For many years, cycling was one of the most conservative sport disciplines. The bikes of the eighties looked more or less like the bikes of the seventies or sixties, just as the riders approached racing, training, eating and doping in quite conventional ways.

In the nineties, everything exploded. Bikes were made of new materials like aluminum and carbon and came in a wealth of new shapes. Wheels sometimes had as little as 4 (carbon) spokes. And the widespread use of EPO in the professional peloton changed what riders where capable of: Grand Tours were won or nearly won by riders who wouldn’t normally have had a chance to succeed, and the highest mountain stages were won by riders “with asses as big as helicopters”.

The use of EPO and similar doping products now seems more under control, just as the UCI has governed quite rigorously what a bike should look like. But one innovation from the nineties remains: The use of race radios.

It was the Motorola team which first brought the use of radios into the peloton. The successor to the Motorola Team, US Postal, used them as well and the use of race radios were an integral part of Lance Armstrong’s 7 Tour de France victories.

Lance Armstrong’s race tactic was all about control. Racing to cover his opponents, letting the insignificant breaks go clear and crushing the other GC contenders on targeted stages. Lance Armstrong would never go on an unplanned attack just because he felt he had good legs on the day. He would wait until the moment he got the “GO!” from Johan Bruyneel, and then he would go 100%.

With seven Tour de France victories one has to admit the tactic works, but it’s also one which often brings boring racing – because nothing happens until the moments chosen out in advance by the GC contenders and their directeurs sportifs.

And that’s basically where we are today. We’re looking at one stage after the other in the Tour de France in the hope of something happening, something which is not according to schedule, but it rarely does. There is the usual breakaway, but you know for sure that the sprinter teams will have it under control and real it in within the last kilometers.

In the mountains, we witness one stage after the other with the GC contenders watching each other – and waiting. In the Tour of 2011, this is how the stages in the Pyrenees were run.

Apart from boring races, what the race radios give us are boring riders. A rider like Thomas Voeckler doesn’t need someone in the team car telling when to attack; neither does Philippe Gilbert. But they are a minority. For each Gilbert, you have ten Andy Schleck. Talented riders, but riders who have never had to rely on their racing instinct. And are therefore unable to seize the opportunity when it presents itself.

Apart from GC contenders watching each other for most of a stage race, what race radios bring are sprint stages being controlled almost 100% by the sprinters’ teams. Last year, you were 99% sure that HTC-Highroad had the sprint stages under control, since they were constantly up to date with the gap to the breakaway and the ability of the riders in the break to share the workload. You still had the early breaks, but everybody – including the escapees – knew that it was just for TV exposure. The days where it sometimes pays off to take a chance in an early break on a flat stage are gone, and radios are a huge part of that.

A lot of people agree on these disadvantages of race radios. The organisers, the UCI, some of the riders and I guess most of the people watching cycling. However, the proponents of radios (especially the directeur sportifs, i.e. the ones behind the microphones) have one argument in favour of radios which has been hard to counter: The argument of rider safety.

The argument goes that it’s imperative to the riders’ safety that they can be warned in case of dangerous situations. If radios are banned, the argument goes, we will see more crashes and possibly fatal accidents. In fact, the ban on race radios has been compared to removing the brake cables.

But if we look at the argument about rider’s safety, it doesn’t hold up.

First of all: Riders crash. They always have and they always will; it’s a simple consequence of riding fast in a bunch constantly changing speed and direction. It has nothing to do with radios.

Secondly: It has been suggested that we see more crashes than we used to. But if so, this is a consequence of the rapidly expanding use of road furniture on public roads and possibly a change of mentality among the riders more than anything else. The days where a Bernard Hinault could dictate how the peloton should behave are gone. Ten or fifteen years ago, we would never have seen a move like the one Karpets made on Contador in the Tour de France 2011, sending him down and ruining the chances of a GC contender due to the following knee problems. The lack of leadership in the peloton leads to more aggressive riding and less respect mutual among the riders, meaning more crashes.

Third, if the safety of the riders were the main concern, it could easily be solved by communication between the race organisers and the capitaine de route of each team. Remember, the race organisers see the potentially dangerous parts of the road before the riders, not after like the directeur sportifs in the caravan behind the peloton. The directeur sportifs only become aware of a new danger when someone has already crashed. An example of this was stage 2 to Spa in the Tour de France 2010, which saw numerous riders crashing on a slippery descent. An early warning would have given them the opportunity to lower the tempo, but they were only told about the danger after dozens of riders had crashed.

Third, one could turn the argument around: That race radios lead to more crashes, not less. This is because all riders are told by their Directeur Sportifs to go to the front before potentially dangerous parts of the course, where you don’t want to be stuck in the back of the peloton if there’s a crash. If you have your boss shouting in your ear to get to the front that’s what you do…except that if the whole peloton tries to be at the front at the same time, there will be a lot of pushing and fighting for position. It has often been the case that the crashes occur before the potentially dangerous sectors.

In fact, some teams (especially Italian, to my knowledge) are rumoured to use the dangerous parts of the road as points of attack, especially in the mountains. Among these teams are Liquigas, who should have used this tactic intensely in the Giro d’Italia. Going hard before a dangerous sector gives you an advantage, even more so if some of the opponents get stuck in or behind a crash.

As we all remember, the only death during a race in cycling in a decade was Wouter Weylandt crashing downhill in the Giro, trying to bridge to a faster group after being stuck in the back of the peloton, though it should be emphasized that there has not been made any connection between his death and Liquigas or any other team for that matter.

To sum up, the use of race radios give us boring races and boring riders. And they don’t really prevent crashes. It would be a huge benefit to cycling if they were banned.

…but since the race radios have become part of the power struggle between the UCI and the teams, nothing much is probably going to happen in the Pro Tour races. This year should have been the first without radios, but they’re still here and no ban is in sight.

Tour de France was just weeks away, and the main rival to the Shleck Brothers, Alberto Contador, had just finished one of the hardest editions of Giro d’Italia in decades.

Everything looked promising, and little did he know that his position within Leopard Trek would be gone within months. At the end of 2011, the best Kim Andersen can hope for is to be selected as one of the assistant directeur sportifs for Tour de France 2012. In fact, after the announcement of the merger between Team RadioShack and Leopard Trek, many had expected Kim Andersen to be ousted of the team the way it happened to Brian Nygaard, the general manager of the team.

The rise and fall of Kim Andersen on Leopard Trek is just the latest development of a man, who has seen more sides of professional cycling than most.

The rider

Kim Andersen started his professional early. He was riding on smaller teams, where he became friends with a rider called Erny Kirchen. In fact such good friends that Erny Kirchen decided that his son should be named after him.

The year after Kim Andersen won La Fléche Wallone, a few stages in other races and his native Tour of Denmark. The year after that, 1985, he was again wearing the yellow jersey, this time for three days.

At the age of 24, Kim Andersen already had more wins and yellow jerseys than many riders achieve throughout their career. He was riding for La Vie Claire, the hugely successful and innovative team in the middle of the eighties, and everything looked positive. In perhaps the most talented generation of Danish cyclists (which also included Rolf Sørensen, Bjarne Riis and Søren Lilholt), he was arguably the one who had achieved the best results.

The cheat

There were moments where there seemed to be no limits to what could be achieved. 1986 was a good, but not outstanding year for Kim Andersen, only winning Paris-Camenbert and a stage in the Tour of Ireland. For sure, his talent meant that he could achieve bigger victories, and 1987 was supposed to bring him back to his winning ways.

Kim Andersen always maintained that he had not taken any illegal substances. Instead, the positive doping tests (many of them for a hormonal product) would be the consequence of him having an unnaturally high testosterone level, an explanation which was widely believed in the public back then.

But in 1987, a failed test at the Tour du Limousin, the third official failed doping test, meant that he was given a lifetime ban from cycling. In a matter of months, he had gone from being the most promising Danish rider to being ousted from cycling for life.

But then again: Things were different in cycling back then. The lifetime ban was changed to a one-year ban, and Kim Andersen was back in action with the Z team from 1988 season. In 1990, he was back to winning, although the wins were fewer and came in smaller races. 1991 was to prove more of the same: A couple of wins in smaller races; far from the high-profile wins of his early careers.

In 1992 came the final blow to Kim Andersen’s career as a rider: At the Amstel Gold Race, he was tested positive for amineptine. Kim Andersen received another doping ban, from which he would never return as a rider. Apart from the doping ban, he was approaching his mid thirties and had no major wins to his name in the previous seasons.

It would be easy to criticize Kim Andersen for his doping offenses. Apart from those giving him suspension, he delivered at least three positive tests thoughout his career. And besides, he never admitted his guilt over any of them; citing instead mistakes in the results or the fact that the substance for which he was caught had just been put on the list of banned substances.

However, rather than criticizing him one could see him of an all too typical example of how cycling dealt with doping. Kim Andersen was a rider of the old school, never the one to shy away from a hard day’s work; often in the service of others. Taking banned substances to get you through or to give you a faster recovery was widely accepted, and if you got caught neither you, nor you team nor the federations saw any interest in making it too public.

It was exactly this doping culture which created the untenable and unsustainable situation in the nineties, when a new and far more effective substance was introduced: EPO. But everything seems to indicate that Kim Andersen went out of cycling just as EPO made its arrival in the peloton.

With his career over, and with his status as a popular figure shattered with the latest doping sentence, Kim Andersen found himself in a vacuum. Cycling was what he knew how to do, and unlike other riders with similar results he could or would not capitalize on his good name.

Directeur sportif

The story could end here. If so, Kim Andersen would have gone on with his life in relative anonymity, the same way other riders like Søren Lilholt and Jørgen V. Pedersen have done. But in the late nineties, Danish cycling was starting to change. After decades of good riders earning their living on foreign teams, a handful of Danish professional teams were emerging.

One of them was Team Chicky World, sponsored by the largest Danish poultry producer. Team Chicky World was one of the smaller Danish professional teams being founded, and Kim Andersen was a good fit as Directeur Sportif. The team had moderate success, but due to the media focusing on the doping problems in cycling, the sponsor decided to withdraw after the 1999 season.

Along with a number of riders, among them later CSC/Saxo Bank rider Nicki Sørensen, Kim Andersen moved to Team Fakta for the 2000 season. With every year, Team Fakta became stronger: From 2001 Kurt Asle Arvesen and Scott Sunderland was on the team, from 2002 Magnus Bäckstedt was also riding for Team Fakta.

Backstädt would go on to win Paris-Roubaix in 2004. Unfortunately for Team Fakta and Kim Andersen, the win came too late: Danish supermarket chain Fakta decided to stop the sponsorship after the 2003 season.

Kim Andersen moved to Team CSC, where he would be directing a lot of the ex-Team Fakta riders. Plus some unknown riders with the surname Schleck, who Kim Andersen knew from Luxembourg.

6 months: The zenith of the career, and the fall from the skies

Kim Andersen was an integral part of the success of Team CSC/Saxo Bank. The riders trusted him, and it was no coincidence that Fabian Cancellara preferred to have Kim Andersen in the car when he was winning his multiple time-trial world championships.

Among the assistant directeur sportifs, Kim Andersen was naturally the first and most important. But that was exactly the problem: As team owner, Bjarne Riis would always be the one with the final say, always the one in team car 1 in the important races. No matter his qualities and rapport with the riders, Kim Andersen would forever be number two.

So Kim Andersen didn’t need much consideration before he accepted the offer from Leopard Trek. Being the undisputed directeur sportif on one of the most ambitious teams was his chance to prove his qualities; possibly with victories in the Spring classics as well as a Tour de France victory for one of the Schleck brothers.

As we all know, things went off track in the Spring classics. Fabian Cancellara was strong, but didn’t have the tactics to shake off the other favourites when it mattered. In Liege-Bastogne-Liege, the Scheck brothers were two against one with Gilbert in the final. But he outsmarted them an took an easy victory.

Things didn’t get better in the Tour de France, where the Schleck brothers failed to use the first week in the mountains. So when the winner was to be chosen in the Alps, they were up against a Cadel Evans ready to fight.

The rest is history: Team owner of Leopard Trek Flavio Becca lost patience with the team, Brian Nygaard and Kim Andersen before the 2011 season had ended. Brian Nygaard has been ousted, and many expected the same to happen for Kim Andersen. But it didn’t happen.

Throughout his career, as a rider and as a directeur sportif, Kim Andersen has shown the ability to pedal on, head down, teeth gritted. He has been considered history several times before, but has always fought his way back.  

Kim Andersen is still here, and I don’t think we have seen the last of him.

Stunning looks of Campagnolo EPS. But what difference will it make to you as a rider?

As has been reported widely, for the 2012 season electric shifting is going to be possible also for Campagnolo-equipped riders with the Campagnolo Record EPS and Campagnolo Super Record EPS groups.

All reports I’ve read are very positive. It seems Campagnolo is bringing a system to market which is on par with Shimano Dura Ace Di2, and in some ways exceeds it. For instance, Campagnolo EPS has the possibility of multiple upshifts (to smaller cogs on the cassette), just as Campagnolo has a better shifting response in the levers when shifting: You can hear and feel the gear shift, just like as on a cable-actuated shifting system.

With Campagnolo entering the world of electric shifting, only SRAM is without an electric system. But what are actually the pros and cons of electric versus cable-actuated shifting?

The advantages of electric shifting

Besides the engineering marvel and the admiring looks from your club mates, what are the real benefits?

The benefit most often mentioned is faster shifting. Campagnolo claims that the shifting time goes from around 0,5 second with a cable-actuated system to 0,3 second with electric shifting. Granted, this is an improvement. But personally, I find the current shifting time more than adequate – the extra shifting time means nothing in practice, in my opinion.

Another benefit of electric shifting is that you can shift under load. Even if cable-actuated systems have evolved tremendously over the last 10 years, you still can’t change gears without problems if you push the pedals hard. For instance, if you find yourself stuck in the wrong gear during a hard effort uphill (a hard acceleration on a steep climb, for instance), you have to change gear with caution. This is especially the case with the front derailleur, which has difficulties changing from the small to the big ring under heavy load. In comparison, an electric system can change even under very high loads.

This is definitely a benefit. But notice, that electric shifting can’t help you if you make a stupid gear change when the system is under load. In other words, electric shifting wouldn’t have helped Andy Schleck when he dropped his chain in the Tour de France 2010: What Andy Schleck did was to upshift (to smaller cogs) too fast for the rear derailleur to suck up the extra chain; because he was pedalling hard at the same time this meant that the chain got stuck. Something neither electric nor any other changing system would have avoided.

A third benefit is the fact that the shifting system won’t go out of adjustment. On a cable-actuated system, the metal wires used will inevitably stretch a little over time, meaning a slightly misadjusted gear system. An electric system, on the other hand, communicates via electric wires. In principle, it will never go out of adjustment once it has been adjusted – unless you attach another wheel which a slightly offset position of the cassette, of course. Personally, I find this an improvement, although a small one: A slight turn on the derailleur screw solves the problem with a misadjusted derailleur. No big deal if you ask me.

A fourth benefit is the fact that the system shifts perfectly every time. On a cable-actuated system, you have perfect shifts almost all the time. But if you’ve been racing you’ve tried mis-shifts. It happens.

Especially when your pulse is way over your threshold and you’re tired, you can have a bad shift if you press the button a tiny bit too little. It’s not a disaster when it happens, but it sets you back when you don’t need it; just at the time where you are grasping to hold the wheel of the rider in front of you or to create the gap to form a breakaway. Electric shifting, on the other hand, takes care of the shifting – you press the button, the system shifts. In normal circumstances this is not a big advantage, but when it matters most it can be.

A fifth benefit of electric shifting is that you can have more than one shifting button. Sprinters are already having a secondary shifting button when they’re in the hoods, and a lot of riders are having secondary shifters on their time-trial (TT) bikes.

Cancellara's TT bike, with gear shifts integrated in the brake levers. Nice.

Especially the latter is an advantage: On a TT bike, you have the gear levers at the very end of the aero extensions, meaning you can shift gears while you’re in the aero tuck. All very nice. But if you have to climb a steep hill you’re out of the aero position and a long, long way from the gear levers. Which means there’s a great possibility you’ll want to change gears while climbing without being able to, since the gear lever is half a meter from where your hand is grasping the handlebar. With electric shifting, you can have a secondary shifting button next to the brake lever and thus be able to change gears both in and outside the aero position.

However, so far Campagnolo has  not announced this feature of its EPS system, thus Shimano Di2 users are the only ones to benefit from this advantage of electric shifting.

The disadvantages of electric shifting

So electric shifting definitely has advantages. But what are the disadvantages?

The biggest disadvantage is cost. Campagnolo has stated that Record EPS will be priced close to Shimano Dura Ace Di2, whereas Super Record will be “more”. In current street prices, Dura Ace Di2 is 600-700 Euro more expensive than the same Dura Ace group with cable-actuated shifting. I also expect Campagnolo EPS to be around 700 Euro more than the “normal” Campagnolo Record, which is already 1400-1600 Euro.

Besides the initial cost, you have to factor in the cost of replacing parts in case of a crash. In current street prices, a Dura Ace Di2 rear derailleur (one of the parts of a bike most exposed in a crash) is 500 Euro or more, excluding the installation. Another part exposed in a crash is the brake/gear levers. Again, a set of Dura Ace Di2 levers is 500 Euro or more. So if you’re unlucky in a crash, bending the derailleur and a lever, it could set you back 1.000 Euro plus installation costs just for the gear parts.

As a rider, you take pride in your bike and you keep it in perfect condition, but you should never be afraid to ride it – and ride it hard. But if you use an electric system there’s a good chance you’ll be just a little more careful with it because of the cost of replacing parts.

A second disadvantage is weight. An electric system will usually be 100-200 grams heavier than the same group in its non-electric version. For the weight weenies, this is a huge disadvantage, but for me it’s the least important disadvantage. Carbon bicycles in the price range where electric shifting will be considered are already close to or under the UCI weight limit of 6,8 kilos, and so one or two hundred grams won’t make a difference. And besides, the extra weight is in places where it doesn’t matter too much on the bike; like the rear derailleur or the battery which is often placed low on the bike. None of the extra weight is placed where it really matters, i.e. where it would be rotational weight (wheels, crankarms and pedals).

A third disadvantage with electris systems is that they’re more difficult to set up and maintain along the way. For me, this is a huge disadvantage: One of the beautiful things about a bike is that you can take care of it yourself if you want to. Sure, it takes a little learning, but soon you’re doing the maintenance yourself.

You don’t want to spend days without riding because your LBS (Local Bike Shop) is busy. And besides: It comes with being a road racer that you can do basic maintenance of your bike. With electric shifting, you can’t do this to the same degree, and it takes some of the close, sometimes intimate, relationship you have with your bike away.

A fourth disadvantage is that electric shifting takes you one step further away from the careless riding that has always been at the core of cycling. It’s no coincidence that Jean Bobet’s book about him and his brother, Louison Bobet, is called “Tomorrow, we ride”. Whatever happened, the two brothers set out for their daily training ride. Just as Laurent Fignon’s wonderful autobiography is called “We were young and carefree”.

You go out on your bike – alone or with some riding buddies – and you’re lost from the world. You don’t need to worry about anything; your legs pushing the pedals and the tires quietly rolling over the tarmac is everything that matters in the world. I admit this is a romantic, emotional argument more than anything else (you can ride thousands of kilometres between charges). But whatever separates you from the pure joy of riding is something to beware of, in my opinion, no matter if it’s an emotional or purely rational argument.

The future is electric

With Campagnolo entering the market with Record EPS and Super Record EPS, and with Shimano bringing electric shifting to the mid-range group Ultegra (Ultegra Di2), we’re bound to see a lot more bikes with electric shifting on the road in the years to come.

There’s no point in arguing against progress, and on TT bikes I see a definite advantage. If you’ve ever been stuck in the wrong gear on a hard climb on a TT bike, you would have wished for a secondary shifting button as well.

But for most riders on racing bikes, electric shifting is just a slightly improved shifting method which should come with a warning sign on the packaging: “Don’t let me take away the pure joy of riding and racing your bike”.

Campagnolo had a fully working electric shifting system ready as early as 2005, when Shimano were still testing very early (chunky!) prototypes. Most people extected a launch of Campagnolo Electric back then, possibly for the 2006 season.

However, it didn’t happen. Campagnolo claims the launch of electric shifting was cancelled when a system failed after a high-speed transport on the roof of a team car in bad weather.

But is this really so ?After spending numerous engineering hours, was the launch stopped by something that could have been fixed with an extra O-ring for water protection? Hard to belive, no?

In my epinion, the launch of electric shifting was stopped because Campagnolo didn’t have the necessary resources to market a whole new way of changing gears. The cost would be enourmous and the potential earnings hard to estimate: After Mavic’s unsuccessful attempts (Mektronic and Zap), there was widespread scepticism against electric shifting.

As it was, Shimano went ahead and created the market for electric shifting. To a point where we will even have an Ultegra (mid-range) version of electric shifting in 2012.

For 2013, Shimano intends to go 11-speed, like Campagnolo did in 2009. It was time for Campagnolo to saddle up.

Now only SRAM is left behind with what seems like an adequated shifting system: 10-speed manual. Leapfrogged!

Bjarne Riis in the Systeme U-days. Mixed emotions?

This was the case when he was a professional rider in the eighties. In fact, he was out of contract by the end of 1988, and only secured a contract for 1989 thanks to a certain Laurent Fignon who needed a solid and hardworking domistique. Four years later, in 1993, he finished fifth in the Tour de France, in 1995 he finished third and in 1996 he won the Tour de France. As we have later learned from Riis’ own admissions, the victories were the result of doping, including EPO.

When Bjarne Riis took over ownership of a small Danish bicycle team in Fall 2000, he declared that he wanted to create the best cycling team in the world. Indeed an ambitious task; the team had only participated in their first Tour de France and was yet to win a significant race. Bjarne Riis wanted to bring a new approach into cycling, until then a very conservative sport. New professional riders were taught how to train, race and eat in the same way as decades before, and Bjarne Riis wanted the team to succeed by trying new things.

Team focus

A key factor should be team emphasis. Of course rider had different abilities, but all riders would have the opportunity to ride their chance, with the GC contenders acting as domistiques in the first races of the season.

And as long it was someone from the team, it didn’t matter who won a race. Something that Tyler Hamilton had a hard time accepting, coming from US Postal’s regime of riding for one rider. Bjarne Riis’ insistence on team focus was a big part of the reason why Hamilton changed to Phonak for the 2004 season.

To strengthen the team spirit, former elite soldier B.S. Christiansen was hired to facitilitate teambuilding, for instance through military team camps in the off-season.

Fabian Cancellara winning Paris-Roubaix 2006

The team focus was reflected in the UCI team rankings, where the team (under various names) placed:

• First (best team) in 2005
• First in 2006
• First in 2007
• Third in 2008
• Fourth in 2008
• First in 2010

Finding sponsors

From 2001 to 2008, the team had CSC as main sponsor. From 2008 the sponsorship was shared with Saxo Bank (CSC–Saxo Bank); from 2009 Saxo Bank was the only title sponsor.

The contract with Saxo Bank was set to expire at the end of 2010. The bank had an option to extend it for a year but declared that it didn’t want to use this option. Therefore, Bjarne Riis had to find one – preferably two – main sponsors for the 2011 season. Deadlines came and went, and since Bjarne Riis could not guarantee the riders a contract for 2011 Matti Breschel (having won bronze at the Worlds in 2008 and later winning silver at the Worlds in Geelong 2010) signed with Rabobank for 2011.

On top of Breschels departure came the massive departure of riders to the newly formed Team Leopard-Trek. Among them were the Schleck brothers, Fabian Cancellara, Jens Voigt, Stuart O’Grady and DS Kim Andersen.

In August 2010 Saxo Bank decided to extend the contract for 2011. In the meantime Bjarne Riis had secured Sungard and another sponsor as title sponsors. The other sponsor withdrew, and the identity has never been revealed just as it has never been revealed why a sponsor would accept a cancellation of a binding contract just a few weeks after signing.

For 2012 Bjarne Riis has announced that Saxo Bank-Sungard will have only Saxo Bank as title sponsor.

However, as Saxo Bank only wants to do one-year extensions of the contract. And it should be noted that Saxo Bank is not a patient sponsor; the trading bank is known to fire a fixed percentage of the employees every year. This was so even under the boom years and a reflection of the philosophy of the bank that only the best performers should be employed.

So if Team Saxo Bank (the cycling team) doesn’t perform in the first half of the 2012 season, Bjarne Riis would be wise to look intensely for a new name sponsor for 2013.

From team focus to single rider focus

To the sponsor woes should be added the fundamental change Team Saxo Bank has been through in recent years.

For the 2011 season, the team had a void after losing so many riders to  Team Leopard-Trek. Instead, Alberto Contador was recruited to win the Tour de France, with an ambition of winning all Grand Tours in one year.

Contador started out well, winning Giro d’Italia but failed to win Tour de France, and didn’t participate in the Vuelta a Espana. When Contador didn’t succeed in the Tour de France, the team had few other cards to play. As a consequence, Team Saxo Bank was only ninth in the final UCI team rankings.

With Contador, the team has changed fundamentally. Gone is the team focus and everything that set the team apart from the rest of the teams. Team Saxo Bank is now a team like so many other teams, heavily relying on the team leader. In fact, Team Saxo Bank is arguably more conservative than teams like Team Sky or BMC in the way it approaches the major races.

The roster for 2012

For the Classics, the team now relies mainly on Nick Nuyens and Karsten Kroon. Nuyens is a talented and hard-working rider, winning Ronde van Vlaanderen in 2011.

Karsten Kroon joins Team Saxobank after two years on BMC. Kroon was riding for the teak for four years (2006-2009) and is a talented rider who often finishes in the top ten and finished second in Amstel Gold Race. But Kroon has never won a major race; his main wins have been in the semi-classic Rund um den Henninger Turm. Kroon needs the career-defining victory in one of the Classics and hopes to get it  under the auspices of Bjarne Riis.

Even with Kroon on the team, the team is far below the Classics squad in 2006-2010, where it won Paris-Roubaix (three times), Amstel Gold Race, Ronde van Vlaanderen, Liège–Bastogne–Liège, and a lot of other races. Which means that Team Saxo Bank can’t rely on the Classics to save the season.

Except for Kroon, Team Saxobank has not brought in any high-profile riders for 2012. With Richie Porte, Baden Cooke, Gustav Erik Larsson and Laurent Didier leaving the team after the 2011, on paper the team is weaker than in 2011.

Notably, Team Saxobank has not brought in a new capitaine de route (the rider who is the prolonged arm of the DS during races). As I wrote before, I think the lack of a good capitaine de route was obvious during the Tour de France 2011, where Contador was much too exposed on the flat stages. In my opinion, the crash provoked by Karpets which gave Contador problems with the knee for the rest of the Tour would not have happened with a capitaine de route like O’Grady on the team, and with teammates like Cancellara and Voigt.

The joker: What will happen with Contador?

To this comes of course the unresolved situation of Alberto Contador. The Clenbuterol-case from 2010 won’t be resolved until 2012, and the outcome will be decide not only who is the proper Tour de France 2010 winner but will also decide the fate of Team Saxobank in 2012. Without Contador, it’s hard to see who will deliver the results.

In fact, if Contador is suspended there’s a possibillity that Team Saxobank will be relegated to Pro Continental status, since the team has earned relatively few points by other riders than Contador

The team should prepare for a bumpy ride

Saxo Bank has stated that the sponsorship is not dependent on Contador, as they are sponsoring the team and the vision of team owner Bjarne Riis. But if Contador is given a suspension in January, I wouldn’t expect Saxo Bank being a sponsor for 2013.

For the 2012 season, the team has a new car sponsor. Instead of the usual Skodas, the team is going to drive BMW’s. Which is good, because the team is set for a bumpy ride.

The French cycling federation (FFC) decided that Longo is no longer on the list of top-ranked cyclists who have to make their whereabouts constantly available. Therefore, her three missed tests over an 18-month period was no violation of anti-doping rules.

Jeannie Longo: Free to ride

Longo is now free to pursue her goal of one last Olympic appearance – a peculiar goal given the verdict that she is not among top ranked cyclists anymore.

In my opinion, ruling that a rider who would have ridden the Worlds was it not for her doping case, and who is aiming for the Olympics next year, is not on the list of top-ranked cyclists does not make sense. To me, it looks like the French doping autorithies turned the blind eye to the missed doping tests by the most successful French rider.

The clearance of Longo only reinforces the point from my previous post regarding the case against Rasmussen: The inability of the doping authorities to handle even the simplest cases, where warning + warning + warning = suspension. The rules are perfectly clear.

Doping is the most serious threat to cycling and the most important barrierer to attracting sponsors to professional cycling. The fact that doping authorities can’t handle simple cases makes me highly sceptical that they can handle the advances cases, including blood doping and microdosing.

Cycling still has a long, long way to go.

Doping is the most important threat to cycling and has been a top priority for UCI for years. However, there are several indications that UCI and the national doping authorities are not up to the task. The latest example was the decision in the case against Alex Rasmussen last week.

Alex Rasmussen had three violations of the whereabouts-rules, neglecting to send and (especially) update his whereabouts. He has not been tested positive; in fact one of the violations was on the same day he was tested as part of the Six Day race in Berlin.

However, when the whereabouts-rules were decided they were made very explicit: Each whereabouts-violation gives a warning. Three warnings within 18 months leads to a suspension

Alex Ramussen had admitted his violations and in fact had stated that a suspension would be fair. He was hoping for a shortened sentence, maybe 10 or 12 months, but had also declared that he would not appeal the verdict no matter the outcome.

As it was, Alex Rasmussen did  not get suspended at all, since the doping authorities had taken too long to tell him about the third whereabouts-violation.

Alex Rasmussen is a sympathetic guy. Disorganized and not always making the wisest of choices, but few people – including me – suspect him of doping. But if the whereabouts-system should have any merit, it has to be followed by the riders. If not, they have to be sanctioned.

What if it wasn’t the sympathetic Alex Rasmussen but a questionable Russian rider who had three whereabouts-violations?

Riders wanting to go under the radar while they are “preparing” for races will take notice as well.

Telling authorities where you are each day of the year would be a burden for everyone. And for a professional rider who by definition travels around the world, often by an unpredictable schedule, it’s a real PITA. But since the whereabouts-system is necessary in the fight against doping, it’s an accepted part of earning your living on two wheels.

The verdict in Alex Rasmussen’s case will make a precedence, for sure, and already has in the case of Jeannie Longo who is also charged with three whereabouts-violation.

If the doping authorities cannot handle the simplest of cases, it is bad news for the complicated cases.

If authorities can’t handle a case as clear-cut as warning + warning + warning = suspension, how are they going to handle cases
involving blood doping or microdosing,  where the burden of proof is much, much more complicated than the simple fact that a rider was not where he said he would be?

The UCI still has the option of appealing the case, but I don’t expect them to. And regardless, the case is just one of several cases casting doubt on the ability of cycling to clean itself in public.

Cycling still has a long way to go.

Rasmussen believes a suspension of 6 or 10 months would be appropriate. He doesn’t think he should have the full suspension of up to two years since he has not been caught doping.

Rasmussen’s statement comes after fellow Danish riders Jakob Fuglsang (ex-teammate on Saxobank-Sunguard) and Rasmus Quaade (silver medalist in the U/23 time trial in the recent Worlds) have been quoted to saying that whole whereabouts-system would be meaningless if Alex Rasmussen is not suspended.

Rasmussen was put on temporary suspension after failing to provide adequate whereabouts three times (February and October 2010, April 2011).

In principle, three failed whereabouts constitute a doping offense. However, few if any expect Rasmussen to have taken any illegal substances. Rather most people, including Rasmussen’s DS at HTC-Highroad Brian Holm, see Rasmussens failed whereabouts as a result of negligence and immaturity.

In an interesting twist to the story, The Inner Ring has pointed out that the UCI has failed to live up to procedure, since Rasmussen was only told about the latest missed doping test in August 2011, four months after the missed test. According the procedure, the rider has to be notified at the latest one month after missing the test.

With his current team HTC-Highroad closing, Alex Rasmussen had secured a reportedly well-paid contract with Garmin-Cervelo for 2012. The status of this contract is unknown and will probably depend on the outcome of the case against Rasmussen, due for November 17.

Campagnolo Record EPS, on the market for 2012

As mentioned on Velonews, Campagnolo is coming out with two elctric groups for 2012: Record EPS and Super Record EPS.

EPS stands for Electronic Power Shift: Shifting gears via electric signals instead of wires, as has been the case for centuries and is still used on 99% of all bikes.

It’s not surprising that Campagnolo is coming out with Electronic shifting. The company was lightyears ahead of Shimano, as Campagnolo had a fully working setup back in 2005 and Shimano was just trying out prototypes.

Campagnolo electric shifter, 2005

However, Campagnolo chose not to push the idea forward while Shimano committed themselves fully to the idea, launching Dura Ace Di2 in 2009.

Officially, the reason why Campagnolo chose not to go forward with Di2 was that they chose to focus on the transition from 10 to 11 cogs on the cassette instead. Allegedly, doing both – having an 11-speed electric system – would not be possible. However, I’ve always found this explanation dubious, since it’s the front derailleur which is the biggest engineering obstacle to overcome to make an electric shifting system. The rear derailleur, and thus the 11 versus 10 sprockets, is much easier to make electric.

My suspicion is that that Campagnolo decided it didn’t have the financial or commercial muscles needed to create the market for electric shifting. And so it relied on Shimano to convince consumers that electric shifting was just as reliable but much more precise than the old wire-based shifting.

With Shimano coming out with Ultegra Di2 for 2012, bringing electric shifting into the more affordable Ultegra group, Campagnolo must have decided it was time to enter the market. Campagnolo Record EPS will cost approximately the same as Dura Ace Di2, which means a significant premium over the “normal” Dura Ace and Record groups. In Europe, the retail price difference is around 300 Euro; in nominal prices the price difference is more. No price for Super Record EPS has been communicated, but everything points to a hefty price tag.

Campagnolo’s electric shifting series should be lighter than Shimano Di2, plus it should have the possibillity of multiple gear shifts – something Shimano doesn’t have, much to the ridicule of diehard Campagnolo fans.

And indeed, Shimano has now convinced consumers that electric shifting is just as reliable. You can’t just saddle up and go; you have to make sure that the battery is charged – but that should be a minor thing.

However, what a lot of riders are still not sure is what electric shifting actually does for you. What’s the problem to which Di2 is the solution?

Prototype for Shimano electric shifting in 2005. Compared to the Campagnolo prototype, Shimano was far behind. But nevertheless, Shimano came to market 3 years before.

If the riders I meet are any indication, electric shifting has mainly caught on with triathletes. First of all because triathletes often have more expensive equipment than road racers; witness the triathletes you meet on Zipp 808′s on a normal Sunday training ride. Secondly because triathletes actually have an advantage with electric shifting, as you can have more than one shifting button. For instance, you can have a “satellite” shifting button next to the brake levers on your TT-handlebar, enabling you to shift gears going uphill.

But in the overall picture, electric shifting is still for an absolute minority. And with Campagnolo having a small market share compared to Shimano and SRAM, the number of people buying Record EPS and Super Record EPS will surely be limited.

Lennard Zinn is  test riding the system in Sicily this week, and the coming weeks and month will bring a lot of reviews and opinions. Electric shifting is here, whether we think we need it or not.

I’m planning a later post on the development of the bicycle. Stay tuned!