A few weeks ago, I made a promise to never again write on doping, the USADA investigation or he who must not be named. Well, that good intention didn’t last very long. It would be nice to say everyone stopped doping in 2012 and there was no reason to write anything again – but don’t hold me to it.
Ever since I’ve followed professional cycling, I’ve always supported riders mainly based on their attitude to doping. I never could understand why doped riders could remain so popular, but that’s another story.
The problem with recent revelations is that it’s cast a shadow over the whole of cycling. Leaving many wondering – is there anyone we can trust?
This suspicion is not particularly helped by the rather feeble response of some in the cycling world. Yet, it is still a great shame that clean riders have to live with this cloud of suspicion – due to actions beyond their control.
To some extent the revelations about US Postal were nothing people in cycling didn’t know already. Though many pro-cyclists still managed to display shock as if this was somehow completely unexpected. (O Grady expresses shock)
The publication of USADA’s report has undeniably damaged cycling because the public have been made fully aware of what is going on – warts and all. But, it is still a landmark event for cycling. What could easily have stayed hidden under the code of Omerta has finally come out. It’s not just the doping. It’s the intimidation and vilification of witnesses, such as Emma O’Reilly and the culture of indoctrinating young cyclists to follow doping problems which leaves the biggest black mark.
The truth is many people in the sport look foolish. There has always been an unquestioning support of an athlete who, for so long, had so many warning signs. It’s just as embarrassing to see a major multinational reiterate their support for an athlete who must be the worst role model for any young athlete (Nike dropped their sponsorship during the course of writing this article). I often wondered why people said sponsors were part of the problem.
Can You really Trust Cyclists again?
Many will ask whether after Armstrong, we can ever trust cyclists again. The only way to know is to look at the evidence, in each case. With Armstrong, there was always a steady stream of growing evidence that he took drugs and intimidated those who spoke against doping. You had to be pretty thick not to guess what was going on. When you look at other riders, and other teams in the modern era, you do see some teams, where you feel there is genuinely an anti-doping culture. This is one thing that has changed. Some teams are genuinely trying hard to prevent a culture of doping.
Dope Tests Can’t be Relied on.
The problem the current riders have is that passing dope test is not the undeniable proof of innocence it was once assumed to. This is doubly unfortunate for clean athletes and explains why they are being so defensive. The problem is that the cycling authorities can’t just rely on drug tests. You have to do more. Notably education and support of clean riding. The UCI should feel great responsibility that a rider like Christopher Basson was bullied out of the peleton for speaking on doping – yet where was the moral support from the UCI.
It’s not just a matter of passing dope tests. We also have to ask are riders been sent to dodgy doctors? Is there a culture of doping in the team?
If you want to look for suspicious evidence in the peleton, you can definitely find it. Just recently an Italian rider (Fillipo Pozzato) was given a one week ban for dealing with banned doctor Micheal Ferrari. Even back in 2001, I couldn’t believe any clean rider would openly go to a doctor with a reputation like Ferrari’s. In 2012, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to guess why they may be spending thousands of Euros to see such a ‘doctor’. But, one week ban? What about lifetime ban?
Also, recently there was a grand tour, where a rider came back from a drugs ban. As the three weeks progressed, he got stronger. A rider from a ‘clean’ team. got tired as as the three weeks wore on. The conventional explanation is that the clean rider was tired after a long season. According to Tyler Hamilton’s book the impact of doping is much greater towards the end of a three week tour.
At the end of the day, I don’t like having a suspicious mind. I feel the best approach is to believe in a riders innocence, until there is strong evidence the other way.
My big problem with L.A. was the way he treated people who spoke out about doping. That set alarm bells ringing more than anything. That always felt much worse than the actual practise. I could never understand his popularity. But, then I’d always rather be cheering on an underdog.
Is Cycling Clean?
To come back to the question. It is definitely cleaner than it was. But, that was from a pretty low base. Cycling is cleaning up it’s act, and in some ways it does lead other sports in terms of doping controls. Big riders have been caught in recent years; that is a good sign. There are reasons to be optimistic.
Are there riders I really believe are clean? Yes. and I think clean riders can win a grand tour without doping – something not possible in the ‘dirty era’. But, cycling still faces great challenges. Many discredited dopers are still in powerful positions in the sport. Many grandees of the sport still feel any doping investigation is unfair and contrary to the perverse morality of the old cycling culture.
But, at least there are some teams and riders we can believe in. And it’s even more remarkable given the past history.
Also have been quite impressed by David Millar on this issue. Interesting an ex-doper is able to speak most coherently on the issue. Shame you don’t always get same feeling towards other ex-dopers.
Related
No comments yet.