Reservations of Relegations and Promotion Pessimism

Recently there was an article written by Al Hinds that compared and contrasted the drama and intrigue of the English Premier League (and lower tiers) to the structure of cycling. It gave readers the highs and lows of the season, revoked memories for those who have followed it; and illustrated the appeal of the game to those who don’t follow it. The basis of this argument was the relegation battle, which (for the teams who survive it) is worth millions of pounds, and a great amount of exposure and prestige; and the comparison to cycling, which has a structure that rewards cash, not results. As an example, Team BMC are assured a WorldTour place, despite one Grand Tour win and zero Monuments. However, BMC have the money. Katusha have the money. Oleg Tinkov has the money for Tinkoff-Saxo (though the Russian economic crisis briefly cast doubt over that); and all of these teams are missing Monuments or Grand Tour victories in the last few seasons. Astana have the money and a WorldTour licence, despite a dubious doping record. Wildcard teams for Grand Tours and Monuments are fairly predictable each year. So went the article. This led me to consider the practical implications of such an idealistic concept.

 

 Firstly, let us assume that each team riding in 2014 (you’ll see why I haven’t used 2015 soon…) is a recognisable brand that has stable, substantial revenue; and brand longevity. Most cycling teams are short-term affairs in terms of world sport (think Milram, Barloworld, Unibet, and so far, Greenedge) when compared to the 100+ year histories of Manchester United, Real Madrid, or even Collingwood and Carlton. The NBA has teams nearly 70 years old. Conversely, cycling’s oldest well-known team structure is the Reynolds team from Spain, created for 1980. You might not recognise the Reynolds name, but they delivered Pedro Delgado and Miguel Indurain to six Tours de France under the name ibanesto; Valverde to a Liege-Bastogne-Liege as Caisse d’Epargne, and more recently Nairo Quintana to a Giro victory as Movistar. Even one of the elder statesmen of teams in Etixx-Quickstep is only 12 years old this year. This is a consequence of the lack of money available in cycling as a world sport when compared to football, or local interest in the NBA or AFL. But, let’s ignore this and assume that each cycling squad is indeed defined as a team that merely has sponsorship, as opposed to a sponsorship defining the existence of a team.

 

 If a relegation/promotion system was in place for the 2015 season, based on the 2014 UCI points rankings, it wouldn’t be a totally different ball game. If the bottom three WorldTour teams were relegated and replaced by the highest-scoring three ProContinental teams, we would have lost Europcar (who are ProContinental anyway due to a lack of financial guarantees), Cannondale (due to Sagan moving away and who have merged anyway; hence my reluctance to assume 2015 teams for my analysis), and FDJ.fr, who delivered a rider onto the podium of the Tour de France and stage wins in the Giro d’Italia (though Bouhanni’s points wouldn’t have counted once he moved to Cofidis). The promoted teams would be Topsport-Vlaanderen (who are focussed on the Flandrian region), Wanty – Groupe Gobert (they almost won Paris-Tours, right?) and Cofidis. While the teams hypothetically relegated haven’t made a massive difference to the 2015 WorldTour; with all due respect, I don’t consider the promoted teams a strong set of additions to a calendar that includes races in Australia and Canada, where interest in Flandrian teams is minimal. The highest-ranked Asian team is Tabriz Petrochemical Team, while MTN-Qhubeka (one of the more exciting ProContintal teams) would have been ranked 42^nd in line for promotion – a reflection on the races contested in the local region more than outright ability. IAM Cycling were fifth on the list, for those wondering. The stacked and prestigious European schedule is perpetuating the balance towards European teams; but the simple fix is to open up points to teams competing in all categories on all continents (so MTN-Qhubeka takes points for Milan-San Remo despite being African-registered, for example). This creates more problems as teams might enter as many races as possible around the world and over-reach their budgets; but does eliminate the bias towards the European teams. This is certainly an issue that would need to be looked at in more detail were such a system implemented.

 

 The loss of points associated with Sagan and Bouhanni from their 2014 teams indicates that a points restructure is needed; however also that for the teams to be sustainable, this restructuring (which is before the UCI now) needs to reward teams for points, not individual riders. The current climate, which has base salaries and endorsements as opposed to criterium and track contracts earning the majority of a rider’s salary; and a rider’s value being judged on points alone does little to warrant loyalty to riders, and subsequently riders to teams. But, can you reward riders who finish 20 minutes back equally to those who win? Should you ignore the domestique’s role in the team? It’s a conundrum.

 

 If a team was promoted, and was afforded a windfall in the same manner as an English football team, it would certainly increase the quality of the racing overall. More money will lead to better riders and a more competitive free agency system than is currently in place. It will become more of a “seller’s market” as opposed to some riders (like Jani Brajkovic or Steele von Hoff) scratching for a ride in the WorldTour. A team gets promoted; they will need riders who have proven themselves at WorldTour level. This will lead to better working conditions for the riders. However, this relies on the cash being in the sport to recruit and pay the riders, and for a team like Topsport to send their riders outside of Flanders and France; and all the way to Canada or Australia. This is a big, big sticking point, and it comes back to the idealism of the concept. If the money was there, the race to sign out-of-contract super-domestiques to be leaders would be aggressive, and I believe that it would incentivise riders to show just how super they can be as domestiques, in the vein (no pun intended) of Roberto Heras or Floyd Landis, who landed contracts to lead their future teams on the back of their performances in service of Lance Armstrong. The doling of money to promoted teams would be the responsibility of the UCI, however I’m not even convinced that any money that the UCI can stockpile should be spent on the elite, so much as the local levels around the world.

 

 Before this is implemented in the WorldTour, the first step is to test it on the Wildcard places for the Grand Tours. This relies on ASO, RCS Sport, or any other promoter agreeing with the UCI, which hasn’t always been the case. RCS already has a spot lined up for the highest-ranked Italian team for the Giro, but it has gone to the same team (the Androni set-up) for the past few seasons. The obvious problem with this is the prestige associated with the biggest races; and the patriotic nature of the organisers, who wish to give French teams a place in French races (which, given the globalisation of the sport is fair enough). And this is where it gets sticky again. The big races were created for publicity. They still exist for publicity. The promoters run the races, the UCI runs the sport. The division of revenue has created political standoffs previously, and for the UCI to fund a system that may remove local teams from their local races will likely cause more disagreements; as well as maybe prompting sponsors to baulk at the prospect of missing their preferred races several times in a multi-year contract. This is certainly another issue that would need examining.

 

 I honestly believe that the promotion/relegation system is a fantastic concept. Honestly, I really do, despite the negativity that I have outlined here. Such a system would create interest at the lower end of the WorldTour, in races such as Paris-Tours or the Tour of Lombardy which have lost some of their appeal in the past decade but are situated at the end of the season; and would be a great stepping stone to a “relegation battle”. It would allow free agent riders to remain at the top level, instead of having so few places for so many riders, which would allow for better sporting contests. I love it as an idealistic concept. (Incidentally, the lack of places for riders won’t get any better if the new reforms come in for 2018, which limits teams to 22 riders instead of 30).

 

 However, the sport needs to change. Firstly, it needs teams to be recognisable brands (and devoted fans who will follow their team, regardless of which division they’re in); which will reduce the exposure and therefore sponsorship value for companies such as Movistar or Cannondale, who have had naming rights. Secondly, it needs money for promoted teams from the UCI to cover the potential shortfalls of getting to races around the globe. This and my previous point seem fairly mutually exclusive, which will be a serious problem that I don’t see being overcome anytime soon. Thirdly, the points system needs a major overhaul. Fortunately, the UCI is in the process of doing this now, and it is up to them to decide which direction the sport is heading in (as an elite set of teams; or a tiered system, which is looking the likely option for 2018). Fourth, the promoters and UCI need to play ball and be on the same page in terms of compromising wildcards on sporting merit and patriotic choices.

 

 So while I love the idea and the concept; maybe it is only appropriate for football. Cycling is still not a mainstream sport for too much of the world; and is not localised enough to cash in on the interest that it has in some areas (for example, Flanders or Brittany). It is in a transition between the two. Maybe one day a viable system will work, but for the moment, I think we should be happy to watch what teams we know have a secure budget competing against each other. The last thing that the sport needs is more elite teams withdrawing due to a lack of guaranteed exposure if a star rider is injured or ill for a big race that would have collected big points.

 

 And cycling itself doesn’t work like football – you can’t practically and economically hold qualifiers for the Tour in the same way UEFA does for the Champion’s League; and different riders target different races, rendering the WorldTour ranking a low priority for many riders and fans. So, a concept with a lot of merit, but one which sadly probably shouldn’t be implemented until the sport has a considerable amount of further money and popularity. Which is truly disappointing, because anyone who disputes the drama of a title or relegation battle need look no further than Manchester City at QPR in 2012. But then again, maybe a stage race unfolds in the same way and cycling fans are treated to several “title races” each year? Promotion system or not, I’ll still be watching.

 

The link to the original Al Hinds article is below:
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/al-hinds/blog/129488/where-results-are-inconsequential-the-uci-worldtour

Reflections on the Australian Summer

2015, and February has rolled around. Which means the “Desert Races” in Qatar, Dubai and Oman; Track Worlds, and the NRS is soon to kick off again. The WorldTour teams have rolled away from Australia, but what conclusions can we draw?

1. Are the women generally more successful than Team Sky?

I could have included Lance in the header for this argument. After all, he did show up to one race a year far better “prepared” than anyone else. That (though without the drugs) is what Team Sky is trying to do now with their classics-specific and altitude training for the Tours, and racing by numbers and with fewer race days in preparation. Pick the targets for the riders throughout the year, boil cycling down to science, and turn up with the guy to beat. Except that so far (two Tour de France titles aside) that hasn’t worked. Zero Giri, zero Vuelta’s, zero Monuments.

Maybe the races aren’t as high profile, but January was an exhibition of ladies who hit their targets. Peta Mullens was selective in picking her Bay Criterium Series races, and walked off with a stage win a day after watching from the sidelines. Her plan was to do just one genuine road race for the year – she won it. Shara Gillow aimed at reclaiming the national TT title, and took it, without having raced the Bay Crits. In the Santos Women’s Tour, none of the stage winners had raced Nationals the week before (Hoskins had trained in Adelaide, while Bronzini and Scandolara were ineligible); while Annette Edmondson took the sprint jersey after her lead-up was in Tasmania, not Ballarat. And then Rachel Neylan took out the Cadel Evans Great Ocean Road Race (CEGORR) without having raced the Santos Women’s Tour. Is the old adage that “racing is the best training for racing” really true? Is it becoming less true? Is it something about the physiology of either recovery or training peaks that sets the women apart?

2. Greenedge’s diversity strategy is working…too well?

Without Simon Gerrans, Orica-Greenedge struggled a bit this summer. It took the class of Cameron Meyer and Caleb Ewan to break the team’s duck at the Herald Sun Tour. This was the first year though, that Matt White hadn’t listed the national road race as a priority (although naturally he still wanted to win it). Greenedge didn’t win it. Greenedge didn’t win a stage at the Tour Down Under (although Daryl Impey took the sprint jersey home), or the CEGORR. Is this a disaster? Should we panic? I’m willing to say no. Losing Gerrans (who hits his targets remarkably well, and who excels on the Ballarat course) was a big blow. Albasini is a similar type of rider to Gerrans; while there is much excitement over Matthews, the Yates twins, Esteban Chaves, and Magnus Cort. None of these riders raced in Australia, or (Albasini excepted) have celebrated a 25^th birthday. I’d expect to see much more of Orica-Greenedge throughout the year, far more than their January suggested. They should continue to be contenders in the Classics, and (right on White’s plan) soon in the Tours. Lacklustre January maybe, but they are still a good team with many more goals than the Australian summer.

3. The NRS is getting better.

My favourite race of the summer was the CEGORR, just pipping the National road race. What were the features? The attacking. Constant attacking. So many attacks. Granted, by the finale of the CEGORR, there were only a few NRS riders left in the second group, but all of the teams represented made their presence felt. The early break featured Budget, African Wildlife Safaris and Charter Mason; while Search2Retain and Avanti were marking the counter-attacks that were launched shortly afterwards. These are all riders who aren’t racing WorldTour or for the National team; yet were still willing and able to take on the bigger names.

Nationals was a little different in the sense that the domestic riders seemed to be attacking to isolate the WorldTour riders (notice I haven’t used the term “teams”) with a genuine view to winning. Upwards of 8 riders against 3 is always favourable; and there was no fear shown by the Australian-registered teams. If the NRS is made up of racing as aggressive as those two races, we’ll be in for a FANTASTIC spectacle. If the riders are as good as their January racing suggested, the future of Australian cycling is still bright. It’s a good time to start having nightly NRS highlights, that’s for sure!

4. Jack and Rohan’s hours

I think everyone feels for Jack Bobridge. His name was on everyone’s lips by the midway point of the Tour Down Under after his performance at Nationals and the stage to Campbelltown; but he fell just short of the Hour Record. His turnaround time might have been a factor, with merely a week between the TDU and his record attempt. By contrast, through January, Dennis just snuck up on everyone, never more so than on his climb to Paracombe, when the riders, spectators and commentators were too busy focussing on Cadel. Dennis then rode masterfully, picking the right wheels from that point on, and not “blowing up” on Willunga Hill in a vain pursuit of Richie Porte. Their January rides were prophetic for their Hour Record attempts. Bobridge went out on the attack straight away and made a phenomenal statement about his ability, before he ultimately faded away; while Dennis rode a supremely controlled TDU and hour with the full background support of Team BMC.

5. Might is right

Once the break of 21 riders went away on Stage 1 of the Herald Sun Tour; the race was reduced to a select few who took time on the rest of the field. With 3 representatives from Orica-Greenedge (the only WorldTour team in the race), 4 from Avanti, and with Budget, Drapac, MTN-Qhubeka and United-Healthcare all represented, the race was never going to come back together. This meant that the suspense was dulled somewhat on the first full day of racing. Naturally, the race still had to be won from there, but with Orica controlling the front for Ewan and Meyer, any other overall winner was going to be a surprise, despite the best efforts of the Avanti Racing Team.

This raises a concern for the Herald Sun Tour. With only one WorldTour team present this year, the race was somewhat strangled. Is the solution to open it up to more WorldTour teams and reduce the number of local teams in the race for the sake of prestige and coverage? Is the solution to block Orica (Australia’s highest-profile team) from competing to allow a better contest that will probably have less public interest? Personally, I’d like to see 3 or 4 WorldTour teams who would make an interesting race, the mix of ProContinental teams such as those who took part this year, and then still have room for the local teams who can do their best to animate the race. Or, limit the number of riders per team. Fewer riders per team makes the race harder to control, after all.

In the Santos Women’s Tour, the control and dominance of Orica-AIS was also notable. Providing 3 stage wins out of 4, the race never really looked out of their control once Scandolara took the leader’s jersey by 6 seconds. This was partly due to the lack of time bonuses in what was a parcours unlikely to splinter the field into groups of 1’s and 2’s at the finish, but partly to the strength of Orica and Wiggle Down Under. The final criterium was nearly a procession as the two international teams organised at the front and strangled the race. This is far less of a concern than the men’s racing due to the inherently limited coverage of women’s racing – any double World Champions should be welcomed to our streets as often as possible!!

 

All of this leads me to be incredibly optimistic for the rest of the season ahead. The women now head to the NRS races (which are generally aggressive) or to Europe to take on Vos, Ferrand-Prevot and co. Orica-Greenedge should be firing again with Gerrans and Albasini in the classics and visible throughout the season. The NRS riders return on March 26 in Perth, with what is sure to be a strong field, new names to watch, and exciting racing. The Hour Record continues to gather momentum, and the anticipation of Wiggins, Martin or Phinney trying to topple Dennis’ mark is mouth-watering. Meanwhile, once the European season starts, so many of the WorldTour teams are strong that we probably won’t see too many races under total control. 2015 is going to be a good year of cycling, I can’t wait!!

If I Were a Team UniSA-Australia 2015 Selector....

Well, the Road Nationals have been completed for another year. And I couldn't be happier about the results. Steele von Hoff, Peta Mullens, Heinrich Haussler; they are all extremely nice people whose road careers have had their setbacks. The green and gold jerseys are a wonderful result for all of them, and hopefully will lead to greater opportunities on the road.

 

Steele von Hoff atop the Criterium National Championships podium
Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6vXX5GCMAAyHpr.jpg:large

 

The attention of the Australian cycling fan now turns to the Tour Down Under though. One of the biggest questions for me is the composition of the UniSA-Australia team. Previous riders have included Allan Davis, Michael Rogers, Pat Jonker, and more recently, Rohan Dennis and Caleb Ewan. The opportunities are there for riders to get results and be noticed. The team is usually geared towards young riders gaining exposure to the WorldTour level, but in the case of Davis in 2008 (who finished second overall after entering the last stage looking for time bonuses), also for a rider without a WorldTour ride to remind everyone that they can contend at the highest level. So, who would I select, and why?

 

First name on my team list is Steele von Hoff. Fresh from winning the national criterium championship, and riding this year for British squad NFTO; this is a guy who can handle his bike, beat riders in form in a power sprint, and hold his own on short climbs (having led the bunch home in the road race). Plus, there is the added value of WorldTour experience (the Garmin set-up), which means that he can hold his own against the top guys, and will probably help the younger guys on their learning curve.

 

The second thing I would do would be to call Jack Bobridge and offer him a ride. He may turn it down due to his impending Hour Record attempt and any preparation specific to that; but I would make the call nonetheless. Bobridge is another rider in form, who finished third in the time trial at Nationals, and was a big player in the road race; also with WorldTour experience. Added to all of that, he will gain phenomenal support from the home crowd, and would most likely love racing in his home city again.

 

Those are my two big names, and I'll leave space for 5 National Road Series riders. First of them is definitely Jack Haig. The Victorian has signed a pre-contract with Orica-Greenedge, and will join them in 2016. As the defending Young Rider classification winner from 2014, he should warrant selection on that basis alone. Added to that though, Haig has plenty of results at NRS level, and despite not placing highly, rode well as a marked man in the national Under-23 road race. A good climber and (judging by his 2014 TDU result) a savvy tactician, he has to be a good chance to repeat his Young Rider victory.

 

Neil van der Ploeg is another name that was on the UniSA roster last year, and I would invite him back this year. A good lead-out man or a good sprinter in his own right, as third in the national road race indicates. Van der Ploeg didn't pick up a result at the TDU last year, but with a year's extra experience and coming into form nicely, I would certainly include him in my team.

 

Next on my team sheet would be Miles Scotson, based mostly on his National Championships performance. A track national and world champion, he is a rider who dominated both the road race and time trial at under-23 level last week. A strong rider, and another who will love riding in front of home crowds. I would task him with being present in breakaways, with a view to the King of the Mountains title, if such an opportunity presented itself. Otherwise, his week would be comparing himself  to the best, and developing as a cyclist. It would be a big step, but I believe this is a young rider who can make that jump.

 

The last two riders (tasked with attacking, attacking, and attacking some more) are Ben Hill and Cameron Bayly. These two lit up the national criterium championships with their daring breakaway that came within half a lap of succeeding. Hill attacked, Bayly bridged, and no lesser name than Michael Rogers eventually came across to help them. Hill is coming back from a doping suspension that ended in October, after a mix-up regarding a product given to him by a team-mate; and has started his return to racing very aggressively, taking two stages on his way to 8th overall at the Tour of Southland late in 2014, and being omni-present in the Bay Cycling Classic races, as well as the national criterium championship.

 

Bayly is (another!) local South Aussie who has raced at Continental level, and would relish the opportunity to ride hard against the best in the world in front of home fans. This may come as a surprise selection; because he skipped the Bay Cycling Classic and the national time trial, and didn't show himself in the national road race, and therefore hasn't been in public consciousness. However, 14th place, climbing with the Evans and Porte group - along with his attack in the crits - shows that he is a rider who is coming into form nicely, and is my dark horse to infiltrate breaks.

 

I believe this team is a combination of youth and experience, and full of riders who will be hungry to show that they can compete with the best. This group would be present in the breaks (Scotson, Hill and Bayly), contesting the sprints (van der Ploeg and von Hoff), contending the Young Rider classification (Haig, maybe Scotson), and potentially challenging for the General Classification (Bobridge). Added to their varied skills, this is a group of riders who have been both leaders and workhorses for their teams, and therefore should be happy to ride for each other, which in turn should form a happy, cohesive, aggressive and under-rated team. The epitome of the traditional character of the UniSA-Australia team.

The Astana Inevitability

Recently, several Kazakh riders on Astana and “Astana 2” (Nibali’s words) have tested positive. Disappointing, yes. Surprising? Yes, until I thought about it.

Again, a brief (and selective) history of the last 2 decades of cycling. In July 1998, the Festina Affair caught international headlines, when team soigneur Willy Voet was caught with a supply of drugs plentiful enough to dope each rider several times over, for each day of the Tour de France. The French criminalized performance enhancing drug (PED) taking, and we’ve heard only scattered and isolated doping cases out of France since (the highest-profile case I can recall recently was Yoann Offredo, who forgot to fill in his whereabouts forms). 2006 marked the next big scandal, with Operacion Puerto in Spain. Next up is 2007, and the Michael Rasmussen and Rabobank saga, which took until 2010 to fully eke out. Then, in 2008, Schumacher, Kohl and Rebellin from the German Gerolsteiner team were found to have EPO-CERA in their systems. 2012 was the year that the Russian Katusha team were denied a WorldTour place on “ethical” grounds. One feels that Denis Galimzyanov’s positive certainly had an impact on this. In May 2013, the Italian team Vini Fantini had two positives and were excluded from the Giro. However, as in incredibly general rule, we've heard fewer and fewer positives coming from these countries after these incidents.

Richard Virenque is among the Festina riders answering tricky questions in 1998

Image: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01465/Richard_Virenque_1465136i.jpg

So, viewing these incidents in a geographic sense of the continental mainland; I've ordered them as starting in France, in the West of Europe, heading to Spain, Denmark and Holland, Germany, Russia, and Italy. In other words, the doping scandals are heading east. The next major stop in cycling on that tour was going to be Kazakhstan. Hopefully, this Astana affair will draw a line under Kazakh riders, and this will be the last doping controversy that we hear from them.

Maxim Iglinskiy winning Liege-Bastogne-Liege

Image: http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/04/22/1335127630093-1ntsllx61u13s-700-80.jpg

Which leaves everything in a happy place, right? Erm, maybe not. If this trend continues, we still have to work through scandals in the Middle East and Asia. I hope I’m wrong, but based on an article written by Andrew Christie-Johnson last year, and a first-hand account suggest that teams can sidestep doping controls, or otherwise still manipulate them. This probably has a lot more freedom in the lower continental ranks than the elite echelon. But when the professionalism of the testers catches up with the riders, and if the market in Asia explodes with professional teams; we might not be out of the woods for doping scandals for years to come.

I just hope I’m wrong.

Why Lance is an Unlucky Loser

Several months ago, a poll was conducted of retired cyclists, which was then opened to the public on the SBS Cycling Central website. It asked whether Lance Armstrong should keep his titles from the Tour de France. Reading some of the comments led me to put my own thoughts out on the matter; in a more constructed way than a short rant on a comment thread, and in such a way that might help others to resolve any internal conflict.

Firstly (and bear with me here…), a short history of the Tour is important to put the events of the past 20 years into perspective. The Tour started in 1903, as a race that was barely more structured than designating start and end points, in cities several hundred kilometres away from each other. In the second edition, unsurprisingly for a race as unstructured as it appeared to be; several riders caught the train or travelled in a car. Six months later (apparently the wheels of justice still turned as quickly then as now) the first four riders were disqualified. The race survived the too-partisan fans disrupting riders and the disqualifications, and continued for a third year. Shortly afterwards, the publicity caravan was invented, mountains were added, trade teams took over from national teams, national teams took over from trade teams, Tom Simpson died in 1967, trade teams came back, the Champs Elysees became the finishing point; and the Tour as we know it now continued to grow and develop into the spectacle and the brand that it is today.

However, in 2007, when Floyd Landis was denying his wrongdoing from 2006, Vinokourov tested positive and Rasmussen was booted, the public and peloton could barely believe what was unfolding in one of the sport’s darkest moments. I believe that Landis (from 2006, 102 years and 90-or-so Tours later) was the first rider since Maurice Garin in 1904 to have his title taken away from him. Since that day in late 2007 when it was announced officially, Alberto Contador (2010) and Lance Armstrong (1999 – 2005) have also had their titles annulled. Which means that for the last 16 final presentations, only 7 were for the rider who is still considered to be the Tour winner.

Floyd Landis atop the Champs Elysees podium, July 2006

Image credit: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/24/tourfloydlandis_gallery__428x400,0.jpg

If we look back through the history of the sport, I believe that Pantani (who died of a drug overdose at the height of the doping war), Riis (admitted), Ullrich (on Riis’ T-Mobile team and with a dubious record), Coppi (who practically admitted to taking amphetamines), Anquetil (who did admit to taking amphetamines), Pelissier (who showed a journalist some pills mid-race), Merckx (probably, he did fail a drug test, admittedly with a significant grey area), among many others, may have won the Tour de France while chemically or medically assisted. That is a thoroughly non-exhaustive list, and I apologise that I have singled out certain riders. But I have listed at least 16 Tour wins, potentially achieved on drugs. Stripping names like Coppi, Anquetil or Merckx from the winners list, or investigating everyone else who has won the Tour is to my mind a waste of time, and is seriously degrading to the sport I love. I’m not condoning cheating, but to me, the punishments should be consistent throughout history.

My above statement about consistently punishing riders who cheat opens a can of worms though. Do we erase the majority of the Tour’s (and cycling’s) record books, while digging up oh so many skeletons? I don’t think that’s a good option for the sport. Do we reward Lance Armstrong for “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme” the world has ever seen? Again, I don’t think that’s a good option. We, as fans, are faced with the choice that essentially boils down to the simple questions: “How OK are you with doping?” and “How long should you take to forgive and forget?” with the equally subjective question “Does sport exist for entertainment?” Or have the answers to those questions changed over time?

I’m inclined to say that the answers have changed. We’ll start with the third, and possibly easiest issue of entertainment. The stars of the past (I’ve read mostly about the 1950’s and 1960’s) earned most of their money through appearance fees at criteriums, traditionally held just after the Tour de France. Sandrino Carrea (a team-mate of Coppi) attributes the house that he bought to the single day in yellow that he earnt. This is part of the prestige of stage wins or a stint in yellow at the Tour, because such a feat would get the rider’s name in the newspaper and into public consciousness. In August, the public would pay to see the big names race…for ENTERTAINMENT. The races were (and probably still are) rigged in favour of rider popularity. However, in the current climate, the appearance fees at criteriums would be simply a footnote on the earnings of a top professional, who exists to win races, in COMPETITION. All of which means that maybe the race that was started to entertain and subsequently sell newspapers, has morphed into a race which is all about results. I highly doubt that any rider has ever raced the Tour according to a publicity script, but many of the riders knew that they had to be popular in order to earn a decent living, whereas today, results dictate a rider’s value. So yes, I believe that the integrity of a clean race has increased, as the need for popularity stemming from the Tour has decreased.

Has the view on taking drugs changed over time? Again, I believe so. Cheating/doping within the peloton was far more accepted, even in the early 2000’s if David Millar’s book is to be believed. It was nearly accepted practice in the 1960’s and 1970’s if my research is correct, and testing wasn’t introduced until the late sixties. Before the Second World War, I get the impression that it was carte blanche for drugs, with no testing, no constant suspicion and no significant performance gains. Gastone Nencini (the 1960 Tour winner) was reportedly found by Dr Pierre Dumas (the Tour doctor) smoking a cigarette, with drips in his arms, mid-Tour; although in an age where blood transfusions were not banned. Eddy Merckx had a failed drugs test for a substance that was rescinded from the banned list. The penalty for failed tests has been increased. The testing has been increased, but I feel that the biggest change has been the performance advantage that can be gained. EPO supposedly adds 10% to a rider’s “engine”. Blood transfusions can add 9%. Testosterone, growth hormone, and any number of other drugs can all add up to make a difference significant enough to physically alter a human’s capacity to ride a bike quickly, as opposed to an amphetamine, which really only improves a mental state.

This has left still more questions to be answered, and I’ll leave each one to you. Personally, my answer to the “Am I OK with doping” question is not clear-cut. Where do I draw the line? Are bananas OK? Is commercially available artificial protein powder OK? Well, yes, even though both improve performances. Is a mind-altering substance OK? From a safety point of view, no. Is a 3% gain from a doping product OK? No. Is up to 15% from various drugs OK? Absolutely not. Is it OK to dope if there is no way of being caught? Well, how much does winning matter? How long is a piece of string? I can’t answer that one for you. And I certainly can’t answer how long it should take to forgive and forget any previous indiscretions concerning drug-taking in sport. But for what my opinion is worth, catching Landis, Vinokourov, and Contador with in-competition tests is enough to take results away. Taking 7 years to catch Lance, well, I’m remembering Lance’s phrase “witch-hunt.” Yes, I believe that he can feel aggrieved to have lost his Tours, but (hopefully) the late 90’s was the beginning of the end of the end for drugs dictating the results of the sport. In that sense, I’m glad that the sport has marked a turning point. For Lance, he’s unfortunate that the turning point fell in those seven years.