Well, I didn’t see it happen live, but I hear that the finish of Wednesday’s Fleche-Wallonne (or “Walloon Arrow”, if one is to take Universal Sports or the AP seriously about this sort of thing) was pretty exciting.
Tactical considerations aside, I think it’s nice to see a reigning Tour champ active and attempting to win races in mid-April. And to see him battle against two potential Grand Tour rivals only sweetens the mix. Certainly beats listening to some old crank stay home and whine about the weather
But what I’m decidedly less pumped about is the reaction to another podium of potential Grand Tour winners at the Giro del Trentino in Italy. Versus, through the magic of Google Translate, called it a “regal podium”, and were assailed for it almost immediately. The same-day win by Evans was heralded as “a victory for the anti-doping movement” in contrast
That opinion lasted all of about five minutes, however, as Evans’ teammate Thomas Frei, who had been doing quite well, ended up turning in a positive EPO test. Never mind that that B-sample hasn’t been tested—the A is never wrong, after all—time to pull BMC’s Tour invites and start simply lying about the circumstances surrounding the suspension of other riders on their squad.
Attitudes like this are why I view much of the anti-doping movement with deep skepticism. You can dislike the riders currently leading the standings at the Giro del Trentino, but the fact is, all three of them have been caught and punished according to the rules. They’ve served their time. What more do you want?
Cycling has the heaviest testing regimen and most rigorously enforced penalties in the sporting world. It’s gotten to the point that teams routinely suspend riders the moment their names appear in an investigation—regardless of validity. Is that still not enough? Does every ex-doper need to be taken out behind the press tent and beaten with a bag full of BikePure headset spacers every time he or she turns in strong performance?
At some point in their careers, Basso, Ricco, and even Vino’ (who does look awful beefy for a guy racing a Grand Tour in two weeks…) were riding exceptionally well despite not taking any drugs; why is the assumption that, as soon as they return to form, they’re back on the juice? Why do people brand their very reappearance in the headlines as a horrible thing?
Perhaps what I like least about this vocal court of opinion is the uneven nature in which it dispenses punishiment. I don’t seem to recall anyone screaming out for justice when Pantani made his last exciting lunges for victory at the ’03 Giro, or when VDB almost came back from the dead at that year’s Ronde.
For that matter, reformed doper David Millar is routinely excoriated for being too sanctimonious about his rehabilitation, and depending on who you ask among the “tarnished podium” crowd, some grant Ivan Basso a pass for reasons as tenuous as his status as a “[nice] family [man]” and his post-suspension work Cadel Evans’ coach.
While the Ricco certainly seems to have all the personality his nickname would imply, objectively speaking, he’s also the purest example of reform from Wednesday’s “tarnished” podium. He confessed immediately and cooperated with authorities, which is more than one can say of either Basso, who denied all charges for nine months and still didn’t really confess, or Vinokourov, who maintains his innocence to this day.
I think it’s pretty clear that the real villains in this tale of two podiums are the fickle cycling fans and commentators, and I think more people need to adapt the attitude taken by Fleche Wallonne winner Cadel Evans: some athletes in every sport will always cheat to win, and no amount of wristbands, invasive testing, or draconian punishment is going to change that.
Cycling does the best job of any sport at rooting out the drug cheats, and I think it’s time we started celebrating the efforts that catch dopers instead of whining that cheats exist in the first place.
*In the interests of disclosure, since I’m calling out fans and commentators:
For pretty much as long as I’ve been running this blog—five years, come the Giro—I’ve tried to question the standing attitude toward dopers in cycling. I was furious about the extra-judicial banning of riders before the ’06 Tour, and nicely vindicated when Landis won and turned up positive, while many banned riders were later cleared.
That’s not to say I’m above speculation—though I back whatever I say up with my reasons for thinking it, and occasionally, turn out to be correct. But I rarely tear into a rider for no other reason than he turned up positive for drugs. For me, an exciting race isn’t forever ruined because the guy who made it exciting was on drugs.
A well written and thought provoking post.
My problem with the Giro del Trentino stage 2 podium is this;
I don’t like Ricco because is a knob, regardless of his doping past.
Basso takes us all for fools re his ‘i was only planning to dope in the future’ excuse. This still makes me sick and I am happy to see him struggling with results. He once said that if he didn’t come back achieving the same results as he did pre-suspension, then the public wouldn’t believe in him. I don’t believe in him.
And Vino (and others) display a real lack of respect for the sport (and fans) when he continues to deny any involvement in doping, despite getting caught.
Don’t get how it is bmc’s fault with the suspension of their riders? BMC had ONE positive. the ballan and santambrogio incident has nothing to do with their fault and should not be condemed for it.
I agree with your assessment that fickle fans are a big part of the problem. Foaming-at-the-mouth armchair juries who love to scream “DOPER!” at the slightest provocation piss me off. Being an asshole has the potential to harm the sport more than cheating.
Cosmo,
Refresh my memory – why do cycling fans need to remain objective and refrain from expressing their opinions? While you are expressing your own “objective” opinion, and that’s a good thing, you seem to imply that other fans shouldn’t express their own.
It’s an fascinating concept to think that there shouldn’t be “armchair juries” among fans of professional sports. We route for our teams, our players, and if they test positive for performance enhancing drugs – we…the fan…have every right to become bitter and jaded. That’s part of being a fan!
It’s as if the “logic” of a fan needs be: Gee…I really liked Tiger Woods, but clearly, that ONLY extends to his actions on the golf course. There’s no way I can express my opinion about his actions off the golf course. Then I’d become an “armchair jury”…Heaven forbid!
Good stuff – all the reasons why I stay out of the debate. I agree with matty about “armchair juries” as well as psychlist’s opinion of those riders. Cheating is bad, sure, but getting all sanctimonious about it doesn’t help and is often damaging (as many religious leaders and groups have demonstrated through history on any number of issues), plus it’s really unattractive. I’ll take a Cadel on this issue.
@Bryan, it’s more that I think people should consider their opinions more carefully before expressing them, that’s all.
@cosmo:
that sounds like a pretty subjective and slippery slope to me. opinions should be taken as a grain of salt, they should be viewed in an aggregate fashion. they should never be tempered in any scenario. if they are tempered, or reserved, or changed for any reason other than rational thought on behalf of the individual, they are no longer opinions and instead homogenized views of the group (a group) as a whole.
if that were the case, I guess we wouldn’t have your blog. we’d just have another corporate news feed.
I’m with Bryan on this, I’ve learnt to take most “commentators” opinion with a grain of salt. Some are more reliable than others,others are cranks. Equally, I didn’t know about the Italian authorities process of investigating everyone on their list(and informing them of the fact), regardless of whether they have evidence or not until the “Lampre Affair” kicked off.
My personal stance is that those riders will never admit guilt publicly and who never seem to realise the fans deserve better (Ricco, Vino, Schumacher, Rebellin etc) rather than treating them as fools. I’ll judge those types harshly, along with those who carry on with impunity until all legal recourse fails and someone places a couple of huge excavators across their path.
Over the years my opinion of Basso’s return has softened for a couple of reasons:
1) At least confessed, it was very inelegant and insulting, but when others have got away free…
2) He hasn’t been as good since he returned
I also believe that things are getting better. If nothing else, the racing seems better these days.
As for Fleche Wallonne, itt was great to see the reigning Tour champion attempting to win races in mid-April. But you missed out one important point; even better was seeing the reigning Tour champion (and greatest tour rider of modern times) battling it out with the current World Champion, who is also a contender in the grand tours. Tell me the last time that happened in any race, let alone a classic.
Ricco,Basso, and Vino all used illegal substances in the past to achieve their wins or high placings, and were caught. If they needed these illegal substances to place well or even win in the past, how today can anyone take the finish at Giro del Trentino seriously. Vino winning a 12k time trial by 16 seconds over second place sends up a red flag. The three of them coming off suspensions and getting on the podium sends up another red flag. If they needed the juice to win in the past how can they place as well clean, as when they did using the juice? And if they are clean and riding as well as they did before being busted , why did they waste all that money on illegal substances, fail a drug test, and get suspended?
one of the better pieces I’ve seen on doping, ty cosmo. I think when we get into the part about who got a pass and who didn’t/shouldn’t, readers will start to flare up, but yes this highlights the uneven nature of doping judgement.
And in general, if repentance has been made, and they’ve done the time, i personally would be prepared to give them a clean slate.
But honestly i’m more concerned about the pathetic way investigations are conducted. BMCs first two suspensions just seem ridiculous – not because BMC don’t have to respond somehow, yes there’s the code of conduct, i know – but because the investigator frankly has no stated evidence against Ballan and Santambrogio, and the process is going to take “6 months”…..I mean wtf? If you’re not ready to charge then don’t talk about it, especially just as the season is getting underway!
I dont like ex-dopers because they cheeted.
They broke the big rule and after a quick ban they are back racing
For younger new riders it shows its worth taking the doping risk
I thought about leaving a comment, but then I said “Eh, forget it”. After today’s LBL, I decided to do it. Here’s my view on the topic:
I like entertaining races, regardless of the startlist. Vinokourov won today, I’m really happy for him, he showed us he’s still capable of winning big races. I know 75% of the pro peloton doesn’t ride only on water and energy bars, so what’s the point of picking up our torches and forks and going after Vinokourov, Ricco, Valverde and so on when we know that? Let’s take another example: Di Luca. He was probably doped during his 2007 Giro victory, we know for sure he was doped last year, but I couldn’t care less: he’s a fantastic rider and the 2009 Giro kept me stuck to the TV just because of him. It was an absolutely fantastic race! Di Luca may have ridden with water, energy bars and some pharmaceutics, but at least he put on a show.
Nowadays, Valverde is probably the most boo-ed person in the whole peloton. I don’t really know why, since he hasn’t tested positive for anything yet. Spaniards are known to run on high-octane fuel for a while now (except Sastre, probably), since we all know the Spanish federation’s atittude towards doping, so there’s no surprise.
Let’s make a little comparison: back in ’03, a doped David Millar averaged 54.36 km/h in the last TT of the ’03 TdF, beating convicted doper Tyler Hamilton by 9 seconds and Armstrong by 14 seconds, while nowadays Cancellara struggles to go over 51 km/h. And I see no crusade against Armstrong. Yes, he was better than a doped Ullrich several times, and he’s still free to roam around.
I totally agree with you and I’m dissapointed that everybody thinks they’re back on the juice, although they’re just in form.
Thanks for reading!
Loved the post. You’re saying something that needs to be said, pointing out that some are adored and some are vilified when they come back. I suspect it has a lot to do with how emotionally invested the fans were in each rider, how contrite the rider was, with a sprinkling of nationality mixed in. Tyler/Floyd were framed, but Vino is the antichrist.
Some many riders have been busted or suspected that it’s pretty clear it’s been an epidemic. Hard to hate everybody in the peleton, isn’t it?
Love all your Posts Cosmo.
Look at the Top-10 of all important races from last summer until now….Contador, Valverde, L. Sánchez, S. Sánchez, Freire, Sastre. Damn, that is one intimidating group of riders. Either this is the GOLDEN ERA OF Spanish Cycling, or there is a lot of juice going around with those tapas. My father has been a world-class athlete, coach and referee, so I am absolutely against doping. However, I feel like a few are ruining the sport for the rest. In my opinion, cyclist (and other athletes) need to be forced to return any money made, while juiced, and face prison time. That’s right, PRISON time. Suspensions are bullshit, start incarcerating them and we’ll see what happens.
@ Jack Daniels
Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined a phrase in his literary criticism of the romantic poets: “Willful suspension of disbelief”. Star Wars and Avatar set box office records for a reason. We know it is not real, but we sure enjoy watching.
Spartacus rides away from Boonen in Flanders like he’s stuck in the mud. He then holds off a chase group of first class horses in Roubaix for 50 K. Vino wins LBL. Ricco is as strong as ever. Guys who couldn’t suddenly can.
Let’s just enjoy the show.
Cancellara is a guy who couldn’t who suddenly can? That is ridiculous. And “first class horses”? Those guys were spent after 200k of P-R. The favorite was up the road, it was the other favorite’s job to chase him down, and nobody had juice left. Cancellara’s win at Paris-Roubaix is terrible grounds for insinuating that he’s on PEDs.
There is no reationality to the complex nature of human lies/dislikes.
Well, I still like Basso – no idea why. Can’t stand Contador but don’t care as long as he thrashes Lance.
And Spartacus is fun as hell to watch.
Gotta love a sport with fans dressed as giant syringes heckling the riders….
oops should read likes/dislikes
@matty @kkart
Spartacus is fun as hell to watch. One of my favorite riders because he does it with such panache and style. My comment about “guys who couldn’t suddenly can” wasn’t referring to him. He always could.
But even still, he has never dominated as totally as he has this year. Sure, flyers in the final K. Beautiful TT efforts. But not in the final 50 K of a classic like PR against six horses. They were gassed? They hadn’t ridden any further then Cancellara had. And they were a virtual who’s who of PR favorites. And Spartacus buried them. For 50 K. One of those “things that make you go hmmmm”.
Good results should never be the basis for suspicion. But unfortunately they are. Rasmussen lights up the Tour. Hmmmm. Ricco does the same thing. Hmmmm. DeLuca does it two different years in the Giro. Hmmmm. Contador climbing like Pantani in his prime and TTing like Cancellara. Hmmmm. Lance does it seven times against a changing cast of opponents nearly all of whom have been busted. Great big Hmmmm.
Are they dopers? Are they clean? You don’t know. I don’t know. No one really knows. But I still watch, and I still enjoy it all.
Willful suspension of disbelief is my friend.