News
SF Chronicle/Crumpacker touts USADA's "undirty dozen" program.
Blogs
Racejunkie writes mostly about the Giro and "Gibo's" competition, but slips in a reference to the denials of wrongdoing from Andrea Moletta's dad, oh those little blue pills.
News
The CyclingNews posts more about the "little blue pills" allegedly belonging to cyclist Andrea Moletta's father, and ostensibly due for use by him as a PED. There are also now denials by the UCI that Andrey Kashechkin has been cleared to race, and even if the Kazakh rider were cleared by his national federation it seems likely that the UCI would appeal the case to the CAS.
The Bemidji Pioneer passes along a piece about Greg LeMond's ongoing feud with Trek and Lance Armstrong in which LeMond states that he said nothing disparaging about Armstrong and doping, he was only "stating fact and telling the truth." LeMond also asserts that Trek, with whom he is also battling, has refused to publish any positive comments about LeMond bikes scheming to only post the negative.
News
The CyclingNews notes the confiscation of large amounts of Viagra from Andrea Moletta's father at the Giro and while it's not banned by WADA it has been shown to provide performance enhancement benefits outside the bedroom:WADA's spokesman Frédéric Donzé confirmed that Viagra is not banned in competition, but said that the agency is looking into the matter. "WADA is aware of the high altitude study presented in Science Daily. WADA monitors this substance, as it does with many other substances, and is currently funding a research project on the performance-enhancing potential of Sildenafil at various altitudes."
One wonders just how "comfortable" riding a bike would be for anyone using the drug.
In CyclingNews' Letter column this week the topics of discussion range from Australian road rage directed at cyclists to Alessandro Petacchi's "suspension".
ESPN reports on the anti-doping rules established for this summer's Olympics.
Blogs
Rant posted a "two-fer" yesterday with comments on the Festina-like Andrea Moletta "doping" brouhaha at the Giro, and Jeff Adams exoneration and highly motived training for this summer's Paralympics.
Shamelessly inspired by Fatty, we're considering holding our own Triathalon over the weekend of October 5th.
The events would be (1) walking up the long driveway; (2) doggy paddling in circles hanging onto Fun Noodles while holding adult beverages out of the water; and (3) riding to and up the Mt. Diablo Challenge. The first two may be less demanding than Fatty's troika, but we guarantee (3) will be as hard as you like.
Mix in reconnoiter/training rides on Friday and Saturday, and perhaps some Winery touring the week before or after for a richer experience.
Let's try to all hang together at least this once.
Except for dates, this is pretty vague. Interested folks can let us know and we'll work out real plans.
TBV
News
WADAwatch notes how little fight by charged athletes it would take to put the WADA system deeply into the red, Mr Young's seeming conflicts of interest, and connects the late Dr. Hoffman with Landis' long strange trip. He also argues what it will take to really fix the WADA system, promising future revisions.It remains scary to know how far one can get in the law, with a 'wink' between friends.
Floyd Landis has been out and about on the roads supporting charity, and that the boy can feel charitable towards anyone (except perhaps charitably like running over Pat "Dick" McQuaid with his bike at 35 miles an hour) is testament to his generosity and self-restraint. If he gathers eight thousand cameras around starts bawling and hugs every forlorn big-eyed tot in sight, Pat, can he get a new ProTour contract and a nice spokesman gig with UCI too?Full Post with Comments...
News
The CyclingNews reports on a raid at the headquarters of the Portuguese cycling team LA MSS. The Portuguese police confiscated doping substances, medications, equipment to conduct blood transfusions, and instruments for clinical use. The raid was undertaken with the help of the Portuguese National Anti-doping Council, according to a police report. The team has been in the news of late due to the death of rider Bruno Neves. The 26 year-old died while riding the Grande Prémio de Amarante earlier this month. He is reported to have suffered a heart related incident which caused his crash. This will obviously now come under greater scrutiny.
Blogs
Racejunkie indeed reacts to the news that Iban Mayo's CAS ruling is due sometime in June, aiigggghhhhh indeed. And in Astana news, Klodi for president, well team leader for the Vuelta at any rate.
News
USAToday says Landis is riding a multi-day awareness event for wounded soldiers.
 |  | |
| ||
"In what can only be characterized as a total vindication," Adams' lawyer Tim Danson said the three-judge panel concluded that there was no prohibited substance in Adams' system at the time of the competition or at the time he was drug tested.
Lausanne, 20 May 2008 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has partially upheld the appeal filed by the Canadian Paralympic track and field athlete, Jeffrey Adams, against a decision rendered by the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada dated 11 June 2007. In agreement with the challenged decision, Mr Adams is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation; however, the CAS Panel has determined that in the unique circumstances of this case, Mr Adams’ ineligibility period shall be eliminated because he was not at fault.
Potholes and Roadapples has more on the six-day wounded veteren support ride Landis is starting, with the Official Site link -- from which we learn that USA Today writer Sal Ruibal has a blog and some cycling stories of his own.
A year ago, we were in the middle of the public AAA hearing on the Landis case. Our contemporaneous coverage is here.
May 14, 2007. Press room; TBV is set up, but the circus has not yet arrived.
Mongongu, De Ceaurizz and Frelat arrive on the morning of Mongongu's cross-examination.
"The Race to the Bottom"
Brenna looked pained.This Roundup is started late, because there was no news. Y'all should get used to that happening here in the doldrums. But something did come up, so here is is.
Rulings
Sometime Friday, CAS made a ruling in the case of Jeff Adams that seems to us tilted towards sanity. There has been no press release (yet), and the award seems incomplete despite "final" designation. No major media has yet noticed, and we found out by email from Rant
Adams is a disabled Canadian athlete charged with cocaine use at an event, and he claimed a contaminated catheter from an earlier incident was responsible, and that there was no cocaine in his system at the time of the event. Richard McLaren was the sole arbiter at the original hearing, and there was supporting testimonly from Christiane Ayotte, both familar parties to followers of the Landis case. McLaren accepted the charge, gave a two year ban, and permanent disqualification of Canadian Government support. Adams appealed.
Adams presented first hand testimony supporting his claim that he was dosed with cocaine outside competition, and that he later urinated using a catheter that he inadvisedly saved for possible emergency use. After winning the event in question, at doping control he used this unwrapped, unsterile catheter, as there was no clean one available or provided by doping control.
Ayotte testified she thought he was doping, and the contaminated catheter couldn't have done it. Adams experts said it could.
In the original hearing, McLaren did not believe the story of the bar incident. The CAS panel "respectfully disagreed", finding the version not contradicted and fully corroborated by two reputable witnesses, and the lack of physical evidence and police report did not weigh against the testimony. The CAS panel found the contaminated catheter to be the source of the positive test result.
Out-of-competition cocaine use is not a violation, and the CAS panel corrected arguments by the ADA on that point.
Splitting the baby, the panel concluded that his results at the event should be DQ'd, but no further sanction is warranted. There was no cocaine in his body, only in the catheter. He was not "at fault" for cocaine in his body.
Paragraph 164 on costs is a unfilled ellipsis "(...)", so we don't know what the findings there may be. Bill Hue commented in mail,
Whenever someone "with all due respect"s you, the boom is going to fall. That is what the Panel did to Ayotte and McLaren.
News
The CyclingNews says that the UCI has placed Bjorn Leukemans back into its "whereabouts" system thus indicating that at least for now he can ride, IF he can find a team that will take him.
The NY Times writes about the distinct possibility that over 100 major league ball players could be prosecuted for steroid usage linked to tests from 2003:According to a lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government’s plans are supposed to remain confidential, federal authorities will seek to question each of the 104 players about where and how they obtained the substance detected in their urine samples. The authorities then intend to distribute the information they receive to federal prosecutors around the country
If this precedent is set, it is unclear how this could effect anyone who has ever tested positive for any PED in any sport.
Blogs
Rant notes that even the "high and mighty", like the IHT, can make mistakes. Oops indeed.
News
The CyclingNews reports that even though the CAS said he didn't cheat, UCI rule breaker Alessandro Petacchi has been fired by Milram. Michael Ball is salivating at the thought no doubt since Petacchi will be able to ride as of the end of August. Petacchi's case is just another stunning example of the ineptitudes of the "zero tolerance" principle. Off with his head!
Blogs
Racejunkie covers lots of ground with mentions about the toughness of the "bloody" Giro, Tyler Hamilton's now seemingly plausible "twin defense", and Bjorn Leukeman's "good fortune".
News
The CyclingNews posts the advice of Victor Conte to the world's anti-doping agencies. USADA's Travis Tygart responds with typical posturing towards (clean) athlete's rights, while he defends targeted testing:USADA CEO Travis Tygart responded, "Since our creation in late 2000 and before we disciplined 16 people associated with the BALCO doping conspiracy, USADA had incorporated and continues to incorporate all appropriate intelligence into our testing program. Our efforts to protect the rights of clean athletes has always has been focused on intelligent target testing and not simply on the number of tests."
This ignores completely the statistical point that even if you are targeting your testing, you'd want to do more of it in the 4th quarter, not earlier in the year.
Also translating, if you aren't targeted, you're unlikely to get tested, and once you are on the USADA list, they'll test the heck out of you until they have a case. It also suggests to us the best way to get on the list is to have notable performances or have someone rat you out. This leads to the targeting of the biggest (and disliked) fish, and relative immunity for low and middle-ranked athletes. It also makes those targeted more likely to get caught in false positives because of greater exposure to the tests. And, it does nothing to chase the guilty during the off-season when they are most likely to be "enhancing" their training regimens.
The IHT/George Vecsey posts an awkwardly timed piece that congratulates the IAAF on its decision against Pistorius, titled, "Admirable spirit, but rules are rules." Vecsey seems to have missed the award (below) on Pistorius' appeal, and the CAS was less impressed with the IAAF decision and argument, which seemed more like "rules are weapons" than "rules are rules."
Rulings
CAS has upheld Oscar Pistorius' appeal against the IAAF. He is now allowed to compete for an Olympic spot on his carbon fiber prosthetic lower legs. One of the arbiters was David Rivkin, who is on the Landis appeal panel.
The 18-page full award is here. Save it, because they vanish after a while. Some highlights:
60. At this stage, in the Panel's view, the process began to go "off the rails". The correspondence between the IAAF nad Prof. Bruggemann shos that his instructions were to carry out the testing only when Mr Pistorius was running in a straight line after the acceleration phase. By the time that the IAAF commissioned the Cologne tests it was known that this was the part of the race in which Mr Pistorius usually ran at his fastest.
61. [...] IAAF's officials must have known that, by excluding the start and the acceleration phase, the results would create a distorted view of Mr Pistorius' advantages and/or disadvantages. [...]
62. The stori is not enhances by the fact that Dr. Robert Gailey, the scientist nominated by Mr Pistorius [...] was effectively "frozen out" to such an extent that he declined to attend the Cologne tests. He was informed that he would be allowed to attend only as an observer, with no input on the testing protocol or on the analysis.
68. The impression of prejudgment is also enhanced by the fact that Dr. Locatelli and other IAAF officials told the press before the vote was taken that Mr Pistorius would be banned from IAAF sanctioned events.
70. In the Panel's view, the manned in which the IAAF handled the situation of MR Pistorius in the period from July 2007 to January 2008 fell short of the high standards that the international sporting community is entiteld to expect from a federation such as the IAAF.
80. without implying any criticism of the draftsman, who faces an extraordinarily difficult task, the Panel considers that this provision is a masterpiece of ambiguity. What constitutes a technical device? [...]
81. What constitutes a device that incorporates springs? Technically, almost every non-brittle material object is a "spring" in the sense that is has elasticity. [...] A natural human leg is itself a "spring".
82. [...] It was urged on the Panel by the IAAF's counsel that the ordinary and natural meaning of the word advantage is absolute. [...]
83. The Panel does not accept this proposition. [...] To propose that a passive device [...] should be classified as contravening that Rule without [...] proof tha tit provides him with an overall net advantage over other athletes flies in the face of both legal principle and commonsense.
News
CyclingNews reports on a reversal, perhaps only temporary, of a ban given Bjorn Leukemans for testosterone use (given by the team doctor, unknown to Bjorn):
[T]he Belgian appealed the ban and now, the Belgian Council of State ruled that the disciplinary commission's procedure was flawed, and ordered a new procedure to take place, with different judges.On Tuesday, the Council of State ruled that Leukemans' ban was no longer in place. "There is no ban, because the punishment is in no relation to the faults committed by the accused person," said magistrate Luc Hellin according to Belgian media.
The Leukemans doping case will thus start from scratch, with the rider theoretically free to race, if he had a team and a license. "The court's intention is that the matter should be fully treated within one year," added Hellin.
... "I'm glad that there is someone who follows my position," he said to Sporza. "I know that there was something in my urine, but the way in which it got there also plays a role. It was certainly not intentional. hopefully, this is the light at the end of the tunnel.
Originally suspended for eight years, Collins appealed and wound up with a four-year ban through July 17, 2008.
"We certainly support and have supported Michelle Collins' reinstatement once she came forward and rightfully assisted USADA in our efforts to rid the sport of doping," USADA's CEO, Travis Tygart, said in a telephone interview.
VANISHING POINT
Ex–pro cyclist Joe Papp got away with doping for years, but then he spilled the beans at the Floyd Landis hearing. What did he get for it? About 10,000cc of grief.
In late 2003 I advised USADA about the importance of random testing during the fourth quarter of the year. They did initially seem to follow my advice because they increased the number of fourth-quarter tests in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
However, they failed to continue this practice in 2007. Why would USADA decide to perform only 15% of their annual out-of-competition tests during the fourth quarter? Let's not forget that this is the off season before the upcoming summer Olympic Games. This is equivalent to a fisherman knowing that the fish are ready to bite and then consciously deciding that it is time to reel in his line and hook, lean his fishing pole up against a tree and take a nap.
News
The NY Times reports that federal prosecutors "cured" their original indictments against Barry Bond and refiled the case yesterday charging him with 14 counts of making false statements under oath that he did not use PEDS.
ESPN says that former Olympics skier Hans Knauss sued and then recieved a settlement from Ultimate Nutrition Inc for selling supplements tainted with illegal steroids which ultimately caused him to miss the 2006 Olympics. At the time the International Ski Federation had reduced his suspension, but the CAS had turned down his appeal. He was represented by former Landis lawyer Howard Jacobs.
Blogs
At Rant, Bill Hue points out the CAS rule relevant to expenses:
WADA’s request for “contribution”, should it prevail, derives from the CAS Code as follows:
“R64.5 The arbitral award shall determine which party shall bear the arbitration costs or in which proportion the parties shall share them. As a general rule, the award shall grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings and, in particular, the costs of witnesses and interpreters. When granting such contribution, the Panel shall take into account the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and the financial resources of the parties.”
WADA is bankrupting (In our opinion, at least morally, if not financially) itself, NOT to prove Landis doped.
It is draining its litigation account (the legality of which remains to be determined, as WADAwatch argued in its Revised Amicus Brief from early April) for one simple reason:
WADA is fighting to prove itself NOT GUILTY - in our neutral opinion, of permitting tortious laboratory malfeasance, of committing gross ethics violations by itself (through former president Dick Pound) and its French laboratory, and of submitting and enforcing: incredibly, poorly, Machiavellianly, its biased drafting (not once but twice) of the WADA CODE.
WW goes on:
WADA has, through its CODE redrafting exercise, offered NO legitimate assurance (as of yet) to these Athletes, OVER NINETY-FIVE (95) per cent of which have never failed a doping control (when the evidence is sourced from a WADA-accredited laboratory), that the proper test was properly performed at EVERY WADA lab, with a standardized methodology, harmonized criteria, and, penultimately: uniform and ETHICAL results management.And goes back to the "Quigly Rule", which appears to be getting lost:
Time and again, WADA expounds its preferences for 'judicial interpretation' (this means that any private Arbitration panel can 'add' to what a WADA CODE Article stands for; it betrays the faith in its Signatory IFs who pay WADA their contributions in the belief that WADA stands for the words in its FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE) rather than proper, strict and FAIR drafting of an Universal CODE that provides a basis to stop bad Science from distortions of the truth regarding the infinite variables found in the physiologies of extremely hard-pushing Athletes.
"Athletes and officials should not be confronted with a thicket of mutually qualifying or even contradictory rules that can be understood only on the basis of the de facto practice over the course of many years by a small group of insiders." [Ww: emphasis added] (CAS: USA Shooting & Quigley v. UIT, 1995 (CAS 94/129))BUT!
This is exactly what WADA HAS ACHIEVED.
CAS, one hopes, will rise to this occasion and return a verdict of not-guilty against Landis, castigate WADA severely for its financial intervention of the USADA appeal, introduce a ruling that forces WADA to redraft its CODE in an emergency session prior to July 31st, and suspend the French Laboratory LNDD prior to the running of this year's Tour de France.
News
No Landis comment, but for some reason amusing. A commenter points us to a WRCB report that references the Tennesean. It seems a truck with a million dollars worth of pharmaceuticals was hijacked in Nashville. Within the now-missing cargo: Procrit, being Ortho-distributed, Amgen manufactured EPO. If a bunch of South Eastern masters riders start tearing up the place later this year, here's a clue.
Blogs
Racejunkie is all about saints and sinners today. In the "saints" column goes the peloton's "favorite" anti-doping czar David Millar and not Ivan Basso? In the definite sinner column goes poor Floyd Landis, literally poor Floyd, who is being demonized yet again by WADA. This time for the legal costs that the procedures that were within his rights cost them. Keep trying WADA, one of these days you might hit on something that actually makes some sense.
Rock Racing's Rashaan Bahati is having joint problems, and has talked with Landis, among others, about what to do. He needs to decide on surgery now, or later sometime. He's sucked it up, and won a recent race, but can't go on like that.
VeloVortMax spins the report about WADA wanting Landis to pay their expenses, but takes it a bit further than the current information suggests. As far as we know, WADA isn't planning on suing Landis, but probably made the standerd request in the arbitration for costs. Good luck with that: It requires a finding that Landis' appeal was unfounded, for him to have the money, and for there to be some leverage on him to pay it. To anyone's knowledge, has Hamilton paid the costs awarded in his appeal?
Anyway, VVmax fantasizes about some of the people who might be brought to the stand should there be procedings in a real court -- and dreams that WADA might throw Landis into that briar patch:John Fahey please sue Floyd Landis. There are so many unanswered questions about this case. Inquiring minds want to know. But don't be surprised if the real world does not work like the WADA world. WADA stands to lose a lot more than money.
Rant skewers the one-sided WADA idea of "loser (athlete) pays", and wants them to consider "WADA pays lost earnings" in the event an athlete wins. He wonders what the disincentive is now to halt prosecution of shaky cases.
That's a trick question, obviously: If you ask WADA, there has never been a shaky case, and never will be. The accredited-under-rules-that-mean-whatever-we-want-them-to labs never make mistakes (that matter, by our definitions) or use unsupported (by our standards) procedures.
And the athletes are all guilty anyway, so what is your problem, you doping apologist?
We're doing this for the kids, after all!
It has nothing to do with our Olympic cash-cow barn and the attached pork feeding trough.
Nothing.
At All.
Really!
