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)

Starting with some pointed questions at Lance’s Interbike press conference and continuing in an interview with Cyclingnews, Greg Lemond has been touting an anti-doping plan that would return a positive test when a rider’s power output exceeds what his VO2 max indicates as possible for him or her.

It’s more of a concept than a detailed proposal, but it seems to be based on the idea that power output can be manipulated by doping while VO2 max cannot. Although the logic behind the Lemond plan is sound, implementing it would ask as many questions as it answers.

What if WADA and AFLD can’t agree on an exact number for the ratio of power to VO2 max that separates clean from dirty? I can’t envision either one of those organizations giving in to the other, but a compromise would mean that politics are adjusting the science. If they each run their programs with a different set of numbers, then there’s the possibility that a rider could be considered clean by one agency and dirty by another. Although the recent UCI-ASO peace treaty gives the UCI drug testing authority of the Historic Calendar, the AFLD still has legal authority to test anyone competing on French soil. It’s a controversy waiting to happen.

And when do we raise the threshold, and by how much? Fans in any sport always think that their era’s athletes are the best, but every sport gets more competitive when training evolves, equipment improves, and the talent pool grows. All of those things are happening in cycling, so we can’t have a system that doesn’t allow for tomorrow’s clean athletes to be better than today’s. But it’s impossible to know when that leap forward happens except in hindsight, which means that some riders will have to be wrongly punished in order to keep the system up to date. “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette” is not a good basis for a system that’s supposed to ensure fairness.

I’m at the PSFK conference right now, dealing with the fallout from the Ricco positive as relates The Road Diaries. It’s interesting to be part of the internal debates but mostly it’s a shitty situation for everyone involved.

We’ve decided to leave the posts related to Ricco and Saunier Duval-Scott up on the site, except for a couple that were deleted before we reached that decision. Especially at a moment like this one, it’s important to be open and transparent, and not try to pretend that the stage wins didn’t happen or that we weren’t excited about them. We were thrilled, and that’s part of why this is so angering, disappointing, and frustrating.

(post edited a bit when i got home from the conference)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport announced earlier today that it will uphold USADA’s suspension of Floyd Landis, whose website is currently down. That was Floyd’s last chance to be exonerated through the global sporting establishment, although it is possible that he’ll continue through civil court.

I’ve never been able to commit to a position on Floyd’s guilt or innocence. Both are plausible scenarios and there are arguments to support each one. But from the early going, it was clear that his innovative defense strategy would have a far-reaching affect on anti-doping hierarchy. By opening the Malibu hearing to the public and though the inaptly named “Wikipedia Defense“, Floyd drew back the curtain on a previously opaque system and exposed it as sloppy, arbitrary, and vindictive. He fought back through the media, particularly online social media, and almost pulled it off.

Regardless of whether he doped, Floyd sent a message any bureaucracy would be wise to heed:

If you don’t show people what you’re doing, someone else will show them for you.

As always, Trust But Verify has the best Floyd coverage.

Enrico Gasparotto (Barloword), Jens Voigt (CSC) David Millar (Slipstream), and presumably other riders were pretty adamant that yesterday’s uphill time trial at the Giro d’Italia, which featured over 5km of dirt roads and grades up to 24%, was too difficult. “Impossible”, said Gasparotto.

But, clearly, the stage was possible. Only 6 riders out 152 missed the time cut, and Gasparotto himself beat over 60 of them. The race director’s response was, “I think that we need spectacular shows in cycling to pull ourselves out of this mediocrities. Without something spectacular it would be normal, and this is something is extra.”

In a sense, he’s saying that it’s not enough just to run a clean sport. He’s right. You also need to put on a show that people want to watch, and this was a great show. Good for the Giro for pulling it off. To be fair, though, most of the complaints were not unreasonable and largely about the toll of consecutive mountain stages and long transfers.

Here’s an idea: let riders drop out of stages without dropping out of the race. Each rider could get an allottment of, say, 200km of the 3,323km total that they don’t have to ride. So you could do the first 32km of Stage 6 then hop in the team car, but you’d have to finish every other stage. Or you could skip the last 40km of 5 different stages. To keep it fair, there would be big time penalties for kilometers skipped, you still have to start every day, and you can’t skip a time trial.

I think it’s a realistic idea that would benefit the majority of the riders without asking the race organizer to water-down the event. What do you think?

via Cyclingnews