Paolo Bettini is taking a stand. He’s refusing to sign “The Pledge,” the UCI’s effort to get cyclists to publicly pledge not to dope, and to forfeit a year’s salary if they’re found guilty of a doping violation. And, according to cyclingnews.com, the Italian Cycling Federation is backing him up.
Predicatably, the head of the UCI is not pleased.
“Bettini has not signed and I feel very angry and very annoyed,” [Pat] McQuaid told AFP. “To be honest with you I’m equally angry with the Italian Federation as with Bettini. The Italian Federation have said they won’t ask riders to sign and the Spanish have done likewise.”
Up to now, the UCI has relied on public pressure to goad riders into signing the pledge, which CyclingNews reveals has no legal force upon those who sign. Riders cannot be forced to sign, nor can they be prevented from racing if they don’t, the article says. And neither the Italian federation, nor its Spanish counterpart seem to be in any hurry to have their riders sign on.
This, of course, ticks McQuaid off.
There are some people who still do not realise the state that cycling is in today,” McQuaid said. “[Bettini] has decided for whatever reason not to sign it willingly and to try and sign an altered version, which we won’t accept. It is only a pledge. It is not a legal document. We cannot stop them racing. It was never meant to be [a legal document].”
It may only be a pledge, and it may not be a legal document. But whatever it is, it’s no more than a public relations stunt in the fight against doping in cycling. Certainly, if a rider signs the pledge and then is found to be doping, he or she will be publicly shamed. But if shame were an effective tool in the arsenal against doping, then everyone who has been doping up to now would have quit long ago.
The lessons of Operacion Puerto and the Floyd Landis scandal weigh heavily, or should weigh heavily amongst the pros. The damage from a mere accusation is enough to kill a mid-level pro’s career, and may even be enough to kill a top-flite pro’s career, too. The damage from a positive doping test is worse still, and the damage from a guilty finding is even greater.
That’s not to say that a cyclist can’t come back from a suspension and be competitive. David Millar is proof of that. But for many, the loss of income during the suspension or fight to clear one’s name may be enough to force those accused out of cycling, regardless of whether the accusations are true or false.
As we’ve seen with the Landis case, there are many flaws in the current anti-doping system that need to be fixed. Not the least of which is the heavy bias in favor of the anti-doping agencies. One interpretation of the ruling against Landis is simply this, “Don’t even bother to fight. It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty. We’ll win. And we’ll destroy you in the process. Admit you doped, take your punishment and get on with it, already”
Who, in their right mind, would want to sign such a document? Especially knowing that the system is so riddled with flaws that his or her career and reputation could be ruined by the mere accusation of doping as a result of a leaked test result, long before the case is heard and an arbitration panel has convicted a person of doping.
Perhap Bettini understands that signing a worthless piece of paper is of no matter in the fight against doping, especially when there are other, bigger problems that need attention in the anti-doping world. Doping in cycling has been a problem for a long time. Signing “The Pledge” won’t put an end to the problem.
Taking a stand against the bone-headed PR stunts of the UCI, however, and saying that the system needs to change first would be a bold move. It appears that Bettini is willing to take that stand. And, as Agence France Presse reports,
Bettini, however, is not alone, as riders from several Italian and Spanish teams have also refused to sign pledges or bow to submitting DNA samples.
Bettini is holding firm to his decision. As CyclingNews reports:
Bettini has reacted to McQuaid’s comments saying that any attempt to prevent him from racing will only make him more determined to leave Germany on Sunday afternoon the same way he entered the country – with the World Championship jersey on his shoulders. “If they are doing this to destabilise me they should know that I’ll win the world championship in Stuttgart on purpose,” said Bettini.
The world of cycling — indeed the entire world of sports — needs to put its house in order when it comes to the subject of doping. What’s needed are measures of substance, not fluff. And what it all boils down to is that “The Pledge” is mere fluff.
Good for Paolo Bettini for refusing to sign. And for the other riders, too. May they become organized and continue to stand up for themselves against those who would make the riders their constant scapegoats, while failing to implement substantive programs to address the real cancer at the heart of the sport.
wow rant, your blog has become my daily “must read”. you consistently capture some stray thoughts that run through my mind (often enough, during a ride), and pull it all together with meaning: “Good for Paolo Bettini for refusing to sign.” my thoughts exactly.
by the way, what became of this fax that rasmussen apparantly sent to uci in advance of his missed drug test ? it sure sounded HUGE when you brought it up.
it was a stray thought on my ride yesterday.
I love good irony. McQuaid’s statement, [first sentence, second quote] is almost funny. Doesn’t he get that this is why Bettini’s *not* signing?
Snake,
The thing with Rasmussen faxing his whereabouts form over only to have the UCI misplace it is huge. It’s also quietly disappeared from discussion for some odd reason. None of the media have picked it up and run with it, although it certainly bears some investigation. The last article I saw, which was about a week ago in the Danish paper Politiken, raised the question of Rasmussen’s being licensed in “countries of convenience” where the local federations don’t manage to perform anti-doping tests on elite riders. The controversy is still simmering a bit overseas, but the English-language cycling press (not to mention the mainstream media) are pretty well ignoring it. They’ve gotten their fill of that scandal it seems. No point actually searching for the truth. 😉
Debby,
No, I’m sure McQuaid doesn’t get it. If he did, then perhaps he might actually figure out how to do something substantive. To paraphrase some famous author, “Irony, thy name is Pat McQuaid.”
Why won’t Bettini sign? Or, as you put it, Rant, who in his right mind would want to sign?
…
I assume you’ve seen this report from Velo News:
…
“Olympic and world cycling champion Paolo Bettini supplied sacked German cyclist Patrik Sinkewitz with doping products, according to television reports in Germany on Wednesday.”
…
My assumption at the moment is that the German TV reports are nonsense. My guess is that someone connected with the ADA system leaked this nonsense in an effort to intimidate Bettini, and anyone else not willing to go along with the prevailing “get tough” attitude of the anti-doping agencies.
…
In other words, there are reasons to sign the UCI pledge. They’re not pretty reasons, but they ARE reasons.
Larry,
Right you are. There are reasons to sign the pledge. Just like there are reasons to do as a couple of big, hulking guys suggest in order to avoid wearing a pair of concrete shoes on the bottom of a lake…
Rant, McQuaid at UCI is fighting for his professional life. His Pro Tour is either dead or meaningless. He wasn’t even invited to the Tour de France, and he barely got a seat at the table at the upcoming French anti-doping summit. CAS overturned his effort to exclude Valverde from the Worlds. So he’s now trying to sound like the toughest guy on the block when it comes to doping. I think he’s a laughingstock in the cycling world right now.
Larry,
You’re right. Talking tough just doesn’t ring true when he’s just been roundly beaten in a well-publicized fight. For McQuaid, the best thing to do would probably be to quietly regroup, take a bit of time to consider which path to take in the efforts to battle doping, and then to follow through. Sort of like what a certain resident of Murrieta is doing in regards to whether he should appeal. McQuaid has an uncanny ability to put his foot in his mouth. A little time out of the limelight might be a good thing.
Rant:
–
Who turned the UCI over to WADA and when?
–
Did McQuaid and Pound have a professional history together before McQuaid became UCI’s leader?
–
Also, from what I’ve read, it appears that the UCI could request a variation of the arbitration rules for professional cyclists that would allow for a fairer method of selecting arbitrators. True?
–
Thanks and keep up the good work.
As a practical matter, any rider who takes out a racing license with any UCI affiliated federation is in effect agreeing to abide by the rules. The only thing new about the “pledge” is the provision to forfeit a year’s pay if guilty; however the UCI can mandate any penalty it sees fit and doesn’t need the riders to agree. So what is the effect of having this “pledge”? Ultimately, any rider, whether clean or dirty, is in no different position whether he signs it or not. Is the UCI going to not have Bettini forfeit a year’s pay, should he prove positive at some time? It just like if the government asked you to sign a pledge you won’t commit murder and if you do (commit murder, that is) you will be subject to the full penalty the law allows.
So why would a rider refuse to sign? I am guessing, as has been speculated, that perhaps the Landis case, along with some of the other things that have been going over the last couple of years, has focused attention on the problems of the whole ADA system. Riders see that there is a possibility, at least, of false positives and the difficulty a rider faces to clear his name, if a false positive occurs. Riders see other riders either barred from entering a race or being pulled from a race on accusation, not conviction, and teammates being pulled from a race simply because a rider on their team has fallen afoul of the system. Bettini and the few others brave enough to refuse to sign may be taking a symbolic stand against this system.
Will:
I believe the connection between UCI and WADA is more or less required if cycling is to be an Olympic sport. In countries where cycling has been traditionally strong, this is probably not a big issue, but in countries like the US, where cycling has been a minor sport, the fact that it is an Olympic sport is often plugged to indicate the sports “importance”. I believe that one of the reasons baseball has been dropped from the Olympics is that fact that MLB doesn’t play ball with WADA. UCI is interested in expanding cycling and probably feels that the Olympic status is a good selling point.
Best part from McQuaid is that the pledge has not legal ramifications, it’s just a pledge.
So, basically, if a rider is accused of doping, there’s no legal way to get his yearly salary back. So, Rant, you are correct, it’s just fluff.
I can’t believe the guys at the top of the sport can be/act this ‘dumb’. You think they are taking applications?? I KNOW I could do a better job!
William Schart:
I agree that the reason that cycling tolerates WADA is to have access to the Olympics, but I don’t think it’s the smaller/lesser cycling nations that push this. I think it’s the French. I think the whole system is dominated by the French influence (either through the IOC or through ASO). Maybe I’m wrong. . . but do you think the Koreans, Dominicans, et al could have prevented baseball from being thrown out of the Olympics?
_
What’s lost in the discussion about eliminating cheats is simple statistics 101. If the UCI (or WADA) states that they will catch ALL dopers, they are also tacitly stating that they will increase the number of false positives. I would contend that this is not acceptable to the large majority of fans. I hope that most people would rather let a few cheats ride and avoid the larger number of false positives. A champion eliminated by a false positive is worse than a champion losing to a cheat.
Following up on the intimidation factor I mentioned earlier, Velonews reports that Bettini was interviewed today by Stuttgart police. Granted, this falls something short of the “cement overshoes” mentioned by Rant, but it’s intimidation nonetheless. Also, it’s probably not a normal part of any rider’s pre-race preparation. This sends the message to other riders that, if you speak out against the ADAs, you’ll pay a price. I think this helps account for the fact that no one in the peloton is speaking out in defense of FL, or against the shoddy testing practices at LNDD.
…
William, I need some support for your statement that the UCI can mete out any penalty it likes against licensed cyclists. I admit, I don’t know this system very well. But as a matter of contract law, you can’t set up a contract where one party can change the rules at any time and the other party is forced to consent. OK, granted, practically speaking you can do a little bit of this around the edges, if you’ve set up your contract to allow for unilateral changes. But even so, if the matter is material, you at least have to give the other party the right to consent or to opt out of the contract.
…
McQuaid at UCI has pretty much admitted that the pledge is unenforceable.
…
As for why cycling tolerates WADA? As you’ve pointed out, if they are going to be an Olympic sport, they have to tolerate WADA. Even hockey has to tolerate WADA. Interesting side question: if cycling is going to continue to be an Olympic sport, then I think there has to be some kind of international cycling body to represent cycling. At the moment, if I understand this, that international body is UCI. So, ironically, it’s UCI that gives WADA entry into cycling. Now, if ASO is going to hold the Tour de France entirely outside of the UCI Pro Tour system, does this mean that UCI is totally divorced from the Tour de France? In which case … how does WADA retain its status to perform drug testing at the Tour?
Larry:
In being brief, I was perhaps unclear.
Within the UCI, as in an controlling body for sports, there is a system for establishing rules and the penalties for breaking them. Without familiarity of the working of UCI, I’d imagine there is some sort of “legislative” body that does this. In the present context, there is someone(s) who determine which substances are banned and what the penalties are if caught. So if the UCI wants to make the penalty for doping a year’s pay, it can do this thru the established procedures. I wasn’t trying to suggest McQ can mandate this unilaterally.
ASO is going to hold the Tour outside of the Pro Tour system, but they still might be coming under UCI. They still would have to get a sanction from the French federation, and restrict entry to properly licensed riders. Unless they wanted to go totally “outlaw”. Back in my racing days, under the ABL of A, any rider who entered an unsanctioned race without permission was subject to suspension, and I’d imagine that the situation isn’t too much different today. Could ASO and the other big tours have enough clout to set up a totally new competitive circuit and recruit enough top riders to make a go while telling UCI to take a hike? I don’t know. Would the UCI give ASO an complete pass to do what they want and also allow riders to compete there without penalty, if ASO was to totally divorce itself from UCI? That I’d rather doubt.
William, thanks for the clarification. Yes, UCI can set up and change rules for racing without having to ask each cyclist for permission. So, if UCI wants cyclists to wear helmets, or all ride on the left side of the road, that’s not going to be a problem. I’m sure that the riders’ contracts allow UCI to change the rules governing how a race is supposed to be run.
…
In similar fashion, the UCI can add new substances to its prohibited list without consent of the riders. The riders have effectively signed up to WADA supervision and to the WADA rules, and the rules contemplate that the prohibited substance list is going to change from time to time. We might have a problem if WADA did something drastic — they cannot exile dopers to Elba.
…
If the UCI wants to fine cyclists in the millions of dollars, I’d categorize that as too drastic to be enforceable without the rider’s consent. UCI would need a contract provision allowing them to impose large fines, and I’d argue that this provision better be very specific and very clear. For example, “fine” implies the same amount for every cyclist, and not something like a year’s salary that varies from cyclist to cyclist.
…
Good points about UCI. ASO seems to want to control the TEAMS that will race in the Tour, but I don’t know that they’d want to be able to include teams from outside of the UCI system, or riders lacking UCI licenses. Of course, ASO has stated that they’d be willing to consider going back to a system where only national teams would be permitted to race … I wonder where UCI would fit into THAT scheme?
Larry:
When the Tour used national teams in the past, it was still under UCI. National teams were ad hoc teams; riders of a given nationality were chosen from a number of the commercial teams, just as a national team is chosen for the Olympics or Worlds. At the present time, I don’t think that there are any teams outside of UCI, as I don’t think there is any competition outside of UCI big enough to attract the kind of money necessary to support pro riders.
Several years ago there was somebody here ih the US who started up a bicycle league: two teams from this would race a criterium with riders gaining points for the team by winning sprints at intervals through the race, the team with the most points won. A league table of won/lost records was used to determine team standings, just like football or baseball. The riders were paid, but as I recall the whole thing wasn’t sanctioned by US Cycling. Without meaning to insult anyone, the riders were pretty much either older US pros on the downside of their careers, or who otherwise had little impact in mainstream racing. This was probably one of several reasons why this league didn’t make a go of it.
This is the problem that ASO, or anyone who wanted to completely divorce from UCI faces: who will ride in our events. How much interest would there be in a Tour where the field was made up of has-beens and never-wases? Could ASO sponsor enough events that a rider could make a good career? I don’t know. It might be possible, especially if there are enough riders disgusted enough with UCI’s shenanigans. Then there is also the question of how the French government would react. You can’t run the Tour without the cooperation of the government to block off roads, etc.
Look at sports history here in the US. There have been several attempts in the last 50 years are so to develop leagues outside of the established league. The only one that had much success was the AFL. Other football leagues, like USFL, WFL, XFL had little success and all folded. The ABL had 4 teams that merged with the NBA, the rest folded. The WHL also had some teams join the NHL, but the league folded.
When is McQ’s term of office up? Can we hope for a more competent replacement?
“the real cancer at the heart of the sport”
now what would that be? The lack of integrity all the way down? The doping omerta? That lying about doping is routine?
Your post offers no way forward to a fair sport. Supporting the likes of Di Luca, Bettini, Landis, etc simply protects multi-millionaire cheaters trying to hold on to their privileged position in the peloton.
Rant, why don’t you propose a “substantive” answer to the doping problem, and start questioning why the UCI and the riders don’t support such measures? I really want to know–how would you stop the doping? How would you make the sport more fair? What are the “real measures” against doping that aren’t being taken?
Because until you start fighting for real reform instead of supporting the deceptive claims of egregious cheaters, then you are also part of the problem. The “cancer at the heart of the sport” is that cheating isn’t punished because it is protected by the omerta. That would be the focus of your outrage if your interest was really the good of cycling.
Insist on integrity, truth and justice, and you won’t go wrong. Start thinking about what is good for the sport of cycling, and how cycling can climb out of the doping gutter. Supporting the likes of Bettini isn’t going to make that happen–you and I both know what his agenda is.
Ludwig,
Not every post I write is going to offer a complete solution. But if you’ve been following this blog long enough, you’ll know that I propose such things as:
Asking the riders to sign a pledge is mere public relations, especially once the head of the UCI admits that he can’t really enforce it. Build a system that’s fair, and respects the riders rights while being tough on those who are proven to be doping will gain the riders support.
…
The current system, however, is far from it. Supporting riders who take a stand against aspects of the system which need to be improved is advocating for positive change — even if you don’t happen to agree with what I think is positive change. In the Landis case, many aspects within the system have been brought to light that need to be addressed, despite the finding of last week — or perhaps because of it. Even the majority recognized problems at LNDD and says in the future such problems could cause cases to be tossed. That such problems could exist are an indictment of the WADA accreditation system and their enforcement of the accreditation rules.
…
In the case of Bettini and Di Luca, I believe that the authorities must prove that someone has committed an offense before sanctioning them. Advance sanctions should never be allowed, even if we all “know” that a certain rider is jacked up on caffeine prior to every race he enters (I can name several from when I raced in Michigan) or that a certain pro is using EPO. It may be frustrating to see individuals you believe or know are cheating go free, but someday you may be accused or someone you know or respect may be accused. If that day comes to pass, you and they are entitled to be presumed innocent.
…
If someone can be held back from racing just because there’s a rumor, or some sketchy evidence that suggests that person might be doping, who’s to stop people from starting rumors or creating bogus evidence to knock various riders out of a race? Even if you know someone is guilty, the system — in my view — needs to properly prove it before sanctioning them. That’s just my personal point of view, for whatever it might be worth.
Ludwig, I concur with Rant’s comments but want to add some of my own.
…
“The real cancer at the heart of cycling” at the moment is NOT doping, or lying about doping, or the “doping omerta” (code of silence). Doping is a serious problem, to be sure, but it is a problem in many other sports: baseball, American football, track and field and swimming come to mind.
…
The cancer at the heart of cycling is the chaotic way that cycling is presently organized, and the ferocity of the battles fought between the various powers in cycling — none of whom represent the cyclists, by the way. The main fallout of these battles is that sponsors are leaving the sport in droves.
…
Ludwig, please pay close attention to these battles: WADA versus the UCI, ASO versus the UCI, national cycling federations versus international bodies. We don’t have any good guys in these battles. All of the combatants have an interest in combating doping, but mostly these are battles for power and money, and these organizations are cynically using the doping problem to score points and to undermine their enemies. The “cancer” is not doping. It is greed.
…
Let’s look at some examples. Do you think that WADA and the system of WADA-accredited labs are the “good guys” in the struggle against doping? Then look at the facts revealed in the Landis case: the French lab that provided the doping evidence (LNDD) was proven to be sloppy and incompetent — even the arbitrators who decided against Landis had sharp criticisms to make of the LNDD. The shoddy practices at LNDD mean not only that cyclists like Landis can be falsely accused of doping — they also indicate that the lab is not competent to catch the cyclists who ARE doping. Remember, very very few cyclists are caught by these labs — there were only two positive tests during this year’s Tour (more cyclists are caught by national police operations, like Operation Puerto). If (as you seem to believe) doping is routine in cycling, then the labs ought to be detecting more of this doping. If WADA and the WADA labs TRULY cared about the doping problem, then they’d use the facts revealed in the Landis arbitration to clean up the shoddy practices at LNDD and to improve the practices at WADA labs overall. But this is not happening, because WADA cares more about protecting its turf and defending the circle of its members, and because no one involved wants to spend the money it would take to do effective testing.
…
Another example. Do you think that the ASO (the organizers of the Tour de France) are good guys in the anti-doping effort? Then explain the curious case of Patrik Sinkewitz, who failed a doping test during training a month before the Tour de France. His positive test was announced by the German Anti-Doping Agency during the Tour, after Sinkewitz had crashed out because of an injury. How did the ASO react? They reacted angrily, saying that the UCI was behind the revelation of the tests, and that UCI had timed the revelation during the course of the Tour in order to damage the Tour. Does that make any sense? Shouldn’t the ASO, as a doping opponent, have seen the Sinkewitz revelation as a sign that the anti-doping forces are making progress? No … because as a result of the Sinkewitz revelation, German TV dropped coverage of the Tour. The ASO cares more about its TV money than it cares about doping.
…
All of the warring agencies that control the world of cycling continue to cry out for tougher anti-doping measures, but they don’t propose anything specific. Why? Because any sensible proposal requires the expediture of serious cash. Rant has told you what the powers ought to do — they ought to test everyone, and do it year-round. (Take a look at the U.S. Slipstream team — that’s what THEY are doing. That’s what a serious anti-doping effort looks like.) But that’s not what these agencies want. Why not? Because they don’t want to spend the money, because when you come right down to it, they really don’t give a damn about doping.
…
Yes, we can point fingers at the riders, but the “omerta” you refer to exists in every sport. I don’t see athletes in other sports stepping forward to rat each other out. It’s just not in the nature of things, not in cycling, not in any sport. This “omerta” does not make cycling unique.
…
If you truly want to stamp out doping in cycling, you don’t do it by short-circuiting the processes that have been put in place to combat doping. You don’t accuse riders of cheating before the tests are analyzed and the facts are in. You don’t select teams based on your subjective impression of who rides clean, and you don’t have riders sign meaningless “loyalty oaths”. No, you make the existing processes better and more comprehensive, and you spend the money necessary to pay for a better system.
Thanks Larry
Rant and Larry,
You offer some good points Rant. But DNA testing needs to be part of any comprehensive testing program, so blood seizures by the authorities can be connected to rider profiles. The primary problem with Bettini is he has been opposed to offering up his DNA since the idea was proposed. This hampers hopes of stopping doping or making doping less advantegous. Why then, do you defend Bettini rather than criticize him? Do you think Bettini’s actions (as a dominant cyclist in a widely doped era) helps cycling’s credibility or future?
Larry,
I agree with most of what you say. There are no good guys in this fight for me, besides a few lonely voices. There is certainly greed, corruption, entrenched interests, and fear of blackmail blocking the kinds of reforms that would make cycling a real sport again. But the primary obstacle to cleaning up cycling remains the cycling omerta–the practice of doping, the doping and drug networks, the widespread denial of doping, the refusal to talk about doping, refusal to discuss alternative measures to deal with doping outside of competing PR perspectives…..
It’s true that the riders power is limited under pressure from omerta, but ultimately it is cyclists and the cycling world who are responsible for its persistence. Any critique or solution that fails to put more pressure on the omerta, and demand integrity and accountability instead of more legalisms…any solution like that is not going to help. Cycling doesn’t need more squabbling and public trials–cycling needs an honest dialougue about doping. Cycling’s problem, in essence, is its credibility has been completely shattered by the lies. No one believes cyclists, and consequently no one believes in cycling.
Testing alone is not enough. To say the primary problem is that the tests are not good enough–that’s totally missing the point which since most doping goes unnoticed by testing.
Cycling’s problem is not just procedural. It is moral and ethical. Like Lemond said, cycling is paying for the legacy of lies. You call for penalties against those team members who encourage and enable doping. Well, if you really loved cycling then you would focus you anger and attention on them. Because that’s where the doping stops and starts dude–that’s the origin of the problem. What can be done to reform cycling from its doped-up habits? Who needs to leave cycling? How does one accomplish this?
There needs to be a change in philosophy that includes taking things like pledges and oaths seriously. The failure of testing alone to stop doping ought to be established by now.
Ludwig,
Certainly, DNA testing needs to be part of the program, where its use is appropriate. Why defend Bettini? If DNA evidence can clear him in the Puerto case, then I agree with you. He should offer it up. That said, even a guilty man is entitled to a fair trial before being punished. It’s up to the authorities to prove he’s guilty. If they do, punishment is warranted. If they don’t, or if they can’t, then unfortunately (if you believe he’s guilty) he gets to walk free. In order to ensure the integrity of the system, sometimes a guilty person will get away with it. No system is perfect, but from where I see it, I’d rather see a guilty person go free before an innocent person is wrongly punished. The guilty person may eventually be caught again and punished, but one can never undo the wrong done to an innocent person punished for a crime he/she didn’t commit.
Ludwig –
…
I found a lot to agree with in your last post. For example, I believe that riders should be required to provide their DNA.
…
I also understand that doping is a decision made by an individual athlete, and that this decision has a moral component. It’s wrong to dope, it’s wrong to cheat. But in your previous post, you challenged us to say what we would do to COMBAT doping. I doubt we can combat doping with strong moral exhortations.
…
I’m not sure what you mean when you recommend that we “put more pressure on the omerta.” How, exactly, would you propose to do that? We can increase the penalties for doping, as you’ve recommended, but if you believe that “most doping goes unnoticed by testing”, then increasing the penalties isn’t going to help. You can’t impose a penalty without first catching the doper. Or do you think that there’s something we can do in addition to blood and urine testing to catch the dopers? I’m all in favor of police sting operations like Operation Puerto, but WADA, UCI, et. al. have no police powers — they’re simply not allowed to wiretap people’s phones or bust into a rider’s hotel room like a SWAT team.
…
You want us to “focus our anger and attention” on “those team members who encourage and enable doping.” OK, but how do we identify them?
…
As I’ve tried to explain, I don’t think that a person “encourages and enables doping” simply because he or she fails to go along with the latest hair-brained initiative by WADA or UCI or the Mayor of Stuttgard to work outside of the ADA rules. As I’ve explained, these initiatives are motivated more by greed than by any true desire to combat doping. Besides, remember the moral component we discussed above, that everyone should obey the rules? That goes for the ADA officials as well as for the riders. If a rider like Bettini wants to assert his rights under the WADA charter, he is in a sense standing up for the same rules we want the riders to respect. The fact that he does this does NOT make him part of the omerta.
…
You’ve stated that “cycling needs an honest dialog about doping.” OK, but you’ve also said that you want to avoid “competing PR perspectives”. From my perspective, dialog is talk, and talk is cheap. From my perspective, pledges and oaths ARE PR. Dopers do not fear oaths and pledges. Cristian Moreni participated in an anti-doping protest at this year’s Tour de France the morning before the announcement of his positive doping test result.
…
I’ll return to your statement that most doping goes unnoticed by testing. I’d say instead that most doping goes unnoticed by the current regimen of testing. Under the current system, athletes dope when they know they’re not going to be tested, so they have to be tested more often. Under the current system, athletes dope using doses they figure are too small to be detected — that’s a tougher problem to deal with, but it can be addressed in part with better and more comprehensive testing.
…
I will also continue to state that the best hope for clean cycling will come from the teams, and particularly from team sponsors. At one time, I think sponsors only cared about winning, but now they care more about avoiding scandal. Team sponsors can insist that teams set up comprehensive anti-doping programs. Ludwig, PLEASE take a look at what Team Slipsteam is doing. THAT’S where you’ll find the change in philosophy you’re seeking.