Research Journal Entry #3

Research Journal Entry #3

Citation

Smith, E. (2013). Left Field. New Statesman, 142(5141), 62.

Retrieved from http://proxy.library.vcu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,cookie,uid&db=a9h&AN=84990772&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Main Claim

1. The real losers in this game are the clean riders and the writers who contradict the mood of the moment, those who spoke out against doping at the time. There is a market for the truth but it is a very fickle one.
2. The cyclists and writers who knew it was wrong to continue to keep silent over doping were shut down by their team mates or colleagues at the time. It shows the power of celebrity and the complicity of the media.

Summary of Source

Before 1998, doping was an obvious action and everybody involved in the Tour de France knew it. Even though most media outlets and cycling journalists were aware that it was very unlikely Lance Armstrong could have raced at that level without drugs, they still kept silent and even shut down those journalists who were brave enough to fight the Armstrong conspiracy. The same phenomenon could also be seen beneath cyclists as well. They cut down the whistle-blowers inside the peloton; they called it “pissing in the soup”.

After the 1998 Tour de France, which was a drug-fuelled disaster, the 1999 Tour which was Lance Armstrong’s first Tour De France, was supposed to be a new and clean start for a doping free cycling race. After Armstrong averaged unheard record times, the media chose to call Armstrong the greatest natural athlete, and ignored to consider that he might be cheating.

The reason for this was that the press prefered to play nice with Armstrong and this way get some quotes and face time with the hero. Lance on the other side, divided the world into two camps - with him or against him, friend or enemy. Those who inflated the Armstrong bubble, are the ones who now capitalise from his confession that he did take performance-enhancing drugs.

Important Quotations (and Screen Captures)

“Beneath the surface, Armstrong's story is about the power of celebrity and the complicity of the media. It is a depressing tale but a deeply salutary one” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).

“Cyclists were brutal in cutting down whistle-blowers inside the peloton; they called it "pissing in the soup". The journalistic mainstream mirrored the peloton: they closed ranks against reporters who challenged the comfortable status quo” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).

“Was doping really that obvious, even back then? Yes. Even if journalists ignored the persistent rumours and Armstrong's association with Dr Michele Ferrari, a master of doping, simple maths should have been enough” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).

“And Armstrong, like a brutal political spin doctor, was utterly ruthless about dividing the world into two camps -- with me or against me, friend or enemy, soft touch or "troll"” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).

Research Journal Entry #2

Research Journal Entry #2

Citation

Charlish, P. (2012). Drugs in Sport. Legal Information Management, 12(2), 109-120.

doi:10.1017/S1472669612000321.

Retrieved from http://proxy.library.vcu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,cookie,uid&db=iih&AN=76451234&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Main Claim

1. An athlete’s relationship with their governing body is a contractual one. This has very clear implications for the provision of regulations, the sanctioning, and any remedies that an athlete may either be subject to, or have the opportunity to pursue.
2. The anti doping machinery might have grown to such an extent that it violates the athletes basic human rights. Also, the sanctions for the charged athletes might be inappropriately high considering the threat that comes from doping and looking at the effect on the future well being of athletes.

Summary of Source

Peter Charlish’s article provides the reader with valuable historic information about the beginnings of doping and performance-enhancing substances. He talks about how the Ancient Greeks already used doping-alike drugs and that the first reported case of doping occurred as early as 1904. These facts are being followed by occurrences such as the death of a cyclist in the 1960 Olympic Games, whose autopsy revealed traces of amphetamines in his system.

Because of continuously occurring similar cases, such as another death of a cyclist in the 1967 Tour de France or the East German national conspiracy involving doping in the Olympic Games lead to the establishment of the First World Conference of Doping in 1999. Following this conference, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was founded. Through this Agency, international standards were starting to be put into effect. Quickly, athletes and human right advocates, realized that the fight against doping might evolve into an unlawful and unfair machinery that put athletes human rights and privacy at risk. It became almost impossible for charged athletes to prove their innocence and this resulted in grave effects on the future well being of athletes. Based on specific court cases, the author provides an insight into the legal world of the anti-doping machinery. These cases showed that anti-doping violations moved further away from a purely sporting endeavour towards a criminal investigation and prosecution process. This started to raise questions of whether or not the threat perceived by doping is being treated appropriately and in a lawful manner, especially considering the athlete’s human rights.

Important Quotations (and Screen Captures)

“The Olympic Games in London in 2012 will be the 30th of the modern era. One of the major and on-going news stories surrounding the Games will undoubtedly be that of the use of performance enhancing drugs” (Charlish, 2012, p. 109).

“Evidence suggests that the Ancient Greeks used crude combinations of different potions in an attempt to fortify themselves” (Charlish, 2012, p. 109).

“A wake up call occurred at the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome, when Danish cyclist Knud Jensen crashed and died. A subsequent autopsy revealed traces of amphetamines in his system” (Charlish, 2012, p. 109).

“The death of former world champion cyclist, Tommy Simpson, near the summit of Mount Ventoux in the 1967 Tour de France provided impetus for further developments” (Charlish, 2012, p. 110).

Research Journal Entry #1

Research Journal Entry #1

Citation

Lentillon-Kaestner, V. (2011), The development of doping use in high-level cycling: From team-organized doping to advances in the fight against doping. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23: 189–197. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01370.x

1. Main Claim

   
   
   

   1. Our results highlight the fact that advances in the fight against doping in the last decade have produced positive changes toward these objectives, but anti-doping measures have also had unexpected effects. We will underline these two opposing effects of anti-doping measures and discuss some limits to the efficiency of those measures.
   2. Since the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and their fight against doping since 1999, major progress and improvements have been made towards a doping free sport. However, these anti-doping procedures have also raised questions regarding the privacy and human rights of the athletes and yielded negative and unexpected effects.

Summary of Source

Athletes have been using performance-enhancing drugs as early as the 1960s. This development can be connected to the “medicalisation of life” and the increasing competitiveness of sports during that time period. However, it took until 1998, when the so called Festival scandal at the Tour de France provided proof of widespread use of doping in professional cycling. This journal talks about how the fight against doping is still in its transition period and that it will take more time until doping is under control. The reason for this is the influence of the older cyclist from the “former generation” who were taught and have received  training during a time when doping was still a common practice among professional cyclists. Some of these “old school” cyclist are still among the current teams in form of teammates, coaches or team managers and have influence on the younger cyclists. The “former cyclists” still try to convince cyclists of the “new generation” that doping is necessary to win.
The “new generation” cyclists are mostly for a clean sport and don’t want to be involved with any sort of performance-enhancing drugs.
However, the fight against doping has unexpected effects as well. Because there was a lot media attention after the first big doping scandals in professional cycling, young or amateur cyclists now had a great foundation of knowledge about doping and were influenced by this information. Because the topic of doping has now reached the mass media market, a larger audience is informed about the existence of these substances. The problem is, that since team wide doping has been banned and as a result all physicians have been suspended from cycling teams, there is no supervision over the use of doping anymore. This can result in drug abuse and health risks if a cyclist does decides to use performance-enhancing drugs on their own. Another downside is, that with increasing numbers of doping tests, the privacy of the cyclists suffers and every cyclist who delivers good performances is seen as a suspect of doping. Furthermore, the ban of these substances let to the development of a black market to obtain drugs that were no longer easily available. In this article we learn more about the progress and effects of the fight against doping.

Important Quotations (and Screen Captures)

Waddington asserts in his journal Sport, health and drugs. A sociological perspective that “In 1998, the Festina scandal at the Tour de France provided the first proof of the widespread use of doping in professional cycling and the involvement of physicians in the organization of doping” (as cited in Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p. 189).

“During the period of team-organized doping, doping was a common practice among professional cyclists; drug use was a shared practice and contributed to the subculture of doping in cycling (Waddington, 2000; Kimmage, 2001; Lê-Germain & Leca, 2005; Schneider, 2006; Brissonneau, 2007, p. 189).

Schneider claims in his journal Cultural nuances: doping, cycling and the Tour De France that “At the Tour de France 2002, cyclists claimed that attitudes had changed in cycling and that doping was less common (as cited in Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p.190).

Gregory, former professional cyclist asserts that “I had some doping pressure on my team in Italy in the final year. First, the masseur wanted me to take doping substances, and when he saw that I was against doping, the team manager came to talk to me . . . In Italy, there was real pressure to win all the time . . . It was too much; I had signed in December and stopped in May of the following year” (as cited in Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p.190).

Chris, former professional cyclist claims that “Previously, a doped cyclist had a certain status on the team. Now they [the team staff] drag him through the mud; he is plague-stricken, and everybody is afraid of him . . . Today, the teams understand that a positive-tested cyclist who has good results achieved through doping can destroy the team” (as cited in Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p.191).

“Doping use was a part of cycling culture for the cyclists of the “former generation” but not for the cyclists of the “new generation,” who have a new attitude toward doping.” (Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p.191).

“Today’s cyclists are a little more afraid of doping tests, especially those outside of competitions. The cyclists do not know when the anti-doping controller will come, and they cannot use all of the strategies used in races to sidestep the doping test” (Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p.193).

“However, anti-doping measures also produce unexpected effects, including a decrease in medical supervision, an increase in health risks, the development of a black market to obtain doping substances, and a decrease in cyclists’ privacy. The fight against doping is still evolving” (Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p.196).

Bob, U23 cyclist says that “In cycling, apparently, the more you take some substances, the faster you go” (Lentillon-Kaestner, 2011, p.191).