It is now evident that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) conducts procedures relating to drug-testing in a different manner to the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU).
At their press conference in Dublin yesterday the IRFU's explanation of the three cases before them was notable for what they did not reveal, rather than what they did. In this the IOC and IRFU differ greatly.
The IRFU did not name any of the individuals who had "adverse findings" in drugs tests. They did not say when the tests were conducted. They did not indicate the nature of the banned substance/substances for which those players had "adverse findings." They did not state whether the first player with the "adverse finding" - i.e. the player whose case has been heard by the IRFU tribunal and who has not been sanctioned - advanced his medical information before the match or after it was discovered he had an "adverse finding". In addition they did not explain whether it was correct for a player to play knowing that he had taken a banned substance if it was prescribed for him by a reputable doctor.
When Irish athlete Marie McMahon was found to have tested positive for a banned substance at the Olympic Games in Atlanta it was made public almost immediately.
Then, after a series of meetings within the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI) and the governing body of Irish athletics, BLE, the athlete in question and a group of officials appeared in front of the IOC Medical Commission headed by Prince Alexandre Merode.
It was explained to the IOC that McMahon had consumed a number of capsules of Robitussin after she had developed flu symptoms one week previously. A by-product of this over-the-counter drug was ephedrine - a banned substance. It was the ephedrine which made McMahon's urine test illegal.
In McMahon's defence, Irish delegates met the IOC tribunal and relayed in detail the reasons McMahon had ephedrine in her urine sample i.e. she took medication for her illness which she did not know contained a banned substance. The IOC tribunal accepted this explanation. The episode was entirely embarrassing for McMahon, the OCI and BLE. However, it was conducted in an open and transparent manner. The decisionmaking process was comprehensible and in the end the reasoning behind the athlete not receiving a ban was understood by everyone involved.
Naming the athlete (in this case McMahon) who tests positive is simply to state that the individual has broken a rule. That is, they have tested positive for a substance which is contained on the banned list. The next step is then for the athlete to explain how that product was found in the sample. A panel listens and a judgment is made.
