procycling.co.za has obtained Drug Free Sports response to the controversial article written by Kevin McCallum & published in the Star on the 7th May.
The original article published in the Star
9th May 2010
The Editor
The Star
Sir
The reckless and irresponsible statements by Dr Jon Patricios regarding the suspension of national cyclist Ian McLeod are indeed unfortunate (Team vow to stand behind innocent McLeon, The Star, May 7 2010). As head of the South African Sports Medicine Association the least we expect of him is to understand anti-doping rules and be familiar with the specifics of this case. Failing this we expect moderation in comment. Rather than rely on comments that lack substance or nuance, and serve to obfuscate the issues, herewith are the facts of the matter. Firstly, the substance Deflazacort, for which McLeod tested positive, is on the WADA Prohibited List of Substances. Secondly, the sample collected from Ian McLeod revealed the substance or metabolites of the substance in his urine specimen. Thirdly, he did not apply for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) for the substance in question, which is a mechanism whereby an athlete is permitted to use substances on the prohibited list for legitimate medical reasons. McLeod did however previously apply for a TUE for other substances that he was taking but not specifically for Deflazacort. Dr Patricios should know that TUEs are granted for specific medication and not a blanket permission to take any medication. Fourthly, the class of substances, corticosteroids, are uniquely abused in cycling and is probably the only explanation for its presence on the Prohibited List. Fifthly, the cyclist failed to explain the presence of the substance in his body to the satisfaction of the Tribunal– except to deny usage and speculate that it could have come from a contaminated drink – a far-fetched proposition, but one which Patricios seems to incredulously accept. The question of intent does not arise. If intent and speculative explanations for presence of a substance in biological specimens were accepted at face value by any tribunal there would not be a single conviction for doping in the world. A perusal of transcripts of doping tribunals world-wide would reveal the same standard excuses. In fact the Tribunal applied leniency in sanctioning McLeon for six months and not two years.
Most world class athletes, and presumably their physicians, should understand the principle of absolute liability which is applied in the presence of a prohibited substance in a biological sample. Of course mitigation is permitted through the athlete demonstrating ‘no fault’ or ‘no significant fault’ as to how the substance entered their body - allowing a reduction or setting aside of any sanction. Ian McLeod could not provide such credible evidence.
Further, both Kevin McCallum and Dr Patricios ascribe statements to the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) which are simply not true. The hearing was conducted by Cycling South African (CSA) and not SAIDS. At no point did SAIDS accept an “absence of intent”, that McLeod had “not taken the substance knowingly”, or “knowingly done no wrong”, neither did we find him guilty. All SAIDS did was accept the verdict of the Tribunal as being in keeping with the World Anti-doping Code. A simple phone call to SAIDS by McCallum would have clarified this.
As head of the Medical Commission of the National Olympic Committee, I am as disappointed as our president, Mr Gideon Sam is, when a national level athlete violates an anti-doping rule and is sanctioned. It robs our country of a potential medal at international sporting events and even sullies our reputation. But we live by rules that seek to establish fair play in all sport – whether it is the spirit the game is played on the field or in doping. Failure to do so would introduce anarchy in sport and destroy any notion of fair play. Perhaps Dr Patricios should take some responsibility for failing to educate an athlete under his care rather than pointing fingers at others and making irresponsible statements such as labelling the verdict an “absolute travesty of justice”. McLeod obviously has the legal right to appeal this decision and I presume he will do so in order to establish the correctness of the initial verdict.
DR SHUAIB MANJRA
CHAIRMAN: SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DRUG FREE SPORT
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
