Monday, August 09, 2004 AD
Dope
Willy Voet, former soigneur (i.e. team dealer physio) for the Festina cycling team, shares some details with us of Richard Virenque's preparations for a time trial in the 1997 Tour de France (from Le Tour by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, p.296):
Voet made these revelations during the investigations that followed the notorious 1998 Tour. Two days before the start of that year's race, Voet was stopped on the Belgian/French border in a Festina team car which proved to be "an enormous mobile pharmacy, containing just about every possible illicit performance-enhancing drug, from faintly démodé growth hormone to the tout ce qu'il y à de chic EPO, that formidable blood-strengthening potion erythropoietin" (p.294). Voet's not-especially-plausible first line of defence was that the drugs were intended for his own personal use only. The drugs scandal proceeded to taint the whole of that year's Tour.
Perversely - but perhaps characteristically - the French have continued to treat local boy Virenque as a sporting hero, despite his serving a twelve-month ban following l'affaire Festina; while at the same time spending the last six years yelling "dopé, dopé!" at Lance Armstrong, a man who has taken more dope tests, all negative, than any other cyclist.
Cynicism about Armstrong's achievements is perhaps to be expected given cycling's track record, even before the open scandals of the past few years. But I prefer to take his denials at face value. First and foremost, there's the eighth commandment to consider. But even apart from that, there are times when it is better to be an innocent dove than a (worldly-)wise serpent.
While it may be true some of the time that "cynic" is merely what an optimist calls a realist, the reflex cynicism so prevalent today - and I certainly don't exempt myself from this - is really a form of insecurity, founded on a desire not to appear stupid and naive. Cynicism - whether it's tapping the side of your nose archly while discussing Armstrong's "training regime", or hinting that dark forces within the White House deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, or insinuating that a public figure is homosexual - is a way of sending out signals that one is privy to secret, inside information on a particular topic or about a particular individual. It's a hedge against future revelations, to preserve one's "credibility".
Better (for your soul, if nothing else) to be saying "Say it ain't so, Joe!" through the tears, than "Oh yes, it's come out at last, knew it would some day", when in fact you knew nothing of the sort.
Given his regular treatments of EPO and especially growth hormones, he was as ready as he would ever be. All he needed was a well-timed injection of caffeine, plus Solucamphre.Oh dear.
Voet made these revelations during the investigations that followed the notorious 1998 Tour. Two days before the start of that year's race, Voet was stopped on the Belgian/French border in a Festina team car which proved to be "an enormous mobile pharmacy, containing just about every possible illicit performance-enhancing drug, from faintly démodé growth hormone to the tout ce qu'il y à de chic EPO, that formidable blood-strengthening potion erythropoietin" (p.294). Voet's not-especially-plausible first line of defence was that the drugs were intended for his own personal use only. The drugs scandal proceeded to taint the whole of that year's Tour.
Perversely - but perhaps characteristically - the French have continued to treat local boy Virenque as a sporting hero, despite his serving a twelve-month ban following l'affaire Festina; while at the same time spending the last six years yelling "dopé, dopé!" at Lance Armstrong, a man who has taken more dope tests, all negative, than any other cyclist.
Cynicism about Armstrong's achievements is perhaps to be expected given cycling's track record, even before the open scandals of the past few years. But I prefer to take his denials at face value. First and foremost, there's the eighth commandment to consider. But even apart from that, there are times when it is better to be an innocent dove than a (worldly-)wise serpent.
While it may be true some of the time that "cynic" is merely what an optimist calls a realist, the reflex cynicism so prevalent today - and I certainly don't exempt myself from this - is really a form of insecurity, founded on a desire not to appear stupid and naive. Cynicism - whether it's tapping the side of your nose archly while discussing Armstrong's "training regime", or hinting that dark forces within the White House deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, or insinuating that a public figure is homosexual - is a way of sending out signals that one is privy to secret, inside information on a particular topic or about a particular individual. It's a hedge against future revelations, to preserve one's "credibility".
Better (for your soul, if nothing else) to be saying "Say it ain't so, Joe!" through the tears, than "Oh yes, it's come out at last, knew it would some day", when in fact you knew nothing of the sort.
