How will we remember Stuart O'Grady?

The past week’s doping dramas surrounding Stuart O’Grady have virtually relegated Le Tour 100 into the realms of ancient history.

South Australia has seemed like the story’s epicentre given this is where O’Grady hails from. This most parochial of cities is quick to elevate its citizens to hero status, but equally can just as quickly demonise them.

Since his shock retirement and subsequent confession to doping, O’Grady, has endured the most incredible dismantling of a hard-earned reputation I can remember.

I’m actually shocked.

When O’Grady made his initial confession last week, I can’t say I was surprised.

However, because it wasn’t doping to the level of Lance Armstrong – who was also a hero to many South Australians after his three Tour Down Under appearances – I thought the reaction would be a little more muted.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Everyone wanted a say as the story dominated the news and sports pages of Adelaide’s only daily newspaper, TV and radio bulletins and talkback stations.

You couldn’t escape it.

By the end of the week, O’Grady had lost his spot on the Australian Olympic Committee’s Athletes commission and been dumped as a club ambassador by his beloved Port Adelaide Football Club.

In political circles there were calls to repay the $44,000 the South Australian Government gave him to be its Tour Down Under ambassador in Europe.

Consideration has reportedly been given to O’Grady forfeiting his Olympic medals, as was a proposal to rename the Stuart O’Grady bikeway north of the city.

Anything else? Not yet it seems.

Yes, O’Grady has admitted to doping.

Yes, there are a lot of people who are struggling to believe many aspects of his confessions.

Yes, a lot of people are angry about the doping and the deceit, but, what sort of penalty is appropriate?

Given he’s retired, the statute of limitations has expired and there’s no samples to test anymore, O’Grady can’t be sanctioned as a rider.

But he can, and in truth, probably should be banned from working in the sport for at least 12 months.

But what about the other penalties?

Should a bikeway carrying his name be changed?

Should he have lost his place on the AOC Athletes Commission and as a Port Adelaide FC ambassador?

What about the ambassadorial money he was paid by the South Australian Government?

And what about his Olympic and Commonwealth Games medals, the Tour de France stage wins, yellow jersey and his treasured Paris Roubaix cobble?

Should those be handed back too?

I have no problem with the decision by the AOC and Port Adelaide.

I do wish though that O’Grady had resigned from the Athlete’s Commission as requested.

His failure to respond to the AOC’s request and so have his membership terminated was not a good look.

It smacked of hubris, which is not at all how O’Grady would normally act. He’s as down to earth as they come.

I’m not sure O’Grady will be asked to return the $44k to the SA Government as they’ve said the money was given to him to promote the TDU, which he duly did.

The medals, jerseys and cobble? Why?

Well unless O’Grady does an Eric Zabel and later to confesses to “career long doping” then there’s no case to answer.

And the bikeway? For me that’s the most difficult one.

Last weekend, State Government Minister Tom Koutsantonis was quite clear saying “most South Australians would expect us to change the name of the bikeway. I expect there’s a lot of anger about what Mr. O’Grady has confessed to.”

But because Koutsantonis wasn’t sure he asked our local newspaper, The Advertiser to conduct a poll.

At 5pm on Monday the poll closed with nearly 71% of the 3160 respondents saying the name should stay.

To be honest I was surprised by the results. I was expecting a narrow victory for those in favour of changing the name. That said how much faith can you place in a poll like this?

If I had have voted I would’ve said keep the name because in five, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years’ time, history will not be remembering O’Grady the doper with the passion currently surrounding his story.

He has achieved a lot in his career and done even more for the growth of cycling in South Australia. This, along with the doping is what he will remembered for.

So some “memorials” deserve to remain.

For me this is all about a moral penalty and a short to medium-term employment speed bump, not the total destruction of one of Australia’s most talented cyclists.

As things stand the demolition of O’Grady’s reputation has been so complete, and Adelaide is such a parochial town, he’s likely to be staying in Europe for a lot longer than he might have expected.

O’Grady is normally back for Christmas but that might be a little awkward this year.

Adding rather dramatically to O’Grady’s dilemma is this week’s confession by Eric Zabel.

It clearly puts O’Grady’s mea culpa in a new light.

If Stuey is to be believed, he’s been nowhere near as “bad” as one of his major Tour de France Green jersey rivals.

But in 2007 Zabel also, tearfully, confessed to doping just once during the 1996 Tour de France, but says he stopped in the first week due to side effects. I want to believe there isn’t a case of déjà vu heading our way sometime in the future.

And things could get even worse if reports that Jan Ulrich is also considering revealing more about his doping days are accurate.

Sadly, the more that admit their sins, the harder it will be to believe “our” Stuey only did it once.

I hope for O’Grady’s sake he is telling the truth, because based on what we’ve seen in the past seven days, a further admission doesn’t bear thinking about.