Given that the choice had nearly been between himself, and the petulant, acrimonious Frenchman, Jean-Pierre Lamour (who'd actually withdrawn his candidature nearly simultaneously with the proposal of Fahey as an alternative), the outcome was only mired by the European media's stimulation of reactions that 'Europe was robbed!' of some unknown 'right' to succeed to the WADA Presidency.
WADA Director General David Howman,
John Fahey, Dick Pound, and newly-elected V.P. Arne Ljungqvist)
Next Wednesday, the 27th February, is the much-awaited Media Symposium with Mr. Fahey.
This post, is an attempt to bridge the gap between typical press questions, and those that 'should' be answered (IWwHO).
"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Eg: Chris Campbell's dissent in the Floyd Landis case, former UCLA lab director Donald Catlin's mentioning of 'false positives', or:
- a) the necessary shifting of B Sample testing from a contracted lab to labs not on vacation during contracted analyses,
- b) labs not appearing technically competent to perform isolated testing, and
- c) labs over 3,400km away from an event, being preferred to a lab only 18km from an event.
It certainly is a commanding task, to ensure that those 'WADA-accredited laboratories' have the highly sophisticated staff and training to merit inclusion in the family of WADA labs: yet are you assured that all that can be achieved, has been achieved?
Or are you content to battle on with 'the army you have'?
If you come to a similar conclusion, through your own analysis or from future litigious events that provoke such analysis, would you initiate further redrafting, or is there no opportunity to reopen 'CODE revisions' until the next WCDS, presumably in 2011?
WADA published a Legal Opinion, on its own website, in which the esteemed attorney-authors anticipated that "...judicial interpretation" would provide the necessary amplification to the words contained in the CODE. In a post from early January: "WADA: Aggravating Arrogances", this questioner asked WADA openly why it would make Athletes pay the judicial price of carrying the burden for WADA's inability to draft a fair and proper definition to the possibility posed, of doubling the standard 'two year' suspension to four years.
Mr Fahey, you now preside over an organization whose legal documents are primarily in English, and also officially in French, although the English edition prevails according to CODE Article 24.1 (identical in CODE 2003 and 2007).
There exists in the CODE, a definition of ADAMS, the WADA "Anti-Doping Administration and Management System". There is no definition in the CODE for "Aggravating Circumstances".
As a global organization holding the power to destroy an Athlete's career, whether such is merited or not, do you not feel that WADA should insert a definition of Aggravating Circumstances so that the Athlete is not unaware (in American law: 'on notice') of the potential stiffening of their potential penalty?
That cyclist is currently (Feb. 2008) awaiting appeal through CAS, as is stipulated in the WADA CODE, the UCI rules and the USA Cycling rules.
In the WADA CODE, Article 15.4 demands that:
"Subject to the right of appeal ... hearing results or other final adjudications ... which are consistent with the Code and are within that Signatory's authority ... shall be recognized and respected by all other Signatories."
What is the official response from WADA to such a 'double jeopardy' situation?
Follow up: Is WADA intending to seek an appeal from CAS that would render null and void this 'outlaw' legal hearing? And when will WADA re-draft the CODE to outline corrective notifications to such Signatories that are not respecting the CODE?
One aspect that is not entirely its own fault, but certainly falls under its remit, is the aspect of 'retrospective punishment' to Athletes, who may be under no cloud of suspicion.
WADA has not, within our understanding, addressed the issue of retroactive loss of honours, medals or records, held by Athletes who may have innocently contributed to an achievement that is later revealed to have been at the hands (or feet?) of one individual who did cheat through doping.
WADAwatch points to the case involving the relay team mates of Marion Jones, in the 2000 Sydney Olympics. The remaining three Athletes, are now living their own personal hell, turbulently upset by the ad-hoc request from the IOC, through the USOC, to 'request return of the medals'.
Since there appears to be no easily-researchable rules that govern the situation described, is WADA going to call on the IOC to react, rapidly and conjointly, to this retrospective void in international Athletic doping controls and consequences?
The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the highest possible level of objective, neutral science in sport-doping control.
© 2008 ZENmud productions