When an athlete is caught doping, such as cyclists Christian Moreni or Patrik Sinkewitz earlier this year, the athlete is held accountable for his actions. But what of the people who run the anti-doping labs, the anti-doping agencies and the various sports governing bodies?
Suppose one of those organizations releases information that damages an athlete’s image or reputation. Or even, suppose that a governing agency such as the UCI prevents an athlete from competing, based on shaky evidence, or merely because that athlete has been “connected” to an ongoing doping scandal. And, for the sake of argument, suppose that the national governing body reviews the “evidence” and finds that there is not enough to warrant any action being taken, but the UCI insists on preventing the person in question from competing anyway, insisting that they have “new evidence” even though the national governing body has gone through the material a second time and finds that there is nothing new.
That would be the situation Alejandro Valverde finds himself in these days. The UCI wants to ban Valverde from competing at the World Cycling Championships, because they claim Valverde’s connected to the Operacion Puerto scandal. The Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) has twice reviewed the Operacion Puerto documents — most recently at the UCI’s insistence that there is new information within the 6000-page dossier — and found that there is not enough (or perhaps no) evidence to take any action against Valverde.
So what’s Valverde going to do? Well, according to cyclingnews.com, he’s threatening legal action against the UCI.
Francisco Sánchez Sabater, the Caisse d’Epargne rider’s representative, said that Valverde will send a letter to the UCI demanding that they retract the “false accusations” which have befallen the rider after cycling’s governing body placed him under formal investigation at the end of August.
…
Sabater promised that Valverde will inform the UCI of legal action claiming that the organisation is wrongly preventing him from his right to work as a professional cyclist by denying him participation at the World Championships. Valverde has already threatened to sue the UCI after it sent him an e-mail warning him of a whereabouts violation.
[Rant’s Note: That whereabouts “violation” turned out to be a record-keeping problem at the UCI, as Valverde and his team had properly informed the UCI of their change in plans.]
Valverde is threatening to hold the UCI accountable for their actions against him. Unless the UCI can prove that Valverde is connected to Operacion Puerto, they need to back off the posturing. Banning riders based on “suspicion” without having any solid proof is wrong. If the UCI has proof, then they should state clearly what that proof is. If not, then they should drop the matter.
All too often, officials like the UCI’s Pat McQuaid or WADA’s Dick Pound have spoken out inappropriately. Rarely are they held accountable for their actions. The same is true for the various organizations and agencies within the anti-doping movement. When was the last time that a lab that leaked confidential information to the press was sanctioned? Better yet, perhaps the question should be: Have any of the organizations within the anti-doping movement (including the UCI) who have leaked information to the press ever been held accountable?
It’s time they should be. When those who make the rules feel that they don’t need to follow their own rules, the system loses credibility. When labs are found to be lax in their processes, procedures or even the training of their personnel and nothing is done about it, the system loses credibility. When athletes are held to a standard of fair play, and the anti-doping system isn’t, the system loses even more credibility.
What’s needed is a set of checks and balances, ensuring not only that athletes play fair, but also that the anti-doping apparatus plays fair, too. Only when such checks and balances exist will the current downward trajectory caused by all the doping scandals to hit cycling (and every other sport) begin to level out.
Does Alejandro Valverde have something to hide? I don’t know. From the sounds of things, whatever faint connection Valverde may have to the Operacion Puerto scandal is not enough to convince the Spanish cycling authorities that he’s done anything that warrants further investigation. That being the case, Valverde has every reason to expect that he will be allowed to race. And he has every right to hold the UCI responsible for their actions attempting to block him from doing so, and to challenge them in court, if necessary.
The more that cyclists demand accountability from the UCI and other agencies (like WADA, the various ADAs and national governing federations), the more likely that the kinds of change that the anti-doping system needs could actually happen. And that would be better not only for those making their living as professional cyclists, but for the fans and casual observers, too.
The anti-doping system needs to be credible. But it will never be credible until the ADAs and other authorities can be held accountable for their actions. Alejandro Valverde (like Floyd Landis, who demanded a public hearing for his arbitration case) has started the ball rolling. It’s up to the rest of us to keep it moving in the right direction.
At least Valverde has more money than Floyd, for a legal fight.
I’m in St Louis on Sunday, VIP treatment, that I deserve, after course marshalling at 3 stages of the Tour of MO….where are you going to be, Rant??
Theresa,
You’ll have earned that VIP treatment by then. Not sure where I’ll be. I’d like to be there, but it’s still up in the air.
Again, this is very much like McCarthyism. No doubt, there were some communists in the US government in the 1950s, just as no doubt there are cyclists who dope. But there were many people in the 1950s whose careers and reputations were damaged based on tenuous connections, like being briefly involved with the US communist party in the 1930s when in college, or having known someone who turned out to be a communist. Similarly today, we have riders being accused based on “evidence” like perhaps similar initials appear in OP documents (without any clear reference to actually doping), or the fact the other riders on a team they were on doped, or often simply they had a good day.
If UCI has good evidence that Valverde actually did something wrong, then they should provide the evidence and allow him to defend himself. If all they have are some suspicions, then they should back off, and at least let him ride.
I think that there is some room for “non-analytic” sanctions, if, and this is a big if, the evidence meets a high standard, perhaps even “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But this needs to be determined in some sort of hearing, where the athlete has a chance to defend himself. What the UCI is attempting to do with respect to Valverde is to punish him without allowing him the opportunity of defending himself.
The Rasmussen flap was another case where UCI was out of line, IMO. He did in fact miss some tests, and one missed test was within the 45 day limit before a big tour, and perhaps they should have noticed this and not allow him to start. But instead they seemed to ignore this, and when the missed tests became public knowledge, the UCI (or at least McQ) made statements they’d prefer Ras not win. Come again? What business does UCI have caring who wins. They could have perhaps at this time admitted that they missed the 45 day violation, and now where going to enforce it, pulling Ras at that time, or they could have said “we screwed up, but we are going to let it pass as it is too late” and let Ras continue without any action based on the missed test. The team may have had good reason to pull Ras when the allegation was made that he was in Italy not Mexico and we don’t know what happened in the meeting the team had with him, but based on what I have heard, simply the fact that someone alleged he was in Italy is pretty sketchy. I recall an incident a couple of years ago when I went to training for a new job. Someone walked in that a first glance appeared to be someone I knew but turned out to be someone different. If this had been a case where I was riding one way, and saw someone go by at speed on the other side of the rode, I might think I had seen someone I knew. Of course, at this time there may be good evidence that Ras was in Italy; certainly he has not published passport or other records to back up his claim to have been in Mexico. But I question that he should have been pulled simply because someone said they saw him in Italy.
Come Friday, I will be watching the finish here in Columbia. Looks like they will have some nice weather.
To paraphrase Robert Preston’s character in Victor, Victoria:
“Brother, you just said a cotton-pickin’ mouthful.”
I could not possibly agree more strongly with you!
Steve
Hey William – I can’t see it being put any clearer either. In a way it seems that the UCI and WADA and probably the producers of the big races just have “no fear” of slamming a rider at all, as long as it suits them. The fact that they can “get away” with such behavior really makes me want to chew nails.
–
At the moment William, I am searching for some tiny part in me that feels no envy that you will be watching the “swan song” of the discos… I have to be honest here – I seem to be simply filled with envy (;-)) – please enjoy it for me too…
Way to go Theresa, We want a full report!
Meh. If Valverde seriously wants to dispute the allegations he should sue the UCI and the Spanish Authority and insist on a DNA test to clear his reputation once and for all.
The UCI doesn’t really want to bust Valverde–all this is just posturing at the behest of the World’s in Stuttgart. Every indication is they do have evidence against him, but they don’t want to actually do anything as they feel it would further tarnish the sport. Valverde has always ridden for notorious doping teams and he has always been a spokesperson for the Omerta–one of the first to publicly call Jesus Manzano a liar after Manzano exposed the doping protocols on Kelme.
Meanwhile, so called “fans” defend his “rights” to continue to lie and evade, further bringing down the credibility of the Tour and the Vuelta. If the “fans” would actually get behind the anti-doping effort unequivocally (which, of course, would mean telling the truth about the UCI as hopelessly corrupt), then the Floyd’s and the Alejandro’s of the world wouldn’t feel so encouraged to fight the system and drag the sport down in the mud with them. Either support the fight against doping or don’t. Either support the people who are trying to stop doping or support its legalization. But stop supporting the lying hypocrites–the lying elite riders, the lying dirty DSes, the lying UCI and Pro Tour chieftians. Because the battle to get drugs out of this sport is a hard one, and it needs every voice possible. Start making distinctions between the truth and the lies, and stop putting your faith in the proven liars.
William,
Wish I could be in Columbia on Friday to see the finish (and see how the town has changed since I last was there). Enjoy!
ludwig,
Each case is different. If you look at the Landis case, and closely examine the evidence behind the charges (that is, the data itself) you’ll find that the charges against Landis don’t hold up. In Valverde’s case, perhaps there’s something to what you say, but the UCI hasn’t produced anything new, as far as the Spanish cycling federation (RFEC) is concerned. Which means, at least according to the RFEC, there’s not enough to pursue Valverde. Because he was part of any number of teams rumored, or shown to have a doping program doesn’t automatically make Valverde guilty of doping — even if it does strongly suggest that conclusion. Before punishing him for doping, the UCI (or other agencies) needs to prove it. Judging by what the RFEC says, the UCI can’t prove it in regards to Operacion Puerto.
Is the UCI hopelessly corrupt, as some (like Greg LeMond) say? That could be. Judging by some of the more recent revelations, it’s pretty easy to draw the conclusion that they are hopelessly incompetent.
Most (if not all) of the people who comment here are against doping, for any number of reasons. It’s important to remember, however, no matter the justice system, not everyone accused of committing an offense is guilty. Nor are the anti-doping labs or the anti-doping agencies (or prosecutors) always right. Both sides must be accountable for their actions — the athletes, as well as the authorities. Neither side should be blindly followed. Those who put blind faith in the authorities will wind up with an authoritarian system that provides no protection for the rights of the individual. Without solid proof that an athlete has committed a doping offense, we should adhere to the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Rant,
Your comments come across as high-minded, but you don’t manage to take a clear position (except that you believe Landis). Apparently, for you, the word of the same cycling federation responsible for clearing virtually all the OP riders is good enough for you when it comes to Valverde.
I don’t need to remind you that there would be no case against Valverde if the RFEC and/or the UCI had been allowed to continue with business as usual. It was the Spanish Authority who produced the OP case–not these corrupt authorities. The doping culture has been and continues to go on right under the RFEC and the UCI’s nose–they look the other way dude! For them it’s a public relations problem, not a real problem. The RFEC doesn’t want to bust Valverde or Contador–they have no interest in disciplining their top stars. Why do that when top riders from other nations have escaped scrutiny? Why punish such talented and motivated young riders for preparation techniques that their mentors recommended? Notice how the credibility gap is so large that even the Spanish Sports Minister has felt the need to come out and shill for them.
You paint the issue as if everyone is on either one side or another (WADA vrs. Floyd, UCI vrs. ASO, Valverde vrs. UCI)…that’s misleading at best. No one in the UCI is seriously interested in clearing up Puerto–the only thing they can come up with are dishonest PR stunts like the disgraceful riders pledge, where a large number of riders dishonored themselves by signing a document they didn’t mean. The likliest reason is it is unfair to unduly punish one group of riders for stuff the rest of the elite competition is also doing–so the UCI is doing everything it can to keep the matter shut up. Mancebo was surely close to the truth in his angry comments after being kicked out of the 2006 Tour “If everyone who violated the Ethics Code is excluded, then the entire peloton needs to go”.
Really, if you think Valverde and Contador are innocent of doping, then you are misleading your readers by pretending to be a knowledgeable cycling blogger. If you want to simply be an apologist for the status quo, I suppose that’s fair enough. But you would be more honest if you just came out for legalizing doping instead of trotting out these phony legalistic arguments for a bunch of transparent liars.
Who has a consistent record of telling the truth in cycling? That’s what you need to ask. Who has integrity? Surely not Pat McQuaid. Surely not Hein Verbrueggen. Both reflexively attack whistleblowers and paper over the doping culture at every opportunity. Surely not Bruyneel, Riis, Saiz, Echevarri, Lefevere. All have lied profusely and will continue to lie to protect what is left of their reputations.
I have very little faith left, but I do tend to look at WADA as an organization trying to do the right thing (in a murky, morally complicated area, where mistakes are easy). I believe Lemond is a good man with a noble mission who has yet to lie to the public. I think Bob Stapleton at T-Mobile is sincere. But that’s about it. And that doesn’t say much for cycling.
The sport needs to be reformed dude. Honest, accountable outsiders, with a commitment to anti-doping and transparent methods need to be brought in to clean the sport up and establish clear rules. If really want a clean cycling culture that’s exactly what you should be preaching on this blog. But more lawyers, more self-righteous phony lying athletes who are so greedy they can’t sit out a few years when they are busted….that will be the death of cycling.
Ludwig,
Here’s my point of view, in a nutshell: Major changes need to happen to shore up cycling. I think you and I agree on this point, as best I can tell. Regarding Valverde, what I’m saying is that the UCI, instead of launching stunts like their demands of the RFEC, needs to show their proof. Allegations don’t cut it. If Valverde is guilty (and who knows, he might be), show us the evidence. But until they can, I’m of the view that he deserves the presumption of innocence. Same with Contador. Show me real proof that he’s guilty — not just allegations, and I’ll accept that.
As you said, the sport needs to be reformed. Transparency would be a good start. So would people who come from the outside and who can be held accountable. So would clear, easy to understand rules and regulations. That is something I’ve been preaching on this blog, as a matter of fact, for quite some time now. But remember, part of cleaning all of this mess up will be making some changes to the anti-doping system we have currently.
Think of it this way: If you happened to find yourself in the position where a test came back positive and you knew that you hadn’t doped (it happens, probably more often that we know), wouldn’t you want a system that doesn’t start from the presumption that you’re guilty? I know I would.
Rant,
Sorry about my rant earlier–thanks for not responding angrily. For whatever reason the Landis issue tends to trigger aggressive emotions in me–the whole thing has gotten too personal and I am very bitter about what he and his case has done to this sport (and the Basso/Ulle lies and subsequent revelations haven’t helped either lol) But just because you defend him doesn’t make it ok for me to be unreasonable.
Of course I agree about the need for transparency and accountability when it comes to this stuff. But it seems to me that Valverde is effectively calling the UCI’s bluff–the UCI doesn’t want to delve any further into OP, and Valverde may well force them too. Besides it may well be true that there isn’t a blood bag after all, or the bag has been suppressed by Valverde’s allies. If the UCI backs down, the Stuttgart organizers could well just tell them to go to hell (not a great precedent for the UCI considering their conflict with the ASO). If they don’t back down, they also lose because exposing Valverde will bring up a whole new can of worms that the doper DS-steered UCI doesn’t want to get into.
So ultimately I think there are a lot more politics here than just the transparency of anti-doping authorities. A truly transparent anti-doping policy would be where the UCI leadership didn’t want to cover up stuff like OP and encouraged riders to speak the truth in exchange for amnesty. But we just don’t have that right now, and we’re never going to get it if we stay with the current leadership crop.
So Ludwig – how does it feel to have a direct pipeline to the “truth”…with all due respect – I object to your presumption that “people” on this blog are secretly for doping and are doing nothing but “supporting” dopers due to their ignorance.
–
I won’t get into bringing up the Landis case – since you have obviously made up your mind and “know” the “truth” of the matter…I happen to disagree with you whole heartedly. You have every right to your OPINIONS – we all do. But I do not agree with yours.
–
If you have a direct pipeline to the “truth” – then please – lay it on us man. Because from your diatribe – all I get is your own emotionally confused ideas of the reality of the “cycling world”…
Morgan,
Of course I don’t assume people on this blog are “for doping”. I do think that for many Landis supporters, maintaining faith in Landis is more important than cleaning up the sport of cycling. This emotional loyalty defines the discourse and distorts the facts about the reality of doping in cycling whenever possible. Belief proceeds knowledge in most cases–it is only after knocking one’s head against the reality principle again and again that knowledge finally begins to proceed belief.
Really, I’m tired of the Landis discussion as I mentioned above. For me, arguing with TBV acolytes is about as productive as arguing with ardent Rush Limbaugh fans about the wisdom of the Iraq War. No offense, but Landis supporters keep getting their news from biased outlets like TBV, then they draw mistaken conclusions based on wishful thinking. Just go through the July archives sometime and read the comments section to discover how the readers of TBV interpreted all the Tour doping cases. As you might imagine, it was all about blaming the authorities, conspiracy theories, etc. My all-time favorite was the enthusiastic response to a factually inaccurate (and quickly refuted) article in the Daily Peloton saying that you didn’t need to dope to win the Tour, because Bjarn Riis didn’t have to dope to win in 1996 (which, needless to say, isn’t true). For TBV readers who cling to the deluded belief that since Landis won the Tour without doping it must be possible for others as well, it’s exactly what they want to hear. Therefore it must be true.
Landis has done everything possible to encourage the widespread misconceptions about the effect of doping and how widespread the doping culture is among his American fans. To hear him talk, it’s as if there’s no doping culture in cycling, and clean riders like him win Grand Tours all the time. He would have us believe that a rider has to be stupid to dope, when reality tells us it is precisely those who dope or enable doping who rake in the most cash in the cycling business.
Did Landis do it? Based on what I know about cycling (which is admittedly limited, simply the perspective of the passionate fan for many years) and Landis, I’d say with 99% certainty that yes, of course he was on something on Stage 17–something that gave him an big edge. The blood profiles and hemotocrit values (mentioned in the Ziegler article below) suggest blood doping with EPO was probably employed–using methods similar to Fuentes clients. Landis is anything but an anti-doping cyclist–if he was one of the rare clean cyclists, then we would have heard about it before 2006. If Landis was the kind of talent that could win the Tour without juice, more prominent cycling personalities would have spoken up for him and traveled to testify on his behalf. It’s totally absurd that decent people in cycling would allow this kind of injustice to take place, if Landis was really as morally opposed to doping as he would have use believe in his book. Hell, he wouldn’t have been riding for the likes of Armstrong, Heras, and Hamilton–that’s for sure. The hypocrisy of riding for those types would have been unbearable.
Now that doesn’t mean I know that the T positive meets the burden of proof scientifically speaking. I’m not a scientist and make no claim to scientific expertise. I’m just saying it’s extremely unlikely that he wasn’t doping if you understand the recent history of this sport.
Ok…gotta get back to work. But since you asked for truth…here are some essential articles by writers who are knowledgeable about the doping culture as well as the Landis defense strategy.
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=10163
http://195.5.122.46/displayarticle.asp?pk=10162
http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2007/05/which_way_out.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20070708-9999-lz1s8landis.html
Read these, and then follow the sport of cycling for 6 years. Watch how, 1 by 1, the cyclists you admire are exposed as dopers. But keep loving cycling, and imagine how much greater it could be without the dope and the doping scandals. Then think about how money works in cycling–how the best paid riders are the team leaders who are under most pressure to dope, and how virtually all of the team DSes have doping histories of their own, yet continue to pressure young cyclists to follow in their footsteps and make them boatloads of money.
After all that, then my perspective won’t be so confusing.
I do not find your perspective confusing Ludwig – I find it a bit confused. I do believe you have strong opinions on the matter of “doping in Cycling” and you also have made up your mind that Floyd Landis is guilty. This is your right – I have no objections to this whatsoever.
–
You seem to be under the impression that I am against “cleaning up cycling” – you cannot be further from the truth. I also don’t happen to feel that cyclists won’t dope if it gives them an edge and they feel they can get away with it..
–
The point of my contention in all of this is simply: THE SYSTEM IN PLACE for dealing with infractions of the rules is BIASED AND UNFAIR – I have nothing against testing riders – but I do have a very powerful objection to using the excuse that, “well, this is the testing we have that is available – lets all agree that it is fullproof and if we bust someone then he is guilty” – I may even accept this scenario if the accused had an equal chance to rebut the accusation, but not happily.
–
My displeasure with the present situation is that the whole thing is “stacked” against any rider who says: “I’m innocent” – given the present situation – what has come clear is that WE CANNOT MAKE SUCH A CALL – because – all parties are suspect – the parties who make the rules, don’t follow their own rules – If and when an athlete does contest the accusation – he/she is doomed to bankruptcy. This is not democratic or fair. The question of guilt cannot be addressed fairly – when the “legal system” itself is unfair and biased towards the accuser.
–
Every point of view is biased, since it is a point of view. I have chosen to feel that Floyd got screwed. Therefore it is my biased opinion. I stand by it. Floyd may or may have not doped, along with all the other cyclist that you bring up – but I find that it is impossible to make a “fair” decision since the situation is as it is. I would rather be wrong then to ruin the reputation and means of livelihood of a person. You may think this is naive – I think I am expressing my opinion that everyone is innocent till proven guilty.
–
I come on the Rant Line – because I find that most of the people here are intelligent and know the difference between bias opinion and fair jurisprudence.
–
If we can agree that the system is broken and it needs changing then we are both thinking along the same lines. Although, you seem to feel that todays cyclist should be ALL looked at with a jaundiced eye as guilty – I choose to attempt to make sense of a completely idiotic situation – realizing that some cyclist dope, while others don’t.
–
You may be right Ludwig – maybe “everyone in the last 10 years” has been juicing – Well then – if this is so – then I don’t see the problem. The playing field is therefore “level” – IF we choose as a society to create rules then that reject such behavior – then the rules should be clear and fair – and EVERYONE has to be governed by said rules equally.
–
In your opinion – Floyds’ people “attacked” the lab that did the testing – I believe they did much more then this – they exposed the whole cycling worlds governing system as biased towards giving power to the system while ignoring the “rights” of individuals. I for one will not stand for this and will keep ranting on. I do feel though that the question is not “do cyclist dope” but rather is the system a fair system.
Morgan,
I’m not an expert on testing or WADA, but I’d raise the following points.
1) There isn’t a widespread movement in cycling decrying the tests as unfair. And there is no evidence that false positives are routine–indeed I know of no case in cycling where a false positive is acknowledged to have existed and not been subsequently corrected. There are occasionally unreasonable rules, but there is a process where the UCI has input and these kinks can be worked out.
2) The quickest way to ruin cycling is if every cyclist who fails a doping test and has money (ie the Vinos and the Kashs, the Heras’ and the Landis’) not only contest the test but try to bring down the credibility of the system. Of course the testing system must be fair–everyone agrees with that, including WADA officials. But ultimately there has to be a point where riders agree to certain rules of the game and everyone abides by them. Too much legal morass destroys the sport, especially when that legal morass is pursued in bad faith by cyclists who are most likely lying in order to keep their money machine running.
3) I don’t disagree that Landis had a right to contest the results of the test. I do believe his attacks on LNDD, the USADA, and Tygart have been unmeasured and unfair. Perhaps the most ridiculous example was his press conference calling foul that Tygart would dare ask him to provide evidence (if he had it) on bigger fish–thus creating a media spectacle that Tygart really wanted to expose Armstrong (a worthy goal, I might add). Due to the gag order, Tygart has no opportunity to respond to the slanders against him.
4) If you agree that riders do have reason to dope and that many get away with it, then what do you think of the Landis’ argument that using T would be stupid because there are tests? Do you think it would be good for cycling if every accused cyclist goes to the press with such misleading arguments and deceives good people into thinking that there is some kind of witch hunt?
5) When you admit that if every elite cyclist dopes then “I don’t see a problem”, then you confirm the point I made earlier on why it more honest to be for legalization than for “riders rights”. People who understand that the doping culture is widespread either oppose it (ie want more and better testing and more regulations in order to save the sport) or are for legalization. For me, these are the two intellectually honest ways forward–personally I tend to oscillate between them. But if you are misled into thinking that doping is only a small minority of dishonest cheaters, then it might be easy to be convinced that many cyclists are falsely accused and that the UCI/WADA (for whatever strange and/or nefarious reasons) are abusing their powers. So this is the crux of it–in order to make good decisions on the way forward in cycling, we first need more truth-telling about the way cycling actually is. Because if illusions win out, those who benefit from the status quo will use their position to keep things the way they are and keep the money rolling in to their bank accounts.
The testing “system” you talk about only exists because since Festina, cycling has recognized it has a big problem, even if the UCI remained too corrupt to take action until recently. Doping “is” a “problem” because so many people in cycling are lying and it takes police investigations (Festina, Oil for Drugs, Operation Puerto) to expose the fact that the THE TESTING USUALLY DOESN’T CATCH THE DOPERS. Consequently, the sport lacks credibility. The ethics in cycling must improve, and the testing must improve. The testing is there to serve cycling and ensure a fair sport–if the bulk of cycling is convinced it is unjust then they will get rid of it. For my part I (like most of cycling) don’t put much stock in Landis’ expose because I view his team’s actions as self-interested and frequently deceptive. Like I alluded to above, if Landis’ critique (not to mention his defense) was widely shared, more European cyclists and ex-cyclists would speak out in the same manner.
Ludwig-
It is very tempting to respond to your blog “in kind” – but I shall refrain. The Rant Line is not merely for “venting” – venting is good, but seldom enlightening, since it tends to be the “explosion” of emotion that people are prone to. The Rant Line tries, at least as I have been observing it to get past this particular short coming in communication – so let me respond to your blog…
–
1) – You state: “…There isn’t a widespread movement in cycling decrying…” – Not yet there isn’t – but that is simply because up to the point where Floyd made his case come out from “behind closed doors” – no one other then the immediate parties were ever privy to what happens in such cases. You have every right to your opinion as to how the Landis case progressed – it is YOUR opinion – I have no problem respecting it – BUT I do not agree with your observations and conclusions.-
You will hopefully pardon me if I don’t jump for joy at the “handling” of RULES ISSUES – RACERS RIGHTS – ADHERENCE TO THE RULES by the UCI, WADA, USDA, or the IOC…Since as evidence of the last year we have come to know what to
expect from them as far as “fair” play…
–
YES! Everything will be worked out – but I would guess that the UCI and others are going to go along with lots of kicking and screaming – since they have gotten used to DOING WHATEVER SUITS THEM…
–
2) – You say: “…The quickest way to ruin cycling is if every cyclist…” – Contesting is not “trying” to bring down the system. If you object to “litigation” then please enlighten me how else is a cyclist who is “accused” should “properly” respond? I do not think that the issue is that riders DON’T follow rules. The issue is – ARE THE RULES FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC? Your stance shows that you “assume” that every cyclist who is accused is guilty – balderdash. This argument is prejudiced and unfair.
–
It does not take into account that MISTAKES may be made. No one expects the parties to be “perfect” – at the same time, I completely reject your inference that the “governing” bodies in cycling are FAIR and beyond reproach – THEIR own actions in handling the Landis case points out exactly their “point of view” on how they “deal” with the cyclist – since they love to make statements in the media that simply accuses a rider – using the “shock” value of such statements they believe that they are convincing the “public” of their “rightful” stance – balderdash – thankfully all they have managed is to show themselves as they are…
–
We cannot STOP people from pursuing “bad faith” contentions – believe it or not – in a democratic system – even this is allowed…
3) – You say: “…I do believe his attacks on LNDD, the USADA, and Tygart…” – The “context” in which Tygart “asked Landis to to inform on Armstrong was out of order.
Tygart used the moment to try to put the squeeze on Landis – why would you think that Landis was then inappropriate in his response – “because he went public?” – That is an absurd value judgment that you present yourself. What exactly would you have expected Landis to do? The man is under attack and his foe tries a little “arm twisting” – what exactly would your response have been? One thing we do come away with – Tygart at least respected the gag order…something that seems severely lacking in the other parties involved in this case…
4) – You say: “…If you agree that riders do have reason to dope…” I contest your presentation and resent you putting a spin on my words. I did not say that “riders have a reason to dope” I said – “There may be some riders that dope” – Since I consider myself among “good people” I will point out to you that I do not need someone to “PROTECT” me or to judge my intelligence whether I or any of the other “good people” can tell when a rider is “spinning” a tale – THAT IS THE VERY REASON we have rules and regulation whereby the accuser and the accused present their sides in a fair court of law – then I feel “us good people” can make up our own minds. Don’t take this personally – but you need not worry about me, I like doing my own thinking.
5) – Now lastly – Ludwig – as you are yourself “stating your own interests” why bemoan the fact that cyclists should have the same rights? I agree – there is doping going on – BUT – neither you nor I can make a “clear and fair” judgment as to “how much” doping may or may not be going on – NOT IN THE PRESENT TIME – since most available “information” tends to be slanted.
–
Again you seem to think that you know what I think or feel – I do not THINK the issue is “merely doping” Ludwig – I think the issue is that we have some organizations who are “responsible” for dealing with doping doing things that I REALLY DON’T agree with and DO NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS. Now, I think I am being clear about this no?
–
Floyd will be railroaded if the situation is allowed to continue – as would any other rider – under such behavior by authority – there is no way to see clearly what may or may not be true. THAT IS THE ONLY REAL ISSUE.
–
I believe that European cyclist are beginning to “speak out” about the state of cycling Ludwig. Floyd has showed them that they can – without losing their means of livelihood. At least the present situation has forced them to.
ludwig,
A few points to consider:
1) Regarding false positives: We really don’t know how many have occurred. The cost of fighting a positive test is so prohibitive (as the Landis case has shown) that many of those kinds of cases that occurred pre-Landis may have resulted in a sanction, simply because the ahtlete in question didn’t have the financial means to fight. No stats that I’ve seen address this, so it’s hard to gauge. It could be none, it could be a handful, it could even be a large percentage. Bottom line: We just don’t know.
2) While guilty people fighting and declaring their innocence doesn’t help matters any, I wouldn’t say it’s the quickest way to ruin cycling. The UCI and ASO, with their pissing contest, have been doing a pretty good job, too. People within the anti-doping system who leak results have helped matters along. Sure the riders who do test positive don’t help matters any, but they’re far from the only reason that cycling might get ruined by these scandals. And those who enable the doping — doctors, team officials, other riders — they certainly are helping bring the sport into disrepute.
That said, I’m all in favor of personal responsibility. If someone has been caught, and they really were doping, I think that person ought to admit it and take whatever punishment that comes from their actions. You are right that people who are guilty screaming loudly that they’re innocent and then admitting they were guilty some time later does cast doubt about anyone else who does the same. So by the time a truly innocent person comes along, who is accused of doping and fights back, many will say, “Yeah, we’ve heard that story before. He’s guilty. He just won’t admit it.”
3) Tygart wasn’t so much bound by the gag order as he was by the actual rules. It’s the rules of these cases (which certain labs and governing bodies fail to follow) that specify he remain silent. Tygart is, in at least that respect, the lone example of someone who followed the rules. He didn’t totally follow the rules in all instances, but not responding to Landis’ comments is a good illustration of someone in the anti-doping world following the rules. Also, there are no rules against the athlete speaking out during the case, so even if you disagree with what Landis said or who he attacked, he was within his rights to speak.
4) Regarding whether doping should be legalized: That’s a tough call. Before we get into that, however, we need to figure out just how prevalent doping is. By WADA’s own statistics, of the tests they administered in 2005 to cyclists, just under 4% returned an adverse finding for the A samples. No information exists about how many of the B samples confirmed the As, but that’s at least the upper limit for how many doping cases were detected by testing.
There are two questions to ask about the testing. One, are the tests effective? That is, do they actually find what they are supposed to find, and not something else? And the other is, is the testing program thorough enough to make sure that those who are doping don’t evade detection merely because they weren’t tested? If the tests are effective, but not enough people are tested, then it would be no surprise that people are getting away with it — because they weren’t tested to begin with.
Anecdotally, it sounds like lots of cyclists are doping. But that may not be true. We all hear the stories of people caught — fairly or not — by the tests. We’ve heard stories of certain teams with programs, even down to the level that Joe Papp raced, where his team sounds like they had a very organized (though poorly administered, with no medical control, which is partly how he wound up in the hospital) doping program. It’s easy to believe that doping runs rampant through the peloton, especially given the long history of cyclists using “performance-enhancing substances.” (Personally, I’ve never quite thought of brandy as performance-enhancing, but it sure tastes good. Still, cyclists in Tours de France as late as the 1960s were using a nip of brandy here and there. Strychnine was another common drug way back when.)
The thing is, we rarely hear about clean athletes, we hear about the ones that dope, and this colors our perception of the situation. When a rider wins a race, articles usually don’t say “and he raced clean” (unless we’re talking about Bradley Wiggins, who does speak out a lot). We’re hearing about clean riders more and more, and perhaps over time that will change the culture and change the perception of cycling.
But before we legalize doping, we might want to figure out just how prevalent it is. Is it everyone? Half the peloton? A quarter? A tenth? If there was some study, or way of determining just how prevalent it is (and riders could answer honestly and anonymously, without fear of retribution), it would give us a better clue as to how to proceed. If it’s the majority of the peloton, then there’s pretty much no hope of anti-doping programs ever working in my estimation. At that point, it would be better to legalize it and regulate it, as that would at least offer better health protection for the riders than programs like the one Joe Papp has spoken about.
Somewhere in between WADA’s reported 4 percent adverse findings and 100 percent of the peloton using performance-enhancing substances lies the truth about doping in cycling. If it’s really only 4 percent who are doping, then with improved testing methods and a fair adjudication process, that number could be made even lower. That’s worth the fight. If everyone dopes, as some would argue, then there’s no hope of winning the anti-doping war. Best to regulate it, ensure the athletes’ health and move forward in that scenario.
You are right — law enforcement seems to do a better job at catching dopers than WADA and its affiliates. There may be a lesson to be learned there, and perhaps it’s that law enforcement is the more appropriate avenue to go after dopers. Many doping techniques, after all, are illegal — fraudulently obtaining and using prescription medication, unregulated use of medical procedures, etc. But if it was left to law enforcement in each country, there would be different standards and different rules to follow. Having consistent rules was one of the justifications for creating WADA in the first place. So how do we make the rules consistent, and effectively combat the problem? Or should we even try to combat the problem anymore? To me, those are the questions at the center of this debate. They’re not easy to answer. Bottom line is that there are no simple solutions to this mess, as much as we would all like to believe there would be.
Rant,
1) One of the things that frequently goes unmentioned in this discussion is that OP, Oil for Drugs, Cofidis etc. have pretty much proven without a shadow of the doubt that most dopers evade testing, and that some riders can dope an entire career without testing positive. Discovery, for example, is widely rumored to be heavily doped or have a doping program, but they have had very few if any positives (of course the explanation for this may have to do with corruption in addition to medical skill at evading positives). I suppose it’s perfectly possible there are false positives we don’t know about (though I would think people like the Landis camp would highlight them if there are outraged elite cyclists who really were clean and were busted).
But I think we can say with certainty that many more dopers get away with doping than are caught. Moreover, what constitutes doping under the rules is a high standard (for example, hemocrit has to be 50% to constitute doping, which means a rider can raise his hemo from 42 to 47% without consequences) so that the risk of false positive is minimized. In other words, when the rules were made about what constitutes a positive test and what doesn’t were made, the input of the riders and the UCI were taken into consideration. That doesn’t mean the risk of a false positive is null, but it makes a false positive increasingly unlikely.
2) I agree that law enforcement does a better job of catching dopers, though I would attribute the reason to there being not enough testing, and not good enough testing, too much corruption in the testing procedure (for example, Manzano alleged that bribing officials was routine) for testing to have an effect. In any case, the outcomes of the law enforcement cases are so humiliating to the sport and degrading to the athletes–there has to be a better way. The UCI seems to be finally moving forward on implementing testing and trying to make races more fair so that police and journalists are less annoyed by the hypocrisy, although I personally don’t have much faith in their leadership.
Morgan,
I am not interested in conversion or converting. I am interested in having a fact-based discussion free from illusion and appeals to belief over reason. I will respect the authority and viewpoints of those voices who don’t insult my intelligence or ask me to believe things that are demonstrably false. You have a right to your opinion (which is, I suppose, that the USADA are bad people trying to railroad an innocent man for nefarious reasons), but I have never seen any factual basis for that opinion. What remains is a positive test that has not been discredited, ample motive and opportunity for the supposed offense, and a confused, contradictory, and at times malicious and deceptive defense.
Ludwig – thanks for putting me in my place.
–
So in essence you imply that the whole Floyd Landis arbitration hearings was a complete fiasco…that it was nothing more then a suspect ritual…I’m afraid I may actually have “feelings” that agree with you…Although I come away with a different conclusion from what you state as yours.
–
I cannot say if the USADA “people” are good or bad – all I can respond to is their “public” behavior – which is what I thought I was doing.
–
Your interpretation of the outcome of the contention over the Floyd Landis test is quiet amazing…managing to ignore the evidence and dismissing it as biased simply because it does not concur with your high moral stance…
–
It is good to be so certain in ones’ outlook Ludwig – it helps maintain it when it is under scrutiny – doesn’t leave much room for much else – but it does keep one entrenched where one is.
–
One last thing Ludwig – why are you surprised that someone would take umbrage when you attack someone else in an opinionated manner? You have set the tone – why complain when someone responds to you in like manner?
{ 1 trackback }