As the old saying goes, “Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.” Or as Joe Biden put it more succinctly in recent days, “Past is prologue.” But there comes a time when looking to the past, instead of looking to the present or the future, can become an all-consuming thing. Such may be the case in the world of anti-doping, where samples are held for a period of eight years so that they can be tested in the future when new detection methods become available.
Assuming those new methods are thoroughly tested and validated, and that they can really say definitively whether Athlete X used Drug Y, how much value is there in going back and seeing if feats of accomplishment from years past were the product of then-undetectable means? What good does it do for sport? The fight against doping is in the here and now, isn’t it?
Apparently, Pat McQuaid seems to agree. As The Canadian Press is reporting:
“From the UCI’s point of view, we prefer to look forward rather than look backward,” McQuaid said in an interview with The Associated Press. “To randomly say ‘OK, let’s take all the samples from 2007 from the Tour de France and put them all through testing processes’ … it’s futile, it’s expensive and it’s not going to serve the purpose in the anti-doping fight of today.”
There does come a time when one has to say, “The past is past. Time to move on.” Given the tenor of the times, there will probably always be some suspicion cast on those who win and/or those who perform heroic athletic feats. Some deservedly so, and some not. Doping exists. In the pantheon of modern sports, it has always existed in one form or another. And, even if the numbers of athletes who dope diminishes, better athletics through biochemistry will never completely disappear. The temptation to take the shortcut to success will be too great for some to resist. It’s just human nature, I’m afraid.
McQuaid has more to say on the subject.
“If we’re going to start rejigging the podium of every major international race over the past two or three years, by finding new tests for new products, and going back to the organizer and saying ‘you’ve got to rejig your podium’ .. it makes a complete mockery of sport,” he said. “You need very good information in order to do that in the first place.”
There have been times when Pat McQuaid has said some rather off-the-wall things. But in this case, he has a point. If the powers that be continually keep looking backwards and constantly reshuffle the official winners as new drug tests become available, pretty soon it’s possible to make a mockery of the sport. No one would ever believe that a Sastre or a Contador or an Armstrong and on and on was truly the winner of the Tour or any other race. Tour champions would have an asterisk by their each of their names, with the notation “Subject to change depending on the outcome of tests as yet undeveloped for drugs as yet unknown.”
I know the temptation, once a new test has been developed, is to go back and see who’s been cheating in the recent past with whatever drug or method the test detects. Truth be told, if those athletes are still competing, they’re likely to get caught eventually.
Finally, McQuaid offers this gem:
“I couldn’t give you an answer as to where the 2007 [Tour de France] samples are, nor whether they are adequate for the testing,” McQuaid said. “The Giro is already over four or five months (ago). I don’t know whether the samples are still (valid), whether they’ve degraded to an extent …
“It’s very difficult to detect CERA in urine samples. I don’t know about the blood samples, what the situation is there. As I say, I prefer that we move forward, rather than move backward.”
McQuaid’s point is a good one. Just how long are samples good for? It may well depend on the drug that one seeks to detect. A blood or urine sample that may be perfectly good for testing for one drug in several years’ time may not be good when testing for something different. It would have to do with just how rapidly the thing you’re testing for degrades, even when the samples are carefully stored.
Lord knows, it can be hard to let go of the past. And it can be difficult to let go of certain pursuits. But there comes a time when we’ve learned enough from the past to move on into the future. A couple of lessons about doping stand out. One, doping exists and the temptation to cheat is damn-near impossible for some people to resist. And two, those who would cheat will find creative ways of doing so.
The trick, it seems, is for those who are in the business of catching the cheats to be even craftier and more creative than their prey. There’s a fine line between cops and criminals. Or to put it another way, the way to catch a crook is to think like one. Perhaps we don’t need to spend limited resources on retrospective testing. Perhaps it’s best to spend those resources on the here and now.
And of all people to say that, I wouldn’t really have expected it to be Pat McQuaid. Wonders never cease.
Rant, I agree with you and McQuaid. At some point the retesting and the suspicions have to stop for the benefit of the sport. Going around with the attitude that any winner, whether it be stage or overall, will always be under suspicion is not good for the sport. So let’s look forward and move on. Although I would have liked to have seen a few more tests from this year’s Gyro. But with this year’s CERA tests they will have better ammunition for next year’s Gyro. Looking forward to it.
I’m surprised you made no mention of the unveiling of the Tour de France ’09 route to be made today. If the pundits have it right, this could be one of the most exciting routes in a long long time. Monaco, Barcelona, Mont Ventoux. But what may be more interesting will be what is said or not said in the presentation about former and current winners or the re-inclusion of Astana et al. Looking forward to it too. Cheers
Rant,
McQuaid’s decisions seems a bit strange. Of course we can move on but only after a frame window. In most sports many results of the season can be changed when there is a serious infraction. Is doping serious ? That is the real question. McQuaid confused show interests and sport interests.
A such message in the current context: “You can dope but don’t be caught”, the same as is predecessor Verbruggen called correctly Verdruggen.
At least Mc Quaid could have make some new proposal to close some holes, like reducing the delay between vampires’ time and the beginning of the race as suggested by Pr. Audran.
A rider can have more than 3 hours to inject fresh blood in his body before the race, and has time to redraw a part of his blood after the race, and eventually to have a saline HIV to diluate blood. Even today there is still riders racing with a 55-58 hct! To avoid to be directly caught, people who are doing that take room in the same hotel as their teams and riders come just inside to receive their medical assistance. In case of a rider caught for doping, police cannot raid the room of the assistants without proofs, so the risks are small. It’s still the doping for rich teams!
So McQuaid could have be better by reducing the window of retrotesting and by allowing more possibilities for the vampires.
And of course, UCI will be seen as not finishing the job and more taunts for real journalists.
Luc,
Thanks for pointing out the unveiling of next year’s Tour route today. Kind of slipped my mind. The announcement is in Monaco, from what I understand. Wonder what that means in terms of the course the Tour will take. Will it start there? Prologue around the casino, perhaps? And the whole rest of the Tour will no doubt be an interesting mix, too.
Jean,
If there are holes in the way the current testing practices are conducted, by all means we should sow them up. Pat McQuaid, as the head of UCI, ought to address such problems at some point. And so should the anti-doping agencies, who conduct the tests for the UCI and other athletic organizations. I see your point about not getting caught, but as time goes by, that becomes harder for even the most determined cheaters to do. I think we have to look at the anti-doping effort as incremental. Through better testing, and more tests for abused substances, we will gradually weed out a larger percentage of the cheats. Over time, there should be fewer who dope and thus, fewer who will get caught. But there will never be a time when there will be none. The temptation to win through less than honorable means is too great for some people.
McQs comments are fair, but what he suggests doesn’t go far enough. If we are going to move forward, there has to be a restoration of the integrity of sport. Consumers of the product need reasonable reassurances that what they experience is what they paid for: sport entertainment, not who was cagier with the latest chemical concoction.
I suggest what sport needs is an absolute statute of limitations on doping DQ’s. For this to be effective, we literally have to test ’em all, do it quickly, absolutely accurately, and then take swift action. This costs money, and lots of it; to this point, the purveyors have not found it in their interests to make such an investment. They then seems surprised when consumers no longer wish to buy.
Sorry, but I can’t help but chuckle when I read McQ say “it’s futile, it’s expensive and it’s not going to serve the purpose in the anti-doping fight of today.” Well, it isn’t futile to complete scientifically accurate testing that shows someone cheated, and indeed catching cheaters in the long run always serves an anti-doping purpose. His real issues is, as always, money. Money in the pocket of organizers, UCI, the IOC and their sposors, plain and simple. Athletes are expendible, and who cares about the fans…so long as they *spend money*
Integrity is not their goal. Profit is. Preferably short term profit.
In both NCAA and NFL, certain referees’ decisions can be challenged, but the challenge has to be made before the next play is run. Perhaps we can extend this to the drug-testing scene, where the results can’t be changed once the next year’s race has begun.
Hey Rant,
So finally we have come to the point where (Jean C) points directly at one of the REAL problems with doping control.
It seems a bit strange that people have such a difficult time with ACCEPTING that the “doping situation” is a matter of “extensive team support” of the doping riders.
Will this shift the public belief that the RIDERS are the sole villians in the cheaters world. I do not know – but if we are to REALLY “do something to change” our sport – cycling – then we all have to accept that we cannot “jump” on the band wagon when the “media spin” begins with “outing” the cheater.
It would seem that now even Jean C – admits to the fact that “doping/cheating” cannot be SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED – without major support of a team. If this be the TRUTH – then – we need to aggressively pursue the “none visible” villians also.
I cannot make an observation about McQ’s apparent moment of “lucidity” – perhaps I am much to jaded by this time – but I have to admit that MY FIRST QUESTION is more about WHY McQ would publically say this? What does the UCI gain from this?
So much of the time – I observe that everyone involved in “reacting and commenting” on the “doping in cycling” seem to be like the old Dutch story of the boy with his finger in the dike to stop the leak – it does not seem to be the solution to the doping problem.
I believe we need to start looking from the point of view where we ask the simple question: name and identify every individual involved in WHATEVER media drama is presented and ask – WHERE IS HIS/HER “conflict of interest” in the situation.
Otherwise Rant, I believe it is impossible to avoid becoming just another item that “muddies” the waters.
As long as the “anti-doping” movement is fueled by innuendo and public assasination – then plainly it is motivated only by “getting” them – at all costs – NOT building a “clean sport.”
Morgan, Maybe I confused you but I am for a 10 years retrotesting for world record and major events. Why?
Because most of the WR have be done by doped athletes and they are unbeatable by clean athletes who can even approch them! Performances should have a meaning.
For current results a limited one year window for retrostesting could be used but not limit for suspected athletes, especially for pro-sport.
Seeing Mc Quaid daring to say that was more correct to let go doped riders when they are already identified , that can only be unfair.
Of course, other riders, who could be rewarded, might not be clean too, however it’s fairer to catch some of the balck cheeps.
By not doing it, the clean riders will be stolen 2 times : one by the doped riders and finally by UCI despite they have the means to do it.
Is it a problem to have not definitive results? But already definitive results are mostly given by history. Most of the cycling publications have pushed big asterix in front of or behind the names of the EPO era winners! That is the same in T&F, swimming, and so… Finally, time is the real judge like in other domain.
Jean,
I did not misunderstand you – I merely saw something in your comment that was pertinent —> “A rider can have more than 3 hours to inject fresh blood in his body before the race, and has time to redraw a part of his blood after the race, and eventually to have a saline HIV to diluate blood.”
Jean – the proceedures you refer to – NEED SUPPORT from others to accomplish. Yet – we are NOT getting very far in this area of the “doping problem” are we.
I had not responded to your view on “difinitive results” – because for me – it seems that “cleaning up the sport of cycling” is not the issue of who had won or who had not – rather – who were “making doping and cheating viable” in Cycling. And on this point – I do not agree with you and others and put the full blame on the riders – sorry – logic tells me that on the scale of cheating we have come to discover – there must be organised “groups” involved. So – you can “bust as many of the so called dopers” BUT IF YOU DON’T or can’t OUT these groups – nothing is really going to change.
We seem to be discussing 2 things here:
Should there be some sort of statute of limitations for doping, at least as far as results are concerned?
Are riders exploiting “windows of opportunity” between time that samples are drawn and race time to do funny things with blood, and are they doing so with the support of others who we need to go after?
I can see McQ’s point here: a lot of effort and expense could be put into trying to retest samples from the past; effort and that could otherwise be put into improving testing today, whether thru better methods and/or increased testing. On the other hand, if we do implement some sort of statute of limitations, we might be sanctioning inadvertently doping riders who originally avoided detection.
If someone came up with a new test today and could conclusively prove that Sastre doped in this year’s TdF, I’d imagine that there would be few who wouldn’t think he should be DQ’ed, but what about Contador, or Periero, or everyone’s favorite, Armstrong? Should we go back to the 90’s and possibly DQ some riders from that era?
Of course, there are some technical limitations here. I am not sure from how far back samples are available, and even if blood or urine samples are still available, it isn’t clear if old samples can be reliably tested. And it is theoretically possible that we could end up with an apparent winner who wasn’t subjected to testing at the race in question because he didn’t win a stage, top the GC table, or get picked for a random test, when riders who finished ahead of him get DQed. Remember, the TdF has been won without the benefit of a single stage win on occasion, so this scenario is not all that far out.
As far as that “window of opportunty” issue, I could see a couple of ways of controlling this: isolate riders following pre-race sampling and post-race until samples can be obtained would be one way.
Pierre Bordry of the AFLD makes some pretty good points for retesting of previous samples in this French article here http://fr.sports.yahoo.com/23102008/29/l-afld-veut-une-reponse-rapide-de-l-uci.html. In essence he is suggesting that the UCI failed in their testing program because the UCI did not catch any dopers in the Gyro, the Vuelta, or the world championships. In other words, any of the races that the UCI was responsible for testing. Bordry suggests, tongue in cheek, that maybe the cyclists only dope at the T de F and are clean at all the other events. He also points out that between 2003 and 2007 the UCI caught only 2 people at the tour using EPO whereas they caught 6 in one month (he doesn’t mention that it was because of the new CERA test). He does make some good points for wanting to look at the Biological passports of the cyclists which at this point the UCI are refusing to let him look at. I thought the UCI and ASO, AFLD had kissed and made up. It does appear, from this article, that the UCI are more interested in empire building while the T de F are doing their best to catch the cheats.
Morgan, to catch the doctors or people who help, encourage doping it’s possible by laws like in France or Italy. Of course, UCI can exclude a doctor from team but that would never stop him to dope people as we have seen with Santuccione or Ferrari!
Fanini asked UCI how much money they needed for retrotesting of Giro bloods, and proposed to find the necessary money. Pat ?
Good point, Jean: those that provide drugs and administer illicit medical procedures may not be officially part of a team, and even if they are, banning them from a team may not necessarily stop their activities. They need to be dealt with via the criminal justice system of whatever country has jurisdiction.
Attacking the doping problem from this angle may prove a big help.
If you want a truly mind-boggling spin on “who’s fault is all this anyway” read Kohl’s most recent comments:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct27news
Imagine on each package of CERA-Micera: “The WADA chief has determined that use of performance enhancing drugs is dangerous to your health.” Yeah, I’m sure that would have stopped Kohl from cheating.
Anyone want to place bets on Kohl naming who he got the dope from? And if that person will be charged witha crime?
eightzero,
That kind of warning is about as likely to get people to stop cheating as the warnings on cigarette packs are to get people to stop smoking. Forty-some years after the first warnings were printed and people still smoke. Mind-boggling is right. Almost as much as certain other spin going on right now, but I’ll stay away from that other topic for now. 😉
Will Kohl name his supplier? Hmm. Probably not, unless Austrian authorities offer him a lesser penalty for what he did. Will that person be charged with a crime? Hmm. Maybe someone who lives in Austria (hint, hint) could answer that question for us.
Not knowing anything about Austrian law, I can’t really can’t comment. But here’s why confession, while good for the soul, is a terrible thing under the law: regardless of what a national ADA might offer, an athlete that intentionally and deliberately commits a fraud may face penalties, both criminal and civil. Recall how OP hung around like an albatross. Now imagine a sponsor (Gerolsteiner? ZDF?) wanting its money back. A Gerolsteiner CEO calls his friend in the prosecutors’ office, and points to a controlled substances act, and how trafficing in them is a *crime*. Now that Kohl has confessed, prosecution is easy, and his comments can be construed to add “unnamed co-conspirators.” Funny how crooks tend to roll over on their buddies when real jail time is on the line.
Now this whole thing goes OJ on us. Having secured an easy conviction given a confession, those facts become res judicata for a subsequent civil trial. ASO joins in with sponsors, and goes after all of them, including doctors with insurance policies, and bona fide drug distributors (where’s your paperwork?) Team owners are named as codefendants (how can you not know?) as well as teammates (how can you not know?) soigneurs (how can you not know?) and (get this) testing officals (how can you look at an out of nowhere performance and not know, and then not do anything?).
Can or will it ever come to this? Likely not. No one really wants to be involved at this level – notice how quickly Nike disappeared from Marion Jones’ defense. Sponsors know that their best defense is really distance. But prosecutors can make a name for themselves. Le Tour is part of French culture, and maybe, just maybe, there is an aspiring adjoint looking to make a splash onto the political scene by (and ain’t the irony rather thick?) blaming the Austrians and Germans?
The only way out is for legislation to provide immunity. And now that the global community really has nothing currently on their minds, I’m sure that will soon be forthcoming at a meeting of the G7 and G8.
While this is related to football, it may be an interesting diversion. There has been recent confidentiality issues with the NFL doping controls and the appeals process. I chuckle at the penalty for a first time offense – 4 game suspension.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/33336889.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
David
eightzero,
Interesting analysis. What you say is a kind of “law of unintended consequences” for what could happen when an athlete confesses to having doped. Perhaps our Austrian correspondent will keep an eye out for us as to whether Kohl gets charged with a crime and all.
Dave,
Sure is a world of difference, in terms of suspensions for first offenses. That’s the “beauty” of the NFL not being part of the whole WADA anti-doping scheme. They can write their rules any way they want. Of course, for some players, missing four games could put a serious crimp in their income. But compared to the two years that cyclists face, a four game suspension is more like a slap on the wrist, isn’t it?
True, the NFL’s 1st time offense is far less than that leveed by the UCI. However, consider some of the possible consequences. For one thing, a guilty player is far more likely to at least accept the penalty without contesting it, if not outright confess, because it wouldn’t be worth it to contest. Now I am not privy to full details of the NFL program, but it is possible that with such a “minor” penalty, the NFL and perhaps the NFLPA are willing to accepts a bit more liberal standards for what qualifies as a violation, whereas the UCI/WADA may be more hesitant to declare borderline cases as a violation (see Damgard’s statement this past summer).
I believe also that the NFL requires the player to undergo some sort of rehab.
Also remember that the NFL’s policy is one of progressive discipline, so subsequent offenses earn increasingly stiffer penalties.
Now, I won’t say the NFL’s policy is perfect or even great; as I said above I don’t know many details. But it is possible that such an approach may work better than the nail’m to the wall approach of UCI/WADA.
Part of the controversy surrounding this case is the fact it was waiting for an appeal. There is supposed to be strict confidentiality from time of an non negative finding untill the appeal process is over (sound familiar?)The lawers are looking for dismissal of the case due to the leak of the names claiming inability for a fair process.
On a side note – how much does an average NFL player make in 4 games as to a cyclist for 2 years?
David
Dave,
To answer the easy part, according to the NFL Players Association the average salary in the league this year is about $1.1 million. A four-game suspension is about one-quarter of the regular season, so that makes the suspension equal to a loss of about $275,000 of income. Pretty serious amount of cash.
More later, when I get a chance to dig up the average for professional cyclists (unless someone else does so first.)
One other way to look at the 4 games is that it does represent 1/4 of the season and my understanding has always been that the players are paid in the form of game checks – 16 paychecks per year. I think that getting docked 25% of your pay for a year is certainly severe enough to hurt, regardless of what you earn. The number that I found for the average NFL player salary was 1.4 million.
Cabazon,
I saw that figure somewhere, too. Whichever it is, four game checks out of 16 at that kind of pay is going to hurt. The largest salary I saw (for 2007) was around $30 million. If that guy got stung for a first-time offense, he’d be out about $7.5 million, which is more than all but a few of the most highly paid pro cyclists make in a couple of years.
Now, what the average is for pro cycling is a bit more difficult to determine. I’ve seen some comments from 2005 that suggest that the UCI’s minimum salary was around $50,000 (US). Probably a bit higher by now, I suspect. My guess is that the average for European pros would be in the high five figures to low six figures. So, most likely, an average pro cyclist is going to be stung for at least as much income as an NFL player. My own guess is that the pro cyclist would be out more money. And he/she would have to sit out for two years, rather than just one month of a season (unless a suspension carried over from one football season to the next).
In other news, we have a new combination of “dope in sport:”
http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1854824,00.html
Although I can’t think of an example, I’d imagine that if a player’s suspension was for more games than remained in the season, it would carry over to next season. Not sure if pre-season games would figure here. This does raise the issue of timing in regards to things like a “big” game or the playoffs. I know in baseball, when MLB proposes to suspend a player for a few games for some on-field incident and the player decides to appeal, the suspension is held up until the appeal can be held. I suspect that sometimes appeals are filed for tactical purposes, so a player is available for an important games and the suspension can be delayed until a series with an easier team.
On a different note, in an email I received today, I see that Armstrong plans on racing the Giro this year. Some info is available here:
http://www.trektravel.com/Giro.cfm
Maybe his focus for his return is to round out his CV, so to speak, rather than add to his string of TdF wins.