Bobby Julich (left) in his not-so-glory days on the 1998 Tour de France podium with Marco Pantani (middle) and Jan Ullrich (right).
Yesterday former American rider Bobby Julich decided enough was enough and in keeping with a new trend that has emerged in recent weeks, told all about his sordid doping past in cycling in an open letter. 'Enough with the lies,' he must have thought, 'let's come clean once and for all,' and when he did, it cost him his job with Team Sky.
Julich was a coach with the Sky Team, who off the back of recent admissions of former and current professionals across the sport, sat down with each member of their own team and asked them about their past. They got everyone to sign up to a new anti-doping policy that gave the team the right to let them go if it emerged they were involved in doping practices. Julich understood this, but came clean anyway.
"I have recently made a full confession to Team Sky senior management about my doping history and understand that by doing so I will no longer be able to work for a dream team performing my dream job," wrote the American.
In theory Team Sky's policy is a good one ... certainly going forward, but the problem with it is that it punishes anyone who comes forward to come clean about their dirty history. What is the incentive? It would almost seem like you are better off to stay quiet and keep lying. Is it any wonder Sean Yates would prefer to be found out than to step forward, admit to his wrong doings in a cycling past loaded with wrong doings and fall on his swoard.
Look, we all know the history of cycling is littered with doping cheats and yes there is a case to be made that the likes of Julich, Yates, and so many more currently working in cycling got their jobs because of their abilities as riders that were performance enhanced and thus they are still making a living off of their success as dopers, but it leaves everyone in an awkard position, and does no good for cyclings attempt to move forward.
Team Sky are clearly committed to clean cycling -- if they weren't, someone like Julich would today be denouncing them as hypocrites for daring to fire him yesterday -- but you can have an anti-doping ethos for today, tomorrow and forever after, without having to employ only those who avoided drugs in the past. It's whether they have turned their backs on their pasts and admitted to what they did and have committed to clean cycling and the promotion of it, that should really count. They shouldn't be punished for being honest. If anything, they can serve as a good example towards young riders coming into the sport as to why you don't need to dope to have a future in the sport. How many Alcoholics Anonomyous meetings are charied by former alcoholics?
What was most surprising about Julich's admission however, was the term in which he doped. According to Julich he delved into the practice for just two years and not once during the Lance Armstrong era.
"I made the decision to use EPO several times from August 1996 until July of 1998. Those days were very different from today, but it was not a decision that I reached easily," he wrote. "I knew that it was wrong, but over those two years, the attitude surrounding the use of EPO in the peloton was so casual and accepted that I personally lost perspective of the gravity of the situation."
Julich went on to say that he gave it up due to pressure from his wife and that he then served to try and "shield young riders from teh temptations that were out there."
It would, at first glance, seem almost hard to believe that Julich would ride the bulk of cycling's dirtiest days, clean, but when you consider he was going to lose his job for telling the truth and that he had nothing to lose by telling all, you have to believe he truly did give it up after the Festina affair in 1998. And his results would tend to back this up.
Below is look at where Julich finished in the Tour de France between 1997 and 2005. (In red are the years in which Julich has admitted to cheating):
1997: 17th (+1h 1'10" behind Jan Ullrich)
1998: 3rd (+4'08" behind Marco Pantani)
1999: DNF (Stage 8)
2000: 48th (+1h 44'15" behind Lance Armstrong)
2001: 18th (+48'04" behind Lance Armstrong)
2002: 37th (+1h 13'11" behind Lance Armstrong)
2003: Did not ride
2004: 40th (+1h 12'42" behind Lance Armstrong)
2005: 17th (+1h 24'08" behind Lance Armstrong)
It's clear to see that while under the influence in 1998, Julich had his best result finishing third overall behind drug king-pins, Marco Pantani and Jan Ullrich.
There after however, Julich slid further down the pack. 48th in 2000 sounds about right for a talented rider racing clean, 18th in 2001 proving that you could still be somewhat competitive clean, 37th in 2002, 40th in 2004, and 17th in his final Tour. On all those occassions, Lance Armstrong was the winner, and a host of known dopers finished in front of him. Julich surely has to wonder how he might have done had everyone rode clean with him?
Riding clean though didn't come without some success. In 2005 he won the Paris-Nice and the Critérium International and the year before he won a Bronze medal in the individual time-trial at the Athens Olympics which was later changed to Silver upon the admission of doping by Gold medallist, Tyler Hamilton. Indeed, Julich could well find himself an Olympic champion if Viatcheslav Ekimov -- a alledged doper from various sources -- was ever to come clean himself.
But how about the two Tours in 2001 and 2005 that Julich done pretty well for himself in while riding clean? Here is a look at the top twenty of each and in red the names of those who have failed drugs tests, been caught up in drug scandals, or have admitted to taking drugs.
(I should point out that not all those in red failed tests or admitted to doping in the 2001 or 2005 Tour's, but rather at one time or another during their careers. Of course, Julich should technically then be in red, but given his admission that he rode these years clean, I've left him in regular font).
2001 TOUR DE FRANCE FINAL GENERAL CLASSIFICATION
1. Lance Armstrong (US Postal) in 86-17-28
2. Jan Ullrich (Telekom) at 6-44
3. Joseba Beloki (ONCE) at 9-05
4. Andrei Kivilev (Cofidis) at 9-53
5. Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano (ONCE) at 13-28
6. François Simon (Bonjour) at 17-22
7. Oscar Sevilla (Kelme) at 19-30
8. Santiago Botero (Kelme) at 20-55
9. Marcos Serrano (ONCE) at 21-45
10. Michael Boogerd (Rabobank) at 22-38
11. Didier Rous (Bonjour) at 24-22
12. Inigo Chaureau (Euskaltel) at 28-09
13. Francisco Mancebo (ibanesto) at 28-33
14. Stefano Garzelli (Mapei) at 29-00
15. Roberto Heras (US Postal) at 30-44
16. Alexandre Vinokourov (Telekom) at 33-55
17. Alexandre Botcharov (Ag2r) at 41-15
18. Bobby Julich (Credit Agricole) at 48-04
19. Laurent Jalabert (CSC) at 50-06
20. Carlos Sastre (ONCE) at 50-20
2005 TOUR DE FRANCE FINAL GENERAL CLASSIFICATION
1. Lance Armstrong (Discovery) 86-15-02
2. Ivan Basso (CSC) at 4-40
3. Jan Ullrich (T-Mobile) at 6-21
4. Francisco Mancebo (Illes Balears) at 9-59
5. Alexandre Vinokourov (T-Mobile) at 11-01
6. Levi Leipheimer (Gerolsteiner) at 11-21
7. Michael Rasmussen (Rabobank) at 11-33
8. Cadel Evans (Davitamon-Lotto) at 11-55
9. Floyd Landis (Phonak) at 12-44
10. Oscar Pereiro (Phonak) at 16-04
11. Christophe Moreau (Credit Agricole) at 16-26
12. Yaroslav Popovych (Discovery) at 19-02
13. Eddy Mazzoleni (Lampre) at 21-06
14. George Hincapie (Discovery) at 23-40
15. Haimar Zubeldia (Euskaltel) at 23-43
16. Jorg Jaksche (Liberty Seguros) at 24-07
17. Bobby Julich (CSC) at 24-08
18. Óscar Sevilla (T-Mobile) @ 27min 45 sec
19. Andrey Kashechkin (Credit Agricole) @ 28min 4sec
20. Giuseppe Guerini (T-Mobile) @27min 45sec
It's frightening just to look at such a list and realise that you sat for hours watching events that you thought were real. If I had the ability to sue them all for 'waste of time', I would.
There are names in there who are not in red because they never failed a doping test and avoided any scandal, but you can safely bet your mortgage that more than a few of them still did it and have yet to come forward about it ... Perhaps they are in jobs now that they could lose by telling the truth.
