Reading Tyler Hamilton’s book ‘The Secret Race’ earlier this year, I was hardly surprised to hear about an omerta in place in the peloton.
Basically, this was a code of silence, everyone knew the majority were doping, and so no one said anything on the subject.
It appears this was in place from the early to mid-1990s, right through to the Lance years.
According to Tyler Hamilton, there was another element to the code of silence, when someone tested positive, the whole peloton denounced them.
Hamilton described his treatment when he returned at the Tour of California, and approached Jens Voigt in the peloton for a chat.
However, Hamilton got nothing from Voigt, almost cold distance.
Now, Voigt has always maintained his cleanliness as a rider, so it may be this was just his belief that Hamilton should not have been allowed a place back in the peloton, but it seems that this denunciation was widespread.
The same seems to have happened with the Santambrogio positive. I quoted Jonathan Vaughters in my last article, and his tweet got me thinking:
“Good to see Santambrogio positive. Us dirty ol managers have known his performances were high risk for a while. Good to see system work.”
If the team managers knew his performances were suspect, why were no concerns raised?
Whether that would be through the UCI or through social networking sites such as Twitter remains to be seen, but it appears there was no public suggestion of foul play.
David Millar, a British rider on Vaughters’ Garmin-Sharp team, tweeted a similar sentiment:
“The peloton knew Vini Fantini weren’t trustworthy: was the talking point for the first week of the Giro (until misery & survival took over).”
If the peloton knew, and if it was as big a talking point as Millar is making out, surely raising the issue would have done no harm, maybe even prompted more tests, or a hotel search for Vini Fantini.
It appears that although we see cycling as cleaner, and the system is working, there does seem to be some sort of omerta between the peloton.
They seem to work on the basis that if a team is thought to be doping, they let the positive come out, and then denounce them, rather than raising the issue before the positive comes out.
One thing is for certain, the very public onslaught Santambrogio has endured definitely resembles the way convicted dopers were treated in the Lance years.
Voigt
Guest
I believe Voigt is clean. His shunning of Hamilton was probably more to do with his dislike of drug takers than anything. This is what he replied to someone on Twitter asking him why he says he won't read Hamilton's book: "Why not?! ?! Because i was racing when he took drugs and cheated on lied to all of us. He lied to you, to me to the whe world."
Owen Cassidy
Guest
They don't speak out because they have no proof, they could be sued.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
You know, this is a tough one. I've done races before where everyone 'knows' - ie strongly, STRONGLY suspects a guy/guys are doping, but we have no recourse to say or do anything. The suspicion doesn't come from jealousy but from seeing the very hard to believe, seeing it come after very erratic performances, and seeing that pattern again and again. If I could print half of the rumors I hear I would have a best-selling book out there. To say we have to leave these things to the UCI and other agencies - well yes. In an ideal world, yes. But this ain't that, and we have these governing bodies squabbling and - at best - being imcompetent, and - at worst - being in collusion with the cheats. So, is it still right to say nothing? I personally am getting tired of that, and I see a system that is heavily stacked in the dopers' favor. They do it with impunity and in many cases blatantly, yet we cannot say anything because that 'isn't fair.' It is also not fair that the UCI was so close to Armstrong, or that his advisers took care of the UCI head honcho's personal fortune. It's also not fair that the top-level management is loaded with ex-dopers. Not fair that multiple dopers like Di Luca are allowed back, or that cheats like Santambrogio test positive on Day 1 of a three week race and only get busted after it is finished, when they helped shape the results. And it is not fair that ex-Pro Tour dopers stroll over to Asia to win here, and that there is no testing at several of the UCI Asia Tour races. So, what IS fair? On a related note, it was awesome to see several top guys blast the heck out of Santambrogio after news of his positive. I wil bet that if you asked them, they'd like some way to let officials know of their suspicions. And did you see what Acquarone, director of the Giro said after that, in regards to Di LUca and Santa? 'We all knew'. 'We all knew' - and yet, they could say nothing. But they KNEW...
liquor box
Guest
I would be so shattered if Jens Voigt was a proven doper. It would almost destroy cycling for me as much as the Hanse Cronje gambling issue shatter my love of cricket. I realise doping is always going to occur, I just want the sport to be as clean as possible, and at the moment I think the UCI thinks it is more important LOOK like it is as clean as possible, not to actually be as clean as possible.
Kate Smart
Expert
Bones, you are absolutely spot on. You cannot go around accusing people of things that you have no proof of. The only people who will benefit from that are the defamation lawyers. Sorry Cameron, but are you saying that if I saw you robbing and beating a little old lady on the street, and I did nothing about it, I would then be the same criminal as you? I'm no lawyer, but I suspect an accessory to a crime is someone who was involved in the crime, not a by stander. Any lawyers out there to clarify this?
Cam Larkin
Roar Guru
If they know, have seen doping take place etc...aren't they an accessory to "the crime"?
Bones506
Roar Guru
I think one has to be careful about accusing people of suspect performances and hence why they don't generally say anything. Their job is to train and race bikes and leave those kinds of things to the UCI and Wada. I don't blame the riders for staying quiet - they move teams and you can't accuse someone without proof - t amounts to defamation.