Damn, It’s Cold!

I was just telling an honorary member of the Rant Editorial board just how cold it is in our neck of the woods (-2F/-19C). And just a couple hours north of here tomorrow, a bunch of intrepid souls (or fools, take your pick) are going to sit in the bitter cold to watch the Green Bay Packers take on the New York Giants. If I were going to watch the game, I’d much rather sit indoors, where it’s warm, and sip on a beer or two. Oh well, football season is almost over. And that means spring training is just around the corner. Which, of course, means that the sports writers and pundits in this country will be waxing poetic about the Mitchell Report and all its revelations, and they’ll be bird-dogging anyone whose name might even be remotely connected with Mitchell and company’s literary tome.

Now, before anyone thinks I’m condoning doping in baseball, I’m not. I do have serious questions about whether or not Mitchell’s investigation was merely something Bud Selig orchestrated to have the appearance of doing something about it, or whether it really was an attempt to address the problem. For the record, steroids have been a part of baseball since at least the late 1960s — way before the supposed “steroid era” that some call the last twenty years of professional baseball in North America.

Anyway, to get to the whole point of today’s epistle. There were a couple of very interesting stories that came out yesterday. First up, the interview of Jonathan Vaughters by Bonnie D. Ford over at ESPN.com. A good piece of journalism, and a good discussion of Vaughters approach to solving the doping problem from the ground up. I’d certainly give him, and Bjarne Riis of CSC, and the others who are implementing their own testing programs credit for taking an active approach to the problem. For specific programs, cynics could argue that it’s more of an insurance policy to beat the doping tests, but I don’t see it that way. Certainly, there could be some programs in place to do just such a thing. (Think East Germany from the 1970s through the late 1980s/early1990s.)

But Vaughters, and the Agency for Cycling Ethics, deserve to be recognized for trying to find a way to discourage doping, and for educating the athletes on the dangers of doping when that athlete has some, shall we say, unusual test results.

Of course, when I got done reading the article, I wondered, “Hey, where’s Travis Tygart and USADA?” Didn’t he say he’d rather celebrate the clean athletes than have to prosecute those accused of cheating? So, should we expect that USADA will be having a hospitality tent at the end of Team Slipstream’s training rides? Happy hour? First round of drinks (Gatorade, PowerBar Recovery, PowerAde during the season, other types of beverages — except Jack Daniels [we’ve all seen where that can lead 😉 ] — during the off season) on good ol’ Travis? (Newsflash, Mr. T., your agency’s job is to catch and prosecute the cheaters. Of course, if you’ve got the budget for the hospitality tent, then go for it.)

As I said, Bonnie D. Ford’s interview with Team Slipstream’s director is well done, and it’s well worth the read. You get a good feel for what Vaughters is trying to accomplish on his team. The one thing I might fault him for, as Floyd Landis pointed out in the next article I’m going to cover, is that Vaughter’s comments about taking pressure off his riders to win could be construed as saying that other teams are clearly doping. Better to avoid that can of worms, and just say that the pressure is on to ride clean, and if the riders don’t win every race they enter, so be it.

Over at VeloNews.com, Neal Rogers delivers his interview with Floyd Landis. Or, at least, he delivers most of it. Rogers made a comment that suggests there is more which will be published in the next print edition of the magazine. Unfortunately, my copy seems to hit our mailbox quite some time after it hits the newsstands, so you may see it before I do, if you buy VeloNews at your local shop or bookstore. (And as a former employee of a local bike shop in Ann Arbor, Michigan, I’d encourage everyone to support their local shops. They’re the guys and gals who will get you out of a bind when you really, really need the help the day before a big ride, race, triathlon or outing with your pals. Yes, the prices are frequently a bit higher, but what you get locally that’s harder to get by mailorder is service. OK. Nuff said.)

Trying to summarize the interview would probably do Floyd an injustice. Better to read the whole thing and see for yourself what he has to say. Here’s just a few observations about the article and what Floyd said. From how I looked at it, I could hear/see a lot of indignation in how his case was handled, and in how a certain CEO of USA Cycling “didn’t pay attention” to Landis’ case. The Tour de France is (at least to American fans) the Super Bowl of professional cycling. If, that is, the Super Bowl went on for a three-week stretch in the middle of the July heat all over France and neighboring countries. So when an American winner gets charged with doping, one would think that the person heading USA Cycling might actually pay attention to the case. Other than a certain seven-time Tour winner being charged with doping, this is as big an individual case as you’ll get in American cycling.

I can understand Landis’ frustration with Steve Johnson of USA Cycling. But there’s a bigger theme that he touches on that I think is important to note, and to think about. Landis mentions more than once that if there are rules, then everyone has to be expected to follow those rules. If you don’t like the rules, change them. But it’s not OK for athletes to be held to a strict interpretation of the rules while others in the system are cut a certain amount of slack.

Whether or not you think that Floyd Landis did what he was accused of, he has a point. Those who enforce the rules have to play by their own rules. Those who do the testing must be held accountable if they violate the rules, and those athletes who are charged with doping — if they’re found guilty in a fair proceeding — must be held to account.

As he also observes, it’s important for the system to minimize the number of innocent athletes charged and convicted, as well as to minimize the number of cheaters who get away. Landis speaks forcefully, and well. The interview is a must-read in my book (so to speak). I certainly hear echoes from the recent past in Floyd’s comments.

And I’m looking forward to seeing what parts of the interview show up in the next issue of VeloNews. Exactly which issue they will be in, I don’t know. But the next issue that arrives at Casa Rant will be thoroughly scoured to see what, if any, new comments will be printed there.