Like Miguel Indurain, I still have doubts about the case made against Lance Armstrong on the grounds that he had performance enhancing chemicals during his career. As I have noted before I feel a lot of this is more about international politics than about cycling. On 22nd October, Armstrong was stripped of all of his seven wins of the Tour De France, i.e. 1999-2005. However, the rankings have not been reallocated to other men who came in behind Armstrong. Of course, many of these men have already suffered penalties as a result of their drug cheating, as 'The Guardian' noted on 13th October, 89 of the 190 men who had received a podium position in the Tour De France, Giro D'Italia and Vuelta a Espana, i.e. in the top 3 places in the race, since 1992, have now faced penalties. In fact I believe they have left out a number more who have done so. What interests me in this posting is, assuming that all of the drugs cheats had been eliminated, who would have been the winners of the Tour De France? With Armstrong and these others gone, we see very interesting patterns appearing and men who are known only to cycling enthusiasts would probably be known across the world, the way Armstrong became.
Miguel Indurain won the Tour De France five times in a row, 1991-5 and with Armstrong gone is now an unrivalled record once more. Indurain has never been found guilty of any drugs cheating so these wins would remain. However, Claudio Chiappuci who came 2nd in 1992, Tony Rominger who came 2nd in 1993, Marco Pantani who came 2nd in 1994 and Alex Zulle who came 2nd and Bjarne Riis who came 3rd in 1995 would all be removed. Bjarne Riis would also lose his 1st place in 1996, a year when the top three riders, Jan Ullrich and Richard Virenque being the other two, were all drugs cheats.
Rather than writing out all the changes in text, a list is probably easier. This in italics are riders who would have risen up the table if the drugs cheats had been removed:
1992
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Gianni Bugno (Italy)
3rd Andrew Hampstein (USA)
Hampstein was twice winner of the Tour De Suisse and once the Giro D'Italia and only lost out to Bugno in the 1992 Tour De France in the final time trial.
1993
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Zenon Jaskula (Poland)
3rd Álvaro Mejía (Colombia)
Jaskula had won the Volta a Portugal and stages of stage races and Mejia had won regional ones such as the tours of Galicia and Murcia.
1994
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Piotr Ugrumov (Latvia)
3rd Roberto Conti (Italy)
Conti came 6th, his best ever position in the Tour De France, but the three riders above him, including Pantani, Luc Leblanc and Virenque have either been penalised or have admitted being drugs cheats.
1995
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Melcior Mauri (Spain)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
Mauri won the Vuelta a Espana and Escartin came 2nd in that race twice. Them stepping up the rankings from 6th and 7th place, would have made 1995 a clean sweep for the Spanish.
In 1996 and 1997, all of the top three finishers were drugs cheats, so after Indurain ended his reign, we would have seen men in this top spot that did not attract as much attention at the time.
1996
1st Peter Luttenberger (Austria)
2nd Piotr Ugrumov (Latvia)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
Now, we begin to see history becoming changed. Luttenberger is basically unknown beyond tight circles, but is now becoming recognised as the 'real' winner in 1996. Ugrumov would have won his second 2nd place and Escartin would have come 3rd two years running, meaning more attention would have been on these men and they would likely have attracted teams and support that was otherwise missing when they were just in the top 10.
1997
1st Abraham Olano (Spain)
2nd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
3rd José María Jiménez (Spain)
With Ulrich, Virenque and Patani as the top 3 in 1997, again we would see different names coming to the fore, altering people's careers to a great extent. Olano and his compatriots would have continued the Spanish predominance in the 1990s. Like a number of the winners, he won the Vuelta a Espana. Escartin would have been on the podium for the third year in a row. This would no doubt have attracted attention to him to a greater extent than happened, he may have been seen the way Cadel Evans was in the latter 2000s as an 'almost man'. He would have been a rare sprinter to win the race. Of course, if he had held these positions, he may have been projected to win. Jimenez would die of a heart attack only five years later at the age of 32. However, no evidence of drugs cheating has come out against him.
1998
1st Christophe Rinero (France)
2nd Michael Boogerd (Netherlands)
3rd Jean-Cyril Robin (France)
The 1998 tour was seen as the one in which doping came really to the fore, so eliminating many riders for taking ranking positions, again wiping out the top 3, Pantani, Ullrich and Bobby Julich. Reassinging their positions brings the men skilled on climbs, Rinero and Boogerd to the fore. This would have been seen as the year in which the French and the promising Dutch fought back against Spanish dominance of the race.
1999
1st Fernando Escartin (Spain)
2nd Angel Casero (Spain)
3rd Abraham Olano (Spain)
The blip of 1998 would have been overcome and the Spanish would be back in control. Escartin, the most consistent rider in the Tour of the late 1990s would finally have got his win. By now he would be far more recognised than has been the case with others like Lance Armstrong, Alex Zulle and Jan Ullrich cheating to take the positions over this period. However, a new personality would have been poised to step into the limelight and have the longest run of wins since Indurain.
2000
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Santiago Botero (Colombia)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
As you will notice, with so many of the top cyclists taking drugs, we similarly see other names appearing on a regular basis with Beloki but also Escartin still on the podium. Though Beloki was investigated for doping, he was cleared in 2006. Out of the top 6, the others being Armstrong, Ullrich, Christophe Moreau, Roberto Heras, Virenque, Beloki was a rare one in the top flight not to be taking drugs, or has so far been proven.
2001
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Andrey Kivilev (Kazakhstan)
3rd Igor González (Spain)
The podium positions of the 2000 race: Armstrong, Ullrich, Beloki, were repeated in 2001. However, eliminating the drugs cheats, still gives Beloki his second win of the race, but brings other names forward. It certainly would have put Kazakhstan on the map of cycling to a much greater extent. Some believe Kivilev should have won 2001 because of the subsequent suspicions around Beloki. Whatever happened it would make his death in 2003 during the Paris-Nice race from injuries sustained even more poignant. The Spanish would be continuing their pre-eminent position seen in the 1990s.
2002
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Santiago Botero (Colombia)
3rd Igor González (Spain)
Beloki came 2nd in 2002, but taking out Armstrong would have given him his third consecutive win, and a very small group it is that have done that. The Spanish would still be to the fore.
2003
1st Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
2nd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
3rd Denis Menchov (Russia)
With Armstrong, Ullrich, Alexandre Vinoukourov, Tyler Hamilton, Iban Mayo, Ivan Basso, Moreau and Francisco Macebo, eight of the top ten have all had drugs penalties. Thus, even with a number of Spaniards now being caught, 2003 would see the continuing Spanish dominance. It has been suggested to me, that by this stage the race organisers would have altered the routes to play down the mountains on which so many Spanish and Colombians are strong.
2004
1st Andreas Klöden (Germany)
2nd José Azevedo (Portugal)
3rd Georg Totschnig (Austria)
2004 would have been like 1998, the year when the consistent line of Spanish victories was broken briefly. Azevedo rode for Armstrong's team so may in future be proven to have been on drugs, but so far I cannot find a record of him being accused. Klöden came 2nd anyway and is now being acclaimed as the 2004 winner by some.
2005
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Óscar Pereiro (Spain)
3rd Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
With the top 6 riders having faced drugs penalties and three already having been disqualified: Armstrong, Ullrich and Levi Leipheimer, 2005 would have been the year of Cadel Evans first victory, six years earlier than has been recorded. Australian riders were coming to the fore in this period, but it would be years before they reached the level that they should have done. The number of drugs cheats, and it seems Yaroslav Popovych should be among them even though he has denied the charges, means that Zubeldia, originally 15th in the race and now 11th due to disqualifications, would have been back on the podium, reasserting Spain's standing.
2006
1st Óscar Pereiro (Spain)
2nd Andreas Klöden (Germany)
3rd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
By 2006 we would be seeing the development of a leading clutch of riders, given that Evans came in 5th, moved up to 4th already now by the disqualification of Floyd Landis. It would have been fascinating to see how close the quartet of Evans, Pereiro, Klöden and Sastre, probably Zubeldia too, would have been. This was the first year that Armstrong was not the winner for seven years, but in this readjusted race, there would be a number of leading names, not seemingly as unassailable as Armstrong, but still with credit.
2007
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
3rd Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
Sastre would have clearly staked his claim as being the latest of the Spaniards who dominated the Tour De France in the 1990s and 2000s. Evans would have won his second Tour after the disappointment of 2006. In theory with Alberto Contador being removed for drugs Evans won this year anyway.
2008
1st Carlos Sastre (Spain)
2nd Cadel Evans (Australia)
3rd Denis Menchov (Russia)
With the reassignment of positions, the rise of Sastre would be much clearer, with him stepping up the podium in succeeding years and developing a clear head-to-head battle with Evans. Menchov, who it is often commented is the quiet man of the Tour would have again received greater recognition.
2009
1st Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
2nd Bradley Wiggins (UK)
3rd Andreas Klöden (Germany)
As it is, the winner of the race, Alberto Contador has been stripped of the title for drug cheating so Schleck is the actual winner. With Armstrong also out, Wiggins's story changes and he arrives on the podium three years earlier than the history we know. Klöden again shows he had not disappeared in the battle between Evans and the Spaniards. Frank Schleck originally came 4th but has now been found to have been a cheat, possibly being fairer on his brother than I was on Popovych, I have left Andy in place until proven guilty. If that does ever happen, then the 'Year of the British' would have come first in 2009 rather than 2012.
2010
1st Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
2nd Denis Menchov (Russia)
3rd Samuel Sanchez (Spain)
For the first time in two decades, there is no need to alter the rankings of the 2010 Tour De France. With these changes, Schleck would have won his second consecutive tour and the arrival of Menchov in 2nd place after two 3rds over a seven year period would be less of a surprise. Sanchez, no doubt, would be seen as the latest in a long line of Spaniards right at the top of the Tour.
2011
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
3rd Thomas Voeckler (France)
With Frank Schleck removed from 3rd place for drugs, the ever popular Frenchman, Voeckler, a winner of some stunning stage victories would get on the podium, the first one since Rinero's victory in 1998. Sanchez would have come 4th, showing that whilst to the end of the 2000s and into the 2010s, other nationalities were coming to the fore, Spain was not lagging too far. Evans would have been winning his third victory at the Tour which would probably make him insufferable but also the winner with victories stretched out the longest, over seven years.
2012
1st Bradley Wiggins (UK)
2nd Chris Froome (UK)
3rd Vincenzo Nibali (Italy)
Another, which as far as we know needs no alterations. However, it would seem less incredible given Wiggins's 2nd place in 2009, though there would probably be even more discussion of where he had been in the meantime.
Thus, if we remove all the drugs cheats from the Tour De France rankings, we discover a difference race. However, one, that seems to make more sense. It is clear that Indurain ushered in a period of Spanish dominance of the race, even setting aside the Spaniards who have used drugs, and in this I am including EPO, doctored blood. We see much more the rise of riders like Zubeldia, Pereiro and Sastre, even of Menchov. There were interesting battles among a leading group of cyclists, which of course how the races have been shown, was ignored, because these men had been fighting sometimes for 10th place. However, all were putting in good times and doing so through their own effort.
Doing the analysis for this posting, however, has probably brought me around to the UCI's view that the slots of those men disqualified should not be filled. When you find the large majority of the top 10 or 20 of those who came home in any Tour De France were on substances of one kind or another, it makes nonsense of the whole process. I do hope, as some commentators are doing, as on Wikipedia, that those men who rode clean and so ended up 5th or 11th or something similar because they were up against drugs cheats, will get the recognition that they should receive for their efforts.
Showing posts with label Tour de France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tour de France. Show all posts
Monday, 29 October 2012
Monday, 23 July 2012
The 'British' Tour De France
Each year I present my views on the Tour De France, though this year in the English language commentary has grown at an exponential level. This is because all the ambitions for British cycling in the race were realised and more. It was clear back in 2008 when the British cyclists won 12 gold medals that the sport had come of age in the UK. This unfortunately owes a lot to the Sky Procycling Team. The reason why I say 'unfortunately' is because Sky is a Murdoch-owned company and James Murdoch, deeply involved with all the immoral activity of phone hacking had connections to this element of the empire. That is the one sour aspect of the achievement. I am just glad that I have not encountered any of the Murdochs or their criminally-intended cronies commenting on UK cycling. With that nasty piece of business out of the way, I can turn to the British glory.
Wiggins is very self-effacing which is a nice contrast to last year's winner Australian Cadel Evans. As regular readers will know, I have always disliked Evans quite purely for how he behaves in public and his comments. He comes over as a very small-minded, incredibly bitter man and that takes the shine off even when he has achieved great things. He can be a winner, but not one you feel comfortable in looking up to. Other significant winners of the race have other attitudes that are better than this, but made them difficult to love. Lance Armstrong is a decent man and a gracious winner. However, he was always put on the defensive and still is and that has almost compelled him to go down the path to Evans-like harshness. He is an incredible athlete and on the road has shown gentlemanly/sportsmanly approaches, yet the constant speculations and challenges have nibbled away at that too much. I would love to see an interview in which he could talk about the cycling rather than being cross-examined. My view is that any man who has faced infertility let alone death in the face and survived is going to be an incredible man; an appreciation which is only heightened in me as I fail to face up to physical and mental health issues myself. Combining such strength with a clear athlete was always going to produce someone outstanding, there is no need for any other explanation.
Wiggins's hero, Miguel Indurain had a lot less difficulty in being a sustained winner than Armstrong. However, the price was that he comes over as a machine. He seems to have softened since retiring. Yet, you cannot really cheer on a man without emotion, Victories are great because you see the challenges, not because they are foregone conclusions. This was why watching Armstrong was always better than watching Indurain. In turn, though Wiggins had a comparatively 'easy' tour, anyone, no matter what their nationality, knew they were watching a human and that allows us much more affinity with him. It is the same reason why I enjoy seeing Thomas Voeckler win. He took two stages and won King of the Mountains in a tour which with a few minor changes could have been the first 'French' Tour de France for ages; five stages were won by Frenchmen. The pleasure and pain is apparent in Voeckler especially in one of the slowest sprints to the line I have ever seen in a race and Phil Liggett commented much the same and he has seen hundreds more than me. To spectate a sport, you want to feel that there is an element of the winner that speaks to you, that they are a person like you, even if immensely stronger and more skilful. Sport is about celebrating being human and if the participants appear less than human, then we are cut off from something. Maybe this is simply a British attitude, but I feel it has a wider application.
Wiggins's career has been very strong and the slips off this have been very much about his self-effacing attitude. In comments during the race, it seemed that he found it difficult to accept that what he was witnessing was actually happening. His grin when he came over the line in third place on Stage 17 with Alejandro Valverde winning just seconds ahead showed, as he commented later, that he had been hit by the sense of living the dream. That again made him see very human. In many ways we see the connection back to the boy who dreamt of winning the Tour De France and of course for so much of the audience we have nothing but such dreams. Thus, so explicitly connecting into that aspect brings Wiggins again closer to his fans and general cycle racing fans. It distinguishes him from the rather too cool or too bitter professionals like Evans and Indurain.
The other aspect which added to Wiggins's victory is his gentlemanly behaviour. Slowing to wait for Cadel Evans and others on Stage 14 might not have been a hard decision, but it is certainly one that I know many wearing yellow, probably, I feel, even Evans himself, would not have taken. Wiggins was in no danger of losing, and yet many sportspeople would have hammered home their lead by continuing despite the sabotage of tacks on the road which affected 30 riders. Interestingly, without them, the situation could easily have been reversed as Wiggins had clear difficulties with his bike which he threw into the ditch in the end and got a replacement. One thinks back to the different behaviour of Alberto Contador when Andy Schleck's chain came off during the 2010 tour. The other aspect of Wiggins' behaviour which has attracted attention, even on the Wikipedia entry for this tour, is Wiggins as lead-out man in yellow. This in some ways shows that he was stronger than some of the commentators viewed him when he needed Chris Froome's help on the mountains, but also shows that contrary to the line given by the team controllers, he knows that he is a team player and he can help out Edvald Boasson Hagen and Mark Cavendish, spectacularly on the Champs Elysee. Chris Froome is very strong and I imagine a future British winner of the tour. We may be in the British decade for the race. I am glad he got a stage, I think he could have had one more. As we saw with Evans and Tejay van Garderen and have seen on many teams in the past, a group of nine men, even with a leader, is liable to see others coming to the fore and the balance between them and the designated leader is often hard to call. Froome will have other chances and as with Mark Cavendish who similarly had to play second fiddle to Wiggins at times, they have a better leader in Wiggins in terms of remembering and helping them, than would be the case if they were in this role on other teams, BMC being one example.
The British connection to the 2012 tour would be secured by Wiggins's victory alone. However, it was given depth by the fact of how far British riders outstripped other nationalities this year. Mark Cavendish with 3 stage wins, his lowest number since entering the tour, showed real maturity in the support role he was often called on to play. However, as the 600m sprint showed on the Champs Elysee, he remains supreme in sprints. I was glad that David Millar won a stage too, a decade on from his last in the tour. He has always been an ambivalent character for me and never really turned out to be the British hero that I hope at the start of last decade. He showed in this year's race really clear thinking and had a deserved win. His manner has softened a little. Whilst I would have preferred if he had gone nowhere near drugs and am a little unsettled at times at how righteous he can be, he is certainly worthy of support. I see him being a very good manager of a team in the future with a calculating mind which I believe will win stages for whoever employs his talents. Chris Froome certainly deserved the stage he won. It was one of the most exciting of the race. He could have won more and he will win more, but again it added to that 'depth' of the British experience this year and was the least consolation he could have received for all his hard work. Froome and Wiggins going head to head on rival teams would create astounding cycle racing and that in itself, shows that British cycling has 'arrived' after long last.
In a tour which had had less British acclaim, there would still be a lot of interest. I have commented in the past on the number of accidents and how randomly they have plucked riders from the race. However, the very narrow roads and other factors took even more this year than in the past. I think a minimum width of road should be set for the race. I think bringing down a ride should be an offence that leads to immediate arrest. Similarly harming them with things like flares should lead to much harsher action than it appears to do at the moment.
More positively I would highlight the astounding achievement of Peter Sagan winning three stages in his first Tour De France. His strength on the road to win the green jersey with more points than has been the case apparently since the 1980s is in itself very worthy of note, especially given his young age. I look forward to writing about his activities in the tour well into the next decade. I will have to check, but this may have been the tour with the fewest number of stage winners as another rider with three wins and close on others is André Greipel. To me he seems to be what I might term a 'tough' sprinter like Thor Hushovd, i.e. able to get to those finishes that come after stages which are not all flat and then put on a sprinter's speed.
Overall, though I would have liked a far lower casualty figure, the 2012 Tour De France is clearly one of note, both because of the immense British impact on it, but also because of the breadth of riders attracting attention and promising us some astounding races in the years to come. In many ways I feel it has opened a new chapter in this sport and this particular race.
Wiggins is very self-effacing which is a nice contrast to last year's winner Australian Cadel Evans. As regular readers will know, I have always disliked Evans quite purely for how he behaves in public and his comments. He comes over as a very small-minded, incredibly bitter man and that takes the shine off even when he has achieved great things. He can be a winner, but not one you feel comfortable in looking up to. Other significant winners of the race have other attitudes that are better than this, but made them difficult to love. Lance Armstrong is a decent man and a gracious winner. However, he was always put on the defensive and still is and that has almost compelled him to go down the path to Evans-like harshness. He is an incredible athlete and on the road has shown gentlemanly/sportsmanly approaches, yet the constant speculations and challenges have nibbled away at that too much. I would love to see an interview in which he could talk about the cycling rather than being cross-examined. My view is that any man who has faced infertility let alone death in the face and survived is going to be an incredible man; an appreciation which is only heightened in me as I fail to face up to physical and mental health issues myself. Combining such strength with a clear athlete was always going to produce someone outstanding, there is no need for any other explanation.
Wiggins's hero, Miguel Indurain had a lot less difficulty in being a sustained winner than Armstrong. However, the price was that he comes over as a machine. He seems to have softened since retiring. Yet, you cannot really cheer on a man without emotion, Victories are great because you see the challenges, not because they are foregone conclusions. This was why watching Armstrong was always better than watching Indurain. In turn, though Wiggins had a comparatively 'easy' tour, anyone, no matter what their nationality, knew they were watching a human and that allows us much more affinity with him. It is the same reason why I enjoy seeing Thomas Voeckler win. He took two stages and won King of the Mountains in a tour which with a few minor changes could have been the first 'French' Tour de France for ages; five stages were won by Frenchmen. The pleasure and pain is apparent in Voeckler especially in one of the slowest sprints to the line I have ever seen in a race and Phil Liggett commented much the same and he has seen hundreds more than me. To spectate a sport, you want to feel that there is an element of the winner that speaks to you, that they are a person like you, even if immensely stronger and more skilful. Sport is about celebrating being human and if the participants appear less than human, then we are cut off from something. Maybe this is simply a British attitude, but I feel it has a wider application.
Wiggins's career has been very strong and the slips off this have been very much about his self-effacing attitude. In comments during the race, it seemed that he found it difficult to accept that what he was witnessing was actually happening. His grin when he came over the line in third place on Stage 17 with Alejandro Valverde winning just seconds ahead showed, as he commented later, that he had been hit by the sense of living the dream. That again made him see very human. In many ways we see the connection back to the boy who dreamt of winning the Tour De France and of course for so much of the audience we have nothing but such dreams. Thus, so explicitly connecting into that aspect brings Wiggins again closer to his fans and general cycle racing fans. It distinguishes him from the rather too cool or too bitter professionals like Evans and Indurain.
The other aspect which added to Wiggins's victory is his gentlemanly behaviour. Slowing to wait for Cadel Evans and others on Stage 14 might not have been a hard decision, but it is certainly one that I know many wearing yellow, probably, I feel, even Evans himself, would not have taken. Wiggins was in no danger of losing, and yet many sportspeople would have hammered home their lead by continuing despite the sabotage of tacks on the road which affected 30 riders. Interestingly, without them, the situation could easily have been reversed as Wiggins had clear difficulties with his bike which he threw into the ditch in the end and got a replacement. One thinks back to the different behaviour of Alberto Contador when Andy Schleck's chain came off during the 2010 tour. The other aspect of Wiggins' behaviour which has attracted attention, even on the Wikipedia entry for this tour, is Wiggins as lead-out man in yellow. This in some ways shows that he was stronger than some of the commentators viewed him when he needed Chris Froome's help on the mountains, but also shows that contrary to the line given by the team controllers, he knows that he is a team player and he can help out Edvald Boasson Hagen and Mark Cavendish, spectacularly on the Champs Elysee. Chris Froome is very strong and I imagine a future British winner of the tour. We may be in the British decade for the race. I am glad he got a stage, I think he could have had one more. As we saw with Evans and Tejay van Garderen and have seen on many teams in the past, a group of nine men, even with a leader, is liable to see others coming to the fore and the balance between them and the designated leader is often hard to call. Froome will have other chances and as with Mark Cavendish who similarly had to play second fiddle to Wiggins at times, they have a better leader in Wiggins in terms of remembering and helping them, than would be the case if they were in this role on other teams, BMC being one example.
The British connection to the 2012 tour would be secured by Wiggins's victory alone. However, it was given depth by the fact of how far British riders outstripped other nationalities this year. Mark Cavendish with 3 stage wins, his lowest number since entering the tour, showed real maturity in the support role he was often called on to play. However, as the 600m sprint showed on the Champs Elysee, he remains supreme in sprints. I was glad that David Millar won a stage too, a decade on from his last in the tour. He has always been an ambivalent character for me and never really turned out to be the British hero that I hope at the start of last decade. He showed in this year's race really clear thinking and had a deserved win. His manner has softened a little. Whilst I would have preferred if he had gone nowhere near drugs and am a little unsettled at times at how righteous he can be, he is certainly worthy of support. I see him being a very good manager of a team in the future with a calculating mind which I believe will win stages for whoever employs his talents. Chris Froome certainly deserved the stage he won. It was one of the most exciting of the race. He could have won more and he will win more, but again it added to that 'depth' of the British experience this year and was the least consolation he could have received for all his hard work. Froome and Wiggins going head to head on rival teams would create astounding cycle racing and that in itself, shows that British cycling has 'arrived' after long last.
In a tour which had had less British acclaim, there would still be a lot of interest. I have commented in the past on the number of accidents and how randomly they have plucked riders from the race. However, the very narrow roads and other factors took even more this year than in the past. I think a minimum width of road should be set for the race. I think bringing down a ride should be an offence that leads to immediate arrest. Similarly harming them with things like flares should lead to much harsher action than it appears to do at the moment.
More positively I would highlight the astounding achievement of Peter Sagan winning three stages in his first Tour De France. His strength on the road to win the green jersey with more points than has been the case apparently since the 1980s is in itself very worthy of note, especially given his young age. I look forward to writing about his activities in the tour well into the next decade. I will have to check, but this may have been the tour with the fewest number of stage winners as another rider with three wins and close on others is André Greipel. To me he seems to be what I might term a 'tough' sprinter like Thor Hushovd, i.e. able to get to those finishes that come after stages which are not all flat and then put on a sprinter's speed.
Overall, though I would have liked a far lower casualty figure, the 2012 Tour De France is clearly one of note, both because of the immense British impact on it, but also because of the breadth of riders attracting attention and promising us some astounding races in the years to come. In many ways I feel it has opened a new chapter in this sport and this particular race.
Monday, 1 August 2011
A Dangerous But Engaging Tour
My ego has not yet over-ruled my relative poverty and brought me to buy 'Cyclebabble' a book which collects blog postings about cycling. I do wonder if I am in it. Anyway, not in the search of glory, but simply because I enjoy the sport and for many reasons no longer cycle at all myself, I do enjoy commenting on the Tour De France, it is the only sporting event that I will watch religiously. I suppose fans of football or tennis at Wimbledon find it difficult to understand why everyone does not love their events as passionately as they do and will extoll (I have found that version and 'extol' are both acceptable) the excitement of the event, I feel the same about the Tour De France which has so many different facets in terms of the different competitions within it, let alone the scenic backdrop that it takes place against, that I cannot understand why coverage of it is not watched by many millions.
This year the British contribution has reak a new peak with the involvement of the clearly British team, Sky and the participation of Bradley Wiggins of Beijing Olympics fame and Mark Cavendish such a speedy cyclist in the right circumstances that his victories in the Tour De France even make the main bulletins (not simply the sports ones) on national radio. That is excellent and even if British involvement never gets greater than this, then I will be satisfied. However, I do rather feel a 'ceiling' has been broken through and whilst you may not see as many riders from the UK in the race as from France, Spain and Italy, you might see as many as come from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, and already we exceed Norway (though their two, Thor Hushovd and Edvald Boasson Hagen, have both been impressive this year: four stage victories between them.) In fact with the first Australian to win the race and the first Briton to win the green jersey, there could be a feeling that the countries providing the victors are changing; the French have been suffering a dearth of victories for years, though there are some young riders who may shift that in the next five years. Briton Mark Cavendish is rapidly climbing through the record tables with incredible consistency. He has the grace to acknolwedge the strength of the team he has around him at HTC and it would be a challenge if he lost them or especially those who lead him out went in different directions.
The Tour had a range of modifications this year, the most successful seems to have been the introduction of a single 'sprint' point along each stage, with a decent amount of points for the person winning that stage, towards the green jersey competition. This has made for genuine racing at that part of each day's race and has left the green jersey competition much more open than it otherwise would have been. In addition, the 20 points deduction for sprinters coming in after the cut-off time when permitted to continue because they were alongside more than 20% of the field, especially in the stages in the Alps, brought an additional complication. The lay out of some of the finishes was also interesting, with more slight inclines to break the flow of the pure sprinters. However, given the level of Cavendish's tally, this seems to have opened up opportunities for a wider range of cyclists to win a stage without being to the real detriment of the devoted sprinters, so that must be seen as another good idea.
The unpredictability of the race this year, especially for those of us who watched through the long and sometimes monotonous years of Indurain and Armstrong's dominance (though saying that the unexpected could often happen with Armstrong even when the overall result was in no doubt; far less so with Indurain) not being able to predict the outcome made the whole competition far more engaging for the spectators. I think this element was given extra depth by Thor Hushovd and especially Thomas Voeckler. All sports like heroes, but in the Tour De France both the heroes (and the villains) seem to be cast much greater than in other sports, partly due to the extremity of hauling yourself across thousands of kilometres of France (and other countries) and because for three weeks we see these men having to perform for hours every day in a way that other sports are not set up for that.
As I have noted before in reference to Cadel Evans, cycling fans seem to demand that their sportsmen have a decent personality. They like aggressive riding, but they also expect graciousness and gentlemanly behaviour. Evans had to really work at his personality especially in front of the cameras. I dislike the man but far less than I used to. He worked hard and though not winning a stage clearly demonstrated the consistency day-after-day that is what it takes to be a Tour victor. A man who can climb as well as him and time trial as well will always stand a chance and this year he seemed able to shake off the variety of things such as injury and a weak team that have hampered him in the past. I guess if he had been luckier with those two elements in the past it would be him and not Contador with three victories to his name. He will have to work hard to gaint he level of support that even the Schlecks get, outside his own country.
Hushovd, also seems a changed man in this respect, perhaps as he has been successful. However, we cheer him more when he breaks away and wins than when he was being sour about Mark Cavendish. Sensibly, Hushovd has rejigged his approach, he can sprint but will never be as fast as Cavendish but the Norwegian has a wider range of skills as he showed in the stages he won this year, involving a lot of climbing but also finishing fast. As for Voeckler, his boy-like glee and his self-effacing manner would have made him a star even if he had only held the yellow jersey for a fraction of the time he did. Holding on to it by 15 seconds after clambering up the mountain was the kind of thing that would only have appeared in fiction (though the Tour De France seems to be full of such incidents, should I recall a victory by 8 seconds after 3 weeks, for example?). Such men need to be there especially to counteract the dirty, drug-taking riders that still crop up and so haunted the race in the last couple of decades to the extent that it almost seemed that the race would come to an end.
Overall the race was excellent this year, because it was so open. At many stages it seemed that either of the Schlecks, Contador, Evans even Basso and Sanchez, perhaps Voeckler too, could have won. It is good that there are no outstanding men who would wipe the floor with the rest, especially for a race over three weeks. This, however, brings us to the nastier aspects of this year's race, the numerous crashes. The greatest lost it seems, not just for the UK, but for the race itself was of Bradley Wiggins breaking his collarbone on Stage 7. It seems apparent that he could have been in with the elite group trying to shake each other off in the Alps and Pyrenees, bringing another dynamic into the mix. Other well-know names such as Tom Boonen, Alexander Vinokourov (one of the villains of the past due to his drug taking) and Dave Zabriskie all suffered breaks from crashes amongs a very long list of those who suffered injuries, even last year's winner, Alberto Contador did not escape, so reducing his effectiveness greatly until the third week. Of course, every year there are crashes, but as 'The Daily Telegraph' noted this year they have been 'brutal'.
The case of Johnny Hoogerland and Juan Antonio Flecha is different even though as equally unpleasant, it came from the sub-contracting of a driver who had not received the specific training needed to be involved in a cycle race. Hoogerland, like Voeckler, raised the standing of the race this year by showing the decency of the best professional cyclists. The Hoogerland-Flecha incident suggests that control of the numerous vehicles on the road is not as tight as it should be. No-one was killed, but there did seem to be unnecessary injury. I think a lot of it comes down to the roads that are picked. I do not subscribe to the Schleck view expressed in a juvenile way that people do not want to see stages ending in a downhill race. We want to see a wide variety of different stages, so that the widest range of different riders can be showcased. I know the Schlecks do well on long climbs but that kind of stage is not of interest to all spectators, others like bunch sprints or chances for breakaways to win. However, too many roads selected this year were far too small for even three riders to be abreast let alone them plus all the support cars, the camera motorbikes and spectators. I believe these days especially as this year's race was so fast, that a minimum criteria for the roads used must be introduced. This will not eliminate crashes but it should reduce them the level and severity of what we saw in the first 1.5 weeks of this year's tour.
Overall I feel the 2011 Tour De France has shown the best that the sport can offer in terms of excitement and importantly, sportsmanship. For me, however, it will be leavened by the number of bloody accidents along the way, many of which could have been avoided with some careful planning.
This year the British contribution has reak a new peak with the involvement of the clearly British team, Sky and the participation of Bradley Wiggins of Beijing Olympics fame and Mark Cavendish such a speedy cyclist in the right circumstances that his victories in the Tour De France even make the main bulletins (not simply the sports ones) on national radio. That is excellent and even if British involvement never gets greater than this, then I will be satisfied. However, I do rather feel a 'ceiling' has been broken through and whilst you may not see as many riders from the UK in the race as from France, Spain and Italy, you might see as many as come from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, and already we exceed Norway (though their two, Thor Hushovd and Edvald Boasson Hagen, have both been impressive this year: four stage victories between them.) In fact with the first Australian to win the race and the first Briton to win the green jersey, there could be a feeling that the countries providing the victors are changing; the French have been suffering a dearth of victories for years, though there are some young riders who may shift that in the next five years. Briton Mark Cavendish is rapidly climbing through the record tables with incredible consistency. He has the grace to acknolwedge the strength of the team he has around him at HTC and it would be a challenge if he lost them or especially those who lead him out went in different directions.
The Tour had a range of modifications this year, the most successful seems to have been the introduction of a single 'sprint' point along each stage, with a decent amount of points for the person winning that stage, towards the green jersey competition. This has made for genuine racing at that part of each day's race and has left the green jersey competition much more open than it otherwise would have been. In addition, the 20 points deduction for sprinters coming in after the cut-off time when permitted to continue because they were alongside more than 20% of the field, especially in the stages in the Alps, brought an additional complication. The lay out of some of the finishes was also interesting, with more slight inclines to break the flow of the pure sprinters. However, given the level of Cavendish's tally, this seems to have opened up opportunities for a wider range of cyclists to win a stage without being to the real detriment of the devoted sprinters, so that must be seen as another good idea.
The unpredictability of the race this year, especially for those of us who watched through the long and sometimes monotonous years of Indurain and Armstrong's dominance (though saying that the unexpected could often happen with Armstrong even when the overall result was in no doubt; far less so with Indurain) not being able to predict the outcome made the whole competition far more engaging for the spectators. I think this element was given extra depth by Thor Hushovd and especially Thomas Voeckler. All sports like heroes, but in the Tour De France both the heroes (and the villains) seem to be cast much greater than in other sports, partly due to the extremity of hauling yourself across thousands of kilometres of France (and other countries) and because for three weeks we see these men having to perform for hours every day in a way that other sports are not set up for that.
As I have noted before in reference to Cadel Evans, cycling fans seem to demand that their sportsmen have a decent personality. They like aggressive riding, but they also expect graciousness and gentlemanly behaviour. Evans had to really work at his personality especially in front of the cameras. I dislike the man but far less than I used to. He worked hard and though not winning a stage clearly demonstrated the consistency day-after-day that is what it takes to be a Tour victor. A man who can climb as well as him and time trial as well will always stand a chance and this year he seemed able to shake off the variety of things such as injury and a weak team that have hampered him in the past. I guess if he had been luckier with those two elements in the past it would be him and not Contador with three victories to his name. He will have to work hard to gaint he level of support that even the Schlecks get, outside his own country.
Hushovd, also seems a changed man in this respect, perhaps as he has been successful. However, we cheer him more when he breaks away and wins than when he was being sour about Mark Cavendish. Sensibly, Hushovd has rejigged his approach, he can sprint but will never be as fast as Cavendish but the Norwegian has a wider range of skills as he showed in the stages he won this year, involving a lot of climbing but also finishing fast. As for Voeckler, his boy-like glee and his self-effacing manner would have made him a star even if he had only held the yellow jersey for a fraction of the time he did. Holding on to it by 15 seconds after clambering up the mountain was the kind of thing that would only have appeared in fiction (though the Tour De France seems to be full of such incidents, should I recall a victory by 8 seconds after 3 weeks, for example?). Such men need to be there especially to counteract the dirty, drug-taking riders that still crop up and so haunted the race in the last couple of decades to the extent that it almost seemed that the race would come to an end.
Overall the race was excellent this year, because it was so open. At many stages it seemed that either of the Schlecks, Contador, Evans even Basso and Sanchez, perhaps Voeckler too, could have won. It is good that there are no outstanding men who would wipe the floor with the rest, especially for a race over three weeks. This, however, brings us to the nastier aspects of this year's race, the numerous crashes. The greatest lost it seems, not just for the UK, but for the race itself was of Bradley Wiggins breaking his collarbone on Stage 7. It seems apparent that he could have been in with the elite group trying to shake each other off in the Alps and Pyrenees, bringing another dynamic into the mix. Other well-know names such as Tom Boonen, Alexander Vinokourov (one of the villains of the past due to his drug taking) and Dave Zabriskie all suffered breaks from crashes amongs a very long list of those who suffered injuries, even last year's winner, Alberto Contador did not escape, so reducing his effectiveness greatly until the third week. Of course, every year there are crashes, but as 'The Daily Telegraph' noted this year they have been 'brutal'.
The case of Johnny Hoogerland and Juan Antonio Flecha is different even though as equally unpleasant, it came from the sub-contracting of a driver who had not received the specific training needed to be involved in a cycle race. Hoogerland, like Voeckler, raised the standing of the race this year by showing the decency of the best professional cyclists. The Hoogerland-Flecha incident suggests that control of the numerous vehicles on the road is not as tight as it should be. No-one was killed, but there did seem to be unnecessary injury. I think a lot of it comes down to the roads that are picked. I do not subscribe to the Schleck view expressed in a juvenile way that people do not want to see stages ending in a downhill race. We want to see a wide variety of different stages, so that the widest range of different riders can be showcased. I know the Schlecks do well on long climbs but that kind of stage is not of interest to all spectators, others like bunch sprints or chances for breakaways to win. However, too many roads selected this year were far too small for even three riders to be abreast let alone them plus all the support cars, the camera motorbikes and spectators. I believe these days especially as this year's race was so fast, that a minimum criteria for the roads used must be introduced. This will not eliminate crashes but it should reduce them the level and severity of what we saw in the first 1.5 weeks of this year's tour.
Overall I feel the 2011 Tour De France has shown the best that the sport can offer in terms of excitement and importantly, sportsmanship. For me, however, it will be leavened by the number of bloody accidents along the way, many of which could have been avoided with some careful planning.
Sunday, 1 August 2010
The Unlucky Tour
I must say that the 2010 Tour De France has been one of the ones I have least enjoyed. I might have found the characterless Miguel Indurain hammering out his tempo and winning year after year tedious; in 2008 I certainly found Cadel Evans incredibly irritating, but this year there were a lot of things that seemed to spoil the race. The battle between Alberto Contador and Andy Schleck, of course, was a classic, but reflecting on Contador's stronger performance all round, it was clear given the time trial, and barring any bad luck, he was going to win. Of course, if it had not been for the faulty decision in 2008 not to let him defend his 2007 win, then this would be his fourth consecutive win and it would be looking like he would be close to entering that select band of multiple winners, not least his fellow countryman. Given his youth, he is still only 28, he has a reasonable chance of getting into that kind of category, especially in a sport in which men like Lance Armstrong and Christophe Moreau riding the race almost into their 40s. Schleck has come a long way even in the past year and showed that he could no longer simply be dropped by Contador on a climb, but whether he can ever beat him in a time trial is a different issue.
Contador can be said to not been particularly lucky or unlucky, but this year being in such a position was itself an advantage. The first few days had an intolerable level of crashes. Of course, any leading cycle tour has crashes, but this year it seemed to exceed the acceptable level in terms of severity. Andy Schleck was able to recover but the greatest loss to him was his brother Frank Schleck being taken out of the race due to injury at such an early stage. If Schleck was going to beat Contador this year he needed an exceptional team. Both Saxobank and Astana fielded good teams, Alexander Vinokurov was almost as challenging for Contador on the Astana team as Armstrong was in that role last year. What would have made a real difference was if Frank Schleck had been there to lift his brother beyond Contador's pace. It was only bad luck that meant he was not there.
The other piece of bad luck was Andy Schleck's chain coming loose when he was launching a strong attack on Contador, something which will be discussed for years. Contador genuinely seems to like Schleck and seems to have been unsettled by feeling he had snatched an unfair advantage. I think at the end of the day he would have caught Schleck anyway and wiped out any small advantage in the time trial. However, it is hard on Schleck to think that he could have retained the yellow jersey that little bit longer if he had not had a mechanical fault, but this year they do seem to be common.
Of course, the man to suffer most from bad luck was Lance Armstrong. I know why he rode the race in 2009 and 2010, but it was a shame for him simply to fade after multiple mechanical faults and crashes. I do not think he would have had a high finish, but to go out in his final tour this way seems to have been bad luck and it would have been nice to have seen him have a tour a little more like fellow last time rider, Moreau. Others did not have bad luck, just bad form, notably Cadel Evans who seems to have had a personality transplant and is rather unsettlingly cheery these days. However, looking back, his slide after a burst of glory has characterised many of his recent tours no matter his personality. Bradley Wiggins, the great British hope who came 4th last year, similarly had no single bad thing to point to, just occasional lack of lucky breaks and unfortunately as time passed, a flagging of morale. He now sees last year's position as a 'fluke'. Perhaps Geraint Thomas, second in the race for so many days, though, it seems, quickly forgotten, will step into that position. David Millar the rather erratic British rider, was also unlucky, like too many of the riders this year plagued by mishaps and ill health.
Mark Cavendish after a challenging year as a result of his rather fast temper and playful/offensive gesturing showed he still had the power and speed to win sprints. However, it did become more apparent that his skill does not suit all finishes and the longer run-ins can be taken by Thor Hushovd and even Alessandro Petacchi even at the age of 36. Perhaps 2010 should be seen as the year of the 'old' men in the Tour De France. Cavendish in HTC Columbia, perhaps had the best team for doing what that team focuses on, i.e. winning sprints. I think their success, however, was a little dangerous and whilst Mark Renshaw, Cavendish's lead-out man over the final metres was probably right in trying to keep his space, he was too vigorous with his head and clearly was blocking people trying to catch Cavendish. Success often leads to a fear of even the chance of failure and a willingness to behave in a way which eliminates even that risk. It was not bad luck, it was arrogance stemming from too great success. Cavendish remains the fastest man in the last metres; Hushovd has proven himself to be what the green jersey competition is really about, i.e. consistency no matter what the environment. Though these two things intersect at times, this year even more than last showed the difference between the two.
Looking ahead, I certainly will watch the career of Canadian Ryder Hesjedal with great interest. In a more mundane year I think we would be talking much more about him. At 30 it may be a little late for him to be seen as a newcomer, but I expect to see big things from him in the 2011 Tour De France, just as we have this year over as varied situations as the pave of northern France and the Pyrenean climbs of its South.
Perhaps people will accuse me of asking for too much. A head-to-head battle for the yellow jersey, surely is excitement enough. However, I think a lot of space around and behind Contador and Schleck was cleared not by their strength and ability but by too much bad luck on dangerous routes. This year's organisers got their undecided race until the end but it came at the price of inadvertently eliminating too many other contenders.
Contador can be said to not been particularly lucky or unlucky, but this year being in such a position was itself an advantage. The first few days had an intolerable level of crashes. Of course, any leading cycle tour has crashes, but this year it seemed to exceed the acceptable level in terms of severity. Andy Schleck was able to recover but the greatest loss to him was his brother Frank Schleck being taken out of the race due to injury at such an early stage. If Schleck was going to beat Contador this year he needed an exceptional team. Both Saxobank and Astana fielded good teams, Alexander Vinokurov was almost as challenging for Contador on the Astana team as Armstrong was in that role last year. What would have made a real difference was if Frank Schleck had been there to lift his brother beyond Contador's pace. It was only bad luck that meant he was not there.
The other piece of bad luck was Andy Schleck's chain coming loose when he was launching a strong attack on Contador, something which will be discussed for years. Contador genuinely seems to like Schleck and seems to have been unsettled by feeling he had snatched an unfair advantage. I think at the end of the day he would have caught Schleck anyway and wiped out any small advantage in the time trial. However, it is hard on Schleck to think that he could have retained the yellow jersey that little bit longer if he had not had a mechanical fault, but this year they do seem to be common.
Of course, the man to suffer most from bad luck was Lance Armstrong. I know why he rode the race in 2009 and 2010, but it was a shame for him simply to fade after multiple mechanical faults and crashes. I do not think he would have had a high finish, but to go out in his final tour this way seems to have been bad luck and it would have been nice to have seen him have a tour a little more like fellow last time rider, Moreau. Others did not have bad luck, just bad form, notably Cadel Evans who seems to have had a personality transplant and is rather unsettlingly cheery these days. However, looking back, his slide after a burst of glory has characterised many of his recent tours no matter his personality. Bradley Wiggins, the great British hope who came 4th last year, similarly had no single bad thing to point to, just occasional lack of lucky breaks and unfortunately as time passed, a flagging of morale. He now sees last year's position as a 'fluke'. Perhaps Geraint Thomas, second in the race for so many days, though, it seems, quickly forgotten, will step into that position. David Millar the rather erratic British rider, was also unlucky, like too many of the riders this year plagued by mishaps and ill health.
Mark Cavendish after a challenging year as a result of his rather fast temper and playful/offensive gesturing showed he still had the power and speed to win sprints. However, it did become more apparent that his skill does not suit all finishes and the longer run-ins can be taken by Thor Hushovd and even Alessandro Petacchi even at the age of 36. Perhaps 2010 should be seen as the year of the 'old' men in the Tour De France. Cavendish in HTC Columbia, perhaps had the best team for doing what that team focuses on, i.e. winning sprints. I think their success, however, was a little dangerous and whilst Mark Renshaw, Cavendish's lead-out man over the final metres was probably right in trying to keep his space, he was too vigorous with his head and clearly was blocking people trying to catch Cavendish. Success often leads to a fear of even the chance of failure and a willingness to behave in a way which eliminates even that risk. It was not bad luck, it was arrogance stemming from too great success. Cavendish remains the fastest man in the last metres; Hushovd has proven himself to be what the green jersey competition is really about, i.e. consistency no matter what the environment. Though these two things intersect at times, this year even more than last showed the difference between the two.
Looking ahead, I certainly will watch the career of Canadian Ryder Hesjedal with great interest. In a more mundane year I think we would be talking much more about him. At 30 it may be a little late for him to be seen as a newcomer, but I expect to see big things from him in the 2011 Tour De France, just as we have this year over as varied situations as the pave of northern France and the Pyrenean climbs of its South.
Perhaps people will accuse me of asking for too much. A head-to-head battle for the yellow jersey, surely is excitement enough. However, I think a lot of space around and behind Contador and Schleck was cleared not by their strength and ability but by too much bad luck on dangerous routes. This year's organisers got their undecided race until the end but it came at the price of inadvertently eliminating too many other contenders.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Not As Pathetic As I Thought I Was
As anyone who has read this blog over the last couple of years or so, or has more recently dipped into my accounts of cycling in northern France will, know, I have felt that I was a real failure as a touring cyclist. Despite covering 60-100 Km per day I seemed to be incredibly slow, averaging only 13-14.5 kph compared to the 24 kph that my local cycling club expected people to maintain over 80 Km. I remember too vividly the days I would set off from my hotel or hostel only to find myself slumping in a bus shelter an hour later feeling exhausted and the number of times I had to get off and push my bicycle up the middle part of hills, much to the derision of the local young people. I also remember regularly being overtaken by men who were 40-50 years older than me out for local club runs and moving at a pace that I could not hope to match. One reason why I gave up such cycling holidays (and a lot of bad luck was an additional factor, such as getting lost, finding all the hotels full, being robbed and confusions over ferry times) was that I felt I would never be fit enough to be convincing as a touring cyclist.
Having just read 'French Revolutions' by Tim Moore (2001), I realised that I had done myself a real disservice by not having read it nine years ago when I first bought it (I have a shed full of novels to read, most from charity shops, but with the occasional 'new' book, i.e. bought in the year it was published). Moore's efforts put my completely into the shade. In the summer of 2000 he went around the entire route of that year's Tour de France three weeks before the race was run. His climbs of Alps and Pyrenees was in a completely different league to anything I did and I probably never topped 120-140 Km in a single day and quite often it was nearer 80 Km, whereas he managed over 250 Km on one occasion. I remember a tourist office official in Amiens telling me explicitly that 96 Km in five hours thirty minutes was nothing to be proud of. What is striking is how many of the same things we encountered, including dogs leaping out at you suddenly as you rode through villages; wildlife, in my case, two deer, crashing on to the road right in front of you; elderly men overtaking you on bicycles that looked like they had been involved in the First World War; very positive and very dismissive responses from different hoteliers when you turn up in cycling garb; getting lost on ring roads, drawn towards motorways and lost in housing estates; staying in hotels that could be used in an episode of 'Maigret' with no need to adapt anything and above all the physical impact.
What I did not realise at the time was how poorly prepared I was for cycle touring in terms of my health. I had the creams to rub on sore parts of my body. I made sure I bought bottled water rather than relying on bidons which often become the home to lots of bugs. I made sure I had regular meal breaks with a decent amount of carbohydrate (and lugging a huge pack of custard creams - the biscuits containing most energy in a single biscuit around with me, just in case) and between these Orangina breaks to keep me from dehydration and fuel me with more natural sugar. I was ready for the diahorrea common for cyclists and the general 'windiness' coming from having your stomach crunched up over the crossbar for hours on end. I got to bed early and showered every day. However, and this probably stems from being excluded from the cycle club and not mixing with other more experienced tourers I neglected other aspects of the necessary health regime. Foolishly too, I pored over maps and read acommodation guides and downloaded guidance on navigating various routes from the CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club) but overlooked any health advice and also failed to pick up a single account of a tourer's journey. I suppose this was because I was used to setting off on a Sunday for a decent 65-80 Km run without too much difficulty. I made sure I ate well and was protected from the sun and seemed to assumed that with regular breaks and rest days that a cycling holiday in France would be like a series of Sundays (and now I remember that in itself caused fear as I was worried that I would arrive in a town on a Sunday and find everything closed. Being in a locked youth hostel in Dunkerque at night with no water in the taps and having to drink from the toilet as the only way to slake my thirst at that time of night because I had finished my last bottle earlier, probably added to that phobia).
What I realise now is that I had totally underestimated the cumulative impact on my body. Unlike professional cyclists, my muscles were not receiving any massage at night and I had not even done any of the stretching exercises that Chris Boardman's books recommended and that Moore followed pretty religiously. No wonder my muscles complained the next day. At school I had always been told that I would never be a sportsman and given my slowness compared to other cyclists I never even considered myself in that category even as the most amateur of amateurs. However, that meant I did not read the advice for sportsmen or engage with the kinds of activities they do to make their efforts less of a challenge. Even if you are cycling for a day in your local area, you need to think of yourself as doing sport and thus, a sportsperson, however minor. To ignore that fact can lead you into the kind of difficulties I encountered which reduced my holiday's potential for enjoyment.
The second thing was that I had made wrong assumptions about my medical condition, diabetes. I knew from reading and experience that a hazard for a diabetic when doing physical exercise is that the insulin they have injected earlier (diabetes is caused by the body losing the ability naturally to produce insulin which is what breaks down the sugars coming into your body so they can become energy) you would get a 'hypo', i.e. not have enough energy to continue. This happens even to people without diabetes and in cycling is called the 'bonk' which Moore suffered a few times. Being diabetic I was more familiar with this risk, hence, keeping up both the slow and fast burning carbohydrates coming into my system. What I did not do though was have things like the fruit, e.g. raisins and bananas, that are going dripfeed carbohydrates along the way.
Most importantly, it was not until I attended a course in 2008, that I realised a huge blunder that I had been making, in that it is as bad when doing physical exercise not to have enough insulin in your body as then your the sugar is trying to float around in your body as that, sugar, rather than energy your body can use. Suddenly, this explained a lot of the discomfort I had felt day-to-day. It is clear now that fearful of a hypo I was not taking enough insulin and so in fact was wasting a lot of the carbohydrate because my body could not process it and was simply urinating it back out again.
Another factor that I neglected to take into consideration when chasitising myself for my pathetic performance on my tours was the weight of the luggage I was carrying. As I stayed in hostels, bars and hotels I did not have the weight of a tent and like Moore I had only one change of clothes aside from my cycling kit and a minimal number of books to find my way around primarily and keep myself entertained when passing my evenings alone in a hotel in the middle of nowhere (I am absolutely useless at making acquaintances when away from home even when in the UK, let alone when abroad; my language skills are terrible and my social skills even worse). However, with the waterproofs, the cold weather arms and leggings and particularly the tools and spare inner tubes, etc. which did prove extremely useful, as you will get punctures, I estimate now it added up to something like 20-25 Kg. To put this in context the 8-year old boy who lives in my house weighs 26.5 Kg, so it was as if I had a child riding around on the back of the bicycle, weighing over a quarter of my body weight of the time. Of course, this was a big difference to the cycling I had done on Sundays in the UK when I would have a pair of waterproofs, a drink and my camera. Moore notes how much faster he was able to move when he was able to leave his luggage with his family, and I guess I would have been the same. Instead I had to carry everything I had with me, on my bicycle up and down whatever inclines I encountered. If I had had more French I would have given this context to the hoteliers and others who thought my efforts were poor.
It also explains for me, as it did for Moore, why we could not overtake the elderly men no matter how aged their bicycles were. It is not only that you have to exert more energy to move that weight, but it is constantly slowing you down so you have to overcome the friction element. In addition, Moore was riding something a lot racier than my road-mountain hybrid, however light it might be (and great over roads needing resurfacing). This was outlined in Moore's book when a friend of his, riding something like my bicycle, came to cycle with him in Switzerland. Of course, a lot of commentators by the road side, even in France, just see 'man on bicycle' and do not appreciate how many variants there actually are.
The need for approval is a strange aspect which impinged on Moore as much as it did no me. I have not achieved anything great in my life and could never afford to travel to exotic locations, so doing something that marked me out even just a little from the kind of people I mixed with, had an important aspect in my self-esteem. Giving that I set off on my first cycling trip from the single room above a chipshop on the Mile End Road, with a bathroom that I shared with seven other residents, getting some self-esteem was important. The fact that I can see the face of the woman in the Amiens tourist office to this day with her sneering comment, is probably not healthy. However, people touring are looking for recognition of what they have achieved and I am sure the same happens for hikers and mountaineers. I loved the fact that I felt I was part of a 'club', that cafe owners truly expected me to come back again in the future (especially on the routes frequented by numerous cyclists, there are favoured parts, inland from Dunkerque was one and there was another such area in eastern Normandy), and other cyclists nodding to me or helping out with the map. I found the camaraderie that I was later not to find in the local cycling club in the UK, and, in fact, more than that, the acceptance that even if I was nowhere near the quality of a Tour de France racer or even a local race racer, I was a cyclist going about his business which deserved respect rather if not acclaim.
Having read Moore's account and his difficulties that, despite, far greater preparation, far better equipment and far more support, were very similar to my own, I am beginning to feel a little better about my efforts. Of course, these days I am not fit enough to run to the end of my road let alone cycle 20 Km, but perhaps if I had come to Moore's book in, say 2002, I can envisage I would have far more cycling trips to recount here and probably a bit more self-respect. I have to remember the morning when a whole class of French school children, probably aged 9 or 10, all dressed in matching cycle helmets, were pulled to the side of the road to let me pass up a hill with their teacher pointing out how properly I was attired in my cycle helmet and bright cycling strip (that year bright yellow) so visible to motorists. Though I struggled up the hill, I dared not get off or slow until I was out of sight. I should also remember stepping into a pristine bar at the top of a hill that was run by a man who clearly (from the numerous black and white photographs around the wall) had been in the paratroopers and asked for two Oranginas and a single glass. I never drank from the bottle for some reason. He knew the steepness of his local hill and seemed please that I had chosen to stop at his bar and sent me off with a real rousing encouragement. I recommend Moore's book to anyone who has battled on a cycling trip. It has made me feel that my efforts were not wasted and that I was fighting against the odds, partly due to lack of the right sort of preparation, but even so, not things that other people had not encountered themselves.
Having just read 'French Revolutions' by Tim Moore (2001), I realised that I had done myself a real disservice by not having read it nine years ago when I first bought it (I have a shed full of novels to read, most from charity shops, but with the occasional 'new' book, i.e. bought in the year it was published). Moore's efforts put my completely into the shade. In the summer of 2000 he went around the entire route of that year's Tour de France three weeks before the race was run. His climbs of Alps and Pyrenees was in a completely different league to anything I did and I probably never topped 120-140 Km in a single day and quite often it was nearer 80 Km, whereas he managed over 250 Km on one occasion. I remember a tourist office official in Amiens telling me explicitly that 96 Km in five hours thirty minutes was nothing to be proud of. What is striking is how many of the same things we encountered, including dogs leaping out at you suddenly as you rode through villages; wildlife, in my case, two deer, crashing on to the road right in front of you; elderly men overtaking you on bicycles that looked like they had been involved in the First World War; very positive and very dismissive responses from different hoteliers when you turn up in cycling garb; getting lost on ring roads, drawn towards motorways and lost in housing estates; staying in hotels that could be used in an episode of 'Maigret' with no need to adapt anything and above all the physical impact.
What I did not realise at the time was how poorly prepared I was for cycle touring in terms of my health. I had the creams to rub on sore parts of my body. I made sure I bought bottled water rather than relying on bidons which often become the home to lots of bugs. I made sure I had regular meal breaks with a decent amount of carbohydrate (and lugging a huge pack of custard creams - the biscuits containing most energy in a single biscuit around with me, just in case) and between these Orangina breaks to keep me from dehydration and fuel me with more natural sugar. I was ready for the diahorrea common for cyclists and the general 'windiness' coming from having your stomach crunched up over the crossbar for hours on end. I got to bed early and showered every day. However, and this probably stems from being excluded from the cycle club and not mixing with other more experienced tourers I neglected other aspects of the necessary health regime. Foolishly too, I pored over maps and read acommodation guides and downloaded guidance on navigating various routes from the CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club) but overlooked any health advice and also failed to pick up a single account of a tourer's journey. I suppose this was because I was used to setting off on a Sunday for a decent 65-80 Km run without too much difficulty. I made sure I ate well and was protected from the sun and seemed to assumed that with regular breaks and rest days that a cycling holiday in France would be like a series of Sundays (and now I remember that in itself caused fear as I was worried that I would arrive in a town on a Sunday and find everything closed. Being in a locked youth hostel in Dunkerque at night with no water in the taps and having to drink from the toilet as the only way to slake my thirst at that time of night because I had finished my last bottle earlier, probably added to that phobia).
What I realise now is that I had totally underestimated the cumulative impact on my body. Unlike professional cyclists, my muscles were not receiving any massage at night and I had not even done any of the stretching exercises that Chris Boardman's books recommended and that Moore followed pretty religiously. No wonder my muscles complained the next day. At school I had always been told that I would never be a sportsman and given my slowness compared to other cyclists I never even considered myself in that category even as the most amateur of amateurs. However, that meant I did not read the advice for sportsmen or engage with the kinds of activities they do to make their efforts less of a challenge. Even if you are cycling for a day in your local area, you need to think of yourself as doing sport and thus, a sportsperson, however minor. To ignore that fact can lead you into the kind of difficulties I encountered which reduced my holiday's potential for enjoyment.
The second thing was that I had made wrong assumptions about my medical condition, diabetes. I knew from reading and experience that a hazard for a diabetic when doing physical exercise is that the insulin they have injected earlier (diabetes is caused by the body losing the ability naturally to produce insulin which is what breaks down the sugars coming into your body so they can become energy) you would get a 'hypo', i.e. not have enough energy to continue. This happens even to people without diabetes and in cycling is called the 'bonk' which Moore suffered a few times. Being diabetic I was more familiar with this risk, hence, keeping up both the slow and fast burning carbohydrates coming into my system. What I did not do though was have things like the fruit, e.g. raisins and bananas, that are going dripfeed carbohydrates along the way.
Most importantly, it was not until I attended a course in 2008, that I realised a huge blunder that I had been making, in that it is as bad when doing physical exercise not to have enough insulin in your body as then your the sugar is trying to float around in your body as that, sugar, rather than energy your body can use. Suddenly, this explained a lot of the discomfort I had felt day-to-day. It is clear now that fearful of a hypo I was not taking enough insulin and so in fact was wasting a lot of the carbohydrate because my body could not process it and was simply urinating it back out again.
Another factor that I neglected to take into consideration when chasitising myself for my pathetic performance on my tours was the weight of the luggage I was carrying. As I stayed in hostels, bars and hotels I did not have the weight of a tent and like Moore I had only one change of clothes aside from my cycling kit and a minimal number of books to find my way around primarily and keep myself entertained when passing my evenings alone in a hotel in the middle of nowhere (I am absolutely useless at making acquaintances when away from home even when in the UK, let alone when abroad; my language skills are terrible and my social skills even worse). However, with the waterproofs, the cold weather arms and leggings and particularly the tools and spare inner tubes, etc. which did prove extremely useful, as you will get punctures, I estimate now it added up to something like 20-25 Kg. To put this in context the 8-year old boy who lives in my house weighs 26.5 Kg, so it was as if I had a child riding around on the back of the bicycle, weighing over a quarter of my body weight of the time. Of course, this was a big difference to the cycling I had done on Sundays in the UK when I would have a pair of waterproofs, a drink and my camera. Moore notes how much faster he was able to move when he was able to leave his luggage with his family, and I guess I would have been the same. Instead I had to carry everything I had with me, on my bicycle up and down whatever inclines I encountered. If I had had more French I would have given this context to the hoteliers and others who thought my efforts were poor.
It also explains for me, as it did for Moore, why we could not overtake the elderly men no matter how aged their bicycles were. It is not only that you have to exert more energy to move that weight, but it is constantly slowing you down so you have to overcome the friction element. In addition, Moore was riding something a lot racier than my road-mountain hybrid, however light it might be (and great over roads needing resurfacing). This was outlined in Moore's book when a friend of his, riding something like my bicycle, came to cycle with him in Switzerland. Of course, a lot of commentators by the road side, even in France, just see 'man on bicycle' and do not appreciate how many variants there actually are.
The need for approval is a strange aspect which impinged on Moore as much as it did no me. I have not achieved anything great in my life and could never afford to travel to exotic locations, so doing something that marked me out even just a little from the kind of people I mixed with, had an important aspect in my self-esteem. Giving that I set off on my first cycling trip from the single room above a chipshop on the Mile End Road, with a bathroom that I shared with seven other residents, getting some self-esteem was important. The fact that I can see the face of the woman in the Amiens tourist office to this day with her sneering comment, is probably not healthy. However, people touring are looking for recognition of what they have achieved and I am sure the same happens for hikers and mountaineers. I loved the fact that I felt I was part of a 'club', that cafe owners truly expected me to come back again in the future (especially on the routes frequented by numerous cyclists, there are favoured parts, inland from Dunkerque was one and there was another such area in eastern Normandy), and other cyclists nodding to me or helping out with the map. I found the camaraderie that I was later not to find in the local cycling club in the UK, and, in fact, more than that, the acceptance that even if I was nowhere near the quality of a Tour de France racer or even a local race racer, I was a cyclist going about his business which deserved respect rather if not acclaim.
Having read Moore's account and his difficulties that, despite, far greater preparation, far better equipment and far more support, were very similar to my own, I am beginning to feel a little better about my efforts. Of course, these days I am not fit enough to run to the end of my road let alone cycle 20 Km, but perhaps if I had come to Moore's book in, say 2002, I can envisage I would have far more cycling trips to recount here and probably a bit more self-respect. I have to remember the morning when a whole class of French school children, probably aged 9 or 10, all dressed in matching cycle helmets, were pulled to the side of the road to let me pass up a hill with their teacher pointing out how properly I was attired in my cycle helmet and bright cycling strip (that year bright yellow) so visible to motorists. Though I struggled up the hill, I dared not get off or slow until I was out of sight. I should also remember stepping into a pristine bar at the top of a hill that was run by a man who clearly (from the numerous black and white photographs around the wall) had been in the paratroopers and asked for two Oranginas and a single glass. I never drank from the bottle for some reason. He knew the steepness of his local hill and seemed please that I had chosen to stop at his bar and sent me off with a real rousing encouragement. I recommend Moore's book to anyone who has battled on a cycling trip. It has made me feel that my efforts were not wasted and that I was fighting against the odds, partly due to lack of the right sort of preparation, but even so, not things that other people had not encountered themselves.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Why I Believe Lance Armstrong is in the 2009 Tour de France
Many people have asked why Lance Armstrong, Texan seven-times consecutive winner of the Tour de France decided to come back and race this year not having been in the competition since 2005. Armstrong dominated the race 1999-2005 and at times had a cool demeanour, partly because as he became more successful he faced questions from the media, especially in France, who felt that he could only have succeeded with the use of drugs. You have to remember that in this era leading racers in the competition were eliminated when it was found they had been taking drugs. However, despite all the numerous tests Armstrong came through that with a clean bill of health. Armstrong is also renowned for the fact that he survived an aggressive cancer which started in his testicles but spread to his lungs and brain. He has established the LiveStrong charity and a foundation to help people with cancer. When Armstrong, aged 37, returned to the Tour de France this year on the Astana team based in Kazakhstan, people were surprised. He has the second position on the team to Alberto Contador, the winner of the 2007 Tour de France, seen as a very possible candidate for victory in 2009. Contador was unable to ride in the 2008 Tour de France because Astana were blocked due to connections of the former team management and cyclists from the team with drugs, notably the team leader Alexandre Vinokourov ejected from the 2007 race for doping.
Now, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever equal let alone surpass Armstrong's record in the Tour de France and many people worried that coming back after 4 years away from the race and 3.5 years out of profiessional cycling he would end up humiliating himself. Given by the end of the fifth stage he was 0.22 seconds away from holding the leader's yellow jersey, I think has blown away any such concerns. Perhaps 29th in the Tour Down Under, 7th in Tour of California and 2nd in the Tour of the Gila with a 3rd place in the Team Time Trial for Astana in the Giro d'Italia were hardly astounding results at the highest level, but they show that Armstrong is not unfit. The clear factor as seen on Stage 3 of the Tour de France was that Armstrong is experienced. He could always read the field well and the tactics he pulled in the mountains in the years of his victories were as vital as his stamina. This is what made Armstrong, though at times rather irritable (though we had not experienced Cadel Evans taking that to a new height then), was he was far more exciting to watch than the morose Miguel Indurain, winner of the Tour 1991-5 who just hammered out a pace. The break in the field on Stage 3 was not expected, but Armstrong saw it and went with it; Contador, perhaps lacks the experience, or maybe the sixth sense, that Armstrong has.
One interesting fact is, that with seven of the nine Astana riders currently in the top 10 of the riders in the race, how much less success my least favourite rider, Cadel Evans, would have had last year when Astana, particularly Contador was absent. I think Evans simply got lucky. I was glad he did not win last year, but I think that he should not even have got as close as he did. The man is incredibly self-centred and arrogant and gives professional cyclists a bad name. I know they can be terse but in his desire to be a diva he has stepped into the realm of rude and has put himself on the same level as the worst of boxers and football players. He is rapidly disappearing from the upper levels of the General Classification and in my view, all for the good. I trust this year with the race back to a proper standard, he will not come close to the 2nd position he held in 2007 and 2008.
To some extent I feel Armstrong has been sincere he saying he did not come to the Tour this year to win. I feel he has been surprised by his success, but now senses it might be possible to win again. However, we have yet to see the mountain stages in which Contador excels. Hopefully he will listen to Armstrong about playing the field and do so in the way that allowed Armstrong to blow away his close opponents in previous years. The thing that I believe that brought Armstrong to this race was not the chance of another win, but sheer enjoyment. I am sure that he is pleased that Swiss rider Fabian Cancellara is wearing the yellow jersey still. Obvously riders will keep an eye on Armstrong but not to the extent that they would have done if he had also been in yellow. What brings us back to watching the Tour year after year, people standing by the roadside for hours, waiting for days for a few minutes of a passing cavalcade? It is enjoyment of the event and the Tour de France is the most prestigious of cycling's events. I think Armstrong enjoys simply taking part, riding those roads, being mixed up in all of day's events. Though not all the pressure is off him, and he is getting more than he perhaps might have hoped for, it is certainly less than when he was winning yellow year after year, so he can enjoy the event to a much greater extent and share his vast expertise with the next generation like Contador, only 26.
I think we can see something that there was a similar motive for German rider, Erik Zabel, a sprinter who was still riding in last year's Tour de France at the age of 38, having won the green points jersey every year 1996-2001 and by 2008 still coming 3rd in that competition. Zabel is now a technical advisor to Team Columbia HTC on which British sprint marvel, Mark Cavendish (who has already won 2 stages this year and managed 4 in total last year) rides. These men love the sport and are going to be at the heart of it as long as they can. For Armstrong it is not a sad swansong, rather he can participate in an event he loves without everyone spoiling it for him by targeting him day after day. Well, that was the theory. His experience and clear enduring strength may make things more complex for him in the next fortnight.
Now, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever equal let alone surpass Armstrong's record in the Tour de France and many people worried that coming back after 4 years away from the race and 3.5 years out of profiessional cycling he would end up humiliating himself. Given by the end of the fifth stage he was 0.22 seconds away from holding the leader's yellow jersey, I think has blown away any such concerns. Perhaps 29th in the Tour Down Under, 7th in Tour of California and 2nd in the Tour of the Gila with a 3rd place in the Team Time Trial for Astana in the Giro d'Italia were hardly astounding results at the highest level, but they show that Armstrong is not unfit. The clear factor as seen on Stage 3 of the Tour de France was that Armstrong is experienced. He could always read the field well and the tactics he pulled in the mountains in the years of his victories were as vital as his stamina. This is what made Armstrong, though at times rather irritable (though we had not experienced Cadel Evans taking that to a new height then), was he was far more exciting to watch than the morose Miguel Indurain, winner of the Tour 1991-5 who just hammered out a pace. The break in the field on Stage 3 was not expected, but Armstrong saw it and went with it; Contador, perhaps lacks the experience, or maybe the sixth sense, that Armstrong has.
One interesting fact is, that with seven of the nine Astana riders currently in the top 10 of the riders in the race, how much less success my least favourite rider, Cadel Evans, would have had last year when Astana, particularly Contador was absent. I think Evans simply got lucky. I was glad he did not win last year, but I think that he should not even have got as close as he did. The man is incredibly self-centred and arrogant and gives professional cyclists a bad name. I know they can be terse but in his desire to be a diva he has stepped into the realm of rude and has put himself on the same level as the worst of boxers and football players. He is rapidly disappearing from the upper levels of the General Classification and in my view, all for the good. I trust this year with the race back to a proper standard, he will not come close to the 2nd position he held in 2007 and 2008.
To some extent I feel Armstrong has been sincere he saying he did not come to the Tour this year to win. I feel he has been surprised by his success, but now senses it might be possible to win again. However, we have yet to see the mountain stages in which Contador excels. Hopefully he will listen to Armstrong about playing the field and do so in the way that allowed Armstrong to blow away his close opponents in previous years. The thing that I believe that brought Armstrong to this race was not the chance of another win, but sheer enjoyment. I am sure that he is pleased that Swiss rider Fabian Cancellara is wearing the yellow jersey still. Obvously riders will keep an eye on Armstrong but not to the extent that they would have done if he had also been in yellow. What brings us back to watching the Tour year after year, people standing by the roadside for hours, waiting for days for a few minutes of a passing cavalcade? It is enjoyment of the event and the Tour de France is the most prestigious of cycling's events. I think Armstrong enjoys simply taking part, riding those roads, being mixed up in all of day's events. Though not all the pressure is off him, and he is getting more than he perhaps might have hoped for, it is certainly less than when he was winning yellow year after year, so he can enjoy the event to a much greater extent and share his vast expertise with the next generation like Contador, only 26.
I think we can see something that there was a similar motive for German rider, Erik Zabel, a sprinter who was still riding in last year's Tour de France at the age of 38, having won the green points jersey every year 1996-2001 and by 2008 still coming 3rd in that competition. Zabel is now a technical advisor to Team Columbia HTC on which British sprint marvel, Mark Cavendish (who has already won 2 stages this year and managed 4 in total last year) rides. These men love the sport and are going to be at the heart of it as long as they can. For Armstrong it is not a sad swansong, rather he can participate in an event he loves without everyone spoiling it for him by targeting him day after day. Well, that was the theory. His experience and clear enduring strength may make things more complex for him in the next fortnight.
Monday, 28 July 2008
A Very Good Tour
Well, regular readers will know my opinion of Cadel Evans in the Tour de France and so will understand how glad I was that he was not able to pull back the time on Carlos Sastre on the time trial on Saturday and so went on to ultimate victory. Sastre is very self-effacing a trait which appeals highly to British viewers but probably seems perverse to US or Australian ones.
Commentators say fans of the Tour de France divide into two camps, those who like to see a champion like Miguel Indurain or Lance Armstrong tactically and strategically take apart the opposition and those, including myself, who prefer an open race in which it is uncertain who will win and there are chops and changes throughout. The 2008 race was in the latter category, often with less than a minute dividing the top 5-6 riders and there were others such as Denis Menchov and Bernhard Kohl with maybe some more luck could have won. There were days when successful breakaways won for heroes like Marcus Burghart of Stage 18 or Sylvain Chavanel of Stage 19 and there were stages for sprinters, notably the four victories by Mark Cavendish, the best a British rider has done in a single tour. There was excellent tension, such as on the first day in the Alps when Sastre staked out his claim for victory by breaking away in Alpe D'Huez and then again in the final time trial as he rode excellently to hold on to it. Seven people held the yellow jersey throughout the race this year and even when it seemed a foregone conclusion that Cadel Evans would win, there were still surprises, it was really edge of the seat stuff.
The interesting thing is that the man who won the Tour de France last year, Alberto Contador was not invited to compete this year. This is because the Central Asian team, Astana that he rides for were barred in 2006 and kicked out in 2007 when Alexandre Vinokourov, Andrey Kashechkin and Matthias Kessler were detected as having taken drugs. The Astana team is now run by Johan Bruyneel and he has a strict drugs checking policy, but clearly the team has to serve its time in exile before the authorities will let it back in. I do hope so as a Sastre-Contador-Evans (plus Menchov and Kohl) battle will make for exciting cycling.
The thing that stopped 2008 being an excellent tour for me was the continued presence of drugs. Of course it was nothing on the scandals of recent years. In 2006 Floyd Landis was stripped of his victory of the whole race for drugs taking. Last year two leaders of the race, Alexandre Vinukurov was kicked out for drug taking and then Michael Rasmussen for irregularities around his drug tests. Last year whole teams went, this year Moises Duenas Nevado and Manuel Beltran were removed but their teams remained, following the removal of Ricardo Ricco who had one the 9th stage and the departure of the Saunier Duval team with the winner of Stage 10, Leonardo Piepoli and Juan Jose Cobo who came second on that stage. Effectively the Barloworld team funded from South Africa will dissolve after Nevado on that team was caught, as they are withdrawing sponsorship. This is the shame as Barloworld were one of the few non-European teams. Interestingly the new approach of the authorities targeting suspicious riders seems to have paid off, maybe in future they should be barred from even entering. Three teams in this year's race have their own drugs monitoring on top of the official one and I think in future any team being entered into the race must be compelled to adopt this approach.
The thing that effectively lost Cadel Evans the 2008 Tour de France was his team, Silence Lotto. They were almost invisible in the race and you can contrast this with the strength of the CSC team which put first Frank Schleck and then Carlos Sastre into the yellow jersey. A team even half as good as CSC would have allowed Evans to claw back Sastre's gain on Alpe D'Huez which was a model of team working with the two Schleck brothers policing the people pursuing Sastre and breaking up any pursuit. Evans had no-one to help him counter that and he also lacked the gall of someone like Armstrong, who knew that even when he was in the yellow jersey sometimes he had to attack rather than simply defend. Evans has come second in 2007 and 2008. He can win the Tour (though given his acid personality I hope he never does) if he can get even 2-3 decent team members around him. He has the all-round ability which he has demonstrated throughout this race, but he lacks that added spark of a team that can haul him up a mountain or break up his pursuers that both Sastre and Frank Schleck could call upon. The Tour de France was won by the CSC not only in actuality, but in terms of performance and they are an example in terms of how they work on the road (and their drugs screening policy) that other teams should really seek to copy.
Though the race is just over, I am very excited about 2009. I trust that it will be a clean race and one in which there will a whole host of exciting riders battling out for victory. That will be the sport of cycling at its peak. It has been a long, hard slog to reach, but I feel we are finally getting there and that is all for the good. Walking around my home town, I can see the impact that Cavendish's wins have already had on British cycling, there are so many more people (all men interestingly, maybe we need to bring back coverage of the women's Tour de France) and also children rather than wearing football strips, are in cycling caps and outfits. In the long-run this is not only good for the sake of cycling as a sport, but, I feel, for the health of the UK population.
Commentators say fans of the Tour de France divide into two camps, those who like to see a champion like Miguel Indurain or Lance Armstrong tactically and strategically take apart the opposition and those, including myself, who prefer an open race in which it is uncertain who will win and there are chops and changes throughout. The 2008 race was in the latter category, often with less than a minute dividing the top 5-6 riders and there were others such as Denis Menchov and Bernhard Kohl with maybe some more luck could have won. There were days when successful breakaways won for heroes like Marcus Burghart of Stage 18 or Sylvain Chavanel of Stage 19 and there were stages for sprinters, notably the four victories by Mark Cavendish, the best a British rider has done in a single tour. There was excellent tension, such as on the first day in the Alps when Sastre staked out his claim for victory by breaking away in Alpe D'Huez and then again in the final time trial as he rode excellently to hold on to it. Seven people held the yellow jersey throughout the race this year and even when it seemed a foregone conclusion that Cadel Evans would win, there were still surprises, it was really edge of the seat stuff.
The interesting thing is that the man who won the Tour de France last year, Alberto Contador was not invited to compete this year. This is because the Central Asian team, Astana that he rides for were barred in 2006 and kicked out in 2007 when Alexandre Vinokourov, Andrey Kashechkin and Matthias Kessler were detected as having taken drugs. The Astana team is now run by Johan Bruyneel and he has a strict drugs checking policy, but clearly the team has to serve its time in exile before the authorities will let it back in. I do hope so as a Sastre-Contador-Evans (plus Menchov and Kohl) battle will make for exciting cycling.
The thing that stopped 2008 being an excellent tour for me was the continued presence of drugs. Of course it was nothing on the scandals of recent years. In 2006 Floyd Landis was stripped of his victory of the whole race for drugs taking. Last year two leaders of the race, Alexandre Vinukurov was kicked out for drug taking and then Michael Rasmussen for irregularities around his drug tests. Last year whole teams went, this year Moises Duenas Nevado and Manuel Beltran were removed but their teams remained, following the removal of Ricardo Ricco who had one the 9th stage and the departure of the Saunier Duval team with the winner of Stage 10, Leonardo Piepoli and Juan Jose Cobo who came second on that stage. Effectively the Barloworld team funded from South Africa will dissolve after Nevado on that team was caught, as they are withdrawing sponsorship. This is the shame as Barloworld were one of the few non-European teams. Interestingly the new approach of the authorities targeting suspicious riders seems to have paid off, maybe in future they should be barred from even entering. Three teams in this year's race have their own drugs monitoring on top of the official one and I think in future any team being entered into the race must be compelled to adopt this approach.
The thing that effectively lost Cadel Evans the 2008 Tour de France was his team, Silence Lotto. They were almost invisible in the race and you can contrast this with the strength of the CSC team which put first Frank Schleck and then Carlos Sastre into the yellow jersey. A team even half as good as CSC would have allowed Evans to claw back Sastre's gain on Alpe D'Huez which was a model of team working with the two Schleck brothers policing the people pursuing Sastre and breaking up any pursuit. Evans had no-one to help him counter that and he also lacked the gall of someone like Armstrong, who knew that even when he was in the yellow jersey sometimes he had to attack rather than simply defend. Evans has come second in 2007 and 2008. He can win the Tour (though given his acid personality I hope he never does) if he can get even 2-3 decent team members around him. He has the all-round ability which he has demonstrated throughout this race, but he lacks that added spark of a team that can haul him up a mountain or break up his pursuers that both Sastre and Frank Schleck could call upon. The Tour de France was won by the CSC not only in actuality, but in terms of performance and they are an example in terms of how they work on the road (and their drugs screening policy) that other teams should really seek to copy.
Though the race is just over, I am very excited about 2009. I trust that it will be a clean race and one in which there will a whole host of exciting riders battling out for victory. That will be the sport of cycling at its peak. It has been a long, hard slog to reach, but I feel we are finally getting there and that is all for the good. Walking around my home town, I can see the impact that Cavendish's wins have already had on British cycling, there are so many more people (all men interestingly, maybe we need to bring back coverage of the women's Tour de France) and also children rather than wearing football strips, are in cycling caps and outfits. In the long-run this is not only good for the sake of cycling as a sport, but, I feel, for the health of the UK population.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
What is Cadel Evans's Problem?
For anyone who does not follow the sport of bicycle racing and in particular the Tour De France, this is going to appear an obscure topic. I have noted before how much I enjoy watching that cycle race which is running currently. The leader on time (by 1 second over the next nearest competitor) is an Australian called Cadel Evans who has been tipped as a contender to win the competition for the last 3-4 years. Australia has been producing very strong cyclists in the 2000s notably Robbie McEwan and Stuart O'Grady, but they tend to be good at sprints and winning one or two stages rather than have the mix of abilities needed to win the Tour de France which has flat and mountainous stages, urban and rural riding plus time trials. In addition you need a decent team to get you in position and protect you in the 'pack' of the peloton.
Cadel Evans won the yellow jersey which the leader of the race wears two days back, having had a nasty crash the day before. Crashes are a daily occurrence in the race, not surprising when 160+ riders are trying to charge down narrow streets or wind and rain swept roads. Evans pulled back and kept enough time to win. All very admirable. My problem with him is his attitude. Maybe I expect too much of the sportsmen. I expect them to be clean of drugs, which Evans and probably 95% of the racers are. I also expect them to have patience with the media especially when they are treating them fairly. If it was not for the media there would be no race. The Tour de France was first launched by 'L'Auto' newspaper in 1903 to boost its sales. It was the success in doing that which meant the competition continued. These days the event is run by the Société du Tour de France, a subsidiary of Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) which is part of the media group that owns 'L'Équipe', the newspaper that 'L'Auto' evolved into. So there has been a long association between the media and the race. The fact that teams get company sponsors is because those companies know their brand is going to be on televisions across the world for three weeks and the spin-offs in merchandising. Without this media coverage, again there would be no race.
Now, I know sportsmen, particularly successful ones can be aloof. Miguel Indurain was pretty silent throughout his career of winning races and Lance Armstrong, for an American, was quite quiet too; David Millar in no way as successful as either is known for being rather aloof but at least he speaks and answers questions without turning petulant. None of them was as prickly as Evans. Watching him push a police motorcycle or snatch away from a microphone and reporters even from his home country, in an incredibly petulant way shows how unpleasant he can be. Even in past interviews he has whined at reporters who have failed to see his greatness. The classic was a couple of years ago when a British TV reporter said at that stage of the race he was being considered a contender and he snapped back 'only now?' This is a common response from him as if we should all have known that he was great even when he was invisible in the pack and other men were attracting attention. I know you have to be confident to win, but you also have to be tolerant and accept that reporters are just doing their job and not chastise them for being aware of how super you were until you proved it. I have no problem if Evans wants to be frosty like Indurain but if he is going to continue like a spoilt child, he is unlikely to win any fans outside of his family. For that reason I do hope he loses the Tour De France and that that breeds some humility in him. Frank Schleck of Luxembourg sits only 1 second behind Evans and has proven to be amenable and noble even when denied the lead by such a narrow margin. I am certainly rooting for him to demonstrate that even when things are tough you behave as a gentleman not as a brat.
Cadel Evans won the yellow jersey which the leader of the race wears two days back, having had a nasty crash the day before. Crashes are a daily occurrence in the race, not surprising when 160+ riders are trying to charge down narrow streets or wind and rain swept roads. Evans pulled back and kept enough time to win. All very admirable. My problem with him is his attitude. Maybe I expect too much of the sportsmen. I expect them to be clean of drugs, which Evans and probably 95% of the racers are. I also expect them to have patience with the media especially when they are treating them fairly. If it was not for the media there would be no race. The Tour de France was first launched by 'L'Auto' newspaper in 1903 to boost its sales. It was the success in doing that which meant the competition continued. These days the event is run by the Société du Tour de France, a subsidiary of Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) which is part of the media group that owns 'L'Équipe', the newspaper that 'L'Auto' evolved into. So there has been a long association between the media and the race. The fact that teams get company sponsors is because those companies know their brand is going to be on televisions across the world for three weeks and the spin-offs in merchandising. Without this media coverage, again there would be no race.
Now, I know sportsmen, particularly successful ones can be aloof. Miguel Indurain was pretty silent throughout his career of winning races and Lance Armstrong, for an American, was quite quiet too; David Millar in no way as successful as either is known for being rather aloof but at least he speaks and answers questions without turning petulant. None of them was as prickly as Evans. Watching him push a police motorcycle or snatch away from a microphone and reporters even from his home country, in an incredibly petulant way shows how unpleasant he can be. Even in past interviews he has whined at reporters who have failed to see his greatness. The classic was a couple of years ago when a British TV reporter said at that stage of the race he was being considered a contender and he snapped back 'only now?' This is a common response from him as if we should all have known that he was great even when he was invisible in the pack and other men were attracting attention. I know you have to be confident to win, but you also have to be tolerant and accept that reporters are just doing their job and not chastise them for being aware of how super you were until you proved it. I have no problem if Evans wants to be frosty like Indurain but if he is going to continue like a spoilt child, he is unlikely to win any fans outside of his family. For that reason I do hope he loses the Tour De France and that that breeds some humility in him. Frank Schleck of Luxembourg sits only 1 second behind Evans and has proven to be amenable and noble even when denied the lead by such a narrow margin. I am certainly rooting for him to demonstrate that even when things are tough you behave as a gentleman not as a brat.
Monday, 14 July 2008
Why I Love the Tour de France
I know that this blog is full up with the problems that I encounter in my life and the things that annoy, scare and anger me, so I thought that I would throw in something more positive and current. As I have said before if I had started this blog ten years ago (well, I only got internet access from home in 2001, so it would have been tough), a lot of it would be about cycling. You would have found a blog with hand-drawn maps and scanned in photographs of my various trips in parts of England and northern France. I have never been a strong cyclist, I could never make the 15mph sustained over 50 miles which was necessary to join the local club in Milton Keynes, but I enjoyed seeing places and it gave me a great sense of achievement when I had few things in my life to give me that. In London it got me out from the very urban East End and in Milton Keynes as in Oxford before, I got to see many beautiful parts of the English countryside and visit stately homes and eat in nice pubs. Much the same in France where I cycled through areas which are beautiful now but had been key regions in the battles of the Middle Ages and 20th century and I ate very well in a whole host of restaurants and had the 'little adventures' as I called them that you cannot avoid when cycling. The little adventures are things that are not insurmountable but create a decent anecdote like almost being hit by a deer jumping from a bush, stopping to help rescue a man who had fallen into a canal or almost being wrapped up in a security van heist on a wooded road in Normandy.
Now of course all that is behind me as I have aged and live in a town which is almost impossible to get out of on a bicycle due to the busy roads and motorways which ring it. I have only been on my bicycle once since 2005. So you have a very different blog. One enduring thing from my cycling days is my interest in the Tour de France. Most countries of western Europe have a national bicycle race and there are many other 'classic' shorter races too. Other parts of the world, notably the USA, Australia and Malaysia have races that attract the World's best road racers. Central Asia and South America are increasingly home for leading cyclists who ride alongside people from the longer establish cycling nations like France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg with leading names from Australia and the USA having appeared in recent decades. The most famous of all these races is the Tour de France which has been running since 1903 and for a minority interest sport (well in the UK it is) receives surprisingly large coverage in the news, though in the UK you still have to hunt out actual coverage of the race on obscure channels (currently ITV4) and at odd hours. This year is not bad as it is shown at 7pm but in the past it has been on after midnight. There was a golden era when you got 30 minutes each night on Channel 4 in the 1990s but that was really the last it was seen on the main terrestrial channels. Coverage in the newspapers is far better. I first saw the Tour de France at school, in 1982/3. A French teacher had recorded a stage going up to the Puy de Dome. He was a keen cyclist but where he had got this from I had no idea. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the stage which I remember was a lone breakaway from a cyclist who had been injured. However, it was not until the mid-1990s that I was able to watch the race regularly.
What is so special about the Tour de France? Well, unlike a football match which lasts only 90 minutes, the Tour goes on for 3 weeks. It is a stage race so there is a winner each day. It is like getting 19 or 20 winners (they have a couple of rest days) in a competition. The winner overall is the man (there is women's cycling too, but it gets far less coverage, though you are likely to see it as part of the Olympics, it got good coverage in Sydney and Athens) who gets around the course in the least time. Sometimes even after three weeks of cycling and covering 3-4000 kilometres a man can win by a matter of seconds. So, you have three weeks of tension and the standing of different competitors can alter day-to-day. Having 180 cyclists going along French town or country roads is hazardous so there can be crashes and the weather can be very varied from baking hot to very windy and storms. In previous years there has even been snow in July when they reached the height of the Alps and Pyrenees. The terrain is another factor. France has it all from flat countryside to some of the highest mountains in Europe and different stages are to the advantage of different racers. On flat or urban stages you find the 'sprinters' often from countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, though also Australia who charge in the mass of the 'peloton' (as the main group of cyclists on the road is called) to snatch a victory. On other days in the mountains it is men from Spain, Italy and Colombia who manage to sustain and win often thousands of metres above sea level. On any day there is a chance that one man or a small group will break away and win personal glory. There are also time trials in which either individuals or as a team they race against the clock rather than each other and the winner is the one who turns in the best time. So, within a single competition you get a whole variety of different road racing.
There are also different 'jerseys' for men who are leading in the different competitions. Normally they wear their bright team colours but put on a different coloured jersey if leading in one of the competitions of the Tour. The man leading the overall time competition wears the yellow jersey and this is the prime one that people focus on. However, as the cyclists proceed different sections give different points. There are sprint points and the man who crosses ahead of the rest picks up points (with others going to second and third place) and this contributes to the green jersey. There is also the red polka dot jersey for the so-called 'King of the Mountains' every hill or mountain that the cyclists cross has points for the men going first over the summit. Each summit is categorised and so high mountain tops give more points than low hills. The green and the red polka dot jerseys, thus give credit to the two types of specialists in teams. There is also the white jersey for the rider under 21 who has the best time and recognition is also given to the 'most aggressive' rider always trying to get to the front or breakaway, though there is no jersey for this.
There are teams, which like those in motor-racing are sponsored by commercial companies selling everything from telephones to insurance to clothing, in the past ONCE the Spanish lottery for the blind sponsored a team. Each team has nine members usually of different nationalities. They also have different expertise and teams aim to have at least one sprinter, one mountain climber and one man good in the time trials. There are also the 'domestiques' who are less renowned cyclists who help support the stars of each team. They pick up food and drink supplies and bring them to other cyclists of their team. If one of the stars drops back because of a puncture or an accident, they ride with them to help them get back into the peloton. For mountain climbers they can be pacemakers; for sprinters they are the 'lead out' men who create the slip stream through the bunch for the sprinter to follow safely. If their star's bicycle breaks often they will give up their own bicycle so that they can ride on. The whole race is followed by an armada of team cars, doctor's cars, food, spare part and referees' cars. Motorcycles carrying information and filming the race mix in with the cyclists too while an aircraft and a helicopter fly overhead to relay the pictures. Along the roadside often creating a hazard themselves are thousands and thousands of spectators many local but many who travel from across the world to see the cyclist hurtle past.
Every day you can tune in and see how your favourite racer is doing and as they close in on the finish line it is as exciting as watching a horse race and in my view far more exciting than Formula 1 as all the leaders can be shoulder to shoulder and the winner win by centimetres on the line. Last week a man who had been out for over 200Km was caught within 2 seconds of crossing the finishing line. You can imagine the drama of watching that. Even the commentators (and the British ones are far more reserved than the French ones) got very excited. I find the race most exciting when there is no single dominant cyclist. In the early 1990s and early 2000s it got rather tedious as Spaniard Miguel Indurain won every year 1991-1995 and the American Lance Armstrong won every year 1999-2005. The other thing which has plagued the race is drug taking by the cyclists. Last year the man leading the race, Alexandr Vinokurov was kicked out for taking drugs and then Michael Rasmussen who later took over as leader was kicked out for lying about where he had been when he was supposed to be being tested even though they found no traces during the race. This year Manuel Beltran who was a standard cyclist has been removed because he had a drug called EPO in his bloodstream which helps the blood carry oxygen. Hopefully this is the last of the doping scandals because it is so disappointing when people are cheating and cycling seems to have been even worse at it than athletics despite the stringent controls that have been in place for many decades now.
This year, the UK has a particular interest. We are not renowned as a cycling nation. Chris Boardman was the leading light in the early 2000s but was stronger in the velodrome than on the road and was very unlucky with crashes. David Millar has always been hovering near the top but again has been unlucky, he just missed out on taking the yellow jersey this year. His very public school boy aloof manner is very off-putting for viewers too. The new star is Mark Cavendish, from the Isle of Man, who is only 23 and has won two stages of the Tour so far this year. He is an incredibly fast sprinter and though is currently 45 minutes behind the fastest time overall, he is very impressive and hopefully will encourage more British people to take an interest in the sport.
If you have never watched the Tour de France I do recommend seeing at least one programme. There is a lot going on to interest you, tactics and strategy to mull over. You see very strong and skilled athletes at their best and all against the backdrop of beautiful French countryside and towns. I always love it when they cycle through a town I have ridden through. As with the best sport there is human action and drama and sustained over a much longer period than for something like football or even tennis with the ability for things to change in an instant as you see in motor-racing, but it is humans making the difference.
Now of course all that is behind me as I have aged and live in a town which is almost impossible to get out of on a bicycle due to the busy roads and motorways which ring it. I have only been on my bicycle once since 2005. So you have a very different blog. One enduring thing from my cycling days is my interest in the Tour de France. Most countries of western Europe have a national bicycle race and there are many other 'classic' shorter races too. Other parts of the world, notably the USA, Australia and Malaysia have races that attract the World's best road racers. Central Asia and South America are increasingly home for leading cyclists who ride alongside people from the longer establish cycling nations like France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg with leading names from Australia and the USA having appeared in recent decades. The most famous of all these races is the Tour de France which has been running since 1903 and for a minority interest sport (well in the UK it is) receives surprisingly large coverage in the news, though in the UK you still have to hunt out actual coverage of the race on obscure channels (currently ITV4) and at odd hours. This year is not bad as it is shown at 7pm but in the past it has been on after midnight. There was a golden era when you got 30 minutes each night on Channel 4 in the 1990s but that was really the last it was seen on the main terrestrial channels. Coverage in the newspapers is far better. I first saw the Tour de France at school, in 1982/3. A French teacher had recorded a stage going up to the Puy de Dome. He was a keen cyclist but where he had got this from I had no idea. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the stage which I remember was a lone breakaway from a cyclist who had been injured. However, it was not until the mid-1990s that I was able to watch the race regularly.
What is so special about the Tour de France? Well, unlike a football match which lasts only 90 minutes, the Tour goes on for 3 weeks. It is a stage race so there is a winner each day. It is like getting 19 or 20 winners (they have a couple of rest days) in a competition. The winner overall is the man (there is women's cycling too, but it gets far less coverage, though you are likely to see it as part of the Olympics, it got good coverage in Sydney and Athens) who gets around the course in the least time. Sometimes even after three weeks of cycling and covering 3-4000 kilometres a man can win by a matter of seconds. So, you have three weeks of tension and the standing of different competitors can alter day-to-day. Having 180 cyclists going along French town or country roads is hazardous so there can be crashes and the weather can be very varied from baking hot to very windy and storms. In previous years there has even been snow in July when they reached the height of the Alps and Pyrenees. The terrain is another factor. France has it all from flat countryside to some of the highest mountains in Europe and different stages are to the advantage of different racers. On flat or urban stages you find the 'sprinters' often from countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, though also Australia who charge in the mass of the 'peloton' (as the main group of cyclists on the road is called) to snatch a victory. On other days in the mountains it is men from Spain, Italy and Colombia who manage to sustain and win often thousands of metres above sea level. On any day there is a chance that one man or a small group will break away and win personal glory. There are also time trials in which either individuals or as a team they race against the clock rather than each other and the winner is the one who turns in the best time. So, within a single competition you get a whole variety of different road racing.
There are also different 'jerseys' for men who are leading in the different competitions. Normally they wear their bright team colours but put on a different coloured jersey if leading in one of the competitions of the Tour. The man leading the overall time competition wears the yellow jersey and this is the prime one that people focus on. However, as the cyclists proceed different sections give different points. There are sprint points and the man who crosses ahead of the rest picks up points (with others going to second and third place) and this contributes to the green jersey. There is also the red polka dot jersey for the so-called 'King of the Mountains' every hill or mountain that the cyclists cross has points for the men going first over the summit. Each summit is categorised and so high mountain tops give more points than low hills. The green and the red polka dot jerseys, thus give credit to the two types of specialists in teams. There is also the white jersey for the rider under 21 who has the best time and recognition is also given to the 'most aggressive' rider always trying to get to the front or breakaway, though there is no jersey for this.
There are teams, which like those in motor-racing are sponsored by commercial companies selling everything from telephones to insurance to clothing, in the past ONCE the Spanish lottery for the blind sponsored a team. Each team has nine members usually of different nationalities. They also have different expertise and teams aim to have at least one sprinter, one mountain climber and one man good in the time trials. There are also the 'domestiques' who are less renowned cyclists who help support the stars of each team. They pick up food and drink supplies and bring them to other cyclists of their team. If one of the stars drops back because of a puncture or an accident, they ride with them to help them get back into the peloton. For mountain climbers they can be pacemakers; for sprinters they are the 'lead out' men who create the slip stream through the bunch for the sprinter to follow safely. If their star's bicycle breaks often they will give up their own bicycle so that they can ride on. The whole race is followed by an armada of team cars, doctor's cars, food, spare part and referees' cars. Motorcycles carrying information and filming the race mix in with the cyclists too while an aircraft and a helicopter fly overhead to relay the pictures. Along the roadside often creating a hazard themselves are thousands and thousands of spectators many local but many who travel from across the world to see the cyclist hurtle past.
Every day you can tune in and see how your favourite racer is doing and as they close in on the finish line it is as exciting as watching a horse race and in my view far more exciting than Formula 1 as all the leaders can be shoulder to shoulder and the winner win by centimetres on the line. Last week a man who had been out for over 200Km was caught within 2 seconds of crossing the finishing line. You can imagine the drama of watching that. Even the commentators (and the British ones are far more reserved than the French ones) got very excited. I find the race most exciting when there is no single dominant cyclist. In the early 1990s and early 2000s it got rather tedious as Spaniard Miguel Indurain won every year 1991-1995 and the American Lance Armstrong won every year 1999-2005. The other thing which has plagued the race is drug taking by the cyclists. Last year the man leading the race, Alexandr Vinokurov was kicked out for taking drugs and then Michael Rasmussen who later took over as leader was kicked out for lying about where he had been when he was supposed to be being tested even though they found no traces during the race. This year Manuel Beltran who was a standard cyclist has been removed because he had a drug called EPO in his bloodstream which helps the blood carry oxygen. Hopefully this is the last of the doping scandals because it is so disappointing when people are cheating and cycling seems to have been even worse at it than athletics despite the stringent controls that have been in place for many decades now.
This year, the UK has a particular interest. We are not renowned as a cycling nation. Chris Boardman was the leading light in the early 2000s but was stronger in the velodrome than on the road and was very unlucky with crashes. David Millar has always been hovering near the top but again has been unlucky, he just missed out on taking the yellow jersey this year. His very public school boy aloof manner is very off-putting for viewers too. The new star is Mark Cavendish, from the Isle of Man, who is only 23 and has won two stages of the Tour so far this year. He is an incredibly fast sprinter and though is currently 45 minutes behind the fastest time overall, he is very impressive and hopefully will encourage more British people to take an interest in the sport.
If you have never watched the Tour de France I do recommend seeing at least one programme. There is a lot going on to interest you, tactics and strategy to mull over. You see very strong and skilled athletes at their best and all against the backdrop of beautiful French countryside and towns. I always love it when they cycle through a town I have ridden through. As with the best sport there is human action and drama and sustained over a much longer period than for something like football or even tennis with the ability for things to change in an instant as you see in motor-racing, but it is humans making the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
