The "Real" Story

La publication simultanée dans les médias - d'articles relatifs aux audiences du comité de discipline du Collège des médecins du Québec dans l'affaire du Dr Maurice Duquette, - de la Lettre à une cycliste de haut niveau de Pierre Foglia, - de l'annonce de Geneviève Jeanson qu'elle allait tenir une conférence de presse le 17 novembre, puis la tenue du vote tenu par The Canadian Cyclist (Should the courts order the release of the medical records for the elite cycling athlete associated with Dr Duquette and the alleged EPO use, and permit his/her medical records to be seen by the media and cycling associations ?) et des réactions à cette intiative, ont fait couler beaucoup d'encre sur le forum du site internet de cette publication. Voici un point de vue tentant de résumer la situation.

The "Real" Story November 15, 2003 at 1:17 by reposter

There have been some interesting posts on this topic. Some really idiotic and stupid crap as well. So I'll use short sentences and try and be really clear as some people seem to be thinking impaired. First some facts.

She has committed no crime. Even if her doc prescribed her EPO it is not a criminal offense.

Prescribing epo is no crime. Getting caught on EPO is not a crime.

If you get caught on EPO while competing (or out of competition) in an athletic event then the sporting body (CCA, CCES, FQSC) will see that as an infraction of THEIR rules. Then they ban/fine the athlete.

The facts are pretty simple here. Doc is reported/busted for prescribing drugs without a real, medically valid reason.

He pleads guilty, issues a statment to his 'sanctioning' body and then recieves his punishment. He is the one 'on trial'.

However, opening medical records because her doctor has behaved in a way that breaks his College of physicians and surgeons code (just like the sporting body this is not a legal, criminal, proceeding) and requires his sanction does not mean that all his patients deserve to have their medical confidentiality broken. Doesn't matter if they are sporting cheats or not.

There are only a few reasons to break medical confidentiality. The unethical behaviour and sanction of your doctor is not one of them. (At least not in Canada).

Now the CCA, CBC and whoever else, hear that he has allegedly supplied athletes with these products and jump on the bandwagon to try and find out who the PATIENTS are. And they aren't just after them in a broadstroke, but instead the CCA are out to crucify one person in particular, that much has been made very clear.

Don't you see the jump in logic ? Is it not painfully clear that busting someone in this way is ethically wrong ? After all, the ethics police who cry out that there might be a Canadian doper are forgetting that in the act of getting into her medical records they are behaving unethically.

Yes cheating in sport is bad, so is being a 'bad' doctor, so is cheating on a girlfriend. BUT there are distinctions between these things.

Fry the cheating bitch when you catch her ETHICALLY during a test, or even in the act. Don't slither around codes that were installed to prevent 'big brother' from this very type of act.

If you don't see how two wrongs do not make a right, then I don't want you in MY peloton.

November 15, 2003 at 1:27

Well, by that logic, if an accountant is ripping off shareholders of a company through creative accounting, that may not strictly speaking be illegal, but more unethical, then lets do nothing about it until we can catch that accountant in an "ethical" way.

Why do people who cheat, and are thus behaving unethically, deserve better treatment than those they have been cheating ? That is precisely the logic that some cheaters rely on.

I am sorry, but if you cheat, and are caught, I don't really care how you are caught. You are a cheater and you deserve to be punished.

November 15, 2003 at 2:32

They deserve the same treatment as anyone in this country because we do not use the napoleonic code of justice in Canada. Here we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. That's what everyone should be afforded so called "ethical" treatment.

I may not think you are not the brightest bulb in the lamp. Doesn't mean you do not deserve to have a computer. We are both citizens of this country and that, my friend, affords us the same civil liberties and rights. That and that alone by the way.

In your example, while morally wrong I also believe that the "creative book keeping" is actually a criminal offense - called under the blanket term "white collar crime" and that is why the criminal code exists - to deal with criminals according to a SET code. But you still need to prove to a judge why you want into this guys bank account, and you need probably cause, not just the CCA's suspicions. The hitch in this case is that the book keeper is a CRIMINAL.

A person taking prescribed medication is not. That is the key difference. Also the doc sanctioned has committed no criminal offense. NO CRIME. Don't know how much more clearly I can say that ?

Getting prescribed medication is not a criminal act. No matter if the doc is giving it to you to juice you up. That is the distinction. The perpetrator of the illicit act is the doc, as he has broken his mandate. That is why he was under investigation and subject to sanction.

In California, many aging specialists prescribe growth hormone, estrogen, testosterone, amoung other things. These docs are not criminals, nor are their patients. Now if a patient gets caught in a sporting event for these substances, the sporting body can sanction and ban them. If they just walk around all juiced up, no problem. See actually getting juiced up by a doc is not an offense.

In Canada EPO is not a sceduled substance, like substances such as anabolic steriods are (known as schedule 3 controlled substances). But if you have a presciption for them, then you are OK. Amazingly enough, doctors can prescribe drugs (drumrole please).

Getting CAUGHT on dope by the CCA is an offense by the sporting body. The CCA is seperate from the criminal courts. Criminal courts can remove privilege in some specific circumstances. See the distinction yet ?

Just because you don't like it, should not make you blind to the fact that opening pandoras box could make any athlete subject to having their medical records made public. You admit to having taken too much sudafed and you could too be raked through the mud. That is if you hadn't spent all your time debating on a forum instead of riding your bike. Look at the bigger picture here. As repugnant as it may seem, busting an athlete in this manner is not right. Put any spin you like on it... doesn't change the facts.

page mise en ligne le 15 novembre 2003 par SVP

Qui sur SVP?