One for the money …
Seems like Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde will get to go before the Court of Arbitration for Sport twice in the first three months of 2010, according to this Associated Press report on ESPN.com. Valverde heads before the CAS on January 12th to challenge the ban imposed on him by Italian authorities, based on the cyclist’s alleged involvement in the grandaddy albatross of doping cases known as Operacion Puerto.
On the other side of the aisle from Valverde will be representatives of CONI (Italy’s national Olympic Committee), but also lawyers representing the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Cycling Union (UCI). Both WADA and the UCI want to extend Valverde’s Italy-only ban to a worldwide ban from competition.
Given WADA’s own rules, however, this battle could be a lost cause. The way the rules now work, Spanish anti-doping and sports authorities are responsible for pursuing anti-doping cases involving Spanish athletes, no matter where the offense occured. (As were American authorities in cases involving various athletes over the years.) Frustrated by the lack of action on the part of Spanish authorities (or perhaps, the lack of the desired action), Italian authorities took matters into their own hands.
WADA and the UCI have expressed equal frustration in the past, but whether or not Valverde is guilty, he may have a relatively strong case before the CAS. Since the responsibility for prosecuting him for doping offenses lies with Spanish (and not Italian) authorities, the ban currently imposed by CONI was done outside rules that CONI agreed to when accepting WADA’s overall authority. This is not to say that Valverde will prevail, as various CAS panels have found some creative ways of interpreting WADA’s rules. But going by the existing rules, and those in force at the time the alleged offenses took place, CONI had no standing to prosecute Valverde on charges related to Operacion Puerto.
Even if Valverde were to prevail in January (don’t expect a quick decision, though), he’s facing another round in the CAS-decision lottery. In March, he will go before the CAS a second time. According to a CAS press release, the second case is an appeal by WADA and the UCI against the Spanish cycling federation’s decision not to pursue charges against the cyclist related to allegations that he was involved in Operacion Puerto. On this, WADA and the UCI may stand a better chance of coming out on top. But either way, Valverde is in for a nerve-wracking early season, waiting for both decisions to come down.
Two for the show …
Tiger Woods is all over the news these days, what with the hordes of women who’ve claimed involvement with American golf’s biggest name. Some of Woods’ fooling around, it seems, came after he got married to Elin Nordegren. As if he’s not got a whole boatload of bad publicity from his wandering eye, it turns out that Woods is also (at least somewhat) connected to Dr. Anthony Galea, a Canadian doctor arrested in October by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and who is under investigation for “smuggling, advertising and selling unapproved drugs as well as criminal conspiracy,” according to an article in yesterday’s New York Times. As the Times reports:
Dr. Galea’s legal problems began in late September when his assistant was stopped entering the United States from Canada. Her car was searched by border-crossing guards and authorities found Dr. Galea’s medical bag, which contained four drugs, including human growth hormone, Dr. Galea said. “It was for my own use,” he said.
The authorities also seized his laptop computer and a sonogram machine, he said. His assistant, he said, often drove him around and that was why his belongings were in her car. The assistant, whom Dr. Galea declined to identify, has stopped working at his clinic and, he said, is now cooperating with the authorities.
Federal investigators in the United States are basing their investigation, in part, on medical information found on Dr. Galea’s computer relating to several professional athletes he treated, according to the people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.
They did not identify any of the athletes whose names appeared on the computer.
Unknown athletes implicated in a possible doping scandal? Shades of a certain 2006 Spanish investigation. (And just who were those athletes from other sports who were supposedly connected to Operacion Puerto, anyway? How many tennis players, rugby players and soccer players have been implicated in that scandal?) Of course, Dr. Galea has a different take on things.
Dr. Galea said “it would be impossible” for the authorities to have found information linking any of his athletes to performance-enhancing drugs.
…
Dr. Galea blames his current legal problems on his success rate.
“All these athletes come see me in Canada cause I fix them, and I think people just assume that I’m giving them stuff,” he said. “They don’t have to come to me to get H.G.H. and steroids. You can walk into your local gym in New York and get H.G.H.”
Well, if that’s true, then this whole thing should blow over quickly, eh? Meanwhile, the New York Daily News fleshes out the Galea story a bit, connecting Mark Lindsay, a business partner of Galea’s, to Victor Conte and the whole BALCO scandal. Meanwhile, back at ESPN.com, there’s a video with the headline No Evidence Yet Tiger Did Anything Wrong. The accompanying print article by Mike Fish barely mentions Woods’ name at all. The article does, however, list four charges that Galea will be facing in a Toronto courtroom on Friday. One other video on the ESPN site contains an interview with Michael Schmidt, one of the reporters who wrote yesterday’s New York Times article.
Whether he’s used PEDs or not, Tiger Woods can’t be happy about this latest bit of attention. Dr. Galea’s story will unfold over time. We’ll see which — if any — athletes will ultimately be accused of doping or the performance-enhancing drug use as a result of Galea’s current legal woes.
Three to get ready …
And then there’s the matter of the LeMond vs. Trek lawsuit, which reared its ugly head a while back. Back on December 7th the judge hearing the lawsuit between Greg LeMond and Trek Bicycles inched closer to the courtroom. As Steve Frothingham noted in his article on VeloNews.com, both sides scored a few points in pre-trial maneuvering.
If the two sides fail to reach an out-of-court settlement, the case’s trial may make for some interesting and dramatic moments. Should Lance Armstrong be called to testify, I would expect quite a bit of fireworks between LeMond and/or his attorneys and the seven-time Tour champ. No predictions on how this saga will end, but if it ends up in court, it could make for one hell of a show.
The CoNI complaint against Valverde is absurd. Rant has explained why. Each nation is responsible to prosecute its own. The intention is to aid in preventing infighting between nations, with the athletes overtly used as pawns. WADA code purports to seek to harmonize the system. CoNI is busting that deal and one of the code’s elements that actually makes sense. So far, CoNI’s counterparts in Spain have shown restraint and have not retaliated. Don’t expect their largess to continue if CoNI prevails with CAS. CoNI is 100% in the wrong here, but I give them a 60/40 chance of winning in this rigged system. That WADA and the IoC have not already read CoNI the riot act is fairly telling. If Valverde looses to CoNI, then it’s automatic that he looses the following appeal involving WADA and the UCI. Even if Valverde beats CoNI, odds are better than 60/40 WADA/UCI will prevail in their appeal. Spain started Puerto and Spain has largely ended it. However, CoNI, WADA, and UCI all want blood and CAS is obliged, metaphorically, to deliver it to at least two of the three circling sharks. Odds are against seeing Valverde in a sanctioned professional race when the weather is warm in Paris.
Golf and TV need Woods more than Woods needs golf or TV. If someone has any evidence Woods was involved in doping or unauthorized methods, then that evidence better be solid. Bleeding the athlete broke won’t remotely work with regard to Woods. I pity the fool that treads too closely to writings or actions that might be slanderous or libelous. His private life should be respected. Prurient interests in his private life and lower than a snake’s belly “journalism” on the subject are both better left ignored.
Trek/LeMond. Neither side has done everything correctly (legally) here. Each acted badly on various points. I’ll wager Trek/LeMond goes to court. My impression is that Saint Greg wants his sound bites even more than he wants money or a successful bike brand. I doubt he’ll consent to settle.
Have a merry…..
Valverde will loose one or both CAS hearings. When the soup has the deck stacked this heavily, I find it difficult to care whether Valverde was juiced, or not. I find the behavior of the soup more offensive than any athlete doping, and this attitude is from a person that does not appreciate athletes gaining an unfair advantage through pharmaceutical science.
I want to be clear my previous post was not intended to be critical of Rant regarding the Tiger Woods private life comments. It was intended to be critical of how far toward the tabloid side of journalism that mainstream journalism has wondered. A legitimate news journalist has a duty to write the facts of a story, not to sensationalize or commercialize a given story. I think Rant just summarized what is already out there, and in a matter of fact sort of way. I find it ironically interesting when the “fake news” a la the Colbert Report is closer to what real news should be, when compared to the usual major market tabloid garbage or network junk billing itself as nightly news.
The Hilton name used to be synonymous with high quality temporary logging. Now one could just as easily associate the name with publicity seeking spoiled rich ho. The LeMond name used to be synonymous with talented classy bike racer. Now it can just as easily be associated with jealous bitter litigious butinsky. Proud days for Hilton and LeMond? I doubt there is a clear cut winner in the Trek/LeMond battle. Both will loose some and win some. It will be a matter of degree. My guess is that Trek has already won the main battle – removing LeMond from its business. There is no question it will be worth it, the primary question is the amount of the final tab to make him go away.
Jeff,
No worries, I certainly didn’t take your original comments as being critical of what I said, I understood that you were referring to the tabloid culture that’s afflicted certain parts of the media — mainstream and otherwise.
I agree that when the Trek/LeMond brouhaha is all said and done there won’t be a clear-cut “winner.” Each side will win some and lose some. For Trek, cutting themselves free of LeMond is probably the big “win,” and whatever price they pay, they will probably consider the expense well worth it. For LeMond, on the other hand, he’s got a chance to embarrass Trek and a certain other Tour winner. And he’ll get some money for his efforts.
I doubt, however, that there will be a new incarnation of LeMond bikes once this is all said and done. Whatever his intentions, GL has made his name radioactive as far as many retail shops are concerned, and he may well have a difficult time trying to get his wares onto the floors of various local retailers around the country.
In that sense, he’ll lose big-time. Whatever payout he gets to go away may not be worth it, at least from a business perspective.
From all the reports I read about that Trek-Lemond case, only VeloNews don’t give a clear advantage to Lemond.
Even if I am not familiar to US laws, it seems for me that Trek could have hard days in court to justify, according their strict anti-doping policy, how they have deal with their athlete model linked to one of the most nefarious doping doctor Ferrari.
If the case go to court, we can bet that we will assist to the same debat about Lance’s doping that we can read on every cycling forum. Some noise would be made about the 6 EPO samples of 1999 TDF, about Lance’s blood values of last TDF. Sure, people like Morkebjerg, Belhague, Ashenden, or Saugy would put some oil on fire.
So, I believe that Trek, maybe helped by Lance’s money, will pay a huge amount to settle the case behind door.
Jean,
I’m not so certain that the Trek/LeMond case will get settled. I can imagine that Trek would probably like to settle out of court, but I’m no so sure that LeMond wants to settle. Since it takes both sides to agree on a settlement, I suspect that this case will go to court in the early part of 2010.
As for needing Lance’s money to help bury this case, while I’m sure that the folks at Trek wouldn’t mind the donation to their “legal defense fund,” I rather doubt that the would need Armstrong’s financial assistance.
I expect that when it goes to court, Trek will win on some issues and LeMond on others. On balance, LeMond will probably get some sort of payout when all is said and done. I have no idea how much, or whether it will even cover his legal expenses, but my guess is that Trek will write LeMond an check when the case is over.
The bigger problem for LeMond is that his brand has been off the market for going on two years now. Before Trek licensed the LeMond name, his bicycle business was on shaky ground. He’s going to have a hard time restarting the bike business — assuming he wants to when this saga ends.
Jean C,
I’d put up a house payment that Rant is correct and the case will not settle. It takes both sides to agree in order for there be a settlement. From my point of view, LeMond values his soapbox above most else. As Rant pointed out, his bike brand is dead as his name has become toxic on a retail level. It’s less about business and more about other motivations for the saint of cycling.
As for which side is ahead, it’s anyone’s guess. There are far too many unknown variables at play. Only the most clairvoyant would know with any sort of accuracy. Add to the fact that both sides have acted badly wrt various issues contained within the case. Not many tarot card readers are even venturing a guess, but you are free to read into it what you want via the various bike publications and web sources, or even have a go with some tea leaves.
Jeff,
Lemond is an appreciate rider and man, everywhere outside Lance doping fan.
His name is only toxic for people who loves doping.
Hopefully the 2 current affairs should restore a part of his deserved fame.
The current Astana doping affair should have some effects on the current case. Astana riders were using Trek bikes… if Lance is linked to one of the syringe, that would be the worst news for Trek.
I appreciate LeMond for the rider he was, not the man. I’m not a LA fan. That seems to disprove your theory.
The LeMond name is toxic (Rant says radioactive) for many bicycle retailers in the USA. It’s not particularly debatable. LeMond bikes sold poorly when the were widely available and after Saint Greg starting making accusations he can’t back up. As for a restoration of his “deserved fame”, dream on.
There is no current Astana doping affair. There are incomplete news reports of an investigation into the possibility.
Jeff,
Lemond’s name is only toxyc in USA because of the smearing campaign of Lance and Trek.
If you had read the Trek-Lemond case, you would have understood that Greg did a supposition about Lance”s doping.
LA/Trek were not needed to make LeMond at the retail bicycle level. Saint Gregory took care of that all by himself.
Jean,
The bike industry in the States has had its ups and downs. LeMond’s brand was near extinction when Trek licensed his brand name, and after that, the brand recovered, at least somewhat.
Remember, though, that most in the US don’t follow cycling. It’s not nearly as popular here as over in Europe. So for the average bike buying person, they see stories of LeMond and Armstrong going at each other and they get a negative impression of GL. That translates into lower sales in the shops. A number of friends who own shops tell me that after the first go-round between the two, sales of GL’s brand dropped off precipitously. Why that happened is open to speculation. My point is, however, that GL’s negative image is not just in the minds of those who you describe as “loving” doping. And, to be honest, I don’t know anyone who favors doping — even if they have differing opinions about who does and doesn’t dope.
On the other hand, Trek purchased a number of competitors in the 1990s and let those brands slowly die off. So in that sense, GL did way better than Gary Klein or Keith Bontrager — though Bontrager’s name at least still graces a few components sold on Trek bikes. But that’s not to suggest that Trek, themselves, lived up to their end of the bargain, either.
Seems to me there’s blame to go around on both sides.
Anyway, a Merry Christmas to you, Jeff and all the people who comment here. May 2010 be a good year for everyone.
Rant,
As you point it correctly US bike market is not so huge as european market where Lemond has a good image, and a better image than Armstrong on older people (the more wealthy). So Trek would have had 2 master cards to sell bike in Europe, Lemond and Armstrong. Now they will have to pay 2 times, less profit and a big dedommagement to Lemond, and probably a bag public image if it’s go on court.
Never put your eggs in one basket when you have 2.
Jean,
Right you are. Never put all your eggs in one basket. As far as the public image goes, for the bigger consumer market, it won’t matter much. For those who are cyclists, I think it will be a wash on balance — at least over here. Not sure how it would play out in Europe, in terms of PR. Someone once said that all publicity is good publicity. In that contrarian point of view, it could even work out well for both sides.
I think this is the first reprisal that is actually boldly proclaiming itself as a reprisal wrt Valverde:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-of-murcia-bars-italian-teams
More than a pea shooter, but not a devastating bomb. None the less, it has started in earnest. Congratulations CAS, CoNI, UCI. Once again, well done…….