http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov29news


"I won't race ever again," revealed Jeanson. "I've changed so much this past year that I have a hard time imagining who I was before."


In what may be regarded as a landmark decision by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Genevieve Jeanson, banned for life after testing positive to EPO in July 2005, has been awarded a reduced sentence of just two years. Despite announcing her retirement on January 19 this year, it appears the Canadian is re-thinking a return to professional cycling, who is now able to resume racing as early as July 2007.

"I’m 25 and I still have a lot of good years ahead of me," said Jeanson in a statement. "But accepting the USADA’s offer was a difficult decision. Other decisions will wait."

The agreement between USADA and Jeanson, dated November 1, 2006, comes after a recent expert report submitted by Belgian doctor Joris Delanghe, hired by Jeanson, who questioned Jeanson's test results from the 2005 International Tour de Toona, claiming it to be a false positive.


It should be noted that the agreement is not an admission of guilt by Jeanson. According to her statement, the purpose is to "take into account all of the circumstances of the matter and to avoid the mutual burden of going forward with the AAA/CAS hearing".

Equally, USADA has not admitted their test results were inaccurate: "Both parties acknowledge that they are not changing their respective positions by agreeing [...] but seek to end this matter without further process."

According to Dr. Delanghe, his report casts further doubt on the accuracy of urinary EPO tests, who concluded: "In the case of severe exercised-induced proteinuria (like in Jeanson's case), there is a serious concern about the validity of the EPO test."

“I have never in my entire career taken EPO, or any other banned substance,” said Jeanson. “After the USADA informed me that I had tested positive in July 2005, I did some research to figure out how this could have happened. I secured the help of a reputable professor and researcher at Ghent University in Belgium, Dr. Joris Delanghe. I am very grateful that he graciously offered to investigate my case.”

Jeanson has experienced a hugely successful, yet turbulent career. The 1999 road race and time trial junior world champion was heavily criticised during the 2000 Olympic Games selections after applying for an exemption from the rules, as the selection criteria didn't acknowledge her achievements at a junior level. After being granted a spot in the Canadian line-up, Jeanson was further dogged by critics who accused her of preventing teammate Lyne Bessette from claiming a medal in the road race.

Jeanson's utter dominance in North American races led to suspicions of doping. In 2003, those suspicions were heightened by Jeanson's high hematocrit reading prior to the 2003 road world championships in Hamilton, leading to her exclusion from the race. The next year, Jeanson failed to appear for anti-doping control following La Fleche Wallone in Liege, Belgium, and was fined and given a warning.

While Jeanson will now take her time deciding whether to return to professional-level cycling, after officially announcing her retirement on January 19, 2006, she's thankful to those that have stood by over the past two years. “I know that I’ll never be able to convince everyone of my innocence,” concluded Jeanson. “Innocence cannot be proven. But Dr. Delanghe’s work has shed light on the probable causes of the incident on July 25. I want to thank him for his interest in my case, as I would like to thank everyone who helped and supported me during this difficult period of my life.”

It is sad, I dont know everything about what goese inside of procycling, maybe everyone dopes, maybe seldom few but it always sad to see this happen. Look at Landis and Hamilton, they have to stick so much money in to there defense and it looks like it will end up hopeless. Im not saying Landis is guilty or not, but just imagine if you were him and you knew you did not dope, and you get accused and accused for doing it. You know for a fact you didnt do, the problem is having to prove it, and for landis, how is he suppose to know, all he knows is he didnt do it.

I have sympathy because she seems to have exploited by that creepy coach (boyfriend?). But I also think there is almost no doubt that she was doping either knowingly or unknowingly. Her performances were other worldly, and furthermore her doctor admitted to doping her. This was largely the basis for Canada no longer giving her a license. She was never the rider again that she was back before that whole fiasco went down. She could still win and ride good races, but those unbelievable dominating performances race after race were a thing of the past.

how about feeling sad for the racers who weren't cheating and watched their careers suffer because cheaters like her dominated events? This whole Hamilton style defense of deny deny deny is so obvious...good riddance to her...

This whole Hamilton style defense of deny deny deny is so obvious...good riddance to her...

How telling is it that her ex-teammates say the same thing?

It seems to me that the USADA wimped out here. I know they wouldn't agree but actions speak louder than words and their action was to choose not to defend their EPO testing at the CAS.

Jeanson's defense (exercise induced false positive) can and (assuredly) will be used by others, esp, as it got a lifetime ban reduced to 2 years with one already served. Sooner or later the USADA will have to go to the CAS anyways, so why not in this, relatively, high profile case? Either that or stop giving lifetime bans.

Unless the testing is flawed, which opens up a whole can of ethical worms. :)

I have sympathy because she seems to have exploited by that creepy coach (boyfriend?). But I also think there is almost no doubt that she was doping either knowingly or unknowingly. Her performances were other worldly, and furthermore her doctor admitted to doping her. This was largely the basis for Canada no longer giving her a license. She was never the rider again that she was back before that whole fiasco went down. She could still win and ride good races, but those unbelievable dominating performances race after race were a thing of the past.


So it's ok if your spouse dopes you hope without your knowledge?

Still cheating.

Either that or stop giving lifetime bans.

Unless the testing is flawed, which opens up a whole can of ethical worms. :)

Wha took you so long?:blush2: :)

This whole Hamilton style defense of deny deny deny is so obvious...good riddance to her...
so if you're innocent you can gain credibility by admitting to something you didn't do?
innocent till proven guilty?

innocent till proven guilty?

Hamilton was found guilty twice, by USADA and CAS.

Jeanson, more or less plea bargained and agreed to take a two year ban instead of a life-time ban in exchange for not challenging the positive finding. The "courts" did not evaluate the legitimacy of her claim that her positive test was a false positive.

Jeanson, more or less plea bargained and agreed to take a two year ban instead of a life-time ban in exchange for not challenging the positive finding. The "courts" did not evaluate the legitimacy of her claim that her positive test was a false positive.
USADA, more or less plea bargained and agreed to take a two year ban instead of a life-time ban in exchange for not having the positive finding challenged. The "courts" did not evaluate the legitimacy of their claim that her positive test was not a false positive.

USADA, more or less plea bargained and agreed to take a two year ban instead of a life-time ban in exchange for not having the positive finding challenged. The "courts" did not evaluate the legitimacy of their claim that her positive test was not a false positive.

True, they both had to agree to the terms.

USADA, more or less plea bargained and agreed to take a two year ban instead of a life-time ban in exchange for not having the positive finding challenged. The "courts" did not evaluate the legitimacy of their claim that her positive test was not a false positive.

True, they both had to agree to the terms.