Le Tour? Oui.

It's July, which can only mean one thing. It's time for Le Tour De France. But this year is unlike any other since I first recall watching the tour in 1985 (yes, 1985 when I was 4). This is the first year where doping has clearly overshadowed the beginning of the race. Doping has haunted cycling ever since Tom Simpson collapsed on the Mont Ventoux and died with amphetamines in his system. Cyclists are probably the most tested out of any athletes, yet they still take the risk as seen in the Festina affair of 1998, the fallout of Operation Puerto, and most notably the Floyd Landis saga. Just think, no one can say who won the Tour last year because we don't know. We might know this week if Landis's arbitration case is decided.

The questioning of Lance Armstrong's 7 tour wins had become an annual rite. Circumstantial evidence came out against Lance, he sued, he won. But the last year has been different. Landis's positive after his great Stage 17 performance, the forced retirement of Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso withdrawing from Team Discovery, and Bjarne Rijs giving up his 1996 Tour title because he admitted to using EPO. Rijs ended Miguel Indurain's 5 year reign by winning 2 crucial stages. He took the lead in that tour after winning a weather-shortened stage that ended up being a sprint up to Sestriere. Then, he destroyed the competition by dominating the Hautacam. I liked Rijs. He rode hard and was a great team manager for CSC. That 3rd week of the '96 Tour was as good as anyone has ever ridden. It's too bad he was helped out and now he won't be looked at in the same way anymore.

What do I think about Landis? I'm not really sure to tell you the truth. I go back and forth whether I think he's innocent or guilty. Let me give you a reason that could lead me either way. He could be guilty because that was an extraordinary ride. Just one day after hitting the wall and suffering from dehydration, he came back with arguably the greatest single day performance ever seen in the Tour. When Lance won his 5th tour, he suffered from dehydration during the 1st time trial and didn't fully recover from that until several days later. And Lance at his peak was definitely a better rider than Landis at his peak.

Why could he be innocent? Landis's ride wasn't as mythical as one may think. The other top teams let him go off the front, allowing him to build a big lead. When they decided to chase, it was too late, the mistake had been made. It was a huge tactical mistake. Plus, what Landis used would've shown up in his other drug tests when he won/retained the yellow jersey.

Am I going to watch this year's Tour? Yes. Do I feel the dark cloud hanging over it? Yes. It's tough to see one of my favorite sporting events be viewed so negatively, but it rightly deserves some of that negative attention. Hopefully the Tour can overcome it. It's a beautiful sporting event, from the opening this year right in the Queen's backyard in London to the roads that are home to the Belgian classics before heading south for the mountains and the familiar backdrops of the Alps and Pyrennes.

Who's going to win? Honestly, I haven't followed the spring races as much as I usually do, but I don't think it would've mattered because the race is wide open. Levi Leipheimer is now leading Discovery and is the best American hope. But he's never finished in the top 5 and I think he lacks the explosiveness to put in a great performance in the time trial and/or the mountains. Discovery has another strong team that will help, but you have to be able to finish off stages by yourself and Levi's never been able to do that. I like Alejandro Valverde. If you can outsprint Lance at the top of a mountain, you're pretty good. If he can stay out of the 1st week crashes, I think he'll win. My top 5 would be Valverde, Andreas Kloden, Denis Menchov, Leipheimer, and Cadel Evans.

On a non-Tour related note, I have to give shoutouts to the Williams sisters for competing hard at Wimbledon. What Serena did with her injured leg was incredible. 99 out of 100 players would've packed it in and not risked their career, but Serena fought and earned a well-deserved victory. And Venus now has won 4 Wimbledons, this one despite only being seeded 23rd. When these two come close to a tournament at even 80%, they're favorites to win because no one else can match their competitiveness or power. Now, if they just came to tournaments at 80% or better more often....

I just finished reading a memoir a guy born and raised in Detroit wrote about his city upbringing. It was interesting to get a feel about race relations in the city, but after awhile, the author basically turned racist, which made the last 60% of the book unenjoyable. His racist tones, coupled with his superior translations of some of the great novelists (superior in his own mind) became a little annoying. I can't say I read half of the great books that he read, but I can say he wanted to make sure he came across as an elitist, and I didn't like that. He should've just stuck to his story, without the racism.

Now I'm reading a David Beckham biography my brother bought for me when in London recently. After reading about a third of it, I will be a Posh and Becks expert I think. Interesting stuff so far.

Speaking of soccer, I caught the last 30 minutes of the Under-20 World Cup game between the US and Brazil. I can't remember ever being on the edge of my seat like I was during the end of this game. The US led 1-0 when Brazil tied it with about 25 minutes to go. The action was wide open, up and down the field with the pace of a Stanley Cup playoff hockey game. With about 10 minutes left in regulation, Freddy Adu made a couple of great moves, which ended up in the go-ahead goal for the US. Brazil furiously rushed the US goal, forcing the US keeper to make a couple of brilliant saves to protect the 2-1 lead. I wonder how many times the US has beaten Brazil, at any level of soccer. It can't be too many. I'll tell you one thing, Freddy Adu is worth the price of admission, or at least he was in this game. He was brilliant.

NBC News dropped the ball again. After the Glasgow airport car bomb, Lisa Meyers was asked if she knew whether or not Al-Qaida was involved. She replied something like, "We're not sure if the suspects (at that time) were of Middle Eastern descent, so we can't be sure." Oh, so if they're Middle Eastern, they're automatically Al-Qaida. If they're white, black, American, Asian, or from anywhere else, they can't be Al-Qaida. What a terrible answer.