Mamadou Sak-who?

27 Pages·2016·0.43 MB·English

Sports integrity initiative

Features 9th December 2016
Mamadou Sak-who?
Collateral damage in
an era of name and
shame

Isabelle Westbury @izzywestbury [email protected]
The Liverpool footballer, Mamadou Sakho, was exonerated earlier this
year following a flawed doping investigation. His career remains in the
balance while WADA, the organisation that so ineptly policed the affair,
has yet to be held to account.
A week is a long time in sports, as in politics. On 11 April this year
UEFA, European football’s governing body, published an article on its
carefully media-managed site entitled, ‘How Liverpool’s Sakho won
over the critics’. It was full of gushing praise about how the French
international had overcome childhood adversity, found maturity in a
foreign environment, and developed a work-ethic that even his fellow
professionals found impressive. Sakho’s career was soaring; he was a
regular for Liverpool both in the Premier League and the Europa
League, and was putting in strong performances for a French national
side that was well positioned for a home European Championship.
Twelve days later, Sakho’s name was hitting headlines for entirely
different reasons.
‘Sakho facing drugs ban’. ‘Sakho’s failed doping test’. ‘Mamadou
Sakho let Liverpool down badly’. It was a field day for headline writers
across the country as news emerged that Sakho was under UEFA
investigation for an alleged anti-doping rule violation. The subsequent
revelation that the drug in question was a so-called fat-
burner increased the speculation; how had this finely honed athlete
succumbed to taking trivial diet pills at the prime of his career?
The condemnation was unrelenting. Only one online blog, The
Gegenpress, questioned the finding at the time, writing that Sakho’s
alleged drug use did ‘not make any sense’, considering both his
conduct and unblemished record until that point. The
piece, later picked up by the Irish Examiner, suggested instead that the
mental wellbeing of players needed examining far more than any
violation itself. However, with little information to go on apart from news
of a UEFA investigation, soon escalating to a worldwide FIFA
suspension, the wider coverage might be forgiven for reporting what
was known. Very little, as it turned out.
Within three months, UEFA dismissed the case, exonerating Sakho of
any anti-doping rule violation. Coverage was subdued, caught up in the
maelstrom of the Final of the 2016 European
Championship between France and Portugal, that was to take place
two days later. Sakho’s dream of representing France in a home final
had long since vanished. Instead, the coverage of his innocence was
akin to a tabloid retraction, hidden out of sight.
The ‘indelible stain’ of a corruption conviction on a sportsperson’s
reputation and further career has been discussed before in these
pages. Then, the article focused on the difficulty of returning to
professional sport once time had been served and the process of law
played out – for someone previously convicted of a crime. A guilty
player may accept some stain on their reputation, but for the innocent,
like Sakho, the miscarriage of justice endures.
Many observers may expect a player’s swift return to form, even a
refreshed revival following time on the sidelines; the reality is often
harsher. The personal toll is severe, exacerbated by trying to re-enter a
newly settled team environment, readjusted to cater for a player’s
absence. Innocent until proven guilty is not a concept Sakho will feel
familiar with.
Any athlete that plays sport for a living understands the burden of their
profession; unannounced drugs tests and careful nutrition monitoring
are the norm. It’s a stressful existence. Just as one walks a little
straighter on passing a policeman in the street, professional athletes
succumb to the same Freudian phenomenon – no matter how clean an
athlete is, they are forever looking over their shoulder.
Sakho had apparently always been reluctant to take any form of
medication or supplementation, and had only started taking
supplements at the instigation of the professional clubs and staff
around him. Sakho, of all people, should have had less to worry about
than most.
The positive doping result was a shock. Analysis of Sakho’s A sample
revealed the presence of Higenamine, a substance speculated to have
fat-burning qualities. UEFA duly notified Sakho of an anti-doping
violation, stating that Higenamine was banned at all times under the
WADA Prohibited List, as a category S3, Beta-2 Agonist.

The source of Higenamine was quickly found. It was in a nutritional
supplement prescribed by Sakho’s personal trainer, who claimed that
he had checked rigorously against WADA’s Prohibited List, as well as
independently, for any illegal substance and found none. Since the
source of the Higenamine was known, Sakho did not contest the result
of the test and waived the right to have his B sample analysed (which,
of course, contains the same urine as the A sample bottle).
What happened next however was remarkable; Higenamine’s status
as a WADA prohibited substance, it quickly transpired, was no
certainty.
Higenamine is not expressly mentioned in any WADA literature on
prohibited substances; UEFA’s Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body
(CEDB), who heard Sakho’s case, explicitly noted this. Although Beta-
2 Agonists are prohibited by WADA, it is not clear whether Higenamine
falls into this category at all. The defence, at great personal expense to
Sakho, commissioned reports from two experts in the field, one of
whom was a recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Their
submissions ‘cast serious doubt’ upon WADA’s decision to treat
Higenamine as a Beta-2 Agonist – as a result the case was dismissed.

More remarkably, and less reported, was how damning the CEDB was
about WADA’s role in the whole affair. It found ‘inconsistency of testing
amongst WADA accredited laboratories’ a code which ‘lacks universal
enforcement’, that even ‘WADA accredited laboratories are uncertain
of Higenamine’s status’ and that WADA ultimately had not made a ‘firm
determination itself’ on the classification of Higenamine, let alone
communicated it to its athletes.
Sakho’s defence went further; they claim that of the seven papers
WADA cited as evidence that Higenamine is a Beta-2 Agonist, two
(which were both authored by one of the experts commissioned by
Sakho) did not even examine Higenamine’s potential as a Beta-2
Agonist. One of these papers even indicates that Higenamine is in fact
a Beta-1 Agonist which is a category of substance not prohibited by
WADA, and not a Beta-2 Agonist.
Even if oral Higenamine could be classified as a Beta-2 Agonist, no
evidence exists that it is performance-enhancing. This was confirmed
by one of Sakho’s experts, who had conducted one of the only studies
to examine the effects on humans of orally-ingested Higenamine.
Nothing in WADA’s own policy justifies the inclusion of Higenamine on
its Prohibited List. Despite being given the opportunity to defend its
decision to treat Higenamine as a Beta-2 Agonist, WADA chose not to
make any representations at Sakho’s hearing – perhaps not
surprisingly.
With the evidence so heavily in Sakho’s favour, and with the CEDB’s
findings now public, it should be questioned why the case wasn’t
dismissed earlier, or even that a hearing took place at all.

Perhaps UEFA were just doing their job in trying circumstances. Anti-
doping violations are systematically hitting the headlines and the
names of sporting heroes such as Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson and
Marion Jones are now synonymous with doping. Perhaps UEFA were
simply trying to ensure that their own doping controls were robust.
This fails to recognise the impact on the individual charged. Sakho
fought to return to playing for Liverpool as soon as possible, and to
salvage any possibility of competing for France in the 2016 European
Championship. Instead he watched from the stands as his compatriots
vied to become champions of Europe. Acquitted just two days earlier,
he was absent from what should have been the biggest event of his
career.
Sakho missed 7 Liverpool games during his provisional suspension.
Whether he might be banned remained uncertain for most of the
summer’s transfer window as WADA did not rule out an appeal until
the last possible moment. He has not featured for his club since he
was notified by UEFA of the failed test.
It is unrealistic in football, as it is in politics, to expect that things
wouldn’t have moved on in Sakho’s absence. Unsurprisingly, this has
led to frustration for Sakho. An ill-advised early morning social
media rant is only the latest story to emerge over his fractured
relationship with Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp, who is apparently
‘desperate’ to sell Sakho By contrast, just before Sakho’s case arose,
Klopp had described Sakho as ‘spectacular’.

There is no doubt that this case has changed the course of Sakho’s
career. A transfer appears inevitable, but the outcome uncertain.
Whether Sakho can return to his previous form and status remains
unknown. He will almost certainly never play in a major championship
in his home country.
One terrifying aspect of Sakho’s case is that an even greater injustice
might have befallen him if he had not had the means to instruct one of
the World’s foremost anti-doping lawyers, Mike Morgan of Morgan
Sports Law, and some of the leading minds in biochemistry. After all,
very few athletes have ever successfully challenged WADA’s
categorisation of a banned substance; the point being that things might
have turned out very differently for Sakho if he had not had the means
to stand up to WADA, with doping bans now extending up to four
years. Spare a thought, therefore, for those athletes who might find
themselves in the same position, minus the resources.
Sakho’s ordeal should not be repeated. The media is complicit,
reporting the headlines, not the substance of this affair, and making
little of the hearing vindicating Sakho. Such unbalanced accounts are a
disservice to clean athletes worldwide.
UEFA and WADA play an important role in sports governance, but they
must be scrutinised, and held accountable, if they are to be effective.
This does not undermine their role, but helps them become better
organisations and, as a corollary, helps protect clean athletes from
potential injustices.
Notwithstanding the vindication through the courts, Mamadou Sakho’s
case must not be consigned to the annals of history past, for his is a
future still at stake.
The full decision can be viewed here.
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/mamadou-sak-who-collateral-damage-in-the-era-of-
name-and-shame/
DW

TOP STORIES / SPORTS
SPORTS
Bundestag Sports Commitee
chairwoman: 'One year not
enough' to evaluate Germany's
anti-doping law
It has been a year since Germany's anti-doping law came into force.
Under the law, athletes who test positive for performance-enhancing
drugs can face prison terms of up to three years.
The law, which came into effect last December, also provides for jail sentences of up
to 10 years for those who provide the athletes with performance-enhancing
substances.
No athletes have yet been prosecuted under the new law but according to the
chairwoman of the German parliament's standing committee on sports, Dagmar
Freitag, some investigations are underway.
The Social Democrat member of the Bundestag also told DW that one year is not a
long-enough period to determine whether it has been a success or a failure. Doping
cannot be wiped out completely, she said, but the fight is an important one.
She also said that she wasn't surprised by the findings of the second McLaren
Report, released earlier this week, which said that more than 1,000 Russian
athletes were involved in or benefited from widespread doping manipulation.

http://www.dw.com/en/bundestag-sports-commitee-chairwoman-one-year-not-enough-to-
evaluate-germanys-anti-doping-law/a-36774031
CONI

Il TNA squalifica per 4 anni Gilberto
Ciriello (ASI) e Daniele Geraci (ACSI).
Quattro mesi a Federico Rossi (US ACLI),
archiviazione per 2 non tesserati

Pubblicato: 07 Dicembre 2016
La Prima Sezione del Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping, nel procedimento disciplinare a
carico di Gilberto Ciriello (tesserato ASI), visti gli artt. 2.3 e 4.3.1 delle vigenti Norme
Sportive Antidoping, gli ha inflitto 4 anni di squalifica, a decorrere dal 7 dicembre 2016 e
con scadenza al 6 dicembre 2020. Ha condannato altresì l’atleta al pagamento delle spese
del procedimento quantificate forfetariamente in euro 378,00.

Nel procedimento disciplinare a carico di Daniele Geraci (tesserato ACSI), visti gli artt. 2.1,
4.2.1.2 delle vigenti NSA, gli ha inflitto 4 anni di squalifica, a decorrere dal 7 dicembre 2016
e con scadenza al 6 ottobre 2020, dedotto il presofferto. Ha disposto inoltre l’invalidazione
dei risultati eventualmente conseguiti all’esito della gara in data 22 maggio 2016 e ha
condannato l’atleta al pagamento delle spese del procedimento quantificate forfetariamente
in euro 378,00.

Nel procedimento disciplinare a carico di Federico Rossi (tesserato US ACLI), visto l’art.
2.1 e 4.5.1.1 delle vigenti NSA, gli ha inflitto 4 mesi di squalifica, a decorrere dal 7
dicembre 2016 e con scadenza al 6 febbraio 2017, dedotto il presofferto. Ha inoltre
disposto l’invalidazione dei risultati eventualmente conseguiti a partire dal 24 luglio 2016 e
ha condannato l’atleta alle spese del procedimento quantificate forfetariamente in euro
378,00.

Nel procedimento avviato nei confronti di Benedetto Carrera e di Danilo Orazio Agnelli,
soggetti non tesserati per l’ordinamento sportivo, la Prima Sezione del TNA - viste le
richieste avanzate dall'Ufficio di Procura Antidoping ed esaminati gli atti depositati dalla
stessa UPA - ha disposto le archiviazioni dei procedimento.

La Prima Sezione del Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping, nel procedimento disciplinare a
carico di Mirko Sansubrino (soggetto non tesserato), dispone, su richiesta dell’avvocato
dell’incolpato, l’audizione di quest’ultimo, assente in udienza per causa di malattia e il rinvio
dell’udienza in data 21 dicembre 2016 ore 15.15.

http://www.coni.it/it/attivita-istituzionali/antidoping/12766-il-tna-squalifica-per-4-anni-
gilberto-ciriello-asi-e-daniele-geraci-acsi-quattro-mesi-a-federico-rossi-us-acli-,-archivazione-
per-2-non-tesserati.html