This morning, about 10:30 a.m. in my neck of the woods, I got an email that told me the Floyd Landis vs. USADA case was dismissed. Wow. Dismissed. Done. Finished.
And, as the two-page legal document notes, the case is dismissed “with prejudice.” Meaning, the case can’t be filed again. So it’s over. Whatever happened to bring about the dismissal has not been announced or leaked to the press (mainstream or otherwise) as far as I’ve been able to tell.
Someone at VeloNews.com managed to contact a spokesman for USADA regarding the apparent settlement. As they report:
No details of the settlement were released and a USADA spokesman declined comment as to whether Landis’ decision to withdraw the suit involved any concession on the part of the agency.
Exactly what’s been agreed to has not been made public. As TBV notes:
[It] looks like they settled, but we haven’t seen any statements from anyone.
If USADA gave up the fine, then Landis is free to race, which is the immediate result he would have desired. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were conditions not to talk about it, preventing either side from claiming moral victory. Independent of the merits of the underlying claims, USADA may have determined it was cheaper to let the fine go than litigate the matter; and Landis may have wanted his head clear for training and to move on, as much as he might like a deeper ultimate vindication.
In fighting to the bitter end, how much more would it have cost each side? $100K? More? As DirtRoadie pointed out in a comment at TBV:
USADA might spend another $100K litigating only to be able to collect the $100K “fine” against Landis if it should win. He would still be otherwise eligble for reinstatement. And if USADA were to lose (a very real possibility), the doors might be open to similar challenges to CAS decisions unless and until the CAS system is revamped to eliminate the apparent weaknesses.
Floyd probably had little to truly gain other than the vacatur of the $100K fine and perhaps some “moral” satisfaction. But the case would conceivably (or more accurately, probably) have dragged out long past his date for reinstatement in which case even a victory might have been too late to be truly useful.
He also points out that it’s common for settlement agreements to have confidentiality requirements. So it’s very likely we will not find out exactly what it is that the two sides agreed to.
I’d wondered just how long the lawsuit would drag on, and whether it would be decided by the time Landis’ suspension ends. With the dismissal, Landis will presumably be free to race again starting on January 30th (assuming that the matter of the $100,000 is cleared up). And that means that the first race he will likely be competing in will be the Tour of California, which starts about two weeks later.
Two and a half years after this strange journey began, Landis will be back racing. A whole lot has happened in that time, and much about how the way the anti-doping system works has come out. The quiet conclusion to the saga stands in contrast to how the case played out over the last 28-plus months.
We’ve learned a whole lot about doping, anti-doping tests and how doping cases are prosecuted during the time the Landis case worked its way through the system. It’s not been a pretty picture at times, and there have been some decidedly melodramatic moments, as well as a few sideshows distracting from the more important issues. What Landis did, by making his case public, was to shine a spotlight on how the system works. Much as some would like us to believe that the system is infallible, those who’ve followed the case have seen something else. The system used to convict Floyd is less than perfect. Far less, in fact. And it needs some serious fixing.
Granted, no justice system will never achieve perfection, but there are a great many improvements that need to be made to what passes for anti-doping justice. Among them: improved research and testing techniques, greater (or any) peer review of proposed methods, defense access to potentially exculpatory information, and on and on and on. The whole premise of the current arbitration approach, reducing the time it takes for a case to be decided, has a spotty record, at best.
Earlier this week, we saw the arbitration decision in Kayle Leogrande’s case handed down in a matter of two weeks’ time. And here at the end of the week, we’re reminded of just how long Landis’ case took. Setting aside the question of the lawsuit just dismissed, from the initial reports of Landis’ positive test result to the final CAS ruling took almost two years. Sure, some cases are more complicated than others. But there’s a big part of me that wonders whether it would have taken so long had Landis’ case played out in a standard court system, instead. Justice isn’t always speedy, even when arbitration is the rule of the day.
I come away from this whole story thoroughly unimpressed with the manner in which the case against Landis was conducted, and with some real concerns about the people who run the anti-doping agencies and some of the lab personnel charged with conducting the tests. Fighting doping in sports is a noble cause. I haven’t met anyone who’s in favor of cheating (maybe I just don’t hang around with the right people). Cheating to win doesn’t impress me on either side of a doping case, either. Neither does rigging the system so that one side always loses. And there is really no excuse for incompetent or poorly trained lab staff, or a lack of the proper operating manuals, and the list can go on.
I wish I could be confident that despite the outcome for Floyd Landis, the whole anti-doping system will change for the better. But the reality is that most of the players have the same jobs they had when this whole saga started — or they’ve been promoted. And that leaves me with a real fear that the system will muddle on, unchanged. Or worse, the changes made as a result of lessons learned won’t be geared towards ensuring that only those who are cheating get caught in the ADA’s claws. Rather, any changes made will be to ensure that everyone who gets “caught” will be punished more severely. (In a few weeks’ time, it will be possible for a first-time offender to be banned for four years. Long enough, in most sports, that an athlete’s career is kaput.)
With Thursday’s dismissal, Landis can focus on training for his re-entry into the peloton. While he won’t be tearing up the roads in Europe any time soon, I expect he’ll be crushing his competition fairly regularly in races all around the US over the coming year. The Tour of California should be an interesting matchup. Lance vs. Floyd. If I lived in California, I’d find a way to go watch. Instead, I’ll have to wait until summertime, and a certain set of races known as the International Cycling Classic (a/k/a Superweek), which occurs closer to my home. If Floyd and the OUCH team competes at Superweek, I expect I’ll be taking time off to watch (and maybe write up a race report or two).
As one chapter ends, another begins. It will be good to see Floyd Landis off to a new beginning.
Rant –
My primary emotion is a certain kind of relief. Like most legal disputes, the Landis case has dragged on past the point where it made any sense to go on.
Originally, Landis was fighting to hold onto two tangible things: his Tour title, and his right to race during the period of his USADA-imposed suspension. These two things are now lost, irretrievably. All that was left to fight over was the unpaid $100,000 in legal costs. But the fight over these unpaid costs was likely to cost Landis more than $100,000, particularly if the fight delayed his ability to resume racing.
Of course, there’s a third thing Landis was fighting for: his reputation. That fight is over, too, in that Landis cannot hope to improve his reputation by continuing to litigate this case. Landis can of course add to his reputation by his actions outside of the courtroom, and logically, it makes sense for Landis to shift his attention away from the legal process to focus on the rest of his life.
I can think of only two positive things to say at this juncture. First, Landis deserves credit for closing this chapter of his life. Sometimes it takes more courage to end a fight than to continue it. Second, I am grateful to Floyd Landis for providing us with a detailed examination of the anti-doping system at work. It is the closest such examination we’re ever likely to see.
That’s about it on the plus side of the ledger.
As a result of the Landis case, I have spent considerable time looking at the anti-doping system. My conclusion is that when it comes to anti-doping, the Landis case is as good as it’s ever going to get. Whatever you may think of the outcome of this case (and my thoughts on this are on the record), Landis and USADA funded millions of dollars of legal process. The process itself may not have been fair or just, but the process funded the production of a considerable body of information, most of which is publicly available. This body of information is not complete (and no body of information is ever complete), but with enough time and background knowledge, anyone can dive into this information and reach a reasonably informed conclusion about the Landis case. It is not possible to say the same thing about the Leogrande case, or the Mayo case, or the Marion Jones case.
I understand that I’m likely to offend when I call the Landis case “as good as it’s going to get”, since many have concluded that the Landis decision was wrong and that the process used to reach this decision was unfair. So, please don’t get me wrong. I’m saying only that athletes caught up in the anti-doping system are likely to be treated as poorly as Landis, or worse. I don’t think that Landis was singled out for especially bad treatment. He had the means to pay for good lawyers and a spirited defense, and he was able to hold his arbitration in public — few athletes internationally have similar standing within the ADA system.
I also say that the Landis case is “as good as it’s going to get”, because the future of the anti-doping effort looks grim. To be sure, the ADAs presently have only a limited ability to detect the use of the current batch of performance-enhancing drugs. But performance-enhancing drugs are “improving”, becoming both more performance-enhancing and more difficult to detect. It may simply be the case that the science does not exist for the detection of these drugs. Moreover, even if there is a scientific means to detect the current drugs and the new drugs, there is no present ability to fund the development of this science. Contrast the budget of an outfit like USADA with the billions and billions of dollars spent each year for research and development of new drugs.
There is no realistic hope that sport can be made drug-free by urine testing, or by blood testing, or by any variety of scientific test. All that’s left for the anti-doping effort is to deter drug use by other means, by ramping up the punishment for athletes sanctioned for drug use (or alleged drug use), and by criminalizing the use of performance-enhancing drugs. I won’t comment on the likely success or failure of any such future effort, but the current effort has already sapped my interest in the sport of cycling. I may still be persuaded to watch a Tour that I suspect is rife with cheating, so long as the most significant events of the Tour take place on the road. But the Tour has become dominated by off-road events: the pre-race compilation of a list of cyclists “targeted” for extra anti-doping tests, the police raids of hotel rooms, the leaked positive test results, the confessions and the team withdrawals. For me, the dominant images of pro cycling include cyclists being led away from the race in handcuffs.
Please forgive me if I look instead to other forms of entertainment.
Hey Larry, Rant, et al.
I can’t really begin to articulate my feelings about all this – only that, as I have said elsewhere, it all makes me sad. But anyway…
One little bit: it seems to me that criminalizing the use of performance enhancing drugs is exactly the right way to go. I don’t see why it isn’t considered the equivalent of “white collar crime.” It is clearly breach of contract and pretty clearly stealing. Criminalization (with imprisonment among the likely punishments), would have two excellent results:
It would put the whole thing into a real court of law, with real standards of evidence and real due process – a vast improvement over the current system.
Then it would also really, really, really make the cheaters think twice before they took that next injection or pill. Jail is a pretty serious deterant.
Raise the stakes. Raise the standards. It seems like a win-win to me.
Am I missing something?
syi
SwimMikeSwim.com
Larry,
I agree with your analysis. The Landis case is as good as we’re ever see. I suspect that by running up the costs and taking so much time, the ADAs have shown that there’s little to no chance to beat the system, and if you’re able to do so, it will only be at an extreme cost in terms of money and time. This is going to serve as a powerful disincentive to anyone accused of doping in the future. The message is pretty loud and clear: Don’t f*&k with us. We’re more powerful, we have greater resources, and we’ve stacked the process against you.
I do think that the future for anti-doping is grim … unless … as swimyouidiot suggests, the whole doping thing gets criminalized.
No, Mike, I don’t think you’re missing a thing. (And good luck on the Channel swim. That’s going to be quite the accomplishment, once you step out of the water. I’d encourage everyone to take a look at Mike’s blog and to consider donating to the cause.)
Mike, criminal law is probably the worst way imaginable to change human behavior. You can only successfully criminalize human activities that are commonly understood to be wrong, activities that are not common, activities that most people would avoid in any event. It’s not good enough if a criminal law has the support of 51% of the population, or 60% of the population, or even 90% of the population. If 10% of the population are offenders of the law, then the law will not be enforced, or the law will be selectively and unevenly enforced, or the law will only be enforced at a back-breaking social cost.
In cycling, the criminalization of doping will mean that a few cyclists will be severely punished for conduct that’s common in the peloton, and that the majority of cyclists will get away with.
My bottom line is that, even if it would be effective to criminalize doping in sport, I won’t be there to watch the sport. The criminal justice process is not my idea of leisure time entertainment.
Hmmm…I wonder. Criminal law may be the worst way imaginable to change human behavior IF that behavior is not hurting anyone else. But doping hurts lots of people, at least including other athletes, fans, and sponsors.
Surely doping is commonly understood to be wrong, and given the overall number of competitive adult athletes (not just just pro-tour cyclists) surely it is uncommon. Sure, if you limit your pool to the top ten on GC at the TdeF maybe 10% or more are offenders of the law, but that’s not your pool. I don’t think anti-doping criminalization would have any back-breaking social cost at all, except perhaps for the “society” of a couple of professional sports (football/soccer and cycling being at the top of the list).
As the law came into effect, yes a few cyclists would be severely punished for conduct that is common in the peloton, but after they see a couple of guys spend six months in prison, I think it would be FAR less common.
I already don’t watch cycling, in part because of doping. I would be much more likely to watch it if I had any confidence the peloton was clean. I just don’t see that happening without some form of criminalization. It seems to me, the sport should be begging for it, and it would be if “The Olympic Movement”/WADA wasn’t so interested in protecting its own power.
syi
syi
Oh, and thanks for the plug Rant!
The problem, as I see it, with either criminalization of doping (which to some extent is the case now, as most if not all substances used are controlled) and/or heavy penalties (which is also, as I see it, largely the case now, with a 2 year ban for the first offense as a minimum), is that the detection end is, at best, haphazard. Testing is only administered on a small, statistically invalid sample of the peloton, and the tests themselves are suspect, quite possibly producing false negative as well a false positive results. This makes doping quite literally gambling, and gambling is well known to be addictive in varying degrees.
Look at the TdF: before this year, the testing regime was, as best I can determine, 4 tests administered each day. Even if a different rider was tested each time, only some 80 odd riders get tested out of a starting field of 180 or so. This means that over half never get tested, and the figure goes up when you figure that there are riders who get tested multiple times as GC leader or stage winner.
Increasing penalties to lifetime bans on first offense will certainly eliminate the possibility of repeat offenders, and may be satisfy some people’s desire to really nail dopers, but I doubt will have much effect in reducing doping, especially given the fact that the current 2 year ban is often a career-ender. Riders look at the odds of getting caught, figure they have a good chance of getting away with it, at least long enough to make some big bucks (or enormous Euros) before getting on with life in some other manner. And if those who hold that a large percentage of pro riders use PEDs are right, many if fact are getting away with it, and at least some of the ones who have been caught were caught after several years of a successful career.
It’s a bit like that thing about athletes at the US Olympic training center saying they would use something that resulted in a Gold Medal now, even if it meant they would die 10 years later.
I don’t have any good or easy answer to this problem. Maybe something like the blood passport system, continually tracking all riders over time, might work, but right now I think the jury is still out on that.
As always Larry – your insight is wonderfully clear and penetrating. Thank you.
This is not meant as a rebuttal to anyone who has commented here, but I think it may behoove us to consider that all competative sports where money is involved wil have “cheating” of various forms going on.
So Larry – what sports could anyone suggest that are not in someway being manipulated? What I mean is – that they are “clean” competitions?
Pro – Football? – errr – Nope.
Pro – Hockey? – nope.
Basketball? – don’t think so.
Soccer? – see – Operacion Puerto.
Triathelons? – is there a lot of money in it?
Tennis? – Golf? – is there big money involved – you bet!
Skiing? Shooting? Archery? Gymnastics? Check out the history of Olympic compatition!
Larry – your point is right on – about testing – is it accurate? – is it reliable? – is it unbiased? – is it provable?
If not – then what is going on is not “testing for cheating” but rather a clever means of maintaining control of “who is IN and who is OUT!”
Do I want the “alphabet soup” to have such power? Absolutely not.
Do I care that people may be harming themselves for short term gains – you bet!
Would I like to see – “fair compatition?” – yeah – as soon as the REAL FAIR COMPATITION CAN STAND UP – and be seen as different from all the “other fair racing” crap media hype going on about it.
Am I willing to give up on the BELIEF and IDEA that even one person who is accused of cheating must be PROVEN to be cheating – not in this lifetime!
Will I ever be a “believer” of types like the “alphabet soup?” Don’t hold your breath!
Look – there is something to the concept that we as groups and individuals can aspire to “fairness and equity” in how we comport ourselves. But it is a very BIG mistake to assume that when “politics” of power and control are held higher then the “aspiration for equity and fairplay” – we achieve success.
Just look at the “crap” BOTH political parties have managed to create of our entire world – in the pursuit of “being able to run things and tell people which way to think and act – to be acceptable!”
OBAMA RULES!
William,
It’s a complicated question, to be sure. There is no simple answer to how to determine who’s doping and how they should be punished. I do like the possibility of greater due process protections under a criminal justice model, and I think that using such a model will force, over time, better standards and techniques for testing and detection.
But, as for the deterrence factor of criminal penalties, I don’t know. The prospect of spending life in jail, or being put to death, doesn’t stop some people from committing murder. And the possibility of jail time doesn’t stop massive white-collar crime, either. Perhaps, though, it would scare off some of those who might be tempted to dope. The possibility of an athlete being carted off to jail for juicing could deter some.
Testing, as you note, doesn’t really expose everyone to the possibility of getting caught. The Tour is a great example, as you’ve noted. We don’t know how many riders are truly doping (and I don’t think that they’re going to identify themselves willingly), but when the odds are better that you won’t get tested, those who are tempted to cheat probably will.
I don’t know that anyone has a complete answer. But I do think the system as it exists needs improvement, both in terms of the adjudication of cases and in the testing/detection of doping. Even small improvements could go a long way to making the whole system better.
There also needs to be a cultural shift away from doping. If that happens, it will be slow in coming, as the temptation and rewards are great. Especially when the odds are slim that you’ll be caught.
Morgan,
Well said.
Hey Rant,
So – we are basically waiting for a “cultural shift”…I’m not trying to be snide – but if I follow your reasoning, then we have been waiting since 1903.
I realize that one of the results of the Landis case has been to highlight exactly how inefficient our “scientific” tests are. Not to mention “lab chimps” who respect their own work so little that they would collude with organizations to purpetuate and simply cover up their ineptitude.
Perhaps as Larry and Tom and others have pointed out — we are under the “impression” that when “scientific evidence” is given, that it is “bulletproof.”
Many say that this is false. I can live with that.
What I cannot and will not accept is that the “alphabet soup” crowed are willing to bend the rules because “the end justifies the means!” Set the rules so that instead of being tools for developing a “fairer” and “cleaner” sport — we are creating an environment where those who will cheat will only become better cheaters.
One side effect that I see coming is actually a point where pro athletes will get more and more money for their performences — because THERE IS NO real or just means of “testing for cheaters” at the present time, these athletes and their agents will make sure that if and when they get “hung out to dry” — it won’t matter to them.
Meanwhile the “alphabet soup” crowed will be “braging about their notches” to “prove” that they are doing a good job! Kafka couldn’t have dreamed up a scarier story.
Morgan,
Waiting since 1903? Man, you’ve been around a long time. 😉 (But, yeah, that would be the case, if you follow that reasoning to its logical end.)
I don’t buy “the ends justify the means” kinds of arguments. And I probably never will. That line of reasoning means that the “good guys” can get away with just about anything in their pursuit of the “bad guys.” In the end, it’s hard to tell who’s worse. Very Kafka-esque, indeed.
William, I pretty much see this the way you do. But I think it’s unlikely that a criminal case could ever be made solely on the basis of a drug test. There would need to be other evidence. Anyhoo “¦ your point about the athletes at the Olympics is spot on (as was the irony in your comment about “repeat offenders”). I think that a willingness to take risks and defy the odds is the essence of every pro athlete. These are not people that will be easily deterred.
Morgan, great posts! Please understand, I am not saying that cheating is more common in cycling than other sports, and I’d be a willing fan of cycling notwithstanding the cheating. But there are two aspects of present-day cycling that have turned me off. One is the lie (and it is a lie) that the anti-doping effort is effective and reliable. I have come to the conclusion that the science simply will never be up to the job of detecting dopers. I can live with this state of affairs, but I cannot live with a sport that has been constructed around the lie that the science is effective — PARTICULARLY since I am convinced that the powers that be KNOW it is a lie.
The other aspect of cycling that sickens me is the sight of athletes being carted off in police cars. Maybe this is what the cheaters deserve (and if in cycling, then also in other sports), but I doubt it. Even if I could be convinced that cheating in sport should be criminalized, that wouldn’t make me want to watch it. I don’t watch “America’s Most Wanted” either.
Larry,
I completely agree with you. I would be lying if I said to you that when I watch some race in cycling, my enjoyment is not colored by the knowledge that the “bastards” are wearing white hats and have badges! Got to tell you, it does not sit well with me at all. I resent the hell out of all of them.
Is it too much to expect that “governance” be dealt with an even hand? I do not think so! More to the point, SHOULD governance be “allowed” to get away with methods such as employed by the very people that they are in place to deal with. Absolutely not! I don’t want to wake up one morning and fear that my children don’t have a chance, because some “jambo” is sitting in the “cat-bird seat” and “waterboarding” is a peice of their future!
As I am certain you know the saying: “Tell the lie often enough and people will belive it to be the truth.” After all, it “seems” to have worked before. But “they” didn’t have the world net to deal with!
Rant, you calling me an old geezer – aint’cha? I want you to know that I still wear my belt below my belly button! – Okay! Sometimes – I hike it higher! But this is usually at the end of the day…just to let me know I’m still alive. (:-)
Morgan,
Seems somehow appropriate, right about now, eh? Or how about (from the same song) “Just as every cop is a criminal … “
Larry,
I’m afraid that the last few years have certainly colored my enjoyment of cycling, at least as far as watching pro races goes. I’m always left wondering, “Who’s next? What’s next?” No ending seems like an ending anymore, because there’s always this lingering sense that another shoe is going to drop, and someone is going to get busted for something that will change the storyline and the results. Best cure for me is to go and ride my bike (which is hard to do in Wisconsin right now). Getting out on the road always reminds me of what I enjoy about the sport.
Rant – how right you are. But since I have discovered no “godlike powers” – I’ll stick with laying their minds to waste – or atleast do my best.
It ain’t over ’till it’s over:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/more/12/09/doping.CERA/index.html
Geez, it is really going to suck if Michael Phelps was doping with CERA.
Regarding “criminalization” of doping: it has struck me in this conversation what an inadequate word “cheating” is in this context. It seems to me “cheating” is a word that arose in the context of non-professional endeavors – where the main consequence of cheating was/is that the person becomes known as a moral coward and miserable human being, viewed with contempt by others.
But doping isn’t “just” “cheating” in a professional context: whatever it does to our perception of the person’s character, it also HARMS the livelihood of OTHER PEOPLE in many ways. The social cost of that is great, and criminalization / jail does not seem like an inappropriate societal response to me.
Yes, a great deal would have to change to create a fair system if doping could end in jail time. I think every participant in an event would have to be tested. And, as I said, the scientific standards would have to be MUCH, MUCH higher – as they obviously would be in a criminal court. The problem, of course, is that such testing would be expensive. But that would simply have to be part of the business model. If the business model can’t survive with that, cycling as a professional sport dies. So be it. If the sport can’t be done professionally and clean, then it shouldn’t be done. Or so it seems to me.
syi
syi, the present cost of the anti-doping system is stretching the sport to the breaking point.
The thinking within the sport seems to be, we can’t afford to do nothing, but we can only do what we can afford. I have no problem with that thinking, I just resent the pretense that there’s no gap between what they can afford and what they say they are doing.
Regarding criminalization: I agree with you, if we wanted to criminalize doping and rely solely (or primarily) on testing to catch the dopers, then the current state of drug testing is not up to the challenge. I also agree that there are simple and cost-effective ways to improve drug testing.
But I think there is a limit to how effective drug testing can ever be, even with better procedures and better science (which we’re not likely to see). That’s WHY we’re discussing criminalization. Drug testing may be our Plan A to stop doping, but we all realize that it’s not good enough to catch all of the cheaters, or most of the cheaters. So we’re looking for a Plan B. Plan B could be the criminalization of doping, the idea being that if we can’t detect the doping with scientific tests, then we’ll scare athletes from doping by threatening them with jail time.
I see a logical problem, though, if Plan B (jail time) ultimately depends on Plan A (effective testing). If Plan A was effective, we wouldn’t need Plan B, and if Plan A is not effective, then it doesn’t help us if Plan B depends on Plan A.
Larry,
How might the current “non-analytical positive” fit into the picture? In a criminal case, one needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the standard applied in the first “non-analytical positive” cases, though I have my doubts about how well more recent cases where it was used might meet that standard.
Assuming that one could prove guilt to the proper standard without drug testing, it seems to me that might partially solve the conundrum you present.
In France suppliers are considered as drug dealers.
An athlete caught for doping is not a criminal if he is just an user. But if helps or teaches others, jail could be required.
I do think that the results of french riders are an effect of that law!
The thought occurs to me that we may be looking at the wrong end of the problem, as Jean’s post above hints at.
The thinking by WADA et al, as well as many of us seems to be based on the premise that individual athletes dope in order to win, garner lots of glory as well as money, etc., or at least they are forced into it by teams looking to garner glory and money. While it is certainly true that this plays a part, an equal if not greater part may be the suppliers.
Supplying EPO, etc. outside of proper medical channels is almost certainly a crime here in the US and probably in most other countries as well. I would imagine that knowingly using EPO in such circumstances would also quite likely be a crime, although to an extent law enforcement policy today in the US seems to downplay going after mere users. But I disgress: without suppliers, dopers would find it much harder to dope, at least with the “hard stuff”.
The idea that we should turn over AAFs to the local gendarmerie probably would not be of much use. But I would bet that the authorities might be interested in cracking down on people who are supplying drugs illegally and/or are smuggling such into their country.
Remember, the Festina scandal was brought to light by customs, not drug testing. The BALCO affair was brought to light by an investigation. OP was a law enforcement investigation. etc., etc.
William,
Good points. If we’re trying to reduce a behavior, we can make a law and punish those who behave in that manner. If what we’re trying to regulate involves suppliers (recreational drugs, performance-enhancing drugs, alcohol during Prohibition) and we go after the users, it’s nigh on impossible to reduce the use of drugs, booze, and so forth. If we go after the supply side, one arrest can have a huge impact, if you’ve nailed a big supplier. Operacion Puerto would be a good example, in a sense. Taking Dr. Fuentes out of the equation meant that those who were bent on doping would have to go elsewhere. And, if Fuentes kept good records and evidence, arresting him might lead to other prosecutions/sanctions. Funny, it didn’t work out that way. But that’s another story, eh? Then again, I’ll bet there are still a few athletes in sports yet to be named (tennis, anyone? soccer/football?) who are nervous about their connections to the “good doctor.”
It seems that most of the biggest sports scandals were a result of law enforcement actions of one type or another. BALCO was an IRS investigation at the start. (Unrelated side note, the infamous mobster Al Capone was ultimately arrested, tried and imprisoned for tax evasion.) There’s an argument to be made that the most effective deterrent to doping, and the most effective means of catching those who would dope or help others dope, is already through law enforcement.
The formal anti-doping system seems less effective, and less capable of really controlling or reducing doping in sports, when compared to various law enforcement agencies around the globe. As Jean notes, the suppliers of PEDs to athletes really are drug dealers, and there are already laws against selling drugs without a prescription, and also laws against drug trafficking. Even without specifically criminalizing doping, the suppliers probably could be prosecuted for breaking existing laws. At least, that’s my hunch.
At the risk of being boring and repeating myself – The problem does not really seem to me, to be a problem of “not being able to punish the cheaters.”
As it is being presented in the media – they would have us believe the “problem” iinvolves individuals – mostly.
When there are more than “individuals” then the “case” appears to spin away into oblivion, to be nothing more then “inuendo being repeated by the press.”
As Rant points out – HEY WHAT THE HECK HAPPEND TO ALL THE OTHERS who were involved with O-P??? The answer would appear to be – not a damned thing!
Larry points out very clearly, in my opinion – that “testing” as it stands today, is not reliable – we have learned that this “reliability question” is delt with by the alphabet soup crowed through a set of rules and bylaws that would make “Idee Amin” proud.
But hey – it is easier “talking about” “putting some meat” behind the present system, even though, most would agree that the system is “slanted” – would more then likely not hold up in a proper court of law….but what the heck – “put the bastards away for life! They deserve it.”
Right?
Morgan,
I’m sure you’ve been accused of a few things in your time. Boring wouldn’t be one of them 😉
Rant, you’re right, the “non-analytical positive” is available for where there’s a gap between the available drug test results and the sanction desired by the ADAs. You’re right that in a criminal case, the prosecution can use all available and admissible evidence, and that evidence might include a failed drug test. It might also include the kind of evidence you get by wire-tapping phones, breaking down hotel doors, maintaining a network of informants, rough interrogation and other techniques that would ruin the sport for me, even if they took place off-screen.
But I think you, Jean and William are missing a point here: not all doping is illegal under current criminal law. There are plenty of ways to dope that are perfectly legal, at least if done by ordinary people. Think of all the athletes busted for using over the counter medicines, or homeopathic drugs. Think of the supplements that Mark McGuire used. If I buy the equipment, I’m reasonably sure that I can legally blood-dope myself (I believe that Operation Puerto became a criminal matter because of Spanish law regulating the activities of Spanish doctors).
We’re not focused here primarily on enforcement of the existing law regulating distribution of pharmaceutical and illegal drugs. We’re focused on cheating. We want athletes to race and win in an honest way, on a level playing field, in spirited but fair competition. And we’re considering whether certain forms of cheating in sport should be prohibited under criminal law, even if the same conduct is legal outside of sport. Let’s be clear about that.
My own view is that the police have enough to do already, to enforce the criminal laws already on the books. There’s a cost-benefit analysis here. If we’re dealing with a sport (or more than one sport) that must depend on criminal law to ensure fair competition, then my view is that the benefit of the fair competition is not worth the cost. It would be better to live with the cheating or shut down the sport.
Larry,
That’s a good point. That is something I overlooked. Some things that are considered “performance-enhancing substances/techniques” are perfectly legal. And it would be stepping into murky waters, indeed, to ask law enforcement to police that aspect of anti-doping policy.
There really is no easy or perfect answer here. There’s the rub, to paraphrase Shakespeare.
Rant, while I acknowledge that there is no answer, I have painfully come to the conclusion that TBV is right, and that sports cheating should be treated as a sports penalty. If a rider fails a drug test, then blow the whistle (literally), throw the yellow flag, hand out the red and yellow cards. The rider gets a 30 minute penalty. The rider has to climb Mt. Ventoux with his tires half inflated. During the next stage, the rider has to get water and food bars for anyone who asks, regardless of team.
Oh, OK, give the rider a short suspension.
And instead of increasing the due process, cut it WAY BACK. The rider gets a “hearing”, literally. He gets to see the test results and to provide the authorities with an explanation. So everyone understands: we’re not talking about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, any more than an umpire has to prove his balls and strikes calls beyond a reasonable doubt.
OK, sure. The guys accused of doping will never get their day in court to prove their innocence. This doesn’t trouble me, as they’re not getting their day in court under the present system.
Then we can return to watching the sport, safe in the knowledge that there’s cheating (and what area of life is free from cheating?) and that it will be dealt with using all of the severity appropriate for grown men in lycra who make their living entertaining us.
Re: treat it as a sports penalty. Yup, a good plan. But the refs have to catch the cheaters. To do this, we need more refs. And who are the refs? The labs. More samples. This costs money. If you don’t catch ’em “in the act” to throw the red card, the sporting spectable is destroyed, and no one will buy it. Example: you build a team with 7 riders. 3 of them are designated cheaters, doped to the gills. Have them lead out for a few stages, knowing they’ll get red cards when the tests come back…3 days later. Meanwhile, the rest of the team is up by 10 minutes. Give them red cards too you say? OK, what about the riders that hung in the break with them, or let the “obvious dopers” go on a 20 minute break? Then what? Or, if you want to catch them that day, spend *lots* on tests *that day* on *everyone.*
Boils down to money. Easier to buy a Senate seat in IL.
8-0, to paraphrase Tom Fine, you can’t build a system around the science you wish you had.
I will grant you that more money will buy you a better system, but there’s no amount of money that’s going to give you anything approaching certainty or fairness. The science simply isn’t there, and never will be there. It’s only going to get worse over time, as performance-enhancing drugs come to more closely mimic the natural processes of the human body.
As for destroying the sporting spectacle? Have you SEEN the size and speed of the average pro football player? Are you telling me that they’re THAT much bigger and faster than they used to be, and they’re not cheating? But it doesn’t seem to hurt the NFL a bit.
Some football players, baseball players and cyclists dope. But cycling’s got the “doping problem”. Why? The answer is complicated, but I don’t think it can be explained to any significant extent by the nature of the sporting spectacle.
Larry,
I could get on board with the idea that cheating (such as doping) is a sports infraction, so it should be a sports penalty. Where I think the current system goes off the rails is the sense of proportionality. Harsh, long penalties don’t seem to do the trick, so what does WADA do? They make them harsher and longer. The problem with such harsh initial penalties is that we’ve seen they don’t stop people from doping. And the reason they don’t is that most riders who do dope realize that the likelihood of being tested and caught is still pretty slim.
It seems to me that a few things need to happen. First, the one-size-fits-all approach to anti-doping enforcement has to be abandoned. Drugs that help cheat in one sport don’t necessarily impart an advantage in another. Second, the drug tests that are administered need to be turned around fast, so that we don’t run into the problem of athletes being pulled from an event like the Tour days, or even a week, after the fact. And third, we need to find ways of testing more riders, more frequently, in an affordable way.
Instead of the harsh penalties we have now, maybe time penalties should be the order of the day, especially in an event like the Tour. Say, 10 minutes for using a drug like salbutamol without the proper TUE, 20 minutes for testosterone used for recovery, and automatic ejection from the event for EPO. With a drug like EPO, the ban could go on for an additional month or more, to give the rider’s body time to go back to “normal.” On a second offense for EPO, perhaps the penalty should be half a season, third offense, an entire season, and after that, a complete ban from the sport.
The beauty to such a system is that the more serious drugs come with harsher penalties, but the penalties are in proportion to the advantage the drug imparts. And, with escalating sanctions, over time, it hits the rider’s pocketbook pretty seriously if he/she continues to cheat. And, given the shorter nature of the step-wise punishments, it won’t cost an arm and a leg to defend oneself against doping charges. By the time an athlete is up to a potential season-long or career-ending ban, he or she is more likely to be an actual doper than one caught by mistake in a false positive, or a poorly executed/poorly interpreted test result.
Such a system also takes into account the possibility that an innocent athlete is occasionally going to get popped for a doping offense. How so? Because of the escalating nature of the penalties, the innocent rider will not suffer a potentially career-ending penalty for an initial positive test. Does it stink that innocent athletes might get caught up in the anti-doping system? Sure. But this way, when it does happen (and it will), it won’t automatically destroy the athlete’s career.
Imagine if such a system had existed in 2006. Floyd Landis might have been stripped of his Tour title (an unfair outcome, even so, but not nearly as bad as what he’s had to endure); however, he would have been free to continue racing in short order. He would have had the opportunity to race in the 2007 and 2008 Tours, too. And my guess is, that he would have come back and basically ripped the peloton a new one, so to speak. No ugly arbitration process, no massive amounts of funds spent on either side to prosecute (or defend) the case. Not exactly a win-win, but it would have been a better outcome overall. At least as far as I see it.
Are there holes in this alternative? I suspect so (and I expect someone will point them out to me 😉 ). But I’d take this system over what we’ve got right now.
Rant, your proposal has a lot going for it, particularly the abandonment of one-size-fits-all.
But “¦
“¦ when it comes to testing, there’s an inverse correlation between the speed in which the test is performed, and the quality of the test.
“¦ there’s also an inherent conflict between better testing, more frequent testing and more affordable testing. In general, better tests are more expensive than inferior tests, frequent testing is more expensive than infrequent, and faster testing is more expensive than slower testing. Also, if you want to consider scope: blood plus urine testing is more expensive than blood tests alone or urine tests alone.
… we can hope that new testing technology will be better, faster and cheaper, but we’ll probably hope in vain. We can hope that the money is going to appear out of nowhere for better testing, but that isn’t going to happen either.
“¦ while I like the idea of escalating penalties for repeat offenders, the existing technology is not good enough to reliably catch a doper more than once. We’re lucky if the dopers are caught even once.
I’m proposing a more radical solution, where we acknowledge that cheating of all sorts is against the rules, and is also as inevitable as sunrise. We acknowledge that we can’t catch all the cheaters, any more than we can arrest and punish every person who steals, lies on his tax return or cheats on his spouse. Given that we’re only talking about sports here, and not THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, we punish the cheating as cheating, in a relatively low-key way — if we’re punishing dopers because we love the sport, let’s not subordinate the sport to the anti-doping effort. And we follow the Tom Fine rule: the anti-doping system is based on what we can derive from the available science and not what we wish we could derive from the science we wish we had.
Finally, let’s acknowledge that there’s not a chance in hell that my radical solution, or your far more reasonable solution, will ever be adopted. For all of the infighting in cycling, truth is that the current system — with its draconian penalties and its stilted process, with its inadequate science pretending to be much better than it actually is — does a reasonably good job of serving the interests of the status quo.
You hear people say that it’s going to get worse before it gets better. The situation with anti-doping is different. It’s just going to get worse.
Larry,
It’s later here than it is where you live. So I’ll cut to the chase. Maybe what we need is a radically reasonable solution (as in, a hybrid of what you’ve said and what I’ve said). It may not ever happen, but if the two approaches are melded together just right, we might just come up with a realistic, easy-to-implement program that’s superior to what exists right now. Given the current infighting in cycling (and other sports), there may be a snowball’s chance in Hades that it will ever come to pass, but it you never know. I might also have tonight’s winning lottery ticket. 😉
Is it just me, or is Larry and Rant on to something here?
WOW – applying common sense with intelligence…hmnnn. You know – this radical approach may not be such a bad idea? Who would have thought that such simplicity could be such a “gag in the throat” suggestion for the head in the sand crowed, eh?
So let me get this straight. Both Larry and Rant are suggesting that “execution” of the “suspect” may just be a bit “overboard response” to cheating in sports. I think these guys may just have something here!
I agree with Larry when he says that the anti-doping situation will only get worse on its present course.
Hey guys, thanks for the new idea – I think it has feet…maybe, the fanatic crowed is too busy “enjoying the beneficial results” of the Bush and the “moral majority” bunch running things, counting their pennies so they can buy their Yoo-hoos and six packs for the present dining experience.
Just maybe – the general public has had enough of the “moral” crowed running – things…you never can tell these things you know.
I knew if I waited long enough someone or some more then ones would actually come up with a “rational” method to handling this “doping/cheating” situation that we all have become aware of but has been going on since the first cave man developed the club.
Wow – does this mean a light at the end of the tunnel? Could be.
Stranger things have happened.
I wonder to what extent the “hang’em from the highest yardarm” mentality vis-a-vis anti-doping efforts stems from the use of the word “dope”, which at least here in the US has often been used in reference to other kinds of illegal drugs. Heroin, etc., and the users and pushers are held to be quite low, with good reason.
Of course, part of it stems from the idea that since you can’t catch them all, really nail the ones you catch and maybe others will be scared off, but the evidence is that this approach doesn’t really work.
Larry: your point about the more tests-speed-reliability triangle is well taken. If we are going to implement increased testing without major increase in cost, we may have to accept less reliable testing, which in turn argues, IMO, for much lower penalties, since it is more likely that such a testing scenario will result in a number of false positives.
Finally, the idea that we need to change the culture is well taken, but I wonder if this is realistic. Cheating of all kinds is well established and even accepted in sports: the NASCAR culture of “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying”, college coaches violating all sort of NCAA rules (there’s a list of schools currently under NCAA probation on Wikipedia that is amazingly extensive, although many of the sports involved are “minor” ones, which is amazing of itself), in sports like basketball, hockey, and soccer (and maybe others), deliberate tactical use of fouls is approved, with commentators often saying “that’s a good foul”. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Then consider this: in Bicycling magazine, there have often been articles regarding certain diets (think carbo-loading), or use of sports drinks or powerbars or gels, etc., to increase performance. I remember one article a number of years ago about am American racer in Europe who kept a small flask of very strong coffee saturated with sugar in his jersey pocket for a quick pick-me-up late in a race. It’s not much of a stretch from something like that to use of a banned substance.