Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Calls to capitulate on sports doping regulations

Blogger Joel from The 17th Man swim blog sent me this article from the L.A. Times which was written by a former Olympian who makes an anemic case for capitulation against sports doping. [Link]

It came out the day before Don Talbot made his statements regarding Marion Jones, and a day before this article by Lane 9 News which states that Jean-Francois Lamour, Vice President of WADA, will resign due to the fact that he "... didn't believe WADA was firmly behind the opposition of drug use in sports. ..."

I wish Mr. Lamour would have outed who these special interest groups are. Could they be drug companies such as Amgen or Merck? Perhaps commissioners of organized sports such as the NFL or MLB. Could they be team owners, players' unions, athletes like Floyd Landis, Barry Bonds or lawyers for Ian Thorpe? Who, Mr. Lamour? Hook us up!

Articles regarding his resignation: Here is a AFP news: [Link] Supersport article : [Link]


Scott said...

It's a sad day for those who want to see doping eradicated from sport. Lamour, a two time Olympian with years of experience in the field of doping, is being replaced by a professional politician without any elite sports experience much less anything related to anti-doping. Lamour obviously totalled up the votes for John Fahey and realized he was being pushed out of a job which by long standing tradition was his. There have been many complaints about the anemic efforts of the IOC and WADA to combat doping (Talbot's broadside being the latest) and this ouster led by the United States confirms no significant changes will be forthcoming. John Fahey is already claiming Marion Jones' confession as a prime example of WADA's effectiveness despite the fact the BALCO break came from a sample of the 'clear' sent in anonymously rather than by any official test, and that her confession was prompted by the criminal investigation for her perjury. At a critical time for sports the U.S. parachutes in a flack. Damn I hate politicians!

Tony Austin said...

I have to agree and acknowledge that it was the US and Australia that wanted a political friendly at the head of WADA.

The big question is why? Is it to defend US interests such as baseball, football or our Olympic reputation?

I never posted anything about the Ian Thorpe scandal but now I am thinking I should have since Australia got their guy in there.

Scott said...

It's difficult to know but if I was to hazard a guess it would be to have sufficient control over WADA to manage any future public relations disaster. Not that I don't think the IOC's promotion policy needs shaking up. I would've said before this that it was quite possible the U.S. and Australia were going in to make WADA more effective (Australia has put a lot of money into doping control programs recently and I believe the USA has more to gain ensuring clean competitions than the opposite) but the appointment of John Fahey has thrown me.