2014-10-29

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

2. DEMOGRAPHICS

3. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? THE INTERVIEW RESULTS

3.1 Cycling Culture and Performance-Enhancing Drugs

3.2 Decision-Making

3.3 Who are the key players?

3.5 About investigations

3.5 Education and prevention strategies

4. THE ANALYSIS

5. CONCLUSION

APPENDIX I – Interview themes

APPENDIX II – Letter of Invitation

APPENDIX III – Terms of reference

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This national consultation revealed valuable and meaningful information about the doping situation in Canadian cycling. The interviewees were contacted to participate in individual, anonymous and confidential interviews. The list of interviewees grew throughout the consultation, as those interested in participating were allowed to contact us directly. In all, sixty-four (64) people were contacted; they were athletes, coaches, sports administrators and cycling stakeholders. Thirty-two (32) interviews were conducted.

The scope of this consultation was limited to gathering information related to doping activity and therefore didn’t include researching or studying the situation of doping in Canadian cycling. The consultation’s results are based solely on the interviewees’ stories and not on LBB’s expert opinion. Results of the interviews were broken down into the following five (5) themes.

On the topic of the culture of cycling, with the exception of a few cases, the majority of the interviewees reported having never used performance-enhancing substances. However, many interviewees did witness situations related to doping or had indirect conversations about doping with different key players involved in cycling. Furthermore, the majority of the interviewees provided input into how their suspicions grew over the years around certain riders, despite never reporting them to the sporting or anti-doping authorities. Regardless of their status, most of the interviewees, whether they do or don’t use performance-enhancing substances, reported that they learned about doping activities primarily when they were outside of Canada. Clearly, it is the interviewees’ view that doping cases in Canada were mostly isolated and that no organized doping practice or system exists in Canada. We learned that the suppliers of doping substances or people who influenced riders in their decision-making process are doctors, trainers, coaches, equipment suppliers, sport administrators and, in many cases, other cyclists. We learned that when a cyclist is approached to use performance-enhancing substances, it is never a direct approach; it’s usually through indirect conversation or metaphors. The conclusion to be drawn from this section is that there is no organized system or culture of doping in Canadian cycling. Doping in Canadian cycling is initiated by individuals engaging in the practice alone or by small groups of people (small circle).

On the second theme of decision-making, the participants who used performance-enhancing substances indicated that they decided to use these substances as a result of peer pressure from their teammates, pressure to perform at a high level, or just because it was common practice in the sport at the time. A clear conclusion to be drawn from the interviews is that a rider will start using performance-enhancing substances when they are influenced or pressured by other riders.

On the topic of investigations or testing, we learned that a rider will mostly use performance-enhancing substances during the weeks leading up to a big competition as well as during the training season. In terms of knowledge of doping control, most athletes have a good idea of when they are going to be tested, especially when a long period of time has passed without doping controls. The interviewees were also of the view that strategies to counter doping were not always efficient. In order to better address the doping situation in cycling, the majority of participants felt that the consequences and sanctions for doping should be much harsher and act as more of a deterrent for riders who use drugs.

The final theme dealt with education and prevention strategies to reduce the occurrence of doping in cycling. According to the majority of interviewees, there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to education and prevention. Based on the suggestions and comments gathered in the interviews, the interviewees recommended that:

1) The anti-doping rules shall be written in laymen’s terms in order to make them easier to understand by athletes and provide athletes and their entourage with more information about the risks and dangers of doping;

2) Anti-doping information shall be disseminated in a more effective manner, in particular through modern communication technologies;

3) Targeted educational initiatives and activities shall be enhanced in order to discourage athletes from doping;

4) Sports and anti-doping organizations need to ensure there is a concerted effort in place to counter the issue of doping.

The consultation’s results confirm that there is no doping culture or organized system of doping in Canadian cycling. However, there is enough evidence of individual doping activities to warrant key strategic measures being taken to better address the issue of doping in cycling.

It is our hope that Cycling Canada will use this information to further their investigation of the situation of doping in cycling, to be more strategic and proactive in the fight against doping and, more importantly, to improve cyclists’ education about the risks and dangers associated with doping.

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Background and Objectives

Background

Cycling Canada (“CC”), with the support of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (“CCES”), decided to conduct a consultative process to better understand the different doping activities in the sport of cycling, similar in some aspects, to the world-wide initiative spearheaded by the Union Cycliste Internationale (“UCI”).

It is public knowledge that the sport of cycling has been associated with doping scandals on national and international stages. Canadian riders have admitted to violating or been found to violate anti-doping rules. As a result, CC felt it was time to learn more about the workings of doping activities in Canada in order to enhance measures to prevent the occurrence of doping in cycling.

Project Objectives

The main goal of this consultation was to engage various members and stakeholders of the cycling community in a discussion around their experiences, personal knowledge and perceptions with respect to the issue of doping in Canadian cycling. The objective was not to gather information that would lead to asserting an anti-doping rule violation. The sole purpose of this consultation was to better understand the process of doping in order to prevent its occurrence in cycling.

1.2 Methodology

In order to ensure a thorough, meaningful and independent process, an independent third party was mandated by CC to conduct the consultation. LBB Strategies, our consultancy firm, was mandated to conduct confidential consultative interviews with subjects who were either involved in doping activities, have observed or witnessed doping activities and have valuable information about how doping is practiced or organized in Canada. The consultation was conducted through anonymous, confidential and individual interviews with different stakeholders involved in Canadian cycling. LBB did not conduct a documentary or web-based study. The results presented in this report are solely based on the interviews. However, when necessary, we conducted documentary and web research to complement or corroborate information we had gleaned from interviews.

LBB Strategies is completely independent of CC and the CCES. Without the knowledge of CC or the CCES, we contacted a list of interviewees who we felt would provide valuable information. Interviewees were invited on the basis of their involvement in Canadian cycling. In the course of the first interviews, new names were identified and added to the list of interviewees. After the public announcement and reminder from CC and the CCES, some additional interested interviewees contacted us directly to participate in the national consultation.

In order to ensure anonymity and confidentiality, a cooperation agreement was signed by each interviewee and the interviewer prior to the interview. This ensured that no information identifying the interviewee would be communicated to either CC or the CCES. This is the reason why the names of the interviewees are not disclosed in this report.

Two interviewers were selected in this process: Benoit Girardin and Rose Mercier. Benoit Girardin is the President/CEO of LBB Strategies and was the lead interviewer. Rose Mercier supported Benoit in the process by conducting several interviews.

In general, our interviewing approach was to allow the interviewee to tell her or his story freely and record their answers, when applicable, to the pre-determined thematic questions. Interview themes were developed to ensure some consistency throughout the interview process. The list of interview themes includes the cycling culture and performance-enhancing drugs; decision-making process; key players; investigations; education and prevention strategies. The list of interview themes and questions is attached in Appendix 1.

2. Demographics

2.1. Statistics on interviews Conducted

In all, sixty-four (64) people were contacted and invited to participate in the consultation (the invitation letter can be found in Appendix 2). Thirty-two (32) interviews were conducted. The following chart provides the breakdown of interviewees. It must also be noted that quite recently an important subject finally agreed to participate in the national consultation. We strongly believe that this subject will provide us with valuable information about the practice of doping on a world stage and in Canada. Unfortunately, this subject was not available until after this report was filed. Once we meet the subject, we will file an addendum to the report.

“No response” Interviewees

Due to multiple circumstances outside our control, some interviewees never responded to the invitation to participate in the national consultation. Twenty-one (21) people from our list never responded despite the four (4) email invitations we sent them.

Declined to participate

Seven (7) persons declined to participate in the consultation. The main reasons were: they did not have time to participate; they did not have enough experience with doping to add value to the consultation; they felt that they had already contributed in the past by talking about the issue of doping and found that this consultation was a waste of time.

In addition, four (4) potential subjects were on our list of potential interviewees, but their contact information was inaccurate and we were not able to obtain their information from other sources.

The interview results and what have we learned?

In this section of the report, we present the results of the interviews. In order to respect the information provided by the interviewees, we have not changed, altered or made our own interpretation of the information they provided to us. Based on our interview notes, we have summarized the interviewees’ most relevant comments. The information collected may not always answer the pre-determined questions associated with each theme (see Appendix 1), but we did our best to cover all the questions with the interviewee. In some cases, they had no information or opinion on a given topic or question.

The following section (section 4) of the report provides our analysis of the interview results and findings, as well as our observations and recommendations.

It should be noted that our mandate or the authority granted to us to interview was limited to the scope and the terms of reference of this consultation (the terms of references can be found in appendix 3). This consultation is not an inquiry or investigation seeking to gather and collect evidence that could be eventually used for asserting an anti-doping rule violation. The interviewees were invited to participate on a voluntary and confidential basis. For that reason, we did not pressure them to participate, even if, in some cases, we were more insistent. Unfortunately, even with the confidentiality protection in place, some key interviewees did not respond to our invitations or decided not to participate in the consultation.

It is also important to mention that this consultation was not aimed to collect opinions on doping in cycling generally speaking. Even if the interviewees expressed their own views and opinions, the results are based on their direct or indirect knowledge or experience. Our main focus was to listen to their stories and experiences and obtain factual information they had access to either directly or indirectly.

3.1. Cycling culture and performance-enhancing drugs

The purpose of this section was to gather information about the use of performance-enhancing drugs and whether there is a doping culture in Canadian cycling. Interviewees were asked to talk about their personal use (if any) as well as their knowledge of use or suspected use of performance-enhancing drugs by others.

a) Personal use

This sub-section includes interview results from interviewees who have been direct users of performance-enhancing drugs. The type of questions asked were: When were they first and last taken? What drugs were used? How were they administered? How were they acquired? What was their frequency of use? Were they used with other substances? What were the effects on performance? Did subject encounter any adverse health effects? Why did subject stop using?

The majority of the interviewees reported having never used performance-enhancing drugs. Nonetheless as member of the cycling community, they witnessed certain situations.

An interviewee admitted having inadvertently used a banned substance. The interviewee used an asthma inhaler. The interviewee found that this product was banned while competing at a major international event. During doping control, the interviewee was informed that this type of product required a therapeutic use exemption (TUE), which he had failed to secure.

Other interviewees indicated having used banned substances after succumbing to pressure from their professional team or entourage. Without disclosing the team’s name, a banned substance, EPO in this instance, was detected in an athlete who had doped on his own volition, without any involvement from the team or even their knowledge. In this case, the athlete’s therapist was his supply source, as he provided his protégé with EPO on request.

For another interviewee who had committed an anti-doping rule violation, his professional team in Europe was the supply source. At no time did he acquire the substance in Canada. Unfortunately, other Canadian athletes who had also committed anti-doping violations did not agree to participate in the consultation. Some of them refused, while others simply did not respond to our numerous invitations.

Another interviewee admitted to using ephedrine on several occasions after succumbing to peer pressure. The peers had indicated to him that this substance was permitted up to a certain quantity. He never had this information validated. He purchased these products from a local health supplements store. The clerk mentioned to him that several cyclists shopped in the store. After a few uses, the interviewee stopped using this substance, because he couldn’t see any real value in it. Apart from this substance, the interviewee used substances that were permitted such as caffeine. As well, in the 2000s, after undergoing diagnostic tests, the interviewee was using Ventolin (asthma) for which he had been issued a therapeutic use exemption.

Another interviewee admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs. After moving to Europe, he lived with other cyclists who happened to use performance-enhancing drugs. In 2002, he found syringes and light bulbs in the apartment he shared with his teammates. They didn’t conceal this from the interviewee and indicated to him that the substance was EPO. After the interviewee suffered an injury, his teammates suggested that he should use EPO. He felt a lot of pressure to follow the advice, all the more since his performance needed to improve. He therefore decided to meet the team doctor to begin using performance-enhancing drugs that would speed up his recovery. At that time during the 2000s, doping was a common practice. Riders shared products and best methods for using performance-enhancing drugs. Timing was a crucial factor in using the substance and riders advised each other on the best time to take performance-enhancing drugs.

Another interviewee testified to having experienced ambiguous situations where he didn’t know exactly what the team doctor was administering to him. The substance used was said to be a gland and hormone stimulant. This interviewee never tested positive. He can’t however confirm whether the substances administrated were prohibited or not.

b) Knowledge or suspicions of performance-enhancing drugs use by others

This sub-section includes interview results where interviewees had knowledge or serious suspicions of performance-enhancing drug use by a third party or knowledge of a third party who had allegedly provided them with or helped them acquire, if they had wanted, performance-enhancing drugs. The type of questions asked were: Who was the information source? When were the drugs first and last taken? Was topic discussed freely? What drugs were used? How were they administered? How were they acquired? What was their frequency of use? Were they used with other substances; what is the basis for the suspicion? When did you first suspect use? Did you ever confront the user? Did you tell anyone about your suspicions? When was drug use suspected? What was (were) the suspected substance(s)?

The interviewees included several individuals who had knowledge of performance-enhancing drug use by a third party, either through a teammate, a trainer, an administrator or a team director. Moreover, the majority of these occurrences implicated Canadian athletes and took place outside of Canada at international competitions or training camps.

One of the interviewees said he assisted an athlete in obtaining performance-enhancing drugs by bringing the athlete to the doctor. At one point, he even assisted an athlete who was incorrectly doing a blood transfusion in a hotel. He said that a doctor based in Lausanne was known for assisting athletes in using performance-enhancing drugs. He told us that in the Masters circuit, aging athletes would not hesitate to use performance-enhancing drugs supplied by unknown and unsafe suppliers. He said that a doctor was well known by Masters riders for being the supplier of performance-enhancing drugs. He said that athletes can find the products on line and have them delivered from China. Without divulging his name, he corroborated the information provided by another interviewee that a former Canadian sport administrator had assisted Canadian riders in obtaining performance-enhancing drugs.

One of the interviewees was given the opportunity (if we can call it an opportunity) to use performance-enhancing drugs at International Masters Cycling events. At an event in Central America, two trainers (massage therapists) had a conversation with him while he was being treated on the massage table. While the conversation was subtle, it was made clear to the interviewee that if he wanted to use performance-enhancing drugs, these trainers could supply him with what he needed. What was most surprising to the interviewee about the information provided was the ease with which the performance-enhancing drug could be acquired. The interviewee did not pursue the conversation with the trainers. The same interviewee was approached a second time at an event in the United States. Following the completion of a competition stage, athletes were driven by car to their respective hotels. During the ride to the hotel, the interviewee had a conversation with a bike shop owner. The owner began a discussion on how to use performance-enhancing drugs and where athletes could access these products. According to the owner, doping substances could be acquired from a bike shop in California. He provided a website to the individuals that provided information about the bike shop and the ways to obtain performance-enhancing drugs. The same interviewee was once again approached, this time in Palm Springs, California, where he was offered performance-enhancing drugs by another cyclist. That cyclist had dopingproducts at his home. In addition to using performance-enhancing drugs, this cyclist also sold performance-enhancing drugs. Again, the key item that came out of this interview was the ease with which one could access these types of doping products.

Another interviewee mentioned having witnessed suspicious situations at competitions taking place abroad, more specifically during a competition in Cuba. While in conversation with another athlete, he learned that a particular athlete was doping and that his doctor was the one who was supplying him with the performance-enhancing drugs. Still at this competition, he saw other cyclists secretly taking pills. Nonetheless, he could not confirm if these were performance-enhancing drugs or not.

Another interviewee had a conversation about doping with an athlete who turned out to commit an anti-doping rule violation. The athlete approached the interviewee in order to talk about the culture of doping in cycling. The interviewee informed him that he did not believe in the existence of an organized culture of doping in cycling and that he did not want to dope. As a result of this conversation, the athlete never approached the interviewee again to talk about doping.

Another interviewee mentioned having witnessed suspicious situations at a Canadian Masters Cycling event. The interviewee saw a cyclist taking Viagra pills prior to a race. At an evening gathering, the cyclist in question confirmed to the interviewee that Viagra was indeed the product he was using. In addition, the interviewee also previously saw syringes in athlete-only areas prior to competitions. The same interviewee also had knowledge of banned substance use through a member of his entourage who was connected to a product supplier. This member of the entourage indicated to him that the supplier kept EPO at his residence, in addition to vials of injectable iron and B12.

One of the interviewees talked about knowing a cyclist who had doped, based on a conversation he had with him. This athlete openly admitted using performance-enhancing drugs and being a contact person and even a supplier for other cyclists who wanted to use performance-enhancing drugs.

Another interviewee witnessed suspicious situations. For example, as an athlete was exiting the washroom, he dropped a large quantity of pills. The athlete scrambled to gather them up. This athlete was known on the circuit as someone who took pills. He also had distinctive physical signs, like blood-shot eyes. Another athlete confided to the interviewee about being a tramadol user. The interviewee didn’t know if this was a legal substance, but he found that there was sufficient reason to be suspicious.

Another interviewee had knowledge of doping product use in Europe. At the start of each season with the European team, cyclists had to meet with a doctor for a routine exam to determine if they were fit to compete. After the initial exam, the doctor sat down with the interviewee and explained to him that there were ways to recover quicker. The interviewee was also approached by a teammate who offered him performance-enhancing drugs. This particular teammate could refer him to a pharmacy or a colleague in order to help him obtain the products. The same interviewee also cooperated in an internal team investigation after syringes were discovered in an athlete’s room. The internal investigation was done through a team meeting of sorts. Since the entire team denied any involvement, the investigation was closed.

Another interviewee testified to having been approached by an American teammate who was pushing tramadol, a prohibited substance. This interviewee also witnessed a suspicious situation involving another American teammate. In 2012, the interviewee found a syringe in this person’s shoe. Upon making this discovery, the interviewee confronted the teammate, who admitted to using EPO. As far as the interviewee knows, this athlete never tested positive.

One of the interviewees stated that he was aware of a list of individuals who have extensive knowledge of doping practices. Based on his experience, he witnessed a coach advocating the use of ephedrine. This very coach had regular conversations with the interviewee about doping and using performance-enhancing drugs. Furthermore, three (3) of his team members had conversations about using performance-enhancing drugs. This interviewee was exposed to doping after suffering a bike accident. A police officer and former cyclist in attendance at the event indicated to the interviewee that he used prohibited substances when he raced, but at a certain point, he had had enough of needles. As well, this interviewee witnessed suspicious situations at international competitions. At a race in Pakistan, he saw riders going out to buy pills. He can’t however confirm whether the purchased products were prohibited substances or not. At a race in Costa Rica, he also witnessed riders buying syringes.

Another interviewee indicated that he knew riders who were using banned substances, and in one case, one of his teammates had to go to the hospital to receive a blood transfusion. The interviewee knew it was for doping purposes. Furthermore, the interviewee was informed that the team’s trainer kept doping products in a private room. If a rider needed substances to help speed up his recovery, he knew that he could approach the trainer, who was the supplier. Having said that, neither the trainers nor the team encouraged riders to use performance-enhancing drugs. The rider had to be the one to initiate the process. This practice was more widespread in Europe due to the length of multistage European Tours. Given that the races (one-day races) are shorter in North America, riders don’t benefit as much from performance-enhancing drugs as they would need to endure multi-stage Tours.

An interviewee testified to having witnessed suspicious situations and to having been approached to use banned substances. He said that individuals involved in doping approach riders by using metaphors to see if the riders would be open to the idea of doping. The questions are never direct. When the interviewee was on a professional team in Europe, the team director talked to the riders about ethics and the fine line between what is ethical and what isn’t. He pointed out that there are a lot of grey areas in the world of doping. In a very round-about way, it was clear that he was trying to see how open the riders were to the idea of doping. This interviewee was also indirectly approached through a member of his team who suggested using performance-enhancing drugs. The interviewee also said that a former Canadian sport administrator met with a member of the interviewee’s entourage in order to give him the name and contact information of a supplier of performance-enhancing drugs. Neither the interviewee nor the member of the entourage provided any follow-up to this conversation.

An interviewee mentioned that the more suspicion there is surrounding a cyclist, the more likely it is that this cyclist is using performance-enhancing drugs. Signs that raise suspicion include the speed with which a cyclist rises through the various levels of competition, the lack of consistency in his performances, as well as the athlete’s hyperactivity. For instance, if an athlete is constantly restless and doesn’t show any signs of physical stress after finishing an intensive race, there is good reason to ask questions and be suspicious.

An interviewee mentioned that there was a distinctive profile of one of the athletes found guilty of an anti-doping violation that fuelled suspicion. One of the aspects of this profile was the athlete’s performances. His abnormally-strong performances were not consistent with his athletic development. Furthermore, this was an athlete whose performances were inconsistent. For example, the athlete could dominate one competition, followed by a performance where he would struggle to climb a hill. One of the clues eliciting doubts was the fact that the athlete missed his doping test, when it was clearly indicated that the test was mandatory. Although missing a test constitutes a violation, this athlete was never asserted an anti-doping rule violation and therefore sanctioned.

One of the interviewees mentioned that suspicions surrounding an individual are based on various factors. Behaviour is also a sign that distinguishes athletes who dope from athletes who don’t. Athletes who dope have a certain degree of arrogance and confidence about themselves that you don’t generally find with other athletes.

The final interviewee mentioned that riders always have their suspicions about their opponents. This interviewee did not, however, directly witness situations that would corroborate his suspicions. Some factors elicit suspicion. The first indicator is the racer’s performance. When a racer’s performance exceeds his normal development, questions are raised. Another indicator that elicits suspicion is the entourage. When an athlete’s entourage is secretive and isolates him or her from the other athletes, this can lead to suspicion about the athlete.

Many interviewees felt that suspicious situations warrant immediate investigation by the sporting and anti-doping organizations once they are reported. However, the interviewees never reported their concerns to the sporting authorities.

3.2 Decision-making

The purpose of this section was to gather information about how athletes arrive at the decision to use performance-enhancing drugs and how doping is presented to them. The questions asked were: How/When did you first become aware of performance-enhancing drugs in cycling; Was the topic raised directly or indirectly? What was your reaction? Did you believe that such use was endemic to the sport? Did you believe that you had the choice not to use drugs; Did you feel any pressure to use performance-enhancing drugs? How was pressure exerted on you? From whom or by what means? Why did you make the decision to [use/avoid] performance-enhancing drugs? What factors influenced your decision to use/avoid?

Each interviewee contributed in a different way to this section by explaining why they decided to take or not to take performance-enhancing drugs or why, in their opinion, some riders resort to using performance-enhancing drugs.

The first interviewee mentioned that the practice of recreational drug use has been normalized among riders. As a result, it’s not surprising to see more potent drugs or performance-enhancing drugs being used. It’s kind of like a naturally-evolving consumer trend.

Another interviewee supports this position. Performance-enhancing drug use was at one point extremely commonplace. Moreover, the paradox was that a team could advocate in favour of anti-doping regulations, while at the same time riders on this very team showed up to train with blood-shot eyes and raced like there was no tomorrow. This particular interviewee used such performance-enhancing drugs because he thought that it was common practice in cycling. In his view, the only possible way to fast-track his development to reach the same fitness level of some riders was to use performance-enhancing drugs.

Another interviewee said that when he started out in cycling, he did it for fun. But once he reached a certain level, either provincial or national, the pressure to perform was no longer the same; going forward, he needed results. This interviewee obtained good results, but something was missing. He hated hearing the sentence: “If only you had doped, you would have won.” Then, after suffering an injury, he decided to meet with the team’s doctors to acquire performance-enhancing drugs. He had pushed his body to its physical limits; he needed to take something to go that extra mile. He felt the heat from his teammates and wasn’t happy with his results. All these factors combined to compel the interviewee to use performance-enhancing drugs.

Among interviewees who refrained from using performance-enhancing drugs, for them it was an obvious decision; they didn’t want to cheat through doping. An interviewee mentioned that he was ready to quit the sport if he had to resort to doping in order to reach cycling’s professional ranks. Another interviewee mentioned that he didn’t need these kinds of substances to race on the circuit. Another interviewee indicated that, in his opinion, doping is not a real choice. It depends on a racer’s moral values which will determine whether or not he will use performance-enhancing drugs.

Another interviewee mentioned that he learned of the doping activities after reading an article on Canadian cyclists who doped. The interviewee was very surprised, because he didn’t think that doping existed in Canadian cycling. This interviewee believed that some riders may be tempted to resort to using performance-enhancing drugs if their results aren’t up to par or when they aren’t earning enough money. This interviewee has never felt pressured to use such substances.

Another issue broached by a separate interviewee relates to the need to have a back-up plan. When everything hinges on cycling, there may be a greater temptation to dope. According to this interviewee, another factor to consider is the racer’s age. The older a racer is and the greater the need to renew his contract, the more likely it is for a racer to use performance-enhancing drugs. Another factor mentioned by this interviewee is the need for glory. For some riders, it’s more important to get recognition than to test positive.

By the same token, an interviewee mentioned that there is a pretty significant divide between a good cyclist and a cyclist who has a contract with a professional team. Very few cyclists receive adequate financial support. In order to be recruited by a professional team, a rider must achieve excellent results. In order to earn a spot on a professional team, a racer must do so at the expense of another rider. As a result, some riders are ready to resort to doping in order to go that extra mile needed to join a professional team.

Interviewees who refrained from using performance-enhancing drugs mentioned that riders who are “clean” become disenchanted with the system. When they see riders who dope without getting caught, some may be tempted to take the leap and start using such products or methods.

Interviewees commented on the various cultures that exist in the cycling world. One interviewee felt that in France, doping is part of the culture. Riders don’t have the same level of education as their Canadian counterparts. Professional cycling is often their only means of support for their families. As a result, if riders need to dope to reach their goals, they will be tempted to do so.

Another interviewee reaffirmed the reality that riders decide to resort to doping in order to secure a contract with a professional team. According to this interviewee, another reason for doping would be to fast-track a racer’s return to competition after suffering an injury. A third reason, which was already mentioned, is the fact that “clean” riders feel a sense of disillusionment towards the sport. When riders taking performance enhancing drugs are not penalized, it encourages others to dope, as there are no severe consequences resulting from such behaviors.

3.3 Who are the key players?

The purpose of this section was to gather information about the main suppliers of performance-enhancing drugs. The type of questions asked were: Who are the main providers or sources of performance-enhancing drugs? Within a team or athlete’s entourage, who typically facilitates the acquisition and use of performance-enhancing drugs?

One interviewee mentioned that he acquired substances for recreational purposes from a person involved in the cycling community. He knew this person through his teammates. This person kept EPO in his private home, as well as vials of injectable iron and B12. According to various witnesses that this interviewee knew and that he considers to be reliable sources, this person was also known to keep these substances in his refrigerator. The substances in question were supplied to him by a doctor. This person’s phone number made the rounds among riders, as he was known as the go-to man for doping.

Another interviewee who had direct knowledge of doping mentioned that he was approached by various players from the cycling community who were supplying performance-enhancing drugs. These encounters involved being approached by trainers while he was undergoing treatment, a bike shop owner in a vehicle while he was being driven back to his hotel from a competition venue, as well as other riders.

Another interviewee mentioned that since doping is driven by personal initiative, the number of suppliers and the number of people involved in doping activities are limited. According to this interviewee, other cyclists are the main suppliers of performance-enhancing drugs and information sources for doping practices and suppliers. This respondent is of the opinion that only a handful of team directors are familiar with doping activities. Unlike the testimony of other interviewees, one interviewee mentioned that no medical support personnel are involved in these practices, as they have a lot to lose if they violate anti-doping regulations (on a professional or business level).

Another interviewee indicated that although there isn’t an organized practice of doping in Canada, it takes more than one person to acquire performance-enhancing drugs. There needs to be some kind of supply chain. According to this interviewee, riders are introduced to doping by another older rider; this is often someone who currently uses or has used performance-enhancing drugs. Problems arise when riders are left by themselves, for instance, in other countries. This is when they are more vulnerable and susceptible to being influenced by other riders who use performance-enhancing drugs.

Another interviewee mentioned that on the Masters circuit, the main supplier is a doctor specializing in anti-aging products. According to this interviewee, this doctor’s name is making the rounds among riders. He supplies performance-enhancing drugs directly to riders who require them. The interviewee did not disclose the doctor’s name.

Another interviewee testified that there was a variety of performance-enhancing drug suppliers. According to this interviewee, older athletes who have been sanctioned for an anti-doping violation will advise young riders as to where they can obtain performance-enhancing drugs and how to administer them. In other instances, the process of acquiring substances was facilitated by a team. For example, an interviewee mentioned that at a race in Pakistan, the team assisted him in the acquisition of red pills that were concealed in orange slices. This interviewee added that other suppliers are trainers who help riders inject themselves with performance-enhancing drugs.

Another interviewee indicated that he had initially been introduced to doping activities by his teammates. His teammates, with whom he was living, regularly used performance-enhancing drugs in his presence. His teammates had conversations with him about the benefits of taking such products. Subsequently, the performance-enhancing drugs he used were supplied to him by doctors. The doctors provided the riders with guidelines on how to use the products and the proper method of administration, as well as when to administer them in order to avoid testing positive. According to the interviewee, team members knew about these practices.

Among the interviewees who have no direct knowledge of doping circles, an interviewee mentioned that he was of the belief that those who supply riders with performance-enhancing drugs were doctors or trainers who have access to more specialized products. According to another interviewee, the main suppliers are trainers, as they travel with the teams and follow the riders wherever they go. Another interviewee mentioned that riders learned doping practices from other riders, especially in Europe, and from directors of North American teams.

According to interviewees who are not directly connected to any doping activities, a racer who is known to be against doping will not be introduced to any activities or people linked to the doping world. On the other hand, if a rider shows an interest, a teammate or another individual will introduce the rider to the doping practices. Furthermore, suppliers of performance-enhancing drugs can vary depending on where the riders compete. It’s easier to acquire performance-enhancing drugs in Europe than it is in North America (or in Canada).

3.4 About investigations

The purpose of this section was to gather information about anti-doping testing and targeted investigations. The type of questions asked were: What are the ways to encourage athletes to speak out about the issues? Why is a Substantial Assistance arrangement with the CCES not appealing to cyclists? When are cyclists likely taking performance-enhancing drugs in the course of a season? Are they doing it alone, as part of a small group of friends/trusted confidants, on a team-wide basis? Do athletes believe that the drugs they take are not detectable? Are they told this? Are athletes generally aware of when testing will take place? Advance notice?

As a general comment heard from the interviewees, collaborating with the anti-doping agencies or cycling federations is not generally accepted or appealing to those who have committed an anti-doping violation, even in light of the substantial assistance option. They are reluctant to share information related to doping with either the CCES or CC because they believe that the disclosure of such information could be used against them. Many of them claimed that they were not aware of the substantial assistance rule.

The majority of interviewees indicated that doping in Canadian cycling was not an organized practice or system, but rather an individual or small group practice. The situation outside of Canada may be different, but in Canada the practice is driven by individual initiatives. The majority of interviewees also noticed that there has been a cultural shift since 1998. Whereas doping in cycling was a lot more frequent in the past, the culture shifted and as a result, doping cases are more limited as doping is better regulated and controlled and cyclists are more aware of the risks associated with doping.

One interviewee was of the view that we must find a way to move towards more targeted investigations. According to this interviewee, there is often a great deal of truth associated with the so-called on-going rumours. When an individual has developed a certain reputation over the years and his name continually comes up, it’s a precursor to doping scandals. They are of the opinion that these alleged suspicions should lead to targeted investigations. This interviewee also brought up the issue that on the professional circuit, the peloton of cyclists knows about what the other riders are taking or not taking. However, there is no whistleblowing culture.

Another interviewee testified that an initiative like this national consultation is an effective tool, since interviewees can talk openly without facing disciplinary sanctions or consequences resulting from their testimony or admissions. He indicated that cycling is this kind of sport where riders compete against each other, but at the end of the race, they are all friends. With regards to performance-enhancing drug use, the interviewee mentioned that the right time for riders to use performance-enhancing drugs is during the winter season, as they are in full training and preparatory mode at that time. This is also when there are fewer doping tests. As far as the timing of anti-doping control is concerned, although it is not possible for riders to know exactly when testing will take place or when national team camps will open, they can figure out quite easily the critical periods in question. Riders often live together in small groups and must update their travel plans, which makes it easy to determine when they will likely be tested. Also, after a certain period of time during which a rider has not been tested (excluding in-competition testing), a rider starts to suspect that an unannounced test is coming soon. They can therefore better plan their doping activities.

Another interviewee corroborated the version given by the majority: there is no such organized doping culture or practice in Canada. However, according to this interviewee, if an individual is interested in acquiring performance-enhancing drugs, he can access what he needs quite easily through the different supply channels.

Another interviewee reported that if riders could anonymously provide information, this could be instrumental in targeting investigations. With regards to doping control, this interviewee suggested that, in spite of their financial capacity, sporting authorities should increase testing outside of competitions and investigate athletes who are suspicious. As well, the focus must be on continuing to develop the most effective doping testing techniques and make the consequences of doping much more severe especially in cases of intentional doping. The ineligibility period should be much longer and there should be real financial consequences. Cyclists who are on performance-enhancing drugs have this general perception that they are one step ahead of the doping detecting techniques currently in place. The substantial assistance program may be enticing for some, but even if an athlete on drugs provides information in exchange for a lighter “sentence”, he is, in the view of this particular interviewee, just as guilty as he was at the outset. Even if athletes collaborate, doping should not be encouraged. In regards to the ideal time for riders to use performance-enhancing drugs, the interviewee indicated that cyclists will resort to these substances when the pressure to perform reaches its

pinnacle, like at the World Championships, selections, important races or stages on Tours and typically eight weeks prior to the critical event (critical moment in the training cycle). Cyclists typically think that new performance-enhancing drugs are undetectable, since they are told that detection technology isn’t at the same level as the doping methods or techniques. Moreover, cyclists have a good idea of when they will be tested, especially at competitions. As well, cyclists who reside in urban centres feel that they will be randomly tested outside of competitions more frequently than people who live in rural areas, due to the proximity of doping testing centres and availability of doping control officers. Generally speaking, when cyclists show up at a national team camp, they are certain that they will be tested. Again this allows the rider to adapt their doping strategy.

Another interviewee indicated that in women’s cycling, doping is not an organized practice, nor is it a culture. The interviewee mentioned that disciplinary measures or consequences should be more severe. For instance, when a cyclist missed a doping test, it would have normally resulted in an automatic anti-doping rule violation; however, the cyclist got off with a warning. These types of situations undermine the trust the public and the other riders have in the anti-doping system.

Another interviewee mentioned that over the past few years, the culture of doping has changed significantly in the world of cycling. In the early 2000s, it was relatively easy for athletes to know when the doping tests would be taking place. The cycling teams and organizations provided information to athletes, which made it easier for them to determine the right time to use performance-enhancing drugs. Furthermore, according to this interviewee, if a cyclist using performance-enhancing drugs followed the doctor’s guidelines, he didn’t have to worry about the hassle of finding out when anti-doping testing would take place.

The last interviewee stated that a more open dialogue is needed with cyclists on drugs. Prior to the doping scandals uncovered by the USADA, blogging about the topic of doping was prohibited. The more serious the discussions, the more concern there was over image and legal issues. The stories of cyclists who use performance-enhancing drugs need to be disclosed. For instance, there is a persistent rumour in the cycling world to the effect that an athlete arrived late for his doping test, provided a contaminated sample and allegedly tried to bribe the doping control officer. This story is not public knowledge; however, we need to find a way to go public with these types of situations.

On a timing standpoint, cyclists who use performance-enhancing drugs do so either before races or throughout the season. Some training programs are quite sophisticated, but so too are doping programs. For instance, effective EPO use is predicated on a regular cycle. The general belief among cyclists is that it is difficult for banned substances to be detected and that only a small number of tests turn out positive. Determining when cyclists will be tested involves a relatively simple analysis. It’s obvious that during a race certain cyclists will be tested. The level of forecasting is more complex for out of competition testing. There should be more targeted testing during the two-week period prior to a competition, which is a critical time in an athlete’s doping preparation. If it were possible to conduct targeted testing that is based on circumstantial evidence, there would be more positive tests.

The main thing to remember: doping activities are not an organized practice in the sport of cycling in Canada. However, for cyclists who use performance-enhancing drugs, it seems that there is an opportunity and window for sporting authorities to conduct unannounced testing and doping investigations.

3.5 Education and prevention strategies

The purpose of this section was to gather feedback and opinions from interviewees about developing education and prevention strategies as a way of ridding the sport of cycling of doping and the culture of doping. The type of questions asked were: Is it effective to deliver education in a formal sport setting? How should the message be communicated and by whom? Identifying the right time to provide education. At what point in a career does it make sense to introduce anti-doping education and prevention strategies? Is it “too late” at any point? Supporting athletes during the high-pressure/high-risk times in their careers. When is this time in a career and how do we provide the right tools or support systems to at-risk athletes? Effective ways of providing the message. What’s the best way to deliver education – and when? What strategies have you seen that are (or aren’t) effective.

Many interviewees are of the opinion that there is room for improvement when it comes to developing and implementing education and prevention strategies for the purposes of ridding cycling of doping. In particular, four main areas of improvement have been identified and put forward: present anti-doping rules in laymen’s terms in order to make them easier to understand by athletes and provide athletes and their entourage with improved education and information about the risks and dangers of doping (from a sports, legal and health standpoint); disseminate anti-doping information in a more effective manner and increase the use of modern communication technologies, such as social networking; enhance targeted educational initiatives in order to discourage athletes from doping; ensure the concerted efforts of sports and anti-doping organizations.

Write anti-doping rules in laymen’s terms in order to make them easier to understand by athletes and provide athletes and their entourage with improved education and information about the risks and dangers of doping (from a sports, legal and health standpoint)

Interviewees clearly indicated that anti-doping rules in place at the UCI, CC, WADA and the CCES are difficult to understand by coaches and athletes, especially those who are only occasionally subjected to anti-doping control, like the youngest and masters riders. Cyclists, in particular those at a very young age, should be educated about the risks and dangers of using doping products and particularly vitamin supplements, including details about the origin and quality of these supplements. Interviewees also indicated that the temptation to dope emerges as the pressure to win increases, especially when the athlete plateaus, feels the heat from teams or his desire to win at all cost is money-driven. This holds especially true for junior-aged cyclists attempting to break into the senior ranks who want to fast-track their development and performances. These young cyclists are vulnerable to negative influences from their entourage or other cyclists. This pressure underscores the need to step up educational measures, so as to discourage the young cyclists from taking the decision to dope. It is very clear that certain competition networks, such as the Masters circuit, are sometimes distant, if not disconnected, from the anti-doping policies and rules in place at the CCES, CC, WADA or the UCI. On this last point, increasing the number of random anti-doping tests and tests during competitions on the Masters circuit was strongly recommended.

Athletes would like to be better educated and informed about their responsibilities as they pertain to the use of contaminated products or foods, natural products and their chemical ingredients, the use of medication or substances for therapeutic use or recreational drugs, the level of care and caution that needs to be exercised to avoid violating anti-doping rules, responsibility with respect to the actions or advice of their entourage or support staff (coach, sports medicine staff, advisor, etc.). Some interviewees who had violated anti-doping rules are of the opinion that if the rules had been clearer, easier to understand and better disseminated, they might have not violated any anti-doping rules.

Disseminate anti-doping information more effectively, through more in-person meetings and by resorting to more modern communication technologies, like social networking.

The majority of the interviewees are of the opinion that information needs to be disseminated more effectively, especially to those individuals who are not part of the national team programs on a full-time basis. The interviewees suggested that the sports authorities should increase the dissemination of information by using more modern communication platforms. To this end, they proposed that information and educational alerts be sent to athletes on a regular basis. For them, posting the rules on CC or the CCES website is not enough. They acknowledged that athletes are accountable for what is found in their bodies and for staying abreast of the anti-doping rules and changes or related developments by regularly checking the websites of CC, the CCES, the WADA and the UCI. However, they are of the view that more proactive, direct and regular communication about doping will help discourage riders from doping.

Increase targeted education responses in order to deter athletes from doping and to create a better understanding of the anti-doping program.

The interviewees are of the opinion that there is a need for more frequent anti-doping education and information initiatives, such as conferences, group discussions or information booths, either during training camps or at targeted events. One of the suggestions put forth was to make the issuance of a racing license subject to passing an anti-doping exam or to prove that they have completed the anti-doping program training course. They even proposed that former athletes take part in these educational sessions and share their experiences.

Some interviewees put forth the suggestion that CC should develop a dedicated anti-doping section on its website that would contain all of the useful and relevant links and information for athletes competing in CC-sanctioned events. In particular, the race clean section of CC’s website should be improved and better promoted. Other relevant web links should also be better promoted.

Ensure there is a concerted effort by sports and anti-doping organizations.

In the opinion of numerous interviewees, sports organisations, anti-doping organizations, teams and event organizers are out of sync with each other and lack coordination not only from a standpoint of anti-doping control, but as well from a standpoint of education. They are of the view that there is a need for better mutual coordination and alignment when it comes to prevention and education initiatives. Between the websites of CC, the CCES, the UCI and the WADA, the interviewees sometimes find it challenging to access relevant information that addresses their particular situation. The suggestion was put forth to focus more on promoting clean athletes and less on those who committed doping violations.

The Analysis

In this section we present you with our analysis of the interview results. As a reminder this report does not constitute a study or research on doping activity in cycling. This report presents the results of the consultation conducted through a comprehensive interview process and is reflective of the interviewees’ comments and feedback. We encourage CC and the CCES to continue their research, analysis and collaboration on the situation of doping in cycling.

Is there an organized system or culture of doping in cycling in Canada?

The consultation’s results support the argument that there is no organized system or culture of doping in Canadian cycling. All the reported and public doping cases involving Canadian cyclists were the results of individual initiatives, whereby suppliers were either other riders or former cyclists or members of their entourage or support staff team. In addition, there is no connection between the various Canadian doping cases. The supply chain and the actors involved are all different. It supports the theory that all doping activities are isolated cases that are initiated by individuals, primarily by the athletes themselves.

It also became apparent that the supply chain varies from one case to the next, whether the source is a doctor, a trainer, a coach or in a few cases, another cyclist. There is no evidence to suggest that an organized supply chain exists across Canada. We were also surprised to learn from one interviewee that a former Canadian sport administrator was, to a certain extent, an accomplice in the supply chain of performance-enhancing drugs. That being said, the word goes around quickly and individuals who supply performance-enhancing drugs are known to those who want to dope. It is fairly easy amongst riders to find and gain access to these suppliers.

We found that many interviewees are aware of or suspect other riders using performance enhancing drugs either because they witnessed the doping activities themselves or because the teammate may have admitted using performance enhancing drugs to them. In addition, many interviewees said they had strong suspicions on certain athletes. It is our view that the level of suspicion revealed in the interviews suffices to convince sporting authorities to further investigate when strong suspicion arises or is reported. The number of interviewees reporting stories about doping situations should also convince the sporting authorities that some level of practice, even if isolated, exist in Canadian cycling.

Many interviewees were reluctant to share details about their own stories or stories of others. The culture of silence is still present in Canadian cycling. However, athletes who ride clean feel that the sporting authorities should increase their efforts to fight against those who dope or when there are suspicions.

Why riders decide to use performance-enhancing substances or methods?

The consultation revealed that the thought or decision-making process of riders who decide to use performance-enhancing drugs is quite the same from one rider to the next. The rider feels the pressure to win in order to gain visibility and secure a professional contract. The pressure can either come from the inner forces that fuel the athlete’s will to win at all costs or from external forces, such as the influence from others that doping is a necessary path to success and money. Depending on the rider’s stage of development, doping can be a quick way to elevate his level of competitiveness and performance. The culture of doping, although somewhat watered down or more controlled or regulated, is still ingrained to a greater extent in the European cycling community than it is in Canadian cycling. Canadian cyclists who ride for professional European teams sometimes feel the pressure of being like other riders and playing in the big leagues (the big Tours). However, the interviewees said that no matter how much psychological pressure you were under to dope, it is always, at the end of day, a personal decision. The team does not force the rider to dope; yet, if the results are not conclusive, the rider could lose his contract with the team.

About anti-doping investigations?

Generally speaking, the interviewees felt that this consultation was a good initiative. It allowed them to talk freely and openly about the sensitive issue of doping. Is that enough? Probably not. Other ways to allow this kind of information sharing or disclosure could be done through an help desk or whistle blowing process to allow the athletes to talk freely about doping activities or suspicions on doping.

We conclude from the consultation that the anti-doping and cycling organizations should take a more proactive approach when suspicions are raised or brought to their attention. The majority of the interviewees felt that the anti-doping program could be more effective in the sense that further assessments or fact checking should be conducted, in addition to formal doping investigations. Too many riders who are under suspicion are not investigated when they should be. There should be an anonymous whistleblowing mechanism that would warrant fact checking or eventually a formal doping investigation. We share their views in regards to fact checking. Anti-doping and sport organisa

Show more