Reflections on a tough week for world cricket

I'm writing this in the aftermath of the death of Phillip Hughes.  The thoughts are rambling, but all linked by how his death has affected me

Like a lot of Aussie kids, I dreamt about wearing the Baggy Green.  That was thirty odd years ago, and my technique was frankly lacking to make it further than local park cricket.  That said, I continued to play outdoor and indoor cricket well into my 30's.  I played a lot, and watched even more.  Any player who picks up a bat and faces a fast bowler from 22 yards away knows there is some risk of being hit, and that it will hurt.

Phillip Hughes was a player from the modern era.  Yes, he too dreamt of playing Test cricket for Australia, and was fortunate to do so 26 times.  His career was a patchy one, being dropped several times, and fighting his way back.  His technique was not text book, and often was criticised for his method against the short ball.  Sadly, it was a bouncer that ended Hughes' life in a Sheffield Shield match this week that struck him on the neck, rupturing an artery and causing catastrophic haemeraging to the brain.

Media have been, and will be, seeking blame.  This is a useless exercise, and just sensationalising Hughes' death.  In my mind, the real lesson to be learnt from the incident at the SCG on Tuesday 25th November 2014, and the events that followed is the importance of training and technique.  Players can reach the top level of cricket, but still have flaws.  When those flaws put their lives at risk, no amount of body protection can save them.

I watched the press conference this afternoon involving two doctors, the head of Cricket Australia, and our nations Test captain.  It was a moving moment I won't forget in a hurry.  It did annoy me that a question was asked about what if Hughes had reached hospital quicker.  Yes, there were delays getting an ambulance to the SCG, but the reality is, it probably wold not have made any difference.  There are sure to be pieces written over the next few days, and throughout this Summer on whether Hughes had the right helmet, how his technique failed him (Ian Chappell must be waiting for ESPNCrickInfo to give him a green light), how he was destined for another crack at the top level, etc.  All this won't change history.

I have seen an outpouring of emotion for Phillip Hughes, and support for Sean Abbott, the bowler, on Facebook & Twitter from around the world.  From Test cricketers to casual sports fans, this has impacted people who knew Hughes well, and thise who merely had seen him on TV.  As a former cricketer who struggled with the bat at the best of times, I felt sickened when I first saw the incident on Tuesday, and saddened by Hughes' demise.  His life will be celebrated, his death remembered.

Some context about Phillip Hughes' death.  Serious head injuries in cricket are rare.  They are not so rare in football codes such as AFL, Rugby League and Rugby Union.  To some extent, it is this fact that made the cricketer's death so shocking.  The impact  on the body of a cricket ball delivered at pace can hurt.  Modern protective equipment such as helmets, arm guards, and improved technologies for pads and gloves means that serious injuries are less likely that in Bradman's era of Bodyline.  Cricket is safer as a result.  The same can't be said for the football codes, where head knocks are a weekly occurrence.  Yes, these knocks don't have the same velocity as a cricket ball delivered at 90 miles per hour, but the cumulative effects of  tackles around the head, and other impacts are now being proven to have long term effects.

I'd love to have had a boy grow up and play cricket for Australia.  I have two girls, and they may yet grow up to be the next Alyce Perry and play cricket for Australia.  If they do choose cricket, one thing I can't stress to them enough is the importance of listening to their coaches about playing the short ball.

TDF100 - the aftermath

I don't blog often - I prefer Twitter, but news overnight and my reaction don't adequately fit inside 140 charcters.

Well, we've reached the end of another Tour de France, the 100th edition, and NOT, as Phil & Paul would have you believe, the Centenary edition (that was in 2003).  It was a great edition with #LOLBus #FlyingDinghy #JerseyVaches #musettedutour and the #TourDeAshes There was even some racing. Oh, and of course, a doping scandal.

So far no positives have been announced from this year - this is good.  What has got the cycling world in a tis are the outcomes of a French Senate enquiry on the 1998 TDF.  After last year's USADA findings, and the outrage over Lance and his Merry Men, you would think that any rider that had any skeletons in their doping closet would fess up.  Sadly for Australian cycling fans, this was not the case, and overnight Stuart O'Grady has come out and admitted to taking EPO in the lead-up to the '98 Tour.  This comes just a day after he announced his immediate retirement (he previously announced he would ride next year for a record 18th Tour).

Stuey took out a stage, and became the 2nd Aussie to wear Yellow that year, but at what cost?  His admission is another kick in the guts to a sport that has constantly struggled with it's past.  I don't like The TanMan, but in one of his blogs last year post USADA he asked any Australian riders to confess now, or lose his respect forever should anything come out....I wonder how he feels about Stuey now?

I plead to any other riders that took performance enhancing drugs to Hoogerland up and reveal what you have done.

ButteredFrog

A week is a long time in politics, 2 weeks is a lifetime (ban) in cycling

Well, what a tumultuous fortnight it has been in cycling since the USADA report was released!  Riders, past and present, sacked from their positions as a result of doping admissions, the UCI ratifying the bans for Lance, and formally stripping his titles, and the UCI has acknowledged (well, sort of) it too needs to be investigated, announcing an "independent" committee to be setup to look into issues coming out of the USADA report, etc.

It wasn't all doom & gloom though.  Wednesday saw the release of the route for the 2013 Tour de France.  If you haven't seen it, check out the video It's going to be a stonker! For me the highlights of #sbstdf100 (yes, I'm going with that hashtag tweeps) will be:

• Grand Depart in Corsica (a first)
• Team TT around Nice
• Time trial to Mont Saint Michel
• Mont Ventoux on Bastille Day at the end of 230 odd km
• Mountainous TT
• A double dose of Alpe d'Huez in Stage 18
• Evening finish in Paris taking in an extra round about from the regular circuit - the Arc de Triomphe

June 29th cannot come quickly enough! Prudomme has excelled.

Disillusionment

Well, this is my first blog.  What prompted me to enter the Blogosphere? The numb feeling all week of a sport I love so dearly, being so entrenched in lies, corruption and suspicion.

This story goes back to 2002, when my girlfriend, now now my wife, & I were planning our trip to Europe.  She recommended watching the Tour de France highlights each night on SBS, with live stages on weekends.  Great, I thought, a sport I can share!  Our '03 trip went through Paris, Bordeaux, Carcassonne and the Cote d'Azure.  We even glimpsed Mont Vontoux!

Returning home in time for the 100th anniversary TdF, I was hooked.  It was a great spectacle, and there was this guy Armstrong, who had fought back from cancer and was aiming at his 4th successive win.  This was where it was a personal.  My mother had read Lance's book as inspiration for her own battle, but passed away a few days before Armstrong led US Postal across the line for the 4th time in Yellow.

Since then, my passion for the sport has grown, year by year, seeing Lance take seven victories, always under a cloud of doubters from French media, but adamant he was racing clean.  Riders before him were found out - Riis, Pantani, and the Festina squad.  Riders after him were also outed - Ullrich, Landis, Vinokourov & Rasmussen.  Armstrong maintained his stand in retirement: he was clean, the tests proved it.  Further scandals involving the Spanish saw glamour boys Valverde and Contador gone for extended bans.  Armstrong maintained his record was free from drugs.

Lance has battled in court to clear his name against "libelous" accusations time and again, with the courts ruling in his favour.  Throughout, I was a believer.  How could these allegations be proven to be true given the testing records Armstrong quoted in the libel suits?

At the beginning of 2012 rumours of a US investigation were brewing all over Twitter.  Some of the leading journo's in the world of cycling were starting to pay attention.  USADA were going to go ahead with another case against Armstrong.  Naturally, Lance would fight this one as well, and win - he always had.  The case was big.  USADA had already collected statements from team-mates and peers, and the whispers were that this is going to blow the sport apart if proven.

The news on August 23rd that Lance wasn't going to fight this one annoyed me.  Why now?  This was his national drug agency investigating!  If there's nothing to hide, stand up and fight for your reputation. No defence would give the USADA the right to impose sanctions after the evidence was tabled.

Australian commercial media had a field day.  Aside from Cadel Evans' efforts in the Tour de France and the 09 World Championships, cycling was only mentioned in conjunction with the words "doping scandal".  They feasted on the fact that Lance had said enough was enough.

August 24th: Deadline for Lance Armstrong to submit a dense.  This passed, and USADA hands a lifetime ban for the doping conspiracy.  More media misinterpretation.  TV networks pounce on "Lance stripped of 7 titles"

Untrue!  No evidence had been tabled.  The ASO an UCI awaited that evidence before they were going to act.

So we waited. And waited. And waited.

October 10, and the Twitterati were expecting an announcement.  Sure enough, it came though overnight (Aust time), and I woke to find my Timeline full with hundreds of tidbits on the USADA report. Two hundred and two pages, 27 appendices, current riders banned.  My gawd, how am I going to digest all this?

Truth  is, I still haven't waded through it all, and will take the time to read the full reports, but I have taken enough in to realise that this sport is in serious trouble.  Riders I have admired are now rubbed out:  Armstrong, Leipheimer, Hincapie.

As I type this, Australian's are also being revealed as RiderX and RiderY.  Matt White has stepped down from GreenEDGE for his "involvement in the strategy".  Mick Rogers has also been spoken about.

I sit here on a Sunday afternoon about to watch Cycling Central fearing that the love I have for this sport of Professional Cycling has been lost, may never return