Placing the Latest Scandal In Context
Tomorrow is arguably the biggest day of the year in Cycling. The Tour is king (for now), and while the stage is often a moving target, the last mountain stage is usually a good bet. And this year is no different. The climb up the Col d'Aubisque will be memorable.
One more reason why it sucks that today, on the eve of that event, we're going to have to tackle one of the biggest in-race scandals the Tour has confronted. Obviously ASO got lucky when Vino crashed and fell apart (twice), since it's easier to throw out two stage wins than to remove the yellow jersey. But this story, after all the other scandals, will begin the feeding frenzy all over. The vultures at ESPN and other MSM outlets normally uninterested in Cycling are already starting to circle. What they'll all say is that Cycling is reeling from a succession of scandals, and something drastic -- stopping racing? Fans disappearing? Sponsors going home? -- looms over the sport.
What they won't talk about is hope. Nor will they stop to distinguish one story from another. Nor will they refrain from lumping all the innocent in with the guilty. So I'll take a shot at it.
In some ways, Vino's case is unremarkable. Vino is from the era of Ullrich, Basso, Pantani, Festina, Rumsas, Hamilton, Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Fuentes, and on and on. Vino was racing for Manolo Saiz on the day Saiz and Fuentes were nabbed with suitcases of blood and cash. We try not to do guilt by association in our justice system, but even still, we're not surprised when such suspicions turn into fact. And Vino has been under constant suspicion (here anyway) from that day. Among the bigger losers today are Landis and Armstrong, two more champions from that era: however much some of us want to believe them, at some point they're asking us to accept that they were the only clean riders in the race. And they won.
More and more we cannot trust, say, anyone over 30. OK, that's not a blanket dismissal of half the peloton. Rather, I think we have to accept that the Operacion Puerto raids fell somewhere between the middle and the end of an era of dopers. Hopefully closer to the end; hopefully 2-3 years after that fateful day we will have flushed the accepted doping mentality from the sport, for the most part anyway. But there is still much work to be done.
If this is about the sport's culture, and if one wants to accept that the culture is in flux, then what to make of the Sinkewitz case? At 26, he falls squarely in the Boonen/Ballan/Pozzato/Schleck/etc. generation whom we want to take over at the dawn of a better era. I actually find this more troubling than the Vino case because we need the younger guys to do differently. And we need the T-Mobile system to enforce that change.
But Sinkewitz got caught. And testosterone, while banned for good reason I'm sure, is a lower level threat in my book than the blood doping rings. There are no shadowy doctors involved, no iced panniers smuggled into hotels, no syringes, no mafia, and no connection to altering the entire speed of the sport; just a guy with a patch on his skin. Yes, it's a form of cheating, but it's not as disgusting and not as easy to disguise. IMHO (however poorly informed), testosterone patches don't have nearly the impact on Cycling as EPO and blood manipulation.
Another categorization: doping seems to be largely about the grand tours. Maybe we'll find out otherwise, but the stars of the Classics these days are Cancellara, Boonen, Ballan, Schleck, DiLuca (*), Pozzato, Burghardt, Freire, Hoste, Devolder, Gusev, Gilbert, Valverde (?), Schumacher, etc., and so far only DiLuca and Valverde have some explaining to do. Compare this to any grand tour from the last ten years, where you can remove huge swaths of the top ten on suspicion or confirmation of doping. There are places in Cycling where doping hasn't destroyed the race. Unfortunately, the Tour de France isn't one of them.
The point of all this is that we need to separate the good from the bad; refrain from destroying the good and the innocent; and come down with full force on the heads of the actual cheaters. Vino: buh bye. Basso: va fa Napoli. Hamilton: good riddance. Astana, Tinkoff: flush your rosters and start again. Sinkewitz: confess and go home. Get the hell out of the sport so that the Gerdemanns and Boonens and Ballans and whomever else we can (hold your breath) consider clean can carry on and restore the greatness of Cycling. I still think the racing looks cleaner this year, but until the sport has turned over completely from the most recent era of doping, the scandals won't quite end.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
that was some quick writing
by Burgundy and Gold on Jul 24, 2007 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I have
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 24, 2007 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I leave my PC for one day
What are the good reasons?
I'll start with the disclaimer that I don't really care if any of the athletes us any particular substance. It won't convince me to use them if it's not safe any more than I'd ride without a helmet because riders in the tour regularly rode without them up until just a few years ago. I also have no illusions that Floyd and Vino are participating in the same sport as the casual or locally competitive racer any more than LeBron James plays the same game that rec league basketball players compete in.
I think it's interesting that you mention that testosterone is banned for good reasons. It seems to me that the outrage over doping is mostly that it's against the rules, but examining why the rules are what they are comes up with very few solid lines separating what is and isn't fair beyond what is and isn't on the WADA list. The rationale for the list(s) themselves would appear to be a) fair play and b) concerns for the athletes. But I don't think either are concrete positions. If non-homologous blood doping shows no health risks, if it can be done safely with sterile conditions and medical supervision, should it be legal? What about non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? Perfectly legal, though there's health risks associated with prolonged usage.
This is partially devil's advocate, partially a chance to reflect on why rules exist and importantly, who makes the rules. But I'm just curious, beyond outrage over cheating, what flavors people's opinions on all of this. Or is it just outrage over cheating and if it weren't prohibited, would anyone care?
the problem
Unfortunately, I think these methods are exceedingly common--I'd guess they are ubiquitous. Some of our favorites, who we like to think are clean, are likely involved in these programs.
Once you're aware that's the case, every stage is spent trying to figure out who took too much cortisone, or who didn't take enough testosterone. You might even want to look at the growth of the brow and jawbone of certain popular riders. That's pretty tedious stuff.
If the public were naive about it, like back in the 90s, a juiced peleton might work. But I think, now, it might be harder to do it.
But, I do watch the NFL, and I don't shed a lot of tears about running backs that look 95 at 50 and can't walk, so maybe I'd watch a juiced peleton.
Is this not already the case?
But it's already a sport where things off the course factor into who wins. Having a better team helps more than a little bit, yet it's a strange deal with an individual gets honors in what's largely a team sport. Can someone win in the GC on a lousy team? If no, then it's become a contest of money as much as a contest of athletes. What about nutritional consultants? Vitamins? What about the non-prohibited medical support? Hyperbaric chambers? What if someone discovered that a peanut causing the same peanut allergies regular peanuts do as well, effectively making it much more deadly for 1% of the population to use than any PED, boosted performance 6%? This peanut, because of its scarceness, grown only on one small slope of a remote part of the Himalayas, meant that one team could corner the market, buying all 10 pounds produced annually. Should this hypothetical agent be banned if it's shown that the team that has it is then competing for access to the peanut as much as they are competing on bicycles? Sure, this is somewhat ridiculous, but I just don't think it's all so cut and dry as to what is and isn't cheating, where the lines between an athletic competition and a competition involving much, much more cross.
I just suspect that even if there was an omniscient force indicating who was and wasn't 'clean' that there's still sizable 'off the bike' factors already, that access to these factors isn't equal to begin with.
I don't have a solution to this, though I suspect that allowing the athletes to determine their own governing and policing on 'doping' is a more feasible solution to the present system. And to some degree there will always be lines that some are willing to cross that others won't. I just don't think it's so cut and dry as to why the rules are what they are and very quickly, the reason why certain things are considered cheating and are thus prohibited becomes a rather circular argument that they're prohibited because it's cheating.
"Guilty" or not, Floyd Landis really rode faster than everyone else last year, and Vino really rode faster than everyone else yesterday. It's still a spectacular feat of human performance, and even if neither did anything that WADA prohibits, they still had substantial help beyond just being guys who got on a bike.
true, there's more to it
I think doping is a different category, though, than a team's ability to pack the correct food, or use the right wheels for a given course.
In the current system, it's just flat out cheating, since it's outside the rules of the game. But, take those rules away, and I think it just becomes absurd very quickly--the riders just twitch away on the bike until they win or lose. Why not allow them to strap motors on the bike?
The sport celebrates human achievement, and the old aristocratic ideals, not pharmalogical prowess.
I agree, though, that the current approach to doping control just doesn't work.
still think it's a gray area
I guess I find it hard to be outraged because I still just don't identify that much with pro athletes, even when I marvel at what they do and can enjoy a very, very toned down version of similar activities. For me, someone who has no other career, who can dedicate all their time to training, travel to where the weather is best for the activity all year 'round, who doesn't need to call off a training ride because things at the office got hectic, is so far removed that I stopped identifying a long time ago, but that's just me.
My crude attempt at an explanation:
But when we agree to a set of rules, recognizing their imperfections, yet agreeing it's the best we can do, you've got to enforce them to maintain any semblance of civility. In the sporting world, we give athletes special privileges, as you laid out, expecting them to abide by the rules in exchange for those privileges. When they don't, they abuse the public trust, and outrage from pathetic individuals like me who waste so much time following their endeavors naturally follows.
Oh yeah, and cheating sucks ass.
A few points
- image: the idea of blood manipulation is nauseating. If you threw it wide open, god knows what other medical procedures they'd come up with. There's enough money in it, and enough guinea pigs willing to try anything, that it would become even more awful than, say, the late 90s.
- Can't tell who really won.
- we're inspired by effort, not medication. If they're all wound up on meds, it's as exciting as a dot race on the jumbotron.
- Also, it ceases to be something we can relate to. Cycling's great draw is that something close to 100% of us (on this site anyway) engage in the same activity, at least for fun or exercise if not competition. I sweat up a nasty little hill coming home every day. [I've also done a lot of low-level racing too, but sticking with the commuting...] I can get the tiniest little taste of the pain they suffer on an unimaginably greater scale, and I'm impressed. If they're all doped to win and not suffer, it's very, very easy not to care.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 24, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Get a bike,
by Drew on Jul 24, 2007 2:44 PM EDT reply actions
I got Aranesp shots
by kurterle on Jul 24, 2007 3:46 PM EDT reply actions
No doubt
Also, I'd like a pony...
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 24, 2007 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Changing the culture
Perhaps there's irony that this week professional golf started testing for steroids, but it's been held up as a sport where the practitioners police themselves, but it still remains the only major sport I know of where competitors turn themselves in for rules violations.
The set of rules that people buy into is clearly part of it. If doping is widespread, it suggests that it isn't something that bothers those who are doping--they don't buy into the rules for whatever reason.
Wow. Touched a nerve?
Vino
That's really pathetic IMO. He couldn't take his loss as a man. And adult. Honestly I wasn't happy with his win yesterday because he did it solely for himself: help Kloden? Vino? When he can hog the limelight? What a shit.
I now look at the reactions of ASO, UCI, and various important persons in the sport and see the same self-serving pronouncements too. Like Vino they are taking a fun kids activity and distorting it as so-called adults because they crave attention so much. Theswe guys didn't dope but I just don't see them as any better- and they are running the sport. So to me the doping, the drugs are just a symptom of a polluted mindset. I guess that's what folks here call the doping culture. It just extends itself to the anti-doping crowd too.
The cheating will always exist. There's drugs out there that labs can't test for. Vino and his handlers were too stupid to find out about them. The younger generation will understand that.
re. Vino
But if so, then he just needed to go a couple more weeks without getting caught, and chances are whatever skeletons were in his closet would stay there. He could go on to manage his national squad and be remembered, even w/o a Tour win, as the swashbuckling hero of his era.
But he had to go to eleven for one lousy time trial win, and now his entire legacy is shit. No glorious past, no swashbuckling legacy, all forgotten. No way does he get to manage Astana 2.0, and it's questionable there'll even be one. Forget what he did to the sport, he just played himself. Bad.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 24, 2007 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Good entry, but...
America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt
Oh I agree
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 24, 2007 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Bah
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 24, 2007 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I leave for the day
I want to be the first to retract my "I was wrong about Vino Never Winning A GT" post from last year after the Vuelta.
It should be well known here that I have never admired Vino and was, with this Tour, beginning to begrudginly respect him. Well no more pal. He sucks. That whole Astana, sponsored for the next 10 years my ass, team is a bunch of frauds. I've said it for years.
I'm glad they got caught, in fact, I'm surprised they even made it to race in London. Godefroot, Saiz, "training" with Jan... stick a fork in him and his stupid ass nationalistic team...
Vino is a punk.
America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt
Evans puts his finger on it
This gets at what I hate about the Goodefroot/Astanii approach... "Tactics?!... We don't need no stinking TACTICS. We have zee best dopage... all others will fall before us like the lazy infidels they are..." What utter bullshit.
America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt
His whining
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 24, 2007 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions

by 













![This is funny on so many levels. [Html should open bigger]](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/239959/flagged_small.jpg)


