Even Team Sky are suffering.

With departures, that is.

Dave Brailsford, Team Principle,  took the brave step recently of announcing that every single rider and member of staff would be interviewed individually, and anyone who was unable to sign a statement confirming that they had never been involved in doping would have to leave.

"Brave" because there was every likelihood that he would be left with a team of under-25s!!

Dave Brailsford's policy has always been zero tolerance for doping, which is why the British rider David Millar is not riding for Sky, even though he and Dave Brailsford are good friends: Fran Miller, David's sister, is Dave B's personal assistant,  so they have close ties. But as David Millar is a former (reluctant) doper, even though he has served his time, been banned, been nearly bankrupt, and has come back from that to be a staunch anti-doping campaigner, he is not eligible to ride for Team Sky.

As we have seen in the news recently,  Sky were faced with a very difficult position when Bobby Julich, one of their Coaches, was forced to admit to doping 14 years ago when he rode with Lance Armstrong.

Dave had to decide: was he going to "backdate" his zero tolerance policy?

Or merely say "As long as you are clean now, it's ok."?

This must have been a tremendously hard decision to make - ok, for riders maybe you would need to take a hard line, but coaches? Does it matter if a soigneurs used to be a doper? Or a DS?  Where do you draw that line? Bruyneel is in deep trouble, but Uncle Bjarne is still running his team, and he admits that he doped back in the 90s.

Well, Dave decided to be strong, and is indeed going for the backdated zero tolerance. Everyone who admits it will have to leave the team, but they are getting a good financial send-off - the amusingly named parachute payment - and are at least leaving with some sense of dignity. He has made it plain that anyone who does not confess now and leave, and is found later to have lied, will be shot, stuffed, and used as a hood ornament on one or the other of the Death Stars.

I have to admire his strength, but I do hope that he isn't going to run out of riders and staff!

A few days ago we had the news that Steven de Jongh, DS,  admitted that he doped back when he was a rider, and he and his parachute payment are, even now, wafting down through the skies.

Today the amazingly-badly-timed news is that Sean Yates has announced his retirement as DS.

Obviously everyone is going to say "oh, couldn't sign the document, huh?" as Sean has a long history in cycling, as a rider, riding with Lance, coaching Lance, working with Bruyneel, etc etc.

But I've been wondering about Sean's health for a while now: it's a running joke between LLB and I when Sean Yates is interviewed, that he (and I know this sounds disrespectful, so I apologise in advance to Sean Yates and his family) sounds as though he is at least half drunk. He slurs his words, and seems to have difficulty following his train of thought.  It's easy to make jokes about doping or drinking, but for the past year I've been wondering if he'd had a medical problem, something like a stroke, or something that would affect his speech.

And now he's actually said “I have suffered with my health in recent years" and he also confirms that he has had the one-on-one interview with Dave Brailsford, who said “Sean has been interviewed and there were no admissions or disclosures that would have required him to leave the team.”

So that's all right - but what bad timing for Sky. At least they have another year of sponsorship contracted.. although, yes, we all know how contracts can be broken.

Which leads to an interesting thought - well, interesting for UK readers, at any rate: what happens if Sky decline to continue sponsoring the team? It's unthinkable that British cycling could allow this fantastic team to be disbanded: there has never been as much interest in the sport, and we did win the Tour this year, yay!

Fingers crossed that Sky see the value in sticking with it.

---------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, somewhere in Spain:

A cloud of dust is seen approaching a tiny, one-horse town in the middle of the desert. As the camera zooms in, the dust-cloud enters the town square and screeches to a halt outside the saloon.

The one horse rears up in fear, neighing, and is calmed by a toothless peasant.

The dust settles, revealing Andy Schleck and Jakob Fuglsang, riding a tandem. It is impossible to discern what kit they are wearing, as they are covered in dust.

Andy: "Splfff!"
Jakob: "Pfff! Thbbbt!"

The saloon doors swing open and the bar-keeper appears, holding a glass of water in each hand.

Andy: "gackkkk!"
Jakob: "kackkkkk!"

They both lean sideways to take the water, and fall off the tandem. Another cloud of dust rises all around them.

The bar-keeper looks down at them, spits casually to one side, then takes a bucket of water from the nearby trough, and throws it over them. The boys raise two identical mud-coloured faces, take the glasses of water, and drink deeply.

They look at each other, grinning, with startlingly white teeth in their muddy faces.

Andy: "Mate, whose idea was it to train in Spain?"
Jakob: "Yours."
Andy: "Oh. Sorry about that. Hey, it's five degrees and raining in Luxembourg."
Jakob: "And your point is..?"
Andy: "Well, we could be training there instead?"

They look at each other, remembering previous winters in Luxembourg (which has a climate startlingly similar to that in the UK ie lots of rain and pretty grim).

Jakob: "OK! Let's get one with it then! How's the backside?"
Andy:  "Ooh, not too bad, I reckon I'm good for another hour or so."
Jakob: "Right! Off we go!"

They swing their legs over the tandem, getting slightly tangled up as they do so - on reflection, it would be better if the one in front got on before the one on the back.... but they get their legs sorted out, and pedal off across the desert.

Cycling news: they are listening to us!

Good news, Schlecklanders, ASO - organisers of the Tour - are indeed listening to us.

For quite some time I have been suggesting ways to make the Tour safer without making it dull, and one of those was reducing the number of riders.

Not by scrapping teams, but by reducing the numbers.

I think my finest suggestion was to have a 9-man team, only 7 of which rode each day, thus allowing two "substitutes" who would be the most appropriate domesiques for the stage.

GC and jersey contenders would have to ride every day, but domestiques could be changed. (And to keep them fit, they could ride part/most of the route behind the race, if they wanted to.)

This would effectively reduce the number in the peleton, without hampering the teams.

Recently, Mr Prudhomme  announced that he is considering reducing team size to eight riders.

Yay!

Perhaps they will take up some of my other suggestions, too: how about the one where teams change a wheel against the clock in order to get a time bonus?

Or where they get points for accuracy of discarding bidons into a net after the feed zone?

Or get penalised for having a really, really ugly kit? (Footon Servelo, this means YOU.)

Alice said....

... and I responded, but my comment was too long for the comment box!

Having taken the trouble to write it, I didn't want to waste it, so here it is:

Hi Alice,

Thanks for your comments, those are exactly the sort of well-thought out, (non-ranting) comments that I like to hear.

There have always been positive tests, but yes, some riders were caught/confessed without a posi-test.... in cases where the other evidence was overwhelming - and we are talking about bags of blood that DNA tests prove to be theirs, so that they had no option but to confess. But yes, you are right. Saying "I never had a posi-test" is a lawyers' argument.  It's morally reprehensible, but you can't say he was guilty of doping without a posi-test - or a confession (no chance!) or overwhelming evidence, and although we keep being told about the 1000 page report - read it yet, anyone? All of it? - we also know that it is the same old stuff that the FBI assembled, and then scrapped.

Second, you have made my point much better than I made it! Yes, I fully believe that Lance would use anything, until it was both banned AND detectable. I think we all realise that he is a pretty hard-boiled character, and would fly very close to the line. His own books say as much: he has spent his entire life, private and professional, pushing lines and boundaries. (Yes, and pushing people about, as well.)

Thirdly, this whole issue of him giving money to the UCI for anti-doping does confuse me. Is it possible that he was giving money to fund specific testing, perhaps of doping techniques that he did not use himself? That would make him look good, ("Oh look, I give money to the anti-doping fight") without exposing him to any risk. 

If, on the other hand, he planned to give money to the UCI in order to protect himself from posi-tests, surely he would have given it privately to the guy in charge, not openly to the organisation?

I mean, covering up a posi-test must involve so very many people: testers, technicians, admin staff, data inputters, fax operators, probably janitors and cleaners as well - how would you know that you have covered every single person? As we know from the Contador case, it only takes one lab technician to leak details to the press.

Surely it would be better to bribe the guy in charge, and let him work out who he needed to sub-bribe (if there is such a thing) in order to protect a particular set of specimens. Giving the money openly the the UCI he would have no control over how it was used.

Even then, if he bribed the guy in charge, then as per the Contador problem, I don't think it would work. There have been allegations of Lance doping for a decade, so any technician etc with any real knowledge or proof of a "fixed" test would have gone to the press long since.

I take the point that the UCI, receiving money from Lance, would be highly embarrassed if that funding revealed that Lance had been doping. But, as per above, I don't think they could have concealed it - I think someone would have blabbed. Lance does have a way of making enemies, and amongst all the hundreds of "little people" working at the UCI, at the labs, etc, there must have been a good number of Lance-haters who would gleefully have shopped him, had there been any evidence.

4th- yeah, Dr Ferrari. Speak to Cadel Evans about that one! 

Contador - yes, I read that report and nearly cheered out loud! As you might know, I'm not a big Conti fan, but to hear him stating that until it's proven, he won't believe it, really made my day! I nearly wrote a post on the subject. Indurain likewise: these are serious cycling people, people who should know, and I respect their opinions more than the opinions of the Twitterati.

And that, of course, is the thrust of my argument: I'm not actually debating Lance's guilt or otherwise, but I seriously hate the way the world is ready to string him up without even hearing the evidence properly. Properly = two sides, court of law, perjury etc. Not "some bloke I've never heard of telling a story about some other bloke talking about an email from Lance threatening something". Come on, get real: witness A is "telling a story" ie something he remembers, which he might have got incorrect, about witness B, who's not even a witness, reading something which may or may not have been taken out of context. Even the wording of the story is annoying to me: it was described as "a furious email" from Lance. From reading a couple of Lance's own books, I have formed the impression that a "furious" email from him would have effing and blinding in it, and any threats would be very clear indeed and would probably involve physical harm. It certainly would not be calm and clear, and quite possibly worded by a PR person with oversight from a legal advisor. But enough of that.

Remember Contador? Remember Frankie? Both claim to be innocent of doping, both have been strung up by the press and the Twitterati, and "everyone" believes whoever shouts loudest. Which is, of course, the Twitterati. (I use that term to encompass the journos as well, of course).

And that's what really bugs me.

As for the unlovely Mr McQuaid, I don't think he has a clue what to do, what to say, or how to save cycling. It would be in his interests, you would have thought, to have insisted on a proper court case, as now "everyone" thinks the UCI are a bunch of useless tossers who can be nobbled or bullied into covering up posi-tests.

I'm with you Alice - I'm doubtful about the whole thing, but I am getting quite certain that we will never know the truth...

Coug

Tiger Woods is talking rubbish!

Schlecklanders, I just had to share this one with you. Don't take a mouthful of coffee at this point otherwise, I warn you, you might spray it across the breakfast table.

Tiger Woods, golfer with silly name, has taken it upon himself to comment on the current cycling doping scandal.

I quote from the report:

" Golf's greatest star says the few good men in golf would never allow a scandal of the magnitude that is occurring with Lance Armstrong and cycling."

He is then quoted as saying: "This is a sport where we turn ourselves in on mistakes,"  while talking to reporters in Malaysia prior to the CIMB Classic. "A ball moves in the trees, the guys call penalties on themselves. I think that's one of the neat things about our game, and I think with the (anti-doping) testing, it's only enhanced that respectability throughout all of sport."

Pardon me while I choke with laughter.

Golf? Walking around a gently rolling lawned area, for what - an hour or so? Retiring to the Clubhouse if it rains? I don't think I've even seen a golfer getting sweaty, have you?

What on earth would they need to dope for?

It hardly compares with 21 days of racing, 6 hours a day, through all weather, road conditions, accidents, obstructions, distractions etc, does it?

Tiger, mate, I hate to sound condescending but golf is not exactly an extreme sport.  In fact, I'm not entirely sure it's a sport, is it? Can it count as a sport if you don't even get sweaty doing it?

And what was that about the "few good men in golf would never allow a scandal..."

Huh?

Does he mean there are only a few men in golf, but they are all good? Or are there lots of men in golf, but only a few of them are good? (Women golfers, feel free to bat him round the head with a number 6 iron at this point.)

And as for "would never allow a scandal..."  Pff! Every moment of their silly game  alleged sport is fully televised, the only "cheating" they could possibly do would be to manually throw a ball out of the bunker - nope, can't do that, cameras all around - or to put little remote controlled motors inside the balls. Hmm, not very likely. 

There is just no comparison at all. I really don't understand the point of asking someone like him about the cycling scandal, do you?

Andy's looking forward to the Tour!

Good boy! *pets Andy*

Why this sudden demonstration of affection for Our Andy? It's due to the report out today with his response to the Tour 2013 parcours announcement, and the current doping scandal.

And they gave us a nice picture, he's actually smiling!

So, next year's Tour route has been announced: it's a lot lighter on the TTs, and has four good mountain top finishes, and generally speaking it suits Our Andy a great deal more than last year's one.

He's already in training, he says he still has pain from that broken pelvis, but says "I can ride my bike relatively well." Phew, I think if I had a cracked pelvis I would be taking it very, very gently for months and months.

You have to admire the dedication of these athletes, getting out there and getting on with it, don't you?

Andy has, as we know, already said that he's not giving up cycling, even though Papa Schleck has recommended it, and we are all glad to hear that - although not wishing any disrespect to his father, this is one time when I am glad Andy is making up his own mind.  I don't think it would be much fun writing a blog about a traffic cop in Luxembourg....

And when faced with the "inevitable" questioning about doping in cycling, he says:

“What has happened in the past has been really bad. We cannot just put it aside. But on the other hand: most of these things are from the past and we need to draw a line,” he said. “The young generation, and I count myself in that, has nothing to do with this past and we are the victims of it, in a way.

“So I'm saying: let's not forget about what has happened, but let's take lessons from it and move on."

 

 This is just what I want to hear: Cavendish was saying very much the same things on the BBC recently: I am not sure if that link will work, but he says that it's not fair to label all cyclists as cheats, and makes the same point about the younger generation of cyclists having a very different philosophy to that of ten years ago.

He also makes the point that only in cycling are we digging back over 10 years: in other sports they might catch a cheat (a doper, or just breaking a rule) and punish them now, but they don't back-date the punishment. 

 

I read a blog the other day from someone saying that these days, in football, we have the "instant reply" where they can pause the game, watch the footage and decide if a challenged decision is valid or not.

But they don't dig out instant replays from several years ago, decide that someone had broken a rule, and change the decision. Only in cycling!

So, moving on, next year we have the 100th Tour!!! Big celebrations!! Memo to self: get some yellow clothing.....  and, fingers crossed, next year might be the year that we see Andy on the top of the podium, having won it on the road, as he wants to.

Yay!

Papa Schleck tells Andy "Give it up, boy!"

What's all that about?
Apparently Johny Schleck has been talking to a French publication about the state of cycling these days.
As an aside, am I the only one who thinks of Johny Schleck as Joe-nee? Here in the UK, the name is John with one "n", and the casual version is Johnny with two "n"s. Pronounced Jonn-ee. But with only one "n" it just doesn't look right, and I think of him as Joe-nee, as in Joni Mitchell. ("Big yellow taxi")Is that just me?

Anyway, leaving aside the pronunciation of his name, he has suddenly told the press that he thinks Andy and Frankie should give up cycling.

This seems a bit of an odd thing to say, just at this time: clearly he is bothered by the doping scandal, well, aren't we all, and clearly he is concerned about Frankie and his personal doping scandal. He tells the paper that Frankie is "depressed", and has spent a lot of money on fighting the accusations.

But he was a pro cyclist at a time when doping was accepted. I seem to remember, when I first started following Andy Schleck, reading interviews where he said that he was determined from the beginning that his boys would be "clean" riders, and I have often read references to them being part of the "new generation" of clean riders. It was one of the things that made me want to follow the Schlecks: the idea that their parents were also from the sporting world, as they were both professional athletes - they would know all about the pressures, and would ensure that Andy and Frankie were aware of the pitfalls of doping,and were never pressured to become part of it.

So why would he decide that they should throw away everything they have worked for, all their lives, just now?

It seems a bit odd.

OK, Frankie is going through a terrible experience right now, and Andy has certainly had a horrible, horrible year, but that is only one year: they will get through it, things will get better.  Frankie is probably approaching his peak cycling years now, and Andy is just getting better every year (said she, loyally, ignoring the total lack of results from 2012).

Elle made a good point in the comments on the last post, in that our boys have indeed pissed off some big names in cycling, not least being Mr Bruyneel and his entourage. "The Schlecks are not easy to work with" he said earlier this year, ha! ha! "Not easy to bully", perhaps?

But this is not a reason for giving up - not now, not when it is all at the tipping point (I think) and is going to get better. No, stop laughing, or making cynical noises, I really feel that this scandal is going to be the one that fixes cycling: sometimes you have to shake something to its core in order to shake some sense into it.

The next couple of years are going to be a bit lean on the sponsor side, I suspect, and it is entirely possible that the ProTeam league might go down to maybe 10-15 teams for a while, but I don't think this signals the end of cycling, do you?

Especially as Mr Bruyneel is going to be, er, very busy for the forthcoming months: hopefully far too busy to be interfering with Andy and Frankie. I know it's rude of me, bearing in mind that I've never met the guy, but I have formed an opinion about him, and I would be very happy to see him thrown out of cycling: or at the very least, sidelined for the duration of a long-drawn-out investigation ("Ha! See how you like it, matey!) that keeps him away until certain contracts expire, and certain riders are free once more.

So come on Andy, just this once, don't listen to your Papa.

Besides, what would they do?

If he doesn't want to ride, then presumably he wouldn't want them to be any part of it: so would we end up with Frankie working in the casino in Mondorf? Andy commuting to an office job in Lux city? What a terrible thought!

Lance Armstrong: Saint or Swine?

OK, I've found in life that there's no point trying to duck awkward issues: sometimes you just have to meet them head on, say what you want to say, then move on.

As per a recent post of mine, I am SICK TO DEATH of forum/twitter posters (and blog commenters) who spout off angrily and spitefully about [insert subject - they don't seem to be too fussy!] which just generates more bad feeling.  I believe it's called "trolling", where people, thinking that they are protected by the anonymity of the internet, seem to think they have the right to be as nasty as they want, with no come-back.

What's this all in aid of? Well, the Lance Armstrong thing has reared its head again, and I don't want to spend the next several weeks having this blog's comments hijacked by people wanting to rant on about that subject.

So I thought I would tell you all my thoughts on the matter, then we need not comment on him any more, but can just deal with the scandal as it affects our Leopard boys.

Armstrong is someone who divides opinion very strongly: you either love him or hate him, it would seem.

Personally, I'm not that bothered: I'm certainly not a fan, but I don't hate him either. I've read a couple of his books, (among many other cycling books) so my comments are influenced by that, in the following two ways: on the one hand, there is no better authority on Lance than Lance himself, so we can assume that reading his books gives you a better insight than reading news reports (we all know how accurate THEY are, ha! ha!). On the other hand, he wrote them himself so you would expect him to show himself in the best light possible, so reading his books give a somewhat biased view of the person.

We are not children, we are adults, and part of being an adult is taking the responsibility to assess what you read, to balance news sources, and to make your own decision as to what you think is likely to be truth - not to blindly accept what someone else says, especially on the news and ESPECIALLY on the forums. Rather like using Wikipedia - you know, you have to hope that you are not reading it on a day when some idiot has decided to be "funny" and to make some silly changes.

So, starting with facts:

Armstrong is an outstanding athlete for two specific reasons which have been scientifically proven, it is a matter of record, not of opinion: 1) his blood can carry more oxygen than "normal" and 2) his muscles produce less lactic acid than "normal". More oxygen gives greater reserves of strength before feeling tired, and lactic acid is what makes our muscles burn when we over-use them. This means he can go faster, further and harder than we can, and it doesn't hurt him as much as it does us, plus he recovers more quickly.    Lucky him.  I would expect to find that Contador is similarly blessed.

Right, so we start with him being naturally "good" at sports.

He was a winner during a time when doping was, well, quite common. It was "all the rage",  "everyone did it", it was "well, if you don't dope, everyone else will, so why should you let them have the advantage" etc, it was a cultural thing. We keep hearing all this stuff, from a lot of sources, so we have to believe it.

Did Armstrong dope during this time? Who knows: but bear in mind that he was naturally gifted, stronger than everyone else in the team, and it's quite likely that he was the one that everyone else was trying to keep up with.

He says "I have never had a positive dope test."  and I believe him - he is probably the most-tested cyclist over the last 10 years, and you can bet your boots that if there were a single positive test, it would have been publicised. Remember Contador? A tiny, tiny amount of a banned substance, the UCI themselves wanted to keep it under wraps, and still someone leaked it to the press. By now, with all this money at stake, if anyone had real proof of a positive test, they would have run to the press with it. Therefore we can believe that statement.

Now, saying "I never had a positive dope test" is not the same as saying "I have never doped."

I believe - and you don't have to follow me on this one, it's only my opinion - that Armstrong made use of any and every Performance Enhancer (Drug or otherwise) that was not banned, and that includes weird food supplements, odd herbal preparations, any exercise or physical therapy that would help. Well, wouldn't you? I am perfectly willing to believe that Armstrong, working for a big, well-funded team, and working for a manager who would do pretty much anything to win, would have access to all the very latest ideas, theories and suggestions about how to improve performance. And would also know exactly when any specific item was going to be found by WADA and added to the banned list, in time to stop using it.

I can't believe that he used "illegal" PEDS and was just "very lucky" and didn't get caught: he was, as mentioned, possibly the most-tested cyclist of our time and if he had been trying to slip in a crafty PED here and there, well, he would have been caught. There are some stories in the press ("pfff!") about ways to fake urine tests, with tubing and someone else's urine etc etc - sorry, I just don't believe all that stuff. For two reasons: firstly it has all the hallmarks of a classic urban myth {*1} and secondly because if that were the case, believe me, people would be crawling out of the woodwork to say so.

{*1} Urban myth: a story that is not true, but that we really, really want to be true because it contains the following elements - someone was lying, tried to cover it up, got caught out, preferably in a really embarrassing way. This makes us feel smug that we aren't that stupid.

Now, at this point we have to draw a line and look at this again: the above was all written about three months ago, but I didn't finish the post and publish it, as I just didn't want to get embroiled in the Lance trolling. But as we all know, this case has now broken wide open, and we are all having to deal with the fall-out. There have already been a couple of comments today and yesterday about Lance, so - as per the first sentence - I  might just as well deal with it head on.

Firstly I have to re-state, for the benefit of the thick, and the skip-readers: I am NOT a Lance fan. At the time of his wins, I was a superficial cycling fan, I watched the Tour but not all of it, and I didn't have any great interest in the riders. (oh, how things have changed!) So please, I don't want the rabid Lance Haters ripping my every word to shreds. Nor do I want the rabid Lance Fans singing his praises. I like to think that we are all grown-ups here, we can make up our own minds and we won't be influenced by anyone shouting on about it.

There is one odd fact that has to be dealt with: the FBI spent two years investigating the allegations of systematic doping, and in Feb of this year they dropped the investigation. They said "there is no case to be answered."

Now pardon me if I am taking TV too literally, but I cannot believe that the great and powerful FBI would fail to pursue every single, tiny, little lead, applying pressure wherever they went. We don't have the FBI here in the UK, we have the Police and that's pretty much it. In America you seem to have the cops, then there are US Marshalls, then the FBI (and possibly something called Homeland Security, but that might be fictional) and the clear message is that the FBI out-ranks everyone else - when they appear, the normal cops roll their eyes and say the American equivalent of  "oh blimey, it's the Feds, they will take over our case."

So if the FBI, with all their powers, found that there was no case..... and the USADA case has the same statements, the same witnesses, the same facts..... well, I just don't believe that the real-life equivalents of Mulder and Scully would fail to get to the bottom of it. And if they did fail, then I simply don't believe that a sporting arbitration panel could do any better.

Now I can hear some of you jumping and down and shouting about all the new witnesses who have come forward.

Yes, all of those who would not come forward for the FBI? Those who have come forward after Lance announced that he would not be fighting any more?

Makes you wonder why they would not speak to the FBI, but will speak to the media.

Oh, I know that one, "Lance is a bully who threatens people who stand up against him." Yes, I can believe that, but the FBI, you would have thought, would have been the only people who could persuade scared witnesses to speak.

Anyway *sighs* it seems to me there are two aspects of this affair, which are getting confused. One is the issue of Lance doping, which he has always denied. The other is the systematic cheating, lying, and oppressing of lesser riders - which, incidentally, I can fully believe.

Personally, I am still waiting to make my mind up about the first aspect. Did Lance dope? He says he didn't, he has sworn in court before that he hasn't: but you do have to realise that whatever he says has been very carefully composed by a lawyer, so it may be technically truthful, but not morally truthful.

What do I mean by that? As stated at the top, I believe that Lance will have used every possible means to improve his performance and that of the people around him, and the statement "I have never tested positive for drugs" is not the same as "I have never taken drugs." As I believe I have discussed before, ages ago, Lance will never be able to make the sworn statement, for example, "I have never done EPO" because he did EPO as part of his cancer treatment. In the same way, I am absolutely certain that he would have taken every PED (Performance Enhancing Drug) ever invented, right up until the moment when it became illegal and testable.

As an aside, don't forget that when the Tour first started, it was considered "cheating" to practise for it......

So I suppose I would be prepared to accept the sworn statement that Lance has never taken illegal PEDs at the time during which they were illegal. If you see what I mean, pardon that confused sentence.

As for the second aspect, the "sophisticated doping program": so far, based on what I have read in books and in the news over the last several years, including the opinion I have formed about Lance and Mr Bruyneel - bearing in mind that I have never met either of them - I am fully prepared to accept that they encouraged and/or allowed other riders to dope, in order to support Lance.

I am also fully prepared to accept that most teams, back in the day, allowed/encouraged their riders to dope, and I do believe that some teams made it plain to riders that if they did not dope, and did not get results, then they would lose their contracts.

I don't KNOW, but I can easily believe, that Mr Bruyneel would be the sort of team boss that would push all his riders to perform, with threats of the sack if they didn't, knowing full well that the only way the riders could meet his demands would be for them to dope.

It also seems believable, on balance, that Mr Bruyneel would have sources that warned him of impending tests in order to get his riders in fit condition to be tested.

I have not read the whole of the USADA statement, and I am aware that I am being influenced by other people's opinion here, but still, I am prepared to believe that Lance (and Mr Bruyneel, of course) bullied, forced, and coerced other riders to dope, in order to support him.

I think that it is clear from Mr Bruyneel's own website and blog, that he is highly competitive, driven, forceful and, like Lance, fearless in pushing forward his own agenda, regardless of how many people get trampled underneath. You don't get to win the Tour seven times, or to produce the number of sporting successes that Mr Bruyneel has, without being ruthless.

So yes, I am prepared to believe about the doping program.

Well, there you go, that's my opinion on the subject. I can accept Lance's carefully composed sworn statements of not doping, on the understanding that I believe he sailed very, very close to the "illegal" line. I can believe the doping program aspect.

Now we can move on to the diabolical treatment this case is getting from cycling news, forums and fans.

As I commented on my last post:

1) There has not been a "proper" court-style case where one side presents the accusations, the other side presents the defence, and an unbiased panel make a judgement. (Yes, I know Armstrong chose not to, that's not my point.)

2) Yet "everyone" has judged that Lance is guilty. Before the USADA have even announced their findings. (Yes, I know that looking at what has been leaked so far, any idiot would say that Armstrong is guilty. But until or unless we hear both sides, how can anyone say that any "verdict" will be the truth?)

I call it "Trial by Twitter", where whoever shouts the loudest is the one who is believed.

USADA haven't even issued their "verdict" yet - it's due out at mid-day today - and yet everyone is screaming that Lance is guilty.

I was pleased when I read that Oakley, sunglasses sponsor said "we've read what they said, we'll wait to hear what Lance has to say."  At last, I thought, someone behaving like a grown-up, and not kowtowing to what the forums, Twitter and the media are saying.

Then one day later, they withdrew their backing. I find that pathetic - to be so influenced by what morons on Twitter say!  These are anonymous people! Not "real" people, not people who "know", not people who have the facts, but totally uninformed people who believe what they read in the media. Even the people standing outside your head office with banners: I have a little more respect for them, at least they weren't wearing balaclavas, but if I were a serious business, I would not allow myself to be blackmailed by a couple of dozen people standing outside for half an hour.

The aspect of this scandal that really annoys me, in case you hadn't noticed, is not so much the case itself, but the way that  "the media" can publish and re-publish and repeat the opinions of the totally uninformed, as though they were facts, thus influencing the rest of the uninformed to believe whatever it is.

It seems sad that everyone these days has to be so quick to leap to conclusions, why can't they wait for facts and then form an opinion, what is it about having to be the first with the news or gossip?  It's as though people have forgotten how to wait, to obtain facts, to assess those facts, to listen to both sides, and to then make a reasoned decision.

In fact, it's as though you ("One") somehow get "points" for being the first to say something, or the first to support someone else saying something.

*shakes head*

Where do we go from here?


"Move forward" is my ideal response. Cycling managed to get past the Festina scandal, we will get past this one.  Maybe next year and the year after there won't be as many Pro teams as there are now;  we will lose a few more sponsors, I imagine, but who knows, that might  make the Tour a little safer, if there are fewer riders. (Although "fewer cars" would be more desirable than fewer riders...)

Perhaps a new era of "clean" teams might lead to some new sponsors.

Enterprising managers could perhaps approach some new companies for sponsorship.

How about some of the "pure" toiletry companies?

I'd love to see a team sponsored by Dove, for example.

They make skin-care, hair-care, body lotions etc, and one of their slogans, "Where real beauty meets strength" is very appropriate for cycling, don't you think? And it would be a really elegant kit, I bet...

Or how about Pears soap, keeping on the "clean" theme:

"Pure and gentle" isn't quite the image we want to portray in cycling, but it is a TRANSPARENT soap, so that could be a good sub-text. But not a transparent kit, please *shudders*.

LLB suggested it would be fun to get some drugs companies to sponsor a team: they would have to have slogans like "Our team don't use our products - but YOU can!"  or "Brad Wiggins dare not use our products - but YOU can!"



Then there is the whole Health food industry - wouldn't they make good sponsors?

"We're good for you". Yup, I could live with that as a slogan.

Any others that I missed?

"Wedding fever grips Luxembourg"

*raised eyebrows* Surely not?

Found this on the BBC news website this morning:

Phew, it's ok, it's not Our Andy and TinkerJil, it's the crown prince getting hitched.

Other news to be reported today:  cycling continues to reel from the Armstrong thing: like Jimmy Savile, he's been judged "guilty" even though there hasn't been a court case, and cycling is falling apart at the seams all around.

Rabobank are withdrawing from sponsorship, which is such a shame as they are one of the longest-running pro-team sponsors, 17 years so far, with the most consistent kit.  Luckily they are taking their contract and responsibilities seriously, and are continuing to pay the team for next year, but are taking away their name.

Bert Bruggink said " the USADA report into doping by Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service team was the reason for the decision."

Thanks, USADA.

Would anyone really poison Frank Schleck?

It seems like a ridiculous thing to say: I find it hard to believe that Johan Bruyneel, no matter how aggrieved he felt with either of the Schlecks, would stoop to actually poisoning them.

I can almost - almost - understand the idea of someone in his position giving a rider an illegal drug in order that they would fail a doping test, just out of spite.

I can certainly imagine one team setting out to "dope" a rival rider: or a demented fan (or cycling hater) doing something like that - if you remember, when Frankie's adverse finding was first reported, that was our main thought, that Frankie had accidentally taken a bidon meant for someone else.

Whether it was a doping rider's usual "special" bidon, or  merely a randomly contaminated bidon,  both suggestions were equally valid:  likewise whether it was meant for Frankie, or whether he grabbed it by mistake, again, we would never know.

But in all those cases, it would be done by someone outside the team. I find it very hard to believe that anyone in the management would do anything to harm one of their own riders - I believe the phrase is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

It's not as though Shack have so many UCI points that they don't need any more.

But even if that were the case, and it was done by someone within the team, either by Mr Bruyneel, or at his direction - to give Frankie something that could possibly kill him?  There's a world of difference between giving a rider something that would cause him to fail doping, and something that might cause his heart to fail.

I don't quite see that happening.

But as Inge said (comments, last post), it's a bit of a coincidence that Frankie's hearing was postponed for a week, and within that week, we have had the suggestion - it came from L'Equipe, which I would have thought was a fairly respectable sports journal - that it was deliberate poisoning, to prevent him from being attractive to any other teams.

(As though he would leave Andy behind, pffff!)

Meanwhile, Andy has had some reasonable days of riding in Beijing: we haven't seen much of him, and he didn't quite finish the race, but the DS on the Shack site said that he'd had four good days of racing, and would now be going straight on into training, through the winter, in the sure and certain  hope that next season would be considerably better than this one, in every single way.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Beijing:

Reporter: So, Andy, what's all this about Mr Bruyneel poisoning your brother?
Andy: *stony silence*, face somewhat reminiscent of small child presented with spoonful of stewed prunes and wordlessly conveying the message "no, I won't eat it."

 Is that Sprite he's drinking?

Oh, and what's that on his upper lip? No, Andy, not another attempt to grow the Caterpillar of Doom, please!

Bruyneel: OUT !

Wow, I'm sitting down but I'm still staggering: yes, Mr Bruyneel has been given the shove by RadioShack:

As Mr Bruyneel seems to be firmly responsible for the general unhappiness of our Leopard boys, I can't be anything other than jubilant at this news.

Typically, Mr Bruyneel manages to put a "spin" on it to make it sound as though it were his choice: "“I have decided to step back from my official team activities in order to concentrate on my defence, and in order to shield the RadioShack - Nissan - Trek cycling team from unnecessary distractions,” he wrote on his website. 

Yeah, right. Shielding the team from distractions. Nice one.

I bet there are some celebrations going on in various places in Europe today! It appears from the above report that Fabian had earlier said "it's him or me", so he must be thrilled to bits. And of course Andy and his family must be just heaving huge sighs of relief that this horrible season is now over, Mr B's rule is now over, and next year they can all get back on track and just get on with the cycling. Suddenly, having another two years on the contract does not seem like such a ball and chain, after all.

I don't know if they will be celebrating so much at Frankie's place: I imagine they are still worried to bits about Frankie's adverse finding, but at least they now know that once it is over, Frankie will know (are you paying attention, Alice?)  that he will be returning to a much better environment.

Right, now we can start speculating about the new kit!

Cycling news today...

... includes the bad news that poor Frankie's LADA hearing has been put back by a week, boo.  As if it isn't bad enough having all this hanging over his head, now there will be another week for the gossipers to gossip, plus the worry that, well, we all know how the Contador thing worked out.. it took months, years, before it was sorted out.

Please, please, UCI, WADA, LADA, and for all I know, SAGA: don't drag it out, get on with it.

On a lighter note, forget to share this with you:

What, exactly, is our lovely Tour of Britain podium girl doing? Well, she appeared throughout the Tour either in a red dress, or in this blue one. The red one was fine, but she seemed to be having trouble with the blue one, and kept having to adjust the neckline by firmly gripping it with both hands and heaving it upwards.

Pretty brave of her, really, to adjust her bosom in full view of everyone, and the TV cameras.

It became a running joke with LLB and I - every time she appeared with a new jumper, she would put it on the lucky winner, do up the back, come round the front, and heave her bosom up again. By the end of the presentation, we were both miming along with her.

In much the same way that every time the Basque Tour, or the Basque region, are mentioned, one or other of us (sometimes both) do a mime to indicate an hour-glass figure and the pinging of a suspender....

I do hope you enjoy these little excursions of My Life While Watching Cycling.

Ooh, ooh, talking of real life, big excitement locally, I have now seen, not once but TWICE, a local cyclist wearing Leopard kit!! Yes! Contrary to previously thought, I am NOT the only Leopard fan in the whole of southern England!  Now I just have to manage it so that that one day, I will be carrying my Leopard musette-converted-into-useful-shopping-bag when I see him, so that I can wave it at him.

Any guesses as to how fast he will pedal away?

Bjarne's Beijing UCI Blackmail Fails

Poor Uncle Bjarne: he played an interesting card last week, announcing that the Tour of Beijing "was worthless".

Well, we all agree with that - cough, splutter, oh, that smog! - but he meant that it wasn't worth sending Contador there, as any UCI points he might win would be wasted if the UCI stood firm on their ruling that post-ban dopers can't accumulate UCI points for their team for two years after the end of their ban.

(It could also be said that it's desperately unfair for Stinkoff to allow their rider - paying Contador the compliment of assuming that he would win - to take points from other riders/teams, for whom a few extra points could make all the difference between keeping their pro-tour status next year, or losing it.)

Although the banned rider is allowed to contribute their points to the National rankings, which is a bit odd, don't you think? Why allow Spain to have an extra 290 points this year, whereas Saxo-Tinkoff banks, who are paying for the team, are denied the points? Very odd. Mind you, does anyone take any notice at all of the country rankings? No, didn't think so.

So what was Bjarne's cunning plan?

He was hoping that the Beijing organisers would put pressure on the UCI to exempt Contador from the 2-year-no-points rule, so that Stinkoff would send him, which would raise the profile of the race.

Alas, Beijing don't seem to care: the no-points-rule still stands, Contador is not going.

Nice try, Bjarne, though.

Good luck in Beijing, Andy!

Fingers crossed, Our Andy is going to be starting the Tour of Beijing next week, and we all hope that his pelvis is up to the job.

It was widely reported that he started Binche-Tournai-Binche but was unable to finish it, leading certain journalists to speculate that he wasn't fully recovered yet.

I must admit, it's clear that he's not fully recovered, so I don't quite see the point of racing, as opposed to continuing with the training - it's well known that training is no substitute for racing, and that it's just not possible to achieve the speeds and pressure in training that you would encounter in an actual race: but I don't quite see why Andy needs that speed and pressure when, I would have thought, he could tell from training rides that his backside is still not 100%.

(Only on the inside, Andy, my pet, only on the inside: on the outside, please be assured your backside is 100% of what it was.)

Starting races and not finishing them just fuels the "Andy Schleck is a quitter" stories that we all hate.

Still, I'm not his DS, and I am sure there are good reasons for it, so all we can do it sit and watch with fingers crossed, and hope that he finishes at Beijing. 

From what I can make out, it's not a particularly punishing parcours, but I understand that long days in the saddle are currently the problem, rather than hills: and the Beijing course only appears to have one hilly day in it.

With all the Schleck-Shlack problems we've been having, it's actually a very good sign that Shack are prepared to send Andy to Beijing: they could easily have left him out, preferring to send another rider who is in better form, in order to support Eeee-bennati and get more UCI points. 

After all, Shack are not exactly at the top of the UCI points rankings this year - they are currently sitting 12th, which is not brilliant - but of course this year there are only 19 teams chasing the 18 places, rather different from previous years, and as long as Shack have more points than Stinkoff - not hard,  bearing in mind that Contador's points won't count, and he has 290 of Stinkoff's 385, oops - then they are unlikely to be in trouble.

So fingers and toes crossed, everyone: oh, and Andy, don't forget to pack your breathing mask.

Tour of Britain: the Finish.

At last, the final day of the Tour of Britain, and LLB and I were off to Guildford for the day.

The race was due through a little after one o'clock, then off round the countryside in a big loop, and back again at about four-ish for the finish.

We arrived in plenty of time, and were staggered to find the streets of Guildford (Note for non-UK readers: Guildford is a negligible town just south of London, far enough out not to be of any use or any interest, but close enough to be entangled in the London traffic and inflated house prices. End of Note) packed with people.

Staggering amounts of people! Yes, we were standing  up, but we were still staggering!

We located the team buses, and yes, I did consider another mumping expedition, but there was no-one to be seen, in most cases: and the buses were mostly roped off from the road. I tried to catch the eye of a mechanic or two, but with no luck.

We found the finish line, and worked out where they would be going on the first circuit, but the crowds were already three or four deep along the barriers, and a lot of people had brought chairs and were camping out, determined to keep "their" spot.  So we made our way down the cobbled hill away from the start line, and eventually settled ourselves by the barriers.

It wasn't a particularly good place, being at the bottom of the hill leading into the town, just as they started going uphill to the finish line, which on this circuit would be a sprint point - so they would be going at maximum velocity.

But we didn't care, we stood there and cheered, waving our Sky flags, as the lead group - including Jonathon Tiernan-Locke, eventual winner - whooshed past, followed a minute or so later by the peloton.

We then had at least three hours before they returned to Guildford for the finish, so we wandered off, had some lunch,  I made my successful foray to the Orica team bus (see Mumping the Musettes for full details) and on the way back, found Elz, one of my Twitter chums who was working as a Marshall for the race, and proudly showed her the Orica musette. She was easy to spot, she had a sign pinned to the back of her high-vis bib which read "Call me!"  It was quite an experience, to actually meet someone I have only ever Tweeted to! I still live in hope of finding other Schlecklanders....

(Note for Alice: it would be more correct to say "It was quite an experience, to actually meet [oops, split infinitive] someone with whom I have only ever Tweeted." rather than "someone I have only ever Tweeted to." But that is a bit formal. End of Note.)

LLB and I found a much better place to stand to watch the end of the race: just past the finish.

"Past the finish?" I hear you ask, "But surely you won't see anything?"

Quite the reverse: at the finish they all come steaming in at five hundred mph, so all you see is a blur. But just after the finish, that's where they mill about, slap each other on the back, cry on each other's shoulders and so on.  The finish was to our right, and the team buses were all to our left, so we knew that every single rider was going to have to come past us.

Also, we had a lot of faces to watch: there was a constant stream of people wandering up and down towards the podium,  not least being Dave Brailsford of Team Sky, along with his PR lady, Fran Millar (sister of rider David Millar of Garmin). She was getting a bit exasperated that Dave kept stopping to sign autographs and chat, as she wanted her lunch. We exchanged some words of encouragement - and suggested she put him on a lead - and next day, on Twitter, we had this exchange:

At this point, I have to say to anyone planning to attend a cycle race, it helps to develop sharp elbows and quite a thick skin, as people are incredibly rude about barging their way in to the barrier. People who arrive early have earned their spot at the barrier: people who arrive ten minutes before the event cannot expect everyone to make way for them. Woman with annoying whiney voice, That Means You.

Another annoying tactic which we saw being used repeatedly is for a parent to shove a small child towards the barrier, with the unspoken sub-text of "aww, my tiny child is too small to see from back here, just let him in in front of you, go on," but then the parents push in alongside the child. One woman in particular was trying to work her way along the barrier to the finish line in this fashion, making enemies all the way.

A long time, and many elbows later, the race finished, Cav won, yay! and suddenly we were right in the middle of it.

This is the scene just before the finish, you can see all the soigneurs are gathering, and yes, that is the podium, that semi-circular thing. It looks so big on the TV, but it's tiny in real life!

For the next ten minutes we had a succession of riders whooshing past us: here are a selection of my shots, starting with Christian Knees:

Below: left-hand United Healthcare rider: "Hey, don't cry!"

Mark de Marre, other United Healthcare rider in yellow (Curacao national champion kit) "Waaaaaaah!"

Cav is mobbed by Sky riders and journalists.

Sky's Jeremy Hunt needs a push: well, it's his last race, he's retiring now.

My pet, Luke Rowe: "Yay, Luke!"

The blackboard girly being squashed by the cavalcade. Talk about chaos!

Dan Lloyd, done for the day.

The blackboard girly is still stuck in the traffic jam, and narrowly avoids being squashed by the Raleigh team car - for the second time! They reversed to let the UK Youth car into the gap, and very nearly got her.

"Hi, Yanto!"  The benefits of coming in 6th: you don't have to go on the podium or doping control, so you can get changed out of your sweaty kit before the rest of your team have even crossed the line!

And yes, it was complete coincidence that we happened to be positioned exactly opposite the UK Youth van. Honest.

Garmin riders arrive... in the background, UK Youth are already packing up their bikes.

Dan Craven "Mr Beardy" of Sigma Sport, with a serious amount of bandaging.

And so on. Well, there you have it, I've now been to a Start, and to a Finish, all that leaves is a Mountain stage, and I will have done the lot!

Oh, nearly forgot one other moment of note: as the Sky team cars came round the corner, LLB and I waved our hand-made Sky flags, and they beeped and waved at us, which was nice.