Performance Enhancing Substances
Over the weekend, I read two great article in Velo News presenting both sides of the Tyler Hamilton suspension for blood doping. It made me want to dig deeper so, I read the 28-page decision from the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS). I then went to Tyler Hamilton’s website (www.tylerhamilton.com), to read his side of the story. I also read some more interviews with Tyler at www.dailypeleton.com.
After reading the CAS decision, I pretty much came to the opinion that Tyler is guilty as charged. It wasn’t as if the Vuelta test that led to his suspension was the first time he had tested positive. In fact, the only reason he was able to retain his gold medal was due to the technical rule that threw out his positive test since his B sample could not be tested. One of the agencies, either WADA or UCI, had been warning Tyler for a period of six months that they knew what he was up to and he needed to quit.
My first inclination even buried Tyler even more. After all, he attacked the process more than going out to try to prove his innocence. At no point did he dispute the results of the test or try to offer another explaination, instead he attacked the process of testing the blood and the test itself. This was a stark contrast to triathlete Rutger Beke who tested positive at Kona and spent the next 9 months in independent labs that collected data proving he just happened to produce a higher concentration of EPO (or maybe just the proteins, I cannot remember). Beke never attacked the process he attacked the results and proved why his results were higher.
Working in a prosecutors office, Tyler’s arguments were similar to those that are guilty of crimes. They cannot argue the facts are on their side. They cannot argue the law is on their side. Thus, they attack everyone else. In this case, Tyler’s lawyer attacked everyone in the process. The lab, the creators of the test, the study that validated the test, and WADA itself.
Then I thought back to Lance and his recent bout with alleged drug use in the 1999 Tour. He also was attacking the process while maintaining his innocence. I have to admit, despite not wanting to believe it, Lance’s argument seemed weak also.
I started to think about it. You really cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove God doesn’t exist. I cannot prove that I have not drank alcohol since my wedding day. Thus, for a person in cycling or endurance sports, who tests positive for PES, the only way to prove the negative is to attack the process. No other avenue exists. After all, they cannot prove a negative.
Then I thought a little further about the situation. Actually, Tyler could have at least tried to prove his innocence. After testing the the Vuelta he could have had blood drawn and had it tested by an independent lab. After Athens, when he tested positive, he could have taken steps to prove he was drug-free instead of relying on a technicality to keep his gold. Most disturbing of all, is that for six months either WADA or the UCI thought he was doing something wrong. At no point did Tyler set out to prove that their lab results were leading them to the wrong conclusion. In essence over seven month, Tyler was given every indication that he was thought to be doping, but at no point did he take it seriously and try to figure out why others would think that and prove them wrong. Instead, he took a guilty man’s argument and attacked the process.