Slate's Bizbox
sports nut: The stadium scene.

Still Doping After All These YearsWith so much scrutiny on the Tour de France, why are cyclists still cheating?

By Nathaniel Vinton
Posted Friday, July 27, 2007, at 6:51 PM ET
Michael Rasmussen. Click image to expand.

By the time the 2007 Tour de France hobbles down the Champs-Élysées this Sunday, the event will be drastically reduced in field size, star power and honor. Two whole teams and several prominent cyclists have withdrawn for anti-doping violations, among them the race-leading Michael Rasmussen and the prerace favorite, Alexandre Vinokourov. Last year, more than a dozen riders were tossed out before the event even started. With so much scrutiny and so many people getting caught, why are these guys still cheating?

Actually, there's no reason not to dope at this year's Tour de France. The recent twin crises of Operación Puerto (which uncovered a massive doping ring in Spain) and Floyd Landis (whose rise and fall became a year-long opera) have only fragmented the sport's authorities, and cycling's culture of cheating seems more entrenched than ever. Besides, it's not just the corrupt managers, doctors, and riders who encourage doping: it's the very structure of the sport itself.

No group has more influence over the Tour de France than the peloton, that big pack of riders at the center of every stage. And the peloton brings with it a measure of collusion unlike that in any other sport. In the pack, rivals conspire to moderate the pace of each race, taking turns shouldering the burden of riding in front, and working in unison to reel in riders who make breakaway dashes for the finish line. To function, the peloton uses a complex system of hierarchies and codes that rival those of the mafia. This, it must be said, is a big part of cycling's appeal for its most ardent fans; after all, the mob mentality can be a dramatic thing.

Now, there's some evidence that the peloton is cool with doping. Consider the fact that it accepted confessed dopers David Millar and Erik Zabel back into the ranks, including them in the peloton's strategies and camaraderie. Meanwhile, the pack has no space for whistleblowers. In an infamous incident in 2004, Lance Armstrong—who was said to be the "patrón" of the peloton in those days—turned his fellow riders against Filippo Simeoni, a rider with an undistinguished career. Simeoni had the temerity to testify against Michele Ferrari, a shady doctor who had worked with Armstrong (and, as recently as this year, Vinokourov). When he joined a break in stage 18 in an effort to win a rare moment of glory, Armstrong—who already had a comfortable lead in the standings—gave chase and reeled him back into the peloton. By punishing Simeoni, Armstrong later said he was "protecting the interests of the peloton," and that his fellows there congratulated him for it; Italian authorities suspected witness intimidation. We'll never know the truth because it never went to court.

Could everyone in the peloton be cheating? One popular and age-old method is known as "blood doping," where you inject yourself with extra blood to increase the amount of oxygen available to your muscles. Here, the game is simply to sneak as much oxygen into your bloodstream as possible while staying below a "natural" threshold set by anti-doping officials. As long as you're careful not to cross the line, you won't get caught. But if enough people are doping, a few are bound to slip up.

Over the last decade, it seems like the top competitors in the sport have been caught more often than anyone else. This could be because the top dogs are tested more frequently—immediately after every stage race, and in surprise out-of-competition tests (like those Rasmussen skipped). It could also be that the best riders are just more likely to cheat. Why would that be? First of all, they can afford the services of their black-market accomplices. Second, the top guys are less exposed to punitive action. A small fry who gets busted is almost certain to receive a ban that might end his career. But if you're a potential Tour de France winner like Rasmussen or Vinokourov, your team manager will have your back until you've lost all hope of evading prosecution. That's what Ivan Basso of Italy found out last year when he was implicated in Operación Puerto. Forced out of the Tour he was supposed to win on the eve of the race, Basso drifted in legal limbo for five months, passionately denying involvement in the affair. Then in November, the Discovery Channel team took a gamble and decided to hire him anyway. They only dropped Basso this May, when he suddenly confessed to "attempted doping."

Even if a doper was forced to retire from competition, he wouldn't necessarily lose the support of his fans. Cycling devotees (at least in France) still revere one of the most notorious dopers of all time, Richard Virenque. Despite a career tainted by strident lies about his doping, the Frenchman remained popular enough to jump right off the bike into a sweet gig as a television commentator for Eurosport, which only makes him the face of the Tour for a few hundred million people.

Reform isn't likely to come from the people in charge of professional cycling. The sponsors don't seem to be taking responsibility. And the fragmented governing structure of cycling leaves plenty of wiggle room for the cheaters. Cyclists can choose to skip tests with impunity, like Rasmussen did, or play the victim of a complicated bureaucracy, as Landis has tried to do. There are people in cycling who are frantic to clean the sport up, like Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union. But he may not have the clout. Unlike the NFL and the NBA, where the commissioners dictate law from the top down, authority over cycling is spread between the international governing body, team owners, and race organizers. Each is guarding their own turf, and whenever someone tries to establish serious reform, someone else interprets it as a power grab.

Clean riders must look at all this dysfunction with dismay. But cynical people in the sport—and there are plenty—see countless opportunities to game the system. The way it's going, doped-up cyclists will have less to fear in 2008 than ever before.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Nathaniel Vinton is a freelance writer living in New York City.
Photograph of Michael Rasmussen by Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

The reason these guys are doping? It seems almost every year the cyclists are caught during tests in the mountain stages in the Alps and Pyrenees. Have you ever seen the mountain passes these guys ride over, cols de Galibier, col du telegraphe, col iseran and col plaine joux? I need to take drugs to settle my nerves when I drive over them, and it is cold and hard to breathe outside. The riders need the blood changes to be acclimated to the altitude and difficulty of the climbing. If the tour selected a more realistic route, although perhaps less pleasing to spectators, doping would be less of a problem.

--servoz2002

(To reply, click here.)

Fans want faster times, more home runs, harder tackles, and better dunks. They want the enveloped pushed each time, every time. Fans expect and demand that records be broken with increasing frequency, and they will watch whoever will deliver the next smashed barrier.

Sure, many people will tell you dopers are a disgrace to the sport when you put a microphone in front of them, but the masses' insatiable appetite for performance will not be denied.

My guess is that if each sport created two separate leagues, one that allowed doping and one that strictly forbade it, the non-doping league would be out of business within ten years.

So why fight it? Let athletes use whatever means available to enhance their performance. It will happen anyway as science blurs the line between what should and shold not be considered allowable performance enhancers. How many arbitrary lines can we draw to distinguish what is good and bad enhancement?

If someone were able to wave a magic wand and eliminate doping from sport, my guess is that sports' popularity would dive as record-breaking performances became fewer and further apart. Only those athletes who won the genetic lottery, or are the product of a selective breeding program could ever hope to break records.

But there is no magic wand, so only those unfortunate enough to get caught have their careers ruined. Why do so many athletes dope? The same reason so many employers hire illegal immigrants and pay less than minimum wage; because so many of their competitors are doing it that they cannot compete if they do not break the rules. Sure, you can make a principled stand, but the price is anonymity and last place (or watching your customers flock to your competition and going out of business).

--jascob

(To reply, click here.)

First of all, the pelaton is no longer the simple "Mafia" you refer to. But it used to. from the 50's well into the 80's. Powerful riders such as 5 time winners Eddy Merckx, Jaques Anqutiel, could conrol the pelation, and any doping testing, in fact, If they were threatened with testing, they would strike, or refuse to participate. Teams were inexpensive, and cheap to run, so sponsorships would change quickly. Teams would do anything, to keep quiet about doping.

But that changed greatly. Cycling has become an expensive sport and there are lesser companies interested in the sport and supporting teams with doping. No company wishes to have this stigma, so when companies pull out, they don't come back.

In 2005, Liberty Seugros (Liberty Mutual) found themselves in the "Puerto Affair", They yanked their sponsorship immediately, never to return. Even Teams like Discovery Channel, pulled out of sponsorship this year, who just had a tour winner and run by Lance Armstrong.

Teams must have sponsors or there will be no cycling. So Teams like CSC, Team Telekom, have installed their own, anti-doping programs. In order to protect the team, not the rider. in fact both teams, in 2007 have fired riders, for violating the teams anti-doping rules.

Young riders are being more vocal about not doping, The very fact that riders like Vinokorov, and Cofidis, riders Christain Moreni, were caught during the tour, says a lot. Rasmussen, knew the rules of his team, and he lied, and they fired him. Plain and simple.

Cycling isn't perfect but it has come a long way, at least they are trying to change the culture,

I can't say the same thing about Baseball, Home run record about to be broken by a known steroid offender. And we applaud.

--bunderwood2000

(To reply, click here.)

(7/30)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.