I'd stopped riding in 2006(ish) due to the cumulative factors of time poverty due to family and work commitments plus I had become increasingly annoyed by the issue of doping in the top-flight of the sport. And it's the latter which is the topic for this post.
The relationship between cycling and chemical assistance has been a curious one: one which led me to hang up my bikes for a few years too. I'd grown tired of reading of young cyclists dying in their sleep for no reason; of someone being busted for EPO; of champions accidentally eating contaminated food and so it goes. I don't have time for cheats and they are not good role models for my kids.
Ignoring the issue was the main thrust of the governing bodies for too long. I've never done it nor sought to do it as I don't have the pressure or talent or lack of integrity to entertain it. But others have and may still do. There will always be cheats in any walk of life. But why do it?
Following the Second World War, cycling was viewed as a means of re-establishing the new Europe and also a way of demonstrating national prowess as well as illustrating that there was sufficient infrastructure to allow a nation state to to host a Grand Tour (in France, Italy and to a lesser extent Spain). The pressures on riders grew and the demands of these epic races grew to Herculean levels. The availability of cheap amphetamines and a less than qualified approach to medical science led to the perfect storm whereby riders could no longer compete on "pain et l'eau" alone. Any biography of Anquetil, Simpson, Coppi etc attests to these themes. I think I have read nearly every book on cycling that Amazon sells and there is consistency in the stories told; a little bit of speed is fine; these tablets will help you recover. But respect the omerta. Keep it in the family and it will all be fine. Don't piss in to the tent like Paul Kimmage or you'll be ostricised.
As I began to take up the sport more seriously in the late 1990s and early 2000s I had little appreciation of the history and metier. As I developed my love for the sport and the hatred of the training, I did improve my knowledge of who was riding, what the events were all about and began to supplement my education which had been gained by watching Channel 4's coverage of the Tour de France in the 80s and further advanced by old copies of my father in law's Cycling Weekly. Indurain, Lemond, Fignon, Kelly, Roche, Cipollini, Robert Millar all riders I respected. Incidentally Kelly was ruled out of a position with Team Sky as he would have failed their zero tolerance policy for convicted dopers).
As the shadow of doping grew I was at least satisfied that Lance Armstrong was a paragon of what could be achieved through science, determination and sheer will-power and bloody mindedness. "There's no way he's doping, anyone who has been through cancer wouldn't be some stupid. He's an inspiration, if he doped then cycling would be finished". These were my own words on more than one occasion when asked by non-cycling friends. "Oh come on, he must be."
"No way." I'm not that into the pro-cycling scene but that would be a bridge too far.
I recall leering at David Millar as he warmed up at the London Grand Depart in 2007 near Whitehall and muttering to friends what a total fraud he was for stealing the World Time Trial championship (he was convicted of doping following the Cofidis affair).
Armstrong is above this.
He's different. I've seen him ride in France several times, he is carrying a generation on his shoulders and on the Champs Elysee he carries the chants of "U-S-A", the French would have a field day if he fell from grace and what about his cancer charity and foundation. That alone would keep him honest. He's never tested positive, he's been screened more than any other athlete...
As the UCI ruled in concordance with USADA today, the writing is now on the wall. The lack of defence is deafening. The USADA case against Armstrong is more or less exclusively based on circumstantial evidence and affidavits, there isn't much forensic evidence at all, certainly not enough to force the stripping of seven Tour de France victories. But the testimonies and lack of rebuttal have seen Icarus's wings melt. There may be some compelling defence on the horizon but it will lack credibility and history is already being revised.
The heroes now are people like David Millar, his book is candid and honest and the context and challenges that he articulates go some way to explain how rank and toxic the pro-sport was. The future is now down to people like Wiggins, Cavendish, Stannard, Froome, Thomas and the other "products" of the British Olympic programme that was set up by Peter Keen (World Class Performance Plan maestro) and which lives on in the through the BC Academy, Team Sky and UK Sport. The Tour of 2012 may be the first clean race for a generation, there may be even a BW and AW suffix for the historians to adopt, i.e. cycling Before Wiggins and After Wiggins. In the UK we are lucky that we have been on the margins previously but now we are at the forefront of the development and progression of cycling. I'm disgusted that the UCI have been weak in policing the sport but I'm sure that the generation of talent we have now (and the next one) can demonstrate more integrity than "generation-EPO".
 |
| The infamous Charlton Hillclimb courtesy of Neil Fraser 21/10/12 - I did refuel on Young's Best Bitter but that's as chemical as my training gets. |
