Eurosport’s coverage of the 2014 Tour de France had a section at the end of each stage that was entitled ‘LeMond on Tour’.
This featured the combustible-looking, three-time Tour winner Greg LeMond chatting to a host of the Tour’s personalities.
One day his French co-host ushered onto the makeshift set none other than Alexandre Vinokourov. Vinokourov is the one-time crowd favourite Kazakh army colonel who is now Vincenzo Nibali’s Astana team boss.
El Vino is also infamous for being kicked out of the 2007 Tour de France after he was caught for blood doping, which triggered the removal of all his Astana teammates and their entourage.
His reaction to getting nabbed – to basically skirt around the issue for years and to never fully own up to his breaking of the rules – lost him many friends, leaving the majority of cycling fans decidedly nonplussed when he won the 2012 Olympic road race in his final year of racing.
Whoever decided that it would not be decidedly uncomfortable for LeMond, an avowed anti-doper and long-time Lance Armstrong foe, to exchange pleasantries with a man whose arrogance and nefariousness are the polar opposite of everything the only American winner of Le Tour stands for, must soon have realised their mistake as soon as the Kazakh hero stepped into view.
LeMond’s body stiffened visibly and he had trouble even forcing a smile. Vino was and remains a poster boy for the good old (recent) days, when riders thought nothing of doping up to get ahead.
That he is managing a top-level team is bad enough in my opinion, and the fact that his rider won the Tour is the only blemish on Nibali’s otherwise sterling and hugely impressive win.
Such is Vinokourov’s esteem (and political contacts) in his homeland that some reports say that news of his positive test were never fully reported in Kazakhstan.
That Kairat Kelimbetov, the president of Kazakh Cycling, is now pushing for a Grand Depart in the eastern European nation reflects the growing popularity of the sport there. However it must be noted that the awarding of such a prestigious gift by ASO will be seen as a victory for Vinokourov, something which I hope Christopher Prudhomme, head of Le Tour, will take into account.
Christian Prudhomme reacted recently to the report that several former Tour winners believe that Armstrong’s seven Tour ‘victories’ should be reinstated in the record books with a Gallic shrug of the shoulders and a definitive shake of the head.
“And the same goes for the public,” he said. “You ask the people along the route. It’s clear, his name will not be on the list again. Period.”
All very well and good, but where does he stand on Vinokourov heading a ProTour team at a race he once disgraced?
In the argument for the special and singular treatment of Armstrong, his sociopathic nature is often trotted out, but it is not up to the rules to define who was the worst cheat.
A cheat is a cheat is a cheat, and, if anyone is asking me, they should all be removed from the books and all be banned from further involvement in professional racing, or, at the very least, in the races they were caught cheating at or during.
Bjarne Riis is another case in point. The career domestique won the Tour in 1996 then in retirement admitted that he had doped during that victory. ASO removed his name then reinstated him, placing an asterisk next to his name to indicate doping offences.
He skulked off for a spell after a successful career as a team boss. He then sold his share to the Russian Oleg Tinkoff, admitted depression as a result of all his troubles, disappeared for a spell then turned up again driving the Tinkoff-Saxo team car in races this year, most noticeably at the Tour.
I’m not the only one who has noticed all this, and indeed the UCI president Brian Cookson touched on the subject in an interview a few days ago in The Guardian, reacting to, I can only guess, the public mood regarding the sight of Vino and Riis at the Tour.
“I would like both of them to come to the [Cycling Independent Reform] commission,” Cookson said. “The commission doesn’t have powers of subpoena, but there is a court of public opinion here which is really important; those two people and others as well need to bear that in mind if they want to continue to operate in our world, opinion in the world of cycling would be much more favourable towards them if they came forward.”
That’s all well and good, but is it enough? The commission was designed to look into cycling’s doping past, but there is a groundswell of opinion that believes that there is no place in cycling management and in the bureaucracy for former dopers.
“We’ve got a rule that says if you’ve got a major anti-doping violation you can’t be involved with a team,” continued Cookson, “but our advice is that it’s difficult to employ that retroactively.”
How so? How about we get rid of the lot of them? To name only Riis and Vino is another example of that old attitude that the apple cart is generally healthy and that there’s just a couple of bad apples in there, but in truth, in the era of Vino and Riis, it was very much the other way around.
This is one reason that any truth and reconciliation hearing would turn up very little and absolutely no reconciliation, because so few former pros would have anything to gain from admitting to using drugs. In fact, they would have everything to lose.
Cookson started off well enough and made all the right noises. There is no doubt that the support of women’s cycling has improved noticeably. However, until the UCI decides once and for all to ban all the cheats from management we will continue as a sport to make one step forward and three back.
All the while, Armstrong’s repeated cry that he is being singled out unfairly will gather more support.
We just had a very good Tour with a winner that has no doping suspicion hanging over him and saw several new and young faces emerge, so why are we still seeing the smug Vino center stage?
A shambles. Nothing less.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
But here's the thing, without having cheated in the first place, JV would not be where he is. He was one of those riders who had to dope to even be average, never admitted it til he was forced to, misled the public re his 'CleanTeam' when he knew full they were anything but, and finally, took a clean rider's spot in the peloton and then in management. For every Vaughters there are ten clean guys who were forced out of the sport who would love a shot at management and won;t get the chance because people say they don;t have 'experience' - which, if you follow the logic, is experience gained through a career of cheating. So, whether JV or anyone else has 'good intentions' now, years after they should have had in the first place, I don't give a rat's backside. When you pop the cover on the vial you should lose your seat on the bus. Go have your lovely intentions somewhere else, not in an environment where your presence confuses fans, young riders and sponsors alike. It is in truth a difficult situation as some who doped did not get caught and yet most, in fact, we know about. But a start would be to make the 'no dopers in management' rule retroactive. Secondly, encourage sponsors to become aware of the histories of the men that run the teams they pay for. Money talks, whereas rules break down. Financial pressure is the key here. Start a coaching program such as there is in football, get in riders who are known to not have doped, and champion them, highlighting their past. The culture of cycling is always heralded as being so rich and wonderful and it is, but it is also a culture that is infested with cheating. So let's work on changing the bad part.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Vaughters' arguments are self-serving and keep him in a job. http://crankpunk.com/2013/11/01/hesjedal-doping-revelation-the-tipping-point-for-jv/
Lee Rodgers
Expert
My take on Vaughters: http://crankpunk.com/2013/11/01/hesjedal-doping-revelation-the-tipping-point-for-jv/
simmo green
Guest
Locals again demonstrating not even the most basic understanding of the sport, it's history nor the difference between enhancement and survival. Moralising beyond belief. Whoever introduced the sub $2000 carbon ride bike needs a whipping.
simmo green
Guest
Locals again demonstrating not even the most basic understanding of the sport, it's history nor the difference between enhancement and survival. Moralising beyond belief. Whoever introducmd the sub $2000 carbon ride bike needs a whipping.
Matthew Boulden
Roar Guru
I think Tim basically covers the thoughts that I had while reading your article Lee. Without inside access to people and work done at Slipstream Sports, the company behind the Garmin - Sharp cycling team, I cannot truly know whether Jonathan Vaughters is trying to move the sport forward and make amends for his previous doping transgression. However, from the outside it looks like he has good intentions and is trying to improve things with others. So there is a dilemma as to where we stand on the issue of people like Jonathan Vaughters.
Nico
Guest
A few corrections to your comment: 1. Yep you picked that up correctly, Indurain is widely regarded as having won those tours on EPO - LeMond himself actually did a good analysis of this about five years ago or so. 2. Contador never "did time for doping" but was only found guilty of "accidental ingestion" i.e. food contamination. I might add here that after winning LBL, Vino went as close as he could to admitting to doping to the media, without getting into hot legal water. That's a lot more than a bunch of current riders (e.g., Andy Schleck, Matt Hayman) have done. The English speaking press love to point fingers at Vino and Riis, but: What about Team Sky with doper Servais Knaven as a DS? (English Speaking team - can't point the finger at them) What about Patrick LeFevere running OmegaPharma Quick Step? (too powerful to point the finger at) What about Jonathan Vaughters at Garmin? (English Speaking team - can't point the finger at them) What about Andy Rhis and Jim Ochowitz at BMC? (English Speaking team - can't point the finger at them) What about Ekimov at Katusha? (Helped get Cookson elected, can't point the finger at them.) You can't say that just because someone was unlucky enough to get caught that they can't run a team, while the guy next to them who didn't get caught but doped just as much can run a team. It's not that simple.
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
I'm not a fan of cycling, but it certainly is not the only sport where drug use is consistent, widespread and under-reported.
Insominactor
Guest
So... If they were able to find out how many are cheating.... most would be banned. over 90% of athletes will cheat if they will never get caught. Cheating in cycling is huge from junior age up. They might as well have two categories everyone and a small comp for those that don't cheat.
GD66
Guest
Because of the long period of tolerance of widespread doping, this oft-repeated call to remove winners from the record books comes unstuck when faced with the dubious virtue of many of the runners-up, some of who are convicted, and others suspected drug cheats. Really all you can do, and this must come from the very top of UCI, is to draw a line in the sand, and proceed to ensure that rigorous testing guarantees a clean sport into the future. For this reason, the continued obsession with taking back medals and altering record books does no good, as those events have been run and, however unfairly won : that was then, and this is now. Energy would be better spent continuing the clean-up. Something else that irks me about the anti-doping campaign is the re-testing of long-stored B samples with upgraded test techniques. For me, the fact that riders passed a test at the time is enough. What happened when the blood alcohol level limit on the roads was dropped from .08 to .05 ? The law didn't go back and prosecute everyone who blew up to .08 previously, so the test at that time was sufficient evidence. Really, we have to learn and move on. Finally, it has been continually annoying that since Armstrong's undoing, many sporting journalists who should know better have expressed ongoing outrage that cycling is tainted with evil drug users, when it has been evident back to the start of the 20th century that the sport at the highest level is so gruelling that some competitors have felt the need to augment their abilities with some form of assistance. To deny any such possibility is naïve in the extreme, and I believe these journos, one of whom is a regular contributor to The Roar, are merely currying acceptance from the public...not referring to you here, Lee, your stuff is always well-balanced. Let's hope the UCI can get their ducks in a row and make the sport accepted once again by the man in the street. This year's Tour has gone some way to assisting the public to spectate without rabid doubt and suspicion clouding their observations.
Tim Renowden
Expert
It's a really complex one. Clearly, progress on trust will be a lot slower while these guys are around the sport. There will be sporting and financial implications that come out of cycling's reduced credibility. The current financial instability of pro cycling (teams folding, sponsors nervous etc) is surely linked to this credibility problem. However, I still believe in people's capacity to learn from their mistakes, and change. I think there are former dopers who have the will and the capacity to make a positive difference - where would we be without whistleblowers like Paul Kimmage? This is probably why the UCI hasn't just booted everyone out - and how do you design a policy that removes the unrepentant cheats but retains those who are genuinely trying to move the sport back towards credibility?
rouleur
Guest
i agree in principle that dopers should be kicked out forever but im not sure its that black and white. guys like vaughters and david millar have been good for cycling since retiring/coming back. garmin's "no needles" policy has been a step in the right direction. i think there might be a personality issue here too though. guys like armstrong, vino and riis either cant admit theyve doped in the past or don't see a problem with it. i think that is a fundamental difference.
Stevo@Lennox
Guest
Totally agree. Zero tolerance - makes Orica-GREENEDGE look a little dirty as well with Matt White back on board, as well as having Stuart O'Grady involved as a 'mentor' early on. Cycling can be such a beautiful sport, but unfortunately it is tainted so badly at the moment that it's completely lost all credibility. Every winner must claim they are clean, I don't think any other sport has to do that. Every drug cheat, tested or admitted after retirement, should be outed for life - no matter what the drug. This includes being involved as an amateur coach for kids or the starter at the Friday night velodrome, or even cooking the barbecue at the club fundraiser. Nothing more will weed out these pariahs of sport.
ed
Guest
Interesting article. I was at the top of the peyresoude in 07 & cheered vino as he came across first charging for the stage win. The next day he was busted & I felt pissed off. So did the French. They all were cheering him following his nasty crashes earlier on in the race that took him out of the gc. He had made a mockery of them & their iconic race. Vino's reply in the days later was to say cycling is stupid & he was retiring anyway - or words to that effect. Since his comeback his whole lack of remorse has been insulting to the fans who cheered him &the sport that accepted him back. It's obvious that he needs cycling more than it needs him. But then what about JV? Is he not trying to generate something positive based on his own negative experience? Things can be never black & white. Also if we don't understand or forget history it will repeat itself.
Joe Frost
Editor
It's a tricky one isn't it? Between Miguel Indurain's five victories and Lance Armstrong, the list of GC Tour winners reads: 1996: Riis 1997: Jan Ullrich 1998: Marco Pantani Three known users. It makes sense to strip them of their titles too. But then you've got a gap from Indurain in 95 to Pereiro in 2006 - and Pereiro was awarded his title after Floyd Landis was busted. That means the next legit winner on the road after Indurain in '95 was Contador in 2007 - a man who has also done time for doping, and who won '07 on the back of Rasmussen's eviction for doping. So you could almost say the first legitimate Tour winner after Indurain was Sastre in '08. 12 straight years of dope-infected results, immediately preceded by a bloke who wins five straight. And there's the rub - their actions really cheapen Indurain's victories, and make even the most fervent believer wonder how clean the peloton was in the early 90s.