THE relatively lenient sentences for doping-convicted Welsh athletes Gareth Warburton and Rhys Williams may yet be overturned, with the pair being forced to serve the two-year penalty prevailing at the time of their offences.
UK Anti-Doping has suspended them for six and four months respectively. They were both due to compete in Glasgow 2014, but withdrew on the eve of the Games after metabolites of anabolic steroids were revealed in tests on June 17 and July 11 respectively, with provisional suspensions being imposed on both.
Warburton's was an out-of-competition protocol, while his team captain, Williams, tested positive after the 400m hurdles at the Hampden Diamond League.
UKAD's independent panel ruled that the adverse findings were due to "a contaminated supplement" and "they are victims. They are not cheats."
Tests bankrolled by the athletes established that the supplements were the source. I do believe they have rightly been characterised as victims.
However, the World Anti-Doping Agency and International Association of Athletics Federations have a principle of "strict liability". IAAF rules state that a competitor is "solely responsible for whatever is in their body." They say athletes must take "all steps to verify the ingredients of all medicines and supplements."
UKAD must now forward their full written judgment to the IAAF. This is then assessed by the global body's anti-doping administrator who is not obliged to accept the UKAD panel verdict. In that case the athletes could yet face a two-year suspension. From January 1, WADA has doubled the sanction to four years, but the penalty in force at the time would apply. WADA is bullish about challenging sentences it deems too lenient.
Warburton, picked for his third Commonwealth Games, and former European champion Williams, are now at the mercy of the IAAF and WADA and whether they sign up to UKAD's reasoning.
If UK Athletics is obliged to enforce a sanction greater than they want, or seems fair, it will not be the first time. The Warburton and Williams case is uncomfortably similar to that of Scotland's Dougie Walker, the 1998 European 200 metres champion.
The Edinburgh sprinter, in common with UK internationalists Mark Richardson and Gary Cadogan, endorsed products from Maximuscle. They all tested positive for nandrolone and were suspended. Walker's progress over the years showed no evidence of the "spike" associated with drug-fueled improvement, and a test conducted on the day his positive sample was announced, and then another four days later, both showed him to be clear. A blood sample (more comprehensive and detailed than urinalysis) which he commissioned, was also negative.
UKA accepted he was innocent, but the IAAF rejected their findings, and Walker was banned for two years. Data on naturally-occurring levels of nandrolone in competing athletes was poor, yet Professor Arne Ljungqvist, head of the IAAF medical commission, said he needed no further research on the topic. At the same time WADA (where he chaired the Health, Medical and Research Committee) was offering millions of dollars for research on naturally occurring levels of hormones in athletes.
No wonder athletes are sceptical about the process.
Walker was every bit as much an innocent victim as the two Welshman who can't sleep easily given the Scot's experience.
Studies at Aberdeen and Cologne universities raised serious concerns on the multi-billion global supplements industry. The IOC-accredited German anti-doping laboratory purchased more than 100 supplements over the counter and found 16 contained substances which would get athletes banned. Aberdeen replicated the findings. Cologne also discovered a rogue enzyme which they believe affected nandrolone readings.
Product-contamination was offered as a explanation, but all to no avail for Walker as the IAAF maintained its "strict liability" line.
Maximuscle was not identified as one of the companies whose product Cologne and Aberdeen tested - by the time Walker was accused, he had none of the batch left. A crucial difference may be that Warburton and Williams did have some of their supplements which, when analysed, showed contamination.
The company supplying the substances which doomed them - Mountain Fuel - supplies products used by military personnel [NB subs note: this is is stated by the organisation's founder, Darren Foote who gave evidence - information in the transcript of the UKAD documents in my possession and in the public domain] which hints at the possibility of the military using substances banned in sport.
When Walker, Cadogan, and Richardson were endorsing Maximuscle products, the proprietor told me that contamination was impossible because of his quality control. Shortly after, however, his company was fined £1500 and £2250 costs after a product claiming to be lactose-free was found to contain 4.9% lactose. It was a flea-bite in an industry now worth more than £700m annually.
Supplement regulation has improved since Walker's desperate experience, but grey areas remain. On-line imports are a minefield. UK Medicines are regulated; and Food Safety Act and Food Supplement regulations apply to food or food supplements. But these are less stringent than those governing medicines.
And despite millions spent since the Walker case in anti-doping education, advising athletes against supplement use, they still have not got the message.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article