It has been reported today that Mark Sisson has resigned his post of chairman of the ITU Anti-Doping Commission. Sisson got hit by shrapnel in the civil war between factions of the European Triathlon Union, and one of those factions' war with the present ITU administration.

In the process triathlon got hit by shrapnel as well.

It's not that I care much about this particular incident, but I've seen a doctrine invoked often enough that it's time to write about it. The doctine goes like this: If you make a living in the field in which you've got official governing-body duties, you've got a conflict of interest and therefore cannot serve.

The practical result is that only unqualified people are allowed to make decisions which affect a sport. Sisson knows about drugs and doping because he's in the drug biz. The only practrical way to know about drugs is to have spent a good chunk of your life in that field.

I saw this curious doctrine invoked by a certain faction of USA Triathlon's board a few years ago. Several board members believed that race directors could not vote on anything that had anything to do with race direction because their mode of income generated a conflict of interest. Many on the board at the time made a living at triathlon: timing company owners, race owners, magazine publishers, and so forth. This doctrine crippled the board.

In Sisson's case, a reporter who often writes nasty things about Sisson and McDonald approached a long-time member of the IOC Medical Commission, Arne Ljungqvist, and apprised him of Sisson's dual role. This reporter essentially asked Ljungqvist, "Don't you think it's a gross conflict of interest?"

An article about this encounter was generated out of that reporter's meeting with Lundquist. It was printed by Inside Triathlon, and pulled from I.T.'s site a couple of days later. But while it was still up, Sisson read it.

"I was incensed," Sisson said about the article. Sisson tracked Ljungqvist down and inquired directly, and Ljungqvist apparently replied, "Yeah, I do, I think you have a conflict of interest."

So Sisson resigned. Les McDonald subsequently informed Lundquist. But Sisson is not resigning without making it clear why.

"I've been a chairman of the ITU Anti-Doping Commission since day-one," said Sisson. "I helped draft the anti-doping rules for USAT back in 1988. I'm still a member of that USAT Anti-Doping Commission. None of that work over 13 years ever intersected with my business.

"Out of the entire universe of 1300 athletes who are ranked, there is a total of one, to my knowledge, who has ever used my product. And he first started as a paying customer before he became a pro. I don't sponsor any athletes. Several years ago I helped one athlete with product, and she was not an ITU racer. She raced Ironman-distance. So somebody tell me where the conflict is, or how I've abused my position, or how I've profited from my position as anti-doping chair.

"Maybe I'm being obtuse. Look, I am able to participate in the discussion, because I know what I'm talking about. About four or five years ago I noticed that androstenedione wasn't on the list. I brought it up to Schamasch, and the next year it was on the [banned] list. This dynamic works because I know what I'm talking about."

In cases like Sisson's, the question ought not to be: Could there be a conflict? But, Is there a conflict?

Some of the worst historical sport-related conflicts occurred in the sport of cycling. The very doctors who participated in cycling's drug testing were employed by the teams to help the athletes beat the testing. Does that mean that medical doctors––like Patrick Schamasch, the International Olympic Committee's medical director––should be excluded from serving on the committee?

Should people in the business of making bikes, or in the business of triathlon or bike racing, be excluded from sitting on technical committees because of a conflict of interest? If so, who will know enough to be able to write sensible technical rules about bike manufacture or race conduct?

Should those who are paid to be officials at triathlons be excluded from sitting on rules committees?

What Arne Ljungqvist should have done––if he had a concern––was investigate whether Sisson ever profited or sought to profit from his work as anti-doping chair. Did Sisson use his position to market supplements to ITU athletes? Did he set up a booth at ITU races? In short, where's the money his supplement company made from Sisson's 13 years of service?

Sisson resigned because the ITU is under the microscope, and it is taking measures to appease the IOC. There are plenty of things it ought to do, plenty of remedial measures it needs to take. But this is not one of them. Are we trading up by replacing Sisson? Or are we just further dumbing down our governing organizations by invoking a stupid doctrine.