Steroid News
News bot on steroids
Claudio Gatti: Looking Upstream in Doping Cases
ome critics have seized on another possible dynamic at play throughout sports: companies that endorse athletes might prefer to stand by quietly if they know an athlete is doping, appreciating the benefits of his success rather than moving to expose their pitchman.
“In recent years, the antidoping movement has recognized the need to look upstream of sophisticated dopers toward the traffickers and facilitators who form an integral component of doping networks,” said Dr. Michael Ashenden, an adviser to the World Anti-Doping Agency and the director of the research organization, Science and Industry Against Blood Doping. “My opinion is that networks should be seen to comprise not just those who directly aid and abet dopers, but also those support staff, agents and sponsors who choose to turn a blind eye rather than undertake due diligence. Those passive actors become part of the problem because athletes quickly assess the boundaries and subsequently know what they can expect to get away with.”
...
“Each new doping scandal follows the same pattern,” Jörg Jaksche, a former pro cyclist from Germany, said in a telephone interview. “When someone is caught, the system acts shocked and upset, declares its absolute rejection of doping and depicts the athlete as a black sheep that deserves to be slaughtered. After that, everything continues like before. But the fact is that they slaughter a scapegoat, not a black sheep, and nobody ever looks at the shepherd’s responsibility. I’m talking about those in the higher levels, those who govern the sports and, most importantly, those who provide the money that fuels everything.
“For the sponsors, this system has no downside. If nobody is caught doping, they gain all the commercial benefits of the visibility generated by great performances. If somebody is caught, they have a swift exit strategy — they declare their disappointment and receive the extra benefit of the good publicity gained for being righteous. It’s the win-win situation. That’s why nothing ever changed.”
...
“Corporate sponsors, like all companies, are looking for high return on investment,” he said. “In sports, winning provides that return, and doping increases the chances of winning. So the message that, directly or indirectly, sponsors give athletes is simple: we want you to win, and in order to do that you can do whatever you want. As long as you don’t get caught.”
...
“We had just finished the Tour of Germany and were driving to Switzerland for the Swiss Tour when the article hit the newsstands,” Jaksche said. “I was in a car with Ullrich and the press officer that Telekom assigned to us, and I remember him telling us how to handle the press. They did not want to find out if Der Spiegel’s accusations were true or false. They never made any attempt to verify the allegations. In fact, they must have assumed they were right, because the only countermeasure they took was to make sure that none of us would say anything compromising.
“It was omertà all the way. The reason? With Ullrich’s success in the Tour, a relatively small amount of money had produced a huge marketing return. For them, it was an extraordinarily successful business model and they didn’t want to change it or, worse, ruin it.”
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/s...-take-a-look-upstream-in-doping-scandals.html
“In recent years, the antidoping movement has recognized the need to look upstream of sophisticated dopers toward the traffickers and facilitators who form an integral component of doping networks,” said Dr. Michael Ashenden, an adviser to the World Anti-Doping Agency and the director of the research organization, Science and Industry Against Blood Doping. “My opinion is that networks should be seen to comprise not just those who directly aid and abet dopers, but also those support staff, agents and sponsors who choose to turn a blind eye rather than undertake due diligence. Those passive actors become part of the problem because athletes quickly assess the boundaries and subsequently know what they can expect to get away with.”
...
“Each new doping scandal follows the same pattern,” Jörg Jaksche, a former pro cyclist from Germany, said in a telephone interview. “When someone is caught, the system acts shocked and upset, declares its absolute rejection of doping and depicts the athlete as a black sheep that deserves to be slaughtered. After that, everything continues like before. But the fact is that they slaughter a scapegoat, not a black sheep, and nobody ever looks at the shepherd’s responsibility. I’m talking about those in the higher levels, those who govern the sports and, most importantly, those who provide the money that fuels everything.
“For the sponsors, this system has no downside. If nobody is caught doping, they gain all the commercial benefits of the visibility generated by great performances. If somebody is caught, they have a swift exit strategy — they declare their disappointment and receive the extra benefit of the good publicity gained for being righteous. It’s the win-win situation. That’s why nothing ever changed.”
...
“Corporate sponsors, like all companies, are looking for high return on investment,” he said. “In sports, winning provides that return, and doping increases the chances of winning. So the message that, directly or indirectly, sponsors give athletes is simple: we want you to win, and in order to do that you can do whatever you want. As long as you don’t get caught.”
...
“We had just finished the Tour of Germany and were driving to Switzerland for the Swiss Tour when the article hit the newsstands,” Jaksche said. “I was in a car with Ullrich and the press officer that Telekom assigned to us, and I remember him telling us how to handle the press. They did not want to find out if Der Spiegel’s accusations were true or false. They never made any attempt to verify the allegations. In fact, they must have assumed they were right, because the only countermeasure they took was to make sure that none of us would say anything compromising.
“It was omertà all the way. The reason? With Ullrich’s success in the Tour, a relatively small amount of money had produced a huge marketing return. For them, it was an extraordinarily successful business model and they didn’t want to change it or, worse, ruin it.”
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/s...-take-a-look-upstream-in-doping-scandals.html
