Recent comments

I don't think the pro scene really alters newcomers perspective of the sport. I know I didn't get into cycling because I thought I would turn pro, and so wasn't worried about everyone at the top being tainted by doping. I got into cycling because I loved the sport, and I wanted to meet more people with the same love for it. You don't see people not playing football, even though a large number of high-profile professional footballers have had an affair, or beat some one up do you?

I am not saying that it doesn't effect the general public's view of the sport, as people I have spoke to before have asked my opinion on the doping allegations. But for anyone seriously thinking of taking up the sport, I don't think it matters. At amateur level I can't think of a much more friendly and inviting sport.

the question isn't whether he did anything wrong or not, it's about the application of rules. As you say the rules give zero tolerance for this drug. Further rules impart strict liability to the defendant to prove their innocence. Nothing made public so far has given sufficient proof to the notion that the clenbuterol was ingested from tainted meat. Until Contador produces this evidence there are many that will doubt him as a cheat.

I won't do that, however I will doubt him as being someone who is seemingly above the rules as they have been applied to others.

**SLAP**

I've a suggestion for how Contador should be treated after this whole sorry mess concludes. Our response as cycling fans and yours as publications should take a leaf out of the BBC's book. When it saw the Sex Pistols racing up the charts in the weeks coming up to thee Silver Jubilee it simply chose to ignore the band. I propose that we do the same regarding Contador. A total media blackout. No features on him, no reports on his training schedule, no photos of him and no reports of his victories. Should he win, sites like road.cc focus on who finished second and 'award' the win appropriately. Similarly, all those who finish below Contador are moved up one place. Starving Condator and Saxobank of publicity will show both the UCI and Contador what the cycling community thinks of him.

I'm sure that the political economy that cycling publications exist in dictates that it is very difficult simply to shun one rider (regardless of his doping record) so I also suggest that consumers take a similar line: don't buy anything with Contador on the cover, and withdraw subscriptions similarly if necessary. The next stage would be to announce to all of Contador's sponsors -- Sidi, Specialized et al -- that we'll not buy their equipment until they end their association with Contador.

Unfortunately, serious times deserve serious measures. Contador's case looks like being swept under the carpet, which is another colossal blow to cycling's credibility. We should not stand for it any more.

Unbelievable ... well not really when you are tried by your own team

How can the UCI "clean up" cycling when they leave it up to the National Authorities to sort out.

Come on UCI take some responsibility and do something!!!!!

did it say the frames are made in Italy? how British is that?

Excellent, there's another excuse to be trotted out in court next time a cyclist is injured/killed by a careless driver: "the cyclist was using clipless pedals therefore the driver is not at fault"

The accident has got to be pretty terrible for the family concerned though, imagine driving into your own father in full view of your daughter.

Personally, I don't want special cycle lanes, etc.

What I do want, however, is some consideration from motorised vehicle drivers.

Very true - but to be honest I don't think Landis cares any more how he damages the sport.

He's turned into a petulant child, lashing out in all directions and not caring about the results.

The best outcome for the sport IMHO is for the Contador case to be appealled and his penalty re-instated according to the letter of the rules - and (as unlikely as it might seem) for Armstrong to come through the current investigation totally vindicated.

Hey - I can live in hope.

Encouraging to hear a well-informed and un-biased opinion from the Garda

TKO, dont be an idiot, where did he say that? refuse?

We all appreciate that segregated routes are nice when appropriate, especially if they run along the same route as a busy/dangerous road. But the point many of us are trying to make is they typically dont meet these requirements, they are typically sub-standard surfaces and not only considerably slower (if thats an issue for rider) but full of rubbish/glass/obstacles that make it easier to ride on the road.

We welcome the creation of segregated routes as they allow more people to cycle free from fear of the 'motoring menace' (can i just say i dont like that term but it seems appropriate to use in this context). However the problem with the creation of these routes is it suggests to other road users that we cyclists (all of us) should be on them.

Im sure you can appreciate that for those of us who want to make faster progress or even want to play at 'being a roadie' then when these poorly built/thought-out segregated routes are made we get a little worried we are going to recieve abuse for choosing to NOT use them.

The flip side of this is the reason many people are campaining for better provision ON THE ROAD and educating drivers to be safer around cyclists. You have to admit that if cycling on the road was safer then there would be no/less need for segregated cycle routes.

So it comes to this.

Option A. Get cyclists off the roads and provide a full network of segregated routes than meet the needs of ALL of the users.

Option B. Give up on segregated routes and make roads safer for cyclists.

and the winner... (and the one we should all be supporting as its the only on likely to actually happen!)

Option C. Provide Segregated routes where possible and of a good standard, if this is not possible (and painting a white line on a crappy footpath is not!) then support on road provisions for cyclists to make it safer (ie. signage to warn drivers, those forward access boxes etc.)

We shouldnt be campaining for 'segregated routes', we should be campaining for 'segregated routes where sensible' ie. Support individual cases not just the idea.

how lucky they are .... !!!!!

"We are not anticipating having to pay back the money to Cycling England as they are one of the quangos that the Government is abolishing."