Saturday 9 February 2013

Voices in the crowd: Vaughters and Wenger


Since the early hours of Thursday morning and the last instalment of Bleeding Edge, some smarter than average bears have had their say. Arsene Wenger and Jonathan Vaughters are two of the more interesting and insightful voices in football and cycling respectively and equally forward thinking in their approaches to team management. The point that both unifies and sets them apart from their peers is their willingness to speak out with little regard for the way the wind is blowing.





breath of reason



Arsene Wenger spoke not only of the need for blood testing in football, but also of the shortcomings of the Operation Puerto trial, match fixing and the odds of footballers doping at tournaments such as the world cup. His frustration with UEFA is evident, mentioning his repeated requests to introduce blood testing. He cites the sluggish speed of urine tests post-match and his belief in greater doping controls, stating that “honestly, I don’t think we do enough”. Wenger does not share the naivety of many when it comes to the realities of doping in football, and is not duped by the stats that would otherwise indicate clean competition:

"It is very difficult for me to believe that you have 740 players at the World Cup and you come out with zero problems. Mathematically, that happens every time. But statistically, even for social drugs, it looks like we would do better to go deeper.”


Displayed clearly is the inadequacy of anti-doping controls in football. Let us be crystal clear on this: in an international tournament, watched globally, played by fiercely competitive players in a sport awash with cash, there will be doping. The stats do not represent the reality, and reflect the failure of doping controls in the sport.

Wenger points to the resistance of blood tests and the reluctance of those within the sport to have blood examined. What do they have to hide?

It is a sign of the times that Wenger mentions the trial of Eufemiano Fuentes. He, like many in Vaughter’s sport of cycling, is perturbed by the failure of the trial to dig deeper. What of the blood bags? Who do they belong to? Why is there no will to test them and catch those who have doped? In Bleeding Edge’s last post, the argument was made for the prosecution of doping to involve the more traditional aspects of law enforcement. In Spain, however, this doesn’t appear to be much of an option.

In a blog for cyclingnews.com, Jonathan Vaughters today wrote on the absurdity of the MPCC potentially taking legal action against Lance Armstrong.  JV’s blog is essential reading and a few very important points must be taken. Firstly, those in cycling and the bodies that govern it are neither capable of nor correct for dealing with the mess the sport finds itself in. Bleeding Edge made a similar point yesterday, and JV’s words really do put the actions of those within the sport into sharp relief. The second point to take is that the infighting, blame-shifting and responsibility-shirking within cycling is infantile, damaging and narcissistic. JV is perfectly correct when he argues that those in cycling cannot be trusted to sort out their own problems.

Going forward, the importance of funding for the appropriate bodies (WADA, USADA, AFLD for instance) is vital. Like most of science, it is not so much a case of where there is a will, there is a way but rather where there is money, there is a way.

Hopefully tying up the last couple of days…

It would appear that the more reasoned heads within cycling and football see the solutions, but are exasperated when faced with the difficulty of enacting them. As put forward in Bleeding Edge yesterday, the debate on doping needs reframing. This is true of sport in general, and perhaps cycling most of all. Changes in the law, funding for independent anti-doping organisations and the integration of law enforcement into the solution are desperately needed. What we are getting is children fighting in a sand pit: we are seeing playground justice and infantile politicking when we need to see mature and independent authority and governance.

But you knew that already…

(I was hoping this would be a brief post…)

As ever get rowdy @­­_BleedingEdge_ or in the comments

No comments:

Post a Comment