Sylvia Schenk, former Olympic runner, was the first woman elected president of the German Cycling Federation (BDR), and has also served on the board of the UCI. She left both positions over disputes about transparency and lack of oversight, and is now a lawyer and chair of Transparency International Germany and Senior Advisor for Sports of Transparency International. She was kind enough to answer our written questions.

NYVC: The head of BDR Rudolph Scharping was involved in several scandals while in politics that raised questions about his ethics. Considering this, do you think he is the right person to lead the BDR? How would rate his performance in terms of working to reduce doping in German cycling?

SyS: I never give any comments regarding the performance of my successor as president of German Cycling.

NYVC: Former T-Mobile riders Rolf Aldag and Erik Zabel both work for Team Columbia-HTC, which is a team that publicly states they are firmly anti-doping. Zabel is the personal mentor and sprint coach to Mark Cavendish, who is presented as a clean young star who can renew cycling’s image. What do you think about admitted dopers such as Zabel and Aldag serving as leaders or mentors of young riders on a "clean" team?

SyS: Even a bank robber should – after having been punished – get a second chance in life. But not necessarily as the director of a bank. Neither Aldag nor Zabel have been punished in any way, there has been no atonement whatsoever. Zabel cried publicly but I never felt that he really regretted what he has done. So that is not the right basis for a second chance – and above all, they should not be leaders in cycling. That is just the wrong symbol.

NYVC: Do you view riders such as Sinkewitz or Jaksche as victims or perpetrators of doping? Do you blame them or blame the coaches and directors who pressured them or taught them to dope? Why should riders such as Sinkewitz confess when they are made into pariahs and scapegoats?

SyS: Sinkewitz and Jaksche are both: firstly perpetrators but they are victims, too. So I blame them all – dopers and their coaches, doctors, directors, federations, politicians, the fans – it is a whole system. You will never succeed by just punishing the so called black sheep – you have to change the system.

NYVC: What do you think about the UCI’s refusal to undertake retroactive CERA testing for samples from last year’s Giro?

SyS: I do not know anything about the refusal and if so why UCI refuses. Maybe there are juridical reasons. But wherever there is a possibility for retrospective testing one should seize this chance. Especially in cycling because this sport has to prove its real will to clean up.

NYVC: Do you think that a doping case should be pursued against Jan Ullrich despite his retirement from the sport? Do you think that Andreas Klöden should be riding the current Tour de France despite his implication in previous blood doping?

SyS: Retirement can never be a reason for not pursuing a case. Otherwise anybody can escape from being convicted by retiring. That could be a very attractive system especially at the end of one’s career: Take dope and if there is a positive control or any other case against you just retire and nothing will happen. To keep – or better: to regain – credibility the sport organizations should be very strict on this. So I would prefer Klöden not to ride the Tour.

NYVC: With cases such as Operacion Puerto and now the Austrian Humanplasma scandal, we see that many cyclists were using transfusions as a primary means of blood doping as recently as last year’s Tour (Kohl). There is currently a debate between different anti-doping experts about whether the bio-passport can effectively detect transfusions or not. Michael Ashenden has stated that the bio-passport is not always effective to detect transfusions. Given this, do you believe that the bio-passport is still a worthwhile tool for cycling? Do you think that we are actually seeing a cleaner Tour this year, or are transfusions still prevalent?

SyS: The bio-passport is a chance not only for cycling but for all sports to find a more effective way to detect doping. We will see what will happen to speed skater Claudia Pechstein – this case will be crucial for blood profiling. In the moment I do not see a better scientific way to improve the fight against doping. And we need a tool like that because I do not believe that we are seeing a cleaner Tour this year. On the contrary – with the comeback of Lance Armstrong you cannot symbolize a new start in cycling.

If a rider at the age of 37 returns after 3 years without high level sport to the peloton and is then capable of riding in the top ten at the Tour, that is at least very astonishing. It may give rise to doubts, especially after that story about the frozen samples of the Tour 1999, analyzed in 2004 by the French anti-doping laboratory. This return cannot signal a renewal of cycling with young not compromised riders. One needs new riders – especially at the top, new leaders and a new culture to really show that the old times have been overcome.

NYVC: There have been rumors that Verbruggen and Armstrong are involved in plans to buy or take over the Tour de France. Meanwhile Marie-Odile Amaury has fired Patrice Clerc and told L’Equipe to reduce their investigative reporting on doping. Do you think that the return of Armstrong has effectively turned back the clock in cycling in terms of anti-doping efforts and transparency?

SyS: See answer above.

NYVC: Do you think that Verbruggen is currently really the one running the UCI, not McQuaid? How do you feel about the upcoming likelihood that McQuaid will be reelected without any opposition?

SyS: I do not have any insight in UCI actually, so I cannot judge the role of Verbruggen. Regarding the upcoming elections: It looks like the power structure within the UCI has not changed since 2005. So if the national federations are happy with the situation it is their decision and their responsibility as it has been in 2005.

NYVC: What do you think of Greg LeMond’s idea of taking over cycling by first taking over the Tour de France, by using a truly independent testing agency, one without business interests in the success of cycling?

SyS: That is an idea but not very realistic. Who shall take over? Who will create a "truly independent testing agency"? The solution in the end will not lie just in cycling; a joint effort of all sports or at least the most important Olympic sports will be needed. As long as sponsors (and supporting governments) accept a "dirty" sport things will not change fundamentally.

NYVC: David Millar said there used to be a doping culture in cycling, and now there’s an anti-doping culture in cycling. Do you find this to be the case?

SyS: No, there was and still is a doping culture in cycling. Thinking by just some positive cases, an increased number of anti-doping controls and a blood passport a whole culture of many decades can be changed is just naïve. We know from the fight against corruption that it takes time and many specific measures, starting with zero tolerance – not just postulated but consequently and continuously proven by many actions – a clear "tone from the top", new leaders with integrity and accountability, transparency, education and many more to really change a morally ruined system. Cycling like many other sports has not yet started in really taking action.

NYVC: What is the one most important thing you think can be done to change the culture of doping in cycling?

SS: Not just rely on the anti-doping controls but learn that the system has to be changed – step by step. Up to now sponsors are quite often interested in TV coverage rather than a real, sustainable positive image. Taking responsibility in sports, for sponsors, should include investment in anti-doping activities on the one hand and refusal of payments to those who do not fight against doping on the other hand. That includes teams, federations, and events that prop up up former dopers as false heroes while having no anti-doping strategies of consequence, or independent controls.