Why do other sports fans and the media have a general indifference to performance enhancing drug stories?

Earlier this week a story broke about several big name baseball stars whose names appeared on the client list of an anti-ageing clinic as recipients of performance enhancing drugs. It included Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees, and the Blue Jays own Melky Cabrera.

That is the same Melky Cabrera, I might add, who tested positive for testosterone just last season as a member of the San Francisco Giants and who served a fifty game suspension, before this winter signing on with the Jays as a result of his inflated stats by the way of drug use. I said at the time what a bad idea it was to touch this guy, but the Jays went for it anyway and to their delight the media have given it little attention from a drug related angle.

This weeks story has the potential to be huge news, though there's also a chance it could fall off the sports pages pretty quickly. What I mean by that is that it's hard to tell how it will go over because this isn't cycling, it isn't the cycling media reporting it, and it's not cycling fans demanding the truth.

It may sound strange, but for me the credibility of cycling is intact because it ISN'T being protected like other sports

I read this today regarding the trail of Spanish doping doctor Dr Eufemiano Fuentes and it says it all really about where we are at with cycling continuing to be held to a higher standard:

The trial is due to last several months and it will pore over one of the most widespread doping programmes in the history of sport. Or, at least, it will pore over one element of that doping programme. The cycling element. There were supposedly 200 names on the Fuentes client list and there were footballers and tennis players among them. Some players from some of Spain’s biggest clubs, it has been said. And yet they have been given a pardon by the Spanish government. Despite Fuentes having freely admitted that he treated footballers and tennis players as well as cyclists, it is only the bike riders – just over 50 of them – who will come under scrutiny.

By Tom English, Scotsman.com, Sunday, January 27, 2012

It's an absolute joke that the Spanish government can let these other sports away with it, but make no mistake, that in regards to football it is because of the names involved and the scale of the fallout if they were to be made public. The money that could be lost and the scandal that would come out. The Spanish Government don't need that when their football teams, both club and country -- are riding high. Heck, Uefa and Fifa could do without another scandal when they've already got racism issues a plenty and internal corruption to keep them in the news for the wrong reasons.

Wiggins certainly isn't the next Armstrong

In all this talk of 'is Wiggins really clean' with some out there pinning him up as their replacement for Lance Armstrong, what with the idea of having to simply enjoy bike racing again now that Armstrong has fallen seemingly far too much to handle, I decided to have a look into the whole thing and see if it had any basis.

People are rattling on about Wiggins's sudden emergence as a contender in the past few years and comparing it to how Armstrong came from nowhere as a Tour de France rider pre-cancer to being a seven time winner afterwards. There is a distinct difference however.

Wiggins was a 4km pursuit specialist on the track. Yes, he had an enormous engine and an even bigger talent for any aspect of the bike but until he applied himself to the road he was only ever going to be so good at it. Say what you will about cyclists being good across multiple platforms, it rarely exists. Wiggins struggled at the Tour in his early days but the track was still his number one target then. It was only once he left that behind and focued on the longer distance endurance races, that he began to emerge into what we see today. Armstrong on the other hand was always a road racer.

Proof that cycling is held to a higher standard

"Fuentes said it himself, 30 per cent of his clients were cyclists. Where’s the other 70 per cent?"

-- Pat McQuaid, UCI President, 2009

I've been defending cycling a lot lately.

That might seem surprising given what has been in the news, that I have a leg left to stand on, but I feel I have little choice as a cycling fan when the wider media use cycling public problems with drugs as a stick to beat it with. And that's also only the case if you believe that cycling is unique to the drug problem just because it is the one in the public spotlight. It's not.

In The Telegraph this past Monday there was a story about how the Operation Puerto investigation from way back in 2006 into the workings of Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes was finally going to trial with the good doctor charged with public health offences and that "despite Fuentes himself admitting to working with professional footballers and tennis players as well as cyclists, the Spanish authorities have ruled that the case will only cover his involvement in cycling."

Fuentes has admitted working with football teams in Spain’s first and second divisions as well as tennis and handball players. Spanish police are believed to have unearthed evidence in his vast database revealing names of Fuentes’s clients but these have never been made public.

-- Nick Holt, The Telegraph, January 21, 2013

I find it a disgrace that these other sports are getting off the hook. Operation Puerto is only investigating Fuentes for his doping procedures relating to cyclists, but no other sport because the Spanish authorities do not want the house of cards falling in on their nations football and tennis achievements. The authorities would rather not rock those financially rewarding apple carts.

Looking at the forecast, perhaps I should have gone out on Saturday

I woke up on Saturday morning with good intentions of going for a ride, but when I went to my window and see the flag across the street that I use for my marker as to the direction and strength of the wind pointing straight out eastwards and straining against the pole, threatening to tare away and fly free, I decided against it. It was only two degrees outside and I felt too uninspired.

A wimp you might say, thought I think in mid-January you're allowed to be a wimp sometimes. I went out for a walk to pick up a paper and go have a hot cup of tea in Starbucks only to feel that wind against my face as I was walking and be glad that I wasn't cycling into it. It may have been two degrees and climbing but the wind chill made it feel quite a bit colder.

Perhaps I should have bundled up though because I looked at the week long forecast yesterday and was disappointed at what I seen. Alright, so I shouldn't be surprised, if anything it was surprising that the temperatures came above freezing at this time of year, but I was hoping that perhaps the long-range forecast for next weekend might allow me to make amends.

My winter training and weight loss program 2013

When my cycling season ended last year I had all these good ambitions about taking just one month off then resuming a healthy diet and exercising enough to keep myself ticking over ahead of the new year when I would only need to top up my fitness to where it ought to be before pushing on. But what is it they say about the best laid plans of mice and men?

It never happened. I visited the gym a few times in mid-November, got out on the bike once or twice and I got a few spins in when I was back in Northern Ireland over Christmas, but more often than not I didn't do much and ate plenty. I guess you have to indulge sometimes, but better to indulge when you're still training than when you're sitting in front of the television.

Anyway, I came out of last years cycling season weighing about 198 pounds. I had gone as low as 192 in mid-July, but never maintained that. This year, I aim to go further in an attempt to enjoy the mountain bike season even more so I don't suffer quite as much as I might otherwise if I spent the winter doing what I'd prefer to be spending the winter doing: Nothing.

Well, they always say the sequel is never as good as the original...

Anyway, that's parts I and II in the books ... anyone reckon we'll complete the trilogy before the year is out?

If it was tears you were looking for, you almost got it. If it was a sappy ending you wanted, the only thing missing was the orchestra playing.

Tonight it was all about family, friends, the sponsors and the charity, with Lance even creating sympathy from Oprah when he explained that the day his sponsors walked away it cost him seventy-five million dollars ... as though this was the moment we should swing from anger to pity. To heck with the money Lance cost the likes of Greg LeMond by shafting his bike companies deal with Trek ... poor Lance lost $75-million folks.

After last night it apparent that day two would focus on the personal side of things. This was Oprah's playground and try as Lance might at times to delve into the subjects we wanted to hear, Oprah was determined to steer him down the line of public sympathy. At one point Lance addressed the question as to whether he owed David Walsh an apology after mentioning a host of others that he felt he had to reach out to. He said he did and appeared to be continuing with his answer before Oprah cut him off with another question.

It's clear that these kind of interviews are not Oprah's speciality. She was sticking to a script and was terrified to let it run off course and into a dark area from which she had no idea about, nor how to get it back on track. It was actually Lance who seemed more like the one who wanted to delve deeper into the subjects he was being questioned on, but it was Oprah who kept dragging him away and onto the next topic.

Greg LeMond isn't happy; Pat McQuiaid sounds relieved; Jens Voigt believes Armstrong has had it "hard enough"; and Novak Djokovic sticks his head above the parapet to condemn the sport without considering his own

Reaction from the public trial of Lance Armstrong

There has been no time wasted in reaction pouring in from around the sporting world at the confession -- or part thereof -- by Lance Armstrong to his use of performance enhancing drugs. For the most part those in the cycling community remain unconvinced, believing that there is much more still to come and that Lance's words yesterday were carefully choose with an eye to potential upcoming legal trials.

"I am surprised that he didn't give any names. Is he is holding them back for prosecutors or will he go further in the second half of the interview?" asked Christophe Bassons -- the man who Lance helped drive out of the sport for daring to question the use of drugs by many at the 1999 Tour, and whom I hope Lance will address tonight -- in an interview with RMC in France.

"To carry out blood transfusions, to access EPO, you need advisers, suppliers and perhaps ever protectors," said Pierre Bordry, the former president of the French Anti-Doping Agency, also to RMC. "I think that we need to know all of that. The anti-doping agencies need to be clearly informed. He needs to go a little bit further."

EXCLUSIVE: Lance Armstrong admits to taking drugs; I admit to watching Oprah

STAGE ONE: LANCE v OPRAH: Advantage Lance ... he didn't cry once!!

Well, there you have it. Like a trained assassin -- It was my job, and I was good at it -- Lance Armstrong clinically and with little emotion admitted that he took performance enhancing drugs for each of his seven Tour de France victories to the shock of nobody. What was shocking was to sit there and see him utter the words, stepping away at long last from his lifetime of lies that he had never taken drugs.

It was a limited admission, some will say very disappointing, but after a lifetime of lying, to expect the man to become the bastion of truth overnight would be laughable. You could tell throughout that he was thinking about what how his lawyers had told him to approch it with an eye to implicating himself in serious lawsuits in the future. He looked nervous at times. My wife felt that the way he talked made him sound like a criminal or a psychopath. I felt it made him sound like a politician. With this weight now off his back, I suspect we haven't quite heard the end of his admissions.

But what of stage one tonight?

Well, Oprah handled it better than I feared she might and she wasted no time in getting to the part we all wanted to hear. Straight up she asked him if he took banned substances? I half expected the feed to cut to black right at that moment, but it didn't, and after a brief hesitation Armstrong said "Yes." He said yes to using EPO, blood doping, testosterone, cortisone, human growth hormone and some or all of those banned substances for all seven of his victories.

So who will win tonight's Lance v Oprah race? And will it become an annual two-day Tour?

Note that amidst early information on the Cycling News website about the 2013 Vuelta a Espana and Tour de France, and the opening race of the WorldTour -- the Santos Tour Down Under -- appeared the newest race on cycling's calendar: Lance Armtrong Oprah Interview. It's a two person race over two days with the first stage going tonight live on Oprah's website.

One has to think Lance Armstrong will be heavy favourite given his experience of racing bikes by comparison to Oprah, but don't rule out the old day-time woman's-chat TV host. If Lance Armstrong is today admitting that he has used performance enhancing drugs throughout his career there is a chance that he'll actually compete clean tonight thus rendering him beatable.

It's sure to be captivating.

It's not about the drugs

Remember something when you sit down in front of your television tonight with your can of beer and hot dog, ready to count the number of tears running down the cheeks of Lance Armstrong when he tells noted cycling journalist, Oprah Winfrey, that he took drugs: This isn't about the drugs.

Sounds strange you might think, for the words most people are most giddy about hearing is Lance saying, "I used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France," but let's face it, if all Armstrong did was take drugs, we wouldn't even be here.

All you have to do is look through the annals of cycling history to see that. Drugs in some form or another have always played a part. It's only in the last twenty years that things have gone to a new and dangerous level in which the advantage gained by the drug really did finish anyone who wasn't willing to join in. And there have been plenty who took part in those days and who have been found out who are walking around without the same scrutiny as Armstrong.

EXCLUSIVE: THE REAL REASON LANCE ARMSTRONG ADMITTED TO TAKING DRUGS: If Lance Armstrong is a pathological liar, then admitting he took drugs means that he actually rode clean!

It's a revelation that will shock the cycling world to its very core: Lance Armstrong was actually clean. By showing up on the set of Oprah to tell the world that after years of denying he did it, that he actually did do it, Lance Armstrong has done nothing more than to force everyone to shift their belief in him.

You see, nobody believes anything Armstrong says anymore. He could tell you that the world was round and you would suddenly tread carefully with the fear that you might stumble off the edge and into the abyss at any minute, such is the man's credibility right now.

To hear Armstrong utter the worlds, "I took performance enhancing drugs," during his interview tomorrow night will be confirmation than he actually has, in fact, NOT taken drugs.

Armstrong admits to taking drugs ... but how much has he told?

When Lance cries on Oprah later this week and she passes him the tissue, spare a thought for all those genuine people who walked away with no rewards - just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a thousand Lances.

-- Nicole Cooke

According to reports the interview with Oprah has already taken place and all those reports suggest that Lance Armstrong has admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs. I knew one day I would write those words, but I never thought it would be so soon. Armstrong's world has turned upside down these past six months in the most dramatic of fashions. The book deal, even a Hollywood movie, and perhaps a stint in prison must surely be all that remains to follow.

To what depths Armstrong has confessed is the real question here. Has he bared his sole or has he told the obvious stuff and then tried to hide away from the rest? Apparently the interview went for several hours so it has to have gone deep into his career of drug use. The big question will be whether he has gone as far as to implicate the UCI in any of it by way of covering up the fact he did use drugs throughout his career. You get the feeling that Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen won't be sleeping so easily over the next couple of nights.

Indeed, Armstrong has the opportunity to help the sport in a big way by telling the absolute truth. What he knows may be damning but it needs to be heard if the sport is to truly move forward. Armstrong could do a lot for improving the sport and for acting as a deterant for young cyclists in the future.

Lance to tell the truth, most of the truth, and almost nothing but the truth

If you'd told me six months ago that I'd be sitting in January 2013 getting ready to hear Lance Armstrong admit that he took performance enhancing drugs I'd have thought you were on some form of recreational drugs, but the cycling world was very different back then and so much has changed from a drug related angle in the past half a year.

A USADA investigation found Lance Armstrong guilty of a slew of doping offences and their decision to strip him of his seven titles and ban him from the sport for life was ratified by the UCI. Tyler Hamilton wrote a tell-all book, a number of former team-mates of Armstrong came out and told their stories of doping, David Walsh -- the journalist who has been on the hunt for Lance for nigh on fifteen years -- wrote his own book 'Seven Deadly Sins', and Lance Armstrong became the dirty name of professional cycling.

Lance was really only left with two choices. Accept his fate but continue to stick to his guns and go quietly into the night, gradually slipping out of the public consciousness, or come roaring back with an admission that will keep him in the spotlight and perhaps open some avenue for him to still make a bit of money. He has this week choose the second option.

Happy New Year and back to the grind

It's the final day of festive season indulgence before I drag myself back into the real world and back to work for another year. With it will come a return to good hard training in the gym so I'm somewhat prepared for the new cycling season in several months time. Yes, I want to be able to enjoy it somewhat, so tomorrow ends the festive fun and starts my new year. Most peoples new year resolutions began last Tuesday ... mine begins tomorrow.

I wasn't totally inactive over the festive break, and thank goodness for that. I got out on the bike three times over Christmas when I was back in Northern Ireland, twice on the road, once on the mountain bike. I had gone over with grand plans of getting out most days and doing some decent miles, but I completely neglected to consider that great barometer of cycling possibility in Northern Ireland: The weather.

For the first several days and for the majority of my time there, it rained. I hadn't been back in a year and five months but how naive of me to forget that rain would play a huge factor on me getting much cycling done over there. Sure, you say, I could have gone out anyway, but I like to enjoy my cycling and when I was out on the car on my first Saturday back and seen two unfortunate soles ploughing their way down a country road into the face of driving rain and through puddles so deep that the road would be considered flooded, I remembered why I don't like to go out if it's raining before I leave.

The second annual cycling awards and year in review show of 2012

It was the year of the Queens diamond jubilee, that Facebook went public, of Euro 2012, the London Olympics, a jump from the edge of space, Hurricane Sandy, and more mass shootings in the USA. But it was also the year of Boonen dominating the spring classics, Wiggins dominating every stage race he entered, and, of course, the rise of Peter Sagan and the downfall of one Lance Armstrong.

What follows is a review of the year in cycling with stories that were making the headlines at the time and a song that was topping the charts. Then it's the The Cycle Seen awards for the year ... from the Cycle Seens cyclist of the year to the innagural Lance Armstrong award for biggest downfall of the year, it's all here.