I for one, would love to have a clean sport, but simply don’t think it’s possible to get there. That said, it can certainly be cleaner than it is, and I welcome any progress we make in that direction. All the same, I also can’t bear the thought of the racing being any less exciting or the notion that the Grand Tours be shortened. In terms of increasing viewing enjoyment, I would suggest they pave the mountains with rough cobblestones, turn on the rain, and double the length of the stages.
That means I am part of the problem; as long as I delight in seeing the kind of racing we’re watching today, I have to admit that I am culpable for placing the kinds of demands on the sponsors, teams, and athletes that make doping seem like a good – if not the only – way to give me what I want.
All that aside, our sport does more to fight doping than any other sport, and I’m proud of that. I am sickened, however, by the lines fed to us by every cyclist who fails a control: “I am innocent. I didn’t even know what EPO was until I got my positive test and I looked the substance up on the internet.”
Sure. My grandmother knows what EPO is, but a professional cyclist does not?
The usual team management response of “Drugs? In our team? No!” is not any more palatable. We all know that doping is is the rule, not the exception, so if you’re caught, please show us the respect to admit to it and move on.
To further the complexity of the problem, cyclists who have admitted to doping and have cooperated with investigations have been given very little leniency – both by the authorities and the public. You only have to look at the matter of Roid’s admissions and accusations and the breadth of the reactions it has caused to see there is a no-win scenario for the riders. Roid is considered a liar; the accused are assumed guilty. And, given the state of affairs, none of the cyclists face very attractive choices when it comes to speaking out or admitting to any wrongdoing.
So, I applaud Slipstream Sports for their statements in regards to the ensuing investigations that are being initiated as consequence of Roids accusations:
We created Slipstream Sports because we wanted to create a team where cyclists could compete 100% clean.
It is an organization built on the core values of honesty, fairness and optimism. It is built on the belief in our ability to contribute to changing the sport’s future through a persistent commitment to the present.
Today, we continue to follow these core principles. We are very encouraged to see the incredible strides cycling has taken to clean itself up. Though it is important to acknowledge pride in the fact that cycling has never been cleaner, we find ourselves at a critical moment in cycling’s evolution: confronting its past.
The founding concepts of Slipstream Sports were put in place for riders committed to competing clean during their time at Slipstream Sports. We have total confidence not only in our anti-doping culture but also in our riders and staff. Everyone who works for us came here knowing in advance what we stand for as well as the standards to which they will be held.
We cannot change what happened in the past. But we believe it is time for transparency.
We expect anyone in our organization who is contacted by any cycling, anti-doping, or government authority will be open and honest with that authority. In that context, we expect nothing short of 100% truthfulness – whatever that truth is – to the questions they are asked. As long as they express the truth about the past to the appropriate parties, they will continue to have a place in our organization and we will support them for living up to the promise we gave the world when we founded Slipstream Sports.
I’ve never felt that ultimatums are the way to gain cooperation from people, and have always thought the approach by the UCI, National Federations, and teams to be counter-productive to the fight against drugs.
Slipsream’s statement is the first that I’m aware of that reflects an organization conducting itself rationally with respect to that goal; they are saying that any rider in their employ who cooperates and responds to the investigation transparently and truthfully will have a place in their organization. That means that admitting to doping prior to joining Slipstream Sports is not grounds for dismissal. After all, since the organization’s goal is to provide an environment where cyclists can compete 100% clean, they are necessarily admitting that the sport is in it’s majority dirty, and therefor that their riders may have a doping past.
I’m very encouraged by this, but we’ll have to see what happens. Of course, Slipstream stating they won’t fire the riders doesn’t mean the Federations won’t sanction them, but it’s a first step in the right direction, and I hope that spirit gains momentum.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@all
Seems like Brett is the only person on the planet who is perfectly clear on this whole doping thing.
For the rest of us, I think you only need to skim over these posts to see how complicated this is. Add to that the conversation about motors that the Rules has going on, and I feel like monkey in a spacesuit.
@Jarvis, @brett
Yeah, Amrstrong put Millar on the B-List. He's out.
@Souleur
You're dead on with others having (more) responsibility in the matter. I'm just saying, I don't think we can really sit on the couch watching Basso motor up the Zoncolan after a bitch of a stage and then watch them do it again the next day, and the next and the next, and act all betrayed and shocked that they're doping.
@Rob
They weren't on the Donkeys-Into-Thoroughbred drugs of today, but absolutely Coppi and Anquetil were on the sauce. They so much as admitted to it. And Tommy Simpson. Even Merckx failed a control.
What I'd like to know, is: Was it Vaughters or his turtleneck sweater that made these statements? It's always hard to tell which is which.
@frank
It was the sideburns. They're the shifty ones in this equation. Though the turtleneck does scream hipster, doesn't it?
You've just blown the last illusion I had held dear to me since the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause.
It still seems to me that things like amphetamines do not "give" you anything extra they only make you feel like that and they tear you down (a la Tommy Simpson). Not that I think it is fair to take anything.
But back to my original point which is will all here care if the sport is cleaned up and the racing gets slower and less dramatic or can it still have all the drama but with out the juice?
@frank: interesting point on how far back dope goes. True they do, but so the culture has changed in it as well. Back then, they didn't do it for the same reasons they do it today. Today, its explicitly cheating and only cheating. Back then, they did it (in all seriousness) thinking it was healthy. That was the rudimentary nature of the ride, and they took amphetamines and cocaine thinking it was good for them; plus they didn't think they could ride without it. The classy Charly Gaul did it, realizing the conundrum he was in, and reportedly was telling fellow riders 'today I will die'.
No one in the peloton does this today for any reason other than boutique dope and to cheat.
@All
We could go on forever about doping, and probably will. We don't want to turn this into cyclingnews forum though.
So, with this I'm out. Everyone dopes. Yes, even Cadel. They're all shifty characters, but that's the way they have been indoctrinated into the sport, even if they had good intentions at the start of their careers. It's sad but true, I don't care if they dope, I just hate the holier-than-thou attitudes and hero worship of certain individuals.
Hopefully everyone will man up and back Roid and we can get rid of the Testicle from the record books and publicly expose him for the harm he's done to the sport and everyone who has sucked his dick for so long will see what a COTHO he really is. Then I'll be satisfied. And then the new generation of riders can take their new generation of drugs and provide us with a new generation of racing and a new generation of scandals and we can all discuss it ad nauseum until we get sick of that too.
Over and out.
Forget about the drugs, what about the way Cuddles let down his country by once again returning to his whining ways? After riding with more than a modicum of panache in this year's Giro, he spoils it by saying he was a bit sicky-wicky during:
http://torosvecchi.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/the-good-cadel-and-the-bad-cadel/
And Millar is and always will be a COTHO. In fact his laughable self-righteousness created a new order above the previous highest order of COTHOs.
@brett
you have a valid point about that discussion. So I'm out without any qualitification.
But does anyone actually use the cyclingnews forum? Weird.
@Marcus
I was thinking the same thing! And what about that timing? I admire that he stayed in the race, for it added to the race to have him there, but why say anything at all? Why note wait a few days? So, basically, just as Basso is picking up his trophy, Cuddles starts yelling, "Yeah, but I was sick! I was sick!"
He just doesn't seem so bright to me. Sure, maybe he was sick, but his complaint that he wasn't as strong as before getting sick sounds like a pretty clear case of "peaking too early". I think it's hard to win a classic and the Giro; you can't hold a peak that long. Basso timed his form perfectly, coming into the race a little behind and riding into it as the race entered the last week.
@frank It's worse than that - now Cuddles has played the sickness card, Carlos feels he has licence to play the "I had a sore back" card. Am starting to have more respect for Vino - at least he hasn't blamed his performance on dodgy vodka (yet).
@frank
Cuddles definitely peaked to early - but think it is less a case of too little brains and more a case of being "too open" and "too honest" with the media. Maybe Cadel could have his own new addition to the Lexicon, STFU?
Now with formal UCI approval of the Piti Principle, Cadel has a definite right to feel aggrieved about what might have been. It is not drawing too long a bow to say that without Piti in 2009, Cadel would have the Dauphine (definitely) and possibly the Vuelta (Dirty Sanchez would have had a different race without Piti)added to his palmares.
But now we have a new Cadel, Richie Porte - and when he sheds a bit of puppy fat, he could be the business.