Abstract
The continuing revelations of performance-enhancing drug (PED) use by high-profile athletes have forced many to question the collective portrayal of elite athletes. Professional cyclists must confront a suspicious public that often labels them as “dopers” and deviant. Drawing from interviews with professional cyclists, this article describes the interactional processes by which professional cyclists confront and manage stigma in everyday settings. Riders employed management techniques of distancing, educating, and normalization in attempts to repair a spoiled identity. Riders concurrently attempted to promote a positive new image of the sport, coalescing around the term Clean Cycling. In doing so, Clean Cycling functioned much like a commercial “brand” wherein riders position themselves as ambassadors of the Clean Cycling brand, building positive brand recognition among the public, while linking the brand to their own identity. Although not contesting the label of PED use as deviant, riders resisted the application of the “doper” label to themselves while attempting to redefine the procycling occupation as positive and worthwhile.
Introduction
While the past decade has seen high-profile performance-enhancing drug (PED) scandals touch each of the major North American sports, public and intuitional responses to these events have varied significantly. Although PED use allegations and confessions in baseball and cycling both received considerable media coverage and were the subject of investigations involving the federal government, domestic cycling appeared to incur considerably greater reputational harm. In contrast to Major League Baseball’s Mitchell report which failed to produce athlete bans or confessions (see Butterworth, 2008), the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s Reasoned Decision resulted in numerous confessions and sanctions, including a lifetime ban for Lance Armstrong. In addition, the Reasoned Decision painted a detailed picture of PED use as an institutionalized practice within cycling’s upper levels. Subsequent confessions by numerous European cyclists further underscored to many that PED use was endemic to the sport (see Smith, 2015). Indeed, the reasoned decision and Armstrong’s confession paint a portrait of PED use in professional cycling as not the behaviors of a few “bad apples” but rather a wholescale, collective indictment of the sport itself and its participants.
In light of the intense public naming and shaming experienced by discredited athletes, current professional cyclists, many of whom raced with and against Armstrong, are now confronted with public suspicion that they also consume PEDs. Professional riders may experience a form of symbolic labeling (Warren & Johnson, 1972), wherein labels are applied to individuals who are put into the same category as those who are overtly or officially labeled. Regardless of individual behaviors regarding PED use, current professional cyclists must therefore learn to adopt strategies for managing interactions with the public, many of whom may suspect them of PED use. This research asks, how do individual cyclists manage their associations with PED use? Given the sport’s significant discredit, it is postulated that riders must rehabilitate the public image of professional cycling as much as themselves.
PED Use
Often lost in popular media is a recognition of PED use is a social construction. As Goode (2011) observes, “‘Doping’ does not refer to a transhistorical entity or a clear-cut harmful syndrome but to a complex social and institutional construction advanced by moral entrepreneurs” (p. 11). Indeed, the definition and social harm attributed to PED use have varied significantly over the years (see Dimeo, 2008). Public approbation of PED use is a relatively new phenomenon (Dimeo, 2008; Møller, 2009), an outgrowth of what Henne (2015) describes as a particular set of ideologies that emerged from the Olympic movement of the early 1900s that defined sport as an essentially amateur practice characterized by core values of fair play and bodily purity. Early antidoping policy drew explicitly on these Olympic values to publicly frame PED use as a moral issue and an affront to core sport values. Drug use resulted in polluting “pure” bodies while violating fair play by providing an unfair advantage over fellow competitors.
Analysis of PED use confessions has provided insights into the motivations and explanations for athlete PED consumption. The need to maintain employment and upholding responsibilities to their team (Smith, 2015) as well as a belief that competitors are using PEDs (Moston, Engelberg, & Skinner, 2015) have been consistently identified (Schneider, 2006; Smith, 2015). While research indicates that the threat of bans acts as a deterrent (Overbye, Elbe, Knudsen, & Pfister, 2015) and that athletes largely accept the legitimacy of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) antidoping regulation, they report low rates of trust and efficacy of antidoping procedures (Dunn, Thomas, Swift, Burns, & Mattick, 2010; Henne, 2015; Overbye & Wagner, 2014).
PEDs and Cycling
While PED use has always been a part of competitive sport, few sports have been more linked in the public imagination to PED use than cycling. From its competitive infancy in the late 19th century, riders frequently used all manner of stimulants, including strychnine and amphetamines, to complete grueling races that would last in excess of 12 hours (see Thompson, 2008). As technology and globalization increased the profit potential and exposure of cycling, PED use was further institutionalized with scientific doping practices organized and overseen by team doctors (see Whittle, 2008). The Festina scandal at the 1998 Tour de France exposed what many in the sport had known for decades and yet few had publicly admitted: PED use in cycling remained a deeply institutional practice, facilitated by a sport culture that encouraged both performance and secrecy (Møller, 2008; Schneider, 2006). Despite the creation of the WADA in 1999 and other attempts at PED reform, a steady stream of subsequent high-profile revelations both in Europe and among domestic riders including Floyd Landis in 2010 and Tyler Hamilton in 2011 emerged and was punctuated by Armstrong’s 2012 confession on national television.
Riders’ associations with PEDs have produced significant harm both for the sport of cycling and individual riders. Further underscoring the potential harm from associations with PED use, many former and current riders suspected of PED use have been ostracized from employment in the wider cycling industry, peer groups, and professional associations. While some have argued that the proliferation of PED use in all aspects of contemporary life has softened the stigma associated with PED use (see Crabbe & Blackshaw, 2004), the very public fallout experienced by high-profile athletes including Barry Bonds (Fainaru-Wada & Williams, 2006), Lance Armstrong (Hambrick, Frederick, & Sanderson, 2015; Macur, 2014), and Marion Jones (Holt, 2008) underscores the symbolic power of the PED user label in contemporary public consciousness.
Review of the Literature
Popular media occupies an increasingly larger role in framing public understandings of PED use. Dimeo’s (2008) historical analysis illuminates how claims of PED use as dangerous and deadly have become naturalized in public consciousness, despite the lack of medical evidence. Beginning in the early 1960s, characterizations by Western media of Olympic athletes from communist and former communist countries as PED users and “gender frauds” forged powerful symbolic links between PED use and cheating (see Hoberman, 2002, 2005; Kidd, Edelman, & Brownell, 2001). Subsequent high-profile scandals involving National Football League player Lyle Alzado whose death was often attributed to steroid use, despite lacking medical evidence facilitated the construction of a broader media narrative of PED use as dangerous and deadly (Denham, 1999). Similarly, coverage of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson’s positive drug test during the Seoul Olympics further solidified PED use as a cautionary tale and the height of sporting fraud (see MacAloon, 1990).
Others have highlighted the ways that contemporary PED regulation is informed by wider “recreational” drug policies that share similar language, discourses, and trajectory (see Coomber, 2014). Although PED use does not generally involve psychoactive characteristics, these studies highlight how PED use in sport has become symbolically linked with “recreational” drug use as both are presented as dangerous, harmful, and inhibiting one’s “true self.”
Communication research has long examined the strategies organizations and individuals employ to defend, repair, or reframe their public image (Benoit, 1995, 1997; Coombs, 2014; Yar, 2014). Across a range of topics from corporate wrongdoing (Smithson & Venette, 2013) to celebrity misbehavior (Colapinto & Benecchi, 2014), scholars have illuminated the processes by which aggrieved parties employ techniques including denial, attack, mortification, apology, and bolstering as popular responses to claims of wrongdoing. In recent years, studies of image repair strategies adopted by high-profile sports stars accused of transgressions indicate wide variation in the effectiveness of these image repair strategies (see Brown, 2016; Starn, 2011; Walsh & McAllister-Spooner, 2011). In cycling, the attempts by Floyd Landis (Mean, Kassing, & Sanderson, 2010) and Lance Armstrong (Hambrick et al., 2015) to defend their public image relied heavily on multiple forms of digital media which encouraged interaction and content production by users and fans. Strategic use of digital communication by individuals can function as a form of image repair by opening up spaces for alternative narratives and understandings of events (Altheide, 2015).
Studies of false accusations reveal that even when false, the deviant label can result in a master status that becomes central to the individual’s identity (Becker, 1963; Schur, 1984). Menard and Pollock’s (2013) study of false accusations supported Becker’s observation that those with past criminal histories, minorities, and those of low socioeconomic status are more likely to be falsely accused by police. Once negative connotations are assigned, groups are more likely to be accused again.
Blinde and Taub’s (1992) study looks at how false accusations of women athletes as lesbians impacts their lives and analyzes how they manage this label. The authors found that rather than actively challenging the stigma itself, the stigmatized women relied on stigma management techniques also employed by “pure” deviants (see Becker, 1963). These strategies resulted in both resistance and internalization of the deviant label, yet an overall lack of social power confounded their ability to effectively challenge deviant labels.
Some subject to stigma actively challenge the label being applied (Hayes, 2010). Resistance often involves not only disavowing the stigma but also imposing their own version of stigma on the dominant society (see Kusow, 2004). Groups shown to resist the stigmatizing label include the homeless (Vassenden & Lie, 2013), white supremacists (Simi & Futrell, 2009), and immigrants (Kusow, 2004). These groups’ attempt to resist and redirect stigma are rarely successful, often given their relatively low social status positions and lack of social power. In some cases, their attempts can backfire resulting in increased stigma (Roschelle & Kaufman, 2004). The results of stigma can be informal, including shaming or ostracism, and formal, including legal sanctions and regulation change. Stigma can also induce positive effects including drug use desistance and encouraging individuals to seek assistance for harmful behaviors (Room, 2005).
Although diminishing for marijuana (see Hathaway, Comeau, & Erickson, 2011), illicit drug use remains one of the more widespread stigmatizing behaviors (Room, 2005). One of the most studied types of stigma is what Goffman (1963) termed “blemishes of character” which refer to various “moral failings” of the individual. Found among both the discredited and the discreditable, “blemishes of character” often include those with a history of drug use (Ahern, Stuber, & Galea, 2007), mental illness (Herman, 1993; Phelan, Link, Moore, & Stueve, 1997), living with HIV (Emlet, 2006), welfare recipients (Rogers-Dillon, 1995), and ex-convicts (Winnick & Bodkin, 2008).
While the stigma and labeling literatures have extensively examined the ways that individuals manage and resist the labeling and stigma associated with “recreational” drug use, little research has examined how individuals manage associations with PED use. Studies by Monaghan (2002) and Klein (1993) describe how bodybuilders adopted various techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza, 1957) to challenge PED use as a deviant practice. Outram and Stewart (2015) examined how amateur cyclists view their identities as cyclists in light of Armstrong’s revelations. Interviewees both condemned and condoned PED consumption, recognizing the pressures faced by former professionals, while morally censuring PED use and viewing it as a behavior inappropriate for amateurs. While useful for understanding how individuals construct their identities as athletes vis-à-vis PEDs, these studies do not explicitly investigate the active strategies riders employ to manage the stigma that associates them with PED use. Additionally, previous work is confined to amateur and recreational athletes whose identities are rarely defined primarily by their association with cycling.
Given the often clandestine nature of most PED use, it should be recognized that negative repercussions can befall not only those who have tested positive but also those who have shared similar characteristics. In this way, riders in this study can largely be understood as falsely accused deviants (Becker, 1963). As the current “folk devils of the sporting world” (Coomber, 2014), cyclists provide a particularly timely group to explore stigma as they occupy a social position of privilege and prestige traditionally afforded male professional athletes, yet their current identity has become associated with a highly stigmatized behavior. Additionally, few have examined stigma associated with acts of “positive deviance” (Hughes & Coakley, 1991), in this case drug use in pursuit of athletic success.
Theoretical Orientation
To understand the strategies cyclists adopt to manage their collective identity, this research adopted an interactionist perspective whereby meaning is produced though social interaction (Blumer, 1986; Mead, 1934; Stryker & Vryan, 2006). As such, deviance is not a natural phenomenon or a particular quality or trait but something arising during the interaction with others (Becker, 1963; Goode, 1975). Behaviors identified as deviant are thus a consequence of the application of the label by others. Goffman’s (1963) concept of stigma and Becker’s (1963) labeling theory underscore the socially constructed and relational nature of deviance. Stigma therefore can be understood as a relationship between an attribute and a stereotype and an “undesired differentness” (Goffman, 1963, p. 15). Stigma is not simply about particular attributes of a person but rather about relationships and interactions.
Given the wide range of social science disciplines that have studied stigma, it is unsurprising that stigma has come to include components of labeling, stereotyping, separating, status loss, and discrimination (see Link & Phelan, 2001). Generally, studies of labeling focus on the process involved in the application of particular labels, while studies of stigma consider how individuals or groups negotiate the negative label applied to them. While this study examines stigma to provide context and inform the ways that athletes negotiate their stigmas, this study also draws from labeling the concept of the falsely accused deviant (Becker, 1963; Klemke & Tiedeman, 1990).
In practice, stigma is a social process involving differentiating and marking persons with undesirable characteristics which can result in exclusion, rejection, and discrimination. Stigmatization is contextually and temporarily informed and varies by intensity and severity. Goffman’s (1963) seminal work on stigma helps draw attention to the ways in which individuals manage interpersonal relationships by selectively providing and withholding particular information. Goffman posited that stigmas have different degrees of visibility, distinguishing between the “discredited,” those whose stigma is manifestly visible such as a physical disfigurement, and the “discreditable,” those who may be able to hide their stigma such as an alcoholic. The challenges and options for managing visible stigma are different from the management of invisible stigmas as the discredited manages tension, while the discreditable manages information. The “discreditable” may attempt to control other people’s knowledge about the stigma. Initially, they must decide what information to disclose or to attempt to “pass” as a “normal” by concealing information. The “discredited” do not have this option and generally must adopt strategies for addressing the stigma. Discredited conditions may include race, gender, body physiology, clothing, or other manifest features. Common attempts to conceal “discreditable” stigma often include “distancing,” which involves actively disassociating from similarly situated individuals locations or institutions, and “passing,” which involves attempting to conceal stigmatized information (Elliott, Ziegler, Altman, & Scott, 1982), while use of “disidentifiers” involves attempts to separate themselves from characteristics typically associated with the stigmatized group. Those looking to manage visible stigma may employ selective voluntary disclosure of discrediting information during the initial interaction so that it does not emerge later. Disclosure can also involve actively confronting the anticipated prejudice which can involve providing “educating information” (Link, Mirotznik, & Cullen, 1991) designed to counteract stereotypes about the group in attempt to “reeducate” or “normalize” (Goffman, 1963) them. The strategies outlined above are not mutually exclusive and are frequently applied concurrently, while different contexts and environments inform which techniques are employed.
Although managing stigma generally occurs at the interpersonal or face-to-face level, stigma must be understood as the consequence of larger structural relationships and the differential access to social, economic, and political power (Link & Phelan, 2001). Stigma is used not just to enforce social norms but to enforce existing social inequalities as the ability to effectively label and stigmatize relies on social, cultural, and economic power expressed in deeply embedded cultural conceptions and stereotypes (see Link & Phelan, 2001). Thus, solely relying on individual management techniques for reducing stigma will be of limited effectiveness, as they are unable to address the fundamental problem of structural oppression which facilitates certain groups to benefit from stigmatizing others. Given the social position of privilege and prestige traditionally afforded male professional athletes, along with the ability to employ social and traditional media to reach consumers, we might expect riders to be somewhat successful in changing public opinion of the sport.
Methodology
Over a 2-year period, 15 tape-recorded, semistructured interviews with current North American professional riders (as defined by having a Union Cycliste Internationale professional license) were conducted by the author in a variety of public settings. Existing friendship networks and snowball sampling (Babbie, 1998) were used to increase the pool of interviewees. Interviewees ranged from young riders to veterans. Characteristic of professional cycling in North America, all riders identified as “white,” not a member of a minority group, and approximately half and completed some university education. Interviews lasted between 45 min and 1 hr 30 min. A list of standardized questions were asked of all participants that queried their experiences managing public interactions regarding PED use, the current state of PED use in cycling, understanding of the term “Clean Cycling,” their experiences with antidoping regulations, attitudes regarding media coverage of PED use in cycling, and beliefs regarding future developments in the sport relating to PED use. Interview questions encouraged respondents to recall descriptions, processes, and experiences regarding these topics (Denzin, 1997). In addition to core questions, the author frequently asked additional follow-up queries as the interview progressed. This approach offered flexibility for pursuing emerging themes and issues (see Fontana & Frey, 1994).
The sensational tenor of media coverage has resulted in a social climate that makes open and frank discussion of drugs in sport challenging (see Lopez, 2014; Smith, 2015). Given this situation, the author attempted to develop rapport with riders by making them at ease by beginning conversations with discussions of races and events. In addition, reminding them of the confidentiality of their responses and that the nature of my inquiries was not about their own PED consumption appeared to assuage concerns they may have had with participation.
Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) informed the methodological approach to the data. The constant comparative method was used to code and organize the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I began with a line-by-line reading of interview transcripts in order to identify reoccurring concepts, themes, and ideas, which became my initial, “open” codes. I then further developed and refined these emerging concepts, themes, and ideas through a more “focused” coding that involved the creation of multiple categories of analysis that linked reoccurring themes with patterns and relationships (see Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Repeated rereading and analysis of the data led to the themes being grouped together into axial codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Coding was completed when no new categories emerged. This process of reading, coding, and refining produced the major themes of this study. The themes presented below are those that appeared most frequently and the quotations were chosen for exemplifying the theme or concept described.
As with most studies of typically clandestine behaviors, researchers often face challenges in documenting the veracity of accusations (Klemke & Tiedeman, 1990). Throughout this research, subjects’ language and explanations included use of out-group and in-group language, often describing their activities as “not like those who guys doped” as well as identifying as members of a group distinct from previous groups of PED users. Additionally, none of the riders had tested positive for PEDs as recorded by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. More importantly however is that the label of doper is indiscriminately applied to all professionals regardless of whether they consume PEDs, thus typifying Becker’s “falsely accused deviant.” All names and locations have been given pseudonyms.
Findings
The following section details the strategies riders employed to address the stigma they experienced. Riders employed management techniques including distancing, educating, and normalization in attempts to repair a spoiled identity while concurrently redefining professional cycling by promoting a positive new image of the sport which coalesced around the term Clean Cycling. In doing so, Clean Cycling functioned much like a commercial “brand” wherein riders position themselves as ambassadors of Clean Cycling, building public brand recognition while linking the brand to their own identity. What emerges is a recognition that for contemporary professional cyclists, branding and brand marketing have become a key tool for stigma management.
From Dirty to Clean
My line is, “Cycling is getting cleaner. The testing works. We don’t tolerate it anymore.” Which, I’m sure Lance said shit like that. So I understand why people are doubting us when we say it. So, yeah, I do think we have to justify our existence in this sport right now, because there is so much news in the mainstream media that makes people think that we’re all on drugs and we’re all cheating.
All riders claimed that a significant shift in cycling’s values regarding PED use had occurred beginning in roughly 2010 with WADA’s introduction of the Biological Passport testing mechanism and accelerated following Armstrong’s revelations. The following quotations from Joe, a longtime professional, describes the shift in attitudes within the sport regarding drug use during this time. Now, because it’s discouraged, as opposed to—I think initially it was encouraged, and the teams were facilitating a lot of what was going on, and then it kind of progressed to, “OK, the team doesn’t want to be involved, but let’s do what we need to,” so it was sort of like turning a blind eye. And now it’s like, you know that you can’t do it.
While nearly all participants in this study were too young to be a member of the EPO Generation, the following passage from Jason begins to illuminate how current riders make sense and attempt to reconcile events that occurred largely before their time but continue to directly impact their identity as professional cyclists. So now that he (Armstrong) has come out with all this, now people definitely ask, “Are all cyclists doing drugs?” And I say, “Yes. Not now, but yes, all those guys racing during the EPO era—maybe not all those guys, but a majority of the people in the Tour de France in the early 2000s were on drugs.”
Distancing
The most frequent technique was distancing which involves disassociating from similarly situated individuals, locations, or institutions (see Swim, Ferguson, & Hyers, 1999). Riders attempted to distance themselves from some colleagues and more broadly from perceptions of the sport as rife with PED use. Riders attempted to carve out important distinctions between current and previous (though often still active) generations of professional cyclists by highlighting a number of regulatory and cultural changes that had occurred in the sport in recent years.
A key approach to distancing involved highlighting the physiological changes that have occurred in the sport. In the following passage, Joe recalls a distancing technique that he has used when discussing the sport with noncyclists. It’s hard to distinguish that now it’s cleaner and now people are doing less. I can say something like, “Now 6 watts per kilo is winning climbs.” That doesn’t mean anything normal people. But you can say, “Yes, the times have gotten slower on the climbs, people are suffering more, so yeah, it’s cleaning up. Cycling’s getting cleaner.
The process of stigmatization is closely tied to the language used to describe a particular behavior. Research involving forms of “soft stigma” including medical marijuana consumers (see Hathaway, 2004) and topless dancers (Thompson, Harred, & Burks, 2003) indicates that evocation of alternate titles or descriptions by stigmatized groups can both increase the social status of the behavior and reduce negative associations. While not challenging the unacceptability of PED use, evoking the term Clean Cycling serves as a powerful rhetorical foil to the EPO Generation. Describing contemporary cycling as “clean” directly counters popular descriptions of drug users as “dirty.” As studies of political rhetoric indicate (see Edelman, 1988; Spector & Kitsuse, 1987), terms or phrases without widely accepted definitions allow individuals to project their own aspirations onto them, thus making the evocation of Clean Cycling a potentially powerful rhetorical device.
The purported change in occupational values encapsulated in the adoption of Clean Cycling and the end of the EPO Generation also involved de-emphasizing the traditional win-at-all-costs mentality of professional sports. In the following passage, Ryan, a 3-year veteran of the sport, underscores this perceived shift in evaluating athletic success. Joe Smith is our director. He was there. He was in the thick of it (EPO Generation). He knows. He talked about how now winning is important, but it’s not everything how we want to take advantage of all the opportunities we get, but testing positive, essentially you’re throwing 20 people’s jobs out the window, because that would be instant team collapse for us. We won the 2012 USA Pro Challenge, clean. But for Slipstream, it’s never been about winning. The real victory is showing the world that clean sport is a reality, and we are devoted to it.
While nearly all riders agreed that overarching values regarding PED use among cyclists had changed in recent years, some noted that the continued involvement of riders and sport directors from the EPO Generation influenced cycling culture and thus limited wholesale changes. In the following passage, Telly, a longtime rider, discusses the effects of teams that employ riders from the previous EPO Generation. So everybody just needs to go. We need to start over. That’s what I think cycling has not done. They’ve said, “We’re so clean now. Lance came out finally.” But that didn’t change anything. Everyone (in the sport) knew that Lance was guilty, if the sport is actually gonna be cleaner, all those people need to leave, because if they become the director of a team, it’s gonna be like, “young little American rider, maybe you should do this.”
Distancing involved riders making claims of physiological and cultural distinctions between the EPO Generation and the Clean Cycling brands of professional cycling. Riders attempted to attach their identity to the Clean Cycling brand while distancing themselves from the EPO Generation.
Educating
Riders also attempted to educate others about professional cyclists’ evolving roles and responsibilities. As a neutralization strategy, education involves attempts to provide information about a stigmatized group that is counter to the perceived stereotype (see Link & Phelan, 2001). A common strategy to counter assumptions of PED use involved educating claims of increased drug testing and regulatory oversight in recent years. Riders noted that they were currently subject to frequent and unannounced drug tests which they asserted were more sophisticated and accurate than in years past. Nearly all riders expressed a willingness to be tested and to make themselves available for testing at all times. In the following passage, Steve, a rider with considerable experience with drug testing, discusses his mandatory participation in WADA’s Biological Passport testing system that requires riders be available for unannounced tests at any hour of the day. I tell people all the time that we are the most tested athletes. I can—they could come here and test me right now if they want to. Right now I’m not on the out-of-competition list, but I can still get tested at any point. And if they come to my door and I’m sleeping, it’s the middle of the night, I have to provide a sample for them. I don’t have a choice with that. It’s (testing) no big deal. And honestly, it makes me happy to do it, “cause it’s like, I’m doing” my part. I’m showing that domestic riders are clean and I’m clean. It’s good. I think it’s good.
The emphasis on transparency of test results parallels the increasing transparency of everyday life (Lyon, 2001), especially in the workforce where drug testing has become an increasingly accepted practice (see Moore & Haggarty, 2001). As evident in Lance Armstrong’s frequent claim of being the “most tested athlete on the planet,” simply referencing a lack of positive drug tests as evidence of “cleanliness” is unlikely to sway public opinion. However, given the normalization of drug testing in contemporary society and the greater erosion of the public and private divide regarding biological information (see McCahill & Finn, 2014) appeals to long-term, sophisticated testing such as the biological passport and making biological data publicly available will likely help to lessen stigma.
Riders also applied educational techniques that underscored their emerging roles and responsibilities as representatives of contemporary professional cycling. Many riders spoke of having a professional obligation to act as a public spokesperson for the sport by disseminating and enforcing new codes of conduct. Embracing the role of spokesperson emerges as another key component of Clean Cycling and is a marked departure from the hesitancy to speak publicly about PEDs that characterized the EPO Generation. Dave outlined his professional responsibility and stating that, “especially after all the stuff with Lance, I stand up and try to show people that I’m clean, point to the testing, show that it’s better, point to the new team rules and the new testing that’s going on.”
By “standing up” and speaking out about his “cleanliness,” Dave attempts to neutralize individual stigma by publicly presenting himself as a role model while also acting as a brand ambassador for Clean Cycling. The spokesperson role also involved proactive attempts by riders to effect internal control necessary to change the sport’s image. In the following passage, Tim, a highly regarded veteran, illustrates a recent attempt by fellow riders to enact rider-enacted antidoping measures. We need to do more policing of our own. Because even a lot of the races we do, like Tour of Johnsonville where there was (drug) testing only one day … and they only tested, I think, because a bunch of us complained and called up the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale, (the governing body for cycling) and said, given this guy’s shady history, “You need to come test this guy.” They’re (drug testers) not supposed to be biased in any way, but in cycling it really pays to be biased.
Keller (1993) notes that successful brands create brand associations such that consumers associate the brand with a set of values, attitudes, or beliefs. When asked about his thoughts regarding Clean Cycling, Jason, a young first-year professional stated simply, “Clean cycling … I guess it’s just cycling to me.” Jason’s comment suggests that the Clean Cycling brand has become “what cycling is” for some younger professionals.
Normalization
While the previous strategies involved active attempts to differentiate and distinguish both themselves and their sport, the following technique involves attempts to illuminate common behaviors and values among riders and the public. Riders employed a strategy of normalization (see Elliott et al., 1982) in which those who are discredited attempt to redefine the behavior such that the stigma associated with the behavior is lessened. Riders were quick to point out timely examples of cheating and fraud committed by those involved in a variety of high-stakes occupations. Additionally, nearly every rider noted the current proliferation of PEDs widely used and marketed throughout the society. The following passage by Clay in his fifth year as a professional is characteristic of nearly all riders who were keenly aware of PED use outside the context of sport. You’re going to have cheating in anything competitive. It’s true of life. I don’t see it as anything really special to sports. When people make the assumption that because I’m a bike racer I take performance-enhancing drugs, I always return to them with the assumption that they submit fraudulent tax returns.
Attempting to normalize PED use as endemic in society, riders discussed what they viewed as a distinction between performance expectations and performance enhancement found in the “gray areas” that exist in professional sport. The following passage from Brian, a third-year professional, underscores the complicated relationship elite athletes navigate between performance expectations and performance enhancement. Where do you draw the line? Because when you crash, you have to get up the next day and you have to ride your bike, and your elbow is twice the size it was, and your neck’s all jacked up. What are you gonna take? A Tramadol. Is it doping? Not necessarily. You’re trying to get to the finish line. You’re not doing it for—I guess you are doing it for a performance benefit, but you’re not doing it to win the race, you’re doing it so you can get through that day and maybe you’ll feel better the next day. Where do you draw the line there? So I think my—I think the hard thing for people to wrap their minds around is, like in any other walk of life, there are no pure villains really and there are no pure heroes.
Collectively, the techniques of distancing, educating, and normalization act not only as symbolic repair devices but are also expressions of an ethos or orientation around what it means to be a professional cyclist in the wake of PED scandals.
Discussion
In media-saturated societies, identity is increasingly tied to brand and brand management. This is especially true for public figures whose brand is used not only to market and sell products but also to present a public identity. Brands need not manufacture anything, rather their utility is in their ability to confer symbolic and experiential needs including group membership, status, entertainment, and companionship (Roy, Cornwell, & Bettina, 2003). Branding is therefore deeply cultural, involving symbols and stories, (see Perrin, Tepper, Caren, & Morris, 2014) and as with tangible brands, the image the brand creates in the consumer’s mind is more important than any actual characteristics. Viewing Clean Cycling as a brand allows us to see how the evocation of Clean Cycling by riders functions as a form of stigma management.
Perrin, Tepper, Caren, and Morris’s (2014) study of the Tea Party illuminates how the Tea Party brand has become especially attractive during times of uncertainty and anger by providing a cultural residency for a broad segment of the population fearful of changes and uncertainty. As the Tea Party endeavored to rebrand notions of conservatism, Clean Cycling attempts to rebrand the sport of professional cycling by evoking a constellation of discourses involving emotionally charged language (“clean” and “dirty” cycling) and in- and out-group identity (the EPO Generation and Clean Cycling). The Clean Cycling brand is constructed upon a host of normative values and beliefs regarding self-control, productivity, and the role of sport in society. For ambassadors of Clean Cycling, the level of disrepute their occupation has experienced ensures that simply demonstrating their “cleanliness” via drug testing is insufficient. Rather they must also publicly advocate for the Clean Cycling brand.
Fournier (1998) reminds us, “brand(s) have no objective existence at all: they are simply collections of perceptions held in the mind of the consumer” (p. 29) and as such it cannot be assumed there is real substance to Clean Cycling’s claims. Indeed, the Clean Cycling brand is not drug-free cycling, as riders indicated that they consumed a range of legal drugs and supplements. The Clean Cycling brand currently promoted by riders markets a narrow view of the drugs and sport relationship, concerning itself with drugs that are banned and could result in a positive test. Additionally, Clean Cycling largely ignores many of the existing structural and cultural pressures to consume PEDs currently faced by professional riders.
Summary
In this study, professional cyclists employed interpersonal stigma management strategies of distancing, educating, and normalization. Interwoven within these techniques were attempts to manufacture, promote, and associate themselves with a distinct brand of professional cycling called Clean Cycling. Articulating and marketing the Clean Cycling brand involved highlighting recent cultural and regulatory changes that have occurred in the sport. Riders claimed physiological changes such as slower overall race times, cultural and normative changes including a rejection of the win-at-all-costs ethos, and regulatory changes involving increased PED testing and transparency. Collectively these claims function not only as individual stigma management techniques but also act to construct and market the Clean Cycling brand to a skeptical public.
This study contributes to the sport and communication and stigma literatures by explicating the processes by which collective stigma is addressed through branding. This work also underscores the function of brands as signifiers of identities as well as active tools in the process of stigma management. In this way, stigma and branding converge. For some high-profile occupations as thoroughly discredited as professional cycling, interpersonal stigma management strategies maybe insufficient to meaningfully assuage stigma. Instead, managing identities labeled deviant must involve attempts at changing public opinion of the occupation itself.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
While my experiences conveyed that the riders interviewed didn’t use PEDs, I am unable to state convincingly if they’d used PEDs. Also, the use of snowball sampling may have produced uncharacteristically homogeneous results. Some evidence suggests Western European nations are less condemnatory of PED use (see Schneider, 2006). While nearly all of the riders interviewed had competed in Europe, their primary racing and socialization have occurred in North America. This group likely received greater exposure to the Clean Cycling ethos promulgated in the North American media and through direct experiences than European-based professionals. As such, these findings should not be viewed as representative of professional cyclists from other regions of the world.
A number of future research possibilities arise from these findings. Similar studies of European and European-based, North American professionals would help to illuminate the processes by which professional cycling cultures inform local understandings of Clean Cycling. As the language of Clean Cycling has been adopted increasingly in other Olympic sports including swimming and track and field, future research will do well to chart the evolution of the clean sport brand as it emerges in distinct sporting contexts.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.