- HOT TOPICS:
- An American start for the Giro? •
- 2010 Routes: Giro | California | TdF •
- LA doc guilty on all counts
Wednesday's Mailbag:The credibility gap; Who are the real heroes?
The Mailbag is a regular department on VeloNews.com. If you have a comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have read in VeloNews magazine or on VeloNews.com, write to webletters@insideinc.com. Please include your full name, hometown and state or nation. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Writers are encouraged to limit their submissions to one letter per month. The letters published here contain the opinions of the submitting authors and should not be viewed as reflecting the opinions, policies or positions of VeloNews.com, VeloNews magazine or our parent company, Inside Communications, Inc.
A Guest Commentary: The Credibility Gap
It should have been remembered as one the great competitive racesin Tour de France history. The top three riders in the Tour separatedby a mere 31 seconds as the three week endurance contest ended on the Champs Élysées on Sunday. The label that is likely to stick with this year's race, however, is the Tour of Suspicion. Instead of a bouquet of flowers, stage winners and anyone in line for awards in the race, might as well have been given a large question mark. Just as there is still no certified winner of the 2006 race, this year's champion, Alberto Contador of Spain, may have outridden the field, but not the persistent questions about his past.
During the Watergate crisis in the United States in the 1970s the term"credibility gap" was coined to describe the lack of belief in what anyone involved in the scandal and cover-up said. Elite cyclists and many of the sports administrators now enjoy the same level of credibility when they make pronouncements on the guilt, innocence, or "cleanliness" of the sport. Like the proliferation of doping in the sport, everyone shares a portion of the blame for the suspension of belief when it comes to who is or isn't doing what. Take the question of testing, for example.
When Alexander Vinokourov was yanked from the race and now stands accused of blood doping, his responses and those of his lawyers hardly inspire confidence. Vino’ defended himself against the charges by saying that he would have to be crazy to have done this and that he had been tested "100 times" in his career and never tested positive. Then his lawyer, Maurice Suh, attacked the French doping control lab and the method used to obtain the adverse analytical finding, implying that it was unreliable.
First the athlete defends himself by claiming that he's been tested a huge number of times, then his lawyer claims the tests are unreliable.Not the way to build trust or credibility. Those using this particular strategy must believe it works. Lance Armstrong has made similar statements, saying in interviews that: "I am the most tested athlete in the history of sports." Unfortunately for Lance if one attempts to check this statement, you discover statistics that don't back it up.
Armstrong is not even the most tested cyclist in the US, and his claim is further damaged by the statistics for other sport athletes. According to the publicly available statistics on USADA's website, Armstrong has been tested 12 times since USADA was founded in 2000. His teammate,George Hincapie has been tested 13 times. Tyler Farrar has been tested 14 times, and Marty Nothstein 17. These numbers don't approach track and field where marathoner Deena Kastor has been tested 29 times, Justin Gatlin 26, and Marion Jones 22. And that is just using a random search not attempting to see who does hold the "record" for most number of USADA tests.
Using these stats as a guide, Armstrong would have had to have been tested more than 88 times by WADA, UCI, at the Tour or other races just to get ahead of Vino'. Those of you doing the math in your heads might conclude that it is possible for Armstrong to have been tested quite a lot during the Tour (he'd have to average nearly 13 tests a Tour over his seven year reign to build his numbers to the level of Vino's claims), but that is not the point. The point is that these guys probably have no idea how many times they have been tested, rather they are attempting to deflect accusations by using a statement that may sound plausible to many but are inaccurate but seemingly unable to be challenged because most of these statistics aren't public. We know from court documents, for example, that Floyd Landis was tested 44 times in a five-year span from 2002-2006. USADA statistics indicate that nine of those tests were USADA testing.
So, in numbers confirmed Landis becomes "the most tested athlete in the history of sports." If Vino' can back up his claim, then he takes the "honor." Armstrong had USADA write a letter confirming his 12 USADA tests as part of his defense in the SCA case, but he has a long way to go to back up his most tested claim because, as noted, the track athletes have a big head start on him in USADA testing and they get tested a lot throughout each year on the indoor and outdoor track circuit, plus French Open tennis champion Rafael Nadal, who was questioned by the media intensely because of rumored connections to Operation Puerto claimed to have been tested more than 20 times during 2006. At that clip it would only take the top tennis players five years to pass the magic 100 test mark.
To get past the math, however, the issue is that the statements made by the athletes about testing are meaningless unless they can be verified.Verification is not done because there is no central repository of testing data to check out these claims. Thus is makes it easy for athletes attempting to deflect questions about doping to trot out this sound bite.
WADA is attempting to develop a database that would contain testing data in its ADAMS project, but it is far from being adopted by everyone for many of the same reasons groups, such as the Tour, UCI, and various national federations often don't share in a timely manner vital information, such as missed test data on the athletes. That was the source of the problem with Danish rider Michael Rasmussen, who was dumped from the Tour by his team after questions were raised about the information he supplied the various agencies on his whereabouts during the build up to the Tour.
This got Rasmussen into trouble when he did a "Gary Hart"(the Democrat who was running for president and responded to rumors about infidelity by telling the press to "follow him" if they didn't believe he wasn't having an affair. They did. He was, and Hart was booted from the presidential race) when he was asked about missed tests and why he missed them. When the press followed up and Rasmussen's duplicity was exposed, his team removed him from the Tour. The finger pointing between the Tour organizers and UCI and ensuing broadsides fired off by each over who was to blame for not blowing the whistle earlier on Rasmussen illustrate another of the potential roadblocks to harmony in the anti-doping movement.
The most troubling portion of this exchange between the Tour organizers and UCI head, Pat McQuaid was about the rules. There is a UCI rule that states that any rider who has "received a recorded warning...in aperiod of 45 days before the start of a major Tour...will not be allowed to participate in that Tour."
When this was pointed out to McQuaid, he told the press that UCI did not enforce the rule because it was "too harsh." Later he added that UCI would delete that portion of its rules at its next convention. No mention was made of what mechanism within the UCI rules allows the UCI to not enforce one of its rules.
How many other rules are "too harsh?" Who makes that decision? Because we in the media love a good fight, any context to these verbal barbs will often get lost in the process of gathering, editing, and publishing stories on hot button topics such as doping.
Thus, as another Tour comes to a close, we have scant information on how the battle between Contador, Cadel Evans, and Levi Leipheimer unfolded.What were the strategies? How did they cope with the off the roads twists and turns? What we have seen chronicled instead are the continuing feuds and lack of communication between many of the groups who say they are involved in the fight to curtail drug use, spin worthy of the most deft politicians by those cyclists accused or charged with doping, and the continued growth of the credibility gap. One day we might get lucky enough to get parts of the full drama that unfolded at this year's Tour. Heck, we now know who Deep Throat is and more White House tapes were released recently by the Nixon library. Here's hoping the Tour historians will keep digging and some day a more complete picture of what has been happening during this tumultuous time will become visible.
Jim Ferstle
St. Paul, Minnesota
Jim Ferstle is a freelance journalist and has covered the issue of sports and doping since 1987. - Editor
Coming clean
Dear VeloNews,
Unlike others, I have not given up hope on cycling. Doping scandalshave and will likely always exist. As in most things in life, someone willtry dishonest means to gain an advantage on their competitors. We can onlyhope that testing programs evolve to the point where it becomes difficultor impossible to dope.What does make me weary is the constant denial by accused dopers almostto the point of flagrancy. Vinokourov and his supporters are now claimingthat having blood cells of another person in his body was the results ofhis stage 5 crash? Vino must have hit the deck harder than we thought ifhe really believes we are going to swallow this tripe. Vino is not alonein coming up with these absurd stories, constant denials, and hiding behindthe shadows of their lawyers.The one bit of silver lining in this cloud, if you can call it that,was Patrik Sinkewitz coming forward and admitting that yes, the A samplewas indeed correct and that he had doped. Perhaps T-Mobile's Code of Conductis exerting enough peer pressure to get riders to confess, perhaps Sinkewitzhas a conscience, perhaps he can't hire on high priced lawyers. In anycase, it was, in my mind, the right step forward.Not that his punishment should be diminished, but at least he will holdmy respect should he decide to come back to the pro peloton after servinghis time.
Chris Teichreb
Red Deer, Alberta, CanadaWho needs the pros? Just ride your bike
Dear Velo,
I read with dismay and concern the letter from Mr. Funk of Arizona.(see "Rasmussen, the Tour and the future?" in Monday'sMailbag.)
Cycling is a wonderful sport for families and individuals. It is awonderful avenue to spend time with your children and impart importantlife lessons. This should not be impacted by the doping scandals
destroying the sport currently at the professional level.
Every parent has a responsibility to teach their children, and usingany professional sport is not the way to accomplish that goal. To abandonthe sport that you love due to the behavior of others sends a
horrible message to your child. The message should be that you willcontinue to enjoy cycling for your love of the sport, and your family,and not abandon it due the dishonesty of others. It is a virtue called
perseverance.
Matthew Woody
Liberty, MissouriPick your heroes
Dear Editors,
I am saddened by Joel Funk's letter from Monday's Mailbag. Iagree with his concern over exposing his son to the perils of doping andprofessional cycling. Frankly, cycling is so much larger than professionalsport. The individual effort and commitment that it takes to succeed inthe local crit' series can, and will, translate into a knowledge of whatit takes to succeed in life.
I spoke yesterday with one of our local sportscasters and begged himto give cycling its props. He laughed, and went on to lament ourridiculous sport. I challenged him with the honesty of cycling, andhow it is at least attempting to cleanse itself. It takes a lot to admitand face your own problems. The IOC should challenge every otherOlympic sport to adopt such rigid standards as cycling before theycast it aside.
I recently watched my seven-year-old finish her first mountain bikerace, and have never enjoyed the sport more. I'll take that overthe Tour anytime. Go ahead and share our sport with your son.Teach him the tradition, respect, determination, strength, and now honestythat it demands. As in life, emphasize the positives and cyclingwill always reward you.
Now go for a ride together. I'll be out training with my daughter,and I wouldn't want her beating your son to the line. Now that wouldbe a hard life lesson, but one he'll need to learn eventually. Hopefully,bike racing has also taught us all a little humor.
Cheers,
Tyson Schwiesow
Green Bay, WisconsinAttack, attack
Editors,
Having just observed the final day of the 2007 Tour, a day in whichone might expect the most extraordinary of competitive sport, a day inwhich the Discovery team could have consolidated first and second placeand second place had a mere 23-second run to be the grandest of all cyclingchampions, and here's Lance on TV answering the question, "Well if YOUwere 23 seconds out of first and had a chance to win the Tour de France,would you?"So he said, as he and many others have said over the years, basically“No, you must respect the yellow jersey.” How do we explain that to any sports fan on earth? There is no such model in sports, especially for Americans.We just subjected viewers who allowed us into their lives, their preciousSunday morning--four and a half hours of watching our greatest showcase,and what they were treated to was 100+ professional racers not race,out of "respect" for a leader who has not won the race yet. Four-and-a-halfhours is longer than any major sporting event, or any movie! Howarrogant of us, how parochial, how traditional to honor this Yellow Jerseyto such fan sacrifice.The announcers queued us up for battle, Chris Horner said Cadel willgo for it. Then, either tradition or resignation ran the race andwe in our inbred perspective honored a jersey while the mainstream sportingfans our sponsors desired to reach, sat in dismay that we wasted theirtime with something so uneventful and uninteresting, leaving them wonderinghow it could be televised or even suggest to entertain. Race fansknow this tradition but I bet each one wished it otherwise. And thosepoor first-timers we so desperately need in our fold to grow the sport,to pay better salaries, have more races and sponsors and TV, those poorones must feel duped. I heard a commentator on CNN this week railon cycling as a non-sport, like watching paint dry and I recoil at thislike a knife in the belly....but.......then there was Sunday, when we "honoredthe jersey." Let me call the CNN guy and try to explain our traditionto him.How do we explain this to viewers, readers, fans, sponsors? Explainwhy competitors "gave up" to honor a jersey before the actual finish ofan event. And what a race it could have been. Would the positionshave changed---we know it's not easy but do we not try in frontof the world--rather than just roll along? Must we go back to a finalday time trial to see real "race to the finish?" Yes Yogi, it's notsupposed to be over til it’s over in pro sports. Why is our sportthe only one where second is good enough? How is awell-sponsored pro sports team content with first and third when they are8 seconds from 2nd? What a day it could have been just seeing themtry, especially after three weeks of bizarre bad news!How do we justify this to those trying us out that day, sampling oursport who spent 4 1/2 hours readying for a boxing match in which the opponenthonors the title-belt by just NOT boxing? WHAT?
Michael D. Aisner
Boulder, ColoradoMichael Aisner is the former race director of the Red Zinger/CoorsClassic. - EditorWhen is NORBA going to get it right?
Dear VeloNews,
I just came back from this weekend’s NORBA National at Sugar Mountain.At the XC finish of both the pro men and women, I saw some pretty exceptionalathletes cross the line. Despite a pretty pitiable course made worseby mud and rain, I saw no whimpering and no whining. Instead, I saw serious,clean athletes enjoying what they train very hard to do, race.And what was their reward? Money? Admiration? Fans?Nada. Zip. Zero. Friends, family and amateur competitors wereabout the only spectators there to appreciate their skills and devotionto the sport. What a disaster! No wonder they win a cash prizeof twenty-two cents!Team Big Bear/Blue Wolf does a great job of managing the races, butthat's not good enough. We need an organization or company that cancreate a brand and promote the events.Location. Location. Location. This one is pretty basic.We need venues that line the course with spectators, not events thatare lost at hard reach locations. Burying these events at mountainresorts will continue to keep the sport in the dark ages. ForgetDeer Valley, try Salt Lake City. Fontana is a good start, but theSanta Monica Mountains in Malibu or the Palisades is better. Get it outof Aspen and take it to Denver. Start the race in the streets, takethem into the mountains, and back into the streets for the finish.Lights. Camera. Action. Its all about TV. Theyneed cameras on course that light up screens with every second of the race,and commentators that add color and life, as Liggett and Sherwen do forroad racing. If ESPN and Versus can make Rodeo hot, I think we canmake mountain biking steam. I haven't checked, but Id bet there arelot more kids riding bikes, than bulls.I know the excuse is always lack of funding. I would argue thatthere are always funds and sponsorships available if the potential of goodexposure is there. Location is a good start.NORBA has an opportunity to create a great brand. So my hard earnedtwo cents is they should start by emulating the athletes that give so muchto the sport and just do it!
T.C. Schultz
Malibu, California
The Mailbag is a regular department on VeloNews.com. If you have a comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have read in VeloNews magazine or on VeloNews.com, write to webletters@insideinc.com. Please include your full name, hometown and state or nation. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Writers are encouraged to limit their submissions to one letter per month. The letters published here contain the opinions of the submitting authors and should not be viewed as reflecting the opinions, policies or positions of VeloNews.com, VeloNews magazine or our parent company, Inside Communications, Inc.
