Retired Olympic medalist Brenton Rickard has tested positive for a banned substance via a retroactive test on a sample collected at the 2012 Olympic Games. The sample tested positive for the banned masking agent furosemide in a retroactive drug test of a 2012 sample as part of an IOC program to retroactively test samples collected at previous Olympic Games using modern methodologies.
The significance of the positive test is that it was a test from the 2012 Olympic Games wherein Rickard swam as a prelim swimmer in the men’s 4×100 medley relay. Swimming in the finals, the Australian contingent of Hayden Stoeckel, Christian Sprenger, Matt Targett, and James Magnussen went on to win a bronze medal in the relay. Tommaso D’Orsogna would also lose his prelims medal if that medal were stripped.
Despite the fact that Rickard didn’t swim on the finals relay that won the medal, he is considered to be a member of the team since he swam in the prelims. This means that should Rickard be stripped of his results from the Games, so too would this entire bronze medal-winning relay.
The fate of Rickard and the relay will be decided by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following the International Olympic Committee’s recent filing of the case.
The 2012 Olympic men’s 4×100 medley relay was won by the United States team of Matt Grevers, Brendan Hansen, Michael Phelps, and Nathan Adrian with silver going to Japan’s Ryosuke Irie, Kosuke Kitajima, Takeshi Matsuda, and Takuro Fujii.
Should Australia be stripped of its bronze medal, third place would instead go to the Great Britain squad made up of Liam Tancock, Michael Jamieson, Michael Rock, and Adam Brown. The British were just about a second behind the 3:31.58 Australians in the event, swimming a 3:32.32.
Craig Benson, who swam the prelims breaststroke leg on Australia’s medley relay, would also earn a bronze medal if promoted.
Men’s 4×100 Medley Relay, London 2012
- USA – 3:29.35
- Japan – 3:31.26
- Australia – 3:31.58
- Great Britain – 3:32.32
- Hungary – 3:33.02
- Germany – 3:33.06
- Netherlands – 3:33.46
- Canada – 3:34.19
At the 2012 Games, Rickard also raced in the 100 breaststroke (6th – 59.87) and 7th (2:09.28).
Upon hearing the news that the suit would be filed with the CAS, Rickard shared the news with his teammates in the following email which was obtained and published by the Sydney Morning Herald;
This is one of the most difficult emails I have ever had to write.
As you know the 2012 London Olympic Games was one of the highlights of my swimming career and our medal in the 4 x 100m Medley is a memory that I will treasure forever.
I am devastated to inform you that a sample that I provided on 1 August 2012 after the 200m Breaststroke event has been re-tested 8 years later and returned with an exceedingly small concentration of a masking agent, furosemide. The re-analysis did not detect the presence of any other prohibited substance that may have a performance-enhancing effect.
As you know I would never, ever knowingly or deliberately take a banned substance without a TUE. It is not acceptable within my own personal values, nor ever acceptable within the culture of our team. I have always abhorred doping within the sport so you can imagine how sickened and horrified I am to find myself in this predicament. This is my worst nightmare.
You may be aware that diuretics are known contaminants of over-the-counter medications. I believe that this is what has occurred here as I consumed a number of over-the-counter medications in the week prior to test. This explains the exceptionally low concentration (6ng/ml). To put it in perspective, the minimum required performance level for the detection of furosemide in 2012 was 250ng/ML. Given its high excretion rate, it is implausible that I would have knowingly taken this substance for an improper purpose. Unfortunately for me though, I am not able to produce physical evidence 8 years after the fact and the reality is that the precision of testing has become so good it has now exceeded the quality control measures for over-the-counter medications.
The IOC have filed proceedings against me in the Court of Arbitration for Sport and are looking to disqualify all of my results from the London Games, including the Medley Relay team. Through my lawyers I have objected to this in the strongest possible terms. This outcome would be grossly unfair and disproportionate, particularly given I did not swim in the final. I also think it is not right for the Court of Arbitration for Sport to make a decision about this when you are not a party to the proceedings.
I am truly sorry to have to inform you of this shocking situation. I expect the matter will become public imminently so I wanted to inform you in advance of this and convey to you my strong conviction of my innocence and commitment to protesting the disqualification of the 4 x 100m Medley result.
The matter will be heard this Monday 9 November in Switzerland. If you would like to discuss any of it with me, give me a call on XXXXX. More importantly, you can contact my lawyer, XXXXX if you wish to discuss any aspect of the legal process and what steps, if any, you can take.
I will, of course, let you know the outcome as soon as I know it myself.
Regards Brenton
As mentioned in the email, the hearing is set to begin in Lausanne, Switzerland on Monday, November 9.
This is part of an ongoing program by the IOC and WADA to re-test samples from prior Olympic games with new, modern testing methods. From the 2012 Olympic Games, there have been at least 122 adverse analytical findings (positive tests) among retested samples.
Furosemide is the same substance that Brazilian Cesar Cielo and several teammates tested positive for in 2011. A compounding pharmacy was ultimately blamed and the group were ultimately given just warnings.
Rickard called the amount of furosemide in his sample “exceedingly small.”
There is no fair way for this man to defend himself years later. A common defense – sometimes appropriate, sometimes a dodge – is that something in his environment contributed to this (minimally elevated) level. In this instance, it could have been someone, not necessarily even a family member, who was taking lasix and somehow contaminated his food intake. But it is hard to see how he or anyone can reasonably be expected to recreate the circumstances of his life 8 years later. This is one reason why in America (and elsewhere) we have statutes of limitation on offenses.
Marion Jones got busted for drugs at the Sydney Olympics, and ran in the final of the 4x400m..and the team got to keep their medal on appeal….(how, who knows!)……just for discussion sake! It is an interesting dilemma. What if a team qualified for the Games in some comp, and later someone from the qualifying team was busted? Should they lose their place or medal? That’s happened too.
In the Marion Jones situation, the CAS agreed that in 2000, when the medals were won, the rule was not written to strip teammates of medals. In 2012, they were, so Rickard is likely out of luck on that tactic.
Cheaters….
Why are they testing samples 8 years later? And the amount was legal then but not legal now?
Essentially, the idea is “better late than never.” They’re testing samples later to try to use more advanced anti-doping techniques to catch cheaters. The idea is that even if you can get away with cheating in 2008, you will be caught eventually and the people who were cheated out of medals will get what they earned eventually.
Regarding the amount, it’s not that it was legal then or it wouldn’t be an issue. The substance is illegal in any amount. The minimum required performance level that he mentions in his letter is actually a quantity set by WADA specifying the minimum concentration that a lab needs to be able to detect. My guess is that if your lab can’t detect… Read more »
I am probably going to be hated for this, and you know what I don’t care. He should not be given the benefit of the doubt. Treat him like every other doper
Read the article properly then. The man is integrity personified . Always has been. The amount is so insanely small. Could have been from anything
How are we supposed to know from reading the article that he has a lot of integrity? The letter is well written, sure, but that doesn’t mean anything. The guy might be innocent, but there’s no way for us to know. Either way, he had a banned substance in his body during competition, so there at least needs to be a hearing to determine what consequences, if any, are warranted.
That being said, I also agree with his point that there is no way for him to defend himself 8 years after the fact. It’s a hairy situation, especially considering that there is a relay medal (and, therefore, ten other people’s medals) involved. I don’t know what the solution is,… Read more »
Integrity personified! Haha! Yes just like Shayna!
Hope they retest Ye Shiwen’s samples.
They probably have. The fact that you haven’t heard anything is probably all the answer you need.
6ng/ml could have been from anything. Minimum required performance level for detection was 250ng/ml. Ridiculous. But other people like Yang, get to keep their medals .
Impossible to defend himself after 8 years. Many others have been able to barter down their bans or get them removed completely due to unknown contamination from substances such as this. He can’t do that because too long has passed.
Perhaps. On the other hand, even those who were able to negotiate down their bans have generally been stripped of results from the competition where they tested positive.
So, on net, Rickard would receive about the lightest punishment available: loss of results from the competition, and no meaningful period of suspension.