Last week I received an email from a radio station out west interested in doing a show on doping in sports, and more specifically why cyclists seem “susceptible” to doping. Interesting idea for a discussion. The show didn’t happen, but why let a good topic go to waste.
If I understood the premise right, the discussion was to focus on the question of why doping seems to be endemic in the world of cycling, and not, say, in the world of (American) professional football or baseball or basketball or other big-time sports. While we certainly see the occasional doping scandal in those sports (think BALCO, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, for example), those scandals seem to be less frequent than the constant parade of stories about yet another cyclist caught imbibing one form of rocket fuel or another.
Even just the stories where someone accuses a cyclist of doping seem to be more common than similar stories in other sports. Or are they? At first blush, it certainly seems that way. Although, if one were to count up all the stories related to BALCO and compared the number to all the stories about Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton or even allegations about Lance Armstrong, I wonder which would come up with the bigger number.
I’m guessing BALCO, though that might seem counter-intuitive. With BALCO and its progeny, there have been allegations against not just major league baseball players, but also track stars, and even a few in other sports. On the subject of BALCO, cyclist Tammy Thomas was found guilty of perjury in 2008 for lying about steroids use.
And then there’s the question of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, both of whom were using performance-enhancing substances during their home-run shoot out back in the late 1990s. While the supplements they were using weren’t specifically banned by major league baseball at the time, they were clearly searching for a certain type of edge. The same search that’s common to all high-level athletes (and not a few lesser athletes, too). Some do it within the rules, some skate as close to the line as they can without going over the edge, and some will cross over and break the rules.
More common in cycling? No, I don’t think so. What’s different, though, is the amount of testing that goes on in professional cycling. Professional baseball and football players can count on being tested a few times during the season. Cyclists (and track athletes and a number of other sports subject to WADA rules) can depend on being tested any time, anywhere, in season and out of season, in competition and out of competition.
And the more you test, the more you find. Yes, doping in cycling is an almost time-honored tradition, but don’t for a minute think it’s any less of a tradition in other sports. It’s human nature for athletes to be seeking methods to gain an advantage on their competition, whether that’s through training, nutrition, sleeping in altitude chambers, using various electrolyte replacement drinks during and after competition, and even though chemical means — both licit and illicit.
Steroids have been a part of professional football for almost 50 years now, and part of baseball for at least 40 years. Before that, athletes in both sports used amphetamines. Back in the late 50s, a doctor in New York sparked one of the very first serious investigations into performance-enhancing drugs by claiming that the four-minute mile couldn’t be broken without using amphetamines. The result of that study (which looked at running, swimming and cycling) did find a small performance benefit from using amphetamines, enough to make a difference between winning and not. At about the same time stories appeared that alleged that several Australian swimmers used amphetamines at the 1956 Summer Olympics.
With the advent of blood doping in the 1970s, and later on synthetic EPO around 1990, endurance athletes (and even some non-endurance athletes) have taken to using this newer form of performance enhancement. With EPO, cyclists and others were already using the drugs before they actually came on the market, having somehow managed to divert drugs for clinical trials to their own use.
Yes, a large number of suspicious deaths occurred in the early 1990s among professional cyclists, who had not yet learned how to use EPO safely. But others were using the drugs, too, and have been since. Cross-country skiers, biathletes and track athletes, among others.
So why do we hear so much about doping in cycling? As I said above, the more you test, the more you find. Perhaps it’s the nature of all endurance sports that athletes will try whatever drugs can give them a performance boost, especially those that can increase their endurance — like EPO, as well as old-fashioned homologous and autologous blood doping.
Cycling, in some ways, is an extreme sport. Professional cyclists at the top of the sport can expect to be racing for up to 6 or 7 hours at a stretch, going long distances, day in and day out. (Side note, Paul Sherwen mentioned during this year’s Tour that back in the 1980s when he raced the Tour, some stages took up to 10 hours.) The demands of other sports are different. Football, baseball, and — to some extent, basketball — are more about explosive power, short bursts of speed, and strength. The drugs might be different, but there are definitely athletes using. They just aren’t being tested as much, so they’re not caught as much.
Heck, there are stories of high school athletes using steroids, although you don’t often hear of juniors in the cycling world being busted for doping. What does that prove? Nothing, except that drug use in high school sports is occurring to some extent. And given that cycling isn’t a varsity sport in most high schools, one could argue that the doping problem is worse in football than it is in cycling just because of how young the players start using drugs.
So, why are cyclists more “susceptible” to doping? They aren’t. But because cyclists are tested more often, it stands to reason that they’re caught more often. And that’s why it appears that cyclists dope more. Best guess: They probably don’t dope in greater percentages than any other sport. Appearances, as the old saying goes, can be deceiving.
Tonight’s parting shot
Someone at a certain Fox News affiliate must be a bit thick in the head, having republished an article about Lance Armstrong that appeared on The Onion’s web site earlier today. I’m not sure if the Fox News affiliate is trying to add a humor section to their web site or whether they just didn’t get the joke. My guess is that someone didn’t realize it was a joke. All of a sudden, even fake news can become real.
Then again, as Tom Fine points out in a comment, it could well be that the Fox web site was hacked. A hacker with a sense of humor, to be sure.
Hi Rant,
I poked around on that Fox affiliate, and I’m pretty sure that the website was hacked. The parent directory for that article looks like a stub that was under development but never released to the public. I also couldn’t find where this article was linked in to the home page (although Google found it). Someone probably found a security loophole and uploaded the article.
tom
Interesting. Thanks for the info. Someone’s got a sense of humor — diabolical or otherwise. Must’ve been one of those famous cyclists who are hackers in their spare time, eh?
😉
Fake news on fox? Really?
😛
all of fox news is a fabrication, small truths to support larger lies, with far more sinister intentions than a Mr. Armstrong or Landis.
Yeah, I must’ve forgotten, it is Fox, after all. 🙂
The Daily Show has more real news than Fox, and it’s whole premise is being a satire of the news.
I will admit that in a moment of “wanting” something to be true, the Onion “got me!!” It was funny, but not in the usual way…..I wanted it to be true! And maybe that’s why I forgot that the Onion was “made up” news. Lance will go to his grave never admitting anything….no matter what eye-witness evideince they have!
“The more you test, the more you find.” terrific insight beyond most of the media that’s looking for sensation.
Thanks, Lev. It seems obvious (at least to me) when one stops to think about it. Not much critical thinking going on in certain quarters these days, I’m afraid.
It’s sad that sensation is the order of the day … but sensation sells.
I’ve always wondered to what extent here is the US, the idea that cycling is high in the standings of drug infestation, comes from the idea that cycling is something that those crazy Europeans do and is not really an American sport. It has not been uncommon for sports writers to engage in bashing cycling: they wear weird clothes, have foreign names, and of course the local bunch of cyclists is out clogging up the roads around town. Such comments might arouse out ire as cyclists and cycling fans, but we are a small minority. Most people will tend to agree and not find these types of comments offensive. But if you start to attack typically American sports, you risk alienating a large portion of your readership.
Unfortunately, no sport has a good enough testing program to produce valid data on the nature and extent of drug usage. We can speculate: cycling speeds are up, so they all must be juiced. NFL linemen are significantly bigger than they were 20 or 30 years ago, so they all must be doing steroids. Home runs are flying out of ballparks, so batters must be doping up. Maybe and probably there is some degree of truth to these types of beliefs, but it is difficult to impossible to compare between either two different sports, or for that matter, between two different eras in a given sport. Did cyclists in the 90s dope more than, say, in Anquetil’s time? I certainly don’t know, and I doubt that anyone really knows.
I see Roger Clemmens is back in the news today. Lying to Congress…that’s a biggee! (at least that’s one of the charges he’s facing). Great post…I have always tried to defend cycling to the non-cyclists, who from the media get the impression that they’re ALL just a bunch of dopers (as compared to any other pro sport)…and I just point out all the testing they go thru. I believe if you took the same tests and frequency to, say the NFL, well…the teams would be rather small in short order cuz everybody would out on doping suspension. Just my 2 cents worth of course, no actual facts to back that up.
But I can say this: not THAT long ago, Refrigerator Perry (remember him?) on the Bears was a 300lb man and he was big news. Remember that 2 yard TD he floundered for in the Super Bowl? NOBODY was 300lbs back then…and now, all of a sudden, EVEYRBODY on the line is 300 PLUS lbs and runs the 40 yd dash like a scalded chicken. Is THIS natural human evolution? In just 20 years has the human species has changed that dramaticly? How are they getting THAT big and THAT strong all of a sudden? Help of some kind? I would suspect so.
And as you mentioned…it goes all the way down into High School. Look at some of the kids playing these days. Sheesh…they are ginormous at 16, 17 and 18 years old! But hey…it’s just the cyclists who are all doping, right?
A few years back, Texas implemented testing of HS athletes, as well as (at least in theory) others involved in extra-curricular activities sanctioned by the UIL, the state federation for public high schools in Texas. Although they found a number of students using “recreational drugs” like pot, there was almost no use of steroids or other PEDs. Now I don’t know how good the testing program was, considering that HS football is practically the state religion of the Lone Star State. But there was some feeling prior to this that steroid use was fairly common.
There certainly are other explanations for large HS football players. When I was in HS, weight training was unheard of; now it is indeed a poor school that doesn’t have a fully equipped weightroom.
One thing I wonder about is possible use of HGH by parents on young kids to make them larger. I certainly have heard that there are parents of kids predicted to be small using HGH (often with the cooperation of a doctor, so at least legal), but considering the emphasis some parents are prone to put on athletic success, could it be that they are using HGH pre-HS?
WS – the use of HGH by parents to make more “successful” children is reasonably well documented. See
_Is Taller Really Better? Growth Hormone Therapy in Short Children_ Douglas S. Diekema, perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 34, 1 Autumn 1990.
Wish I could give you a link to a pdf of it, but it is easily findable via pubmed.
Rant: here’s an interesting NPR piece on “the choice” athletes make:
http://liten.be//nZKMT
William,
True, once testing started in Texas high schools, they failed to turn up much evidence of steroid use. Not sure what that means, because I don’t know the details of who did the testing and how they did it. It’s possible that there is much less use of steroids than reported/rumored. It’s also possible that the kids learned how to beat the testing. Or something in-between (which would be my guess).
Barring a sudden attack of conscience by all the players/athletes in any sport, we’ll never know the exact extent of doping and other performance-enhancement techniques. My own guess is that there’s not much difference between sports. The temptation to cheat is the same, the rewards are similar (though not identical), and human nature doesn’t change just because one sport involves riding a bicycle and others involves running, or carrying a football, or swatting a baseball.
eightzero,
And that happened 30 years ago, that the one athlete walked away because to succeed meant using performance-enhancing drugs. Interesting, too, the comments about doping among masters athletes. It ain’t just the pros who care about how well they do, is it?
This just in: Laurent Fignon has died.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100831-two-time-tour-de-france-winner-laurent-fignon-dies-france-cycling-obituary
One more reason today to detest this PIECE OF SHIT.
I’ve got news for you; Floyd Landis did not kill Laurent Fignon. So far as I’m aware.
Once all is said and done.. if Ned Flandis Rock gets anything for the 30% deal, it should go back to the FFF folks..
Something like that, may actually change my opinion of him.. lets wait and see..
Old news: http://liten.be//54Zsf
Mr. Qui Tam in the news. Remember that federal law suit that was filed after Floyd’s adverse CAS ruling? It quietly went away? Perhaps we now know why.
For the record, I don’t have any problem with anyone making a truthful whistleblower claim. I do wonder what the FCA has to say about plaintiffs that also participated in the complained acts.
I imagine Novitzky’s interview with Floyd went something like this: http://liten.be//fLrlV
Complete with transcript now!
Hello everybody,
There is less clouds above Landis now, French Justice has dropped, for the moment, the charges against Floyd about LNDD hacking but Arnie Baker should be sued.
80:
I doubt that the fact that FL participated in the alleged actions is, in and of itself, any legal impediment. By the vary nature of whistleblower cases, it would not be uncommon that the blower had some degree of participation. However, there could arise the issue of credibility; however if there is any real case here, there would have to be more than just FL’s testimony.
Which to me leads directly to the heart of the matter: much of this case is going to be an “he said-he said” case. Landis and some former Posties are going to say that there was team doping, and other ex Posties are going to deny it. You can pretty much predict who’s going to fall in the denial camp: anybody who’s still active and/or is looking to extend his career in cycling, whether as a rider or in some other capacity. So this could hinge on how a jury perceives the credibility of various witnesses. I doubt that at this point in time there is any physical evidence remaining, unless perhaps there is some sort of documentation of doping. But at this point in time, any that existed has undoubtedly been destroyed.
Of course, there are those missing Trek bikes. There probably is some money trail that could be uncovered, but whether it could be traced to drugs is another question.
Professional Road Cycling has shown itself to be quite the circus with regard to it’s handling of testing and adjudication related to PED’s. When there is more money involved, you can expect the hypocrisy and double talk to ratchet up exponentially. The so called Reggie Bush scandal is a case on point:
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/09/07/report-reggie-bush-stripped-heisman-trophy/
First a little disclosure. I’m a caucasian male who is extremely reluctant to play a race card, even if it were “wild” in a cash betting game of cards. That said, the whole Heisman/Reggie Bush issue coupled with the general topic of NCAA sanctions smacks of elitism, if not outright racism. My personal experience with the NCAA was as an early ’80’s lacrosse player at a D1 school known for having a top lacrosse program. Having been fortunate enough to have been a scholarship player, I’m familiar with the general benefits and restrictions contained in the NCAA system. I don’t have many complaints with the NCAA and its regulations as they pertain to sports that are “revenue negative” (most college sports) or close to “revenue neutral” (lacrosse at programs with large paid game attendance and/or games televised). Scholarshipped student athletes in those sports function fundamentally as the general public perceives and the NCAA markets. That is, they receive some combination of tuition/room/board in exchange for representing their school in their chosen sport(s). It’s generally a fair deal for most involved.
It’s not nearly so simple when applied to “revenue sports” associated with big college basketball and football. The rewards are significant for schools who qualify for, as well as schools in athletic conferences whose fellow athletic conference schools qualify for basketball’s NCAA Tournament or football’s Bowl Games, especially BCS Bowl Games. The dollar amounts are staggering. While those staggering dollar rewards help pay for revenue negative sports and fund some extraordinary athletic facilities, they do nothing tangible to acknowledge that fact to the basketball players and football players, on whose backs that money was generated. It’s not a fair deal for the vast majority of the athletes involved. The schools and the NCAA reap rewards that are quantumly out of proportion to the rewards realized by the athletes. As a side issue, the NBA and NFL also reap disproportionate rewards. The NBA and NFL benefit from a farm system they have not paid into.
So where is the elitism, racism, or ethical problem? To answer that question, you’ll need to acquire some basic and historical knowledge about the racial and socio-ethnic backgrounds of the athletes involved in each NCAA sanctioned sport. It will also be important to understand the history and trends related to NCAA sanctions and the sports to which they are most often applied, and why. That has been the subject of many a scholarly dissertation, but I can give you the short answers:
*Revenue generating NCAA basketball and football programs are disproportionately represented by African Americans.
*Revenue generating NCAA sport programs are disproportionately more likely to be sanctioned for NCAA violations than non-revenue sports.
*Non-revenue sports tend to be disproportionately under-represented by African Americans.
*NCAA athletes backgrounds vary widely, however, revenue generating basketball and football programs are disproportionately represented by student athletes who can be characterized as coming from more challenging economic backgrounds.
*Children from wealthy families routinely benefit from athletic scholarships, more likely than not, in a non-revenue sport.
*The “perks” accepted by student athletes (disproportionately African American) that violated NCAA rules and triggerd NCAA sanctions were disproportionately provided by wealthy Caucasian men who don’t share, or share very indirectly/insignificantly in the pain of the sanctions.
Any you thought it was only professional road cycling that was so f&%ked up???
WS: You’re right, of course. Evidence will be key. And this time around, it isn’t the scientific mumbo-jumbo that “we used our experience” or isoteric reading of charts and graphs. This time around it may hinge on someone with nothing to gain or lose by saying “I saw these acts of doping and cheating.”
I found this cite from the False Claims Act:
“If the person bringing the action is convicted of criminal conduct arising from his or her role in the violation of section 3729, that person shall be dismissed from the civil action and shall not receive any share of the proceeds of the action. Such dismissal shall not prejudice the right of the United States to continue the action, represented by the Department of Justice.” 31 USC 3730 (d)(3)
No idea what “…arising from his or her role in the violation…” might mean.
80:
I’d say that is pretty clear: if FL were to be convicted for some criminal act in connection with what he claims went on, then he personally could not receive any money. If he was the sole plaintiff, then there would be little point in proceeding, if he had been convicted, but at this point in time, FL has not been convicted of any criminal act.
I guess we will have to let the judge use his/her experience to decide what that statue means.
Wait…what?
I have to disagree with your contention that cycling only appears bad because it tests more often. I think it is worse, for several reasons. One, the nature of the sport is highly dependant on physiology (vs skill). Two, and most important, self inflicted reasons; 40+ years of weak rules and negligent , if not complicit, leadership.
When other sports had agreed on chaperones for tests, universal penalites, and out of competition testing, at the latest, by 1988 at the First permenant World Congress on Doping, cycling had the race radio announcement of riders seelcted for doping plus 1 hour to do want you want before you show up to give a sample, 10 minutes penalty for a positive test for steroids in the Tour, and no OOC testing at the highest level until the passport. We were the reason for WADA being created and the second last to sign the anti-doping code. We’ve been dragged kicking and screaming to a semblance of serious doping control, and lo and behold, this years tour was heralded as the first in ages that was human. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-from-tourmalet-6wkg-anyone.html
Lister,
Honestly, are you trying to make a case that supports the notion that NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA players use fewer doping products/methods than professional cyclists because they are subject to more rigorous testing regimes? Maybe that’s not a fair comparison to cycling and we should look at sports with similarly weak/non-existant athlete’s unions like weight lifting, track & field, or cross country skiing??? The part about no OOC testing prior to the advent of the bio-passport is pure BS, and you should be well aware of that fact.