The wheels are coming off cycling - there's too much bad blood

In the case of Floyd Landis, the testing procedures at the official lab were based on guesswork and had nothing to do with science. Mr. Landis may or may not cheated, but there is no scienctific evidence that proves he did. Short of a confession or scientific evidence, both British and the American legal traditions require we must assume his innocence. However, members of the the anti-doping agencies violated their own rules, sometimes in public. So, given the authorities are not playing it straight, it seems pretty silly to blame only the riders.

Nice article, and I hope it generates some discussion!! For my part I'd just want to add some perspepctive - not a defence of doping - by saying that cycling seems to be doing more to clean up its act than any other sport. Perhaps it has further to go than other sports, but how many make the demands of their participants that cycling does? Remember that of the sportsmen and women implicated by Operacion Puerto, less than a third were cyclists. Yet cycling, which does so much testing to flush out the cheats, cops all of the bad headlines. I'd love to know which other sports are harbouring cheats while cycling does the right thing and tries to be transparent. The sport is in crisis, but it 'aint dead just yet...

Given many have died in the past from doping there is probably little hope of redemption, ever; its not in their mindset. While the UCI, the WADA and the police wrestle with the problem the motivation for all doping, big fat pay cheques which keep getting fatter remains paramount. It seems there is no way out of the problem and when the authorities show a bit of resolve the usual suspects get on the 'invasion of privacy'bandwagon and other 'anti-testing' mantras leaving authorities with little moral support for upping the anti aaginst the cheats. Ultmately, unless doping affects 'bums on seats' of which there is little evidence to support(although some sponsors are dropping off now) it will continue. I am to be convinced that the public really cares one way or another these days. Modern day sport is pretty well all about entertainment, celebs, ratings and fairytales! Robin

Landis hasn't been found guilty - yet, so I have asked that the statement be changed to "implicated" for the sake of accuracy.

The tearful half confessions and ridiculous excuses, as well as the astonishing double standards have done arguably more damage to cycling as the drugs themselves. If the sport really is as anti drugs as it claims, why has Milram allowed Zabel to stay, why are organisers still allowing Riis to direct (particularly after the now incredibly hypocritical stance he took over Basso), and why is Virenique of all people still sitting in the commentary box presiding over races and riders performances? The charade will continue as long as alternative agendas continue to pull against the truth, and we allow favoured individuals preferential treatment. Nullify competitions where a drug cheat has been identified, distain the cheats, and let them face the shame of their actions.

I can agree with you on Riis, the typical person who speaks high and acts low, he shouldn't be allowed to manage again, but that now is in the hands of CSC. Where I do disagree is regarding Zabel, why punish a rider that had admitted his faults when he was a young kid (we are talking about 1996 when EVERYONE was a dopehead, I presonally have a cousin who was riding with Bruseghin and was far stronger than the Lampre rider but his Sporting Director told him "Kid, either you start taking something or you won't go pro", my cousin decided to quit). We cannot punish someone for something that has been done 10-plus years ago, we should instead focus on improving the testing and giving incentives to people who collaborate with the WADA and UCI (it means discounts on their bans) in order to try to break the wall of silence

Yep, I'd like to know what happened to all the others: tennis players, football players (we're talking about many Liga players, but we know that football never takes serious actions against dopeheads...), track and field athletes, should I continue the list? It's only my impression or cycling, and by a lesser degree tarck and field, are the only sports where the fight against doping is going on strongly and without pausing, even if it has meant that many people think that they are the only ones where doping plays a significant role? Many other sports are just happy to cover up or give meaningless bans (I still remember the italian FA giving 3 months for nandrolone, ah and it was during the summer so the guy didn't have to miss an official game at all). It just is so easy to shoot on the Red Cross as they say.

Marco, That's the whole point of the drugs and cycling mess - where to draw the line. If we make exceptions because he only did it once, or when he was a child, or was caught before he went through with it fully, where is the deterent or the inspiration for somebody to stay clean? Its got to be a clear, strong message that doping is unacceptable always - that is how the wall of silence will fall, not by finding excuses tangled up in time. I accept that people are under pressure to do things they'd rather not do - and that's true for many walks of life - but unless the boundaries are clear and uniform, then there will always be those who find a way to justify wrongdoing. And unfortunately, and regardless of when he doped, the likes of Zabel have tarnished other cyclists with the fallout of their dishonesty.

No, that's not the point at all, that's where many commit a tragical mistake. Let me stress a couple of points: 1) there is something in all judiciary systems (at least the one that are fair) that is called "prescription" (or something like that, I don't know the exact english word). We are talking about something that happened in 1996 (and 1997 as well for sure), 11 years ago! If you punish him now what will the message be to other riders? If you try to come out and admit something you've done many years ago and you are still riding you'll get a 2 years ban? That's what you were trying to say and you still believe this will break the wall of silence? Not in this world! The world that surrounds cycling is pretty much like the one the Mafia lives in. If you notice all the confessions came from countries where cycling is not so old and deep rooted (Germany, Denmark, the UK, even the US). When we'll have some riders from Italy, Spain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands stepping out of the shadows we'll see th

Just because cycling and track and field are the only sports that get their doping scandals put regularly on display hardly means they are the worst for doping. As someone else in this comment string pointed out, cycling was far from the only sport with athletes allegedly implicated in Operacion Puerto, but after all this time (isn't it a full year now?), what other names but cyclists' have been released? Here in North America, the mainstream, multi-multi-million dollar sports have players' unions and legal protections, or I am certain we would have a lot more testing and hear a lot more about doping in them as well. The fact that WADA and the UCI get all hysterical about it, is the only reason why cycling always sounds as though it were in its death throes. THEY are the ones driving sponsors away, not just dopers, as the level of doping found to date is a small percentage of tests performed. Wish WADA would just shut the hell up and do its job-- properly, for a change! I have no respect for an institution t

No, that's not what I said at all. Read the post - I said nullify competitions where a doper has been identified; bans are not mentioned. The results are meaningless anyway because of the dopers actions. Ask yourself why these people suddenly came forward, now, all together. Coinicidence, conscience - or damage limitation before exposure? Or was it because they hoped that people would take your view - that its all such a long time ago that it really doesn't matter? And isn't Virenique French, Museeuw Belgian,and Gonzalez and Manzano Spanish? Or doesn't being caught before you can admit it count?

...no respect for an institution that holds the people it regulates to a high standard but seems to hold its own personnel and procedures to an unreasonably low level of competence. And WADA has written into its rules articles that appear to specifically prevent self-policing among the ADA labs.

g

g

"why has Milram allowed Zabel to stay, why are organisers still allowing Riis to direct" I don't know if this means nullify competitions or actually banning people not being an english mother-tongue ;-) BTW It's a pity (and not a piti, that's for you Fred to have a laugh) that this comment system cut in half my previous comment because it contained thing you could have agreed with. Anyway, the riders you mentioned all came out "after" they retired, apart for Manzano. Regarding this last rider, he is the emblematic example of what I was saying: you talk? You're outta here! I read an interview he gave to a Portuguese newspaper a couple of weeks ago where he said that right now he is a "paria" and that in Spain nothing has changed (in more than a year, to answer D). When the ones who talk suffer this fate...there is no easy way out. Ah and do you know who are the biggest drug consumers? Guess who...the amateurs (as the latest belgian police operation showed)

I have to agree with Marco about the engrained code of silence within the sport. I know cyclists who went to France 10 years ago to try to make it as professionals, but who returned home once they saw what was required of them. They love the sport, love their bikes, and want to turn pro - some succumb to the pressure, others resist and fade into obscurity. How far do you blame riders caught up in this system? If you turn the spotlight onto team managers, what account do you take of the commercial pressures they're under to deliver for their sponsors? And on the subject of Manzano, anybody remember Lance's intimidation of Fillipo Simeoni? It is deeply engrained. I rest my case, whatever it is...

We've all agreed on the wall of silence - I thought was clear. But it is the double standards that keep the wall in place that are the point of the discussion and the original post. However, you keep talking about me suggesting that riders be banned for acts committed years ago but only recently admitted, yet that is not what I said or am suggesting, and so is off the point. I think that you have misunderstood 'nullify' as you suggest - this word has nothing at all to do with banning, but means to make something null and void, to take away the meaning/status of in this case, a result. That is exactly what has now happened to Riis' 1996 Tour win -it has now been nullified because he admitted cheating - after he retired. And that is exactly what Aldag, Museeuw and friends did. (Perhaps Manzano would have done the same had he not been caught first)What needs to happen in Cycling is a change of ethos, uniformly, and across all national and international federations, so that newcomers are not encouraged or expec

First the answer to Belinda: the words between brackets of my latest post were a quote from your first comment; Riis 1996 Tour win has NOT been nullified because ASO (it was their intention to do it) has no word on this topic is all up to the UCI and the UCI said it will stand on the record; ah and Musseuw didn't admit cheating in first place since EPO and other substances were found at his home in 2003 (the trial is getting started at the end of September). Having said that I'll try to rewrite the part that was cut in my comment yesterday and the main point is: we don't have to forget that the riders are at least as much victims as they are culprits. They are the in the front line because they are the "riders", but as Fred explained, mostly they have no choice but to take what the "doctors" give them (and you can rightfully say that Musseuw was doped like a horse, his dealer being a veterinarian). Anyway, a rider gets a 2-year ban for a first offence and that's fair in my opinion (now the UCI has prepared a

...an agreement that requires all riders to accept a fine equal to a year's wage in order to be able to compete in the ProTour and brit Mark Cavendish was the first to sign it); but the problem doesn't stop there, it doesn't even begin there. What we have witnessed in the past years is that the cheaters, the dopeheads, were crucified on the media altars while in the shadows, down into the background nothing has changed: Ferretti and all the others "doctors" are still active and they didn't get punished for what they have done (mostly because doping was not a penal crime at the time, and still they can claim they purchased doping for therapeutic use. Even all the "doctors", from Fuentes down, involved in the Operacion Puerto are all up and running again with the implicit thumbs up of Spain's sports authorities. The possible solution is for those "doctors" who are caught and/or recognized as dope dealers to get a lifelong ban for a first offence.

While it is possible for a rider to redeem himself (or herself) after being caught cheating (and that's where I disagree with Belinda, as we say in Italy: non fare di tutta l'erba un fascio, you cannot generalize), this is not possible for the doctors, and for 2 reasons: 1) they are supposed to be the ones who make sure that the riders are fit and don't take anything that can harm them 2) most of them do the dealing for one thing: money; many of them can get a living just by selling dope to the riders (and remember that the biggest share of the drug market (by far) involves amateurs, grown men in their 30s, 40s and even older. A man who is entrusted with the health care of a professional rider must have no room for cheating, because he knows that most of the riders won't be able to say no to his offers, You do it at your peril because once you get caught you can get your degree (if you have it, but that's another story) as use it to lit the fire in the chateau in the alps you bought with the dope-money. T

To conclude: it's useless to "nullify" all the results of a self-confess dopehead unless you are completely sure that he was doped when he did it AND you are sure that the ones who follow him/her in the GC were not doped (and I want to see when this is going to be possible, when it happens I'll be the happiest man on Earth)

Belinda's plea for a more ethical sport is laudable, and in an ideal world there'd be no prospect of individuals and organistaions stretching or breaking the rules to gain success. As soon as you get competition in any sphere of life, however, ethics tend to be observed more in their breach. None of this should read as an apology for the cheats, just an explanation. The bottom-line for me is that if we want to see this sport then we must accept that at times it hasn't been very tightly regulated. Nullifying results achieves little - as Marco said, we don't know where or when they doped, and what about all of the others who have merely 'never tested positive'? Looking at the top 10 from 1996 you'll see Rominger, Ullrich, Virenque and Dufaux alongside Riis. Why not just see the result in context, nullify nothing, and hope that Bjarne is serious about cleaning up the sport from his highly influential perch at CSC? He deserves a chance to put his mistakes behind him, just as any prisoner deserves a chance to be