Cleaning House

My mum always loved old musical films. So I guess it was no surprise that I immediately thought of the house-cleaning duet from Calamity Jane when I heard that the UCI was establishing an external commission to investigate the UCI in the wake of the Armstrong affair. They’re actually finally doing it. The UCI is cleaning house.

It’s been bruited around for a while, though never more so than now, that the UCI were in Armstrong’s pocket when it came to his literally unbelievable career, and more than one ex-rider has pointed the finger at the UCI when it came to laying blame for cycling’s doping culture. With USADA shining the world’s biggest spotlight into every corner of Lance Armstrong and US Postal, the pressure has been growing for a while now for the UCI to take the same steps and sweep out their own dusty corners too. Unfortunately, with the UCI the highest body in cycling, there was no-one to ensure that they actually would, but it seems they’ve been listening to the voices on the street at last.

It’s a gesture of good faith, certainly, but let’s hope it becomes more than just a gesture. As part of the investigation the UCI has also halted the controversial lawsuit against Irish journalist and ex-rider Paul Kimmage. This gives no guarantee that they won’t relaunch it again either after the conclusion of the commission’s investigation or even before then, but it’s a start, and a much-needed one. Even with all the whisking and mopping that USADA have been doing over in the US, cycling could never start over and be ‘clean’ with such a dark cloud hanging over the sport’s governing body. Scrubbing all the cyclists’ pasts raw would make little difference if the administration wasn’t equally squeaky.

Thankfully, despite all the denials and professions of non-culpability over recent months, the UCI seems to have recognised this fact as well, and they’re taking steps. What we have to wait and see now is whether they’re serious about those steps. Will the UCI give the external commission carte blanche to dig as deep as they need for as long as they need to in order to polish up every single dirty ‘winder’? Will the ‘appropriate terms of reference’ to be negotiated with the committee omit all the key concerns such as alleged cover-ups in the Armstrong era and the culpability of ex-UCI president Hein Verbrugghe and his successor, Pat McQuaid? And will the UCI give due credit to and implement any or all of the recommendations made by the committee at the end of their investigation?

Let us hope that the instigation of the investigation means they will. Maybe, with a completely exposed and absolved past and a clear vision for a clean future, we will finally get to see cycling as the ‘shiny castle’ of which Doris Day and Allyn McLerie sang all those years ago.

More Special By Comparison

I know that, thanks to Lance Armstrong, it’s hard to look at cycling these days without thinking, “Doping.” It’s hard to look at a Tour de France winner without thinking, “Drugs.” In fact, it’s hard to look at any amazing victory in cycling anymore without thinking, “Dirty.”

But just because Lance Armstrong, Tom Boonen, Eddy Merckx and so many other big names in the cycling world have tested positive to banned substances or confessed to doping, it’s no reason to visit that reputation on the rest of the peloton. Though admittedly there aren’t a lot of Tour de France winners who have a completely clean record when it comes to doping, that’s something that has definitely changed in the past few years. Take Cadel Evans, for example. I challenge anyone to refute the immaculate reputation of Australia’s own Tour de France winner. Evans is undoubtedly one of the cleanest riders in the peloton – nary a whisper of scandal, doping or otherwise. Even Brad Wiggins, despite all the controversy he likes to generate, is as unimpeachable as Evans on the doping front.

And in a way, cycling’s doping culture only lends greater import to their victories. After all, consider what ‘dirty’ riders in the past have done, compared to the exploits of Wiggins and Evans. Yes, Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times, and there’s not a lot you can say to that, but Evans is the oldest winner since 1923. 1923. In all those 88 years of ‘doping’, no-one over the age of 34 was good enough to win the Tour de France until Evans came along. In fact, doping was still an accepted part of cycling in 1923. You could say that Evans is the oldest clean rider ever to have won the Tour de France. Doesn’t that make his victory even more special, knowing that even the cheats couldn’t do what he did?

Brad Wiggins’ hero, Tom Simpson, was the most successful cyclist in British history, at least until Wiggins came along. Yet Wiggins was able to win the Tour de France, a victory which eluded Simpson right up until his death from a drug-and-alcohol-induced heart attack during the 1967 Tour. If Simpson constitutes a ‘successful’ cyclist, then is there an adjective in the English language sufficiently superlative to describe Wiggins?

By no means am I saying that doping is in any way a good thing. On the contrary, it’s one of the most horrible phenomena that exist in professional cycling. But given it does exist, can’t we look at the bigger picture here and notice how every attempt to win by doping just makes the clean winners look even more brilliant by comparison? Yes, Armstrong may be dirtier than unwashed laundry, but that doesn’t mean that every other rider is dirty by association and that all their hard work is worthless. I for one can’t help but regard those clean riders with so much more awe and respect knowing that even the ‘great’ Armstrong or the ‘successful’ Simpson couldn’t do what they do – win because they’re simply the best.

Enough is Enough

It’s taken long enough, but Lance Armstrong finally seems to have realised that fighting the doping charges against him is doing no-one any favours. Like a fly caught in a spider’s web, Armstrong finally seems to have recognised that the longer he struggles, the more he tangles himself in the ever-tightening web of brutal public opinion.

He was the golden boy of world cycling. The poster child of the UCI. An angel of charity work. A hero to cancer sufferers worldwide. In short, Lance Armstrong from Plano, Texas, was an all-around good guy on a bike.

So when the drug rumours came knocking, as they seem to have done for every high-profile cyclist throughout time, Armstrong thought that he could beat them. Truth and innocence aside, a reputation as tall as the Texan himself and seven Tour de France titles to boot would surely be currency in dispelling the ugly tales and restoring his good name.

But the problem with drug rumours is that they seem to follow Grisham’s law of economics – ‘Bad money drives out good’. No matter how squeaky his reputation, the tiniest whisper of scandal was enough to taint it in an instant. As soon as the rumours began circulating that those seven Tour titles weren’t as cleanly earned as previously thought, the first cracks began appearing in the armour. No matter whether Armstrong’s lawyering up was a sign of a fight to protect his innocence or a fight to hide his guilt, the implication was clear. Armstrong was taking this seriously. And suddenly every news story featuring Armstrong in the title had ‘doping’ right there with it.

And there lies the point of no return. Once Armstrong’s name was tied to drug allegations, they were tied forever. No amount of fighting to clear his name would ever do that. Had Armstrong succeeded in beating the charges, he would simply have become the seven-time Tour de France winner who was cleared of drug charges. Goodbye, innocent until proven guilty. Drug charges don’t play by those rules.

Armstrong has put his faith in the idea that the truth will out. The truth is no longer what’s at stake. The heart of the matter is that even if the UCI, USADA, WADA and the Plano Cycling Club were all to declare the drug charges baseless and Armstrong a clean man, he has already been tarnished. What he has been fighting so hard to save is just a speck on a distant horizon. His reputation is down the drain, dragging the reputation of world cycling down right along with it.

Armstrong finally seems to have realised that in this case, no news really is good news. The longer he protests his innocence, the longer he drags his own name, and that of cycling, through the Spring Classics-deep mud. With no hope of redemption in sight, the biggest favour Lance Armstrong can do anyone now is to bow out quietly and pray that public opinion will be more lenient towards cycling than it has been towards him.