Bensinger: Zach, the U.S Anti-Doping Agency investigated and decided to give you a public warning and that was it. Then, WADA pressed for a two year ban. Why?

Zach: I think it comes down squarely on the shoulders of Dick Pound. Not only was he the Head of WADA, but he was also a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee. He’s the one who decided to appeal it. I think the reasons behind it were very political. Two Canadians did go on to win the gold and silver at the race and they were my biggest competition. He also spoke out against me publically before my hearing had even happened which was out of line. I felt there was a big conflict of interest in him making that decision [to appeal].

Bensinger: I’ve talked to Dick Pound before. He’s a very smart man, but certainly someone who is not afraid to speak out and voice his opinion, regardless of if it’s right or wrong. Why did he speak out and what did he say?

Lund: He said that I got a positive and that I should be held accountable. He said I should get a two year suspension. He made it hard for the Court of Arbitration for Sport. He pretty much tied their hands. Even when they made their decision, they agreed that I wasn’t a cheat. They agreed that I made an honest mistake. They even said, “This panel arrives at this decision with a heavy heart.” They believed that I was an honest athlete, open, frank, and they felt the anti-doping agencies failed me as an athlete. They let me keep all my results from that year. They were really forced to give me a sanction when they didn’t feel that was proper.

Bensinger: Then what was their justification behind suspending you for a year?

Lund: That those were the rules. Their hands were tied by the WADA code. The system is broken as far as how they punish athletes. They use carpet sanctions. The analogy I always like to use is… say you get pulled over for having a broken taillight. You didn’t know you had a broken taillight. Yes, it is illegal to have a broken taillight. Well, imagine being put in jail for the same amount of time as someone who has a DUI. That person knows you shouldn’t be driving under the influence and is knowingly breaking the law. You get the exact same punishment? It doesn’t make any sense. It’s not anything like an actual legal system. Unfortunately, as athletes, that’s what we have to deal with, with the anti-doping agencies.

Bensinger: I guess I would be more understanding of what transpired if the suspension was the same whenever someone tested positive for this drug. If there was consistency. If they’re going to give people different suspensions when they test positive for this drug, then, given your situation, you shouldn’t have been suspended at all. What I don’t get… An Israeli sailor tested positive this summer for the same exact drug but was allowed to enter the Beijing games. What sense does that make?

Lund: It doesn’t make any sense. Since my hearing, I think the Court of Arbitration for Sport has really tried to break away and make more of their own decisions and get more power from the [WADA] code. I feel they want to try and use more due diligence and not have their hands tied like they have. I don’t understand why they did that though. It does seem a little unfair.

Bensinger: How much did it bother you that you were lumped in with a group of cheaters?

Lund: It hurt. Honestly, I ended up having to spend my life’s savings to save my name. I think what hurt more than having to miss the Olympics was having my name tarnished like that. Sometimes there are articles about the worst excuses for cheats and I always get thrown in with the worst excuses. People are ignorant and don’t look at the specifics of the case. It does hurt. I know what I am. My family knows. My teammates know I’m not a cheat. That’s all that matters to me deep down inside.

Bensinger: Based on everything you’ve been through, what changes would you recommend for both the testing policies and an athlete’s appeal process?

Lund: There are lots of errors in the testing policies. They hold us to strict liability. If we have something in our system, we’re held one-hundred percent responsible for that. At the same time, they’re very wavering with their policies. They put drugs on the list, take drugs off the list. Their lab equipment isn’t always calibrated right. If they’re going to hold us to strict liability, they need to hold themselves to the same standard. There needs to be checks and balances. They need to be held accountable. Then, they need to allow due diligence for these hearings. The Court of Arbitration Arbitrators need to be able to look at each individual case for what it is and make individual decisions for each case just like a court system does.

MORE FROM IN DEPTH WITH GRAHAM BENSINGER

In Depth with Graham Bensinger Section Front

Dixon's storybook month   Banned from Budget   Racing is an expensive sport   Burden of youth   Troubles at Chicagoland In Depth with Graham Bensinger Section Front   Add In Depth with Graham Bensinger headlines to your news reader: