I have two confessions: the first is that I’m fascinated with the psychology of doping in sport – both that of the athletes who choose in favour or against doping, as well as their observers, the fans (and others).
I love reading about, discussing and debating it.
It’s a little bit perverted as I feel as though I should be disgusted with and sick of it, but to me it adds another dimension to sport, making it more interesting.
The second may do no more than the first to endear me to readers: the recent revelations of doping scandals in traditionally Australian sports – AFL and NRL – gave me a deep sense of schadenfreude.
For years I’ve watched the sport I love the most – cycling – being mercilessly dragged through the gutter by doping scandal after scandal.
Such a beautiful, noble and ostensibly pure sport has been brutally and comprehensively exposed as representing anything but those qualities.
Is there really something unique about cycling which makes its pro riders so dishonest?
I’ve always doubted it. The news of Essendon AFL and NRL players players allegedly being administered banned substances was a Eureka moment for me, an open window for others to look into the truth about the moral fallibility of pro athletes that I always suspected existed.
But do people want to take a peek? I’m unconvinced.
As a Melburnian, I’m closest to the Essendon AFL scandal. It has certainly received huge media attention, more so than most cases of doping in cycling (perhaps with the notable exception of a certain retired Texan).
So how have people reacted? In a word, differently to revelations of doping in cycling.
The media’s coverage of Essendon’s ‘supplements’ program has tended to take an angle of portraying the players as guinea pigs, victims of evil doctors and charlatans who, using their powers of deceit and manipulation, have hijacked an esteemed football club whose integrity was previously beyond reproach.
In fairness, ASADA are yet to hand down the report into their investigation of doping at Essendon.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. It’s also a highly complicated matter, with the status of the alleged substances less clear-cut than, say, EPO.
However, many people (non-cycling fans) I’ve spoken to are blissfully unaware of how the ASADA (actually the WADA – World Anti-Doping Agency) rules work.
There is precious little allowance for ignorance as a defence – once a prohibited substance is proven to have entered an athlete’s body, it’s pretty much all over.
The fact it may have been administered by a club doctor is not an excuse. It’s not quite that simple and to be fair – I’m not pretending to be an expert – but that’s the gist of it.
Many of these mitigating factors also apply to cyclists, such as Stuart O’Grady.
Having read autobiographical accounts of their experiences in the peloton by Tyler Hamilton and David Millar, it is perfectly clear that their decisions were far more difficult than just: “Do I cheat or not?”
In fact, today I rode in a cycling race which was won by a rider who – rumour has it – could have joined their ranks, had he been more flexible with the rules (I couldn’t ask him personally – he was home and showered by the time I finished).
That’s a lot to give up. Certainly, more than the difference between finishing in or out of the top four on the ladder.
Yet, there is so much less sympathy for cyclists who dope.
I have two theories for why: the first is the relative nature of the sporting codes.
Cycling, like other endurance and power sports, are about exploring the human body’s performance limits.
Doping is perceived a bit like fitting an electric motor to your bike – it defeats the purpose of the competition.
Ball sports are viewed differently – they are primarily about skill, courage and teamwork.
Doping clearly helps, but can’t substitute for the core capabilities of an elite ball sports athlete.
For the record, I believe such a view to be misguided, but not entirely devoid of logic.
The second of my theories is perhaps more obvious – unlike football, cycling is not a mainstream sport in Australia.
The general public know less about its stars’ personalities and sometimes even treated with suspicion – those guys who live in Europe and dress up in attention-seeking, luminescent lycra.
Again, for the record, I’m not bitter about that – I’ve long found the obscure, exotic nature of the continental pro cycling scene as alluring.
The Australian public sees players like Essendon captain Jobe Watson in a very different light.
The son of an AFL legend, Jobe seems to represent everything that aspiring, young Australian footballers and sports fans look up to. He’s a role model.
Surely, his reputation will be tarnished by this scandal. But I suspect he will redeem himself over time.
He’ll cop a torrent of abuse from opposition fans at matches, but that’s arguably a given – the only uncertainty being the topic.
The real test will come if and when Essendon players are handed suspensions.
Will they be labelled drug cheats, or victims of a cruel, unsympathetic regime which refused to consider the extenuating circumstances?
Of course, in a free society, people will draw varying conclusions. But I suspect the predominant view will reflect the latter – i.e. victims, rather than villains.
So how would you describe a young, unworldly cyclist who gave up everything at home to take up a contract with a cut-throat European team that treats its riders as little more than disposable commodities, and which hands them their meagre pay with a brown paper bag full of pills?
Victim or villain?
Of course, it’s inaccurate to reduce the issue to deciding between one or the other. There is so much more to consider than can be covered in a short article, or which I know about.
But if that was absolutely necessary, I say victim – for both Jobe and Stuey O’Grady.
fbo
Guest
Thanks for this article. Very well written. You have putten words on the way I see doping in sport: "I’m fascinated with the psychology of doping in sport". Nevertheless I fully desagree with you when you make the difference between cycling and AFL. In both case, the professional players or runners are selected among the best in their category. In both cases, you wont make a thoroughbred horse with a donkey. But among thoroughbred hourses, doping makes huge differences. Professional cyclers are the most skilled people in cycling. Their heart is overdevelopped when it's more about the brain for ball sports. I've attended my first AFL match last week end and I'm impressed by the physiological aspect of all players. Really impressive. But I've liked the game! A frenchman who just come back from your beautifull country
Bones506
Roar Guru
What I find amazing is that some time ago a guy in Sydney who is involved in the local crits and owns a bike store featured in an article about cyclists doping down to C and D grades. Initially I thought this absurd but have since come to realise that many of the older guys - (45+) are on HGH to keep themselves looking young and fit - it does also have a positive impact on performance.
Scot
Guest
An absolute pleasure to read a relatively balanced piece of journalism which includes words with more than three syllables. I came across this website and article by chance and wish my home, UK, media could publish something of this quality and debate. My knowledge of drugs testing is limited but it does seem obscure that the levels and regularity of testing within different sports differs so much. I do think that many sports keep their heads in the sand and are quite happy to brush off any possibility of doping. Cycling and athletics are two which appear to try and counter this by attempting to create a level playing field for competitors. Unfortunately this reveals more positive samples and tarnishes the sport's name. If this theory is true it is ironic that those sports committing to testing, naming, shaming and punishing are those who get the worse name for having an uneven playing field.
Franko
Guest
Delbeato, fantastic article, the best I have read in some time. AFL is probably a few years behind cycling but all the warning signs were there, but people like Dale Lewis were hushed. I see St Kilda player Ahmed Saad is the latest to be caught up in this saga, but I don't expect him to be the last. A very sad state of affairs.
delbeato
Roar Guru
Thanks Jules. I agree on the value of enhancing endurance. I also play competitive basketball. My skills have diminished over the years, particularly as I've paid more attention to cycling. But I can often contribute by running more skillful opponents off their feet, to the point where their skills diminish. I just charge down the court into offense, often with no plan or hope of receiving the ball, but forcing opponents to give chase..
delbeato
Roar Guru
Good point Aussie Rules. But in my view, there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that Essendon players intended to comply with anti-doping rules. If so, this clearly distinguishes them from cyclists who knowingly cheated by taking EPO or other substances. But if that was the case - why the secrecy? Why the doctor shopping? Why the need for signed disclaimers? I propose that the players knew there was a risk of breaching anti-doping rules - and it seems, agreed to be injected anyway. Having signed disclaimers to me is arguably more a case of attempting to delegate their responsibility to club officials and doctors, than intending to comply with doping rules. You can't do that though - responsibility lies with the players. Of course, it also lies with team officials. The fact that the players may have been duped by their own team officials hardly gets Essendon off the hook. What they should have chosen was to refuse those injections. Of course, that's not so easy in a team environment where players are fighting to keep a spot in the side, where dissent against team managers can have negative consequences. It seems they have received public sympathy, partly on this basis. But it's eerily similar to the dilemma faced by most doping cyclists - at least back in the 1998 era.
Tim Renowden
Expert
Really great piece, thanks for writing it. I was reading an article on Footy Almanac today (http://www.footyalmanac.com.au/please-enough-waada-assada/ ) which basically argued that the author was sick of hearing about WADA/ASADA and just wanted it all to go away. I confess I also felt a rush of schadenfreude, "Finally you bastards know what it feels like". I think there is some perverse sympathy from the non-cycling fans who write off individual dopers with the old stereotype "they're all on it anyway so who cares?". I don't necessarily agree with the first premise, but it does tend to mitigate the criticism of the individuals who do get busted, especially the ones from the mid/late-1990's onwards. More attentive cycling fans take a more nuanced line, of course.
Tim Renowden
Expert
To be fair on athletics, it's been past denial for the last 25 years. The watershed moment was the Ben Johnson positive in the 1988 Olympics. Athletics does a pretty good amount of testing (could always do more but the sport isn't riddled with money) and the number of positives bears this out. Also not afraid to prosecute its biggest stars. The football codes (Aus and international), baseball, basketball are in denial. The estimates of steroid/hormone use in US domestic leagues and college sports are shocking.
Kate Smart
Expert
Like you, delbeato, I share a fascination with drugs in sport. These questions/issues are so complex and they reflect so many broader issues in society. My thinking now is focussing on the role of fans and money in sport and how these factor into drugs in sport. Are these athletes just self obsessed, narcissistic individuals who place their own individualism above anything else, or are they victims of our insatiable desire to see humans go better, higher, faster? I'm not too sure just what the answer is but I do look forward to contemplating these questions. Thanks delbeato for such a great article.
Avon River
Guest
Jules....the greatest test of even basic skills are under the duress of pressure and fatigue. Which is why a pro golfer can miss a 2ft putt, Michael Clarke can play down the wrong line to a straight one or even a designated penalty taker can spray a shot wide of the soccer goal. One might suggest the sport with the more narrow range of skills creates the more highly (specifically) skilled athlete (where the capacity to gain advantage naturally is very limited) but compared to a sport that challenges a broader skill set in a more dynamic and less structured situational environment. Yep. Who is more skilled??? Re the drugs we know that ASADA testing is a waste of money now. In Aust the AFL was the biggest user pays client of ASADA. The Olympic sports got govt funded testing. We now know that 'intelligence' (Lance Armstrong) or media agitation (Marion Jones) seem more effective. While I still ponder what ever came of Daniel Kerr and the horse steroid references in phone taps a few years back - for now with Essendon the story isn't EPO or the like......it is seemingly complex and neither WADA or ASADA are perfect. I gather whatever outcome might end up back in court and perhaps might be a long required challenging of a system that can't hold the olympics over the AFL/Essendons heads as WADA has done repeatedly to keep FIFA roughly in line.
Jules
Roar Rookie
Yes, ok, you make your point well, but there have also been plenty of cycling cases where intent was not established yet public condemnation and official suspension followed anyway. I think we also need to be careful not to insist so much on intent that we allow athletes to be (what lawyers call) wilfully blind when it comes to what "supplements" they are taking. Do you think there was intent from the WCE players who allegedly (according to many) used steroids back in the 1990s? Surely it's only a matter of time until it all comes out and my guess is that many players will be shown to have known what they were doing.
Australian Rules
Guest
Good article ...but it ignores one crucial element which, in my opinion, separates cycling from the Essendon situation: Intent. The Essendon players only agreed to the injection program on the basis that the substances were legal and WADA-approved. Injecting on this scale was new practice to an AFL club, and the players apparently asked questions and even insisted on consent forms which named the substances in order to keep a paper trail. Now, the fact that those substances were actually on the banned list, shows the program to be appallingly shonky. It also shows that the players were naive in the extreme...and more significantly, that the club was negligent in the extreme. But I don't believe the *intent* to cheat was there from the players. That's the major difference.
Jules
Roar Rookie
Excellent article. Well done. As a Melburnian who prefers European sports I feel your pain. AFL has become such an endurance sport over the past few years (and the average skill level of those playing it week in week out is low relative to other sports) that I don't really buy this argument that doping makes so much less of a difference that it's not cheating as much. With cricket even soccer, maybe, but with a game that is (now) more about whether you're strong, quick and can run all day on a massive ground than your skill level, I don't think so. I think it's probably just ingrained bias for the indigenous, provincial game that, despite its excellent marketing and Apple-like cult support, still has to fight every step of the way in an increasingly globalised Australian sport and media market.
Bobo
Guest
It was a bit of both - doping itself was not a crime in Spain in 2006. There was enough evidence in the cycling material to convict, so no 'need' to look at the three rich soccer teams Fuentes had provided services for, nor the incredibly successful tennis player(s) he also serviced.
Anthony Seiver
Guest
Great article. However the name "Jobe" reminded me of the tragic doping-related fall from grace of Aussie Track star Jobie Dajka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobie_Dajka Anyone who is familiar with the Mark French affair (2004, which was the catalyst for Dajka's downfall), would know that the French's testimony included details on the culture of "vitamin" injections amongst Australian cyclists in Europe at the time. So I was not surprised about Stuart O'Grady, perhaps more "admissions" are on the way.
Rob Gremio
Guest
Great Post. Agreed with everything you said. It is instructive to note that the judge in the court cases coming out of Operation Puerto in Spain ordered blood samples destroyed - to what end? Was it to protect the innocent? Or was it to protect the vested interests in tennis and football, as has been rumoured? My money is on the latter. Your comparison between the 1998 rider protests and the Cronulla response this year is excellent.
calum
Guest
Good article, I have to admit to being a little like you and being quite intrigued about doping and the psychology of it. The first question is whether cycling is ‘uniquely dirty’. My answer to this would be a highly intellectual ‘erm, kind of’. The reasons that people suggest it is are; 1/ it is a very pure endurance sport. Yes there are tactics and techniques but so much of it is simply having power and endurance, which makes the potential benefits of doping significant. 2/ The philosophy has traditionally been one cycling has some kind of sadistic love of the seeing the participants suffer. This meant that crazy courses were set up on grand tours that appeared purely about making the cyclists go through pain. When you have that I think it makes it that little bit easier to make the decision to corrupt yourself. 3/ Cycling ‘got in early’ by having a huge problem regarding ampethamine abuse as far back as the 50s and 60s which meant that the stuff that came later like EPO and HGH just seemed that little bit smaller a step to take. 4/ The organisation and governance of cycling has been a massive problem. The structure meant that being an also ran got you nothing whereas being a star got you lots of money meant drug taking had comparatively greater rewards. Meanwhile the organisation has traditionally been totally amateur – in both senses of the word. Now it is professional only in the sense that the clowns at the top of the UCI get paid. It really isn’t hard to see how a culture of ‘anything goes’ and rampant drug taking could grow when the head of your governing body apparently had no idea that someone at the pinnacle of your sport (the retired Texan you mention in your article) was cheating. This despite previous positive tests, and easily beating everyone despite all his closest competitors being shown to be dopers. So, in all, you have predisposing factors such as a tough, gruelling physical sport done traditionally by working class people desperate to get out of poverty. You have a pre-existing drug taking culture. Then you have poor controls, a funding system that means if you are uncompetitive you will make very little money, and a governance structure that at best has it’s head in the sand about what is going on. Having said all that, I agree with you. I believe no sport is immune to this. Cycling may have more than its fair share of issues but the rationale people take to this is just bewildering to me. People genuinely believe that there is little or no drug taking in AFL, NRL, football (soccer), tennis, union etc? I just don’t understand how they can think that. People say that there are no positive tests but that proves nothing – there is often less testing and as we know from cycling’s travails a negative test proves very little. Regarding whether AFL players are getting treated sympathetically compared to say, cyclists, my point is this; this is the start of the process for the NRL/ AFL, a kind of doping awakening. It appears that because AFL and NRL are relatively unique to Australia people haven’t really thought about what is going on elsewhere and how it could apply to these sports. Other sports like athletics and cycling have been through all this. Back in the 90’s with the Festina affair it was exactly the same things going on; the athletes acting indignantly (compare the sit down protests of the ‘98 tour with the Sharks players stonewalling the ASADA investigators) and lots of public sympathy and chat about how ‘the athletes weren’t to know’ and ‘if they were told it was okay then what were they supposed to do?’. Even the attempts to blame it all on a shady sport scientist have their mirror in the scapegoating of the ‘dodgy soigneur’ Willy Voet. Fast forward to 2013 and we have Froome and Porte having ‘doper’ screamed in their face and squirted with unknown liquids from syringes. This is what happens when the public have lost their faith in sportsmen and are angry with them for it. There is a difference between how they are perceived, but I don’t think there is that much difference between the perception of the cycling public 15 years ago and the AFL public now. All in all it is little wonder the AFL (and, belatedly it appears, the NRL) high command are in full on damage limitation mode. However, they need to learn the very important lesson that cycling learnt the hard way; it is a fine line between believing you are doing what is right to protect the interests of your sport and taking a short term hit so that there is no issues with the integrity of your sport in the longer term.
sittingbison
Guest
good point about the schadenfreude delbeato. at least cycling has some semblance of testing, and has named and suspended its biggest stars - UCI notwithstanding ;) its hilarious watching the denial by enthusiasts of other sports. Tennis is laughable, athletics is riddled, and now footy and league are being shown up.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Great article Delbeato. The fact that doping helps cyclists more than it does footballers seems obvious. It is not misguided therefore to view the offence of doping differently in each sport. It is an overly simplistic view however. In essence if doping gives any athlete any advantage, however small, it should be punished. The motivation for doping simply comes down to money. How much money can be gained by winning and being the best against finishing second or third. Money for the athletes, money for the team owners, profit for the sponsors in terms of exposure. Professional sport gives us the best sports experience, but at what cost. I am very cynical of most, if not all professional athletes these days and yet I still love sport and follow my favourite teams/competitors closely, almost rabidly in some cases. Does my continued love of sport support or condone doping? I hope not. As to the punishment or degree of punishment I do have some sympathy for individual athletes pressured into doping in a team environment. But I also believe in zero tolerance and if the maximum penalties are deemed appropriate then so be it. In the case of the Essendon FC I would expect WADA to push for the maximum penalties as I think anything less would set a dangerous precedent.
delbeato
Roar Guru
"In O’Grady’s case.." - trust me, it's far from just his case. I suspect the same goes for Essendon.