It’s been an interesting week in Rant-land. My wife and I spent the last week playing “hosts” to some of her Danish family, visiting the sites of a certain Northern California city and environs. Overall, it was a smashing success, with a few moments of frustration thrown into the mix. The biggest frustrations we ran into were with our air travel on the airline known (affectionately?) to many as Northworst. They earned their reputation this week, as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve traveled a fair amount, so I expect things to go wrong. But running into a canceled flight and a massive delay on the “replacement” flight (and that’s just in the outbound portion) is not the norm, in my experience. One massive thing that might go wrong, maybe. Two? Something’s not right. But at least they called and gave us a heads-up the night before that one of our flights had been canceled, and that we were being booked onto alternate flights.
On the return trip, another canceled flight and a rebooking. Good thing we got to the airport early this morning, Northworst didn’t even bother to let us know anything had changed for our return trip — and they had my cell number, so there’s really no excuse. (And neither did Orbitz.)
The time we got to spend with the Danes, however, was priceless. Wish I had more vacation time and a bigger slush fund so we could have spent more time with them. They’re off on their own now, headed towards Yosemite, Death Valley, Lost Wages, the Grand Canyon, and LA before heading up to San Francisco and then on a flight back to Copenhagen. It’s their once-in-a-lifetime Grand Tour of California.
So, we got back this afternoon, and there was a message from one of my co-workers. “I’ve got good news and bad news,” he said. “The project has been extended until the end of August. But we need you to go up to the corporate HQ on Monday and stay until Thursday evening.”
Nothing like coming home only to leave again. Oh well. At least I’ll get to sleep in my own bed tonight.
Zealots and Vigilantes
Having been on vacation, I’m not fully up to speed on all the developments in the world of Landis this last week. David Walsh is releasing another hatchet job on Lance, with Floyd thrown in for good measure, I hear. Proving once again that sensation sells — regardless of whether the sensational is also the truth. My copy of Landis’ book, Positively False, arrived while I was gone — about a week before the official publication date (Amazon realized they were missing out on some sales, I suspect). It’s going to be good reading material for my evenings for the next few days, I’m sure. And then there’s the little story about the UCI and the loyalty oaths that are being required in order to ride the Tour. Oops, I mean that riders are supposed to provide a DNA sample.
One of the more disturbing items I’ve found (so far) in my catching up on all things cycling is that the UCI actively targets riders who they suspect of doping, based on heaven knows what. Like training in “strange places wearing bizarre uniforms.”
Yep. That’ll do it every time. No word yet on whether the bizarre uniforms were jerseys adorned with Dopey, the Disney character from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
Here’s an idea: There’s these new-fangled things called doping tests. Perhaps riders who fail the doping tests should be investigated, rather than someone who just looks suspicious or trains in an unusual way. When the next big thing in training comes along (after pulse rate monitors, power meters and so forth), perhaps the people who use those techniques will be suspected of doping, too. Or would they be called innovators?
Chasing after people and putting them on lists before they’ve failed a test strikes me as more than draconian. It strikes me that those in charge have lost sight of the real goals.
Or as George Santayana said:
“Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aims.”
I’ve got a lot of catching up to do. Stay tuned, I’ll try to find a bit of time over the next few days to ramp up the ranting.
Hi Rant
Great site, I’ve enjoyed reading through some of your posts. Forgive me if you have covered this one in a post I have not read yet, but I was just wondering what you make of the general culture or perception of cycling as being a sport that is ‘infested’ with drugs. I hear you on the point of biased reporting, and I’m not in the USA (I’m South African), so I can’t comment on how your media has interpreted and presented the story, but my perception is that ever since the sport began, it’s been troubled with drug use.
Now that’s not to name specific riders, but with so much going on, with so much smoke, how reasonable could it be that there is not a doping problem in the sport? Because if that’s true, then one can almost understand the approach of the authorities, though I can’t condone hunting people down pre-emptively (I won’t go into other ‘pre-emptive actions’ that have been made in recent times).
And then as for the issue that guys don’t test positive – how much do you think that the whole BALCO affair of a few years ago should change our perceptions of the validity of drug testing? In the past, a negative drug test meant that one was not taking drugs. Today, it just means that they are not taking drugs that are detectable, as evidenced by the whole THG issue. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this one.
Otherwise, good reads, I’ll be back!
Kind regards
Ross Tucker (cape Town, South Africa)
Ross,
Glad to know you like the site. You’re right that since professional cycling began, doping has been a part of the sport. That’s pretty much true for all professional sports — or at least the ones that are honest enough to admit it. What’s changed is the public’s attitude towards doping. At one point in time, people assumed pros doped and that amateurs in the Olympics didn’t (not true, by the way, but that was the assumption). Amateurs were somehow more “pure.” In this country, and it seems in others, many have shifted their point of view to the belief that doping is cheating, regardless of whether you’re an Olympian or a pro. (These days, with professionals competing in the Olympics, the distinction is less pronounced.)
An old saying goes that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I’m sure that in the beginning, those creating the anti-doping system had good intentions. It’s their execution that’s been problematic. The practice of targeting specific individuals and then working to bust them is a sign, to me, of a system run amok. It’s one thing if you have evidence that causes the suspicion, but quite another if it’s just a matter of someone having a stand-out year. There are many possible explanations for that beyond doping or cheating. Including bad showings by others.
The BALCO case is a good example of the extent to which people will go to beat the system. But that’s not a new phenomenon. The East Germans managed to figure out how to beat the original steroids tests back in the late 1970s, too. In part by administering enough epitestosterone to ensure that the crucial T/E ratio didn’t go too high and trigger the more sensitive tests.
I hope you keep enjoying the posts.
– Rant
Hi Rant
I agree, and yes, the East German system is one that I am well aware of as perhaps pioneering the whole controlled doping programme. Have you ever read “Faust’s Gold” by Steven Ungerleider – it’s a good expose of the whole affair.
The interesting thing is that once the Wall fell, most of those scientists and doctors went East – that’s common knowledge among the coaches, and they landed up in China, in the early part of the 1990’s. And we all know that the current crop of women’s world records in the track events were set just after this, amid scores of allegations and the occasional positive test. So that seems to me to be more than co-incidence.
Just on the issue of how the testers are running amok, I don’t see that from over here, since I don’t read or follow the US coverage of doping, so I can’t really comment, but I’ll take your word for it. But I can also see why people are so naturally sceptical of great performances, which is a shame. But I’m a sports scientist in Cape Town, and my natural scientific tendency is to analyse (sad, I know!!) results and in doing that, it does become increasingly difficult to see great performances as innocent, if you know what I mean? Obviously I try to, and I do believe that there are some – I know for example, that in Kenya, there are probably 100 school children who can run under 28 minutes for 10km, and of course with some training and a bit more maturity, these could be 26-something runners, so I do believe that performances can be natural.
But I’ll be honest, if someone was to go out an run 9.74 sec for the 100 m, the first thing I’d think is doping! And the same for the Tour – because it seems that most of the major winners on the Tour since about 1996 at least (now that Riis has fessed up) were implicated in doping, it seems to me to be highly unlikely that the guys who are successful are clean. Why? Because we know that drugs will make a difference. Unfortunately, we don’t know just how big it is for cycling, only for the strength events, but I’m pretty sure it’s in the range of 5% or more. And if a guy is taking drugs and still getting beat, then logically, the guy who is finishing 2% ahead of him is probably also using. if he wasn’t, then it means he’s NATURALLY 7% faster, and that’s not so easy to digest. Or is that logic flawed?
ANyway, keep up the good work, I enjoy your site. Came across it on Trustbut, and I’ll be back. I also have a blog, by the way, I put some stuff on doping on there, tried to present a scientific appraisal of doping and whether it works.
Anyway, thanks again!
Ross
Ross,
I have read “Faust’s Gold.” Recently, as it happens. And like you said, it’s pretty well documented that the East German apparatus just moved further east. Witness the Chinese swimmers in the early to mid-1990s.
These days, I think many (if not most) are skeptical of any unusual athletic accomplishment, whether it would be a 9.74 second 100 m or an amazing comeback from one day to the next during the Tour.
You’re right, some performance-enhancing drugs do make a difference, though exactly how much is uncertain. (EPO for cycling, certainly — as long as you don’t turn your blood into sludge and cause a heart attack.) And since each individual may react differently to the drugs, the amount of difference they make can vary. Does that mean if the riders in 2nd through 10th places all admitted to doping that the winner did, too? Hard to say. The winner, of course, could naturally be that good. And the doping might have only helped a group of almost top-10 riders crack that barrier. Without it, perhaps those riders would have been just below.
One former American football player once said about steroids that even using them, you still have to do all the hard work — eat right, train right, and rest properly. The drugs, by themselves, won’t make a huge difference without all of those other ingredients.
So, if we find out certain athletes doped, does that diminish their accomplishments? Sure, at least to a degree. After all, most of us still would prefer that athletes race clean. But it’s still darned impressive, whether that meant winning a single Tour, or multiple Tours, or just winning a particular stage of a race.
The exact amount that doping helps is really hard to quantify, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
Where I think things begin to run amok is when agencies start targeting individuals for investigation without any real evidence of wrong-doing. I think it’s better to refine the testing protocols and techniques to make them more “foolproof” rather than to chase after specific individuals. With better testing, the cheats will be found. Focusing on who cheated in the past, rather than who’s cheating now is no way to run a system. And focusing on specific individuals based on things like what jerseys they wear on training rides borders on the ridiculous.
– Rant