It’s been some time since I’ve gone this long between posts. That’s due to ongoing work on that other writing project, which is nearing completion. Have no fear, faithful readers, I’ll be back with another full-length post in the next few days. With any luck, I’ll have the vast majority of the whole project wrapped up before the holidays.
One bit of interesting news worth mentioning is that the Agency for Cycling Ethics will be handling Team High Road’s testing program. I had a hunch that the new program would be run by the folks at ACE, and now VeloNews.com reports that the linkage is for real.
Each of the team’s riders will give a minimum of 26 random blood and urine samples per year, allowing ACE to build profiles of each individual that will help detect small changes in body chemistry that may be caused by blood transfusions or banned substances.
ACE will send test results to the UCI, the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) and the team. The profiles are intended to be used in conjunction with the new WADA biological passports, which the UCI has announced will be introduced for each ProTour rider at the beginning of the 2008 season. The passports will act as a record of all tests for each professional rider to provide more comprehensive blood and urine profiles.
The ACE program is fully endorsed by the UCI, whose Anne Gripper said it helps teams “create a doping-free culture by providing a robust, independent and transparent antidoping program.”
It will be interesting to see if any other high-profile teams sign on to the ACE program in the coming weeks and months. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if some do. Stay tuned.
To understand the current situation of pro-cycling doping, there is a good reading about Virenque:
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/29
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/30
the last part would be probably here in few hours
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/31
Jean:
Interesting articles. I notice that they tend to somewhat contradict your belief that everybody dopes and it is impossible to achieve a high placing without doping:
“But 2nd place finisher in the same year Alex Zulle (7″²37″³ down) would surely not have returned to doping after his suspension on Festina (ditto Laurent Dufaux, in 4th, 14″²43″³ back).
There were other team performances that some might call suspicious in 2000, such as Kelme placing three riders in the top ten, but another suspended rider from Festina, Christophe Moreau, presumably riding on mineral water, placed 4th.”
“There were other team performances that some might call suspicious in 2000, such as Kelme placing three riders in the top ten, but another suspended rider from Festina, Christophe Moreau, presumably riding on mineral water, placed 4th.”
“Speculation is easy, therefore, as to who might have been doping and who might have not in 1999 and 2000, but conclusions are next to impossible.”
Indeed, we can speculate about doping, not only in those years, but also more recently, but reaching conclusions based on solid evidence is next to impossible.
Yay! High Road signing with ACE is good news for cycling, I think.
I will make this point over and over: the progress in the fight against doping is being made by the TEAMS – like Slipsteam, CSC and High Road – and not by the sport itself or the ADAs. However, I’m glad to see that Anne Gripper at UCI had nice things to say about the ACE program. The sport of cycling needs to provide active help and assistance to these clean cycling programs — nice words are a good start, money for R&D would be even nicer. WADA is paying how much money to Dr. Brenna for research? How about diverting just a little bit of that money to help the teams develop clean cycling programs?
Ironic. On the same day that “High Road” strengthens its association with clean cycling, the “T-Mobile” name is mentioned in another doping headline. From Cycling News:
“German anti-doping crusader Doctor Werner Franke continued to insist that at least five T-Mobile riders left Strasbourg, France — site of the Grand Départ of the Tour de France — on the evening of Saturday, July 1, 2006 and drove to Freiburg, Germany, for blood transfusions.”
Hmm. Maybe T-Mobile left cycling at precisely the wrong time. Now it will be forever associated with the dirty goings on at the old team T-Mobile, and will get no credit for the good things going on at Team High Road. What’s the old addage, “buy low sell high”? Looks like T-Mobile may have sold low.
Jean C,
Thanks for the links. When I have more free time, I’ll give them a look.
Larry,
And it also looks like who ever signs on as a title sponsor for Team High Road will reap the benefits of associating with a program that’s taking an active stance against doping. They’ll be the ones to “buy low and sell high.” T-Mobile goofed, in my opinion. They should have stuck around.
William,
Yes, you are right… Zulle was 2nd in TDF 1995 with EPO… and finished 2nd in 1999 without EPO ! A bit strange when riders were the same (with some new). Same for Dufaux 4th in 96 and in 1999! In 1999, just after Festina, a lot of riders and managers were worried and they doped less, it’s visible on the graph here:
http://www.cyclismag.com/photos/evolution_20060711180734.jpg
from http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500
For memory:
1993-1994 : EPO became common used inside peloton
1997 : hematocrit test
1998 : Festina
2001 : EPO testing
after 2003: micro-dosing, Aranesp, transfusions
Do you believe that Virenque as Polti rider was clean?
Have you read Jaschke’s interview?
I must have write :
Yes, you are right”¦ Zulle was 2nd in TDF 1995 with EPO”¦ and finished 2nd in 1999 “without EPO” ! Because I believe they doped, less but many riders were doped during training and just before the TDF with EPO and usual PEDs.
As a red blooded, bible thumping, Bush loving amerikan, am I the only one who sees the parallels between the TSA and the new testing authorities? Here we have situations which can be functionally handled with a minimum of change (lock and fortify the damn doors in the airplane, and set up a panel of trusted labs across the world) yet we have to employ practically half of the population of the free world (the unfree world we can just press into service by threatening a waterboard) in order to pretend we are in control.
This is crap.
If you have bad labs and bad practices, then you simply increase the number of false positives that yellow journalists will pounce on like a TSA agent jumps on 10 ounces of baby formula or poorly fitting shoes.
Increasing the volume of testing does nothing more than create more confusion (and employment for those vast hordes of urine totting technicians).
Enough!
Rant,
Perhaps the important question to ask first – is ACE an “accredited” lab?
and by accredited, I mean from a valid world wide accepted scientific authority? If they are not – then we are no better off then with WADA and their “wada-accredited” labs…
Interestingly enough – if the ACE group becomes “accepted” as a source of “good testing” – the WADA strangle-hold on the whole testing procedure would fall apart – UNLESS WADA makes ACE a “member” of its organization.
As I see it – more then likely ACE was created to get around this very problem. At the moment – they are riding high on the publics belief that they are “more credible” then the WADA labs and procedures – but is this not merely an “assumption” on everybody’s part?
Is ACE willing to be transparent in its procedures and protocols? Or will they also be claiming that everyone should believe them because they are the “good guys?”
To a point I agree with DM – The ACE group stepped into a natural vacuum that was there – ACE is not a “non-profit” business. I have no problems with them being a business, as long as they are and remain an “independent” testing lab – that can withstand attempts at control from the Teams, or the Governing Bodies…
If the ACE accreditation comes from impeccable scientific practice that is world wide accepted – then I think it is a great idea and concept. But if ACE is “writing its own rules” as WADA has done – I see only further troubles ahead.
AS to the reaction from Ms Gripper and the UCI – as I see it – she and they who she reps have no real choice in the matter. If they show anything but positive reactions to ACE – they present themselves as maintaining the status quo – so I would not put much weight or value on this reaction.
On the other hand – the really important response from the IOC WADA group is apparently practically silent on the ACE matter. I cannot believe that WADA does not see that if ACE is going to be “accepted” that WADA’s conveniently built campaign against doping is in very real danger.
I would be willing to put some real money on it – that WADA is right now going crazy trying to maintain their “buble” of power. WADA will have to – in some way try to bring ACE under its agis – so that the WADA “rules” stay in and are used to define the control of the testing procedures.
If ACE is under WADA rules – then ACE becomes just like WADA – no transparency and we have to accept their “findings” without the benefit of putting said findings under the loop of outside scientific testing. If this happens – we are left with the same mess we have started out with.
I am all for the development of “real accredited science” showing up in this mess. But I withhold my complete support or belief in the ACE group as a final solution – till I see or find out what WADA will manage and what rules – the ACE group have to follow.
Morgan:
I too wonder just how ACE will work. I can see that there could be some room for, shall we say, somewhat slacker work here. By that I mean, suppose ACE gets some results on a given rider that are “suspicious”. The team then says to the rider “you are going to be benched until your test results get back into the safe area.” The test results in question might not be strong enough to trigger a total ban, but the team doesn’t want to risk that happening if the rider were to compete and be subject to presumably more rigorous testing or more aggressive prosecution. The rider looses out on the chance at whatever glory he might have gotten in the race(s) missed; if he was doping he might take this as a warning and get straight. The team can spin it as the rider was sick or injured or whatever and unable to compete, avoiding negative publicity (although there is a possibility of speculative comments in the media). If the rider was actually clean and the test was just anomalous for some reason, no big damage done. If the rider was doping, he gets a chance to go straight without major penalty, and little damage to either the team or the sport.
On the other hand, a team could fire a rider in such a circumstance, and even report him to UCI and/or WADA, turning over the test results. Since UCI/WADA seem to have no problem using borderline or worse test results, they might just then proceed to ban the rider.
Or maybe “suspicious” results could have the team administer additional, more definative, tests that could clear up the situation.
Then there is the question of what happens when ACE says a rider is clean and a WADA test shows evidence of doping. Suppose for a moment that Phonak had administered its own test on that fateful July morning last year and had come up with negative results. Would a rider be allowed to present this as evidence in a hearing? Would the panel members give any weight to such evidence or dismiss it out of hand?
If riders see the ACE program as one which does a good job of catching actual dopers without collateral damage to clean riders caused by over-zealous porsecution, they may be motivated to go clean. If it perceived as just some window dressing for a team to seem to be doing something anti-doping without any actual results, little change will occur. And if there is a big fight between ACE and UCU/WADA over conflicting results, things could get even nastier than they are now.
Morgan,
To answer your question about what labs ACE uses, it’s my understanding that they use commercial medical labs, who are subject to ISO 17025 certification. I actually have a longer post about ACE that is unfinished at the moment, due to the need to finish up my other project. I’ll get that post out in the near future.
William,
The ACE program is more of a monitoring program so that teams can spot problems and deal with them before they become bigger problems. They’re geared towards counseling riders on the dangers of doping, if a “suspicious” result occurs. And they go one step beyond, too. With the current program at Slipstream, there’s been at least one instance of a situation where a rider’s test results merited further investigation. And that further investigation determined that the rider had a consistent response to certain training conditions, and documented that response. I’ll have more about that in the upcoming post.
William and Morgan –
First, you can learn a lot about ACE at their web site: http://agencyforcyclingethics.com.
Second, one of ACE’s principals is Dr. Paul Scott, former number two guy at the UCLA lab, and also an advisor to the FL defense team. I think that ACE has some serious credentials.
Third, remember that ACE is NOT running a WADA-style sanctioning program. This is a different kind of program, one run primarily for the benefit of the team, primarily designed to make sure that the team does not place a doping rider into a race. This means that the ACE program gives the teams a number of options short of a two-year (or now, four-year) ban on racing. There’s an option of counseling, if test results seem mildly suspicious. There’s an option of holding a rider out of a race, but keeping the rider on the team. There’s also the option of firing the rider, which might allow the rider to sign on with another team.
Also, my understanding of the ACE program is that it does not necessarily set up hard and fast test numbers that a racer must pass in order to race. I’m reasonably sure that ACE DOES have a few such numbers in its arsenal. But the ACE program is primarily about setting up an historic profile for the rider that can be used to spot trends. Then the experts at ACE can examine these trends. There may not be a pre-written rule in every case that this particular trend is OK but that particular trend is suspicious. I think that the ACE program leaves a certain amount of room for judgment, which is probably OK, given the range of options open to ACE in the event that a rider’s trend line goes south, and the frequent monitoring of riders that is part of the ACE program. In other words, I don’t think that under an ACE style program, a rider is going to face what FL faced: you’re “clean” one day and “dirty” the next.
ACE is also more than a drug testing program. It’s a commitment to clean sport. Riders who want to dope are not likely to join a team where ACE is working. Once a rider joins an ACE team, they are placed in an environment where they know doping is unacceptable. They are peeing into so many cups and giving so many blood samples, that even riders who are tempted to dope will have grave doubts that he can get away with it. Besides, at least within the team, the competitive pressure to dope is eliminated, because each rider on the team assumes that his fellow team members are riding clean.
I have wondered aloud, here and elsewhere, how an ACE-style kind of team program, with all of its built-in sophistication and flexibility, could be translated into a WADA style program, which by its nature has to be more legalistic and less flexible. A topic for another day.
I know that I have not addressed everything you two have written in your posts, but at least this is a start.
Larry, you said:
Riders who want to dope are not likely to join a team where ACE is working. Once a rider joins an ACE team, they are placed in an environment where they know doping is unacceptable.
And that, of course, will be tolerated as long as these riders are competitive. But if riders from other teams are winning all of the races, then the old pressure will come to bear, and doping, albiet more sophisticated, will return. This process only works when EVERY team is an ACE team.
More food about the ambiguous UCI:
http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-speaks-for-riders.html
Jean C thanks for that link… it has a lot of interesting info in it.
BSMB, I respectully disagree. For the moment, at least.
It’s not clear whether you’re talking about RIDERS feeling the old pressure to dope, or TEAMS feeling the pressure. Let’s talk about the riders.
There was a time in cycling when winning was everything. Not anymore. Now, the key is riding clean, and avoiding scandal, and doing whatever is necessary to get invited to race in the Tours. If you can do all that and win, so much the better. But if you can’t avoid the scandals, or if you’re seen as a “dirty” rider or a rider on a “dirty” team, you’re not going to be allowed to race, and it doesn’t matter how good you are.
If Alberto Contador is not invited to race in the 2008 Tour de France (and my bet is that he won’t be), then it doesn’t matter how competitive he is. Not to him, and not to his team.
The sad thing is, Contador may be a perfectly clean rider. It doesn’t matter, not in the brave new world of cycling, where guilt by association is the rule of law. If you’re a rider in the brave new world of cycling, you better join one of the “clean” teams. Now.
That’s where the pressure is today, IMHO. Not to win. Not to dope. The pressure is to have the right reputation and the right teammates and a sophisticated team anti-doping program behind you. And just survive to race another day.
Morgan, congratulations buddy! You’ve been quoted in the TBV daily update!
That’s an honor reserved for Rant alone. Oh, also for Dick Pound. ;^)
Larry:
I have sort of speculated, mostly to myself, that with all the troubles pro cycling is going through, especially with respect to the sponsorship problems (which in turn is fall out from other problems), eventually pro cycling will evolve into something different than we have now. Your thoughts above fit rather well into this. Sponsors want to avoid the bad publicity that comes with doping allegations and convictions. Some sponsors are bailing out (T-Mobile, DIsco). Others may follow the Slipstream and High Road models. And, as you point out, this may lead to less emphasis on winning at any cost, and more emphasis on riding clean.
There may be other ramifications. I can see, as less sponsorship money is available, that rider salaries will drop too. This can tie into the riding clean emphasis too; riders will not be tempted to reel in big bucks for a short career (before getting caught) and look more to a longer career, possibly extended after riding days are over by either some off-saddle involvement in the sport directly, or perhaps cashing in on their status, doing ads etc.
Of course, this may be a rather utopian view of things. It could come to pass that, if as some allege, doping riders have such an advantage over clean riders that the clean riders finish so far down that sponsors and the public see little use in backing them. ASO may not want to invite relatively poor teams to the TdF, even if they are clean. Or, despite the best intentions, a Slipstream rider might be caught doping. Only a few teams might choose to follow this way, maintaining the status quo while SS is like a voice crying in the wilderness.
William, good points all. It is not easy to see where cycling is heading. The next 12 months will be eventful. We’re going to see a very different Tour de France, that’s for certain.
In the meantime, by this time tomorrow, we may be talking (for once) about rampant doping in a sport other than cycling.
French teams and sponsors have set an other ways… winning is not the most important, riders have just to show their jerzeys and so their sponsors. Sponsors can easily have their money back with a clean team providing some good pictures in the first parts of the race. With sponsoring cycling teams brands can be seen often on TV especially on GT: a good investment !
And I respectfully disagree back: Winning is the most important thing and winning will always corrupt the best of intentions.
BSMB, are you suggesting that people actually ride in races to win? Wow.
Larry, clearly there will always be overwhelming pressure to win. Whether from the team, the sponsors, or from the ultra-self-motivated riders. They ride the races to win. I concede that many riders ride the races to survive, and there is glory in this. but if a team is not riding to find wins, then they should stop.
Michael:
Yes, there will always be some pressure to win, but will it be “win at any cost” or “win if possible while remaining clean”? Consider the difference, for example, between Division I (or what do they call it these days, Football Championship Division?) vs say Division III or NAIA football. I suspect that those lower level teams are trying to win just as much as Ohio or LSU, but at a lot less cost. Cost, both in terms of the budget they spend, but also in terms of less pressure for coaches and boosters to play fast and loose on recruiting, or to put pressure on profs to pass the athletes, or all the other dirty tricks which have been done in the past.
As Jean points out above, a sponsor can get a lot of publicity by just the rolling billboard effect of riders in their jerseys. Sponsors are now realizing that the good that comes from this can be negated by doping revelations. Slipstream, High Road, etc., assuming they have well run anti-doping programs, may be saying it is more important that you ride clean than you win.
Perhaps in Europe a company can feel they are getting their money’s worth just by having a sleek pack of riders zoom by but here in the states that would not cut it. In sports we live in a cut throat environment of win at virtually any cost.
Take the baseball release today: Roger Clemens is said to have started taking steroids in 1999. Now in 1999 he had already had a great, a wonderful career, he had more money than he could spend, and had the respect of all (except for Red Sox fans whom he deserted). But he was getting old, his fast ball didn’t kick the way he wanted, and he wanted more glory and bucks. So out went the ethics, in came the ‘roids and he actually lasted into the 2007 season, making more money this year than I will see in my entire life. There was NO reason for him to do this except for ego. And that kind of ego will sink plans like this ACE system if it is not across the board to all riders equally.
Come to think of it, the one american company that, in the past two years, has had the greatest publicity (especially as a somewhat obscure company) is Amgen. Maybe the key for corporate sponsors is to sponsor a race, and leave the other suckers to sponsor the doping riders.
When Andy Hampsten won the Giro by riding over the Gavia in a snowstorm, that was winning at pretty high cost. Just ask Bob Roll. If this effort wasn’t at the highest cost then it was close. Could he have been blood doping like his American compatriots at the ’84 Olympics? Perhaps.
When Stephen Roche chased down Pedro Delgado at La Plagne how deep did he go? He paid a high price for that effort. Did he dip into Pedro’s juice? I’d be surprised if he didn’t.
Adri Wijnands survived a horrible crash at the ’85 TDF. I watched him limp home well after the peloton on the fifteenth stage into Aurillac after crashing on a decent. The next day finished on the Col du Peyrol. Wijnands climbed, still bleeding from his wounds. He struggled against the gradient. We chanted “Courage!” But it was more than courage, it was class and sheer obstinacy, that saw him hold his place in the line of dropped riders. I don’t know what he did to get on that bike every day, and I am pretty sure he wasn’t just taking the occasional aspirin, but he made it to Paris. What price do you think he paid? Amphetamines? Could have been.
And have these efforts been worth the prices that the riders may have paid (doping or otherwise)? Cycling has no glory with mediocrity. We expect the riders to pay these prices. These guys take all sorts of pharmacological substances just to survive.
Cycling is spectacle, publicity machine, and a race. But the race part of the equation may not be the most important. Professional cycle-racing has chosen to be an Olympic sport with all the emphasis on athletic performance and leveling of technological differences that implies. This is a recent development and is not compatible with the ideas of popular spectacle or commercial marketing. The UCI has taken steps to restrict technological advance in cycle design in order to “level the playing field.” The wholesale adoption of the Olympic ideal is not compatible with professional entertainment, regardless of the sport. Imagine F1 where everyone had the same car – the Olympic ideal but terrible entertainment. A degree of gamesmanship (and cheating, doping, etc.) has always been present in professional sport and it is the players themselves who control what is acceptable (because it’s their livelihood). The same thing is not appropriate to Olympic sport, which has ethics and rules developed and enforced by national and international governing bodies. Professional cycling needs to sort out what they want; the big money spectacle without the Olympic ideal (the traditional libertarian pro-cycle racing, with the technological advances; no more stifling the talents of the Graeme Obree’s of the world) or the Olympic sport with all the restraints of an essentially non-commercial activity where the sports administrators mix with the politicians of the IOC and the riders accept that nothing is acceptable outside purity regardless of what that means in terms of earning power.
Michael,
You raise a very good point. Cycling chooses to be part of the “Olympic movement.” The sport’s governing body, if they chose, could just as easily walk away from the Olympics and chart their own path, sans WADA and sans anti-doping rules, if they wish. Perhaps it would make for more “honest” racing, as no-one would be under any illusions about doping being against the rules and so forth. Or a new organization could form to promote cycling and give the UCI a run for their money.
The Olympic ideal, I’m afraid, has always been just an ideal and not reality. While the theory 50 years ago was that amateurs competed for the sheer love of sport, and that they didn’t cheat, various performance enhancing drugs (including steroids) were being used in “amateur” sports even then. Some of those organizing the cheating were even within the various nations’ Olympic committees (the East bloc comes especially to mind, but the West is not without sin, either). And in some countries, some of those who organized the cheating in the past are those in charge of the anti-doping efforts in the present.
Where it gets messy is when commerce and marketing get into the mix. Nothing wrong with sponsorship or commerce, mind you, but it changes the nature of the equation. Sponsors want positive publicity, which for many sponsors (at least in the US) means results. And the pressure to win leads some (even baseball players, apparently) to choose methods that aren’t quite on the up-and-up. Even the Olympics has gotten into the marketing/advertising game, with all the mega-millions they receive in broadcast rights, sponsorship and so forth. It’s a decidedly unpretty picture.
Cycling is, was and always will be (if it continues to exist) a spectacle that involves heroic feats. That’s what the fans want to see, not a bunch of guys who are no better than the average local Cat 2’s and Cat 3’s. There’s many feats in cycling, that if we look too closely, might not be as pure as the popular imagination would believe. That doesn’t make those feats any less remarkable.
Andy Hampsten hauling his cold, tired behind up a mountain pass in a snowstorm is the kind of thing that we remember. Whatever he did to get up and over the Gavia, he had to dig deep in order to do it. That’s what we admire. Someone who can dig deep when it counts in order to achieve their goals.
Cycling is definitely at a crossroads. Should the sport go with the Olympic ideal, or a more libertarian approach? Hard to say. Either way, the choice isn’t an easy one.
Thanks Rant.
I suppose to complete my thought, I am not “for” a legalization of doping. Things like EPO have taken away from those heroic feats. At the end of Flanders there shouldn’t be any domestiques left in the running (except as a fluke). The argument that they’re all doing it, therefore it is a level playing field, is bogus. The mountain climbs weren’t made harder, baseball stadiums weren’t made bigger, and the soccer field wasn’t made longer. Domestiques can now hang with the team leaders over all the hills through the Ardennes. Doping has closed the gap between good and great.
What we need to figure out, how far are we willing to go to catch the dopers. What is doping? Are we willing to live with any false positives? Currently WADA has the policy that if the athlete believes that a substance is performance enhancing, then the athlete is cheating – even if the athlete is erroneous. Is that the kind of policy the fosters better cycling?