Thursday, November 13th, 2008
UCI studies declare anti-doping “a race without end”
In 2006, the UCI commissioned two studies “to provide a better understanding of the different aspects of doping: the roots, methods, mechanisms and practices.” One was a qualitative study by a French consultancy, AlteRHego; the other was more quantitative (although the size of the data set is not disclosed) by Professor Xavier Sturbois of the University of Louvain.
Apparently there’s a more detailed report that will only be made available to national federations but the summaries that they’ve made available here consist of mainly of vagaries and truisms. To paraphrase both: “There are many causes of doping, so a multi-faceted strategy is needed.”
That said, the reports contain some interesting bits. Perhaps most importantly, both conclude that the current anti-doping strategy is focused too heavily on enforcement and not enough on prevention:
“A programme of governance to deal with the phenomenon of doping in the sport of cycling must be humanistic, deploying a combination of repression, education and training on an equal footing” - Sturbois study
“Any policy aimed at preventing doping therefore implies strengthening the key motivations of cyclists, which revolve around stimulation- enjoyment and mastery of the activity, whatever the discipline practised.” - AlteRHego study
In other words, we should start thinking a lot more about how to make pro cycling a rewarding personal experience for the 179 guys that don’t win the Tour. I suppose that means creating a culture that places less emphasis on winning. However, neither study shows much confidence that such an atmospheric change is possible and both take as a foregone conclusion that the fight against doping is ultimately not winnable.
“Doping is a social aberration and could only be defeated if all other social aberrations were to disappear –which is an illusory proposition” - Sturbois
“… a realignment is in fact necessary to emerge from what could become “a race without end”: this means accepting that a world without doping or cheating will never exist, but acknowledging that it is possible to limit these phenomena”- AlteRHego
Ultimately, what they’re saying is that the best we can hope for is that cycling’s stakeholders won’t be lying when they tell us that the sport is doing everything it can to fight doping. Seeing as the UCI paid for this study in the first place, what does that say about what we’ve been told up to this point? Personally, I’m willing to believe that the UCI, ASO, WADA, AFLD et al. are giving close to their best efforts at testing and suspending even if much of that effort is devoted to infighting. However, we’ve seen nothing yet like the prevention strategies that both studies recommend.
(here’s a column I wrote for ROAD in early 2007 with a similar thesis)
