The relentless series of doping scandals within professional cycling in recent years hides disturbing developments lower down the competitive ladder, reported the Union Cycliste International’s Independent Commission for Reform in Cycling, which stated its belief that doping was increasing among under-23s and in teams below WorldTour, and that “doping in amateur cycling is becoming endemic. This was confirmed by riders, professionals, managers and anti-doping personnel”.
The report also raised concerns about doping in over-40s racing, stating that: “Masters races were said to have middle-aged businessmen winning on EPO, with some of them training as hard as professional riders and putting in comparable performances.” It also conjured up the surreal image of professional riders explaining that “they no longer ride in Gran Fondos” – popular, lengthy timed events run mainly in Italy – “because they were so competitive due to the number of riders doping”.
The upsurge in doping among amateurs, said the report, was “caused by ease of access to drugs via gyms and the internet, the reduction in costs for substances, a spread of knowledge in means and methods of administration, and a lack of funding for regular testing at the amateur level”.
Another reason it suggested was that the UCI had directed its efforts at the highest echelon and “part of the doping problem has shifted to layers below the top level. It has been reported that doping has grown more prominent in U23 riders and particularly within continental teams. In this group of cyclists there are many athletes that want to turn professional and/or look for good contracts and are, thus, particularly vulnerable to doping.”
It cited the case of “a team below the UCI WorldTour recently involved in doping. It was claimed that the team manager and sports director brought a nutritionist into the team who advised a selected group of riders within the team on a doping programme. The instructions were to administer EPO Zeta every second day after 11pm at night, and alternate in the winter with HGH and Lutrelef, a hormone. Their haematocrit levels were to be tested every third day, and amounts of EPO Zeta reduced [by half] as the season approached.”
The commission reported that it had heard from a national anti-doping body, that it felt that “testing at the amateur level was not done because they are only amateurs and we concentrate on professionals”. It added that “other Nados [National Anti-Doping Organisations] indicated that they carried out some testing at amateur level. Budgetary constraints restrict the amount of testing that can be done at amateur level.
“As a consequence, as amateur riders told the commission, they know that it is highly unlikely that they will be tested so they know that it is easy to dope and get away with it. The more widespread doping at the amateur level means the concept of doping is reinforced at the broader amateur level ie. within the wider fan base. Internet chat rooms provide significant information in the many discussions about doping.”
This is borne out by test results in recent years, which include a third-category French amateur who tested positive for 12 substances, mainly steroids and corticoids, the most ever found in a single sample, and the British cyclist Dan Staite, who was banned for using EPO in 2010. Another case in 2012 involved a 47-year-old member of the Danish Cycling Federation’s board, who tested positive for testosterone and cortisone in a veteran’s race.
CIRC also made the point that youth cycling merits attention being “particularly vulnerable as anti-doping testing is concentrated at the elite level so doping may go undetected at lower levels. If youth riders want to reach higher ranks, the incentives are there to dope at an early age. As a result, some managers try to identify good quality amateur riders in their mid-teens to sign them clean before they got exposed to doping.”
The commission recommended the UCI should look closely at women’s cycling as it grows to prevent a similar problem developing to the one among male professionals.
The report concluded that doping in women’s cycling “most probably is not as widespread and systematic. This is likely because far less money is available in women’s road racing. The commission was told of doping at the highest levels nevertheless, and it is logical to assume that when women’s cycling is developed to a status comparable to the men’s sport, it will attract the same problems unless steps are taken now to protect it from that fate.”