I met Thor Hushovd once. I was racing in the 2012 Tour of Qatar as a member of the RTS Racing Team, previously known as the Giant Racing Team.
We’d been invited by virtue of being the third best team in Asia in 2011, after two Iranian teams.
So, there I was, sat at the back of the peloton and getting a daily pummeling. One day I ended up riding in with none other than Mr. Hushovd, who had punctured with about 10km to go. I caught up with him and we rode in together.
“I like your kit,” he said.
“Really? I don’t!” I replied. The black and bright yellow kit wasn’t my cup of tea at all.
“I like yours though,” I said.
“Meh,” was his response.
I’d always liked Hushovd as a rider. There seemed to be an honesty about his riding, a sense of graft to the effort he put in. Then there was his brilliant win in the Points Classification in the 2009 Tour de France when he rode solo on Stage 17 to scoop up points, which, much to my amusement (and no doubt many others), left Mark Cavendish markedly nonplussed.
“You’ve won the green jersey now but that’s always going to have a stain on it,” Cav said he told Hushovd at the time, ever the gent.
So it was nice to meet the man himself, and to find that he was a decent bloke too.
He was one of those riders I always really wanted to believe was clean. Perhaps those of you reading this will know what I mean. Some of you may have felt that way about Lance Armstrong. Or Stuart O’Grady. Or Ivan Basso…the list goes on.
Hushovd recently gave a press conference to publicise his new autobiography. In it, he talks about both Christophe Bassons and Lance Armstrong. Bassons is widely regarded to have been a clean rider during his career. Armstrong of course has been exposed, since his retirement, as the perpetrator of ‘the greatest sporting fraud of all time.’
Curiously however, in the press conference Hushovd had stronger things to say about Bassons than he did about the American, which is particularly strange as Hushovd claims that in 2011 Armstrong told him that he, and everyone else, had been at the dope.
Speaking of Bassons, Hushovd said that the Frenchman’s claim that it was impossible to win clean during the EPO heyday was false and more indicative of Bassons’ lack of talent or preparation than anything else.
“He [Bassons] probably had a rough time when riding, but he should also have the guts to look at himself,” said Hushovd. “Because, he has said it was impossible to compete at top level without using doping. Then he has to look at himself: Did he do a good enough job? Was his talent big enough? Did he eat the right food? He must look himself in the mirror. I’ve never seen anyone ask him those questions. Because it is possible. I did it.”
It does seem to me nothing short of ridiculous that a rider of Hushovd’s experience would basically dismiss Bassons’ claims without considering that EPO is widely accepted amongst athletes to give an endurance athlete a boost of 15-20 per cent, or anywhere up to 54 per cent. Without balancing what is nothing short of an attack on Bassons, without also considering how widespread the use of EPO and other drugs and methods such as blood doping were amongst the peloton at that time.
Are we to accept that, if Hushovd is indeed telling the truth, that he was over 20 per cent better than those in the peloton who were using EPO when he claimed his many victories?
Speaking to a friend the other day, we posited this: what if, at that time, the peloton had its fair share of what would otherwise be average riders who were vying for wins thanks to illegal aids?
What if, if that were true, a very talented rider was at the peak of his game on a given day?
In that case, we wondered, could the truly clean and truly gifted athlete then beat the not very gifted and not at all clean athlete?
‘Maybe’ was the only conclusion we could agree on. It might be the case with Hushovd’s career, if he was indeed clean. Who’s to say either way. Some will say no one could have been clean then, others will say some were, and others still will admit to being nothing other than completely unable to say one way or another.
And then Hushovd moves on to Armstrong and the criticism he received from the Norwegian cycling authorities for not passing on the contents of what amounted to an admission of doping by the Texan in 2011.
Hushovd says that Armstrong said to him “Thor, let’s face it. Everybody did it.”
‘It’ of course being doping.
“Maybe I could’ve told the anti-doping bodies,” he said at the press conference. “But I don’t think it is my job to. And they were already working a lot on this issue at the time. If this would’ve happened again, I would probably have done the same thing. I’ve chosen to handle doping related issues in my own way during my career.
“If I had said that Lance did this, there wouldn’t have been a lot left of me. I was supposed to ride a bike. That’s my job. And I’ve done it pretty well now and then. Others will have to discover who doped or not. That issue I raise in my book as well. Why doesn’t the anti-doping government catch those who cheat? I think that’s worth raising questions about.”
‘There probably wouldn’t have been a lot left of me’ is a fascinating line, which could refer to the media and the frenzy that would have kicked off, or to the reaction by the peloton to a rider breaking the Omerta.
For me, Hushovd words on Bassons at the press conference amount to the Omerta rearing its head once again. Any rider who said that many doped and that it is either very hard or ’impossible’ to win, as Bassons did, was ostracised and, if we consider Hushovd’s words when he says it is not a rider’s job to call out dopers, isn’t he saying that the Omerta has its uses?
This method of calling riders who complained about doping inferior or weak – Paul Kimmage springs to mind – was the favoured technique of Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid.
I’d also ask, when exactly is it a rider’s job to expose another rider who admits to doping? When the sport is half-standing, punch drunk from allegations and denials, as it was 15 years ago? Or when it is actually kneeling in the dirt, its reputation in tatters, as it has been these past few years?
We need riders who will stand up, riders who will find a voice. Hushovd is right in a sense in that, technically, exposing drug cheats is not a rider’s job, but in this era, being what it is, someone within the peloton has to make that breakthrough.
When asked at the press conference if he believed Armstrong had had a negative impact on cycling, Hushovd’s words, once again, were open to interpretation.
“Yes [Armstrong did damage cycling]. But he has contributed to building of the sport. I don’t defend what he did, I’m one of those riders who cried while climbing mountains because of Lance and the other dopers.”
And yet there is that line, ‘he has contributed to the building of the sport.’
Well, that depends on whether you fully accept that the reason he was in a position to do that was because he was the best doper in the peloton or not. Some say that Armstrong would never have won a Tour without doping, some feel that his ‘positive’ influence, which did drive bike sales up considerably, was still overshadowed by his doping and all that that entiled.
Hushovd hasn’t become a bad guy overnight and he is entitled to his opinions. However, I also think that these comments from him, which are naive at best, show how ingrained certain destructive attitudes are and how deep the culture of the Omerta lies.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Let me help you a bit. I attended the anti-doping conference in Geelong in 2010. My role was confined to discussing the biological passport, see e.g. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/is-the-ucis-biological-passport-flawed [Tiernan-Locke appears to be the latest victim.] On that occasion, the terminally ill Aldo Sassi explained how transfusions were initially seen as a scientific development. Only later were these methods recognized as 'doping'. But not for scientific reasons. One can take inspiration from: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/ A notable example: Joop Zoetemelk in the seventies.
Klaas Faber
Guest
I had many meaningful discussions with (among others) one of the founders of my field. For his ground-breaking work he was nominated for the Nobel prize in Chemistry. And let's not forget the dozen articles we published jointly as a result in the 'peer reviewed scientific literature'. I like to believe that I have a flexible mind. So, what do you hold as 'the' scientific basis to ban EPO??
Bobo
Guest
If you don't think there's any scientific basis to ban EPO, then I'm not sure we've got sufficient common ground to have a meaningful discussion.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"...oxygen vector doping..." By the way, I don't like this term at all. Epo is 'known' to be doping because it's on an arbitrary list. There's no scientific basis for banning epo (from sport), so why do scientists call it doping? Example. Nitric oxide (NO) in beet juice is okay (according to this arbitrary list), but the nobel gases are now considered to be performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). [In another context, NO is considered pollution. There's legislation targeted to keep the levels below a certain threshold.] So, why not just use neutral terms? Another example: once banned caffeine. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/international/4558277.stm "Gregan claimed caffeine tablets helped his performance by up to seven percent." Similar to epo. "We'll advise our list committee, they're considering what should or should not be on the 2006 list," said Wada director general David Howman. "It's troubling and disturbs us. We thought caffeine wasn't being used for performance enhancing." So, why was it ever banned in the first place??? Numerous people were convicted for 'doping' before the ban was lifted.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"It’s easy to see why oxygen vector doping is so effective over a 21 day stage race, whether it’s flat or not." If it's flat, the advantage is negligible. You're riding in a peloton. That gives an advantage of ~200 Watt at speed 50 km/h, compared to the guy who needs to break out to make a difference. Time to exhaustion when pedalling at a meager 200-300 Watt, what's the relevance?? Scientific peer reviewed work? I prefer to look at the data as resulting from a cohort study. Good old observational research. Take the impact on recovery: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/how-dopers-stole-the-best-years-of-my-career-20121027-28aif.html "The Tour started well and in the first week I was able to match the top contenders, but then there was the first rest day... After that, Armstrong and his Discovery Channel completely changed the race. In effect they just tore it to bits. I got dropped, cramped and was lost in a sense of disillusionment for the next two weeks, until I felt the cobblestones of the Champs-Elysees under my wheels on the final stage."
Bobo
Guest
Just to clarify, Bassons is not making those claims - they're based on peer reviewed scientific work. Lee is noting them in addition to Bassons' claims. There's often a conflation between time to exhaustion and time advantage. EPO's great strength is that it increases time to exhaustion, although it has a material FTP benefit as well. As the link Lee hyperlinked makes clear, the 54% figure is time to exhaustion. It's easy to see why oxygen vector doping is so effective over a 21 day stage race, whether it's flat or not.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"Bassons’ claims without considering that EPO is widely accepted amongst athletes to give an endurance athlete a boost of 15-20 per cent, or anywhere up to 54 per cent." Comparing climbing times on Alpe d'Huez shows that 5% increase in power is realistic: ~2 minutes. Think of ~30 Watt. The difference between the best and worse material in the TdF of 2007. A sobering fact. Climbing behind a single rider at a speed of 24km/h gives an advantage of 40 Watt, compared to climbing on your own. Source: Hans Vandeweghe's book on doping. That 5%, how does that affect perfomance in a flat race? Hardly, because at a speed of ~50km/h, the dominant factor to overcome increases as the cube power of speed. In a short time trial, that would amount to seconds. No wonder Hushovd could compete in the races for which he considered himself most fit.
Tim Renowden
Expert
Charly Wegelius takes a similar stance in his book. He recognises that dopers cost him a lot, but refuses to be too critical - even of panto villains like Danilo Di Luca (who Wegelius says was an outstanding team leader despite his repeated cheating). Perhaps just because these are people he knows well as friends and teammates and he simply doesn't want to cause them harm by speaking out. I think it's also tricky to denounce someone, even if you do want to cause them harm, without proof. Ethics aside, it's asking for lawsuits. I can understand why a lot of riders would take the path of least resistance and stay quiet.
rouleur
Guest
Yeah its an interesting angle on whether there is much diff between Leiphimer/Hincapie and an EPO'd Bassons. I suspect you're right and Bassons could've done what those guys did quite easily if he doped. I suppose I just take exception to generalised comments that disparage the whole sport. Cycling has a lot of problems but it also has heaps of great stories to tell. Thor won a world champs, green jerseys and was a great cyclist and the only "soundbite" to come from his book is how Armstrong told him he was doping. Something we all know now.
Lee Rodgers
Expert
Thanks for the comments guys. Roleur, I'm not saying he couldn't have won clean, I'm saying I just don't know. I hear your point on Bassons but, think of this, how many of the guys who had successful and long careers - like Leipheimer and Hincapie - were actually average riders (in the pro sense) who then went on to success both in terms of wins and cash, and STILL have successful businesses and even books out there - because they doped? And even after they got caught? Personally, I can't blame Bassons, he pissed on cycling when it needed pissing on, and it wasn't just because of LA, he had a pretty informed idea of how dirty the peloton was.
rouleur
Guest
Hi Lee Normally I agree with your articles but have to disagree here. Bassons was a guy who basically p1ssed on all cycling because of Armstrong. If I was Hushovd and was winning clean, I'd be pissed as well. Bassons was a middling cyclist at best who was making a name for himself and since a has written a book because of his stance against Armstrong. I'm not a fan of Armstring at all but I think there was more than just EPO that was the difference between a guy like Bassons and a TDF win. Also, if I'm reading it right you insinuate that Hushovd couldnt have won clean? I just think that there are a lot more of his "type" of riders that has stood up over the years. Sprinters or strong rouleurs have always been less likely to be found as drug cheats as opposed grand tour winners. I'll be honest and say that I would like to think that if I was Hushovd, I would've dobbed Armstrong in in 2011 but if you remember how guys like Floyd Landis and Greg LeMond were being treated at the time, I'm not sure I would've. Hopefully times will change.
Bobo
Guest
Almost every pro rider I've ever spoken to has criticised the testers, the press, and the riders who 'spit in the soup.' The only riders I've ever heard criticise dopers have already been ostracised from the sport. Yet 'almost' every rider I've spoken to says they are/were clean. Funny old world.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Interesting article, and interesting points you make about Thor... I don't know any professional cyclists, and I've never met any either, but I would be surprised if this isn't the overwhelming feeling of most riders of that era. Because for all his faults, at the time, Armstrong did open cycling up to new markets, and presumably that had knock on effects of more sponsorship money for other riders in the peloton. I think his line about "there not being a lot left of me" does refer to the ostracism that would have occurred to him from the rest of the peloton had he stuck his head over the parapet. I think we can all sit here and say that we would have said something, but it is difficult to be that one person who puts themselves in the firing line. I'm sure I watched something the other day on tv about people standing up for someone on a bus who was being bullied... Most people said they thought (or hoped) they would say something, but they ended up not doing anything and letting it continue. But then in another example someone stepped in and other people helped him out. I guess this showed that it's hard to be the one person to instigate a change, but it's easier if other people are willing to go with you. As for him being clean, he's definitely one that I hoped was... Unfortunately we kinda have to leave it at that.