In 1994, he was found to have problems with his heart and as a result TVM did not renew his contract. He had ridden for them for the previous two years. He then gained a medical opinion and was given the green light to race again. In 1995, he returned to the peloton as an amateur rider because he could not get a professional contract. He rode an excellent Dutch Championship and in Duitama, Colombia, he won the World Championship. The following year, he gained a contract as a 24-year old to race with Rabobank.
By today, the Dutch newsagency had changed the story somewhat. It is now clear that Danny Nelissen did not have a heart attack on Wednesday. It seems that he became unwell during a training ride. Because of his previous heart problems the 28-year old was taken to the hospital in Sittard for observation and tests. On Thursday, he underwent more testing.
The focus of the scandals was the Tour de France. The biggest media event in cycling became its biggest shame. Police raids, arrests, rider strikes, abandoned stages, and national heroes shamed ... all during the Tour de France. Who will ever think about the Tour the same way now that everybody knows the extent of doping that is being revealed. Whole teams seemingly operating systematic and institutionalised doping of its riders.
The problem is also that the sport did not expose the doping. It only really became public due to the operations of the French customs and very hard anti-drug laws in France. Even one of those who admitted guilt - Bruno Roussel - said that the French Cycling Federation was part of the doping because they turned a blind eye to it. The UCI even reduced the bans on the Swiss riders. Once exposed the UCI had to make some noises though. They have brought in some new procedures and hope to bring in an anti-doping code. But why didn't they do this all along. Those within the sport have known about this for years. Why is it that a lot of young riders have had to get dental work to take teeth out as their jaws have expanded quickly? It is all just hush hush. Paul Kimmage's book should have caused major enquiries in the sport. Instead, it was dismissed as the ravings of an Irishman who didn't quite make it in the sport.
It will be hard for 1999 to make as many headlines as 1998.
The problem with the inquiry is that its terms of reference and membership were too narrow. Its recommendations seem to be an official endorsement of the way cycling is being run at present without any serious consideration of the major issues in the sport. There are issues unresolved and implicit in the recommendations which are worrying.
First, there is no mention of the balance between the elite and grass roots levels of the sport. Over the last 10 years, as the elite level has received more funding in a mindless chase for Olympic gold medals the club level has not grown significantly nor received the attention it deserves. The sport is only as strong as the grass roots and there has been a growing dissatisfation with the Federations from that level. The review said nothing about this. Why should the focus be on a few trying to win medals? The dollars already sunk into this type of strategy have not been particularly successful at all. Shouldn't we be trying to get more kids to ride their bikes?
Second, there is no mention of the balance between the track and road programs. This has been a major conflict within the sport over the last several years. The road program has been a second-class citizen in comparison to the track program. Now the Head Coach of cycling will be the current track coach. Over the last two years, road cycling has been plunged into crisis by the way the Federation handled the coaching and promotion of the discipline. They sacked Heiko Salzwedel for what seem to be spurious grounds. He is now preparing the German teams as the head coach. What do the Germans find in him that we could not? His skill obviously.
The recommendations leave the relationship between the road and track unclear. It is now implicit that the Head Coach will assume control for both programs. This was the plan mooted in 1996 which failed. It will only further disadvantage the road program and should be resisted.
Third, the recommendations say nothing about the role the Federation plays in the sport. No serious problems have been identified. Yet, the sport has seen countless selection scandals, rumours of a lack of financial accountability (especially during overseas trips), rumours (and an instance) of personal gain while in office, money being spent on exotic bikes which are not noticably faster, money being spent on weird substances that have little scientific backing, money being spent on trips to altitude to simulate EPO use, an internationally recognised coach sacked and more. Doesn't this suggest something is not quite right at the administration level? The report recommends no real changes at that level.