Brian Canty
Jessica Hardy, Adam Seroczynski, Callum Priestley, Tong Wen, Alessandro Colo. Five names you’re unlikely to have heard in the past. Alberto Contador. The face of cycling, the biggest name in the sport, the reigning Tour de France champion. Yes, you know the guy.
They all tested positive for clenbuterol-an anabolic agent proven to lower body fat percentage while increasing aerobic capacity. All were subsequently banned for varying lengths of time. Contador, however, was exonerated from his charge and is now back in the saddle.
The decision to clear the three-time Tour de France champion is, on the face of it, an absolute disgrace.
The strict liability rule in the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) code means that it doesn't matter how a banned substance gets into an athlete's body, its presence there is enough to warrant a punishment. Otherwise what is the point of having such a rule?
Jessica Hardy, Adam Seroczynski, Callum Priestley, Tong Wen, Alessandro Colo all committed the same crime as Contador; the difference is, their cases weren’t near as high profile. Chances are, they couldn’t afford the legal rigmarole that has accustomed the Contador entourage ever since he shot to fame in the mid noughties.
In other words, is the only real difference between Contador and someone like Alessandro Colo, banned for a year after accidentally ingesting the substance, the money they were able to invest in their defence? The answer is most likely yes.
Of the above quintet, Colo is the only cyclist. You’re unlikely to hear of him winning Grand Tours or anything like that any time soon. The sport can do without Colo, the sport can’t do without Contador. In much the same way as Armstrong was the face of the sport for the best part of a decade, that torch has now been passed to Contador. How on earth can it be considered fair if two riders commit the same crime, but only one does the time?
The case surrounding Alberto Contador has set an extremely dangerous precedent to say the least. The UCI couldn’t show conclusively that the Spaniard deliberately took clenbuterol. Does that mean the same now applies when a rider tests positive for EPO-(a substance that has become synonymous with the much maligned sport)? Does the testing or judging authority now have to produce bags of blood from the athletes freezer with his fingerprints all over the cap, vial, and syringe, to prove that he doped?
Whatever the arguments over clenbuterol levels, the Contador acquittal underlines one glaringly obvious thing above all. National governing bodies should not be placed in a position where they have to rule on positive drug tests involving their star riders, any more than the world governing body. If the Cork County Board were put in charge of sanctioning its players after infringements on or off the field, what do you think the outcome would be? Complete and utter chaos. That’s cycling at the moment. It must change and until it does, the sport will not win its war on doping.
Between them, the UCI (International Cycling Union) and RFEC have taken six months to arrive at no ruling at all and it’s no surprise either. The last thing the Spanish federation want to do is take a step out of the sporting limelight when so many of its stars are achieving success on a global scale. Alonso, Nadal, Contador to name but a few. The UCI and/or WADA must appeal this decision to maintain any credibility in the fight against doping. They have 30 days to do so.
For the sake of the sport, let's hope they do.
Source: http://feeds.examiner.ie/~r/iesportsblog/~3/1Hi1YPQ680k/post.aspx
Internet Retirement planning Awards and prizes France Household bills Credit cards
No comments:
Post a Comment