Yeah, this is a bit of old news — or at least it feels like a recycling of old news, but it bears at least a little comment just the same. Seems that “Operacion Puerto the Endless” is truly endless. Just when you think it’s faded into the background (for good or ill), and the issues settled, like a phoenix rising from its grave, OP is back.
According to an Agence France Presse article published on the VeloNews.com web site:
A provincial court in Madrid on January 12 revoked its September decision to shelve the case because it said there were indications that an offense against public health laws had taken place, the source told AFP.
Public prosecutors, the Spanish Sports Council (CSD), and the Spanish Cycling Federation, the International Cyclign Union and the World Anti-Doping Agency were amongst those calling for the probe to be re-opened.
So much for that case being dead and buried, eh? Why is it that I am picturing a scene from a Monty Python movie right about now? You know, the one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where they’re collecting victims of the plague and one “victim” pipes up and says, “But I’m not dead yet.”
Some of the activities of the infamous Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes were not technically illegal during the time of the investigation, although that was changed after the Puerto raids occurred in 2006. As the article also points out:
Since the affair came to light, Spain has passed legislation earmarking jail terms for doping offenses on the grounds that it is a matter for safeguarding public health.
But on September 29, examining magistrate Antonio Serrano ruled the investigation should lie on file, having already done so initially in March 2007 on the grounds that Spain’s new anti-doping laws could not be applied retroactively to May 2006.
In the first instance, the prosecution appealed and the affair was re-opened.
The prosecutor’s office then appealed anew following the September decision.
Meanwhile, a Canadian Press article adds this delicious little item:
In November, Dr. Fuentes’ wife, former runner Cristina Perez, said Spanish sport would be ruined if she revealed all she knew about drug use among the country’s sports elite.
Perez said Spain’s record medal performance at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics was in part thanks to her husband’s involvement in providing medication to athletes.
Perez, who competed on Spain’s 1,600-metre relay team in Barcelona, said she preferred to stay quiet than open up a “Pandora’s Box.”
Serrano decided to close the case again on Sept. 26 after samples of the EPO tested revealed levels too low to represent a health risk according to Spanish doping laws at the time. Spain’s laws have since been amended.
Madrid’s district attorney decided to appeal the closure because cyclists’ health could have been put at risk by Fuentes and others under investigation in the case.
I have to say, the Puerto case has long since passed the point where it’s become the Keystone Cops of the cycling world. Dr. Fuentes’ wife seems to have suggested that there is definitely fire behind the smoke of the Puerto investigation. I wonder if Spanish law allows here to be compelled to testify against her husband? If it did, there could be even more interesting revelations to come. Like who all those other athletes implicated in the scandal happen to be. We’ve heard the names of a number of pro cyclists, but what about the others? Runners, tennis players, football (soccer, that is) players, and who knows who else.
If there’s one thing to be learned from the Puerto mess, it’s how not to run a doping investigation. I won’t even mention what the equivalent is in American jurisprudence, except to say that the nickname of the person involved (“Juice” or “The Juice”) has an eerie similarity to a term for doping.
Props to Lance Armstrong for reminding us that there’s more to the Puerto story than just cycling. As reported by Australia’s The Age:
“You guys (media) have a responsibility to keep in mind that Operation Puerto is not a cycling controversy, it is a sports controversy,” Armstrong said at a Saturday media conference in Adelaide.
“If we’re going to open a Puerto and talk about cyclists, then let’s talk about soccer, let’s talk about tennis, let’s talk about everybody else involved.”
We’ll see how this story plays out. If I were going to guess, I’d say that the investigation will again get dropped, and just about the time that we all think it’s finally dead and gone, it will rear its ugly head once more. Almost like a yearly ritual, at the beginning of the season.
They Race in a Land Down Under…
Speaking of Lance Armstrong, there’s a little race called the Tour Down Under going on right now. VeloNews has a report on how things are going so far for the seven-time Tour de France champ.
Coasting up the [stage’s] only true difficulty, a short but steep 600-meter climb that left the burly sprinters struggling to keep pace, Armstrong looked as though he had never been away from the peloton.
That eased Bruyneel’s anxiety, but the Belgian believes it could be some time before Armstrong is ready to face the test of much faster racing, especially on the monster climbs of the Giro d’Italia and the Tour de France — both of which feature in the American’s plans this year.
“We were a little anxious before the stage to see what he would be like, but it gives me confidence to see him like that today,” said Bruyneel.
“As you can see, he’s no different from before, he’s the same person.
“His base form is really good, but he will need a few races to find the rhythm again ” you simply can’t simulate real racing conditions in training.”
Lance, however, is taking things day by day. And while he’s feeling strong, he’s waiting to see just how well he recovers from the savages of racing. If the Tour Down Under is any indication of what’s to come, we could well be in for a very interesting year of racing, now that Armstrong is back in the mix.
And Then There’s This
Brad Kearns has an interesting article on why he believes that Lance Armstrong races clean on the xtri web site. (To give credit where credit is due, the article was pointed out to me by TBV.) It’s dated January 16, 2009, and Kearns makes a number of points to bolster his argument. (Of course, the same argument could be made for other Tour de France winners, too, with the exception of those who have actually admitted to using banned substances. Kearns, however, doesn’t extend his argument to other recent Tour winners.)
How can we have much understanding or appreciation for Lance pedaling his bike three to eight hours a day year-round when we prefer to cut to the chase – a quick highlight of him tearing away from the pack up a mountain on Sports Center? And when we look to solve our own problems and achieve our dreams (to feel happy, lose weight, go to sleep, sport wood, or get stronger and faster athletically) by popping a magic pill?
“People want to have all the answers,” says Knaggs. “We think we understand what human performance potential is, and then Lance delivers a performance that is beyond their experience,” explains Knaggs. So, as with the dominant African runners, we struggle for explanation and rationalization. We point fingers at athletes who perform extraordinarily, labeling them with inaccurate racial stereotypes, doping accusations or character attacks in our perverse desire to bring big shot athletes and celebrities down from their pedestal.
At a certain point, I get the feeling that this article isn’t so recent. Or that it’s an update of an older article. Kearns says the following about Floyd Landis:
It’s easy to imagine Floyd Landis, sitting in his hotel room the night he blew the Tour by bonking and losing eight minutes in a single stage, with a different model of incentives and disincentives. Perhaps armed with the knowledge that behind many, if not most, rider hotel room doors, they were rubbing or injecting this and that to help them bounce back, he grabbed a little cream — a little too much cream – from the cookie jar, rubbed it onto his abdomen and went to sleep, allowing his “organism” to rest, repair and rejuvenate with the benefit of some extra testosterone. Or perhaps he was framed, we’ll see…
Forgetting whether you believe Floyd guilty or innocent of the doping charges leveled against him, take a good look at that last elliptical statement. “Or perhaps he was framed, we’ll see…” Given that both of Floyd’s arbitration cases are long since finished, and that Landis’ Federal court case was settled out of court in early December, his case is now history. So that leaves me wondering, just when was this article written?
Be that as it may, Kearns’ offers a couple of anecdotes and observations that we should all keep in mind when it comes to pointing fingers at athletes and presuming we can tell who doped and who didn’t.
We must collectively look beyond the basic symptoms of a problem as complex as doping and reflect deeper, measuring our thoughts and words carefully. Fans, administrators and athletes must all draw a hard line against doping in sports, but at the same time take care not to cross the line and taint clean performances with flawed accusations. The fundamentals of critical thinking can easily reveal the numerous flaws in a conjecture like, “how can a clean pack average a faster speed than a doped pack?” For one, there are a many other variables involved in 200 people racing for 2,000+ miles from one year to the next, on a different route! It’s a world different from Yuliya Nesterenko of Belarus improving a preposterous half-second over 100 meters in one year to win the 2004 Olympic 100-meter gold medal, or some guy driving a blood-stained Bronco down a freeway with a gun to his own head, only to plead not guilty later.
The great British middle distance runner and twice Olympic gold medalist Sebastian Coe said, “you’ve got to be careful pointing fingers at people making big breakthroughs, because only in public terms is it a big breakthrough. In reality, the athlete has been slogging away, mile after mile, weight after weight, for ten years at a time.” Paul Tergat, the great Kenyan distance runner who holds the world marathon record of 2:04.55, described the depth of preparation for his re-match with Haile Gebrselassie in the 10,000 meters at the 2000 Sydney Olympics (Gebrselassie won gold in Atlanta in 1996 to Tergat’s silver; the result was repeated in Sydney): “I would be on the track, running hard, collapsing, getting up, and running hard again. And when I was done I couldn’t stand. I was so tired. I couldn’t eat. I felt sick. I had no energy to do anything other than take a drink of water and lie down. Then I’d think of Haile and know that he was training even harder.”
Think of that image the next time you see the “natural” ability of an African distance runner on display. Not many people demonstrate that level of commitment, even among the world’s top professional athletes. Consider classic NBA overachiever Steve Nash, a 6’2″ white point guard not especially quick or strong who ascended to the pinnacle of a sport dominated by genetic freaks, thanks to a phenomenal competitive spirit and work ethic. He won two consecutive NBA Most Valuable Player awards and offered this quote to Sports Illustrated in 2006: “Most guys somewhere along the line will meet an obstacle they aren’t willing to clear–whether it’s shooting or dribbling or something off the court, like girls or partying. They will not keep on going. I kept on going.”
Interesting article, and well worth your time, even if there is a section that seems to place the article’s genesis a little further in the past than just four days ago. Take the time to read the whole thing for yourself. Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, it’s sure to spark some thought.
It was always a foregone conclusion that no criminal charges would be filed, since specific anti-doping laws did not then exist.
What is far murkier is whether the Puerto records will ever be released, and whether the UCI is actually fighting for this or just blowing smoke. I fear the mess may pop up again (re. Schleck, Contador, Basso, or Valverde) just in time for the 2009 Tour.
ludwig,
True, it was always a given that no criminal laws regarding doping were violated at the time (as it’s hard to break a law that doesn’t exist), but I’ve seen some indications that Fuentes may have broken laws against endangering the public’s or the athlete’s health. Seems to me one court case tried to argue that angle, and it got tossed (I think by the same judge). It almost sounds like the judge changed his mind, and now he’s leaning towards allowing such a case to go forward.
I doubt we’ll ever see the full records related to OP. I think your fear about this popping up just in time for the Tour come July are well founded. Seems like it’s happened that way every year since OP occurred.
Re the Armstrong article: he makes some good points. However, it is really just an opinion, as are the various “Lance doped” books and articles, all based on circumstantial evidence, little of any of which is conclusive, even if true. A clean athlete can produce an outstanding performance and a good athlete can train very hard, yet still resort to some “extra” help from time to time.
William,
None of what’s been reported or suggested about Lance Armstrong is conclusive, I suspect. You’re right, a clean athlete can deliver an outstanding performance, and some athletes can train hard, use a little “booster” and deliver such results. It’s pretty hard to know who’s who, especially because it’s possible to train hard for a long time, and then suddenly see one’s performance jump up a level. It happens with those of us in the lower ranks. Maybe it can happen at the elite level, too. But, of course, in this day and age, a sudden change in performance leads to certain suspicions.
Bonnie D. Ford has a new article about Lance, by the way. Very interesting reading. I’ll be writing a bit more about it later on.
I think if you look at all of what has been written about Armstrong and you closely examine his behavior and associations over the years, it’s very very difficult to escape the conclusion that he was doping. I realize that some people won’t find the evidence “conclusive” without a “smoking gun” (the 99 re-testing, the Emma O’Reilly testimony and the hospital confessions are all smoking guns to one degree or another). The point is it’s not accurate to say accusations that Lance doped are based on circumstantial evidence alone.
The article linked above is hopelessly slanted and does not present an accurate picture to cycling newbies–an accurate picture would have to take Walsh’s arguments and Armstrong’s role in the doping omerta seriously. Sadly, this is pretty much par for the course right now–all indications suggest the Old Guard has returned to the sport in force.
ludwig,
Just so I’m clear:
Do you mean the Kearns article, or the one by Bonnie Ford in my previous comment? I’m assuming you mean Kearns. True?
For the Kearns article, I’d say he starts from a premise that Lance raced clean and then tries to build his case. That’s “slanted,” in the sense that he’s taking a position on an issue and defending it. A different author might take a different angle, which could even be a more objective position, discussing the arguments on both sides and letting the reader draw his or her own conclusions.
Rant:
That’s kind of how I see much of what goes on in regard Lance, Floyd, etc. People have staked out positions on one side or the other, cite evidence (circumstantial or otherwise which seems to support their case), interpret other evidence as they see fit. All fine, as long as we all realize what is going on is expressing opinions.
Rant,
I’d say that if Kearns is going to dismiss the work of Walsh, etc. and make conclusions about whether Armstrong doped, then he also ought to provide a fair summary of the main points Walsh raises.
This Guardian article, for example, allows Armstrong to make his case fairly, while also providing the reader with a summary of the evidence that he doped.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/18/cycling-lance-armstrong-drugs
ludwig,
I see your point. In going back through the Guardian article, I think their writer does a good job of addressing those aspects of Lance’s story head-on. The thing about Armstrong is that he’s such a polarizing figure that no one story (or book, for that matter) is ever going to completely capture everything about him.