In politics and in journalism, sometimes one needs the ability to read tea leaves. And sometimes one forgets.
In looking at the press release sent out a couple of days ago by Team Landis, one thing is immediately apparent. They don’t mention Bradley Wiggins by name. That’s interesting, isn’t it? Why wouldn’t they go straight after Wiggins for his comments?
Looking into the tea leaves provides this possible answer: Perhaps what Team Landis are responding to is not so much who said the remarks as it is the remarks themselves. Wiggins isn’t the first cyclist to say something that directly or indirectly criticizes Floyd Landis, and he may not be the last. Another much more prominent cyclist proclaimed Oscar Pereiro the “moral victor” of the Tour. That cuts pretty deep. Deeper, perhaps, than any of the ravings of a relatively obscure member of Cofidis.
And then there’s the ongoing hand-wringing of John Lelangue. Given that he was Floyd’s eyes and ears during much of Floyd’s Glorious Tour, his criticism and public statements have to hurt. And there is the on-going silence of others. Including others who quietly support Landis, but can’t be seen to publicly do so.
What Team Landis are saying in the press release, in effect, is that Floyd is just as concerned as anyone else about the problems doping causes for the sport of cycling. Given what he’s going through, perhaps more concerned than many others.
In his statements, Landis points out that one should think (and if necessary learn) before one speaks. And when he says,
When an allegedly positive result is leaked to the media, a career of racing and winning clean gets lost among condemnations from people that are too lazy to inform themselves, or too scared to stand up for what is right.
Landis is challenging people to go out, learn about the case, base their opinions on information rather than sound bites and then stand up for what they believe is fair and right.
He’s also pointing out to the person he’s addressing, as well as everyone else, that we need to be concerned about how the anti-doping system currently works, and whether its’ focus is on the correct things. Landis understands riders who are concerned about the effect of doping on professional cycling and riders’ abilities to earn their livings. And he goes on:
This is especially true if the fundamental errors in my case are an indication of how flawed the anti-doping system can be.
And there is this comment, directed at one specific individual, saying that person should be worrying less about telling the world he is racing clean, but rather:
[H]e should worry about the anti-doping organizations’ current ineffective and unfair systems, which ‘catch’ clean riders like him right along with the cheaters.
Sadly, the system isn’t fool-proof. And perhaps it never will be. There will be times when innocent people get caught in the clutches of the anti-doping police. Although the current version of the system has its flaws, the system can be better, and that’s what Floyd Landis is talking about. There’s a real need to advocate for positive change.
Regardless of how his case turns out, the biggest legacy of the Landis debacle may well be reforms to the system that, hopefully, will ensure that another episode like this one never occurs again.
It’s good to remember the cautionary tale that is part and parcel of Team Landis’ brief statement:
Racing clean does not guarantee that there will be no faulty lab results or false accusations of positive results. I have been clean my entire career  — a fact supported by my perfect record of negative tests other than the one flawed result  — and passed seven other tests at the 2006 Tour de France, including before and after Stage 17. I won four major stage races in 2006, and won them all fair and square.
What Landis is saying is clear: Just because you’re clean doesn’t mean you can escape the anti-doping machine.
Those are the important messages within the statement, not who prompted the comments. Bradley Wiggins is a minor player in the whole saga, and he doesn’t deserve any more mention than he’s already gotten.
