“Doping is always a response to a void, a need – whether it’s for money, or success, or love, or something else. That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything. [...]

“Everyone has their own sense of legitimate and illegitimate, which is different from what is licit and illicit. For example, I might think it’s legitimate to drive my car at 90kph in an 80kph zone, if me being late means that my son will walk out into the school playground and not see his dad. For Richard Virenque, doping was legitimate because, for some reason, he needed the love and admiration of the public. For some riders from Eastern Europe it’s legitimate because they need money for their families – which is hard to condemn. Or a teenager might take steroids and go to the gym to pump iron because he’s uncomfortable with his body. In that case, doping serves his need – it perpetuates it too, but as far as the kid is concerned it solves his particular problem…”

The perspective described by Bassons is one that is usually absent from media discussions on doping. Some academics recognize the value of looking at the big picture in which doping occurs.

For example, Dr. Jay Coakley, Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs and author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies“, feels it is crucial to use what he calls “sociological imagination” to understand why athletes use steroids and performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) by recognizing how individual biographies interact with current social and cultural factors.

Christophe Basson is well-known for being outspoken on the topic of doping in pro cycling. He was one of the first cyclists to be ostracized by the peloton after speaking out publicly about the widespread use of various drug in the sport in the aftermath of the Festina scandal at the 1998 Tour de France.

Basson is recognized by his peers as one of the few cyclists who did not participate in the doping subculture unlike other doping whistleblowers such as Floyd Landis. He was one of the first athletes to be subject to the wrath of Lance Armstrong for uncovering the subculture of doping in cycling.

Bassons said Armstrong rode up alongside on the Alpe d’Huez stage to tell him “it was a mistake to speak out the way I do and he asked why I was doing it. I told him that I’m thinking of the next generation of riders. Then he said ‘Why don’t you leave, then?’”

Lance Armstrong expressed comments in an interview reacting to Bassons’ departure from the sports and his outspoken statments on doping.

“If it’s the rider that I think it is,” Armstrong said yesterday morning, in reference to the departure of Bassons, “the one who’s always speaking about problems in cycling and doping, then I told him during the stage to Sestrières that I respected what he was saying but that I thought there was a professional and a correct way to do it. What he’s said is not good for him or his team, his sponsor and cycling. I understand his position, but if that’s what he thinks, maybe he’s better to go home. I don’t think declarations in newspapers are in his best interests. If he wants to ride professionally, he can’t speak like that, because sponsors will walk away from the sport.”

However, Christophe Bassons’ latest comments regarding his current philosophy of doping may be more likely to outrage several people in the anti-doping movement who don’t see the issue in such broad, relativistic terms.

Photo Credit: Millard Baker / MESO-Rx

A three-member arbitration panel ruled last December the testing of her sample, given at a meet in Belgium, was not done in accordance with WADA rules that require tests be run by two different technicians.

That broke USADA’s perfect record in front of arbitration panels, which was 35-0 according to the best available statistics.

To the question of Jenkins’ appearing to have won on a technicality, Valparaiso Sports Law Clinic director Michael Straubel had said, “[The arbitrators] set aside the test results because they were not based on reliable lab results.”

She was represented by the Valpo Sports Law Clinic with free legal assistance. The clinic is a pro bono service of Valparaiso University School of Law based on financial need. The Valpo Sports Clinic was founded in 2005; the clinic will have an on-site service for athletes at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Professor Michael Straubel, the Director of the Valpo Sports Law Clinic, has previously commented on the unfairness and inconsistency of anti-doping efforts in the context of the Floyd Landis case (“Sports Law Clinic director comments on Landis case,” May 24, 2007).

“It is important to eliminate cheating in sports and enforce anti-doping rules consistently and fairly, but the USADA v. Landis hearing is a rare public airing of the many tensions and growing pains that haunt the doping control process,” said Professor Straubel. “Those tensions include a bureaucracy that needs to prove itself vs. an accused athlete’s need for information to defend himself. The system is designed to be quick vs. the need to be thorough in order to be fair. It is a system based on breach of contract dispute procedures vs. claims and charges that are criminal in their seriousness.”

Professor Straubel added, “However, at the heart of the Landis case are questions about the reliability of a still developing science and anti-doping enforcement using that science. Floyd Landis and his attorneys are challenging a system which presumes the science is reliable and testing is properly done, but which then limits the information available to athletes about that science and testing. This challenge has clearly shown how difficult it is to put the testers to their proofs. Perhaps the larger result of the Landis case will be a system that is more self correcting and reliable.”

Slated for publication in September under the Skyhorse imprint, the book’s working title is “BALCO: The Straight Dope on Barry Bonds, Marion Jones and What We Can Do To Save Sports.” Conte, in conjunction with co-author Nathan Jendrick, promises to share “the dirt, the drugs, the doses, the names, dates and places, and a ‘prescription’ for a brighter future.”

He promises the “complete truth in its honest, unadulterated and raw form” and says he is “ready to tell the world everything.”

Most people will be interested in hearing “the dirt” on the various athletes allegedly involved in recent years’ doping scandals. But my attention will be on  what Conte has to say about IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky. As Jeff Novitsky testifies on the stand against cyclist Tammy Thomas in her perjury (doping) trial, Victor Conte is working with co-author Nathan Jendrick to pen a book that is highly critical of Novitsky. Forget about the athletes like Barry Bonds or Marion Jones that have doped; Conte has told me that Novitsky is the biggest cheater in the entire BALCO steroid scandal is Jeff Novitsky. The NY Daily News confirms that Novitsky is a target.

One of Conte’s biggest targets is likely to be Jeff Novitzky, the federal agent who sniffed out the BALCO conspiracy in 2003 and has tenaciously chased down every twist in it ever since.

Conte claims Novitzky, who is on the witness stand Monday in the government’s prosecution of cyclist Tammy Thomas (the first BALCO athlete to refuse a plea bargain and take her case to trial), fabricated a confession he says Conte gave on the day of the BALCO raid, and lied in court documents.

The more we learn about doping related events like the BALCO scandal and the Floyd Landis doping scandal, the more we realize that we live in a society where “winning at all costs” is the only standard.  This not only applies to the “dopers” but particularly to the “anti-dopers.” It’s all about winning – not about following the rules, pursuing justice, leveling the playing field, right or wrong or integrity in sports. Jeff Novitsky, WADA, USADA, etc. simply want to win and will seemingly use any unfair advantage and break the rules to do so.

Landis, 32, has spent millions of dollars on a defense that tried to cast doubt on the scientific validity of doping tests and the procedures followed at antidoping labs. But last September, in a 2-to-1 ruling, a United States Anti-Doping Agency arbitration panel concluded that Landis had used synthetic testosterone to achieve his comeback win at the 2006 Tour. As a result, he was barred from racing until January 2009….

In its 84-page ruling last year, the United States Anti-Doping Agency panel accepted Landis’s argument that the French antidoping lab that tested his urine samples from the Tour was sloppy in some of its operating procedures, and in how it documented its work. But the panel also found that a more sophisticated second test, conducted after the initial screening proved positive, was accurate.

But make no mistake about it, this isn’t just about Floyd Landis. It is also about the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the anti-doping organization and program that is held as the model for drug testing around the world.

The 2006 Tour de France winner, who was stripped of his victory last year, seeks to have his title restored by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It’s the final step in a series of appeals that have cost upward of $2 million, a good portion of which has been paid for with federal funds…

But it will still be costly, and a good chunk of the cost will be footed by USADA, which gets about 70 percent of its $12 million annual budget from the federal government, and the rest from the U.S. Olympic Committee.

Some newspapers, like the Akron Beacon Journal, have redistributed the aforementioned Associated Press news article only to change the title and imply that U.S. taxpayers are also paying for Floyd Landis’ defense (“Taxpayers to Pay for Landis’ Defense,” March 16).

But cycling websites were quick to point out the biases and inaccuracies in the stories and headlines. Trust But Verify discusses how truth is often a casualty of journalistic sensationalism.

Ohio.com proves that little things like “details” don’t really matter much when you’re trying to get a reaction to a headline. “Taxpayers to Pay for Landis Defense“ insinuates that we have footed the bill not only for USADA’s prosecution of the case, but also for all of Floyd Landis’ defense as well. Let’s never let the truth get in the way of “journalistic” sensationalism. Landis has enough on his plate without being stoned by angry US taxpayers.

Racejunkie finds it interesting how the media can’t get enough of the Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball without nary a complaint about the colossal waste of taxpayer funds.

[N]ow there’s a brand new outrage to stick on him: he alone is sucking up your precious tax dollars that could be used to fill deserving potholes in your own neighborhood with his malicious selfish whining about “Justice this!” and “Fair play that!” Leaving aside that no-one’s been crying about using tax dollars to exonerate a pack of couch-glomming overpaid baseball players whose necks and biceps clearly increased in size from toothpicks to actual redwoods over the suspicious span of about a week…

Velo Vertomax suggests that the blame be redirected towards WADA and their failure to remedy incompetent testing procedures at so-called accredited labs which lead to astronomical costs of defending sloppy work.

There has been some discussion of the amount of money spent by USADA to defend the Floyd Landis Adverse Analytical Finding. What is always forgotten is the deplorable state of Chatenay-Malabry testing and how expensive it is to defend bad lab work. WADA could correct these problems if they trained their personnel on how to the lab work, how to keep records straight, and how to keep a strict chain-of-custody…

If USADA and the taxpayers are burdened with expensive litigation to defend the poor lab performance of LNDD then WADA should encourage the laboratories to train their personnel on how to run the tests, how to set up the equipment, how to code the data on the Lab Document Package, how to make corrections correctly, and how to maintain a credible chain of custody. Then these expensive and prolonged appeals would be prevented saving everyone money. U.S. taxpayer and athlete. Until WADA makes a valiant attempt to correct the existing problems appeals will continue since the laboratory results can not be relied upon to prove the Adverse Analytical Finding.

Of course, my basic question is why does the federal government need to have any role in enforcing the rules of sports? And why is federal funding of one particular rule (doping) the only rule that requires federal intervention? As far as I’m concerned, all federal taxpayer money spent on enforcing the rules of a sporting game is a waste.

Vyacheslav Fetisov, Russian sports minister who happens to be a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), expresses his admiration of USADA.

The Americans have made great strides in the fight against doping and we’re keen to learn more about their system.

The structure of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency will be modeled upon USADA. Travis Tygart, the CEO of USADA, believes USADA independent model of doping control has been effective.

Of course, not everyone believes USADA has been fair, must less competent and effective. Trust But Verify is amused that Russia is looking to the USADA for answers:

There’s something about the blind leading the blind that comes to mind, but the thought that RusADA is being formed only now is also mind blowing. This just in: rumours of sports doping behind the Iron Curtain.

This is good news for the sport of cycling. And it is good news for everyone who believes in second chances. Controversy has surrounded Rock Racing after they have embraced signed or had discussions with numerous athletes who have been implicated in doping scandals including Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Oscar Sevilla and Santiago Botero.

The 2006 Tour de France victory was taken away from Floyd Landis after he failed a doping test; the Court of Arbitration for Sports determined a doping violation had occurred, specifically “the charge of exogenous testosterone found in the sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.” Floyd is appealing the decision.

Tyler Hamilton, Oscar Sevilla and Santiago Botero were all implicated in the Operation Puerto blood doping scandal. Hamilton recently finished a two-year suspension for blood doping.

Do athletes implicated in doping scandals deserve a second chance especially if they have served their suspensions? Michael Ball responds:

The truth of the matter is that he was penalized; he did his time. He struggled through it. It is a drag, in terms of the situation the guys go through. But I’m here to support the riders. At the end of the day, I’m here to support the riders and give those individuals an opportunity.

Or does the public require that they somehow admit guilt before the public is accepting of second chances as Floyd Landis suggests?

But if you want to create a punishment of some kind for lying, then create a punishment for lying. But right now what you have is a system where, if a person is convicted, they get a suspension of a defined amount of time. There’s nothing that says we’re going to treat you like shit afterwards if you don’t admit to it, and if you do admit to it, you’re fine. If you want to add that to the rules, add it to the rules.

I could figure out how to take a fair amount of testosterone and you’d never catch me, and if I can say that, a lot of others can too.

Who is accredited with the aforementioned statement? Patrick Arnold? Victor Conte?

Actually, it is Don Catlin, the recently retired director of UCLA’s Olympia Drug Testing Laboratory, quoted in today’s Los Angeles Times. And it’s no big secret in competitive athletics… 

It has been recognized for over twenty years that athletes can use a certain amount of exogenous testosterone and still pass drug tests that rely only on the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio. Dan Duchaine described this in some of his early writings on steroids.

It has even become easier for doped athletes to pass this test in the last decade with the newer transdermal testosterone delivery systems; transdermal testosterone (e.g. gels, patches, creams) that have a slower release and result in lower peak blood concentrations.

Contrary to what was widely reported in the media, the “cream” was not a novel designer steroid or sophisticated method of administering steroids without triggering positive test results. The cream contained a mixture of testosterone and epitestosterone prepared for transdermal absorption. Injectable cocktails of testosterone and eptitestosterone were used almost immediately after the T:E ratio test was first introduced in the 1980s. BALCO simply exploited the loophole using an improved delivery system.

After all these years, drug testers have been unable to close this loophole. 

There is a drug testing procedure called “carbon isotope testing“ that has recently been used to determine exogenous (plant-based) testosterone from endogenous testosterone . This is what was used to corroborate Floyd Landis’ positive 11:1 testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test at the 2006 Tour de France.

However, most sports still rely only on the T:E test for exogenous testosterone. And even when carbon isotope testing is used, it occurs only after an athlete fails the T:E test.

Don’t kid yourself by believing the amount of exogenous testosterone athletes can get away with is not sufficient to result in significant performance-enhancing benefits. It doesn’t take much (much less than the Mitchell Report suggests). According to professor Charles Yesalis:

Small doses work… A 1% to 2% increase in performance is unbelievably valuable to an elite athlete, and very often we can’t even measure that as statistically significant in the laboratory.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-baseball15dec15,1,2188287.story