We’ve heard this kind of refrain before: “In the near future, we will announce the first cases of doping caught by the new biological passport program.” Twice before, at the very least. Back in February, when Pat McQuaid, the head of the International Cycling Union, spoke at a press conference during the Tour of California. With one exception, the reporters present at McQuaid’s announcement at the Tour of California reacted with a big collective yawn. That’s because they’d heard something like that in 2008. When it didn’t come to pass, they could hardly be blamed for thinking that McQuaid was overstating the readiness of the program.
Today may be different. Then again, it may not. But Pat McQuaid held a press conference to suggest that sometime next week the first cases of doping caught via the UCI’s biological passport program will be passed along to the licensing federations for a number of cyclists. McQuaid, he who spilled the beans on the person who tested positive at the 2006 Tour de France, this time actually didn’t name names. Thus, he’s shown that he can, when it suits his purpose, follow the established World Anti-Doping Agency rules regarding confidentiality. As CyclingNews.com reports
“The riders will be informed early next week,” said UCI president Pat McQuaid, according to AFP. “We will inform their teams and national federations. We will [then] name the riders and will start disciplinary proceedings against them.”
Conveniently, this is happening about four weeks before the start of cycling’s biggest show of the year, the Tour de France. McQuaid says that this year’s Tour will be the most heavily tested yet.
“During the race we will do three to four hundred tests. Tour officials have provided us with a long list of riders likely to be racing the Tour.”
Let’s see, 20-some days of racing in the Tour, right? So he’s saying that there will now be 15 to 20 tests a day? Wow. Color me underwhelmed. Sure, it’s an increase from the previous three or four tests a day, but given that there are approximately 180 riders who will start the race, what are the odds that each rider will get tested during the Tour? My guess: Slim. The usual suspects will be tested, of course, but a whole lot of riders will either be tested once or not at all, would be my guess.
Somehow, that doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent to me.
But back to the biological passport, itself. The new thing about this protocol is that it uses indirect means to look for possible doping by the athletes. A whole lot will be riding on these first cases, should any actually be announced next week. If the evidence is sketchy, the UCI and WADA could wind up giving themselves a big black eye. And, if the evidence doesn’t also have testing that shows more definitively what the athletes actually did, it could be hard to get a conviction. (Yeah, right, I hear you say. The system is rigged, and not in favor of the accused.)
How effective is the biological passport in catching cheats? That’s yet to be determined. But at least one person claims that the data from the program has actually had the effect of helping those who have been cheating. Bernhard Kohl, who’s caused quite a stir himself the last couple of days, says:
“The top riders are so professional in their doping that they know very well they have to keep their blood values stable not to be detected. The UCI sent us the values resulting from the controls: we thus referred to those to mark the next ones. In a way, the passport almost helped us.”
Right. So let’s get this straight: Kohl is saying that those bent on doping actually used some of the information from the biological passport program to beat that very same program? Wouldn’t that be ironic. Michael Ashenden, one of the scientists who developed the original blood-based test for EPO, and who is involved with the UCI’s biological passport program, is not so sure about Kohl’s contention. According to the Guardian Online:
Attacking Kohl’s claims that riders know how to get around the biological passports, Ashenden said: “I don’t accept, without knowing what his [passport] profile looked like, that it wasn’t suspicious. It may have been, it may not have been.
“There is an international focus on the UCI right now because they’re seen as the first [sporting] federation to [establish a biological] passport. With that comes a lot of pressure to get it right. The delay we’re seeing [in terms of the first positive cases] is to make sure every element is cross checked and verified before the case is brought, to make sure there’s nothing that causes a case to be thrown out on a technicality. But I think you’ll find in the next weeks there will be announcements.”
Time will tell as to how successful these first cases (if they exist) will be. This time, Pat McQuaid may not be bluffing. But a part of me wonders, is he speaking the truth or is he just blowing smoke again?
Parting Shots
Speaking of Bernhard Kohl, a few riders have taken offense to his claims that all of the top ten riders in the 2008 Tour should be suspected of doping. As Jeff pointed out in a comment to a previous post, Cédric Vasseur and Jean-Claude Cucherat are not happy with the Austrian rider’s contentions. CyclingNews.com reports:
“[Kohl’s] allegations cannot remain unpunished,” Vasseur said. “He might think everybody else was doped as well but he has to prove it.”
Followed by:
“In French teams, the way of practicing the profession of a bike rider has nothing to do with the gangsters’ methods described by Kohl,” said Cucherat. The UNCP [the French professional cyclists union] announced that legal actions would be taken against Kohl and whoever unfairly tarnishes the reputation of professional cyclists.
Having stirred up a hornets nest with his comments, Kohl is now backtracking, claiming he was misquoted.
Kohl on Wednesday claimed that he had really said: “I think that top performances in high-level sport, like in the Tour de France, are difficult to understand without doping.
“It’s enough to look at the Tour de France. We race for three weeks at top speeds of 40km/hour and climb the equivalent of Everest five times,” he added.
And in entirely separate news, depending on who you believe, Tom Boonen may (or may not) get to race at the 2009 Tour de France. Boonen, as you may recall, got into a bit of trouble recently over the use of a certain recreational drug. Coke may add life, as the old ad slogan used to go, but that funny white powder has a way of derailing a certain Belgian’s plans in July.
Last, but not least, in an entirely predictable move it appears that Alejandro Valverde, the Spanish cyclist banned from competition in Italy over allegations that he was involved in the Spanish Operacion Puerto affair, may well be barred from competing anywhere for the next two years. Surprised? No? Me neither.
In April, there was also a bunch of stories that the passport catches would be out real soon now. Actually it was stated that we’d find out before the Giro started. Not sure who that was attributed to. But I do think the story this time sounds much more specific.
My understanding was that in the years prior to targeted testing, they tried to nail everybody at least once, testing whole teams at a time. Together with the tests for the top three finishers this would be about 240 tests total, or about a dozen tests each day on average. Targeted testing was supposed to redistribute this wealth of tests towards those who are most suspect, which of course amounts to trying to nail the big names. PR-wise, this is a great move, guaranteeing that every doping story will be a big doping story, and that the public will never ever forget just how dirty cycling is.
That certainly seems to be McQuaids overriding goal, in teasing this bio passport story every month or two.
It’s amazing how much farther cycling goes in trying to destroy all of it’s heros than any other sport. Witness the Armstrong-Lemond crap, and then look around and realize how typical that is. Hinault just last week. And more. Everywhere you look.
Baseball of late seems interested in emulating cycling, but has a long way to go.
But then look at (American) football, probably one of the dirtiest sports around, and yet news outlets and fans spend most of their time actually watching and talking about the games, not the doping and politics. Weird.
tom
10-18 tests a stage is probably enough. When we looked at this at TBV, it seemed like about 10 “randoms” per day in addition to the stage winner and jerseys would pretty well guarantee that every rider would be tested at least once during the race. I think that would be enough for the things the tests can detect. It means there’s a 5-10% chance on any individual day that your number will come up for a test, over 21 stages shouldn’t make you think it likely you’ll skate by without a test. Mix in targeted testing of suspicious passport values, and it’s not bad.
It’d be nice if we could trust the testing regime more, but it as good as it is likely to get, so it’s what we need to use, as much as we might like it to be better.
TBV
Good point, tbv. Assuming that the passport is fully developed (with enough data to actually account for natural fluctuations, etc.), an assurance that each cyclist would get tested at least once, on average, would be a deterrent of sorts. What I’m wondering about is whether Kohl is correct in what he says about using the data from the bio passports to manipulate values to look unsuspicious, or whether Kohl and his ilk don’t understand the nitty-gritty details of how the passport program works. For the moment, if it may well be the best we can get. If Kohl is right, then those who are hell-bent on cheating will find ways around this type of testing, too.
Tom,
Sports fans are a fickle lot, aren’t they? Football (American, that is) fans seem like they couldn’t care less about doping, as a group, than fans of cycling do. That’s for sure. I think you may be on to something about McQuaid’s motivations. Given how long it’s taken to get this bio passport program off the ground, he wants to keep it in people’s eyes. Sometimes he comes off like the boy who cried “Wolf!” however.
Kohl’s accusations about “everybody else” are precisely the same claims made by LeMond.
I do think that UCI was a bit pressured by the announced coming books where a lot of doping practices would be described, that would generate a lot of questions for McQuaid. More difficult to answer with political rants when askers are more aware than usual.
Jean,
That’s certainly a possibility. Of course, they might have felt a bit of pressure from other quarters, too, who might be asking, “What the heck is taking so long? It’s been a year and a half since you started this program, where are the results.”
“What the heck is taking so long? It’s been a year and a half since you started this program, where are the results.”…… said the men/women who provide the funding that sustains the lifestyles of Patty McQuaid, his peers, and counterparts in the alphabet soup.
Jeff
McQuaid had never had common interest with WADA world. Clearly his action were often at the opposite.
Maybe now he is forced to join them but it’s ot with a sweet heart.
Everyone faster than me is doping.
People have one of two things to say when they’re beaten: He’s better than me, or
he cheated. Now, some people cheating does happen, and it’s hard to gauge how much. But some people being better than others is guaranteed state of affairs in every race. How vain do you have to be to simply believe you can’t be beat without cheating?
And yet, people make this claim. Many people, like Kohl of late. Lemond said this is why he left cycling, because suddenly everyone was faster than him, as doping sped up the sport.
How long did Lemond hold the record for the fastest TdF time trial? Fifteen years?
Give me a break.
As far as beating the blood passport thing, You could take the blood out slowly over several weeks and avoid any sudden change in values. But you’d also have to do the same putting it back in slowly – so slowly that you wouldn’t really reap any benefit. If you want that big boost, you have to put a lot of blood back in. And when you do, your body is going to stop producing EPO, and your reticulocyte count will plummet.
Perhaps a mid-tour boost might work, as reticulocyte production is already lowered from exhaustion. But I don’t think it goes as low as after blood doping.
Of course, you could take EPO after blood doping to keep up your reticulocyte production. But there are tests for that. And if you presume that there are undetectable EPOs out there, then blood doping becomes irrelevant anyway.
Still, having said that I don’t see an easy way to beat the passport, my experience in computer security tells me that there is always a loophole.
tom
The bottom line, for me, is Kohl’s comments actually make sense, unlike the various press releases and propaganda from McQuaid and the gang. Kohl’s statments illustrate how omerta continues to function even as the testing regime improves. Finally, Kohl seems more credible in light of the fact that the statements of other whistle blowers have been proven correct, and that these whistle blowers were castigated in the exact same way by the exact same omerta stooges. Nothing demonstrates the lack of reform in cycling better than the fact that the exact same people (McLame, Verdrueggen, and the Saiz/Bruyneel/Riis dopage gang) are leading the sport as pre-Festina.
Thomas….either you have drunk too much cool-aid or you are being dishonest and you know better than what you just said. You’ve seen the evidence of the difference in climbing capacity between the dopers and the non-dopers…you have seen the results of every major GT in the past 15 years, which have been the exclusive province of dopers. Kohl’s statements aren’t shocking in the least…they simply underline what anybody who is paying any attention already knows. Finally, you have already brought up the whole Lemond TT thing and you know perfectly well that if you examine the particular course your little anecdote demonstrates exactly nothing.
Jean C,
Yes, and the reason why I included the word “counterparts”.
All,
CVV (4th on GC in the 2008 TdF) does not agree with Kohl, but is not suggesting he might sue him: http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews.php?id=riders/2009/interviews/christian_vande_velde_jun09
The French non-top 10ers can’t count and don’t seem to have much a a sense of humor.
Ludwig,
Would you mind naming the other whistle blowers and note how they were correct? Your statements just seem overly broad.
On the other hand, I think Tom was fairly specific. You didn’t address his points in your haste to be dismissive. Want to try again?
The TT course Fine is referring to was both short and flat, so you can’t compare that short of course to a long or hillly TT, thus his example illustrates nothing. In any case this discussion has already occurred numerous times (both here and on DPF) and Fine is well aware of it.
Other whistle blowers? Um, Manzano for instance–he illustrated exactly how doping worked well before Operation Puerto, and his statements were treated exactly as Kohl’s were by the exact same cast of omerta stooges–McQuaid, Millar, whoever the president of the CPA happens to be (Vasseur, Voigt, etc.). I’m sure you are aware of Jaksche. Sinkewitz. Dietz. D’Hont. Basso and Scarponi tried to speak out…but were promptly silenced. Add to that the legion of recently retired riders telling all. If you’ve been following cycling as long as I have a certain sense of de ja vu sets in–anybody who bucks omerta is always promptly castigated as a doper and a cheat who is only trying to rationalize his own actions…. this might have some capacity to convince if it wasn’t belied by so much evidence and the fact that McQuaid and co. have told so many lies over the years.
Ludwig,
Oohh, you’re a cycling fan of many years. Now puff out your chest and be self-impressed. There are many who are more than a match for you wrt cycling history and cycling trivia. Inflated ego much? And yeah, the TT in question was long enough to infer plenty. As a slim climber, LeMond should have been at a disadvantage on a flat course.
But hey, if you want to avoid the facts, take a tangential flier on the arguments at hand, and steer clear of Tom’s points on the difficulties involved in beating the bio passport, then feel free to rant away. The title of the forum indicates you are free to do so. Just try to be somewhat honest about your venting.
The bottom line for me is that Kohl is doing one of three things. He’s either 1) telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 2) telling some truths, embellishing a bit, and telling some lies 3) telling lies, all lies, and nothing but lies. Numers 1 and 3 are unlikely. I vote for number 2. All people lie from time to time and Kohl has considerable motivation to embellish his version of the events that led him to be suspended. Given that Kohl’s version plays to your theories, it’s not surprising you’d choose to turn a blind eye to the likelihood Kohl is not telling the full truth. I think the trick is to figure out which parts Kohl is telling the truth about and which parts he’s not being so truthful about. A clear picture would be much more instructive.
Kohl and your other cited “whistle blowers” are similarly conflicted, + or -.
As a cycling historian and trivia wiz, you, of course, know David Millar, does not share your love affair with Kohl:
David Millar of Team Garmin-Slipstream echoed these sentiments. “If he doesn’t want to come back to the sport like I have done, it’s because he is nothing without doping,” the Scotsman said. “You have to be a real a…hole to cover the new generation in dirt, saying it’s not clean! The older generations deserve to be criticised, but not the new one which works hard and has a lot of talent – contrary to Kohl.”
Source: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/jun09/jun11news2
But it’s not just Millar, your self-described omerta stooge. For reference, riders from the “clean nation”, French cyclists and the CPA are reported to be suing Kohl for his statements. Not to be outdone, Kohl is reported to be suing L’Equipe, claiming he never made the offending statements the French riders and the CPA are taking issue with. By your logic, Cédric Vasseur, Eric Bouvat, and the French riders are all omerta stooges because they are offended by statements Kohl is in the process of disavowing?
Now run along back to DPF and remind DLRay and Surftel they are panty wastes lacking the stones to set the record straight about the Jeff/Will issue.
Jeff,
Your constant stream of petty, personal attacks doesn’t reflect well on you–maybe that’s why someone concluded you were Will G. Stylistically and emotionally, you guys are quite similar. But obviously Rant refuses to reign you in–I guess attack dogs have their uses.
I don’t accept everything Kohl says (or everything Greg Lemond says) at face value…I’m only interested in the statements that ring true, and ring even truer in the context of the irrational reactions they provoke. Everything I have learned about cycling leads me to believe doping is widespread–in every nation. I may be overstating the problem–I admit that–but there is definitely more of a problem than Cedric Vasseur or David Millar or Pat McQuaid would ever be prepared to publicly admit.
It’s fairly obvious that Kohl’s comments are not good for cycling as a business enterprise, so it’s not surprising that Vasseur (CPA president=his job is to defend cycling and thus omerta) and others are angry about his comments. That doesn’t mean they are right and Kohl is wrong, that just means they are looking out for their self-interest. There is no easy answer to the doping problem. Just telling the truth about it won’t solve it. It will help….but it won’t solve the problem–only foolproof testing will. So I can understand why omerta is practiced. But omerta also has a destructive side. I think his loyalty to omerta hurt your boy Landis more than you and Rant would be prepared to admit–had he manned up and came clean his life would be very different now, even if he would be giving up a return to the top forever. But that’s another issue.
OK, a couple of people here need to step back from their keyboards and take a deep breath.
First off, I would prefer that comments avoid getting personal or petty. A couple of points: We may have different opinions on various topics, and we may bring different facts or examples to back up our opinions, but that doesn’t mean we’re being dishonest, or even “intellectually dishonest.” It just means we disagree and see things from different angles. Some people honestly believe their particular point of view, even if there are compelling arguments to the contrary. When they put forward their arguments, they aren’t being dishonest, even if others disagree with them.
I’m not a big fan of personal attacks, either. That’s one of the reasons I avoid participating in discussions on various sports and non-sports sites that I follow. I’d prefer that folks stick to the arguments being put forward, instead. That keeps the discussion on point and moving forward, rather than devolving into back and forth sniping.
And, Ludwig, for the record, when I think someone has crossed a line I usually “reign them in” via personal email messages, rather than in public.
Ludwig,
Pot, meet kettle. You’re black.
Actually, that’s far too much praise for me. In terms of a constant stream of petty personal attacks, I’d find it hard to compete with you, one of the masters, without benefit of ped’s. You only need to scroll upward on this page for but a few examples.
As for DLRay and Surftel, they deserve worse for their actions. If either had a backbone, they’d issue a retraction on both sides and apologize. Unless they are hit and run artists, they already know that. Even if only by coincidence, you are separated by only one or two posts on DPF, frequent both forums, and I figured you could make sure they know:
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=8371&pid=147873&st=40&#entry147873
Posts 43/44/45.
I’m glad you now don’t profess to accept everything Kohl is credited with saying. Your previous posts lead one to the opposite impression. Given that it’s hard to pin down exactly what he said (example: CPA on behalf of professional French riders is suing Kohl for statements he is credited with making that accused the top 10 riders in the 2008 TdF with doping. There are two rubs. The first rub is that there was no French rider to be found in the top ten of the 2008 TdF, so it’s hard to imagine the French riders having a legitimate gripe. The second rub is that Kohl is suing L’Equipe, claiming he never said what the paper has quoted him as having said about the top 10 2008 TdF riders doping.
You overstate Vasseur’s role and make unfounded assumptions about the mythical “omerta”. Your notion that foolproof testing will solve the problem is surprisingly naïve. Maybe you’ve been watching too many cop lab dramas on TV? Foolproof testing will never exist in a WADA approved lab. WADA standards don’t rise anywhere close to that level. If that’s what you are looking for, then lobby WADA to raise their standards and expectations.
Unless you are extremely lucky, it’s impossible to adequately begin to address a complex problem without knowing the basic truths of the matter. The current system makes a fair number of assumptions in line with yours and they seem to be doing a fine job. (sarcasm on the fine job point)
Testing that continues to catch riders doping might indicate the testing is adequate or that the rigged system is confident it can make the accusations stick, regardless of weather the athlete was actually doping, or not. Testing that continues to catch riders doping certainly indicates the system has failed to put into place adequate disincentives to dope, if the testing results are to be believed. Either way, that indicates the alphabet soup doesn’t have a firm understanding of the root of the problem (along with the eradication of doping in sport and protecting the health of the athletes being demonstrable gibberish) and that’s the crux of the problem itself.
What hurt Floyd Landis was a corrupt system that circled the wagons to force feed us a pre-determined outcome. Even with all the sunshine Floyd provided to illuminate the corrupt process, even the addition of industrial strength chlorine would fail to clean up the foul stench of the soup that sought to bring him down.
Your vision of “omerta” is completely out of proportion to the reality of pro cycling. These same guys can’t begin to organize a rider’s union to protect their professional interests. You really expect this same revolving cast of characters can enforce a law of silence or a code of honor? There are some honorable riders, but you are accusing a group of guys, many under 5’ 10”, most less than 170 pounds, some with giant legs coupled with emaciated upper bodies, and seldom known to carry a firearm……with enforcing anything, much less a law of silence……..honestly? It’s more likely that is what LeMond’s bother-in-law was doing with his shotgun on that fateful day, and that isn’t likely.
And what was that skinny rider doing holding the record for a flat TT for ~15 years at the expense of larger and more powerful specialists?
Sometimes it’s better to stick with the facts and the reality and not with some interpretations that didn’t measure the environment of a specific stage.
That famous stage is well known becauce Lance attacked Lemond with it and failed his unfair “demonstration”.
Just revisit http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=414 where I explained the conditions of that stage:
The Stage 21 of 1989 TDF was not a circuit and was done with back-wind!
Lemond performed well, but it was not astonishing when we know that he had a serious advantage (2 sec/km probably) with the triathlete bar. see the result below.
21 Versailles-Paris, 24.5 km ITT
1. Greg LeMond en 26?57?
2. Marie à 33?
3. Fignon à 58?
4. Nijdam à 1?07?
5. Yates à 1?10?
6. Maechler
7. Wechselberger à 1?11?
8. Mottet à 1?16?
9. Beuker à 1?19?
10. Skibby à 1?22?
and
To be more accurate about Lemond’s ITT record, we just have to remember: just 24 km ITT, single way Versailles-Paris with back-wind, and a start at around 150m height for an arrival at around 50m on Champs Elysées!
All that points are easy to verify, since 1989 altitude are the same and for the wind everyone has just to look at video of that stage. Just go on youtube.
Before to tarnish a rider or someone I verify my clues. That is the normal way. Without doing that it’s difficult to stay credible.
Sigh.
Lemond’s record time trial was of course set on a shortish time trial with a tailwind and other favorable conditions. This is perfectly normal.
When Chris Boardman beat his record in 1994 it was in a sub-10 km prologue, and it generally isn’t counted as bettering his record for that reason.
When Zabriskie beat the record in 2005 it was on a 19 km point-to-point with a tailwind for most of the trip too.
There have been lots of short time trials and prologues in the TdF since 1989. It’s perfectly reasonable for such a record to stand for 15 years until favorable conditions lead someone else to better it. Actually, given the subsequent wide-spread use of aero-bars, and the known significant benefit from this technological doping, it remains an impressive feat that his record has stood for this long.
So, if you are making the claim that doping kicked in, and suddenly everyone was faster and the non-dopers couldn’t keep up, then even a favorable-condtions record should not stand for 15 years. It should not take similar favorable conditions to beat the original record. The doped up athletes who are head-and-shoulders above the non-dopers should be able to beat Lemond’s record in less-than favorable conditions, or on a longer time trial.
But it never happened. This to me is strong evidence that the overall performance of the peloton has remained much flatter than some want to believe.
There’s a number of different conclusions you could draw
from this. Perhaps Lemond was doping during his 1989 TT. Perhaps the changes in the peloton in terms of how much people dope are exaggerated. Perhaps the benefits from these doping techniques are exaggerated.
tom
Jean C,
WRT the ~15 year old ITT record, I was reacting to this post from Ludwig:
“The TT course Fine is referring to was both short and flat, so you can’t compare that short of course to a long or hillly TT, thus his example illustrates nothing. In any case this discussion has already occurred numerous times (both here and on DPF) and Fine is well aware of it.”
Try not to take it so personally. I’m actually more inclined to believe, than not, that LeMondgot his record in the ITT honestly. I’m also more inclined, than not, to believe the subsequent breaking(s) of his long held record was done honestly.
That the record being broken was not, in and of itself, an indication of doping in the peloton at large, or even the riders breaking the record(s) specifically, is well explained in tom’s post.
I’m well aware of the facts wrt LeMond’s setting of the ITT record and recall your previous post on the subject. You’ll get no dispute on the parameters you cite for the event from me. I honestly don’t know where to go with the post from Ludwig that I highlighted here. His post seems contradictory and also seems to cast LeMond in a bad light, whether that was Ludwig’s intention, or not. I contend the ITT record illustrates plenty and stand by that contention.
Rant,
I’ve been following your blog for a long time, and you should be aware there are more ad hominem/personal attacks here in any thread involving a controversial subject than you would encounter on the average cycling message board. This has to do with the fact that certain posters are allowed to post whatever nasty and personal attack they feel like, as long as they don’t offend the core posters who are already in agreement with each other. Right now, Jeff routinely attacks anyone who posts any dissent–before it was Morgan Hunter. Either way, I’m all for substantive discussion, but if a troll attacks me I will either respond or walk away. The better decision (routinely made by better people) is to walk away, so if you want to raise the bar here it would be a good idea to reign in the source of the squabbling. Not everyone (indeed, virtually no one) has as much patience and forbearance as Jean C.
As for my insinuation that Fine is being intellectually dishonest–I concede I have no explanation for why he would post here among like-minded folks if he didn’t believe what he was saying, so I apologize on that count. But nonetheless I feel that if an intelligent person follows cycling closely for several years, as Fine seems to be and to have done, and still believes doping isn’t endemic, than my best guess is there is an element of bad faith involved. But that’s only human. Hopefully after a few more years he will eventually come around.
Jeff,
Omerta is not as complicated as you are making it out to be. All it involves is not talking about doping in cycling and/or denying the extent of doping in cycling. But when people talk or threaten to talk–others do take action–make no mistake about that. If you don’t believe me, google names like Manzano/Basso/Andreu/Lemond/Simeoni….omerta enforcement is real and there is more than enough evidence available on the Internet to establish that. Beyond that….. farewell, I’m done conversing with you. Good luck in all your endeavors.
Thomas and Jeff,
I agree with you, Lemond’s ITT record is as you said a strong evidence of Lemond’ doping.
So now, what can we say of Lance’s record and Landis’ ?
Of course, they were doped with no doubt, people able to produce 20% more than a doped Lemond who had already a strong natural advantage on them with his VO2max better by 10%.
Ludwig,
Thanks for your words.
As French I (h)ate Americans, and just above I just said that all Americain TDF winners were doped.
But I still think one was not, or just a little, when the 2 others were using blood doping like many of othersof their contenders.
Ludwig,
I’ll grant you that there are times when some comments on this blog skate right up to the edge of the inappropriate and there are even times when a few have gone beyond. That pretty much happens everywhere, no matter how well one polices the comments. Since I’m the only person who administers this blog (though now I get help with content from strbuk), it’s on my shoulders to keep an eye on things. When I get busy at work, sometimes I can’t keep that eagle eye that I’d like to.
I’m a bit surprised about the remark regarding the relative number here versus on other forums. In my own experience, I’ve seen quite a few comments on controversial subjects at the DPF that come right up to the edge of appropriateness, too. Perhaps it’s in one’s perspective.
As regards bad faith, I think you’re overstating things a bit there. Most commenters here readily admit that doping occurs in cycling. I can’t actually think of anyone who’s suggested that doping doesn’t occur in cycling. The question isn’t whether it occurs, but the relative frequency.
Some see evidence that it is, as you say, endemic. Others see anecdotal evidence that certainly suggests that, but no clear proof or reliable data to back up that assumption. And for some of those, while they’re willing to admit doping occurs, they’re unwilling to take a position on how widespread it is, due to the lack of certainty. I would put Tom in that latter group of people. I don’t doubt that he believes doping happens, but I do think he’s of the opinion that the amount of doping that happens is uncertain. That’s not bad faith, that’s just a different point of view.
Jean,
Somehow, I don’t think you really “(h)ate” all Americans. Just as not all Americans “(h)ate” the French. (BTW: The person I ride with on a regular basis is a former French Olympic-calibre speedskater. He’s quite the strong cyclist, as it happens, and an all-around nice guy.) In my particular case, however, you’d have two nationalities that you might find disagreeable. 😉
Really Ludwig,
Your version just doesn’t reflect reality. Here is just one quick example:
On 5/16/09, over on DPF, Steve in ATL shut down doping forums for several hours as an object lesson to encourage/enforce that DPF posters keep doping discussions within the doping forums. There was a bunch of griping and moaning that deteriorated into personal attacks on other forum members
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=8428&st=0
Check out post #21
Here is CAMPYBOB’s humorous defense of himself:
CampyBob (borderline convict, future gun-nut holed up in cabin shooting at the ATF)
convict? not hardly. i hold a class 7 federal fiearms license and pay the SOT (special occupation tax, as a licensed manufacture and seller of machineguns up to and including .50 cal. BMG).
future gun nut? since age 10. 46 years ago.
shooting at the atf? no, i don’t think so. they have my fingerprints, color passport photos and the combinations to my safes. beside, one of their compliance division agents that audits my corporation is kinda hot.
in this country you can do things legally and dot every i and cross every t or you can do 10 years in club fed. there’s no bicycle training facilities in club fed, so i make damn sure i walk the right side of the line.
as far as doping in cycling goes, keep putting me firmly in the ‘i don’t give a fook’ catagory…other than lmao at the terminally concerned, which provides me with hours of laughter and entertainment.
and as far as insults go, i can give as good as i get and i normally just ignore the morons, but the trashing of vp and ali has gone far beyond obnoxious and the moral equivocating of the issue just spotlights the criminally stoopid.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can assure you, Rant Your Head Off is a much more cordial forum. YMMV.
I am sorry you were offended by my writings. Seeing as you are determined to leave, I will bid you a polite good bye and, for your own safety, ask you to please take care not to let the door hit you on your backside on the way out. Please also remember to take your marbles.
Please Jean C,
Neither Tom nor I said LeMond doped to achieve his ~15 year long ITT record. You read English well and know that. The example was an illustration that exceptional performances don’t automatically indicate doping was involved. It’s pretty much that simple.
Even though French was her native language, she lived in North America, so my girlfriend from Quebec doesn’t count as an example of how I don’t hate French people. I’m hoping you don’t actually hate Americans. I did love a woman from France once. Nah, come to think of it, that was at least twice.
All,
In all seriousness, I would 100% welcome if WADA approved labs had the ability to produce fool proof drug/dope/ped testing. I’m sure many here would. I’m even more sure most of the athletes wish that were a possibility/reality, especially a few who have already been sanctioned. Nuff said for now. I’m going to run along and enjoy the rest of my birthday. Chow.
For a number of years, there have been accounts about high school athletes using steroids. One line of evidence was the fact that HS athletes, especially football players, were much bigger than in the past. When I was in HS (graduated in 1964), it was very rare that any HS player was over 200 pounds in weight, and this was in urban/suburban San Diego County, so it can’t be chalked up to small schools. But now many HS have linemen whose weights are similar to what college athletes, and even NFL players had in the 1960s. Good evidence that something is up, right?
Well, a few years ago in Texas, they passed legislation allowing the University Interscholastic League, the controlling body of public HS competition, to conduct drug testing. While the results indicated there was a relatively small problem with recreational drugs, marijuana and the like, steroid and other PED use was almost non-existance.
I seem to have missed commenting on Ludwig’s “omerta” rebuttal yesterday.
I don’t find “omerta’ to be at all complicated. It’s just a falsehood that it could possibly be occurring in pro cycling at anything approaching the fanciful levels Ludwig imagines. It’s perhaps practiced in small and limited circles, but is certainly not a problem that is systemic in nature.
The nature of people is that few can keep a secret. There are hundreds of pro cyclists at the top level at any given time. (some notorious gossips) Over the course of just a decade, there are thousands who have been pro cyclists, at or near the top. Even if all were properly motivated, the odds that nearly all could keep their mouths shut are astronomically low.
The theory that there is an “omerta’ conspiracy in the peloton just doesn’t make practical sense. With so many riders at so many sub levels, there just isn’t any particular unity of motivation or purpose within this diverse group (multiple nationalities, various languages, a variety of cultures, sprinters, climbers, all arounders, many different teams, even more different sponsors…) to buy into such a program.
Even if it were possible to get some consensus, there needs to be a draconian penalty for violation if such a hypothetical conspiracy has any hope of success. Regardless of where “omerta” occurs, the code of silence needs to be enforced. Off the bike, racers have a reputation for being lovers, not fighters. They are also physically and economically ill equipped to either enforce a code of silence among themselves or to hire a more physically equipped group to do it for them. “The Killer” is an exciting nickname, but off the bike, DiLuca would be hard pressed to frighten your average high school girl’s lacrosse player, much less some of the cyclists who fill out shortly after retirement. A few of the larger riders are known to be relative teddy bears and are seldom much larger than your average Joe walking the streets.
I don’t need to google. I know what they have had to say. None is exactly pure of heart it terms of motivation and you’ve provided five names from eras that included at least ten thousand professional cyclists.
“Omerta” is an unworkable fantasy as it relates to the professional cycling peloton. It’s also a cheap shot at a hard working group that implies most are involved in a criminal enterprise. That’s a highly inflammatory and prejudicial stance to take. Some might call it bigoted?
I will say this – Thom Fine makes no effort to hide his name or his occupation, and he’s been very honest and forthright with me when I have called on him once or twice with questions.
I think if you want to drop any pretense to an “omerta” situation here, you can all start by revealing your names, locations, and occupations. Everyone here knows mine (even Greg and Betsy).
I am, however, all for attempting to keep the dialogue more “up”, and I invite Ludwig and Jean to continue their efforts to educate and enlighten us. I DO appreciate the discourse, even though I’ve become more preoccupied with enhancing performance through, well, training, than through what some claim to be the ‘real’ reasons behind standout performances.
Love you all. Seriously. Keep it up.
R Wharton,
No “omerta” from me, I use my real first name and the blog owner here knows my identity. I’ve made myself fully available, with real full name, on other internet sites and it’s just not worth my trouble with the trolling and spamming nature of the medium. Couple that with Elizabeth and LeMond seeming to be anxious to become litigious, and again, it just doesn’t appear prudent. I also don’t want to talk to either of them via telphone and certainly don’t want either of them to tape our hypothetical conversations without my knowledge or consent. However if everyone would agree to use their real full names and we can solve the trolling/spamming/litigate at the drop of a hat problems, then I’m in. God bless you for being able to manage or be tolerant of the drawbacks of full disclosure.
As for Ludwig, I welcome his counterpoint. However when he complains, “there are more ad hominem/personal attacks here in any thread involving a controversial subject than you would encounter on the average cycling message board”, especially when he is a frequent poster at DPF, a forum containing numerous egregious ad hominem/personal attacks (very easy to catalog and I’ve already provided an example), then it’s hard to take him seriously. Like CAMPYBOB over at DPF, I’m ready, willing, and able to give as good as I get. If Ludwig seeks to position himself as a senior authority with final say on subjects that include: cycling history, cycling trivia, lab standards, blood vector boosting, the effects of testosterone related to endurance athletes, and so on – then he should be prepared to be challenged. There are plenty here and elsewhere who can go toe to toe with Ludwig, or do better. I’m usually quite careful to limit my insults to disparaging the argument, rather than the individual. On rare occasions I slip and on other occasions I’ll take a minor jab if someone first attacks me and not my argument. On a personal note, if Ludwig treats me with respect, then I will happily reciprocate that respect. I’m guessing others feel similarly on that point.
On the subject of omertà, I think of omertà as being the code of silence, or the code of honor that members of certain types of groups (criminal organizations, for one) swear themselves to on becoming members. Usually, there is a threat of some sort of reprisal/punishment/consequence for violating that code. Wikipedia gives the following as part of its entry on omertà:
Within cycling, while individual teams may have organized (whether team-sanctioned, or only unofficially sanctioned) doping programs. Within cycling as a whole, however, there is no one central doping program that all cyclists go to, and there isn’t one code of honor associated with such a program.
Cyclists, professional and amateur, are not a very organized group. Witness the lack of a real riders’ union to represent the riders’ interests. But there could be a fair amount of peer pressure on various teams or within various circles to keep silent. I doubt that it rises quite to the extreme that the Mafia supposedly does, in terms of speaking out. Each cyclist has his/her own motivations for staying silent about whatever they may have witnessed or participated in. Mostly, I suspect, it has to do with one’s own economic well being. One doesn’t generally bite the hand that feeds.
But, as we’ve seen, some are willing to speak publicly. Again, they do so for whatever reasons or motivations each might have. The refrain that “everybody is/was doing it” sounds more to me like a person’s rationalization for succumbing to the temptations of doping, however. It’s all too similar to any cheater who gets caught cheating, no matter the venue (school, sports, business, etc.). Sometimes it’s true that everyone is cheating. More often, though, it’s not the case.
Anecdotally, we hear stories like what Laurent Fignon’s forthcoming book, We Were Young and Carefree, supposedly tells. Fignon’s view is that everyone who was racing in his era was doping — which has some interesting implications for certain individuals. At least two of his contemporaries would take issue with Fignon’s point of view: Greg LeMond, and LeMond’s nemesis/rival Bernard Hinault. I don’t doubt that some racers in every era raced clean, and some cheated. As in all sports.
What I don’t see, however, is that there is any actual code of honor amongst cyclists, one that they have to agree to in order to compete as a pro. Whatever silence exists probably comes from self-interest, and whatever the true depths of the problem within the sport remain unknown. Does doping exist? Absolutely. The only question is, is it as rampant as some claim? I’m afraid we’ll never have a definitive answer.