Look what just popped up in my inbox from an editor at Runner’s World:
Here’s a copy of a letter I sent to the Denver Post (April 13) urging that a USOC database covering doping records from 1984-2000 be released, particularly in fairness to all those fourth-place finishers at the Olympic Trials who might have been Olympians if drug positives had been sanctioned, rather than excused.
If you would like to help the effort to convince the Denver Federal Court to allow the release of the database, please send an e-mail explaining why the release is important to attorney John Pineau who will be fighting the Motion for a Protective Order in Exum v the USOC. His e-mail is johnpineau@yahoo.com.
Thanks,
JanetDenver Post
To the Editor
c/o openforum@denverpost.comUSOC Should Release Database (195 words)
To the Editor:
What this county needs to combat doping in sports is true transparency. Instead, we’re faced with reactive policies based on media exposés. Instead, we’re faced with the United States Olympic Committee once again trying to hide documents that will shed light on two decades of drug testing. When the USOC tried this tactic in 2002, a media group including CBS and USA Today successfully argued that the documents be released. I urge the Denver Post and other media to make that case again.
The USOC recently filed a motion in Denver Federal Court in Exum v the USOC, seeking a protective order for a database covering doping records from the 1980s and 90s. The reason given was that “embarrassment caused to third parties, including Olympic athletes, by such disclosure is obvious.” Embarrassment? What about fairness to athletes denied a berth on an Olympic team by cheaters? Should the names of baseball players who’ve failed drug tests not be released because it might cause them “embarrassment”?
Until the U.S. fully acknowledges its past, sports will be mired and muddied by headlines and speculation about doping. The truth may hurt, but it will also begin the healing.
Janet Heinonen
Eugene, Oregon
Well, well, well … should I write Mr. Pineau? Is it worth it for me to stir the pot after all these years? I have (almost) laid to rest my anger at Regina Jacobs and Mary Slaney (both busted for drugs, finally) at taking spots on World and Olympic teams … possibly MY Olympic teams … year after year after year … leaving one fewer spot open for clean, honest athletes. But do I want to risk the emotional energy to find out there were even more cheaters in front of me? I was a 4th place Olympic Trials finisher in 1992. What would happen if they released a drug test result from 1992 that proved one of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place women ahead of me were dirty … actually tested positive 14 years ago, but it was covered up?! I am afraid a volcano of rage would erupt within me and splll out all over my happy family, my contented life.
Dare I write the letter?
Joan,
Okay. Here’s what you are: “Cheated”.
Matt Fitzgerald (below, in Running Times) argues that you can achieve the same results at an elite level without cheating. He says Alberto Salazar trains runners with all sorts of legal techniques to get that extra 5-10 percent you get from using a combination of EPO, blood doping and other assorted, illegal, performance-enhancing drugs and techniques.
Its a nice thought but a hopeless one for the majority of elite runners. Maybe Salazars methods work for a tiny group of runners supported by the Nike Oregon Project. But for most elite runners trying to survive without Nike cash — cheating is the way to go.
Take EPO one month before a race, and then let the extra red blood cells sit there in your system for four months. The EPO has long since washed out of your system by race day, but the effects of EPO are still there. It’s a foolproof system. Combine that with other undetectable stuff, and a cheater who wins money and world championship medals is born.
As recently as 2004, the race director for the Boston Marathon was quoted as saying that he thought cheating in elite running was “miniscule” because they’d tested runners after races and there was no trace of EPO in their system. How completely, utterly naive. And how sad for the American sport of running.
So here’s my question for you, dear sister. If you could have increased your times at your peak by 10 percent (what you would have achieved if you’d cheated and used EPO-plus) where would you have been? Where would you have finished in major championship races — including world championships?
I’ll tell you. Experts say you benefit anywhere from 4-15 percent from EPO and blood doping, so I’m using 10 percent as an average benefit. That means nothing to a recreational runner. But to an elite athlete, where every second counts?
Your outdoor PR in the 10,000 — the event you ran in the 1996 Olympic games — was 32.54 [actually, it was 32:19 on the track; 32:04 on the roads]. Had you cheated and given yourself that 10 percent edge with EPO-plus, your best in the 10K could have been 29.37.
A 29.37 in the 10K on the track? The current U.S. 10K outdoor record — today! — is Deena Kastor’s 31.09 in the summer of 2004.
If you had cheated and given yourself a shot at running 29.37 in 1996 — on the track at the Olympic Games in Atlanta — do you know where you would have finished?
First — by more than a minute. You would have shattered the Olympic Record.
Here are the top 3 at the 1996 Olympic Games in the women’s 10K:
Gold: Fernanda Ribeiro, Portugal 31:01.63 min (Olympic Record)
Silver: Junxia Wang, China 31:02.59 min
Bronze: Gete Wami, Ethiopia 31:06.65 min
So had you cheated, given yourself a chance to run a 29.37, you’d have won a gold medal at the Olympics, set the Olympic Record, and won considerable money in endorsements. You’d be a world champion.
Even a 5 percent edge from EPO-plus in 1996 would have given you a shot at running a 31.15 in the 10K at the Olympics. You’d have been right there with Ribeiro, Wang and Warni.
And that, dear sister, makes you “cheated”…
Jeff
http://www.runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?id=7013&c=136
Joan, I think that if you have gotten to a point where you can live with not knowing, you can handle knowing. And if you can’t live without knowing, then you need to know. Sounds a bit circular, and it is (I tried to type an explanation of why it is not circular, but it didn’t withstand any real scrutiny), so I guess it is my way of saying that I think you should write the letter.
Okay, I just reviewed the USOC’s motion for protective order and a few of the other pleadings from Exum’s lawsuit, and after doing so, I should amend my prior comment.
Yes, I still think you should write a letter advocating release of the information in the USOC’s database covering drug test results. The letter should probably go to the USOC and deal with the advantages of the transparent oversight of Olympic athletes in the US; it could just as easily go to the Denver Post, urging the USOC to release its records. But I don’t think that Exum’s lawsuit is the proper vehicle for obtaining the information. For that reason, a letter to Pineau, Exum’s lawyer, is probably not worthwhile, unless you are eager to assist Exum in making the case that he was discharged from his position at the USOC due to the USOC’s policy of excusing drug use by athletes. This lawsuit is Exum’s second attempt to achieve redress for what he believes was wrongful termination, but it is unclear to me whether he is simply making his allegations and attempting to obtain testing records in order to push the USOC into a financial settlement that would benefit him and his lawyers.
So, IF you think that the release of the USOC’s testing records would help eliminate the use of performance enhancing drugs in track and field, I think that you should write to the USOC (with a cc to the Denver Post), outlining the reasons why release will be beneficial.
(I will email you a couple of the pleadings separately as pdf files).
It’s a good question, and no mistake.
I’ve had the same sort of question myself (about an entirely different type of issue) and I had to ask myself why I wanted to know.
I eventually decided that I would be able to better put my ghosts to rest if I knew that they were dead. But I was fairly sure that I could get an answer.
Sometimes it’s a lot easier to accept something once one knows what is being accepted.
You’re in a situation where it sounds like you might actually get yourself worked up – and still not get an answer that you can count on. That would give me pause, indeed.
Joan,
Yes, you should write the letter to Mr. Pineau. Don’t know if it will help at all though.
Your brother commented “Experts say you benefit anywhere from 4-15 percent from EPO and blood doping” and did calculations based on 10% and 5% to see how much better you might have been able to do in the 1996 Olympics. Looking at numbers quoted in the Running Times article, my friend Tim Noakes says maybe 2-4% benefit from EPO for someone who is already at (or close to) their potential, so a 10% or even 5% improvement for you is probably optimistic. (It is hard to get good estimates, because people already at world-class level are unlikely to be willing to take part in a randomized test, particularly of a banned substance, and in people not at world-class level the effect may be huge, but meaningless. This appears to be a fairly general problem in sports science / exercise physiology — it is hard to get volunteers who are at an appropriate level of fitness.)
Now you probably know how Don Kardong (4th in 1976 Olympic Marathon and one of my favorite running writers) has been feeling for many years.
Although I am not affected personally, I wish we could know the truth — not just whether some of the women ahead of you had positive tests that were covered up, but whether anyone was actually dirty (even if not tested or did not have a positive test).
Dave
[...] cheats? We already know there were several. Are there more? The denver Post is pushing to find out.http://www.runningland.com/2006/04/18/stirring-the-pot/Corgenix To Exhibit AspirinWorks Test At Denver Diabetes ExpoFeb 27, 2008 … Corgenix Medical [...]