I am an aspiring accountant who likes to talk about professional cycling.
I have enjoyed writing stage previews for the Tour de France, so I thought I would try and branch out a bit into a more serious form of writing.
Funnily enough, my accounting experience may actually come in handy.
As part of being an accountant, there is the potential that you may need to undertake work as an auditor. The main role of an auditor is to render an opinion on whether a company’s financial statements are presented fairly.
To do so, one must use a level of professional scepticism so that all possible variables and evidence is taken into account and evaluated.
For me, the concept of professional scepticism is quite relevant when looking at the issue of doping in cycling.
We have seen over the past week, specifically on Stage 10 of this year race, Team Sky’s Chris Froome completely dominate the finishing climb of the La-Pierre-Saint-Martin. Almost as quickly as Froome road up the climb, the issue of how Froome achieved such a performance gap on his rivals started to be questioned.
Former US Postal team staffer, and one of the key protagonists in the eventual USADA report against Lance Armstrong, Emma O’Reily left the following Tweet.
Her sentiments resonated in Ross Tucker, a sport scientist that is quite well known by keen observers in the cycling community.
The two opinions quoted above resonated with many observers of the stage. The main issue with this type of attitude is this – is it fair to call or insinuate that Froome and co are doping just because of the obvious doping history of the sport?
I will watch the tour while being sceptical (due to the sport’s past) of people like Froome, Contador etc. However, without evidence, I will not crucify anybody for doing something that is not proven, but I will invite sport scientists to study such performances to understand why they are being achieved.
This is how a cycling observer should be in my opinion. They should have an understanding of the sport’s past, and what the sport it has done to resurrect itself. They should also look at performances and question them, but not in a cynical, subjective way.
Unfortunately, due to a small fraction of the passionate cycling community not being professionally sceptical, and with the sport lacking credibility, some fans have automatically assumed certain riders, in this case, Chris Froome are doping. This has led to particular incidents over the past week that have been nothing short of utterly disrespectful and distasteful.
This is unfortunately what happens when people become subjective, and pick and choose the facts that they want to believe, and then act on them.
This tweet from sportswriter Teddy Cutler perfectly sums up what the idea of professional scepticism aims to reduce. ” There’s room for scepticism towards this Tour, as with any other. But violence and abuse towards Sky? That’s well over the boundary.”
A person can not be classed as being professionally sceptical if they use knee-jerk reactions (violence, abuse etc) to performances, without fully evaluating them.
For anybody who genuinely wants to see the sport of cycling grow and improve in terms of catching cheats, first educate yourself about how to dissect and explain the amazing performances of Chris Froome, instead of just wilfully cracking the whip with uneducated responses. This does not help anybody.
If you want examples of how this is done, refer to the work of sport scientists, including Ross Tucker and Jeroen Smart. These two people, among many others are examples of how to effectively evaluate and question performances, by looking at the variables at which these performances have been made under.
Ultimately, people are allowed to think that Froome, or anybody else is doping, but I will not take their opinion seriously if they have not yet looked at the bigger picture surrounding the performance before making a judgement. For cycling fans to better question performances of the top riders, we must first understand how the performances were attained in the first place.
Brendon Vella
Roar Guru
Well, WADA have brought in 4 years (used to be 2 years) maximum bans now for doping, so hopefully all athletes irrespective of the sport start to get the message.
Brendon Vella
Roar Guru
They don't really add to much in terms of the topic, but people look at key people in the industry and often use their doubt on performances to enhance their own thoughts. Good point on the blood values on each riders, but really, is that becoming a bit intrusive? Surely the riders need some level of privacy over their own information? Interesting debate though.
Brendon Vella
Roar Guru
I probably do, but it really isn't that hard to have too much personality for an auditor's position... It is very sad indeed, but l don't blame the fans for having these types of views, it's only natural after what has happened.
delbeato
Roar Guru
There's not enough evidence against Froome or Sky. One line tweets by professional skeptics like O'Reilly don't amount to much. We don't know if they are doping. What we should see is all athletes' full blood parameters with objective analysis of them. A lot of people suspect as per Mark G above that Sky have found a legal work-around. If it isn't doping, it's not doping.
Tom Oliver
Roar Rookie
Enjoyed this article Brendon and the comments too Ben, Mark and Allanthus. Being someone who watches and loves all sports but in particular cycling, the cheating is really difficult to swallow. With cycling because there seemed to be a reticence to tackle the problem the supporters have suffered a death of 1000 cuts. Instead of amputating the problem area and getting very serious about the drugs and doping cycling kind of hoped it would all go away and allowed the wound to fester. In the end you have a litany of incidents like Armstrong, The amazing recovery by Landis, the multiple heroic performances to crack Cadel and the list goes on and on and on. How can that not turn one into a cynic. I feel like I have been cheated and lied too over and over again. I have invested hundreds of hours watching these guys night after night on little to no sleep only to find out it was all false. I too don't think it is fair to label someone before they are found guilty but there are definite similarities that many of the riders who have been caught all seem to have. They don't crack in the same way other riders do. They seem to be able to endure wave after wave of attacks from multiple different riders. Whenever I hear a commentator saying " he is riding like superman" or something of the like the alarm bells start ringing. Inevitably a few years down the track when the testing has caught up it comes out that it was all a ruse of the greatest proportion. Simply it should be a criminal offense to cheat and behave fraudulently in any professional sport with serious consequences. Until then there is too much incentive to keep cheating
Mark Gallagher
Roar Rookie
And love the GBS reference.
Mark Gallagher
Roar Rookie
Well put Ben. Traditionally, GT greats performed exceptionally well in their first GT. They weren't late(20s)bloomers, as the entire Sky camp is. Especially G Thomas. 29yo classics rider outdoing Contador, NIbali et al on an HC mountaintop finish. Shades of a Hincapie suddenly driving it up HC climbs. I think what puts most people's back out, is: i) the hypocrisy of Sky (eg. the claims of transparency that are not backed up with actions, employing "dope tainted staff" after professing not to do so); ii) Sky making themselves out to be separate from everyone else (the Sky mobile van requests etc.); and iii) the boring nature of Sky dominated races. As you say, we have been here before. For "marginal gains", sub in "high cadence", both LA and CF have "exceptional physiology" (that one would expect to have expressed itself in their early 20s) etc. etc. Sky may well be doing nothing strictly illegal. But they are doing something that noone else is. Cryogenic chambers in load season, new, not banned, weight loss drugs, who knows. But there is something in their (not so) "marginal gains" box of tricks that leads to a massive increase in performance. Blood doping was legal in the not too distant past.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Brendon, surely you have too much personality to be an auditor? It's very sad when any outstanding performance immediately has doubt cast on it through the misdeeds of others who have gone before - irrespective of whether Sky are clean or not. Cycling is simply paying the price for too many years of reprehensible behaviour and a lack of will and purpose to do anything about it. Everyone is now cynical, unable to sort truth from lies, and it is hard to see how things can change for as long as past miscreants are allowed to stay involved in the sport. What's done is done. It doesn't stop me watching however. To be sure with an eye and an ear closed to all of that, and doping or no doping, an admiration for the physical endurance and tenacity of the riders.
Brendon Vella
Roar Guru
I never said Froome was clean, just using him as an example after the events of the last week. All l said was to weight up the facts and not make judgements before you do so. If one is to be sceptical, then looking at those red flags above would give you reasons to believe that Froome was dodgy, which is completely fair, l have those same thoughts. There needs to be some sort of study done to see how Bilhazaria can effect performance, and how much better athletes can go after they are rid of the disease. I am actually in the process of writing something on transparency, it's a major issue from a spectators point of view. The interesting thing is, there is no pressure on other GC contenders to share their data. I don't think it's fair that Froome, only after one amazing performance this tour, needs to do so, and others seemingly do not need to. Having said this, getting a Strava account and posting your files up really is not an issue for a growing section of the peloton. As for your quote in the last paragraph, l think l would place myself in the middle of believer and sceptic. A three week grand tour is where you would think most people would dope, due to its exhaustive nature. So l always have that in the back of my mind when l watch. Thanks for your feedback though. PS. I'd rather not be an auditor!
Ben
Guest
There has been a smell around Sky for years. Some red flags for me: 1. Froome's incredible rise from a pack runner to a freakish outlier 2. The stories that came with it. e.g. bilharzia 3. Sky's continued lack of transparency. We have seen this all before. As Paul Kimmage said today,"why wouldn't you just open your doors and say to Antoine Vayer and some of the other guys [like] Ross Tucker to "come down stay with me, I'll show you exactly what I'm doing, I'll give you the numbers." Brendon, I hope that when you embark on your auditing career you will not sign off on the accounts of a client who has lied to you before, refuses to show you a complete set of accounts and expresses anger and plays the victim when you demand to do so. In the world of cycling however you are free to believe what you want to believe and if you are happier believing Sky's performances are clean then have at it. In doing so remember the word of Bernard Shaw "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life."