Both Orica-GreenEDGE and Team Sky have been forced into a corner following the fallout of Lance Armstrong doping scandal – but could an enforced zero-tolerance policy further muddy the waters?
To think it was all going so well.
Stage wins in two of three Grand Tours; a debut home win for Simon Gerrans followed by his monumental victory in Milan-San Remo; a cluster of scalps from Luke Durbridge; a landmark king of the mountains jersey from Simon Clarke.
GreenEDGE’s wonderful opening year in the ProTour was suddenly soured this week when directeur sportif Matt White was forced to fall on his sword.
For all the good work White has done at GreenEDGE – and at Cycling Australia, where he ran the men’s road racing programme – this was clearly an accident waiting to happen.
Before White joined GreenEDGE last year, there were doubts.
The 38-year-old was dismissed by Garmin-Cervelo after it emerged that White had referred Trent Lowe to the shamed former US Postal team physician Dr Luis Garcia del Moral in April 2009 – a move which contravened the anti-doping rules of Jonathan Vaughter’s team.
White was also implicated by former US Postal team-mate Floyd Landis in 2010 – but it was not until the recent damning USADA Armstrong report was made public last week that White admitted to taking part in the doping culture at the American team.
There clearly should have been more scrutiny involved by both GreenEDGE and Cycling Australia before appointing White – and CA president Klaus Mueller has at least come out and admitted this gross oversight.
It’s quite laughable that when CA appointed White to his co-ordinator role, they never asked him directly whether he had doped during his racing career. Ditto GreenEDGE, who perhaps preferred not to know.
Team Sky find themselves in the similar boat – albeit one that could sink far deeper.
Question marks have been raised over directeur sportif Sean Yates, who rode alongside Armstrong at the Motorola team in the mid-90s and also worked as DS at Discovery Channel for four years.
Yates, who allegedly tested positive for an unnamed substance after winning a minor race in 1989, recently told the BBC that he never noticed anything “dodgy” going on as a rider at Motorola or as DS at the Discovery Channel team in 2005, when Armstrong won his seventh Tour.
While Yates was not named in USADA’s report, a picture of him with his arms around the shoulders of the infamous “motoman” – the Frenchman who delivered a steady stash of EPO to Armstrong and his cronies by motorcycle – was used as Exhibit A in Frankie Andreu’s affidavit.
Add to the mix Sky’s questionable recruitment earlier in the summer of Geert Leinders as a freelance consultant – a Dutch doctor formerly employed by the tainted Rabobank team and whose name appears in the Armstrong dossier.
And then there’s another former US Postie, Michael Barry, who admitted to doping alongside Armstrong but avoided being sacked by Sky by conveniently retiring after the Tour of Beijing.
Eager to avoid any further embarrassment, Sky manager David Brailsford is giving his riders and staff an ultimatum in a bit to reinforce the team’s position as cycling’s dominant clean team: each and every member of the team will be individually interviewed over the coming weeks and asked to sign a document saying they have never doped.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall.
(Quite where this leaves Yates is anyone’s guess. Like White, he may be forced out – despite the obvious good work he’s doing on the team.)
Already critics are saying this is yet another PR exercise dressed up as an anti-doping measure. The potential ramifications are huge – for both Sky and Australian cycling.
For instance, it was only a couple of years ago that French newspaper L’Equipe compiled a doping suspicion list that placed Australians Michael Rogers and Matthew Lloyd (Lampre) in a category that contained riders who showed “overwhelming evidence of some kind of doping”.
This is the same Rogers who, while at T-Mobile – according to Levi Leipheimer’s sword affidavit – attended multiple altitude training camps in 2005 alongside fellow clients of Dr Michele Ferrari. Rogers himself once described the controversial doctor as “the best coach in the world”.
Now I’m not suggesting Rogers did anything untoward – there’s no concrete evidence and the rider has consistently denied all wrongdoing – but if he did succumb to the temptations that (let’s be honest) a high percentage of riders did back in that era, then what exactly has he got to gain by coming clean now, while still an active rider?
Sky have already said that any rider who admits to past dalliances will face the sack; a six-month ban would follow and then there would be the tricky task of finding a team willing to take him on (ironically, GreenEDGE have always been an admirer of Rogers – but given the current climate, this would throw a spanner in the works).
Of course I must stress this is all hypothetical. But it clearly highlights the pitfalls of a zero-tolerance approach.
As fellow Roar cycling columnist Tim Renowden wrote recently, such an approach “provides the strongest possible disincentive for others to come forward and provide information, unless they are retiring and completely removing themselves from involvement with the sport”.
It’s fine for the likes of George Hincapie and Barry to wash their hands now they have hung up their cycling shoes – but look at the example of Leipheimer.
The American has been sacked from a team he only joined last year. After a year of consistent injuries, mixed form and bad luck, Leipheimer will find few teams willing to take a punt on 39-year-old with so much baggage. Those six-months will in all likelihood morph into retirement.
At the moment it seems to be very much the Anglo-Saxon teams that are bearing the brunt – but look elsewhere: next season convicted doper Alexandre Vinokourov takes up a management position at Astana, no questions asked (after all, he created the team), while Russian Viatscheslav Ekimov – one of Armstrong’s blood brothers at US Postal – takes over the helm at Katusha.
Zero tolerance will only work if it is applied across the board. With such a prospect so unlikely (not to mention impossible in some nations where doping is hardly frowned upon), then surely there’s a case for some kind of amnesty for cyclists – both current and retired – should they own up to past transgressions.
Such was the widespread culture of doping in the pro peloton in recent years, you’d be hard pressed finding anyone in cycling above the age of 35 who would put pen to paper in the way Sky are so obsequiously demanding without feeling a hot flush zip through their body.
You can argue that a cheat like White is the last person you want overseeing Australia’s best young riders. But on the flipside, you could say he’s the perfect person to preach the perils that thwarted an entire generation.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
nice read felix. As an aside, am surprised the resignation of Stephen Hodge and his doping admition didnt make the headlines. Is Oz a bit embarrassed by its own sportsmen? Perso, i think Hodge is showing the right way to go by admitting his mistake. There are many cyclists from the 90s with a big ? over their head and i hope more will come forward and say "ok, was also part of it'. Time to come clean then move on.
Sam
Guest
Emmm...Shane Sutton? What source do you have for anything re Sutton? As for that UCI Index of Suspicion...its already been discredited by a few things. Firstly by where Armstrong and his merry gang are rated....how can you give it any credence just to highlight some at the other end of the scale as dodgy? Secondly, there is a well-held theory that it may be have been based purely on the number of times a rider was tested - the higher the number, the lower the index ranking and vice versa
Sam
Guest
just a couple of maybe minor points, Felix: - Sean Yates tested postive back in 89 but his B sample was negative - hence no sanction etc - re Motoman - Hamilton writes in the Secret Race that Yates introduced Motoman to Armstrong as a gardener when Armstrong lived in Nice Believe me, there's enough for Sky to be dealing with in their own house - just thought I'd add these 2 comments
aussie sports lover
Guest
What a dilemma elite cycling finds itself in. The only "winners" out of this are Tygart/USADA and to a lesser extent the very few cyclists who did not dope. Armstrong as the "posterboy" of the doping generation (rightly or wrongly) is only the tip of the iceberg as ex- and current professionals develop a conscience or are enticed/threatened//encouraged by USADA and various authorities. Where do they go from here? Should doping just be "legalised"?(what's the point if drug tests are apparently so unreliable?) It's increasingly clear that a lot of doping cyclists have gone through their professional undetected.
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
It would seem a shame to me to lose Matt White completely to Australian cycling. But that might just be because he appears to be an alright kinda bloke. That may be clouding my better judgement.
Tim Renowden
Expert
I agree with you, up to a point. There will be a lot of older riders and retired riders whose involvement in doping seems to only extend as far giving in to some quite intense peer pressure on their old teams. Giving in to peer pressure is not an excuse, as any school kid knows, but in that situation it's at least understandable. If they are all automatically banned, the sport will lose a great deal of knowledge and experience - and yes, many of them will have learnt a lot from their mistakes. Some of the most active and effective anti-doping campaigners are ex-dopers, after all. But there are some who have been involved in masterminding doping programs, creating the peer pressure, and generally being moustache-twirling villains. The likes of Bruyneel, Riis (and probably many more to come) should not be allowed anywhere near cycling. Whether you think White falls into the former or latter category probably depends on what you think he sent Trent Lowe to Dr del Moral for.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
I dont see an issue with former cheats being able to coach, they are not getting enhance performances out of their teams because they doped 20 years ago. If White is the best coach then he should be the coach, but have rules where he cant be involved in medical issues. Why all the hate? If you compare this to other sports then it is a toally different animal. Imagine is Shane Warne offered to coach your 14 year old son who has a bit of talent for spin bowling, would you ot accept his coaching because he doped in the past? Of course not, coaching is not competing and their are skills and tactics that a great coach can bring to the team regardless of their past. I think there would be some lower ranked teams looking to scoop up a couple of discreaced riders to get their UCI points to ensure they are still in the top competion.
sittingbison
Guest
DaveZ (0), Big George (1), Barry (0) all said they stopped doping in 2006 lol Sure the index has anomolies, the major one being it is a UCI index and could well have been used to force some teams and riders to ratched it back a little etc. Doesn't matter, being at the wrong end is not a good look. Notice Dodgers team mate EBH is a zero.
Bones506
Roar Guru
Great article Felix. I think your last statement about others teaching the perils is definitely a good point. I feel for a lot of these guys - it was endemic in the culture. Much like the weight lifting back in the 80s. You had to be on the gear or you where nowhere. Personally the finger pointing needs to be aimed at the UCI. Enough about Lance and individual riders. Let's look at a structurally flawed system and fix it.
Sean Lee
Expert
Great article Felix. Cycling Australia's Vice President Stephen Hodge, has also resigned today after admitting to having doped during his time as a pro rider.
Ridley
Guest
Is that the same L'Equipe list that had Armstrong rated only a 4, Frank Schleck a 2, Hincapie a 1, and Zabriske a 0! (out of 10) on the doping suspicion rankings?!
Elisha Pearce
Expert
Good column mate. Enjoyed your perspective. There would be a few people who have moral issues with an amnesty panel of some sort. The flip side of it is that it might help purge a bit more of the bad blood out of the sport (pun not intended). Also, it would surely give insight into how the doping worked and how it can be countered in the future.
sittingbison
Guest
Very reasoned piece Felix. Every rider, director and team is now open to srutiy, like it or not, fair or not. Even now omerta is operating on all cylinders, Brailesfords ill advised comments on signing a declaration withstanding, and various extremely experienced riders with ridiculous "I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!!" or impersonating Sgt Schults with "never saw anything" comments. Kimmage wrote an article straight after the Olympics inquiring what had happened to the Sky transparency policy, which also had a Sydney Swans type of "no duckheads" policy - a "no dopers policy". They specifically and categorically stated "we will not employ doctors from within cycling". Since then they have hired dodgy soigneurs Yates who has many question marks over him, Jullich who is named in the Evidence (reducted Rider 4) and Shane Sutton (see Yates), dodgy doctors Geert Leinders who ran the Rabobank systematic team based doping programme and Fabio Bartalucci who is named in the Sanremo raid from the 2001 Giro and a doctor at Bonjour when Lelarge tested positive at the same race and at Phonak back in the Hamilton/Camenzind/Perez era. Dodgy riders Dodger who has Ferrari AND Freiburg hanging over his head, and one of the top scores with 7 on the suspicion index (from five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative", from six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming"), Christian Knees 6 on the index, and Kanstantsin Siutsou with a mind blowing 8 on the index. And within the past few weeks Vinokourov has been given the role of GM of Astana, Ekimov now the GM of Katusha, Andersen takes Bruyneel’s place at RadioShack. And yesterday Verbruggen was again saing there is no evidence against Armstrong, along with Kathy LeMond reiterating her sworn testimony that Nike bribed Verbruggen to accept the post dated prescription for steroids in 1999 (note there never was a TUE).