Tour de France logo

VALENCIA, Aug 2 (CP) - Cyclingpost.com's Michael Holden takes a look back at the good, the bad and the ugly that was the 94th Tour de France.

The 2007 Tour de France has given us the works – some great racing, drama, rising stars and controversy. We really did witness the best and the worse of professional cycling in the three weeks. So when reviewing this year's race, it would be remiss not to include the drama that occurred off the bike as well as on.

Therefore in part one of our two part Tour review, we look at the biggest issue confronting the sport’s future – drugs.

So how will the 94th Tour de France best be remembered? Will the passing of time be kind to it? In twenty years time will we look back on this Tour and see it as an exciting, close battle, or as the race where a favorite failed a doping control test and the yellow jersey wearer was kicked out? Could we even look back on 2007 as the pivotal moment where cycling finally starts to clean itself up?

Despite the French media posting an obituary for the Tour and the suspicion that surrounds Alberto Contador and his alleged involvement with Operación Puerto, there is much to be optimistic about.

Of course, drug controversies are nothing new to the Tour. Right throughout its long history, the race has been tainted by it – take for instance the 1967, 1977, 1988 and 2006 editions.

But comparing the 'Festina Affair' of 1998 with this year's race highlights a noticeable change in rider attitude which can give us hope. Both races saw riders protesting – but for different reasons. Following the expulsion of the Festina team, riders remonstrated with Tour organizers feeling that the government led police raids were a violation of their human rights.

But this year's protest by several teams following Alexandre Vinokourov's non-negative blood test highlighted that the riders too are getting sick and tired of this issue. And isn't it the riders who can make the biggest difference?

Cofidis' Bradley Wiggins made a valid point during his press conference back in Manchester after he and his team were kicked out of the race. Despite being visibly angry with teammate Cristian Moreni's positive test result, Wiggins felt that the tide was slowly turning.

He noted that those who have failed tests in recent times were – in general – riders in the twilight of their careers. The British rider is confident that the current young crop of riders coming through – the very future of cycling, have a completely different mindset to doping.

David Millar isn't quite as positive as Wiggins when discussing the problem. Millar – who served a two year ban himself for using EPO – does believe that cycling is heading in the right direction, but it could take between 'five and ten years' to achieve the objective of a clean sport.

Of interest was how Predictor-Lotto reacted to Vinokourov's failed test from stage thirteen. Team Director Hendrik Redant feels his team has missed out on significant publicity and media attention since Cadel Evans was runner up to the pre-Tour favouritein the time trial. Redant has suggested legal action might be taken against team Astana and has muted suing them for as much as 10 million euros.

It's obvious then that some teams are fed up with the bad publicity the sport is receiving. And professional cycling is big business – teams can employ up to 70 staff, multi-million sponsorship deals fund squads. All of this is jeopardized by those who choose to break the rules. But is suing the answer? Will it stop the cheats? Will it stabilize the sport?

Prior to the start of the Tour, all competing riders had to sign a UCI charter declaring that they would ride clean and not violate any anti-doping rules. Breaching such rules would result in a rider facing a two year ban and loss of their 2007 annual salary. But it seems the loss of wages and a lengthy ban just isn't a big enough deterrent to stop doping. So what is? Could ProTour squads suing each force team management to enforce greater control on their riders?

Others within the cycling world are quick to point out that finding the cheats mean the system is working. They also reason that the only reason cycling has an issue with drugs is because they're the only sport who thoroughly test their athletes. But do more positive tests necessarily mean that is the case? Is the sport really cleaning up its act?

What the doping scandals did reveal in the 2007 Tour was just how bad the relationship is between race organizers ASO, and cycling’s governing body, the UCI.

In a time when all need to unite together in the fight against drugs in cycling, it was very disconcerting to see both parties looking to try and score political points off each other. For the sport to clean up its act, strong leadership is required.

Although the ASO and UCI have valid reasons to be in conflict with each about the existing ProTour format, surely they both share the same objectives with doping in cycling. In the days that followed since the Tour, it now appears that race director Christian Prudhomme and UCI president Pat McQuaid are willing to try and re-kindle their frosty relationship. Both organisations working together can only bring benefits to the sport.

So do we have reason to be optimistic? Yes; however there is still much work to be done. But maybe in twenty years time we will look back on this year's race and see it as the turning point in winning the battle against drugs.

Do you share this optimism? Add your comments to the Cyclingpost.com Forum.

On Friday we will take a look at the action on the bike – the winners, the revelations and the disappointments from the race.

© Michael Holden