Why Bother with Punishing the Cheaters in Cycling: The Cushing Case

[Roninho]

Doping is a small problem with the image of many American sports compared to the criminal behavior of many of the players. Rothlesberger, and LT are just the two latest examples

well from a commercial standpoint i understand why the nfl is focusing on getting the criminal players in line in stead of focusing on doping. If you don't test much you won't have a doping issue in the eyes of the general audience, so that you can control. Players getting into legal trouble is something they cant control, so the nfl is handing out harsh punishments for that. I mean Roethlisberger has the charges against him dropped, so apparently there isn't (enough) evidence to start a case, but he get's suspended for 6 games anyway and has to do counseling. Cushing get's caught for doping, can play the full season anyway, get his droy-award and get's 4 games.

 

[forty four]

You can't really die from steroids to be honest, but it could f**k with your long term hormone levels and your fertility.

That's what HCG is supposed to help prevent.

umm that is wrong yes you can die from steroid use. i know people who have.

 

[9000ft]

Fans demand superhuman performance. You don't get superhuman performance on fruits, vegetables, water and clean living. Look at cycling. Go through forums like this and see the derision cast upon those that perform at anything less than incredible. "Such and such is a wheel sucker, or unexciting, or has no panache". Fans want winners, everyone else is just the first-second-third looser.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The outrage in this thread is hilarious...
That any of you are the least bit surprised, outraged, hurt, wounded, or struggling with this is quite another level of comedy.

It seems to me you're missing the argument. It's not that anyone is surprised someone doped, it's that in this case, the NFL (and press) are doing almost nothing about it. Have you even followed the Cushing case? Or do you think it's okay that the press laughs at cycling for it's doping and points it's finger at it - thus damaging the sport further. Yet the same press turns a blind eye to the NFL's doping? This is okay with you?

And it doesn't bother you that athletes can't compete in some sports cleanly? The only way is to dope. How fair is that? And some others (like LeMond, Bassons, Delion, etc.) have their careers ruined because everyone else dopes, and they refuse to? That is indeed something to be outraged about.

 

[Berzin]

As a citizen of the greatest country in the world, I can tell you that we are all about self-righteousness and moral hypocrisy.

But we don't have a patent on such issues. Doping in cycling is a European issue because that's where the game is played at it's highest level. Hence the level of concern is greater.

The doping in Europe is more organized, but I can tell you it is just as if not more rampant here because there is hardly any testing. I've said this a million times and it bares repeating-if you were to test the top 10 in any field, whether it be pros or CAT 3 amateurs, more than half if not more would test positive for some type of banned substance. And in the master's field, I would say it's around 70%.

The big sports in the US have unions to protect their players. If cycling had the same type of union with the same clout, no one would ever get suspended. There wouldn't be any blood tests, no bio-passport, no nothing. And certainly no two-year ban for a first offense.


Just basic urine tests and that's it. But since cyclists are so powerless in front of the UCI juggernaut and even within their own teams, they are easy scapegoats.

That's no excuse, but it is an explanation as I see it.

It is beyond me why cyclists are targeted with so much force, and why people obsess so much over which rider is "clean" or not when it seems like a minor side-issue in almost every other major sport in the world. But cyclists make easy targets who can be rid of very quickly with little to no effort.

 

[BikeCentric]

This Cushing saga is more an issue of there being a relatively weak NFL rookie defensive class last year. Cushing is by far the best defensive player in the class and there is just no consensus #2 player, so despite losing a lot of votes on the re-vote he still got enough votes to keep his award. For example I would have picked Orakpo as the second-best player in that class but the writers narrowly picked Byrd and Matthews as 2 and 3 respectively. If there had been another very good defensive player in this class then surely Cushing would not have kept the award on re-vote.

Anyway, Orakpo and Matthews are "merely" above-average Linebackers and Byrd a good starting Safety who should start for most of his career in the league. Doubtfull any of the three will ever make a Pro Bowl. Cushing however is a beast of a backer who has the potential to become a Ray Lewis or a Brian Urlacher and those kind of athletes are very rare at Linebacker.

Frankly I think it's a good sign that they even did the re-vote.

As to the lack of morals in America? That has been a long time in eroding and from the many things I've read our American cultural veneer of morality from the glory days of the '50's was more illusion than the reality of what went on behind closed doors. So if anything there was simply more hypocrisy in the past.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

It seems to me you're missing the argument. It's not that anyone is surprised someone doped, it's that in this case, the NFL (and press) are doing almost nothing about it. Have you even followed the Cushing case? Or do you think it's okay that the press laughs at cycling for it's doping and points it's finger at it - thus damaging the sport further. Yet the same press turns a blind eye to the NFL's doping? This is okay with you?

And it doesn't bother you that athletes can't compete in some sports cleanly? The only way is to dope. How fair is that? And some others (like LeMond, Bassons, Delion, etc.) have their careers ruined because everyone else dopes, and they refuse to? That is indeed something to be outraged about.

Oh, trust me, I have not missed the point.

On my extended visit to the US, i have seen the issues in the Cushing case. I can't see where, in the context of the NFL player case, anyone in the press is laughing at cycling, perhaps that is ones own reaction?

There are several clear differences between something like the NFL and UCI professional cycling. If you cannot see these differences, like one is part of the Olympic Movement and one is not, one has a player (employee) union and one does not, one is the worlds single biggest revenue generator and one is not, then there is no way to explore this issue. Outrage? No. They are not even close enough to attempt a comparison. To do so is silly, when it comes to outrage.

The NFL does what the market will bear. If enough folks stop buying tickets, turn off their teams on Sundays and pinch the economic sphincter of that professional league, then the NFL will make changes. As it is, the media, the fans, and, tacitly, the league doesn't either.

To be honest, it really does not bother me that an athlete dopes. If by doping he is breaking a rule, then that is the issue, and that does bother me. Doping, as an infraction, is akin to taking a shortcut on the course, which as a rule to break is about as bad of cheating as possible. Some sports have different rules, enforcement procedures and adjudication. There is where the primary difference from a sport like cycling lies. So, are you upset that the NFL does not ban players for 2 years for an infraction like Cushing, or are you simply "outraged" that the larger, more enterprising and successful sports differ from the way the Olympic Movement handles the issue? If you are, then you must either feel that cycling handles their issues with doping properly (and i would disagree) or you cannot accept that professional sport is simply entertainment, and should be accepted as such, the same way you appreciate other cultural entertainment formats, and the use of drugs that goes into producing them.

If you want to be a fan of particularly clean sport, for the sake of competition, your desire to find that in something like professional cycle racing is misdirected. that you are "outraged" when it turns out that the athletes involved take drugs, and wail and moan when another sport is not as rough in sanctioning a caught doper, then you need to re-examine why you really care.

Where is your "outrage" when you consider what fueled an album like Sgt. Peppers? Do you only listen to music made by "clean" performers? how about "clean" comedians? How about "clean" actors of such?

Am I saying that if an actor is caught driving down Hollywood Blvd, snorting coke off the tail of an adolescent in their car, they should not be brought to justice? No. Of course they should.

If you decide to toss you drug fueled music, we can take this conversation further. If you simply want to whine about how "bad" other sports are, or how cycling is doing it "right" then I feel you have mis-set your own expectations of what professional sports are, why they exist, how they work, where the money comes from and why folks are fans.

 

[biokemguy]

Appreciate the racing cyclist or American footballer for what they are: Entertainment. Much the same as the musicians that fill your iPod's or the CD's in your autos. Not surprisingly, ALL of them were on drugs too! "Cast out your dirty, devil music!" they used to say.

I agree with much of that, but when the people I pay to entertain me become criminals, that's where I draw the line. The doping is gonna happen. I don't think it should, but it's not gonna stop me watching and enjoying sport.

But when the sportsmen become criminals, its difficult to justify putting money in their pocket.

People talk about life time bans for doping, but I'd rather see life time bans for any sportsman or woman that is charged with real crimes. Michael Vick for example.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh, trust me, I have not missed the point.

On my extended visit to the US, i have seen the issues in the Cushing case. I can't see where, in the context of the NFL player case, anyone in the press is laughing at cycling, perhaps that is ones own reaction?

There are several clear differences between something like the NFL and UCI professional cycling. If you cannot see these differences, like one is part of the Olympic Movement and one is not, one has a player (employee) union and one does not, one is the worlds single biggest revenue generator and one is not, then there is no way to explore this issue. Outrage? No. They are not even close enough to attempt a comparison. To do so is silly, when it comes to outrage.

The NFL does what the market will bear. If enough folks stop buying tickets, turn off their teams on Sundays and pinch the economic sphincter of that professional league, then the NFL will make changes. As it is, the media, the fans, and, tacitly, the league doesn't either.

To be honest, it really does not bother me that an athlete dopes. If by doping he is breaking a rule, then that is the issue, and that does bother me. Doping, as an infraction, is akin to taking a shortcut on the course, which as a rule to break is about as bad of cheating as possible. Some sports have different rules, enforcement procedures and adjudication. There is where the primary difference from a sport like cycling lies. So, are you upset that the NFL does not ban players for 2 years for an infraction like Cushing, or are you simply "outraged" that the larger, more enterprising and successful sports differ from the way the Olympic Movement handles the issue? If you are, then you must either feel that cycling handles their issues with doping properly (and i would disagree) or you cannot accept that professional sport is simply entertainment, and should be accepted as such, the same way you appreciate other cultural entertainment formats, and the use of drugs that goes into producing them.

If you want to be a fan of particularly clean sport, for the sake of competition, your desire to find that in something like professional cycle racing is misdirected. that you are "outraged" when it turns out that the athletes involved take drugs, and wail and moan when another sport is not as rough in sanctioning a caught doper, then you need to re-examine why you really care.

Where is your "outrage" when you consider what fueled an album like Sgt. Peppers? Do you only listen to music made by "clean" performers? how about "clean" comedians? How about "clean" actors of such?

Am I saying that if an actor is caught driving down Hollywood Blvd, snorting coke off the tail of an adolescent in their car, they should not be brought to justice? No. Of course they should.

If you decide to toss you drug fueled music, we can take this conversation further. If you simply want to whine about how "bad" other sports are, or how cycling is doing it "right" then I feel you have mis-set your own expectations of what professional sports are, why they exist, how they work, where the money comes from and why folks are fans.

Your view is not wrong - but it is a narrow view on the issue.

My view on PEDs in cycling has never been a 'moral issue' - it is not a simple matter of 'right' vs 'wrong'.

In cycling PEDs are taken to get an advantage on your peer's, and once they start using the same PED's that advantage is often gone. PEDs in cycling add nothing to the 'entertainment' of the sport.Yes, the riders are riding faster now than they did 2 decades ago but most people watch cycling for its battles - rider against rider, whether its the sprints, mountains or classics.

Of course this 'forces' many who would normally not want to take drugs to do so and for those that want to try new and often untested products with little thought to any long term consequences.

NFLs problem is that if it were to implement an aggressive anti-doping movement it would kill the sport for what it is. IE 'Hey guys, no more PED's, so don't tackle as hard as you used to"

While you are right that a lot of hypocrisy (and indeed self righteous commentating) on PED abuse in sport it is not just the sole reason for people to have strong opinions against PED's in sport.

PEDs and recreational drugs are 2 completely different issues. It is not a requirement to take drugs to write a great album - that is not the case in sport.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I agree with much of that, but when the people I pay to entertain me become criminals, that's where I draw the line. The doping is gonna happen. I don't think it should, but it's not gonna stop me watching and enjoying sport.

But when the sportsmen become criminals, its difficult to justify putting money in their pocket.

People talk about life time bans for doping, but I'd rather see life time bans for any sportsman or woman that is charged with real crimes. Michael Vick for example.

100% agree. To the extent that a justice system allows a person to gain their freedom again, a potential employer like a sports team or league should be more forceful in building rules that further exclude an athlete from their sport.

Generally, there is a morals clause in sport contracts. As well, there are rules in sporting bylaws to the effect of "behavior detrimental", and should be vigorously enforced.

The NFL player who drove drunk, hit and killed a pedestrian (thought they were jaywalking and it was clearly accidental) is a conundrum. From what I;ve read, the athlete served jail time, is seriously remorseful, and will be paying restitution for years. If he were not to be able to earn a high wage, he'd never be able to pay the restitution. So this does cut both ways, depending on circumstances.

The thug, criminal ethos of many NFL and NBA players is very cultural. It is often tied to Rap lifestyle and that is a generally misogynistic and violent mindset. Criminals who commit violent crimes, sex crimes, or the like, should be removed from a sporting future career. As felons in the US, I believe they cannot become a barber, a limo driver, or other particular licensed jobs where such a conviction precludes obtaining the license.

 

[Escarabajo]

@Colm.Murphy:

If your son were to be a cyclist, you will support him completely, even if you knew that in order to survive he had to dope?

I would not. In fact, I already made up my mind. My son loves cycling and he is starting to ride a lot but I already talked to wife. No Cycling. No NFL either.

Sports are about entertainment and competition, but not about doping. Where in the rules is says doping or playing with your health for that matter.

I have been disillusioned in the last few years. Sorry, that's just me.

 

[red_flanders]

Do you guys believe this?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/05/12/cushing.ap/index.html

There are no morals in America anymore. The media does not even care. So why are we being too tough with our cyclists?

I am a little pi$$ed off at the outcome of this affair.

Please comment and rant all you want.

He got a 4 game suspension, stands to lose about a million dollars in earnings over that time, and will face increased testing in the future.

What else do you want?

 

[Escarabajo]

He got a 4 game suspension, stands to lose about a million dollars in earnings over that time, and will face increased testing in the future.

What else do you want?

Actually I am fine with the punishment. That was not my point.

I am a little confused by the Media response. This is the same people that point the fingers at cheaters from the Olympics and other sports (????). I am not sure by looking at the reaction what to believe from these people anymore. I agree with Peter King reaction's though.

At least it was important that they did the re-vote. That's progress.

Some people have made the argument that the reason he got the award is because of the big difference in the performance between the first and second. But as an example I recall the other two that got the same award in the past were Julius Peppers and Merriman. I don't remember them being the same after they were catched. So you can make the argument that the doping made the difference in all the cases.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He got a 4 game suspension, stands to lose about a million dollars in earnings over that time, and will face increased testing in the future.

What else do you want?

Ok - I know (& care) little for NFL.
He gets a 4 game suspension - which equates to $1million? How many games do these guys play and what is their earning potential? $1 million is steep - but if its out of $10 million, then no.


I don't know NFL - but I do know inconsistent statements...
todays statement.....

In a statement Saturday, Cushing said the test indicated "the presence of a non-steroidal banned substance." He said he took the test in September and was notified of the results in October"

Which is rather different from his statement last month...

"I don’t understand where it is coming from," Cushing told me. "I was tested last December at USC and passed, one of several tests I have passed. I was tested this morning here at the combine and those results should be out in a couple of weeks to a month, I believe. I think people are trying to find something, anything, that would detract from what I have done on the field. You learn in life if it’s not one thing, it’s the other. I hope once I pass the test here that this will be put behind me. I’m really hoping for that."

 

[BikeCentric]

Actually I am fine with the punishment. That was not my point.

I am a little confused by the Media response. This is the same people that point the fingers at cheaters from the Olympics and other sports (????). I am not sure by looking at the reaction what to believe from these people anymore. I agree with Peter King reaction's though.

At least it was important that they did the re-vote. That's progress.

Some people have made the argument that the reason he got the award is because of the big difference in the performance between the first and second. But as an example I recall the other two that got the same award in the past were Julius Peppers and Merriman. I don't remember them being the same after they were catched. So you can make the argument that the doping made the difference in all the cases.

The media is actually hammering this situation pretty good, Ratto and Freeman are all over it:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/...sh-back-award-to-odorous-ap?tag=headlines;nfl

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/st...-ragers-in-football?tag=pageRow;pageContainer

Merriman is still one of the best Linebackers in the entire league and Peppers is still a great passrusher. This is likely becasue they are still doping LOL. Merriman actually got in a trash-talking argument during pre-game warm-ups with Denver's head coach back in mid-season so it looks like he's still 'roid-raging plenty.

 

[BikeCentric]

Vic Carucci hammering him too:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8180f828&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

This is actually quite the can-of-worms for the NFL. I'm sure they'll go back to simply not releasing the positive tests LOL.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

The thing is, if other sports had the doping controls that cycling has there'd be almost no doping problems at all in those sports. So the fact that cyclists still dope despite all the checks on them shows you that it's a bigger problem and more critical to performance output than in other sports.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

The thing is, if other sports had the doping controls that cycling has there'd be almost no doping problems at all in those sports. So the fact that cyclists still dope despite all the checks on them shows you that it's a bigger problem and more critical to performance output than in other sports.

No. That is wrong.

If those sports had doping controls like cycling, they probably would not exist, as the scandals would tear it to bits.

Doping in cycling is no more or less critical to their performance than the doping implemented in other sports relative to the performance in those respective sports. It is the same, just different programs for different purposes.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

PEDs and recreational drugs are 2 completely different issues. It is not a requirement to take drugs to write a great album - that is not the case in sport.

The difference is the subjectivity by which success is judged within the arts, and the commercial success often follows (though sometimes it does not, at least not at a common rate).

Sports are what they are and have become as they have rigid measures for performance and success.

Now, you can be quite the, subjectively judged, "great" cyclist due to many other factors outside of winning. Also, a racer "can" race clean and do moderately well. Same as making a great piece of music "clean". Yet it occurs time and time again that those on the drugs make (generally) the best music.

Yes, there are ALWAYS going to be certain exceptions but on the balance, this is the way I see it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

My complaint is the double standard. As Oldman quoted a sportswriter:

"However, Cushing won the award in January, and I don't feel like we should revise history. I am concerned about the precedent."

Imagine if USADA felt the same way about Floyd Landis...

As a citizen of the greatest country in the world, I can tell you that we are all about self-righteousness and moral hypocrisy.

True. Take a look at corporate America, Wall Street, politics. The "goal", most of our leaders tell us, is to have everyone compete for everything. Everything. We're told it somehow "grows" the country, as people end up more and more cutthroat, and greedy.

The big sports in the US have unions to protect their players. If cycling had the same type of union with the same clout, no one would ever get suspended. There wouldn't be any blood tests, no bio-passport, no nothing. And certainly no two-year ban for a first offense.

True, however there is the CPA. But in the past the CPA has been on the wrong side of so many arguments, they have no credibility left. There is also the AIGCP, but that's more of a team's union, and led by Eric Boyer, who is anti-doping.

If the CPA (or AIGCP that matter) were more powerful however, we would have someone to hold McQuaid and the UCI's feet to the fire to compel them to at least be consistent. Instead, the UCI is maybe less trustworthy than the riders they are supposed to police.

I agree with you Colm, and biokemguy too, on criminal activity. There's no reason why Michael Vick should be playing football professionally. No way at all. Same with Ben Roethlisberger, Pacman Jones, Plaxico Burris, etc. Arguably Ray Lewis as well. I'd rather have someone like Vinokourov serve his suspension and be back racing (maybe doping again against other dopers) that Michael Vick back playing football.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The thing is, if other sports had the doping controls that cycling has there'd be almost no doping problems at all in those sports. So the fact that cyclists still dope despite all the checks on them shows you that it's a bigger problem and more critical to performance output than in other sports.

That´s a myth which is repeated again and again. But it´s still wrong. Where´s no testing is where´s no positivs.

Just quote the Mitchell report (MLB): "... during the random testing in 2003, 5 to 7 percent of players tested positive for steroid use... ". That´s in a game of skill and not endurance. If you had 5-7% positivs in cycling alone on one substance (like Epo), that translates into ca. 80 positives in one year. I think hell would break loose in the meadia.

 

[Oncearunner8]

The thing is, if other sports had the doping controls that cycling has there'd be almost no doping problems at all in those sports. So the fact that cyclists still dope despite all the checks on them shows you that it's a bigger problem and more critical to performance output than in other sports.

to be blunt ... you are full of **** in regards to how cyclist still dope despite controls compared to other sports.

The NFL does not check for ****. All you have to do is look into their testing programs. It is a joke compared to the UCI and what the **** should that tell you?

 

[Oncearunner8]

My complaint is the double standard. As Oldman quoted a sportswriter:

"However, Cushing won the award in January, and I don't feel like we should revise history. I am concerned about the precedent."

Imagine if USADA felt the same way about Floyd Landis...

I thought of the same thing when I read about this Cushing AP rookie of the year crap. Just think if they said yeah well ....no big deal!

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

The difference is the subjectivity by which success is judged within the arts, and the commercial success often follows (though sometimes it does not, at least not at a common rate).

Sports are what they are and have become as they have rigid measures for performance and success.

Now, you can be quite the, subjectively judged, "great" cyclist due to many other factors outside of winning. Also, a racer "can" race clean and do moderately well. Same as making a great piece of music "clean". Yet it occurs time and time again that those on the drugs make (generally) the best music.

Yes, there are ALWAYS going to be certain exceptions but on the balance, this is the way I see it.

Completely disagree. There wouldn't be doping in most of these sports if they had the same testing regime that cycling has - it just wouldn't be worth the cost of getting caught. The reason doping still persists in cycling is the direct correlation with successful output.

In soccer, for instance, yes it would help if you took EPO to run around the pitch for longer and harder, but it wouldn't necessarily produce a better outcome. In cycling that IS the outcome.

 

[Escarabajo]

The media is actually hammering this situation pretty good, Ratto and Freeman are all over it:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/...sh-back-award-to-odorous-ap?tag=headlines;nfl

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/st...-ragers-in-football?tag=pageRow;pageContainer

Merriman is still one of the best Linebackers in the entire league and Peppers is still a great passrusher. This is likely becasue they are still doping LOL. Merriman actually got in a trash-talking argument during pre-game warm-ups with Denver's head coach back in mid-season so it looks like he's still 'roid-raging plenty.

Good to know this. Thanks for the info.

I agree about the criminals being the worst for the sport. If a doper pays his time I am really Ok with it. I don't like the excuses but if they want to ride again they have to play cynical.