The UCI: To Appeal or Not Appeal?

It is official, after interminable delay, Pat McQuaid has ordered International Cycling Union (UCI) lawyers to investigate the basis for an appeal to the unexpected Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) exoneration of three time Tour de France champion Alberto Contador, who tested positive for clenbuterol during the second rest day of the 2010 Tour de France. The UCI has thirty days to appeal the RFEC decision and the appeal must be filed by March 21, 2011. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) may also appeal the RFEC exoneration with an extended time limit if the UCI fails to act.

The UCI must act or face certain ridicule as an organization that tolerates innovative dopers and their confederates cheat clean riders in open defiance of the stringent WADA code. The WADA code demands a no tolerance/strict liability policy against prohibited substance use, the mere presence of a prohibited substance detected in the body, regardless of intent, constitutes a violation and warrants a mandatory one year suspension. Athletes found to have engaged in prohibited performance enhancement use or methods that would facilitate an unfair advantage; an increase in performance; are suspended for two years.

Recently, there has been a call to modify the code to take into consideration the absence of motive of athletes who test positive for prohibited substances; to declare human fallibility as a basis for exoneration from punishment. More controversially, many critical thinkers have suggested that the amount of a prohibited substance detected should be considered as a factor; a threshold value. Prohibited substances detected in blood and urine samples below a known performance enhancing level threshold would be deemed a non-violation. Although threshold as a mitigating factor would be pertinent in some cases, it would not apply to all situations. Unfortunately, the threshold argument has a weak scientific foundation, invites a danger of opening a Pandora Box of abuse by innovative doping methods and strategies by unscrupulous doctors who have formulated designs to keep performance enhancing drugs below detectable levels. Possible solution: an intelligent and thorough investigation of the circumstances of a case in an impartial way, with an independent investigative body, considering all of the factors. This would trend toward a more fair judicial determination of the merits and deem what course of action would be proper in these cases.

But for now, we have nothing but the worthless UCI appeal of the ridiculous RFEC decision based upon the inflexible concept of "strict liability." A reasonable discussion of alternatives to the present code and conduct of the anti-doping agencies is not considered possible, even in the face of the insane anti-doping world application of arbitrary and capricious rules, the unequal treatment of athletes based upon ethnic and cultural considerations, and the total failure of the system to curtail doping in sport.