Why cycling needs Brian Crookson - and Lance Armstrong

I am currently on my annual two-week break from Australia and staying in Nha Trang, Vietnam.

I have been able to catch bits and pieces of the Tour de France but have been more focused on other endeavours besides cycling which along with my career in investment banking dominates so much of my regular time.

On top of the continued speculation about Chris Froome being a clean rider the French Senate inquiry was just released and among some of the sports big name (including Cippollini), Stuart O’Grady was named as having a suspicious finding for EPO in the now very infamous ’98 tour.

If you actually read the Senate’s reason for this inquiry it was more on the impacts of drugs in sport. the naming of the riders was an appendix.

For those that read my articles know I am an avid cyclist and continue to race crits and TTs.

I also take a very active interest in the professional and Pro-Continental circuit.

While on holiday I read David Walsh’s ‘Seven Deadly Sins’.

In the last 12 months I have read Willy Voet’s ‘Breaking The Chain’ about the ’98 Festina affair.

Voet was the driver caught crossing the French border with a boot full of illegal substances.

I have also read Tyler Hamilton’s ‘The Secret Race’, the large majority of USADA’s ‘reasoned decision’ and also the Vance report. A very close friend is also a doctor and avid cyclist so he knows his stuff.

I like to think I have a good understanding on that period of cycling and the use of drugs in sport.

My focus is not on the individual riders and trying to push them to a ‘truth and reconciliation’ process because it is pretty evident that there is no upside to trying for this if there are no real consequences for riders – let’s park comments of ‘its the right thing to do’ etc.

In O’Grady’s case there is was and is no actual reason for him to confess to taking drugs in ’98.

For the riders that testified against Lance they faced perjury so there was actually something to use against them.

My big issue – and in my opinion it is the only issue is that the UCI, especially president Pat McQuaid, sit back and say things like ‘oh the dark days of cycling are behind us – the sport is now clean’, and has attacked riders such as Landis and Hamilton for speaking out as ‘scumbags’.

We, as spectators and avid followers also sit there and listen to endless questions (many of them our own) about whether someone like Chris Froome is a legitimate winner and clean.

I don’t hear McQuaid speaking up and supporting the riders and the sport – he is too focused on trying to keep his job he has forgotten how to actually do it in an effective manner.

So – the real problem is actually the construct of cycling. I was working inside Standard and Poor’s doing ratings on mortgage back securities (which was the first dam to break and began the downward spiral into the GFC.

I moved out of ratings and across into risk management in corporate and investment banking. It was clearly evident once things blew up that a lot of mistakes had been made.

Rather than keeping many of the people that caused the crisis ‘in house’ to help fix the problems – we paid them out and let them go.

My little story is to highlight that I have worked in an industry and inside a company that has brought about mass cultural and operational change.

If I have learnt two things from this it is the following:

1. The only constant is change – ‘adapt or die’;
2. Change (operational and cultural) comes from the top and flows down. Every employee needs to be made aware of the changes, understand them and buy into the change.

Can anyone really say that the UCI has embraced either? McQuaid has said that the introduction of the biological passport has transformed the sport and they are testing now more than ever.

Fact: it is true that the passport helped. Fiction: they are testing more – they actually are not.

McQuaid is far more interested in mopping up all the money that he and the UCI currently bring in rather than the future of the sport.

An individual, in this case, a rider is not going to be the agent of change.

Hard to see why most would stand up and try and make change given the treatment that the likes of Christophe Bassons, Filippo Simeoni, Jonathan Vaughters and David Millar received from the peloton, the media and also the UCI.

Brian Crookson (current head of British Cycling) is currently in a bid for President of the UCI and has claimed scepticism over doping at the Tour de France is undermining the race and has promised measures to restore its credibility if he is elected as president.

Cookson announced a programme of further anti-doping measures that he would introduce if elected UCI president.

These are:

– Put an end to the UCI’s public feuding with anti-doping bodies such as WADA and USADA and instigate an independent investigation into doping in cycling, with amnesties or reductions in bans for those who come forward to admit past use.

– Ensure more transparency, data sharing and co-operation by teams with their anti-doping bodies.

– Create independent team compliance officers to report regularly to the independent anti-doping unit.

– Introduce a fit and proper person’s test in cycling.

– Support four-year bans for dopers.

– Expand the UCI’s anti doping education programmes.

I applaud Crookson for his focus on change and desire to improve the reputation of the sport.

This is an excellent foundation to build upon and can easily be enhanced and added to over time – remember – ‘the only constant is change’.

He absolutely has my support. He appears to be the only one willing to stand up and attempt change. It must come from the top and Mr Crookson clearly seems to understand that.

The other name that I believe cycling needs (in time) is Lance Armstrong.

Make no mistake – I am not impressed by his behaviour over the years and treatment of former riders etc but the stark reality is that he is a man that has real drive and ability to help make changes and improve lives – his ongoing cancer work with Livestrong is proof of that.

On top of that – he is a powerful force and when he speaks, people still listen.

He doesn’t necessarily have to be in the limelight but I believe he can help Crookson transform cycling’s construct.

He was absolutely on the inside for a long time and he too has been cast aside by the UCI and ‘has no place in the sport’.

I disagree – like all past riders he does have some ability to help make change and i,prove a sport which gave him so much.

Is Lance’s enduring legacy simply ‘the dark days’ or can he himself see that like with cancer – can he help make change and improve something that was once so important to him?

Gotta run – plane to catch. Until next time – clip in.