updated below

>>>-----Original Message-----

>>>From: Ken Abe

>>>Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:43 AM

>>>Subject: Re: D20: NO JAN ULLRICH IN THE TOUR

>>>

>>>Definitely a blow to the image of cycling.

in what way is it a blow to the image of cycling?  i'm not asking this as a rhetorical question. 

There are years and years of history of doping in the peleton.  just this morning, i was getting an ebay auction together for an old copy of paris match with a great picture of louison bobet on the cover and photos inside of a rider who dies while riding the tour and the controvery surrounding the "race doctor" and the issues of "dopage".  the date is julliet, 1955.

and not much has changed.  recent studies have shown that among professional sports, cycling has the highest positive rates.  look at the festina affair.  read the books of the people who were really involved.  look at the raids that the italians have been conducting since 1999.  look at the ferocious coverage of lance in the french press.  look at the sad trajectory that musseuw's career took at the end.  can you count the number of cycling heroes who have served suspensions?  are we still hoping that tyler hamilton will be able to race, like a phoenix rising from the ashes?

seriously man, there's not a lot left to tarnish.  but i think you're looking at it in the wrong context.  you're saying this is a blow to the image of cycling.  it's only a blow to the image of cycling if you held these guys out as some sort of gods: classic, heroic ideals of sport.  their bodies are temples.  the competition is fair and well won.  that shit may have played back when you won a wreath of olive branches. 

in my limited travels to other countries, i've never seen the kind of puritanical zeal against doping that we seem to have here.  note that i'm not saying doping is good, i'm just saying that cycling in it's current format (a professional sport with sanctioning bodies and sponsors and budgets, salaries and staffs which would make formula 1 and nascar team owners blush) is not some sort of idealized and fair compeititon.  it's been almost two millenia since that was the case for most any sport.  now, cycling is a business.  big business. 

your statement may be true for companies that try to use professional cycling for marketing.  so maybe we should have a moment of silence for the big name sponsors whose stock prices may take a hit and who's quarter over quarter sales may be impacted.  but cycling is so much more than that.  cycling is us racing for fun on weeknights and the weekends.  cycling is spinning along skyline drive.  cycling is taking your kids out on the trail.  cycling is so much more than you're making it out to be.  check with these guys, they know what time it is.

let's be clear that with the notable exception of the recent arrival of fuentes, the larger doping issues don't really matter a whole lot around here.  we'll all still watch tour stages.  we'll all still ride and race our bikes and commute to work.  nothing has really changed that affects us.

update

I had thought everyone pretty much had this in perspective.  i was incorrect.  for that i apologize.

- - - posted by scott