Goin’ Down to the Crossroads

Three years ago at about this time, the Tour of California was about to kick off its inaugural edition. Tomorrow (or today by the time most of you read this), Floyd Landis, the winner of that event, will be back competing for the first time since late 2006. At about this time three years ago, Landis was embarking on a campaign that would take him to the highest of highs — winning the Tour de France — which came crashing down only days afterward, after anti-doping tests suggested that he might have won using a performance-enhancing drug. We’ll get back to that part of the story in a bit.

I’d imagine that if you’d told Landis what was about to transpire, and how it would play out, he might have opted to play it safe. Or not. He’s a fierce competitor, from all reports. One thing I know. If I raced at that level, I’d rather be on Floyd’s team than race against him.

There are those who believe that Landis may have been a villain, perhaps even sold his soul in a sense, for a shot at winning the biggest and grandest of the Grand Tours. And there are those who believe that Landis was innocent, a victim of a system run amok. If you’ve read this blog for a while, you know which side I’m on.

But here’s the thing. I’ve heard and read a number of stories that suggest that Landis just trains harder and longer than most cyclists, even many of the pros. Stories like that have been appeared in a number of articles and books — even a piece by Mark Zeigler, of the San Diego Union-Tribune, which appeared on the web today.

“For a lot of top-notch pros, cycling has become very complicated,”  Roger Worthington told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “There’s this popular notion that to be the best you have to have a diet coach, a physiotherapist, altitude tents and all these gadgets. For Floyd, he just rides. He rides more than anyone I know. He rides harder than anyone I know. . . .

“You can’t get him to talk about watts, or strength-to-weight ratios, or intervals. He’s not interested in it. He just rides his bike.”

Or, to quote Landis’ wife, he’s “one tough bitch.” What I can’t imagine, however, is that Floyd went down to the crossroads, ala the legend of Robert Johnson, to strike a deal. But whatever the reality is, and I don’t think anyone’s point of view will change much, Landis has paid a very high price for trying to defend his honor and his name. The question is: Do we have a right to know just how high a price he paid?

It’s pretty well known that his defense cost around $2 million, about half of which came from donations to the Floyd Fairness Fund. In terms of his name and reputation, we can see what happened there by going and reading discussions in various forums, reading articles that appeared in the mainstream media, posts on blogs, videos where commentators talk of the Landis affair, and so on. And we know that he lost more than two years’ worth of income, the prize money for the 2006 Tour, all manner of sponsorships and, oh, by the way, he hasn’t had the chance to race on the road since the end of July 2006. The last part, there, is probably the toughest of all for someone who just likes to race his bike.

That’s a pretty darned high cost. How much more do we need to know? How much more should we know? Mark Zeigler’s article takes us into territory that perhaps shouldn’t be mined. As a journalist by training, I get what his article was trying to be. One part personality profile, another part fallen hero trying to reclaim his career. It’s a bit tough to write such a story when the main subject of the story won’t talk to you, however. The subhead to the story pretty much sums it up, “After losing everything, cyclist aims for a comeback”. Most likely, Zeigler didn’t even write that. Some anonymous copy editor did.

Still, how much of “everything” do we need to hear about? Some would argue: All of it. As a culture, we have an affinity for schadenfreude, that bizarre sense of taking pleasure in the misfortune of others. And we also crave the story about the hero who stands up for what he believes in and suffers the consequences. A hero who eventually overcomes those consequences to reclaim the life that’s rightfully his.

Many working journalists would argue that Landis’ story, all of it, is fair game. He’s a public figure, they would say. He’s about to race the Tour of California for the first time since he won the first running of the event in 2006. Fans, and the general public, are interested in what became of him. Well, maybe. Zeigler’s story, at least the online edition, leaves out any mention that Landis won the 2006 ToC. And, he gets the facts wrong on exactly what Landis was accused of doing at the 2006 Tour de France.

The reality wasn’t that Landis’ urine sample was positive for “illicit levels of testosterone.” There was a ratio that he exceeded, but the actual level of testosterone in his system at the time was in the range of normal. The lower part of the testosterone (T)/epitestosterone(E) ratio, the “E”, was unusually low in one running of the test, which skewed the ratio higher. Be that as it may, it was another test that supposedly showed the presence of artificial testosterone that led to the drama that ensue. The “level” had virtually nothing to do with what Landis was accused of — except that it served as a screening test which triggered the other, supposedly more reliable, test. But I digress.

Some of what Zeigler reports is interesting. Commentary from Dave Zabriskie, Arnie Baker, Michael Henson, and Roger Worthington all paint a bit of a portrait of who Floyd is and what the impact of the last two years has been on him. The revelation from Travis Tygart that Landis has to pay the $100,000 “fine,” but they have generously allowed him to set up a payment plan, is certainly news. After Floyd dropped his lawsuit against USADA in December, many speculated that USADA may have agreed to drop the fine in exchange for Landis dropping the case. Nothing much was said, by either side, since then. That is, until Mark Zeigler got Travis Tygart to say something via email.

If there was a confidentiality agreement, it just got broken. I wonder what the penalty for that would be? Of course, that depends on whether there was any sort of signed agreement between the two sides spelling out who was committing to what.

I guess it was bound to happen. Tygart needs to twist the knife, doesn’t he, by adding that if Landis misses a payment, he won’t be able to race. Yep. Just twist that knife a little more, why don’t you?

Zeigler is certainly an enterprising reporter, witness the fact that he not only got close friends of Floyd’s to go on the record, he also managed to stand in Floyd’s garage and talk to Landis’ estranged wife. Didn’t get much out of her, though. And he managed to dig through public records and find information about Landis’ mortgages, just to add a few more details to the story.

Maybe Zeigler’s piece illustrates just how far Floyd fell, and what a hard climb it will be back to the top. But there’s a bit of humanity missing. Not from what he quotes or reports, but in how he reports it. Do we need to know about Floyd’s mortgages? Do we need to know that the ordeal he’s been through has destroyed his marriage? Do we need to see Travis Tygart take another gratuitous swipe at Landis, by rubbing salt into the wound, or driving the knife in just a little deeper? And, as far as the hard climb back to the top, that part of the story is pretty much missing in action.

In the end, however, it’s a shallow story which merely skims the surface. We get a bit of salacious detail, learn that Landis is still on the hook for $100K, and a few other morsels to satisfy our curiosity. But there’s just a faint whiff of sleaze to it, too, which leaves me feeling just a bit dirty for even having read it. But, like a car accident or a trainwreck, sometimes it’s hard not to look.

Interestingly, Zeigler makes no mention of whether Landis might be a factor in the upcoming ToC. Not a great surprise there, as a number of articles previewing the race haven’t focused much on Floyd, other than to report his comeback. The only question mark is his form. Starting tomorrow, we’ll get to see how good his training has been, and just what kind of form he has. My guess is that Landis will be gunning for a victory.

The Great Kimmage/Armstrong “Showdown”

If you’re looking for the (in)famous interaction between Lance Armstrong and Paul Kimmage, here it is. Lance gives Kimmage a pretty strongly worded dressing-down. And then he goes on to answer Kimmage’s actual question. Note the ironic appearance of another Armstrong nemesis in the opening advert, by the way. Amusing, in a dark humor sort of way.

Armstrong was referring to this quote by Paul Kimmage during a radio interview. In assessing Armstrong’s return to the pro peloton, he said:

This guy, any other way but his bullying and intimidation wrapped up in this great cloak, the great cancer martyr … this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well he is the cancer in this sport. And for two years this sport has been in remission. And now the cancer’s back.

In busting Kimmage’s chops, Lance got one part of the story wrong. Kimmage said that the cancer had been in remission for two years, not four. He didn’t have the exact quote, either. And what I’ve offered is only as good as the person who transcribed it (not me, by the way). But you get the idea.

Note to Mr. Kimmage: While everyone who knows anything about cycling has an opinion about Lance Armstrong, if you’re looking to interview the man (or anyone else for that matter) then it’s probably not a good idea to publicly insult him beforehand. In this era of the Internet, whatever you’ve said is almost bound to get back to your subject.