The recent deaths of Marco Pantani and Jose Maria Jimenez, and the six other cyclists, I would like to get the views of the Forum regarding the UCI’s stewardship of our sport.
The UCI are the professional association which represents cycling.
It’s a confederation of each every country’s national cycling associations.
The UCI is responsible for setting the context within which our sport takes place.
The UCI set ethical and legal obligation for cyclists, managers, teams and sponsors to adhere to.
In light of the increase in fatalities within our sport – do you think that the UCI is doing a good job in administrating our sport ?
Do you believe that the UCI have done enough to tackle the question of performance enhancing drug abuse in cycling ?
Here’s my tuppence worth.
I do not believe that the UCI have done a competent, professional job in trying to
eradicate performance enhancing drug use in our sport.
I believe that the UCI has equivocated at every opportunity when this serious issue has come to light.
It is worth recalling that in 1998 when the Festina scandal broke, several prominent UCI members tried to claim that Festina was an isolated problem within the sport and that the sport was fundamentally honest and clean.
Cycle Sport September 1998, quote UCI President Hein Verbruggen as follows :
“This scandal (Festina) is an isolated incident. Our sport has done everything possible to eradicate the use of performance enhancing drugs.
We’re introducing health checks, where we can measure the haemocrit level of cyclists. We already have random, out of competition testing and I believe that the UCI and cycling has done more than any other sport to challenge what is
a growing problem throughout professional sport”.
It is worth noting that several such like statements were issued by the UCI.
The man at the center of the drugs scandal – soigneur ***** Voet – was vilified as being the sole orchestrator of the doping scheme when initial reports of the controversy broke.
Festina management attempted to distance themselves from what had been discovered in Voets car.
Subsequent to the Festina scandal, Festina management and cyclists were proven, in a court of law, to have been actively involved in, to have actively financed, to have actively procured, performance enhancing drugs for their cyclists.
They were proven guilty.
The issue of drug abuse unfortunately continued to blight our sport.
The Giro in 1999 was rocked when Italian police uncovered a truck transporting a consignment of performance enhancing drugs on the Greek/Italian border.
The high haemocrit level of Marco Pantani in 1999 Giro, suggested to the UCI at least, that Pantani had been using illegal substances to register such a high haemocrit reading.
We also had the unedifying scene where a Giro contender was found to have used illegal, not performance enhancing, drugs following a drug check.
Move the sequence along, to the TDF, and we have podium placed Lithuanian cyclist Rumsas.
His car was found to contain – in the UCI’s words – a veritable factory of performance enhancing substances, while being driven by his wife.
Rumsas defence was that these drugs were for his mother in law.
Next up there was the Cofidis crisis, and echoing the Festina scandal, Cofidis management immediately stated that there were only two or three riders involved
in this particular scandal and that Cofidis, as a team, were clean.
Look at the ongoing investigations in to Dr.Conconi in Italy.
Look at the other doctors being investigated also.
What is most serious of all is the growing list of cyclists dying at tragically young ages of variously, “cardio failure”, “dying in their sleep”, or “pulmonary complications”.
This issue is probably what is most worrying of all : cyclists have actually died.
We’re not talking about bans here – we’re talking about human lives having been extinguished through medical complications.
What is the cause of these medical complications ?
Would any other professional, competent international sporting body stand idly by while it’s participants die ?
Would any other sport, allow it’s ruling body to remain inert, in light of such deaths within their respective sports ?
Given the ongoing scandals since 1998, given it’s supposed duty of care to it’s members, do you not consider it chilling that our friends in Luscerne have chosen not to do nothing ?
Have the UCI become so dysfunctional, that they have chosen to ignore reality ?
I think that it is fair to say that under the UCI’s stewardship, the sport of cycling has had more than it’s fair share of drug abuse within it’s peleton.
To my knowledge, none of the recent drug scandals would have been uncovered but for the actions of the French and Italian police forces in detecting drug trafficking.
To my knowledge the UCI has not uncovered any drug scandal under it’s watch.
Should this be the case ?
In my opinion, I think that the UCI have not been proactive enough in trying to uncover drug abuse.
And even when a scandal has been uncovered by the civil authorities, the UCI have not been firm enough in penalizing the cyclists and management involved in those scandals.
Effectively, the Festina riders were allowed back to compete in the sport despite been proven guilty of drug abuse in a court of law, after a short UCI-imposed ban.
What message does this send out to the wider public ?
In recent times, cyclists have asked the media to accept that not all cyclists use drugs to compete in the sport of cycling.
Jean Cyrille Robin and Sylvian Chavanel have, in recent days, stated publicly that not all cyclists dope.
Christophe Bassons has also gone on record to state that cycling must get it’s house in order.
The landlord of this house is the UCI !
I contend that it is up to the UCI to show leadership on the issue of drugs in our sport.
The currency of cycling credibility is at an all time low – I heard the same type of statements being made back in July 1998 when the Festina scandal broke.
Has anything really changed in the past six years ?
Finally, within our sport, I think that it is important for the current generation of cyclist and those cyclists who have retired, to consider coming clean about the extent of their knowledge of drug abuse in our sport.
In the immediate aftermath of the Festina scandal, several ex-cyclists informed the media that cycling was being singled out unfairly.
Stephen Roche went on record saying that the media ought to look at other sports, as well as cycling.
He said that sports like Athletics was rampant with drug abuse.
This ostrich-like approach was echoed by Hinault who said that if cyclists trained harder and got fitter, they wouldn’t need to use drugs.
Instead of holding up their hands and admitting that there is a problem in our sport, the fact that two ex-cyclists steer this discussion to tangential issues is illuminating.
This lack of support from current and ex cyclists, in the face of this drugs war, doesn’t augur well for the UCI’s objectives in tackling this problem.
In fairness to Roche, the comparison with Athletics has gained credence.
If you consider the 100m finals in the 1988 Seoul, Ben Johnson was
immediately vilified as evil incarnate when his case was exposed.
But look at who came second and third behind Johnson – Carl Lewis and Linford Christie.
Both have had drug allegations put to them also.
Factor in the sudden death of Florence Griffith Joyner – and the parallels continue to gather.
But to point the finger at other sports, by way of a legitimate defence for what is happening in cycling, is not sufficient.
Performance times in athletics are getting quicker and quicker – just as in cycling.
However, unlike the UCI, the IAAF (International Amateur Athletic Federation)
have been seen to tackle the drugs issue head on.
Two year bans are imposed on athletes found to have cheated – coaches are barred from the sport where it’s proven that they’ve been culpable.
Roche and Hinault should be encouraging the UCI to take a similar stand, like the IAAF, when it comes to punishing those found to be using drugs.
One final point, I know when I’m out socially that when I tell someone that my
preferred sport is cycling, more often than not, the response is “well, all those guys are on drugs, aren’t they ?”
In my experience, this is how the wider world views our sport.
Perhaps, I was naïve to believe that the races I saw on my TV screen were real.
Perhaps, every sport is at it, as Stephen Roche contends.
If this is the case, then the UCI have no case to answer.
The UCI are the professional association which represents cycling.
It’s a confederation of each every country’s national cycling associations.
The UCI is responsible for setting the context within which our sport takes place.
The UCI set ethical and legal obligation for cyclists, managers, teams and sponsors to adhere to.
In light of the increase in fatalities within our sport – do you think that the UCI is doing a good job in administrating our sport ?
Do you believe that the UCI have done enough to tackle the question of performance enhancing drug abuse in cycling ?
Here’s my tuppence worth.
I do not believe that the UCI have done a competent, professional job in trying to
eradicate performance enhancing drug use in our sport.
I believe that the UCI has equivocated at every opportunity when this serious issue has come to light.
It is worth recalling that in 1998 when the Festina scandal broke, several prominent UCI members tried to claim that Festina was an isolated problem within the sport and that the sport was fundamentally honest and clean.
Cycle Sport September 1998, quote UCI President Hein Verbruggen as follows :
“This scandal (Festina) is an isolated incident. Our sport has done everything possible to eradicate the use of performance enhancing drugs.
We’re introducing health checks, where we can measure the haemocrit level of cyclists. We already have random, out of competition testing and I believe that the UCI and cycling has done more than any other sport to challenge what is
a growing problem throughout professional sport”.
It is worth noting that several such like statements were issued by the UCI.
The man at the center of the drugs scandal – soigneur ***** Voet – was vilified as being the sole orchestrator of the doping scheme when initial reports of the controversy broke.
Festina management attempted to distance themselves from what had been discovered in Voets car.
Subsequent to the Festina scandal, Festina management and cyclists were proven, in a court of law, to have been actively involved in, to have actively financed, to have actively procured, performance enhancing drugs for their cyclists.
They were proven guilty.
The issue of drug abuse unfortunately continued to blight our sport.
The Giro in 1999 was rocked when Italian police uncovered a truck transporting a consignment of performance enhancing drugs on the Greek/Italian border.
The high haemocrit level of Marco Pantani in 1999 Giro, suggested to the UCI at least, that Pantani had been using illegal substances to register such a high haemocrit reading.
We also had the unedifying scene where a Giro contender was found to have used illegal, not performance enhancing, drugs following a drug check.
Move the sequence along, to the TDF, and we have podium placed Lithuanian cyclist Rumsas.
His car was found to contain – in the UCI’s words – a veritable factory of performance enhancing substances, while being driven by his wife.
Rumsas defence was that these drugs were for his mother in law.
Next up there was the Cofidis crisis, and echoing the Festina scandal, Cofidis management immediately stated that there were only two or three riders involved
in this particular scandal and that Cofidis, as a team, were clean.
Look at the ongoing investigations in to Dr.Conconi in Italy.
Look at the other doctors being investigated also.
What is most serious of all is the growing list of cyclists dying at tragically young ages of variously, “cardio failure”, “dying in their sleep”, or “pulmonary complications”.
This issue is probably what is most worrying of all : cyclists have actually died.
We’re not talking about bans here – we’re talking about human lives having been extinguished through medical complications.
What is the cause of these medical complications ?
Would any other professional, competent international sporting body stand idly by while it’s participants die ?
Would any other sport, allow it’s ruling body to remain inert, in light of such deaths within their respective sports ?
Given the ongoing scandals since 1998, given it’s supposed duty of care to it’s members, do you not consider it chilling that our friends in Luscerne have chosen not to do nothing ?
Have the UCI become so dysfunctional, that they have chosen to ignore reality ?
I think that it is fair to say that under the UCI’s stewardship, the sport of cycling has had more than it’s fair share of drug abuse within it’s peleton.
To my knowledge, none of the recent drug scandals would have been uncovered but for the actions of the French and Italian police forces in detecting drug trafficking.
To my knowledge the UCI has not uncovered any drug scandal under it’s watch.
Should this be the case ?
In my opinion, I think that the UCI have not been proactive enough in trying to uncover drug abuse.
And even when a scandal has been uncovered by the civil authorities, the UCI have not been firm enough in penalizing the cyclists and management involved in those scandals.
Effectively, the Festina riders were allowed back to compete in the sport despite been proven guilty of drug abuse in a court of law, after a short UCI-imposed ban.
What message does this send out to the wider public ?
In recent times, cyclists have asked the media to accept that not all cyclists use drugs to compete in the sport of cycling.
Jean Cyrille Robin and Sylvian Chavanel have, in recent days, stated publicly that not all cyclists dope.
Christophe Bassons has also gone on record to state that cycling must get it’s house in order.
The landlord of this house is the UCI !
I contend that it is up to the UCI to show leadership on the issue of drugs in our sport.
The currency of cycling credibility is at an all time low – I heard the same type of statements being made back in July 1998 when the Festina scandal broke.
Has anything really changed in the past six years ?
Finally, within our sport, I think that it is important for the current generation of cyclist and those cyclists who have retired, to consider coming clean about the extent of their knowledge of drug abuse in our sport.
In the immediate aftermath of the Festina scandal, several ex-cyclists informed the media that cycling was being singled out unfairly.
Stephen Roche went on record saying that the media ought to look at other sports, as well as cycling.
He said that sports like Athletics was rampant with drug abuse.
This ostrich-like approach was echoed by Hinault who said that if cyclists trained harder and got fitter, they wouldn’t need to use drugs.
Instead of holding up their hands and admitting that there is a problem in our sport, the fact that two ex-cyclists steer this discussion to tangential issues is illuminating.
This lack of support from current and ex cyclists, in the face of this drugs war, doesn’t augur well for the UCI’s objectives in tackling this problem.
In fairness to Roche, the comparison with Athletics has gained credence.
If you consider the 100m finals in the 1988 Seoul, Ben Johnson was
immediately vilified as evil incarnate when his case was exposed.
But look at who came second and third behind Johnson – Carl Lewis and Linford Christie.
Both have had drug allegations put to them also.
Factor in the sudden death of Florence Griffith Joyner – and the parallels continue to gather.
But to point the finger at other sports, by way of a legitimate defence for what is happening in cycling, is not sufficient.
Performance times in athletics are getting quicker and quicker – just as in cycling.
However, unlike the UCI, the IAAF (International Amateur Athletic Federation)
have been seen to tackle the drugs issue head on.
Two year bans are imposed on athletes found to have cheated – coaches are barred from the sport where it’s proven that they’ve been culpable.
Roche and Hinault should be encouraging the UCI to take a similar stand, like the IAAF, when it comes to punishing those found to be using drugs.
One final point, I know when I’m out socially that when I tell someone that my
preferred sport is cycling, more often than not, the response is “well, all those guys are on drugs, aren’t they ?”
In my experience, this is how the wider world views our sport.
Perhaps, I was naïve to believe that the races I saw on my TV screen were real.
Perhaps, every sport is at it, as Stephen Roche contends.
If this is the case, then the UCI have no case to answer.
