Kazakhstan: Out of Bounds.
Kazakhstan is four times larger than Texas and five times larger than France. Did you know that it is also home to the 'Lamest Government Official in Sport', today? Kairat Aitekenov, Kazakh deputy minister for tourism and sport, is an official in need of a public slapping.
Kazakh deputy of tourism and sport apparently sent Borat to the Tour to let their riders know that "Positives test in Kazakhstan is make no important! Becomes hero and we make for statue and many celebration in town center!"
When Vino's positive test was announced, I said some things that we are going to stand by. I didn't know that his case would provide the ideal example for what I was talking about - and so quickly. Let me demonstrate.
1. I said "DeFeet will never stand in between an athlete and the science and say 'The science has to be wrong, our athlete could never lie'. That is not our place, nor is it the place of any other company in the industry." I guess I need to add 'country' to company, in that line.
He (Aitekenov) said yesterday, "I do not believe that Vinokourov was guilty of doping. He can't understand it himself, he's in shock. To win by doping is something he would consider below his honour, this is a principled sportsman."
Apparently, Aitekenov has rubbed his crystal ball so hard that he spun Earth backwards and was actually there. Vino, like it or not, is involved in a scientific investigation and a legal process. If he is proven to have NOT done what his testing controls have indicated he did do, then, and only then, should a statement like Aitekenov's be made.
2. I said "We are committed to transparency. We want to send the right message to young athletes, and we're looking for solidarity on those issues throughout our sports and industries." I need to add 'governments' to that, at least with regard to sport.
What message is Aitekenov sending to young athletes in his country and around the world? Take what you need to make us proud? Get positive tests as long as you win for us? We promise we'll make you a hero in our country even if you're banned in the rest of the world?
By transparency, I mean talking about this stuff as it happens and dealing with it in an open and ethical way. If it occurs in our circle of influence, do something. By solidarity, I mean standing a common ground for the greater good of sport and youth participation in sport. We're looking for groups that stand with us - and those that are doing it the 'old way', Aitekenov.
3. "There have been many occasions where companies have overstepped boundaries in order to market an athlete's successes." I will add 'countries' or 'governments' to companies, there as well.
Kazakhstan is clawing to validate the statue of Alexander that it might hope to unveil in her capital city, one day. If Vino is cleared by the process, have your parade. Until then, your athlete is involved in a process that was agreed upon before he was positive in the first place.
I say all of this, because, believe it or not, in the recent past, this exact situation actually occurred with some larger companies in the cycling industry. There was a racer with positive tests involved in legal process that had not been resolved. Only just starting, in fact. These companies wedged themselves into view and declared this racer innocent, as if they too had magic crystal balls. Again, what message was sent to young riders? Take whatever you need to to win, because industries will support you, regardless?
Companies and countries that declare innocence before due process are quite effectively promoting foul play in sport when it is to their own benefit. That is the 'old way'. That is a piece of the Iron Curtain of drug use that must fall. Kazakhstan's stance is as dated, and rediculous, as the Iron Curtain was.
Kazakh deputy of tourism and sport apparently sent Borat to the Tour to let their riders know that "Positives test in Kazakhstan is make no important! Becomes hero and we make for statue and many celebration in town center!"
When Vino's positive test was announced, I said some things that we are going to stand by. I didn't know that his case would provide the ideal example for what I was talking about - and so quickly. Let me demonstrate.
1. I said "DeFeet will never stand in between an athlete and the science and say 'The science has to be wrong, our athlete could never lie'. That is not our place, nor is it the place of any other company in the industry." I guess I need to add 'country' to company, in that line.
He (Aitekenov) said yesterday, "I do not believe that Vinokourov was guilty of doping. He can't understand it himself, he's in shock. To win by doping is something he would consider below his honour, this is a principled sportsman."
Apparently, Aitekenov has rubbed his crystal ball so hard that he spun Earth backwards and was actually there. Vino, like it or not, is involved in a scientific investigation and a legal process. If he is proven to have NOT done what his testing controls have indicated he did do, then, and only then, should a statement like Aitekenov's be made.
2. I said "We are committed to transparency. We want to send the right message to young athletes, and we're looking for solidarity on those issues throughout our sports and industries." I need to add 'governments' to that, at least with regard to sport.
What message is Aitekenov sending to young athletes in his country and around the world? Take what you need to make us proud? Get positive tests as long as you win for us? We promise we'll make you a hero in our country even if you're banned in the rest of the world?
By transparency, I mean talking about this stuff as it happens and dealing with it in an open and ethical way. If it occurs in our circle of influence, do something. By solidarity, I mean standing a common ground for the greater good of sport and youth participation in sport. We're looking for groups that stand with us - and those that are doing it the 'old way', Aitekenov.
3. "There have been many occasions where companies have overstepped boundaries in order to market an athlete's successes." I will add 'countries' or 'governments' to companies, there as well.
Kazakhstan is clawing to validate the statue of Alexander that it might hope to unveil in her capital city, one day. If Vino is cleared by the process, have your parade. Until then, your athlete is involved in a process that was agreed upon before he was positive in the first place.
I say all of this, because, believe it or not, in the recent past, this exact situation actually occurred with some larger companies in the cycling industry. There was a racer with positive tests involved in legal process that had not been resolved. Only just starting, in fact. These companies wedged themselves into view and declared this racer innocent, as if they too had magic crystal balls. Again, what message was sent to young riders? Take whatever you need to to win, because industries will support you, regardless?
Companies and countries that declare innocence before due process are quite effectively promoting foul play in sport when it is to their own benefit. That is the 'old way'. That is a piece of the Iron Curtain of drug use that must fall. Kazakhstan's stance is as dated, and rediculous, as the Iron Curtain was.
posted by Paul Willerton at
8:26 AM
6 Comments:
So your position is guilty unless proven innocent? Have you looked at the issues the "other racer" had with the LNDD procedures? Would you entrust your job to testing by a lab that can't even keep sample numbers straight?
I agree, druggies need to be caught and booted, but I also believe that the LNDD needs management that can actually implement ISL standards. Especially because it tests all the samples from our sports largest event. I also believe that B samples should always be tested by a different WADA-approved lab, along with two blind samples, to provide further reliability and anonymity.
FYI: for an overview of the problems at LNDD, from a scientific non-cycling source, see http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/lndd-chain-of-custody-was-broken.html and http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/06/floyd-landis-wada-lndd-chain-of-custody_26.html
Read those posts, and tell me if you would want your livelihood to be dependent on drug tests done by LNDD.
Bruce,
Thank you for your insight. I read the posts that you listed. I don't believe we were referring to the same athlete. Regardless, I would like to be clear that I am not advocating a 'guilty until proven innocent' position. I am trying to establish that when an athlete tests positive, they are in a time of limbo. It is time for the corporate (and governmental) entities to take a step back and respect the situation for the sake of all athetes - especially the next generation. They would be sending the incorrect message to young athletes by disrespecting that process.
I am a former professional bike racer. I have followed the sport since the late 70's. I remember a time when positive tests meant something. I also remember racing at a time when controls were not working. I'll tell you what, I'd much rather face that extremely rare chance that my lab had the tiniest fraction of imperfection than have to face competition that was taking product because the controls were not finding them.
In todays world, it seems that when an athlete tests positive they claim ignorance and hire legal teams to fight for that sliver of doubt or confusion, then launch PR campaigns. What Patrik Sinkewitz did is extremely admirable.
I am not even 'against' that, necessarily, because it will only serve to strengthen the processes that are in place. What I am saying is that Vino's controls have indicated serious wrongdoing. It's time to let the process happen. Positive tests on an A and a B sample remain astonishing, in my book. When that happens, it is certainly not time for companies or government officials to proclaim innocence with their megaphones. That would be sending the wrong message.
I meant to add that your suggestion of testing B samples at a different lab is well taken. I appreciate your concerns on the issues. In the ideal world, no one would be able to poke even the tiniest hole in the testing procedures.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the reply.
My point is (and take this as from being someone who has dealt with NIH grants and their requirements) that the LNDD simply lacks credibility. It procedures are so sloppy that, as one comment by a lawyer in EnvironmentalChemist blog links I pointed you to stated, "...I wouldn't trust them with a standard test on my pet..."
Do we really want such a body testing athletes during our greatest race?
BTW, I agree with focused testing, ie. the "men in black" getting tested. I just think we need credible labs doing the testing.
At this point, I don't automatically believe anything the LNDD states as being positive as being truly positive. And that's my biggest issue.
PS I know your history, Paul. I raced from '81-'95, and have lately been talked back into Masters events.
I want clean riders, and I want clean labs. It's the only way to truly move forward.
As an aside, I wonder if this issue is the reason for the delay in the Floyd decision.
Thanks, Bruce. I, and we, appreciate the input. It's welcome, here. We're (I mean DeFeet) are at a very early stage with our efforts in with regard to making bike racing better. We are looking at it and saying 'what can we do, inside our circle of influence, to make things better'. I have thought long and hard about it, and so has Shane Cooper and so many of the people we have at the company that love bike racing. We have recognized that we actually can do some things, within the industry, to help.
Part of that policy is that I will not comment on an individual case, going forward. Like I said, it's really not the place of a brand to say that an athlete with a positive test result is innocent. There is simply no way to know that as fact. The fact that there was a positive test can not be denied, but it's absolutely not our place to say we know what happened. That is up to the process.
We have decided that we would only step in when we see something happen like it did with the Kazakh Deputy Minister of Tourism and Sport. If that were a brand name making a statement of innocence like that, we would have to do the same thing. Going forward, we are going to hold that line. We feel that if a positive test now means 'not guilty' to so many people, than we are of the position that it must also mean 'definitely not innocent enough to claim innocence by companies or government officials'.
I think we all want to see the best system in place, with the finest lab work and the purest of circumstances. You're not alone, there. As for the LNDD, I'm sure that they will learn from any errors and continually improve. If there is a better lab available, there, they should look at it!
Good luck with the Masters racing!
Post a Comment
<< Home