‘How we all love extreme cases and apocalypses, fires, drownings, stranglings, and the rest of it. The bigger our mild, basically ethical, safe middle classes grow the more radical excitement is in demand.
‘Mild or moderate truthfulness or accuracy seems to have no pull at all.’ – Saul Bellow, Herzog 1964.
Was Bellow a cycling fan? A baseball fan? An athletics fan?
He might well have been, taking into account the quote above and its accuracy in portraying, whether intentionally or not, the thirst for the incredible that helped fuel the world of sports since the 90s, the desire for wonder that played no small part in putting srynges into the hands of athletes to be plunged into backsides to make them faster, stronger, better.
How different are we, in essence, to the Romans who bayed for blood in the Coliseum, who drove the emperors to ever greater displays of blood lust?
Not much. Not much at all.
We have our niceties, our modernity. We are refined.
We tut-tut about the horrors of war and greed and injustice and whatever else we need to do to assuage ourselves of the guilt we carry with us for living relatively well, for feeling lucky, for not being shot at and for having children that are not covered in flies as they waste away before our eyes and yet we too play our part in creating monsters, ghouls and freaks, just as the Romans did.
We help create these folk who compromise their very humanity to bring us thrills, spills and the occasional bellyache.
Yes they get rich and become famous, but we demand their existence. Want them. Need them.
We use them to remind us, paradoxically, of what it is to be human.
Through their incredible achievements we are delivered, like fallen angels carried to the heavens once again, to a recognition of the limitless potential that dwells in the human spirit.
Yet we are addicts in our desires, and like all addicts we have lost the sense of perspective. And, as fundamentalists, in a very real sense, we are blind to the realities before our eyes.
I say paradoxically because these seemingly wonderful achievements of the human spirit that leave us gasping for breath, wide-eyed as children, that we stand witness to in the ball parks, the great stadia and on the high peaks in France and Spain and over the cobbles of Holland and Belgium, have mostly – and that is a subjective term, but, you must admit, more true than not in recent years – been fuelled by chemicals.
By the non-human.
We have to accept our role in all of this. And when we’ve done that, we need to make decisions that will, in the face of future revelations, allow us to make sound choices.
To know where we stand.
Take the case of Stuart O’Grady. Hugely respected, one could even say beloved by cycling fans, the Australian recently was exposed as testing positive retroactively for EPO.
The reaction to this news by some has been baffling. Many seem ready and willing to accept O’Grady’s claim that he only took EPO during the two-week period before the 1998 Tour de France.
Why, exactly? He’s just been outed as a cheat and a liar – and yes I am pulling no punches here just in case you hadn’t noticed – and yet we’re supposed to believe this claim?
Did he win Paris-Roubaix clean? If you say ‘yes’, how exactly do you know? Because he never tested positive? Talk to Lance about that one – he’ll give you 500 reasons to know the tests don’t work.
‘Well they all did it then.’
‘You can’t judge him until you walk a mile in his shoes.’
‘He was brave to admit it.’
Let’s extrapolate on these. Where does this logic take us?
Without mentioning a specific case, let’s consider ethnic cleansing, a horror that, in many forms, has infected human history and continues today. Is that acceptable, because ‘they all did it’?
Too extreme? Yes. But that is where that logic – ‘Well they all did it’ – ultimately goes.
But wait, I have to be him to judge him – really? Isn’t that the ultimate get-out–of-jail-free card ever?
‘You don’t know what it was like!’
No, I don’t because I’m not him, and yet I believe I would not have made that choice. Does that mean I think I am special? Holy?
No. Why? Because there were thousands, possibly tens of thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands of men and women around the world who were young through this period of chemical re-engineering and blood doping that continues today that said ‘no’.
People that put aside their dreams of becoming professional athletes and chose different careers, or those who struggled to make a living at their sport, but clean.
One of these is Kirk Willett, the latest in a growing line of former athletes who has come forward to state that he rode clean and that he made a very definite choice to do so.
Willett, a former pro who rode through the mid-90s, speaking to CyclingNews recently said:
“There was no confusion that doping was something that you were supposed to avoid. It was against the rules, unethical. We all understood that. It was very clear,” he said.
“I can’t speak for the young up-and-coming European riders, what their experience was, but I know for the North Americans, and the US in particular, there was no misunderstanding.
“EPO was becoming super prevalent and basically making it a whole other world. But we all knew that, and that’s kind of where people stepped off the train or decided to go that route because they couldn’t bear the idea of investing all those years just to get to that dead end.
“It was difficult for me to see and hear about how it [EPO] can transform you. But at the same time, what are you going to get in the end? Are you going to buy a better house, a car?
“What is the real price you’re going to pay if you were someone who really valued being true and whatnot? So there is a price there.
“I’m sure there were plenty of guys who really had to swallow hard to make the choice to do it, but I’m sure it got easier after that.”
It was a choice that O’Grady made. He crossed a line. And if we reserve one reaction for Lance Armstrong, for Danilo di Luca or for Alejandro Valverde, for Levi Leipheimer, we must then be consistent.
The argument that O’Grady is different to Armstrong in that he did not bully or coerce others to tow his line is invalid.
Firstly, who knows what O’Grady really did? And what difference does it really make?
All we do know is that he, like those mentioned and like all others who took banned substances to gain a competitive advantage, cheated.
I would be surprised if O’Grady was revealed to be a terrible man. I suppose he is not. But in this instance let us be clear – all that he achieved is now sullied.
All of it.
‘He was brave to admit it.’
No he wasnt. He admitted what he was busted for and only after he was busted. No courage in that.
And what of us? Are we to continue as ‘Bellow’s people’?
That, like the decisions made by Armstrong and O’Grady and indeed Willett, boils down to one thing: a choice.
Asian racer
Guest
Whilst I appciate the sentiment, I find this article a little hard to swallow. Not that I don't even agree with all you're saying Leigh. But having raced with you and heard what the other guys (even those on your own team - Omerta anyone?) have said about some of your own surprising UCI accredited wins, I can't believe how hard you would go on someone like O'Grady - such a respected member of our fraternity. No, for sure. you've never tested positive. Absolutely. Oh wait, that's inadmissable. Um, perhaps, but your results were consistent. Wait, even your wrote about how surprised you were by some of your own wins. (Lucky breaks after repeated attempts I think you said) Anyway. This is no accusation, because I can't possibly know. Who can? Just strange to accuse based on no actual evidence. Guilt Post Hoc, anyone?
AJ
Guest
Maybe a little out of left field here but how much involvement do the team sponsors have in the management, operation and ethos of a team? Is it simply a "jersey sponsor" or are they actually the bankroll (somewhat akin to a Red Bull Racing or Mercedes in F1) and responsible for salaries, bonuses, staffing etc? The reason I ask is that, coming at the issue from a different angle, if the Sponsor were open to punitive damages and having their name dragged through the mud it might lead to an eradication and self-regulation of the doping culture. To protect itself, the Sponsor would invariably put contractual and procedural measures in place to ensure that: 1. The risk of riders donning their brand cheating is reduced; and 2. They could sue the lycra of any of them that do, thereby dispossessing said apologetic, disgraced cyclist of "their better house, car etc." My reasoning is that, it seems that when a rider gets done, it is solely the rider who is condemned. Obviously they are ultimately responsible for their own body and their deeds etc etc. However, the US Postal, Saunier Duval - Style doping programs all cost money for products, doctors, scientists... Someone must have signed the cheques. Lance might have been a tw*t and some evil oligarch but I find it hard to believe he was the sole financier. Depending on the answer to my query above as to the involvement of these sponsors, it seems that they got off lightly. In many instances the doping revelations have arrived several years after the event. In such circumstances, the sponsor gets bang for their buck at the time of the relevant stage/race victory and later gets the added benefit of avoiding association with the positive test and corresponding bad press given both the passage of time and the progress of riders to other teams. For example, I have seen only one article on the O'Grady scandal where O'Grady is wearing the lycra of Credit Agricole in the inset. In this article it is forgivable given the implication that the doping extended to his years at Cofidis. However, in the vast majority he is wearing Orica colours and even Australian colours. This may be a minor consideration but visual associations can be very powerful and memorable (a la a full page photo of David Warner underlying an article on match fixing in cricket). If Credit Agricole did finance doping research or adminstration (or they overlooked/ failed to investigate expenditure) then they had a big win here. Pecuniary and other punishment of sponsors may make them less interested in the sport but it might also encourage a bit more corporate responsibility in what is after all a professional sport.
skr213
Guest
Good article, until your end conclusion about the bullying. Don't be silly - Lance was the patron of the peloton during his reign. If he didn't want Filipo Simeoni to win a stage at the Tour de France, he rode up to the break away and demanded that Simeoni come back to the group or else Lance's team wouldn't let the break go. O'Grady never pulled stuff like that - your excuse of "oh we don't know what he did" is just absurd. Not only did he not have the personality to do that, but he didn't have the power - he wasn't the patron ... the "boss." Lance not only participated in doping, but he enforced doping - both for his teammates AND for the rest of the peloton by forcing out any riders who dared to speak against doping (Simeoni, Bassons, etc. etc. etc.).
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Reminds me a little of Ricco, he was the guy we could all hate, because he crossed so many lines that he was like a panto villain. No confusion there. But with riders like Zabel and McGrady, who seem decent, people get confused. But they are just as rotten - as far as cheating goes.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
It never went anywhere, the Omerta. That's the truly depressing thing about all this.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Thanks for the comments. It is a complex issue, you are correct, and yet it is also not complex at all. In the way we perceive it is complex - and it becomes more complex to sort out - this is why McQuaid has lasted so long - and yet at its base it is a question of choice. And so in that sense it is perfectly simple. What amazes me is that people are still talking about 'was he/wasn't he?' and is he/isn't he?' when the fundamental problem remains the same - we cannot know for certain, not with the current system still in place. So first off, that has to change. Next up is the punishments. These have to be reviewed. Then there is the education of young riders. This must be addressed immediately. And we need to hear from the current generation about what they want. Do they want to talk? Or keep schtum a bit longer? Are they willing to speak as one, with a group of representatives, or not? Because their voices are sorely lacking in all this. I don;t think any of us can claim to have the answers, but right now we aren't even asking any questions.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Betsy if this is you, you rock. If it's not, great monicker choice all the same!
Lee Rodgers
Expert
So don't read it. Job done.
ed
Guest
I'm getting a bit sick of reading this stuff, looking fwd to the vuelta starting.
betsy andreu
Guest
Great read. The UCI is useless with Pat McQuaid at its helm. Therefore, until cyclists themselves vocalize their disdain for PEDs and their intolerance for the cheating, the burden is on the journalists to make sure the past is not forgotten. We must remember it and learn from it so it doesn't repeat itself.
chris
Guest
I liked your article, it points to the many complexities of this whole issue. How do we deal with the past? There is no simple solution so I wonder if we should stop dwelling on that and just look forward. But how do we look forward? Two simplistic and imperfect way out there options of soughts come to mind (and I know I will be slammed for this but people I am only suggesting concepts here rather than well devised solutions). Option 1 - kind of along the lines of don't ban anything, no bans but you have to register that drug or aid before you use in UCI events so that other teams have that same information and are free to seek and use that substance too. Fail to register and get busted later, name wiped from record (from both placing and completing the race) plus a ban. Option 2 - right now the doping scheme operates on a list of banned substances (so if it is not banned you have legitimately raced even if that substance later becomes banned') but what about an approach which is based on approved rather than banned substances (yes I know that does not deal with blood transfusions)? You can use anything listed in any way you like, but if you have a new substance it has to approved before being used in UCI events and that information made available to other teams (i.e here is a new listed substance). Get busted using it before approval same penalties as option 1. Now I know I am going to be absolutely shouted down for such simplistic and probably unworkable and unscientific options (but as I said concept only) but I thought it was worthwhile posting a looking forward comment because so far I have not read a comment to any of the many articles written on this issue which is about effectively managing the problem going forward, asides from a T & R/amnesty which I think will not work. My thoughts anyway as imperfect as they are!
Bobo
Guest
"it just seems odd that someone like Zabel who admitted doping but wasn’t caught can keep this titles but LA couldn’t" Nick, I've provided a response to this issue on a number of occasions. Take a look at the USADA report. It explains all.
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
I don't think he'll ever get a letter of apology, but might there come a time when the UCI say "Oh FFS! Even the Lanterne Rouge winners are admitting to doping now. Tell you what, forget it! Anyone caught doping *from now on* will be stripped of their wins..."
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
"If enough cyclists that raced in the 1990s admit to doping will it get to a stage where the UCI will have to either restore everyone’s final positions, or expunge entire races from the record?". thats my million dollar question too! and i cant find any answer that satisfies me fully :( Still hard to imagine an official announcement saying "LA gets his 7 Tours back and a letter of apology" but who knows!?
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
I'm actually beginning to suspect a little of the Omertà attitude creeping in here. We're seeing quite a few retired and retiring cyclists admitting to doping during that period. Maybe it's not so much that they're coming out before their crimes are announced (although I suspect that is the case for many), but they're coming out in solidarity for those that have been caught. If enough cyclists that raced in the 1990s admit to doping will it get to a stage where the UCI will have to either restore everyone's final positions, or expunge entire races from the record? Which is unlikely, as it would probably then mean that the whole 100th edition of the TdF malarkey would have been for nothing.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Good piece Lee. I really have the impression we have now entered another era following last week's post tour revelation by the French senate and the subsequent admissions from SOG, Zabel, Jalaberst and a few others (not in terms of doping but in terms of acknowledging/aceepting doping had been a big part of cycling in the last 15 years). We now know, for sure, that yes, doping was very much widespread in the peloton from the mid 1990s to the mid-late 2000. Further to what hardcore said about consistency before me, how should we handle those riders? LA has been stripped of all his tours. Are we going to do the same with Zabel's green jerseys? What about the others? Or should we give his Tours back to LA? It's fair to say that many riders who have won races, tours etc during this era haven't been caught and will never be caught. Yet, they will keep their trophies, green jerseys etc. it just seems odd that someone like Zabel who admitted doping but wasn't caught can keep this titles but LA couldn't. If there is something I would hate to see its LA finally becoming a victim.
Bobo
Guest
Part of the problem is that there is no short-term consequence upon a team that would discourage doping. Your rider is caught? Get a new one. There is in fact evidence of more than one team tipping off authorities to rid themselves of an unperforming or othewise troublesome rider. In the medium term, the consequences become clearer - loss of sponsorship and TV rights. These are clearly outweighed by the pressure to perform, and in particular the need to obtain UCI points to obtain/retain Word Tour status. The result is that is in a team's interests for its riders to dope, so long as the blowback on the team is sufficiently indirect.
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
Totally agree with the sentiment regarding consistency here. I read the ‘He was brave to admit it' line elsewhere on the Roar and was really disappointed in it. Then just as disappointed to see that many agreed. As stated here, O'Grady has only admitted to what was likely to be released to the media anyway. In the comments section of the same article I saw that the writer also applied the 'innocent until proven guilty' line to O'Grady. Err... he admitted it, therefore I would say that doesn't really apply in this case. It does seem to be the case that O'Grady is getting a lot of the benefit of the doubt regarding this; and many observers are taking his admission of guilt at face value without questioning any of his other achievements, or whether he did it at any other time. Why are many so accepting of O'Grady's single admission, and yet no-one will accept (for example) Lance Armstrong's claims that he only cheated during one period of his career? Where's the consistency in that?
Minz
Guest
I'm pretty disappointed in O'Grady - he was an eminently likeable cyclist, unlike many, and always gave his all. The way it is at the moment, doping remains a lower-risk, high-reward proposition - perhaps if the risk level was changed, it would be less attractive. So if an athlete is ever caught doping, all of their records and wins would be wiped (including team records), all of their medals lost and a life ban handed out, unless there are genuine mitigating circumstances (eg the gymnast who got done for doping an an Olympics because of her asthma medication). Either change the equation or make doping legal IMO.
Bobo
Guest
A well written piece. I think you are conflating two issues, however: the "Here we are now, entertain us!" culture of sports, and the refusal of apprently rational humans to accept a fact that contradicts an emotionally held prejudice. As in religion, politics, patriotism, there is a tendency to refuse to admit wrong, or rationalize wrong, in a person or idea where an emotional connection exists. Fans of O'Grady/Armstrong/pick a rider could no more criticize him than their political views - each were so deeply held that an attack on those things was a deeply personal attack on themselves and their weltanschauung.