Should We Applaud?

It’s 30-something degrees in the Adelaide Hills. Two cyclists are battling their way to the top of a climb. The crowd is cheering both as they struggle to get the advantage, one rider just nudging the other out for the victory as they cross the line. Alejandro Valverde has just made a triumphant return from a two-year doping suspension.

The crowd certainly doesn’t seem to mind his history, applauding him as much as his Australian opponent, Simon Gerrans. The Spanish fans love him too, holding him with the likes of Luis Léon Sánchez and Alberto Contador. In truth, it hardly seems fair. After his actions, does Valverde actually deserve to be applauded? It’s hard to say. And this begs another, more serious question:

If we applaud after they cheat, are we applauding the cheating, too?

Are we unreasonable for wanting to applaud? Is it wrong to admire David Millar for his strict anti-doping stance, wrong to worship Dave Zabriskie for daring to be a vegan pro-cyclist when no-one thought he could? Is it wrong to esteem George Hincapie as one of the heads of state of the peloton, a loyal, capable rider? Or should we be shaking our heads and saying that everything that we love and believe about these guys has been washed away with the flood of guilt? That the moral high ground should take precedence over everything; that their right to be applauded was stripped the moment they admitted to doping?

I hold all of these riders among my favourites for these reasons, but I feel guilty in saying that now. I feel as though I should wash my hands of them to set a good example for other fans and riders; to show that we, the fans and the media, will not condone doping either. But I just can’t shake the desire to thank George Hincapie for being the capable lieutenant and road captain that led Cadel Evans to victory. I can’t shake that desire, and yet I can’t shake the question: does he still deserve our thanks? Or did he resign the right to that kind of admiration when he said yes to the drugs?

Should knowledge of redemption and the chance of returning to the fold form part of the doping culture in cycling? If riders admit, or repent, should their mistake be acknowledged and they be embraced upon their return? Or should complete ostracision by the cycling community and rescission of all respect and status be the unwavering punishment for doping? I’m not sure. I don’t think anyone is.

It’s not just the riders, either. Half of the support staff of the pro peloton is made up of former riders. Some are former dopers. What about Matt White, Bjaarne Riis, Jonathan Vaughters? Do we lump them in the same group as the riders, too – and what group is that, exactly? Can we admire their work as team managers and trainers without admiring their decision to dope? Is that even possible? I don’t know. It’s cycling’s version of a rock and a hard place – either we clap every good achievement, and provide no further disincentive from doping, or we draw a line and only clap clean riders and staff, and therefore clap far less often.

I really do feel guilty for saying it, but I think that, at least for now, I’m going to keep applauding. As much as I despise doping and think that desperate times call for desperate anti-doping measures, I still want to applaud these riders, even knowing their doping history. Despite everything they’ve done wrong, I keep finding that I can’t ignore everything they’ve done right, either. But I’d feel so much better if I could applaud them for their clean pasts as well. And I bet they feel that way, too.

What Is There To Say?

It’s the news that cycling has been waiting for. The next step in the Armstrong case that has kept not just cycling but the whole world on the edge of their seats, waiting to see how the chips will fall. Every day seems to bring another admission, another revelation, something else to make you stop and weep at just where all this is going. It’s like riding the rollercoaster of Bad News that you can’t step off, your heart in your throat every time you hit another loop-the-loop.

And it feels like something ought to be said, but, really, what is there to say? The evidence is out there. USADA’s decision has been made. It’s hard to argue with the proof. Hard to dispute the verdict. Hard to believe the truth. Hard to know what to think. It’s a black day in the history of cycling. What is there to say?

Yet the circus still goes on, name after name crumbling like a wall of bricks without mortar. Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Danielson. Leipheimer, Vaughters. Hincapie. Bruyneel. Will no one escape the purges?

And now there’s news of one of our own. Matt White has now been touched, now been tainted. Our Australian ‘purity’ on the doping front has crumbled into dust, our belief and faith in our cyclists shaken, the trust gone.

It’s disheartening to see another great of the sport laid low, like the pillars of Stonehenge falling to the earth. Those who are well-acquainted with cycling are well-acquainted with its chequered past, too, and it says a lot that so many can still love it knowing full well the scandals in its history. But we can still be saddened that this is the situation in cycling. Disappointed that cycling has been reduced to salacious headlines in the tabloids. Angry that cycling has changed from how well you ride to how well you dope.

But it can’t go on like this. If we look hard enough we will always find another doping scandal, another ‘drug cheat’ to be vilified and torn down from his pedestal. Such is the history of cycling. At some point we need to draw a line and declare an amnesty. Someone has to suggest that from now on we let the dead past bury its dead and focus on the future of cycling. It’s been suggested before. Someone has to say that we need to forgive, though not forget, the old culture of cycling that allowed, nay, condoned, such widespread doping as the Armstrong case, and instead construct a new future in which doping is rejected from the level of the fans right up to the UCI, and that embraces those spectacular feats of plain old guts and endurance that make this sport great.

Let’s make this cycling’s turning point. Let’s make this the time when things could go back to the way they were or they could change for the better, and we gave them a push in the right direction. At risk of sounding like a motivational speaker on a sugar high, fans are an important part of cycling, and they do play a part in the pro cycling scene. All the sponsorship, advertising, marketing and money that gets thrown around at races like the Tour de France is aimed at the fans – fans who are sick of the riders they worshipped in July being kicked to the kerb by December. Fans who can use that advertising and marketing to push for a cleaner, safer sport, more entertaining in its purity and its natural ability to surprise.

So, what is there to say? Well, let’s start by echoing the words of Lance Armstrong and saying, “Enough is enough.”