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
FACEPALM Matt Archibold is the surfer, Shane is the track cyclist.
I've always thought Tyler was a cool bike racer. A little scrappy, rode with panache, the loyal lieutenant-turned leader who gets a shot and lays it all out on the road only to be hosed by circumstance. I was enthralled by his 60 min. interview and applaud him for coming clean, as it were.
And isn't that what it comes down too? We like the riders whose personalities, racing, and riding styles we like and deride the riders we don't. That's what we're rooting for, style. And lord knows we can't agree upon that. In that respect, pro-cycling is no different than professional wrestling. They all dope to win and we are drawn to certain personalities. Shit, cycling is even fixed sometimes.
So at the end of the day, for me, pro cycling is all about banter, drama, some cool scenery, nostalgia and the camaraderie it holds with you fucks. But do I get inspired by those assholes? Somewhat. I really dig the bikes and places they ride but that's about as far as it goes as they're not my peers.
What does inspire me on rides? At the risk of sounding trite, it's knowing there's a bunch of other OCD dickheads (read Velominati) out there in all corners of the globe doing the same thing I'm doing. Trying to have fun, stay fit, talk shit, obsess, and balance cycling with life and knowing all the while that cycling is life.
And that's all Tyler, Floyd, LA, Bertie, Uli, et. al. are doing, they're just doing it at another level and the steaks (see what I did there?) are higher.
It's ARCHBOLD, by the way, not Archibold. ;-)
@sgt
Agreed. I was going to basically make the same points, but you got to it first and probably said it better than I could. It's frustrating, but unless the sponsors and governing body actually want to do something about it, nothing at all will happen.
So I'll just leave this photo instead.
This Guy. On the left.
http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Myron+Simpson/Shane+Archbold
Thanks for your words Frank, they echo my feelings. Its always disappointing because it affects us,the 5th circle, in OUR sport. As fans we're always considered last and doping eats away at fandom.
Really great thoughts from everyone. What a cool group all y'all are. I feel better already.
We're not going to solve doping. It's fucked, and it's here. I've been back and forth around the block a thousand times about whether I care, whether it should be legalized, whether it's safer, whether it's shit. And the fact is, it's all those things. The reason it matters, though - the reason why it matters that they dope is, in my best estimation, for the simple reason that they lie about it. It's not the boosted performance, it's not the safety. It's not the acceptability of a method. It's the lying.
I also spend a lot of time thinking about the psychology of the riders doing the doping. They get into this mindset where it's so commonplace that if they don't consider it cheating so long as they pass the tests. It's a twisted mindset, but the fact is they still see fit to lie, so it's hard for me to believe that version of the story.
At the end of the day, some of my favorite races were during the most drugged-up years. The racing was spectacular, and you can't dope on The V. You have it or you don't, and drugs or not, when they're blowing snot bubbles and drooling on their thighs going up some mountain, that's just good bike racing.
I'd rather they didn't dope. But it's OK with me if they dope. I just don't like the lies, and I feel bad for the clean riders who don't stand a chance because of the dopers.
As for COTHO, I don't care for him and don't care what they do; he was fully aware of his actions and he'll suffer the consequences. That's life. What I feel awful about - AWFUL - is people struggling with cancer who hold his story as a beacon of hope. And the fact of the matter is, he did fucking survive cancer. It was in his brain. And he beat it. That's the amazing story and his riding didn't have anything to do with it. But the patients won't see it that way and that breaks my heart.
@Oli
Very well said - and as much as Merckx is the Prophet, I wouldn't have been a fan of his if I was alive during his domination. From where I'm sitting now, though, they were great wins.
I did hate Indurain, and was a major fan of Bugno, Chiapuccci, Rominger all for that same reason.
@ChrisO
You bring up good points - difficult points. But as for the doping of the past - and this has been echoed already by some - but the drugs since EPO are very different from those being used back then. In the 60's, 70's, 80's, they were using amphetamines to get a little boost - little more than some motivation in syringe form. Or some steroids in the off-season to build up some muscle. Cheating, yes, but the fact during those eras was that the champions were champions, and the domestiques were domestiques. They were different caliber's of rider, and the drugs could not make one into the other.
With EPO and blood doping, suddenly we saw riders who normally spent their days in the laughing group winning mountain stages. Donkeys into thoroughbreds, as they say. Completely different matter, and it added considerably to the temptation for riders to join in. Suddenly some guy around whom you could ride circles is dropping you on a flat stretch of road and you say to yourself, "This is wrong, what's going on here."
There's a great story in Fignon's book about this; he's riding along in the bunch, about midway through a race. All of the sudden, the bunch is stretched out. There's no sprint coming, nothing. Everyone's just going a bloc for no reason. So Fignon fights up to the front to see what's happening and there's this domestique sitting on the front, on the tops of the bars, with his arms straight, like it's a Sunday afternoon, going along at 50kph. That's what those drugs did to the riders.
@Dan O
Really well said, Dan - I was thinking about that as well. Our sport is different in that we're all cyclists - very few people follow the sport who aren't cyclists. And that's cool.
@all - always good to be reading the "IMO's". A healthy debate is good for the mind.
Great sentiment frank.
What underpins the piece for me and some of the comments made I think, is disappointment. We want and expect these people to be worthy of the mantle we place them on, but do we place too high an expectation on them, be that the public or the sponsors? I would argue yes.
At the end of the day they're human, open, like you and me to the foibles we all inherently possess. Some are able to overcome/ignore, others will comply and/or fall victim to their weaknesses.
Do I care whether they're doping or not? Nah, not really. Do I need them to be grilled (see what I did there?) over their failings? Only if it is of benefit to the sport rather than the indivdual. If one had the integrity in the first place, then one would question those choices previously made by the individual and then needing to redeem themself later on, me thinks.
Am I disappointed? Yes. Am I surprised by any of these so called relevations? Not at all. Am I over it? Bloody oath.
+1. that sums it up for me.
My only other comment re: Tyler Hamilton - wasn't he pretty much responsible for the compact crank's popularity?