Geert Leinders, a Chief Team Doctor and a member of the Board of Directors for the Rabobank professional cycling team received a lifetime ban after successful investigations into the doping claims. The investigation involved three agencies, including “Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD), the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (Doping autoriteit)” (Geert Leinders receives a lifetime ban for doping violations, 2015). Consequently, a three-member panel of the American Arbitration Association and North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (AAA) delivered a decision of a lifetime ban to the doctor for his alleged roles in doping violations. The chief team physician will never train, advise or take part in any cycling events sanctioned by the agencies globally.
The investigation revealed that Leinders “possessed, trafficked and administered banned performance-enhancing substances and methods without any legitimate medical need to athletes under his care” (Geert Leinders receives a lifetime ban for doping violations, 2015). Some of the substances and equipment used included “blood transfusion kits, insulin, EPO, testosterone, LH, DHEA and corticosteroids” (Geert Leinders receives a lifetime ban for doping violations, 2015) and thus Leinders was found to be involved in violations of anti-doping rules.
Detailed evidence was obtained from eyewitness account, expert analysis reports on blood samples of athletes and corroborating information. It was proved that Leinders engaged in serious activities and therefore a lifetime ban was appropriate and justified. The physician’s position as chief medical officer and his board membership at Rabobank had placed greater responsibility and trust on him.
This case demonstrates two important elements for the athlete community. First, anti-doping agencies can collaborate at greater length to collect relevance evidence for doping claims with the aim of establishing a level playing field for cyclists. Thus, future global cooperation will reduce such violations in all sports. Second, the case shows how intelligence collection and investigations works among independent agencies and how it can support final decisions on prosecutions and sanctions for senior athlete support teams and even athletes if found guilty. Therefore, athletes and their support personnel should not violate rules to win and profit because of severe consequences.
Critique of the Doping Claims
The most important issue in this article is the lifetime ban handed to Geert Leinders for his alleged involvement in violations of anti-doping laws. Under the conditions of the ban, Leinders is and shall not be allowed to instruct or direct any athletes or take part in any cycling events sanctioned by cycling bodies globally.
Available evidence from eyewitness account, analysis of blood samples from athletes and corroborating information showed that the physician violated cycling rules by using performance-enhancing substances and kits such as PO, blood transfusion paraphernalia, testosterone, insulin, DHEA, LH and corticosteroids without any legitimate medical reasons (Geert Leinders receives a lifetime ban for doping violations, 2015).
In the study of doping in athletes, researchers have strived to make a clear distinction between performance-enhancing drugs and recreational drugs (Drugs and Athletes, 2014). The most fundamental issue for researchers and investigators is to determine if athletes have used such substances in violation of rules. Thus, the use of performance-enhancing drugs is considered a form of cheating and unfair practice among athletes and their support personnel and it could negatively affect long-term health.
If evidence suggests any forms of cheating, then arbitration panels may take appropriate actions against athletes or their coaches, trainers and physicians. The magnitude of enforcing the law may depend on the use and positions of individuals involved. For instance, in this case, the Chief Team Physician was a given a lifetime ban because of his position, responsibilities and trust bestowed upon him by athletes and various bodies. It is therefore critical for arbitration panels to review the alleged doping violations, involved aggravating circumstances and positions or roles of offenders in order to deliver appropriately justified ruling. The case of a team physician and a member of the board engaged in such violations require harsh punishment.
For the arbitrating panel to render its decision, it requires adequate evidence gathered through collaboration with experts and witnesses. In this case, athlete eyewitness testimony played a significant, powerful role in the case, which eventually influenced the outcome. In addition, corroborating evidence was obtained from different sources. While these are fundamental sources of evidence, forensic intelligence and investigations are critical for doping cases (Marclay, Mangin, Margot, & Saugy, 2013). Blood samples from athletes, for instance, were taken for analysis to determine abnormal blood values. Marclay et al. (2013) have noted that decision-making to enforce law has relied on forensic intelligence. In a similar manner, anti-doping agencies can considerably benefit from a thorough collection of evidence, including forensic analysis of relevant substances, urine and blood samples. The involvement of expert analysis of samples in the case of Leinders points to a future reliance of such investigations to tackle doping menace in sports. It is however critical to note that it is increasingly becoming difficult to ascertain the use of banned substances because athletes and their support staff have taken measures to hide their use of such substances (Drugs and Athletes, 2014). Hence, forensic investigation must also find new ways of detecting such substances in blood samples.
Conclusion
The article shows a serious case of doping, breach of trust and responsibility in sporting by a chief team physician and a board member. After investigations, arbitrating panels must make decisions to prosecute offenders. Doping is a serious issue in sporting and requires interventions of various agencies, athletes and their support personnel. Decision-making and enforcing the law require adequate evidence, including eyewitness account, corroborating information and expert analysis. As athletes and their agents, however, struggle to conceal the use of performance-enhancing substances, forensic investigation of blood samples has gained recognition. It would be a critical tool for investigators in the future.
All agencies involved in anti-doping probes must also collaborate during investigation with the aim of reducing possession, trafficking and widespread use of drugs in sports. Therefore, investigations and prosecution of offenders might be effective by offering a more proactive reaction to identified and new cases of doping. Offenders should receive punishments that much their responsibilities and roles. Overall, aims of investigations and prosecution are to stop possession, trafficking and use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports among all involved stakeholders.
Learning statement
While this article does not refer to actions taken against athletes under the care of Leinders, it does however show that support staff can also be held accountable for their roles in violating rules of sports and face severe consequences. In addition, the article demonstrates that anti-doping agencies can collaborate widely during investigations to gather adequate evidence for decision-making. At the same time, one can observe that such investigations may last for several years but eventually deliver conclusive results.
References
Drugs and Athletes. (2014). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web.
Geert Leinders receives a lifetime ban for doping violations. (2015). The Bike Comes First. Web.
Marclay, F., Mangin, P., Margot, P., & Saugy, M. (2013). Perspectives for Forensic Intelligence in anti-doping: Thinking outside of the box. Forensic Science International, 229(1-3), 133–144.