The Doping Shadow.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/Outside the race, of course, there is plenty of uncertainty, and it revolves around the shadow of doping that continues to hover over the sport of cycling. When USADA announced their investigation into the doping conspiracy by Armstrong and five others only weeks before the Tour, it was inevitable that the story would permeate throughout the race around France.
And when a leaked story emerged on Thursday, alleging that four current Tour riders and Jonathan Vaughters had testified and were given suspended six-month bans, the reaction was swift. At first, USADA took a beating - how could the anti-doping body negotiate reduced sentences for dopers? How dare they suspend the sentences for some people, and offer some form of leniency in return for testimony?
Of course, doing this is morally acceptable, and it happens all the time, not only in sport, but in criminal investigations too. It's as it should be - if you don't incentivize the truth, nobody would ever tell it, especially when they are already in the belly of the beast, as it were. If cycling is to clean up its act, it requires that its riders, who are almost always part of the complex and intricate doping web (because honestly, who else can reveal how cheating happens if not a cheat?), come forward, and short of incentivizing this, it'll never happen.
But then the story was flatly denied, and the plot thickened. Much has been written about it since, but this is one of the best commentaries on the leak, what it means, and how one might react to it. It makes this observation:
"Regardless of where the leak fits into any broader legal or public relations strategy on the part of its U.S.-based source, it seems clear by its timing and its scope — not a full list of witnesses, only Tour de France participants — that it is intended to inflict maximum damage to the public image of the named parties.
As one of cycling’s few crossover successes, the Tour and its news reach the general public and the casual fan, and by timing the leak for the Tour’s first week, the source ensured that the names traveled beyond mere cycling circles, and that they would be perceived by the average news consumer as getting away with something by admitting doping and riding the Tour at the same time. By political standards, it was a shrewd move."
Those within cycling saw this news report, naming Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande velde, Vaughters and Zabriskie as witnesses, and reacted with little more than cursory acknowledgement. It's barely news, because the history of the case provides the context to know that they are likely to have spoken out. That was only fueled when the four riders withdrew from USA Olympic team selection, so most who follow cycling barely registered the names. To those outside, of course, it's different.
The problem, I guess, for Armstrong and his mighty PR machine, is that these men are more difficult to discredit than the previous witnesses, Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton. Both of them are known dopers, and they (gasp!) lied about doping after the fact. Eventually, they came clean, and when they named Armstrong, they could be attacked for being greedy, dishonest, ambitious, conniving etc.
The same is not true of "The Five". So what better strategy than to portray them as a) dopers, b) manipulative cheats who will tell USADA what they want to hear to save themselves, and c) getting away with it? It's the defense strategy in a crystal ball.
There was some confusion, however, because having initially positioned the PR message as one of "look at how USADA are victimizing me" and "don't believe them, they're cheats", Armstrong later tried to portray the five as victims too. He also worked himself into the awkward position of basically pointing out that everyone in his own team doped, before trying to argue that he, as the leader and most successful rider, didn't! So not only did all his major challengers dope, so did his domestiques, his helpers, but he did it clean. But that again is clear only to those who follow cycling outside of the Tour. The overall thrust of the leak and reaction was one of strategically placed "explosives" to undermine the case, and one can see now why USADA has tried to keep the names of all its witnesses confidential.
It's a mighty force to come up against.
As for the final question asked by this article, what do we make of the riders who testify, even when they implicate themselves as dopers in the past? Or are they the whistle-blowers whose testimony may help rid cycling, once and for all, of its affliction (I nearly said "cancer" there, then remembered Paul Kimmage...he is one of the real whistle-blowers, by the way, along with David Walsh, Simeone, Bassons, Betsey Andreu, Emma o'Reilly etc). The cynic in me says that much of this "truth" has emerged only because these men may have been faced with Federal investigators and the threat of perjury charges (you want an incentive to talk? That's a good one).
But I also think that they should be commended, because the bubble has to burst eventually, and who am I to second-guess the difficult choices made by men like these in a team sport where pressure is exerted to dope or "decay" (in a professional cycling sense)? Their job and future in the sport they loved was held hostage at needle-point, and that's not a choice I'd want to make. So as long as they may have lied, their truth now, however 'late', is worthy of praise.
If history records that their testimony opened the doors to a cleaner sport, then I'd be prepared to acknowledge their role. Whistleblowers? Perhaps not. But their contribution to cycling may go on to be far more than pulling fellow dopers up Alpine and Pyrenean mountain passes for hours.
Let's see how that unfolds. Until then, focs on the Tour, and the start of the mountains, a change in yellow and hopefully, some interesting power output numbers! Remember, if you want quick thoughts, and links, I'm doing what I can do get them out on our Twitter feed!
