Ian Thorpe accused of using performance-enhancing drugs
| 12
|
by user ActiveEnduranceSports
On the heels of an incredible World Championships in Melbourne, the swimming world was suddenly rocked last week when the French newspaper L’Equipe reported that retired Australian swimmer Ian Thorpe showed high levels of two performance-enhancing substances in a drug test in May 2006.
Thorpe, who retired last November at the age of 24, denies ever cheating. He will not face losing his records (except, perhaps, to Michael Phelps) or medals, because he did not fail the test, according to swimming and doping officials. The substances, testosterone and luteinizing hormone, are both naturally occurring in a male’s body, but high levels can have steroid-like effects.
In fact, the biggest controversy surrounding the report has been the actual leak itself. FINA, swimming’s world governing body, plans to investigate how the confidential information reached a French newspaper. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) performed the test and maintains they aren’t the source of the leak.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has called the report a “serious breach of confidentiality.” WADA is not yet involved in the case because it “has not led to an analytical positive result, but is rather an unusual situation which is subject to further inquiry,” it said in a statement.
L’Equipe is the same newspaper that two years ago claimed it had proof Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs while winning his first Tour de France in 1999. It has also been a virulent pursuer of the case of Floyd Landis’s alleged use of synthetic testosterone.
What L’Equipe failed to acknowledge is that Thorpe did not compete in an international event following the 2004 Athens Olympics. His suspect test occurred last May (an athlete is still subject to testing until he formally announces retirement). Why would an athlete not planning on competing seek to boost his performance illegally? Additionally, ASADA threw the case out due to lack of scientific evidence. FINA then appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration. The name of the athlete, however, was supposed to be kept confidential unless a positive test result was determined.
With one article, the reputation of a highly-decorated and adored swimmer was forever tarnished. This course of events, which seemed to be limited to cycling and track, has now, unfortunately, crept into the world of swimming.
