Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


SRU denies claims MacLeod case could have been resolved quicker

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 November 2008
THE Scottish Rugby Union has rejected the suggestion that there should have been swifter resolution to the Scott MacLeod doping charge investigation.
The Llanelli Scarlets and Scotland player was cleared this week of a potential anti-doping violation after it was demonstrated that a drinking session had caused an abnormally high level of testosterone to be recorded when he underwent a drugs test a
t Murrayfield in January this year.

Although the 29-year-old was relieved to learn the news this week that his suspension from rugby had been lifted and the doping charge discontinued, he expressed frustration that he had not been able to establish his innocence at an earlier stage.

Now the player's lawyer has said that the SRU's independent review panel set up to look into the MacLeod case should have asked the player at an earlier stage for an explanation to the adverse findings.

Mike Morgan, of London law firm Hammonds, said: "Testosterone cases do take some time and WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency] and UK Sport have to be thorough, but when the SRU's independent panel first came together, to decide whether or not he had a case to answer, they could have asked Scott himself for an explanation. That is the bit that is missing from this; the aspect where things could have been cleared up earlier.

"Like most people, I assume, he had no idea that alcohol could raise testosterone levels, but the experts involved knew that because it is more widely known within the drug-testing bodies. As soon as this was suggested to him he said straight away he had been drinking the night before.

"If the effect of alcohol had been suggested to Scott before the suspension, they could have then established the evidence without the need for a suspension, and the costs to Scott of missing five weeks of rugby and indeed of legal representation.

"I would agree that Scott could be justified in feeling this could have been dealt with before suspension. And if they are to learn something from this, it is that the governing bodies should speak to the athlete – had someone taken the time to speak to the athlete in this case it is more than likely that they would not have got this far and would not have needed to get lawyers involved."

But in a single-line statement issued last night, the SRU said: "Scottish Rugby is satisfied it adhered to its anti-doping regulations and communicated fully with the player concerned at the appropriate time."

The length of the investigation was also justified by UK Sport. Testers are forced to carry out a series of tests across a number of months before being able to determine whether elevated testosterone levels are due to doping.

UK Sport communications officer Lee Taylor said: "In terms of the timeframe, testosterone is one of the most complex stimulants we can test for.

"There really does have to be the most comprehensive check on whether it's naturally occurring or whether it's the result of doping.

"That always ensures the process is slightly longer. It takes time to make sure there aren't any inconsistencies.

"We just have to be very careful in ensuring we get everything right from this end before we proceed with determining whether there's a case to answer."

Taylor was keen to stress that as well as the scientific evidence, UK Sport took into account witness statements supporting MacLeod's claim he had been out drinking the night before the original test.

He said: "Even though Scott's explanation was he was out the night before, there was still a case to answer.

"He still needed to prove that was indeed the case. It's not just accepted as read."

MacLeod has returned to training with his club but the matter is not completely over yet. WADA could appeal the decision to allow him to resume playing.

WADA will now ask UK Sport and the SRU for a written copy of the decision to clear MacLeod and will determine whether it is in compliance with their code.

If not, they will then decide whether to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Although WADA refused to comment on MacLeod's case until they have reviewed it in full, they did confirm they were aware "high alcohol consumption" could lead to elevated testosterone/epitestosterone levels.

They said anti-doping organisations were already permitted to take this into account when deciding whether an athlete had a case to answer.

The player, his club and the SRU have all called for changes in the handling of testosterone cases, with MacLeod wanting alcohol to be tested for as standard.

That wish may well be granted, with WADA revealing they are planning to emphasise the impact of alcohol in a technical document being prepared for their executive committee.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 November 2008 10:50 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: SRU
 
1

Border Terrier,

terra firma 26/11/2008 08:08:28
The layman might question why, if the experts recognise that high levels of alchohol can raise testosterone, that the presence of the latter doesn't prompt an immediate test for the former. This would avoid the need to rely on witness statements to confirm that the individual had been drinking heavily.
All that aside, and while acknowledging our amateur heritage, it is suprising to say the least that a professional player is knocking it back at a rate of knots on the night/morning before a Scottish training session. Is this common practice among our professional players? I certainly hope not...
2

RDW,

26/11/2008 08:40:56
It was an optional weights session first thing in the morning that I think 10 players turned out for. Plus he's just found out he was to be a dad, so was pretty chuffed! Bit of an assumption for you to presume he was knocking them back too...where you there?
3

macleod supporter,

26/11/2008 14:52:23
as RDW said, how can it be presumed he was 'knocking them back'?! were you there? i'm pretty sure if you found out you were to be a father for the first time you would want to go out celebrating with your friends?! this does not infer in anyway that he is in the habit of going out drinking all the time?! scott wouldn't do anything to jeopardise his career, and by going to a voluntary weight session this demonstrates his committment.
4

Borderrugbyfan,

Borders 26/11/2008 17:25:27
#1 I think that you have to agree with RDW and Macleod Supporter that what has happened to Scott Macleod is an absolute joke. How can the SRU decide to just ban him 9 months after the test was submitted. Just before one of the biggest games of his career. I really think that this is a complete embarrasment on the part of the S.R.U. As for the fact that you are saying that Scott was knocking them back. So what even if he was. He didnt have any games for the next 2 weeks, arent we all allowed to let our hair down now and again. I think thats how Scotland are doing so poorly in proffesional rugby because too many of the players are just a little too "square." The fact that he had just found out that he was going to be a dad must come into it. Any how thats not why he was being judged. He was falsely accused of being a drug cheat and I have still to see a public apology to the man.
5

pinarello,

Glasgow 27/11/2008 13:45:58
He wasn't falsely accused, he tested postive

he should be glad that its the SRU dealing with him, in other sports he could be looking at a 6 month to two year ban

its not as though rugby players would benefit from Testosterone or anything is it????

First rule of doping: Deny

Second Rule of doping: produce story which may give alternative reason for positive test

Third rule of Doping; Cross your fingers and hope your governing body doesn't wish to 'have' a drug problem

Commitment?

he's a professional player, he...eh...gets paid for it

He can be presumed to have been knocking it back because the impacts on the test results require him to have been knocking it back

otherwise anyone who had had a glass of wine would be testing positive for testosterone

besides he's a rugby player isn't he? :-)
6

macleod supporter,

27/11/2008 14:53:14
yeah obviously he tested positive for testosterone, all males do!!! and he wasn't over the testosterone limit, it was just unusually high compared to his other tests, due to the alcohol. He didn't fail a drugs test, it was just abnormally high for him.
7

pinarello,

27/11/2008 17:35:13
his T/E ratio was what is called 'positive'. Abnormal levels of this can indicate the use of testosterone. His levels were abnormal.

One explanation of this is that he indeed was using testosterone (not uncommon in strength based sportsmen), another (potential)was that he was hammered the night before. In his own words "acute ingestion of alcohol between the hours of 7.30pm and 3.00am the night prior to (his] selection for the doping control test" (not ucommon in rubgy players)

In other sports the strict liability rules mean that he's a lucky man to have the SRU dealing with him. Rather than mouthing off about how he has been dealt with he should take note of his responsibility to his employers.

Looking after yourself means either not getting hammered the night before a national team training session or if you do making sure you spend the next day recovering properly. That recovery would include rest and rehydration rather than a training session and should preferably not invlove drink driving to the ground, although who knows maybe has salaryy affords him the luxury of a driver?
8

macleod supporter,

27/11/2008 18:10:21
He's hardly mouthing off! he recognises that, yeah, he shouldn't have been drinking and then gone to a weight session the next day but the very fact he went to the OPTIONAL weight session that only 9 other rugby players went to shows his committment to his career. He has been wrongly accused of using performance enchancing drugs and his innocence has been proved so he has every right to feel angry towards the way he was dealt with. It may be the case that in sport you are 'guilty until proven innocnet' but now that he has been proved inncoent he deserves an apology as Borderrugbyfan said for being branded a cheat.
9

pinarello,

28/11/2008 14:00:08
he wasn't 'wrongly accused', he failed a test

that's pretty straightforward.

The strict liabilty principle means he is guilty of having that level of T/E. That level brings with it a sanction because it is the result of probable doping. The science is not totally clear on the subject however alcohol may be able to skew the T/E level and so it is a possible explanation for how it was the level tersted. He gave that explanation and the SRU bought it

Some other governing bodies a) wouldn't have believed him or b) accepted it and still banned him.

He has not been 'proved' innocent. He has offered a potential explanation to a body who seem to be not too concerned about it. That's a totally different propostion to be proven innocent.


He is lucky and he should consider himself so

In a different sport he would be out with his career in potential ruins and unable to compete for his country again. Just look at Christine O's trials and tribulations.

Are rugby players even signed up for the 'whereabouts' regime? It would appear not
10

macleod supporter,

28/11/2008 16:23:57
he did not FAIL a test! his testosterone level was 6 and to fail the test it has to 10 or higher. they simply thought there was a case to be answered to because it was abnormally high!
11

Non-jimhayfan,

05/12/2008 12:27:34
Pinarello, did scott macleod bully you at school or something. I have heard of a chip on your shoulder but you seem to have a poke of chips on yours. If you knew the facts which you obviously dont then you will find that "HE DID NOT FAIL A TEST." The test proved about the normal levels, which the guy has always had. If he had failed the test then he would have been banned with immediate effect. END OF
12

pinarello,

05/12/2008 13:46:35


the test proved abnormal levels

he doesn't have naturally abnormal levels (or at least non-that have been made public) otherwise that would have been his defence. His defence was the alcohol ingestion caused the abnormal levels.

Do you know differently?
13

Armageddon,

Fishing Boat, North Minch 08/12/2008 12:35:51
Of Course the SRU handled this badly

It handles everything badly.....oh......except the committee expense accounts.

To see how a lack of testosterone causes a massive increase in body fat, see the SRU website and look at the gallery of committee member photos.....oh sorry..no testosterone....must have been the freebies then...porkers!!!!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.