This morning, while linking to the Pistorius decision as part of a response to a comment on the previous post, I noticed something on the CAS’ web site. Just above the panel’s decision allowing Pistorius to compete on his Cheetahs was another decision that had not been publicly announced yet. But there it was, a ruling in the Jeff Adams case.
I wasn’t able to write about it during the day, but I let a few people know that the decision was out. Trust But Verify did a quick run-down of the decision and posted a link for those who wish to read it. The decision weighs in at 27 pages, and it’s a fairly easy read as these things go.
The panel looked at the original decision, and the reasoning behind the first arbitrator’s ruling (that first arbitrator was none other than Richard McLaren, who this time last year was also working at a hearing involving Floyd Landis). To make a long story short, the CAS panel “respectfully disagreed” with parts of McLaren’s ruling and set aside a portion of the original judgment. They also “respectfully disagreed” with the testimony of Dr. Christiane Ayotte of the Montreal anti-doping lab, when it came to the source of Adams’ positive test for a metabolite of cocaine.
And so, they set aside the two-year suspension that Adams has been living under since the first ruling was announced eleven months ago. And then the did something odd. See if you can follow this:
157. The circumstances of this case are, in our view, also truly exceptional.
158. While the Appellant knew he had been administered cocaine, we have determined that this was not actually the cause of the AAF and the resulting anti-doping rule violation. The cause of the AAF was the contamination of the Vatikan Catheter, so there was no BE [the metabolite of cocaine at issue in this proceeding] in the Appellant’s body at all when he was tested. Thus, to meet the requirements of Rule 7.38, we find that the Appellant need only explain that there was no BE in his body and that he was not at fault with respect to the contamination.
159. We find that the Appellant has sufficiently explained in his testimony that there was no cocaine of BE in his body at the time of testing and that the AAF was the result of contamination of the Vatikan Catheter. The Appellant was the victim of an assault in the Vatikan bar which led to his ingestion of cocaine. He cannot be held to have been negligent or otherwise at fault in not preventing that incident from occurring.
OK, if you’re with me so far, the panel is saying that there was no cocaine in Adams’ system at the time he submitted his sample. But notice that they are still talking about an adverse analytical finding. How can that be? Let’s look at the next few paragraphs to see what the panel has to say about that.
160. We also find that the Appellant was not at fault because he could not reasonably have appreciated the risks of using a used catheter. The Appellant and other athletes testified that they never knew about or considered the risks of catheter contamination. Morerover, if the CCES [Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports, Canada’s anti-doping agency] was unable to appreciate the risks, we cannot expect the Appellant to have known about them either.
161. While we still find the Appellant to have committed the strict liability violation of presence of a Prohibited Substance, in the unique circumstances of this case, we must eliminate the Appellant’s Ineligibility period under CADP Rule 7.38 because he was not at fault.
2. Disqualification of Results
162. CADP Rules 7.5 and 7.6 provide for the disqualification of results achieved at events and competitions. Accordingly, the Appellant’s competition result, medals, points, and prizes received at the ING Ottawa Marathon held in Ottawa, Ontario on May 28, 2006, are forfeited.
3. Funding
163. [Restores Canadian government funding taken away as a result of the first decision by McLaren.]
D. Allocation of Costs
164. (… )
Paragraph 160 finishes off the discussion of whether Adams was at fault for the test result following the ING Ottawa Marathon almost two years ago. The panel has concluded that he wasn’t. In paragraph 161, they begin discussing strict liability again, but they lift the ban that Richard McLaren imposed in his decision of June 2007.
So, you might be asking, if no cocaine was in Adams’ body, and Adams wasn’t at fault for the contamination that led to the test result, how can the panel claim a strict liability violation? Good question. Earlier in the decision, they explain how this can be.
142. The CCES, under CADP Rule 7.17, need not show intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use on the part of the Appellant to show a violation because of the presence of a Prohibited Substance in the Appellant’s Sample. Rule 7.17 imposes the standard of strict liability, which is well established in anti-doping cases despite the fact that the results may be unfair in certain situations. Absolute fairness in all individual cases in not the goal of an anti-doping program not is it possible as a practical matter. The goal is overall fairness to all the competitors involved:
It is true that a strict liability test is likely in some sense to be unfair in an individual case, such as that of Q, where the Athlete may have taken medication as the result of mislabeling or faulty advice for which he or she is not responsible — particularly in the circumstance of sudden illness in a foreign country. But it is also in some sense ‘unfair’ for an Athlete to get food poisoning on the eve of an important competition. Yet in neither case will the rules of the competition be altered to undo the unfairness. Just as the competition will not be postponed to await the Athlete’s recovery, so the prohibition of banned substances will not be lifted in recognition of its accidental absorption. The vicissitudes of competition, like those of life generally, may create many types of unfairness, whether by accident or negligence of unaccountable Persons, which the law cannot repair.
Furthermore, it appears to be a laudable policy objective not to repair an accidental unfairness to an individual by creating an intentional unfairness to the whole body of other competitors. This is what would happen if banned performance-enhancing substances were tolerated when absorbed inadvertently. Moreover, it is likely that even intentional abuse would in many cases escape sanction for lack of proof of guilty intent. And it is certan that a requirement of intent would invite costly litigation that may well cripple federations — particularly those run on modest budgets — in their fight against doping.
USA Shooting and Quigley v. UIT, CAS 94/129, 193 (Ct. Arb. Sport 1994).
143. We thus agree with the conclusions of the Doping Tribunal that the CCES has established an anti-doping rule violation. Under CADP Rule 7.55, the CCES has the initial burden of proving that the Appellant committed an anti-doping rule violation. This burden is greater than a balance of the probabilities but less onerous than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The CCES has met this burden by showing the uncontroverted presence of BE in the Appellant’s sample.
So the answer is simple: The metabolite showed up in the drug screening, so the panel reasons, therefore an anti-doping violation has occurred. Doesn’t there seem to be something at crossed purposes here? How can they accept that Adams wasn’t at fault and that the contamination came from the catheter, and also say he committed a violation.
That’s the nature of strict liability. The panel accepts the strict liability doctrine and accepts the reasons for it, and concludes that while it may occasionally lead to an unfair application to an individual here or there, the overall reason for its existence is that it ensures fairness for all of the other athletes. Strict liability, as the panel’s discussion also notes, circumvents the need for the ADAs to prove intent. It’s a shortcut to a means to an end.
Sometimes innocent people will be victimized by the application of strict liability, the panel’s discussion says. And, from the panel’s quote from the Quigley case, sometimes life sucks.
The panel also decided that it was not the Canadian anti-doping agency’s responsibility to provide clean catheters to athletes whose circumstances require them. So, in essence, the agency is only responsible for the proper collection of samples from able-bodied athletes. If you’re using a catheter, and contamination occurs because of that use, you will still be held liable.
That’s an odd standard, especially in a country that provides for equal treatment of its citizens — whether able-bodied or not — under its laws. But the anti-doping rules aren’t laws, so the panel reasons, and hence disabled athletes aren’t entitled to equal protection. In Adams’ case, if it were not for the need of the catheter, he would not have tested positive. The panel sort of accepts that notion, and sort of not.
The panel had an opportunity to rule on the limits of strict liability. In this case, common sense suggests that an exception should apply, especially when one considers that an able-bodied athlete who had experienced the same set of circumstances would most likely have tested clean. I wonder, however, how willing any panel would be to set limits on strict liability. It’s a nice catch-all for the anti-doping agencies. And it affords them the opportunity to avoid dealing with the really sticky wicket mentioned earlier: Intent.
Because, when it all comes down to it, doping is very much about intent. Those who are truly doping are doing so by design. Proving intent, however, is tricky. And, as the Quigley decision noted, potentially very expensive. Proving perjury is similarly tricky, as it requires proving a person’s intent to mislead. But look how well federal prosecutors are doing on that score in regards to the BALCO case.
One final thing to note is that the discussion of costs has been left out of the award at this time. Having given Adams a partial victory, it will be interesting to see how the question of who pays costs will be settled.
Note: In an email exchange earlier today, Jeff Adams told me that he and his defense team would be issuing a press release today and holding a press conference tomorrow. I’ll be back with more about the decision in the next post.
Also, there are now a couple of stories online on some Canadian media outlets. One at Canada.com and the other at The Canadian Press.
Rant,
Since “Strict Liability” is at issue, I presume Mclaren & Ayotte are banned for 2 years?
Oops…I forgot this is FRAUDA World.
Regards,
Congrats to Jeff. My question is why McClaren et al could not have produced a similar ruling in the initial investigation? It was obvious to all, other then the WADA people, that a just ruling on this case is the one that the CAS produced. Still it is only a partial victory. It’s shocking that a patently biased individual like McClaren is permitted to preside on panels to judge the guilt or innocence of an athlete. Hopefully now the ADA’s will reassess the real source of the costly cases – themselves. Not the athlete who is merely seeking to clear his name.
Congrats to Jeff Adams. Assuming he’s been telling the truth, this is certainly the right ruling. And even in the case that he hasn’t been telling the truth, the initial ruling did not seem just, as cocaine isn’t much of a PED.
I can see the Quigley argument that there can be benefit without intent. If a meddling coach or trainer or girlfriend spikes an athlete’s vitamins without their knowledge they still benefit. And I think some dopers take “vitamins” in a wink-wink nudge-nudge kind of way where they have no idea what they’re taking, but assume it’s something.
But the obvious (to me) important point here is benefit. In this case, they agree that there was no possible benefit, so what’s the point of strict liability here? Furthermore how could they quote that section of the Quigley decision, and not see that obvious difference?
As I’ve said before, severe penalties only work if staying clean protects you from those penalties. If you can be subject to those penalties regardless of your actions, then severe penalties have no useful effect. In this way an over-reaching strict liability ultimately undermines the goals of anti-doping.
tom
Tom,
True, an athlete could very easily gain an advantage unintentionally after a coach or spouse gave the athlete “vitamins” or whatever. The “vitamins” given to the East German women’s swim team in the 1970s and 1980s would be a good example of that. Regardless of an individual’s intentions in that era, the team program forced upon them was a doping program. The intent came from people higher up, however, and not the athletes themselves.
The flip side to that argument, however, is that a meddling coach or girlfriend could also spike the athlete’s supplements out of anger, causing the doping infraction. Not sure if it’s happened recently, but there was an instance of a manager doping his athlete (a cyclist) for negative reasons in the 1890s. Imagine a coach who’s just been told that his star client is going elsewhere (which is what happened way back when), or a girlfriend who suspects her man is cheating. Vengeance could be a messy thing. Under such circumstances, would it be fair to punish someone for a doping infraction, after having been sabotaged by a coach or partner?
It’s a two-way street, although I suspect there are many more lanes on the side of the road that you mentioned. 😉
Again, the standard should be unfair advantage
The East Germans clearly had an advantage, regardless of personal interests or intent.
Spiking out of malice though – does this go on long enough to provide an advantage? Things get a bit touchier there, but many substances are unlikely to have noticeable effect in a single use. Then again, some do.
One might argue that the right approach is, if there is some benefit from the doping, then all results related to that advantage are anulled. If there is intent, only then should a sanction be added on top of a change in the record books.
But of course, such a standard, while more fair, would make these cases more time-consuming and costly. And again in this case, with no intent AND no advantage, there should have been no action at all.
And finally, just to be completely facetious, what if there was intent to dope, but the doping failed (e.g. an athlete was sold sugar pills) and there was no advantage? Do you argue that they benefitted anyway due to the placebo effect?
tom
Tom,
For someone with malicious intent trying to harm an athlete, right now it would only take enough of a dose for something to show up in the lab tests, regardless of whether there was a performance advantage (or disadvantage) to the use of the drug. It’s perhaps not the most likely of scenarios, but someone with such an intent could perhaps even tip off the athlete’s federation or the anti-doping agency, prompting a test at just the right/wrong moment.
A standard that addresses actual performance benefit, rather than suspected benefit, could well be more fair — assuming the science and the testing and so forth are actually capable of determining such a thing.
The placebo effect is, in some ways, very real. Of course, if someone had been sold sugar pills, they wouldn’t test positive (unless sugar becomes a banned substance). 😉
Of course, the athlete who purchased those pills may well have intended to dope. Should he/she be subject to punishment (as Ivan Basso was)? And, how would the anti-doping agencies be able to find people like that, who’ve been suckered by a sleazy mail-order (or these days, Internet) marketing scam?
Two problems strike me here:
First: The arbiters say that the prohibited substance was in his sample therefore he is responsible for the AAF. They also admit that the substance wasn’t in his body. So I can conclude that if the technician had a bad coke habit and sneezed on the sample the athlete would likewise be held responsible for the resulting AAF? If the product is accepted as never having been in his body, then can’t we conclude that the AAF was caused by a contaminated sample? This doesn’t sound complicated.
Second: They say intent is not relevant, however the WADA code states that an athlete can be dq’d for intending to cheat, even if the athlete doesn’t actually cheat. One of the great double standards. WADA doesn’t actually have to come up with a list of substances that are proven to be performance enhancing; they create a list of substances that athletes believe are performance enhancing (although they’ve omitted my favorite: jelly-belly jelly beans). WADA doesn’t even need to show an AAF if they can show that an athlete intended to cheat (Ivan Basso).
The strict liability standard currently employed by WADA affords an innocent athlete virtually no opportunity to be fully exonerated. The desire to rid the sport of cheaters should not force innocent athletes to bear the same label without the same fault. Many avenues leading to false positives still exist. In such situations athletes are consistently left with no recourse, as they cannot meet the proof standards required under WADA. WADA has a responsibility not only to protect all athletes from cheaters, but also to protect innocent athletes from false positives. If WADA does not make adjustments to its policy in order to do this, it is shirking its responsibilities. This case provides an example of such an athlete. Instead of protecting him, the system reprimanded him for not living up to the unbearable burden of strict liability. A system that fears cheaters so much that it is willing to sacrifice this guy is a system that is hurting those it was created to protect.
WADA must consider all the facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis and give each athlete a fair and real opportunity to prove their innocence. The main goal of an anti-doping program is to catch cheaters. Individuals who are intending to be unsportsmanlike by enhancing their performance. The concept of a ‘cheater’ involves intent on the part of the individual involved. A system to catch cheaters, which disregards intent, is destined to prosecute and hurt many innocent individuals. If WADA and the UCI can live with that on their conscience, then doping has truly taken a toll on the spirit of sport.
The more I think about it, the more it seems outrageous that anyone would be happy about this decision. The coked-up lab technician in Michael’s example pushed me over the edge.
Granted, that’s not a perfect analogy. Adams made the choice to use the catheter, and so one could argue (if one were not very bright) that it was his responsibility. But I think the whole point of strict liability is that if drugs enter an athlete’s body it doesn’t matter how. But they’re saying even if they drugs don’t enter an athlete’s
body, strict liability still attaches. It’s absolutely insane.
Suppose I’m right about the beer, and Floyd actually successfully made that argument to CAS, and they decided that the beer caused the positive, and that therefore he did not dope. Using the exact same bad logic as in the Adams case, you would conclude that Floyd was still responsible under strict liability, because he was responsible for ingesting the alcohol that lead to the positive. It wouldn’t matter that no one could have predicted that alcohol could influence testosterone (just as no one could have predicted a dirty catheter could lead to a positive).
But, on the other hand, think of how costly and time-consuming it would be if athletes could beat the wrap by wasting time proving they didn’t dope. From that point of view, this is an EXCELLENT precedent, one that should make WADA very happy. Now, any positive with marginally adequate lab work leads to a sanction. Dang, if those arbitraitors weren’t so pure of heart, I might suspect that there was a bit of politics involved in this decision. Give WADA what they want, but divert people’s attention from this big WADA-win, by making it look like a win for the athlete.
tom
The possibility of someone with malicious intent spiking an athlete’s food or drink does exist. And I think that McLaren’s reasoning is faulty: getting sick on the day before a big event is just life and has nothing to do with fairness because this is something no one can control. But one can control what happens to an athlete who, through no fault of his own, has an AAF.
However, there is one very big problem: how does our hypothetical athlete who has been slipped a mickey prove that this was the case? Merely protesting that this is what happened is not good enough, else every athlete who tests positive would avail this defense. We would need some kind of corroboration. By the time the AAF is determined, any physical evidence (a contaminated glass with the dregs of some drug and the guilty party’s fingerprints on it?) would probably be long gone. Maybe if the guilty party were to confess. But in either case, someone acting in collusion with our athlete could physically administer the drug, but the athlete would still be guilty. How can he prove he didn’t know the drink was loaded? Pretty hard.
If the athlete could produce evidence sufficient to prove he was an unwitting victim to WADA’s burden of proof, then he should really only be held to “limited liability”. After all, he did compete under the influence of a PED presumed to offer an advantage, and so the result must be vacated, and prizes returned, and any points, etc. arising from the result rescinded. But that should be it, no suspension, no “non-invites” to races he otherwise might be in. Arbitrators should be allowed to judge each case on the evidence presented (and willing to do the same) and not allow the idea of “strict liability” to substitute for think. On the other hand, an athlete should be expected to exercise some “due diligence” when his coach hands him some “vitamins” with the proverbial wink and nudge.
The other question raised here, that of an athlete who is punished for “intending” to dope is perhaps not quite what some here seem to think. I suspect that we are not looking at a case where someone says “Gee, I think maybe next week at the race I’ll dope” is busted, but I suspect more a situation where some actual act is done in furtherance of the intent to dope, i.e., obtain the drugs, perhaps consult with a doctor, etc. Nor do I think this would be used against someone who, for example, thought that taking banana peel (which, as far as I know, is not currently on the list of prohibited substances) would provide a performance benefit, and maybe even obtained a placebo effect.
The other situation perhaps covered here was the peripheral issue from the Landis case: a substance on the list of prohibited substances may in fact not confer much if any advantage, at least for a given type of event, but an athlete used it in belief it was of benefit. Of course, in such a situation, the athlete is liable because his intent was to violate the rules.
Oh, and by the way, I am glad things finally went right for Mr. Adams.
Man – I love you guys…
I admire all of you who are trying to make sense of complete inane rulings…
Wrapping your fine minds around rules that make sense only if you believe that this “batch” of self-serving egomaniacs in the alphabet soup crowed actually “cares” about “fair play and or justice.”
Some may read this and assume I am being sarcastic – but they would be wrong.
It is admirable that there are people who “at least try” to make sense of “senseless situations!”
Having expressed my admiration – I would also like to add that it should be considered whether such attempts at rational reasoning – may not in itself be merely adding to the willful confusion?
Reacting to “aberrant behavior” as if it was in someway NOT an aberration does in fact only reinforces the behavior. It may in fact be perpetuating the insanity?
But I suppose there really is not another response good minds can have to “defining” the concept of “strict liability” according to WADA rules…
Mr Adams is “innocent” but he is still the one held responsible for using a contaminated catheter – even though – the testing showed that the cocaine was not “in his body” but on the catheter – he is still under “strict liability” for it – I wouldn’t be very surprised if Mr Adams will be completely paranoid from now on and never even “lay hands” on a catheter that is not in a vacuum packed – heat sealed – child proof packaging! Yes – This was meant as sarcasm.
I am most amazed that no one from the field of psychology has not “jumped on the wagon” – there must be at least a half-dozen good papers on this situation, if not more. Maybe – it is just too much to contemplate? Perhaps – they do not want to add to the confusion?
I’m having a strong sense of concern – where will these fine minds be exiled to?
Australia was “founded” because the English wanted to get rid of their “dregs of society” and every one else who was practicing “thinking out of the box.”
This time – the “problem” seems to have gone global – I can’t for the life of me think of an “available space” – for the alphabet soup to send anyone who is normal and not accepting of reality as the alphabet soup is perpetuating – Well, there is the “final solution” action. One can only hope that this doesn’t actually go that far.
But then there is hope – maybe – I will have the opportunity to apply for deportation from this circus.
My only other recourse now is to become more of an old codger and like any good old codger worth his salt – act like the alphabet soup can’t really get at me.
Since no amount of rational thinking has enabled me to accept the alphabet soup reality! I’m certain that they know – as far as I’m concerned – its “them” or ME!
And finally – as some have suggested – I will not stick my head back in the sand – I do not react well to oxygen starvation – YES! I’ve made my decision! It is them or Me! I officially am “ceding” from the reality of the alphabet soup society and am actively seeking an actual physical space where the two of us won’t have to be spending one more moment in the same room!
Rant, Just when you think cycling is cleaning up its act you find another rat in the corner. Have none of these cyclists been paying attention. Andrea Moletta has been suspended from the Giro, http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-giromoletta&prov=reuters&type=lgns. He didn’t have a positive test, but he was suspended because his father was carrying what i assume were PEDs in his car. Interesting. If your father intends for you to cheat, does that also constitute a breach of the code of ethics? I suspect that this goes deeper and more will be revealed later but the question still remains, can we trust any these cyclist despite their declarations of cleaning up their act?
So does a father encouraging you to cheat constitute cheating if the cyclist has not been caught cheating? Here is a story about Andrea Moletta’s father caught transporting (PEDs I assume) in his car http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-giromoletta&prov=reuters&type=lgns. I am finding the giro really exciting this year with thrills and spills but then this story comes out. Are these cyclists not listening? Maybe Jean C is right in having a healthy skepticism with regard to these athletes. Maybe there are no fairy tale endings.
Luc,
Sorry about that. I moved your comments out of purgatory as soon as I found them…
yes they somehow disappeared that is why essentially the same post twice
but i guess they fall on deaf ears as i noticed your new post.
Luc,
Not to worry, people will still come and take a look at the comments. I’m often amazed at how a discussion can keep going even after newer posts are out there. Sounds like an interesting story, by the way, and may well make for a post of its own.
Actually, I just took a look at the story. Interesting, but when I went there, it seems pretty scant on details. I’ll take a look around to see if I can come up with more. Right now, cyclingnews.com has a story with no information about what was found when Moletta’s father was stopped and searched, but I suspect they may have something later today or tomorrow…
OK, here we go. CNN.com has a story. Refrigerator full of stuff? Hmmm. Sounds pretty suspicious.
So, we don’t even have to worry about someone slipping someone a mickey – all you’d need to do is have someone connected with a rider manage to get caught with PEDs in his car. If wifey is pissed because she thinks you were messing around with a podium girl, all she needs to do is load up the family car, and head your way and manage to get caught. I’d imagine crossing a border with customs inspection would do it.
Maybe it wouldn’t have to be a relative or friend even. I want to sabotage some rider, so I head to the airport to catch a plane to Italy or France with some PEDs in my flight bag. TSA or customs finds them, and I say I was taking them to so-and-so.
We now not only have to worry about whether or not riders are using PEDs, but whether they might intend to use them. Or maybe even think about possibly using them. Or have a dream about using them.
Good point William
Hello Luc,
Even if I even no time to watch GIRO, I hope it could be cleaner than precedent years. But to hear riders saying that a rider could be in good shape after 10 days off… that is a tale.
A common “rule” of sport, after 10 days off an athlete need 10 days to reach the same level that he has 20 days before!
I doubt that Contador was swimming 3 hours every day during his hollidays, not possible because swimming gives muscle, so weight… Not good for climbing.
William, if you caught by french customs with PED, YOU will be in more trouble than the alleged athletes for whom you was carrying his bags. You can be jailed for 6 years and receive a big fine.
I doubt you will be enough stupid to do that … Do’nt forget that you will have to prove that it was for that athlete.
The Andrea Moletta story is very interesting.
Cyclingnews said this in its live report, today:
14:53 CEST
One of the riders who is now out of the race is Gerolsteiner’s Andrea Moletta. The team took him out after his father was stopped on his way to the Giro by the Italian anti-doping investigators. He was in a car with two other people, and they were found to have a lot of Viagra with them — either 82 tablets or 82 packages, depending on which source you read.
The International Herald Tribune included information more than slightly nefarious:
“La Gazzetta dello Sport reported Thursday that Italian police searched a car driven by Moletta’s father in which they allegedly found a refrigerator with suspected doping products as well as syringes hidden inside tubes of toothpaste.
Police said the car was headed to the Giro and the search was part of a wider investigation into doping in gyms in the city of Padua in northeastern Italy.”
Reuters quoted a team spokesman as saying:
“The ethical code of the ProTour teams states that if something occurs you have to take the rider out of the race,” Holczer added.”
So, if something happens like your father and his friends arm themselves with enough Viagra for a month’s worth of sexual adventure each, you are out. If they are caught with a refrigerator full of EPO and syringes in toothpaste containers, you are out, too.
One I can understand. The other one is a little difficult to wrap my head around. Maybe I don’t want to, as visions of my own father blur the analysis.
Bill
Just out of idle curiousity, is Viagra on the WADA list of prohibited substances? And/or does it have any known or reputed benefits (other than the obvious) for an athlete?
Good question. I don’t know if it’s on the Prohibited List or not. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it appears on the next version. 😉
It is not on the list. Probably smuggling it for recreational use. He wouldn’t be the first guy to smuggle viagra with no nefarious intent.