Strange Brew

Boy, what a difference a day makes. All sorts of strange and interesting developments in the anti-doping world in the last couple of days.

First, we have Dick Pound out on the book tour circuit, appearing on NPR to promote his newest screed Inside Dope: How Drugs Are the Biggest Threat to Sports, Why You Should Care, and What Can Be Done About Them.

Is it just me, or is there something very unseemly about this? Pound, after all, is the current head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and to be publishing such a book right now appears like he’s using his office to feather his own nest. I’m sure Pound sincerely believes everything he’s written in the book, but to be putting it out while he’s still the head of WADA strikes me as a tad bit inappropriate, to say the least.

But that’s not surprising, given who we’re talking about here. Pound has a penchant for saying outrageous things (perhaps he even believes them) in order to keep his name and face in the news. Now we know why. He’s trying to increase his own fortune by doing so. You’d think that a person whose calling in life (other than to be a horse’s tail end) was to be a tax attorney in Montreal wouldn’t need to stoop to such behavior. Then again, this is Dick Pound we’re talking about, not someone with scruples.

Have you no shame at all, Mr. Pound? You’re the head of an organization whose motto is “Play True.” Your job is to ensure the integrity of the system, not to be one whose behavior calls that integrity into question.

Mr. Pound, if you’re asked about future anti-doping cases while you’re still serving as head of WADA, might I suggest you memorize these lines:

My job is to ensure that the athletes are treated fairly, and to ensure that everyone in the system follows the rules. I’m sorry, but it would not be fair if I comment on an on-going case.

That might demonstrate at least a bit of integrity on your part.

Moving on. Floyd Landis did an interview on French television that was broadcast over the weekend. Unfortunately, the video won’t play on my Mac. But the transcripts I’ve read (over at Trust But Verify) have impressed me. It sounds like Landis handled himself quite well during the interview. He made a good point: Even the best labs can make mistakes.

And speaking of lab mistakes, there’s news that LNDD’s computer security was breached recently. Turns out a hacker got into their system and started sending out documents that purport to show shoddy lab work and practices at the French lab. Now there’s a shock.

And L’Equipe, that bastion of ethical journalism, has some inside info which they claim implicates someone from Landis’ inner circle. OK, this whole affair is getting ridiculous. LNDD’s security problems have been well noted in the past. Someone at the lab slipped information to L’Equipe in 2005 which caused a huge dust-up. So it shouldn’t be a huge surprise to people that something like this could happen.

The term “lax” as applied to their IT system security is probably a huge understatement. This lab deals with highly confidential information, as does any medical laboratory. Their security should be amongst the best out there. I can’t believe that this is the best that French IT professionals could do. Again, it raises the question, if they can’t keep the data secure, what else are they managing in a shoddy manner?

Rant’s favorite head of WADA comes to LNDD’s defense by saying:

This does not reflect the lab’s competence.

Really? Coulda fooled me. Pound gets into his best conspiracy theory pose to try and shift the blame (indirectly) onto Floyd Landis. I say indirect because the quotes I’ve seen don’t show Pound actually saying it was Landis’ fault. He just implies it with this gem:

This is an exercise done illegally with the express design to throw doubt on the quality of the lab… and discredit the lab with forged documents.

Yes, it has done exactly that. Discredit the lab. Whether or not the documents emailed to other labs are forged, LNDD definitely has lost some face over this whole incident.

Pointing the finger at Landis’ defense team is classic. Well, it’s a classic way to try and take the heat off those who should be really feeling it — the individuals who are charged with running the lab in the first place. Even if LNDD has the world’s best lab techs and scientists, if they can’t do something as rudimentary as keep their data secure, how are we to trust their work? Someone could easily plant fake data, including someone in the lab, in order to achieve a certain outcome.

Which brings me back to something else Mr. Pound said, in regards to the standard of proof needed (in his opinion) in an anti-doping case. He believes that “comfortable satisfaction” is a good enough standard of proof.

No, sir, it isn’t. Especially if we have hackers able to break into an anti-doping lab’s computer systems, access (and perhaps even manipulate) data and then email it to whoever they feel like. You should be glad that none of those emails found their way to any good investigative reporters, Mr. Pound. The damage to your precious system would be even worse than it already is.

Given the extreme nature of the punishment for an anti-doping violation (two years banishment from competition, one for merely missing an anti-doping test — even if you weren’t told to show up), the standard of proof in an anti-doping case must be much higher than “comfortable satisfaction.” After all, the question would be: Whose “comfortable satisfaction”? If that’s the standard, it’s way too vague and undefined to mean anything. Well, anything other than athletes being railroaded by kangaroo courts, that is.