Where to from here?
So, now that the evidence is beginning to come, not so much as a trickle, but more as a flood against Lance Armstrong, what does it all mean for cycling’s future?
The reality of that will be measured by who else is implicated. If (or more likely, when) Johan Bruyneel is found guilty, Team Radioshack are likely looking for an entirely new staffing team. That’s a relatively simple process by most standards, but doesn’t directly impact upon the sport.
True change comes when someone’s brave enough to show the levels of complicity within the governing body - the UCI - as far as Armstrong’s case involved them. Only specifically when someone names McQuaid et al as being part of Armstrong’s cover-up will there be any form of pressure for change at the top of the sport. The UCI’s lack of popularity with teams, riders and supporters is well known - but despite all of that, there is no catalyst for change. Why?
The answer to that question is simple, but as in the cause of a lot of things, often the best: money. As long as sponsors stay with the UCI, there’s no reason for their governance to change in their eyes. But, sponsors are fickle. They’re only happy so long as their product is presenting with a reputable ideal. Take team sponsors for example - how often have we seen a sponsor bail on a team after a drug scandal or positive tests?
But scandals involving teams don’t affect the UCI’s sponsors. They don’t (directly) affect the UCI’s income - so there’s no reason for them to leave. But an allegation of corruption, of directly running an unfair competition for their own financial benefit? That’s the sort of thing no reputable company wants to be a part of. So it ultimately boils down to the reporting - or public evidence.
We know that several USPS staff members have elected for arbitration now, but the scope of the UCI’s involvement with them may be somewhat more limiting in evidence, given that it was Armstrong who had direct access to the very top of the UCI, and not the team members.
So, if there’s only a very slim chance for criticism of - or evidence against - the UCI, where does that leave cycling? With the same people in charge, and only a few guilty parties penalised? No thanks. Armstrong may be the very public PR prize, but in terms of importance he ranks only third or fourth.
So, which route does the sport go down? Truth and reconciliation? If so, how?
The reality is, whilst riders are afraid to speak out against the terms of their employment and the governing body, truth and reconciliation won’t work. As inrng’s piece here shows, it’s only effective once there is a sincere willingness from all parties to genuinely discuss and learn from the past. Could we say that about all of the riders, teams, and the governing body? I’m not so sure.
Bjarne Riis, for example, was named this week in Tyler Hamilton’s book as having not just doped when he was a rider (as he admitted to in the past), but for facilitating doping as a team owner. Riis, of course, was quick to deny the accusation - just as he did when he was riding. In that respect, he’s the classic example of someone who can’t be trusted, and shouldn’t be near the sport again.
There’s also the problem of having the UCI be a willing participant. Many riders are fearful of retribution from the UCI these days. Without the UCI being absolutely dedicated to true transparency and education - even at the potential cost of individuals within it - any T&R process is destined for failure, because the only way it works is if you can guarantee nobody will be vilified for speaking out. Cycling, as we’ve seen with Bassons and many others, does not have a good record for being able to commit to that process.
So change must come from within, and one of two ways. Either a process which places intense scrutiny and pressure upon the UCI, by way of external concerns over transparency which directly affects the UCI’s ability to govern effectively and be a credible organisation, or through internal pressure. Teams dedicated to a better way of running their own sport, with a greater say and more financial power could certainly effect large change for the better.
We’ve seen it before: dissatisfaction with the governing body resulting in teams looking for better conditions, and it can work as demonstrated so aptly by England’s Premier League. But it requires iron will to see it through to that conclusion. It may be that a split from the UCI is what professional cycling really needs. But if we start down the path of greater commercialisation, does that lead us back down the dark path again towards doping? After all, if it wasn’t for money and prestige, we probably wouldn’t have ended up here in the first place.
For now, there’s far more questions than there are answers. We can only hope that the forthcoming revelations prove to be just that, and provide clarity for what is undoubtedly a key point in time for the sport of cycling.
Questions? Comments? Contact me on twitter - I’m happy to converse, even if you disagree!
1 Notes/ Hide
- yosoypatrick liked this
- cavalierfc posted this