Oh cycling, I love you, but I hate you.
2014 is one of the “new cycling” years, basically like 1998.
The blood passport has caught out the cheats (unless you read that Bernard Kohl interview where he says it actually helped him cheat, bit awkward), the culture has changed and nobody in Le Tour tests positive.
I mean, sometimes athletes test positive but it’s usually because they took a sports supplement which was contaminated.
What a tragedy for the athlete. We all make mistakes I guess and forgiveness is the christian thing to do.
But enough facetiousness. The thing that has spurred me to write this piece, is this article from SBS.
It’s about Ben Hill, who just won a stage of the Tour of Southland and how he has come back from suspension.
Hill tested positive from an amphetamine which he says he believes came from a pre-workout supplement called Jack3d (pronounced “jacked” as in “hey bra I’m so jacked from my pre-workout I just smashed out a 100-kilogram bench, check my delts, you mirin bra?”).
So this is really what has become the standard excuse for doping positives, from Frank Shcleck to Daryl Impey, the silly mistake, the contaminated supplement.
But let’s look a bit deeper into Hill’s story.
Firstly, Jack3d. It was a supplement which was basically marketed as being illegal, or at least on the edge of what’s not classified as a poison by the government. This is a great marketing technique when your customers are gym junkies with body-dismorphia who might already be taking actual banned substances like anabolic steroids or human growth hormone.
So already as a professional athlete who is getting tested you’re taking on a lot of risk by taking this particular substance.
However, Jack3d, along with a number of other popular ‘pre-workout’ products, was in fact banned on August 2 in 2012 by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
The Tour of Tasmania in 2012 was run from October 2-7. So Hill’s teammate was carrying around basically an illegal drug, two months after it was announced as such.
According to Hill, he and his teammate looked up the supplement after Hill was tested. As a professional athlete in 2012, in cycling, with the Lance Armstrong controversy in full swing, it is impossible to imagine that you would not research substances or supplements before putting them in your body.
Ben Hill, smart enough to win bike races, not smart enough to use Google?
The other worrying aspect of this story is that Hill says he called ASADA two days after his test and that they backdated his suspension to the day of the phone call.
Hill was suspended on October 10, 2012, ToT finished on the seventh, so he was tested on the last stage. So his teammate has been carrying around stimulant-laden Jack3d for the entire tour, and it’s safe to assume at $70 or so a tub that he has been using it.
So did Hill’s teammate go positive as well? And if not, does that bring up questions about the NRS and how good the testing is?
So there are my feelings on the tale of Ben Hill. They are pretty much the same as my feelings on the story of Mick Rodgers, Daryl Impey, Frank Schleck, Stuart O’Grady… the list goes on.
Elite level cyclists are feeding fans the same lines over and over, clean cycling, changed culture etc. But it doesn’t take much for these stories to fall apart.
This leads me nicely to my next target for scorn, shoddy sports journalists.
The whole SBS Ben Hill article paints the guy as a victim who is thankfully on the mend. With a little bit of research and critical thinking Hill’s story becomes very suspect, how is it that this professional journalist has just printed up their interview without any further thought?
Australian cycling fans and journalists are smarter than to just eat up stories like this. I understand why so many people might be motivated to ignore the doping scourge in cycling, but let’s be serious, the sport isn’t going to survive a third Festina-Lance Armstrong level scandal.
The sponsors will go and the rest will be history.
Mick
Guest
Feel free to paint everyone with the same brush however 2 things. 1. Benny is an honest guy who puts in more effort in training and recovery and is a natural talent, he is responsible for what he ingests yes, 6 months, sure and I am sure he would have copped that. 2. If Benny was running a government funded pro cycling team, I am sure a government funded anti doping agency would have given him lesser of a sentence. Total inconsistencies. EPO/Needles+co-operation = 6 months Protein powder readily available + co-operation = 2 years What a load of crap
Klaas Faber
Guest
Hello Iain, Returning from a short holiday with my wife I see no reply. Not a surprise really. Most people that I meet are BRAINWASHED on the subject of doping to the point where they see harm in what Ben Hill is accused of. And they take a dive. Instead of taking something useful like a PhD, which I did. Clean sport is not a goal, but a means towards a level playing field. Stimulants taken outside competition do not threaten the level playing field, because of their short-lived effect, and are therefore allowed in-competition. But there´s a lack of thesholds leading to tragedies, like the following http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/lee-chong-wei-a-victim-of-inconsistent-anti-doping-rules-klaas-faber It´s just another one in a very long row. Iain, got that? Kind regards, Klaas Faber
Chris Beeck
Guest
Currently there are 13 Australian athletes serving a two year ban for the use of methylhexaneamine, including two cyclists. It is reasonable to conclude that most of these athletes are amateur given the nature of the sports they were competing in when tested. This is the same length of time that Ben Hill was sanctioned for. It would appear that in the case of athletes who have tested positive for methylhexaneamine, or self reported the use of this banned substance, ASADA have been fair and consistent.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Hi, Did you miss the point that stimulants are allowed by WADA outside competition? Ben Hill is just another victim of inconsistent rules. There should bethresholds in place, like there is one for alcohol. He didn't cheat on anyone.
Iain Moynihan
Roar Rookie
Sorry, half finished comment. The perils of the iphone. Anyway, basically I fully understand that you are in a sticky situation as a cycling reporter, particularly working for SBS. I mean part of your job is to promote Australian cycling, fair enough. I also get that if you put the hard questions to dodgy guys then the likelihood of getting future interviews is pretty low. But if you're going to put up articles or comments that are not transparent and/or allude to "off the record" information which supposedly ties a very strange set of circumstances together, you can't expect readers not to be skeptical and not to receive criticism. I haven't said anything is not true simply based on my own convictions, I have asked legitimate questions based on information in the initial SBS post as well as information you have provided. Regarding the NRL/AFL, yeah those sports are dirty, but I don't want cycling to be a clean sport in relation to those codes, I want cycling to be clean period, and I know I'm not the only one. Regarding Matt White, well he only ever finished way back in the field, bit like Tim Cameron, but his doping sure did make life difficult for the clean guys (Brad McGee?). I also don't think that the general public opinion is that White's punishment was fair. Ok these guys self-reported. But do you honestly think we'd be having this back-and-forth today if Hill hadn't been tested? What's the scenario if Hill got a reduced ban for calling up ASADA after his test? A flood of dopers desperate to clear their conscience and stop living a lie? Or maybe just a bunch of juicers saying "it's ok if you get tested, just ring up and you'll only get 6 months".
Iain Moynihan
Roar Rookie
Matt White is a whole different kettle of fish. If you're not convinced by a story I think that's a pretty important thing to publish. Putting out only what an athlete wants "on record" and not attaching caveats in your articles of what is not explained, or what the athlete wouldn't answer means that you are not giving readers the full story. If t
Al Hinds (SBS)
Guest
Off the record is entirely the prerogative of the interviewee. I'll readily admit to not being totally convinced by Cameron's story. I've tried to convince him to go on record. But that's only one part of the bigger picture. Apologies if the tone comes across that way, but I'm trying to be transparent. To me, that's the biggest part of journalism. You're essentially saying what I'm saying is garbage based on nothing other than your own convictions. I'm giving you a case that Hill was treated harshly under the WADA code's rules. Matt White was given six months for the same type of co-operation and he doped for profit his entire career. Don't even get me started on the NRL/AFL. By contrast Hill is an amateur cyclist who ASADA gave no leeway. This is a case of fairness and consistency in anti-doping.
Iain Moynihan
Roar Rookie
So the tone of your comments is sortof "I know the full story and you don't", ok you've talked to these people, but "off the record" discussions are pretty useless to the people reading these articles. You're basically just asking me to trust you? Spanish news (on SBS) did a huge puff piece on Contador other day, there is kind of a precedent of reporters blindly rallying behind their dopey countrymen. Secondly, if the evidence in these "off the record" discussions is so convincing, that it makes both of these guys stories so believable, why don't they want the info "on the record". I mean it's got you on side?
Al Hinds (SBS)
Guest
I think you've changed your comment from the one I've been emailed. But anyway. I've talked to ASADA, Hill's lawyer, the team-mate; Tim Cameron, Anti-doping expert Richard Ings, Cycling Australia and Hill himself. I've researched the case in detail. I asked many questions of Cameron off the record, none of which I'll answer here. I've not written anything on it yet. I intend to. The only article to be published was by colleague. To answer "So did Hill’s teammate go positive as well? And if not, does that bring up questions about the NRS and how good the testing is?" Hill's team-mate didn't go positive, because he wasn't tested. Cameron was way back in the field. Only top-three on stage were tested. There were no other positives at the race. Hill's team-mate self-reported - risking a much harsher ban from ASADA for trafficking - to help Hill. In the end they both were handed two year bans. I can understand your skepticism, but in this case I don't think it's well placed. To me this case highlights how deeply inconsistent the WADC is. But then, maybe I'm just a PR guy. Oh and go and interview them if you want! Nothing stopping you.
Iain Moynihan
Roar Rookie
Did you ask Hills teammate any further questions about why he was carrying a stimulant on tour? Also did you ask him why he lied to Hill? Did Hills teammate also take the substance on tour? Did Hills teammate also self report? I'm throwing down the gauntlet, let me interview one of these guys, I'll write up an article and the internet can decide whether "(SBS)" is bringing taxpayers the goods in cycling news
Al Hinds (SBS)
Guest
G'day Iain. Interesting perspective. To correct the record - Hill never claimed he had a tainted supplement. He claimed he was given a supplement by a team-mate. His error - a big error - was in not checking the type of supplement. The team-mate in question (who I've also spoken to) has admitted he gave Hill the supplement and misled Hill - claiming it to be a pre-trainer; akin to caffeine. Hill accepted that explanation and took the supplement. Fairly or unfairly for that mistake, he served a two year ban. Hill also went to ASADA in the spirit of co-operation. He didn't dispute the substance he'd taken, although he did argue it was inadvertent use. He then provided information on the rider that gave him the substance. That rider has since been done for trafficking and administration. Normally when a rider provides information on the person, persons, that have administered the substance/substances to them, they are given a reduced ban. Consider, not so long ago, the case of Matt White. There is strong precedent in the World Anti-Doping Code for suspension reductions with co-operation. Hill was offered no such reduction. Since Hill's positive, Cycling Australia has implemented a mandatory anti-doping education regime to prevent similar situations occurring.
delbeato
Roar Guru
amphetamines aren't a very good doping substance. if he deliberately took them for their performance enhancing benefits, then he's primarily guilty of stupidity.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Basically missing the point of clean sport? I ran my first races in cotton. During my entire sportive career my bottles were filled with tap water. Can you imagine? Running in the hills and drinking water that sips up and used to be bottled ages ago? Can you imagine? Let me guess: you use powders and gels and vitamin pills, and possibly according to 'scientific' schemes. But you don't use these supplements to enhance performance. No Sir! Clean sport! "the number of riders who have been the victim of poor statistical analysis is none" Jonathan Tiernan-Locke? Alberto Contador?? And outside cycling? Claudia Pechstein??
Dean
Guest
I long for the days when a cyclist will win an event based on his intake of fresh fruit, vegetables and meat. I reckon I would barf if I were forced to take the mixture of potions, drugs and vitamin liquids that these guys are fed every day of a race. Hardly the kind of sport you'd steer your kids towards and that's where the future of the sport has problems.
Chris Beeck
Guest
This article reflects my observations that the change in cyclist's attitudes towards doping that I expected to happen after the Armstrong fiasco have not occurred. Riders are still trying to push the boundaries of what is legally acceptable - pain killers, oxygen tents, pre-workout supplements that contain stimulants etc, on the grounds of gaining an edge on their competition. In my opinion it is the same as holding onto a car on a climb or taking a lap out during a criterium for a fake mechanical. Or cutting a circuit short to get back in contact with the bunch after you have been dropped. It is cheating. The cyclist in this article was looking for an edge on his competition when he asked his team mate for a caffeine tablet. He may have been unlucky in that the level of stimulant in the supplement caused him to test positive but if he was pursuing the sport cleanly he would not have taken the supplement in the first place.
Iain Moynihan
Roar Rookie
Klaas, the numbers are in, the number of riders who have been the victim of poor statistical analysis is none , the number of riders who have rolled over and admitted am they were geared to the eyeballs is all of them. Just give these old mates a bit of time. But this isn't about statistics, I didn't start this rubbish. Every rider wants to talk about "clean culture", clean means bread and water, not just below the threshold of pingers to get you pinged at the piss-test. And you have to ask the question, if you're willing to take a stimulant to win a race, are you also willing to take a steroid? And something to boost the haemacrit? Because the statistics on the nature of doped athletes says yes. Basically you're missing the point of clean sport.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Stimulants like amfetamine are prohibited in-competition (only), see Category S6: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-Revised-2014-Prohibited-List-EN.PDF Unfortunately, with very exceptions (e.g. ephedrine; compare with once-banned caffeine), there's no threshold for stimulants. Alcohol is banned in certain sports. In-competition. It's accompanied by a threshold. More in general, the quantity found (or concentration) is part of the evidence, the other part being the identity of the substance. Basic logic dictates the use of thresholds to protect athletes against testing 'positive' for an act that's expressly allowed according to the Code. The quantity might be irrelevant, because of the short-lived effect of stimulants. N.B. This reasoning doesn't hold for substances that are never allowed because of their long-lived effect (steroids, EPO, etc.). The Code is supposed to be leading, so forget about other regulation. I can't make it simpler than that. It turns out that about 50% of doping convictions is questionable because of lacking thresholds. For an illustration, see: http://theconversation.com/lie-detectors-and-anti-doping-whos-kidding-who-12898 "according to Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee John Ruger at the Tackling Doping in Sport summit in the UK earlier this month, between 40-60% of positive test doping results were inadvertent (non-deliberate) cases." Hundreds of cases, year after year. Approximately one out of two. And only because the possibly exonerating part of the evidence is ignored. Labs deliver what they are asked... In conclusion, when using a pre-workout supplement containing stimulants, one doesn't need a dopey excuse. One automatically qualifies as a victim of vastly inconstent regulation...