I must confess something. 95% of the reason why I decided to start cycling was because of Lance Armstrong. As a 16-year-old schoolboy rower, I was introduced to Lance’s story by my rowing coach.
He used his story and his various quotes as inspiration for us.
I soon became a huge fan and came to love the sport of cycling. I loved the heroes, names like: Armstrong, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Cancellara, Hushovd, McEwen.
I loved the villains: Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Vinokourov. I shunned those who thought all cyclists were dopers, thinking they were bitter or had tall poppy syndrome.
But as I grew older, I read more about the history of cycling. Cheating has long been ingrained in the culture of the sport. From its infancy, the Tour de France has been riddled with it.
It began with riders jumping on trains between checkpoints in the towns and villages along the stage routes. They also threw tacks on the road to puncture their rivals’ tyres. While this doesn’t sound so bad now, back in the early twentieth century, it was a nightmare.
Eventually, riders cottoned on to the fact that if you rode half-cut on whisky, it numbed the pain sufficiently to give you a competitive advantage. Eventually, half the peloton began riding drunk.
Shortly thereafter, the craze was methamphetamine. Of course, all British cycling fans will be able to tell you how this turned out. Tom Simpson collapsed and died on the slopes of Mont Ventoux on July 13, 1967 from a mixture of dehydration and methamphetamine overdose.
Steroids took over and combined with meth and, later, cortisone, dominated for many years. Eddy Merckx, the greatest cyclist ever, was even caught and banned for taking anabolics.
In the 1990s, erythropoietin (EPO) and blood doping became vogue, propelling riders to even great levels of performance. The average speeds of races took off.
For the cycling fan who’d just had his eyes opened, I refused to accept it. How could Lance be a cheat? Or anyone who hadn’t been caught?
Surely the testers weren’t that useless or had their hands tied behind the back so completely that it was nearly impossible to catch smartly-managed riders?
So I came up with another well-established excuse: well, if everyone else was doing it, it doesn’t really matter right? Level playing field, blah, blah, blah.
For a while, I convinced myself that this was okay. I disregarded the ethicality of cheating, almost legalising it in my head. Again, I dismissed those who saw it as wrong. How could they just focus on Lance? He wasn’t the only bad egg.
But in light of the federal investigation earlier in the year and the USADA’s doping investigation, my confidence in Lance was crumbling.
And as it crumbled, so did my confidence in the athletes. How could they have pathologically lied for so long? Not just Lance but Hamilton, Landis, Basso, Ricco. The list goes on.
It was untimely that Bradley Wiggins was having the season of his life, appearing near unbeatable for much of it. I couldn’t accept it as clean.
It was not helped by the fact that I’m an Aussie and I dislike the Brits beating us in any sporting event. Neither him nor Froome’s performance seemed logical. How could they now climb with some of the best in world cycling in Evans and Nibali?
Eventually, I read Tyler Hamilton’s book, The Secret Race. Then I read Jeremy Whittle’s book, Bad Blood. And finally, David Millar’s Racing Through The Dark. And the walls I’d built up to protect me from the filthy truth came crashing down. My cynicism was complete.
Now, all I can ask is: are any of them clean?
That’s not a fair question to ask. It’s not fair for the riders who are clean. In all likelihood, Wiggins is clean. He joined Garmin-Sharp back when it was Slipstream-Chipotle and embraced their doping controls and ethics, an ethos which I believe can lead the peloton into a new era.
Cadel Evans too has been lauded for his anti-doping activism and moral stance on the matter. I know its not saying much but ex-doper Tyler Hamilton has championed Evans as a beacon of hope for cycling. I also think that not everyone on US Postal was doping.
There are always going to be guys who will resist, as David Moncoutie did at Cofidis for years, according to ex-teammate Millar.
It’s also not fair on me. How can I ask this of the sport I love? It pains me so much to think that I will never view the sport in the same way again. I was there, watching Cadel win the Tour in 2011, standing on the Place de la Concorde singing the national anthem, and have never felt more proud to be an Aussie.
It was a tremendous moment. But the events of the past six months have put a sour taste in my mouth. I can no longer trust the athletes I once held in such high esteem.
Moreover, as everyone says that cycling has moved on, that it has changed for the good, that cycling is no longer controlled by doping, I cannot accept that there has been any real progress at all. Many of the old guard of the late 90s and early 00s are still involved in one way or another.
Matt White is a perfect example, so too are Neil Stephens , Jens Voigt, Alexandre Vinokourov, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde, David Zabriskie, Pat McQuaid and…well, how long do you want the list to be?
If the UCI appeals USADA’s case to the CAS, despite the more-than-overwhelming amount of evidence that Armstrong was part of a systematic doping culture, it will be the final straw. It will be the nail in professional cycling’s corrupt coffin. And that is not fair on the current batch of cyclists who have made it their livelihood and dream to win the world’s biggest races.
I really hope that we see resolution, that we see those who have done their best to ruin the sport in the past confess their mistakes, learn from them, help the sport rehabilitate its image and move on.
But, what frightens me most is that the Armstrong case may be just the beginning. Then I, along with the rest of the cycling fans around the world, will be left wondering how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Luke Closely
Guest
In Tyler Hamiltons book it is explained how EPO did NOT level the playing field even if everybody took it. The 50% hematocrit rule distorted everything. For example if your natural level was 40 the UCI basically said you can dope yourself up to 50 and we won't touch you. That's a 25% increase. A guy whose natural level is 45 can 'only' get an 11% increase by doping up to 50. The guys who were lacking the most in this field could gain the most advantage, the naturally gifted in this area could only make smaller gains with EPO. Also because hematocrit was not the only factor in making a great rider (power to weight ratio, training etc) a rider could have a lower natural hematocrit and still be an equally good rider as someone with a higher level. With the much larger advantage the lower level guy could gain from EPO suddenly the two neck and neck riders are poles apart over a three week race.
Lroy
Guest
Dude.. seems to me the suspicion about Armstong was first aroused when his great rival (the German guy) got busted.. the argument was that if LA could beat this guy, who we know doped, then he must have doped as well. You could use the same argument against Greg LeMond could you not?
Lroy
Guest
"A spokesman for the World Anti-Doping Agency told VeloNews Tuesday that the agency does “not have enough information at the moment,” adding that “it would be premature for us to comment on the specifics of this case.” (taken from the article) Dude, thanks for the link by the way. From my intepretation of the article.. L'Equip reported LA had failed these new drug tests for EPO... but the agency has never confirmed that... So Im not sure that is actual proof of a failed test. The Irish girl claims she disposed of syringes for Armtstong.. big deal.. they could have been vitamins (seriously).. the bit about providing makeup to cover up needles marks on the arm is heresay.. ( he said she said)... And as for Armstrong admitting to a panel of doctors that he doped prior to undergoing chemo therapy.. allegedly in the company of the wife of his buddy... surely one of the doctors would have spilled the beans by now?? Why would Lance receive a private consultation with a group of other people present.... with multiple doctors?? When I had a test for a serious illness.. it was most definately one on mone and totally confidential... this claim doesnt seem credible to me... I think this is the same girl who claimed that ADDIDAS made a $500K donation to the UCI to cover up a positive Armstrong drug test.. this has been repudiated by ADDIDAS... so this lady is NOT a reliable witness... and her testimony cannot be relied upon... You can use the same argument for the rest of them..(accusers).. they all got busted, and spilled the beans in exchange for an amnesty.. Seriously, I don't think there is as much to take this guy down as people think. I mean.. how much of this stuff would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law?? Appreciate all the feedback and links by the way... Im not a lance supporter per se in the sense that if he cheated, well suspend him.. but the evidence has to be able to presented in a court of law, with the right of replay doesnt it?
Sir G
Guest
Good for you. Flags are here to be waved I suppose. I sincerely hope you are never disappointed. But keep in mind that not testing positive in no way guarantees that no drugs were taken or that no manipulations occurred. And apologies to other readers if this was a little off-topic.
Colin N
Guest
I'm not necessarily 'enthusiastic' as such, although I'm British so I'm going to celebrate Wiggins and Froome's success until results prove otherwise! I do take solace from the fact that Wiggins was drug tested everyday that he wore the yellow jersey and you would hope/assume that there would be no Armstrong-style cover-up.
Sir G
Guest
I'd like to share your enthusiam concerning the new champs, but as I said, I am the pessimistic type. I read everywhere that times have changed, that the sport is cleaner, and so on. But I have my doubts (same applies to most sports by the way). And to answer your question, yes, I do question the other guys who climbed those impossible climbs like goats in the Vuelta. Who does not?
Colin N
Guest
Wiggins and Froome hardly went on sustained Armstrong or Contador-like attacks. Surely, if you question Froome then you have to question the three guys that smashed him in the Vuelta? Fair enough being concerned as I have doubts, but it's more to do with the state of cycling itself rather than believing the top guys are doping.
Sir G
Guest
Well done Hamleyn, I'm almost 100% with you. A bit more pessimistic though, I don't think Wiggins or Froome are clean, and I would not be surprised at all if Sky was a US Postal redux. I watched all the big tours this year, and the way these guys climb those hills is bad news to me.
dasilva
Guest
I don't agree with legalising EPO due to ill health to people using that drug However I do agree wiht the general principle that drugs should only be illegal if they simultaneously enhance performance AND harm the health of the athletes If the drug has no harm or has negligible side-effects than I see no reason why that drug should be illegal I know people will find that controversial but in my mind I don't really see any difference between a specialised training regime that enhanced performance and a drug that enhance performance If there is a drug that makes people faster stronger and more stamina with no side effects then that drug is something that advances the human race. Hell we should probably fortify that drug in our food. there's really no difference between that hypothetical drug and let say a nutrition that is beneficial to our health. However if the drug does significantly harm the health of athletes then the advantage is unfair Because this is forcing athletes to harm their health to be able to compete on a level playing field. NO athlete should be put in a position where they have to harm their health or guarantee losing the event. as an example there is a drug called a beta blocker this drug is banned in certain sports such as golf this is because beta blocker slows down the heart rate and therefore decrease the symptoms of anxiety you get from high pressured situations. although that drug is not completely free of side effects. Doctors are legally allowed to prescribed that drug to healthy people who get nervous for public speaking. Essentially this is a performance enhancement for public speaking. if doctors consider this safe enough for healthy people to reduce nervous and anxiety in public speaking than should it be safe enough to reduce anxiety fo events like golf, archery etc which beta blockers are illegal. Although funny enough many golfers (especially the middle age over) are on beta blockers legally as it is used as an anti-hypertensive and they can easily get a therapeutic use exemption. I think those type of drugs should be seriously question to whether they should be banned
Sam
Guest
Game of shadows (mark fainaru wada and lance Williams) is well worth a read. Covers Barry bonds and the BALCO story. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Bobo
Guest
I don't think cycling has been reduced; simply, where the keirin, BMX and women's track events have increased, they have removed all the blue riband events - the kilo, Madison, etc. The story on how UCI petitioned for Olympic keirin, and the small matter of $3million, is something I would like 4 corners to address. I hope you are right about the IOC. I am a shocking cynic, though.
sittingbison
Guest
bobo I seem to recall a conversation during the Olympics that IOC might be glad for the opportunity to get rid of cycling - and vice versa would really hurt UCI. Because UCI get $13m from the IOC every Olympic cycle (scuze the pun)? And there has already been a curtailing of cycling events?
Bobo
Guest
I'm well aware of the WADA Code, and of the jurisidictional and legal nightmare that would result by the IOC not following its own rules. I'm also not confident that it won't happen. I'm also well aware of the evidence, and am a little surprised that USADA held back on some of the more explosive allegations. I assume from your Clinic contributions you are aware of what I mean. As for your last point - I agree entirely. It's just the sort of vindictive and petty pique I would expect from the cabal in Aigle.
sittingbison
Guest
bobo since Samaranch, the IOC has created WADA. And all Olympic sports have signed the WADA Code, finally including cycling in 2006. If UCI defies USADA (which is in effect WADA), IOC has no option other than to throw them out of the Olympics. However, both UCI and WADA have the right to appeal USADA to CAS. This is if a genuine mistake has been made, or there is a jurisdictional issue. This case is slightly different to the normal failed an A sample and B sample. There are 1000 pages of evidence, all interconnected. So there is no possibility of a genuine mistake. Jurisdiction? Despite the best drunken attempts of Fat Pat during the Federal Court hearings in front of Judge Sparks, and diatribes by fanbois and interns on every forum including this one, there is no dispute that USADA has jurisdiction. And just to make doubly sure, they bolstered that position in the Reasoned Decision by clearly starting the entire process with Kyle Leogrande rather than Floyds email. And lets not forget Sparks own decision granting jurisdiction to USADA. One thing I can see happening is UCI appealing the six month suspensions to CAS in a nasty act of vindictiveness. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if USADA and the witnesses suspected this all along, and set the 6 months as a trap, accepting that CAS will arbitrate a middle ground acceptable term.
Bobo
Guest
Henricus Verbruggen is every bit as in charge as he always was. Make no mistake.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
Verbruggen is no longer in charge so he is of no concern, apart from his damaging comments on the sport. Even if McQuad pledges reform, he's been doing that ever since he's taken over from Verbruggen and, apart from the biological passport, which has only just started to take effect (Franco Pellizzotti was the first person to be banned using it), I don't think they've made much in the way of reform. Hell, they've only just banned needles from pro cycling teams.
Bobo
Guest
But Tim, if IOC's response is the same as Samaranch in 1998 post-Festina (see above post), they won't ban cycling. Verbruggen is on the IOC. He will know in advance if UCI will risk losing its Olympic status by rejecting the Reasoned Decision. If IOC refuses to sanction UCI, then WADA is in a quandry.
Tim Renowden
Expert
I don't think the IOC would be willing to accept the UCI protecting dopers, especially when the tide of public outrage has so clearly flooded the UCI's sandcastle. The UCI must abide by the WADA code if it wants to be affiliated with the IOC. Refusing to submit to USADA's decision could have serious consequences for the UCI's ability to administer cycling as an Olympic sport. So I reckon the UCI will throw Lance to the wolves and mouth platitudes about reform while hoping this all blows over leaving McQuaid and Verbruggen still in charge.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
As mentioned in my post, Lamby, that would be the final nail in their corrupt coffin. If they don't ban him, the cycling community will abandon ship in their droves.
Lamby
Guest
What happens if the UCI won’t ban lance? What I’d they say EPO is an APROVED substance? I have no faith in these organizations overseeing sport. They not are accountable to anybody. FIFA grants Qatar the rights to a World Cup, read 'lord of the rings' by Andrew Jennings for info on corruption in the IOC. I think there is about a 50% chance that UCI will not ban Lance.