The Sebastian Salas sanction: Weak explanations and murky language

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), which on Monday announced a two-year sanction against cyclist Sebastian Salas, released a few more details regarding the incident that led to the B.C. rider’s ban. In the anti-doping agency’s first statement, CCES cited “tampering with doping control” at the Gastown Grand Prix in July 2013 as the reason for the sanction.  CCES didn’t state exactly what it meant by tampering.

In an appearance for CTV B.C. News, Salas explained that it was a medical emergency experienced by his pregnant wife that took him away from the event’s doping control process. He said he didn’t cheat and he didn’t tamper with anything. When the interviewer ask the cyclist how he could explain the allegation, Salas merely said, “It’s very complicated.”

While Salas’ statement may have appeared like a weak explanation, he may be right. The infraction of tampering has more to it than what it connotes. Even Cycling Canada Cyclisme’s president John Tolkamp seemed to have a particular tampering in mind when he spoke to CTV.

“Something was wrong. It just couldn’t be tested, which confirms that it had been tampered with,” said Tolkamp in the same CTV report. While Tolkamp’s comment isn’t given the proper context, it seems he’s speaking about a physical sample.

“Is it possible that could have been done by accident?” the interview asked.

“Very, very unlikely. And [Salas has] admitted to it,” responded Tolkamp.

In the CCES’s latest statement, the organization explains that tampering is more than just disturbing or interfering with a sample. “[A] tampering violation can result when an athlete subverts any part of the doping control process,” the statement reads. “Tampering is not restricted to the manipulation of an athlete’s sample.”

CCES says the Canadian Anti-Doping Program has “provisions to accommodate exceptional circumstances should they occur during the doping control process.” The implication is that Salas did have the means to leave for his wife’s medical emergency, but didn’t do so in the proper manner. The CCES statement alleges that Salas failed to give the proper notification before leaving the Gastown venue and wasn’t properly chaperoned after he was aware that he’d be tested. Salas’ explanations for his absence didn’t satisfy CCES.

A hearing was scheduled for earlier this month as Salas wanted to bring his case to arbitration. However, the CESS statement says that four days before the hearing, the cyclist admitted to tampering and accepted the sanction.

Following the CCES release, CCC sent out a statement providing some context for Tolkamp’s remarks as the organization regretted any misunderstanding the president’s words may have caused. “[Tolkamp’s] comments were based on arguments contained in the submissions prepared for the hearing.  None of these arguments were proven before the arbitrator.”

If the CCC was working from the old script, the organization now has the new one: “We now understand that CCES’s primary position would have relied on the athlete’s failure to report to doping control and not manipulation of the sample. Further particulars regarding the violation should be directed to the CCES.”

Now all that remains is Salas’ full explanation, in clear, plain language.