We're too quick to condemn Stuart O'Grady

EVERYONE makes mistakes and none of us are perfect, but many are quick to condemn champion cyclist Stuart O'Grady.

THAT we are all perfect. That none of us had ever made a mistake. That the sporting world had never been invaded by gurus promising magical performances in a bottle.

But perfection does not exist. We've all made mistakes - some more serious that others - and there is always someone pushing the boundaries of of legality and sporting ethics.

Stuart O'Grady succumbed to the temptation 15 years ago and experimented with the blood-boosting substance EPO.

We are judging him now by the more draconian standards of 2013.

He was a young man trying to make his mark in the toughest sport of all; a sport in which the absolute majority of riders systematically used synthetic substances to compete and enhance their performances.

I can't agree with what he did, but I refuse to condemn him.

There are many elements to sport; the most important one is that it is self-regulating.

Sports make their own laws and administer them.

But sports also have their own individual cultures, which can be much more powerful influences than the laws of the games.

There is no doubt that cycling of 1998 had an insidious culture of performance enhancement.

No one really knows for how long it had been endemic but now we have the benefit of hindsight, it would surprise no one if any other legend who has been immortalised in cycling posterity was revealed as a "drug-cheat".

That, of course, poses the question: Are you cheating if everyone else is doing it? If the culture of a sport dictates that you use performance-enhancing drugs, are you really cheating if you succumb and do the same?

What does a young cyclist, who finally has his chance to ride in the Tour de France peleton do if he wants to be competitive and knows everyone else is doing it?

There is a story of a physician who conducted a clinical trial of the performance-enhancing substance EPO.

Having been a sportsman in his younger days, he used himself as the guinea pig. The results were outstanding.

Despite being in his 50s, his athletic performances eclipsed those of when he was in his 20s. Why wouldn't such a substance be sourced by endurance athletes who care only about winning, with no regard for the method?

Stuart O'Grady has been our great South Australian ambassador for his sport. He is even more so today for how he has handled this crisis.

Yes, he was named in the French Senate inquiry into doping, which said his historic sample was "suspicious". Not "positive", mind you, but "suspicious".

He could quite easily have retired and told the world to make what they want of his "suspicious sample".

Instead, he rang his biographer, the outstanding young Advertiser journalist Reece Homfray, and told him the how and why of everything.

There was no denial in the face of dubious evidence.

Like the dinkum Aussie he is, he accepted responsibility, owned up, and now faces the consequences.

He should not be vilified, nor ostracised for a mistake that he made, then rectified, when he was 24 - a baby in the peleton.

How many of us could claim to have made no mistakes, to have not cheated in some way, to have never ingested a substance that was either illegal or banned?

Not even the saints among us. Yes, he made a blue, but he's still our Stuey, and he deserves another chance.

Twitter: @Cornesy12