On Friday, Bjarne Riis, the winner of the 1996 Tour de France, admitted that he used EPO during the 1990s, including during the 1996 Tour. Riis is just the latest in what seems to be a quickly growing list of cyclists to admit to having a dope-tainted past.
In just the last week or two, two doctors from the T-Mobile (formerly Telekom) cycling team, and a number of riders who were members of the Telekom team in the 1990s have owned up to using banned substances. This last week, Erik Zabel and Rolf Aldag both admitted to using EPO and other drugs. According to a story at CyclingNews.com, T-Mobile will stay on as sponsor of the team through at least 2010.
Zabel, who currently rides for the Milram team, will learn over the next few days what action the team make take, in light of his admissions. Aldag spoke to Bob Stapleton, the manager of T-Mobile, and has offered to quit his job.
“Two weeks ago, Rolf Aldag offered me his resignation,” the American continued. “We have worked very closely over the last year. He has never wavered or compromised on his commitment to clean sport.”
“Can he still lead the team? I have asked our athletes about how they feel about team management. Many of them said that Rolf Aldag was the reason they were here. That is very important. They resoundingly said that he should stay and that he has their full and complete support.
“He and I still have some issues to resolve, but I intend to continue to work with him. He has my support. Rolf is part of the past, but he must be part of the future, too.”
Of course, Riis is the big news, being the first recent Tour winner to admit to doping.
“The time has come to put the cards on the table,” said Riis. “I have done things which I now regret and which I wouldn’t do again. I have doped. I have taken EPO. For awhile, it was part if my everyday life.”
Riis went on to say:
“My yellow jersey is in a box in my garage at home. You can come and collect it. What matters to me are my memories.”
Of course, other Tour winners in the past have spoken about doping in the peloton. Jacques Anquetil in 1967 said:
“I dope myself. Everyone [who is a competitive cyclist] dopes himself. Those who claim they don’t are liars. For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants … Since we are constantly asked to go faster and make even greater efforts, we are obliged to take stimulants.”
And Fausto Coppi, when asked if he had ever used dope, told one interviewer, “Only when necessary.” And how often would that be? “Almost all the time.”
As you can see, doping in the peloton, at the highest levels, is nothing new.
Pat McQuaid says that because the 8-year statute of limitations has run out, the UCI will not strip Riis of his Tour title. But Christian Prudhomme would like to take Riis up on the offer to return his yellow jersey.
Other riders embroiled in doping allegations include Ivan Basso, who has admitted to being involved in Operacion Puerto, but said that he merely intended to dope during the 2006 Tour, but that he hadn’t done so. Jan Ullrich currently is being investigated by German authorities for his involvement in the Spanish doping investigation. Recently, his DNA matched the DNA in nine bags of blood seized as part of the investigation.
So where does this leave the world of professional cycling? And what till happen to the people admitting their pasts? The UCI says that they won’t strip Riis of his 1996 Tour title, but it’s not clear what will happen to Zabel, who races for Milram, a team based in Italy. Given his admission, it’s quite likely the Italian team will let him go. Aldag will retain his post at T-Mobile.
And apparently, Riis’ sponsor CSC will stay on as the title sponsor of his professional team.
There are those who would like to see all people involved in doping ejected from the world of professional cycling. With as many riders as may be implicated in Operacion Puerto, and the riders and former riders who have begun to come clean about their pasts, booting them all from pro cycling could well decimate and destroy the sport.
Perhaps it’s time to have a sort of amnesty for all those who are willing to come forward and admit their past. Sort of a court of reconciliation for the cycling world. Those who come clean will be forgiven and allowed to continue with the sport. And those who don’t, but are caught from this day forward will be subject to harsh penalties.
But before doing that, some changes need to happen to the anti-doping system as a whole. The Landis hearings have exposed a number of problems with the anti-doping system that need to be fixed, for the good of the sport — and all sports. One thing to change is the approach to justice. The rights of the athletes must be well established and well guarded. A mere allegation should not be enough to destroy a person’s future.
As has become all too obvious, the science behind the testing needs to be solidified. If there’s an arbitrary cutoff value for something, below which a test is negative and above which the test is positive, then research needs to prove that this is the correct point where a performance advantage begins. If not, the test needs to be refined or scrapped.
And those who do the testing (at least at LNDD) need to meet higher standards of competence and training. Consistent and clear standards must exist, and must be the same at all anti-doping labs. A positive result at LNDD must also qualify as a positive result at UCLA or in Australia or Canada or Lausanne or in any other country.
And the list of banned substances should be based on actual research that establishes a performance advantage for a given sport. If a substance doesn’t do anything, then it should not be banned. Case in point: Joe Papp, in his testimony, claimed that low dose testosterone helped him recover better. But Dr. John Amory testified that there is no research to back up such a claim. Papp may have experienced the placebo effect. He thought it would help, so it did.
Since there’s no proof that low dose testosterone boosts recovery (though it does cause some behavioral changes, as Steroid Nation notes), perhaps it shouldn’t be banned. The list of banned substances should be specific to each sport — even though that may make the labs’ jobs harder. It makes no sense to ban someone for using a drug that has no benefit in their sport, but might in another.
Reader Susie B asks what impact all these confessions will have on the Landis case? Well, in one sense, not much. It’s up to the arbitrators to decide. With any luck, they will stick to the facts of his case, and not base their judgment on the actions of others (including the bone-headed phone call made by Will G.). But in the public’s eye, it just reinforces the idea that everyone accused of doping, like Floyd Landis, is guilty.
Most people, I suspect, have already made up their minds on that issue, at least as it regards Floyd Landis. And I’m afraid that most people haven’t taken the time to look into the story and figure it out for themselves. They base their opinions on the sensationalized salacious stories printed and broadcast by the mainstream media.
The biggest impact will be on those yet to fall into the grubby mitts of the anti-doping system. As more and more cyclists come clean (a good thing, in my opinion), the mainstream media’s coverage will continue sensationalize and make cycling look like a dirty sport.
Thing is, despite all the admissions that make doping in cycling look rampant, cycling is cleaning itself up better than some of the bigger pro sports in this country. It will be a long, long time before pro cycling shakes the bad image that’s been built up over the years, I’m afraid. But maybe someday, it will.
Wow, well thought out and written. This needs to be published on opt-ed pages of newspapers like the New York Times. I’d recommend you submit it to them. The general public needs to be reading this sort of commentary, not just the cycling fans who are following the Floyd Landis case.
Rant – It seems that the ‘Fans’ in the DPF are calling for everyone’s heads, including Lance’s. Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’? I still find it frustrating that if you rely on “Tell” but no “Show”, then you can get away with character assasination or career damage. And I’m still convinced that the science being used to catch some of these high end cyclists is suspect. I’m not happy about the rumors, and I’m not happy about the lies and cheating, but somewhere along the path to enlightenment, we have to stop and remember that proof is required, with or without a confession. And as long as there’s no proof that Lance doped (concrete, trial-worthy proof), and as long as the ‘proof’ that USADA threw up on the screen in Landis’ trial (and Hamilton’s, and maybe even Heras’) remains of minimal quality, then I’m inclined to side with the athletes and against the haters.
Someone needs to stand up to the McCarthyites and yield some proof. Otherwise, the sport is going to be hounded by suicides like Pantani’s, where he could never get out from under the cloud of suspicion, and eventually died of depression AND drugs, which he may or may not have been involved in partaking prior to the hounding.
I also blame the press for their cursory research, reprinting of thin rumor, and failure to look into the institutionalization of drugs in sport, rather than making the athletes the perpetual fall guys.
Call me naive, but there is blood on the hands of the haters and naysayers as much as it is on the hands of those who dope or attempted it.
Ken,
Thanks for the compliment. This blog is an outgrowth of some op-ed pieces that I submitted to several newspapers back in August. Unfortunately, they didn’t get picked up. Maybe someday a mainstream paper will pick up some of my writing. One can always hope.
RW
I agree, there’s certainly a lot of telling, but no showing. The naysayers need to offer up some real proof to their positions, rather than just throw muck on people and see to whom it sticks. A large part of the MSM have been very lazy in their coverage of doping, merely running rehashed stories from other places, failing to do their own research into the issue. That’s how a lot of misconceptions spread. Both the naysayers and the dopers bear responsibility for how things stand — the naysayers for their vicious attacks and smear tactics, and the dopers for bringing cycling and other sports into disrepute.
– Rant
I wonder what process the arbiters use to come to a conclusion. Do they work together or do they consider the ‘facts’ separately or in sub-groups. Do they get the help of WADA employees? Are they trying to make the facts fit their predetermined conclusion?
Will,
Good questions. That part of the process is pretty opaque to me. Perhaps once the decision is rendered, we’ll be able to figure out how it was done.
– Rant