Spectrum Volume 3(3) Winter 2013

SPECTRUM Journal of Student Research at Saint Francis University

Volume 3 (3) Winter 2013

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

2

SPECTRUM: Journal of Student Research at Saint Francis University Faculty Editors: Balazs Hargittai Professor of Chemistry bhargittai@francis.edu

Grant Julin Assistant Professor of Philosophy gjulin@francis.edu

Student Editorial Board: Shannon Adams Allison Bivens ’12 Daniel Hines Amanda Johnson Timothy Keith Cecelia MacDonald Gabrielle McDermott Jonathan Miller ’08 Rebecca Peer Jennifer Yealy

Jenna Bailey Cathleen Fry Eric Horell Paul Johns ’07 Jennifer Kirchner Lauren McConnell ’12 Sarah McDonald Steven Mosey Aaron Rovan ‘09

Cover: portion of “Silent Praise” painting by Elizabeth A. Wheeler (please see page 31)

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

3

SPECTRUM Table of Contents Gender Differences in College Athletes’ Perceptions of Group Cohesion Based on Type of Sport.

Tia M. Dudukovich; Lindsay Ross-Stewart

4

Analysis for the presence of toxic metals and the effect of sunlight on tattoo pigments.

Kaylyn M. Oshaben; Edward P. Zovinka

13

No Hope Without Dope – A History of the Tour de France Elyse M. Grasser; Denise H. Damico

22

Silent Praise Elizabeth A. Wheeler

31

Call for papers

32

(Student authors’ names underlined.)

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

4

Gender Differences in College Athletes’ Perceptions of Group Cohesion Based on Type of Sport Tia M. Dudukovich Department of Physician Assistant Sciences School of Health Sciences tmd100@francis.edu

Lindsay Ross-Stewart, Ph.D. Psychology Department School of Arts and Letters lross-stewart@francis.edu

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between task cohesion, social cohesion, type of sport, and gender. Specific attention was placed upon the differences in individualized perception of the importance of task and social cohesion based on gender and type of sport played. The participants were 135 undergraduate athletes from a small north eastern university. Participants were divided based on type of sport they played (team/individual) and gender (male/female) from 18 different sports. The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) was used to evaluate the 4 subscales of cohesion: individual attractions to group-task (ATG-T), individual attractions to group-social (ATG-S), group integration-task (GI-T), and group integration-social (GI-S). The results indicated that group task cohesion was higher than group social cohesion. The relationship between gender in sport teams and task and social cohesion was found to be significant only for the ATG-T subscale. The analysis of gender responses indicated that male participants who were members of a team sport had a higher ATG-T mean than male participants who were members of an individual sport; however, the opposite was true for female participants. Females who were members of a team sport had a lower ATG-T mean than females who were members on an individual sport. The perception of the athlete’s team being categorized as either a team or individual sport may have also affected the responses regarding team cohesion to the GEQ since the results concluded that many of the athletes did not perceive their sport the same way as sport literature.

Introduction The concept of team cohesion is central to the way sport teams are formed for optimal success, productivity, and motivation (Paskevich, Estabrooks, Brawley, Carron, 2001). Cohesion is “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs”(Paskevich et al., 2001, 472). This definition, applied to sport teams, is multidimensional, dynamic, instrumental, and affective. (Paskevich, Dorsch, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1999) Cohesion is considered multidimensional because there is more than one factor influencing the overall cohesiveness of a team. It is dynamic because the cohesion of a team changes over time. As an affective phenomenon,

cohesion positively influences team’s function as a group to achieve its goal (Pasevich et al., 2001).

The general term cohesion can be broken into two subsets: group integration and individual attractions to the group. According to Carron and Brawley (2000), Group integration (GI) beliefs reflect the individual team member’s perceptions about the group beliefs related to its closeness, similarity, and bonding as a whole, as well as the degree of unification of the group field. Individual Attractions to the Group (ATG) beliefs reflect the individual’s personal motivation to remain in the group, as well as his or her personal feelings about the group. Each of these subsets can then be broken down into task and social elements of cohesion. Task cohesion exists when the group focuses on the goal it was organized to perform, whereas social cohesion exists when the group becomes involved in non-task interactions, such as

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

going to see a movie as a group (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). This conceptual model of group cohesion has been used in previous research (e.g., Carron et al., 1985, Paskevich et al., 2001) on group cohesion and is the basis for the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).

The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) was developed in 1985 to measure team cohesion. Its development was instrumental in measuring cohesion in sport. Carron and Brawley (1985), using the above described conceptual model of cohesion, identified four constructs of cohesion: group integration-task, group integrationsocial, individual attraction to group-task, and individual attraction to group-social (Carron et al., 1985). It was shown that these four constructs of cohesion are correlated as they are perceived through the various task and social situations of the group as the study was done in the past. To have a baseline of task and social cohesion statements for the questionnaire, over 230 members of a variety of individual and interactive sport teams were interviewed. The questions aimed at understanding the participants’ perceptions of the meaning of cohesion to the group members, the behavioral manifestations they could cite to reflect cohesion, incidents that group members recalled which would denote a low level or absence of cohesion and factors that contributed to the development of cohesion on the team (Carron et al., 1985).

Consistent responses were tallied and coded to one of four subscales: individual attractions to grouptask (ATG-T), individual attractions to group-social (ATG-S), group integration-social (GI-S) and group integration-task (GI-T). Three other studies similar to the one previously described were conducted and the responses were coded. The responses from these four studies were collated to form one response pool representing all four constructs of cohesion. Based on the 53 items, with responses being based on a scale of one to nine with one being ‘strongly agree’ and nine ‘strongly disagree’ (Carron et al., 1985) the items were developed. The 53 items were then reduced to 18 based on the results of statistical assessments done to achieve high internal consistency.

5 The final version of the GEQ consisted of 18 questions: 4 items for individual attractions to group-task, 5 items for individual attractions to group-social, 5 items for group integration-task, and 4 items for group integration-social. These 18 questions, once reviewed for content validity, have retained good internal consistency (Carron et al, 1985). With this proven history of validity, the GEQ is an accepted questionnaire to evaluate cohesion for a variety of types of groups (e.g., work, sport, social).

The four dimensions of cohesion influence differ throughout time as groups form and dissolve.

According to Brawley’s model of group development, a person is first drawn to a group due to his/her motivational base (ATG-T).

Task interactions occur, which lead to group integrations around the task (GI-T). After managing time around task related goals, members may begin to engage in social interactions (ATG-S).

As satisfying social interactions increase, members become integrated around those interactions (GIS)(Paskevich et al., 2001).

This model demonstrates how a group develops through various stages, each having a different impact on the group’s task and social elements of cohesion.

Therefore, cohesiveness most likely changes over time as the group forms, develops, maintains, and dissolves.

Cohesion plays such an important role in the dynamics of groups that some social scientists have called cohesion the most important smallgroup variable (Paskevich et al., 2001). Through past research, these researchers claim task and socially oriented groups have shown a strong unity/cohesiveness within the group, which in turn creates a positive effect (Carron & Brawley, 2000).

In relation to sport, the correlations that have been studied relating cohesiveness and cohesion revolve around the idea of improving team productivity (Gammage, Carron, Estabrooks, 2001), performance (Patterson, Carron, Loughead, 2005), collective efficacy (Paskevich, Dorsch, Widmer, 1999), and success (Carron, Bray, Eyes, 2002).

The relationship between team cohesion and individual productivity has the strongest effect

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

when observed in sport teams compared to artificial groups (lab and non-sport groups) (Gammage, et al., 2001). Sport is naturally task-oriented due to win/loss percentages. Standards established by history, members, behaviors, and social influences all lead to collective expectations for performance of team members.

Cohesion is important not just for individual productivity; it is also important for the overall performance of athletes as well (Patterson,et al., 2005). Patterson, et al. (2005) assessed the relationship between the team norms and cohesion self-reported performance, providing data to support the idea that team cohesion leads to better athlete performance. Athletes from a variety of university and club interactive and coactive sport teams were asked to complete the Team Norm Questionnaire, the GEQ, and Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale in relation to competition, practices, and off-season training. These three questionnaires allowed for a multi-level analysis examination of the effects of group-level and individual predictors, as well as between-group and within-group variation. Results showed that athletes on teams perceived to have stronger norms for social interactions and high team social cohesion (GI-S) had the best performance (Patterson et al., 2005).

Contrary to the hypothesis, the worst reported effort was teams with perceptions of low cohesion and strong norm for social interaction. Task related norms were not found to influence the cohesionself reported performance relationship (Patterson et al., 2005).

The relationship between a team’s success and level of task cohesion was the main focus of research done by Carron, Bray and Eys (2002). In research involving elite basketball and soccer teams, team perceptions of task cohesiveness and team success were evaluated using the GEQ components related to individual attractions to group-task and group integration-task. Only the task elements of cohesion scales were used from the GEQ, since it has been suggested that these components have a stronger link with team success based on past research done by Widmer (1993).

The relationship between team perceptions of task

6 cohesion and team success was very strong, indicating no difference between gender when reviewed for men’s and women’s basketball and soccer teams. Moreover, perceptions of team task cohesiveness were consistent among members of the same team, indicating that cohesion is a shared belief of a team (Carron, et al., 2002).

Further research is needed to advance the understanding of the relationship between cohesion beliefs and gender in interactive and individual team sports. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between task and social cohesion and gender. Specific attention will be placed upon the differences in the genders’ individualized perception on the importance of task and social cohesion to the team. In previous research, task cohesion has played a more prevalent role in influencing the team; therefore, it is hypothesized that cohesion-task levels will be higher than cohesion-social levels for both male and female teams. This knowledge will add to the developing knowledge about the importance of group cohesion in sport and provide coaches and sport psychologists with information as to whether or not gender influences the cohesion of team. This study also aims to assess whether there is a gender difference in athletes’ perceptions of the importance of group cohesion, specifically, task and/or social cohesion, for performance success.

As past research has not been done on this relationship, no hypotheses were made in relation to the second purpose of this study.

Method The participants were 135 intercollegiate undergraduate athletes from a small north eastern university in the United States. Participants represented 20 different sport teams. Participants were from both interactive sport teams (Basketball, Football, Soccer, Volleyball, Lacrosse, Softball) and individual sport teams (Cross Country, Golf, Tennis, Swimming, Track and Field, Bowling).

The athletes ranged in age from 18 to 23 and had been a member of their respective team for 1-7 years. (M= 2, SD = 2.93) The mean age of the participants was 20 years old. (SD= 1.29) 63 males

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

(47%) and 72 females (53%) completed the survey.

The responses from individual versus team sports were rather balanced: 76 responses from participants that categorized as a team sport and 56 responses from participants that categorized as an individual sport.

However, the participants’ perceptions of whether their respective sport was a team or individual sport varied greatly, with 106 personally identifying their sport as team and 29 identifying their sport as individual.

Measures Background Questionnaire The background questionnaire provided information about the participant’s sex, sport, and age.

This information was necessary for categorizing the data collected for analysis. The background questionnaire included a question for the participant to identify 1) Sex, 2)Sport, 3)Age, 4)How long they have been a member of this team, and 5)Whether they see their sport as an individual or team sport. Question #2 asked the participant to identify their sport in order to classify their responses as either team or individual sport for the analysis. This allowed the results to be categorized and analyzed according to sport literature’s definitions of team versus individual sport. This category was different than question #5 in which the participants were asked whether their saw their sport as team or individual. Often relay teams for track or swimming identify themselves as being part of a team sport, when in sport literature it is categorized as an individual sport regardless of a relay team. Therefore, it was important to keep the two responses of these questions separate for the analysis.

Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985) The GEQ was used to measure the athlete’s perceptions of task and social cohesiveness. This 18 question questionnaire contained four subscales used to measure cohesion: four individual attractions to group-task (ATG-T) items (“I’m unhappy with my team’s level of desire to win”.) which assessed an individual team member’s

7 feelings about his/her personal involvement and contributions to the group task, five individual attractions to group-social (ATG-S) items(“Some of my best friends are on this team”.) assessed an individual team member’s feelings about his/her social acceptance and interaction with the team, five group integration-task (GI-T) items (Our team is united in trying to reach its performance goal”.) which assessed individual team member’s feelings about the closeness and bonding within the team around the team’s task, and four group integrationsocial (GI-S) items (“Our team members rarely party together”.) which assessed individual team member’s feelings about the similarity and bonding of the team as a whole around the group as a social unit. Participants were then instructed to indicate their level of agreement with each statement using a nine point Likert type scale (1 = ‘strongly agree’ and 9 = ‘strongly disagree’). An overall cohesion score was compiled by adding the scores on all the four subscales.

Materials The background questionnaire and the GEQ were both administered through Zip Survey. Zip Survey is an online survey program that allows participants to respond to questions confidentially by assigning a unique survey URL link to each respondent via email. This program also allows the participants to only respond to the survey once since it keeps track of the link it sent to each individual to access the survey. The results from Zip Survey were then exported into Excel and run through SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for analysis.

Procedures Student-athletes were identified by a school wide student-athlete list and contacted via email asking them to participate in the study. Once consent was obtained and the participants were informed that their answers would remain completely confidential for this study with no way of tracing the responses back to specific individuals, the participants were asked to complete the background questionnaire and GEQ

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

questionnaire through Zip Survey (an online survey program). Individuals originally contacted were given 2 weeks to complete the survey. After 2 weeks, a second email was sent out to target those who did not complete the survey the first time.

After sending out the email a second time to those who did not initially respond, the survey was closed at the end of 2 weeks.

Results Univariate analyses (ANOVA’s) were conducted to report the descriptives, frequencies, and statistically significant findings in the data on gender and task and social cohesion. An alpha value of .05 was used for all statistical tests. The dependent variable of attractions to group-task (ATG-T) was represented in questions 2, 4, 6, and 8. The mean value was 4.25 on the scale of 1 to 9.

With an alpha level of .05, the effect of ATG-T on gender was statistically significant, F (1,7) = 7.37, p=.008, η2=.057. The effect of ATG-T was not statistically significant on the participants perception of team/individual (p = .514) nor statistically significant for what was defined as team/individual sport (p=.895). The interaction between gender and type of team (as defined by sport literature) for ATG-T was statistically significant, F (1,1) = 7.14, p=.009, η2=.056. Men who were on a team sport had a higher mean (M= 4.89, SD=1.18) then men who played on an individual sport (M=4.32, SD=1.55). The opposite was true for women: women who played on a team sport had a lower mean (M=3.54, SD=1.28) then women who played on an individual sport (M=4.17, SD= 1.72).

The dependent variable of attractions to group-social (ATG-S) was represented in questions 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 with questions 1, 3, and 7 being reversed for scoring (1=9 and 9=1). The mean value for ATG-S was 3.65 on the scale of 1 to 9.

The effect of ATG-S on gender was not statically significant (p=.441). The effect of ATG-S was not statically significant on the participants perception of team/individual (p= .522) nor statistically significant for what was defined as team/individual sport (p=.207).

8 The dependent variable of group integration-task (GI-T) was represented in questions 10, 12, 16, 18, and the reverse of 14. The mean value was 4.35 on the scale of 1 to 9. The effect of GI-T on gender was not statistically significant (p=.847). The effect of GI-T was not statically significant on the participants perception of team/individual (p=.082) nor statically significant for what was defined as team/individual sport (p=.899).

The dependent variable of group integration-social (GI-S) was represented in questions 15 and reversed scoring for questions 11, 13, and 17 for the scale of 1 to 9. The mean value was 3.71 on a scale of 1 to 9. The effect of GI-S in gender was not statistically significant (p=.649).

The effect of GI-S was not statically significant on the participants perception of team/individual (p=.959) nor statistically significant for what was defined as team/individual sport (p=.158).

The background questions in the survey asked for the participant to identify their sport as well as to select whether they saw their respective sport as being a team/interactive or individual sport. These two variables were important to separate because many of the sports that are defined as being individual in sport literature the participants identified as being a team/interactive sport. For this research interactive team sports were basketball, football, soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, softball where as individual sport teams were cross country, golf, tennis, swimming, track and field, and bowling. All of the responses from the men’s cross country team as well as the majority of the women’s cross country team saw themselves as a member of a team sport rather than an individual sport. The responses from the women’s track and field team were evenly split between team and individual whereas the majority of the responses from men’s track and field participants identified as being part of an individual sport. The remaining participants identified their respective sport in accordance with the labels of team or individual sport previously stated for this research. Many of the individual sports identified themselves as being part of a team sport because of

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

a relay team or running a race with other members from the team, such as in cross country. The way a participant identified with their sports team may have affected their answers in the GEQ depending on whether or not they classified their sport as team or individual.

Participants who categorized themselves as a member of a team sport may have put more emphasis on the group cohesion aspect of their sport compared to those of the same sport who classified themselves as being an individual sport.

Discussion This study examined the relationship between task and social cohesion and gender in sport teams. The hypothesis that cohesion-task levels would be higher than cohesion-social levels was supported by the fact that sport teams have been noted in past research to have a higher ATG-T than ATG-S (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley). The fact that ATG-T was higher than ATG-S was not surprising since the participants were members of sports teams, not various clubs or organizations that formed for social means (Lever, 1978). Therefore it was expected that the cohesion-task would be higher than the cohesion-social in this study.

The responses in regards to gender did have significant results, which were surprising since previous research did not show this relationship.

Male participants that were members of a team sport had a higher ATG-T mean than male participants who were members of an individual sport; however, the opposite was true for female participants. Females who were members of a team sport had a lower ATG-T than females who were members of an individual sport team. The ATG-T variable means for males and females is easily compared in Table 1 to highlight the opposite effect of team versus individual sport in regards to gender. This difference in gender responses in regards to their team/individual sport was surprising since it had not been looked at in past research. These responses may be attributed to social gender differences between males and females. In childhood games, boys tend to play games that involve interdependence of players with a certain goal and in larger group membership,

9 such as kickball. Whereas girls often play games that occur in smaller groups and each player is independent of others, such as hopscotch (Lever, 1978). With this influence of society on children, boys are typically exposed to more team sports than girls, which may be why the male participants who were members of a team had a higher ATG-T than those who were members of an individual sport.

The male members of a team were able to come together for a common task goal easier than simply for social means due to their socialization as children.

Whereas, girls are exposed to more interdependent sports growing up, which may be why the female’s responses reflected the higher ATG-T for individual sport rather than team sport.

Therefore, it can be speculated that the childhood games may have provided a socializing function that influenced the attractions to group task for sports.

Table 1 Male and Female ATG-T Variable Means ATG-T Mean Male – Interactive Team Sport 4.89 Male – Individual Sport 4.32 Female – Interactive Team Sport 3.54 Female – Individual Sport 4.17 This relationship may also be due to the fact that the types of team sports differ between male and females. Football is only a male sport and is often considered highly task oriented due to the nature of the interactions and interdependence between the players; therefore it is expected that the ATG-T would be high for a successful football team (Pasevich et al., 1999).

Yet there is no comparable female sports team to the males’ football team with the nature of the game and number of team members. 14% of the male sports for this study did not have a female comparable sport. Whereas 36% of the female sports did not have a male comparable sport.

Female sports teams typically have fewer team members when compared to a football team and this difference in numbers on specific teams may also have affected how the individual participants viewed their team task cohesion.

With varying team member

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

numbers, a team may not feel that they all are able to contribute to a single task cohesion goal, therefore the participants attraction to the group is for social means. This perception would affect the overall ATG-T for each participant, gender, and team.

The results of ATG-S, GI-T, and GI-S were not significant in regards to gender. This was expected since previous research has supported this fact. (Carron, Bray, & Eyes,2002). There were not any relationships found between gender and the variables of ATG-S, GI-T, and GI-S in this research.

The results of the participant’s perceptions of whether their team was categorized as team or individual sport revealed that many did not see their sport in the same way as sport literature, which may have influenced responses regarding team cohesion. Men’s cross country all categorized their sport as a team sport and for women’s cross country all but one person saw themselves as being part of a team sport as well. In sport literature, cross country is categorized as an individual sport.

For cross country meets, a team score is awarded to each team based on how the runners finish, which may be why the participants saw their sport as a team sport instead of an individual sport. In the background questionnaire, when the participants were asked whether they considered themselves a team or individual sport, 79% categorized themselves as part of a team sport and 21% categorized themselves as individual sport.

Whereas in sport literature, 56% were considered team sport members and 44% were considered individual sport members. The actual numbers of the participants that considered themselves team versus individual is compared to sport literature’s categorization in Table 2. Therefore, since the majority of the participants viewed themselves as team sport, the data was unable to be analyzed by the participants’ perceptions since it was very imbalanced.

Coaches’ philosophies may also have impacted the overall atmosphere of the team in regards to whether the members identify themselves as part of a team sport or not. The

10 coach of the cross country team where this research was conducted, often had his team run a race as a pack: they all had to stay together throughout the race. This provides insight as to why the members saw themselves as part of a team sport rather than individual. This perception of being members of a team sport may have influenced the participants’ responses on the GEQ. The philosophy of running as a pack may be unique to this coach; however future research should investigate if this is a common philosophy for Division 1 cross country teams. Future research may also include other reasons as to why cross country members identified themselves as members of a team sport, and investigate if this feeling is mutual among other Division 1 cross country teams in the country.

Table 2 Sport Literature and Participant Categorization of Team/Individual Sport Literature’s Categorization Individual Sport Athletes Interactive (Team) Sport Athletes

Participant’s Perception

59

38

76

97

Men’s track and field participants regarded themselves largely as an individual sport where as women’s track and field was evenly split between team and individual sport. In sport literature track and field is considered an individual sport; however a team score also is given to each team which may be why some participants considered track and field a team sport. Relay teams are also an important component to the races and if a participant’s main event is a relay, they might consider themselves to be on a team sport rather than individual. The fact that many of the participants identified themselves as being part of a team sport instead of an individual sport may have influenced their responses in the GEQ to favor more team oriented ideas. The cross country and track and field teams are compared to swimming, which also receives a team score for the place finish of each team member. Swimming also includes relay teams, however all but two

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

participants identified themselves as an individual sport. Noticing this trend that the cross country teams categorized themselves as a team sport, whereas track and field and swimming did not, provides evidence that the coach’s philosophy greatly affects how individuals perceive their team.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of each sport to highlight the differences in perception of the sport between the participants and sport literature’s categorization. Since there were inconsistencies in the type of sport played (team versus individual) and the participant’s perceptions of the type of sport (team versus individual), the analyses were run using sport literature’s perceptions of the type of sport.

Limitations for this study included the sample size as well as the participants’ location.

All participants were from a small Division I school in the northeast. Many of the sports did not have comparable male and female sports such as the swim team and lacrosse teams only had female teams in this research. Future research could repeat this study at various schools across the country, not solely in the northeast, as well as have participants from teams at larger schools. This research only used participants on Division 1 sport teams; whereas future research could have participants from Division II and III teams to see if sport level affects the relationship between team cohesion and gender.

Conclusion This study offered unique insight in differences in perceptions of cohesion based on gender. It is evident that the relationships between gender and task/social cohesion is complex and includes factors such as influences from coaches and teammates. The analysis of gender responses indicated that male participants who were members of a team sport had a higher ATG-T mean than male participants who were members of an individual sport; however, the opposite was true for female participants. Females who were members of a team sport had a lower ATG-T mean than females who were members on an individual sport.

This relation between gender and ATG-T may be

11 attributed to the basic nature of females and males, or the influences of the coach. The perception of the athlete’s team being categorized as either a team or individual sport may have also affected their responses regarding team cohesion to the GEQ since the results concluded that many of the athletes did not perceive their sport the same way as sport literature.

Works Cited Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion : Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research , 89-106.

Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. A. (1996). Group cohesion and self-handicapping in female and male athletes.

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 132-143.

Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences , 119-126.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985).

The developement of an instrument to asses cohesion in sport teams: the group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology , 244-266.

Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small Group Research , 356-373.

Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Selfefficacy theory in sport. In Self-Efficacy in Sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams, and coaches (p. 25). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001).

Team cohesion and individual productivity: the tnfluence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual effory. Small Group Research , 3-18.

Lever, J. (1978). Sex differences in complexity of children's play and games. American Sociological Review, 471-483.

Paskevich, D. M., Dorsch, K. D., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1999). Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: conceptual and measurement issues. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice , 210 - 222.

Paskevich, D. M., Estabrooks, P. A., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle, Handbook of Sport Psychology (pp. 472-494).

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Patterson, M. M., Carron, A. V., & Loughead, T. M. (2005).

The influence of team norms on the cohesion-self-reported performance relationship: a multi-level analysis.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 479-493.

Smith, S. L., Fry, M. D., Ethington, C. A., & Li, Y. (2005).

The effect of female athlete's perceptions of their coaches' behaviors on their perceptions of the motivational limate.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology , 170-177.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

12

Wickwire, T. L., Bloom, G. A., & Stevens, D. E. (2003).

Expert coaches' perceptions of team building. Journal of Applied Sport Pyschology , 129-143.

Table 3 Comparing Sport Literature and Participant Perception of Team/Individual by Sport Sport

Male Team

Cross Country Cross Country Basketball Basketball Bowling Football Golf Golf Lacrosse Soccer Soccer Softball Swimming Tennis Track & Field Track & Field Volleyball Volleyball

X

Female Team

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Sport Literature Categorization Individual

Percentage that Identified as Team 100%

Percentage that Identified as Individual 0%

Individual

83%

17%

Team Team Individual Team Individual Individual Team Team Team Team Individual Individual Individual Individual Team Team

60% 100% 33% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 17% 100% 17% 50% 90% 100%

40% 0% 66% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 83% 0% 83% 50% 10% 0%

Tia Dudukovich ('13) is a Physician Assistant Sciences major with a minor in Biology. She was the captain of the Saint Francis University Field Hockey team, as well as a member of the Saint Francis University Honors Society, Delta Sigma Epsilon Catholic Honors Society, and Capital One Academic All-District II Second Team.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

13

Analysis for the presence of toxic metals and the effect of sunlight on tattoo pigments Kaylyn M. Oshaben Chemistry Department School of Sciences kmost4@francis.edu

Edward P. Zovinka Chemistry Department School of Sciences ezovinka@francis.edu

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not currently require the manufacturers of tattoo pigments to disclose the composition of their products. Previous studies have indicated the presence of metals such as Cd, Fe, Cr and Hg in these pigments. Other investigations show tattoo pigments may also decompose into toxic or carcinogenic compounds when exposed to sunlight. We have analyzed eight tattoo pigments for the metals Pb, Cu, Mn, and Cd using AAS and studied their decomposition under sunlight using HPLC methods. Trace amounts of copper were found in the green pigment (HLC 25). Of the eight pigments, five (HLC 1, 10, 11, 28 and 29) exhibited differences in retention time and peak numbers after being exposed to sunlight for a month.

Introduction The practice of tattooing has been around for thousands of years. The earliest known tattoo was found on an Iceman from Europe that was carbon dated at around 3200 B.C.1 Many of the earliest tattoos were thought to have some medical benefit or were tied to religion or rites of passage.

Examples of tattoos can be commonly found in almost all cultures of the world until the rise and spread of Christianity in the fourth century A.D. As Christianity became commonplace in Western culture, the prevalence of tattoos, at least in Europe and North America, declined because they were viewed as a pagan or primitive practice.2 Tattoos gained popularity again during the 18th century when sailors traversing the world interacted with islanders of various cultures who were 1

Lineberry, Cate. "Tattoos | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine." Smithsonian Magazine. 1 Jan. 2007.

Web. 24 Mar. 2010. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/historyarchaeology/tattoo.html>.

2 Atkinson, Michael. Tattooed: the Sociogenesis of a Body Art. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2003. Google Books.

Web. 29 Mar. 2010. <http://books.google.com/books?id=BUxKHJAUSxgC&pg= PA50&dq=history+of+tattoos&cd=9#v=onepage&q=history %20of%20tattoos&f=false>.

tattooed. Both sailors and military personnel – generally considered lower class in the socially stratified world – used tattoos to show their rank.

Tattoos were also used as an identification mark should they die in the line of duty. Until the 20 th century most tattoos in the Eastern and Western world offered some meaning other than pure aesthetics.

Tattoos take on different meanings for every individual who decides to get one, but the reasoning tends to fall into a handful of different categories. Tattoos are an expression of one’s individualism, personal growth, spirituality, power, and modern primitivism. Modern primitivism is described as the primal urge of a nontribal person to do something with the body—it’s a means of personal transformation and a way for people to reconnect with their bodies.3 Only during the past century has the ancient practice of tattooing changed into an art form.

Over the past 25 years, tattoos have gained significant popularity, but for a large portion of the last 100 years, tattoos still held a stigma around them because of who widely used them. Tattoo 3

DeMello, Margo. "The Creation of Meaning." Bodies of Inscription: a Cultural History of the Modern Tattoo Community. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2000. Print.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

parlors were and still are not regulated by the government and artists generally mix their own inks from whatever is available to achieve the color they want. Tattoo ink components changed over times as the popularity of the tattoo types progressed. Because of the lack of regulation and chemical knowledge, inks were being produced that contained hazardous chemicals and metals.4 Metals that have been found in tattoo pigments include titanium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, iron and lead. Hazardous chemicals previously found in tattoo pigments are 4-nitrotoluene (toxic in human lymphocytes), 1,4-dichlorobenzene (causes kidney tumors in rats and liver tumors in male and female mice), 2,5-dichloroaniline (induces nephrotoxicity in rats)5 and 2-methyl-5nitroaniline (causes liver dysfunction in humans).6 The actual decomposition of tattoo pigments has been studied by only a few groups,6,7 but has been suggested by other groups.8 HPLC will be used to study if a change in composition of the pigments occurs after exposure to sunlight. If a change occurs, further investigation can go into the chemical changes of the pigments.

In 1999, a survey was conducted among 18 American and 1 Australian university. The survey determined that 25% of 15-25 year olds were tattooed. The popularity of tattooing has only

4

Baumler, Wolfgang. "Q-Switch Laser and Tattoo Pigments: First Results of the Chemical and Photophysical Analysis of 41 Compounds." Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 2000: 1321.

5 Vasold, Rudolf. "Tattoo Pigments Are Cleaved by Laser Light--The Chemical Analysis In Vitro Provide Evidence for Hazardous Compounds." Photochemistry and Photobiology (2004). Print.

6 Cui, Yanyan. "Photodecompostition of Pigment Yellow 74, a Pigment Used in Tattoo Inks." Photochemistry and Photobiology, 2004.

7 Engle, Eva, Andrea Spannberger, Rudolf Vasold, Burkhard Konig, Michael Landhafer, and Wolfgang Baulmer.

"Photochemical Cleaveage of a Tattoo Pigment by UVB Radiation or Natural Sunlight." Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft 5 (2007): 583-89. Print.

8 Engle, Eva, Rudolf Vasold, and Wolfgang Baulmer.

"Modern Tattoos Cause High Concentrations of Hazardous Pigments in Skin." Contact Dermatitis 58.4 (2008): 228-33.

Print.

14 increased since then.9 Currently, tattoo inks are manufactured on a larger scale with national and international companies, but they are not regulated by the FDA and the companies are not required to disclose the chemical make-up of the inks. Previous studies have found some inks containing metals10 and other chemicals in the inks that photodecompose into carcinogenic compounds.6 Table 1: Structures of known toxic compounds found in tattoo pigments. All structures found at ChemBlink.com 11 4-nitrotoluene 1,4-dichlorobenzene

2,5-dichloroaniline

2-methyl-5-nitroaniline

Heavy metals have been a problem for many commonly used products. In recent years studies have revealed high levels of lead in children’s toys.

Many of these products were made overseas and testing was performed too sporadically to prevent the widespread usage of lead in them. When testing was completed, the level of lead found in many toys was significantly above the EPA allowed level of 600 ppm.12 This discovery caused the metal to 9

Greif, Judith. Hewitt, Walter. Armstrong, Myrna L. Tattooing and Body Piercing: Body Art Practices Among College Students. Clin Nurs Res. 1999. 8. 368-385 10 Baulmer, W. Vaslod R. Chemicals used in tattooing and permanent make-up products. Workshop on “Technical/scientific and regulatory issues on the safety of tattoos, body piercing and of related practices.” May 2003..

11 "1,4-Dichlorobenzene; 2,5-dichloroaniline; 2-methyl-5nitroaniline; 4-nitrotoluene." ChemBlink Database of Chemicals from Around the World: Suppliers of Additives & Reagents, Agrochemicals, Basic Chemicals, Biochemicals, Flavors, Intermediates, Bulk Pharmaceuticals, Polymers.

Web. 06 Apr. 2010. <http://www.chemblink.com/products/106-46-7.htm>.

12 "FAQs For Section 101: Children’s Products Containing Lead; Lead Paint Rule." CPSC Home Page. Web. 24 Mar. 2010. <http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/101faq.html>.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

be further phased out from use in children’s toys.

However, a new issue has arisen. There have been reports that the lead has been replaced with cadmium, which is an even more toxic metal.13 The change to cadmium was made because it isn’t regulated in children’s toys. Like many toys and interior paints, older tattoo pigments contained lead. Most studies have shown many of the pigments currently used do not contain lead. Much like lead was substituted by cadmium in children’s toys, cadmium could be substituted for lead in these pigments.

The objective of this project is to analyze eight tattoo inks for the presence of metals using atomic absorption spectroscopy and to see if the composition of the ink changes after being exposed to sunlight and UV light using high performance liquid chromatography.

Materials and Methods Tattoo inks were obtained from National Tattoo Supply in Allentown, PA. Eight different inks were bought to represent a range of colors and pigments that have previously been known to have heavy metals in them or to contain carcinogenic compounds. The eight inks are: Black (HLC 1),Ultra Orchid (HLC9), Buttercup Yellow (HLC10), Navel Orange (HLC 11), White on White (HLC 12), Caribbean Green (HLC 25), Blazing Red (HLC 28), and Midnight Blue (HLC29). The solvents used were tetrahydrofuran (THF) from J.T. Baker, dichloromethane (general lab use grade) from VWR and HPLC grade acetonitrile from Sigma Alderich.

Instrumentation. For HPLC analysis, a Waters Breeze System with a 1525 Binary HPLC Pump and a Waters 2487 Dual λ Absorbance Detector were used. Analytical HPLC was performed using an analytical C-18 reverse phased column (5 particle size). Samples were chromatographed at 1 13

O'Shaughnessy, Patrice. "Discovery of China's Cadmium Trinkets Sheds Light on Prevalence of Poison in Children's Toys." New York Daily News, 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 24 Mar. 2010. <http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2010/01/19/20 10-01-19_the_princess_the_frog___poison_trinkets.html>

15 mL/min using acetonitrile. A Perkin Elmer Lambda 25 UV-Vis spectrophotometer was used to collect UV-Vis spectral data. For the metal studies a Thermo Electron Corporation S Series AA Spectrometer was used to take the measurements HPLC Analysis. Approximately 10 mg of HLC 1, HLC 9, HLC 10, HLC 11, HLC 12, HLC 25, HLC 28 and HLC 29 was dissolved in 10 mL dichloromethane. HLC 1, 9, 10 and 29 were additionally dissolved in 10 mL acetonitrile and tetrahydrofuran. These samples were then sonicated for five minutes. One mL of each of the pigment solutions was diluted with 9 mL of their respective solvents. A UV-Vis spectrum from 400 nm to 800 nm (visible region) was taken of the pigments to determine the appropriate λmax for HPLC. The λmax for the pigments can be found in Table 2; the detection wavelength was set at the λmax for their respective pigments. For HPLC characterization Agilent Zorbax StableBond reverse phase C18 column was used, acetonitrile flow was set at a flow rate of 1 mL/min , the run time was 20 minutes and the injection volume was 50 μL. DCM was the solvent used for the dye analysis.

Table 2: λmax for the Tattoo Pigments HLC 1 608 nm HLC 9 565 nm HLC 10 424 nm HLC 11 448 nm HLC 12 590 nm HLC 25 651 nm HLC 28 524 nm HLC 29 636 nm

Atomic Absorption. Samples for atomic absorption were prepared using a modified literature procedure by Kang, IK-Joon al et.14 15 mL Falcon tubes were filled with HCl (6 M) and sonicated for 10 minutes. The tubes were then rinsed with 15 mL DI water and sonicated again.

Pigment (0.4 g) was placed in a tube and 10 mL DI water was added. The solution was inverted and the tubes were heated in a hot water bath (80 °C - 90 14

Kang, Ik-Joon, and Mu-Hyoung Lee. "Quantification of Para-phenylenediamine and Heavy Metals in Henna Dye." Contact Dermatitis 55 (2006): 26-29. Print.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

°C) for half an hour. The tubes were allowed to cool after removal from the water bath and then sonicated for 15 minutes. The solutions were filtered in small aliquots to remove any suspended solids. Stock solutions with a concentration of 250 ppm of manganese, copper and cadmium were prepared for calibration curves and lead standards.

Readings of each ink were taken at least twice.

Effect of Ultraviolet Light on the Pigments.

Glass slides were coated with each of the pigments, allowed to dry and left in sunlight. After 28 days, the samples were removed from the sunlight and the pigment scraped off with a razor blade. They were prepared in the same manner as the other samples for HPLC analysis.

Results Figures 1 – 4 and Tables 3 – 6 show the atomic absorption data for analysis of metal content in Tattoo Pigments Black (HLC 1), Ultra Orchid (HLC9), Buttercup Yellow (HLC10), Navel Orange (HLC 11), White on White (HLC 12), Caribbean (HLC 25), Blazing Red (HLC 28), and Midnight Blue(HLC29) from National Tattoo Supply.

16 Figure 2: Manganese Calibration Curve

Table 4: Manganese AA data. Pigments marked with * had absorbances taken just to test for the presence of the metal— not to quantify the amount of metal Pigment Name Trial 1 (abs) Trial 2 (abs) HLC 1 -0.004 -0.008 HLC 9 -0.007 -0.008 HLC 10 -0.008 -0.009 HLC 29 -0.008 -0.007 HLC 11* -0.001 -HLC 12* -0.001 -HLC 25* -0.001 -HLC 28* -0.001 --

Figure 3: Copper Calibration Curve

Figure 1: Lead Calibration Curve

Table 3: Lead Atomic Absorbance readings. Pigments marked with * had absorbances taken just to test for the presence of the metal—not to quantify the amount of metal.

Pigment Name Trial 1 (abs) Trial 2 (abs) HLC 1 0.002 0 HLC9 0 0 HLC10 0 0 HLC29 0 0 HLC 11* -0.001 -0.002 HLC 12* -0.001 -0.002 HLC 25* 0.013 -0.001 HLC 28* -0.001 0.001

Table 5:Copper AA Data.

Pigment name Trial 1 (Abs) HLC 1 0.002 HLC 9 0.001 HLC 10 0.001 HLC 11 0.001 HLC 12 0.001 HLC 25 0.009 HLC 28 0.001 HLC 29 0.002

Trial 2 (Abs) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.002

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

17

Figure 4: Cadmium Calibration Curve

Figure 7: HLC 1 Unexposed

Figure 8: HLC 1 Exposed

Table 6: Cadmium AA Data Pigment Name Trial 1 (abs) HLC 1 0.002 HLC 9 0.001 HLC 10 0.001 HLC 11 0.001 HLC 12 0.001 HLC 25 0.001 HLC 28 0.001 HLC 29 0.001

Trial 2 (abs) 0.007 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0

Figure 6 shows the HPLC injection of the dichloromethane solvent, while Figures 7 – 22 and Tables 7 – 14 show the HPLC Data of Tattoo Pigments: Black (HLC 1), Ultra Orchid (HLC9), Buttercup Yellow (HLC10), Navel Orange (HLC 11), White on White (HLC 12), Caribbean Green (HLC 25), Blazing Red (HLC 28) Midnight Blue (HLC29) from National Tattoo Supply

Table 7: Peak Data for HLC 1 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time(min) area 1.569 10742 1.558 14958 6.817 2033 1.608 16254 12.004 553 7.725 1536

Figure 9: HLC 9 Unexposed

Figure 6: HPLC Injection of DCM Figure 10: HLC 9 Exposed DCM

Table 8: Peak Data for HLC 9 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time (min) area 1.560 22792 1.600 13438 1.600 25271

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

Figure 11 HLC 10 Unexposed

18 Figure 15: HLC 12 Unexposed

Figure 12 HLC 10 Exposed Figure 16: HLC 12 Exposed

Table 9: Peak Data for HLC 10 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time (min) area 1.588 3880 1.552 32335 1.738 22829 2.681 5428 10.569 42493 5.292 3893 9.475 115120 10.628 108431

Table 11: Peak Data for HLC 12 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time (min) 1.59 1520 1.561 10.949 381 1.608 10.717

Figure 13: HLC 11 Unexposed

Figure 17: HLC 25 Unexposed

area 14066 16783 273

Figure 14: HLC 11 Exposed Figure 18: HLC 25 Exposed

Table 10: Peak Data for HLC 11 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time(min) area 1.589 4311 1.553 54921 4.591 28453 2.083 9336 10.658 52831 4.249 7395 4.62 7772 8.973 350870 10.915 270248

Table 12: Peak Data for HLC 25 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time (min) area 1.600 7699 1.56 18095 1.661 23212

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

19

Figure 19: HLC 28 Unexposed

Figure 20: HLC 28 Exposed

Table 13: Peak Data for HLC 28 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time (min) area 1.572 9780 1.588 26706 1.617 6799 8.076 960637 7.815 88155 11.031 27407

Figure 21: HLC 29 Unexposed

Figure 22: HLC 29 Exposed

Discussion A lead acetate standard created in the lab was used for the atomic absorption and the R2 value for the calibration curve (0.9977, Figure 1). The R2 value is an indication of the linearity of the system and values closer to 1 indicate a good linear correlation between the standard solutions. Table 3 shows that no lead was detected in any of the pigments tested.

For manganese, a calibration curve was made using MnCl2*4H2O using a serial dilution of 250 ppm to make 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 ppm and had an R2 of 0.9987 (Figure 2). The eight samples tested for Mn did not show any presence of the metal. (Table 4).

Groups of 4 pigments were ordered at different times and the second group of four pigments (HLC 11, 12, 25 and 28) was analyzed for the presence of Pb and Mn (Figures 1 and 2, Tables 3 and 4). The pigments were also analyzed for the amount of copper (Figure 3, Table 5). Again, a calibration curve was made by making five dilutions of a 250 ppm Cu standard. HLC 25, Caribbean Green, was the only pigment that showed an increased absorption, but the obtained value was very low only indicating a concentration of 1.2 ppm Cu. From literature results11, green and blue pigments can contain some copper and pigments such as blue 15 and green 7, which do contain copper, are allowed in cosmetics and medical equipment in order to achieve the desired color15. However, the FDA does not approve of any color additives with or without metals for injection into the skin.16 The presence of cadmium was also analyzed. There was no cadmium detected in the pigments.

15

Table 14: Peak Data for HLC 29 Unexposed Exposed Time (min) area Time (min) 1.564 7520 1.555 1.6 7.958

area 25835 25025 13971

"Title 21: Food and Drug, PART 73â&#x20AC;&#x201D;LISTING OF COLOR ADDITIVES EXEMPT FROM CERTIFICATION." Electronic Code of Federal Regulation. Food and Drug Administration. Web. 6 Apr. 2010. <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=1070b19eb50e562daa872cfa1755aa09&rgn= div5&view=text&node=21:1.0.1.1.26&idno=21#21:1.0.1.1.2 6.4.31.17>.

16 "Summary of Color Additives for Use in United States in Foods, Drugs, Cosmetics, and Medical Devices." U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. 22 Jan. 2010. Web. 05 Apr. 2010. <http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ColorAdditives/ColorAddit iveInventories/ucm115641.htm#ftnote5>.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

High performance liquid chromatography was performed to track changes in the organic compounds that make up the pigments. As the pigments were exposed to sunlight, chemical changes occurred in them. If the compounds were to undergo some sort of change, the location and the shape of the peaks on the chromatograph will change.

By comparing a non-sunlight chromatograph to a chromatograph of a sample that has been exposed to sunlight, it can be determined if some chemical change has occurred in the mixture. Each sample exhibited a peak that came off the column around 1.5 minutes. This peak comes from the DCM solvent coming off the column as shown in Figure 6.

Table 15: Solubility of pigments in the different solvents.

Pigment THF DCM Acetonitrile Black Fairly Fairly Low (HLC 1) soluble soluble solubility Ultra Orchid Fairly Very low Fairly (HLC9) soluble solubility soluble Buttercup Yellow Fairly Low Fairly (HLC10) soluble Solubility soluble Navel Orange ----Somewhat -----(HLC 11) insoluble White on White ----Very -----(HLC 12) soluble Caribbean Green ----Fairly -----(HLC 25) insoluble Blazing Red ----Fairly -----(HLC 28) Soluble Midnight Blue Fairly Fairly Fairly (HLC 29) soluble soluble soluble

Pigments HLC 1, 10, 11, 12, 28 and 29 exhibited changes in retention time and peak height and area. This indicates the compounds that make up the pigments underwent some kind of chemical change. Most interestingly, the two pigments showing the largest change in the chromatograph were HLC 10 and 11 (yellow and orange, respectively). Each of these pigments had a strong peak that came off the column around 10.5 minutes for the sample that wasn’t exposed to the sunlight (Figures 11 and 13). When these samples were exposed to sunlight, the peak around 10.5 minutes shifted closer to 11 minutes and more peaks appeared (Figure 12 and 14). For HLC 10,

20 additional peaks appeared at 2.681, 5.292, and 9.475 minutes (Figure 12). The largest of these peaks was the 9.475 minutes. Similarly, HLC 11 had additional peaks at 2.083, 4.249 and 8.973 minutes, with the last one being the largest additional peak (Figure 14).

HLC 28 (red) also had a peak shift from 7.815 minutes to 8.076 minutes, and an additional peak appear at 11.031 minutes for the sample that was exposed to sunlight (Figure 20). Using literature information11 on the structure of these pigments and the similar peaks and changes to chromatographs after sunlight exposure, it’s quite possible all three pigments have a similar structure for the color causing compound. Many red, yellow and orange pigments contain a nitrogen double bond and several aromatic rings that would give a similar banding pattern on a chromatograph. In Table 16, there are the structures of pigment yellow 97, orange 36, red 22, acid yellow 23, acid red 18, and orange 34,11 which are possible structures for the pigments in the tattoo inks. These are only a small sampling of compounds with similar structures that give red, orange and yellow pigmentation. Future work on this project could include determining the structure of the chemical that gives the pigmentation to these inks and studying and identifying their decomposition products.

An alternative explanation for the additional peaks besides degradation from sunlight would be the effect of the “carrier solution” drying out.

Tattoos are composed of solid pigments and some sort of solution used to make the application of the inks on the skin easier. The carrier solution varies from ink to ink and it could interact with the solid pigment in a way that when the solution dries out, the solid pigment has a change in composition.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

Table 16: Some possible structures of the color causing chemicals in tattoo pigments. Structures taken from Baulmer, W. Vaslod R. Chemicals used in tattooing and permanent make-up products. Workshop on “Technical/scientific and regulatory issues on the safety of tattoos, body piercing and of related practices.” 11 Yellow 97

Orange 36

Red 22

Acid Yellow 9

Acid Red 18

Orange 34

Conclusion The popularity and social acceptability of tattoos has been on the rise over the past twentyfive years. The composition of the pigments used in these inks needs to be evaluated so not to cause health issues in the future. Of the tattoo pigments tested, only trace amounts of copper were found in the “Caribbean Green” (HLC 25) pigment.

21 However, some of the pigments allowed by the FDA in small amounts in cosmetics and food dyes have copper containing complexes in them, but none are approved for use as under the skin injections.

The HPLC analysis showed a difference in composition in five of the pigments between the samples that were and were not exposed to sunlight. The most notable of the changes was in the yellow (HLC 10), orange (HLC 11) and red (HLC 28) pigments. The additional peaks observed in the HPLC analysis and changes in the peak retention times for these three pigments have a similar trend, which could indicate the compound that gives rise to the color in all of these inks has a similar structure.

The differences in chromatographs could alternatively be explained by interactions of the carrier solution with the solid pigments while in solution.

Kaylyn Oshaben (’10, B.S., Chemistry) is a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh pursuing her Ph.D. in inorganic chemistry. She works on designing tunable self-assembling biomaterials from short coiled-coil peptides. She also enjoys solving protein crystal structures with her cat, Schrödinger.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

22

No Hope Without Dope – A History of the Tour de France Elyse M. Graser Department of History and Political Science School of Arts and Letters emg100@francis.edu

Denise H. Damico Department of History and Political Science School of Arts and Letters ddamico@francis.edu

According to some professional cyclists and fans, there is no hope without dope if a cyclist wishes to be a successful athlete in the Tour de France. This research project is focused on the history of the Tour de France, and the evolution of drug use within the race. The project charts the Tour from its beginning, through the technological and social changes that occurred over the years, as well as discussing the various drugs and their methods of use throughout the history of the Tour. Drug use has been on the rise in all sports in the past few decades, and most people feel that it is the wrong direction to support within the professional sports field. But others feel that, as long as the fans of the sport are entertained, then the athletes should be allowed to do whatever they wish to their own bodies in order to attempt to gain the recognition they desire. So, this begs the question: if everyone is doing it, is it cheating? What should it matter to spectators if athletes are performing inhuman acts of strength with or without knowing about the aid of performance enhancing drugs? Evidence includes primary and secondary sources from and about cyclists who have ridden in the Tour. Some cyclists are of the opinion that drug use should be permitted in order to actually accomplish the physical feat of the Tour. Others feel the race should be pure and clean, and some teams even build their identity around that belief. Therefore, while the International Cycling Union is currently still very much against doping, should drug use be permitted in the Tour, other cycling events, and even all sports in general?

Introduction “They say that the ratio is out of line, but there's no indication that there's anything unnatural in my body at this time.”1 Floyd Landis gave the relatively new American professional cycling audience a fantastic show following the (first) retirement of American cycling hero Lance Armstrong. He won the Tour de France in Armstrong’s wake, but doping accusations followed quickly in Landis’s wake. Urine tests showed above-average levels of testosterone and epitestosterone (a masking agent), which were later proven to be synthetic hormones – rather than hormones produced by the athlete’s own body.

Four years and one book deal later, Landis gave up

the “fight” against his accusers, even though he had been stripped of his title long before: "I don't feel guilty at all about having doped. I did what I did because that's what we [cyclists] did and it was a choice I had to make after 10 years or 12 years of hard work to get there, and that was a decision I had to make to make the next step. My choices were, do it and see if I can win, or don't do it and I tell people I just don't want to do that, and I decided to do it."2 This is the atmosphere of professional cycling in Europe and America today. Many of the athletes choose to stop at nothing to earn as much fame, glory, and money as possible, despite the laws

1

2

Goldman, T. “Landis Facing Uphill Battle on Doping Charges,” National Public Radio, August 3, 2006. Accessed online at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=56124 47 on December 13, 2012.

Wassink, Z. “AC Devil’s Advocate: Defending Floyd Landis for Doping,” Yahoo! Voices, May 20, 2010.

Accessed online at http://voices.yahoo.com/ac-devilsadvocate-defending-floyd-landis-doping6062668.html?cat=14 on December 13, 2012.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

forbidding the use of performance-enhancing drugs to do so. These athletes are often of the opinion that it is impossible to ride a three-week long race like the Tour de France successfully without the aid of some sort of performance-enhancing substance.

They argue that they should be at liberty to do what they want to their own bodies in order to perform better, just as athletes have since the beginning of sports. However, there are myriad variables with regard to the substances used in modern doping.

These substances and techniques can dramatically affect the overall health of the athletes, and can even result in death. Plus, even if doping was allowed in the Tour, with medical supervision and all, the only change the riders would experience is they would all move faster – no one would have a particular edge over anyone else, just as it is when no one is doping.

A close look at the history of The Tour and doping in sports may explain how the culture initially developed. A word of caution first; the research and historiography on this topic is sadly limited. There are a few books and articles published on the history of the Tour (most of them in the past 10 years or more recently). On the other hand, the works published on doping are extremely extensive. A majority of these publications are focused on the medical side of doping in athletes.

They do not discuss the reasons for doping, nor do they provide much historical context, focused as they are on the cutting-edge medical research.

Therefore, it is difficult to gather enough research to make a solid argument about doping in the Tour de France.

Dangerous Doping in the 60’s and 70’s By the 1960’s and 70’s, the debate about drug use in cycling threatened the very basis of the Tour itself: the enormous courage and suffering endured by the riders.3 From the inception of the Tour, L’Auto had encouraged the reverence of the riders for their suffering, and further imposed the suffering through strict rules and regulations.

According to Patrick Mignon, the emergence of 3

Thompson, C. A Cultural History of the Tour de France.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006, 216.

23 ‘the trained athlete’ in the 1960’s saw individuals who were separated from the non-athletes by their intense training routines and also the large staff of people behind him, coaching him mentally, physically, and emotionally.4 All of this special training could easily lead to the rider thinking, similar to Floyd Landis’s way of thinking, that doping was the next logical step. Under the image of Lance Armstrong, decked out in his time trial gear during the 2005 Tour, in A Cultural History, Thompson points out that riders like him take full advantage of scientific technology to aid them in their quest to shave off milliseconds during time trials and the like.5 So, why not take advantage of scientific progress with regard to performanceenhancing substances?

Nevertheless, the French parliament passed one of the very first national anti-doping laws in 1965, twenty years after the end of World War II. It was particularly aimed at cyclists, “who were not only the most visible drug users but, because of their popularity, also those most likely to be emulated by young people, who were seen to be particularly at risk in the emerging drug culture.”6 Daniel Rosen provides a comprehensive timeline of significant events in the world of doping in sports beginning in 1865 and ending in 2007. He makes clear that cycling was certainly the first major sport to not only dope on a wide scale, but also was not the first to attempt to reverse the doping situation in its athletes. The doping of racehorses was the first form of doping in sports seen by modern sports, and laws were passed against the practice beginning in 1903.7 The first sport to ban doping in humans was track and field, when the International Association of Athletics Federation banned doping in those competitions in 1928. In 1966, the International Cycling Union and the International 4

Mignon, P. “The Tour de France and the Doping Issue,” in The Tour de France,1903-2003, edited by Hugh Dauncey and Geoff Hare (London: University of New Castle, 2003), 233.

5 Thompson, A Cultural History, insert.

6 Thompson, A Cultural History, 216.

7 Rosen, D. Dope: A History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today.

Westport, CT: Praeger, 2008, 201.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

Football Federation banned drug use only during championship events.8 Then in 1967, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) banned performance enhancing drugs during Olympic competitions.9 Steroids were not banned from the Olympics until 1974, and more importantly a test was not introduced until 1976.10 In 1985, the US Cycling Federation and the US Olympic Committee banned blood doping, with the International Olympic Committee not following until 1986.11 The most recent major event in the realm of anti-doping laws was the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency in 1999.12 Beginning with the amphetamine-tainted death of Tom Simpson near the top of Mont Ventoux during the 1967 Tour, public opinion and race officials’ positions on doping took on a much harsher tone.13 Only a couple of months before Simpson’s death, the International Olympic Committee banned performance-enhancing drugs, for the reasons of preventing endangerment of athletes’ health due to drug abuse, and also for reasons of fairness.14 There were only 20 items on the list of banned substances for the 1968 Olympic Games.15 Interestingly, steroids could not be included on the list because there was no reliable test for the drug at the time.16 Earlier on, there were other initiatives by worried sports organizers like the IOC for defining and putting an end to the doping that was sweeping through the sports world.

Dr. Dumas, who later became the race doctor who attempted to revive Tom Simpson on Mont Ventoux, created the new definition for “le doping:” “doping is defined as the use of substances or of all means designed to artificially enhance performance, in preparation for or on the occasion of competition, and which can prejudice

24 sports ethics and the physical and mental integrity of the athlete.”17 Little or no progress was made in the fight against doping in the decade that followed Tom Simpson’s death. This fight was important for few people at the time, mostly doctors like Dr. Dumas who realized that the athletes were in true danger from their doping habits. In fact, the bans on doping enacted before the 1968 Olympics made little or no difference in the athletes’ intake of performance-enhancing substances. One athlete, who was asked about the ban on amphetamines stated, “What ban? Everyone used a new one from West Germany. They couldn’t pick it up in the test they were using. When they get a test for that one we’ll find something else. It’s like cops and robbers.”18 Bil Gilbert, a Sports Illustrated author claimed in June of 1969 that “the doctor and the chemist may soon be as important to an athlete as a coach.”19 But perhaps this was already true.

The next great doping scandal of the Tour de France occurred in 1978. While no one died in this case, the disgrace that filled the hearts of a majority of fans of the Tour was nearly as devastating.

Michel Pollentier became the Tour’s leader after winning the stage that included the legendary mountain Alpe d’Huez. By this point, all stage winners had to provide a urine sample within an hour of completing the stage. Instead of giving his sample immediately after finishing, he first went back to his hotel to change his clothes, but he was not only changing clothes. Knowing that his own urine would test positive for a banned substance, he attached a contraption to himself that contained a clean individual’s urine, which Pollentier would then claim as his own. The medical inspector found the tubing necessary for the plot and consequently accused Pollentier of fraud. He was consequently

8

Rosen, Dope, 203.

Rosen, Dope, 204.

10 Rosen, Dope, 205.

11 Rosen, Dope, 205.

12 Rosen, Dope, 208.

13 Rosen, Dope, 34.

14 Rosen, Dope, 35.

15 Rosen, Dope, 35.

16 Rosen, Dope, 36.

9

17

Mignon, “Doping Issue,” 236.

Todd, J. and Todd, T. “Significant Events in the History of Drug Testing and the Olympic Movement: 1960-1999,” in Doping in Elite Sport: The Politics of Drugs in the Olympic Movement, edited by Wayne Wilson and Edward Derse United States: Human Kinetics Publishers, 2001, 69.

19 Todd and Todd, “History of Drug Testing,” 70.

18

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

disqualified from the Tour, fined, and banned from racing for two months.20 Doping amongst the athletes was rampant during this time period. Some cyclists only admitted years later that they had doped, others appeared to have doped only once or twice, but not again in their career (like Eddy Merckx).21 Still others used drugs until they were caught through testing, and openly admitted having used those drugs in the past without a positive test result (like Joop Zoetemelk and his use of anabolic steroids). 22 This plainly mirrors the attitudes internationally in the era of the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union were doing anything and everything to prove their prowess and superiority, including the arms races, the Space Race, and doping their athletes regularly. Even though doping occurred in all sports on behalf of the United States and Soviet Union, rather than just in cycling, it is clear that the cyclists internationally were attempting to at least keep up with the trends in other sports if not create new ones on their own. The main trend at this time (as it remains today) was to use substances that would not attract the attention of the sample testers.23 The 80’s and 90’s Clean Winners Amidst a Dirty Field The International Cycling Union’s (UCI) list of banned substances continued to grow into the 1980’s, and riders continued to evade positive tests and punishment for them however they could. In 1988, Pedro Delgado became the third Spaniard to win the Tour; however, rumors of a positive drug test leaked through the French media during the Tour. Since the substance that was detected – probenecid, a masking agent – was not on the list of banned substances in 1988, Delgado was permitted to stay in the race.24 The trends amongst the general French public continued as well. While 44 percent of those polled in 1989 believed that all 20

Thompson, A Cultural History, 244.

Thompson, A Cultural History, 243.

22 Thompson, A Cultural History, 250.

23 Thompson, A Cultural History, 250.

24 Thompson, A Cultural History, 250-251.

21

25 sports were tainted by doping and 79 percent wished that the doping would stop, 70 percent “rarely or never believed that the athletes they watched were taking performance-enhancing drugs.”25 In that recent history, only one rider may have been a true hero for the French cause, both morally and athletically. Bernard Hinault grew up in the largely agricultural region of Brittany (so he appealed to agricultural and rural French people).

At the same time, his father was a railroad employee and Hinault would have been an electrician had he not been such a talented cyclist (thereby appealing to French urban industrialists).26 His reign began with his win in the 1978 Tour de France, amidst the doping controversies and protests that ensued. He was even one of the Tour leaders who supported the protest as the cyclists entered Valence-D’Agen.27 Hinault remained the one hero that France and the rest of the world could look to for his courage and “panache.” Although time-trailing and mountain-climbing were his specialties, he was even bold enough to race with – and beat – the specialty sprinters in the final glorious stage of the 1982 Tour on the ChampsElyseés.28 When he retired following the 1986 Tour, France was devastated by the loss of a great cyclist who seemed to have many more wins left in his legs.29 In so doing, Hinault finished passing the torch on to another talented young cyclist, an American named Greg LeMond.30 The two teammates, friends, and rivals competed head-to-head during the 1985 Tour, during which Hinault was injured and his team leadership came into question.31 The following year, Hinault paid back the debt he owed 25

Thompson, A Cultural History, 251.

Dauncey, H. “French Cycling Heroes of the Tour: Winners and Losers,” in The Tour de France,1903-2003, edited by Hugh Dauncey and Geoff Hare, London: University of New Castle, 2003, 196.

27 Thompson, A Cultural History, 219-220 and Dauncey, “French Cycling Heroes,” 196.

28 Dauncey, “French Cycling Heroes,” 197.

29 Dauncey, “French Cycling Heroes,” 195.

30 Dauncey, “French Cycling Heroes,” 198.

31 Dauncey, “French Cycling Heroes,” 198.

26

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

to LeMond for his reluctant support in the previous Tour, allowing LeMond to become the first American to win a Tour de France.32 Due to more recent allegations and doping admissions, these two cyclists remain two of the “cleanest” in the sport’s recent history. They set an example for future cyclists that few of them, like Lance Armstrong, have chosen to follow. Greg LeMond could even stand as a symbol of the age of American superiority in the world following the breakdown of the Soviet Union at this time; however, this did not necessarily bode well for the future of doping in cycling.

The culture of doping continued well into the 1990’s, despite the clean leadership of Greg LeMond and Miguel Indurain, three- and five-time winners of the Tour in the late 80’s and early-tomid 90’s. Neither were punished for doping during their careers.33 If anything, doping only became more prominent in the 90’s, culminating in the Festina Affair of 1998. Anti-doping agencies added more substances and techniques (like blood doping, the insertion of more red blood cells into one’s body) to their lists in the mid- and late 80’s.34 However, this only caused the athletes to become more creative with when and how they doped. At this time, erythropoietin took the athletic world by storm. There was no test for EPO until the year 2000,35 so even though it was banned in 1990, athletes could use the substance with little chance of discovery or consequence.36 In 1990 alone, five cyclists died mysteriously of heart attacks and strokes in their sleep.37 Since EPO greatly increases the red blood cell count,38 it makes one’s blood thicker. When an athlete combines the substance with dehydration, he is extremely likely to die of blood clotting.39

26 Also, custom-tailored drugs emerged during this time period, again making it extremely difficult for drug tests to detect the substances in an athlete’s body.40 In the mid-1990’s, Victor Conte and his company, the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, began “offering testing, nutritional, and supplementation advice to a number of professional athletes, often providing these services to the pros for no charge.41 While BALCO was mostly known for providing steroids and testosterone to athletes, it is quite likely that Lance Armstrong had a similar custom doping organization at his disposal during the better part of his cycling career.42 Before Armstrong hit the world cycling stage with full force, the Tour de France was rocked by yet another doping scandal in 1998. “The Tour de Doping,” or the Festina Affair, opened up the escalation of doping in the Tour to the world; it was no longer just individuals doping with substances they purchased and used themselves, but entire companies (and their respective cycling teams) were organized around the methodical doping of their riders.43 Team Festina’s soigneur (an assistant and massage therapist for the cyclists) “was intercepted by the French Customs and found to be in possession of 500 doses of doping products, including EPO and growth hormones.”44 He also had – in the official car provided by the Tour de France, no less – amphetamines, steroids, and several masking agents.45 The team’s director claimed he was creating a situation with decreased risk for the riders by allowing them to dope under medical supervision.46 In the end, Festina, a Dutch team (TVM), and the Spanish teams were all forced out of the Tour or withdrew, sometimes forcibly and sometimes in solidarity with the teams caught 40

32

Dauncey, “French Cycling Heroes,” 198.

33 Mignon, “Doping Issue,” and Rosen, Dope, 205-207.

34 Rosen, Dope, 205.

35 Rosen, Dope, 209.

36 Rosen, Dope, 80.

37 Rosen, Dope, 80.

38 Dimeo, P. A History of Drug Use in Sport 1876-1976: Beyond Good and Evil, London: Taylor and Francis, 2006, 16.

39 Thompson, A Cultural History, 252.

Rosen, Dope, 79.

Rosen, Dope, 114.

42 USADA, “Report on Proceedings Under the World AntiDoping Code and the USADA Protocol,” accessed online at http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/!invesitgations%20an d%20enterprise%20docs/armstrong-reasoned-decision.pdf on December 13, 2012, 5.

43 Mignon, “Doping Issue,” 234.

44 Mignon, “Doping Issue,” 234.

45 Rosen, Dope, 100.

46 Mignon, “Doping Issue,” 234.

41

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

doping.47 Many other teams were suspected, and many other riders admitted after the Tour that they had doped during it.48 One of these riders was Alex Zülle, who claimed he was pressured into using EPO: “As a rider, you feel tied into the system. It’s like being on the highway. The law says there’s a speed limit of 65, but everyone is driving 70 or faster. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit?”49 In all, only 96 riders finished the 1998 Tour out of the 189 on the initial starting line.50 The winner, Marco Pantani, was later proven to have also doped during that Tour.51 The Armstrong Era In the wake of the “Tour of Shame,” the race officials promised the 1999 Tour would be the “Tour of Redemption,” and it certainly started off with a magnificent redemption story. A young American rider named Lance Armstrong won the opening prologue, a short individual time-trail, after having beaten testicular cancer.52 This was a spectacular start to the first of seven consecutive Tour de France wins. However, even this Tour was embroiled in doping controversy for young Armstrong. He had used a cortisone cream during the race on the saddle sores that he developed, and consequently tested positive for corticosteroids shortly thereafter.53 He held a press conference to attempt to explain himself and prove his innocence for performance-enhancing substances. “I made a mistake in taking something I didn’t consider to be a drug. When I think of taking something, I think of pills, inhalers, injections. I didn’t consider skin cream ‘taking something.’”54 This became the first

47

Mignon, “Doping Issue,” 234, and Rosen, Dope, 100.

Rosen, Dope, 101.

49 Clary, C. and Abt, S. “The Tainted Tour, A Special Report; Drug Scadals Dampen Cycling’s Top Event,” The New York Times July 3, 1999, retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com on December 12, 2012.

50 McGann, W. and McGann, C. The Story of the Tour de France United States: Dog Ear Publishing, 2008, 251.

51 Dauncey, “French Cycling Heroes,”176.

52 Rosen, Dope, 110.

53 Rosen, Dope, 111.

54 Rosen, Dope, 111.

48

27 of many doping allegations that Armstrong experienced throughout his career.

Ending the long string of accusations throughout his career, Armstrong faced yet another controversy only a month following his seventh Tour win. This time it was begun by the French sports periodical L’Equipe (which evolved from L’Auto years previously), and they claimed that a 1999 drug test of Armstrong’s proved that he had doped that year in order to win the Tour.55 Armstrong passionately repudiated these claims, mainly through a statement on his website: Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. L’Equipe, a French sports daily, is reporting that my 1999 samples were positive. Unfortunately the witch hunt continues and [their] article is nothing short of tabloid journalism…. I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs.56 Many, like the director of the Tour by that point, felt betrayed by Armstrong and was completely shocked at the news, while many of those surrounding Armstrong defended his statements of innocence.57 By October of 2005, the UCI decided to have a lawyer investigate the accusations. The lawyer came to the conclusion that, while Armstrong’s sample were “suitable for research purposes” – which is what they had been used for, rather than actual drug testing – the proper procedures for drug testing had not been followed, and therefore the results could prove no violations.58 Similarly, but with different results in the end, many of Armstrong’s teammates were caught doping at various points in their careers. Curiously, this usually occurred after having stopped riding for the same team as Armstrong. Tyler Hamilton, who had ridden with Armstrong and helped him win his first five Tours de France, decided to 55

Rosen, Dope, 155.

Rosen, Dope, 155.

57 Rosen, Dope, 155-6.

58 Rosen, Dope, 157.

56

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

compete against Armstrong in the 2004 Tour and switch to a different team.59 He had ridden most of the 2003 Tour with a broken collarbone, a particularly difficult feat considering cyclists have to put much of their upper-body weight on that bone while they ride.60 A vast majority of cyclists who crash and break their collarbones drop out of the race due to the difficulty of riding with that break. In Hamilton’s 2004 interview with The Guardian, he stated, “I feel like it's cleaned up a lot. I got tested three times in the off-season; that's just out-of-competition testing. And with all three teams I've been on I've signed my contract knowing if I use illegal substances I'm fired straight away. I think it's getting better, though there is a lot of silence.”61 Just three months later, Hamilton tested positive for blood doping during the Vuelta de España.62 Another once-teammate of Armstrong’s, Floyd Landis, won the 2006 Tour handily despite his desperate need for a hip replacement, and falling nearly eight minutes behind during one stage in which he was too tired and dehydrated to keep the pace of the lead racers.63 However, less than 48 hours later, he was told that the urine test he had given after Stage 17, when he made a dramatic comeback following the previous day’s “bonk,” had given a positive reading for synthetic testosterone.64 Landis denied the test results for years, just as his former teammate had fended off his accusations with charm and popularity. In a novel move, Landis exercised his right to an open hearing, and also published all drug testing documents online for anyone to see.65 While it was clear to the court during the trials that the paperwork for the initial urine test was filled out

59

“Interview: Tyler Hamilton,” The Guardian, June 28, 2004: Accessed online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/jun/28/cycling.tourde france2004 on December 13, 2012.

60 “Interview,” The Guardian.

61 “Interview,” The Guardian.

62 Rosen, Dope, 152.

63 Rosen, Dope, 172-173.

64 Rosen, Dope, 173.

65 Rosen, Dope, 175.

28 incorrectly, in the end, Landis was still found guilty of using synthetic testosterone.66 While Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis might seem like less-than-valuable witnesses in a doping case, due to their past lies about not doing so themselves, the USADA was certainly interested in listening to them and many other former teammates of Lance Armstrong when they united to give evidence of Armstrong’s doping during his cycling career. In October of 2012, seven years after Armstrong’s seventh Tour win, George Hincapie, longtime friend of Armstrong, and the only teammate of his to aid him in all seven of his wins, confirmed his role in Armstrong’s doping conspiracy.67 Hincapie said, “I would have been much more comfortable talking only about myself, but understood that I was obligated to tell the truth about everything I knew. So that is what I did.”68 In all, eleven of Armstrong’s teammates give evidence against him, including six active riders, who were consequently given six-month suspensions for their own doping.69 According to Michele Ferrari, a doctor and consultant to Armstrong’s doping scheme, Armstrong would microdose on EPO and sleep in an altitude tent, which would also naturally raise his body’s levels of EPO and “throw off the test.”70 The Continuation of the Culture of Doping As Tom Simpson said, not long before his drug-induced death, “if it takes ten to kill you, I’ll take nine and win.”71 For a century, cyclists and 66

Rosen, Dope, 182.

Brent Schrotenboer, “USADA Releases Massive Evidence Vs. Lance Armstrong,” USA Today Sports, October 11, 2012. Accessed online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/10/la nce-armstrong-usada-reasoned-decision-teammatesdoping/1624551/ on December 13, 2012.

68 Schrotenboer, “USADA Releases.”

69 Schrotenboer, “USADA Releases.”

70 Peter Barzilai, et al, “Inside USADA’s Case Against Lance Armstrong,” USA Today Sports, October 10, 2012. Accessed online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/10/la nce-armstrong-usada-reasoned-decision-georgehincapie/1625607/ on December 13, 2012.

71 Rosen, Dope, 34.

67

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

athletes in general have done whatever it took to win their events. Despite the increased dangers of doing so with modern doping substances and techniques, athletes continue to abuse their bodies to the extreme in order to succeed in their events.

Hincapie, in his account of his and Armstrong’s doping, stated that Armstrong used blood doping for at least the five Tour wins between 2001 and 2005. He stated: “The doping controls were not very good, and we came to believe that we needed to use banned substances to compete at the very highest levels. While I understand that the choices we made were wrong, I understand why we made them and why, at the time, we felt justified in making them.”72 The cyclists felt that they needed to dope in order to keep up with their competitors who they knew were suspected dopers. Following a 1995 race, Armstrong stated that they needed to get their team started on EPO in order to compete with those suspected dopers, according to Hincapie.73 In an interview published on January 8th, 2013, Lance Armstrong finally admitted, after years of vehement denials, that he did dope in order to win the Tour de France, and also before he was diagnosed with cancer in 1996.74 In the interview, Armstrong admits his guilt in doping, and confirms Hincapie’s statements of attempting to maintain top cycling form by doping.75 While this admission was surely a disappointment to many, most cycling fans can see that, with the new honesty of these great riders, perhaps the doping culture can come to 72

Barzilai, “Inside USADA’s Case Against Lance Armstrong.”

73 Brent Schrotenboer, “Admission by Armstrong Friend Hincapie Stands Out,” USA Today Sports, October 11, 2012.

Accessed online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/10/la nce-armstrong-george-hincapie/1625719/ on December 13, 2012.

74 Juliet Macur, “Armstrong Admits Doping and Will Testify,” The New York Times, January 14, 2013. Accessed online at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/sports/cycling/lancearmstrong-admits-doping-and-says-he-will-testify-againstcycling-officials.html?_r=1& on January 19, 2013.

75 Interview with Oprah Winfrey. Segment accessed at http://www.oprah.com/own/Why-Lance-Armstrong-SaysHe-Had-to-Dope-to-Win-Video on January 19, 2013.

29 an end in the sport with the help of these experienced veterans.

This causes many historians to beg the question: why would athletes continue making the same mistakes as they have for decades? Many cyclists who ride or have ridden the Tour, like Bernard Kohl say that the race is not winnable without doping.76 Even fans of the race state that it is impossible for cyclists to make a living without doping, and this goes for both Europeans and Americans – despite the arguments of one gentleman who argues that Europeans do not care about doping.77 However, even though Wassink argues that all athletes should be allowed to dope, one runs into the problem that if all cyclists doped – with medical supervision for their own safety – they would all be using the same substances. If they all used the same substances, then what is the point of doping to begin with, since no single rider would have an edge over any other single rider? In the end, it seems that the only option is for cyclists and other athletes to work to change the culture of doping that has developed over the years, for their own safety and that of future generations.

Conclusion The significance of a sporting event such as the Tour de France is not one that is easily uncovered, especially for an American or anyone who was not raised in France. However, one hundred years ago the significance of the race was known by every man, woman, and child in France, and that remains true to this day. Millions of spectators line the streets of the country every year, and several thousand can be found on solitary epic mountaintops like Mont Ventoux or Alpe d’Huez.

The cyclists are revered for their suffering, just as they were in 1903. The English commentators for the Tour are always particularly sympathetic to the riders who have “cracked” on a mountainside and 76

“Tour de France Not Winnable Without Doping, Former Rider Says,” AOL News, October 4, 2010. Accessed online at http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/04/tour-de-france-notwinnable-without-drugs-former-rider-says/ on December 13, 2012.

77 Wassink, “Defending Floyd Landis,” Yahoo! Voices.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

can no longer keep the pace they desire. In the same way, the crowds, risking penalization for the riders, often give the cyclists a push on their backside as they pass, just to ease the burden of the climb ever so slightly.

Another fascinating aspect of the Tour which few other sports contain is the concept of honor.

While particularly ironic due to the culture of doping, the riders on each team are fully expected to help one another during the race. Most of a team is only in the race solely for the help they can provide to the single rider who they hope will win the Tour, or at least place high on the final day.

There are lead-out men for the sprinters, riders who are only slightly less skilled at mountain ascents than their teammate, and riders in between these extremes, who all are expected to serve their team captains with complete loyalty and trust. Even though cycling is an individualistic sport, the Tour has successfully turned it into a supreme team effort. This was one of the reasons for Lance Armstrongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success in the Tour â&#x20AC;Ś or at least it was before the doping plot was revealed.

Much like the Olympics do every four years, each year the Tour is an opportunity for each participating nation to cheer on its athletes as they compete on an international level. Americans often endeavor to win the stage on the Fourth of July, the French on Bastille Day, and everyone tries to win mountaintop stages. The cyclists find themselves in a unique position of bringing glory not only to themselves and their teams, but also to their hometown, home state or region, and home country. It is not only the manner in which a cyclist makes his living, but also the manner in which he honors his roots and brings glory to otherwise forgotten locales.

The prominence of the Tour must never be forgotten when discussing the history of it. Its first few decades brought modern technology to impoverished and otherwise completely isolated regions of France, and after the first World War, gave the people of France a way of momentarily forgetting their decimated landscape and the decimated (at least from their perspective) culture of Alsace-Lorraine. The Tour served much of the

30 same purpose again following World War II, and the French have always been able to rely on the Tour ever since for a major source of entertainment and national pride each and every July.

Despite the general lack of a compendium of research on the Tour and cycling, there are a relatively large number of sources that do describe the Tour on its own, and aspects of doping in the Tour on their own. Some try to argue that there is no point in testing the riders for doping as they will figure out ways to do it anyway. This might be true, but it is the only option that sports authorities have if they want to continue to stand against doping.

There must be a great shift in the culture of cycling in the near future, or else this cycle of doping will simply continue through the ages. There is no going back to the times of strychnine and whiskey during races to aid in the endurance of Olympic marathon runners, and nor is there any going back to the trust that athletes are doing superhuman feats of strength without the aid of performanceenhancing substances. Lance Armstrong was a great rider, but because of his drug use, he will never be remembered as a good one.

Elyse Grasser (â&#x20AC;&#x2122;13) is a History major with minors in Philosophy, Arts and Letters, and American Studies. She plans to continue her education with a Masters in Public History. She is a member of several honor societies including Phi Alpha Theta, the History Honor Society.

SPECTRUM

3 (3)

31

Silent Praise Elizabeth A. Wheeler Education Department School of Arts and Letters eaw100@francis.edu Tucked away behind Torvian, behind the dorms and the basketball court, lies a little grove, an enchanted place of rest and renewal that I have come to love. On this particular day, I set out for it eagerly, camera in hand, excited to discover what magic the heavy snow has worked in the night. I will be alone, I know. No other footsteps yet mar the newly-fallen blanket of white. I plunge in quickly, sinking nearly up to my knees at the first step. I don't care. The frigid air makes my head spin; its very purity makes me giddy, drunk. With each step, my heart beats faster. I slip behind the trees, then two more steps, and I stop as the breath catches in my lungs. A slight breeze makes the trees creak and groan, and a pile of snow falls from a pine. A bird twitters in the treetops; then all grows calm. An enormous, enveloping silence falls over the scene. Before me lies the grotto, a frozen wonderland, untouched, the shadows bathed in tones of blue and purple. The sinking sun filters through the trees, catching on the ridge, its light reaching down into the clearing and illuminating the altar. A cluster of white-robed rocks circles

around as if in perpetual worship, and a piece of a verse flits into my mind: "If these were silent, the very stones would cry out." Oh, how they cry! I lift my hands with them for a few moments, turning my face to catch the last few rays of golden sunlight, remaining so until the cold seeps into my bones and makes me shake, reminding me that I am made of flesh and not of stone. Snapping a few pictures for reference, I head back to the studio, anxious to begin, hoping to transfer to my canvas a bit of the wonder I have just experienced. And when the process becomes daunting and frustration begins to set in, I will return in my mind to this moment, when all is still and silent praise.

Elizabeth Wheeler (â&#x20AC;&#x2122;13) is a Middle Childhood Education major with an English concentration and a Fine Arts minor. She has been involved in the art program, Education Club and French Club and has participated in the Springtime in Italy and Semester in France study abroad programs. She is a member of Kappa Delta Pi: International Honor Society in Education.

Call for papers Sub m ission G uid elines The purpose of SPECTRUM is not merely to disseminate new results, but also to inform and enlighten.

Our readership is a general and multidisciplinary audience who may not be an expert in your field of study. Consequently, please explain all pertinent concepts essential to understanding your article as well as any concepts that might not be common knowledge. Please submit your file in Microsoft Word format as an attachment to the following email address: spectrum@francis.edu. The text should be single spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font. Please use italics, rather than underlining, for emphasis.

O r ganiz at ion of M anuscr ip t s SPECTRUM is an interdisciplinary journal accepting submissions from the natural sciences, the humanities as well as the professional schools (health sciences and business), therefore, the structure and style of each manuscript will differ from discipline to discipline. Regardless, all submissions must provide a cover sheet, a thorough introduction of the problem your research addresses, the conclusion(s), result(s) or findings of your research, as well as some form of bibliographic citation. Below are the general guidelines for these requirements, some of which may not apply to your area of research.

C ov er Sheet Title Names and departments of undergraduate researcher(s) and faculty advisor(s) Abstract (200 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 300 words) Six key words Int r od uct ion Include general background of the relevant field and the larger problem your research addresses as well as its relevance within the field. In addition, explain what prompted your investigation, a summary of previous findings related to your research problem and what contributions your project brings (or was expected to bring) to the issue.

M et hod s and M at er ials (If ap p licab le) Summarize important methods and materials used in your research.

R esult s/C onclusions Give detailed report of the results and or conclusions reached through your research.

Discussion Results should be evaluated in the context of general research problem, the implications of which should be explained with conclusions, predictions or suggestions (if applicable) for further study.

T ab les (if ap p licab le) Create tables in Microsoft Word format and insert into general text accompanied by a table legend. Each table needs a number based on its appearance in the paper, where it is referenced.

Figur es (if ap p licab le) Please submit figures at the end of the article, one image per page; we will fit these in as we organize the manuscript. Each figure needs a number (the figures shall be numbered consecutively in the order of their appearance in the paper) and a title. SPECTRUM will be printed black and white, but there will be an online version where figures submitted in color will appear in color.

R efer ences You may use any referencing style you choose so long as it is a standard format or your discipline (IEE, APA, ACS, PubMed) and that you use it consistently and to the appropriate bibliographical standards.