May 27, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
Anti-Doping Agency Enters a Gray Area
By JERE LONGMAN
SAN FRANCISCO, May 26 - When the United States Anti-Doping Agency was
created in
October 2000 to oversee drug testing in Olympic sports, it was largely
hailed as
an independent body that would aggressively nab cheaters and dampen
international allegations of foot-dragging or cover-ups on the part of
American
officials.
Four years later, the anti-doping agency is treading new ground in the Balco
steroids case - trying to bar athletes if sufficient evidence indicates that
they have used banned substances, even if they have not failed a
conventional
drug test.
With the Olympic track trials set to begin July 9, and the Athens Olympics
to
start Aug. 13, this novel effort to ensnare cheaters is being tested under
tremendous time constraints, in a high-pressure atmosphere where questions
of
fairness, evidentiary proof and due process will be fiercely debated.
Already,
some harsh if unintended consequences have been created, lawyers and
anti-doping
experts say.
The reputation of track and field, the showcase event of the Summer
Olympics,
has suffered greatly, they say, as has the reputation of Marion Jones, the
Olympic sprint champion, who is being investigated but has not been formally
accused of doping and has repeatedly said that she does not take banned
substances.
Marion's in a terrible position, said Jim Coleman, senior associate dean
of
the Duke law school, who has both prosecuted and defended athletes in doping
cases. I think her reputation has been destroyed.
No one is arguing against making track and field as clean as possible. But
in
the coming weeks, the anti-doping agency will essentially face a referendum
on
the legitimacy of its own actions, just as some athletes will potentially
face
judgment before the agency and the arbitrators on the legitimacy of their
own
performances.
This seems to be headed quickly for a confrontation on the appropriateness
of
potentially disqualifying athletes who have not had a positive test, said
Edward Williams, a New York lawyer who represents several athletes on
Balco-related issues.
The anti-doping agency has not said whether it will seek to bar Jones from
the
Olympics. If it does, its case would be based, in part, on documentary
evidence
obtained in a file bearing her name taken from the Bay Area Laboratory
Co-Operative. The lab was raided last September by federal authorities, who
recently turned over documents to the Senate Commerce Committee, which gave
them
to the anti-doping agency.
On Wednesday, Joseph Burton, a lawyer with the San Francisco firm of Duane
Morris who represents Jones, called for the anti-doping agency to make a
quick
decision about Jones, one he believes should be a public exoneration.
I think it's unfair to let her twist in the wind in a public way, Burton
said.
I think it's bad for track and field in general to have this negative
atmosphere surrounding one of the most important people in the sport,
shortly
before the most important event in the sport.
Officials of the anti-doping agency have declined to speak publicly about
Jones
or any other athlete, except to say they are acting appropriately and
fairly.
Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, praised the American
agency, saying, For the first time in many, many years, the U.S. is taking
a
leadership role in this fight.
The legal and public-relations team representing Jones has taken an
aggressive
public stance, threatening to sue if she is barred from the Olympics on any
evidence short of a failed drug test.
Jones's representatives asked for a meeting with anti-doping officials,
which
occurred Monday. Burton then criticized the evidence provided them by the
American anti-doping agency as feeble and far below the standard of beyond a
reasonable doubt that is being used to disqualify athletes who have not
failed a
drug test.
So far, he's doing an excellent P.R. job, David Ulich, a Los Angeles
lawyer
familiar with doping cases, said of Burton. I think he's putting U.S.A.D.A.
on
the defensive. He's making such convincing statements to the press regarding
the
lack of evidence, U.S.A.D.A. would have to come out with something
determinative.
Others have questioned whether Jones's lawyers should have shown to
reporters
the evidence given to them by the anti-doping agency. Her representatives
said
they preferred making the documents public on their own terms, rather than
hazard the possibility that they would be leaked by others. The risk, some
lawyers said, is that this attempt to clear Jones's name might have
increased
the level of suspicion about her.
It permits the public to speculate that documents refer to her and somehow
may
indicate steroids she took, Coleman said. No matter what comes out later,
some
people will believe she committed a doping violation and everything she
accomplished is a fraud. That's too bad.
Documents shown to The New York
