Setting aside the Landis affair, or the Andreu revelations, or the witch-hunt to get Lance Armstrong — at least temporarily — it seems to me there’s a cancer growing on the sport of cycling as a whole, and professional cycling in particular. This cancer has two aspects: doping by a few of the athletes (the “disease”), and the behavior of the current anti-doping regime (the “chemotherapy” or “cure”).
The cancer has been there for years, and over time it’s grown and gotten worse. There’s always been doping and cheating in sport — it goes back a long, long way. One competitor was disqualified from the Tour de France in its early years because he hopped onto a train for part of one stage.
Athletes have always strived to find some sort of edge over their competitors. For some it may be new equipment (Greg LeMond and aero bars come to mind), for many it may be new training techniques (think about the advent of pulse-rate monitors, for instance), and for others it may be chemically driven (consider athletes who used caffeine as a stimulant or amphetamines for that matter).
For athletes who are dedicated to their sport — any sport — there’s always the desire to be one step faster, one tick quicker to the finishing tape, a fraction of a mile per hour quicker to their destination, or just that extra bit stronger to hit more home runs. Pick a sport and you’ll find people trying to be just that little bit better than all the rest. It’s only natural, and especially so when there’s a large amount of money on the line.
With all the scandals, and new ones seeming to break just as the current one starts to be resolved, lots of people (myself included) are getting worked up about doping, who dopes (or doesn’t), when did they dope, how much did they dope and what dope did they use. OK, fair enough, but what can be done about it?
Some people say that the doping scandals in cycling are a sign that things are getting better. I’m not so sure. The tar-and-feathering that cycling has taken lately could well turn off a lot of interest in the sport, which in turn would drive away the sponsors, and perhaps cause a number of pro and amateur events to be canceled. That certainly doesn’t work in the interest of those who like to race — or those who enjoy watching a good race, like the Tour.
I’ve been a competitive cyclist since 1990, and when work doesn’t interfere (one has to make a living, after all) and an old recurring back injury doesn’t lay me flat, I still like to get out and ride fast and occasionally race. My glory days are behind me, perhaps way behind me, and they aren’t catching back up. I’m afraid they’re parked somewhere, having a decaf double mocha telling stories of the good old days.
Point is, I love cycling … especially racing. When I can’t race, I like to at least watch a good race. Having gotten a DVD recorder about 6 months ago, I was able to record the Tour de France and watch this year’s coverage (the good stuff, the live coverage with Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen) with my wife each day at our convenience, not the network’s. It was a really exciting tour. Perhaps the most exciting that I’ve seen or read about in a long time, and I’ve been following the tour since the late 60s when I was just a young pup.
This year, because of the DVD recorder, I got to teach my wife about the race, the tactics, explain to her exactly how things work in a big-time race like the tour. And because it was such an unpredictable year, it had the kind of drama that held her attention. By the end, she was really enjoying the show and often couldn’t wait to see the live coverage. She would sometimes sneak a peek at the official TdF web site as the race was going on. Truth be told, I did too on a few occasions.
Once the whole Floyd scandal broke, however, the whole landscape changed. It’s turned off a number of people, to be sure. I don’t think my wife is going to have much interest in watching future Tours, and I’m not sure I do, either.
But the cancer that’s growing on our sport isn’t just the doping. It’s the way the anti-doping effort is handled, too. Every time an accusation or a supposedly positive test result comes out, the people who should be ensuring the fairness of the process become judge, jury and executioner before the process has even run its proper course. This “cure” is doing as much or more to cast cycling in a bad light than the few athletes who actually are doping.
Fans — people like you and me — take sides. In one corner: HeDidIt. In the other corner: NoHeDidn’t. When the bell rings, come out fighting! Last person standing wins. And we all lose.
Here it is, plain and simple: This system isn’t working. Relentlessly hounding retired athletes who’ve never tested positive is not the way to solve the problem of doping in cycling or any other sport. Condemning cyclists — or leaking their names or results to let the media do the dirty work — before the process is complete doesn’t work, either. Except, perhaps, to cause a large number of people to just get out of the sport in disgust or to never enter in the first place. And it turns off the fans.
Why do athletes dope? Maybe Frankie Andreu hit the nail on the head. Some are just trying to hang on and survive life in the peloton. Maybe a few are trying to chemically enhance their way to major victories, even. I doubt it, though. Frankie has even said that he didn’t feel like doping did much for him. And the anti-doping regime has gotten so tough and intrusive these days that if you’re doping, you’ll be damn lucky to escape their clutches.
Could it be that the big races, the grand tours — the Tour de France, the Giro d’Italia, the Vuelta a España — have all become so tough that only Superman has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning?
Perhaps we just need truth in labeling. Maybe the major races should now be called the Chemically-Enhanced Tour de France, the EPO d’Italia, the Viagra a España. (OK, that last one’s a stretch, but given the hard-on that Dick Pound has for condemning any and all cyclists caught-up in the anti-doping machine, I figured it was worth a tip of the hat to the original boner pill.)
Changing the name isn’t gonna do it. What we need is wholesale change.
Race promoters, especially those who promote the big ones, need to reconsider just how tough they make their events. Are they constantly making it tougher and tougher, just to prevent a single, very exceptional individual (think Lance or Miguel Indurain before him) from winning? Hello? Armstrong and Indurain are retired now! Perhaps we can get back to races that the mere mortals in the peloton have a chance to win?
Athletes need to seriously think about the consequences to using the various illicit performance enhancement drugs out there. Not just the health consequences, but the financial consequences once they’re caught. Look at what’s happened to Floyd Landis. He’s not exactly got companies beating down his door for endorsement deals, does he? It’s not even clear right now if he’ll have a job next year. And not just because of his hip. Worse, he could be innocent and his reputation and ability to make a living have been trashed.
And there needs to be an anti-doping system that respects the rights of the athletes while enforcing the rules. What we’ve got today is a system run by a yahoo who pontificates about how awful the dopers are while not working to ensure they get a fair hearing. What’s happened to Floyd is a travesty, no matter which way you slice it, because he’s been roundly condemned in the public eye even before all the facts have come out.
Whatever the solution, the current round of chemotherapy is killing the patient, and not curing the disease.
