I’m torn by the following news … on the one hand, yes, it should be a pretty good way to help get rid of the cheaters once and for all; although, like McQuaid, life bans would be better.

On the other hand, as slipshod as many of the testing procedures and protocols have proven to be over the past several years, I would hate to see an innocent rider slapped with a 4-year ban, especially knowing the way that these things are handled in the United States by USADA.

UCI to introduce four-year ban in ‘09

Following the positive A sample tests for CERA by Tour de France stars Stefan Schumacher and podium-finisher Bernhard Kohl, UCI President Pat McQuaid has confirmed that the UCI will double its maximum sanction for doping cases next season.

A four-year suspension could effectively end the career of positive riders and should act as a strong deterrent. McQuaid told Cyclingnews on Tuesday that he’d personally opt for life bans if possible, but that WADA rules had to be followed.

“I have said before that I would like to see them out of the sport for good. That is purely on a personal level,” he stated. “However, we are obliged to follow the world anti-doping code, and that is what the UCI will do. Currently the world anti-doping code gives a maximum two-year sanction in the case of a positive test. From the first of January there is a bit more flexibility in it, and we can go up to a four year ban in the cases of something regarded as willful cheating.

“In these cases [Kohl and Schumacher], considering that these guys were given the product and then went and took it for the Tour de France, it would be very much classified as willful cheating. Next year a rider in that position would face a four year ban.

Okay, yeah sure, the four-year ban is for “willful cheating” … but knowing Travis Tygart and his USADA cronies, the mere presence of any anomalies would be considered willful cheating. Miss a test because of poor signage and lack of chaperones at the finish line of a major event (like what happened to Sager a few years back)? Obviously, you’re avoiding the test because you cheated. Smack. Four years. Good-bye!

Feh.

Brief article at CanadianCyclist.com yesterday, pointed out by a Portland-based pal:

Anti-doping Tests Flawed According to Study

The current issue of The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism contains a study by a Swedish team that concludes current standard anti-doping tests for steriods will not catch many athletes that used the banned substances, and will provide false positives for as many as 14% of those tested.

Anti-doping tests look for synthetic testosterone by measuring the ratio of testsoterone to epitestosterone in urine. If the ratio exceeds four to one (4:1) then it is considered an indication of doping (extra testosterone has been administered through steriod use). It was this particular test that led to Floyd Landis being stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title, when his ratio was found to be as high as 11:1.

The study, conducted at the Karolinska Institute, showed that people vary genetically in their ability to secrete the testosterone enyzme, and therefore may not show excess ratios, despite having used steriods. Over two-thirds of people from an East Asian background showed the gene variant which would allow them to pass an anti-doping test despite using steriods.

Further, the study found a gene that can lower the level of epitestosterone in urine, leading to higher ratios and false positive results. The study says that these mistakes can be cleared by further testing.

WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) is reviewing the results of this study, and may have to revise or augment current testing procedures.

Now … I’m not an endocrinologist, so much of what was in the published article (linked below) is beyond me, but what I got from it is that depending on this particular genetic marker, up to 40% of people without the two main alleles for this particular gene NEVER tested above the 4:1 testosterone/epitestosterone level, and the highest level reached was only 5.3:1 in the two weeks following a testosterone injection.

On the other hand, subjects with both alleles for this gene had baseline T/E ratios above the 4:1 limit, and could generate false-positives in up to 9% of test subjects in standard doping tests.

So what does this mean?

Well, in Floyd Landis’ case, if he has both genetic markers, then it’s very possible that his initial ratio of 11:1 was a true false positive. But then there’s the results of the CIR test, which did show that some of the testosterone in his system was exogenous. However, there are still enough questions about the methods of the Châtenay-Malabry lab to cast doubt on the results of that particular test.

On the other hand, riders without the particular genetic markers, could microdose with exogenous testosterone and never get caught because their T/E ratios never exceed the limits.

It is extremely important is that WADA/USADA/IOC/UCI/etc look more closely at the protocols and a) unify/standardize them across the various labs, and b) seek the truth (and justice), rather than the automatic presumption of guilt and subsequent legal battles which cast a bad light on the sport as a whole … even if this means genetic testing as part of the so-called medical passport program.

Further reading:

1. Doping by mutant athletes undetected
2. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (March 11, 2008 issue)

Make your own judgments.

So tomorrow I get to spend one of my precious weekend days sitting in a conference room at a hotel in downtown Salt Lake City … and why, you might ask?

The Utah Cycling Association is holding their annual clinic for officials … if you want to become a licensed official in the sport of cycling, you must attend one of these events. Ellie G. has been suggesting for years that I get my license, pretty much ever since I started helping out at the UTCX series.

I think it’s just her way of getting out of doing the officiating next year, but we’ll see what happens.

So … I’ve renewed my USCF racing license (as a Cat 5 on the road and track, Cat 4 cyclocross [i.e. bottom of the barrel in all three disciplines]), and am pursuing a USA Cycling officials license.

The irony? I can’t stand much of what USA Cycling is about … with their focus on Elite racing, rather than growing the sport at the grassroots level; and their lack of support for their members who are obviously getting screwed by USADA … these are all things that need to change.

Now, do I think that my becoming more officially involved with the sport will help change all of that? No … probably not. But at least I will feel like I am doing my part to keep the sport going, if not growing.

I wonder if I can still refer to myself as the Chief Unofficial in non-sanctioned events …

Interesting bit of doping news at Competitor.com:

Landis Interested Observer as USADA Loses Doping Appeal

Floyd Landis and his legal term are looking closely at a decision made Dec. 14 in an arbitration hearing brought by American sprinter LaTasha Jenkins against the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). Jenkins had been sanctioned for using the anabolic steroid nandralone, but her appeal was successful.

The defeat was the first ever suffered by USADA, which had run its record to 36-0 in its previous case, the celebrated 2-1 arbitration decision this fall that allowed Landis to become the first champion in the 104-year history of the Tour de France to be stripped of his title.

The first arbitration defeat by the seven-year-old U.S. drug agency came when an arbitration panel ruled Jenkins’ positive doping test from a meet in Belgium in 2006 was flawed because the two European labs doing the testing violated international standards.

Perhaps, now that USADA has actually lost an arbitration due to sloppy lab work, they’ll be a little less gung-ho about pushing forward with other sanctions against riders when there is some semblance of doubt …

Once again, I’m reminded of Blackstone’s Formulation: it is “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

Landis to appeal split decision ruling : Bike Biz

The three-man panel appointed by the US Anti Doping Authority to sit on the Floyd Landis hearing handed down a 2 to 1 decision against Landis on September 20th.

Both the majority decision and the dissent are available from the USADA website. Click on 2007. The majority decision is an 84-page PDF. The dissent is 26 pages.

The dissent by attorney Christopher Cambell, who has a long record of finding against athletes in doping hearings, was scathing of the anti-doping hearing procedures and severely critical of the Parisian drug-testing lab at the centre of the Landis case. The other two panel members were also critical of the French lab, throwing out the original screening tests, but deeming other results to be above board.

Regardless of whether or not Landis is actually guilty of doping, the fact remains that the system is fucked up, and the athletes are the ones getting screwed. Unless and until WADA and the IOC start holding their laboratories to the same high standards that a court would (at least, an American court, since I’m not as familiar with the justice systems in other nations), then there will always be questions.

Had this case been tried in a criminal court in the United States, it is very likely that Landis would have been found not guilty because there is certainly a reasonable doubt based on the inconsistencies in the lab reports. In a civil court, where preponderence of the evidence is the standard, the outcome is less clear, but on balance, if I were a juror, I would still find for Landis.

This doesn’t mean I think he is innocent; there is a vast difference between not guilty and innocent, but as Blackstone’s Formulation states, “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

If a guilty Landis ultimately manages to win his case, and forces change so that riders like Jason Sager and Bart Gillespie don’t have to deal with the bullshit they endured within the past couple of years, then it’s worth it.

Unfortunately, USADA and WADA seem to prefer Bismarck’s Complement, which states that “it is better that ten innocent men suffer, than that one guilty man escape.”

Travis Tygart is full of shit:

“We absolutely are motivated to find the truth and do the right thing in every case. Our obligation is to protect clean athletes, nothing less and nothing more. And, while this means we have to have the integrity to follow the rules even when they apply to one of our country’s top athletes, like in the Justin Gatlin case, it also means when the evidence does not support an accusation we drop the case. We have had over 20% of all potential cases closed. Also, we have even gone back when new information was developed. For example, in the (Cale) Redpath case, new information became available and we acted on that information by retroactively erasing the violation (failure to appear for post-race testing) that he had agreed to. Our commitment to doing what is right is supported by our record, which is open for all resolved cases, and speaks for itself.” (Read more)

So why is Jason Sager still suspended?

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/mar07/mar09news

USADA CEO steps down

US Anti-doping Agency Chief Executive Officer Terry Madden submitted his resignation to the USADA Board of Directors earlier this month. The CEO since the agency’s inception in 2000, Madden will be replaced by current USADA General Counsel Travis T. Tygart effective October 1, 2007.

Wonder if this bodes ill or well on how doping cases are going to be handled in the US going forward. Last I checked, Sager was still in limbo with regards to his suspension, even though the other two riders who were banned at the same time have had their suspensions lifted, and Bartman managed to avoid getting suspended at all.