Wednesday update
So Di Luca is finally caught, after doping for likely his entire career. About damn time. He actually publicly stated that notorious doping doctor Carlo Santuccione was his "family doctor" since he was child, so while it is a relief to see him fall at long last, it is also a sad indictment of the total inadequacy of the usual sort of anti-doping testing that it took so many long years to catch him. Like Kohl, who explained that he should have tested positive any number of times long before his CERA positive, I think that Di Luca has long been getting away with it with ease due to the help of Santuccione and his informers, who warned the doctor about upcoming "surprise" tests. The jury is still out on whether the bio-passport will really be able to end the dark days of obvious dopers being able to smugly say they never tested positive. In catching Di Luca, the UCI can now earnestly wave a big fish under our noses as "proof" of their sincerity in the anti-doping fight. With the UCI however, cycling fans have long since learned the hard way to question everything and temper our expectations. Putting your faith in the UCI's veracity is sort of like declaring the Tour to be clean. As much as you might want to believe it, you are just asking to look stupid a few months down the line. The UCI's history is nothing if not one big object lesson on the power of denial and the misuse of official authority. McQuaid will soon be reelected as head of the UCI, without any opposition candidates even running. Verbruggen, who has to be among the worst doping apologist ever, is still in a position of power at the UCI. The UCI is still suing Dick Pound. Is this an organization that you can believe in?
The other point made by this latest positive is that some cyclists are clearly not afraid of getting caught when taking CERA. Why is this? It seems that they must have info that the chances of getting caught are relatively slim. You have to wonder what percentage of CERA users the CERA test actually is able to catch? How many other cyclists have been using CERA and got away with it? There must be quite a few if there are still high-profile, frequently-tested cyclists who are willing to take the risk and face the odds of discovery. For cyclists who have been doping and not getting caught for their entire career, the sense of invincibility must be deeply ingrained, and their attitudes toward the acceptability of doping seem to be lagging behind the growing ability of the bio-passport to catch them. The idea of many long-time dopers in the cycling world seems to be that they are simply not doing anything wrong, and that tacit acceptance of doping is and ought to be the unwritten law of the sport. Riders who have lived this reality for years will have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that the UCI might actually be serious about anti-doping this time...maybe.
In other news, Kohl's manager Matschiner has pointed the finger at a former Gerlosteiner rider who is currently an active rider on another team, and who rode previously at the Tour. Former Gerlosteiner head Holczer has replied angrily that Matschiner ought to just name names if he is going to say things like that. Take a look at the former Gerolsteiner roster.
Problems at Silence-Lotto? How unusual.
Team Sky have applied for a ProTour license. I think the UCI is really asking for trouble if they are planning to increase the number of ProTour teams next year. Meanwhile in Nicholas Roche's latest Tour diary where he details coming in fourth on yesterday's stage, there is a section about the ProTour: "...straight away the team manager was giving out that we only got fourth and we didn't get enough UCI points. He is worried that with the ProTour being cut from 20 to 17 teams next year that we won't have enough points to stay up there, which would mean missing the biggest races." So the ProTour is being cut to 17 teams next years? But new teams are applying? Who is leaving to make room? Are some teams actually going to be kicked out for lack of UCI points?
Jens Voigt's crash yesterday was among the scariest I have ever seen while watching a race, with the sheer force of his impact provoking momentary nausea. While it is a big relief that he is out of danger, I still wonder sometimes about the ethics of being a fan of a sport that can carry such a huge risk for its participants. The stress and media attention of the Tour sometimes seem to magnify the dangers, and I just wish as fans that we weren't contributing to the pressures that might sometimes lead riders to take a bit of extra risk. I guess it is just part of the race that has to be accepted, but I still don't like it. Meanwhile everyone seems to have a theory about what exactly happened. Even the Tour officials weighed in, with Francois Lemarchand saying, "They are using deep-profile carbon wheels and they are just too stiff. You combine that with the stiff carbon frames and it is just too rigid. They can't absorb any shock." Not sure if that theory holds any water, but I doubt Specialized will be interested to consider the idea that their frames might be too stiff. Also I would highly suggest NOT looking at any of the usual places for TdF photos from yesterday's stage, as there are way too many graphic and disturbing pictures of the crash out there. I wonder how the photographers feel about that, being more or less obligated to document such events as they happen, without knowing the medical condition or prognosis of the rider.
As for today's stage, I loved Thor's long solo escapade, which showed that his class as an all-arounder is not to be overlooked in the tendency to classify him as a sprinter. Truly amazing to see him climbing that well and looking fairly comfortable doing it. Cav is young and brash, yet perhaps today was a small lesson that it is not always the best strategy to provoke your opponents with angry words that may inspire them to feats of unexpected brilliance. Many riders feed off of anger and the desire to prove their naysayers wrong, and if you give such riders a good reason to be angry then you are surely not helping your own cause. Cav's outspoken nature is often dismissed as a sort of "boys being boys" thing that is to be more or less expected of high-strung sprinters, yet if you consider that his comments contributed no small part to the Garmin-Columbia feud and now also to antagonism with Hushovd/Cervelo, you have to wonder if at some point the Columbia management will ask him to hold his tongue a little more. Creating enemies in the peloton is not helpful for any team, and Cav seems to be developing a certain talent for it. Meanwhile, LA seems to be taking a suspiciously outsized interest in Cav, which has the usual sort of transfer speculation rumbling around. LA's new team is likely in the process of considering new hires at the Tour, and whenever LA suddenly takes a shine to a rider, it raises the same speculation, such as previously happened with Gerrans.
Other than Thor's exploits, I did not much enjoy the outcome of today's stage. The guys I wanted to do well had some trouble, and the guys I am either indifferent to or actively dislike were flying. That's life as a fan. You get used to it. I have no interest in the Schlecks, as Frank's tendency to blithely send money off to Fuentes is hardly reassuring. Then there is Kloden, who as far as I can tell should not even have been allowed to ride at the Tour due to info from the Freiburg report implicating him in blood doping. Really, why is he still even employed as a professional rider? Yet there he is, having a big impact on the race and perhaps ending up on the podium. It is a sad spectacle that shows why the sport has many miles further to go before the Tour will be a believable race. Then there is Contador whose past is an enigma shrouded by the impenetrable shadows of Puerto and Saiz. Some heavy hitters swear to his current cleanliness, yet he hardly seems forthcoming about his past as a protege of Saiz, unlike his teammate Jesus Hernandez. Next in line we have LA, whose past hardly needs mentioning. Take a read of Le Sale Tour or From Lance to Landis if you need a refresher, which if you read this blog, I bet you don't. These are your top five, a group with plenty of questions and doubts lingering. I don't know for sure whether there is even a single rider in that top five that I can believe in. That's life as a fan. You get used to it. As for Nibali, who knows, but as least he's not entirely keen on Di Luca and sometimes wears a doping-free tatoo, which proves so much.
I am a bit worried about what is going on with the usually amiable Sastre, as his rest day comments seemed rather out of character. There have been rumblings that all is not serene within the Cervelo ranks, and some riders are said to be running for the exits next year. I wonder how much Sastre misses the presence of Sunderland, who was supposed to be his DS and who he knew from his CSC years. It was seemingly an ill omen for Cervelo when Sunderland left suddenly for no clear reason very early last season. I also wonder how different Sastre's Tour might have been if he had not been under pressure to perform at a high level at the Giro. You would think that Cervelo could pick their goals with a little more discretion, especially with the degree of success they have already had, yet they always seem slightly greedy for wins. I wonder how close the link between Sunderland and Sastre really is, and if Sastre might want to eventually follow Sunderland to Sky if Cervelo is not working out for him. Watching the videos at bartape.net, you get a feeling that the directors at Cervelo are sometimes a bit dictatorial and there is a certain regimented feeling about the way things are run. I am not sure how well that meshes with Sastre's ethos, and whether Sastre's decision to join Cervelo was driven more by a need to escape the soured relationship with Riis than by a real desire to become main attraction of Vroomen's team. If Sastre was expecting to have Sunderland as his DS, how does he really feel about having Jean-Paul Van Poppel instead?
Reading Michael Barry's view on the Hincapie polemic is quite depressing, although it must be taken into account that Barry is a close personal friend of Hincapie and is not exactly in a position to be unbiased. If there is really this huge feud between Garmin and Columbia and it is not just being magnified in the media, then I wish that the managers involved would just schedule a meeting, sit down, and hash out a peace deal to put this stupid nastiness behind them. Maybe that is unrealistic, but this ugliness is truly distasteful, and it is bad for the sport, bad for the riders involved, and bad for the fans. I have no interest in being a fan of any team which engages in petty backstabbing, unsportsmanlike conduct, personal grudge-matches, or ego-driven hissy fits. Any team whose managers, owners, or riders like to publicly and loudly act that way can kiss my interest good-bye once and for all. When people talk about wanting a team to cheer for that has some actual ethical backbone, they are not just talking about doping. Everyone involved should really think twice about the bad image they are projecting to the fans and to their sponsors. I am not exactly sure any longer who needs to be apologizing to who, or why, but everyone involved needs to stop being led around by their out-of-control egos and start acting like responsible adults, and that includes Garmin as well as Columbia. It is bad enough that we are subjected to the twisted spectacle of LA and Bruyneel publicly undermining the Tour's yellow jersey in a game of psychological warfare that is both sickening and predictable. We really do not need any more bad behavior in this Tour, especially from teams who are supposed to be better than that.
