2012 was a tough year for fans of cycling. I'm one of them. What do I mean when I call myself a 'fan'? First and foremost, I love to ride a bike and did it long before I knew about professional cycling or the Grand Tours. Secondly, I genuinely respect the history and efforts of those who legitimately push the boundaries of what is possible in any undertaking, science, literature, sporting or otherwise and professional cyclists are certainly able to do more than I ever could on a bike. At its best, professional cycling has moments where someone does something unexpected and succeeds against the odds, or in spite of them. I love the tension, tactics and suffering of road racing and especially the Grand tours like the Tour de France.
Though it was a tough year for fans, it was not a surprising one. The biggest disappointment for me was not about the scale and sophistication of doping that was revealed. Anyone with a pulse would concede that the doping epidemic is the worst kept secret in sport. My disappointment, perhaps naive, was the crystallisation of just how little regard so many of the peloton have for the sport and the people that follow it - ie the 'fans'. Sure, some may think that the 'pros' don't owe the fans, or anyone for that matter, anything. I think that is bullshit.
My view - no fans; no sponsors; no prize money; no adulation; no World Tour; no 'profession' - they all revert to being weekend warriors racing during the spare time available between their real working hours. A point that appears to be lost on professional sportspeople, including pro cyclists, is that they aren't saving starving kids in Africa and their collective efforts do little to generate any universal good. That they get paid to pursue what they love doing is one of life's great mysteries and something that each of them should be grateful for, and humble about, everyday of their lives. That's rarely the case of course.
So if I was aware of the doping epidemic, why am I disappointed? Simple - the current deluge of admissions, some with heartfelt tears or remorse, some with heartfelt tears of shame crystallised just how little the dopers in the peleton cared for themselves or the sport (let alone the fans). Maybe I hoped for too much but I don't think so.
Some may think that they were simply pursuing their respective dreams by whatever measures were required but just because a sport is professional doesn't mean that all participants are entitled to be morally bankrupt and actively take action which is the opposite of the clearly stated rules. If I don't pay my taxes I get a fine and if my subterfuge is bad enough, I go to jail. Tax avoidance is an apt analogy to doping - it's a victimless crime in that no individual is exclusively affected but the losers are every person who meets their social contract and contributes to the pool available to pay for the basic needs of society. For professional cycling and the fans, we were collectively, not individually robbed. I'm not suggesting that dopers go to jail - the last thing overburdened prisons need is the addition of a bunch of skinny-arsed cyclists becoming 'prison wives' - but simply; wrong is wrong.
Presumably the dopers would say that a disillusioned fan can go and wallow in their self pity. Some might say that dopers are only hurting themselves, but that's bullshit. If they want to play a game with an illegal advantage; play a different game. The expectation of the fans is that they will see a clean game and not have to endure endless, annual let downs from the latest winner who didn't win by the rules. Presumably the professional peleton thought that they owned the sport and that they were entitled to re-write the rules. Well, fuck them.
But back to my original point. Even though professional cycling has had a stink for decades, the dam burst of shit that followed the 2012 USADA action, and accompanying confessions of professional riders, seems to have been focused on Lance Armstrong. But a point that has been lost during and after his public disintegration is that although he is accused of being the most successful and organised doper in the history of sports (which is wrong, there are worse), he didn't start the practice, he just took it new heights in a particular sport. He's no different to decades of US baseball players, American football players, the East German Olympic program (esp. swimming), Marion Jones, Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds or, more relevantly, many, many professional cyclists over many, many decades.
Full disclosure, I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. Though he can certainly handle a bike as shown during the famous off road excursion during the 2003 Tour. I prefer my champions to have a little humility. Even worse, if they cannot be honest, I prefer that they skulk in the shadows rather than take the scorched earth denial/attack option. The Simeoni incident when Armstrong publicly bullied a rider for speaking out about doping was disgraceful. Particularly given Armstrong's explanation at the time -
"The story of Simeoni is not a fair story... Simeoni, there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about his part of the story. It's a long history... A guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling...and for me, that's not correct. He's the kind of rider who attacks the peloton and cycling in general.".
Not to mention others that truly have reason to feel wronged by a bully - Emma O'Reilly, Betsy and Frankie Andreu etc etc.
Wanker.
Wanker.
But back to the point. Doping has been integral and rampant in cycling. Tom Simpson died on Mt Ventoux during the 1967 Tour de France with amphetamines in his blood. Eddie Merkx was equally involved in doping allegations that were conveniently and awkwardly dismissed. Fancesco Moser admitted to blood doping (not illegal at the time...but Francesco, come on...) prior to breaking the hour record in 1984.
Lance Armstrong is certainly a doper but he didn't create the problem. The self serving disingenuous confessions of the current crop of cyclists seeking, and receiving, a reduced penalty (Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer...and friends) is just wrong. Their crime isn't any less and their pleas that they were bullied and pressured into doping and were unable to resist the pressure is bullshit. There wasn't a gun to their heads. They could have easily said no, they just decided that they didn't want to. Are they any better off now than if they had rejected doping and run the risk of never joining the professional peleton? Actually, no. They all have zero credibility and that will follow them for the rest of their lives...a nice one to have to explain to their kids.
Lance Armstrong is certainly a doper but he didn't create the problem. The self serving disingenuous confessions of the current crop of cyclists seeking, and receiving, a reduced penalty (Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer...and friends) is just wrong. Their crime isn't any less and their pleas that they were bullied and pressured into doping and were unable to resist the pressure is bullshit. There wasn't a gun to their heads. They could have easily said no, they just decided that they didn't want to. Are they any better off now than if they had rejected doping and run the risk of never joining the professional peleton? Actually, no. They all have zero credibility and that will follow them for the rest of their lives...a nice one to have to explain to their kids.
As to what punishment is appropriate for Lance Armstrong, I don't think it should be any worse than any other doper. Strip him of his victories but ban him for 2 years - or ban all of them forever. Why is he any different to Alberto Contador who was found guilty of doping, never admitted or confessed to doping, and was allowed back into the sport after a lame 6 months with a bizarre credit given for time served because he was stripped of some results during the previous 18 months of his 2 year sentence...during which he continued to ride, race and be paid a salary to race. The outrage at Armstrong's 'crime' was that he tweaked the heart strings and squeezed a bunch of cash from fans to fight a disease. A very, very worthy objective but one built on the completely false premise that he did it all without drugs.
Though I'll never be a fan of Lance Armstrong, I'm equally not a fan of unbalanced retribution built on a foundation of disappointment because he was a fraud. So is every other doper (Contador, tainted beef...give me a break). Either, every doper is outlawed for life or Armstrong gets a 2 year ban - my preference is life bans for all of them but that will just drive current and past dopers further underground because then they really will have nothing to lose. Much as I dislike the way he won and his clear disrespect for the sport, his peers or the fans, he's no different, better or worse, than any other doper, just better organised. Treat them all the same. Time off for confessing after being cornered - no thanks - but hypocrisy and arbitrary inconsistency makes the whole thing worse.
As for the future of professional cycling? There has been a suggestion of a Truth and Reconciliation commission - invite all of them to attend and 'fess up. If they don't and are shown to have doped, they get a lifetime ban. Maybe. I'm still trying to dredge up some interest in the sport after the last year. After years of bad news and returning for more, I'm thinking it is time to give up this abusive relationship and ignore all of them and ignore the sport....then again, maybe Evans and Wiggins are finally two clean winners. Maybe I'll see how I feel in early July.
As to the 'real crime' in doping, it's the destruction of a sport by the people who participated in it. Who was robbed? The fans - the owners of the sport.
