I think I’ve watched less pro cycling races this year than in a long time. Actually – I know I have. It wasn’t even a conscious decision. But I do have to admit almost every race I look at, there was some guy that I was suspicious of. And that doesn’t make it any fun to watch. There are a few folks I’ve enjoyed watching race around on bikes a little more than others. It is a short list. As a fan of the sport the names Chris Horner, Jens Voigt and Fabian Cancellara (who just so happened to end up on the same team) always stood out for me somehow. Part of my enjoyment of Horner and Voigt specifically was their age. They showed me that getting older wasn’t an excuse I should even consider.

It would be great to be confident these men – and others like them – have ridden clean. But the pragmatist steps in. They’ve been on teams where other riders and management have been linked to doping. More and more people come out and say they doped. Unfortunately what has happened now is not that specific riders have been identified, but an entire generation of riders are now under suspicion – deserving or not. Every win is subject to a “was he doping” question.

I’m not specifically upset that doping occurred. It is understandable. If you pin paychecks on performance folks will do what they can to improve performance. So what do we do? Chris Horner has been quoted as saying, basically, that if we don’t trust the tests we shouldn’t bother with them. That’s a paraphrase for sure, but it is a valid question. How do we get back to a place where folks can sit down, watch a bike race and not have the specter of doping over every winner. Because I miss enjoying a good bike race.

Maybe I should just stick to my local races and clubs. Or watch women’s racing instead.

Lance who?

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play on one TV. But I nonetheless found myself spending a whole lot of time yesterday reading over legal documents. It would be cool if I were trying to gain understanding into my legal liabilities if I lead a ride and someone gets hurt. Or perhaps finding ways my auto insurance is legally required to cover myself and/or bicycle in the case of an accident in the saddle. Or how about the technicalities of home owners or renters insurance and a stolen bike.

Nope – as you probably guessed, I was all wrapped up in the USADA Reasoned Decision in the Lance Armstrong case. Across the internet, everyone seems to be writing that as “Reasoned Decision” – in quotation marks – as if it is a sarcastic remark.  Turns out that a reasoned decision is actually a specific type of document that the USADA was required to release. From the publication itself:

Pursuant to Article 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), after a sanction is announced because the sanctioned party has failed to challenge the charges against the party, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall submit to the entities with appeal rights a reasoned decision explaining the action taken. This document, therefore, sets forth USADA’s reasoned decision describing evidence of Mr. Armstrong’s rule violations (the “Reasoned Decision”), and is being sent to the Union Cycliste International (UCI), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and the World Triathlon Corporation, the entities with appeal rights relating to the Reasoned Decision.

— USADA Reasoned Decision, Pg 6

Oh – they put it in quotes themselves. OK. I won’t make fun of them for that. But why was I wasting my time reading this cycling news carefully obfuscated as legalese? Frankly, I think I was looking for some sanity, some clarity.

You see, I’ve had a long time to come to terms with the fact that I believe Amrstrong is guilty. I started down this road a long time back – even to Floyd Landis and his claims so long ago. Yes – I do think Floyd is a whack job. Yes, his credibility is strained. But no, I refuse to make the logical leap that Armstrong and his crew have tried to get me to make – that because he is a whack job, everything he says is whack. Nope – even whack jobs can tell the truth. And now, in light of more evidence, I’m faced with a harder question: Isn’t it possible that Floyd Landis is such a whack job because of all the crap he was yammering about?

But back to the point – no, I didn’t care that there was “official evidence” that Armstrong doped. In point of fact, there are still ardent Lance supports that will deny this evidence too. Those that will claim this is the result of a vast conspiracy involving the highest levels of the US government, Sheryl Crow’s ex boyfriends, the entire population of France and Ancient Aliens hell bent on ensuring no one rides a bike too successfully.

No – it was the other riders that actually upset me more. Guys like Levi Leipheimer,  David Zabriskie, Christian Vande Velde and George Hincapie have all publicly stated basically “Yes, he did. And yes, I did with him.”

Levi and Big George, in particular, gave me pause. You see, I haven’t yet processed the idea of them doping like I have with Lance. I think I was clinging to some strand of plausible deniability regarding those that rode with Lance, and that I admire as athletes. Now I have to look hard at that too.

So where does this all leave us? Does this taint any and all riders that are still competing from that era?

No. I don’t think so. Instead, I think we need to look at it differently. Yea, probably most of the folks from that time were doping. But by all accounts it was widespread across the sport – a sort of doping arms race between the teams. Those that didn’t simply were not able to compete… natural selection. But there are indications that the doping cold war is over. The former Soviet Union, err, I mean Lance Armstrong Possee, has broken up. We are in a new era of peace.

I certainly hope that is true, otherwise I’ll have to devote all my sporting attention to the only other sport worth watching – football (with the round ball, sillies). Watching people race bikes is something I’ve loved to do, and it does have a positive impact on my own personal experiences on the bike. I’m not ready to give that up.

So that leaves us all with a personal decision – what do we do with this information?

I suggest we treat it like a day in high school history class. That was then and crappy things were done all around. Let’s do what we can to make sure they don’t happen again. And let’s be thankful that perhaps now we can all enjoy a cycling season without having every major race somehow bring up the “Armstrong Case” during the coverage.

I’m quite frankly sick to death of hearing about Lance and his apparently inexhaustible ability to be targeted by, and just missed by, doping investigations. More importantly, I’m tired of it being the only story the main stream american media seems able to cover related to cycling.  Well, that and a cyclist killing a pedestrian. For americans this was an amazing year in bike racing, but you barely heard anything about in on the talking picture box. Two major pro level stage races in the United States. An American team battling it out in the olympics. American cyclist Chris Horner apparently inheriting the reigns of Cycling Media Ambassador for the american Audiences. These are exciting times for those of us in the states that are paying attention. For the rest of the population, apparently cycling is only about allegations of cheating from over a decade ago.

With all of this hoopla, you think that the Armstrong events were absolutely critical to the sport of cycling. But what impact with the USADA / Lance debacle actually have?  Well, only one of two.

Scenario One: The (still) immortal Lance

There will be continued bickering, lawyering-up and public statementifications (read that carefully) until ultimately, some obscure court that no one has ever heard of will completely side-step the doping allegations, In this scenario, the Court of Arbitration for Sport will decide that the USADA has no authority to strip medals and wins. If this happens, historians will need to rewrite the name “Armstrong, L. United States” across the white out they just recently placed across his name.

Scenarion Two: Lance only had 9 lives (and already used up 8)

Alternatively, the ruling may stand. Lance may be stripped of his wins for all posterity. The sport will be cleansed of the evil dopers – oui? No. In fact, almost all of the 2nd place finishers that would be promoted to first if Armstrong is stripped of his titles are themselves accused and/or convicted dopers. That’s progress, right?

Lance’s characterization of these allegations as a “witch hunt” may be true. However, unlike the madness in Salem of oh-so-many years ago, this time around thar be real witches in the woods.

Headline:  “Cycling has another week riddled with news of doping and not much else”

Well, at least that is what you’d think if all you read is the mainstream press, or even the mainstream cycling press.  We’ve already had racing action this season.  First in Australia with the Tour Down Under, and the Tour of Qatar just started.  Now honestly though – how many folks do you suspect actually know the standings of the early season races?  I’m betting a fair sight less than the number that know that 1) Lance Armstrong is off the hook, and 2) Contador has been stripped of his 2010 wins – including the Tour de France and Giro d’Italia.

And this season is promising to be a great showdown.  The combination of some of the riders from both Leopard Trek and Radio Shack into one team.  Renshaw free to clash sabers in the sprints without having to focus on delivering Cavendish to the front.  This is real racing drama – happening now.  Armstrong doesn’t race anymore – remember?  And now Contador won’t be racing this year until the Giro either.  So let’s focus our attention on the people out there trying to beat each other on the roads and single tracks – not in the court rooms, press rooms and headlines.

If only we could get as much coverage of our race winners as we do the doping circus…  Just one man’s opinion.

Hypocrisy is something that drives me particularly nuts.  I am especially sensitive to situations where I find myself acting or thinking in this way, and strive to stamp it out.  Thanks to Alberto Contador I’ve actually found myself in one of these situations, and I’m still trying to figure out where my thinking may have gone wrong.  Specifically, I’m realizing that I’ve not been judging Lance Armstrong and Contodor by the same standards.  Even more so I’ve found myself holding the exact same opinion of Contador that I previously criticized others for having regarding Armstrong.

It was not too long ago when Lance was dominating the Tour de France that many a Frenchmen (and others, for that matter) were sure that he had to be doping.  “There is no way that an athlete can perform that far above all of his contemporaries without cheating” was a common belief.

While I’ve repeatedly stated that I’m not a “Texas flag waving Armstrong supporter“, I felt at the time that the “Lance is doping” mantra was just nonsense.  I liked the idea of Lance clean, and found it inspiring that a person could actually dominate a sport in the way he did.

But then a funny thing happened.  This spindly Spaniard started climbing hills like nobody’s business.  I was watching the 2011 Giro d’Italia as he seemed to ride past all the competition as if he were out on a casual Sunday morning group ride.  The guy blew by folks on the climbs and didn’t even seem to really be breaking a sweat.  With the background of the entire clenbuterol nonsense still in my mind I had a thought that seemed a very logical conclusion.  “Obviously the guy is doping.  There is no way he could keep dropping those guys like that over and over.”

Now hold on just a minute…

The critical thinkers among you will realize that I was now thinking in exactly the same way as all the Armstrong doubters had been.  Yup – I just became a hypocrite.  Now the question I need to answer is, which of my two opinions is wrong?  Was I overly optimistic in my previous belief in Armstrong’s clean racing?  Or am I being overly critical of Contador?  Perhaps Lance was riding dirty, and Contador simply did get some bad beef.  Unfortunately there is a growing body of evidence that seems to be pointing to the fact that neither of these men may be able to adorn their bikes with the blue spacers that signify a rider dedicated to keeping the sport fair and clean.

It is with both frustration and great satisfaction that I watch the madness unleashed by Floyd Landis’s accusations of doping.  Despite my previous post to the contrary, I do in fact have opinions on this issue.

The frustrating/satisfying part for me, however, is the sheer number of investigations that have started as a result of his allegations.  I find it frustrating that the major headlines on cycling are again broadcasting to the mainstream audiences the idea that cycling is a drug-riddled sport.  However, it is satisfying to see the ghusto with which the cycling governing bodies are moving to address the accusations – to either confirm or deny the claims being made.  As stated in a VeloNews.com posting:

For Armstrong the U.S. anti-doping agency (USADA) has been mandated to carry out a probe while McQuaid has also asked the Belgian federation to probe the claims concerning Bruyneel.

The federations of Australia, Canada and France have also been asked to investigate after Landis’ claims respectively implicated professional Matthew White, Michael Barry and John Lelangue, Landis’s former manager at the Phonak team, who now manages the BMC team.

Read more: http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/05/news/pat-mcquaid-says-lance-armstrong-donation-was-no-conflict-in-interest-promises-investigation-into-landis-claims_118503?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=VN#ixzz0oxGQ9y46

That’s a whole lotta organizations, doing a whole lotta investigation, all without the impetus of a single positive test taken from a rider at this time.  If this doesn’t show that the cycling world is serious about stamping out PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) than I’m not sure what will.