Has it really been three weeks? Time flies.
Vendettas? In Cycling? I’m Shocked! Shocked, I Tell You!
Pat McQuaid seems to think that the current investigation by Jeff Novitzky et. al. into allegations of doping on the US Postal/Discovery cycling teams is the result of a personal vendetta being played out in public. It could be. But if that’s the case, a whole lot of people have a vendetta against certain individuals, and those people are telling the same story.
McQuaid (and, for that matter the writer at CyclingNews.com) seems to be blissfully unaware that this investigation might have been happening regardless of any comments publicly or privately made by Floyd Landis. According to an article I saw in either the New York Post or Wall Street Journal a while back (memory gets fuzzy after a few weeks, don’cha know), Novitzky and his pals may already have been heading down that investigative path through an unlikely connection — Michael Ball and the now-all-but-defunct (is anyone still racing for them?) Rock Racing team. Since several riders that Ball employed — or in Landis’ case would like to have employed, had the UCI granted the Rock squad a Pro Continental license earlier this year — had connections to Armstrong’s 7-time Tour-winning behemoth of a squad.
Did Lance dope? Hell if I know. Seems like a whole lot of people are singing the same tune, and the lyrics seem to be:
na na na na,
na na na na,
hey hey hey,
goodbye
But like I said, I don’t know anything for certain. I know what some anonymous sources have told me, and based on that I think that it will be a long time before this investigation is put to bed. I’d guess that at the end of the whole drawn-out affair, both sides will be able to declare victory. Same as it ever was.
The Curious Case of the 20 Year Ban
Not much to say at the moment, since I haven’t had time to read the full text of the award, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport cut down the ban imposed on Gianni da Ros, a former member of the Liquigas cycling team, from 20 years to 4. According to the CAS press release:
Caught by the police on 11 March 2009 in the framework of an investigation relating to the trafficking of banned substances, the Italian cyclist Gianni da Ros was suspended for a period of twenty years by the CONI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 23 November 2009. The CONI Tribunal found the Athlete guilty of a violation of Articles 2.2 (use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or method), 2.6 (possession of prohibited substances and methods), 2.7 (trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or method) and 2.8 (administration or attempted administration to any athlete of any prohibited method or substance) of the World Anti-Doping Code.
The CAS panel partially upheld CONI’s findings against da Ros, with the exception of the last item listed above. In determining the length of da Ros’ suspension
the CAS Panel considered that a twenty-year ban was not justified and has reduced it to a period of four years which corresponds to the standard suspension provided by Article 10.3.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code. Finally, the start of the Athlete’s suspension has been fixed by the CAS at 12 March 2009, namely on the day following his exclusion by his professional team (Liquigas).
Not having any more information to go on just yet, the reduced suspension makes sense. One person I follow on Twitter observed that since da Ros was, in effect, a pusher, he should get a 20-year ban. From my point of view, that sounds like something for a criminal court to decide. As in, if he’s been proven to be a supplier of banned substances, and he’s breaking a criminal law, he should be prosecuted on those grounds.
In any event, unless something changes, it sounds like Gianni da Ros will be eligible to begin racing in 2013 — assuming he can maintain his fitness and that any team will hire him. These days, that last part is a bit of a crap shoot. With all the uproar that comes when teams hire riders who’ve served their time, it wouldn’t surprise me much if any doping suspension in the future will be a de facto life ban — at least on the professional side of the sport.
The Even Curiouser Case of the Lost Mountain Bike Found
A couple of years back, 2008 to be exact, a certain someone’s mountain bike took a detour on the way to one of those 100-mile ultra-endurance mountain bike races being held in Ohio. Floyd Landis’ BMC rig apparently detached from the vehicle that was transporting it and vanished into the ether. Not much was known about the bike’s whereabouts until an article popped up a few days ago, in which part of the story came to light. Turns out someone found the bike by the side of the road and later sold it at a garage sale for 5 bucks. Sounds almost too bizarre to be true. Five bucks, for a bike that by all accounts only had “broken pedals”? Amazing.
It turns out, as eagle-eyed reader Barbara Fredericsen found in an article on Deadspin.com, the people transporting the bike verified that this particular bike was actually the mountain bike used by Landis in 2008. The Deadspin article leaves me a bit puzzled about who, exactly, owned this particular bike. I’d been under the impression that Landis did. Perhaps the bike shop does. Color me confused on this point.
No idea if the bike will find it’s way back home — wherever that is — but I suspect there’s at least one more small footnote to the story before everything is all said and done.
But Does It Work?
That seems to be the question that WADA’s David Howman is asking about the UCI’s biological passport program. During the past six months or so, a number of cyclists have been suspended, at least in part, based on results from the biological passport program. In an article published earlier this month by the Los Angeles Times, writers Diane Pucin and Lance Pugmire noted:
World Anti-Doping Agency director general David Howman told The Times on Sunday that his agency might be interested in taking international cycling federation’s biological passport anti-doping program to international swimming, skiing, triathlons and biathlons. However, Howman said he is concerned about the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (UCI) administration of the program and would only be interested if the program is proved to work as planned.
(Hat tip to Liggett Junkie for the link.)
Despite the suspensions that have been handed out of late, Howman is actually right to be concerned as to whether the program works as advertised. One person I’ve spoken to who is familiar with how such programs work is concerned that the biological passport doesn’t actually work, despite its current apparent successes. This individual noted that interpreting blood values is as much art as it is science, and that with the small amount of data collected on each athlete, any conclusions drawn are, well, iffy. Turns out, according to my source, that to make the biological passport really bullet-proof, the number of samples taken from each athlete would have to be so large as to be cost prohibitive.
Take that for what it’s worth, but if I were in David Howman’s shoes, I would want to see a whole lot of proof before expanding the biological passport to other sports.
In that article, Paddy seems shocked that the feds haven’t passed anything on to UCI. I don’t know how things work on the Emerald Isle, but here I don’t think that DOJ is in the habit of providing info from on-going investigations to private parties. Maybe, when everything is wrapped up, if they have anything which isn’t prosecutable under US law, but might be a violation of UCI/WADA rules, they might turn it over but then again, they just might not. “Reveals investigative techniques” and all that.
Maybe someone should tell McQ about FOI requests.
Does it work?
I’ve been thinking lately, what does that even mean. I think everyone assumes that the goal is to stop cheating. But is that the goal, and should that be the goal?
From the very beginning of Floyd’s case, even when I was apparently naive about the extent of doping, I felt that eliminating doping seemed like an unattainable goal.
If we look at history, anti-doping came to into existence not because people were tired of the doping, which by most reports was widespread, but because someone dropped dead in a very prominent way.
Suppose we put it that way, that the goal of anti-doping is to keep idiots from killing themselves with ridiculous doping regimens (or more cynically from embarrassing the sport when they do). In that worldview, anti-doping has been a resounding success. In order to stay below the radar, you have to basically limit your doping in ways that will significantly decrease your health risks.
Of course, looking at how things work now, with big splashy news stories, grand-standing anti-doping bureaucrats, and angry fans, it’s clear that most people don’t believe that’s the point.
tom
This just in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/sports/baseball/20clemens.html?_r=1&hp
The irony of lying to congress aside, at least there is a sharing of the love and cycling is not exclusively taking the hit………
Tom:
I recall when Tom Simpson died, and the rudimentary efforts that were started after that to control doping. I also vaguely recall the Danish cyclist who died during the 1960 Olympics in Rome, a bit before I got into cycling. Seems there wasn’t too much effort placed into anti-doping after that. The difference: the Dane was probably largely unknown outside of Denmark, while Simpson was a well known professional. So you may be on to something here.
So I have a question: after Simpson, has any big name cyclist expired during a race due to PED usage? I know that Pantini’s death was in part, at least, attributed to drug use, but I got the impression that was a much recreational usage of things like cocaine.
WRT Pantani, you will find cites to many who link PED use to recreational drug use and/or visa versa. A variation of the “gateway drug” argument. It does not explain the many individuals who start with marijuana, stay with marijuana, and don’t experiment with or use other “illegal” recreational drugs. I think it’s all rather up to the individual. Some personalities are more susceptible to following a certain path than others. YMMV.
The “gateway drug” theory is a crock, as far as I am concerned. If use of one type of recreational drug leads to use of other recreational drugs, most of the entire population of the US (as well as other countries) would be into crack, etc. The drug I am thinking about here is ethanol, the most widely used recreational drug. And, yes, it is a drug, although not commonly thought of as such.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100821/SPORTS07/8210388/1136/SPORTS07/NYT–Lance-Armstrong–a-champion-against-cancer–now-under-siege#ixzz0xJ4ADaAx
“[Lance Armstrong] told me his motto is Win/lose, live/die. He equates winning with living and losing with dying. Every moment you’re around him, he wants to win. You can be in a conversation with him and he’ll try to get the upper hand. It never lets down.”
IOW, he’s an asshole.
The article is also front page of this morning’s New York Times. Quite the picture it paints of Armstrong, eh?
To varying extents, many people who come out on top in competitive endeavors, whether sports, business, etc., are assholes. Think Donald Trump got where he is by being nice?
And so what? We admire LA for his cycling abilities and perhaps for his foundation, not because he is likely to win a Mr. Congeniality award.
OMG! Really? REALLY?!! A PROFESSIONAL athlete that equates winning with living & losing with dying? REALLY?! Then there’s the fact that this guy LITERALLY experienced WINNING over cancer. Gee, WHY would he equate LOSING that battle with, you know, DYING?
Most of the VERY top pro athletes I’ve read bout the past 20 years are DRIVEN to win. At ANYTHING. They absolutely HATE losing. At ANYTHING. Read about Michael Jordan. Tiger Woods. Michael Phelps. These guys hate losing not just at their sport but at cards, golf, ANYthing. Does it makes them a pain in the ass to be around all the time? Probably. It takes a certain mentality, unbelievable willpower, the ability to sacrifice all for ONE GOAL, AND an absolute obsessiveness to put their bodies thru what these guys have done almost since they were old enough to walk.
On the field of play, at war, & most of all, in the battle against cancer, I’d take the obsessive “asshole” anyday.
LIVESTRONG
William,
True, that. Lots of accomplished people didn’t get where they are by being nice.
IFL,
You know, that’s a point that should have been made in the original article. Given Armstrong’s particular experience with cancer, winning does equal living and losing does equal dying. Too bad the writers left that out.
That’s one perfectly good thesaurus gone to waste.
That’s also one of the silliest cycling-related articles I’ve ever read, and yes, that includes the Juliet Macur, Girl Reporter series from this year’s Tour de France. The one thing I can’t get over is when Juliet interviews Bill Strickland — stop right there, if you’re getting your information about professional cycling from Bicycling Magazine, this is an indication you’re doing something wrong — about the time in the 2003 Tour when Victor Hugo Peña, resplendent in the maillot jaune, went back to the car for bottles for his team leader, a certain Lance Armstrong. “. . . a flagrant usurpation of Tour tradition, an embarrassment to Mr. Peña and a purposeful reminder of cycling’s social order. ‘That was so typical of who he is,’ said Mr. Strickland, who is editor at large for Bicycling magazine. ‘To those of us who saw that, it was criminal. And so perfectly Lance.’ ”
It happens a lot that the “wrong” team member takes the jersey on a team whose leader has a shot at overall victory — Alberto Elli (Telekom) in 2000, Jens Voigt (CSC) in 2005, Sergei Gonchar (T-Mobile) in 2006, Linus Gerdemann (T-Mobile) in 2007, Fabian Cancellara (pick a Tour) are just a few. And they don’t get time off from their day jobs just because they’re wearing a yellow shirt. Gonchar fetched water. So did Savoldelli, who didn’t wear the yellow jersey but did win the Giro that year. (“How demoralizing that must be for Jan Ullrich,” Paul Sherwen commented, “that Lance Armstrong has the winner of the Giro to get him bottles.” Oh, snap!) Voigt got left by his team and was cut for time. Victor Hugo Peña got to wear the jersey for three days, the president of Columbia called him up, his country went crazy, and was he disappointed? Let’s ask him. Pages 89-90 of Matt Rendell’s A Significant Other:
“On the stage to Lyon, it was very hot, and with twenty or twenty-five kilometres to go, I was thirsty. I was going to ask a friend on another team for water when I saw Armstrong had no water bottles. And I thought, ‘I can’t ask a friend to give me water for the race leader — lukewarm water . . . Lance never issues orders to anyone.’ But although the race was very fast, I thought, ‘I can make it,’ and I set off for the back of the peloton. You need to know how to dose your energies for those riders back for water. You try to go when everybody needs it, so that it’s worth the effort. Ekimov, Pavel, Floyd and I had to be at the front, so it was up to George, Rubiera, or Triki to bring us water. Sometimes, you’d say, ‘I’m going for water,’ and one of the other riders would say, ‘I’ll go.’ I took six or seven bottles and crammed them into my yellow jersey, then said, “Right, let’s see if I make it back to the front.’ It was another time trial past nearly 200 cyclists, each 1.5 metres long, stretched out in a long, fast line, chasing a breakaway that was still two minutes ahead of us. As I passed Ivan Parra, I asked him, ‘What do you think? Have I lost it or will I keep it?’ He said, ‘You’ll still have it . . .’ Rubiera said the same thing. I made it and handed out water to the guys up front, all but two riders, I think. I gave the water to Lance, who looked at me in astonishment and said ‘Thanks.’ I think they were the most sincere thanks I’ve ever received in my life.”
I see on Bill Strickland’s Twitter feed that he may be willing to walk his statement back: “If I’m wrong and it is common for the yellow jersey to ride domestique, I’d like to admit it.”
‘Common’ is an awfully strong word. ‘Not unheard-of’ would suit the case.
And let us not forget Greg taking team orders, when he quite possibly could have won or at least gotten into yellow, in order that Hinault could win one more time. And Hinault reneging on his promise to back Greg the next year.