If you have to cheat, why compete?

By David Lord / Expert

When the mountain of evidence surfaced showing Lance Armstrong was not only a long-term performance-enhancing drug-taker, but a ring-leader in its distribution, I was disgusted.

When Marion Jones was busted, I was gutted.

When confessed drug-taker Tyler Hamilton came out strongly in support of Australian Cadel Evans as being squeaky clean, I was delighted.

And relieved.

But Armstrong is the continuing story, and will be for some time. At least half the sporting world of competitors and fans revered him as a phenomenal athlete, winning seven successive Tour de France campaigns, the undisputed toughest sporting event in the world.

All those supporters feel cheated.

But I have a sneaking suspicion he could have been a phenomenal athlete had he been clean.

Now 41, and banned from cycling, Armstrong is successfully competing in triathlons and half-marathons. That’s a genuine indication he is still someone well out of the ordinary.

So why did he have to cheat?

Cycling has been a dirty sport for some time. A case of the medicos staying just in front of the drug-testers while senior administrators sit on their hands and pretend the world is a bed of roses.

Three Tour de France champions have been rubbed out in the last six years – Floyd Landis, Alberto Contador, and now Armstrong. When is the penny going to drop?

I met Marion Jones during the Sydney 2000 Olympics. You could never meet a more vivacious out-going young woman, and what a superb athlete, winning five medals.

Seven years later she was found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs and lying to the grand jury, spent six months behind bars for the latter, and had all her medals stripped.

Her life shattered.

What gives with the likes of Armstrong and Jones playing Russian roulette with their lives?

Surely there must have been times when they wondered when they were going to be tapped on the shoulder, when it was going to be all over.

Which begs another question. Is drug-taking in sport always for performance enhancing, or do the takers just like feeling high, or a bit of both?

I’m blowed if I know, but thankfully it’s minimal in Australia.

Two West Coast AFL players, Chris Mainwaring and Ben Cousins, were headline grabbers a few years ago – Mainwaring died at 41 from an overdose of cocaine.

But in the main, the four football codes, track, swimming, cricket, tennis, and golf are free of drug-takers.

Is it the Australian sporting culture, or better administrators. It’s probably shared.

There’s such a strong anti-doping campaigner in AOC boss John Coates, and long may that be the case.

I wonder what would have happened had Coates been an American, a nation that has proved so slack over the years when it comes to drug-taking in sport.

So slack and so secretive. Had they been more transparent, it begs another question about Flo-Jo – Florence Griffith Joyner who smashed the women’s 100 and 200 with Usain Bolt-like world records that still stand after 24 years.

Flo-Jo died at 38.

Carl Lewis is another with a question mark over his head.

Sadly, there are far too many medicos around the world who enjoy beating the drug-testers, it’s a lucrative ‘game’ for them.

The best we can hope for is the drug-testers bridge the gap on the medicos.

Better still get in front, and stay there.

Sport deserves better.

If you have to cheat, why compete?

The Crowd Says:

2013-01-19T10:07:24+00:00

Andrew

Guest


I agree with you. The idea that we have some sort of relatively drug-free sporting culture is absurd. I

2012-10-23T05:51:28+00:00

gbilios

Guest


if people can get away with cheating they certainly will..why? celebrity status and money..

2012-10-23T02:10:54+00:00

amazonfan

Roar Guru


"As I stated, I don’t think any one of those competitors was clean, so it was a level playing field." That is simply not true. Not every competitor took drugs, and even among those who did, their doping regimes weren't equal. Plus, putting aside that you can apply this argument to other cheats (perhaps Landis should ask for his TDF back), cheating is still cheating, irrespective of how many people cheat. "Drugs don't make you win. They just help." They help enough that they enable people to win, who wouldn't ordinarily win or in such a dominant fashion. "Additionally, why destroy this icon? He was much better as a role model and hero than he is as a known drug cheat." Whether he's an icon is irrelevant. Nobody is above the rules. We can't pick and choose which cheats we go after. We especially can't hide the truth. If the truth, that he was a drug cheat, tarnishes the ideal image that some have of him, then so be it. As for being a hero and a role model, I don't think he ever was. "Should have just let it go." Right. We should just let him off the hook because he did some charity work. Great attitude.

2012-10-17T06:37:35+00:00

Cam Baker

Roar Rookie


Flo Jo's 100m world record is definitely wind assisted. The probably wind mark was about +5m/s. A good (and very old) article about it is here: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/Publications/FlojoWR(Linthorne).pdf And even the generally opinion free Wikipedia says it was wind aided.

2012-10-16T13:02:24+00:00

falcore

Guest


+1

2012-10-16T12:30:10+00:00

dasilva

Guest


Although reading more about it, Johns admitted hetook it during season sometimes but he implied that he generally took the drug during celebrations after the match. If that was truthful than there shouldn't be any issues in terms of breaking the WADA code

2012-10-16T12:15:19+00:00

dasilva

Guest


john took ecstasy which is a prohibited substance due to its stimulant properties however stimulants are only prohibited in competition If he only took it out of competition than it isn't an issue but I don't know if he did take it during comeptition I don't know enough about the controversy but having look at the wiki it did say he mainly took ecstasy in the offseason Although the usage of the word mainly means that he may have took something during season. If it was in between matches than it isn't an issue but during the match that is problematic I doubt he was on ecstasy during the match but it is prohibited substance and perhaps soemone who knows more about the controversy can clear up when he took the drug

2012-10-16T11:30:09+00:00

amazonfan

Roar Guru


The 3 strikes rule in the AFL concerns illicit drugs, not performance enhancing drugs.

2012-10-16T10:41:55+00:00

Colin N

Guest


Also, forgot to add, there was an excellent two-hour programme on 5 live in the UK last night on drugs in cycling. Well worth checking out if you can listen to it.

2012-10-16T10:38:42+00:00

Colin N

Guest


But drugs respond differently to diffierent athletes. Some respond extremely well to substances, others don't. And if you're going to take the 'well, everyone doped so he was the best of the dopers,' line, didn't US Postal have the most 'sophisticated' programme in place? Even in that regard it wasn't a level playing field. It's funny though. It's the not the drug-taking that has fuelled my dislike for Armstrong, but the bullying and lack of contrition. I can, to some extent, forgive drug cheats in an era when it was prevalent like Miller, as he has admitted his guilt and campaigned for the eradication of drugs in cycling. It's interesting comparing the likes of Dwain Chambers to Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. I think all three were implemented in the BALCO programme. Chambers was caught, banned and subsequently admiited his guilt. Okay, he's not the most liked by some for what he did, but there's an element of forgiveness and he's been able to get on with his career. Jones and Montgomery fought the case against them for years and have probably faced years of torment trying to fight the charges. So I feel it pays to be remorse. It will be interesting to see the public reaction Armstrong gets when he's walking down the street.

2012-10-16T10:13:20+00:00

IronAwe

Guest


we'll have to agree to disagree. As I stated, I don't think any one of those competitors was clean, so it was a level playing field. Drugs don't make you win. They just help. Additionally, why destroy this icon? He was much better as a role model and hero than he is as a known drug cheat. Should have just let it go.

2012-10-16T10:10:14+00:00

Steve

Guest


Whether performance enhancing or not? Andrew Johns? Fine, let's posthumously strip George Best's league titles on the grounds that he was benefiting unfairly from his drink problem. Recreational drugs are dumb and illegal, but their abuse is a different matter to the deliberate concealed use of EPDs.

2012-10-16T09:35:50+00:00

Mark Roth

Guest


I'm not saying that I favor cheating, but.... If you NEED to win, cheating is always an option. The best man never wins a race, the fastest man wins the race. The best team never wins the game, the team that scores the most on the day wins the game. Additionally, I am I the only one who is getting so turned off by all these cheating scandals that the idea of just letting them dope is almost an option?

2012-10-16T08:24:46+00:00

Minz

Guest


To be fair, Rogers was talked about as a GC contender for a number of years - he clearly has some form behind him. But from what I've heard, the drug allegations have been going for a while...

2012-10-16T08:22:50+00:00

Minz

Guest


How would you be to be a top-level, talented cyclist in a drug-heavy era? Knowing that even if you're the most talented guy in the peloton, you can't possibly win clean. And the alternative is to win with a carefully calibrated and low-risk (as in, low health risk) doping program. With what seems to have been the tacit approval of the sport's governing body. It's not like these were guys passing around steroids at the local gym; the likelihood of health effects was relatively low and all the contenders were doing it (pretty much, as far as I can tell). For me, the worst thing about it has been the bullying and the lying; the rest of it's, well, pretty awful, but also quite understandable.

2012-10-16T08:08:38+00:00

Michael

Guest


Some random comments. First, and as a disclaimer, I haven't read the 1000 pages or so of the USDA report, so there is a certain amount of speculation on my part. I keep hearing how USDA will 'strip' Armstrong of his TdF wins. It will be interesting to see how that will happen, given that the wins were not awared by the USDA but by the owner/organiser of the TDF, which is a privately owned entity. Armstrong was a freakish rider, and we now know, on the available evidence, that he was helped by a sophisticated PED regime. The evidence also indicates that he was no orphan, as the podium was dominated for years by riders tainted either by evidence, admission or association. The main difference is the level of hypocrisy - riders of earlier generations tended to openly admit they were helped, whereas in recent times (I suspect largely because of the rewards available) there has been a much more covert approach. What particularly irritated me about Armstrong, before the most recent findings, was his bullying approach to those who were not willing participants, perhaps the worst example of which was Simeoni. Cycling will recover, and the available evidence is that it is the process of doing so, the events of the last two weeks notwithstanding. However, be very cautious about bald assertions that PEDs are not used by (a) Australians or (b) that it is somehow limited to cycling. On my knowledge, testing in Australian sports (the footy codes in particular) is nowhere near the levels (as to frequency and sophistication) of cycling testing. The rigours of cycling (especially the Grand Tours) mean that maintaining an 'acceptable' blood chemistry at all times is extraordinarily difficult and detection therefore more likely. Do we base our assertion that Australians are clean on the basis that there are fewer caught? What of the secrecy surrounding testing in the AFL and the application of the 3 strikes rule? How good is our testing, and how frequent across all sports? If our footballers (both NRL and AFL) are too frequently unable to deal with the consumption of alcohol in a mature way, why assume that they are unwilling or unable to seek assistance in the pursuit of their careers by the use of PEDs?

2012-10-16T07:57:57+00:00

Bobo

Guest


"Ungluecklich das Land, das Helden noetig hat." - Brecht.

2012-10-16T07:34:48+00:00

nickoldschool

Roar Guru


Agree. We dont find (cheaters) because we dont look for them. btw, all those who said L'Equipe and all the French media were lying when they uncovered evidence almost a decade ago that LA was cheating have egg on the face today. The so-called 'french anti-american conspiracy' wasnt one after all.

2012-10-16T07:05:14+00:00

Bobo

Guest


The hilarious thing about this is that corticosteroids, EPO, testosterone, IGF-1 etc actually allow you to train harder, because your body recovers faster, and takes longer to get to exhaustion in the first place. Clean cyclists who have tried to perform a doper's training regimen, but clean, have ended up with chronic fatigue. It's a great fallacy that dopers are lazy. They aren't. But they are still cheats. And as for Armstrong's physical indicators - he was nothing special. Highest recorded output, doped, was 83/84 VO2 max. It's good, but it's nothing special.

2012-10-16T06:27:56+00:00

Rabbitz

Roar Guru


The big difference is your friend would have had a "Therapeutic Use Exemption" (TUE) to compete if using any of the substances on the WADA banned list. Therapeutic use does not enhance your performance - it merely brings you back up to a 'normal' performance. The use of a TUE is a vexed question - I have a chronic illness and some of the medications I use to stay alive are on the WADA list. So if I was to get back into serious competition (well, if I could afford to) then I would need a TUE - for medications that while keeping me alive don't actually enhance my performance, in fact they can be an impediment to performance. Put simply Armstrong had no therapeutic reason to use the various substances, thus he was a cheat. He made an awful lot of money through his deception, which, in my opinion, amounts to something approaching fraudulent behaviour.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar