- HOT TOPICS:
- The new VeloNews.com (BETA)
The Explainer - Why no word?
Dear Explainer,
I am curious about the rules when it comes to national and international anti-doping agencies’ announcements of a positive doping test. I look back at the Landis case when it seemed that the newspapers knew about a positive A sample before the rider himself did. Like Landis, we all followed the testing process, the follow-ups and then a very public (often ugly) hearing and the appeal to CAS.
I ask, because I keep hearing noise about one of my favorites, but I haven’t heard any news – up or down – about tests, A samples, B samples, negatives or positives. What are the rules? Can a suspected rider race? Wouldn’t we hear about a suspension?
Dan Brooks
Asbury Park, New Jersey
Dear Dan,
The Landis case is something of a bad example to apply to other doping cases, whether settled or still pending. I think it’s fair to say that reporters at L’Equipe probably did know about that first A sample result before Landis did. If they didn’t, they probably found out within hours of his learning the news. (While a lot of folks might object to that, as a nosey old reporter I was merely jealous, trying to figure out how I or one of my colleagues could develop sources like that.)
When the World Anti-Doping Agency was first created at the first World Conference on Doping in Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1999, the primary mission was to nail dopers. Period. The document that came out of that meeting was less than a single page, largely calling for the formation of agency independent of the International Olympic Committee – WADA – and the establishment of a mandatory two-year ban for a first offense and a life-time ban for a second. Since then, it’s gotten a bit more complicated.
Even when nosey reporters couldn’t get the inside dope (forgive the pun) early, we would often learn of a pending case when a rider accepted a provisional suspension from competition pending the outcome of a case. That’s changed over the years.
Late last year, for example, we only officially learned of Kayle Leogrande’s suspension after the whole hearing process was over.
A look at the most recent revision of the World Anti-Doping Code explains why. The new Code includes a number of significant changes, including an expanded section dealing with provisional suspensions, protocols for test result management and rules dealing with the release of information to the public.
Of course, at any point, a rider could simply opt to discuss a pending case in public, meaning that all of the following privacy provisions do not apply. Recall the recent case involving the missed doping test of Jonathan Page. He began making his case on his personal Web site, freeing up officials from USA Cycling and USADA to offer their own comments.
To begin, Article 7 of the World Anti-Doping Code specifies that once an A sample is found to be positive, the agency responsible for anti-doping rules begins a review of those results. Here in the U.S., that duty falls to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. The agency begins by checking records to see if there is an applicable Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) and whether the tests were conducted in compliance with international standards.
If the test appears to have been conducted properly and no TUE applies in the case, the athlete is then formally notified of the result. At that point, the rider can accept the result, admit a doping violation and accept a suspension or he can ask for the B sample to be tested. If such a request is made, the rider also has a right to attend the re-test or to have a representative there in his or her place. You might recall that such was the case in the Landis matter. Indeed, the re-test and the role of the observer became an issue in both the original hearing and the ensuing appeal.
Assuming that the B sample also trips the Dope-o-meter™, then the Code provides several options. Of course, at any point in the process, the rider can accept the findings and receive a formal suspension. At that point, the information becomes public. Otherwise, either the rider can accept – or the anti-doping agency can unilaterally impose — a so-called provisional suspension. That means that the rider will not be able to compete, but news of that provisional suspension cannot be made public.
According to USA Cycling, official team rosters will not be changed to reflect such a suspension; you just won’t see the rider compete, as was the case with Leogrande throughout a significant part of the 2008 season.
Interestingly, the new rules do provide the means by which a major promoter can be notified even before such a suspension is imposed or accepted by the rider. Under Article 7.3.1(b), a major organizer facing an imminent team and rider selection deadline may request whether certain riders are facing a pending doping case.
If the provisional suspension is imposed by the agency, the rider has a right to a hearing to review the provisions of that suspension only. This hearing is not the full review of the doping case, but just a review of whether the provisional suspension is appropriate.
Again, public release of that information is barred, even if the review shows that the provisional suspension is appropriate.
The governing agency issues a preliminary sanction – most often a two-year suspension for a first-time offense. The rider can then request a hearing to review the merits of the case against him. News of that is now also limited.
We’re all generally familiar with the hearing process. Usually, even if the public knows about the case, the hearings themselves are closed. The rare exception, of course, was Landis’ public hearing in 2007.
As you know, the process can — in the words of one my colleagues — take “for frickin’ ever,” as evidence by the nearly two-year hearing and appeals saga in the Landis case. If the issues are relatively straight-forward and there is a major event coming up, a rider can also request an expedited hearing in a case. Page did that in anticipation of worlds and was cleared to ride in time for the championships in Hoogerheide on February 1.
So when do you find out? The rules governing release of such information are generally outlined in Article 12 of USADA’s rulebook, which notes that the agency
shall not publicly disclose or comment on any athlete's positive test result or any information to any alleged doping violation (including violations not involving adverse analytical finding) until after the athlete or other person 1) has been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in a hearing conducted under article 10(b) above, or 2) has failed to request a hearing set forth in 10(a), or 3) has agreed in writing to the sanction.In other words, the case has to be heard before the agency can comment. That does not, however, mean that a further delay would occur if the case is appealed. Once that first hearing panel issues a decision, it’s public. In Leogrande’s case, when the ruling came down, USADA issued a press release and then provided the entire text of the hearing panel’s decision. We didn’t formally hear anything before that.
One final note: A rider can't simply opt to quietly ride off into the sunset of retirement, either. Article 7.6 of the Code specifically notes that the applicable agency retains jurisdiction in the case until the process is completed, whether or not the athlete chooses to leave the sport.
The rules, when applied, seem to hit a proper balance. They keep an accused doper out of competition, protect his privacy and then allow the rest of us to find out when a final verdict is issued.
Of course, that doesn’t keep nosey reporters from trying to find out what they can. Me? I’d like to find out how those guys at L’Equipe manage to find out stuff as quickly as they do.
