Retesting: limits and consequences.

By Rodrigo Pardo, Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte-INEF, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.

When I received the invitation to write a comment for the INHDR newsletter several themes emerged in my mind. Finally, I chose one over which I had no opportunity to write before and thought this could be a good opportunity to do so. That is, the implications and consequences of retesting athletes’ doping samples for their medal record and post-sport career.

My interest in this topic increased when the news about Spanish shot-putter Manuel Martinez came up. Martinez won the bronze medal in the Athens 2004 Olympic Games because the winner of this event, Yuri Bilonog from Ukraine, was stripped of the gold medal after a retest of his original sample tested positive of the steroid oxandrolone [1]. This would not be too shocking if not for the fact that Martinez only received the medal in December 2013 – nine years later! The stripping of Olympic medals is not unprecedented, though it is uncommon for it to be so many years later. Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping Code of 2009 provides that the anti-doping rule violation does not expire until eight years from the date on which the offense was committed, reaching up to 10 years with the new code coming into force in 2015 [2]. In the present case, the Ukrainian athlete was stripped of the gold medal by the IOC Executive Board in December 2012 based on the analyses performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2004. In May 2013, IOC approved the new distribution of shot-put medals where Martínez officially ascended to third place, winning the bronze medal and proclaiming U.S. shot-putter Adam Nelson as the new Olympic champion, who declared: "It's not just a victory for me, but a victory for the system" [3].

However, this is not always the case. One example is Spanish cyclist Abraham Olano who came in 4th place in the men’s road race at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Olano was not elevated to 3rd place when Lance Armstrong was stripped of the bronze medal [4]. This decision is linked to the results of the USADA report about systematic doping conducted by Armstrong [5] that also resulted in leaving blank the seven Tours won by the U.S. cyclist between 1999 and 2005, considering these years as a dark period in professional cycling.

Handing over the medal to Olano would of course have been recognition of his achievements. But the fact that his name appeared in the French Senate report issued in July 2013 [6], as one of the cyclist who were positive for EPO during the 1998 Tour de France, instead led to his dismissal as technical manager of La Vuelta [7]. The French publication was the result of retesting 140 samples of 1998 and 1999 Tour de France for what was called “scientific purposes” in 2004-2005. Nevertheless, the publication of this information ended up having major consequences for the Spanish former cyclist. This was despite the fact that the report pointed out that publishing the data 15 years after the event took place the results were not intended "to impose penalties or stigmatize an athlete in particular, because [doping] practices were widespread in the peloton" [8]. However, it is now evident that this intention was not met.

In short, the reflection exposed in these lines leads to some necessary questions about retesting and its consequences: Do we need to put some limits on retesting? Should some sport be more retested than others? When an athlete is dispossessed of a medal for doping reasons, should the results be revised with other athletes assuming the medal standings? If not, should it be assumed that the other athletes on the podium in these competitions are also suspected of having used performance-enhancing drugs? Is there some protection to specific sports or certain sports idols? Is it legitimate to publish results of doping controls after overcoming the limitation period established in the code?

As it appears, for the moment there are more questions than answers to these issues.

[1] “Manuel Martínez recibe su bronce olímpico nueve años después”. http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/deportes/manuel-martinez-recibe-bronce-olimpico-nueve-anos-despues-2939896, accessed November 2014.

[2] “No anti-doping rule violation proceeding may be commenced against an athlete or other Person unless he or she has been notified of the anti-doping rule violation as provided in Article 7, or notification has been reasonably attempted, within ten years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred” (Article 17, World Anti-Doping Code 2015).

[3] “Adam Nelson finally gets 2004 Olympic gold in shot put”. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/05/30/adam-nelson-to-get-2004-gold-in-shot-put/2372997/, accessed November 2014.

[4] “El COI no dará a Olano el bronce de Armstrong en Sydney 2000”. http://ciclismo.as.com/ciclismo/2013/02/13/mas_ciclismo/1360768607_529507.html, accessed November 2014.

[5] Report on proceedings under the World Anti-Doping code and the USADA protocol. Reasoned decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency on disqualification and ineligibility. October 10, 2012. http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/, accessed November 2014.

[6] Sénat Français. Rapport fait au nom de la commission d’enquête sur l’efficacité de la lutte contre le dopage. July 17, 2013. http://www.senat.fr/commission/enquete/dopage/, accessed November 2014.

[7] “La Vuelta despide a Olano por imagen”. http://deportes.elpais.com/deportes/2013/07/25/actualidad/1374764073_836347.html, accessed November 2014.

[8] Sénat Français. Rapport fait au nom de la commission d’enquête sur l’efficacité de la lutte contre le dopage, Tome II: Annexes. July 17, 2013, p. 73