posted Jul 27, 2007

"Does the fact that Roche and Delgado (probably in the case of Roche) were doping in 1987 make that Tour any less exciting in my memory- no of course not."

I'm surprised to read that there are rumours about Roche. Was 1987 the year that Gert Jan Theunesse won a stage and came over the line with eyes like dinner plates?

You have to take your hat of to those that ride the Tour completely clean - I'd need something truly powerful just to ride one stage!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 27, 2007

the biggest cheats are untraceable blood doping is what the majority of the riders do it is extremely difficult if not impossible to trace so the whole sport is corrupt it doesnt become who is the best cyclist it becomes who can take the most drugs

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 27, 2007

But UCI/TDF have had 9 years since the Festina scandal of 1998 - how long will it take.

Can it even be resolved?

I believe it will take a fundamental change in the testing, penalties and probably the nature of the Tour.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 27, 2007

I am not entirely convinced that no money means no drugs. Athletics had plenty of problems before professionalism arrived.

An interesting point is that in those athletic events e.g. throwing & sprints where steroids helped the level of performances around the world took a major dive and only crept back up relatively slowly.

I am not close to cycling so don't know but has that happened in TDF and other cycling events (including track)?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

sport and drugs; the facts.
#1 performance enhancing substances are out there and they're not leaving any time soon.
#2. a percentage of sportsmen will use said substances.
#3. there will never be a foolproof catchall system capable of taking out dope cheats.
the expanse of the doping in sport problem is best illustrated by gary player's assertions that golf has a doping problem. why would anyone need to take drugs to play a couple rounds of golf?
so here's an idea to kick around. all sporting bodies adopt an anything goes policy. if a couple of tea bags up your ass does it for you then go ahead. there will be 2 categories in each sport ; 1 the elite group ( substance abusers), and 2; the clean group (self righteous hypocrites). david millar might be in this group.
the media, responsible for most of the hype, hysteria and handwringing concerning doping in sport would be instructed to prioritise the achievements of the clean category. the dope problem would be solved in an instant. the moment in fact an athlete or golfer for that matter had to register with the elite category.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

Readers should remeber that the Tour de France is not just a cycle race (the same could be said for all major sports events but the Tour takes this to the limit). It is first and formost a publicity carnival for the thousands (millions perhaps) who line the route, waiting for the keyfobs, bottles of water, saucisson, publicity cds, (used to be videocassettes) etc. For the 30 minutes at most of cycle-racing there is 3 hours of build up with a real battle to win the most of whatever goodies are falling from the heavens. Everyone takes part and granny with her cane can be a redoubtable opponent. No doping scandal can kill this Tour, its free, popular and has nothing to do with cycling.
The second Tour is that of the sponsoring, the public figures, the commercial contacts and the courtesy marquees. It also is not about cycle-racing but it is probably the most influential factor in the Tour organisation. It is something that has its roots in the technological and marketting advances of the last 100+ years (the Tour was originally about selling a newspaper about motoring and comes from the same logic that made Michelin not only publish road maps but also put up the signposts to make the maps work, just to encourage people to wear out their car tyres!). This Tour could be affected by a doping scandal because no-one wants to be seen as associating with crooks, but it is not dependant on the outcome of the race. A rider with a good public image who happens to be in last place is worth as much in marketting terms as a winner who is inarticulate or inaccessible (or seen as a cheat or suspect).
Which brings us to the third Tour, the cycle race, probably the least important part of the equation. If the race was a spectacle and only that, doping would create a scandal but with relatively little longterm effect. If professional cycle racing was about a straightforward commercial activity, the participants would have the right to do as the rest of the world can do, with the same risks and penalties (use or abuse of any medication to combat stress, maintain performance during an off day or go a bit faster for whatever reason; if you get caught it's a penal matter; if you die it's your lookout).
Instead professional cycle-racing has chosen to be an Olympic sport with all the emphasis on athletic performance and levelling of technological differences that that implies. This is still a reasonably recent development and is not really compatible with the ideas of popular spectacle or commercial marketting. The UCI has already taken steps to restrict technological advance in cycle design in order to "level the playing field". I don't personally think that the wholesale adoption of the Olympic ideal is compatible with professional entertainment, regardless of the sport. Imagine F1 where everyone had the same car, the Olympic ideal but terrible entertainment. A degree of gamesmanship (and cheating, doping, ruleplaying) has always been present in professional sport and it is the players themselves who control what is acceptable (because it's their livelihood). The same thing is not appropriate to Olympic sport, which has ethics and rules developed and enforced by national and international governing bodies. I think that one of the best things for the future of the professional cycling circuit could well be to sort out what they want; the big money spectacle without the Olympic ideal (the traditional pro cycle racing, and lets get back to liberty with the technolgical advances, no more stifling the talents of the Graeme Obree's of the world) or the Olympic sport with all the restraints of an essentially non-commercial activity where the sports administrators have their day of mixing with the politicians of the IOC and the riders accept that nothing is acceptable outside purity regardless of what that means in terms of earning power.
As an aside, doping is apparently prevalent in non-competitive cycling as well. Riders are testing positive in cyclo-sportives and doping controls are starting to be present in cycle-touring cyclo-montagnard brevets. I leave readers to ponder on the penalties possible for someone who is not competing and who may well need medication to enjoy his/her leisure activity.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

I am sure tour organisers were rooting against another Dr Ferrari associate in Leipheimer and probably could have done with out another Discovery rider in Contrador. Indeed Lance Ferrari's most famous associated cyclist turn up for good measure. Indeed Discovery who arose from the old US Postal of Landis and Lance (not to mention Tyler Hamilton) tried to hire Basso the disgraced Italian cyclist earlier this year.

Not the way to put a line under the past.

Bradley Wiggins is lucky Lance is not about to run him down and tell him he has no career for talking about doping. Filippo Simeoni who gave evidence against Dr Ferrari had yellow jersey Armstrong personally ride to prevent him winning anything. Way to show you hate doping.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2007

Rasmussen missed 2 tests not 4.

He received 4 warnings in total for twice being unavailable for random testing at the expected address, .
2 warnings were from the UCI and 2 from the Danish cycling union.

The rules are that if a rider misses 3 random tests, a 2 year ban follows, this did not happen in Rasmussen's case, he WAS located on the third attempt and the test result was negative, Rabobank also fined him for the same incident.

Rasmussen was the most tested rider in the Tour De France, ALL tests results were negative, he is the only rider to be expelled without any proof of doping whatsoever, in fact after 15 tests during the race he proved to be the most doping-free rider in the race.
He was sacked because of pressure from the idiots who run the Tour De France on his team leader, supposedly for lying? in spite of the fact that he had already been fined by the team
prior to the race for the same incident!

I hope he sues the pants of The Tour leadership and RaboBank

Innocent until proved guilty? not in the Tour De France.
(Unless of course you are French)

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2007

Rasmussen's wife is Mexican , he lives in Italy, he missed 2 tests not 4, he took the third test and the result was negative, he was fined by his team and the UCI, he was tested 15 times during the race all negative.
Do hypocrites like Millar think a rider who has NEVER failed a drugs test should get divorced to satisfy the media and the Tour leadership.
Rasmussen won the tour, no rider was tested more, he is a scapegoat for the rivalry between the Tour leaders and the UCI.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 30, 2007

Wake up people!!
Why are teams willing to take such risks with doping if they know the consequences?
Could it possibly be the lawyers who will no doubt appeal any decision and then earn millions in the long drawn out legal processes that follow?

add comment | complain about this comment