Danilo Di Luca caught a lucky break a few days ago. Seems that the panel deciding the antidoping case against him in Italy, dating back to last year’s Giro d’Italia, decided that the evidence wasn’t convincing enough to hand him a sanction. The whole case originated with an “anomalous sample” from Stage 17 of the Giro. (By the way, what is it with Stage 17s, anyway? Do we need to have the seventeenth stage of major races vanish into the haze, going from stage 16 directly to 18, like many high rise towers go from the twelfth to the fourteenth floors with no thirteenth in between?)
Many articles since then have noted that some of Di Luca’s hormone levels came back low on this test’s results — like in the range of what is expected for a child, not a grown man. As CyclingWeekly.com reports:
Di Luca was accused of injecting plasma via an intravenous drip to dilute and hide his hormone values. The Italian anti-doping investigators based their accusations on the difference identified between a standard urine test carried out after Di Luca won the stage at Monte Zoncolan and a surprise urine test carried out by the Italian Olympic Committee at 8:50 pm that night. The second test had a unusually low hormone profile – described as like a young child’s, compared to the first test carried out just a few hours before.
The question in his case is, why the difference in results. According to Italian prosecutors, it was because Di Luca had injected plasma into his bloodstream in between the two tests. Di Luca’s defense team offered a much simpler explanation. He drank a lot of water. Again, from CyclingWeekly.com:
Di Luca and his legal team of experts always claimed he had a very low value in the second sample because he had drunk 1.5 litres of water after the stage. He also claimed that he would not have had time to use an illegal drip between finishing the stage and reaching his hotel.
The panel deciding the Italian cyclist’s fate asked three experts to look at the evidence and give an opinion as to what the truth of the matter was. What, exactly, the three experts told the panel hasn’t been printed. But after about two-and-a-half hours of discussion on Wednesday, the judge announced that “a sufficient level of probable guilt as required by article 3.1 of the WADA anti-doping code had not been reached.”
So, whatever the truth may be, the panel wasn’t comfortable enough with the prosecution’s case to convict Di Luca. (He is no saint, however, having been involved with the infamous “Oil for Drugs” case and having served a three-month suspension because of that involvement. In fact, he was the first rider to be sanctioned for involvement in the case.) Although the truth is decidedly murky, if prosecutors can’t prove their case then this is the right result.
This particular case was built on indirect evidence. Such cases may become the wave of the future, so how the Di Luca case ultimately plays out may give us an indication of how future cases may be decided. At this point, several players can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, including CONI (the Italian Olympic Committee), the World Anti-Doping Agency and the UCI. It wouldn’t surprise me terribly much if one of them launches an appeal.
Why should we be concerned? Well, while this is all playing out across the pond, closer to home the US Anti-Doping Agency is launching something called “Project Believe.” In its initial stage, 12 athletes will be monitored throughout the year, including cyclist Kristin (not-the-ex-of-Lance) Armstrong. According to reports, the program will use both blood and urine tests to create a profile for each athlete, and to build a baseline for a future anti-doping test. Sounds an awful lot like the UCI’s biological passport, with the added twist that urine tests are also part of the mix.
The participants in the study are volunteers, so we’re told. Exactly what the outcome will be is unclear. In true terms, this should be a preliminary study that would be backed up with a larger study to confirm the original findings later on. If the idea is to building a range of values that “normal” elite athletes have for various hormones, metabolites and so forth, then to my way of thinking the sample size is too small. At least two individuals taking part in the study are known. One man and one woman. Let’s assume that the group is evenly split. Six men and six women. That doesn’t seem like nearly enough to draw valid conclusions about the overall population, does it?
Another question about such a program is: Will this be used in conjunction with existing testing methods (or better, more improved methods) so that once some “suspicious” results occur, the athlete will be tested more directly to prove or disprove whether anything untoward has occurred? The thing is, we should be very careful in what conclusions are drawn from indirect evidence. All other explanations need to be ruled out before one can make a truly convincing case that the remaining explanation is the reason something occurred.
To that end, the best approach would be to use one method to look for causes of concern, and then use the other to confirm whether or not doping has occurred. But, as ESPN.com reports:
This type of system could someday replace the current anti-doping system, which establishes arbitrary limits for a large number of controlled substances. It’s believed athletes can manipulate the system so they can dope but remain under the threshold where they’d get caught.
“New approaches and resources are continually being introduced in the fight against doping in sport,” USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said.
If such a system proves more capable of determining who’s cheating, sure, go ahead, switch to the newer ways. But before doing so, we need to make sure that whatever the new system turns out to be, in can do what it claims accurately and consistently. Otherwise, we’re just switching one poorly crafted approach for another. And that hurts everyone in the long term. The only way to achieve the goal is to build a good scientific foundation now. To that end, USADA needs to build up data on more than 12 individuals to make sure that the baselines this project establishes are, indeed, correct. Can USADA do it? We’ll see.
Rant, et al
Do You Believe? – As the comic Steve Martin once said – “Touch the back of your TV set and feel the Power of God!”
Personally – I am so sick and tired of what cycling has turned into – “in the media” – that it makes me want to puke!
Maybe it’s just that I’ve gotten more invested in the “mass perception” of my beloved sport – maybe I’m too close to it to get a clear and unbiased picture – but what is called “news” in cycling sports today have little to do with planting your butt on a saddle and riding!
Cycling is NOT ABOUT CHEATING OR DOPING! It is about getting on your bike, turning that little marvel called a crank and speeding down the road. It is about “doing an epic ride” – It is about getting around that mangy hound who wants to reenact “running with the pack” as he tries to chew your rear tire to ribbons. It is about getting together with fifty of your mostly unknown friends who are as nuts as you and doing a great training ride, rain or shine – each of you trying to “pop the knee-caps off the others.” And later the simple joy of “retelling whale stories” of your efforts piled into a Denny’s.
Cycling is NOT about doping or cheating, although, admittedly – both have had a part in it from its inception.
Cycling is a wonder of all sports – because – it actually puts to the test – who is the best amongst you! Many people don’t like to actually look at this part of cycling. It is perhaps just too much drama to accept – to actually “know” that you have entered into a race to “test yourself” against “all comers” and find yourself – well – just “one of the crowd” – when in your minds eye – you are the best. This is a hard bitter pill to swallow. We all want our fellow beings to look upon us with wonder and awe – with a sure sense that we are a “threat” not to be messed with and only approached with respect! Yeah – baby – I’m the “alpha dog” in this or any other crowed!
Cycling is – at its simplest and purest – a completely “sure fire test” for just such an outlook – AND THAT IS WHY – THERE IS DOPING AND CHEATING – in cycling – ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER SPORT.
You know – the “dirtiest little secret” that we all hold close to our hearts is that “Well – if only he/she didn’t…I could have been the WINNER!” BALDERDASH! Doping and cheating are not what makes an individual the “Winner” – turning that crank faster, harder, with more intelligence then the rest – is what makes a “winner.” Doped or “clean” – it all comes down to turning that crank connected to your feet and the rest of your body.
We shouldn’t be so unsure of ourselves and get on a moral horse to shoot down the “winner” – clean or otherwise. There is not a pill or an injection that will magically “empower” you to beat the pack in the end. You may not like to think about it – but “what you bring, your physical package, to the race – you had nothing to do with. You were born with it and it is best to accept this. Not turn your – “Well if only he/she didn’t do this or that – I would have been the Winner!” – there is not very much truth in that folks. It is plain and simple – “sour grapes!” – because our fantasy was thrown back into our face and shown itself for what it is – no – we are not the alpha dog of any pack…we are however – a part of a pack that likes to run together.
And in the end – this has much more meaning then the constant gripping. In the end – we still got clobbered…a mature person could and should accept that…if not – they will never be able to enjoy anything they do, because, in the end – EVERYTHING turns into a “Well if only she or he didn’t…I could of been the Champ.”
In the end – you have found out – you couldn’t and aren’t. What you are doing – and trying to get away with is posturing.
In the end – cycling is not about who doped when and with what – to win. Stage 17’s happen – and these are always in their own way, glorious! Floyd Landis, was glorious and he did it, I shan’t begrudge him with any posturing to belittle what he had accomplished.
Rant, I hope to find time to respond to your post later, but if I can’t, kudos for another excellent piece of writing on your part. (and sorry I have not been around much lately)
Morgan, your response to Rant is one of YOUR best pieces of writing. You are right that many of us have become obsessed with doping, and that the accomplishments of the men and women on their bikes are being unfairly diminished as a result.
But there is an unfortunate truth on the other side of the argument, which is that doping works. It DOES confer a competitive advantage. If you have two guys on two similar bikes with equal talent, and if they’ve each trained diligently, but only one is doping, then I’d bet on the doper. I think that the non-doper has a chance, if he rides smarter, uses better tactics or just leaves everything he’s got out on the road. The chance is better in a one-day race than in a one-week race, better in a one-week race than in a grand tour. But 9 times out of 10, or maybe 99 times out of 100, the doper will win.
You might respond, so what? People cheat, people have always cheated and always will cheat. They cheat in every form of competition. True enough, but the moment I think a sporting event is dominated by cheating, I’ll lose interest in the event.
Yes, I understand all too well that every cyclist in the peloton is a phenomenal athlete, possessing a level of talent and dedication that is off the scale by any measure. I appreciate the amount of hard work it takes to ride at a pro level, the amount of hard work it takes to get into the kind of shape required to ride professionally, not to mention the pain and risk of injury (even death) that each of these athletes must be willing to endure. There is no drug that could transform me, or 99.9999% of the population on the planet, into a pro cyclist.
But if I think that it’s impossible to win a pro race without doping, then I’m not going to watch the race. At best, the race will hold no interest for me: I don’t find competitive pharmacology to be interesting. At worst, I will not want to add my support to an enterprise that encourages its participants (and even worse, those who aspire to participate in the race) to take dangerous drugs.
Larry,
You won’t get an argument out of me – I agree with your statements about doping and the advantages of it.
What I said was simply that cycling is not about cheating and doping.
Rant, there has to be an article in here for you.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=3357337
The intersection betweeen anti-doping and immigration law is particularly ugly.
Morgan, no argument from me either. Cycling is not about cheating and doping. However, and this is sad, my personal belief in what I see on the road, on TV, in the press, is very much colored by cheating and doping.
Rant, I’m not a research scientist, but I don’t think that 12 people in an initial study is too small a sample. At one time I read cancer drug studies with the same passion that I now reserve for sport doping studies, and I seem to remember that initial studies were often made on small sample groups. If the initial study looked promising, then the testers would be expected to do a second study on a larger group. But if the drug did not seem to help the small group, then presumably it was back to the drawing board for the pharma boys and girls.
Using a small group for an initial study has a lot of advantages: it’s cheaper, and you can get started faster. You can use what you learn in the small study to better tune the second study. At least that seemed to be the rationale behind the tests I used to read.
I share your concern about where all this is going. The medical science part of what USADA is doing is sound: good medical practice is based on multiple tests, and tracking a patient’s medical history over time. As you’ve noted, USADA’s thinking seems to be the same as the thinking behind the programs run by ACE and Dr. Damsgaard.
The rub is that there’s no consensus out there on when longitudinal testing indicates with reasonable certainty that an athlete is doping. There are just too many variables to measure, too many factors to take into consideration. Evaluation of logitudinal test results is a subjective process. It’s very much like a doctor making a diagnosis: there’s a lot of judgment involved, there’s some art to it as well as science.
The process makes sense if you have a private organization like ACE doing the logitudinal testing, and if the results of the testing are kept private. The people at ACE can look at logitudinal test results, and if the test results are unusual, they can do the things that doctors would do: order additional tests, and take interim precautionary steps (such as holding the rider out of races, order the rider in for mandatory counseling, etc.).
The process falls apart when you move the testing into the legal arena, where we expect precise bright-line standards: 4:1 means you’ve doped, and 3.99:1 means you’re clean.
So yes, Rant, I agree. I’d like to know where USADA thinks it’s heading with this program.
Larry,
Definitely a story there. Got one started. Maybe I’ll finish it tomorrow. In regards to your last comment, I think we’re on the same page. I agree about the benefits of using a small group for an initial study. My concern is that what USADA’s doing will be their one and only study, not just a preliminary part of a larger project. Creating hard and fast rules based on such small samples would raise a number of questions in my eyes. Now, if they take a look at their initial results and decide to do a larger study to back those results up, then I would be more comfortable with whatever rules get established.
Doping?
Heh? Okay. Yeah. Right.
But right now on this side of the pond it’s cycling, cycling and cyclists.
Great races and great television.
Hardly any attention for something called “˜doping’.
ASO and UCI?
Same treatment.
It is actually really, really nice for a change.
Karuna,
That sounds really nice.
Hey you all,
Since certain people just love to try and nail Lance Armstrong – how about you try watching the guy being interviewed by his ex-wife…elite athletes are not just like you and me… and Lance armstrong – is the elite of the elite…
http://www.runnersworld.com/cda/microsite/video/0,8034,s6-239-420-20,00.html?bcpid=1439819617&bclid=1463300967&bctid=1515771737
Morgan,
I’m glad you are beginning to accept there is doping in peloton and a rider does not have to be clean to be a champion–remember how difficult it was to get you to admit this months ago? The next step is, of course, taking courage in both hands and admitting how unlikely it is that anyone can win the Tour clean in this context. And if you are still determined to defend Landis and Armstrong at that point, perhaps you should argue for toleration of drugs so that these athletes can practice their profession without having to lie and cheat.
All I (and others who try to tell the truth about doping) want is for cycling to be honorable. If the athletes have to dope to compete, I want them to be able to admit it with a straight face. There is no reason they should be ashamed to practice their profession. And there is no justification for lies if no serious person can believe them.
What keeps me from being able to recommend this sport with a good conscience to people I respect is the spectacle of lies re. doping is too revolting for most people. Most people can’t understand the point of following a sport where doctors and blood manipulation play such a big role. They feel that Lance Armstrong wouldn’t be a champion if he doped. They want to believe Lance Armstrong, so they believe he didn’t dope. But all evidence of reason suggests the opposite.
Doping may be a part of football and basketball, but it is absolutely essential to cycling—there is no shying away from the fact that the winners are usually those with the most complex and expensive doping program.
Regardless of how one feels about doping, most would agree that there is no point in celebrating the achievements of anyone who arrives at them by fraud and deception. We–as people who love cycling despite the dirt–may still find something admirable in the contest. But the lies will continue to turn off most potential observers. That’s why cycling has to change if it hopes to be respectable. Once cycling commits to honor and integrity as guiding principles, then it will be safe to recommend this beautiful sport to everyone, and not merely to the naive among us.
Ludwig –
Cycling does NOT become respectable if doping is legalized. Doping drugs and practices are simply too dangerous to be tolerated. Granted, some of these drugs and practices are relatively safe if administered under proper medical supervision, and granted that many professional athletes can afford the cost of such medical supervision. Unfortunately, most amateur athletes and aspiring professional athletes cannot afford this cost.
I agree with you, I want professional sport to be honest. But the bigger concern here is public health. We have hundreds of thousands of people (mostly children and young adults) who are doping because they want to become professional athletes. We have to send the message that professional sport will not tolerate doping.
What you say is true. I’m not saying legalize it for amateurs. I know that, practically speaking, legalization is out of the question…I’m talking more about toleration. Essentially, everyone get on the same page. If doping is cheating and deception, make that the policy. If it isn’t….then find some other policy.
What we have now is pro cyclists stating publicly that doping is cheating. They sign honor codes to the same effect. But none of this is meant in earnest. The message this sends to amateurs is “dope, and keep it a secret” or “dope, and lie about it”.
We know from experience that one of the major problems with the drug war in the US is that it keeps criminalized users in hiding. Some drug addicts can’t seek help because they have no one to talk to.
Somehow PED doping seems to take on an analogous form. Except in this context the drugs are taken in the spirit of competition.
For me the best reason cycling needs an earnest discussion about legalization/toleration is that pro cyclists don’t seem to believe the reasons given for banning doping. They seem to see the issue from an entirely different perspective. If pro cyclists opposed doping in sport, then it’s hard to see how omerta could be maintained. You wouldn’t be able to keep 95% of the peloton in line if the majority believed doping was wrong.
Also…. I would quibble with you on whether cycling becomes respectable via tolerating dope. Obviously the best solution is to have solid anti-doping rules that are respected and enforced–this would clearly lead to more sponsorship and a larger fan base. However cycling is a long way from that goal atm—indeed as long as omerta reigns there is no hope of achieving it. Actually lifting regulations and tolerating the drugs would at least lead to a semi-honorable competition that people can follow with interest and without a wearying cynicism about who is going to get busted next. I grant you are probably right that this wouldn’t be the best thing for public health, but it would certainly make for a more interesting sporting competition.
Ludwig, I respect your opinion on this. We may have a situation here where we have two desirable goals — public health and honesty in sport. To an extent, the goals may be in conflict.
However, thinking about this further, in the long run the two goals must be brought into harmony. If a policy is going to promote public health, it must also be honest at its core. In the long run, if there’s doping in professional sport, it’s going to spread outside of professional sport into other areas of the larger society. We cannot stop its spread by pretending that doping does not exist, or that it’s under control, or that we’ve “turned the corner” in the fight against doping. If pro athletes are doping, then some amateur athletes will also dope. If the pros are doping, the amateurs will find out.
I still hold out hope that we can come up with fair, sane and effective anti-doping measures in cycling and other sports that will effectively eliminate doping. If this cannot be done, then there will have to be serious debate about the merits of doping legalization … only I doubt I’ll be part of the debate. The minute we start talking about doping of athletes the way we talk about doping of horses (see Rant’s latest post), pro sports will lose whatever appeal it has left for me.
Ludwig,
As far as it goes, I’m not sure if cycling will be able to regain respectability in the eyes of the general public, given all of the scandals that have rocked the sport over the last few years. Having a frank and open discussion, with the riders speaking freely about what they’ve done, seen and witnessed, might be a part of the solution. But for many people, it’s actions and not words that convince them.
I don’t think that tolerating doping will win over the general public. It may be that someday this could become the policy, as a recognition that doping is so ingrained that the DNA of professional cycling that it will never be expunged. But I don’t know that the love of the sport is so deep in this country (in contrast to football, baseball or basketball) that casual fans will respect cyclists’ accomplishments under such a policy.
My hunch is that if, as Larry points out, a fair, sane and effective anti-doping system does emerge, then over time the sport — through fewer scandals, fewer riders using banned drugs and techniques, and less acrimony amongst the various “factions” that now exist — may well work its way back into respectability in the eyes of the public.
I certainly hope that cycling never reaches the depths that it is considered a joke, in the same vein as professional wrestling. If that ever becomes the majority opinion of people who are casual fans, or who see the odd story on the news or in the paper, then our sport may well be doomed.
Real, die-hard fans will never go away, but it will be difficult to draw new fans to the sport. And it may also be difficult to draw in new people willing to race. That would be worst of all, because if fewer people race, the sport will eventually wither away. (Hard to believe that cycling was once more popular on these shores than baseball, football or basketball, but in Major Taylor’s day, it was.)
One thing, for me, is certain. The efforts to eliminate doping in cycling have not been terribly successful over the last eight to ten years. There certainly needs to be some new thinking and new approaches to find better ways to address the problem, and fortunately, some new approaches are emerging.
Doping is a public health issue, to be sure. But there’s something more fundamental to be learned from all of this. And that’s how difficult it is to change an entire culture that’s grown up around the sport over more than 100 years. It’s probably going to be a long hard slog. I see some signs of a possible shift in the prevailing culture. I certainly hope that, for the good of this sport (and for other sports, too), those who compete at any level will eschew doping and drugs, and choose to compete on their own abilities.
After reading the last comments it seems to me that there is a difference in how cycling is being looked between the different sides of the ocean.
First of all I don’t think there is a chance that cycling will die out on this side of the pond. Cycling is too much a “˜way of living’ here. The step from going shopping by bike, going for a bike ride as a way of relaxing to buying a race bike, is not very big.
Cycling is in everybody’s daily life, certainly when you compare it to something like wrestling.
Of course, racing is very different then a nice ride along the lake. But it is too tempting, so to speak, for the young ones to try and race your friend coming from school.
It is true for the Netherlands that everybody owns at least one bike. Outside the city’s one out 10 bikes is probably some sort of race bike/mountain bike.
It is striking to see what happened the last months. Almost twice a week there is a cycling race life on television. Especially Belgium is a champion at that.
I already said in a earlier comment that there is hardly any talk about doping going on these months. The commentators on television are often former cyclist. They like to safeguard the sport. So there is great enthusiasm about young cyclist taking such a prominent place in most of the classics.
The “˜new cycling’ is never really identified, but fanatically promoted by the commentators.
It’s amazing to see that the spectators are just as present as they used to be.
The promise of hard measures against the doping sinners seems to be seen as a way to get the sport clean.
Doping is unwanted and the changed way of racing (races seem less easy to control and young riders are more seen up front of the race) is seen as proof that there is less doping.
And that seems to be enough for the public.
There is great willingness to believe, you could say: A child’s hand is easily filled.
If I were to speculate, I would say that the UCI-ASO war is doing the sport right now far more damage than doping. It might keep away the sponsors more because they have no idea how their team is going to be handled concerning invitations for races and possible doping related issues.
The last comments on this blog sound far more pessimistic then it looks on this side of the ocean.
I have no clue why that is. I am just making an observation.
Maybe I grow blind for the problems but when that happens to me than why not to a lot of other people?
Karuna,
Over here, cycling is more of a niche sport. Although many people learn to ride a bicycle when they grow up., by the time they learn to drive, a large number of those people forget about bicycles entirely. I think you’re right, there is a difference in how the sport is perceived on this side of the pond.
As a sport that people participate in, cycling over here goes in — well — cycles. Interest waxes and wanes. The perception of cycling as being dope-fueled could cause the sport’s popularity to drop over here, even as it carries on quite well in Europe. I’d rather it enjoy the same kind of popularity over here as is does where you live.
The UCI-ASO war probably is doing more damage to the sport, as the two sides struggle for control. Sponsors of teams left out of the big races will eventually wonder whether the money spent on sponsoring a cycling team is worthwhile. If they leave and can’t be replaced, that will do much worse to the sport than the doping scandals. Teams need money and equipment to function, after all. Without that, it’s hard to race at a certain level.
I hope that things won’t degenerate to the point that cycling in this country goes into a down cycle. I’d rather see the sport’s popularity grow. It’s fun to participate in, and it’s fun to watch.
Rant
I think it would help the popularity of cycling in the USA when there would come a Grand Tour. Would you agree?
There were plans for something like that. The original plans didn’t sound very realistic, but the idea seems very promising to me.
Do you have any idea what became of that plan?
On this side many are actually looking forward to a Tour of America.
Let be honest, the USA has a lot of potential sponsors.
A good organized Tour of America could do a lot of good for cycling.
It’s our opinion that if there is a country that is capable of organizing a spectacular race it’s the USA. More than enough experience with making something into a spectacle. I mean this as a compliment.
A side effect is that a Grand Tour in the States could give the TdF competition. Which is a good thing, to my opinion, as it comes down to the UCI-ASO war.
Seeing a race life is impressive, so it might boost the popularity of cycling.
And the more popular a sport is, the more scandals it can have.
I thing you see that with baseball in your country. Are there less spectators watching the games?
Hello,
As French we are probably the most cynical and a lot of us are thinking that pro-cycling is not worst than football or other major and well-paid sports.
We are more affected by the lies than the real doping. A bad lie is ever considered as an insult by people. To give us a false or stupid explanation is worst than no explanation, it can be interpreted as a finger up (sorry for the words) or
the public has the impression of being taken for idiots.
The current UCI-ASO war is not bad for cycling, a real problem is here since a while and needed to be cleaned. It’s time to end the job.
Karuna,
I think a real “Grand Tour” of America would be a great thing for the sport in this country, and for fans around the world, too. The last person talking about such an undertaking, in 2007, didn’t sound like he really had a handle on the logistics. But if an experienced promoter were to put something together, I think it could be highly successful.
Jean,
I agree, it’s better to say nothing than to offer up lame excuses that are transparently false. As you said, when someone lies, it can be interpreted in just the manner you suggested. No need to worry about the colloquial expression. I don’t think anyone here would take offense. Certainly not the guy running this place. 😉