Last week, when I got the most recent issue of VeloNews (or, at least, the most recent issued delivered to my door), I was greeted by a cover that asks the question “What’s up with Floyd?” Interesting question. Given that earlier in the year, VeloNews ran an article about three riders making comebacks during the 2009 season (Floyd Landis, Ivan Basso and Lance Armstrong), it seems like a fair question to ask. Landis’ season hasn’t been the most spectacular of his career. So having hyped Landis’ return to pro cycling, it’s the kind of follow-up article that would inevitably happen.
Rogers’ article starts out with an almost “just the facts, ma’am” recitation of Landis’ history as a professional cyclist. And for most of the first half of the article, he follows that approach. Even so, he goes off the rails a bit at the end of the second paragraph, when he states:
[Landis’] dramatic collapse on stage 16 and subsequent comeback the following day became the stuff of legend — until anti-doping tests revealed a foreign source of testosterone and the Mennonite-turned mountain biker-turned U.S. Postal team rider became the first Tour winner to be stripped of his title.
Nice writing and turns of phrase, but the last part — about being the first rider to be stripped of his title — is factually wrong, as I pointed out more than two years ago. Rogers would merely need to check the Tour de France’s own web site to discover the truth. Landis is the second winner to have his title taken away from him. The first person to suffer such a fate was the original winner of the second Tour (who also won the first Tour), along with the three riders who finished behind him. If Rogers can’t get his facts right on something that’s reasonably well documented around our wonderful “Internets” (and in various books written on the history of the Tour), how certain can we be on the information he presents later in his article?
But for most of the first page, Rogers’ article is pretty much on the up and up. It’s when he gets into the speculations about why Landis’ return isn’t at least a bit similar to another famous comeback this year that Rogers again starts going off the rails. At the very bottom of the first page, he again delves into factually murky waters by saying:
[Landis’ integrity was further worsened] when French laboratory LNDD reported in May that another Landis supporter, San Diego-based physician Arnie Baker, had commissioned a third party to hack into the lab’s computer system …
Earlier this year, French authorities sought to question Arnie Baker about the 2006 hacking into LNDD that revealed some documents which suggested sloppy lab work in some cases and rescinded results in others. At the time, they did not make a definitive claim that Baker was the person who hired the hackers who carried out the infiltration into LNDD’s computer network.
In fact, one source tells me that while the authorities wanted to talk to Baker, they did not believe he actually was involved. They did, however, think he might know who was, and it was for that reason they would like to speak to him. After I first heard about the story, I contacted Arnie Baker, and his reply was short and succinct:
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I did not hack into, nor did I help or hire anyone to hack into the LNDD computer system.
As Rogers notes in a comment to this post, he didn’t report that Baker hacked into LNDD. He said the French lab claims Baker hired the hackers. He’s right that some people view those allegations and question Floyd’s integrity as a result. The claims by the lab are just that, however, claims. Not proof. Rogers article, though, gives no indication of having done anything to check with Baker or anyone else about the hacking story. But perhaps that’s beside the point. There are people who will use the claims that Baker is somehow connected to the hacking to tar and feather Landis’ reputation.
Switching gears for a bit, perhaps the most trenchant comment in the whole piece is this one from Rory Sutherland:
We’re definitely seeing [Floyd Landis] come back, but it’s a slow road back.
Although Lance Armstrong has made the art of the comeback look almost like child’s play, for most other athletes, the road back to previous glory is a long, slow, difficult process. There’s an old saying in bike racing that you have to race yourself into shape. After more than two years away from professional road cycling, Landis has a ways to go before he re-emerges as the top-notch rider he was back in July 2007 2006. It’s the more common story, despite how Lance’s comeback has turned out. (And what of Ivan Basso, by the way? What’s he been up to, racing wise?)
What bothers me most about Rogers’ piece, though, is two tabloid-like sections. One, dealing with rumors that Landis is drinking heavily, and the other an anonymous suggestion by a “domestic team leader” who suggests that the explanation for Landis’ current situation is the most obvious: He really did dope.
The flaw in that person’s logic, however, is this: It just isn’t possible to dope yourself enough to go from pack fodder in domestic pro races to winning the Tour de France. Those forms of doping that do enhance performance can’t take an average American pro and make him into a way-above-average European pro. It just doesn’t happen. What could happen is that it might give that rider a boost within the domestic racing scene, and if he was extraordinarily lucky it might even earn him a spot on a European team as a domestique. But that’s about it. Rogers, though, doesn’t seek to balance that anonymous comment. Instead, he quotes Ben Jacques-Maynes, who suggests that Landis isn’t enjoying racing that much anymore.
And while he notes that there are some races coming up in which Landis might still shine, Rogers ends the piece by questioning just how long Landis will continue racing and how long the OUCH team will last. Interesting speculation. Based on what?
Rogers piece is the kind of writing that makes me wonder why I waste money on VeloNews, when I read only the occasional article in the print magazine these days. [The answer is this: as a former photojournalist, I have an appreciation for the pictures that VeloNews runs from the various races around the country and around the world. They give their photographers good display, and they print on some very good glossy paper stock. Most of the time, that’s what catches my eye.]
Rogers article suffers the most from not getting Landis’ side of the story. While I can see why VeloNews might have wanted that piece out by a particular time (like during the Tour de France), there was no real pressing need to publish the story when they did. It wasn’t breaking news, and the human interest angle would be no different in a month, or two months, or even six months than it was when the story was published. If Rogers had been able to connect with Landis and get his thoughts, the story would have been more balanced and more complete. Saying that Landis declined to comment, given that there was no pressing need to publish the story, is a cop-out. Rogers should have been more persistent and his editors should have held the story until they could include Landis’ own remarks. Instead, the piece fails to be the kind of knowledgeable, informed and insightful writing that I used to expect from VeloNews.
While searching the magazine’s web site to see if I could link to the Rogers article (to save non-subscribers the effort of buying a copy of that particular issue), I managed to trip across another article over at Bicycling.com in a similar vein. One that was well-written and insightful and which cast the main subject in a different light than I’ve seen in a long time. The article, Whatever Happened to Greg LeMond? (written by Mike Magnuson) stands in stark contrast to Rogers piece. It’s well written, and filled with comments and quotes from LeMond, and it makes no attempts to hide the writer’s own biases and (at least one-time) admiration of his subject. Althought Magnuson admits by the end of his article that he doesn’t fully understand who Greg LeMond is these days, or where he’s coming from, you get at least a sense of LeMond’s humanity and character.
Long-time readers will know that I’m not a big fan of LeMond these days. I’ve been puzzled by changes in his account about how he came to retire from cycling. And I’ve been puzzled and frustrated by his role in the whole Landis case. But I also felt bad for the man when he was forced to speak about the abuse he suffered as a child, for which the US Anti-Doping Agency bears as much responsibility as a certain person, who will remain nameless. LeMond’s participation in the Landis case was not necessary for USADA to win. And, by WADA’s own rules, LeMond’s testimony was irrelevant. The only thing that mattered to the arbitrators were the facts surrounding the particular positive test result that USADA was prosecuting Landis over. USADA could just as easily not have included LeMond in their case and it would not have made a whit of difference in the outcome.
Magnuson, in recounting his last interview with LeMond, offers up a surprise:
… Greg was running his hand through his hair and saying how Landis had raced clean, and the proof was, look, he got tired and had a bad day in the mountains then came back and had a good day. “That,” LeMond said, “is what happens when riders race clean.” He also said what a great person Landis was and how well the French would receive him and how, just a couple of months ago, he had met Floyd’s father and really thought Floyd’s father was a fine person.
For all that happened in the months following Magnuson’s final interview with LeMond (which took place the day before the stories about Landis testing positive broke), you’d never guess that Greg LeMond would have ever said such a thing about Floyd Landis.
Earlier on in his story, Magnuson says:
Sometimes people would say to me, “Whatever happened to Greg LeMond?”
I would stare at my shoes and say, with complete honesty, “I don’t know.”
I still don’t know. The last time I saw him was at his house, on July 26, 2006, several hours before the story broke that Floyd Landis had tested positive for testosterone doping after his miraculous comeback in Stage 17 of the Tour de France. LeMond was happy about the Tour and thought it had been raced cleanly, something that mattered a great deal to him.
Towards the end of his article, Magnuson sums things up this way:
I don’t know whatever happened to Greg LeMond. Since I saw him last, he’s been in the news a few times: Once for appearing at the Landis hearing and admitting that he had been molested as a child, another time for suing a land developer in Montana, another time for suing the Trek Corporation, which finally severed all ties with him and discontinued the manufacture of LeMond bicycles, and another time for appearing at one of Lance Armstrong’s press conferences and grilling him on his drug-testing program. It was enough to make me wonder if maybe Greg, finally, had used up his chances, had lost his panache. But maybe that’s where the guys who have it need to get before they can surprise us by unveiling it once more—maybe what the rest of us think of as its disappearance is part of its existence.
When an article like the one by Neal Rogers makes me wonder why I spend money on VeloNews, along comes an article by another writer that shows the magazine hasn’t totally devolved into birdcage liner just yet. If you’ve got 15 or 20 minutes (perhaps a bit longer), take the time to read Magnuson’s piece about Greg LeMond. It may not change your mind about who the three-time Tour winner is, but it might just make him seem a bit more human.
I didn’t care for the article on Floyd either. It didn’t ring true to the Floyd I met in May in Arkansas. Or other articles that have been written since he joined OUCH.
I was very uncomfortable with the references to the whole mess that Floyd had been through.
Regarding his comeback, one cyclist (can’t remember who”) mentioned during the Tour how hard it was to come back after 2yrs off. And of course, super Lance, has made it look easy………..but he didn’t like being third.
Well, hell, I’m not sure Floyd’s focus has been on winning. He’s been supporting his teammates just like he did Lance in his Postal Days. I agree that the article was a let down. I usually like Neal’s writing. And I kept waiting for Floyd’s input.
And btw, look at the part he played in Karl Menzies winning Elk Grove!! Just this last weekend.
I was going to ask you about this Ramt, I figured you’d have a copy. Me? I have to drive an hour and a half just to get one and with the reunion almost (THANK GOD!!!) being over with I will have my life back. But I digress, I find this to, from what I understand, be a speculative load of crap. IF FL has any kind of problem(s) he sure wouldn’t tell Neal Rogers and “reporting” of this kind (TMZ comes to mind) does no one any good. Craploa I say, and if not guess what Neal, it’s none of your business , nor mine either.
str
Interesting take on things… If nothing else, I suppose it’s good to know you’re reading the magazine, even if my story disappointed you.
A few things, off the top:
• Yes, you’re correct, Landis wasn’t the first Tour winner to ever be stripped of his title. But he was the first Tour winner to be stripped of his title for doping, and the first Tour winner of the modern era to be stripped of his title for anything. I think we’ll agree today’s Tour is a completely different event than 100 years ago. Anyhow, poor omission of those two words, “for doping,” in my story, but these mistakes do happen.
• You wrote, “Landis has a ways to go before he re-emerges as the top-notch rider he was back in July 2007.” I believe you meant “July 2006.” I guess mistakes happen to ranting critics as well.
• The Mike Magnuson article appeared on Bicycling.com, not VeloNews, or velonews.com. Again, I suppose mistakes happen to critics as well.
• The timing of the story was not so much to coincide with the Tour, but more to be a part of the issue’s domestic mid-season racing update. Floyd’s return to racing was an anticipated part of the domestic racing season.
• Landis opted not to speak with me for this story. The team’s press agent also opted not to respond. It’s a shame. There’s no question it would have been a better, more balanced story if they had, and you’re right, my story suffers because of that. But as a writer you also know that journalists can’t let that keep them from writing stories about topics so many are wondering about.
• In the year of his own comeback, Ivan Basso placed 5th at the Giro d’Italia, the second most-important stage race in cycling.
Okay, now a little more in-depth:
• The Magnuson story is written in the first person, mine was not, so the comparison is not only weak, it’s not fair. I wasn’t interjecting my own feelings about Landis into the story; I was reporting either what I know to be true or what I’ve been told by several sources. Personally, I would much rather have written the “Floyd returns and kicks ass” story. But up until now, that hasn’t been the case. The fact that he’s ridden so poorly, on the domestic level, relative to the rider who won not only the Tour but also California and Paris-Nice three years ago — that is the story, as well as speculation as to why this might be the case. The idea that it might be because Landis really did dope, while uncomfortable to many, has been the elephant in the room amongst the domestic peloton for months.
• I didn’t write that Baker had hacked into the LNDD. I wrote that the French lab reported that he had commissioned a third party to hack into the lab’s computer system. I don’t know if Baker did or didn’t do what the French lab accused him of, just as I don’t know if Landis actually doped or not. But I do know that the French lab said he doped in July 2006, and also said it had evidence that Baker had commissioned a third party to hack into the lab’s computer system.
• I think quotes such as Phil Zajicek saying ““I think people need to realize how hard it is to comeback from that kind of time away from the sport,” and Rory Sutherland saying, “I think everyone knew it was going to be difficult,” do, in fact, balance the anonymous comment by the domestic pro who suggested that Landis must have doped. My opinion.
• I think Ben Jacques-Maynes’ suggestion that Landis isn’t enjoying racing that much anymore is important, particularly in the context of how long Landis will continue racing and how long the OUCH team will last. “Interesting speculation,” you wrote. “Based on what?” Well, for starters, the team’s primary sponsor is Landis’ close friend and physician, who has stated his reason for sponsoring the team was to fund Floyd’s return. Should Landis decide he’s not enjoying racing, as Jacques-Maynes suggested, or if he’s not getting results that he’d hoped for, it’s certainly feasible that Brent Kay would not choose to fund the team any longer.
There’s been a lot of negative backlash to my story. Believe me. I’ve received threats because of this story. It’s touched several nerves, primarily for those who either won’t consider that Landis’ performance in 2006 might have been tainted, or for those who are fans of Landis and don’t want to read anything that could be viewed as negative about the man. In my line of work, those aren’t compelling reasons to steer away from a story about a former Tour winner, stripped of his title for doping, who is now struggling at the domestic level. If people don’t like what I am writing, they can choose not to read it any longer. On a personal level, Floyd used to be my favorite guy in the pro peloton, and I’m sorry to see how much he’s gone through in the past three years. But I wish him all the best, even if he doesn’t feel the same way about me.
Neal,
Thanks for the long and considered reply. As you will see, if you go back through the article, I’ve corrected the mistakes you pointed out. (Thanks for pointing them out, by the way. I probably need a better copy editor 😉 )
I’ll grant you that the comparison between Mike Magnuson’s article and yours is probably not the best, for just the reason you cite. Magnuson’s is a first-person account and yours is more in a news-reporting or news-analysis style. The comparison is probably most valid in pointing out that they are two different ways of writing and reporting the “Whatever happened to so-and-so” kind of story.
I do recognize that it was a choice by Floyd not to speak with you. My own opinion is that he should have taken the time to talk with you, for whatever that is worth.
And you’re right that the elephant in the room is that there are those who wonder whether or not Landis’ results this year are a confirmation of the allegations from three years ago. In that, there’s the seed for an entirely different article, discussing just how much of an impact doping could have on a cyclist’s performance. (As in, could a mid-pack-finishing pro dope his way to winning the biggest stage race?)
Since neither you nor I were there on the occasions when Landis is alleged to have doped, or when Arnie Baker is alleged to have hired the hackers that broke into LNDD in the fall of 2006, neither of us “knows with our own eyes and ears” whether they did or did not do what they’re accused of. Of course, at one point in 2006 someone from LNDD (Pierre Bordry, if I recall) also suggested that Lance Armstrong may have been behind the hacking.
What I do know of the tenous link between Baker and the hacking is just that. It’s very tenous and French police do not believe he actually hired the hackers. But they do believe he may know who did. Wish I could reveal my source on that, but sometimes we have to go with anonymous information. And if you’re like me, I suspect that makes you a bit uncomfortable. I always like having my sources on the record as to who they are. I believe it adds more credibility to the comments to know where they’re coming from.
What you say about balancing the domestic pro’s comments, I can see. Sutherland’s and Zajicek’s comments do add some balance there. In the “everyone’s a critic” vein, I would have put those two parts of the story in reverse order, giving the anonymous domestic pro the first word, and then following with Sutherland and Zajicek’s comments. By putting the domestic pro’s words second, in some ways I think they become the bigger take-away from the story and the thing people will remember. Perhaps that’s what you intended, perhaps not.
When I was racing, eons ago, it always seemed to take longer to get back into peak fitness after a layoff than I expected. I kind of came up with my own “2-1” rule. For every week I was off, it would be twice that in regaining form. I suspect we’re seeing a bit of that in Landis’ case, though I don’t know if the same 2-1 rule applies for guys who race way above the Cat 3 level that still appears on my mostly unused USA Cycling license.
I don’t know how well Ben Jacques-Maynes knows Floyd, so I’m not really sure what to make of his comment, to be honest. I’d can see your point, if Floyd does decide he’s done with racing, it would be possible — perhaps even likely — that Brent Kay would pull his funding for the cycling team. But I would hope that Kay wouldn’t, even if his involvement initially was to give Floyd an entry back into pro cycling. Pro cycling needs all the sponsors it can get.
I’m sorry to hear that you’ve received threats over your story. That is appalling, and it’s something I certainly can’t condone. As you said, if people don’t like what they’re reading, they’re free to stop. I may be disappointed in your article, but I’m not about to cancel my subscription anytime soon.
I have wondered how much Floyd’s heart has really been in it since coming back. He went through a lot and I don’t know what motivates him after something like that.
I don’t really know if Floyd doped. I do know that from my limited knowledge, the lab and alphabet soup didn’t prove that he did. I also have never read that doping can turn you from an also ran to the top by itself. At least not any drugs that I’ve heard of, Hollywood not included. I’d put more of it on the mentality aspect from what little I’ve seen.
And Lance’s come back was probably helped a bit by his continuation of sporting activities while ‘retired.’ I’m sure the marathons and what not helped keep him at a higher level.
Ken,
That is hard to know, isn’t it? If I’d gone through what Floyd went through, a part of me would be hopping mad and determined to come back and prove the f&*#ers wrong. And another part of me would be tempted to just walk away. Seems like Landis is more in the first camp than the second. From what I gather, he’s had an unusual string of bad luck in the beginnings of his comeback, some of which hasn’t been written about. It would be nice to see some better results in the latter part of the season. Or, we may not see those results until next season. My first coach would often say that the training you do this year is the building blocks for the following season.
I need to put my salt because I am the one here who always says that Floyd did what almost all pro-riders did since EPO has been commonly available.
(for unusual readers, despite what I just write, cyling is one of the cleanest pro sport)
Floyd is facing a double challenge:
– he was out racing and training for a long period,
– he gets older day after day
Even younger he will never reach the level of his TDF days. At that time he was on elaborated doping program boosting his performance by 20% or more.
His uniq chance would be that doping continues to decrease.
I believe that Floyd has decided to be clean now, that could explain why he is not already back at a good level, medicines are very usefull to do quick return after an injury, a 3 month program can save a full year or more.
Maybe he is beginning to understand how difficult it is to ride without doping, the famous “hard-training” or “I train harder than others” being not possible now. He is like one of those lazy Frenchies one..
Floyd, keep on, later you would have a story to tell.
Rant,
I never heard about Lance Armstrong and his possible implication with LNND hacking but it was already one of the 2 I had thought.
Jean,
I don’t know if you’d started visiting the site when I wrote this, but here’s the post about Lance Armstrong, Superhacker? from November 2006. The paper that published the original claim was LeMonde, but the link to the original story only shows a brief quote now. It seems that LeMonde charges readers to access old articles, so you’ll have to pay 2 euros (about $3.00) if you’d like to read it.
Jean C,
It’s simply gratuitous to assert Floyd was ever engaged in an elaborate doping program. The alphabet soup, which did not remotely prove their case with every advantage on their side – yet predictably sanctioned the rider anyway, was not even so bold as to suggest what you casually claim. That you, and others, claim potential performance boosts of 20% or more is pure fantasy. If 20% could be replicated in the horse racing industry, then surely donkeys would be running in the derby.
The fact is that Floyd demonstrated exceptional talent before switching to road racing. His progress and results don’t come as a shock to those familiar with his earlier racing.
Some will be happy Floyd has had a less then stellar season in ’09 and rationalize it as proof that he previously doped. I’ll just say there are other reasons and those that view it as proof of past doping don’t remotely understand the concept of isolating/reducing variables.
Neal, if you are still listening …
You wrote: “anti-doping tests revealed a foreign source of testosterone.” You’re not the only journalist who has written this, or something like it. But this is simply not the case. Anti-doping tests cannot reveal a “foreign” (more accurate would be to say “exogenous”, but I understand that your readers might find the word “foreign” to be easier to understand) source of testosterone, for the simple reason that natural and foreign (again, better to say endogenous and exogenous) testosterone are chemically identical. If it were possible to put a molecule of exogenous and a molecule of endogenous testosterone side-by-side and examine each molecule down to its sub-atomic innards, there’s not a scientist on earth who could tell you which molecule is which.
The WADA anti-doping test for testosterone is based on the fact that not every molecule of testosterone is atomically identical. Testosterone molecules contain carbon atoms, and a small percentage of carbon atoms contain an extra neutron. This is true for the carbon atoms in both exogenous and endogenous testosterone. But it is WADA’s theory that on average, exogenous testosterone contains fewer carbon atoms having that extra neutron. We are talking about a tiny, tiny difference in neutrons, perhaps a few neutrons out of a thousand carbon atoms.
WADA took this theory and tested it, in about a dozen publicized tests. The tests are based on statistical analysis. At best, the tests show that it is statistically unlikely for a person’s testosterone to be naturally deficient in carbon atoms having that extra neutron, unless the person is doping with exogenous testosterone. Please understand, when we say something is statistically unlikely, it does not mean that it is statistically impossible. In fact, something that is statistically unlikely is practically guaranteed to happen sometimes. The argument is around how unlikely it is that Landis could have tested positive without actually doping. The ADAs say it is almost impossible. Other statisticians say that it could easily happen.
Please note that the above analysis is correct even if the French lab performed its tests perfectly and brilliantly. If the French lab performed as poorly as Landis argued in his arbitration hearings, then of course the lab’s results are that much more suspect.
I think that the correct way to describe the Landis positive test is that the French lab found evidence that Landis probably used exogenous testosterone, and that this evidence was sufficient for a positive doping finding under the WADA rules. This is an oversimplification on many levels, but it is a lot more accurate than writing that the Landis tests revealed a foreign source of testosterone.
Rant,
it’s too late to translate the original Le Monde article, but there is just a supposition linked to the fact that Lance had already “hacked” some computers (according testimonies in SCA affair). Of course, Lance is one of the perfect suspects: motivation, own interest and able to pay for it.
FWIW, I appreciated both Rant’s original piece (I felt kinda…disappointed…in Neal’s article in VN too) and Neal’s subsequent comment here. Nice to be able to consider all the perspectives.
For the record, I like VN, RYHO and still miss TBV. I’m a believer in FL simply because I think he was not afforded proper due process. That he stood up for his beliefs makes him my hero. I understand even heroes are human, and that they must make their own peace. I simply hope that if/when the time comes for me to show courage, I can be half the hero FL was.
There are many factors which could be involved in Landis’ less than stellar comeback: the 2 years off, with much else to occupy him, his advancing age, his degree of motivation, even just plain old bad luck. And, indeed, it is a possibility that to some degree his 2006 performance was chemically aided. But I don’t think that anyone can say conclusively that his decline in performance show that he must have doped in 2006 and now is riding clean.
Reminds me kind of an incident which happened to one of my sons many years ago, when he was in 6th grade. He was far from an academic standout, but one time decided he should make an effort to do well. So he enlisted our aid in studying for a history test. He did quite well on it (his academic problems were due more to lack of effort than lack of ability). For his and our efforts, he got accused of cheating. Although I think we were able to convince the teacher and principal that yes, indeed, he had studied for the test; that pretty much put an end to his good intentions. But sometimes an unusually good performance is truly legitimate.
Jean,
Thanks for getting the article. Here’s a Google-translated version:
Maybe someone can clean up the translation at some point, but this at least gets the main points across, even if it’s a bit garbled.
By the way, I stand corrected. There’s no mention of LNDD or Pierre Bordry directly accusing Armstrong of having been the hacker.
Neal, why don’t you nut up and read the information about the case, and then write a good, detailed, balanced article for VeloNews about the history, the pros, the cons, and the arguments made and denied by the governing bodies? Surely, since you live close enough to Allen Lim to ring his doorbell, you could sit down with him and get a more full perspective of the science that claimed its’ most famous perpetrator.
Finally, aren’t you getting just a LITTLE suspicious about things when Di Luca and Martinez both test positive for CERA, when both have publicly admitted that to engage in such a performance enhancing drug after 2008 would be career suicide? Don’t the actions and claims of the Chateneau-Malabry lab make you just a LITTLE suspicious?
C’mon, man. You hosed Floyd to chase a cover. You and Joe Lindsay are real good at cutthroat journalism. Rant’s journalistic ethics are 4 starts compared to yours (collectively).
Your article sucked. Now go right your wrong and write up a solid follow-up, and see if your new owners will publish it. If not, post it independently. Velonews has really lost its’ perspective, big time.
You don’t have to think hard about who might want to hack a web site. My own modest business’ web site is attacked hundreds of times a day. Luckily I’m able to fend off these attacks.
In my experience, most hackers are underemployed computer nerds out to make mischief, none of whom have anything to lose. The idea that either FL or LA would attack the LNDD web site is, to me, absurd. There would be little to gain — neither LA nor FL would be able to utilize the information obtained from the hack and at the same time keep the hack a secret.
Richard,
Are you saying that Egoï Martinez tested positive for EPO too? I have found no mention of it.
The career suicide excuse is not the first time that a caught athlete use it and then confess. Wasn’t it Ricco or Kohl who said something similar?
Di Luca could have used CERA because he could have believed that GIRO samples would be tested in Italia, so no CERA test would be done, or he used micro-doses or he used a chinese or indian CERA alleged undectable…
By the way a third sample of Di Luca has been reported positive.
Larry,
All computers connected on internet are attacked. There is robots which are polling all internet adresses and when a computer respond, the robot software tried to hack it, and to have its control for a later use like massive attack of servers.
Today most hackings are part of a cybernetic war leaded by states. There is also criminal hackers trying to steal CB numbers, ….
And of course, there is still small entity or individual as reported for LNDD hacking which was ordered specifically and with a mission a research to do with keywords.
Jean, I thought it was Mikel Martinez, but I couldn’t hear the name in the roaring crowd. He earned that stage win (Stage 16), whoever he was. Your NGB is guilty of expedited, sloppy, failed testing in your wild goose chase to pursue some invented ‘truth’.
Richard/Jean,
Actually, it was Mikel Astarloza. And by the way, are Stages 16/17 cursed in some manner? 😉
Mickael Astarloza tested positive for an OOC in June prior TDF. Testing was done by Madrid lab, and I’m not sure it was for CERA but it was reported that was for a first generation EPO. He still has not tested positive at 2009 TDF yet.
That’s why I’m suspicious. I don’t think these athletes would be committing career suicide with all the threats from the ADA’s. Furthermore, if the Peloton were tested 1/2 as much as Lancealot (double pun), they wouldn’t dare tempt fate at all.
False positives happen, especially when the testing is so shoddy. Put 3rd parties in charge, and let the athletes select where they want their ‘B’ samples tested (still in controversy) and open the doors a little bit more. Jean, you can’t say that you weren’t embarrassed by the revelations that came out about LNDD (and other labs), with their SOP’s. Ugh.
Neal’s piece is good. If anything it takes you back to what Greg said: the lie will eat you alive.
I stand by my testimony about the compromising of our e-mail accounts. As we see, it’s rather easy to do and a drop in the bucket for people without ethics and morals but with lots of money:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/global/01iht-spy.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1
Jean C,
Yes, DiLuca might have done this or he might have done that. It’s also possible he did nothing against the doping regulations at all. The way WADA World is set up, we’ll probably never know for sure.
The problem we have here is that those, like me, who expected the system to be managed in a professional manner and to be accountable for its actions have had the rug pulled out from under them. Floyd’s case clearly identified fatal flaws in the system and some have been addressed by the system to keep them even more secret/unaccountable, but not corrected.
As a result, it’s clear to me that the system is quite capable of accusing and sanctioning athletes, even those who have done nothing wrong. It’s also crystal clear the system is eminently capable of marshalling its forces to sweep bad science, amateurish lab practices, and outright mistakes under the rug. The latter while donning a white hat and claiming to go after the bad guys. The insidious part is the half-truths; in which some in the system are actually going after the bad guys while the bureaucrats sit fat and happy while lining their pockets with our money.
If you are okay with serial dopers going on their merry way, while innocent athletes get their athletic careers derailed for no good reason, and other athletes are popped for using products to keep their hair or for insignificant and non-performance enhancing differences between Euro and North American versions of the same over the counter cold medication, then you seem to truly embrace out of control authority over common decency. For what little it’s worth, I don’t and won’t.
I wish the system would address and correct its fatal flaws. I’d love to get behind it. I value sportsmanship. In most basic terms, doping is cheating and cheating is unsportsmanlike. However, officials cheat too and that is also unsportsmanlike. I can’t get behind the WADA Word system because it not only tolerates cheating from officials within the system, cheating is often required and even rewarded. While there is an element of good intention, there is an overriding element of authority gone wild. Just as there are a number of fathers disillusioned to see their daughters bare their drunken breasts on “Girls Gone Wild” videos, there are also some cycling enthusiasts who are somewhat disillusioned to watch the WADA gatekeepers go wild with drunken authority. And yes, there is a good argument for absolute power corrupting absolutely here.
I expect athletes to push the envelope to find the boundaries but have little respect for those that go beyond. I expect WADA to practice good science, have its methods reviewed by outside experts, be accountable for its lab practices, discard anything that is not truly blind testing, have more rational penalties for offending athletes, and have meaningful sanctions in place for officials who violate their mandates. When WADA, and its associated ADAs can act as something more than cover for the IoC and the quantumly corrupt olympic brand, then I’ll begin to have some respect for what they say and do. Until then, not so much. YMMV.
Betsy should take care with comments about ethics and morals if lying about taping phone calls is any indication. Glass houses…..Just sayin…
Betsy,
To protect your on-line accounts from unauthorized access do not use passwords that can be easily guessed – your birthday, for example, or “lancesux”. 🙂
~ Cub
William Schart,
Greta example. I think that’s part of the problem. Too many people are only willing to see things in black and white when there’s a lot of possibilities that can make up the answer.
To assume that Floyd’s problems this year proves he was on drugs is absurd. Especially when there are probably those out there who will say that Lance’s third place at his age and after years off must because he’s on something. Some people really can’t look beyond what they expect to see.
Jean C,
You point out the common instances of hacking, but then claim, “And of course, there is still small entity or individual as reported for LNDD hacking which was ordered specifically and with a mission a research to do with keywords.” This is just crazy. I have not seen any evidence that the LNDD hacking was ordered by anyone. It could just as easily have been a single computer geek with a beef.
Betsy Andreu,
I’m a little confused by your comment. “The lie will eat you alive.” You could be referring to quite a few people with this, even Greg himself. As for compromising your e-mails, it doesn’t take lots of money to do that.
Ken
Ken S, there was a report saying Quiros (I think) had been given a list of keywords by the “anglo” involved. The list itself hasn’t yet made a public appearance, and may have been lost unless Quiros (?) kept it, which he may not have. That would lead to a list reconstructed from human memory, which might be inaccurate.
The Quiros(?)/Kargus hacks on LNDD and Greenpeace were not a random script-kiddy/east-europe spam-bot attack, though they may have used similar techniques and tools.
TBV
Also, Rogers reply
“I didn’t write that Baker had hacked into the LNDD. I wrote that the French lab reported that he had commissioned a third party to hack into the lab’s computer system. I don’t know if Baker did or didn’t do what the French lab accused him of, just as I don’t know if Landis actually doped or not.”
misses an important distinction — the Lab does not “know” who commissioned the hack. Saying it “reported that he [Baker] had commisioned a third party” is not correct, since it still assumes a conclusion that is not demonstrated.
Correct wording would have been “the French lab says it suspects that he had commissioned a third party…, but no evidence has been shown.”
From what I have pieced together from the reports, Baker received a copy of the documents in question from somewhere, he says anonymously, and apparently emailed them to one or more of the labs from his address. This may or may not have been related to the hard copy mailings also reported.
If that is the only association of Baker to the documents, then it doesn’t connect him to the commisioning of the hack attack. I believe various sources for the hacking story have been fuzzy on this point, either from their own confusion, or by intent.
In any event, Rogers saying the lab reported Baker commissioned the attack is simply incorrect.
TBV
Astarloza was under intense supervision because of his biopassport!
So tests are “shoddy” more because of their high level of false negative.
How many tests did they need to catch Ricco, Schumacher and Kohl?
There is a lot of athletes (like Karolina Klüft,…) who are in favour of more testings, they are not worried of the such false positive. Why?
Jeff,
IOC member are very often retired athletes who have learnt to cheat in their sport days. Who had massive doping programs during cold war? Who was encouraged to cheat by their countries? Why would they stop something they were told that it was good for their country? or now for their spot or their business?
KenS
As already pointed by TBV, Quiros has been ordered to hack LNDD, he confessed that with the given keywords he had guessed the link with Landis’ case.
Maybe you should read
http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=1861
TBV,
If Baker received anonymous LNDD document while informed of LNDD hacking and used them without knowing their authenticity, it’s not a fair behaviour.
About the potential comissionner, whom should the hacking have benefited?
Thanks for the info and link on Quiros and Kargas. For some reason I missed all that.
Haven’t read all the posts yet, but there’s still the question of who paid for it. Trails may point to Baker, but that can be faked.
Jean C,
Touché. And I’ll add they have also apparently learned a thing or two about working a capitalist system. (notwithstanding dictatorial/socialist nature of the IoC and its devil spawn, WADA) Also explains a bit about why they could care little about damaging innocent athletes.
JeanC,
Let’s remember the time line. Baker had received and passed along some documents before there was any public knowledge an illegal hack had occurred. Unless you assume he was behind the hack in some way, you can’t conclude he knew there was anything dubious about the sourcing, and he never presented them as anything of authenticated truth value.
“Fair behavior” isn’t a legal term; I don’t see many sets of clean hands for “fairness” in this entire affair. I’ll note there are some significant cultural differences at play as well. In the US, “whistleblowers” are somewhat respected and somewhat protected, at least in the popular imagination. Daniel Ellsberg was never punished for distribution of the Pentagon Papers. I believe this tolerance is not the case elsewhere, with France as but one example, and hardly unique in it’s preference and respect for instruments of the state.
I’ll note that we do not know the full contents of the search list, or if the documents so far available are the complete set of things obtained by anyone. It seems speculative to many any conclusions about who the hack might have been intended to benefit, which is itself different from who may have commissioned it. Taking an intentionally far-fetched example, some gambling interest with something riding on the outcome may have decided to become involved in some way. Without more information than we now have, there doesn’t seem to be evidence connecting Baker or Landis to the instigation of the hack, even if Landis might be seen as an ultimate beneficiary. There’s circumstance and suspicion, but not an actual connection so far as we know. This certainly justifies the desire of the Authorities to want to speak with Baker, and Landis; but I am struck by how lackluster their pursuit seems to be. They have not, to my knowledge, actually issued any warrants, subpoenas or extradition requests, despite threatening to do so. We would now engage in speculation why or why not – busy? Uninterested? Too difficult? Know they are not involved, so no grounds, but not willing to say so? Know it is someone else, but want to have a “chat” anyway, so not giving anything away while that might come to pass? Guesswork.
TBV
Guys, I can tell you as an attorney, you simply do not hack into a computer system belonging to a legal adversary. It’s a high risk, low reward kind of thing to do.
If you’re low enough to engage in this kind of industrial espionage, there are much smarter ways to do it than to hack into a computer system from a remote location. The best ways are low-tech: you break into the office and copy the paper files, or you approach a disgruntled employee to supply you with the information you need. If you want electronic data, you get an operative to join the nightly cleaning staff, and have him/her hunt for a computer with the inevitable yellow sticky containing someone’s login name and password, and you log onto the network locally.
Also guys, we’re not talking about just any organization here. It’s the LNDD. It’s not exactly air-tight. If you want information out of LNDD and you’re handy with the right incentives, you can have the information leaked to you. Just ask L’Equipe if you want to know how it’s done.
Remote hacking leaves a trackable trail through cyberspace. Not smart. Hiring a hacker leaves someone out there who has something on you. Not smart.
Yup, not smart.
Good points, Larry. For someone officially connected with Landis’ legal team to hack into LNDD’s computer system would be of little benefit. Nothing obtained could be used in any hearing or legal action connected with this case. The only possible benefits I can see would be either to discredit LNDD via public opinion and/or to gain some knowledge about strategy in the case. But public opinion would have little effect on the arbitors and LNDD was probably not heavily involved in developing legal strategy for the case. Besides, as I recall the timeline, the hacking was in 2006 and I doubt much strategy had been developed then.
Someone with an interest in Landis, but no official connection, might have done this in a misguided effort to assist Landis. Or equally likely, to hurt Landis by an apparent connection to illegal activity.
Larry: if Baker did receive the documents in question unbidden, are there any legal prohibitions to either publishing them in someway (including send them electronically or via hardcopy to other parties) or to using any information gained in the case?
@cub
Ahahahahahahahaaaaa…….
Seriously, that was like an internet haiku of hilarity.
Betsy,
Interesting article, mostly for the information about the ongoing investigation of EDF/Kargus/et. al. Didn’t really see anything new on the Landis/Baker angle, though.
William,
Can’t answer for Larry, but from what I understand, once the documents are in the public domain they’re fair game. Sam Abt wrote about receiving his copies and what the documents supposedly said before Arnie showed the documents during his first “Wiki Defense” slide show, if I’m recalling the sequence of events correctly. In every iteration of Arnie’s presentation that I’ve seen, he was careful to point out that the documents might not be authentic.
“… once the documents are in the public domain they’re fair game.” This is true, but ( a big but) mere disclosure, publishing or possession by another does not commit a work to the public domain. All the articles on RYHO, for instance, are still copyright Rant. While I might have a fair use defense for otherwise copying them, they are not public domain.
If a person receives trade secrets wrongfully and publishes them, that act may be tortious. There may be an “innocent recipient” defense, but I am not a trade secret expert. I would presume any work I would receive from another to be subject to copyrights, but of course, those rights are subject to fair use. Don’t think Arnie ever intended a commercial use, and probably the major purpose was educational. The probative factors in 17USCs107 probably weight heavily in favor of Arnie.
Still, it would be *really cool* if the person that fixed the expression in tangible medium (i.e. the author) came forward and sued Arnie for copyright infringement. I’d pay the filing fee for them to do so. 🙂
TBV, you are right I missed the timeline.
It’s a bit strange to send anonymously documents received anonymously. Why don’t go directly ahead and present “officialy” the received documents? I do think it’s a better strategy as PR: “Look someone who probably want to help us has sent us those documents relating to some mistakes. We are not sure of their genuiness but I am sure you will ask LNDD”
That kind of plan seems better than what was done. Arnie should have requested the help of Landis’ counsel!
Larry may give us some precious guidelines about that.
eightzero,
Interesting idea you’ve got there about the copyright infringement. Assuming the documents were real, they might have been copyrighted by LNDD or AFLD (though memos and letters of that sort usually aren’t). On the other hand, if they’re fake, then they’re works of art that might or might not be copyrighted by their creator. Of course, I’d be very curious to see that creator come forward, too. We might even find out who commissioned him/her to create such artwork. 😉
Jean,
In some sense, that’s exactly what Arnie did do in his presentations, without the note about someone trying to help them (we can only surmise the intentions of whoever sent the documents). I wonder if William is closer to the truth. Was someone, in some misguided way, trying to help Landis. Or was the person who commissioned the work up to something else, and Landis/Baker happened to make for convenient fall guys? Either scenario seems pretty plausible.
JeanC,
We haven’t seen what Baker may have sent to know what the contents were, what was said, requested, or how it was attributed. I don’t have any reason to think his distribution was related to the paper distribution, which seemed more anonymous. By one unwinding, Baker obtained contents of a paper packet, and passed it on electronically.
TBV
I hadn’t considered the copyright angle when I asked my question, but that is an interesting angle. But there now is the question of whether or not any copyrights exist to any documents of LNDD. This would largely be a matter of French law. LNDD was apparently created in accordance to a law, so I am not sure to what extent LNDD is a government agency. In the US, anything created by an agency of the US government is automatically in the public domain, no copyrights exist, but whether or not this is true for France I have no idea. Then there is the question of applying potentially conflicting provisions of French vs. US copyright law for actions which occur in US jurisdiction. I do know that, due to differing lengths of copyright protection in differing countries, works which are now PD in one country may still be under copyright in others.
Then there is the hypothetic question: if the documents in question could be proved to be authentic, that neither Baker nor Landis was involved in the hacking, and the the documents had something that was directly on point to an issue of Landis’ defense, could they have been used at one of the hearings? I don’t think that copyright itself would prevent such use.
I’ll generally endorse 8-0’s comments on the legality of releasing information such as the LNDD documents. This is a complicated area of law, in an area where I have no experience as an attorney. I would not presume to say more.
Well, I’m not an attorney, so this is not advice, but as a first-amendment freak I believe that in this instance fair-use would trump any copyright claim in the US. I especially wouldn’t guess about French law in that regard.
TBV
Just a point or two on legal esoterica vis a vis copyrights:
Copyright ( a property right to exclude others) is created when an espression is fixed in tangible medium. IOW, as I type this, I am creating a copyrighted writing. Filing with the Library of Congress, or any other formality, is generally not required under US law.
Remember also that the First Amendment *has nothing to say* about acts by private parties. It only restricts the government. I join TBV in my firm committment to my constitutional freedoms (I am a card carrying ACLU member, and proud of it), but should Rant decide to ban me from RYHO, I cannot sue him claiming my constitutional rights have been violated. Rant is not “the state.”
Copyrights are personal property, and can be conveyed. So, should the creator of the documents at issue wish to sell them for value, they can. The owner has the right to enforce the prohibitions of copying. IOW, they could ask a court for injunctive relief against anone printing them out for use in court. The defense would be the fair use provisions in the statute; the latter a clear winner, IMHO.
But the creator/copyright holder would need to sign a court pleading to be admitted in open court “I made these documents” to enforce their copyright.
Seems to me that LNDD and its successors are in perhaps a bit of a bind. As I recall, at least some of the documents in question would be embarrassing to them, if indeed they are legitimate. On the other hand, if they are forgeries, the documents themselves are not evidence of any hacking into LNDD’s computers. I suppose it is possible to argue that someone hacked into the system, obtained some legitimate documents and then altered them, but why go to that trouble when you could simply forge documents without hacking?
Could this be why they don’t seem to be all that hot after Baker/Landis?
Rant, are you going to cover the David Ortiz situation? I’m waiting for his press conferfence today. Full disclosure: I hate Ortiz’s team (Red Sox) and everything they stand for. But Ortiz may be getting shafted here. If indeed he tested positive in 2003, when the “anonymous” baseball drug tests were performed, and if indeed the positive test was for steroids or testosterone, it’s likely that the only tests performed were T/E ratio tests. Would you condemn an athlete for all time based on failed T/E tests?
Larry,
I’ve got a few things I’ve been tracking that I haven’t written about (yet). I’ll have to add Ortiz to the list. And no, I wouldn’t condemn someone based on T/E tests. After all, there’s a rather famous case where the rumored T/E ratio turned out to be an erroneous reading in a set of much lower readings.
eightzero,
My bad. I left that part out, about material being copyrighted the moment it’s created (at least, under US law, don’t know about French law). Hard to know if LNDD’s material would actually be copyrighted, as a quasi-government agency and all. If it were, I’d suspect the agency owns the copyright, and not the employee who created it. Of course, if it’s a fabrication of someone else, the copyright would be owned by the fabricator. 😉
To comment on another point in Roger’s article as to why Floyd hasn’t won any races (plus he’s riding in support of OUCH team members), one thing that was mentioned is that these domestic races (versus the European races) just aren’t long enough or difficult enough for him to reach the level of race training that he’s used to. I thought of that when watching him race in 3 of the 5 stages at the Nature Valley Grand Prix. Rory (I think) mentioned in the article that he didn’t think that race was suited for Floyd. The two road race stages were maybe 80-90+ miles long, and the crits were 55-60 minutes in length on rather flat courses, except for the infamous Stillwater Chilcoot Hill. I’m not belittling these races or saying that they don’t take alot of technical riding skill-they certainly do. But they aren’t at a level of difficulty he’s used to. Also, the article stated that Floyd is packing more weight than in 2006. Where?? His little toe? The Floyd I saw a little over a month ago racing and walking around greeting his fans was as slender and fit as ever. A strong wind could blow him away.
Everyone faster than me must be doping:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/walsh-hits-out-at-uci-over-passport
So, if a cyclist is made of wood, s/he must weigh less than a duck…