Two stories have been running hot in the cycling media recently. The return to competitive racing of Alberto Contador following a positive drug test and US Anti-Doping Agency giving Lance Armstrong a lifetime ban for doping violations.
I have asked myself the question for a long time whether the authorities have been doing enough to drive doping out of sport.
Sure, the UCI is doing more than a lot of other sports through the introduction of the biological passports, out of competition controls etc.
However, some riders are still trying to beat the system to get an unfair advantage over their competitors.
Simply, they are committing sport fraud.
I am not a professional athlete. Far from it. But I like to be as competitive as possible. But nothing has driven me to try to get an advantage over a fellow competitive outside training hard and being mentally tougher on the day.
So what drives a cyclists to dope? Is it the need to better than their competitors, the financially benefits or just the desire to win the biggest cycling race in the world – the Tour de France.
But the recent actions of Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador appear to be thumbing their nose at the authorities and at the punishment associated with the violation. During a speech a World Cancer Congress, Armstrong said:
“My name is Lance Armstrong. I am a cancer survivor, I’m a father of five. And yes, I won the Tour de France seven times.”
Contador is no better. When he crossed the line in Madrid after Stage 21 of the Vuelta he signalled to the crowd the number seven with his hands – seven grand tour victories. But two of those victories were stripped from him for doping violations. He would later say:
“Mentally, it is the image of the grand tours that I won,”
“What’s written down on paper could be one thing or another. But in the end what counts is your own feeling, and the memory that remains imprinted on the retinas of the fans. What’s on paper is secondary.”
If a cyclist has not accepted the punishment, then he has not clearly accepted any wrong doing.
These athletes are role models for the next generation of cyclists that are coming through the system. They should be telling them that doping is not acceptable, under any circumstance.
Self-confessed drug cheat, Tyler Hamilton, is happy to talk about his experiences, the wider problem of doping in the peloton and Lance Armstrong as he publicises his new book The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups and Winning at All Costs.
During a interview with Leigh Sales on the 7.30 Report, he said something that was quiet interesting.
“I was called by a federal investigator by the name of Jeff Novitzky and basically I went in front of the grand jury and told the whole truth. If not it’s a criminal – if you don’t tell the truth, you can go to prison.”
Why did Hamilton finally come clean? It was not the need to set the record straight. It was not his conscience telling him that it was the right thing to do.
It was not about giving the authorities an upper hand again. The drug cheats understand how athletes beat the system.
It did not matter that holding this secret was eating him up inside and that he was not prepared to take the secret to the grave. Hamilton need a reason to tell the world his secret.
It was the risk of prison. He did not want to go to prison or be separated from his loved ones. Finally, there was an incentive to set the record straight.
If prison was the only real incentive for Hamilton to come clean, then maybe, the UCI, WADA and the cycling federations need to adopt tougher penalties for drug cheats.
Doping is not a criminal offence, which limits the ability of authorities to hand down prison terms. But it does not stop them from permanently banning the athlete from competition. The punishment must be tough enough to send a signal that doping will not be tolerated.
Contador received a two-year ban, but he ultimately served just six-months away from competition as his suspension was back dated. He was immediately resigned by his team, therefore, he faced little financial consequences from the ban.
I have no faith that the authorities will take a tough enough position on doping that will cause a rider to question whether they should use EPO or some other performance enhancing drug. I am sure we will be having this debate in three years time.
But as Laurent Fignon said in his autobiography We Were Young and Carefree “There will always be a number of cheats, particularly because the core of our system, rather like the crisis-hit world economy, is completely perverted by money. It’s about money for its own sake.”
We have to turn off the money supply. The only way to do that is to take the riders out of the sport forever. Never to be welcomed back.
Too harsh? Maybe, but we must must get the incentives right so our young athletes do not get tempted to stick a needle in their arm so they can win.
chris
Guest
Almost all professions have legal and illegal ways of gaining an advantage, be it the lawyer who hides evidence, the banker that gets involved with insider trading or the accountant who cooks the books; all these offences would result in the professional losing his right to practise. Focussing too much "drugs" confuses the issue, the cheats are committing a fraud against the their profession and the professional body has the right to sanction such individuals/teams/organisations.
chris
Guest
I agree with the principle, but I think it is dangerous to make punishment for contesting charges too great. The result may be that a guy pleads guilty, knowing that he is innocent as it simply too risky to contest the charges. This scenario opens the door for two problems. The first is that truly innocent riders will be convicted and conversely that real cheats later claiming they were the victims of the system that did not allow them to fight the charges. But I do agree that stronger focus should be on the corrupt team bosses. The best way to do this would be to make it so unpopular to be associated with the cheats that the team sponsor would put pressure on teams to clean up their act.
chris
Guest
The is merit in this argument, but I prefer the counter argument that focuses on breaking the honour-amongst-thieves doctrine that exists in the peleton. The focus should be on catching the cheats who win. Take the whole LA debacle. I am fine with WADA and USADA giving guys plea bargains for ratting out Lance, because Lance was the major beneficiary of the culture of silence of his period. By going after the winner, you take away the incentive to cheat.
sittingbison
Guest
james, the book is written by a guy named Coyle, not Hamilton. In the preface he clearly states that all the information in the book has been collaborated by more than ten others, and much other info had to excluded on this basis. He has also done several interviews saying the same thing. Also people who have read it all say it sounds totally believable, with the small details giving it credence. Hamilton is coming over as truthful in his interviews. He looks uncomfortable, hes not a natural TV guy, but he is not shifty or evasive.
sittingbison
Guest
They ARE under the jurisdiction of police - in some countries such as France and Italy where IT IS ILLEGAL to dope. The gendarmes have several times raided the team hotels, and infamously they were prevented from nabbing Armstrong in Pau through political intervention. Italian cops have a long history of raiding hotels and even riders homes, such as Popovych. Spain NOT being illegal to dope is one of the reasons why Armstrong lived in Spain, and why so many train in Spain. Its also why they like Tenerife, no cops and no access other than through the airport. It is also not illegal in the USA, which is why the Feds were looking at Fraud and let the USADA look at the doping (which was essentially a breach of contract). Sorry about having a crack at you, I have zero tolerance for suggestions doping should be legalised, or it doesn't mean much.
William Goat
Guest
So why is it that these doping offences are under the jurisdiction of agencies such as WADA & USADA & not simply under the jurisdiction of the police ? Remember, the USADA isn't even a government agency, they state it clearly on their website. On another note, thanks for the personal critique, perhaps next time you can keep your comments aligned to the the topic rather than making a personal attack.
Kate Smart
Expert
Great article Alistair. I couldn't agree with you more. Contador has been effectively allowed to cheat and get away with a minimal penalty. I don't believe his 'I ate dodgy meat' story and I doubt many do. What's sad is that perhaps only the threat of jail will stop some from cheating but I can't help but think even that won't discourage doping in those desperate enough.
sittingbison
Guest
What, like CERA? Hemassist?? Stuff that were never approved??? I think you will find that none of the drugs are legal (prescription). They are all black market. Which is illegal. We have got to be careful with calling for life bans etc, because the major problem of this entire disgusting and degrading affair is the corruption and complicity of UCI, or more importantly Hein and Fat Pat. It appears that Lance started dobbing in his major competitors in 2004 (after his "scare" year of 2003) when for instance Mayo and Hamilton started outperforming him. If UCI is not only going to protect and cover up certain riders, but also actively target others at the request of say Lance, then life bans become draconian. For those not knowing what I'm talking about, it is true that Lance sent that email to Hein outlining his concerns at Spanish dopers ie Mayo in 2004. Not hearsay or opinion. The suggestion at time was Lance was protecting the sport, we now know different.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
Good article with some interesting points raised. I agree with you, Alistair. I think the UCI and WADA need to bite the bullet and impose a blanket lifetime ban on anyone who pleads not guilty but is convicted of using EPO or blood doping (the two drugs which give you the most significant advantage in cycling). Cyclists, especially the best riders, just aren't scared of the consequences of a two year ban because they know, by the time they go through the whole process and the ban is properly imposed, they may only face a stint of 6-12 months off racing. Moreover, they are often re-signed immediately by another team (for example, Ivan Basso, Alejandro Valverde and Alexandr Vinokourov) because their performance and the revenue they create for the team outweighs the risk costs associated with doping. Now, if you put up a lifetime ban, or perhaps something much more substantial like a 5 or 7 year ban, riders might think twice about accepting doping products. 5 or 7 years is a long time in cycling. For a guy in his early 30's, it effectively ends his career, as its unlikely he'll get signed by a top flight team again. For a guy in his early to mid-20's, it means he misses out on the critical development phase of his career that might propel him onto greater heights. Also, with regards to Jimbo's point before about there only being 2 ways of obtaining doping products. This is wrong. Yes, those are two ways. But an equally likely, and much scarier, proposition is that the pharmaceutical companies are supplying it to them straight from the factory. If this is true, then the doping problem runs much deeper than we initially feared.
jameswm
Guest
Russ I like that last paragraph. Problem is, UCI is run by some of those that would be outed. They need a broom through the organisation.
jameswm
Guest
Can someone tell me if Tyler Hamilton is lying now he is admitting to doping?
Jimbo
Guest
All of these drugs are prescription, and I would almost guarantee you that EPO, the various anabolic steroids available etc. are all prescription only in any Western country. Therefore, there are only two ways the athletes could get a hold of them. One is that they got a dodgy doctor, in which case the doctor would be guilty of malpractice for prescribing drugs for a non therapeutic purpose, not to mention it is an extreme breach of pretty much every principle of generally accepted medical ethics (particularly non-maleficence, beneficence and justice), and would almost certainly result in de-registration by just about any medical board you would care to name. The second is that they obtained them without prescription, which is of course illegal. So no, these activities are not legal in any sense.
sittingbison
Guest
complete and utter rubbish. Try nobbling a horse race, or cheating the casino, and see how you go. Oh, and a complete and utter disregard for the numerous young cyclists who lost their lives to EPO. You are a disgrace.
William Goat
Guest
The irony that we use 'drugs' ,of all varieties across the full spectrum of society, to improve our lives & performance in those lives yet we expect athletes to abstain has not escaped me. Personally I think it is hypocritical & a ridiculous stance to want to gaol someone for something that isn't even considered illegal in a proper judicial sense.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
Diet pills? He would be a bit small for NFL
sittingbison
Guest
Furthermore, if it's pro sport with prize money and legal betting, doping should be considered a crime, especially systematic team conspiracies. Bugger bans, sling their sorry arses into jail
sittingbison
Guest
Whats suspicious about a 120kg athlete running 40m in 4.5s? Nothing to see here, move along
Russ
Guest
Sittingbison, if you've not seen it, worth a read: tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com The author is not at all liked by tennis journalists, oddly.
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
I'm not a fan of plea bargaining, or offering a shorter ban in return for names etc. as they do seem to reward those that are more complicit. In Eric Schlosser's book Reefer Nation he tells the story of an occasional pot smoker who made the mistake of introducing his supplier to a friend who was a dealer. Shortly after the supplier and dealer set themselves up in business the police were able to nab the lot of them and offered all three a deal: give up everyone you know and you won't go to prison. The supplier was able to offer names of all the dealers he supplied to, the dealer was able to offer up names of all of his customers and other suppliers. The lone pothead knew no-one but these other two. The result was that the two career criminals didn't go down, and the guy who smoked the occasional spliff was sent to prison for years for his part in introducing the two of them. If a doper is doing what Lance Armstrong has been alleged to have done and can offer up names and evidence of others doping then they may be back racing faster than the cyclist who decides, on their own, to give themselves an edge by using one of the many, ready available items on the banned list. Whilst both are clearly in the wrong, surely the one who is more complicit has the greater guilt, and therefore should serve the longer ban.
Jimbo
Guest
Yeah I agree on the last point, I had a friend who lashed out at cycling for being full of dopers, when he is a huge NFL fan (I must admit I am as well). The NFL is a sport that hands out 4 week bans for first doping offences, isn't a WADA signatory, and doesn't even test for HGH!