Other doping myths busted

The Lance Armstrong story continues to regale.

The biggest myth that is busted is that a series of negative tests prove anything. (This shouldn't be controversial to anyone who follows doping. Marion Jones, Tyler Hamilton, etc. etc. all passed hundreds of tests before getting caught.)

Another myth in the doping circle is the "victimless crime". Of course there are losers. Apart from Armstrong, who now stands to lose both reputationally and financially, there is a long list of losers.

1. The international cycling union (UCI)

Basically been exposed as a fraud and shown to be unable to manage its own sport. It is highly embarrassing to have outsiders (US Anti-Doping Agency) do the work it should have been doing to keep the playing field level. The chairman apparently even blasted the cyclists for ratting out Armstrong (link).

2. Nike

It doesn't matter what Nike is now saying about being deceived. The fact remains that they have sullied their brand over so many years with what is now known to be one of the greatest frauds in sporting history. Given Nike's deep roots in sports, it is really hard to believe that they could have been so thoroughly deceived. Is it being deceived or is it self-deception?

3. Former teammates

If Armstrong loses his prize money, does this mean there will be clawbacks from his heavily doped teammates?

4. Former rivals

Interesting story on Bobby Julich, who used to be a bitter rival of Armstrong's, here. He and several others have now confessed to doping also, and have been forced to resign from coaching their current team. The confessed doper, Riis, is also a part of this story. Riis, if you've read Chapter 4, is another well-known cyclist who passed a large number of tests but later confessed to doping. More on Riis here.

5. Still clueless athletes

Not just the UCI head but other former athletes believed that Armstrong is the victim and those who confessed now are criminals. Their argument is that a doper who doesn't get caught is as good as not doping. Given the statistics of anti-doping, and especially if we are not willing to accept some false convictions, such an attitude makes any anti-doping program a joke. Contador, for example (link), who got caught cheating himself. Here's Joachim "regretting" that he "did not dope", and hailing Armstrong as "the winner". (link)

6. Fans of the sport

First, there were the hoards of people who believed Landis for a year or so until he finally confessed. If honesty is something of value, it's really hard to continue to watch this sport. More so than cheating, what is sadder about the situation is that every doper is a liar who lives the lie till the day he confesses, or he takes the lie to the grave.

***

Another myth also busted is "doping does not help". This excuse has always been suspect since there won't be any doping if dopers cannot enhance their performance. Now, people like Bobby Julich are confessing that the period in which they performed the best was precisely when they succumbed to doping.

Frankie Andreu also did his best work when he doped. (link) He quit the sport early, renounced doping, and was sidelined for many years while the sport lived in denial.

***

A whole series of interesting articles at VeloNews.

Comments

[Drug Test Friend]

Athlese use steroide to improve their performance, plain and simple. The pressure of competition can and often does drive athletes to resorting to taking unethical measures to win.

[David Rouse]

I'm assuming part of the problem is that current doping methods are very hard to test for and involve establishing baselines and looking at changes over time, and rigorous testing would involve false positives. Banning someone from a sport (or even just one race) seems disproportionate a penalty when you know there will be false positives.

Why not just do 100% testing before and after each stage and handicap times based on relative measurements between the competitors? That should discourage doping and also lower the damage of a false positive. It could also make the sport less about the human machine and more about skill.