Several months ago, a poll was conducted of retired cyclists,
which was then opened to the public on the SBS Cycling Central website. It
asked whether Lance Armstrong should keep his titles from the Tour de France.
Reading some of the comments led me to put my own thoughts out on the matter;
in a more constructed way than a short rant on a comment thread, and in such a
way that might help others to resolve any internal conflict.
Firstly (and bear with me here…), a short history of the Tour
is important to put the events of the past 20 years into perspective. The Tour
started in 1903, as a race that was barely more structured than designating
start and end points, in cities several hundred kilometres away from each
other. In the second edition, unsurprisingly for a race as unstructured as it
appeared to be; several riders caught the train or travelled in a car. Six
months later (apparently the wheels of justice still turned as quickly then as
now) the first four riders were disqualified. The race survived the too-partisan
fans disrupting riders and the disqualifications, and continued for a third
year. Shortly afterwards, the publicity caravan was invented, mountains were added,
trade teams took over from national teams, national teams took over from trade
teams, Tom Simpson died in 1967, trade teams came back, the Champs Elysees became
the finishing point; and the Tour as we know it now continued to grow and
develop into the spectacle and the brand that it is today.
However, in 2007, when Floyd Landis was denying his wrongdoing
from 2006, Vinokourov tested positive and Rasmussen was booted, the public and
peloton could barely believe what was unfolding in one of the sport’s darkest
moments. I believe that Landis (from 2006, 102 years and 90-or-so Tours later)
was the first rider since Maurice Garin in 1904 to have his title taken away
from him. Since that day in late 2007 when it was announced officially, Alberto
Contador (2010) and Lance Armstrong (1999 – 2005) have also had their titles
annulled. Which means that for the last 16 final presentations, only 7 were for
the rider who is still considered to be the Tour winner.
Floyd Landis atop the Champs Elysees podium, July 2006
Image credit: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/24/tourfloydlandis_gallery__428x400,0.jpg
If we look back through the history of the sport, I believe
that Pantani (who died of a drug overdose at the height of the doping war),
Riis (admitted), Ullrich (on Riis’ T-Mobile team and with a dubious record),
Coppi (who practically admitted to taking amphetamines), Anquetil (who did
admit to taking amphetamines), Pelissier (who showed a journalist some pills
mid-race), Merckx (probably, he did fail a drug test, admittedly with a
significant grey area), among many others, may have won the Tour de France
while chemically or medically assisted. That is a thoroughly non-exhaustive
list, and I apologise that I have singled out certain riders. But I have listed
at least 16 Tour wins, potentially achieved on drugs. Stripping names like
Coppi, Anquetil or Merckx from the winners list, or investigating everyone else
who has won the Tour is to my mind a waste of time, and is seriously degrading
to the sport I love. I’m not condoning cheating, but to me, the punishments
should be consistent throughout history.
My above statement about consistently punishing riders who
cheat opens a can of worms though. Do we erase the majority of the Tour’s (and
cycling’s) record books, while digging up oh so many skeletons? I don’t think
that’s a good option for the sport. Do we reward Lance Armstrong for “the most
sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme” the world has
ever seen? Again, I don’t think that’s a good option. We, as fans, are faced
with the choice that essentially boils down to the simple questions: “How OK are
you with doping?” and “How long should you take to forgive and forget?” with the
equally subjective question “Does sport exist for entertainment?” Or have the
answers to those questions changed over time?
I’m inclined to say that the answers have changed. We’ll
start with the third, and possibly easiest issue of entertainment. The stars of
the past (I’ve read mostly about the 1950’s and 1960’s) earned most of their
money through appearance fees at criteriums, traditionally held just after the
Tour de France. Sandrino Carrea (a team-mate of Coppi) attributes the house
that he bought to the single day in yellow that he earnt. This is part of the
prestige of stage wins or a stint in yellow at the Tour, because such a feat
would get the rider’s name in the newspaper and into public consciousness. In
August, the public would pay to see the big names race…for ENTERTAINMENT. The
races were (and probably still are) rigged in favour of rider popularity.
However, in the current climate, the appearance fees at criteriums would be
simply a footnote on the earnings of a top professional, who exists to win
races, in COMPETITION. All of which means that maybe the race that was started
to entertain and subsequently sell newspapers, has morphed into a race which is
all about results. I highly doubt that any rider has ever raced the Tour
according to a publicity script, but many of the riders knew that they had to
be popular in order to earn a decent living, whereas today, results dictate a
rider’s value. So yes, I believe that the integrity of a clean race has
increased, as the need for popularity stemming from the Tour has decreased.
Has the view on taking drugs changed over time? Again, I
believe so. Cheating/doping within the peloton was far more accepted, even in
the early 2000’s if David Millar’s book is to be believed. It was nearly
accepted practice in the 1960’s and 1970’s if my research is correct, and
testing wasn’t introduced until the late sixties. Before the Second World War,
I get the impression that it was carte blanche for drugs, with no testing, no
constant suspicion and no significant performance gains. Gastone Nencini (the
1960 Tour winner) was reportedly found by Dr Pierre Dumas (the Tour doctor)
smoking a cigarette, with drips in his arms, mid-Tour; although in an age where
blood transfusions were not banned. Eddy Merckx had a failed drugs test for a
substance that was rescinded from the banned list. The penalty for failed tests
has been increased. The testing has been increased, but I feel that the biggest
change has been the performance advantage that can be gained. EPO supposedly adds
10% to a rider’s “engine”. Blood transfusions can add 9%. Testosterone, growth
hormone, and any number of other drugs can all add up to make a difference
significant enough to physically alter a human’s capacity to ride a bike
quickly, as opposed to an amphetamine, which really only improves a mental
state.
This has left still more questions to be answered, and I’ll
leave each one to you. Personally, my answer to the “Am I OK with doping”
question is not clear-cut. Where do I draw the line? Are bananas OK? Is commercially
available artificial protein powder OK? Well, yes, even though both improve
performances. Is a mind-altering substance OK? From a safety point of view, no.
Is a 3% gain from a doping product OK? No. Is up to 15% from various drugs OK? Absolutely
not. Is it OK to dope if there is no way of being caught? Well, how much does
winning matter? How long is a piece of string? I can’t answer that one for you.
And I certainly can’t answer how long it should take to forgive and forget any
previous indiscretions concerning drug-taking in sport. But for what my opinion
is worth, catching Landis, Vinokourov, and Contador with in-competition tests
is enough to take results away. Taking 7 years to catch Lance, well, I’m
remembering Lance’s phrase “witch-hunt.” Yes, I believe that he can feel
aggrieved to have lost his Tours, but (hopefully) the late 90’s was the
beginning of the end of the end for drugs dictating the results of the sport.
In that sense, I’m glad that the sport has marked a turning point. For Lance,
he’s unfortunate that the turning point fell in those seven years.
