Doping in Cycling: From a Layman's Perspective

[UPDATE]
I wrote this post before Pellizotti's case was handed down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Subsequently, he has been banned for two years and stripped of his Giro podium last year and his 2009 Tour de France King of the Mountains title. I've left the original post unchanged as I think it still contributes to the argument.

-----------------------------------

I will be honest, I know next to nothing about the system of anti-doping control in cycling except from what I read and see in the press. But from what I have learned, it worries me that the central governing body of the sport has almost no accountability for following up positive dope tests whatsoever.

Recently, I've been reading up on the cases of Alberto Contador and 2009 Tour de France King of the Mountains winner Franco Pellizotti. I haven't bothered with Riccardo Ricco because, as he's been done for doping in the past, I'm almost certain that the allegations this time around are true. Needless to say, he was fired by Vacansoleil and his career is almost certainly over.

Contador's case is an intriguing but idiotic case of proportions that threaten to cause irreversable damage to the UCI's process of handling doping cases. Here's the events of Contador's case as I perceived them:

• Contador competes in and wins the 2010 Tour de France in July 2010.
• In September 2010, it is revealed, by Contador himself, that traces of the stimulant, clenbuterol, were found in urine samples. However, the dose was so minute (50 picograms per millilitre) that it was 40 times below the limit required for detection by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). A subsequent investigation into the scientific process was issued. Don Catlin, a notable anti-doping scientist, accepted Contador's story of contaminated meat as a plausible excuse.
• Note at this point that this argument is null and void on legal grounds of strict liability. It is actually written into WADA's anti-doping code that the athlete is responsible for any substance that may enter their system, be it accidentally or purposefully ingested, inhaled or injected. The burden of proof of how and why it was in their system rests upon the athlete.
• Not only that but the Spanish Association of Beef Farmers has countered Contador's allegation of clenbuterol-tainted meat with figures indicating that, in fact, in over 14,000 tests of cattle across Spain last year, not one of them came back positive for Clenbuterol.
• Following this, Alberto Contador was suspended from competition pending further investigation. This had no negative impact upon himself as he had already finished his competition schedule for the year.
• Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Spanish Cycling Federation handed down a one year ban to Contador. Upon appeal however, it overturned its OWN ruling and reinstated him. I found this absolutely laughable; that a cycling federation can ban someone and then reinstate them in a matter of weeks seems ludicrously corrupt and completely dysfunctional.
• It is now likely that the WADA and the UCI will appeal the overturning of the ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which could take several months, but may also result in Contador being banned for two years instead of one and the stripping of his Tour de France title.

Like I said before, what I have explained above is purely what I have perceived from reading cycling websites, watching news bulletins and doing a little research for myself but it is evident that there is a severe case of double standards in professional cycling. Let me take a practical approach to how I perceive the current process of a rider being banned for testing positive.

1. Ride turns professional. Signs contract with professional team which means he will also sign an agreement with the UCI accepting WADA's anti-doing code and any consequences that may come with breaching it.
2. WADA conducts biological passport tests as well as out of competition tests on cyclist.
3. Cyclist returns positive test for banned substance X.
4. B sample tested for confirmation of banned substance X.
5. Matter is then referred to cyclist's national olympic committee (NOC) and/or cycling federation who conduct investigation and impose ban of two years.
6. Cyclist can appeal ban to NOC and/or cycling federation.
1. Succeeds: Allowed to continue racing. UCI/WADA may appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Process can take many months. *This is what happened in Contador's case.*
2. Fails: Cyclist can appeal to CAS. Process can take many months. This is what happened in Alejandro Valverde's case. His appeal to the CAS was thrown out and his two year ban remained.

This process is fundamentally flawed as the sport's governing body, the UCI, has no impact on the initial ban imposed or recommended, instead handing it over the the NOC or the cycling federation. Obviously, the NOC is going to look favourably upon their own athlete and if the circumstances are vague or inconclusive, like Contador's, they may argue that their are no grounds to impose a ban.

Pat McQuaid and Dick Pound, head of the UCI and WADA respectively, have long been working to stamp out doping in cycling but, from what I can gather, they don't want the responsibility of punishing those who break the UCI's code. This is a clear case of double standards and the severe lack of accountability is having an increasingly negative impact on cycling's already irretrievable credibility. If McQuaid and Pound are at all serious about stamping out doping in cycling for good, they need to show some morsel of  leadership and change the way that positive dope tests are handled.

Here's how I think it should work:

1. WADA sets minimal limits that constitute a positive doping tests. The UCI cannot proceed in prosecuting a cyclist for doping if they do not exceed the limits.
2. Cyclist tests positive to banned substance X. UCI and WADA notify cyclist of positive test and advise that B sample is being tested for confirmation. During that time, cyclist is banned from competing in any competition.
3. B sample comes back positive. UCI commissions a WADA special team to investigate the case and gather evidence to put before a UCI anti-doping council.
4. WADA returns with evidence on circumstances of the instance of doping by the cyclist, including the substance and how they acquired it.
5. UCI anti-doping council hands down ban if evidence justifies it. Cyclist then given a set period (say, 28 days) to construct a case to appeal the ban to the UCI anti-doping council.
6. If appeal is unsuccessful, cyclist can make a final appeal to the CAS in a bid to clear their name.

In addition to this, I would have some extra penalty if the cyclist took the case to Step 5 and lost, for example, some sort of financial retribution or an extra 6 months - 1 year added to their ban.

In this case, the accountability and responsibility for determining bans and sanctions on riders who have violated the UCI and WADA codes rests firmly upon the shoulders of the organisations that govern the sport. This means that the UCI doesn't need to continuously keep appealing the cases of cycling federations' acquittals to the CAS, which would save time and money on their part as well.

If we apply my proposed system, Contador's case wouldn't have even proceeded this far. Yes, he did have Clenbuterol in his system, for which he is responsible. But the amount is so minute that it does not constitute a positive test and, therefore, the UCI cannot impose a ban.

The new blood passport system, introduced in 2008, may complicate this somewhat, such as the case of Franco Pellizotti. In a time when doping in cycling and exactly what should be done about it needs much more transparency, the blood passport program could end up being its saviour or its executioner. The blood passport is designed to use blood and urine figures taken at regular intervals to build up a set of long-term markers for each cyclist. If they return something abnormal, there are only two possible options: the cyclist is unwell and is declared unfit to race; or, in the case of Pellizotti, the cyclist has doped and is banned. WADA is the organisation that administers and controls the blood passport program but any adverse findings and their consequences are still handed down to the athlete's NOC or cycling federation. In the case of Pellizotti, it becomes even more confusing. CONI, Italy's national Olympic committee, investigated the findings and recommended a two year ban for Pellizotti. The Italian anti-doping tribunal (TNA), however, disagreed, arguing that there was no evidence to suggest Pellizotti had doped. Pellizotti has remained suspended from competition since May last year, awaiting a decision from the UCI's appeal of TNA's decision to overturn the ban. They had initially recommended a 4 year ban but, if found guilty, Pellizotti will most likely be slapped with only 2 years.

Again, the UCI can avoid this headache altogether if they were the one's handing down bans and dealing with the consequences, rather than having to go through the convoluted process of letting the NOC or the cycling federation of the rider's country deal with it.

Contador has been able to sucessfully argue, to a certain degree, that a part of the UCI's anti-doping code (the "strict liability" for any substance in his system) does not apply to him. Pellizotti has similarly been able to argue that the blood passport data did not sufficiently indicate that he had doped. If this is proven correct by the CAS, it could set a legal precedent for following cases and possibly destroy the credibility of the entire blood passport scheme.

I had faith that with the blood passport program would come greater transparency in drugs testing and would result in the UCI taking on more responsibility and accountability for punishing those cyclists who have broken its own code. Every cyclist who races, be it at club level or at professional level, holds a license with the UCI and is therefore subject to its anti-doping code. Yet, with the process currently in place, sadly, I have to say, the handling of doping cases is more convoluted and mystifying than ever.