In the “What’s Old is News Again” department, a report issued by the University of Freiburg yesterday (eightzero provided the link) says that Andreas Klöden and Matthias Kessler, along with confessed doper Patrick Sinkewitz, made a visit to the University’s clinic on the eve of the 2006 Tour de France to top of their tanks, as it were, with a bit of their own blood. This particular form of blood doping, known as autologous blood doping, is the hardest to detect, for the simple reason that the blood cells used come from the same person who receives them later on.
The problem, of course, is that when the athlete withdraws a pint or two of blood, that means he (or she) is operating on a bit less for a while. So, while adding extra cells before a major race like the Tour de France can help a cyclist deliver more oxygen to those hard working muscles, immediately after the blood has been withdrawn the cyclist has fewer blood cells to transport oxygen.
The thing that staggers the mind, however, is the timing. Yes, this type of blood doping is harder to detect, and one can imagine why a cyclist or other endurance athlete might do so right around the start a major event. But in 2006, right as the Tour de France is kicking off, when two of your teammates have been sent home just a couple of days before because they’ve been implicated in the still ongoing (comedy known as) Operaciòn Puerto, it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to actually make a run for the blood bank. Especially with all the media scrutiny going on right at that time.
By the descriptions of the Freiburg report, that’s what Sinkewitz, Kessler and Klöden did. Instead of going to dinner, they made the hour-long drive from Strasbourg to Freiburg to fuel up in an entirely different way. Susan Westemeyer of CyclingNews.com lays out the history behind the report, which deals with the activities of Dr. Andreas Schmid and Dr. Lothar Heinrich, two doctors connected to the Freiburg Clinic.
Westemeyer’s story notes that after Patrick Sinkewitz signed with the T-Mobile team in late 2005, he began blood doping with Dr. Heinrich’s assistance.
The most notorious of those transfusions took place on Sunday, July 2, 2006. Sinkewitz’s girlfriend at the time drove him from the team hotel in Strasbourg, France, to the clinic in Freiburg, Germany, for a blood transfusion. Only the day before the Tour started, Jan Ullrich, Oscar Sevilla and directeur sportif Rudy Pevenage had been suspended from the team for their involvement with with Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes as the fallout from Operaciòn Puerto muddied the waters of the Tour de France.
The report notes that Sinkewitz gave various accounts of this episode, often claiming to have been the only rider involved. However, at risk of prosecution for perjury, he stated that teammates Andreas Klöden and Matthias Kessler were also in the car and received transfusions. The girlfriend, whose name was not given, also testified to that effect.
Sinkewitz eventually spilled his guts after an out-of-competition sample taken in 2007 during a pre-TdF training camp came back positive for testosterone. If the stories about the Freiburg report are accurate, Klöden appears to be headed for an anti-doping hearing, and a possible suspension. If he is suspended, the question will be whether he gets two years for a first offense (the standard in 2006) or whether the German anti-doping agency (NADA — ironic given what the term means in English) considers this episode to have “aggravating” circumstances, which could lead to a four-year suspension under the rules that came into effect in January 2009. Time will tell how this all plays out.
The Freiberg report contained at least a bit of qualified good news for Jan Ullrich, one of the two T-Mobile riders who was sent home before the 2006 Tour started.
The commission said at its press conference that it found no indication Jan Ullrich was involved in this particular doping programme. “We found nothing new against Jan Ullrich,” said Hans Joachim Schafer, head of the commission. “I assume that Jan Ullrich was in Freiburg for the usual medical examinations, but was cared for elsewhere, if at all.” Ullrich, however, was linked by DNA to blood taken into custody during Operaciòn Puerto.
For a summary of what’s become of the T-Mobile’s 2006 Tour de France riders, Lionel Birnie of Cycling Weekly offers a rogue’s gallery under the heading Nightmare Team. Of the 9 cyclists who were slated to start, and seven who actually participated, only two have not been implicated in doping scandals. As Birnie observed:
The T-Mobile team selected for the 2006 Tour de France was a beauty, wasn’t it.
Yep. Sure was. It certainly will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Some day, this littany from the Ghost of Doping Past is bound to end. I hope.
Update: In an article on VeloNews.com about Astana’s new jerseys (with faded out title sponsor), Andrew Hood provides the following postscript:
No decision on Klöden
Bruyneel also fielded a question on the fate Astana rider Andreas Klöden, who is under the spotlight following a new report from Germany that allegedly details organized blood doping within the former T-Mobile team during the 2006 Tour, when Klöden rode to second overall.
“I’ve been a little bit busy. I’ve been reading Web sites. I haven’t seen the report yet,” Bruyneel said. “I would need to read the official report and then see what’s in there, what’s not in there, what the situation is. I haven’t talked to Andreas, either, so I will do that over the weekend. I don’t want make a decision now, or make any comment, I would like to have all of the information available first.”
Good idea to gather all the facts before making a decision.
What is “strange” in all of this doping revelation is that no one “clean” contenders is offuscated by all those dopers. No one is saying that he has been cheated by the riders implicated in OP, Freiburg, Festina,…or with Ferrari, Cecchini,..
Why? Of course, because every other contenders had the same or similar doping program
Jean,
That might be a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? It could be that those who feel cheated also feel that speaking out against such things will only have a negative impact on their own future in bike racing. They might not want to draw attention to themselves, their teams, or even draw their sponsors into the whole mess, as they may become known as troublemakers who generate bad publicity for their teams, sponsors, etc. Not that such worries are rational necessarily, but I can imagine that some riders may fear the (perceived) consequences of speaking out.
It might just be that the race(s) was run, it’s over, and they have moved on?
Seems like it could be good advise?
“Klöden’s lawyers say reports contain no proof he doped.”
http://www.velonews.com/article/92092/
HAHAHAHA! Oh, that’s so cute. Some lawyer somewere *still* thinks UCI, WADA and their cronies actually have to prove something. HAHAHAHA!
Really, I can just use my experience and tell this won’t work.
Wow Jean C,
Quote: “No one is saying that he has been cheated by the riders implicated in OP, Freiburg, Festina,…or with Ferrari, Cecchini,..
Why? Of course, because every other contenders had the same or similar doping program”
1st, you are factually wrong. There is a moderately long line of riders who have complained about being cheated by doperz. Think back. You’ve named a few, having mentioned some of them in your past posts. Short memory, poetic license, or dramatic effect?
2nd, riders may not complain for any number of reasons, some having little to nothing to do with doping.
Here is a quick list:
· Random draw theory: The alphabet soup snares innocent/guilty riders in its web capriciously. Given the roulette like nature of the beast, the riders have no control and less recourse, especially if implicated but actually innocent. It’s therefore a sound strategy to stay off the soup’s radar as much, and for as long, as possible.
· Preparing to race takes up most of their energy. Why waste precious energy getting involved in issues with which the “low on the soup’s food chain, ridesr” have no practical influence.
· Speaking up is detrimental to the rider’s interests.
· Don’t care.
· Don’t know. Has no personal knowledge.
· Other….
Seems I may have posted badly? My previous comment is awaiting moderation.
Jeff,
I have no clue why that comment was held in moderation. My apologies for how long it took to get posted, I’ve been away from my computer most of the day and just found out about it right now.
2009 Giro d’Italia Stage 9(*)
http://www.velonews.com/article/92166/cav–wins-a-sleeper-in-milano
Just so I understand what happened…did the employees band together to protect themselves from the working conditions imposed by their employers? Ummm…hey! what a great idea!
I wonder what would happen if an employer decided not to pay the employees’ wages? Oh, that could never happen in a pro sport.
Copy from post in VCSR thread:
In other news, Giro racers neutralize the Milan crit stage.
There’s a whole lot of stupid going on here, from both sides.
First, the Giro organizers design a series of questionable finishes and seem to punctuate that point by including a stupid crit stage in a Grand Tour – complete with insufficient barriers, cobbles, trolley tracks, and random parked cars along the route. However, the organizers point out that the Milan circuit is less dangerous than the Amstel Gold Race or Liege-Bastogne-Liege.
Second, this is the point on which the riders are suddenly forming solidarity and taking noteworthy action in an effort to improve their working conditions? If so, it was a weak and poorly chosen point. It’s not one to hang your hat on. It’s no coincidence that the riders and DS’s generally lack advanced educations. If they had exercised their collective gray matter a bit better, perhaps there would have been a more positive outcome today? There are certainly more important issues that a unified peloton could be advocating.
Some argue that fatigue coupled with an emotional reaction wrt to Pedro Horrillo’s fall and serious injuries were closer to the real motivation to neutralize the crit stage. Whatever the case, here’s a wish for a full recovery for Horrillo and a wish that the soup, the race organizers, and the racers will make better use of that which is between their ears.
Jeff,
No doubt. Seems like the riders only band together for things that have an immediate impact on them. Unsafe course conditions would certainly be one of those things. They haven’t (yet) banded together for other, much larger issues related to their working conditions. I’d like to believe that this is the start of something more, but the realist in me thinks that any other action during the Giro will be an echo of today’s stage. And any other action would be along the same lines. But, like you said, the Amstel Gold and LBL are arguably much more dangerous courses. This kind of protest might have been better done at one of those races, instead.
My guess is that the real impact of today’s protest — if it’s felt — will be in the design of next year’s Giro. Small consolation for those who are participating right now, though. I hope Pedro Horrillo has a speedy and full recovery. What he experienced sounds pretty scary.
Just to put more weight about my position we have just learn that austrian justice is investigating a case against Rasmussen and Kohl who are linked with a blood centrifuge.
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2009/20090518_131357_kohl-rasmussen-et-la-centrigeuse.html
We have a lot of clues and sometimes evidences of what is the reality of sport, difficult not to see it. But of course, that is like Santa Clauss, little children will not accept that tales until they discover it by their own.
Here’s the Google machine translated version.
Jean C,
The translation (thanks Rant) is clear that a manager, two riders, and a skier (xc) are suspected of banding together to purchase a centrifuge. A centrifuge was eventually found in Budapest. It’s unclear what is up with the manager’s home in upper Austria. The suspected purpose of having a centrifuge was expressed. That’s about it. Please do keep us informed if the Austrian criminal investigation goes from suspicion to something more concrete. It’s hard to get excited when Kohl and Ras are serving suspensions anyway. Are those involved with the criminal investigation hopeful of keeping them out of competition well after their respective suspensions have been served? Suspicion isn’t evidence, except in certain parts of the world where most would not want to live (and WADA World-which is very special). And hey, if you are going to drag Santa into this, it won’t be long before we’re exchanging momma insults.
Jean,
It’s certainly an interesting sliver of a story. Right now, it sounds like we have suspicion and allegations, but that the investigation is far from complete. We have to be careful about leaping to conclusions. The evidence points in a certain direction, but until enough evidence is put together to actually bring a case against those individuals, we need to be cautious about what inferences we draw from the article.
If the allegations in the article are true, then it shows a certain degree of organization and involvement by various individuals, two of whom are already serving suspensions. The biggest problem, to me, is that for all the suspicion and all the anecdotal evidence, there’s no definitive answer to the question, “Just how many pro cyclists are doping?” The percentage could be very high, very low, or somewhere in between. My hunch is that it’s somewhere in between, and that on some teams there have been very organized team-wide efforts. Whether it was all of the teams, or most of the teams or a few of the teams, that’s a bit harder to pinpoint.
Given that this is an Austrian investigation, I wonder if it’s an outgrowth of the Humanplasma story from a while back. The article doesn’t say so, but it seems to be a pretty good guess.
Rant,
Yes , I agree that we have to wait the end of investigation but we have still strong clues and the confession of Kohl who already has said he was using blood doping, HGH,… at least since 2005. In fact when I posted that link I did a confusion between Schumacher and Kohl. In what is written we have just now that police has done some progress but since a while the centrifuge story was known.
If I recall it correct Matschiner were the manager of a lot of other athletes (different countries, ski but more from Track and Field. He seems to have confessed too, especially after that an Austrian TaF girl was caught, she revealed that his provider was Matschiner.
What could be astonishing for people not close of sport and with few knowledge about doping is the association of riders of different teams to dope. That bring us ten years back when riders were speaking of how to dope inside the peloton: no secret, no wrongdoing, it was just normal behaviour, that is just part of the game, an unwritten rule.
That can explain why some caught riders or athletes have the sentiment to have done nothing bad and eventually feelt to have been unfairly treated for something that everyone (or most of them) were doing.
Jean,
I believe you’re right about Matschiner. I recall seeing some articles a while back where they said he had confessed to his role in helping various athletes use performance-enhancing drugs and other prohibited techniques.
When something is so pervasive that “everyone” is doing it, then I can well understand why those who would be singled out for punishment would feel that they were being unfairly targeted. Especially if they know of others in the same position who manage to avoid being caught or being held up to ridicule.
Of course, if the reason for the rules is to level the playing field, and if everyone really were doping, then the playing field would be level — just not in the way that the authorities intended. If the rules are intended to protect riders’ health, then beyond the sanctions and punishment, there need to be some programs aimed at helping riders deal with the health consequences of their actions, but that part is missing.
Seems to me, the whole anti-doping approach in sports needs a bit of an overhaul, (using corporate-speak) “to better align it’s actions with it’s desired outcomes.” 😉
Rant,
It’s difficult to speak of playing field be level by doping, not everyone want to take the same risks, some haven’t the money to hire the best doctor or to pay for the major program: Dr. Ferrari had( still has ?) different programs and different prices.
Just ask why would Ullrich have paid his own personal program with apparently Fuentes when he could have had a doping program provided by the Freiburg doctors and paid by his team!
Our french longitudinal program has been build to fight doping but more to preserve the health of athletes by monitoring many parameters. The bad thing we have seen with a lot of kidneys destroyed could be probably avoided now.
Good point Jean.
It’s odd to think that the Freiburg program could be improved upon, given Telekom/T-Mobile’s record of success. But apparently Ulle chose to go with the best–it worked out since his first year with Fuentes (2003) was a significant success.
Jean,
True, it’s hard to say that doping levels the playing field unless everyone is on the same program, or equal programs. Hard to judge whether at any given level of the sport whether that would be true. By the same token, even if no one doped, the playing field would still not be level, given that different athletes have different capabilities — even among those who are at the highest level of any sport.
ludwig,
I wouldn’t be surprised that any program could be improved upon, actually. That’s kind of the way things go. Over time, people find ways of doing things better. True in technology, in medicine, and even in doping.
Kohl has spoken this morning, he leaves cycling because he don’t want to lie more
One more who confirms what we know and the 2 speeds.
Edit:
I have to hand it to you Jean. You are certainly not shy about contradicting yourself. In this case you’ve cited Kohl, who, in essence, is saying you need doping to win and is calling out the top riders, in general, if not by name. As a high placer in the TdF, later found to have used banned substances, add one more to top riders who have called out their peers – something you previously wrote does not happen.
Kohl has admittedly doped. What he has not done is to offer any specifics or evidence about other riders. From this armchair, Kohl’s statements sound like he is trying to justify his own actions and little more.
The overwhelming majority of posts I’ve seen from anti-doperz types have previously been highly critical of Kohl. Some have called him a cheat, a liar, and generally someone not to believe. Now that he’s saying something that fits your (and other anti-doperz) thesis (overly generous term), he’s suddenly believable and an anti-doperz darling?
If Kohl has the courage of his convictions, then he might directly say what he knows and provide evidence, or walk away quietly. Mere insinuation is cowardly and self serving. Choose your friends wisely Jean…..
Cycling at hundreds of thousands of speeds…..
Jean,
Thanks for posting that. I’d seen a shorter article this morning, which only had a partial quote from Kohl. Not completely sure what to make of his statements. The easiest excuse for someone who’s caught cheating is to say, “Everyone is doing it…” But are they? We get glimpses of statements from people who don’t offer a whole lot of specifics. For instance, it begins to look like there was something organized at Gerolsteiner (the team, not the company). But Kohl hasn’t said so directly, has he? Or any of his former teammates, have they said anything?
I wonder if Kohl is going to follow in Vinokourov’s footsteps. Retire, and then make noises about unretiring about the time his ban is supposed to end. Interesting way to make an end-run around the anti-doping system. While you’re retired from competition, you’re not part of the random testing pool. Given that he admitted to doping, I wonder which teams or sponsors would want him if he ever decides to come back.
Jeff,
I place the previous version of your comment into the pending state, figuring that the edited version is the one you wanted posted.
Rant,
Kohl had chosen to speak out, and as Jaschke showed us he has no hope to be accepted inside peloton when his ban will finish. And coming back to be unable to challenge other riders is not probably exiciting.
Since Puerto we can assume that team owners have distancied themself from team doping practises even if they seems to encourage doping, it would be still a requierement to sign a pro-contract in many teams. If the rider has not the good contacts, a “soigneur” will advice him.
So as industry, doping is now an extern service of teams., just a direct link between riders and doping providers or facilitators. If one is caught , he is fired and the team is not directly tarnished.
Probably Kohl cannot speak a lot because of police investigation.
There is more here
http://www.lefigaro.fr/cyclisme/2009/05/25/02007-20090525ARTSPO00342-kohl-arrete-et-parle.php
An athlete who has a ban cannot come back without executing it. Vino has probably never officially retired or maybe he has done a secret deal with UCI, bribes and blackmail can be used.
Kohl had at least 3 choices:
– to deny, take the ban and comeback
– do a semi-confession, “I doped for the first time, it’s my own fault…” and comback after his ban,
– to confess and to betray omerta
Thanks Rant. Yes, the edited version is more complete.
The problem with Kohl’s statements is that they are overly broad and leave him unaccountable. They might amount to gossip or just excuses?
It’s sort of like little league baseball when a good player is called out for not touching 3rd base on his way home. The kid’s angry and embarrassed. His excuse is that everyone misses touching the base and few get called out. However, the player fails to define who “everyone” is and fails to cite when it was that “everyone” didn’t get called out for doing it.
That’s not omerta. That’s grasping for anything to justify a bad act and to deflect personal responsibility.
Jean,
It sounds as if you may not understand the distinction of being retired, or not, as a pro cyclist? In pro cycling, the practical difference between simply serving a suspension and being suspended while also retired is that the retired rider is no longer in the testing pool. If the rider wants to un-retire, he/she needs to officially make themselves available to the testing pool some months (6 months IIRC) in advance of re-joining competition.
Kohl is free to speak and to provide specifics if he wants to. That he doesn’t leads me to believe he either does not want to offer specifics or he has no personal specific knowledge.
It’s not just pro cyclists who get suspended:
From the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) website wrt
the athletes that currently have their eligibility suspended:
* Christine Johnston (GBR) – from June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2009 – Anti Doping violation, refusal.
* Simon Daubney (NZL) – from July 14, 2007 to July 13, 2009 – Anti Doping violation, presence of cocaine metabolites.
* Juan Diego Nunez (MEX) – from July 26, 2008 to July 25, 2009 – Gross breach of good manners and sportsmanship.
* Mr Anders Steen Gotschalk (DEN) – from Oct. 5, 2007 to Oct. 5, 2009 – Anti Doping violation, presence of cocaine metabolites.
* Shinya Kunieda (JPN) – from Nov. 1, 2007 to Oct. 31, 2009 – Breaking RRS 5
The difference is that sailing doesn’t eat its young with the same zeal as cycling, those who seek to police cycling, or many of those who “call” thmselves fans of the sport.
Jeff,
Whoa! If the UCI did the good manners thing, imagine just how much smaller the numbers of riders competing at all levels would be. 😉
Rant,
Likely a holdover from the stuffy yacht club types who still influence the sport.
A good sailor can make that work for them, with the right tactics.
About LNDD hacking, Baker may be under the threat of an international arrest
raw translation from http://www.lemonde.fr/sports/article/2009/05/28/la-justice-francaise-attend-floyd-landis_1199183_3242.html#ens_id=1199258
French Law (and not so ironically, Louisiana State Law – to some degree, and as an aside) is based on Napoleonic Code. Napoleon wasn’t a big fan of due process and had a preference toward “guilty unless proven innocent”. (Much of the WADA Code shares aspects similar to Napoleonic Code – thanks to Richard “Dick” Young, an attorney from the U.S. with close ties to USADA) This is intended as background to help explain why Jean C seems to assume guilt whenever someone is accused by the French judicial system or alphabet soup affiliates of WADA.
This subject has been batted around on several other forums. Here is a summary:
1) Arnie Baker is accused of being the hacker, or having paid the person that hacked LNDD’s/AFLD’s computer system – related to the Landis case (fiasco-my word).
2) Arnie Baker’s guilt or innocence is far from being proven.
3) Many speculate Arnie Baker does not have the necessary skills to hack the lab’s computer system.
4) Other than speculation that he hired someone to do the hacking, there doesn’t seem to be any paper or electronic trail that has been cited to indicate he did. Same for corroboration fro any potential witnesses/conspirators.
5) Attorneys, legal scholars, or others knowledgeable about international law wrt computer hacking would need to chime in regarding France’s ability to compel Baker to appear, or if it might be in his best interest to do so.
6) Floyd has not been implicated or accused to date.
7) Floyd’s relationship with Arnie Baker is well documented. However, even on the off chance Baker was involved in what he is accused of doing, that does not mean Floyd had any association with the hypothetical act.
8) Someone hacked, or leaked, LNDD documents. LNDD has poor computer security to add to their long list of shortcomings.
9) Those documents were part of the evidence package at the hearing at Pepperdine in Malibu.
10) The information contained in the package of “hacked” (perhaps leaked?) documents, including damning evidence of serial LNDD testing and reporting screw-ups, was not contested by USADA at the Malibu hearing.
Weirder and weirder. I don’t understand why we hear about this claim now and a month ago that Baker sent the Crepin emails, when in both cases it seems to be reported as something that was established back in 2006.
The claim about the IP address is also very odd on many levels. Without going into extensive details, you can’t usually trace email by IP address without the cooperation of all the intermediate servers, and even then it’s often not possible, and you also usually can’t pin an IP address down to a specific individual without the help of the local ISP. Although there’s exceptions to all of this, but the point is it’s a very unusual claim.
tom
Thom,
It’s unusual because it’s a sham, and they’re trying to drum up more opposition, as well as beat a dead horse.
Richard,
We have 2 different affairs: Landis’ doping case that is over and a civil (or police) affair, the LNDD hacking.
When Police investigated that hacking they have found a much bigger fish so that investigation was delayed to avoid to afraid the biggest fish. Now that they have caught the big fish they can work on the smallest fish.
As we can see if they have been able to catch a so big fish like EDF and ARENA, they have the competence to catch a small fish who probably has not all the knowledge on internet networks.
About the dead horse who is Floyd probably, I do think that they have summoned him because he was one who had benefit of the crime so he could know something, he was probably more requested as a witness. For Arnie Baker his case seems to be worst because it’s his IP that has been identified.
So if it’s similar to Will’s threatening with no direct relation with him, Floyd has nothing to fear.
Jean C,
As a hypothetical exercise, let’s assume for a moment that your version is correct wrt the hacker documents.
Let’s also assume for a moment that Arnie Baker is the hacker or employed the hacker. Since I’m feeling generous, let’s also assume France has the right to expect Baker will take a flight from the west coast of the U.S., on his own nickel, to answer some sort of French summons on short notice and without benefit of extensive background information. FWIW, that last one does sound like an elaborate internet inspired prank or confidence game.
(Note: I don’t actually buy into any of these hypothetical assumptions – they are just intended for the sake of argument)
I’m having trouble recognizing any “benefit” to Floyd. The documents were anything but a centerpiece of Floyd’s defense and don’t appear to have been considered by the arbs. In terms of the hearing, that sounds a lot like trivia, and trivia yields little to no benefit.
So, even though Floyd did not benefit from the hacker documents, somehow he’s supposed to interrupt his life, hop a plane to France, paying his own way, on the authority of some summons from France, on short notice, without extensive background information,to possibly, and I mean on the most remote of possibilities, to be a witness regarding something from which he did not benefit? (worked out well for him the last time he consented to appear before a french court)
I’m paraphrasing you Jean C, but that’s what you are asking us to believe?
I’ll chime in on Will, hopefully for the last time on this forum. I do so, in part, because I was recently wrongly identified as being Will by a couple of miscreants that frequent another forum, and to illustrate what a cheap shot it is to bring Will into the discussion.
What Will did was wrong. It was last reported he was seeking professional help. He owes it to himself, LeMond, and Floyd-to some degree, to take getting that help seriously, doing his best to apologize or make amends to LeMond, and to lead a more responsible life in the aftermath. What Will did was hurtful to Lemond, a distraction to the proceedings, and a detrimental sideshow to the serious issue of Floyd’s defense. What Will did in Malibu has no (zero, none, nothing, nil, zip, zilch) relevance or legitimate relationship to the subject of the hacker documents. If Will has made amends and plays better with others now, then it’s just a cheap shot he doesn’t deserve. Further, on the off chance Will has not reformed, then he doesn’t care and you can’t hurt him. However, if LeMond googles himself sometimes and runs across this, it could bring back some particularly hurtful memories. For those who hold LeMond in high esteem, you may want to consider that ?