An Open Letter by Jeremy Roy (English Translation)

Another rider has joined the ranks of those speaking out against doping in the wake of the Armstrong affair. FDJ-Bigmat’s Jérémy Roy posted an open letter on his website on November 5th, talking about the current state of cycling and of doping in the sport. Below is an English version of this letter, translated by myself.  You can read the original French letter on his website here.

Following recent events in the world of cycling, reactions and admissions from certain riders, and different movements launched to save cycling and to respond to certain people, I want to express my thoughts today through this open letter.

Of course I won’t say that cycling is moving in the best of worlds, but we need to stop stigmatising it and accusing every cyclist. Yes, there are cheats, and there always will be (in sport and in life), but the noose is tightening little by little thanks to the work of the UCI, of WADA (and its national counterparts) and of the police.

Today everyone is talking about the Armstrong affair (which hasn’t yet finished shedding light on certain shadowy areas regarding the transfer of funds), tomorrow I hope that the Padova affair in Italy will come good and that the Puerto affair in Spain, which will reopen in January, will also reveal its secrets.

I discovered the USADA report just like all of you, and yes, I was shocked by this quasi-collective doping system. No, fortunately not all teams work like that. I’m not stonewalling or influenced by omerta, as has been suggested by some journalists who’ve reproached me for the fact that I discovered the story through the media like any man in the street. I turned professional at the end of 2003 and even though I mix with other riders for a quarter of the year (90 days of racing), that doesn’t mean that I know what’s done away from prying eyes. And even if I speak from time to time to other riders, do you think that the cheaters are going to boast of their chemical prowess? The latest confessions (which, in passing, have been revealed only thanks to the inquiry and thus under oath) attest to that; not even their wife or their family was aware (I think that you share more with your loved ones than with your cyclist colleagues or opponents). It’s too easy today to ask forgiveness, to cleanse the conscience. No, I don’t forgive them.

They have stolen (results, glory, income, contracts…). But on the other hand I would say to them nevertheless, “Thanks for having confessed”, if it can contribute to stopping the scourge by taking into account their methods and by trying to find a solution.

And speaking of solutions, it’s worth knowing that the UCI has indeed put in place some tools, though certainly not perfect, but which have the merit of existing. The Whereabouts system: a location system where a cyclist in the target group (World Tour teams, ProContinental teams applying for WildCards and certain riders chosen by a group of experts) must provide their activities and place of residence for every day with a one-hour time slot in which a control can be performed. (A control can also be performed outside of the hourly slot but will not be counted as a no-show if the rider is not present).

There’s the implementation of the biological passport, more accurately haematological for the time being, because the steroid aspect hasn’t yet been taken into account. This profiling of haematological values allows, in conjunction with a classic antidoping control, to target suspect riders, to suspend and to sanction a rider should the case arise, following a meeting of an expert commission. There have been some riders suspended by the passport but legal restrictions greatly limit the actions of the UCI.

Since June 2011 (unfortunately not retroactively), those convicted of violating the Anti-Doping Code cannot occupy a position as a manager, directeur sportif, coach, doctor or medical assistant, mechanic, driver or rider’s agent. This provision will allow us to gradually clean up the environment of cycling. I encourage teams to apply this sanction without delay.

As a suggestion, in addition to increasing the length of sanctions, I can only support antidoping research to improve the tests further and further. Too often the cheaters are a step ahead. The problem which presents itself on top of the cost of the research is the volume of the sample, which is far from infinite. It’s necessary to understand that a sample can’t be tested for all known substances, meaning a choice has to be made (and you can only find what you look for!). That’s how some riders pass a control one day, but not necessarily another.

Preservation of the B-sample for subsequent tests when research has progressed has been mentioned, but I don’t know when that will be. It still has a cost: storage, analysis, which test to apply?

The economic problem is therefore very much present in the fight against doping. Part of the “prize money” is already withdrawn, so what more can be done? As has been suggested by the President of Française des Jeux, Mr Blanchard Dignac (since 2009), an association of cycling team sponsors needs to be created to support the UCI in its fight against doping. In theory a year’s salary must be paid by an offender. I hope that these funds are intended for the fight against doping.

It would also be desirable for WADA to change its attitude regarding the “liberalised” use of corticosteroids. A work stoppage should be mandatory in the case of its use to avoid risking the health of the rider (due to the risk of falling cortisol levels). Only the member teams of the MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling) apply a work stoppage internally in the case of an injection to treat an illness.

The personalised power profile (PPP), notably suggested by F. Grappe and which follows the example of the haematological profile, allows a rider to know their physical limits. This then poses the problem of the reliability of the measure, the consideration of fatigue and the recurrent stresses during a stage, the margin of error (it’s not forbidden to beat records…it’s actually the point of training).

Developing the biological passport with the activation of the steroid profile.

I also join Taylor Phinney in his stance against the painkillers that certain riders take during a race. When there is a problem which requires a painkiller I doubt that participating in competitive cycling will help the problem!

Holding a “States General” bringing together WADA and the UCI would also allow progress.

The creation of a commission independent of the UCI to organise controls seems like a necessity to restore faith in the UCI: we will no longer be able to criticise them for being both judge and jury.

Finally, having the police and Customs reviewing general intelligence should continue to help us in the struggle (the fight against doping, trafficking, suspicious monetary transfers (corruption)…). A number of cases have been uncovered through them.

Despite the storms we’ve weathered and the blows we’ve received, I believe and I still want to believe in the sport that I love. I’ve accepted that I’m not as strong as the others but that doesn’t prevent me from achieving good results with my resources and winning races. Admittedly I’ll certainly never win the Tour de France or the World Championships with my abilities but I always hope that it’s in me, the hope of improving, of giving the best of myself and of never having regrets because I’ve put in everything to get there. I’ve made so many sacrifices, as has my family when I’m away 180 days a year, that I don’t want to give up now. It would be a (another) failure in the face of cheaters.

I’ve wanted to write this open letter for some time, but I haven’t wanted to be seen as a whiner, or to receive the usual criticisms (he has no results because he doesn’t know how to train, he’s too big, he’s stonewalling, he’s being idealistic…).

For those who want to continue bad-mouthing cycling, just keep walking…me, I still want to believe in it. For nearly 10 years I’ve been among the pros and for nearly 10 years I’ve heard at the start-of-year briefings, “Boys, don’t lose hope, things change, the cheaters will be caught sooner or later, things are heading in the right direction.” My improvement and the rise of young riders are certainly not due to coincidence. Since the implementation of geolocation and the passport, the room for movement is decreasing.

Finally, a little soapboxing to finish, because I’ve had enough of seeing certain media only talking about cycling in relation to doping scandals. I’m sorry, dear journalists and spectators, that the flat stages at the start of the Tour bore you (and you make it very clear)…yes, there are stages for the sprinters and there always will be; where is the harm in saving a little with three weeks of racing in mind? You need to stop playing CyclingManager!

For those who are frightened by the average speeds of the peloton (and who also complain when the peloton dawdles a little – yes, often they’re the same people), have they ever ridden competitively? What about in a group? Aspiration effect and relay, does that sound familiar? You can’t compare races or eras, as so many factors can influence a performance (weather, wind, condition of the road, profiles of preceding stages…). We are professional cyclists, our job is to be the fastest on a bike and we train every day for that, so don’t compare your Sunday ride or your local hill climb with a professional race.

I’m not the only one to think this. Lots of riders suffer in silence from this insidious disease which eats away from within and is considered as the “system”. Some no longer even dare to say that they’re cyclists, all because of the transgressions of certain riders. And I maintain that the majority of the peloton rides fairly.

I could elaborate further on certain ideas and tackle other subjects that are equally important for the future of cycling (sustainable development, the modernisation of cycling, the format of races…) but I’m afraid I’d lose you along the way (if I haven’t already).

Thank you for reading and thank you for your support. Cycling needs you too.

Enough is Enough

It’s taken long enough, but Lance Armstrong finally seems to have realised that fighting the doping charges against him is doing no-one any favours. Like a fly caught in a spider’s web, Armstrong finally seems to have recognised that the longer he struggles, the more he tangles himself in the ever-tightening web of brutal public opinion.

He was the golden boy of world cycling. The poster child of the UCI. An angel of charity work. A hero to cancer sufferers worldwide. In short, Lance Armstrong from Plano, Texas, was an all-around good guy on a bike.

So when the drug rumours came knocking, as they seem to have done for every high-profile cyclist throughout time, Armstrong thought that he could beat them. Truth and innocence aside, a reputation as tall as the Texan himself and seven Tour de France titles to boot would surely be currency in dispelling the ugly tales and restoring his good name.

But the problem with drug rumours is that they seem to follow Grisham’s law of economics – ‘Bad money drives out good’. No matter how squeaky his reputation, the tiniest whisper of scandal was enough to taint it in an instant. As soon as the rumours began circulating that those seven Tour titles weren’t as cleanly earned as previously thought, the first cracks began appearing in the armour. No matter whether Armstrong’s lawyering up was a sign of a fight to protect his innocence or a fight to hide his guilt, the implication was clear. Armstrong was taking this seriously. And suddenly every news story featuring Armstrong in the title had ‘doping’ right there with it.

And there lies the point of no return. Once Armstrong’s name was tied to drug allegations, they were tied forever. No amount of fighting to clear his name would ever do that. Had Armstrong succeeded in beating the charges, he would simply have become the seven-time Tour de France winner who was cleared of drug charges. Goodbye, innocent until proven guilty. Drug charges don’t play by those rules.

Armstrong has put his faith in the idea that the truth will out. The truth is no longer what’s at stake. The heart of the matter is that even if the UCI, USADA, WADA and the Plano Cycling Club were all to declare the drug charges baseless and Armstrong a clean man, he has already been tarnished. What he has been fighting so hard to save is just a speck on a distant horizon. His reputation is down the drain, dragging the reputation of world cycling down right along with it.

Armstrong finally seems to have realised that in this case, no news really is good news. The longer he protests his innocence, the longer he drags his own name, and that of cycling, through the Spring Classics-deep mud. With no hope of redemption in sight, the biggest favour Lance Armstrong can do anyone now is to bow out quietly and pray that public opinion will be more lenient towards cycling than it has been towards him.

The Contador Controversy

For some reason, it was only announced during September of 2010, during the International Cycling Union (UCI) Road World Championships, that Alberto Contador had tested positive to a small amount of clenbuterol in his bloodstream on the second rest day of the 2010 Tour de France. Clenbuterol is a bronchodilator, meaning it makes breathing easier and thus increases the amount of oxygen in the body and stimulates the central nervous system, which has earned the drug a place on the UCI's banned list. Contador’s explanation as to why he and some of his teammates tested positive was that they consumed steaks contaminated with clenbuterol that were provided by a friend.

This wouldn’t be the first time in sport that contaminated food has caused athletes to test positive for clenbuterol.  109 soccer players tested positive in the 2011 Under 17 World Cup in Mexico after eating Mexican meat, which can contain the drug.  Cyclists in the 2011 Tour of Beijing were advised by their directeurs sportifs to avoid eating beef or pork whilst in China, as clenbuterol is commonly fed to cows and pigs there.  Instead riders were advised to stick to chicken and fish, which cannot contain clenbuterol, to avoid the scenario in which Contador found himself.  It’s also worth noting that the amount of clenbuterol found in his system was 40 times less than the minimum detectable amount of the World Anti-Doping Agency labs and was only picked up when the samples were sent to a lab in Switzerland that specialises in detecting minute traces of drugs.

Considering it was the most high-profile case in cycling for its entire duration, the Contador controversy took way too long to be resolved.  Contador’s positive test occurred on July 21^st, 2010, but was only publicly announced on September 30^th, well after the Tour de France concluded.  The case was first heard in February 2011 by the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC), who accepted Contador’s explanation of contaminated meat and cleared him of doping charges.  The following month both the UCI and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announced their intention to appeal the decision to CAS, which announced it would resolve the case before the 2011 Tour de France.  Needless to say, this didn’t happen, and Contador lined up for the 2011 Tour amidst a storm of conjecture.  The hearing finally took place in November, and a verdict was originally due in mid-January, until the composition of the CAS arbitration panel was called into question, delaying the verdict.  Finally on February 6^th 2012, the arbitration panel issue being resolved, the decision was finally handed down.

So why did Contador’s case take so long to be resolved?  His was not the only doping case of late, or even the only high-profile one or scandalous one.  12-time French female national champion Jeannie Longo missed the critical third random doping test in 18 months and was lucky to avoid the mandatory two-year suspension after she was acquitted on a technicality – the anti-doping authorities failed to inform Longo that she was still eligible for out-of-race testing.  Danish rider Alex Rasmussen was even luckier – the UCI failed to inform Rasmussen of his third infringement within the required 14 days, thus jeopardising their own case against him.  Each of these cases was resolved within seven months of the final infringement taking place.  Yet Contador’s case lasted from July 21^st, 2010, when he tested positive, until February 6^th this year, when the final decision was handed down – a total time of over 18 months.

Despite her husband and trainer being investigated for the procurement of a banned substance, there was no evidence in her case to suggest Longo was actually guilty of doping, nor for Rasmussen, and given the circumstances, it seems unlikely that Contador was intentionally doing so either.  Regardless, CAS handed down the standard sentence for a positive doping test – a two-year suspension from the sport, which was backdated to January 25^th, 2011.  Under this sentence, Contador will not only lose his 2010 Tour de France title, but also any other titles won between January 25^th, 2011 and February 6^th, 2012, including the 2011 Giro d’Italia and his 5^th place in the 2011 Tour de France.  The suspension won’t be lifted until January 25^th, 2013, meaning that Contador will be ineligible for not only the 2012 Tour de France but also the 2012 London Olympics – a harsh sanction overall.

It’s made even worse by the fact that Contador is now fully aware of what he is losing, given the races and jerseys he has won since the 2010 Tour.  Had the issue been dealt with directly after the Tour, in the same fashion as Longo and Rasmussen, Contador would merely have lost the chance to earn the titles, and might even have been eligible to race in time for the Olympics.  Instead Contador has to watch as 18 months of hard work and training goes down the drain, the only light at the end of the tunnel being that due to the backdating less than half his suspension remains to be served.  For the 28-year-old who just a few years ago was cycling’s golden boy, he certainly got the raw end of the deal this time.