An un-named DS has recently been quoted as saying that “the problem in cycling isn’t doping anymore. It’s money.”
I’d argue that this is either incredibly naïve or deliberately disingenuous, since it’s historically well established that the one finances the other. But I do think this is a good catalyst for a discussion on the current state of the sport. I’m putting this in the Clinic because I don’t think you can have a full, frank review of pro cycling without including doping/anti-doping.
I’d say that the main issues are as follows:
Money – more specifically a significant financially imbalance in the sport between Sky and the rest, but also between the other top pro teams and the lower ones. This gives Sky access to the best riders, the best science and the best gear, probably including illegal products. QuikStep also obviously have a financial advantage when it comes to the classics, but the extent of this is much smaller.
One-team dominance and ‘boring’ racing – as a result of their financial and resource advantage, Sky have a stranglehold on most GTs they take seriously, particularly the Tour, the jewel in the cycling calendar. Because of the depth of their squad, coupled with the exceptional endurance of their riders, they can ride high tempo and en masse, nullifying most attacks and making the racing often dull and predictable. We rarely get to see the top contenders just go head to head. On top of this their chosen rider/s almost always win. Again, QuikStep do have a clear and noteworthy edge in the classics, but it’s much less than Sky’s, both for financial reasons and the fact that one-day races are much harder to control. One or more teams having superiority is hardly new in cycling, or in any pro-sport. It is sustainable, even normal, up to a point. But if the dominance becomes too great, continues for too long, or is felt to be propped up by underhand means, it becomes an issue. I’d argue that Sky are really pushing the boundaries on all three of these.
Doping – In around 2006-2008 there was a well-documented, at least halfway decent attempt to actually combat the rampant doping in pro cycling. It was having some reasonable success. Then Lance returned, the financial disadvantages of catching cheats became unpalatable, and it all fell apart. There is still a positive legacy from this era – the ABP and other measures mean riders can no longer blood dope or use EPO with impunity, and many more drugs are detectable than was once the case. But the ability, culture and will to dope are still there, albeit at a reduced level. There are two problems with this, apart from the ethical dimensions. Firstly doping further advantages teams with more money, resources and access to the best products and expertise, thereby exacerbating the divide between the rich teams and the poor ones. Secondly since the rise of EPO and everything that’s come after, in the realm of GT racing it advantages bigger, taller riders over small ones, since in very simply terms it’s easier for a bigger rider to lose weight and increase their endurance whilst retaining their natural power, than it is for a smaller one to gain power and muscle whilst keeping their natural climbing prowess. This ties back in to boring racing – the rich teams increase their advantage and dominance, and the traditional balance between TT/power riders gaining on the flat/bumpy stages and TTs vs the little mountain goats making hay on the climbs is broken. We just get the bigger guys too often steam-rolling both, which is dull, plus the appearance of riders winning due more to their response to performance enhancement and the ‘right’ preparation, rather than their natural ability and effort, which appears ‘unsporting’ and artificial.
Omerta and anti-doping – on top of the above, after the relative level of knowledge, revelations and positives discovered in 2006-2012, doping has gone underground again, and the traditional omerta is basically still in full effect. Because of this, and the fact that most teams are still compromised by their own doping activities, the will or ability to call out and make a stand against the doping advantages seemingly obtained by Sky and others is almost wholly lacking. Teams lack the resources to fight Sky on the road, and the willpower and moral integrity to do so off it, although the financial imbalance angle as a way to address this is starting to gain some traction. As for anti-doping efforts, they do retain some level of public confidence – I think most would accept that they’re better than they were 20 years ago – but I don’t think any but the die-hards truly believe that they’re completely effective, or indeed that they’re meant to be. They’re a limiter, not a total barrier. Basically no-one of importance is caught, and when they are the sanctions are often trivial or non-existent. They’ve now copped a further whack and loss of confidence through the miserable Froome affair, which among other things has again, as in the USPS days, raised the spectre of one team being in some ways above the law, in cahoots with the governance of the sport, or able to buy their way out of trouble.
Fans and sponsors – fan attendances and TV viewer figures are clearly down. The decline is probably notable but not yet disastrous, but still it must be acknowledged that perceptions of dominance, predictability and continued doping are all having a negative impact on the fan-base. As for sponsors it’s pretty desperate times. Apart from Sky, four of the other big teams are propped up by countries with very questionable human rights and freedom records, and for the rest it’s a constant struggle. Even relatively big and successful entities like BMC and QuikStep are up against it. Due to the sport being so tainted, marginalised, dull and lacking in a diversity of winners, this is hardly surprising. Again, I’d say the sponsor issue is not quite critical, but it must be a concern, plus again it only exacerbates the dominance of the one really big team.
Women’s cycling – continues to be marginalised and too often given token event status. Things have improved slightly here, but there’s still a long ways to go.
Governance – in brief, the UCI is weak, lacks vision and clear long-term policy, and remains susceptible to accusations of corruption.
Artificiality – cycling like all pro sports is these days a construct, rather than a pure competition. It is not a true test of who is best, but rather who is best within particular parameters in an uneven playing field. To a large extent this is inevitable, and not always a bad thing, but it is noteworthy and ever-relevant in considering the state of the sport.
Historical baggage – self-explanatory I would say.
There are definitively still positive or strong areas in the sport too – the classics, while no doubt still influenced by doping, and too often by timid riding, still generally provide interesting, less predictable racing with more balanced, one-on-one competition between riders, despite the strength of QS in particular. There are still some ridiculous performances, but the perceived connection between pure individual talent and results is closer here than in the GTs. It appears to still be fairly well attended, but I have no idea what the TV figures are like. Sprints are much the same – no doubt still tainted and shaped by doping, but largely a pretty even, interesting and balanced contest. Sagan’s stranglehold on green is boring, but more acceptable given it is largely just due to his own freak ability (enhanced or not). The one-week races continue to more or less tick along ok. The sport continues to reach out from Europe with small gains in the Middle-East, Asia and the Americas, although these are probably not as great as they could be – the vast majority of the pro peloton is still European, Australian, American or Columbian. The World Champs are a still a showpiece event and the Giro and the Vuelta, while troubled, do not yet suffer to the same extent from the malaises afflicting the Tour.
Summary – so what do we have? IMO the sport is still viable and not in critical trouble. For now, there is still enough money, interest and infrastructure to keep the whole thing going around. The current problems are nowhere near terminal. But I do think they are significant and will mostly be hard to fix – we have a financial imbalance in a historical and cultural context of doping and omerta and an age of advanced sports/medical science which is costing more to access and obtain, legal or otherwise. So doping and science exacerbate the advantage and reduce the type of potentially successful riders, and the resulting dominance and dullness simply make it even harder for others to obtain money and compete. The culture and prevalence of doping, weak governance, and limited anti-doping efforts, mean that cheats are not caught and riders and teams lack the willingness or support to swim against the tide and speak out, or to be successful whilst staying clean. The sport loses interest because it is viewed as either a charade, a farce, predictable, dull or unfair. Meanwhile lack of vision restricts development and diversification, and the sport seems doomed to repeating problems from its past – questionable/odd GT winners, anti-doping mismanagement, teams with bogus PR, and a silencing of any dissent.
Do people more or less agree with this assessment, and if not then why and on what points? Either way, is there a way forward and a need or means to address these and any other current issues/problems with the sport? Interested to hear different thoughts – Lappy has floated a couple in the last couple of days.
One final important note – I really don’t want this to just become a Sky bashing thread. I dislike them about as much as anybody, and clearly think that they’re a key part of the sport’s current issues. But they’re certainly not the only factor, nor did they start a lot of the general problems, and I’d like this discussion to be more constructive and wide-ranging, not just a blame game. Thank-you.
I’d argue that this is either incredibly naïve or deliberately disingenuous, since it’s historically well established that the one finances the other. But I do think this is a good catalyst for a discussion on the current state of the sport. I’m putting this in the Clinic because I don’t think you can have a full, frank review of pro cycling without including doping/anti-doping.
I’d say that the main issues are as follows:
Money – more specifically a significant financially imbalance in the sport between Sky and the rest, but also between the other top pro teams and the lower ones. This gives Sky access to the best riders, the best science and the best gear, probably including illegal products. QuikStep also obviously have a financial advantage when it comes to the classics, but the extent of this is much smaller.
One-team dominance and ‘boring’ racing – as a result of their financial and resource advantage, Sky have a stranglehold on most GTs they take seriously, particularly the Tour, the jewel in the cycling calendar. Because of the depth of their squad, coupled with the exceptional endurance of their riders, they can ride high tempo and en masse, nullifying most attacks and making the racing often dull and predictable. We rarely get to see the top contenders just go head to head. On top of this their chosen rider/s almost always win. Again, QuikStep do have a clear and noteworthy edge in the classics, but it’s much less than Sky’s, both for financial reasons and the fact that one-day races are much harder to control. One or more teams having superiority is hardly new in cycling, or in any pro-sport. It is sustainable, even normal, up to a point. But if the dominance becomes too great, continues for too long, or is felt to be propped up by underhand means, it becomes an issue. I’d argue that Sky are really pushing the boundaries on all three of these.
Doping – In around 2006-2008 there was a well-documented, at least halfway decent attempt to actually combat the rampant doping in pro cycling. It was having some reasonable success. Then Lance returned, the financial disadvantages of catching cheats became unpalatable, and it all fell apart. There is still a positive legacy from this era – the ABP and other measures mean riders can no longer blood dope or use EPO with impunity, and many more drugs are detectable than was once the case. But the ability, culture and will to dope are still there, albeit at a reduced level. There are two problems with this, apart from the ethical dimensions. Firstly doping further advantages teams with more money, resources and access to the best products and expertise, thereby exacerbating the divide between the rich teams and the poor ones. Secondly since the rise of EPO and everything that’s come after, in the realm of GT racing it advantages bigger, taller riders over small ones, since in very simply terms it’s easier for a bigger rider to lose weight and increase their endurance whilst retaining their natural power, than it is for a smaller one to gain power and muscle whilst keeping their natural climbing prowess. This ties back in to boring racing – the rich teams increase their advantage and dominance, and the traditional balance between TT/power riders gaining on the flat/bumpy stages and TTs vs the little mountain goats making hay on the climbs is broken. We just get the bigger guys too often steam-rolling both, which is dull, plus the appearance of riders winning due more to their response to performance enhancement and the ‘right’ preparation, rather than their natural ability and effort, which appears ‘unsporting’ and artificial.
Omerta and anti-doping – on top of the above, after the relative level of knowledge, revelations and positives discovered in 2006-2012, doping has gone underground again, and the traditional omerta is basically still in full effect. Because of this, and the fact that most teams are still compromised by their own doping activities, the will or ability to call out and make a stand against the doping advantages seemingly obtained by Sky and others is almost wholly lacking. Teams lack the resources to fight Sky on the road, and the willpower and moral integrity to do so off it, although the financial imbalance angle as a way to address this is starting to gain some traction. As for anti-doping efforts, they do retain some level of public confidence – I think most would accept that they’re better than they were 20 years ago – but I don’t think any but the die-hards truly believe that they’re completely effective, or indeed that they’re meant to be. They’re a limiter, not a total barrier. Basically no-one of importance is caught, and when they are the sanctions are often trivial or non-existent. They’ve now copped a further whack and loss of confidence through the miserable Froome affair, which among other things has again, as in the USPS days, raised the spectre of one team being in some ways above the law, in cahoots with the governance of the sport, or able to buy their way out of trouble.
Fans and sponsors – fan attendances and TV viewer figures are clearly down. The decline is probably notable but not yet disastrous, but still it must be acknowledged that perceptions of dominance, predictability and continued doping are all having a negative impact on the fan-base. As for sponsors it’s pretty desperate times. Apart from Sky, four of the other big teams are propped up by countries with very questionable human rights and freedom records, and for the rest it’s a constant struggle. Even relatively big and successful entities like BMC and QuikStep are up against it. Due to the sport being so tainted, marginalised, dull and lacking in a diversity of winners, this is hardly surprising. Again, I’d say the sponsor issue is not quite critical, but it must be a concern, plus again it only exacerbates the dominance of the one really big team.
Women’s cycling – continues to be marginalised and too often given token event status. Things have improved slightly here, but there’s still a long ways to go.
Governance – in brief, the UCI is weak, lacks vision and clear long-term policy, and remains susceptible to accusations of corruption.
Artificiality – cycling like all pro sports is these days a construct, rather than a pure competition. It is not a true test of who is best, but rather who is best within particular parameters in an uneven playing field. To a large extent this is inevitable, and not always a bad thing, but it is noteworthy and ever-relevant in considering the state of the sport.
Historical baggage – self-explanatory I would say.
There are definitively still positive or strong areas in the sport too – the classics, while no doubt still influenced by doping, and too often by timid riding, still generally provide interesting, less predictable racing with more balanced, one-on-one competition between riders, despite the strength of QS in particular. There are still some ridiculous performances, but the perceived connection between pure individual talent and results is closer here than in the GTs. It appears to still be fairly well attended, but I have no idea what the TV figures are like. Sprints are much the same – no doubt still tainted and shaped by doping, but largely a pretty even, interesting and balanced contest. Sagan’s stranglehold on green is boring, but more acceptable given it is largely just due to his own freak ability (enhanced or not). The one-week races continue to more or less tick along ok. The sport continues to reach out from Europe with small gains in the Middle-East, Asia and the Americas, although these are probably not as great as they could be – the vast majority of the pro peloton is still European, Australian, American or Columbian. The World Champs are a still a showpiece event and the Giro and the Vuelta, while troubled, do not yet suffer to the same extent from the malaises afflicting the Tour.
Summary – so what do we have? IMO the sport is still viable and not in critical trouble. For now, there is still enough money, interest and infrastructure to keep the whole thing going around. The current problems are nowhere near terminal. But I do think they are significant and will mostly be hard to fix – we have a financial imbalance in a historical and cultural context of doping and omerta and an age of advanced sports/medical science which is costing more to access and obtain, legal or otherwise. So doping and science exacerbate the advantage and reduce the type of potentially successful riders, and the resulting dominance and dullness simply make it even harder for others to obtain money and compete. The culture and prevalence of doping, weak governance, and limited anti-doping efforts, mean that cheats are not caught and riders and teams lack the willingness or support to swim against the tide and speak out, or to be successful whilst staying clean. The sport loses interest because it is viewed as either a charade, a farce, predictable, dull or unfair. Meanwhile lack of vision restricts development and diversification, and the sport seems doomed to repeating problems from its past – questionable/odd GT winners, anti-doping mismanagement, teams with bogus PR, and a silencing of any dissent.
Do people more or less agree with this assessment, and if not then why and on what points? Either way, is there a way forward and a need or means to address these and any other current issues/problems with the sport? Interested to hear different thoughts – Lappy has floated a couple in the last couple of days.
One final important note – I really don’t want this to just become a Sky bashing thread. I dislike them about as much as anybody, and clearly think that they’re a key part of the sport’s current issues. But they’re certainly not the only factor, nor did they start a lot of the general problems, and I’d like this discussion to be more constructive and wide-ranging, not just a blame game. Thank-you.
Draft lottery doesn't mean G would be sold to somewhere down African conti team, team can and do play/trade their turns on lottery
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram