Tyler Hamilton’s win in La Doyenne in 2003 was one of the highlights in what was generally a fantastic season. A great Spring campaign, a great Giro, a great Tour, a great Fall; unpredictable races, and closely-fought battles littered the events. But, with the luxury of 20-20 hindsight and a quick cross-reference of results listings to doping scandals, it’s safe to assume that season landed smack in the middle of an era of jet-fueled racing that rivals the 1990’s in their indulgence.
It’s a tough time to be a cyclist. Death, doping scandals, corruption in the organizing bodies of the sport. We test our athletes more than any other sport, but the tests are flawed and incomplete, and rumors persist that teams and riders pay off not just the labs to surpress positive tests, but also the UCI. Hamilton’s confession on 60 Minutes this week is the latest in an unsettling chain of events that keep peeling back more layers of the onion. I was a big fan of Tyler’s and part of me even believed in his innocence. He seemed like a genuinely nice guy – much too nice a guy to get involved in cheating. But there he was on television, talking openly about the magnitude of drugs-taking within the USPS team.
On the other hand, I’ve never been a fan of Armstrong’s. I find him to be arrogent, controlling, manipulative. His Tour wins were too formulaic; in sharp contrast to his fight with cancer, his racing showed no element of humanism. I have taken it for granted that his wins came with considerable assistance from a carefully planned and executed doping regimen. But these beliefs were woven together by a thread of doubt, and the possibility always existed that his were clean wins.
Hearing Hamilton talk of the seemingly nonchalant attitude towards doping at USPS and, in particular, by Armstrong, is surprising not in the content of the message, but in how hard the message hit. I expected the words. I had read them. I have even written many of them myself. But there was always a tangible element of speculation about them. For me, that element is now gone, and it feels strange to say the least.
Even as someone who generally accepts that doping is commonplace in the peloton, it hurts me every time another allegation of doping comes out. It takes me days to recover from it. But even if the worst happens, if Professional Cycling as we know it today falls apart, cycling will continue. Because cycling is more than watching others race bikes. It’s about racing or riding the bike yourself. It’s about overcoming your own limitations. It’s about the rider and the machine working together. It’s about cleaning, caring for, thinking about your bike. It’s about taking photos of it so you can look at it when you’re away.
Cycling rides through a storm today, but we will always have the bike. We will always have la Vie Velominatus.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@RedRanger
A-Merckx brother.
I'm impressed Garmin no longer gives any kind of injections, shots or IV, that is really getting serious. I've seen amateur cat 2 racers getting IV saline after a Tour of the Gila stage in the medical tent. I guess they didn't have domestiques bringing up bottles.
The dichotomy between professional and avocational exists in all sports. Cycling for me is experential. Sure I watch the pros on TV and follow it on the web. However, nothing about what occurs at the pro level has any tangible effect on my weekday and weekend cycling wether it is training, racing, or just goofing off. It is the same with baseball. Used to I played in a weekend adult league, while my son played league ball also. Again, what happened in MLB had no bearing on what occured on the field at my level. Ken Burns quoted someone as saying "its a great game that has endured despite the efforts of the owners (and you might add now players's union and MLB comissioners) to kill it". I think the same can be said about cycling. In its purest form at the non-professional level, its a great sport that endures each time you get on the bike and lay down the "V".
Got to give Tyler props for coming clean with the intent of moving on rather than dodging and defending the past.
The UCI is already broke, so perhaps it's better to stop chasing retired racers. Perhaps there should be a rule that if something happened more than a year ago, cyclists are free to go. It stops ruining the competition and it saves the UCI money.
Sponsors. Gerolsteiner? Phonak? The people who pay the actual salaries of the teams don't like the look of scandals, which is one reason to clean the sport to within an inch of it's life.
That, and if the sport's mechanisms for staying clean can't be seen to be operating correctly in the present there is no reason to expect that it will in future. Current riders and team administrators have built careers on the back of doping, and if they're around as some sort of open secret, people will feel a sense of entitlement that they can continue to do that in the future.
@GottaRideToday
I'm with you ChrisO and the others who acknowledge that doping is pervasive and unpreventable. Do I like it? No. Does it affect my day-to-day? No. Will I continue to watch pro cycling? Yes. For now.
@Minion
You're peeling back the onion now.... Sponsors don't like scandals, but they do like wins and publicity. There's no way that such pervasive and nearly universal doping occurs without the complicity of doctors, soigneurs, DS's and yes, even sponsors. Sponsors could clean the sport up immediately by writing contracts that penalize teams severely for doping. The UCI and WADA could impose stiffer sanctions. Doctors could face loss of licenses. But money talks and BS walks. The actuaries and the suits know wins generate more revenue than scandals will curtail.
If you don't want to watch dopers compete, don't watch pro cycling. That's the sad state of play. If everyone would stop watching races with dopers, the incentive to sponsor dopers would end. but that's not going to happen. And everyone knows it.
Sorry to be a downer, but I've grown completely nihilistic on this topic. Ho hum.
Yup, doping sucks. It's always been there and probably always will. Maybe pro cycling should have just remained as it used to be. Half ass testing just to put up a front. Then the "secret" remains and racing goes on. Operate the same way mainstream sports do, like football and baseball. It's all entertainment anyway, who cares if Johnny Football is on the juice. Who cares if Ricky Racer is on EPO?
Well, I guess as cyclists we do care. Why? Because many of us "fans" also ride and race, so we feel more connected to the sport. How many football and baseball fans actually play themselves? Besides kids, not many.
We on the other hand, know what it's like to grind up a hill, heart pounding and legs screaming. Watching the elite level pros do what we do - on a whole different level - gets us psyched to do the same. Knowing that some sophisticated and expensive cheating process was involved takes away some of the awe. Then add in stripped titles and other related crap that takes away from the sport. All pretty lame.
I was a Lance fan. I dug watching the Tours he won. I enjoyed his "comeback" and last races as a pro. There was always a doubt that he doped, but since not proven - the hope was there it was done clean - despite the circumstantial evidence. With the latest media bombshells, that thread of hope appears to be severed. I'm curious how this will all play out. If Lance is stripped of his numerous Tour titles, pro cycling will look even worse then it does now.
Pro cycling however is just a thin slice of the cycling pie. If it disappeared, wouldn't really matter much. Most of us will still be out there, pedaling away and testing ourselves. We'll race at the grassroots level - where cycling really lives - cheering each other on. Screw the pros, kill your TV, and head out to a local race. That's real deal. No EPO or blood doping required.
The fans were annoyed with the Greats - Anquetil, Merckx and Indurain all were regarded by many fans as being boring for the relentless domination they showed in winning their Tours. Hinault was spared perhaps because his 5 wins were more spread out over time. The popularity of Poulidor, Zoetemelk and Chiappucci were all arguably greater than the champions they failed to vanquish...
@Dan O: No matter how this plays out, I am fairly sure LA can't be stripped of his Tour titles. He might choose to relinquish them, but I think that's fairly unlikely! If he was stripped of them who would they elevate to first place anyway, Ullrich? Zulle? Beloki?
Was told an interesting story by an ex-pro earlier this week. He said that in his day (early 90s), the team would see how you rode on bread and water and then they could decide whether it was worth "improving" you. This is in line wtih Hamilton's "little white lunchbag" story where he was only given PEDs once he had proven himself to some extent. Reckon it goes a long way to explaining the doping mindset - you strive to be the best you can be, eventually the boss says "well done chum, you can join the big boys now. Here is what you need.".
In the bubble of a pro team environment, I reckon that would be fairly difficult to resist.
NB. ex-pro said this is what "put him off" pro cycling...
@sgt
That's why my two favouraite cyclists this year are Anna Meares and NZ's Shane Archibold. Meares for being a consumate pro while laying down what may be the best season of her career so far, and Archibold for the Mullet, and killing it in the Omnium which, having only done once at club level, I can attest if F#@cen hard. Also not to be confused with another hero of mine, surfer Shane Archibold, ay Oli?