The Lance Saga - Final Chapter?

(Let me top you up before the next climb!)

It seems like everyone I know has been asking me for my opinion on the whole Lance Armstrong debacle recently.  While I am in no way involved (and never will be) in the professional cycling scene, I have been trying to sort through the mixed messages and reports being spewed by the media of late, in order to form a position on the subject.  As such, my opinions are exactly that.  Opinions.  While I believe in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" idiom (ie: all the signs seem to point towards Armstrong being as big and as bad a doper as they come), I can in no way fully substantiate my claims.

That being said, did Lance Armstrong cheat?

Yes. This USADA verdict is the culmination of an investigation that was started well over 2 years ago (with allegations that Lance and his USPS/Discovery team doped and tested positive at various points in his career (even as late as 2010!)).  A collection of reputable former teammates (Hincapie, Vandevelde, Danielson, Hamilton, Landis, Andreu, Vaughters etc.) were said to have testified and have provided damning evidence that doping practices were prevalent within the team.

(Sad Lance.  The noose seems to be tightening)

"But Alex, this seems to have turned into a witch hunt against one person.  This was over 10 years ago! Why don't they just leave it alone?"  Well, I think the only way to answer this question is to say that doping is one thing, but the way in which this particular cheating case was carried out and how it wove itself deep into the fabric of professional cycling is another thing entirely.  Under the Armstrong rule, Omerta was the law of the land, and if anyone (ie: Christophe Bassons or Simeoni) spoke out against it, they were ostracized and bullied by their peers and inevitably found their careers ruined.  Doping was an accepted practice, and we (the spectators) were made out to be fools for thinking that the product on television was legitimate.  

(Armstrong, taunting Filippo Simeoni for speaking out against doping)

More worryingly though, further allegations claim that cycling's governing body (the UCI) was/is corrupt, in that it accepted money from Lance Armstrong in what could have been an attempt to hush a certain 2001 positive doping control.  Had Armstrong's case moved forward to USADA arbitration, the public would have been able to see all the evidence gathered and have been able to (once and for all) form an educated opinion on the subject.  While this "corruption" within the UCI may or may not still be there, "Omerta" still seems to be in effect.  As the outspoken journalist Paul Kimmage noted; it's curious that out of the current peloton, none of the marquee riders have provided any opinion on the subject - perhaps all voicing silent support for a fallen compatriot, and knowing that a similar fate could befall them.

Is doping still a problem in the pro peloton?

Again, in one word, yes.  One needn't look further than this year's Tour de France to discern the tell-tale signs of cheating.  Turning on the TV, I could only look on with a slightly bemused look as stage after stage, the all mighty Team Sky drilled the pace on the flats as well as the climbs.  (Bradley Wiggins even tried his hand at leading out Mark Cavendish the day before the most important time trial of his career!!!).

(All aboard the Sky train! Next stop, Paris!)

Seeing Edvald Boasson Hagen (EBH) shred the peloton to pieces and isolating all but a select number of team leaders at the start of the high-alpine climbs evoked memories of the fabled (and now unmasked) USPS blue train.  Once EBH would relent, Wiggins would still often find himself in the company of a handful of Sky helpers (all of whom seem to have started blossoming upon joining Sky), to fend off the feeble efforts of the pure climbers.  How unreal (and sad) it was to see Porte, Rogers and Froome easily reel in every single Nibali or Van Den Broek attack, thus securing Wiggins' armchair ride to Paris.

I came across this quote from Pat McQuaid (the president of the UCI), back in June of this year. "“I am not going to say that cycling has been winning the war against doping, but I will say that we have turned a corner on doping, and that the peloton is cleaner than it used to be. [...] In the big mountain stages, you never see the (team) leader surrounded by three or four domestiques. He usually finishes the climb on his own. That wasn’t the case during the big period of EPO."  

After a hearty chuckle, I really do wonder what McQuaid would say now?  I'm guessing not much seeing as both countrymen McQuaid and Sky-boss Dave Brailsford have an interest in promoting British cycling (and globalizing the sport in general).  The similarities between the Lance Armstrong days and this new Team Sky, have undoubtedly not been lost on the UCI brass.  (American cycling exploded in popularity following Armstrong's exploits in the early 2000s, and Great-Britain stands to make a similar evolution as it looks to capitalize on Sky's current momentum).

As a final SKY related tidbit, it is quite interesting that even Lance Armstrong's former doping doctor, Michele Ferrari, noted on his personal website that "The Sky riders are pedaling uphill with very high cadences (often over 100 RPM), which seem quite excessive in relation to the power outputs, around 420-440W. either these athletes are riding below their limit, or the asymmetrical chainrings used by most of them require higher cadences in order to get the best out of them."  While he doesn't come out and say it outright, the opinion seems pretty plain to me.  As if the humiliation Sky dished out on all their opponents wasn't enough, this suggestion that Froome and Wiggins could have been "soft pedaling" up the climbs, seems even more outrageous and disheartening.

How does all of this tie in with Armstrong's USADA case?  Well, as mentioned earlier, the current framework, or "façon de faire" within the peloton is still quite similar to the one established within the early 2000s.  Had the case gone to arbitration, yes, careers would have been ruined, cheaters would have been exposed, PERHAPS the UCI would have crumbled and cycling would have undoubtedly suffered, but maybe (just maybe) this would have allowed for the rebirth that cycling has been so desperately needing. 

I can only hope that by providing their report and the evidence to the UCI (in order to determine whether Armstrong's Tours should be stripped), this USADA case will allow for some closure.