Doubt

HinaultCrash81PR_jc40PhSpt[1]When the sh*t goes down and the screws are turned, we all wage the war against the ingress of doubt. Like cold, salty ocean water, doubt will find its way inside a breach and then… it’s only a matter of time before the ship goes down.

Following an effort so hard that it leaves the eyes bloodshot and your feet fried, a rider tries to sort out the race’s details. How can one’s fitness vary so greatly on back-to-back days? All things being equal, one can point to doubt.

At times, denying doubt is harder than any of the physical efforts doled out. When the group is strung out into a razor sharp point and riders begin popping, doubt becomes tough to ignore. At that moment, the difference between a good day and a bad day is determined by the mind’s willingness to ignore the persistant whisper of that f*#ker doubt.

Image courtesy John Pierce, Photosport International

Denied!

Landis/USADA Arbitration Hearing 22-05-07
So the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rendered its decision in the Floyd Landis case. Saying that his charges were “unfounded,” the court delivered a shocking rebuke to the Landis defense.

The 3-0 decision found no merit at all in Landis’ defense which is surprising given that even the American Arbitration Association (AAA) panel uniformly agreed that there were problems with the work performed by the French National Anti-Doping Laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry (LNDD), though ultimately they weren’t considered enough to exonerate him. You may recall that the panel found the LNDD had performed the initial test resulting the non-negative testosterone-epitestosterone result poorly enough to disallow the finding. It also stated that it might be difficult to find athletes guilty in the future should the LNDD continue to perform work in a manner other than specified by the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA).

Bluntly put, CAS would not have thrown out the initial T:E result. The panel stated in its decision the lab was guilty of nothing more than “minor procedural imperfections.” One could be forgiven for thinking of Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Newman presiding over the proceedings with a “What, me worry?” bubble above his head.

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Travis Tygart, was quoted saying, “We did a full review of the evidence from the start. Before we brought charges in this case, every day we reviewed the evidence we had and asked the same question, ‘does this point to a doping violation?’ We were comfortable that we had the case when we started.”

This statement simply isn’t supported by the facts of the proceeding. Tygart never questioned the validity of the test results that lead to Landis’ prosecution; rather than mount an inquiry for the truth, Tygart and USADA worked to defend the LNDD.

I’ve read the full transcript of the AAA hearing at Pepperdine Law School in Malibu, California. More than 1000 pages. I don’t see how a reasonable, rational person who doesn’t have agenda can come to a conclusion other than Floyd Landis wasn’t caught doping. That doesn’t necessarily mean he was innocent, but if he was doing something, LNDD didn’t find it. That’s fundamentally the problem with the outcome; the truth got swept aside in the rush to get a conviction.

Landis’ next step (Surely you didn’t think the plus-size gal had had her moment on stage?) would be to challenge the outcome in U.S. federal court. Such a move has been hinted at in the past by Landis’ attorney, Maurice Suh. This move may be in doubt given that the panel took the extraordinary step of assessing Landis $100,000 of USADA’s defense costs as a penalty for “the unprecedented scope and intensity of the technical challenges” the defense raised despite the fact that they had been rejected in the first proceeding.

This is a punishment for style, not substance, and that goes against everything Americans understand the judicial process to be.

If athletes who appeal a conviction are punished for, in essence, appealing the conviction, this outcome will have a very chilling effect on any athlete attempting to defend him or herself against doping charges, whether or not the lab work was performed correctly.

Image courtesy John Pierce, Photosport International

The PRO Life

Tour de France Dunkirk-Gand 168km 09-07-07
Suffering is the glamorous part of being a PRO. The visage of a PRO is never more dramatic or memorable than when juxtaposed against his immaculate PRO kit and state-of-the-art carbon machine with complementary colored saddle, pristine white tape and gleaming chain. With his face twisted in a sweat dripping, snot slathered, lactic grimace, he is the epitome of effort.

We acknowledge the training the PROs do to reach their fitness, but rarely do we speak of the sacrifices they make beyond the restrictive diet. Sure, we know they can’t eat donuts and drink beer with every meal, but pedaling a bicycle at 40 mph to win in front of thousands and in front of television cameras that will broadcast your exploits into tens of millions of homes around the world requires sacrifices most of us are unwilling to make.

After all, the training is only part of the equation. Rest is equally important; under a 30-hour-per-week workload, PROs nap daily and sleep hours of which we can only dream. The routines of a PRO are simple, monastic: Eat, train, sleep. Repeat.

Strolling through shops in the afternoon: not PRO. Hiking in the woods with the girlfriend: not PRO. Driking margaritas on the beach at sunset: not PRO. Dancing at discos at midnight: not PRO. Taking recreational drugs: not PRO.

These are the basic, the elemental refusals a PRO must make his peace with if he wishes to reach the top. It is not so different from getting married: marriage means not playing the field, not if you wish to do marriage well.

What the riders want is not at issue. The crisis the sport faces is one of perception. The specter of performance enhancing drugs makes the athlete look like a cheat and cheating is unacceptable to the vast majority of fans and sponsors. Cheating is uncovered often enough that it is unpalatable to most sponsors.

If, indeed, all that was at stake was bicycle riding, no one would care. Pedro Delgado, Frank Vandenbroucke and Bjarne Riis would all have stayed at home were that the case. But this isn’t just bicycle riding; that’s what we, the television audience do. While we may race, for whatever reason we chose not to pursue the PRO life and its many sacrifices.

No, Delgado, Vandenbroucke, Riis, etc. were in pursuit of the age-old draw: fame and fortune. It may be that cheating doesn’t upset everyone, but most folks like to know that an athlete’s glory was achieved without outside assistance.

It is true that big money sponsorship has brought increased scrutiny to cycling. But no one has complained about the increased television exposure and salaries that came with those sponsorships. Were cycling still the sport of peasants sponsored 100 francs at a time, few would care. However, multinational corporations have an image (whether accurate or honed by the PR machine) they wish to protect. A company like Nike has enough problems with accusations of slave-wage labor not to want to battle the added image problem brought on by the scandal of a doped-up athlete.

Back when dope was an individual affair, which is to say, before science and organization entered the picture, stimulants and analgesics were the name of the game. “Pot Belge” has usually been described as a mixture of amphetamines, cocaine, heroine and caffeine. Recreational drugs, all. There’s been some speculation about just how much Pot Belge can help one’s performance, but whether it really helps or not, isn’t the point. The riders believed it helped and that’s enough to cast it in the dark light of performance enhancing.

With the advent of the biological passport and longitudinal testing as tools to verify that riders who race (that is, all riders, not just the ones who win) are clean, there are no vacations from the PRO life. That’s the deal.

There’s an implicit understanding when you get married: no hookers, no ex-girlfriends (or boyfriends). The same thing goes for cycling: no drugs. It’s a simple formula, really. The audience and the sponsors don’t want to ask questions about the nature of the win. If you have to ask which drugs, you don’t quite get the picture.

Longitudinal testing is intended to show that riders know the difference, that they understand the definition of cheating from the fans’ view. With fans and sponsors leaving the sport, there are no small infractions. There are no acceptable drugs. If drug testing profiles the substance, chances are it shouldn’t be in you, not if you want to be a PRO.

How Tom Boonen might be penalized for his transgression is pretty unimportant. He’s not going to the Tour de France. The green jersey will not be at the Tour de France. That’s a big deal. Would a two-year suspension teach him something more than missing the Tour de France? It seems unlikely.

Boonen needs to get a clue. Every time one rider tests positive, the whole of the peloton is cast in suspicion. It may not be fair, and the dedicated fan might be able to see through it, but big-dollar sponsorships and television coverage demand that price be paid.

Morality is not the subject here. We sit not in judgement. If you need to party like Lindsay Lohan, that’s for you to decide, but because a PRO’s body can be tested 24/7/365, a PRO is on duty for the duration. Those are the stakes of the game. Play it well and adulation and riches will be yours. Play it poorly and embarrassment will be thy middle name.


Image courtesy John Pierce, Photosport International

Tornado Tom … Indeed

Presentation Quick Step 2008If outrage or incomprehension was your reaction to news of Tom Boonen’s positive test for cocaine, then you get the situation better than he does. To be fair, a cyclist of Boonen’s stature in Belgium is a rock star, which is a sort of demi-god, and like other figures of mythical status can generally get away with acts that would be criminal by mortal standards. Think Apollo.

A Belgian King of the Classics. Yes, he’s supposed to drive a Porsche. And yes, he’s supposed to get stopped for speeding; he’s a bike racer! But cocaine? That rock star comment was supposed to be metaphoric. Oops.

The situation seems no different than when Jan Ullrich was caught for taking ecstasy. It seems likely it was a “just this once” sort of mistake. Only Boonen had Ullrich’s example to show what can go wrong. Imagine yourself in a club and you’re the most popular guy there. I know, but try to imagine it. You’re going to be offered everything in that club. Everything. There are at least a few of those things to which, as one of the world’s great bike racers, you need to have the cojones to say , “No.”

The problem here is that cycling is in such a tenuous state of credibility that the only way this situation could be worse was if Boonen had been riding for a team such as High Road, CSC or Slipstream that has taken great public steps to demonstrate it’s riders are clean.

Drunk driving would be understandable; irresponsible, but understandable. Alcohol is an acceptable (at minimum) part of a meal. A fourth (or fifth) glass of wine or beer before getting in the car is a mistake that some folks make. But cocaine comes with the taint of party boy, which implies a different sort of recklessness. And because cocaine is a stimulant par excellence, if you didn’t think, “Boy, I could make my bike go a million kilometers per hour on this stuff,” we’d have to question your sanity, not your judgement. And there’s the rub. For the bike racer, anything that can be construed as a drug ought to be seen as off-limits.

Perhaps Tom didn’t get the memo. The memo came from the viewing audience. It was brief. It said, “Don’t embarrass our sport anymore.”

Under other circumstances, his apology would have been acceptable, applaudable even. He said, “Lately, my name has appeared several times in the news in a negative manner. I realise that with this I have hurt my family, my friends, my team and my fans. I wish to apologise for that. But I am not perfect. I will accept the consequences. You will understand that in spite of everything that has been written, rightfully or wrongly, I am not here to defend my conduct.”

That wasn’t good enough. Frankly, it smacks of Johann Museeuw’s apology for not being “100 percent honest” during his days as a racer. Now, more than ever, we need someone caught red-handed to step up and say, “Yes, I did (insert name of drug here), and I apologize. I don’t know what I was thinking.”

Don’t let the fact that his team is standing behind him obscure the gravity of the situation. Lefevre can be credibly accused of being one of the better architects of systemic doping in the peloton. To expect exemplary leadership from him is like asking a fifth grader to teach calculus; it’s not fair because he just doesn’t get it.

Which, is exactly Tornado Tom’s problem. He can’t possibly be seeing the issue through our eyes, otherwise such a gaff would never have occurred. And now that we have a clear illustration that his view of the “doping problem” isn’t our view of the “doping problem” it calls into question his judgement as a whole. It hurts, because he’s one of the last guys in the peloton we wanted this from.

Now we are faced with the ugly question of wondering what else Boonen may find acceptable on a “just this once” basis.

Photo courtesy John Pierce, Photosport International