There's good discussion about Henderson now on the Aru thread, but I think it deserves it's own topic.
As it stands, on the topic of a rider "calling out" a different rider for doping, be it Sayar, Aru, or whoever, or defending positive tested riders like Lance, Contador, or whoever, there seems to be two camps:
- Good on him for saying it like it is
- Bad on him, it's hypocritical because he has said _______ in the past, (or, bad on him, he hasn't said anyting about ______).
It may be an oversimplification, but gets to the meat of the discussion, I think.
In what way does hypocrisy invalidate their comment? Is there any value in the incremental approach to tackling omerta? It's not fair, sure, but is fairness a reason to ignore the instances we are presented with?
A few things I want to point out:
I believe that the of the riders in the peloton, there are people on every part of the clean-dirty spectrum. Guys on bread and water, guys with legitimate asthma claims, illegitimate asthma claims, tuns of cortisone, epo, blood bags.
When a rider says the sport is cleaner, they're saying my sport is cleaner. Different teams, different circles within those teams, different specializations, different roomates, different DS's and doctors .
I think about conversations I've had with other competitors. Some just don't get it. They're not digging on message boards, haven't "been around" enough to pick up rumors or experiences, and just simply don't know the reality of the sport. They are interested in their sport, their circle, their team, their event. Willful ignorance maybe, but still ignorance and not omerta.
Others aren't resistant to the idea of a culture of doping, but just have never been provoked to think about it. They could and would link A-B-C to get D, but have no reason to look for it, or no one to present it.
So I think people here have trouble identifying riders' ignorance or lying. How realistic is it for any given rider to know when any other rider, let alone the whole field, is doing? A rider can guess that 20% (or 90%), but how realistic is it that they know, and that they know which 20%?
We can chastise a rider for not calling out insane transformations, but is it a cover up or blindness? These are guys that have spent their career transforming themselves, cleanly or not; it is the fabric of an athlete to believe transformations are possible.
All that being said, I'm in that camp to say that it is an athletes responsibility to know; the old obligation of an athlete to just stay clean is no longer relevant, they need to prove they are clean; ignorance is no longer acceptable. But that responsibility is new: so many don't know yet that understanding the culture is part of their job. Before they get into the sport, athletes are told that they are the new generation. Is it their fault that they believe it? It's easier to build a bias than to change it.
...
My frustration isn't just that athletes are lying, or are ignorant of the culture of doping, my frustration is also that the reaction to the missteps are not productive. That calling out Henderson's hypocrisy may be true, but not helpful.
I got a little stream-of-consciousness, and I'm not sure I explained what I'm feeling, or even understand what I'm thinking, but part of the issue of developing clean sport is a marketing problem. We're not going to hit the tipping point for action when the ones pushing are alienating their audience.
As it stands, on the topic of a rider "calling out" a different rider for doping, be it Sayar, Aru, or whoever, or defending positive tested riders like Lance, Contador, or whoever, there seems to be two camps:
- Good on him for saying it like it is
- Bad on him, it's hypocritical because he has said _______ in the past, (or, bad on him, he hasn't said anyting about ______).
It may be an oversimplification, but gets to the meat of the discussion, I think.
In what way does hypocrisy invalidate their comment? Is there any value in the incremental approach to tackling omerta? It's not fair, sure, but is fairness a reason to ignore the instances we are presented with?
A few things I want to point out:
I believe that the of the riders in the peloton, there are people on every part of the clean-dirty spectrum. Guys on bread and water, guys with legitimate asthma claims, illegitimate asthma claims, tuns of cortisone, epo, blood bags.
When a rider says the sport is cleaner, they're saying my sport is cleaner. Different teams, different circles within those teams, different specializations, different roomates, different DS's and doctors .
I think about conversations I've had with other competitors. Some just don't get it. They're not digging on message boards, haven't "been around" enough to pick up rumors or experiences, and just simply don't know the reality of the sport. They are interested in their sport, their circle, their team, their event. Willful ignorance maybe, but still ignorance and not omerta.
Others aren't resistant to the idea of a culture of doping, but just have never been provoked to think about it. They could and would link A-B-C to get D, but have no reason to look for it, or no one to present it.
So I think people here have trouble identifying riders' ignorance or lying. How realistic is it for any given rider to know when any other rider, let alone the whole field, is doing? A rider can guess that 20% (or 90%), but how realistic is it that they know, and that they know which 20%?
We can chastise a rider for not calling out insane transformations, but is it a cover up or blindness? These are guys that have spent their career transforming themselves, cleanly or not; it is the fabric of an athlete to believe transformations are possible.
All that being said, I'm in that camp to say that it is an athletes responsibility to know; the old obligation of an athlete to just stay clean is no longer relevant, they need to prove they are clean; ignorance is no longer acceptable. But that responsibility is new: so many don't know yet that understanding the culture is part of their job. Before they get into the sport, athletes are told that they are the new generation. Is it their fault that they believe it? It's easier to build a bias than to change it.
...
My frustration isn't just that athletes are lying, or are ignorant of the culture of doping, my frustration is also that the reaction to the missteps are not productive. That calling out Henderson's hypocrisy may be true, but not helpful.
I got a little stream-of-consciousness, and I'm not sure I explained what I'm feeling, or even understand what I'm thinking, but part of the issue of developing clean sport is a marketing problem. We're not going to hit the tipping point for action when the ones pushing are alienating their audience.