Veteran Canadian cyclist Anne Samplonius of Brampton is upset about the deal Genevieve Jeanson cut with the United States Anti-Doping Agency on Tuesday to avoid a lifetime suspension for a positive doping test.

The Montreal cyclist tested positive on July 25, 2005, for the banned substance erythropoietin (EPO). She was originally given a lifetime ban from the USADA, but she argued that she never took the banned substance and disputed the ruling. The new settlement reduces her suspension to two years, beginning from her positive test and ending July 25, 2007.

Jeanson, who trains in Arizona, got licensed in the U.S. after the Quebec Cycling Federation refused to grant her one. The Quebec group wanted more medical information after she was pulled from the road race at the 2003 world championships in Hamilton when her hematocrit level (raition of red blood cells to total volume of blood) tested too high.

Tuesday's agreement was struck with both sides looking to avoid a hearing with a dispute resolution service like the American Arbitration Association and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The agreement states that neither side will change their position in the initial dispute, so the settlement is not an admission of guilt for Jeanson.

The following is an open letter written by Samplonius to USADA, a copy of which she sent to the Star.

Dear USADA:

It's me again.

It has been two years and I want to extend my congratulations in your ongoing fight against drug use in our sport.

You win.

I am more confused then ever.

But the dopers? You continue to open the door wider and wider for them.

The confusion of what constitutes a doping infraction and its penalties in the USA continues to astound me. So let me try to understand.

Genevieve Jeanson should have served two years for her first infringement but instead gets a warning and a fine. Then her second positive result, which is supposed to be an automatic lifetime suspension, is now settled for a mere two year sentence? This settlement is quite a good one. Ms. Jeanson is allowed to state that she did not take EPO specifically but still admits her guilt as is written in line 8 of your contract with Ms. Jeanson:

8. Ms. Jeanson acknowledges that the positive test report from the UCLA Laboratory is a violation of the applicable rules, including the USADA Protocol and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, both of which have adopted the WADA Code, and accepts the following:
A two-year period of ineligibility under Article 10 of the WADA Code beginning on July 25, 2005;

Let's see if I got this right: Ms. Jeanson admits her guilt of something (just not EPO) and retracts her appeal to AAA/CAS allowing her to "get out of jail" by July 2007 instead of serving a life sentence, and you get out of more lengthy and costly legal battles, so it's a win-win situation for both USADA and Ms. Jeanson.

But what about the rest of us? What about cycling's future? What message do you send to young athletes when you continue to handle doping infractions according to your own laws, and allow settlements with the guilty to satisfy your own needs?

I am more confused and disheartened then ever. I have now lost faith in the entire system. How does this look to the future of our sport? Or did you fail to see that such a settlement has implications that reach further then those simply between USADA and Ms. Jeanson?

Truly depressed,
Anne Samplonius
Canadian Pro Cyclist

page mise en ligne par SVP

Consultez notre ENCYCLOPÉDIE sportive