It’s not often that I find myself agreeing with what spews forth from Greg LeMond’s mouth. But having read this article in Boulder, Colorado’s Daily Camera newspaper, I find myself agreeing with parts of a couple of points LeMond made.
First, I have to agree that the UCI and the ASO, owners of the Tour de France and a number of other races, are at war with each other, and that part of the reason has to do with broadcast rights — part, but not all. One merely has to listen to the rhetoric coming from both sides to see that point. What’s to be done? LeMond suggests that the ASO divorce itself from the UCI and go its own way. That part I don’t agree with. The UCI has been around as the governing body for cycling for about as long as the Tour de France. Meaning, it’s been here for 100 years or so.
Some of its leaders have been good, and others not so good, and a few downright incompetent. LeMond allows that Pat McQuaid, the current head of the UCI, has done a better job than some of his recent predecessors. But he still thinks that the ASO should go its own way. From my perspective, the two organizations need each other, and they need to figure out how to get along.
The whole ProTour system, which has played a big part in the animosity between the two, was bungled from the start. The UCI made a huge mistake in not bringing the owners of the “Big Three” tours into the planning process and giving them a reason to buy in. By imposing something — even if it had been with the best of intents (I’m skeptical about that point) — you’re definitely going to get pushback from those who might lose out. Especially when they’re powerful and control a large number of major races.
The UCI should scrap the ProTour in its present form, and work with the promoters of the major races to create a new series, allowing the promoters to have a major stake in the process. But before that happens, Pat McQuaid, Patrice Clerc and Christian Prudhomme need to meet in a neutral location and have what diplomats call a “frank and honest discussion” about how to move forward — together.
The UCI, for all its flaws, is not the sole reason for the problems in cycling today. It’s much more complicated than that. Simply divorcing from the UCI will not solve the ASO’s public relations problems that stem from the most recent doping scandals at the Tour. It may appear to, but come next year, the same stuff could happen all over again. And Pat McQuaid and his band of merry men will no longer be the ASO’s whipping boys. Whose fault will it be then?
So here’s a suggestion (one they’ll never go for, but what the heck): Pat, Patrice and Christian, you’re all invited to Chateau Rant for a pow-wow. Bring your bikes. We’re going on a ride along Lake Michigan. Just the four of us. And we’re not going to finish until you settle your differences once and for all. If that means we keep riding for a few hundred miles, or a few days, so be it. The offer stands.
LeMond also talks about criminalizing doping offenses. As LeMond told the Daily Camera:
[Doping] needs to be criminalized because they are trafficking in illegal drugs. They are prescription drugs, but they are being illegally distributed throughout the peloton.
See, here’s the thing: Drug trafficking is already illegal. Whether it’s cocaine or EPO, if the drug is being illegally distributed, someone’s already committing a crime. We don’t need a new law to deal with that. We need to see the existing laws enforced.
Some of what LeMond says makes sense. Clearly, the system we have isn’t working. We can all see that the arbitration process can be as long and drawn out as a court case. Those who’ve been following the Landis case, or Jellotrip’s case, or any of a host of others have seen that the normal rules of justice that we expect don’t always apply in the WADA-based system. Given the severity of punishment meted out by the anti-doping system, and that the punishment may actually occur before a conviction, perhaps it’s time to put the whole of anti-doping into the real judicial system instead of some cobbled-together rough approximation.
At least then we’d have a system that respects the athletes’ right to due process. And a system that starts from the presumption of innocence (at least in this country and others where the judicial system is based on English Common Law).
According to the Daily Camera’s article:
But, [LeMond] says, by increasing the penalty for cheating, those trying to root out cheaters would have much more leverage.
Perhaps. But the athletes accused would also be entitled to a jury trial, the presumption of innocence, and a number of other rights not afforded to athletes under the present system. In other words, it might be a more just system. Cases could still drag out forever and a day, but at least no one would automatically be deprived of their livelihood based on a mere accusation of cheating. The punishment would come after the conviction, not before. I suspect that LeMond wasn’t thinking in these terms when he mentioned criminalizing doping.
He was right about the need for a divorce between pro cycling and one of the major athletic “organizations.” But the divorce shouldn’t be between the ASO and the UCI. It should be between pro cycling and WADA. Unless, that is, WADA is willing to reform their system so that it respects athletes rights and ensures true justice. Not all athletes accused of doping are guilty, no matter what Dick Pound might have you believe. The system should be flexible enough to allow for the possibility that some who are accused are actually innocent.
The unintended consequence of LeMond’s suggestion is that WADA would be out of the picture, and once that happens perhaps real justice could occur. That may be the single biggest step that we need to take in order to correct the existing flawed approach to anti-doping “justice.”
Criminalizing doping itself isn’t the answer. But using the current legal system to deal with those who traffic in doping products and enforcing existing laws might well be part of a new solution for how to deal with doping cases. At least then the accused would have a real shot at justice.
My only question is – rather it is more of a pointer – the problem with this suggestion is WHICH criminal system will we agree to? I am assuming that you, Rant are referring to ours – the American system…I have nothing against this – but if it is – how will the Europeans react? OR is there an established international criminal system already in place that we could apply to? that the Europeans will have less of a problem with also?
Morgan:
There is no international criminal justice system, so any criminal justice action would of necessity occur in the country (or here in the US, the state) where the offense occurred. This means that there could be a lot of variations in what gets prosecuted, as perhaps what is illegal in one country is not in another. Also, as you hint at, the basic natural of the criminal justice systems of different countries is different. In some countries, for example, as I understand you are indeed considered guilty until proven innocent.
You also could have a problem when an offense might involve 2 countries. Suppose a rider goes to visit some doctor in Spain in June to obtain PES which he then uses in the Tdf in July. Does Spain or France get a crack at him? Or both?
But all this is way beyond the scope of the UCI, WADA, ASO or any other sports organization. If indeed a cyclist violates the laws of any country he is riding, training, or simply living in, then it is up to the authorities in the country to prosecute him. If they are choosing not to prosecute riders, it is not up to the UCI to make them.
Morgan,
As you point out, which system would it be? Since there is no international law or law enforcement of these kinds of offenses, it would be the laws of the country or countries where the offenses take place. And they vary from one to the next.
*
Of course, the idea behind an organization like WADA was to make the rules and enforcement uniform, which they’ve pretty well failed to do. Different labs in different countries can take the same data and one would pronounce an athlete guilty of a doping violation and the other not.
*
And it is true that drug trafficking is already illegal in many — if not most — places. But which drugs might be different from one place to the next. So there is no perfect solution. Going back to basics, like enforcing the laws that do exist, would be a good start. That still leaves the matter of drug testing in sports, who does it, what drugs are tested for, what constitutes a valid test and what the punishment should be.
*
For that, we need to start over and rethink all of what currently exists. I’m sure there’s a way to craft a system that would be tough on proven dopers while respecting the rights of those accused. But what exists today isn’t it.
– Rant
What a mess, eh? Thanks William for explaining the reality of the situation. So we must assume that anyone, including Lemond, who is pushing for Criminalizing is basically blowing wind, hot air. Not intending that to be an insult – just to state that they are putting forth an unworkable “suggestion”.
–
I really can’t see the French, Germans or Spaniards accepting American law as their own – How does the Interpol police organization function? Or are they more of an information gathering organization…and would they be willing to “police” the cycling world?
–
Perhaps – then to change anything in todays situation is to have every country involved in racing sit down together and agree on a new set of rules that we could all agree on…yes – it would be pretty rough going – but I don’t see any other way…
–
Well – one thing is for sure – change is going to have to come – we cannot allow the riders to be handled this way – guilty or not. If we do – we cannot expect – the riders to behave other then how it is going on now. William – that statement is not to be interpreted as looking at riders as incapable of breaking the rules.
–
The other thought that occurs to me is that with every country only following their own rules – you cannot expect anything less then what we have now – If the UCI and WADA and all the Races are governed by different rules – then we have exactly what is occurring now – people and groups finding loopholes to beat the system.
–
What a mess…….
Sorry Rant – I did not get your statement when I sent mine off –
–
So – WADA, theoretically was to organize the set up so that cycling could be governed by a fair across the boarder set of standards for cycling…What I don’t understand though is how the UCI and ASO, along with the other race organizers from different countries, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland – etc. MUST HAVE KNOWN as this was unfolding that the work of WADA was faulty…
–
And since the UCI wants to set itself up as the supreme lawgiver for racing – I can well believe that the assorted organizations had no “input” what so ever in the so called WADA rules of behavior…
–
I have to tell you – I can’t find it in me to see where some UCI leaders were good…for that matter – there seems to have been an absolute run of ineffective and downright incompetent leadership all over the place! How can we expect such incompetent people to all of a sudden develop insight and be able to change their course from what they have shown themselves to be?
–
One assumption that can be made is that everyone of these so called leaders – are basically only interested in amplifying their own standing. It may also be conjectured , this perhaps is the very reason that no one spoke up when they saw the course of how things were turning out. EVERYONE of them probably figured he saw loopholes that he would gain from.
–
I would seriously doubt that I can convince myself to “trust” such people. Whether they would agree or not to get together for a summit at Chateau Rant – how could we honestly expect the “leopards to change their spots”?
–
As far as I am concerned – we have no right to infringe on ASO the owners of the TdeF and other high profile races. We can have the expectation that they follow all rules in bicycle racing – but we have no right to tap into their profits or earnings. Period. This also holds true for any of the other national and multi-national groups that put on races. Besides – I would think that “business-law” would give them quite a bit of legal protection toward this. Yeah – I do believe in free enterprise.
–
So the UCI wanting a chunk from the profits of the “broadcast” rights for the Tours – is nothing less then common muscling in on a business. Someone will have to explain this to me before I can think otherwise.
–
We should throw WADA out the door on their ass – As subcontractors – hired to do a job – they have failed royally. Then there is a question of conflict of interest – WADA is a part of the IOC organization – it is impossible to serve 2 masters. And let us not forget that the IOC is also a business group, throwing a huge athletic event whenever they can…
–
So having said this – I would really like to hear from you others out there – we need your two cents people – if you got something to add – don’t be shy, please.
I agree with the thought that we cannot properly govern the sport because of the multiple legal systems at work. Even with the UCI we have then the independant federations that can overturn or challenge decisions. In most instances I would venture to say that the federations goal is not really justice but instead nationalistic pride. Ivan Basso is a great example of this. CONI shelved his case because god forbid we demoralize and subject an ITALIAN Giro winner to this type of treatment.
As for Lemond he always starts off on the right foot and then – well its Greg you know. He has to let everyone know how he was slighted by the dopers and how he could have won more Tours, blah, blah, blah. I have noticed that now he doesn not attack Armstrong directly but instead in very vague terms.
Greg is a coward, a bully, and in the end has diminished his position as a champion more than any dopers ever could have done.
Rant, you said:
*
The UCI should scrap the ProTour in its present form, and work with the promoters of the major races to create a new series, allowing the promoters to have a major stake in the process.
*
You are right on when you note that the real mistake was the arrogance of UCI to not include ASO in the ProTour series planning. ASO runs a few races: big deal. They can’t manage the sport and even if they tried via their own races, it would be a disaster. They NEED UCI.
*
If I may use a football analogy: The UCI is like the regulat NFL schedule. It is charge of the teams and the testing and rules, and the pre-season and the regular season games. The TV ratings are fair but not great, and some of the games really stink.
*
But then, for the playoffs, the ASO takes over and runs the show. They need the UCI to get the teams to the playoffs but then, “hey thanks alot, we’ll take over from here”. The games are better, the TV ratings are better and the the Chicago Bears lose in the first round.
*
The above system would not work for the NFL, and it can’t work for cycling. ASO has to work with UCI to create a league that presents clean and exciting racers for the ASO events. They have to work with the UCI to encourage strong teams (whether or not they endorse betting: when the hell did they become betting prudes anyway??).
UCI and ASO both need each other so kiss, make up, and get back into bed.
JBSMP – It is a big deal that ASO owns and runs the Tour and some of the best “classics” – It is because ASO had built up the Tour that cycling is now a world sport again. Having said this – I am not taking ASO’s side – merely stating what is fact.
–
Nationalistic bias is probably as Jason says, one of the biggest hurdles to try to tame, right after or along with fair justice in the handling of the Riders. So it would mean that along with “The Four” having a summit at Chateau Rant – Each of these would have to represented too, no?
–
The UCI sold/gave the pro-license to Unibet. The ASO group is not against betting – there is a French betting cartel that rides the Tour – I would think that along with playing a power game showing the UCI that they have leverage too – ASO also very conveniently managed to block a second betting cartel from giving the “home team” competition.
–
And it would also not be a bad idea to recall that we may just have a mixed up idea of who and what the UCI is or isn’t – as I know the old story – the UCI was put together by the different promoters and federations to give themselves an organized and self- governed appearance – with the UCI supposedly being “impartial”….Which is really not very different then the “self-governing” watchdogs in the NFL, NHL,NBA, etc…
So tell me what UCI does anyway? As far as I’ve been able to see they:
1) don’t represent the riders – but riders are forced to join an organization that supports them if they are interested in racing.
2) they make arbitrary and often times irrational rules regarding bike design which have stifled innovation.
3) bungled the anti-doping effort with a misapplication/misunderstanding of science.
So if ASO and the big tours take the big events out of UCI, then maybe other organizations will pop up to sanction events and then what purpose will UCI serve? If people can compete without being part of the UCI system then UCI wouldn’t have any source of power.
Basically the UCI, like other world sports governing bodies. like FIFA, IAAF, etc., in theory at least serves to establish rules and oversee the sport on an international basis. Also, in theory, the national federations are supposed to operate within the framework that the UCI lays down, roughly like the states here in the US operate within the framework of the constitution and federal laws. If the national federation in one country decided they would allow EPO, for example, they could not do this without sanctions from UCI. The UCI would probably ban the federation and all riders licensed under its auspices. UCI might be willing to allow some variations of some rules, sort of like FIFA did with respect to some of the rule innovations the old NASL did with soccer.
Now, as I understand it, the WADA is really the big wheel in the doping field, the one who has established either de facto if not de jure all the various rules and procedures we here (and elsewhere) have called into question. It is also my understanding that any sport who wished to be considered as an Olympic sport has to accept WADA jurisdiction. The major US pro sports leagues don’t care about Olympics, run their own drug program and have nothing to do with WADA, except when NBA players take part in international competitions. I seem to recall hearing this is one reason why baseball has been de-olympified, to coin a term.
For whatever reason, Dick Pound, and hence WADA, has it in for cycling. The UCI has it in for ASO for not playing ball re the Pro Tour. As long as any rider connected with the Tour, current rider when its under way, past winner or strong rider, favorite for the upcoming Tour is/was connected with doping through testing, missing tests, accusations from whoever, WADA and/or UCI can use this against the Tour.
Now I understand why ASO is rather possessive of the Tour. They, and their predecessors have spent a lot of effort nurturing the the Tour from its beginnings, through its early troubles, 2 world wars, etc. Of course, I am sure that money is also involved here.
So it would seem that we keep coming back to…WADA…an arm of a certain “sports” organization that must have been doping to get busted for the Salt-Lake City fiasco…the same Sport “organization” that was building the Olympics to its present mega-cash cow that it is today…the IOC..Hmmm—
WHAT! NOT A BLEEP FROM ANYBODY? No wonder we have the situation we find ourselves in…folks – this site amongst other things is cool for me because there are interesting and intelligent people who express themselves…when I say express – I mean they share their thoughts – if you all just look in and keep your thinkings to yourself – how do we expect to get past a moronic situation?
–
If you are worried that you will be criticized or made fun of for the thoughts you hold in your head – you ain’t “reading” this place correctly – people here do want to know what you think! We all have a right to think! There are PEOPLE from all around the world here…SPEAK YOUR MINDS, dang it! I ain’t a mind reader…and I’m only speaking for myself…can’t imagine what the other active participants think – unless they share their thoughts and opinions – so get them fingers moving!
–
(°L°)
And on another subject,
–
Does anyone think it odd that the arbiters’ science advisor works for one of the sides represented in the arbitration? Am I correct on this?
And–what about Alberto? Why isn’t he racing? Why is there so little mention of him in the news? Is WADA still investing him?
I believe you are spot on Will, now – how many other similar instances can we name where a very similar relationship seems to exist in this present drama? How can we get it out to the “public” – us, the fans, or critics? — Or do we all hold to the philosophy that the end justify s the means..? (°L°)
Will,
You’re close. Dr. Botre works for the anti-doping lab in Rome. Not exactly one of the two sides (USADA vs. Landis), but close enough given the WADA “don’t speak ill of a fellow doping lab’s work” credo. The big question is whether he will follow that credo or not.
Joyce,
Alberto is still under investigation by WADA. His not racing the past few weeks may have nothing to do with that, however. Word I’ve heard is that he’ll be racing the Tour of Missouri in another couple of weeks.
– Rant
Morgan, I’ve been on a couple of other sites. trying to figure out GL. That has started mud throwing on my “home blog” Sara Best’s The First 100 miles. A couple of “lurkers” or visitors as Sara likes to call them, have been bashing Floyd, using a term that I will not repeat; and even Lance, who I’m not so crazy about, but if there was something to find, I’m sure it would have been by now. GL supporters are coming out to say “rah, rah, Greg”; on blogs that they are outnumbered on!
Anyway, I wanted you to know that I’ve been in the trenches, and have even cut GL some slack on the first interview, but this second one is beyond the pale…..
And Alberto IS riding the Tour of MO. Trust me, I’m in Missouri!!
Hi Theresa – You know what – its really easy to bad mouth anybody – best to just ignore them. Some people only know they’re alive when they’re cutting down someone else…Glad to hear you’ve been in the “trenches” – people have go to realize that the present issue in cycling is a result – one should always remember that “riding” is all about biking – what’s going on now is about human mess…and it will take more then blogging “snide remarks” or merely “venting your frustration” – to fix the mess.
–
Personally, I like venting and snide remarks – but THIS moment in time – we all have a real chance to make “cycling” in the competitive world as close to beautiful as the riding itself can be…that means we have to encourage all the folks to use their brains – cycling is not for only a few – it is for all of us. That means we should bother a bit and try to deepen our understanding of the situation – instead of just endlessly repeating media spin…don’t you agree?
–
We have this great opportunity now – NEVER BEFORE had we the chance to mine as many peoples thoughts as we do now – Really – that was all I was trying to get across.
Don’t just look – THINK, come up with suggestions…they don’t have to be perfect – they just have to be sincerely from you…but for goodness sakes – speak up and be heard. (°L°)
What cycling has, in my opinion, is more of a PR problem than a drug problem. Now, I am not going to deny that there is a drug problem in cycling, but there is also a drug problem in MLB and the NFL and possible many other sports. This summer alone there have been several names of players released for drug-related suspensions, and others who have either confessed or have accusations lodged against them. In my local paper, at least, these only rated a small note. Then you also have to whole situation with a number of players, especially in the NFL, running afoul the law: Vick, “Pacman” Jones, etc. So the idea that cycling, alone of professional sports, is somehow flawed is rather a flawed idea itself.
Part of the problem is the nature of the sport and the TdF. The Tour is the largest single event in the sport, the one event followed to any extent here in the states outside the cycling community. Whatever happens during the Tour thus gets magnified. Imagine the impact of MLB suspending 4 players from the teams involved in the World Series while that event was running, or the NFL suspending players from play-off teams during the play-offs.
What we have is various people with various axes to grind using the situation for their own personal benefit, at least as they see it. Riders who are caught or who confess to drug use in the past are using the excuse “everybody does it” to justify their own transgressions, self-confessed “clean” riders like GL are making the same statement to attempt to increase their own standing. I suspect that many sports writers here in the US wish that cycling would go back to being just a European sport that they did not have to cover, as they know little about it. So a few commentary articles about how “low in the gutter it has sunk” many help kill it off.
The UCI in many ways seems to be more reactive than proactive, and stunts like the “pledge” signed by the Tour riders come across more like some useless action than anything of value.
It’s hard to say just what can be done. Perhaps the UCI should hire a PR firm (or get a better one if they have one now). Certainly all the internal bickering between UCI, ASO, WADA doesn’t help. Hopefully the UCI and ASO can patch things up. WADA is a different story: I kind to think the UCI should divorce themselves from WADA, but then that might be seen in a negative light. Maybe Pound’s replacement might improve things at WADA.
Does an athlete have any appeal outside of WADA?
–
Can an athlete ask for an update or progress report on deliberations?
I admit to having very similar if not the exact thoughts as William. It stymies me. I find myself facing this wall – I know I have to get through it over it under it or around it – my intellect seems knotted into immobility – I see the situation, but I can’t get beyond this sense that I don’t know a better way…and…this can’t be right, I must find a solution – I feel frozen…
William,
You’re right. Cycling has a huge PR problem right now, and all the infighting doesn’t help matters any. But compared to other sports, the doping problem isn’t any worse. That, I think, is pretty clear to anyone who wants to take a look beyond the sports pages. What to do about it is tricky. Change needs to come. What the changes are, that part needs to be sorted out properly.
Will,
There may be some recourse in the legal system. Some athletes have appealed CAS decisions in Swiss courts. (WADA was created and chartered under Swiss law, I believe.) Don’t know how much recourse their is in other legal systems, however. If an athlete can ask for an update, my guess is that in the Landis case, both sides would still be bound by the gag order to keep that information private.
– Rant