Piti, Poor Alejandro
Isn’t It A Piti?
Now, isn’t it a shame
How we break each other’s hearts
And cause each other pain
How we take each other’s winnings
Without thinking anymore
Forgetting to give back
Isn’t it a piti?— with apologies to George Harrison, “Isn’t It A Pity“
OK, it’s been a couple of days since the Court of Arbitration for Sport announced their ruling (in English) in the case that pitted the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Cycling Union against Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde and the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC). Considering that a separate CAS panel found that the two-year ban imposed on Valverde by Italian authorities was a valid decision, it surely came as no great surprise that the CAS ruled that WADA and the UCI could impose a two-year worldwide ban on Valverde for his alleged involvement in Operacion Puerto. Valverde will be able to compete again on January 1, 2012. Which means that for the next 19 months or so, Valverde will be on “vacation,” as it were.
Various publications have reported that Valverde is considering an appeal in the Swiss courts or to the European Court of Human Rights. I’ve got some advice for AV, and it goes like this: “Shut up, save your money, enjoy your vacation, train like a maniac and be ready to compete — cleanly — in 2012.” That means no visits to gynecologists acting as phlebotomists. No ordering “supplements” from dubious online suppliers. Nothing less than living completely squeaky clean.
So, I hear a few of you saying already, “What’s up with that? Rant is seriously telling Valverde to lie low, not ruffle any feathers, and generally disappear for almost two years?” Yep, that’s what I’m doing. Because, let’s face it, the anti-doping authorities have beaten Valverde. Going to the Swiss courts or the European Court of Human Rights gives him, at best, a 50-percent shot at winning. But the enmity he will earn among cycling’s powers that be will be huge. And if he wants to ride again, at any level within the sport, he needs to play it cool for a while. Another case that’s been in the news recently serves as a good illustration of what happens when you buck the system. Ultimately, it’s not a good idea.
And, Alejandro, while I’m offering advice, you might oughtta wanna consider doing a TV interview, coming clean, crying on cue and expressing extreme remorse for your actions in the past. I’ve got it on good authority that this will help you get back to racing in the big leagues.
Appetite for Destruction?
Welcome to the jungle
We’ve got fun ‘n’ games
We got everything you want
Honey, we know the names
We are the people that can find
Whatever you may need
If you got the money, honey
We got your disease— Guns ‘n Roses, ‘Welcome to the Jungle“
Given all of the retrospective scandals in cycling, I’m beginning to wonder: Are the people who run the show (the UCI, WADA, the other ADAs and the various promoters) hell-bent on destroying the sport? Sure, a case can be made for catching the cheats, even if it takes years. But the ensuing bad publicity pushes sponsors away and further alienates the fans. Look, we fans get it. Cycling, like all sports, is basically entertainment for the masses. It’s a show. Some of us actually like to go out and ride, and a smaller fraction get inspired to race. But in order to race even at the lowest levels, there have to be sponsors willing to help cover the costs. No more sponsors and the sport will vanish into obscurity.
We also get it that the sport is littered with stories of doping. Any fan of cycling who has been around a while can probably regale their non-cycling-obsessed friends and family with epic tales of doping from years gone by. Pick an era, any era. There’s a doping story to fit your fancy. Performance enhancement is part of the DNA of cycling, and truth be told, for all sports.
It’s also apparent that doping may not be quite as fashionable among the racers as it once was. (Which is not to suggest that there aren’t people doping, or even teams organizing doping on a wider scale. That could still be going on.) The seamy underbelly of sports has been exposed to the light of day for a long time now, and fans don’t like what they see (never mind the performance enhancers the fans use in everyday life, though).
Much money and time and resources have been devoted to catching cheats from years past. There certainly seems to be a determined effort to get one certain Great White Whale, whose name will go unmentioned for now (because you all know who it is, anyway). Perhaps it’s time to focus on the present and the future. Draw a line in the sand. So here’s what I propose (props to Tom Fine who suggested this on Twitter a while back):
The powers that be in the anti-doping world should pick a date, any date. Then, they should announce, “Anyone who doped before this date and who admits their doping in public to a ‘Doping Reconciliation Panel’ will be allowed to compete with no penalties. Once the panel completes their work, anyone caught doping will feel the full brunt of the system. Anyone who denies doping before the panel, and who is subsequently proven to have doped prior our ‘line in the sand’ date will be permanently banned from the sport.”
If the anti-doping authorities are serious about figuring out how the cheaters beat the system, the “Doping Reconciliation Panel” would be the place where cyclists would expose their own history, with a full accounting of what they did, who organized things, who assisted them, and how they managed to avoid detection. The information gleaned from such a panel could be quite useful in developing methods and tests that are harder to dodge. Well, maybe. It depends on whether the lessons to be learned would truly be absorbed. But it’s worth a shot.
And it would save a whole lot of time and money, while making resources available for more testing where it’s needed — in the here and now. It would save us fans a whole lot of heartache, too. Nothing like seeing one athlete after another tarred and feathered by doping accusations to turn people off of the sport. Seeing the athletes admit their past indiscretions and move forward would go a long way towards rebuilding some trust. It would still take a long time, but coming out the other side, the sport would be vastly stronger than it is today.
This’ll Get a Few Folks Fired Up
Or at least get a few folks venting. A long-time RYHO reader passed along these two clips from the USADA vs. Floyd Landis hearings at Pepperdine University’s School of Law in May 2007. I’m offering them with no commentary, make of them what you will.
The Swearing In (hard to hear, but listen closely)
[flashvideo file=”../videos/Swearing_In.flv” /]
Answering questions regarding the US Postal Service team (turn your volume down, if you watched the previous video):
[flashvideo file=”../videos/Landis_denial.flv” /]
On Your Mark…
Get set. Discuss.
In light of the main thrust of your post, as well as some of my own personal feelings, I consider FL to be basically a dead issue. Like Cal in his last post on the “Comfortably Numb” thread, if he has acted criminally, that is a matter for the appropriate legal authorities.
But your idea of the “line in the sand” is intriguing. In order to solve a problem you first need to know what the problem is, and despite what some people say, we really don’t know what the exact nature of the doping problem is, except in some general way. How wide spread is it, do people that dope dope all the time or perhaps only dope when they are going after a big win (or at least a good performance in a big race). For example, I have heard stories of domestiques who carry a few uppers in their jersey pocket, and if they need a little help to beat the time cut-off in the Tour, they have it. Which sort of indicates that perhaps at other times they don’t use such aid.
The one thing I question is the idea that such “confessions” would be public. While of course UCI/WADA could guarantee amnesty from their own sanctions, they can neither absolve them from any criminal prosecutions nor form the court of public opinion. This could inhibit people from confessing. Do you think that GWW would admit any drug use after publicly denying it for so long, FL not withstanding. On the other hand, the track record of UCI/WADA in keeping things confidential is rather poor.
I think the public aspect is only a problem if it turns out that a minority of riders end up offering confessions. Doping in order to be competitive within a heavily doping peloton is a different thing entirely than doping for an individual advantage.
So there is kind of a catch-22 issue with starting up such an effort. The UCI wouldn’t want to do it, unless they thought they were going to bring forth a ton of riders. The only way it realistically happens, is if other riders step forward to corroborate Floyd’s story, it could lead to a sort of landslide in which the UCI would have no choice but to offer such a deal.
Unfortuntately, I don’t expect to see it. There are rumors of further cooperation from riders named by Floyd. But the stakes are really high. Even if USADA offers them amnesty, what does that mean? Will France let them race there? Or Italy? In theory WADA is supposed to be the power the keeps this from happening, but in practice they haven’t been that strong. The Valverde case was itself kind of an end-run around WADA, as was Floyd’s double prosecution with the AFLD.
So the most likely outcome is that maybe a rider or two cooperates, destroys their own career, and participates in a process designed mainly to catch Lance. Levi, George, and DZ will go down in flames as incidental casualties in the white whale hunt. Europe will paint the whole thing as an American problem, promptly heaping blame for all doping everywhere in the last 15 years on Lance and the rest of the Americans.
I hope I’m wrong.
tom
William,
One thing that comes to mind, if the riders were to testify before such a panel, they would need assurances that they would not be subject to criminal prosecution based on their testimony. Otherwise, no one would admit to anything, and we’d have the same-old same-old.
I doubt that the GWW would ever move away from his “I never did nothin'” stance. But if more and more people said otherwise, he might be forced to … or suffer the potential consequences.
Assuming the GWW actually did do something along those lines, the methods that he used beat the system for so long would expose a number of weaknesses in the current system. That could help close a lot of holes in the nets, so to speak. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Amnesty couldn’t be piecemeal. It would have to be amnesty from all prosecution, throughout the legal and anti-doping worlds. That would take a whole lot of effort to put together. Not impossible, but given some of the personalities involved, challenging, to say the least.
Yeah, Floyd lied under Oath, but so did LA apparently.
Old re-read, but a goodie………………….
”
But according to Andreu’s testimony, Armstrong came back to the issue last year when he called Frankie Andreu just a few days before Andreu was deposed. In his deposition, Frankie Andreu is asked “is it your testimony that Mr. Armstrong called you and said it was his recollection, that the hospital incident never took place or didn’t happen the way you’ve recollected?” Andreu answers, “Yes. Correct.”
The deposition continues:
QUESTION: What did you say to him when he said that?
ANDREU: I remained quiet.
QUESTION: Did you consider it odd that he was telling you about the hospital incident?
Andreu interrupts and says, “I considered it odd that he even called me, because I hadn’t spoken with Lance in probably two and a half years.”
Armstrong swore under oath that the hospital incident did not happen. So did Stephanie McIlvain. In 1996, McIlvain worked for Oakley, a company that makes sunglasses and that has sponsored Armstrong for many years. McIlvain also was in the hospital room on Oct. 27, 1996, but in her sworn deposition, here is what she says:
QUESTION: Were you ever at a hospital room or other part of the hospital with Mr. Armstrong where he said anything about performance-enhancing drugs?
MCILVAIN: No.
QUESTION: Do you have any recollection of any doctor in your presence asking Mr. Armstrong if he used in the past any performance-enhancing drugs or substances?
MCILVAIN: No.
McIlvain denied the hospital incident under oath in late 2005. According to Greg LeMond, she said something completely different, the year before. In July of 2004, former Tour de France champion Greg LeMond had a conversation with McIlvain, in which they discussed the Indiana hospital room incident. NPR viewed a transcript of that conversation. Referring to Lance Armstrong’s alleged admission of drug use, McIlvain told Lemond, “I was in that room. I heard it.” LeMond says McIlvain felt Armstrong’s alleged admission tarnished his legendary story about coming back from cancer, a story that’s included repeated denials of performance-enhancing drug use. “I know that she was incredibly disappointed,” said LeMond. “She had a kid that had some disabilities, and she was angry… that he was fooling the cancer community with his kind of, I guess what she said lies.”
LeMond’s account is backed up by a veteran cycling photographer and journalist named James Startt. He was also deposed in the case last year. Under oath, Startt said he ran into McIlvain at the 2004 Tour de France, and they had a brief conversation. Startt had heard about Armstrong’s alleged admission of performance-enhancing drug use. In his testimony, Startt said “I asked her did it definitely happen. And she said, yes it did.”
Rant
I don’t think Valverde is an example of a retrospective doping scandal. He was pursued as soon as the evidence from Porto became available.
“And, Alejandro, while I’m offering advice, you might oughtta wanna consider doing a TV interview, coming clean, crying on cue and expressing extreme remorse for your actions in the past. I’ve got it on good authority that this will help you get back to racing in the big leagues.”
You mean like Vino and all the other deniers?
Seems like there is much more evidence that Omerta pays. Very little evidence that confessing and fingering others will get you a good ride.
m,
I can see how you might think I was referring to Valverde when I made a remark about retrospective doping scandals. I agree, they prosecuted him just as soon as they could gather the necessary evidence. Actually, I was thinking of the years-long pursuit of the Great White Whale when I referred to retrospective scandals.
Regarding the suggestion to do a TV interview and be sufficiently remorseful, I was actually thinking more in the vein of David Millar, rather than Vino and the others.
Right now, I agree with you that the Omerta pays (as long as you don’t rock the boat with the ADAs and other powers that be, too — Floyd Landis found that out the hard way).
I don’t know if a “Doping Reconciliation Panel” approach would work. As Tom points out, it would take a whole lot of cyclists coming forward and spilling the beans. As things stand right now, confessing and fingering others is a sure-fire way to end a career. There would need to be a huge cultural shift in cycling to pull off the Doping Reconciliation Panel and line-in-the-sand approach.
What would it take to cause such a shift? I’m thinking it would take the sport reaching the edge of a very deep precipice, and all of the participants understanding the consequences of taking even another step forward on the current path. Will it happen? Let’s just say I wouldn’t bet my next paycheck on it. But it’s worth putting the idea out there and seeing if it could gain some tractioin.
Dick speaks:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/06/news/dick_pound_interview_2010_119685
“We’ll get you an answer in 24 hours.” Virgins everywhere begin to tremble.
E gads! I actually might agree with Dick Pound on something! (The part of the story where he talks about a “truth and reconciliation commission”.)
Vino is an exception to a general rule because he seems to own Astana. The fact that that guy will ride the TDF this year boggles my mind. Nonetheless, his continued employment after his denial and after a relatively short “time out” is no surprise as long as Astana is his team. Contrite boys are a rare breed but when they are, they get their balls back….. Basso, Millar. Those who are not so contrite can’t find work….. Tyler, Rasmusson, Landis etc.
Rant’s advise to “Piti” is quite sound.
I think the amnesty would have to apply not just to athletes but to DS’s, team doctors, trainers, chefs, mechanics, refridgerated motorcycle drivers, etc. I.e. anybody who has helped someone else cheat. We can assume that the athletes have some allegiance to these people and aren’t going to speak out unless they are also protected.
My guess is that not much new would be learned. The ADAs probably have a pretty good idea of how people cheat the system, but there isn’t much they can do about it without significantly expanding their powers, violating the basic human rights of the athletes, and spending a whole lot more money than they do now.
BTW, that’s good advice for Valverde. In retrospect I wish I had given that advice to Floyd instead of egging him on with donations to FFF and encouraging internet chatter. I feel a little guilty about doing that.
I sure don’t get the Astana deal either. Didn’t they get shut out of the 2008 TdF because of Vino’s doping from 2007? Nevermind that the 2008 team had essentially no relation – other than the team name – to the 2007 bunch. Now in 2010, the guy who caused all that is welcomed back?
IIRC, Vino never repented. He vowed to clear his name, then seemingly retired. The Kazach federation gave him 1 year, and only when Vino started showing up to races after that did UCI squawk and make him serve 2 years. How does ASO justify having an unrepentant doper back to their race, when they barred people for being associated with that same doper?
Someone call JeanC – something is clearly lost in this translation.
I have done a slow burn that Valverde has been riding all this time! Good advice, Rant. Looking back, I wish Floyd had taken the deal they gave him in the beginning, but I finally understand how tight the code of sileince is. And I may sound like I accept lying, But I think Floyd thought he had to do this, and would be rewarded for his loyalty. HA! That blew up in his face. Professional athletes and bankers and CEOs all have a different set of rules!! But I still love my cyclists!! And I don’t care if Vino admits what he did, he did his time, the team took him back, and he’s training like a madman. I would never “boo” Vino. I wish Ullrich had been able to come back. But the Germans, burn their dopers at the stake!!!
Theresa, here is photo proof that Germans love their dopers: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5tY-XfbgJe0/SzLjutjhVlI/AAAAAAAADk0/vFMjFCHOjKA/s1600-h/n503223010_863835_436.jpg
8-0,
Vino is back on TDF because of Lance.
Lance negociated with Armaury to remove Patrice Clerc who was cleaning cycling by putting a new set of standard : only the cleanest teams would be invited to TDF.
Now it’s (short time) money that drives decision making.
With Clerc no Armstrong or Vino’s come back on TDF would have been possible.
Clerc or no Clerc, I’m sure money has always been a factor in decision making, all the way back to 1903.
Let’s try that again…..Floyd here’s your new theme song, as for me? I don’t care anymore either, my brain hurts and I have a baking order to get out….
str
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/phil+collins/i+dont+care+anymore_20108026.html
Lemond has recently (yesterday’s usa today?) stated that Lance confessed to him that he used EPO, back in 2001 (or was it 2003?). Whoa! This is like the 3rd major confession.. Floyd, McIlvain, and now Lance.. I don’t doubt LA doped, but I find it hard to believe Lance just offered this information to GL.. especially because he waited until now to say it.. fishy.
Jean,
I think William’s on to something. Money talks. With or without Clerc, Armstrong and Vinokourov would have found their way into the Tour. It may have been easier without Clerc, however.
strbuk,
Damn! That’s an eerily perfect description, those lyrics are.
AC,
Here’s the USA Today story. Just dug it up to see if LeMond really said that. Also has the quote about if he’d used EPO, he would have won by 8 or 9 minutes.
Rant,
1. I was thinking of Patrick Sinkewitz: confessing and fingering others seems to have made him something of an outcast.
Valverde confessing now, after years of denial and fighting, won’t help him make his come back later, especially if he fingers others. Omerta would probably work just as well. If he had confessed at the beginning? Maybe, but then he wouldn’t have been able to ride the past few years.
Millar confessed right away and didn’t finger others if I recall correctly.
As to Tyler and Landis suffering because they challenged the anti-doping authorities. The both kept Omerta. Tyler got a ride and could have rehabilitated himself, if he hadn’t got caught doping again. Landis? Maybe, but he never showed that he could ride at a top level even with the rides he got.
2. As to ASO, you and Jean are both right if I recall correctly. Clerc was replaced by the ownership group because their profits were down (because of all the doping scandals). ASO management made a business decision to make peace with UCI about the pro tour (I hadn’t heard that Lance was part of that, but who knows), and put Clerc’s anti-doping crusade on the back burner so they replaced Clerc who was the strong voice for fighting doping and agreed to let UCI do the race testing while easing out the French laboratory. ASO’s ownership group also instructed L’Equipe to stop doing investigative reporting pieces about doping. So yes they went for the money, but they had to off Clerc to do so and signal they would look the other way on doping.
That USA Today Lemond article is interesting, he seems to now have a 3rd version of why he retired from racing: lead poisoning from his shotgun wounds. It also seems he has slightly altered his version of the Landis “confession” to him in that in this interview he calls it more of an indirect confession.
I have been watching the “Legend of the Seeker” series on Netflix. A major character in that series is a “confessor”, a woman with supernatural abilities to control anyone she “confesses”, which involves laying hands on the confessee and looking into his/her eyes. Anyone so confessed is in the power of the confessor. In addition, confessors have some power to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth, regardless of whether or not that person has been “confessed”. Sounds to me like Gl is becoming the “Confessor” of cycling.
M,
Actually, I don’t think we’re all that far apart. Regarding Sinkewitz, he’s a good example of what happens under the current system/culture. Those who confess and finger others become outcasts. As long as the current culture prevails, that will surely be the case.
Remember, though, that the suggestion is that cycling institute something akin to what South Africa did with their “truth and reconciliation” panels. I agree that anyone who comes forward individually, absent such an organized effort, is likely to become a pariah.
Agreed that Floyd did not have a stellar season last year, and that wouldn’t help get him back into the big teams. That said, Basso came back on a pretty big team, despite sitting out for a doping suspension. Didn’t seem to me like he had to prove himself worthy. Vino is a special case. Astana was made for him from the start. He was virtually guaranteed a spot on the team as soon as he announced he was coming back.
The notoriety of Landis’ case (first Tour winner dethroned due to a doping violation), along with how hard he fought, pissed off a number of powers that be, including some beyond the anti-doping world. Or, so I’m told. All of that plays into how things have worked out for him since.
But, even if he had gone away quietly, I wonder if being the first Tour winner who lost his title due to a doping violation — at a time when doping is a very hot topic — might have made it difficult to come back, even if he’d followed Pat McQuaid’s original advice. I think he might have, but it would still have been a very difficult road to ride down.
William,
I seem to recall that back when LeMond originally retired, the idea of lead poisoning was brushed aside as not the most likely cause. The more things change … the more some things change, eh?
Rant, on your comment about FL not having a stellar season last year, it could be because he stopped doping (or did he?).. and the rest of the guys didn’t.. or they were all just naturally faster.. and FL was only fast during postal/2006 because of the extra 1% boost from the drugs.
AC,
Could be. Or perhaps he wasn’t training with the same intensity as before. Or maybe he’d let the training slide during his “Adventures in Anti-Dopingland,” and needed time to rebuild his fitness. Who knows? The Shadow knows… 😉
Such is the problem with the idea of “determining” who is and isn’t doping based on performance and/or changes in performance: there are far to many variables involved. Now, I don’t have much problem with perhaps targeting someone for some additional scrutiny because he has gotten faster or the like. But that’s as far as I think it should go.
If the amnesty program is going to work, you cannot let the inmates run the asylum. Some non-associated legal body like a U.S. court would need to moderate. Someone without an interest in the finances, who would make sure everyone was protected and treated fairly. USADA, etc, is not that body.
Debby,
Good point. Whoever runs the Doping Reconciliation Panel should be some neutral authority, with no dog in the fight, so to speak.
William,
There are far too many variables involved. That includes with the biological passport, itself. But that’s a subject for an entirely different post.
don’t know if any of you caught it.. there was an interesting social experiment occurring on twitter..
First off, Cyclingnews has article title: Bahati continues to support floyd personally. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bahati-continues-to-support-landis-personally
Earlier RT by Bahati on LA on the Coach Wooden death.. a noble rt, but it is also a reaching out in a sense to LA.. that hey.. I’m here.. don’t put in the same boat as floyd..
So After CN post:
@bahatiracing
The media is killing me. Don’t believe the cyclingnews head line. They forgot 2 mention all the good things I said about @lancearmstrong & And @LeviLeipheimer @dzabriskie for the sport. WTF
Followed up by:
@lancearmstrong:
@bahatiracing of course they did! #tryingtosetanagenda
Read into all that what you may.. I know I am.. subtle things going on.. I will say this, Bahati is more media savy than Floyd.
AC,
Thanks for the link and the tweets. Bahati seems to be pretty savvy in some ways, but if he’s truly surprised how the story turned out, he has a lot to learn, too. The angle of any story right now, being as he was Floyd’s team leader/employer, is how he feels about Floyd and the events of the recent past. Quite frankly, the story of interest has nothing to do with Bahati’s admiration for Lance or Levi or Dave Z. That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t have much to do with why CyclingNews wanted to talk to him at this particular time.
Lance’s comment on Twitter is interesting. One way to read it would be that he’s telling Bahati to set some terms and limits for interviews, like saying, “I don’t want to discuss Floyd,” or perhaps even subtly (?) suggesting that he should throw Floyd under the bus. Of course, maybe he’s suggesting that the media are setting an agenda that might lead to Floyd’s rehabilitation, or that they are biased against LA.
Makes for interesting speculation, to be sure.
Worth remembering that the thing that seemed to bring all this to a head was the pressure by FL to get Bahati’s team into the ToC. I’m guessing that had that happened, we wouldn’t be discussing “the Truth” right now.
strbuk,
Those lyrics are dead on. The only downside is, Floyd would have to become a Phil Collins fan. That’d be a real tragedy, and I don’t know if I could respect him after that.
tom
eightzero,
True. If we’d seen the Bahati Foundation squad at the ToC, I imagine that Bahati would be calling Floyd’s short time on the team a major success (and I expect Floyd would still be on the team and would have raced at Philadelphia yesterday). I wonder what, if any, of the revelations would have come out.
Reported today:
Apparently a fan was heckling LA (yelling “lier cheat”) and got the typical Johan / LA STRONGARM approach. LA said “come say that to my face”.. Johan took a picture of the guy.. and Police removed him..
strongarm tactics indeed.. scary.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5262481
Anyone care to comment on how this is possible under the CA bar’s RPCs? Don’t FL and GLM have adverse interests? Unless…
eightzero,
I wonder. If they were involved in litigation on opposing sides, that would definitely be true. I’m not sure in the current situation whether that is actually the case, or would be. It’s interesting that it’s the same firm that has represented LeMond in the past. Perhaps during their conversation(s?), GLM recommended the firm. At the same time, it makes me wonder who’s footing the bill. That kind of representation can’t be cheap, and Floyd doesn’t exactly have a job right now…
Curiouser and curiouser, this story gets.
I guess that it depends on just what matter(s) the law firm is working on for FL. Off hand, I would guess this is related to his revelations and accusations and I don’t think he has accused GL of anything.
FL might be worried about either a perjury prosecution and/or a fraud prosecution. Wouldn’t surprise me if he has been monitoring things here. He also could be concerned that someone he has accused might sue him.
GL might want to sue FL over the happenings during the Malibu hearing, and I would guess if that came to pass, or if GL had some other case, civil or criminal, that involved FL in some way, that the law firm would resolve the potential conflict in some way. I would imagine that there have been cases in the past where one law firm represented 2 different parties who then became involved in some case on opposite sides and I am sure there are procedures in place on how to deal with this. Perhaps, if GL has been a client longer, he might take precedence, but then I am only guessing here.
Back to the “you wanna say that to my face”..
DalaiLama Twitter post:
More often than not, anger is actually an indication of weakness rather than of strength. #Imjustsayin
Amazing – as for Landis’ retaining LeMond’s legal firm… what to say? Are they working pro bono for him? It might be in Floyd’s interest to set up a legal defense fund… Oh wait, scratch that. Perhaps they’re being paid by and advance from his book deal… Oh wait, scratch that too… very little chance of that book ever appearing. Well then he must have some funds socked away… Oh wait, that can’t be because he said he’s broke (otherwise he’d be paying back supporters from his previous legal battles…)
I’m completely confused – I’m beginning to think he may be one of those folks who says he’s broke when what he actually means is that he can only keep ONE car now instead of two.
From what I have read, Landis could receive 30% of the money recovered by US government in case of doping occured inside US Postal team.
Lemond’s ex-lawyers have a good understanding of Armstrong’s doping situation since the Trek affair, so I believe they believe they have some strong arguments there. Moreover it’s a good advertising for their firm.
I am pretty sure that Greg and Floyd have cleared their conflict by now.
“The firm has assembled a team of lawyers to advise Landis in the event of a full-blown criminal case, a crippling defamation suit, or any other kind of legal challenge he might face.
“He’s our client,” Mark Handfelt, a partner at the firm, told the Daily News in an interview late Sunday. “The same team that represented Greg LeMond in his dispute with Trek is representing Floyd Landis.”
“…criminal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who uncovered the infamous BALCO doping ring as well as the steroid distribution ring that Kirk Radomski established in Major League Baseball.
According to people close to the situation, Landis and Novitzky have developed a good relationship and speak frequently.
Among the attorneys advising Landis from Wilson Sonsini is Leo Cunningham, a defense counsel who was once a prosecutor in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, where BALCO was litigated.”
“Landis has received a cease-and-desist letter from a prominent International Olympic Committee honorary member (Verbruggen) he accused of wrongdoing, and has watched as Armstrong and his supporters portray him as unhinged or opportunistic.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/06/07/2010-06-07_floyd_landis_adds_legal_muscle_in_face_potential_legal_challenges.html#ixzz0qH7UK7s0
Tom,
“In the Air Tonight” didn’t suck, even if it’s an anomaly in a body of work.
I used to buy 45s of songs when I knew getting the album was a waste. That has been solved by iTunes for the current generation.
TBV
“According to people close to the situation, Landis and Novitzky have developed a good relationship and speak frequently.”
If true, we will know when it all goes down. It will all go down like a ton of bricks: the subpoenas to the grand jury will go out and witnesses will have lots to say. You think Operation Puerto keeps on givin’? You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
JeanC: you are right. Called “Qui Tam” litigation, whistleblowers can receive a portion of the funds recovered under the US False Claims Act. The connection to US Postal is a little tenuous however. The money received under that sponsorship contract may not be a “claim” covered by that law. The more interesting one is the RICO Acts. While they don;t have a “bountyhunter” provision, they do have teeth – consipracy to defraud and use controlled substances (pharmaceuticals like EPO and HGH) will irk the US DoJ – severe criminal penalties await those who participate in organized crime.
I would rather doubt that GL has any personal knowledge of LA’s doping. GL’s relationship with Trek was, as far as I can tell, a business agreement: GL supplied his name and perhaps some ideas on design while Trek manufactured and distributed Lemond bikes. Any knowledge that Trek might have had regarding LA and doping would be a very unlikely topic for discussion in such an arangement.
But GL did make some allegations regarding LA and others and GL did have somewhat of a reputation among some as a meddling busybody poking his nose into areas where he had little if any direct knowledge. This was allegedly part of the reason why the relationship with Trek soured, leading to GL taking legal action. So this law firm has some experience with famous ex-cyclists making allegations about doping. This may be why FL has retained them. As to how he might be paying them, I have no idea. However, I wouldn’t say that a book is out of the question. Sure, I doubt that Susie B and Larry are going to place any orders, but there have been plenty of “tell all” books written by unsavory characters.
Oh, hi. California was very nice, although the tour organizers need to have their heads examined, but Philadelphia was spectacular. I just stopped in to see if Jeff was around. Has anybody seen him lately?
A federal appeals court has sided with Bonds regarding the admissibility of some urine samples in his perjury case:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BBO_BONDS_STEROIDS?SITE=TXBEA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
In case y’all haven’t seen it… another prosecuter assigned http://bit.ly/cythZ0
Doug Miller. As the prosecutor in the case, Miller has the power to help Novitzky obtain search warrants and secure cooperation agreements, building a body of evidence that Miller could then take before a grand jury in order to secure an indictments, possibly against cyclists or cycling team owners.
Sounds to me like maybe it’s just a bit more than Fl’s word vs. LS’s word. We’ll see.
Further.. this is an interesting read:
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20100611/COLUMN/100619968/1021
Folks could speculate that after ’99 Hog stayed clean (or mostly clean) while helping his team be fully prepared in more ways than one.. its certainly an interesting way to look at things..
I’ve thought for a while that this might be a strategy that teams would pursue. After all, it’s the team leader that’s likely to get the most scrutiny from testing, which tends to be skewed to those who win; and it’s the team leader who get the most publicity.
I am not sure I understand the distinction the author makes between LA’s victories in the TdF and the Yankees wins in the WS. Does whose name (individual or team) is on the trophy make a difference in whether or not those victories should be vacated?
Then there is the question of whether or not, assuming an individual is ultimately DQes, should the victory go to #2 or remain vacant? If LA benefited from supercharged domestiques, was he the only one or did other teams do the same thing? If the Yanks benefitted from some pumped up sluggers, didn’t other teams also so benefit? Are we sure that the 2006 TdF win went to a clean rider?
Inquiring minds want to know?
WOW! I guess they start them young (From Pez):
Baby Giro Blues
The amateur version of the Giro d’Italia, known as the Girobio, or Baby Giro where Richie Porte really made his name last year has made the headlines this weekend but unfortunately not for a good reason. The race leader after the first stage, Omar Lombardi and his entire team (Lucchini Unidelta Ecovalsabbia) were expelled from the race after a police raid on their hotel Friday evening.
The police allegedly found prohibited drugs and doping paraphernalia which included insulin, female hormones, stimulants, pills, syringes, and butterfly needles, which are used for blood transfusions.
Terrible news indeed as this is just an amateur Under 23 team and the Baby Giro is supposed to be the new bastion of clean cycling with no products – even vitamins – allowed to be taken in this race. In fact the policies at the Baby Giro are designed to discourage doping in every way possible and to promote ‘clean’ cycling. Some of the fairly revolutionary policies of the race include;
* No medicine (including vitamins) of any kind to be taken by riders before being expressly approved by organisers first.
* Riders from all teams eat together for each meal
* The riders stay in dormitory style accomodation together every night
* No contact with their director sportifs – except for during the race
* Mobile phone usage and playing of video games discouraged before and after stages
* Each night after the stages, talks and presentations given to the riders by experts on professional cycling, clean living and other topics such as motivation, training, recuperation etc
Lets hope that this was an isolated case and that finally, finally the teams will understand that doping is no longer tolerated?
I have wondered to myself whether it would be an idea to sequester riders during the course of a stage race, in order to better control doping. Apparently it doesn’t work. Nor, of course, would it affect OoC doping, or doping during a one day event.