In today’s San Diego Union-Tribune, Mark Ziegler writes a wide-ranging article that talks of Tour winners past and present. First, he writes about the newly-crowned champion, Alberto Contador saying he was “declared the winner” of this year’s Tour. Kind of makes it sound like the judges all met in a smoke-filled room and said, “OK, who’s it gonna be this year?”
“Rasmussen?”
“Non. We don’t like his shaved head and his chicken legs. Besides, he’s weird and trains in strange places without wearing his team kit.”
“Vinokourov?”
“Double non! He dopes with his father’s blood!”
“Sacre bleu! It cannot be! His father’s blood is filled with vodka! Vino tests positive for vodka! Is that even banned?”
“Let’s see.” (Flipping through some pages) “Viagra, Vioxx, Vitalis, vodka, right here. See? It says it’s the equivalent of blood doping.”
“Phwew.”
“I say we need a young winner. One who hasn’t been messed up in all these doping allegations.”
“Hmm. Oui. A young winner. That would be good.”
“So who should it be, gents?”
“Contador! Contador will be the winner.”
And as it was said, so it was done. Alberto ruled the day.
But seriously, after all the scandals, positive tests and withdrawals, Contador was the cyclist who managed to survive and finish with the lowest total time. In other words, he did it the old-fashioned way. He earned it.
Ziegler also talks about Alberto at the end of his article, throwing out the allegations about Operacion Puerto, saying:
As for the 2007 Tour, it continues to be riddled by one doping scandal after another.
There still are questions about Contador’s connections to alleged Spanish doping guru Eufemiano Fuentes, with “AC” turning up on detailed doping diaries seized in a raid of Fuentes’ apartment. And yesterday came reports that fellow Spaniard Iban Mayo, who finished 16th overall, tested positive for endurance-boosting erythropoietin (EPO).
In between is the saga of two other Tour winners. Greg LeMond (a three-time Tour winner, despite Zeigler’s statement that LeMond is a two-time winner) and Floyd Landis, the 2006 Tour champion. The article discusses how long it’s taken for the arbitrators to reach a decision, saying:
Once the hearing is officially closed, the arbitration rules stipulate, the panel has 10 business days to issue a ruling – which, in this case, put it in mid-July.
It’s nearly August. So what happened?
A Landis spokesperson says findings of facts were filed by both sides on June 28. But the panel, at least late last week, still had not formally closed the hearing, meaning no 10-day clock is ticking.
Meaning: We could have a decision today. We could have one tomorrow. We could have one on Christmas Eve.
In the meantime, the drama and hostility from the 10-day hearing in Malibu have only partially subsided.
That’s about it, in a nutshell. No one knows when the decision will be. A good possibility for why it’s taking so long: The hearings lasted 9 days, which is longer than most anti-doping hearings by quite a bit, and it generated something like 1800 pages of transcripts. Add in any exhibits not included in the actual transcripts and it might be even more. In other words, there’s a lot of stuff to sift through.
Dense stuff in some cases. Like the science of it all. Even with the help of Dr. Botre, it’s going to take the three arbitrators time to figure out which side they believe and how they will ultimately rule. And once that’s done, they’ll need to write up their opinions and ruling. My guess: The arbitrators won’t close the hearings until they’re either ready to release their ruling, or until they think they can finish writing it up in 10 days. And as Zeigler says, it could be tomorrow or next Christmas before we find out what they’ve decided.
The meat of Zeigler’s story, however, is the drama that enveloped LeMond and Landis during the hearings. And that drama revolves around a certain phone call by Will Geoghegan, who was Landis’ manager at the time. LeMond filed a police report and has been hoping for legal action on the part of California authorities. In Zeigler’s article we find out that such action is unlikely to occur. As Zeigler tells us:
“After reviewing the law and after reviewing all the facts of the case and the investigation,” [Malibu’s deputy district attorney James] Garrison said, “it is our view that we could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.”
The day after Will made his call — a call which should never have happened — he tried to apologize to LeMond, but LeMond would have none of it. Since then, he’s said several times that he and his attorney intend to pursue every legal avenue they can against Geoghegan and Landis. So the bad blood between two Tour winners continues.
Chris Madel, LeMond’s Minneapolis-based attorney, says, “We are considering all legal options against Mr. Landis and his agents.”
That could include a civil case based on witness tampering. That also could include legal action based on recent Landis comments about LeMond.
In a July 16 interview with KPCC, a public radio station based in Pasadena, Landis was asked about LeMond’s testimony discussing a phone call between them last summer in which Landis, LeMond intimated, indirectly admitted to doping in the 2006 Tour.
“That’s why that I say he needs psychological help,” Landis said on air. “I mean, here I am telling the whole world I didn’t do it, and I call one guy who I’ve never spoken with before and tell him that I did it? The guy’s clearly insane. I hope he gets some help before he does something bad to himself.”
The next day, Madel sent a two-sentence letter to Maurice Suh, Landis’ lead attorney:
“Please advice your client Mr. Landis that his recent media appearances, hitting another low point with yesterday’s appearance on KPCC, are worsening his already difficult legal situation vis-a-vis Mr. LeMond. He would be well advised to keep his mouth shut.”
Madel said he has not received a response from Suh.
I don’t know about the witness tampering, perhaps LeMond might have some grounds to go after Geoghegan, or even Floyd Landis on that. But if the prosecutor isn’t going to press charges, it’s probably a pretty shaky case. Is it really worth the time or effort? I doubt he can make it stick, but anything’s possible — especially in a civil court with a lower burden of proof.
But as far as the comments Floyd’s been making about Greg, that’s an entirely different matter. LeMond is a public figure (as is Landis), and he keeps himself in the public eye by injecting himself into various causes and issues. Unfortunately for him, when it comes to either a libel or slander case, he’s probably S.O.L. He won’t be able to win. As long as Floyd Landis believes what he says about LeMond to be true, he can go ahead and say anything he bloody well pleases. Well, as long as it’s not too outrageous, and so far Landis has stayed in bounds.
And to flip the coin to the other side, LeMond has been saying some pretty nasty stuff about Landis lately, too. Now, I’m sure Greg believes that he’s right and he’s saying the truth. So on that score, if LeMond can play that game, so can Landis. Who’s going to win if either decides to go to court?
Simple: The lawyers. They’ll rake in the fees. The person suing will lose and pay his attorney. And the person being sued will win and pay his attorney. But neither side will get anything more than that. LeMond would be better off taking a different approach.
But first, let’s take a look at something Greg’s attorney said:
“I think Mr. Landis is out of control,” [LeMond attorney Chris] Madel said in a phone interview. “His recent interviews are being increasingly erratic about what he says about Mr. LeMond and others. . . . This guy holds himself up as this Christian, but at the same time he has no trouble hurling stones at others when he has no basis to do that.
Well, Floyd does come from a Mennonite background. And Mennonites are Christians. But I’ve never heard Floyd proselytizing or speaking much about religious beliefs and values, other than to mention that the Mennonite faith is his parents’ religion. I certainly wouldn’t say he goes out of his way to paint himself as being holy or righteous or whatever. Whatever Landis’ personal religious beliefs, he doesn’t make a big show of them for world. In a word, he practices humility, which I understand is one of the teachings of Christ (though I’m not an expert on that subject, I come from a different religious background).
There’s another of Christ’s teachings that perhaps Greg LeMond might wish to consider: Forgiveness.
Yes, Will Geoghegan did a terrible thing by calling you, Greg. But at some point, it would be better to accept Will’s apology, forgive him and move on. And perhaps, if you were more restrained in your comments about Landis, he might pull back a bit, too.
And that would be a good thing, all the way around. So, if you’re reading this little missive, Greg, here’s my advice: You know what your lawyer said to Mark Zeigler?
“We want to make him pay.”
The best thing to do would be to show that you can rise above that phone call and show some forgiveness to a fellow human being, one who’s fallible and makes the occasional (extraordinarily big) mistake. Pick up the phone. Call Will. Tell him you forgive him for what he did, and move on. And forget about making someone pay. Because the truth of the matter is that the most likely person to pay is you. And the person receiving payment will be your lawyer. Sure, Landis or Geoghegan will pay his attorney, too, but what does that prove or accomplish? In the end, nothing.
Deep down, Greg, somewhere in there you still have the heart of a champion. A true champion could forgive those who’ve hurt him. Show us that heart, Greg. Show us the heart of a champion.
Good Thought, Forgiveness. The lawyers have taken control of asylum and we are all the losers.
I don’t understand what drives Greg to repeatedly inject himself into these controversial situations, but he must feel that he is getting something out of it.
As for the forgiveness angle, an astute media advisor would agree with you. Greg has everything to win for choosing to take the high ground. The trouble is that he doesn’t appear to have a media advisor, and listens to his lawyer instead, who seems to be most oriented to devising new ways to make money for himself. “We will make him pay” is not the type of statement one should ever make public.
I can understand FL’s comments in the KPCC interview. If you have proclaimed your innocence and are innocent why would you lie to someone like Greg and say you were lying about your innocence? On the other hand, if you have concocted an intricate level of lies and deception, why would you jeopardize that by revealing the deceit to a known antagonist. Doesn’t make sense. Was Greg trying a jail room tactic of trying to gain confidence to elicit a confession? Over the last couple weeks i had a chance to watch the History of The Tour DVD and it reminded me of how great a cyclist Lemond was. He could have had 5 wins. He was my hero and i got into cycling because of him. I agree with you Rant, Forgiveness.
I chalk the spirited conversations between FL and GL to shose between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell. I don’t care what they think of each other. As a fan I try to tune these discussions out.
As always this was well written and you are a voice of reason. Too bad GL will neither read this nor take your sage advice even if he did read it. He really does need to get a good media relations person and listen to their advice. His lawyer is not helping his cause at all.
Lemond (pr his attorney)threats of bringing legal action are as Suh probably knows there is not a chance in hell. The main reason is tha Suh would gt to cross examine him and a judge wpi;d not let him decide not to answer or claim “I am only here to talk about Floyd” Its answer the questions or dismiss the case and pay Floyds attorney, No Floyd, Armstrong, Suh and everyone else who would like to get Lemond testifying under oath in a real court have no chance of having that pleasure. And for the Lawyer who volunteered to show up at an arbitration and (in practicing lay 27 years something I have never heard of ) instructs his client not to answer questions to make threats like that is almost as pitiful as Landis
chapeau, Rant, chapeau!
Doesn’t Trek still own Lemond bicycles? Maybe their media advisor can advise Greg. Maybe he’ll listen.
Doping experts gives German investigators documents he claims show Tour winner Contador doped
Speechless…
Frank,
I heard about Franke’s allegations yesterday or the day before, hard to know what’s what. Franke is a pretty well-known anti-doping expert. But what do you make of this?
Let’s see: He’s accusing Contador of committing a crime, and he seems to indicate he may have stolen the evidence that proves it. Hmm. That’s an interesting turn of events isn’t it? (Note: In some legal systems, such evidence would be inadmissible.)
*
I’ll reserve judgment on the worth of his information until we can see for ourselves what it contains. What bothers me about all this is the feeling that there’s a form of double-jeopardy being played out. Rightly or wrongly, the Spanish authorities dropped any proceedings against Contador. It should end at that.
*
But one thing I will say, Alberto Contador seems to be finding himself inside a bit of a media maelstrom, being stirred up by Werner Franke and a few others. Is it deserved, or is he getting a bum rap? I guess we’ll all see, however this thing plays out.
– Rant
For Contador and Franke, I do think that is similar to leaks. I don’t know well Franke but we can assume he is not stupid enough to say with no reason “I have done something illegal”. So I presume Spanish police were certainly not happy to have to clear some names, so they probably give the documents to Franke with an agreement to not reveal how he had got them.
Jean,
You could be right. They may have quietly slipped him the documents. If that’s the case, his best bet would probably have been to be a little more opaque about how he came by them. Over time, we’ll see whether the accusations against Contador are as big a story as it might appear, or whether it’s just a tempest in a teapot.
– Rant
The BKA (Bundeskriminalamt, the German Federal police) has now taken possession of the documents that Franke mentioned. If there would be no basis for the accusation(s), why go through the trouble ? I doubt Franke has any vendetta with Contador, or wants to ride the wave.
Pommi,
I found a few articles that confirm what you’ve added. Thanks for keeping me up to date. Franke has been a well-respected foe of doping for eons, so I don’t really think he has it in for Alberto Contador. But I think he’s only got part of the picture, when it comes to Contador’s involvement (or not) in Operacion Puerto. It’s one thing to have documents that might cryptically suggest someone did something wrong (apparently these are the documents with references to an “AC,” unless he has something more explicit with Contador’s full name listed), it’s another to have proof beyond doubt.
*
Perhaps the reports of how Franke has presented this information aren’t giving us the full picture. Is he really saying he has proof, or is he saying he has documents that suggest Contador was involved? Perhaps what we need is a bit more of the context around what he’s saying and how he’s saying it.
*
At some point, though, the anti-doping authorities need to stop focusing so much energy on scandals gone by and focus more energy on catching people in the present and preventing doping in the future. In that sense, all the positive tests recently show that they’re pushing hard to get people in the here and now.
*
I’m thinking that after more than a year, and not nearly so much to show for what Operacion Puerto was hyped to be, that it’s time to just let it go. If the allegations about Contador’s involvement are true, it’s going to be another big, black eye for cycling. And that’s something the sport needs like a hole in the head.
– Rant
Nice.. Vino gets some support.. from Kazakh cycling federation
http://sport.iafrica.com/news/313332.htm