What if no one cared about doping?
Posted on 07. Jan, 2010 by Josh in Sports Business
In spite of my better judgment, I’m a boxing fan – a casual one, but a fan nonetheless. It’s classist, racist, violent, and corrupt; it can be devastating to the fighters’ short and long-term health. Charming, I know. But at the highest level of the sport, the athletes are spectacular and the action can be completely engrossing. For better and for worse, there’s nothing like it.
Among boxing’s unique qualities is that no sport is more unrepentant in its pursuit of making piles of cash. But just when you thought it was all about the money, the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world passes up $40 million to defend his principles. In this case, the principle in question is his right not to be tested for doping.
Yes, cycling fans, you heard that correctly.
The fight between Manny Pacquiao, shown here punching Miguel Cotto in the face, and Floyd Mayweather Jr. probably would have been the biggest-money fight in history, with revenue approaching the total of all team budgets in the 2009 Tour de France (160mm Euro, according to ASO). But now the fight is off because Floyd wanted WADA-style testing but Manny refused to give any blood samples within 24 days of the fight.
In boxing circles, public opinion has been mostly on Manny’s side. ESPN’s Dan Rafael criticized Floyd’s camp for being unwilling to negotiate. Old-school boxing writer Jerry Izenberg recalls that Floyd’s promoter previously defended another fighter who was busted for EPO in the BALCO scandal. Fans have pointed out that the first syllable of Mayweather rhymes with “gay”.
Pacquiao has no legal or contractual obligation to submit to anything more than the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s minimal controls, and no one really expects him to. Meanwhile, the blame is handed to Mayweather for sticking to a position outside of boxing’s cultural norms. Basically, people are more concerned about whether the fight happens than whether the fighters are doping.
There’s also a civil liberties argument in Pacquiao’s favor that, in cycling, was no match for “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide.” For us, the cultural pressure from fans, sponsors, journalists, broadcasters, race promoters, team managers, and the riders themselves justifies testing that in other situations might be considered an invasion of privacy. In the context of cycling, it’s what everyone expects – which is fine. But the Pacquiao-Mayweather situation brings up an interesting hypothetical:
Would you rather see a Tour de France with only minimal drug testing than no Tour at all?
And by that I mean pro cycling in general. I’m curious to hear what you think. I’ll announce the responses in a few days.
[SURVEYS 5]
If you’re wondering, here’s my understanding of the differences between doping tests for boxers and pro cyclists.
Pro boxers are excluded from the Olympics, so WADA rules don’t apply to them. As for the various “sanctioning” bodies, they’re less concerned with catching dopers than with accepting bribes in exchange for higher rankings (a higher ranking increases a fighter’s chance of getting a lucrative title fight). Unlike cycling team owners, boxing promoters are under no pressure to test their fighters. In the US, doping is not a criminal act and the government has no legal authority to test athletes at random. Most big fights are held in Las Vegas, where they’re subject only to the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s rules, which require some urine tests but only one annual blood test.
By my count, up to four entities can take, blood, urine, and possibly DNA samples from riders at any time, anywhere in the world. Per WADA, all riders are under the jurisdiction of the anti-doping agency of the country where their license was issued. Depending on local laws, they might also be subject to testing by the anti-doping agency of a country where they’re racing, like how the AFLD tests all riders in the Tour de France. The UCI can test riders as part of the Biological Passport. Finally, several teams have internal testing programs, although some of those are being dropped.
They exist in completely different economic models. Boxing revenue comes primarily from spectators – who have indicated quite clearly that they’re not all that worried about doping. In cycling, revenue comes from sponsors, who have just as clearly indicated that they don’t want to be associated with doping.
Cycling and boxing couldn’t be more different. That’s why it’s a hypothetical question. On the other hand, cycling sponsors are always influenced by public opinion.
Also, I don’t think that sponsors in aggregate have taken a clear position on doping. For instance, Liquigas signed Ivan Basso even before his suspension was up. Obviously, no one *wants* to be associated with doping, but there are lots of sponsors who have continued to support their teams even after a doping scandal.
At the end of the day, all the sponsors really care about is not being embarrassed. If Manny tests positive, it puts a black eye on the event, the sport, and at least temporarily, the sponsors. Being inside the Olympic system forces something like proper drug testing, increasing the chances of an embarrassing situation for a sponsor. I’m sure if the genie could be put back in the bottle, corporate sponsors could care less whether or not there’s proper drug testing in cycling – in fact, I’m sure they would be pleased if there wasn’t, since it can only create embarrassment. But the genie can’t be put back in the bottle, so you get our current situation, where cycling (and athletics) push like hell for proper testing, and Manny Pacquiao gets to thumb his nose at transparency.
As an aside, if Festina had never happened, and the genie was still in the bottle, would Garmin-Transitions exist? Would Danny Pate still be a Euro-Pro?