Ian Thorpe has been cleared and a magnificent career and fine reputation have both been salvaged but the issues that arose from the most testing of times on dryland for the Olympic 200 and 400m freestyle champion will echo for a while yet. At the start of a year in which we will look at whether anti-doping regimes are working or not, whether they are worth the millions being spent, what improvements need to be made and what alternatives might be available as the battle for clean sport is forced to expand into new worlds being exploited by cheats, not least of all the sphere of genetics, SwimNews takes a first step by looking back on the greatest shame of 2007.
When Thorpe walked free with head held high, there was a perception that ASADA, the Australian agency, had dragged its feet over the whole affair.
Here, Richard Ings - who became ASADA's first Chair and Chief Executive when the agency was officially launched on March 14, 2006, two months before Thorpe provided the sample that turned out to be problematic - defends his operation and answers some of the questions put to him. He reveals that Thorpe's test sample was 'not an adverse analytical finding', despite being announced as such by others in Melbourne last March, rejects the notion that ASADA dragged its feet, refuses to be drawn on whether the testing process is fair and even for all around the globe, and refers to WADA questions on the longevity of samples.
Ings also gives a forceful reply on the question of how clear the decision was when it came to Thorpe's innocence: experts from the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee (ASDMAC); the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited laboratories in Sydney, Australia and Montreal, Canada; and the ANZAC Research Institute in Sydney were 'unanimous in their opinion that the evidence available did not indicate the use of performance enhancing substances by the athlete'.
Some of Ings answers raise some of the questions that we will turn to in the weeks and months ahead.
Q: When did you learn that FINA wanted to take the case to CAS, and did they explain to you why that was?
RI: Matters concerning FINA's appeal of ASADA's decision to CAS are a matter for FINA. As a matter of CAS practice, parties involved in any appeal are notified within 2 weeks of any appeal being lodged.
Q: What was the date when the identity of the athlete in this case was known by those with a right to know?
RI: ASADA can confirm that it was aware of the athlete's identity on or about the day ASADA received the initial Laboratory report in June 2006.
Q: At the point where you learned of FINA's decision, where were you in the process of looking at the adverse finding on sample XXX?
RI: ASADA had been processing the results management of the sample as per its legislative requirements and the WADA Code. FINA's appeal to the CAS had no impact on ASADA's results management process.
Q: What happens when an adverse finding is found? Who decides whether there is a point in pursuing further investigation?
RI: The sample in question was not an adverse analytical finding. Regardless, the party with results management responsibility as outlined in the WADA Code determines in accordance with the WADA Code whether further investigation is required.
Q: Who took the decision in this case that essentially meant that the athlete would not be informed of any problem?
RI: ASDA and ASADA policy in force at the time did not provide for the athlete to be informed of an investigation until such time as it was determined that the athlete had a 'case to answer' with respect to the A sample. This helped ensure that an athlete would not be tipped off to an investigation, and in so doing be able to mask any doping during the period of follow-up testing required under the Code.
Q: Who is the final arbiter - does it come down to one person, or a committee?
RI: All such decisions at ASADA are made by the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Committee (ADRVC) which is composed of a quorum of the ASADA Members.
Q: How many people in the world know the identity of an athlete when a case like Thorpe's crops up? Where are those people and who do they work for?
RI: ASADA cannot speak for other organisations in terms of what they knew or suspected as to the identity of this athlete. Within ASADA, only persons working on the matter knew the identity of the athlete. [SwimNews comment: this suggests that the issue of who knows what is not controlled to a satisfactory level that would allow chains of command to be tracked under independent investigation].
Q: Given that the athlete knew nothing of this until the French newspaper [L'Equipe] broke the story during Melbourne 2007, would it not be fair to assume that ASADA was no longer pursuing the case and had no intention of informing the athlete of an adverse finding?
RI: ASADA's Anti Doping Rule Violation Committee (ADRVC) made a formal decision on March 28 (2007) to contact the athlete to seek additional input from him to assist in ASADA's examination. L'Equipe printed its article three days later on March 31. The L'Equipe article had no impact on the progress of ASADA's ongoing results management of the matter.
Q: There is a perception (widely held) that ASADA dragged its feet in this case. Is there any truth in that - or is it a case of you believing on the basis of your own scientific advice that there was no case to answer?
RI: ASADA has publicly stated that this was a complex case that simply required thorough examination and expert medical and scientific advice prior to a decision being finalised. The time frame is simply a function of the scientific complexity. While the matter did take some time to resolve, ASADA was absolutely determined to ensure that the results of our examination would leave no room for doubt. It should be noted that ASADA's final decision on this matter has not been challenged by any party able to appeal it.
Q: When did you have all the information you needed?
RI: ASADA had all necessary information from which to make its determination following receipt of input from the athlete on 16/08/07. The final decision was made on 29/08/?07.
Q: At the Melbourne 2007 press conference [with Richard Ings], Richard said the case was not closed even though there was no result? (this question has been altered a little from the original in order to make sense and sense of the answer)
RI: The case was closed by ASADA on 29/08/07. The case was ongoing on March 31. Indeed, on March 28 ASADA decided to seek additional scientific and medical information from the athlete. That information was not received form the athlete until 13/06/07 and 16/08/07.
Q: When FINA pressed the matter, and Ian Thorpe was forced to ask doctors and other experts to provide evidence in support of his innocence, what, if any, new evidence came to light that was not there back in December 2006?
RI: The athlete provided information to ASADA to assist with ASADA's results management processes as set out in the WADA Code, and not as a result of FINA's actions. ASADA is unable to divulge the nature of personal medical data received from the athlete.
Q: We all know what the adverse finding revealed - but what was (were) the deciding factor(s) in the decision(s) - yours and FINA's - to declare that Ian Thorpe had no case to answer? And were the same factors at play in your decision and in FINA's decision?
RI: ASADA cannot speak for FINA's review of this matter. ASADA?s comprehensive review included an examination of the athlete's recent test history and athlete supplied medical documentation in line with the World Anti-Doping Agency Code. ASADA sought expert medical and scientific opinion from the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee (ASDMAC); the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited laboratories in Sydney, Australia and Montreal, Canada; and the ANZAC Research Institute in Sydney. Experts from these internationally respected organisations were unanimous in their opinion that the evidence available did not indicate the use of performance enhancing substances by the athlete.
Q: Was there a division in scientific opinion when it came to interpreting the adverse finding results in this case? And if so, how often does that happen?
RI: International experts consulted by ASADA, once in possession of all the material relevant to the matter, were unanimous that there was no evidence of doping in this sample.
Q: Is the passing of time a problem in terms of being able to glean reliable information from a B sample should it be necessary to test a B sample? Is degeneration of the sample a problem?
RI: The B sample can only be tested under the WADA Code once the A sample, following full investigation, has been found to have a 'case to answer'. WADA is best positioned to answer questions related to scientific impact of time on B samples.
Q: in past cases involving similar cases to that of Ian's, the matter has been resolved (about 85% declared positive and 15% in the clear) within two months. Do you think that those decisions were 'safe' given what has been discovered in the Thorpe case?
RI: Your information is incorrect. In the last year WADA labs have reported over 1,100 elevated T/E ratios such as this case. Less than 2% were subsequently found to be doping violations. Naturally elevated T/E's are extremely common. [Note from SwimNews: Perhaps the question was not clear or was misunderstood - In swimming, the information is correct as far as FINA out-of-competition test results are concerned where an athlete was declared to have had a case to answer].
Q: There is an implication in this whole affair that somehow, someone, somewhere wanted to protect Ian Thorpe from harm to his reputation. Do you feel that ASADA acted on all counts with absolute impartiality?
RI: Yes.
Q: there is a widespread and growing criticism of WADA and testing processes and the risks to innocent athletes? Do you feel there is reason to be concerned and do you believe that there is a disparity of conditions in different countries and labs when it comes to the anti-doping testing process, from start to finish?
RI: This is a question for WADA.
Q: what is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Thorpe case?
RI: The matter has confirmed to ASADA the importance of taking all the time necessary to reach the most informed decision as a matter of fairness to the athlete.
SwimNews thanks Richard Ings for his time and effort in answering what he felt able to answer.