How can a pot of tea lead to a World Cup ban?
Wada is making itself a laughing stock by pursuing Peru’s captain and its rules need ripping up, says James Corrigan
Perhaps Wada could then direct all its power to catching the real culprits
Lausanne is a long way from Lima, but today the Swiss city will feature in every Peruvian news bulletin as a nation waits to discover the fate of its footballing saviour.
If the World Antidoping Agency is successful in its appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, then Paolo Guerrero will have his doping ban extended from six months to two years, and the captain and record scorer will miss his country’s first appearance in the World Cup finals in 36 years.
Reports from Lima suggest authorities fear riots if Wada prevails. Certainly, an angry sense of injustice would sweep the Land of the Incas and, if one would merely scratch the surface of Guerrero’s case, the grievance would be all the more understandable.
The 34-year-old tested positive for benzoylecgonine, the main metabolite of cocaine, after Peru’s draw in Argentina last October. Initially, Fifa hit the former Bayern Munich striker with a one-year sanction, meaning he would be absent from the Russia tournament.
But, on appeal, this was cut in half after Guerrero’s lawyers convinced the disciplinarians the quantities involved were so small they ruled out cocaine consumption and could probably be put down to drinking tea prepared in a kettle that had previously contained coca leaves. Well, it only seemed fair.
To Wada it did not. It fully recognises there was no intention to enhance performance, but is sticking to its strict-liability mantra, which is absurd. So, here we are with this South American cause celebre.
Of course, CAS cannot allow emotion to rule the day. It should not matter if Guerrero was the third-choice left-back and in danger of being forced out of the summer tour to Guatemala. But, at the very least, the spotlight cast by the extraordinary depth of feeling will direct a beam on to Wada, that pompously righteous agency which, on its trusty white steed, gallops ever further from its original remit.
Remember, it was set up to unearth cheats? On its formation in 1999, nobody mentioned a crusade against recreational drugs and everyone but the pedantic acknowledges that cocaine is not a performance-enhancer, and the same applies to cannabis, ecstasy and heroin. So, what are they are doing on the list?
The answer can be traced back to Wada’s desperation to get the United States on side.
The Americans were in the midst of their war on drugs and demanded anti-doping be tied into it. Wada agreed and, in the meantime, despite bodies such as UK Anti-doping calling for the rules to be relaxed, it has stood firm. All very gallant and noble, but sport has been left with a moral mess in which Dan Evans receives a one-year ban for snorting a line that would have done his tennis career no good whatsoever, and Maria Sharapova receives only three months longer for taking a “heart” drug known to increase endurance.
Last week, Zak Hardaker was banned for 14 months, but the doping panel concluded it was “fortuitous” the rugby league player had turned to cocaine instead of continuing his drinking binge, as otherwise he might have died. “There was no performance-related benefit and if he’d had another bottle of spirits instead, he would not be here before us,” the Ukad report read. How ridiculous does that make the ban sound?
Yes, Hardaker, Evans and all the rest of the party crowd were wrong and yes, the rules are clear. But the rules are also stupid and should be ripped up. Perhaps Wada could then concentrate catching the real culprits.