Looks like USADA is up to the same tricks they used in the Floyd Landis case. Only this time all we officially know about their victim is that he’s “John Doe.” No further details about who the cyclist in USADA’s gun sights happens to be. Correction: Eddie Pells of the Associated Press is reporting that the cyclist named as “John Doe” in the lawsuit is Kayle Leogrande. But this time, Maurice Suh and Howard Jacobs have filed a lawsuit in a California court challenging the anti-doping agency’s right to perform tests on other B samples, retained after the original A samples for Mr. Doe (Leogrande?) returned negative results. As the Associated Press’ Eddie Pells reported last night:
A cyclist is suing the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for “overreaching its own rules and protocols,” claiming the agency had planned to test the cyclist’s backup urine sample even though the original ‘A’ sample test came back negative.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of “John Doe” in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks an injunction to prevent USADA from ever testing the ‘B’ sample. The agency originally planned to test the ‘B’ sample Jan. 15, the lawsuit says, but after the plaintiff’s attorneys demanded the agency scrap that test, USADA canceled it.
The lawsuit calls for a jury trial and seeks to recoup damages the plaintiff claims were incurred when the anti-doping agency revealed the case to race organizers and the UCLA testing lab.
It will be very interesting to see how this court case will progress. If Suh and Jacobs are successful on Mr. Doe’s (Leogrande’s?) behalf, USADA might well face similar challenges in the future. And I’m sure that the agency is not happy about the prospect of their dirty laundry being aired in public.
Bill Bock, the new head lawyer at USADA now that Mr. T has been promoted, is quoted in the article, saying:
USADA general counsel Bill Bock said he had to adhere to USADA rules forbidding him to talk about specific cases, but called the lawsuit “utterly frivolous and morally bankrupt.”
“… filing a John Doe lawsuit in state court seeking to prohibit analysis of a sample certainly raises the question of, what are they hiding from? What are they seeking to hide?” Bock said.
Calling the case “utterly frivolous and morally bankrupt” is akin to a young schoolboy taunting a rival with something to the effect, “… and your mother wears Army boots.” Or worse. But I won’t print that here. Perhaps that description would also describe the actions of an agency pursuing a test of the B sample after informing the rider two months ago that the original sample came back negative? As Pells’ article notes:
The lawsuit alleges USADA notified the plaintiff last Nov. 15 that the ‘A’ sample came back negative. Despite that negative finding, the agency directed the UCLA lab to test the ‘B’ sample, “thereby violating the applicable rules and regulations governing anti-doping control and testing.”
The lawsuit cited international rules that state an athlete can be deemed to have tested positive only if both the ‘A’ and ‘B’ samples come back positive.
“Thus, the only purpose for testing the ‘B’ sample is to harass (plaintiff) and attempt to harm his reputation,” the lawsuit read.
It says that by telling race organizers the plaintiff is under investigation, USADA has damaged the cyclist’s reputation and ability to compete in races and secure sponsors.
Certainly, telling race organizers that Mr. Doe (Leogrande) was being investigated would harm the rider’s reputation, and it would damage his ability to race or be employed. It’s also against the rules, as far as I know, as Bill Bock’s own comments suggest. He’s not allowed to comment on ongoing cases. So, if telling race organizers and others that a cyclist is under investigation (when the rules expressly forbid such action) isn’t harassment, I don’t know what is. And as the article points out, USADA can’t make a case solely on the B sample when the A sample came back negative. So what, exactly, is the point of this exercise? Are they trying to build up evidence for some future case, figuring they’re going to catch Mr. Doe (Leogrande?) eventually? Are they trying to scare him straight? Are they trying to run him out of sports?
Seems to me they’re fishing for anything they can find. And they’re trying to run Mr. Doe (Leogrande?) out of cycling. Is this some sort of vendetta, or do they have solid proof that the cyclist in question is really a doper?
In a parting comment (at least one the Google page, perhaps other organizations ran a longer story), Don Catlin states the obvious and then is disingenuous.
Don Catlin, former director of the UCLA lab, said he couldn’t recall being asked to test a ‘B’ sample after a negative ‘A.’
“It would certainly be unusual,” he said.
Catlin said he wasn’t familiar enough with the intricacies of the code to know if the practice of testing a ‘B’ after a negative ‘A’ violated any rules.
Let’s see, Catlin was said to have been involved in drafting the code. My hunch is that if he was involved in writing the code then Catlin might know a thing or two about whether this breaks any rules. And even if that were not the case, he participated in USADA’s prosecution of Landis last May. Given that this same issue came up in the Landis case, I find it very hard to believe that Catlin doesn’t know whether this breaks any rules. I’m sure he knows. He’d just rather not say. I’m guessing that the AP reporter in LA must’ve talked to Catlin. Pells strikes me as the kind of reporter who would have challenged Catlin on that statement.
Perhaps he did. And perhaps the editor at Google who ran the story cut that part out. (Though heaven knows why. It’s not like there’s a huge cost in running a few extra grafs on the web — unlike running stories in a printed paper, where space can be a real issue.) Or perhaps the question was never asked. Hard to know.
But one thing is clear about this case. USADA is up to their same old tricks. It’s not about a search for truth. It’s about winning. Winning ugly. Just like Mick and Keith said:
I wanna be on top
Forever on the up
And damn the competition
I never play it fair
I never turn a hair
Just like the politicians
I wrap my conscience up
I wanna win that cup
And get my money baby
But back in the dressing room
The other side is weeping
And we’re winning, winning ugly
And we’re winning, winning ugly
It is pretty obvious why they used this tactic of testing B samples whose A results were negative against Landis. But why do this against Leogrande? I’ll confess I never heard of him until now. Was he so good he was suspect? Where the A results suggestive of something while still within the limits? Or perhaps the A results were actually non-negative, but somehow the ball got dropped and they allowed the time limit to expire before they could proceed against him.
At any rate, things are looking more and more like a witch hunt. Just keep testing until you get the results you want.
I can agree with the idea that the samples belong to USADA and they can test them as they see fit. But I don’t agree that such tests on B samples lacking a positive A result can be used against the athlete. They could be used for research purposes, either to test new methods on “real world” samples, or perhaps to get a better idea of the extent of doping. But sanctioning an athlete based on just one test result totally ignores the very real possibility of error in any test.
Pell says USADA has two sworn affidavits from “reliable sources” against Leogrande. A contributor over at TBV knew it was Leogrande before anyone published anything. Apparantly he has a reputation.
As to what Al Gore called “controlling legal precedent”, by a vote of 2 to 1, the Landis Panel majority gave the go ahead to test any “B” samples, telling the ADA that they owned the sample and could do what they wanted to with it. That certainly would embolden the ADA to start testing “B”‘s with impunity, as I suggested they would do. They took the lemons of Landaluze and made lemonade. Further, while indicating that testing the “B”‘s was something the ADAs could do, the Panel majority further embolden the ADA’s by accepting the results of the “B” testing into evidence in Landis’ case. That was virtually unheard of and dare I say preposterous given the WADA Code provisions, previously.
Obviously, guilding the lilly, the newest member of the Mickey Mouse Club, Bill Bock, took the ball and ran with it.
We’ll see how that turns out for him.
I hear him whistling in the dark with his comments. He is one scared dude, for good reason. Maurice gets to depose those guys now. Katy bar the door.
If I understand this correct, isn’t USADA connected with WADA’s code? Or did the Landis ruling somehow allow them to change USADA’s rules? I’m dazzled by this, why do you test a B-sample if the A-sample is negative? And what kind of legal right does it have, if the B-test came back positive, when the A test was negative? As far as I know, both A and B samples should be positive for a doping violation?
I don’t get it, but there’s apparently a lot of things I don’t get…
I’ll blaim it on my lack of English skills 😉
Why do a testing with B sample when A sample was negative ?
At least 2 possibilities:
– it’s not possible to test for all kinds of PED so they have to select testing of a part of them. We have seen the same for the Floyd A samples which were negative for T on ratio T/E but positive with CIR tests.
– A sample was pronounced “negative” but it was only inconclusive
The reason there is a B test is to protect the athlete, that’s why if the A sample turns out positive, the athlete has a chance to demand the B sample to be tested, to verify the A sample results.
So far it used to be only the athletes choice whether or not the B sample is going to be tested… Apparently not anymore.
Jean C, good points, but what can you do when the A sample was negative? Violate the WADA rules just to get the guy/gal you suspect/know is doping? Brake all the rules while doing that?
In WADAs book inconclusive sample result/test means that the athlete is of the hook, is it the A or the B sample.
Makes no sense, but as I’ve said before, for me sometimes nothing does. Oh my…
I agree wholeheartedly with the basis for the suit: that the only reason to test the B at this point is to smear the athlete … which to do successfully they’d need to first get a positive result and then … publicize the results. If this isn’t a crime, it sure should be.
I love, love, love that this is going to the courts. It gives me hope that WADA’s thug tactics may someday come to an end.
Sara,
The ruling that the arbitrators made in Landis’ case, allowing tests of B samples where the A sample had been negative, is clearly contradictory to WADA’s code if those results are the basis of an anti-doping case against an athlete. Why USADA wants to test these samples, knowing that it’s not the basis of a valid anti-doping case will be the subject of the next post I’m going to write in a few minutes. They’re up to something, and it’s not exactly kosher.
Jean,
True, it’s often the case that an A sample isn’t tested for every conceivable doping drug or technique. One would hope that the pertinent ones, most commonly used in a given sport, would be the focus for a particular athlete’s samples. Perhaps that’s not the case. Sara makes a good point, though. As WADA’s rules currently stand, even if a B sample is tested, if the A sample didn’t test positive (or wasn’t tested for a particular method), a normal case can’t be brought against the athlete.
Certainly, it would improve our knowledge of the scope of doping in a particular sport, but beyond that the way the rules are currently structured, they’re going to have a tough time using such tests as the main focus or reason for prosecuting a case. If they want to change the rules, they should do so. To try and find ways to skirt or circumvent the rules is dirty pool, however.
Snake,
Word.
Rant’s Words of Wisdom…
“Seems to me they’re fishing for anything they can find. And they’re trying to run Mr. Doe (Leogrande?) out of cycling. Is this some sort of vendetta, or do they have solid proof that the cyclist in question is really a doper?”
Really, Rant, do you have a single piece of factual evidence to back up this conclusion? Who’s smearing who now?
Isn’t it predictable that you end up on the side of Rock Racing as they attempt to bully American cycling? As you well know, this case has been in the works for months now.
Why don’t you wait for the facts before jumping to conclusions and smearing the people with the thankless job of trying to keep drugs out of this sport? Odds are that just like you were wrong about Landis, you are also wrong here.
Ludwig,
Exactly where would you draw the line in this crusade?
I have a thankless job as a Wisconsin Circuit court Judge yet I insist my court is transparent and constantly audited. There are killers, rapists and thugs in my community. Every human being deserves respect and due process, even the slimiest and despicable human beings than anyone is likely to set eyes upon.
Your critism of those who seek fairness and due process in the pursuit of sport dopers implies that those seeking some fairness, restraint prior to proof in a adjudicative forum and skeptism in the face of outragious conduct support dopers and are somehow facilitators of doping or worse.
If there is to be no structure, restraint, fairness or due process in the pursuit of sport dopers, why then should there be any restraint in the pursuit of say, a child molester? Surely the former is more worthy of our fullest moral and legal attention than the latter.
Ludwig,
The point I was trying to make is that everyone has to play by the same rules. There can’t be one set of rules for the enforcement agencies, and a different set of rules for the athletes.
Under the current rules, USADA can’t use the result of B sample tests to prosecute a doping case if the A sample came back negative. Even if the A sample was very close in results to what would have been a positive. So it’s a fair question to ask why USADA would be looking to test Doe’s B sample, after informing him that the A sample was negative. They must have some reason, and it’s not much of a stretch to think that it would be because they suspect something.
You take my comments for being on the side of Rock Racing (or whoever Doe might race for, if Pells turns out to be wrong). That is incorrect. I’m on the side of a system that is fair to everyone. If the athlete in question is a doper, then USADA has to prove it by following the rules.
As I suggested in my subsequent post, there’s a good likelihood that USADA may be trying to build a non-analytical positive case against Doe. And in that situation, while they couldn’t use the results of a B sample analysis to be the grounds for a prosecution, they might be able to use those results to back up other evidence. With the A sample coming back negative, even if it was close to the threshold, they’re skating pretty close to the edge, in my opinion.
If it is Leogrande they’re after, and if they can prove it legitimately, that’s fine by me. I have no investment in whether he is guilty or innocent. But I do have an investment in whether the system requires that all parties play by the current rules. I’m a licensed racer, if the system isn’t fair to others, that is a big concern to me. If USADA or WADA want to change their rules, that’s up to them. But doing it piecemeal by chipping away at the current requirements in this kind of manner is not the way to do that.
Do you race? Or are you just a cycling fan? If you do race and you make it up to a certain level, some day you may have to provide a sample for the anti-doping authorities. Let’s hope that if you’re ever confronted with that situation, you don’t wind up with a positive test result. Even though I’m sure you would race clean, false positives do happen. Maybe not often, but they happen. If it happens to you, I’d be just as willing to speak out in your defense as I am for others.
Bottom line: Everyone must be required to play by the same rules. Sometimes, that may mean a doper beats a rap. If that’s the price we pay for ensuring that as few people as possible are convicted based on false positive results, that’s OK as far as I’m concerned.
In the case of someone who beats a rap, my feeling is that one of two things will happen. Either that person will be sufficiently scared of a second go-round with USADA that he/she won’t dope again, or the fool will continue doping and get caught at a later date. The second time around, he/she will probably not be as lucky as the first.
Any way you look at it, your characterizations of the motives and intentions of the USADA authorities (“pulling a fast one”, “shady behavior”) are way out of line and without factual basis. For all you know, these authorities have evidence that the John Doe doped and have taken the appropriate steps to inform the authorities of the Tour of California. Indeed this is the most likely scenario. Nonetheless, you are eager to repeat the TBV talking points and are prepared to smear the USADA authorites at the first opportunity and ascribe all sorts of base motivations to them. These low-brow PR tactics just piss off real cycling fans, as we saw during the Landis hearing.
Everyone understands the importance of fair process. But there has to be some consideration given to the integrity and sporting fairness of cycling races, as well as the rights of clean athletes to compete. You know as well as I do that there is a struggle occuring in cycling on the doping issue (which is why it is indeed significant that Rock Racing is behind this). Ultimately if it is impossible to sideline the dopers, then clean cycling has no chance.
If there was evidence the USADA was pursuing innocent people, I would be the first to object. What we see, however, is an agency with a very tough job pursuing a very entrenched interest (the doping omerta). They deserve support.
Bill,
I don’t enjoy the “anti-doping crusade”. But I think it needs to continue until the doping omerta breaks up and the sport has a chance to breathe and be respectable. All I’m asking from the sport leadership is to create a system where riders don’t have to cheat and lie to make a living. No one wants to see anyone unfairly tarred, but it is counterproductive to spend so much time defending the rights of those who commit sporting fraud, while clean riders are forced out of the sport. The whole process demeans the sport and is a huge waste of time and energy.
Ludwig,
Would you support USADA “spiking” a sample if they believed an athlete doped, even though though they could not prove it through testing?
Regards,
Ludwig,
If the authorities have legitimate evidence against John Doe, I have no problem with them building a case against him. But … under WADA rules, there can be no adverse finding unless both the A and B samples test positive. Implicit in the code is that the only time the B sample gets tested is if an A sample comes up positive. Seeking to test a B sample after the A sample came back negative is, in my opinion, pulling a fast one. They’re only able to try such tactics because of the arbitration panel’s ruling in the Landis case, which allowed USADA to test other B samples than the one from Stage 17. It is not within the bounds of an anti-doping case to do so. The case is tried based on the single event.
An athlete could not have made the same kind of request in order to prove his or her innocence. So, to me, what USADA is engaged in is shady behavior. They are skirting the edges of the boundaries of the rules in order to build their case. It is important for everyone to follow the rules, transparently. USADA, in seeking that B sample test, was operating outside the bounds. To me, that warrants my comments. You don’t see it that way, from what I gather.
If they can make their case against Doe following the rules, by all means, they should do so. If they have to resort to other methods, that should be deplored. “Real” cycling fans come in all shapes, sizes and opinions. Many of us are disgusted by the reports of rampant doping in the sport. But we should never lose sight of the fact that no matter how guilty a person may appear to be, or how bad his or her reputation is, that person is still entitled to due process, and the authorities must follow the rules of the game.
One of those rules has to do with confidentiality. While it may seem awkward to not inform the organizers of the Tour of California about a pending or current investigation against Mr. Doe, that is precisely what is required. If that means a suspected doper is allowed to race, that is unfortunate. But those are the rules, and not only do riders have to respect the rules, USADA does, too. In the circumstance where the investigation turns up no doping behavior, to inform organizers of the investigation would unfairly deprive an innocent athlete of the opportunity to compete.
Dragon,
Of course I don’t support that kind of behavior. It would be much worse than anything dopers are accused of. I also don’t think the USADA has any kind of rational incentive to do such a thing. Such behavior would be amazingly stupid, risky, and pointless. Cyclists on the other hand have plenty of rational incentive to dope and to cover it up.
Rant,
As long as the testing authorities can be trusted to do their job with integrity, then what could possibly be wrong with testing a B sample, especially if there is good reason to? You keep implying bias or foul play, but where is the beef? In the Landis case, the B samples were useful in proving T use.
Everything anti-doping authorities do has to take into consideration the fact that there are smart people working for the dopers, and that frequently the doping is ahead of the tests. It would naive to ignore the implicit power struggle. Why should it be out of bounds for the authorities to test a B sample if they have good reason to believe a positive was missed in good faith when they tested the A?
In the murky cycling world, it’s essential to support those pursuing the truth and trying to enforce a fair sport, rather than those hiding and engaging in deception. If retesting B samples is what it takes, then fine—it’s just remains essential to insist on the highest level of integrity.
Meanwhile, you say yourself that the rules have been changed, so how is it fair to abuse the USADA of cheating or bending the rules? Much less in the irresponsible tone you use, which reinforces the fantasies of your readers that there is some sort of nefarious conspiracy.
The bottom line is that the current adverserial relationship between the teams and the testing agencies, along with the existence of lawyers like Suh, is not good for cycling, at least any cycling interested in either truth or fairness. There needs to be reform carried out at the level of the teams themselves if there is any hope of curbing doping. In the meantime, it remains essential to support those pursuing the truth in good faith and to expose the dopers and falsehood peddlers.
Ludwig,
The rules, themselves, haven’t changed. What changed with the Landis arbitration panel’s ruling was that a specific panel allowed USADA to test other B samples, which had initial negative results, in the pursuit of their case. The most likely reason that USADA wanted to do these tests was to bolster their case, by showing other doping violations, in the event that Team Landis was able to show the results from Stage 17 weren’t reliable or were wrong. However, in this case, there had been an initial “positive” test result on Stage 17. That much we can all agree on, I suspect.
Now, in Doe’s case, there is no initial positive result. In fact, if Doe is Leogrande, then he has a letter that says his test result was negative. Whoever it is, the story appears to be that the initial result was negative, but USADA wanted to go and test the B sample anyway. That, too, I think we can agree on.
What could be wrong with this? Well, in terms of establishing a doping violation, WADA’s rules still require both samples to be positive. And, as I said, implicit in their current rules is that no B samples are tested unless the A sample is positive. But let’s assume, for a minute, that this is kosher.
Now, let’s assume that the result of the B sample is above the threshold for a positive result. OK, now we have conflicting results. Which one are we to believe? Should we allow USADA (or any other anti-doping agency) to prevail based on the test result that they prefer? And, given the conflicting results, how can they explain that without throwing the competence of the lab into question? So, as I see it, the requirement that both samples be positive not only provides the athlete with some protection, but it also provides the lab with a certain amount of protection, too. If they can’t replicate their results, there’s something that needs to be addressed in their testing protocols. Those testing protocols, once corrected, will eventually catch the alleged doper. Eventually, almost every cheater’s luck runs out.
There are, no doubt, some smart people out there figuring out how to beat every test. But letting the anti-doping agencies cherry pick the results they wish to use in order to convict suspected dopers isn’t the way to stop those people. Finding innovative ways of catching them, which means trying to anticipate how the tests will be circumvented, for one, is the way to accomplish that. Working with law enforcement to track down the suppliers, would be another.
I don’t see that criticizing the anti-doping agencies when they’re stepping beyond the rules is irresponsible. Quite the opposite. If no one speaks up, then they will eventually assume unlimited power. And as the old saying goes, “Power tends to corrupt. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That’s not a situation that would be good for cycling (or any sport), either.
While it’s frustrating to see a suspected doper go free, the integrity of the overall system is as or more important than any individual case. That’s why it’s important that both sides follow the rules. If the rules need changing, change them. But the rules we currently have are the ones that everyone has to work under for the time being.
I agree that reform ultimately needs to be carried out to reduce the amount of doping with our sport (as well as others). Supporting those who are trying, in good faith, to catch those who cheat is something I agree with, too. But we should also be free to criticize the enforcement agencies when they don’t follow their own rules. The ends, while admirable, doesn’t necessarily justify the means.
Update: I’ve noticed something odd in a story over at VeloNews. Looks like Leogrande may have had an adverse finding that his team was notified about in November. As VeloNews is reporting:
If that’s correct, either Leogrande isn’t the rider behind the John Doe case, or the initial reports about some of the details of the lawsuit are incorrect.
Two quick points.
1. Consider the Landis case, where 5 of his samples were retested using the better IRMS test, and it turned out these samples were also positive. A similar circumstance might be the case here–it may be that a better test was not used during the A sample and that they want to use this test now.
Assuming a high level of integrity from authorities, it seems in the interest of fairness for the authorities to have the right to retest. For one thing, it’s a big, big incentive not to dope. If your blood samples can be retested down the line for whatever substance (lets say, a substance ahead of the curve) then a rational person is going to be aware of the risks. The big question then becomes–could you prosecute an athlete for using a banned substance that wasn’t on the WADA list at the time of the offense? Murky territory.
2. On a related note, I have to criticize some of the assumptions you seem to be making about what constitutes fair process, or what sort of process is in the best interest of cycling. I get the impression that for you there is a structure of rules, and any doping that takes place without violating these rules should not be prosecuted. It’s an understandable position–that was basically the case during the EPO test (ie Lance) years. But I don’t think it’s in the interest of cycling, given the potential for gotcha stories from the media and police investigations. In the end cycling needs to decide to either enforce anti-doping or look the other way. Continuing to operate on this level–where doping continues, athletes deny, legal struggles ensue, etc. etc…..this is madness. There has to be a way to do pro cycling without this absurd sideshow, where athletes are essentially required to dope and then lie about it.
Ludwig,
In the case of those additional tests, not every WADA lab would have called them positive (of course, that’s the case for the originals, too). You’re making a big assumption about the authorities’ integrity. I’m not going to impugn their integrity, but I would point out that sometimes there is an agenda — even on the side who are pursuing the dopers. You’re right that later retesting is a murky area, and it’s definitely one that needs more specific rules and regulations.
Regarding the rules, I’m merely suggesting that we all have to live with them. If it’s necessary to change those rules (and sometimes it is), then by all means let’s do so. I suspect that there are many areas where the rules could be made clearer, both for the athletes and for the enforcement agencies. Whatever rules we have, both sides have to live within them. To let either side operate outside the rules creates a problem. In the one case, it’s doping. In the other, it’s the over-zealous pursuit of individuals using methods not granted to them. Such pursuits can veer off into the world of vendettas or other abuses.
Consider a more “real-life” analogy: Should we allow torture to gain confessions or testimony from criminals? A number of studies suggest that when someone’s tortured, he or she will eventually tell the torturer what he wants to hear — regardless of whether it’s true. Would you be comfortable with a conviction of a third person due to evidence gained this way? I wouldn’t. I’d never be certain if the testimony was actually truthful. Right now (in criminal cases, anyway), torture is against the rules. A good thing, too, in my opinion.
I agree with you that there has to be a way out of this sideshow. If not, the sport of cycling will suffer greatly for a long, long time to come.
Ludwig,
First, it’s interesting that you DO NOT find spiking samples fair. It makes sense, and whatever differences we may have on the doping issue, I expected that answer and agree.
Point #1) Now we get to the practical implication of that thought. There are WADA Rules. No positive “A” Sample, “B” sample can’t be tested against the athlete. So in Landis, the Arbitrators said…To Heck with the Rules, Test them. My question is how is that any different than “spiking” them in the 1st place? If you are willing to ignore or bypass one segment of the rulebook, why should any athlete be held accountable for ignoring/bypassing a different section?
Point #2) You have faith in WADA and the regulators/participants. I don’t trust them, and they have given me ample PROOF of their malfeasence.
Your comment on using samples to retroactively re-test years and maybe centruies later to prove a different result. Is there any activity in your own life, where you would willingly accept that situation?
IMHO, if the labs can’t get it correct now, thus results shopping to get the result the regulators want, it would be simpler to just “spike” the sample and be done with it.
Regards,
Dragon,
I have seen clearly more malfeasance from doped athletes than from WADA. Do you want some names?
Do you feel confortable that no woman can challenge the 100m record now and for ever? Who is the fastest woman? Neither Flo-Jo nor marion Jones!
Few people can affect a lot of people when they cheat. Those kind of people are not like us, we need a different treatment, retrotesting is a good possibility.
Are we not interested to find who killed JFK? How died Napoleon ? And so…
Great athletes are a part of history, we should know the truth even later!
Jean C,
Just to be Clear. I expect that just about every human being in any endeavor of activity is looking for an advantage. Some/Many/Most go over the line, some intentially others inadvertantly. This applies to athletes maybe more than most.
That being said, I expect a HIGHER level of integrity and ethics in regulatory bodies and the people who run them. If WADA World is justifying their behavior because the job is difficult, for me that isn’t enough.
The problem in this whole discussion is we ALL should be working together and pulling in the same direction. I WATCHED the farce in Malibu, I was horified at the spectical. And, yes, there were problems on both sides (the Will thing), yet while Judge Hue held out hope, I would have bet everything I owned on a 2-1 verdict against (I wager every day of my life). Was that determination based on convincing evidence? NO!!! It was THE PROCESS, where Nostradamos could have predicted the result and probably did.
I expect/accept athletes cheat, I DON’T expect the same from the regulators and the arrogance with which the regulators cheat is breathtaking.
After I e-mailed USADA complaining about the re-testing at LNDD, particularly leaks, Mr. Tygert responded to me by asking I keep an open mind. Within 72 hours he leaked the results. Well I don’t know that Mr. Tygert personally leaked the results, but WADA World likely did.
Athletes look for an edge and are villified, and rightfully so in my opinion. WADA World takes an unfair edge, and many cheer. I find it difficult to reconcile (a little accountant lingo) those two concepts.
30 years ago when I was young, I was ABSOLUTELY sure of just about everything. Over time I have become less sure of just about everything.