Seems an appropriate heading, given how long it’s been since the last post, eh? I’ve been trying to keep up with everyone’s comments to the previous post, but been at the same time too busy to write up a new post until now. Why, you ask? Ah, well it has to do with a book, an “Afterword” and the desire to have said Afterword done at roughly the same time the book will be available.
Which, as it turns out, will be pretty soon. From what I’ve been told, the book will be shipping from the printers on the 19th, which is just a few days away. Will the Afterword be complete? Well, sort of. It’s got a bit of editing to go through between now and — well, whenever it’s done being edited. I’m hoping to have it up on the site at about the same time the books start shipping from the printer. At this point, we’ll have to wait and see.
So, there’s a few things that have caught my eye. (A lot, actually, but I don’t have unlimited time to just write. I still have my first round of corrections to complete.) Here’ s just a few thoughts on what’s been going on.
Beware The Paper Tiger
So, the UCI has fined the French Cycling Federation (FFC) a whopping 10,000 Swiss francs for “disloyalty.” How dare they sanction the Tour de France, Paris-Nice and heaven knows what else. Um, isn’t that kind of what a cycling federation does? They issue riders licenses and sanction races. What else is there for a cycling federation to do, sit around in some far-flung resort and drink Kristal?
With the rhetoric being what it’s been in this misbegotten menage-a-trois between the UCI, the ASO and the FFC, is anyone really surprised? I mean, hasn’t Pat McQuaid been threatening this forever?
How, exactly, is this going to solve the issues that exist between the ASO and the UCI? In some ways, the FFC is the poor hapless bastard who happens to be stuck in middle as these two alley cats attempt to rip each other to shreds. It’s not been a pretty sight. And when it’s over, and one of them declares victory, will the sport be too bloody and battered to carry on?
Like my dad would have said, I’m sure the sport will find a way of muddling through. I do have to say, though, that I find myself agreeing with this quote from an FFC statement on the matter:
“This penalty will change absolutely nothing in the serious crisis that currently present in international cycling.”
To me, the problem here is that Pat McQuaid and company haven’t really done anything that addresses the root causes of the real conflict. What they have done, however, is to freeze the FFC out of any decisions and deliberations that may occur at the UCI between now and the end of the year. Ironic, that the UCI was born out of a need for consistent rules in cycling races held in various countries (the US and France were among the “founding members,” as it were).
It’s all well and good that the UCI want to grow the sport around the world. Truly, that’s a noble cause. But the way they’ve gone about it is ham-handed at best. Now, with the announcement of a competing ProTour race scheduled during the same time as the Giro d’Italia, the UCI have raised the stakes again. In a bad way. If they want to bring peace and tranquility to the world of cycling, such a provocative move is not the way to accomplish that goal.
When push has come to shove, the ProTour teams have sided with the Grand Tour organizers this year. I’d bet the same would be true in the future. They know the sponsors want maximum exposure, and an invite to one of the “Big Three” is pretty much that. Would the ProTour teams send some riders off to this competing race? Maybe, but they’ll be the second- and third-stringers, not the stars.
Whenever I see these kinds of things happening, I’m reminded to the words of Rodney King, “Can we all just get along? Can we stop making it horrible … ”
What Should We Expect of Our ‘Heroes’?
The news of Tom Boonen’s troubles this week got a very interesting discussion going. So often, it seems, athletes, celebrities and those in the spotlight are put on pedestals and expected to be role models who live exemplary lives. Whenever one of our heroes turns out to be human, that person is ritually torn to shreds by a media and a public almost hell-bent on vengeance. How dare that person be, well, just like the rest of us? Subject to the same temptations, same foibles, and same vices.
When a person excels in sports, or entertainment, or politics, or whatever, does he or she automatically give up any rights to having a private life? What do they owe us, and what do we owe them?
Tricky questions, eh?
Boonen’s plight is, to a large extent it appears, one he brought on himself. Whether he’s a “recreational” user of alcohol and/or cocaine, or whether he’s an addict of some sort, to what extent is it our business?
Now, this whole business raises the question of what drugs should be banned in sports, and what action should be taken for those who’ve tested positive for the use of recreational drugs. Right now, it appears that the use of certain drugs (like cocaine) out of competition isn’t banned. Should it be? Well, if so, there’s a way to change the rules. Perhaps a bigger question is this: Does the sport of cycling have a responsibility to ensure the health and welfare of its athletes? And if so, how should the sport deal with athletes who use recreational drugs?
Unfortunately, it appears that there is no clear-cut policy. It’s very much ad-hoc at the moment. A race organizer can be free to bar a cyclist from starting — not because he’s violated an actual rule of the sport, but because his recreational drug use might “cast a negative light on the race.” Some teams (like Bouygues-Telecom) have rules against drug use, others, maybe not. It seems that there’s a wide range of approaches to this issue.
To flip things around, what do we owe the athletes? Yes, the use of drugs like cocaine is a choice, and people should be responsible for the choices they make — and accept responsibility if caught. Boonen seems to have done so, doesn’t he? But doesn’t the sport also owe the cyclists something in return? Like some assistance dealing with the pressures that might lead to drug use? Without the riders, the sport wouldn’t exist, just as it wouldn’t exist if there were no promoters putting on races.
These days, it seems that the interests of the riders takes a back seat to other interests. Mostly, the warring interests of the UCI and various race organizers. Boonen’s case illustrates the need for a coherent policy to address the use of recreational drugs, as well as other problems cyclists might face. Many businesses have “employee assistance programs” designed to help workers overcome problems in their private lives. Perhaps professional sports, such as cycling, should do the same.
The riders’ health and well-being is important. At this point, however, I’m not sure who is really looking out for the riders in a positive way. Trying to catch the cheats, that’s another story. But who’s out there trying to help cyclists choose the right path? (OK, I can actually think of one program — the ACE program.)
Getting back to the main point, however, is it fair to expect our “heroes” to be perfect? I think not. Just as there are programs in other workplaces to help those who might have made a bad choice, I think professional cycling needs such a program. And I wonder about whether we are truly better served by seeing such things as Boonen’s unfortunate situation play out in public. Perhaps he can truly be a role model, however, in the sense that he’s made some bad choices, taken responsibility for those choices and with some hard work can overcome the consequences of his actions.
That’s a much better role model, in many ways, than someone who leads a picture-perfect life. Ultimately, I think we expect too much from famous athletes and others. They are people like the rest of us. They make mistakes, and they learn from their mistakes (well, with a few notable exceptions). The best role models that I can think of are people we can look to and say, “Yeah, so-and-so is human — and look how well he/she coped with/overcame ….”
To me, that is real inspiration.
With apologies that this is coming from a guy who could not be closer to the trees…..but hopefully I can still see a bit of the forest though.
I think there is a big point that everyone is missing in the debate on Boonen and other athletes who get dinged for recreational, non-performance enhancing substances (and arguably performance enhancing ones too).
To use myself as an example, when my case came out, there were a lot of people who thought that I was lying about the circumstances surrounding ingestion – in retrospect, and even at the time, I could understand why, it was a very peculiar set of circumstances.
One of the groups of people who thought I was a big fat lyer was the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport – they took the position that I must have used cocaine on purpose, in the days leading up to my competition.
Fair enough, it’s their perogative to believe whatever they want.
The issue to me though, is that at no time did they, or anyone from Sport Canada, Athletics Canada, the Government of Canada, or WADA come to me and say: “We think you’re lying, we’re going to prosecute you to the full extent that we can, and you’re going to be suspended for two years, but do you need any help?”.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if I had been a line worker at the Ford plant, I would have been on paid leave in a councelling and rehab program. As it happens to athletes, they get kicked to the curb, and continue to be kicked until there is nothing left – and that’s certainly not any lesson that I’ve ever learned from sport, and it saddens me to tears that the corporate folks treat their people in a more humane way than the sport bureaucracy treats athletes.
Ignoring the fact that Boonen has not committed any doping infraction, and should put in a statement of claim with an impressive amount of zeros in it against whoever put the results of his test out there, I hope someone is offering help to Tom, he deserves at least the offer, and may or may not need the help – but the ethical thing to do is to offer it and allow him the dignity to make his own decision.
I also happen to believe that the anti-doping people are obligated to offer it to him, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. They have no end of strength to grasp the scepter of authority, but refuse to demonstrate the courage to wear the cloak of responsibility, and that is inexcuseable from people who claim to derive their authority because of the need to ensure that sport is fair and clean.
The people who run the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport, the World Anti-Doping Agency, and those that I’ve met from other anti-doping agencies are among the least ethical people I’ve ever met in my entire life.
-Jello
Jello,
Congratulations on your win in Tempe. Good to see you back in competition, where you belong, rather than in a courtroom defending your honor and integrity.
To me, those who claim to be defending the rights of sportsmen to fair and clean competition have a massive obligation to help those who might run afoul of the rules, whether it’s with banned substances that are performance enhancing, or with recreational drugs. If someone gets dinged for recreational drugs, their federation and the ADAs have a responsibility to offer that person help, whether that person is an addict or an occasional user — or in your case, someone assaulted in a most unusual way.
Cleaning up sport isn’t just about beating the “cheats” into a bloody pulp, it means helping those who may have strayed — whether intentionally or inadvertently. That no one offered you any sort of help (though I don’t think you needed it) is an indication of how little concern there really is for the welfare of athletes. More so, it seems the concern is about a blind obedience to “the rules.” Ethics, to me, requires more than just following a set of instructions or rules, it requires concern for the person. And that’s the thing that I keep wondering about. Is there really any concern for the individual and his/her welfare, or is it all about wins and losses? I’m afraid it’s the latter, when it really ought to be the former.
Corporations seem to have a much better handle on this than the ADAs and sporting federations. Which is surprising, given the way many corporations seem to ignore their workers’ welfare in other regards. In a world concerned with fair play (supposedly), I would expect they would treat people more humanely than a corporation would. But sometimes things are exactly the opposite of what we expect, eh?
Jeff, I’ve taken the liberty of quoting chunks of the above over at TBV. Thanks for having the courage and fortitude to carry through with this against all the odds and the skeptical and bitter sniping.
TBV
This is more of a question than a comment, and please know I haven’t read extensively about Tom Boonen’s case, so I am speaking in general terms.
Having said that, I sense an assumption we all are making, that Tom *wants* help for recreational drug use. I wonder if he, or other athletes like him who use recreational drugs, would be happy to go on indefinitely with an occasional drink or injection or whathaveyou, so long as their team rules or the organizer’s rules, don’t expressly forbid it. Having been caught, the athlete is now of course in the position of having to admit a “mistake”, which he or she may not have characterized as such before they were caught, in order to keep public opinion on their side and possibly their career. What does this say about our system? I’m not sure.
My point is that you can only help those who genuinely feel they need help. Only those athletes who recognize an addiction and honestly want help would be well served by some sort of employee assistance program through their team or through an organization. The others are perhaps content to pay a fine and/or accept suspension, get on with their lives, and are much more careful in future about when they indulge. We as their public cannot make them personally recognize, and be sorry for, an addiction they do not acknowledge, whatever they are told to tell us publicly.
Debby,
I’m not sure that Boonen ever asked for help, or that it was offered. I do think that those who wish to “clean up” sports have an obligation to help those who’ve strayed from the “straight and narrow” — whether intentionally or not. So I think it’s incumbent on his team, at the very least, to offer some assistance. He can choose not to take the help, and he can deny there’s a “problem” if he likes. That’s his prerogative.
People do learn from their mistakes. Sometimes it takes getting caught to realize just how big a mistake has been made. David Millar seems to be a case in point. Not sure what that says about our society, though.
I agree that you can only help those who want to be helped. Some may be content to pay a fine and go through the motions. Others might take the suspension and continue to indulge, biding their time until they can return (or at least try to return). We, the public, can’t make anyone see anything they don’t want to see. There’s certainly plenty of illustrations of that in many aspects of life, not just sports.
I keep thinking that there was once a time when people actually believed in personal responsibility, owned up to their actions, and accepted whatever came as a result. Perhaps that’s just an illusion, however. Maybe such a time is like the tale often repeated, but only a tale.
Take a look at Larry’s comment here. This story is getting curiouser and curiouser. And not in a good way, I’m afraid.
I do not think that WADA, UIC, and/or their affiliates should be “offering help”, at least in the early stages of a case. To do so can be construed as an underhanded attempt to elicit an admission.
Jello: suppose the authorities you mention had offered you “help” while you were contesting the case. If you had accepted the offer, they would have used that as evidence against you. “Anything you say can and will be used against you.”
And while I am at it, let us not be to sure about condemning QS: it is entirely possible that they did offer him some “help”. Such an offer should be private and confidential and if his story about a spiked drink is true, he obviously would turn such an offer down. Even if his story is false, as long as he intended to deny his “guilt”, he would turn down the offer. Or he might accept some sort of “help” which would not preclude him competing in the TdF, if ASO were to relent.
It is not uncommon, at least in early stages, for a guilty party to maintain they are innocent, in part to keep their options open. If the case against you seems weak, you might be able to beat the rap, but if you admit your guilt in some way, you weaken your own case.
If WADA/UCI does have some obligation to “help” riders involved in doping, I think it more appropriate such an offer be part of the sentencing phase, after either the athlete has accepted the AAF or a guilty verdict has been reached in a hearing.
William,
Good points, regarding the ADAs. I can see how any acceptance of an offer would be construed as an admission of guilt. On the other hand, if it had been handled internally (meaning none of us would know), then the QS team could have made such an offer as part of an internal program. The ACE program offers riders counseling if there are unusual test results. No admissions of guilt are implied, if I understand the program right, just information is provided, such as the dangers of a certain doping technique, etc.
Of course, we don’t know if such counseling was offered. But we do know what the test results were, given how the news made its way into the media. Whatever happened, Boonen’s in the middle of a tornado right now. For his sake, I hope his story about the spiked drink is true. Otherwise, he’s going to become another punchline to a bad joke/story about doping in cycling.
Rant
Sorry, I am way behind in reading your posts.
As it turns out you had the same ideas I had but much earlier (program for help).
Well sorry, but let me say again: I agree wtih you all the way.
Besides the issue of doping I think it would be really helpful when it would be far more normal to acknowledge that we can use training in the mental area as much as we need it in the physical area (being a sportsman or anything else).
I don’t think you need problem to “get help”.
In my opinion you could just as easily say: When you NEED help you are probably late, you have been ignoring the signals for too long.
The “˜you need help’ kind of help should be available for everybody but there is also the possibility for one step earlier.
Why not give a rider guidance to what can happen to him for instance when he enters the professional circuit?
Confidential guidance on what to expect, how the individual can deal with the pressure, information about what can happen when the pressure can get too much, information on coping strategies, counseling on coping strategies etc etc.
When something like that is NORMAL it is extremely helpful. It will not exclude or substitute all the problems but from other areas I know that does help a little and it certainly feels different.
Another advantage of “˜help before you need it’ is: when it is already in the personal system of the rider to talk to someone, asking for help is a much smaller step to take.
And when everybody goes for such a program it becomes more normal to have such a program etc etc.
I don’t know enough about the ACE program to say if it’s the same as I am proposing now.
The team seems to me to have the best options for a program like that. Closest to the riders etc.
But if that fails or for some other reason is not desirable for the rider the UCI/WADA should have a CONFIDENTIAL option too.
I hope I didn’t duplicate anyone agian 🙂
Karuna,
No worries about duplication. 😉
I think your idea is a great approach. Building “help” into the system from the start, so that athletes know the dangers before they make the decision to dope (or use recreational drugs, or a whole host of other things that could happen) would probably go a long way towards solving the problem. There will always be those who would do so despite knowing the consequences, but there will also be a large number of athletes who would avoid getting into trouble, knowing the full toll that it could take — personally, emotionally, physically, and of course, professionally.
ACE’s program builds in that kind of counseling. But I see what you’ve proposed as coming before that. Like when athletes first enter a sport. By the time someone gets to a level that they are on a team with an ACE program, or a Damsgaard program, or what have you, all of the information should be old hat.
Excellent approach. I hope it catches on.
I have some vague idea that some US pro sports due provide some guidance to incoming rookies.