In this year’s edition of the Tour de France, the organizers analyzed 664 blood and urine samples from 198 cyclists, approximately three per head of analysis; more to the winning stages and team leaders. As stated in the official jargon, only one “adverse analysis” was detected. This suspicious exception, however, is Alberto Contador, a Spanish cyclist who has won the most prestigious race of the season for the third time. For the eleventh time, the little credibility that remained of the cyclism had been shattered again.

Last September, the TV channel TVE sent a journalist to the Vuelta a España to keep track of doping news for three weeks. “How far will we go?” We know to whom the question of the international judge and race organizer who wants to keep his name hidden is addressed. “Don’t you think the media has a lot to say? Sports results are hardly mentioned, and doping cases are always ready to spread to the four winds.” If he has asked us not to put his name, it is not because he will tell us the painful secrets that will shake the pillars of cyclism, but because he is “fed up”: “I don’t want to see my name next to the word doping, I’m aspered.” We have not insisted too much, because it is not our intention to confuse the margins, but to give a few brushstrokes to know how cycling has reached the state it is in, to explain which institutions are behind the acronyms of the news splattered by doping, leaving behind on the side of the road data and hypotheses that we cannot verify, rumors and unproven accusations. As ETB journalist Xabier Usabiaga explains, understanding the structure of the network is not as difficult as we thought.

Clenbuterol (2010)

The Alberto Contador case has boldly expanded the name of the anabolic that can be used to feed animals – which is banned in Europe. On the second day of rest of the Tour de France, on July 21, Contador was subjected to chalk tests in one of the anti-doping controls that have become commonplace. There were two suspicious substances in his urine: 5 picograms (0.000000000005 grams) of clenbuterol and diphthalate, a non-prohibited substance contained in plastic bags for storing blood. These bags, however, are commonly used in illegal blood self-transfusions.

Contador’s urine is being studied by scientists from the International Cycling Union (UCI) and the International Anti-Doping Agency (WADA-AMA). They will say whether the substances found are sufficient evidence to initiate the punitive process or not. If the answer is yes, Contador will be sanctioned by the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC), unless it considers it appropriate. However, if they do not comply with the decision taken by the Federation, the AMA, the UCI and the Contador itself may appeal to the Court for the Prosecution of Sport (TAS-CAS) (see table on the next page). At the time of closing this report, there was still no news.

The Festina case (1998)

 

We must go back twelve years, to 1998, to know the facts that marked the starting point of the current anti-doping crusade.

There was only one day left to start the tour. On the Franco-Belgian border, apparently out of order, the police left Willy Woet, the masseuse of the Festina group. In the car he was carrying 200 ampoules of EPO, growth hormones and dozens of boxes of testosterone. The substance called EPO, or erythropoietin, was still an undetectable product: it artificially produces red blood cells in the blood to improve their oxygenation and improve their performance and recovery. During the interrogation, Woet involved senior Festina Group officials in the matter. The sports director, Bruno Rousell, acknowledged that the cyclists of his team were doping and left the Tours out of the race. Of those questioned by the police, almost all of them corroborated the director’s version.

Not just interrogating. The gendarmes arrested several cyclists, doctors, masseurs and directors, searched buses and hotels, spied on all their movements... and not only those of Festina. They started pulling the thread and found that members of other groups were also muddy.

In protest, driven by the suffocating harassment and excessive dissuasive measures of the gendarmes, all the Spanish teams competing in the Tour (ONCE, Banesto, Kelme and Vitalicio) and the Italians Riso Scotti and Saeco left the race after sterile discussions between organizers, judges, team directors and cyclists. The spokesperson for the cyclists was Bjarne Riis, director of the team that just signed Contador (Saxo Bank). The Danish woman did not join the protests, but three years ago she confessed to being doped between 1993 and 1998. On the other hand, what convinced the Spanish teams to leave the race was the director of ONCE, Manolo Saiz, one of the people involved in Operation Port 2006.

What happened in 1998 highlighted the need for stricter anti-EPO and anti-doping controls in general, in response to which the International Anti-Doping Agency (WADA-AMA) was created a year later. But there's more. As the race organizer we interviewed told us, the Festina case revealed a lack of unity that can still be perceived among cyclists: “The Cyclists lost the fight in 1998.” Since then, every time he’s made a mockery to raise his head, the cyclist has received the coconut of a scandal. Probably the most famous was Operation Port.

Operation Port (2006)

 

On May 22, 2006, Manolo Saiz was arrested by the Civil Guard in Madrid when he left a coffee shop. When he was intercepted, the head of the Liberty Seguros group, who had taken over the ONCE, carried 60,000 euros in a suitcase and an isothermal bag full of prohibited substances. He was released the next day after confessing that he and some of the cyclists under his command were clients of the doctor Eufemiano Fuentes. Dozens of athletes from different disciplines are involved in this huge doping network. We say “they are” because the operation is not yet closed. Some of them, even though they have suffered damage, have withdrawn without being found guilty. The cyclists Unai and Aitor Osa and Joseba Beloki, for example, were identified by the Civil Guard as customers of the Fuentes network, but were not sanctioned by the Spanish Justice: Judge Antonio Serrano focused his investigation on an alleged crime against public health. He did not investigate the doping plot because it was not a crime in Spain until November 2006. Determined that there was no crime against public health, the case was closed and the defendants were acquitted; the case was awaited for oral trial. Cyclists could continue to compete normally, not only because they were not charged with any criminal offense, but also because the judge refused to send the evidence (bags of blood, documents, audio and video recordings...) that depended on them to the AMA and the UCI. The damage had already been done: With the disappearance of Liberty and its name tainted, many cyclists of that group did not receive any new offers.

Biological Passport (2008)

The Biological Passport was launched by the UCI in 2008: in the background, cyclists are subjected to blood and urine tests to monitor the large changes in values that can be explained in their graphs. It is a control mechanism that does not reveal positives – concrete evidence – but rather suspicions that prohibited substances have been taken. Xabier Usabiaga tells us with an example: “Let’s say you go by car, in that pair of Zumaia towards San Sebastian. Zumaia’s radars have not caught you at an excessive speed, but you have arrived in San Sebastián very quickly, in the middle you have done something that has aroused suspicion.” Suspected cyclists, in the form of provisional measures, are disqualified for fifteen days, during which time the case is investigated and conclusions are reached. Two of the first cyclists to denounce their biological passports were the Ermúra Igor Astarlo and the Italian Pietro Caucchioli in 2009. The Astarlo has retired this year as a “suspect” since the UCI has not confirmed its doping. On the other hand, Caucchioli will challenge the biological passport in the TAS. In June last year, it was sanctioned for two years by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI), based on the results issued by the UCI. He disagrees with the sentence, and the Italian takes his case to the TAS. His decision could jeopardize the usefulness of the biological passport, which was launched just two years ago.

Tom Simpson (1967)

Usabiaga tells us that the link between cycling and doping is “eternal”. The word “tradition” has been used by the international judge: “That connection has existed since the death of Tom Simpson.” The English cyclist died in 1967 climbing the Mont Ventoux in France. This isolated spot showed the doping plot in its cruelty: two kilometers from the top, Simpson staggered and fell to the top, suffering from heart failure. Three bottles of amphetamine were found in his jersey, and some cyclists confessed to having seen him drink brandy at the beginning of the stage.

We asked them why there is no such close connection in other sports: “It’s a matter of philosophy. Footballers have fallen in the middle of the field, suffering from a heart attack, and no one asks questions. What would happen if they were cyclists?” they both replied. “Watch out, I didn’t say there’s doping in football!” Usabiaga explains. The ETB journalist tells us that cycling has a lot to do with physical effort, much bigger than football, and that doping cases have a relationship with it. However, in the recent presentation of the Giro d’Italia 2011, which will have an incredibly tough trajectory, Usabiaga says that doping is not directly related to the difficulty: “Look at athletics, the most positive cases have been reported in the 100-meter race.” In his own words, it is “utopian” to think that all of this has a solution. He says doping has “always existed,” much more so than in the past, because it was “easier to go undercover.” In the past there were not as many checks: analysis of the whole team on the eve of the race, surprise checks in the homes of the cyclists... The international judge agrees: “Cycling is subject to much stricter controls than other sports.” He explains that in most races the controls are carried out by the UCI, because for many organizers “it is too expensive a process”. He greeted us with disappointment: “There are fewer and fewer young cyclists. Put yourself in the shoes of your parents. They constantly watch the news that confuses cycling with doping. It’s also a tough sport. How will they encourage their children to become cyclists?” The question has been left in the air, like the fog called “suspects” or “criminals” that the platoon can’t get rid of: always on top of the head, when to throw hail, soon to wake up from the dream of utopia.