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”.

By Roland Schoeman

In This Story

27
Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of

27 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimbo
12 years ago

Spot on Luke. Exactly the point Roland Schoeman has been making. Irrespective of who the swimmers are – ask why the Brazil Swim Federation and the other ‘bodies in authority’ have set a “dangerous precedent”. That is what I have found so amusing about the comments from the likes of Pussieldi, etc. They don’t seem to realise that they are saying far more about themselves (and its not complimentary) when they criticise the likes of Schoeman than they are able to say to those who point out the obvious contradictions and double standards applied by the ‘authority bodies’

Luke
12 years ago

I don’t really understand why everybody is attacking Cielo and Co. Everybody is treating him as a cheater and it’s like everything great he has done to this sport doesn’t count anymore. You all should attack WADA. He said he’s innocent, and i believe he is. Why would he take that during a small competition while he was already qualified to Shanghai?
He said the supplement was contamined and it was WADA or CAS job to punish him or not. They decided not to! So instead of you all keep discussing his credibility, y’all should start considering talking about WADA and CAS!

Jimbo
12 years ago

DDias I am not too interested in spending my time talking to you. Rule 10.2 is easy to understand. We are not discussing whether or not Rule 10.2 allows for a ‘slap on the wrist’ approach or not. We are assessing the precedent that has been set over the years in that the minimum censure allowed for via Rule 10.2 has not previously been implemented – not even by Brazil. What I don’t understand is why you have such difficulty in following the logic. But then it doesn’t really warant my spending time on trying to get the message through to you. If you don’t want to acknowledge it you don’t want to acknowledge it.

12 years ago

Jimbo,
i will always defend the WEAKest part(the swimmers) IF i think they aren t guilty of doping.Cielo is one of around 10 athletes i follow since their were young.Some of others are Bolt,Blake,Phelps and some others like two young brazilian stars(15 and 17 right now) we will see the light of them in the future.
I will talk to you: What did you not UNDERSTAND in rule 10.2?Advertence is a LIGHT punishment, but is a punishment.

Jimbo
12 years ago

DDias. It appears that the logic that is inherent in the article by Schoeman is way over your head. Firstly, the reason why it is stated that Cielo and the others are guilty of a doping offence is because they are guilty of a doping offence. There is nothing subjective about that statement. Schoeman isnt being nasty when he says it. He isnt busy with a Cielo witch hunt. The positive test results prove that they doped. Everybody accepts that including Cielo – excepting you that is. Of course Waked would get punished more severely! His was a SECOND offence. That means that CAS and everybody else agrees that the Furosemide was an offence – FOR ALL FOUR SWIMMERS. Go… Read more »

swimschool
12 years ago

Roland an absolutely excellent analysis of the situation and an extremely intelligent contribution to the debate. You have clearly identified the inconsistencies in the Cielo case that I had intuitively felt existed but hadn’t been able to put my finger on. Congratulations. Your argument supports the fact that there are two things at issue. Firstly it is clear Brazil is guilty of quite disgusting double standards. Secondly, it is clear that all four swimmers should have been treated in exactly the same way – either all four are not guilty of doping (because of the undisclosed evidence that the likes of the DDias’s speak about) in which case Waked has been disadvantaged unfairly or they are all guilty of doping… Read more »

12 years ago

Aswimfan, i am seeing all that discussion about cielo case and agree with you about punishment.At least to my ears because he is a cry baby!But i hope your joke about chinese girls is only a (bad) joke.Do you know you cannot hide steroids with unchanging urine pH level and undiluted urine, right?And the rarely ones you can hide(synthetic hi-tec ones), Furosemide has no effect to hide them.It’s very strange to have unchanged urine in a Furosemide case.Only a really, really small quantity can do that.A cross-contamination normally let a quantity capable to change something.You have to be really cautious to put something like that in a quantity to do nothing in four swimmers, like a precious hand made manipulation.… Read more »

aswimfan
12 years ago

DDias,

Daynara case did not go to CAS because FINA did not appeal and felt CBDA gave her appropriate punishment (despite daynara pleading cross contamination, same like Cielo).

FINA appealed Cielo et al to CAS because it is obvious CBDA did not apply rules uniformly and made blatant mistake in Waked.

About Braden Keith

Braden Keith

Braden Keith is the Editor-in-Chief and a co-founder/co-owner of SwimSwam.com. He first got his feet wet by building The Swimmers' Circle beginning in January 2010, and now comes to SwimSwam to use that experience and help build a new leader in the sport of swimming. Aside from his life on the InterWet, …

Read More »