Cycling hates and needs doping at the same time. Lance Armstrong: did he or didn't he? Floyd Landis: pathological liar and a doper. Alberto Contador: suspicious. Ricardo Ricco: idiot.
Cycling is a weird sport. A bunch of dudes shave their legs, dress in skin tight spandex, and ride around in groups called a peloton (which is French for "platoon"). Weird.
We wake up at 4:30am in July to watch these guys ride around roads in France live on Versus (an obscure TV network that has 3 popular sports of weirdness: cycling, rodeo, and hockey). Weird.
There aren't a ton of us. We congregate at coffee shops (in our spandex), and we voyeuristically admire each other's bikes, helmets, shoes. Weird.
I know lots of people in and around the world of professional cycling and cycling media. Inevitably conversations with my cycling friends come around to doping in the sport. It's like a flame and all of us are moths. We can't help ourselves. Maybe it's a secret desire to know if that testosterone patch/gel really works? Can I win my local cyclocross cat-4 race by rubbing just a little gel on my belly?
The punchline is this: there aren't a ton of us and the cycling media and professional cycling community desperately need attention. They need people (consumers) to be interested. Their business models are driven by marketing dollars (sponsorships, advertising, TV rights, etc.). The smallish universe of cyclists isn't enough to feed the need of the marketers/sponsors. They need more audience and the cycling business community knows this. Doping scandals are the controversy that generates interest. Winning does too of course and Lance has likely made more of an impact on cycling-related consumption than any other single person/event/entity than any other in history – and the scary thing is that there may never be another Lance. Did he dope? Who the fuck cares? He was freekin' awesome to watch win those 7 tours!
Recent Comments