When Tammy Thomas learned that she had been banned from cycling for life, she packed up her things, moved out of the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs and went back home to Yazoo, Mississippi. What the star track sprinter left behind, however, were a number of questions about how national and international governing bodies deal with issues of doping and, above all, fairness.

Examiners from the U.S. Anti-doping Agency arrived at a U.S. team training camp in March of this year to conduct out-of-competition tests. A sample provided by Thomas tested positive for the anabolic norbolethone, a drug that promotes rapid muscle growth. Remarkably the drug had been pulled from clinical trials by the FDA in the 1970s because of its toxicity. Thomas had already tested positive and was subsequently suspended for elevated testosterone levels during the 2000 Olympic trials.

Tammy Thomas in 2002  Casey Gibson photo

Found guilty of a second violation made her eligible for a life-time ban, so the 32-year-old track rider exercised her right to have the case heard first by a review panel and then by a three-member arbitration panel. That adjudication process began in April. News of her positive test was quite appropriately kept quiet until the process was complete and in the meantime, like any athlete facing disciplinary proceedings, Thomas was free to compete. Indeed, even if news of her positive had been made public, coaches and USA Cycling are required by provisions of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act to treat her as they would any other eligible athlete until the hearing process was complete. For Thomas, whose UCI world rankings place her in the top-ten in two events – second in the sprint and ninth in the 500-meter time trial – "free to compete" meant that she would take part in the UCI World Cup. Over the course of the season, competing in the sprint, keirin and 500, Thomas earned a total of 43 World Cup points. That contribution proved significant at the end of the series when the United States emerged as the overall Cup winner with a total of 394 points, 19 more than second-placed Germany and well ahead of Australia’s 278.

The German federation sought to negate Thomas’s point contribution, but UCI rules contain no provision allowing points earned after a positive test, but before a penalty is imposed, to be withdrawn.

Indeed, U.S. rules contain no provision to allow Thomas’s elite 200-meter sprint record to be withdrawn, despite the fact that she established it just two weeks before receiving that lifetime ban from the sport.

“It’s not a good note to end the season on,” acknowledged U.S. track coach Des Dickey. “Really all we can say is that she was tested at every event in which she participated this year and she turned up negative. The UCI rulings support our belief that the World Cup results should stand.”

USA Cycling CEO Gerard Bisceglia issued a strongly worded statement applauding USADA’s decision to ban Thomas for life, but he, too, was reluctant to see her season-long contribution ignored.

“It does raise a question,” Bisceglia conceded, “but what does that do to the contributions of the other members of the team? Should they also be penalized for her actions?”

Dickey contends that the U.S. squad would probably have been able to maintain its margin over Germany even without Thomas’s participation.

“Her being there meant that Jeannie Reed or Sarah Uhl were not,” he said. “If she hadn’t have been there we would have relied on their talent instead.”

But Reed and Uhl weren't there. Tammy Thomas was. The points were “earned” by a rider later banned for life on the grounds that she used a dangerous a drug that promotes rapid muscle growth immediately prior to her participation in the 2002 World Cup.

Thomas, meanwhile, has told friends she plans to appeal her case to the international Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland. Failing that, she is considering switching sports and a possible future in power lifting, where the USADA ban will not have an impact.

American cycling, however, is left to awkwardly dance around a glaring ethical contradiction. To remain consistent, the U.S. should forego the 2002 World Cup title and stand by the principles it espouses. The long-term rewards will be much greater.

Comments? Questions? Write me: Charles@Pelkey.com.