Tour of California treating us like dopes

By Tim Renowden / Expert

It would be easier to take the Tour of California seriously if its major sponsor wasn’t the leading manufacturer of EPO.

Nothing against the race itself, which is quite the spectacle. It’s just that the ‘EPO Tour of California’ is a bit difficult to enjoy with a straight face.

Of course, this is not what the race is actually called, instead it borrows the name of the company that invented and markets EPO, Amgen.

Think about that a bit more: North America’s biggest professional cycling race carries the name of the company that makes EPO.

Apparently, nobody at Tour of California management company AEG Sports has paused to consider whether it’s appropriate to be a key part of a very deliberate marketing strategy for the single product that has done the most to wreck cycling’s soul.

It seems two decades of sustained and high-profile abuse of EPO by professional cyclists, which has done massive damage to the sport’s reputation and integrity, has completely passed the Amgen Tour of California’s organisers by.

Amgen’s blockbuster product is the drug Epogen (epoetin alfa), which is better known simply as the synthetic form of EPO.

It’s a perfectly legal prescription medicine when appropriately used in a clinical setting. It is used to treat anaemia in patients with kidney disease, cancer, or those on antiretrovirals used to control HIV. All well and good.

You could argue the abuse of Epogen by cyclists and other endurance athletes is not Amgen’s fault, that the company developed and marketed the drug in good faith, and cannot be held responsible for the way it has been misused.

You could argue Amgen has every right to market its products and, if it sees value in sponsoring sporting events, that’s its prerogative.

Both of these statements are probably true (although I have seen counter-arguments for both), but they miss the point.

That EPO has legitimate uses doesn’t change the fact it has profoundly damaged cycling, and it should in no way be associated with the sport.

That Amgen has a right to market as it sees fit does not mean cycling organisers should be willing to accept money, much less naming-rights sponsorship, from a company with such a malign influence on the sport.

It’s an absolutely shocking message for North America’s biggest professional road race to be promoting the product that has – more than any other – been the scourge of the cycling world.

This is not a new partnership: Amgen has been title sponsor of the ToC since 2006. The company must have poured millions into the race by now.

As profitable as the relationship between the race and the pharma company must be, it needs to end.

Try to reconcile these two statements:

1. We are committed to eradicating doping in sport.

2. We are taking heaps of cash from the company that makes the most widely abused doping product in cycling. They’re really nice.

It can’t sensibly be done. It’s a nonsense of doublespeak. It’s bullshit.

Did Amgen decide to sponsor the race as some sort of corporate making-amends, a mea culpa for the damage its product has done to the sport? Or is it just a straightforward whitewash job?

Who can read the mind of a multinational corporation?

Clearly, the company has some reason to focus on cycling; Amgen sponsors other cycling-related events.

Just last week Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott was all over the news wearing a jersey emblazoned with Amgen logos, after the company sponsored a fundraising ride undertaken by politicians.

But why is it apparently focusing on cycling? And more importantly, why the hell is cycling letting it?

Is the sport so desperate for cash it needs to prostitute itself to the highest corporate bidder, with no regard for the message it sends to fans, athletes, and casual observers?

What could be more outrageous, the ‘Acme Blood Bags Vuelta a Espana’? It’s almost beyond parody.

Would we accept an alcoholics’ support group sponsored by a brewery? A cancer hospital named after a tobacco firm?

Why do we think it’s OK for Amgen, of all companies, to sponsor a sport trying desperately to eradicate the use of its major product?

The Tour of California is a great race, it attracts great teams, riders, crowds, and coverage. This year’s edition looks set to be one of the best yet.

The race, and the riders participating in it, doesn’t deserve to be linked with the cycling world’s most notorious doping product.

If cycling is genuinely moving on from its EPO-soaked past, it needs to ditch Amgen’s dollars.

The Crowd Says:

AUTHOR

2013-05-16T11:39:31+00:00

Tim Renowden

Expert


It's a bit of a moot point now that synthetic EPO is detectable, but yes. It's worth pointing out that some pharma companies/researchers have recently been working with WADA to help them develop testing protocols for their drugs relatively early. But this doesn't solve the problem that everyone who's ever heard of Lance Armstrong thinks that the whole pro peloton is juiced to the gills, they know about EPO, and that's just enough knowledge to draw unwanted conclusions when a major race is sponsored by EPO's maker.

2013-05-15T23:29:00+00:00

david

Guest


I understand (perhaps an expert can clarify) that during manufacture drugs can be "marked" for easier detection. As a sponsor of a "clean" race perhaps Amgen could produce only "marked" EPO? A bit like asking cigarette companies to reduce the nicotine I suppose!!

2013-05-15T21:31:00+00:00

dom25

Roar Rookie


Maybe it's because cyclists have given them so much money over the years and now Amgen are feeling guilty and are trying to give some of it back to the sport they almost ruined!

AUTHOR

2013-05-15T11:47:40+00:00

Tim Renowden

Expert


Thanks, Bones.

2013-05-15T04:05:25+00:00

Bones506

Roar Guru


Absolutely hilarious. Also an extremely well articulated article.

2013-05-14T09:43:19+00:00

Sean Lee

Expert


Ka CHING!!

AUTHOR

2013-05-14T05:10:03+00:00

Tim Renowden

Expert


They're just taking the dollars!

2013-05-14T04:19:06+00:00

nickoldschool

Roar Guru


In an ideal world with no doping and no cheaters, having a drug company sponsoring a sporting event would be fine. But to accept money form a company which is manufacturing the n1 drug in cycling of the last 2 decades is a huge faux pas at best. Dunno if it's sheer ignorance or some kind of reverse psychology the organisers are doing but it's just poor taste. Or are they just taking the mickey!?

2013-05-14T03:00:39+00:00

Blinky47

Guest


Amen !

AUTHOR

2013-05-14T02:26:17+00:00

Tim Renowden

Expert


Thanks Lee, I had read about some of Amgen's alleged dodgy marketing practices before, but decided not to push that side of things too hard because I think that even if you grant the company the most charitable possible conditions (for the sake of a clean argument), it's still completely ridiculous that they should be sponsoring a major race. When you add in all that other stuff, it obviously gets much worse.

2013-05-14T02:10:03+00:00

Lee Rodgers

Expert


I've written about this before Tim, it truly is nuts. Here's some added info about Amgen's practises recently: *Just a few short months ago [this was end of 2012], news arrived that stated that federal prosecutors had found that Amgen “had marketed its anemia drug Aranesp for unapproved uses even after the Food and Drug Administration explicitly ruled them out.” They were “pursuing profits at the risk of patient safety,” cited the report. The report, depressingly, continued: “In court on Tuesday, prosecutors charged that Amgen had promoted the use of Aranesp to treat anemia in cancer patients who were not undergoing chemotherapy, even though the drug’s approval was only for patients receiving chemotherapy. “A subsequent study sponsored by Amgen showed that use of Aranesp by those nonchemotherapy cancer patients had actually increased the risk of death, and the off-label use diminished. “ Amgen pleaded guilty. Amgen had to pay $762 million in criminal penalties.* They justified sponsoring the ToC as a way to 'educate' riders to ride clean, and then expressed shock when athletes doped, yet they themselves not only promoted EPO to people who didn;t need it, raising their risk of cancer (documented, check Wikipedia etc), but they then showed they had learnt nothing in pushing Aranesp, 'increasing the RISK OF DEATH' in people who did not need it in the first place. We need sponsors, yes, but not like this.

2013-05-14T01:24:39+00:00

sittingbison

Guest


Not only these salient points Tim and Kate, look at the links between Amgen, Thom Weisel and Lance Armstrong. You couldn't dream this stuff up.

2013-05-14T00:47:40+00:00

Kate Smart

Expert


This is not one of the great ironies in life, is it? Sports such as cricket and F1 have moved on from tobacco sponsorship, well perhaps I should qualify that by saying, that tobacco products have been banned in Australian sports advertising, and those sports have continued to grow and survive, so there is no reason why the ToC cannot find a more appropriate sponsor. You are completely right Tim, about the damage this product has done to cycling, irrespective of its benefits to sufferers of serious medical conditions. A company manufacturing EPO just can't sponsor a cycling race, or any sporting event for that matter. Let's also be honest, California has an economy larger than many countries, so it's hard to see an argument that they couldn't find a different sponsor.

Read more at The Roar