Keep calm and carry on is a little-known piece of British World War II propaganda that was given a new lease of life in the early 21st Century.
The slogan’s modern appeal is its reference to an era long gone, but remembered as among the darkest times of the last century.
The slogan may be an invitation to bury our heads in the sand in times of uncertainty but it may also be just the antidote to the continued doping scandals that surround the sport of cycling.
A French Senate inquiry earlier this week released a report from the 1998 Tour de France, naming riders who produced suspect samples during that notorious edition of the famed bike race.
In light of this and Stuart O’Grady’s admission to using EPO, the media has once again been ablaze with the topic, not of drugs in sport but, more specifically, of drugs in cycling.
Let’s be clear on this, so many of these reports and investigations in recent times have investigated a range of sports and yet it is only cycling that is under the spotlight.
There seems little interest in tackling drugs in other sports. Once again the authorities are only interested in exposing more scandals in cycling and, once again, said scandals bear a closer resemblance to dusty, emaciated skeletons than any genuine and relevant inquiry into cheating in top level sports.
What is clear though, is the need for everyone from authorities, to journalists, to sponsors and to fans to just keep calm and carry on.
Before we bay for blood, proclaim we can never put our faith in cycling again and continue along some of the general hysteria of the last few days, why don’t we first of all take a calm and reasoned approach to news that has been a shock, without a doubt, but should be digested in an aura of calm and reason.
What are we talking about with O’Grady’s admission about using EPO in 1998?
Is there anyone who is seriously surprised at this, and I don’t mean this in a way that denigrates O’Grady. Quite the contrary.
O’Grady remains an exceptional athlete and Australian, but there is no getting away from the fact cycling has had a recent dark past and it is doubtful anyone riding at that time was not involved in some level of doping.
Cycling faces many questions as it moves forward and I would strenuously argue that pointing fingers at the suspicious results of doping controls that took place 15 years ago is not a move forward unless its purpose is to raise serious questions over the UCI, the body in charge of cycling, and its role or knowledge of these dubious test results.
Perhaps our collective attention should focus more intently on the role of the sporting bodies in the fight against drugs, rather than focusing solely on the athletes.
The French Senate report also raises questions about the role of a statute of limitations in drugs in sport testing.
It is unlikely any of those mentioned in the report will face any sanction, as the 1998 Tour de France was 15 years ago.
So, why release such a report if it is not possible to punish those who have transgressed?
What is going to happen to the named riders?
Yes, their reputations will now be tarnished, but this seems somewhat malicious.
What is to be gained from this? How is this helping cycling to move forward and, most importantly, is this the culture of the current peloton?
The release of this report does nothing to progress cycling as a drug free sport.
I for one hope not and believe it isn’t. If it turns out today’s peloton is as drug addled as the peloton of the 1990s, then yes, we will all have the right to feel duped and to give up on the sport we all love, but until that time, we need to retain our collective common sense and rational thought.
Yes, the release of this report will send a very clear message to athletes competing today – you may be using a banned substance we can’t test for today, but we’ll have a test for it in 15 years time, so if you’re cheating you’d better watch out.
That really seems to be the sum of it and, let’s be honest, if you’re a drug cheat, you’re already lacking moral credibility, so I don’t really see how this hollow threat will carry any weight with those already prepared to deceive their sporting publics.
So, what of Stuart O’Grady’s admission to having used EPO during the 1998 Tour de France?
Does this admission really diminish his standing as one of this country’s great cycling pioneers? I seriously doubt it does.
Realistically, would you have just spent the last three weeks cheering on Orica-GreenEDGE without the likes of Stuart O’Grady having paved a path through European cycling?
Can you all in honesty say your admiration for him is now diminished?
There is no doubt that as a society we all have a part to play in combating drugs in sport and yes, looking to the past and learning lessons from the past is one way of defending ourselves from the insidious nature of drugs in sport.
There is, however, a big difference in looking to the past in order to improve our present and our future, and digging up skeletons that do nothing but damage the reputations of people.
It’s also a little high and mighty for those who sit in the comfort of their lounge rooms, with their laptops on their knees, lecturing someone like Stuart O’Grady on how he lacked the moral courage to not take EPO.
Would you have done differently? Seriously?
I for one do not live in a glass house and as a result do not throw objects in the delicate structure that is life.
I also firmly believe we should continue to tackle drugs in sport but in a level-headed and reasoned manner.
Stuart O’Grady remains for me, and always will be, one of this country’s great athletes, irrespective of any transgressions from 15 years ago.
david
Guest
This put up appears to be for you to recieve an enormous ammount of visitors. How will you get targeted visitors to it? It offers a pleasant extraordinary spin about points. I assume possessing anything authentic as well as substantial to talk about is the most important aspect.
Andrew
Guest
It is all about how the so called umpire officates the particular offence. From drug cheating down to giving away penalties. If you get away with it; it is not cheating.
Dáire McNab
Guest
Couple of points Kate- you've made a few references in the comments section to O'Grady 'coming clean'. He's had several chances over the years, in press as well as the Vance interviews, to do so, and he repeatedly said that he neither took PEDs nor ever saw any evidence of use among his teammates. He suddenly decided to 'come clean' after he was publicly revealed to have been anything but, which basically took the choice from his hands. Regarding the frequency of his use, it is hard to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has just been exposed as a serial liar, and the odds that the one and only time he doped in his 19 seasons as a pro happened to coincide with the one batch of retests which have been published must be astronomical. As Lee has so eloquently said in both his comment above and his article published today, there were 2 types of riders- those who said 'no' and those who said 'yes'. Anyone who said 'yes', even if just the once (Stuey!), brought the sport one step deeper into the mire of the 90s-00s era. Finally, you asked if people would have spent the past 3 weeks cheering on Orica-GreenEDGE if he hadn't blazed a trail across Europe; essentially arguing that the end justifies the means. Such an insinuation seems deeply troubling to me, and is disturbingly close to the attitude of many of the riders and directeurs who are the root cause of this whole sorry mess. We should not keep calm and carry on, we should take a stand and sort this sport out for once and for all.
Arthur
Guest
Well written, balanced, unemotional piece. Well done
delbeato
Roar Guru
I'd make a couple of points: 1. I don't begrudge people being cynical about pro cycling. It has proven to be drug-plagued. But modern cycling has a good story to tell - while it has much to do, the sport has taken some positive steps to eradicate (or more realistically, reduce) doping in its ranks. It's no coincidence that the media has feasted on doping scandals harking back to the early 2000s (Lance) and now 1998. While these are not ancient history, much has been done in the years since then to clean the sport up. 2. Sports like AFL and NRL are well and truly back in the dark ages, as cycling was when it was drug-plagued - when it comes to dealing with doping. Their attitude is predominantly to pretend it doesn't exist. The AFL has been working around the clock to broker a deal for Essendon - that sends a very clear message, and not a good one. While I would agree football codes do not have the same magnitude of problem that cycling did a decade ago, I strongly suspect the problem is worse than the public realises. The ACC has implied as such, and has been roundly panned for doing so. As a long-time cycling fan, I've seen it before and it should start ringing alarm bells.. 3. Marion Jones wasn't jailed for doping, she was jailed for lying under oath(?) No one deserves to go to jail just for cheating in sports. Fans did react very negatively to Ben Johnson's positive test(s) - but what many don't necessarily appreciate is that unlike Johnson, who clearly doped his way to a (very temporary) gold medal, most pro cyclists doped merely to be able to retain a professional contract. Most did not win the Tour de France, they were just hanging on for grim death onto the back of the drug-fuelled peloton. They call it the 'chain gang' for a reason. I have sympathy for these riders, even if the situation was farcical. 4. Lastly, Cadel has a strong reputation for riding clean. It's hard to know with absolute certainty, whether that is deserved or not, but he stands out as a rider who many of his colleagues have cited as beyond reproach. He's not particularly popular, either (known for being grouchy) - i.e. these are not mates putting in a good word. Compare that with the reaction to other cycling dopers - much more negative (in today's environment).
bobw
Guest
Kate, Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer about what I meant in saying that O'Grady had "profited" by cheating - I certainly didn't mean to imply that he owed his entire career to his performance at the 1998 TDF. However, as sittingbison points out below, it was a very successful Tour for him - he won a stage, wore the yellow, and finished second only to Zabel in the points competition. For a 24 year old emerging on the European road cycling scene, it was reputation-forging stuff. And on O'Grady's own account, he wouldn't have been able to achieve his results without "assistance". At the very least, EPO use, and the results it secured, increased O'Grady's market value as a rider. I think it's beyond debate that he did profit by cheating, notwithstanding that the precise extent to which his overall career was dope-fuelled necessarily remains a matter of conjecture. "what really needs to take place is a thorough investigation into the ... UCI" No argument from me on this. A couple of thoughts, though: 1. Naming names is not necessarily antagonistic to pursuing this end goal, not least because confronting cycling fans (particularly more casual fans) with the reality that riders they've followed and supported over the years were in fact dopers may help to shock them out of complancency, and think more seriously about the systemic issues that lurk behind large-scale PED use. Say the French senate had anonymised its report, and simply noted that X% of the tested samples from the 1998 Tour had come back positive or suspicious. Now, a semi-informed observer might know that it was very likely that one of the relevant samples belonged to O'Grady, but there'd be no way of being certain, and thus there'd be some temptation to say, "Surely not good old true-blue Aussie Stuey, who I've supported for years. I bet he was one of the good guys." Naming O'Grady, by contrast, forces a different reaction. Attaching a name and a face to a test result makes it more "real" - and may prompt questions like "What kind of an environment were these guys operating in?" Now, this is not to say that I have real any confidence that fan clamour/pressure will have any effect on the UCI - arguably, it's been ignored for years. But it certainly can't hurt. 2. I can't help but think that the likes of O'Grady hamper efforts to provoke a systemic inquiry with their deliberately minimalistic "confessions" once caught. The whole "I acted alone" narrative is almost certainly fiction in most cases. It allows the perpetuation of the idea that doping was/is the domain of rogue elements and bad apples - individual riders breaking the rules. I would love to see someone like O'Grady be more expansive about the broader context, and in doing so turn the spotlight on team officials and administrators. Riders and ex-riders could do a lot to accelerate the process by which responsibility for PED use is traced up the chain of command.
deanp
Guest
oh don't be so silly. Gradings can be placed on all misdemeanors in life. You will find the courts do that all the time. My point still stands, that your comparison with armstrong borders on the hysterical.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
The comparison is actually quite evident ... They're both drug cheats .. They both took performance enhancing drugs to better themselves against the pack People are are getting mixed up in the personalities - which are irrelevant - LA was an ar$ehole and according to most a mentally deranged psychopath .. O'Grady on the other hand is nice, hard working, driven bloke apparently .. However that doesn't change the fact they both set out to gain an edge by bunging a needle into themselves ... Whether you believe O'Grady did it once then stopped is irrelevant - or do you then think Ben Johnson has been hard done by because he failed only 1 test, or Marion Jones, or FloJo .. Is it the circumstances that set the level of judgement - O'Grady did it in a race where most were on it and didn't win it .. So that's fine - Johnson won a 100 metre Olympic final - one where nearly every runner returned some sort of positive test over the next few years .. But that's bad ... A drug is a drug cheat pure and simple - if you start trying to place gradings on it then as I said before don't bother testing
deanp
Guest
heh. sarcasm being the lowest form of wit. I'm a Kiwi, btw. And who is saying it doesn't matter? What is amusing is the ridiculous comparison with armstrong. Such excessess are usually a symptom of a guilty conscience. By all means feel free to fess up to your own double standards, but it's a little presumptuous to be doing it on behalf of all Aus, don't you think?
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
My apologies .. Sometimes I forget that the double standard is a national institution in Australia ... If it makes you feel better ... O'Grady was a naughty boy for only 2 weeks of his career, he did a bad thing all by himself and it really doesn't matter because for the rest of it he was such an ambassador for the sport and anyway it was such a long time ago and everyone was doing it but far worse so we should just selectively pick the ones we like and give them an amnesty
deanp
Guest
There's no evidence that O'Grady was not a clean rider when he won stages or races. As a comparison, David Millar won silver at world time trials and commonwealth games gold after sitting out a drugs ban. Are we to presume that he was not clean either? But if it makes you feel better about life making these ridiculous comparisons with armstrong then go for it.
ed
Guest
Richie McCaw comes in from the side at every ruck, that's cheating. What is the difference between someone taking drugs to get an advantage compared to someone not playing by the rules to get an advantage?
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Agree with what you say Lee. I tried to show some kind of disdain in my post towards this 'pack', the cheaters, but i think it didnt translate well! ;) I actually feel that my contempt or considering those former 'heroes' only as 'normal beings', i.e. with their little petty mindedness, selfishness and arrivism, is a strong way to show what i think about them. Agree kate, your article brought a lot of interesting comments and a great discussion.
Kate Smart
Expert
Thanks Bones, you raise a very good point about the role of the UCI and I would argue that what needs to take place, is the questioning of that organisation in all of this. I'm not making any allegations against the UCI, but I do think there are some very valid questions, such as your own, that need to be addressed.
Kate Smart
Expert
Thanks Lee, I think any rescuing of his reputation will depend on if you believe he only took EPO for that two week period.If you don't believe that, then he can never repair his reputation. You are quite right that cheating is akin to a criminal action and should therefore be treated as a crime, however, I think you dismiss my argument that the law see 'shades of grey'. The law also places statutes of limitations on crimes that are not as severe as murder or rape. If we criminalise doping in sport, would it be exempt from a statute of limitation? This is an important question. With all respect, and I don't need to tell you what very high regard I hold you in, but I think you've misrepresented me by quoting "The release of this report does nothing to progress cycling as a drug free sport” as if i am suggesting that cheats shouldn't be named. I'm suggesting that if the past is to be revisited, we need to have a clear purpose and desired outcome in doing so. I've also argued that that desired purpose should be investigation into the body that runs cycling. There is no doubt that Stuart O'Grady has cheated and in so doing has damaged his reputation and the faith cycling fans have held him in, but if he is to named and shamed, then let's at least ensure that those who also have questions to answer are also brought to account.
Bones506
Roar Guru
Kate - as always. A quality read. I tweeted this the other day: samples from 98, tested in 04, released in 13. raises more questions than anything. Why was UCI not testing back in 04 when it knew 98 was a problem. Where exactly is the UCI in all this. I just wrote an article which will hopefully get published on why cycling needs Brian Crookson and Lance Armstrong. All of this is a sideshow, a smokescreen to keep the focus off the real issue and that is McQuaid and the current UCI group. Does anyone buy the McQuaid line of 'the dark days of doping are past'? Clearly not when Froome was put under so much scrutiny from the press at TDF.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
But that whole pack was very dirty, on the whole. So what is that saying? I'm not being facetious, I genuinely am curious. The good men of that generation chose to get out or were hounded out, careers were stolen, taken away, and in some cases never even began, and everyone in there who doped and said nothing, lips sealed, when others stood up, they were as complicit in the bullying as anyone else. To say 'he is just one of the pack' kind of 'normalises' it all. You're being too kind.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
To say that his reputation remains largely untarnished after this would suggest that those who believe that also believe he is telling the truth about using EPO just for the brief period before the '98 Tour - which takes a leap of faith. And to say that "The release of this report does nothing to progress cycling as a drug free sport" is to miss the point of all this entirely. We need these past cheats - and he is, forever from now, to be known as a cheat - to be uncovered because there are still apologists and deniers out there, there are still people who will even now look at the pro peloton and say 'well no one tested positive this Tour' - which is to completely forget how many time LA was tested and sailed through apparently 'clean'. If we agree that doping is a crime - and it should be, as it is a form of theft - then, like all other crimes, no matter how far in the past, the guilty party must be held accountable. It shows that something is happening, and these cases must be brought to light more and more, to deter riders now that are still racing from following this path. If they see that even the biggest guys can be brought down then that will be one added deterrent, and we need as many as possible. We can't have one rule for guys we like and another for guys we don't. And to be honest I am tired of that argument that 'well you'd have done the same' - no, I wouldn't. I can say that because I've been there, and I know hundreds of other riders who feel exactly the same and who race clean and who are excellent riders and who knows where they'd be now with an butt cheek full of EPO! And, if the internet and letters page of magazines are anything to go by, there are hundreds and thousands of others I don't actually know who also feel the same. I hope we don't see him coaching or managing. If he wants to rescue any of his reputation I'd suggest he scours his memory and come back to us. Remember, this is a guy who was about to have his final season and to take in all the praise and back-slapping that would have accompanied that. Instead he gets busted for a short period over ten years ago then says 'ah yep, dammit, and that was the ONLY time i doped.' damn Stu! that's unlucky!
Kate Smart
Expert
Thanks nickoldschool, it's a tricky topic but I'm really pleased with everyone's comments today. I think everyone's been really constructive even if we don't all agree. I think you've hit the nail on the head and summed up how many of us feel. It's almost a Shakespearian tragedy.
Kate Smart
Expert
Thanks sittingbison, I think you make an excellent point about O'Grady not coming clean earlier and I do find this very disappointing. I'm hopeful that if the riders of today can take something from this, then it should be that the omertà is in many ways as evil as the doping and ultimately, as delbeato said, we can forgive riders of the 90s their actions but it's the omerta that's harder to look past.