How to combat doping in cycling?

The Festina, Puerto and Armstrong scandals have become an almost metronome eruption of doping scandal within cycling.  This to me shows some sort of periodic sine wave activity.  We are in the upper edge of the sine wave, with doping exposed for all to see.  And I believe the amplitude is also increasing.  Does this mean that something is changing or we are in some sort of pattern of cycle, fraud, uncover, repress, cycle, fraud, uncover, repress…  It would seem so.  Then how can this time be different?  Einstein defines insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result.  So it would seem that cycling has been dabbling in insanity.  Right now we are vilifying and personifying doping in one individual, Lance Armstrong.  It’s all HIS fault.  Give him the punishment, exile him from the sport. Take his money and fame away.  Destroy his image.

All good and well, but what good does it do to the sport?  Well, of course he’s not the only one.  All the riders who testified against him got “reduced bans”, in effect a slap on the wrist for having doped.  However some of them have been unkindly treated by their current employers, such as Levi Leiphimer and recently retired Michael Barry.  Nick White of Cycling Austraila also got the boot because his name was revealed.  Cycling Australia vice-president stepped down due to his admission of doping in his Festina years (it took people THAT long to suspect he might have..???).  RaboBank pulls out of sponsoring a mildly successful men’s team and a hugely successful women’s team (an excuse to cut costs maybe?)

I think all this is pointing in the wrong direction.  This is the classic post Festina and post Puerto scenario, where riders who were fingered were shunned, made to take the blame, while the rest of the peloton, or most of the peloton, kept up with their doping ways. So, insanity, what is it again?  Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome?   Obviously I’m not implying that the whole peloton is now doping and hypocritically turning their backs on the dopers who were caught.  I believe the peloton IS cleaner than it was in the Armstrong era.  Attitudes have changed, and this is the big change in people’s minds that DIDN’T happen with Festina and Puerto. 

So how about doing things differently this time? How about setting up the so-called Truth and Reconciliation commission, as touted (but then retracted) by UCI president Pat McQuaid.  Finally a good idea, but then you change your mind?? This might actually work, because it’s doing something different in trying to solve the problem.  Won’t be easy, of course.  You’ll need to get the French and Italians on board, and I mean this in a legal sense, as any riders who hail from those countries where doping is a criminal offence, will think twice about speaking out, lest they find a police escort when they get home, to accompany them to jail.  So need to get some sort of legal amnesty for it to work properly.  However this mustn’t take time.  It needs to be quick, like the UCI reading 1000 pages in 2 weeks and coming up with the (inevitable) sanction.  Don’t dawdle on this one Pat and Co.  You need to be proactive if you want to keep your leadership spot in the UCI.  And you need to build bridges.  The UCI statement was full of small barbs to WADA and other agencies, about their own testing programs, when you should have been extending a hand to rekindle the friendship that should bind all anti-doping actors.

Second, engage with the dopers that have come forward, bring them on board and make them part of the solution.  You can’t ostracise a bunch of guys who’ve gone through the hell of having to admit to doping, to go through the ban, and who are now trying to race clean.  If that doesn’t happen, then it leaves no option for the riders who are still doping, and need to come clean.  What incentive for them if it’s all doom and gloom, no pay check and everyone hates you afterwards?  Not all can write a book like Tyler did, make money from his misfortune and get his side of the story out.  Certainly Sky’s move with their “non-doping” declaration that they want all their riders to sign sounds more like a manoeuvre designed to protect their Sponsor rather than stamping out any potential doping on their team.  Can they not see how all they do is reinforce denials?  Instead of leaving some space for riders who haven’t up until now come clean to do so, they are pushing down the road of denial.  Let them come clean with some sort of promise to re-hire them at the end of their eventual suspension.  Or some such manoeuvre.  Get it out in the open, don’t hide it behind an ineffectual declaration! 

Better more prominent policing.

The biological passport is here to stay, it would seem.  There are rumblings that the program isn’t enforced as much as it should.  People like Ashenden, the outspoken Australian scientist who left the UCI due to a gag order he couldn’t stomach (pun intended), are saying the UCI is dropping the ball. Well, take the program and promote it, publicise it.  Show people how and why it works.  The doping doctors already know how to cheat the system, so it’s not like you’re protecting industrial secrets by telling people how it works. It may be a greater deterrent for casual dopers and do-it-yourself operations (like the “cobra”?).  Give it real teeth.  Give it the funding it needs.  As cycling fans understand the program, it’s easier to correlate positives and how it’s related to cyclist’s performances.  Many smelled a rat in Armstrong’s early dominance, his “extra-terrestrial” performances.  Fan’s BS detectors should be on constant alert with cycling performances, and not shut down ‘because he’s a cancer victim’ or some such nonsense..  A good doping program can help that.  However we need constant vigilance, and strong outspoken people at the helm of such an effort.  Pat, you can’t be all faces of the UCI.  Leave some space for other competent people to give their energy to this fight.

There needs to be a line drawn in the sand after the truth and reconciliation program, and after that sanctions need to get tougher.  If there is a financial incentive to dope, there must be a financial disincentive if you are caught. Bans need to be longer, especially for professional riders. Adopt a sliding scale depending on what type of team you’re on (pro-conti, world tour, amateur etc..). Ok, we’ll have to think about that one.  But progressively the bans need to get tougher.  If money talks, then the serious possibility of lost income must factor into the doper’s choice.  Two years can be easily overcome (look at Contador!). Four years is a bit tougher.

Obviously there need to be broader changes in cycling as well for all this to work.  Cyclists themselves need to be given a greater voice in how these changes are made.  The UCI needs to give their representative board membership, although past dopers need not apply, so Jonathan, for all the good you’ve done for clean cycling, just stay where you are with Slipstream.  UCI points need to be split between riders and teams, giving some continuity to race-winning outfits even when all their star riders defect, making getting UCI points less of a mad scramble and less of an incentive to dope.  Consider counting points for the first 10 riders on the roster, thus giving space to new riders and making the points difference between top teams less marked.  Finally be open with the points system so it’s a clear and level playing field. And make it obvious how many points you subtract if you keep ex-doping riders on the team.  This goes against my first point of not making ex-dopers pariahs, but we mustn’t just welcome them back completely.. As I say,  after the T&R commission, doping gets SERIOUS.  As much as we want dopers to become ex-dopers, we must also balance their need for catharsis and a second chance with the first chance for unknown riders who’ve never doped, but don’t have space on a pro team. So for the interim, second chance, but after that give the chance to the new boys.

Test more at the amateur level as well.  Doping has permeated all the way down to junior’s level.  Armstrong probably didn’t start doping when he rode the tour de France.  Attack doping at the top and bottom of the sport.  Yes, money is tight, so make a standard model that different countries can adopt easily. Make it transparent.  Make it independent. Have independent oversight, for where there are tests there are cheaters and there are those who are willing to sell results as well.  Give respect and power back to the testers, who for so long have had an uphill battle in presenting results, especially when associated with high-profile names.

The truth is that doping will look at uncharted waters and the testing program will always be a little behind. How far behind depends on how the UCI, WADA, USADA treat the current crop of dopers – as just a few bad apples or as a potential aid in the solution.  Testing needs to ensure the “arm’s race” isn’t always in favour of the dopers – testing needs to link with the manufacturers of doping products to find tests sooner.

Above all we need to make cyclists remember it’s wrong to dope, to celebrate clean riders, to ensure that the financial rewards are taken away from dopers.  We owe it to ourselves, to a clean competitive spirit in sport and the ideal of a level playing field, where cycling becomes a test of legs, brain and lady luck.

NB - All these opinions are my personal musings about cycling and doping.  There is no one correct solution, but a plethora of measures that need to be taken.  Mine are suggestions from the comfort of my internet armchair.