XZTT v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Tribunal

[Shortleg]

Why cycling's anti-doping system is broken - my latest at The Northern Myth:

On Tuesday this week the cycling world watched the International Cycling Union (the UCI) follow the United States Anti-Doping Association’s (USADA) lead and strip Lance Armstrong of the seven Tour de France titles that he cheated, lied and doped to get.

Later that day, an Australian tribunal handed down a decision that showed that the UCI, Cycling Australia, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the Australian tribunal charged with the determination of charges against cyclists accused of using drugs while participating in that sport – the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (the ADRVP) – struggled to handle a minor of breaches of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).

The decision by the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) in XZTT v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Tribunal [2012] AATA 728 was an appeal by XZTT (we’ll call him “the Cyclist”) against two decisions by the ADVRP to make entries into the Register of Findings under the National Anti-Doping Scheme (the NAD Scheme) in relation to possible “presence” and “use” violations under the NAD Scheme that would have seen the cyclist barred from professional cycling for two years and disqualified and stripped of any medals, points and prizes from October 2010.

As the AAT noted in it’s Decision, the ADRVP had to navigate its way through a “complex interplay of overlapping regimes of international sporting governance.” Notwithstanding the legal complexity facing ASADA and the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel, XZTT’s case shows that ASADA failed to understand the legislation it is charged with administering, that ASADA’s report to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel was more like a prosecution brief than an objective analysis of the facts and law and that both ASADA and the the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel fundamentally misconstrued their responsibilities to athletes and to the proper administration of the rules governing the anti-doping regime.

While the law in this case may be complex and difficult, the facts were (relatively) straightforward.
...

Follow the link above for more.

 

[Ferminal]

The link to the case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2012/728.html

Only had time to skim over it. So he was "Gasquet'ed", and it was a complete procedural cockup?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Thoroughly enjoyable summary.
Thoroughly despicable time line by both UCI and ASADA. Good grief.

Great resource too - that ALII website.

 

[Shortleg]

The link to the case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2012/728.html

Only had time to skim over it. So he was "Gasquet'ed", and it was a complete procedural cockup?

You nailled it in one ... 41/2 monmths for UCI to notify the cyclist when it should have done it in 7 days ...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If someone breaks a UCI rule they get penalised - heavily. Seat 1 degree off level and no ride until it's fixed. Socks higher than mid-calf, no race. Even talking about forcing people to keep jerseys zipped up.

But UCI delay communication 4.5 months and ... nothing. No recrimination. No recourse for the rider.

Who or what is the authority that can take the UCI to task for this? It's a gross breach of their rules.

If there is no punishment for following the rules, why have them in the first place?

Why does the UCI even exist.

 

[Shortleg]

ABC (Aust) radion News report

This piece went out on the ABC's midday news magazine (radio), The World Today: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3618358.htm.

Apart from the rather misleading header it is OK. I note that "No one from Cycling Australia or ASADA would talk to The World Today."

Australian cycling rocked by fresh doping claim

Martin Cuddihy reported this story on Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:30:00


ELEANOR HALL: Now to another development over drugs in cycling.

There is evidence today that an elite Australian cyclist returned a positive drug test two years ago but wasn't told about it for months and continued to race.

The cyclist, who can't be named for legal reasons, appealed a finding against him to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

As revealed on RN Breakfast this morning, the tribunal has now handed down its findings and it's highly critical of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's handling of the matter.

Martin Cuddihy has our report.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: In October 2010, at an international cycling event in China, an Australian cyclist submitted a routine drug test.

Two days later the A sample was analysed, and a small amount of the principal metabolite found in cocaine was detected.

The cyclist should have been told about the positive test within a week but for months he continued to race and even signed on with a new sponsor in early 2011.

The contract included a provision that would see the deal terminated if he breached anti-doping rules.

It wasn't until March 2011 that the international cycling union finally wrote to him.

Despite the delays, the anti-doping rule violation panel found against the cyclist, so he took his case to the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It has now set aside two initial decisions by the panel, finding:

AUSTRALIAN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (voiceover): The long delay in notifying the athlete of his initial test results meant that the UCI was in gross breach of its own Anti-Doping Rules and the World Anti-Doping Code provisions governing results management.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: The union also notified Cycling Australia in March but nearly a month passed before the cyclist heard anything further and when he did it wasn't from Cycling Australia, but rather from the general manager of Anti-Doping Programs and Legal Services at Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA).

The tribunal is highly critical of the panel and anti-doping authority.

AUSTRALIAN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (voiceover): The tribunal has concluded that ASADA and the ADRVP (Anti-Doping Rule Violation Pane) each misconceived their respective legal obligations under the ASADA Act and to the NAD Scheme, in so far as they proceeded on the basis that it was sufficient for the ADRVP to reach conclusions based on a "possible" finding.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: There is one entry in the register of findings naming the athlete but his name has been omitted from the tribunal's finding.

Andy Layhe is from Bike Pure - an independent group promoting drug free cycling.

ANDY LAYHE: I think the other whole side of the testing procedures and the policies and the red tape, if you like, needs to be, needs to be sharpened, needs to be addressed more precisely because it is a grey area and I think if there has been any sort of cover up, the guys, the rider or regards any organisation whether that be Cycling Australia, or the UCI, and again that needs to be looked at, needs to be reviewed and I think everybody has to keep their house in order no matter who it is within the sport because anti-doping, it's such a fine line now that everything has to done, every box has to be ticked and I think procedures have to be met at every stage.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: Do you have any sympathy for the rider who was competing for several months without knowing that he had a positive drug test hanging over his head?

ANDY LAYHE: Well, he'd have to be informed. That's the rules. I mean if the rules aren't adhered to then it is not right obviously. Again, without knowing too much about the case I think everything needs to be addressed and if the rider is competing unknown that he's been sanctioned, tested positive, then I think it just speaks volumes for an area that is wrong and it needs to be addressed.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: No one from Cycling Australia or ASADA would talk to The World Today.

ELEANOR HALL: Martin Cuddihy reporting.

 

[bobbins]

Who the hell are 'bike pure' and what is it they are trying to do?

They keep popping up but no one really news what they are about. They've recently been criticising Armstrong for not signing on of their jerseys but surely they must have nown the rumours?

Just don't get it.

 

[Shortleg]

Who the hell are 'bike pure' and what is it they are trying to do? Just don't get it.

The sell stuff as well apparently - including rubber wristbands ...

http://bikepure.org/

 

[bobbins]

The sell stuff as well apparently - including rubber wristbands ...

http://bikepure.org/

Ahhh, any organisation selling rubber wristbands must be in it for the right reasons. I can see they're not picky on who wears them either. Bye bye credibility!

 

[Tinman]

Why cycling's anti-doping system is broken - my latest at The Northern Myth:

Nice work Shortleg. And thanks for post. Soon we"ll need a UCI evidence sticky thread.

 

[barn yard]

bike pure is a couple of guys who are trying to get into the inner sanctum of cycling by applying for media passes to major races (they have been declined many many times as they are not a media outlet)

they sell headset spacers and wristbands and thats pretty much it

 

[M Sport]

I take it we aren't allowed to post the riders name? There may be a bit more to this story than what's come out so far.

 

[Shortleg]

I take it we aren't allowed to post the riders name?

There is a confidentiality order in place - so please respect this ... at paragraphs 230 to 233 of the Decision

ANCILLARY MATTERS; IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT

In earlier interlocutory proceedings in this matter, a differently constituted Tribunal determined that the athlete who filed this application for review was to be referred to by the letters XZTT. The Tribunal’s conclusion that an entry be made in the Register will require that entry to name the athlete.
Counsel for the Respondent advised the Tribunal that, special circumstances aside, an entry in the Register does not become a public document. Continuing the effect of the interlocutory decision would not be a matter of futility.
Neither party submitted that the interlocutory order should be discharged, or that it was in the public interest that the name of the athlete be made public as a result of these proceedings.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the most appropriate reconciliation of the rights of the athlete with the Tribunal’s obligations to give reasons is that the Tribunal will provide its unedited reasons to the parties, but will order that in the version to be published the name of the athlete referred to in paragraphs 44, 47 and 227 be replaced with the letters XZTT and, in compliance with the Tribunal’s identity theft and anonymisation policy, the athlete’s date of birth, wherever referred to, be replaced with the letters dd/mm/yyyy.

 

[Martin Hardie]

Thanks

Shortleg thanks for posting this. It's been a hard slog for both the rider and myself. But I think this rider should be really proud of what he achieved here. he could have just rolled over, but he decided to fight it because he wanted to ensure that no one else ever got put in this position again. His career was finished by this but he wanted to make sure that in the future the UCI, CA and ASADA stuck by their rules. Where it goes now is anyones guess as he and I have no money ... it was all done pro bono publico and the AAT has no fees.
Thanks everyone else for the supportive comments.

I think as everyone knows we are in an Occupy moment in cycling and it is incumbent on us all to pull together to deal with the not so great helmsmen of the sport. We will never get another chance like this.

 

[fat_boy_fat]

Who the hell are 'bike pure' and what is it they are trying to do?

Bike Pure was conceived by it’s co-founders Myles McCorry and Andy Layhe out of the doping scandals that tarnished the 2008 Tour de France and has grown to become the world’s largest independent anti-doping and ethical sporting organisation of it’s kind.

Found here: http://tokenbikeproducts.com/2012/10/01/token-releases-new-bike-pure-product-range/

Older Blogpost of 2010 on Myles McCorry and a debate about a guy named Tom Zirbel:
http://ciclirati.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/bike-pures-semi-religious-and-not-in-a-good-way-zealotry/

Whatever Myles’ and Andy’s history in cycling might have been, I cannot identify in 2 minutes using Google. Recognized their Twitter account first end of 2010 – not too active though. Their site does list some 170 riders as self-assigned "role models", among them some who have recently discussed the caffeine/painkiller issue.

 

[Realist]

Shortleg thanks for posting this. It's been a hard slog for both the rider and myself. But I think this rider should be really proud of what he achieved here. he could have just rolled over, but he decided to fight it because he wanted to ensure that no one else ever got put in this position again. His career was finished by this but he wanted to make sure that in the future the UCI, CA and ASADA stuck by their rules. Where it goes now is anyones guess as he and I have no money ... it was all done pro bono publico and the AAT has no fees.
Thanks everyone else for the supportive comments.

I think as everyone knows we are in an Occupy moment in cycling and it is incumbent on us all to pull together to deal with the not so great helmsmen of the sport. We will never get another chance like this.

His career was finished by his decision to use cocaine. He used, he tested positive. You might be enjoying your personal crusade, but try to pick your heros carefully.

 

[laziali]

His career was finished by his decision to use cocaine. He used, he tested positive. You might be enjoying your personal crusade, but try to pick your heros carefully.

No, Realist, the point of concern is not that he was sanctioned for doping. The point is one of lack of adherence to procedural rules and the tribunal mistaking it's functions for prosecutorial ones.

 

[Shortleg]

No, Realist, the point of concern is not that he was sanctioned for doping. The point is one of lack of adherence to procedural rules and the tribunal mistaking it's functions for prosecutorial ones.

Exactly. And the effect that the egregious and flagrant breaches had upon his ability to respond to the allegations and his career - during the 17 weeks of that delay he went on to race and enter into a contract when he should have been told with 7 days of the test results. Appalling conduct on UCI's part.

 

[BroDeal]

Cool. Getting off on a technicality makes a doper a brave hero. The cokehead did not fight to save his own skin, he fought for the rights of other athletes. He is so proud of this honorable fight that he does not want his name published. What a guy!

I think the needle on my BS meter hit the side and broke off.

 

[skidmark]

Cool. Getting off on a technicality makes a doper a brave hero. The cokehead did not fight to save his own skin, he fought for the rights of other athletes. He is so proud of this honorable fight that he does not want his name published. What a guy!

I think the needle on my BS meter hit the side and broke off.

Hey man, how do you know what went on? Maybe he was snorting coke because it gave him more focus and energy to put into the fight against anti-doping.

 

[pelodee]

Cool. Getting off on a technicality makes a doper a brave hero. The cokehead did not fight to save his own skin, he fought for the rights of other athletes. He is so proud of this honorable fight that he does not want his name published. What a guy!

I think the needle on my BS meter hit the side and broke off.

Apart from posting 10,412 posts what have you done for riders, anti-doping, the sport in general?

 

[D-Queued]

Just read the CN article, and finally got it.

Amazing (actually not) that this incredible example of UCI incompetence would overlap with the Armstrong saga, the Floyd Swiss court finding and the suit against Kimmage.

The UCI is so corrupt and incompetent that it is hard to imagine something like this would not overlap these other stories.

Oh, and Dear Wiggo's point above about the focus on 1 degree of saddle inclination* is spot on - as well as the sock rule, etc. The UCI rulebook keeps getting stupider and stupider when it comes to the impact on the entry level rider, yet the UCI is completely incompetent and corrupt when it comes to the big issues with the pro peloton.

Dave.

*I have had an electronic level for twenty years to set saddle incline - nowadays you can use smart phones and tablets. Many seat posts have ridges that can throw you off by an easy couple of degrees. Hitting zero incline can be quite difficult, but is a fundamentally absurd requirement.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

*I have had an electronic level for twenty years to set saddle incline - nowadays you can use smart phones and tablets. Many seat posts have ridges that can throw you off by an easy couple of degrees. Hitting zero incline can be quite difficult, but is a fundamentally absurd requirement.

I have a friend at the moment riding with his saddle down - helps with severe injury he is rehabilitating from. The comm's would ping him for that. I also remember Cadel saying something about his health potentially being impacted by having to raise his saddle that bit and the UCI not giving a damn.

The UCI annoy me for this more than the doping coverups, as the stupid rules cover all riders, and there's no recourse again, and the commis can play favourites (I have seen / heard this) based on who they like and who they do not.

 

[blackcat]

commissaires are for death camps.

send em to siberia

/ironycurtain

 

[Dear Wiggo]

commissaires are for death camps.

send em to siberia

/ironycurtain

further proof that the fish rots from the head. Old Boy's Club.

My mate when I started racing was the son of an Olympian. "Why do you want to ride?", his Dad asked him. "Cycling is a mug's sport".

How naive we were then.

This training buddy of mine followed cycling so much more closely than I did - had all the posters on the wall. Bought the magazines and knew all the ins and outs of the riders. Me? I liked coming up with training programs and thrashing myself in the wind and the rain. I didn't even blink the day he told me Indurain's blood was so thick he had to keep riding after he retired just to keep it flowing properly.

So very naive.