Cycling: Spare a thought for banned Brown, cycling's forgotten man

By TERRY MADDAFORD

Antony Brown has every reason to feel aggrieved.

Brown quickly became the forgotten man of New Zealand cycling when, in 1996, he received a two-year ban after returning an out-of-competition positive test for the banned anabolic steroid nandrolone.

There was no way out for the Oceania 1000m time trial silver medallist. All he attempted to do was to keep his name out of the headlines - unsuccessfully.

At that time, Cycling New Zealand president Bruce Goldsworthy said his association, which wasted little time in imposing the mandatory ban, had rules which made it clear there were no half-measures.

"If you try to get out of it [the ban] it is like saying you are only half pregnant," Goldsworthy said.

A vastly different stance, surely, from that taken last week by the same association in dealing with national representative Lee Vertongen.

He was merely disqualified from the one race he rode in at the national championships in March after producing the test sample which was later tested positive to the banned amphetamine methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or Ecstasy.

Vertongen's counsel, Tim Castle, was able to convince the independent tribunal that he should not be banned.

He cited Cycling New Zealand's rules which said, in part, that a prescribed drug taken for a specific therapeutic use should be treated as "not a serious drug" and that a minimal penalty only should be imposed.

The tribunal obviously agreed.

But there were no challenges at that hearing from the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency or funding watchdog the Hillary Commission.

Vertongen had support from Castle and his assistant, his father and grandfather, coach and three of Cycling New Zealand's hierarchy.

The only questions came from a tribunal many felt was naive in such matters and failed to seriously challenge Castle, who later admitted he had experience "on both sides of the fence" to call on.

Not surprisingly, the drug agency and Hillary Commission struggled to accept the outcome.

They, like others, were keen to learn who the unnamed person was who had given Vertongen the capsule, which he was told was a homoeopathic remedy for a bout of influenza.

Castle maintains the tribunal had the right to ask the hard questions. Its decision, he maintained, did not undermine the work of the drug agency.

But in not releasing the full facts as it saw them in reaching its decision, the tribunal left too many questions unanswered.

Cycling New Zealand's brief, five-paragraph statement which followed did nothing to defuse the situation, leaving a sour taste in many mouths.

Brown, and others, surely would have liked to read a full explanation of just what went on at the tribunal hearing and how their decision was arrived at.