Cycling: The Laughingstock of Sport

The highly competitive world of professional cycling has been tainted by the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs. The cheating and lying have reduced the sport to the point of being a joke, sponsors are dropping teams, and fans are becoming less interested. The doping scandals can be resolved if the sponsors, teams, and riders take responsibility for past actions and become more vigilant at protecting the sport in the future.

Professional cycling teams are a tight unit; they have goals and strategies to increase their rank in the pro tour. The goal is to win races and become the dominant team with the best riders, and the strategies they use to achieve their goals are very complex. One strategy is to use banned substances to increase a rider’s strength and stamina. This method had worked quite well until,

Finally, in 1998, humble customs officers succeeded in busting the sport where its governing body had failed: the Festina team soigneur was picked up on the French-Belgian border with a carload of EPO and other banned substances days before the start of the Tour. (Seaton and Adam par. 9)

The busted soigneur, Willy Voet, came clean and exposed the truth about doping and cycling in his 2001 book, Breaking the Chain. Voet, as a soigneur (masseuse), was very close to all team members and he was trusted with testing and administering different drugs. Voet gives an account of this. He says, “Amphetamines injected into the arm or the stomach, corticoids, steroids, anabolic agents, even testosterone injected into the buttock muscles. Daily rituals, nothing out of the ordinary.” (40) Teams were testing different substances on different riders and even putting up the money for the cost of the dope. Voet says, “It was decided that at the end of the season the cost of what [dope] each rider had consumed would be set against his bonuses and race winnings.” (93) The team was involved completely they provided the doctors they educated the riders, and put up the money. Teams have been operating like this for decades and will continue to for as long as they can.

The sponsors have always claimed innocence when teams have been caught for doping. They will either withdraw their sponsorship or demand drastic changes in the team. They are more concerned about the cost of advertising and increasing revenue. This is made clear when Phonak chief, Andy Rihs says, “I am glad that there is so much talk about doping in cycling, because it deters big corporations. If they would invest in cycling I wouldn’t be able to afford it anymore” (Moll par. 9). He then says, “We all know the Festina story. The company had its best revenue ever in 1998” (par. 13). Doping does not deter sponsors; they see it as a weakness in the sport that can be exploited. Rihs says, “In terms of cost and effect, cycling is the best marketing tool you can find” (Moll par. 9). Increased pressure on teams and riders and a lack of defined morals creates reasons and excuses for the use of banned substances. The sport is just a marketing tool for sponsors; they refuse to take responsibility for their role as an enabler and now they are starting to feel the effects. A study of trends from IFM, “a sports research company based in Germany that measures sponsorship impact, calculates that cycling has plunged as a marketing investment since the start of the 2007 season in March” (Caravajal par. 12). IFM has found a drop in total live audiences and also a drop in live television coverage (par. 13-15). “That drop depressed the worth of cycling sponsorships,” (par. 14) forcing major sponsors to separate from pro tour teams. There is now a chance to make some changes, build new relationships, and start over.

Riders have a long history of using stimulants and performance enhancing drugs. From wine to EPO, cyclists have been willing to try everything and anything. Even “the great Italian “campionissimo”, Fausto Coppi, was once asked if he used speed. “Only when I have to,” he replied. And how often is that, persisted the interviewer. “Almost all the time.”” (Seaton and Adam par. 20). The life of a professional cyclist is incredibly hard, the pressure builds to perform, and many riders will turn to doping. In the past, riders would sign over medical responsibility to the team they were riding for and the team doctor would tell them what to take and when to take it, but now riders will use personal doctors and seek advice outside of their teams. Riders have always kept quiet, and “a mafia-like code of silence among pros was the more common response to dope busts. But after the 1998 scandal over EPO, the culture of concealment was severely dented” (Seaton and Adam par. 23) and now we see more riders coming clean about their involvement in doping. This is an important process in dealing with the problem.

The 2007 Tour de France was “the most scandal-scarred Tour ever. In one 36-hour period, three riders (including the race leader) and two teams were cast out of the race” (Murphy par. 2). This was not a good sign for cycling, which is now considered a “laughingstock of a sport” (Par. 7). But we are starting to see changes; there is “a new American squad best known for [its] comprehensive, cutting-edge anti-doping program in which team members are tested weekly by an independent agency” (Murphy par. 4). If more teams start testing riders, you will certainly see a change in cycling and if the sponsors and teams can agree to be more responsible, and better moral leaders, then the riders will be less likely to use dope, and maybe the sport can survive the tough changes necessary for it to become dope free.