The Gert Thys doping case has taken its final turn or has it, only time will tell?
CAS (The Court of Arbitration for Sport) ruled in favour of the South African athlete, Gert Thys, in July 2009.
Thys who for a period of time was the World's Top Marathoner based upon the athletes Top 5 marathon best times combined as well as the fact that he became the first athlete in history to run two sub 2:08 marathons in one year in 1998.
Thys began to receive the penchant of an athlete who's best runs were behind him after a string of DNF's and then he pulled the rabbit from the hat with his win at the Seoul Marathon on March 17th 2006, only to be followed by a positive dope test.
The test produced a postive sample A result for the substance 19-norandrosterone in the athlete's urine sample. A substance for which Thys did not offer an explanation after being advised by ASA on the 17th April 2006 and that he had the right to a B sample test. The athlete was provisionally suspended of all competitions on the 25th April 2006.
The B sample was tested on the 16th May 2006.
Then the fun began.
It was revealed that the tester of the B sample was the same tester of the A sample which is in direct violation of the procedure ISL (International Standard for Laboratories) 5.2.4.3.22Â This specific ISL 5.2.4.3.22 is no longer necessary and has been removed since 2009 however at the time it was a direct necessity and to this issue Thys objected.
ISL 5.2.4.3.22 in 2006 stated: "The 'B' sample confirmation must be performed in the same laboratory as the 'A' Sample confirmation. A different analyst must perform the 'B' analytical procedure. The same individual(s) that perform the 'A' analysis may perform instrumental set up and performance checks and verify results"
[More:]
The tester of both samples knowingly conducted the procedure even though it contravened ISL 5.2.4.3.22
What followed thereafter seemed to be a bungle after bungle and the mismanagement of the situation by ASA. The athlete was expected to take his porridge and accept his situation without complaint.
Hearings were postponed and the athlete was left in limbo, even though he refused to accept the positive test result from the get go. No solution was offered even though a contravention in the procedure had taken place and the athlete was even further subjected to mismanagement by being kept out of the sport 7 months longer than the normal 2 years suspension normally handed to an athlete, with regards to a guilty verdict after the B sample test, for a similar doping offence.
The athlete not only had to accept the irregular testing procedures but he also had to stomach the extra 7 months imposed on him by a system straight out of the Apartheid era books of how not to treat athletes.
CAS has exonerated the athlete and has called for his winnings from Seoul to be reimbursed as well as for ASA to pay a fee of CHF 13000. This is all very well however when one considers that Gert Thys has had a loss of income for 2 years and then some, who can return those years and loss of income?
Even if one considers that the athlete was guilty of a doping offence or not, this does not distract from the fact that those dealing with the case have failed athletics and the one to suffer the most has been the athlete, Gert Thys.
Somehow I don't think we have heard the last of the Gert Thys Doping Saga.
