Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Kali
If you haven't already, be sure and check out Vuelta a Espana's coverage of the Cal Tour from the race caravan.
Tour de EPO
Welcome to the Tour of California. Brought to you by EPO.
In sharp contrast to the 1998 Tour de France, this time it's legal. In a way. The Cal Tour's main sponsor -- Amgen -- is the manufactuerer of EPO (EPOgen) and another drug widely used to enhance performance in cycling. And with the penultimate stage ending just in front of Amgen's Thousand Oaks headquarters, many European-based pros will get to see where their drugs are made for the very first time!
Ok, so I stole that last line from one of the more clever of the European news sites which are having a field day with this one. And given my last post on cycling's image problem, maybe I should pile on as well.
But the sponsorship -- in my mind at least -- rather underscores a completely different aspect of Lance Armstrong's legacy. And that is for much of the wider American audience, cycling is now linked to the fight against cancer. Lance's little yellow bracelets -- in addition to making grown men covet the same fashions as my grade school nieces -- connected cycling's highest prize with his battle against cancer. Cheering for Lance to win the Tour and cheering for a cure to the Big C are now somewhat inseperable. Or at least conflated.
Not to drag the point out too much, but while most cycling fans will only think of cheating when they think of EPO, most non-cycling enthusiast Americans -- whom the Cal Tour must certainly be trying to attract -- would probably find it natural that the producer of a drug involved (legitimately) in cancer treatments would sponsor a major race.
Amgen's media release -- "We're hoping to demonstrate the dangers of doping" -- may be laughable, but the legacy of Armstrong on American cycling, linking it with the fight against cancer, certainly is not.
In sharp contrast to the 1998 Tour de France, this time it's legal. In a way. The Cal Tour's main sponsor -- Amgen -- is the manufactuerer of EPO (EPOgen) and another drug widely used to enhance performance in cycling. And with the penultimate stage ending just in front of Amgen's Thousand Oaks headquarters, many European-based pros will get to see where their drugs are made for the very first time!
Ok, so I stole that last line from one of the more clever of the European news sites which are having a field day with this one. And given my last post on cycling's image problem, maybe I should pile on as well.
But the sponsorship -- in my mind at least -- rather underscores a completely different aspect of Lance Armstrong's legacy. And that is for much of the wider American audience, cycling is now linked to the fight against cancer. Lance's little yellow bracelets -- in addition to making grown men covet the same fashions as my grade school nieces -- connected cycling's highest prize with his battle against cancer. Cheering for Lance to win the Tour and cheering for a cure to the Big C are now somewhat inseperable. Or at least conflated.
Not to drag the point out too much, but while most cycling fans will only think of cheating when they think of EPO, most non-cycling enthusiast Americans -- whom the Cal Tour must certainly be trying to attract -- would probably find it natural that the producer of a drug involved (legitimately) in cancer treatments would sponsor a major race.
Amgen's media release -- "We're hoping to demonstrate the dangers of doping" -- may be laughable, but the legacy of Armstrong on American cycling, linking it with the fight against cancer, certainly is not.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Cycling's Black Socks
No, not a post about fasion faux paus, such as those exhibited by Evgeni Berzin. Rather a consideration of something I wrote last September, following the final stages of the Vuelta:
A couple [exclamation points] added in Spain as Roberto Heras actually puts in a better time against the clock than does his rival Denis Menchov on Saturday.
Extra motivation for the wearer of the golden jersey, or Menchov finding it
increasingly difficult to recover from his exertions in the race's opening half?
Probably a little from column A and a little from column B.
Of course, now we know that the little it extra came from column EPO.
There are lots of stories out there now at the beginning of the new cycling season -- foremost among them, who will rule the sport now that Armstrong has left the scene? New teams are out there to be analyzed, new line-ups, and lingering questions about the second-year of the ProTour amid the inability of the UCI and the major tour organizers to agree how to split the spoils of cycling. But all that remains a sideshow if the sport cannot once and for all decide how to deal with drug cheats.
Seven years after the scandal of the 1998 Tour, another major tour has been tarnished with EPO. Certainly drugs aren't new to cycling. There's always Eddy Merckx's comment about races not being won on mineral water alone. And to any English-speaking fan, you've been inundated with tales of Tom Simpson since you were off training wheels. (If Lance's legacy is to keep a future generation of cyclists from ever hearing the words "Tom Simpson" again, I will gladly join the legion of his blind admirers. Hell, I'll even become a Sheryl Crow fan.)
The 1998 Tour changed the dynamic, though. It was no longer the occasional use, or drug use by a domestique, but rather the systematic doping of entire teams -- even led by the captains -- that was apparently the norm in the sport. At least that is the perception much of the public has of the problem. For all the bluster from the UCI and others -- riders especially -- not much has really changed. Every year top riders are still caught cheating -- Roberto Hera, Danilo Hondo, Tyler Hamilton -- the list goes on.
The problem, however, is not that riders continue to be caught, but rather a persistent perception that the relevant cycling authorities -- the UCI, team managers, national federations -- don't really care. Sure they'll punish transgressors when caught, but really how serious are they about changing the culture? Consider the ramifications? Each year the major tours -- at least outside of Spain -- are subject to police raids, because the appropriate authorities won't police the sport. And more importantly, the inability to clean house casts a long shadow over all those involved. Would there be persistent rumors about Lance's alleged drug use if there were not consistent confirmation of the notion that the sport's top riders are dirty.
Consider the case of the Chicago Black Sox. After a criminal investigation cleared the baseball players of any charges of colluding with underworld gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series, Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis -- installed as the first commissioner of baseball in the wake of the scandal -- nonetheless banned the players for life. His reasoning? The mere appearance of wrongdoing had damaged the reputation of the sport, and their banishment was necessary not only to rehabilitate the sport, but to also serve as disincentive for any others so inclined. In the nearly 100 years since that decision, only one moron Major Leaguer was dumb enough to bet on baseball.
In addition to a search for a new Lance, cycling also needs to consider beginning a search for its own Judge Landis.
A couple [exclamation points] added in Spain as Roberto Heras actually puts in a better time against the clock than does his rival Denis Menchov on Saturday.
Extra motivation for the wearer of the golden jersey, or Menchov finding it
increasingly difficult to recover from his exertions in the race's opening half?
Probably a little from column A and a little from column B.
Of course, now we know that the little it extra came from column EPO.
There are lots of stories out there now at the beginning of the new cycling season -- foremost among them, who will rule the sport now that Armstrong has left the scene? New teams are out there to be analyzed, new line-ups, and lingering questions about the second-year of the ProTour amid the inability of the UCI and the major tour organizers to agree how to split the spoils of cycling. But all that remains a sideshow if the sport cannot once and for all decide how to deal with drug cheats.
Seven years after the scandal of the 1998 Tour, another major tour has been tarnished with EPO. Certainly drugs aren't new to cycling. There's always Eddy Merckx's comment about races not being won on mineral water alone. And to any English-speaking fan, you've been inundated with tales of Tom Simpson since you were off training wheels. (If Lance's legacy is to keep a future generation of cyclists from ever hearing the words "Tom Simpson" again, I will gladly join the legion of his blind admirers. Hell, I'll even become a Sheryl Crow fan.)
The 1998 Tour changed the dynamic, though. It was no longer the occasional use, or drug use by a domestique, but rather the systematic doping of entire teams -- even led by the captains -- that was apparently the norm in the sport. At least that is the perception much of the public has of the problem. For all the bluster from the UCI and others -- riders especially -- not much has really changed. Every year top riders are still caught cheating -- Roberto Hera, Danilo Hondo, Tyler Hamilton -- the list goes on.
The problem, however, is not that riders continue to be caught, but rather a persistent perception that the relevant cycling authorities -- the UCI, team managers, national federations -- don't really care. Sure they'll punish transgressors when caught, but really how serious are they about changing the culture? Consider the ramifications? Each year the major tours -- at least outside of Spain -- are subject to police raids, because the appropriate authorities won't police the sport. And more importantly, the inability to clean house casts a long shadow over all those involved. Would there be persistent rumors about Lance's alleged drug use if there were not consistent confirmation of the notion that the sport's top riders are dirty.
Consider the case of the Chicago Black Sox. After a criminal investigation cleared the baseball players of any charges of colluding with underworld gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series, Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis -- installed as the first commissioner of baseball in the wake of the scandal -- nonetheless banned the players for life. His reasoning? The mere appearance of wrongdoing had damaged the reputation of the sport, and their banishment was necessary not only to rehabilitate the sport, but to also serve as disincentive for any others so inclined. In the nearly 100 years since that decision, only one moron Major Leaguer was dumb enough to bet on baseball.
In addition to a search for a new Lance, cycling also needs to consider beginning a search for its own Judge Landis.
Are You A Hincapieista?
The good folks at Nike Incorporated have thankfully given us all a truly larger than life example of "over-hyped" with the new Bodeista campaign. Other than Ryan Leaf's illustrious NFL career, one is hard-pressed to think of any other flops of such a gigantic scale. (Sure, Darko may have only 2 career NBA points, but at least he has a ring.)
But in this brave new post-Lance era, Hincapie is being foisted upon us as the new Bode. Ok, the comparison is a bit unfair, because before the Torino Olympics, Bode had actually put together an altogether respectable resume in the Austrian-dominated world of downhill skiing...
Hincapie, on the other hand is a chump. And not a particularly bright one at that. To review, George has not won a major Classic, despite being dubbed by the American cycling press -- such as it is -- as a major force in the Classics. Ghent-Wevelgem remains his only "Classic" victory, and that is over 200 kms, not the 250 km mark the true Classics are raced over. And as more than one pro has put it, "the extra 50 kms come at the end." Rather than the usual inane drivel one would expect from the typical cyclists, its actually an insightful remark -- the hardest racing in the true Classics come in the finale, and it is there that Hincapie has time and again shown his failings.
Chris remarked last year that Hincapie was trying to preserve his podium finish in Roubaix when he unwisely choose to give Boonen a free ride to the finale -- where Boonen easily and expectedly finished him off in the sprint. Perhaps Hincapie was just trying to save his second place. But that separates him from the truly great one-day riders. Champions risk it all for the wins. Also-rans play it safe for a podium finish. The sharpest of contrasts was drawn only one week before with Boonen's daring flyer that launched him to victory at Flanders.
Of course, Hincapie has also been lionized for his impressive win in last year's crowning stage of the Tour de France -- a day which will live in infamy among cheap-shot wins. The day proved rather that Hincapie is lacking in the class that also distinguishes true champions, rather than any athletic pedigree that could one day let him play a major leader's role in Le Tour.
Such fawning could be excused if it were confined to the pages of South Carolina's sports pages or Hincapie's own web-site. But to see such sentiments in the pages of VeloNews (no doubt to be echoed soon in Cycle Sport) is just sad. And also symptomatic of the need to crown a new American hero after the departure of Lance.
Ironically, when Lance first arrived on the scene he was perhaps unfairly characterized as the next Lemond. The careers of the two champs seemed eerily in sync with early World Championship victories by both. But the comparison was unfair to Lance, and overlooked dramatically different styles of the two riders. Armstrong rode with panache and aggression better suited to the one-day races than the stage races Lemond excelled at. Indeed, after pulling out of a pre-cancer Tour, Lance told the American press that maybe he should accept that the overall wasn't in the cards for him, and he should focus instead on stage wins.
Naturally, Lance would stage a Lemond-like comeback (and, really, comparing which comeback is more dramatic is an exercise in a bizaree, macabre folly, no?) and his exploits would largely eclipse those of the American cycling pioneer.
Now, though, we are to believe that Hincapie will undergo a similar transformation and go from third-rate fodder to the new champion of the major tours? I think the chances are better that Bode Miller medals.
In the meantime, let's hope for an early breakthrough by another American -- any American -- to spare us from more of the agonizing Hincapie-as-the-second-coming-of-Lance saga. Even if it becomes the Leipheimer-as-the-second-coming-of-Lance saga, it has to be better. Doesn't it?
But in this brave new post-Lance era, Hincapie is being foisted upon us as the new Bode. Ok, the comparison is a bit unfair, because before the Torino Olympics, Bode had actually put together an altogether respectable resume in the Austrian-dominated world of downhill skiing...
Hincapie, on the other hand is a chump. And not a particularly bright one at that. To review, George has not won a major Classic, despite being dubbed by the American cycling press -- such as it is -- as a major force in the Classics. Ghent-Wevelgem remains his only "Classic" victory, and that is over 200 kms, not the 250 km mark the true Classics are raced over. And as more than one pro has put it, "the extra 50 kms come at the end." Rather than the usual inane drivel one would expect from the typical cyclists, its actually an insightful remark -- the hardest racing in the true Classics come in the finale, and it is there that Hincapie has time and again shown his failings.
Chris remarked last year that Hincapie was trying to preserve his podium finish in Roubaix when he unwisely choose to give Boonen a free ride to the finale -- where Boonen easily and expectedly finished him off in the sprint. Perhaps Hincapie was just trying to save his second place. But that separates him from the truly great one-day riders. Champions risk it all for the wins. Also-rans play it safe for a podium finish. The sharpest of contrasts was drawn only one week before with Boonen's daring flyer that launched him to victory at Flanders.
Of course, Hincapie has also been lionized for his impressive win in last year's crowning stage of the Tour de France -- a day which will live in infamy among cheap-shot wins. The day proved rather that Hincapie is lacking in the class that also distinguishes true champions, rather than any athletic pedigree that could one day let him play a major leader's role in Le Tour.
Such fawning could be excused if it were confined to the pages of South Carolina's sports pages or Hincapie's own web-site. But to see such sentiments in the pages of VeloNews (no doubt to be echoed soon in Cycle Sport) is just sad. And also symptomatic of the need to crown a new American hero after the departure of Lance.
Ironically, when Lance first arrived on the scene he was perhaps unfairly characterized as the next Lemond. The careers of the two champs seemed eerily in sync with early World Championship victories by both. But the comparison was unfair to Lance, and overlooked dramatically different styles of the two riders. Armstrong rode with panache and aggression better suited to the one-day races than the stage races Lemond excelled at. Indeed, after pulling out of a pre-cancer Tour, Lance told the American press that maybe he should accept that the overall wasn't in the cards for him, and he should focus instead on stage wins.
Naturally, Lance would stage a Lemond-like comeback (and, really, comparing which comeback is more dramatic is an exercise in a bizaree, macabre folly, no?) and his exploits would largely eclipse those of the American cycling pioneer.
Now, though, we are to believe that Hincapie will undergo a similar transformation and go from third-rate fodder to the new champion of the major tours? I think the chances are better that Bode Miller medals.
In the meantime, let's hope for an early breakthrough by another American -- any American -- to spare us from more of the agonizing Hincapie-as-the-second-coming-of-Lance saga. Even if it becomes the Leipheimer-as-the-second-coming-of-Lance saga, it has to be better. Doesn't it?
