Okay, I need to quit posting about cycling fraud and get back to some of my academic fraud research. Before doing so, I want to point out this article on VeloNation which discusses how the UCI lied yesterday about Contador's positive test. This makes the UCI look as corrupt as Floyd Landis and others are accusing them of being. It appears that the UCI is simply the marketing arm of pro cycling and is all about creating the image that the athletes are not doping (as opposed to stopping doping). It's no wonder the French doping authorities don't like the UCI's anti-doping efforts!
Floyd Landis says that Armstrong and his teams paid the UCI to give his teams preferential treatment and even sweep drug findings under the rug. As I mentioned in a recent post, they admitted to giving Astana extra notice before being tested, etc. Read this article for the latest lies from the UCI.
I (along with other readers who have emailed me) predict that Contador's positive test will be found by the UCI to be so small that it must have come from a burger he ate. As such, Contador will keep his yellow jersey.
If so, I have little or no hope that pro cycling will ever be a sport that I follow because I admire the athletes. Instead, I will follow it because I study fraud.
We will see...
Mark, don't despair. You can safely admire me for the awesome leadout I gave you at Snowbird. :-)
ReplyDeletePiotr--No doubt I will always admire you for any races you want to give me a lead out!
ReplyDeleteWow! I get more and more depressed each time I read your blog. So negative and down. However, your opinions/hunches could be all found to be true. Mark- You are an expert in fraud, and as such, do you find yourself making a judgment call on a cyclist's voracity before a final determination is made by CAS or a jury? I pose that as a question about whether we view cycling with skepticism and cynicism, or allow them due process like other areas of life. I wonder if it would help you enjoy the sport again if you viewed cyclists as clean until determined dirty, rather than the other way around. Maybe the way your mind works prevents you from doing that. I hope not. It's still the greatest sport on earth. The doping cases just add to the drama that keeps me coming back. How much are these guys willing to risk for glory and success? Allowing due process and giving an individual the benefit of the doubt doen't make you naive or blind. It makes you just and fair. Long live cycling! -David Francis
ReplyDeleteDavid, those are some good questions you pose. As I examine how I got to this place, I don't think it's because my mind is too skeptical or cynical to be able to see the good in cycling as much as it's that I'm now to the point where I'm no longer willing to withhold judgment. For over a decade, I was giving Lance and the UCI the benefit of the doubt. Now I'm fed up with it all. About two years ago, I bought the 7 cd series of Lance's wins and I watched them several times during my last two years of winter indoor training. I think the sport operates under the assumption that their fans will look the other way and give them the benefit of the doubt but I'm not willing to do that any more. I agree that due process needs to happen but while the wheels of justice are turning, I'm unwilling to go along with the party line any longer. As I see it, each individual has to decide how much evidence he or she needs before saying enough is enough. Unfortunately, I'm past the tipping point...
ReplyDeleteMark- I can understand your frustration. I feel the same way in many respects. The tipping point? So you gave cyclists the benefit of the doubt in the past, then you reached a point where you were tired of doing that so you stopped? When has giving the benefit of the doubt to someone else ever stopped being a good approach to sport, or life? What is just in your mind? If the accusations sound legitimate, let the judgment begin? Before a fair and balanced final proceeding or an admission? If an article was released by a sports physiologist in the wallstreet journal saying that Taylor Phinney's wattage numbers could only be explained by blood doping, would you believe it? Is Taylor part of the "new clean generation?" So what now? Start following a clean sport like professional Football?
ReplyDeleteGiving the benefit of the doubt to someone stops being a good approach to a sport or to life when someone is taking advantage of you. For example, when in an abusive relationship, it isn't prudent to give the aggressor the benefit of the doubt for their behavior--instead, you take yourself out of harm's way.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for Mark, but I am pretty sure he still loves cycling--he just doesn't love the way many of cycling's leaders have apparently been taking advantage of their fans. I interpret Mark's posts, in part, as a petition for cleaning up the sport. I think he is also trying to better understand the environment that led to such disappointing behavior so that we can advocate an environment that will reduce opportunities, pressures, and incentives for doping in the future.
Aaron- That seems to be an extreme example. Are you saying Mark feels abused by a bad choice(s) a cyclist MAY have made? And you're labeling it an abusive relationship? If you're going to defend your recent cycling posts in the name of "advocating an environment" to reduce doping, please tell me how you are doing that with the negative posts? Anyone can point to problems. Why don't I see articles about structural change, or the comparisons of control and power in the sport of professional cycling as opposed to other professional sports? Would cycling be better off with rigged doping controls at the beginning of every season, like every other professional sport? No links to organizations who are trying to DO something to make a difference? No ideas on how to keep cheats out of the sport? How do we inspire new cyclists to avoid the temptation of dope? Nothing? Just more negative articles? I'm going to suggest something in the same light in which you are posting articles about this great sport I love. Could there be a fraud happening on the fraudbytes blog? Could articles being posted on this site (specifically the cycling ones) be posted because they bring more traffic to your blog? (the number of SEO labels you have on each page is staggering) Could it be that the authors are reveling in their recent google analytics numbers and are churning out the copy and paste articles because they are increasing readers and followers? I'm grateful you have provided a forum for this kind of discussion but what good is it if it's just a blog about problems. You've identified FRAUD in this great sport we love......NOW, what are you going to do about it?
ReplyDeleteDavid, I have two thoughts. First, I would love to have some posts on how to clean up cycling and help young riders avoid doping. I am not aware of much in that area and, frankly, this takes more time than I want already. As such, if you can either put together a guest post on this and email it to me (you can get my email off Facebook) or send me some links and I'll work on drafting something if there is something interesting going on. Second, our goal is not to revel in google analytics (we don't have that many followers and we get nothing from the site anyway--no ads, etc.). Instead, as Aaron has said, we want to bring some light on the problems in cycling and other forms of fraud. Cycling has been an interesting case study for me because of two things. One, I'm passionate about riding and racing. Two, there is a lot of evidence out there which has been brought out that paints a picture of fraud. Up until now, the evidence has been pooh-poohed for some reason. Maybe because too many people want to give the sport the benefit of the doubt. I believe that before serious reforms will take place, the public has to be aware of and fed up with the problems. There are still a lot of believers out there who think Novitzky is wasting taxpayers' money with this investigation. I'm making a judgment (call it premature if you want) that the mounds and years of evidence showing cycling is corrupt is at least a good sign that there is something going on. Others in the sport have called it a cycling mafia; that is an extreme label in my view and if it is that corrupt then extreme action is needed. I believe that where there is smoke there is fire. Last week alone, several pro cyclists were found doping and a three-time TDF winner was found with steroids in his urine during the TDF. Perhaps, some of these cyclists are innocent, including Contador, but there is too much smoke for me to just say the sport is in fine hands... We have focused on all the smoke so it can be brought out in hopes that some changes will be made. I believe that what you're advocating--sitting back and giving them the benefit of the doubt--is not likely to lead to any changes. The UCI and others will say: the fans don't care about doping; they are satisfied with how the sport is going so why change anything; let the mafia rule. This is what we see in pro football and baseball as you've pointed out. If cycling continues down this path, it will be no different. Is that what you want? Ignore the problem so we can live in denial and think our heroes including Lance, Tyler and Floyd are doing miraculous things without cheating? I'm not satisfied with that...
ReplyDeleteDavid, I agree that my example was extreme, however, your comment implied that one should always give others the benefit of the doubt. I gave my example as a counterpoint to suggest that in some cases one should clearly not give others the benefit of the doubt in order to establish that giving someone the benefit of the doubt should be an issue of WHEN, not WHETHER. I then stated that cycling's leaders appear to be taking advantage of their fans, not because I equate this to abuse, but because such behavior is a potential justification for not giving cycling's leaders the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have a hard time agreeing with your arguments that we should delay judgment. If you start to get evidence that you may have invested in a ponzi scheme, would you leave your money in such a scheme until the operator of the scheme is tried and convicted? I completely agree that in a court of law individuals should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and we should have a high burden of proof. However, when determining whether or not to lend your support to a professional athlete, I don't think you need to wait until you can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt before you withdraw your support.
Looks like Mark just posted a comment addressing your other points so I will stop here for now...
I had a cousin that ran a very successful Ponzi scheme right here where I live. Interesting you bring that up Aaron because that is exactly the correlation I've made before between the two. Ponzi scheme's start very slowly, with an individual de-frauding a single individual, often with the intent of priviately re-imbursing the funds. Once they do it once though, it becomes so easy to do, they do it again...and again, and they are hooked. And although we believe Ponzi schemes are done by individuals, it is my belief that many people around a Ponzi scheme, know it is a scam, but invest, seek investors, and continue to withdraw...because everyone else is doing it and they love the appareance of success and the ease at which results are obtained.
ReplyDeleteA cyclist in the same way, dopes once in a small amount for a slight edge, or a hometown race, or simply to get through the burdens of racing back-to-back-to-back. They see how easy it is, and they enjoy the success, the feelings, or whatever, and all of a sudden, they turn a blind eye to the unethical reality and continue on. Like Dave (who I know well and have great respect for) I want to give people the benefit of the doubt and have hope and faith in due process of law. Like Mark and Aaron though, my mind has seen too much smoke, and so I assume they are all doping. Not a very optimistic or hopeful place to be. Like David Walsh's recent article though, I choose to love the sport regardless. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-weighs-in-on-contador-case