- HOT TOPICS:
- The new VeloNews.com (BETA)
The Explainer - In or out?
Dear Explainer,
I’ve been a long-time fan of Jonathan Page.
To me, he’s a workingman’s hero, the sort of guy who approaches cycling like a lot of us approach our jobs; he just puts his head down and does what he has to do to get the job done. He works hard and doesn't spend a lot of his time show-boating or boosting his ego. Now I hear that he may be facing a suspension because he missed a doping test.
The problem I have is trying to figure out why he might be suspended by USADA for just missing a test, rather that tripping the dope-meter with a positive result.
As I recall, Michael Rasmussen missed more than one test and he was still racing. It took his team to pull him out of the 2007 Tour de France. Are the rules different for Europeans? Different for roadies? What’s the deal?
Michael Wallace
Seward, Alaska
Dear Michael,
The difference is that Page is said to have missed an in-competition test, while Rasmussen’s problems began when he missed a couple of out-of-competition tests. The rules differ for both.
Let’s first look to the rules governing riders’ responsibilities regarding out-of-competition testing. The World Anti-Doping Code makes provisions for out-of-competition testing, but it leaves the specifics up to the individual governing bodies. Of course, in our sport, that means the good ol’ Union Cycliste Internationale, the UCI.
The UCI has been regularly revising its doping rules since it reluctantly acceded to the demands of the International Olympic Committee and signed on to the World Anti-Doping Code. Along with the governing body of real football (a.k.a. “soccer” here in the U.S.), the UCI signed on just before the 2004 deadline that would have prevented both sports from participating in the Athens Games had they not signed.
In an act of pushing a deadline that would leave most journalists in awe, the UCI adopted Rule 14, a set of WADA-compliant anti-doping rules that went into effect on August 13, 2004, the very day they lit the Olympic flame in Athens.
Those rules were in effect in 2006 and 2007 when Rasmussen was off in Mexico … errr … uhhh … Italy training for his yellow jersey run at the Tour. So as far as out-of-competition tests are concerned, what were the rules?
To start, the rules say that all riders are subject to testing pretty much whenever and wherever he or she is asked for a sample by the UCI, WADA, the IOC, the rider’s national federation or the national federation of a country in which the rider happens to be. Basically, if anyone in a blue blazer shows up holding a plastic cup, you'd better be ready to let loose.
Chapter V of Rule 14 goes on to explain that the UCI’s Anti-Doping Commission will establish a pool of riders who are subject to those out-of-competition tests and that those riders will be responsible for notifying the urine patrol of their whereabouts.
Rasmussen did miss tests; two of them, in fact. Paragraph 86 of Chapter V, however, allows a rider some leeway on that one:
Should, in a rolling period of 18 (eighteen) months, a Rider receive 3 (three) recorded warnings for failure to provide accurate whereabouts information or a combination of failure to provide accurate whereabouts information and missed tests equals 3 (three), an anti-doping violation has occurred. The Anti-Doping Commission will notify the Rider’s National Federation and request it to initiate disciplinary proceedings for an anti-doping violation under article 15.4.Here’s where Rasmussen could have — and should have — gotten into trouble with the UCI. He not only missed two tests, he also failed to properly notify the UCI as to his whereabouts on at least one occassion. That's three. In his case, it sure would have made for less hassle at the Tour and caused a lot less embarrassment for his team, but it looks like the UCI dropped the ball (or the beaker) on this one.
The rules were a little less clear on a rider’s submission of intentionally inaccurate information, a problem that has since been addressed in subsequent revisions of the rule.
Now Page would be facing no problems if those same rules applied to in-competition testing, but they don’t. Rule 14 provides a 60-paragraph outline of precisely what riders have to do when it comes to testing at a competition. Under those rules, the UCI spells out in mind-numbing detail what is required — the precise steps by which someone actually fills the cup and who must observe. The rules also describe the means and methods by which a rider is notified. Detailed as it is, the bottom line is that the onus is largely on the rider.
Missing an in-competition test — just one, not the three that apply to out-of-competition tests — counts as a doping violation. It’s the same rule, you might recall, that earned Geneviève Jeanson her first doping violation, for missing a test after the finish of the 2004 edition of Flèche Wallonne in Belgium.
That said, the burden isn’t entirely on the rider to just show up and start peeing without a reason to do so. The rules do require notice:
The organizer and the Anti-Doping Inspector shall ensure that a list of the Riders who are required to appear for Sample collection shall be displayed at the finish line and at the entrance of the doping control station before the finish of the winner.The rules place the full responsibility for checking those lists on the rider, even if he might have abandoned the race before the finish. Beyond the posting of names, the UCI really has no duty to personally notify individual riders.
Page says he didn’t know that he’d been selected and didn’t learn that he had missed the test at the November 29 World Cup at Koksijde, Belgium, until a month later. In cases like this, the rules do allow for a warning to be issued instead of an outright suspension. Details of the circumstances surrounding such a case are generally forwarded to a rider’s national federation for review and possible sanction.
Recall, however, that USA Cycling has handed over all of its doping-related adjudication authority to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, so the case is now in the hands of USADA. We expect the case to be handled in an expedited fashion, largely because Page’s selection to the U.S. team for the cyclocross world championships hinges upon the outcome.
USA Cycling is slated to name the elite men’s squad for Hoogerheide on January 14 and, at this point, only Ryan Trebon has a guaranteed slot. The coaches and directors of the U.S. program are hoping the Page case is settled well ahead of next week’s team selection. We hope so, too.
