D-Queued said:
These German media organizations are helping. If you want to get rid of doping, give them some fuel for their fire.
Dave.
They may be helping, but only inadvertently -- and only in the extreme short term.
Perhaps that's good enough for some, but it should be said fairly that the Germans are only doing it surface-level, for spectacle, not because they are trying in any real way to effect change, strategically.
Their fire is already burning itself out: The articles linked at the outset of this very thread stated that they will no longer be allowed to buy and broadcast footage of UCI events. So if it were a strategy, it's not a good one, as it's over already, and thus had an exceedingly limited effect on anti-doping.
(Incidentally the UCI's decision not to deal with the German broadcasters in question is in and of itself fair, and cannot be compared to censorship as it was: The UCI is a private organization -- a governing entity, yes, but not governmental -- it only exists for profit by and protection of the status quo of the sport. They have a right to not sell their footage to those disparaging the sport -- even if those disparagements are fully accurate.)
Carrying that concept forward, it's obvious that the UCI would deny broadcast rights to anyone they deem disparaging their sport.
If some countries' broadcasters felt that the real story truly needed to be heard during their coverage, they may see the example of the Germans (now), and know that they risk being denied further coverage rights. They may risk it, and get burned as the Germans have. At a certain point, you would have swaths of areas cut off from coverage -- likely those that had marginal audiences to begin with.
BUT: you would conversely have swaths of areas whose broadcasters decided to 'play ball' with the UCI's messaging on things -- which would be those that have large audiences, from whom the relevant broadcasters are themselves profiting right now, regardless of all the doping.
In other words, at no point would ALL broadcasters switch to coverage that was pointed, anti-doping, and off UCI message. If they did, they would be cut off. And some markets are too big and profitable as-is, or there is too much risk of competing coverage from less high-minded broadcasters nearby and also accessible, to risk cutting themselves off from those profits.
So even if all the broadcasters
wanted to put out a doping-critical message, they could never trust each other to stick with that message -- you have a Prisoner's Dilemma for the broadcasting world. That's not going to ever go away.
The only way it could would be if viewership for anti-doping coverage of the sport exceeded viewership of the UCI messaging of the sport. And there's no way UCI will let that happen -- they've already laid down the law with the Germans.
So, money talks; principles walk. And the issue of the media being complicit in it is the same as it ever was.
I don't in any way support this state of affairs. I'm just outlining why some people are instantly stating that the German direction in this is a failed strategy for going forward and generating clean sport.
As people are asking for pragmatic solutions to combat doping (as they should), this one doesn't seem terribly pragmatic...to me anyway.
...rewarding though it would be to see omerta get stuffed, in the short term.
Short version: The frogs are in charge of the temperature. And have paid off the Chef, and the local paper and its restaurant reviewer.
You're not going to get any frogs' legs here that you like.
But a well-placed call to the Board of Health (i.e., FDA, IRS, and now FBI), may actually get us a satisfying plateful.