Help London triathlete Kelly Guest

[strongmommy]

I don't normally do this, but this is issue is important enough to me that I thought I'd throw it out there for all of you:

Kelly Guest and his family are family friends of mine - Kelly is a talented London born and (mostly) raised triathelete who was banned from competition in 2002 after testing positive for a substance that was traced to a nutritional supplement he was using at the time. He competed, trained, and is close to Simon Whitfield - which should give you a picture of the talents he has.

I received the following request from his family today and would ask that anyone who is supportive of Kelly's situation consider sending their opinions to the Centre for the Ethics in Sport (CCES) by way of a letter or email to the President and the Chairperson of the Board.

You will remember that in 2002 our family was devastated by the news that our son Kelly had a positive drug test and was being sent home from the Commonwealth Games. Kelly was found to be innocent of any intention to cheat but due to the doping rules in place at the time, he was obliged to serve a two-year ban from Triathlon and from all competitive sport. The black mark on his reputation from this positive drug test continues to this day.

Recently, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) acknowledged in writing that it is possible Kelly’s 2002 drug test may have been a false positive caused by a phenomenon known as “active urine”. Although the CCES acknowledges that it may have been a false positive, they take the position that Kelly’s record should stand while we take the position that Kelly’s record must be cleared. We are arguing that “possibly guilty” does not meet any test of justice in Canada and CCES has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kelly actually had a doping infraction that would warrant his suspension. Unfortunately, there is no appeal available from this CCES decision.

We are now embarking on a campaign to bring public pressure to bear on the CCES. We intend to continue to pressure them until they “do the right thing” by clearing Kelly’s name.

Here are a few links highlighting the main issues of the story if you'd like more information:

http://www.cces.ca/pdfs/CCES-CASE-GuestBrief-E.pdf

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Sports/Columnists/Dalla_Costa_Morris/2008/08/15/6460006-sun.html

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2002/07/26/canadiandopingtest020726.html


I will post a sample letter momentarily that you could use (this is getting too big)

If you have any other specific questions or concerns, please feel free to PM me directly.

Thanks,
Happymommy

[strongmommy]

Here is a sample letter that you may consider - or compose your own - and send to:

pmelia@cces.ca and to louise.walker@sympatico.ca (the President and Board Chair respectively).

Dear Mr. Melia and Ms. Walker:

I am writing to you on a matter requiring your attention involving Kelly Guest.

I am aware that Kelly Guest's positive drug test in 2002 may have been a false positive caused by a phenomenon known as "active urine". Further, I am aware that there is now no way to determine whether the 2002 finding was a false positive. I am also aware that on July 6, 2006, after a delay of 13 months, you wrote to Kelly acknowledging that his 2002 test might have been a false positive. I am deeply concerned that under these circumstances, you are suggesting that the 2002 doping infraction stand.

The CCES Mission Statement states "responsibility for fair and ethical sport in Canada is shared by athletes, coaches, sport organizations, governments and the general public. The CCES assists Canada's amateur sport community to fulfill this responsibility in a way that is effective and publicly accountable". Furthermore, your Mission Statement concludes that CCES “exercises international leadership in advancing a doping-free, fair and ethical environment for sport worldwide." With the greatest of respect, the requirement of a fair and ethical environment for sports does not exclude the behavior of the CCES. Blind adherence to a possibly flawed and inconclusive test is no basis upon which to bar an athlete who has dedicated his life to his sport, and years to the ideals that your organization espouses.

I know that athletes are subject to strict liability in drug testing however, strict liability requires infallible testing procedures. In Kelly's case, you are attempting to apply strict liability while relying on inconclusive test results and that is unacceptable. The CCES cannot shelter behind the 2002 positive finding now that it acknowledges the possibility that result may have been a false positive. It is your job to produce infallible test results and in that regard, you have failed.

Therefore, I am writing today with the expectation that you will follow your organization’s core principle of fairness by expunging Mr. Guest's record. Further, the CCES must publicly acknowledge that there remains absolutely no evidence Kelly Guest’s test in 2002 was a true positive and may well have been a false positive caused by the active urine phenomenon. The very least I would expect from the CCES is to make every effort now to clear Kelly's record and restore the dignity he so rightly deserves. His commitment to fairness in sport, evidenced by his continuing support of drug testing despite the crushing weight this decision has had on his life, demands nothing less than a matching commitment to the ideals of fairness, ethical conduct, and justice by the CCES.

Yours truly,

[Wendy]

I went to school with Kelly, I will try to do what I can to help.

[strongmommy]

Thanks Wendy .... what a small world!!!

[mum_of_four]

I sent my letter in...hope it helps.

[mum_of_four]

I got a reply back today, anyone else? It basically says there is nothing they can do.

[Wendy]

Nope no reply, but it's worth a shot, if they get enough letters then maybe they will do something.

[SuperMom]

If this happened in 2002 - I don't quite understand what the problem is...???? It's way over the 2 year ban...

[strongmommy]

Thanks so much to everyone who has spent time reading about this - and especially to those that sent in a letter .

If this happened in 2002 - I don't quite understand what the problem is...???? It's way over the 2 year ban...

The ban was for 4 years ... and the goal now is to simply clear his name. In 2006 (before the end of the 4 year ban) the CCEC admitted it may have been wrong and if so the ban should never have happened. They then refused to allow another appeal since the time period for appeals had passed - even though the ban was still on. From an emotional perspective, I believe he and his family want some acknowledgement that the system screwed up and it's unfair to leave Kelly's record as one that's tainted and flawed based on a standard that the CCEC can't even ensure with their testing.

This was a TOUGH period for the entire family - there were thousands of days up to this point devoted by so many people to developing his skills and talents. His parents and sibling had to watch their son / brother being devastated with losing everything that meant something to him at the ripe old age of 25.

At the end of the day he's likely already lost his worldwide opportunity but I can totally relate to being accused of something that I know in my heart I didn't do by someone who can't even prove it. Kind of like the notion that once someone says something negative about you it doesn't always matter whether it's true or not .... you're reputation and how people view you (usually) changes. When you're in that situation all you really want is for your accuser to stand up and admit out loud that they may have been wrong and shouldn't have done what they did to you.

Thanks again - I'll post any updates when I hear them. His dad is driving these efforts and hopes sincerely that if enough people express concerns the CCEC will be forced to re-evaluate the situation.