The Bonnie D. Ford/Jonathan Vaughters interview that I wrote about yesterday is part of a bigger work at ESPN.com. The main article, here, was published the same day as the Vaughters interview, but it sheds more light on Vaughters, the team, and what his emphasis appears to be.
In reading the article, the Slipstream/Chipotle team for 2008 looks to be an interesting mix of old cycling hands, and newer riders who’ve come up through the former TIAA/CREF developmental program. While Vaughters comments in the interview, in a couple of places, could be construed as attacking other teams — or damning them with faint praise — Bonnie Ford’s longer article makes it clear that Vaughters approach is that the team is there to win, albeit with a the twist of doing so “naturally.” And, Vaughters and the team’s owner are willing to say to the team (in effect), “Hey, if you gave it your all and you didn’t win, the world’s not going to come to an end.”
Sure, sponsors want good publicity. And sure, many sponsors equate good publicity with wins. But no one in his/her right mind would say that winning through cheating would be good publicity once the cheating is uncovered. Doesn’t matter if you’re a Nascar team bending (or flagrantly breaking) the rules, or a Formula One team stealing another team’s engineering designs and trade secrets, or a cyclist getting a shot of EPO. Once the cheating is exposed, it casts the sponsors in a bad light.
We’ve all seen how T-Mobile eventually got fed up with the continuing bad publicity and dropped their sponsorship of the recently dubbed Team High Road (proving that there may really be such a thing as bad publicity, in spite of the conventional wisdom/cliché). One thing the article makes clear is that Vaughters doesn’t want to engage in finger-pointing at other teams.
If Vaughters can make clean cool, and cool sells, clean will sell to fans and corporate sponsors, he reasons. If clean becomes cool, and young athletes want to be cool, he’ll get the best athletes. If he gets the best athletes, and they win clean, that will be cool all around.
“If we’re successful at creating a new paradigm, and winning sometimes, and we show that the economics of this team are going to be successful under a very new paradigm, then I think other teams are going to switch to that paradigm voluntarily, and then we clean up the peloton through example and leadership as opposed to enforcement,” Vaughters says in a typical verbal burst.
“It’s not about finger-pointing, it’s not about being better than anyone else. It’s saying, ‘Well, we’re gonna do it this way, and if this works, you should join us.'”
Now all Vaughters has to do is prove his theory as cycling limps into the 2008 season with a reputation as one of the dirtiest games in the world.
The acid test, of course, will be to see how it all plays out. But give the man credit, he’s trying to do something positive for cycling. And, if he succeeds, it could be very good for the sport.
One small part of the story makes me uneasy — not with the reporting or any of that, Bonnie does a great job there — it’s what Anne Gripper, the UCI’s anti-doping czarina, says about future testing.
Frank and cheery, Gripper talks about the future possibility that riders could be sanctioned for “indirect evidence” — signs of blood manipulation that aren’t out-and-out positives. She reviews some recent history and even takes partial blame for the Rasmussen disaster at the Tour, saying she could have barred him from competing in advance.
Biological passports, which are akin to the Agency for Cycling Ethics program (though I suspect not identical) should be used to do further checking if a rider suddenly has some suspicious results. Banning someone who can’t be proven a cheater is not what needs to be done. Banning someone who can be proven a cheater is what needs to be done.
So when a rider’s test results come back with odd values, that’s a cue to do more research. Could the rider have an illness that just hasn’t manifested itself outwardly? Could the rider’s results be explained by changes in where or how he/she is training? Can every other possible cause be ruled out? Once you can show that the only possible cause is doping (and that’s going to be tricky), then you’ve got a real case. But if people get banned before that’s done, we’re going to have the same zealous, but perverted, type of justice we currently do, and that’s bad for everyone. The riders, the teams, the fans, the race promoters and the UCI.
As Bonnie Ford notes, professional cycling teams (like politics) make for strange bedfellows. At Slipstream/Chipotle there’s the outspoken Prentice Steffen, who has been very vocal about certain riders and certain teams doping. Remember the controversy that surrounded a certain seven-time Tour winner in 2005? Steffen made some comments to L’Equipe during that time period that he eventually was forced to apologize for, and cost him his job as team doctor for the TIAA/CREF squad.
Along with Steffen, there are the ACE crew, which includes Paul Scott (who helped with Floyd Landis’ defense last year) and there’s also Allen Lim, Landis’ former (?) trainer. The way it’s described, there’s a certain uneasiness that Steffen may be feeling knowing that some of the people associated with the team were involved in Landis’ fight to defend himself against doping charges. In talking about Lim, the story says:
Lim, a numbers-crunching training guru with a Ph.D. in physiology, is also Landis’ former trainer, but was never implicated in the Landis case.
When the subject comes up over dinner, Lim looks pained and says he hopes his work with Slipstream helps “get this demon off my back.” His distress about the Landis case has been compounded by stinging accusations, most of them in anonymous blogs and forums, that he must have known Landis was dirty.
“I will not comment on his guilt or innocence,” Lim says later. “I’m not so naïve as to think that no one takes drugs, but I’m also not so cynical as to think everyone’s taking drugs. If he did dope, he’s one helluva conflicted individual, because if there’s anyone who understands the distinction between right and wrong, it’s Floyd.”
I’m not quite sure what to make of Lim’s unwillingness to comment on Floyd’s guilt or innocence. Perhaps he’s trying to steer clear of the subject because he knows just how worked up some people get over the whole case (on both sides of the debate). Maybe he’s just trying to put it behind him and move on. On the other hand, he appears to be backing Floyd at least a bit, by pointing out that Landis understands the distinction between right and wrong. I wish I’d been at that dinner table. I can imagine that it was a very interesting moment to witness.
Lim has been beat up pretty badly in some quarters for his association with Floyd, so it’s understandable that discussing the subject would make him uncomfortable. I’ll admit that when I first read the quote over at TBV, I was a bit dismayed. I’d have liked to see Lim stand up for his client, but to keep doing so could risk his future work. In the same situation, I’d like to believe that I’d stand up and say what I thought. But I can understand how hard it is to be torn between saying what you feel and saying the things that will keep you earning a living.
But moving on. Vaughters makes it pretty clear about what his expectations are for his team as he presents them to the public, saying:
“If we really want to keep doping out of this team, we have to keep how we win in the context of the human body,” Vaughters says. “Some days are great, some days are not … To agree to not dope, to never let that enter the context of a team, is to agree to fail sometimes. It is to agree to let your fans down sometimes. It is to agree to the fallibility of the human body. It is to sign that contract and live by it, no matter how high the pressure.
“We want the skeptics to look as far into this team as possible,” says Vaughters, who has invited one of the ultimate journalistic skeptics, David Walsh, to live with the team during the weeklong Paris-Nice race in March. “And that’s the last I want to talk about doping.”
Those are some noble thoughts. And a tall order. If Jonathan Vaughters and team owner Doug Ellis are able to succeed in their mission, they may well change cycling’s current paradigm. Best of luck to them, and the other teams following similar approaches during the coming season. It’s going to take a lot of hard work to prove to a skeptical public that a cycling team can be completely clean and successful at the same time.
Read the article, it’s worth your time — and it will give you more insights into Slipstream/Chipotle’s approach to creating a team untouched by the taint of doping.
For another view of Bonnie’s ESPN work, check the very nasty slam of it referenced in the Sunday TBV roundup. I’d accept the substance of the complaint as arguable, but the invective leading up to the complaints is pretty uncivil, and I think, uncalled for.
That is, Vaughter’s comes off as presenting what he hopes will work in decent fashion, and still comes off as a bit of a confused dreamer. It may take dreaming to come up with a solution, and if it works, more power to him. But he still comes off looking oddly disconnected from certain realities as he stares into his glass of Claret, leather bound volume of poetry in hand.
Complaining about the reporter for the message the way it was done is pretty low.
TBV
TBV,
Agreed. I read that post by Martin Dugard, and while he may be right about how things will play out (time will tell whether Slipstream rises to the level of true Tour contenders or not), I thought he was engaging in a bit of shooting the messenger. It was beneath the standards he’s capable of, and as you said in the round-up, not to his credit.
Rant,
To be honest, I don’t see what this “questioning of motives” for Vaughter and Slipstream is about — Why does it “matter” that “slipstream” is packaging it self to be “good product ” for the sponsors? How does this bring their “method” into question? So What if Vaughter is a bit “mystic” in his way of “talking about it” —
Call me cynic but I have always felt that the only way the Teams could have a chance to fight off the “accusational power” of WADA and the UCI is by having actual “independent” lab numbers of their own. I do not think that ANY Team will easily “surrender” their own testing — If nothing else — they can “expand” the field of defense that “merely WADA” protocol allows.
Perhaps I just have to “live it” to understand this point. I’m hoping that Slipstream’s method makes Sponsors feel secure that they are buying a “legitimate product.” Now it looks like the Tour of Italy is inviting them on a wild card.
As to that crap “name calling jag” that some direct towards them should make anyone hearing that slop realize just how slanted that is. Personally — I hope all those Slipstream racers who have been “surviving” the last 2-3 year circus — may just do very well — if one considers that they do have EXPERIENCE — and money can’t buy that.
And if they’re smart enough to figure out a way to get around the “infighting” going on all around — not to mention — surviving an “uncertain” lab/media accusation — I can’t find it in myself to fault them.
Anyone know what’s wrong with Dugard these days? He seems to be getting pretty bitter about cycling these days.
Maybe he’s having a rough start to the year and is letting out some frustration? He must have it pretty bad for Vaughters to publish such a negative report about Slipstream!
Mike,
No idea. But something sure seems to be up. Not right to be taking his frustration out on other journalists or writers, though. Bonnie D. is a good reporter/writer. It was a good story, written well. Maybe he’s mad a Vaughters. Maybe he’s jealous of being scooped. I don’t know. But whatever it is, he shouldn’t have vented such spleen in public. That’s the kind of anger that calls for a good hard workout and an attitude adjustment — preferably with the alcoholic beverage of one’s choice.
Rant, I suspect Lim is under some kind of contractual restrictions about what he can and cannot say about Floyd. Obviously a clean public image is paramount to Slipstream, so I have to believe they have thought out the implications of hiring someone so closely connected to Floyd, and what that person says publicly about the case. Lim made the point early on about the thing he knows best – Floyd’s power numbers were not remarkable on Stage 17, nor any other day. That fact has never changed.
I think it is a pretty powerful testament to Lim’s expertise that Slipstream would hire him, even given the baggage of him being so close to Floyd.
syi
SYI,
I agree, it is a powerful testament to Lim’s abilities. And Landis’ power numbers never changed, which I take as a strong indication that Landis did Stage 17 on his natural abilities. I think it’s also a testament to Vaughters that he’s willing to hire people who’ve been on both sides, when they’re the right people for the job. I think Lim’s a great choice for them in that regard, as are the ACE folks. Maybe it is contractual restrictions keeping him quiet. There are some controversies that I don’t think they would want to stir up. This being one of them. Maybe that’s the root of the uneasiness.
The Floyd’s power on stage 17
– Col des Saisies : 395 W (5,7 W/kg) en 36’55” dont 30′ Ã 401 W (5,8 W/kg),
– Col des Aravis : 371 W (5,4 W/kg) en 16’49”,
– Col de la Colombière : 392 W (5,7 W/kg) en 27’45”,
– Cote de Chatillon-sur-Cluses : 374 W (5,4 W/kg) en 11’07”,
– Col de Joux-Plane : 372 W (5,4 W/kg) en 37’34”.
The above power indication are those indicated by Floyd’s material. It would be good to have the same measure for the 2006 Alpe d’Huez stage were Floyd (and Kessler) made an amazing performance too. His time on the Alpe d’Huez climb : 38’35” where Ullrich has done 38’40 on the 2004 Time Trial !
So I doubt that Floyd could have done the stages on his natural abilities.
In many ways the situation of Team Slipstream, in regards to the mix of riders they have, reminds me of an expansion team in US pro sports: a mix of somewhat over-the-hill vets and young, potential up-and-comers. In US sports, like NFL or MLB, this is because of the limitations (somewhat relaxes these days post-Flood) on player movement and one team contacting players under contract to another. So when an expansion team is formed, existing teams get to protect their best players; the expansion team picks what is left over. Similarly, I suspect that Slipstream is limited in who they can contact and/or hire. Even if this is not regulated by UCI or USAC, many riders would probably prefer to stay with an established team rather than risk a new, unproven team.
And like most expansion teams, I suspect it will take several years for SS to reach the top level. Motorola/USPS/Discovery was not at top level, as I recall, in its first year or 2.
Some suspect motives here. Is the anti-drug stance of SS just a marketing ploy? Or worse, is the team testing program to be used to make sure drugged riders aren’t caught by UCI/WADA testing programs? I suspect that there is some degree of marketing at work here, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, in and of itself, now that the market value of drug-influenced wins is way down. And as far as suggestions that the team testing program is really to circumvent the official testing programs, unless someone has some hard evidence to corroborate that idea, I suggest we give them the benefit of the doubt for now and see what happens.
Jean:
The references to Landis’ power readings on S 17 not being unusual are in comparison to numbers from his training that were put online: the S 17 numbers all well within those obtained during training. Of course, those training numbers could be the result of PED, but an (unstated) assumption is that the training numbers were “clean”. Whether or not he could put up such numbers without resorting to PEDs I am not qualified to judge.
William,
That’s an excellent analogy. It could take a few years to see how Team Slipstream will develop.
Jean,
William is correct. I should have been more clear in what I wrote. And he’s right about the underlying assumption. I’m sure there are athletes who can put up those kinds of numbers based on their abilities. But there could well be athletes who couldn’t do it without a bit of chemical assistance. Determining who falls into either of those categories isn’t easy.
The existence of people like Dugard slamming Slipstream for not having a victory ueber alles mentality illustrates one of the main challenges faced by any athlete or team trying to compete clean in this sport. Cycling fans, cycling message boards, and cycling journalists love to interview and publicize race winners, and their memories can be extraordinarily short. Cyclists like Leipheimer are savaged for being a “wheelsucker” and guys like Danielson are attacked for failing to live up to potential (even those any pros would doubtless love to have his palmares). No one seems to remember that precisely those riders who have bagged wins with gusto are the same that are later busted for doping. Obviously, consciousness is shifting on this issue but for the time being it remains true that wins make for publicity and fans like and believe in the winners, whether justified or not. And the winners usually come from teams associated with doping.
There is little to no evidence of any real change of attitude in Italian or Spanish teams (which make up at least half the pro teams in Pro Tour events) and there is no reason to believe that any event besides the Tour is has either the resources or the will to exclude dopers and doping teams. So until the sport starts reforming itself in good faith you gotta assume that doping will continue to play a major role in cycling, and that any team that eschews doping is not going to place as well as those who dope. It’s not a pretty reality but it is reality all the same.
Ludwig;
I would have thought that what some of the teams are doing — their own blood profile testing — plus the UCI and WADA agreeing that there is a need for “better” testing — they came up with this blood passport program — would go far with “doing” something about ” doping and cheating” — Yet I get the feeling from your comment that you do not see it this way? After all — the one important aspect of the “passport program” when in action — the smart teams who are looking to survive and continue in Racing — need to be able to “prove” their people clean — especially since nothing has been done to “correct” the “testing lab” problem that WADA, UCI have on their hands.
The fact that the “independent” blood tests are “public access” will go a long way to combat cheating”¦Not that they won’t try — there are always people who cheat. Perhaps also we will get the opportunity to establishing “less” spurious rules with loopholes in them?
Personally — I do hope they catch people “cheating” this year — Because I also hope that mere “media-accusations or unsubstantiated hearsay” will not be enough! — Perhaps we must wade through this garbage to “clean up” the system — but let’s face it — the “big” problem in today’s pro racing world is that no one has any credibility — every one is under suspicion. Thanks to the work of Mr Pound and others.
EVERYBODY is suspect! This may just not be such a bad thing”¦Has any one figured out how much “blood” samples are taken for one rider — through the year? — Now can we get that answer in liters please? — I can just see the medical scandal! Pro-racers dropping from “anemia” — by the end of the season they may be about a quart low”¦
How to “use and apply” the “passport” controls the “agreed upon method” from ASO-WADA and the UCI is this “passport concept” — we have heard much “claiming” on the parts of the three mentioned — that the passport system will be “interpreted” in a fair and scientific manner! — I for one am looking to see this in “action!” I hope that the “interpretations” means that actual “scientists and specialists in the field” will be doing the interpreting — AND THAT THESE “independent” panels will truly be independent!
And it is my hope that we stay awake and not lose sight of what we have come to learn from the troubles in cycling — cheating could only become an “existent” part of pro cycling because — the viewing public didn’t know what went on behind the scenes — that is changing — I for one think that there should be “optimism” for this coming season.
It’s fascinating how statements can be interpreted in vastly different ways. I view “I will not comment on his guilt or innocence” as a complete lack of support. Gutless jumpback to be precise.
I had read Lim’s blog posts during the 2006 Tour & was glad he was on Floyd’s team. Some months later, I watched his Velonews video interview. Even though he seemed uncomfortable on camera, he supported Floyd & stated what he knew. Again, I was glad he was on Floyd’s team. I’m not thinking that now.
I understand he needs to make a living & Floyd is not currently & at least for awhile longer, can’t be a client that can PAY him. But instead of mewling about “getting this demon off MY back” & “I will not comment, etc”, he should have just stated he believes in Floyd’s innocence.
I am very disappointed.
As for the rest of the Slipstream info, here are my thoughts. What the heck are WINEBOTTLES doing in a cycling photo shoot? Seems like Tommy D probably didn’t exhange Xmas cards with Johan. That I can go another 10 years without seeing the word “paradigm” in a cycling article as Vaughters & now Rant have filled the quota. That they stressed NOT caring about winning just a little TOO much. That I’ll be rooting for them.
Did Martin Dugard scrub the Slipstream post from his site? I was looking for the piece mentioned in this thread and I can’t seem to find it. If it’s still online somewhere could you provide a link?
Rant and Ludwig, I think I agree. Team Slipstream should be seen as a work in progress. They will have missteps. Their strong anti-doping stance is going to be seen as smug by some. Vaughters is going to rub some people the wrong way.
Vaughters has clearly rubbed Floyd Landis the wrong way! Floyd was quoted as follows in the VeloNews interview:
“From my point of view, the problem that is taking cycling backwards and not forwards is that it’s becoming polarized. You have teams like Team High Horse, or whatever they’re called these days, and Jonathan Vaughters’ team, and they are saying we don’t care about winning, we just want to be clean and so it’s okay with us to get whatever place we get because we’re not doping. You know what? That’s one of the most offensive things you could ever say. That immediately accuses everyone who finishes ahead you of doping. That’s hypocrisy. That’s asinine. They have to stop saying that. It’s all fine and good that they are against doping, but for them to say we’re not interested in winning, we’re just interested in being clean is an accusation of anyone that is better than them.”
Susie, to be sure, when Floyd goes off like this, it’s going to make it harder for people like Lim to defend Floyd.
I like to think of myself as a Friend of Floyd, but IMHO Floyd is WAY WAY off base here. A team’s public expression of its determination to ride clean is not an explicit condemnation of teams that have failed to make a similar expression. And Vaughters’ stated willingness to subordinate winning to riding clean is a required element for the Slipstream paradigm (susie, sorry, couldn’t resist). Ludwig is right about this: the competitive pressure to win leads riders to dope. Vaughters has to make it clear where his priorities lie.
What Floyd is missing is that Slipstream is the closest thing we have in cycling to cyclists proactively attacking the doping problem. They’re not sitting around waiting for the WADA lab to screw up, or for the UCI to shop their “B” samples to every lab technician in Europe with a pulse. They’re rolling up their sleeves (figuratively and literally) long before there’s been an adverse analytic finding, long before the kangaroo court assembles in places like Pepperdine and New York City to pronounce the pre-determined sentence of guilt.
Plus, any cyclist who does not share Vaughters’ vision is free to ride elsewhere. This stands in sharp contrast to the options available to riders who, say, don’t share WADA’s vision, or who don’t care to trust their professional future to lab technicians like Claire Frelat.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath, and Floyd should find a chill pill. Give Slipstream a little room to grow, a little margin for error, a little tolerance when they sound silly, and be prepared to offer a little forgiveness when they screw up. And let’s enjoy the spectacle of something new and different … because either Slipstream will fail and fade from the scene, or succeed and become part of the cycling establishment. In either event, they probably will never be as much fun to watch as they are now.
(TBV, you think Vaughters is a bit “confused? LOL! Compared to WHO? You find me a voice of sanity and reason in cycling right now!)
Susie B,
Don’t worry, that’s one of several words that you will only see infrequently in my writing. My personal quota on that one is about once a decade or so, so unless I backslide, you won’t be seeing it from me until 2018. 😉
Peter,
I have mixed feelings about doing this., but you can find his missive here. I think he went a bit over the top on the post in question.
Larry,
Agreed, on many of the points you make. Slipstream will be a work in progress, and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Larry,
On one hand I can completely see the rightness of your points about Floyd. BUT on the other hand I can still see “in perspective” that Floyd’s statements to VN — was little more then Floyd “actually getting a chance to personally confront” one part of his “accusers!”
As to Floyd singling out SS and Vaughter — personally, I think Floyd was addressing himself to what perhaps he thinks is part of the problem in the present “situation.” That it makes it a lot harder on people who are fighting to prove their innocence when “the new team on the block” presents itself as being “consciously holier then thou”
I think perhaps, understandably Floyd would be carrying a big nut around about this — In a very real way — it is true what he is saying. Nevertheless — I do agree with you Larry — Floyd may have very much needed to “express himself” — does it maybe make it harder to “keep his image” pristine? I think it will eventually turn out that it is the moment when the “image” became “real.”
Floyd Landis needs to be true to himself. Personally I would “wonder” about anyone who has had to lie curled up taking kicks from back in 2006 — and NOT try to at least get a couple in to one of the “people” that he knows to have been “kicking him.” I don’t see a great need to “justify” Floyd’s action. How Floyd feels about SS and Vaughter do not obscure my own perception that SS , what ever their “philosophy” may be — SS is on to something important.
The “Question” that has everybody riled — may not be answered, not yet. Is SS doing independent blood profiling to “make testing harder” — is a lousy “insinuation” – it is baseless and nothing more then trying to “kill a good idea” even before it starts walking.
The “meaning of the words from Vaughter” — certainly triggered some real anger in Floyd, one may assume, but Floyd is right when he shows contempt for someone making a “media image – mistake” — It is the height of absurdity to even ask the question of competitive readiness to go for the win — of ANY athlete who competes on a “world class level.” THAT IS THE ONLY POINT OF HIM BEING THERE!!!
I think SS is trying very hard. I think SS has “noted” what weapons ” it needs to be successful in surviving the toxic situation in “pro cycling” and it is based simply on an accredited “blood profiling” plan like the WADA and the UCI and ASO are insisting that EVERY participating team MUST HAVE to race in the TdF — Good for SS. On this they are on the ball.
If the choice of Vaughter is to present himself as an “enlightened yuppie ex-pro who knows the story” — including appropriately placed wine bottles – is irritating to some — well, it’s not my cup of tea — but it makes little difference once the tires are on the road and the starting flags are a memory. It should make “little difference” BECAUSE we should — from all the “profiling going on” — come closest to having “hard numbers” to work with and we may just be able to answer the question of guilt or innocence from all that collected data.
I think Floyd’s feelings are his own — I’m not going to be party to keeping Floyd “pinned” to the “poster image” problems existing in the state of cycling.
Hey Floyd — hope there are not many more days of such stress that you may be walking into walls — (not that I infer that you do) — the atmosphere is way different in some ways when this storm started. I’m keeping my fingers crossed and am hoping for the best —
Go Floyd — hope you show the people why you are a Tour Champion in those races coming up! Now that is some butt worth kicking! Can’t wait to see you ride!
Now Larry — my only other question is — am I “chillin'” enough? (:-))
I sort of agree with Morgan here: SS public statements about riding clean and reducing the pressure to put up results (in any way) do rather imply that other teams are dirty and the pressure they put on their riders to win at all costs in one of the reasons for doping. Otherwise, what is the point?
The 2 teams did Landis rode on, Disco and Phonak, have both been accused of running doping programs, and this has been used to paint Landis guilty by association. Landis may see things differently and is sensitive to such comments, which he probably feels are indirectly pointed at him.
Landis does have a rather combative personality. This is probably one reason why he rose so high in cycling, despite his background. I myself would be more circumspect in my public comments, but then I never rose beyond a back of the pack class C rider.
Here is a “tidbit” from “EuroSplash” —
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/21012008/58/protour-kicks-chaos.html
On the “tail end of the piece we run into this statement, —“the national federations of France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria and Luxembourg told the UCI this week they would take the side of the big Tours should they have to make a choice.”
Any hope that anyone may have had that the “problem issues” between the UCI and ASO ET AL, are worked through — better have another think.
(Sarcasm) — the Sublime diplomacy that exist amongst the governing bodies in these matters should give us some “opportunities” to strip them bare of all the Frou-Frous some more. — can anyone say there may just be some “issues” of conflicts of interest?
Yes, Dugard removed the ENTIRE post. After AUSTIN MURPHY wrote a lengthy rebuttal in the comments section. IT was priceless.
And I can’t believe I’m actually defending MD, as I don’t agree with his assessment of Slipstream & don’t know WHAT he was thinking to trash not just the team & Vaughters but ESPN (Bonnie)’s efforts to the degree he did, but there are some things that do make me twitch about the team’s media coverage. Whether it’s being taken out of context or just being distorted, as in a Fun House mirror, I’m getting a bit NAUSEOUS reading inferences that “never before in the history of time has there been a CLEAN cycling team!” Well, ok, I exagerate. A bit. But not by much.
The more it is harped that NObody in cycling was clean before, the more upset I become. Yeah, I KNOW cyclists doped in the past & some still do & I KNOW many more than I originally thought up til 2-3 years sgo. But who wants to be reminded that they were NAIVE? Ignorant? Any PR person knows you don’t want the customer/consumer to feel INSULTED. Because then they link YOU with the negative emotion & no sales for YOU! Anyway, I think they should concentrate on what THEY are going to do now & not what happened before. And STOP with the inuendo. If you’re not ready to come out & lay it all on the line about what you did or saw, yourself, then shut the hell up.
And I also see Dugard’s point (sort of) that too much of the US cycling press is running towards them like Slipstream is a new Pop band & they want to be sure THEY get a Backstage Pass. Full Access! Let’s see – ESPN is doing yearlong indepth coverage, Outside mag is going to have an embedded reporter during the ToC, Bicycling.com is gearing up for the season long “Slipstream Chronicles” as THEY report the team’s every move. And I believe Austin Murphy will be doing more cycling coverage than he has in the past few years. (Heck, he DID nominate Vaughters for SI’s “Sportsman of the Year” just last month).
Don’t get me wrong, I LIKE Slipstream & will get a kick out of reading coverage in the msm. I also love that they won’t be doping. But then I was actually under the apparently ludicrous impression that FEW cyclists would be doping now. Chump that I am, I was thinking cyclists would realize how LUCKY they are they still have a job & a sport. Another year like 2006 & 2007 (at least the way the doping cases have been covered by the msm) & profesional cycling road racing may cease to exist. At least as a sport where you get paid a salary & win more than beer money.
As for Floyd. Yeah, he’s bitter. It’s finally coming out, unfiltered. But what has amazed me is that he did NOT let go before now. I would have had a breakdown the 1st month. I think he held together as long as he did as he actually believed Truth & Justice (or as Floyd calls it – ‘following their own freakin RULES’) would win the day & he’d be back on the bike a long time ago. I’m not thrilled about that interview & when reading it, I wanted to yell at, hug, & cry with, Floyd. I ended up just feeling depressed. And angry that the snafued Anti-Doping system & the ACN (that’s the ass-coverers nonpareil – the heads of USADA, UCI, USA Cycling) are responsible.
Well put – Susie b – “house cleaning is never pretty.” – And sometimes, it is downright depressing – but we wouldn’t be at this point – if we wouldn’t be willing to “wade” through the wreck…cycling needed to be opened – we are making headway, I think.
Morgan, that was good chill!
Susie B,
Well said.
Have we entered some sort of parallel universe where the point of a bike race is no longer to win? If that is not the point of riding on a professional team then someone please tell me what is the point.
And isn’t it obvious that implicit in the public stance that Vaughters has taken is that he is organizing THE clean team. That the others are not to be trusted. If you rode for a competing team, wouldn’t that rub you the wrong way? And if you were wrongly accused of doping by a system that praises Vaughters’ comments wouldn’t that drive you absolutely crazy? Could you imagine if a mediocre baseball team advertised that they would be instituting a system to ensure a clean product, and they wouldn’t worry too much about winning – unlike the other evil teams – how do you think MLB would react? How do you think the good teams and players would react?
Is it acceptable for a professional team to build in an excuse for losing, that blames the integrity of the other sportsmen, teams, and governing bodies for their failure? I applaud Vaughters’ stated goals and methods, but he has to shut his mouth.
I really like Bonnie Ford and Austin Murphy. Did anyone archive Marty’s post and Austin’s reply? I missed the whole thing celebrating our 28th wedding anniversary and then dwelling in the land of Packers over the weekend.
If anyone has something please email me at william.hue@wicourts.gov.
Thank You.
I’m feeling better after my heart/mini-stroke thing this fall. Thanks to all who knew and emailed me. Much appreciated!!!
Bill
It’s amazing: we moan about the pressure to win at all costs driving the use of PEDs, then when someone comes along and says they are going to lessen such pressure on their team, we accuse them of everything short of being communist pedophiles. But then I haven’t read everything posted anywhere on the new re Team Slipstream, maybe somebody has accused them of that.
I don’t see anything anywhere that says SS does not want to win. Their idea (at least as presented) is that they will do everything possible legally to win, and if that is not good enough, so be it; they will not resort to illegal methods to win.
This is, or should be, the basic idea behind all sports, at any level. Do your best, leave it all on the field/court/rink/road/track or whatever, and you can walk away with your head held high. But to often, we making winning the only acceptable result. No wonder we have cheating in many forms in sports.
Consider the Superbowl, and suppose the results are similar to the last NY/NE game last month. Should the loser be held in contempt, be castigated as a “failure”? Or should both teams be congratulated for a great game?
To be sure SS is implying that other teams are not clean. Is this some big news? I would guess that most of us feel that there is a doping problem in cycling, and that probably it extends farther than the small percentage of riders caught in the testing program. Whether or not it is as pervasive as some would hold can be debated; whether or teams actively and knowingly encourage and promote PED use, or whether it is a form of “don’t ask, don’t tell” can be debated. If someone makes a direct accusation against another team, then they should provide corroboration or shut up. But indirect suggestions that something is wrong in cycling are not out of line, IMHO.
This stance of SS probably has some degree of “marketing” behind it. So what? Lots of teams in all sports market themselves in various ways: “We’re the meanest, or fastest, hardest hitting” or whatever.
We need to give them a chance to prove themselves. As I mentioned above, SS is in effect an expansion team and it will probably be a while before they have any significant results. But I think in the present climate, teams need to take a much more proactive approach.
Vaughters is not saying that he is the “meanest, fastest, blah, blah, blah.” He is stating that he is the one that doesn’t cheat. That is not helping cycling. If a fan or a writer says these things, that is their prerogative. But the sport/team cannot effectively sell itself by telling people that the sport is corrupt.
That’s our job.
When did it become the job of a cyclist or cycling manager to lie to the media in order to protect the sport? It’s no secret there has been cheating in cycling. And given the difficulty of detecting cheating and the continued presence of those who enable cheating, cheating is not going away. That is the reality. Any team serious about not cheating has to face that reality. Sometimes they are going to get beaten by dopers.
I think Vaughters has already said something to the effect that if other teams don’t follow the SS example, then his experiment is probably not going to work in the long run. If the media isn’t aware of what’s different about SS, then what incentive would other teams have to follow the example, especially if continuing to dope means continuing to win?
In the long run, lies won’t help cycling. If pro cycling can’t exist without doping, then pro cycling would be better off admitting it without the shame of elaborate dishonesty.
who said lie?
Following the code of silence vrs. lying about doping in the peloton…..not much difference between the 2 imho. If I understand you correctly, then you want Vaughters to avoid saying that riding clean means riding at a disadvantage. But this is such an obvious conclusion…that in order to avoid it Vaughters has to mislead the media on either 1) the sporting advantage conferred by doping or 2) the ubiquity of doping in the peloton. He would have to sacrifice his credibility in order to meet your demand.
So in your opinion the only option for Vaughters is to sacrifice cycling’s credibility? You can’t see another more viable option that would be open to the professional sportsman? Perhaps he could just do his job within the framework given him, and insist that the UCI and USCF do theirs?
The fact that the governing bodies are grossly negligent in managing the sport and enforcing the rules equitably does not therefore mean that it can then become the responsibility of the athlete or the teams. Following the rules is every teams’ responsibility, and that has to be assumed by the fan, because the governing bodies would punish cheaters fairly and swiftly. If that simple proposition cannot be followed, then we have no sport (such is our current dilemma).
But of course in cycling we can’t get a clear definition of cheating, of what constitutes proof of cheating, or of what a logical punishment is for various forms of cheating. So what we get are these absurd subtexts. One team is about doping, one team is about riding clean; what about a team that just says its about racing a bike and giving it’s sponsor some good press. That’s enough for me. If Vaughters wants to institute his programs to ensure this, that’s great, but lets not go crazy about “paradigm shifts.” It so far behind the curve as to be laughable. The paradigm shift occurred when the press and fans started to demand a “clean” product.
This mess is what happens when the inmates run the asylum.
Michael,
Procycling has lost a lot of credibility for the recent years especillay with Verbbruggen’s circus. Everyone involved in cylcing says that now.
For me credibility is to face your problem and not diminish them.
To put all responsabilities on governing bodies is not fair because a lot of people involved in sport can detect anormal performance, reporters or journos should have pointed some strange performance and ask “How? Why human can be so strong in 10 years? “… But it was easier not to spit in soup by closing his eyes and your proposal is to continue on the way of the old days…
Could you name people who where unfairly caught ? Have you statistic ? Do you think that the Justice of your country is better than WADA/UCI ? Have you statistic too?
The shift has occured when the farce became too big! And still continue with Rasmussen and Contador who did the same performance on last TDF as Pantani.