When drug testing goes wrong...
Kit
Kafkaesque scenario.
Unlike recent stories of athletes trying to weedle out of anti-doping
accusations, this poor bloke has been well and truly screwed over by
the system IMHO. Full ruling here:
http://www.worldrowing.com/medias/docs/media_360360.pdf
Apparently, regardless of common sense, "rules is rules".
Kit
carolinetu
That's ridiculous. It seems to me that FISA had reached a verdict
before hearing any of the evidence, which they subsequently ignored.
Perhaps they were just looking for some poor sucker in order to make
an example of him/her "pour encourager les autres".
Or maybe they are just suspicious of the Russians owing to their
previous poor record on drug taking.....
Caroline
Carl Douglas
Rules are made for the guidance of the wise & the obedience of fools.
In any sane world, which does beg very large & knotty questions when we
are addressing the ways of some sports' governing bodies, rules are
meant to be applied with discretion & integrity.
Power over others rarely brings out the best in people. Some regulators
do seem to delight in the draconian powers that rules may give them
(shades of a former English Lord Chief Justice, whose manservant - &
this was only 50 years back! - had to bring him fresh underwear whenever
he had passed a death sentence). Some others are wont to act as
mindless automata in their enforcement of regulations - the Pontius
Pilate option.
So what would have happened if, instead, this apparently wholly innocent
athlete had been acquitted? Did they think the whole anti-drugs regime
might have collapsed?
Or was there something going on at another level of which the regulators
were aware but of which no one dared speak openly? That would certainly
not constitute the fair & open application of justice.
It is sometimes hard enough to get reasonable justice in a democracy.
No one would accuse sports' national or international governing bodies
of being, in the normal sense of the words, either democratic or
accountable.
No cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
david.h...@aea.be
>
>
> Or was there something going on at another level of which the regulators
> were aware but of which no one dared speak openly? That would certainly
> not constitute the fair & open application of justice.
>
Almost the last sentence:
the Panel finds that the Rower has not proved to their comfortable
satisfaction, that he was not taking the specified substance to
enhance performance or to mask a substance which would enhance
performance.
In other words, they didn't believe him - and if he *was* taking the
stuff to enhance his performance, others in the chain were implicated
too, and lied (under oath) on his behalf.
Carl Douglas
Presumption of guilt is still an alien concept to anyone accustomed to
the precepts (if not always the practice) of English law, under which
you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
However, not "believing" something does not of itself constitute proof
of guilt.
I realise that the principle of "strict liability" applies in judgements
on drug-taking in athletics, but it is easy to harbour suspicion, for
suspicion to become a grudge, in which case a particular conjunction of
circumstances might, in some purely hypothetical situation of course,
lead to unjust decisions.
That's why this should have been more open. Anyone can say what that
quoted sentence said but, without actual evidence, that is at best
surmise & thus unjust.
It is, of course, difficult for adjudicators these days. So many folk,
it seems, have no qualms over telling lies under oath. In which case,
one should start to accept that society is so corroded that no man's
word can be taken as his bond, & any convenient fiction will suffice
that gets you off the hook.
:(
A3aan
A3aan.
On Oct 29, 4:18 pm, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
Anthony
merely of having the prohibited substance in his body). So the only
question to be decided was not whether he was guilty or not, but
whether there were grounds for excusing him from the otherwise
mandatory two year suspension. The tribunal seems to have thought that
the evidence was less than credible. In particular there doesn't seem
to have been any medically satisfactory explanation put forward as to
why the athlete was given a diuretic. At first reading, it certainly
sounds very hard on the athlete, but, if the athlete was genuinely
innocent, he seems to have been very badly served by his medics and
those in charge of his training rather than by FISA.
Mike Sullivan
"Kit" <davie...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:46d58284-1bfb-4839...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I just read the report. I'll play devil's advocate.
Sergei finds out he's being drug tested. Corrupt officials gin up
an injury and find a doctor to claim she proscribed this diuretic
as an anti-inflammatory, then pleads ignorance upon ignorance.
Officials tell him his only chance to compete is to play dead.
When people cheat with drugs, at what part to they suddenly decide
to be honest?
I can think of many more cases of innocent athletes caught up in very
strict rules starting with US swimmer Rick DeMont in the early
1970s.
This case seems less like one.
I totally understand and agree with the concept of 'innocent until proven
guilty', but if that were applied, nobody could ever get caught doping
in sport, it's too easy to beat.
Honestly, I want to give Sergei the benefit of the doubt as well, but
I think that questioning the honesty of testimony is well within an
anti-doping
panel's prerogative.
Fire away! :^)
Dave Sill
>
> I just read the report. I'll play devil's advocate.
>
> Sergei finds out he's being drug tested. Corrupt officials gin up
> an injury and find a doctor to claim she proscribed this diuretic
> as an anti-inflammatory, then pleads ignorance upon ignorance.
> Officials tell him his only chance to compete is to play dead.
>
OK. If the corrupt officials needed to cover for the illicit diuretic,
why didn't gin up a condition for which prescribing a diuretic made
sense? And why didn't they file the necessary exception request in time?
-Dave
Richard Packer
So what specifically was wrong about the way in which this case was
handled (how was it not "open"?) and how could / should things have
been done differently / better?
Christopher Anton
"Kit" <davie...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:46d58284-1bfb-4839...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It seemed a very well argued judgement to me. Tough on the Rower but fair.
He is responsible, not his doctor for what he consumes and he had the get
out clause but couldn't convince the panel that he wasn't using illicitly. I
have to admit diuretics for back pain seemed a pretty rum treatment to me.
Christopher Anton
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ktet6F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> So what would have happened if, instead, this apparently wholly innocent
> athlete had been acquitted? Did they think the whole anti-drugs regime
> might have collapsed?
>
> Or was there something going on at another level of which the regulators
> were aware but of which no one dared speak openly? That would certainly
> not constitute the fair & open application of justice.
>
> It is sometimes hard enough to get reasonable justice in a democracy. No
> one would accuse sports' national or international governing bodies of
> being, in the normal sense of the words, either democratic or accountable.
>
Carl what do you think is the purpose of a tribunal - to let everyone off
with a slap on the wrist? He had his chance to prove that he was "wholly
innocent". He failed in that respect.
Stephen and Jane
> "Kit" <davie...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46d58284-1bfb-4839...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Thanks to the Rowing Service for highlighting this particularly
>> Kafkaesque scenario.
>>
>> Unlike recent stories of athletes trying to weedle out of anti-doping
>> accusations, this poor bloke has been well and truly screwed over by
>> the system IMHO. Full ruling here:
>> http://www.worldrowing.com/medias/docs/media_360360.pdf
>>
>> Apparently, regardless of common sense, "rules is rules".
>
> I just read the report. I'll play devil's advocate.
>
> Sergei finds out he's being drug tested. Corrupt officials gin up
> an injury and find a doctor to claim she proscribed this diuretic
> as an anti-inflammatory, then pleads ignorance upon ignorance.
> Officials tell him his only chance to compete is to play dead.
>
> When people cheat with drugs, at what part to they suddenly decide
> to be honest?
>
> I can think of many more cases of innocent athletes caught up in very
> strict rules starting with US swimmer Rick DeMont in the early
> 1970s.
>
> This case seems less like one.
Apart from her very peculiar prescribing habits, the part of the story that
puzzles me most is that the 'treating doctor/neurologist' claims not to have
known her patient was on the national rowing team. On the odd occasion I
have treated any serious athletes, it is always the first thing you know
about them - however serious or painful their condition. They are all so
very conscious of the banned drugs list it is all they talk about, so as to
make sure you prescribe carefully.
Jane
Anne Rogers
> Apart from her very peculiar prescribing habits, the part of the story that
> puzzles me most is that the 'treating doctor/neurologist' claims not to have
> known her patient was on the national rowing team. On the odd occasion I
> have treated any serious athletes, it is always the first thing you know
> about them - however serious or painful their condition. They are all so
> very conscious of the banned drugs list it is all they talk about, so as to
> make sure you prescribe carefully.
That seems a little odd to me, that someone would be so aware of the
banned drugs, yet unaware of the medical exemption forms. Wouldn't a
serious athelete want you to prescribe whatever was going to get them
better quickest to miss the least training?
Cheers
Anne
sully
I would have to make up an answer that has no more credibility than
does
Sergei's officials in this case.
This is what I find interesting. I don't think in drug testing for
sport that the onus is on the governing body to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that someone has cheated. I think it is up to the
athletes and officials to be scrupulously honest and have to
demonstrate it if asked.
When officials are given authority to be officials in some fashion
over a competition, they are granted a dictatorial authority over the
match. In many sports you can be penalized for questioning their
judgement.
Drug testing should fall within this realm. Being clean of drugs is
as much a part of many sports as making sure you don't use your hands
in soccer, or that you don't get to wear swim fins in a swim meet.
Richard du P
>
> This is what I find interesting. I don't think in drug testing for
> sport that the onus is on the governing body to prove beyond a
> reasonable doubt that someone has cheated. I think it is up to the
> athletes and officials to be scrupulously honest and have to
> demonstrate it if asked.
Tried to contribute much earlier, but made [in the UK Princess Royal's
posh words] a "Horlicks" of it, so won't explain why I, like others
above, take the tribunal's view.
It appears to me that the sports doctor and the specialist in this
case have at the very least been appallingly careless, to the point
where their bloke COULD NOT get off with the reprimand his brief
wanted, or Everyone Would Be Doing It, ie putting together that sort
of defence. Terrible bad luck if the bloke was innocent, but his
managers have let him down really badly.
Yes Sully, in the present state of Drugs in Sport, the onus has to be
on the competitor and his management team.
Richard du P
[with humble thanks to Henry for unPortering me]
Stephen and Jane
Sorry, I didn't make it clear. The ones I have seen are also aware of the
exemption forms - and the medication given (if any) is subject to discussion
at great lengths with due regard to the WADA list and the TUE rules. I
remember on one occasion I had further discussion with a pharmacy
consultant.
My point is that, in my experience, the patient makes it patently obvious
that they are a serious athlete, subject to testing. I find it difficult to
believe that neither Sergey nor Dr Milejko, the specialist sports doctor who
made the hospital referral, did not make it clear to the 'treating doctor'
what his position was.
Jane
ben
The thing is, it's Russia. You are equally as likely to get bizzare
treatment by a neurologist for your sports injury as you are to have a
cockamamy story constructed by your sports physicians to cover up
illicit drug use. My experience with Russian medicine is that the
physicians are a little more sure of themselves and the patients take
a little less responsibility than we are used to. Neither of this
helps our man, nor does Russia's slightly more than spotty history
with WADA.
But anyway, nobody obviously should be treating discogenic back pain
with a diuretic, but who even in their evil mind is going to try to
mask their illicit drug use with hydrochlorothiazide?
None of it makes any sense, my money is on innocent athlete, stupid
doctors. I suppose he'll go to the court of arbitration for sport.
Richard du P
>
> None of it makes any sense, my money is on innocent athlete, stupid
> doctors. I suppose he'll go to the court of arbitration for sport.
I don't quarrel with any of that; but have I got this bit right, that
much could/should/must hang on a TUE, prepared promptly when anything
on the List is prescribed, and certainly before an ADA comes knocking?
I can do without a letter from Carter-Ruck or Sue, Grabbit and Runne,
but shouldn't a TUE answer most of the questions, and its absence
allow the possibility IN PRINCIPLE that there has been Dirty Work?
..... and shouldn't national squad doctors and managers work on that
basis, like, er, manage?
Richard du P
Carl Douglas
Ben has put his more expert finger on the points which caused my concern
over this decision. I don't think we can excuse the conduct of the rest
of those involved but, since the first exposure of the drugs scandal in
Russian rowing, I've been concerned that the athletes were mere pawns in
the game, probably under-informed & certainly ill-equipped to defend
themselves when the brown stuff hit the fan.
Remember the former East bloc sports drugging scandals? Did those
athletes know what was being done to them? What chance had they of
making informed decisions? What ethical background or training was
provided? What were the prospects for young athletes who challenged
their coaches & medics?
Yes, squad doctors and management should indeed manage, as in any
business, but when business management commits fraud that does not make
frauds of the employees too. In our present squad-system sports
factories, athletes occupy a subsidiary role, like that of employee.
Although supposedly the central characters, they have little or no say
in the running of the squad & in the management decisions. In squads
with unscrupulous managements, athletes may really not know that what's
going on behind the scenes, what they are made to do, is illegal.
It goes deeper. The athletes in the squads will be far younger and less
worldly-wise than the management, some having joined as teenagers with
starry-eyed notions of becoming famous medallists. The squad is the
only show in town. They have to commit to it. And, as in business or
any other field of activity, corrupt management very soon weeds out
those whose faces don't fit. Coercion is inevitable.
In that context, I wonder how much autonomy or information young
athletes like Sergey actually had? If you don't seek to punish innocent
employees of a corrupt business, how right is it to punish subordinate
athletes for the sins of those who directed them, & directed subsequent
attempts to cover their tracks. It is not clear to me that Sergey is
necessarily more than a rabbit caught in & transfixed by the lights of
an oncoming truck - an innocent victim.
That's my concern. We have only that report, written by or on behalf of
the organisation administering the punishment. Those words are
doubtless proper & properly expressed within the limiting rules of the
game. But I doubt that the concerns that Ben & I have expressed were
permitted to intrude into or modify the adjudication.
It is that, the seeming lack of applied discretion, that concerns me &
led me to make my original comments.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Christopher Anton
"Stephen and Jane" <stephenDO...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:7l1dqkF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Sorry, I didn't make it clear. The ones I have seen are also aware of the
> exemption forms - and the medication given (if any) is subject to
> discussion at great lengths with due regard to the WADA list and the TUE
> rules. I remember on one occasion I had further discussion with a
> pharmacy consultant.
>
> My point is that, in my experience, the patient makes it patently obvious
> that they are a serious athlete, subject to testing. I find it difficult
> to believe that neither Sergey nor Dr Milejko, the specialist sports
> doctor who made the hospital referral, did not make it clear to the
> 'treating doctor' what his position was.
>
> Jane
>
Another thing which I don't think anyone's mentioned yet is that Russia has
some serious form when it comes to doping and I think after the last ruling
they couldn't stand another adverse ruling. That makes it more likely (but
does of course prove it) that this whole cock and bull story was invented to
get the federation off the hook of a another positive drug test.