It has become increasingly obvious even to the casual observer like myself that the sport of cycling is in a bit of a mess.

The Lance Armstrong case is merely the tip of cycling’s doping iceberg- James Calvert

It’s not my favourite discipline and certainly not one I would sit down and watch for any prolonged period of time, except maybe during the Olympics.

But just because I am not a major fan doesn’t mean I find its current predicament any less disturbing.

The main focus of the turmoil surrounding cycling is the report by the US Anti-Doping Agency into seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.

Armstrong, until now arguably one of the greatest cyclists ever, was found guilty of taking banned substances by the agency, ending years of speculation that he had been dabbling in drugs.

But he wasn’t just found guilty of taking the odd pill here or there to boost his performance. No. In the words of USADA, he was involved in “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme the sport has ever seen”.

Testosterone, Erythropoietin and other banned substances were used to boost performances, and Armstrong even froze his own blood to avoid detection, USADA claimed.

As part of the investigation into Armstrong, a number of his former teammates admitted they had been using banned medications as well, many claiming Armstrong himself had coerced them into it.

As a result, the cyclist has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, and there is talk now that he will also be asked to refund prize money running into millions of dollars.

As falls from grace go, this must be one of the most dramatic in the history of sport as a whole, not just cycling.

However, to make the Armstrong case more controversial and drag the name of the sport through even deeper mud, there have been a number of top riders who have come out in the American’s defence. Senior riders who have said they believe Armstrong is entirely innocent and the whole thing is little more than a witch-hunt.

That argument carries at least a tiny bit of weight when you consider USADA’s judgement was based entirely on testimonies without any physical or tangible evidence. Armstrong never actually failed a drug test during his career despite taking hundreds of them.

The cyclist himself has always maintained his innocence, although he has refused to challenge USADA’s findings.

However, there is rarely smoke without fire, and ultimately it is hard to believe the agency would have come out with such an emphatic judgement if it was not 100 per cent convinced of his guilt.

Of course, if this had just been a one-off case then maybe you could write it off and move on. But the Armstrong case is merely the tip of cycling’s doping iceberg.

The staggering fact is that, since 1980, more than half the winners of the Tour de France have either tested positive for banned substances, been sanctioned for doping or simply admitted it.

Any serious sport would struggle to maintain its credibility on the back of that sort of statistic.

Normally at this point I would say something like “I am sure the vast majority of professional cyclists are honest sportsmen and women…” But in this particular case that’s not a claim I would feel comfortable making.

They probably are, of course, but can I, or anyone for that matter, be even reasonably certain?

The cloud hanging over the sport is so large it is casting its shadow over every single person involved in it.

When a sport’s image becomes as tarnished as cycling’s has, it is hard to see any way it can restore its reputation. Certainly over the short term.

Take the next Tour de France, for example, which just happens to be the 100th edition of this famous old race.

No matter who wins this gruelling cycling event, there will be elements of the watching public, possibly large elements, who will wonder if illegal substances have been involved.

These doubts might be totally unfounded. The winner could be the cleanest of clean athletes who has never taken so much as a headache tablet in his entire life.

But now that the extent of the sport’s doping problem is officially known, it will be all too easy for onlookers to consider everyone to have been tarred by the same brush.

It’s going to take many years, a lot of good PR and thousands of negative doping tests before cycling regains the respect it deserves.

Creepy crawley

Some human beings dazzle me with their stupidity.

I am referring to Aaron Crawley, the so-called football fan who ran on to the pitch and attacked Sheffield Wednesday goalkeeper Chris Kirkland last week.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that passions run high during games, especially when those games are derbies, and even more so when your team is losing.

But what exactly did Crawley gain from his 30 seconds of fame? Absolutely nothing. He got himself a four-month jail sentence, a criminal record and a lifetime ban from attending football matches.

For me it’s not the image of Crawley pushing Kirkland in the face that really sticks out, but the one of him rushing back to the stands afterwards with a huge smile on his face, pleased and proud of what he had done.

What a muppet.

You have to praise the police and the other authorities involved for acting so swiftly to catch Crawley and haul him up in court. But considering he chose to carry out his little attack during a game that was being broadcast live by Sky Sports, it was hardly a surprise he was caught.

What does concern me slightly is the length of his sentence. Is four months, of which he will probably serve half, enough of a deterrent to put off any other yobs who are thinking of attacking players?

I have my doubts.

Having said that, this type of incident is so rare I suppose you have to work on the basis that the vast, vast majority of fans would never even contemplate doing something so stupid.

And no matter how harsh the punishment, people with limited intelligence like Crawley are always in danger of letting their testosterone take over. No deterrent would be enough to stop that happening.

I only hope the next moron to follow Crawley’s example isn’t carrying a knife in his back pocket. Far-fetched and highly unlikely, I agree.

But not entirely impossible.

Top of the agenda

Rio Ferdinand and 29 other players refused to wear Kick It Out T-shirts last weekend to protest that the campaign was not doing enough to eradicate racism from the game.

At first I questioned the logic behind that decision. After all, it’s a bit silly to take out your frustrations on a campaign that is actually trying to do something about the problem.

But look at how much publicity not wearing the T-shirts has generated in the past seven days. Much, much more than if they had simply worn the garments and got on with it. They ensured the subject of racism in football remained at the top of the agenda.

So on that basis, what initially seemed like a negative move actually turned out to be a rather clever one.

Although, given that we are talking about footballers here, that’s probably more to do with happy coincidence than a cunning plan.

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com
Twitter: @maltablade