Apparently, John Lelangue must have committed quite some sin in order to have wound up as the directeur sportif of Team Phonak. At least, that’s the impression I get from this quote:
From the moment of the announcement [that Lelangue would be assuming the D.S. role at Phonak], I knew I was going to live two years of Purgatory.
This quote comes from John Lelangue’s interview in Le Figaro (translated by regular reader Marc and posted over at TBV). It is an interesting read, not least for the fact that Lelangue was the D.S. of Team Phonak, Floyd Landis’ former employers. The writer’s style is very stilted, but the content is fascinating for the portrait it may paint of Lelangue, the man.
[Then again, as TBV points out, the style of writing in the published interview may reveal more about the author than the subject, and what we read may not be what Lelangue said, but the story the author wanted to write.]
Lelangue goes on:
This business would have been a disaster if I had been implicated. If I had things to reproach myself for. But there. . . . Yes, you can be right there and see nothing. It’s like a married couple. Sometimes you don’t know everything about the man or woman you share your life with.
Ah, yes, that would truly have been a disaster. Especially for one who has long been an outspoken critic of those who dope. But there’s a problem with what he says, and it’s this: Lelangue was very much in control of his riders. One only has to view the footage of the final time trial in the 2006 Tour de France to see just how in control he was. The man was pretty much guiding everything Floyd Landis did. Position on the bike, position on the road, where to turn, when to turn. If he could, he probably would have been telling Floyd when to breathe.
So I find it disingenuous for Lelangue to be comparing himself to a clueless spouse. Whatever the truth of the matter — and John Lelangue undoubtedly knows the truth — he surely knew his riders and how they prepared for and conducted themselves during races.
After all, the job of the D.S. is to get results. It’s also to ensure that the behavior of his riders doesn’t cause any embarrassment to the team’s sponsors. Given the history of Team Phonak, with so many doping allegations, it was definitely Lelangue’s job was to make sure the riders were racing clean — that’s what he was hired to do. If he didn’t have a handle on whether his riders were doping, he just plain wasn’t doing his job. A rider in his midst who was doping, and winning races because of it, is and would be a huge indictment of Lelangue.
So if Floyd Landis was doping (which I don’t believe), then surely John Lelangue knew about it. And that if it were true, it would indeed be a disaster for his career. (Not to mention his former rider’s career.)
Why would John Lelangue be casting doubt on Floyd Landis? In part, because he’s a son of the old boy network and would be hard pressed to cross those powers-that-be, unless he’s absolutely positively convinced that Floyd will win. And also because he’s looking out for his own interest.
The message in the cycling world is loud and clear, if you side with someone accused of doping, you’re jeopardizing your career. Doesn’t matter what the truth is. Even if the person is innocent, your own career is in jeopardy if you appear to be soft on doping.
So for John Lelangue, it’s not about whether Floyd did or did not dope, it’s about how he can navigate some very tricky waters.
You can fly near the sun without burning your wings. Those who want to get near it artificially are wrong. I’m a legalist; there’s a rule; I accept it; I apply it. I have confidence in the AMA (WADA) investigations, in the UCI, the Ministry of Sports, the lab at Châtenay-Malabry. The infraction is clear; it’s proven. It’s up to Landis to prove that he’s innocent. And I hope this doesn’t turn out the way it did for Landaluze …
Yes, you can fly near the sun without burning your wings. That’s what Floyd did on the way to Morzine. But the infraction is far from clear, at least when one looks at the documentation and takes some time to understand what all it means. Unfortunately, as Lelangue points out, it is up to Team Landis to prove Floyd’s innocence.
I believe that’s what may ultimately happen. But if it does, it won’t be with any outward help from John Lelangue.
Once again, John LeLangue proves that we do not learn from history. John, Ask Kenneth Lay if the defense of “I kew nothing, I was just the guy in charge.” works.
To continue John’s analogy of a married couple with “secrets.” In the end, the hurt spouse always says, I knew what was going on, I just chose to ignore it.
John, John, John. if the buck didn’t start with you, where did it stop.
Precisely.
A further implication of your strong argument, Rant: it shows how strong the pressure to disassociate yourself from anyone even suspected of doping must be right now if JL is willing to tell a story that reflects so badly on his stewardship just to be able to say “I knew nothing.”
marc
Dear Rant,
I am the anonymous who asked TBV/Marc to “pretty please” translate the Figaro article. While I am considered a “Smarty Pants” in some corners, my “skill” with “foreign” languages belies that…
After thanking TBV & Marc earlier today, I mentioned that I have no respect for John Lelangue. (I had not read your blog yet, so did not know of your thoughts). To my great surprise, this afternoon’s click-over to TBV urges a cautioning of the ‘Ranting on Lelangue’. A comment by you also seems to show you are backing off a bit. I DO NOT GET THIS.
Sure, sure, the Figaro arcticle appears to be written by a Danielle Steel wannabe or at the very least, a blood relative of John Lelangue…
But come on. John Lelangue is now the PICTURE of “pusillanimous” in the dictionary. In the old days, I would have said to John : “Step up and be a man!”
But his utter lack of fortitude has nothing to do with gender. Actually, the more I read to not pass judgement on Lelangue, the more disgusted I’ve become. What is with you guys today?
Why should anyone give Lelangue the benefit of the doubt? He certainly does not do the same for Floyd! I am more sickened by HIS comments than LeBlanc, McQuaid, & LeFebvre (sp?) put together, as HE should have Floyd’s back – or at least not be the one plunging in the dagger.
The fact that Floyd has not criticized Lelangue only shows once again that he is a better person than me.
As for protecting his own prodigious ass, there were many things Lelangue could have said & many ways in which to say them that would not have ABSOLUTELY painted Floyd as guilty, while still coming off as the innocent stooge he apparently is.
John Lelangue disgusts me. If Floyd ever rides for him in any capacity again, THAT will be the proof that Nazi frogmen are involved.
Yours truly,
susie b
Dear Susie B,
Back when I was in J-school, one of the things I learned was that reporters sometimes write the story how they would like it to be, rather than how it really is. The interview of John Lelangue, while I find the writing attrocious, clearly paints Lelangue to be the kind of person who would stab his best mate in the back if it meant saving his own skin. I don’t know the nature of the friendship or relationship between Lelangue and Floyd, but it certainly appears Lelangue’s own loyalties are to either the old boy’s network or himself. This interview is the first peep I’ve heard from him since the Tour. I think that says a lot about his character right there.
And to go a bit further, although the ProTour “ethics” code bound Phonak to fire Floyd after the B sample result, Lelangue and the team — knowing full well this may be a bum rap — could have ignored that requirement and hunkered down to defend their star. It would have caused quite a ruckus. Might have been bad for gaining or retaining sponsors. But it would have made a point that the full process needs to play out before determining a person’s guilt or innocence.
Personally, I think the requirement to fire a rider after the B sample result confirms the A is wrong. Once all the appeals are done, if the finding is against the rider, then that should be considered. Until then, the rider should be suspended with pay. And the team ought to be involved in his/her defense. That’s an expensive proposition, but I believe it’s fair. After all, in the current system a rider found innocent isn’t likely to get his/her old job back. But wouldn’t true justice require that an exonerated athlete be restored to what he/she previously had — including his job?
TBV made some good points, worth considering. Does it ultimately change my opinion of John Lelangue? No. I think he doesn’t have the huevos to stand up for Floyd, regardless of the reason why.
But I do want to leave just a little room for what I believe is the remote possibility that this interview doesn’t tell the whole story. I rail on people for leaving out parts of the story quite often (and will again in an upcoming rant on the CBC story). I don’t want to be too guilty of that too often, myself.
Yours,
– Rant
It is funny to see how things can be interpeted, your mention [of] Lelange’s role during a tt stage in particular. I’m not disaggreeing with your general bent but my impression of their relationship during tts is that Lelange acted as Floyd’s eyes not his brain. In the “full mantis” position Floyd’s hands were obstructing his field of view and so he would rely on the eyes in the car.
I suppose you could be right, sleepwalker. I can’t recall that final tt in enough detail to remember whether JL’s seemingly continuous direction included moments when FL was up on the bars, or only when he was fully down. If yours is the correct interpretation, it has its own sinister sci-fi-like aspects: the rider is reduced to the energy he can deliver; he becomes a blind engine that needs to be guided from outside to go where it has to go. I’m not sure I like that much better. To lighten this picture a little, though, what I do recall vividly from the broadcast of that tt was that, in constantly looking at his map while talking to FL and driving his car, JL just about drove off the road a good half-dozen times. Um. Why didn’t he have someone else drive so he could concentrate on giving FL directions without endangering himself, the cameraman filming him, the spectators along the route, and nearby members of the caravan?
–marc
I agree that Lelangue’s cry of betrayal comes off as naive. He was faced with an impossible task, reforming Phonak.
Riders like Floyd, Guitierrez and Botero weren’t about to leave the culture of doping they’d long been immersed in.
Maybe Lelangue believed he could work a miracle. It’s obvious now that miracles are too good to be true.
Hello again Rant,
I agree with most of your reply to me (& thank-you very much). If it was ONLY the Figaro article, I would have given Lelangue a BIT more slack. However, Lelangue made similar comments when Phonak finally spoke about Floyd’s situation in mid-August. The one I most remember from JL was “Floyd is ON HIS OWN.” I was pissed then, but kept quiet as Floyd was taking the high road & thought I would try to emulate… Well, I guess that only lasts so long, when you weren’t raised as Mennonite…
Perhaps one of the reasons I am so enraged at John Lelangue is that the Final TT (that some have spoken of here), included one of my ALL-TIME fave Tour de France moments, starring none other than JL. As you said, OLN showed extensive footage of Lelangue in the car & when it became apparent that Floyd had it in the bag, a guy in the back seat started pounding JL on the arm/back exclaiming “the Tour de France! the Tour de France!”. I bawled like a baby. Ever since, I have offered this moment up as one of fave moments EVER… And you know what they say about a woman scorned….
Also, if Lelangue truly was misquoted, wouldn’t he have demanded a correction? Marc – did you see anything like that?
I think the article revealed Lelangue’s character (if you can call it that) & his ultimate (ne ONLY) goal of self-preservation. And in case some of your readers were stumped on “pusillanimous”, it basically means GUTLESS & is the source for the derogatory slang term “pu*y” (which few men I’ve EVER known, seem to realize…go figure).
I stand by my statements that I have ‘No respect & nothing but disgust’ for John Lelangue. In fact, if Floyd ever does associate himself with JL again, I’d have to re-think my opinion of Floyd…
And yes, if I don’t get down off my freakin high horse soon, I will develop saddle sores like a few of the DP Forum members…
Still yours (& TBV too, but his site is trickier to reply on…)
susie b
IF Floyd is guilty does anyone really believe that Lelangue knew nothing? PLEASE. With the control these DS’s have over their riders this is not possible. The teams and staff know exactly what the riders are doing. Bjarne Riis knows exactly what Basso did or didn’t do, ditto for T-Mobile and Ullrich and all of the other riders accused of doping,their teams and Directors. It is an absolute joke to think that these riders are doing this without full knowledge and support of their teams.