[MUSIC] We will be dealing with prevention in this interview. Could you introduce yourself? >> My name is Olivier Aubel, I'm a sociologist. I work at the University of Lausanne at the Institute of Sports Sciences of the University of Lausanne since 2011. The main focus of my research as a sociologist is with the UCI. I'm involved in the recasting of the system for preventing doping in cycling, so it's sociology work that we're carrying out at the Institute of Sports Sciences at the University of Lausanne. It's a very special institutional context. We are here in Lausanne, the IOC is here in Lausanne. There are about 60 International federations all around us. So, I think that we can say that the City of Lausanne and the Canton de Vaud has this territorial marketing system which is being put in place. It provides resources to these federations, so that they stay in Lausanne because efforts fading also in the image that that provide jobs. And this is why science has a key role to play there to provide resources for these federations. So these are just for sciences is an institute that is in a place which is absolutely captivating for a sociologist. It forces a sociologist or a psychologist or somebody involved in bio mechanics to be more than just a scientist, but to provide knowledge that is going to be tested on the ground. And tested on the ground means for sociologists that we're going to go from the point where we analyze things to the point where we propose solutions. And that's what we're doing with UCIM. Sorry, this introduction is a long but I think it's important. We don't merely analyze and provide studies, we take it one step further. We propose systems and this is what we've done. We looked at ten professional cyclist teams, first and second divisions at the world level and then we've come up with a system which we call the [FOREIGN] or the specifications package. Which will be implemented in 2017. So It's a risk that we're taking as a sociologist, this is what I like to do in fact. I'm a sociologist but I take the risk of doing stuff on the ground. People say you're just academic types, what you're doing is useless. You don't really understand what our sport is. Well that's what happens at first, yes, but we've been doing this for two years and now things have changed. What we hear from people has changed. People do accept us now, it hasn't been easy. And I work mainly on prevention of doping in professional cycling together with the UCI, which has mandated us to carry out this work. And in this fight against doping, what are the tools that we have available? Does prevention play a role? Well, when you look at what is done in terms of the fight against doping, there are two general categories that we have as tools. One is use already in drug abuse. There is prevention with a lot of education to try to show that it is immoral, even illicit to dope, to use doping. And then terms of prevention we can also think about mechanisms that are used in fighting drugs, to provide alternatives in other words for people who use these substances in under prevention of doping. We have to look closely at the conditions that they practice their sport in to be able to give alternatives when they feel vulnerable or exposed, in the second area. We're talking about the actual fight, combating, fighting, the doping phenomenon and also fighting those who provide them with the elicit substances. So in general the two tools are education on one hand and the actual fight. Now looking first at the education side, can we do we have some sort of estimate of the effect of this? Any indications, at all, about how effective it is? >> [COUGH] Well, the effectiveness is measured in two ways. Either we ask those who do elite sports, whether they take substances. These prevalent studies on epidemiology studies models. There are some doubts about the reliability because this is something which is involves a violation so it's difficult for people to answer these questions. In terms of doping we are looking at a period from 2005 to 2015, a ten year period. And there are about 30 to 40 cases per year. And this is fairly stable but that's in cycling. In cycling, all different types of cycling, road, mountain bike, etc. So there it's very stable 30 or 40 cases per year. So that we can say that we have some effectiveness certainly. And then it can be broken down depending on the type of tools that we use and the reasons for doping. For people who are doping because they are ignorant but the fact that it's both immoral and it is dangerous for health, then we use as a tool education. It is effective but in terms of the dissemination of the message, we have to really, you would have to be extremely far somewhere with your head in the sand and down in the South Pole or whatever. If you do not hear about this, in fact, some of the riders make jokes about the various about the messages where people, where we tell people don't use these substances. We have some examples of this, where people actually mocking the message. Now in terms of the effect of this, if we look at the real cheaters. The ones who know the rules and who violate that rules intentionally. Those who developed special systems micro dosing or special arrangements, criminal organizations, supplying the substances, hidden salaries, that sort of thing. Well, it's obvious that it's enforcement or repression that is going to have to be mobilized as a tool and once again, since a number of them are caught, they're trapped. And they are always innovating because the idea behind what they want to do is to circumvent the rules, and that makes thing quite complex even though the fight against doping is making great strides because it can target things better. It is developing intelligence techniques just like forensic sciences and so on. So there is progress, but we do have problems of reliability in some cases, but things are moving very fast on that front. >> Now, from the educational, prevention side, it's true and you said so that very often there are people who are cheaters. These are moral failings. Is it enough to present this to mame this a moral failing. >> And call it that. Well, when we're dealing with people who are violating rules in the area of doping because they are ignorant about certain things, or real cheaters. To describe this as an individual moral failing find, that's okay, no problem. But when you're dealing with people who take substances because they think that the only response to their system of constraints and restrictions in terms of their work and what they do is to take substances because they're de motivated, they're tired, they're abandoned. By their teams, they're almost in a corner. To deal with anti doping in this way doesn't work. Doesn't work because we have to, I think depart, move away from that vision, that approach. So a new explanation means it's on an individual moral failing. But it's more of question of one individual in one organization. So, you should look at the fault in that interaction, yes in deed. By contrast if you come out of, if you go out the world of sport and you look at studies that look at the use of substances in various areas, construction, agriculture and so on. You will see that there are some the latest study in France. There were 20,000 people who were questions, survey find that 19% of people are using substances in their professional environment or because or their jobs, because of their work. You know the areas such as Laurie our truck driver's 5% test positive for alcohol, 4% for opium, 8 1/2% for Cannabis, and so on and so forth. So, there are studies from Scandinavia, from Canada, from France, many countries. These studies all seem to be pointing to the fact that workers outside the world of sports use substances in a very significant way. And by contrast, we can see that we have very wide media coverage. But we're not looking at ordinary workers outside the world of sports. And by contrast, to say that it prevents us from thinking of things in a correct and appropriate way when we look at sports, which means that your change of approach Is to look at the athletes as workers. What are you going to observe if you look at them as people who are just doing a job? Our approach, is an athlete as a worker, two obstacles. The significance that we attach to sport. Sport is. Not work, so if it's considered to be not working then it's there for leisure time. The second obstacle is that we're talking about a meritocratic show what sociologists said sometime back that it was the harmonious marriage between competition and justice. And the one who works the most is the one who's successful. So long as we stay in that area, we will not understand this. But if we go beyond it, which is what we wanted to do as sociologists, what are we going to look at? Well, we're going to look at how the risk of doping can increase as a function of the workload, conditions of working. We're talking about performance. The work is the contractual relationship with your employer. We're looking, and going to look at, the length of contracts, the amount involved in the contracts, and so on and so forth. And we're going to, what are we going to do? As sociologists, if we need, we're going to be dealing with conditions of work. The conditions of employment. >> But is that what prevention is targeting? Those two areas? More specifically, you have experience in following teams closely, working conditions, conditions of employment, what are the proposals? How do you proceed? >> Well, how do we proceed? Let me explain. First of all, we are looking very closely at the setting up of a follow up system for the riders. The riders can spend between 40 and up to 80% of their time not in contact with their employers. So they're remote workers in a sense. I think that. A trainer has to say well, these people are training. Are they really training? What are they doing? Are they taking substances? Are they training properly? Are they following the plans for training? We have to set up a whole system to follow them with doctors, trainers. Not to monitor them, but to assist them at those times when they feel vulnerable and to help them to progress without using substances. The second thing is we have to see to it that the preparation is rationalized. They have to be planned, training plans. It might seem bizarre, but two, three years ago, many riders didn't have formal training plans. They were training on their own. [FOREIGN] And it would never occur for a football club, for example, not to have a trainer. Not to have a training plan, and so and so forth. So putting this in place is very important. It is so important that the young riders, the new generation who have a different past because. They had more massive access to education than the others. Requiring that they're be trainers. They're asking for trainers. So you have to staff the support, the team. So to prevent means to strengthen and change the culture of these teams of this sports organization. So, currently are we seen changes, are they different cultures, i think it's become more uniform. But i think the word culture is very important. We do see that there are some teens. That we have managers of teams, for example, cry on television. They're good actors when there's a doping case because they're deeply affected by this, by having to face such a thing. And they don't understand how this could possibly happen in their team. That's what's important. It means that it's a cultural phenomenon which is internalized. So you cannot question their goodwill, but there are recurrent doping cases and that's one model of a team. It's traditional model where we're dealing with, sort of, management which is trained often by ex-riders, former riders, who don't understand. Well, they say, cycling? Well people train on their own. It's always been like that and that's the way it is. They're alone. They have to spend time in the saddle, a number of hours in the saddle. It's quantitative, it's not very closely monitored. >> So if you think of terms of prevention, that involves a risk, is that correct? >> Yes, absolutely. Because people are left to their own devices, they're vulnerable. They. Can face the problem of the end of their contracts that are coming up. Pressure is brought to bear on them. They're told you're not working properly, and they're tired. Well let me just give you an example, a rider who Gained six kilos. Now, gaining six kilos takes about three months to do that. You don't do it in two weeks. So for three months it means that the team didn't actually see this rider training. All of a sudden they see that he gained six kilos in weight and he his to come in with the manager of the team, the doctor, and he is told In three weeks you have to lose that weight. Well what did he do? Yes he left and trained for three weeks and he did this on a Tuesday and on Wednesday, in the press we heard that, that particular rider had taken substances and was caught. So that's what he did. He lost six kilo in three weeks. People who do diets will understand how that works and he managed to go back into the system, but unfortunately, he used the wrong approach. So this is typical of situation where you put pressure on someone without even realizing it. That's important to stress, I think is that we are believing in this. And other teams don't have this culture. Now, often these are teams that we call modern teams. More rationalized, scientific teams. They're newcomers thanks to globalization of cycling around 2005 roughly, where Pro Tour and World Tour were established, often from English speaking countries and now from Eastern Europe. And they are developing to follow very closely the riders. Now there's a problem with the model as well, and that is they can exhaust them easily. And a very famous team that we won't mention here had winners in the Tour de France, but they didn't last very long. So they're behind them and they monitor them in a rational way. They make them perhaps, they ride them very hard. But in a more scientific way. So there are scientists involved in all this, yes indeed, they resort to people who have a PhD in sports sciences, in theology, biomechanics and so on who come and shore up these teams. I can give you a figure. A traditional team, for example, we're talking about 75,000 euros per rider In terms of the support, we're talking about the trainers and the DSs, and the doctors. But for these modern teams that I was talking about earlier, it's a 150,000 euros, but they can also cheat in a scientific way, yes, indeed they can, and it's important to say that we. We can talk about this later, but we are setting up a system, sort of a specifications package for riders a rational follow-up or monitoring system. And these are conditions that are necessary or essential but not sufficient. In other words, in addition to this there has to be ethics, overarching this, but a team that doesn't have a follow up system, it means that they just let things happen. And so that means that they're vague in terms of the ethics, but it doesn't mean that the most advanced teams scientifically are also very good at concealing things. There's a very famous champion who certainly was taking substances. But this is the person who had rationalized the training techniques the most, rationalized the use of his equipment to the point where he could win based on his jersey which is made of a special fabric that the others didn't have. Others were using heavier bikes, he was using titanium. So it's very important condition to follow closely but it's not sufficient So it's not just a question of funds and money. That's an essential condition of course to higher doctorates on, but there's another dimension. Yes, that's what we were told. You realize that what you are proposing is going to cost an enormous amount of money. We've calculated this, we did a, we costed it, we can show that is not the case. And the second thing, is, as we said earlier, it's a cultural issue. In other words, these are ways of operating that are internalized so people don't realize that they are generating risk if they do not follow their riders very closely. So what can we do? Change the culture, and changing the culture is not something that's done overnight. We are working on it now with the teams. Well, what's the recipe for changing? If there is a recipe, what's the strategy? What's the approach? Well, the strategy involved is to be closer to the teams. We have taken this risk of becoming a part of the action, we're on the ground with them. We tell them, for example, here ,this person spent two and a half months without you seeing any news from him, it's not normal. What are you doing to follow up on this particular cyclist and then the trainer launched an alert on this particular person. So it means that we are a part of the teams practically and we have this extremely close tracking and following of the riders in the team. That's our method. Is there some sort of a secret recipe? Not at all. There are things that help us, though. I should say for example there's an audit that was asked, that was required by the UCI audit committee and then people are becoming aware that our system is a very serious system, good after this audit. Some riders came to us from other teams and said We want this also, this system. Sponsors are asking for this. If we have this label then the sponsors say we can be guaranteed that we're putting our money into something that's clean. And some teams actually go and bargain with the sponsors because if they go and get this label, and this is not just an empty label, this really is serious. It means something, then they think that we're going to have sponsors, good sponsors. Teams that lost their sponsors this year, for example, when there is a doping case it is absolutely devastating and impossible to negotiate with new sponsors. Because sponsors say, wait a minute, what's going on here? Yes, indeed, what's very interesting is that from the teams that are more traditional have more traditional culture. They used to say, well that's what cycling is all about. People are alone, they manage things very well, we can't be behind them. But now we have become aware that we are employers. We can no longer just leave people 60% of their time alone. 300 days is a typical biking season and then 60% of the time if you don't actually see the rider. No, I can't afford that as an employer because if that person makes a mistake then that's the end of the business, we're talking about businesses. Team is a business and is only one client and if that client leaves then it's all over 90% between 90 and 100% of the turnover is the sponsor. The sponsor goes away, and that's the end of everything. So in prevention you also have to involve the sponsors, because they're involved in this as well. Yes, absolutely. Recently I went to see a team. I talked to a sponsor, I saw there was a sponsor providing the actual bicycles. And he was in tears, he wasn't acting, he was literally in tears. Because he was saying in front of everybody, in front of every, you can imagine what this was like, the whole staff, all the riders. He was saying you realize what you've done to the image of my business? The contract that I have with you, well tomorrow morning I'm taking all the bicycles back. I'm taking all the wheels back and you'll be on foot. That's the end of it. Unless things change, forget it. In one month I'm out of here and that's the end of the business. Now you in order to go even further in this aspect of prevention, you're suggesting that as sort of a specifications package, a rationalized monitoring of all teams be set up. A sort of a specs package, yes following the study that we carried out for the UCI. We proposed a package of ten rules, which we talked about. We had a lot of meetings with all of the teams. The teams have taken ownership of these rules, and a number of them, there were eight, eight so far. They're experimenting with this specifications package, these rules, to be able to make, beginning in 2017, these would be the rules that all teams would have to adhere to. That's our proposal. The UCI has mandated us once again to implement it. The teams are working with us. There are eight and they will be eight this year, 18 next year. It's a type of label. There are changing, there are changes in the whole organization to reduce the risk is that whats happening, yes indeed we have to reduce the risk which associated with the fact theres no monitoring or not enough monitioring and to ensure there's a high level of competence in teams. Yes, because you're measuring avocation. Rule ten of our specs package is that anyone who was working on the team, we're talking about trainers, DSs, doctors, have to be qualified for the job that they're carrying out. But it's surprising you have professional teams and you have people who are not qualified working in them. Well yes, when we arrived the first few teams that we looked at we saw that there were no trainers. There was a DS who had been a professional rider, who was training the riders. And these DSs were saying well yes I get all these curves and these bits of papers with watts. 410 watts curves 420 watts I have no idea what this means. I received the data. But I can't do anything with it. The important thing is they have to ride. Their in the saddle. The first team that we checked, we were so surprised because we said high level cycling, is this what it is? We were absolutely, we were really surprised by this. Other teams have different methods of course. Prevention involves training. Yes, absolutely. That's the big challenge. The goal of the challenge is to try to see who has, which qualifications, the parallel study that we're getting out right now. And to try to come up with solutions We have to come up with solutions that can be of any of three types. First type, UCI might say I have rigorous training for trainers doctors who often say that they were not trained. Because they have some universal knowledge and they know everything. And that's not right, there's a lot that they need to learn. Then you have the DS's. The DS's have to be trained. There is training already but it's not good enough. The second type of training that we can set up is to pinpoint. Identify places for training in universities all over the world based on linguistic areas where people can go and be trained. But this means that you have to negotiate their access to the universities. For these people in some universities, you can just go to that university with a baccalaureate, for example, with a secondary school degree. But many of the people do not have this. So, it has to make sense financially. And the third solution is sort of what we're doing here. In other words, we have distance training, remote training, which would involve a face to face training afterwards and then from one single place we can change, we can alter the languages, vary the languages it might work. It should work. Well, it's an original model that applies to riders which is it seems a bit ahead of what's doing elsewhere. Can it be applied to other sports? Well yes of course if you look at other disciplines, other sports, and we have our students working on a seminar and this question. We've looked at rugby, football, and track and field. Now if you look at rugby, for example, we have major issues, major problems now with concussions. In rugby players. And we realize here that some of the rugby players have a series of concussions. So there's a problem of recovery. They're pushed. A lot of pressure is brought to bear on them to do a lot of matches and there has to be some sort of talk between the trainers, doctors, and so on, which means that sometimes people are encouraged to do more matches than is necessary. And you find the same problems there that you find in riding, in cycling coordination of all the people who surround, the entourage if you will. Of then there's a question of the workload, which is an issue and one could think that these are different universes, but there are many points in common with them. Workload, coordination of the support staff, but do they also take substances? Well I think currently we can see that in rugby, I think It's very difficult to talk about this because there's denial right now. Right now, there's denial we have this in cycling as well in the past. At the beginning of say around 2000 in biking, there were number of people who at the end of their careers actually confessed and said that they did take substances and then the entire rugby family complains and criticizes them and says, I'm going to take you to court for saying that and this and that and the other. So we find ourselves in this situation. But if you research this and if you think through these issues, if they do this they're going to have to do the same thing that we've done in cycling because we're about ten or fifteen years ahead of this. First of long terms of the money that's put on the table to fight doping. And then the mentality. We've had our coming out, if you will. What do we do? What should we do? Should we change, we're threatened from the financial point of view so we have to change. But this is where we're at this point where it's a wake up call for us. So there are common issues, common problems, and there is the beginning of this awareness, if you will. And we'll see if this changes in the future. Thank you. [MUSIC]
