Bye Lance

[GruB]

So is Contador clean now?  Garzelli?  Nibali?  Cancellara? 

I just don't buy it.

Neither do I, but there is a big difference between 4 and ALL 

[spesh]

The days of cycle racing being an honest route to success for talented, working class Europeans are long gone.

"Honest route to success"? Sorry, but cycling been's riven with cheating of all kinds from the start...

The original point of a bike race was that it should extend beyond the travel distances of ordinary people, from one city to another so far away that it was only known by name.* But Géo Lefèvre's conception of the Tour de France was slightly different - a race so much longer than anything else that nobody else could top it. His boss Henri Desgrange saw the point clearly. He said a perfect Tour would be so hard that only one rider could finish.

It's hardly surprising that drugs became a feature from the start, given the gruelling conditions, the extravagant prizes (riders could win many times a workman's annual salary) and the rider's scant education. As long ago as 1896, "Choppy" Warburton was so strongly implicated in a supposed doping sensation at the Catford track in south London that he was banned for life.

Confused and erratic riding by Jimmy Michael, Britain's first world champion was attributed to the effects of a bottle Warburton had been seen to give him. Warburton had also treated another Welshman, Arthur Linton, in Bordeaux-Paris in May 1896. Linton died two months later and his obituary in Cyclers' News, by 'one who knew him' says "I saw him at Tours, halfway through the race, at midnight, where he came in with glassy eyes and tottering limbs, and in a high state of nervous excitement... At Orléans at five o'clock in the morning, Choppy and I looked after a wreck - a corpse as Choppy called him, yet he had sufficient energy, heart, pluck, call it what you will, to enable him to gain 18 minutes on the last 45 miles of hilly road."

Nobody knows for sure what Warburton gave Linton, but heroin or strychnine were the most popular claims.

Paul Duboc of France was doped/poisoned during the 1911 Tour de France. He was favourite but collapsed in a ditch in the Pyrenees after drinking from a spiked/poisoned bottle, allegedly given by a rival team manager. He finished in second place.

...

In 1924, following their abandon of the Tour de France, the first real drug scandal arose when the Pélissier brothers gave an extraordinary interview to journalist Albert Londres. They said that they used Strychnine, cocaine, chloroform, aspirin, "horse ointment" and others drugs to keep going. The story was published in 'Le Petit Parisien' under the title 'Les Forçats de la Route' ('The Convicts of the Road'). Francis is reported as saying "In short, we run on dynamite." Henri is reported as saying "Do you know how we keep going? Look, this is cocaine, chloroform, too. And pills? You want to see pills? Here are three boxes - We run on dynamite." Francis Pélissier said much later: "Londres was a famous reporter but he didn't know about cycling. We kidded him a bit with our cocaine and our pills."

...

The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.

See List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for more.

Drugs aside the early history of le Tour de France was riddled with skulduggery, with the 1904 Tour resembling Wacky Races on two wheels, prompting Henri Desgrange to announce the end of his race which had been ruined "by the blind emotions" it had aroused.

In 1905, about 125kg of nails were found scattered on Stage 1 between Paris and Nancy. Only one rider avoided a puncture and only 24 of 60 starters reached the finish. It took a strike by the riders to persuade Desgrange not to cancel the race.

In 1906 three riders were disqualified when thay caught a train to Dijon, only to stumble into Tour officals studying a map at the station exit.

In 1938 Georges Speicher, the 1933 winner and world champion was disqualified for hanging on to a car, a trick that goes back to the 1904 Tour.

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. 


(Edited for minor typo.)

[spesh]

Apropos of nothing, the ultra-long audax rides are perhaps the nearest thing we have to what the early editions of the Tour were like, although any instances of "glassy eyes and tottering limbs, and ... a high state of nervous excitement." are more likely to be due to overdoing the expressos in an effort to beat the time limit to the next control.

[GruB]

Apropos of nothing, the ultra-long audax rides are perhaps the nearest thing we have to what the early editions of the Tour were like, although any instances of "glassy eyes and tottering limbs, and ... a high state of nervous excitement." are more likely to be due to overdoing the expressos in an effort to beat the time limit to the next control.

Or the Pro Plus 

[Hot Flatus]

Hamilton Alleges Armstrong EPO Positive Cover-up On 60 Minutes | Cyclingnews.com


Dynamite. Not the doping, but the testimony from the Swiss lab boss.

I'm not that bothered about Armstrong being a doper. It's the corruption within the UCI that really gets my goat.

[giropaul]

Hamilton Alleges Armstrong EPO Positive Cover-up On 60 Minutes | Cyclingnews.com


Dynamite. Not the doping, but the testimony from the Swiss lab boss.

I'm not that bothered about Armstrong being a doper. It's the corruption within the UCI that really gets my goat.

+1

[Hot Flatus]

....but what does get my goat is Armstrong using money and influence. Certainly a corrupting influence.

He's right.. It's not about the bike. It's about money.

[Rhys W]

I've just watched the 60 Minutes programme. It doesn't last a full hour btw, but it's well worth watching. Tyler Hamilton gives a much better account of himself than the trailers suggested.

Linky

[Seineseeker]

True, but what if they are all cheating?

They are, still. 

I don't think that there are many who agree with you on that one.

You think so?

You would only disagree with what Tewdric said if you took it literally. I think there are some clean riders these days. Some in the French teams for sure, ever wondered why France with an enormous cycling culture can barely manage to discover a top 20 rider. Then there are probably some riders on a second chance, like maybe Millar, would he dope after becoming such an advocate against it? I doubt it. The rest, the Italian teams, the Spanish teams, any team with Bruyneel involved. We really don't know anything about Sky, except they are British, so we'll say it's about fair play from our boys, they can't be doped. Like has been said, it's professional sport, success = money, you do what it takes.

I still don't like Hamilton's testimony, it's too late for the truth from him really.

[Tewdric]

Ok I was being silly saying all, but I do believe it's most and will be until the UCI get their act together.  I'm not holding my breath.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

'Most' is accurate enough but probably a little conservative.

[Seineseeker]

'Most' is accurate enough but probably a little conservative.

agreed

[Feline]

A few weeks ago my boss was telling me how Lance was one of her heros, and I expressed the opinion I though he probably wasn't whiter than white on the drugs front. She was truly shocked. Seems I might end up proved right ... and I wish I wasn't 

[simonp]

This, along with Ryan Giggs, was one of the main talking points at work today.  I pointed out that I didn't think Contador was clean either.

[mattc]

A few weeks ago my boss was telling me how Lance was one of her heros, and I expressed the opinion I though he probably wasn't whiter than white on the drugs front. She was truly shocked. Seems I might end up proved right ... and I wish I wasn't 

In a perfect world, none of them would cheat. But if (nearly) all of them were cheating, and had access to pretty much the same stuff, the Armstrong story is still something special. One thing we know for fact is that he has beaten drugs cheats

(Do you think Coppi and Anquetil are undeserving of adulation? )

Actually the "story" would probably read better if he had retired after (say) 5 wins. Like a lot of people at the absolute top of their game, it all rather went to his head later on.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

If the UCI has been as corrupt as reported, Armstrong could dope more than his rivals without being sanctioned (exclusive access to the best doping doctor, knowing when tests were going to happen, knowing what tests were going to occur, positive tests hidden).

Coppi and Anquetil raced for part of their career when doping was not against the rules.  Given that background, their arguing for the continuation of doping when the rules changed is understandable.  Doping has been against the rules since well before the current crop of pros were born and before some of their parents were born.

[mrcharly-YHT]

A 'clean' rider is one taking drugs that haven't been banned yet.

[Exit Stage Left]

My reading of the Lance story is that the UCI accepted that the cancer and treatment had compromised a range of functions, including testosterone and EPO production. He was then given permission to bring these levels up to the optimum. He had the full resources of a major drug company behind him, so that was done very well. There would be resentment of this in the peloton, but it couldn't be articulated because it would look like an attack on innovation in cancer treatment.
The only way that Armstrong could handle this was by adopting the role of a strong 'Patron' and standing with the policy of 'Omerta' within cycling. Because he was legally doping he had to condone doping by everyone else or his position as 'Patron' would have been undermined by a perception of hypocrisy.
Meanwhile he was a beacon of hope for cancer patients and their carers.
I tend to accept all that as a given and focus on his spirit, which was always exemplary in difficult conditions. It was always interesting to see how he manipulated situations so that he had something to push against. It was often the only interesting thing in an era dominated by technical issues.

[Rhys W]

My reading of the Lance story is that the UCI accepted that the cancer and treatment had compromised a range of functions, including testosterone and EPO production. He was then given permission to bring these levels up to the optimum. He had the full resources of a major drug company behind him, so that was done very well. There would be resentment of this in the peloton, but it couldn't be articulated because it would look like an attack on innovation in cancer treatment.

That's an interesting take on it - he says in his book he was prescribed EPO as part of his treatment. But I don't think there's any evidence the UCI "gave permission" for him to continue with this (and testosterone).

[Hot Flatus]

I think ESL just made all that up. There was no TUE for epo use.

[Exit Stage Left]

I think ESL just made all that up. There was no TUE for epo use.

That's my reading, it doesn't make it true, the alternative story is of a cheating Lance with no sense of integrity, however distorted, which I don't like. What happened to Boardman at about the same time as Lance's comeback is another story.

When Chris returned to England in late 1997 he was referred to the head of metabolic bone disease at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital where a scan revealed a density level below normal. Chris was recommended HRT.
'Testosterone supplements were banned in cycling and classed as a performance-enhancing drug,' he says. 'So I applied to the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) in early 1998 to be allowed the therapy on medical grounds, supplying scans to support my case. They said they thought it would be fine, but then Festina happened.'
 'Festina' was the drugs busts during the 1998 Tour de France. French police raided team hotels and confiscated a haul of banned substances, arresting a member of the Festina team. Cyclists pulled out of the race in droves, which that year was dubbed the 'Tour of Shame' .
'The UCI had to tighten up after the scandal and so they denied me permission,' he says. 'I would have to stop my career for the treatment or carry on.


Read more: CHRIS BOARDMAN: I had to give up cycling at 32 because I had the bones of an old woman  | Mail Online

That's in the DailyMail because it fits in well with women's health issues. The Lance story was like that only magnified to a huge scale. Lance and his cancer was so compelling that it distorted the post-Festina landscape.

[JT]

That only makes sense in the context of him having won the TDF.

Prior to his illness he'd won a Tour stage and been world champion, sure, but no one expected him to go on to win 7 straight Tours de France. And before he'd won a Tour he wasn't the inspiration against cancer that he is now for so many people.

[Hot Flatus]

Here's my take on it:

In the 90's the majority of pro riders used PEDs.
Using PEDs was considered normal amongst the riders.
In their parallel moral world, using was not immoral, but talking about it openly, or if busted was. Within this context Lance was the same as everyone.

With his TdF win, Lance was the catalyst for unprecedented amounts of money being brought into the peloton. Many people got richer as a result of this. Getting off that gravy train became harder and harder because so much money was involved. By the early-mid 2000s there was so much money wrapped up in Armstrongs participation, tv rights, commercial sponsorship etc,  that Armstrong and Bruyneel were able to corrupt the UCI, who may have been willing anyway. With every TdF win, Armstrong's house of cards got bigger. Then he retired.  Along the way he starts a cancer charity, because he is a cancer survivor and may well have some sense of altruism, plus it makes for great PR, and adds another floor to his house of cards.  Remember, within the context of pro cycling Armstrong is not any worse than anyone else, in some respects he is a victim of his own success.

In 2006 Landis got busted. Who was Landis anyway?

[Exit Stage Left]

There's also the internal dynamics of the peloton. I found quite a good summation in Fortune of all places, a few errors but interesting.

For the past seven years the peloton's patron (the Italians say capo) has been Lance Armstrong, whose swagger and bluster was backed up by nearly superhuman performance. But it was his searing, even bizarre act of vengeance in the 2004 Tour that best reflects a true patron's power.

With three days to go before his sixth Tour victory, Armstrong had a commanding four-minute overall cumulative lead over the rest of the peloton. Nobody had a hope of making up the gap and beating him.

But at the 32-kilometer mark of the 18th of 21 stages, a little-known rider named Filippo Simeoni left the peloton on an attack. Simeoni was in 114th place and posed zero threat to the man in yellow. Four racers of similarly anonymous stature were out in front, and Simeoni thought he might be able to catch them and even steal a scrap of glory by putting himself in a position to win the stage.

But the moment Simeoni accelerated out from the main peloton, one rider followed on his rear wheel - Armstrong. Within minutes Armstrong and Simeoni were riding with the small breakaway group, which openly asked Armstrong what he was doing there. Why was the man in the yellow jersey, only three days from his record-tying sixth victory, leaving the relative safety of his team and the peloton and risking all just to hang out with...them?

In a word, etiquette.

Armstrong explained (in French and English) as they rode: Simeoni had sinned earlier that year, insinuating to the press that drug use was widespread among professional riders. Forget about whether it was true; Simeoni violated the first rule of the peloton, which is don't bad-mouth your fellow inmates.

So Armstrong had decided to deny Simeoni the glory of a win. If Simeoni refused to abandon his effort to win the Tour's 18th stage, Armstrong would ride with them all the way to the finish. And he would win. If there was silent contemplation of the offer, it didn't last long.

"Get the hell out of here," Spanish rider Juan Antonio Flecha reportedly told Simeoni. And so Simeoni did, coasting back with Armstrong until the peloton caught up.

"I was protecting the interests of the peloton," Armstrong explained later. "All Simeoni wants to do is to destroy cycling...to destroy the sport that pays him. The other riders were very grateful."

Of course, if they weren't, nobody was going to tell Armstrong.

FORTUNE: Pack mentality - Jun.  1, 2006

[Nuncio]

It was a bit more personal than that.  Simeoni had lodged a charge of defamation against Armstrong.  LA had called him a 'liar' when Simeoni's defence against a doping charge included testimony against Dr Ferrari.