Wow. Three weeks since the last post. Didn’t expect that to happen. And I certainly didn’t expect to see such a vibrant discussion continuing the whole time on the previous post. Props to all who participated (and are continuing to participate, as of this writing). Seems like we have a couple of soap operas, as Larry noted in the comments here, going on in cycling at the moment. Let’s start with the less salacious one, shall we?
Contador Rides Again
So word has it that Alberto “El Pistolero” Contador is going to ride the 2011 edition of the Tour de France. Color me not surprised. Contador has the same kind of outsized ego that another rider (now retired) has, and the thought that he would forgo the Tour just because a silly little thing like an anti-doping case is hanging over his head just doesn’t jive for me. Unless someone handcuffs Alberto and throws him in the county klink, he’ll be there with bells on, putting everything he has into winning yet another Grand Tour.
And, he’ll show up as the odds-on favorite to win the race. If I’ve got things right, Alberto will accomplish a feat similar (though not identical) to Lance Armstrong should he wind up on the top step of the podium in Paris. And what would that be? Winning seven straight Grand Tours out of the last seven he’s entered/been allowed to race. And the kid hasn’t even passed thirty, yet. If he keeps up at this pace, he could be the most dominant stage race since, well, ever.
Of course, that little problem with the clenbuterol might prove a snag in Alberto’s best-laid plans. And with his case not being heard until August, there will be no decision on the final results of the 2010 Tour until the 2011 Tour is finished and in the history books. Although, the 2011 Tour will go into the history books with an automatic asterisk. If Contador loses at the CAS, then he may well have to forfeit all his results from the 2010 Tour onwards. And in doing so, he may set another, though more dubious, record — having to cede the titles in three Grand Tours to the second-place finisher on the road because of one single anti-doping infraction.
Contador’s case illustrates some very serious flaws in the current anti-doping system. In theory, the system is constructed to process cases quickly, so that the accused and his/her fellow competitors will not be left hanging for too long one way or another. Strict liability — the notion that no matter how a banned substance found its way into an athlete, it’s the athlete’s fault/responsibility — was intended to be a shortcut so that the authorities wouldn’t have to prove someone’s intent to dope as part of the case. Because, of course, if the authorities had to prove intent then everyone ever accused would automatically say that it was an accident and the ADAs would then have to figure out how to prove that no, it wasn’t. The assumption that the science behind the tests is unquestionable is another flaw. As is the assumption that if a lab is WADA-certified, it is believed to have done the tests properly until proven otherwise. And we haven’t even gotten to the weaknesses in the differences in who prosecutes an anti-doping case in one country versus another.
If the idea is to get a ruling quickly, then not having a case from an event last year decided before the same event starts this year runs counter to the goal. Contador’s situation is not the first time this has happened, and I suspect it won’t be the last.
And just to throw a real monkey wrench into all of this is the news today that WADA is reconsidering the rules regarding clenbuterol, perhaps even going so far as to establish a threshold value, above which is an anti-doping violation and below which it isn’t an automatic violation but something that might require further study (targeted testing, anyone?). According to an Associated Press story published on ESPN.com (hat tip to Larry):
“I’ve personally reviewed several of these [clenbuterol] cases and I think we’ve got a way forward that makes a lot of sense and we want to discuss with our experts,” WADA science director Olivier Rabin said Tuesday at a WADA symposium.
Under current WADA rules, any amount of clenbuterol is considered doping, unless athletes can prove they consumed the drug inadvertently and were not to blame. The meeting in Montreal next week could lead to the installment of a fixed level of clenbuterol over which no excuses are valid.
“That could be one of their recommendations,” Rabin said. “You may say there is a value above which we know it’s doping. There may be a value under which we would say you need further investigation, so it could be classified as an atypical finding. Or it could be classified as a typical finding which means it’s a result that deserves further consideration in a certain context, including previous results from the athlete or future results from the athlete.”
Rabin didn’t offer an opinion as to how such a change might affect Contador’s case. Unless they make the rule retroactive, however, Contador will have the burden of showing that he bears no fault or negligence in order to escape a two-year “vacation” from cycling. Meanwhile, WADA released a statement today that says they have no plans at the moment to introduce a threshold level for clenbuterol. The statement also says:
3. It is possible that under certain circumstances the presence of a low level of clenbuterol in an athlete sample can be the result of food contamination. However, each case is different and all elements need to be taken into account.
Almost sounds like they are purposely leaving some wiggle room in their position so they can claim victory, regardless of how the CAS case turns out.
Here’s a thought: Suppose that Contador loses at the CAS and that his official suspension is dated from the end of the 2010 Tour (given that he has continued competing, this start date may not be very likely). He’s kept up his fitness through racing, even if he has to forfeit his titles. If he has less than an actual year of time out of competition, he can maintain a fairly high level of fitness and come back strong in time for the 2012 Vuelta a España. So by racing the Tour, the kid may have his eyes more focused on his future than his present — though I’m sure he would like the victory and the money and accolades that come from winning in Paris in about six weeks’ time.
Showdown at the Cache Cache Bistro
For those who follow the trials and tribulations of certain American cyclists, news of the altercation/confrontation/”non-event” between Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton has stirred up quite a bit of discussion, and a fair amount of news coverage. Aspen, where Armstrong has a home, is not exactly a big place. Plenty of great outdoors to explore, ride, hike, ski, fish (the fly fishing on the Roaring Fork River, Maroon and Castle Creeks and Hunter Creek is excellent, or at least, it used to be). But when it comes to dining options, if your nemesis is in town, there’s a good chance the two of you will cross paths. Tyler Hamilton had the bad luck or bad form to be dining in a favorite Armstrong haunt when the two ran into each other.
Exactly what happened seems to be the subject of conflicting stories. On the one hand, Hamilton was said to be shaken up by the incident. On the other, Armstrong and his proxies are making the ruckus out to be not much of anything. ESPN.com’s Bonnie D. Ford got the scoop that Hamilton’s attorney tipped the Feds off to the encounter. And Juliet Macur of The New York Times followed up with a story that the FBI plans to subpoena the surveillance tapes from the night and time the incident occurred.
Was it witness tampering? That’s for the Feds to figure out. And if they believe it is, eventually a jury may have to answer that question, too. Armstrong’s comments, according to Hamilton’s account, sound as though they were meant to threaten or intimidate. Yes, as it’s been pointed out in comments to the previous post, Armstrong might have just been stating the obvious. His lawyers will try to rip Hamilton apart on cross-examination, if the current investigations of Armstrong ever leads to a criminal case and Hamilton has to testify. That’s to be expected. But telling a potential witness against you that you’ll make their life a living hell? That’s not necessary, unless you’re trying to scare or bully someone into keeping quiet.
Hamilton has been a reluctant witness against Armstrong in the whole grand jury investigation. As he said on 60 Minutes, he didn’t want to testify at all, but once he was served with a subpoena, he had no choice. He had to tell the truth, as he knows it, or face perjury charges.
If Hamilton’s side of the story is what happened, Lance made a tactical mistake. The old saw goes that, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up.” While there’s a lot of smoke surrounding the grand jury investigation that suggests Armstrong is headed for some legal problems, until any indictments are handed down, it’s all speculation as to whether Armstrong will be charged with any crimes. Meanwhile, Armstrong has potentially handed prosecutors a fresh angle of attack. The grand jury might not indict him for anything else, but if they indict him for witness tampering, he will rue the day he spoke to Tyler Hamilton at the Cache Cache Bistro.
Over on Twitter, Bill Hue offered his thoughts about the situation:
Any lawyer would tell a person under investigation to simply leave if there’s any potential for contact with victim/witness.
Putting an arm out, saying anything at all, staying there would all be discouraged. Lawyers ought to have a sitdown w/ LA.
Just like Armstrong to “do what he wants”. He rules the world. My view; I hear a train a comin’, it’s comin’ ’round the bend.
Of course, maybe it was just a “non-event” and Tyler Hamilton and the media are making a mountain out of a quasi-French restaurant on South Mill Street. But if it really was a non-event, why did one of the owners feel compelled to tell Hamilton that he and his pals could finish their meal, but they would not be welcomed back in the future? That suggests to me that the exchange was far from friendly. Makes it sound like the two almost came to blows. But the story is that it was a non-event, and Jodi Larner is sticking to the story. If that’s truly what happened, I don’t see how a non-event merits a lifetime ban.
How will all this shake out? Time will tell. In the meantime, Lance’s highly-paid army of lawyers might want to follow up on Bill Hue’s suggestion, a little late though it may be.
That really is a shame, because Armstrong was handling himself so well up to that point, except for the time he tweeted Neil Browne and called a rude name — but, he’s only human. I can see how Neil Browne might get on one’s nerves. (And I don’t think Armstrong got him fired from the Versus web site. Heck, the whole Versus site — which was impossible to use anyway, so, good riddance — got taken down a couple of weeks ago.) Anyway, I am reminded of my class in criminal tax procedure and how often the professor repeated the most important piece of advice you can give a client in such matters: Say Nothing to Anyone.
What astonishes me is that Lance Armstrong’s home in Aspen apparently doesn’t have a kitchen. He eats out three times a week — in a French restaurant? Folks, we have a scandal!
Read Aspen newspaper, local realtor says Lance never got off his bar stool, Hamilton seems to have lots of personal demons in his life,I guess he was uncomfortable about his testimony
Maybe this is all part of hid depression?
AC’s case has bothered me. His defense of contaminated beef could be true, but there’s really no hard evidence, IMO, for this. Just a lot of speculation about the low level of clen allegedly found, based on data from a qualitative, not quantitative test, and whether or not somebody would dope in that way.
But he has had his day in court and been cleared. So of course he is going to continue in his chosen profession. If this was a criminal case in the US, that would be that, because no double jeopardy. But in WADAland, they can appeal this decision. As I recall, they (or was it UCI? I forget), took their own sweet time about filing an appeal. Which is probably neither here nor there; they have a right to consider things and decide if an appeal is worthwhile. But it does seem to me to be rather unfair to subject him to possible stripping of results obtained while he was racing in good standing (unless there was another positive test result).
Tv,
I can easily imagine that the conversation may have seemed intimidating to Hamilton, even if Lance never got off his barstool. Depends on what was said and how it was said. From the way he spoke on 60 Minutes, Hamilton would have preferred not testifying before the grand jury at all. Giving testimony that could implicate a friend would feel like a betraying that friend. That would be a hard thing to do. On the other hand, not telling the truth to a grand jury comes with its own problems, as Barry Bonds might attest.
The first time the two ran into each other was bound to be difficult, I imagine, no matter when or where it would have occurred. I think Lance would have been smarter to say nothing at all to Hamilton, actually. Could the differences in the story about what happened be colored by Hamilton’s struggle with depression? Perhaps.
Of course, if Lance didn’t ever get off of the barstool, then I would have a hard time believing that the two were on the verge of trading punches. Other than an awkward scene between two former friends, I don’t see what elevates that encounter to a level where the owner would ban Hamilton from the place.
Liggett junkie,
Don’t know about Lance’s house, but all the houses and condos I’ve ever been in in that area had fully functional kitchens. Maybe he prefers the cooking at Cache Cache Bistro to the cooking at home? The horror. The horror. 😉
William,
Contador’s story has always reminded me of an old Wendy’s commercial. “Where’s the beef?” 😉
The New York Times can tell you where the beef is — and the osso bucco, and the liver — and let’s not forget the friction! —
Meatless Mondays Catch On, Even With Carnivores
By KIRK JOHNSON
ASPEN, Colo. — Friction between the health-and-eco-minded hippies who came here for a Rocky Mountain High in the 1970s and the super-wealthy second-homers who followed from the intersection of Hollywood and Hedge Fund is an old story here at 8,000 feet.
But now there is a new potential skirmish line: Meatless Mondays.
For whatever reason, chefs and restaurateurs say, the big outside money that fuels economic life here, often flying in by private jet from places like Malibu or the Main Line, tilts heavily toward the carnivorous.
“It’s very interesting, but for some reason when people come to Aspen, they want to eat meat,” said Mimi Lenk, a vegetarian for more than a decade and the manager of Syzygy, a downtown restaurant where elk, bison and lamb are the big sellers.
A new nationwide pro-veggie effort, however — aimed at persuading people to go meatless at least one day a week — has been embraced here more than in any other city in America. At least 20 institutions and restaurants, including Syzygy, are offering vegetarian choices on Mondays under a plan announced this month.
* * * *
Still, some restaurants remain skittish.
“It’s something you need to study,” said Alex Harvier, the manager at Cache Cache, a French restaurant where entrees on recent Monday night included osso buco and calf’s liver, with prices ranging from $30 to $58. He said the integrity of the menu and the dining experience had to be considered in adding any new dishes.
“You can’t just tack something on,” he said.
* * * *
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/us/17meatless.html
Sounds like something Contador should get in on!
“Larner said she knew Armstrong would be coming into the restaurant that night and gave him a heads up that Hamilton was eating dinner on the patio with a group. As a restaurant owner in a small town, she said she extends the same courtesy to divorcees when one is coming in and the other is already there.”
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/147445
So Lance chose to come anyway.
What a brash guy.
M,
Brash isn’t exactly the word I’d use.
I thought we’d be having more fun than this with the showdown in the Cache-Cache Saloon. Other people are:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog/blazin-saddles/article/2010/
http://www.yelp.com/biz/cache-cache-bistro-aspen
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g29141-d386742-Reviews-Cache_Cache-Aspen_Colorado.html
Note that they forgot the hyphen. I assume that’s one thing Gordon “Kitchen Nightmares” Ramsay will be dealing with when he surprises them with a week’s worth of straightening out. (That’s my dream; the management as it stands sounds awful.) Wouldn’t it be great?
Also note that the prices go down when you eat at the bar. But I still think you’re better off buying some high-end groceries and a Gordon Ramsay cookbook.
It is very odd. We are approaching the one-year anniversary of Contador’s positive drug test. Yet there appears to have been no official consideration of whether this positive test by itself should be grounds for disqualifying Contador from the 2010 Tour de France. Even if Contador bears no fault for the presence of clenbuterol in his system last July, even if the CAS ultimately determines that Contador will not be suspended for his doping positive, even if all eventually buy off on Contador’s contaminated beef theory: the UCI and WADA rules appear to require Contador to be stripped of his 2010 maillot jaune.
The WADA code is quite clear on this: anyone who competes with a doping product in his system has an unfair advantage over his competitors, REGARDLESS of how the doping product got there.
Of course, there are arguments against my reading of the WADA code — M has made some of these arguments here. I don’t claim to be infallible. But if this point is arguable, why hasn’t it been argued?
By the way, if you think the Contador case is taking a long time to resolve …
http://bit.ly/l9CIlj
Larry:
I think the most likely possibility if that the powers that be are simply waiting for the case to play out in full. If that CAS appeal does overturn the Spanish acquittal, I would think almost certainly they would void the win. If they do uphold AC, then there could be some discussion about whether or not to void the win.
Of course, the idea that there was too little clen in his system to have been of any benefit could come into play.
Cache Cache Owner admits she notified Armstrong (was it a call? or just upon arrival?), whoops.
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/147445
Eat’s into Armstrong’s statement, where he said they were both uncomfortable.. well, maybe if you knew ahead of time, you’d stay away if that were true?
And..In other news, 5 soccer players in Mexico tested positive for Clen.. probably was tainted meat in this one? If so, could help Mr. Berto.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/17/3708553/fifa-will-allow-mexico-to-replace.html
What kind of restaurant is this, where the only operating security cameras are in the kitchen (so, does that mean the ones in the bar are fakes?), the manager habitually spends the dinner service calling up people to tell them which ex-spouse or enemy is there, and the co-owner drinks tequila in the bar with customers? Gordon Ramsay, Aspen needs you!
Also, correction to the 5 clen folks.. it was 12.. but 7 were under the limit. http://t.co/ARuNGHV (needs translator engine, unless u speak the language)
It certainly isn’t unheard of to have dummy security cameras. We has some installed as part of a security/alarm system installed at a federal facility I worked at some years ago. Although why the kitchen ones were the working ones, I don’t know. Perhaps they suspect the cooks of doing things? Taking hits of the cooking sherry? Sneaking out food?
Rant,
What word would you use? If not “brash”.
M,
When Lance was the young upstart taking on the cycling world in the early 90s, he was brash. Going to a restaurant where he knew there might be a confrontation (or “non-event”), and causing someone to feel intimidated, that sounds more like a bully to me.
Rant,
Point taken. I sometimes use “brash” as a euphemism for any aggressive behavior, such as bullying. But I am not as good or precise a wordsmith as you are. I see now that you used “brash” when referring to Lance’s earlier years, and “badass” when referring to some of his later behavior. Those distinctions escaped me.
Well, that’s supposing the management was telling the truth about the availability of CCTV video. Somehow I don’t think I’d take their word about that. It’s always safer to serve a subpoena. But yes, why would you record — let alone save — video of kitchen activity at all in a well-run restaurant?
LJ:
Some management is very suspicious of their employees, and some employees give good reason to be suspicious. But of course I have no specific knowledge of this particular establishment.
How much good a subpoena would do, especially at a this point in time, remains in doubt. If tapes of the incident did exist, and the manager knew or thought there might be something on them about a valued customer, it would be pretty easy to make them disappear and who could prove anything different. Furthermore, I would think that most security cameras are picture only, and while a picture might in some cases be worth a thousand words, I think here that what was said and the manner in which it was said is far more important. I have not heard anything which suggests that they came to blows, only that possibly heated and intimidating words were exchanged.
Why shouldn’t Lance go to one of his usual restaurants?! THAT makes him a “bully”? That’s ridiculous. Of course, this entire discussion is ridiculous. As is the Lance Take-down.
There is a rider that tested POSTIVE within, you know, the last YEAR (not 10-12 years ago) & HE is riding in this year’s Tour de France. Oh, yeah, makes perfect sense.
Meanwhile, it seems like every other week, I read of a new “doping ring” somewhere in Europe. You really think PEDs are not being used by athletes in almost EVERY sport? ESPECIALLY the major sports in the USA?
I read Larry’s attached pieces (linked on previous thread) & baseball players get tested 2-4 times a YEAR?! And they even KNOW in advance the 5 day period of one of the tests?! Yessiree, HOW on earth does any bball player get away with doping? (snicker, guffaw). BTW, who does the testing? Is it in-house or controlled by MLB or does an independent lab/agency oversee? Let me guess… (I liked the pieces Larry even if I became even more incensed at the anti-doping disparity).
As much as I want Pistol Punk thrown OUT for at least a year (partly because I just can’t stand the lyin’ punk), it really is a joke to compare the anti-doping demands made of cycling & the other Olympic sports to the major pro sports of the world.
That cycling fans keep bashing & tearing apart their own for these “offenses” when the “big” sports basically give it a wink & a nod is PATHETIC.
M,
Don’t sell yourself short, you seem to be a pretty persuasive writer, with good command of the language, too.
I was perusing the Doping Docket (aka ESPN’s “Olympic sports” subscreen) & what do we see today? A 2-time Olympic water polo athlete has been suspended for 2 YEARS for, what’s this – CLENBUTEROL, hmmmm, where oh where have I seen that drug before…
And on the flip side, Brazil hands down a 2 MONTH doping suspension for 1 of their swimmers. 2 MONTHS? It wasn’t for Clen, but I wonder what excuse got only 2 MONTHS for ANY doping violation. How long did the guy get for taking that anti-bald stuff? Heck, Michael Phelps was suspended 3 MONTHS just for the PHOTO of a bong hit.
I thought the entire purpose of WADA was for EQUAL treatment of & disciplinary actions against those caught using PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS in all Olympic sports in all countries?!
F.A.R.C.E.
Rant,
Thanks. Now, after that interlude of civility…. let me return to calling Lance an A hole. LOL!
Liggett Junkie posted some funny Cache Cache take offs.
Here’s another one:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2011/toto-turns-232
Here’s who The Hide-‘n’-Seek Diner should hire!
http://www.pbpulse.com/dining/2011/06/22/the-buzz-new-chef-at-cafe-boulud-the-lance-armstrong-of-cooking/
Liggett junkie,
That begs the question: When will that chef be accused of doping by one or more of his former sous chefs? For that matter, what would doping mean in a kitchen context? Smoking a joint before or during the dinner rush? Making “magic” brownies and offering them as a dessert?
Will there eventually be a grand jury investigation? Enquiring minds want to know.
😉
There’s why we need those security cams in the kitchen!
Now I get it. Evidence for when the DEA comes calling.
Didn’t you ever read Anthony Bourdain? Those guys are on everything you can imagine, and some things you can’t — just like an early-20th-century Tour de France participant. To wit —
‘He is also a former user of cocaine, heroin, and LSD. In Kitchen Confidential he writes of his experience in a trendy SoHo restaurant in 1981: “We were high all the time, sneaking off to the walk-in refrigerator at every opportunity to ‘conceptualize.’ Hardly a decision was made without drugs. Cannabis, methaqualone, cocaine, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms soaked in honey and used to sweeten tea, secobarbital, tuinal, amphetamine, codeine and, increasingly, heroin, which we’d send a Spanish-speaking busboy over to Alphabet City to get.” ‘ [Quote lifted from Wikipedia entry]
Now you see why I said, get a cookbook.
Liggett junkie,
Sounds like a veritable Moveable Feast, Hunter S Thompson-style.
M,
Thanks for that link to the NYVelocity site. Those Toto cartoons they run on the site are quite amusing.
Heras gets his Vuelta win back:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/spanish-court-overturns-heras-suspension
Apparently, the Administrative Division of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y Leon, in Valladolid, values proper storage of athlete samples and anonymous analysis of said samples. Go figure.
Larry,
Thanks for the link. Saw a similar story about Ullrich too. Ullrich has not raced as a pro in over 5 years and late February of 2012 will mark the 5th anniversary of Ullrich announcing his official retirement. I think most can agree the man has been reliably retired and has not attempted to come back to professional competition. With the Swiss deciding they no longer have jurisdiction, I’m left to wonder what ax the UCI and WADA have to grind with the guy by appealing to CAS? Their goal seems to have been to have Ullrich removed from competition and that has been accomplished. Anything more just seems unnecessarily punitive, especially considering the likable Ullrich was raised in the East German system. It’s past time to leave the guy alone to live in peace.
austincyclist,
WADA’s stance on Clen is a big problem. Having no threshold combined with strict liability, while it is clearly in the public food supply, to varying degrees, does not indicate intelligent management on WADA’s part.
SMTML,
I don’t know the details, but at least on the surface, a 2 month doping ban sounds smart. The Brazilians might be on to something? Then again, 2 months might have been too tough, depending upon the circumstances? One thing is sure. Draconian suspensions do not seem to have curbed the undesirable behavior. Given their lack of success, it doesn’t seem likely doubling down and more on 2 year sanctions is part of the answer. YMMV.
My take on the state of anti-doping is that pro sports like the NFL & MLB have it wrong with announced testing along with wink & nod response to problems with those still stupid enough to get caught in spite of advance notice. The IoC puppet WADA, their supporters, and enablers have it just as wrong, or more. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, lab standards and standards for sample collection & handling are all over the board. Some are highly professional, while others are criminally incompetent. Regardless of the quality of their work, WADA world protects its own with equal vigor. The system has the last word and there is no legitimate appeal or public oversight. Athletes receive long sanctions for minor, technical, and first time offenses. The appeals process frequently outlasts the already long & standard 2 year sanction, making the process meaningless. As the strict regime has not worked out exactly as planned, lowering testing standards by eliminating the need to confirm an initial result, lengthening already long bans from 2 to 4 years, and adding additional penalties once and athlete has served his/her ban seems to be the new en vogue prescription to an already failed methodology. And that’s just considering what is done by the rules and discounting the closed door politics that results in unofficial bans and blacklisting that would leave a tear in McCarthy’s eye if he were not dead and buried.
The only rational approach is health based, relying on the best current science available. Set parameters based upon those that tend to promote good health. Let a guy like Zach Lund use a hair restoration product, which didn’t give him an unfair advantage in Luge. Let Alain Baxter take a North American version of an over the counter cold symptom aid so that he could negotiate a slalom course without cheating his fellow competitors. Let’s agree that if it is legal over the counter, then it is legal in competition. Let’s have a reasonable threshold for substances that are known to contaminate the public food supply in various parts of the world. Let sports be a medium for advancing medical science for the masses rather than demonizing athletes who use banned substances or methods, even when those substances or methods are ultimately more healthy than avoiding their use. Let’s make it about health rather than some perverse form of results management so that the IoC can continue to expand their bureaucratic kingdom at the expense of subject athlete pawns.
SMTML, sorry for taking so long to respond, been tied up. Baseball’s testing is done by the WADA lab in Montreal. While baseball is not a WADA signatory, the lab probably uses the same testing methodology for baseball that it uses for other sports.
BTW, one baseball player (Manny Ramirez) actually got caught TWICE in that testing that’s scheduled in advance. Sometimes when I write about doping in baseball, it feels like I’m 20 years younger!
Jeff:
You have some good ideas. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to have much smaller penalties coupled with a vastly reduced to no appeal process. Penalties could be progressive.
So say, for example, the first time you’re caught, you’re DQed from the race. Maybe in the case of a multi-stage race, you’re DQed from that stage, but still can remain in the event and compete for the points and mountain competitions, just not the GC. But then Saugry could bring in his “suspicious” results, assuming there’s some degree of validity in them.
Riders, at least riders competing for results, would have little incentive to dope since any results they obtained could easily be wiped out.But there also would be little incentive for a lengthy and vigorous appeal in attempt to preserve a career.
And let’s not let WADA or whoever go back long after the fact and retest samples for disciplinary reasons. After a race is over, you get so long to test any samples taken, and if you don’t get someone then, so be it.
William,
Agreed. Graduated sanctions starting with short term and going up. Similar sanctions for officials violating rules & policies. DS & team should share in individual rider penalties. After all, English speakers can’t get through a grand tour w/o a sermon about how road bike racing is a team sport. The team should share in victory, defeat, and penalties. That goes for the officiating and sanctioning body (teams) as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/health/policy/25drug.html?_r=2
FDA warning about EPO risks:
Interesting article, but all quoted seem to have a dog in the fight. FDA would like to reduce medicare costs. Doctors getting a kickback and Pharma corps would like to continue to see the $ flow. It would be interesting to hear an unbiased opinion. Does such a thing exist? I don’t personally see the upside in risking heart attack, stroke, or increased chance of developing cancer for the sake of a bike race (YMMV), but I also don’t see the author showing the FDA providing the data from studies to support their conclusion. I’m curious how the FDA determines if a person has a heart attack, stroke, or develops cancer, it was caused by use of various forms of EPO and would not have occurred in its absence? That said, for an otherwise healthy person, I’m in the camp that advocates the less synthetic or chemical intervention, the better. For people who are very sick or terminal, carte blanche for whatever helps get them through the day more comfortably.
Jeff:
It’s probably not a case of looking at any one individual who has a heart attack, stroke, or cancer and somehow linking it to using a given drug. More likely, they use statistics to analyze a group of people who use the drug and compare it to a (hopefully) similar group of people not on the drug. If the rate of heart attack etc. If the rate of heart attack or whatever is higher in the group on the drug (and there are ways of statistically determining what is a significant difference), then one can conclude there is a connection.
“More likely, they use statistics to analyze a group of people who use the drug and compare it to a (hopefully) similar group of people not on the drug.”
Yuh think? Ha ha ha.
On a more serious note:
“The Food and Drug Administration concluded that there were no risk-free doses of Epogen, Aranesp and Procrit, and that doctors should use the medicines only in patients suffering from severe anemia. ”
“But there is growing evidence that the drugs may have cost many patients their lives by causing deadly strokes and other heart problems, as well as speeding the growth of cancer tumors. ”
Poor poor Lance.
I’d like to see how the FDA compiled and verified their stats. Also curious to see how they filtered/isolated the variables to prevent a pre-designed conclusion.
Not concerned about the health of those who partook off label, especially LA, if he did.
Chris Horner has an opinion:
http://www.bicycling.com/tour-de-france/home/pushing-40-and-getting-faster?page=0,2
Come on people, we’re slackin’, SLACKIN’!
There’s dope news afoot. Or astride… Anyway, 1st, LaShawn Merrit gets 3 months chopped off his 2 yr suspension. Tell me – is Clenbuterol any less of a PED than the drug in Merrit’s “sexual enhancement” product?
Once again, it is a FARCE albeit not unexpected that Contador was not suspended by the political HACKS of the Spanish Cycling Federation. But almost as bad – that CAS agreed to the ridiculous hearing delay that sees him riding in this year’s Tour. And that ASO says it’s hands are tied? SINCE WHEN?! They kept Pistol Punk & Levi out of the 2008 TDF without breakin’ a sweat. And let’s not forget cycling’s own Jarndyce & Jarndyce case – OP of 2006. When the ASO kicked out riders the DAY BEFORE with no proven evidence at ALL! But now? Why, their hands are tied… Who needs Moliere when you have the ASO?
And in news today – that sly rascal, the multi-“winner” of the TDF Lantern Rouge (way to throw people off the scent!) – yes, we have a Wimmer, gets caught with “doping products”. He’s been retired since 2008, but come on, they were for “himSELF”! And just like that, poof, his “job” of shuttling Lotto VIPs at the Tour is gone. Hmmmmm, maybe PhilGil will NOT be winning 4 of the 1st week’s TDF stages as the Belgian press has been predicting…
Link to the lanterne rouge article:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/news/omega-pharma-distances-itself-from-former-rider-caught-in-doping-scandal_180548
Geez, if the last placed rider for a record 3 years in-a-row is really doping AFTER retirement, the sport of cycling just needs to start over!
Floyd Landis and Paul Kimmage have converted me. I now assume every cyclist is doping; except for whichever cyclist I happen to be talking about at the moment, or when I have personally met the cyclist or his/her family (unless, of course, said cyclist has publicly admitted to the use of PEDs). It’s not too confusing most of the time.
If you haven’t read Tim Moore’s French Revolutions (I love this book; I bought the 10-hour version of the 2000 Tour because of it — on eBay, where I got a deal, I mean, I’m not a fool, not a rich fool anyway), let this snappy quote amuse you in the month ahead:
“Every time a cyclist fails the ‘naughty wee-wee test,’ there is a frenzy of hand-wringing recrimination and a chorus of heartfelt pleas for the sport to return to its amateur ideals. ‘It was never like this in the old days,’ people say. And they’re right: it was worse.”