Here’s a bold statement: cycling, like any sport, can never truly claim to be 100% clean. But should this keep us up at night? Ben Healy recently echoed this sentiment, and it’s a conversation that refuses to fade from the spotlight. But here’s where it gets controversial—while doping scandals have undeniably tarnished cycling’s reputation, is it fair to single out the sport when others seem to escape similar scrutiny? Let’s dive in.
The moment someone learns I write about professional cycling, the questions inevitably start. “Do you think riders are doping?” or “How clean is the sport, really?” It’s as if the shadow of past scandals—like Lance Armstrong’s rise and fall or the era of Livestrong wristbands—still looms large in the public’s mind. For many, especially those in my generation (I’m 30), doping is the first thing that comes to mind when they think of cycling, often before they can even name a recent Tour de France winner or a female cyclist.
But is this skepticism justified? Cycling, like athletics and swimming, is an endurance sport where performance enhancements can yield more predictable results compared to skill-based sports like football or cricket. This makes it a prime target for doping allegations. Yet, it’s worth noting that cycling is also one of the most tested sports, as Healy pointed out in his recent interview with the Irish Mirror. Riders like Oier Lazkano, provisionally suspended for abnormalities in his biological passport, demonstrate that anti-doping measures are active—even if they’re not always perfect.
And this is the part most people miss: while high-profile cases still emerge, the sport has made significant strides in cleaning up its act. The dark days of the 90s and 2000s have left a stain, but governing bodies, teams, and riders are working harder than ever to restore trust. However, the lingering suspicion remains—are teams or riders pushing the boundaries of what’s allowed? Are there still substances or methods that fly under the radar of anti-doping authorities?
Here’s a thought-provoking question: Is cycling being held to a higher standard than other sports? It’s frustrating for cycling enthusiasts to see the sport constantly under the microscope, while others seem to rebound from scandals more easily. The Movement for a Credible Cycling (MPCC) has called for stricter action against the “medicalization” of the sport and the expansion of grey areas, but the overwhelming majority of pro teams aren’t part of this organization. Why? And what does that say about the sport’s commitment to transparency?
Racing is undeniably faster today, but is that proof of doping? Healy argues that advancements in equipment and racing tactics play a significant role. Yet, for many, this explanation isn’t enough—they crave a darker narrative. This skepticism is cycling’s cross to bear, and it won’t disappear overnight. Greater transparency from governing bodies, teams, and riders could help, but trust is a two-way street.
Should we be worried? Yes and no. We should be concerned about the potential for undetectable substances or the exploitation of grey areas, but we shouldn’t let worry spiral into hysteria. Recent anti-doping cases show that cheats are being caught, and the system, while imperfect, is working. As for me? I don’t claim to know if any individual rider is clean or if doping is widespread. I doubt there’s an organized system like there was 20 years ago, but I’m not naive either. What I do know is that the conversation isn’t going away—and that’s a good thing.
What do you think? Is cycling being unfairly targeted, or does it deserve the scrutiny? Let’s keep the discussion going. If you want to share your thoughts or suggest a topic, email me at adam.becket@futurenet.com. And don’t forget to subscribe to The Leadout newsletter here for more insights like this.
