While tonight’s post will be mostly on a different topic, I couldn’t resist commenting on a very brief article that’s appearing on VeloNews.com. It appears that Dick Pound may be in a bit of legal hot water.
The International Cycling Union (UCI) announced Thursday that it is suing Richard Pound, the former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, for remarks Pound made relevant to the UCI’s anti-doping efforts.
The UCI said Pound’s remarks were “injurious and biased.”
“Indeed, on many occasions, Mr. Pound has publicly questioned the extent of the UCI’s efforts in the fight against doping,” the UCI said.
The suit is filed in Swizerland [sic] on behalf of the UCI and its former president, Hein Verbruggen.
VeloNews was not able to reach Pound immediately for his reaction to the suit.
Really? As pointed out at Trust But Verify, this isn’t an early April Fool’s joke, is it? Something like this could give other people ideas, too. Just imagine all the athletes, and other officials, that Pound has pontificated on over the years taking him to court for such matters. Not being familiar with Swiss jurisprudence, I wonder if this suit will go anywhere.
Anyway, on to tonight’s main subject.
The curtain came up on the Floyd Landis appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Wednesday. Though, from any comment in the media, one would think that the Cone of Silence (minus the comedic possibilities) had descended upon the proceedings instead. Not much — if anything — has actually come out about what’s going on behind closed doors in New York at the moment.
On Saturday, Eddie Pells wrote an article for the Associated Press that has been printed far and wide, often with headlines that don’t quite tell the story properly. The Akron Beacon Journal gave Pells’ story this headline: Taxpayers to pay for Landis’ defense. I’m sure that’s news to Floyd and his defense team. The US taxpayers haven’t paid a dime for Landis’ defense. The actual subject of Pells’ article is the cost of the Floyd Landis prosecution that’s borne by American taxpayers. The full article is pretty well written, and includes this little gem:
“Generally, we would always prefer to spend our time and resources in supporting clean athletes and not having to prosecute guilty ones,” USADA CEO Travis Tygart said Friday. “But justice takes time and money, and that’s part of the process we have in the United States. Athletes have the right to defend themselves when they have positive tests.”
Well, yes, justice does take time and money. The first part of that quote, however, is a bit perplexing. Tygart’s employer is the United States Anti-Doping Agency not the United States We Support Clean Athletes Agency. It says right in the organization’s name what they’re all about. And that’s the fight against doping in sports.
Roughly 70 percent of their budget comes from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, while the remaining 30 percent comes from the US Olympic Committee. So it would be fair to say that any activity of the agency is funded roughly 70 percent with taxpayer’s money.
So what does USADA exist to do? They exist in order to catch and prosecute people cheating in sports through the use of banned substances or banned practices, like blood doping. One can reasonably make the argument that USADA also exists to educate athletes about the perils of doping, in order to try and steer people away from the use of performance-enhancing drugs. But it’s stepping into the land of hyperbole to say that they would rather support clean athletes.
Of course. Who wouldn’t? But their job isn’t to so much to support the clean athletes as it is to find and punish the cheats. (That said, by doing so, they do support the clean athletes in a way.) Absent any doping, the need for USADA would dry up, and the agency would be superfluous. Unless they exist in order to have hospitality tents at various athletic events with safe (really, trust us, no need to worry about any test results) nutrition products and drinks.
As Pells points out, regarding the Landis case:
The biggest USADA expense are legal fees. There were four lawyers from the Denver-based firm of Holme, Roberts and Owen at the arbitration hearing in May. Top lawyers at Denver firms can bill up to $400 an hour. Though the preparation work won’t be as intense for this hearing as the first one, it’s easy to see the bill for the CAS proceedings reaching five figures.
That’s one heck of a lot of money to bill for one’s work. One month’s billings for just one of those lawyers easily exceeds the average income of most people in this country. It is not uncommon for USADA to hire outside attorneys to prosecute high profile cases, from what I understand. But it is their choice. They could just as easily hire a team of lawyers to populate their legal department, and have little or no need for outside attorneys, given how much they are spending on just a single high profile case like Landis’. Imagine one or two other cases per year at that kind of expense, and if it were put into a well-staffed legal department instead, it could eliminate the need for the services of Richard Young and company entirely.
USADA chooses to hire outside attorneys. Now, some might argue that in a high profile case they need to be as well equipped as the athlete’s defense team, but that doesn’t necessarily mean matching an athlete dollar for dollar on legal fees. (Truth be told, however, the Landis case is one of the rare times that an athlete has matched USADA almost dollar for dollar in this area of expense.)
What they are getting by hiring Richard Young is the services of someone who was instrumental in writing the current World Anti-Doping Code and the updated version that goes into effect at the beginning of next year. Given Young’s vast knowledge of the intricacies of the WADC, one could argue that with Young at USADA’s table, they’ve got the best lawyer in the business when it comes to prosecuting athletes charged with doping offenses.
Now, that’s their right. USADA can choose whoever they want to staff their cases. And they can spend whatever they please. But it’s a choice. And given that prosecuting those charged with doping offenses is their raison d’être, whining about the expense is over the top. They choose to hire outside attorneys. No one forces them to. Justice does sometimes take a long time, and it does sometimes cost a lot of money, as Tygart himself pointed out. It is an athlete’s right to contest a case, if he or she wishes to.
What I would like to see from Travis Tygart is a list of all of those things that they do, instead, to support clean athletes. Their biggest reason for being isn’t to support the clean athletes, it’s to deal with those who cheat by using performance-enhancing drugs. But if they need to do other work, too, they should quantify and justify what that work is and ask to those who fund them for more money. Perhaps, given the uproar over Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, et. al., a few more dollars can be found.
USADA got the consumate insider when it hired Richard Young. Whether he serves on an athlete disciplinary Panel (He is a WADA designee on Arbitration Panels) , represents USADA or jets to conferences on behalf of the US Olympic Committee, he swings with the movers and shakers in the Olympic Movement.
Young is often mentioned as the father of the WADA Code and is a friend of Dicks Pound and McLaren. It was no coincidence that he ran circles around Patrice Brunet, literally testified as to lab procedures himself during leading direct examination and successfully convinced two other insiders, McLaren and Brunet, what the WADA Code did NOT require (discovery, chain of custody, duplication of test results, retaining of records and any standard other than “It looks like it” in chromatography, just as examples) in the first Landis Appeal.
Travis Tygart knows that is the best “his” money can buy. It is no surprise that there is then little money left to “celebrate” clean athletes. However, maybe we can all chip in a few more dollars to our taxes buy clean athletes a little plaque or a Happy Meal at McD’s. We could do that because if you listen to some people, there are not all that many clean athletes to “celebrate”.
Funny the concern for ACE to appear neutral but no concern that WADA appears neutral.
or USADA
Much of what takes place is mere “appearance” that is used for public consumption – why do you think CAS and before Floyd’s open trial – it was ALL BEHIND closed doors
If anyone’s still paying attention “¦ let’s jump into part 6 of my seemingly never-ending take on the evidence in the Landis case.
To recap: in part 1, we looked at how the labs look at the atomic structure of the carbon in testosterone to determine if the testosterone is exogenous (artificial) or endogenous (natural). In part 2, we considered sample preparation, and introduced the GC machine. In part 3, we looked at the MS and IRMS machines, and we expressed surprise that the lab failed to maintain the same chromatographic conditions from machine to machine. In part 4, we gave the lab’s chromatography a substandard grade. In part 5, we described how the MS machines produce a molecular “fingerprint” for each analyzed chemical.
In this part 6, we consider a question closely related to our discussion in part 5. In part 5, we decided that while the lab’s procedures were not exactly by the book, the lab nevertheless determined that each peak in the Landis MS chromatograms DID contain the chemical that the lab was seeking to examine. But we did not ask whether each such peak contained ONLY one chemical. Is it possible that a peak might have contained chemicals IN ADDITION TO the chemicals identified by the French lab?
To understand the importance of this question, let’s review some of the material we’ve covered earlier. The French lab’s procedures rely on the ability of the lab’s GC machine to separate the chemicals in a mixture (like urine) into separate peaks, with each peak containing just a single chemical. But we’ve also seen that the GC machine is not foolproof: you can’t just inject ANY mixture into a GC machine and expect the GC to do a perfect job of separating out the chemicals. This is the reason why the lab performs the sample preparation we discussed in part 2: the GC cannot separate all of the chemicals we want to measure in the urine mix unless the lab first simplifies the mix.
Is it possible that a GC might fail to separate all chemicals in an athlete’s urine sample, even after sample preparation? Is it possible that two or more chemicals might remain unseparated, and emerge from the GC in a single “blob” or peak?
Sure, this can happen. For an example, take a look at the study at http://ia351412.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_Case_Documents_14/GDC01101-GDC01110.pdf. On page 382 of this study, the first chromatogram in Figure 3 shows a single peak containing two chemicals (5aAD and 5bAD) that are both important for testosterone testing. The second chromatogram in Figure 3 shows how the scientists were able to separate out these two chemicals into two separate peaks, by using a different GC column.
(There are a couple of things to note about this study. First, the author of this study is Cedric Shackleton, who was an expert witness against Landis in the arbitration. Second, the study shows the importance of selecting the right GC column for performing the test, and then sticking with this selection throughout the test. The wrong column failed to separate out the chemicals, while the right column effected the proper separation. I discussed this point earlier in part 3 of the series. If you want to read the entire study, you can find the beginning of the study towards the end of the documents shown at http://ia351412.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_Case_Documents_14/GDC01091-GDC01100.pdf.)
If a critical peak contains more than one chemical, then the lab can’t reliably perform its tests on that peak. You can no longer be certain that you’re measuring only what you need to measure.
How can a lab tell whether an MS peak contains a single chemical, or multiple chemicals? From everything I’ve read, there is only one way to do this: the lab must look at the full mass spectrum data for that peak. Remember, we discussed back in part 5 that the MS data gives us a chemical “fingerprint” for each peak shown on an MS chromatogram. If there is only one such “fingerprint” per peak, then we can safely assume that each peak contains a single chemical. If there is more than one “fingerprint” in a peak, then we’d conclude that there is more than one chemical in that peak.
Did the French lab look at the full mass spectrum data for the MS peaks on the Landis chromatograms? It appears that they did NOT do so. The lab did look at PARTIAL mass spectrum data — the lab determined that each peak contained a few of the ions that the lab expected to see in each peak. In effect, the lab examined each peak to see if it contained traces of the chemical they expected to find in the peak, but the lab did not look further to see if there might be other chemicals in the peak.
To me, and to many others on TBV, the French lab’s apparent failure to look at the complete mass spectrum data is a critical flaw in the lab’s procedures.
Upcoming: at least two more parts to this series!
Bill,
Sorry, I’ve been waylaid the last few days. Excellent comments.
Michael,
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Morgan,
Gee, let’s see, held behind closed doors in the past — to protect the privacy of those accused, or to shield the tactics of some of the accusers from view? Or, perhaps a little of both? Whatever else comes of Floyd’s case, everyone on both sides of the argument are much better informed about how this process really works.
Larry,
Keep those posts coming. Very well done.
Thanks Larry – I was actually starting to worry – annnnnnd – sort of turning blue from holding my breath. Really….I swear….well, either that or it was my ticker – forgetting to knock off a couple of beats…EITHER WAY – I’m glad to be reading the next installment….and that I really do mean.
Hey Rant – do I detect a bit of “tongue in cheek sarcasm?” Or is it mere nerves waiting for the “pronouncement” to come after Monday? I want you to know that personally I have found my own unique way to deal with such stress – that’s right – I behead Ken dolls. Amazingly therapeutic…except that I may have gone overboard a bit – the body count is rising…
I don’t expect much in the way of news to come out on Monday or Tuesday. Perhaps just a short announcement that the hearing is over and the deliberations will take a while, but nothing of any substance.
Any feeling about if and when transcripts might be made public so we get an idea of what happened? I guess it will take some time for the decision to come out. So we wait some more, and Landis gets at best a month or 2 knocked off his suspension, should the verdict go his way. Any chance they could tack on more, if they find against Landis?
William,
I’d have to agree. About the most I expect to hear on Monday or Tuesday is that the hearings are over. The news blackout, in my estimation, will extend to whatever happened during the hearings — with the possible exception of when they expect to announce their decision.
As for knocking off time from his suspension: One possibility is that the date could be moved, even if they don’t exonerate Landis. In one scenario, the date could be set back to around the time of his positive test, which might clear the way for Floyd to race later this year. In a different scenario, USADA/WADA was said to be angling to push the date forward to the date of the Leadville race. And, a third possibility is that taking into account the Leadville race, the CAS might add one extra day to his suspension (since it was a one-time, one-day occurrence).
Now, that all presumes that the organizers didn’t drop their NORBA sanction before the race occurred. They had said they would do so in order for Floyd to participate, but there’s been no confirmation that I know of as to whether or not they did. My understanding was that they had taken out the NORBA sanction for insurance purposes only. It wouldn’t have been too difficult to find liability insurance through other sources, though it may have been more expensive.
I’ve heard that they have up to four months to decide, but as I recall it took longer in the Hamilton case. So there’s no real telling. But if things keep moving at the same relative speed to the first round, one could guess that we might hear something towards the end of May.
Morgan,
What? Me? Tongue-in-cheek? When have you ever seen me write something like that?
ACtually, what I meant by “knocking time off the suspension” is that, even if a favorable ruling comes soon and Landis is totally exonerated, he will have served almost all of his 2 year suspension anyway. Four months would put the decision into July. And for all practical intents, I’d doubt that Landis would be in a position to jump back into racing at that point anyway. So, even if he is innocent, he serves for a 2 year ban anyway.
As for reducing the sentence, as an alternative to either a total backing of the original decsion or a total exoneration, for the reasons stated above, CAS really doesn’t have much time to play with. I guess that a few months reduction as a symbolic statement could be a possibility. But since there is not supposed to be any lower sentences according to the rules, I’d rather doubt that CAS would go the way. However, setting the date of sentence back to the date of the tests is a good possibility, IMO.
William,
Very true. No matter the outcome, even if the Landis decision comes before July, he’s effectively served most of a two-year suspension anyway. For me, that emphasizes the point that one shouldn’t be punished before being found guilty. (In Floyd’s instance, he would only have served about 8 to 10 months, in the event that the ban was lifted by the CAS panel somewhere between May and July, assuming the sentence didn’t take effect until the original panel ruled.)
Will he be in shape for road racing soon after a suspension ends, if it were to be lifted by the CAS? I don’t know. But that off-road endurance series will keep him in pretty good shape over time, and his first race comes up in just under four weeks, I believe.
It’s a different kind of fitness, in some senses, than fitness for road racing. However, being able to grind the gears at a steady, intense effort for 7-plus hours is pretty darn good.
I suspect that if/when Floyd returns to road racing, he’ll ride into shape pretty quickly.
True enough, but I feel, based in part on personal experience, that while training is fine, you need to take part in actual competition to truly achieve competitive fitness. Of course, it may be different at his level.
The other question is being able to land a position on a team. With the current ASO-UCI dustup, and Landis undoubtedly being persona non grata is ASO land whatever his status, teams might be reluctant to hire him. Of course, there’s always Astana, who could figure might as well be hung for a sheep as a goat.
William,
Remember that in addition to the two year WADA ban, there is an additional 2 year UCI-ProTour ban as well (4 years total). The best FL can hope for is a Pro Continental team contract and then he will never be welcome by ASO in a French race.
Larry
Thank you very much for your post and I am looking forward to your next posts!!
I like to wait with making any comment on all of this until you are finished.
It is great reading!
🙂
Bill,
True. If the CAS upholds/returns the same verdict as the first arbitration, FL would be banned from ProTour events and teams for an additional 2 years — assuming the ProTour survives this year. And even if he wins his case, I have to wonder what kind of additional “ad-hoc” sanctions (ala this year’s TOC and the Rock Racing Three) might be “imposed” by various race organizers.
ASO events are surely out of the question, unless Christian Prudhomme and his bosses have a change of heart following either the end of Floyd’s suspension or following his being cleared by the CAS. Fair it ain’t.
Bill and Rant, what rule contains the additional 2 year ban for pro tour riders?
Larry,
If I recall it’s in the ProTour code of ethics, teams are barred from hiring a rider who served a suspension within the previous two years.
And of course the protour is dead and burried, but they’ll keep THAT rule. But Astana, “No soup for you!!!”
Rant, then how did David Millar ride for Saunier Duval in 2006?
Well, doing a little digging, SD was indeed a ProTour team back then. Good question. Perhaps it was a payback for Millar’s contrition and cooperation. Perhaps some rules aren’t consistently enforced. Perhaps it’s merely a “suggestion” from the UCI that they are powerless to actually enforce.
David Millar was caught by a police “raid” in his house in June 2004. He was stripped of his 2003 world title. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Millar
The Pro-Tour ethic code was adopted in december 2004, so only available since the 2005 season.
Jean,
I remembered about the raid, but wasn’t sure when the code of ethics was adopted. Thanks.
De rien! ( Your are welcome (?))
Jean C, I checked with my wife, who is a pretty good French speaker. “You’re welcome” would probably correspond to “je vous en pris”. “De rien” would be less formal, probably more like the English “it was nothing” or “don’t mention it”, which are both perfectly acceptable ways of responding to being thanked.
Larry, thanks to your wife.