USADA Reasoned Decision: Flawed, But Not Fatally Flawed

I know a few people who are keenly interested in the Lance Armstrong situation, but who lack the time to read through the published documents.

A lot is going to be written about this over the next, er, decade. This is my initial contribution to the commentary tsunami.

Here is my conclusion to this post. I'm placing it here as a quick summary of my opinion.

The USADA Reasoned Decision is a flawed document. But it is not fatally flawed. It does present significant amounts of evidence to support the assertion that Lance Armstrong doped, and that Lance Armstrong was instrumental to systemic doping throughout his career. While it might have been a better legal document, had it refrained from emotional and stylistic appeals, it would not have been as entertaining, informative, and dramatic a read.

To Begin With...

It's possible to believe the document, yet find significant fault with it.

It's possible to say: "yep, he doped.", but find much of the evidence to be weak.

It's possible to applaud USADA for its initiative and its work, while believing that the final product undermines its own achievement.

I have read the Reasoned Decision, and I have read much of the supplementary material, specifically the affidavits from riders and staff. Having done so, some things are clear to me:

• Lance Armstrong doped.
• The USADA did have a laser-like focus on Armstrong, one that could accurately be described as a "witch hunt."
• Most of the Reasoned Decision would not stand up in a US court of law, because the Standard of Evidence used to asset the Reasoned Decision is laughably vague
• The riders and staff who provided testimony are getting off easy.
• There are a lot of open questions.
• This is not over. It's not even close. There will be years of fallout from this. It may, in fact, have the half life of nuclear weapons materials.

Some Big Outstanding Questions

• What about Kevin Livingston? He is mentioned countless times. Where is his testimony?
• What about Chris Carmichael? He is mentioned countless times. Where is his testimony?
• Why did the feds drop the case?
• What did the UCI know and when?
• To what degree is the UCI culpable?

REASONED DECISION

Yep, I read it. Below I chronicle my opinions. It is presented in the order in which I read the material. In other words, it's a blog of my reading of the document (less the interruptions, nature calls, and other TMI details).

This is not in any way comprehensive, but it is representative of my reading/questioning/musing on the subject.

USADA's findings

It's damning. USADA asserts the following:

• That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug EPO.
• That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug Testosterone.
• That Lance Armstrong provided his teammates the banned drug EPO.
• That Lance Armstrong administered to a teammate the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong enforced the doping program on his team by threatening a rider with termination if he did not dope in accordance with the plan drawn up by Dr. Michele Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong’s doping program was organized by Dr. Ferrari.
• That Lance Armstrong pushed his teammates to use Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong used banned blood transfusions to cheat.
• That Lance Armstrong would have his blood withdrawn and stored throughout the year and then receive banned blood transfusions in the team doctor’s hotel room on nights during the Tour de France. That Lance Armstrong surrounded himself with drug runners and doping doctors so that he could achieve his goal of winning the Tour de France year after year.
• That Lance Armstrong and his handlers engaged in a massive and long running scheme to use drugs, cover their tracks, intimidate witnesses, tarnish reputations, lie to hearing panels and the press and do whatever was necessary to conceal the truth.
  (Reasoned Decision, p.14)

USADA asserts that there is evidence beyond the testimony:

...although additional corroboration is not necessary given the testimony of USADA’s witnesses...the retesting of Lance Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour and the clear finding of EPO in six of the samples provides powerful corroborating evidence of Armstrong’s use of EPO. With or without this corroborating evidence, however, the evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that Lance Armstrong used
EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. No other conclusion is even plausible.
(Reasoned Decision, p.37)

The retesting has been subject to much discussion and legal wrangling. The issues surrounding the testing are byzantine and ugly. I imagine that the inability to prove this testing was valid (within a court of law) is a contributing reason for the Federal Prosecutor's decision to terminate its criminal investigation.

USADA spends a lot of time and effort to discredit Lance Armstrong. They chip away at his credibility, using myriad snippets of testimony

While USADA has not charged Armstrong with an anti-doping rule violation for the use of Actovegin because the product is not currently banned, Armstrong’s conduct and false statements in relation to Actovegin are highly relevant. It should be kept in mind that Armstrong’s and the team’s cover up concerning Actovegin was made in response to an official French law enforcement investigation. The fact that Armstrong and team officials were willing to make false statements in the course of a law enforcement investigation regarding doping directly bears on evaluation of the credibility of their statements regarding the use of other products. In other words, if Lance Armstrong was willing to lie about Actovegin—and he clearly did lie about Actovegin— there is little reason to believe that Armstrong would not be
willing to lie about other products and with regard to other topics.
(Reasoned Decision, p.45)

While the USADA chips away, I was struck by something: most of this is based on testimony. There is little based on independently-provable evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but I think most reasonable people agree that hearsay and witness testimony is weaker than independently-verifiable, objective evidence. This strikes me as the main reason the federal prosecutors terminated their investigation.

Tyler and Floyd

To its credit, the USADA spends a lot of time and effort corroborating the testimony of Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton. To its discredit, the USADA does not address many of the UCI touchpoints and the lack of diligence on the part of cycling's governing body.

As discussed in more detail in Section V(C) below, Dr. Martial Saugy, the Director of the WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland has confirmed to both USADA and the media that his laboratory detected a number of samples in the 2001 Tour de Suisse that were suspicious for the presence of EPO. Dr. Saugy also told USADA that he was advised by UCI that at least one of these samples belonged to Mr. Armstrong. Therefore, even without any consideration of the laboratory test results for these samples, as set forth above, Tyler Hamilton’s and Floyd Landis’s testimony regarding Mr. Armstrong’s admission that he used EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland finds substantial corroboration in the statements of both Dr. Martial Saugy and UCI President Pat McQuaid.
(Reasoned Decision, p.52)

I'm fascinated by the USADA's use of autobiographies and other books as part of their Reasoned Decision. They quote from Armstrong's two books as well as Bruyneel's management tome extensively. It makes for a riveting read, but is it valid in a legal sense? If I were writing a termpaper, it would be a great technique, as it provides color to otherwise bland legalese. In this case, though, it's all color and little legalese...

George Hincapie

It is probably the most damning of the testimonies. And it is one that makes me angriest, because I wanted to believe in George even more than I wanted to believe in Lance. But that's my issue.

Something of note is that the USADA used most of Hincapie's testimony in the Reasoned Decision. What was not used was mostly procedural and pre-doping history.

It was either in the Tour de France in 2003 or 2004 that Armstrong said to Hincapie, “I am going to be 500 grams heavier today.”  By this reference Hincapie understood Armstrong to mean that Armstrong had received or was going to receive a blood transfusion.333 In any case, Hincapie was well aware that Armstrong used blood doping in every Tour de France from 2001 through 2005.334 The testimony of George Hincapie and Floyd Landis, which are well corroborated by the experiences of many other witnesses and the documentary record, leave no room for doubt that in 2003, as in every other year since the beginning of his at the top of the peloton, Lance Armstrong engaged in blood doping.
(Reasoned Decision, p.64)

George gets off too easily for all of this; he was allowed to gracefully retire.

Weak Sauce

A major issue I have with the Reasoned Decision is its reliance on language to persuade, as opposed to evidence. Frequently, they overreach with their assertions. Too frequently, they color the language like a novelist. The Reasoned Decision is not a novel, yet it is one of the most interesting reads I have had in some time. It's certainly more riveting than the third book in George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series!

There will be a number of examples of linguistic bias, for now, an example of overreach on the part of the USADA is their handling of the "whole team transfusing on the bus" incident. In essence, Landis told the story to several people. They all testified that Landis told the story to them. Landis is the only "eyewitness" to the event. This would be dismissed in a real court. It falls into the category of heresay, and it is an example of why the USADA document makes me uneasy.

Levi Leipheimer testified that in 2005 when he and Landis were assisting each other with blood transfusions that Landis had told him about an incident at the 2004 Tour where the entire U.S. Postal Service team had received transfusions on the team bus following a stage in the Tour.380 Landis confirmed to Leipheimer that Lance Armstrong received a transfusion at that time.381 Moreover, David Zabriskie testified that in 2004 he too was told by Landis about an incident occurring at a race in 2004 where team members had received transfusions on the bus after a stage in the race.382 Thus, the bus transfusion incident has been triply confirmed. Not only two participants, Hincapie and Landis confirm it happened, but, Landis’ relatively contemporaneous statements to two additional individuals add yet another layer of assurance, confirmation and verifiability to the account.
(Reasoned Decision, p.71)

I find that weak. It's sounds reasonable, but reasonable and "proof" are different things.

The Simeoni Incident

Like the "transfusions on the bus" incident, USADA makes much out of little evidence. Yes, Lance chased down Simeoni. Yes, they exchanged words. No, there is no evidence to support the content of their conversation. Claiming the YouTube video as evidence is laughable. True, there was a gesture, but to make so much out of so little is grotesque.

Oh, and the language is spectacular! "Egregious". Just one of hundreds of word choices in the Reasoned Decision that are less reasonable and more passionate than is seemly.

As Simeoni and Armstrong fell back to the peloton, Armstrong verbally berated Simeoni for testifying in the Ferrari case, saying, “You made a mistake when you testified against Ferrari and you made a mistake when you sued me. I have a lot of time and money and I can destroy you.” Armstrong was captured on video making a “zip the lips” gesture which underscored what Armstrong had just said to Simeoni about how Simeoni should not have testified against Dr. Ferrari. A copy of a video of this sad moment in the history of cycling is provided as part of Appendix B. Thus, Filippo Simeoni has provided to USADA corroborated testimony of an act of attempted witness intimidation by Armstrong, which is in and of itself an anti-doping rule violation...and is also potentially relevant both to impeach Armstrong’s claim not to have participated in doping with Dr. Ferrari and in consideration of whether Armstrong should not be deprived of reliance upon the statute of limitations due to wrongful and egregious acts in which he engaged to attempt to suppress the truth about his doping and that of others associated with his team.
(Reasoned Decision, p.73)

Diminishing Witnesses

It's worth noting that the USADA's witnesses start to dry up within the chronology. In 1999, the USADA relies on seven (7) eyewitnesses. By the events of 2005, they rely on three (3) eyewitnesses (Reasoned Decision, p.75). I realize that there are circumstances around this, but it is notable, interesting, and worth further conversation.

Assertions that exceed reasonable language

That subhead may be misleading. Throughout the document USADA makes statements that assert truths and positions that are not as well-supported as they would like them to be. At times their language reminds me of the drunk guy who is trying to convince you of something you know to be untrue. He just keeps getting louder and more assertive, despite the weakness of his argument.

Hincapie has testified that, “[f]rom my conversations with Lance Armstrong and experiences with Lance and the team I am aware that Lance used blood transfusions from 2001 through 2005.”402 His testimony is corroborated by Levi Leipheimer who testified that in 2006 or 2007, long before any USADA investigation had occurred, that George Hincapie told Leipheimer that Armstrong had “only used a single bag of blood during [the 2005] Tour.”403 There was certainly no motive for Hincapie to lie to Leipheimer about Armstrong’s blood doping in this conversation in 2006 or 2007 after Armstrong had retired.
(Reasoned Decision, p.75)

"Certainly no motive" is the phrase that matters. By what knowledge/authority/insight does USADA make this statement? I'm a creative guy. I can come up with plausible motives. So can you. This may not be the finest example, but it illustrates the USADA's linguistic overreach.

Hincapie’s post Tour drug sweep of Armstrong’s apartment

Wow.

Lance Armstrong would claim his seventh Tour title on July 24, 2005. Armstrong would
then return to the United States without going back to his apartment in Girona. Consequently,
after the 2005 Tour Johan Bruyneel asked George Hincapie to, “go over to Lance’s apartment to go through the apartment and the closets to make sure that nothing was there.” Hincapie
understood that Johan wanted him “to make sure there were no doping materials in the
apartment.” Thus, Hincapie conducted a drug sweep of Armstrong’s apartment after the 2005
Tour.

Bruyneel’s request for a drug sweep is a clear statement that Bruyneel believed Armstrong was using performance enhancing drugs in 2005. Bruyneel, of course, knew on a daily basis the hematocrit level and fitness of every rider on his team. It is unthinkable that Bruyneel would not know whether Armstrong was using doping products in 2005, and Bruyneel’s request for a drug sweep is unambiguous confirmation that Bruyneel knew that Armstrong was still using.
(Reasoned Decision, p.76-77)

But, USADA undermines the impact of the testimony with this linguistic overreach (emphasis added):

Thus, there exists powerful direct and circumstantial evidence that in violation of the applicable rules Lance Armstrong possessed, used, and provided to George Hincapie, banned performance enhancing drugs in 2005.
(Reasoned Decision, p.77)

It's circumstantial! It may be powerful, and it may have come directly from a purported actor, but it's circumstantial!

Bad Rhetoric

If there was nothing illicit in Armstrong’s continuing relationship with Dr. Ferrari, then why did he need to lie about it? Armstrong’s false representation to the public that he had stopped working with Ferrari and Armstrong’s continuing relationship with Ferrari create a doubly strong adverse implication that Armstrong was doping...
(Reasoned Decision, p.78)

USADA makes a huge leap here. While it is a fascinating question, and one that makes for good conversation, I don't believe it makes for good law. I also think it's weak rhetoric. Again, I can come up with more than a few plausible responses to the question of why he lied.

More adventures in language

In the SCA arbitration proceedings Mr. Armstrong cagily refused to acknowledge that he ever encouraged any teammates to train with Dr. Ferrari.
(Reasoned Decision, p.93)

The USADA cagily uses words like "cagily" to impute the character of Lance Armstrong. It's emotional and unnecessary. The sentence would be impactful without the adverb. It also would show the USADA as holding itself to a higher standard. Name-calling and ad hominem attacks are so...puerile in this context.

Frankie Andreu was likely one of the first cyclists that Lance Armstrong attempted to introduce to the notorious Dr. Ferrari, and Andreu is the only rider of which USADA is aware that rebuffed Armstrong’s invitation for the rider to begin working with Ferrari.
(Reasoned Decision, p.94)

"The notorious Dr. Ferrari" sounds like an H.G Wells novella or a bad movie from the 1930s. It has no place in this Reasoned Decision. Again, the USADA diminishes its work with petty character attacks.

Carmichael

Chris Carmichael has said that he introduced Armstrong to Ferrari in 1995. Armstrong’s adviser taints Tour efforts, USA Today, by Sal Ruibal, July 13, 2004, provided in Appendix W.
(Reasoned Decision, footnote 485, page 97)

There is no follow-up about Carmichael in this Reasoned Decision. I am gobsmacked. Why not?

According to Stapleton, Ferrari was “in this group of people” including Johan Bruyneel and Chris Carmichael “that helped Lance.” According to Carmichael, “[t]here [were] only four people who really know what’s going on with Lance’s body: me, Michele, Johan and Freddy [Viaene, Armstrong’s massage therapist].”
(Reasoned Decision, page 99)

Money trail asserted, but no proof?

George Hincapie, Christian Vande Velde, Levi Leipheimer and Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton in 2001 all paid Dr. Ferrari for his services, although these payments were not recorded in the records of Health & Performance, SA obtained by USADA.
(Reasoned Decision, page 100)

Where is the proof of this? There may be hard evidence of money transfers, but they are not presented. USADA stretches too far with this assertion.

More character assassination

Thus, Leipheimer was thrice disserved—first by the coach who first got him EPO and then by Dr. del Moral who instructed him how to use it without being caught and finally by Bruyneel, who could have tried to turn a young man in the right direction, but instead accepted the drug use and looked only to his own selfish interest in reducing the risk of one of his riders getting a positive drug test by having the team doctor advise to inject EPO in the vein.
(Reasoned Decision, page 114-115)

At best, this is moralistic nonsense. At worst, it is character assassination. USADA does not need to use these language choices.

At this point in the document, I was beginning to feel like I was watching an Oliver Stone film. You know what I mean, you're 60 minutes in and you say "I get the point." You spend the next 60 minutes getting beaten over the head with! the! same! point! over! and! over! again!

In this case, it's not the overwhelming evidence, it's the melodrama of the language that annoys and diminishes.

Melodrama 201: Oh, These Poor Victims (Our Witnesses)

Crikey. USADA tries to paint the witnesses in such a way as to make them sound like nobility. Reality check: they lied and cheated for years. They abused the system for significant personal gains.

Sure, their consciences are finally hurting. in the context of a legal document, it doesn't matter. It's melodrama, it's whiny, and it's unnecessary.

...many of USADA’s witnesses have had years of their competitive results disqualified, they have risked their employment, a number have accepted suspensions, and five lost the opportunity to compete on the 2012 United States Olympic team.738 These individuals were well aware of the consistent Armstrong tactic of attacking his accusers, most had been on his team when he went after Christophe Bassons and/or Filippo Simeoni, they saw how he and his press team and lawyers had attacked Betsy Andreu, Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis, among others, and they knew that testifying for USADA would likely subject them to intense criticism and efforts by Armstrong and others trying to uphold cycling’s Code of Silence – the omerta. None of these individuals came forward lightly or easily. Every one of USADA’s witnesses struggled to some degree with the decision to come forward. Virtually all were subject to cycling’s omerta at one time or another. For all, there existed a strong self interest in NOT coming forward, in keeping their heads down and hoping the storm would pass. Most had almost certainly, as Tyler Hamilton confessed, at one time contemplated holding onto their secrets until the grave.
(Reasoned Decision, page 128)

1999 Tour de Suisse Samples

More overreach on the part of USADA. Essentially, in 2004 the French retested the 1999 samples. There were findings. The findings were dismissed by UCI for having failed protocols.

USADA asserts that they were fine, and that (in combination with witness statements) they establish a positive test result.

The passage is long, so I will not quote it's entirety here, but it is another example of a pattern of overreach on the part of USADA.

While LNDD’s analysis of the 1999 samples may not stand alone to establish a positive test under the Code, the analysis is consistent with and corroborates the numerous witness statements recently obtained by USADA.
(Reasoned Decision, page 142-144)

Lance is Creepy

The Tyler Hamilton incident is fascinating, believable, and something you can envision. The Leipheimer incidents are disturbing...

...on June 11, 2011, Mr. Hamilton was physically accosted by Mr. Armstrong in an Aspen, Colorado restaurant.819 Mr. Hamilton has testified that in connection
with this altercation Mr. Armstrong said, “When you’re on the witness stand, we are going to fucking tear you apart. You are going to look like a fucking idiot.”820 Hamilton further testified that Armstrong said, “I’m going to make your life a living . . . fucking . . . hell.”
(Reasoned Decision, page 150)

...in the course of a dinner at which Mr. Armstrong was seated next to Mr. Leipheimer, Mr. Armstrong sent a text message to Mr. Leipheimer’s wife stating, “run don’t walk.” As Mr. Armstrong had not communicated with Mr. Leipheimer’s wife in several years, this message felt threatening to her.
(Reasoned Decision, page 150)

During the 2012 Tour de France, and shortly after Mr. Leipheimer was interviewed by
USADA’s General Counsel in connection with this proceeding, Mr. Leipheimer’s wife received another text from Mr. Armstrong asking, “Are you in CA?” Due to the timing of the message, the fact that Mr. Armstrong was well aware that Mr. Leipheimer was out of the country and competing in the Tour de France, and as Mr. Leipheimer’s wife had not received a text from Mr. Armstrong since the time of the prior intimidating text, Mr. Leipheimer’s wife found the communication to be disturbing and concerning.
(Reasoned Decision, page 151)

UCI takes a hit

I am surprised at how little the USADA offers in terms of UCI. There is a lot of inference, but little detail about UCI's possible culpability through the doping era. This will be an issue to watch over the coming years.

One area where USADA takes UCI to task surrounds the way the UCI has dealt with criticism. It's informative, to say the least.

UCI is conflicted out of any role in results management in this case because it has publicly prejudged the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. In 2010 when Mr.Landis publicly raised his allegations of Mr. Armstrong’s doping, in an Associated Press article UCI President McQuaid responded before undertaking any investigation whatsoever, contending that Mr. Landis’ allegations in his April 30, 2010 email were “nothing new” and that, “he already made those accusations in the past.” Rather than investigate the allegations, instead the UCI sued Mr. Landis. Similarly, when Tyler Hamilton publicly explained his knowledge of Mr. Armstrong’s doping in a 60 Minutes interview nationally telecast in the United States and reported around the world in May, 2011, the UCI’s Honorary President and current UCI Management Committee Member, Hein Verbruggen, stated:

That’s impossible, because there is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong
has never used doping. Never, never, never. And I say this not because I am a
friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I’m sure.”

(Reasoned Decision, page 160)

Here's the gem:

It has apparently become UCI policy to sue anyone criticizing the UCI anti-doping program. On September 21, 2012, Hein Verbruggen, confirmed that “everyone that says we have put things under the table or not done our best is sued. Simple. They can come to the court and prove their case. Simple like that. Verbruggen won't take legal action against Hamilton, Cycling News, September 21, 2012
(Reasoned Decision, footnote 838, page 160)

Zing!

A Brief Conclusion

The USADA Reasoned Decision is a flawed document. But it is not fatally flawed. It does present significant amounts of evidence to support the assertion that Lance Armstrong doped, and that Lance Armstrong was instrumental to systemic doping throughout his career. While it might have been a better legal document, had it refrained from emotional and stylistic appeals, it would not have been as entertaining, informative, and dramatic a read.

Fix My Sport!

Something stinks.

And (for once) it's not my orthopedic boot.

But...but...but...he just won the 'effing Vuelta!

And this isn't about doping...

Geox-TMC riders shocked
The Italian shoemaker decides to pull its money out of team, leaving riders and staff scrambling for jobs.

This is in the wake of September's bombshell from Bob Stapleton that the winningest team of the last four years—HTC-Highroad (née Columbia-Highroad) had to shut down for lack of sponsorship. Let's put that into perspective: the team that won more than 440 races, providing exceptional exposure for its sponsors, folded.

A lot of pixels have been generated about HTC. Many not-so-labored comparisons to the NY Yankees and Manchester United have been made.

But no one is talking about Geox!

(And heaven forbid that I reference the Dr. Moreau-style vivisectionist horrorshow of the Leopard-Trek-RadioShack-Nissan-smallfurryanimalsfromAlphaCentuari merger. The announcements were hysterical!)

Bookends

HTC was the winningest. Geox was a an up-and-comer, certainly more than a wannabe, had a small cadre of quality riders (Sastre, Menchov...Cobo?), and they seemed to never get their wheels steadily underneath. Even so, they showed some mettle in the Giro, and famously won the Vuelta. From a exposure standpoint, they provided.

So what happened?

Geox (a shoe manufacturer) determined that cycling was no longer strategic.

Okay.

A business is a business and it needs to operate accordingly.

Hmmm...

When will cycling realize that it's business model is broken? Others have written more knowledgeably about this. I defer to commentaries like Joe Lindsey's Boulder Report.

Cycling needs a plan. I don't trust McQuaid or the UCI to get anything right. They make rules without consultation with those most affected by those changes (Get rid of race radios! They're killing the sport! ...really? Really?), they promote events that don't make any sense whatsoever (Tour of Bejing...really? Really?), and the entire doping mis-management fiasco cluster embarrassment (Contador and myriad others...really? Really?).

So, how does cycling get the grubby UCI paws out of...cycling?

The sport needs a sea change. I hate to admit it (because I consider him to be an insufferable prat), but Jonathan Vaughters makes a lot of sense.

TV revenue needs to be shared. The teams need to have an entirely different foundation upon which they can build a real structure.

Think about the history of cycling, and what do you remember? Riders and teams. But how many of those team's still exist?

Whither Eddy's Molteni?

Where's Coppi's Bianchi? Merckx's Moltini (or Faema)? Hinault's Renault (or La Vie Claire)? LeMond's Z (or ADR)? Armstrong's Motorola (or Postal, or Disco)?

How many of the current teams will be around in two years? Three years? Five years?

If Highroad couldn't cut it...what team will?

Beauty

My sport is beautiful. It's a compelling blend of elegance and suffering. Remember the old Wide, Wide, World of Sports intro? That's cycling. It's the thrill and the agony. Every event can become epic in a split second. Every event has the potential for...greatness.

Someone, please, fix my sport. Give it what it needs to thrive...not merely survive. Stop the squabbling, grow up, and realize your potential!

This sport is greater than we've seen. I dearly hope to see its becoming.

Two Words: Mark Cavendish

Long-time club teammates battled
for the rainbow Jersey.

Frantic. Maniac. Terrifying. Blinding. Breathless.

That describes the final 500 meters of the 2011 World Cycling Championships.

If you haven't seen it, you're missing a finish for the ages.

Uphill, after a final right-hand turn into the final strait, the final bunch sprint was always going to go to the man with the most power.

"Of course," you say, "isn't that always the case?"

Nope.

Sometimes luck has her say. Sometimes guile plays its part. Sometimes it's pure speed. Sometime it's power. And rarely, it's because of a team. The rainbow jersey doesn't always go to the fastest...but it always goes where it is most deserved.

In 2009 Cadel Evans won, with a clever attack at precisely the right moment. He soloed to victory as the other contenders squabbled among themselves.

In 2010 Thor Hushovd won from a small group, using his massive power to carry his massive carriage over the final climbs in Geelong. Power and guile won the day Down Under.

This year was predicted to be a day for the sprinters. The course was largely flat, and it was certainly not difficult enough to cause a selection. The final ramp to the finish, however, was reminiscent of several stages in the past two Tours. It had enough slope to slow the final sprint, making the effort longer than a classic flat sprint. As a result, while many believed that Cavendish could win, others pointed to the possibility of Hushovd repeating last year's triumph.

Predictions are like opinions, everyone has one. And they're usually worth less than the paper they were written upon.

Cavendish won because he is an amazing talent, and because he was the undisputed leader of an eight-man team from Great Britain. That team worked. They controlled the race all day, and they protected Cav until that final turn. Much like the HTC-Columbia train that dominated sprints over the past few years, Great Britain lined up and drove the pack.

Cavendish said after the race: "There couldn't be another
result, after the way the guys rode today. We had
eight of the best guys in the world...They took the
race on from start to finish and we won."
Truer, more graceful words have seldom been
uttered by a newly-crowned World Champion.

It was lovely to watch.

It was inspiring.

And it is a new chapter in the ongoing saga: "Cycling Is a Team Sport."

So, back to Cavendish.

In the final 500 meters, he found himself alone and boxed-in by the remaining contenders. His experience pointed the way, and his 1600+ watt legs powered him. He had to start his kick earlier than is his preference, and if the race were just a few meters longer, he would have been passed by his club teammate Matt Goss.

But if wishes were fishes we'd never do dishes.

And the win went to the most deserving: the fastest rider from the best team. party in Piccadilly!

So, look out world! Cycling's enfant terrible is in the rainbow jersey!

Chapeau!

(And doesn't this make the 2012 Olympics even MORE interesting?)

Kust m'n kloete!

Ouch! OUCH!
Kust m'n kloete!

We Interrupt These Pelotonia Proceedings...with a bit of humor.

I'm dutifully writing and preparing posts to continue the Pelotonia 2011 story; but I need a quick break!

So, here's a quickie... You can't make this stuff up!

Boonen Suffering from Open Groin Wound

“I suffer from an injury to the scrotum....There is a hole....I got a 'second skin', and glued it at times to a kind of diaper. The perineum, the area between the scrotum and the anus, is simply the most delicate part of the body."

I know a little about that area—being a guy and a testicular cancer survivor. I feel his pain!

Yep, it's a little sensitive down there!

Boonen's racing in the Vuelta a Espana, preparing for the World Championships. He's a tough bastard (and a funny one!); you have to admire his tenacity. He could have abandoned the race, but he didn't. He finished last in the time trial, but he's still in the race.

Chapeau, M. Boonen!

Cadel!

No news here. Cadel Evans won Le Tour.

I've been a fan for a few years now, and I am ecstatic that a good guy won.

He's a completely different guy from some recent champions. Contador is an alien. Lance is...narcissism personified.

Cadel? He's a prickly, pug-like fighter who never saw a finish line he didn't like. He climbs like he's wrestling a crocodile. He ain't pretty. He wears his heart on his sleeve.

He ain't pretty. He's a tough bastard. He's a champion.

Look at what he did as he came across the line. He stopped, nearly collapsing from emotion, and initiated a group hug with the rest of the BMC squad.

It's a true team victory. Complete dedication = absolute triumph.

Lance believed in the power of the team, but his was a cold, calculated appreciation. Cadel's runs deep. Maybe two second place finishes—both with less than a minute separating him from the top step—makes the champagne taste sweeter.

Maybe he's just a good guy. I want to believe.

Chapeau Cadel! Thanks for one of the finest tours I've had the pleasure to see!

Final Week Thoughts on the Tour

We're heading into the final week of the Tour. Shamefully, I never finished my prediction post.

Here's a quick rundown of what I'd expected, compared to what happened. Oh, and what the hell, I'll post my remaining predictions as well.

Tony Martin

I'd hoped for a strong, podium showing for this strong German rider. He's Germany's GC hope—even though there's no TV coverage in Deutschland. The UCI and German TV don't get along.

I Predicted: Podium
Reality: Not close. He sacrificed mightily for stage wins and the Green Jersey for Cavendish. He was a beast, pace setting the peloton for unconscionable amounts of time. He proved a stud, and a sacrificial lamb.

Garmin-Cervelo

I believed the name exactly describes its nature: it is the combination of two ProTour teams.

I expected a decent (but not winning) showing in the team time trial. I predicted a stage win—by a former Cervelo (not Garmin) rider. I predicted no love for Tyler Ferrar, because I didn't believe he had anyone tough enough to lead him out against the mighty HTC machine. Where's his Renshaw? Where's his Goss? Where's the happily headbutting guy, who will take out an opponent? Where's the sting in the tail? Where's the fire?

I also predicted that Jonathan Vaughters would become more insufferable.

I Predicted: See above
Reality: They won the TTT; Ferrar won a stage; Thor wore yellow for seven days (SEVEN DAYS!) And then won an epic, historic, holy-crap-did-you-see-that? stage. And Vaughters ceased insufferability.

Crow tastes icky, even with hot sauce.

Leopard-Trek

This construct of the prodigal Luxembourgian sons gives me the willies.

Even though it has three of my favorite riders on its roster (http://wheelsuckerdiaries.blogspot.com/2011/06/jens-boonenpiratical-sorts.html, man-crush Cancellara, and all-around-tough-guy O'Grady), I expected Leopard to gnash their teeth and lamenting...something...in Paris.

I don't believe in the Schlecks. That's the bottom line.

I Predicted: Pain!
Reality: Too soon to tell. So far, they don't look like a superteam.

Cadel Evans

I love him and I believe he will wear the Yellow Jersey on the top of the podium in Paris.

He’s always ready to race. He sees a finish line, snorts, and gets on with it.

He was spot-on in Tour tune-ups. Here's what Brent Bookwalter had to say:

I’ve only raced with him this year at the Volta a Catalunya. I really admire the guy because he always shows up to race. Even when he acknowledges he’s not at his best he goes for it, like in the finish in Macerata at Tirreno-Adriatico. He was patient and bided his time until the finish.

Ivan Basso

I love this rider, for the placidity he brings to racing. Unfortunately, I don't think it will result in a podium, despite all of Italy's hopes and dreams.

Here's Basso on Basso:

When I was obsessed with having to win it, I burned myself with negativity that certainly didn’t help me. [It's] something that you follow with a smile because it is a very beautiful and fulfilling thing. I’m serene.

Serenity and the aftermath of a bloody crash on Mt Etna, and I think he is out of contention before it starts.

I Predicted: Invisible man
Reality: Too soon to tell. At this point, he's in the mix and looking strong!

Green Jersey

I thought Cavendish would be out of contention, because of all the intermediate sprints and the many, many hills.

I believed in Philipe Gilbert and the Mighty Thor.

I Predicted: Thor and Gilbert
Reality: Cavendish and Gilbert. Odds-on for Cavendish!

So, You Think You're Tough?

What? Guys in lycra don't meet your standard of macho?

Brajkovic goes out with a concussion and many stitches.
Radio Shack is losing riders...fast!

 It might be time to revisit that perspective.

If you want to ride in the Tour de France, make sure you pack your suitcase of courage!

The 2011 edition has been fraught with carnage. Major contenders are out (Wiggins, Vinokourov, Horner). Teams are decimated (Radio Shack has lost four riders, and Leipheimer is well-bruised). And the peloton...rides on.

If you have been living in a cave, or if you are not a cycling fan, you may not have seen this video.

THAT's not the punchline. Here's the punchline: both riders finished the day. Johnny Hoogerland—he of the barbed wire—finished the stage. Why? Because he is a professional cyclist. Because he is tougher than you or I will ever be. Because he would podium to take the polka-dot jersey—a dream come true.

He would end up with 30+ stitches. But he is still in Le Tour.

So, do you still think you're tough?

Here are a few more to consider:

Tom Boonen, former world champion and one of my man-crushes.
digging deep after his 437th crash of this year's Tour.

Juan Manuel Garate gets a close shave

Vino looks none the worse for wear—other than the broken femur.
This guy's a legend. The surprising thing is that he didn't keep riding.

Quick Thoughts on the Tour

T'was the night before Stage One...

I have a longer post drafted, but it's not ready for publication. My editor's not exactly happy about it...

So here's the short version.

Nothing Happens According to Script

But they don't tear it up...they don't know how to do so gracefully.

My expectations of Le Tour?

• The Contador/Schleck "rivalry" narrative fails to materialize.
• Leopard/Trek crashes and burns.
• Garmin finally wins a stage. It's a former Cervelo rider who wins it.
• During a critical move, Phil and Paul are so tied to their inner dialogue that they fail to mention little things like who is in the break and why it is significant. At the finish, they struggle to explain how it happened, relying on tired old phrases and bad cliches. 
• Vaughters remains insufferable.
• HTC wins stages...and the Green Jersey.
• Bob Roll fails to resist the urge to mention "Lance Armstrong". 437 times. Each hour.
• Spartacus crushes the peloton's soul by breaking to win an early stage.
• DZ triumphs with a top-five finish in the time trial, becoming the first Tour finisher to survive on a vegan diet.
• Cadel Evans stands atop the podium in Paris.

More after my weekend in the mountains!

Jens & Boonen—Piratical Sorts

Jens Voigt....a calming presence in the peloton...

I have a man-crush on Jens Voigt. But you already knew that.

I've called him a hard man.

He's so hard, he inspired a (Genius!) Twitter feed, called Jens Voigt Facts (with a companion website...keep refresh the page to see more entries). A sampling:

• Jens Voigt prepares for Tour de Suisse by reassuring scientists at the Large Hadron Collider that he means no harm.
• Sharks have a Jens Voigt week.
• Jens Voigt can touch MC Hammer.
• Lance Armstrong was born the day after Jens Voigt. However, Jens immediately attacked and by the Texan's 13th birthday Jens had already turned 16.
• You get the idea...

...NOT!!!

He's a rare character. And he's now a blogger. I hate the competition. (Seriously. He gets more readers in a day than I've had in two years of this blog.)

But I love him all the same.

But he may be getting come competition. There may be another character in the pro peloton who—with a cheeky grin and a mischievous manner—can upstage the master.

His name?

Tom Boonen.

The Belgian?

Yep, the 2005 World Champion, 2007 Green Jersey winner,  and multiple winner of Paris-Roubaix and Ronde van Vlaanderen (Tour of Flanders, to all you gringos out there).

NOT a Lamborghini.

The Lamborghini-crasher? The coke-head?

Now, now. He was avoiding a cat. And what's a little recreational drug use among friends...After all, Ullrich made mistakes, too!

Let's get this back on track.

In a recent post, Jens laments that he will have to miss going to a Foo Fighters concert with his 15-year-old son, because of his professional obligations.

He shares his conundrum with Tom Boonen. As Jens writes:

...Tom Boonen came up with a good alternative plan. When I told him about my dilemma, he was like, “No really! You know what we can do?” And he gives me this little pirate smile …

“We can stop along the road and start hitting each other! We’ll be in the news all over the place so it brings added exposure for the team. But we’ll also get kicked out so you’ll be able to get home and see the concert. Then at the Tour de France we’ll hug and make up in front of the cameras and get lots more visibility in the press. Everyone’s a winner!”

You cheeky monkey!

Genius. Pure genius.

That sounds like something I might have come up with in my boarding school days—like swallowing a pinch of Copenhagen just before class to get up a nice infirmary-sending vomit...and thus avoiding a test.

It's brilliant! And it shows a complete understanding of what it is to be a professional cyclist. It's entertainment. It's the limelight. Everything they do feeds the media machine—especially if you are a national hero, as is Boonen.

I only wish that they had done it! Just think of all the column inches it would have generated!

And think how much fun JensVoigtFacts.com would have had with it.

I lament.

Cancer Claims Another: Laurent Fignon, RIP

Author's note: I had planned a different post for today. Alas, the sad news of Laurent Fignon's death preempts more trivial musings.

In 1989 I was one of (maybe) 15 other people in the United States who cared.

I watched this, enraptured:



We celebrated Greg LeMond's incredible victory. The comeback. The impossibility of those eight seconds. The shotgun pellets in his heart's lining. It was an American story with an American hero, defeating some damned foreigner.

Nous étions jeunes et insouciants ("We were young and carefree")

The story appealed to our American virtues—work ethic, innovation, humility, family—and one of our great vices—jingoism.

Yet, vices aside, it was impossible to not sympathize with the man who was beaten; for Laurent Fignon was a champion. A champion's champion.

No shrinking violet, he was the perfect, media-made foil for the aw-gee-shucks child of the American West that was Greg LeMond. Fignon looked the part: he was "continental", "euro", and "sophisticated". Her personified panache. Nicknamed "The Professor", he was bespectacled—favoring not-quite-round lenses—with a streaming, blond ponytail, pulled back from his receding hairline. Fignon was debonair. He instantly stood out—even within the peloton of the 1980s.

Fignon: a studious, stylish champion

But he was more than a notable, if unique, fashion plate. He was also a tenacious rider. As Reuters reported: "[He] had made no secret of the fact that rivalry, almost hatred, was necessary for him as a competitor and he had few friends in cycling."

His approach—however unsavory in these days of the Contador/Schleck lovefest—was effective, as his results testify. His palmarès? Outstanding:

• Tour de France (1983, 1984)
• Giro d'Italia (1989)
• Milan - San Remo (1988, 1989)
• La Fleche Wallonne (1986)
• Criterium International (1982 and 1990)
• among others...

As LeMond ascended, Fignon demurred, retiring from the professional peloton in 1993. But he remained close to the sport, managing races (notably Paris–Nice) until 2004.

Suffering.
You know he fought his cancer with the same tenacity.

He resurfaced on the global stage in 2009, for tragic reasons. As reported in CyclingNews.com:

Fignon disclosed in June 2009 that he was undergoing treatment for cancer. It is said to have started in his intestine and then spread further through his body. He continued to commentate for French television on the Tour de France this summer despite a tumour affecting his vocal chords.

In this book, "We Were Young and Carefree", Fignon admitted that he had used amphetamines and cortisone during his career. To me, it's interesting, but not surprising, and certainly within cycling's long history of improving performance through the transforming power of chemistry. I do not think it diminishes his legacy. Considering the way the cycling culture embraces and celebrates Tom Simpson's death on Ventoux, it would be churlish to dismiss Fignon as anything less than a champion.

In both 2009 and 2010, despite his treatments, Fignon remained a Tour de France commentator for France Television. In one of his public statements about his cancer, he declared:

“I don’t want to die at 50,” he said, earlier this summer. “All I know is that my cancer isn’t evolving. I’m still fighting.”

He died at age 50.

Rest peacefully, M. Fignon. And many thanks for the memories.

I Have a Man-Crush! (Jens Voigt Is a Hard Man, Part II)

I posted in March about Jens Voigt's amazing comeback from a devastating crash in the 2009 Tour.

He's a fan favorite and one of cycling's most respected elder statesman.

And he's back.

Another crash. Another recovery. He's gained, er, perspective.



"Last year it was at this time of the race I was in hospital already. At this time I'm still on my bike. Didn't crash on my head, didn't crash on my face, so things could be worse."

Ah, and a little more here:

"I vas cart-veeling through the air at 60K, hitting my arms and legs. I realized everything was still attached, though, so I figured, vhy not ride on?"

How can you not love this guy?

Man-Crush!

He's tough, determined, and straightforward. He's the consummate teammate. He's a veteran, with tens of thousands of race miles in his legs and more hours of race-time than most will ever achieve in their careers.

He's wise, grizzled, and...he's funny!

Here are a few samples of the wisdom of Jens Voigt:

• On his control of mind over body:

"Shut up body, do what I tell you!"

• Jens on cycling fans:

"People with other people in wheelchairs, they keep them in front of them, to give them a better view. Then, they see us coming...panic...jumping back...and leave the poor person out there. I see it every day...every day!"

• Jens on loyalty:

"My loyalty belongs to my team, my leader, and my boss."

Chapeau Jens Voigt!

2010 TdF: Post Stage 3 Musings

As expected, the opening stages of this year's edition of the tour have torn up the racing form.

No one could have predicted this version of the carnage:

• Frank Schleck: Out with a broken collarbone
• Christian Vande Velde: Out with (more) broken ribs
• Tyler Farrar: Down (but not out) with a broken wrist

Or these results:

• Mark Cavendish: Gains a single point from three stages (137th and last place in the points competition)
• Lance Armstrong: Loses a full minute to Contador on the cobbled stage

That's one SERIOUSLY hard day at the office →

Yet, expected events still occurred:

• Fabian Cancellera: Drove the train into Arenberg, savoring his yellow reward
• Thor Hushovd: Powered from Spartacus's wake to take the cobbled stage

While some pleasant surprises graced the event:

• Geraint Thomas: Honored  his newly-won British National Champion's jersey in a surprising second-place, stage three finish
• Cadel Evans: Pulled with the Saxo train into Arenberg, gaining time on all GC rivals
• Bradley Wiggins: Leveraged the strength of Team Sky to place in the top ten on the day
• Alberto Contador: Proved to be tenacious and untroubled by the cobbles, proving the exception to the rule that you need to be a big man to survive the pave.

In this World Cup year I am reminded that the Tour is the world's greatest annual competition. Chills and thrills and bellyaches greet us every summer as the grandest of the grand tours rolls on!

2010 Tour de France Predictions

I usually am useless at this sort of thing. Even so, the game is (nearly) afoot!

White Jersey -- Roman Kreuziger (Liquigas)

Alternate: Der Panzerwagen (Tony Martin) (Team HTC - Columbia)

Andy Schleck is the safe choice, but Kreuziger showed at the Giro that he is ready to roll. He will ride to support Basso, and if Basso suffers, I can easily see Kreuziger becoming the Liquigas #1. He has the all-around skills and his recent performances (Paris-Nice, Tour de Suisse) indicate that he is on-form.

Crazy thought: instead of going for the Yellow, perhaps Liquigas could focus on the White and the Polkadot. I see Kreuziger helping to make the 2010 Grand Tour season a Liquigas affair.

Martin is a strong, tough competitor who showed his mettle in his near-win on Ventoux in the 2009 Tour. If he can get out of the first week unscathed, he will be a strong contender for Maillot Blanc.

Polkadot Jersey -- Ivan Basso (Liquigas)
Alternate: Cadel Evans (BMC)

His Giro-winning performance was a testament to his quality.

Liquigas owned the Giro. They dominated. It was breathtaking. Watching those final mountain stages was reminiscent of the Blue Train era when Lance dominated the Tour. I was rooting for Cadel Evans, but BMC had nothing to offer--and neither did any of the other contending teams.

Unfortunately, Liquigas doesn't have the personnel to handle the Tour's opening week. There are several strong teams who will battle it out on those historic flats. Basso also doesn't have the time trial skills of Contador, Armstrong, or Evans.

There are plenty of candidates to dominate the climbs, but I think Liquigas has the legs and the unity to take Basso to the top.

Cadel Evans is my second choice. I don't see BMC contending for the overall against Radio Shack, Astana, Saxo Bank, and others. But, Evans is a tenacious bastard who has stepped up, honoring the Rainbow Jersey. His uphill skills may just carry him into the dots.

Green Jersey - Tyler Farrar (Garmin-Transitions)
Alternate: Spartacus (Fabian Cancellera) (Saxo Bank)

This jersey is about consistency. The wearer doesn't have to win everything, he has to be there--win, place, or show. 2009 gave us Mark Cavendish's breakout year with six stage wins. 2010 will be Tyler Farrar's.

While Cavendish's train has lost several engines (the loss of George Hincapie will prove decisive in the long term), Farrar's has become more unified. Farrar has also shown himself to be strong on the cobbles, and is a likely contender to win Stage 3--a legendary stage in the making.

The God of Thunder, Thor Hushovd, last year's Green Jersey winner, has had a star-crossed season. Illness, injury, and the absence of Heinrich Haussler relegate Hushovd to also-ran status. Hushovd and Cavendish will get their share of the spoils in the form of stage wins, but I pick Farrar for his consistency.

Cancellera has the biggest engine in the field, and he has proven to be a master of the cobbles. Given the instability within the Saxo Bank squad, however, I don't know if he will have the support necessary to battle the other lead outs on a regular basis.

Yellow Jersey -- Lance Armstrong (Radio Shack)
Alternate: Bradley Wiggins (Team Sky)

I surprise myself with this pick. It is absolutely not from the heart (that would have me pick Cadel Evans), but from the cold calculus of looking at the teams. Cycling is a team sport, and the modern Tour is the ultimate expression of that adage.

Quality, leadership, and unity will see Armstrong win his final Tour de France. Radio Shack is stacked and it is led by the master, Johan Bruyneel. It is built for one purpose. Stage wins? Nope. White, Green, Polkadot? Nope. Just win, baby.

The Shack has plenty of experience (just look at their individual palmares) and leadership on the road--enough to handle any eventuality. And I don't see another team director pulling the strings, making the critical calls, with Bruyneel's decisiveness and clarity. It is a team that has proven that it will grind itself into a pulp for Lance. And when Armstrong has a bad day (as he will) Popo, Kloden, Horner and Levi will bail him out of trouble. Radio Shack simply has too much quality.

The favorite is Alberto Contador, but I don't think it will happen again for el pistolero. The Tour seems to be tailor-made for him, with the climbs in the second and third week, the penultimate stage being an individual time trial, and no team time trial in this edition. However, we saw in the Giro the value of a quality team. Basso would not have ended in the pink without Liquigas dominating the final week. Astana is no Liquigas; and it ain't no Radio Shack. Another factor is that Alexander Vinokourov is a loose cannon, again, as witnessed during the Giro. I see the potential of a Spanish/Kazach rift and the loss of Contador's tranquility.

Bradley Wiggins is my alternate winner, despite my Cadel Evans fanboy status. While Team Sky worked out the kinks this spring, developing impressive cohesion in the early season and then learning to work through the Giro, Wiggins has lain low--to his benefit. Armstrong was legendary for his exclusive focus on the tour. Wiggins may well benefit from that approach.

FLANDERS! (2010 Ronde van Vlaanderen)

I may never erase that race from my DVR.

Ever. Never-ever.

A race to make a hard man weak. David Millar is shattered →

OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!

It made this 40-something fanboy (me!) into a pre-pubescent, squealing mass of hysteria.

Greatest. Race. Ever.*

If you didn't see it, you missed a race for the ages. It was spectacular.

Absurd! The favorites break free...can it get better? →

The favorites delivered: Boonen and Cancellera. Mano a mano. Cobbles. Koppenberg. Muur. Those fans. 163 miles.

163 miles on those roads.

Wow

Americans are familiar with the tour and the legends thereof. Lemond and Armstrong made that happen.

But the classics are a world apart. They are a different geography, culture, and climate. They are as hard as it gets. They are ruthless. They reward the strong, the cunning, and the lucky. They're one shot in one day, not many stages over weeks. They're fickle and scary.

How steep is the Koppenberg? 22% near the top.

Look at the pavé! It's not well-groomed tarmac. Look at the hills! They are short and brutal, not long, sinewy and elegant like the mountains of the grand tours.

Pros walk up; and there is no shame!

He's a tourist. Famously, many of the pros will be walking the Koppenberg as well.
In fact, one of the pros from the lead pack  hesitated, and had to walk it this past Sunday.

It Got Better

Boonen and Cancellara broke away. Tom Boonen has the better sprint. Fabian Cancellara is the world time trial champion. To win, Fabulous could not roll to the finish with Boonen. There was only one logical place to attack, on the Muur.

It's a climb so famous, it has several names: Muur van Geraardsbergen (English: Wall of Geraardsbergen/Grammont), Kapelmuur, or Muur-Kapelmuur. Most people know it simply as The Muur.

It sounds so easy: 1 kilometer with an average grade of 7.7%.

However, the official race data tells a different tale: length 475 meters, average 9.3%, max 19.8% (all cobbles).

20%. Cobbles.

Everyone knew it was coming. And it happened. Cancellera rode away.

As Heinrich Haussler wrote in his blog:

...when Cancellara went on the climb and dropped Boonen....I've never seen anything like that before. You look at Boonen - he's the strongest I've seen him in years and he's winning races again but Cancellara didn't even need to stand up or sprint - he wasn't even breathing.

"He wasn't even breathing..."

When the best step up, it's a thrill. When they go head-to-head, it's a spectacle.

And when one can completely dominate the other, such that everyone can say "the best man won on the day," it's the stuff of legend.

Hup! Hup! Ronde van Vlaanderen!

Now, bring on Roubaix!



*Hyperbole recognized, noted, and duly acknowledged...

Early-Season Pro Racing (A Few Thoughts...)

The pro racing calendar has been roaring like a lion these last weeks of March. Spring has sprung, and kaleidoscopic pelotons have started flashing across Europe's panoramas and battlefields. Here are some headlines, and a few thoughts...

Armstrong, Contador Struggle at Criterium International
Contador and Armstrong fire blanks in Criterium International

I hate these headlines.

Guess what? Someone (Pierrick Fedrigo, a Frenchman no less!) actually won the event!

Why, oh, why do editors perpetuate this childish focus on Lance and the Alien? It has gone from interesting, to silly, to annoying, to downright insulting.

WE GET IT ALREADY! Give me something real to chew on; you're losing my interest.

Basque madness? Or inscrutable strategy? →

You could have discussed the crazy-work put on by the mad Basques of Euskaltel-Euskadi. Were they insane to lead the peloton to the final climb, possibly setting up Contador? Why not make Astana work more? Did they really believe that Sammy Sanchez had it? Or, does Criterium International matter at all? Were they really stretching themselves in preparation for the Giro and the Tour?

What about Team RadioShack? They placed three in the top ten overall! Or HTC-Columbia? They had two in the top ten? 

How about Chris Horner's performance, or Cadel Evans's form?

It's lazy editing, and I'm disappointed.

Hey editors, how about some analysis of this...

Haussler to miss Tour of Flanders and Paris-Roubaix

This is huge news.

G'day! Guten tag! My name is Heinrich →

Haussler had a great 2009 (heartbreaking second-place in Milan-San Remo and his stage win in the tour, among other Palmares) and was poised to make further gains in 2010. I was looking forward to watching this Germanic Aussie.

Whatever the specifics of the knee injury, it has taken a real toll on his 2010. Some might say that it benefits the God of Thunder (Thor Hushovd). Others may see it weakening the Norwegian classicist and sprinter.

Regardless, could someone please have the discussion? Sheesh....

Bernhard Eisel Wins Ghent-Wevelgem
Eisel sprints to Ghent-Wevelgem win

Let's all just face it...Columbia wins. 

Hooray! I won! And I'm NOT Cavendish! →

In 2010 they're doing it without Boy Racer (Mark Cavendish). Greipel wins Tour Down Under and a few Euro stages. Eisel wins this major classic, and heaven-only-knows who will be the next winner from their men's roster. Oh, and their  women's team? Yeah, they're terrifyingly good. 

As cycling fan, I am delighted to watch them.

I just hope that they don't take anything away from my BMC boys...

BMC happy to be in the Tour de France
BMC Racing Team Earns Tour de France Berth

Oh rapture, oh joy!
 

They did it! The got the wild-card bid to the 2010 TdF. Translation: Evans, Ballan, and Big George are returning to the big show! Further translation: current World Champion, former World Champion, multiple US National Champion are going to the big show.

From a hotel in California to the Tour in six months. Not bad. Now, for our next trick...the podium? →

Evans: “While I was never sure we would be in the Tour, I did not have much doubt that we would be left out, as I felt our team deserved to be in the Tour de France...”

I love that Aussie confidence!

Hincapie: “I’m sure there will be days during the Tour when I’ll be suffering and wondering what the heck I’m doing back again. But obviously I still feel good and I want to continue doing the Tour de France as long as my body feels good.”

Too right!

ContraLancelot will dominate the headlines, but I expect BMC to show. John Lelangue has something to prove, and he has collected an enviable stable of riders.

So, the 2010 Tour will have several intriguing new entries.Joining BMC will be Team Sky, those bike-porn-straddling Brits led by some muppet known as Wiggo.

Beware the Blue Train... →

Expect the old boys to be shaken up by the new school. Radio Shack, Astana, QuickStep, Saxo, and all the rest need be mindful. In 2009 Cervélo showed the newbies how to get it done.

It's not even April, and this year's Tour is already looking like one for the ages. It's what cycling needs.

I'm just glad I have a few months to make space on the DVR!