It's Not About The Truth

Recently there’s been a great deal of press and turmoil regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports – cycling in particular. A couple of year’s ago a journalist by the name of David Walsh wrote a book called LA Confidential. A book purportedly about Lance Armstrong’s alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. That book was never translated into English – and I don’t read French, so I never got to read the material first hand. Lance Armstrong has been fighting a number of allegations ever since his 1999 TDF victory. Coyle does a good job addressing some of this in “Lance Armstrong’s War.”

Last year Floyd Landis won the TDF – well, kind of. He won, but was later accused of failing a drug test for testosterone. David Walsh now had a much more willing market for his accusations, and released the book “From Lance to Floyd”. I will tell you right now, that I have some issues with Walsh’s writing style, his bias’ and his documentation of his accusations. On the positive side – he does use good punctuation. – oh, and he tells some interesting stories. But, more on all of that later.

My intent as I began reading this book was to offer my opinion on just this book. However, at the same time, I began reading Floyd Landis’ book, “Positively False” – it was an interesting weekend of reading! In order to really understand what both of these writers are saying about doping in cycling, I felt like it was necessary to start earlier, and cover a little wider subject matter. My intent here is not to be documenting everything I say. To put it simply, I don’t have the time to go back and find all of the specific references to what I’m saying. I hope I can provide enough information that the reader can check it out himself with a quick google search. I’m writing most of this “off the cuff”.

The first issue to determine is to decide what constitutes doping. David Walsh deals with this issue – kind of. He takes a very puritanical view. Here’s the two extremes as I see it.

First is the position of Dr. Michelle Ferrari (a much-vilified sports doctor. His story is fascinating, and if you ever get a chance to read it you’ll learn a great deal about endurance sports in general and the medical science that has grown around it.) Dr. Ferrari came out publicly and said that basically, if it wasn’t specifically illegal, or couldn’t be tested for, that it was legal. He said this in relation to rEPO. At the time rEPO could not be tested for.

On the other extreme sits Walsh claiming that there is a moral ground, and that anything that enhances performance artificially should be against the rules.

The problem with this position is this: what about B12 shots? It’s a vitamin, it’s something that’s been proven to increase performace, it is NOT illegal, and it used commonly at virtually every level of sport. Yet, you could not eat enough, or even take enough pills of B12 to do any good. Definitely not a “natural” process, as you have to take a shot to make it effective – but it’s not dangerous (the body will just eliminate any excess.)

What about sleeping in an altitude tent? The UCI has made some noise about banning that – so what about going to live and train in Colorado (at altitude)?

The question is not as clear-cut as some would want us to believe. I take the position somewhere in the middle. I’m not in favor of the use of drugs such as rEPO, but I have no problem with a guy sleeping in an altitude tent. I have no problem with guys in the tour hooking themselves up to IV’s to rehydrate, but am strongly opposed to blending in some chemicals with it. I have no problems with B12 shots, but would be opposed to amphetamines.

But do I have the right to impose my moral values as to what’s right / wrong on others? In simple terms, I believe we have to have an organization that will make the determination as to what is legal and what is not. Anything within those rules is allowed. So, in some sense, I fall on Dr. Ferrari’s side (with the exception of the ability to test for it. If it’s illegal to use it, then morally, it doesn’t matter whether you get caught or not.)

Okay, there’s my position.

When I first started reading Walsh’s book I sat-down with a highlighter and pen to make notes as I went along. I eventually gave up. I will try and summarize my general impressions along with a few specific examples.

Walsh makes some very good points occasionally, and even backs some of them up with what I would describe as compelling testimony – but then doesn’t tell the other side of the story. He conveniently either completely forgets to tell the other side, or makes a very concerted effort to minimize it. Unless the reader was already familiar with the details of the situation, you’d have a difficult time getting an accurate picture.

As an example: The testimony of Betty Andreau. (and, to some extent, Frankie) Simply put, the story goes like this:

Lance Armstrong is in hospital being treated for his cancer. Lance and 5 or 6 of his friends are in a room together when 2 doctors walk in. Betty was going to leave, but Lance said to stay. During that conversation Betty alleges that the doctors asked Lance if he’d ever used performance enhancing drugs and Lance admitted to using rEPO, steroids, etc. (she names them all specifically.) Frankie backs up some of this story. However, there is NO RECORD of it in the medical reports. I’ve yet to meet a doctor who didn’t record stuff like that. The other people in the room give conflicting reports of what was said. There are plausible explanations on record in court (this whole incident became very public after a lawsuit that Lance eventually won – but that’s another story.)

I, personally, believe that Lance used rEPO and other performance enhancing products. The most damning evidence against Lance, in my opinion, is not cloak and dagger stuff – it’s that the explanations for his change in performance between pre-cancer and post-cancer do not meet scrutiny. Things like the claimed 20lb weight loss. While his body composition definitely changed, you can see that in pictures, his actual weight, as recorded, fluctuated just 2 lbs.

In the case of Lance, there’s a really obvious point that Walsh makes in regards to his testing – none of the testing Lance took showed his cancer. It should have. There’s only a couple of explanations for it not: 1) Lance was doping and was using masking agents to hide that – and those agents also masked the fact that he had cancer. Or 2) The tests are deeply flawed. Walsh actually does a pretty good job explaining this issue.

Another indicator of drug use: look at the average speeds for the tour – they took a huge jump in one year, and have remained high. Interestingly, this year, when I suspect everybody’s scared to be using anything, the average speeds have come way down. There are days that are actual recovery days.

My issue with Walsh is that his view is tainted, and he doesn’t seem to want to tell the whole story. My assumption is that he believes that Lance and all the other athletes have had plenty of opportunity to get their side of the story out and his objective is to tell the other side. All fine and well, but that’s not how he portrays the book – he portrays it as the complete story. It’s not.

I really did enjoy some of the behind the scenes peekes that he gives us into professional cycling. That, specifically, was one of the really interesting things I found in Floyd’s book, as well.

Flipping over to Floyd’s book for a minute: I particularly enjoyed his inside look at the way US Postal worked, and the reasons why he left. I’d always wondered about that. Things like not being given a TT bike to practice on, etc. really emphasized that US Postal really was ALL ABOUT LANCE. I understand much better why he left, and can honestly say I’d have left, too. In Walsh’s book he makes a pretty strong accusation of Floyd’s blood doping – but then the only evidence he supplies is a IM transcript. Admittedly, it’s an interesting read, but is only a conversation between two riders discussing a rumour they heard and not disclosing the sources of that rumour. (Read some more on that at http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2006/interviews/?id=jonathan_vaughters06

I appreciated Floyd’s candor on what he got paid, and the other details of professional cycling that we’ve never really heard. Even Michael Barry’s “Inside the Postal Bus” never came close to revealing the kinds of details that Floyd does.

My conclusion on Walsh’s book – he’s done a lot of work researching it, but many of his witnesses are of questionable believability. Lots of innuendo, but not enough documentation. Too often he leads with “undisclosed sources” or such things. That’s not good enough. A reader not familiar with the background and details of doping in cycling would definitely be persuaded that all cyclists are doping. I don’t believe all are doing it, but I do believe it has been rampant in the pro peleton’s. Walsh’s book isn’t so much about tracking down the truth as it of getting his story out and slapping Lance back. He quotes his own writing a fair bit. (You’ll read comments like, “one of the author’s of LA Confidential said…”)

What can be done to clean up cycling? My thoughts are pretty clear on this, and on the surface it seems pretty easy, but the politics and money of cycling will make it very difficult.

1) The UCI must become a CYCLISTS union. It must be there for the cyclists. In his book Positively False Floyd talks about the politics of even getting pay he was owed. This organization must put the riders interests first.

2) WADA must become a standardizing organization. They must be absolutely strict in the enforcement of their rules – including those about confidentiality. They must establish firm standards as to what constitutes a positive test that is observed across the board by all WADA approved labs, and they must eliminate the stupid rules from within the organisation like not allowing WADA employees or WADA approved lab employees to testify on behalf of an athlete. Virtually all of the experts work either directly or indirectly for WADA, so if they’re not allowed to testify… you can see where this is going. This is the organization I referred to earlier that must make the determination as to what constitutes doping. It must be fair, it must be transparent.

3) Teams must be made more responsible. The recent signings of the athletes and the demand that trainers / coaches sign a contract guaranteeing that they won’t be involved in doping, and if they are, will forfeit a year’s salary, is a step in the right direction. It is useless if WADA doesn’t become an organization the athletes can trust – and I would suggest that WADA and the UCI should be signing a similar agreement.

4) In-house testing. Doping will always be ahead of the testers. That’s the nature of it. The only way to get ahead of the dopers is to be developing physiological profiles. Deviations from those profiles would indicate something is going on – that means either a new, legitimate response to new training, or doping. Programs similar to what Team Slipstream, T-mobile, and Credit Agricole are running go a long ways in this direction. I’d like to see these kinds of testing programs institutionalized and run by the UCI (the RIDERS union.)

Some have indicated that we should just let them do whatever they want. My problem with this is two-fold.

1) When an athlete does something incredible, for a moment he lifts every person watching it just a little higher. In the movie “Vision Quest” there’s a scene where Lowler is talking with his friend and he explains this very concept so well. When that inspirational feat is tainted by being accomplished by the use of drugs, it negates that lifting-up. Floyd’s stage 17 is a case in point. What a gutsy, inspirational move. But if he did it because of the use of drugs, how does that lift me?
2) The most important thing to me – my kids are looking up to some of these athletes and while I don’t expect them to be the moral compass of my kids lives – how can they dream of accomplishing great things when all they see is guys accomplishing great things by using drugs.

I do believe that most of the amazing cycling performances for the past 10 years have been tainted in one way or another. I still find them great to watch, I just watch them without that “wow, did you see that” factor. I don’t believe Floyd used drugs specifically in stage 17, but I do believe he has used. In fact, I’m convinced of it. Just as I’m convinced that Lance didn’t do it all on his own.

The recent press and investigations is not about searching for the truth. It’s about selling newspapers, books, and protecting individual positions that some leaders of organizations have taken. The Dick Pound’s of the world are not about helping to clean up sport – they’re all about reading their name in tomorrow’s papers. For a good look at the bias’ that sports reporters have had on this issue, I refer you to http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2007/06/looking-for-the.html

That’s it – for now. I will probably update and add, edit this entry over the next few months. I will try to document the additions and edits. I just want to use this as an ongoing research paper. I welcome any questions or critiques.

EDIT: Wow, that didn't take long! One of the stories in Walsh's book that seemed very tabloidish to me was the story of a pro cyclist who had asked a friend to transport some shoes over to Italy for him - while packing the friend opened the box and found blood products. He dumped them out, and confronted the cyclist in Italy. Big blow up. In the book - NO names. Then, today, the names get released ... and the cyclist is Rasmussen! Wow. Details of the story can be found at http://www.velonews.com/tour2007/news/articles/12851.0.html