Port Aventura - Spain - wielrennen - cycling - radsport - cyclisme -   Danielson  Tom Thomas (Team Cannondale - Garmin)  pictured during  stahe 6 of the Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2015 from Cervera - Port Aventura - photo Sabine Jacob/Cor Vos © 2015
  • Sir Wiggo

    TD spent “14 months, countless hours and significant monies” to determine this:

    The manufacturer of this Maca root product also produces a supplement containing DHEA, in the same facility, and this is likely how the contamination occurred.

    He must work efficiently.

    • Dave

      Calling up a manufacturer and asking if they contaminate their products was never going to work, so I assume that a good part of that 14 months involved going undercover and getting jobs at a few manufacturers until he found one which made both maca root and DHEA supplements ;-)

      • Sir Wiggo

        lol.

        Sounds like a great reality to show.

        Surely it would’ve been quicker and cheaper to just find some chemist to say they left some DHEA residue on the chopping board when they were mixing up TD’s meds.

  • Alex

    Would he just admit that he’s a dirty doper. If you read all his statements during this fiasco he always stated how he’d “never” take doping products, yet his days at Discovery Channel show that he did in fact. Never didn’t start in post 2007. I mean who does this guy take us for? We get it Tom, using doping products from your beginning days got you to where you are. You have the podium girl wife, a nice house, and got to live the pro life. Now count your blessings and go away.

    I’m all still waiting on Strava to add “known doper” badges. Tom could get the inaugural one!

    • Dodger

      Compulsive liar, serial doper, a plague on cycling. Surely he can’t be allowed to have anything to do with coaching either during his ridiculously short ban?

    • Allez Rouleur

      Gotta wonder what sort of “performance enhancements” he used to impress the podium girl wife…

  • Gavin Adkins

    I was trying to remember what big results Tommy D managed to get while he was on the jab and then I remembered that he didn’t, ever…

    • Mike Jacoubowsky

      Didn’t he win the Tour of Georgia once year?

    • Dude pedalling

      ‘on the jab’ !

  • Wily_Quixote

    This raises an interesting point.
    i am convinced that the strict liability approach is the correct one, as it requires the accused to provide reasonable evidence of innocence. I also think, that in the balance of probabilities, Danielson is guilty of intentionally taking DHEA, but what if his claim is true and he ingested unintentionally contaminated supplements?

    I imagine that Danielson would then need to demonstrate that the manufacturer of the supplement did unintentionally contaminate their product – something demonstrable by testing the ‘maca root’ product or examining the factory. Moreover, the lab report should show levels of DHEA commensurate with low intake via contamination (although this would be impossible to discriminate from tapering off a doping dose). Although, evidence of high levels of DHEA would invalidate Danielson’s claim.

    So, if danielson had managed to demonstrate that the manufacturer of the supplement did inadvertently contaminate the product it seems like a denial of justice. I don’t know how USADA operates but I imagine that if this evidence had been provided the doping case would be dropped.

    In which case I think that all athletes, if they continue to use ‘supplements’ ought to register their supplements and keep a sample just in case they turn out to be contaminated. Or they could stop using ‘supplements’ and employ a sports nutritionist.

    • Neal Rogers

      “If Danielson had managed to demonstrate that the manufacturer of the supplement did inadvertently contaminate the product it seems like a denial of justice.” This is the key to it all.

      USADA said the potential sanction length for this case “ranged from six months to eight years, depending upon mitigating circumstances.” They gave him four years; not six, not eight. So clearly, there were *some sort* of mitigating circumstances.

      USADA also wrote “At no point during USADA’s investigation were we presented with scientific evidence suggesting that Mr. Danielson’s positive test resulted from a contaminated product.” Perhaps they were presented with some other kind of evidence? I don’t know what that would be. But someone is not being truthful, and given that Danielson’s career is over either way, he could well have just taken the eight years and moved on with his life.

      • Dave

        > USADA also wrote “At no point during USADA’s investigation were we presented with scientific evidence suggesting that Mr. Danielson’s positive test resulted from a contaminated product.” Perhaps they were presented with some other kind of evidence?

        This one was ruled on by arbitration, not by a UCI anti-doping tribunal. The four year ban would have been decided upon by balancing probabilities or splitting the difference.

        The very fact that the UCI decided to let USADA take this through the arbitration process rather than a UCI anti-doping tribunal hearing would suggest that:
        (a) USADA were fairly confident they could get him banned for a reasonable amount of time through the arbitration process, and
        (b) the UCI were either happy with the expected outcome from USADA, or had reasons to believe a UCI anti-doping tribunal might not be able to get the job done properly.

      • Wily_Quixote

        Thanks Neal,
        I suggest that it comes down to the quality of Danielson’s evidence, if it was insufficient to meet USADA’s standards of proof then I suppose USADA’s judgement was obligatory.
        It might be hard for an athlete and their legal advisor to get sufficient evidence in cases like this which probably means that athletes have a choice between taking supplements or having a professional athletic career.

        • Dave

          USADA didn’t rule on this, they were the ‘prosecution’ presenting their case to an arbitrator.

          What has happened here is that the arbitrator has sat down with both USADA and TD and the conversation has gone along the lines of:
          USADA: “TD is a dirty doper, here’s the test, we want him banned for the maximum of eight years for a second offence under WADA Code 10.7.1 (c)”
          TD: “the level present in the test is very low, I think it was a contaminated supplement, and here’s a note from my mummy saying I’m not a dirty doper”
          The arbitrator: “hmmm, that could be enough to bring the discounted suspension for inadvertent consumption into play, which would make the maximum suspension four years depending on the level of fault. TD, was this a supplement provided by your team?”
          TD: “no”
          Arbitrator: “were you having these supplements tested?”
          TD: “no”
          Arbitrator: “you were sailing close to the wind so I’m offering you the maximum four year ban that could apply under that rule, do you want to accept this or go to more formal proceedings?”
          USADA: “deal”
          TD: “deal”

          • Wily_Quixote

            So TD is attempting to preserve hsi reputation. Is there anything preventing USADA or the arbitrator releasing the content of the arbitration process?

            • Dave

              I would expect it is strictly confidential.

              The anti-doping bodies will roll their eyes and put up with BS excuses if they can still manage to put away the athlete for a good amount of time, rather than pushing too hard and risking an appeal which could see the whole thing thrown out. This was one of the game changers with the 2015 version of the WADA Code, the full ban for a first time offence is now four years so a 50% discounted ban is still a pretty solid punishment.

              The funny thing is that he tried his luck and ended up with an outcome exactly the same as if he had just pled guilty immediately – and accepted a 50% discount for doing so.

              Think of it as being roughly equivalent to a prosecutor in a real court accepting a deal where the defendant would plead guilty to a lesser offence rather than going to trial for a higher offence, e.g. driving without due care vs dangerous driving.

          • Neal Rogers

            I can understand why you would assume that, but it turns out that’s incorrect. I reached out to Danielson to follow up, and though he’s not willing to speak on the record, he did reveal to me that the case was never brought before an arbitration panel. (The story has been updated to reflect this.) So, in this case, USADA did, it appears, play judge and jury, or at least prosecutor and sentencing judge. Danielson also disputes USADA’s claim that he did not present USADA with scientific evidence that points to a tainted supplement.

            • Dave

              If that can be verified with a USADA spokesperson, then it’s a settled deal rather than USADA playing prosecutor/judge/jury.

              USADA: “look buddy, you’ve been busted cold so how about give it up now and take just four years, or we can go through the whole process and hang it all out there”
              TD: “okay”

              It would suggest that the discount to four years was actually for accepting the investigation’s results, not for ‘no significant fault.’

              Either way, it looks like the deal did not include TD admitting to his wrongs or not shooting his mouth off in the media.

    • Dave

      > So, if danielson had managed to demonstrate that the manufacturer of the supplement did inadvertently contaminate the product it seems like a denial of justice. I don’t know how USADA operates but I imagine that if this evidence had been provided the doping case would be dropped.

      Inadvertent consumption is covered under ‘no significant fault or negligence’ (WADA Code article 10.5) which can only reduce a doping sanction, not the more absolute ‘no fault or negligence’ which can eliminate it (10.4). That’s the whole point of strict liability, athletes are responsible for what they consume and have been warned to be aware of possible contamination (2.1.1).

      As this was TD’s second offence, the reduction would mean a new maximum sanction of 4 years out. If he had made a very good case with lots of scientific evidence, it could have gone as low as a reprimand or just a few months out.

      USADA acts as the ‘prosecution’ in a doping case and not the ‘judge’ or ‘jury’, unless TD had pleaded guilty early to accept a reduced ban they have to present their case to be ruled upon by an arbitrator (as in this case) or a more formal hearing in front of a UCI anti-doping tribunal. As they have a positive test in this instance, strict liability means they only need to present the test result and it’s up to TD’s side to show why he shouldn’t go down.

      > I imagine that Danielson would then need to demonstrate that the manufacturer of the supplement did unintentionally contaminate their product – something demonstrable by testing the ‘maca root’ product or examining the factory. Moreover, the lab report should show levels of DHEA commensurate with low intake via contamination (although this would be impossible to discriminate from tapering off a doping dose). Although, evidence of high levels of DHEA would invalidate Danielson’s claim.

      That would be true it went to more formal proceedings with a UCI anti-doping tribunal. But it didn’t, this was ruled upon by arbitration and accepted by both sides.

      If USADA thought the arbitrator’s decision wasn’t good enough, they could take it up a level.

      > In which case I think that all athletes, if they continue to use ‘supplements’ ought to register their supplements and keep a sample just in case they turn out to be contaminated.

      This sort of QA is essentially the service that is provided by Informed-Sport for their clients, including Slipstream Sports (i.e. the team currently sponsored by Cannondale and Drapac). If indeed this was a contaminated supplement, that would automatically suggest it was not a verified supplement that had been tested by Informed-Sport and provided to TD by the team.

  • J Evans

    He’s claiming to have tested positive to a completely different substance to what the USADA found him to be positive for.

  • P3N54

    1. Supplements may not contain what you expect
    2. Supplements may contain what you don’t expect
    3. If the supplements contain what you expect, it’s at best questionable whether they work

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

17 NEW ARTICLES
December 9, 2016
December 8, 2016
December 7, 2016
December 6, 2016