Well, now that the Memorial Day weekend is drawing to a close, it’s time to think about getting back to work. Been pretty good weather out here, and I decided to take advantage of the good conditions to get a few miles/kilometers in. And, having just gotten my pulse monitor back from the Polar Service Center, I was actually able to see just how hard I was working (pulse-wise) as I cranked out the intervals on Saturday and Sunday. Fun stuff, those outdoor rides. Gotta do that more often.
Time to ramble on a bit, as I prepare to work on tonight’s additions to the Afterword for Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today. Enough has happened over the last five months (since I completed the manuscript, my how time flies…), that I’ve got quite a bit to cover. Of course, not everything will make it into the Afterword. But I’m trying to make sure that stories that were left hanging (Jeff Adams’ story, Floyd Landis’ case, the on-going BALCO sagas) will all get their due.
So, here’s question number one for you all tonight: Which stories about doping since January do you think were the most important? (Any sport, by the way, not just cycling.) I don’t want to miss any of the big stories in the Afterword, so send me your thoughts on the stories that have stood out for you.
And now, on with tonight’s epistle. What follows are some random notes about recent stories.
Whose Responsibility Was It?
One thing I haven’t addressed from the Jeff Adams case is the rather curious conclusion that Canadian anti-doping officials were not responsible for ensuring that Adams used the proper equipment for sample collection, and that they weren’t obligated to provide such equipment for his use.
Here’s paragraph 95 from the CAS panel’s decision:
95. Sample Collection Equipment does not include catheters, and under the CADP Rules, there was no obligation to provide a catheter to the Appellant. A catheter is “additional and other equipment” that the DCO has the responsibility of inspecting. However, the Appellant neither: (a) advised the DCO of his need to use a sterile catheter; or (b) informed the DCO of the history of the catheter.
Now, Canada is a pretty progressive country from what I know of it. Hearing that the CCES is under no obligation to provide a catheter to a disabled athlete certainly flies in the face of that notion. Under no obligation? Really? That just doesn’t seem right. That certainly raises the question: Just what do the rules of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (available for download here) require? Well in Annex 6C, there is a specific comment about equipment and the duties of the official collecting a urine sample. From page 29 (31 in the document’s pagination) of the rules:
6C.5 The DCO [Doping Control Officer] shall ensure that the Athlete is offered a choice of appropriate equipment for collecting the Sample. If the nature of an Athlete’s disability requires that he/she must use additional or other equipment as provided for in Annex 6B: Modifications for Athletes with Disabilities, the DCO shall inspect that equipment to ensure that it will not affect the identity or integrity of the Sample. (emphasis mine)
Maybe Canadian legalese is different than American legalese. From the way this paragraph is written, it seems to me that the word “shall” implies that these are requirements, not merely suggestions. That being the case, it’s hard to fathom how the panel could not find that the DCO failed in his/her responsibility by failing to provide a clean catheter, or by inspecting Adams’ catheter to ensure that it was properly clean.
The panel already accepted that Adams’ result was due to the catheter’s contamination. But they still imposed strict liability on him by voiding his results at the race where he tested positive. I find it hard to follow how, given this information, the CAS panel reached their conclusion. The catheter, they say, was contaminated. How or why doesn’t matter, really. The rule cited above clearly puts the responsibility on the DCO for ensuring that the person being tested is given clean equipment, doesn’t it?
If that’s the case, then it was the fault of the DCO that Adams’ sample came out positive, because he/she didn’t provide a clean, sterile catheter for his use. That being the case, Adams’ results shouldn’t have been voided, either.
The only caveat to this discussion is whether or not this language was in effect during 2006. I’m given to understand that it was, but the CCES site doesn’t have a link to the CADP rules prior to the current version (dated January 1, 2007).
Really, Officer, They Were For My (Ahem) Personal Use …
Saturday’s CyclingNews offered up further details about the traffic stop involving Andrea Moletta’s father.
Natalino Moletta, father of Gerolsteiner’s Andrea Moletta, has denied that Viagra tablets were found in his car as he was on his way to the Giro d’Italia earlier this week. “I categorically deny that Viagra tablets were found in my car. The only thing was a painkiller I carry for my personal use,” he said on Friday. The team removed Andrea Moletta from the Giro and placed him on inactive status following the disclosure of his father’s involvement in a possible doping case.
[…]
Fabio Pavone, the Molettas’ attorney, said that the vial found in the car was a painkiller that Moletta senior needs for his back problems, and that nothing suspect was taken at the Moletta home, where the son also lives.
(Cue the Church Lady.) Well, isn’t that interesting? Luigino Miotti, who was also in Moletta senior’s car at the time of the search, has been linked to doping allegations in the past, according to CyclingNews. There is, however, an explanation
“I was in the wrong place with the wrong person,” Natalino Moletta said. “It displeases me for my son Andrea.” According to Pavone, Moletta senior “is very upset, because the image and career of his son Andrea have been compromised for something which is not his fault”.
According to the newspaper Il Gazzettino, Andrea Moletta issued a statement saying: “The dream of a lifetime – to arrive at the finish of stage of the Giro d’Italia in my hometown – has vanished because of something that does not even pertain to me. After what happened to me [breaking his femur in last year’s Milano-Sanremo] and all the sacrifices I made to return, this is really incredible.”
Yep, kind of sucks to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, doesn’t it? Meanwhile, a Gerolsteiner team official said that only when it’s proven that none of this has to do with Andrea Moletta or other riders on the team will the younger Moletta be allowed back on the squad. I keep hearing something, off in the distance. The name of a watchmaker … Festina …
Johan Bruyneel In Milwaukee on June 19th
The man who’s been the guiding force behind 8 of the last 9 Tour de France victories, Johan Bruyneel, will appear at the Harry W. Schwartz bookstore on Downer Avenue on June 19th promoting his book We Might as Well Win. If you live in the Milwaukee area, or within driving distance, this is your chance to hear Bruyneel speak about his experiences as the directeur sportif of the US Postal Service/Discovery Channel cycling team. Whether you think he’s the evil genius who’s beaten the anti-doping cops, or just a genius at cycling strategy and tactics, this is an opportunity to hear the man speak (and maybe even answer a few questions), and to get an autographed copy of his book. If you’re close by, take the time to stop on down.
Nature Valley Grand Prix, June 11 — 15
If you live within driving distance of the Twin Cities, check out the Nature Valley Grand Prix. The five-day stage race offers an exciting opportunity to see top-notch pro racing up close. And by the way, the blogger known as Peloton Jim has done quite a job organizing and putting together the NVGP blog.
Into The Future
And finally, tonight’s second question for you. In thinking about the future direction of Rant Your Head Off, I’m considering whether this site should branch out, and if so, in which directions. What’s your take? What would you like to see more of? What other topics or areas would you like to see explored in these pages? Would you be interested in seeing columns by a group of regular/irregular contributors? Any other ideas?
Your thoughts will help shape RYHO, Version 2.0.
In regards your last question, I see 2 possibilities, which are not mututally exclusive.
1. PED use and anti-PED efforts. I see this blog as more of an in-depth, behind the scenes sort of things rather than just bare news of who has been accused of or convicted of PED usel . Also, as sort of an “editorial page”, where opinions are expressed, either yours or others.
2. The governance, so to speak, of the sport of cycling: who decides who gets to ride in given events, what is a valid racing bike, etc. There will, of course, be some overlap with #1 above, but non-PED issues do crop up from time to time.
Contributions from others would be interesting, beyond that of simply posting a comment. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience represented in your “regulars” as well as differences in opinions that makes for interesting and informative reading.
I often find myself wondering what I did with my time before all this came up.
I believe this story may bear watching:
http://www.golfweek.com/story/hoggard-032008
Quotes from a few of the personalities:
“If people are sick, they deserve to get the medications they need,” said Richard Young, the Colorado-based lawyer who helped create the Tour’s anti-doping program. “You don’t get in the door unless you need something. But if a doctor says this is good for you, you don’t necessarily get a (therapeutic-use exemption).”
“He told me if I needed any help to let him know,” Micheel said. “Tiger Woods doesn’t make policy and this isn’t about him, but that was very nice.”
OK, I’m not a doctor, or a lawyer, or a statistician … so it’s entirely possible that I’m missing something vital …
But in looking at the PGA story Brian linked, I have to ask … how do the various powers-that-be come up with these thresholds?
The article asserts that the PGA has set the upper limit for “normal” testosterone level at 250 (ng/dl I assume) … but a “Tour-approved endocrinologist” sees the range for normal at 300-800 ng/dl. OK, I’m already scratching my head at that point, but that’s just one doctor … so off to Google I go.
I found several references to what the “normal” range is, all with various caveats, even down to T levels fluctuating in individuals depending on nothing more than time of day, and of course age. I found several that fit with Dr. Dobs 300-800 ng/dl comment, WebMD calls it 280-1080 ng/dl for men 20 and over, and the broadest range (with the lowest low) that I saw was 200-1200 ng/dl.
So even if I work with 200-1200 (here’s the part where I butcher the stats), doesn’t that still leave somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of “normal” men over 20 over the Tour’s limit without doping?
Don’t even get me started on the idea that “(The Tour) saw [Micheel’s] initial diagnoses and agreed that treatment is warranted”, despite the fact that his initial T levels were *already* over their threshold for “normal” …
Rant, as a former Columbian, you might find this interesting:
http://www.showmenews.com/2008/May/20080527Spor003.asp
William,
Good ideas. And thanks for the link. Talk about awkward timing. Seems like USADA really has a knack for that.
Brian,
I’ve seen a bit about that story before. It’s odd (to say the least) that a system could be set up where people who have arguably normal readings could be test “positive.” Then again, consider who created the program. Young’s quote shows the callousness with which he approaches his anti-doping work. If someone has a medical need, and their sport’s governing body agrees, that person certainly ought to be allowed to use the medication necessary to treat the need without any adverse consequences.
Rob,
You’ve pretty much hit the key point. If scientists don’t agree on exactly what is normal, but the value selected by this program seems to fall on the lower end of the ranges offered, a whole lot of people are going to fall under suspicion who shouldn’t. Assuming that those ranges fall into a bell-shaped distribution, then you’re estimate of 70% may not be too far off the mark. Whatever the percentage is, it’s too high. You’re looking at a false-positive rate exceeding 50%, making it more likely to be a false positive than an actual person who’s cheating. Meanwhile, huge amounts of money and time will be wasted determining that these were false positives, and at least a few who may well be innocent will wind up getting prosecuted.
This is not good for the golfers, nor is it good for the sport. Too bad they didn’t look at the state of cycling before signing on to this.
And, for what it’s worth, one of my cousins is a very good golfer. Recently, he was telling me that there are two types of drugs that could help golfers. One would be something that could improve concentration while under the stress of competition. The other would be something to calm one’s nerves. Testosterone, he told me, wouldn’t be something golfers would likely use. Sure, it could add strength or speed recovery, but it’s also a game of concentration and finesse. Testosterone doesn’t do much for either, as far as I know.
I think your cousin is referring to what I think will be the real scandal in golf — high blood pressure medicine, especially beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. Those medications can send your normal resting pulse down to 40 bpm. Somthing like that could really eliminate the yips during putting.
While the majority of high blood pressure cases are older in age (watch out Seniors Tour!), younger people in excellent shape can get what is called essential hypertension, where you have high blood pressure and the doctors have no idea why. There are other blood pressure medicines, but not all work on all people, so if this unfolds as so many other WADA issues, some athletes may have the choice of competition or their health.
Hey Rant,
From what people have been writing – it is obvious that the “issues” concerning the “control” of sports and drugs – are not one but two issues by themselves.
Another “issue” is the methodology of how the governing bodies – are working to get “drug cheats” under control…in this case these are the “issues” of “fairness” to the athlete and fairness to the “scientific evidence” available…optional choices made by the governing bodies should not be accepted, in my opinion – and I am for drug free sports…
If we have learned anything from the Floyd Landis case so far – it is that – there is a great disparity between the politics of the governing bodies – and the concept of “fairness” —
Unless – the governing bodies are actually held up to responsibility – then any “yahoo” with an ax to grind can take the helm of these agencies if he has the “connections” – this should be obvious by now.
I do not see how – anyone can expect to “govern” a sport – when the “rules” are designed to “pin-point” an athlete – “in public” and then – if he tries to fight it – he is destroyed by the cost factor…
Only “scientific” corroborated stats should be applied – IF THERE ARE NONE – then we have to accept that we are “not able” to control something.
Cheryl,
I’d hate to see a time when an athlete would have to choose not to use needed medication in order to be allowed to compete. And yet, I can see that possibility, depending on how things work out.
One of the things I find most puzzling/frustrating/annoying about the current structure of anti-doping efforts is the “one size fits all” approach to what drugs are banned. Each sport is different, and each requires different skills or abilities. Some drugs enhance certain types of activity and detract from others. Those that offer an advantage to a specific sport should be banned in that sport — with exceptions made for those who have a legitimate, documented medical need.
That makes the job of the anti-doping enforcers harder, to be sure. But anti-doping efforts are should not be about what is convenient for those who make certain the rules are followed. Common sense (which I’m afraid isn’t so common) suggests that banning something that has no effect for a sport ensures that more resources will be spent chasing the wrong things, rather than the right things.
Morgan,
What we need is a media not afraid to ask questions of those in authority, so that the real nature of how things operate might become known. And we need people with compassion — and intelligence — to get involved, so that the lunatics won’t wind up running the asylum. That and solid, defensible science behind whatever methods are implement to catch those who are cheating.
In my opinion, the single biggest issue facing the anti-doping movement is the unfairness of the system. Currently athletes are guilty until proven innocent and the very agencies who are supposed to prosecute also play the role of judge and jury. There is no division of power, no system of checks and balances. For as long as the culture of the anti-doping agencies is built around the concept that athletes are dirty cheats that haven’t been caught yet, we’ll never have a system that is fair to all participants.
The ADAs should be required to prove guilt instead of requiring the athletes to prove innocence (which is impossible). Labs should be held to high and specific standards. Right now the rules are vague and inconsistent so different labs test for same thing with different requirements and methods.
What we have now is a system where a bunch of people are throwing stones. If the wider public ever wakes up to how unbalanced and unfair the system is, their glass house is going to come shattering down around their ears.
Adam,
Everyone wants a perfect system, but have a look at the Justice of your country, how many errors are done despite its higher standard? Maybe if your are living in a country with death penalty, I am sure you will find some errors. And compare with anti-doping!
Jean,
Neither Innocent Until Proven Guilty (IUPG) or Guilty until Proven Innocent (GUPI) systems will catch 100% of the cheaters and punish 0% of the innocent. In an ideal world, it wouldn’t matter which system we used, but in an ideal world nobody would cheat either.
We live in an imperfect world. Guilty people go free and innocents are punished. I guess it all depends on what you feel is worse, to let a doper dope and keep competing or sideline an innocent athlete and take away their livelihood. Which is more important, punishing the cheaters or justice for the innocent? If you focus on punishment, than GUPI is how you want to go. You are more likely to catch the cheaters, and any innocent that gets sidelined is just a incidental causalty in the name of the War Against Doping. If you chose justice you have to proceed with an IUPG system. Yes, cheaters will go free, but in a results driven world that would only cause testing protocols and methodolgies to improve. Instead we have a system that relies on crappy lab work that has no clear worldwide standard or protocol. It isn’t being improved because “cheaters” are still being punished.
Basically, both are a flawed IUPG will always be closer to true justice than an equally flawed GUPI.