‘The Good, Pure Old Days’: Cyclist's Switching Appraisals of Doping before and after Retirement as Claims Making in the Construction of Doping as a Social Problem

Abstract

According to our interpretation of the model of technological continuity and change proposed by the media scholar Brian Winston, prominent former athletes influential with the public opinion could be seen as embodying ‘the law of suppression of the radical potential’ of innovation with performance-enhancement techniques and substances (PETS), as opposed to the entrepreneurial role in this field they adopted when they were still active, embodying the ‘supervening social necessity’ which push forward these innovation processes. This paper documents this dialectic by comparing the lenient and understanding attitudes and stances on PETS of prominent cyclists when still active with their radical rejection of doping and dopers once retired. Their claims, and those of the dominant paradigm in scholarly accounts of the history of PETS, about an alleged qualitative and quantitative ‘worsening’ of ‘the doping problem’ in the last 40–50 years, are thoroughly examined and criticised. It is concluded that a number of prominent retired athletes have become claims-makers successfully involved in the construction of ‘the social problem of doping’ through their nostalgic appraisals of the evolution of PETS usage, despite these appraisals being mostly baseless on rational grounds.

De acordo com nossa interpretação do modelo de continuidade e mudança tecnológica proposto pelo estudioso da mídia Brian Winston, ex-atletas proeminentes, com influência sobre a opinião pública, podem ser visto como incorporando “a lei de supressão do potencial radical” de inovação com técnicas e substâncias de melhoria de desempenho (TSMD), em oposição ao papel de empreendedor deste campo, que adotavam quando ainda estavam na ativa, incorporando a “necessidade social superveniente” que impulsiona esses processos de inovação. Este artigo documenta essa dialética, comparando as atitudes e posturas lenientes e compreensivas de TSMD de ciclistas proeminentes, quando em atividade, com sua rejeição radical do doping e de usuários do doping, quando aposentados. Suas alegações, e as do paradigma dominante em relatos de estudiosos da história das TSMD, sobre um suposto “agravamento” qualitativo e quantitativo do “problema do doping” nos últimos 40-50 anos são examinadas e criticadas minuciosamente. É concluído que um número de atletas proeminentes aposentados se tornaram reclamantes envolvidos com sucesso na construção do “problema social do doping” através de suas apreciações nostálgicas da evolução da utilização das TSMD, apesar dessas apreciações serem majoritariamente desprovidas de base em fundamentos racionais.

De acuerdo con nuestra interpretación del modelo de continuidad y cambio tecnológico propuesto por el estudioso de los medios Brian Winston, se podría considerar que muchos reconocidos exdeportistas con capacidad de influencia en la opinión pública representan la ‘ley de supresión del potencial radical’ de la innovación con Técnicas y Sustancias Mejoradoras del Rendimiento (TSMR), en contracte con la actitud emprendedora en este ámbito que adoptaban cuando todavía estaban en activo y por lo tanto representaban la ‘necesidad social sobrevenida’ que empuja hacia adelante esos procesos de innovación. El presente artículo documenta esta dialéctica comparando las actitudes y perspectivas comprensivas e indulgentes en relación con las TSMR por parte de destacados ciclistas cuando todavía corrían, con su rechazo radical del dopaje y de los dopados una vez retirados de la competición. Se examinan minuciosamente y se critican sus afirmaciones, y las del paradigma dominante en los análisis académicos sobre la historia de las TSMR, relativas a un presunto ‘empeoramiento’ cualitativo y cuantitativo del ‘problema del dopaje’ en los últimos 40 o 50 años. La conclusión es que muchos deportistas retirados se han convertido en activistas exitosamente implicados en la construcción del ‘problema social del dopaje’ a través de sus valoraciones nostálgicas de la evolución del uso de TSMR, a pesar de que esas valoraciones prácticamente carecen de base racional.

Conformément à notre interprétation du modèle du changement et de la continuité technologique proposé par Brian Winston, spécialiste des médias, d'anciens athlètes célèbres, capables d'influencer l'opinion publique, peuvent être considérés comme l'incarnation de « la loi de la suppression du potentiel radical » sur l'innovation dans les Techniques et Substances d'Augmentation de la Performance (TSAP), contrairement au rôle entrepreneurial qu'ils adoptaient dans ce domaine à l'époque où ils étaient encore actifs, représentant en cela la « nécessité sociale supérieure » qui fait avancer les processus d'innovation. Cet article éclaire cette dialectique en comparant l'attitude indulgente et compréhensive sur les TSAP de cyclistes célèbres encore actifs, avec le rejet radical du dopage et de ceux qui se dopent, position qu'ils ont prise une fois retirés. Leurs réclamations, et celles du paradigme dominant dans les écrits universitaires sur l'histoire des TSAP à propos du « problème du dopage » soi-disant « empiré », tant en quantité qu'en qualité, au cours des 40 ou 50 dernières années, sont minutieusement examinées et critiquées. En conclusion, il apparaît que de nombreux anciens athlètes célèbres ont réussi à devenir des porte-paroles engagés dans l'élaboration du « problème social du dopage » à travers leur appréciation nostalgique de l'évolution de l'usage des TSAP, même si leur évaluation est le plus souvent sans fondements objectifs et rationnels.

Nach unserer Interpretation des Modells der technologischen Kontinuität und des Wandels, das von dem Medienwissenschaftler Brian Winston vorgeschlagen wurde, könnten prominente ehemalige Athleten, die einflussreich in der öffentlichen Meinung waren, als Verkörperung ”des Gesetzes der Unterdrückung des radikalen Potentials“ der Innovation mit leistungssteigernden Verfahren und Substanzen (Performance-Enhancement Techniques and Substances) (PETS) gesehen werden. Dies steht im Gegensatz zu der unternehmerischen Rolle, die sie in diesem Bereich einnahmen, als sie noch aktiv waren. Sie verkörpern die “nachträgliche soziale Notwendigkeit”, welche diesen Innovationsprozess nach vorn drängte. Dieser Artikel dokumentiert diese Dialektik, indem er die nachsichtigen und verständnisvollen Einstellungen und Haltungen prominenter Radfahrer zu PETS vergleicht, wenn sie im Ruhestand noch aktiv in ihrer radikalen Ablehnung von Doping und Dopenden waren. Ihre Ansprüche und jene des vorherrschenden Paradigmas in wissenschaftlichen Berichten über die Geschichte von PETS, über eine angebliche qualitative und quantitative “Verschlechterung” des “Dopingproblems” in den letzten 40 bis 50 Jahren, werden gründlich untersucht und beurteilt. Es wird festgestellt, dass eine Reihe prominenter Athleten im Ruhestand zu Anspruchstellern wurde, die durch ihre nostalgischen Begutachtungen über die Entwicklung der PETS-Nutzung erfolgreich in die Konstruktion des “sozialen Problems Doping” eingebunden waren, obwohl diese Einschätzungen nicht auf rationalen Gründen basierten.

根据传媒学者布赖恩·温斯顿所提出的技术连续性和变化模型的解释，具有极大社会影响力的前杰出运动员体现了技术与物质（ PETS ）效能增强革新的‘最大潜能的抑制规律’；相反，当运动员处于良好竞技状态时，他们却体现了推动这一技术革新的企业家精神，认为 PETS 是一种“应运而生的社会必然需要”。本文将优秀自行车运动员在他们状态仍然活跃时对 PETS 宽容而理解的态度和立场与他们退役后对兴奋剂的强烈反对态度进行对比，论述了它们之间的辨证关系。 同时，本文对他们的观点、 PEST 历史的描述，以及对最近四、五十年来学术界通过定性和定量的方法认定兴奋剂问题在不断恶化这一主导范式，进行了充分检验和批判。结论认为，一些杰出的退役运动员通过对兴奋剂使用演变过程怀旧式的评价，已经成功地成为兴奋剂这一社会问题解释的代言人，尽管这些评价很大程度上并不具备理性根据。

世論に影響力のある有名な元アスリートは、能力向上のための技術や物質（ＰＥＴＳ）の発展に伴う「ラディカルな潜在能力を抑圧せねばならない定め」を体現するものとしてしばしば捉えられるが、彼らは現役の時には逆に、この分野で最先端の役割を担っており、こうした技術革新のプロセスを推し進める「来る社会の要請」を体現していたのである。これは、メディア学者のブライアン・ウィンストンが提起した技術の連続性と変化のモデルに合致する。本稿では、有名な自転車選手が現役の時にＰＥＴＳに対して取る、寛容で理解のある態度と、引退後にドーピングやそれを行う選手たちに対して行う厳しい拒絶とを比較しながら、この弁証法を検討する。この４０～５０年で「ドーピング問題」が質的にも量的にも「悪化している」とする、彼らの主張やＰＥＴＳの歴史に関する学術的議論における支配的枠組みは、本稿において十分に検討と批判を受ける。結論として、多くの引退した有名アスリートは、ＰＥＴＳ使用の発展に対するノスタルジックな評価を通じて、「社会問題としてのドーピング」の構築に関わるクレームメーカーとなっているのである。もっとも、そうした評価はほとんどの場合、合理的な証拠に基づいてはいないのであるが。

Keywords::

• doping
• technology
• cycling
• social construction
• nostalgia
• sport

Acknowledgements

This paper was written in Colima, Mexico, in the summer of 2013, thanks to an honorary research visitorship kindly offered to the author by the School of Arts and the Agorante research group at Universidad de Colima. My warm thanks to Agorante's director, Ana Zermeño, and to the School of Art's dean, Carlos Ramírez, for their hospitality and help. I am also very grateful to José Luis Pérez Triviño and Verner Møller for reading and commenting on earlier versions of the article.

Notes

^1.Fignon and Ducoin, Éramos jóvenes, 310.

^2.www.youtube.com/watch?v = UJLsSFZ1ivo, accessed August 2013.

^3.De Mondenard, Tour de France, 5.

^4.Bordas, Forcenés, 11.

^5.Møller, “The Anti-doping Campaign,” 149.

^6.Havlena and Holak, “The Good Old Days.”

^7. The more neutral and descriptive phrase ‘performance-enhancing substances and techniques’ and its initials, PETS, are preferred in this paper instead of ‘doping’, a term loaded with negative connotations due to its systematic moral condemnation in popular and academic discurses alike.

^8.Waddington, An Introduction to Drugs.

^9.Spector and Kitsuse, Constructing Social Problems.

^10.Dimeo, A History of Drug Use.

^11.Møller, The Doping Devil; The Ethics of Doping.

^12.Houlihan, Dying to Win, 123.

^13.De Lignières and Saint-Martin, Vive le dopage?

^14.Spector and Kitsuse, Constructing Social Problems; López, “Doping as Technology.”

^15.Winston, Media Technology and Society; López, “Doping as Technology.”

^16. See note 10.

^17.López, “Doping as Technology.”

^18.Spector and Kitsuse, Constructing Social Problems, 5.

^19. Ibid., 7.

^20. Ibid., 8.

^21. Ibid., 73.

^22. Ibid., 82.

^23.Dimeo, A History of Drug Use; Møller, The Ethics of Doping.

^24. Ibid., 84.

^25.road.cc/content/news/90463-chris-froome-ban-drug-cheats-life, accessed August 2013.

^26.Møller, The Scapegoat, 37.

^27.www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2330694/Lance-Armstrong-says-Danilo-Di-Luca-stupid-failing-drugs-test.html#ixzz2cWdgrphA, accessed August 2013.

^28.www.sportinglife.com/other-sports/news/article/678/8824681/campbell-calls-for-life-bans, accessed August 2013.

^29.www.express.co.uk/sport/othersport/359570/Gunnell-calls-for-life-bans, accessed August 2013.

^30.www.espn.co.uk/athletics/sport/story/222093.html, accessed August 2013.

^31.www1.skysports.com/football/news/15264/8464869/sir-chris-hoy-calls-for-increased-testing-and-life-bans-to-restore-cyclings-reputation, accessed August 2013.

^32.www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2385770/Donovan-Bailey-Dopers-life-bans.html, accessed August 2013.

^33.www.dailymotion.com/video/x132js4_drug-bans-should-be-for-life-fredericks_sport, accessed September 2013.

^34.Bastide, Doping: les surhommes, 198–9.

^35.De Mondenard, Tour de France, 33.

^36. Ibid., 148.

^37. Couëdel, Noël, “Luis Ocaña: Zoetemelk n'a jamais été aussi mauvais”, L'Équipe, 17 July 1980, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France.

^38. Statements published in L'Équipe, 4 July 1979, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France.

^39.De Mondenard, Tour de France, 18.

^40. Statements published in Le Miroir des Sports, 649, 2 September 1957, 18, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 17.

^41. Statements published in France Soir, 7 July 1989, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 17.

^42. Statements made during the live retransmission of the Tour in France 2, reported by cyclismag.com, 22 July 2007, quoted in www.cyclisme-dopage.com/portraits/fignon.htm, accessed August 2013.

^43. Quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 33.

^44.Bastide, Doping: les surhommes, 88–9.

^45. Bartali, Gino, “Fausto Coppi et moi”, Le Miroir des Sports 793, 11 April 1960, 12, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 37.

^46. Bartali, Gino. “Fausto Coppi et moi”, Le Miroir des Sports 793, 11 April 1960, 22, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 39.

^47. Statements published in Les Sports de Bruxelles/Sport Mondial 42, August 1959, 29, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 39–40.

^48. Statements published in Miroir du Cyclisme 92, October 1967, 14, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France.

^49. Archambaud, Maurice, “La vérité sur l'équipe de France du Tour 48: ‘je revendique la responsabilité du “miracle” du col du Turini’”, But et club 154, 6 December 1948, 2–3, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 62.

^50.De Mondenard, Tour de France, 62–3.

^51.Bobet, Mañana salimos, 45.

^52. Ibid., 158. Quotations taken from the Spanish edition of the book and translated into English by the author.

^53. Ibid., 159–160.

^54. Ibid., 162.

^55. Quoted in Bastide, Doping: les surhommes, 103.

^56.De Mondenard, Tour de France, 47–51.

^57. Statements published in La Liberté, 20 June 2003, quoted in De Mondenard, Tour de France, 51.

^58.Géminiani and Vespini, Mes quatre verités.

^59.Poignard, Paroles de sportifs, 99.

^60.Bastide, Doping:les surhommes; De Mondenard, Tour de France, 73–82.

^61.www.velo101.com/pros/archive/3866, accessed September 2013.

^62.De Mondenard, Tour de France, 171–2.

^63. This quotation from Guimard and the following taken from Guimard and Ducoin, Metido en carrera, 245–263. Translation into English by the author.

^64.Fignon and Ducoin, Éramos jóvenes e inconscientes, 87. Translation into English by the author.

^65. Ibid., 17.

^66. Ibid., 87.

^67. Ibid.

^68. Ibid., 88.

^69. Ibid., 281.

^70. Ibid., 285.

^71. Ibid., 311.

^72. Ibid., 285.

^73. Ibid., 315.

^74.Waddington, “Changing Patterns,” 488–9.

^75.Donati, “The Silent Drama,” 45.

^76.Donohoe and Johnson, Foul Play, 2.

^77.De Mondenard, Tour de France, 13.

^78. , “Introduction”; Testosterone Dreams; “Foreword.”

^79.Yesalis and Bahrke, “History of Doping.”

^80.Holt, Erotokritou-Mulligan, and Sonksen, “The History of Doping.”

^81.Morgan, “Bullshitters, Markets.”

^82.Yesalis and Bahrke, “History of Doping,” 46.

^83. Ibid., 50.

^84.Bøje, “Doping,” 439–40, quoted in Yesalis and Bahrke, “History of Doping.”

^85.Donohoe and Johnson, Foul Play, 3.

^86.Lentillon-Kaestner and Ohl, “Can We Measure,” e132.

^87.Waddington, An Introduction, 104.

^88. See note 86.

^89.Laure, Binsinger and Le Scanff, “Difficultés methodologiques.”

^90. See note 9.

^91. Not as new as it might seem: for example, the Dutch cycling champion Joop Zoetemelk openly admits to having resorted to a blood transfusion during the 1976 Tour de France (Holthausen, Bergsma and Ouwerkerk, Joop Zoetemelk, 121, 124). My gratitude to Klaas Faber for providing this information and the reference to the book.

^92. See note 39.

^93. The source for these data is the legendary French journalist Pierre Chany, interviewed in Penot, Entretiens avec Pierre Chany.

^94. See note 39.

^95.Bobet, Mañana salimos; Fotheringham, Fallen Angel.

^96. Black coffee with added liquor.

^97. A beverage containing cola and other energetic plants.

^98. A medicinal beverage containing alcohol.

^99.www.deia.com/2012/08/20/deportes/ciclismo/bati-el-record-de-la-subida-a-arrate-con-una-mano, accessed August 2013.

^100.masdeporte.as.com/masdeporte/2004/07/23/polideportivo/1090620292_850215.html, acessed August 2013.

^101.Bobet, Mañana salimos, 48.

^102.Guimard and Ducoin, Metido en carrera, 253.

^103.Dimeo, A History of Drug Use, 128.

^104.Winston, Media Technology and Society; López, “Doping as Technology.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bernat López

Bernat López is a Senior Lecturer at the department of Communication Studies, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona, Spain). He has published several papers on the sociocultural dimension of elite sport, with a focus on cycling and a particular emphasis in the social construction of the doping issue (see references below). He was a keynote speaker at the 2011 conference ‘Anti-doping: Rational Policy or Moral Panic’, held at University of Aarhus, Denmark.