Category VII Cycling

It hard to argue that the "French" auhtorities have not been out to get Lance. O.k, we know all the usual stuff but you were probably not aware that a team of 6 undercover agents followed Lance and Discovery during the tour to watch for doping.

http://www.marca.es/edicion/marca/ciclismo/es/desarrollo/555361.html

Sad but true...this is what France is reduced too...

Perhaps, Lance changing his support from Paris to New York for the 2012 Olympics was the last straw...don't know
 

Don't get me wrong. I think the whole affair is reprehensible. What got me started originally, though, is that Leblanc's original suggestion of disqualification or declassification six years after the fact would go contrary to his stated mission of protecting the integrity of Le Tour.

Come to think of it, Le Tour is now stooping to depths not even the Spanish (with their ever-present anti-foreigner combines at the Veulta) or the Italians (with their helicopters blatantly assisting Saronni) dared to plumb.
 

don't underestimate the"Olympic" issue...this has stuck deep in what was left of French self esteem...
 

Yeah, I don't think I buy you're Olympic argument. Lance didn't change to support London... (On the other hand, had he stayed with Paris until the end, he'd at least have built a well of French goodwill that may have helped him now.)

Lance gave many people many reasons to not like him, and outside the U.S. he never actively cultivated a fan base. Even among his peers in the pro peloton, he was not well liked. Respected? Certainly. But liked? Markedly less so.

Lance's fault? No, rather Lance's choice. He went about his business his way and was wildly successful (and let's also grant him, a great rider to watch win his 7 Tours).

In many ways -- dogged drug accusations included -- Lance was the Barry Bonds of cycling.
 

Big difference between Bonds and Lance...not a fair analogy...
 

Oh come on. It may be hard to see if from the American perspective since Lance has achieved iconic status through his domination of a traditionally European-dominated sport at the very margins of US attention. But looking at both athletes long-term problems with the press and dogged drug allegations despite their domination of the sport, the analogy is very apt. Ok, so Barry doesn't have bracelets. Big freaking deal.
 

the big difference is that Barry has used steroids, Lance has not...Barry has NOT been tested..
 

that's a nice double standard for you. barry's never failed a drug test, either. allegations all around. ask yourself now why the allegations against bons are valid...
 

My point is that Baseball has never had real testing.,..in the past they were tested like once a year and they knew exactly when it was. In terms of cycling, no other sport has as rigorous a testing policy in and out of competition. To try and make a comparision between the 2 sports doesn't hold up. If Bonds had been tested even 1/4 the times that Lance had and was negative then your analogy would hold up. Now...is Lance guilty? Personally, I say/believe no...but stepping back and searching for objectivity...I find all of the circumstances and the details regarding L'Equipe's muckraking troubling...
 

The comparison wasn't between two sports, but between two atheletes.

And the cycling has the most rigorous testing program is the lamest excuse continually offered by those unwilling to acknowledge the problems in the sport. How did the rigourous testing program prevent the 1998 Tour. Ooops.

There was no EPO test in 1999. Saying Lance's drug test passes proves he wasn't on EPO in 1999 is disingenuous.

I agree that the circumstances surrounding the L'Equipe's articles are less than spotless,and that has also been a consistent theme in my posts.

But it is an article of faith on your part that Lance was not on EPO in the 1999 Tour. Persoanlly, I would like to believe as firmly as you do, and I certainly give Lance the benefit of the doubt. But since the 700 other negative tests or however many it was that you mentioned did not test for EPO in the 1999 Tour, their relevance is zero for the current question. I would agree with you there is no definitve proof he was on EPO as L'Equipe alleges. At the same time, though, there is no definitive proof he was not on EPO, either. There was no urine test for EPO at the time, so it is an unknowable question, at least for now.

Again, though, that Bonds and Lance have had persistent doping rumors and that their testy relationship with the media has exacerbated the issue for them makes it a very apt analogy. Do you honestly believe L'Equipe would be going after Lance if he had a good relationship with the French (or even wider European) public or press? Or that it would be picked up with such vigor in so many other countries?
 

I agree with you on the leap of faith (I'm willing to make the same leap at this point, but we both have to recognize there is no "proof" that Lance was EPO-free in the 1999 Tour).

As for Lance's popularity or more importantly his demeanor with the press and how this would have affected the press coverage, I think that if his relationship with L'Equipe were better they probably would not have buried the story, but the article would have been more balanced and stressed the unknowns in the investigation, etc. Anyway, I'm planning on doing anohter post on thw widening scandal, akthough I'd really like to get into actual racing at the Vuelta and Plouay....