July 22nd, 1987. A day I will never forget. It was the 21st stage of the Tour de France, and I sat on our living room in suburban England watching an event unfold on the television that forever changed my life.
Changed my life.
What words those are, and how often they are bandied about without substance, without the full realisation of the weight inherent in their letters.
But this did. It was seismic. To my 15 year old self, sports obsessed and wanting, forever it seemed, to be a professional athlete at anything, this was massive.
In my bones I knew – this was it. This was the single greatest thing I had ever seen. An Irishman and a Spaniard and bicycles on a mountain in France.
A whole history of pedals being pushed, mammoth killometers, a man dying on a volcano called Ventoux, a Cannibal, a Badger, another Frenchman who carried a comb in his pocket so that his hair was perfect for the finish line salutes and the impossible cool of an Italian superhero. And now this.
I was mesmerized.
The fog had descended on La Plagne’s slopes, making all but the action at the start and at the very the end invisible. All we knew, all Phil Liggett told us, was that Stephen Roche was losing the Tour to Pedro Delgado, not by seconds but by minutes.
At the start of the day, Delgado had Yellow and a 25 second lead over Roche, but Roche, the better rider against the clock, knew if he held on to the Spaniard this day, he would beat him in the coming time trial and take the win.
But by half way up La Plagne all was awry. Delgado had attacked at the foot and put a minute thirty into the Irishman. With no tv coverage no one knew what was happening.
I slumped off the sofa. This couldn’t be happening. In just three short weeks, Roche had become an idol to me. I read up on his Giro d’Italia win earlier in the year, where he battled not only the course and the other leaders, but also his own team and the entire Italian tifosi.
In an impossible sport here was an impossible hero, a man who fought through showers of saliva and red wine, pushes and shoves and the rabid taunts of thousands to emerge victorious. It was the stuff of dreams because it truly was dream-like, and I fell in love with the bikes, the kits, the daft hats, the mountains and the proximity of the crowds.
And here, on La Plagne, the hero of the piece was succumbing to fatigue, to pain, to suffering. All surely was lost.
The image on the screen showed the finish line, only the last 400 metres visible. Delgado rolled over, visibly toiling from the effort. He’d won the Tour, Liggett said as much. But then another figure emerged from the fog. Millions squinted at their screens.
And Liggett took charge of his immortal moment, uttering words those who heard them will never forget.
“Just who is that rider coming up behind – because that looks like Roche! That looks like Stephen Roche… it’s Stephen Roche, has come over the line! He almost caught Pedro Delgado, I don’t believe it!”
Roche finished just 14 seconds down on Delgado, collapsed in a heap and was rushed to hospital. A legend was born, and the race was eventually won. The affable Roche then went on to win the World Championships the same year, claiming a remarkable Triple Crown that had only ever been achieved by the great Eddie Merckx.
I got my first road bike within days. I started racing and harboured serious dreams of turning pro. And with this new found desire to ride a bike, I also began to get deeper into the history of the sport, and there, beneath the shiny veneer of the jerseys and the romantic names like Campagnolo and Colnago, Roger De Vlaeminck and Octave Lapize, I discovered a strain of illicit drug use that ran like a rich, dirty vein through the sport, to the point where it seemed to be more or less an accepted component.
It tainted everyone, from the early pioneers to the greatest rider of all time. I read of death by heat exhaustion brought on by a cocktail of dope and booze and of ex-riders developing amphetamine psychosis, and of others continuing to abuse the drugs they took as riders once they retired.
Delving into the books on cycling, I found some discreet comments that suggested the race organisers and cycling officialdom bore a deal of responsibility for the problems, but it seemed, generally, no one dared speak out.
I learnt the word ‘omerta’ and read of riders taking ‘special’ bottles from their team cars towards the end of the races.
Then came the early 90s. Young, fit men died in their sleep after taking a new drug called EPO that facilitated the intake of oxygen into the blood but that also thickened it when at rest, causing the heart to stop.
Then those who survived worked out you needed to take blood thinners to stop dying, so they did that. Then they discovered masking agents made from all sorts of mad things, and they added them to their bulging medicine cabinets.
This stuff made amphetamines and steroids look like kids play, like toffees.
‘Don’t want to dope? Then you’re an idiot, get out of the sport.’ That was the logic of the day.
In the early 90s a man called Hein Verbruggen had taken over the presidency of the UCI, and he wanted to reinvigorate the sport, to drag it from the 60s into the modern age, and he needed a star system and a star to do that.
Then along came one Lance Armstrong. It was a match made in heaven, and we all know the story that unfolded.
Along came scandals from time to time, cars found loaded with dope, riders jacked to the eyeballs who somehow got caught, waste bins found outside Tour hotels with the kind of empty medicine boxes in them that you’d only expect to find in Lourdes in high season.
Still the sport scrabbled around in the gutter. Still, nothing was done in any real sense by the world cycling authority to amend a situation that was clearly in contravention of the stated rules of said authority.
In 2005, Verbuggen stepped down and in his place came Pat McQuaid, an Irishman who had been a decent pro, one who had competed in South Africa during Apartheid under a false name, a man whose connections spread far and wide.
Despite rumblings from some in the press and from a bare fistful of ex-pro riders, such as Paul Kimmage in his book Rough Ride, still the doping raged on. Aspersions were cast towards those calling for change and some of those brought in to fight doping by the UCI left, exasperated that their efforts seemed thwarted at every turn.
Yet McQuaid managed to win a second term. And now he wants a third.
But the cycling fans are fighting back, they have finally coalesced into a cohesive force and are finding their voice, and then some. Just this last Saturday the clubs of Cycling Ireland came together at an Extraordinary General Meeting and defeated McQuaid’s bid to receive the backing from Cycling Ireland to bid for a third term at the helm of the UCI.
He professed to not being bothered though, as he claims the Swiss federation will support him, but it seems that too may fail under a challenge.
His time may finally be up. The vast majority of cycling supporters seem to want change and, in the light of recent events, McQuaid’s integrity looks to be crumbling.
All of which brings me back to Stephen Roche. The man who got me into the sport.
What you learn as a cycling fan is not to look too hard. Like all varnish, that which covers cycling is easily cracked. Ex-pros, and current ones too, tend to mind their own business and keep very quiet – unless they are shouting in derision at a whistleblower, of course.
Kimmage, an ex-teammate of Roche, suggested the Triple Crown winner doped in his career. Journalist David Walsh made similar accusations.
Roche denied all. Just last week, speaking of Kimmage and his book that came out in 1990, he said this:
“I thought, at the time, well you’re spitting in the soup but in hindsight I said, what he did was brave, and if someone had listened to him back in 1990 maybe the 20 year struggle with doping in cycling could have only been a 10-year struggle.”
But just a few days later, before Cycling Ireland’s member clubs met to vote, Roche came out in support of Pat McQuaid, publicly calling for the clubs to endorse him.
“Pat and the UCI have done great things for our sport despite all the problems that cycling has had to deal with in the past 10 years,” said Roche.
“No other sport has had as much negative publicity as cycling and I’m sure that many a ‘strong President’ would have jumped ship and left the cleaning up to someone else.
“Pat has been a strong leader and has succeeded in not just tackling the everyday issues – the exceptional issues in cycling, but he has also been responsible for the huge development worldwide of our sport.
“I sincerely believe that Cycling Ireland should nominate Pat for the UCI Presidency because he has the passion, ability and conviction to continue to grow and develop our sport and also continue to tackle all other issues with honesty and determination.”
It is difficult to understand exactly why Roche came out and said this, expressing thoughts that are directly opposed to the thinking of the majority of cycling fans. It has the ring of the Old Boys Club and the old school tie, and underlying it is at best a naivety of the situation that our sport is in, and that it has been brought to by those in charge.
Which is it, Stephen? In support of Kimmage, or Mcquaid? Real change and a serious commitment to anti-doping, or more of the same?
Sometimes, you realise, it is better to leave your heroes behind.
Abdu
Guest
Clean slate might be a lot harder than people think. There is more than one McQuaid, don't forget his son is a manager to many top Pro's and I wonder what his influence has and will be...? Then there's the other son who was working with the Virginia World Championships bid (surprise surprise, it won), and other various races and Tours. Cancer is never just one cell... Stephen Roche's comments about McQuaid are as stupid and unbelievable as his life long denial of being a doper. The Italian Judge found conclusively that Roche and his Carrera team mates had doped, and team doctor Francesco Conconi gave evidence that he had adminisitered EPO to Roche and other riders on the team. Until he admits to being a cheat, he should be wiped from the sport as well.
Klaas Faber
Guest
I suggest that you read part of his 1999 piece. All your concerns are there. The biopassport equally invites riders to dope. It's just a more complicated 50%-rule. The 'personalized' margins are wide enough to be interpreted as 'legalizing' microdoses or a combination of transfusions and EPO (and the correct margins are even wider). That way one effectively gets under the radar. Rasmussen had no problem. Kohl said the same things. Then have a look at the threshold for once banned caffeine. That threshold has nothing to do with avoiding a positive test from a few cups of coffee. Caffeine is now widely used to boost performance: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/gregans-disclosure-over-caffeine-use-may-force-tablets-back-on-banned-list-6145879.html 7% improvement is claimed. Similar to EPO. How to solve for doping? Re-organize teams and let good old social control do its work. No longer have riders prepare themselves individually 'somewhere'. Have it in the contract that they live close to a central base, so that you can keep an eye on them. Treat riders like employees. That will also solve for legal problems that will inevitably pop up in the future. Current contracts are in breach of several laws and treaties, as you will probably know.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
With all due respect Klaas, no one knows what's really happening, who is doping or not. Even institutions like the CAS contradict themselves to some extent. In the case you mention, basically the CAS acknowledges that the tests are reliable, that Verpaalu has probably taken some HGH, yet that 'the FIS failed to meet the applicable standard of proof with respect to the procedure followed to set the aspects of the decision limits (essential to avoid the risk of having “false positive” tests).' The reality is there are loopholes in every regulations and some sportsmen will always take advantage of these and 'go the limit'. I get your point about Verbruggen and the 50% limit. The issue I have is that in doing so, he tacitly invited riders who have a natural level of 40-45, which is the vast majority of riders, to legally raise their level to 49. In essence, are they doping? Yes. Are they positive? No. And that's precisely what annoys me with Verbruggen: I have the impression that he didn't want to eradicate doping in cycling but was happy to control it and allow everyone to dope at the same level. The fact he was alerting riders and teams that they had suspicious tests was IMO a major issue too. I have no solution and dunno if there is one. But I can't be fully pleased with his tenure at the UCI. Tbh I don't see any solutions that will guarantee no doping in sports, not just in cycling. Veerpalu's CAS media release in full. http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/6628/5048/0/Media20Release20_English_20256620final.pdf
Klaas Faber
Guest
Let's discuss this from a more general perspective. The 50% of the hematocrite rule is a decision limit. Decision limits have to be sufficiently tight and based on a sufficiently large population to be reliable. Recently, Andrus Veerpalu, an Estonian male cross country skier, was acquitted by the CAS for human growth hormone. Veerpalu was highly suspect for other reasons as well. However, the decision limit was not reliable hence the CAS said 'no' to the proof. This verdict may have consequences for the Sinkewitz case. Sinkewitz might eventually sue the UCI. So, what should Verbruggen have done? Not listen to riders who feared for their health and not follow technical advice from experts? The funny thing is that I could have told you 10-20-30 years ago. Long before all of this became ' controversial'. We're talking about basic statistics.
Klaas Faber
Guest
1) It was a health measure. Many riders were afraid and asked for it. Inevitably, others profited. This is all discussed and accounted for by Verbruggen in his 1999 piece. 2) You need a threshold that will limit the risk of a false-positive (FP) to an acceptable level. The biological passport works with a risk of 1 in 1000 (incorrect calculation by the way), but with 250,000 tests each year, a risk of 1 in 10,000 is more appropriate. The latter number was arrived at by the IOC around that time. The biological passport allows for manipulation as did the hematocrit rule, see Landis admissions in 2010. I predicted that in 2008. With such a small population, and distributions typically being skewed you arrive at a number 'well in excess'. Just look at the 'normal' range of a biological passport that looks rather wide but is still too narrow statistically speaking, as I explained (incorrect calculation, incorrect risk of FP).. 3) In my opinion, this health measure was not 'a mistake from the past'. So, why don't you give an alternative to what was entirely transparent from Verbruggen's piece from 1999?
Tinea Pedis
Roar Guru
Klass, what strikes me immediately reading your post are three things. 1.) why, in a sport with such history of PED abuse that cycling has and in an era where EPO use was rampant (putting it mildly), would taking 'guidance' from the riders be seen as an appropriate anti-doping measure? 2.) why set the level at a point that was well, well in excess of what would be naturally seen? 3.) why the defensiveness at looking back and trying to learn from mistakes of the past? As George Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". 'We' (present day riders, fans and cycling community) want a cleaner and more transparent sport. Dismissive attitudes are not helping progress. I expect you have a different definition of what constitutes 'progress', in which case I would again refer to the above quote.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Yesterday a report was published about the doping culture in Dutch professional cycling (male): http://www.commissie-ada.nl/EINDRAPPORTCOMMISSIEADA.pdf On page 43, one finds a reference to the book by Hamilton and Coyle. In their book the hematocrite rule is apparently ridiculed by an Italian team manager. What Hamilton and Coyle and many others seem to forget is that this rule was asked for by the riders themselves. Experts subsequently set the threshold at 50. And of course it were riders like Hamilton who took advantage. Hamilton, wasn't that the guy with a ridiculous excuse for testing positive? The best option, i.e. prosecuting, was not available. Verbruggen was responsible for going for second-best. What's the problem with that? Current criticism is literally irresponsible. Conor McGrane would not have been able to do better than second best either. A simple process of elimination. Logic. Finally, as I already mentioned, other unions did the same and nobody complains. Is it ignorance? Selective moralism?? Hypocrisy???
Klaas Faber
Guest
This is what Verbruggen wrote about that controversial measure in 1999: http://oldsite.uci.ch/english/news/news_pre2000/hv_990127_5.htm Other unions introduced similar measures, and nobody is complaining now. I'm currently on holidays. Will be back next weekend.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Klaas, here is what Dr Conor McGrane (I interviewed him last week) said to me about Verbruggen- the good Doc is one of the 5 who brought the challenge to McQuaid at the EGM I mention in the article: “Verbruggen really has no place in cycling and no place in sport,” began McGrane. “What he did in his presidency was literally appalling. The thing that stands out was his bringing in of the 50% rule for heamatocrit. That effectively legalized EPO use. “A normal level is between 38 and 44%, occasionally 46. Then all of a sudden, that rule comes in and riders are hitting the high 49s. I’m 19 years as a doctor and I have been in cycling for 9 years now and I’ve seen only one natural level above 48%. Then I see the numbers from the late 90s and they are 48.7 and 48.9. These go against all evidence which says that these levels should in fact drop in the course of a stage race. That rule alone took away any chance of drug-free competition for at least ten years.” read full article here: http://crankpunk.com/2013/06/13/dr-conor-mcgrane-on-the-pat-mcquaid-file-and-an-extraordinary-meeting/ and please do get in touch, would love to do an interview.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Yes, keep venting. Did you ever wonder why WADA 'regulated' that blood values prior to 1-1-2009 cannot be used for prosecution? So, not the usual 'statute of limitations' of 8 years for that particular kind of proof, but 0 years. Proof against hundreds of riders forever remaining unused. Take e.g. the Vuelta 2003. Almost 100% on EPO: http://www.chemometry.com/Index/Anti-doping/The%20blood%20trail%20of%20cycling.pdf That's very similar to destroying blood bags, right? IMO the UCI under Verbruggen and McQuaid did not do such a bad job. Kind regards, Klaas Faber Independent (anti-)doping expert (former forensic scientist)
Lee Rodgers
Guest
I do agree, but that has to be aim. If we don't start there then we are screwed - like now!
Shiney2120
Guest
A very moving story that most can relate to in this sport of falling heroes who have disappointed their fans near & far...as well as, themselves. Pat McQuaid has much to do with failure. His belligerence is almost vulgar. He seems to be an unapologiistic narcissist. He must be mad! Hats off to us, the fans who care enough to voice our discontent. Most of us are not settling, nor accepting the shallow side of false wins at this point. The excitement really sits with believing each stage win has been played fairly...in knowing any rider that crosses the line is due to natural ability. This is what most want to witness, not the ridiculous performances & doped up record wins of the past. Most of all, we need to believe that cheaters are not crippling the careers of clean riders & Pat McQuaid has certainly failed severly in this area. I do hope the UCI is listening closely because we are the fans & at the end of the day the sponsors are nothing without us. Keep venting, people!
Lee Rodgers
Guest
Thanks guys for the very nice comments! yup, i do think he is on his way out, how he can hang on like this, well, indicative of the kind of man he is really. manipulative and selfish. Not sure Cookson will be much better but seriously, what could be worse? George W Bush? the UCI invading Iran? WMDs (Weapons of Mass Doping) free to all juniors? Time to get wise.
Bones506
Roar Guru
I will take Cookson over McQuaid any day of the week. What have we seen from the UCI since the whole Lance story broke? In reality - nothing. McQuaid has been too busy trying to keep his job rather than do his job. He and his supports have been dug in or far too long. Change is needed. Time will tell if it is better or not but lets be honest - the brand of the UCI really can't get much worse.
Kate
Guest
By all means DUMP Pat M... put Cookson in. Cookson who is backed by a Russian oligarch who thinks he can buy anything he wants, including a UCI president. Be careful what you wish for!
WoobliesFan
Guest
One of the best articles I've read on TheRoar, ever, period. I feel for you……as a cycling fan it seems to be one long, broken hearted trip. As for Stephen Roche, you had to leave him behind because he left you (and all fans) behind the day he choose to enter the dark side. His support for an obvious king-pin like Pat McCabe is evidence enough of someone standing by his master Also, the fact that he won the tour itself is evidence enough……. Speaking of which, how’s Cadel doing these days?.....lol
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Superb piece. Am I optimistic we will see a 100% clean cycling in our lifetime? Nope.
Bones506
Roar Guru
McQuaid gone will certainly help the image of the sport - he is tainted and his integrity is compromised. A clean slate is needed.
Elisha Pearce
Guest
Fantastic piece. I thoroughly agree that the past of cycling is hard to remain a fan of and that UCI needs a new president.
FTR
Guest
Brilliant article. All credit to the Irish cycling clubs for voting against McQuaid.