March 5, 2004
VeloNews : Dave Tingley's response to Geneviève Jeanson's licensure with USAC (see "An insult to the sport" in Wednesday's mail bag) is reckless and needs to be rebuked.
According to Mr. Tingley, the issuance of racing licenses by USAC should be declined under the following nebulous criteria that could never be codified into fair rules: (1) If the allegations against a cyclist are a "slap in the face" to the sport, whatever that means; (2) If the rider is surrounded by "controversy," whatever that means; and (3) Only if the rider "can prove" why certain unproven allegations aren't true (as opposed to testing positive for a banned substance).
Mr. Tingley - you are much closer to Cuba than your Panama City, Florida, address indicates.
Except for Mr. Tingley, most people know that Jeanson never had a "positive test" at any time in her career. Mr. Tingley inappropriately links an elevated hematocrit with a "positive test" for "doping." At best, that's a tabloid understanding of the issue.
Jeanson has openly stated the reason for her elevated hematocrit at world's was due to the use of an altitude-simulation system. That explanation is both definitive and credible. Consequently, there are no unresolved issues, no positive tests, no nothin.'
You and the director of the Quebec federation, Louis Barbeau, need to stop watching Richard Simmons videos and start paying attention to reality.
Phil Marques
Medford, New Jersey
VeloNews:
It seems to me that the issue involving Geneviève Jeanson's license is yet another reiteration of a (sadly) long running discussion about doping within the not only the sport of cycling but sports in general. There are many problems with the way it is being handled, and though I know that I am opening myself up to a flurry of ridicule and condemnation I feel that perhaps I ought to weigh in on the subject, if for no other reason than get my own opinion off of my chest.
When speaking of hematocrit levels, we all know that there are a number of things that can contribute to a high hematocrit level, with dehydration and the effects of altitude or altitude simulation being the most obvious. Though it is generally accepted that these are weak arguments, they are still valid. Without more watertight proof of doping than a hematocrit level exceeding the limits, then all the finger-pointing in the world is really just tantamount to accusing someone of doping because they have turned in the performance of their life, without having set the precedent for doing so previously. Indeed, in some circles, this is proof enough and will certainly get the rumor mill churning.
I for one will acknowledge that it rightfully raises a few eyebrows in certain instances. Remember Raimondas Rumsas' TdF performance prior to his wife's run-in with the authorities? I recall more than a few murmurs. What it comes down to is whether there is proof. If not, get over it. There is nothing you can do about it, it won't stop until there is, and the constant badgering will only scare off fans, sponsors, and promoters.
Furthermore, perhaps it is time to discern between professional and amateur athletics. I strongly believe that amateur athletes should be strictly monitored early in their careers for doping and even overtraining. You only have one body, and young minds can sometimes forget this when the desire to excel overpowers their narrow perspective.
However, professional athletics is another story. Do I believe that doping is an example of good sportsmanship, or for that matter a wise decision? No. But I know that it happens and that it will continue. I also feel that it would be safer if it were being undertaken carefully, in a supervised manner, and with certain controls in place. Sure, we've all heard stories of the organized doping programs undertaken by everyone from the '98 Festina team to the Finnish XC team in Lahti, but for every one of those, there are a dozen neo-pros engaging in dangerous, unsupervised doping, often encouraged by unscrupulous peers, sporting directors and others.
In addition, there is the valid argument surrounding the use of oxygen tents. Where do we draw the line? Which performance-enhancing supplements go too far? Why are certain substances okay in one sport but not another, or permissible out of competition but not in? With the amount of money involved in the sport of cycling, anyone who thinks it isn't a cold, hard, unforgiving business needs to think again. And anyone who longs for the "clean" days of yester-year needs to read about Tom Simpson.
For you and me, cycling is a sport. For many of these folks it is their only shot at making something out of themselves. "Judge not lest ye be judged" may be a fitting cliché here. I am certainly not in their shoes, and though I'd like to think that I'd behave differently if given the chance, if my job, and the safety and comfort of my family were on the line, I may just be inclined to do whatever I had to do to take care of those around me.
I do feel for the clean athletes out there. It is not fair for them. But people will continue to make the choices they have to in order to achieve what they feel they must. These people aren't heroes, they are simply athletes. In some instances they are entertainers. It is one thing to be in awe of what they can do on their bicycles. It is another entirely to allow the harsh realities of how this is attained tarnish the true sport of cycling.
Professional athletes are not, nor should they be, role models for you or your children. That is your job. For the time being keep dreaming of a clean sport, keep watching your favorite athlete perform at the top of their game, stop second-guessing everything you see, and most importantly, go ride your bike.
Shane Blay
Fort Collins, Colorado
D'autres réactions sur le FORUM de The Candian Cyclist
page mise en ligne le 5 mars 2004 par SVP
