Carl Lewis cheated - More US hipocrisy on drugs

[Ike_Witt]

The Orange County Register has run a story condemning the USOC for allowing athletes to compete after testing positive for banned substances. Story here.

It seems as far back as 1988, at least, the USOC had a system in place that would allow athletes to circumvent normal penalties for positive tests.

The International Olympic Committee in 1988 distributed a list of more than 70 banned substances to athletes and each Olympic committee. In addition, the U.S. Olympic Committee and each sport’s governing bodies made available to athletes lists of over-the-counter drugs and herbal supplements that contained banned substances.

Dr. Robert Voy, then the U.S. committee’s chief medical officer, wrote in a 1988 memo. "Anyone who is found positive for substance abuse will be disqualified from the Olympic Team.

And

“It didn’t matter where it came from,” Greenberg said. "Cold medicine, whatever. If you took something, you don’t compete.

The public stance of the USOC was very hardline. Fingers were routinely pointed at eastern european countries, and I think that many of us can remember the holier than thou attitude after the Ben Johnson episode.

However, it seems that the USOC’s own guidelines were designed to allow an ‘out’ for athletes that tested positive:

Section 8.2.3.1 of the U.S. Olympic Committee rules stated if the appeals panel “determines ‘innocent use,’ the athlete will not be penalized and no further testing is necessary.”

What are the odds that this appeals panel is going to reject the appeal of sombody like Carl Lewis? Most likely, somewhere between slim and none. And, every couple of years I seem to hear a story about an athlete that has tested positive for one thing or another and then they sue to be able to compete.

As long as there is a way to improve performance, people will cheat. How can the IOC improve methods to reduce this? To me the ideal situation would be to get the doping test down to the size and simplicity of those devices that measure blood sugar. Every athlete could then be tested every day and there could be a way to link the tester to the internet and that way the test is administed infront of a camera and the results would go directly to the IOC. Taking the chance for cheating out of the national athletic bodies would be a great first step, otherwise the all drug Olympics in Bogota might be in our future.

[Bricker]

In a debate, it is not enough to offer a gratuitous assertion, such as yours: "What are the odds that this appeals panel is going to reject the appeal of sombody like Carl Lewis? Most likely, somewhere between slim and none. "

The title of this thread accuses the US of hypocrisy, but the contents do absolutely nothing to substantiate that charge.

Try again.

[Mtgman]

Bricker, did you read the article? From the cite in the OP

The Orange County Register reviewed more than 10,000 pages of confidential documents from 1988 to 2000 that show for the first time how the U.S. Olympic movement failed to deal with its own doping issues and kept test results a secret while accusing other countries of failing to control drug use in athletics.

The documents reveal more than 100 cases in which athletes failed tests that would have disqualified them at the Olympics but were ruled “inadvertent use” by U.S. officials.

More than 100 cases? ALL were “inadvertant use”? Again, not proof that they WEREN’T all “inadvertant use”. So what would we need to prove it? I’d start with analyzing the number of failed drug tests which DID result in suspensions and comparing them to the ones exhonorated via a secret process. If possible find out what substances they took and see if they were on the official proscribed list. Hard to claim “inadvertant” if the exact over-the-counter medicine which was proscribed was responsible for the positive test. Maybe laziness/carelessness, but that isn’t good enough to avoid a suspension.

The specific case of Carl Lewis they examined in the article may have been “inadvertant use”. According to the details in the article he took a herbal supplement which was not on the list and whose ingredients were not clearly specified. It appears it DID contain a proscribed substance, but it wasn’t known until one of the doctors in the lab confirmed it.

This wasn’t an isolated incident however, and reviews HAVE been done which lend more creedence to the assertion that the US swept drug test failures under the rug.

In 1998, with the U.S. Olympic Committee receiving criticism over testing and sanctions, it decided to commission an independent review of the U.S. anti-doping program. The report concluded that the national governing bodies have “an emotional attachment to and dependence on athletes and are reluctant to discipline their own.”

Schultz, the former U.S. Olympic Committee head, said he pushed for an independent drug agency out of concerns that the national federations had a conflict of interest.

“I always felt in most cases the NGBs would bend over backward to favor the athlete,” Schultz said. “I felt in some cases they didn’t have the scientific expertise and in other cases, especially with an over-the-counter medication, they were pretty lenient.”

The '98 report also was critical of the U.S. Olympic Committee.

The USOC is sending “mixed signals,” said one of the 40 officials, coaches, athletes and international sports figures quoted in the report. “(There is a) stated policy, but few athletes are sanctioned, use is known, drugs that are known to enhance performance aren’t screened for, and not all organizational functions are in place to appropriately administer field test procedures.”

In 1999, a decade after clearing Lewis, DeLoach and Phillips, Pittenger complained at a USOC meeting, “Only lesser athletes get sanctioned, and the better ones get away with it.”

adam didn’t lay it out extremely clearly in the OP, but the article is very detailed. A particularly disturbing passage

Nevertheless, U.S. Olympic officials excused the athletes, and, in DeLoach’s case sent him a handwritten note wishing him well on the same document that told him he had failed the test.

“By policy of the USOC,” Pittenger wrote, “this finding is cause for disqualification from the Olympic Team for the 1988 Summer Olympic Games.”

Near the bottom of the typed letter on Pittenger’s official U.S. Olympic Committee stationery, the executive director wrote:

"Joe-

“This is the formal notification which I must send according to the testing protocol. As you know, this case has been excused as inadvertent use. Good luck.”

Enjoy,
Steven

[John_Harrison]

To me the ideal situation would be to get the doping test down to the size and simplicity of those devices that measure blood sugar.

I imagine that the IOC thought of this a long time ago, but it is not technically feasible at this time. (For example: It took years just to get a urine test for EPO, much less something as simple as what you describe)

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
Bricker, did you read the article? From the cite in the OP… More than 100 cases? ALL were “inadvertant use”? Again, not proof that they WEREN’T all “inadvertant use”. So what would we need to prove it? I’d start with analyzing the number of failed drug tests which DID result in suspensions and comparing them to the ones exhonorated via a secret process.

Of course I read the article.

The results of the analysis you propose would go a long way towards making the case the OP tries to make. But I saw no such results - merely conclusory allegations without supporting facts. They invite the reader to draw his own conclusions, but from insufficient data.

• Rick

[Mtgman]

Really? I saw much firmer evidence.

independent review of the U.S. anti-doping program. The report concluded that the national governing bodies have “an emotional attachment to and dependence on athletes and are reluctant to discipline their own.”

And it appears these documents are being reviewed again by the Orange County Register. We may have more eivdence to base our opinions on shortly, but so far there seems to be supporting facts in evidence. An admission by DeLoach to taking a medication which was on the proscribed list would be a piece. I guess we could argue there was no proof of “intent” as the guidelines specify, but you know how difficult “intent” is to prove. This is why most sports have “zero-tolerance” rules. They don’t have to prove intent, they just have to show presence of a proscribed substance. 100 exhonorations in a decade of Olympic events. Since Olympic events take place every two years this would be 20 exhonorations per Olympics. That sounds like a lot to me but maybe it’s a pittance. We’d have to look at the number of atheletes involved each year and see if this is a significant fraction. Still, evidence like 11 out of 15 hockey players testing positive and all being exhonorated on grounds of “inadvertant use” makes my eyebrows twitch. That many co-incidental instances of the same type of drug in such a concentrated area of the games and timeframe just sets off an alarm.

Heck, the very same guy(Executive Director in charge of substance abuse reviews, Pittenger) who let DeLoach off in '88(when he won the gold medal) was the one grousing, in '99, that star performers get passes too frequently. The independent investigation found bias. I’m all for “innocent until proven guilty” and I can’t stand “zero-tolerance” laws, but there is some fairly compelling evidence in that article IMHO.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Did the independent review find bias? The quote you offereed mentioned “emotional attachment” which might indicate bias but is not conclusive. Frankly, I do not find it impossible that 100 separate athletes over a 13 year period might inadvertently ingest a banned substance. Over the counter medications are usually pretty good about listing active ingredients, but dietary suplements and herbal medications are not, and the specific period mentioned covers a boom period for supplements and herbal remedies in the US.

I am also curious as to what issues you have with the hand written note. The contents clearly indicate that the case had been considered and judged inadvertent, but a formal notice had to be mailed. If I new that I had tested positive and thought that the case had been cleared, I imagine that I would be troubled if I suddenly received an official notice that I would be barred from the Olympics. Why do you see something sinister in an official adding a note to the formal notice so that the athlete would not be unduly concerned?

[Mtgman]

It just smacks of “good ol’ boy” type relations IMHO. A “I got your back” type sentiment. Not conclusive evidence, but indicative of exactly the type of attachment and informality which would allow for bending of rules.

Enjoy,
Steven

[smiling_bandit]

How does one agency who might possibly have been hipocrits on drugs because their primay goal was something else indict the US over the matter?

[handsomeharry]

i want to know how ‘confidential documents’ are being defined in the article. it seems like a crock to me. of course, that’s not to try to defend the olympic committees. i think that the olympic committee is an evil organization…too much politics, etc…