Assuming DZ is telling the truth, can he credibly run USAC’s anti-doping programs?
Actually doesn’t USADA run anti-doping programs in the USA anyway? so while your question about Steve Johnson’s potential departure is legitimate - there is no direct line up to him for anti-doping testing or punishment in the USA.
1 Like
- there is no direct line up to him for anti-doping testing or punishment in the USA.
USACycling runs RaceClean, which is the one anti-doping program that affects me. USACycling claims RaceClean is, “part of its ongoing commitment to clean sport, ensuring a level playing field, and promoting athletes’ health and well-being.”
USADA does the actual testing, but USAC provides the $ and, I assume logistics. (letting USADA know which races to target, taking “tips” about suspected dopers, etc).
There’s a leadership issue if they’re taking the moral high ground in RaceClean, yet not coming clean about their role in the doping heyday.
I’m not hyperventilating over it. Just think that the bureaucrats should get the same treatment as the cyclists. If Lance can’t race and a lot of the cyclists had their names publicly dragged through the mud, then Johnson shouldn’t get a free pass just because he’s in a white collar role.
The executive summary below from WADA about the lack of effectiveness of testing programs pretty much sums it all up. Steve Johnson is not alone. His position and stance is probably replicated amongst most of his peers among cycling and sports in general. I’m not defending him- but until you view sport, especially professional sport/elite amateur competition, as entertainment that is run as a business to generate money into ‘xyz’ sport, you can finally come away with far less heartache and the honest realization that this will most likely never change. I don’t think it’s a defeatist attitude, but a realistic attitude currently. Incremental change, is wonderful, but if it’s a conflict of interest to air dirty laundry, which it is, at the top levels, how do you expect solid change?
The primary reason for the apparent lack of success of the testing programs does not lie
with the science involved. While there may well be some drugs or combinations of drugs and
methods of which the anti-doping community is unaware, the science now available is both
robust and reliable. The real problems are the human and political factors. There is no general
appetite to undertake the effort and expense of a successful effort to deliver doping-free sport.
This applies (with varying degrees) at the level of athletes, international sport organizations,
national Olympic committees, NADOs (National Anti Doping Organizations) and governments. It is reflected in low standards of
compliance measurement (often postponed), unwillingness to undertake critical analysis of the
necessary requirements, unwillingness to follow-up on suspicions and information,
unwillingness to share available information and unwillingness to commit the necessary
informed intelligence, effective actions and other resources to the fight against doping in sport.
http://www.wada-ama.org/…-WG-Report-Final.pdf
4 Likes
The executive summary below from WADA about the lack of effectiveness of testing programs pretty much sums it all up. Steve Johnson is not alone. His position and stance is probably replicated amongst >most of his peers among cycling and sports in general.
I think you’re going on a tangent. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of testing has little relevance to the issue of the head of USA Cycling failing to report to USADA direct knowledge of doping (and then, if DZ isn’t lying, lying about it afterwards).
can finally come away with far less heartache and the honest realization that this will most likely never change
I don’t have heartache. I’m perfectly happy to accept that there’ll always be doping. Hell, I race 35+ in Southern California where everyone tells me the entire field is doping. But I’m willing to make life as difficult as possible for dopers. And willing to throw them under the bus when we catch them. That’s a preferable route, in my mind, than openly accepting it. My stance is largely based on rider health.
3 Likes
I actually think I’m directly on target- the quote above includes, among other things, “unwillingness to follow-up on suspicions and information”.
Isn’t that what you are stating about Johnson? That he apparently didn’t act upon information presented to him? There are countless athletes, often high profile athletes, that have had positive tests or information about them and their doping practices that have been swept under their sport gov’t body’s rug.
2 Likes
I actually think I’m directly on target- the quote above includes, among other things, “unwillingness to follow-up on suspicions and information”.
You’re right! I had read that way back in it was released, and didn’t bother reading it again - forgot that part. My bad.
In this case I think the USAC board should take USADA’s recommendation to heart and seek to verify if Johnson did indeed dismiss credible reports. If they find that he did, I think they should find a new CEO.
I see it as more of a call to action than a call to resignation like you. 
1 Like
Assuming DZ is telling the truth, can he credibly run USAC’s anti-doping programs?
If DZ is telling the truth, then yes, Steve Johnson must go. Right now, all we have is he said / she said.
4 Likes
Right now, all we have is he said / she said.
Another term for “he said/ she said” is “eyewitness testimony.” (both DZ and Macur)
Assuming DZ is telling the truth, can he credibly run USAC’s anti-doping programs?
If DZ is telling the truth, then yes, Steve Johnson must go. Right now, all we have is he said / she said.
Besides DZ, you can see how Johnson handled the admission of Frankie Andreu- a complete impotent reaction of nothing.
2 Likes
I see it as more of a call to action than a call to resignation like you.
I don’t necessarily see it as a call to action or resignation, because this stuff has been going on for decades at USA Cycling. Whether it’s the 1980s very gray blood transfusions in the Olympics, Doping of 17 year old minor Junior National Team members- such as Greg Strock and Erich Kaiter by USA Cycling national team coaches in 1990 (which reportedly included an out of court settlement to a very famous cycling coach, Chris Carmichael, in 2000/2001 per Chris Carmichael’s wiki page), to the timeline being shed on this recent case, showing a decade plus of doing nothing and blocking a cleaner sport, after hearing accusations against the ‘best’ American cycling team of all time.
It’s more of the same- protect the interests of the sport (don’t have bad press, get sponsors, get money, keep troublemakers and scandals quiet, and get more money and sponsors). If he resigned, rhetorically, who would be better? Wouldn’t it probably be more of the same? And I firmly believe that USA Cycling is very similar to many other National/International Sport Governing Bodies. All Foxes guarding the Hens. But I do agree with you, it appears very rotten at the top, and that could easily disillusion up and coming elite riders, who want a clean sport, hope for a clean sport, and find out how Mr. Johnson views a clean sport and his actions that back his views (or inaction). Very sad on that front. I hope that Travis Tygart releases all 37 names to the UCI (which was just announced last week), actually helps clean up the sport a little more, and it will only get a little cleaner from arm twisting outside of the sport, not from within.
I see your point and don’t disagree. But that’s still anecdotal and I’m don’t think someone should lose his job on anecdotal evidence.
1 Like
I see your point and don’t disagree. But that’s still anecdotal and I’m don’t think someone should lose his job on anecdotal evidence.
I’m not sure anecdotal evidence is the right term. It’s eyewitness testimony acquired by journalistic standards by a prominent New York Times sports reporter. Macur - according to journalistic protocol - called Johnson to verify the account, which is another source of problems for Johnson because he changed his account of what happened. But there’s the rub. There is a formal process for sanctioning riders. There is no formal process (afaik) for sanctioning bureaucrats. And there’s no explicit rule against knowing about doping and not doing anything about it. It’s just counter to the stated policy of USA Cycling, and counter to our ideal of what a leader should have done in that situation (allegedly, blah, blah)
But I’d argue that the board of USA Cycling doesn’t need a formal process. And they don’t need a criminal-justice-system-grade bar of proof. They can simply decide, based on the evidence before them, that Johnson can remain an effective leader of USA Cycling. They don’t need to punish him, or make any statement of fault. They just need to decide that it’s time for a new CEO. The same way that we have a new head of the UCI. Not because we have any proof. Just because enough people decided it was time to move on.