Breaking News
The CAS issued a ruling a few hours ago suspending Iban Mayo for two years for doping at last year’s Tour de France. According to the BBC:
In a statement on Tuesday, the court said: “The Cas panel was of the opinion that the decision of the UCI to proceed to a new analysis of the B sample was in accordance with the letter and spirit of the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.”
Mayo’s suspension is backdated to start from 31 July 2007, the day on which he was sacked by his team Saunier Duval.
The Beeb article includes a statement from Mayo, who says he may take legal action against the UCI over the way they’ve treated him:
“It was a very bad experience because I didn’t understand what was happening but everything has turned out as I expected,” he told Spanish newspaper Marca.
“It doesn’t seem logical nor credible,” he said. “I’ve spent many years cycling and I can’t chuck it all in but sometimes you feel like it because there are so many injustices.
“The fans who like cycling don’t want to see this sort of thing. Cycling is a spectacle that involves sacrifice – if not you don’t get the results.”
The CAS press release of the decision is posted here. The panel’s full ruling (in French) can be found here.
Beijing Surprise
In some ways, it comes as a surprise that the first person accused of doping during the Olympics would be a cyclist. And in some ways it doesn’t. Cycling is a tough sport, perhaps one of the toughest in the demands it places on those who would be champions. The temptation to cheat, to take the easy way out, is a natural human urge. That being the case, the belief that there will ever be an Olympics or other sporting event that is completely free from doping is about as elusive as a shimmering oasis with palm trees and an azure lake is to a sun-parched nomad crossing the Sahara.
It’s the “who” who tested positive that’s more surprising. More often, we hear of male cyclists caught in the grips on the anti-doping machinery. But this time, it’s Spanish rider Maria Isabel Moreno who has the dubious honor of being the first doping case to emerge during the Beijing Olympics. The circumstances surrounding Moreno’s test, and (more to the point) her sudden departure from Beijing just hours after she’d been tested paints a disturbing picture. One could hardly be faulted for viewing her sudden departure after suffering what’s been termed an “anxiety attack” as implying that Moreno knew what would be coming next.
Better to get home before the world crashes in, rather than being in a strange, foreign land where who knows what might happen as a result of a positive test.
Of course, she could really have been suffering an anxiety attack, and she may really have needed to go home. Supposedly, she will be holding a news conference in the near future. (Although a previously scheduled press conference was canceled.) We’ll have to wait and see what Moreno has to say for herself, and in her own defense. But in the meantime, it doesn’t stop some of the usual suspects from weighing in on the matter.
Taking a style cue from his predecessor, WADA’s new head honcho has already suggested that perhaps cycling (and weightlifting, too) should be removed from the Olympics, according to a report at CyclingNews.com.
“Some sports such as weightlifting have a pretty bad record and that is demonstrated time and again with numerous athletes from that sport,” Fahey told the Associated Press. “I think weightlifting understands, as cycling understands, that there is a huge risk for both those sports if the cheating is continued and continued to be exposed.
He added, “There is no sport that anybody can suggest is doping free. But there are some sports that have had a history, and I would suggest there’s a level or a culture [of doping] that has developed in some of those sports.”
And, of course, Pat McQuaid can’t help but offer his own commentary when asked by a reporter for Deutsche Presse-Agentur:
‘I am surprised and indeed extremely annoyed because of this doping case in the Olympics. Having said that, the fact that the doping was Spanish does not particularly surprise me,’ McQuaid said, saying Spanish authorities are ‘too lenient in their approach to doping’ in cycling.
‘In many other countries you always get individuals (caught in doping). But these countries have been attacking the problem over the past several years. I think Spain is behind.
‘(Spanish authorities) need to realize and deal with it. It is a serious problem and needs to be treated as such. There needs to be a very strong campaign, a huge number of increased tests, investigations into the people who are in the background, providing the doping products,’ he said.
Over at VeloNews.com, comes comment from a couple of Spanish officials:
“If this is confirmed, it represents an act of irresponsibility,” said Spain’s sports minister Jaime Lissavetzky. “It’s a sad situation and the federation should open an inquiry to discover who put this idea into the cyclist’s head.”
The president of the Spanish Olympic Committee, Alejandro Blanco, said three weeks ago that there would not be a single Spanish drugs failure at the Games and that all of the country’s 286 competitors “are clean”.
In a statement on Saturday, Moreno apologized to the Spanish public and said she would “explain and defend” her reasons for dropping out of the women’s road race and the time trial at a press conference on Monday in the Spanish north-eastern city of Zaragoza.
Monday’s press conference was postponed, from reports I’ve seen. This unfortunate situation, along with Mayo’s suspension, coupled with John Fahey’s suggestion that cycling be removed from the Olympics makes me wonder: If Fahey follows through, would cycling then be free of WADA’s yoke? This might not be such a bad thing, actually.
If the cycling community were able to band together in the aftermath of such an occurrence, perhaps a more sane and rational approach towards minimizing biochemical cheating could be crafted and implemented. That’s a big “if” I realize. As Tom Fine has pointed out on more than one occasion, anti-doping policy should be created around the science and technologies we do have, rather than those we wish we had. The testing is far from foolproof. That being the case, the penalties imposed should not be so draconian as to ruin a person’s career — until truly conclusive proof of doping can be shown.
Meanwhile, it’s the cycling world that has been at the forefront of developing new approaches to doping deterrence. Witness the biological passport idea, and the programs of a similar nature (ACE, Damsgaard) implemented by various teams. Freed from WADA, the world of cycling might well be able to continue finding more innovative and effective ways of minimizing the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
The other thought that occurs to me regarding Fahey’s suggestion that cycling or weightlifting might be removed from the Olympic movement is that by doing so, WADA would also be shown up as an ineffective organization when it comes to battling the scourge of doping. Sure, Fahey and the IOC may well spin the tale that cycling (or weightlifting, or track, or swimming, etc.) was not able to “comply” with WADA’s regulations. But who, exactly, is responsible for enforcing those regulations? The various sporting federations incorporate WADA’s rules into their own, and then pass on the responsibility of enforcing those regulations to WADA’s affiliates, correct? By extension, if cycling can’t comply with WADA’s regulations, WADA and their affiliates would be partly to blame by not crafting programs, policies and practices that are an effective deterrent.
And if Fahey and WADA were to make such a recommendation, looking at the positives at the Olympics from this year and previous editions, other sports where doping has occurred should also be banned. That list would include track and field, as well as swimming and probably a number of other sports, too. By the time every sport that’s ever had a doping scandal was removed from the Olympics, what would we be left with? Underwater basketweaving, perhaps?
Threatening to remove a sport from the Olympics strikes me as a way of forcing that sport’s governing body to bend to the wishes of WADA and/or the Olympic puppetmasters. In the end, would they really remove any sport from the Olympic Games — especially a sport that has been a part since the modern Olympics’ earliest days? I suspect not. But I wouldn’t put it past those in charge (the IOC) to yank a few people’s chains before “deciding” to keep cycling and weighlifting among the Olympic sports family “for the time being.”
I did laugh at Moreno getting caught, more so with Alejandro Blanco having so confidently declared that his 286 athletes would all sail through the dope tests with even greater ease than the Spanish Armada in all its pomp and glory.
Is Fahey really suggesting that cycling will be removed? Not the way I read it. What he’s doing is talking tough to the general public, saying this is the sword hanging over sports who do nothing to clean up their act, this is how serious we take this problem. Even of weightlifting, the real focus of Fahey’s comment, he notes how they have cleaned up and caught problem athletes before they got to the Olympics.
And can anyone really see the IOC kicking cycling out, with Verbruggen in the position he’s in? Even if WADA suggested it – which I don’t think they will – the IOC will never accept it.
In some of McQuaid’s response to Fahey, it’s notable that he now says the bio passport is going forward. During the Tour he threatened to throw the passport out of the pram following the ProTour schism.
Would cycling be free from WADA if the nightmare scenario were to happen? No, not necessarily. Remember, WADA are courting non-Olympic sports, like golf and even baseball. They need us as much as we need them.
fmk,
There’s a lesson in Blanco’s having to eat a bit of crow, isn’t there? Probably not a wise idea to proclaim loudly to the media that everyone on your team is definitely dope free. Kind of tempts fate.
I don’t think Fahey is really serious on removing any sport from the Olympics, to be honest. I do think that you’re right, it’s the Sword of Damocles that he holds, however. It will be interesting to see how effectively he can wield that sword.
McQuaid has every reason to continue with the bio passport, even if WADA isn’t a part of their program. The UCI needs to get out front of the problem more than they have in the past. It’s one of the most innovative ideas the UCI has pursued in a long while.
Would cycling (or any sport bumped from the Olympics) necessarily be free of WADA? It depends. If there’s an alternative way to minimize the impact of doping on the sport, the governing body might walk away from WADA. For that to happen, there needs to be an effective program. Could the bio passport be such a thing? Interesting possibility, but I doubt that it’s the total solution, either.
Fahey knows – and admits – that he can’t remove any sports, all he can do is recommend a sport be removed. That’s the only stick he has to beat sports with. Then it’s up to the IOC, probably the single most corrupt sports organisation on the planet, to make a decision. Which means they can play heavy and bleed some cash out of weight-lifting, say.
WADA’s non-participation in the bio-passport is regrettable, but that’s politics and the bad-blood between the UCI and WADA dates back to the very birth of WADA. The UCI need to be very careful about the passport though – it is the only thing they have going for their claims to be at the forefront of anti-doping and they need to keep working on it, not threatening to discontinue it the way McQuaid did.
And the UCI ought be keeping a careful watch on USADA’s Team Clean pilot programme – though only a pilot covering twelve athletes, it’s more comprehensive in its scope than the UCI’s programme. In the same way Slipstream have stolen all the anti-doping programme publicity from people who were doing it before them, the UCI could find themselves being written off as “also doing its” in future anti-doping reports.
The reason I don’t want to see cycling stepping away from WADA is it would put us back to where were were before WADA, toothless tigers growling but doing nothing. It’s all well and fine for the UCI to claim to have been the first to implement dope testing, in 66, but let’s remember, twenty-some years later, when Pedro Delgado positived for probenecid, not only was the UCI list out of date but all Delgado faced was a ten-minute time penalty and being told not to do it again for two years. Sure, it’d have lost him the Tour, but he’d be back racing the next week. Did the UCI go after François Bellocq, Delgado’s doctor? Bollocks they did.
And how serious was the two year suspension? Not serious at all. Gert-Jan Theunisse had also tested positive at the 88 Tour, for testosterone. He got his ten-minute time penalty and two year suspension. Twenty two months later, this time at the Giro, it was announced he’d positived at the Flèche Wallonne earlier in the season. The UCI claimed that, as the French Federation hadn’t properly told Theunisse’s Dutch Federation of his positive (they don’t read newspapers in Holland and so the news of his 88 testosterone positive came as a shock to them in 90), this was actually a first offence for Theuinsse, not a second offence. No six month suspension was t be imposed.
Even with the riders going on strike – they wanted Theunisse out – the UCI did nothing. Verbruggen promised to look into the matter at the next UCI annual meeting, not due until August. Until then, nothing could be done, Theusnisse could finish the Giro and – more importantly – start the Tour. Verbruggen accepted that this wasn’t a first offence but insisted on blaming the paperwork. A few weeks after the Giro finished, the Dutch federation must have found the relevant paperwork because Theunisse received his six month suspension and so missed the Tour.
ten years later, six month penalties were still what we were handing out, even to the cyclists caught in the Festina scandal. Six months. A winter ban. You’d be back for the Spring Classics.
That’s what this sport was like when it was left to its own devices. Meaningless bans, inconsistently applied. A sport more concerned with the perception of the problem than with actually solving the problem.
If WADA’s not perfect then let’s work out the kinks in the system rather than switching back to something that’s proven itself to be less than worthless.
fmk,
Good points. I’d rather see WADA’s kinks worked out, rather than have to start from scratch. They’ve already got infrastructure in place and it would be expensive to try and re-create that structure elsewhere. My biggest concern with WADA is whether or not those who run the agency will be open to making change. If not, then scrapping the current system for something new may be the answer. But going back to the way things were pre-WADA is a non-starter as far as I’m concerned. If the sport decides to have its own anti-doping program, it shouldn’t be the farcical kind of affair that existed in the bad old days.
Oh nuts. Just seen two errors in my comment. That’s what I get for typing too long into too small a box.
“And how serious was the two year suspension?” Should of course be “And how serious was the two year suspended sentence?”
“He got his ten-minute time penalty and two year suspension.” Should of course be “He got his ten-minute time penalty and two year suspended sentence.”
Replacing WADA. The problem is the UCI would do it themselves. Unless it comes from outside this sport, we pretty much know how it’s going to work out. WADA was set up to watch the watchers and keep them in line. Without WADA, too many of them had a habit of sweeping bad news under the carpet.
Of course, when Verbruggen takes over the IOC after the London Olympics (does anyone doubt it’s going to happen?) he’ll no doubt take WADA to task.
No arguments here. If the anti-doping machinery were in-house at the UCI, the potential for corruption/manipulation would definitely be great. Probably too great to resist. Politics could play an important role in who “tests” positive, who “doesn’t” and who is given a “Get out of jail free” card in the unlikely event a test result comes out “wrong.” On the bad side of Mr. McQuaid? Probably not going to get any help when a positive test result shows up. Anti-doping efforts definitely should be managed by an independent agency, whoever they might be.
I don’t know if Vergruggen will take over the IOC after 2012. Certainly possible, given the way the organization appears to function. And if he does, I have no doubts that WADA will come in for some serious criticism from the mother ship.
“On the bad side of Mr. McQuaid? Probably not going to get any help when a positive test result shows up.”
Well that’s Spanish cyclists shagged, that is. I reckon McQuaid’s ma and da must have taken him on holiday to Spain when he was a nipper and he got a case of Delhi-belly and has never forgiven the Spanish for it. Either that or some saucy Spanish señorita turned him down when he tried to chat her up. A thing like that can scar a man for life, or so I’m told.
One thing on the Mayo scenario.
Might it be that shopping for the desired A test result doesn’t “violate” the “spirit” of the code?
It might take sampling 1 or 2 or even three accredited labs, but if they finally get the “right” result, all’s good, right?
Seems to be a very natural next step.