Transcription
THE LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEAND ITS INFLUENCE ON SPORT(9THINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE “SPORT AND QUALITY OF LIFE”, BRNO, MASARYK UNIVERSITY, NOVEMBER 7TH–8TH 2013)AUTHOR: MICHAL POLÁK, EDUCATION MANAGERCZECH ANTI-DOPING COMMITTEE, ZA CÍSAŘSKÝM MLÝNEM 1063/5, 170 00 PRAGUE 7 – BUBENEČ, CZECH REPUBLICCONTACT: POLAK@ANTIDOPING.CZ
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEA. INTRODUCTION“USADA has shown that no-one is above the rules of sport, that no-one –no matter how well connected or powerful they seem to be – is beyondthe reach of the world s anti-doping authorities,” the Hon. John Fahey,WADA President, March 2013.On 22 October, 2012, the UCI accepted the USADA findings and formallystripped Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles.Public is disappointed that such a well-known athlete managed to getaway with cheating for so long, but the case has also shown the increasingeffectiveness of non-analytical anti-doping investigations.2
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEB. METHODSThe World Anti-Doping Code specifies that doping can be proved by “anyreliable means”. There were a number of strands to the evidencepresented by USADA:Sworn statements fromprofessional cyclistsBanking and accountingrecordsEmail communicationsLaboratory tests resultsand expert analysis3
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEC. RESULTS1. Sworn statementsSworn statements were presented from more than two dozen witnesses,including 15 professional cyclists.2. Banking and accounting recordsBanking and accounting records were from a Swiss company controlled byDoctor Michele Ferrari, a member of the US Postal Service team, reflectingmore than one million US dollars in payments by Armstrong.3. Email communicationsEmail communication between Dr Ferrari and his son and Armstrong.4
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASE4. Laboratory test resultsThe Reasoned Decision report stated that the core of USADA s case waswitness testimony and documentary evidence. Samples from the 1999Tour de FranceA validated test for Erythropoietin (EPO) was not available prior to 2000.In 2004, the French Anti-Doping Laboratory conducted a research projecton stored urine samples from 1999 Tour de France, including aretrospective analysis of EPO use.USADA s Reasoned Decision concluded that “while French Anti-DopingLaboratory s analysis of the 1999 samples may not stand alone toestablish a positive test under the Code, the analysis is consistent with andcorroborates the numerous written statements recently obtained byUSADA.”5
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASESamples from the 2001 Tour ofSwitzerlandAt the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, thedirector of the Lausanne anti-dopinglaboratory reported to USADA that thelaboratory had detected a number ofsamples in the Tour that were suspiciousfor the presence of EPO. These sampleswere labelled “suspect”. USADAconsidered that the evidence from the2001 Tour of Switzerland samplesstrongly corroborates eyewitnessevidence of Armstrong s possession anduse of EPO.Author: Miloslav Slejška6
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEBlood test results during the 2009 and 2010 Tour deFrancesultsIt was reported that WADA s Anti-Doping Administration andManagement System (ADAMS) contained results of blood samples fromArmstrong, including 29 collected by UCI between 16 October, 2008 andJanuary 2011, and nine samples collected by USADA between 13 February2009 and April, 2012.It was observed that five samples during the 2009 Tour de France and twosamples during the 2010 Tour de France contained an unusually lowpercentage of reticulocytes. It was concluded that Lance Armstrongengaged in blood transfusion during this period.7
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEWhy was Lance Armstrong not sanctioned earlier?There are two principal reasons why Armstrong and his team avoidedearlier sanctioning:The nature of the substances and method used.The inadequacies of the testing procedures.8
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASE1. Substances and method usedSubstances and methods that appear on the WADA Prohibited List can becategorised as:Those substances that not occur naturally in the body (i.e. anabolicsteroids, diuretics, stimulants, beta blockers)Those substances and methods that naturally occurring in the body(testosterone, erythropoietin, human growth hormone,corticosteroids)It is not surprising that the prohibited substances and methods fell intothe second category.Erythropoietin (EPO)An effective test for EPO was not available until 2000. Therefore the use ofEPO prior to this date went virtually unchallenged.9
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASETestosteroneA similar strategy of taking small dosessublingually (i.e. under the tongue) orthrough wearing patches for a few hoursin the evening was adopted fortestosterone.Human growth hormoneAn effective validated test for humangrowth hormone was not available at thetime. Autologous blood transfusion wasdifficult to detect.CortisoneA false declaration of medical need waseasy to obtain for therapeutic useexemptionAuthor: Miloslav Slejška10
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASE112. Inadequacies of the testing proceduresThe team riders were using their wits to avoid the testers.They were staying in accommodation where testing was unlikely to beconducted.Where necessary, the withdrawal from a competition.Surveillance by team members looking out for UCI or USADA testers.Delaying the haematocrit test.
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEThe wider consequences to the Lance Armstrong CaseIn addition to the sanctions imposed on Lance Armstrong, there havebeen a significant number of additional consequences resulting fromthis case.The eleven teammates who decided to break the Code of Silence(Omerta) have been given 6-month suspension.UCI have formally stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de Francetitles.USADA concluded that it had more than enough evidence to proceedwith charges against team personnel including.Following the publication of the USADA report, there have been anumber of resignations of high profile administrator in cyclingorganizations.12
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASEThe UCI has been questionedover a 100.000 USD donationmade by Armstrong to the UCIin 2002.Many sponsors, such asRabobank, Nike and insurancecompanies have ended theirmulti-million euro support.Lance Armstrong hasconcluded his chairmanship ofthe Livestrong Foundation(cancer research and cancerpatient-support services).13
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASED. CONCLUSIONS – Is there hope for the future of sport?There is no question that the Lance Armstrong case has cast a hugeshadow over the sport.Sport must continue to fully embrace the World Anti-Doping Code.With increasing emphasis being put on “prevention”.The key to success is to ensure an understanding of why rules are in placeand communication of what those rules mean.The new Code Drafting Team is preparing a new version of this material.Major changes to 2015 Code can be as follow:Sanctions increased to four years for serious doping violationsSubstance or method now needs to be performance enhancing forinclusion on the ListWADA empowered to instigate investigations14
PLAY TRUE GENERATION15THERE IS ONLY A CHANCE FOR CLEAN SPORTAND DOPING-FREE SPORT TO BE DEVELOPED.KEY TO THE SUCCESS:TO PROVIDE YOUNG ATHLETES WITH ANOPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE ABOUTANTI-DOPING, IN ONE WORD – EDUCATION.
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASE16
Michal Polák Education ManagerTHANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONANY QUESTIONS?
LANCE ARMSTRONG CASE 13 The UCI has been questioned over a 100.000 USD donation made by Armstrong to the UCI in 2002. Many sponsors, such as Rabobank, Nike and insurance companies have ended their multi-million euro support. Lance Armstrong has concluded his chairmanship of the Livestrong Foundation (cancer research and cancer
