Sunday night’s edition of The Bike Lane on SBS served as a reminder of the complexities that are inherent in debating just what we should do with those who do not conform to society’s rules.
At the heart of the debate surrounding Stuart O’Grady’s role as co-presenter on The Bike Lane are questions of just how do we punish former dopers and what is punishment anyway?
William Shakespeare used the parting words of the Prince in Romeo and Juliet to remind us that punishment takes many forms. All of the surviving Montagues and Capulets are punished through the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. There is no greater punishment the Prince can dole out, hence his cry “All are punish’d”.
This question of punishment is at the heart of Stuart O’Grady’s return to the cycling fold. On Sunday night we saw O’Grady’s public punishment in what was at times a difficult interview to watch, but a necessary one if O’Grady is to be held accountable for his actions.
Many athletes in their early years, if not throughout their careers, receive taxpayer money to support them as they follow their dreams, so it’s only right that they are held publicly accountable for their actions.
The host of The Bike Lane, Matthew Keenan, began the show by addressing “the elephant in the room” that is O’Grady’s doping admission. Keenan clearly laid the show’s values on the table by arguing that O’Grady can teach us much about the dangers of doping in professional sport.
The argument that sports can benefit from those who have made mistakes is a reasonable one, but it often fails to address that doping results in cheats prospering. The honest athlete may have their integrity intact but are often consigned to the realm of nobodies. Dopers get away with the prize money, the trinkets, the fame and the media career, while the honest, clean athlete fades from our memories.
However, exiling the dopers may be a pointless process, especially if the same old cycles of doping continue.
Melbourne academic Craig Fry recently argued that Stuart O’Grady’s inclusion as co-host of The Bike Lane undermines doping prevention programs. Ultimately, cheats continue to prosper is the message here. Fry has a point, but watching O’Grady highlighted that this was also about public punishment.
O’Grady was clearly uncomfortable with having to admit his dream retirement and plans of breaking the record for the most Tour de France appearances was shattered due to his own stupidity. But there were traces of defiance, too, when he brought out the old “you don’t know what I’ve been through” chestnut. Nevertheless, O’Grady did display palpable remorse, and this is what his disappointed fans wanted to see.
Regardless of where you sit on the ‘should ex-dopers be allowed back into the fray’ fence, having to justify your existence on national television is a punishment within itself.
In light of all we know about O’Grady’s doping, should he be excommunicated from the Australian sporting landscape? Will we, in some bizarre homage to Nathaniel Hawthorn, force him to wear a scarlet D for life?
O’Grady’s whole career cannot be judged on his actions in 1998, unless there is proof that he doped his whole career. Even though he may not have cheated on Lance Armstrong’s scale, like all dopers, he cheated his competitors and his fans in 1998.
O’Grady may well have lived with the fear of his secret coming out for 15 years and confessing his cheating to his family may have personally been the worst punishment for him, but being held publicly accountable for his actions is the punishment cycling fans needed and deserved.
Unless new evidence comes to light that O’Grady was a career doper, and he doped to win his Olympic and Commonwealth Games medals, his Paris-Roubaix win or any of his other achievements, there is little point in taking them off him. That would not be a fair punishment if he won them cleanly – and based on all available evidence he did.
In all of this, however, we shouldn’t forget that the real victims of doping in sport are not the repentant athletes, but the clean athletes who were cheated out of their careers, including lucrative media deals in retirement.
These are the real victims of doping in sport.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"The issue on doping is not “moral” as most things are, it is where the line is drawn. Hypoxic tents & suffering on a mountain training camp are seen as acceptable whilst the rules at the time say an EPO needle is not, very simple, no morality at all, that was the framework to operate within." Thank you for your explanation. Let's keep it very simple indeed. Can I now have a good argument in favor of making that distinction? And maintaining it to this very date: the year 2015. That's 600 years after Jan Hus was burnt at the stake for his ideas. Why mention Hus? I don't see much progress here in argumentation. Until now it's exactly zero points for you. With the difference that I will likely not share the fate of Jan Hus. I will help you a bit. If 80-90% breaks the rules (and keep in mind: they are role models, otherwise we would not bother about doping at all, right?), then one might legitimally ask what those rules are believed/thought to achieve. Or do we want to place (irrational) rules above people that are supposed to be role models?
DB
Guest
The issue on doping is not "moral" as most things are, it is where the line is drawn. Hypoxic tents & suffering on a mountain training camp are seen as acceptable whilst the rules at the time say an EPO needle is not, very simple, no morality at all, that was the framework to operate within. That said a footballer has a needle in the knee so they can play is "not" performance enhancing. Personally I disagree, if he / she did not have the needle they could not perform, ergo their "natural" performance is "enhanced" to an "unnatural" level .... The question is there were rules in place at the time Stewie, Lance Marco Pantani et al broke those rules. Some got away with it and some did not. What upsets me is the allegedly repentant BS press conferences & muddying of the waters. The problem in cycling exploded in the late 80's & 90's as technological advances outstripped the Administrators, once compromises are made i.e. accepting backdated forms, blind eyes, do not upset the sponsors, the problem snowballs. Paul Kelly "From little things, big things grow" Similarly I agree with Ferraris comments that too much orange juice is dangerous, whilst EPO under control is not. The issue is that EPO is not allowed under the rules whether it is controlled or black market. 100+ years ago, opium was legal ... now it is not. Kate the revalations around Riiss CSC put a darker cloud over Stewie now as he "became" a hard man of the road whilst there and won that beautiful cobble. Similarly I must say Cancellara & Sastre. With regards to the royalties, I did not mean to infer that it was a proceeds of crime issue, I thought it might be a nice idea to actually put some dollars back in as a tangible thing. The hypocrisy of George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton & Floyd Landis profiting from their stories after denying it to me puts them in the same category as Armstrong, hypocrites, perhaps at the "nicer" end of the spectrum. Originally I had no time for David Miller, however I am impressed with what he has done despite the initial waves of negative publicity, he said that was what he was going to do and has been consistent since then from what I am aware. Just thought it would be a good, slightly different idea to show he is different and regrets it not just to the family (which I have no doubt) but to the fans who bought his sponsors products over the years and like the taxes we pay that fund the AIS that paid his wages, however meagre they were at the time. Ask Phil Andersen & Allan Peiper how much financial support they got at the beginning of their careers Looking forward to the battles on the roads of France etc. over the next few weeks! Contador, Froome, Nibali. on the podium methinks
Klaas Faber
Guest
Kate, Are we not just looking at an artificial problem created by moralists? Elsewhere on this site I noted: So, why is EPO considered doping? An elementary question. Cardiologist and cycling doctor Jan Hoogsteen (my translation): “Every doctor knows: whether you sit in a hypoxic tent, or you do altitude training to boost your Hb, or you take a little bit EPO: physiologically it is all exactly the same. Only in the latter case, everyone shouts: doping!” Your opinion please! Kind regards, Klaas Faber, Ph.D. Independent (anti-)doping expert and former forensic scientist
Klaas Faber
Guest
Anne
Guest
The collective opinions on drug taking in sport are interesting. There is however no defense for the media's embracing of fallen hero's. Justifying having Stu on a new bike show is an appalling indictment of the commercial relationships in cycling in Australia. The elephant in the room was heavily sedated. The evidence suggests a huge proportion of the peloton cheated, exploited every aspect of the sport and ran away with the prize. Why should Lance be so universally condemned for even riding while we allow a remorseful Stu O'Grady find his way back to the fold. Perhaps Stu will use his money to help drug addicted kids find a path. But seriously, the honorable thing to do is disappear.
seano
Guest
The Danish report into systematic doping at CSC casts further doubt over O'Grady's lame "I only did it once" defence.
Maynard
Guest
Kate thank you for this opportunity to say ‘Good on you Stewie’. He admitted when he could have toughed it out and as he were only under suspicion we might never have known. If everyone read Tyler Hamilton’s book (which in part may have been self-justification) they would understand the pressures that were on riders at that time. Stewie succumbed briefly then rejected the drugs i.e. made a mistake and did not make it again. Many cyclists and sportsmen and women did not stop. Pantani is revered and Merckx is “the best rider ever” yet they failed the test. Stewie was not ‘found’ to have cheated but Australia wants to give him a life ban, for honesty. Contador failed the test, did his time and this year won the Giro. Footballer’s head stomp their opposition and get a few match suspension. They could have killed or seriously injured someone. Adam Gilchrist is a rarity in cricket or any sport. Get it right Australia. We all drive too fast but how many of us never do it again. It kills people. Stuart O’Grady remains my favourite rider, Australian or any other nationality and he can do more for this issue of drugs in all walks of life than most. Good on you SBS and Matt Keenan.
Kate Smart
Expert
Thanks for your comment, DB. I do agree it would have been nice to hear him talk about the Nikki Vance investigation into OGE. I read something at the time he retired which quoted Vance as suggesting maybe he didn't tell her about the doping due to being unsure about the consequences. I wonder how many of us would have been truthful though if in the same position? I do like your idea about donating royalties from his book to the AIS. Doping isn't a criminal offence, so he can profit from his book, yet if it was a criminal offence he wouldn't be able to. Interesting. Thanks again for you comments.
DB
Guest
Thanks Kate You raise some good points and another perspective. My disappointment with Stuart is more emotional than logical. Lance I admired but never warmed to and think he was a nasty sort of guy deep down and is still unrepentant. Stuart I believed was clean because as he noted in the interview never a hint through his career. Don't know him at all but I now have him in the Zabel Hincapie, Vaughters et al category, I only used it once but subsequent events force more out. I was very disappointed that Matthew didn't ask a question I would like an answer to, why did Stuart lie to the Orica investigation? Everyone was coming clean (allegedly) and the wet lettuce slap that Matt White received would have given Start more credibility in my eyes. That said it was pleasing to see him so uncomfortable and talk about how hard the last 2 years have been etc, perhaps that is a more appropriate "sentence". At least he didn't do the American trick of cry crocodile tears on the TV. I still cannot bring myself to read his book although interested in the story, perhaps I'll wait to I find it in the $1 bin or I will buy it when I find out he has donated his advance & royalties to the AIS in part repayment of the taxpayer dollars invested in him. I hope he can do a David Miller and redeem himself; but running away and hiding as he appears to have done has just made me more disappointed in him, .... I just thought he was better than that. All else said he raises very valid points, I have not walked in his shoes and cannot begin to understand the life he lead and choices he was forced to make. Yes I've made many decisions I regret but that is life experience and its how you pick yourself up and move forward an help others avoid those mistakes. Unfortunately his Roubaix cobble is tarnished in my mind and despite what he says there is an asterix over his whole career. I also know many other riders who worked their proverbials off, rode clean and do not have his money, profile or palmares who perhaps would have been better long term representatives of our beautiful sport. Good luck to him, he has made his choices, I hope he can help the sport recover from the damage he has done to it and help rebuild the fans faith.
Luis
Guest
Sorry Stuart i finísh second to a doper and never toll me sorry. So I don't filing any simpatico for dragis
Kate Smart
Expert
Thanks for the comments, guys. I think for people like O'Grady we can understand the environment of the 1990s and accept that as factor in past behaviour. I have no problem with David Millar being involved in cycling and now that we've seen a remorseful apology from O'Grady, I have fewer problems in his involvement in cycling. I think we need to see some form of palpable punishment and Millar's 2 year ban and O'Grady's public apology fit that criteria, for me anyway. But Craig Fry's point is a pertinent one and I know others like, Lee Rodgers make the same point: the dopers do the get career and the fame, media jobs etc whilst the clean riders miss out. In this case though, I think we need to give O'Grady the benefit of the doubt that it was a once off. Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Andrew Graham
Roar Rookie
Well put Kate. I can't see the point in excluding reformed dopers either - it's highly likely that they (I'm talking about O'Grady or David Millar for example) can offer more as educators about the dangers of doping than anything else.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Thanks Kate - thoughtful piece on a difficult subject. For better or worse guys like O'Grady are viewed less harshly by many than they could be, cut some slack because of the systemic doping that washed through much of the sport. If he is genuinely remorseful, and prepared to help educate and inform young riders then it doesn't really make much sense to excommunicate him. If everyone could be confident that the sport was inherently clean, then sure, anyone caught cheating should be stamped on with full force. But is that the case?