An amazing, but apparently true, story hits the New York Times sports pages today (no, I’m not talking about the Milwaukee Brewer home run hitter who’s a vegetarian, although that seems somewhat unusual, too). Imagine, the sport from which doping sprung may finally ban steroid use by the participants (well, to be technical, steroid use on the participants since they don’t really have a choice in the matter).
Yes, you read that right. Horse racing, which is in many ways, the sport from which all modern doping practices ultimately can trace their roots, is finally getting a clue that steroids might have an effect on athletic performance. As Jim Squires writes in the article Racing Faces Steroid Withdrawal:
In recent months, Congressional scrutiny of steroid abuse by athletes coincided with industry concerns that Congress might outlaw parimutuel gambling on the Internet. Still, it took the California Horse Racing Board to conclude that steroids are in fact performance-enhancing.
Holy Toledo, Batman! Soon, the Kentucky Derby may be won by an “unenhanced” racehorse? What a concept! Oh, wait, it’s not like there’s a total ban, yet.
The state subsequently adopted tougher drug policies and began demanding longer withdrawal times for therapeutic medications like Winstrol and clenbuterol, a drug that relaxes bronchial muscles and has steroidal effects.
Emboldened by California, buyers, owners and breeders in Kentucky and Florida have taken up the cause to rid the sport of steroids. Regulation is now a near certainty in the most important racing jurisdictions, and sale companies are writing steroid-free requirements into their conditions of sale.
So, now the question becomes, how long should a horse be drug-free before it is allowed to race. As Squires notes:
Still at issue, of course, are the all-important withdrawal times. How long must horses be free of steroids before they can be sold or raced? The veterinarian Rick Arthur, the equine medical director of the California board, says he wants positive tests for anabolic steroid positives penalized with disqualification and automatic purse forfeiture. Some board members want clenbuterol doses prohibited for at least a month before a race. Current rules call for as long as five days in California and as short as 24 hours in Louisiana.
Squires sounds a bit optimistic in his conclusion to the article, when he says:
Increased regulation will not happen before the gate opens at Churchill Downs next month. But this may well be the last Kentucky Derby presented by steroids, if not by Yum Brands.
Interestingly, the online edition of the story (I first saw it in the print version) notes that Squires is a horse breeder whose horse Monarchos won the 2001 Kentucky Derby, and Squires is also a member of the Kentucky Racing Commission. If his fellow commissioners are of the same mind as he is, 2008 could be the last year when steroid use will be legal at the Derby. But I wouldn’t bet on it being the last year when steroids are used.
Inquiring minds want to know, will the “sport of kings” sign on to the WADA code? Will USADA oversee drug testing of racehorses in this country? Or, will an entirely different approach to anti-doping efforts arise? Time will tell.
Hey Rant,
Call me an old coot – but I don’t happen to agree with Karuna – about just nice racing going on. ARE THE TEAMS STILL DOING THEIR OWN TESTING? IS WADA DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE BLOOD PASSPORT?
The UCI and ASO are not working together – if you think they are – tell me how? Like I’m all for “dope free Horse racing” but I want to know what the hell is going on?
Are the LNDD the testing lab for the “tour?” I don’t know about you – but something smells really rotten…
Morgan,
I believe that the teams who set up testing programs are still going forward with those programs. Haven’t heard much about any progress on the biological/blood passport program these days, not since the dust-up between WADA and the UCI a month or two ago. I’m guessing that it will move forward, albeit much more slowly than originally anticipated.
I don’t think the UCI and ASO have made peace, maybe they eventually will. But there are fewer stories about the two sides being at each other’s throats lately. Dope-free horseracing doesn’t exist here in the good ol’ US of A. Interestingly, we’re the only country that hasn’t banned PEDs for horseracing — yet.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that LNDD will be doing the drug testing at this year’s Tour. They’ve been doing testing for Paris-Nice and some of the other races this spring, so I can’t imagine they wouldn’t be doing so in July. Then again, stranger things have happened.
Morgan –
You want to know what’s going on? It’s the old joke about the guy who jumps out of the window of a tall building. About half-way down, the guy looks around and says to himself: “well, so far, so good.”
We MAY be experiencing a brief period of clean cycling, though with all due respect to the one-day classics, no one is going to risk a doping AAF to win Paris-Roubaix. But effective anti-doping is going to require two things: money, and a coordinated intelligent effort by the powers that govern cycling. Money is fleeing from this sport — the sponsors leave, and they don’t come back. And the governing bodies of cycling continue to feud and to implode.
Not a good situation in the long run.
The politics of ASO not using LNDD would probably not allow that in the first place. One wonders whether or not LNDD is learning from all that has gone on. Did they say to them selves “We dodged a bullet on that Landis case, better clean up our act.”? Or is it business as usual?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Rant
With all the crushing negative news of doping being purloined on “us” the tifosi – one would think that intelligent people would at least try to get something out into the news about the longitudinal testing of riders being done by teams – some information on “progress”- some attempt at if not “education” then familiarization at least.
Testing needs to have “public trust” – so far the only thing we the public know is that there is such a thing as longitudinal testing or for that matter the blood passport program. Now it is all well and good that Herr Damsggard is a “know” name and has credibility that is accepted by cycling – just as the ACE program is considered “legit” by the “community of cycling”- but pardon me if I am not eagerly jumping up and down “merely because they say so!”
EVERY INTELLIGENT business knows that “public perception” is more then half of keeping a good business going. Well then – ACE and Damsggard had better pull their heads out of the test tubes long enough to let the tifosi know what is going on – otherwise I fear that all we will wind up with is a different variation of what the “old testing” methods had been…a behind closed doors system – assailable by the very people being tested!
My question is – are we going to “accept” this? Having gone through the past 2 or 3 years – we must have learned something…or are we just looking for solutions which give us comfort but little truth?
Why is there no more aggressive questioning on the part of the so called “reporters” in the cycling media concerning this?
Hey – I’m for watching a good one day “classic” and getting a rush from the racing…BUT I also know that doping can be done for one day classics too! Or are we lulling our collective consciousness into “believing” that “doping and cheating” got SCARED OFF? — What! Are we in grade school?
Larry,
(:-))))
Larry I only partially agree with “money” fleeing from cycling. This MAY be the case in the old money that has been investing – BUT – consider the mega bucks being poured into the sport by the Australians, the Russians, the Chinese!
What causes my shapely furry ears to perk up is that of the three countries mentioned two are going to be “government sponsored” – HELLO – say what?
When Putin himself is “taking an interest” in Russian professional racing – my bells start ringing – It is not because he is Russian or that he is/was? the single most powerful individual in control of the land – but lets be honest – if Putin wants a pro race on Russian soil and the UCI is jumping on the wagon because it suits their idea of a world wide pro racing circuit – then “inquiring minds should be asking questions!”
The question of “sponsor support” never comes into the formula!
William,
You’ve hit the nail on the head – I believe that we are being “set up” for a state of “business as usual” – THAT is exactly what we must all raise up our voices about NOT TO LET HAPPEN!
The fact that the LNDD incompetence issue has never been resolved should be a sore point in every bodies side. Because lets face it, as Rant says, yes, they will be doing the testing for the Tour…
In my opinion William, the very best thing to find answers is to keep asking the bloody questions – even if one is made out as if they are a pain in the butt. It would seem to me – the cycling media is “all on board” to present a Disney Version of cycling reality…BUT WE DON’T HAVE TO!!!
Maybe I gave the impression that I think there is clean cycling going on right now.
I didn’t mean to say that. I don’t have a clue if it’s clean or not.
There is no guarantee that it is clean. As mentioned by others we know hardly anything about the testing program.
As far as I know there has never been much non negative findings for doping in the classics.
And the fact that youngsters are riding up front could just as well be an agreement amongst (a few) team leaders not to control so much and give attacks a chance so it all looks more exciting. Who knows, the sport needs credibility (and new sponsors), everybody is sure and aware of that.
I just put in writing what I observe and what I read in the newspapers and hear on the television.
The media seems to have taken a break from talking about doping related issues.
The same goes for ASO and UCI. Nothing is resolved, so it will be back, but right now is (nicely) quiet.
A period like that does seem to have an effect. People are enthusiastic again.
I think it’s mainly inspired by hope and denial.
But what else can people do differently RIGHT NOW.
The solutions needed will take a while, if they ever really come.
And it’s difficult to combine “˜he might be a fraud’ and “˜he is a hero’. It brings about cognitive dissonance. It’s emotionally just too far apart. Lots of people choose one or the other. (All negative campaigning is based on this principle.)
So it’s difficult to enjoy the race and keep in mind fully that there is doping use at the same time. The excitement of someone attacking and the thought that he might be doing that with dope are not in line with each other. It makes the excitement less and that is not why we watch cycling. We are not watching cycling so we become more adult in our thinking and feeling. We watch it because we want to have fun and our (unconscious) wishes fulfilled. So we use hope (reassurance) and denial as the main coping strategies to keep the dissonant thoughts at a distance.
To say it differently: thinking of Valverde crossing the finish line: “Hmm there is still a story about you going around”, is not too disturbing. But thinking it all the time spoils the fun.
Of course there is lots of variation possible on how much denial etc. But I think that when you don’t want doping in the sport there is not much to choose from right now than a variation of the above.
I could see myself see doing it these last couple of weeks. I (sort of) decided to give “doping a rest” and enjoy the races because “˜doping and other issues will catch up anyway’.
Avoidance at best. Lots of rationalizations to help me out even more.
Well, it did work for the time being and I did enjoy myself.
And as it turned out, lots of others too.
Jean C
I really disagree with you that the ASO-UCI war is not damaging to the sport right now.
It IS to my opinion.
What new sponsor is in its right mind to step into a sport where you can be punished for deeds done in previous years by others?
It is still possible that when a sponsor takes over CSC for next year and in a month time the Schleck brothers turn out to have doped, next year the team is refused in all the ASO races.
There is no consistency in the way the ASO and other organizers “rule”. For example: Astana is “˜out’, but Valverde is “˜in’ everywhere in the ASO races. High Road is “˜in’ in all the ASO races, but could be “˜out’ of the Vuelta. Liguigas is out of a German race because they won’t sign another charter which is probably not even legal.
The doping issue is a problem for sponsors. But at least they have some control over that. A good program could put them on the “˜good’ side.
But they have no control whatsoever on what the organizers decide.
Jean C
I forgot to mention that the way the organizers are dealing with the doping problem now makes absolutely sure that everybody will keep his mouth as shut as possible.
That is probably what they want.
But it’s not helping the doping problem. That would benefit far more from openness.
WADA etc are not helping either, that is also true.
I suspect that the state of doping in pro cycling hasn’t overall changed too much. Perhaps if Highroad and Slipstream and other teams running their own testing programs are actually making a legitimate effort to control their riders, those teams are racing clean. I have no way of knowing whether or not their efforts are for real. I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt until shown differently, but others may be less generous, perhaps even to the point of thinking such testing programs are not to eliminate doping on the team, but to allow their riders to avoid AAFs.
As far as other teams and riders, I suspect that not much has changed. What the actually state of doping was and is, I don’t know. Many people have stated their beliefs, but these beliefs are based, in my opinion, or circumstantial and possibly even ambiguous evidence, rather than hard facts.
Whatever the flaws of the work done in any particular lab, one big problem remains: the vast majority of the peleton in any race is never tested in that race, and what testing is done is geared to the top riders. Domestiques in the TdF know that the chances they will be tested in relatively small. They may never get the great rewards of a victory, but they can perhaps ensure a career by being able to better help the team leader and avoid the time cut off if they dope. The the average Jacques, Guiseppe, Johan or Juan, a career as a domestique is probably better than many of the alternatives available. Even a few years, if they save their money, might net them enough to buy a small bar or bike shop, where they can live comfortably for the rest of their life.
And yes, I suspect the LNDD has not changed all that much. The problems revealed in the Landis hearing seem to be systemic and not simply an aberration. They were challenged, they fought back, they “won”, so despite the warning from the panel, I suspect that they fell vindicated, and hence see little reason to make changes in how they operate. Unless or until someone actually overturns a decision, or removes their certification, or the like, they will continue business as usual.
Karuna,
Don’t forget that organisers need sponsors too, so they have to sell clean races!
For the exclusion, Astana was the first choice, others teams could have been excluded too like Rabo or High Road.
Liquigas by disagreeing the anti-doping committment didn’t do a great job to help the organisers!
Even Astana seems to have understood that point, they are saying that Vino will be not welcome!
UCI-organisers war is the only way to clean their recurrent disagreement.
Maybe all of this is not good at short-term but it will be better at middle and long-term
if everyone leaves their old habits. Since Festina, UCI should have had acted, they are the most responsible of that mess. What are they currently doing?
Karuna,
I didn’t get the impression that you were saying an epidemic of clean cycling had broken out. Just that the number of stories about doping are fewer right now. It’s an analogous situation to baseball in this country. During the off season, the whole story of the Mitchell Report and the various accusations made headlines for a while. Now that the players are playing again, the stories aren’t given the same kind of play.
Not that whatever doping in baseball has suddenly diminished. Just that the media’s and the fans’ focus is on the games, rather than other aspects of the sport.
Morgan,
I don’t know that we have to accept whatever is doled out by various groups. Certainly ACE and Damsgaard are trying to change the paradigm — to use an overused expression. Perhaps their approach will be more effective. Perhaps not. It will take a bit of time before we can see how well it’s all going to work. Dopers and cheaters aren’t necessarily being scared off. They may well go deeper underground, and devote considerable energy to figuring out how to beat these new approaches, too. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised that some would at least try. No change of this magnitude has ever occurred without those who are entrenched in the old ways pushing back. As the saying from politics goes, “perception is reality.” Maybe some of the efforts right now are only aimed at altering perceptions. Over time, we’ll see which is which in that regard.
To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, there’s the reality we know and the reality we don’t know. And the reality we know we don’t know, and the reality we don’t know we don’t know. It all makes sense, in a twisted-up sort of way, if you squint your eyes enough to see, um, “reality.” 😉
Jean C,
That’s a good point. The organizers need to sell their sponsors on the belief that their events are clean. As someone from a German television network said in the not-too-distant past, they don’t want to be broadcasting an event where the team with the best pharmaceuticals wins.
The current battles between various parties will take their toll, at least in the short term. We can only hope that over the long term, whatever damage occurs will be easily undone. I’ll reserve judgment on whether that’s possible.
Hey Karuna!
My comment had nothing to do with what you wrote. Believe me when I say that there is nothing more fantastic to me then to watch a race AND NOT BE asking silently in my mind – “So – are they clean or dirty?” I did not bring this QUESTION into existence – it is a result of the past 2 years. Now being that I’m old and crotchety I don’t forget easily either. So when a singular circumstance of injustice, in my view, came to public light and it was pursued with intent, I expect “resolution!” Carnsarnit! (:-))
What I made a comment on is that in pro racing – the only way ANY TESTING will have legitimacy is through public awareness of what is going on. If we came away with anything from the last two years living in the Landis Universe – it is that I will not give my “trust” to any controlling body if I am excluded from knowing what the heck is in the works.
Have you run into this piece of NEWS?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/sports/30doping.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
If we are to be a FAIR sport – then we must not stop being on guard against “factions” that assume that as long as the word “test” is in the title it is legitimate.
This is how the abuse of power begins – a TEST should be able to PROVE one way or another what is being tested for.
While you or I and at least half the world find doping “Undesirable” – we then better have “testing” that is based in science rather then in the concept – “well – it works, sort of…on almost everyone…” And then proceed to act and speak as if it is in fact the “test” is bullet proof.
The article above is a perfect example – we may desire to have a means of combating “doping” – but the reality is – there are apparently too many variables to “test accurately” the entire range of participants in the racing world. What does this result in? We cannot TEST with ACCURACY – and the governing bodies – MAY NOT HAVE THE POWER to act AS IF THEY CAN and come away with “reliable results!
Now – I have no desire to support any doping trends – even if the dopers are “getting away with it” because genetically – they can. I am against doping, period. but I AM ALSO AGAINST what has happened in the recent past to individuals, publicly accused, crucified and ruined! This point of the situation must not be allowed to be “forgotten” merely because there is no mention of “doping” in the reporting of cycling.
Rant,
That is a “classic” of obfuscation in action – besides being so absurd that the people “listening to it at the time” actually considered it “meaningful!” – it bears seeing it again and if I may “…there’s the reality we know and the reality we don’t know. And the reality we know we don’t know, and the reality we don’t know we don’t know.” – But seriously – like this “conceptual comment” of Rumsfelds’ – I have to ask myself – how many REAL LIVES are at stake, no? And for your information – I’m getting to the age where my eyesight is always sort of squinting and blinking – I’ve learned not to “believe” EVERYTHING it seems to show me…(:-)
Perception is reality. How appropriate. The perception is that most, if not all, pro cyclists dope. Among other effects, this provides an incentive for pro cyclists to dope, to level out the playing field, so to speak. The perception is that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to win unless you dope, since everyone else is doping and doping conveys such an advantage that you cannot possibly hope to defeat a doper. To what extent this is all true is immaterial if this is the perception.
How to change the perception? WADA is trying to do this by jumping with hob-nailed boots on anyone who is caught up in testing, no matter how questionable the testing and it implementation by a particular lab. If everyone dopes, than chances are you have got a doper, even if the test is flawed, they figure. This approach has not seemed to work, perhaps in part because only a small percentage of riders are tested at any one race, and perhaps in part because people have figured out how to beat the tests.
ASO is trying to change the perception by dis-inviting teams with shady pasts. However, they seem to be rather spotty in this approach: there are teams in this year’s ASO races that have shady pasts; whether or not they are as shady as the banned Astana is a matter of opinion. This approach also seems to ignore the possibility that a team can indeed change its spots, thus not providing much incentive for a team to do so.
I personally like the idea of teams taking responsibility for seeing that their riders are clean. Whether or not Highroad or Slipstream making legitimate efforts to do so or are using their team testing programs in order to evade tests remains to be seen, and perhaps we will never really know. But if more teams make legitimate efforts to test riders, and deal with riders who have doped, then perhaps we can change both the perception and the reality.
A team approach would have the advantage that team sanctions do not need to be, at least at first, as draconian as WADA sanctions currently are. As a consequence, a team would not need to meet as rigourous standards as should be met in an WADA case. A rider’s test come up suspicious, you simply bench him until the situation is cleared up and results are normal. You make some sort of ambiguous statement to the press perhaps to explain why a certain rider is not racing this week. If riders continue to come up with suspicious tests, increasing sanctions are applied. This is a similar approach to what many companies have as progressive discipline programs to deal with employee discipline problems on the job. If some rider has some genetic or medical condition which leads to anomalous test results, this could be looked into with the seeming necessity for each side to stake out a position.
If enough teams took this approach, then riders would perhaps change their perception that doping is necessary for a pro cycling career. Teams, sponsors, organizers, and the public would perhaps change their perception that cycling is dirty. There will still probably be a few who attempt to beat the system, and perhaps even a few who will get away with it. But again, perception is reality. If the perception is that most riders and teams are clean, and that most dopers are being dealt with, either by teams themselves or by the powers that be, then there will be much less incentive for riders to dope just to level the field.
Hi Rant,
You know that the only Lab that has ‘walked away’ from the WADA family of Labs is the … (finding my blog) Forensic Horseracing Lab of UK?
http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/news-analysis-horseracing-forensic-lab.html
(October 2007)
🙂
As to LNDD and ASO, only Floyd L. can save future Tour riders from LNDD abominations. I simply pray (as an agnostic/atheist) that the UCI has revised their contract with that government facility, such that when they are in mid-analysis… they don’t shut down and make the UCI frantically dislocated for second-sample analyses!
http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/last-straw-in-france-iban-mayo-case.html
keep it up,
ZEN
Now this is something else. If I was an Asian cyclist, I’d get my genes tested!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/sports/30doping.html
Talk about having to keep building a better mouse trap.