There’s an old saying that the differences between cops and criminals is very subtle, because in order to catch a thief you need to think like one. Victor Conte, in an interview with the BBC (pointed out in a comment by Jean C on the previous post), dishes out some of what he knows about the doping practices of track and field athletes. In the interview, he says that the designer steroids era has come and gone.
“I will tell you that designer steroids are a thing of the past,” Conte tells the BBC. “People are back to using a variety of fast-acting species of testosterone.”
The BBC’s story also contains the contents of a letter that Conte sent to Dwain Chambers, a British sprinter who is cooperating with UK Sport, the agency that funds elite sport in Great Britain. UK Sport also runs the country’s anti-doping program. Chambers will be meeting with John Scott, the head of UK Sport on Friday to discuss what he knows.
“The intention is to open up a dialogue with UK Sport and to be as helpful as possible in their fight against doping. We will be taking the letter with us and discussing its contents,” Chambers’ lawyer Nick Collins told BBC Sport.
At the meeting, the British sprinter will not only tell Scott what he knows, he will also provide a detailed dossier of exactly what he did and when. Some of those details will come from the letter Victor Conte wrote to Chambers, in which Conte gives a very thorough description of the drugs Chambers was given, along with the timing. Conte’s letter also sheds some light on some of the methods athletes use to avoid being tested and to avoid being caught.
Conte offers a very interesting opinion of when athletes should be tested for banned substances.
[I]t’s my opinion that more than fifty percent of the drug tests performed each year should be during the off season or the fourth quarter. This is when the track athletes are duckin’ and divin’ and using anabolic steroids and other drugs. Let me provide some rather startling information for your consideration. If you check the testing statistics on the USADA website, you will find that the number of out-of-competition drug tests performed during each quarter of 2007 are as follows: in the first quarter there were 1208, second quarter 1295, third quarter 1141 and in the fourth quarter there were only 642.
In late 2003 I advised USADA about the importance of random testing during the fourth quarter of the year. They did initially seem to follow my advice because they increased the number of fourth-quarter tests in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
However, they failed to continue this practice in 2007. Why would USADA decide to perform only 15% of their annual out-of-competition tests during the fourth quarter? Let’s not forget that this is the off season before the upcoming summer Olympic Games. This is equivalent to a fisherman knowing that the fish are ready to bite and then consciously deciding that it is time to reel in his line and hook, lean his fishing pole up against a tree and take a nap.
On several occasions, I have provided detailed information to both USADA and WADA in an attempt to help them establish more effective testing policies and procedures.
Conte appears to suggest that the failure of these agencies to follow his advice leaves sports open to continued use of performance-enhancing drugs. In their efforts to curb the use of banned substances, perhaps USADA and WADA should listen to what Conte has to tell them. Conte certainly knows how things are done, having been at the epicenter of the whole BALCO scheme. If you want to catch a cheat, sometimes you have to actually think like one. Victor Conte should know. He helped a number of athletes cheat. So if he’s offering up his services and expertise, the anti-doping agencies might be well advised to seriously consider what he has to say.
Mr. Rant, in this case it also takes an accountant. 4th Quarter is the end of the fiscal year. Likely USADA ran out of money.
What could have caused USADA to run out of money? Some expenditure that was larger than provided for in the budget? What expenditure did USADA have in 2007 that was SO important that it was worth compromising USADA’s testing program? Something unexpectedly …
… oh yeah. Right. Almost forgot.
Rant,
Mr Conte just might prove himself into becoming the next “official authority” on all that is to do with doping.
Well, the man should know – since he was a major supplier. He WAS a supplier, right?
Do I have it right also that he got some “months” to serve for his “supplying ways?”
Floyd Landis has been doing his stretch going on 2 years AND we still don’t know any real truth!
What we do have is a great deal of discussed evidence that seems to point out that the “governing bodies” despite their EVERY EFFORT to ignore basic human rights, actual scientific applications and an athletic court system that would do the Inquisition AND the Salem Witch Hunts proud – ARE NOTHING MORE THEN INCOMPETENT BUREAUCRATS AND POLITICIANS!
Mr Conte might just be telling it “like it is” – but the politicians running the Anti-Doping-War – “know better” – right?
So what have got?
We got a “thief” who has been caught, processed and errr – served his time AND we got a bunch of yahoos who play politics with the lives of individuals and OUR TAX Dollars!
Let me see – what is my delima? Who can I trust?
It is never a “pretty picture” when you find that even the “good guys” have their hands deep in the cookie jar! Well – that is – if I have had my head burried in the sand past my shoulders and my brain is in serious need of fresh air…!!!
So – yeah – Mr Conte went to the BBC to get his side out – or maybe the BBC payed better then anyone else?
I shouldn’t forget that a “100 Euros is worth a heck of a lot more then a 100 dollars” – One thing Mr Conte is proving himself to be – thief or otherwise – is smarter then the “good ol’ boys” who have been running this circus!
Larry,
When a “house” is built and it is built badly – should we blame the “wind” for its demise? I suppose one could…OR…
Perhaps it is better to fire the builder who is incompetent – sue the heck out of him for misrepresenting himself and find one that can actually build a house without it falling down in a storm…
Now – let me see…”Do I blame the wind for blowing” or do I blame the builder for building me a house of cards.”…Hmnnnn…perhaps the “builder” is a friend? That does make it harder…Hmnnnn…perhaps I bought into my friends BS and thought I’d be “saving some money”…Hmnnnn…
Okay – it’s the damned Winds fault! That’s right! It was an “unnatural wind!” Normally – we don’t get winds like this around here…Yeah – I bet it’s the “climate change thingie” – My buddy, my pal, is a “good guy” – it’s just a bad weather situation…Yeah – that is what it must be….
Rationalization 101…
I think Rasmussen alias was badly chosen.
Duck fit him better than Chicken.
Morgan,
that is the politicians at the head of the countries who are playing the games. As Conte said, it’s time to win medals for the glorious of our great nation at the next JO…so it’s time to put the head in the sand.
Nothing seems to have changed since the Cold War
Larry,
You have a good point, and given the opportunity I fully expect a certain CEO of a certain agency to blame such things on a certain case that’s been going on for almost two years now.
Then again, WADA donated/spent something like 1.3 million clams to the effort in that case, which should have freed up a lot of money at USADA for tests. If you know an accountant, it would be interesting to acquire a copy of USADA’s financial report for 2007 (I suspect it’s not out yet) and scrutinize the numbers to see whether said legal matter had any actual impact on other areas — especially after donations from outside organizations are taken into account. It would also be good to compare 2007’s expenses against previous years, to see whether or not legal expenses in 2007 were significantly larger than in the past. If not, then that’s less ammo for the “we were too poor to conduct the tests” argument, given the numbers of tests in previous years.
Morgan,
You have that right. Conte spent four months in “Club Fed” and four months of home detention for his role in the BALCO case.
Barry Bonds, on the other hand, faces much more time in the slammer for merely using the drugs and supposedly misleading investigators about what he knew about the drugs he was using
Jean,
Duck might well have been a better nickname. 😉
It seems to me that one problem with the whole WADA thing is that it is trying to attack the demand side, going after athletes. But there is also a supply side, and if you could make significant inroads on that side, you could go a long way to reducing doping. If drugs are hard to get, it will be harder to dope.
But, and here is a big but, WADA and its subsidiaries are not in a position to really do much about this. WADA, through the various national and international federations, can sanction an athlete, coach, or even a whole team. But they have no legal power to sanction a rogue doctor or someone like Conte, who had no official connection to any sport body.
This is where the criminal justice system needs to come in. Now, I don’t think that it is necessary to pass laws specifically outlawing doping in sports. As far a I know, steroids, EPO, etc. are all controlled substances here in the US, and probably by and large, in most other countries. If Conte was breaking the law, he was breaking it whether or not he was providing drugs to Marion Jones and Barry Bonds, or to some gym rat trying to pump himself up in order to impress chicks.
We also need to look at where drugs are being diverted from legitimate channels. Is aomeone stealing drugs? Are distributers selling to people not qualified to dispense drugs? Are seemingly legitimate people, like doctors, purchasing amounts in excess of their legitimate needs. Again, this is an area for the legal authorities to step into.
Given that Congress actually had hearings on the subject, maybe Federal authorities will eventually start going after the supply chains. It seems a doomed enterprise though, and would doubtless lead to enormous resentment. Certainly strong enforcement and penalties would have an effect but the results of the war against recreational drugs shows us how hard a task this would be.
Ultimately, sport needs to regulate its self-defeating behaviior and save its own skin–the government can’t save sport via policing. When sponsors and fans clamor loudly enough, then ethics reform in sport may finally happen. The ones that enforce fairness need to be the ones who are playing the game–they need to have a stake in the sport being fair and honorable.
Who to trust in all this? Those who speak truthfully. Those who say what they mean and mean what they say. Even in cycling, there are such people.
Rant, Great revelations by Conte. You may have gone over this in the past but has anyone put forth what Landis would have taken to produce the adverse findings on that fateful day so long ago. If we were to assume he is guilty, what could he have taken that would have given him a boost on stage 17 and then hopefully purged from his body knowing that he would be tested at the end of the stage? By looking at the list provided by Conte it seems that to be a successful cheat you would want to do so prior to the event and not during the race. The secret to this program is the breakdown and quick rebuilding of muscle in order to restress and rebuild over time long before a competition not during an even like a 3 week tour. Any ideas as to what he may have taken that would have given him any benefits in that stage?
Luc,
There is a great interest to rebuild, at least to help the recovering of the body during a GT. Testosterone is one to do that, especially in combination with other product.
But you are right, T alone can not explain the super-human performance of Landis!
Blood manipulation is the most common practice to do that. Do you remember Vino’s 2007 stages?
Luc:
I have seen 2 scenarios put forth online to “explain” Landis’ positive test after S17. I personally feel that neither one is likely, and there is no real evidence that I am aware of to support either, but then I don’t know of any to refute either one, except for the evidence put forth here and elsewhere to refute the LNDD tests themselves.
Scenario #1: Landis used a scrotal T patch after S16. The plan was to wear it long enough to provide a benefit and then remove it in time for the T level to drop within normal range by the time of any post-S17 tests. However, so the story goes, Landis then did his Jack and brews, passed out and forgot to remove the patch, and so the extra T had not cleared by the time he had to submit a sample.
Scenario #2: Landis was using T during pre-season trainning. He also during the pre-season had blood withdrawn and banked for later blood doping use. According to this story, he had some blood withdrawn after using T, and used this tainted blood to dope during the Tour, resulting in the positive findings.
One of the questions raised by pro-Landis people is would a dose of artificial T big enough to provide any of the putative benefits be clear of his system by the time he had regained the GC lead a couple of days later, leading to tests the rest of the Tour. Some people feel that it is unlikely that he could have T doped on S17 and be clear a few days later.
We probably will never know what exactly happened on those fateful days, no matter what the outcome from CAS. Whichever side looses will probably continue to hold their own beliefs on whether Landis is guilty or not, or at least whether the evidence is good enough for a guilty verdict. Unless either Landis changes his story or LNDD admits they goofed.
Jean, I am not convinced that the effort was necessarily so superhuman. He bonked on stage 16 and recovered to challenge the next day. I think there are countless examples of cyclist bonking one day in the tour or gyro etc to come back with a solid performance the next day. I don’t have any examples at hand but when you have a race one focuses on the favourites but don’t always know if the domestiques have had one bad day to come back the next even stronger. Come to think of it there are many examples of the domestiques pacing their leader up a mountain till they are spent or bonked and coming back strongly the next day. So, Landis on stage 17 played a strategy that worked and Pereiro could not muster the troops to chase.
William thanks for those scenarios but I’m not sure if they answer the question of what caused the 11:1 T:E. By all accounts this was anomalous so would your scenarios answer that?
Cheers
Ludwig,
At two-pronged approach to the doping problem, I think, is the only realistic solution. On the sporting side, rules against doping and good testing protocols can be part of the solution, but as you note, the supply side has to be dealt with, too. Catching individual cheats does nothing to stop people like Victor Conte or Dr. Fuentes or Dr. Santuccione from helping/enabling others to cheat.
That side of the problem is better addressed by law enforcement, as providing prescriptions for unneeded medications and distributing drugs illegally are the province of police and criminal prosecutors. The government can’t save sports via policing, but they can certainly help cut down on the suppliers and doctors who help those who cheat achieve their nefarious ends.
The war on recreational drugs hasn’t exactly been won, nor has it cut down much on their use (perhaps just the opposite). A “war on doping” similarly is a doomed enterprise, because it would likely be a similarly unfocused effort. That said, enforcing existing laws and holding those who break them in the service of doping could help discourage others who might get into such businesses. And that may, at least, make it harder for cheaters to get access to the products they need in order to dope.
Ultimately, though, it will require a sea change in attitudes amongst the athletes and trainers and coaches and the sports establishment before the “win at all costs, even if it means cheating” attitude that encourages doping can be tossed onto the trash heap of history.
Luc,
The 11:1 reading that was widely reported at the beginning of the Landis affair was actually an anomalous reading, most likely due to the lack of skills on the part of the lab technician performing that test. From the lab documentation package, the other readings were in the 5:1 range on the A sample. LNDD was not able to replicate that 11:1 reading on the A sample, but we didn’t learn that until much later.
That the B sample readings came closer to the 11:1 result is no great surprise, as the technicians knew whose sample was being tested and what the result “should” be. (It’s known as “experimenter bias” in other contexts.)
William’s scenarios are the ones I’ve seen offered as explanations for what Floyd might have done. Interestingly, using the T patches may not actually do anything as far as recovery goes, due to the low dosage delivered. Only two or three scientific studies have focused on the use of low-dose T to speed recovery. From reading them, they tend to suggest that it is an ineffective technique. Now, using T patches when you don’t need to is said to give a heightened sense of well-being, and many athletes take that as evidence that the drug is working. But despite the anecdotal evidence provided by Joe Papp and others, the likelihood is that it doesn’t work that way. However, the placebo effect (it works because I think it’s going to work) may be in play here.
Perhaps we should outlaw that, too. 😉 The question would be: How can we create a scientific test to judge whether or not someone has been aided by such a thing? And can we validate it? If so, I’m going to have to stop eating those espresso chocolate chip cookies before the odd times when I race. And stop drinking Peets (Major Dickason’s Blend) coffee before each race, too.
If you’re interested in plumbing the depths of the medical data behind Floyd’s case, I’d suggest Arnie Baker’s e-Book, The Wiki Defense.
I was at the local library today and was reading the current edition of Outside magazine. There is an article on Joe Papp. Mostly it seemed to me to be a rehash/expansion on his testimony from the Landis hearing, with some description of how his life has allededly affected since.
One of the more interesting comments contained therein was the idea that those who confess to PED use find their life and career destroyed (David Millar was an example given of this) while those who vigorously proclaim innocence don’t suffer (!?).
William,
Yes I wish I had access to the article–maybe I’ll ride down to the book store today.
I would guess that a more accurate representation is this–those who confess are going to get screwed no matter what. Those who deny may get away with it. Those who deny and don’t get away with it are similarly screwed, but will likely be rewarded for their loyalty down the road.
Really the most obvious current example of omerta’s staying power is Jaksche’s predicament. Even after showing enormous courage and admitting to his role in Puerto, all cycling continues to shun him.
ludwig,
I’m doing the same thing later this afternoon — cruising on down to a local bookstore to pick up a copy of Outside magazine to read the article. Shame they don’t make their entire magazine available online. Even if they charged a small amount to access a some of their articles, it would be a heck of a lot more convenient for the occasional reader than having to try and find a copy.