Updated, Corrected: the Marion Jones Teammates issue(s)

In January of 2008, WADAwatch published a column, "WADA used Gold Medals?" which discussed a then-future, now-realized decision, taken by the Executive Board (EB) of the IOC.

That decision concerns the relay-team teammates of Marion Jones, and focused on a news item from the HamptonRoads website, which featured local resident and soon-to-be-stripped Olympic Gold Medal relayer LaTasha Colander-Clark, of Portsmouth.


News updates require an update to the above Ww article. On the IOC website, at their Press Releases page, the following item has these as the last paragraphs of a 2pg document discussing recent IOC Executive Board actions:

In another doping related decision taken today, the Executive Board disqualified the team mates of Marion Jones (previously disqualified from the Sydney 2000 Games) in the United States Women Relay team from the 4x100 meters race where the team placed third and the 4x400 meters race where the team placed first.

The USOC has been asked to return to the IOC all medals and diplomas awarded to the athletes involved.

The issue of reallocating the medals and diplomas – including those of Marion Jones’ – will be addressed by the Executive Board in due course pending further information in the BALCO affair.

WADAwatch had gone on record, in January, noting that between the IOC, and WADA, there appeared to be no published 'rule' on which the legal basis to overturn that Decision.

That may have been an improper presumption on our part. The rules surely do exist, yet apparently the IOC doesn't have the Sydney rules still on line. WADAwatch has found the following rules, which may or may not be applicable: we cannot determine if the IOC rules were similar to those in effect for the Sydney Games, and the IAAF rules do not seem to have any 'in effect' date, within the document or on the site.


A relay team, as were Jones and her now devestated running partners, is not considered a Team event (itself an interesting WADA definition) by WADA:

Team sport: A sport in which the substitution of players is permitted during a Competition.

Thus relay team members are not participating in a Team Sport. Under what regulatory basis are they competing?


The Olympic rules are a very difficult document to track down (Note to IOC: Let's put the Anti-Doping Olympic rules on the website, please?) This page lists "all documents published on this website"; they have a link down halfway to "Medical". There is a link there to the PDF for the 2006 Turin Olympics Rules. There is no link to 'permanent' or 'Beijing' rules that we could find.


Is it safe to determine that, if they'd made a great change from Sydney, via Turin, we'd find it online by now? Maybe, maybe not. So we analyse from a step away, perhaps, from the rules invoked in the IOC Executive Board determinations. The nature of these rules ('what is a Team', 'what is a relay team?') do not suggest having any radical updates.


Interesting Rules, nevertheless: the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin, 2006, Article 5 governs Doping Controls. Sub-Article 5.6 is titled Selection of Athletes to be Tested, and if we jump next to 5.6.1.2.1, there we see the IOC stating:

[.....]
For Pursuit, Relay and Team Sprint competitions: one randomly selected Athlete in all top five teams plus one randomly selected athlete in the two randomly selected teams.

Seems to be an interesting concept, these arbitrary, random 'selections' for Testing purposes. However there is another Article to note closely. Article 10: Consequences to Teams controls that which Ww is seeking:

[.....]
In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the relevant International Federation.

Thus if we can presume a functioning legal basis out of the IOC Turin Olympic rules, we are safe to presume we should look to the IAAF Rules, as the applicable IF. Again, we are taking some risks in presuming the Rules that apply are very similar to those published, if not the same, from the Sydney Olympics (and again, the nature of a definition of a relay squad could reasonably suggest carrying a stable definition for decades).


If that presumption holds, then Article 39.2 is our baby (on PDF file page 30, doc.pg "57"):

[39]
2. Where the athlete who commits an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 39.1 is a member of a relay team, the relay team shall be automatically disqualified from the event in question, with all resulting consequences for the relay team, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money. If the athlete who has committed an anti-doping rule violation competes for a relay team in a subsequent event in the competition, the relay team shall be disqualified from the subsequent event, with all the same resulting consequences for the relay team, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

Sadly, WADAwatch must remind its audience that the 'Jones teammates' case is probably going to pass through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (currently awaiting the final documents admissions for the Floyd Landis case). If the Arbitrators have to work the magic wand of 'Judicial Interpretation', still there appears to be ample justification for the rendered decision.


WADAwatch reminds these three Organizations (WADA, IOC, CAS), that they must strive to create a harmonious legal system, that their rules must be clear, and, as we see in the case of this Relay squad, that it is neither found to be a 'Team Sport', nor can it possibly remain as a 'non-individual, non-team' sport, at least in the WADA CODE.

This may be a clear-case, in the eyes of the Organizations; it cannot be clear to a woman in tears, why the medal over her fireplace, or wherever, has to disappear, and to wear the crown of thorns here and after...


The limbo dance... when Teams are not Teams, and when individuals that have not fallen afoul of any rule, are losing medals; that is the time to clearly move forward, under WADA president John Fahey, and tackle an issue head on, so that future Medallists don't have nightmares attacking them out of the blue sky.

Last thought. There is no one else to blame but Jones... and there are now four former medalists from the 4X100, and a separate four from the 4X400 (as there were evidently substitutions made, from the preliminary to final heats: all participants shared their glory, temporarily)


Not afraid to clarify the record...

Disclaimer

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.

.....................@............WADAwatch

2008 all copyrights reserved

WADA LEAP YEAR 2008:

Fahey's first Tour, and Beijing

Is the best thing that's happening to WADA this year, the worst that possibly could happen to it? WADAwatch is not, repeat NOT, referring to WADA's newer, gentler president, nor anyone else.

This question is not meant to be confusing, nor will it remain so; WADA is banking on a newly formulated tool to combat the flux of doping:

the Athlete's Passport

By no means a 'government-authorized travel document', the “AP” was introduced to the sporting press at WADA's Press Symposium in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Wednesday the 27th February. In an all–day session hosted by WADA's president John Fahey, director general David Howman, and medical director, Dr Alain Garnier, participants were immersed in: the transition from Pound to Fahey, the role of Europe (which has pride enough in its sustenance of WADA, contributing 47.5 per cent of the operating budget) in WADA's governance, and the technical aspects (WADA PASSPORT for dummies?) of this Brave NEW Tool in the WADA toolbox.

Introduced as a 'pilot project', the Athletic Passport creates a longitudinal, auto-generated 'blue print' or record of each separate participant, being the 700 to 900 cyclists atop the UCI rankings. This concept 'in the pipeline' was elaborated, after the ashes cooled following the 'crisis' at last year's Tour de France, by the French Ministry of Health, Youth and Sport, ASO, the UCI and other interested Signatories of WADA. A meeting hosted by the French Ministry in October, 2007, attracted those participants, some of (whom WADAwatch is sure) were in no mood to accommodate their collaborators across the table.

There's only one small drawback: two of the participating organizations, vital to the success of this Longitudinal pursuit, should be straightjacketed and removed from civilization.

The UCI, which regulates the cycling world, and ASO, which is the French, privately-held company owning the Tour de France, amongst many other sporting events in the cycling world, etc., are doing their level best to out-piss the other in a war AGAINST CYCLING AS A SPORT, not at all indicative of success in cycling's the search for CREDIBILITY, new sponsorships, new talent, new glories...

Slides herein are from WADAwatch photos, however WADA did mention that their power Point presentations would be online shortly... visit this link, for the full set of presentations.

Sidebar: the 2009 WADA CODE is now online, it goes into effect in ten months:
1 January 2009.

(NB: it's not yet on the CODE page from the drop-down menu, follow links from the home page text to find it)

Thus IF the Honourable John Fahey can pass from Leap DAY (today!) to New Year, without the Tour de France and UCI throwing a stick in the spokes of this new and hopefully more effective monitoring system (which could go across to other sports if overwhelmingly validated), it remains to be seen if their Athlete's Passport will provide the right parameters.

The Athlete's Passport is not
a travel document!

(remember to can click on these photos, it opens
into a separate screen in 'full sized' mode)

Given all the interest that 'doping' has generated, and maybe in spite of the dearth of scientifically accurate, and truly well–written articles, the press that attended were quick to tie certain angles together.

WADAwatch had published, the preceding Friday, an article titled 'Five Easy Questions for John Fahey', and this article seeks to provide the appropriate responses, either directly from our questions, directly from the multiple presentations, or by gleaning appropriate comments from the responses directed to the journalists in the audience. The five questions (summarized) covered:

1. WADA laboratory standardization vis–à–vis anecdotal press information to the contrary (occasionally, or specifically to certain labs);

2. Further or future amendment possibilities to the WADA CODE, subsequent to this last World Conference in Madrid;

3. The likelihood that Article 10.6 requires 'judicial interpretation' to see what it actually means, as an extra 'legal burden' to the first litigated Athletes whose legal defense must 'carry the water' for WADA's repeated opportunity, and now lost chance, to actually offer a 'legal definition' of what is 'Aggravating Circumstances';

4. Why France is not in violation of WADA CODE Article 15.4, on Mutual Recognition, for its secondary litigation against Floyd Landis, during and after the USADA process was initiated and decided (although still pending appeal);

5. The need, somewhere between WADA, its Signatories, and the International Olympic Committee, to draft a clear set of rules for Athletes, outlining their risks as members of teams, in the case where (Marion Jones) one participant may be found to be doped, yet the others are under no legal suspicion or suspension for that pertinent participation.
   

WADAwatch requests your indulgence; if errors are found we will certainly provide an updated article noting any corrections.

Laboratory standardization

Unfortunately, this issue was not directly discussed.

However, the 'undercurrent' provided by discussions of the panoply of measures being taken in combatting doping, appear to WADAwatch to be somewhat an admission that the science of medicine favors the cheating side.

The adage of our times is 'Law follows science' is never clearer than in this field, as it is easier to 'guinea pig' the Athletes who are seeking advantage, and harder for the scientists that must, of course, take time to cautiously determine proper testing methodologies, standardize the tests and publish, and then begin busting the guilty parties.

Marion Jones' history of successful evasion, throughout her career, of some 180–plus tests, is as good an example (or as sad...) of the need to augment capacities to measure biomarkers (blood or urine components), and has led to the abovementioned Athlete's Passport.

Further CODE revisions

WADAwatch asked David Howman, WADA's Director General, about the capacity of this organization to re-open CODE drafting, if and when it felt necessary, whether through feedback or 'judicial interpretation'; would it take another four years, until another presumed 'World Conference' had been called?

NB: The First World Conference on Doping in Sport was in 1999, in Lausanne, Switzerland (home of the IOC); the Second Conference was held in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the Third Conference was last November in Madrid, Spain.

Howman smiled and replied to the effect that, 'it appeared to be a trend, didn't it?', but that there really wasn't a formal requirement for a WCDS every four years. He continued by stressing that he wanted the CODE, as now modified and accepted, to be implemented to see where it had weaknesses, or success.

10.6 Aggravated Circumstances

In a separate follow-up to some other press questions, WADAwatch asked Howman again, if the lack of the redrafted CODE, with this entirely new article, didn't prejudice against any Athlete whose first litigation would help WADA achieve the definition they've chosen (in three redrafts) not to include, because: a- it poses an unfair financial burden on that first litigant to argue to CAS (Since it would be impossible to use a National ADO Decision as precedent-setting) what WADA's Article 10.6 DOES mean legally, and b- that CAS opinion could fall AGAINST WADA; did they relish incurring that risk?

Howman, who's far higher in his legal career (far more diplomas, than 'we WADAwatchers', definitely) emphasized, and rightly so, that WADA wasn't necessarily 'out to win' EVERY litigation; he stated that 'seeing justice prevail' was more important than whether WADA won or not.

WADAwatch takes heart in hearing those words, but of course it's a phrase that must be put to the test: ample cases in the past seemed to tend towards 'grasping at judicial straws', by seeking appeals from Federation decisions where, for one example, a national Federation was not a Signatory of WADA.

Future coverage of WADA's litigation excursions will remain a strong facet of WADAwatch.

15.4 Mutual Recognition

It's not embarrassing to admit a bit of nervousness, when asking these highly professional WADA officials about what appears to be, and which WADAwatch has described as, an 'outlaw decision' from the French AFLD, the Agence française pour le lutte contre le dopage.

In a rare gesture of discretion, WADAwatch won't reveal who muttered a clearly audible 'Oh, Jesus!' into his microphone.

David Howman did respond, afterwards, to our question concerning Floyd Landis' hearings and decisions in the USA. That judicial procedure was undertaken under the proper guise of WADA, UCI and the applicable US regulations from USA Cycling and USADA, with evidence from the French laboratory formally named the LNDD.

David's response was brief and (IWwHO) deflecting this inquiry off the scene, indicating that it was 'done under their previous law', and thus 'not in conflict with the US process'.

WADAwatch has sought from WADA, earlier today, a precision to that response.

It shouldn't be allowed, under Article 15.4, that a cyclist who's been suspended in the USA, faces another Signatory's disciplinary process, period 'point finale'. See 'BAFFLED by AFLD: an afterword' or 'Paths of GLORI (-ous French Failure)'

France could run twenty different Floyd Landis proceedings, under any law it chose, during or after USADA had its winning case decided (while the dissent from Chris Campbell distinguished itself in the Sports Law legal Hall of Fame by branding, in his very first sentence, the French lab (and thus its evidence) as being 'untrustworthy'): not one instance can be claimed that this would be (in our opinion) anything BUT an 'outlaw' process.

Stay tuned...

Retrospective Rulemaking for
Team mates of 'convicted dopers'

WADAwatchers, sometimes there's not enough day in a day, to get answers to every question. Some, like discussing what to do with the team mates of Marion Jones, now that she's confessed. We're the first to admit that this question may be better off being addressed to the International Olympic Committee.

One aspect pertinent, and for which most people would be grateful to learn, is that WADA reminded our audience that it has always had, since publishing the first CODE in 2003, a definition of Teams to be:

“a sport in which the substitution of players is permitted during a Competition.

Thus relay teams, cycling teams, crew teams, freestyle water ballet teams, are NOT TEAMS. (We're not sure if we know or if WADA knows precisely what those multi-person, event-participants are going to be defined, but it could be another case of 'judicial interpretation'...

+ + + + + + + + +

This week is drawing to a close, and there is much more to come from this interesting Symposium. Come back Tuesday and see what more came from Lausanne...

Where will WADA be, On LEAP DAY 2012?

............@............WADAwatch

© 2008 ZENmud productions

Five Easy Questions for John Fahey

WADAwatch has certainly made clear its strong endorsement of the former Australian Minister John Fahey, who was openly elected to serve as the second president of the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA).


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.

(WADAwatch photo, showing from l. to r.:
WADA Director General David Howman,
John Fahey, Dick Pound, and newly-elected V.P. Arne Ljungqvist)

Granted, WADA's existence was born in Europe, as an offspring of the International Olympic Committee (see Chapter ONE: Who Begat WADA?), and certainly European dedication appears to be exemplary, as it is the source of 47.5 per cent of WADA's working budget.

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).

FIVE EASY QUESTIONS:

Donald Rumsfeld continued a string of insanely-funny quotations, in 2004, with the following gem:

"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."

Question ONE:

Mr Fahey, ample evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, indicates that there is more reliance in the press as to assertions from WADA, on the issues relating to 'lab performance', than may reasonably be justified.

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'?

Question TWO:

With great fanfare, the World Conference on Doping in Sport (WCDS-Madrid) presided over the final drafting sessions for the newly-revamped WADA CODE. Several new components of the CODE have taken drastic steps to tighten the 'noose' around suspected Athletes. Whether such steps are or were necessary, their implementation does not appear to carry commensurate balancing safeguards against injustice.

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?

Question THREE:

As a follow-up to question TWO, one entirely new Article, 10.6 in the CODE relates to 'Aggravating Circumstances'.

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?

Question FOUR:

A cyclist recently, and famously, was suspended for two years, in the USA, from his allegedly testing positive for exogenous use of testosterone. That legal process is ongoing, and was prosecuted in the USA, under the auspices of USA Cycling, as the license-issuing Federation, and USADA, as the United States anti-doping authority for such cases.

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."

However, that cyclist was 'tried' in a second State, (See "Paths of Glori (-ous French Failure)" who was not the proper license-issuing authority, during the process that continues as this article appears (again, Feb. 2008).

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?

Question FIVE:

In the eight years since WADA's birth, it has grown into an organization of significant weight and stature. It has attempted to address many topics, and its heart and soul are at stake in the turning to your presidential reign.

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?

+ + + + + + + + +

WADAwatch would hope that the Press that attend the Symposium next week (bienvenue à la Suisse!), are asking similarly positively-focused questions on the major issues of our day.

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.

Questioning WADA,

............@............WADAwatch

© 2008 ZENmud productions

WADA used Gold Medals?

Many world–shaking events from 2007 are currently fermenting like good Swiss wine, slowly turning into the garish headlines of 2008; the world of anti–doping and sport is certainly one of these.

Since the Marion Jones confessions, one of the most salient problems has become what to do with the tarnished gold medals that are held by teammates of doping athletes. Self–righteously, some say, egotistically to others. Does an Athlete who's honest efforts in a team sport, forfeit her or his glory for the depredations of another?


How are the legal scales of justice balancing the issues of fairness?


No question but that what Marion chose to pursue was wrong from Day–D (for Doped) onward, from 'whenever' until her 2007 confessions.


But in the hyper–mediatronized world that exposes the work efforts of WADA and the IOC, it appears safe to say that the negligent regard for forward–planning efforts (during the reign of Richard Pound) is now coming full circle.


Witness the case surrounding Jones' teammates for the 1,600 meter relay, including Oregon native LaTasha Colander–Clark.


WADAwatch seeks the rule promulgated by the IOC and in force prior to the Sydney Olympics, that informs medal–winning athletes of the lifetime nature and legal relationship to Gold, Silver or Bronze medal–winning status.

Here is the decision of the IOC Disciplinary Panel:

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MARION JONES

We live now in an age where many of us will pay good money for products, often ignoring that we've only acquired a 'license' for media or computer items: software, movies or music, rather than purchasing them (read the 'I accept' screen next time you're installing a new program).

It appears comparable to the trend by certain bodies such as the IOC, WADA or the US Olympic Committee, who believe that clear solutions are at hand, by osmosis, to extricate their 'august Institutions' from the tawdry reputations of doping athletes.

Ms Colander–Clark and her teammates of the 1,600 meter race, as well as Jones' 400 m relay partners, are facing pressure by the IOC and USOC to 'voluntarily return' their medals. Look at the three eternally happy faces below...

(From left: Jearl Miles-Clark, Monique Hennagan, LaTasha Colander-Clark and Marion Jones)

What would you choose? What's the applicable rule for this situation?

Four women crying today, for distinctly different (Ww hopes!) reasons?

Crying: because nobody can show them on paper the (IOC or USOC) RULE that allows their medals to be erased and redistributed?

WADA didn't have a CODE in place until 2003; it had been birthed (or divorced?) from the IOC in 1999, and in its first year was in the process of determining what to do and how best to achieve this.

Now, after eight years of existence, many headlines and little to show for standardization of its laboratory network, it comes to light that the power of confession has turned upside down the staid world of the Olympic Movement, not to mention other commercial sporting events such as the US professional sports leagues, the cycling Tour de France, and others.

We learn that the IOC had 'recommended' (says the HamptonRoads.com site) that all of Jones' Sydney relay teammates be disqualified and those gold medals be returned. Although the nature of the legal situation is unclear, the IOC has given the USOC until the end of January 'to submit a defense'.

Peter Ueberroth, normally an admired and respected catalyst in the US Olympic world, and President of the USOC, 'has already publicly asked Jones' relay teammates to voluntarily return their medals.

At WADAwatch, there is only one word of advice to offer to LaTasha and her other obliquely–tarnished teammates:

DON'T.

WADA entered the global fight against sport–doping, as the 'bastard' child of the IOC (perfectly personified by Dick Pound...), and had ample time, resources and support to choose its battles and position itself strategically.

It appears that none of the major players: the IOC, WADA, UNESCO or powerhouse Federations (such as the IAAF, for athleticism, or the IOC athletes' commission) have begun to codify a responsible and accepted, standardized response to certain cases. That is what the world expects of WADA, in such cases where confession or other acceptable means produce an acknowledgement of past wrongs.


LaTasha! You and teammates are being forced to accept a choice that removes the necessary burden of the IOC, or WADA to take a lead for global development of standard practices in the cases that are to come.


The Hampton Roads website quotes Ms Colander–Clark: “Sometimes you have to fight for your destiny and remember not to let anyone walk over you”.


WADAwatch agrees; we at Ww would have preferred that your case be well–defended by the USOC, which realistically has no case against you if no law existed, in force during the Sydney Olympics, that expressly told medal–winners what to expect if ever their teammates were found out as doping Athletes.

The USOC, rather than 'submitting a defense', could and should have led the way in knowing that the system needs a regulation, and forged a global agreement that satisfied legal needs. Instead, it appears that USOC followed a 'lead' one could have predicted for Dick Pound: it only issued a publicized demand for the medals to be returned, and then did nothing, didn't contact the athletes themselves, until the IOC told them to do so.

LaTasha! Are you, and those team mates of yours collective victims of 'retroactively enforced, non–enforceable non–regulations'?


Can't anyone write a rule?

This could be (we won't know until the results from these closed proceedings are publicly announced, sometime after the end of January 2008) a case tainted by nationalism, and as the USOC mounts the anticipated defense, its attorneys and legal drafters ought to consider the role, as a comment to the above–cited article stated, had the US won only the Silver medals in the 1,600m race.

WADAwatch wants systemic stability in this new growth industry of sport–doping investigation and punishment.


Stability in the system could be found, if a NON–retroactive rule was applied, starting with the 2008 Summer Olympics.

To create a fair and objective rule for the confession of past acts, requires a lot of footwork and balanced input from stakeholders: governments, athletes' commissions and the IOC.

Creating bad precedent, as another comment offered, is the key to be avoided. The world of sports has become accustomed to the placement of ** asterisks near records or championships whose performance was later revealed to have 'imperfections of title': I'm sure that LaTasha would rather live WITH an *asterisk, rather than WITHOUT her medal.

WADAwatch will monitor the coming developments in this case, that will have great effect on the lives of many clean Athletes. With WADAwatch watching, hopes increase that a rule governing this situation, transitionally based (where a express rule for the future has a temporary 'what to do' provision covering this decade of change...) or permanent, will be drafted prior to Beijing 2008.

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.

.......@.............WADAwatch

© 2008 ZENmud productions

WADA opening, WADA PERFORMANCE!

Welcome to 2008! The year in which John Fahey, former Australian finance minister, becomes the new President of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Mr Fahey will take over the expense account, the office and the direction of an organization formerly led by Canadian attorney and former Olympian, Richard Pound, Esq.

Parsing the departure of Mr Pound, Ww simply points to past quotes for which his excretionly famous wit has brought him instant recognition and respect:
... by a quote–sucking audience comprised of mostly toad (or sheeplike: But not all!) sports journalists whose main fields of expertise (US football, or soccer–football, or tennis or what–have–you) is not cycling (admittedly the Ground Zero of all sports–doping news until the Marion JONES confession, or the long–overdue Mitchell report).

(John Fahey at WADA Conference, Madrid
Acceptance of presidency Press Conference:
Photo © ZENmud productions, Nov 2007)

WADAwatch does want to compliment Dick Pound upon his departure, for certainly having opened the eyes of a now–watchful (smile) world, through his elaborated innuendoes, his extravagantly premature statements, and his boisterous endorsement for some of the world's worst examples of 'a better tomorrow through chemistry'.

Take that last part again... 'a better tomorrow through chemistry':

... the wording of this phrase could favour either dopers, and their scientist/ medical/ procurement allies, or

... the anti–doping specialists, located:

• in the 33 laboratories which now carry the WADA seal of Accreditation,
  
• in the real world of hundreds or thousands of laboratories that exist, fully capable to perform high–standard, sport–doping tests, or
  
• in the advent of real–life, harmoniously standardized laboratories,
  of a future, reputable WADA configuration.
  

Mr Fahey has a gold–medal opportunity, to stimulate implementation of the proper range of priorities in the post–Poundian WADA era; priorities that established WADA's mission from the very first page of the WADA CODE.

[NB: The underlined words reflect approved changes to be integrated into the "2007 CODE" adopted in Madrid, scheduled for publication in January 2008 (not online as of 2 January 2008) and to take effect in January of 2009]:

The purposes of the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Program which supports it are:

• To protect the Athletes' fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for Athletes worldwide, and

• To ensure harmonized, coordinated and effective anti-doping programs at the international and national level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping.
  (Ww: emphasis added)

Mr Fahey walks into an unpleasant nest not of his making, but WADAwatch expresses confidence early in the new era, that it is PRECISELY a 'non–sports, non–doping' agent that can transform WADA, and transcend its young and brash reputation.

Mr Fahey may also want to recall the Fundamental Rationale established and retained in the WADA CODE:

FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE (p. 3) ... the essence of Olympism; it is how we play true. ... the following values: [.....] Respect for rules and laws. ...

With such clear mandates, as provided above, WADAwatch hopes that John Fahey will address is his first priorities, the following list of items:

1. Institute a more efficient balance in the WADA budget between WADA travel costs and its combined expenditures to laboratories (standardization and harmonization, testing, and research).
   
   The WADA 2006 audit reveals it spent $3.1 million on travel and accommodation costs in 2006, up nearly 40 per cent over 2005 costs.
   
   WADA had as costs related to 'Testing Fees' and 'Accreditation fees' the sum of $2.395 million (accreditation costs only accounting for 9.2 per cent of this sum!).
   
   A related WADA 'cost' was in the provision of $4.016 million for research grants (with no breakdown in this Audit Financial Statement, the only breakdown is provided at this link, to the PowerPoint presentation given by the soon–to–be elected VP of WADA, Mr Arne Ljungqvist, as to the percentage of that cash which went to its accredited laboratories. NB: Of 364 projects to which WADA contributed funding between 2001 and 2006, from 33 nations, some 159 separate research teams worked , of which 50 were accredited labs and the 109 others were outside the 'anti-doping domain' (presumptively from credible research (University? Governmental Agency, or Hospital?) facilities):
   
   It seems out of balance, that an organization that needs to have universally adapted regulations on sports doping testing parameters is not spending more money on accreditation procedures, and implementation of standardization and harmonization of testing criteria, and or processes.
   
   
   
2. Find a solution to the simple "yes" or "no" response to 'Whether WADA should increase or desist from testing for non-sports related drug use?' (the marijuana question).
   
   This question is fraught with peril, for an organization without a mandate to overtake Interpol or any other governmental structure for domestic repression of the use of so-called 'social drugs'. Reading a future transcript of the 2007 World Conference on Doping in Sport (not yet published as a document, but you can winnow through the WADA Conference on-line archives here) may reveal more than the simple statements officially archived at the link provided.
   
   
   
3. Determine as soon as possible the extent to which the 'Victor Conté' and 'Marion Jones' stories have offered sufficient evidence and effect of massive testing fraud (by cheating Athletes AND by unsubstantiated testing reliability), and how to extract WADA's past reliance on testing as its primary methodology for reducing doping in sport.
   
   Almost any reader of WADAwatch has to be ready to presume that, if Marion Jones can 'pass' (Or 'evade') nearly 200 separate doping analyses, and if Vic Conté has something to 'sing' about, there is a long distance between what the world imagines about the credibility of the WADA accredited laboratory network via the sporting press, and what unharmonious reality actually exists, based on these confessions. Together, these latter events or personalities are more likely to be evoked when future discussions of 'sports doping laboratories' are pronounced.
   
   
   
4. Determine how WADA will, in your term(s) of presidency, protect the rights of investigated Athletes, from: a) unsupportable 'scientific evidence' claims; b) non-standardized testing parameters; c) premature publication of A Sample testing results by 'respected publications' that are to date not yet punished for blatant WADA CODE et al violations; d) by non-standardized laboratories.
   
   When the welcome-aboard parties are over, Mr Fahey, the list a-d above are the pinnacle of your journey, from a world that sees more clearly now that WADA's accreditation process allows the best and the worst labs to act on the world's stage as equals; how WADA has 'rewarded' reporters who have leaked A Testing results with juicy Poundian quotes that all but bury the words 'due process' in a scathing trail of unsubstantiated rumours, stamped with an 'aura of authority' due to the phrase 'WADA-accredited'.
   

Understandably, Mr Fahey, you have a lot of work in advance of this year's Tour de France, and the Summer Olympics in Beijing, China.

IN both of those cited events, there are many concerns ("suspicions" being too harsh a word in this context) as to the objective nature(s) of the testing authorities and their ability to find illegal substances and NOT use their official power to distort the doping testing-related events to benefit their own nation's participants.

In this 2007 WADAwatch column...

Wall Street Journal 'DOPING 101'

... Former UCLA laboratory director Don Catlin may regret this perhaps inadvertent unveiling of the 'efficacity' of his WADA laboratory colleagues:

"...are an effort to avoid athletes being falsely punished [through false lab work for whatever generative reason].

"I'd like to think the odds of that happening are low -- it's a disaster when it does," says Don Catlin. "How often it does happen I can't tell you, but nobody's going to raise the flag and say "I had a problem with a test in my lab". I have my ear to the ground and I hear of such things, but it's hard to document."

Maybe someone could fund Mr Catlin for the price of a digital recording device: it would be much more reliable in court, than testimony presented on the grounds that one's ear was to the ground??

Mr Fahey, WADAwatch calls upon you to make that a principal basis of your chance to remake WADA on the right path, with the right motivations, based on the right science, with your good colleagues: work on the science, work on promoting more of the confessions we've seen in 2007 from MarionJones (or Conté) or Bjarne Riis.

Bring SCIENCE back to WADA, and to its ACCREDITED LABORATORIES.


WELCOME ALL, to the JOHN FAHEY era

.......@.............WADAwatch

© 2008 ZENmud productions