August 21, 2024 • 15 mins
Praise for how tennis has handled Jannick Sinner's doping case.
The world number one has been fined, but escaped suspension, for unwittingly being contaminated with a steroid.
United States Anti-Doping Agency chief executive, Travis Tygart, is congratulating the Independent Integrity Unit for International Tennis on how they handled Sinner's unique case.
D'Arcy Waldegrave talks with USADA CEO Travis Tygart in a full interview.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sports Talk podcast with Duncie Wildergrave
from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It be and is a warm welcome to the program
to Travis Tiget. He is the CEO of the US
Anti Doping Agency. You sa, Travis, so welcome to the program.
Good to catch up again. I trust you.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Well, Yeah, doing well. Thanks for the invitation. Good to
talk to you again as well. All Right.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
The story around, of course is Yanick Center, who failed
a couple of doping tests. But he has been let
off to a degree and he will not be under
any punishment for this. I suppose first up your initial
reaction to this news. It's only come out a day
or so ago around Yanick Center.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Yeah, listen, I think, big picture, it's a great example
of the system working. And I think you have to
see in sharp contrast to the Chinese, you know twenty
three TMZ cases that were swept under the carpet. Here,
we know he was provisionally suspended, he challenged it as
the rules require, his B sample was done, he was
notified there was a here, so all the players' rights
(01:08):
were upheld and respected. And then, most importantly, even though
there was a finding of no fault which we can
talk about. There was transparency in the case and as
the rules require, again, unlike what was done in the
Chinese teams e. Twenty three, the case was published. Is
the only reason we're here commenting on it, that you
called me to discuss it is because it's out in
the public and we have a several page written decision
(01:29):
that goes through all the facts. And that's how the
system is supposed to work. And I think you have
to congratulate. You know, you never want to congratulate an
organization and situation like this because it's an unfortunate situation.
But when the rules are upheld and the process is
followed as it's supposed to be, I think the ITIA,
the Independent Integrity Unit for International Tennis, should be complimented
for doing the job that the rules required.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Did they speak around the length of time between the
positive test it was found and then eight days later
tested again? It was was it the B sample? Was
it Travis not two separate cases?
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Well, I think there was a I think there was
a second sample collected. I understood the facts, so you
know that you know if you're I guess diving into
the specific facts of the case, right. We know this
substance cluster ball, which is listed as an anabox steroid,
(02:20):
can be you know, found in over the counter medications,
not even medications you need a prescription for. You may
remember a Norwegian skier, Johann or Terse Johag, got a
lengthy suspension for I think an Italian doctor when she
was training in the Alps gave her a lip medication
because you had a fever blister and it contained clouster
(02:41):
ball on it as well. Here it's a different set
of facts because he never used it himself. And actually
the evidence in the case was that he asked and
told people, whether you're using a Losian or anything else
on me, you can't to massage me or to you know,
fix an ailment. But it wasn't his ailment. According to
the decision, it was the masseuse that he used had
(03:01):
to cut on the massuse finger. And what's fascinating about
this particular antabotic substance. There is research that shows when
researchers rub this lotion that contains closser ball on their
hands and then shook hands with someone else, that that
someone else actually had a positive test at very very
very low levels like we're reported in this case. So
(03:23):
we know from a scientific standpoint and a experiment that
it can be transferred from other people. And so that's
why I think you see this panel giving him, you know,
based on these facts, a no fault finding, but really important,
I think he was still disqualified as I understand the facts,
and most importantly from a transparency standpoint, this was made
(03:45):
public and it's the very reason we're having this conversation
because we know about it. And again, I think, big picture,
you have to contrast that with what Wata and the
Chinese anti doping ags he did in the TMC twenty three,
and it's an entirely different set of rules than those
were absolutely swept under the carpet.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
To take a billionth of a gram, it must be
pretty sensitive equipment if they can taste down to that tiny,
tiny degree, and I'm presuming with that it can't really
have any effect although it's being picked up regardless.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
I think that's right. And listen, we have argued for
years that these type there are certain number of substances.
We think we've identified about eight to ten that we
know can be found in these types of products, and
that we ought to have a different scheme and how
to address these because look, while he didn't get a suspension,
you know, I've already seen lists of you know, he's
(04:37):
on the top the second most ridiculous excuse for a
positive test, and the doubt that this creates, even though
he was basically exonerated with a no fault finding based
on the facts, it still creates a doubt in people's mind,
was it legit. He's the number one in the world
the effect on sport. So we've been arguing for years
that WATA should change the rules and we should put
(04:57):
in place a reasonable threshold or decision concentration limit, so
we don't go down to that picogram level that you
just mentioned, but have it at one name anagram, and
and we can still have that sample reported if it's
below one nanogram or whatever a reasonable fair threshold cut
off should be. But we then we then don't automatically
(05:18):
bring a case against an athlete that the athlete then
has to prove their innos sense. I mean, thank goodness
here soon and all the facts have checked out, as
we see in the decision, he had the resources and
the money and you know, the ability to prove his
innocence where a lot of athletes don't. And yet we
know at those really really low levels, if you're a
tested athlete, you're you're a fool to use something like
(05:39):
this that stays in your system, that's easily tested for.
And you know, thankfully in this case, the system worked
and the justice was was ultimately you know, demonstrated. But
but it took a lot of resources and obviously still
has had a major you know impact on his on
his career, in his life, and some people will never
believe that this is actually truly what caused it, even
(06:00):
though you know the facts and reason decision is out
there for everyone to see.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, speaking with the CEO of the USA Diping Agency
aside of Travis Targets, looking at the decision around Yannik Sinna,
he said, why to need to adjust some of their thresholds.
How close are they to doing that in a case
like this? Does this just add fuel to your desires
to have it adjusted?
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I think absolutely. I mean, thankfully he was exonerated basically right,
it's still a no fault finding. But look, they have
done it with other substances. They open the door on
clyn butterol. There's been three or four added since twenty
twenty one, we've been advocating for more. We think the
meat enhancers like a trendblone should be on it. Make
(06:47):
no mistake. However, something like TMZ that the Chinese tested
positive for or meton dian hone, the antabolic steroid that
now we know two Chinese swimmers tested positive for, those
should not be on the list because they're not found
in the environment. They're not medications unless they're by prescription,
and you don't get this sort of contamination or it
(07:09):
coming into a product that you know, you know it
contains it, or could come from in this case, someone
else who was using it for legitimate reason in it
because they were giving you a massage or shook your hand,
as the experiment demonstrates, that's what ended up causing the
positive test. So we think it has to be more reasonable.
And look, this is at the expense of, you know,
(07:31):
money for chasing and catching those that we ought to
be stopping, which are intentional cheaters, and not you know,
spending resources potentially you know, railroading innocent athletes due to
no fault of their own, they had a very very
very very very low level positive for a substance. You
know that came from someone else.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
I suppose it's a warning across some massus other people
in that industry to be very careful. Look, it was
a banned substance across a number of different locality, so
you expect maybe we better that should have set with
a massus and maybe that were reverb right around going
be very careful about what you do because it still
can transfer. And even though we've got a situation where
(08:14):
Janick Senna is off the hook, it is it is warning,
isn't it, Travis Well, I mean.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
For sure, and we tell people that. But look, at
some point people have to live their lives and if
we're to you know, they don't live in bubbles, right,
And we're going from you can't use literally eye line enhancer.
We had sun block that calls positive tests at really
low levels for a substance that was you know, was
(08:41):
it was reported at that level. We've had kissing cases,
we've had water that's been contaminated, we've had we of
course know about supplements. At some point we have to
be realistic and create a system that look does not
let cheaters go. And that's what's critically important. You could
lower the threshold, still have it reported, but then monitor
(09:01):
the athlete, maybe interview them, maybe do follow up tests immediately,
maybe put them in more rigorous testing program, Interview their coaches,
interview their doctors, see if they're actually intentionally cheating. But
don't wreck careers and wreck lies. Because athletes are living,
you know, a life. I mean, they all have a
high bar in what they're expected to do. Give us
(09:22):
their whereabouts twenty four to seven, three hundred and sixty
five days a year, check everything they eat, meat at restaurants,
stay away from don't go to markets in certain countries
because the meat can't be trusted. Like at some point,
we have to create a system that works for them
but also keeps cheats off a playing field, and right now,
in certain cases, this being one of them. Although again
(09:43):
he was exonerated with a no fault you know the
system fortunately word, but there are cases where they don't
work and athletes get severe punishment for really innocent behavior.
And that's what we've got to fix with this system.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Travis s neck Carryos has been surprise, surprise, rather outspoken
in that space. I suppose after talking to you, it
doesn't hold a great deal of water. What do you
think think about the way he's jumped on social media
and climbed in and he's not the only one.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Well, and tell me what the I haven't I haven't
seen that specifically, But what were the what were the comments?
I guess, well, I.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Suppose it was along the lines of a year, right.
The quote was ridiculous, whether it was accidental or planned.
You get tested twice with a banned substance, you should
be gone for two years. Your performance wasn't enhanced massage cream?
Yeah nice, that was his response to it.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Yeah. Look, I think it's I think at the heart
this is the This herein lies the problem, right, is
that a lot of people will think that based on
the headline of an antabolic steroid. I think I think
we all owe it to ourselves. And thankfully the rules
were followed and the cases published. To dive into the
decision itself and take a look at it and look
from an anti doping standpoint, the decision these are I
(10:58):
don't know, someone once said they were a third thirty
three percent of all of our cases that are no fault,
non intentional, no performing. It's enhancement, and yet we're announcing
positive tests on athlete that automatically mean athletes are dopers
in a lot of people's minds. So this is the
issue with the system that we have had at the
expense of letting intentional cheats go like we saw in Russia,
(11:22):
or failing to investigate or follow the rules like WATA
and Shannada did in the Chinese TMZ twenty three. We're
spending a lot of time in resources on things like this.
Absolutely from a scientific standpoint, are totally legit, and they
never should have been. You know, if those if those
facts all check out, no performance enhancement came from someone
(11:43):
else who he shook hands with or massaged his you know,
his body after a workout. Why would someone be punished
for that. That's a system that I don't think should
really exist or sustain itself. But importantly, they're really simple
fixes we could do to that to ensure only those
who are intentionally cheating in these low level areas are
(12:04):
actually getting punished or out it as punish enough punishment,
you know, by the press release or out a as dopers,
so that people then question all their performances and look,
there's a there necessarily will be a cloud over this
player's eyes in some people's mind, and the sport itself
in some people's mind. And let's assume all these facts
(12:25):
are true and accurate, and that went through the process
that challenged them. It's out public for debate. People should
read the decision and get comfortable that that's actually what happened.
Of course, WADA has an appeal right if they decide
to utilize that or not if they don't believe the facts.
But at the end of the day, I think we
have to have confidence in the process, but create a
process that allows athletes not to falsely live under a
(12:47):
dark cloud in some people's mind.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
It was docked four hundred ranking points as well as
a one hundred and fifty thousand dollars fine. So the
ranking points and the prize money left that he earned
it Indian wells, is that right? And fed was that
likely to be reversed?
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Do you think, Travis Well No, and it won't. And
this is again it's sharp contrast to what happened in
the Chinese twenty three T and Z cases. The rule
is automatic disqualification from the event that you tested positive at,
even if it's you know, if you're determined to be
no fault and you get no ongoing suspension the rule,
(13:23):
there is no discretion, there is no ability to set
aside the disqualification from that event. That's what is so
troubling to us. In the Chinese cases, they all tested positive,
twenty three of them at an event where they should
have been disqualified from that event, and necessarily it has
to be announced, and none of that was done in
those twenty three Chinese cases. So, look, I appreciate the
(13:48):
factual dispute, but it's good for the system because transparency
was met and we can have this factual dispute. I
would encourage everyone to look at the facts of the
case and appreciate I think from a scientific standpoint and
a legal standpoint this These are outcomes we see in
these types of cases at really low levels. For certain substances,
(14:11):
you can have an innocent positive, you know, twice within
a short period of time. If someone is using a
lotion on their own skin, that then trans you know,
transfers over to your skin. We've seen the cases. We
had one case of a cyclist to check cyclists in
the US who was giving her dog medication. She wasn't
using the medication. She would have to pour this medication
(14:33):
down the dog's mouth because it was trying to put
weight on the dog. The dog ultimately died. She got
the medicine on her hands when she gave it to
the dog. We tested her like immediately after one day
at her house unannounced that she gave the dog the medication,
and you know what it calls the positive test. Now
is it fair for her to be seen as a doper?
(14:55):
Is it fair to her for her to get a sanction?
I don't. I don't think anybody would say that's fair.
No performance enhancement, totally innocent. Nothing she could have done
really to avoid an unknown other than not give for
dog the medicine and watch him die even quicker. So
I don't know. It's just a system that there are
reasonable changes that could be done to it to be
(15:17):
more fair and give confidence, you know, to someone that
actually gets an announced doping violation, it means they actually cheated,
as opposed to just being in the victim of an
innocent situation.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
I feel sorry for the dog, the poor pooch. Hey
Travis Tigant, always good to catch up, the CEO of
the Anti Doping Agency in the States, thank you very
much for your time. And that rather positive response to
an interesting story. Thanks for clearing it up.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Yeah, I appreciate you reaching out all the best.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
For more from sports talk, listen live to News Talks
it'd be from seven pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Sports Talk podcast with Duncie Wildergrave
from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It be and is a warm welcome to the program
to Travis Tiget. He is the CEO of the US
Anti Doping Agency. You sa, Travis, so welcome to the program.
Good to catch up again. I trust you.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Well, Yeah, doing well. Thanks for the invitation. Good to
talk to you again as well. All Right.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
The story around, of course is Yanick Center, who failed
a couple of doping tests. But he has been let
off to a degree and he will not be under
any punishment for this. I suppose first up your initial
reaction to this news. It's only come out a day
or so ago around Yanick Center.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Yeah, listen, I think, big picture, it's a great example
of the system working. And I think you have to
see in sharp contrast to the Chinese, you know twenty
three TMZ cases that were swept under the carpet. Here,
we know he was provisionally suspended, he challenged it as
the rules require, his B sample was done, he was
notified there was a here, so all the players' rights
(01:08):
were upheld and respected. And then, most importantly, even though
there was a finding of no fault which we can
talk about. There was transparency in the case and as
the rules require, again, unlike what was done in the
Chinese teams e. Twenty three, the case was published. Is
the only reason we're here commenting on it, that you
called me to discuss it is because it's out in
the public and we have a several page written decision
(01:29):
that goes through all the facts. And that's how the
system is supposed to work. And I think you have
to congratulate. You know, you never want to congratulate an
organization and situation like this because it's an unfortunate situation.
But when the rules are upheld and the process is
followed as it's supposed to be, I think the ITIA,
the Independent Integrity Unit for International Tennis, should be complimented
for doing the job that the rules required.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Did they speak around the length of time between the
positive test it was found and then eight days later
tested again? It was was it the B sample? Was
it Travis not two separate cases?
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Well, I think there was a I think there was
a second sample collected. I understood the facts, so you
know that you know if you're I guess diving into
the specific facts of the case, right. We know this
substance cluster ball, which is listed as an anabox steroid,
(02:20):
can be you know, found in over the counter medications,
not even medications you need a prescription for. You may
remember a Norwegian skier, Johann or Terse Johag, got a
lengthy suspension for I think an Italian doctor when she
was training in the Alps gave her a lip medication
because you had a fever blister and it contained clouster
(02:41):
ball on it as well. Here it's a different set
of facts because he never used it himself. And actually
the evidence in the case was that he asked and
told people, whether you're using a Losian or anything else
on me, you can't to massage me or to you know,
fix an ailment. But it wasn't his ailment. According to
the decision, it was the masseuse that he used had
(03:01):
to cut on the massuse finger. And what's fascinating about
this particular antabotic substance. There is research that shows when
researchers rub this lotion that contains closser ball on their
hands and then shook hands with someone else, that that
someone else actually had a positive test at very very
very low levels like we're reported in this case. So
(03:23):
we know from a scientific standpoint and a experiment that
it can be transferred from other people. And so that's
why I think you see this panel giving him, you know,
based on these facts, a no fault finding, but really important,
I think he was still disqualified as I understand the facts,
and most importantly from a transparency standpoint, this was made
(03:45):
public and it's the very reason we're having this conversation
because we know about it. And again, I think, big picture,
you have to contrast that with what Wata and the
Chinese anti doping ags he did in the TMC twenty three,
and it's an entirely different set of rules than those
were absolutely swept under the carpet.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
To take a billionth of a gram, it must be
pretty sensitive equipment if they can taste down to that tiny,
tiny degree, and I'm presuming with that it can't really
have any effect although it's being picked up regardless.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
I think that's right. And listen, we have argued for
years that these type there are certain number of substances.
We think we've identified about eight to ten that we
know can be found in these types of products, and
that we ought to have a different scheme and how
to address these because look, while he didn't get a suspension,
you know, I've already seen lists of you know, he's
(04:37):
on the top the second most ridiculous excuse for a
positive test, and the doubt that this creates, even though
he was basically exonerated with a no fault finding based
on the facts, it still creates a doubt in people's mind,
was it legit. He's the number one in the world
the effect on sport. So we've been arguing for years
that WATA should change the rules and we should put
(04:57):
in place a reasonable threshold or decision concentration limit, so
we don't go down to that picogram level that you
just mentioned, but have it at one name anagram, and
and we can still have that sample reported if it's
below one nanogram or whatever a reasonable fair threshold cut
off should be. But we then we then don't automatically
(05:18):
bring a case against an athlete that the athlete then
has to prove their innos sense. I mean, thank goodness
here soon and all the facts have checked out, as
we see in the decision, he had the resources and
the money and you know, the ability to prove his
innocence where a lot of athletes don't. And yet we
know at those really really low levels, if you're a
tested athlete, you're you're a fool to use something like
(05:39):
this that stays in your system, that's easily tested for.
And you know, thankfully in this case, the system worked
and the justice was was ultimately you know, demonstrated. But
but it took a lot of resources and obviously still
has had a major you know impact on his on
his career, in his life, and some people will never
believe that this is actually truly what caused it, even
(06:00):
though you know the facts and reason decision is out
there for everyone to see.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, speaking with the CEO of the USA Diping Agency
aside of Travis Targets, looking at the decision around Yannik Sinna,
he said, why to need to adjust some of their thresholds.
How close are they to doing that in a case
like this? Does this just add fuel to your desires
to have it adjusted?
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I think absolutely. I mean, thankfully he was exonerated basically right,
it's still a no fault finding. But look, they have
done it with other substances. They open the door on
clyn butterol. There's been three or four added since twenty
twenty one, we've been advocating for more. We think the
meat enhancers like a trendblone should be on it. Make
(06:47):
no mistake. However, something like TMZ that the Chinese tested
positive for or meton dian hone, the antabolic steroid that
now we know two Chinese swimmers tested positive for, those
should not be on the list because they're not found
in the environment. They're not medications unless they're by prescription,
and you don't get this sort of contamination or it
(07:09):
coming into a product that you know, you know it
contains it, or could come from in this case, someone
else who was using it for legitimate reason in it
because they were giving you a massage or shook your hand,
as the experiment demonstrates, that's what ended up causing the
positive test. So we think it has to be more reasonable.
And look, this is at the expense of, you know,
(07:31):
money for chasing and catching those that we ought to
be stopping, which are intentional cheaters, and not you know,
spending resources potentially you know, railroading innocent athletes due to
no fault of their own, they had a very very
very very very low level positive for a substance. You
know that came from someone else.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
I suppose it's a warning across some massus other people
in that industry to be very careful. Look, it was
a banned substance across a number of different locality, so
you expect maybe we better that should have set with
a massus and maybe that were reverb right around going
be very careful about what you do because it still
can transfer. And even though we've got a situation where
(08:14):
Janick Senna is off the hook, it is it is warning,
isn't it, Travis Well, I mean.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
For sure, and we tell people that. But look, at
some point people have to live their lives and if
we're to you know, they don't live in bubbles, right,
And we're going from you can't use literally eye line enhancer.
We had sun block that calls positive tests at really
low levels for a substance that was you know, was
(08:41):
it was reported at that level. We've had kissing cases,
we've had water that's been contaminated, we've had we of
course know about supplements. At some point we have to
be realistic and create a system that look does not
let cheaters go. And that's what's critically important. You could
lower the threshold, still have it reported, but then monitor
(09:01):
the athlete, maybe interview them, maybe do follow up tests immediately,
maybe put them in more rigorous testing program, Interview their coaches,
interview their doctors, see if they're actually intentionally cheating. But
don't wreck careers and wreck lies. Because athletes are living,
you know, a life. I mean, they all have a
high bar in what they're expected to do. Give us
(09:22):
their whereabouts twenty four to seven, three hundred and sixty
five days a year, check everything they eat, meat at restaurants,
stay away from don't go to markets in certain countries
because the meat can't be trusted. Like at some point,
we have to create a system that works for them
but also keeps cheats off a playing field, and right now,
in certain cases, this being one of them. Although again
(09:43):
he was exonerated with a no fault you know the
system fortunately word, but there are cases where they don't
work and athletes get severe punishment for really innocent behavior.
And that's what we've got to fix with this system.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Travis s neck Carryos has been surprise, surprise, rather outspoken
in that space. I suppose after talking to you, it
doesn't hold a great deal of water. What do you
think think about the way he's jumped on social media
and climbed in and he's not the only one.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Well, and tell me what the I haven't I haven't
seen that specifically, But what were the what were the comments?
I guess, well, I.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Suppose it was along the lines of a year, right.
The quote was ridiculous, whether it was accidental or planned.
You get tested twice with a banned substance, you should
be gone for two years. Your performance wasn't enhanced massage cream?
Yeah nice, that was his response to it.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Yeah. Look, I think it's I think at the heart
this is the This herein lies the problem, right, is
that a lot of people will think that based on
the headline of an antabolic steroid. I think I think
we all owe it to ourselves. And thankfully the rules
were followed and the cases published. To dive into the
decision itself and take a look at it and look
from an anti doping standpoint, the decision these are I
(10:58):
don't know, someone once said they were a third thirty
three percent of all of our cases that are no fault,
non intentional, no performing. It's enhancement, and yet we're announcing
positive tests on athlete that automatically mean athletes are dopers
in a lot of people's minds. So this is the
issue with the system that we have had at the
expense of letting intentional cheats go like we saw in Russia,
(11:22):
or failing to investigate or follow the rules like WATA
and Shannada did in the Chinese TMZ twenty three. We're
spending a lot of time in resources on things like this.
Absolutely from a scientific standpoint, are totally legit, and they
never should have been. You know, if those if those
facts all check out, no performance enhancement came from someone
(11:43):
else who he shook hands with or massaged his you know,
his body after a workout. Why would someone be punished
for that. That's a system that I don't think should
really exist or sustain itself. But importantly, they're really simple
fixes we could do to that to ensure only those
who are intentionally cheating in these low level areas are
(12:04):
actually getting punished or out it as punish enough punishment,
you know, by the press release or out a as dopers,
so that people then question all their performances and look,
there's a there necessarily will be a cloud over this
player's eyes in some people's mind, and the sport itself
in some people's mind. And let's assume all these facts
(12:25):
are true and accurate, and that went through the process
that challenged them. It's out public for debate. People should
read the decision and get comfortable that that's actually what happened.
Of course, WADA has an appeal right if they decide
to utilize that or not if they don't believe the facts.
But at the end of the day, I think we
have to have confidence in the process, but create a
process that allows athletes not to falsely live under a
(12:47):
dark cloud in some people's mind.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
It was docked four hundred ranking points as well as
a one hundred and fifty thousand dollars fine. So the
ranking points and the prize money left that he earned
it Indian wells, is that right? And fed was that
likely to be reversed?
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Do you think, Travis Well No, and it won't. And
this is again it's sharp contrast to what happened in
the Chinese twenty three T and Z cases. The rule
is automatic disqualification from the event that you tested positive at,
even if it's you know, if you're determined to be
no fault and you get no ongoing suspension the rule,
(13:23):
there is no discretion, there is no ability to set
aside the disqualification from that event. That's what is so
troubling to us. In the Chinese cases, they all tested positive,
twenty three of them at an event where they should
have been disqualified from that event, and necessarily it has
to be announced, and none of that was done in
those twenty three Chinese cases. So, look, I appreciate the
(13:48):
factual dispute, but it's good for the system because transparency
was met and we can have this factual dispute. I
would encourage everyone to look at the facts of the
case and appreciate I think from a scientific standpoint and
a legal standpoint this These are outcomes we see in
these types of cases at really low levels. For certain substances,
(14:11):
you can have an innocent positive, you know, twice within
a short period of time. If someone is using a
lotion on their own skin, that then trans you know,
transfers over to your skin. We've seen the cases. We
had one case of a cyclist to check cyclists in
the US who was giving her dog medication. She wasn't
using the medication. She would have to pour this medication
(14:33):
down the dog's mouth because it was trying to put
weight on the dog. The dog ultimately died. She got
the medicine on her hands when she gave it to
the dog. We tested her like immediately after one day
at her house unannounced that she gave the dog the medication,
and you know what it calls the positive test. Now
is it fair for her to be seen as a doper?
(14:55):
Is it fair to her for her to get a sanction?
I don't. I don't think anybody would say that's fair.
No performance enhancement, totally innocent. Nothing she could have done
really to avoid an unknown other than not give for
dog the medicine and watch him die even quicker. So
I don't know. It's just a system that there are
reasonable changes that could be done to it to be
(15:17):
more fair and give confidence, you know, to someone that
actually gets an announced doping violation, it means they actually cheated,
as opposed to just being in the victim of an
innocent situation.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
I feel sorry for the dog, the poor pooch. Hey
Travis Tigant, always good to catch up, the CEO of
the Anti Doping Agency in the States, thank you very
much for your time. And that rather positive response to
an interesting story. Thanks for clearing it up.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Yeah, I appreciate you reaching out all the best.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
For more from sports talk, listen live to News Talks
it'd be from seven pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.