Towards A New Future?

Dick Pound said something so utterly amazing on Friday that I needed the entire weekend off in order to really digest its meaning. Well, not really — as far as the weekend off goes. But he really did say something that came out as almost — what’s the word I’m looking for here? — reasonable. A New York Times article (registration may be required) tells us:

Cycling’s drug problem has become so messy, Pound added, that it might be time to grant riders and team officials, both past and present, an amnesty in exchange for their complete testimony about doping.

“It sounds like doping is just so pervasive, that may be the only practicable solution,” Pound said.

Yes, indeed, it may be time for a general amnesty, and a truth-and-reconciliation commission to bring the true extent of doping in cycling out into the open for all to see. If such a thing were to happen, here’s my guess: When the dust settles, we’ll find out that it’s both more and less than what we expect. Those who believe only the very occasional desperate low-level pro cyclist (ala Joe Papp) dopes will find out that there’s more people involved in doping than just that. And those who believe that anyone clad in lycra and spandex cycling kits is a doper will find out that not everbody dopes.

But for such a system to work, there has to be an incentive beyond just a get-out-of-sanctions-free card. Why would anyone own up to their own past misbehavior in the current climate? Bjarne Riis, owning up to his use of EPO, has been erased from the Tour de France’s official history, unlike other riders from the more distant past who admitted that they doped. The difference? Doping wasn’t illegal back in the times of Jacques Anquetil or Fausto Coppi. Still, there seems to be a small element of hypocrisy to removing Riis’ name and not others who doped — whether it was legal or not.

Even Pat McQuaid has taken to pointing this out. From the same New York Times article, McQuaid is quoted as saying:

“[The Tour de France organizers] need to be consistent and less hypocritical,” he said. “[Bjarne Riis is] not the first winner of the Tour to admit to using drugs.”

While Riis is the first rider to acknowledge using drugs to win a specific Tour, other winners have generally admitted to doping. As a result, McQuaid said that the Tour organizers should also strike out victories by such stars as Fausto Coppi and Jacques Anquetil from decades ago, even though drug testing did not exist at that time.

Of course, in 1996 no test existed for EPO, either. Having seen how Riis has been treated by Tour organizers, what incentive is there for other riders — including those who’ve won or been on the podium for a major race — to come forward and clear their consciences? Right now, I’d say the incentive isn’t there.

To give these devils their due, both McQuaid and Pound seem to be taking some baby-steps towards what could be the ultimate solution to the problem of doping in cycling. And perhaps for other sports brave enough to follow cycling’s lead, should such an amnesty occur.

But beyond the amnesty, there also needs to be a change to a more rational anti-doping system. Drugs and techniques (like blood doping) that confer an actual advantage to riders should be banned. But only those drugs and techniques that can be demonstrated scientifically to boost performance. Which, of course, means more and better research needs to be done.

So if no research can prove that low-dose testosterone patches speed recovery from hard training or racing efforts, testing for their use is a waste of time. Look instead for the things that do matter. Where it gets tricky is that some things help in one sport and hinder performance in another. But a rational anti-doping program has to look at each sport, individually.

A one-size fits all approach to regulating or banning doping in all sports only works well for the testing labs, who can standardize their testing procedures across all sports. But the purpose of an anti-doping program is not to make life easy for a lab technician, it’s to ensure a level playing field for the athletes. And that requires a more tailored approach. Sure, if it’s really that much easier for the labs, test for everything.

But when it comes time to analyze the data, look only at those things that are specific to a sport. So maybe testosterone is something that needs to be banned among weightlifters, but low-dose testosterone is something you ignore among cyclists. The point is, the effort needs to be focused on the things that really have an impact, whether in the gym, the pool or on the bike.

And once anti-doping tests are rationalized, it’s time to look at the quasi-judicial aspect of the system. All systems ever designed by humans are prone to errors. It’s just that simple. Whenever a person has to analyze something — whether it’s translating a book from one language to another, or whether it’s making sense of raw data — there’s an aspect of personal judgment involved. In the case of translating a book, it’s a matter of how best to express the author’s concept as written in the original. In the case of raw data, it’s in understanding how to approach and understand what you’re looking at. Either way, it can boil down to a judgment call.

Given that all systems are error-prone, the test of a quasi-judicial system like the anti-doping system is how it deals with the problem of a potentially innocent person caught in the cross-fire. Checks and balances need to exist, to ensure that a corrupt, out-of-control process doesn’t railroad the innocent. That may mean some concessions in how athletes accused of doping are treated. Changes which may mean that the occasional guilty person goes free.

Given the judicial nature of anti-doping proceedings, athletes accused of doping should have the same rights to see any and all evidence against them, including evidence that the prosecution has that may help the defense. Better yet, perhaps, would be to make doping a criminal offense. By doing so, we would to ensure that those accused are actually dealt with in a true judicial system, rather than a cobbled-together system clearly stacked in favor of the prosecution.

The science, testing and judicial aspects of the anti-doping system must be above reproach. There should never be talk of an agency’s “win-at-all-costs” mentality again, as such a mentality should be banished to the trash heap of history. In the end, limits must be placed on the power of the anti-doping agencies, just as limits exist on the police agencies and justice departments of democratic governments.

And the cost for an athlete to defend himself or herself needs to be considered. Sure, the athlete has a choice in their legal representation, and to that extent has some control over how much is spent. But the recent Floyd Landis case has shown just how much money it takes to fight a doping charge. How many cases have been resolved, and how many innocent athletes have taken sanctions, owing to the prohibitive expense associated with challenging the ADAs?

The goal of an anti-doping system is to level the playing field, and to ensure fair competition. The system, itself, must be fair in dealing with those accused. Until a better system can be put together, trying an amnesty approach won’t do much to resolve cycling’s problems. The athletes need to believe in the system, and to believe they will be treated fairly by the system, before they will come forward to tell their tales. We owe it to them to put that kind of system in place, whether or not athletes who’ve doped in the past are given amnesty.

Dick Pound may well be right that an amnesty is necessary, and Pat McQuaid is right that organizations need to be consistent in how they apply sanctions and rules. But something else is needed, too. And that’s a system that the athletes, themselves, believe in. The current system has all the hallmarks of one imposed from the rulers upon the ruled.

History has shown that those ruled like to have a say in how they are ruled. Or to put it another way, “No taxation without representation.” Pat McQuaid and Dick Pound may be showing the first signs of getting it. If so, they need to push hard (or perhaps we need to push them hard) to get the right kinds of changes in place. If not, there may be a bit of a tea party in their future.

What does the future hold? Hard to say, but today’s news says that the UCI will be meeting with the 20 ProTour teams ahead of this year’s tour. Speculation is that at the meeting, teams will be told who can and can’t ride due to the on-going Operacion Puerto mess. A better result would be for Pat McQuaid and Dick Pound to stand before the group and start a real discussion on how the system can be changed for the better, and how cycling’s credibility can be restored.

We owe it to the athletes to have a system focused on the here and now, rather than obsessively focused on outing dopers of the past. What’s done is done, whether races were fairly won — or not. It’s time to move forward.

Much as I’d like to see that happen, the skeptic in me wonders if that’s too much to hope for.