From today's Washington Post. Recall that this is the same Sally Jenkin who
co-wrote with Armstrong and who when asked to comment on the deaths of 10+
cyclists from heart attacks in the past year said she was unaware of those
deaths.
Please direct all flames to WADA.
WADA Chairman States His Case
By Richard Pound
Monday, August 23, 2004; Page D13
ATHENS -- I write in response to Sally Jenkins's article of Aug. 13, titled
"The Difficulty of Watching Pound Throw his Weight Around."
I believe in the concept of a free press and the opportunity for diverse
opinion to be expressed on a wide variety of subjects. I do not believe that
concept provides a license for vicious and uninformed attacks on
individuals. I am disappointed that The Washington Post permitted an article
to be published with relentless disregard of the facts.
If I am able to discern a theme in Jenkins's article, amongst the
proliferation of prejudicial and intellectually lazy assertions, it seems to
amount to this:
1. There is a serious drug problem in sport today, including track and
field;
2. This problem affects U.S. track and field athletes;
3. One such athlete on whom the media have recently concentrated is Marion
Jones, who has not been charged with any doping offense;
4. I have commented on the Jones case, apparently in a manner that will
prejudice Jones's right to an impartial decision on the facts of her case;
and
5. I have unfairly pointed a finger at USA Track and Field for its lack of
leadership in the fight against drug use in its sport.
Jenkins and I can agree on the first three points. As to the fourth, I have
commented on the Jones case -- in response to media inquiries -- to say that
she has not been charged with any offense and is fully entitled to the
presumption that she is not guilty and eligible to participate in the
Olympic Games. I have also questioned the wisdom of the strategy adopted by
her entourage of accusing the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency of being a "kangaroo
court" when every piece of evidence points to the contrary.
I do not know, and Jenkins certainly does not know, whether Jones is
innocent. What I do know (and what Jenkins should know) is that should any
notification of a doping charge be raised against Jones, the matter will be
heard by independent arbitrators who, in reaching their decision, will rely
on the evidence before them, not on anything the media may have published or
by statements made anyone else. There is no denial of due process in any
respect. The decision to "go public" was made by the Jones entourage, not by
the anti-doping authorities. Jenkins's apparent belief is that it would be
better for any drug user to get away with the offense than for comments to
be aired in public.
Regarding USATF, Jenkins has, again, not got her facts right. I have been
critical of USATF for several reasons. It was USATF that accredited C.J.
Hunter at the Sydney Games, even though it knew he had tested positive four
times earlier in 2000. It was USATF that entered Jerome Young in the 4x400
relay, knowing of his positive test and the wholly unconvincing exoneration
of him, thereby tainting the whole relay team and exposing it to a loss of
the gold medal. It was USATF that fought for years to prevent disclosure of
Young's identity to the IAAF, in the face of clear rules requiring such
disclosure, on the flimsy pretext that U.S. law prevented such disclosure.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected any such notion.
Jenkins suggests that I should keep quiet because USADA has responsibility
for testing for drug violations. She omits to mention that USADA only
started its operations in October 2000, well after the events giving rise to
the situations I have identified. She also overlooks the evident
responsibility of USATF to show leadership in the fight against the use of
drugs in sport and blithely leaves all such responsibility in the hands of
after-the-fact testers, not the organization responsible for providing a
drug-free culture in its sport.
There are too many prejudicial accusations made by Jenkins to answer in the
space available. But one, in particular, deserves exposure, which was the
decision of WADA to locate the headquarters of the organization in Montreal.
Jenkins writes: "As far as I can tell, Pound has committed exactly one act
of any substance as the head of [the World Anti-Doping Agency]: He moved the
organization to Montreal, conveniently for him, and perhaps, his business
pals. Is that an unfair accusation? Well." The fact is that the WADA
Foundation Board, of which half the members are governments (including the
United States), decided, in an election in which I did not participate, to
move the headquarters to Montreal following a competitive bidding process.
Apart from its manifest incorrectness, it is a cheap journalistic ploy to
then pose the rhetorical question.
There is much more of a similar and equally odious nature. Jenkins's
personal prejudice has gotten in the way of her professional responsibility
and her editors failed to hold her to the standards of governance I should
have thought The Washington Post would embrace. A newspaper of record should
act like one, not like a tabloid. Make your journalists check their facts.
This hatchet job cannot be blandly dismissed as "fair comment" on someone
who occupies a voluntary position that may attract media attention. If the
journalist is reduced to name calling, it should be a sign that she has
overstepped. Which she has.
Richard Pound is chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
--
Peloton Pigs Can Fly!