Talk:Callum Priestley

Callum Priestley Response
Press Release								 September 2010

Guilty until Proven Innocent: Blighted career for athlete as he calls for changes to UK’s anti-doping laws that treat both drug cheats and innocents alike

In January of this year, 21 year old Callum Priestley, one of the UK’s top two hurdlists, had his Olympic dreams shattered after he failed a potentially flawed drugs test. Later this week, UK Athletics is expected to ban him from taking part in any UK regulated athletics or sports activities for two years, as Priestley falls foul of UKA’s rigid regulations that sweep innocent athletes into the same net as known drug cheats, and consequently limit our country’s medal opportunities. Callum had been participating in warm weather training in South Africa - one of a select group of Olympic hopefuls flown there in January. During the stay, he and a number of fellow competitors fell ill with severe symptoms of food poisoning. Only one was chosen for an out-of-competition drugs test – Callum Priestley. A few weeks later the test was confirmed as positive for Clenbuterol – a banned substance that can be used to burn fat, but is also known to be illegally used by farmers to promote growth in their livestock. Outbreaks of Clenbuterol poisoning has been reported in countries such as Spain, Italy, France, China, Mexico and Vietnam; in Hong Kong it is the fourth most common cause of food poisoning. The symptoms suffered by Callum in South Africa, and described by a UKA doctor who attended to him, were accurately consistent with the symptoms of Clenbuterol poisoning. South Africa is also one of only two countries worldwide known to permit the use of Zilpaterol in the farming industry to promote the growth of animal stock. Zilpaterol, like Clenbuterol, is a powerful beta-adrenergic agonist that is prohibited for athletes under Section 1 of the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Prohibited List as an anabolic agent. Clenbuterol is considered to be considerably more effective than Zilpaterol but is banned in the farming industry worldwide due to the side effects it causes humans; despite this prohibition there is still evidence of its use by farmers today. Priestley, did not have any blood or other tests to determine the cause of the poisoning, and nor did any of the other athletes at the Stellenbosch training camp.

Callum’s initial response was: “At first, this result came as a total shock to me, but I was not a drugs cheat, so I assumed there would be a logical reason for it and that UK Athletics would be as keen as I was to find out how on earth it came to be in my body.” In early communications it seemed that UKA and UKAD, its Anti-Doping arm, would do just that - they said they were there to support the athlete. However, after weeks of trying to work closely with them, the family began to question why UKAD and UKA were not being as clear and direct with the support they claimed to offer. “It wasn’t until the end of March that we were told in no uncertain terms by Graham Arthur of UKAD that due to the nature of anti-doping proceedings, UKA were not in a position to assist in investigations. “This was the second shock for me after the result itself.” said Callum. Not only won’t they assist in investigating what happened whilst Priestley was in their training camp, but the Athletics body will effectively end his career this Friday as the UK is one of the few national sport’s governing bodies in the world that bans athletes permanently from Olympic participation following a failed drugs test, no matter what the circumstances. Callum and his parents, both teachers, were left to fend for themselves in trying to determine how the substance came to be found in his sample. They had to develop from scratch an understanding of the science of toxicological investigations into food additives and the nutritional supplements athletes use. Months of trawling the internet, expensive dispatches to specialist laboratories in the USA and correspondence with consultants, lawyers and doctors have left the family exhausted and drained from the experience. Callum’s parents were faced with no option but to take on a specialist lawyer as UKAD made it very difficult for the parents to access information needed. “Callum has worked so hard over the years to achieve what he has, giving up so much of his teenage years, even leaving Loughborough Uni at the request of UKA to train in London. “ says his mother, Cavelle. “We have supported him every step of the way. He has used his talent and combined it with incredible hard work to get here.” “I know there are drug cheats out there, but what about those who have no idea how a banned substance came to be in their bodies? Where’s the support for people like Callum, who is presumed guilty unless we spend the tens of thousands that it would cost to prove his innocence? It is simply not feasible to conduct an investigation into the contamination of meat in South Africa from the UK several months after the event. We simply do not have the resources.” Cavelle says. “UKA has not supported us in finding the truth. The laboratories they recommended said they wouldn’t undertake our analysis as there would be a ‘conflict of interest’ between Callum’s request and UKA, the official national governing body, who was also a client of theirs. UKA also recommended a lawyer to us - he turned out to be a specialist in commercial property. This unsupportive system makes you want to give up and I know many innocent athletes do.” Cavelle reveals:  “We were thankfully put in touch with Michelle Verroken and then Mike Morgan, who were like two  shining lights in the darkness” Michelle Verroken, former head of UK Sports Anti-Doping agency and now an international arbitrator on drugs sport and on anti-doping policies, made this comment on Priestley’s predicament: ““The UK system is truly lacking in any ability to determine real doping issues from the duty of care that should be shown to athletes who put so much trust in the system to do right by them. Other athletes I have worked with have felt that anger and frustration at the way the elite sport and anti-doping systems let them down. It is a natural response, and following that could be a growing determination to show the athletics world that the decision could be wrong. A responsible organisation would be, at least, taking steps to ensure that athletes training in Stellenbosch are not at risk, that nutritionists are not the catalyst of risky supplement use and the sport should be in immediate contact offering opportunities to reintroduce an athlete to the sport again.” The Sports lawyer, Mike Morgan, who is taking on a number of cases worldwide where athletes have failed Clenbuterol tests and similar substances, said: “The circumstances of this case - i.e. meat contamination- should compel UKAD and/or UKA to investigate the risk to athletes of training and competing in countries in which prohibited substances are used to rear animal stock. We are working very hard at the moment trying to develop a pooled athlete defence fund for cases like this. Part of the fund would be allocated to research, in order to carry out necessary investigations into issues like this to ensure that athletes are not inadvertently put at risk. It does appear unlikely that UKAD would divert its own resources to carry out investigations of this kind. I realise this is little comfort to Callum as it is all happening a bit too late but I hope that in future we may eventually be able to prevent cases like this from arising in the first place.” Callum reflects: “I may have lost out from this as my severe food poisoning was not fully analysed or diagnosed. I just hope for the sake of other athletes that those are issues that UK Athletics and UK Anti-Doping will examine seriously on conclusion of these proceedings.” Directing her concluding comments to Priestley, Verroken said: “Importantly Callum – remember you know the truth, this decision has failed to find the truth, and it has reached the convenient administrative conclusion.” END Contact Graham Sievers for further information Editors: Notes attached in separate file —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdderManToo (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/NOR
Seems to be written largely from his point of view, and appears to try and contain original research. I'm not aware of other pages of athletes successfully penalized for doping which consist of an essay criticizing the doping tests etc. In addition, I can't find any details of any appeals, with http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/8967713.stm being the most recent news article I could find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.28.170 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)