It says much about the public suspicion of professional cycling, that the head of the cycling's governing body felt moved to comment prior to this year's Tour de France that it would be no "bad thing" if there was a positive drugs test or two during the race. In Pat McQuaid's view, this would show that the testing procedures were working and would allay public suspicion. No doubt Alexander Kolobnev's positive test for the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide, a couple of weeks ago was warmly toasted in the McQuaid household.
Joking aside, cycling does appear to be cleaning up its act. However, looming over these efforts remain the questions over Alberto Contador and whether he doped on his way to victory in last year's event, which is the subject of an on-going legal battle.
The revised 2009 World Anti-Doping Code which coordinates anti-doping rules and establishes a framework of policies, regulations and rules for sporting organisations aims to combat doping worldwide and is adhered to by the International Cycling Union (ICU). Alberto Contador was provisionally suspended under the Code after he tested positive for the anabolic agent clenbuterol, in the 2010 Tour de France, which is a drug given to people with breathing disorders. Fairly useful at the top of the Col du Tourmalet some might suggest. Contador tested positive in the second rest day of the Tour and the substance was found in tests performed over the three following days.
His positive doping tests were prosecuted by his national governing body, the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC). To widespread surprise, the RFEC acquitted Contador. Why? It was accepted by the RFEC that he had inadvertently consumed contaminated beef containing a small amount of clenbuterol which is occasionally given to cattle, and which takes several days to clear from the system. On this basis, he was found to have no fault or negligence under the WADA Code and was free from sanction.
We have previously reported in The Score on similarly incredible cases involving Richard Gasquet and LaShawn Merritt, who received reduced sanctions by reason of ingesting prohibited substances, respectively through kissing a girl who had taken cocaine and using a sexual performance enhancing product, Extenze. By these standards, Contador's defence is disappointingly mundane. However, note that both Gasquet and Merritt both received some sanction as they were found to have shown a degree of fault or negligence (albeit not significant). Can the Contador case be distinguished from these cases, particularly that of Gasquet, such that the circumstances were so exceptional that Contador deserves no sanction?
Clearly, the ICU and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) do not think so, having announced an appeal against this decision which will take place on August 1st – 3rd before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). This decision will determine whether Contador is perceived as one of the greatest cyclists in history, having won all three of cycling's Grand Tours: the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and the Spanish Vuelta, or whether he is one of its greatest frauds.
The delay in the Contador decision has raised questions about the hold-up between the sports media reporting scandals and the sporting judicial system. However, this delay has more to do with perceived irregularities with the decision on the RFEC, rather than the inefficiency of regulators. Underlying the appeal brought by the ICU and WADA is no doubt also the desire to uphold one of the underlying principles of the WADA Code – that there is a levelplaying field for all with anti-doping policy enforced to a universal standard globally. Much progress has been made to eliminate home-town protection for the use of drugs and we await CAS' decision with interest.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.