Seems like a good time for another post, given what’s been going on in the world of cycling in the past couple of weeks.
In Memoriam
Laurent Fignon passed away last Tuesday, from either lung cancer or “cancer of the digestive tract” (which is pretty vague). Throughout his illness, the descriptions I’ve seen have left me wondering if Fignon was afflicted with pancreatic cancer, which is what my father died from in 2006. Pancreatic cancer — actually any terminal cancer — is an evil disease, one I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.
Fignon, as he mentioned in his book We Were Young and Carefree, for the last 20-plus years has been more known for being the guy who lost the 1989 Tour by 8 seconds than for being the guy who won the Tour in both his first and second attempts at the race. His book is a fitting tribute to the man and it’s a totally engaging read, which gives a whole lot of insight into professional bicycle racing during the 1980s. He talks about his ups and downs, trials and tribulations, and his brush with doping (using amphetamines during training and then being caught by a drug test at a race a few days later).
The man who beat Fignon in 1989, Greg LeMond, had this to say about the French cyclist’s passing:
“Even on the podium I was feeling uncomfortable and sorry because Fignon had also won the Tour,” LeMond told France 24 television from his Minnesota home.
“He was a priceless man and I was choked when I heard he had died. A week ago I was told he was not well but he was very strong minded and I liked him because he has always been true to himself and I regard him as one of the best riders of the last 35 or 40 years.”
LeMond also was quoted at VeloNews.com:
“It’s a really sad day. I see him as one of the great riders who was hampered by injuries. He had a very, very big talent — much more than anyone recognized,” LeMond told France 24 television.
“We were also teammates, competitors, but also friends. When he lost the Tour de France in 1989 it was one of the few where I felt we both won,” said the three-time Tour de France champion.
“The saddest thing for me is that for the rest of his career he said he won two Tours de France, when in reality we both could have won that race.”
I hope that LeMond had the chance to tell Fignon all of that some time in the last 20 years. It would be doubly sad if LeMond never got to tell Fignon what he thought.
I finished Fignon’s book Tuesday night, reading the last third of it in a couple of hours. It was an engaging read, and it left me sad that this is one person I will never get to meet, talk to, ride with, or interview. Fignon was a true champion. He deserves to be known as the two-time Tour winner, and not as the man who lost by a mere 8 seconds.
Our condolences to Fignon’s friends and family.
In Memoriam, II
One of Team Sky’s support staff, the masseur Txema González, died this week from a bacterial infection while working with the squad competing at the Vuelta a España. As VeloNews.com reported over the weekend:
González, 43, died Friday in Sevilla and Team Sky officials were quick to point out that his death was not connected to the early departure of three riders in the first week of the Vuelta.
In a team statement released overnight Saturday, Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford said in a team release that “this is the only decision we can make.”
“We have considered all the elements very carefully and this is the only decision we could take. It’s the right one — to show respect to Txema and to look after our team,” Brailsford said. “Others — staff and riders — have been ill during this Tour and Juan Antonio Flecha pulled out on. The medical conditions are different, but we need to take care of our team.”
González was well-known and well-respected in the European professional cycling community. His presence will no doubt be sorely missed. Condolences to his friends, family, and the whole of Team Sky. It’s tough to be faced with a situation like that, and it’s a tough decision to pull the whole team from the Vuelta, to be sure.
Here We Go Again
More developments in the saga of Jeff Novitzky’s investigations into doping within the world of American professional cycling. Well, somewhat related to that investigation, anyway. Turns out that someone leaked word to the Wall Street Journal that Floyd Landis had filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit in relation to Landis’ earlier statements this year that he had witnessed (and participated in) doping during his time on the US Postal Service team. Landis fingered several other cyclists, including Lance Armstrong and Armstrong’s long-time directeur sportif, Johan Bruyneel.
Nathaniel Vinton of the New York Daily News goes further, giving the names a number of people beyond Armstrong who are also defendants in the lawsuit.
Of all the people involved, the only side issuing statements other than “no comment’ appears to be Armstrong’s side, in the guise of Mark Fabiani. As Vinton reports:
“This news that Floyd Landis is in this for the money re-confirms everything we all knew about Landis,” Fabiani wrote. “By his own admission, he is a serial liar, an epic cheater, and a swindler who raised and took almost a million dollars from his loyal fans based on his lies.”
That was a reference to Landis’ having collected donations for a failed attempt to legally challenge the positive testosterone test that cost him his 2006 Tour de France title – only to confess this spring and lay out devastating accusations against Armstrong, Bruyneel and others.
Fabiani also suggested that the whole investigation is a waste of money. According to the Wall Street Journal, a statement he issued for Armstrong also said:
“What remains a complete mystery is why the government would devote a penny of the taxpayer’s money to help Floyd Landis.”
Simple. If what Landis says is true (and despite his misadventures since 2006, he may well be telling the truth this time), the US Postal Service invested somewhere around $30 million in Armstrong’s first 6 Tour wins. If any of that went to finance doping, then the sponsor would surely be pissed, to say the least.
Bonnie D. Ford, of ESPN.com, writes:
Landis, contacted by ESPN.com, would not confirm or deny his role in the case, but another source with direct knowledge of the case said he was the sole plaintiff.
The 34-year-old Landis would say only that “My motives remain what they’ve been since I decided to come clean. It’s a long process of trying to right a wrong and clear my conscience of each and every bad decision I made in my cycling career.”
The U.S. Justice Department is collecting evidence to determine whether or not to join in the lawsuit, filed under the False Claims Act. That participation could be crucial to exploring Landis’ contention that Armstrong and others defrauded the U.S. Postal Service by using a portion of sponsorship funds — more than $30 million between 2000 and 2004 — to fund a doping program.
Ford’s article gives information about how often the Feds have joined in whistle-blower lawsuits, as well as providing similar quotes attributed to Mark Fabiani, who is both an attorney and PR guru hired by Armstrong to assist with this case.
While no one has identified who leaked the information about the lawsuit — which by law is supposed to be sealed — to the media, taking a look at who’s talking and who isn’t would give a pretty good guess. Fabiani.
Instead of having his client clam up, Fabiani’s statements on Armstrong’s behalf appear to be a strategy designed to impugn the veracity and integrity of Armstrong’s accuser. Given the public perception of Landis, it may well work. But smearing the guy in the press has nothing to do with whether he is currently telling the truth.
Landis, who has nothing to lose at this point, may well be on the right side of this story. Armstrong, on the other hand, may not. But if his team can cast aspersions on Landis and his story, they may preserve Armstrong’s good-guy reputation in the public eye. Time will tell, but until then, keep an eye on what’s being said and the way it’s being said. That may provide the biggest clue to who’s story is the real story, and who’s is a fabrication. Or, to paraphrase Mr. Fabiani, a Fabiani-rication.
Armstrong’s tweet about how now it all makes sense – I can only assume this was in reference to the whistleblower lawsuit. it kind of got under my skin, because of how far into “spin” territory it is and how far away from fact or reality.
NOBODY that has been following this tale as it unfolds could actually legitimately believe that Floyd’s plan all along was to file this lawsuit and make a lot of money. It just doesn’t fit with reality. But it fits with the soundbite summary strategy that Armstrong’s side is pursuing.
It seems obvious to me that this was recommended by lawyers (maybe Floyds, but possibly Novitsky’s) as the best course of action to move this case forward, and make sure his big confession actual leads to ending the omerta.
I wonder if Armstrong is really banking on winning this thing? I can’t imagine that. But he must be banking on it all just disappearing somehow. Because if it goes badly for Lance, his recent strategy is going to look not just unwise, but positively mean. His legacy would simply change to that of a doper, but also a bully.
Of course, many already think of him as a bully. But if you look around at what people are saying, at this point there’s still far more true people firmly in Lance’s camp.
Will the truth really come out, or will this incessant lingering uncertainty continue forever? Well, I once said this story would make a better broadway musical than a movie. But I think the Twisted Spoke has it right. It’s a reality series. Stay tuned, if you can stomach it.
tom
“the sponsor would surely be pissed”?
🙂
As usual, whenever news comes out about Landis, US Postal and doping it just raises more questions that I don’t have answers for. For example…
Why is this case being pursued by a hired gun for the FDA instead of by the USPS?
Is fraud always fraud, or do you have to weigh the benefit received against the harm done? The US Postal team delivered way beyond expectations. Does that outweigh the possible cheating? Does it matter that a case can be made the team HAD to cheat in order to win (even Floyd says so) and to gain the publicity they were hired to deliver?
What is the difference between what Lance and Bruyneel are accused of doing at US Postal and what Floyd admits to doing at Phonak? Shouldn’t Floyd be encouraging Phonak to sue him in Switzerland (for the good of cycling, of course)?
First, regarding Fignon: I likewise just finished his book, and recommend it for anyone interested in cycling. He was and remains my favorite bike racer of all time. Really sad about his passing.
Second, regarding Landis v. Armstrong…interesting development, but not wholly unexpected. I can’t believe that Armstrong was taken by surprise here. Even if the Feds don’t intervene, it will “move things alone” (re: Novitsky investigation) because Armstrong will, no doubt, be subject to a deposition, as will the rest of the USPS Team (at least those over which the US Court has jurisdiction). It should get interesting, no doubt.
Cub…let me try and take a stab at answering your questions (if I may):
(1) The USPS doesn’t investigate (perhaps mail fraud?): this is a FDA investigation because of the nature of the allegations against Armstrong and the team.
(2) Yes, “fraud [is] always fraud.” The ends do not justify the means…so no, the fact that they were successful will not weigh in. If anything, the success may lend credibility to the accusation(s). No, they are not allowed to break the law in order to fulfill a contract: No one is.
(3) Floyd did not accuse Phonak of systematic doping. He said that he doped…not the team (as far as I know). Also, the main difference as it relates to the FDA investigation is that the Feds don’t have any jurisdiction over a Swiss team (as you point out). I am not sure anyone in their right mind would encourage anyone to sue themselves….(fill in whatever your personal opinion is here!).
RIP Laurent Fingon. A classy rider, intelligent individual, and independent thinker. IIRC, the early reports indicated pancreadic cancer. The progression seems to fit. However, it doesn’t much matter now. The result does not change.
USPS does have postal inspectors who investigate crimes involving the mail or postal facilities. If there were claims that the US mail was used to ship drugs/blood, or other illegal items, they would probably get involved.
Federal jurisdiction is often involved and complicated: some federal LE agencies have jurisdiction based on geography (i.e., the National Park Service has jurisdiction in many of its units); some agencies have jurisdiction based on the alleged crime (the Secret Service, in addition to protecting the Pres, has jurisdiction over counterfeiting).
I was so moved by Fignon’s comments about his outlook on life and death. He said he wasn’t afraid of death, he just thought it was too early and he loved life so much.
I spent July in France and when possible, I had the live coverage of the Tour de France on. I was curious as to the commentator with the raspy voice. Even when they showed him speaking, I didn’t see it was Fignon at first. When I made the realization it was him, I was so sad to hear his treatments were not going where he had hoped they would. But what a fighter that he was there, talking about one of the many things in life he loved…cycling.
Rut-roh:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/09/news/sources-anti-doping-authorities-preparing-cases-against-up-to-two-dozen-domestic-racers_140460
eightzero,
that’s all at the Joe Papp level. So kinda like a prologue to the bigger show coming.. I could be wrong, but I doubt these cases hit any protour guys..
Lance support site:
http://www.lancesupport.org/blog/messages-of-support.html
The one comment “remember Betsy” is kinda funny.. guessing their moderator doesn’t know much of the behind the scenes allegations.
No real comment on it, other than.. expected but still surprised.. and you see more “believe on faith”, “support” type sites for Lance.. less of the TBV/Rant type analyze all the facts..
Eightzero,
Ruh-roh, indeed. Now I have a clearer picture of what Joe Papp was tweeting about. I wonder if his cooperation with USADA will be taken into consideration when the time for sentencing comes.
AC,
I’ll have to take a look at that site. Sounds like a funny comment.
Thanks for the compliment. I think the folks at TBV did a great job of covering the Landis story, and I’d like to think I helped contribute to the effort to look at the facts of the case.
Isn’t this backwards from the way it normally works? I mean, you don’t usually let the drug dealer cooperate so you can prosecute his customers.
Well, this is USADA not the Feds or even a state. The strategy in general seems to be nail any athlete to the wall in hopes of deterring others. Question is: where did Papp get the stuff he allegedly distributed and is the a network here that could be rolled up the other way if you got Joe to drop the dime on his suppliers?
In fact, in general, where do the PEDs come from? You just can’t walk into Walgreen’s and pick up a bottle of EPO OTC. Some cases obviously involve unscrupulous doctors but do all? Might it be more profitable to go after the suppliers than the users?
Sevilla* : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sevilla-tests-positive-for-blood-expander
AFLD*: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-prepared-to-hand-over-armstrongs-1999-tour-de-france-samples
Three words as to the latter: Chain. Of. Cusody.
Curiouser and curiouser.
WADA World, especially the sub-species – AFLD, don’t care about no stinkin’ chain of custody. And I don’t even like LA. YMMV.
That business of the ’05 “tests” of those ’99 samples alway smelled to me to be a set-up. If it smells fishy, ….
There is no real problem with chain of custody, just only for people who believed in myths.
The samples could be DNA tested, and people have to show how samples could have been identified and then spiked technically. Most important, they will have to explain the hematocrit values of Lance during TDF.
By itself, such kind of constant values above Lance regular values shows a clear blood doping. Thanks to the Lance’s datas of 2010 proving that his body reacts like many others.
So the defense could bring some doubts but a lot of corrobative indices would be left too.
Jean C,
Back to this again??? I’m not defending LA when I claim there are serious COC problems with the samples in question associated with LNDD/AFLD. Your contention that LA had suspicious hematocrit values and blood doped may well be true, or not. (Don’t like the guy and am not inclined to believe in any supernatural myths associated with him) The problem is that AFLD can’t prove it with the samples in question because the lab practices they employed were so shoddy that COC was irrevocably broken. (Among other problems) Had they acted professionally and respected a serious COC protocol, perhaps the argument would be moot? I’d expect better of a college freshman chem major than what was actually produced by LNDD. That’s why the samples will never settle the matter. A shame…..
I know, it’s like being stuck in a Twilight Zone episode. And just when I thought it couldn’t get any more ridiculous — with the NY Daily News ‘reporting’ the the time McIlvain allegedly drunk-dialed BAndreu as news — now we got this.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5715/RadioShacks-Jerseygate-stunt-at-Tour-de-France-could-see-riders-suspended-for-Worlds-and-Lombardy.aspx
Love this: “I’d expect better of a college freshman chem major than what was actually produced by LNDD.”
And it isn’t an academic exercise. In WA, we had so many problems with the state crime lab that all the evidence from it was essentially barred from use in court. These are *real* courts, though, not the farcical arbitrations Under The Code crappo that athletes are subject to.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012965068_dui23m.html
And we are now talking about a *real court* that LA et al are being asked to answer to. We don’t wield the awesome power of the state like kids that found daddy’s gun. AFLD, USADA, LNDD, UCI, WADA et. al. sure like to, but not this time.
Real evidence this time: People under oath subject to cross examination get to say “I saw *him* do *this*.” There is no better evidence. Say what you like, but that is not open for debate at all.
This is true. But if LA is ever hauled into court because of all this, it won’t be directly an issue of whether or not he doped, but rather was the USPS defrauded or were federal funds misused. Could be that LA was clean as the driven snow and still there was fraud, if others on the team were using. And I could see a case where, even if he did dope, there was no fraud or misuse of federal funds.
Oh, and btw, those 1999 B samples are totally immaterial since that was prior to the USPS sponsorship. Unless perhaps there is an allegation that part of the alleged fraud is that there was specific claims that LA was clean prior to the USPS involvement as part of the deal.
USPS wasn’t involved in 1999???
Keep up the interesting posts, Rant.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what the charge could possibly be regarding alleged conduct that appears to have (allegedly) taken place in Europe. There are very few US laws that can have extraterritorial effect. And the potential charges that unnamed sources have been quoted as saying were being kicked around by the US Atty’s office — which is pretty vague — did you see this piece by Charles Pelkey when it came out? He thinks the statute of limitations has already run on those.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/news/the-explainer-what-crimes-could-federal-investigators-charge-against-lance-armstrong_132057
After all this time I think the prosecutors should either figure out what they’re investigating that can be charged, or wrap it up and go home.
Not that I’ve made a close study of the BALCO cases, but that was a slam-dunk for US jurisdiction, and yet so far as I’m aware, the only convictions have come not for substantive offenses but for subsidiary charges like perjury and contempt. That doesn’t sit so well with me. If you go out hunting, shoot your bird, don’t wing it. Why didn’t they get the athletes, trainers, and manufacturers on the real issues when they had the chance? I’m wondering whether the idea all along has been to poke around in matters that have no chance of turning into criminal charges in a US court, in the hope of finding or provoking perjury. Although that presupposes the government investigators and attorneys actually know what they’re doing here, which I’m not entirely convinced they do.
True, if LA and/or teammates doped in Europe, there is no crime under US jurisdiction, although certainly under the appropriate European jurisdiction. But, since the USPS sponsorship involved federal funds, and an agency of the federal government, there is a nexus which could be utilized to bring things under federal jurisdiction. Also, the team was managed by a US based corporation, Tailwind Sports (or something like that). One could argue that any team policy of doping originated in or was approved in the good ol’ US of A.
Then, there may be something to your idea that there is some idea of poking around enough and perhaps something will pop up to bring perjury or contempt charges. I tend to think that these serve more or less as “consolation prizes” when investigations do not turn up enough evidence to bring charges for the main event, so to speak. But who really knows? Someone could “investigate” and so appear to “be doing something about doping in sports”, and back this up be nailing a few people on collateral charges in order to count coup.
LA associate denies hearing admission in 1996:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100923-former-armstrong-associate-denies-seven-time-tour-winner-took-drugs-grand-jury-mcilvain
1. I don’t think this can possibly hurt.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordy-steps-down-as-head-of-afld
2. Australia seems like the perfect place for a hullabaloo. If I were going to create one, that’s where I’d do it.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5774/McQuaid-comments-on-Landis-participation-in-anti-doping-forum.aspx
Yes, I was going to cite the article about Bordry’s resignation, but Liggett junkie beat me to it. The article indicates Bordry’s resignation is largely about the money. Imagine that.
Very sad, the news about Jure Robic:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jure-robic-killed-in-accident
Multi time RAAM Champion. I watched him near the finish during a couple of editions when the race finished in Atlantic City. RIP Jure.