The knowing look comes first, then a glimmer of a smirk, before the question is stuttered out. “Do you think, you know, that he’s doping?” a new acquaintance might ask, or “how clean actually are they? Do you know anything?”
It is inevitable. It feels like one of the first things anyone wants to ask me as soon as they find out I write about cycling, specifically pro cycling, for a living. It’s right there in the public consciousness, from die-hard fans, to people who might be able to name Bradley Wiggins at a push.
People of my generation – I am 30 – might recall the yellow Livestrong wristbands, the rise and fall of Lance Armstrong, before being able to name any Tour de France winner since Wiggins, or a female cyclist at all. Doping is the first thing that comes to mind.
News editor at Cycling Weekly, Adam brings his weekly opinion on the goings on at the upper echelons of our sport. This piece is part of The Leadout, a newsletter series from Cycling Weekly and Cyclingnews. To get this in your inbox, subscribe here. As ever, email adam.becket@futurenet.com – should you wish to add anything, or suggest a topic.
Why bring this up now? Last weekend, in an interview with the Irish Mirror, EF Education-EasyPost’s Ben Healy was asked about doping, predictably. He responded: “In any sport I think it’s impossible to go, ‘Oh yeah, the sport is 100% clean’. That’s not to take away from anything that the sport and the governing bodies are doing to try and keep it clean and catch people out.
“Look at Oier Lazkano [Lazkano is provisionally suspended by the UCI over ‘unexplained abnormalities’ in his biological passport, although he protests his innocence], everyone’s being tested thoroughly and pretty often, to be honest, potentially even more than other sports.”
There are reasons for the inextricable link with doping, of course. Cycling, like a lot of athletics and swimming, is a sport where there is more of a guaranteed outcome were an athlete to dope. As an endurance activity, being able to go faster or harder for longer will mean better results, rather than more skill-based pursuits like football or cricket.
While it does seem a little unfair that cycling remains singled out, constantly asked to justify its innocence, that is just the reality. This is unlikely to change quickly, or perhaps ever. The dark period in professional cycling of the 90s and 00s mean that there is a general perception of malpractice, that our sport’s reputation has been tainted forever. Other sports seem to be more able to bounce back.
The frustrating thing, for someone who wants cycling to flourish, is that there are still high-profile doping cases, and a lingering suspicion that teams or riders might be pushing the rules to their absolute limit. Cycling isn’t alone in this, though, it’s just more under the microscope, from inside and outside.
There is a tendency among some (fans and the media) to always assume the worst, to hunt for the smoking gun, or to read a lot into performance data, which is a negative, both for the image of cycling and for the enjoyment of the sport. There are things to be negative about, though, and it would help if we could trust the system works.
Just last month, anti-doping group the Movement for a Credible Cycling (MPCC) appealed to cycling’s governing body to take action against the “medicalisation” of the sport. It also called on the UCI to work to stop the “expansion of the so-called grey area[s]”. This would be very welcome; it is telling that the overwhelming majority of pro teams aren’t part of the organisation, which brings with it stricter rules around medication and recovery aids.
Racing is getting faster, but this is not the damning piece of evidence which some think it is. As Healy pointed out: “I think the biggest thing to attribute to why racing is so fast now – look at the equipment that we’re using now to even when I was racing first year at under-23, which is only five years ago.
“The bikes are night and day different almost, that’s the first thing. And then just the way that we’re racing now.”
That this explanation does not work for many, or satiate their need for a murkier explanation, is cycling’s cross to bear. Governing bodies, teams and riders should all be more transparent in order to allay fears that there is still large-scale doping across the sport. The UCI is quieter these days about its testing regime, now it no longer has to be seen busting down doors constantly, but some better PR could help.
We should be worried that people are using substances that anti-doping authorities can’t even test for, or that grey areas are being pushed too far. Trust is lacking, and should be the priority for key stakeholders in our sport. However, worry shouldn’t cross into hysteria. It is near impossible to guarantee a completely clean world, and recent anti-doping cases should give confidence that cheats are being caught, and the truth will out.
My answer when I’m asked those questions, by the way, is simple. I don’t know if X is clean, or if there is widespread doping. I don’t know anymore than you. I doubt that there is an organised system, like there was 20 years ago, or that we are all being completely hoodwinked, but nor am I naive to the possibility of doping going on. One thing I can promise, though, is that there is no silence, no ignorance.
This piece is part of The Leadout, the offering of newsletters from Cycling Weekly and Cyclingnews. To get this in your inbox, subscribe here.
If you want to get in touch with Adam, email adam.becket@futurenet.com.
