We missed the bus...

With all the talk about Floyd Landis (much of which has been incredibly poorly distilled through the various media outlets attempting to cover the story) I think we as a sports/cycling community missed an opportunity to discuss what I think will prove to be a more difficult issue in the long run regarding the treatment of doping in the realm of professional athletics. For those tired of hearing me rant about cycling, I assure you that, while cycling provides the story for this entry, any sports fan will be able to relate to the subject matter.

What we all missed was that, while Floyd was being drawn and quartered (an aptly old-school punishment for a Mennonite) the "Astana 5" were all cleared of any and all allegations against them.

The quick back story: on the day prior to the start of the Tour de France, a list of 28 riders suspected of doping was released by the Spanish press. 9 of these riders were scheduled to start Le Tour the next day, 5 from the Astana-Wurth team. All 9 riders were pulled from their team lineups, per the Code of Ethics. Since this left the Astana squad with only 4 riders, 2 shy of the minimum 6, the team was disqualified and not able to start the race, including pre-race favorite Alexandre Vinokourov, who was not one of the riders in question.

The "Acquital" of the 5 riders involved opens two important questions related to doping in sports: first, where do we draw the line between "innocent until proven guilty" and
"reasonable suspicion" in the sports arena? (in other words, was the UCI right in eliminating the squad on the suspicion of guilt?) and second, now that the Astana team has the legal opportunity to sue for damages related to missing the Tour de France, should they?

My personal response to each of these questions runs directly counter to the collective American consensus, as I generally understand it. Both answers also relate to the general concept of what is "good for the sport."

To the first I say that the UCI was absolutely correct in their response to the allegations. Cycling is a sport that has been fighting the doping scandal since long before Barry Bonds first used the Cream and the Clear, and Jose Canseco became "famous" in tabloid tell-all circles. The Operacion Puerto investigation that the suspensions stemmed from promised to uncover the largest, and hopefully last, major doping ring in the sport. The UCI did what they had to do, for the good of the Tour and for the good of the sport. But to do that, they had to ask themselves what was worse, the possibility of suspending an innocent rider from the biggest race of the year, or allowing a guilty rider to race, and answer the questions later.

In suspending these riders, the UCI made a clear and powerful statement: "DO NOT associate with dopers." Whether actually guilty, or only guilty by association, these riders were "involved" in a scandal that threatened to rock the foundation of the sport. Cycling could no longer bear the weight of the cloud of suspicion (which had apparently itself taken performance enhancers).

To the second question-should the Astana team sue the UCI and the Tour?-I again say, in the best interest of the sport, no. If Astana sues the UCI, they would almost certainly win (at least by the standards of US courts). But what damage does one team's victory have on the sport? The UCI finds itself in a position where it can no longer afford to suspend riders on suspicion alone, no matter how strong the evidence. Next time, when a rider is truly guilty and isn't suspended, the UCI, cycling, and sports fans all lose. I don't envy the Astana riders for what they were put through, but I would beg them, for the sake of the sport, don't sue.

I'd love responses to this post and your thoughts on the questions posted here. I think it provides an interesting opportunity for dialogue both topically related to sports and doping, but also philosophically, in questioning how to govern in consideration of the "greater good" versus "individual liberties." I look forward to your responses.