A couple of months ago, rumors suggested that at the end of the 2009 season Floyd Landis and his (now former) cycling team, Team OUCH presented by Maxxis, would part ways. One variant of the rumor had it that when Landis departed from the team, so would the title sponsor, OUCH Sports Medical Center. In making the announcement, Landis was quoted by VeloNews as saying:
“I wish to thank all of the sponsors for their support this year. I would also like to thank everyone at Momentum Sports Group,” Landis said. “While I’m excited to pursue other opportunities, I will miss all of my teammates and everyone on staff.”
VeloNews also quotes a press release from the Momentum Sports Group, owner of the Team OUCH cycling team.
“MSG and Landis mutually agreed that it would be best for both parties to part ways at this time and allow Landis to seek a position with a team that could better accommodate his desires.”
Meanwhile, Kirsten Robbins of CyclingNews.com reports (hat tip to regular reader Jeff for the link) that Momentum Sports Group president Thierry Attias was surprised, but gracious, regarding Landis’ departure from the team.
“We did expect him to ride in 2010,” Attias said. “We planned on having him on board. It was a little bit of a surprise but he is a big talent. When he is firing on all cylinders he is really strong and he thinks big. He is working his way back from that hip procedure. This was the first year back after two years and we saw glimmers of greatness in him.”
Landis would like to return to Europe and race the longer, tougher stage races to which is he well suited. Again, from CyclingNews.com:
Landis has a desire to compete in longer stage races in Europe that better suited his former reputation of being amongst the top general classification riders in the world, according to Attias. The American rider recently ruled out a return to the sport’s top stage race, the Tour de France.
“He had more success in that area and he wanted to do more international races too,” Attias said. “Our team has a US focus. We wish him nothing but the best. He came on board and really helped us patch a hole, so to speak. We had a great season and we are sorry he won’t be with us next year.”
No word, yet, as to which team he will be racing for in 2010. More to come as the story develops.
We already knew that OUCH is no longer the sponsor, as the team is registered as United Healthcare (or something like that). Always medical by the way HealtNet, OUCH, United Healthcare.
In the “always fun to speculate” category, we have to wonder that just a few weeks ago he seemed to be saying that it wasn’t possible to find a Euro team to ride for due to (predictable) politics. That seemed to undercut the rumor that he already had a ride with Rock. But since he’s leaving, that implies that the issue is resolved and he does have an actual team lined up.
Rock kind of makes sense, as a team that would be willing to take him on, and seems to want to be more Euro, despite various “issues”.
But on the other end of the spectrum, what about “The Shack”? If there’s any team (read as “person”) with the clout and gall to bring Floyd on a team to see how the French would respond, it’s The Shack (Lance).
If either of those answers turns out to be true, or really any answer, there’s one thing for sure: bicycle politics makes for strange bedfellows.
tom
I thought this quote from Attias was rather telling and not surprising from my point of view:
“He was a solid guy all around,” he added. “He did a good bit of media for us. It was a positive and a learning experience for both of us. We’ve never had someone of that stature in our program. We learned how to work with that level and he learned how to work with us so it was a nice relationship overall. He was always friendly and brought great sponsors.”
I’ll curiously await word of which team Floyd will be riding for next year.
Frankly I think it’s a bit disingenuous for anyone at MSG to express surprise at Landis leaving the team. Anyone who tweets has known he would be gone for at least a month and a half, and it almost feels like they are trying to ake Floyd look bad or something of that nature. Whatever he does I wish him lots of luck. And shoot how the heck did *I* miss this one Rant!! 🙂
str
BTW Bonnie Ford tells John Finger that there is NO WAY The Shack will sign Floyd.
Tom,
True, United Healthcare has been the rumored (if not actual) new title sponsor for the team, as you note, keeping in a tradition of featuring a health care business on top billing. In a way, OUCH provided a year of security for a team that might not have had a title sponsor this year, what with HealthNet leaving the fold and all.
It is interesting to speculate where Floyd will go.
Jeff,
Agreed. That was a good quote, too, and quite telling. Couldn’t take all of them, though. 😉
strbuk,
I suspect that Bonnie is right. But I can think of a couple of up-and-coming teams (Pro Continental status) who might be interested. I’d be surprised if The Shack signs Floyd, as that would create an additional layer of political problems between team management/franchise riders and certain race promoters. Given that The Shack wants to be in next year’s Tour, that’s a gamble I wouldn’t expect them to take.
Rock could be a possibility, I suppose. But I think that there’s another team or two where Floyd would be a better fit, actually. We’ll see how this all plays out.
Floyd will not go to Shack’s team. I don’t think that Lance who has now Sarkozy support would be worried by the new management of ASO who is clearly less anti-doping fight than was Patrice Clerc.
Shack major concern would be the doping image that would be given to their team. With already tainted reputation of Lance no need to reopen the many old or fresh stories.
I don’t have any insight, other than the guesses I’ve read on various bike forums, as to what team Floyd will sign with. I’m hoping he finds a good match with a team able to enter longer/harder races where he can stretch his legs and show his talent.
As for the politics of top-level road bike racing, they are amateur hour and dishonest. If a suspended pro serves his/her sanction, he/she should be able to return immediately to racing, provided he/she can secure a team. Said hypothetical team should not be burdened with trying to figure out if (or outright knowing they will) be prejudiced as to which races they will be eligible/invited if they sign a formerly suspended rider.
The purpose of the sanction is to punish the offending rider and possibly deterrence. (I won’t even get into the issue of whether the sanction was deserved or not here) The sanction should be enough. There should not be any unofficial/backdoor/bassackward/stupid/punitive/additional sanction added. No more you have to sit out x number of additional years before you can ride the TdF again. No more you can never ride the TdF again. If the rider has done his/her time, that’s it!
Formerly suspended riders (whether the suspension was deserved or not) are fair game for additional testing. That’s fine. It’s even more fine if the collection process, lab work, and reporting receives similarly increased scrutiny. That’s not the world we live in with regard to top-level road bike racing, but it’s the one we should live in.
Jeff,
Agreed. Once an athlete has done his/her time, they should be able to return to competition at the same level (assuming they’re fit enough to) without fear of reprisals. Additional testing is fine, it comes with the territory. Being willfully kept out of events they would otherwise qualify for is not appropriate.
Unfortunately, the petty politics of various organizations, along with the blood lust to punish dopers ad infinitum works against those returning from a ban — unless they kowtow to what is expected (a tearful apology, promises to never do it again, outspoken-ness against the evils of doping, and so forth).
I agree that we should aspire to something better. Perhaps someday, something like that will come to pass.
Rant, I’m going to disagree with you here. Sport might be about moving on, about forgiveness, about comebacks and rising to a new challenge. But this is very different that the *business* of sport, and Floyd’s challenges in Europe aren’t necessarily only about politics, but about the intense hatred ASO has for what they believe was a grievous, premeditated act of violence against them. They believe their property, the TdF, was jeopardized because Floyd intended to *steal* from them. Then, he deigned to challenge their evidence and the very system that protects the rich and powerful in the *business* of pro cycling. They will never forgive that. Never ever.
8-0
I disagree with you. The ASO precedent management was more ethical, the current is a business management, they have clearly chosen the money.
As exemple precedent management would never have let Armstrong come back on TDF.
If Landis represented money he would be allowed to come back.
But at the moment his sport performance don’t even allow him to dream about it.
eightzero,
Point taken. I agree that Floyd’s challenges in returning to the ProTour races will be as much about the business of sport as about the politics. The two often seem to be intertwined. But in the end, whether Floyd gets signed and whether he gets to race at various events will be about business. If a team thinks it’s good business to sign Floyd, he’ll get a contract (and I expect he will). If the promoters think his presence is not good for business, I would expect them to try and keep him out of their events. But as some great sage once said, all publicity is good publicity. Floyd’s presence will draw spectators, some for him, some against. But there may be more people watching the races if he’s there (though it probably won’t be the same kind of impact that another rider had this year on attendance).
My own guess is that he will be on a Pro Continental squad next year, perhaps one with ambitions of eventually going up to the ProTour level. Once he’s got another year under his belt, he’ll have greater fitness, and he will have finished out the additional two years riding for non-ProTour level teams. I think it’s reasonable to expect that his results next year will be better than this year, but we’ll have to just wait and see.
eightzero,
I’m going to disagree with you about it being their (ASO’s) evidence. That may or may not be the reality, but it is not how the system is described to the general public or the agencies that fund the system. Those footing the bill were assured sample collection is anonymous for the athlete in the eyes of all WADA approved testing labs. They were also assured best practices would be employed wrt chain of custody, security of samples, handling of samples to avoid contamination, and that officials would follow their own rules as they apply to confidentiality and the publicizing of testing results. The public and alphabet soup funders have a reasonable expectation that even powerful figures within the UCI, IOC, ASO…… cannot unduly influence or interfere with the testing, reporting, and adjudication process that would tend to be prejudiced against a particular athlete. Of course, those expectations have become a joke for anyone paying attention.
The fix is built into the system. It’s wide-ranging and flexible so as not to be particularly situation specific. I can understand ASO’s and other alphabet’s anger at Floyd. Their motto seems to be “do as I say, not as I do”. Floyd declined their polite request and showed the system for what it really is. He illustrated how the various alphabet soup entities interact and metaphorically bump uglies in an effort to rule athletes with an iron hand while striving for it to appear as a velvet glove for public consumption.
Slipstream.
No, I’m serious. I think it’s gonna be Vaughters & Co.
Could be. That would make for an interesting mix of characters, to be sure.
Jeff,
I do believe that most of the people would have remember Floyd and his team trying a win at all cost, with no hesitation to use premedited blackmailing and probably requested hacking computers of an official lab.
French Justice wanted to listen to Landis and that’s probably still valid. Almost all continental races are not ASO races, could we see Floyd taling part of them?
Jean C,
That’s an interesting “interpretation” of events! He and his team did exhaust a great may resources in an effort to defend the rider. Floyd never blackmailed anyone, premeditated or otherwise. You’ve hedged your bet with the word “probably” wrt the so called hacking. (If it makes you feel any better, I’ll request a hacking right now)
“French justice” is a complex term and you’ve certainly opened Pandora’s box for anyone wishing to have a go. I’ll decline for now, but have observed French officials wanted to do a bit more than listen to Floyd. No disagreement here with your last sentence.
It appears RadioShack can be ruled out.
Floyd’s name is not on the roster and this is touted as being the final team roster for 2010:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-radioshack-finalizes-2010-roster
I’m guessing that Jean is referring, in a somewhat oblique way, the “The Phone Call” during the Malibu hearing. From everything I have ever read about this, there is absolutely no evidence that Landis had anything to do with it but rather Georgehegan (sp?) acted solely on his own. Although I will admit that there is really no way to prove that Landis was not involved nor indeed is there anyway to prove he was involved.
The arb panel at Pepperdine, which was not biased in favor of Floyd, was comfortably satisfied he did not engage in any sort of blackmail, and that speaks volumes IMHO. Their conclusions indicate LeMond’s “testimony” was irrelevant, the most compelling reason to them was probably because he was uncooperative enough on cross, refusing to answer questions the arb panel deemed fair game, to nullifying what he had to say on direct? There were probably other reasons as well?
WG was responsible for the bad act against LeMond. He was removed from professional association with Floyd, sought/engaged in counseling/rehab, and apologized publicly to LeMond for his bad act. Though LeMond has gained a reputation in some circles for being litigious, he apparently sought no further remedy wrt WG over the sorted affair, which also speaks volumes IMHO.
I find it somewhat contemptible that Jean C has thrown that weak a%* argument out there again.
OTOH, and the WG aberration aside, I can understand how Jean C might characterize Floyd’s overall defense strategy as “trying a win at all cost”, considering Floyd’s ability to fight in the face of overwhelming odds. Cultural differences and varying thresholds for surrender/capitulation……..
2 new doping rings have been removed:
– 1 in Spain involving Viru a former collaborator of Dr. Fuentes and ex doctor of Kelme team.
http://www.reuters.com/article/olympicsNews/idUSGEE5AO0JG20091125
– 1 in Austria, seems to redistribute PED
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1515374.php/Large-doping-trade-network-busted-in-Austria
http://www.lequipe.fr/Aussi/breves2009/20091125_153245_un-reseau-demantele-en-autriche.html
Jeff,
I have written “Landis and his team”…
Landis wrote on the wiki-defense forum something like he would reveal some secrets about Greg if he does a testimony.
Will Goohegan (?) would not have been able to threaten Lemond without the help or mistake of Floyd. By suggesting at least the worst he hurted himself.
About computer hacking, we have to wait the investigation end for a confirmation or not of the link with Arnie Baker.
Lemond’s refusal to answer questions involving Lance could maybe explain with the affair Trek-Lemond.
Jean C,
1) It was on DPF. One could accurately summarize the post from Floyd as, “you stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of your business”. That sounds fair enough to me.
2) You are correct. WG would only have known if Floyd had told him about the conversation with LeMond. Following your line of reasoning, Floyd would only have known if LeMond had provided Floyd with unsolicited/unwelcome information about LeMond’s private life. (Chicken or the egg? Not really, in this case LeMond is both the chicken and the egg) Floyd was not LeMond’s psychiatrist or attorney, so there was no expectation of confidentiality. I’ll agree it wasn’t appropriate for Floyd to pass the information along to WG, although I don’t think a reasonable person could predict how WG eventually misused the information. Summary: (a) It was flat out wrong for WG to misuse the information the way he did. (b) WG took steps to make appropriate amends. (c) It was inappropriate for Floyd to have passed the information along to WG. (d) It was inappropriate for LeMond to convey such private and sensitive information to Floyd as they had/have no personal relationship that might make such a transfer of information appropriate. In other words, LeMond was ill advised to divulge sensative/private information to a relative stranger. (e) There is plenty of blame to go around. WG, Floyd, and LeMond all hurt themselves to varying degrees.
3) Yes, it will be interesting to see the results of the investigation. Right now there are only accusations and conjecture. My money says that Arnie Baker was not involved in the so called “hacking”, but did receive documents LNDD would rather he had not.
4) Maybe? It doesn’t excuse LeMond’s apparent faulty assumption that he could get away with cherry picking by boisterously “testifying” on direct and refusing to answer on cross. LeMond had legal representation present at the hearing and he knew the drill. Regardless, what LeMond said was irrelevant to the subject of the hearing. Once again, LeMond reduced himself to being a sideshow. Sad for a formerly great rider. Garbage in and garbage out.
It looks like CAS has upheld the 1st suspension based on the blood profile system alone:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-upholds-first-suspension-based-on-blood-profiling
CAS is making the assumption that those evaluating the bio passport system have an infallible understanding of human physiology. (She must be doping, as by process of elimination, there is no other explanation for her blood values) That’s a rather conceited assumption!
I’m much more comfortable with the bio passport system being a trigger for increased/targeted testing if the values are deemed suspicious.
This precedent might be acceptable for the “hang ‘em high and hang ‘em often” extremists, but it’s a sad day for more reasoned thinkers.
The olympics, IoC, and their evil spawn-WADA are the debil….
Jeff,
Sometimes memory is short:
From TBV, Landis
There should be somewhere a terrible message on the same forum written by Will Geoghegan about targetting their opponents. But i cannot find the original message.
From http://www.velonews.com/article/12271
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=2874312
Irrelevant to the hearing? maybe.
Jean C,
My memory is not that short. You’ve referenced a follow-up post.
To be clear, LeMond made contact first with Floyd. (Not the other way around)
The contact was unsolicited by Floyd.
The content(s) of the message was neither welcome nor appreciated.
Floyd previously had no knowledge of LeMond’s childhood trama and would have preferred it had stayed that way.
As LeMond uncharacteristically did not tape the conversation, the only two that know the full contents of the conversation are LeMond and Floyd. I’d bet the house and the farm that Floyd’s version is closest to the truth.
Most seem to assume the molestation was the only knowledge passed on to Floyd that could be damaging to LeMond.
It’s doubtful Floyd intended that part to get out. (I can easily imagine anyone who might have received a similar call to confide in a friend, “Unbelievable! LeMond just phoned me and you wouldn’t guess in a million years what he just told me.”………………………………………………………………………………..
It was wildly out of context. My best guess is Floyd felt both confused as to why LeMond confided such private information and sorry for the guy.
It’s also my best guess that the information Floyd referred to that would damage LeMond had nothing to do with LeMond’s childhood, and that Floyd ultimately kept that part confidential, in spite of LeMond’s efforts to damage Floyd. That’s mostly supposition on my part, but makes good sense. YMMV.
LeMond failed to complete his testimony. That voids what he started. LeMond began to testify under oath at the Pepperdine hearing. He didn’t complete his testimony. He refused to be cross-examined, which is a key component in testing the veracity of his statements on direct. It made for some excitement in the “dumbed down news”, but didn’t even impress the arbs who ruled against Floyd. Read the Majority Award.
Yes, it was irrelevant to the hearing. For those keeping score, that’s part of the “dumbed down news”.
Mike,
Thanks for the link.
Jean,
Thanks for the links. Regarding the Landis/LeMond/Geoghegan incidents, remember that the AAA panel eventually threw out the testimony of both LeMond and Joe Papp, because it did not address whether or not Landis doped specifically on Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour. Whatever the content of the original conversation between LeMond and Landis, even by LeMond’s own recounting of it, there was no explicit admission of doping on Stage 17. With Joe Papp’s testimony, it had to do with what others within the pro ranks (and, given Papp’s direct experience with doping, a level or two below the ProTour ranks) thought about and how they practiced doping. Papp had no direct knowledge of what Landis did or didn’t do.
This is one instance where the AAA panel stuck by WADA’s rules without following the creative interpretation of Richard Young. They also set aside from consideration other evidence not directly related to the Stage 17 finding (those infamous other B sample tests).
The reason that LeMond’s and Papp’s testimony was “relevant” in USADA’s eyes was to counter the PR war that had been waged against them for a number of months. With an open hearing, their testimony was bound to be written about in the mainstream and cycling press. Unfortunately, Will G. made the infamous phone call, which added a definite bit of salaciousness to the coverage of Landis’ hearing. Most likely, it was an impulsive act, with no real thinking about how it played out. I suspect that if you asked Will today, he would say that he wishes he hadn’t made that call — and that he regrets having done so.
In the end, neither LeMond’s nor Papp’s testimony played a part in either the AAA (Pepperdine) or CAS (New York) decision. So, from the arbitrators’ point of view, the testimony wasn’t relevant.