Note: I actually started working on this post about two weeks ago. Other stories have grabbed my attention before I could finish. Tonight, however, I’m going to complete the post — or at least the first part of the post. There are a couple of stories I could have done today. For those, I’m waiting for a bit more info before making any comments.
For some time now, cycling has been the poster child for doping and all that is wrong with sports these days. It may well be that the reputation is unfairly earned. But due to the ever more aggressive tactics being taken in attempts to rid the sport of doping, and the inevitable media coverage such efforts engender, anyone who’s surprised that the sport is taking it on the chin has probably been residing on a different planet in our solar system.
So, the question comes up, exactly what can the sport — riders, team management, race organizers and promoters, and sponsors — do to bring this problem under control?
First of all, everyone needs to step back and understand that no matter what efforts are undertaken, human nature is such that there will always be a few people who will cheat. No matter what the rules say, no matter what the prevailing culture is within the sport, there will be people trying to get an advantage through illegal means. To rid the sport completely of doping, or any other form of cheating, is a quixotic quest. It will never happen.
But what can happen is a sea-change in culture among the majority of riders, so that fewer and fewer cyclists will cheat or be tempted to cheat. So in this post, and the comments to come, let’s look at ways to actually bring the sport back to good health.
The Code of Silence
According to one school of thought, one of the biggest impediments to solving the doping problem is the “omerta” among cyclists. Those who know about doping refuse to speak out, out of a loyalty to their teammates, sponsor, managers, whomever. There is at least an element of truth to this critique of cycling (or any close-knit group or organization for that matter), but my own experiences lead me to believe that this silence comes more from the old school-yard admonition that we shouldn’t rat out our friends and colleagues. I’ve never gotten the sense that it was a more overt kind of omerta, practiced by certain criminal organizations, for example.
But how does such a code of silence get broken? How do we encourage people to speak up about things they’ve seen, heard and done? For most cyclists, there is no incentive to speak up and much incentive not to. Those who talk risk their livelihood, their friendships, and any future in cycling by doing so. And, the rider who speaks out and admits to doping risks the vilification of fans who may turn harshly on him or her.
Anyone who speaks out about personal experiences while still competing, absent guarantees otherwise, also risks being sanctioned for any doping he or she admits to. About the only time we see riders speaking out is when they’ve been caught doping, when they’ve retired from the sport, or when a guilty conscience has gotten the better of them. And even when they do, rarely do such people offer any specifics beyond their own experiences.
So, from my perspective, to break the code of silence, athletes have to believe that it’s in their interest to do so. And they have to have assurances that they will suffer no ill consequences for doing so. But let’s be realistic in our expectations, even if we make it safe to speak out, not everyone will. Perhaps only a small portion of those who’ve been involved in doping over the years would talk. But even if the code of silence breaks, will that be the end of doping in cycling? I have my doubts. There’s a possible economic benefit to doping (assuming that one, it works, and two, the athlete wins or places highly in a race), which means there will always be some temptation. That temptation will never go away.
At the same time, it’s possible that a cultural change could occur in cycling, whereby it becomes “cool” to win clean. And where intense pressure could be put on athletes to compete cleanly. That’s what some of the newer team-implemented anti-doping programs seek to do.
Should the code of silence (such as it exists) falls, we will get a clearer picture of just how much doping has been going on in pro cycling, who does it, and who’s been helping. That may not be a pretty picture, but it could do a lot to clear the air.
Create a “Truth and Reconciliation” Commission
After the fall of apartheid in South Africa, the government created a way for people to come forward and talk about their experiences under the prior regime, which became known as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If such a commission were set up within the ranks of cycling, where athletes and others could go to speak about what they’ve seen, witnessed and participated in, perhaps we would get a better idea of just how widespread doping is within the sport, as well as the motivations for doping and the ways that current cheats use to beat the system.
Right now, our sport is divided along fault lines where one side believes doping is done by most, if not all of the athletes, and the other side who believe that while doping is a problem, it’s not quite so prevalent as it’s made out to be. But the truth, for the moment, is that none of us can accurately quantify how pervasive doping is within the peloton. Is it 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 10%? None of the above? None of us really knows the answer. Perhaps with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we might come closer to finding out just how pervasive it has been.
For such an idea to work, the powers that be need to draw a line in the sand, however, and say that everything that happened before a certain date will be considered a part of the past, and that any information that comes from such a system will not be used to punish people in the present. If we want people to speak the truth, we shouldn’t punish them when they do.
How much will such a body do to help the image of the sport outside the dedicated fans? I’m not sure. I suspect that this type of approach would do more to heal the differences between the factions within cycling than to gain new fans from the outside. Still, it’s something that should be considered.
Create A “Mitchell Report” for Cycling
Much to the surprise of one reader (who will remain nameless), I believe that if done properly the world of cycling could benefit from a “Mitchell Report” of its own. Emphasis on if done properly. A report set up to be a whitewash of the current situation or to merely reinforce what various bodies are currently doing to “address” the problem wouldn’t be much help at all.
But a natural outgrowth of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could be a report detailing steps that the UCI, WADA, the national federations, teams and athletes could take in the future to reduce doping from (at least the perception of) being rampant in the peloton to the being a rare occurrence that is most likely to be accurately caught and prosecuted by the anti-doping enforcers.
Let the Sun Shine In
To paraphrase the old saw about selling a home (“location, location, location”), in order to restore the public’s faith in our sport it’s all about transparency, transparency, transparency. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, especially when it comes to the bureaucracy. That includes the anti-doping system (WADA, et. al.), the national and international federations (the UCI and their minions), the various national governing bodies and so forth.
With anti-doping enforcement, the entire process should be open to public view. The creation of regulations (that means changes to the World Anti-Doping Code, as well as additions or deletions to the prohibited list), the certification of labs, any disciplinary actions taken against athletes, labs and so forth. Investigations, prior to any charges being filed (whether based on test results or other means) should be confidential. Only after charges are filed against an individual should any information be released.
As we rightly expect athletes to follow the rules and be held accountable, the rulemakers and enforcers must be held responsible and accountable for following their own rules. No matter who breaks the rules, the punishments (if found guilty) should be consistent and consistently enforced. If a lab routinely leaks information to the press and is not sanctioned, that casts the credibility of the anti-doping system into doubt. Therefore, sanctions should be imposed in such instances, and those sanctions should be proportional to the seriousness of the infractions.
The job of the World Anti-Doping Agency is to ensure drug-free and fair competition. Part of that responsibility is the creation of a coherent, consistent set of rules and standards. Within that framework, there must be clear and consistent standards for how tests are to be conducted and how the data is to be interpreted. The idea that one lab could have a different standard for what constitutes a positive steroid test than another is ludicrous. It creates an atmosphere of unequal enforcement — just the thing that WADA was supposed to eliminate. A positive steroid test in LA should be the same as a positive test in Montreal or Paris or Timbuktu.
Whatever the standards are or will be, they should be published for all to see. Does it take one metabolite over the limit to test positive on a CIR/IRMS test for testosterone? Or two? Or three? Or all four? There should be one standard (scientifically supported, by the way), and it should be available for public view.
When charged with an offense, the athlete should be given full access to all of the lab’s test results in his or her case. The athlete should be given information on standard operating procedures for the tests involved. Any and all potentially exculpatory evidence should be provided. Think of it this way, if you’re not inclined to agree, it’s another way (assuming that the lab techs have followed proper procedures) to show the athlete that the facts are solid. At the same time, it gives out information that, in the (hopefully) rare instance when an innocent athlete is charged, the athlete will actually be able to show that he or she is innocent.
In fact, such information and access to information should be a requirement of what is contained in a lab documentation package to support an adverse analytical finding. Currently, the contents of each lab documentation package are currently left up to each individual lab.
Stop Focusing On Sins of the Past
Certain agencies seem to be hell-bent on proving certain cyclists from the past — even the recent past — are corrupt dopers who’ve sullied the sport’s reputation. Perhaps this is true, even. But resources are limited in the fight against doping. A continual focus on events past means that the enforcers may not be paying close attention to what’s going on in the present. There’s a danger in that. New techniques may emerge, and while the ADAs and their ilk are off trying to prove Lance Armstrong was a doper during his seven Tour wins, others may be slipping through the system right now. In fact, it’s probably fair to say that others are slipping through the system right now.
Let’s face it. Lance vehemently denies doping. No one has truly definitive proof that he did — circumstantial evidence, maybe, but nothing that really constitutes a smoking gun. It’s time to let it go. If ever a Truth and Reconciliation Commission comes into existence, and if Lance is as guilty as some people say, perhaps it will come out then. But until that happens, the ADAs and the labs need to be keeping one eye on the present and one eye on the future. The past is past. Knowing what happened is one thing. Constantly trying to nail people for sins of the past is letting the current crop of cheaters pass through undetected.
End The Internal Power Struggles
As we’ve seen over the last week or more, the ongoing struggle for power and control of cycling is still raging between the ASO and the UCI. Each side can probably point a finger at the other, accuse their opposition of ruining cycling, and be partially correct. The war between the international federation and the major promoters is also causing our sport to fall into disrepute.
As the old Pogo comic strip once said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” It’s true, I’m afraid. The UCI and the promoters need to sit down and make peace. Scrap the current ProTour and build a new series in its place. One in which both sides have a say, and one in which both sides will benefit from the creation. Most importantly, one that is created jointly by both groups.
To accomplish such a goal there may well need to be a power-sharing agreement of some sort. And revenue sharing may be necessary, too. If the two sides work together to create a system where everyone has input (perhaps even the teams and the riders), and where everyone stands to gain something, then whatever comes out of that collaboration has a greater chance of success.
More importantly, whatever comes out will have the support of the major interest groups within the sport. That kind of unity and shared purpose is priceless. And once the internal bickering is resolved, perhaps the UCI and others can really get down to the business of expanding the reach of cycling as a sport around the world.
Those are some of the things that have occurred to me. What’s your take?
Rant,
I think i have said it before on one these posts, but the problem with a cyclist coming clean is that it does not resolve the problem. As a matter of fact the cyclist finds himself getting dirtier and dirtier. Take Patrick Sinkiewitz(sp) for example. Here is a guy who decided to fess up and help, only to have the authorities come out harder. So it seems in all circumstances you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. As far as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, i am not sure if it would work in cycling. In a quick look at some of the stats, 74% of the perpetrators were refused amnesty (if i am reading it correctly). With stats like that, there wouldn’t be much left in the pro cycling ranks (assuming that cycling is as bad as some claim).
As far as dredging up the past, what benefit does that serve? It seems some people are more interested in proving there suspicions regarding some cyclist rather then trying to create at atmosphere of healing and reconciliation. Sometimes the biggest impediments to these goals are the leaders themselves. So maybe new leaders all round ASO, UCI WADA etc
Luc,
Good points, all. I’m not sure that dredging up the past does anything other than prove (or disprove) various individual’s perceptions. The biggest solutions to cycling’s problems, to me, lie in creating a fair — and more accurate — system for catching the cheats and dealing with them. But it has to be open to the possibility that people can be wrongly accused, which I don’t think our current anti-doping system really does. To me, the “protections” offered come off more as an afterthought, designed to give the impression of fairness. New leaders all around would be a great way to get things rolling. That would take away some people with entrenched positions from the process of getting things back on track.
Luc,
You make excellent points re: “fessing up” – if the problem lay with only riders being at fault for creating the “doping-culture” – I could see some purpose to this – but I tend to see it as you do – it gets the riders into deeper trouble with “no end in sight” except “banishment.” I can’t see it as being reasonable to expect the riders alone to be “coming forward” – since they are only a small part to the doping/cheating problem. And as you point out – where is the real gain here? As the present state of affairs seem to be unfolding – some people think that “outing” the dopers” will stop the doping and cheating. I think this is complete hog-wash! The only thing it would accomplish is to get the finger pointers to say – “See – we told you so – and nothing would occur to change the problems!
Rant,
I completely agree with you – TRANSPARENCY-TRANSPARENCY-TRANSPARENCY – that is the “only way” we have any hope in having any success in battling the drugs and the cheating.
When the process cannot be held behind closed doors and the public is watching – we have a real chance to fight fairly – but when rules and regulations – governing bodies – and labs do not have the fear that they MUST EXIST in glass houses – then I do not think we have a chance in hell of “changing cycling for the better.”
As to having a pure clean situation – that is the most naive thinking I can imagine – it does not exist – and those who claim that it is possible are “fooling the people” – as you so rightly point out – cycling is done by human beings – there will always be human beings who try to get an unfair edge.
The situation today in cycling is not “merely due to the doping” question – it is due to the fact that under close scrutiny – the organizers, governing bodies and some racers are guilty of using the existing rules that run cycling to bend it to their advantage. That the rules and regulations are in this present state is due to the governing bodies that “control” cycling – not the riders.
So if cycling wants to be seen as a legitimate sport – a clean sport – the rules cannot be bent and twisted to serve the purpose other then to actually have a means to achieve this. As the rules are today – I believe – this is not possible.
That’s my opinion.
I mostly agree with your posts and the comments. Rules for all labs need to be clearly defined and followed. The elimination of all cheating from sports is a fantasy. But it could be possible for the majority of riders to feel strongly about not cheating. I also think it would be best to concentrate on riders today, not ones that may have slipped through in the past. And the governing bodies need to work together, not constantly fight for power.
Most of what you suggested seems to make pretty good sense, which is why I don’t expect any of it to happen any time soon.
The Code of Silence: This will never be broken. Any attempt to do so will be fruitless and is obviously naive. What motivation could you ever offer a rider to rat out his teammate?
The notion that it could be cool to win clean is noble but unrealistic. Do we KNOW that Lance wasn’t clean? Would we be anymore certain of a future champion’s cleanliness? The sport is about winning races. This is not an egalitarian sport where we are seeking an equality of outcomes. It is all about finding the men who can punish themselves to greatness. Riding clean is not an end to itself, and as Floyd pointed out, nothing to be proud of (“hey I don’t cheat, isn’t that cool?” Huh?). Riders are paid to garner publicity through super human efforts. That’s the point. Anything else diminishes the depth of their efforts. Put another way, I know what the guys did that Lance beat. I don’t know what Lance did but which of the guys that he beat didn’t dope enough to beat him? We know what Zulle did, and Ulrich, Pantani, Basso, Vinokourov, and others. Lance still beat them – clean or not. So what value do you put on claims that Lance was clean? If he is actually clean, do think that would make him feel cool?
The idea of Truth & Reconciliation is fine with me, but I get the impression from some of the other individuals who post here that maybe they don’t want the truth – just vengeance. Maybe. And I am fairly confident that WADA is not built upon principles of fairness and Truth.
The sun should be allowed to shine in, but I think the first step would be to completely divorce the Olympics from professional sports. That means abolishing any connections between cycling and WADA. If the UCI is not up to the task of managing their own rules, then they should hire an independent company to perform the testing and management of these services. That way the company in charge of this would work for cycling as a consultant – and we wouldn’t be concerned that they have an alternative agenda. As part of this, no testing should be performed by a lab that is not independent (that would exclude a few labs who are politically tied to government athletic agencies). Cycling is a professional sport with its own management structure (albeit dysfunctional); why should they subject themselves to the whims of government run labs with their associated short comings (political influence, leaks, vacations during the middle of the season). If the French Open Tennis Tournament can send their tests to Montreal because they don’t trust LNDD, then why not cycling?
nice post
Michael,
Divorcing the Olympics from professional sport would certainly be good for professional cycling (and probably many other sports, too). Given that the whole Olympic “ideal” was originally about competition for the “love” of competition and not for pay, perhaps they ought to go back to that ideal. A lot of things have gotten muddled up since they started allowing (or, in some countries’ cases, acknowledging) professionals as part of the games.
Trying to apply amateur ideals to professional sports is bass-ackwards. The pros get paid to do their thing. And the people doing the paying expect them to deliver results. A lot of things can (and do) happen in a “professional” sport that don’t and shouldn’t in amateur sports. The IOC going back to their original mission and staying out of pro sports could do a lot to change the current hysteria over various issues.
Excellent points about independence, too.
It’s occurred to me, and I don’t know if it’s come up before …
Labs should *destroy* athlete samples at the conclusion of events, or within a reasonable time frame to allow testing to be completed *with current technology* and just *for the specific event*.
That goes to two of your points: 1) transparency of testing and 2) stop focusing on sins of the past.
That is, testing is certainly not transparent if you can’t identify all the tests you plan to run (in the next decade). And, someone can always call the past into question as long as the samples are available for further testing.
Snake,
That’s an excellent point. Once upon a time, labs were supposed to destroy the samples 90 days after an event was over. (This was an issue in the whole 2005 Armstrong/L’Equipe/LNDD debacle.) Now they store them indefinitely (or at least for 8 or 10 years). Although the mantra is that by keeping the tests, they will be able to catch use years after an event, I think that’s a waste of time and resources. Yes, by not doing tests on old samples, some cheaters will “get away with it.” But better to focus resources on the here and now, to minimize cheaters getting away with it while the authorities are busy chasing their tails over old events.
Cycling has 2 problems: doping itself and the perception of the situation. While the 2 are somewhat connected, they also have a degree of independence. It is possible that cycling could clean up the sport (whatever that might mean) and still the public perception is that it is a dirty sport. Certainly, the fact that it will never be possible to totally eliminate doping, and hence, from time to time someone will get caught, can fuel a continued perception of doping, even if the fact is doping has been brought within acceptable and achievable limits. Even now, we see people who wonder if programs like Slipstream are in fact cynical means of doping while avoiding detection rather than legitimate attempts to control doping.
Is is also at least theoretically possible that cycling could “engineer” a change in the public’s perception while actually doing little if anything about the actual doping problem. In some ways I see some of the public posturing of various parties as attempting to do. UCI’s infamous pledge last year, ASO kicking out Astana, ToC’s booting the Rock 3, etc. “Look, we are so clean!” However, I don’t think they are being to successful here.
More than just a waste of time and resources, it undermines the faith in the results. “We have a champion, but he could have cheated. We can’t tell you for sure when we’ll be done checking. It could be decades.”
Yes, some cheaters might get away with it. Then again, some innocents might not have their reputations tarnished (or RUINED) by new, but imperfect tests performed on frozen old samples.
90 days seems perfect to me. Who the hell let them change the rules ? =;^}
How does cycling save itself from itself? That is the question at hand and one which I am sure has more than a few answers depending on your opinion as to the root of the problem. If I was king…
1. Clear and unequivocal doping rules and enforcement with finite punishment periods. No rogue labs making up their own quality control protocols (yes I am talking about LNDD). Have Don Caitlin’s lab at UCLA write the rules on how to achieve quality control (with well accepted lab prototols) with the absolute minimum of false positives. Also recognize that one can rarely if ever achieve a zero false positive rate and as such, provide fair mechanism for hashing this out. It needs to be recognized that the price of a false positive can be a career for an athlete and maybe a reprimand for the tech. If there is a technical errror, benefit goes to the athlete. And yes, intent DOES make a difference. Accidental doping positives need to be treated differently than intentional ones.
As for punishment periods, they need to be shorter. If you get busted for illegal use of PED’s, you lose a year and once the term is served, you can go back and race. They didn’t shoot anybody so lets not treat them like a child molesters. None of this prolonged/vague restrictions on returning like has happened to Hamilton, Botero, and Sevilla.
Sorry…accidently hig the submit button before I was done…
Last thought on the doping issue. As others have mentioned, transparency is EVERYTHING. The tests being used, the standards, the methods(i.e. chromatography, mass spectroscopy etc), and the quality controls need to be well-publicized and they need to be adhered to at the cost of being thrown out if not. If there is going to be a change, it needs to be proposed well in advance and it (a new method) has to shown to be accurate and reproducable across all labs as well as shown to actually test for what it claims to test for.
2. There would be a coherent international schedule with a World Cup type awarding of points for season long consistency in races and weight would be given to this (prize money/incentives) How those points get awarded and what weight would be given to certain races would depend on race quality as well as tradition. The system would be such that you could not win be simply winning one tour. Obviously, the Classics, and the Tours would be given heavy weight, but they would not be the only races getting points. UCI would determine this in negotiation with respective race directors (ASO etc.)
As I am not king however, I guess we’ll have to leave it to others to take a stand so we can back to racing and stop acting like spoiled kids having a temper tantrum. Looking forward to that day!!
Rant –
Great post. You’re now officially my new candidate for UCI president.
I’d add one more bullet point to your list. I think that the WADA rules should be modified to provide for sanctions to team managers, doctors, and the teams themselves, each time a rider is sanctioned for doping. At the moment, I’d vote for the same kind of strict liability for managers, doctors and teams as is applied to riders. It’s crazy for the riders to be sanctioned, as if the riders were solely and totally to blame for doping.
We can talk about what sanctions would be appropriate for what kinds of offenses, but I’d have no problem saying that a team like Astana might be banned from the Grand Tours in 2008 based on the team riders who doped in 2007. This would be similar to the sanctions imposed by the NCAA, which can exclude teams from post-season tournaments based on rule infractions.
As a corollary to this rule, race sponsors would no longer be free to exclude teams or riders based on their past history of doping. Exclusion of teams from the Grand Tours would be based solely on the WADA rules outlined above.
At least the NCAA conducts investigations and tries to determine the facts of the situation. It doesn’t ban a team from March Madness just because the team “plays too good – they must be violating the rules”.
The plan I’ve been suggesting for quite a while for shared responsibility is for a rider suspension to be counted against starting slots for a team, for the life of the rider’s suspension. If your team has a positive, you are short a rider in all events until the rider is eligible again. This is like the red-card rule in football(soccer).
If the team loses so many starting slots it can’t field a starting team (eg: Astana 2006), then it isn’t racing, and probably everybody is unemployed.
This applies to the original team for as long as the drug suspension, even if the rider is fired or his contract expires.
(There are possibly tricky cases, like Ullrich and Rasmussen, where there haven’t been any charges, so what can be done against the team?)
There are things I *really* like about this: it penalizes the team in a way that affects success and livlihood, which should encourage better behavior; and the team is saddled with the rider and can’t just wash it’s hands of him, so it has reason to support him if there is a defensible case to be made — at least through the initial case.
TBV
Rant, we need to move on as you say. But I don’t believe a Truth and Reconciliation Commission will serve that purpose. The South African T&R Commission allowed people that were victims of severe violence against their persons and freedoms to come forward and be heard. Who in cycling has suffered that level of harm?
Would it help clear the air? You talked about 2 general types of people — the first that think everyone was doped to the gills, and the second who felt it was not near as prevalent.
For the former the widespread presence of doping has become dogma. If no one came forward in the Commission it would not mean that there was less doping it is simply omerta or some other thing that is preventing the truth from coming out. For them the absence of proof is not innocence it is the criminals have not been caught. How are they served by any commission? Will the air be cleared? Sadly my belief is they do not seek the truth they seek confirmation, and beyond that in many cases, retribution.
The latter group I guess I feel squarely a part of, and to be honest, I am tired of this endless rehash of history. Lets use LA as an example — I don’t feel I need Lance Armstrong to tearfully confess to taking EPO — I really no longer care, and to be honest if he did dope so did every other GC rider so he was still better than the rest of them. I don’t care if bits of the truth come out, because I don’t think we will ever know the whole truth, nor would I benefit from the knowledge. Finally I question why would any active rider confess? There are a lot of riders that have served their time but no one will hire them on the rumors of doping. So confessing gets you what exactly?
The situation in cycling with drugs spun out of control — and the reaction to the drugs once people saw that a problem existed has spun out of control as well. The people that need to fix the problem know the problem and they know it well. They are the guys that created it. That is a combination of the UCI, the organizers, the teams, the riders, the doctors the list goes on. I don”˜t see them getting up and confessing. More useful would be to say go fix this mess. Get a representative group from all the parties and get them in a room and hash out a system – a fair one, going forward. Confessions and testimony and accusations will not get you there.
First, we need a rational policing policy. No surprise here. There are a lot of excellent ideas many of which I have seen here. Then we need an amnesty — without confession, because no rider, no institution will come forward to confess.
Everyone not under suspension or banned starts with a clean slate, the past is forgiven, the files are destroyed. If you want to confess feel free if it makes you feel better, but we don’t care — we care you don’t do it again, and if you do, well you are absolutely positively going to get it under a system that is fair, balanced and transparent.
Steve,
I’m not entirely convinced that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would do more than offer a forum for people to speak about their experiences. I rather doubt that many would speak, unless there were some incentive to do so. Ending the “code of silence” that may (or may not) exist, is probably a pipe dream. Again, because if it does exist, then riders would need a powerful incentive to speak out.
Larry,
I like your additions. Perhaps strict liability should apply to the testers, too. If they screw up, the results are voided and no charges can be filed. On top of that, the lab (or those within the lab who are responsible) would be suspended for a certain amount of time.
TBV,
That certainly would get the attention of team management. Having to start a race like the Tour a couple of riders down would certainly have an impact on a team’s chances. And possibly “fouling out” and not being able to compete would be a powerful disincentive for doping.
Ange,
I hate it when I accidentally submit something before I’m finished. 🙂 Good points. I certainly look forward to the day when the various players stop acting like spoiled children. That day will come none too soon.
William, isn’t it scary that the NCAA seems like a model of organization and right behavior, compared to the governing bodies in cycling?
TBV, yours is an interesting idea, but it may not quite be punishment enough for a team with historic doping problems to ride “short-handed”. It sounds like a power play in hockey or a holding penalty in football. I don’t think the idea is to penalize the team in a sporting sense — this isn’t something that a team should be permitted to overcome, like when your star player fouls out of a basketball game.
I think that teams like Slipstream are proving that doping is a team-wide problem, that can be tackled with a team-wide solution. If what we’re shooting for is clean sport, then make the teams responsible for fielding clean teams. That goes for the team officials too — the doctors and the DSes and all the others.
And William, yes, suspension of teams, doctors, DSes, etc., should be accompanied by full due process, as Rant has described. That would be an improvement on the NCAA.
TBV, I’m trying to come up with a system to head off the ASOs and the AEGs who think they have to go beyond what is provided for in the system to ensure a clean race. If we have rules for the suspension of teams, then ASO has less reason to do its own selective exclusion of the teams it doesn’t like. And if teams face real consequences for racing riders that turn out to have doping problems, then AEG has less reason to exclude riders designated by the alphabet soup agencies as being under suspicion. I don’t think we can head off ASO and AEG by putting a rider in the proverbial penalty box.
If we can get everyone to sign off on these rules, and to live by these rules, cycling would be much better off. Teams would be free to give riders with doping problems a second chance, after the riders had served their suspension, without the teams jeopardizing their standing with race organizers. But if we’re going to get the race organizers to live by these rules, we have to set up relatively tough rules.
I also would like to subject the teams, the DSes and all the rest to the kind of “justice” enjoyed by the riders! Let’s see how fair “strict liability” appears to the cycling world when it’s applied to other players in cycling.
At best, this is a win-win.
TBV, yours is an interesting idea, but it may not quite be punishment enough for a team with historic doping problems to ride “short-handed”. It sounds like a power play in hockey or a holding penalty in football. I don’t think the idea is to penalize the team in a sporting sense “” this isn’t something that a team should be permitted to overcome, like when your star player fouls out of a basketball game.
Why isn’t it enough of a punishment? Please explain. The idea IS to punish the team in a sporting sense. That is a powerful motivation to avoid. And if they lose enough slots, then they don’t have enough riders to field a team, and it is a death sentence for a team with an historic problem. It’s what happens if a basketball team suits up 8 guys, and 4 foul out — it’s a forfeit.
Recall that Sastre did pretty well in 2006 with Basso missing; it is an impediment to be short one, but not fatal. You don’t want the first one to be that harshly punished, but when it is two or three it starts to take care of itself.
The other rules about races not rejecting riders or teams that are properly licensed seems fine — I just don’t believe that suspending individual staff is ever going to be work, or be viable. Punishing the team with slots isn’t tied to individual culpability, it’s a team punishment for a rule violation.
TBV
Larry,
I agree with your intentions regarding the teams taking on a level of responsibility, but I think you might not have fully considered the harm done to a sponsor due to a sanctioned rider. Obviously, any individuals involved in a willful attempt to cheat should be sanctioned on some level. Clearly the sponsor Astana, just like Rabobank, Festina, T-mobile, etc. are harmed by these cheats when they are sanctioned. Why would the sport take it to another level and drive the sponsor from the sport by prohibiting the remainder of the team from racing? That’s bad for business.
Remember, the Astana group is a coalition of state-owned companies from Kazakhstan named after their capital. They did not cheat on any level that I know of. A group of individual cyclists that Astana sponsored cheated. Astana has willingly paid money to sponsor this cycling team. The sport owes the Astana Group better than the 2007 team gave them. By eliminating the revamped (and cleaned-up) team from the 2008 tour what kind of message is cycling sending to this sponsor? I would say a big screw them. It’s just bad for the sport.
TBV –
I’m trying to distinguish between the punishment for double-dribbing versus entering the stands to fight a heckling fan. Between running outside of the baselines and betting against your own team. Between jumping offsides and getting into fights at strip clubs. Doping is the second kind of offense, not the first, and it should be punished accordingly.
The first kind of “offense” is a normal part of the sport – even the best and most careful basketball players have personal fouls called against them. The sanction for these offenses is a small and often temporary competitive advantage given to the other team: a free throw, a power play, a five yard penalty and repeat of down. These offenses, and their attendant consequences, are a normal part of the ebb and flow of the game. They are not considered to be bad moral conduct, or a threat to the sport.
The second kind of offense is something that no athlete is supposed to do, ever. It is entirely avoidable behavior, condemned by all. The athlete is supposed to be punished, not penalized. The athlete is fined, or suspended. The message should be that this behavior is NOT part of the game. The athlete’s team may suffer a competitive disadvantage as a result of the punishment, but that’s not the primary purpose behind the punishment.
OK, I’ll admit that at certain points, the lines blur. A boxer hits his opponent below the belt. A coach secretly tapes the practices of his upcoming opponents. A basketball player commits a flagrant foul. This is cheating on a different level than, say, having 12 men on the field. But we often punish these in-between kinds of infractions by imposing large competitive disadvantages — like a LONG stay in the penalty box, or a red card in soccer, or two free throws plus possession of the ball. I’ll admit that there’s a gray area between the two kinds of offenses I’m describing.
Still, there IS a distinction between the smaller infractions that draw a competitive type of penalty, and the larger infractions where a competitive penalty is not appropriate and something more punitive (like a fine or suspension) is in order.
I don’t think that doping in football should be punishable with a 15 yard penalty and loss of down, or that doping in soccer should be punishable with a free kick. It’s not something that a team should be able to overcome with a great performance. I don’t want doping to become part of an heroic sporting story line, like a hockey team that wins the Stanley Cup with a short-handed goal in overtime. I don’t want to read about the brave boys of the Acme Racing Team, who overcame the doping suspension of three of their comrades to win the Tour de France.
I think a better message is sent by restricting or suspending the team’s ability to compete, like the NCAA would do. Doping should not be part of the story line — if you’re going to punish a team for doping, then the team should not be part of the story.
Is this clearer?
Michael –
Lawyers like me are big into analogies. So let’s consider Enron.
Let’s assume for the moment that the accusations against Enron were all true (I think they were, but that’s ultimately not the point here). Who is responsible for what Enron did? Well, there were a relatively small number of people at Enron who were wrongdoers, and a somewhat larger number of people (still the vast minority) who were guilty of nothing more than looking the other way. The vast majority of people associated with Enron (employees, stockholders) were completely innocent of anything even approaching wrongdoing.
Do we just punish the wrongdoers? Or do we go after the corporation as well?
This may sound like a rhetorical question, but really it is not. There is a legitimate question at law whether we treat an organization as if it were a person, and punish the organization as an organization when its reprsentatives do wrong. However, while the question is a legitimate question, we’ve pretty much decided in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world that organizations can be punished as well as individuals.
We can easily recognize the downside of punishing organizations. Many innocent people will suffer — loss of pensions, loss of jobs, and the like. The organization may not be completely evil, and the corporation’s ability to do good — to provide a valuable service, to contribute to the economic whole of the society — will be compromised or eliminated altogether.
I think that on balance, the concept that organizations can be held legally responsible for their actions does more good than harm. We live in a society dominated by corporations, partnerships and other forms of legally recognized association. Many people take their most signficant social actions in their capacity as representatives of associations. And it’s all too easy for us to act in this capacity without the normal and usual regard for the consequences of our actions. We’re “only doing our job”, or we’re “just trying to get ahead”, or we’re “doing what’s expected of us”.
The organization itself must have a sense that it faces consequences as an organization for the wrongdoing of its representatives. The organization must have a reason to implement controls and exercise oversight. If only the bad actors within the organization face potential punishment, then it’s easy for the organization to dispose of the bad actors and go on with business as usual — something like the cycling team that replaces the sanctioned rider with another rider just as likely to dope.
Michael, you’re quite right to poing out that if we punish the teams when their riders dope, we may drive some of the team sponsors out of the sport, That’s an imporant consideration, and an argument against what I’m proposing. (Of course, if ASO is going to ban teams from racing, this is arguably MORE likely to drive sponsors from the sport, as it punishes the sponsors in a less predictable manner than would be the case if my proposal was adopted.) In most cases, I’m a big advocate of the sponsors. But in our desire to attract sponsors and make cycling a good investment for them, I don’t think we should abandon what I think are normal and sound principles of organizational responsibility. Organizations should be held responsible for the actions of their representatives.
Perhaps the sound compromise here is to impose doping liability on teams, but not strict liability. I’ll admit, I floated the concept of strict liability for teams, DSes, doctors, etc., because I don’t see why strict liability should be imposed only on riders.
Great post!
I like it a lot better to think about: how can things get better than how bad are things.
Just a few thoughts:
The omerta was also easily kept because riders were so much on their own. That became painfully clear this summer concerning the Raboank team.
The team was not concerned with what the riders were doing as long as the team couldn’t be held responsible. The team didn’t know what they didn’t want to know. We know the story, Rasmussen got sacrificed.
I think it is a whole lot more difficult to keep up doping when there is enough contact between rider and team. Lying by not saying is a lot more easier than overtly lying in the face of the one who asks you how you train etc.
Some teams have this structure already (High road, Slipstream CSC), other could have a more professional way of accompanying . I think it could help in keeping the riders “˜on the path’.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In itself a great idea. But I doubt if the cycling world is ready for that. Maybe in 6 years or so.
Now it works as already a few people mentioned in comments.
And I also think that the fans are not ready to hear more confessions. Trust is already pretty shaky”¦..people don’t really look from a rational stand”¦ they want to be able to trust”¦. so it is my guess that also from the point of view from the fans it would not be a great success.
The point of “punishing” the team – is so that they DO TAKE responsibility rather then just public posturing for doping. Doping as we have come to see that exists – doesn’t happen without the Team, meaning the WHOLE TEAM, not just the riders, being involved…
Larry, very good analogy, showing the short comings of the system, but. . . When I buy a stock in a company, I am becoming a co-owner in that company (albeit with limited control over the actions of the employees) with all the associated risk and rewards. When a company purchases the publicity available in cycling by paying to have their name on a team jersey, they are relying upon the team AND the UCI to payoff on that investment. They don’t co-own cycling. When I buy Enron stock, I don’t expect that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will freeze them out of doing business because of past (and punished) wrong doing. The entire stock market would become a very dubious investment if the government could perform such capricious actions. (please don’t look any further into the Enron case – the whole thing with Enron pushing for energy deregulation, forcing PG&E out of business, planning rolling blackouts, blah, blah, blah. Truly an ugly affair.) Astana paid the price for last years actions last year (riders suspended, kicked out of races, brutal publicity, etc.), they changed the team management structure, and turned over large portions of the riders. Now cycling is going to punish them again for their fortitude.
But clearly you already understand this distinction.
My 10-cents: When a rider is found positive of a clear case of cheating, whether it is doping, a bike that is below the weight limit, or otherwise, then the rider should be suspended as expected, and additionally, the entire team should be suspended for anywhere from 1- to 10-days depending upon the severity of the infraction. This could potentially be a brutal penalty, but would probably never rise to the level of mortal (as the ASO condemnation of teams has been). My hope is that this would be a good motivation for the teams to take responsibility for the riders and team personnel.
Larry, I take your point on double dribbling, but doping is not the same as going into the stands with a hockey stick. I claim doping is more like a red-card offense in soccer: the offense can change the outcome of a game and injure someone; it is unacceptable from a moral and sporting point of view; and it carries over past the immediate event.
In NFL football, a player suspended N games costs the team roster space.
The plan I propose is predictable, if perhaps heavy handed.
It doesn’t require making specific allegations against enabling members of the team that would be difficult if not impossible to prove. It may also provide causes of action for innocents on the team to go after people who cheated them out of a job.
If you want softer, then don’t penalize all starting slots, just roster slots and the starting slots of races the rider was scheduled to start — which involves making a provisional schedule at the start of the year solely for purposes of identifying the effect of these penalties.
TBV
Michael, TBV, great posts. I think we understand each other. I think we agree that some form of team punishment is appropriate in a doping case.
Michael, good point that Astana is effectively being punished for its decision to stick with pro cycling – they could have just disbanded the team (like Phonak did) and avoided all this in 2008. But I can’t go along with the idea that Astana has already “suffered enough” from being associated with the 2007 doping scandals, losing riders and so forth. If I drive through a red light because I’m late for an important meeting, get into an accident, miss the meeting and get fired by my employer as a result, have to spend my last dime repairing my car and the other car in the accident, get bad publicity, have my insurance rates go through the roof, etc. … I’m still going to have to suffer the legal consequences of having run the red light. I cannot plead that I’ve already suffered enough. Ditto for organizations that do wrong, IMHO.
TBV, I DO think that doping is more like going into the stands with a hockey stick … but reasonable minds can differ.
Part of my plan is to penalize teams in a way that race organizers like ASO and AEG can respect … so that they’ll stop exacting their own individual penalties. That requires me to come up with a relatively harsh team punishment. Of course, it’s probably unrealistic to think that there’s anything we could do to get the ASO out of the business of imposing their own brand of team punishment. If that is the case, then (if anyone were asking) I think I could happily endorse either Michael’s or TBV’s proposal in place of my own.
Maybe it is an idea to take it one step earlier?
The team structure has to be in a way that there is maximum attention for what the riders do, where they are, how they exercise, the quality of the medical care etc.
In fact, to demand of the teams that they are as professional as they can. Let’s say the High Road or SCS structure?
Demands for getting and keeping a pro tour license maybe?
Then there might be some certainty that the teams take responsibility.
Karuna,
I think that if there is a punishment that is imposed upon a team (like the New England Patriots giving up a 1st round draft pick) for an individual’s infraction, then I assume that systems like High Road’s would result without being superimposed upon the teams.
But we are on the same page.
Larry, you are correct about the red light. . .but as far as I know, there are no rules about a ProTour team being excluded from the TDF by ASO for running a red light. Of course, that is meaningless in today’s atmosphere.
I think one of the things that is somewhat common between Michael’s suggestion (suspend whole team for brief period) and mine (take slot from team) is that they both make more sense with shorter bans. If a rider got caught a second time in my plan, then the slot would be gone forever because of the life ban — that is an unreasonable result. Therefore it would have to be limited to some reasonable value. The full two years and a starting slot at all races is about as far as I can imagine useful for even the most vengeful observer. A whole team suspension from competition of 7-10 days is significant, and I’d vote for 10 days to be more than a week.
Any of these systems lead to other interesting questions. When to the team sanctions properly take effect, after an A test, or after a B, or after a review? Because it is a team sanction, I’d sort of like there to be motivation and opportunity for the team to offer a reasonable defense about the testing before it gets a sanction. On the other hand, I don’t really want cheats and their teams to keep riding and skewing results during the process.
One thing I do want to emphasize is that the team should not be able to fire a rider until the case is concluded. This adds to the team cost — carrying the rider’s salary — and encourages the team to try to defend, because negative results hurt.
The idea is to make the teams hurt if they have riders who dope, making it clear it is their problem, not just the individual rider. Letting them officially wash their hands as is now done, with indirect retribution (Astana) is wrong.
TBV
TBV:
Any sort of team sanction for a doping violation would need to involve some sort of due process, which means to me, at least some review. Suppose you have a non-negative A, impliment a team sanction, then the B test comes back non-negative. You can’t go back and give the time that slot they gave up in, say, the Dauphine-Libre once it has started. This is more or less how the NCAA operates, and it appears how the NFL deal with the NE taping incident this past season: investigate and determine the facts, give those implicated some chance at a defense.
But I don’t think you’d need to wait until all appeals have been exhausted, that would be to long. Notice, however, in US pro sports, a player can appeal a proposed suspension and still play while the appeal is pending. Players and teams often make strategic decisions to appeal, not necessarily because they think they have a case, but so the player can play in a big game. Or they might forgo an appeal so the suspension is over before the next big game.
TBV pretty much hits the nail on the head about what bothers me with the Astana (and other) issues. On the one hand teams have washed their hands and gotten new riders and this has been ok. On the other hand people have felt that the teams also share a responsibility and generally have gotten off too lightly. And it appears to me that Astana is now stuck in the middle. While you’ll never get a perfect agreement no matter what the setup is, right now the decisions are too arbitrary.
Michael,
From your post above:
“The Code of Silence: This will never be broken. Any attempt to do so will be fruitless and is obviously naive. What motivation could you ever offer a rider to rat out his teammate?
The notion that it could be cool to win clean is noble but unrealistic. Do we KNOW that Lance wasn’t clean? Would we be anymore certain of a future champion’s cleanliness? The sport is about winning races. This is not an egalitarian sport where we are seeking an equality of outcomes. It is all about finding the men who can punish themselves to greatness. Riding clean is not an end to itself, and as Floyd pointed out, nothing to be proud of (“hey I don’t cheat, isn’t that cool?” Huh?). Riders are paid to garner publicity through super human efforts. That’s the point. Anything else diminishes the depth of their efforts. Put another way, I know what the guys did that Lance beat. I don’t know what Lance did but which of the guys that he beat didn’t dope enough to beat him? We know what Zulle did, and Ulrich, Pantani, Basso, Vinokourov, and others. Lance still beat them – clean or not. So what value do you put on claims that Lance was clean? If he is actually clean, do think that would make him feel cool?”
I think you get at the omerta mentality here. Namely, you say that cycling isn’t about fairness; it’s about winning. According to you, cyclists are paid to win–they do everything necessary to do so, including lying, cheating, whatever–and the authorities are paid to catch them. I think you accurately describe how things are–but it’s also fairly obvious why this model causes enormous problems and invites police and journalistic interventions. The omerta model not only requires endless lies–it is offensive to traditional notions of sportsmanship and fairness.
If you really consider the implications of this philosophy, you will see that omerta is not sustainable. First, how do you hope to eradicate cheating unless riding clean is seen as valuable in and of itself? Simply put, in order for fair sport to exist, people need to agree on what the rules are and establish concrete mechanisms to enfroce thsoe rules. Ie, there can never be a “clean” or “fair” cycling culture unless cyclists can agree on the norms by which the sport is governed. These norms shouldn’t be determined by the state or by the ASO–a healthy sport requires norms to be internalized among the athletes (ie, the body of norms most sports understand as ‘fairness’, ‘integrity’, and ‘sportsmanship’). In this context, if a teammate is aware another teammate is cheating, that teammate recognizes that the other rider is not just cheating others, he is also cheating himself and cheating the sport.
In the omerta culture, cheating is heroic–the cheater tests the limits of the system and overcomes its limitations, achieving victory by any means necessary. The model you articulate is that athletes will always cheat and this is somehow good and natural. But you must also see the converse of this model–if it is the athlete’s job to cheat and lie in order to win, then the public will start to think it’s the role of the state to enforce sporting fairness and prevent sport fraud. We’re already starting to see this in the form of laws in European nations. In short, Michael, it’s patently obvious that as long as cyclists practice doping and omerta, then enforcement agencies and police will become ever more draconian in their attempts to reign in the sport fraud.
But why is it necessary (or desirable) to bring the state into this? Why can’t cycling regulate itself by establishing rational regulations and norms?
What cycling needs is enforcement policies and leadership that clearly establishes that cheating and fraud are abnormal and anti-social. But if you retain omerta you’re never going to get there–cycling has to get to the point where staying silent on cheating is also considered abnormal and anti-social. Otherwise, no one will trust cycling or cyclists.
Rant, Luc, and Others
With regard to what can be gained by “clearing the air” via a T&R convention and/or ending omerta, let me make the following points….
1) Without a general amnesty for every rider who hasn’t tested positive, openness and honesty can’t work. Amnesty is the foundation for ending omerta.
2) But a large part of the reason that amnesty for confession is not being discussed is that those authorities and managers and team leaders who have the most to lose from the truth coming out continue to hold the reins of power. Consequently it’s hard to see getting rid of omerta without first reforming cycling’s leadership, which in turn requires the support of fans and sponsors.
3) Establishing what the truth is DOES matter because the sponsors have a right to know just how bad the problem is, and what needs to be done to fix it. The idea that openness won’t happen for another 6 years is a very depressing thought–who knows what scandals will befall cycling between now and then?
4) What can we (fans and observers) do until then? Basically, we need to push the sponsors towards strongly condemning doping as cheating and deception. We should support those teams who clearly articulate that doping and cheating are immoral and unacceptable and institute policies that make cheating less advantageous. We should push sponsors to replace team managers who support and enable doping. We should press for institutional reforms, including a change of leadership at the UCI.
Ludwig,
You say:
“According to you, cyclists are paid to win–they do everything necessary to do so, including lying, cheating, whatever–and the authorities are paid to catch them.”
Where did I say that? You’ve invented opinions to argue against.
Michael,
You said that riding clean is nothing to be proud of, and that it’s all about winning. I was only drawing your argument to its logical conclusion–that doping is part of the game and (according to your arguments against “ratting” out teammates) nothing to be ashamed of. You’ve also indicated that doping has always been a part of cycling and always will be.
Either stand by your defense or omerta or don’t. If I am misinterpreting your position than elaborate what your position is. Personally, I appreciate your honesty in openly defending omerta while the rest of the commentators here refuse to. This discussion needs an injection of truth and realism. Because, essentially–that what this is all about. Is it necessary to change cycling’s culture with regard to doping or isn’t it?
Ludwig,
You misrepresent others’ remarks so you can set yourself up to “win” your arguments. That is cheating, from my point of view. It weakens any sensible comments you do make.
Not that I think you will listen or take this in the right way, because you seem to have a major victim mindset going on of being the lone wise man battling a benighted world of evildoers, but I simply have to point this out to you: when people set down their interpretation of the ideas and attitudes of dopers and the huge problem of how to clean up doping, they are NOT defending misbehavior, rather they are talking ABOUT it.
Isn’t it fun for me to get personally attacked every time I come here? Look, any fair-minded person who reads this blog understands by now that I am a fair and honest person who loves cycling and wants to see cycling do the right thing. We may disagree about how to fix cycling. But lay off with the ad hominem’s–my position is common among long-time cycling fans, while the position elaborated here and at TBV is a minority view at best. I’m just trying to describe things as they actually are so there is some chance of solving the problem.
Ludwig,
I apologize for the harsh characterization in my comment. (The system used to stop and ask for my login to post a response, giving me another chance to consider what I have written. No such luck this time.) But I do feel that there is only agreement in this blog that doping and omerta are problems, you are not in any minority there. Nobody here wants doping to continue. The issue is, what to do about it. Free and fair discussion is critical to ever hope to find a solution for the trouble cycling is in. When you misread the intent of others’ comments, it does not advance the discussion, it takes it off on a tangent. You feel attacked, but so might those whom you misunderstand.
And now I apologize for this digression from the topic. Not another word out of me.
On the topic of doping and omerta, it’s not just cycling. It’s baseball too. A good ESPN piece on point is at http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=quinn_tj&id=3270983.
If your teammate were using a bike that was below the UCI weight limit would you rat him out? And if you did would you feel cool? Would you expect your other teammates and management to support you?
To break omerta it’s not necessary to rat friends.
That could be done by saying that cycling has a big problem with doping, that performance are incredible, that we can see some strange physical behaviour,…
Some riders have done that but generally reporters don’t break the omerta, they are accomplice too.
During Festina affairs some TV reportages showed the abnormalities. for exemple, riders able to keep their mouth close during efforts, something false for aerobic sport.
There is a lot of people to defend doping accused riders but few to defend the clean riders by pointing or by asking explanation for what we can see as strange results. Do we have to swallow every thing?
Michael,
I don’t know if I would. But what is certain is that I ought to. In general, professional cycling doesn’t seem to grasp that how they conduct themselves matters–it matters to fans, it matters to sponsors, it matters re. the integrity of the sport. Cyclists need to start acting like the rules actually matter and that sportsmanship and ethics matter, as opposed to a culture of rival gangs trying to get the better of one another. The rules and regulations of the sport should be reworked to ensure more positive and productive norms exist. Every cyclist ought to understand that if someone on his team is doping, that teammate is endangering the team, the sponsor and the sport. Until that kind of peer pressure exists, then the doping problem will continue to fester in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and rivalry. Why should it be surprising when teams distrust one another when no one can trust anyone to follow the rules?
Reform or legalization/toleration are really the only ways forward. The old, traditional system that relies on omerta is too unfair and too unbalanced–the transparency of modern media exposes it and will continue to expose it until reforms emerge.