Can We Believe This Guy?

by Rant on July 16, 2013 · 13 comments

in Tour de France

Time to catch up, now that the first two weeks of the 2013 edition of the Tour de France are complete. Tipped as one of the favorites to win the whole kit-n-caboodle, Chris Froome with the help of his Sky teammates, appears to have a vice grip on the general classification of the race. And he’s turned in some very impressive-looking performances along the way.

The most recent amazing performance was his victory on the stage to Mont Ventoux, leaving all of his most dangerous competitors in the dust, and more than regaining the time he lost a few days before when crosswinds wreaked havoc upon the peloton. Froome was clearly pleased with Sunday’s result, as James Dao of The New York Times reports:

“To win the way so many big names have won on this climb is really special to me,” Froome said, calling the stage victory the biggest of his career.

But, with any incredible performance — especially in cycling — comes questions. Is what we’re seeing real (that is, not powered by doping), or is it a fraud? As always, it’s hard to tell. Some observers have noted that these kinds of performances seem more like the days of rampant EPO use, with a rider who didn’t amount to much four or five years ago now crushing the competition. The similarities to a certain Texan are somewhat eerie.

Again from James Dao of The New York Times:

Some cycling watchdogs speculated online that Froome’s stunning final acceleration suggested he might have used performance-enhancing drugs. Froome, of Team Sky, has rejected such suggestions before and did so again Sunday.

Told after the race that some people were comparing him to Lance Armstrong, the American rider whose seven Tour titles were stripped from him last year after he admitted to doping, an unperturbed Froome smiled and said, “I’m only going to take that as a compliment.”

Well, that’s certainly a different way to look at comparisons to Lance. Other than proclaiming his innocence, how can Chris Froome and his team prove that they’re doing it cleanly? Publish their power numbers from the races, so they can be compared to years past? (Interestingly, Froome had been doing that, but stopped about 18 months ago.) Publish the results of their anti-doping tests? Keep screaming to high heaven, “I’m clean!”?

Beats me.

Many’s the fan who takes the attitude “once bitten, twice shy.” Fool me once and all. Two very good takes on the Froome saga come from writers well versed in the pro scene. Jason Gay at the Wall Street Journal, writing from Mellow Johnny’s in Austin, Texas (you read that right, Armstrong’s bike show) points out:

The Tour de France is full of ghosts now, many of its former icons vaporized among the doping accused and doping confessed, and complicated emotions linger. The sport is stuck between optimism (it’s getting cleaner) and dread (something will happen) and it is hard to watch without a wave of anxiety about the whole experience, as no final result ever truly feels final.

Indeed. With the possibility that samples can be tested as much as eight years later, it’s hard to say exactly when the results of the Tour, or any other bike race, will truly be final. I’m personally of the point of view that sports should be watched as entertainment. Are the performances “real”? Maybe, but I can’t prove it. There’s a part of me that also wonders why I should care whether the athletes are doped to the gills or not. (Ironic, given that I’ve written a book on the history of doping, no?)

The riders who perform at the pro level are way beyond my ability, even back when I was in top condition. Doped or not, they’re performing incredible feats. I’d prefer it if they did so clean, but that’s just my opinion. They’re being paid to produce results. Best as I can tell, the sponsors don’t really give a rat’s ass what a pro athlete does to get those results, so long as it doesn’t reflect negatively on their brand. These days, that means at least paying lip service to racing clean, if not actually doing so. But if society’s attitude towards doping changes, so will the sponsors.

Neal Browne, over at RoadCycling.com, offers this:

Don’t let the doping ghosts of past generations ruin it for you. But don’t put on those rose-tinted glasses either. That’s the delicate dance we must do when we see amazing performances. I don’t expect (or want) you to be investigative journalists and scream DOPER at every stage winner.

Just remember why you loved cycling in the first place and let your gut lead you from there. Does this result bear further scrutiny or is it a legitimate result?

Some of this year’s stages will require a bit of soul-searching by the die-hard fan. Is Froome as clean as he claims? Again, I don’t know, but personally I’m not at that point where I’m willing to lump him with the dopers of the past. However, I will continue to question results (as should you) as I have and we have all been burned before.

One final observation from Paul Kimmage, writing on the Independent.ie web site:

What if Froome has started winning because the sport is clean? What if he has just delivered one of the truly great performances? What will it take for us to make that leap of faith again? When will it be safe to embrace some wonder again? And who would we rather see win? A polite, mild-mannered Kenyan trying to sell us a dream? Or a Spanish cheat (take your pick) managed by a Danish cheat (Bjarne Riis) who has screwed us royally before?

What’s happening to this sport? What are we looking at here?

Stay tuned.

It’s certainly possible that this year’s Tour is no less dope-infested than previous editions, and it’s certainly possible that it may be years before we know the final official standings. In the meantime, if you’re a fan of professional cycling, sit back and enjoy the entertainment. Is it “real”? As Jason Gay sums up his story:

Toward the back of the store, Armstrong’s yellow jerseys hang on the wall, seven in total, reminders of history that doesn’t exist. It’s awkward. But awkward is where the Tour de France now lives.

Parting Shot

Every Tour, I have this morbid sense of wonder, “When is the doping scandal going to hit?” Almost without fail, some sort of big doping story happens during the three weeks in July when cyclists take to the roads of France to contest the grandest of the Grand Tours. So far, cycling seems to be escaping unscathed. But we still have a week to go, more or less.

In the meantime, the world of track and field seems only too happy to oblige. Over the past couple of days, stories have surfaced about several Jamaican runners testing positive for banned substances. And American Tyson Gay admitted that he, too, has tested positive. In the latest twist, the agent for two Jamaican runners claims it’s the trainer’s fault. Let the buck passing and finger pointing begin.

Update: And, of course, the trainer denies being the source of the banned substances.

BuzzyB July 17, 2013 at 10:18 am

Sigh…. I gave up watching the Tour.

All available time goes to running and riding in the 100 F heat index weather. Find and crush all hills. Got pounds to drop.

William Schart July 17, 2013 at 12:29 pm

The question of whether or not sports should be looked at as merely entertainment or whether it is and should be something more is interesting. Certainly there is a factor of entertainment to any sport that put itself out as a spectator sport, from high school sports on up to the top level of the pros.

Then there are things like professional rassling. Everybody knows it is fake, but plenty of people watch it. And we all can be entertained watching the climactic boxing scenes in a Rockie movie, even knowing it is staged and what the outcome will be.

But part of the attraction for me with sports is that it is real and we don’t know for sure what the outcome will be. Well, we have a pretty good idea what will happen when Powerhouse State play Podunk State in an early season non-conference game, but stranges things happen now and then.

I am not sure how doping figures into this, nor am I totally sure how even the perfectly legal technological improvements to bicycles figures in. When I started riding in the early 1960s, the top pros bikes weren’t really much different from my bike. I could compare my performance to that of the pros and top amateurs, knowing that for all practical purposes, that my shortcomings were my lack of ability and not my lack of financial resources to buy the latest unobtanium frame set. Can’t do that now.

And what about history? Should we recognize records that are due, in part at least, to better equipment, or to better chemistry? When Merckx set his hour record, he had a pretty light track bike but it otherwise was not that much different from any “normal” track bike. Now we have all sorts of aero wheels and helmets, etc.

We have discussed the idea of “open” cycling where, drug wise, anything goes. There are a number of problems with this idea, not the least of which is the fact that most PEDs are controlled substances and their use outside of recognized medical practice can be illegal.

So what is the answer? I wish I knew.

Rant July 17, 2013 at 1:21 pm

BuzzyB,

I can understand why you’d be no longer watching the Tour. Good luck crushing all those hills and dropping those pounds. I’m out there, too. At least on the weekends…

William,

Good points. The sport has really changed over the years. Pro-level equipment is costly and, for people without unlimited means, often quite out of reach.

Even as an event or entertainment goes, it’s still worth watching. Unless we’ve got the cycling equivalent of the Black Sox situation, it’s never entirely certain who’s going to win the race. Though, for this year’s Tour the chances that it won’t be Chris Froome are getting slimmer and slimmer. The stage on Thursday may be pivotal. With two ascents of l’Alpe d’Huez, it’s going to be a very tough stage. If Froome isn’t the latest incarnation of Superman, there’s a possibility he could crack.

Of course, that same possibility applies to every other rider. But if Froome cracked and lost time like Landis did at the same point in the Tour, it would pretty much be the end of his podium hopes. If he survives tomorrow unscathed, I can’t see how Froome wouldn’t be on the top step in Paris on Sunday. Stranger things have happened. We’ll see how it develops.

By the way, thanks for that link to the ESPN story. I saw that after putting this post together. Maybe I’ll update it in a bit and add it in to the mix, too.

Liggett junkie July 17, 2013 at 3:52 pm

It’s interesting that when national newspapers make a point of covering cycling, they often do a better job than the magazines. The WSJ, for one. For another —

http://www.theonion.com/articles/tour-de-france-enters-stage-where-officials-begin,33150/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrongs-bike-it-was-me,28549/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/antidoping-agency-has-a-bunch-of-old-tour-de-franc,27331/

Larry@IIATMS July 17, 2013 at 11:29 pm

Rant, it’s a little too late to ask if we should care if the TdF leader is doping. I think that particular train has left the station.

Froome is (so far) laying waste to the field. He’s winning time trials that he says he’s not trying to win. He’s kicking the tar out of his competition on the mountains. You can read the lengthy and careful analysis on The Science of Sport web site, but Froome’s performance is at least suspicious.

But it’s not possible to determine if someone is doping based solely on performance, or whether we think that someone’s performance has spiked mid-career. Froome could be revealed as a doper tomorrow, or in 10 years, or 30. He might be doping and we might not ever know about it. For certain, he cannot prove he’s racing clean — no one can.

We have to leave it at that. There’s no point in our crying over this. This is not about us, our willingness to believe or what have you. This is about them. This is the scorched earth that’s left after the cycling powers that be have done what they’ve done. They have patiently taught us that what seems unbelievable to us is, in fact, unbelievable … and that the extraordinary, the exceptional, even the very fast, is unbelievable as well. They’ve also taught us that no victory is final, notwithstanding statutes of limitation or pledges of confidentiality.

Cycling has made this brave new world, and they’re welcome to it.

William Schart July 18, 2013 at 6:51 am

It’s not just cycling. We currently have three runners who have tests positive and the ongoing Biogenesis case in baseball. That’s just the cases that have made the headlines here in the US.

One thing about sports like cycling and running: if there was a pill I could take and be as strong as Froome or as fast as Tyson Gay, I could compete with them. But if there was a pill that made me as strong as Barry Bonds, I could just jump into MLB, even as DH. I need a set of skills which I don’t have and which there is no pill or injection for. And in a team sport, while it certainly doesn’t hurt to be stronger or have more endurance, there is still plenty of room for someone with a mere mortal physique who still has a good set of the requisite skills.

William Schart July 18, 2013 at 10:21 am

Well, I went for a ride this morning, got back and did a few chores, took my shower and then saw the Tour was still going, so I actually watched the lat few kilometers. Did Froome show signs of being a mere mortal or was this some calculated tactic, either to conserve strength and/or to deflect some of the questIons about doping? He did pick up some time over his closest competitors, so letting some of the lower down riders battle it out for glory just might be a smart tactic. Get through the next two, final mountain stages OK, and he should be able to keep the yellow all the way to Paris.

Liggett junkie July 18, 2013 at 12:35 pm

That’s it, I’m not voting for either of them. This is from the NOT-so-megalomaniac candidate —

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/petition-plans-for-womens-tour-de-france-unrealistic-says-cookson

William Schart July 21, 2013 at 8:21 am

Well, I’ve been thinking over the question Rant raises in the title to this post and come to a conclusion, based in part on some philosophical think and part based on a matter of practicality.

The philosophical part first: here in America, we hold that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Froome has not been proven to have doped; and until he is, I will assume his innocence. And while some may disagree, as is their right, I do not believe that his level of performance, remarkable as it may be, does not constitute proof. It certainly may raise suspicion, and I would not think it out of place to subject him to additional scrutiny. But that is a different matter.

Now the practical matter. It is virtually for Froome, or WADA, UCI, ASO or whoever to prove Froome did not dope. If I were to assume that Froome, or any cyclist, is a doper, there is no way to change that assumption. Seems kind of unfair to dump someone into a category that they cannot get out of, if that categorization is wrong.

Now this all may not work for you, and if so, fine.

Rant July 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm

William,

Well said. On a related note, with all that’s happened in the last day or two (Ryan Braun, the release of some of the names of riders who tested positive in 1998, and a donor suing LiveStrong), it looks like I’ll be putting a new post together in the very near future.

William Schart July 24, 2013 at 6:46 am

I, of course, heard about Braun, but I’ve missed the other two items you mention. Looking forward to your next post.

William Schart July 25, 2013 at 6:37 am

Here’s an interesting opinion piece on whether Ryan Braun should be stripped of his MVP award. I don’t necessarily agree with the opinion, but it does open up some thought.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9505769/2011-nl-mvp-award-belongs-ryan-braun

Rant July 25, 2013 at 2:53 pm

William,

Interesting perspective, that.

Previous post:

Next post: