There were lines on the mirror, lines on his face
He pretended not to notice
He was caught up in the race– The Eagles (T. Boonen remix)
Looks like Tom Boonen has got himself in a whole heap o’ trouble, what with coming up positive for cocaine on an out-of-competition drug test and all. Boonen has certainly had more than his fair share of brushes with the law lately. Back in December, Tom Vanoppen, a cyclocross rider who’s a friend of Boonen’s got caught with cocaine by Flemish doping controllers. During subsequent testing, Vanoppen fingered his good buddy Boonen as his dealer, which Boonen vigorously denied.
Flash forward to mid-April when Boonen had his driver’s license taken away for a fortnight after being caught driving 120 kph (about 70 mph) in a 70 kph (about 45 mph) zone. Then, three days before the Tour of Belgium, he had an out-of-competition doping test, which is when his positive test for cocaine occurred. And about a week ago, he got caught doing 180 kpm (about 110 mph) in a 90 kph (about 55 mph) all while being, shall we say, under the influence of demon alky-hall.
Whatever it is, Tom Boonen certainly seems to live life with the pedal to the metal. Certainly, getting popped for cocaine, even if it’s in an out-of-competition test, isn’t going to ingratiate him with the powers that run races like the upcoming Tour de Suisse and the Tour de France. From what CyclingNews.com said in their latest story, and from a comment by Karuna on the previous post, it appears unlikely that Boonen will face any anti-doping actions from the UCI.
It appears the organizers of the Tour de Suisse will not want Boonen starting this coming Sunday.
“We want to make a point and emphasise that we will not put up with any rider who behaves that way,” Tour director Armin Meier said. “It doesn’t matter to us whether it is a world star or any other rider.”
The Suisse race organiser also asked the management of the Belgian Quick Step team for its position on Boonen’s situation. It requested an answer by noon, Thursday, which is also the deadline for the teams to submit their final line-ups. If the team does not comply with that request, the Tour organisers said that they could decide to exclude the entire team from the race.
Boonen will not be facing anti-doping charges from the UCI, the story goes on to say, because the use of cocaine is only banned during competition. As the story says,
“The UCI will not ask for a disciplinary procedure to be opened,” a spokesperson for the UCI explained to Sport Wereld. “The rule for the UCI is the same as that of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). There is no sanction for cocaine when talking about an out of competition control.”
Neither will the Belgian cycling federation seek any disciplinary action against Boonen for the positive cocaine test. The Tour de France is in a bit of a sticky situation, with Boonen having won the green jersey during last year’s controversial Tour de Farce.
“We’re not going to act like our colleagues from the Tour de Suisse,” {Tour official Gilbert Ysern] said. “We will wait and see which position Boonen and his team will take. We’ll see if he admits the facts, if he asks for a counter analysis, or if he steps down for the next few weeks.”
Translation: We don’t want to have to force Boonen out of the race, Mr. QuickStep. If he doesn’t get the hint, would you be so kind as to do the dirty work for us?
Boonen rival Thor Hushovd, who is currently leading the Dauphiné Libéré had this to say:
“My first reaction was that it was a sad news for the sport of cycling,” said Hushovd. “Our sport is in a difficult moment now, not only in Belgium. If Tom doesn’t follow the rules he has to face the consequences, but it’s probably too early to tell that he will not ride the Tour de France. Who will decide that?”
Hushovd, who is currently leading the Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré, would have more chances to win the points classification at the Tour de France if Boonen is forced to stay at home. Hushovd said however that getting rid of the competition isn’t the answer.
“I didn’t think of that,” Hushovd said. “The problem isn’t to get rid of Boonen. It’s a larger problem for the sport of cycling. I’d like to race against all my adversaries at the Tour de France.
“I like sprinting against Boonen,” he added. “I’d prefer him to have no problem with drugs and race. I don’t know him out of the races, so I cannot comment on him much more.”
It appears that a future contract with Bouygues Telecom is off the table now, as well.
“Red card, end of the negotiations,” team manager Jean-René Bernaudeau said. “We have a very strict policy in our team. Anybody who’s got problems with drugs isn’t welcome in our team. If the news regarding Boonen is confirmed, there’s no way he can join us.”
Boonen’s current boss, Patrick Lefévère has been having his own challenges trying to scare up new sponsorship for the Quick Step squad. Lefévère, who once said that the Landis case made him want to vomit, must really be retching right now. News that Boonen might go to a French squad like Bouygues Telecom might, under different circumstances, have helped bring a new Belgian sponsor to the table, as a way of keeping the Belgian superstar on a Belgian team. Boonen’s escapades haven’t helped that effort much, methinks.
Exactly how this all will play out is yet to be seen. But I wouldn’t be betting on Boonen’s retaining the green jersey in the 2008 Tour de France right now. Tornado Tom seems to be in the eye of his own hurricane. The career he destroys may be his own. It’s a real shame to see him become the latest train wreck. I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised to see him wind up in some rehab clinic somewhere. But I’d stay away from Amy Winehouse or Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan if I were you Mr. Boonen.
Life in the fast lane
Surely make you lose your mind
Life in the fast lane, everything all the time
Life in the fast lane, uh huh
OK, This Is Really The Final Last-Ditch Effort
Word comes today that Justin Gatlin is suing various agencies in a last-ditch effort to be allowed to compete at the US Olympic Trials in several weeks. Gatlin’s lawsuit contends that his first doping offense, from 2001, is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because Adderall, the medication that caused the positive test, was prescribed to him to treat Attention Deficit Disorder, or ADD. Defendants named in the lawsuit are the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, USA Track and Field, the U.S. Olympic Committee and the International Association of Athletics Federations.
One question that will hang over this case will be the issue of jurisdiction. Mary Decker Slaney’s lawsuit against the IAAF was eventually tossed out by the US District Court in Indianapolis in 2001, citing a lack of jurisdiction in the matter. Whether that will be the case in Gatlin’s lawsuit remains to be seen. Gatlin’s case would have to be heard within the next two weeks or so for him to get a shot at competing.
No word, yet, on when the US District Court in Pensacola, Florida will hear Gatlin’s case.
According to the QS press conference they will not dismiss Boonen.
The team still trusts Boonen.
I have this information from a Dutch site because I can’t get the site of the Belgium ‘Het Nieuwsblad’ up. It’s probably completely overloaded.
The team decided that Boonen will take some rest and will not start in Veenendaal-Veenendaal or the Tour the Swiss.
QS is convinced that they could have the decision of the Tour the Swiss easily reversed but doesn’t want to right now.
Boonen himself has said that he hopes the fans will keep on trusting him and that he will show their trust is justified.
So it seems QS hopes the storm will blow over when they keep low.
Well lets see what the organizer of the TdF does now.
While I don’t condone Boonen’s behavior, I think UCI/WADA need to tighten up their procedures here.
If cocaine use out of competition is not banned, then why are they testing for it? Or is this something that will show via normal testing for other substances. In any rate, why has this information about Boonen been released to the public? I thought that such information was supposed to be kept confidential.
UCI/WADA may wish to ban any use of recreational drugs, like coke and pot, out of concerns for “image”. Fine, develop and publish rules regarding this, then deal with riders accordingly. Otherwise, either don’t test for things which aren’t banned or at least, keep information about such confidential.
However, one thing that came out this spring during the Paris-Nice flap, UCI either lacks the power to force promoters to let “questionable” riders who are otherwise in good standing with UCI/national federation race, or lacks the will to use that power. Hence, de facto, any promoter can and probably will ban any rider who the promoter has “questions” about. UCI may blather about it, but will not do more than that.
Because probably lab don’t know if the sample is an OOC or not, so they test all substances.
For the record, Australian swimming has excluded one of their swimmer for Beijing JO because of a fight in a bar!
Jean C,
That’s the D’Arcy case, I believe. And from what I remember, it wasn’t just any old fight — he beat up a fellow teammate. And, the guy suffered some pretty bad injuries as a result.
Karuna,
Thanks for the updates. I suspect that Quick Step and Boonen could get a quick decision from the CAS, very likely in their favor. But I also think that they may be taking the best approach by laying low and letting the storm pass. Seems like young Mr. Boonen needs to overcome a bit of a drinking and drugs problem in his private life. That’s going to be quite the challenge. And finding a new employer for next year may be quite the challenge, too, if Quick Step decides they don’t want to extend his contract. But he’s young and could well overcome these challenges. I hope so, anyway. He’s a good rider, I’d much rather see him racing than see him caught up in this kind of stuff.
William,
Good points. I suspect Jean is right about the testing. The lab may well have a standard set of tests it runs, and they may not be told whether they’re doing an in-competition or out-of-competition test.
Humans are strange creatures aren’t they?
Boonen, the rider who very often had something to say about riders that were caught for doping or in the picture for some other “˜not positive’ reason.
Saying that it was unbelievable in his eyes that other riders didn’t understand the severity of the situation in cycling.
But still he must have found some rationalization to make his use of alcohol and cocaine into something he could do. The illusion that “˜it’s under control’?
Speculation of course.
For sure things often seem far more awful when someone else is doing it than when you are doing it yourself.
Boonen has a problem he needs to deal with for sure.
Makes me wonder if Lefevre, who also was often very outspoken about “˜not well behaving’ riders, has tried to prevent this from happening.
Interesting to see what the direction of the TdF will do now.
It’s actually my guess that they will allow Boonen to ride the TdF.
I think it’s a lot easier to exclude Astana from a country far away and no real connections with France or the ASO than to exclude Boonen being a hero for the neighbors and a license from a federation they like to be their friends.
It will depend on how the money flow is organized?!
According the live coverage of the Belgium television QS will stay 3 years longer in the peloton. It’s speculated that Boonen will also stay 3 years longer with QS. AND that the first has something to do with the last.
Here are a few obvioius points:
Under Belgian law (and as far as I know, the law of every country where there’s pro cycling), cocaine use is illegal. Reportedly, under Belgian law Boonen could face between three months and five years in prison and a fine of up to €100 000 euros for using cocaine. I don’t know if he can be convicted solely on the basis of a drug test, but this is a serious matter. If the Tour de France wants, they can say legitimately that they don’t want law breakers participating in their race.
Based on what I’ve read here and elsewhere, the primary concern for QS should not be, can Boonen race. The primary question should be, does this guy need help. I understand the concern about fairness to athletes, I argue for it all the time, but it’s not fair to Boonen to push him back on to his bike as if nothing is wrong, as if winning the race is all that matters to the team, and all that should matter to the rider. What’s fair to Boonen is to treat him as an ordinary human being, and to focus first on whether he needs help. It may be fair to Boonen to give him the time to deal with his issues. He might need rehab … or maybe just a long vacation.
While I understand the distinction between performance-enhancing drugs and recreational drugs, that distinction gets blurry in sport. The nature of sport (and more particularly, the business of sport) is that we expect athletes to perform at peak levels over long periods, despite the rigors of travel and through injuries (often minor, sometimes not), and to face intense competitive pressure. Moreover, sports like endurance cycling require athletes to endure pain. The nature of these sports can lead athletes to drug abuse: to control the pain, to cope with the pressure, to be “on” and focused. It is simply WRONG to pretend that there’s no connection between sport and “recreational” drug use, and that sport is only responsible when it comes to drugs on the WADA list.
Good points Larry. I believe that the pro leagues in the US have policies regarding recreational drug use; there have been several cases where athletes have been suspended for such use. However, at present, UCI apparently has no rules regarding such “recreational” use. Until they do, there is nothing they can do.
QS, as Boonen’s employer, may have more options. I don’t know if their contract has any sort of morals clause in it but considering that a sponsor puts up the big bucks to gain publicity, unless they subscribe to the theory that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t have something. They could “force” Boonen into some sort of rehab perhaps, or simply cut their losses and give him the boot. Or maybe just “bench” him for a while as punishment. Or even have a long hard talk with him and come to a mutual understanding he needs some time off. And if there is sufficient evidence which can be used in a court of law, then the authorities may wish to proceed.
But should the Tour de Suisse be allowed to ban him simply because they don’t like what he did? Especially when he did nothing against the rules of UCI or WADA.
And finally, on a different note, less we be accused of sexism in our examples, there was the Tonya Harding case in which she received a life ban from skating for her role in the attack on Nancy Kerrigan.
William, I understand what you’re saying about the UCI rules, which are in effect the WADA rules. Those rules are aimed at fair competition. It is possible for an athlete to use and even abuse cocaine without affecting the fairness of the events in which he participates.
The interests of a race like the Tour de France and Tour de Suisse are broader. Of course, they should want fair competition too. But they can also be concerned about the image of their event. Yes, I understand that we don’t want to see athletes unfairly barred from competition based on some organizer’s subjective view of what is and is not good for the image of the competition, but I don’t have a problem with the idea that a rider whose run afoul of the law might not be allowed to race.
The larger point here is that Tom Boonen may have much more serious personal problems than whether he’s going to be permitted to ride in this race or that race. Actually, it’s worse than that. If we treat Tom Boonen differently from, say, the guy in the mail room in your office or the guy working the drill press at the auto plant, we’re sending him a signal that it’s OK to go on with his life as he’s currently living it. It’s a kind of co-dependency.
I don’t mean to get overdramatic. Not every guy who speeds and drives drunk and (assuming the test results are correct) uses cocaine has a medical problem requiring some form of treatment. But if I had a friend who had done these things, I’d do everything I could to make my friend seek medical advice, to see if treatment was necessary or appropriate. So … it could be the case that the most fair thing we could do for Tom Boonen is to send him a clear signal that something might be wrong.
Larry
You are right about the laws in Belgium.
But.
According to several newspapers and sites it most likely will not come to a real charge. The possesion of hard drugs is punished far more often then the use of of it. This against dealing of course. Espcially when it is the first time the OM finds you in that position. And nothing was found during the search of the house of his parent and his girlfriend.
The OM of Turnenhout where the case is dealt with said that they will remind Boonen of his high profile/being an example.
Larry,
Not that I made the point (or made it particularly well), but I think you’ve hit on the crux of the issue here. Whatever is going on, Tom Boonen needs help. Good for Quick Step that they haven’t sacked him. But they need to go one better and make sure that he addresses his problem (whatever it is) head on, and that he is fit — not just physically fit — for the job, and for life.
Being young and having a lot of money and having lots of fame can wreak havoc on some folks lives. If Quick Step and Boonen attack the situation head on, and they do what’s right for Boonen’s long-term health, that’s what will ultimately count. Getting him back on a bike and racing again should be secondary to getting him back on an even keel, whatever that takes and however long that takes.
Getting him back into racing at the first opportunity, be it the Tour or any other race, shouldn’t be their primary focus right now.
I’m not certain that “punishment” is what’s warranted here, rather, I think the team and the rider need to honestly face whatever is going on and deal with it appropriately. I’ll be happy to see Boonen racing again, whenever that happens. I’ll be happier to see him racing again after he’s taken steps to deal with whatever underlying problems/issues he might be facing.
I just read that the ASO has excluded Boonen for the TdF.
Karuna, what I’m reading here is that the Belgian prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation against Boonen. However, I agree with you, unless more comes out I can’t see that Boonen will ultimately be punished. I’m not an expert, but I can’t think of a U.S. case where someone was criminally punished based solely on a drug test.
Rant, I don’t know for sure that Boonen needs help. That’s a question way, way beyond my expertise. But that question should be more important than the question of whether he races. I know that sounds obvious, but I’m trying to make a point that maybe isn’t so obvious. Professional cycling needs to realize that the nature of the sport can lead riders to abuse recreational drugs. It’s not just that cyclists have the means to afford the drugs, it’s also that the demands of the sport will push some in the direction of abusing alcohol, or pills, or illegal recreational drugs as a means to cope. Cycling is a high pressure job that requires the riders to battle through injuries and endure pain. If you look at any high-pressure profession, you’ll find higher-than-average drug abuse. It’s true in the legal profession, for example, and I’m required once every three years to attend mandatory education on substance abuse.
One great thing about programs like ACE is that they feature counseling in addition to testing. I think that this kind of counseling should be available to all cyclists.
Karuna,
That was quick. I guess the ASO is serious about “protecting the image of the Tour.”
Larry
True. It’s not clear what, exactly, Boonen’s situation or problem might be. You’re correct in saying that Boonen, the person, should be more important than whether he races tomorrow, next week, or next month.
The counseling aspect of the ACE program ought to be replicated elsewhere, especially in a situation like this. That’s something the UCI could implement, or each team could implement. Either way, it would be a good addition, and a pro-active way of dealing with these situations. And it would be similar to how many employers deal with these types of issues.
Boonen seems to have a drug and alcohol problem. He also recently had a DUI, if I remember correctly. In employment matters, those with drug and alcohol problems may have a disability and their employer must deal with their disability in a certain manner. That issue is separate from criminal liability and how ADA discipline may or may not apply and how ASO and/or other race entities choose to treat people with disabilities through exclusion or otherwise are two other separate issues. The case is very interesting.
Bill
Bill, great point, but the general rule is that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect someone who uses drugs illegally.
I agree Larry, but I’m not saying the addict has to be accomodated, I’m saying he may be disabled and a company might not be able to fire him/her if the drugs were not used in the course of employment. More interesting, the Canadians and Europeans have much more accomodating (for lack of a better term) rules relating to employment and addictions.
We have several levels going on here, which can confuse things.
1. Apparently, nothing that TB has done violates any UCI rules, so UCI cannot and seemingly will not discipline him in any way. UCI might want to consider rules which might allow them to take some action. Whether this action is solely disciplinary and/or involves medical and psychological intervention is another question. I personally tend to be somewhat less forgiving, shall we say, than Larry and Bill Hue apparently, but I can see there is room here for different opinions and this can vary from case to case.
2. What action should QS take here. Since I am not privy to terms of TB’s contract, I don’t know what basis QS might have there to take any action. It might be nice if they were interested in finding out what was going on in TB’s life that lead to these incidents, but then I never had an employer that would have offered any help if I had been involved in these types of activity. But that may be neither here nor there.
3. Should any particular race be allowed to bar TB? I have trouble with this, as there does not seem to be any rules about this and things seem to be made up on the fly. Are we going the have riders barred from the Tour because they were caught in bed with someone else’s wife, or employed the services of a hooker. How about someone who “comes out of the closet”? Given the number of professional riders, I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t a few gay riders.
4. Is there a legal case here? It seems that cocaine is illegal in Belgium, so it would appear that TB has broken the law, but the evidence from the test results may not be enough for a conviction, and perhaps not even admissible.
5. If there is a legal case here and it results in a conviction, then QS might have some other options. If TB has to serve some time, he won’t be available to race and this might be cause to termination.
William, I think I understand where you’re coming from about race organizers barring a rider for conduct that does not violate the WADA code or other express rules of the race organizers, the UCI or the code of the rider’s national federation. I would personally draw a line at conduct that violates applicable criminal law (in other words, sleeping with someone else’s wife is OK, sleeping with a hooker may not be OK).
I get that we want to be fair in how we choose whether to bar an otherwise eligible athlete from competition. At the same time, I don’t want to value participation in the sporting event above all other considerations. Sure, there’s a lot of self-righteous talk out there about “what’s good for the sport”, and I often distrust that kind of talk. But if we care about the sport, we don’t want a sport that cares more about the competition than the competitor.
Sure, I distrust the ASOs of the world, who tend to place the interest of their races above the interest of the riders. But I also distrust the Patrick Lefévères of the world, who seem to place the interests of their teams above the interests of the riders. Is Patrick Lefévère really concerned with what’s best for Tom Boonen, or is he more worried about what will happen to his team’s results in July if Tom doesn’t race?
I understand the problems with line-drawing. I understand that there’s going to be a close case where we’ll struggle to determine whether a rider’s personal or legal problems are serious enough to justify the rider’s being barred (for a time) from competition. This is not such a close case. We’re dealing with what appears to be a violation of criminal law, a rider with repeated brushes with the law, a rider whose conduct may be a danger to himself and (at least when he’s behind the wheel) is a danger to others. There are grounds to believe that the pressures of competitive cycling may be contributing to his problems.
We talk about athletes as role models, but organized sport should also be a role model, a model of fairness and compassion and balanced priorities. It is right and good for the sport to say to Tom Boonen that it’s more important right now for him to attend to his personal problems (whether they be medical or legal) than it is to win a green jersey.
Backing up, can anyone here explain how the information about Boonen’s test results became public? I’m having a hard time imagining how that happened without some breach of confidentiality or privacy that should have been in place in the testing protocol.
Who made it public?
Were they made public in a way consistent with the rules of the releasing organization? Was there a special case made because of the prominence of the alleged perp?
Who ordered the test?
Who executed the test?
What was the lab?
Who controls the results? (We’re told by CyclingNews it is the Vlaamse Gemeeenschap [VG] (Flemish Community) — what is that, and how does it relate to the Federations and the Belgian ADA?)
Who sent results to the criminal authorities?
Under what regulations were results of metabolites sent to criminal authorities?
Did the VG “confirm results” as in “we checked them and they looked correct”, or “confirm results” as in “we were asked by the press and confirmed they they exist and were positive?
puzzled,
TBV
TBV, I just posted on your site in an attempted response to some of your questions. All good questions.
Let’s start with an understanding that the results of an adverse finding in an athlete’s “A” sample are NOT completely confidential. The athlete in question will be notified of the finding, as well as the athlete’s national sports federation, WADA and the rider’s national anti-doping organization (see WADA code rule 7.2 and 7.4 Comment, UCI Cycling Regulations Part 14 rule 187). It is likely that the UCI will also be informed of the results of the test.
The UCI rules provide that the UCI and the applicable national sports federation are not supposed to disclose an adverse analytical finding until after the B testing procedure is complete. See UCI rule Part 14 Rule 294. However, I’m not aware of any rule barring the athlete or the team from making an earlier disclosure.
As best as I can tell, the disclosure of this test result came about as a result of the press learning that Boonen was questioned by Belgian law enforcement authorities regarding the test results. The Turnhout prosecutor’s office then confirmed that they had opened an investigation into Boonen’s possible possession of cocaine.
It would appear that the Quick Step team informed Belgian criminal authorities of the positive drug test. I’ve looked at the google translation of the Belgian paper Het Laatste Nieuws (this appears to be the paper that first reported the story), and while I can’t entirely trust google translations, there’s a suggestion that the team disclosed the test results to the relevant authorities:
“After his pool tested positive, the team briefed the competent magistrate at the prosecutor-general of Ghent, which is the prescribed procedure.”
Our friend Karuna can probably add to this.
As far as I could find out it went like this (partly the same as Larry’s version):
An out-of-competition test end of may was performed on Boonen by: team Medisch Verantwoord Sporten van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
This team is part of a government organized package of controls of fitness for recreational sportsman/women, regulations for behavior and doping controls, regulations for the labs and doctors, disciplinary actions etc, the whole bunch.
Their “˜rules and regulations’ are stated in : http://www.cjsm.vlaanderen.be/gezondsporten/regelgeving/270391decreetmvs.pdf
In this “˜rules and regulations’ is said that the international organizations are acknowledged.
So you could say the Belgium government acknowledges WADA as an organization that needs to be respected and followed. If WADA does the same with this organization I presume because it is government policy, but is not separately mentioned.
The punishment of the 6 months to 5 years Larry referred to in an earlier comment is in article 43 of the “˜rules and regulations’.
I assume (sorry, couldn’t find it) that it is also in the “˜rules and regulations’ that the team needs to communicate all or certain positive findings to the (lets say) DA of the town or county.
Okay, Boonen tested positive which was communicated to WADA/UCI (as turned out later) and the team. The team communicated it to the DA as required.
The DA ordered a house search for drugs and that is what was noticed by the newspaper.
I couldn’t find it but I assume that they monitor the police and got a hold of the ordered house search.
In the first article they only knew that is was a search for drugs, which was confirmed by the police. The newspaper (Het Nieuwsblad) thought at first that it could have been about the control of Boonen a week earlier when he was stopped with his car driving too fast.
After that the game was on the wagon. It’s unclear to me who gave the newspapers the right date of the test etc.
Everything was confirmed though by the involved organizations.
I hope this answers some of the questions.
Feel free to ask more.
Larry:
I think we somewhat agree on general principles here, and are sweating out the details.
My concern about who can ban who for what type of “mis-behavior” extends beyond a legal/illegal argument, although a lot of questions about that area can be asked. Ban TB for a DUI? Maybe, but then should you ban someone for running a stop light? Use a felony/misdemeanor distinction? Could work, but then what about a plea bargain where someone could possibly have been prosecuted for a felony violation plead down to a misdemeanor?
But then you get into a wide range of other possible reasons why a promoter could want to ban someone. Remember all the anti-French frenzy back in ’03? Should an American race be allowed to bar French riders for political reasons? How about an Iranian rider now? I don’t know if there are any, but you get the idea. Landis has raised the issue that UIC could be “out to get him” for the flap over the salary dispute from team Mercury. And we have seen ASO ban teams from PN and the TdF because of past drug problems. Should ASO be allowed to ban a team or rider because of past drug problems, even after the rider has “served his time”? What about simply because “everybody knows they dope” teams, like Disco, had it not folded in ’06?
And then there always is the specter that a promoter could bar a highly favored rider to benefit another rider.
At present, we have de facto following ASO’s action in PN that a promoter can ban any rider or team, otherwise in good standing, it wants. Problem is, I don’t see how UCI can re-assert its power to force ASO to follow UCI rules.
William
Great examples, the line between who you can exclude and who not is getting very blurry.
As the ASO will get confronted with after their exclusion of Boonen.
Lefevre said in a first reaction that it was not up to him or the team to try to get Boonen in the TdF.
Boonen himself said to accept the decision of Prudhomme and not go to CAS.
But the sponsors of QS asked Levefre to try to reverse the decicion of Prudhomme. Levefre comes with the following statement: Schumacher was caught driving his car after drinking alkohol and using amphetamines. Schumacher is not excluded from the Tour. He wants to have a meeting with Prudhomme. Levefre thinks it’s unfair.
I think: this is what you get. Blurry situations which ask for unfairness.
Although I think it might be better for Boonen not to ride the Tour (he better solve his problems first and what to think of what he will get from the French public when he does ride the Tour) but the viewpiont of principle it is very interesting what will happen now.
William and Karuna, I share your concerns. However, I think it’s common in sport to include clauses in contracts that address an athlete’s conduct that is “detrimental” to the sport or the team. To be sure, that’s a vague and fuzzy standard, but lots of contracts contain vague and fuzzy standards. If I had a dollar for every contract I wrote requiring someone to do something in a “reasonable” fashion …
In law, a lot of what we do is to figure out later what we meant when we passed a particular law or wrote a particular contract. Not everything can be anticipated in advance.
And in law, we frequently ask the question you are asking: where do you draw the line? Almost always, it’s a difficult question to answer. However, the fact that it may be difficult in a particular case to draw a line does NOT mean that we write laws and contracts with the goal of avoiding line-drawing. Sometimes the law requires us to make difficult judgments. Yes, to be sure, a good law or contract tries to anticipate some of the judgments that might have to be made later — the law or contract writer should ask a lot of “what if” questions. However, at the end of the day we have to leave a lot to the judgment of the folks who will later interpret the law or contract.
In the Boonen case, I am not troubled by his being excluded from this year’s TdF. I’d be a lot more troubled if the primary concern of the organizers was to get this guy (and his green jersey) on a bike at any cost.
I have more concerns with D’Arcy case than Boonen’s.
The australian swimmer should be barred of Olympics for something no directly to sport. That is unfair, he will receive a double sanction, civil and sport.
Boonen’s case is a part of sport, as pro he as every riders or organizers has to protect their activity by fair and honest actions of course.
Boonen as individual can make mistake, but QS seems to be able to make a bigger!
Larry:
I have been employed under conditions where it was understood that certain conduct, outside of work, would result in some adverse job action, up to and including termination. But that was up to my employer, and not some 3rd party. It should be up to either UCI, Boonen’s national federation, and/or QS to decide his fate, not ASO.
Example: the MU basketball team this past year had several players run afoul of the law. Some were kicked of the team by the coach, some were suspended for a few games. Fine, although we can always argue if a particular player was dealt with too harshly or too leniantly. But should KU be able to tell us we can bring player X to the game in Lawrence? I don’t think so.
William, your KU versus MU analogy doesn’t fit all that well into cycling. In your scenario, KU is not the equivalent of the ASO, it’s a competitor team, like CSC.
Cycling has always struck me as being closer to golf or tennis, where the ASO is like an organization running a tournament. I believe, for example, that the Masters is run pretty much independently of any governing body of golf.
I’ll admit, I don’t remember anything like the Boonen case in golf or tennis, where a tournament barred a player that was otherwise eligible to play under the rules governing the sport. You’re right that the closest thing I can think of is where a player is thrown off a team for detrimental conduct — like the way the Chicago Bears just released Cedric Benson after two alcohol-related arrests.
Well, Tom Daly (sp?) certainly had well-known problems with alcoholism, and to the best of my knowledge was never barred from any tournament he attempted to enter. I recall a time when he was undergoing rehab and not actively competing, but that is not the issue here.
And I see your point about MU-KU. Maybe a better local analogy would be the MU-KU football game, which will be played in KC’s Arrowhead stadium. If the venue decided that a player from one or the other of the teams shouldn’t be allowed to play. Anyway, my point is that promotors, venue management, etc., can have interests which may be served by barring rider(s) which are not appropriate.
Larry, I’ll reuse an analogy I made on another thread … NASCAR here in the States. Professional drivers, racing for professional teams, governed by an organizing body (NASCAR itself) and racing at various venues during it’s season …
The ASO strikes me as being equivalent to International Speedway Corp (ICS) which owns the track at Daytona (and a number of others). ICS organizes NASCAR’s crown jewel, the Daytona 500; they arrange event sponsorship, the festivities, the prizes and trophies, and all the logistics for running the week-long event. They *don’t* have any say in which drivers or teams get to participate, or what the rules are for qualifying or racing — that’s NASCAR’s job alone, and they bring with them the officials and the rules that govern not only the 500, but all the other races on the NASCAR schedule. If a driver is accused of bad conduct, either on or off the track, it’s not ICS that gets to weigh in on guilt or innocence, or to hand out punishment, it’s the driver’s team, NASCAR or both.
While I’m out of “lurk mode” for a minute, let me throw out another angle … some people may think this is heresy, but I’ll chalk it up to being a relative newcomer to cycling, both as a rider and a fan …
If ASO dissolved tomorrow, and another organization took over to organize and run a three-week long race throughout France, with all the top riders and teams in the world, still called Le Tour de France, would anyone notice that ASO was gone? Would anyone care? IMHO, the ASO is *not* the Tour, they just happen to be the corporate entity that currently organizes the race. The riders, teams, and fans are what has made, and continue to make, the Tour what it is. It pains me to see the riders and teams let themselves be treated as expendable by a promoter — who’d never be successful without them.
Larry
I only read your comment on TbV just today. As I turned out I only repeated what you already said about “˜how the test result of Boonen came out’. Sorry about that.
According to an article in Het Nieuwsblad (Belgium) it is highly unusual to test for cocaine in an out-of-competition test.
The newspaper states that WADA is concerned about the testing for cocaine on Boonen.
http://www.sportwereld.be/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleID=1K1T3C6B (last part).
This contradicts what some said here before.
This same article says there will be a meeting next week between Lefevre, the boss of QS Frans de Cock and the Tour direction. There is not much hope it will help.
I would like to pursue the fairness of the exclusion of Boonen a little further.
As said before I think that cases like Boonen’s should be dealt with by himself, then his team (sponsores) and the federation he has his license.
To my opinion it is for the federation already tricky business to deal with these kind of situations. This because when you want to address them all, there will vanish a lot of sportsman out of the games. That is impossible, so arbitrariness is close by.
Organizers have to deal with even more people than federations.
I think you need to draw a line somewhere for who is dealing with what.
There are already reasons/examples mentioned but consider this.
The ASO refuses Boonen naming the ethical charter as their “rule”.
But what kind of message do you send when the exclusion of Boonen is because he did something within a few months of the Tdf?
Schumacher’s case is already out of the papers so that is no reason anymore for exclusion.
So, when you make sure you “˜behave well’ a few months before the tdF you are okay, the rest of the year it doesn’t matter.
How ethical is that?
The reason for exclusion is ethical while the way it is dealt with is everything but ethical. Again, the message to be interpreted like: make sure it “˜looks good’, be clever, ethics have nothing to do with it we just call it ethics because that is what suits us well right now, remember we are the macho we do as we please to protect our Tour (read: also money).
I understand what Larry means when he says a lot of contracts have unclear passages about conduct.
I also understand that such passages need to be in contracts.
It is no guarantee for riders that things will be fair when they get confronted with these rules in contracts with their team for instance. There also be unfair differences. For instance: the Rabobank being a bank might demand conduct more “˜well behaved’ then Astana having no such social demanding roots.
But in the case of teams it’s better understandable and (very important to my opinion) there can be more CONSISTENCY.
In the case of Boonen, compared to other similar situations, the consistency is completely lost and with it the named ethics get very fuzzy.
In this time of pressure on the riders for honor and ethics it looks to me like a bad example.
Karuna, I will try to respond to your post later today. Your point is, I think, a bit different than the point being made by William and Rob.
Rob, I’m often critical of the ASO, but it’s no easy thing to run a Tour. I attended a stage of the Tour of California this year, and I was struck by how much goes into the organization of one of these races. I’m quite certain that it takes a unique expertise to pull off one of these races, and I doubt that the ASO could easily be replaced. Plus, in this era of dwindling sponsorships in cycling, you cannot dismiss out of hand any organization (like ASO) who’s willing to invest in the sport. Cycling needs the ASOs just as much as it needs the fans, the riders, the teams and the sponsors.
With that being said, your point about NASCAR (and William’s point about John Daly) are telling. It is one thing to say that perhaps Tom Boonen should not be racing for the moment, and another thing to determine who ought to make this decision.
I’m not a NASCAR guy, but I follow pro golf a little bit, and I have no problem with giving ASO the same kind of authority as a major golf tournament to determine who gets to participate in the event. Not that anyone is asking for my opinion, but I’d be OK with the ASO promulgating some golf-style rules for who gets to be invited. If they want to invite teams based on their world ranking (even if they invite more or fewer teams on this basis than other events), and give some automatic invites to past winners, and let the sponsors invite a few wild card teams, and even reserve to themselves the right to invite a few teams, that all seems fine to me.
However, you guys are right: if ASO has the power to bar individual riders from racing, that goes beyond any power (at least, any power I’m aware of) currently wielded by the organizers of a golf tournament, or a tennis tournament, or any comparable sporting event. The rule elsewhere in sport seems to be that an athlete cannot be barred from competition if the athlete is in good standing with his or her professional association. We can add to this that if the athlete is participating in a team competition, then the athlete also has to be in good standing with his or her team.
From this perspective, I am beginning to share your discomfort with the actions being taken by ASO concerning Tom Boonen.
However, I also note that your argument sets up two organizations that should have the power to determine whether Tom Boonen races: the UCI and Tom Boonen’s QS team. The UCI is, at the moment, ineffective and probably without any say-so over the running of the Tour de France. The QS team seems to value Tom Boonen’s racing (and winning) above all other considerations.
There are other organizations that might weigh in here, including Boonen’s national federation and the French national federation.
One last point here: you may be right that ASO is trying to exercise a power that goes beyond that which an event organizer could exercise in any other sport. However, cycling is unique in the present-day world of sport: no other sport approaches cycling in terms of the chaotic and dysfunctional way the sport is being governed. To be sure, in an ideal world, the ASO does not decide whether Tom Boonen races. To be sure, the present-day world of cycling is not ideal. ASO is acting in a kind of a moral and power vacuum, where no one (ASO included) thinks consistently about what is good for the sport, and no one has the authority to run the sport for the sport’s own good. In such an atmosphere, precedent and comparisons to other sports recede in importance.
So … while I’d prefer that someone other than ASO make this decision, I will (uncomfortably) live with the idea that ASO can make this decision, particularly as I think that ASO is making the right decision. But I acknowledge the strength of your arguments on the other side, and admit that (at best) this is a close call.
Karuna –
I appreciate your posts about what’s being said in the Belgian press. I don’t like relying on Google as my translator!
Now on to the substance of your post. You are making some of the same points that have been made by William and Rob, that the ASO is not the right organization to decide whether or not Tom Boonen races. I’ve responded to this argument at length. In brief: this is a good argument, but in the absence of any other authority in cycling willing to act in the best interests of cycling (not to mention in the best personal interest of Tom Boonen), I’m willing to accept the authority of ASO in this instance.
Agreed, the ASO is not primarily interested in what’s best for the sport. It is motivated to protect the image of the Tour de France (to make things “look good”) and to make money. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The sport should have a positive public image, and we want the sport to be financially successful.
You argue persuasively that the action against Tom Boonen is not fair. To be sure, there are probably a number of riders in the peloton who are using cocaine and other recreational drugs, and are getting away with it. Maybe these riders aren’t subject to the same kind of surprise, out of competition testing as Tom Boonen. So, those riders get to race, and Tom Boonen does not get to race, and that’s unfair.
I take a different point of view. I view cocaine as a dangerous drug. Tom Boonen is being given a clear signal that he should give this drug up, and that he should seek out whatever help he needs to do so. From this perspective, Tom Boonen is a lucky man, and the riders who use cocaine without being caught are the ones being treated unfairly.
I think that the most unfair thing you can do to an athlete is to treat them like they’re not normal human beings, that their participation in the next sporting event is more important than anything else. The most important thing here is NOT to get Tom Boonen back on his bike as quickly as he can, for the greater glory of his team, his country and his sport. The most important thing here is to see if this guy needs help, and to get him that help, before he hurts himself or someone else.
If Tom Boonen was flipping burgers at the local drive through, we would never say that it’s unfair for Tom to have to give up flipping burgers while he deals with his problems. We wouldn’t talk about all the burger flippers at other drive throughs who get to continue to flip burgers even though they’re cocaine users.
OK, that’s a bad example. But in sport, we place too high a priority on getting the troubled athlete back into the competition. That is ALSO about making things look good (we deny there’s a problem), and that’s also about making money, and it’s also potentially unfair to the athlete.
SOMEONE needs to say that there’s something greater at stake here than whether Tom Boonen gets to race in the 2008 Tour de France.
Larry,
great points all, and I appreciate your perspective. I didn’t mean to imply that running a Tour was easy by any means, and certainly not that anyone off the street could just jump in and take over … only that there are already other organizations out there that perform comparable functions (like Unipublic and RCS), and that the Tour could certainly live on with someone other than ASO at the helm. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I tend to look at it more as ASO investing in *the Tour*, as opposed to ASO investing in *the sport*.
Personally, I think your scenario about invitations being based on rankings, with some wildcards thrown in, would be a great compromise — or at least a great initial bargaining position — between what the ASO seems to want vs. what the ProTour says it intended to accomplish. I’d have no problem with that at all, because it would be a consistent plan, laid out publicly for all to see … and it would seem to focus more on *inclusion* rather than (seemingly arbitrary) *exclusion*. If a team is in good standing with the UCI, and they make the cut, they’re in … if you don’t make the cut you *might* get in, or might not, but at least that risk would be a known quantity for everyone involved.
And I agree too that QS first and foremost, and the UCI should be the ones taking action here. Again I’d have no problem if the UCI changed the rules so that illicit drugs were banned outright, not just during competition. And I’d certainly have no problem with QS suspending/fining or even firing Boonan. I can see the governing bodies (including the national federations) and especially the teams having ethics clauses in contracts, or as requirements for licensing … I’m just not sure I understand why the Tour needs it’s own set of ethics rules, though. As I’m thinking about it, I suppose what really bothers me is that an organization that I think should be governing an event, is crossing a line (even if in a vacuum) to extend their control to the athletes themselves, which should be a job for others. And if the UCI is broken (no argument from me on that), then all the even organizers, teams, the AIGCP and the national federations should be working towards fixing what’s broken, not just chipping away at it even further. That would seem to me to be investing in *the sport* rather than *the Tour*.
Thanks for such a well reasoned discussion!
Yes – it has been fascinating “reading you all”
I am just wondering though – if we are missing the point here? BOONEN must have been one of those “targeted” riders to get a “special treatment” job done on him…
Question seems to me is – “to be an athlete today – one has to be living a pristine life”
Well it seems a bit ridiculous – not that I think individuals “in the public eye” – which in this case – with Boonen is immaterial IF WE ARE “CONCERNED” about a drug/alcohol problem – this is his private life. The only one who can do anything about it is Boonen himself.
We all may feel sympathy and concern for Mr Boonen – but we do not know what are the causes here – only what we read in the “papers” – and if by now we all don’t have a “jaundiced” eye for this we should all start watching mtv for serious “journalism”…
It is all well and good to “desire our top athletes to be ROLE model perfect” — but is it realistic? Who from amongst us could stand up to the apparent “perfection” of what is being verbally bandied about?
Are we in someway “supporting” this fantasy that ASO et all — is busy trying to justify mixing into the private life of the professional athlete?
I mean as some have said — where exactly do we draw the line at this?
Morgan, I was wondering when you’d weigh in!
There’s a bit of a gulf between a “pristine life” and two DUI arrests (one for driving 110 MPH!) plus a positive test for cocaine. And we’re not talking about “private life” with a guy who drives under the influence.
I don’t know if Boonen has a medical problem with drugs or alcohol. Not every drunk driver is an alcoholic, and not every cocaine user has a substance abuse problem. But if he DOES have a problem, then in all likelihood he’s going to need help to solve it. You’re quite right, if Boonen needs help, the first step has to be Boonen’s own personal realization that he needs help. But if we all act as if nothing is wrong, Boonen is not likely to come to this realization.
Sure … ideally, there should be people in Boonen’s life who can give him the “reality check” he needs in order to realize that he has a problem: his family, his friends, maybe his doctor or his minister/priest. Sure … if Boonen is ultimately dependent on the ASO to provide him with life guidance … well then, God help Tom Boonen.
However, life teaches us that the people closest to an alcoholic or substance abuser are often co-dependent on the alcoholic/substance abuser. The family is dependent on the abuser’s income. The friends may be substance abusers themselves. (I won’t even discuss whether Boonen’s QS team is co-dependent with Boonen — you can judge whether they are “standing behind” Booner or just pushing the poor bastard back on his bike regardless of the consequences.)
Often times, the abuser’s first “reality check” comes from the abuser’s employer.
Morgan, you rode professionally. Can you say that there’s nothing in the life of a professional cyclist that might push him in the direction of drug and alcohol abuse? Can you say that the sport has no obligation or responsibility here? Perhaps as you suggest, this is a matter of where you draw the line … but don’t we all wish that someone had removed Tom Simpson from HIS bike before he destroyed himself?
Boonen is a “role model”, whether or not we like this. He doesn’t have to be a “perfect” role model. He can be a model for how NOT to be a successful and famous athlete — we already have plenty such role models, but Tom is free if he wants to join the ranks of the jerks, the burn-outs, the self-absorbed and the other dysfunctional idiots who make up a portion of the athletes in every sport. The “role” I’m concerned about is the role played by the sport of cycling. I expect that the sport make a clear statement that there are values more important than competition, and that the health and well-being of the riders come first.
Hi Larry – nice to read you again! — I raced yes — but I was NEVER in the league of the profis’ that we are dealing with in this column — please forgive me if I gave the impression that I was. Larry please do not take this as an “attack” on your comment to me — think of this as “a passionate response” (:-).
You are absolutely right to point out that 2 DUI’s can in no way be considered a “pristine life style” — I do not infer that ignoring them — would in someway pass Mr Boonen off as a pristine example of sports role model.
Boonen IS an elite cyclist who along with making “the big bucks” for his ability to rip through the 200 meters as only a very few can – IS responsible for his “comportment” in public, being responsible to his “sponsors” and as well as to himself.
What I do react to is that the “issue” of Mr Boonen is a result of “public action” on the part of the ASO to justify its power to exclude him from racing in their races and reacting to the method being employed. I react ONLY to this. How in heavens name is ANYONE able to defend themselves against such an attack?
The two DUI’s we found out about — because of the news reporting services — naturally –since Mr Boonen is a “public figure” this is accepted generally as “correct” and what we have come to know as scandal reporting.
BUT the cocaine issue — we found out through a system of “news leaks” which I suspect as being “orchestrated” by parties interested making certain Mr Boonen does not race. We also KNOW now that there is a culture of “targeted testing” in existence being applied by the governing bodies in cycling — WITH NO OVERSIGHT or methods of checks and balances!
We do not KNOW what the motivation is for barring QS and Boonen from pro racing — all we “know” is that the result of the leaks will in effect cause this to come about.
What I object to is the manipulation of public opinion under the guise of “moral righteousness” — as a justification for manipulating the tifosi.
You and every one else — including me, may have a powerful sense that “something is wrong” in the Boonen circle — but are we not ignoring that there is “something not right” in the method to expose this problem? And whom does exposing and making Boonen a public example of “unacceptable behavior” serve? And why are we NOT addressing this directly?
Is it because on the surface it is “easier” to point out the shortcomings of a singular individual in the “public eye” and feel we can say — “well, yes — so and so has a problem — and he does not deserve our respect, he needs help”¦etc”
As compared to LOOKING A BIT CLOSER at the seeming “reaction” of ASO and other race promoters involved and “accepting” their behavior in excluding Boonen and perhaps QS and others from racing?
The “leaking” of the cocaine problems of Mr Boonen — is a direct result of SUPPOSED “confidential testing” — are being done by another member of the alphabet soup gang.
ASO and the alphabet soup gang would seem to be benefiting in that they FEEL SAFE in ignoring the “rules” that they themselves demand that all racers follow and have no “strict liability” for their actions and to make it into a “public spectacle of opinion” out of it all. HOW exactly is that going to “help” Mr Boonen to rehabilitate his situation? Personally I think it only adds gasoline to the fire!
Meanwhile — our “commenting” on Mr Boonens’ character qualities blinds us to the bigger issue that we as tifosi have several governing bodies who systematically ABUSE the rights of the individual, who IGNORE their own rules and by-laws — who have managed to DECLARE THEMSELVES — “above the law” — being that they claim TO BE THE LAW in cycling!
Shouldn’t we be a bit more concerned about this?
Instead of trying to piece together a pseudo-psychological set of reasons in which we feel ourselves “justified” in calling Boonen an “individual in need of help” and intervention — and not direct our attention that it may just be that Boonen, as a result of the “targeted testing” — knowing full well that he has “no carrier left” — is “partying hardy” just like any other person would under extreme pressure if they had a lousy circle of emotional support?
As commentators on the sport of pro cycling — it would behoove us not to lose sight of the issue of “cause and effect” — or at least address the possibility of it. WHICH must bring up the fact that Boonen has been “target-tested” by a group of individuals that have their own “preconceived agendas” and would seem to have vested interest in causing a state of affairs in cycling that is self evidently “unhealthy” for cycling!
So — no doubt about it — IF what the media “reports” about Mr Boonen is the whole truth — Mr Boonen is coming apart at the seems. YES — hopefully he does get “help.”
But I cannot avoid thinking of the old saw — “what came first — the chicken or the egg?”
Morgan –
I knew that you were not a top pro cyclist like a Tom Boonen, but since you’ve written so well about your experiences, I guessed that you’d have a sense of what kind of pressure is placed on a guy like Boonen.
From what we’ve been able to piece together, Boonen is not a victim of “targeted testing” or abusive practices by the powers of cycling. Boonen was subjected to a surprise but routine out-of-competition test by his national federation. The test turned out positive for cocaine. Per UCI rules, Boonen’s team was informed of the test, and the team was apparently required by Belgian law to notify the police authorities. The law then searched Boonen’s home, and that’s how the press got wind of what’s going on. The press went to the Belgian police, who confirmed that Boonen had failed the drug test. From what I understand, given the fame and attention Boonen receives in Belgium, it would be close to impossible for the police to investigate Boonen without the press learning about it. You and I might prefer that this investigation have been kept private, but this time there was no wrongdoing by a lab or an ADA.
You are right of course that the governance of cycling is hopelessly screwed up. It’s worse now than it ever was. To be sure, the decision that ASO has reached in the Tom Boonen case is in part a product of the horrible state in which cycling finds itself. The ASO and others in cycling clearly believe that cycling’s credibility and public image is at all-time lows, and that only a policy of zero tolerance of any kind of illegal drug use (performance-enhancing or not) is acceptable in this environment. As the author of the Belgium Knee Warmers blog wrote: “Perhaps Tom didn’t get the memo. The memo came from the viewing audience. It was brief. It said, ‘Don’t embarrass our sport anymore.'”
It’s not clear whether ASO’s actions regarding Tom Boonen fall outside what’s legally permissible. ASO is probably exercising rights under some vaguely worded code of conduct or moral behavior provision in its charter or in an applicable contract. I’m not being critical of ASO when I refer to these clauses as vaguely worded — my understanding is that these clauses exist in many sports contracts and they’re all vaguely worded.
I know that this is highly unlawyerlike, but I’d like to put aside the question of process for the moment, and just focus on what’s the right thing to do here. I get the fact that it would be better for ASO to leave this decision to someone else, but given the state of cycling today, I’d like to see SOMEONE step forward and do the right thing. I think the right thing to do is to put Tom Boonen on the sidelines for the moment, not as a punitive action, but out of real concern for Boonen’s health and survival.
I know that we all came together out of concern for Floyd Landis and in protest of the shabby way his case was handled. From the Landis case, we’ve learned how badly the ADA system can function, and we’ve all wished more than once that the authorities would just get out of the way and let the riders race. But I think we’d be making a mistake if we apply these lessons to the Boonen case. There’s a bigger principle at stake here: sometimes, the rider is more important than the race. The race is only a game, an entertainment, a diversion. It’s OK for Tom to sit this one out.
I think it’s worthy to note in Nick D’Arcy’s case that he delivered *just one* blow that caused all the damage to Simon Cowley – it was a vicious elbow to the face.
He’s certainly lucky he didn’t kill him. But, it is tragic to see such a talented athlete lose everything in an instant, on a single bad impulse.
Larry —
Perhaps I am giving the impression that I am putting Boonens’ racing before the individual himself — if this is so — then let me unequivocally state that I also believe that Boonen is drifting through some very rough waters and can only hope that he has enough people around him to help him through it.
Now — I cannot in anyway begin to discuss Boonens personal life — None of us can — but what I can throw into this pot is that we should ask ourselves — “when was the first DUI” reported — I believe it was around the same time that Boonen began to be targeted for testing. When his “abilities” were put into question by the powers that be”¦
As far as I know — and this may be pure conjecture on my part — it would seem that Boonen started falling apart when his “racing life” — was put to the question, natural or “chemically aided” by the powers that be — Now — I am not saying this should be considered an “excuse” in any shape or form — his reaction to his personal spot-light — to put it mildly – sucks.
I cannot agree with you when you state —
à “Boonen was subjected to a surprise but routine out-of-competition test by his national federation.”
— I do not believe this inspection was routine and I cannot believe that his national federation was acting merely to pull a surprise inspection all on its own. By the time of the “surprise inspection” Boonen was being targeted/under suspicion for chemical enhancement – along with his team QS.
à “The test turned out positive for cocaine. Per UCI rules, Boonen’s team was informed of the test, and the team was apparently required by Belgian law to notify the police authorities.”
– One has to assume that this set off circumstances was anything but coincidental. To come back to Boonen himself — one has to ask –“how would you feel” if you were being put under suspicion “publicly” by your own team — I do not believe anyone of us would feel very secure — if our own place of work has been used to turn on us when we most need it — does the concept of “divide and conquer” cross anyone’s mind? It does mine.
à “The law then searched Boonen’s home, and that’s how the press got wind of what’s going on. The press went to the Belgian police, who confirmed that Boonen had failed the drug test.”
– Yes the law did such a search and NOTHING WAS FOUND — but the DAMAGE IN PUBLIC IMAGING was gone over with a mallet! — Could this be considered under the assumption that it was a mere “routine happening?” I think not — such a set of circumstances to occur has to be planned — and coincidently — Boonen starts “falling apart” in public — why is this a surprise? I do not think that it is a question of Boonen being a “party animal” as it is being put out or inferred — I think the man is realizing he’s been “targeted” and he can kiss his career good bye!
à “From what I understand, given the fame and attention Boonen receives in Belgium, it would be close to impossible for the police to investigate Boonen without the press learning about it.”
– It is here that you give me an opportunity to directly point to what annoys me about the interpretation of this situation. You see — I think that Boonen along with ANY celebrity in ANY country would be in the same waters under these circumstances. But the interpretation has a “built in” fault — implying that the subject is “responsible” — while that may be — it is merely an implication. And as to what the press gets a hold of — well that “getting a hold of” is itself a part of the problem, don’cha think?
à “You and I might prefer that this investigation have been kept private, but this time there was no wrongdoing by a lab or an ADA.”
– I do not question or wish for privacy in “investigations” – on the contrary — I would prefer to know ALL THE EVENT, not mere interpretations or implications. On the other hand — I cannot in all honesty accept that there was “no wrong-doing” here — everything – if one looks at the timeline is “way too pat.”
Understand please — I am not condoning Mr Boonen’s actions — in fact — I think he really is in need of serious help at the moment — but I do point out — WHO WOULDN’T BE given the circumstances. Some “act out” with doing coke while others drink themselves into unconsciousness — or whatever”¦the point is — that one is a “result of” the other — the other in this case is that Boonen is “targeted” that means he is looked at as being guilty — but too good at getting away with it so they “nail him” another way.
The alphabet soup problem has revealed itself to now as being very dirty. There would appear “no good guys” here at all. The “rules and regulations” are not fair or clear or aimed at true fair justice — rather they are tools to reach the ends desired by the governing bodies. Which it has come to be obvious to all except to the densest — that they impinge on human rights.
To imply that cycling’s “problems of public image” is being the fault of the riders public behavior is avoiding looking at the OTHER HALF of this very real problem — the behavior and power of the alphabet soup! What their behavior may be the cause of the “acting out” in the peleton. One should not expect “normal behavior” under abnormal situations.
I do not see that the Landis case and the Boonen case are dissimilar — both are, in my opinion, a direct result of the situation in the governance of cycling — not the fault of the riders or their behavior. Being busted for cocaine does not help — driving under the influence is stupid and deadly even if you are not a rider — but it is not the “downfall of the cycling world” — what is — is the behavior of the governing bodies and the rules and regulations and how they are being employed that is putting the kibosh on cycling!
We all know that cycling has an image problem. That image may be correct, only partially correct, or rather incorrect, but in terms of public perception at the present time, how correct the image is is immaterial.
Part of the problem is that the current testing program, even if all labs operate totally correctly, can only test a small percentage of riders and so it is possible that a number of riders can get away with doping, either because they avoid testing (low level riders who are neither “targeted” nor win stages/GC or because they have devised a doping scheme which is unlikely to be detected by current methods.
UCI, ASO, and teams realize all this and are attempting to stake out the high moral ground, or at least give the appearance of doing so. ASO does this be excluding riders they consider to have questionable pasts, regardless of their current standing. UCI has implemented the blood passport system, and last year the “pledge”. Some teams, like Slipstream and High Road, have implemented their own testing program.
There is large possibilities for conflict here, if and when each of these entities disagree about a given rider. As far as UCI is concerned, Boonen has done nothing which warrants him being punished by cycling (the law is a different matter), but ASO does not agree. UCI did not feel that Astana’s past warranted them being excluded from the Paris-Nice, buy ASO disagreed. I think the time will come when either ASO or UCI will have an AAF on a rider whose team has tested him as clean. It will be interesting to see what happens then.
Now imagine each of these entities cooperating. Teams and UCI could share data with each other. Perhaps results from different testing programs would help to confirm or deny suspicious results. At very least, one group can help fill gaps in the other’s testing program.
William, a quick note: teams ARE sharing their testing data with the UCI.
Morgan, you are NOT giving me the impression that you place Boonen’s racing before Boonen as an individual. *I* am the one arguing that CYCLING needs to place the interests of the rider ahead of those of the race.
I have read or seen nothing to indicate that Boonen has been targeted for special testing. (By the way, the spectre of targeting testing makes me VERY nervous. In fact, the entire way in which the UCI and cycling is implementing the biological passport is troubling at best, and may prove to be downright incompetent. A topic for another conversation).
I agree, I wish that this process was more transparent. (At the same time, if Boonen has a medical problem, then I have privacy concerns as well.) The questions that TBV raised here should have been addressed by the press and the relevant authorities. However, I think that my last post to you accurately reflects the information available to us. On this question, I rely on our friend karuna (see Karuna’s post here 6/12 5:30 am). The test in question DOES appear to me to be routine — if you see evidence to the contrary, please point it out. If you’re suspicious that there’s more here than meets the eye … well, I’ll grant you that there’s always cause in cycling to be suspicious, but I think we have to act based on the facts as we know them and not on our suspicions.
Besides … even if you’re right and Boonen HAS been targeted for special testing … the fact remains that Boonen appears to have tested positive for cocaine. We have to decide, what are we going to do about this? Even if you assume that he was UNFAIRLY targeted for this testing, and you want to do everything you can to eliminate this unfairness and targeting testing in general, you still have to decide what to do about Tom Boonen. You CAN argue that if the testing was unfair and improper, we should ignore the test results. I might agree with you if the test had uncovered the use of performance-enhancing drugs, since in that case all that might be at stake is the fairness of a competition. But if what we’ve uncovered is Boonen’s use of a drug that’s potentially dangerous to himself (and to others if he’s driving under the influence), then I don’t think we should ignore the test results.
I also agree that the circus atmosphere surrounding Boonen’s test and the public reaction to the test is the kind of thing that would tend to CONTRIBUTE to a person’s substance abuse problem. I keep saying this, pro cycling is a stressful profession, and for this reason pro cycling has a responsibility to its cyclists to put programs in place to combat the natural tendency that cyclists (like people in any particularly stressful profession) will tend to abuse alcohol and other drugs more than the average person.
I agree that the idiotic way in which cycling governs itself is a part of the problem here. But even if we could wave a magic wand and solve all of cycling’s problems overnight, we’d still have to figure out what to do about Tom Boonen. If the guy has a problem with drugs and alcohol, his problem will not go away if UCI and ASO make peace with each other, or if the ADAs start doing their jobs correctly.
Larry –
Why is it that you assume – we have to do something with Boonen? You and I and the rest of the “tifosi” are not his family or his employers…WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING for Boonen – this is a rhetorical question in my opinion. Oh – we may all get together and decide to send positive reinforcement to him – via email and and normal post -but “to do something” to effect his betterment – to try and form some means of legislating an individuals state of being is not possible – and dangerous when contemplated as a possibility.
I am not disagreeing with you that much – the only difference – if we have any really – is that you come at this from the “Boonen point of view” and I come at the situation and see Boonen as a “result of” what is in effect happening to cycling.
My suspicion of the governing bodies in cycling is based on their “behavior” and their methods that they have shown themselves to use.
Since I have next to little expectation that the news services will get past the “shock-journalism”aspect of their reporting – I do tend to look at not only the news being reported but also at the state of activity that is happening in the cycling milieu and YES I do draw conclusions which I cannot give you proof for – since I do not have the time to do the necessary legwork to hunt them down.
Yes – we do have to do something about “Boonen” – but the “we” who have to do the something must come from his closes circle of friends and associates. I am not one of these – and neither are you -and all the “good wishes” we may have are just that – good wishes. Not something we can actually do for Boonen.
We DO have to DO SOMETHING about what the governing bodies are doing to the sport of cycling, as a “whole” we do have more of a “chance” with this problem – that is if we do not stop filling the airwaves with our displeasure at the people responsible for the toxic state of affairs.
Morgan, if Boonen does have a problem with substance or alcohol abuse, then my assumption (probably influenced by my reading of Put Me Back On My Bike – In Search of Tom Simpson) is that cycling bears some responsibility for Boonen’s problem. Cycling asks its riders to endure pain and great competitive pressure. Other professions (like mine) recognize that these kinds of pressures can lead to substance and alcohol abuse, and take at least some remedial steps in response. Why not cycling?
Larry – we do not have a difference of opinion here. Cycling should be also advanced enough to take such responsibility – but given the way cycling is being run – what are the realistic chances of this happening?
Thanks for a very satisfying exchange of ideas. Glad you are back.
Great discussion!!
I would like to highlight a few things.
If I understand Larry correctly he says, in very short and among other things, that cycling has a responsibility to Boonen. Stopping Boonen now could help him in the future.
I agree fully that cycling has a responsibility to it’s riders.
But wouldn’t it be more helpful to give the riders STRUCTURAL mental guidance, help, whatever they need in that respect?
I think the mental part is a very much underestimated part of (most) sports.
The case Boonen could be a good example of how much the sportsmen/riders need mental help in dealing with things like: pressure, stress, unfairness etc.
There are all sorts of helpers for the physical part of cycling but I don’t know one team with psychologists or otherwise trained professionals in their staff.
In the case Boonen it already got out of hand but it could be a moment where is considered that riders need more help to avoid as much as possible that things get out of hand. Much more in the helping, guiding way. Much more in the (also) realistic way that nobody is perfect and that pressure etc will bring up “weaknesses” in the personality of riders.
Now the only measures heard of are the ways of “˜how to repress the best’.
Repression can be helpful but it is “an attacking way” of dealing with.
In my opinion that is never the most helpful answer.
So agreeing with Larry that cycling has a responsibility, I wish more ways would be considered than repression.
It should be far more normal and something that “˜should be done’ to give mental guidance than it is now. And the organizations at the top can have an influence on that. Taking that position NEXT TO repression would help in my opinion.
With Morgan I agree in general that the government bodies and the organizers don’t give a very good example. I already tried to say that in a earlier comment.
In general: how can you expect fairness from the riders when the top gives an unfair example. I think it is a fact that when there is corruption at the top there will be corruption in the “lower” parts of an organization.
Asking from the riders to be better persons than the ones that are in charge will not work ( I strongly think).
By the way.
I am still puzzled about why Boonen was tested for cocaine in an out-of-competition test.
At first I thought it to be reasonable that the labs don’t know what kind of test it is.
But I think now that is no good reason. Labs do lots of tests, of lots of different sportsmen.
Why can’t there be a difference made between in- and out-of competition tests? How could that influence the anonymity? It only costs more money to do all the tests.
I have no idea, just an observation.
Karuna, Morgan, Larry, William,
Excellent discussion you all have been having.
Snake,
Rather belated, but thanks for the reminder about D’Arcy’s little “outburst.” Amazing what one hit can do. Who’d’a’thunk a certain old cliche might need to be reworked: “I went to a bar with some swimmers, and a hockey game broke out.” 😉
The latest news on Boonen is very distressing. (Both pieces of news taken from Cycling News.)
First, Boonen is claiming that he did not take cocaine, and that someone must have put cocaine into a drink he had at a bar. He’s even given us the name of the bar.
Is there ANY possibility that Boonen’s story is true? Yeah, sure, there’s a possibility. Drink spiking DOES happen. It’s a serious crime, and if Boonen’s story is true, then the drink spiking could have killed him. (I hope that Boonen understands the gravity of the accusation he’s making, not to mention the damage he may have done to the reputation of the bar in question.) But what are the odds that someone would have spiked Boonen’s drink with cocaine right before a surprise out-of-competition drug test? And while Boonen’s at it, how does he explain his two DUI arrests? Did someone put a drink in his drink?
The second piece of news is more distressing than the first. Team Quick Step has explained why it is so anxious for Tom Boonen to ride the Tour de France: QS has prepared a big publicity campaign for its laminate flooring products to run in France during the Tour with Boonen in the lead role. The company has already purchased the advertising time on French television. QS CEO Frans De Cock stated: “For a cycling sponsor, the Tour means half of the return for the year’s investment. I need Tom Boonen. I think that Quick Step has contributed a lot to the sport.”
I doubt that anyone defends the interests of sponsors around here with greater passion than I do. But this story makes me sick.
Larry,
I have to say, this story is getting to be very curious, indeed. There seems to be a lot of pressure on Boonen to be at the race, and to say whatever it takes to get back into a good enough state of grace that he will be allowed to race the Tour. Certainly, we can see Quick Step’s (the company’s) motivations. Sounds like it’s “all about the Benjamins,” doesn’t it? They don’t seem to be sticking with the team and with Boonen out of any other reason than return on investment. I suppose that’s the way business works. But it reminds me of the quote comparing the making of legislation and the making of sausage. Whichever wag said it, the observation was that we’re better of not seeing how either laws or sausages are made.
Rant, I’m a business lawyer, I believe in capitalism and the profit motive. But to push a guy back on his bike because you’ve already filmed the commercial campaign is sick and twisted stuff.
Larry
I understand what you are saying and I agree!! It’s is sick.
But on the other hand I don’t see all that much of a difference between keeping Boonen on his bike now, excluding riders for sins of others AND (in the nineties) keeping riders on the bike of which their blood levels showed they were clearly doping. In case of the last it was even dangerous for the lives of the riders. All in the name of money. All in the name of the (among other races) the TdF.
As long as I don’t try to empathize with the “˜victim’ I understand it, but it gets very different when I do empathize.
I am not much of a Boonen fan. Personally I don’t really care if he rides the TdF or not. I just hope for him the best. And especially fairness because that will no matter what help him the most to get over his problems. On the “˜personal Boonen level’ though we don’t know if he really has a problem that severe that it is necessary to keep him of his bike. There are scenario’s thinkable that riding is the best thing that could happen to him now.
I also read the story of Boonen denying the use of cocaine and that something was put in his drink.
Besides the possibilities you give there another I think.
Maybe Boonen dances around the fact that he didn’t use cocaine THAT day but (lets say) 5 days ago. Cocaine can be traced in urine up to 7 days after using it.
I suppose he knows how long cocaine can be traced although we can’t even be sure of that.
If he really doesn’t know I can understand his denial.
I don’t know, riders are pushed into corners so much that they also make strange moves.
Larry,
Amen to that. It has an eerie Simpson-esque ring to it. Tom, not Bart, that is. What chutzpah. “You’ve got to let him in because we made the advert.” Almost sounds like it doesn’t matter if he is qualified to be there. That is pretty twisted. Imagine some company doing that with a celebrity of a different sort. “Please, Mr. Tour, let our actor into your great race because we already made the TV commercial.” Makes me cringe…
When Quick-Step has build his advertissing campaign, normaly they have taken an insurance because Boonen could have a crash, or simply become ill few days before TDF.
If they didn’t that is their problemn and they don’t have to push Boonen in stupid denials.
Jean,
Right you are. If they didn’t have contingency plans for if Boonen was ill, hit by a bus, or somehow disqualified from racing, that’s certainly the sponsor’s mistake. The certainly shouldn’t be pushing Boonen to say anything other than the truth — whatever that might be.