Should we blanket all pre-2007 cycling as dirty?
Lance Armstrong has both energised and tarnished US Cycling - can it continue to grow? (AP Photo/Franck Prevel, File)
Related coverage
What does it really mean to ‘blanket’ pre-2007 cycling from further drug scandals, and should it be done?
One side of me says they should just draw a line before the introduction of the biological passport, no more positives, done, dusted, ‘nuff said.
My other side says wait a minute, so those cheating bastards pre-2007 get off scott free? We have a crisis of conscience to consider here, and it affects cyclists from around the world.
Blanketing an entire era from further drug related scandals is an admittance of monumental proportion, one that could wreck former professional cyclists’ personal lives, destroying their families and friendships.
Such an admission, declaring the period as ‘The Days of Drugs’, gambles with not only the past but also the future credibility of cycling as a sport and lifestyle.
Credibility that, on one hand will be hard pressed to be won back, but on the other hand, may be reaped and gained in huge quantities as a final recognition of The Days of Drugs and a signalling of moving forward.
Another problem in throwing the blanket is wrongly accusing the people before 2007 who actually won their professional cycling events without the use of performance enhancing drugs. Surely those members of the sport who haven’t the guilt of their colleagues would have something to say about such a sheath of admittance.
One of the positives about tossing the blanket over the period is the possibility of finally ‘moving on’. It needs to happen one way or another, and with the Lance Armstrong scandal finally imploding with dark-matter force, the process seems to be starting.
Out with the old and in with the new? Actually, no. There is an obvious problem here. Worldwide cycling hasn’t been, let’s say, purified.
It’s not been the type of cleansing Mexican President Felipe Calderón enforced in 2007, where all local police officers in certain cities were forced to surrender their weapons due to their assumed ties with drug cartels. I suppose sometimes a little collateral damage can be necessary for the greater good?
The fact of the matter is managers and directors of a lot of on-going professional teams have histories about as clean as a brothel’s bed sheets and so their existence deep within the fabric of a sport scurrying to rediscover its integrity is potentially detrimental.
So we have a situation where it appears wholly probable the upper echelon of the post-2007 professional cycling peloton have bathed in some (hopefully) righteous holy waters and cleaned up well and good.
The sport appears less inconsistent with ‘normal homosapien expectations’, race speeds are down and general symptoms of human regularity (like bonking and sickness) are more common.
Yet the professional racers from the past generations, who have or may not have been – officially or unofficially – tied up in bygone doping complications, are still omnipresent. Rightfully so I believe, these people built our sport and, whether it was using PEDs or not, they are still the ambassadors of our sport and they still, somehow, have the right to help the sport grow and prosper.
The issue is with the exponential growth in pre-2007 doping scandals, the food is there for the people to feast on. It’s not as if the media are ever going to run out of ex-pros lavishing us with their lifetime confessions, and the associated team-based scandals arising out of the associated mud. Nor will there be a shortage of people interested in the stories.
Where is the end then? Do we have to simply face the media pessimistically shunning our sport for decades to come, or can we oust the junk now and press forward with renewed impetus and passion? Must we throw out the babies with the bath water or not?
I am not sure we can justify the covering of such a huge period of time with a neutral zone, especially because so many people have lost so much testing positive in the pre-2007 era already.
Imagine all riders from back then who have tested positive and lost everything, and how they will feel if they find out that now, finally, their performance enhanced results are essentially swept under the table as acceptable? Out of sight out of mind.
It can’t happen, it’s too unfair to too many people. What a romantic idea to consider – fresh slate – but sorry, it just doesn’t seem morally fair.
The sport of cycling will have to face its demons, and the faster these mass-admissions of guilt occur, the better.
Follow Adam on twitter @adamsemple
![]()
Passionate about your cycling? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily cycling email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (12) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Cycling, drugs in sport


February 10th 2013 @ 7:24am
Bobo said | February 10th 2013 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Why pre-2007? What has changed? I think you’ll find that there’s no reason to draw a line.
Have you followed the Mantova investigation?
February 10th 2013 @ 9:48am
Whiteline said | February 10th 2013 @ 9:48am | Report comment
agree..nothing has changed…just the technique
February 10th 2013 @ 10:48am
Adam Semple said | February 10th 2013 @ 10:48am | Report comment
The commencement of the biological passport program in 2007 has changed the dynamic of doping within cycling, you don’t agree?
February 10th 2013 @ 12:41pm
delbeato said | February 10th 2013 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
It just means micro-doping has replaced hooked-up-to-HRM-while-sleeping doping. The great benefit is that clean riders can now compete, but they’re not all clean.
February 10th 2013 @ 10:59am
WoobliesFan said | February 10th 2013 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Pre-2007?….try pre and post.
You miss the fact that UCI dropped their own investigation?
February 10th 2013 @ 4:04pm
Lee Rodgers said | February 10th 2013 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
If you’ve read about some cyclists and triathletes inhaling carbon monoxide to get a blood boost you might not be so hopeful for the future.
Apparently the recipient gulps down his lung load of carbon monoxide, the body goes ‘hmm, this is weird, i’m losing oxygen…’ and it notices this because the carbon monoxide ‘replaces’ (or destroys) the oxygen in the haemoglobin molecule in the red blood cell. The body then goes into repair mode and very forcefully instructs the kidneys to produce more EPO to counterbalance the lack of oxygen, which means more red blood cells and therefore an improvement in the blood’s ability to take in oxygen.
Sounds insane? Yep. Think someone somewhere is trying it? Yep.
Then there’s a new drug that mimics an increase in activity in the PPAR-D gene, which affects the production of slow-twitch muscle fibres and in turn helps keep you slim and increases stamina. There’s no test for this yet. Then there’s the two new strains of EPO that was said to have been in use at the London Olympics that also as of yet cannot be tested for, and then of course we have the dark specter of gene manipulation on the horizon.
There are signs that things are getting better in the peloton, but I can’t yet make that leap of faith to believe that this is a trend that will continue. Everything before us in human history tells us that corruption always returns.
And what, a couple of months after the LA interview and still the UCI hasn’t done anything of note, still the other groups bicker and fight, and still there’s no united front from the riders. I really think you’d be hard-pressed to find 20 guys who have been around for more than 6 years that haven’t taken something at sometime, and that may be the reason so many are silent now.
Yet still, we can’t give up. We have a proper fight on, and it’s a worthy one. But certainly, on a fundamental level, not much has changed since 2007.
February 10th 2013 @ 10:50pm
kid said | February 10th 2013 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
Great comment Lee. As a molecular biologist I know how routine access to this technology is. Manipulation of any natural gene (read hormone or peptide) is quite simple. We can deliver it externally through cell culture or up-regulate the body’s own tissue specific production (a hormone is at normal levels everywhere except in the tissues that count). To detect this you would need tissue biopsies of internal organs. The days of detecting drugs has gone now you must concentrate on detecting abnormal physical attributes but who can say what is possible by a freak clean athlete?
February 10th 2013 @ 10:56pm
delbeato said | February 10th 2013 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
Freak athletes may have abnormal blood parameters, but they still fluctuate in accordance with established principles – i.e. the rigour of a 3 week grand tour. USADA claim to have detected Lance doping in his comeback due to abnormally stable blood values in the 2009 TdF – a clean rider would unavoidably have suffered depletion in certain parameters.
February 11th 2013 @ 12:06pm
sittingbison said | February 11th 2013 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
delbaeto its the difference between Lances Giro and Tour blood parameters thats the tell. Giro behaved as one would expect, the Tour did not.
Laughably Damsgaard has just defended Lances’ 2009 Tour values, forgetting he had previously slammed Chickens identical values as being “impossible”.
February 11th 2013 @ 12:57am
Lee Rodgers said | February 11th 2013 @ 12:57am | Report comment
Thanks for that kid, and I’d be very interested to hear more about that in an article, if you have the time
February 11th 2013 @ 12:11pm
sittingbison said | February 11th 2013 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
sigh
(
2007 2008 2009 and 2010 were the four highest years of doping incidents in cycling history, other than 2002
http://www.dopeology.org/statistics/incidents/
February 11th 2013 @ 8:24pm
Tim Renowden said | February 11th 2013 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
There are several ways that recorded doping incidents can increase though:
- an increase in the incidence of doping at the same rate of detection
- an increase in the detection rate at the same incidence of doping
- an increase in both the incidence of doping AND the rate of detection.
My point is that we need more information to determine which of these is the case. It’s possible that new testing protocols/biological passport/non-analytical investigations caused a spike in violations that took a few years to wash through (see 2011 and 2012) as behaviour in the peloton gradually changed.
That’s me being an optimist.