Golf World - February 18, 2013

L

˘02.18.13

SCOTT HALLERAN/GETTY IMAGES

Nothing is ever easy when sports and drugs are in the same sentence, regardless of what substance is linked to which athlete. Livelihoods and reputations are on the line, and things take time to be sorted out. For better or worse, swift resolutions are rare.

That reality was evident at the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am. Vijay Singh, who has admitted using a product that is said to contain a substance prohibited under the PGA Tour’s anti-doping policy, wasn’t a factor (shooting 284, 17 strokes behind winner Brandt Snedeker) but was competing and also was slated to play in the Northern Trust Open.

Singh’s presence in the Pebble
Beach field confounded those who
believe his admission to using deer-
antler spray—he said he didn’t know
it contained the prohibited ingredient
Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF- 1)—
would have shelved him immediately.
“I am absolutely shocked
that deer-antler spray
may contain a banned
substance and am angry
that I have put myself in
this position,” Singh said
in a statement, which he
issued after telling Sports Illustrated
in a Feb. 4 story that he had used the
spray among other products sold by
S. W.A. T.S. (Sports with Alternatives to
Steroids, an Alabama company).
The tour is reviewing the Singh matter,
and the Hall of Fame golfer, who turns
50 on Feb. 22, met with commissioner
Tim Finchem at Pebble Beach but
didn’t comment on their discussion.
Tom Pernice Jr., a longtime friend of
Singh’s, defended the 34-time tour
winner and believes it was an over-
sight. “We all make mistakes, and this
really isn’t a major mistake,” Pernice
told Golf World. “He just didn’t pay at-
tention to detail. That’s not his deal—
he just likes to practice and play golf.”
Two years ago the tour told Mark
Calcavecchia, who had endorsed the
spray, to stop using it because it con-
tained IGF- 1. “Vijay didn’t do anything
different from what Calc did,” Pernice
contends. Yet there is a difference.
After Calcavecchia’s use of deer-antler
spray came to light—he
was not suspended—the
tour communicated with
players, warning that
they shouldn’t use the
product.
There is no distinction
in the tour’s doping guidelines about
intent. “You are strictly liable when-
ever a prohibited substance is in your
body,” the policy states. “This means
that if a test indicates the presence
of a prohibited substance in your test
sample, you have committed a doping
violation regardless of how the prohib-
ited substance entered your body.”
Singh’s situation was revealed by a
public admission, not a test. Whether
that—or debate about whether
effective amounts of IGF- 1 can be
absorbed in spray form—will amelio-
rate any potential punishment is
unknown. The only golfer to have been
suspended for violating the tour’s
performance-enhancing drugs ban is
Doug Barron, who received a one-year
suspension after continuing to take
prescription medications for which he
had been denied a therapeutic
exemption by the tour.
The tour has leeway in any potential
punishment for Singh. It could range
from a maximum of a one-year suspen-
sion and $500,000 fine to a minimum
of rehabilitation only. Because Singh
is a high-profile player, the only
certainty at this point is that people
will be paying close attention to the
eventual outcome. N