Frankly, I have little interest in the overblown spectacle that the modern Olympics has become.  I will of course try and watch the cycling events on the TV, but otherwise it leaves me rather cold.  Over at road.cc, I see the headline Ninety-two-year-old who helped bring women's cycling to Olympics to carry London 2012 torch.  An interesting headline, so I popped over to read the article.  It turns out that the 92-year old is none other than Eileen Gray.  Oddly, the article is written as though the author hadn't heard of Eileen Gray before!  Indeed, I noticed the omission of her name from the article title, which relegated her to the description "ninety-two-year-old".For what it's worth, I'm delighted at this news.  Gray was particularly important in the development of international women's cycling, and this is a deserved honour.  Here's an interview at the British Cycling website.  

This is getting ridiculous. Alberto Contador tested positive for a vanishingly small amount of clenbuterol about a year ago. At the time I felt that the small concentration found (which was several orders of magnitude below the testing ability expected of a testing lab) meant that guilt for clenbuterol use might become a lottery of which lab was selected to test a sample (Is Alberto Contador really positive for Clenbuterol?).Now comes the news that the CAS inquiry, already delayed from before the Tour de France until August is to be further delayed till November (Contador CAS hearing postponed until November | Cyclingnews.com).The length of time this case has taken to reach a conclusion is nothing short of scandalous.  Remember that the UCI is seeking to nullify Contador's 2011 results.  Assuming that he's found guilty, of course.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="181" caption="Laurent Fignon"][/caption]Cyclingnews.com reports (Former Tour de France winner loses fight against cancer) that Laurent Fignon, double Tour de France winner has died after suffering from cancer.  Sad news.

During Stage 15 of the 2010 Tour de France, Alberto Contador (Astana) took yellow after Andy Schleck (Saxo Bank) suffered an unshipped chain near the top of the major climb of Port de Balès.  Some people reckon this was an "unsporting" thing for Contador to have done, and indeed some quite vituperative exchanges have been going on in cycling forums all across the interweb.Personally, I think you need to bear in mind this was nearing the top of a climb, that the riders will have been really on the rivet, with all the attendant hullaballoo of the motorcade, helicopters and suchlike associated with the Tour de France.  Add into the mix the fact that all the likely podium contenders were there, it seems that Contador did the right thing, and specifically:

• he had no way of knowing how significant the mechanical issue was (assuming he realised there was a mechanical problem)
• he had no way of knowing how long it would take Schleck to deal with the issue
• what would have happened had he waited, and the others had carried on?

I think the critics of Contador's actions need to remember this is race, not a club run...  Here's a video of the event (YouTube)And finally - at last a commentator who takes a rational view of the situation as it unfolds: Opinion: It’s wrong to vilify Contador by Neal Rogers (Velonews.com).  Neal points out pretty much what I do above, and also adds:

But, like most things in life, this situation not that simple — and most people will make their judgments based upon how they already felt about either Contador or Schleck. We saw that during last year’s race, when diehard Lance Armstrong fans vilified Contador, ignoring the facts that Armstrong made his comeback into Contador’s team, that Armstrong did what he could to turn the team against Contador, and that the Spaniard did what he needed to do to assert himself as the strongest rider in last year’s Tour.

You could certainly discern the anti-Contador bias in comments left at the VeloNews site yesterday, and I'd concur with Neal as to the motivation.  Let's all see how this most interesting Tour unfolds en route to Paris.

I see more about Valv.(Piti) in Cyclingnews.com (Valverde Accuses UCI And CONI Of Vendetta | Cyclingnews.com).  Perhaps to celebrate his rise to the top of the UCI points table, Alejandro Valverde has accused UCI and CONI of engaging in a vendetta against him, or more accurately exhibiting “an institutional and personal viciousness” against him.  He goes on in time-honoured athlete style to say:

No banned substance has ever been detected in my body and my biological profile is flawless.

Thing is, that's true of many dopers.  Until they got caught.  And the biological passport which would yield a biological profile was only introduced in 2008.  The antics of Dr Fuentes were exposed as the investigation into Operacion Puerto got under way in May 2006, so whey would Valv. (Piti)'s biological profile be affected by any supposed blood doping that occurred prior to Mat 2006?.What the report doesn't do is clarify Valverde's explanation for the match between his DNA profile and that of the blood labelled Valv. (Piti).  Is there a match?  And if so, how come a wider ban hasn't been applied?

There have been a couple of stories over at Cyclingnews.com on the general theme of doping. In the first, Frei Explains The Motivation Behind His Doping | Cyclingnews.com, BMC's Thomas Frei explains his motivation behind doping with EPO.  He failed an EPO test, and declined to have his B sample tested - admitting guilt, he seemed to be relieved to have the truth out.  In this article, he touches on the motives behind getting involved in doping.  While I appreciate that there is always the possibility that his public statements may to an extent be self-serving, they do seem to me to be quite illuminating.

"Of course I would have gone on doping. The money tempts you, it is the same for everyone," said Frei in an interview with Swiss website NZZ.ch.

As for his slide into doping, this comes across as something straight out of Trainspotting:

As for himself, he said that he started his pro career clean. "Then came the hard stage races, and I learned that infusions were used for recovery. Everything was legal, but I still didn't want any of it. But at some point it started [for me], because everybody does it. The doctor gives you the first shot, and then it isn't long until you give yourself the first illegal shot."He said he took EPO, because "you stand in front of a huge mountain and don't know how to get over it. Your ambition eats you up. After all, you want to become more than just a helper."

The section I find interesting is how the teams work.  While they aren't directly saying to the riders "You must take this to be competitive" (well not since the days of Festina), there does seem to be a tacit acceptance.  Teams never enquire why a rider shows a sudden and dramatic improvement in form, and of course where not only is survival through long hard stage races an issue, but pay and future contracts reflect performance, the temptation to dope will always be present.  Frei finishes with:

"From the bosses you only hear, 'We don't want any doping cases.' But what they really mean is something else."

And this seems to be key. It seems to me that riders are victims as well as culprits complicit in doping. The teams want strong athletes that can deliver performance, and in the face of (probably hard to eradicate) doping practices choose to turn a blind eye in favour of disowning the rider when he's caught.  To my mind the teams end up being complicit.  While there's ostensibly a new anti-doping breed of cycling teams out there, the cynic in me wonders "says who?" - who can we believe in a murky world of black market doping, where investigations get shelved with only partial justice (e.g. Ullrich busted, Valverde still riding while dodging investigations), or cases where justice and retribution are so long coming that an athlete may well retire before punishment.A second story, High profile Italian doping case close | Cyclingnews.com, seems to indicate that a high profile Italian cyclist may be busted before the Giro d'Italia gets going next week.  This follows widespread analysis of blood values - the "biological passport".  So far, five Spanish and Italian riders have been busted for blood value manipulation.It does seem as though the response of the dopers (and one might surmise in the light of major doping rings) the doping industry has been less in the direction of stopping, or trying new products and more in the direction of fine-tuning the doping process with the objective of making detection less likely.  Much of this focusses on what's probably the most effective drug for an endurance athlete, EPO.  Strategies for evading detection have included microdosing (as in the case of Frei), and the use of modified EPO derivatives such as CERA.  CERA, of course, was being pushed as an undetectable form of EPO, a promise happily unfulfilled as the rash of offenders detected over the last few years testifies,

Well, what do you know! Dear Valv. (Piti), who's DNA has been found to match blood bags stored by Dr Fuentes of Operacion Puerto fame, is now leading the UCI World Ranking (Valverde Tops UCI World Rankings | Cyclingnews.com), despite suffering a two year ban in Italy as a consequence.  Meanwhile, Jan Ullrich, who's career was terminated after his DNA match must be wondering "what if"...In separate news, Cyclingnews.com also reports three riders that appear to be manipulating their blood, at least on the basis of the "Biological Passport" (UCI names riders snared by Biological Passport).  Apparently the three are Franco Pellizotti (Liquigas-Doimo), Jesus Rosendo Prado (Andalucia-Cajasur) and Tadej Valjavec (Ag2r-La Mondiale, and their teams are not pleased.  Disciplinary proceedings are "requested", but it's not clear what these "disciplinary proceedings" will be.So at least the UCI would appear to be making progress in the battle against doping in cycling, but it does always seem to the three steps forward, two steps back.  I wonder what's going on in other professional sports?

One of the three riders named as having suspicious blood parameters is making an unusual defence claim (Rosendo's Blood Readings Due To Haemorrhoids? | Cyclingnews.com). Jesús Rosendo Prado has been suspended by his team, but the claim has now been made that there was an observed increase in oxygen transference between May 19, 2008, and September 27, 2009.Now, despite being a biologist, I'm not really clear what the UCI mean by "increase in oxygen transference", but Rosendo's team have fired back the defence that oddities in reticulocyte (immature red blood cells) and lowered haemoglobin and haematocrit levels were due to haemorrhoids.Blimey, one would have thought that not only would that volume of blood loss be awkward for a cyclist, but you'd expect a performance hit!  Poor bloke, having his troublesome haemorrhoids splashed about the interweb.

There's a report in Cyclingnews.com today that, if the rider's assertions are proven, makes me a little concerned (Bani Says Team Doped Him Without His Knowledge | Cyclingnews.com)

Eugenio Bani has said that his former team Ambra Cavallini Vangi “forced” him to take medications and that he did not know what they were. The 18-year-old, who tested positive for the pregnancy hormone HcG (Human chorionic gonadotrophin), has signed for this year with Amore & Vita despite a 21-month ban within Italy.

So here we have a rider who's barely more than a kid being doped with bioactive human hormones.  Who knows what long-term damage can be caused by modern hormonal doping?  And I include here "more conventional" steroids, growth hormones and EPO in its mutifarious forms.

It's long seemed to me that professional teams escape serious scrutiny in the war against doping - it takes considerable negative publicity to dent a team, and even then it seems as though the team only folds if the sponsor takes the view that the negative publicity has reached excessive levels.

Bani goes on to describe how he was regularly injected with liquids that were pre-loaded in syringes - liquids that were only described as "tonics" or "vitamins".  A cycling team with riders as young as this owe a considerable duty of care, and should not only behave with utmost propriety but should be seeking to protect their riders from getting involved with doping.

Back in the 1970s, when I nearly took up competitive cycling as a teenager, I was a failrly regular reader of Cycling, then the weekly cycle sport magazine in the UK (known colloquially as The Comic).  Of course, I went off to University and discovered a variety of youthful interests that put paid to any serious involvement in cycling as a sport.  My memory of Cycling at that time was of a black and white newspaper like magazine, printed on pulpy paper, but full of stories about the great time triallists of the era.

Fast forward about 15 years.  I had just spent the last four years of the 1980s working in a lab in London, when the whole lab moved to Scotland, lock stock and barrel.  I decided to get a bit more exercise as a largely sedentary lifestyle had filled me out somewhat, and what better way than to take up cycling again, and explore the Scottish countryside.  I bought a bike, and started buying Cycling Weekly (as it was known by then) again.  Having plucked up the courage to join a local cycling club, I finally started racing club then open time trials.

One would have to be a spectacularly unaware competitive cyclist to remain ignorant of the spread of power meters in the ranks of bike racers.  In the past I've not moved in this direction, for a number of reasons, some practical (e.g. typical power meters would be a faff to move from bike to bike, unlike the typical HRM), some more theoretical ( e.g. isn't it best to assess the physiological demands of a training session).

At the end of the 2009 season I bought a Polar CS600X bike computer with power metering capability.  I've written the first part of a review on the usage of power meter data (framed by a book review) over at the Team Grumpy website.

Cyclingnews.com reports that Valverde To Concentrate On Tour De France In 2010.  Well, I guess unless CAS rule against him...as cyclingnews.com point out:

The main barrier to riding the Tour in 2010 may be the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Earlier this year the Spaniard was given a two-year suspension by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI). The ban, based on his alleged connection to Operacion Puerto, applies only to races in Italy. He has appealed the ban to the CAS, with the International Cycling Union and the World Anti-doping Agency also filing a separate case which asks that the ban be extended worldwide.

It's not clear to me how sports justice is being served by the response of Cycling organisations such as the UCI and the national federations to the whole Operacion Puerto enquiry and the Spanish legal processes.  The latter moves at what can best be described as a glacial pace.  But why are some individuals (e.g. jan Ullrich) penalised and not others?  Seems to me that by the time Operacion Puerto is fully investigated, many of the athletes will have retired.

Cyclingnews.com provides an update on the Alejandro Valverde doping saga - WADA Frustrated By Delays In Valverde CAS Cases. I blogged the other day that I felt that judicial delays in dealing with the fallout of Operacion Puerto would lead to injustice as many of the dopers will have retired by the time much of this mess has been sorted out.  If, indeed, it will ever be sorted out.

Cyclingnews reports that the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) is indeed upset at the length of time it's taking to resolve two cases concerning Valverde:

The first is the Caisse d'Epargne's rider's own appeal against a two-year ban from competition in Italy, enforced by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) for his alleged involvement in the Puerto affair. The second case is a joint action by WADA and the International Cycling Union (UCI), who have appealed the Spanish cycling federation's (RFEC) decision not to launch their own disciplinary proceedings against Valverde as a result of evidence gathered during the Puerto investigation.

This really cuts to the heart of the matter: if Valverde is Valv. Piti, and is guilty of blood doping via the Fuentes clinic, then, yes, he should be punished.  But what if he's actually innocent?  Should he be made to serve a lengthy ban before an appeal is heard?  Similarly, why should Valverde have proceedings against him while all the other implicated athletes carry on training and competing without sanction?

As with all athletes, a professional cyclist's career is short: these cases need to be completed quickly and efficiently.

Cyclingnews reports that Lance Armstrong: RadioShack Not Built Around Me.  Well, I'm not so sure - look what happened when he got parachuted into Astana last year.  He says they have 8 of the 9 riders that rode the Tour for Astana last year, plus Bruyneel.  And don't forget the external pressure - I would expect the selling point for the team was his presence, and even if he wanted to take a back seat, I doubt it's possible.

Powered by ScribeFire.

This sounds truly bizarre.  Former T-mobile cyclist Andreas Klöden (Astana), who has been under investigation for involvement in a blood doping ring (following the 2006 case of Patrik Sinkewitz).  However, this investigation is now at an end.  Cycling news reports (Klöden to pay fine in Freiburg clinic doping case):

A spokesman for the public prosecutor in Bonn said that, in return for the payment, the district court will stop proceedings for sporting fraud against the 34-year-old. The payment, said to be 25,000 euros by the German magazine Focus, is not considered an admission of guilt  under German law.

Cyclingnews.com reports that the Belgian press claim that Astana are offering Alberto Contador a huge wad to stay with the team for four years (Astana offer Contador up to €8 million per year).  This is apparently double what Contador has asked for to stay.

Interestingly, Astana's finances have been sufficiently rocky that they nearly didn't get to start the Tour de France this year, and they were sufficiently dilatory in completing their UCI paperwork that Contador has an exit right from the team.  Whether Astana would be able to come up with the cash, is something of a moot point.

Stefan Schumacher, the former Gerolsteiner rider, has always claimed innocence over his positive test for CERA (and EPO derivative) during the 2008 Tour de France and the Beijing Olympics.  That comes as no surprise - few athletes admit to cheating, even when presented with pretty unequivocal evidence.

The announcements that samples taken during the 2008 Tour would be re-tested, and secondly that those 17 tests proved negative have apparently given new life to Schumacher's claims of innocence (Schumacher calls for withdrawal of positive results).

The Astana professional cycling team has certainly been an interesting team this year.  From the reappearance of Armstrong (for me, an unexpected force at the Tour de France), and the subsequent soap opera that ensued as Armstrong and Contador jockeyed for preeminence through the duration of the Tour, to the reassertion of Kazakh control and the departure of Bruyneel, Armstrong et al to form the new Radio Shack team, it's been pretty exciting.

Now, Cyclingnews.com reports (Vinokourov to head to the Tour of Spain with Astana) that Vinokourov is back in the Astana fold after serving his ban for blood doping, and will lead the team at the Vuelta.

Cyclingnews.com reports (UCI confirms USA, Great Briton's top allocations for worlds) that while France and the Netherlands will only be able to field 6-man teams in the 2009 World Championships, the UK will field a full team of 9 riders.

Team sizes are determined by the UCI using some arcane method that Cyclingnews.com don't share with the reader.  However, it's undoubtedly linked to ranking performances.  France and Netherlands gain their places via the Europe Tour, as indicated by the table below:

During the Beijing Olympics, I kept a tally of positive dope tests (mostly interesting from the horses that were positive - for capsaicin, as I recall).  You may recall that at the end of the Olympics, it was announced that all the samples would be re-tested for the then-new EPO derivative, CERA.

It seems the test results are now filtering out.  Cycling news.com reports that: