Doping in cycling...groundhog day

What an exciting 24 months of endless revelations, heartfelt tears, apologies, denials, accusations and...more doping. The sport of professional cycling is an irredeemable basket case. Lance Armstrong stands at the top of the pile but it is a very big pile made up of a very large number of similar, though less successful cheats.

When The Tour rolled around in July of 2013, I didn't watch a minute of it, didn't read about it, couldn't have cared less. I used to follow it like a religion but last year was the straw that broke this camel's back. Doping has always been in the peleton (Tom Simpson '66 etc etc) but it was just so confrontingly, pathetically and awfully, detailed that it simply put me off the whole sport. Chris Froom - supreme athlete, shining example of the new guard...or another in a long line of chronic cheats. Who knows, who cares?

 

The latest addition to the steaming pile of deception and denial, Michael Rogers has been caught doping and blamed...contaminated food. Sure it is a tried and tested theory but it didn't work for his colleague Alberto Contador. Why would he think that he'd have shot at making that lame duck fly?

While I am at it, am I the only person who thinks that it is completely bonkers that the 'Amgen Tour of California' is sponsored by the maker of EPO? Do any of the organisers appreciate the irony?

For the record, I still love riding my bike. Opposable thumbs and the bicycle - that about sums up the advantages of the human species for me. Art, science, putting a man on the moon etc - all nice, but bikes...and those thumbs...  

It's just a shame that the professional version of the sport that is meant to leverage off all that is possible on a bike is such a joke.

Doping in cycling - the real crime

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.  

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.

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.

Doping - Phil what's the story?

Granted, there is way too much commentary on doping in cycling but let me add mine to the steaming pile. I feel personally slighted after so many years of commitment watching the Tour De France and its fantastic cheats from the comfort of my lounge chair. The highs, the lows, the drama, the excitement, the disappointments - it's stressful being a fan.

Two points.

First, the 'Voice of Cycling' - Phil Liggett - continues to be an apologist for Armstrong and the cycling establishment. Full disclosure, watching the Tour without Phil (and Paul Sherwin to a lesser extent) is like listening to an audiobook narrated by a supermodel. OK, bad analogy, I don't listen to audiobooks. It's like...anyway, not the same without Phil as it is with him.

Which brings me to my point. For years Phil has studiously defended Lance Armstrong and whenever doping allegations about the Tour are brought up, he is quick to say he hopes they have gone away or, like this year's Tour, dismiss them as publicity seeking by disgruntled has-beens and assorted hangers-on. Well, sorry Phil, I'll still listen to your dulcet tones during the Tour but get your head out of your 70 year old ass/arse (he's English). If anyone has been around for long enough to know exactly what's going on - it's you.

Note to Phil - as the guy that is half the fun of watching the Tour and such a well respected commentator on all things cycling, you have a responsibility to stop the charade. Sure you are under contract and cannot walk away as a result but maybe start with not dismissing doping allegations and work up to questioning Armstrong, the UCI, the Tour organisers, the corporate sponsors etc. Small steps Phil but your failure to acknowledge the truth makes you look a fool. If you retire, I'll be stuck with Bob Roll, Craig Hummer and the other hopeless US commentators talking endlessly about the 36th placed US rider's win in the US Pro Tour de Whogivesafuck. Save both of us further pain and get back on the right path.

Second, the flow-on effect to the amateurs who delude themselves that it's OK to make fucked up moral choices because the 'pros' do it. Amateurs adopting the same immoral attitude is pathetic. See David Anthony, the amateur cyclist whose ambition to move up the ranks of the amateur categories ended with being busted at the ultimate nothing ride - the Grandfondo NYC. However, there is now news that doping has a long history of infecting low level semi-professional/amateur running with an article in the NY Times outlining the banning of Christian Hesch.

Hesch apparently won around $40k a year in prize money at small time events where his chances of not being caught, and of winning some money, were greatest though it is not clear whether that is net of the cost of his drugs and transport costs to Mexico to collect them. Either way, a tough way to earn a living - no glory and earns the same as a NY cop. At least they get a gun, licence to run every red light and endless free donuts. Hesch gets a two year ban and early onset arthritis - what a dick. I like his comment that he did it to recover from an injury - what an injury to the oxygen carrying capacity of his blood? Give me a break - just another hopeless cheat. Get a real job and run in your spare time. No one gives a shit about who won the 10k at Buttfuck, CA except the other runners you beat that weren't doping. Dickhead.

Another disappointing week with presumably many more to follow.

Lance Armstrong is a doper - shock horror!

So, Big George Hincapie publicly confirmed both that he'd spoken to USADA and that he was a habitual doper for a prolonged period of time that coincided with his association with Lance Armstrong. Knock me over with a feather, who would have thought that Armstrong was full of shit? Only everyone who follows cycling and is currently breathing. To the true believers in his innocence, again, well done - I'm having a beer with the Easter Bunny later on and you're all welcome to drop around.

But back to the 'news'. Given I live in the US of A, it's not over for Lance. Couple of nice articles in NY times today.

First a story on Emma O'Reilly, the former soigneur to US Postal who spoke out when collaborating with David Walsh on L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong. She was vilified and pursued by Armstrong and his cronies as he did to anyone that suggested he was a doper. Typical bully - he pursued someone with intimate knowledge of his doping but who barely had the money to defend herself when she spoke the truth. Armstrong, a bully and a pathetic coward.

However, his fellow team members also bear responsibility for his poor behavior - not only did they dope, but they knew he did and that he was pursuing and bullying anyone that accused him of doing so...but they did nothing. Sorry  Hincapie, but confessing after you have retired doesn't absolve you from your sins. You should apologise to anyone that Armstrong persued because not speaking out made you part of the Armstrong problem. Same for Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters, David Zabriskie, Matt White and anyone else on that team involved in the doping program.

The culpability that these riders bear is that they knew about the doping AND the persecution by Armstrong of anyone that accused him. Fucked up moral choices that should haunt them forever. Along with Lance Armstrong, just another bunch of 'c-bombs' as Americans say (for the rest of the World vernacular, see Brad Wiggins* ha ha).

The second article, relates to a spat between Armstrong and an insurance company that underwrote a performance payment to him for success fees during his Tour wins. Problem No. 1 is that Armstrong  prevailed and was awarded $7.5M during an arbitration but also has been shown to have consistently lied under oath. Looks like he will be getting a visit from the lawyers for SCA to send the cash back plus interest (they should also send around the goons to have a word about his kneecaps). Problem No. 2 is that he lied under oath and that will affect any future statements he makes in Court - ie in legal jargon, he will be assumed to be an unreliable witness, in common terms he will be assumed to be complete liar about anything and everything and not just cycling issues. Doh!

Sadly plenty more news to run on the entire pro peleton during this period (call that the  20 years prior to 2011) and there will be a long list of respected riders who will be revealed to be dopers - all of whom will legitimately say that they had no choice because it was so endemic in the peleton and that to compete, they had to be on the juice. All up a massive fucking disappointment but not a surprise to true cycling fans. We know it has always been going on, just not the depth or the degree of organisation. Lance Armstrong will be remembered as the greatest doper ever. The Barry Bonds of cycling. He might have some redemption in the eyes of cancer survivors and their families because of Livestrong but everything he did in cycling will be irrelevant. Even his apologist, unethical sponsors have dropped him. Nike, Trek, Anheuser-Busch, Sram you are a collective disgrace and only dropped him when your continued unethical support for a clear and known doper started to threaten sales - don't pretend it had anything to do a policy of supporting only drug-free sportspeople.

* Thanks BikesnobNYC for the a far more reasoned analysis of Bradley Wiggin's vernacular. More interesting and funnier than the bullshit moral highground from Bicycling.com.

Lance Armstrong, Grandfondo NYC...it's all so sordid

Ah yes, drugs in sport. Tyler Hamilton has been busy and has just released a book that appears to be partly about him and mostly about Lance Armstrong's small er,...drug problem.

At the risk of adding another irrelevant opinion to the bottomless pit of public opinion on this topic, let's go back...

I must say I applauded Lance Armstrong's struggle back to professional sport from his death bed, sort of enjoyed reading the books and would like to have believed he was clean...but I never could - anti-cancer fundraising squeaky cleanness, or not. The Tour de France is too hard and the rest of the (mostly doped up) peleton too good that it was always too good to be true (that's a lot of 'toos', but that's a lot of 'wins' as well). The idea that one punter could train, compete and most importantly recover, day in day out to win 7 on the trot is absurd. More power to his pharmacist though. Also to the organisation that went into getting him on/off/on/off the juice with such efficiency and timing between the famous 500 tests. To the true believers in Saint Lance - good luck (btw I saw Santa Claus and Elvis having a beer in the East village yesterday).

The only outcome that would amount to any justice at this point would be to call a doping moratorium ending at the start of the 2011 TDF  - being the most likely the first TDF won by someone not doping in the last 50 years - nice work Cadel...goes to show that if you aren't on the juice backing up two years in a row is a bit of a stretch. Let all past riders fess up and walk away with their wins/losses/careers intact. Lance Armstrong could keep his 7 tainted titles and so could all of the others that have won/lost/had a placing in the last 50 years in hundreds of bike races and we can all move on. My moratorium offer comes with mandatory long term biological passporting for the pros and mandatory public humiliation for any amateur caught doping (more on that later) for being so cravenly pathetic.

Incidentally, it is a bit rich stripping him of his titles when so many previous winners were on the juice as well. Yes, yes Contador had his taken off him but it's a bit late to reverse that one. Pretending that Lance Armstrong was the most egregious offender of past winners is absurd. He is certainly the most blatant and unrepentant but then he had the misfortune to be winning at a time that drugs in sport is (quite rightly) a huge issue. Bad timing old boy. Oh, well.

Which brings me to why this issue irritates me. For a start, he is full of shit and has taken the 'walk away, I'm too tired to keep fighting this' defence - ie the coward's way out. Either fight it to the death or confess. It's not like he has run out of cash or has anything better to do (triathlons?). But worse, amateur morons think that doping is a good idea - eg David Anthony (amatuer doper). That poor punter has been beaten up enough so that's not my intent, or even my right for that matter - sorry, professional 'althetes' get paid to compete and are fair game. As has been well documented, Anthony was busted at, of all events, the Granfondo NYC (aka the weekend ride to Bear Mtn and back).

A moment of full disclosure - to my eternal shame I rode in the Grandfondo NYC. I promise never to repeat this mistake. I have also ridden to Bear Mtn a few times and can confirm that riding without 5000 friends is much more enjoyable, less dangerous and you don't  all have to wear the same stupid jersey. Most importantly, you can do it any weekend (except grandfondle weekend) for free. Anyway, the doping controls were a great laugh and a pathetic attempt to lend some credibility to a group ride so to be actually caught doping was a staggering performance by D. Anthony.

Which brings me to my point. Lance et al, either win cleanly or piss off and get an honest job (politics, investment banking?). You are a bad example to youth and middle aged men dealing with a mid-life crisis. Fuck you.