US Cycling looks to future but remains tangled in its past
By Tim Renowden, 28 Aug 2012 Tim Renowden is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cycling, Lance Armstrong, USA Pro Cycling Challenge
Lance Armstrong has both energised and tarnished US Cycling - can it continue to grow? (AP Photo/Franck Prevel, File)
Related coverage
In a week when the ugly past of North American cycling has been exhumed for all to see, the USA Pro Cycling Challenge has shown that the sport of road cycling is still alive and in good health in the United States.
But as the cycling community attempts to put cycling’s seedy past well behind us, we can’t avoid the uncomfortable truth that there are plenty more skeletons yet to dig up, as the echoes of Armstrong’s career continue to reverberate through the sport, for better and for worse.
The huge crowds lining the roads for the USA Pro Cycling Challenge are a direct result of Armstrong’s achievements, taking road cycling in that country from a small niche of Europhiles to a legitimate sport and pastime for millions.
With this interest and participation has come money to sponsor teams and riders, developing the next generation of American cyclists.
Yet the Armstrong accusations leave a tangle of unanswered questions for several of the current protagonists in American cycling.
On Sunday, Christian Vande Velde breezed past Levi Leipheimer’s time in the final stage time trial, claiming the general classification victory in the USA Pro Cycling Challenge.
Both Vande Velde and Leipheimer are rumoured to be among the group of Armstrong’s former teammates ready to testify in USADA’s case, in exchange for a reduced ban.
Vande Velde now rides for Garmin-Sharp, the team with arguably the best anti-doping reputation in World Tour ranks. The team is managed by Jonathan Vaughters, another former teammate of Lance Armstrong who has publicly admitted doping and repudiated that choice in a compelling op-ed recently published in the New York Times.
In that op-ed, Vaughters states that his hardline anti-doping stance as a team manager is a direct result of his own experience of the intense pressure to dope as a cyclist, and the shattering effect it had on his own career.
If a dark shadow eventually emerges from Vande Velde’s past, the fact that he now rides for Vaughters’ team is a strong indication that he is now riding clean (to the extent that you can prove any rider is clean).
For those who prefer to focus on the future, while these two elder statesmen of US cycling were duking it out, two of the most promising of the next generation of US cyclists were also showing off their talents.
Tejay Van Garderen, one of the most exciting young riders in this year’s Tour de France, and of this season in general, finished second overall after shooting past Leipheimer on the time trial.
His BMC teammate Taylor Phinney won the final time trial in style, continuing a really good year for the 22 year-old in which he has already won time trials at the Giro d’Italia and Giro del Trentino, and a pair of 4th places in the Olympic time trial and road race.
These two immensely talented young stars are the future of American cycling and a big part of the future of global cycling.
But it’s impossible to ignore the debt these young riders and their team owe to Lance. I mention this not as an attempt to tarnish these riders by association – there is no indication that they are anything but clean – but to point out that Lance Armstrong’s career has a strong ongoing hold on American cycling.
Phinney served his professional apprenticeship at the Trek-Livestrong under 23 team (bankrolled by Armstrong and his longtime personal sponsor Trek) as he developed from a talented track rider to a fully-fledged road professional.
Both he and van Garderen now ride for the BMC team led by Jim Ochowicz, the doyen of American road cycling who managed Lance Armstrong’s first pro team, Motorola, in the early 1990s.
Ochowicz was also president of USA Cycling from 2002 to 2006, when Armstrong was at his peak, and the manager of the US Olympic road team from 2000 to 2008. This week he has publicly supported Armstrong while very deliberately mentioning his positive contribution to the sport.
How much Ochowicz’s career has been improved by Armstrong’s (and his discredited teammates’) is a question that’s worth considering. Van Garderen and Phinney, along with their star-studded team, are now the beneficiaries of the experience and profile that Ochowicz built partly on the back of Armstrong’s success, not to mention the doors that his association opens with sponsors.
Ochowicz has been around a long time, and his career was established well before Armstrong emerged, but his time at the helm of USA Cycling coincided with the most prolific era of doping in American cycling history.
Without Armstrong’s outstanding (but now deflated) record, and the interest and money that flooded into American cycling as a result of his career, we wouldn’t have the crowds lining the roads at North American races, we probably wouldn’t have two American teams in the World Tour, and the next generation of riders like van Garderen and Phinney would not receive the same support.
You could make similar arguments about Armstrong’s effect on cycling’s profile in Australia. The South Australian government certainly thought the halo of tourism dollars his presence at the Tour Down Under brought was worth spending money on. Would the race be so popular if Armstrong had never visited?
Weighing the positives (sorry) of Armstrong’s career against the damage his alleged doping has done to the credibility of cycling is an incredibly complicated moral and legal issue.
He did more to globalise the sport than anyone before him, but may have done more to damage it than anyone else. Many others are tied up in his legacy, and not just in the US. Fans and riders alike understandably want to focus on the future, but with so much history still to unravel, moving on will take a while yet.
Tim Renowden has been following professional cycling closely since Indurain won his first Tour. A former A-grade club athlete, and now a keen recreational cyclist and roller racer, he once rode very slowly up Mont Ventoux. Tim tweets about sport at @timehhh_sp.
The Crowd Says (24) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Cycling, Lance Armstrong, USA Pro Cycling Challenge

August 28th 2012 @ 12:27pm
Mike said | August 28th 2012 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Good piece Tim. Whether Lance did or didn’t dope, his impact on the sport globally has been incredible.
To that extent, I don’t know if his lifetime ban from USADA is going to change much for the average cyclist and/or cycling fan. If someone has been introduced to the sport by Armstrong’s feats, how many are actually going to give up cycling (or watching cycling) – a hobby they enjoy – because of one man’s failings? My enjoyment of a spin on the road isn’t affected by the results of the Tour de France and I suspect millions of others are the same.
In my mind, the most likely negative outcome from this is the impact on sponsors. If they perceive US road cycling – or pro road cycling in general – to be so tainted as to be worthless to their brand, the pool of donors is going to shrink significantly.
August 28th 2012 @ 6:49pm
sittingbison said | August 28th 2012 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
Mike I don’t think a single person will give up cycling because of Lance.
Some sponsors might pull out, but some might come in IF cycling takes this opportunity to clean up the stinking mess they find themselves in. But to do so will take a total clean out of the corrupt UCI, starting with Fat Pat and Hein.
August 28th 2012 @ 1:11pm
Jimbo said | August 28th 2012 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Although it will have some negative ramifications, I think the USADA case was entirely necessary. The UCI seems unwilling or unable to do much/anything about the doping problem, to the extent that there is evidence it was complicit in covering up drug use. Hence, USADA was absolutely right to step in. Head of Cervelo Gerard Vroomen in a short piece (http://gerard.cc/2012/08/27/lets-focus-on-the-future/) writes that three doctors (Ferrari, Del Moral and a third unnamed doctor who is currently employed by Radioshack-Nissan-Trek) are likely to be banned for life from any sport, along with a directeur sportif (I presume he means Johan Bruyneel). Additionally, Armstrong was still competing in triathlons, which he will now be banned from. Basically, aside from Lance, I don’t think there can be much argument that removing those who were complicit in facilitating and covering up doping is good for the long term future of cycling.
I cycle for fun and exercise, and obviously the pro scene doesn’t have much of an impact on that, but I fully support efforts to move away from the institutionalised doping that existed previously, and served to strip the sport of much credibility amongst many.
August 28th 2012 @ 1:17pm
Tim Renowden said | August 28th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
I absolutely agree with you, Jimbo. This process is like the chemo required to treat cancer: it’s horrible and painful and it nearly kills you, but in the long run you’re better off.
August 28th 2012 @ 6:52pm
sittingbison said | August 28th 2012 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
nice summation Jimbo.
Furthermore Kimmage has a couple of great interviews, and now an article, about a “root and branch pruning” (google is your friend). Get rid of everyone associated with the plague. He acknowledges some have done good, including Vaughters, but still has some reservations as they are not always consistent.
August 28th 2012 @ 3:40pm
jameswm said | August 28th 2012 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Tim – I enjoyed the Olympic athletics articles with you and I’m not tryng to sound aggressive – but weren’t you one of those saying a month or two ago that Lance should be left alone? Or have I confused you with someone else? Maybe it was Felix.
August 28th 2012 @ 3:49pm
Tim Renowden said | August 28th 2012 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Nah, I’m pretty sure I’ve never said that. I’ve thought he was suss for a long time, as we know the evidence has been mounting for years. USADA has to go after him and anyone else they find to be doping.
It sucks for cycling to lose its heroes but the sport has to be cleaned up, and for that to happen nobody can be above the law.
I hate it every time a cyclist tests positive or gets banned, but that’s not the same thing as wanting to leave riders alone.
August 28th 2012 @ 4:17pm
jameswm said | August 28th 2012 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
I agree – I do feel sorry for the people for whom he was an inspiration, as their dreams have been shattered a bit. I ran into one at the local bottle shop the other day – I’d been moving house all weekend and hadn’t seen the news! Nice bloke, pretty upset about it. He asked me if I thought he doped. I said a lot of others were and he beat them, so how could he do it clean? Plus all his team-mates coming out and admitting it all.
But seriously – how could anyone not have been incredibly suspicious. How naive can people be?
I hope the same doesn’t happen with Bolt. He was phenomenal as a skinny teenager and his times have followed a normal path.
August 28th 2012 @ 4:25pm
Tim Renowden said | August 28th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Bolt’s times as a junior are the best reason to think he’s clean.
August 28th 2012 @ 6:59pm
sittingbison said | August 28th 2012 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
apart from some 0.5 second improvements. Massive over 100m. Never before even got close. Compare to Lewis over his entire career. Or Calvin Smith. His junior times are reason to think he is talented, not necessarily clean. But thats another story.
James, it is truly mystifying how naive people can be. I suspect its because nobody likes being duped, having the wool pulled over their eyes. Look at reactions in con man shows and the like, a kind of embarrassed fake laugh.
Mark Twain: “It Is Easier To Fool People Than To Convince People That They Have Been Fooled.”
August 28th 2012 @ 7:33pm
Tim Renowden said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
Is that the second time this week you’ve used that quote?
The big improvement in his 100m PB may be down to the fact he didn’t run one for a few years while he was focusing on the 200m and mucking around with the 400m. His 100m times are consistent with his 200m times, which progressed at a more constant rate, at least.
But then you read about his relationship with Angel Heredia/Hernandez, and look at his training partners’ improvement and you really start to wonder.
August 28th 2012 @ 5:47pm
Justin Curran said | August 28th 2012 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
I think ultimately when we reflect on Lance Armstrong in the future, we will likely find that overall he had an overwhelmingly positive effect on the sport. The fact that we now know he doped will not mean that thousands, if not millions of cycling enthusiasts the world over that were first attracted to the sport due in part to his success and fame, will now abandon the sport in disgust. I just don’t buy into this argument that the Armstrong case damages the credibility of cycling anyway. Lance Armstrong is yesterday’s news, and his last tour victory was 7 years ago. Sure, if we were right in the middle of his career, and it was discovered there was systematic doping through the whole peloton, then no doubt the sport would be devastated, with sponsors disappearing and the immediate future of the pro tour in jeopardy. In fact, this case may improve the credibility of cycling by demonstrating that the authorities are prepared to go to great lengths, even years later, to catch the cheats.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:03pm
sittingbison said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
Agree with almost all you said Justin, except he only retired from cycling in last year and still competes in professional Ironman (better make that “competed” lol).
I especially like your last sentence, could not agree more. I also don’t think cycling will be seen as taking a hit, just Armstrong, doping doctors in general, and a couple of corrupt officials in UCI in particular.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:22pm
Tim Renowden said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
I also agree with the last sentence, but it could be wishful thinking.
One of my points in the article though was that it isn’t old news (yet), because there are plenty of Lance’s fellow travellers still around to remind us of the bad old days.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:28pm
sittingbison said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
yup. Kimmage said the same thing today, wants a root and branch pruning for cycling to recover. Get rid of the bad guys. He acknowledges the good work of Vaughters and a few others, but still has some reservations due to inconsistencies.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:44pm
Justin Curran said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Interestingly one of Lance’s right hand men, George Hincapie, has managed to make a very dignified exit from the sport, with everyone singing his praises, I suspect this may have happened just in time before potentially damaging information comes to light about his involvement. That is if the evidence does get revealed as everyone hopes. I can’t help thinking that even if George’s name is dragged through the mud, he may just come out the other side with his legacy and reputation intact.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:05pm
sittingbison said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Tim, a well reasoned and researched article. I like you looking outside the square on this one, and at other personalities caught up in it all. Congratualtions.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:28pm
Tim Renowden said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
Thanks, that’s reassuring.
I was actually really cagey about publishing this one. Took me a lot longer to write than usual and I wasn’t happy with it. I held off submitting it overnight and had another crack with a clear head. I don’t enjoy writing about doping.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:32pm
sittingbison said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
Worth the effort, its great to see an article that does not specifically go into the nitty gritty. Another perspective which I personally am glad of, I am WAYYYY too caught up in debunking myths etc and enjoyed the read.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:11pm
liquorbox_ said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
It would be a better race if they could actually cover it with quality coverage, last year there were stages where there was no footage availiable.
This year we did not get to see much of Jens Voights victory as there was once again no footage availiable of the lask few KM. The guys on Eurosport were scathing and said viewers should complain to US cycling and that it was simply not good enough
August 28th 2012 @ 9:07pm
Rich said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
Great article Timmy. As you say, weighing the pros and cons of Armstrong’s career is a complicated issue.
In my view the benefits of the publicity Armstrong has received are a positive externality of his actions. He didn’t deliberately set out to increase the popularity of cycling in the US or to give young cyclists a better chance of success, but rather he set out to win, for himself, at the expense of others who chose not to cheat. Futhermore he aggressively pursued and arrogantly attempted to discredit those who dared to speak the truth about him, while he continues to lie, even to this day, about his actions.
I feel there is justice in the way things have turned out: his deliberate and immoral acts in pursuit of personal gain have ultimately been for nothing now that his achievements have been eradicated from the record books, but his unintended positive impact on the broader world of cycling will (hopefully) continue to deliver benefits for many years to come.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:54pm
Roundy said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
Great article and comments, as always, Tim.
There will be a lot more still to come on this case and i wouldn’t be surprised if the UCI go into bat for Mr Armstrong in the coming weeks. Not only is it in the best interest of continued growth of the sport in the USA. The fact that the honorary president of the UCI has common business interests with Lance, which obviously benefitted from Lances success, is probably also something they prefer to keep quiet!
Lance has made a very good move in this game. He still can claim to have never tested positive and also protects Hincapie, VDV and Leipheimer as they no longer have to testify and won’t end up with a ban.
I’ll still ride my bike, still watch the tour and still love this sport, however blindly I need to in order to continue to do so.
August 29th 2012 @ 2:34am
I hate dopers said | August 29th 2012 @ 2:34am | Report comment
Would not be surprised if Michael Phelps was caught. I have no doubt that the american is cheating.
August 29th 2012 @ 12:26pm
Russ said | August 29th 2012 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
I don’t buy the argument that Lance undoubtedly helped grow the sport of cycling. Why? Because every professional sport in the world, in the past 10 years, has been flooded with money and increased interest. Some have done better out of it than others, but there were fundamental economic changes to sport and global coverage in the past decade that made growth relatively inevitable. If Armstrong didn’t race cycling would have found a different narrative; perhaps less inviting to US audiences, or perhaps not. There have been plenty of good US riders in the past decade, because cycling had grown as a sport in the year’s prior to Lance’s career – it is why Lance found his way into cycling.
In many ways his influence was a massive negative for cycling. His obsessive focus on the Tour de France devalued other races and perverted the monetary incentives for sponsors and teams. The cult of personality he built around himself that funnelled money into his pockets, allowing him to put together super-teams to support him didn’t make for great racing, or a sustainable sport. Not that Lance was wholly responsible for those developments, some are just the natural effect of market forces as the money came in. But neither are good things, and cycling is pretty widely acknowledged to be a financial/organisational mess because of the way it developed through the 00s.