At the VeloNews.com web site, there is an article by Neal Rogers which contains this:
USA Cycling chief executive officer Steve Johnson confirmed that it would be USA Cycling, in conjunction with the UCI, which would review rosters submitted by AEG for approval.
Johnson said if USADA was unhappy with USA Cycling sharing information with AEG, it was the first he had heard of it, adding, “We’ve had several conversations since the Amgen Tour of California first came to us with these ideas. I thought we were all on the same page.”
“USADA protocol hasn’t changed, what has changed is our position,” Johnson said. “It used to be that we would communicate information only with the athlete. But we felt that it was our responsibility in this case when the Amgen Tour of California organizers asked us to help implement this much more selective policy. We were happy to help, and we discussed it with both the UCI and USADA. If USADA doesn’t want to share information with AEG, that is their prerogative, but until someone tells me specifically I cannot share that information I’m happy to help the Amgen Tour of California organizers.”
Bock said USADA “would not condone that process.”
“That is not the way our protocol is set up,” Bock said. “That is not the way we think things should happen. We have to commend any organization trying to get after the doping issue. But someone is not understanding our protocol.”
As you may know, Mr. Johnson, USA Cycling is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code, either explicitly in the organization’s bylaws, or implicitly through it’s affiliation with the International Cycling Union (UCI). Since you’ve probably not read the applicable portions of the World Anti-Doping Code, allow me to introduce you to Article 14 (about Confidentiality and Reporting), of the current code.
14.1 Information Concerning Adverse Analytical Finding and Other Potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations
… (Requires that the athlete be informed by the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility. Also, the athlete’s national ADO, the sport’s international federation and WADA shall be notified. Then goes on to mention right to a fair hearing, right to appeal, and so forth) …
The recipient organizations shall not disclose the information beyond those persons within the organization with a need to know until the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility has made public disclosure or has failed to make public disclosure as required in Article 14.2 below.
14.2 Public Disclosure
The identity of Athletes whose Samples have resulted in Adverse Analytical Findings, or Athletes or other Persons who were alleged by an Anti-Doping Organization to have violated other anti-doping rules, may be publicly disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility no earlier than completion of the administrative review described in Articles 7.1 and 7.2. No later than twenty days after it has been determined in a hearing in accordance with Article 8 that an anti-doping violation has occurred, or such hearing has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not been timely challenged, the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for results management must publicly report the disposition of the anti-doping matter.
Since you’ve stated that unless someone tells you it’s against the rules, you’ll be informing AEG about the status of any ongoing investigations regarding proposed riders for the upcoming Tour of California, I’m here to tell you: It’s against the rules. You can’t share that information.
Yes, keeping the event free of riders who may be doping is a laudable goal. Every cycling fan that I know hopes that the Tour of California will be free of doping scandals. But at the same time, on-going investigations are not proof of any violations, and the disclosure of those investigations can damage a cyclist’s reputation permanently. I understand the frustrations of event organizers and fans who want cycling free of doping, or at least free of the current albatross of a reputation our sport has. But you can’t do what you intend to do without violating the WADC. It may not be fair to the other cyclists, and that’s truly a shame. Some day, if the anti-doping effort is managed properly, perhaps doping will be only a minor concern. Would that it were that way today.
If you continue down this path, who’s to say that some conniving team manager won’t neutralize his competition by starting false rumors which lead to investigations of other teams or other cyclists? If you start disclosing the status of on-going investigations, such a scenario could be an unintended consequence. And then there’s the possible legal consequences to such actions, as Bill Hue writes about over at Trust But Verify.
In this instance, Bill Bock is a wise man for not participating in this scheme, as well intentioned as it is. You would do well to emulate his position on the matter.
Aren’t we lucky that people and groups cannot help themselves but show their true colors? Looks to me like the “culture of not following the rules” has come to bite both the USAC and the USADA.
Judge Hue presents the liability aspect very beautifully and clearly. Personally, I find myself in the situation of one who is watching an “unavoidable train wreck in progress.”
It would appear that the “optional free interpretations culture in cycling sports” is perhaps finally catching up with its practitioners –
Is what USAC doing with Am Gen Tour any different from what the AFLD is doing for ASO? In fact – are the “techniques” being used any different?
I fail to see much differences in the two – except I do not know who the French USADA is – maybe they didn’t like it much either when the AFLD and the organizer ASO got together. Maybe it just didn’t make the world papers…
I forwarded this page to Steve Johnson at USA Cycling and told him I would start a grass roots movement to have him removed if he did not retract.
Here we have the flip side to my arguments on yesterday’s thread. Official organizations are planning to use possibly mere suspicion to bar riders from the ToC, and in providing information about who might be under investigation, violating their own rules. This I don’t approve of at all.
There is always to possibility that UCI or WADA could change to rules and allow one organization to communicate to another what riders are under investigation. I hope this doesn’t happen; there is too much possibility for abuse, deliberate or unintended.
Anybody who ever has been accused in the workplace of something knows that, even if ultimately you prove your innocence, the fact that you were accused can taint your career for some time. In today’s climate, any cyclist who might be accused of doping would be so tainted. If nothing came of the investigation, some would think he was lucky to avoid getting caught, or perhaps that he used some special doping technique which is undetectable.
Someday, some rider (or other athlete) will call these folks to account in the court system. USADA or whatever will no longer be on their home field. They will not be able to bend the rules to their own purposes and suffer the risk of having a judgement rendered against them, both personally and as an organization.
William,
The right to confidentiality is one of the very few protections afforded to athletes under the WADA code. If that’s changed, I fear the consequences.
Bill,
Thanks.
Morgan,
Actually, the French version of USADA, if memory serves me, is the AFLD.
(:-))
So then who is the French version of USAC? By the way- Great commentary Rant.
Its not against the rules. Read article 7.2. They can go public after the first positive. If Kayle didn’t have a dirty sample he was turned in. Thats the non analytical positive or whatever they call the balco thing. Article 7.2 calls it additional investigation.
Morgan:
Fédération Française de Cyclisme
Opps, those special characters pasted in don’t come thru:
without the accents:
Federation Francaise de Cyclisme
Steve Johnson’s reply to my e-mail, interesting . . ..
Thank you for your note.
The special consideration in this situation is that, as a condition of entry into the Amgen Tour of California (an invitational, non-protected event under UCI regulations), the organizer has required all teams to abide by a “Terms of Entry Agreement” under which the teams agree (among other things) not to start riders with open doping investigations as determined by the relevant anti-doping agencies.
The key point here is that we are talking about professional riders who are paid to perform under the terms of an employment contract. Because of the contractual nature of the relationship between a professional rider and his or her team, it has long been an accepted UCI practice to notify the director of a UCI registered team once a doping investigation has started against a rider registered to that team. The only difference in this case is an additional “certification” (as agreed to by the teams) to the AToC organizer that the team rosters do not include any riders currently participating in an active doping investigation. Obviously, this program is predicated on the “Terms of Entry Agreement” and will only affect those teams that have agreed to abide by its terms.
All the best,
Steve Johnson
Larry on TbV,
“The law is something more than just what the powers that be say it is.”
“The law is something more than what the judges say it is, and it’s something more than what proves to be practically useful.”
These are some really wonderful words – and all those who make laws and rules must never forget them. Even under the most complex circumstances – we must struggle to achieve clarity and harmony. Thanks Larry
Based on Johnson’s response above, Suh is going to have a field day.
IMHO of course.
Some consideration has to be given to common sense. Pro cycling is pointless if races have no right to exclude riders who are associated with doping and who will bring race’s reputation and integrity into disrepute. The logic being employed here cedes the right of races to make determinations about what is in their best interest. Worse, it uses the misleading argument that excluding a rider violates WADA rules (while we all know that the party disclosing the identity of Leogrande is precisely the party bringing the plaintiff suit–the Tour of California has done nothing to expose him).
Hopefully at least one lesson has been learned. The Tour of California should not have invited Rock Racing, which seems determined to attract as much bad publicity to the sport as possible.
To Steve Johnson:
Thanks for the information regarding the “Terms of Entry Agreement”. As you’ve explained it, this Agreement requires the teams participating in the ToC not to start riders with open doping investigations. Presumably, this restriction covers only those doping investigations that have been disclosed to the teams by the relevant anti-doping associations.
If you’ve described the Agreement correctly, then the ToC teams are responsible for selecting their ToC rosters in accordance with the rules set forth in the Agreement. If a team fails to do so, they would be in breach of the Agreement. The ToC race organizers are free to “police” this portion of the Agreement as permitted under applicable law, in an effort to make certain that the teams comply with their obligations under the Agreement.
By your description, the Agreement does not address the rights and obligations of USA Cycling, nor does it contain a waiver of any of the confidentiality provisions set forth in the WADA Code (if, indeed, any such waiver is possible or would be effective). Therefore, USA Cycling has no greater right to disclose information to the ToC race organizers than it would have had in the absence of the Terms of Entry Agreement.
In simplest terms, your obligations under the WADA Code are not excused by the fact that a ToC team may be breaching its obligations under its “certification” to the ToC race organizers.
If you see this situation differently, please let us know.
For those who don’t wish to go wading through the WADA Code:
Devon,
I don’t see anything in Article 7’s first three paragraphs that allows USA Cycling or any signatory to go public, this has to do with how results are managed and whether or not additional investigations are necessary, and how the ADO’s are expected to inform the athletes about results or investigations. Additional investigation, as called for in Article 7 doesn’t mean making the investigation public. Article 7’s focus is a different part of the process.
On the other hand, Article 14 addresses confidentiality and when announcements can be made quite clearly.
Regarding non-analytical positives, granted that part of a non-analytical positive could be a tip from another individual, but the investigation must be complete before any public announcements are made, as I understand the rules. And historically, for non-analytical positives, arbitration panels have held USADA to a higher standard than for other types of doping cases. In the first several cases, the panels required that USADA prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt — the same as in any standard criminal proceeding in the United States.
Ludwig,
Races can choose not to invite teams, and to reject riders proposed for a team, for whatever reason the choose. I have no problem with that. I’m not saying it’s a violation of WADA’s rules for the ToC to do so, if they’re the ones who have misgivings or suspicions about a particular team or rider. But when a national or international governing body breaks rules they’ve agreed to in order to help the organizers do so, that’s what I take issue with.
Interestingly, Rock Racking has signed on as a “Founding Sponsor” (whatever the heck that means), perhaps as a way of ensuring that their team will be allowed to race. After all, when someone ponies up a half million dollars or so, they have quite a bit of sway with the organization. (I’m not saying it’s right to do that, however, or that it’s right that AEG accepted RR’s sponsorship. That’s a whole other discussion.)
Larry,
Well said.
Bill,
Thanks for posting Steve Johnson’s reply. “Interesting” only begins to describe what he said.
Larry,
Did you actually reply to Steve or would you like me to? I don’t mind sending it along. I do appreciate the fact that he responded to my inquiry. Maybe because I am a licensed racer (amateur)?
BIll
Isn’t an athlete who has an AAF supposed to go on suspension pending final adjudication of his/her case? If so, doesn’t the ADO have to notify at least the team? Or is the athlete just supposed to tell his boss “I gotta take some days off”?
But, if the ADO is allowed to tell the team, that is one thing. To also tell race organizers is another thing. The more people in the know, the more likely for leaks.
And when a rider is simply under investigation, a la OP or BALCO, that is something else again. In the case of an AAF, we have, to use a legal term, “probably cause” in the nature of the lab test results; the nature of evidence in a non-analytic investigation could be much more tenuous.
Technically riders can continue to participate until any AAF is confirmed. The pro tour teams have agreed to suspend ant rider who has a non negative until it is either confirmed or dismissed.
Joe Papp who we all remember from the Landis case is a good evample. He tested positive for testosterone and kept racing until the B sample confirmed the A sample. He was able to do this because unknown riders have a low media profile, and he was not riding for a pro tour team.
Public disclosure can happen when the athlete is notified. First is initial review. Second is athlete notified and public disclosure. 14.2 says it. “No earlier than completion of the administrative review”. If Kayle was notified after initial review it can go public.
USADA’s rules are specific. The info is disclosed 15 days after review. If Kayle’s stuff was reviewed it is public. Very clear.
Devon,
True enough, by the way the rules read, if Leogrande’s case has gone through an administrative review, then public disclosure could occur. Of course, we don’t really know that to be the case. (Unless you happen to Leogrande and he’s told you something, I haven’t found a reference that says it has.) The athlete is notified of the AAF, if I’m following the rules correctly, before the initial review takes place. We might assume that such a review has taken place — and quite likely, it may have — but we don’t know for certain, as USADA hasn’t officially released any information to the public.
That said, there’s a bigger point here than simply Leogrande’s case. And that’s the ability of USA Cycling to reveal an investigation before they are allowed to do so. Notice that the rules state that it’s the ADO (in our case, USADA) that has the right to release the information. Under Article 14.1, USA Cycling is not granted the right to publicly disclose any information about ongoing investigations until after USADA has made public disclosure or failed to do so in the time required. That can be as early as right after the initial administrative review, as you pointed out, but is could also be after an arbitration hearing has taken place and a decision reached. Until USADA speaks, USA Cycling (or any other national governing body in the US) has to stay silent.
Can someone clarify what this term means – please? — “non-protected event under UCI regulations” does he mean that the UCI allows racers to race in a race where the organizers HAVE NOT agreed to uphold or accept the “governance” of the UCI? – Then I ask myself – why would UCI “agree” to involve itself in such a race?
Bill, no I didn’t actually reply to Mr. Johnson. If you want to pass it on to him, feel free.
Morgan, you’re asking the question of the moment: what teams get to ride in what races. I don’t know all that much about the rules governing this question, though we’re all going to learn a lot more about these rules during 2008. I do not know the rules here.
My guess is that if an event is a “non-protected event”, then a team is not guaranteed entry into the event simply because it holds a UCI license.
This is the question of the moment, because the Giro has announced its list of invited teams. Slipstream is on the list. High Road is NOT on the list. Astana is NOT on the list. This is our first indication of what the invitation list might look like for the Tour de France. My guess is that Mr. Rant will focus his next article on this issue.
Larry,
Response sent with some added verbiage and questions and requests for clarification. Hopefuloloy he responds.
An open question to everyone here. If USAC only provided a “yes” or “no” to the question of a provided roster being clean, would you still consider it a breach? Actually, would a “no” make you uncomfortable if no details were given (no rider named)?
All the best,
Bill
Bill:
If USAC said “yes” to a proposed roster, no problem. However, a “no” raises a number of issues. If it say no, and does not provide the name(s) that trigger the “no”, how does the team involved know what to do to rectify the situation. Take a WAG, send in the new roster, repeat until the roster is vetted (thereby, by a process of elimination, finding out the ID of the suspected rider)? Or just a bye for the race in question, waiting for some race where you don’t need to get your roster vetted by anyone. Since the team is not supposed to know the ID of riders up until the administrative review, they are sort of shooting in the dark. This is true, even for teams like Slipstream, even if their testing program functions well. The rider could be under investigation for something alleged to have happened before he joined SS.
This idea of in effect banning a rider
“under investigation” amounts, IMHO, to a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude. Note we are talking about the Tour of California, an event totally within the US of A, and presumably operating under the laws thereof. Aren’t we in the US supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? If this idea of banning a rider while “under investigation” is taken to an extreme, if USAC or USADA of UCI wanted to ban some rider, but couldn’t obtain enough evidence against him, they simply could keep him
“under investigation” indefinately.
Bill –
You’re asking questions that are impossible to answer without all the facts, and that would be pretty difficult to answer even if we had all the facts.
Let’s assume for the moment that USAC is bound by the confidentiality obligations we’ve been discussing here. (I know that USADA is so bound, but I’m not sure about USAC.) Let’s assume further that USAC knows the identity of a cyclist under investigation that is on the roster of a TofC team.
You want to know if USAC can go to the race organizers and say, “one of the riders on team X is under investigation. I can’t tell you which rider it is, but it’s one of them.”
Well, first thing I’d want to do is to examine very closely the language of the confidentiality obligation. Is USAC required to keep the investigation confidential, or only the identity of the rider being investigated?
Even if the confidentiality obligation is narrow, and covers only the identity of the rider, USAC should probably still be reluctant to reveal that an unnamed rider on team X is under investigation. After all, you’re indicating that one of 6 guys (or 8 guys, or 9 guys, not sure how many riders are on a TofC roster) is under investigation. That’s a relatively small population. Plus, you’re providing encouragement to the press and other snoopy people to dig deeper and perhaps uncover the identity of the rider under investigation. If USAC is under a confidentiality obligation, it’s probably reasonable to expect USAC to take reasonable steps to keep the information confidential. If you disclose the investigation, and indicate that one of a handful of guys is the topic of the investigation … how can you say that you’ve complied with your obligation to keep the information confidential? Of course, much would turn on the exact language of the confidentiality obligation.
Now, consider another fact. Let’s say that USAC discloses the existence of an investigation targeting an unnamed rider on team X, and consequently, team X is barred from the race. Let’s say that later on, the investigation against the rider is dropped for lack of evidence, and team X sues the TofC race organizers for improperly barring team X from the race. How will the race organizers defend themselves? Well, the organizers will say that they relied on information from USAC, at which point the team adds USAC to the lawsuit. How is USAC going to defend its actions without revealing the name of the rider who was under investigation? Perhaps the identity of the rider could be revealed to a judge in secret … we’re starting to get way beyond the legal stuff I’m familiar with. But you can see how messy this kind of thing can become.
Larry
For Pete’s sakes! – and I am not invoke that fine coffee!
Perhaps I am completely missing the boat here, but is seems to me this whole “mess” is very easily avoided. The “mess” is due to the “free interpretation” that THE GOVERNING BODIES “may act” on their “suspicion” of a rider who they suspect as doping.
Logically — this “ignores” the fact that while the governing bodies — should investigate when they are suspicious of a rider — THEY MAY NOT DO THIS PUBLICLY. Where is the grey area here? What is the “point?”
Are we trying to “legally rationalize away” the fact that revealing an “ongoing investigation” by making it public in ANYWAY — makes the investigation a “public accusation.” This cannot be avoided.
I can have sympathy for an organizer wanting to have a “clean race.” But I do not AGREE that an organizer or the governing bodies — should have the “right” to “stop” a rider or team from racing — UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN GUILTY of whatever caused the “investigation!”
Any “leaking or sharing of the fact that “someone or team” is under investigation” — makes the “accusation” public. There is no way to avoid this. So the only sensible approach that is fair — is to make the investigation and present NOTHING to any one, till the investigation is complete and “proven” one way or the other.
We may not “sacrifice” the right of an individual to be innocent till proven guilty — merely because we hope to ensure “clean racing.” Isn’t this EXACTLY what the proponents of the WADA rules are doing now? They feel “justified” to ignore the rights of individuals “because they are stopping doping.”
On another front:
“Pound vying to lead sport’s highest court” – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080202.POUND02/TPStory/Sports
Yeah – right – just who I want in charge of CAS – Dickie Pound!
Morgan, William –
Your points are well taken. However, if the topic is “who gets to race”, then we should begin with the general principle that it’s up to the race organizers to determine who can and cannot race. To paraphrase Leslie Gore (and to hopelessly date myself), it’s their party.
This is how FL gets to race in the NUE series.
Most participation in sport is by invitation only. My buddies and I might form a U.S. football team, but we have no chance to play in the Super Bowl. Before Jackie Robinson, some of the best baseball teams in the United States played in the so-called “Negro Leagues”, but these teams were never invited to play in the World Series. In other words, sometimes these “invitation only” systems make sense, and other times they reflect institutionalized racism. Still, the “invitation only” system is pretty much the rule in sport.
At the moment, there are something like 18 UCI Pro Tour cycling teams, and a similar number of UCI Pro Continental teams. These teams are guaranteed entry into a certain number of road races, because the organizers of these races have agreed to this guaranty. Presumably, the organizers agreed to the guaranty in order to get the the best cyclists to ride in their races. In other words, they thought that the guaranty was a good deal.
We’re seeing a trend in cycling against guaranteed entry into prestigious road races. Again, look at the invitation list for the Giro. They’ve excluded Astana and High Road, possibly because of historic doping problems on those teams. They’ve also excluded Bouygues Telecom and Crédit Agricole, for reasons that are probably unrelated to doping. See http://beta.velonews.com/article/71759. So far, the Giro has followed the “It’s My Party” rule, and have not bothered to explain their invitation list.
The Tour of California is taking a different path. They’ve decided to invite the best teams willing to race, but have required the teams to agree to special “clean racing” requirements. Sort of like saying, “you can come to my party IF you behave.” Nothing wrong with that concept.
If the Tour of California wants to invite teams on the condition that the teams exclude riders under investigation … well, I can understand why some people might object to this. However, I don’t have a problem with this concept, so long as all parties strictly adhere to the rules governing confidentiality. Remember that a cycling team controls which team members get to ride in which races. (Heck, even Tom Brady does not have a guaranteed right to start at quarterback today.) A number of teams (like Slipstream) probably would not start a rider in ANY race if the rider was under investigation. If a team wants to agree in advance on the rules they’ll follow in selecting team members, I don’t have a huge problem with that, either. It IS their party. And this system is a lot more fair (more transparent and principled, in any event) than the one they’re using at the Giro.
Morgan and William, I get the fact that we’re supposed to be innocent until we’re proven guilty, but even in criminal cases, we reserve a special status for people under suspicion. We have plenty of people in jail awaiting trial. In other situations, we treat people under suspicion in a particular way. If you’re running a corporation and your chief financial officer (CFO) is being investigated by the government, you might not fire the CFO … but you might find someone else to sign off on the company’s financial statements until the CFO’s status is clarified.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy about this situation. I’d rather have the Tour of California decided on the road than in a lawyer’s office. But I also support the right of a race organizer to legally do what the organizer thinks is best for the race. If you and I disagree with how the organizer is running his race, we don’t have to watch the race. If the cyclists don’t like how the organizer is running his race, they don’t have to participate.
Personally, I think that all this commotion is terrible for cycling. But Morgan and William, you guys are writing about the rights of the participants in cycling, and this is how I see things from a fundamental rights perspective.
Excellent reponses all. BTW, I am not in favor of disclosure short of determination through the normal process. Look at the OP mess. I suppose if all team rosters are clean and USAC says so, then ToC and USAC’s plan is fine. As soon as a team doesn’t have a clean roster, then we are going to see a law suit. Sometimes this is exactly how progress and reform take place. Wouldn’t it be nice if the governing bodies acted above suspicion and aired on the side of propriety? I suppose I could also say, wouldn’t it be nice if the riders ALL gave up on the idea that doping was a good plan? SOMEONE, please give me my sport back! And don’t get me started on Astana and Team High Road being excluded from the Giro. That sort of STUFF is not good for the sport as the promoters ratchet up their fight with UCI.
Larry, Bill
Heck — if the promoters follow an “it’s my party!” rule — I can live with this. What I have problems with is that the situation with the Amgen-tour is a bit more then this.
I am in no way feeling any “inclination or great need” to “tell the promoter” how he can define his race. I ASSUME that if a promoter desires his race to be “Pro-Level” then the Promoter itself has to fall under the aegises of the existing rules concerning pro riders. As defined by the UCI and WADA — a “pro-race” must meet certain criterion. Such rules are already in place.
What the sponsors of Amgen, ASO, Giro, etc, are doing is trying to take over the governance of cycling — through their actions. And what is the “basis” on which they feel that they can? “Because they want a clean race.” — Excuse me — but I think this is bull-puckies!
Amgen, ASO, etc — can no more “guarantee” a clean race for the public consumption — then the UCI or WADA can — AND THESE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE “EMPOWERED” TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, at least as far as I understand the set up in the cycle-racing world.
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with having “another” group defining arbitrary rules to cycling? I am very much afraid that if this continues — WHATEVER “structure” we may have in pro-cycling” will simply disintegrate.
Besides — let us “look at” an important aspect of such empowerment awarded to Promoters. WHO IS WATCHING THEM? What is to stop a promoter from “fixing a race” by choosing riders and teams that fulfill their needs to gain the ends they desire? Nothing! Absolutely NOTHING!
The situation with the Amgen TofC and USAC is patently absurd. I cannot help but come to the conclusion that USAC and Mr Johnson are just plain dumb — or they have their own “agendas” in place. This agenda does not appear to be related to “solving” the doping problem — rather — to gain power to “fix” their races to their ends. I would very much like to find out what USAC is getting out of the deal by backing Amgen TofC? I AM NOT BUYING THAT THEY ARE DOING THIS TO ENSURE “CLEAN RACING,” I very much suspect that it has to do with a lot of money and who has power.
I am no great fan of WADA or the UCI — Not because I disagree with the idea and concept behind for what they should be representing in cycling — I am vehemently opposed to the “methods and interpretation” of the existing rules that they practice and create as they go along!
Larry — the TofC should be decided ON THE ROAD — everything else should be worked out by law, BEFORE THE DAMNED RACING EVEN BEGINS! I do not think that “holding the racing” hostage is an appropriate or wise solution. But isn’t this the very “practice” in existence” right at this moment?
Bill — I do not wonder that you feel like your cycling has been “taken” from you — IT HAS. I do not believe that “erring on the side of propriety” is mere hope. It should be expected! One errs on the side of propriety because one has ethics that does not accept the idea that the “end justifies the means.”
So in my opinion — “accepting” the behavior of USAC and TofC is to accept the behavior of the other promoters who are resisting following the rules we already have in place. Perhaps — it is a naiveté of thought on my part — but I also “expect” that TEAMS would be ACTIVELY WORKING towards a drug free cycling world. After all — who would know better then the TEAMS themselves — who is doping and who is clean?
And lastly — We do not live in a world that understands “gentleman’s agreements and behavior.” It is not a question of “trusting” one over another. Lets face it — we live in a world that assumes that EVERYONE IS A POTENTIAL CHEATER. It is time we learn to accept this. If we do — then we can work to develop rules that actually define and govern cycling — rather then have situations, which manages to produce more and more “muddy waters.”
Larry:
What I have a problem with, based on my understanding of the ToC situation, is this:
Apparently a team has to get its proposed roster vetted in some way. If there really is true confidentiality concerning the ID of riders under investigation, then how is a team supposed to know whether or not to include any given rider? It sounds to me like the system proposed is that the team submits the roster and THEN USAC gives info on riders under investigation to the organizers. I don’t know, maybe if the ToC finds out a team has a rider UI, it just boots the whole team, no chance to revise the roster.
The phrase “under investigation” can cover such a wide range of situations, depending on how various authorities respond to allegations and accusations. And maybe some investigating authority might not want to make its investigation known, not so much to protect the rider(s) involved, but so that there is less chance of destroying evidence, etc. ToC is an international event, do the organizers have an in with all the other national federations/ADAs so that riders from other countries who are UI can also be banned? Seems to me this idea potentially opens up a big can of worms.
And of course, just because riders are not UI, is no guarantee they are clean, just as the fact they are UI is not guarantee they are dirty.
Hi all,
yo Rant, thanks for your mention(s?): I’ve been down with a back spasm (residual fun from being hit on Vail Pass, 1981, from an eedjit in a Trans-AM doing about 85gazillion mph…), so am out of touch a bit.
two points:
easy one: remember that the ‘Sinkewitz’ case came up in the TdF *precisely* because the German ADO followed the WADA CODE regarding confidentiality. So, is that a good thing, or a bad thing, that the news broke in the midst of ‘le Tour des Horreurs’?
harder one: As you’ve brought in Article 7.1 and 7.2, I remind readers, and scholars, that in a ‘treaty’ or ‘international agreement’ such as the CODE, that there is often a mistaken sense of ‘ordered priority’ (I wrote about this, in your comments earlier, like a month ago(?)). My point? Is this:
FOLLOW THE SAMPLE:
Once racerBOY pees into the cup, its protected and transported (no more than four stops for drivers to eat-drink pee themselves (JOKE)), delivered to the lab and then Laboratory Analysis is performed (some mistakenly label this ‘Testing’…
And once the results are established on the A Sample, the controlling IF notifies the National Federation for that rider (country of License), who in turn notifies the NADO. (For Floyd, that’s UCI > USAC > USADA > Floyd).
ART. 7.2 (and 7.1) both mandate that the ADO determine there is no ‘departure’… and then – nada! There is no obligation on the ADO to ‘spank’ the laboratory that performed the ‘departure’ analysis (means: bad science or procedure).
Somehow, this Article is not enforced: if it were written perhaps better, then Floyd could have sat back while USAC/USADA fought Floyd’s case against the LNDD (dep’t des analyses), regarding ‘apparent departures that undermines the validity’ …
***I note that you are using correctly the 2003 CODE for this, as the 2007 version is not applicable re: Floyd-2006-TdF; do note though, that these two sub-Articles have changed, to screw Athletes one more time: instead of ‘undermining the validity’, R. Young et al went for ’caused the [AAF]’.
THAT is a HUGE drafting change, taking disputes on Lab performance out of the ‘doubt’ range, into the ‘prove it!!’ range…
Gotta go draft a piece trashing Pound’s quest to work in Lausanne…
(smiles to all)
ZENmud
Ooops:
I didn’t ‘close the circle’: when I mentioned Treaties and priority, there seems to be a misguided supposition that the Athlete (Via ART. 3.2.1) must prove that the lab failed its duties, to the point that it ‘undermines the validity’; as the ‘urine sample and results’ move from LAB to NADO and then into a confrontational hearing, we seem to see only the Athlete as having that famous burden-against-presumption…
When the NADO should have (by the CODE) gotten off of its butt and said “WHOA! LNDD is violating CODE and ISL/IST; we have to protect our Athlete against sloppy science and prosecution!”
imho
ZEN/