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 Lance Armstrong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lance Armstrong. Show all posts
Monday, 29 October 2012
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
