Roland Schoeman Guest Editorial: Steroids, Swimming, and Dangerous Precedents

Today we welcome a very special guest, Roland Schoeman, to The Swimmers Circle to weigh in on the Cesar Cielo debate. Roland has voiced his opinion previously on Twitter and through other social media, but we wanted to give him the chance to share his full thoughts in more than the context of 140 characters.

Roland has three Olympic medals earned with South Africa at the 2004 Games, including a gold in the 400 free relay. He has held or shared 5 different World Records in his career, and is the current all-time standard-bearer in the short course 50 freestyle. http://twitter.com/#!/Rolandschoeman.

There has been a tremendous amount of polemic* since the news that the Brazilian Swimming Federation had decided to let Cielo and Co off with a warning when the four team mates tested positive for the banned substance furosemide.  They accepted the excuse offered by Cielo that the banned substance had been ingested unwittingly via a caffeine supplement (apparently prescribed) that had been contaminated in the laboratory.

(*Passionate and controversial arguments)

This outcry, unsurprisingly, grew exponentially after FINA took the Brazilian ruling to the Court for Arbitration in Sport (CAS) requesting that heavier penalties be imposed on the four swimmers.  Despite this, CAS did not impose any additional penalties on Cielo, Barbosa and Santos thus rejecting the FINA challenge.  BUT – and this is extremely important to remember – CAS accepted the FINA challenge in respect of Vinicius Waked, imposing a one-year ban on him (based on the argument that it was his second doping offence).

The arguments that have been aired since this finding left Cielo to swim at this year’s FINA World Championships, have been divided into the ‘rational/logical’ voices and the ‘emotional’ voices.  It has been interesting to see how abusive people have become towards those (including myself) who have pointed out that the ruling has set an extremely bad precedent.

So why don’t we look at the facts of the matter in a logical and unemotional way and see what all the fuss is about?  Remember – the case is clear.  Cielo and friends are guilty of a doping offence.  We do not need to debate that in any form or shape.  It is not the issue at all.  The issue is whether or not FINA’s request for a suspension of the swimmers should have been upheld by CAS or not.  We obviously would expect – no hope, even demand – that the rules and regulations that govern one would govern all.

Diuretics such as furosemide are used as masking agents for anabolic steroids, stimulants, cannabis and other banned substances.  In particular, furosemide actively inhibits the excretion of waste material that indicates steroid use ensuring that no evidence of anabolic steroids will be found in the urine of a user for some time after its use.  It is, therefore, no surprise that furosemide is listed as a banned substance.

The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) Code states clearly that an athlete is deemed to be responsible for any substance found in his or her body irrespective of whether ingestion was deliberate or not.  Based on this, its rules allow for a suspension of up to two years for a positive test for Furosemide.  It also offers extremely limited extenuating circumstances even when an athlete can ‘prove’ that no cheating was intended or that performance was not enhanced.

Recent doping cases involving furosemide use have seen athletes banned for up to 14 months.  There does not appear to be a single traceable case where the deliberate OR accidental use of furosemide has resulted in no penalty apart from a warning.  That is until the case of Cielo and his team mates.  While there are very many cases outside of Brazil that we could use as basis to draw comparisons, it may be worth our while to see how consistent the Brazil Swim Federation has been in meting out doping penalties.

Craig Lord points out the very different treatment meted out to Daynara de Paula, a Brazilian team mate of Cielo and Co when she returned a positive result for exactly the same substance as Cielo (Furosemide).  Even though she claimed cross contamination (as Cielo and Co did) and begged the federation to assist in having the supplement tested they refused to accept this explanation or to get involved.  Not only did they state that it was essential for the federation to remain neutral at all times, but they unceremoniously slapped a six month ban on her.

However, Lord states that “Brazilian sources tell SwimNews that the four latest cases for the same banned substance resulted in officials helping those who had produced adverse findings in their deliberations to clear their names and as a result, on the cusp of a world championship and with a big name staring back at them, ended up delivering a warning.  Whether accurate or not, the perception was clear: Brazil wanted to save its biggest name, resulting in different treatment of different swimmers, even within its own ranks”.

Are you starting to feel that there may be a standard set of rules for everybody excepting Cielo and Co?  There’s more though.  We find support for the contention that there are different rules for Cielo and Co from CAS within this specific incident.  It is going to be fascinating to see how CAS explains their ruling which established one rule for Cielo and another rule for Waked.  And yes before you all start shouting at me, I am fully aware of the fact that Waked had a year ban slapped on him because this positive test represented “a second doping offence”.  Carefully notice the words ‘a second offence’.

So let’s get down to scrutinizing the facts clinically and logically and unemotionally.

Cielo, Barbosa, Santos and Waked all took exactly the same (prescribed) supplement.  Based on mathematical odds we can logically deduce that all four ingested their individually prescribed supplements from the same bottle, pack or batch.  This is confirmed by Cielo’s statement that “this was an isolated case”.

It is clear that Brazil accepts that Cielo, Barbosa, Santos and Waked were all guilty of having ingested a banned substance.  We do not need to look at the merits of diluted versus undiluted urine samples.  We do not need to rush to defend Cielo’s honour or rush to brand him a steroid user.  It is clear that FINA accepts that all four were guilty of a doping offence.  It is also clear that the CAS accepts that the four were guilty of a doping offense.  None of the four swimmers have indicated in any way that they are not guilty of a doping offence.  

Their argument, strongly supported by Brazil, is around the accidental ingestion via a contaminated supplement (an argument that the laboratory categorically rejects by the way).

CAS has not, as yet, made public its reasons for not imposing any penalties on Cielo, Barbosa and Santos and has indicated that it will release this in due course.  Despite this it is clear from their decision to impose a one year ban on Waked that they do not regard the argument of accidental ingestion as sufficiently compelling to exonerate the swimmers.

Logically, if the ‘accidental ingestion’ argument was sufficiently compelling, then it is clear that CAS would have been compelled to treat Waked in the same way as the other three.  That is unless of course they argue that Waked deliberately doped and the other three inadvertently doped.  I don’t buy that and I’m sure you don’t either.  So we can say before the fact that we know that CAS will not be able to use this particular angle as a basis for its decision.  Unless it is somewhat deluded of course or is unable to test the logic of its own arguments.  I for one hope this is not the case.

That leaves the only other possibility.  CAS accepts that Cielo and Co were guilty of a doping offence and understands that there are normally penalties that apply.  They actively demonstrate this understanding by the ban they slap on Waked.  But Cielo and Co are left to go unpunished.  Why is that? 

In a world where we are all compelled to play according to the same rules it is fair to expect that the rules will be consistently applied.  It is disheartening to think that the system will quite happily sink any number of athletes who have been able to present convincing arguments to prove ‘no fault/no gain’ while allowing others to swim.

CAS, which should offer the highest levels of impartiality and consistency, has not done so.

I’ve said it before and I say it again: “a dangerous precedent has been created”.