Today’s canine intervention on the Tour (the one that brough Gilbert and Menchov down), had me thinking of other four-legged interlopers. I came across this little gem from Criterium International in 1997.
And since Gilbert did look like he wanted to take a swipe at the owner, it made me wonder what the action might have looked like – something like this, maybe?
Anyhow, congrats to Cav, it was a great stage win!
It’s been a while, but it’s time to get posting again. And since I’ve been enjoying it royally, the Tour de France is the perfect place to start. Some observations just past the half-way point:
It’s not the best year to ride for Garmin
It’s been the Tour de Tarmac so far, with a large number of crashes in the opening week, some of them for seemingly no good reason at all. Not only has there been a large number of casualties, however, but Garmin really did pull the shortest straw. Practically the entire team went down in the mass pile-up on the first Friday, and the team is all but decimated, along with their ambitions. It’s hard not to feel sorry for them.
Having a lead-out train is useful
Being the world’s best sprinter will win you things, but having a world-class lead-out train will ensure you win even more. That would be the lesson for Mark Cavendish, who must wonder if he made the right team choice. With only one designated helper, his stage win was hugely impressive, but he has hardly had the best tour so far. Two crashes and a lack of support has cost him the opportunity to contest stages, and the green jersey is cycling on, out of sight.
It’s possibly not the best year to ride for Sky either, unless you’re Bradley Wiggins.
The walking wounded
No matter how exciting the Tour, what always impresses me the most is the heroics of the riders who press on with dislocated shoulders (Tom Danielson), horrific abrasions (Johan Van Summeren) or stomach viruses (Marcel Kittel). Tony Martin managed a week with a broken wrist. A ruptured spleen and kidney, bruised legs and three broken ribs didn’t stop Woet Poels from carrying on, and it took him ten kilometres to see sense.
Every year there are riders who carry on with injuries most people would see as a marvellous excuse to take a month or three off work. Even if they don’t finish the race, as is the case with all of the above, they still soldier on for longer than any normal person would even dream of. It makes me wonder what cyclists must think of footballers…
Not everyone has pulled out because of injuries, however, which leads us on to:
Drugs
Obviously. It wouldn’t be the Tour if someone didn’t get caught or arrested, thus giving ammunition to cycling’s naysayers. Remy di Gregorio, of Cofidis, is the latest addition to the shame sheet, or at least for now – the larger story is brewing in the background, but I think I will leave that for a longer blog post…
But Wiggo still has a point
Good old Wiggo got rather worked up when someone raised the D word in a press conference the other day, and opined that internet trolls should pipe down and get a life, or something to that effect.
He has a point. Cycling certainly still has its drug issues, but it is also spending a lot of time, energy and money on cleaning up the sport. To accuse all good riders of being drugged up is a bit unwarranted, not to say unfounded, and rather takes the credibility out of the criticism. Even cyclists should be considered innocent till proven guilty.
Besides, being an optimist makes for more pleasant viewing, and people who spew vitriol online behind the protection of pseudonyms are amongst my pet hates anyway. Go Wiggo!
Though please have an off day, Wiggo!
Or somebody else have a particularly good day – much as I want a British winner, some excitement along the way would be nice.
Lastly, thanks to @FrankVanGool for the kick up the backside:) More frequent posting to resume.
Something that goes by the name of Clenbuterol, that is. Alberto Contador, three times winner of the Tour de France, tested positive for the substance on Aug 24th, and has been given a one year ban as a result. He may also find that he is, in fact, only a two times winner of the Tour de France.
This case has quite some way to go yet, of course, and the one year ban is only provisional for the time being. Fellow blogger Tim has done an excellent job of summarising the many twists and turns of the story over on his blog, so I shall leave the facts and figures alone, and limit myself to giving my thoughts on the affair.
One year?
Whilst there is precedent for a one year ban, and whilst I don’t want to deprive a man of his livelihood, nor a sport of one of its best athletes, one year is hardly much of a deterrent for young riders. There are always two purposes to a punishment, after all – to punish the perpetrator and to discourage others.
There are plenty of hard-liners who call for a life-time ban on drug cheats in order to scare the rest into staying clean. I think that is too extreme, but I do feel there needs to be a minimum ban period, and it ought to be a prohibitive length of time.
No matter which way you twist this, an illegal substance was found in Contador’s blood, which he has not been able to account for – he is either found guilty, in which case I think two years, if not more, ought to be the absolute minimum, or else he is innocent. Something about the current ban smacks of ‘we’re not sure, so we’re opting for a half-way measure’.
A two-year suspension would incidentally hurt his pocket as well, as he would then be forced to return 70% of his 2010 salary. A one-year ban incurs no financial sanction.
The damage to cycling
Contador is one of the leading lights of the pro cycling world, so this affair will no doubt further tarnish the sport’s already battered image. The UCI haven’t covered themselves in glory with the way they’ve handled it so far, either.
Damaging as it is, however, it doesn’t compare to the scandals of old, such as the Festina affair, for example. This is not a case of systematic doping by a team, nor evidence of endemic use and acceptance within the sport, which was the conclusion reached by many during the scandal-ridden 90’s.
To my mind, the UCI are showing a willingness to deal with doping issues, which wasn’t there before. The reputation of the sport is more dependent on the UCI’s handling of doping, I think, than on any one rider. Sad as the whole affair is, I see overall signs of progress, even if we have a long way to go yet.
There is one rider whose innocence cycling’s reputation does depend upon, however – Lance Armstrong. The investigation into doping within his US Postal Team is still ongoing, but we will have forgotten all about Contador by the end of the year if he is found guilty.
First Andy Schleck and Stuart O’Grady are thrown out of the Vuelta, thus providing an ill-tempered ending their Saxo Bank careers, in an alcohol-induced fog (the size of which is still disputed – two beers and an early’ish night, or a late, boozy session on town?), then Fabian Cancellara follows suit by simply climbing off his bike and heading off to the airport without further ado or further comment. He will now be leaving Saxo Bank too, despite the sizeable fee apparently required to buy him out of his contract.
That communication and good relations broke down in Saxo Bank some time ago is nothing new, so it is perhaps not that surprising that the end is turning out to be acrimonious for some of the riders, but I’m still staggered by the lack of professionalism, if these reports are to be believed. These riders didn’t just have a responsibility towards Saxo Bank and Bjarne Riis, after all, but also to their team mates. All three are still under contract, and no matter how near the end might be, they should honour their obligations and act accordingly.
It also puts me in mind of Schleck and Contador’s incident in the Tour de France, in which Contador was lambasted for not playing the gentleman and waiting when Schleck’s chain fell off. Schleck’s Vuelta episode was off the bike rather than on it, and in breach of team orders rather than the moral code of the road, but it still speaks of lack of respect. Regardless of intentions, alcohol quantity and eventual bed-time, it was an unprofessional and selfish thing to do. We’d have been unsurprised had he been a footballer, perhaps, but most people expect better from cyclists.
What I would like to know is what Frank Schleck thinks of all this. All the above were his helpers in the race, in which he eventually finished 5th, 4’43” behind winner Vincenzo Nibali. His relationship with brother Andy is famously close, and his comments about the incident were magnanimous enough, but a climber of Andy’s abilities would have been rather handy to have around, you’d have thought.
Cancellara is a different issue, and it’s not yet clear whether he will follow the Schlecks to the new Luxembourg team, or somewhere else, perhaps BMC Racing. His abrupt departure came as a surprise to Riis and Bradley McGee, Saxo Bank’s Director Sportif, with whom he’d had an altogether different agreement.
Cancellara took a surprising third during the time trial in the Vuelta, and his exit might be motivated by a desire to be fit for the World Championships, which he’s said he will only participate in if he feels fit, as he has ‘a status I need to honour’. I take that to mean he is only interested in riding if he can win, which sounds a wee bit cowardly.
All in all, I’d say none of these riders came out of the Vuelta with much dignity.
