Cycling is a great beauty sport, with many followers, currently in a phase of worldwide expansion, its credibility is damaged by doping practices of a few, -but very famous- ciclists, doctors, directors and managers.
Having been the doctor in professional teams for years, and suffering the experience of havind been replaced as doctor in Xacobeo Galicia team during the Vuelta a España in 2009 (in the 4th stage) by a doctor involved in doping cases (Alberto Beltrán, "Skype operation") hired by teams leaders (see documentation in the blog: April 2012), I considerer myself authorized to give my opinion on the current situation and helping the reflection and taking measures to come out the current lack of credibility in which cycling is immersed.
NOTES FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION
Cycling is going through a critical situation of public disrepute, where their future is at stake. Never before, despite the cyclical affaires of doping, its ethics and structure operation had been questioned.
And all conditioned by "Armstrong-USADA case", which has acted as a trigger to generate a great negative impact, not only in the world of cycling and sport in general, but also in society.
Armstrong has already become an icon in the social imaginary, first as an almost legendary character for his fight against cancer ans his sporting sucesses, and now as the paradigm of sporting fraud through doping.
We are witnessing a sucession of statements form ex-cyclists or cyclists in the final stretch of his career admitting doping practices, thus declaring the fraud, of which they have benefited economically in detriment of other cyclists that compete meeting rules.
They say that by means of their statements they pursue the regeneration of the cycling, sport they have hurt, but without providing alternatives to get it. If they really were so sorry for their actions, they should donate the money they earned in a fraudulent way; for example, helping the fight against doping and the creation of a fundation to help ex-cyclists with finantial problems. But it seems that their only interest is to fulfill personal vendettas and obtain economic benefits, now with antidoping (interviews, conferences, publication of memories, etc.).
These statements and past and present cases of doping, by the silence of the vast majority of cyclists, technicians and directors, have a negative impact on society, in which the idea that doping is inseparable from cycling is stablished.
"Pressure and opinion groups" arise in this situation of crisis. These groups claim the power to solve all the problems. In my opinion, some of them only want the seizure of power in the International Cycling Union (UCI), in which they project the reponsability for what happened, and the implementation of an amnesty to those who confess doping. Old personal squabbles can also be observed in their members. Some time ago, some of their leading members took advantage of the system deficiencies for doping with impunity, and now they intend to continue taking advantage of the anti-doping fight.
An amnesty is legal oblivion of the committed offences and the extinction of the author`s responsabilities. It assumes an offence to most cyclists and technicians that meet their ethical obligations, and in many cases they have been financially harmed by the ones who breached them, even losing their job. With the amnesty they are not only forgiven, but also they are reinstated for the sport they injured.
Granting amnesty implies that the rules and existing laws were inadequate, or that the organizations that issued and executed them did not do with the necessary and sufficient guarentees of justice and equity, which in the case of those who propose, they admint to violate them several times, does not seem to be true.
No crisis can be justified with the bad behaviour of the UCI, because it is not true, nor in most of the cyclists, doctors, directors and managers, because it is not true.
The whole cyclist collective cannot be blamed. The reponsability of the most negative aspects falls on a few people, as the crisis is motivated by a few famous cyclist who dope (and possibly they have achieved sucess due to doping), 4 or 5 doctors attending to them all (above all two) and some managers and directors.
Cycling is a sport that has always been and it is currently in the vanguard of the fight against doping. The UCI has been a pioneer in impplementing control measures in accordance with the substance detection technology at any given time. From the implementation of mandatory medical monitoring and blood tests (by surprise and at the beginning of the important tours) to the introduction of the biological passport. Clearly, there are end were areas of inefficiency, motivated by the lack of thecnical end financial resources and the inability to detect the new substances that are appearing.
The main subject of doping is the cyclist himself, so he has to play a central role in order to get a cycling without doping, and all the measures in the fight against doping have to be primarily focused on the cyclist.
Cyclists are embebded among the financial interests of the sponsors, managers and technicians, and their own economic interests. But they are not innocent and defenseless persons to which deceive or manipulate. When they dope, most of the time, going to doctors other than those of his team, are fully aware of what they do and why they do it. In the same way, when directors and managers carry their cyclists to these doctors, they are also aware of what they do.
The cyclist may have made a mistake in taking for ignorance a drug that caused a positive, this situation is covered by the regulations, but there is no mistake when he pays a great amount of money for doping practices. In this case he does it consciously for beneficting himself and harming his opponents.
When a cyclist dopes, he is damaging to the entire group. So we cannot be indifferent or kind to the fraudsters. They must be punished according to the regulations, and even they should be declared "persona non grata" for cycling and sport in general.
In a so deteriorated context that generates great social response not only in sport, it is inevitable the adoption of measures to intervene in all areas at once: cyclists, doctors, directors, managers, teams, sponsors and UCI in order to find a solution to the crisis that prevent the repetition of situations like that created it.
The question is not only "what to do", but also "how to do" to act effectively and efficiently. Positive, discussed and agreed proposals should be made in order to forge all parties involved.
There is an universally accepted starting point, the rules of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Worl Antidoping Code and the current regulations of the UCI. From here, all the positive contributions should be taken into account for a proper discussion. I look very positive proposals made by the Movement for a Credible Cycling which I agree, but it only proposes coercitive measurements, but preventive measures are also needed.
Prevention should be set in three different areas: Primary prevention, Secondary prevention and Tertiary prevention.
Primary prevention is given by measures to reduce the chance of using doping substances. These measures should act on the factors that induce the cyclists to dope. They differ in two types: measures of health promotion and doping prevention, and the protective measures to the cyclist.
Health promotion and doping prevention measurements are performed on the cyclist. It is intended that the cyclist adopts healthy lifestyles and an ethical concept os his activity through education and training interventions.
Protective measures should be performed on the concrete practice of cycling, and should be addressed to control doping causal factors: duration of contracts, individual performance appraisal system and team (score), incentives for wins, competitions, etc. The victory should not be all that is valued.
Secondary prevention acts when the inductor stimulus to doping have been effective for failure the measurements of primary prevention. This must be detected on the team trough its internal controls, with the adoption of appropiate measures in each case.
Tertiary prevention is given by the application of countermeasures once the cyclist has had a positive doping result. These measures have to be an example, not only for the punishment, but also because the UCI or the organization that issued them explains the consequences for health that can have the use of the substance or method used.
It is important that every time a positive result is questioned by the cyclist, a competent organization with scientific reasons should answered, and this should be public.
"Pressure and opinion groups" arise in this situation of crisis. These groups claim the power to solve all the problems. In my opinion, some of them only want the seizure of power in the International Cycling Union (UCI), in which they project the reponsability for what happened, and the implementation of an amnesty to those who confess doping. Old personal squabbles can also be observed in their members. Some time ago, some of their leading members took advantage of the system deficiencies for doping with impunity, and now they intend to continue taking advantage of the anti-doping fight.
An amnesty is legal oblivion of the committed offences and the extinction of the author`s responsabilities. It assumes an offence to most cyclists and technicians that meet their ethical obligations, and in many cases they have been financially harmed by the ones who breached them, even losing their job. With the amnesty they are not only forgiven, but also they are reinstated for the sport they injured.
Granting amnesty implies that the rules and existing laws were inadequate, or that the organizations that issued and executed them did not do with the necessary and sufficient guarentees of justice and equity, which in the case of those who propose, they admint to violate them several times, does not seem to be true.
No crisis can be justified with the bad behaviour of the UCI, because it is not true, nor in most of the cyclists, doctors, directors and managers, because it is not true.
The whole cyclist collective cannot be blamed. The reponsability of the most negative aspects falls on a few people, as the crisis is motivated by a few famous cyclist who dope (and possibly they have achieved sucess due to doping), 4 or 5 doctors attending to them all (above all two) and some managers and directors.
Cycling is a sport that has always been and it is currently in the vanguard of the fight against doping. The UCI has been a pioneer in impplementing control measures in accordance with the substance detection technology at any given time. From the implementation of mandatory medical monitoring and blood tests (by surprise and at the beginning of the important tours) to the introduction of the biological passport. Clearly, there are end were areas of inefficiency, motivated by the lack of thecnical end financial resources and the inability to detect the new substances that are appearing.
The main subject of doping is the cyclist himself, so he has to play a central role in order to get a cycling without doping, and all the measures in the fight against doping have to be primarily focused on the cyclist.
Cyclists are embebded among the financial interests of the sponsors, managers and technicians, and their own economic interests. But they are not innocent and defenseless persons to which deceive or manipulate. When they dope, most of the time, going to doctors other than those of his team, are fully aware of what they do and why they do it. In the same way, when directors and managers carry their cyclists to these doctors, they are also aware of what they do.
The cyclist may have made a mistake in taking for ignorance a drug that caused a positive, this situation is covered by the regulations, but there is no mistake when he pays a great amount of money for doping practices. In this case he does it consciously for beneficting himself and harming his opponents.
When a cyclist dopes, he is damaging to the entire group. So we cannot be indifferent or kind to the fraudsters. They must be punished according to the regulations, and even they should be declared "persona non grata" for cycling and sport in general.
In a so deteriorated context that generates great social response not only in sport, it is inevitable the adoption of measures to intervene in all areas at once: cyclists, doctors, directors, managers, teams, sponsors and UCI in order to find a solution to the crisis that prevent the repetition of situations like that created it.
The question is not only "what to do", but also "how to do" to act effectively and efficiently. Positive, discussed and agreed proposals should be made in order to forge all parties involved.
There is an universally accepted starting point, the rules of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Worl Antidoping Code and the current regulations of the UCI. From here, all the positive contributions should be taken into account for a proper discussion. I look very positive proposals made by the Movement for a Credible Cycling which I agree, but it only proposes coercitive measurements, but preventive measures are also needed.
Prevention should be set in three different areas: Primary prevention, Secondary prevention and Tertiary prevention.
Primary prevention is given by measures to reduce the chance of using doping substances. These measures should act on the factors that induce the cyclists to dope. They differ in two types: measures of health promotion and doping prevention, and the protective measures to the cyclist.
Health promotion and doping prevention measurements are performed on the cyclist. It is intended that the cyclist adopts healthy lifestyles and an ethical concept os his activity through education and training interventions.
Protective measures should be performed on the concrete practice of cycling, and should be addressed to control doping causal factors: duration of contracts, individual performance appraisal system and team (score), incentives for wins, competitions, etc. The victory should not be all that is valued.
Secondary prevention acts when the inductor stimulus to doping have been effective for failure the measurements of primary prevention. This must be detected on the team trough its internal controls, with the adoption of appropiate measures in each case.
Tertiary prevention is given by the application of countermeasures once the cyclist has had a positive doping result. These measures have to be an example, not only for the punishment, but also because the UCI or the organization that issued them explains the consequences for health that can have the use of the substance or method used.
It is important that every time a positive result is questioned by the cyclist, a competent organization with scientific reasons should answered, and this should be public.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario