The following occurred to me recently when i was chatting with Rock Racing Director Laurenzo Lapage at the Herald Sun Tour.
There is something inherently social, even possibly democratic, about the peloton of road cycling. Social in that it is a place where conversations take place – both in the "heat of the battle" and in the lulls along the road as a race progresses toward the next event, the next point on the road. Conversation occurs at a verbal level between teams and between team members. But it also occurs and takes place across teams in a manner in which no other sport can achieve. At times divisions blend into nothing as riders simply catch up, meet or talk over the hours spent on the road over the expanse of the long racing year. It is a conversation across languages, borders and generations ... All have to cross the same hills, fight the same winds and the same conditions as a multitude, and ever-changing amoeba-like amorphous movement moves onwards.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
The peloton and strategic intervention.
From the Theoretical Notes from the Ponds Series
The kind of investigation we have in mind is impossible without the cooperation of the peloton. In fact given that it appears incontestable that the peloton is the most isolated or excluded of all ‘stakeholders’ in the policy process to undertake research without their cooperation appears to be futile.
On one hand, what we are trying to undertake is akin to the traditional "factory” or ‘workplace” investigation". As such we are seeking to inquire into the conditions and relations of the workers of professional cycling. In undertaking our research we seek to maintain a certain academic or sociological detachment from the position of the peloton whilst also seeking to remain independent of the sport’s administrators, sponsors and media. Nevertheless we still wish to canvass the perceptions of these groups.
On the other hand if our assumption that the peloton is isolated from the policy process is correct – and our work to date has done nothing to dissuade us of this position; what we are also interested in doing as part of our research via way of workshops and formal and informal feedback loops is to carry out a kind of co-operative or interactive production of knowledge – a sort of cycling "teach-in" whereby we can take issues raised with us, undertake background research and report back to the peloton in order to produce knowledge and to allow those affected by policy to consider their policy options and to engage if it be their desire - a form of policy brokerage.
Thirdly, and possibly in the end most productive of change, we seek to engage the peloton in the process of producing “ethical bodies” which are able to deactivate the mechanisms of surveillance and control that they feel that they are subjected to. That is if we can engage the cyclists in the production of a community of ethical riders what might be regarded as the excess of anti doping policy would no longer be necessary.
The notion of strategic investigation in this way allows to conceive of the collective production of the knowledge of the peloton with the view of an intervention which can only assist in the production of a sustainable and sensible approach to anti doping policy.
The kind of investigation we have in mind is impossible without the cooperation of the peloton. In fact given that it appears incontestable that the peloton is the most isolated or excluded of all ‘stakeholders’ in the policy process to undertake research without their cooperation appears to be futile.
On one hand, what we are trying to undertake is akin to the traditional "factory” or ‘workplace” investigation". As such we are seeking to inquire into the conditions and relations of the workers of professional cycling. In undertaking our research we seek to maintain a certain academic or sociological detachment from the position of the peloton whilst also seeking to remain independent of the sport’s administrators, sponsors and media. Nevertheless we still wish to canvass the perceptions of these groups.
On the other hand if our assumption that the peloton is isolated from the policy process is correct – and our work to date has done nothing to dissuade us of this position; what we are also interested in doing as part of our research via way of workshops and formal and informal feedback loops is to carry out a kind of co-operative or interactive production of knowledge – a sort of cycling "teach-in" whereby we can take issues raised with us, undertake background research and report back to the peloton in order to produce knowledge and to allow those affected by policy to consider their policy options and to engage if it be their desire - a form of policy brokerage.
Thirdly, and possibly in the end most productive of change, we seek to engage the peloton in the process of producing “ethical bodies” which are able to deactivate the mechanisms of surveillance and control that they feel that they are subjected to. That is if we can engage the cyclists in the production of a community of ethical riders what might be regarded as the excess of anti doping policy would no longer be necessary.
The notion of strategic investigation in this way allows to conceive of the collective production of the knowledge of the peloton with the view of an intervention which can only assist in the production of a sustainable and sensible approach to anti doping policy.
pseudoephedrine is back (on the list)
This month the International Network of Humanistic Doping Research Web site Editorial has an editorial from the esteemed English Sports Sociologist Ivan Waddington on the return of pseudoephedrine to the WADA list.
Here is the full text which once again raises concerns about transparency and rationality in Anti Doping Policy:
October 2009 International Network of Humanistic Doping Research
By Professor Ivan Waddington. Norwegian School of Sport Science, Norway
Editorial
WADA has recently announced that pseudoephedrine is being placed back on the list of banned drugs which will come into effect in January 2010. This is a curious decision.
Pseudoephedrine was for many years on the IOC list of banned drugs and was then placed on the list drawn up by WADA when it took over the responsibility for maintaining that list in 2004. The presence of pseudoephedrine on the list had always been problematic, for pseudoephedrine haslong been available in over the counter cold remedies which are generally available to the general public, are widely used in daily life and appear to present no major health threat. Because of this, the removal of pseudoephedrine from the WADA banned list a couple of years ago was generally seen as a sensible move which tidied up an anomaly in that list. But now that WADA has reintroduced the ban, elite athletes are surely entitled to ask: What is going on? Why has the ban been reintroduced? And how can its reintroduction to the banned list be justified in terms of WADA’s own criteria for banning drugs?
It may be useful to remind ourselves of WADA’s criteria for including drugs on the list. The 2003 WADA Code says that a substance is considered for inclusion on the banned list if it meets any two of the following three criteria:
the substance has the potential to enhance sport performance;
its use represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete; and
its use violates the ‘spirit of sport’.
Although pseudoephedrine meets the first criterion, so do many other substances, such as electrolyte drinks and high carbohydrate energy foods, which are permitted. But does it meet either of the other two criteria?
As noted earlier, pseudoephedrine has for many years been widely available in over the counter cold remedies which are freely available to the general public and widely used. It is no exaggeration to say that pseudoephedrine has been used not by millions, but by tens of millions, of people, without raising any serious health concerns. In any commonsense definition of the term, pseudoephedrine is a safe drug which does not pose a health threat.
This leaves just the third criterion: that the use of pseudoephedrine ‘violates the spirit of sport’. This argument is a non-starter. No-one, surely, can argue that an athlete who has a respiratory infection and who takes a cold remedy which has been used by tens of millions of people is ‘violating the spirit of sport’.
In 2007 a British House of Commons Select Committee stated:
‘We remain disappointed at the lack of transparency at WADA relating to how decisions regarding inclusion of substances on the Prohibited List are made. We believe that lack of transparency in the Prohibited List sends out a poor signal to athletes and that WADA should justify each decision made within the criteria which it has set itself.’
The Committee went on to say that WADA should be pressed for ‘clear reasoning to be given for each substance and method included on the Prohibited List.’ WADA should indeed do this. But given the way WADA has responded to critics of other aspects of its policy – for example critics of its whereabouts system – it seems, sadly, that WADA is unlikely to respond in an open and transparent fashion.
Here is the full text which once again raises concerns about transparency and rationality in Anti Doping Policy:
October 2009 International Network of Humanistic Doping Research
By Professor Ivan Waddington. Norwegian School of Sport Science, Norway
Editorial
WADA has recently announced that pseudoephedrine is being placed back on the list of banned drugs which will come into effect in January 2010. This is a curious decision.
Pseudoephedrine was for many years on the IOC list of banned drugs and was then placed on the list drawn up by WADA when it took over the responsibility for maintaining that list in 2004. The presence of pseudoephedrine on the list had always been problematic, for pseudoephedrine haslong been available in over the counter cold remedies which are generally available to the general public, are widely used in daily life and appear to present no major health threat. Because of this, the removal of pseudoephedrine from the WADA banned list a couple of years ago was generally seen as a sensible move which tidied up an anomaly in that list. But now that WADA has reintroduced the ban, elite athletes are surely entitled to ask: What is going on? Why has the ban been reintroduced? And how can its reintroduction to the banned list be justified in terms of WADA’s own criteria for banning drugs?
It may be useful to remind ourselves of WADA’s criteria for including drugs on the list. The 2003 WADA Code says that a substance is considered for inclusion on the banned list if it meets any two of the following three criteria:
the substance has the potential to enhance sport performance;
its use represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete; and
its use violates the ‘spirit of sport’.
Although pseudoephedrine meets the first criterion, so do many other substances, such as electrolyte drinks and high carbohydrate energy foods, which are permitted. But does it meet either of the other two criteria?
As noted earlier, pseudoephedrine has for many years been widely available in over the counter cold remedies which are freely available to the general public and widely used. It is no exaggeration to say that pseudoephedrine has been used not by millions, but by tens of millions, of people, without raising any serious health concerns. In any commonsense definition of the term, pseudoephedrine is a safe drug which does not pose a health threat.
This leaves just the third criterion: that the use of pseudoephedrine ‘violates the spirit of sport’. This argument is a non-starter. No-one, surely, can argue that an athlete who has a respiratory infection and who takes a cold remedy which has been used by tens of millions of people is ‘violating the spirit of sport’.
In 2007 a British House of Commons Select Committee stated:
‘We remain disappointed at the lack of transparency at WADA relating to how decisions regarding inclusion of substances on the Prohibited List are made. We believe that lack of transparency in the Prohibited List sends out a poor signal to athletes and that WADA should justify each decision made within the criteria which it has set itself.’
The Committee went on to say that WADA should be pressed for ‘clear reasoning to be given for each substance and method included on the Prohibited List.’ WADA should indeed do this. But given the way WADA has responded to critics of other aspects of its policy – for example critics of its whereabouts system – it seems, sadly, that WADA is unlikely to respond in an open and transparent fashion.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Coming Soon
Lots to report and lots not reportable .... coming soon ... the Tour, August, Travel all this takes its toll on the blogger's regularity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
