UPDATED: Can We Drop the Fake Moral Outrage?

I'm all for clean sport b/c I've come to understand from first-hand experience how destructive doping can be...but: are you or is anybody else REALLY surprised that guys like Jan Ullrich and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom were Olympic gold medalists, are reticent and inclined not to publicly admit their doping, even when it's apparently obvious to even the casual fan?

I mean, seriously - how upset or annoyed or frustrated or otherwise negatively impacted can you be by their totally-predictable decisions to deny having doped, or at least refuse to address affirmatively those accusations (even if in the long-run they might be better off b/c of the potential lifting of the mental burden of living lives based on lies)?

The likely outcome of such admissions would be total financial ruin, years of litigation, an exponential increase in harassment and persecution by the media and the loss of all public support, and in some cases possible criminal liability.

It's disingenuous for anyone to act surprised or offended or to be condescending or dismissive b/c Ulle won't admit to allegedly having been a Fuentes client - just like Hamilton won't admit to having allegedly blood doped during the Olympics and so holds onto his Gold Medal.

I have little doubt that the same people who urge Ullrich to come clean for his own well-being and for the long-term health of the sport are the same people who would jump at the chance to crucify the guy after he would make such an admission!

I'm sorry, but unless Ullrich loses "everything" and reaches the level at which Floyd was bobbing when he decided to engage the UCI behind-the-scenes to challenge them for their complicity in doping, it's totally not going to happen that he admits to anything while he still faces civil or criminal liability, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a PhD to realize that.

I don't mean to single-out anyone in particular, but can we drop the fake moral outrage and admit that we can, by and large, empathize with former-athletes like Hamilton and Ullrich who are widely suspected of having doped, and who have been sanctioned to one degree or another for doping infractions, but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge their alleged doping? And that we realize that it's unlikely that they would step-up and make such admissions prior to the expiration of any statutes of limitations, or their own arrival at rock-bottom, where they would finally have nothing that they'd consider valuable left to lose?

UPDATE: This post seems to have touched a nerve with a subset of the cycling population, including riders current and retired, other fans, commentators, officials and even some in the anti-doping movement. And while I can't reveal the details, I know that some of these like-minded individuals are themselves considering speaking on-record to the media about their own distaste for the witch-hunt mentality and no-hope-of-redemption mind-set that radical anti-dopers embrace.

We must clearly articulate, identify, highlight and protect a clear pathway back to competition and reintegration in Sport for those convicted of doping. While there are arguments in support of this that can be based on moral, ethical, even philosophical concerns, there is also a significant practical reality: few athletes sanctioned for doping will cooperate meaningfully with anti-doping authorities if the expected response is to be eviscerated by the media, the public, and even the ADA's with whom they're supposedly collaborating (see Bernhard Kohl's Life Ban, which he received AFTER he cooperated to a degree previously not seen in cycling at that level).

If the environment continues to be polluted with extremist anti-doping rhetoric that encourages the blacklisting of even those riders who meet all the terms of their sanction, we can forget the idea that the next doper might "do the right thing" and reveal the "smoking gun" evidence that so many people are crying for, or that he will provide investigators with a detailed explanation of how he and his co-conspirators defeated anti-doping controls.

No, instead you'll just see an endless parade of Ivan Basso's and Dan Staite's - riders who either want to come back and so will admit to only the bare minimum personal transgression (without "naming names" so as not to throw dirt at the sport) or riders who have no intention of ever competing in cycling again, and so basically tell the world to "F*ck Off."

Neither situation is a good one if one desires that the fight against doping in sport be successful. It might be distasteful to say it, but it's obvious that the ADA's need the cooperation of any and every doper they identify.

And while it's of interest to me that there be less radicalism in anti-doping and more opportunity for rehabilitation, there are countless others who don't even care about doping beyond not wanting to see it discussed as the number one topic each week on Cyclingnews.com. As one interlocutor explained to me:

"The more fans of cycling I meet, especially those with no direct experience of racing, the more I am beginning to believe that most spectators don't actually care about the issue of doping. They just enjoy the spectacle. And dope or no dope, that looks like it will continue. That's not to say you or I shouldn't care about it. We should. So as to avoid future instances of innocent athletes being cheated out of making a living, and to avoid guilty ones from being driven from making a living. Both, to me, are tragic. The other potential new fans who do care about doping, I worry will be turn away from a sport that has done more than most sports to ensure "fairness". And i think that if we are not careful, we can contribute to that, by engaging in the debate in a way that leaves the less informed with the impression that cycling is the "dirtiest" sport.

Yes, we should learn from the past, and that means discussing it openly, but like in Salem, witch hunts are pretty unedifying spectacles and are certainly not as entertaining as watching guys race their bikes. And witch hunts certainly aren't high up on potential sponsors lists of targets with which to advertise their wares. Something that is very relevant to our future. What is happening now will not take away man's innate desire to seek advantage, just as a lynching wasn't going to take away the desire of "slaves" to screw their "masters" wives. It might just have made them damn sure that they didn't get caught in future."

Tyler Hamilton Training company is under way, would you want your kids coached by him?

Over on Facebook, Bike Pure asks: Tyler Hamilton Training company is under way, would you want your kids coached by him?

My thoughts: Geeze, holy insinuation of pure evil. Christ, the guy is entitled to make a living and he's not a child molester. If you're not going to allow him to work for his income, are you going to put him on the dole then? He's banned 8 years from holding any UCI/USACycling license, including a coaching one, can't utilize the Olympic Training Center, etc. What is it with the notion that once someone has been caught, sanctioned and served their suspension, they should be blackballed and blacklisted as if they were suspected Communists in 1950's McCarthy America and prevented from earning a living if it somehow involves a bicycle. By your implication, he shouldn't be allowed to work in a bike shop or be a bike messenger, either?

BESIDES, if you want to be pissed off at anyone, blame any PARENTS who would retain someone as their child's coach who you think is a bad influence.

At least Hamilton is out there trying to make a living - something not easy to do while battling clinical depression, let alone as an entrepreneur.

At the core the issue is that certain people believe that Hamilton must issue some David Millar-like apology before he can even be considered a legitimate human being entitled to be associated in any capacity, even an informal, unlicensed one, with competitive cycling. But just because he was convicted of doping doesn't mean that he has to proclaim his guilt - no matter how logical you would think that to be.

If he thinks he's innocent, or wants to continue to claim innocence even though he is guilty (if that's the case), then as distasteful as it is for certain people, you have to suck it up or get your government to pass a law mandating the kind of behavior you want to see Tyler forced to engage-in (public confession?).

Tyler got a second chance to be a UCI-licensed road professional. He blew that. But last time I checked, he wasn't advertising his services under the guise of the UCI, so why carp that he shouldn't be allowed to earn a living in the free market, and instead, why not educate parents about the dangers of doping so that they can include a chapter on the topic in the moral and ethical training of their children. Then they won't want to work with Tyler Hamilton or maybe they will because they'll engage in some difficult calculus that includes a variable on persecution.

Tyler Hamilton was Once a Ski Racer

From Holderness School alumni magazine is this non-cyclist-oriented article on Tyler Hamilton. Browse to the full copy here.

Tyler Hamilton, Victim Or Villain?

Ed Hood interviews Tyler Hamilton - my roommate during a try-out with Montgomery-Bell - for PEZ. It's the first I've heard from the "Engima" since he basically went into hiding after his second positive, and the interview is fascinating and accompanied by great photos. Love him or hate him, I hope that Tyler's battle with depression is one that he wins, because it's in those darkest moments that one can pass irretrievably into the abyss. If you could only ask Luca Gelfi or Christophe Dupouey, they'd say the same, I'm sure.

I'm reproducing the intro to the interview here, along with the first question and two photos. Click through to Pez for the full text and the complete portfolio of magnificent images. And remember, as I wrote in August, mental illness haunts pro sports - and athletes are humans, too, with limited coping mechanisms and breaking points and only a finite capacity to suffer, even if you perceive that limit to be infinitely greater than your own. Because of the complexity of the calculus that athletes must make when deciding whether or not to dope, it is nearly impossible for punters and laymen and even recreational racing cyclists who've never practiced sport as a profession to truly understand the intersection between villain, victimization, criminal innocent and naive man-child, yet so many have no qualms about screaming in black and white "Dopers Suck!" and "Go back to your cave and die!" But most athletes caught doping didn't start practicing sport in order to become modern-day lepers and outcasts, drug traffickers or even, in the case of David Millar, reformed, poster-boy Phoenixes who own professional cycling teams. So someone like Hamilton ... if he blew his brains out like Claveyrolat, or died alone, partially clothed in a pool of his own piss and shit and a light dusting of cocaine like Pantani ... well, I'd bet that some of you would suddenly not feel so good about having screamed "Dopers Suck!" at the 2008 USPro Champion, either virtually or in person alongside opportunists like Brandon Dwight.

Opening the piece, Hood writes,"Now that the initial furore has died down following the shocking news of Tyler Hamilton's positive doping test, PEZ thought we should hear what the man himself has to say. It took us a long time and a lot of patience, but eventually he came back to us with the answers to our questions.

Back from a two year suspension for failing a drugs test after a Vuelta time trial win - a further 'positive' from his winning ride in the Olympic time trial championships was rendered null and void due to improper storage of the 'B' sample - it looked like all of his demons were behind him in 2008, as he took the US Pro title and the prestigious Qinghai Lakes stage race in China. And then early this year came the news that had us all shaking our heads; another failed test.

But there was no prolonged denial or outrage from the man who has a Liege-Bastogne-Liege win to his credit; just a ready admission that he had taken a medication for his depressive condition which contained proscribed substances. A journalist should never ask his readers rhetorical questions; but I have to - Tyler Hamilton, sinner or sinned against?

You choose."

PEZ: When did you first feel the effects of depression?
'That's a tough question. Probably when I was a young teenager. Looking back, I would have to say during my mid-teen years is when I first experienced symptoms of depression. It was sort of like being in a bit of a fog at times. I was always a quiet and shy kid and I spent a lot of time questioning myself...'

Continue reading the Tyler Hamilton interview at Pez Cycling News.

Tyler Hamilton, Give me a Call

Firstly, to all the haters - send your comments to the usual address.

Tyler: give me a ring or send me an email. We need to catch up...

I'm glad Tyler has retired (I think he self-sabotaged himself and wanted to get caught) and hope that he can rebuild his life and redefine himself as a person. Remember, he has no job, no salary, no wife, no dog, and a mother dying of breast cancer.

Anyone who attacks him now as a drug cheat and publicly posts raving, vitriolic messages against him is an ass. If you define doping as cheating and equate it to lying, then any m!th#rf#^k*r who has ever lied about anything, driven above the speed limit, gotten too much change back from a retail purchase and not returned it or earned even a few hundred dollars on the side that wasn't reported to the IRS is by definition just as guilty as Hamilton and should be subjected to the same harsh treatment in the public realm.

My point being that I doubt that the people who are most violent and cruel in their public rants against Tyler are saints in all aspects of their lives, and they might consider re-evaluating their own behaviors before attacking Hamilton in what probably is a response to noticing in him the same negative traits and character flaws that they see, and fear, in themselves...
---
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.