February 13, 2008 (Montreal, QC) – As reported in September 2007, Geneviève Jeanson admitted on Radio Canada’s TV show Enquette to having “doped almost all her career†with EPO (erythropoietin) and that she made about one million dollars from cycling. In January, 2008, Pedal reported that Jeanson had signed a contract with Forum Films of Montreal to make a movie of her life entitled, “The Truth of the Lie†— click Pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=12513\”>here. We contacted Forum Films several times for more info about the project and whether Jeanson will receive financial compensation for her role, but to date we have not heard back on any of our questions.
Jeanson, now 26, notably won gold at the 1999 Junior Worlds Road Race and Time Trial in Italy, the Montreal Women\’s Road Cycling World Cup four times, and the Canadian Road Race Championships three times.
Jeanson, who held a US racing license at the end of her career, first received a lifetime ban from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) subsequent to a positive doping test at the Tour de Toona in July 2005. This followed high haematocrit levels at the Hamilton 2003 Road Worlds where she was pulled from the competition but cleared of any doping infraction, and a missed doping control after a stage at the 2004 Fleche-Wallone in Belgium. Jeanson retired when she received the lifetime ban but in November 2006 secured a deal with the USADA which resulted in her lifetime ban being revised to a 2-year suspension.
Since her full public admission in Sept. 2007 there has been no announcement of any sanctions against Jeanson nor any news of an investigation concerning the matter. And now she may stand to profit from a movie deal about how she cheated. The apparent inaction on the matter and news of a movie deal seems to send a strange message to the cycling community that perhaps “cheating pays.â€
To find out where things stand, we first contacted Lorraine Lafreniere, CEO of the Canadian Cycling Association (CCA) and Louis Barbeau, Director General of the Quebec cycling federation (FQSC).
Both Lafreniere and Barbeau responded that Jeanson will presumably be allowed to keep her winnings unless she is sued by a race organizer or one of her corporate sponsors, such as her team sponsor, RONA. Pedal has had no response to date from RONA, a Montreal-based building supply company, on this matter.
We asked if there were any procedures that could eventually strip Jeanson of her medals Lafreniere referred Pedal to David Lech, a sports lawyer and the General Counsel for the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES).
“The CCES does not publicly comment on anti-doping matters pertaining to specific athletes until a determination of a rule violation, if any, is made by the Doping Tribunal. You will appreciate the need for the CCES to respect the strict confidentiality requirements mandated in the Canadian Anti-Doping Program,†explained a Lech by email.
Given that Jeanson has publicly admitted to doping, failed an EPO test in 2005, exhibited dangerously high haematocrit levels (often an indicator of EPO doping) at the Hamilton 2003 Road Worlds, and missing a doping test in Belgium in 2004 (considered the equivalent of a positive result), there are likely few sceptics who believe that Jeanson raced clean at any time during her career. Yet, the CCES is apparently giving her the full benefit of the doubt.
Reached later by telephone, Lech reiterated that the CCES must respect an athlete’s need for confidentiality and was even unable to provide any information about general procedures in such cases. Asked if he could confirm that an investigation about Jeanson is underway Lech replied that the, “CCES is not prepared to comment.†He concluded by providing the name and telephone number of the CCES Communications and Marketing Officer, Rosemary Pitfield, but that telephone number was unable to receive incoming calls.
We found another number for Pitfield who also told us that the CCES cannot publicly comment on specific doping cases. Asked about generalities, such as the time frame for a procedure at the Sport Dispute Resolution Council of Canada (SDRCC) against an athlete suspected of doping, Pitfield replied, “it’s virtually impossible to say because there are so many ‘what if’s, because every case is different.†Quizzed again about the circumstances where an athlete publicly admits to doping and does not contest the matter, she suggested that six months or less might be a suitable time frame. Jeanson’s first public admission on Radio Canada was made on September 20, 2007.
Pitfield also referred Pedal to the website of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP) where specific clauses supposedly are pertinent to our questions about Jeanson. We examined these Pedalmag.com/pdf/CCES POLICY CADP E.pdf\”>clauses but found they invariably refer to positive A samples rather than to a public admission of doping on TV.
Pitfield also suggested that in the case of a Canadian athlete who dopes and wins medals outside of Canada, that it’s up to the event organizer to retract the medals. The sport then purges the name of the athlete from their books.
Regarding this matter the FQSC’s Barbeau responded, “I am not sure what can be done, since she has not specifically admitted to using banned substances at the Junior Worlds, nor at specific National Championships. The only events, for which, to my knowledge, she did admit that she had used banned substances are the Montreal Women’s Road World Cups. In this case, I presume that something could be done about it, but again this needs to be validated with the organizer.â€
So Pedal contacted Daniel Manibal, organizer of the Montreal Women\’s Road World Cup. “Am I supposed to play the role of the FQSC and the CCA and the UCI in policing Jeanson?†asked Manibal. He noted that he pays a license fee to the FQSC, to the CCA, and to the UCI to host the Montreal Women\’s Road World Cup. He also said that he was recently in communication with CCA President, Pierre Blanchard, noting the CCA is quick to give him directives concerning minor details about his races, such as how many commissaires he should have, but no instruction as to how to deal with Jeanson. “Actually, because she held an international license, I think it is up to the UCI to deal with this,†suggested Manibal.
Pedal also asked about any pending changes with respect to the legal issues with regard to doping infractions. Lafreniere suggested the topic was too broad adding, “Possibly you should ask the UCI or WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency]. There is a new code which will have greater powers in such cases (coaches, support staff).â€
So we contacted both WADA and sports lawyer, Patrice M. Brunet for clarification of the new WADA code adopted in Madrid in late 2007 and which comes into effect on January, 2009. The new code does expand existing sanctions against the support staff (coaches, doctors, pharmacists, etc) of athletes convicted of doping. But as Brunet points out, the WADA code does not apply to all support staff. He cited the case of Geneviève Jeanson’s former coach, Andre Aubut, as a prime example of a non-certified coach working with a top level athlete. WADA’s new code would be ineffective against coaches like Aubut because he has not signed a contract to respect the code. An arbitrator investigating the Jeanson case, for example, could not compel Aubut to appear before a tribunal, nor could he impose sanctions against Aubut under the present system. This presumably would also be the case once the new WADA rules takes effect.
Because WADA’s new code does not apply to all support staff, Brunet maintains that the solution has to come from the Canadian government rather than from WADA. “Canadian legislation applies to everyone on Canadian soil,†explained Brunet, underlying the need for new, more extensive anti-doping legislation in this country.
We also asked if there is anything in a rider licence that obligates them to forfeit all winnings and medals should they be found guilty of doping? Barbeau said he doubted it but agreed that it would be a good idea to include such a clause to deter doping. Read more on this topic Pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=12594\”>here.
Barbeau also noted that, “the Jeanson case has obviously made us much more aware of the fact that doping is a serious issue and that it is not only present in pro racing in Europe.†When asked about specific anti-doping programs, he only cited the FQSC educational campaign Roulez gagnants au naturel (Ride Clean and Win) launched in 2006 as a positive measure to better educate our athletes and coaches and prevent such things from happening again. He continued that the CCA is interested in launching a similar national educational program.
Lafreniere confirmed that, “we are currently working through developing a national campaign and program (including education and additional testing) which will be launched.â€
An educational campaign is a good thing, but is it enough? Do the cycling community, other athletes and the public have a right to know that Jeanson’s case is being reviewed by a particular body, the time frame for any decision to be rendered, and the possible consequences?
For an anti-doping program to be effective there needs to be a clearly defined, transparent review process with the power to apply effective sanctions. While confidentiality needs to be respected does our present system go too far and thereby keep the public too much in the dark? Without a clear message otherwise, one may construe that cheating pays.
Genevi̬ve Jeanson РDoes Cheating Pay?
February 13, 2008 (Montreal, QC) – As reported in September 2007, Geneviève Jeanson admitted on Radio Canada’s TV show Enquette to having “doped almost all her career†with EPO (erythropoietin) and that she made about one million dollars from cycling. In January, 2008, Pedal reported that Jeanson had signed a contract with Forum Films of Montreal to make a movie of her life entitled, “The Truth of the Lie†— click Pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=12513\”>here. We contacted Forum Films several times for more info about the project and whether Jeanson will receive financial compensation for her role, but to date we have not heard back on any of our questions.
Jeanson, now 26, notably won gold at the 1999 Junior Worlds Road Race and Time Trial in Italy, the Montreal Women\’s Road Cycling World Cup four times, and the Canadian Road Race Championships three times.
Jeanson, who held a US racing license at the end of her career, first received a lifetime ban from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) subsequent to a positive doping test at the Tour de Toona in July 2005. This followed high haematocrit levels at the Hamilton 2003 Road Worlds where she was pulled from the competition but cleared of any doping infraction, and a missed doping control after a stage at the 2004 Fleche-Wallone in Belgium. Jeanson retired when she received the lifetime ban but in November 2006 secured a deal with the USADA which resulted in her lifetime ban being revised to a 2-year suspension.
Since her full public admission in Sept. 2007 there has been no announcement of any sanctions against Jeanson nor any news of an investigation concerning the matter. And now she may stand to profit from a movie deal about how she cheated. The apparent inaction on the matter and news of a movie deal seems to send a strange message to the cycling community that perhaps “cheating pays.â€
To find out where things stand, we first contacted Lorraine Lafreniere, CEO of the Canadian Cycling Association (CCA) and Louis Barbeau, Director General of the Quebec cycling federation (FQSC).
Both Lafreniere and Barbeau responded that Jeanson will presumably be allowed to keep her winnings unless she is sued by a race organizer or one of her corporate sponsors, such as her team sponsor, RONA. Pedal has had no response to date from RONA, a Montreal-based building supply company, on this matter.
We asked if there were any procedures that could eventually strip Jeanson of her medals Lafreniere referred Pedal to David Lech, a sports lawyer and the General Counsel for the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES).
“The CCES does not publicly comment on anti-doping matters pertaining to specific athletes until a determination of a rule violation, if any, is made by the Doping Tribunal. You will appreciate the need for the CCES to respect the strict confidentiality requirements mandated in the Canadian Anti-Doping Program,†explained a Lech by email.
Given that Jeanson has publicly admitted to doping, failed an EPO test in 2005, exhibited dangerously high haematocrit levels (often an indicator of EPO doping) at the Hamilton 2003 Road Worlds, and missing a doping test in Belgium in 2004 (considered the equivalent of a positive result), there are likely few sceptics who believe that Jeanson raced clean at any time during her career. Yet, the CCES is apparently giving her the full benefit of the doubt.
Reached later by telephone, Lech reiterated that the CCES must respect an athlete’s need for confidentiality and was even unable to provide any information about general procedures in such cases. Asked if he could confirm that an investigation about Jeanson is underway Lech replied that the, “CCES is not prepared to comment.†He concluded by providing the name and telephone number of the CCES Communications and Marketing Officer, Rosemary Pitfield, but that telephone number was unable to receive incoming calls.
We found another number for Pitfield who also told us that the CCES cannot publicly comment on specific doping cases. Asked about generalities, such as the time frame for a procedure at the Sport Dispute Resolution Council of Canada (SDRCC) against an athlete suspected of doping, Pitfield replied, “it’s virtually impossible to say because there are so many ‘what if’s, because every case is different.†Quizzed again about the circumstances where an athlete publicly admits to doping and does not contest the matter, she suggested that six months or less might be a suitable time frame. Jeanson’s first public admission on Radio Canada was made on September 20, 2007.
Pitfield also referred Pedal to the website of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP) where specific clauses supposedly are pertinent to our questions about Jeanson. We examined these Pedalmag.com/pdf/CCES POLICY CADP E.pdf\”>clauses but found they invariably refer to positive A samples rather than to a public admission of doping on TV.
Pitfield also suggested that in the case of a Canadian athlete who dopes and wins medals outside of Canada, that it’s up to the event organizer to retract the medals. The sport then purges the name of the athlete from their books.
Regarding this matter the FQSC’s Barbeau responded, “I am not sure what can be done, since she has not specifically admitted to using banned substances at the Junior Worlds, nor at specific National Championships. The only events, for which, to my knowledge, she did admit that she had used banned substances are the Montreal Women’s Road World Cups. In this case, I presume that something could be done about it, but again this needs to be validated with the organizer.â€
So Pedal contacted Daniel Manibal, organizer of the Montreal Women\’s Road World Cup. “Am I supposed to play the role of the FQSC and the CCA and the UCI in policing Jeanson?†asked Manibal. He noted that he pays a license fee to the FQSC, to the CCA, and to the UCI to host the Montreal Women\’s Road World Cup. He also said that he was recently in communication with CCA President, Pierre Blanchard, noting the CCA is quick to give him directives concerning minor details about his races, such as how many commissaires he should have, but no instruction as to how to deal with Jeanson. “Actually, because she held an international license, I think it is up to the UCI to deal with this,†suggested Manibal.
Pedal also asked about any pending changes with respect to the legal issues with regard to doping infractions. Lafreniere suggested the topic was too broad adding, “Possibly you should ask the UCI or WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency]. There is a new code which will have greater powers in such cases (coaches, support staff).â€
So we contacted both WADA and sports lawyer, Patrice M. Brunet for clarification of the new WADA code adopted in Madrid in late 2007 and which comes into effect on January, 2009. The new code does expand existing sanctions against the support staff (coaches, doctors, pharmacists, etc) of athletes convicted of doping. But as Brunet points out, the WADA code does not apply to all support staff. He cited the case of Geneviève Jeanson’s former coach, Andre Aubut, as a prime example of a non-certified coach working with a top level athlete. WADA’s new code would be ineffective against coaches like Aubut because he has not signed a contract to respect the code. An arbitrator investigating the Jeanson case, for example, could not compel Aubut to appear before a tribunal, nor could he impose sanctions against Aubut under the present system. This presumably would also be the case once the new WADA rules takes effect.
Because WADA’s new code does not apply to all support staff, Brunet maintains that the solution has to come from the Canadian government rather than from WADA. “Canadian legislation applies to everyone on Canadian soil,†explained Brunet, underlying the need for new, more extensive anti-doping legislation in this country.
For more details on Brunet’s call for new Canadian anti-doping legislation click Pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=12003\”>here.
We also asked if there is anything in a rider licence that obligates them to forfeit all winnings and medals should they be found guilty of doping? Barbeau said he doubted it but agreed that it would be a good idea to include such a clause to deter doping. Read more on this topic Pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=12594\”>here.
Barbeau also noted that, “the Jeanson case has obviously made us much more aware of the fact that doping is a serious issue and that it is not only present in pro racing in Europe.†When asked about specific anti-doping programs, he only cited the FQSC educational campaign Roulez gagnants au naturel (Ride Clean and Win) launched in 2006 as a positive measure to better educate our athletes and coaches and prevent such things from happening again. He continued that the CCA is interested in launching a similar national educational program.
Lafreniere confirmed that, “we are currently working through developing a national campaign and program (including education and additional testing) which will be launched.â€
An educational campaign is a good thing, but is it enough? Do the cycling community, other athletes and the public have a right to know that Jeanson’s case is being reviewed by a particular body, the time frame for any decision to be rendered, and the possible consequences?
For an anti-doping program to be effective there needs to be a clearly defined, transparent review process with the power to apply effective sanctions. While confidentiality needs to be respected does our present system go too far and thereby keep the public too much in the dark? Without a clear message otherwise, one may construe that cheating pays.