I’m guessing this post is going to stir a few people up. Judging by the reaction that I saw on the Twittersphere on Sunday, you might have thought that Alexander Vinokourov’s victory at Liège-Bastogne-Liège was the beginning of the [[End Times]] for the sport of professional cycling.
To recap, Alexander Vinokourov tested positive for blood doping at the 2007 Tour de France. He “retired” for a year, and served a two-year suspension (originally a one-year suspension, imposed by the Kazakh cycling federation, extended to two years on appeal by the UCI and WADA to the Court of Arbitration for Sport). His team at the time, Astana, went through a major personnel change — both riders and management — but was still kept out of the Tour de France and other races put on by the Amaury Sports Organization the following year. By most accounts, Vinokourov is unapologetic for his past.
But he has served his time. So he’s entitled to come back into the sport and race. (And as one of my Cat 1 friends would say, “Why race if you’re not trying to win?”)
As Vinokourov told reporters following the race:
“I served my time. I’ve been suspended for two years but I’ve turned that dark page. I don’t want to talk about that subject once again, it’s behind me now. Now there’s a Vino without doping.
“Since last year I’m back at a high level, after being out for two years. The hard work in training paid off, proving that thanks to hard work it’s possible to win too. I wanted to prove that I deserve the confidence from you, and the crowd. Winning here is a bit of a revenge for us.”
There are those who would prefer that once convicted of a doping offense, athletes would be permanently banned from competition. But those aren’t the rules right now. Once Vinokourov, or any athlete, has served out a suspension for breaking sporting rules, they have the opportunity to return to competition. Assuming that they want to, and that they can gain the fitness to be competitive again.
There are, no doubt, skeptics who wonder about how the Kazakh rider came back into form. What his training techniques might be. In time, we’ll find out. If he’s not racing clean, he will eventually be busted for doping again. If Vinokourov is racing clean, perhaps he really has learned a lesson from the past and has moved on.
Speaking of learning from the past, regular reader Austin Cyclist passed along this link, which recounts an incident in 1996 involving one Levi Leipheimer. Seems that Levi served a three-month suspension for having ephedrine in his system when he competed (and won) the USCF Amateur Mens Crit Championship that year. Joe Papp dug up this bit of history to point out that Taylor Phinney, who made some negative comments about Vinokourov on Twitter, perhaps should direct those same comments at his “pseudo-teammate.”
(It should be noted that Papp doesn’t offer any evidence that Leipheimer doped following the 1996 suspension. Whether Leipheimer’s infraction was intentional or not, perhaps Levi learned to be more careful in what he ingested following that three-month “vacation.” Through a couple of channels, I’m seeking a comment from Leipheimer. Not sure I’ll get one, however. But if I do, I’ll update this post.)
Papp offers up this sample of young Phinney’s Twitter comments:
O, the idealism of youth -- Rant
I’m no fan of zero tolerance (you could even say I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance). Doping is most certainly against the rules. And there are prescribed punishments for being caught. But it seems as though the media who cover sport, and the fans, have a few rules of their own. One is that they want to see people admit their mistakes, maybe cry a bit, and swear up one wall and down another that they’ve learned their lesson and they will never, ever do such a heinous thing again.
Without admitting he doped, Vinokourov says a whole lot in the statement:
Now there’s a Vino without doping.
Which sort of implies there once was a Vino with doping, doesn’t it? Not exactly an apology. Kind of a left-handed admission, in his own way, though.
But be that as it may, Vinokourov did serve his time. He trained, came back to competition and he appears to be pretty fit, however his fitness came about. If he’s cheating, he’ll get caught again. Until then, one can be a skeptic or not, but the only way his victory would be a detriment to the reputation of pro cycling (is that even possible, given the sport’s past?) is if he’s found to have doped in his victory on Sunday — or sometime shortly afterwards.
Vinokourov’s victory doesn’t strike me as sending a bad message to future cyclists — assuming he doesn’t test positive. It seems to me it sends the message that it is possible to come back from a suspension and still compete. But maybe that’s the point of those who wish he hadn’t won. Perhaps they believe that Vino’s victory implies a message that the risk of being caught is an acceptable trade-off.
Vinokourov’s example may or may not speak to younger cyclists in that manner. But his circumstances are more the exception than the rule. Very few cyclists have a team that was specifically put together as an avenue for their efforts. (Astana, the team, was formed and funded to keep Vinokourov racing in the wake of Operación Puerto’s fallout, after all.) On this side of the pond toils another high-flying cyclist brought low by a doping scandal. While Floyd Landis is racing for OUCH-Bahati, Vinokourov may be plotting a Giro victory (an attempt, at least) or even a repeat of the Alberto vs. SomeOtherGuy drama of last year’s Tour de France. But for those who get caught in the clutches of the anti-doping machine, Vinokourov is more an exception than the rule.
The lesson of Landis’ adventure in anti-doping land is quite different. And for most athletes, his return to competition is the more likely path after coming back from a doping scandal. There are those (David Millar, I’m looking at you) who manage to get back to a high level team. But for those who do, it involves either giving the public the pound of flesh they want, or having backers who built a team for you beforehand and are willing to take you back. For everyone else, the road back from a doping scandal is long, winding, and not nearly as glamorous as racing in the big leagues. And that’s a whole different lesson to learn.
One thing to keep in mind, that was a long time ago. Levi has accomplished alot, is a great role model, and one of my favorite cyclists. Even if he did indeed dope back then (keep in mind, this was Joe Papp posting this info, and he is a horses ass in every way you can imagine), there is no indication LL is doping now or recently. But at the same time, in the same way some folks are found guilty with overwhelming evidence of innocence.. some folks we “really really” want to be squeaky clean.. aren’t perfect..and do have some history we probably don’t need/want to know about.. which just makes them more human..
Rant, I do not support doping. But I support cyclists that pay the heavy price when they are caught. (Floyd is another case..as I “love” him) . But I liked Vino, and still do. Hell, I like Jan Ullrich…anyone remember him? If Vino is clean…he doesn’t have to worry about being caught. People make mistakes and bad choices, the should not be executed for it. If that was true, not many people would be on planet earth!
I’m with Theresa, and who’s to say that over the next few years Vino won’t become every bit the “role model” Levi is purported to be? From what I remember he was pretty popular with the fans, press, and other cyclists.
Everyone deserves a second chance, even those who still regularly trash Floyd and others who have “served their time”. Well, MAYBE those folks deserve a second chance, at least I’ll bet THEY think they do (even if they think others do not ;-)….
str
AC,
Quite right. It was eons ago — even before Levi Leipheimer’s pro career began — that the incident occurred. As far as I can tell, he’s been clean since. Nobody’s perfect, and perhaps Papp’s post illustrates that. There’s a type of intolerance that runs among those who throw the “doper” accusation around, like Taylor Phinney did. And, it belies a belief that the tests are perfect, the anti-doping system is perfect, and no one gets caught unless they are doping. None of that, of course, is true.
Theresa,
No disrespect intended towards Vino, just so you know. He was, and is, a great cyclist. I’m a firm believer in “if you did the time, you can be back on the starting line.” Mistakes and bad choices shouldn’t be an automatic disqualifier from returning after a suspension. It appears Vino made some mistakes in the past. Who hasn’t? Like you said, if making mistakes was a capital crime, the human population of this planet would be quite small.
I’m concerned by the intolerance towards those who made mistakes, or those who’ve sat out a suspension after a false positive. Woe unto those who are quick to point fingers, lest the finger some day points at them.
Personally, I’m sort of tired of the demands that those who test positive for PEDs must “confess” and through confession, seek some sort of redemption. If someone feels the need to confess, fine. But if someone prefers to not confess, even to maintain his innocence, so be it. There’s nothing in the WADA or UCI rules at presence that requires a confession in order to be reinstated after serving a suspension.
I am also conflicted about the idea of a reduced sentence for someone who confesses or at least doesn’t challenge an A sample. On one hand, I can see the real world possibility of someone who did indeed dope thinking about challenging a result, based on the idea that the testing might be flawed in some way. Kind of rolling the dice he might be able to get cleared and avoid any penalty vs. getting the full 2 years. Reduce the latter possibility and maybe the doper won’t be so tempted to mount a challenge, saving time and money for WADA. One the other hand, what if someone is truly innocent, mounts a challenge but doesn’t succeed in getting an acquittal? Should he get in effect an additional penalty for exercising his right to his day in court?
I have less trouble for someone who gets consideration for providing information about others doping and/or those who facilitate doping, provided that any allegations are corrobrated sufficiently to reduce if not eliminate the possibility of someone concocting a story for the purpose of getting a reduced sentence, or to take down a rival.
Guilty or not (I usually have some percentage of doubt, given WADA World’s high handedness), Alexander Vinokourov served his suspension. It’s been pointed out that there is nothing within the applicable sporting rules or WADA Code that requests, much less requires confession.
Increased testing of athletes returning from suspension seems logical and has been generically promised by various ADA’s. Vinokourov has stated he has been the subject of ~30 doping controls, most OOC, so that would appear consistent.
“Since my comeback I have been the subject of more than 30 doping tests, all negatives, including 21 in the context of the ADAMS. This allows me to validate my biological passport and therefore to race.
“In Tenerife, where I had my recent training before the Tour of Trentino that raised the indignation of some journalists, I was subject to two unannounced blood and urine tests in two weeks.
“I can’t do more than what the sport regulations ask me, to prove my honesty. Today, I only wish to be respected as I respect everyone, my colleagues in the peloton as the journalists. I don’t want to be the only and too easy target for all the ills of cycling. ”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vinokourov-fights-back-against-the-press
The bottom line is that Vinokourov is 100% eligible to race. He raced to win at LBL and won the race. Journalists and fans don’t get to pick which rider wins a race. It’s not a popularity contest. Deal with it.
WRT Levi L, Taylor Phinney might be forgiven for twitting while stupid? First, it’s a virtual requirement. Second, Mini Phinney is 19 and given his age, certain portions of his brain are still developing. Phinney is quite a talent and does his best talking with his legs. He could also take a lesson from how events played out with Tom Zirbel.
I hesitate to even put his name in print as he seems intent on milking his 15 minutes of infamy, but here goes. Joe Papp is a very average guy with very average talent who chose to concentrated those average talents on cycling. That he was able to establish a low level professional career in cycling by concentrating his efforts is not much of a surprise. That he doped in an attempt to enhance his low level professional career is also not much of a surprise. That he was caught is also unremarkable. That he interjects himself into other people’s business where he has no direct knowledge and that people actually listen to him is idiocy or perhaps a LeMondism (and that’s no compliment). Did Levi not serve his suspension? It happened decades ago, Get over it.
William makes several on target points in his post. However, the whole reduced suspension thing didn’t work out well for Kopp:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-extended-kopps-ban-by-a-further-year
In the meantime, Valverde, the man in semi-limbo, who can’t race in Italy, wins Romandie. All in a day’s work in WADA World. It would be hard to make this s*%t up.
“(It should be noted that Papp doesn’t offer any evidence that Leipheimer doped following the 1996 suspension. Whether Leipheimer’s infraction was intentional or not, perhaps Levi learned to be more careful in what he ingested following that three-month “vacation.” ”
My point exactly. Just like there is no evidence that Leipheimer doped after his 1996 suspension, there is no evidence that Vino has doped since his return to competition. Ergo, how can one be a cheater and not the other (given the lack of evidence)?
Levi’s suspension was some 14 years ago, and occurred before he was well known. He served his time and the issue was more or less forgotten. Certainly this is the first I have heard of this. What effect, if any, this will have on him remains to be seen.
Vino’s bust at the TdF occurred in the context of the biggest race in the cycling calendar at a time when doping was at the top of everyone’s interest, due to the Landis affair.
Also, it seems that perhaps there is some question of whether or not Levi was deliberately cheating or merely took something without knowing what the contents were. Ephedrine a fairly common ingredient at the time and it isn’t to far a stretch to think Levi might have taken some cold medecine/decongestant containing it. However, Vino’s use was almost certainly an attempt to gain an illicit advantage.
That being said, both men have served their time and should be allowed to race unless and until something else is “proved”. WADA certainly could decide to increase the length of suspension, but even if it does, such should not be imposed ex post facto.
In other news:
Franco Pellizotti, Jesus Rosendo Prado, and Tadej Valjavec are the subject of a request for disciplinary proceedings for suspicious data related to their respective bio passports:
http://in.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idINIndia-48192620100503
Guilty or innocent, I’d be much more impressed if the news was not released just prior to any of the Major Tours. YMMV.
Re: Franco Pellizotti, Jesus Rosendo Prado, and Tadej Valjavec, here is an interesting quote attributed to a UCI communique:
“Each rider mentioned above shall be accorded the right to the presumption of innocence until a final decision has been made on this matter. Under the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI is unable to provide any additional information at this time.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/05/news/uci-pellizottis-passport-abnormal_114258
When, where, and why are the UCI claiming a “presumption of innocence”? It’s not true. Misdirection, purposefully lying, or farcical PR spin? You decide……
Sounds like PR spin, at the very least, to me.
Both Tadej Valjavec and Jesus Rosendo Prado have proclaimed their innocence and offered an explanation for the suspicious bio passport values. Franco Pellizotti also claims he is innocent. Pellizotti says his bio passport values don’t indicate doping.
Valjavec claims an illness caused skewed his bio passport values and that a team doctor failed to forward a certificate regarding his illness to UCI.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valjavec-claims-innocence-in-biological-passport-case
If this is the case, it would seem fairly easy to verify with the team and team doctor, unless the team doctor is covering his arse. Even so, there should be a trail. If Vlajavec is telling the truth, it would seem unforgivable that his team has suspended him, DS has spoken badly of him, and that the AG2R has already announced he will be fired. If the rider is telling the truth, the team should be taking his side and doing their level best to make things right with the UCI and the media. On the other hand, if the rider is lying, he’s perhaps getting better than he deserves?
Either way, Valjavec seems to have a clear understanding of his likely fate when he says, “My sporting career has ended.”
Rosendo claims his “suspicious” blood readings are a result of hemorrhoids. The statement says: “Between these dates the only blood test result that we can define as abnormal was the one taken on April 20, 2009, which showed haemoglobin and haematocrit levels were very low, suggesting anaemia as a result of bleeding that the rider had suffered on April 8, 2009, due to haemorrhoids (the UCI has a medical note confirming this bleeding). For this reason, the level of reticulocytes increased. As well as the medical note already mentioned, the rider also presented statements from haematology specialists who confirmed their confidence in the normality of this clinical data.” http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rosendos-blood-readings-due-to-haemorrhoids
If true, it’s damning of the UCI’s procedures for declaring a violation related to bio passport readings. It’s also well less than cool that racing fans and those that follow the trials of the UCI and WADA World, would now know more than we need to about a gentleman cyclist’s backside. Just sayin….
On behalf of Pellizotti, Professor Giuseppe Banfi, one of the leading Italian haematologists, suggested the UCI experts had mistakenly interpreted the values.
“Pellizotti’s values are very stable and the variations cannot be linked to fraudulent sporting behaviour,” Banfi told La Repubblica. “A reasonable explanation for the values could be a loss of liquids.” It would seem Pellizotti has a team of medical experts and attorneys working for him. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pellizotti-insists-he-is-clean Regardless, he’ll miss the Giro. That’s a shame if he didn’t violate WADA Code.
There is sure to be much more to the story. I’m left wondering how riders can be compensated if, on the off chance miracle, they are found not guilty of violating the Code???
Jeff,
Sorry your comment got trapped in moderation for a bit. Not sure why that happened. I’m afraid this trio is screwed, regardless of whether they’re innocent or not. I’d also say it would take one hell of a miracle for any of them to convince a panel hearing their cases that they didn’t do what they’re accused of — innocent or not.
How could riders be compensated for wrongly being punished? First the system would have to admit that they had punished them without reason — or be forced to admit that, as a result of some legal proceedings. But let’s say they managed. How does one put a price on a ruined reputation and defunct career?
If the riders and their experts are correct, then the biological passport program has some serious weaknesses that need to be addressed and corrected. What are the chance that will happen? Minimal, if past cases are any indication.
I’m in heaven. I adore Vino and I don’t care who knows it. It was a damn sad day for me when he announced his retirement and I was thrilled when he came back. That particular constellation of ability, aggression, and brains doesn’t come along very often; plus, he was the dishiest thing on two wheels. (No, I have the highest respect for all cyclists, truly, but watching cycling was way more fun when there was scenery to admire besides the Alps, the Pyrenees, and Bernard Hinault.) Now Vinokourov’s on terrific form, he’s being tested to within an inch of his life, he’s running his own team and appears to have excellent relations with Alberto Contador (I didn’t think that was humanly possible), and Prudhomme has said that if Vinokourov desires to participate in this year’s Tour de France there will be no objection on the part of the organizers. I don’t have a problem with that, do you have a problem with that? well, I don’t care to be lectured by those who do.
Speaking of the Versus coverage, to me cycling’s not a party unless Phil & Paul are making the call, but I turn on Flèche Wallone and L-B-L and find that Phil and Bob are taking a back seat to Murky Dismal and his Cloud of Gloom, a/k/a Jonathan Vaughters. Hey, Versus, when I want Jonathan Vaughters’s opinion, I’ll ask for it (or I’ll just buy a cycling magazine, any cycling magazine, any month of the year), but when I’m trying to watch a race I would appreciate some actual race commentary IF IT’S NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE. I wonder what Radio Shack thought of that. Unlike Garmin, Radio Shack makes ad buys on Versus, and about the only mention they got during L-B-L was when Vaughters wondered how someone as old as Chris Horner could manage to win a hard race like Pais Vasco. Whether or not he meant that as a dig, it sure came out like one. Lance! Johan! He’p!
I miss Jan Ullrich too, Theresa. Can we discuss him sometime, Mr. Rant? You never read about him in the English-language cycling press, but he lives quietly in Switzerland, he’s married, he now has two children, he participates in charity bike races and dabbles in auto racing, and the UCI is trying to take away his Olympic gold medal from 2000. It would be interesting to see what they can come up with in the way of evidence, by which I mean, no it wouldn’t. Two points. First, the UCI crowd appears to have a lot of free time on their hands. Second, they can’t have considered the implications of their actions. When the IOC takes back a medal, everyone below moves up a step on the podium. And the silver medalist in the 2000 Olympics road race was . . . oh, let’s not always see the same hands. It was an all-Telekom podium, with Vinokourov second and Kloeden third. I’m to understand the UCI really wants to go there? actually, that would be pretty funny, but I think Vinokourov and Kloeden have too much character to consent to trade up.
Look, there’s very little doubt in my mind that Telekom/T-Mobile’s strategy pre-Stapleton often came out of the lab. (Goodness knows their tactics on the road were risible at best.) If that shocks you, then you have obviously never been in a college class with East Europeans. They simply didn’t look at it the way we might; the Soviet bloc system was so impossible that what we might call cheating was the only way to survive. I’m happy there’s a concerted effort to stamp out experimental chemistry and endocrinology in cycling, but that’s more because I worry about the health consequences to the athletes than I care who got to raise his hands crossing the finish line.
I have difficulty understanding the priorities of some of these people who follow cycing. For example, take the case of Patrick Sinkewitz. All anybody remembers about him is that he used a testosterone gel a month or two before the 2007 Tour de France and his own team discovered it that July, but who remembers how he left that race? He was riding his bike down from the mountaintop finish at Tignes when he crashed into a spectator. Sinkewitz broke his nose and lost his front teeth. The spectator, an elderly man, went into a coma. Both had to be airlifted out to a hospital. Sinkewitz eventually recovered, although his career took a permanent hit, but I never heard another word about the spectator. This to me is much more significant than who’s been shopping for medications of questionable efficacy over the Internet, and the first person who tells me I’m morally undeveloped or quotes Carol Gilligan’s “In a Different Voice” to me is gonna find *his* nose and front teeth broken. I’m right and you know it.
By the way, it wasn’t Sinkewitz who caused T-Mobile to withdraw its sponsorship. At the time, a lot of people thought it was George Hincapie. As the reasoning went: George was Lance Armstrong’s lieutenant, Lance Armstrong beat Jan Ullrich, anyone who beat Jan Ullrich must have been doping, and anyone who helped Lance Armstrong beat Jan Ullrich must have know about it, so when T-Mobile hired George Hincapie . . . . If you can get your head around that piece of folly, you’ll be a long way toward understanding the German mindset and why professional cycling to this day is in such sad shape in that country. As we now know, T-Mobile pulled out because the news about the medical division of the cycling team was just about to break. Oops!
Liggett Junkie,
Vino says he hasn’t reconnoitered the key climbs, so much at the Giro will be new to him. Still, I’d expect some aggression. He’ll liven up the proceedings.
Here’s another vote for Phil & Paul. JV can be an excellent analyst, but colorful commentary isn’t his strong suit.
I suspect that teams may not be as willing these days to defend accused riders and will tend to fire them as soon as possible. This in large part is a consequence of the attitude towards doping that I have discussed previously: “doping and dopers are the lowest form of life and must be eradicated at any cost.” Considering the chances of an accused rider actually clearing his/name and all the “fellow traveler” type of innuendo or downright accusation, there is little incentive for a team to defend a rider. Indeed, the incentive is to dump the rider as quickly as possible.
William,
Your post makes perfect sense when an organization, which is primarily interested in maintaining/expanding the power of its bureaucracy, is happy to put aside such niceties as simple human decency, a search for the truth, and due process in order to achieve their real vs. stated goal………
We see it as sport, but in reality it’s a business, and (to those that run it) the important thing is the bottom line. The real purpose of a cycling team is to provide the sponsor with publicity, and these days the old saying “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” is no longer true, at least in this context.
William,
I think I understand the business aspect? However, what we have here is a situation where multiple, and somewhat related, regulators have gone into business for themselves. If sponsor X wants to enjoy the benefits afforded the sponsor of a professional cycling team, then sponsor X must play by the rules created by the multiple regulators. This is true even if it means casting a valued rider, innocent of a doping charge, out on his own. It creates an environment that discourages sponsorship because sponsors may end up having to disavow a valued rider falsely accused. The reality being the charge is a 99 44/100% foregone conclusion. At first blush, cycling looks like a relatively high return for low investment sponsorship proposition compared to more expensive sports. The uncertainty about realistically being able to protect one’s investment makes the bet less attractive. The regulators have conspired to misappropriate business that rightly belongs to sponsors.
Hi Jeff! A lot of guys could win, but from what I could see back when I was able to watch the Giro . . . it seems like just yesterday. In fact, it was yesterday. This morning Comcast tells me WCAU is blocking their Universal Sports feed . . . but I digress. Anyway, Astana was riding perfect. Stay near the front, don’t get gapped, don’t fall down, hop on the front and slow things down at a dangerous corner, fall back during the sprint finish — textbook Armstrong/Bruyneel tactics. They could win.
At least Vinokourov is no longer the worst thing that ever happened to cycling. That was a whole 3 weeks ago. He was supplanted by Mark Cavendish, who was replaced by Franco Pellizotti, and if it’s Monday, it’s someone else’s turn. My nomination: the Giro’s parcours designer.
With strong competition from the UCI. Taylor Phinney referenced this link:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/453798/further-changes-to-olympic-track-cycling-hit-sprinting-nations.html
Note the reader comments: cycling fans demand drug testing of UCI officials. Presumably not the performance-enhancing kind. I’m in!
Liggett Junkie,
Sorry about the WCAU/Comcast/Universal Sports block. There are some other alternatives:
http://www.steephill.tv/giro-d-italia/
Scroll down the page for info/links on live video streaming of the Giro. Hope that helps.
I have to agree with you. The Giro’s parcours designer must have taken lessons from Nascar at Talladega to effect the crash fest seen on the early road stages?
I’m all for drug testing of UCI officials. WADA officials, too. They should also be subject to the requirements of the whereabouts system. You know, just to try it on for size so that they know firsthand the consequences of their regulations. Were they to try them on, regulations would likely be much more rational. But, in a “Do as I say, not as I do” climate, it’s not going to happen. I was critical of mini Phinney for recently tweeting while dumb, but he’s on target here. The UCI’s proposal to eliminate some of the fastest sprinters from competition earns them the comment of reader Daniel Sibley, “UCI = Utterly Clueless Idiots!”
I think you are good writer, keep us posting
Businesses of all sorts treat people as “resources”, in much the same manner as materials and equipment. They’ll get rid of anything and anybody for any reason if they see/think it will benefit the bottom line. Heck, this even goes for public employees. I’ve seen schools eliminate older employees, often after years of loyal service. While the stated reason is often based on performance evaluations (which can easily be trumped up), the real reason is that older employees makes more money (higher up on the step-increase ladder), and can easily be replaced by a young person just out of college.
WADA exists largely because the IOC perceived that doping was devaluing their “brand value”. By extension, if you want to be an Olympic sport, you have to play the game and submit to WADA. Perhaps this is the real reason that baseball was de-olympicized, since MLB doesn’t play with WADA.
Hi William,
Aside from IoC/UCI cronyism, I’m at a bit of a loss as to why cycling strives to stay under the olympic umbrella. From my perspective, of all the cycling disciplines, track benefits most from from the association. The olympics are a big and important stage for the riders vs the rest of their circuit. For road racing, each Grand Tour, most of the Classics, the World Championship, and a few select other races are arguably more important than the “games”. In the past couple of decades, riders have been voting, in numbers, with their non-participation. Often, as with the WC’s, the course will determine a professional’s participation. When held in the northern hemisphere, riders often find it difficult to peak for the TdF and the olympic road race and/or TT. Still, others decline to participate regardless of the courses, ability to peak, or a plethora of other factors. For a good number of top tier pro road racers, the olympics are not worth the trouble as a medal is only an incremental boost to their commercial interests, and a failure to medal could outweigh the potential upside for success. MTB doesn’t need the olympics. Same issue with courses as road. They seldom compete near the main olympic venue anyway. BMX really doesn’t need the olympics.
If track cycling benefits most from olympic association, and given the gutting that track cycling been on the receiving side of lately (see Liggett Junkie’s reference above, for one cite), and given cycling’s status as WADA’s go to whipping boy, why in the world does cycling stay under the evil empire’s umbrella??? There does not seem to be any “brand value” for cycling by remaining associated with the olympics.
Jeff:
I agree with you, cycling has little use really for the Olympics. At one time, here in the US (and perhaps other countries where cycling had little following), the Olympics served as a “reason” for supporting cycling, whether this support consisted of the cops closing off a couple of blocks for a crit, or building a velodrome, or whatever. But cycling now has enough presence in the US that this is not the factor it may have once been.
But how can cycling disassociate itself from the Olympics/WADA without appearing to be going soft on doping? Perhaps the idea might be to promote the idea that WADA is not competent to deal with doping, at least doping in cycling. After all, WADA deals with all Olympic sports, and the extent that they deal with, say weightlifting, is that much less they can deal with the whys and wherefores of doping in cycling.
And back to the thread’s topic:
I didn’t anticipate Wiggins would make this much sense. Damn!!! (In a good way):
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-loses-four-minutes-after-giro-crash
“People ask me all the time, ‘How do you race with these guys? Why do you not spit at them?’ but you can’t do that,” Wiggins said to Cyclingnews.
“It’s only bike racing, and it’s actually the system that fails us as athletes. It’s not really their fault (that they come back), it’s the system’s fault that allows them to do it. As long as they’re allowed to race, what are we supposed to do? You have to race with them and treat them like anyone else, as rivals on the road. They’re human beings, they’re allowed to race. You can’t blame them for wanting to come back, wanting to race and make money.”
“Until they test positive, you have to accept the results they achieve. Otherwise it just makes everything a mess. Steve Cummings was 25th at Liège – Bastogne – Liège but all people were taking about was Vino and all the past winners of that race that have had troubles. But what about the riders who were up there? All that talk demoralizes them.”
“If someone beats me in the Tour but I finish up there, I don’t want it rubbed in that they might be doped. As far as I’m concerned, they’re clean and getting on with their job. That’s the way you have to deal with it.”
Jeff,
Wiggo makes a bit of sense (although I disagree with his point of view that once busted, a rider shouldn’t be allowed back).
As he said, it’s just bike racing. Once a person has paid the penalty for breaking the rules, the past is past. Time to move on, and time to allow the person to come back. For those who were guilty, we hope they’ve changed their ways. For those who weren’t guilty, but suspended anyway, they deserve a second chance even more.
Everyone,
Great discussion here. Thanks for keeping it going.
Liggett Junkie,
I like the thought of the UCI officials being tested. And, like Jeff suggested, the officials at WADA should be tested, too. They ought to experience how “the other half” lives. Might change their minds about some of their practices. Probably not, being true believers and all. But hope springs eternal.
Rant,
Yes, I should have flagged that portion too. Wiggins implying lifetime bans are in order for Code violations seems over the top. However, the thrust of the rest of his statements represents a refreshing turnaround.
If UCI/WADA officials subjected themselves to the same standards as they hold the athletes, I might be more convinced they are “true believers”? That sort of demonstration might even persuade me to become a true believer? What are the odds of that happening?
I am also conflicted about the idea of a reduced sentence for someone who confesses or at least doesn’t challenge an A sample. On one hand, I can see the real world possibility of someone who did indeed dope thinking about challenging a result, based on the idea that the testing might be flawed in some way. Kind of rolling the dice he might be able to get cleared and avoid any penalty vs. getting the full 2 years. Reduce the latter possibility and maybe the doper won’t be so tempted to mount a challenge, saving time and money for WADA. One the other hand, what if someone is truly innocent, mounts a challenge but doesn’t succeed in getting an acquittal? Should he get in effect an additional penalty for exercising his right to his day in court?
It’s sort of the same thing that goes on in criminal law with plea bargains — if you fully exercise your rights, the prosecuter can find some more charges to tack on. If you come to an agreement not to squirm too much, you can get “better” treatment. There’s pressure for an innocent person to take a deal that results in a misdemeanor conviction rather than the chance of a felony conviction. I don’t choose to go into the wisdom or fairness of this.
I will note a campaign sign near my house, where someone running for Sheriff says “Prosecuting criminals for 25 years”. Apparently he never prosecuted an innocent person, so if he prosecutes you, you are a criminal, so take the deal.
TBV
An ambiguous tickler from CyclingNews:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-drug-revelations