First off, a little progress report. That huge writing project I’m working on is now about 9,000 words closer to completion. And it’s better for the contributions and suggestions of everyone who chimed in on their thoughts about important doping stories of the recent past. I don’t know if I’ll have space to include them all, but there are some definite additions to the mix. Thanks to all who’ve shared their thoughts.
What with having taken a few days to concentrate on that project (and this is just a warm-up for the day’s writing), there’s a lot to catch up on in the world of doping stories.
First, of course, is the filing of by the Floyd Landis defense team of their appeal brief with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Checking in at 90 pages (according to news reports, I haven’t seen a copy), it’s certainly not a short document. Some reporters, like the Associated Press’ Eddie Pells, have seen it, however, and have included the following quote from the brief in their stories:
“However, to wrongly strip a champion of his victory due to a flawed test is much worse than to have an athlete cheat his way to victory,” the introduction read. “To ensure a fair process and to protect against the travesty of wrongfully convicting a person for an act he or she did not commit, the anti-doping system must strike an adequate balance between the need for accuracy and reliability of laboratory test results and fairness in sports.”
The first statement in the quote makes it sound like the test, itself, is flawed. But at the hearing in May, the gist of the testimony from Landis’ experts seemed to be not that the testing methods were flawed, so much as the performance of the tests and the interpretation of the data were flawed. By the rules set up by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the science behind the tests is deemed to be reliable. So, that being the case, one can’t argue that the testing method is flawed. I would think that applies at the CAS level, too.
Another quote distributed far and wide is this one, from Maurice Suh:
“We welcome the opportunity to present this case to CAS,” Suh said. “We will prove, once again, that the French laboratory’s work violated numerous rules and proper procedure, rendering its results meaningless and inaccurate. We are optimistic that CAS will agree, and stop the miscarriage of justice that resulted from the earlier arbitration proceeding.”
That seems to be more on point. Suh seems to be clearly saying that it’s the lab work that’s at issue, not the science behind the tests.
Moving on to timing, Reuters offers this assessment of how the case will progress:
CAS general secretary Mathieu Reeb told Reuters on Wednesday the case was unlikely to be heard before March 2008, with a final verdict coming as late as May.
“The parties will have until around the end of January to submit their statements, so it is very unlikely that the hearing can proceed before March,” Reeb said.
If that timing is correct, then regardless of the decision, Landis will have only a short wait from the announcement of the CAS ruling until he can return to competition. Although not guaranteed by any means, one likely outcome should the CAS uphold the original ruling, would be that Landis’ suspension would be changed to run from late July 2006 to late July 2008. Other than some unsanctioned races, Landis has not competed in any UCI-sanctioned events since shortly after the Tour. Fairness, in my book, would require that the sanction be consistent with his suspension and subsequent firing from the Phonak team. In the past, most other suspensions have followed that pattern.
If such a change were to take place, Landis could conceivably be racing by late summer. If not, and the CAS upholds the original ruling in its entirety, then Landis will be cleared to race in February 2009, just in time for the Spring Classics. And, of course, if the CAS rules in Landis’ favor, he’ll be able to start racing right away — once he finds a team to race on, that is.
Regardless of which way the case goes, one thing that has come to light because of Landis’ situation is the inconsistency in the requirements for what constitutes a positive doping test. WADA’s mission is to “harmonise” anti-doping policy and procedure throughout the world. (Note, however, that they don’t use the word “standardise.”) It seems to me that among their responsibilities is to publish standards on judging whether results from the various types of doping tests are positive or negative. What turns out to be the case is that they have some standards that are quite specific (the T/E ratio of 4:1, for example, for screening), and not quite so specific (the argument in the Landis case over how many metabolites it takes to declare a positive result for CIR/IRMS testing).
Transparency is another failing of the current system. The Landis case is unique, in that the initial hearings were held in public. One way to make the system more credible overall is to hold all hearings in public. If the authorities are right in an accusation, the public will get to see how the athlete was caught (which is a warning to others doing the same things, as open hearings add to the public shaming of someone who’s guilty). If an athlete is exonerated, the public will see that the system has checks and balances in place to protect the innocent. When cases are conducted in private, however, no one really benefits. Open hearings (including at the CAS level) are one way, in my view, to improve the credibility of the system.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Landis case, for both athletes and those who enforce the rules.
Moving on, briefly, to the Iban Mayo situation. Earlier this week, it appeared that the counter-analysis of his B sample at LNDD would be conducted without an observer for the Spanish rider’s side. Today, Cyclingnews.com reports that Anne Gripper has changed positions on this matter. Testing has been delayed to allow Mayo or a designated representative to be present when the lab work is conducted. Good for Anne Gripper. Giving Mayo’s camp the opportunity to be present is certainly the right thing to do.
And lastly, in a story that’s entirely unrelated to doping, Saul Raisin’s budding career as a professional cyclist appears to have come to an end. Raisin, who has staged a remarkable recovery from head injuries suffered in a crash during a race 18 months ago, has not been cleared by French doctors for the Credit-Agricole team to begin racing. As an article at Cyclingnews.com (on the same page as the Gripper story, above) quoting Saul Raisin’s website, reports:
“Yesterday I was greeted by my Mom and Dad early in the morning in Salt Lake City,” Raisin said. “I was so surprised to see them but the fake smile on my Mom’s face revealed something was wrong. Roger Legeay had called them the day before to tell them that the French doctors would not release me to race. His voice cracked as he later told me the news and I tried hard to fight back the tears.”
Raisin continued, “I did very well on my neuro-psych tests but the doctors said it would be too dangerous if I were to crash and hit my head again. It is hard to take in the fact that all the last 13 years of hard training are now over.”
Raisin’s web site is experiencing heavy traffic, so don’t be surprised if you can’t get there from here.
It’s a shame to see a person’s hopes and dreams dashed by fate. Raisin may want to consider following the path of another former bike racer (one Phil Liggett) and become a cycling journalist. There’s lots of options open. Still, it’s a shame when a person can’t do what he’d really like, and for which he has a real talent. Best of luck to Saul Raisin in whatever path through life that he chooses.
This may be semantic quibbling, but to me “flawed test” could also mean “the way the test was done was flawed” and not just that the type of test in general is flawed.
William,
True, indeed. I’d like to see the whole brief to get a better sense of the context. That would certainly put it all in a better perspective.
Hey Rant! — Good to read words from you again. Miss your presence and observations. Am chomping at the bit to read what you are working on!
–
William brings an interesting point to the front –“semantic quibbling” — I think he is in his usual quiet and direct way pointing us to an important aspect of the problems we are trying to deal with.
–
Rider – “sent home shortly before the race due to “illness” – “illness” was actually a questionable haematocrit value due to the use of EPO.
— UCI anti-doping manager Anne Gripper says: “a non-negative result for EPO”
— Cycling News reports “rider tested positive for EPO on the Tour de France’s rest day.” Eurosport reports
— Great Britain’s Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish will not take part in next summer’s Tour de France, in order to concentrate on Olympic quest,”
— Gets turned into, in the same article — “the announcement that Cavendish is also snubbing the world’s greatest bike race came as a mild surprise.”
–
There is nothing petty or irrelevant about –“semantic quibbling!”
— When AP reporter Eddie Pells writes his byline as – “”¦anti-doping system must strike an adequate balance between the need for accuracy and reliability of laboratory test results”¦” while the Landis Lawyer
— “Mr Suh is clearly saying that it’s the lab work that’s at issue.”
There is nothing “seems” about it!
–
Can we be surprised why there is such conflict in the world of cycling and sports – when such semantic games are at play – constantly? One would have to be brain dead not to see that there is “spin” being applied here and it is done with purpose!
–
There is an unconscious habit in some people who are trying to maintain an “open perspective” Such as Rant’s quote here: – “That seems to be more on point. Suh seems to be clearly saying that it’s the lab work that’s at issue, not the science behind the tests.” Falling unconsciously into using semantics that weaken their observations. By leading with the word “seems” Rant leaves his observation weakened — trying to be fair. This may be seen, as it is — not a manipulation of facts but an attempt to be detached from personal viewpoint. On the other hand.
–
Consider the importance of the difference — Mr Suh, a most excellent lawyer KNOWS that the CAS has in the past upheld for the ruling that the testing is accurate — this is empirical knowledge — it is not giving a personal perspective. From what we have learned through the Landis case — it is LNDD lab personnel and their lack of adherence to following their own rules that makes it impossible to come to a clear conclusion. That prevents Mr Landis from getting a clear verdict, concerning his innocence or guilt — into a circus of arguing the rules itself. Why?
–
Because it is not allowed – by WADA’s own rules to bring into question — the RESULTS of their testing — I ask you — does this make any sense at all? Should we be surprised that the “fandom” is in a state of heated conflict? I don’t think so. The fandom-public is expecting to be hearing “direct and explicit statements” and they get convoluted misleading information. Is WADA “aware” of this situation — I have to conclude that they are. What do I base my conclusion on? If one adds together the quality of fuzziness in the “rules” — along with WADA’s penchant for continuously making ambiguous press comments concerning the “accused” — one HAS to conclude that there is conscious purpose behind these actions.
–
I ask — what the heck is a “non-negative” as compared to ” a positive” result? Or to seeing clearly that “”¦to concentrate on Olympics”¦” is re-interpreted as — “Cavendish is also snubbing the TdeF.” — The first quote is a common phrase of speech of WADA, the second is from a European news story. Now — it is “more acceptable,” although slanted reporting on the part of the news service to make such statements — because the public fandom “knows” that some reporting is “yellow journalistic practice — BUT to hear such drivel from a “Governing body” — may not be interpreted as anything but deliberate attempt at “spin” and public awareness manipulation!
–
So how has WADA managed to get away with such activity? Well — could it be because the proceedings till – Landis v. USADA – are largely held “behind closed doors?” The NEXT phase of the Floyd Landis saga is at CAS — THIS hearing will be not be “open to the public” — The reason? WADA claims to be doing it for the purpose “of the athlete’s privacy.” Seems a noble reason doesn’t it? BULL POKIES!
–
Once an athlete, who is a “public figure” is “publicly accused” — there is NO PRIVACY LEFT as far as the issues are concerned!
–
So what do we WIND UP WITH — having to “trust” that whatever “semantically mined” statements are forthcoming — will cause MISTRUST and CONTENTION among all concerned. Will the doubts and accusations against Floyd Landis cheating or not, his character questioned — be finally put to rest — I DON’T THINK SO.
Morgan:
Mathematically speaking, numbers are positive, negative, or zero (which is neither positive nor negative). Non-negative therefore includes zero with positives. But it is hard to see how to apply this, either literally or figuratively, to doping tests.
William,
Think about it this way — It is not precise on first perusal — but it is very true upon putting to the test — People mostly use language to “hide behind — even when they say they are trying to communicate” – sadly, a singular illness in most cultures.
Back in 1974 — a great man was giving a talk to a group of graduate students, a commencement address at Caltech. His name was Richard Feynman — he was an immensely brilliant man who was deeply human. The title of his address was “Cargo Cult Science” — not the smoothest title to a presentation — but certainly a rattling statement from a man who “knew” his chosen profession.
–
If you are not familiar with this man’s work — Google him — it is worth it — In his address he covered the concept of the responsibility a scientist has to be more then just a mere parrot — my words not his. He told the graduating students that a quality that is seldom thought in school but is assumed that the student will figure out and pick up– he is encouraging the newly graduating class of scientists and he is explaining the difference between “good science” and “sloppy-pseudo-science” and having integrity be the guideline in one’s work — here I shall quote him:
–
“”¦It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards”¦
· For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it:
· Other causes that could possibly explain your results;
· Things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
· Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.
Professor Feynman explains himself in much more detail — but these few lines have always stuck with me — even though — my mind does not function on a very scientific level — the truth they present — is simply — obvious.
–
Your point of “semantic quibbling” — reminded me of Professor Feynman — It points so directly to the present day issues — sadly — I do not think that any of the “scientists” and “educated” individuals who are running the show at WADA — had ever been thought this ONE important lesson — before they left school. Do you?
–
Saddest of all – they have no idea the amount of harm they are doing to themselves by using language to hide behind and choosing to act without ethics, merely to justify their wrongful efforts in the cause of a good thing.
I realize we are no longer on the “Participatory Ranting” thread anymore — but since no one seems to have anything to “say” — I want to express a – “two-cents” worth.
–
Rant writes – “It’s a shame to see a person’s hopes and dreams dashed by fate.” — I can see the sentiment and appreciate it. But I would like to put forth another view on the matter. So — having taken into consideration that Rant is busy at the moment — I wish to state that this is not meant as a contrarian stance to his — rather just another version of the same event. Saul Raisin and that he cannot race anymore.
–
Pro-Racing is always discussed as a sport. The beauty of doing it, the rare moments when a ride becomes EPIC! This feeds the fandom for countless years, getting “better” each time the moment is re-telling.”
–
We project onto the pro-rider all our highest expectations — they should be better then Eagle Scouts, more noble and self-sacrificing then a Mother Theresa. You know — somewhere between Abe Lincoln, JFK, Gandhi with Martin Luther King thrown in just for good measure.
–
The truth is — pro-racing is a profession. it is a job — like any other — except for one thing — The JOB can be fatal. I would bet that any sane pro rider KNOWS THIS.
–
Every time a rider ascends a mountain, he descends it too. The fans screaming and cheering egging him/her on — faster, faster, harder! The roads are tight — some don’t even have guardrails — some with a bed of pebbles nicely decorating the curving shoulders.
–
We thrill in amazement at descending speeds of 70, 80, 95 kilometers per hour, the wheels ratcheting with the forces being exerted upon them. A racer in “in full groove” — his vision aims around corners, trying to straighten out those 90’s,120’s,180° curves. If he is within a tight group, the only truth there is that he cannot be “nice” and give way to another racer, making “moves.” Never break in a turn! — Break before” — if you forget — you going to look like hamburger — if you’re lucky.
–
It doesn’t have to be a curve — it could be simply one small pebble, a bit of water from a fan, emptying a warm bottle of mineral water, a dog wanting to run with the riders, an idiot stepping into the road, a patch of grease, a rider in front of you, hits his breaks and your front wheel kisses his rear wheel and the ground slams up at you. It happens so fast — there is no “conscious” experience of the moment. You may be conscious after you wind up where ever you stop – after skidding like some ricocheting hockey puck. Or if you are lucky — you may wake up in a nice hospital bed, with doctors and nurses — doing their best to put you back together again.
–
Bike racing at the level where Mr Raisin was racing is WORK — very dangerous and very serious work! Somewhere along the way — pro racing changes way past the concept of “sport.” It becomes for the racer a game of “Russian roulette” with moment to moment testing of his abilities. A completely baseless trusting of every other rider around him to be paying as much attention as he is. A “belief” that Joe in front of him – is not busy worrying that his wife or girlfriend is cheating on him or that he had an argument with him/her on the phone this very morning — or a news hound — asking him a question, that is more of a punch in the gut then merely wanting some fodder for his paper. One moment of inattention — and it doesn’t have to be the racer’s own inattention. ANY SLACK IN ATTENTION and a rider is dog-meat. Maybe alone with the pack whizzing by or 10-20 of his “buddies” piled around him. Think about it this way — ask yourselves —
–
“Is it ever a good idea to step out of a mowing car doing 50, wearing nothing but skin tight Lycra, lightweight shoes and gloves and a lightweight helmet oh yeah and a thin pair of socks?”
–
If your answer is a definite “No way man!” — You begin to get the idea of what pro-bike racing is really like.
–
For those of you who, thinking about it — see it as a thrill, you can say you have one of the qualities that a pro racer needs. Get the old Schwinn out of mothballs; there are races around almost every weekend. You can go for the gusto, the “thrill.” Go and take your chances — and I honestly hope you have gotten some skills on that Schwinn — so you don’t leave your face or someone else’s on the asphalt
–
At one point — if you stay upright — the “sport of cycling” stops being a “sport” — you realize that it is a very dangerous piece of work. At that point — you grow up just a little and you learn the concept of respect, a little more.
–
If Mr Raisin’s doctors told him that it is not safe for him to get back on the bike — then my guess is — that he has what that other elite and very difficult “sport” – pugilism can bring on — a case of his physical brain being detached and getting a head hit — most times it can be fatal. If you survive it — “head butting of any kind” is permanently out for you.
–
Considering this — I think Mr Raisin is one lucky man — he walked away from it — he can walk, talk, scratch — do just about ANYTHING — just as long as he respects his limitations, he can’t race a bike anymore. As I see it – he’s got the whole world in front of him. I wish you nothing but the best Saul — you are one very fortunate fellow — I hope you get to realize this soon.
“”Considering this — I think Mr Raisin is one lucky man — he walked away from it — he can walk, talk, scratch — do just about ANYTHING — just as long as he respects his limitations, he can’t race a bike anymore. As I see it – he’s got the whole world in front of him. I wish you nothing but the best Saul — you are one very fortunate fellow — I hope you get to realize this soon.”””
*
I don’t know. Seems like a supreme bitch slap to me. Not enough to break break your jaw but enough to put tears in your eyes and wobble in the knees. This is one of those “life happenings” that is simply unfair. But life is like that. His incoming brother in law might be a better use of the word “lucky” in that he too had a devastating crash but he is back in the pro peleton. I just don’t think “lucky” for Saul is a word I would use, but if you write 750 words per post, then a bad one every now and then is to be expected.
bsmb,
Sorry you think I belittle Raisin’s situation – that is not my intent.
I do think he is lucky – he is alive, there are people who love and care about him.
I have survived a fast decent where I wound up doing a full face plant – almost didn’t make it – but you know – it gave me a new perspective on my life – some changes – come at one – and there is nothing we can do about it.
I do not lay blame on Saul for his crash – quiet the contrary – I tried to share what one experiences on a decent – from a racers point of view – one the fan has no knowledge of first hand.
Racing is a deadly serious job – anyone who does it – has learned this for himself – I can and do respect that – but it is only racing.
The world is endless – oppertunities are endless – My wish for Saul is that he gets to that point in his recovery where the sense of “loss” about racing is not the main issue -with all possible speed.
Not one word of rationalization intended. Thanks for responding. And thank you for the compliment. Will keep on trying for you to do better.
Morgan, that was one terrific description of a cycling descent! Hats off, buddy. Keep up the good work!
I used to love to descend a windy road. There were some in San Diego County, where I grew up, but I really got into it when I went away to college in Albuquerque. The Sandia Crest is just outside the city, about a 70 mile round trip, with 20 of that the actual climb of the mountain. I was quite good at going down hill, I could drop my buddies no problem. I figured I could gain about a minute a mile on them. On the top 6 miles, where the switchbacks are tightest, I could also blow by cars quite easily. If I only was as good going up as down, maybe I could have been something.
–
As far as Saul Raisin goes, I think that Morgan is looking at his glass and seeing it is half full and BSMB is looking at the same glass and thinking it is half empty. But think how much better off Saul is than Roger Riviera, who went over a cliff in the Tour in the 50s and broke his back. He was confined to a wheel chair. Then there was that Italian, can’t remember his name, who was killed in a crash a few years ago. It’s surprising how few rider deaths have occurred in the TdF, aside from the above mentioned and Tom Simpson, I can’t think of any others off hand.
Morgan,
I’ve never done a faceplant descending on my road bike, though I’ve had a couple of epic spills on my mountain bike (fortunately no broken bones, but some good trail rash for certain).
…
For me, the most terrifying descent happened in a road race near Harbor Springs, Michigan in the early 90s. I had a blue Giordana SLX frame at the time. Beautiful bike. Mix of Ultegra and Dura-Ace components. Great road feel. (“Steel is real,” as FL would say.) Except there was one minor problem. The rear triangle was out of alignment, and on a 50-plus mph descent, the bike started shaking violently. I thought for sure I was going to meet my maker, right then and there. The only thing that saved me was the fact that there were no turns to negotiate. It was just a flat-out speed fest, coming down onto a straight, flat road. Any turns, and I would have been toast.
…
After that, I kept the speed down on the rest of the descents. I finished at the back of the pack, just grateful that I’d survived. Come Monday morning, the bike was at the shop to be realigned. And every bike I’ve had since then, I’ve checked the alignment on the rear triangle. That’s one experience I’m never going to repeat. I hope.
Thank you gentlemen for your nice words – Rant – The rear triangle bit happened with me once on a Colnago! – Brand new – great ride, after I got the 2problem” fixed – but on the first “test” ride – Angelese Crest Highway – up to the Observatory and then – Like William says – Oh my – the “rush” of descending – I was a sick puppy! (:-))) – I noticed quickly that it was the “lean” that brought on the chatter – So I turned the descent into a moto-styling – bike as upright as possible – used my body for ballast – NEVER that again! OKAY I admit – part of the “fun” was as William says – passing cars was the part of the “kick” in it – Pure adrenalin junkie-ism – I admit it. Lest you all think I was/am(?) completely nuts – – I used to live in Topanga Canyon – twice daily I’d be climbing in and out of that canyon – let me put it this way – the road was not designed for safe biking. But getting ready on a fixed hub in early season – thaught me a lot about bike handling skills – my face plant – happened during a practice training ride – Santa Anna winds took me out – and just one instant of inattention.
–
Glad you liked it Larry – tough to incorporate a good little “moment” into other topical subjects – you wouldn’t take me seriously if I did – Got into a memory flashback and the fingers did the rest.(:-)
–
BSMB – I thank you for pointing out the weakness in my attempt – I’m serious about this – I failed you – because you got something from my story other then what I intended – my fault – not yours buddy.
_
BEST SURREAL moment – coming side to side with a Kawasaki – him in full leathers and helmet – keeping pace as he holds his line, turning the head to make eye contact and giving just a bit of a nod – the guy almost lost it – on the road descending to the Rock Store….(:-))))))) – NOTHING BEAT THAT FEELING OF ONENESS WITH YOUR BIKE – knowing that it is you who are the limitations…
All this brings back more memories. When I was in HS, in the early 60s, there was a time every week one of my rides was to go to Zumwalt’s, the largest bike store in San Diego. It was about a 15 mile round trip down El Cajon BLVD, all flat and with the sea breeze at your back on the return. The BLVD was a 4 lane, undivided city street, with stop lights most every block, on street parking, etc. With that wind at my back, I could really crank it up, especially if I made a light and got synced on the timing for the rest of them. I remember one time I was passing cars (it was a 35 mpn zone!), switching lanes for clearing, and I decided to pass one car in the inner lane by riding down the yellow line to his left. As I came up on him, I could see the driver’s face in the outside rear view mirror. I could see him take a routine glance in the mirror and suddenly realize I was passing him on a bike. His jaw almost hit the pavement.
–
Now adays when I think of stunts like that I pulled in my youth, I shudder and wonder why I still am alive.