Back in May, when Floyd Landis admitted that he’d doped during his days in the European pro peloton, Landis said he would like to pay back everyone who donated to his defense. ESPN.com’s Bonnie D. Ford caught up with Landis recently to follow up on the payback angle, and contacted a few people who had donated to Landis’ defense, asking what they thought about the idea. (I’ll let you read the article to see what I had to say on the topic.)
For someone who once was at the top of his profession, Landis has fallen a long way down. But he hopes to make amends at some point in the future. One reader said to me a bit ago that it’s hard for him to see the sincerity that he once saw in Landis. Perhaps making the effort to take claims and try to pay people back is a place to start. But it will be a while before Landis can actually send out the first check. As Ford reports:
“What I want to make clear is that I can’t at the moment set a timeframe for when I can start paying people back, but I’ll be glad to take the claims so that I have them,” Landis said. “I don’t want to wait until I can pay it. I’d like to have it set up, because it’s going to take time to sift through the whole thing anyway.”
Donations came in amounts both large and small, and some (like me) made more than one donation. Landis’ plan, such as it is, is to start paying the smaller donors back first, whenever the day comes that he can begin to do so.
Landis said his first priority is to repay smaller donors — a group whom both he and Henson estimated contributed roughly $300,000 to the fund. To do this, Landis plans to create a form and post it on his currently inactive personal web site, floydlandis.com, asking individual donors to provide documentation. That could take the form of a canceled check or an autographed picture or other item that was received in exchange for a donation — or even a simple written description of the fundraiser the person attended. Other donations may be traceable through Paypal records.
At least it’s a start. As he admits in a related video, he can’t change the past or change the decisions he made then and regrets today.
For what it’s worth, it appears to me that he’s trying to do whatever he can to make it up to the people who he let down. At least, he sounds like he wants to, and he sounds like he has an idea for collecting the names and information from those donors who want their money back.
Given that he has no current job, and is persona non grata in the cycling industry, it could be a long while before he’s truly able to begin paying people back. It’s a nice gesture, and it shows a sense of responsibility and humility. The trust that people had in Landis, and his denials of ever having doped, was broken when he admitted to having done so throughout his time in Europe.
His past denials were straight out of another famous cyclist’s playbook, at least on the surface. The trust lost will be hard to fix, if it ever can be. And it is even harder now than it was before to believe another athlete’s protestations of innocence. And, that (eventual) truly innocent athlete falsely accused — whenever it occurs — will find it much harder to win support or even raise money to defend him/herself because of what happened in the recent past.
To put Landis’ misdeed(s) into perspective, consider this: It’s a shame that certain Wall Street barons, the ones who created the toxic investments that nearly crashed the United States and the rest of the developed world into a second Great Depression, don’t have the same feeling of responsibility and the desire to make things right for the investors who they snookered. At least Landis sounds like he feels guilty about having done so, and he says wants to do something to right the wrongs he committed.
Those financial geniuses, many of whom are raking in huge incomes still, have done very little to make it up to the millions of people whose retirement investments disappeared, or whose jobs disappeared, and for whom the future is murky at best. Not that they ever could. In my estimation, those people have wreaked far more havoc and damage than Floyd Landis ever could or did.
Landis’ story is sad, in a very Hollywood-esque kind of way. Against all odds, he rose to the highest heights. He made it to the very top of his profession, and then it all crashed down hard. I don’t think he’s completely down and out, but he’s pretty far down compared to where he was a bit over four years ago, before the positive test occurred and before his name became synonymous with doping in cycling.
Real life isn’t like Hollywood movies, though. And as much as folks like a good redemption story, it’s hard to know where this one goes. I’d like to think that Landis deserves a shot of redemption, but redemption is something earned and not merely granted. It seems to me like he’s taking the first steps at redeeming himself.
But as I said in Bonnie Ford’s article, he doesn’t need to pay me back. Sure, I could use an extra grand to buy a power meter, or take a trip, or buy some other new toy. But at the time I made my donations, even though I knew that it was possible he could have cheated, the evidence didn’t convince me that he had. As for the use of synthetic testosterone, I’m still not convinced, though I know now that he wasn’t entirely without sin in 2006, either. But neither were the people on the other side, at the anti-doping agencies and even at the lab that processed Landis’ samples from the Tour.
Landis deserved the chance to defend himself, and his case helped expose some systemic flaws in the testing and adjudication system. But he was also cheating, even if he hadn’t done testosterone. It raises an interesting question. Suppose you’re cheating but you’re accused of something you didn’t do. Should you plead guilty to the thing you didn’t do, or should you fight the charge?
We know what the financially smarter decision would be. Cop to the charge, take the punishment and save the money you would have spent on lawyers. But such an individual has to live with his or her choice, including whether to admit to something he/she didn’t do.
On the other side, when the tests suggest someone was cheating, we need those tests to be accurate. Catching cheats accidentally does not instill much confidence in the testing system. Tests must be fully verified and vetted before being used. We see this today in the Contador case. For Alberto Contador, an as-yet unapproved test supposedly indicates the presence of a certain chemical that might leech out from blood bags into stored blood. Before that test is approved, we need to know that using other common items couldn’t trigger a false positive.
The one study I’ve seen so far doesn’t convince me that this aspect of the test has been thoroughly checked out, but Alberto Contador’s fate may hang in the balance even so. As may the Great White Whale that anti-doping Captain Ahabs would like to land. Yes, given the anti-doping system’s eight year statute of limitations, Lance Armstrong’s blood and urine sample going back to October 2002 (as of this writing) could be used against him, should this test be approved and those samples show evidence of plasticizers in his system. Not that Lance gets nervous about these things, but if I were him, I’d be worried about what such a test might find.
We’ll see, in time, how those stories develop. In the meantime, I don’t think everyone who feels burned by Landis will automatically feel better based on what they read in Bonnie Ford’s article. But I do think Floyd Landis is trying to make amends, and that counts for something. I hope he can make it happen.
While it is part Hollywood, it’s also a very biblical story: Floyd built his defense upon a foundation of sand, rather than rock.
I never personally donated to the defense fund since I was (and am) a grad student, but I did take some time to review quite a bit of the science with a few friends (students studying: computational neuroscience, ecological engineering in fresh-water microbiology, and chemistry of organic synthesis). We concluded that producing similar quality results would receive a failing grade if an undergrad submitted it for a lab class: they failed to document each action taken in the protocol, they failed to keep intermediate results, they failed to calibrate the equipment adequately (or at least document their calibrations adequately), they failed to set unambiguous rejection criteria, and they made a host of statistical errors. My view of our analysis hasn’t changed due to Landis’ confession, and that adverse analytical is still total garbage.
But, so many people in the process knew (‘informally’) about the skeleton in the closet, and Landis had the hubris to both challenge the unfair WADA adjudication system while also trying to keep his TDF title. So, he maneuvered himself into a very Kafkaesque position, in the sense that he couldn’t seem to take a step that would improve, or disambiguate his situation — and that is very Hollywood.
I wonder however, what would have happened if he had admitted to all the doping he had done before he contested the testosterone finding. But, I guess it’s always easier to wait for the law while bribing the doorkeeper.
I hope Floyd get’s back on his feet. Regardless of circumstance, that stage 17 ride continues to be one of the most amazing feats in sport that I’ve ever watched live. (If anybody’s curious, my top is the women’s team sabre final at the Beijing Olympics between China and the Ukraine.. In fencing, there’s no win-by-two rule. You can find some of the video here, on the second page: http://www.2008.nbcolympics.com/fencing/video/all/index,page=2.htmx )
Well Bonnie didn’t ask me, but Floyd doesn’t have to pay me back either. Neither for the approx 1,400 hours I did in TBV work, nor for the contributions Mark and I made. I told him that last night when I talked to him.
str
Floyd should write a new autobiography that gives details oh how he doped, how he trained, the real behind the scenes story of the trials, the divorce, death in family and use the proceeds to pay back the FFF.
And most importantly, explain why the exact timing of the letters and going public is in conjunction with him not getting back into the pro-tour or TOC on Bahati and such.. the timing is revenge based, and that’s the thing he hasn’t admitted to.. clear his conscious? more lies.. admit he did it for revenge.. if he really truly wants to clear his conscious, he’ll need to admit to that..
Nico,
I suppose if we’re going to go Biblical on this, I’ll just point out that what Landis proposes to do is in line with the punishments laid out in Leviticus (I think). He should be glad he didn’t steal goats or whichever animal it is that requires giving two back for every one taken. 😉
strbuk,
I hope he someday has the resources to pay at least some of the folks back, as there are plenty of people who probably would like to take him up on that. Mostly, I hope he finds a way to move forward and do better in the future than he did in the past.
AC,
I can think of a pretty catchy title for the book, if he wants a ghost writer (assuming @neilroad or another writer doesn’t have dibs on that). Got to wonder about the timing, but at least part of it comes down to who leaked the info to the press and why he/she did so. I don’t think Landis was responsible for that part, but the person/people who were may have had other ideas and reasons for putting it out there. (In part, to make Floyd look worse.) Still, valid point about why he started to talk at that particular time. If he does write that book, that’s a question that will need to be answered forthrightly.
IF Landis actually pays us back, maybe THEN I’ll stop calling for his indictment. And as an added bonus – I’ll be able to change back my RYHO name. 🙂
HOWEVER, with what money is he going to be able to do this?
Heck, I’d LIKE to do LOTS of things. For example,
“I’d like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I’d like to hold it in my arms,
and keep it company….”
Oh yeah, I’D like to do a LOT of things… And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride…
And Rant, Rant, Rant, SURE Landis had the “right to defend himself”, but NOT with MY (& tens of thousands of others) FREAKIN MONEY when his so-called defense was a LIE! The fact that my money helped pay for that farce makes me sick. And please, spare me the line that he “really” didn’t use Testosterone in the Tour. Yeah, sure, you betcha. All that matters is that he doped in the Tour, told everyone repeatedly for years that he did not (had “NEVER”…) & asked for money from his fans to help him “prove his innocence”. He committed FRAUD & that far out-trumps any sport doping as far as I’m concerned.
And, yeah, I WANT MY MONEY BACK. Every freakin dime. I’d even like the money I shelled out for that lie of a book “Positively False” (was there EVER a more ACCURATE book title?!) but I won’t hold my breath for that.
IFL,
You know, there are days when I wish I could summon up your levels of righteous indignation (though, oddly, not on this particular subject — I’m suffering from “doping fatigue” these days 😉 ). If/when Floyd starts paying people back, I hope you’re at the front of the list, for whatever that might be worth.
I don’t want my money back — and if Floyd feels the need to refund my money, I want to be sure everyone else gets paid, first. Having advocated so loudly for him, I feel somewhat responsible for this mess, too. I wish he hadn’t followed Lance’s playbook (the “I’ve never, ever doped” line of defense). Had he stuck with “I didn’t do what they accused me of” he would be in a (somewhat, though probably marginally) different position today.
Oh, so THAT’s who IFL is. IFL, I won’t post to discussions about FL any more, but I’m still loving what you’re writing!
Have your house burglarized, find out the so-called “replacement” insurance you’d been paying an increasing premium (quadrupled in 12 years, while I’d only ever filed one small previous claim in 22 years) did NOT cover most of the items taken, have water damage in your house, not once, not twice, but three separate occasions/areas from various causes, & THEN find out you need a new furnace/AC unit in what you still think of as your ‘new’ (albeit 13 year old) house. All within the last 9 months. So, yeah, the money I stupidly gave to Landis is something I regret EVERY SINGLE DAY.
But just so you know, I have never “blamed” you or TBV or anyone who discussed/advocated his case. It never entered my mind actually. I do think I wasted a ridiculous amount of time reading/discussing everything, but that’s not your fault. It’s mine! Now, IF you were one of the people Landis says he TOLD that he had doped previously throughout his pro career but just not with T at the Tour, I would probably be pissed that info had been withheld. It would feel like you had been part of the fraud. And possibly I have learned NOTHING, but I just don’t see you as capable of that. (If you did, please, DON’T TELL ME, I can’t bare another shattered illusion! At least, not THIS freakin year!)
Anyway, if Landis had ‘just’ doped, I would have been devastated whenever he had “confessed”. I would have also been more than a bit miffed at the 4 years of lies. BUT, I would have felt some sympathy when taking into account the environment he was working in – doping commonplace if not rampant over the last 20-25 years. The one thing I will NEVER forgive is the taking of our money. To help him “defend” his lie. A line was crossed. I do feel some satisfaction that he at least SAYS he is actually going to pay back the money (which is a marked improvement from saying “he’d like to”), but until I have cashed the check AND it has not bounced, it’s just talk. Why is he doing this now? Possibly an attempt to deflate some people’s anger, show himself in a good light to hopefuly get a job doing SOMEthing? I don’t know. And no longer care.
That you & TBV don’t want your money back & are not livid about the massive time & efforts spent on presenting/discussing what you thought were the facts of his case, well, I’m not sure if I see that as commendable or delusional (probably a bit of both). Either way, I am glad I found both your blogs & proud to say I ‘virtually’ know you. 🙂
Yeah, great defense: I doped, just not with what you said I used. And of course, WADA and UCI would have said, “Oops, sorry we bothered you. Please keep your TdF win and keep on racing.”
No, if Landis was going to defend himself, he couldn’t cop to doing anything. The best he could have done was to deny using T while keeping mute about anything else. But this would look suspicious and sooner or later someone was bound to ask him outright about other PEDs.
Doesn’t the fund itself have the name of all the donors? Wasn’t there an issue about sharing the names of those who donated?
I’ll take a refund if only to make Floyd feel better.
IFL, I shouldn’t say anything, but you ask why FL is doing this now? Sorry to say, but at least one reason why now is that it “bought” him another interview with Bonnie Ford. I hope there are other reasons too.
IFL,
Whoa, you’ve had a string of awful luck. I can see where you’re coming from, definitely. Glad that you don’t blame those of us who advocated on Floyd’s behalf.
William,
I think you’re on to something there. Having decided to contest the case against him, Landis was forced into an awkward position. (Actually, that came from the start, being given the choice to admit something he didn’t do, or risk everything he had to defend himself, knowing full well he had done other forms of doping in 2006.) I suppose he could have gone the route of saying “I never tested positive before this time, and this time was a mistake.” But as we know, not officially testing positive is not the same thing as not doping. (Marion Jones, anyone?) One thing I do know, I’d hate to be in the position Floyd found himself in back in 2006. Pat McQuaid’s advice (“shut up, take the suspension, save your money, enjoy the vacation”) turned out to be probably the better route to go. Who knew McQuaid could be so right?
Rosemary,
I haven’t talked to Floyd or Michael Henson, so I’m just guessing here. It seems that some donors wanted to be anonymous, and the records of who they were and how much they gave may only be in the minds of those who received and deposited those particular checks.
For the Internet based donations, records probably exist. For those who gave at the various town hall events, I’m not so sure if the records exist or not. It would certainly be easy enough just to bundle any cash and checks and deposit them without making a note of who gave what.
Most of my donations were via the Internet, but there was that one bike ride I attended where I wrote a check…
Larry,
To look at the story from a different angle, Bonnie Ford is doing what many journalists don’t do, either for lack of time or lack of interest — follow up on a previous story. Sort of a “whatever happened to…?” kind of thing. It’s been a while since Landis said he wanted to pay people back, seems like a good time to find out what, if any, progress has been made.
Don’t hold your breath: He isn’t paying anyone back. He has no money…he has been personally and financially devastated due to this entire affair. And this isn’t pity, it is just a fact. As far as I know, Landis doesn’t have a college education, a profession, or any marketable skills. Where is he going to get $1+million???
Regarding the testosterone positive, I am shocked that people here are actually still giving him the benefit of the doubt on that. His position on the issue is a desperate attempt to save some wiggle-room and give him a reason for fighting the case. In other words, he didn’t perjure himself and didn’t defraud the donors out of their money because he didn’t do what he was accused of. But he did everything else? Right. If you believe that, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you…or a “Fairness Fund” that you can donate money to!
Rant, don’t get me wrong, I love Bonnie Ford, and I thought her latest piece on FL was terrific.
Sandranian, given what we’ve learned about Contador, it’s possible that the testosterone that caused Landis’ AAF was the result of one or more blood transfusions (blood doping) during the race. This seems unlikely to me — it would be very dumb for Landis to have blood doped with blood he’d taken at a time when he was also using testosterone. However, blood doping could provide an answer for why the labs found the AAF while Landis claims he wasn’t doping with testosterone.
HOLY CATS! I go away for a week and come back to find out that I missed the party!
Rant, nice posts…(and the usual abundance of amazingly intelligent comments)….gives me too much to think about…my head hurts. Did AC dope? The tainted meat thing just seems so lame…almost like an excuse a grade-school kid would come up with (uh, gee, no mom…I did NOT take any clenbuteral….it must have been from dinner last night). The Velo News bit (the Explainer) about the plasticizers the other day was really interesting (here’s the link for any who didn’t see it: http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/10/news/the-explainer-plastics_145229 ) …and it really makes me want to go get tested myself…I use a camelback ALL THE TIME! And what about regular ‘road’ water bottles? But if that was the case, then every cyclist out there would pop positive on the plastic test. So it would seem (to my uneducated perspective) that there’s more to this plastic test results than meets the eye…which would certainly explain at least ONE totally plausible way his test was positive…the transfusion on a rest day theory. But much like FL, we may never TRULY know unless he someday tells us THE TRUTH (in case what he is saying NOW isn’t)….because even though AC is flouting his innocence now, well…we’ve all heard that song before. As has been said of FL, he was put in a rather difficult position. Is AC’s any less difficult? If he gets ANY suspension at all, then his Tour title goes with it I would think, along with his credibility. And then the other riders who HAVE been hit hard with sanctions for the exact same thing. What a tangled web the UCI might be weaving right now.
If I read Larry’s posts on the rules regarding strict liability, SL applies to getting DQ from an event if you test positive in competition, regardless of your knowledge and intent. So if our famous Nazi frogmen dope you up, you will lose whatever result you got, no ifs ands or buts. But then there seems to be some leeway in regards a suspension, if you can prove to the satisfaction of the ADA that the PED came into your body unintentionally. Since clem is a substance that any amount/concentration triggers action, there is seemingly no way AC can hold on to his 2010 title. Not unless he changes tack and challenges the lab results.
There might be a chance for a reduced suspension, based on the following: Since he was tested prior to the test in question, and came up negative, it doesn’t seem likely that he was ingesting clem prior to that rest day (although there isthe possibility of a false negative test). If (and this could be a big if) the reported estimation of concentration is reasonable, it would seem unlikely that he took a dosage large enough to be of benefit on or about the rest day. Hence, it would seem likely that he unintentionally took a limited dosage quite possibly involving contamination of food or drink.
But there are some potential problems here. The possibility of false negatives on previous test can’t, in my mind at least, can’t be ruled out. There certainly have been cases were someone could of/should of tested positive and didn’t. Keeping the idea of false positives on prior tests in play means that we can’t rule out the idea that AC took a useful dosage earlier in the Tour, and the positive result was on the downside as his body eliminated the clem. Then there is that concentration estimate: where did it come from and how reliable is it?
An additional problem is the plastic issue: it could be decided that this is sufficient evidence of a transfusion to trigger a sanction.
William, responding to the distinction you drew between nightclubs and butcher shops in your comment on Rant’s earlier comment: good point. My only point is that the CAS seems willing to accept something less than absolute proof of how a PED might have accidentally entered an athlete’s system. We now have a new announced Cb case involving rider Alessandro Colo, who was given a one-year (reduced) ban by CONI (the Italian anti-doping agency) for having Cb in his system during the Vuelta Mexico. CONI based its reduced suspension on the high rate of Cb use in the meat industry in Mexico. As best as I can tell, Colo made no arguments about having eaten a particular piece of suspicious meat. For all I know, Colo is a vegetarian. http://bit.ly/bSxe6x.
I’m not sure what to make of the Colo case. As always, there are distinctions to be drawn: Mexican meat v. Spanish meat, CONI v. the Spanish anti-doping authority. But I think that the Colo case makes it that much more difficult for the ADAs to do what I think they ought to do, which is to prosecute Contador for blood doping or not at all.
Yes, I know, I’m recommending that Contador get special treatment. But I’m not arguing that Contador get this treatment because he’s Contador. I’m arguing for special treatment because I don’t think Contador should be treated unfairly just because every prior athlete in a similar position has been treated unfairly. Of course, once Contador is let off the hook, I’d then argue for every similarly situated athlete to also be let off the hook.
Larry,
No worries, I didn’t take your comments as a slam on the quality of Bonnie Ford’s article. Just presenting an alternate reason for how the article may have come about.
Matt,
Interestingly, there’s an Astana insider (not sure if it’s another rider or a staff member) who supposedly told a Belgian news outlet that Contador used clenbuterol to lose weight either during or after the Dauphine Libere (his last major race before the Tour). The story goes that Contador withdrew some blood (about 150 ml), the clenbuterol hadn’t completely cleared Contador’s system so a bit was still in that blood, and it was reinjected back into him during the Tour, all of which resulted in the positive test result. Makes for an interesting story, at the very least. (By the way, things tend to blow up when I go on vacation, too. 😉 )
William/Larry,
I’ve been hearing a bit about the Colo case. Interesting, as it shows CONI is capable of a bit of leniency on the length of the suspension. (Can’t say for sure whether the UCI or RFEC would do the same, though I suspect it’s possible.) At the same time, it suggests that Contador will get some sort of suspension or punishment, even if the clenbuterol truly was from the veal or steak or whatever he ate. Also interesting, Contador’s story (as told elsewhere) seems to be missing Dr. de Boer’s mention of a second test where Contador’s level of clenbuterol was something like 20 ng/ml.
Even though Dr. de Boer’s explanation is reasonable, that it’s from the same exposure, WADA rules can be interpreted in such a way that the second test result is a separate incident, and thus, Contador could be doubly screwed. If the powers that be wanted to ban him for life, they could twist the knife just so. But there’s a part of me that thinks the UCI will try to give Contador a pass and have him back to racing as soon as they possibly can. It will be interesting to see if WADA plays along, or whether they go for the jugular and try to get Contador thrown out for good.
What I really find interesting is that IF AC transfused his own blood, taken from a time when he had indeed been using Cb, then that would explain all the findings….the A and B test having the tiny non-performance enhancing amount in his system, AND the fact that the next test (if this part is true) having only 20ng/ml…which would go right along with the proper half-life of what they DID find (thus pretty much eliminating the false positive as a potential). Everybody admits that taking Cb on a rest day, especially such a small amount would have been of no benefit. But a transfusion of red blood cells…that is a different ball game. And it also explains the plasticizers found.
I would really like to think he is innocent, but this all adds up to a pretty reasonable case against him imo. The only thing that doesn’t make sense is IF he had blood drawn for later clandestine use, and he HAD been using Cb, then someone really messed up on the half-life timing. For the amount that they detected, and assuming he (IF he did this I mean) added one pint, or possibly an R2 unit (which is 2 times the rbc’s…when I donate I used to do an R2 via the machine…which pulls blood and spins the rbc’s out, and then puts back most of the fluids and extra saline)….anyway…the amount of Cb in his system at that time the blood was drawn would have had to been substantial considering the dilution factor when adding the new pint to his roughly 10 pints of blood and then only getting a test of 50ng/ml. Just food for thought…we shall see what the UCI and WADA think about all this. I think he’s in big trouble.
Oh..and Rant…IF that Astana insider is correct…wow. He used a banned substance to help with WEIGHT LOSS of all things? And then had blood drawn AFTER using it for later use IN the tour? Sheesh…that’s not very bright. But when you think about it (the weight loss part)…for a mountain-goat GC contender, having your weight as low as possible prior to the start would surely be to your advantage. Hmmm….it’s all wood to the fire. Of course, that story is no more substantiated than many of the things we are discussing.
This story gets better and better, doesn’t it? The press is having a field day. I’m enjoying it. A sample:
This would be a killer website name: everyoneblamingmeat.com. And I just checked; it’s available. (So is everyoneblamingme.com. That would be good too.)
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/111010/spain___everyone_blaming_meat.aspx
From John Leicester of the AP: “Only once did clenbuterol show up in 83,203 animal samples tested by EU countries in 2008 and 2009, says the European Commission’s directorate for health and consumer policy. Spain tested 19,431 samples in those years; none were positive for the drug, it adds.” — Or it could just be that Spanish laboratory practices are even more lax than French procedures. I suppose you can’t rule that out.
Just one question remains unanswered by the article below; how does Christine Ayotte suggest that her advice should be followed? — “During the Tour de France, I would note down everything that I eat and keep samples of everything I ate if I eat differently from everyone else. I would be paranoid.” Well, I suppose that’s possible if you keep a FoodSaver.com vacuum sealer on the bus. But it sounds like hoarding behavior to me.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39616123/ns/sports/
I have always wondered about how the gambling industry copes with revised bike race results. Here, Bettson in Denmark takes a proactive approach. It sounds expensive, but the resulting advertising and goodwill must be tremendous.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/danish-betting-firm-pays-out-for-schleck-winning-2010-tour
Something else I’m glad to know:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/502695/riis-has-a-plan-b-if-contador-is-banned.html
If I were Bjarne, my Plan A would have been to dig ditches and sweep streets rather than hire Contador. But I’m not Bjarne.
1. Contador is the new Lance, and will likely receive the same sort of treatment by UCI. They will attempt to let him off with the least punishment or no punishment.
2. My view is that if ( a big IF) Contador can show the clenbuterol came from the tainted meat, the UCI will be able to let him off with no disqualification, and he would keep his TDF trophy since the violation occurred on a rest day. They could throw in a 3 month token suspension under UCI 295, but if Contador wanted to appeal he could probably get it thrown out like Gasquet.
3. While he is responsible for what enters his body, he has to eat and can’t be expected to test all his food, unless there are facts that put him on notice. So there would no negligence under UCI rule 296, and his period of disqualification would be eliminated. Similarly, Gasquet was not negligent in kissing a pretty girl in a club.
Further UCI rule 291.1 provides that in a stage race if there is no negligence only the stage of the violation need be eliminated. Since the test occurred on a July 21 rest day, all of his stage results could stand. (I doubt that they would use the clen residue on the July 22 as a second violation.)
UCI 291.1 “If the Event is a stage race, an anti-doping violation committed in connection with any stage, entails Disqualification from the Event, except when (i) the anti-doping violation involves the presence, Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, (ii) the Rider establishes that he bears No Fault or Negligence and (iii) his results in no other stage were likely to have been influenced by the Rider’s anti-doping violation.
Comment: in the latter case the Rider shall be disqualified from the stage in relation with which the sample was taken only. This disqualification will entail that the Rider shall be removed from the final general ranking but any other result that is not incompatible with the Rider being disqualified in a single stage, shall not be disqualified.”
Under UCI 291.2 he might also, at the discretion of the UCI, get off with a reprimand and also preserve his TDF results if he can show under 295 the source of the clen and that he did not intend to gain any advantage. But this relief requires corroborating evidence.
4. So the big question is whether he can show that it was more likely than not that the clen entered his body by way of the tainted meat as opposed to some other means, especially via a blood transfusion.
The Gasquet case gives him some hope, since it was not 100% established that woman had used cocaine that particular night.
The Jeff Adams case involved even less proof of the tainted source, since in that case it was only Jeff Adams’ testimony alone that the substance smeared on his mouth by the woman was in fact cocaine. Yet the CAS panel credited this testimony. (The news reports state that his companions only agreed that there was some sort of commotion.)
The Contador story on the meat has reportedly been inconsistent (so far the shop does not appear to have been clearly identified). Without the meat being tested, his case is like Fuyu Li (two year suspension) and Colo (one year suspension) cases where no specific source was identified, yet food contamination was claimed. From the news reports there here seems to be contradictory scientific opinion about whether eating Spanish or French filet mignon could likely result in a postive test for clen (veal, organ meats all involve higher concentrations of clen).
In contrast, Colo was racing in Mexico where there is a much higher illegal use of clen in the meat industry. One paper shows 16% of meat was tainted and 70% of the feed in a 2006 sample. European levels are likely far far far below that.
5. The plasticizer test results may be the one obstacle for UCI and Contador to get around. The European press report that his plastic levels were very high for the day preceding the clen test, and declined thereafter which is consistent with a one time blood transfusion. As discussed previously, persons receiving blood transfusions had a much higher level of the residues than three control groups, including average persons, an athletic control group ( presumably more frequent users of hydration systems), and a patient control group who were exposed to higher levels of plastics through various treatments (saline drip etc) than the regular population.
Larry:
This may be just semantics, but I take a different view on your idea of “fairness” vs. consistance. To me, fairness IS treating everyone similarly situated the same. If 2 athletes inadvertently ingress an inconsequential amount of a PED, either both should be sanctioned (which seems to me to be what the rules are now) or both should be let off. In part, I believe this way to avoid a situation where perhaps a “big name” athlete is treated differently because he or she is a big name. Should AC get off with less than a 2 year suspension when the no name Chinese rider got nailed with the whole deuce? I don’t think so. But perhaps there are differences in the 2 cases that I am unaware of. And this can be a problem for us in the general public: we are often not aware of all the differences in 2 cases which may make different treatments proper.
At this point in time, there are enough questions about the facts of AC’s case that I am not prepared to make a statement about his “guilt” and what might be a fitting resolution. There’s that pesky estimated concentration: if that estimate is low, it may be that AC did in fact take a larger enough dose to have performance enhancing effects, in which case why shouldn’t he get both the DQ and the deuce?
The idea that the traces of clem arose from transfusing blood withdrawn when he was using clem sounds quite like one theory floating around for Landis’ T results. I wish more was known about this plasticizer test and how likely the supposed results indicate AC did receive a transfusion. However, it would seem at least that, since he presumably tested at a higher lever than other riders, the plastics did not come from water bottles or camelbacks. Not unless he was swilling down much much more water than others.
M, you are forcing me to read the rules more carefully than I’ve read them before. (Thanks a lot!) The rules are more nuanced than I’d realized, so allow me to correct and supplement some of what I’ve written here before, and M, you can correct me when you think I’m wrong.
Let’s start with the distinction under the UCI Anti-Doping rules between a “Race”, a “Competition” and an “Event”. A “Race” is defined pretty much the way you’d expect, and it includes “a stage or a half stage in a stage race”. Clear enough so far. A “Competition” is a single Race or a “series of Races forming an organizational unit and producing a final winner and/or general classification (for example, a stage race …).” So, it sounds like the Tour de France should be classified as a “Competition”.
What about an “Event”? An “Event” is defined as “A single Competition organized separately (for example: a one day road race, a stage race) or a series of Competitions conducted together as a single organization.” Oh oh. Sounds like the Tour de France is both a “Competition” and an “Event”. Not very helpful! Especially considering that the anti-doping rules are different for Competitions and Events.
Next we jump to Article 288 of these UCI Regulations. Article 288 provides for disqualification rules applicable to Competitions. It provides that “A violation of these Anti-Doping Rules in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the individual result obtained in that Competition.” It doesn’t help AC under this Article that a test result is based on a sample taken on a rest day. “In-Competition” is defined as the period three days before the beginning of the Tour and finishing at midnight of the day the Tour ends. There are no exceptions to the rule set forth in Article 288.
Next we look at Article 289. Article 289 provides disqualification rules for Events. Article 289 works much like Article 288, at least with respect to the presence of a “Prohibited Substance” like Cb. Article 289 provides that where a Prohibited Substance is found in the system of a Rider, then the Rider is disqualified from that point forward in the Event, but the Rider’s results from earlier Competitions in that Event are not affected. Standing alone, Article 289 would not help Contador — he would still be disqualified under this Article from every stage following the rest day when he tested positively for Cb.
However … unlike Article 288, there are EXCEPTIONS to the application of Article 289. These exceptions are set forth in Articles 290 and 291.
Article 290 reads as follows: “If the anti-doping violation involves the presence, Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method (articles 21.1 and 21.2) and the Rider establishes that he bears No Fault or Negligence, his individual results in the other Competitions shall not be disqualified except to the extent that they were likely to have been affected by the Rider’s anti-doping violation.” Might Article 290 help Contador keep his maillot jaune? I don’t think so. Remember, Article 290 is an exception to the rule in Article 289, which provides for a Rider’s disqualification both from certain Competitions in the Event, and from the Event itself. The exception in Article 290 might affect the Rider’s disqualification from certain Competitions in an Event (stages in a Tour), but it does not address the Rider’s disqualification from the Tour.
Nexe, let’s look to the second exception to Article 289, which is contained in Article 291.1. Article 291.1 applies in cases where an Event is a stage race and where the anti-doping violation was committed “in connection with any stage.” Article 291.1 says that any such violation requires the Rider to be disqualified from the Event unless (as was the case for Contador) the violation involves the presence of a Prohibited Substance, and (1) the Rider establshes that he bears No Fault or Negligence”, and (2) his results in “no other stage” were likely to have been influenced by the Rider’s anti-doping violation.”
GROAN!! Article 291.1 is not easy to apply to the Contador case. We might argue that Article 291.1 does not apply at all to the Contador case, since Contador’s test results were taken during a rest day and not “in connection with any stage.” But even if Article 291.1 might be applied to Contador’s case, the comment to this Article makes it clear that Riders falling under this exception “shall be removed from the final general ranking.” So, this Article does not appear to help Contador either — he’d still be removed from the GC.
(M, note that Articles 291.2 and 295 would not apply here. Cb is not a “Specified Substance” under the UCI rules. See Article 32. Cb is classified as an anabolic agent).
So … the UCI rules applicable to the Contador case are a mess, but notwithstanding the mess, there appears to be no intent under the UCI rules to allow a rider who has tested positive during a stage race to be allowed to win that race.
Dammit, here we go again:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hushovd-i-have-never-seen-drugs-in-cycling
Seem to recall this was essentially the same statement made by Floyd for Loren Mooney to add to “Positively False.”
And for the statement about drugs not being helpful to a sprinter: hahahahaha! Stop it, Thor, you’re killing me.
Must be something lost in the translation from his native Viking language. Don’t get me wrong: I’m a big TH fan. But…yeesh.
8-0, maybe cyclists routinely witness other cyclists doping, but I kind of doubt it. If I’m a domestique on the same team with Doping GCContender, then I doubt I’m going to typically witness DG’s doping regimen. Otherwise, wouldn’t I be able to trade a promise to keep silent for lifetime employment on DG’s team?
William, at some point justice requires that you break from precedent if the precedent is unfair. I’m not saying that only guys like AC should get a break, I’m saying that AC should get a break and that everyone after should be given the same break. If it takes a case involving the top guy in the sport to make the break from an unfair precedent, that’s OK with me.
Larry:
I see your point. Whether AC’s story is true is still up in the air for me, so I am not prepared to say at this point he “deserves” a break in some way.
It would seem that the rules are strict in regards his GC title no matter what, but there is some leeway regarding other punishments that do not involve a break with the rules. Would allowing AC to keep the GC title be fair, assuming his story pans out? My thinking is that it wouldn’t. While there his not been a similar case arising from the Tour, I can off hand think of cases which have some similarities, for example, the British skier and the 2 different versions of nasal inhalers. He innocently and inadvertently used an inhaler which was formulated with a trace amount of a prohibited substance (an amount which was of no benefit performance benefit), yet still was DQed. Would it be fair to him to give AC a break, without changing the rules?
At any rate, this all also assumes that WADA would be willing to give AC a break, which isn’t a given. We now know, thanks to Rant, that WADA can take over a case. If they think the Spanish ADA was likely to treat AC in a manner they (WADA) wouldn’t approve of, they could take over the case. And there is the point that any trace of clem, no matter how small, rates a sanction.
William, good points. I agree, if AC’s story is not true, then we throw the book at him. But what if it’s just a little Cb that got into his system by accident? Can you imagine if we gave the Super Bowl title to the losing team because the punter had a little bit of Cb in his system? Peoples’ heads would explode. But cycling has gotten so crazy that it’s come to this.
Larry,
It’s not just cycling that’s gotten crazy (although perhaps cycling is just a bit crazier than other sports). The whole strict liability idea leads to some pretty bizarre consequences. Joe Lindsey was right in his recent Boulder Report. The time for strict liability (if ever there was one) has passed.
So, did you see AC got some good news/bad news in the last 24 hours? 1st, WADA comes out & dismissed the so-called “plasticizer” test but today they are ‘dismissing’ the idea of contaminated meat. That WADA – they give, they take…
I will be shocked if Contador is not able to ride for at LEAST a year. This is my prediction – the Spanish ADA will either give him 3-6 months suspension, WADA (& possibly the UCI too as WADA will force them) will appeal & take it to CAS. By that time, a year will have passed. It will be interesting to see how much money AC throws at it. He has more money than Landis did, but the fact that he won’t be making income this year & most sponsors will probably drop him, at least for a year, means he can’t use all he has or he’ll wind up like Landis. Without the rich friends/benefactors to keep from living on the street.
I still think the fact that it was more than 2 freakin MONTHS before this test result was revealed is just as big a story as the test results themselves. You have to wonder if the UCI/ASO was EVER going to reveal it if the German media (TV? newspaper?) didn’t break the story.
As for Contador “retiring”? And do what? Of course, if he doesn’t fight the test, he will be able to keep all the money he has now. Or maybe not – some country, group, or sponsor could sue him. Haven’t heard much from the AFLD yet…
And finally, the ASO – they just better barr Astana from next year’s race. What was it they gave as the excuse for barring them from the 2008 Tour? And the then-Astana was a different team ENTIRELY except for the sponsor name! Next year’s Astana (if they still exist) will have several of the same riders & the same management. Makes one almost feel sorry for Vino. Nah.
Seems like we are heading for quite the “showdown” between WADA and UCI:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-dismisses-contadors-contaminated-meat-claims
MikeG
But if the punter for the BCS champion was deemed ineligible, the team would forfeit more than likely.
A couple of thoughts occurred to me this morning as I was out walking the dog. Do we know any more now about the estimation of a low concentration? Is this just some spin
put on by the AC side or is it from a more reliable source?
And if indeed the concentration was low, could this be on the upside of a performancing enha king dose? Could he have taken a dose on the rest, assuming that by the time he might have been tested at the end of the next stage it would be cleared, and then just after he popped the pill (or whatever it was), and then the testers show up and collect a sample before the Clem had time to be fully absorbed?