Testing? What Testing? Vos Wants More Doping Controls
by Jen See on Aug 9, 2010 9:23 PM EDT
in Women's Cycling
Email
Print
Marianne Vos follows Ina-Yoko Teutenberg at the 2010 Ronde van Vlaanderen.
You don't hear too much about doping controls in women's racing. Part of the reason for that silence may be that they very often don't exist. Plenty of anecdotal evidence suggests that doping controls are relatively lax in women's cycling. In an interview with Bike-Pure, an organization who advocates for clean cycling, Marianne Vos called for increased out of competition controls and better testing at women's races. Said Vos:
Speaking to Bike Pure this week, Vos informed us that she had only received one out of competition doping control this year: "It is important that there are more out of competition controls (OOC). Of course I have controls in competition almost every week, but that depends on my results."
This isn't the first time that Vos has criticized the UCI for lax testing in women's racing. During her year as road World Champion, she publicly questioned why she had received only one visit from the vampires outside of race days and argued that as World Champion she should be subject to greater scrutiny. Riders Tiffany Cromwell and Amber Halliday offered similar accounts to Bike-Pure, and Halliday, who rowed at an elite level, expressed surprise at the comparatively relaxed testing regime in women's cycling. Team manager Stefan Wyman of Horizon/On the Drops, a British women's team racing in Europe, commented, "In fact when there is a test, it’s somewhat shocking."
To be sure, doping controls are costly. In men's professional racing, the pro tour teams contribute to the hefty costs of the bio-passport system. The teams' financial burden for the UCI's anti-doping efforts (which have now come under fire from WADA) runs into the six figures. Race promoters also contribute to the testing bill. In the case of the 2010 Tour of Gila, for example, the race brought in SRAM as a sponsor to cover the costs of carrying out doping controls.
In women's cycling, teams are often hard-pressed to pay their riders' salaries, secure sponsorship for travel budgets, and ensure that every rider has the equipment she needs. It's unlikely that the teams could shoulder the burden of paying for doping controls in the way that the top level professional men's teams do. Promoters, meanwhile, struggle to keep women's races alive and each season, races drop off the calendar. Sponsorship remains thin on the ground, and calling in an extra sponsor to cover doping controls isn't especially realistic.
But surely, the UCI could scrounge up a few pennies to pay for testing at its races and to ensure that the elite level of the women's sport is not a doping free-for-all. According to Vos, there were no doping controls at the recent World Cup race in Sweden. None. Anyone in the women's field at that particular race could have doped to the moon and back with no one the wiser. Clearly, from the comments of Vos and others, anti-doping efforts in women's racing rely on the honor system.
Some would argue that the situation is no real reason for concern. The prize money in women's racing is low, so too are salaries. The incentive that drives a rider like Floyd Landis to do anything possible to win the Tour de France doesn't seem to exist in women's racing. After all, there's no $1 million pay-off for winning the Tour de l'Aude or the Giro Donne. That view ignores the degree to which scarce resources can heighten competition. If there are only three slots on a women's team that pay a living wage, there's a pretty huge incentive to do what's necessary to grab one of those slots. If the prize list at a major race only pays out to fifth place, that's all the more reason to make sure not to finish sixth. If anything, the scarce resources in women's racing offer a powerful argument for strict doping controls, not the lax system currently in place.
If we've learned anything from women's sports, it's that women like to win. There's little difference between a top level women athlete and her male counterpoint. They will both suffer to here and beyond to acheive their goals. Numerous doping cases in cycling and elsewhere have also shown us that women are not immune to doping's siren call. All the more reason for the sport's governing authorities to step up and ensure fair play.
Photo: Jens Hagström
128 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think you hit it on the head with
women liking to win as much as their male counterparts. The fact that they’re racing just as hard for so much less than the men proves that.
So yes – more testing please.
"To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers."
Funny to hear this..
Since I have a friend on the US Nordic Team and he’s been tested at least twice in the last six weeks.. It’s out of season/comp too. Agree, though that if the women want equal status as the men in number races and prize money they need to be tested equally as well. Hmm I want that to come across in a positive manner by the way.
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist had a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on Aug 10, 2010 12:10 AM EDT reply actions
This is why it's great Vos is raising it
because coming from the riders first and foremost shows they understand this, it’s just the UCI does’t (surprise!)
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Let's add this thouhgt
UCI is apparently sitting on 5 potential positives from the men’s peloton, and they aren’t even looking at he women? I’m not sure how I feel about this….
I agree further with
women liking to win as much as their male counterparts. The fact that they’re racing just as hard for so much less than the men proves that.
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist had a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on Aug 10, 2010 12:13 AM EDT reply actions
OOC Testing
I don’t think you find it matters much. There are basically two reasons women don’t dope in pro cycling, unlike the men, although there have been at least 3 cases of EPO, a few steriod cases, and numberous supplement cases. However that’s over many, many years, and on the whole pro women just aren’t doping much. Reason one, there is no incentive to do it and take those kinds of risks with their bodies. They still got to hack a career job for 20 years after they retire from their short stinct as a pro cyclist and they are much smarter about this then they used to be. Reason two, they don’t want to take the risk of getting caught. The stigma of being a drug cheat is not worth the risks of winning some race with almost zero prize money compared to what the pro men get. That said, the doping controls are not going to be very strict until they are given a reason to crack down. That’s just how it works.
I'm afraid that is a very naive outlook and problematic in many ways.
- There have been few cases – not strange since there is so little testing. That statistic says nothing,really.
- All our experience tells us that the risk vs. reward is judged completely different from what one would expect.
- We see doping way down in the men’s amateur ranks where there is no financial incentive at all and still people dope to win. I can’t see why women would be judged as less competitive and less likely yo cheat?
- With the knowledge we have about how well riders (and their helpers) know about how to schedule drug-use to avoid detection the lack of OOC tests is devastating really.
The only thing I would assume is that there isn’t the financial means to fund extensive programs including transfusions etc. but other than thatI would be amazed if
i think your last point is the most valid argument for less doping in the women's ranks
lack of cash makes a course of PEDs difficult but as you say suspect that only applies to stuff like CERA and tranfussions. I know some of the doping cases have uncovered the costs of different PED treatments – if someone had that to hand it’d be really interesting to see
by thebongolian on Aug 10, 2010 4:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Plus, of the few women caught,
the dopage was pretty egregious, in some cases. Lots, long term, nothing subtle about it.
That doesn’t mean that all women are as idiotic as their male counterparts about doping, of course. It does mean that having two X’s (or no Y’s, if you prefer to look at it that way) does not guarantee common sense, or an adequate aversion to doping.
Is a problem still a problem if, say, 20% as opposed to 75% do it? (Pulling those numbers from my nether region). I’d say “yes.” Sure, the testing-cost-per-positive detected is higher, when there are fewer dopers. But the deterrent value remains. My feelings? If a top competitor thinks its a problem, it’s probably a problem.
Not all true
I recently wrote about the issues around Marta Bastianelli who was going crazy on diet supplements, and Amber Neben, who’s ban years ago was very short, because everyoe said it was unintentional.
One of the side effects of having no testing regime seems to be no one advising the women of what they can/can’t take, so they rightly get caught in the big events (like the Euro Championships and the Olympics)
I’m not denying there’s long-term use, by the way, just disputing it’s all long term (which you may not have meant!)
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Neben
The Neben decision was not entirely without controversy. That is to say, it’s not quite right to say that “everyone said it was unintentional.” At the time, there were some questions about a potential conflict of interest on the part of USA Cycling. The main point of criticism was the corporate sponsorship of the national team by T-Mobile. The team was not at that point a true trade team, but instead, T-Mobile had agreed to sponsor the U.S. National team. Neben’s ban was dated in such a way as to make it possible for her to ride the Olympics that year, which in fact, was the goal of the T-Mobile sponsorship to being with – builidng a strong team for the Olympics. She was also national champion at the time, if I recall correctly. Anyway, while it’s true that she received a shorted sanction, there was still some doubt at the time about the tainted supplement defense in her case.
Neben's Lawsuit
Did she follow up on her lawsuit or drop it against the supplement company? I lost track of that one. Neben and what, two other riders did a class action? What was the final outcome on that one?
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
nope, didn't mean that's what they all did.
Others here have lit into Tammy Thomas. I protested when people mocked her for looking too masculine, which seems sort of rude…except that she looked that way from doping with THG, causing testosterone-like effects, which I guess makes it not rude to mock her (?).
And then there was Geneviève Jeanson. Both seem to be cases of blatantly obvious, long term doping, that people were basically bending over backwards to excuse or not see.
Is that “old news”? Not if testing is still minimal, presumably.
Incentives
I’d agree that the incentives to use doping are rarely ever just financial. Plenty of athletes dope for prestige or for the positive reinforcement that comes from getting big results.
Where I would see a difference between the men and women in cycling is in the degree to which doping became institutionalized in men’s racing. For the men, the task of cleaning of the sport is deciding not to dope and creating a culture where doping isn’t what everyone is doing and isn’t the right way. In women’s racing, you have a different culture. More women view doping as cheating and there is less perception that everyone else is doing it.
I think there are still many women athletes, even with the lower financial incentives, who do cross the line. I’d expect Vos wants the UCI to take women’s racing more seriously and help raise its prominence and consistent doping controls is part of that effort. But I’d also imagine that she wouldn’t be calling for increased controls if she thought that women riders doping was inconceivable.
I would have thought the biggest reason is money – there’s so little there is women’s racing that you can’t afford to dope.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
is all doping really that expensive?
blood doping yes, but epo, testosterone, steroids? I wouldn’t guess that it is all that terribly expensive.
I wonder if Vos had anyone in mind when she spoke
Although there have been some riders busted in the past, I don’t think that doping is that much of a problem in women’s racing. Noone has the cash to pay for a full scale blood drawing and reinjection programme, the sort of thing that Floyd reckoned cost him 20-30,000 a year, the police in Italy have been cracking down a lot on the EPO trade, Spain, which is still fairly lax for controls generally (I’m being kind here), doesn’t have much in the way of women’s races nor a group of magical, super-strong riders, and recent busts have been for dodgy diet supplements rather than anything more sinister (you can read Flavia Oliveira’s thoughts on what happened to her here).
Then who might be doping? There probably aren’t any Frankie Andreu-like old pros trying to eke out one more year as a well paid domestique, because there aren’t any well paid domestiques. Actually there aren’t many paid domestiques either: most of the peloton would earn a lot more if they spent their training time working behind the counter at McDonalds. So should we look at the women who are winning? Well if winning makes you a suspect then suspect number 1 has to be Marianne Vos herself, and I don’t think that anyone believes she dopes. She’s far more outspoken against doping than she would need to be if she was just repeating the standard line (see any number of riders in the men’s peloton), yet she’s not some Bassons-like figure that everyone says things about her like “she has teh talent, but if she would just take the time to prepare properly…” Nicole Cooke’s another who speaks out against drugs a lot, and she wins a lot too.
Plus it’s just not that easy to inject yourself discreetly when the whole team is sleeping in bunk-beds in one little room, or you have to share your bedroom with a nine-year old girl. I have no doubt that the testers use their money sensibly and keep a closer eye on some riders than on others. Personally I sometimes feel more uncomfortable with the money countries like Britain and Australia spend on scientists to ensure that their riders can get a lot closer to the line of what is legal than anyone else.
And do you really reckon the prize money is motivation? Theresa Cliff-Ryan may have won $7,500 this week in the Presbyterian Hospital Criterium, but that is exceptional. Far more common is the 10 Euro sort of thing Amber Halliday tweeted about a couple of days ago. Mara Abbott made the grand sum of 557 Euro for winning the Giro.
I'm not that impressed with the "no financial incentive"- argument
Winning is about winning, not just about winning money. (I’m more impressed with the “can’t afford the good stuff”-argument)
Presumably riders aren’t sleeping in dormitory bunkbeds in between races?
I would say the obvious candidates to look for are in the huge eastern bloc contingent. Cycling is an olympic sport and there is still a wide base of knowhow left from the cold war era when the olympic programs were prioritized and well funded and juiced. Also if you look at the Athena and Oil for drugs cases in Italy and the Grial case in Spain they are mostly centred around the kind of milieu where one would expect to find aspiring women pro’s.
I've never heard anyone talk about the peloton as a school of doping
Certainly not in the way some men say that half the conversation in the early part of some races was on doping techniques and where you hid your stash.
And if the eastern bloc contingent are doping then they’re not doing it very well. Last year’s world championship came down to a battle between the Dutch, the Italians and the US, the year before the Brits and the Swedish were there too. The Giro 1-2-3 was an American, a German and an Italian.
I have odd suspicions, but like yours they are based on who has contacts with people who know how to use the stuff. I suspect that Vania Rossi was a bit more tested than anyone else for similar reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I think the problem is very small compared with men's racing
I just don’t think we should go through the whole “Aww shucks, why would they dope. It makes no sense?” denial with women’s racing as well before they get a serious anti-doping program in place. I hope Sarah Bishop is wrong in thinking we need a big scandal before anything happens.
What worlds are you talking about?
I don’t really follow when you say it was between the Dutch, Italians and the U.S.
I suspect that Vania Rossi was a bit more tested than anyone else for similar reasons.We all know how much knowledge her boyfriend had. ;)
Mendrisio
I think he means the winning break came down to the Italian, Dutch, and American teams, despite Emma Pooley’s best efforts to escape early in her usual cheeky style.
It would help if you could be more specific
I don’t really keep my finger on the peloton’s pulse. I’m more of a casual observer, catching up whenever i can, here and there.
To be fair
He did say “last year’s Worlds”
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry,
I just assumed that if people catch one race a year then it’s likely to be the Worlds. The road race in Mendrisio was fought at the end between two Italians, Guderzo and Cantele, Vos for the Dutch and Kristen Armstrong for the US. The year before in Varese it was Nicole Cooke of GB, Emma Johansson and Susanne Ljungskog of Sweden, Vos again, and I forget who the other was. Not a sign of an Eastern Bloc rider.
Now I remember
and Trixi Worrack was the other member of that group.
Oopsy, sorry!
Didn’t mean to be unhelpful!
Here’s a viddy clip of the finish of the women’s race youtubey
One of the thigs about last year's worlds
want the appalling name-mangling on the BBC. I wonder if Noemi cantele knows she has an identical twin sister called Naomi Cantell?
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 11, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree if they're doing it they're not doing it well!
I also think the fact the 3 biggest/most successful teams – Cervélo, HTC and Nederland Bloeit – are pretty vociferous about their anti-doping stance is a Good Thing for the sport.
Having said that, I recently read an interview with Judith Arndt (can’t remember where – somewhere German) where she was asked about doping, and her reply was she’s not doing it, but she does’t doubt it’s there. I also wonder if they have someone in mind…. or if it’s just that there’s no answer to that question that doesn’t raise questions – say “no it doesn’t happen” and people think you’re naive, & head in sand, & suspicious – say there is, people will want you to name names, which you can’t if there’s no proof….
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Probably both
They probably all can think of a rider or two that makes them wonder. But there really is no good answer to the question.
Even with HTC there is the problem of the T-Mobile history.
Did their women’s team ever make the night-time convoy to the Freiburg clinic? I’ve not heard anything said, but I’m not sure if that case has been all the way through the German courts yet.
i would think that by now
the whole “eastern bloc” thing – in terms of athletes having come up in a state-run doping system is quickly fading into the past – most athletes who have experience with that must be getting a bit long in the tooth by now
The legacy is still there
riders/coaches with the old know how and mindset. Take a look at CX skiing, swimming etc.
The riders also pay for the testing
as a percentage of all prize money awarded at UCI races goes into the anti-doing kitty. Of course a percentage of a very small amount is a very, very small amount so it probably just about covers the sample jars…
by Creeping Tortoise on Aug 10, 2010 7:55 AM EDT reply actions
How small an amount, people may ask?
As Abbott points out, after all, no one is getting rich in female cycling. (“Sometimes you can take yourself out to dinner,” she jokes.) The winning Giro Donne team, she said, took home a combined 556 Euro — compared to the 1 million Euro shared by the winning team in the men’s Giro d’Italia.
From an interview with Giro Donne winner Mara Abbott
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Also,
Women’s cycling is a difficult business. Certainly, no one is getting rich at it. Johansson was forthright. “I could make more money getting a job here in Norway,” she said. Even a big win doesn’t bring much prize money. According to Johansson, the winner of a women’s World Cup race receives €1300.00, which she shares with her team-mates. “€1300.00, split six ways,” Johansson said with a resigned note in her voice, as if to say, this is nothing.
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/1/25/1268956/cafe-chat-get-to-know-emma
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
What a joke
While in every other aspect I deeply admire the Giro De Femminile, this is not one of them. It might be the only thing I don’t like about the race. No prize money. Cliff-Ryan got 7.5k for winning a friggin NRC crit, and that’s all Abbott gets? Another major problem with women’s cycling is the disparity in prize money, not to mention salaries. However sticking just to prize money, I believe Tut once got like 50k to win the BOA International years ago, just another crit. Looks to me being a sprinter is the way to go for fast cash and easier too in short one day classics. All that work of winning a stage race, and no prize money. Sad…
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
That was E556 for THE WHOLE TEAM!!!!
Wild just won E1,000 in a Crit in Belgium (it’s on Vera Koedooder’s twitter) but that’s MegaBucks for the women’s peloton!
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
That's embarrasing
I hope they are not telling anyone! That would want to make me hide under a rock! I knew it was low, but I didn’t know exactly how much. I once heard some pro races in Europe paid as little as 30 US dollars for the women, or some stages paid that much per stage.
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions
That's not right
I don’t know if she means her share of what the team won was 556 Euro. You can find the prize money for the Giro Donne on their website towards the bottom of this page. I’ll paste a bit here, but this place squashes up tabs
1 269 557
2 166 278
3 114 186
4 104 186
5 97 166
6 81 148
7 72 111
8 63 111
9 63 111
10 63 111
11 40 92
12 40 92
13 40 92
14 40 92
15 40 92
First column is place, second is prize for that place on a single stage and last one is prize for that place in the GC, all in euro. I think most of the men got more than that just for turning up to the TdF.
Tabs are preserved inside <pre></pre> tags
Here goes:
Col1 Col2 Col3That’s it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Proxy?
Is there anyway to see a proxy of that interview like going to another site that serves webpages, and you put in an url and it serves it up? I can never get into the Daily Camera, almost never. It might be a router issue between me and Colorado, but Google Cache can usually rarely serve me pages either if the same site is not accessible. I’d like to read it.
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
have you tried Google Translate
translate it into say German, then clink on the “show original” button
I found that sum to be insulting...
By contrast that’s what an FIS mens nordic event payout at 20th place….
I’m learning all sorts of interesting factoids hanging around with nordic athletes.
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist has a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on Aug 10, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Alex Rodriguez
makes over $20,000 for every inning the Yankees play this year.
"Until you shoot me off my bike I'll keep looking for a contract" - Jens!
Quitter's People United member # 42
well..
I haveno beard, and it’s still summer…..
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist has a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on Aug 11, 2010 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Wasn't there a positive at/just before the olympics?
So obviously there is some going on
Ja, Maria Isabel Moreno...EPO. First athlete to be popped in Beijing
Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!
by Vlaanderen90 on Aug 10, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Probably a good example
You have to wonder if she hadn’t really been tested much in the past, and then, voilà, she gets nailed at the Olympics.
Guys, Guys, Guys...
You can’t say everything in these quick exchanges, so nobody really knows completely what someone else might know on the subject. I could probably write 20 pages on this alone. An expert no, but I’ve been around the women’s ranks a very long time. The biggest argument is that there is no incentive with money to cheat, not much chicken scratch compared to the top men getting paid millions plus endorsements. Under that you got dozens of other pro men getting paid extremely well, more then women have ever dreamed of getting in either salaries or endorsements.
Money is the biggest driving factor, no doubt about it. However, are there other reasons? Yes, to some smaller extent and this seems to apply to the amateur scene, women might cheat for pure vanity, pride or fear of failure. Money is not the only driving factor, but it’s certainly the biggest incentive I would think. Since there is no money in women’s cycling then you have just taken away the biggest reason you don’t see a lot more doping in women’s cycling. It’s NOT commonplace like the men. Jeanson, Moreno and Bouba are the only women ever to be caught using EPO. On the men’s side, don’t ask me to count how many, be up way past your bedtime.
Another reason, and I am not stealing your thoughts, I already knew riders and teams cannot afford doping programs that require doctors and staff. It’s true, women are not likely to go around stabbing themselves with needles willy nilly in the bathroom at MacDonalds. There might of been a systematic doping program on some teams years ago, perhaps in Italy, as the whispers go, but things have been cleaned up considerable since that time.
Jeanson has a doctor and the support of her trainer, so it takes a program to be carefully run properly, or you’re likely to screw it up and get caught. From the accounts I have read, Moreno was a dead give away the moment she got off the plane. I don’t believe a lot of women are doing this stuff willy nilly at the pro level. In the states, women hold full time jobs while racing at the pro level. Doping just doesn’t fit in with their career job and lifestyle. At the Wild West amateur level, there might be some stuff going on for vanity, pride, etc.
Obviously top teams like HTC and Cervelo women are not doping, and you can take that to the bank. I’ve been around those teams since the days of T-Mobile. But otherwise, what rider could afford a doping program? Other top riders are sometimes paying out of pocket sometimes to race and begging for extra money to attend races, and they can afford to dope for what? A few dollars in prize money? On the pro women’s level, there is a huge stigma that comes with being a drug cheat. It’s not like the men where everyone cheating and a lot of riders are forgiven or overlooked cause they cheated. Oh did that guy cheat too, oh didn’t know that. When Bouba got popped, it was news and a wake up call for the women’s peloton and I don’t know how she lived it down, but when a women gets caught, game over. As you can see Moreno is gone, and from all accounts I read, she was devastated. With the men, there are half a dozen cheaters all the time, who’s today’s flavor? So women’s cycling is cleaner, more respect and integrity and when some women screws it up, so falls hard! Jeanson fell hard, Moreno fell hard, Bouba fell hard, Zina fell hard! When Rico fell, ah, just another cheater, so what. Rico’s girlfriend?
The comment on the Eastern block is valid. Yeah, the Russkies, but I’m guessing very few of top Russkies like Olga Z. or Olga S. doped. I’m sure they tested Olga Z. for all the winning she’s be doing lately. OOC testing has increased some since the old days. I talked about this with friends years ago, and I asked the same question. I had asked my friends in Italy who are friends of Fanini, and they told me OOC testing has started to pick up some in recent years in Italy. A decade ago, there was none or very little, if any. Certainly the 90’s were probably Wild West days, but I still question how much went on since women’s cycling paid out zero in salaries and endorsements. I also question how much went on between 2000 and 2005, the so called Golden age of women’s pro cycling.
I have talked to a number of top women pros from both the 90’s and the 2000+ era until this present day, and I don’t get the impression from them that doping is rampant in women’s pro road racing. It’s willy nilly here and there just a tad, but there are no team doping programs going on, just riders playing Russian roulette at times, and the amateur wild west scene, but not at the pro level. When big money enters the sport, then you can bet that would open the flood gates. The lack of testing today is cause they don’t take women’s cycling seriously and don’t think there is much of a problem to justify a solid OOC testing program. While there might not be much doping going on, I do believe they should take women’s cycling seriously, cause it raises the bar, makes their side of the sport more legit and professional.
For me
For me, the lax testing in women’s cycling makes it difficult to argue that Moreno and Jeanson are outliers. We know that there is almost no out-of-competition testing. But do we know that there is no doping? Or, do we only know that no one is getting caught? This is why what Vos is saying is so important. In order to be credible, to be taken seriously, to get better sponsorship support, women’s cycling needs to be able to say, “Yes, we have a testing regime, and look, we’ve found that doping use is in truth quite low among women riders.”
I suspect that what we’d find with stricter doping controls – I mean, they didn’t even test at the world cup! – is that there are somewhat more women using doping than we realized, but considerably less than in the men’s pro ranks. I think we’d also see that overall, most pro women are racing clean and for the love of racing. But for now, we don’t know that.
WTF is this? Almost verbatim repost of
http://www.veloriders.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1210549&sid=5385f9d44f035b0090bb9d4c3c30689c
Hello Jane Belleville.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Tedvdw
Yeah, I know who you are too, but I’m not going to tell the world. Make a point or shut up.
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Too?
I have no idea who you are, one or the other or neither. Strange threat, by the way. My point is you seem to like very much bringing your unwavering views to the world. You remind me of Sierraman. You might be Sierraman. Ramble, ramble, ramble while trying to moderate the group.
To me, despite your verbosity, Jens’ reply to your first post above still stands, except that I think not much money is needed for transfusions when EPO (micro) dosing is so much cheaper and simpler, and more or less undetectable when there are no out of competition tests or bio passports.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Hi Sarah--
Many of the people here have introduced themselves, real names included, locations included, background included, and sometimes also aliases on other sites or links to their sites.
I frankly have no idea why it should be considered rude to connect two almost identical posts. Either you and the other poster are the same person (which is fine, not some dark secret) or it’s plagiarism (which is not great, but we’re all adults here).
Here’s the introductions post from 2008. Here’s 2009’s “where are you from.” The 2010 one was so full and large, it was crashing browsers…not sure where it is now, maybe it imploded.
Not that one can’t be anonymous here, but it’s frankly sort of unusual. Another thing that’s unusual (and frowned upon) is telling anyone to “shut up,” except in a playful way. Most people, if they are connected to their “real life stuff,” or their “other web stuff,” they PRAISE the person who makes the connection for their powers of observation. They THANK THEM for reading so carefully. People on this site do things like meet up together all around the world to watch races. So most people here go out of their way to not be randomly rude to others—in fact, they go out of their way to not even seem like they are being randomly rude. Or even rude on purpose.
Look at your response with that in mind, and ask yourself if you want to be known by those words.
You do make all sorts of good points. However…as for being so much of an insider that no one else gets to comment once you have spoken… there must, somewhere, be sites for race insiders, where only insiders can post. But this is a fan site, where everyone gets to natter about the issues. And as my father used to say, “insider trading is stupid not because it’s illegal, but because it doesn’t work. Often, the insiders have the most skewed view.”
I buy that most of the riders in the men’s peloton think that quite a few other men are likely still doping. I buy that most of the riders in the women’s peloton think that very few other women are doping, or else they’d know about it. But cycling is a mind game, cycling includes trash talk, cycling includes deep secrets. “What riders believe” is not the same thing as “what is.”
Just to reinforce Gav's point
Everything we know about the patterns of doping and talking about doping in the men’s peloton suggests that if there is more widespread use in the women’s peloton, it is still highly unlikely that anyone will talk about it. Omerta. No amount of anecdotal evidence is going to provide nearly as convincing a counterweight to that suspicion as a good testing regime will.
I can't disagree more re Omerta
have you seen some of the women interviewed etc? They have to fight to race every day – and they’re bloody outspoken – and they know it’s hard enough having the mud that’s flying around because of the men hitting them all the time – I can think of about 20 riders off the top of my head who’d be furious about it, and want to clean up the sport. Especially when you see who the biggest teams are. Omerta in teams yes, if there was systemic team doping, & they all kew about it – but in the wider péloton? I can’t for a moment imagine Emma Pooley, Nicole Cooke, Judith Arndt, Claudia Hausler etc etc etc etc keeping quiet – we’re talking about this because THE biggest talent in cycling, men’s or women’s has raised the issue of lack of testing – and has been campaigning about it for years – and Nicole Cooke, winner of World & Olympic RR in 2008 has been equally vociferous hardly Omerta…. compare and contrast with a certain highly successful male cyclist….
Totally agree there should be more testing, but you can’t assume the culture in the 2 pelotos is the same….
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Furious is right
Yup, I’ve read and heard the comments of some riders over the never ending doping scandals of the men from the past decade. They are dizzy from it. Cromwell once talked about future or prospects of women’s cycling eyeing it as not too hot since she said the sport had been “left in tatters” by the pro men. Many are angry and some wear braclets that say dopers suck. I’m not sure how much that helps but it’s quite grevious that while women work toward trying to build their side up, it’s torn down by the bad behavior on the men’s side. What to do, what to do, that’s always the question.
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
And no-one with a "dopers suck" bracelet could ever dope, right?
That bracelet force field™ would make the needle bounce right off of their arm.
OK, I’m teasing here, obviously. But look, no one at all has posted here to say that doping is common in the women’s peloton. If you are fighting against that statement, you are fighting against a straw man. And there can be different flavors of omerta, different ways it plays out. Let’s assume most women pro cyclists would be disgusted to find that their best pro cyclist friend was doping—but would all of them respond by exposing that friend, for the “good of cycling”? Some no doubt would. Some would pass the info to someone else in the team, and leave it to the team to deal with. Some would confront the other cyclist. What else? Quit the team, to avoid the conflict? Refuse to share a room, and buy a “dopers suck” band, give the friend the silent treatment, and hope they get the message? Or…press for more testing, to start at some point in the future, so as to give the friend time to get clean.
But what happens when it's a suspicion?
I mean, if you’re aCervélo rider, sure of yourself and the 10 riders you’ve shared rooms with in races (and bear in mind they’re currently sleeping 6 to a room in the Route de France) but you have a feeling about a rider from another team, what can you do? If they’re from your country, and your country has a strong testing regime, you can drop hints – but if they’re another team, and another country, and the UCI doesn’t instigate tests, actually, what canyou do?
The answer is more testing (which of course Marianne and other are calling for) but it’s NOT the same as the men’s race, and in general I don’t think the omerta thing is at all the same
(The other answer is who you work with and don’t work with, in breaks etc… I’d love to see more racing to see what happens there)
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 11, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the point some of us are making is...
…that you can never be sure about anyone except yourself. When it’s a suspicion, you do the best you can in your own race and focus on your own performance. You can’t say anything about someone unless you know for sure. And, unless there’s testing, you can’t know for sure. So, you do what Marianne Vos has just done: You say, we really need more testing in women’s racing. We need it so that we can know that the races are fair and so that we don’t have to guess who’s following the rules and who isn’t. And we need it so that we can go to sponsors and we can say, look, we have this great sport and we’re doing it clean. But you don’t have to take our word for it, see, we have a testing structure.
It’s not that different from being a fan, really. You watch the races, sometimes you see things and you think, well, that’s not especially probable, but I really can’t know for sure. And sometimes, the test results come out and hey, it turns out the performance you didn’t think was real actually wasn’t.
Please note the 'if'...
My point was that ‘if’ there is more widespread doping, you can’t assume that it would be coming out in anecdotal evidence. People could well be fighting to race, very outspoken about how awful the men’s peloton is and how much better they are by comparison, even while there is a doping problem that’s quietly not being talked about because doing so would undermine their peloton just as it has the men’s. I’m not saying this is happening, but people saying it’s not happening, in the absence of testing, isn’t adequate or convincing evidence that it’s not happening.
Thus, the need for testing.
But where are the riders saying it's not happening?
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
According to Sarah above, they're mostly saying that...
…my point was, reinforcing gav, that this hardly obviates the need for testing.
If more money suddenly became available
I would prefer to see it spent on a bit more publicity and marketing, letting people who live near the route of a race know that it is taking place. Get some stories out on the positive side of the sport/
Oh I wasn't commenting on the 'what to do with limited funds' question...
…just on the ‘how sure can we be that there is relatively little doping in the women’s peloton’ question.
That's not my reading of what she was saying
And it’s certainly not my reading of interviews with riders. Now it’s harder to find interviews, for sure, but check out the number of pro riders who are members of Bike Pure, and the interviews on their site, and you’ll see what I mean. Certainly not omerta!
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The fact that people speak about things in interviews doesn't mean...
…that there isn’t omerta. I’m not sure what you mean by the term, but I have a feeling it’s rather different from what I mean. In any case, agreeing on a definition of it isn’t important to my point, which I think is clear even if the word isn’t there.
I'm sure there was some athlete back in the eighties
who was busted at a meet selling dope straight from his Nancy Reagan issue “Just Say NO!” bag.
Yes and no.
I do think it’s a big dealio that Vos is calling for more testing. That says, hey, I want to race clean and I want my rivals to race clean – and maybe more importantly, I want everyone to know that’s what we’re doing.
Howevs… We’ve had plenty of out-spoken I’ve never doped athletes in cycling and elsewhere turn out to be deep into the needle business. Which, I suppose, takes us back to Vos’s point. The best way to create trust in the sport is to have a credible testing program and backs up what the athletes are saying.
I do think women’s cycling is a relatively doping-free sport. But I don’t think it’s all the way doping free by any means.
And while it is tragic that they are made to suffer because of the men's wrongdoings
the sad fact is probably that the bad rep cycling has rubs off on the women as well and the only way to get away from it is to have a credible anti doping system in place.
Agree about the peloton
To some extent the riders know. For instance when Jeanson doped, everyone knew. The fans suspected she was doping, but the riders knew it. I talked to several pro women during that period, and they knew she was doping. At least, that’s what they told me. They knew it based on her performance in the field, not by spying through a glass window.
Well in that case Vos' comments could be an indication
that there are others that the riders “know” to be doping right now too?
I've just been rightly reminded
that riders are subject to the testing regimes of their home nations. I know Vicky Pendleton has been interviewed a lot about rtestig, inc OOC testing (she once nearly had a test marked as missed as the tester couldn’t work out how to use the intercom on her flat, IIRC) – I guess the difference being that as a trackie she’s based in the UK – but Armitstead, for example, would have to be under the same regime when she rides track – and it’s in a nation’s interest to catch people so they don’t get busted in the Olympics… Or is this just track?
So how does this fit in? How comparable are nations’ own regimes?
You raise something that had been perplexes me
Without taking away from any onus that should be placed on the UCI – where are the National anti-doping agencies in all of this? They too are culpable for the current state of affairs.
To take Vos and Cooke as examples – they must be amongst the top 100 (aiming high on purpose) medal hopes of their respective countries at the next Olympic Games and as such should be OOC tested by their national orgainisations also. Halliday, as a former elite rower, provides a most damning testimony.
Yes
National ADAs do testing and it depends on how much funding the org has and what priorities it has. It will certainly vary according to country, and typically the ADAs will focus their energies especially strongly during Olympic years. So, it’s very possilbe that Pendleton was talking about out-of-competition testing during an Olympic year, or alternatively, that British cycling has an out-of-comp program for their elite riders on the track, which may or may not apply to the road racers. Here in the U.S. there is a USADA program for out-of-competition testing, but I’m not sure how often the testers visit the women.
Adding
Until recently, say the last two years or so, the out-of-competition testing was a bit of a joke, really here in the U.S., excepting maybe Olympic years.
They do now
Not sure how much though. I remember reading a blog from a certain national champion who was abruptly woke up early at home to find two agents at her door looking for urine samples. They probably test the high profile women here in the US, but not the lower guns.
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Not so in the UK
And British Cycling has had a hard-line stance on Olympic riding going back years, which is why David Millar will never get a berth on a GB Olympic team, nor the runner Dwayne Chambers.
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and the testing in the UK
has recently extended to Sportives – after a highly dodgy string of successes by Ian Staite, he was busted for EPO. EPO for sportives!!! Total madness!
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Came across this
Abbott been tested three times this year. Neben 9 times in 2008. KA, 18 times in 2008, 9 times in 2007.
http://www.usada.org/what-we-do/testing-statistics/athlete-test-history.aspx
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 11, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought KA was "most tested" one year?
Is’t there a year Lance said it was him, but actually it was Kristin, and he’d got the wrong Armstrong? Or is that just something I wish happened?
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 11, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, is that all tests?
Or just USADA tests?
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 11, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
testing
I believe it’s only domestic, doesn’t include international testing. So testing here is good, but perhaps NL is just slack, and Vos is blaming UCI? I knew Germany was also weak in testing. I saw a documentary on that two years ago. You remember Germany got pissed and boycotted. So every nation should have a transparent website like this where we could look up Vos or anyone else? Perhaps an International site listing all riders, all nations?
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 11, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
What, the netherlands weak on drug control? ; )
I believe that after their “100% scan policy” for travelers from the Antilles became onerous… the NL no longer holds suspected drug mules coming through Schiphol…not enough time, manpower and facilities to wait for them to pass the drugs, while providing appropriate medical support. And the crackdown on smoking in coffeeshops seems to have done nothing to shut them down (quite the opposite) nor do they reek any less. So it would be quite consistent if they felt they had better things to do than to check riders for EPO (etc).
If I may summarise
There seems to be general agreement that more out of competition testing would be a ‘good thing’.
There is… err… ‘vigourous’ disagreement as to whether doping is rife in the women’s peloton, or not, and what the motivation for said doping would be. Again, out of competition testing would be a good thing as it would give us some evidence to work with.
OK, so if we are in agreement that more testing would be a good thing we run into the issue of who is responsible for drug testing. This is messy enough for in-competition testing with the host nation anti-doping authority, the UCI, the home nation anti-doping authority and WADA all being involved to a greater or lesser extent. And then you get to out of competition testing…
The UCI doesn’t directly maintain a whereabouts system for the women’s peloton – that’s up to the individual rider’s national anti-doping authority and/or their national cycling body. That raises a raft of issues… Can they share this information with an external agency such as the UCI? Who pays for the testing? Does the South African Institute of Drug Free Sport (or equivalent) have to send their own staff to Europe to test one of their athletes or can they use someone local?
There is a fair bit of work to be done in this area, not the least of which is funding. Like everything else in women’s cycling there just isn’t the cash. sigh
by Creeping Tortoise on Aug 10, 2010 7:41 PM EDT reply actions
Bravo!
Well summarised, that tortoise!
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
adding
We are lucky with the larger proportion of riders who ride track, and therefore are tested year round, with the women – so Lizzie Armitstead would get tested if she wins in both disciplines, and tested in the GB radom stuff, at least when she’s in the UK – so it’s not as bleak as it may seem
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 10, 2010 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the disagreement...
…concerns whether, in the absence of testing, we can say with any confidence that there is not substantial doping in the women’s peloton. Some people think that the relatively small amounts of money in women’s cycling and the vocal commitment of many prominent female riders to riding clean means that there likely isn’t substantial doping. Others think that neither of these things is a particularly reliable indicator. I’m not sure anyone is arguing that doping is rife within the women’s peloton. I’m sure not saying any such thing.
Only once
I’ve only heard that comment once. Someone who said they knew Tony Cooke personally said he told them that doping was rife in the women’s peloton, but that’s really a grapevine statement to me. Where, the UK, and when? What period. He might of been talking about the golden years, 2000-2005, but I question who, how many, how deep did it go? That was a time when women got paid decently to some extent. I’m not sure if I would even call it decent compared to the men, I guess I wouldn’t.
by Sarah Bishop on Aug 10, 2010 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe the UCI is only concerned about being embarrassed by doping scandals...
that might affect the flow of sponsorship dollars.
Since the media footprint of women’s cycling is much smaller than that of men’s cycling, perhaps it just isn’t on the UCI’s radar. Maybe the UCI doesn’t care about doping per se, just how it affects the bottom line.
by ManBicycleThing on Aug 10, 2010 11:49 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
The UCI isn't too bad when it comes to women's racing
I would guess that they put in more work and money relative to the numbers of people involved/amount of sponsorship cash etc than they do on the men’s side.
need more money
that would solve all the problems – there’d be money for testing, the riders would have more money for doping and more incentive to dope and there would be more dopers to catch, voila! Next question.
This may be nuts, but...
remember raising money to send peanut butter? Well, PdC could probably collect enough money to add a PdC prize to one of the women’s races. Is that nuts??? Wouldn’t it be cool to sponsor our own prize? We could require that the winner be drug tested, too, I suppose…
I think a drug test would be unfair
but I do think the recipient should be required to show at least a rudimentary knowledge in Lebowski-quotes to be eligible .
i like the thought
i was thinking along those lines the other day while riding. we could make a (small) difference in women’s cycling. i’ll even go as far as volunteer to present the prize. maybe we could get gav to crayon together a giant PdC check.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
That would be AMAZING!!!!!!!!!
You are a GENIUS!!!!
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 11, 2010 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, oh, oh!
I’ve always wanted to award a prize to the rider who provides us with most info about the race! You know, because it’s blooday hard to follow the races.
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 11, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus, imagine the actual prize!
You know, the cuddly toy! In the past I have sewn a cuddly slug for a present – between us, we could fashio some godawful cuddly toy in a mini Pod Caf cycling kit…. and get a pic posted of the winner holding it…..
by Sarah Connolly on Aug 11, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Some Candy too?
(Photo: © Frank Rud Jensen)
Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!
by Vlaanderen90 on Aug 11, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Vårgårda organisers respond
Velonation article here
“The appointed Anti Doping Control Officer from UCI was fallen ill and I was in contact with UCI officials about this several times before the race days. With very short notice UCI succeeded to find a replacement Anti Doping Control Officer for the Friday TTT-race but not for the Sunday Road Race. Therefore the tests could not be carried out. I know that UCI put in enormous efforts in finding replacements and they did a fantastic job finding one for Friday. I have read both your article and Marianne Vos statement on BikePure.
Also there I have a correction. It was the Anti Doping Control Officer being not available; the Anti Doping Doctor was there all the time. The organization has a female Med. Dr for this purpose and she was present from Friday until Sunday. To be able to do the tests, the doctor however is not enough, the AntiDoping officer must also be present."
As Anderson explained, the issue appears to be one of resources within the UCI, in that there was no one available to cover for a sick anti-doping control officer. While this can be seen as unfortunate, it is perhaps also an indication of the standing that the women’s sport has within its governing body.
It’s hard to imagine the same thing happening in an equivalent men’s race, such as this Sunday’s Vattenfall Cyclassics.
(I fanshotted this as well, but put it here for context too)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
![This is funny on so many levels. [Html should open bigger]](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/239959/flagged_small.jpg)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
