USADA spokeswoman Annie.
, senior communications manager for the
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in Colorado Springs, got back to me Friday. I had written her nine days earlier with the simple question: Why did
Robert Arello lose his medals if he was granted a post-event TUE? She began by saying: “We appreciate your interest in clean sport” and continued: “In regards to Mr. Arello’s case, I believe the best resource for you is section 10.8 of the
World Anti-Doping Code, titled: Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent to Sample Collection or Commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.” She said the code states: “In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.”
Annie continued:
In short, because USADA accepts Mr. Arello’s explanation that he was not using the banned substance in an effort to gain a competitive advantage, he was given a public warning. However, in fairness to the other athletes against whom he was competing, Arello was disqualified from all competitive results achieved on and after the date his sample was collected (Aug. 29, 2015).
Further, the TUE Mr. Arello was granted is not applicable retroactively, but does authorize his continued use of these substances going forward, while under USADA’s testing jurisdiction.
I hope this helps provide some clarity. However, should you have any further questions on the matter, do not hesitate to reach out as we would be more than happy to help assist you in any way we can.
The claim of “fairness to the other athletes” might be disputed by the other athletes themselves, but I appreciate her citing the relevant WADA section.
Still, using WADA rules intended for elite kiddies seems overkill for our set.
2 Responses
This disregards the entire line of questioning that Professor Sputo uncovered: namely that masters are ‘non-nationals’ and don’t need a TUE for diuretics.
That notwithstanding, if Bob was being ‘unfair” to other athletes, shouldn’t all of his results be nullified for his entire career given his shocking admission that he’s been using since 2000? How can USADA in good conscience sponsor and promote this unfairness by granting him a TUE?
I’m being facetious, of course. They goofed and haven’t had enough meetings yet to decide how to apologize.
The entire drug issue is way too complicated and confusing especially for Masters athletes and needs to be revised and simplified. It is too easy for a honest person to make a mistake.
That said, if conversations that I have heard over the years are representative, some Masters athletes do knowingly cheat. Personally as a back of the pack competitor, I don’t care but it is clear that the current program works poorly if at all.
Leave a Reply