WADA Is Reality Challenged

When WADA was in Madrid they could not refrain from drafting a new WADA code that was certain to straighten out deficiencies in the present code. Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draft World Anti-Doping Code With the Fundamental Rights of Athletes written by Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler and Dr. Antonii Rigozzi considers aggravating factors and considerably larger penalties for athletes who are engaged in conspiracy or trafficking of prohibited substances and for attempts to subvert the anti-doping process. A noble aim, indeed.

Reading the new WADA code draft revealed this astounding gem, however. Under 2.3Plea Bargain 110(115) Page 38. "Minutes of the WADA Executive Committee Meeting of 19 Nov 2006. Page 29 referring to the notorious fact that some athletes, particularly wealthy athletes, consider that they have nothing to lose by putting forward all imaginable defenses in the hope that one or the other may work with the result that anti-doping organizations spend significant amounts of money defending the validity of clear laboratory results."

It would be an absurd presumption to include cycling and cyclists as the wealthy athletes with nothing to lose who would resort to any tactic to subvert clear laboratory results! I have a difficult time recalling a cyclist who resorted to obstructionist tactics to defeat a clear laboratory test result. But then again I have a hard time recalling a clear laboratory test result.

The WADA Executive Committee could not possibly be referring to Floyd Landis as the ultra rich athlete who has nothing to lose by contesting a flawless lab performance? Floyd Landis has spent over two million dollars and will spend eighteen months of his life fighting the United States Anti-Doping Agency over a case be-fret of sound scientific evidence. Much of the money was raised through donations and auctions. The sight of Floyd Landis begging for alms like a pauper to defend himself was appalling. At present, with no resolution of his case in sight, Mr. Landis is destitute. USADA is doing quite well, thank you, with an operating budget of twenty million dollars funded by American tax payers.

Travis T. Tygart who currently runs USADA must agree with WADA over the huge amounts of money spent by Anti-Doping Organizations over appeals to the CAS. Tygart would certainly agree with the WADA Executive Committee that a conspiracy is afoot among wealthy athletes to drain precious resources from Anti-Doping Organizations in fruitless appeals to the CAS. Alan Abrahamson of NBC Sports.com would agree. Abrahamson's logic concerning doubters of the AAA Majority conclusion reads "There are those, even in the face of compelling scientific evidence, who want to believe Floyd Landis didn't dope." Abrahamson might also add, since the evidence is so compelling why support a man who is obviously guilty. Why would a guilty man want to appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport and cost USADA so much more money?

I would agree with Alan Abrahamson if he would provide me with a convincing summary of this scientific evidence that was not derived from sloppy lab practices, errors, omissions, or deletions of evidence.

More realistic and contrary to the WADA Executive Committee meeting remarks concerning the clear laboratory results is the conclusion of the Floyd Landis AAA arbitrators.

First the Majority.

Errors in Preparation of Laboratory Documents Page 76 Paragraph 290.

"The Panel does, however note the forensic corrections of the Lab (LNDD) reflect sloppy practice on its part. If such practices continue it may well be that in the future an error like this could result in the dismissal of an Adverse Analytical Finding by the lab (LNDD)."

And the Dissent.

Paragraph 1 and 2.

"From the beginning LNDD has not been trustworthy. In this case, at every stage of testing it failed to comply with the procedures and methods for testing required by the International Standards for Laboratories, version 4.0 August 2004 (ISL) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2003 (WADA Code). It also failed to abide by its legal and ethical obligations under the WADA Code. On the facts of this case, LNDD should not be entrusted with Mr. Landis career."

"Mr. Landis is only required to prove the facts he alleges in this case by a mere balance of the probabilities. In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent."

I fail to discern the clear scientific evidence referred to by Abrahamson or the WADA Executive Committee in these conclusions. I also fail to see the systematic attack of trivial points in an attempt to circumvent the anti-doping process by a hate driven wealthy athlete who has employed an army of lawyers to bore holes into a rock solid base of evidence. Fact, the only real conclusion from the Landis fiasco is that LNDD is incapable of measuring prohibited substances in a competent manner. If an Anti-Doping Authority is spending an inordinate amount of money defending questionable Majority decisions in the Court of Arbitration of Sport the fault lies with WADA and WADA accredited labs, notably LNDD. Not the athlete!

A word of advice to Travis T. Tygart, USADA and other Anti-Doping Authorities, if you want to save money on needless challenges to arbitration awards insist that WADA improve the accreditation criteria for laboratories. Otherwise you will continue to face an escalation in appeals to the Court of Arbitration of Sport.

A word of advise to WADA, stop blaming innocent athletes for challenging your lousy lab work, initiate corrective action immediately, educate your personnel, train people to perform testing correctly. That way you can avoid the faux threat of case dismissal by arbitration Panels and also save Anti-Doping Organizations unnecessary spending to defend your bad lab work. A win-win proposition all around.

I would like to thank Drew Schafer, JD author of WADAWATCH for his assistance by converting the proposed WADA Article 10.6 from a .pdf format to .doc format so my computer could access the file. I am very grateful for his help.
Jon