Today marks one year from the day that the Phonak cycling team confirmed that, yes, Floyd Landis had an “adverse analytical finding” from a urine sample taken after Stage 17 in the 2006 Tour de France. Rumors about a positive test had been swirling for several days by that point, and Pat McQuaid, the head of the UCI, had already proclaimed that it was a “worst case scenario.”
By doing that, McQuaid — perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not — tipped off the media to the identity of the rider involved. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure out who McQuaid was referring to. And with that, an almost Shakespearean tragedy began to play out for all to see.
The last year has been an interesting time — in the sense of the old Chinese curse — for the world of competitive cycling. The drumbeat of doping scandals is beating louder and faster with each passing day. This last week has been almost one constant barrage of new doping scandals, allegations, leaked results of positive tests, teams leaving the Tour “voluntarily” (or perhaps being shown the door), and to top it all off the yellow jersey was booted from his team and from the Tour because a reporter thinks he saw the man holding the jersey, Michael Rasmussen, training in Italy in June when he was supposed to be in Mexico.
After yesterday’s calm — with no new scandals breaking — and today’s relatively normal round of racing, one could almost be lulled into the sense that all was getting slowly back to normal. But this is Le Tour Ironique, or Le Tour de Witch-hunt, so today really couldn’t pass without another doping scandal blowing up.
This time, apparently, it’s the polka-dot jersey who’s allegedly tested positive, according to an unconfirmed article on a Belgian website, with CyclingNews also carrying a short piece (while not identifying the rider involved, other than to say it was a prominent rider). If the initial Belgian report turns out to be true, the rider involved this time would be Barloworld’s Juan Mauricio Soler Hernandez. The media frenzy will doubtless begin again in a few hours’ time. It’s almost like watching a shoal of piranhas devouring some hapless animal that had the misfortune to step or fall into their waters.
[Update: According to a more recent post at TBV, Barloworld’s directeur sportif told La Gazetta dello Sport that whoever might have tested positive, it’s not Soler Hernandez.
If there’s a story to be had, however, the media’s piranhas are still hungry for their pound of flesh.]
One would hope, after all we’ve learned about the anti-doping system over the last year, that the media would be a bit more careful in their approach to new stories or allegations of misconduct. Sadly, most either weren’t paying attention, or have already forgotten the lessons of the Floyd Landis case.
Today, we found out that Alexander Vinokourov and his Astana team have retained Howard Jacobs and Maurice Suh to represent Vino in the matter of his alleged positive blood doping tests. B sample testing has begun at LNDD, and results are expected as soon as Saturday. As Bonnie DeSimone wrote at ESPN.com:
“I think at this point, we just want to encourage everyone to keep an open mind,” Suh said. “We only have an A sample … “
The biggest lesson we should have learned in the last year is that all of us — including the media — need to keep an open mind. And for their part, the media need to be diligent to research both sides of a story and not take either side’s version as gospel truth. The proper function of the media is to educate us about the issues in the news.
And among those issues are whether the tests used to detect doping are reliable, or whether they meet full scientific scrutiny. In some cases they are, and in some cases they aren’t. But just because someone claims that a test is based on “science” doesn’t automatically mean that the science is correct, or that the test even measures what it is supposed to.
We’re all better served when reporters examine all sides of an issue — doping, politics, war, what have you — rather than cast a skeptical or jaundiced eye on only one group, while giving another group a free pass to say or do whatever they want. While it’s a hard ideal to live up to, the ideal is that the reporter be objective, presenting both sides of the story and letting their readers decide what to believe.
All too often the reporting on doping allegations has taken the tone that the person accused must be guilty because the tests said so. And all too often the press has not even bothered to examine the science behind the tests and what the tests results mean, much less the process an accused athlete confronts. While the majority of athletes accused of doping may well be guilty, every once in awhile the test results are improperly interpreted or analyzed, or a B sample doesn’t confirm the initial results. But all too often, before the B sample is analyzed or before mistakes in the initial test’s interpretation are uncovered, the accused athlete has had his or her reputation demolished by the media steamroller.
Whenever a controversial story breaks, whether it’s a doping case or something else, it’s best not to judge until all the facts are known. A good reporter will find a way to say so in his or her writing. A lazy reporter will won’t care about the impact of his or her writing. Sometimes the truth is glaringly obvious. Sometimes it isn’t. With doping stories, what seems obvious is often not. And as frustrating as it may be to wait for all the facts, that’s exactly what we should all do.
Over the last week, the media have been feasting at the doping trough. Scandal begets better ratings or better newsstand sales. And after one or two news cycles, there’s a new scandal to keep the ratings/sales machine going. Whenever these stories come up — and it’s been all too often — we should all remember that each case is unique, and that we should keep an open mind until we know all the facts.
Unfortunately, the media (with a few notable exceptions) have not yet learned that lesson. The worst part of it is this: What if one of the people involved in these scandals happens to be innocent? By the time that’s found out, irreparable damage will have already been done. We should have learned from the Landis case, but I’m afraid we haven’t.
Nice essay. Very well said! And all too true.
I think that one lesson that we have learned in this last year is how easily it is to manipulate a story and put a little spin on it. I am always impressed by how balanced and reflective your stories are – and i don’t think you do this for a living! But what would happen if you were being paid to do this, with the pressure of filing a new article everyday and your job and livelihood depended on it. Would you be inclined to ‘cheat’ a little, take a few shortcuts, not investigate the facts, publish hearsay, just to keep your job and meet the deadline? Should we start a movement to clean up reporting. We could have someone like Dick Pun to lead us. Just a thought.
Why not aim closer to the heart of the matter, Luc? Spinning is easy – what is hard is to identify is who’s behind it. A good line from JFK, the movie :”follow the money”. Interestingly – if you find the spin doctor, the spin falls apart. So if you’re talking movement with the press and media – find out who holds the leash and point them out.
Merely another thought.
Just to further illustrate the ineptitude of reporters not checking their facts, today’s (Sat July 28) The Times (uk) has an article by Jeremy Whittle that states – ” Alberto Contador, the leader since Michaeal Rasmussen tested positive for an illegal blood transfusion, will battle……..”. Are we watching the same race? MR illegal blood transfusion?? Let’s clean up reporting. How about a giving up a year’s salary Mr Whittle.
Steve,
Thanks.
===
Luc,
Actually, my training is as a journalist. I’m a graduate of the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri, one of the prominent J-Schools in the US. I make my living by writing, but not for a newspaper or magazine these days (though my writing and photography has been published in newspapers and magazines over the years). Nobody pays me for doing this blog, it’s just something I do in my spare time.
===
It takes me about 3 – 4 hours a day, between keeping up with the day’s events and actually writing to get these pieces out, so most days I don’t think I’d have a problem cranking out a story or column. What’s harder is when you have a word limit, like most columnists and reporters do. For daily stories, there’s more flexibility in length, for columns (at least for print papers) the length is fixed and one has to fit the space. I like you’re idea to clean up reporting. Good mascot/leader, too. Haven’t found Whittle’s piece in the online Times yet, but my wife and I did find another piece by Giles Smith which is quite funny.
==
Morgan,
Follow the money, indeed. There’s a lot of spin, misdirection and misinformation going on. It would be good to expose who’s spinning things and for what ultimate gain.
– Rant
Hi Rant,
Here is part of Whittle’s article.
“Wada is now criticising the UCI for having found banned substances, which is the consequence of any effective antidoping campaign, and is preparing to stage a show trial instigated by its president, Richard Pound, who during the Tour de France has constantly made condescending comments about cycling,” a UCI statement read. “The UCI refuses to be subject to a farce.” The denouement of the race is likely to turn on this afternoon’s individual time-trial, from Cognac to Angoulême. Alberto Contador, the leader since Michael Rasmussen tested positive for an illegal blood transfusion, will battle to hold off Cadel Evans, of Australia, over the largely flat 55-kilometre route.
Luc,
Thanks. Looks like Jeremy Whittle’s got a few stories mixed up into one. Imagine how clean reporting would be if every offender had to give up a year’s salary for making that kind of mistake. Things would change post haste! 🙂
– Rant
Excuse me – Rasmussen has not been found to be doping – he was tossed from the race because of failing to report his whereabouts. It is Vino who is accused of blood doping.
===
If one asks the question who benefits most from all the shocking “doping” revelations – the only logical answer is the UCI and therefore McQ – what benefit does he get? As things are – the Tour this year turned into even more of a fiasco then the Festina affair.
By “outing” all these dopers – McQ doesn’t have to do anything but claim that he is doing his job and point to the “success” of “his program” – Of course this would be a much stronger realistic pressure if the “testing lab” – was certified as competent. That is the major weak point in McQ’s strategy to force the major Tours to be under the “umbrella control” of the UCI.
===
You have to have been on Mars without TV, not to know that there is a fight between WADA and the UCI, in other words, Pound the hound and McScrew. Pound is the head of an “American” led organization for doping control – McQ is the head of a “European” based organization that is trying to control doping.
===
So what do you get? The pro-riders in the middle. Being found out to be “dopers” by an organization that gets it’s way by proving that there is “a culture of doping” – Have to admire the Mackiavellian moves that Pound has pulled off – and all because the Journalist did not bother to look behind the “story”. Call it laziness, call it what ever you want – but in the end, truth is what is done, seldom in what is said.
===
And THAT is why we are here blogging; venting our frustrations and anger at the injustice being perpetrated by this whole set up. Why Floyd Landis has spent a small fortune in just trying to get what is his, because he earned it.
Morgan,
UCI is just trying to push doping under the rug. Bad publicity for cycling is not good for them, so they prefer to hide the problem.
WADA should have a look in football, tennis, swimming, track and field … too.
If you are analysing all performance of athletes since 1980, you would find some big anomalies in term of performances (swimming, 100m, marathon, cross-skiing, … and cycling).
You can easily see that with statistic in cycling, for exemple US has 10 less riders as France, but is clearly stronger than their riders. Why? Oh yes they are lazier, they dont use windtunnel, our riders trai harder, …. all of that is false!
It’s well know since around 15-20 years that every one is limited on training, to be above the limit is worst. You can improve your training method but now it’s limited, all big countries have sport and medical center. So if you want to train harder, you need to use drugs.
What are we seeing in many sports? The difference between the bests and the lasts are decreasing and are close now. Is it true in cycling? No, in the last 3 years, it’s increasing. Why? Because some countries have strict law against doping, so performance of their riders are slightly decreasing with less or no PED.
And don’t worry about Floyd who has stolen people with his FFF as he has stolen the clean riders. Why is FFF not an open Fund ?
Morgan:
I didn’t see the JFK movie, so perhaps the phrase is in there too; but it originated in “All the President’s Men”, the Robert Redford movie about the Nixon-Watergate scandal.
Rant:
Greetings from Columbia!
Greetings Jean Culeasec — I can see how you are looking at the present situation. Your point of view is that the riders are doping if they perform beyond what you think is “normal” performance. I would agree if people were built as machines are built, to specifications that are predetermined at the time of the construction. I do not think that this is how human beings are. Yes, as you say, we have gathered much “Information” and there have been many studies, all of which have drawn conclusions from their findings.
===
I cannot address what personal experiences you have had with people speaking about French riders. But it seems to me that this experience was not exactly positive. I do not hold the belief that French riders are lazy. I believe that all racers have to ride to become better. I also know that each country has it’s own approach or technique that it believes in and follows. Some people due to their lack of emotional maturity have to support their feelings that “their way” is the best, which of course is absurd.
===
When comparisons are made of two different nationalities and insults and belittling words are used, it is an indication that, who ever is speaking, is immature. A mature person realizes that we are all human beings and that because one is born in one country or another, this does not make one superior or inferior, we are all human beings.
===
The crisis we are all facing, you, me, Floyd Landis, etc. stems from PEOPLE. People who are trying to gain power so that they can control the racing scene. Now, you may know that this is nothing new. People have from the very beginning of competitive racing, running, jumping, etc — wherever there was money involved have tried to “cheat” to win. The only difference from todays Situation and the situations of the past is that a lot more variety of people are capable of becoming involved. As you and I and all the other fine people who reach out to each other on this blog are doing.
===
Please do not think that when I bring up the LNDD that I am saying that the people who work there are villains. THAT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE TO THINK THIS WAY. When I bring up the LNDD, I am only criticizing them for the way they do their testing. Look, If anything of real importance came out of the Floyd Landis trial it is that we CANNOT BE CERTAIN of any results that come out of LNDD. This problem could be solved quiet fairly. It would stop all the fighting and accusations flying around if we could trust their results. LNDD is only a symbol for all drug-testing labs that do this. WE MUST BE ABLE TO TRUST THEM.
===
As I see it — get an “accreditation testing” done. If the work is found faulty then retrain the personae so they can fulfill their function to a level where it may not be questioned. It is simple.
===
As to your inferring that the FFF is in some way a rip off of people who believe that Landis is innocent — I cannot agree with you on this at all. I think you are more intelligent then to sink to such a defamatory stand.
===
I apologize to all the other bloggers for taking up so much space — but I did use only as many words as I needed, “you can believe me.”
Jean:
You make some good points. But regarding the difference between French cyclists and those of other countries, I don’t hew to the idea that French (or other countries’) cyclists are lazy at all. There’s lots of factors that contribute to who wins a race like the Tour, including (apparently) whether or not one’s team thinks you’ve been lying to them about your training locations.
.
Sometimes it just boils down to luck. Being in the right break at the right time, or avoiding a nasty crash, or getting taken down by a fan while climbing a mountain, or worse, crashing badly on a descent. Sometimes it’s not that a rider doesn’t have the talent, but that his team doesn’t have the depth to help him get there. I’m sure if we were to look at all of the stages of all of the Tours of the last 20 years or so, that we’d find a number of riders from a number of countries who could have been contenders but circumstances beyond their control prevented them from winning.
.
Sandy Cassar had a good day yesterday, and other French riders have been doing well in this year’s tour. And, to be contrarian, I take the widening gap between riders to be an indication that fewer are doping. Humans are variable enough in their abilities that when everyone is bunched too closely together, that would raise more suspicions in my mind than when there’s a clear delineation between athletes.
.
What you say about strict laws is probably true. I suspect a number of riders whose natural talent is not so good have had performance boosts from doping. As they’re forced to stop, then you will see a broadening of the differences — and that’s a good thing.
.
Will,
Greetings. Haven’t been back to Columbia in a long time. Great place to go cycling — at least it was when I went to school down there. I’ll be back someday.
– Rant
William, greetings:
Thanks for the correction on the movie – the line is appropriate, don’t you think?
*
You know Rant – people are gonna talk – but aside from that – I do like the way your mind works. It is truly a pleasure
Consider this.. how in-competition testing should be done.
/
2 samples.
2 labs.
3 countries
1 centralized itermediary.
/
Both samples are tested.
Lab A gets sample A. Lab B gets sample B. Lab A is in Country A. Lab B is in Country B. Country C has has intermediary, no sample, has rider names linked to sample ids. Neither lab has “any” way of linking the rider to the sample. If news is leaked identifying a specific rider as being positive without Country C’s involvement, and Country C later confirms that sample id matches rider in news media, then case is dropped.
/
So, lets say LNDD (country A) gets a positive. Their only course of action is to contact Country C and provide documentation illustrating positive A sample, with sample ID.
Intermediary validates that testing procedure was appropriate. Confirms that Country B lab has also sent a positive test for same day and same rider. If Country B did not, case dropped.
/
If they do both have positive, arbitration process starts. But you would be hard-pressed to beat that one..
Thoughts?
Austin rider — As it is Austin, part of the problem is that it takes too long to get reports. If we are to begin sending samples to different countries”¦will not it turn ridiculous?
*
Although having a system where two labs do the testing is a good idea — but I think it would have to be done in the same country by “certified” unrelated labs. And instead of waiting for B sample tests — what if the labs did the split samples separately but at the same time? Naturally, as you suggest that all tested material is coded for identity protection.
*
But this is not my strong point. I am certain there are others out there who deal in this kind of milieu — who would know better. Accuracy and speed, is what we need, and a trustworthy system that everybody agrees on.
Austinrider,
Clearly, you’ve put a lot of thought into that. I think it’s a good start. I could also see separate, independent labs within the same country, rather than sending samples hither and yon. Other than that, I think there needs to be some improvements in testing and testing methods, as well as the adjudication system. But if all we could do was make this change, I think it would go a long way to ensuring more credible results than what we’re getting now.
– Rant
Morgan:
Surely Fedex or the like can get samples to different labs overnight. Or the WADA or whoever could have their own courrier service. You wouldn’t need to send sampless from the TdF out of Europe, just send A to France, B to Italy or whatever. If you did both A and B samples at the same time, it would be a lot quicker in the long run than the present system, where if you get an A positive, then you have to wait while the rider debates whether or not to get the B done, then wait for the B sample results. And it would cut out any suspicions that the B sample results were cooked to back up the A samples.