Latest news with #LizzyBanks
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Health
- Indian Express
Why did a professional cyclist struggle to watch Jannik Sinner win Wimbledon?
Lizzy Banks, a professional women's cyclist who had failed a drugs test and was eventually given a two-year ban, says she struggled to watch Jannik Sinner play the Wimbledon final. Her reaction was because of how her own career played out because of that ban. Initially, she was given no ban as UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) had agreed that there had been contamination and it was no fault of hers. But WADA refused to accept the opinion of UKAD's expert witness, professor David Cowan, and instead fought for and secured a two-year ban later. Her ordeal began in May 2023 when she took a routine urine test that led to a positive finding for a diuretic called Chrortalidone, which she claims she had not even heard of before. Her conclusion, and which was supported by the professor Cowan after his investigations, was that one of medications she took to treat asthma or a pill she took after a dental treatment perhaps had been contaminated in the manufacturing process. But CAS panel didn't agree to her version and though they described her as a 'peroson of integrity', said that she was unable to prove the source of the contamination and hence warranted a ban, which was back-dated and is now served. It's for this reason that she struggled to watch Sinner play and win Wimbledon. 'Then they came out and said this case [Sinner's] is a million miles from doping. Well, how does that make me feel? Just because I'm little old me and nobody cares about me I have to go through hell, and he gets to go and win Wimbledon.' She told The Times newspaper about how her life was completely upset after the ban. 'I was an athlete of integrity who took the utmost care in her anti-doping responsibilities, who was unknowingly exposed to a contaminant-sized dose of an obsolete diuretic with an impossibility of tracing the source because of a 79-day delay. And so is that really proportional to my career being completely lost, my identity being lost, my health being destroyed for two years, my husband's health being destroyed for two years, loss of earnings for two years, the impact that will have on other earnings in the future. Is that proportional?'
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Sport
- Telegraph
Sport's anti-doping laws are broken, says British athlete who believes she can prove it
Lizzy Banks, the former cyclist, has called for a major overhaul of the global anti-doping system following the 'psychological torture' of having a two-year ban upheld despite previously being cleared of cheating. Banks, 34, says that the World Anti-Doping Agency's (Wada) rules surrounding contaminated tests are 'not fit for purpose' and believes that the British, German and US anti-doping agencies 'all agree with her position' in demanding change. She has also accused Wada of inconsistent application of its own rules in the case of the 23 Chinese swimmers who were cleared by Chinese Anti-Doping (Chinada) to compete at the Tokyo Olympics despite testing positive for a banned substance. Banks's allegations come as it emerged that earlier this year the Malvern-born rider lost a year-long battle with Wada at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and has therefore had a two-year ban reinstated. Banks had last year became the first British athlete to successfully have a suspension overturned by UK Anti-Doping with a finding of 'no fault or negligence' after proving on the balance of probabilities that a positive test for the diuretic chlortalidone she had returned in the summer of 2023 was the result of contamination. Travis Tygart, the influential chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Agency who also exposed Lance Armstrong's doping past, has long agreed that the current system is unfairly harming 'clean' athletes and backed Banks's call for change. 'While we do not know all of the specifics of the Banks case and cannot comment directly… unfortunately, we are very aware of the contamination issue and for years have been advocating for the Wada rules to change to be more fair and just so that truly innocent athletes are not caught in a system supposedly aimed at stopping intentional cheats,' he told Telegraph Sport. System is 'stacked' against athletes In an emotional interview with Telegraph Sport last May, Banks revealed that she had bankrupted herself in order to clear her name, and had been forced to retire from the sport because of the physical and mental toll it had taken on her, which included having 'suicidal' thoughts. Wada subsequently took Ukad and Banks to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, with the Lausanne-based body in April ruling in the world governing body's favour. On Tuesday, Banks will publish a 13,000-word account of what she calls 'my harrowing ordeal of living through any athlete's worst nightmare' on her website. Telegraph Sport has seen a copy of the document. 'Wada spoke first at the tribunal,' she wrote. 'They opened by claiming that if the appeal was not upheld, this would be the end for sport and fair play. Not because they thought I was a doper, but because they didn't want athletes to be able to 'get away with' claiming contamination.' She felt that the Cas system was 'heavily stacked' against her. 'The hearing itself was one of the worst days of my life,' she wrote. 'I simply don't have the words to describe the horrifying experience.' Cas panels consist of three arbitrators, one chosen by Wada, one chosen by the defendant and a third member chosen by Cas who acts as president of the panel. Athletes are unable to pick anyone working at Wada-accredited laboratories, which Banks claims 'puts athletes on the wrong side of a profound bias in the arbitration process' since the majority of the world's leading anti-doping experts work at Wada-accredited laboratories. Wada refused to release Chinese scandal details Banks claims Cas allowed Wada to submit more than '600 pages' of extra evidence on the day after the hearing. She was also unhappy with the repeated use of the terms 'concrete evidence' and 'concrete findings' in reference to the evidential threshold, pointing out that neither is a requirement specified by the Wada code. Banks says Wada refused her disclosure request to see the Chinada files concerning the 23 Chinese swimmers who were cleared of doping offences on the grounds of contamination. Wada never appealed against Chinada's ruling. Banks also claims Cas denied a request to use an independent expert on contamination in anti-doping samples. In 2016, Professor Mario Thevis recommended a minimum reporting limit of 200ng/ml for all diuretics in order to avoid inadvertent positive tests because of pharmaceutical contamination. Banks's sample had tested positive for an estimated 70ng/ml of chlortalidon. She alleges that the evidence she had mounted in her original defence against the Ukad ban was routinely ignored, including the evidence from a hair sample which she had carried out. Banks experienced intense frustration at the continual delays, even while cases such as that of tennis player Simona Halep were expedited. She also characterises the behaviour of Wada's lead lawyer in the case, Ross Wenzel, who also oversaw the Chinese swimming case, as arrogant and high-handed, allegedly grinning while suggesting that he would be unavailable for a meeting to review new evidence as he would be 'on a golfing holiday'. Banks heard in April that Wada's request for her two-year ban had been upheld and that it would apply from that moment, minus the eight months and 29 days official period of provisional suspension she had already served. She eventually got it backdated so that it expired in May of this year. Anti-doping agencies urged to drive global change Banks says she does not have the money or the inclination to take the fight on any further. 'As the Swiss law itself describes, 'The grounds for setting aside an award are narrowly defined and exhaustive',' she writes. 'The reality is also that proving bias or dishonesty is incredibly difficult to do. If a wealthy expert in Swiss law who just so happens to be an expert in sports law wants to take it on and cover the costs, I would be more than happy for them to do so.' But she adds there 'must be consequences'. 'Just before publication of this article, a lawyer involved in the case, who wished to remain anonymous, said to me that: 'I had no firm views on Wada before your case but I was shocked and disappointed by the way they handled the entire process. It was entirely inappropriate. No regulatory body should ever treat anybody like that.' 'Can Cas and Wada really say that the penalty, which by the way was destruction of my career, my reputation, my identity, my health, my finances and inability to work for at least two years, was truly proportional to the 'offence'? Well what was the offence? Was it being an athlete of integrity who as the Cas described demonstrated the utmost care in her anti-doping responsibilities yet had the misfortune of being unknowingly exposed to an impossible to trace contaminant?' She concludes: 'The rules must be updated and modernised to reflect the scientific reality of contamination. We cannot have a system that allows the career of an athlete of integrity who has been found not to have cheated to end up in a position where they have no chance of defending themselves and no chance of receiving anything less than a two-year sanction. 'From both personal conversations and knowledge of other athletes' cases, I strongly believe that Ukad, British Cycling and the French, German and US anti-doping agencies all agree with my position.' A Wada statement said that it 'diligently prosecuted the appeal' based on the facts and rules. 'After a full and fair hearing at Cas, the panel agreed with Wada that the athlete had failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, how the substance came to be in her system,' said the statement. 'Establishing origin is a mandatory requirement of 'no-fault or negligence' decisions such as the one agreed by Ukad. The principle of strict liability is crucially important to uphold fairness in sport. Without it the anti-doping system would be inoperative'. They also argued that the case of the Chinese swimmers was not comparable. 'Every case is different, and each must be considered on its own individual merits,' said the statement. 'In the Chinese case, origin was established, based on specific factual and scientific evidence.'
