It's very good overall.
The best parts of her piece are observations on the ITF's lack of transparency, including some choice quotes from ITF anti-doping boss Stuart Miller:
'The ATP and WTA tours and the ITF prefer not to comment on the topic [doping], even when attacked. They rarely reply to questions with any clarity or detail. When asked whether maintaining public confidence was an important aspect of the program, for example, Miller supplied a boilerplate response. "Questions are answered and perceptions are addressed to the fullest extent possible within the constraints to which the [tennis anti-doping program] is subject," he said. "Nonetheless, those constraints provide opportunities for speculation, and there's only so far that the responses can go to respond to that speculation. In any case, decisions will be made in the interests of having the best possible anti-doping program within existing constraints."'Tandon also touches on loser-targeted testing and the lack of out-of-competition controls. However, she doesn't mention Serena Williams's "panic episode."
Tandon also gets another awesome quote from Miller about the ITF's investigative powers: "The ITF has the power of investigation and has exercised that power on occasions. The details of those investigations are subject to confidentiality requirements."
The one main quibble I have is that she does not address the ITF's disclosure policy on provisional suspensions and tribunal decisions. Specifically, the ITF's policy of publicly releasing information (e.g., test results, provisional suspensions, tribunal decisions) only in the event that a player is found to have committed an anti-doping offense.
This needs to change. All provisional suspensions and tribunal decisions should be made public.
Another problem the article avoids is the highly likely possibility of backdated TUE's, or TUE's in general. So once an adverse sample is on the record the player could present a valid TUE and get off the hook easily, not tarnishing their records
ReplyDeleteIn addition, she stresses the medical expertise doping apparently needs and notes that only few players can afford travelling with a physician. Yet, we all know who travels with a huge entourage and we do know the names of some doctors working with players, like del Moral.
And as Armstrong has demonstrated, all it needs is a hotelroom with a framed picture above the bed - which they took off to hang a simple coat hanger for their bloodbags to begin their infusions. It only takes 20-30 minutes and the deed is done. Obvs, tennis players won't do that in the shared locker rooms or while getting a massage...
And if you can't afford a travelling physician, you could always dabble with what is available on the internet via mailorder.
I am afraid, I have a bone to pick with Tandon's chief witness, Ayotte.
"Ayotte said that when the ATP was running the program, she never saw a positive test that was not followed up. She said it is "still the same" with the ITF. She also notes that all results are recorded directly by the lab in the centralized Anti-Doping Administration and Management System database. "So automatically, if there is an adverse finding, WADA could follow up," she said. "If ever tennis decided not to sanction an athlete, WADA could ask for the decision. They could even bring the case to arbitration."
I am sure the ITF is smart enough to know that no "open" cases will remain in the system. So either a TUE or short suspension will clear the ITF's as well as the player's record. Also note how Ayotte uses "could" - a subjunctive - do we know if WADA ever makes use of their right or how frequently?
Moreover, Ayotte suggests that in-competition testing is effective for it can detect micro-dosages of certain substances these days. Again, this plays down the highly likely possibility of doping around these tests - which is what del Moral and Fuentes did very cunningly, for they were always on top of the latest parameters that could be detected in lab's through testing.
That was the whole game - cheaters and testers were playing tortoise and hare! This factor is not mentioned by Tandon either.
Also, we know that at least one WADA-certified lab helped Armstrong cheating with his positive samples. The integrity of lab's should also be an issue imo, especially when Tandon suggests she had been following the events surrounding Armstrong/USADA closely, that detail should not have gone unnoticed.
"The reason why I'm saying this is tennis is following the steroid profile of the 25 best athletes, which is something that is very rarely done in major sports programs. So for one, I do think that this follow-up prevents administration of testosterone-related [substances], which is a major, major problem."
ReplyDeleteThe ITF has never announced this, as far as I know. Also, even if an athlete did violate the steroid profile, it would not result in a ban, because that is not allowed under the current rules. This might be used for some targeted testing, but again, the ITF has not said anything about this. If true, it might explain why a certain athlete was tested "4 time in a single week."
"However, Ayotte says, despite all the focus on out-of-competition tests, in-competition testing has improved drastically and can detect substances like EPO, even if taken in micro-doses (involving small amounts that clear the body in hours). "Absolutely, we now can do this very well," she said. "Maybe 10 years ago we were not this good, but now we can."
--So if a drug "clears the body in hours," how can you detect it after those hours have elapsed? That is the definition of "cleared," that it can't be detected. The article sites someone caught micro-dosing, but it looks like they just caught him in the window. Also, if the test have improved so much over the last 10 years, then you went back an re-tested a bunch of samples, right?
Then the same person goes on to say, "When testosterone is taken orally, it can be detected for only 15, 20 hours. Same thing for micro-doses of EPO, HGH. Such a short window of detection. This is the difficulty." -- Well, which one is it? Is it a "difficulty" or can you detect micro-dosing outside this window like you said you could previously?
"Testing alone will never pick up anything but a fraction of doping in a sport," said Richard Ings. Yes, exactly, good to see they cover this.
"Success in tennis depends on a balance of talent and technical skills as well as fitness and strength.." I am tired of hearing this argument and it is an insult to the entire WTA. If "skill" is the predominate factor, then why do women compete separately? Are they really just less skilled? If "fitness and strength" were minor factors, then women would play in the same league as men. And because Dr. Miller might not have learned this in med school, women and men are different because of hormones. So, men have an advantage in tennis over women because of hormones. Do you think they might have an advantage over other men because of those same hormones?
"The ITF has the power of investigation," said Miller, "and has exercised that power on occasions. The details of those investigations are subject to confidentiality requirements." --Well, there have been no suspensions, which would be public, so why don't you simply say, "The ITF has the power of investigation, but to date the entire program has been completely unsuccessful."
[Miller] also added, "We are looking very, very carefully at an athlete biological passport program in tennis." -- Well, the article earlier described what looks like the biological passport steroid profile and states it is currently implemented. So, which is it?
Another thing I would like the ITF to disclose: have they ever received any donations from players?
ReplyDeleteArmstrong not only "donated" up to $ 200,000 to the UCI to cover up a positive sample during the TdS in 2001, he apparently also tried to give USADA $ 250,000 in 2004.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/must-read-armstrong-tried-to-give-250000-to-usada_270748
Well, the ITF publishes its budget and all of the income is accounted for. http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_44455_original.PDF. They get most of their money from Davis Cup and TV licensing. There is only one line item, "Sundry," that might include such payments. It seems to run about $100,000 per year, so it is probably for miscellaneous income and would not be capable of hiding anything close to a $200k payment in a single year.
DeleteSo, I don't think there is any direct payout like that. It is more indirect. Look at the "staff costs" in the budget. It totals $8,685,000. We know the ITF employs about 80 people. (http://www.itftennis.com/about/organisation/structure.aspx). So, the average salary for an ITF staff member is $108,562 per year. Of course, this is nothing compared to the USTA which paid its CEO $9.15m for a single year. (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2009/11/20091123/This-Weeks-News/USTA-Paid-Kantarian-$9M-In-08.aspx).
No need for back door payments -- the whole sport is invested in pushing the image, and the top executives are paid handsomely for it. The $200k Armstrong paid is chump change to top tennis executives. No need to rock the boat, just keep things quiet and cash those checks.
The large payouts also contribute to the "omerta." For instance Patrick McEnroe was paid about $700,000 a year for being Davis Cup captain. Do you think he would get this gig if he was an outspoken anti-doping advocate? Even when you retire from playing, there is still substantial incentive to toe the company line.
The curious thing about the article you mention is that it is quite clear that USADA knew about Armstrong's donation. It was not like it was some round about thing. From what it says, it was a direct donation that was rejected for a clear conflict of interest. This happened back in 2004, so what were those guys thinking? "Oh, this guys is basically giving us a bribe, he must be clean, let's not look into it any further."
Of course, the article also notes that Lance Armstrong denies the whole thing. I guess Travis Tygart, the head of the USADA, is just another crazed person spreading more lies about Saint Armstrong.
Thanks for digging those figures up.
DeleteYou might be right in that tennis generates more revenue and pays its personnel/execs better to keep quiet.
I am always amazed by how easily certain players get jobs in their machinery and turn from pro to apparatchik.
Alright folks, set your telly: Oprah meeting Lance for a tell-all (well, not ALL, only those parts that suit his side of the story) interview!
ReplyDeleteLo and behold! Cancer Jesus is set to appear on her show/chanel OWN on the 17th!
Two equally big narcissistic egos to meet, can't miss that!
Is he going to wear ALL of of his seven yellow jerseys?
Lance on Oprah?
DeleteDon't watch without a bucket, it's liable to be vomit-inducing.
Didn't they take those yellow jerseys away from him yet?
ReplyDeleteYeah I'm sure Oprah will ask some really tough questions - not.
No, they don't take the actual jerseys (Lance defiantly posted a picture of himself with the jerseys AFTER he was stripped of his Tour victories).
ReplyDeleteOprah is a con artist pure and simple. She sells the same BS a lot of other con artists sell (you are wonderful, just think positive and you get all of the rewards that you deserve,...). Many con artists have become very rich selling this BS (Tony Robbins, Dr. Dwyer, Oprah,...). Of course the con artists are the ones that get the rewards, not their "disciples".
Oprah is also one of the enablers who protected the Armstrong myth by giving him a platform to reach millions through her tv program (she is an enabler for the Serena myth as well). You can't tell me that Oprah's researchers didn't have any idea that Lance was highly suspect long before now. I doubt this show will be anything more than these two massive egos doing damage control.
Is that REALLY true about the ITF following the steroid profile of its top 25 dogs, Sen or THASP or Richard?
ReplyDeleteThat would come so unexpected, really. And if so, I am sure they would have caught players in the meantime. When done fairly and with the intention to CATCH a cheat and not to prevent a cheat being known to the public. Also, it would be interesting which max. hormon/blood parameters they are using.
Meanwhile, in Lanceland... I think I mentioned it before in one of my posts - that Suisse lab that tipped Armstrong off during the TDS in 2001 and covered up his tests - it's true, Tygart has been confirming this on CBS, "60 Minutes".
As for the independence of labs...prepare yourself for more disencouraging news:
According to Tygart, the head of a Suisse lab, a certified WADA lab, explained in 2002 to Lance and Bruyneel in great detail HOW the actual EPO test procedure works, basically giving away all the insider knowledge on what they can detect and how they detect substances, especially EPO.
Lance was pretty much given the "key" to unlock their testing methods and with it knew how to dope around testing.
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/schweizer-doping-labor-soll-armstrong-ueber-epo-tests-informiert-haben-a-876888.html
I forgot to mention that Saugy, the head of the Lausanne lab, claims to have been ordered by the UCI to tell Lance and Bruyneel all his "secrets"...
DeleteI wonder how easily the ITF can force certain labs into breaking their codes and giving away their knowledge? If I remember correctly, del Moral had access to labs nad maybe also got insider information through them.
How easy is it to get at that information? If the ITF or any other federation for that matter is paying those labs - which makes them somewhat finincially dependend on such a big client - how can we know those labs are not playing both sides?
The REALLY terrible thing is one starts to sound like some wacky conspiracy theorist when saying such things... sigh.
There is really nothing a lab could tell an athlete about the technical side of testing that is not available from peer reviewed scientific journals available via google.
DeleteBut and it is a big but having a lab director allegedly walking a top athlete through the science of EPO testing is taking the UCI "helpline" to an extreme.
Bring on government bodies taking away anti-doping management from sports I continue to say.
As for following an athletes steroid profile, that is not very earth shattering. Every sample analysed generates a series of readings for that athletes steroid snapshot at that moment. The profile is developed by collecting a series of such samples and looking for unusual changes in the profile that can't be explained by natural causes.
DeleteSo to develop a true profile you really need in my view a monthly sample collected from that athlete to build up a true picture of what their natural steroid levels are. Just 2-3 samples does not cut it in my view for an accurate steroid profile.
The ITF may well be collating the natural steroid results for lots of players but you need to collect allot of samples to develop an accurate profile and you definitely need lots of samples to use such data to prosecute an athlete in the absence of a standard positive.
It would be earth shattering for the ITF to implement this. Neither the UCI nor the WADA have been able to put together a successful steroid profile. The UCI spent $4.2 million Swiss Francs in 2010 to create the blood profile for cycling (http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU4ODY&LangId=1), which is a very simple test. See WADA ADP Operating Guidelines which list items such as Hematocrit, Hemogolobin, RBC count, etc. These are all simple tests that anyone can order over the internet for $39. http://www.kwikmed.com/cbc.asp. Running some "Bayesian" analysis on them does not cost $4.2 Million.
DeleteOn the other hand, the steroid profile is quite complex and no set markers have been established. It would be "earth shattering" if the ITF, using a fraction of the budget of UCI and WADA was able to pull this off on its own.
In addition, the WADA has clearly described the problems with an hGH test. http://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/q-and-a/human-growth-hormone-hgh/ . The WADA uses a blood test for hGH, so it is not clear how this would work into a steroid profile based on urine samples. In any case, the paucity of blood tests would make building such a profile unlikely in tennis. The article seems to indicate as much because Ayotte states that the program "prevents administration of testosterone-related" drugs -- which hGH is not.
As you note above, all the other tests are published and peer reviewed. Here, the ITF has apparently developed a super test that has eluded all others for years but cannot describe it, has not officially announced it, and it certainly has not been peer reviewed. Of course, this super test has yet to catch one single athlete for testosterone-related drugs, so this mystery test is proof that tennis is clean.
@RichardIngs,
DeleteI had similar thoughts about the so-called "steriod profile." The ITF may be collecting "profile" data, but they aren't collecting enough samples (especially out of competition).
It seems Lance has affected more than just tennis. The following piece is on HGH testing for Major League Baseball. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mlb-introducing-hgh-testing-2013-article-1.1237534 .
ReplyDeleteIt notes that baseball testing is "already one of the most stringent in professional sports." Funny how every single sport claims this.
No word on whether tennis uses these same types of tests for testosterone and HGH.