had an “inconclusive” result on the B sample (when tested at a different lab), before it again had positive result for EPO (when tested at the original lab again).
After the inconclusive result on the B came back from the lab in Ghent, Belgium, the RFEC dropped the case against the Spanish cyclist. Not satisfied with the result, the UCI asked LNDD to retest the sample to see whether their own analysis would confirm their initial results. To no one’s great surprise, the results matched. The UCI, of course, wanted Spanish officials to re-open the case and prosecute Mayo for doping in last summer’s Tour de France. But, as CyclingNews.com reported:
RFEC, however, has stated that the second testing [at LNDD] is illegal, describing it as being “in contrast to the principles of justice”, and that re-opening the case would be double jeopardy.
With today’s announcement, however, the RFEC refused to do so, noting that it amounted to “double jeopardy.” (Kind of reminds me of another case where someone has been tried in two different venues recently.) Well, good for the Spanish authorities for standing up for fairness. Having put the case to rest, they chose the right path. With conflicting results from the B sample, it boils down to which lab’s work should be believed. Whichever one you choose, you’ll cast aspersions on the other. Aren’t they all supposed to be certified in some way? So if Ghent wasn’t competent to do the tests in the first place, why on earth did the UCI ask them to?
The authorities can’t be allowed to go results shopping. If the Ghent lab wasn’t capable of performing the tests, then they should never have been used. Otherwise, an inconclusive test means that there’s not sufficient evidence to prosecute someone. Plain and simple.
The case is heading to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It will be very interesting to see what their decision is. If the UCI loses, that will put at least a bit of a damper on international federations and other athletic authorities desires to go results shopping.
Maybe Shaking Things Up Isn’t Such A Bad Idea
Michael Ball, he of the Rock Racing Team, certainly does look to be shaking things up in the world of professional cycling — at least in North America. I’m not sure if/when his team will be competing in Europe.
As I learn more about the man and his approach to cycling, I can find at least a few things he’s doing that I agree with. First and foremost would be the idea that everyone deserves a second chance. As Ball told VeloNews:
As I have said before, I support guys who have been vilified. At the end of the day, we are all human beings, and we all deserve a second chance.
Whether you’re talking about Tyler Hamilton, or any of the other cyclists who’ve been subject to allegations or suspicions, Ball has a point. Everyone deserves a second chance. Tyler did his time, he deserves the chance to race again. And if he can be competitive for a few more seasons, more power to him. The others, like Oscar Sevilla or Santiago Botero (who were both implicated — but not yet charged with anything — in the Operacion Puerto investigation), deserve the chance to ride, too.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Ball’s team. And to see if the rumors about a certain Tour champion becoming involved with the team pan out. But that certain someone needs to get past a few hurdles between now and whenever such an arrangement might occur. Time will tell.
Having an outlaw cycling team plundering and pillaging the North American racing scene may well shake things up in the cycling establishment. It’s going to be an interesting 2008 racing season, to be sure.
From what I have read about Ball, I don’t think he is giving a second chance for people, he is just using the guy for his own interest which seems to be to have the press focus on his personn!
Tyler was caught for blood doping aven after free warnings! And he is still linked with OP. With the end of his ban he is allowed to compete, he has just to find a team.
Hamilton without blood doping and PED is certainly a middle class rider who is old for the sport. Why would a first team hire a guy who has few tuture and can tarnish and destroy its fight against doping ?
I understand the people who want to protect their ass when the doping war is on.
What is an “inconclusive” test anyways and why does every media report gobble this term up after the UCI.
There are positivity criteria but no negativity criteria so there is no “in-between”.
If there is no AAF it’s negative, the term inconclusive should never be used in this context.
Jean C, Rant & Tomas T,
It is not uncommon in The States, when a situation becomes near or passes the point where things are “socially absurd” that a person, Ball, who finances Rock Racing, will decide that “he’s had enough!” — and that being he has the money and the interest, he is going to “fight the system.” I do not know if this may be called a “typical” American response — but I can tell you, that Americans really don’t like it when someone or something, tries to “lead them around by the nose.” You may not agree with him, but then, to be honest — he doesn’t care. If you want to understand Ball — you are going to have to “get to know” the type of individual he thinks of himself.
It is interesting to read the things being “said about him.” Let us look at him from a little distance as if we didn’t have “ideas” that we know him at all. There has been much made about Ball being a “rebel” — of him being “not from traditional cycling” — that he is hiring riders with a “doping past” — that Andreau, his manager has left because of “things going on” that may not be proper. You know what — all these things are first and foremost — “interpretations” of what Ball’s motives might be — they are not facts. They are “newspaper” headlines to sell news.
But lest you think I am “taking Ball’s” side in this — I am not — I am not trying to take sides in this. Mr Ball has a “right” to do as he pleases. Naturally, I take for granted that Ball and Rock Racing will meet all requirements to become a good “professional team.” Believe me or not — I do respect your right to whatever stance you choose to take. But I do also feel that there are major problems that exist in the world of cycling, sport in general and the various governing bodies and labs that are in place to govern them.
Personally, I think Ball is the type who is an “active” player. In otherwords he is the type that when he feels and thinks of something, it is natural for him to “react” to whatever he believes in. The only real thing we can assume at this point is that Ball and Rock Racing disagrees with how riders are being handled by the UCI and WADA and the IOC. Another thing we can assume Jean C — is that Ball feels he can be a rebel, he can spend his money and finance Rock Racing and that he will not be much “influenced” by media pressures or what the governing bodies put out.
To react to Ball’s media characterizations as “truth or real” would be a mistake in my opinion. Personally for me — I hope Ball and Rock Racing make it. I know — you think that this is supporting a bunch of “dopers and cheaters” — but I am not supporting him or them — I just think that if they follow the rules and manage to make a name for themselves and Ball can withstand the pressures exerted by the governing bodies — it may be possible that good will come out of it.
Tomas – “inconclusive” indeed. Most people would sanely admit that inconclusive means just that – that the test results may not be “determined” because the results cannot be said to be positive, since lets face it — a test is to “find” drugs. The fact that the UCI and WADA have introduced the terms as “non-negative” or “non-positive” and “inconclusive” into the media language reminds me of certain military protocols — which are in place because of repeated use, not because they actually have real meaning. But isn’t this a “part of the problem” we are facing with trying to right a skewed system?
As Rant points out —“The authorities can’t be allowed to go results shopping.” How on earth could we possibly be expected to place “trust and belief” in such governance? It boggles my thinking how these people in the governing bodies rationalize such thinking – the only conclussion that I can come to (tongue in cheek) – they are all doping!
I am not totally familiar with all the riders Ball plans on giving a second chance to, but it seems that there are 2 catagories: once convicted riders who have served their time and those riders who have been accused in some manner but who have not been actually convicted.
As Jean C points out, the first group of riders faces problems in resuming a career. They may be seen as too old, the fact that they had to sit out a couple of years could mean it would take a season of 2 to get back fully to competitive shape, and they might be perceived as “damaged goods” who would bring negative publicity to the team and sponsor. However, we have seen riders such as David Millar resurrect themselves and become, to some at least, heros.
The second group of riders faces quite a different situation. Many of the riders involved in the OP affair seem to have been left hanging without any resolution of their case. It would be nice if the UCI or WADA or whoever were to say, at some poiint “we have investigated as much as possible, but can’t find any substantial evidence against these riders.” But I suspect that things will be left hanging unless they can find enough to proceed against. Then too, even if they drop a case for insufficient evidence, many people will still think the accused are guilty.
However, for both groups: any rider who is in good standing (i.e., licensed and not under suspension) deserves a chance to rider. Of course, any team should take into considerations what its best interests in making a decision as to whether or not to hire a rider.
Morgan’s analysis of Ball I think is rather spot on. Some people in America (and perhaps elsewhere too) take on a “rebel”, even an “outlaw” image to draw attention to themselves. Quite common in the music business, going at least as far back as the early Elvis. Some sports teams have cultivated this image, either for the publicity and/or to “psych out” opponents. Again, as long as Ball and his team are in good standing and comply with all applicable rules, they should be free to cultivate any image they see fit.
Michael Ball. . . United States abounds with personalities like him. He sells a dirty-boy image and he lives it too. But this outsider/showman image has occurred numerous times in american professional sports:
ABA Basketball (allowed the dunk when NBA wouldn’t)
AFL Football (encouraged a gunslinger mentality)
Bill Veeck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Veeck – what can I say, the ultimate salesman in the Willy Loman sense.
Dennis Rodman
Mark Cuban
Etcetera.
Despite recent trends, Americans still love people with a fierce libertarian/populist bent. The UCI, WADA, and IOC couldn’t be less American in that respect. They are classic “old world” organizations where politics and intentions are more important than results.
So Michael – what are you pointing us to?
Do not take my question as confrontative – it is legitimate – I do not believe that we are “against” Balls “bad-boy” image – I’m not. In fact – I sincerely hope he can pull it off to success. I hope he is not only “bells and whistles” – and will stay for the long run. The one thing the cycling world does not have as yet – is a “sponsor” who makes a stand against the situation as it is.
As you know perhaps – Willie was not a “happy camper” – Now Dennis Rodman – is he still “playing?” sorry if this reveals how distant I am to the Basketball scene – I’m over in Europe so – AND – I’m really just a cyclist fan at heart…not that I don’t like other sports – but life is short, you know…
Tomas,
Well said. What makes a result “inconclusive” rather than “negative”? The wish that the result had been different (“non-negative”, perhaps)?
Jean,
As much as Ball may be using the riders he’s “giving a second chance,” in another sense they’re using him. He gets publicity, which is undoubtedly good for his company, and attention by the cycling press (and perhaps even a few mainstream publications). On the other hand, the riders are managing to make a living from racing, drawing what is likely to be a better paycheck than working in the local Starbucks or McDonald’s. Probably more than they’d make in any other job, I’m guessing. It’s a two-way street in that regard.
You’re right about Hamilton, he’s in the latter stages of his career. Still, given the level of competition at US pro cycling races, I suspect he will be competitive for a couple of years, maybe even a bit longer, before he moves into whatever comes next. If OP doesn’t rear its ugly head along the way, that is.
Michael,
Interesting article about Bill Veeck. Quite the character.
So, do you think Ball will have any midgets racing?
Yeah! Midgets! At least 3! Please – Midgets – Gooood.
I realise Ball and RR are not mentioned in this particular juicy “tidbit” — but for those who may have had “wondering thoughts” like “I wonder how things are progressing with the relationship between WADA World and the UCI, and perhaps the REST Of the NORMAL world?” – Consider this little kernel of “newsworthiness.”
First Edition Cycling News, January 10, 2008—“UCI says biological passport taking shape”
—“With such an increase in the number out-of-competition tests – the most expensive type to carry out – the cost of the biological passport will be shared between ProTour teams, Professional Continental Teams with Wild Card status, organisers, riders, WADA and the French Ministry of Health, Youth Affairs and Sport.”
—“Responsibility for analysing riders’ biological passport results will lie with a panel of “independent experts”, which will communicate its results to the UCI and WADA. The UCI will then decide whether to open proceedings against a rider and, if appropriate, pass the case on to the rider’s national federation.”
Anybody care to guess where we stand?
Looks to me like any concern that the UCI and WADA might actually work at “harmonizing” the “cycling situation” can be safely put to rest.
For those who recall some “worries” that Dickie”˜s ex-vp had reasons of his own to bail on “the whole thing” — you should find some “results and revelations” in the above two paragraphs.
Me? I’m going to go find my Funk and Wagnall’s — going to look up the definition of the word “harmonizing” — I think I may have not realized what the actual “meaning” of this word was.
Maybe I’ll compile a list. With pertinent questions, like:
“William – Larry, do you see any possible “conflict of interest” issues at play here?”
“Rant – Do you think that running “two passport” programs parallel is a good way to make a possibly good method of dope control come up a complete fiasco?”
“Hey Dragon – have you picked up any “signs of intelligent life forms” in WADA World?”
And in case anybody thinks that these statements are not pure sarcasm – let me reassure you all – they are. None the less – these are just some of the points of interest that “pooped” into my thoughts as I was reading it. There is a truck load of poop to look at here people.
From Wikipedia, what seems to me to be the most relevant meaning:
What is Harmonisation?
Harmonisation comes from the root word harmonise which under the OED means “make or form a pleasing or consistent whole”. In the case of harmonisation of law, the aim is to make a consistent whole of law.
The legal definition of harmonisation is:
Harmonisation
Cooperation between governments to make laws more uniform and coherent
A policy of the European Community to achieve uniformity in laws of member states to facilitate free trade and protect citizens. [1]
Harmonisation is a process of ascertaining the admitted limits of international unification but does not necessarily amount to a vision of total uniformity.
If the biological passport program consists of having various labs run various tests on riders samples, than communicating the raw data to the panel of “independent experts” to analyze the results, this would achieve some degree of “harmonization”. For example, the idea was expressed in the Landis case that the UCLA lab would not have reported a violation based on the data LNDD produced. This could eliminate this problem.
However, if various labs run various tests, and do some interpretation on their own and then report those interpretations to the panel, we could be back at square one, if indeed we ever left it.
Then there is the question of the panel itself. Will they truly be independent, able and more importantly willing to render an unbiased opinion, or will they be a UCI/WADA rubber stamp? And will there be just one panel? The work load will be rather daunting, IMO, for just a group of say, 10 or 12 people to actually review and make decisions about.
I have many questions about this Biological Passport idea. Only time will tell.
I think what I was trying to get at: American sports is littered with people like Ball. Pushing the envelope; publicity hounds. Some were successful and some were irritating. Some were both (George Steinbrenner of the Yankees). Whatever you say, these fringe guys have created an american sports scene that certainly generates the money. There must be some guys like them in Euro cycling, but I can’t think of any. Perhaps Cipollini, or Manolo Saiz, or Diego and José Quiles (Kelme)? But they are tame compared to Ball.
William,
I am not so certain that you “need to wait” for time – to know how UCI/WADA operates. If every member who “works with” these two groups is bound by the “rules” of these two groups – nothing has changed!
All we wind up with is having to hack our way through the same slime we have been to now.
As you say William, —“If the biological passport program consists of having various labs run various tests on riders samples, than communicating the raw data to the panel of “independent experts” to analyze the results, this would achieve some degree of “harmonization” – This “is what the implication is when the blood passport is spoken of.
But – have you seen any changes in the WADA/UCI rules or codes that give even a tiny hint that this will happen? I have not. All I HAVE SEEN AND READ is that the “rules” are being made tougher so that athletes supposedly will have “less-loopholes” to get out of “being caught!”
I personally see no merit to second guess what our experiential knowledge has shown us. But then – I had not thought that it would be “easy to kick” the scalawags running the show now, out of office.
Michael,
The “maverick” is a very American product. I wish there was the opening in the social fabric of the European countries to grow their own – but sadly I do not think this is possible. I am not trying to be “funny” but most mavericks that get born here – move to America, where they can do something with themselves.
One must really understand and accept that the American culture is unique – it is a product interestingly enough of all the nations of the world and their people – Americans seem to have a “natural ability to break away from a very inbedded way of thinking.
The main thing that Europeans seem to hold against Americans in general – IS that they think ALL Americans have the “maverick” mentality – I think many feel greatly threatened by our apparent “acceptance” of such people amongst us.
You must understand that in other parts of the world – on the European side of the globe – we are dealing with cultures that have existed for some thousands of years, who are used to “doing things” a certain way – and if it isn’t – it’s rejected at the least — or outlawed at its worst.
In America – if you have the money and the “know how” you can do anything. Here in Europe – this doesn’t work this way. This is a problem in thinking that we shall have to face one of these days soon, I think.