Today the AFLD announced that they would re-open their case against Floyd Landis, filed in September 2006, accusing the American cyclist of doping during Stage 17 of that year’s Tour de France. The French anti-doping agency filed their case even though USADA was pursuing a case against Landis for the same offense, due to a law in France that allowed the agency to also pursue the doping case. In February, the AFLD agreed to put their case on hold pending the outcome of the USADA case, after Landis voluntarily promised not to compete in France during 2007.
Now that the USADA case is over, and the arbitration panel ruled against Landis, the AFLD has resurrected their case. At this point in time, Landis is suspended from racing until January 29, 2009 — unless, that is, the Court of Arbitration for Sport rules in Landis’ favor as a result of his pending appeal to the ultimate arbiter of sports disputes.
So now Landis has two cases to worry about: His appeal to the CAS, in an effort to clear his name, and the AFLD’s case against him. Talk about double-jeopardy. To coin a phrase, this is multiple jeopardy on (ahem) steroids. It turns out, the AFLD took this action to close a legal loophole that could allow Landis to race in France next year despite the two-year sanction currently imposed on him.
As Agence France Presse reports:
[T]he situation could arise whereby [Floyd Landis] could compete again if the Tour de France took place outside the calendar of the UCI, with whom the organisers of the leading Tours are in conflict.
That is, unless he is also sanctioned by the AFLD, something the body is moving to rectify.
“The AFLD has decided to examine the case of Floyd Landis and we have notified his lawyers,” AFLD president Pierre Bordry confirmed on Wednesday.
“Landis was sanctioned for two years by the UCI. From that point he is barred from all competitions organised by the UCI or affiliated federations.
“But this is not the case for competitions organised in France outside this structure. It is for this reason that we are going to investigate the case.”
If the Landis case was not decided on by the AFLD, a judicial loophole could allow him to compete.
It certainly sounds rational, at least at first blush. Take a bit deeper look at how all this would work and it’s not hard to figure out what’s really going on. Suppose that the Amaury Sports Organization decides to hold next year’s Tour without a UCI sanction. That would give them the power to invite whatever teams they wish to race. And the power to exclude whomever they wish.
Depending on UCI rules, ProTour teams may or may not be able to participate. Those that do might face penalties from the federation, especially if one or more of the riders competing in the race is currently under a UCI sanction, barring him from competition.
With the power to invite whomever they please, and no obligation to invite any ProTour teams they don’t wish to participate, the Tour organizers would have complete control over who would or wouldn’t be allowed to race. Simply put, they don’t need the AFLD’s help here, unless a rider like Landis could take the ASO to court and demand entry.
But before that could happen, Landis would need to have a team. Given the current sanction, and the fact that unless things change because of how the CAS appeal turns out, he is ineligible to race next year. The only way he’s going to be on a team is if the CAS rules in his favor. If he’s still subject to the 2-year ban, no team is going to employ him. It’s pretty much that simple. Why hire a guy who can’t race in most of the races on the professional calendar, and who would be refused entry by organizers like the Tour?
It makes no sense. The only sense one can make of the AFLD’s actions is that they are giving the ASO cover to keep Landis from competing at the 2008 Tour should he be cleared by the CAS, and he actually lands a contract to race. It will be a last-minute deal, if that occurs, because there is no guarantee when the CAS will rule (though it’s likely that the case will take less time than the one just completed).
Without stating it that way, that’s exactly what Pierre Bordry and company are up to. Closing the legal loophole is a convenient excuse, and one that ignores the realities of what it would take for Landis to be able to compete at next year’s Tour.
The other thing it does, should the AFLD case be decided against Landis, is give the Tour cover to refuse to recognize Landis as the 2006 winner, and refuse to pay him the prize money due, should the CAS find in Landis’ favor. And let’s be realistic here. The AFLD is the parent organization of LNDD. Just how likely do you think it would be for them to find in Landis’ favor, and by doing so, raise questions about the competence of their own lab personnel? Not bloody likely, if you ask me.
Now, if the Tour organizers do choose to go it alone next year, AFLD is ready to do their part, as the AFP also reports:
Meanwhile, Bordry said that should the Tour de France decide to withdraw from the UCI calendar the AFLD would be able to carry out the necessary controls.
“We have made the ASO (Tour de France organisers) aware that we will be there, that we have lots of ideas and are ready to assume our responsibilities.”
I’m sure that they do have lots of ideas. But even though they could pursue this case, should they do so? Unless the CAS overturns the current ruling against Landis, as a practical matter he won’t be able to compete in France next year.
And the organizers, if they go it alone, will be able to pick and choose every team that competes. So they can keep Floyd Landis out without the AFLD’s help. But with Bordry and company’s assistance, the Tour organization can couch their refusal to allow Floyd Landis entry into the race in legal terms, rather than have to come out and just say, “We just don’t want him in our race.”
The only way that the organizers would be obligated to allow Floyd Landis access to the 2008 race is if it were under UCI sanction, part of the ProTour, and Landis is exonerated by the CAS and finds a team to race on. Of course, it goes beyond that. With an AFLD sanction against Landis, he would be barred from all races on French soil. So no Spring classics in France (Paris-Roubaix, anyone?), no Paris-Nice, no races in France until the AFLD’s ban were to expire.
On the surface, the “closing a legal loophole” argument almost make sense — if you don’t know much about how pro cycling actually works. Look deeper and you’ll find that what’s really going on is something entirely different. It’s a vindictive move to punish Landis for casting certain agencies in a bad light, which also provides CYA for other organizations to stick it to him too.
In the meantime, Floyd Landis now has two cases to fight. It’s not exactly double-jeopardy in the classic sense. But it is a kind of hopped-up on steroids version. By the time his case is over, he will have fought charges from the same incident in three different “courts.” At least one of these cases is unnecessary, and will cause him unnecessary expense. The AFLD could have quietly let the matter drop. Instead, they chose to go forward.
I am wondering about the timing here: why make this move now? As you say, the stated reason is bogus. Even if valid, there would be plenty of time to proceed after CAS has run its course. If they wanted to take another crack at him if he were to prevail in his appeal, still plenty of time for that, if necessary, later. Heck, if their only goal was to keep Landis out of the 2008 Tour, ASO seems to be able to exclude whoever they want. The only reason I can see for going ahead at this point in time is that it puts Landis in the situation where he has 2 actives cases, for the same incident. Makes it a lot harder for him than if they waited until after the CAS decision. Plus, if he were to win in CAS he would perhaps have some additional ammunition to use in defending himself to AFLD. It certainly makes the whole WADA system look bad. And what sort of precedence could this set? If you don’t like a decision in a particular case, hold your own hearing and overturn it? Will we see riders banned only to have their national federation or ADA hold their own hearing and (attempt) to un-ban the rider?
–
If Landis were cleared by CAS but convicted by AFLD, would he be allowed to race in other countries besides France? Would it depend on the country, would France attempt to extort other countries by threatening to ban their riders in France if they allow Landis to race? This has to potential to open up quite a can of worms.
–
Perhaps Landis should negotiate a settlement: agree not to race in France for 2 years in exchange for dropping the case. He would still have the Giro and Vuelta, plus there are several classics outside of France, Cal, GA, and MO here in the states.
–
Maybe the next step is for WADA or UCI to ban hip replacements. Do a study, show that the coefficient of friction for Landis’ new hip is lower than a natural hip, so he has an unnatural advantage.
We should not be surprised by the “AFLD announcement” — I cannot imagine that Floyds’ Team believed that AFLD would simply go away.
–
From what we have learned through the “Landis Case” — it is obvious that the “rules and regulations” of ALL the governing bodies in cycling are slanted towards “winning” and have little to do with “fair play” or determining the guilt or innocence of an accused athlete. Rather the rules slant is simply — “if you are accused — you are guilty — because we say you are guilty” — under such conditions — I ask you — where is there justice?
–
It is not Floyd Landis’ fault that he has to “argue” his case by arguing the “rules” — that is how the “system” is set up. So all those out there who clamor against Landis — have either chosen to shut down their ability to think or they are just plain willfully sprouting the spin of the “majority” — in this case being that “if we accuse you — you are guilty” –NO ARGUING THIS POINT IS ALLOWED. This cannot be allowed to continue without stern resistance. It is a question of fairness under ANY rules of justice.
–
As far as what motivation is behind the “AFLD announcement” — I think it can be put simply. As Rant points out — “The AFLD is the parent organization of LNDD.” If LNDD’s work is shown legally to be lacking — by the CAS accepting Floyds’ argument and therefore “clearing him of doping charges” — AFLD and LNDD have EVERYTHING TO LOSE. It is sheer naiveté therefore to expect them NOT to reopen the case against Landis.
–
We know that ASO has been fighting for its right to “choose” what teams and racers attend the Tour. We know that ASO has been fighting the UCI for years now over this matter. The handling of a simple “business” question has been incompetently handled by the UCI, due to their wish to become THE GOVERNING BODY representing cycling — in otherwords — the UCI wants that EVERYBODY accept that THEY say who races where and when and how — THAT THEIR WORD IS THE LAW.
–
Given what we have come to learn through the revelations of the inner workings of these organizations — through the LANDIS CASE — does anyone in their right mind want to “play the game under such rules?” The simple result is that once again — Floyd is caught in the middle. We have to accept this — we don’t have to like it — IF we are to fight this then we have to see clearly that there are TWO issues here — one is the question of Floyd Landis being “accused of doping” while the other is the battle for control between ASO and the UCI. To solve these issues — we need to win one to get at the other.
–
It is important to know the “motivations” of all concerned. But the battle for Floyd is simply to be cleared. Period.
–
Given the “rules” as they now exist — it will be because LNDD is incompetent.
–
“Sorry” — LNDD — don’t take it personally — it is your own rules that point out your incompetence, you can resent, not like or even hate Floyd Landis — but it is your own rules that show you are incompetent, the Landis case merely happens to be the one that points this out.
–
I also agree with William — getting a “fair” trial in a “AFLD influenced court” is not possible. Recall please – the “UNIBET” saga — A “win” for ASO and the AFLD — ON A TECHNICALITY. Nothing to do with a “fair trail” — since there was and is a team that is sponsored by a betting league riding in the tour — it just happens to be French.
–
Once again — I cannot get away from the fact that we must “reach out” to the French public and present this state as we see it – so they can work with TANGIBLE facts rather then being triggered by mere jingoistic nationalism or the “Spun” opinion of those who benefit by doing this – read Le Equip and other sporting papers. After all — what we get from our main stream media as news reporting is no better, is it?
–
Let me be clear here — I agree with every point that Rant and William present — my comments are not a critique of these points — merely another presentation of them.
Here’s my take: IF CAS rules against Flloyd, this is all moot. AFLD is opening the case because they know the outcome is not set. IF CAS rules in Flloyd’s favor, it will be on the technical flaws of LNDD. So, if AFLD rules that the flawed LNDD testing is acceptible, while the CAS rules to the counter, it puts the AFLD in a bad light. Nepotism is much more nauseating when it is in the open. So, my theory (sophomoric, perhaps) is that AFLD is opening this case, waiting to see what CAS says, and the corroborating that outcome. After all, they can’t re-award the mallot jaune to Landis and then say in the next breath “you can’t race due to cheating.”
Let’s play this out a bit: suppose CAS rules in favor of Landis, but (not much guessing here) AFLD rules against him. Now what happens? UCI could go with the CAS decision and award Landis the Tour (or should I say re-award?). If UCI were to act counter to the CAS decision, they would in effect be withdrawing from CAS, and would be in a bad position if UCI were to appeal a future decision to CAS, as was threatened if Landis had won in the original hearing. ASO and the French cycling federation would of course follow the AFLD decision. So UCI says Landis is the winner, ASO &c say Pereiro is the winner, and there is potential for a big fight over this. Of course, at this point Landis could simply say: “I’ve been vindicated in CAS regardless of what ASO does, they can take their money and shove it . . . ” and simply avoid racing in France in the future. As I point out above, there are plenty of races outisde the borders of le Belle France.
–
To change the thrust here a bit, suppose AFLD renders its decision before the CAS hearing. Could Landis make an amended filing to appeal AFLD’s ruiling? And what would the French do if Landis were to appeal any AFLD decision to CAS, either as part of the current case or as a new case, and win? This all just goes to show how bankrupt the current system is, with no clear overall authority to both enrforce standards and to enforce decisions.
–
BTW, IK thought that UCI had capitulated to ASO and is not going to force them to include the Tour in the current Pro Tour system. So why is Bordry thinking ASO is going to run the race outside of UCI?
Why is my head spinning? The legal jeopardy confusion is getting worse than answering the question “who’s on first?”
This multiple jeopardy Floyd is facing really shows just how unjust the system is.
William, I think it is possible that ASO and Bordry have convinced themselves that they have such a lock on the Tour and that the Tour is bigger then the cycling world, meaning UCI, WADA, etc…
–
It would be a real shame if this is so. There is just no way around the fact that if ASO separates itself from the Pro-Tour that there won’t be major conflict – If the Tour is not on the “Calender” of professional races – The time slot will be left open for the UCI to create races to fill up this spot – In my opinion – this will be unavoidable – The UCI will have to fill up the Calender dates.
–
Depending on how seriously the pros take the pro-racing circuit – they are going to have to make a choice. The Tour is not really the richest race around as you may know – pros go for the money – the ASO is going to wind up putting on the Tour with farm teams…I do not see why they would assume that their “attractiveness” will naturally draw the pros?
–
If CAS goes in favor of Floyd – the UCI has no free will to choose to go with the decision – it must – otherwise it destroysBordry its own credibility, I’m thinking.
–
If the ASO and AFLD – separate themselves from the world cycling circuit – they are cutting their own throats – Since every rider who is a pro – rides with a UCI license – in the end – the UCI sanctions which races are in or out. So how do they think they are going to get the best to race in the Tour?
I thought I had heard recently that UCI has a rule that says a rider can’t race while under investigation for PED use. If this is true, could AFLD re-open the case and leave it open indefinately, preventing Landis from racing not just in the TdF but anywhere else?
–
I don’t think Landis has much chance of ever racing the TdF again, even if he wins his CAS appeal and finds a job. ASO and/or AFLD will find a way to keep him out. I hope they can’t keep him out of the Giro and Vuelta, too.
ASO runs about a dozen races, including Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Nice, and some others. If it decided to go it alone, I would question if that is enough of an offering to tempt riders to desert UCI. I would also doubt that UCI would not react in some way. Back in the days of ABL of A, a rider could not participate in an un-sanctioned event unless he had permission from his state rep. I suspect that UCI, and its member federations, have a similar rule. So if ASO sets up a competing calendar of races, riders would probably have to choose one way or the other. Leaving UCI would cut a rider off from not only many races, but also things like the Worlds, Olympics, etc.
–
This could happen if and when enough riders were fed up with the UCI in some way, but whether this is true now I don’t know. A few riders seem to be upset about drugs tests in some way, as evidences by some notable refusals to sign the “pledge” but only limited number. ASO would probably not like to make a big anti-Landis noise, and then let other riders under some sort of dope-related cloud enter. So where would they get riders? Second rate riders who might see a chance for some glory? End-of-career big names, sort of like what the AFL did in its early days?
–
In short, I think it would be a big mistake for ASO to go independent.
Rant, if I’m reading the reports correctly, all AFLD wants to do is to make sure that FL cannot race in France while he serves his suspension. Presumably, AFLD is not seeking to bar FL from racing in France if he’s able to overturn his suspension at the CAS. I think that the CAS appeal will be final for all purposes under the WADA rules, against USADA, AFLD and all other WADA agencies, so AFLD is probably powerless to act in contradiction of the CAS decision. (Rant and William, this should address your concern that CAS and AFLD might issue conflicting rulings.)
…
I’d suspect that FL will agree not to race in ASO-sanctioned events in France during his suspension, and this whole issue will go away. From FL’s perspective, I don’t think this is going to be a big deal.
…
Yes, it’s possible to imagine a bunch of odd scenarios. If FL’s arbitration results are eventually overturned by a U.S. court, then perhaps AFLD is not bound to respect that decision. Or if the ASO pulls out of WADA and instead joins the proposed European anti-doping effort, then any number of possibilities emerge.
…
William, it’s not so unusual for a particular legal case to fall under overlapping jurisdictions. Look at Michael Vick, who is potentially facing both state and federal prosecution.
…
The bigger issue here is the war between ASO and UCI, and for me at least, THAT’S where things get murky. Yes William, the UCI does not plan to include the TdF on the 2008 Pro Tour calendar, but that does not mean that the TdF will fall entirely outside of the UCI. For example, the UCI may still try to control who can and cannot race in the TdF. Also, if I understand things correctly, WADA’s authority to conduct drug testing at the TdF flows through the UCI.
Last night on tv I saw an Australian league football match. It was entertaining. Perhaps it is time to give up on the sport of cycling.
_
What’s the point in investing time and concern over what a cyclist does when all the effort can be wiped away in this manner?
_
The reason for doping controls is to prevent somebody from artificially effecting the results of a race. Isn’t that just what AFLD are trying to do? I can accept that cheating is going to occur (I don’t like it, but I can accept it). I can’t accept that the organizers of a race can have the power to determine a winner regardless of what the rules say (isn’t it clear that AFLD is doing LNDD & ASO’s bidding?).
_
They must be concerned that FL is correct, and that he didn’t really test positive. Otherwise what is the point of their actions? If the LNDD had merely followed the ISL/WADA rules then none of this discussion would even exist. There would have been no need to invent new rules to allow the additional B-sample testing, or the “it looks like the correct peak” GC/IRMS “methodology”. If the LNDD had done their job correctly and with diligence then Floyd would have no case, and none of this would have occured.
_
LNDD as an agent of AFLD is being defended by the AFLD against possible adverse decisions being handed down from the sports governing bodies. That very statement is crazy. These people are so invested in Floyd’s failure that they have forgotten about their core mission. To prevent someone from effecting the results of a race by breaking the rules.
Larry,
The thing is, even though they are using the legal loophole as a justification for their actions, it’s a moot point, except in one particular instance.
—
Scenario 1: CAS upholds current ruling, Tour gets UCI sanction
—
In this case, operating under UCI rules, Landis is banned from the race in 2008. No UCI-affiliated team can hire him. Legal loophole is moot.
—
Scenario 2: CAS upholds current ruling, Tour operates outside of UCI sanction
—
In this case, Landis is still banned and no UCI-affiliated team (which is to say all of the professional teams) can hire him. Since it takes a team to win the Tour, and Landis would need to be part of a team to be a contender, the legal loophole is still moot. No team, no race. As an added bonus, since the ASO controls who can and can’t enter, they can deny Landis entry, even should he find a team to employ him for this special occasion.
—
Scenario 3: CAS exonerates Landis, Tour operates under UCI sanction
—
In this case, Landis is free to race at the Tour, provided he has an employer to do so. By accepting the UCI sanctioning, the Tour agrees to allow all eligible UCI riders to race. Landis is eligible, legal loophole is moot (although that doesn’t mean the ASO wouldn’t try to prevent his entry into the race).
—
Scenario 4: CAS exonerates Landis, Tour operates outside UCI sanction
—
In this case, the Tour organization has control over who can enter. Landis is eligible, but the Tour could refuse entry to him, or to his whole team. Legal loophole is moot, but makes for a nice sounding justification to keep him out if (as I would expect) the AFLD backs up their own lab and rules against Landis, whenever they make their decision.
—
All that said, this could well be a ploy to pressure Landis into “voluntarily agreeing” not to race the Tour next year, either. What happens in subsequent years is anyone’s guess. But my hunch would be that if the ASO goes it alone for their races, and operates outside of UCI sanctioning, that Landis’ days racing the Tour finished on July 23rd, 2006.
—
If the “agreement” were only to apply for 2008 and Landis was assured that he would be eligible to race there in future years, then I’d agree that it might not be a huge deal for him. But the cynic in me believes that it won’t be so simple.
—
All bets are off if this case goes into either the Swiss or US judicial systems. But that’s a few steps ahead of where we are today.
Rant, I agree with your analysis, and would point out only that (1) under scenario 2, it’s not clear that the ASO will limit the TdF to UCI-licensed teams, (2) under scenario 4, ASO can ban FL from racing regardless of whether AFLD brings an action in this case, and (3) your scenarios all assume that the CAS will act before the next ASO race is run.
…
I still think the AFLD action is meaningless to FL, and that the action is aimed at the UCI.
I personally think Rant’s scenario #4 to be the most likely. There have been many a ramblings about ASO operating le Tour with an AFLD sanction and not a UCI sanction.
_
The problem they will likely run into in tis scenario is getting any UCI licensed teams. From what I understand of their rules, UCI licensed teams cannot participate in non-UCI sanctioned events. That’s not to say that Floyd couldn’t participate as part of a national team or other team, which is what they may be trying to block.
_
If CAS does clear him and ASO decides to go without UCI, they could still effectively block him from participating as part of an invited national team by going this route. It’s clear to me that this is just a case of the AFLD (and possibly ASO) being vindictive and saying “You made us look bad, now we are going to make you pay. Regardless of if you win at CAS, you will still loose”.
_
The other issue that I see is this:
What happens if Floyd is cleared by CAS, but is found guilty by AFLD? Is the appeals process the same as with the USADA hearings? Will it go back to CAS a second time? If so, will they go through the hearing process yet again, or will they simply state that they have already ruled on the issue? Will we see stage 25 (or is it 26) of the 2006 Tour?
_
One thing is certain, there are too many questions to be asked and I’m starting to get confused at this point. I think I need a nice long ride to clear my head.
The Pro Tour is not the only UCI sanctioned game in town, so just because the Tour is not going to be part of the Pro Tour doesn’t necessarily mean it will not be a sanctioned UCI event.
–
Larry:
I am well familiar with overlapping Federal and state jurisdictions, having at one time law enforcement duties as part of a job with a US government agency. In fact, the whole reason I was sent to LE training was due to a jurisdiction issue where I worked. Too long to really get into here.
–
ddt:
Larry above feels that CAS is the supreme authority and AFLD would have to honor their decision in the current appeal from the USADA hearing. But elsewhere I have seen the idea expressed (maybe over at TbV) that AFLD would not have to toe the line if Landis was cleared. It may be that we would be heading into uncharted waters if the scenario you describe comes to pass.
Rant,
If I were Floyd, and I were eligible to come back and race, I think I would decline to do any race where LNDD is doing the testing, period. I think this would be great commentary on his part, as it would be consistent with his stated (and now documented) position that they’re incompetent.
Anybody know what “rules” or “Laws” the AFLD is using? It would be nice to know. Is it the WADA created rules? Or are we yet facing a whole different set of rules – one created by AFLD?
The from Cycling News:
*
“”The was-to-be successor of Richard Pound, head of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), has stepped down from his candidacy this week. Former French minister of Sports and current WADA vice-president, Jean-François Lamour, decided not to run for WADA presidency after a new candidate, Australian John Fahey, was named just one month before the election.
“I don’t want to be the president of a World Anti-Doping Agency which has no clear and straightforward vision of its mission, and which cannot stand firm against outside pressure,” Lamour told L’Equipe on Thursday, discrediting especially the Ango-Saxon members of WADA.
“Every year, we fight to keep the list of banned substances coherent: that corticoids, against the will of the Anglo-Saxons, remain forbidden; that the detection of exogenous testosterone remains at a first threshold of four (4:1) when the Anglo-Saxons want to return it to six. I also note that the New Zealanders have been battling for the authorization of cannabis for a while now… And those who praise the liberalisation of doping aren’t very far away.”””
*
Excuse my french but what the hell is an anglo-saxon and why do they like to dope? I like cannabis.
It’s become increasingly clear that pro-cyclists need to form a union so they can collectively negotiate for due process in dope testing and adjudication. AFLD’s action is another reminder that no cyclist can fight the system alone, and certainly no single rider can demand equity and fairness in the process. Cleaning up the sport is important, but not at the expense of innocent riders, and certainly not in such a manner as to destroy the credibility of the sport. Riders of the world unite!
Hey there Rant,
Would you permit this link to a post I wrote, called:
“WADA do about the Big Picture?”
http://crystelzenmud.blogspot.com/2007/08/dick-pound-floyd-landis-patrice-clerc.html
(Started another blog last month:
http://WADAwatch.blogsport.com
This is nearly the end-game of a long process that shows bitter and vile personality traits all across the cycling-world.
Being in Geneva, I’ve requested information from the CAS people to be notified iif Public attendance is possible at the upcoming (when?) hearings in Lausanne.
Lamour’s sour-grapes departure from WADA, the upcoming ‘High Summit on Cycling and Doping,” under Madame la Ministère Bachelot-Narquin (who at least is a Doctor of Pharmacy), is another step.
Rumours from Lamour include a NON-WADA ‘European anti-Doping Organization’ (how pretentious he is, after only working at WADA one year)
Funny enough, if you go to the French Minister’s site, and look for a link for AFLD, there’s a link that is ‘typed’ correctly, but the underlying ‘link-URL’ is mistyped: you can’t get from http://www.cpld.fr to http://www.afld.fr without knowing they erred.
Keep up the good work, I’m juggling too many things to write as in depth as you have… and I’m accepted to be an Observer at WADA-Fest 2007, next month in Madrid (will take a snake-bite kit, I promise).
Ciao from over here…
ZENmud
Slap,
I’m guessing that Lamour was referring to the Brits and to some extent us Yanks. The Anglo-Saxons were basically a mix of two Germanic tribes that inhabited Brittan back in the early hundreds AD if I remember correctly. I think they were mostly from what is now northern Germany and the southern Scandinavian countries. If memory serves me, there were historically wars and much rivalry between the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans who were in what is now Northern France.
Right after posting that I went ahead and looked it up to check my knowledge and found the following on wikipedia.
“For over a hundred years, the French have used “Anglo-Saxon” to refer to the Anglophone societies of Britain and the United States, and sometimes (rarely) including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. It is a wide-ranging term, taking in the English-speaking world’s language, culture, technology, wealth, influence, markets and economy.”
Hope that clarifies it, he was pretty much referring to the English speaking world as a whole.
“sticks and stones”¦” – Anglo-Saxons, Anglophone societies — “pejorative terms” that certain groups refer to English speaking parts of the world. For Americans, think along the lines of whites referring to blacks as “niggers” or for the English referring to the Irish as “micks” — SO WHAT? — all this points to is that Lamour is a prejudiced sob — why would such a character trait surprise anyone — considering his speech and action?
–
Why are we reacting to “name-calling”? — not that you don’t have the right or that name calling is in anyway anything but a sign of a stupid person who feels threatened by the person/s who he is referring to in a pejorative manner — but why waste the time on this?
–
I do not wish to throw cold water on anyone’s involvement in defending “fairness” — this is not my intent or wish. I just don’t see the point. Or are we so insecure in our own beliefs that a lowbrow intellect can trigger us into reacting to something he says? If we are — we have very little chance to “change the system” and to make it “fair and just.”
–
I have read Zenmuds’ blog — it is colorful and enthusiastic. The one thing of great interest I ran across is to do with ASO owning Le Equip — HELLO — that is something we can use and is important to know.
–
To fight these xenophobic ideas and or groups — one has to have a strong plan of action and develop this from day to day — you all out there are intelligent people — why are you letting yourself get distracted?
Jesus Morgan, it isn’t like you are getting paid by the word to post here. Are you?
*
I am just a dumb yank and was curious exactly who Lamour was referring to. Could have been the swiss, the eyetalians, who the hell knows? Thanks ddt240 for the insight. I was not reacting to name calling (especially since i didn’t even know he was talking to me: you talking to me??). Just color me curious, yellow.
Color me yellow? The yellows are not Anglo-Saxons. The Anglos are the whiteys. The yellows are the orientals. BTW what does this have to do with Floyd? He’s not an Anglo Saxon. My understanding is that his ancestors were Germanic. And I don’t think he does the weed – although I wouldn’t blame him.
Morgan:
While I don’t know the particular connotation that “Anglo-Saxon” has in France, I don’t find it to be in the same vein as “nigger” or “mick”, rather more like our use of the term “Latin American” to refer to the largely Spanish-speaking cultures found below the Rio Grande. What bothers me more about M Lemour’s retreat here is that, from the timing, it would seem to be more related to the fact that someone challenged him for the top spot. Now he’s taking his ball and going home, rather than face the possible humiliation of defeat. If he is truly worried that us A-S are going to try to ruin the WADA world, wouldn’t it be better to stay and use whatever position he end up in to fight for what he perceives to be the right? I have read some discussion over what the T/E ratio should be to reasonably allow for naturally occurring variation in the human population. Can’t this be discussed reasonably and scientifically? And I doubt that cannabis is a PED, to the contrary, its use would probably adversely effect performance. I can imagine a stoned cyclist on the line standing there while the pack departs daying “Wow – groooooooovy”! Of course, pro leagues here in the US (and maybe elsewhere) are trying to crack down of the use of recreational drugs out of concerns for image, maybe WADA is trying to do the same thing. Again, whether or not this is a proper thing for WADA to do should be rationally debated.
William — I agree — normally “Anglo-Saxon” is a reference as you say, as the term “Latin American” is referring to the largely Spanish-speaking cultures south of the Rio Grande. However — on this side of the pond — there is concerted effort by some people to keep “walls” between countries by highlighting the perceived “differences” of nationality and culture. From my experience this is done on purpose, with the aim to build “nationalistic identities.” — Now — I have nothing against people feeling “American” — I do — or feeling French, or Italian, or Dutch, or Spanish, etcetera — I only find that when this is pushed over and over again in the media, it turns from a healthy sense of pride in ones country to something quiet ugly that stops people from being able to see each other first and foremost as people.
–
You are absolute on the mark with your observations about M Lemour’s retreat and its possible implications. You say and it is to this that I most wish to keep to — “Can’t this be discussed reasonably and scientifically.”
–
Slap me Silly — I am not trying to “police” or in anyway exert control over anyone’s’ freedom to express themselves — it is just that I find myself frustrated with “injecting” “rants” that seem to miss the important point. That being — we have to keep focused on what “chance” we have to fight and correct this present situation — meaning — Floyd and his problem AND also direct ourselves in such a way that we do not open ourselves to being no better then the opposition.
–
Let us not forget — we have no choice at the moment but to “fight” this battle according to the “rules” that exist at this moment, meaning, WADA and the UCI. If we waver from this — we shall simply be dismissed.
As much as I don’t really want to continue with the whole discrimination theme that got started with the Anglo-Saxon bit, now that I’ve finished a beautiful 5hr ride and head a chance to read the rest of Lamour’s statement, I am starting to think it does sound a bit racist.
_
His statement regarding the need to create a presumably non Anglo-Saxon (I’m guessing to keep out the British) “European anti-doping agency” seems a bit prejudged and extremist in my opinion and I find it very disconcerting. This is a man who obviously has a very serious distaste and distrust of the entire Anglo-Saxon (read English-speaking) world. That pretty much means you, me, Floyd, everyone at TBV, probably including Marc, Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Brits, etc., and until he got mad about an Aussie being named as a candidate to the presidency of WADA it was looking like he would have been taking over next year.
_
I’m starting to think that him stepping down might be a very good thing. I don’t know anything about Fahey, perhaps someone could dig up some info and post it, but I think Lamour could have been a very bad person to have as the head of WADA when it comes to any hope of reform. This is especially true when you consider the primary focus of everyone at the moment is LNDD, AFLD and ASO, all of which are in his own back yard.
_
Speaking strictly at face value, I do agree with Lamour about the rejection of aid from the EBU, however, we don’t know what the details of their proposal was or what WADA’s reason for rejection their offer is at this point.
I agree it probably is a good thing that Lamour will not be heading WADA. I don’t know a thing about Fahey, but we can hope is brings more rationality to the table.
Hi Rant, Been trying to play catch up on the postings all week and despite some Wiggin-esque sound bites have bit my tongue till i caught up. I love the goings on at WADA right now. Int’l Herald Tribune reported that “Jean-Francois Lamour claimed WADA had failed to follow its election rules and suggested there was an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy against him that led to the…..”. Don’t you just love it when WADA is being accused by their own vice president of not following their own rules.
Sorry all, I’ve been a tad busy lately.
Larry,
CAS has a history of being quicker to act than the time it took for the AAA panel to be formed, meet, have hearings and come to a decision. Start to finish, their average is about the time it took the panel to write up their opinions. So I think that it’s a reasonable assumption that the CAS would act prior to the next Tour. Most are expecting the ruling to come in February or March. But you’re right, if it takes longer, it may not have any great effect on Landis one way or the other.
Bob,
You know, LNDD couldn’t even find what was in Landis’ system (cortisone), so I’d have to say, they’re not very good at what they do. I sure wouldn’t want them doing any crucial tests for me.
Slap,
Interesting quote from Lamour. Sounds like a sore child, angry about the way he was treated, picking up his marbles and running home, doesn’t it?
Steve,
A real rider’s union with some clout would definitely be a good thing.
ZENMud,
Always happy to have a link to articles on your blogs.
Everyone,
Just my opinion, but Lamour’s comments sounded like he was lobbing insults at the English-speaking world for conspiring against him. I’ve heard comments like that before, used in a similar vein, and they ain’t no compliment.
ddt,
Excellent point. Lamour’s behavior really raises questions about whether such a person should be allowed to run an agency like WADA. It seems to me that his dropping out of the running may well be a good thing. Although, we’ll have to wait and see just what kind of a character Mr. Fahey turns out to be.
Luc,
It is pretty funny when one of their own starts accusing WADA of breaking it’s own rules. There’s a vast Anglo-Saxon conspiracy … hmm … nah, M. Lamour isn’t worth the bother. 😉
Not to worry Rant – we keep things going here even when you have other duties.