Whatever Greg LeMond’s been smoking (if it’s legal), he should package and sell it to those looking to achieve an altered state of consciousness. At a recent meeting in Chicago, where anti-doping issues were being discussed, LeMond said:
Unlike the defense attorneys, I think the process is skewed [in favor of] the athletes. The governing bodies have to live to a higher standard than even our criminal justice system.
What planet is Greg currently residing on? Mars? Jupiter? Pluto, perhaps?
Let’s count the ways the process is skewed in favor of the athlete, shall we? First, there’s the presumption of innocence. Except, in the anti-doping system, once you test positive you’re presumed to be guilty. Score one for the anti-doping side.
How about the right to all potentially exculpatory evidence the anti-doping agency might have? Nope, no such right. The ADAs, under the WADA code, can give you as much or as little as they feel like, as long as they give you the bare-bones lab documentation package. Anything beyond that, an accused athlete isn’t entitled. Doesn’t mean the ADA might not give them what they ask for, but there’s no requirement to do so. Score another for the anti-doping side.
How about being able to challenge the testing and how it was performed. Well, the science behind the tests has been deemed by WADA to be correct. So that can’t be challenged. What’s left is challenging the interpretation of the data (good luck) and finding violations of the International Standards for Laboratories. But WADA’s ISL doesn’t specify how the various tests are to be performed, or even what criteria determines a positive test. That’s up to the labs.
And the labs don’t have to divulge how they go about determining a positive test. They also don’t have to turn over information on what their standard operating practices and procedures are. Just ask Floyd Landis. Did LNDD turn over the information his defense team wanted regarding their SOPs? Nope. Didn’t have to.
All that’s to say, when it comes to challenging the tests, how they were performed and what the data means, the ADA definitely has an advantage. How about the right (as it were) not to be punished until one is actually convicted of wrong-doing? Nope, not in the anti-doping world. Suspension and loss of employment happens before one is convicted of doping, not the other way around. Score even more for the anti-doping side.
So where in the anti-doping system can we see a definite bias towards the athlete? Hmm.
Let me think about that for a moment.
Hmm.
Nope. Nowhere that I can see. As far as it goes, I can’t even see an argument that the anti-doping system rises to the level of the criminal justice system in terms of an athlete’s rights in any way, shape or manner.
So here’s an idea for you, Mistah Gregory. Whatever you’ve been imbibing, you should market the heck out of it. There’s lots of people out there who might be interested in something that can change their perception of up to down and down to up, left to right and right to left. There’s some serious money to be made here, man.
You might even recoup your losses on a certain land deal in Montana.
Rant, I think that LeMond is starting from the premise that 80% of the peloton dope and from that perspective you could say that the system is skewed in the cyclists favour. The antidoping system has simply never caught up to the dopers. One thing that Lemond seems to ignore is that there have been clean riders that have won. Lemond won 3 times and could have been 5 had he not been shot. And by his own admission he was clean. Or was he? Sometimes the ones that sqawk the loudest are the ones covering their tracks. And sometimes those same persons can also influence a tremendous amount of change within the system because they know how it was done. Did Lemond dope? I doubt it but maybe 80% of his teammates did and without them he wouldn’t have won the tour. So maybe Lemond should acknowledge that his wins are a little suspect because of the doping teammates around him. We already know that Lemond’s past has influenced his present state of mind in some ways so maybe the guilt of his wins has compelled him to speak from the soapbox that he is on now.
Speaking almost along the same lines, it’s interesting how the French Cycling Federation Doctor Armand Megret has expressed concerns about the biological passport http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/nov07/nov08news2&from=rss and he has had a murky past (you’ll have to translate) http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=sport/20061107.OBS8421.html&host=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/
Rant — I am shocked that you would think that MONEY might be involved with LeMond’s testimony at that recent discussion – “Experts Discuss Legal Side of Doping in Sport?” or its more definitive title: “Legal and Ethical Issues of Testing for Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport:”
–
Are you implying that LeMond has in some way now become an “expert?” – We know he’s lousy at making land deals in Montana.
–
Bill Bock, the newly appointed general counsel for the US Anti-doping Agency, who needs to become known as the “new face” of USADA, has any sort of gain from being a panelist.
–
Steven J. Thompson, a frequent defense counsel to athletes in drug testing cases — happens to come out with the sound byte:
–
“I’ve learned that USADA is not unreasonable, they take no special pleasure in catching athletes.”
–
“My experience in working with them is positive.”
–
AND Thompson sees as working in both USADA and athlete’s favor – the new biological passport, recently adopted by the UCI.
–
“I think it is a positive step in a lot of ways, in terms of fairness it is better than a non-analytical finding”¦”
–
Hold on a minute — did he say: “better than a non-analytical finding”??? — Have I been in a coma and missed the part where the new “bio-passport” has been established as scientific and impartial? AND does his statement imply that there ARE “non-analytical” procedures being applied in sports doping?
–
“Legal and Ethical Issues of Testing for Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport,” indeed, More like the beginnings of “selling the general public” on accepting that their “new and improved” INDICATORS should be accepted as legitimate. WHY BOTHER WITH USING HARD SCIENCE AT ALL?
–
And who better to “present” this idea before but the sports law committee of the Chicago Bar Association – hosting a panel discussion regarding legal issues involved with doping in sport! A discussion “focused for the audience,” made up of association lawyers continuing their required ongoing professional education. (for those who may have trouble following — I am not objecting to lawyers here).
–
Are you suggesting that these people have “interests” other than the “pure love of sport?”
–
I am shocked. Really”¦I am”¦that such spin could be perpetrated on the general public!
–
What is the world coming to when Larry actually uses the term “McCarthyism and the blacklists”!
–
So it has come to this — EVERYBODY is doping in the whole world and the “powers that be” are assuming we all have “short term memory loss!”
Luc,
You know, maybe that is where LeMond is coming from. If 80% of the peloton dope, then 80% of his compatriots when he won the Tour were doping, and his wins — all three of them — are 80% due to the use of illicit product. Even if “Mr. Clean” didn’t use any himself. Guilt, perhaps? I’d agree with that assessment. Of course, Mr. Clean says he never actually saw anyone doping (funny, when one turns one’s head away, what a person can avoid seeing, isn’t it?). Ah, this is territory that could be mined for many rants to come. But, of course, there’s other stories that need coverage. Interesting bit about Dr. Megret and his past. So he was one of the doctors doping the Cofidis team, was he? Well, he certainly knows about doping first hand. That said, I do think his objections to the biological passport have some merit.
Morgan,
And here I was, just trying to offer Greg a business idea. 😉
For an english translation of the story cited by Luc about Dr. Megret, see http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11163.0.html.
…
I can’t find any indication that the accusation against Dr. Megret was ever confirmed or denied. Luc, do you know what happened here?
…
There are other accusations that Dr. Megret was directly involved with the Confidis doping program in the 1990s. See for example http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/sep98/sep12.shtml.
…
I agree with Rant that Dr. Megret’s first-hand knowledge of doping could be valuable in the fight against doping, assuming of course that he’d come clean at some point and confessed to what he’d done in the past. I can’t find any indication that Dr. Megret has ever confessed to anything. You have to wonder how he managed to get his current job! Luc, do you know anything more about this?
…
I’ll post on Mr. Lemond in a bit.
About Megret, if I am right, he said something like: our work is to protect people even if they have chose to dope, it’s better to help them to do it with the less damage. I don’t know if he was sincere or not but for sure a part of the management is indirectly victim of doping too.
—
I think Rant is harsh with Lemond, it’s the last winner for whom we have no doubt that he deserved his victories.
Jean,
I will admit I’m pretty tough on LeMond. Partly because he tends to make statements that are somewhat off the wall. I can’t think of anyone — even those on the anti-doping side of things — who would agree with his assessment that the anti-doping system has to meet a higher standard than the criminal justice system. Many of the practices of the anti-doping system are geared towards making the adjudication quicker, and are aimed at shutting down what would be legitimate avenues of defense in the judicial system, regardless of the country you happen to live in.
…
As an example, take the presumption that the science is correct is meant to short-circuit defense lawyers who might wish to challenge the theory and practice of the tests used to determine doping offenses. Without that presumption, defense lawyers would be able to delve into whether or not the tests actually do what they’re purported to do. With the presumption, that’s out of bounds when a case is heard before a panel.
…
Even the likes of Dick Pound (someone I criticize much more harshly than LeMond) admits that such rules were put into place to make it easier to convict people of doping offenses. I’m not going to argue the rightness or wrongness of such rules right now. But Greg’s believing the anti-doping system has to meet a higher standard to convict someone is at clear odds with the reality of such things.
…
Now, all that said, I actually still have a great deal of respect for him as a rider. Even at his current age and state of fitness, he could ride me off his wheel any time he wants — assuming I’d ever be riding in a group with him to begin with. (Stranger things have happened.) I find his changing story about why he retired from cycling (originally he claimed mitochondrial myopathy, now he says that the ubiquitous use of EPO in the peloton was what forced him out), and his other behavior since then as less exemplary than his exploits on the bicycle. But Greg certainly earned his victories, and they were well-deserved at the time.
…
As far as who the last rider who deserved his victories, I’ll leave that up to you to decide. I would hope that it would be the most recent winner of the Tour, but we’ll have to see if Dr. Franke’s allegations about his involvement in Operacion Puerto stick. (Has there been much in the French press? That story has virtually vanished over here.) If Dr. Franke is wrong, then it would be Contador — well, except for the whole hub-bub over Rasmussen being booted from the Tour rather unceremoniously.
I got into a bit of trouble over at TBV when I posted about Lemond. So I’m going to be more careful here.
…
Lemond deserves some respect and some benefit of the doubt. He was a great cyclist. He proved that U.S. cyclists could compete internationally. He didn’t have a U.S.-sponsored team behind him, he had to earn his chops on a European team. He might have had 4, 5 or more Tour wins under different circumstances.
…
Did he ride clean? Jean C, I don’t know how you can conclude so confidently that LeMond rode clean. Doping was rampant in cycling in the 1980s – according to McQuaid of the UCI, there was more doping in cycling in the 1980s than there is now. (http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=fullnews&id=17735). (In the 1980s, most doping was done with testosterone and amphetamines, but blood doping and EPO use was on the rise. http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tourdefrance2007/story/0,,2117935,00.html) You’ve pointed out the doping problems on the Confidis team in the 1990s – well, Confidis was started by Cyrille Guimard, who was LeMond’s former coach. (Source: Wikipedia article on the Confidis team). And if you want to look at an “unbelievable” Tour stage performance … how about Lemond’s last-day time trial demolition of Laurent Fignon – I think it’s still the fastest time trial on record. (I have a cite for this, but it may not be up to date.)
…
If Lemond did not dope, he must have been exposed to doping. He must have seen other riders dope. He must have had opportunities to dope, maybe faced pressure to dope. To my knowledge, he’s never spoken a word about the doping that took place while he was a rider. He’s acted as if doping arrived on the scene after he retired. Why is it that Lemond seems to know so much and to be so forthcoming about the doping that took place in cycling after his retirement, but he has nothing to say about the doping that took place in cycling while he was a cyclist? Presumably he’d know more about the latter than the former.
…
Understand, I’m not saying that Lemond doped. But Jean C, you think that nearly all riders are doping now, and the evidence is that just as many riders were doping then.
…
I realize that I have no direct evidence that Lemond doped. M. Saugy has no direct evidence that 80% of the peloton doped in 2007. Dick Pound has no evidence that 25% of hockey players are doping. And Jean C has no direct evidence for his doping claims either. It’s a sad business. But if everyone is under suspicion, then no one can be assumed to ride clean – not now, not then.
…
So Lemond falls into the modern category of “he may have doped, he may not have doped”, along with every other rider over the past 25 years, maybe more. Yeah, that’s a sad conclusion. It would be nice to give Lemond the benefit of the doubt. Maybe we can figure out a way to do that.
…
I’ll try to post later on the substance of Lemond’s most recent comments.
So let me get this straight — LeMond is a sacred cow, and therefore he is exempt from being criticized for opening his mouth and making statements that are slanderous to other people — but we should excuse this behavior because he is LeMond?
–
What the heck are you guys smoking? Or is it April 1 and I’m the fool of the day?
–
Lemond may have — “proved that U.S. cyclists could compete internationally. He didn’t have a U.S.-sponsored team behind him; he had to earn his chops on a European team.” — He was admired by millions for what he did as a rider, I was one of them by the way, but we should “give him some slack” when he turns ugly and tries to get involved for his own purposes in the pro-circuit after retiring?
–
Can someone point out the gun that was held to LeMond’s head that forced him to get involved with “testifying” against FL? When exactly did Lemond become the victim here?
What exactly was LeMond’s testimony in The Landis case? Did it add any clarity to the situation? Or was it merely an opportunity for LeMond to present himself as a “victim of child abuse?” Please EXPLAIN how exactly this aided in the trail of Landis? Sorry Rant, Larry — I am not so understanding as you seem to be.
–
The issue is not Mr Lemond and his accomplishments in he past or his childhood — but rather – his actions of the present!
–
I have understanding for LeMond as a disturbed person who was abused as a child. But I have trouble accepting that he is an AUTHORITY on doping NOW or in the past. Mr LeMond appears to be nothing but a cheap opportunist who is inserting himself at the moment in issues that he has NEVER happened to mention while he was racing!
–
I for one do not feel a need to be “Hollywood Nice” because he is Greg LeMond. The man is being an opportunist when he defines himself by slandering the character of others! I don’t think that his “sacred cow” status exempts him from having a brain or having a sense of ethics!
–
Jean C — You may believe what you like — but it doesn’t mean that I feel compelled to agree with you on this topic. Lest we forget — the issues of the present problems in cycling is not whether you or the entire nation of France believes that LeMond was the “last clean rider” to win the Tour — which by the way is hard to believe — if the “tell-all stories” that are cropping up all over the place can be true. The ISSUE is the FAIRNESS of the system in place – to deal with doping. NOT the popularity of Mr Lemond.
–
The issue is — Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France and was accused of “cheating by doping” by the powers that be. WHEN Floyd defended himself — we discovered that there was little chance of finding out any “truth” to the allegations against him — because the “justice system” set up by the governing bodies deals not with finding the “truth in the accusation” but rather in “getting a conviction of an accused rider!” ANY ACCUSED RIDER!
–
So you are right Jean C — I am hard as nails on Mr LeMond, and do not find it in me to be “forgiving” or “understanding” of LeMond’s actions of the recent past. You may think him a hero because you think “the last winner for whom we have no doubt that he deserved his victories.” It does not excuse LeMond from being nothing but a cheap opportunist now, in the present!
Larry,
The Stage 21 of 1989 TDF was not a circuit and was done with back-wind!
Lemond performed well, but it was not astonishing when we know that he had a serious advantage (2 sec/km probably) with the triathlete bar. see the result below.
21 Versailles-Paris, 24.5 km ITT
1. Greg LeMond en 26’57”
2. Marie à 33″
3. Fignon à 58″
4. Nijdam à 1’07”
5. Yates à 1’10”
6. Maechler
7. Wechselberger à 1’11”
8. Mottet à 1’16”
9. Beuker à 1’19”
10. Skibby à 1’22”
Riders generaly avoided to use Amphetamines because they could become addicted. With Amphetamines and T Riis would never have won TDF!
If Saugy who have access to riders’ blood say 80% have doped, it’s certainly closer from the reality, even if we don’t have a clear evidence. When he said 80%, it’s not that they were doped on TDF but that their blood had still traces of blood manipulation! For example riders who targeted spring Classics, could only chose 4 because it’s difficult to have more than 2 transfusions on that lap of time.
To be clear, the last TDF was the cleaner of last 15 years but Contador as Rasmussen were not clean. On Paris-Nice riders and teams complained against Disco because they have conserved the old methods despite the tacit agrement they seemed have sealed…
In sport when there is a serious improvement in performance, it’s the result of new method or a technical improvement but for cycling no one is able to explain the 20% improvement of output power on climbing! And in the same time, new PEDs were available… My position is a pure logic position, that is different from a law position.
Morgan, you need some fresh air!
Morgan, LOL! When I said on TBV that Lemond had been coached and was towing the ADA line, I got criticized (and probably rightfully so) for not giving proper respect to a great cyclist. So I come over here, determined to be respectful, and now I’m being criticized for cutting Lemond too much slack? LOL!
…
As I see it, Lemond is not doing anything more than saying what the ADAs want to hear. OK, based on what I heard over on TBV, maybe Lemond is not being coached. Maybe there’s just a neat convergence between what Lemond truly believes in his heart and what he must believe to be accepted as a spokesman for the ADAs. It doesn’t matter so much either way. What matters is that we understand the ADA company line for what it is.
…
Here’s my best understanding of the ADA company line, at least as it applies to cycling:
…
1. Everyone is doping. To be more precise, most everyone is doping, but there are some people out there riding clean, and we have to protect them. Or, roughly 80% of the riders are doping. Or, doping is rampant. You can come up with your own variation on the theme. Actually, any expression of opinion works here, so long as you describe the problem as being serious and widespread, and you use vague enough terms so that you don’t have to back up what you’re saying.
…
2. We know who the dopers are. Now, Lemond is not going to say this, because he’s not looking at the test results. But if you’re Dick Pound, or Saugy in Lausanne, or Patrice Clerc at ASO, or Christian Prudhomme at the TdF, you’re supposed to act as if you know who’s doping. You know that Lance Armstrong doped, and you know that Basso doped, and Rasmussen, and who knows who else.
…
3. The dopers are many steps ahead of the ADAs. This is a critical piece of the company line. The idea is that the doping cyclists are diabolically clever in terms of coming up with new ways to dope and ways to avoid detection. We’re supposed to believe that riders (and in some cases, “dirty teams”) are spending vast resources to outsmart and overwhelm the poor, beleaguered ADAs.
…
4. The corollary to rules 2 and 3 is that the world of the ADAs is divided into two parts: the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys consist of the ADAs themselves, the labs, the guys who run the races, a few athletes like Lemond and maybe Joe Papp (I’m not sure about Joe Papp, I don’t think they entirely trust Joe Papp), and any others who can play according to these rules. It’s also going to include a few dissenters, who can be trusted to play the role of the “loyal opposition” without being too good at it or pushing the line too far. I think that Chris Campbell was one of these loyal dissenters, at least until he wrote what he wrote in his dissent in the Landis case. The bad guys are the riders, and to be honest, just about anyone else who’s not a good guy. (I should probably have skipped over rule 4, to be honest — this is not, strictly speaking, part of the ADA line. However, the ADA is a closed club. If you want to speak for the ADA like Lemond, or get research money from WADA like Dr. Brenna, or run an ADA lab, or be a part of the new “biological passport” system, you need to be very careful what you say and what you do and whose side you take in a dispute with an ADA. Because they ARE watching and listening. “Bad guys” need not apply.)
…
5. The ADAs bend over backwards to be fair to the athletes. How can this be? Because we only prosecute a portion of the athletes we know to be doping. And why would this be? Because the rules are set up to give the athletes every benefit of the doubt. We don’t prosecute an athlete unless his T/E ratio is over 4:1 — we let the guys get away with 2:1 and 3:1 ratios, even though we know that those ratios aren’t normal. Same with the delta-delta tests that were the basis of FL’s doping finding. Same with the EPO tests. We set the line very high for these tests, to avoid even the possibility that we might falsely accuse an athlete. If an athlete fails these tests, they must not only have been doping, they must have doped up to their eyeballs. (See Dick Pound’s unbelievably offensive statement about FL’s testosterone levels being so high, no woman could be safe in his vicinity. THAT’s what he meant – not that FL was anything less than a gentleman, but that anyone who fails a doping test has abused dope above and beyond the levels of his doping peers.) And of course, most of the athletes are smart enough to approach the line without crossing it (see rule 3 above), but we know who those athletes are (see rule 2 above).
…
6. The ultimate rule is the natural conclusion that follows rules 1-5: the ADAs are completely justified in whatever they might do. It’s kind of a scary conclusion, but this is definitely part of the ADA line. First of all, since all cyclists are dopers, there’s no step you can take that’s unfair to the athlete. Second, since the ADAs are outmanned and outgunned, they have to take “creative” (in the words of Dr. Ayotte) steps on the battlefield to keep from being overrun. Third, since the ADAs are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guys, then even when the ADAs overstep, they’re still on the side of truth and justice. Finally, given rule 5 above, the rules are ultimately on the side of the athlete, so the athlete has no cause to complain about anything done by the ADAs.
…
So Morgan, this is why I’m willing to cut Lemond some slack. He’s no worse than Brenna or Saugy or Dick Pound or any of the others. He’s a lot better than McQuaid at the UCI, who has realized (too late) that he must be considered to be a “good guy” in order to survive in the ADA world, and is doing everything he can think to do (too late) to prove that he’s willing to tow the ADA line.
Jean C, I’m not saying that Lemond’s TT in 1989 is beyond belief. Of course it can be explained. But unless I’m wrong, it’s stood up as the fastest TT in Tour history for almost 20 years, notwithstanding all of the increases in power you’ve documented and the improvements in equipment and training methods. It’s seems to me that comparatively speaking, FL’s stage 17 results in 2006 are easier to explain.
…
The point is, if you’re suspicious, then no one is above suspicion. Not even Lemond.
…
My own preference is to take anyone who is not a proven doper (including Lemond, AND Contador), and assume that he rode or is riding clean. I’m not purposely trying to be naive, I just can’t imagine any other way of thinking that allows the sport to continue to be worth anything.
Oh, and Jean C: if 80% of the peloton is doping, then the problem goes WAY WAY beyond Team Discovery. It reaches into every team, every country. This is one of the paradoxes in the ADA line I described above: if everyone is doping, then no one is any worse than anyone else. As we say in the U.S., “you can’t be a little bit pregnant.”
…
It also means that every prosecution is unfair, because you’re just punishing a couple of people for what everyone is doing. Part of justice is treating similarly situated persons similarly. (Google that statement, you’ll get a lot of quotes in support.) You have to explain, why are you singling these few people out for punishment? Because you don’t like the look in their eye, or the country they come from, or what?
Jean C claims – “My position is a pure logic position, that is different from a law position.” I claim that Jean C’s position is based on his “belief” that “everybody dopes” — his “logic” in responding to direct countering of his stance consists of repeating “opinion” based publications to support his argument. I do not see where LOGIC enters Jean C’s stance. He may “claim” to be logical — but then, anyone can — that does not make it so.
–
Let’ look at Jean C’s statement from a LOGICAL point of view: “My position is a pure logic position, that is different from a law position.” What does this statement mean?
–
Other then his “claim” that his stance is logical — it is basically empty of substance, since he “argues” not from logic but from hearsay and populist belief and tries to insert that “his logic” is different from that of the position of law.
–
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. Can anyone honestly believe that this statement stems from a point of view of “logic?” — I think not — it is nothing more then “circular thinking” that justifies and adamantly holds on to its beliefs, ignoring whatever disagrees with it. This is not logic — it is merely self-justified – “circular thinking.”
–
So according to Jean C’s “logic” — we should ignore the “facts” that have come out of the Landis case — because it disagrees with his view point and the “Jean C Logic” — to support this — Jean C then appears to imply that this discrepancy should be ignored because his “logic” has nothing to do with the law.
–
How convenient this is for you Jean C. The law is not logic based, according to your statement Jean C. I admit that the law is not less prone to be illogical the Jean C himself — BUT unlike Jean C — the Law has to be open to logical deconstruction — simply put — if the law is found to be “unfair” — as we have discovered through Landis VS USADA — we are obliged to “argue” its merit, presenting “logical” steps to prove our stance to show this unfairness.
–
Jean C would like us to believe that this is “not logical” — because the law is not logical. Hmmm — Doesn’t sound very logical to me”¦but then Jean C thinks that I should be getting more fresh air”¦which is logical and would get me out of his hair while I insist that he present a logical stance to his position rather then mere “indicators” to justify his position.
–
And Jean C — you and ASO the UCI may believe that you have “won” your point about Floyd Landis being a “cheater” — simply because you “Feel” that he is — may I remind you — that the CAS decision is still waiting to be heard!
Larry — I in no way criticize you personally for your statement — rather I welcome it. I apologize if you or anyone feels that I am attacking them personally. That is seldom my intent. But when I do — it is direct and very clear that I am doing it.
–
I acknowledge that it is difficult to stay “PC” and still get your point out. In fact — I respect your and Rant’s savvy in this matter greatly. But as far as I am concerned — a persons “ethics” is revealed by his day-to-day behavior — rather then what he may have accomplished in the past.
–
I respect TBV immensely for the fight they are doing to help clear Floyd Landis and correcting the injustices that are a sore in the system. I cannot address whether LeMond was “coached” or not — the fact that LeMond is living in his head should be evidence enough to question any logic to his motivations for the actions he is taking, today, in the present.
–
If TBV felt that your statement and stance was — “not giving proper respect to a great cyclist:” Then I wish to point out to TBV that it is not a question of “respect” but an attempt to find “reality” in the absurd situation we find ourselves in. That to believe that LeMond deserves a “sacred cow” status merely because of his past accomplishments flies in the face of reason and logic and dare I say it — “common sense!”
–
Rant’s Rule of Respectful Disagreement is not broken merely because one has a different opinion from the whole. Your statement concerning LeMond and him being “coached” seems to me to leave TBV open to legal contradiction because it implies collusion — you as a lawyer would know this better then I.
–
There is no room for “sacred cows” as far as doing something about correcting the scales of justice. Unfair is unfair as far as I am concerned. LeMond’s actions are obviously motivated by “self-interest” — his “appearance” at the Landis trial was nothing more then character assassination and if Landis’s ex-manager had not let his anger lead him to making that stupid phone call — this would be much clearer then it has been presented. But that is the point, isn’t it — the law aims to right the balances of such situations, whether individuals like it or not.
–
LeMond may have been abused as a child — but he is now an adult who may be expected to have some idea that his “actions” will be looked at from a point of ethics. I find no ethical basis for his actions other then being self-serving — and yes — he was magnificent while in the saddle — but I do not put much weight on him as a man of ethics -TODAY!
To be more accurate about Lemond’s ITT record, we just have to remember: just 24 km ITT, single way Versailles-Paris with back-wind, and a start at around 150m height for an arrival at around 50m on Champs Elysées!
Larry,
“It’s seems to me that comparatively speaking, FL’s stage 17 results in 2006 are easier to explain.”
May we have this explanations? Is it the bottles of water and his ability to repeat his training performances?
Since 2005, riders and teams were warned that the old days were finished, so yes Floyd as many others have chosen to ignore the warning. That’s their own fault and responsability.
Morgan,
The logic is : the differences between top athletes are less than 5%, often less than 1%! How could have rode Landis against doped riders as Virenque, Ullrich, and so without doping when scientists have establish an improvement of 20-25% with PED and EPO?
I can only conclude that Landis lied when he said he never doped especially if you analyse all the facts around the case. How many riders are supporting him?
If Floyd took dynepo you would say he didn’t dope because it was not on the banned list. Technicaly you would be right, but I think following spirit is more important that rules!
Well Jean C – we shall see what comes from the CAS decission
@ Morgan Hunter: “Mr LeMond appears to be nothing but a cheap opportunist who is inserting himself at the moment in issues that he has NEVER happened to mention while he was racing!”
This idea said over and over again by people criticizing LeMond is false. Have you searched through archives? Did you follow European news, interviews, articles during his career? He did speak up against doping, but was hardly heard. Just two examples among others:
In “Le Cyclisme International” in February 1993 he made an interview in which he was mentioning that EPO was becoming the real problem for cycling, and I think he was also clearly naming Dr Ferrari.
In 1989, it was said from various sources that he was happy to have left the team PDM where doping was suggested to him and he refused. See for instance: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F35FB0AEB9743CB&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
He talked about this bad experience at PDM again last summer in an interview to L’Express: http://admirelemond.blogspot.com/2007/07/lexpress-interview-from-july-12th-2007.html
Jean C:
Neither Ulrich nor VIrenque were riding in the 2006 TdF, so you’re statement about Landis needing to dope to beat them is, as Spock would say, not logical. Where do you get the idea that the difference between top atthletes is 5%? 5% of what? 5% difference in speed? Top speed, i.e. sprint speed? Speed in a TT? This is a meaningless statement without any supporting evidence, it is simply your opinion.
–
Your question about using a substance which is not banned, but is otherwise a PED is an interesting one. Certainly from the point of view of whether to sanction an athlete, if the substance is not banned, then nothing should be done. We might look down on the athlete in question, but that is all we can do.
I was told by a mechanic in France this summer that he knew Lemond was getting transfusions during the tour of 89. Of course this is he said she said. He was working with the team and knew the doctor involved. Who knows what was transfused? Maybe saline and maybe something that was not illegal yet! He also told me a great story about Fignon paying a motorcycle driver to pin Lemond against the barriers on the finish to Super Bagnere ski area. He was an admirer of Lemond and despised Fignon. So with this information I should offer my services to USADA to testify! I find it very sad the way Lemond is acting. He was a great rider and now seems so small. I had the satisfaction to pass and drop Greg on a col during the cyclotourist race, l’etape, this past summer finishing about 1 hour ahead of him. Good thing it was so hilly as he is rather large now. I personally believe that the “passport” should be used to protect the health of the riders. The attempt to control doping in the peleton like the “war on drugs” in america is not working and becomes a great source of abuse and discrinination.
William,
I was just refering to Floyd’s answer who responded at the hearing that he never doped during his career! Without PED he would never be able to finish a mountain stage in the top 20-30 in his career… or he was the real genetic freak (20% stronger than other) so he was stolen but said nothing and didn’t complaint as Bassons did!
For the differences between riders, I was only refering to output power, especially average output power, but of course we don’t have to compare Boonen and Chicken, but climbers together.
—
Ekblom and other’s studies give an advantage from 5 (very short period) to 15%(3 months) with EPO or blood doping on a sustained effort, and that advantages can raise 20-25 % with others PEDs!!!
Can we see it on http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500 ?
Can we recognise on it the EPO era? Can we detect on it the hematocrit test? the EPO test? The micro-dosing effects or blood doping? Can we say there is a correlation a link between the curves and doping events (new PED, tesing,…)?
Clair D – I appreciate your work at providing me reference to your statement. I do follow cycling and believe me if LeMond “spoke” to the media about doping I would have heard of it. But I had not when I was still living back in the States. Having said this – I cannot present myself as being an archivist of Mr LeMond. I was a fan of his when he rode, as I stated.
–
But this is not the issue Clair D —
–
MY referring to him as a cheap opportunist in the present is done as a response to his inserting himself and becoming a party to a trial where he has no direct bearing. Where he was allowed to make “controversial” (I feel I am being kind here) statements without subjecting himself to cross-examination.
–
He may be Greg LeMond – but he is not “proof” of anything other then that he is GL. The content of his words were and are to be considered nothing but an attack to assassinate another individual, who was then NOT given the chance to cross examine him. He is on opportunist – because NO ONE ELSE BUT LeMond gains from this act – yes the USADA also “gained” because LeMond went along with it. Nobody held a gun to his head – the motivation therefore stemmed from LeMond himself.
–
Perhaps, Mr LeMond’s French is better then the English translations or our French translations here from the media, this is possible – but you must understand – LeMond claims that in a phone call between him and Mr Landis – Mr Landis “confessed” to him that he had doped.
–
Taking this as a direct statement – one has to question why Mr Landis would do such a thing with a complete stranger? That such a set of claims is made by LeMond against Landis without having more then one’s word against another, (no third party witnesses to corroborate the statements), it turns LeMond’s statement into nothing more then cheap gossip – even if it is “gossip from LeMond.”
–
In finishing — let me reassure you that I want an absolutely “clean” pro-cycling. I love the Tour de France and have held it as the height of achievement in the world of cycle racing — I still do. I am as adamant in pursuing the issues of the present situation because I would like to be watching the Tour for the next hundred years — it is absolutely unique in my opinion.
–
The “issues” I refer to is not to argue who is doping or who is not — merely by media and the powers that be “finger pointing” to an individual or a group. The only issue that holds merit is the one of APPLYING fair justice in the pursuit of determining guilt or innocence.
–
As the Rules and Bylaws exist today — this process is not fair. If you have read what I have written here as my comments — you will be familiar with the points I am referring to. For this I stand by them and feel no need to justify myself further. You may not like them — but that is your right. As is it my right to speak out against the imbalances that exist in todays situations.
–
LeMond may have “opinions” about Landis and the entire professional class of racing cyclists – but they are no more then mere opinions. And when he inserts himself in a case where he has no direct bearing on the matter other then to speak out these opinions – we have no way to get at the truth – no matter how hard we may try. Therefore that is why I call LeMond a cheap opportunist!
First, to clarify: I did not receive a critical comment from TBV the person, I received a critical comment from someone posting on TBV … and I thought that the criticism was well-taken.
…
Back to the main topic. Let me throw a little more fuel on the fire! These are quotes from a speech Lemond gave in Denver this August: (www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_6727367)
…
“I know what is going on the sport, and it’s despicable … It’s criminal, actually. Organized blood doping. Secret motorcycles. … Hiding places. Doing growth hormone, testosterone, cortison, insulin growth factor, EPO.”
…
With regard to the Floyd Fairness Fund: “Everybody’s entitled to defend themselves. But the reality is to go out into the public, like the Floyd Fairness Fund, and be asking people who are so gullible and who really don’t know what’s going on? I don’t know how, in a morally conscious way, that he’s able to do that.”
…
Why do cyclists continue to cheat? “It’s because everybody’s doing it … They get caught because of a mistake. There are people getting away. The worst ones that are getting away I don’t even want to mention.”
…
Back in August, the UCI were part of the group of “bad guys” I referred to in my rant about the “ADA Line”, and here’s what Lemond had to say about the UCI: “There’s corruption in the UCI. It goes back. You have certain athletes donating money for doping machines. Ehtically it crosses a barrier. It sends a message that: Are all the riders really being tested? That’s what’s going on in the minds of the peloton.”
…
If this sounds like crazy talk to you, compare Lemond’s talking points with the “ADA line” I outlined above.
…
I’ll post more if I have time today, but wanted to say quickly: Claire D, good points, perhaps Lemond did speak out against doping as a rider, in a very limited way, but maybe more than any other rider of his day. Jean C, yes I’m referring to FL’s S17 wattage figures being well within what we’d seen from him in other races, and his ability to take on more water than anyone else during S17. It’s probably not possible to compare FL’s S17 to Lemond’s record TT, they were just results no one thought was possible before they were achieved and still seem remarkable (but maybe not impossible) today. I’m not saying that Lemond doped, I have no reason to suspect Lemond any more than any other successful rider of his day, I’m just saying that if you want to be suspicious then no one is above suspicion.
Claire D.
Thanks for providing those links, they are truly appreciated. It appears that LeMond did speak out, at least a bit, on the subject of doping during his racing days. It’s a shame that such comments were never reported here, and that he didn’t do more back then.
…
That said, he did publicly claim (in this country, anyway) that his retirement was because he’d been diagnosed with a disorder called mitochondrial myopathy, which affects the energy factories of our cells and makes it hard for those suffering from the disease to use their muscles. That was the reason he gave for his declining abilities in the US media. Whether that was the truth, or just a convenient excuse to use at the time he bowed out of cycling, I don’t know. If I ever get to interview him (I’m not actively seeking to do so), I would ask him a number of questions along that line to see how he reconciles his comments from the mid-1990s with his comments today.
…
Welcome to the discussion here. I hope we get to hear more from you as time goes on.
When I posted Lemond’s comments from his Denver speech, I failed to notice the headline: Lemond blasts image of sport, cycling “getting what it deserves.” In the article, Lemond is quoted as saying that cycling is reaping what it sowed.
…
This is an essential element of what I’m calling the “ADA Line”, but one I forgot to outline above. Let’s add it to my list as point 7: cycling’s doping problems are cycling’s own fault. Cycling brought this on itself. It’s reaping what it’s sowing. Or words to similar effect. This is one of Dick Pound’s favorite themes. Sometimes he blames the UCI, like last week when he said that the UCI “let [doping] get out of control” and “they are reaping what they sowed.” (Yes, just like Lemond.) THIS particular aspect of the ADA line may be the most puzzling. Who is it, exactly, that let the problem get out of control? Aren’t the ADAs themselves in charge of the anti-doping effort in cycling? What is it that the ADAs want, that has not been given to them in the way of power or authority to address doping in cycling? And if cycling has been remiss in addressing doping, what sport has done better?
…
It is a strange but essential part of the ADA line: that “cycling” has been lax in its anti-doping efforts, and by “cycling” we mean someone other than the ADAs themselves! This helps avoid the obvious conclusion that, if everyone is doping and very few dopers are being caught, then the ADAs must be doing a terrible job. The ADA line says: the fault lies elsewhere: with the UCI, or maybe the “dirty” teams (ignoring that ALL teams would have to be dirty if everyone is doping), and of course the cyclists themselves. And if you criticize the ADAs, then you’re on the side of the dopers.
Larry,
The ADAs can’t enforce cycling ethics, nor can they prevent corruption when it comes to drug testing. Ultimately they can do very little if the sport is uncooperative. When people like Lemond say “they brought this upon themselves”, he is talking about omerta and the lack of anti-doping ethos in the peloton, management, and UCI leadership. I don’t see how u can seriosuly disagree that these groups allowed doping to become prevalent.
In any case, to hold the the ADAs responsible for the doping culture is like blaming the police that there are drug addicts.
The Landis propagandists keep trotting out arguments saying “but what about the the _____ ADAs”? Dick Pound said such and such! But can you actually catch WADA officials or other sincere anti-doping figures lying? Do they decieve anyone? What do they have to hide? The answer is nothing.
The blame for the doping culture lies with the omerta and its enforcers–if you want to get angry at someone get angry at them. They destroy cycling, not the people trying to enforce the rules.
During LeMond’s career he was frequently accused of not taking his work seriously (wasn’t he the rider who was first accused of targeting only the TDF?). Wasn’t he in terrible condition at the start of the ’89 TDF? Crying during the Giro just 4-weeks earlier? He was riding in the grupetto. Claimed to have had an iron deficiency, had some magical shot, and was mysteriously cured. Can you imagine if Lance did that in 2005? He would be crucified.
_
Look, I don’t know if Greg knowingly cheated. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, just like I give it to any other rider. Do I think he could have been caught doing something at some time? Absolutely. When a simple over the counter cold medicine or too many No-Doze caffeine pills can cause an AAF, nobody is outside suspicion. How can anyone say they were absolutely “clean” when it’s possible that a good portion of my office could test positive for something right now if WADA wanted to get them?
_
Who are we kidding? There’s no clean. There was time in professional sports that was “clean”. Sports at the TDF level is a business. There is nothing clean about it. ASO is trying to screw the UCI to ensure they stay on top of the cycling business. WADA is trying to show that they are the only serious people in the room, so that they can justify their mega-salaries. Vrijman crucifies LNDD during an investigation paid for by the UCI, and WADA does nothing to respond to his allegations (Pound called him “delusional”). When doping scandals fronted by L’Equipe, the ASO, and the LNDD have damaged cycling, you always have to wonder, what’s their angle. What is the real story? Because one thing is evident throughout all of this. Everyone who knows the truth are not going to just hand it out for free.
_
Ludwig, your point is taken. However, I contend that the sport is collapsing because a change in what the fans and media deem acceptable – not because of some 100-year-old doping omerta. Merckx tested positive at the “69 Giro under dubious circumstances. According to the biography by Rik Vanwalleghem, Merckx argued that there was no counter-analysis or oversight of his testing, and that the Italians wer out to get him (that sounds familiar). This merely became a footnote to his career. Today he would be looking for another job regardless of the questionable nature of the testing.
_
And JeanC, your logic is flawed – even if your conclusions are correct. The speeds recorded at races tells you little of who was clean. You could argue that doping has improved in leaps and bounds during certain periods based upon parallel medical advances. But you can’t claim to have a level of clairvoyance that allows you to know who was clean.
Michael
You are correct when you write :
” Wasn’t he in terrible condition at the start of the “˜89 TDF? Crying during the Giro just 4-weeks earlier? He was riding in the grupetto. Claimed to have had an iron deficiency, had some magical shot, and was mysteriously cured. Can you imagine if Lance did that in 2005? He would be crucified.”
So you could only crucified a man who made a stunning come-back a day later after a strange bonk like a blocatos. And when you know that he tested positive for that day, and for other days the same PED were found too, that his blood values indicated blood doping and that the guy was member of a team by the past using actovegin and 200 syringes in a day (very close of the number of 20 used by doped riders as have reported repentant, it was important to hide their rubbish like thieves)!
So I don’t know who is damaging the sport ASO, LNDD, Lemond or the doped riders ?
Certainly my flawed logic!
JeanC, are you a politician? My point, which I thought was clear, was that LeMond got a pass. I am not defending Armstrong.
Ludwig, sorry, hard to keep up with three Rant topics at the same time. Yes, I agree with the analogy that doping in cycling is like crime in a city. I agree that the city criminals are responsible for the crime, that the city police are responsible for preventing the crime and catching the criminal, that the city council is responsible for passing the laws required to criminalize the bad behavior, and that the rest of us are responsible for giving the city police the tools they reasonably need to do their jobs. Under this analogy, the city is cycling, WADA is both the city police (the law enforcers) and the city council (the law writers) — UCI is like the mayor who appointed the chief of police, the dirty riders are the criminals and the clean riders are the law-abiding residents of the city.
…
If I live in a neighborhood where crime is rampant, it may be that the police and the city council are doing the best they can, and only the criminals are to blame. But if I approach the police and ask why there’s so much crime, it’s not terribly helpful if the police blames the criminals (i.e., if WADA blames the cyclists). I KNOW there are criminals in my city, that’s why the city HAS a police department. If the police blames the mayor (i.e., if WADA blames the UCI), I’m going to wonder what’s up, since the mayor’s responsibility is to appoint the chief of police. And if the police blames the city (i.e., if WADA blames “cycling”), then I think the police are missing the point.
…
If you have a crime problem, is it realistic to think that everyone is to blame EXCEPT the police?
Sorry, but in our case, until recently wasn’t it the major who was in charge of the police, who was a thief and protected the thieves?
What was the nickname of the major? Wasn’t it Verddugghen? Didn’t he write in charge of the rules?
Maybe you should read the Rabo’s report which is pointing a part of the holes inside the UCI rules making easy to beat testing!
Jean C, do you mean Verbruggen, past president of the UCI? He hasn’t been around for two years now, and it’s STILL his fault that there is doping in cycling? Can you explain?
…
As for the Rabobank critique of UCI, yes, that’s a damning critique. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I’ve never liked UCI and now I have better reasons for feeling that way. I don’t think I EVER said that doping in cycling is entirely the fault of WADA and the ADAs, but if I ever did, I now officially retract that statement! Jean C, if you’re saying that UCI shares the blame for doping in cycling, along with WADA and the ADAs, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.
…
No two ways about it. We should carefully understand the critique leveled by Rabobank against the UCI, and we should make sure that the folks at UCI correct their policies to avoid more incidents like the one involving Rasmussen. But Jean C – notice who was responsible for bringing this critique to our attention. Not WADA. Not the ASO. Not Dick Pound or even Greg Lemond. It was a TEAM SPONSOR. From your posts and the posts of others here, I would have thought that the team sponsors were one of the bad guys, part of the “omerta” that allows doping to continue. I hope we all see now that demonizing the sponsors is wrong, that the sponsors can (and some do) play a positive role in the fight against doping.
…
Unfortunately, when people within the ADA system like Dick Pound blame everyone but themselves for the state of doping in cycling, they offer no specifics. Pound never pointed out the specific problems at UCI that were named in the Rabobank report. He did not do so prior to the Rasmussen incident, when his critique might have helped us avoid this incident. He didn’t make a specific critique AFTER the Rasmussen incident, when all of the relevant facts were laid open for anyone to see. Dick Pound knows the anti-doping system better than anyone in the world. Why was it left to a bunch of Dutch bankers to bring this state of facts to our attention?
Larry,
Do you think that UCI can clean in his house in 2 years when many people of the house are Verddruggen friends and his “son” took his throne?
WADA is born recently and has many difficulties to with the National ADA… who are protecting their athletes, just see OP or in Italy for cycling.
—
Rabo’ report is a report ordered by the bank which received a lot of mail during the last TDF…So they have to clean the situation and to avoid a second scandal, especially now that doping is not more tolerate by crowd . How a bank could back up people who are lying and probably cheating?
—
Dick POUND has constanly said that UCI were not doing his job to clean cycling. Don’t you remember the fight with Verbbrugggen? Since It was Mc Quaid it was correct to give him some time to act.
Jean C, please point to any of Dick Pound’s critiques of UCI that made specific suggestions for reform. As for what motivated Rabobank to do the terrific job we both think they did in their report … you think it was the mail they received? Do you think it would help if we sent a few letters to Dick Pound? ;^)
Larry,
Don’t troll. We all know the fight of WADA and ASO against UCI. Have you live as an hermit the last year?
Jean C, yes about the hermit thing, but even as a hermit I heard a lot of name calling and saw a lot of finger pointing, but did not pick up any criticisms of substance.
…
I had to look up “troll” in the dictionary. I’d forgotten it could be a verb.