Every time I come to write this blog, or just check the
sports news for that matter, doping seems to occupy an ever-increasing amount
of column inches, being pushed further and further in the agenda by the press.
Whilst this is good in some respects, the quality of the writing and insight
offered from the usual sports journalists is, frankly, poor. That is not to say
that they are poor journalists, rather their pieces lack any fresh ideas and
seem only to retrace the footsteps of those who have written and argued so much
about the scourge of doping in sport over the last few years. The Guardian’s drugs in sport special
of last week exhibited these flaws.
Perhaps where the pieces fall down most heavily is their
failure to really interrogate the information and stories they proffer. This is
most clear with their story covering Roger
Federer’s call for biological passports in tennis. Federer adds his voice
to the others in tennis in calling out the low standard of testing –
specifically the lack of blood profiling – throughout the year. Let’s not
address the issue of doping and testing in tennis at this juncture though – the
issue here is that the piece’s author Kevin Mitchell, emblematic of the rest of
the pieces in the series, completely ignores the need to evaluate Federer’s
part in the play. Let me make this clear at the outset: I am neither accusing Roger
Federer of doping, nor insinuating that he has anything to hide. However, I think
it is vital that those who bring the crisis of doping in sport “to the masses”
via the more traditional news vehicles such as papers and major broadcasters,
have the guts to be iconoclastic.
 |
| Whiter than white |
Hold on one second…
Ah yes, cycling…
The toughest sport on earth has seen its fair share of
iconoclasm recently, and it would be remiss of me to omit names such as Paul
Kimmage and David Walsh. But can you name a truly iconoclastic football
journalist? Have you ever read an iconoclastic piece on a tennis star? I would
wager no. It seems foolish that in
the current climate, we do not question, or at least dispense with our naivety
when listening to the words of successful athletes. Society, outside sport and
in, is ever-ready to build figures up only to bring them crashing back down. The
morbid fascination with the descent of the stars is a recurrent theme of the
social narrative. It is one that often leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of
those who don’t read the gossip mags and try to conduct themselves in a
civilised manner, and is satirised so well in the South Park episode Britney’s new look.
The point here is that placing athletes on pedestals in the
first place blinds many of us to the reality of the situation and erodes the
objectivity that is so vital in regulating our relationship with sport, not to
mention the sport itself. The process of deification shuts our ears to the
clamour rising from ‘neath the floorboards.
In the past fourteen years a not insignificant number of
journalists have forged careers from the lionisation of Lance Armstrong, and it
is a process which will probably always blight sports journalism. It is
slightly sad that we must raise our levels of circumspection when listening to
and writing about great athletes, but it is lamentably necessary.
Back to Roger Federer…
Roger Federer has won seventeen Grand Slam Men’s Singles
titles, spent a record-breaking 302 weeks as the number one ranked player and
is regarded by many as the greatest tennis player of all time. He seems to be a
man of honour and class. He is a beautiful player to watch. His opinions on
drug-testing within tennis are valid and worth listening to. But he is woefully
under-tested. As is pointed out in the Guardian Piece by Kevin Mitchell,
Federer was surprised that he was not blood-tested at or after the Australian Open,
and relayed his surprise to the relevant authorities. Success and sporting
greatness are not in themselves a sound basis to suspect the use of PEDs, but
let us not be childish enough to take athletes’ almost superhuman feats at face
value. Roger Federer is almost irrelevant in this particular debate: it is more
the position that he occupies. A player in his position should have been
blood-tested after every major victory, or at the very least drug-tested in
some fashion. For all the failures of anti-doping in cycling at least we know
that every day at the Tour de France the overall race leader (the maillot jaune, GC leader), stage winner
and two other riders selected at random will be drug-tested. This is in
addition to tests prior to the race and the occasional testing of full teams. As
much as this ever can, it lends greater integrity to the results.
If that last sentence has you scoffing or laughing, then
what does that imply about the outcomes of major tennis tournaments? As stated
previously, I am neither accusing Roger Federer of doping, nor insinuating that
he has anything to hide. We know that doping exists in tennis, but we do not
know the extent of the problem due to insufficient testing. Whilst we should
encourage top players such as Roger Federer and Andy Murray speaking
out against doping and the need to increase the quality, frequency and rigour
of testing in the hope that it may result in positive change, we also need to
confront the stark truth that the chances of those at the very top of their
sport may be doping. If other sports
are any kind of measure then we can infer how likely this might be.
The consequences of this are that (returning to the starting
point of this post) we must be cautious of how we treat the achievements of
stellar athletes and be rigorous and commensurably critical of them when we
listen to what they say. We all hope that Roger Federer’s blood and conscience
are as clean as his match day attire at SW19. It is refreshing to see tennis
players speaking out about doping and drug-testing when they don’t have to, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves
and believe unquestioningly in their integrity if the testing is not up to
scratch. Lazy journalism and a readiness to elevate athletes to a superior
class of star are our enemies. Circumspection
and interrogation are imperative to the reporting of doping in sport and we
must be even handed in both our suspicions and reliance on evidence. But most
of all, we must demand the highest calibre of evidence in the first place.
Iconoclasm is not a flaw. Gross idolatry however, is.
But you knew that already…
As ever get rowdy @_BleedingEdge_ or in the
comments
No comments:
Post a Comment