Yeah, it’s been a while since last I posted. So long, in fact, that we can almost pick up where we left off in the Wayne Odesnik story. The indefatigable Bonnie Ford brings us up to date with two articles on the tennis pro busted for attempting to take vials of human growth hormone (HGH) into Australia. In this article, she gives us a good summary of the details behind the case. The Australian judge ruling in the case against Odesnik pointed out that:
Mr. Odesnik is an elite athlete who should have been well aware of the sensitivities in having possession of the vials without first obtaining appropriate approvals.
and also that
The issue of anti-doping violation rules is part and parcel of his job as a professional tennis player.
That kind of says it all, doesn’t it? He should have known the rules against doping, and if he truly needed the HGH, he could have gotten a therapeutic use exemption. And, given the publicity around Sylvester Stallone’s run-in with Australian authorities for the same offense, Odesnik should have known that he needed proper documentation and clearances to bring the stuff into the country.
In another article about how the International Tennis Federation has handled Odesnik’s case, Ford asks:
It does seem logical to withhold an actual suspension until a court verdict, just in case the defendant is exonerated. But couldn’t the ITF, which learned of Odesnik’s case in January, have conducted its investigation concurrently with the Australian case and been ready to act when the guilty plea was entered? Or expedited the proceedings to get them done before Odesnik’s next tournament?
Can’t really argue with the idea of holding off on suspending an athlete until due process has run its course. Bonnie Ford makes a good point about how the ITF could have responded. Both articles are interesting reading (as always) and well worth the time.
Meanwhile…
Tom Zirbel makes an excellent point in his latest blog post, Presumption of Guilt.
I guess my beef with this anti-doping policy is that it does not afford athletes the same rights and presumption of innocence that we afford defendants in a criminal court of law. Athlete’s have the option to take their case to an arbitration panel of 3 people who will hear their case, but I encourage you to look at the track record of this. If you come before the arbitration panel with a positive test, you will lose. True, in some instances the suspensions have been reduced due to exceptional circumstances, but what about the people who didn’t dope? I’m not even talking about those who’ve ingested something contaminated unknowingly, I’m talking here about false-positives. I know it’s happened. I spoke to someone on the phone last week who was a victim of a false-positive. He spent a fortune defending himself in arbitration to no avail, quit the sport, became successful in his subsequent career, and never looked back. And yes, I am choosing to believe him and I could be wrong but he has some very strong characters vouching for him and that combined with our conversation on the phone was enough to convince me. So why wasn’t the 1.2% false-positive rate of the test used to convict him taken into account with this ‘impartial’ panel? And further, how many people have been falsely convicted just like him, who I/we have no idea about? Is this just the collateral damage of the best system possible?
Unfortunately, that’s the way the current anti-doping adjudication system is structured. The biggest problems, from where I see it, is the lack of transparency. Test are presumed to be done correctly, information about the test results is limited to whatever the labs want to give the athletes who are accused. We don’t even know much about the accuracy of the tests used for various banned substances. Zirbel talks about a test with a 1.2% false positive rate. But what is the rate of true positives? Is the 1.2% he talks about the number of positive test results that are false positives, or is it that 1.2% of all tests result in false positives?
Zirbel sums up by saying:
My point is this: let’s stop pretending that there is no such thing as a false-positive in analytical chemistry, be it from an instrumental error or a technician screw up, or even a natural fluctuation in the athlete’s body. Why don’t we take all of the evidence into consideration: maybe a jump (or not) in performance at the time of the test, character witnesses, motive, and testing history to name a few. Expensive and drawn-out? Probably. Are the athletes’ careers and reputations worth the extra effort? I think so.
And just to be clear, I’m talking about the anti-doping system in place and not my particular situation.
Good points, all. No doubt, there are those who cheat, who try to beat the system any way they can. But the system also needs to do a better job of ensuring that the real cheaters pay for their actions, while limiting the collateral damage. (Hat tip to Austin Cyclist for pointing out Zirbel’s post.)
The CERA Chronicles … continued
So Riccardo Riccò’s now-former squeeze Vania Rossi, who is also the mother of his kid, is facing a potential doping case even though her B sample came back negative. According to this CyclingNews.com article:
It may be difficult for [Italian anti-doping prosecutor Ettore] Torre to accuse Rossi of failing a dope test because there is no confirmation of a B sample. However the presence of CERA in the A sample could be enough to allow the investigators to accuse Rossi of attempted doping, which can still be punished with a two-year ban. She may also still be investigated for doping offenses under Italian law and risks disciplinary action from the Italian army, who she raced for when she tested positive.
Importantly the case indicated for the first time the possible rapid degrading of CERA in urine samples and the Rome lab has already notified WADA of the problem. A solution for the future maybe to reduce the time allowed between the testing of A and B samples.
Francesco Botré weighed in, telling Gazzetta dello Sport:
There was a significant amount of CERA in the first test, so much so that there we no doubts at all; in the second test, evidently because of the degrading of the urine over time, the amount (of CERA) wasn’t within the limits established by WADA.
Sounds to me like the labs need to be quicker in their turnaround of the tests. At one point, it seemed like two months would pass from the time a test was taken and a CERA positive would be announced. If it really takes that long to get the initial positive result, they probably ought to test the B samples at the same time. Perhaps in a different lab. Costly? Sure. But it would eliminate the problem of the evidence degrading over time. And, it would be a good check and balance on each lab’s work.
So how could a case be brought against Rossi? Well, I have no idea about the intricacies of Italian law, but I seem to remember that when WADA’s rules were changed/updated in January 2009, the former requirement that the B sample confirm the original result was made, well, less of a requirement. Meaning, they could proceed with a case based on just the A sample results. And, if it’s true that the evidence of CERA use degrades quickly, I would expect them to do just that.
Of course, the anti-doping labs could also develop a better test. Just a thought.
IMHO, the 2009 WADA Code has been purposefully written to be difficult to understand or follow, and gives nearly every possible latitude to the ADA’s and WADA with only a thinly veiled pretense of fairness where the Code relates to the athletes it regulates.
Here is a link to a PDF of the Code if you’d care to read it:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf
From Article 2.1.2 on page 20:
“Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample.”
AND
From Article 7.5.2 on pages 46 & 47:
“If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding and a subsequent B Sample analysis (if requested by the Athlete or Anti-Doping Organization) does not confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Athlete shall not be subject to any further Provisional Suspension on account of a violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers).”
These cites are the result of a very quick read. I’m confident that’s not the end of the story and Article 2.1 is incredibly broad. I’m sure something in the Code empowers/inspires Torre and Botre to suggest Rossi is ripe for a sanction even though the B Sample does not back up the A Sample. Are there any Rant readers who would like to venture a guess as to which part(s) of the Code gives ADA/WADA officials license to ignore a non-confirming B Sample???
As for Tom Zirbel, a day late and a dollar short, but welcome to the party anyway.
Here is WADA’s catch-all, “If the samples don’t confirm and we want you guilty, we’ll find you guilty in just about any manner we wish” statement. This is WADA’s official commentary on Article 2.2 on page 21:
“[Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1,
Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from
longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]”
Emphasis:
“Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.”
Added Emphasis: “or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.”
In the words of the Church Lady from vintage SNL, “Isn’t that special?” !!!
WADA or any effort to combat PED use has a problem: the financial costs of testing dictate that only a few athletes are tested. Look at the TdF: at one time, the procedure was to test 4 riders daily. If a different set of 4 riders were tested every day, every rider in the peleton was doping on a daily basis, and every rider tested was caught, still over half the field would escape.
So WADA must rely in part on deterrence: if you are caught, we will nail you to the wall. Whether this works or not is debatable, even the death penalty doesn’t deter all crimes for which it applies.
But in addition, WADA takes view that, even though the rules seem to give athletes a chance to defend themselves, we are going to manipulate the system so that an athlete has little if any chance to prevail, whether or not the athlete might be innocent or the evidence against him defective.
I have little problem with using things like an athlete’s admissions (if well documented) or other non-analytical evidence to establish a violations. But either a confirming B test should be required or why mess with it at all. WADA says so much CERA was found in Rossi’s A test that they consider it a forgone conclusion that she doped. But what if that test was in fact flawed in some way? Such things do happen, and the idea of a confirming B test (unless waived) is a safeguard against someone having his or her career destroyed by bad lab work.
I can see sanctioning an athlete for attempted use, when testing fails to detect or confirm the presence of a PED, if there is other evidence to point to such: the athlete had the prohibited substance in his possession, or in his home etc.; the athlete contacted someone about obtaining the substance, and so on. But the attempt to pull such a legal stunt in Rossi’s case is something I can’t understand. If we assume that a confirming B test is required to sanction an athlete, then Rossi’s case should be over. It’s potentially too bad if she did indeed dope and the B test failed due to deterioration of the sample over time, but hey, sometimes things just happen that way. On the other hand, if there are circumstances were a confirming B test is not required and this case fits, then Rossi should be found guilty. Perhaps we may not like those rules, but hey, sometimes things just happen that way. But to say “We can’t use the A results to sustain a charge of using, but we can use them to sustain a charge of attempted using” is ridiculous.
Jeff,
Thanks for doing all that research today. Most appreciated. You’re quote of The Church Lady is spot on.
William,
I have no clue whether Vania Rossi is guilty or not, because of those contradictory A and B results. Could be that she was guilty and the sample degraded. Could also be that the initial test result was incorrect. But since they don’t agree, the matter should be dropped. If the tests need to be improved, that’s another matter.
But like you said, to take the A sample result and say “We can’t accuse you of doping, but we can accuse you of attempted doping” is stretching logic, to say the least. We simply can’t say why the two results were different. They just were. If she’s a doper, then it bites that she gets a pass. But if the A sample was a false positive, it would be wrong for her to be punished.
Only Rossi (and perhaps Riccò) knows the truth. If she was doping, she’d be well advised to quit while she’s ahead. If she keeps doping, eventually she’ll be caught and the evidence will be solid. Until that time, whether the fans like it or not, she should be able to compete. Although, having to care for a little bambino might put a crimp in her training regimen. (I doubt that Ricky Riccardo will be around to help.)
I don’t have a problem with WADA’s Mission Statement or its stated goals. They are generally positive. The problem is that the execution of the Mission Statement and goals is woefully lacking and the basis of the process has been corrupted, probably beyond repair, by its relationship to the IoC.
When Dr. Christiane Ayotte, Director of the Montreal WADA lab, was asked a question during the Landis Pepperdine hearing and answered, “because I say so”, she was not being disingenuous. The ADA’s and their directors are, shall we say, results oriented.
Let’s perform a brief and rudimentary deconstruction of WADA’s comments on a section of Article 2 of the Code:
Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as:
(1) Admissions by the Athlete.
Jeff: Okay, fair enough.
(2) Witness statements.
Jeff: Depends upon the reliability of the witness.
(3) Documentary evidence.
Jeff: Depends upon the reliability of the documentation.
(4) Conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling.
Jeff: Relatively new ground. Assumes the expert panel’s conclusions are 100% correct.
(5) or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.
Jeff: Overly broad catch-all statement. Lacks checks and balances. Confers nearly unlimited power to convict to ADA’s & WADA.
“For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.”
Satisfactory to whom and on what basis?????
Jeff: Satisfactory to the ADA’s, WADA, and the overwhelming majority of their field of hand picked “arbitrators”. Stacked Arb deck and lots of wiggle room. Need solid definitions of the words/phrases “reliable” and “satisfactory explanation”.
The fix is clearly incorporated within the Code.
If the relevant authorities would like a particular finding to stand, regardless of it being correct or not, they certainly have the tools at their disposal to make damned sure it does.
Hang em high and hang em often.
I’m not impressed with the WADA “braintrust”. While some members of professional road cycling’s peloton are highly intelligent, the group as a whole cannot be accurately described as possessing above average intellect or being scholarly. WADA should easily trump the peloton in the “brains” category. Why then the need for the fix???
I’m just not buying it. The peloton may be generally street smart, but they don’t possess the acumen to routinely defeat doping controls if they are well administered. A few notorious “doping doctors” only tip the scales to a minor degree. WADA really needs to get its collective act together. Right now, they are an inconvenient and unamusing joke.
Such vague wording I think is part and parcel of the deterrent strategy: “the more athletes we nail, (hopefully) the more other athletes will think twice about doping.” “Don’t think you’re going to get off because of some pesky little detail, like the fact that the B test fails to confirm the A test.”
In some ways I think this may also be inspired by the idea that most if not all athletes are dopers. There are many that suspect this is true of pro cycling; to what extent this might be true of other sports worldwide I don’t know. But if WADA and its minions think like this, there could be a certain amount of “Well, maybe the test results are unreliable, but the athlete involved is probably doping anyway, so what’s the harm in jumping on him?”
Multiple regulators conspire to make agreements on reduced suspensions unreliable. Kopp is a case on point. The guy didn’t fight the charge, was given a reduced suspension, served his time, was granted an unrestricted license, secured a team to race for, trained/raced, and then had the rug pulled out from under him. Makes the “harmonization” WADA preaches in the Code a joke and UCI quite the flip flopper:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3117.asp
William,
I’m not convinced it’s out of necessity. I’m leaning more toward laziness, ineptitude, graft, and/or corruption. Most riders don’t possess the equivalent of a high school education. Same goes for the DS’s. How does WADA, with highly educated scientists/doctors/technicians/bureaucrats, routinely get out foxed by a group of racers and their team leaders, with average educational levels at or below high school graduation? A handful of “doping docs”, some massage therapists turned drug runners, and a gyno transformed doesn’t doesn’t seem much of a match for the Anti-Doping System. What are they doing wrong and why are they widely reported to be loosing the war?
It sounds all too familiar >sigh< Nothing really changes does it?
str (the disillusioned)
Sorry, wrong link in my post, prior to str.
Here is the correct link re Kopp:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-extended-kopps-ban-by-a-further-year
Jeff:
The point I am trying to make is that, even if WADA had a 100% reliable and foolproof test, the financial (and perhaps logistical) considerations means that only a small fraction of the total pool of riders can be tested at any one time. So WADA is trying to make the deterrence value of their whole scheme such that reasonable people will not consider doping. Part of this is the heavy penalties; part is also the whole “we make the rules whatever we want” attitude. Since Rossi’s A sample was not confirmed by the B sample, they don’t want her to get off. No deterrent value there. So they may indeed decide that the A sample result is enough to support a charge of attempted doping, which as I recall carries the same 2-year ban that a use charge would draw.
In my mind, a more reasonable approach would be to ‘fess up there may indeed be a problem with the test if samples are held too long, and then look to improve either the turn-around on getting the B tests done and/or improved testing or storage to reduce/eliminate the problem of deterioration. Maybe this should have been done before using the test. Or maybe the idea that deterioration of the sample is to blame for the non-confirming B test is just a smokescreen. Do we really know that is what happened? There is always the possibility the A test was wrong or that the lab just messed up testing the B sample.
No test is perfect, and even if the test itself was perfect, no human is perfect, even when well-intentioned. Add in the possibility that some lab tech might have it in for some athlete, or even perhaps some sport in general (hey, all those nasty cyclists are dopers, let’s nail a few), to impose a 2 year hiatus on someone career without corroboration is unwarranted, in my opinion.
By the way, Jeff, I think you are right that the idea that pro cyclists as a whole can outsmart WADA is ridiculous.
William,
No ill intent here. Just friendly discourse.
If reports are to be believed, all the riders in the pool of the Pro Tour and Pro Cont teams participating in top tier races are tested multiple times a season for bio passport/ longitudinal testing profiles. Some are tested more than others. Some who are tested more than others are “targeted”. Others are tested more than others because they win more than others and that triggers higher frequency of testing, in competition. Other in competition testing is random draw. (that’s a lot of “others”) It’s also a lot of expense. The expense is paid for by the various national federations, often via their anti-doping designees (USADA for USA Cycling). The majority of their funding comes from national governments. The source of those funds (for USADA, and to a lesser degree, WADA) come from U.S. taxpayers, of which I am one. If they are not actually running a legitimate testing program, I have to ask, “Where is the money going???”.
If the basis of WADA’s authority is just a big bluff, then I’d prefer my tax dollars were not wasted on what amounts to one trick pony in a poker game. I’m guessing most of my fellow tax payers would tend to agree. Again, where is the money going???
So if I have this right, WADA has a testing system in place. Some of the tests work and some don’t. Regardless, WADA says they all work and the labs are essentially infallible. (Let’s ignore for a moment that stated infallibility is not possible) WADA Code is written in such a way that the organization can virtually ensure any verdict they desire. National governments from around the world have been coerced into funding WADA and to have their athletes subject to the WADA Code or else not be eligible for their country to host an olympic games or have their athletes compete in IoC sanctioned competition, including any olympic games. This same olympic games organization (IoC) which has co-opted the “running of the torch” and much of the opening/closing ceremony pageantry from 1930’s Nazi Germany and spawned WADA. It makes my head spin, but I’m jaded enough now to seldom be surprised. I also have a good idea where the money is going. YMMV.
Jeff:
I certainly didn’t mean to imply you had ill will. I do enjoy the friendly discourse here.
I think there is something else going on with WADA etc. in addtion to what we have discussed: the demonization of PED users.
A year or 2 ago I posed the question (maybe here, maybe at TBV, I forget) “What is cheating?” to which I got an answer “Breaking the rules” But I think it is much more complicated than that.
Some rules are routinely broken, dealt with by some sort of in-competition penaly (loss of yardage, free throw, etc. as fits the particular sport), and no one thinks twice about it. Indeed, in some sports (basketball comes to mind, but to some extent in others) fouls (i.e., breaking the rules) are used tactically and such use is considered appropriate and not cheating.
Other things are perhaps more likely to be considered “cheating. An NCAA coach who commits recruiting violations, or the like, will possibly get disciplined by both the NCAA and perhaps the college. But there are a number of coached currently or recently working with such violations on their record, so it isn’t necessarily a major disruption to their career. If their winning record is good enough, loyal fans are often willing to overlook such. Only in the most egregious cases is a coaching career ended.
Then you have NASCAR, where the mentality seems to be “if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.” Crew chiefs do all sorts of things with the cars while drivers deliberately crash other drivers, and it’s all part of the fun.
But somehow, PED users get ranked up their along with bin Laden and child molesters. There is a perception that we must do everything and anything in order to stamp this out, even if it means trampling over people’s rights and destroying careers with weak evidence.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not really in favor of doping. But let’s put it all in context. Doping can give an athlete an advantage, in some cases perhaps enough to let someone win who otherwise might not. When reliably detected, it should be punished. But athletes are all the time trying to get an advantage. Look at any issue of Bicycling magazine (or your local equivalent): it full of ads for this drink, that bar, this other gel, all touted as aids for improving your performance. There have even been articles detailing various diets, like carbo loading, reputed to aid performance. Whether or not all these actually work or not, the point is that people are willing to try various things to gain an edge. Some thing goes with equipment; I understand it is possible to buy a bike that weighs less than the minimum permitted by UCI regs. Maybe you could get away with riding it in your local crit. Or maybe you could put on a pair of wheels with lead-lined rims for technical inspection and then substitute regular wheels for the race. Wouldn’t surprise me if someone hasn’t tried something like that.
Of course, racers who get caught often blame team officials. “I had to take dope in order to stay on the team.” Or they blame the idea that it is necessary to be competitive. Perhaps and perhaps not. But if the riders believe that everyone else is doping and that they need to in order to compete and remain employed, are they really so evil?
I really feel like I’m totally missing something here, or more likely something is VERY amiss! You look at these results – most former “dopers/cheaters” according to WADA tests:
Final overall standings
1. Alexandre Vinokourov (Kz), Astana, in 13:20:06
2. Riccardo Ricco (I), Ceramica Flaminia-Bossini Docce, at 0:00.14
3. Domenico Pozzovivo (I), Colnago-CSF Inox, at 0:42
4. Michele Scarponi (I), Androni Giocattoli-Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni, at 0:44
5. Ivan Basso (I), Liquigas Doimo, at 0:56
Then you see test results that just seem really odd – why would anyone on RS risk anything? They would be beheaded by Lance & Johan for bringing down the team! The BMC positive seems really odd too given the history and internal testing by Catlin…
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/04/news/bmc-suspends-frei-for-epo-positive_112819
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/04/news/radioshacks-fuyu-suspended_112795
Mike G.
That would tend to support the notion that you can’t turn a donkey into a thoroughbred.
In all likelyhood, those guys are under heavy WADA/ADA scrutiny. For those who have served their suspensions and have come back to win or place, good for them.
William.
I don’t disagree with your post.
BTW, NCAA is nearly as corrupt as IoC. (College basketball and football players are taken advantage of by the NCAA and NBA/NFL. NCAA uses them as unpaid employees generating millions for the NCAA and many of their member schools. NBA/NFL benefits via an unfunded or administered feeder to their respective leagues) Well maybe not quite nearly as corrupt? IoC has made corruption an artform. Both are primarily interested in sustaining/enriching their respective bureaucracies.
In other news:
Vino wins LBL. Good for him.
Some members of the press are not happy a rider who served his sanction was able to win the 2010 LBL. Too bad for them:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vinokourov-fights-back-against-the-press
Vino claims to have been the subject of 30 doping tests. He says 21 were via ADAMS (OOC) and I presume the other 9 were related to in competition testing.
Swiss court upholds Valverde’s racing ban in Italy
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-court-upholds-valverde-racing-ban-in-italy
Swiss court rules that Ulrich Hess, formerly employed by WADA, is a “neutral” arbitrator. Now that’s interesting. While not nearly as serious, it requires the same sort of suspension of reality Swiss bankers expected us to have on the subject of assets they held that originated with 1930’s and 1940’s European Jews.
Nothing to see here people, move along………
Although I could author a paper comparing current anti-doping efforts to a game of darts utilizing unskilled players, in fairness to the ADA’s, sometimes they get it right.
Frei admits to micro-dosing EPO:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/27042010/58/bmc-sack-frei-epo-test.html
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/04/news/bmc-fires-frei-after-doping-admission_113369
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/frei-confesses-to-epo-usage-and-is-released-by-bmc
Sometimes even a psychic gets it right too.
and a broken watch is right twice a day….
This is off topic, but I see that the Ouch-Bahati Foundation Pro Cycling Team including Floyd Landis are riding the Tour of the Gila which starts today. Some pretty good competition in that race. Too bad Ouch-Bahati did not get an invitation to the Tour of California.
Floyd had a nice ride in the Tour of Battenkill. An interesting event and a good ride, animating the race and finishing second.
Tour of the Gila today:
1st – Levi L (Mello J)
2nd- Tom D (DZ Nuts)
3rd- Cesar G (Ouch-Bahati)
5th- David Z (DZ Nuts)
19th – Floyd L (Ouch-Bahati)
22nd – Lance A (Mello J)
http://www.tourofthegila.com/2010race/day1mens1.html
Too bad about the non-invitation to ToC. Ouch-Bahati would have represented themselves well. ToC’s loss.
Jeff,
Thanks for all the links and the results. On a slightly related note, a watch that is off by a few minutes (or more) is never right. 😉
Mike,
Strange days, indeed.
Cub,
It’s a real shame that OUCH-Bahati didn’t get an invite to the ToC this year. Perhaps next year. Here’s to hoping they get an invite to this years Tour of MO.
My eyes are not what they once were.
Correction on my post of yesterday’s Tour of the Gila results:
Andrew T, a U25 from California Giant-Specialized was 5th.
David Z, was actually 6th, not 5th as I previously posted.
As a side note: the top 26 look to have finished within 2 minutes of Levi’s winning time.