Ideology in My Controversy

I have compiled six sources related to doping in cycling, but now I need to analyze the controversy more closely. This blog post will discuss who is involved in the controversy, and what sides argue what.

There are three major parties involved in the controversy. There are athletes, specifically cyclists, there is the media, and there are the people who brought forth data and evidence of possible foul play who are also involved in anti-doping organizations.

The two main people involved in the controversy are Chris Froome, the cyclist in question, and Antoine Vayer, the one who publicized the questionable data. Both are well known in the cycling world, as Froome is very successful, and Vayer has worked in anti-doping in cycling for some time. There are numerous members of the media involved in reporting and writing about the controversy.

Clearly the media holds a significant amount of power in this situation, and the spin they put on certain events and data can have large impacts on the controversy. Also, Froome seems to have a fair amount of power as well, as his team, team Sky, had the data removed and the Twitter account it was posted on suspended. Vayer also has a significant amount of power, because of his longstanding role in anti-doping in the cycling arena.

There are endless resources available to all three major parties. The media, obviously, is huge and endless and has many, many resources available for reporting data and writing stories. Froome has many resources also through his team Sky, such as lawyers, to protect himself. Vayer has technology and footage that allows him to get data, as well as involvement with anti-doping that allows him to test and investigate cyclists’ physiology.

There is evidence for Vayer based on the data that he procured, but there is also not enough for any accusations or inferences to be confirmed. This lack of data is evidence for Froome, and enough that he has not been punished or even caught, if he even is cheating.

There is not a power differential between the groups. The media has the most power of the three groups, and what they say will sway the public, but between Vayer and Froome there is a stalemate as far as both sides are concerned. Vayer needs more evidence to catch Froome, and Froome needs to undoubtedly prove his innocence. Both of these are tall tasks, making it a back and forth situation.

Francesco_rollandin. "Architetto -- Bicicletta."
04/19/09 via Clipart. Public Domain
Dedication License.

The common ground between the two is cycling, and Vayer even admits to not being against Froome or being his opponent. Vayer does not want to condemn Froome, but instead wants to analyze data for the sake of cycling. If this means he catches cheaters, then it is for the good of cycling. Froome might not be a fan of Vayer, but if he isn’t cheating, then Froome should feel no threat or real opposition from Vayer, but Froome also expresses his desire for the furthering of cycling.

This common ground is acknowledged by Vayer, but unacknowledged by Froome. As far as I can tell there is no other common ground between the two.

Vayer and Froome both respond directly to one another, as well as to the media, and a majority of the questions that it poses towards them.