Stoned by Les Earnest
Rolling Stone magazine
and others publicly denounced blood doping that occurred during the 1984
Olympics. However, the Stone’s claims were mostly fabricated in spite of the fact
that they had accurate inside information.
Originally published in the April 1985 issue of Cyclops USA.
During the public discussions of blood doping in January and February, the Federation and Olympic team members received quite a lot of attention from national media. Just when it appeared that we had heard the last of it, a national sports cartoon took a few more jabs in late March, as follows
While it was embarrassing to have our problems discussed so publicly, the fact that this issue was of national interest is an indication of growing awareness of cycling by the general public. Most of the articles were fair and generally accurate.
A notable exception was an article that appeared in the
Even though I had heard allegations of personal connections
between the management of Rolling Stone and some less stable members of our
community, I contacted their editorial group by phone, reviewed the flagrant inaccuracies in the article, pointed out that the author had apparently acted irresponsibly, and asked if they would be interested in a written refutation. They said
they would if I could get it to them
in a week.
Lacking the ability to
coordinate an official USCF statement
in time, I wrote a personal letter
[attached]. It attacked the central
thesis of the article, that there
had been "illicit doping" and
pointed out the only thing about this
controversy that could reasonably be
considered scandalous was the failure
of the International Olympic Committee
and subsidiary bodies to take a stand
on blood boosting.
In a follow-up telephone
conversation, Rolling Stone representatives said that my
three page letter was too long to
print, but if I trimmed it down a lot they
might run it. I pointed out that they
had printed three very large pages full
of lies overlain with large headlines
and they were now inviting me to refute
this in a few paragraphs. I impolitely
refused.
I note that the cover of
the offending issue featured the hauty visage of Mick Jagger in a
large yellow jacket. Yellow seems to be a good color for journals such as Rolling Stone.
Letter to
Rolling Stone magazine from Les Earnest
1985 February 1
Mr. Robert B. Wallace,
Managing Editor
Rolling Stone Magazine
745
Dear Mr. Wallace:
As an officer
of the U.S. Cycling Federation, I read with interest thee article on
"Olympic Cheating" by Richard Cramer in the February 14 issue of
Rolling Stone. As Chairman of the USCF Technical Commission, which oversees
rule enforcement and disciplinary actions, I have collected and reviewed a
large amount of information on the subject of the article and have reached
quite different conclusions from those of the author. However, the things that
I shall say here represent my personal views and not an official position of
the USCF.
While
the actions of some of our Olympic Team staff members were arguably unethical
and were certainly stupid, the central thesis of the article - that certain
cyclists engaged in "illicit doping" - is clearly false. Whether you
call the process "blood doping," "blood packing,"
"blood boosting," or "induced erythrocythemia,"
it is a sleazy practice that is permissible under existing Olympic rules.
Mr. Cramer was
apparently intent on justifying a headline about "An Olympic Scandal - How
U.S. Medalists were doped to win." Even though he was fortunate enough to
be given much of the key documentation in this case by a person who
participated in part of the investigation, he failed to test the
"facts" on which his erroneous conclusions were based. By failing to
probe, he both preserved his preconceived notions and failed to discover that
there really was an Olympic scandal that has been going on for at least a
decade and that is still going strong. I will discuss the real scandal below.
The article
states that:
“As of
early 1984, Olympic policy in this country stated that blood doping was
unacceptable under any condition.”
Having reviewed all
available documentation, I find no evidence that such a policy existed at that
time. In late 1983 the USOC declined to invest in a proposed research project
involving blood boosting, but there is no evidence that they took a position
about the practice itself. More to the point, there was, and still is, nothing
in the written regulations of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or the
USOC that takes a position on blood boosting. The article continues:
“The
policy of the U.S. Olympic Committee Sports Medicine Council reads, 'The USOC
is opposed to doping in any form and will not condone its use by athletes or
its promotion by anyone connected with a
IOC regulations, which
are followed by the USOC, are quite explicit about doping - they include an
extensive list of prohibited substances and blood is not one of them. Therefore
the quoted statement about "doping" is meaningless in this context.
While
USOC policies on doping are of interest to the national governing bodies of the
various sports, including the U.S. Cycling Federation, most athletic events in
the
The
article quotes a “definition of doping” attributed to the Medical Commission of
the IOC:
“Doping
is the administration of or the use by a competing athlete of any substance
foreign to the body or of any physiological substance taken in abnormal
quantity or taken by an abnormal route of entry into the body, with the sole
intention of increasing in an artificial and unfair manner his performance in
competition.” [Emphasis added.]
Given that the author
obtained that quotation from our files, I happen to know that it comes from
page 10 of a book entitled Drugs and Athletic Performance by Melvin H.
Williams, Ph.D. It does not appear in the written regulations of the IOC. It
seems to be a report of one committee's opinion at some time in the past. As
such, is not enforceable.
If the
above statement had been enacted as a regulation, there likely would be endless
speculation about the meaning of the word “abnormal” and of the vague phrase,
“in an artificial and unfair manner.”
In
summary, there is nothing on the record that substantiates the author's charge
of “illicit doping.” This fact was not hidden. Several journalists who
initially had less information than did Mr. Cramer managed to see through the
smoke.
(Incidentally,
having been contacted earlier by Mr. Cramer, I called him exactly three weeks
ago to provide an update, including a review of the facts discussed above. He
wasn't there, so I left a message. He did not return the call.)
The
practice of blood boosting has been under investigation in medical circles for
more that 20 years and allegedly has been used in the Olympics at least since 1976.
While the extensive medical literature on the subject does not uniformly
confirm that blood boosting improves performance, it is generally believed to
be efficacious in endurance events such as distance running and swimming, cross
country skiing, and certain cycling events.
A
difference between the apparently substantial work going on elsewhere in blood
boosting and that performed on the
Aside
from their security failure, the people who arranged for clandestine needlework
on the cyclists managed to bungle the project in other ways:
(1)
they used transfusions instead of self-infusion of stored blood, which
posed unacceptable risks to the athletes, and
(2)
they did not transfuse enough blood to have
measurably improved the athletes' performance.
Thus the athletes were
exposed to risk without benefit.
A continuing Olympic
scandal
While
various international Olympic officials appear to have been uncomfortable about
blood boosting technology for some time, they recognized that there were no
reliable tests to detect it. What they should have done was to declare blood
boosting to be against the rules and then used whatever enforcement mechanisms
were available. Instead, they stuck their heads in the sand and waited for a
test to appear.
Given
that things not forbidden under the regulations are permitted, this stance has
invited unhealthy, extensive experimentation for many years. That is the real
Olympic scandal.
I do
not wish to pretend that the U.S. Cycling Federation officialdom was blameless
in this matter. We too had our heads in the sand. Having recognized the
consequences of inaction, on
“A
licensee who provides a rider with, or encourages the use of, or communicates
consent to the use of [blood] boosting or a prohibited substance shall be
subject to the same penalties as a rider who has tested positive for the use of
a prohibited substance.”
The penalty is 30 days
suspension for the first offense, 6 months for the second,
and indefinite suspension for the third offense.
To my
knowledge, the U.S. Cycling Federation is the only sports body in the world
that has adopted regulations prohibiting blood boosting to date. I hope that
others will follow suit, especially the International Olympic Committee and the
international bodies governing the various endurance sports. I understand that
the USOC will have this topic on the agenda of their House of Delegates meeting
in February.
Incidentally,
I am not so naive as to believe that simply passing a rule will end blood
boosting in this country or elsewhere. It will, of course, deter the majority
who follow the rules and those who are afraid of getting caught by direct
evidence. By also making it clear to coaches and trainers that their jobs will
be jeopardized by medical misconduct, we can remove the institutional support
that this practice has enjoyed in the past. This should eliminate most of the
problem until hoped-for testing procedures are developed.
Of
course, whatever we do, there will still be a few determined individuals who
will use rusty needles with whatever blood they can find, and they will get
what they deserve.
The
medical profession could help by publicly stating and enforcing tighter ethical
guidelines for sports medicine. I believe that blood boosting should be
excluded from ethical practice, but most medical authorities treat it as
ethical on the grounds that the risk is not great when it is done properly.
As for
Richard Cramer's article, it is an example of shoddy investigation and sleazy
reporting and is unworthy of your publication. I suggest that the next issue of
Rolling Stone carry an announcement on the cover in the same 36 point type as
the last one saying,
We
were wrong about that
“OLYMPIC
SCANDAL”
I doubt that you have
the guts, though.
Sincerely,
Les Earnest
Next article: Please be polite! Cyclops USA Home Page