Some athletes are clean. You can tell. Or can you?

I am sure many people have felt cheated when they pronounc any athlete is clean – to find their world collapse on the front pages of newspapers that “such and such” has been sent home following a doping failure.

I know i have put faith in some who let me down.
For all that I still believe.

I met Diane Modahl, and her personality was such I judge she could never have cheated. She would rather have come seventh in an honest race, than finish first by cheating. That was my opinion then, and it has not changed since – which makes it so much worse, that she was apparent victim of a testing disaster.

I believe in Paula Radcliffe too.

But I wonder whether her vociferously anti doping stance may become her undoing. Who can forget the images of Paula holding a placard at a track race, opposing a drug cheat who had escaped banning just on a technicality

I can think that very stance (and good on Paula for being outspoken) some have a grudge to settle with Paula and thats the trouble. A marathoner is more vulnerable than most.

There are those who would take the chance to spike a drink. With a marathoner there are opportunities. Or long distance cyclists taking drinks from the road.

A meal. A drink even a cup of tea at roadside catering trailer?

I hope for paulas sake those charged with the security
of her drinks and food do not have a bad day.
But she must live in fear of those with a grudge to settle.

She reminds me of the film gladiator: when the identity of maximus is revealed he worries about eating in case his food has been tampered

The reason I watch sport.  The underdog who reaches hidden depths to compete with those at the top of the tree. He made the tour de france this year a spectacle to remember for all time..

He has also been let down badly by the drug authorities.

When contador attacked and Voeckler was finally dropped, was the time when Voeckler slipped from the podium. There is a good chance – I believe – he would have been on the podium but for one Alberto Contador.

But should Contador even have been there? He failed a drug test one year ago without a doubt, and his case is still pending. That is outrageous , that one year on these pen pushing beurocrats (who all should be sacked) are still trying to a arrange a date for a hearing. Over a year on.

Contador too was booed on some stages.

There are only two possibilites. Either he is deemed a drug cheat, in which case he should not have been there, and Voeckler may well have been on the podium. And what of the other events whose outcome was influenced by Contador? Can history be rewritten.

Or he is cleared to race in which case Contador should not have suffered the undoubted turmoil and indignity of having the sword of the ban hanging over his head. How can anyone compete well, with that on their minds? They have damaged contador too.

Reality is the drug authorities have failed both Voeckler and Contador.

Drug doping should be handled RAPIDLY.  CONSISTENTLY. TRANSPARENTLY so justice is not only done , it is seen to be done.

But our authorities handle the case SLOWLY,  INCONSISTENTLY and with as little transparency as they can muster.

We hate drug cheats with a passion, but judgement  must be consistent.

If the penalty for doping says 2 years for the first offense, it surely must mean two years.

• It should not mean two years extended indefinitely to five, as it seems to have been for dwain chambers, who is still barred from competing.
• It should not mean 21 months as a matter of convenience , as it has for Leshawn Merritt – welcomed back into competition.
• It should certainly not mean “no further action” as it appears to have done for Alberto Contador, with hearings deferred indefinitely.

How can the public have confidence faced with such abitrary decisions as these? Those in authority, you are becoming a laughing stock.

We really are facing the prospect of Leshawn Merritt competing in London where Dwain Chambers will be refused. That cannot be right.

It does beg an interesting contrast.

I do not wish to take sides here, or proclaim either innocence or guilt.

But remember Contador was the beneficiary of the tour title by default because  Michael Rasmussen was summarily thrown out of the tour for a number of missed drug tests, but more importanlty pulled by his team.

I have commented elsewhere that I dislike the apparent double jeopardy, that Rasmussen lost the postcdode lottery. Because of where he was born , he was subject to two sets of tesing, national and international, unlike Contador at the time.

But imagine.

If Contador’s sample result had been available immediately, then would his team have been pressed into suspending him PENDING investigation , so he could not have won the tour. The point I make is at least Contador was given the chance to win the tour, and now can appeal that judgement.

Rasmussen cannot appeal his tour victory, because he was prevented from doing so, yet of the two of them,  Contador is the one who actually failed a test!

To me all of this highlights an out of date, system which takes forever to deliver an arbitrary verdict which as much as anything depends on where you were born.

Contador has apparent lenience by the Spanish Federation and because of support is trying to give a year suspension ,where it was clear, that the Danes did their best to condemn Rasmussen and push him out of the sport.

It makes the entire process a laughing stock whoever is guilty and innocent..

One the one hand I have every sympathy with Contador, simply on the length of time these beurocrats take to reach a decision.

It should not , and must not take 6 months of speculation.

There must be a thorough investigation, but the federations must gear up to do that in a matter of a couple of weeks, so that no sooner the announcement of the doping than the announcement of the decision if anything.

The beurocrats have safe jobs. It makes no difference to them, whether it takes a month or a year. But how can  Riis and Saxobank  function, not knowing even as late as february who his star rider will be?

The delay means those running the sport, operate in complete indifference to how it actually functions.

On the other hand the federation itself has given a decision of a one year ban which means nothing.  You cannot be “a little bit” pregnant.

Either they judge a doping offence was committed on the basis of rules and evidence  to hand, in which case a 2 year ban is mandatory.

Or they judge that there was no case to answer.

In which case he should be treated as innocent.

This “half way house”  of one year ban does yet more to damage the reputation of the sport.

It is also highlights the stupidity of a system, just like the one in athletics, where the central agency uses local federations to fire the bullets for it, it decides the “right” decision and overrules federations if they disagree.

Nonsense. Either the UCI should be responsible or the federations. Take your pick.

In athletics it became clear why the two tier  structure existed as long ago as Butch Reynolds and Diane Modahl. The central agency  wanted to take the decisions, but not be the ones to face compensation fines from legal action. 

All that is needed is:

A set of rules strictly adhered. A process operating in at most a couple of months,  with a clear chain of authority.

To watchers of the Rasmussen affair it seemed as though he faced double jeopardy,  with separate international and federation doping controls, without which he would not have missed too many tests.

And whilst no support of drug offences, the rules should be the rules At the end of the ban, that should be the end.

Rasmussen has served his time, so the present treatment of Rasmussen by the DK federation is completely unnacceptable.

A fascinating article:

LONDON — Enough with the tough talk. Let’s see some action.

That’s the message from international anti-doping officials, who are becoming convinced that two-year suspensions are too weak and want sports bodies to start imposing four-year bans to send drug cheats a stronger message.

Under the World Anti-Doping Agency code that took effect nearly two years ago, athletes can be punished with bans of up to four years for a first offense in “aggravating” cases.

However, federations and national doping bodies have stayed away from the four-year penalty, apparently worried that tougher penalties won’t stand up in court or simply because they’re content to stick with the two-year sanctions.

WADA Director General David Howman said those who wanted the option of tougher punishments seem to have lost their nerve.

“This four years was something that people who were advocating stronger penalties really wanted us to include, and so it was included,” Howman said in an interview with The Associated Press. “But 18 months later, it’s hardly being used, if at all.

“When it comes to the crunch, obviously people are not willing to be as tough as they sound.”

Howman said the longer ban is intended to benefit clean athletes.

“They don’t want to be lining up against people who cheat,” he said. “They get a two-year penalty and, quick as a flash, they’re back again.”

Arne Ljungqvist, the International Olympic Committee’s top anti-doping official and a WADA vice president, agreed that the four-year sanction hasn’t been used enough.

“No one has been doing it, so we are waiting for a suitable test case,” Ljungqvist told the AP. “So far people are still living with the idea that two years is the standard ban, which should not be the case in serious cases like EPO and steroids and the like. We will take action once we have a good case to pursue.”

Some legal experts argue a four-year ban for a first violation is Draconian and a restraint of trade. Costly court cases could make sports bodies think twice before trying to impose a four-year punishment.

“A four-year ban is effectively a life ban in most sports,” said Mike Morgan, a London-based lawyer specializing in doping regulations. “It is a very big step to take to impose that. … The day we start seeing four-year bans, it has to be justified. They really have to back it with some robust arguments and evidence.”

Four-year bans used to be the norm, but the penalty was cut in half after there were complaints that it went too far and wasn’t legally enforceable.

See the original here: well worth reading the rest!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=oly&id=5792502

Our opinion? Yes – we are all for ANYTHING that cleans up sport – But…

i/ How can you know that drug violation is deliberate, not for example the result of deliberate spiking -

ii/ The procedures need tidying up. With the best will in the WORLD, athletes cannot say exactly where they will be months hence. How about common sense prevailing? A phone call  up to eight hours  before to agree a place and time with the athlete? Testers seem to be far too precious. Christine Ohurugu was clearly not shirking a drug test even that day. But she was unable to cross london in time for the testers. Why did  they not come to her..or meet somewhere in between?

iii/ To pronounce a death sentence on an athletes career you had better be certain. I mean really certain!!! – That means shoddy test procedure should be met with the same culpability as doping. ie – The lab manager and technicians who fail to follow procedure should themselves be given a four year ban on further athlete testing. 

iv/ The playing field should be level. Either ALL countries athletes can compete in the olympics on end of bans, or none.

And finally one we campaign for!!! – The process should have run its course at the time the media announce. B samples already tested, and decisions taken on suspensions – to prevent the speculations. Leaks from laboratories (particularly french)  should result in the lab being excluded from any further testing.

Alberto Contador has been called into question after a suspicious test result for a trace of Chlembuterol – and provisionally suspended for a positive but trace test on a rest day sample.

But before final decisions and testing confirm the finding.

Contador himself blames food poisoning

Riis cycling with whom he is due to sign, has suspended judgement on the issue, pending the outcome of investigation

Regardless of the outcome of this, I think there is a FAR bigger issue.

Why has the situation been made public BEFORE testing has concluded? It reminds you of many previous breaches when even leaked results from test labs have pointed fingers before the conclusion of the process.

It just should not happen. In my view the officials that made it public should be suspended with immediate effect.

The process must be fair, rigorous, applied equally to all with out fear or favour. AND CONFIDENTIAL until final judgement is cast.

The sport continues to be a public relations disaster. And the testing continues to look amateur because of revelations like this

David Millar has spoken out on the issue in my

The organiser defended his action by saying they wanted an inclusive and no holds barred discussion.

I have to question his inclusion.

The only thing you can be CERTAIN of with Landis is the Man is a liar and self confessed cheat.

Having given two opposing sets of testimony, the ONLY thing you can be certain of is that  he lied - what you cannot be sure of is which version of the “truth” is false, or indeed whether BOTH versions are “economical with the truth”

It seems in remarkably poor taste. At very least they should allow the federal US saga to play out to see whether he is further lambasted by federal sources too.

No doubt he will use the platform for further smearing of all and sundry.

It also revealed the long shadows and contrasts, never more stark than in the ladies 1500m. Lisa Dobriskey has made her views known and rightly so!

Two athletes she lined up against:

Take Anna Alminova who  is coming off a 3-month drug ban for  taking a “cold medicine” – I assume ephedrine. Too many Russian women have been busted for drugs the last few years – take the urine substitution scandal at Bejing.  Thus dominating performances raise eyebrows. 

When Tim Hutchings and the international broadcasters openly raised their suspicions on the broadcast: stating that her performance in the paris diamond league, was not just “good” they  wondered whether it was “too good” – the fastest time for years. So the question remains was it real?

And the diamond league shows another dark contrast – with another athlete who beat Lisa Dobriskey that day Frenchwoman Hind Dehiba, a convicted drug cheat who finished ahead of dobriskey.

You cannot help but wonder why both of them – Alminova and Dehiba – have been allowed into diamond league events at all  when Dwain Chambers is  not.

There is clear double standards on the part of the French.

Then take Oliveira Jevtic in the marathon, whose crime is ostensibly the same as alminova, a 3 month ban for a cold cure imposed at the New York marathon, who Paula Radcliffe remarked in commentary  was barred from the big city marathons seemingly as a result – and had no options but to race in championships. An indefinite ban, If I understood what Paula said correctly that is.

My clear statement to organisers. Double standards do not help.

Clear rules, that apply to all. No exceptions, no preferential treatment. A ban that is served, is the record wiped clean. The question over how long the ban should be is a separate issue completely. And whatever is decided it must apply to all – regardless of country or local olympic association.

But well done Barcelona! Some great races and competitions – that will go down in the memories of all who saw them.

From the wonderful gesture of Jesus Espana welcoming Mo Farrar as new 5000  champion, to the tears of Blanca Vlasic , when finally getting ahead in a red hot jump competition that kept all on their seats. Too many memories to pick just one!!

But theres the rub. The rules must be the rules whoever you are. Whether you come from spain, UK or colombia, the doping rules must be the same.

And there is the problem. To the disgrace of himself, and all associated with him Dwain Chambers cheated. No doubt about it, and was not as contrite as he should have been.

A ban is a ban, is a ban. If the rule says  Two years is  the penalty. Two years must be imposed. Not a day less. Not a day more, and there it must end.

Can it be right that only because he lives in the UK Dwain Chambers will be prevented from olympic competition. Or that he is excluded from Golden League?

Whatever the rule is, it must be the same for everyone. If EVERYBODY is excluded from olympic competition, so must dwain. Or all must be allowed to compete.  The sport must choose. But it cannot depend on where you live – and it cannot be arbitrary either.

This arbitrary power of the BOA is a throwback, to the days of “gentlemen in blazers” controlling sport. It must now be professional. Have rules. And stick to them. Regardless of who you are or where you come from.  If you are danish or spanish or english, it must be the same tests, The same ban. The same right to compete.

It is a completely separate issue whether we have a lifetime ban. If we do – it must be for all. Not just Dwain.