CHEATERS 2

different sports / different rules

Although originally written and posted as a Sermon this essay never made it into POISON, a decision I recall making because it was too specific to cycling, too much screed, not enough neutrality. I have a series of pieces about the topic, some supporting each other, but I’m not yet sure how to release them — certainly not all at once. I do know that an essay titled, “PEDs and Hypocrisy” will be up next in this series.

Today's post begins with a reading assignment. Please read the CHEATERS essay here to put the following entry in context. After the original writing and posting (2011-ish) the whole Armstrong scandal happened and in light of those developments I should have rewritten the closing sentence of the article:

"It is why we must expose and oppose them whenever it is possible — even those who turn state's evidence. If they are guilty and admit it they should hang with the accused."

The whole saga is fascinating, especially in light of the fact that only two of the top five riders in the Tour de France every year from 1999 to 2005 were NEVER linked to doping in some way. It's shocking but not surprising, and, in my opinion, seals the argument that, in that era, the playing field was level. Some guys had good doctors, tactics and masking agents. Others didn't. A lot of money was at stake. Shit happened. That the top riders (and some of their domestiques) were all doping does not make it OK. Far from it. But dragging the lake for old evidence using modern testing means and plea deals as witness bait doesn't do much to "clean up" the sport. For me, testing the A Sample at the time is the referee's call. The B Sample is the play review. Once it's decided in that moment, it's over. The ruling is made. Play resumes. If the drive to clean up sport is strong I say draw a line on X date, then from that day test the fuck out of everyone, and impose draconian penalties: lifetime ban, repayment of salaries and prize money, shut down the team and ban its owner organization … we would see some compliance then.

If that's actually what we want.

I realize that very few people give a shit about the sport of road cycling but allow me to broaden the scope of the argument. We participate in and watch sport for a variety of reasons. Some get into sport because they recognize it as a means of resolving Inner Conflict, a path to self-discovery. Others play because it's fun, and maybe even healthy. And when it comes to watching sports, what do we seek? To be entertained? Or inspired? To watch conflict resolution governed by sporting rules, the elements of combat refined by societal norms?

I started climbing as a means of self-discovery and definition. Doing it as long as I did, at the level where I played forever changed me and made me who I am. The work was hard, and my ambition was great enough that the objectives I chose pushed me to the limit of my physical and psychological resources. That's where I learned my truth. The stakes were high and over 60 of my friends and climbing partners died proving it. That danger imposed beliefs and behavior. It enforced commitment. Knowing the potential price for a lack of conditioning or preparation or sensitivity could be my own or another's death kept me motivated to train and learn, to research and rehearse. Conflict was both within and without and not exactly resolved by success. Climbing is a magnificent, all-consuming sport to do but a fucking bore to watch because, lacking access to the internal conflict, all that remains is the environment, and movements that evolve as quickly as paint dries. As sport, it is as rich to its participants as it is inaccessible to its spectators.

When it comes to watching bike racing I want to see great battles, intelligent tactics, and put-the-knife-in-and-twist attacks that demoralize followed by counter-attacks that destroy. I want to watch day-after-day deterioration and economic use of remaining reserves. I want to see racers pushed to the absolute limit of their physical and psychological resources. I want to see one rider on the brink of collapse stand tall and fight back and I want to see others go until they collapse. I want to see perfectly-timed explosive aggression by one leave the pretenders gasping in his wake. I want to see a rider set a pace so punishingly fast that even those in his draft are forced off his wheel. And, just like climbing, I want to watch it unfold on staggeringly beautiful mountains, on country roads, on terrain where the history of the sport has been both dictated and written.

When I watch football - and I have been a casual spectator - I want to witness otherworldly athleticism, and an explosiveness and violence missing from the sports I have played (climbing and cycling). I want to see speed expressed from zero-to-blazing and miraculous human movement that becomes less and less comprehensible the more replays I see. I want gladiator-style entertainment to be sure, but I also want to be reminded about human potential, about some talent left fallow and other talent honed to its sharpest edge. I have trained a few NFL players in the gym and I see how hard some work. I've also seen a few others whose on-field talent is so great that they don't work off the field because they don't need to. Yet. Or maybe ever. Who knows? I praise that hard work.

What I don't do is differentiate between these three sports and apply different ethics to each, according to what I seek from it, or how it affects me. When climbers dope themselves with supplemental O2 I say, "Fuck them." If they pull on bolts or fixed lines and say otherwise I react the same. But because I understand the human condition, I understand these actions. When cyclists take performance-enhancing drugs that allow them to win when they otherwise could not I say, "Fuck them." And the same goes for every other sport. I don't say it because the clean athlete can't win against them, or his/her opportunity has been taken away by the doper, or his/her childhood dream is soured by the real fucking world. No, I say "fuck you, doper" because you have stolen our belief in human potential. I say "fuck you, doper" because the bridge you built between Man and Superman is chemical. Its foundation is not imagination, and hard, intelligent work. It doesn't originate in a flight of imagination, or creativity and self-belief. You're no space flight Icarus, no Neil Armstrong, and not a Reinhold Messner or Jure Robic. You are "getting yours", earning a paycheck, stroking your ego, writing bullshit records others cannot use as inspiration or motivation because they are rooted in falsehood. This is why I say "fuck you", because you and your dope set the bar so high that others — who might possibly influence man's evolution cleanly — get disillusioned and quit. That is the true robbery: not the contracts or the payouts or the fulfillment of dreams. No, you have stolen from the collective evolution of man.

So when I read that one of the most outspoken critics of dope use in cycling, himself a former doper, of course, differentiated between the acceptability of drug use in "entertainment" sports (football being his example) and sports of a higher, healthier order (cycling), I was blown away. His thesis, which can be read here is based on the notion that spectators don't "expect" professional football players to be clean but they do "expect" bicycle racers to be so. Somehow, he has the idea that cycling is tied to health and fitness and the grand fight against obesity, which makes doping within its professional ranks more offensive … fans "want to know that their racers are ascribing to the same healthy approach they do." And that a 6'7" offensive lineman who weighs 325 lbs and can run the 40-yard dash in 4.98 may well be using PEDs but it's OK because it is expected. Hey Jon Vaughters, WTF? The whole idea that high-intensity physical activity and competitive sports played at the highest level is healthy is a farce and you know it.

Doping is either right or wrong (though Vaughters also argues against black-and-white analysis). If doping is OK for entertainment sport but not for fitness sport then where do you draw the line and who draws it? The foxes are IN the henhouse and their questionable, less-than-idealistic pasts prevent them from seeing what truly must be done:

Accept that it happened. Decry it if necessary. Set the amnesty date. Set the enforcement date. Establish objective, third party oversight. Protect that party from corruption and test the loyalty of its overseers frequently. Fund it. Commit to it. Test every athlete who agrees to this level of personal infringement often. Dismiss any athlete who does not agree to testing and surveillance. Punish one and all who are caught doping with a lifetime ban and financial penalties. Too dire? Well, it's what the righteous say they want. So they can believe in clean sport.

But you know what, the cheaters and dopers have already stolen my belief in the generally positive nature of man. So after all these regulations and tests are imposed you can tell me the sport is clean but I know human beings. I understand human nature. And I will never believe you, ever.