Reading the Ullrich Decision: What really happened here?

by Douglas Ansel on Feb 10, 2012 11:44 AM EST in News

Blood_medium The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) handed down a verdict in what has been a simmering case involving former Tour winner (and 5-time runner up) Jan Ullrich. What? A case involving Ullrich? Didn't he retire back in 2007? Yes, evidently Operation Puerto, the 2006 doping case against Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes and his clients, is the gift that just keeps on giving. If you didn't hear, Ullrich was suspended for two years and all his results from 1 May, 2005 onwards were stripped.

The Ullrich case is a true labyrinth of legal proceedings. Really, it's convoluted. I don't know if I could have made it through the ruling without a glass(es) of wine. But! I did read the whole thing! And so you don't have to, I have a greatest hits, plus juicy tidbits from Ullrich's personal website in response to the ruling.

First, let us make a timeline of the big events in the Ullrich case. So, you know, we all understand exactly how a rider ended up in legal proceedings that began three years after his retirement.

2002: Ullrich tests positive for amphetamines in an out of competion test

23 May, 2006: The Spanish Guardia Civil raided the houses of Fuentes and others. Blood bags, transfusion equipment, and a list of cyclists were among the goodies found. Ullrich is one of the cyclists named and is forced to withdraw from the Tour de France on the day before the race starts. His contract with T-Mobile is promptly ended.

11 Aug, 2006: The UCI asks the Swiss Cycling Federation to open disciplinary proceedings against Ullrich based on evidence originating from Operation Puerto.

October 2006: Ullrich resigned his membership from the Swiss Cycling Federation.

20 May, 2009: The Swiss Olympic Federation, operating for the Swiss Cycling Federation, decides that statues in place in 2006 did not allow the Federation to initiate proceedings against an athlete who previously terminated his or her membership. Thus, Ullrich was the subject of no disciplinary action.

March 2010: The UCI asked the CAS to reform the Swiss Olympic ruling. The UCI asked for two outcomes: 1) Ullrich to recieve a lifetime ban; and 2) Ullrich's results to be disqualified from 29 May, 2002 onward.

Phew, that is a lot of dates. Good thing I had my trusty glass of wine to get me through that part of the legal speak. Unfortunately, that wasn't the hardest (i.e. least interesting) part to read.

How the case played out

Ullrich's defense was, oddly, entirely procedural. While there are a number of objections, they fall under two main arguments made by Ullrich's lawyers.

The UCI Anti-Doping Commission did not make a clear, unambiguous assertion that the athlete in question had doped in their letter to the Swiss Cycling Federation from August 2006.
Subsequent UCI procedures were not followed properly. In particular, the Swiss Federation did not send notice of summons within two days.

Ullrich's defense was that the violation of UCI regulations invalidated grounds for any disciplinary hearings. Really, his legal team said nothing about the evidence and assertions of dopage. Odd, isn't it?

The ruling the CAS laid forth earlier today judged that disciplinary procedures had not been violated; the UCI letter sent in August 2006 was sufficiently clear and the Swiss Cycling Federation's actions did not contravene UCI statutes. Given the preponderance of evidence linking Ullrich to Fuentes, the CAS found Ullrich guilty of violating UCI doping regulations. However, the CAS did not consider Ullrich's 2002 positive a previous positive test, which limited the applicable ban to two years. The key to this part of the decision is a change in UCI rules in 2009 which only consider a positive test for amphetamines a doping positive if it is recorded in an in-competition test. Sorry, Pat McQuaid. This decision also means Ullrich's results could only be stripped from the point at which he was definitively linked to the Fuentes doping ring, or May 1, 2005.

The Ullrich case is closed once and for all. But, at the same time, it raises a few questions. Why, in 2010, was the UCI so set on disciplining a rider who retired from the sport in 2007 and who had not held an active cycling license since 2006? Surely there are better uses of the UCI's resources, no? Why did Ullrich only object on procedural grounds?

We have an answer to only the second question. In a statement release on his personal website, Ullrich admits to meeting Fuentes before the 2006 Tour de France. Ullrich has remained silent on this topic since accusations arose, but he said today that the allegations had become so polluted he had to clear the air, after which he said "I hereby draw a line", hinting he will say little else on the issue from now on.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: doping, uci, cas, jan ullrich, uci craziness

Comments

Thank you for this. As a Jan fan, I'm glad he can breathe out now. Here are two Jan interviews that go together

and were published today. Unlike much of what is in the press regarding the CAS decision, these are fun.
http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/02/jan-ullrich-interview/
http://cyclingiq.com/2012/02/10/recollections-of-an-interview-with-jan-ullrich
I’ve also included a photo of Tim Tams, which are a recurring motif in both :)

"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'

by Seahorse on Feb 10, 2012 1:57 AM EST reply actions

I love Tim Tams!

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

-Orwell, Politics and the English Language

www.battleredblog.com

by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 10, 2012 4:20 AM EST up reply actions

look like what in are sold as Penguin biscuits ..

by Austrian_Jez on Feb 15, 2012 7:34 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks Seahorse!

what a great interview! He sounds fun.You know I picked Klodi for my first team based on his friendship with Jan.Then you published that pic of him in pink… : )

by Dustbunny8 on Feb 10, 2012 8:34 AM EST up reply actions

You are truly a woman after my own heart. Stuey's still on my team too. They the two non-negotiables.

"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'

by Seahorse on Feb 10, 2012 8:43 AM EST up reply actions

Oh if Jan were available he would be my first pick

Banned, riding or retired. I really don’t care. I love that man.

As it is I have to make do with Klodi.

"These are my principles and if you don't like them....well I have others." Groucho Marx

by Retancourt on Feb 10, 2012 9:26 AM EST up reply actions

I think Jan is so well loved because he's so flawed (read human), and man could he grind it out.

"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'

by Seahorse on Feb 10, 2012 9:38 AM EST up reply actions

instructional video

here

by Drongo on Feb 13, 2012 8:18 PM EST up reply actions

The case is one of the most procedural CAS decisions read in ages and thoroughly dull

(and will admit to be a nerd for reading CAS decicions, but on the bright side get to legitimately read them on work time – although this one was stretching that point unlike the doping ones)

Request for a case sent to Swiss Cycling to open disciplinary proceedings August 2006, decision returned January 2010 (and that decision was only couldn’t sanction as had resigned and left open UCI status to appeal). UCI appeal anyway, hearing eventually August 2011, decision Feb 2012. UCI appealed at the first opportunity it technically had.
Five and half years start to finish – with Ullrich resigning in Feb 2007, a lot nearer the start of the proceedings than the end, with most of that time taken with the file bouncing around the swiss anti doping tribunals offices.

Ullrich throws every procedural spanner he can find into the works, has all of them repudiated (though saw off Anti-Doping Schweiz along the way). UCI rules and actions stand up extremely well to all the procedural scrutiny in the decision – CAS award reiterates right to sanction athletes post retirement, status of IFs as parties, and other stuff. Will possibly be of (considerable) use to UCI and other IFs in the future.

At the end an athlete that had a detailed file of drug use was sanctioned. (The introduction of the WADA code in 2003 meant amphetamines got reclassified, so life ban probably never achievable by the panels logic regardless of the year the decision finally came)

Only have to imagine the horrified response (allegations of corruption, one rule for one etc) that would have greeted a dropping of the case along the way to argue that UCI on occasion is now damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t these days. Put selected other athletes names in the frame and the UCI may now be getting some praise for a job well done.

by andrewp on Feb 10, 2012 4:20 AM EST reply actions

Indeed.

It’s not the place of the UCI to make exceptions for certain riders – once you open the door to that, you’re begging for corruption. No, the UCI cannot turn a blind eye – if it has evidence against a rider, it should pursue it.
[To do otherwise would also not be fair to those who now inherit the results. I know the PdC always says it’s a terrible way to win a race (/take a podium/etc), but I’m sure that for the people involved they’d rather win retrospectively than always be 2nd in the books and bore people at parties for the rest of their lives with “of course, the guy who beat me, everybody knew he was on drugs, but the UCI didn’t want to upset the Germans so they refused to strip the title from him”. It’s the biggest win of Koldo Gil’s career.]

The horrific thing here, it seems to me, is the behaviour of the Swiss. It takes them from 2006 to 2010 to reach a decision – seriously? I mean, that’s slow even if they’d come up with a real verdict at the end. Instead, they took four years just to notice that they had no jurisdiction. Surely this should have been the work of one bright intern and a rainy afternoon – “er, guys, he’s kind of resigned from our federation, and this rule here says we can’t sanction riders who have aren’t members of our federation”. Maybe it might take them a week, if they wanted to make REALLY sure? Four years is ridiculous. I hope somebody got sacked at the end of that.

Not sure I understand the logic about not considering the 2002 test a prior positive – surely what should matter is that it WAS against the rules when the test occured? Because the other way around, that’s the rule they apply – if you test “positive” for something legal at the time but that is later banned, that’s not counted as a prior positive. It seems inconsistent to apply the rules-at-the-time in one case but the rules-as-they-are-now in another.

by Wastrel on Feb 10, 2012 5:44 AM EST up reply actions

Concerning 2002 test

Rules in place at the time classified any use of amphetamines doping. However, a more “progressive” view of them came about within WADA and they were re-classified such that testing positive during competition for amphetamines was considered doping. The thinking has to do with the time frame in which amphetamines have a positive effect on performance.

The CAS said it would be backwards, essentially, to count an out-of-competition positive for amphetamines in 2002 a prior doping positive in this case with the revision and more nuanced regulations on amphetamine usage. Basically, the reasoning is that we know now that amphetamines weren’t increasing his performance illegally because they were out of competition, so lets reflect the newer thinking in our ruling.

As for the decision whether or not to sanction Ullrich… I’m torn, personally, on whether it was necessary. On the one hand, I want to see justice for all. On the other, I realize that the UCI, like any body, has limited resources and wonder if the sport is better off with a different use of the funds.

I NEED MOAR MUD

by Douglas Ansel on Feb 10, 2012 9:13 AM EST up reply actions

Not sure UCI had any choice but to continue on

Ullrich was damned in the decision for providing no response or assistance at practically any stage, he got a decision in Switzerland that ruled him practically ultra vires, and his whole case could be summarised as saying “may have done it (no defence offered to the contrary) but you are unable to prosecute me for it”.
Gotta to be a win win that he ultimately lost that argument. He may claim to find it incomprehensible it took so long, but he was instrumental to the delay.
(and the UCI got a chunk of cash to pay for the expensive Swiss brief they hired)

by andrewp on Feb 10, 2012 6:43 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I get that they said that

I just don’t get why.

Sure, we now know he wasn’t (as far as we know) getting any advantage by breaking the rules. But he was still breaking the rules as they were at the time.

And my point about backwardness is that this doesn’t work the other way around. If I take something in 2002 which ISN’T thought to improve performance IN 2002, but that is later found to improve perfomance and banned, the fact that I was shown to have taken the performance enhancing drug wouldn’t be allowed to be considered in terms of prior convictions.

It seems that in one case we’re saying “I know he broke the letter of the law, but he didn’t break the spirit, because the way he was trying to cheat didn’t work. And the spirit of the law is what counts”. And in the other case we’re saying “I know he broke the spirit of the law by taking performance-enhancing drugs that we didn’t know enough about at the time to ban (but which have since been shown to be PEDs and thus banned), but he didn’t break the letter of the law because we hadn’t banned them at the time. And the letter of the law is what counts!”. How is that consistent?

It seems to me you can rule by the law at the time, the spirit of the law at the time, or the law as it is now (or the spirit of the current law) – but you should hardly be able to pick and choose in this way which thing you’re going to rule by! If not breaking the letter of the law means you aren’t guilty, surely the corollary should mean that breaking the letter of the law means that you ARE guilty?

I’m not sure that “but I cheated in a stupid way that didn’t work!” is really a great excuse for cheating.

by Wastrel on Feb 11, 2012 8:34 AM EST up reply actions