Word came this afternoon that Deutsche Telekom, the German telecommunications giant and parent company of T-Mobile, decided to call it a day, as far as cycling sponsorship is concerned. According to various news reports, it’s due to the ongoing ruckus over doping within the team during years past. As reported at Cyclingnews.com, the CEO of T-Mobile had this to say about their decision to leave the sport:
“We arrived at this decision to separate our brand from further exposure from doping in sport and cycling specifically. This was a difficult decision given our long history of support for professional cycling and the efforts of Bob Stapleton in managing the team in 2007,” said Deutsche Telekom Board member and CEO of T-Mobile International Hamid Akhavan. “We have an obligation to our employees, customers and shareholders to focus our attention and resources on our core businesses.”
The team had been rocked over the last two seasons by a series of doping cases. “We have worked very hard with the current team management to promote a clean cycling sport but we reached the decision to continue our efforts to rid all sports of doping by applying our resources in other directions. Deutsche Telekom AG wants to make it clear that this action is not based on any disagreement with or misconduct by team management,” Akhavan emphasized.
That’s a nice comment about team management. Nothing personal guys, this is business. Damn shame that some of your racers didn’t understand that they needed to clean up their act. The good news, however, is that the team will now morph into Team High Road, as in High Road Sports, Bob Stapleton’s company. And they still are holding on to their ProTour license, whatever that might be worth.
In a separate article at Cyclingnews.com, there’s more information about T-Mobile’s departure, along with greater commentary by Bob Stapleton on the state of cycling today. Before getting to that, the story gives what I think is a pretty apt description to answer the question, “Why now?” And it has to do with a certain Patrik Sinkewitz, who tested positive for testosterone after an out-of-competition test in June. Sinkewitz has since turned state’s evidence in order to get a reduced ban for himself. As Cyclingnews.com reports:
Despite Sinkewitz long being fired from the team, each report of doping on the team in the past – even if it was tempered by insistence that Stapleton had cleaned up the team – continued to associate the T-Mobile name with scandal. This connection proved to be too much for the telecommunications giant, who ended its sponsorship abruptly on Tuesday.
From the story, it appears that Team High Road will be able to function next year, although they will have a reduced budget. Also, the team will be implementing a newer, tougher anti-doping program at the beginning of 2008. Although they don’t reveal the company who will be doing the testing, the program sounds awfully familiar.
Stapleton looks back at the year past, and offers this assessment of how things went:
Looking back at the past season, Stapleton admitted that changes in the sport did not come soon enough. “I had hoped there would be more change faster. I’m still looking for a consistent testing programme for all ProTour teams. That is fundamental to the credibility of cycling.”
“To a certain extent I am angry and pissed off that it hasn’t happened yet,” he said. His anger is directed at those who are reluctant to change in the face of the sport’s widespread problems. “I think in some cases people are not going to change and they will have to be replaced. I think that is ultimately how it works,” Stapleton reasoned. “Teams have to adapt, and the government of the sport has to adapt, or there won’t be any reason for new sponsors to come in.”
Upon taking over as manager at a time of upheaval, Stapleton was perhaps a bit too optimistic that things would get better quickly for the sport. “I think I was too optimistic that the sport would see the need for change,” he admitted. “I thought there was uniform recognition of the need for action.”
Looking specifically at his team, though, he was much happier. “The team far exceeded my expectations. We had a fantastic season. Most of our wins came from our young guys. The women’s team did everything we could possibly have hoped for.” Only one thing was negative: “The spectre of doping did not help.”
Change certainly didn’t come soon enough. One has to wonder, given T-Mobile’s more aggressive stance against doping this year, what was Patrik Sinkewitz thinking when he decided to continue doping? Did it ever occur to him that he might be putting his team’s sponsorship in jeopardy, especially given the Puerto and Landis scandals of 2006 (and beyond)? Did he really think he wouldn’t get caught? The nature of out-of-competition tests is to catch cheaters by surprise. I guess it worked in his case.
An enterprising reporter for the Associated Press managed to get Sinkewitz’s reaction to today’s developments.
“It’s not a surprise,” Sinkewitz said after the Telekom announcement. “It’s a pity that some things went wrong in the past. A completely new start was made recently and some things had changed. Too bad that the sponsor is quitting now.”
One of the things that went wrong, it appears, is that Sinkewitz’s behavior didn’t change. I wonder if he feels in the slightest bit responsible for today’s news? If he doesn’t, he should. I don’t get a sense of remorse from his comment to the AP. Even if he has gone state’s evidence, I wonder if he did so after having a moral awakening, or if it’s merely to reduce his punishment. Something makes me think it’s the latter — in which case, I suspect he hasn’t really learned the lesson of his mistakes.
To be sure, today’s announcement isn’t solely the fault of one rider who chose to dope. There was quite a history of doping on the team, and from Sinkewitz’s telling an organized effort at one time. But the Sinkewitz case, and all the fallout since, appears to have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the Team High Road’s now former sponsor is concerned. Good that the team will be able to continue, even if it’s in a reduced capacity, while searching for a new title sponsor. Perhaps Bob Stapleton really can turn his team around. That, at least, would be a nice ending to this story.
Rant, you are right that the latest Sinkewitz revelations appear to have finally pushed T-Mobile out of the sport.
…
It’s not clear from what I’ve read that the old T-Mobile team (now team High Road) will continue in the sport. I read something to the effect that Stapleton is looking for high-worth individuals to invest in the team (any volunteers here?). Stapleton is probably wealthy enough to carry the team on his own for a while, if he’s so inclined, but my experience with wealthy people (limited as it may be) is that they don’t do stupid things with their money. Stapleton can get no return on this investment. He does not need publicity — he’ll get nothing out of having a team ride with his picture on their lycra. And his cycling team is not like an investment, say, in a U.S. football team, where the team can later be sold for a profit. There’s no market these days for cycling teams. T-Mobile couldn’t sell its interest in its team, it had to pay for the privilege of ending its sponsorship.
…
I don’t think this news story is an isolated event. I think it’s a snowball rolling down a ski slope, or probably more accurately, a loud noise in an avalanche area. Pro cycling as we know it may not survive — if it does, it will take many many years to recover. The sport is now branded as a bad investment, and the herd mentality being what it is, it will not be easy for the sport to recover its old reputation with large and reputable sponsors.
…
It’s not just the sponsors who have left the sport … not just T-Mobile and Discovery, but also Credit Agricole, Adidas, Gerolsteiner and others … it’s the fact that we’re not seeing new sponsors emerge to replace the old ones. The two new teams last year were Astana (new and unusual national-style ownership for, I think it was, the old Liberty Seguros team) and Unibet. Astana was pretty much a doping disaster, and the ASO would not let Unibet race, out of a reluctance to promote gambling. I wonder if the ASO would be so squeamish this year (can you say, “Team Penthouse Magazine”?).
…
Since you can’t sell tickets to a road race, cycling can only look to its sponsors and to TV revenue for the money it needs to survive. But the sponsors are leaving and the TV revenue is drying up, too.
…
With money leaving the sport, it will be that much more difficult to get the squabbling powers that be in cycling to mend fences and address the problems in the sport. The UCI, which wants to support cycling around the world, is going to have trouble convincing teams to spend their dwindling resources on more extensive (and expensive) travel and logistics. And as William pointed out in his post under “Slight Disconnect”, where is the money supposed to come from to fund the new biological passport program?
…
I think we can expect the sport to disintegrate in 2008, perhaps beyond recognition. ASO will seize the opportunity to control who can and cannot ride in the Tour de France and other races. This will diminish the value of an UCI Pro Tour license to almost nothing, further diminishing the status of UCI, which in a way is too bad, since they’re probably more responsible for promoting the biological passport than any other force in the sport. Astana will not be allowed to race in next year’s Tour, which means that we’ll have our third straight tour without a defending champion (and our second straight without the defending champion’s team). Some of the smaller “classic” races will fold altogether. We’ll see further progress on the formation of an independent European version of WADA.
…
It won’t be pretty to watch.
Rant,
If we step back for a minute and look at this scenario from merely a tactical point – meaning – “who controls cycling?” – perhaps we can achieve a clearer point of view.
–
It would appear that the governments who are seriously getting involved in the “problem” of doping look at the situation not from the “doping” angle but from the “who is responsible for” angle.-
–
Telekom – was partly subsidized by the German government.
–
To “break” the hold of the “old guard” – meaning the people who are responsible for the “state of doping” – some clever people are intentionally distroying the old guards “power base.” Meaning the current status of who “runs” cycling behind the scenes.
–
No better way then to “publicly” create a situation where the “old guard” HAD to react to “doping issues” – then the question of Telekom’s “rate of change to a non-doping clean team makes perfect sense.
–
The UCI holds licensing – If most of the old guard is involved in the doping situation then this had to be destroyed.
–
With the leaving of the highest profile Team Sponsors – this is essentially accomplished.
–
Note the convenient “news piece” concerning the NEW MANAGEMENT OF RABOBANK. They are “old guard” trying very hard to “stay in the game.” Presenting a “new face” for public consumption.
–
Would like to be more detailed but at the moment – I am up to my arm pits in alligators.
–
Machiavelli is highly respected in Europe as a strategist and a thinker. I get the feeling/impression that it is exactly the type of campaign that is going on.
–
Who ever is behind this campaign – and I for one do not think Pound and Mcquide are/were smart enough – they are just the “public” mouthpieces here, has effectively destroyed the old guards hold on things.
–
In the coming time – meaning – the new season – we shall no perhaps see who the new players are, th3ey are not “out yet.”
–
As it would appear – the Russians are making a big move to “get in at this new beginning” – so are the Chinese – but let us not forget the surge of involvement of the Australian faction – or at least who they may be representing…
–
It still remains a simple question – who controls the sport of pro cycling.
Morgan, interesting point about the German government’s ownership of a substantial stake in Deutsche Telekom. I think the government rules prohibit the government from exercising any control over the company’s policies, but I think it’s fair to assume that the company considered the position of its government before deciding to pull out of cycling.
…
I can’t agree that cycling’s “old guard” wants to push powerful sponsors out of the sport. Not when these sponsors are taking away the money the sport needs to survive.
…
I agree that the issue, who controls cycling, is a critical issue. Pity is, no one controls cycling. Everyone has a little piece of turf that they guard dearly, but no one controls the whole thing.
No -no! Larry – the “old guard” are not the ones wanting the sponsors out – I think it is paret of a plan to force out the old guard by “drying up” the sponsorship for the big teams.
–
I think that people have come to the realization that “Pro-Cycling” is corrupt and has to be put down. All that we the public is seeing – we see through the “love of the sport” – but I do not think this way leads to clear understanding.
–
I do not think that the entities behind this movement to collapse “pro-cycling” care about it. I believe it is there intent to do so. As it looks, they are doing a very good job of it too.
–
The involvement of the Russians and Chinese and of course the Australian factions – I think are the UCI’s way of trying to stave off the situation.
Morgan:
YOu have some interesting ideas as usual. I have been thinking about whether or not there has been any sort of situation in some other sport in the past, and have come up dry. US “big league” pro sports historically did not depend on sponsorship, in the early years they tended to be entirely self-supporting out of ticket sales (and later on radio and TV revenue, which does depend on sponsorship). MLB teams built their own ball parks. Now this is all changing. Teams are extorting cities into building them new stadiums with the threat of going elsewhere. Stadiums are selling naming rights to big corperations to help defry costs. This is a form of sponsorship, and scandal can effect it. The Houston Astros used to play in Enron Park until that blew up, now it’s Minutemaid Park, same facility, new name. Will the unfolding stories of drug use in US pro sports reach a stage where such sponsorship becames a liability to the sponsor, with resulting drying up of funding? I don’t know.
–
Within the past 25 years or so, the big problem US pro sports had was “labor” related; strikes by player or officials which have shut down competition for all or part of a season (or in the case of the NFL, “replacement” teams composed of second rate players). During these strikes there was much speculation about the effect the strike would have on the “fan base” once the strike was over, however any negative effect was small and short-lived, if there was any at all. BUt what would happen if sponsorship for TV dried up. As I understand it, TV revenue is the big financial base of the sport, followed perhaps by selling expensive tickets to “sky boxes” at the stadiums, which usually goes to big businesses. Were the drug situation to become as bad (publicity speaking at least) as it is now in cycling, would these funds dry up and then what would MLB, NFL, etc. do? Other US sports scandals, like the Black Sox or college BB point shaving, did not effect finances to eny extent; the sports involved cleaned things up and moved on.
–
But US pro sports have very tight control on the sport. There is no hierarchy of controlling agencies, US pro sports do not report to any international federation that might exist (like FIBA for BB), do not report to WADA. They run things themselves. They have more control on publicity. Notice there never is a leak regarding drug use? Basketball, hockey, and until recently, baseball were involved in the Olympics, but the controlling bodies don’t seem to deem this connection important enough to govern their sports according to the wishes of the IOC or WADA.
–
This might be a model for a new pro cycling system. Due away with international federations like UCI, let every country run the sport as it wants. Would there be different rules? Sure, but everybody would know what the rules are in France, for example, and could adjust according if they wanted to ride in the TdF. We have much the same sort of system in HS sports in the US. There is a National Federation that formulates rules, but there is nothing to force state associations to follow those rules. Texas, for example, uses slightly modified NCAA rules for football instead of the National Federation rules and when playing teams from neighbor states, they play according to the rules of the home team. Even where states so use NF rules, they have varying standards of eligibilty and the like.
–
I can see where this is how the sport might develop. If UCI and the Pro Tour goes the way of the Dodo, I don’t see ASO going belly up soon. They seem to want to be independent anyway, to be free to say who can or can’t ride. No commercial teams? Go back to national/regional teams. No money for the big infrastructure behind teams today (support vehicles, etc.)? Go back to the old days when riders rode with spare tires draped across their shoulders like bandoliers and fixed everything themselves. Remember the story about Eugene Christophe who had to fix his broken fork on a village forge, and got time penalties because he had a boy pump bellows for him? And remember that ASO runs several other races besides the Tour, like Paris-Roubaix.
Well, enough rambling for now. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.
Rant,
While I do think the riders are ultimately responsible for the state of cycling (ie, if they organized collectively they ‘could’ change things), your post puts way too much blame on Sinkewitz and far too little on Aldag, Stapleton, the omerta, etc.
What exactly is Sinkewitz supposed to do? According to him, he believed he was supposed to keep doping and just not get caught. Think about it from his perspective. If he does nothing and gets no results all year, then what does his future look like? Will he be able to demand the same salary he gets now? It’s easy to judge him as immoral from the outside–not so easy to see the matter from the perspective of a rider who came of age in the omerta system, and whose respected colleagues actually helped him get settled into the doping culture.
The reality is that Sinke’s confessions have gone a lot way towards reversing some fabrications about some dramatic reversal in cycling. They force everyone to get more honest. Such confessions and whistleblowing must be rewarded genourously by authorities and by fan support if we expect cycling and cyclists to treat fans and authorities with honesty and respect in the future.
William,
Do you know anything about the american six-day races – like the one they used to have in Madison Square Garden? – I believe – there were six days in Chicago too – I’ve never gone back that far – this was before the Garden was for basketbal and etc…?
–
The major problem that RR-Promotors have is they cannot “control” the road where the rides are taking place -unlike in other sports where one has to go to a stadium or a rink – pay admission, which by the way – is not the biggest profit marging – it is the “concessions” that make out like bandits – that is “at the stadium” – where both other pro sports and cycling do meet is in the “after market” clothes, bikes, parts, etc…
–
It is misleading to think that a well organized business thinking “team” makes no profits from the things they endorse. We are not talking chump-chanmge William.
–
Yeah – IT USED TO BE that the organizers literally got “billboard space on their riders back – but now – as you say – it is ALL ABOUT “air time.” So that is why ASO and the rest of the other promotors are never going to just play dead to the UCI’s attempts at “musclingt in” – And it is just that. No matter what fancy terminology is presented.
–
I think – at the moment – WADA is running PR interferrence for the IOC and doing a damned good job of it. I would bet my lest cent that this bunch has got some real dirt hanging in closets – but we are never going to see it – especially since they are clever enough to “offer up” pro cycling just to create the needed smoke for them.
–
Of course – it is just looking at things from a different possibility.
Today’s Cycling News contains Bob Stapleton’s statement that he has enough money to run Team High Road for 2 years, at a reduced budget and on a reduced schedule of races. That’s good news. The sport needs the presence of people like Stapleton.
…
Morgan, funny you should mention it, last night I tried to do a bit of research on the old American six-day bicycle races. In the 1920s, this was arguably the most popular sport in the United States. The cyclists involved were the highest-paid athletes in the U.S. The sport seemed to decline with the Great Depression in the 1930s, never to recover entirely. I seem to remember that there was some kind of betting scandal involved with the sport, but I can’t find any information to support that, and I may be confusing velodrome cycling with some other sport.
Ludwig,
You raise an interesting point. As I was trying to point out, the Sinkewitz revelations are merely the straw that broke the camel’s back. By themselves, perhaps they wouldn’t have brought T-Mobile to their decision to leave the sport. But coupled with everything else that went on, they were the last straw.
…
At least, that’s how it appears to me.
…
You’re right, looking at it from his perspective as a lone individual, what’s he supposed to do when confronted with a culture of doping around him? My point about his decision for the 2007 season is that the team had shifted to an anti-doping stance, complete with some form of testing (apparently not very good, even by Stapleton’s own admission, because they’re switching testing companies next year).
…
Knowing that Stapleton was brought in to clean things up, and knowing that the title sponsor didn’t want any more doping (at least, that was their public stance), why did he continue? Perhaps it’s as you say, he needed to for his own economic reasons. I can easily see that and understand how he might have made that choice.
…
At the same time, I find the reaction that the AP reported from him devoid of any sense that he might be partly responsible. Not all, maybe not even a major part. But partly responsible, to some degree. Now, perhaps that’s something the reporter didn’t include. Context is everything, and we don’t know the full context of his comments. I would hope that he understands his part in all of this, and that he’s not just speaking to save his own skin.
…
Because, if he is just looking to salvage himself, who’s to say he won’t make the same choices regarding doping when his suspension ends? As a team manager contemplating hiring him at that point, that’s what I’d be nervous about.
…
David Millar is a good example of someone who’s changed his stance on doping. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy thing to do — especially given that he might have been killing his own career prospects when he admitted to, and started speaking out against doping.
…
If Sinkewitz is seriously interested in helping turn things around, then he certainly deserves to be praised for having that kind of change of heart. As does any rider who comes forward and blows the whistle on doping — especially organized, systematic doping. What I’d like to see from him is some acknowledgment of the part he’s played in the demise of the T-Mobile team. Given all that’s gone before him, he’s not the only person responsible by any stretch of the imagination. But he’s one of many. A simple, “I’m sorry that I contributed to the problem.” would be enough for me.
Sinkewitz and Landis are the same. Both tested positive for Testosterone. Both were the straw that broke the camels back. Both chased sponsors away. Landis should take responsibility also.
You got the important part Larry — it was not so much “the depression” — rather that “organized” crime was running it — they got sloppy with their “race fixing” and the politicos used the general frustration and anger of the “public” to nail them closed.
–
Too bad — as I’ve heard from older fogies then myself — a lot older — some of the best restaurants were located right in the middle of the track! — The riders were like “rock-stars” — annnnd interestingly enough — this I cannot be specific about — since I am not that old — one mob was trying to muscle in on the other — hmmnnn — does the scenario seem familiar?
–
Rant — Sinkewitz is dead meat as far as having a professional career left, at least on this side of the pond. Sorry — no insult intended — but the guy is not the brightest bulb in the world — Now if Zabel were to be cracked — that would really open a can of worms — he is still an idol to millions and he has got to have some very powerful backers — notice, he got away with the “teary — eyed” confession and na’ery a reporter ever really went after him — for that matter — nor did WADA or the UCI.
–
If you read the article in Velonews — “A 20-year dynasty comes to an end” — you will see some of the “connections” that may be at work.
–
This may just be total hot air on my part — but I think — Ulrich was thrown to the wolves so Zabel could squeak by. Riis — came “clean” because he had to — the d’Hont book just had too many connections — and Riis may just have timed it to get a good “punch” in to Telekom — for “using him2 when it suited them then throwing him away.
–
Ludwig – your supposition that “riders are ultimately responsible for the state of cycling” – in my book is like saying that “actors” are responsible for the movies that you watch. I can only agree with you on one condition – if the “rider” got so big – think Tom Cruise big – and then became part of the Promoter system. Otherwise – sorry to tell you buddy – the Riders – if they could not form a “union” – it was because they were stopped cold. And like most actors – riders are mostly concentrating on Winning – like actors on making movies – They are nothing more then the “acts” in the show. So making them the “ultimate bad guys” does not hold much water.
–
That’s what I think. since we are all having a lovely “gossip” session”¦
Devon – you mean that Sinkawitz got “nailed” by LNDD and their “scientifically” magical testing methods? – You have every right to your opinions – but before you start throwing “accusations” maybe you might consider that Landis has supplied more then a mere “shadow of a doubt” AND THE CASE ISN’T THROUGH YET! Or does that not matter in your book?
The Sinkewitz situation is pretty interesting, and not just because of the tales he’s telling.
…
The classic way to break an “omerta” is to catch the low-level guys and get them to “sing” in exchange for a lighter punishment. Then you slowly move your way up the chain of command at the “omerta” until you can nail the people at the top. It’s not always pretty, but it’s effective.
…
Sinkewitz is singing like crazy. We possibly should not believe everything he says, just as prosecutors (and juries) discount the testimony of witnesses who are receiving consideration in exchange for their testimony. I would also avoid characterizing the witness as a “good” guy or a “bad” guy — he’s pretty much doing what nearly anyone else would do in his position.
…
What makes the Sinkewitz situation particularly interesting is not merely that the authorities have reduced his sanction from a two-year to a one-year suspension. It’s ALSO that he must have received promises that the authorities will actually let him race when his one-year ban is up. In contrast, I don’t think that FL will ever be allowed to race in another TDF, regardless of what happens on appeal … ditto for Mayo, Basso, and a host of others.
…
I mean … it HAS dawned on you all that the length of the doping sanction no longer matters, that anyone convicted of doping is banned for life unless he confesses his doping and cooperates with the authorities — like Sinkewitz or like Millar?
Devon,
Certainly, the accusations against Landis colored the environment and may have helped convince some sponsors to leave, or others not to sponsor at all. Whether those accusations are true or not is another matter. The same could be said for most of the other doping cases over the last year. Just the negative media attention, alone, is probably enough to scare away otherwise interested companies and organizations.
Larry,
I hate to say it, but your comments on who will be allowed to race in the future and who won’t has a ring of truth to it. I would hope that ASO and other promoters would let someone back in once his time is served, or he’s been exonerated. I fear that they will do exactly as you say.
Landis tested positive. iShares backed out. Landis has not accepted responsibility for what he did. At least Sinkewitz admitted it.
Did someone say Machiavelli? Whoa. I’m feeling a moment of cynicism coming on.
_
I tend to think cycling is run by Pee-Wee Herman. You would be hard pressed to convince me that this was an intended consequence of the “powers that be” (a phrase that should be followed by ominous music). Sell the sport by advertising that it’s all a fraud. Wow. This appears to be a consequence of a lack of an enlightened Machiavellian despot that cycling seems to desperately need.
_
Pro cycling is no more corrupt than any other profession. Well maybe a little more corrupt due to the intense difficulty. But consider, how often do you sit at work stealing time from your employer? I’m doing it right now. People are always trying to push the ethical envelope to get an advantage of some kind. This generally involves finding ways to do less work than is required to achieve a goal and still reap the rewards (sound a little like doping?). So let’s try not to sound any more sanctimonious than is necessary.
_
We can all agree that performance enhancing drugs that actually work must be considered cheating. Like HGH. Oh, wait, scientific studies indicate that HGH has no performance enhancing effect (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/9/779). Well definitely a dose of testosterone. Oh wait, that doesn’t work either (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=experts-testosterone-performance). Well we definitely need to prevent the athletes from taking cold and asthma medication. That makes sense – well ok, it really doesn’t make sense. Well I am sick of these guys re-hydrating after 7-hours in the saddle on a 100-degree day in the Pyrenees, using an IV drip with an electrolyte solution. That’s definitely performance enhancing. Oh but wait, it is performance enhancing, but it’s not considered doping. Crap, I thought this was going to be easy.
_
Ok, I concede that blood doping is cheating the sport and the fans, and is down-right creepy. But what do we do about hormonal (steroids and their friends) modifications, where the testing and evaluation methods are apparently not up to the task of guaranteeing justice? Read some of the scientific studies regarding the accuracy of the GC/IRMS test and you come away with the distinct feeling that the test is fraught with too many opportunities for error to adequately administer justice (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2003.08.022 and see links). As a scientific instrument it sounds great but as a tool to met out judgments it seems insufficient. Forget about the apparent inadequacy of the testing for the synthetic form of the hormone epo.
_
WADA states that the use of substances “based on the mistaken belief they enhance performance is clearly contradictory to the spirit of sport.” In other words, it doesn’t matter if something actually gives athletes an unfair advantage. If the athlete believes he’s cheating, then he really is cheating. Whaaaat?
_
In the zeal to eliminate doping, cycling has created one of the great PR nightmares of all time. The governing bodies have told the fans that the races are inauthentic and the riders are untrustworthy. The greatest champions are berated as cheats by the very sport that they sell. With or without proof. Frequently without (see Rasmussen where innuendo and a crappy personality was enough, or Armstrong where his success was all that was necessary). The agencies claim that 75% of the riders are cheating and yet they only catch 3%. Now the sport is losing sponsorships and fans. Duh. I’m shocked that it took this long.
_
So yeah, cycling does need some Machiavellian “Prince” to run the sport. Someone who can deliver “authentic” races while not washing cycling’s dirty laundry in public. North American sports are berated for not doing enough, but I would contend that while that may be true, it is not relevant to their business. North American sports have had egregious abusers of the rules, but you don’t see their commissioners berating the sports’ biggest stars in public. Michael Jordan was (unofficially) sent to baseball camp because of his gambling problems – but nobody in the sport tried to bring him down; he was worth too much money and the fans love him. Are any basketball fans cheated because of this? Don’t even talk about cheating in NASCAR.
_
Give me a Prince any day over these bumbling bureaucrats.
Larry:
You are right, we should take what S says with a grain of salt, as he has considerable incentive to be inventive here. Of course, if there is corroboration of his allegations, that would put them on a stronger basis. But I for one would like to see more than just the allegations of a disgraced rider hoping for a reduced sentence. Is it official that S is getting off with just one year ban? Has anything come to light that corroborates his allegations? Enquiring minds want to know.
Larry,
You can bet that Sinkewitz would be staying quiet a la Basso if the media in Germany wasn’t so hostile to doping. Ultimately Sinkewitz is looking out for himself and doing his sport a favor at the same time–just like Jaksche. It only makes sense that cooperation and whistleblowing should translate into a lighter sentence. In the end the attacks on Jaksche and Sinkewitz as dirty dopers who are spouting exagerrations for money or attention is nothing new at all. The same thing happened to Manzano and every other whistleblower. This is how the omerta works. Shame and pigeonhole anyone who speaks out. Attack the credibility of anyone who speaks out. Make sure whistleblowers suffer economic and sporting consequences.
Why do you think Basso and Scarponi thought better about spilling the beans when they were in the same position.? The only difference between these cases is no power broker in cycling was prepared to shelter Jaksche or Sinke and provide the proper incentive for them to keep quiet.
Rant,
Certainly what Sinke has said is shocking, but everything I’ve read by Sinkewitz shows a man with a guilty conscience, who is genuinely sorry for his role in bringing down T-Mobile. In any case, cycling has got to do more to provide incentive for whistleblowers to expose networks–and the first step in this process is protecting whistleblowers from attacks–from the press, from other riders, from deluded fans who don’t want to believe cheating happens. Of course, the Pat McQuaids of the world are hardly qualified to do this, as they also want the riders to stay quiet.
Re. the arguments about Landis and responsibility….I don’t have much sympathy for the path Landis chose–he could have helped American cycling immensely but instead he dragged the sport into the gutter. But to be fair to him, Landis made his decision before Basso and Ulle were exposed, before Vino, before the Telekom revelations…..before a lot of stuff. 15 months ago, continuing to deny a la Armstrong and Hamilton still made a lot of sense, compared to the alterative of speaking out and having to expose respected colleagues and admit to cheating. I greatly doubt Landis would make the same decisions now if he knew how it would play out.
Devon,
There is no discussion possible when someone feels that they have come to their “right” decision. Unlike Rant – I have no patience with such people. If you “know” the Landis Case” – then your personal beliefs are blinding you to “looking” at what has been presented.
–
iShares has backed out – so this is for you proof. All that is – is iShares distancing itself from a person who has been “publicly” accused – and for some people, and you seem to be one of such people – choose to ignore that a person has a “right” to to contest and fight such an accusation.
–
Oh – that’s right – such people – also believe that someone who is putting up a fight against an “accusation” – only proves that he is guilty – BECAUSE he is putting up a fight. I must assume then – that my stance only proves ti you that I am for doping. Maybe – I should consider sending my blood and urine to LNDD – to prove that I am not pro doping? I am certain that the “clever” people there would “develope a test” to prove that I am for doping – anything is possible to prove – as long as no one is caring much about the “science of it.” Then – because I am not bound by WADA rules, I challenge them in a real court of law – maybe they would have an explanation why they failed to follow procedures, or were just being economical when they wiped the “hard drive” – forgetting that they are supposed to be bound by ISO standards! Hmnnn Wonder what a non-WADA set of rules would say about such things?
–
But then – I am certain that such people who have made up their minds about my innocence or guilt – “don’t need no stinkin’ court to do their thinking – am I right?”
Larry,
Re. confessions etc. I agree it’s unjust if a elite cyclist serves a doping sentence and is not allowed back into the races he wants to contest. But it does bring down the honor and credibility of the race if athletes are allowed to race who are under a cloud of suspicion, or who continue to deny doping offenses.
I’m not sure about Mayo, as nothing conclusive has come down yet. Basso, I think, will be allowed to race another Tour, even though he’s admitted to very little of what is suspected of him. The same goes, probably, for Vino and Kasheckhin. Kash, at least, will be back. Hell, Zuelle was allowed to race in 99 after he was thrown in jail in 98. And what about Virenque?
Hamilton, it’s true, has become something like the stereotypical Ami doper in the European imagination, and his involvement in Puerto is another strike against him. Landis…well we’ll see if he rides the Tour again. What can be said with certainty is memories tend to be pretty short in this game.
In any case those who speak out about doping, such as Jaksche and Sinke, are doing cycling a favor, and doping suspensions ought to take cooperation and genuine changes of heart into accout.
iShares backed out because Landis was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The team had a history of doping. I don’t believe Landis is guilty because he put up a fight. I believe he is guilty because tested positive. He has been found guilty. He is responsible for doping. He is responsible for being the last straw. It was known the team had a sordid history. Landis decided to dope. No more sponsor. No more team.
Devon your world would seem to have very few shades of gray.
There is no need of very few shades of gray when we know that doped riders like Jan Ullrich were able to pay 600.000 euros/years for Fuentes services! If blood doping was not efficient they would not have pay such moneys.
How is it possible for clean riders to compete against those doped riders? If they were not at the low speed, it’s only because they were probably doped too.
If one of them had an AAF, his blood is suspected of blood doping, his team has had many doping cases, his ex-team has a bad record ( actovegin, 200 syringes,…), Testosterone was found in other samples, his extraordinary stages after a strange bonk… It would be difficult to see him white!
If I can cut in here between Morgan and Devon, this IS a highly emotionally charged issue, and there are very few who remain on the fence as to Landis’ guilt/innocence, OR the effect it’s had on cycling. Through my reading, I mainly encounter Landis supporters. Some talk about the science being flawed in his case, some dismiss his earlier statments about why he tested positive, some do not consider the ruling by the arbitors to be correct. It goes as far as non-experts telling experts how they should have performed their tests (which is hard for me to get – it seems to imply a conspiracy being unearthed by a group of junior scientists – and reminds me of the pogroms of the Chinese cultural revolution in the 60’s and 70’s by the Red Guards.)
…
Although I would not speak so bluntly as Devon, he or she IS stating a possible reading of events that is backed up (as much as one can, in a case such as this) by looking at a series of events. I don’t think it’s that simple. But consider for an instant that for some people, the case DID end at the arbitration. As it stands now, until there is an appeal, Landis DID lose. Whether one agrees with the issue or not is not relevant to the broader effects of the sport as a whole.
…
Morgan, I think it’s worth considering that you appear to speak as someone who has definitely made a decision about this case, and will fight it tooth and nail. I applaud your tenacity. But it would render your comments as either preaching to the choir, or battling those who don’t agree with you – doesn’t leave much room for ‘discussion’. Or have I read you incorrectly?
You are right cycle T – I let my emotions get to me. Allow me to apologize, Devon, I am sorry for – going off on you. No excuse for it – other then that I am human.
–
It was not the best way to react – but I did do it – it gets annoying when people keep “repeating” their own “stance” without giving solid reasoning behind it – THAT is the reason I answered back in the same manner.
–
It is perhaps socially significant that people have “made up their minds” about Landis and the “outcome of the Malibu trial – it does not make it right – or anymore true as to what they are choosing to be believing – the Landis Case – is not just about Mr Landis – it is about the state of governance that exists in the world of pro cycling and sports in general.
–
Today and last night – because it is 1:35 in the morning here – I got pissed at people who can’t get past their own short sighted thinking. Cycle T – we can’t even get close to Mr Landis guilt or innocence – Wada’s own rules force us to argue the rules – rather then get at the truth.
–
Consider that for just a moment please – There is an “appeal in process” – the necessary steps have been acted on by both party’s – people have every right to believe what they wish – but if they go public with it – then they should look at ALL THE EXISTING facts – not merely what suits or supports their points of argument.
–
Just as you and I am certain others found my way of responding to Devon – objectionable – I find Devon’s statements objectionable – I responded only in the same way he/she presented himself. It was a low method I admit it – but reading such “insinuation and slanderous statements” gets my goat.
–
If you truly believe in a free society – with rights for the individual – then such speech and action must be found objectionable.
–
Having said this – please do not take my words as “justifying” my own low behavior. I admit it – when in a dirty fight – I fought back dirty – which makes my explanation about as good as what WADA uses as an excuse for dismissing the rights of individuals. IT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE – I sincerely apologize.
Ludwig, it’s a tough game the ADAs are playing. We may generally want to live in a world where the rule is: only those without sin can cast the first stone. But if you’re right and 80% of the peloton is doping, and if the ADAs can get more cyclists to start naming names, then the rule changes to: throw the first stone, before the other guy can throw a stone at you.
“¦
At its best, this is the game the feds played to make major mafia convictions in the 80s and 90s. At its worst, its McCarthyism. Good people can get hurt. Not for the faint of heart. This may be one reason why T-Mobile pulled out of cycling. Hard to keep your skirts clean when the mud is flying. If cycling’s plan is to root out doping by getting riders to inform on each other “¦ well, I don’t think I’d invest my funds in the sport right now, either.
…
I don’t think there’s any turning back. Cycling has taken a very aggressive anti-doping stand — more so than any sport I can think of. So far, it hasn’t done much good — there’s still a lot of doping out there, and cycling’s reputation grows dirtier, not cleaner. Contrast the situation with, say, American football, where I assume doping is also rampant, whose anti-doping efforts are much more quiet, and whose reputation remains high.
Morgan – absolutely no problem here, and I’m glad that you brought up the point that this case goes WAY beyond Landis’ innocence or guilt – you are very right about that. This is perhaps why it IS an emotional issue. I think sometimes I(personally) still see it as an issue of an individual case, when in fact it does, indeed, bring out a host of other issues. I think my biggest fear is if we reach a point in which there are NO standards that anyone can trust. I mean, even DNA tests have a margin for error – it’s absolutely miniscule, but still an opportunity for flaws. I think the testing done so far has shown many errors. I am frustrated, though, that this is rarely linked to Landis himself. At one point Landis was arguing that the sample was probably not his, due to chain of custody problems… if that’s true, than why is his legal team arguing that the testing was done incorrectly – they just said it wasn’t his sample?!?!?!?! – so, you see, even for me, I find myself confused about issues, and this is probably because I have not made a decision about the case. I often play devil’s advocate, too.
Your contributions to the discussion are great, do not worry if the emotions show once in a while.
cycleT,
given the rules, the best defenses are strictly technical and legal. The chain of custody and identification issues are good from a technical and legal point of view. USADA tactically blew the chain of custody argument away with the alternate B sample testing — it would be hard to argue none of them were Landis’ samples. So, before that, it was legally fruitful to argue chain of custody, being a simple resolution. After that, other legally viable arguments had to be pursued more thoroughly.
…
None of those other arguments is easy to make because of the way the rules are established — there are good legal discussions happening on identification and specificity at TBV.
…
The truth, barring confession from Landis, Landis associate, or from LNDD personnel, will probably never be known, because too much evidence has been destroyed and/or hidden. All those B samples were consumed by LNDD, so they will never be tested by anyone else. The mass-spec data seems to have been erased. Much other material that would resolve issues has never been produced.
So, at this point, it is mostly legal maneuvering, with no party interested or really able to establish what really happened.
This isn’t going to result in a good outcome for anyone, though whoever wins will spin it as a complete vindication of their position, and the loser will whine that it missed the truth. Landis will be out a boatload of money, and The System will have had a lot of seams revealed.
Everyone will have lost.
TBV
Damn, lost the paragraph breaks again.
I’ll never learn.
TBV
TBV
Still working on finding the fix for the paragraph breaks. Hope you don’t mind that I added them in for you.
…
Jean C gave me some good ideas a while back for places to look and tricks to fix the problem. They weren’t quite what’s needed to fix this odd behavior, but they’re probably going to lead me down the right path.
…
Unfortunately, it will be a bit before I can really devote the time to tracking this bug down and fixing it.
…
By the way, I highly recommend the discussions going on at TBV on identification and specificity. I haven’t had much time to participate, but it’s always interesting reading, with a variety of opinions.
…
Rant
cycle T, I believe that your – “my biggest fear is if we reach a point in which there are NO standards that anyone can trust” – is already here. Since it seems that every one is under suspicion – and considered “guilty until proven innocent.”
–
The very real problem with such a situation is that – THERE IS NO WAY, as tbv points out – to get back what is lost once it is taken. NOBODY WINS in the end.
–
Once the concept of “presumption of innocence till proven guilty” is sacrificed in the name of “cheating/doper hunting” – the only result can be is mistrust and questioned findings. When you mix in that WADA rules seem basically designed to “resist” cross examination – then lets be honest – the damned game is “fixed.”
–
Consider for the minute that WADA and the media “present” every doping case as the fault of the rider – technically this is true – but upon closer inspection of this method – the most glaring point is avoided. The rider needs help to dope. He may do it on his own – but then he would be dumber then a tool box.
–
Then there is the question, in my mind at least, that needs to be asked – IS THE RIDER the one who gains the most from doping? I present to you the idea that HE ISN’T. Yes – if he is small minded and egocentric – he does gain by “winning” status.
But riders are parts of teams that are financed by sponsors. So EVERYONE between the rider and the sponsor have got to be “involved” in this stupidity.
–
The difference between the rider and everyone else between him and the sponsor is that they all have “legal protection.” The rider doesn’t. It is not legal protection that WADA’s rules tend to concern themselves about – WADA rules are bent to winning and finding the rider guilty. This is unfair, and in my book should be clearly stated as illegal.
–
tbv – I would love to respond to what goes on at TbV – except I cannot get past the German link that I need to sign into and join – without doing so. But I am a daily visitor none the less and I thank you for the exemplary work that is going on there.
–
One last point – if 80% of the peloton is doping all the time – and getting away with it – then we really need to look at the truth of the matter that whatever testing we have in place – is a complete failure and the question of veracity is a joke.
–
As Larry rightly points out the cycling “feds” have taken a stand – they will get the dopers – GREAT! I am all for it – but I will not “go gently to the night” and allow them to get away with bending the rules themselves, as the “price” to pay for their questionable methods!
–
Rant, Larry and others feel that cycling is in for a major down time – I do think that this will happen. But the systematic destruction of pro cycling should not be only laid on dopers – a large part has to be laid at the feet of the “hunters” who have direct access to the media and have used the media to create today’s “paranoid and suspicious” environment!
–
To present Landis and the Landis Case as an example of any sort in favor of doping is absurd and provocative – what the heck is going on when a person is seen as a doper because he is challenging his accusers and their alligations?
–
It is this primary cause that I find so disturbing – that individual rights are being trampled on, spun in the media, and the individual has no chance to prove his innocence because the rules are stacked against him.
–
What scares me and it should terrify everyone – is that it is happening! Right now – at this moment – and – the public seems largely unaware of it. NOW THAT IS SCARY!
“Then there is the question, in my mind at least, that needs to be asked – IS THE RIDER the one who gains the most from doping? I present to you the idea that HE ISN’T. Yes – if he is small minded and egocentric – he does gain by “winning” status.
But riders are parts of teams that are financed by sponsors. So EVERYONE between the rider and the sponsor have got to be “involved” in this stupidity.
The difference between the rider and everyone else between him and the sponsor is that they all have “legal protection.” The rider doesn’t. It is not legal protection that WADA’s rules tend to concern themselves about – WADA rules are bent to winning and finding the rider guilty. This is unfair, and in my book should be clearly stated as illegal.”
Legal protection? Uh, this is about cheating, not breaking the law. Arguing about the “individual rights” of riders who make 500K a year is truly the most ridiculous argument in the doping apologist arsenal. If cyclists feel oppressed by dope tests, they are welcome to choose a new profession. It’s the riders who are forced out of cycling because they won’t to dope that you should be worrying about–they are the real victims of the doping omerta.
The rider is the one who takes the PEDS, not the doctors. Of course the riders aren’t the ones who gain the most–its the DSes and the doctors that make the most consistent money in cycling–the Echevarris, Bruyneels, Riis’s, Ferrari’s, Cecchini’s etc.. Yet the riders cover for their enablers because they have to–notice how the same doping DSes and doctors who presided over the golden age of EPO in the late 90s continue to dominate the sport. They decide on the rules; they decide on ethical codes, they determine the UCI leadership. The riders work for them and they lie for them because they provide their salaries.
The productive question is not ‘how do we stop these WADA types from going after cheaters?’. Rather it’s ‘how do we create an atmosphere where cheating is taboo and discouraged?’ How to achieve fairness and balance?
Shutting up and keeping quiet about doping, as preferred by the doper supporters and their propagandists, is not going to work in the long run–it simply benefits those who take the most chances. But as the Rasmussen case demonstrated so well, it’s a new day of instant communications and easily deconstructed fabrications. There’s no place to hide from the media or the police anymore.
“One last point – if 80% of the peloton is doping all the time – and getting away with it – then we really need to look at the truth of the matter that whatever testing we have in place – is a complete failure and the question of veracity is a joke.”
I don’t know about 80% of all pros, but it’s clear enough that more than 80% of podium finishers in GTs of the last years have been involved in doping–a simple glance at the names of major offenders and GT podiums suffices for that.
So what is blocking effective testing from taking place? If we concede that testing alone cannot save the sport, can cycling finally start holding teams responsible for doping and shutting down the doped teams?
Ludwig, I’m never comfortable with the idea that a person loses rights because he’s making a nice living. I’m also not comfortable with the idea that a person who’s not happy about his treatment on the job should choose a different profession. Some of us have a lot of time and money invested in our professions; I hope that when I chose my current profession, I did not lose the right to try and improve it.
…
I’m happy to concede that testing alone will not save the sport. How would you go about shutting down the “doped teams”? If you can prove that a team is running a doping program, then by all means, shut the team down … and ban the team leaders from the sport. No one here would have a problem with that.
…
Would you shut down a team (like Team High Road, the former T-Mobile team) merely because one of their riders was doping? This is a serious question: do you want Bob Stapleton gone from the sport, would you have him banned for life? How about Rabobank – would you shut them down, too?
…
I doubt you’d want to shut down Team High Road, given that Stapleton seems to be so good for the sport. I also doubt you’d want to shut down Rabobank, given their evident concern for trying to do a better job going forward, and the fact that they’re probably the last big-name sponsor left in cycling. But we can’t make the rules based on our subjective judgments of who is a good guy and who’s trying their best. So, let’s get specific. What’s your rule for when you’ll shut down a team? And what current teams would you shut down?
…
(You can’t name Team Astana. They’re effectively shut down already.)
Hey all, good discussion going here.
Wish I had time to join in. This is just a note to check out the next post, “A Note About Comments” before adding anything further. You don’t need to put spacers in between paragraphs now. At least, the fix I’ve added should take care of that.
Really.
I’m going to miss placing spacers between my paragraphs. Made me feel like a true ranthead.
I’m still going to have to remember to only hit the carriage return once between paragraphs.
Really.
Um.
Two carriage returns?
A true story goes that some children walked up to a device they had not seen before, and tried to figure out what it was. It was described as a mechanical word processor without a screen that printed directly to paper as you hit the keyboard. They learned it was called a “typewriter”.
Carriage return? What’s a carriage?
TBV
Isn’t a carriage something pulled by horses?
Yeah, TBV, ya got me. I’m showing my age. I learned to type on one o’ them thar contraptions.
Larry,
I guess it depends on the system you’re working on, or even, perhaps, the web browser. With Firefox, I’m gettting the spacing after a single “return.”
Larry,
Which teams to shut down? A good question that I don’t pretend to have a definitive answer for. Obviously it would depend on context. If I was in charge of cycling there would be a Truth and Reconciliation comission or some kind of definiitive investigation to get the real facts in hand.
The essential thing, basically, is to get rid of those team managers and doctors that continue to hire riders to dope, enable doping or who played a major role in establishing the present-day doping culture.
When it comes to cycling reform, I used to defer to Cycling4all’s op-eds on reform as the most knowledgable and impartial observer. However since he’s given up on the sport as hopelessly corrupt, the links are no longer up. But essentially what needs to be done is eject the most obvious doping enablers and profiteers–I’m thinking of people like Bruyneel, Riis, Echevarri, Lefevere, Rominger. Ferrari and Cecchini, as well as the various Spanish docs, need to be shown the way out of cycling. Naturally, if any of these dudes had a true change of heart then that’s something. But if the sport is still structured so that these guys have every incentive to keep doing what they do, then what hope does cycling have for credibility on doping?
The reason the presence of these guys is so destructive is this–all they can really say to the riders is “I don’t want to know about doping. If you are caught, then you are in trouble”. They don’t have any credibility or authority to lecture riders on why doping is wrong, or why it’s not worth it, because they themselves either doped or solicited doping from others for years, and they have all made a bundle in the game.
If the sport could get rid of some of these characters, then the noose of doping might be loosened a bit, as riders might finally start thinking that the negative consequences of doping may be larger than the benefits. But if the sport continues to praise these guys and elevate them to leadership of the key teams, then returning to 2002-03 style omerta is simply a matter of time, as their commitment to anti-doping iniatives is strictly PR only.
Re. Stapleton–of course I support Stapleton and his mission. But even after it was clear that doping docs remained on the team and that some T-Mobile riders seemed to believe they were supposed to keep doping….even after all that Rolf Aldag and Brian Holm are still leading the team. Is anyone in management going to reap any consequences for failing to explain to team members what the team policy was? Ultimately the management ought to be responsible for the riders they hire and how these riders prepare for races. Above all, cycling needs team managers be held accountable in order to achieve anti-doping credibility.
Stapleton may mean well, but all this went on under his leadership, and the sport is paying the price.
So – let me get this straight Ludwig – Riis needs to get “bumped” – the fact that his team CSC has a stringent testing program indicates that Riis is still a doper? Or is it that – CSC’s doping control is nothing more then PR? Say it isn’t so – don’t tell me that Jens Voight – is nothing but a sham too!
I don’t think there’s enough information available to evaluate whether Damsgaard’s program has prevented or deterred doping at CSC–I have no reason to believe Damsgaard is dishonest. The whole question of whether it’s possible to achieve CSC-level results without doping is complicated, but my own view is that even if Damsgaard isn’t being manipulated in some way, it is doubtless very hard for him to determine the usage of certain kinds of PEDs, especially new ones. All this can, of course, change as the anti-doping science improves.
Re. Riis–even at this press conference when he confessed his own doping he continued to mislead on the subject of doping at CSC. It’s perfectly possible that he’s had a change of heart but after 10 years of lies he hasn’t exactly earned confidence. It’s tough to forget him boasting that Basso’s blood values were the model of a clean rider. A former Tour winner like Riis understands how the current contenders are preparing–it’s his job.
Ludwig –
That’s a pretty good response.
Whenever you name names, you mention Johan Bruyneel. So let’s discuss Bruyneel. Fill in whatever information you have on Bruyneel, but my understanding is that he raced until 1998 (for teams SEFB, Lotto, ONCE and Rabobank), then joined U.S. Postal (recruited by Lance Armstrong?), where he remained until he joined Astana this year.
Was Bruyneel “dirty” as a rider? Well, since every rider over the last 30 years is under suspicion, then to this extent Bruyneel is suspicious, too. But I can’t find anything specific linking Bruyneel to doping as a rider. Bruyneel is Belgian — Belgium is not considered to be a doping center, like Spain or the United States.
As far as I can tell, Bruyneel had no experience as anything other than a cyclist when he was hired as team manager by U.S. Postal. If Bruyneel was hired to start a team doping program (and remember, WADA thinks that Lance was doping from the very beginning of U.S. Postal), this would have been an odd choice. Bruyneel is not a doctor, his experience with doping would not have been any greater than any other cyclist at that time (including, arguably, Lance Armstrong himself). Yet if the doping speculation is accurate, then Bruyneel put into place, in about no time flat, the most successful doping program in the history of cycling.
That doesn’t make any sense. If U.S. Postal had a doping program, it was WAY too good a program to have been put into place by someone like Bruyneel. Someone else must have masterminded the program.
We also have to point out the obvious, that U.S. Postal – Team Discovery had a spotless record when it came to doping: none of their riders (while riding for the team, at least) tested positive or were caught up in any of the large doping scandals (like Operation Puerto).
So I come to two conclusions: first, it’s obvious that Bruyneel has a “dirty” reputation in cycling. You’re not the only one who thinks this, or who says it out loud. Second, and correct me if I’m wrong, but Bruyneel’s “dirty” reputation does not seem to rest on a single piece of “hard” evidence. Do you agree?
I recognize that your post goes way, way beyond Johan Bruyneel, but let’s discuss Bruyneel as a test case for the kind of policy you’d like to see implemented in cycling. You have said that Bruyneel is one of a handful of “obvious doping enablers and profiteers” that you’d like to see ejected from the sport. I think that there are a lot of people in cycling who would agree with you! But as far as I can tell, Bruyneel’s bad reputation is based on guilt by association. And if 80% of the peloton is doping, then everyone is guilty by association. If you can toss Bruyneel from cycling based on this kind of evidence, what would stop you from tossing out, say, Bernard Hinault? Or Greg Lemond?
There’s more to discuss here, but I want to stay focused on Bruyneel for the moment, as a test case.
Larry – you may notice that I am holding my tongue – but I would like to point out that Ludwig makes a statement in one post and when asked to justify it, he avoids to do so. But I am holding my tongue.
Larry,
I’m not really a Bruyneel expert. But even a glossary summary of his career has to include he was one of Manolo Saiz’ key riders in the 90s (5 years), and that his biggest successes were on that team (his nickname, apparently, was “the hog”). In 95 he won a Tour stage and finished on the Vuelta podium. Bruyneel went on to hire several of the doping doctors from ONCE to US Postal, including Aramendi, who had previously been implicated by Zuelle as responsible for his doping regimen at ONCE. The Walsh book is a good source on the evidence of doping at Postal. Anyway, yes by all accounts the doctors are responsible for doping programs, although it’s hard to imagine Armstrong and Bruyneel weren’t involved in preparing and executing a well-designed plan. And don’t forget Armstrong worked closely with Ferrari all that time.
Second it’s absurd to say US Postal has a spotless record on doping. Today they are widely regarded as a doped team, and many of their most famous riders have been caught doping after leaving US Postal (apparently the Gatorade is just better under Bruyneel). Why no postives? An interesting question. It’s a good bet the name Hein Verbruggen will be involved when the mystery is finally explained.
And then there is the recent Basso case, where Bruyneel’s cynicism was on display. In a sport that genuinely wished to stop doping, any manager who assured the public he had looked into Basso’s case and was convinced he was clean…..such a manager would have to resign when it turned out Basso was lying. Effectively, Bruyneel’s leadership undermined any effort for cycling to be consistent towards the Puerto people. And it showed the public that high profile DSes were still intent on lying and cheating their way to victory.
I’m not saying Bruyneel is a bad person or that he deserves public crucifiction. The problem with Bruyneel is he came up in the doping culture and that’s the kind of cycling he understands. More than that–if you grant Bruyneel and co. leadership positions in the sport, then you are basically rewarding the doping and lying that has gone on for the past 2 decades. Why should anyone believe the attitude of omerta has changed, if the same people who ran the sport under the doping culture continue to run it now? Why would any rider under Bruyneel want to ride clean, when Bruyneel and his star pupils made their fortunes by doping to the gills?
Larry, it’s possible to find detailed info on the doping omerta, doping DSes, doping docs, but you have to dig a little. One excellent (new) source is Cyclingfansanonymous. Another is going to the Daily Peloton Forums and reading any post authored by Links (formerly “Noticias”)–he goes through and compiles links to articles on specific subjects.
Some relevant examples…
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5117&hl=aramendi
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=4889&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=6122&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=4109&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5037&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5098&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5035&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=4900&hl=
Morgan, Ludwig is representing a position that is prevalent in the cycling world, one I’ve heard many times from people I respect. I take Ludwig very seriously, and I think he has good things to say.
I’ve heard so many times that Bruyneel is a “dirty” team manager, that even I was surprised that I could find no hard facts linking Bruyneel to doping. I had forgotten that Bruyneel’s first job after being a cyclist was to manage U.S. Postal — I had thought he must have had some management experience elsewhere. I’d also thought that there must have been some more specific doping allegations made against Bruyneel while he was a rider. Again, there may be stuff out there that I don’t know about, but I’ve seen no hard facts about Bruyneel.
By the way, Bruyneel is trying to adopt the CSC anti-doping program. That’s a highly respected program. I think that many are cyncial about Bruyneel’s motives here, but in this one step at least, he’s doing the right thing.
Yet, the fact that Bruyneel is working for Astana is telling. Astana is not in great shape, and they may lose their Pro Tour license. I suspect Bruyneel is at Astana in part because no other team would touch him (ditto for Contador and Leipheimer, by the way). Is that because Bruyneel is “dirty”? Is that because the other teams think that Bruyneel is “dirty”? Is it because the other teams know that ASO THINKS that Bruyneel is “dirty”, and that ASO may exclude any Bruyneel-managed team from the race? The answer to the first question is “we don’t know, there’s no proof”, the answer to the second question is “maybe” and the answer to the third question (IMHO) is “yes”.
Ludwig may have more specifics about Bruyneel. I’m willing to hear him out.
Bruyneel was know when he was rider as a doped rider, he had a special alias (?) that I don’t remember actually. Nobody has forgotten the US Postal rubbish, difficult to not see a probable implication of JB, (it was the same in almost all teams)!
Astana (with or without J.B) has no choice if they want to race big events next year… they need to clean their field.
Especially with Contador ( OP suspicion on him) and with the last Paris Nice where many teams complained against the unsettling performance of Disco riders, they need to fight seriously doping. With pretences, they would stay at home. Riders know that pro-cycling will be under strong pressures next year, an other scandal and many riders will lost their job in 2009.
Yikes how frustrating–I posted an big response, saw it come up on the screen, and now it has disappeared. Like being in college and forgetting to save. From now on I’m composing this stuff in Word just in case.
Larry, it’s possible to find info on doping DSes, doping doctors, and doping networks etc but you have to dig a little. One excellent new resource is Cyclingfansanyonmous””he knows his stuff. Another good source is to go to Daily Peloton Forums and search for any post authored by Links (formerly Noticias)””he googles articles on specific doping-related subjects and compiles the links into one post. All his posts are good resources””with regard to Bruyneel see for example see his post on the Postal doping docs
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5117&hl=
But really, don’t miss his posts compiling links on the effects of doping””it really puts the concept of a 2-speed peloton into perspective and helps fans understand why the riders feel they need to dope.
The short answer on Bruyneel (nicknamed “The Hog”) is he spent 5 of the peak years of his career at ONCE under Saiz””he finished 3rd in the same (95) Vuelta (ONCE completely dominated the event, won by Jalabert) when drugs were found in the ONCE hotel room. Once at Postal, Bruyneel went on to hire many of the same doping doctors used by ONCE, including Aramendi, who was previously implicated by Zuelle. And don’t forget Ferrari played a key role for Armstrong and seems to have been working with other Postal riders as well. For more on doping at Postal, see Walsh’s book (despite the invective hurled at Walsh, practically no one disputes his accuracy or professionalism).
Of course, doctors are responsible for doping plans, but to imagine Bruyneel and Armstrong weren’t involved in the execution is pushing it. But yes, I don’t consider Bruyneel a doping mastermind, but he obviously knows and has employed prominent doping doctors. And of course he understood what these doctors are supposed to do.
It’s also important to note that many of Bruyneel’s star riders (most prominently Heras, Hamilton, Landis) have been busted after moving on””the fact that Disco never faced a major positive may be best explained by corruption””I’d be willing to bet that the name Hein Verbruggen will feature when the mystery is finally unraveled. It’s not just that they lacked Bruyneel’s protection””it’s that they continued to employ the methods they learned under Bruyneel and eventually paid the price for going too far.
And don’t forget the Basso debacle, where Bruyneel assured the cycling public he had looked into the matter and Basso was innocent. Any sport serious about doping credibility would have demanded Bruyneel resign after such nonsense””instead virtually nothing happened, and Saiz protégé Contador went on to take the Tour.
Essentially, this DS has been reaped immense rewards for pushing the envelope within the doping culture and he continues to be rewarded financially and professionally. What sort of message does this send? Why would Bruyneel’s riders want to ride clean when the boss and his star pupils made their money and names by juicing? Why should anyone believe the peloton has changed their attitude when the same figures that led the sport in the doping era continue to lead it now, without any sort of confession or apology for their role? If Bruyneel and his like aren’t held accountable for their role in the doping culture, then who should be held accountable?
Larry there is far, far more to be said”¦..but do you really need me to say it? If you really need to be convinced Bruyneel was involved in doping I am sure there is more than enough info on the Internet to satisfy you. I am not a prosecutor and am not a Bruyneel expert””I’m just citing info that most long-term cycling junkies are aware of (which is why, no doubt, you have noticed Bruyneel is widely regarded as a doping DS).
ludwig,
Sorry about that. Somehow, your post got caught in moderation. Email me if you ever see that happen again, and I’ll make sure that the comment gets posted ASAP.
Larry,
I have no trouble reading Ludwig, as long as he backs up his stand. What I negatively react to is “guilt by association” approach to presenting your personal stance.
I admit that one has to dig to get information – I also do this. I have read so much “testimonial evidence” presented as hard fact that I have no patience for it.
It is not that I would not be interested in digging on Bruyneel or Armstrong – or the US Postal/Discovery past – Right now – I am concentrating on working through the fuzzy rules and “interpretive” lab techniques.
I have begun downloading from all of Ludwig’s Nov 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm comment – I shall get to it, you can rest assured. But as you know – I avoid getting into discussions that I am not deeply familiar with – merely to argue them on an emotionally fueled level.