The buck stops where with the Simon Yates case?

ORICA-GreenEDGE rider Simon Yates has been let down by his team. But he still may have to pay the price for failing a drug test, explains Reece Homfray.

Orica GreenEDGE rider Simon Yates ... could be innocent and guilty at the same time. Picture: Sarah Reed

IT can be cruel to the athlete but is fundamental to the competition - when it comes to doping in sport you can be both innocent and guilty at the same time.

The question that sporting authorities must grapple with in such cases is how to distinguish one from the other, and fairly.

Australian football has just spent the best part of the last three years debating whether players should ultimately be responsible for what is in their system.

And according to the Court of Arbitration for Sport no matter how naive, how seemingly innocent or how trusting the player is, the final answer is yes.

So then what next for British cyclist Simon Yates, who rides for Australian team Orica-GreenEDGE (OGE) and returned a positive drug test in March?

It wasn’t your normal positive drug test however.

The substance detected in his system was Terbutaline, which OGE says was being used to treat his ongoing asthma problems.

That much is hardly being disputed, and in fact has been supported by riders and an international cycling doctor.

It is also supported by WADA’s stance on Terbutaline, which lists the drug as a ”specified substance” - more broadly meaning that in all likelihood it is being used to treat a medical condition and not to enhance performance. For that reason, Yates has not been provisionally banned while his case is investigated.

The OGE doctor even declared the use of Terbutaline on a doping control form after Yates was tested at Paris-Nice in March, so it was hardly trying to be hidden.

But what the doctor didn’t do however was apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) which an athlete must have to be allowed to use the substance.

You can only imagine that horrible, sinking feeling when the doctor realised what had been overlooked.

So the issue for Yates and OGE is twofold.

If the UCI and British Cycling accept that Yates was using Terbutaline via an inhaler to treat his asthma, then he should be cleared.

If only it was that easy ... the next question they must consider is to what extent is there an acceptable level of responsibility on the athlete’s part to make sure the TUE is in place?

OGE has already started tending documents to the UCI to explain the situation in an effort to clear Yates of any wrongdoing.

Few dispute that Yates is an innocent victim in this mess but will that mean he is exonerated?

The athlete whereabouts system poses a similar question. In some jurisdictions, if an athlete misses three random doping tests, then that constitutes a violation and they are banned.

But they might have popped out to get the milk when anti-doping knocked on the door, left for training early or stayed the night at a friend’s house and forgot to update the online form stating where they would be.

They might not have taken a banned substance but are punished for not following procedure.

Last year Norwegian cyclist Vegard Robinson Bugge received a four-month ban for testing positive to Terbutaline, which suggests authorities hardly consider the drug the work of the devil.

If Yates is handed a similar ban then it would be devastating for him.

Assuming that the Rio Olympics in August are the end-goal for the 23-year-old this season, then if any ban is not backdated then it’s likely to eliminate him from selection.

OGE says it is “concerned” by how information regarding Yates’ case was leaked to the media.

That should be the least of their concerns. More pressing should be the need to do everything they can to see Yates is not punished, or make sure such an administrative blunder is not repeated.

Common sense says Yates should be cleared.

But common sense also says a TUE should have avoided this situation in the first place.

So the buck stops with whom?

[e-mail]

Originally published as The buck stops where with the Simon Yates case?