Bjarne Riis: Man with a Plan

LLB and I were discussing the cycling, and the Contador case, over a candle-lit dinner (belated St Valentine's Day) last night, while sipping our bubbley wine and - oh, whoops, were we supposed to be whispering sweet nothings to each other?  Drat, we never get this romance thing right....

Anyway, LLB and I were discussing the case, and the implications for Bjarne and the SaxoBank boys.

Of course, he doesn't particularly care about SaxoBank, and I must admit that I'm a little confused as to why I - and all us Schlecklanders - are so loyal to what is now, after all, "two teams ago"... but there you go, we all think that it's wrong for SaxoBank to suffer because of what Contador did (accidentally) when he rode for Astana.

We were discussing the possibility of SaxoBank being demoted to Pro-Continental this early in the season, and of course we both agree that they don't stand a chance of being selected as a ProTeam next year, what with their main points-winner out of the running until August, and even then, not allowed to gain points for the team for a further two years.

"Are you mad, Bjarne?" is the phrase that comes to mind: I mean, loyalty is all well and good, and Bjarne has been staggeringly loyal to Contador:  way, way above and beyond the call of duty. I can't help feeling that many teams would have given a rider the shove the very minute that he'd proved positive for doping, whatever the reason or background. But Bjarne has stood firm, and has already said that Contador will be welcome back on August 5th with a new contract.

Interestingly,  Contador himself phrased it as though he might, as a special favour, go back to Saxo, whereas you would expect him to be grovellingly grateful, wouldn't you? I can't find the news report that I am referring to - isn't that always the way, and of course it may well have lost something in the translation, but it certainly sounded as though Contador "would consider" rejoining SaxoBank later in the year.

Leaving that aside, maybe Bjarne isn't as bonkers as we thought.

OK, so SaxoBlank are unceremoniously thrown out of the Pro-Team league, and have to languish in Pro-continental for at least one year, if not two, as Contador can't earn points for them, and he is - let's face it - their main points earner. In fact, as an aside (cries of "What! Another aside?" from all around), how are they doing in the league so far this year, I wonder. Shall we take a look?

Oh look, how pleasing, RadioShack are top of the league, heh heh heh, and hey Leelu, look at GreenEdge, there in third place, fantastic! What a great start to the new team for them.  And Sky, my second team (*waves Union Jack flag* ) (Actually, I have to *pretend* to wave it, as I still, to my eternal embarrassment, don't have a Union Jack. Well, only on my waste bin, and it would be positively dangerous to wave a metal waste bin around, wouldn't it?) are in there at 4th position.  Yay!

And where are SaxoBank? Nowhere to be seen. Oh dear. I rest my case.

Actually, *looks furtively over shoulder*, nor have BMC, so perhaps we shouldn't read too much into that...

So what point am I eventually going to make? Right, what happens if Saxo are sent down from the ProTeam league this year, and kept down for at least next year?

Well, they don't get automatic invites to the ProTeam races, and we all assume that this is going to be disastrous.

But it might not be....

Think about it: Contador can't win UCI points for them. But if they accept being ProContinental for a couple of years, it won't matter.

They won't get automatic invites: true, but that does mean that they no longer HAVE to attend all the UCI races, they can pick and choose among the smaller ones, and let's face it, what race organiser is going to turn down the chance to get Contador in their race? I imagine they will be top of the wild-card list.

So they pick the races they want, Contador will definitely be invited to go to the Vuelta, almost definitely the Giro, and very very likely to the Tour: he can still win things, they go on his palmares: he gets prize money for the team, they just don't get UCI points.

AND, final and compelling argument, it's a lot cheaper to run a Pro-Continental team than it is to run a ProTeam. SaxoBank are having sponsor problems, and what better to please the sponsor than to reduce running costs, yet still get invites to all the big races, and get tons and tons of publicity, all the way. After all, the cycling press are going to be counting down the minutes until Contador can score points again, they will no doubt be constantly calculating how many points he "would" have won, and where he "would" be sitting in the rankings - it's all publicity.

In fact, if it comes to publicity, maybe this is what Saxo Bank (the Bank) wanted:  the case has made main news now,  they've got their name out way, way beyond the cycling world. Perhaps that's why they've changed their mind about withdrawing their sponsorship?  Mind you, I'm sure I am not the only one taking all this "we will support Contador right through the ban" stuff with a large pinch of salt, as we have rather heard that sort of thing before, Mr Becca, I am looking at you *death-ray eyes*.

So there you have it, the Schleckland Theory Of The Day: Bjarne Riis is not bonkers, after all!

Mr Bruyneel seeks Fortune-Teller.

Well, we've all speculated and worried about the lengths that Mr Bruyneel will go to, in order to get his "string" of riders to win races.

(NB for non-UK readers, race-horse trainers refer to their collection of animals as a "string" so that remark was a cheap insult, insinuating that Mr B treats riders like horses. IE breaks them far too young, flogs them to death for a couple of years then throws them out to the cat-meat factory. Let's hope not, eh?)

We have discussed the "special wind-tunnel testing" that was reputed to be responsible for improving Time Trialling out of all recognition: we even had some Schpleculation as to what it would actually entail...

...but now the truth is out, Mr B is looking at mystics and fortune-tellers. Madame Zebelda and her gypsy earrings will be sitting in the back of the RadioShack bus,  reading palms and making dramatic announcements.

What am I talking about?

This:

Read what it says under the photo:

"Johan Bruyneel will attempt to work the oracle with Andy Schleck in 2012."

"Oracle"?

Do you think they meant to say "Miracle" by any chance?

Honestly, how many times have I offered my proof-reading skills to these people, in return for promotional items or possibly a ride on the camera bike? And do they take me up on it? No, they do not. *sighs*

UCI points - time for a redesign

Now, this is an issue that I raised here months ago: the new UCI system (well, new a year ago) means that points are essential for a team to make the Pro Team  or top league.

Not enough points = relegation to second league, or Pro-Continental.

This put added spice into the end-of-season the-music-has-changed-all-move-round-one-team dance as well, as the lower teams were frantically having to buy in riders who had managed to acquire points, to ensure that the team would get Pro-Team status again.

The unfairness of this was apparent - to me, at least - late in 2010, when I commented that it would mean an end to the days of letting a Domestique have their day and win a stage, as points would be congregated in fewer riders, in order to get fewer riders higher up the league table.

It also discriminates against all the Domestiques, as they work their tails off and get no points at all. So they have to rely on team managers observing them through the season in order to assign a fair value to them when it comes to salaries and new contracts.

And now that poor old Contador has finally, finally been given the chop (no, not from Saxo) all his points will be re-distributed to everyone who finished below him. OK for this year - not that much has happened yet - but how unfair is this for last year? All those riders who would have been worth more? Not to mention Saxo as a team: they all worked to get Conti the wins, yet they've now lost all those points, and there is a very real chance that they will be relegated to second division, which is utterly, utterly unfair when you think that Contador was riding for Astana at the time of the offence..

So I think it's time to rejig the points system a little.

For a start, all points won need to be shared between the members of a team.

It's up to the UCI to adjust the total to make easily-divided numbers, but as a rough cut, here is my suggestion.

As an example, the Tour de France stage win gets 20 points. So the rider who won the stage gets 12, and the other 8 team members get a point each.

The Tour de France overall winner gets 200  points, so that rider should get, say, 120 of them, the rest of the team getting 10 points each.

This way, the total number of points remains with the teams and contributes to the Team rankings, and to the overall team classification within each race, with no change. But it distributes those points among the entire team.

The individual riders' rankings won't be affected: the overall scores won't be as high, and the differences might be closer, but it will still remain that the rider who wins most has the highest ranking.

And of course if a team-mate comes second or third, then those points get shared out among the team as well.

I'm not sure about sprint and KOM classifications: should all those point remain with the rider? Well, maybe no: even on climbs and sprints, other team members are expected to help, not just the relevant lead-out team or climbing domestiques. So every team member should benefit from points.

And at the end of the year, when the UCI are deciding who goes ProTeam and who goes ProContinental, they just add up all the points for all the team members, not the top 15 as they currently do.

There you go, UCI:  Schleckland has single-handedly solved the problem of your unfair new points system, and if you'd thought of it yourselves, you would not now be struggling to find a face-saving way of not having to relegate Saxo Bank part-way through a year.

Which I think they are: wow, can you imagine the consternation among the UCI officials? I can only imagine they didn't think of this ramification to their bold "Ban Him For 2 Years Retrospectively" decision. (For "bold" read "stupid" or "ill-though-out" or "what the *&$$%@ are you thinking of?!" )

It's nearly midnight in the UCI head office - the lights are dim, the coffee is cold, the doughnuts are stale, the sandwiches are limp.  A haggard committee are still sitting around the central table.  One has his head on the table in despair, two are texting,  one is gazing out of the darkened windows as though hoping to see an asteroid come crashing through the air in the style of the opening credits of Smallville.

In the interests of avoiding being "done" for libel, names have been changed. And in fact, as I have quite a low opinion of committees in general, and the UCI in particular, they don't deserve to have individual names, anyway.

One: "Look, we have to make a decision. CAS found him guilty."
One: "Yes, but-"
One, firmly: "No. Stop it. We've discussed this all afternoon and all evening, we have to stop. CAS said guilty, all we have to do is decide on the punishment. Ban? Or not ban?"
One: "We can't ban him now, it's ridiculous, it's been nearly two years."
One: "Yes, but we can't let him off without a ban, not after all this fuss."
One: " Curses on that damned technician, it's all his fault for leaking the results to the press."

There are mutters of agreement, and several people make stabbing motions in the air, with "wheep! wheep!" noises.

One: "Did we sort that guy out?"
One: "Yup, they'll never find the body now."
One: "Good. Right, ok, it happened, moving on: Ban, or not?"

They all look at each other. No-one wants to say it.

One: "Umm, how about a short ban? Say, 6 months?"
One: "Don't be stupid, we'd be shot down in flames. They would say it was a joke, and it doesn't reflect the seriousness of a two-year enquiry."
One, incredulously: "Are you saying it has to be two years, then?"
One: "Yes."

Shocked silence in the room.

One, tentatively: "Two year ban?"
One: "Can we do that? He'd kill us. These are the best years of his cycling career...."

They look at each other again, doubtfully. There is a long, long silence. A sandwich finally falls limply off the plate and lies, unheeded, on the floor.

One speaks up, hesitantly: "We - we could - "
One: "What?"

They all turn to look at him. He quails under their combined gazes.

One, impatiently: "We could WHAT?"
One, in a quavery voice : "W-w-we could implement the ban retrospectively?"

There is silence again - but this time, it is an excited, tremulous, hopeful silence.

One: "Brilliant! Two year ban, backdated to original offence, it's nearly all done by now, just another couple of months of ban then he'll be back racing in time for la Vuelta, oh thank god, brilliant, well done, great stuff, come on guys, wrap it up, leave this mess: you-" he points at the one still texting - ".. send a press release to AP and we'll sort out the details in the morning."

They rush to leave the room, slamming the door and heading for the lift, leaving one member typing at his laptop. We move forward and look over his shoulder to see what he is typing.

"Contador: UCI decide to apply 2-year ban, retrospectively.  Ban will be lifted on-" he consults his calendar, and does some quick calculations "August 5th. Results of races won for the duration of this ban will be-"

There is a pause. The figure sits, motionless, clearly unsure as to what to type. He rummages in his pocket, pulls out a coin: sits for a  moment with his eyes closed as though organising his choices.

He flips the coin, looks at it, and finishes the press release:

"..removed from his palmeres, prizes and points being redistributed accordingly."

Tom Boonen - you gotta love this guy!

Who would have thought that in this week of disastrous cycling news, there would be a report that would make me laugh out loud?

Tom Boonen, now riding for Omega Pharma Quick-Quick-Slow, Slow,Quick-Step, has been doing really well in the Tour of Quatar, which I'm hoping to watch this weekend, as LLB has been recording it all week. He's heading into the final day with a good lead - that's Tom Boonen, not LLB, obviously - but his performance has been a bit overshadowed by the Armstrong-Albertador-Ullrich business.

(As an aside, I am beginning to wonder if CAS haven't just decided "That's it! Let's get it all over and done with" and have told their committees to damn well make decisions, issue statements, confuse the press by having so many announcements out there all at once, and hopefully we can all get on with the cycling now.)

Back to Tom Boonen - he's refused to comment on doping decisions all this week so far, and has said in an interview for CyclingNews that he has largely ignored the furore, and was focused - quite rightly - on winning in Quatar.

"I haven’t really paid too much attention to the soap operas surrounding Contador and Armstrong," he said. "It’s been going on for a while and nobody actually really cares about it anymore. Every time you open your mouth about these cases you get a great pile of shit over your head. I like Alberto and I hope that everything turns out ok for him, but that’s all I have to say about it."

ROFL!  "Every time you open your mouth about these cases...."  Oh Tom, you did make me laugh this morning!

Talking of Jan Ullrich, he's been found guilty, by the way, no surprise, but I do give him props (note for non USA readers: apparently that strange expression is an abbreviation of "proper respect" and I can't believe that I am now using it in everyday language....) for his stance on not appealing the verdict.

This is what the report said:

In a statement released on his personal website, Ullrich said that the lengthy legal wrangling over his case was "incomprehensible" while explaining that he would not appeal the CAS decision, "Not because I agree with all points in the court's opinion, but because I want to finish the issue definitively," he said.

Albertador, are you listening? Please, please don't appeal the CAS verdict.

I think that we all know that you are not a deliberate doper, that you have stood up to this dreadful ordeal like a man, that you really are quite possibly the best all-round, strongest rider out there at the moment, and yes, you are - or at least were, last year - better than OGL: but can you please be enough of a man to let it drop now?

Like Ullrich says, not because you agree with the ruling, but to finish the issue. Cycling really needs to move on now,  but I damn well hope that the UCI have learnt a few lessons along the way - not least being the harm that is done by dragging out these cases. Their own rules (*shudders* - I'm still in therapy after spending 20 minutes yesterday reading through them) give deadlines for other people and organisations: really strict ones, with penalties for missing deadlines for submission of evidence, etc etc. They really need to look hard at how this case was mis-handled, and how they can prevent anything like this happening again.

In fact, I would almost say that in Albertador's case, the duration of the enquiry has done far more harm than the original offence. It's made cycling look weak and shifty: it's raised the issue of "friends in high places can make drug charges go away", not to mention the UCI's initial massive mistake of saying "Don't worry, Bertie, we'll lose this result". Plus there's the unforgivable leak by the lab staff - oh, and numerous other stuff.

So come on, UCI, get some procedures in place, cut down this red tape, and sort your act out.

Oh Saxo Bank, where were you, back then?

In a good-but-at-the-same-time-maddening way, Saxo Bank have publicly stated that they are continuing to support Bjarne's team, and Conti, even though his UCI ban means that, by their own rules, he has been sacked from the team.

Bjarne confirmed in an interview yesterday that although Conti's contract had been ended, he was eligible to return to the team as soon as the suspension finished, which is Aug 5th.

And SaxoBank - the bank, not the team - confirmed that they will continue to support Conti and Bjarne.

Excuse me while I beat my head against the wall - where were you, two years ago, you swines! Remember the second half of 2010? SaxoBank said "Naaah, lost interest, not gonna sponsor you no more" while curling their lips in disdain, which lead directly to the whole half-the-team-have-left  problem. Grrr. If they had been a bit more steadfast in those days, we might not have had the whole Leopard fiasco.

It's also interesting to note that SaxoBank will lose all Conti's UCI points, of course, but there is another implication - he won't be able to win any points for a further two years after the ban ends.

Which leads to the obvious question: how can a one-pony team like Saxo (no offence to Chris Anker-Sorensen and the other boys, but come on, be honest) survive as a pro-team with their main points winner unable to claim points for two whole seasons? Unless Bjarne can quickly buy in someone very point-worthy, that team is going to be in whole lot of trouble for the next couple of years.

The team were 9th in the UCI rankings last year - yes, only 9th, even with all those wins, Leopard were 3rd, please note - with 696 points, 471 of which were Conti's, leaving them with just 225  points. That puts them bottom of the league, way below Vacansoleil who sat at the bottom with 369  points. On paper, this should mean that this will lead to Saxo being demoted from the ProTeam league,  but I can't quite see how this can be done, administratively, unless they run the ProTeam league with only 17 teams this year?  I mean, you can't take a Pro-Continental team and shove them without warning up into the ProTeam league, surely? Yes, of course a team would be delighted to be suddenly promoted, but on the other hand, there must be huge costs associated with the ProTeam which sponsors might struggle to adjust to, at such short notice.

Anyone remember which ProTeam only just didn't make it? I'm thinking Europcar, but I'm not sure.

According to the UCI site ("My soul! My soul!") they have asked their "Licence Commission" to make a ruling on the subject.  Don't you just hate the UCI?  Instead of just saying "We will make a decision" they pass the buck onto a mythical Licence Commission, which is presumably some kind of sub-committee, so that in a couple of days (during which we assume this committee will graze the internet, check all the forums, read my blog [ha ha] judge what the common reaction is, establish what the overall consensus of public opinion is, then ignore it) they can say that "the Licence Commission" have decided blah blah blah, with the subtext of "don't blame us for this decision, not our choice, we just did what we were told to do." Pffff. *disgusted face*.

This further supports my idea - see next post, which I have already written but has been queue-jumped by this one - that the UCI should look again at the way they allocate the points: cycling is a team effort, and all members of the squad should benefit from the leader's win. If the points were shared amongst the squad, then Saxo would still have at least some of their points, and for the next 2 years they would at least be able to gain some points.

Which leads to another idea, that of Conti being a SuperSonicDomestique for the next two years. Can you imagine him having to drag the rest of the team along, then push them across the start-line ahead of  himself, in order to get points assigned to the team, and not just to himself.

This could be the start of a whole new style of racing....

Mind you, poor old Conti might find himself having to wash out the drinks bottles and clean the bikes after the race to get a bit of pocket money, as he's likely to have a huge fine to pay, as well as having to give back all the prize money.  Apparently the UCI rules say that they get 70% of the rider's back income as a penalty for doping, although according to a report on Velonation yesterday,  they might waive some of that fine, as he didn't deliberately dope. But I'm pretty sure he will have to hand back the prize money, as that will have to be given to the newly-promoted better-placed-than-they-thought people.

What a nightmare.

---

And to finish, a couple of frivolous items, as I do enjoy a quick frivvle after all this serious stuff: search terms. Ah yes, I love my search terms. These blogs show us how people came here: in effect, what they typed into Google to get a list of sites, one of which lead here.

Now, yesterday my page viewing figures nearly doubled, for no particular reason: nothing to do with the number of comments, by the way,  as it only counts each user once, no matter how many pages you look at. And what was the most popular search terms, used by over 30% of visitors? "Andy Schleck Girlfriend". Well, there's a surprise.

But nearly 10% of people got here from "La Senza Maid" which seems ridiculously precise for multiple people to have found the site, doesn't it? (I think it was my comments about some podium girls last season, the ones wearing black frocks with white aprons.)

And of course nearly 30% arrived from combinations of Andy/Jil/Jill/Delvaux. And there was me, just yesterday, beaming proudly at having the most intelligent fangirls on the internet! I do wonder, sometimes. Of course, these are mostly the one-time visitors: they pop in, read a bit (or just look at the pictures, possibly) then disappear. Not like you lovely loyal regular, or irregular, Schleckland Deckmates, who sail the Schleckland Ship with me... ah, yes, perhaps I should mention that there was a bit of frivolity on Twitter yesterday, I was promoted to Captain Coug of the Schleckland Ship, and I regret to confirm that there was indeed a bit of yo-ho-hoing and a few passing references to scurvy dogs and splicing mainbraces.

Now, one word of warning for all of you - my computer has picked up a bug of some kind, and I have had the Blue Screen Of Death twice in the last two days. There is every chance that I might be forced off-line for a while, if it needs to be sorted out. So don't worry if I suddenly "disappear", it's nothing serious, and I will be back! Honest! 

And as a final aside, when I write a post, the final job is to run the spell-checker, in case I missed any speeling eroorrrrs... always good for a giggle, as it doesn't recognise any of the cycling terms or names, and of course it hates my slang and abbreviations.

All that is to be expected.

But why does a spell-checker on a Blogging site not recognise the word "internet"? Or "Google"?

Lance Armstrong: Case Closed

So, after two years, the investigation into Lance Armstrong has been dropped.

Oh good.

Now, in case you have lost sight of this one, here's a reminder.  Floyd Landis had his Tour de France victory taken off him in 2006 after banned substances were found in his samples. For four years, he brayed that he was innocent, until in 2010 he suddenly did a complete turn-around, admitted he'd used PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) for most of his career, and pointed the finger at Lance Armstrong saying "He done it, too!"

Lance Armstrong denied it: well, he would, wouldn't he? However, he also pointed out that he had been tested hundreds of times, and had never ONCE been found with banned substances in his blood/urine. He further pointed out that he was possibly the most-frequently-tested cyclist on the planet, and of course as we all know (Contador) yellow jersey holders and winners in general are always tested very heavily, simply because they are winners.

Landis would not let this rest, even after Armstrong was repeatedly investigated for doping, and never found guilty: Landis got the US government involved. He pushed them into starting an investigation on the basis that Armstrong's team, US Postal, was sponsored by the government, therefore if Armstrong was claiming that all these big wins were done cleanly, but were actually accomplished using PEDs, then he had been defrauding the government of the sponsorship money, and this was bad. He hadn't managed to "get" Armstrong on drugs charges, so he tried to "get" him on criminal charges.

There was even a story that the UCI had hidden a positive doping result, on the grounds that Armstrong donated a lot of money to them.

The US Attorney's office therefore started the two-year investigation that also involved the FBI, the US Postal Service, and both the civil and criminal divisions of the Department of Justice. Way to go, Landis: waste a whole ton of public money on your personal vendetta, why don'tcha?

So, what are my personal thoughts on this? I don't particularly like Armstrong: I used to cheer for him when I first started following pro-cycling,  but then, everyone did. As I became more interested in cycling, I realised that there was a huge Anti-Armstrong group, and I didn't quite understand why: it became clear that it was mostly the jealousy that any major star gets. These days, I don't like Contador on pretty much the same grounds: when he's in it, and on form, the race is boring, boring, boring: ladies and gentlemen, may I present Exhibit A, the Giro last year, the last half of which was boring, boring, boring. And the Contador fans are now screaming at me "Yeah, bet if it were your boy winning, winning, winning, you would be singing a different tune" and of course, yes, I would. It must have been pretty hard to be a cyclist during those years when Lance won the Tour every year. Rather like being a skater during the Torville and Dean years. You know that no matter what you do, you will only ever be second best to them/him. That's life.

So, I'm not that bothered about Mr Armstrong per se, (although I have read "It's not about the bike" and another of his books, they are quite, quite incredible) but I am hugely relieved that the case has now been closed.

OK, just one moment of sympathy for Mr Armstrong - poor Lance, once again the case is closed, but it's just "closed",  he's not "declared innocent".  It's like a final spiteful dig, that they can't find him guilty, but won't actually say the word "innocent".  Still, he will be used to that, it's happened before.

And the good news is, Cycling can now move on.

The UCI have openly stated "What happened in the past happened in the past. We prefer looking into the future."

Well done, UCI, let's forget about it and move on. It's a bit annoying that WADA are now demanding that the paperwork be handed over to them, in case they can find any doping-related info that might be relevant to their witch-hunt.  They say, with some truth, that the US Attorney were looking for evidence of criminal mis-deeds, ie fraud, not specifically for evidence of doping. But, duh, the point of the case was that if there had been doping, it would have been fraudulent to say "we won without doping" so the tiniest evidence of doping would have been exactly what they were looking for.

Come on WADA, drop it: save those funds for catching today's dopers.

The two sides of Andy Schleck

I did this for a laugh on Twitter yesterday, and then thought that not all of you bother with that, so in case you find it amusing.... you know how "they" say that we all have two sides of our personality... and of course you all know that none of us are perfectly symmetrical in the face - or in any part of us, to be honest.

Well, have you ever tried that thing where you take a photo, and flip one side of the face over as though you'd dropped a mirror halfway through the head?

There's a nice portrait of OGL on the RadioSchack site, very professional, and it just struck me when glancing casually at it, that his eyes were a little uneven - of course, he's not standing straight on to the camera, so of course he's not "even", but I just wondered what would happen...

And before I knew what was happening, there I was in Paint, having a lovely time chopping OGL's head in two, reversing it, and sticking it back together. Twice. And look what we got!

Weird, huh? One classically skinny Schleck, although he appears to have gone three rounds with a boxer ("Oh, Jakob, how could you?"), and one strangely broad, but still handsome, Schleck, who looks as though he could possibly be related to Christopher Reeve back in his Superman days.

I'll let you decide which one you prefer.

The Sinister Case of the Steamed-up Car....

Once upon a time, in a car park far, far away.....

Andy: "Pfff!" Get your knee off of my foot!"
Frankie: "Aack!  This floor is covered in fluff!"
Jakob:  "------" (wordless spluttering)

Jensi: "Now look, stop being so noisy, Mr Bruyneel will hear us and come and tell us off."
Andy: "He's not here, he's still in the hotel - isn't he?" (worried tone)
Fabian: "No, I saw him outside earlier."
Laurent: "Can anyone see him out there now?"
Linus: "You look, I don't want to."

Andy: "Jakob, you look, will you?"
Jakob: "------" (more wordless spluttering)
Andy: "Oh Jakob, stop mucking about, get up off the floor, and take a look outside.."

Jakob's head appears at window height, and there is a comical squeaking noise as he wipes condensation from the inside of the car window.

Jakob: "No - we're all right, I can't see him."
Frankie: "Oh good. Now, who's got my coffee?"
Andy: "Which one was yours?"
Frankie: "I left it on the dashboard, just there - " (he points)
Jensi "Hah,  no wonder the windows are all steamed up, then!"

---

Yes, dear readers, for some unknown reason the Leopard boys are having a secret meeting in the car, instead of cluttering up my cupboard. Perhaps they didn't like the stack of old towels I have in there? (they might come in useful one day... you never know.)

Thanks to Kat for that picture (*thumbs up to Kat* ) and in case you didn't see the others, here is Andy in full regalia:

I have to say, I was just starting to really like the new kit, and then we managed to find some footage of the Tour Down Under (thanks, Sky Cycling!) (and yay, Leelu, we looked out for you by the crown on the road but - *sniffle* - we didn't see you) and do you know what?

Well, remember me going on about the failed re-design of the Garmin kit for TdF last year? The white kit with the band of blue argyle that was completely obscured at the back by the numbers, and the front by the way they sit on the bike?

Well, Leopard Schack have fallen into exactly the same trap: when they are storming towards us, heads down and working hard, all we now see is a sea of black. What used to be the visible white "stripe" - the front chest panel - has now been pushed down by the red stripe, and is barely visible at all.

Boo! Don't they listen to me? Honestly, have none of these kit designers ever actually watched any race footage? How often do we have to say it:

1) Helicopter shots. By all means make the back white for heat reduction, but put something big and distinctive on the back of the shoulders. Saxo are improving in that respect. FdJ have always been good, with that big clover-leaf thing. Shack were brilliant last year, with the thick red stripe. Sky got it right this year - they clearly listened to me, and have widened the blue stripe so that now you can see it from above. Leopard kit? Well - *rocks hand to and fro* not brilliant. Somehow the red stripe disappears at any sort of altitude.

2) Rear shots: prime sponsor shot: nice big name across the backside. The use of the O logo is not bad at all, so we'll give them about 8/10 for that. And of course 10/10 for the nice big Nissan, ha ha, you all know that I'm a bit biased towards Nissan!

3) Camera Bike side shots: hah hah hah hah, well done Leopard, got the name in nice big letters all down the sides! I still think the Sky kit with the rider's name is the best: Schack tried hard, with the rider name and nationality flag down by the waist, but sadly they are too small and can't be read from any of the normal wobbly camera bike shots.

4) Front Oncoming: for the 95th time, this is NOT the same as when they stand proudly upright on the podium. Look at the damn footage! They hunch forward over the bars, all you can see are the shoulders and about the top 4" of the chest. The rest is crumpled and in shade.Who is that driving the peloton along? Leopard? Garmin? BMC? Sky? I rest my case.

5) And finally -  Gloves... seriously overlooked as places for sponsorship/ID. Again, well done Leopard for getting the O logo on the knuckles there. For most of last year I was seeing Johan Van Summeren (ah, sigh, remember him?) with the Garmin gloves, and for one whole race I thought that he had the number "31" on his gloves, and that that was his race number. I was thinking of encouraging Leopard to do the same, and was trying to find out how long the gloves lasted, was it worth having pairs printed up for each race, for each rider, was it ridiculously expensive, etc: and then I realised that one of Garmin's sponsors is 3T, and that was what the gloves said. Whoops.

Right, so there you have it, Kit Design 1.01.

Finally, a lovely camera-phone shot of the training camp, it seems to all be a bit too much for Andy. But I wonder what Laurent is looking at, and why he's smirking? Perhaps it's the resuscitation team?  I can't seriously believe that Andy Schleck would fall asleep with food still on his plate, so we have to assume that he's passed out with exhaustion. Or maybe he's trying to jog loose the biscuit crumbs that the others have been flicking into his ears.. or maybe it's some residual physiotherapy to restore feeling to the missing wisdom tooth areas.... I could go on for some time, but I think I'd better stop there!

Andy Schleck, having one of those "it's all too much for me" moments: