Stage 17 - Milwaukee

After yesterday's long ride I was hoping to take it a bit easier today. The plan was to split the ride. 25 miles in the morning and 30 in the evening.

But then Barry called. By the time we met out on the road he had a plan; ride to Milwaukee and back. So much for splitting the distance between two rides.

We headed east into Cedarburg and to the shore of Lake Michigan. Then south through the North Shore communities and into Milwaukee. On the way back it began raining and we ducked into Fiddleheads (a pretentious coffeeshop in Thiensville) for some water and a hot cup of Oregon Chai.

Fifteen minutes later is was still raining and since we both needed to get to work, off we went. The rain got heavier as we rode and by the time we split up in Freistadt neither of us could see very well through our glasses. Which is too bad because Freistadt is the home of Wisconsin's oldest Lutheran Church and we couldn't get a good look at it.

I haven't said much about the real Tour de France because frankly, it's been boring. Lance has such control over the peloton that the final outcome was never really in doubt. And as we know, if the outcome is certain, there is no adventure.

Once upon a time there was another Armstrong, who undertook the grandest of adventures. The 20th of July, today, is the 26th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's famous step onto the surface of the moon. Here is what Neil Armstrong said about exercise, "I believe that the good Lord gave us a finite number of heartbeats and I'll be damned if I'm going to use up mine running up and down a street".

Think about that the next time you ride.

OK, it's time for me to weigh in on the issue of drug use in cycling.

I struggle with this because I'd like to believe that doping isn't a problem in the peloton but almost everyday a Tour cyclist is found, "medically unfit to start" a days stage. This means one thing, and one thing only; the rider failed a drug test. Even the term 'medically unfit to start' seems to be an attempt by the Tour organizers to give drug use a very low profile.

The Tour de France is big business. Cycling worldwide is big business. Lots of money is made and if it were publically known that most cyclists doped, a wrench would get tossed into the big money machine. So almost everyone associated with cycling (riders, teams, sponsors, organizers, manufacturers) have a vested interest in keeping this an under-publicized problem.

The question is; are the interested parties working diligently to detect doping and stop it, or are they working hard to cover-up dope usage?

Here is a very short list of well known riders who have failed drug tests; Marco Pantani (1998 Tour winner), Jan Ullrich (1997 Tour winner), Tyler Hamilton (2004 Olympic Gold Medalist), Richard Virenque (7-time Polka Dot Jersy winner). The list of lesser-known professional cyclists who have failed drug tests would overload this blog.

If all of these guys needed dope to get them to top form, how is it that they all somehow maintained top form after, presumably, getting off the juice? Plus, all of these guys denyed it prior to the test failures. Just like riders are denying it today.

EPO is the drug of choice and it's essentially a synthetic way of blood doping (removing and storing your own, or someone else's blood and then re-injecting it near race time to increase the oxygen carrying capacity of your blood).

Research has shown that EPO can increase speed and endurance, two things much needed in cycling.

The differences in top athletes is so small that you can see how one might be tempted to reach for the syringe in an effort to win (and claim fame and fortune). And that's what troubles me. We know that some athletes take it because they've failed a test. And we know some athletes have prior test failures but still perform at the top. We also know that there are methods to use to try to "beat" the testing system. Click HERE for one example.

If you were a top rider all of this could only mean one thing; should I take the juice to gain or maintain an advantage? I expect that it would be difficult to answer 'No'.

And then there is this article regarding Lance Armstrong's financial donation to the organization that tests Tour cyclists. Sounds great that Lance wants to support drug testing but how can the testers be impartial to Lance? He paid their salaries. He paid for their equipment. A clear conflict of interest.

Lance apparently "quietly" donated a "fair amount of money" some years ago. His position for not announcing the donation is, "(It's) not my modus operandi to advertise what I do". Really?

Could you imagine the much publicized firestorm if Barry Bonds had donated money to a similar organization in baseball? But in Lance's case how many of you actually knew about the story? Additionally, if you Google this issue most of the headlines you'll see are similar to "Armstrong Aids in Anti-doping Effort". Do you think those would be the headlines if Barry Bonds had done the same? Not a chance.

What does all of this mean? I don't know.

All I know is that I rode 56 miles today, I've got four days left and I've never taken drugs, really.