Just like the Communist Party in the USSR used to do to those who fell from grace, Christian Prudhomme plans to erase any mention of Floyd Landis from the official Tour de France history. And apparently it doesn’t matter what the hearings that start on Monday, or the likely appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport says.
This is the story running in a number of places. The first mention of it I found was in a link from Trust But Verify to this article. The story apparently comes from an article that appeared in the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung. [Note: I went to the paper’s web site, and no story with this content comes up when searching their online edition. I’ve heard it’s already in their pay to read archive, but didn’t find it there, either.] In the linked article, they say:
“For us Floyd Landis is not the winner of the Tour de France 2006,” Christian Prudhomme told the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung.
He said Landis would also not appear in the various historical lists of winners, adding that the decision was not dependent on Landis’s hearing in front of the American anti-doping agency next week.
Prudhomme has been talking trash about not considering Floyd Landis the winner of the Tour since this whole saga first broke. The new twist is turning Floyd into a non-person, regardless of the outcome of any hearings. If Landis loses both the Pepperdine hearings and on appeal at the CAS, then Prudhomme might be justified in removing Floyd’s name from the history of the Tour. At that point, the UCI would probably strip Landis of the title.
But if Floyd wins, or wins on appeal, Prudhomme has absolutely no justification at all. Unless … the AFLD hearing in June finds Landis guilty. But even so, since only the UCI has the power to strip Landis of his title, Prudhomme is wading into some swampy water. Or maybe quicksand.
What galls me about M. Prudhomme’s announcement is the timing and the sentiment. Unless this story is taken out of context, Prudhomme comes off as perfectly comfortable giving Floyd the finger — literally and very publicly.
But it’s something unspoken in Prudhomme’s sentiment that has me even angrier. If Prudhomme can declare that none of these proceedings matter, and he can make up his own mind about who wins (or doesn’t win) the Tour, then one has to suspect that he has no intention of paying Landis the winner’s purse in the event Floyd is exonerated.
In other words, Prudhomme intends to weasel out of his obligations. Which means yet more litigation, further draining Landis’ resources. It’s a slimy thing to do, to be polite about it, but perfectly in keeping with the posturing and jockeying between the Amaury Sports Organization (owners of Le Tour and L’Equipe) and the UCI. The ASO, in the guise of Prudhomme, is poking their fingers in the UCI’s eyes — yet again.
What’s a fan to do? Well, I have an idea, and it goes like this: If Prudhomme carries out his little plan despite Landis being exonerated, then I will boycott any company that sponsors the Tour. And I’ll suggest others do the same. No going to France to watch in person. No patronizing any “ride a stage of the Tour” companies. No watching on Versus (what a stupid name for a cable channel, anyway). No PowerBars. (Clif Bars will have to do, even though the chocolate PowerBar has long been a favorite. Clif Bars are tastier and easier to chew, anyway.) No Nestle’s products of any kind. Straight down the list, nothing, unless there’s absolutely no alternative.
And beyond that, I’ll be writing letters to the companies telling them exactly why I’m boycotting their products. And I’ll suggest that others do the same. Now maybe M. Prudhomme doesn’t care whether Americans or anyone outside of France patronizes his sponsors. But the sponsors do. And if they lose significant business because of M. Prudhomme’s vindictiveness, then they’ll do one of two things: Pressure him to put Landis’ name back where it belongs, or pull the plug on their sponsorship. If I were a sponsor, I’d just pull the plug.
Comrade Prudhomme can do what he wants, but if he turns Floyd into a non-person, then as Stephen Colbert would say, “Tour de France — you’re dead to me.”
Hi Rant:
GREAT IDEA! As I was making coffee this morning, I was wondering what you’d have to say about the ASO. And, before I’d read this rant, I was also thinking: maybe I won’t watch the TDF this year and maybe my wife and I will spend the winter traveling through the United States rather than the trip we had planned for France. Count me in on your boycott!
Somehow I messed up my second comment to your Friday rant. What I wanted to say then seems even more appropriate now. I used to think the prevailing ADO attitude was “guilty until proven innocent”. That attitude is offensive to me given that I was brought up in a country that believes innocence in the face of accusation is a fundamental human right. But, the ADO attitude is actually much worse. One can only characterize Tygart’s attitude (when he offered Landis a shortened suspension in return for dirt on somebody more important) as “guilty AFTER proven innocent”. I don’t know about you, but to me, an attitude such as that stemming from the ADO’s Chief Legal Counsel isn’t just offensive, it is upsetting. It weakens the creditability of anything Tygart or the ADO’s might do, say or stand for.
What amazes me about Tygart’s attitude is how widely it is held. For example, the weekend group I ride with believe both Landis and Armstrong doped. When we have discussed the Landis case, their attitude is “all these guys dope; Floyd probably did; Armstrong hopes this will all go away because he certainly did”. When I bring up all the anomalies in Floyd’s case or the Vrijman report in Lance’s case, my riding group can’t (or won’t) provide any facts that support their viewpoint. Yet, I can tell by their reaction and comments that they won’t change their mind and think I am naïve. I grant that some are better athletes and potentially more “connected” to sport (one ran in the Boston Marathon, has done several Iron Man races and owns a boutique road bike manufacturing company) but I am left thinking that THEY doped while my mind remains open about Floyd and closed about Lance.
Prudohmme’s attitude is, by far, the worst of the bunch. Purdhomme goes beyond disregarding facts and due process by appointing himself judge and jury. Theeve-of-arbitration-timing of his pronouncement seasons his hubris with a large dollop of pettiness. During the TDF, my wife and I wake up to the Versus coverage and watch the replays throughout the day so that we can enjoy the panoramic views of France and the specials about the countryside. After Prudhomme’s announcement, I find myself wondering why I should support an event whose leader thinks and acts this way? I love France — my wife and I courted there. It isn’t unusual for us to visit several times a year. Even though I could be rightly considered a Francophile, I can’t help but insist that somebody (the country or the sponsors) recognize that Purdhomme’s attitude poisons both the event and the country. And, like you, I want to amplify my feeling in an attempt to change prevailing attitude. Not only won’t I support the event and the country, I will follow any like-minded leader and work to organize and support a campaign that will lead to reform. Since you have the Rant-O-Phone and 25,000 visitors, lead on!
And, one more thing that is semi-to-the-point. My cycling buddies claim that the dopers technology and practice is so far ahead of the ADO’s that catching cheats is virtually impossible; their rationale seems to say that if an athlete is caught by the antiquated ADO they MUST be guilty. What doesn’t pass the “sniff test” is that the ADO’s are much better funded than the athletes. While Armstrong turned into a financial powerhouse, in 1999 he was not well funded. And, even in his best years, his income did not exceed the annual funding (or even cash reserve) of WADA. If underfunded athletes can beat a well funded system there is only one conclusion possible: The well funded system is poorly run. I know I’ve said this before, but, WADA spends so little on research and so much on enforcement that we (the public) should expect impeccable science and flawless lab procedure. Simply saying that an athlete can’t argue the science doesn’t make the science impeccable. Simply appointing the reviewers that reviewed the lab on previous occasions to evaluate the lab’s procedure doesn’t make that procedure flawless. Rather, and especially in light of what has happened in the Landis case, such pronouncements are so transparently biased that they weaken the creditability of the organization and “the movement” to the point where reform must be demanded by any and all that have an interest in sport.
Steve,
That’s quite a rant you’ve got going there. 😉 I have to say, life must be ever so much easier for people who know all the answers and don’t need to learn any more than what they know. But I hope they never have the misfortune of having to be judged by people like themselves. Especially if it means that their livelihood and reputation hangs in the balance.
The anti-doping system definitely needs to be reformed — starting with a clean sweep of the current leadership. Pound and his ilk are the living embodiment of the saying, “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
– Rant