With the peloton entering the final few weeks of another roller-coaster season, let’s try and provide the answers to some key questions that may shape both the immediate and long-term future of cycling.
Who will win the Race of the Falling Leaves?
It would take a brave man to bet against the new world champion, Philippe Gilbert, who seems to have fully recovered from his early season blues at BMC.
The Belgian won the Giro di Lombardia in 2009 and 2010 and, judging by the way he blew the field apart on the Cauberg last weekend, he looks likely to deliver an early win in the rainbow stripes.
One man who will be keen to beat Gilbert is Joaquim Rodriguez. The Spaniard came so close to winning both the Giro and the Vuelta, but had to settle for second and third places respectively – plus a hatful of stages.
Purito was outclassed by Gilbert in the Worlds road race but he knows that a strong finish in Lombardia will put him above Bradley Wiggins in the UCI World Tour Ranking.
Third in last year’s Lombardia, Rodriguez is just nine points shy of Wiggins, who is unlikely to race again this year after his recent subdued showing in Limburg.
Who will free Cavendish from the shackles of Sky?
It looks increasingly like the former world champion’s stage win on the last day of the Tour of Britain was a goodbye present for Sky, the British-based team he joined from the defunct HTC-Columbia at the end of last season.
Cavendish notched up more than a dozen wins this season, including hat-tricks in the Giro d’Italia, Tour de France and Tour of Britain. But it will be the image of his rainbow jersey stuffed with water bottles, rather than a beaming Cav crossing the finish line with his arms aloft, that will linger after what has clearly been a testing season for the Manx Missile.
While Cavendish is under contract at Sky for the next two years, it is practically certain that he will leave the team in a matter of weeks.
Both team manager David Brailsford and the Tour winner Wiggins have effectively suggested he start looking for a new home, while the rider himself readily admits that he will not be able to ride for the green jersey while Sky put all their eggs in the yellow basket.
Rabobank and Katusha both showed early interest, but Omega Pharma-QuickStep are odds-on to snap him up. With Sky reportedly keen on signing the Belgian team’s young Scottish talent Andrew Fenn, some kind of swap deal could well take place, whereby Sky would waiver much of Cavendish’s lofty contract buyout clause.
OPQS makes perfect sense: they have no major GC contender and with Tom Boonen now favouring the classics over the long stage races, they are in need of a Grand Tour sprinter.
What’s more, Cavendish would be reunited with both Brian Holm and Rolf Aldag – mentors from his happier HTC days. “Cavendish has many possibilities but only one – Omega Pharma – really fits,” Aldag said this week.
What other doping bombshells will be dropped in the next fortnight?
Following its decision to strip Lance Armstrong of his record seven Tour de France wins, USADA will hand over its much-awaited report on the American’s lifetime ban to the UCI no later than 15 October, it has been confirmed.
Pressure is indeed mounting on Armstrong, whose alleged doping dalliances are luridly detailed on pretty much every page of Tyler Hamilton’s recent book, The Secret Race.
Speaking to British newspaper The Guardian this week, Hamilton, a former team-mate of Armstrong’s at US Postal, said he believed the code of silence (or ‘Omertà’) that exists in the professional peloton was about to be lifted.
“I believe the pendulum has swung the other way,” Hamilton said. “I’ve heard that the stuff coming out in the next couple of weeks from other riders is going to make front page news in the sports sections.”
So far, what we’ve heard from Hamilton and Floyd Landis, another former team-mate of Armstrong, has confirmed suspicions widely held by many. But the prospect of more riders coming forward and throwing their cards on the table is certainly an appealing one – and it will have ramifications throughout the sport.
Just think of all those current riders who have cosied up to Armstrong and continue to do so: both Wiggins and Cavendish, for instance, have openly talked of their admiration for the American – while Alberto Contador, in an interview with Eurosport conducted as recently as the second rest day on the Vuelta, admitted that the Texan was his biggest idol in the sport.
Cycling is on the verge of a much-needed mass cleansing. This is not only exciting for those who like the soap opera of the pro peloton but, more importantly, it’s a huge moment for the sport and its development.
How far can the Paul Kimmage Defence Fund go?
With cycling at such a crucial crossroads, it is quite frankly lamentable that the UCI, the sport’s governing body, has chosen this moment, of all moments, to pursue a personal vendetta by launching legal action against Paul Kimmage, the Irish journalist who has tirelessly – and sometimes, it must be said, nauseatingly – led the crusade against doping.
The UCI refusing to ratify USADA’s lifetime ban of Armstrong is understandable, given that it has still yet to receive the full dossier (see above). You get the impression, however, that this delay very much suits the sport’s governing body, which is in the spotlight after The Secret Race raised the spectre of its complicity in covering up a failed drugs test by Armstrong.
Kimmage wrote about this alleged Tour de Suisse episode in The Sunday Times via an extensive interview with Floyd Landis in 2010; Kimmage then elaborated on the accusations in an interview with L’Equipe; these allegations have since been corroborated by numerous other publications and books (most recently, Hamilton’s).
And yet the UCI are not targeting any of these publications; nor are they going after Landis or Hamilton. Instead, Pat McQuaid and his predecessor Hein Verbruggen are suing Kimmage for a total of 16,000 Swiss francs (AU$16,340).
Outraged, the cycling sites www.nyvelocity.com and www.cyclismas.com set up an online defence fund for Kimmage which, at the time of writing, had almost reached $40,000 (AU$38,400).
At this rate, the fund will be so full that Kimmage will have enough excess cash to be able to fly to his court hearing in Switzerland on the kind of private jet favoured by the big cheeses of the UCI.
Anything he has left over he could then perhaps donate to Livestrong?
How long until the UCI back down over Qatar 2016?
It certainly has not been a good month for the UCI, who this week also announced their decision to grant the 2016 World Championships to Qatar. Yes, that’s Qatar, the pancake-flat, petrol-rich, sovereign Arab state where temperatures average at around 35 degrees Celsius during September.
Ever since the World Championships were established in 1927, they have taken place outside Europe – the spiritual home of cycling – on just six occasions. Those occasions include Colombia, Australia and the States – three nations with huge cycling histories.
Qatar is to cycling what Qatar is to football and, like FIFA’s equally lamentable decision to host the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, this is a complete and utter farce.
At least football can be played in air-conditioned stadiums, above which artificial clouds can float. Cycling needs the great outdoors and it thrives on both the landscapes it covers and the spectators it attracts.
Qatar has no local riders and no public interest in cycling. Not only will the organisers have to build mountains to spice up the route, they will have to somehow line the streets with fans.
It’s not going to happen. Look at Limburg and the sea of spectators out on the Cauberg: that is what cycling and the World Champonships should be about.
Having a Tour of Qatar is bad enough – but taking the biggest one-day race of the professional calendar and transporting it to a place that has no right whatsoever to host it is absurd.
Whatever next – giving the Grand Depart of the Tour de France to Qatar? Oh, hang on – there’s already talk of that happening in 2014.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
I think we can resolve our disagreement if you can point me to a credible source who is of the opinion that the investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. I am not aware of one, but if you can provide one, I'd be forever grateful for the insight. Here are some facts that are just that, facts, without any opinion: 1. The day the investigation was closed (Feb. 3), a $100K donation was made by the Livestrong Foundation to Planned Parenthood, an organization near and dear to President Obama's heart and which was under threat of being defunded by the Susan G. Komen Foundation (the foundation later reversed its decision). 2. USADA's investigation of LA and others was independent and concurrent to that of the U.S. attorney's office. These things should at least make you think a bit more skeptically about what you're hearing out there.
Vashek
Guest
"Absolutely and unequivocally false", “False again” – you're trying to frame this conversation on your terms but without acknowledging the other side at all. This is dismissive and inaccurate. Something does not become automatically false because you wish to; you have to prove it first, it is a work of logic. The logic and prevailing opinion why that investigation was stopped is that "evidence" gathered did not satisfy "beyond reasonable doubt" the federal court jury. So, it is only logical that evidence of testimony was not enough to secure conviction; therefore, it isn't unreasonable to say "in a real court those words of others would not stand", since the case was dropped. USADA did not add any more credibility to the validity of witness testimony so far, they added more volume, but that still is secondary in comparison to scientific facts such as test results.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
"‘because in a real court those words of others would not stand. That is why the federal investigation was dropped last Feb." - Absolutely and unequivocally false. That is not at all the reason the investigation was dropped. This was heavily discussed in a thread on another article. If you can point to one piece of press stating the U.S. gov's reason for stopping the investigation, I'll eat my words. "USADA having lesser proof threshold took over" - False again. USADA did not take over. USADA investigation was ongoing concurrently with that of the federal government. Charges pressed by the government had nothing to do with enforcement of USADA's doping rules. However, both investigations relied on much of the same evidence. Which is why Tygart was permitted to sit in on the grand jury testimony. They issued a verdict because they had no other alternative. Lance did not want to go to arbitration, so this was a judgment by default, if you will. The same would have happened in a court of law where the defendant chooses not to fight the suit. The only way for them to prove a conspiracy would be before the panel of arbitrators at a hearing, which, as I've said above, Lance refused to have. There is no threshold burden of proof needed to break through the statute of limitations. All of that is resolved in a single proceeding. Your "they make their own rules" sounds like it came from Lance's PR. They don't make their own rules, they use the rules of the AAA, which Lance is well aware of and familiar with post his SCA arbitration. Moreover, given that Lance had a USAC license, he knew he was bound to arbitrate. Are you proposing a conspiracy by USADA against the UCI? I'm not sure where you're going with that last paragraph, but it seems a bit "out there." If you know what I mean.
Vashek
Guest
@vitalyg, "volumes of evidence", rather volumes of words, I read most of it; not convinced 'because in a real court those words of others would not stand. That is why the federal investigation was dropped last Feb. USADA having lesser proof threshold took over and made that case a questionable case that so far is still... words. What is going on is that they issued a verdict and only now are adding more to it to satisfy scrutiny of some analytical fine combing. That is why it is taking them so long. That also shows that their process works by making their own rules, or breaking it as needed. Logically, they would need to prove "conspiracy" first in order to break the statute of limitations requirement. But they did the opposite, rather announced it in words, broke the statute of limitations, and then piled up some more "evidence" in PR announcements (for example in an interview with L’Équipe). "This is now larger than Lance", because anti-doping agencies want more power and control of sports. UCI is about the only one organization standing on their way. So, there's lots of PR going on to undermine UCI and their share in the balance of authority. Now, UCI is even accused of being "impatient" for wanting the case file that USADA is supposed to submit and keeps delaying it over and over again.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
I guess we've reached our limit on nested replies. The charges go back 14 years because under current rules and precedent, if the violation charged is an ongoing conspiracy, the statute of limitations is tolled. Your argument is essentially because LA managed to avoid having a positive test (not counting the two he covered up) for this many years he didn't dope. I don't understand why you choose to ignore volumes of evidence from every side stating how easy it was to beat the tests; how riders would pass hundreds of them (some without getting caught). Once JB goes through his arbitration hearing, I feel much more will come to light that we even know right now. I would have agreed with you if it was Lance alone, but right now, there are several fingers pointing a the UCI as well, and given the leadership hasn't changed much, this is very relevant and current, and until we find out the extent to which UCI was complacent with doping, I don't think we can move forward. This is now larger than Lance.
Vashek
Guest
"it’s about fixing the present", not the case, some of the USADA charges go back 14 years to 1998, breaching their own statute of limitations; unavoidably, that is deep past in world cycling; unless you accept she said/he said kind of testimony, it is not even possible to establish firm understanding of what went then. It only shows USADA desperation to justify draconian measures they imposed. Not a justice to me. It may take time, but their verdict will not stand, my prediction. You can't have justice by corrupting justice.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
It's not all about digging deeper in the past, it's about fixing the present. If in fact this goes deeper than Armstrong and all the way up the chain to the UCI, then those who are currently heading the UCI need to be removed from the sport for it to continue on a new path. Otherwise, you're just putting the same people in charge who let (yes, let) the sport become corrupt with drugs (and not only).
Vashek
Guest
We can't fix the past, can we? So, instead of endlessly digging deeper and deeper into those times in cycling, why not make sure the present is a better place? Draconian measures imposed by USADA only create more and new suspicious of lack of due process. There’s no end to punishing people, and let’s not forget, doping is not even a criminal offence.
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
I am not suggesting that testing should cease. I merely wish to point out that there are other forms of evidence other than drug tests which should be taken into account. Particularly when for many years there was no test for EPO.
Tim Renowden
Expert
I think I'm going to have to start covering some obscure sport like handball or curling to tide me over until the new year... nahhhh.....
Vashek
Guest
Then, logically, we should not be doing testing, why waste money?, why not turn to police, informers, video-cameras, snooping, eavesdropping, etc. Let's just watch the other guy all the time, 24/7. I wonder, what the cost of that would be.
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
I don't understand why people are not prepared to accept multiple eye witness accounts as firm evidence. The dopers were well ahead of the testers, so the argument that Armstrong passed hundreds of tests doesn't hold up in my opinion.
Vashek
Guest
So far, "volume and weight" of testimony is speculative, as we don't yet know details. While testimony can be used in court it is very difficult to win a case based solely in testimony, there needs to be some factual evidence, which if considered, favors Armstrong. Besides, how do you weigh numerous negative tests passed in comparison to testimony? Do you give it some weight or none at all, because you imply that tests can be cheated, therefore may not be valid at all. In that case why do we do it at all? To needlessly spend money? For those supposed two "positive" tests you need to be more specific. As far as I can tell those instances were not officially recognized as positive, therefore how can we even call them "positive"? One, if you mean 1999 for cortisone, was technically non-negative, there were traces but way below the positive threshold. "evidence of intent to hurt" jumps from interviews and published materials. For example, one would read Kimmage/Landis long tale with personal details. Both Landis and Hamilton confessed to their doping after getting sanctioned and losing what they won. Wouldn't you be upset if that happen to you? I would be. No doubt, it is just human reaction to be upset and angry after working hard and have the titles taken away. But they reacted like kids who got caught with a hand in the cookie jar while other kids were also doing the same. They got jealous that other kids were not caught, or escaped unpunished. They knew they were taking risk yet when caught blamed "culture of doping", or "omerta", etc. So, the "evidence of intent to hurt" comes from their not fully taking responsibility for their own actions. They rationalized and put it into many fine words but the bottom line is that by doing that they included "others" in their confessionals. Someone commented that the Hamilton’s last book is really about Armstrong. They felt hurt and projected that hurt on others. You may not call it evidence per se, as it is a subjective layer, however, it is reasonable argument.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
"It is not a confirmation of anything, unless you use the upside-down logic that personal testimony is more valid than hundreds of tests." In law, testimony has two aspects, volume and weight. In this instance, the volume of testimony is rather large: Hamilton, Landis, Vaughters, Vande Velde, Zabrisky, Hincapie, Andreu (Frankie and Betsy), etc. Then you have to look at the weight of the evidence. If all of these people testify to exactly the same thing with regard to Armstrong and doping, how many of such stories from his former teammates do you need before it becomes weighty enough to be believed. As far as positive tests, Armstrong failed two. But all you have to do is think of other cyclists who have been caught only once after hundreds of tests. They were caught, but they also beat hundreds of tests before being caught. In a system where those being tested are years ahead in technology, this isn't that hard. In fact, those doing the testing weren't able to figure out how cyclists were beating many of the tests until Landis' interview and confession. "What is really going on, and largely untold, is that personal “truth telling” is really attempt to hurt the other guy." - Now I'm going to ask you to provide evidence of intent to hurt by those giving testimony. Your speculation doesn't equal proof, just so we're clear.
Felix Lowe
Expert
Cheers Tim! Always enjoy your pieces too - just worried what we're going to do with ourselves now the end of the season is but a whisker away. The Tour Down Under can't come around quick enough!
Vashek
Guest
"what we’ve heard from Hamilton and Floyd Landis, another former team-mate of Armstrong, has confirmed suspicions widely held by many" -- has confirmed?, in what way it does?, I think you're jumping to conclusions, while that aspect of allegations remain to be just that... suspicion. So, it is not a confirmation of anything, unless you use the upside-down logic that personal testimony is more valid than hundreds of tests. That is a sad journalistic overreach. What is really going on, and largely untold, is that personal "truth telling" is really attempt to hurt the other guy. If the intent is to hurt, that kind of truth is invalidated, or tainted, and should not be taken as the final verdict. This is really something you should be writing about: how personal testimony is coloring this subject-matter and then it purports to be truth. Instead of attacking UCI at every turn you can, you could focus on more balanced approach: how to clean sports from doping without hurting those who may be affected. In other words, we can't clean sports while walking around with a swagger settling scores.
Tim Renowden
Expert
Nice piece, Felix.
Colin
Guest
Thanks Felix, your point is well made. I apologise.
Felix Lowe
Expert
It's a complicated one because the UCI have been made out to be actively complicit in some of the charges levelled against Armstrong. Also, they have not received the full dossier of evidence. There's still plenty of mileage in this case yet, it would seem.
Felix Lowe
Expert
Hi Colin, thanks for your reply. Two things: 1) This is a sports opinion site where having an opinion is encouraged (and just as you have yours, I do have mine) 2) The two sections in the article that dealt with the Lance Armstrong investigation are quite straight-down-the-line: while some observations or asides may have been added, the actual factual side of the article is very fair, merely presenting the case as it is. Reporting on the case being built up against Armstrong is not in itself "anti-lance armstrong drivel". In the same way that mentioning the contents of Tyler Hamilton's book is neither condemning it nor condoning it (believe me, it has its shortcomings, it has a clear agenda, and it has to be taken with a large pinch of salt). But it's something that can't be ignored - and it has to be discussed by fans of the sport. You must appreciate the difference between anti-Armstrong and pro-cycling.