Alberto Contador To Be Suspended?

The Christian Science Monitor has reported that a rumor is afloat that Alberto Contador will be officially suspended by the Spanish Cycling Federation for his positive test for clenbuterol during the second rest day of the 2010 Tour de France, and as a consequence his 2010 Tour de France title will be rescinded. Is Alberto Contador a scapegoat, a victim of an over zealous doing establishment bent upon a policy of no tolerance; or a doped cheater who would drop the maillot jaune with a dropped chain in clear violation of cycling etiquette?

WADA code states a policy of no tolerance even if substances listed on the prohibited list were mistakenly taken; apply a topical solution without first checking on the ingredients will result in a two year suspension; because WADA reasons that presence indicates culpability and intent. Clenbuterol was present, this is a violation, thus a suspension.

But WADA code provides for an appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). The Court of Arbitration of Sport is a bizarre organization where the case starts anew from scratch; where old opinions do not set precedence; where rules are made up as they go along. The arbitrators have unlimited power. Arbitrary and capricious rulings are allowed. There is no legal appeal to any court outside of Switzerland where the CAS is domiciled. Most of the time the arbitrators are scientifically unqualified to render a competent decision. Expert opinion and testimony from WADA laboratory experts that question laboratory methods and procedures are prohibited if they favor the defense of the athlete. Independent experts who are deemed qualified to interpret highly technical or complex scientific issues are selected by the arbitrators: one arbitrator representing the prosecution, one the defense, and one "independent" arbitrator: the selection usually is a WADA laboratory director who is constrained from presenting a unbiased opinion of the evidence. CAS testimony is conducted in secret; apparently with the motive of protecting the athlete. The entire International Olympic Committee (IOC) structure of anti-doping management would be jeopardized without a continuous string of guilty verdicts. If Pat McQuaid and the UCI had any sense they would abandon the IOC once and for all! Until they do, the ends justify the means, regardless of fairness.

There should be reform of the process; but where do you draw the line? The Floyd Landis case was a disaster for the anti-doping crusade, because the most basic standards were ignored. The measurements were questioned because the laboratory made dozens of fundamental mistakes; ignored WADA code; LNDD refused to maintain a credible chain-of-custody; calibrate the equipment properly; employ people capable of understanding the equipment they were operating. WADA maintained a laissez faire, arrogant, laboratory can do wrong cavalier attitude, above the law, subject to oversight by no legal authority. Yet, in spite of running a disastrous operation, the GC/C/IRMS measurements were correct! Floyd Landis later admitted his doping behavior after spending his entire fortune fighting the anti-doping establishment! So where do you draw the line?

Should the system base everything on the amount of a prohibited substance detected being enough to increase performance? What about the theory that plastics were detected in the blood that indicates a blood transfusion? Should this evidence be ignored even though it may indicate traces of contaminated blood taken from the rider during a training period and re-infused during the Tour de France? There are no easy answers here!

WADA and the UCI are not investing enough money and the code needs reform; how to reach reasonable goals remains a serious question. Perhaps a panel of scientific experts should convene; and the problems solved by committee!