February 9, 2021 • 38 mins
On this Back Story the history of The Olympic Movements attempt to tackle drugs in sport, which led to the establishment of the World Anti Doping Authority, set up by Canadian Richard Pound.
Pound has just retired after decades of fighting the wide spread cheating in cycling, track and field, weight lifting, and in many other sports, not only at the Olympic level but across all sports and throughout nations around the world.
In conversation with Back Story's Dana Lewis, Pound talks about Russia's ban from the Olympics, cycling scandals, challenges with The U.S. threat to remove funding from WADA and he calls The U.S. potentially a rogue state.
Pound also is critical of the call to boycott China's winter Olympics saying it only penalizes other athletes from other countries.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I have let them down.
I have met my country down and Ihave let myself down.
Did you ever take bannedsubstances to enhance your
cycling performance?
Yes.
Yes or no.
Was one of those bannedsubstances EPO?
Yes.
Did you ever blood dope or useblood transfusions to enhance
(00:24):
your cycling performance?
Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Hi everyone.
And welcome to backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
The first one you heard wasAmerican track and field star
Marion Jones who won three goldmedals and two bronze medals at
the 2000 summer Olympics inSydney, Australia, but was later
stripped of her metals afteradmitting to steroid use.
(00:54):
And she lied to investigators.
So it was jailed for six months.
Some never admitted like seventime winner of the tour de
France.
Lance Armstrong.
He denied doping for years wasfinally cornered with undeniable
evidence in came clean, but notbefore he attacked the world.
Anti-doping authority, chiefRichard pound saying lbs
(01:15):
allegations of doping in cyclingand against him was just the
latest in a long history ofethical transgressions and
violations of athletes rights byMr palette.
But Armstrong was proven to be acheater and lbs.
Integrity is an officialdetermined to root out.
Cheating grew in stature.
(01:36):
Now I covered five Olympics,four different news
organizations, and along withthe glory of victory and the
flag waving and gold medals,where the scandals that every
games in the scandals in betweenthe games as athletes were spot
checked and found to be cheatingwith performance enhancing drugs
and always in the background,driving the movement to clean up
(02:00):
sport was Canadian.
Richard pound on this backstory,we hear from the man who first
drove the drug cleanup effort inthe international Olympic
committee, and then formed andguided the world.
Anti-doping authority thatgoverned sports around the world
to make cheaters pay.
And most importantly, mostimportantly, protect the
(02:23):
athletes who want to competeclean.
Richard pound has just retired.
All right, Richard WilliamDunkin pound is a Canadian
swimming champion, a lawyer, aprominent spokesman for ethics
in sport.
And he was the first presidentof the world anti-doping
(02:44):
authority and vice-president ofthe IOC, the international
Olympic committee.
And he joins us from Montreal.
Hi Richard.
All right, today, I'm good.
I'm very, I'm very happy to seeyou.
I haven't seen you in person, Ithink since 2008 and the Beijing
Olympics, but we've
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Talked since then on some of the scandals in sport,
there've been many
Speaker 4 (03:04):
I'm afraid.
So in 2005,
Speaker 3 (03:07):
I didn't realize that time magazine named you.
One of the world's 100 mostinfluential people and they
wrote pound.
It's an appropriate surname forthe head of the world
anti-doping agency.
Then again.
So it would be harass, rebuke,schooled, and generally makes a
pain in the of himself.
Although the latter would lookawkward on a business card.
(03:28):
What was that flattery?
Were you happy to get that?
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Oh, well, you know, time magazine has its style.
Why
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Do people cheat?
That's the first question I wantto ask
Speaker 4 (03:37):
You.
They want to win and they don'treally care how they win.
And they don't realize that whenthey cheat, they don't really
win.
But, uh, anyway, it's, uh, itseems to be a feature of the
human psyche.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
I mean, you were a great sports and are a great
sports enthusiast.
You were a competitor.
And then suddenly you foundyourself being channeled towards
policing doping in sport.
Is that a turn you want it totake?
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Well, it's certainly one that I never anticipated.
And, and when it, when ithappened, uh, I remember as the
world anti-doping agency wasbeing created, uh, the IOC
president of the day said, uh,Leeson, Deek, uh, you must be
the president of this.
And I said, but wait, I don'tknow anything about doping.
(04:27):
I I'm, you know, I've spent allmy time in the IOC doing
television negotiations and themarketing program.
And I said, beside, for whichI'm half dead from the salt Lake
city investigation.
And he said he was unmoved.
So I finally said, all right,well, how about if the dealers,
when it's up and running in ayear or so?
(04:48):
I can get a yes, yes, yes.
What year was that?
They lie.
It took me nine years to get it.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
So that was one Antonio Samaranch right, right.
I mean, you were for, I mean,it's worth mentioning that you
were the first guy to negotiatetelevision rights with the, the
IOC and the, and the networks,which you became billions and
billions of dollars.
Uh, you probably had no ideawhat you were getting into then,
but you certainly had no ideawhat you're getting into when it
(05:15):
came to doping in sport.
And why did you do that?
I mean, why did you pursue andcontinue on, because there must
have been many moments wherepeople came to you and said,
you're selling the name of thisathlete, your dragging down
track and field or cycling orwhatever the sport scandal of
(05:37):
the day was.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
I guess, to some degree, it probably goes back to
being a competitor.
And I mean, as a competitor, Inever liked to lose.
Sometimes you, you, you make, Iwas a sprinter.
So if you make any kind ofmistake, you're toast, uh, you
got to get everything right.
And, um, sometimes, you know,and prepared well enough and
whatever it may be, you couldlive with that.
(06:01):
Didn't like it that you try tolearn from, from losing, but I
never liked being cheated.
And I don't, I don't think thatthat's a, an additional risk
that that athletes should haveto take.
So one of, one of the deals insport is, is you don't take
certain substances.
Uh, you don't use certaintechniques.
That's part of the rules.
And, and if you cheat thatthat's not good.
(06:23):
So I was always, I think thecalculus seemed to me fairly
easy either you follow the rulesor you didn't.
And if you didn't, I mean, thereare all kinds of
rationalizations, you know, Oh,I'm just trying to level the
playing field because there areother people that are cheating
and so forth and say, no, no,you're not.
(06:43):
You're actually, you're actuallytrying to win.
And if you find out that I'mtaking five milligrams of
whatever, this prohibitedsubstances, you don't take five.
You don't want to tie with me,you're going to take 10 because
you want to win.
And I find that you're taking10.
So I take 20 and this sort ofescalates to the point where the
(07:03):
dosages become toxic or, oreither lethal.
So there's a health issue in it.
And then there's the, theethical issue, which is that you
promised to follow the rulesthat we all agreed on, and you
just made a unilateral decision,um, to breach them that that's
not right.
And you should, there should beconsequences to that.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
How much blame do you put on the people around them,
the coaches, the people who arepromoting sport for money?
Speaker 4 (07:33):
I think a lot that, you know, far more than half
the, the blame goes there.
I mean, some of the athletesthat aren't even of full age
when they're, when they're puton these programs, I mean, if
you remember that the EastGerman programs back in the
sixties and seventies, it wasthe things they were doing to
these young athletes,particularly female athletes,
(07:55):
because the steroids were muchmore effective on them than they
were on the men.
It would make your, if you werean ethicist, it would make your
hair stand on end.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
And that's the era you grew up in because when you
were competing, uh, the EastGermans, that program, and then
the Soviet program was finallyat its height, uh, without
talking about Sochi yet.
Speaker 4 (08:15):
Well, it actually, when I was in the Olympics in
1960, there were no rules, nosport rules.
There may have been, you know,general principles of law with
respect to certain drugs, but Imean, not anabolic steroids or
things like that.
Uh, so, you know, in, in Rome weknew that the weightlifters had
(08:36):
been doing this for years.
So we knew that, that it hadspread to the, the, the weight
of events in track and field,like ShotPut discus and so
forth, and everyone was veryopen about it.
And they said, what are youtaking?
And how much of this?
Oh, well, you know, is it, youknow, what does it just say,
look at me, I'm, I, my figureshave changed from sort of just
(09:00):
sort of beefy guys to athleteswho are re cut and say, look at
me.
I met my body shape has changed.
I'm covered with acne.
And I'm dealing with terminalrage all the time.
And my testicles are the size ofjelly beans, but can I ever
throw the shot much better thanI used to instead of 60 feet,
(09:20):
I'm throwing at 70,
Speaker 3 (09:22):
The cliche, those big Hungarian shot putters or a
weightlifter.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Yeah.
Not just Hungarian, but therewere a lot of them.
And, and, and so, uh, whathappened and the startup we're
getting to where we are todayis, is during the cycling road
race in Rome, those same games,uh, Danny cyclist died in part
because of taking a whole bunchof that amines and the, the old
(09:48):
guys on the IOC, they were armyguys in those days said, Oh, you
know, you're not supposed tocome to the Olympics and die
because the drugs supposed tocome and have fun.
So I formed a medical commissionwith a, uh, a doping and
biochemistry sub commission.
And, and the subcommittee wassent, figured out what the
(10:08):
athletes are taking.
And then, you know, which, whichthings in particular, uh, are
dangerous as well as performanceenhancing.
And then let's put together alist.
So they, they put together alist.
And, um, you know, in fairlyshort order, given an
international context and theIOC started testing at the
(10:29):
Olympics in 1968 in Grenache andhave tested it ever since.
And that was the only testingthat was really being done at
the time.
And the internationalfederations filled with their
own organizational testosterone.
Don't where w w during ourevents, we'll do the testing.
They didn't do any, but the IOCwas not allowed to test other
(10:52):
than during the Olympic games.
And it took years and years andyears for the IOC pushing and
pushing and pushing to getinternational federations to do
testing, which they didreluctantly.
Um, but only at the worldchampionships, you had this
system where, you know, forthree years and 11 months out of
(11:13):
every four years, the onlytesting really being done was by
the IOC at the games.
And it's fine, race, statedrugs.
You can, you can detect, but ifyou've been on a steroid program
and you you're smart enough toget off it, couple of months
before the Olympics, all themetabolites are out of your
system, but you've got thebenefit of a steroid program.
(11:33):
And so the next step was to getout of competition testing out
of competition,
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Testing at random testing during the year,
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Or even targeted, you know, the, the, the cyclist
who's coming 310, the Peletonwho cares, but what you, what
you were finding was that itwas, it was the best athletes
that were those at the highesttarget,
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Sorry to interrupt.
Then what, how did that morphthen from the IOC doing the
testing during the games, andthen out of, out of the games,
when people were training duringthe year world competition, how
did that morph that into theworld anti-doping authority,
which became very independent ofthe Olympic movement.
I mean, you're part of it interms of the testing,
administering the testing, butin terms of the water became
(12:17):
very independent and legallyindependent.
Correct.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Right.
And that was the whole, thewhole purpose of it, because
what gave rise to the immediatecause was the Festina scandal
during the tour de France in1998, while in France, there
were French laws aboutpossession of some of these
things on the French policefound athletes and officials on
the Festina team with industrialquantities of doping substances
(12:41):
and the equipment to administerit and so on.
And they were arrested, um, andput in jail.
And that was a suddenly, youknow, if it, if it doesn't
happen in Europe, in a veryEurocentric Olympic movement, it
doesn't really happen.
So that's why the Ben Johnsonthing, 10 years earlier in Seoul
, it will, I was on the edge ofthe world somewhere.
(13:03):
And it wasn't real because itwas a, you know, a, it wasn't a
European, it was in Korea,
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Ben Johnson, Canadian sprinter who tested positive at
the school
Speaker 4 (13:16):
And Ben Johnson.
Yeah.
Oh, no, no.
Sorry.
I was a little naive on that.
I thought, well, maybe themessage will get out to people
around the world that, you know,at the Olympic games, no matter
who you are, no matter whatextraordinary performance you've
put in, even if you're in thenumber one sport in the
Olympics, if you cheat, youyou'll, you'll be disqualified
(13:39):
as a deterrent.
I thought that was going towork.
So it wasn't to say until youget to Europe in a, in a sport
really popular in Europe and theblue ribbon event in that sport,
the tour de France, that all ofa sudden, some of these
presidents said, Ooh, if it canhappen to cycling and it's
number one event, it mighthappen to my sport.
So they started to think of itthat, and the IOC executive
(14:03):
board, I was on the executiveboard.
At that point, we had kind of anemergency meeting because
unfortunately our president madea, one of these things that come
back to bite you, he's sittingin his hotel room in Lozan
watching the arrests and stuffof the Festina officials, team
members.
And he sort of shook his head.
He says, you know, for me,that's not doping.
(14:24):
Doping is only if you can provethat it's dangerous to the
health of an athlete.
Wow.
Who was that?
This was sandwich.
That was summer.
And, and so, uh, w which is aperfectly defensible
philosophical position, if youlike, other than it was 180
degrees from what he'd beensaying as president of the IOC,
and he's forgotten that he's gota Spanish journalist in his
(14:47):
room, who's been given this rareopportunity to spend a day with
one Samaranch and see how heruns the world of sport.
And he can't believe for thesehearings.
He's taking notes.
There were no, no strictures onhim.
Then in the next day, the LPsare 11 Guardia headline, IOC,
IOC president, not serious aboutdoping, that sort of thing.
(15:09):
It was a media firestorm, whichled to an emergency meeting of
the IOC executive board.
So where we get to Lausanne.
And so he says, well, what arewe going to do?
And we're all looking at eachother saying, we, we were here
because what you did anyway, healready knew that.
So our conclusion was, look, youcan't depend on cycling or, or,
(15:31):
or any other sport to make sureits athletes are clean.
You can't depend on France orGermany or Canada to make sure
its athletes are clean.
And the IOC itself is too weakto control the Olympic movement.
So, uh, what, what do we needthat that's, that's the
diagnosis, the pregnant, we needan independent international
(15:55):
anti-doping organization that isnot controlled by any particular
stakeholder.
And I said, well, you know, as,as it happens, we have kind of a
model that could be adapted, uh,for such an organization, which
is the court of arbitration forsport, which the IOC had
created.
I think back in 1984, and it wasmade up of equal representation
(16:19):
from IOC international sports,federations, national Olympic
committees, and Olympic athletessaid, no, that's not going to be
enough here because we need theworld of doping is a little more
specialized.
But if we added two blocks tothat one being governments, and
they said, why governments?
Well, you know, in sport, weknow who the athletes are.
(16:40):
We know what they're likely tobe taking.
We know who the bad coaches andso on are, we don't want any
power to Andrew premises andsees evidence of, of doping.
We don't have the power tocompel somebody to give evidence
under oath.
Governments have those kind ofpowers.
Okay.
And then I said, we need a sixblock.
(17:03):
We need a major event organizer.
We need somebody with coachingexperience.
We need to get somebody from thepharma industry to be, to help
us with the, you know, thetechnical stuff.
So that resonated.
And they said, all right, well,let's see if we can do
something.
And we have to have, uh, uh, weneed a world conference on
(17:24):
doping because we got to get allof these stakeholders to come
together and agree that anindependent anti-doping
organization is the thing to do.
And so we called for, uh, thefirst conference in, I think it
was late January of thefollowing year, 1999.
And we're proceeding towardsthis first world conference in.
(17:45):
And of course, then, then thedo-do hit the fan, the salt Lake
city kind of improper conduct ainvestigation, which was another
firestorm.
And I remember San Francisco,maybe we shouldn't have this
conference right now in themiddle of all this.
And I said, look, we'll, we'llget out of salt Lake somehow,
but doping is too important.
(18:05):
We've got it.
We've got to get hold of thisbecause there's a certain
momentum right now.
Okay.
So anyway, sure enough,
Speaker 3 (18:10):
They had, they had to be seen to be acting right.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
[inaudible] yeah.
Yeah.
Well, if you're going to assertyourself to be the leader of the
Olympic movement, you've got to,from time to time, you got to
lead, not just follow up.
And so sure enough, if you had15 minutes to speak at this
conference, the first five werespent telling the IOC what a
dreadful organization it was andhow the sooner it would vanish
(18:36):
from the face of the earth, thebetter everything would be.
But then they got down tofocusing on this and, and, uh,
from out of this conference camea resolution that we establish
what has now become what, and,um, and that's when, you know,
Samaranch, you, you must be thepresident of this.
And we get to the firstconference, uh, which I'm
(18:58):
sharing.
Cause I'm now the president ofwater.
We get this, this consensus, uh,with some difficulty because the
governments through a completecollective tantrum and they
said, you know, we're going to,this is outrageous.
We're going to leave.
We're, we're leaving theconference.
If we don't have more than 50%of the control in the hands of
(19:19):
governments, we're out of here.
And I said, hold on, let's havea coffee break.
I went to Sam ranch said, uh,they don't like my, my Mo my
organic gram, um, told you weshould never have had this
conference.
I said, no, actually their ideais better than mine.
He said, what do you mean?
(19:39):
He said, well, listen, if theyhave 50%, because they're not
going to get more than 50%, givethem 50% control.
They're actually going to haveto do something, not just sit on
the side and carpet, the sportsmovement.
And secondly, if they have 50%of the control, they can well
pay 50% of the costs go back andtalk to them.
So I'm looking back to thisroom, seizing with 35 or 40
(20:03):
sports ministers.
I say, you don't like my model.
No, you hate it.
You really insist on 50%.
Yes.
I said, you've got it.
You got it.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
You own it.
You own it now.
And you're in the soup with us.
Right?
Speaker 4 (20:14):
You got it.
And I said, no, it's a muchbetter idea.
I said, there are only, only twothings.
This is a serious problem.
We don't have the luxury of youguys proceeding at your normal
glacial pace to get anythingdone.
We've got to be in the fieldJanuary 1st of 2000 to start
testing before then go to theSydney games.
(20:36):
Okay.
And I must say to give creditwhere credit is due, they got it
done by November.
I said, the second thing is, ifyou got 50% of the control,
you've got to absorb 50 of thecosts.
Oh, well, you've never seen suchhand-wringing your life, all
these governments arguing, buttheir share of what would have
been$4 million.
(20:57):
We are our governments, but theother one, 150 governments at
the time.
And I said, come on.
And they said, well, why?
And I said, I'll tell you what,we'll pay them.
We, the ISA will pay the firsttwo years, but you buy the start
a year three, you've got, you'vegot to find a way to pay your
(21:18):
share.
And again, I must say, givecredit where credit is due by
2000, 2001, they had acontinental formula.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
This is really clear for people to understand.
I mean, the court of arbitrationof sport became the judge and
the jury and WADA, the worldanti-doping authority was really
the prosecutor, the organizationthat went and investigated and
collected forensic sampling andpresented it to the court.
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Partly this is pretty primitive at this stage.
So again, I'll give you anexample.
We got this setup and where westart early 2000 to do other
competition testing only on thesummer sports.
Cause we were focusing on, onSydney and we found that an
overwhelming percentage of theinternational sports federations
(22:08):
did not even have rules thatallowed them to test their
athletes out of a competition, abombshell for me.
And I suddenly, I was verynaive.
I thought they, all the thingsthey were saying were true, you
know, that they believe in, inclean sport and all that sort of
stuff done.
They just total lip service.
So we spent the first number ofmonths helping them put in place
(22:31):
rules that allowed them to dothe out of competition testing.
That that's, that was the stateof, of things.
According to arbitration forsport cast was never part of
water.
It simply was the, the recoursethat was available.
If somebody did not think he orshe should have been handed
(22:52):
consequences for doping and you,so you could file an appeal.
And that was decided on, onlegal grounds.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
So now there's a controversy with funding, right?
Because the United States, as Iunderstand it has, they've been
harsh critics of WADA.
And what has been harsh criticof the Americans arguing that
what they should not sign up tofunding water anymore, or where,
what is the main crux of theargument?
Speaker 4 (23:20):
The main crux is, is, um, the United States suddenly
deciding that that all of theproblems in the world are waters
, not their own.
And, um, part of the foreignpolicy on the previous
administration was, you know, itwas okay to do an indoor hammer
throw whenever you didn't likewhat was going on.
And so one of the things theysaid, well, we're not going to
(23:43):
pay our agreed upon share of thewater costs.
And we submit to you, you can'tdo that.
They said, yes, we can.
And if you criticize it, we willregard that as a direct attack
on the United States of America,it doesn't really follow because
you've just made an unprovokedattack on water by refusing to
pay your share of, uh, of, uh,the money you promise to pay.
(24:06):
This was something you agreed toas,
Speaker 3 (24:08):
What is the point of control Dick?
Like what do they want tocontrol?
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Uh, it's not really clear what they want.
That's part of the problem.
They just say what it needs tobe reformed.
Okay.
How do you want it to reform?
Well, you've got to havedifferent governance.
Okay.
Um, what are your suggestions?
They don't have any, you gottahave more athletes on what we've
already got athletes on water.
(24:32):
They have the samerepresentation that the 50 or 60
international sports federationshave, and that the now 206
national Olympic committees have, uh, it would not be fair to
have any more.
So you already left,
Speaker 3 (24:46):
You were quoted as saying, we'll have to wait and
see, but at some point, if the US becomes a rogue state, I think
we will start looking at whetherthe games in Los Angeles should
proceed.
Um, if they are not performingtheir obligations under the
convention.
And they're trying todestabilize not only the
structure, but funding of water,that's not acceptable behavior.
And maybe the IOC, as Iunderstand, you went on to see
(25:10):
maybe the ILC system America,they can't compete.
They become a rogue.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Part of the deal in, in, in, in sort of within the
Olympic movement is, is you haveto be compliant with the world
anti-doping code.
One of the measures you wouldhave to attract attention would
be to make failure, to pay yourshare of the agreed upon costs,
the equivalent of an anti-dopingrule violation.
(25:38):
And if you have an anti-dopingrule violation, you're no longer
eligible to participate ininternational sport, not just,
not just the Olympic games.
So that, they're the way that,you know, the Russia will be
unable to participate as Russiafor the next couple of years.
So that's one of the things youcan do.
What I hope is that this, thisrogue state mentality fades into
(26:00):
the background, which is where,you know, part of the deal was
that it was like a Unitednations in one country.
One vote us says, no, no, no,we're paying we're paying far
more than, than 80 years.
So we should have more votes,but that's, that's not the deal.
Well, that's, uh, that's thecondition.
We have this NATO to tell youthe truth.
(26:23):
Well, it, it, uh, it does.
It's been, uh, it's beenfestering for a while.
We think a lot of it emanatesfrom the United States and he'd
opened agency Russia.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Yeah.
I mean, people don't realizethat in 2014, Russia ran a state
sponsored doping operation whereessentially they were preparing
cocktails, giving them tosmuggling urine out of back door
of the facility where theseurine samples were supposed to
be held secure.
So there you have a state thatis supposed to be helping water,
(26:58):
make sure its athletes areclean.
Um, and they're just completelyupending the entire, the entire
regime of anti-doping.
I mean, and, and it goes on,right?
I mean, they are still bannedbecause even after there were
whistleblowers, after therevelations were made as to what
they were doing with the FSB,the security services that were
(27:22):
helping them, they were thensupposed to come clean on
sampling.
And then they didn't do thateither.
So they are perpetually banned,
Speaker 4 (27:30):
Well, not perpetually, but, but certainly
they're there as a nationalanti-doping organization is
their, their lab has beensuspended.
It's an evolving story here, but, uh, and until 2015, all our
stakeholders internationalfederations, the IOC, everybody,
they did not give water thepower to conduct investigations.
(27:53):
We could rely on otherinvestigations.
We couldn't conduct our own.
Think about that.
There are a lot of folks didn'twant an independent
international anti-doping agencylooking over their shoulder in,
in many sports were very cozyarrangements regarding dumping.
So the first one regardingRussia came, uh, uh, about, as a
(28:16):
result of the, the step on offs,expos a on German television, it
at the end of 2014.
So the
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Fled to the United States later on, and, and w one
of them was a coach and one ofthem was, uh, an athlete and
they, they laid out exactly whatwas going on in Sochi.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
Right.
I remember, I mean, they hadtried to give, give water some
of this information, but wecouldn't do anything with it
because we weren't allowed toinvestigate.
So I chaired the firstinvestigation was limited to
Russia only, and to athletics,track and field only.
So we reported on that at theend of, uh, 2015 saying the
(28:56):
system, as it affected track andfield was totally corrupt, but
there were two, the two looseends that we didn't have, and
they weren't really necessaryfor our report on it.
One was the FSB, FSB is presentregularly in the Moscow
laboratory.
(29:17):
And we said, well, what is theRussian state interest in stale,
urine provided by athletes?
That was a kind of a, does notcompete.
The other was reports ofathletes coming with Brown paper
bags with, with containers ofurine in and depositing them
various sports, say, what's thatall about?
(29:37):
Is this, is this kind of secrettesting to see what their
clearance times might be on asteroid program or what they
didn't didn't know, but we madethe observations, the
subsequent, okay.
Uh, investigation by RichardMcLaren put those ends together.
The FSB was there because theywere involved in the
substitution of samples given byRussians, in competition,
(30:00):
pouring that stuff out,replacing it with clean urine,
the paper bag stuff, which hadbeen frozen and kept for just
this kind of an occasion wherethe Russian athlete was tested
in competition and would havebeen bounced except for the
switching of the urine.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
So they, they cannot participate in Tokyo.
Um, so years decades, after youstarted all of this, isn't it a
bit dark to you?
That probably what was a fewathletes cheating or a few
hundred, or maybe a few thousandthroughout the whole Olympic
movement with their individualcoaches became almost like where
(30:41):
you began back in East Germany,not you began, but where all of
this controversy began with thepharma labs in East Germany,
state sponsored.
I mean, it seems like we haven'tgone forward.
We've kind of gone where,
Speaker 4 (30:54):
Well, w one of the things we've done is we've,
we've turned over the rocks andthat people have at least a
better idea of this stuff isgoing on and that it's not here.
And there, you know, in cycling,they used to say, elephant is
clean.
And then despite themselves,they found pause, Oh, well, uh,
that was an outlier, uh, thatperson's gone now, the pelotons
(31:17):
clean.
And, you know, it just wentcase-by-case like that.
So, but there's no, it it's,it's certainly double digits in
terms of, uh, a percentage andwe're, we're getting better at
it.
And, and we've got, uh, youknow, you got out of competition
tests, you've got, uh, you canfind very small quantities, so
(31:38):
you can get athletes that arecoming off a program.
And there's very little tracesleft of the stuff they've been
taking, but now we can, we canfind, we keep Olympic samples
for 10 years now.
And so as, as, as the knowledgeof science and the knowledge of
what's been being used expandsbecause of
Speaker 3 (32:00):
No, it's a cat and mouse game where they use
masking agents and differentthings, and they figure you're
testing.
We'll never find this, but ifyou hold it for 10 years, that's
a long way.
And then you go back and stripmetals from methods.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Absolutely.
And that's in a sense that, youknow, if you think about it,
that's probably a moredevastating outcome for
athletes.
And then being caught on thecompetition day in Santa, they
got me, it's a fair cop and I'mout of here, but you know, 10
years later you've finishedyour, your career.
You've got a family, you've gota job, you have a reputation in
(32:33):
your country, and you're exposedas that being all false.
It's, you know, you support
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Calls for, do you export calls for tougher
punishments, like jail time forathletes and S you know, some of
the American debate is thatthey, they just don't suppress
doping, but they rid sport of itwith, you know, very tough
measures, including jailing.
I mean, Marion Jones went, thesprinter went to jail, but not
very many people go to jail.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Well, she went to jail, not for doping.
She went to jail for lying andlying to the FBI.
And I, you know, basically Iphilosophically, if you cheat, I
don't want to play with you.
I just, you know, go away, butto go to jail, no, if you're
part of the organization of it,then you're supplying steroids
(33:21):
and you're, you're submergingsport, generally as a, as an
official, that's a differentthing.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
If you were just a very quickly bullet point, tell
me which sports you think you'vereally brought under control and
made progress in.
And what are the ones that aregoing to be the tough ones in
the future?
What would they be?
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Well, certainly weightlifting has proven to be
very tough and, you know, druguse is, is endemic, uh, track
and field has got a big problem.
Still.
I don't think site cycling hassolved its problem, uh, swimming
as an increasing problem.
It's, it's, it's, there's,there's no sport where there's,
you are without risk
Speaker 3 (34:00):
China.
You know, there are calls forboycott in their upcoming games.
Sorry, what year is it?
It's a 20, 22.
Is the winter.
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Mean basically, basically less than a year from
now.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Yeah.
Yeah, because of Tokyo waspushed back year.
Tokyo looks like it may goforward.
We'll have to wait and see whatthis pandemic, but on China, I
remember reading and we sort ofend where we began as I, when I
read your book, uh, right beforeI did an interview with you in
Beijing, um, you, you were not abig fan of the boycotts that
(34:32):
took place, uh, with the Sovietunion.
And then the Soviets thenboycott at four years later in
salt Lake city and Los Angeles,Los Angeles.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
No, I, I don't think, uh, I don't, first of all, I
don't think they're effective.
Secondly, if you, if you fastforward to Beijing, it's, it's
being, it's a little bit likeyour government saying, we're so
mad at you, China forsuppressing the human rights and
(35:02):
civil rights of, of some groupsof your citizens, that you know
what we're going to do to showyou how annoyed we are.
We're going to take away all therights of our own athletes and
put them metaphorically in jailat home to show you what
dreadful people you are.
Do you really think that's goingto bring about conduct change in
, in China?
No, of course it's not.
(35:24):
And we have a, a view, however,aspirational, it may be that the
sport can help create a betterworld.
You can, with the Olympic games,you can show that it is
possible.
Even if it's only a two week orone month bubble for 206
countries to live together, playtogether, work together, have
(35:45):
common goals, you know, free ofdiscrimination, all that sort of
stuff.
It is possible.
And that's, I I've alwaysthought that's one of the
reasons why to go back to dopingdoping case at the Olympics is,
is regardless, is so serious.
Cause it, it destroys thataspirational goal.
(36:08):
Now people are in professionalsports, nobody cares.
These people are regarded asgladiators and what they do to
get ready for their, theirsport.
Then it's up to them.
This is it's entertainmentsolely, but this, this
aspirational international sideof things is, is I think some
good can come from it and it'snot going to be, there's no
(36:29):
silver bullet and it's not goingto be, uh, you know, a sudden
gestalt, but bit by bit goingpersisting with that view and
insisting on, you know, dopingcontrols and all of them, things
that go with it, it, it can dosomething
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Great to talk to you.
And, uh, I've always been a bigfan of yours.
I think you you've been a, agreat lightning rod for rod, for
ethics and morality and sport,and you've never pulled any
punches.
And, you know, you're known forbeing forthright and, uh, and
shooting straight from the hipand great for, you know, good
for you.
This is great to talk
Speaker 4 (37:04):
To you.
Thanks very much.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
And that's our backstory on Richard pound and
water.
The world anti-doping authority.
This struggle to clean up sportsas you already know is endless,
but I guess it's like streetcrime.
You catch the bad guys and galsmake them pay, but there's
always another waiting in theshadows, ready to do anything to
steal.
(37:31):
In this case, it's a stolenvictory from another athlete who
should have meddled and wassqueezed out by a cheater.
If you like backstory sheriff,and I've now started a
newsletter on what is news andwhat I think is worth reading
because a lot of people areconfused as to what news sources
to tap into today.
(37:53):
That newsletter is on Dana Lewisdot sub stack.com.
And please sign up to thispodcast if you haven't already.
And thanks for listening, I'lltalk to you again.
I have let them down.
I have met my country down and Ihave let myself down.
Did you ever take bannedsubstances to enhance your
cycling performance?
Yes.
Yes or no.
Was one of those bannedsubstances EPO?
Yes.
Did you ever blood dope or useblood transfusions to enhance
(00:24):
your cycling performance?
Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Hi everyone.
And welcome to backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
The first one you heard wasAmerican track and field star
Marion Jones who won three goldmedals and two bronze medals at
the 2000 summer Olympics inSydney, Australia, but was later
stripped of her metals afteradmitting to steroid use.
(00:54):
And she lied to investigators.
So it was jailed for six months.
Some never admitted like seventime winner of the tour de
France.
Lance Armstrong.
He denied doping for years wasfinally cornered with undeniable
evidence in came clean, but notbefore he attacked the world.
Anti-doping authority, chiefRichard pound saying lbs
(01:15):
allegations of doping in cyclingand against him was just the
latest in a long history ofethical transgressions and
violations of athletes rights byMr palette.
But Armstrong was proven to be acheater and lbs.
Integrity is an officialdetermined to root out.
Cheating grew in stature.
(01:36):
Now I covered five Olympics,four different news
organizations, and along withthe glory of victory and the
flag waving and gold medals,where the scandals that every
games in the scandals in betweenthe games as athletes were spot
checked and found to be cheatingwith performance enhancing drugs
and always in the background,driving the movement to clean up
(02:00):
sport was Canadian.
Richard pound on this backstory,we hear from the man who first
drove the drug cleanup effort inthe international Olympic
committee, and then formed andguided the world.
Anti-doping authority thatgoverned sports around the world
to make cheaters pay.
And most importantly, mostimportantly, protect the
(02:23):
athletes who want to competeclean.
Richard pound has just retired.
All right, Richard WilliamDunkin pound is a Canadian
swimming champion, a lawyer, aprominent spokesman for ethics
in sport.
And he was the first presidentof the world anti-doping
(02:44):
authority and vice-president ofthe IOC, the international
Olympic committee.
And he joins us from Montreal.
Hi Richard.
All right, today, I'm good.
I'm very, I'm very happy to seeyou.
I haven't seen you in person, Ithink since 2008 and the Beijing
Olympics, but we've
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Talked since then on some of the scandals in sport,
there've been many
Speaker 4 (03:04):
I'm afraid.
So in 2005,
Speaker 3 (03:07):
I didn't realize that time magazine named you.
One of the world's 100 mostinfluential people and they
wrote pound.
It's an appropriate surname forthe head of the world
anti-doping agency.
Then again.
So it would be harass, rebuke,schooled, and generally makes a
pain in the of himself.
Although the latter would lookawkward on a business card.
(03:28):
What was that flattery?
Were you happy to get that?
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Oh, well, you know, time magazine has its style.
Why
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Do people cheat?
That's the first question I wantto ask
Speaker 4 (03:37):
You.
They want to win and they don'treally care how they win.
And they don't realize that whenthey cheat, they don't really
win.
But, uh, anyway, it's, uh, itseems to be a feature of the
human psyche.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
I mean, you were a great sports and are a great
sports enthusiast.
You were a competitor.
And then suddenly you foundyourself being channeled towards
policing doping in sport.
Is that a turn you want it totake?
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Well, it's certainly one that I never anticipated.
And, and when it, when ithappened, uh, I remember as the
world anti-doping agency wasbeing created, uh, the IOC
president of the day said, uh,Leeson, Deek, uh, you must be
the president of this.
And I said, but wait, I don'tknow anything about doping.
(04:27):
I I'm, you know, I've spent allmy time in the IOC doing
television negotiations and themarketing program.
And I said, beside, for whichI'm half dead from the salt Lake
city investigation.
And he said he was unmoved.
So I finally said, all right,well, how about if the dealers,
when it's up and running in ayear or so?
(04:48):
I can get a yes, yes, yes.
What year was that?
They lie.
It took me nine years to get it.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
So that was one Antonio Samaranch right, right.
I mean, you were for, I mean,it's worth mentioning that you
were the first guy to negotiatetelevision rights with the, the
IOC and the, and the networks,which you became billions and
billions of dollars.
Uh, you probably had no ideawhat you were getting into then,
but you certainly had no ideawhat you're getting into when it
(05:15):
came to doping in sport.
And why did you do that?
I mean, why did you pursue andcontinue on, because there must
have been many moments wherepeople came to you and said,
you're selling the name of thisathlete, your dragging down
track and field or cycling orwhatever the sport scandal of
(05:37):
the day was.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
I guess, to some degree, it probably goes back to
being a competitor.
And I mean, as a competitor, Inever liked to lose.
Sometimes you, you, you make, Iwas a sprinter.
So if you make any kind ofmistake, you're toast, uh, you
got to get everything right.
And, um, sometimes, you know,and prepared well enough and
whatever it may be, you couldlive with that.
(06:01):
Didn't like it that you try tolearn from, from losing, but I
never liked being cheated.
And I don't, I don't think thatthat's a, an additional risk
that that athletes should haveto take.
So one of, one of the deals insport is, is you don't take
certain substances.
Uh, you don't use certaintechniques.
That's part of the rules.
And, and if you cheat thatthat's not good.
(06:23):
So I was always, I think thecalculus seemed to me fairly
easy either you follow the rulesor you didn't.
And if you didn't, I mean, thereare all kinds of
rationalizations, you know, Oh,I'm just trying to level the
playing field because there areother people that are cheating
and so forth and say, no, no,you're not.
(06:43):
You're actually, you're actuallytrying to win.
And if you find out that I'mtaking five milligrams of
whatever, this prohibitedsubstances, you don't take five.
You don't want to tie with me,you're going to take 10 because
you want to win.
And I find that you're taking10.
So I take 20 and this sort ofescalates to the point where the
(07:03):
dosages become toxic or, oreither lethal.
So there's a health issue in it.
And then there's the, theethical issue, which is that you
promised to follow the rulesthat we all agreed on, and you
just made a unilateral decision,um, to breach them that that's
not right.
And you should, there should beconsequences to that.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
How much blame do you put on the people around them,
the coaches, the people who arepromoting sport for money?
Speaker 4 (07:33):
I think a lot that, you know, far more than half
the, the blame goes there.
I mean, some of the athletesthat aren't even of full age
when they're, when they're puton these programs, I mean, if
you remember that the EastGerman programs back in the
sixties and seventies, it wasthe things they were doing to
these young athletes,particularly female athletes,
(07:55):
because the steroids were muchmore effective on them than they
were on the men.
It would make your, if you werean ethicist, it would make your
hair stand on end.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
And that's the era you grew up in because when you
were competing, uh, the EastGermans, that program, and then
the Soviet program was finallyat its height, uh, without
talking about Sochi yet.
Speaker 4 (08:15):
Well, it actually, when I was in the Olympics in
1960, there were no rules, nosport rules.
There may have been, you know,general principles of law with
respect to certain drugs, but Imean, not anabolic steroids or
things like that.
Uh, so, you know, in, in Rome weknew that the weightlifters had
(08:36):
been doing this for years.
So we knew that, that it hadspread to the, the, the weight
of events in track and field,like ShotPut discus and so
forth, and everyone was veryopen about it.
And they said, what are youtaking?
And how much of this?
Oh, well, you know, is it, youknow, what does it just say,
look at me, I'm, I, my figureshave changed from sort of just
(09:00):
sort of beefy guys to athleteswho are re cut and say, look at
me.
I met my body shape has changed.
I'm covered with acne.
And I'm dealing with terminalrage all the time.
And my testicles are the size ofjelly beans, but can I ever
throw the shot much better thanI used to instead of 60 feet,
(09:20):
I'm throwing at 70,
Speaker 3 (09:22):
The cliche, those big Hungarian shot putters or a
weightlifter.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Yeah.
Not just Hungarian, but therewere a lot of them.
And, and, and so, uh, whathappened and the startup we're
getting to where we are todayis, is during the cycling road
race in Rome, those same games,uh, Danny cyclist died in part
because of taking a whole bunchof that amines and the, the old
(09:48):
guys on the IOC, they were armyguys in those days said, Oh, you
know, you're not supposed tocome to the Olympics and die
because the drugs supposed tocome and have fun.
So I formed a medical commissionwith a, uh, a doping and
biochemistry sub commission.
And, and the subcommittee wassent, figured out what the
(10:08):
athletes are taking.
And then, you know, which, whichthings in particular, uh, are
dangerous as well as performanceenhancing.
And then let's put together alist.
So they, they put together alist.
And, um, you know, in fairlyshort order, given an
international context and theIOC started testing at the
(10:29):
Olympics in 1968 in Grenache andhave tested it ever since.
And that was the only testingthat was really being done at
the time.
And the internationalfederations filled with their
own organizational testosterone.
Don't where w w during ourevents, we'll do the testing.
They didn't do any, but the IOCwas not allowed to test other
(10:52):
than during the Olympic games.
And it took years and years andyears for the IOC pushing and
pushing and pushing to getinternational federations to do
testing, which they didreluctantly.
Um, but only at the worldchampionships, you had this
system where, you know, forthree years and 11 months out of
(11:13):
every four years, the onlytesting really being done was by
the IOC at the games.
And it's fine, race, statedrugs.
You can, you can detect, but ifyou've been on a steroid program
and you you're smart enough toget off it, couple of months
before the Olympics, all themetabolites are out of your
system, but you've got thebenefit of a steroid program.
(11:33):
And so the next step was to getout of competition testing out
of competition,
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Testing at random testing during the year,
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Or even targeted, you know, the, the, the cyclist
who's coming 310, the Peletonwho cares, but what you, what
you were finding was that itwas, it was the best athletes
that were those at the highesttarget,
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Sorry to interrupt.
Then what, how did that morphthen from the IOC doing the
testing during the games, andthen out of, out of the games,
when people were training duringthe year world competition, how
did that morph that into theworld anti-doping authority,
which became very independent ofthe Olympic movement.
I mean, you're part of it interms of the testing,
administering the testing, butin terms of the water became
(12:17):
very independent and legallyindependent.
Correct.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Right.
And that was the whole, thewhole purpose of it, because
what gave rise to the immediatecause was the Festina scandal
during the tour de France in1998, while in France, there
were French laws aboutpossession of some of these
things on the French policefound athletes and officials on
the Festina team with industrialquantities of doping substances
(12:41):
and the equipment to administerit and so on.
And they were arrested, um, andput in jail.
And that was a suddenly, youknow, if it, if it doesn't
happen in Europe, in a veryEurocentric Olympic movement, it
doesn't really happen.
So that's why the Ben Johnsonthing, 10 years earlier in Seoul
, it will, I was on the edge ofthe world somewhere.
(13:03):
And it wasn't real because itwas a, you know, a, it wasn't a
European, it was in Korea,
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Ben Johnson, Canadian sprinter who tested positive at
the school
Speaker 4 (13:16):
And Ben Johnson.
Yeah.
Oh, no, no.
Sorry.
I was a little naive on that.
I thought, well, maybe themessage will get out to people
around the world that, you know,at the Olympic games, no matter
who you are, no matter whatextraordinary performance you've
put in, even if you're in thenumber one sport in the
Olympics, if you cheat, youyou'll, you'll be disqualified
(13:39):
as a deterrent.
I thought that was going towork.
So it wasn't to say until youget to Europe in a, in a sport
really popular in Europe and theblue ribbon event in that sport,
the tour de France, that all ofa sudden, some of these
presidents said, Ooh, if it canhappen to cycling and it's
number one event, it mighthappen to my sport.
So they started to think of itthat, and the IOC executive
(14:03):
board, I was on the executiveboard.
At that point, we had kind of anemergency meeting because
unfortunately our president madea, one of these things that come
back to bite you, he's sittingin his hotel room in Lozan
watching the arrests and stuffof the Festina officials, team
members.
And he sort of shook his head.
He says, you know, for me,that's not doping.
(14:24):
Doping is only if you can provethat it's dangerous to the
health of an athlete.
Wow.
Who was that?
This was sandwich.
That was summer.
And, and so, uh, w which is aperfectly defensible
philosophical position, if youlike, other than it was 180
degrees from what he'd beensaying as president of the IOC,
and he's forgotten that he's gota Spanish journalist in his
(14:47):
room, who's been given this rareopportunity to spend a day with
one Samaranch and see how heruns the world of sport.
And he can't believe for thesehearings.
He's taking notes.
There were no, no strictures onhim.
Then in the next day, the LPsare 11 Guardia headline, IOC,
IOC president, not serious aboutdoping, that sort of thing.
(15:09):
It was a media firestorm, whichled to an emergency meeting of
the IOC executive board.
So where we get to Lausanne.
And so he says, well, what arewe going to do?
And we're all looking at eachother saying, we, we were here
because what you did anyway, healready knew that.
So our conclusion was, look, youcan't depend on cycling or, or,
(15:31):
or any other sport to make sureits athletes are clean.
You can't depend on France orGermany or Canada to make sure
its athletes are clean.
And the IOC itself is too weakto control the Olympic movement.
So, uh, what, what do we needthat that's, that's the
diagnosis, the pregnant, we needan independent international
(15:55):
anti-doping organization that isnot controlled by any particular
stakeholder.
And I said, well, you know, as,as it happens, we have kind of a
model that could be adapted, uh,for such an organization, which
is the court of arbitration forsport, which the IOC had
created.
I think back in 1984, and it wasmade up of equal representation
(16:19):
from IOC international sports,federations, national Olympic
committees, and Olympic athletessaid, no, that's not going to be
enough here because we need theworld of doping is a little more
specialized.
But if we added two blocks tothat one being governments, and
they said, why governments?
Well, you know, in sport, weknow who the athletes are.
(16:40):
We know what they're likely tobe taking.
We know who the bad coaches andso on are, we don't want any
power to Andrew premises andsees evidence of, of doping.
We don't have the power tocompel somebody to give evidence
under oath.
Governments have those kind ofpowers.
Okay.
And then I said, we need a sixblock.
(17:03):
We need a major event organizer.
We need somebody with coachingexperience.
We need to get somebody from thepharma industry to be, to help
us with the, you know, thetechnical stuff.
So that resonated.
And they said, all right, well,let's see if we can do
something.
And we have to have, uh, uh, weneed a world conference on
(17:24):
doping because we got to get allof these stakeholders to come
together and agree that anindependent anti-doping
organization is the thing to do.
And so we called for, uh, thefirst conference in, I think it
was late January of thefollowing year, 1999.
And we're proceeding towardsthis first world conference in.
(17:45):
And of course, then, then thedo-do hit the fan, the salt Lake
city kind of improper conduct ainvestigation, which was another
firestorm.
And I remember San Francisco,maybe we shouldn't have this
conference right now in themiddle of all this.
And I said, look, we'll, we'llget out of salt Lake somehow,
but doping is too important.
(18:05):
We've got it.
We've got to get hold of thisbecause there's a certain
momentum right now.
Okay.
So anyway, sure enough,
Speaker 3 (18:10):
They had, they had to be seen to be acting right.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
[inaudible] yeah.
Yeah.
Well, if you're going to assertyourself to be the leader of the
Olympic movement, you've got to,from time to time, you got to
lead, not just follow up.
And so sure enough, if you had15 minutes to speak at this
conference, the first five werespent telling the IOC what a
dreadful organization it was andhow the sooner it would vanish
(18:36):
from the face of the earth, thebetter everything would be.
But then they got down tofocusing on this and, and, uh,
from out of this conference camea resolution that we establish
what has now become what, and,um, and that's when, you know,
Samaranch, you, you must be thepresident of this.
And we get to the firstconference, uh, which I'm
(18:58):
sharing.
Cause I'm now the president ofwater.
We get this, this consensus, uh,with some difficulty because the
governments through a completecollective tantrum and they
said, you know, we're going to,this is outrageous.
We're going to leave.
We're, we're leaving theconference.
If we don't have more than 50%of the control in the hands of
(19:19):
governments, we're out of here.
And I said, hold on, let's havea coffee break.
I went to Sam ranch said, uh,they don't like my, my Mo my
organic gram, um, told you weshould never have had this
conference.
I said, no, actually their ideais better than mine.
He said, what do you mean?
(19:39):
He said, well, listen, if theyhave 50%, because they're not
going to get more than 50%, givethem 50% control.
They're actually going to haveto do something, not just sit on
the side and carpet, the sportsmovement.
And secondly, if they have 50%of the control, they can well
pay 50% of the costs go back andtalk to them.
So I'm looking back to thisroom, seizing with 35 or 40
(20:03):
sports ministers.
I say, you don't like my model.
No, you hate it.
You really insist on 50%.
Yes.
I said, you've got it.
You got it.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
You own it.
You own it now.
And you're in the soup with us.
Right?
Speaker 4 (20:14):
You got it.
And I said, no, it's a muchbetter idea.
I said, there are only, only twothings.
This is a serious problem.
We don't have the luxury of youguys proceeding at your normal
glacial pace to get anythingdone.
We've got to be in the fieldJanuary 1st of 2000 to start
testing before then go to theSydney games.
(20:36):
Okay.
And I must say to give creditwhere credit is due, they got it
done by November.
I said, the second thing is, ifyou got 50% of the control,
you've got to absorb 50 of thecosts.
Oh, well, you've never seen suchhand-wringing your life, all
these governments arguing, buttheir share of what would have
been$4 million.
(20:57):
We are our governments, but theother one, 150 governments at
the time.
And I said, come on.
And they said, well, why?
And I said, I'll tell you what,we'll pay them.
We, the ISA will pay the firsttwo years, but you buy the start
a year three, you've got, you'vegot to find a way to pay your
(21:18):
share.
And again, I must say, givecredit where credit is due by
2000, 2001, they had acontinental formula.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
This is really clear for people to understand.
I mean, the court of arbitrationof sport became the judge and
the jury and WADA, the worldanti-doping authority was really
the prosecutor, the organizationthat went and investigated and
collected forensic sampling andpresented it to the court.
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Partly this is pretty primitive at this stage.
So again, I'll give you anexample.
We got this setup and where westart early 2000 to do other
competition testing only on thesummer sports.
Cause we were focusing on, onSydney and we found that an
overwhelming percentage of theinternational sports federations
(22:08):
did not even have rules thatallowed them to test their
athletes out of a competition, abombshell for me.
And I suddenly, I was verynaive.
I thought they, all the thingsthey were saying were true, you
know, that they believe in, inclean sport and all that sort of
stuff done.
They just total lip service.
So we spent the first number ofmonths helping them put in place
(22:31):
rules that allowed them to dothe out of competition testing.
That that's, that was the stateof, of things.
According to arbitration forsport cast was never part of
water.
It simply was the, the recoursethat was available.
If somebody did not think he orshe should have been handed
(22:52):
consequences for doping and you,so you could file an appeal.
And that was decided on, onlegal grounds.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
So now there's a controversy with funding, right?
Because the United States, as Iunderstand it has, they've been
harsh critics of WADA.
And what has been harsh criticof the Americans arguing that
what they should not sign up tofunding water anymore, or where,
what is the main crux of theargument?
Speaker 4 (23:20):
The main crux is, is, um, the United States suddenly
deciding that that all of theproblems in the world are waters
, not their own.
And, um, part of the foreignpolicy on the previous
administration was, you know, itwas okay to do an indoor hammer
throw whenever you didn't likewhat was going on.
And so one of the things theysaid, well, we're not going to
(23:43):
pay our agreed upon share of thewater costs.
And we submit to you, you can'tdo that.
They said, yes, we can.
And if you criticize it, we willregard that as a direct attack
on the United States of America,it doesn't really follow because
you've just made an unprovokedattack on water by refusing to
pay your share of, uh, of, uh,the money you promise to pay.
(24:06):
This was something you agreed toas,
Speaker 3 (24:08):
What is the point of control Dick?
Like what do they want tocontrol?
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Uh, it's not really clear what they want.
That's part of the problem.
They just say what it needs tobe reformed.
Okay.
How do you want it to reform?
Well, you've got to havedifferent governance.
Okay.
Um, what are your suggestions?
They don't have any, you gottahave more athletes on what we've
already got athletes on water.
(24:32):
They have the samerepresentation that the 50 or 60
international sports federationshave, and that the now 206
national Olympic committees have, uh, it would not be fair to
have any more.
So you already left,
Speaker 3 (24:46):
You were quoted as saying, we'll have to wait and
see, but at some point, if the US becomes a rogue state, I think
we will start looking at whetherthe games in Los Angeles should
proceed.
Um, if they are not performingtheir obligations under the
convention.
And they're trying todestabilize not only the
structure, but funding of water,that's not acceptable behavior.
And maybe the IOC, as Iunderstand, you went on to see
(25:10):
maybe the ILC system America,they can't compete.
They become a rogue.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Part of the deal in, in, in, in sort of within the
Olympic movement is, is you haveto be compliant with the world
anti-doping code.
One of the measures you wouldhave to attract attention would
be to make failure, to pay yourshare of the agreed upon costs,
the equivalent of an anti-dopingrule violation.
(25:38):
And if you have an anti-dopingrule violation, you're no longer
eligible to participate ininternational sport, not just,
not just the Olympic games.
So that, they're the way that,you know, the Russia will be
unable to participate as Russiafor the next couple of years.
So that's one of the things youcan do.
What I hope is that this, thisrogue state mentality fades into
(26:00):
the background, which is where,you know, part of the deal was
that it was like a Unitednations in one country.
One vote us says, no, no, no,we're paying we're paying far
more than, than 80 years.
So we should have more votes,but that's, that's not the deal.
Well, that's, uh, that's thecondition.
We have this NATO to tell youthe truth.
(26:23):
Well, it, it, uh, it does.
It's been, uh, it's beenfestering for a while.
We think a lot of it emanatesfrom the United States and he'd
opened agency Russia.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Yeah.
I mean, people don't realizethat in 2014, Russia ran a state
sponsored doping operation whereessentially they were preparing
cocktails, giving them tosmuggling urine out of back door
of the facility where theseurine samples were supposed to
be held secure.
So there you have a state thatis supposed to be helping water,
(26:58):
make sure its athletes areclean.
Um, and they're just completelyupending the entire, the entire
regime of anti-doping.
I mean, and, and it goes on,right?
I mean, they are still bannedbecause even after there were
whistleblowers, after therevelations were made as to what
they were doing with the FSB,the security services that were
(27:22):
helping them, they were thensupposed to come clean on
sampling.
And then they didn't do thateither.
So they are perpetually banned,
Speaker 4 (27:30):
Well, not perpetually, but, but certainly
they're there as a nationalanti-doping organization is
their, their lab has beensuspended.
It's an evolving story here, but, uh, and until 2015, all our
stakeholders internationalfederations, the IOC, everybody,
they did not give water thepower to conduct investigations.
(27:53):
We could rely on otherinvestigations.
We couldn't conduct our own.
Think about that.
There are a lot of folks didn'twant an independent
international anti-doping agencylooking over their shoulder in,
in many sports were very cozyarrangements regarding dumping.
So the first one regardingRussia came, uh, uh, about, as a
(28:16):
result of the, the step on offs,expos a on German television, it
at the end of 2014.
So the
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Fled to the United States later on, and, and w one
of them was a coach and one ofthem was, uh, an athlete and
they, they laid out exactly whatwas going on in Sochi.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
Right.
I remember, I mean, they hadtried to give, give water some
of this information, but wecouldn't do anything with it
because we weren't allowed toinvestigate.
So I chaired the firstinvestigation was limited to
Russia only, and to athletics,track and field only.
So we reported on that at theend of, uh, 2015 saying the
(28:56):
system, as it affected track andfield was totally corrupt, but
there were two, the two looseends that we didn't have, and
they weren't really necessaryfor our report on it.
One was the FSB, FSB is presentregularly in the Moscow
laboratory.
(29:17):
And we said, well, what is theRussian state interest in stale,
urine provided by athletes?
That was a kind of a, does notcompete.
The other was reports ofathletes coming with Brown paper
bags with, with containers ofurine in and depositing them
various sports, say, what's thatall about?
(29:37):
Is this, is this kind of secrettesting to see what their
clearance times might be on asteroid program or what they
didn't didn't know, but we madethe observations, the
subsequent, okay.
Uh, investigation by RichardMcLaren put those ends together.
The FSB was there because theywere involved in the
substitution of samples given byRussians, in competition,
(30:00):
pouring that stuff out,replacing it with clean urine,
the paper bag stuff, which hadbeen frozen and kept for just
this kind of an occasion wherethe Russian athlete was tested
in competition and would havebeen bounced except for the
switching of the urine.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
So they, they cannot participate in Tokyo.
Um, so years decades, after youstarted all of this, isn't it a
bit dark to you?
That probably what was a fewathletes cheating or a few
hundred, or maybe a few thousandthroughout the whole Olympic
movement with their individualcoaches became almost like where
(30:41):
you began back in East Germany,not you began, but where all of
this controversy began with thepharma labs in East Germany,
state sponsored.
I mean, it seems like we haven'tgone forward.
We've kind of gone where,
Speaker 4 (30:54):
Well, w one of the things we've done is we've,
we've turned over the rocks andthat people have at least a
better idea of this stuff isgoing on and that it's not here.
And there, you know, in cycling,they used to say, elephant is
clean.
And then despite themselves,they found pause, Oh, well, uh,
that was an outlier, uh, thatperson's gone now, the pelotons
(31:17):
clean.
And, you know, it just wentcase-by-case like that.
So, but there's no, it it's,it's certainly double digits in
terms of, uh, a percentage andwe're, we're getting better at
it.
And, and we've got, uh, youknow, you got out of competition
tests, you've got, uh, you canfind very small quantities, so
(31:38):
you can get athletes that arecoming off a program.
And there's very little tracesleft of the stuff they've been
taking, but now we can, we canfind, we keep Olympic samples
for 10 years now.
And so as, as, as the knowledgeof science and the knowledge of
what's been being used expandsbecause of
Speaker 3 (32:00):
No, it's a cat and mouse game where they use
masking agents and differentthings, and they figure you're
testing.
We'll never find this, but ifyou hold it for 10 years, that's
a long way.
And then you go back and stripmetals from methods.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Absolutely.
And that's in a sense that, youknow, if you think about it,
that's probably a moredevastating outcome for
athletes.
And then being caught on thecompetition day in Santa, they
got me, it's a fair cop and I'mout of here, but you know, 10
years later you've finishedyour, your career.
You've got a family, you've gota job, you have a reputation in
(32:33):
your country, and you're exposedas that being all false.
It's, you know, you support
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Calls for, do you export calls for tougher
punishments, like jail time forathletes and S you know, some of
the American debate is thatthey, they just don't suppress
doping, but they rid sport of itwith, you know, very tough
measures, including jailing.
I mean, Marion Jones went, thesprinter went to jail, but not
very many people go to jail.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Well, she went to jail, not for doping.
She went to jail for lying andlying to the FBI.
And I, you know, basically Iphilosophically, if you cheat, I
don't want to play with you.
I just, you know, go away, butto go to jail, no, if you're
part of the organization of it,then you're supplying steroids
(33:21):
and you're, you're submergingsport, generally as a, as an
official, that's a differentthing.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
If you were just a very quickly bullet point, tell
me which sports you think you'vereally brought under control and
made progress in.
And what are the ones that aregoing to be the tough ones in
the future?
What would they be?
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Well, certainly weightlifting has proven to be
very tough and, you know, druguse is, is endemic, uh, track
and field has got a big problem.
Still.
I don't think site cycling hassolved its problem, uh, swimming
as an increasing problem.
It's, it's, it's, there's,there's no sport where there's,
you are without risk
Speaker 3 (34:00):
China.
You know, there are calls forboycott in their upcoming games.
Sorry, what year is it?
It's a 20, 22.
Is the winter.
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Mean basically, basically less than a year from
now.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Yeah.
Yeah, because of Tokyo waspushed back year.
Tokyo looks like it may goforward.
We'll have to wait and see whatthis pandemic, but on China, I
remember reading and we sort ofend where we began as I, when I
read your book, uh, right beforeI did an interview with you in
Beijing, um, you, you were not abig fan of the boycotts that
(34:32):
took place, uh, with the Sovietunion.
And then the Soviets thenboycott at four years later in
salt Lake city and Los Angeles,Los Angeles.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
No, I, I don't think, uh, I don't, first of all, I
don't think they're effective.
Secondly, if you, if you fastforward to Beijing, it's, it's
being, it's a little bit likeyour government saying, we're so
mad at you, China forsuppressing the human rights and
(35:02):
civil rights of, of some groupsof your citizens, that you know
what we're going to do to showyou how annoyed we are.
We're going to take away all therights of our own athletes and
put them metaphorically in jailat home to show you what
dreadful people you are.
Do you really think that's goingto bring about conduct change in
, in China?
No, of course it's not.
(35:24):
And we have a, a view, however,aspirational, it may be that the
sport can help create a betterworld.
You can, with the Olympic games,you can show that it is
possible.
Even if it's only a two week orone month bubble for 206
countries to live together, playtogether, work together, have
(35:45):
common goals, you know, free ofdiscrimination, all that sort of
stuff.
It is possible.
And that's, I I've alwaysthought that's one of the
reasons why to go back to dopingdoping case at the Olympics is,
is regardless, is so serious.
Cause it, it destroys thataspirational goal.
(36:08):
Now people are in professionalsports, nobody cares.
These people are regarded asgladiators and what they do to
get ready for their, theirsport.
Then it's up to them.
This is it's entertainmentsolely, but this, this
aspirational international sideof things is, is I think some
good can come from it and it'snot going to be, there's no
(36:29):
silver bullet and it's not goingto be, uh, you know, a sudden
gestalt, but bit by bit goingpersisting with that view and
insisting on, you know, dopingcontrols and all of them, things
that go with it, it, it can dosomething
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Great to talk to you.
And, uh, I've always been a bigfan of yours.
I think you you've been a, agreat lightning rod for rod, for
ethics and morality and sport,and you've never pulled any
punches.
And, you know, you're known forbeing forthright and, uh, and
shooting straight from the hipand great for, you know, good
for you.
This is great to talk
Speaker 4 (37:04):
To you.
Thanks very much.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
And that's our backstory on Richard pound and
water.
The world anti-doping authority.
This struggle to clean up sportsas you already know is endless,
but I guess it's like streetcrime.
You catch the bad guys and galsmake them pay, but there's
always another waiting in theshadows, ready to do anything to
steal.
(37:31):
In this case, it's a stolenvictory from another athlete who
should have meddled and wassqueezed out by a cheater.
If you like backstory sheriff,and I've now started a
newsletter on what is news andwhat I think is worth reading
because a lot of people areconfused as to what news sources
to tap into today.
(37:53):
That newsletter is on Dana Lewisdot sub stack.com.
And please sign up to thispodcast if you haven't already.
And thanks for listening, I'lltalk to you again.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.