Earlier this week, Pat McQuaid bemoaned the fact that several UCI ProTour teams were not invited to participate in the Giro d’Italia. Although I agree with McQuaid that it’s a shame these teams weren’t invited, according to a Reuters report (pointed out by Larry) that the Tour de France’s organizers “must” (according to this headline in the International Herald Tribune) invite all of the UCI ProTour teams, and to fail to do so would be against the rules.
According to the Reuters story that ran at ESPN.com:
“Why should (Tour de France organisers Amaury Sport Organisation) ASO be able to chose the teams for the Tour de France when every other race organiser accepts the rules of the sport,” said McQuaid.
“They have to accept that the UCI set the rules for the sport.”
“This is crux of the whole problem between ASO and the UCI. ASO don’t follow the rules. Now it’s ASO’s choice: They either follow the rules of the UCI or get out of the UCI. One or the other,” he added.
So, this begs an interesting question: What rules would the ASO be breaking by not inviting all of the ProTour teams to this year’s Tour?
To find answers, I went searching the UCI’s voluminous set of rules. The short answer: Beats me what rules Mr. McQuaid is talking about. I can’t find anything like that written in the rules and regulations published on the UCI’s web site.
For starters, since the Tour (and the Giro and the Vuelta) is a stage race, I checked out the UCI’s regulations for how such events are to be conducted (see pages 40 — 49 of the rules regarding road racing in this link). Know what I found? Ten pages that were detail oriented on such things as when a team time trial stage is allowed (the first third of the race), distances allowed for various age groups or levels of ability, and all sorts of arcane trivia. But not a word about who can (or can’t) be invited to a stage race.
OK, I thought, let’s check out the UCI’s ProTour regulations (pages 80 — 128 of the same document as above). There’s more substance to these, or at least more volume. Approximately 49 pages to the mere 10 pages for stage races. But at least there’s a hint of some rules about who must be invited to ProTour races, in the following regulation:
Participation of UCI ProTeams
2.15.205 The licence holder must accept the participation of all UCI ProTeams.
In accordance with article 2.15.127, the UCI ProTeams have a duty to participate in all the UCI ProTour events.
Does that wording sound odd to you? Here’s the deal: A promoter takes out a license with the UCI to put on a ProTour event. Like with teams taking out ProTour licenses, the typical duration of the license is four years. So, all things being equal, the license that the ASO took out for the Tour, and for other ProTour events (that’s the price of getting a UCI sanction, a/k/a approval) would be up this year. Except.
Last year the Grand Tour organizers withdrew from the ProTour, in order to take back control over who would be allowed to participate. So, in effect, the ASO and the UCI came to an agreement where the ASO gave up their ProTour license.
Now, there’s another rule that allows the UCI to list races that aren’t licensed ProTour races on their yearly ProTour calendar. But, and this is an important question, does that obligate those races to invite all of the UCI’s official ProTour teams?
Turns out the answer to that is: No. It doesn’t. Here’s the regulation that addresses such races listed in the official calendar:
§ 10 Events included in the UCI ProTour calendar without a licence
(paragraph introduced on 1.01.05; replaced on 1.01.06).
2.15.255 The UCI ProTour calendar includes, in addition to the events for which the organiser has obtained a licence, other events as decided by the UCI ProTour Council.
These events are governed by the UCI regulations in general, to the exclusion of articles 2.15.001 to 2.15.254. The status of these events in the ProTour calendar is governed exclusively by the pro-visions of this paragraph which take precedence over any contrary provision.
Take a good look back at both rules I’ve just quoted for you. Notice, the rule requiring the race organizers to invite ProTour teams is part of the rules specifically excluded in the section about events included in the ProTour calendar without a license.
So, for the purposes of the Giro, the Tour and the Vuelta, it’s my contention that the UCI must treat these races as though they are events included in the calendar without a license. That means, quite clearly, that the ASO, RCS and Unipublic can invite whomever they bloody well please to race in their events. And, they can do so without breaking any of the UCI’s rules.
To further support this, the UCI’s document on the general organization of cycling contains this item:
§ 5 Invitation – Enrolment
General principle
1.2.048(N) Unless otherwise specified, the organiser is free to select any teams and riders for an event, without any requirement to take account of any national protection.
McQuaid may be disappointed that some ProTour teams were left out of the Giro (and perhaps will be in the other two Grand Tours), but to claim that doing so is breaking the rules? Perhaps I’m missing something in the UCI’s rules and regulations, but as far as I can tell, Pat McQuaid should go back and read the rules again. It appears that the UCI’s own rules don’t make any requirement of the Grand Tour organizers to invite all the ProTour teams. Unless, that is, Mr. McQuaid still thinks they are all licensed ProTour events. On that count, it would seem that the Grand Tour organizers and Pat McQuaid have entirely different understandings of the current situation.
Rant,
Thanks for doing all the hard “leg work” about the “rules.” So what do we have?
Well, as I understand it, The GT’s have decided to “lower” their standards and make their Tours and all other races they control – INVITATIONALS.
According to the rules – they are within their rights and Pattie can make all the “commentary” he wants, in reality he hasn’t got a leg, sorry, “rule” to stand on.
In otherwords – Pattie just refuses to accept that the GT’s WILL NOT ACCEPT the UCI as the “last word” in who tells what to whom!
Being that the “present UCI” rules have no coverage concerning the “behavior” of the GT’s and that the GT’s have severed “membership” in the UCI as of last year – WITH THE UCI IN TACIT AGREEMENT. “Pattie” is doing nothing more then causing trouble in the PRESS…this would appear to be an old method that the “governing bodies” believe they can still use to get what they want.
Someone better tell them to cut it out – because the viewing public can “actually read” – and it is a method that won’t be working like before!
The other MORE SIGNIFICANT piece of knowledge in your research, Rant, has brought to light is – ALL THE GT’S ARE “INVITATIONALS” – putting it simply – the GT’s and other races that these organizers handle are basically and potentially nothing more then “showcase” opportunities for whoever the GT’s are “backing.”
So my question is simple – WHAT’S ALL THE RUCKUS ABOUT?
If the GT’s races are all invitational – why are we acting like we are in some way being “cheated and manipulated?” INVITATIONALS are NOT REAL RACES, they are fixed entertainment for general consumption.
I can live with this – ALTHOUGH – I WILL NEVER AGAIN WATCH A GRAND TOUR OR A CLASSIC and think I am watching PURE RACING! No Sir, I am watching a “showcase” of teams that the GT’s have picked as their “favorites.”
According to the “mess” that is pro-cycling, I think this is actually making progress. Another illusion created by misleading representation of their events – on all sides, would appear to have been cleared up.
Now my only remaining QUESTION – Is there actual “real racing” going on – anywhere in any event world wide? I think this may be considered a “fair question.”
I do not think that my question will be “easily answered,” since the UCI, which is on one hand presented as a representative of cyclist has changed and taken on the mantle of “promoter” – can be “fairly” looked at as unbiased in this matter.
So in my opinion – another illusion has been cleared up – the “implied” representation of the UCI is null and void – they are now PROMOTERS. This is not hard to comprehend.
YES- it does point out that there is “NO ACTUAL GOVERNING BODY” in Pro-Cycling – NO MATTER WHAT THE VARIOUS “GOVERNING BODIES” WOULD LIKE TO IMPLY!
So what is left? – Well, a bunch of “viewers” and lovers of the sport having to “wake-up” to the fact that this is simply so. All the hyperbole about “right and wrong” maybe flushed down the proverbial toilet – it was NEVER a legitimate question to begin with. EVEN THOUGH the “matter” is presented in a “right or wrong” light by the varied “governing bodies” – their presentation is without substance and more then likely nothing more then “opinion” manipulation.
We the viewing public MAY VERY WELL NOT LIKE THIS – but the hard evidence of their own “rules” lead us to this conclusion.
No wonder that so much MISLEADING INFORMATION and in some cases DOWNRIGHT DISHONESTY has taken Pro-Cycling to this juncture, where we “find ourselves today!”
I am a little confused though – the matter between the UCI and ASO is being presented as “confrontational” – yet the fact is – ASO is the “organizer” of the NEWEST Pro-Tour – the Tour Down Under…?
In the media – we, the viewing public is told that the TDU is a part of the UCI’s plans to make pro-racing a “world wide” event. In the media, we, the viewing public, are told that ASO in its choice to NOT be a member of the UCI is in some way “hindering and resisting” this “world wide program.”
Could someone please explain to me how then – ASO is able to be the “organizer” of the UCI’s newest pro race? Hey – maybe I’m just “simple” but isn’t there some “appearance” of conflict of interest here?” Not to mention possible “collusion?” By both contesting parties?
And finally – if the “issue” of “honest and fair, dope free racing” is to be taken out of the hands of politics and politicians – Is it so unreasonable to expect that the “media reporting” has a bit more depth then mere “PR releases” by the contending” “governing bodies?” Or is everyone involved on the “payrolls” of the parties concerned?
A few words about history of race organizers with some of my souvenirs.
Race organizer is not an easy job, and very difficult to earn few moneys. Almost all races are or were losing money, were running by a part of voluntaries.
If ASO controls now a lot of races it’s only because the old organizers were forced to stop ( no money and less voluntaries) as Liege-Bastogne-Liege, Paris-Roubaix,… so ASO had began to put a part of the TDF money in other races, that was not their willing but they have no choice when other French races were in jeopardize, … and since they have grown and from advertising it’s became a business.
With more races ASO has a more beneficial structure.
Jean C,
I have no problems with ASO “picking up” bargains” – since they are a “business” I would expect them to do so.
For me the ONLY important point is that ALL OF ASO’s races are now revealed to be what they “always have been” – INVITATIONAL races. In otherwords – at no time has the TdeF been anything but a “showcase” race to begin with. Therefore all the “hoopla” about in the media – pertaining to “injured parties” and “rabid doping” are nothing more then “press fodder” for the viewing publics consumption., to create pressure for whatever “agenda” the organizers wish to portray to the viewing public.
Pardon me if I don’t wholeheartedly accept your assertion that ASO as an “organizer” was/is losing money. All that means to me is that they may very well be lousy businessmen, if this were the case.
For me – it has always been an issue of why the Riders were the only ones being held up to be the villains in this debacle – when – it is obvious that the Organizers were/are as much or if not more at fault as the racers themselves.
As you yourself provided:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19462071/
– and if you read this article carefully – you will notice that the question of “doping” may NOT BE PLACED solely on the “greed and selfish” motivation of the individual racers. Which is how this whole “doping situation” has been presented!
At this point, do you honestly expect anyone to take your assertions seriously when the “gain and benefit” has always been an issue of the Organizers giving the “public” its spectacle RATHER THEN it being a !question of “clean racing.”
As more and more of this fiasco is revealed to us the viewing public, The “righteous” moralizing that is being voiced is sounding more and more hollow.
What has not changed is the FAIRNESS of how the riders are being used here. And it is not avoidable to ask: “who gains from this most?” – you and others wish for the public to “see this” as merely a question of “selfish riders who will do anything to win.” – What is coming to light – DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS.
What is becoming more and more clear to all – is that as a whole – THIS TIME – the attempts by the “governing bodies” to throw the racers to the lions is “nothing more then an old ploy.”
What is also becoming clear – world wide – is that the “rules” in place to “govern pro-racing” are such a complete slanted piece of calussive work – that the only “beneficiaries” are the “governing bodies” – not the individual riders themselves.
Thus it is no great leap to come to – that the Rules are in place to give the governing bodies the “power” to throw the individual racers into “public doubt” – as needed – so that the real issues of who is exactly “manipulating” pro cycling is covered up in the resulting partisanship of all involved.
BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE here Jean C. In the “good old days” when the public had only what the media fed them – the publics opinion could be easily shaped and formed. THAT IS NOT HAPPENING NOW. Everyone, if they are truly interested – can look at the situation much more clearly. AND I GUARANTEE YOU – PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY AT BEING PLAYED AS FOOLS.
CORRECTION! – the address
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19462071/
was provided by Ludwig – Not Jean C.
Morgan
I don’t see the idea of an “invitational” as necessarily being a bad thing, or simply an “exhibition” or “entertainment”. Consider, for example, the National Invitational Tournament in NCAA basketball. For many years this was the most prestigious tournament, taking precedence over the NCAA tournament, because (in part), the organizers were free to invite the best available teams regardless of conference affiliation. At the other end, however, are all those “holiday” tournaments around Christmas time, when to local college “invites” 3 other teams for a 2 day “tournament”: generally the invitees are chosen to allow the home team to win.
If the Giro is excluding teams on the basis that those not invited were looking at the Giro as merely training for the TdF and did not intend to truly compete, then I would consider that as improving the level of competition. However, if the organizers were excluding teams because those teams were perceived as being threats to an Italian winning, that would be something else again.
William,
Under ideal conditions – I would tend to agree with you. But I do not believe that those conditions are what we are facing in pro cycling.
Given that the “rules” in cycling tend to have a “particular bent” – one which results in muddied interpretation of what the individual parties character and behavior could be expected to be – One should stop giving the “benefit of the doubt” to such entities.
For instance – why is the vagueness in the UCI rules such that the definition of behavior and responsibility are not clearly defined. I can only assume that these “muddied” rules are written with a “purpose” – and this purpose is to create “exactly the tempest” that we find ourselves in today. After all – those rules were created by the same bodies that they are supposed to define and control.
On the other hand – when some individual or team “claims” that they are going to do a certain race – for “training purposes” – one can safely assume this is nothing but “public posturing.” No pro team is going to enter a race with the intention of not winning.
If this type of “commentary” on the purpose of their “participation” in any race is to be taken at face value – then I completely agree – such individuals and teams, should be left “uninvited!” But such public commentary seems to fly in the face of “competition.” Either the individual racers or teams must realize that they do not have such “freedom” to abuse” a particular race – or the simply admit that their commentary was nothing but public posturing to hide the fact that they enter a race and will not do well because they have not prepared properly for winning.
It would also behoove us to consider that much would be “explained” – meaning the behavior of the different organizers if we were to honestly signify them as “open races” or invitationals.
One other thing to consider William is that no organizer will openly admit that they are “showcasing” on team or teams over another. Their “public” would see this as TAMPERING WITH THE RESULTS – which of course they are by “selecting who may or may not race their races.”
Straying away from the OP to comment on the Giro (easily the most beautiful GT)…….
The Italians usually dominate the Giro and tend to gang up on non-Italians. If a non-Italian wins its usually someone from a major Italian team. In principle, it’s not bad for the Giro to have an outsider come in and make the race competitive. However in the current climate nationalism drives doping suspicions (notice how Americans are more likely to believe Italians and Spaniards are doping). In short, foreigners could be the first to be accused of doping, starting a chain of counter-accusations. In this vein I worry about Tinkoff–if Petrov gets in the hunt I can see mudslinging in the media or a concerted effort by the other teams to deny him the win.
I think the Giro was seriously peeved by the results of 2005–it wasn’t so much Basso winning but how he won, and how Gutierrez (previously a domestique with modest palmares) was suddenly the runner-up. Even Simoni couldn’t hide his exasperation with the state of affairs. The tifosi don’t want to see riders with superior doping docs (in this case Fuentes) dominating the event at the expense of local heroes Cunego, Di Luca, Simoni, and Garzelli.
Hence the suspicion of Astana, who might show up with a potential spoiler with young guns Gusev or Brajkovic (indeed, who’s to say Kloeden wouldn’t give it a go, considering that the media in Germany is too focused on doping for him to hope to win the Tour). Without Savoldelli on the team, Astana being there means more people talking about doping without any corresponding gain from the organizers’ perspective.
Morgan,
The big races, from what I’ve always understood, have always been invitationals. No doubt about it. The power struggle over the last few years, from my perspective, has been over who gets to dictate the invitations.
As Jean C points out, there’s an economic aspect to all of this. Think about the Giro for a moment, many of the Pro-Continental teams invited to race are Italian squads. This actually makes perfect economic sense, from my point of view. More “local” racers could bring out more fans, who will spend more. And that benefits the sponsors of the race, the localities, and so forth.
So the Giro organizers have the ability to invite whomever they want (as was the case before the ProTour was forced upon them). They’re doing what makes the most sense, from their point of view, regarding fans, sponsors and economics. It may or may not make for great racing. On that point, we’ll have to wait and see.
But if the teams are capable and rise to the challenge, it could be very enjoyable to watch, despite the fact that some of the ProTour teams aren’t present.
Rant,
I have nothing against the Giro inviting Italians to race. To me this is not the issue.
The issue is that when the GT’s formed an alliance with UCI – the races became “international” – that means that they themselves “opened the competition” to a larger field of players – yes?
All the GT’s want to have their races “seen” as international races, no? Part of the “world interest” in the GT’s is because they are international.
I agree that the Italian crowds would be interested in “seeing” Italian racers competing. And perhaps being that the crowds are “local” you would have more of a turnout – and presumably – the “concessions” would make more money.
But – as far as I know – the “real money” is not concession sales rather international “broadcasting rights” – this is where the “real money” is made by the organizers – this is why ASO and the other two “fought tooth and nail” against the UCI getting a “cut from this venue.” At least the broadcasting rights in Europe are at stake.
The “sponsors” are also only interested in the MEDIA exposure – this is what they always have been interested in – to have their “logos” brand names plastered on the riders to be SEEN.
Now – I am not arguing the pros or cons of Italians having access to their own race or for that matter the French or Spanish – but then be honest and admit that your races are merely “invitationals.” NOT OPEN RACING FOR THE BEST IN THE WORLD.
Which is what is IMPLIED by the advertisements for these races.
The problems begin when you are running “invitationals” – it is impossible to avoid – not to “fix” the races. Fixing in this instance simply means that if I as the organizer have the power to put on a “showcase race” then I am automatically “fixing” who I want to win. To assume that some form of “superhuman” ethics will kick in when I “pick and choose” who I want racing – is quiet frankly – ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.
Such races have “built in fixes” – this is unavoidable.
What is NOT UNAVOIDABLE is in this case “truth in advertising” – The GT’s simply cannot claim or imply that their racing is the equal to an “open race.” Almost all the problems that exist today in pro racing are due to the misrepresentation of what we are actually watching.
The average viewer is under the impression that they are watching the cream of the crop battling it out for supremacy in the Tours – well – if they are in actuality watching “invitational racing” this is definitely not so.
As I mentioned before – I shall never watch the TdeF with the IDEA that I am actually seeing the very best of bike racers battling out. As you point out – this is not so.
At the same time – the conflicts that exist in “pro-racing” therefore are truly a matter of who controls what is fixed one way or another. Personally, do I give a damn? Not really – not as if I was actually watching a “clean and clear and pure competition” of the very best fighting it out.
The question of WADA – and the Righteous horde mouthing the concepts of “fair play,” “level playing fields,” and all the rest is nothing but BS.
I still maintain that the “handling and treatment of the pro racer” is done without a shred of ethics – but I refuse to get up in arms and TAKE SIDES when all sides are basically BS-ing. What do I care who “wins” the power struggle. ALL OF THEM are basically untrustworthy. Put them in a room – give them lethal weapons and let the strongest survive!
This is not a question of PURE RACING AT ALL – it is simply who gets to put the fix in – I am sorry to say. At least as things stand now. I would have to be under drugs to buy into this load of putridity – None of this seems to have anything to do with “clean racing” or “Dope free racing” – it is simply who gets to put the “fix in.”
Morgan,
You’re right about broadcast rights being big money for the race organizers, and a big bone of contention between the “Big Three” and the UCI (it will be interesting to see if, over time, they meet the same fate as Detroit’s variant of the Big Three). I don’t know that the organizers have ever claimed that the races were “open” and not invitationals. I think that team participation by invitation goes a long, long way back, however.
Certainly, the organizers want to hype their events as competitions amongst the “best.” As does almost any promoter in any big-time sport. With the ProTour, unlike say the European soccer leagues, there’s no guarantee that these teams are “the best.” Certainly, they contain many accomplished riders and many contenders for victory in various events.
But the UCI’s idea of licensing membership to the ProTour is akin to joining a private club. If you’ve got the money to join, and can get the votes necessary (membership if voted on by the ProTour Council), then you’re in. Assuming, of course, that there’s a license to be had. The number of licenses isn’t unlimited.
By contrast, in England, teams can rise up to the Premier League or can be fall out of the Premier League, based on their results. (I’m a bit fuzzy on the details as to how that works anymore, as I haven’t lived in the UK since 1969.) In that kind of system, the proposition that the best teams compete in the league is easy to demonstrate.
Who determines who the “best cycling teams” are? According to the organizers of one event, it’s the teams they invite. Other organizers would say, no, it’s the teams *we* invite. The ProTour didn’t really change any of that.
Now, all that said, the Grand Tours are still phenomenal tests of ability and endurance. Whoever wins (barring all sorts of scandals, disqualifications, and so forth) is deserving of the victory.
To some degree, the fix is certainly in. At least, in the sense that the organizers get to decide who will compete. I often suspect that the hoopla over doping is just a way that the players(organizers, federations and others) behind the scenes have to distract the public from other things going on. Yes, doping happens. Perhaps it’s even pervasive (although hard evidence of this is hard to come by). Clean racing? I don’t know. There’s always going to be someone trying to bend the rules. No matter what rules we make.
Pro cycling will need a serious overhaul if the events are ever to be real examples of clean racing and the best competing against each other. There are many talented racers who compete in the Grand Tours, but I suspect there are a few teams each year who aren’t quite up to the competition. It happens in all sports, though.
In football (either kind), baseball, basketball, cricket. Some years teams are good, sometimes they aren’t.
If we want the Grand Tours to be the “Super Bowls” of cycling, first we need to devise a system of racing that determines who really are the best teams from year to year, and then those teams need to be in those races, competing against each other.
I suspect that some of that was the impetus for the ProTour. But I think the UCI bungled organizing the ProTour from the start, and that it will need to fall by the wayside and a different approach taken to achieve that kind of result.
Rant,
As always, I have learned to respect your views. Your “explanation” is concise and erudite. I am glad that you are there for fans like my self – who at times can get really annoyed by the state of affairs in cycling.
I would bet that most of the reading public has not had the chance to “hear” bicycling history from the point of view that you had taken the time to explain.
I would make it perfectly clear to all – that I love cycling. I resent the “nabobs” who present themselves as authorities on the subject. I resent the individuals who feel justified in besmirching the sport I love and respect with “innuendo” and negative spittle.
For me, racing is done by individuals, who sacrifice much to achieve what they do. Personally, I do not and have never seen these individuals as “saints” or perfect human beings. Nevertheless – the shameless accusations and hyperbole that is in extent concerning my sport is nothing short of defamation and personal insult.
If I have left you or anyone else with the idea that I do not appreciate the GT’s or the individual riders that have “written history” for the viewing public as less then to be cherished – I wish to state unequivocally – that this isn’t so.
I do find that there is much that is “wrong” with the state of cycling. One of the most prominent wrongs is that ALL BLAME is placed at the feet of the participating riders. As you point out – much of pro racing is clouded by what is put out there – yet no one has had the courage to point to the simple fact that bicycle racing as it is today is NOT THE FAULT of the riders. It is the fault of the different factions in the “governing bodies.”
Yet as far as I can see, what is “reported” or commented on by the media and individuals – all would have us believe that it is the riders who have caused this downfall in the case of cycling. I do not believe this to be so, and I know it not to be so.
My previous words were meant to be strong and harshly opinionated. Why not? The viewing public makes “assumptions” that are nothing more then “moralizing” gossip.
March 19th is not so very far away. There is an individual that will face his accusers who are hellbent on redefining reality because it suits them. Why should I feel bashful in throwing some opinion in their faces? I want them to know that they should no feel safe and hidden as they have become accustomed.
I am a fan of the TdeF and the Giro and the T de Espana – I am a fan of the racing itself, the racers who do it – NOT THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE SCENES who feel that they may treat the individuals who MAKE THESE Tours what they are – as spineless and manipulative and without honor as they comport themselves daily.
You are absolutely right Rant – if we want to have “true racing” we must consider ways and means to change our beloved sport. In my opinion – the starting point has to be in the “rules” that govern it. Rules that are “fair” and consistent and all participants are subject to them and must be made to “govern” cycling – rather then hand the controls over to corrupted self serving individuals and groups.
Maybe then we may expect “honor and fair play and a level playing field,” not just from the riders – but everyone involved.
Rant –
That’s one nice piece of legal analysis! I sit at your feet.
Houston, Houston ?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5523976.html
Interesting article. I wonder if its based on rumour or whether the author has an inside source. In any case he makes a sailent point why Astana is so controversial. Astana is a double whammy of doping innuendo–there is Astana’s legacy from last year combined with Bruyneel’s career and possible payback since Armstrong never having raced the Giro. And both Astana last year (through Vino) and Bruyneel/Armstrong are linked to Ferrari. Hardly the seed of good publicity.
“I do find that there is much that is “wrong” with the state of cycling. One of the most prominent wrongs is that ALL BLAME is placed at the feet of the participating riders. As you point out – much of pro racing is clouded by what is put out there – yet no one has had the courage to point to the simple fact that bicycle racing as it is today is NOT THE FAULT of the riders. It is the fault of the different factions in the “governing bodies.”
Yet as far as I can see, what is “reported” or commented on by the media and individuals – all would have us believe that it is the riders who have caused this downfall in the case of cycling. I do not believe this to be so, and I know it not to be so.”
I’m not entirely in agreement with this statement. It’s not because I think the riders are bad people–on the contrary, while I don’t condone the lifestyle prominent cyclists are forced to lead, I’m sure that Ullrich, Basso, Landis, and the rest are doing what they feel they have to do. I can certainly understand why they’ve done what they’ve done. In the end though, people have got to take the lion’s share of responsiblity for their own actions–that’s what freedom and free will are all about. Any system or society where people aren’t held responsible for what they do is not likely to be a healthy one.
I tend to lay the blame for cycling’s current state at the feet of the sponsors, the team managers, the UCI leadership (really an extension of the managers), the race organizers, and the riders—all are responsible. The cyclists work for the DSes–the managers are responsible for reforming the sport. But the sponsors, also, are complicit as they pay for the sport, and they must accept responsibility for how it is executed. The race organizers certainly share as much responsibility as anyone–they reap rewards from the circus and take part in whatever sport fraud occurs.
But none of this could go on without the cyclists. It’s their culture and their sport. The DSes are almost all noted former cyclists (Saiz was an exception)–they learn the doping culture and they pass it on to the next generation. There seems to be a (perverse) percpetion that what is in the interest of these DSes is in the interest of the sport–and those cyclists who don’t get with the program can step off.
Finally, the media and the fans are also complicit. Long-time fans know there is doping in cycling and they love it anyway. Newer fans are ensnared by the sport’s beauty and refuse to believe their heroes could be tarnished. The media sleeps for long periods of time and some media go out of their way to avoid doping stories. Virtually every cycling media publishes propaganda from the cyclists or DSes without fact checking or counter-quotes, and there is hardly any investigative journalism (Velonews’ recent steps in this direction are new and welcome, but even their site continues to publicize suspect teams). Even journalists who have consistently opposed doping like Joe Lindsey continue to publicize dopers and hail their achievements.
In the end I gotta return to this theme –you can’t reform cycling without overthrowing the UCI leadership and bringing the sport under a firmer and more rigourously transparent governing body. Floyd Landis said at least one true thing in the course of his fight–the UCI has to go and Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbrueggen need to go first. The current honchos are too wrapped up in the status quo and have too much dirt to cover up. The most practical way is getting rid of at least some of these doping DSes–this ought to occur at the level of sponsorship (ie, the doping DSes become too controversial to sponsor, so that their entire way of doing things becomes outmoded). Even when doping DSes bring reforms to the sport, those reforms may become suspect or compromised due to duplicity or ulterior motives.
When I talk about a tighter governing body I mean a body that has represenatives in each registered team who are responsible for enforcing the doping rules and keeping the sport on a level playing field. This system of monitoring would have to be transparent, and it would need to be combined with weekly testing, and the testing authorities should have no affiliation with cycling whatsoever–preferably coming from reputable universities or scientific institutions.
But all of this is futile if you don’t change how cycling is structured. Because as long as big money is tied to big results, the incentive to dope will be overwelming. Some have suggested making cycling a pure team sport–everyone gets paid the same amount regardless. This may be an answer. Either way, you’ve got to reform the remuneration structure in cycling in such a way that there is less financial incentive to take drugs…..
There’s really no way to get from A to B without more openness, more confessions, and more sponsors refusing to sponsor doping teams. It’s an ugly business, but the media has to do a better job of pointing out the obvious dopers and doping outfits and indicating to them that there is no place to hide. Because without pressure the system has no incentive to change, and the sport won’t be able to move forward. Sponsors need to be made aware of the risk they are taking when they support teams committed to doping, and to do that they, like the fans, have to be awakened from their dogmatic slumbers, or their illusions if you will. So the solution begins with ending the omerta policy, and getting an honest discussion going about the way forward. Perhaps at that point, when the jig is up, cyclists and cycling advocates will have the courage to argue for allowing certain drugs without shame or fear of retribution.
There is more to be said but I’ve said enough for now–sorry for the overly long post.
Ludwig said:”There’s really no way to get from A to B without more openness, more confessions, and more sponsors refusing to sponsor doping teams. It’s an ugly business, but the media has to do a better job of pointing out the obvious dopers and doping outfits and indicating to them that there is no place to hide.”
Ludwig,
I am always interested in your desire for openness of riders, and I can support that idea. What I cannot understand is why you hold to the closed nature of WADA World and their OPENLY corrupt practices.
One thing you seem to ignore is why would you expect openness in riders and others when the regulators have NO DESIRE to be either open or honest.
All the rumor and accusation for Bruyneel and Armstrong, may well prove accurate, yet we have PROOF that WADA World and the UCI care not one wit about the ethics, accuracy or integrity of their testing. They only care about a positive test, and quite frankly they are happy whether that comes from spiking, Ouija Board, or throwing darts.
Humans will respond differently if the process is fair to ALL concerned. When there is “Strict Liability” for one side, and NO accountability for the other side, on what basis is it in their best interest to confess (if there is anything to confess) when there is nothing to be gained and they are probably going to find themselves subject to trumped up charges anyway.
If Bruyneel is this doping Svengali, why hasn’t WADA World offered a deal? Maybe there is no there, there.
As long as you are unwilling to DEMAND openness and integrity on all sides, you will get it from NO SIDE.
Just my opinion,
Dragon,
What concrete instances are you referring to? Like I said before I haven’t seen any evidence of shoddy ethics on the part of WADA (which, btw, is a new organization, while the doping culture and omerta have much deeper historical roots). In general, Dick Pound has been vindicated again and again while the omerta defenders sink deeper and deeper into lies. I have no doubt WADA is imperfect, but from my limited vantage point it certainly seems more functional than other players in this mess–at least they are being forthright about what their goals are.
In general I’ve never been able to understand how or why people hold WADA responsible for the doping culture. Testing is/was a joke–it is police actions and media revelations that expose doping, not testing. And WADA has no power to force cycling to do anything. How much more evidence do people need that dope testing is not advanced enough to detect even 5% of the doping going on? If anything, WADA needs more funding to develop tests, and more power to pursue investigations, not less.
Most people who hold this WADA obession seem to base this on their treatment of Landis–but it is highly unlikely that Landis is innocent, and Landis certainly has plenty of motivation to smear every organization standing in his way. I have no problem with useful discussion on whether or not the standards employed meet scientific scrutiny–but I haven’t seen any evidence WADA is inihibiting that discussion in any way.
Acheiving clarity on how dope testing is to be governed and the standards of scientific certainty is a useful discussion, but it’s not the discussion cycling needs in order to get out of the doping mess. The kind of reform we need is the kind that allows cyclists to not have to publicly lie in order to practice their profession, and which keeps bad-faith defenses at a minimum.
Ludwig,
I will give you several instances. You probably see them as beneficial.
First, Dick Pound’s Lance Armstrong HOAX. Notice we have the shrinking violet LNDD involved as well. From the back testing of the 1999 TdF samples many individuals NOW believe they have proof of LA’s doping.
Dick Pound used tactics to intentionally “defame” LA in a manner which was against the Rules (yes, I know, expecting WADA World to follow any rules is pollyanna). Wasn’t he sanctioned by the IOC?
On top of that, Ms. Ayotte from Montreal said (with regards to the HOAX)that the tests were unreliable, due to the unstability of the samples after a long period of time. Now, I don’t put a lot of credence on Ms. Ayotte’s comments, yet I reference her for the “We LOVE WADA World” crowd. Ms. Ayotte also noted in the Landis case, that since athletes had lawyers, WADA World had to “get/be creative” (ie: “cheat”). How could she mean anything else? Why would they have to get creative if they are doing “Good Science”?
Now to the Landis case. HOW did WADA World get Landis? The T/E ratio. Oops…the arbitrators threw that testing result out. But, since we are here, let’s use the Rorshach Test in hard science. So, the result is WADA World got Landis before the Arb’s by an test which was thrown out, and then got to dig elsewhere. If the test had been done properly, NO Landis case. Result: Fraudulent test, get’s WADA World into Arbitration where they have a 2-1 guilty verdict by rule. Could that be innocent error by LNDD? Maybe, and I could be the King of Siam.
The Gatlin case. No argument of doping, from my perspective. But…WADA World seem to be able to read the fine print in their Code to use a positive test for a ADD prescription, which pre-dated WADA World, and was found unintentional. Added to that, to increase the penalty, WADA World charged that Gatlin could get NO benefit for helping provide information about doping because WADA World didn’t ask for help, and Gatlin helped Federal Prosecutors by wearing a wire on at least 10 occasions.
You are welcome to venerate these tactics and individuals, I find them abhorant.
One time, a mistake…Many times, I will presume guilt, just as you do.
I don’t happen to expect WADA World and labs to be perfect, they are human. That’s why an athlete should be allowed to defend themselves. WADA World seems to have a congenital predisposition to mistakes if one put’s their behavior in the most favorable light.
Just my opinion.
Well Dragon I doubt anything I can say will convince you, but I’m confident that future info (regarding, for example, the doping habits of Armstrong and Landis) will show that pursuing these guys was perfectly in the interest of fair sport. Because that’s what WADA is being paid to do–pursue dopers. Everyone suspects Armstrong doped–the task is to prove it. Similarly with the Landis nonsense–are you seriously accusing the LNDD of fraud? All I know is there are a number of positives from the A and B samples and that were held up by the arbitrators, and that this corresponds with the abundant evidence that Landis (and others) doped.
Armstrong doped. Landis doped. They both lied about it. They are both willing to spend millions to defend their names. It really comes down to which side you are on. I am for cycling, and against doping, so I support WADA’s mission. Dopers suck. Liars suck even more. Fraud (ie the FFF, BelieveTyler.com) is even worse. And let’s not even get into Armstrong’s despicable bullying of anyone who stands up to him. Why do you want the sport to be led by people who are comfortable employing such tactics? When did cycling become a mafia?
As for Gatlin, I haven’t really followed the case. As a principle though, I think athletes have to be held responsible for what they have in their body.
Dragon,
Your are misinformed…
Ayotte has retracted after his statement… rEPO could be not stable but never will appeared in urine samples. So her first interpretation was an error. If rEPO was found the stability is not a problem.
Against Lance Armstrong, there is a lot of indices along his career, enough to write a book could I say.
About Landis, hhhuuuuummmmmm, I disagree completely with you.
There is clearly more athletes victim of dopers than victim of WADA.
More than an opinion.
Ludwig,
You may prove correct about Armstrong & Landis.
NOW that we are going to get WADA World into Court, I expect to see spiking of samples, intentionally fraudulent tests to get the athlete into arbitration and convicted, among other nefarious tactics. I will gladly retract ANY of those thoughts when you or WADA World can PROVE that they are untrue. And NO, Dick Pound, Travis Tygert, Ms. Ayotte, Catlin, Brenna, Prudomme, or any one elses word is not good enough. I want hard verifiable PROOF. Their word and $1.29 get’s me a cold cup of coffee at 7-11.
I guess you haven’t understood the discussion about process. Noting A&B sample positives and arb’s upholding them. I gave my 10 year-old nephew a $32 science kit from the Smithsonian Institution for Christmas. He’s played with it since then and I am sure he is already exceeded WADA Standard. I recommended that my brother put him in for a $1.3 million research grant from USADA, it would be a good way to fund his college education.
NO I am not seriously charging LNDD of Fraud. It’s a fact. Or maybe it is only Gross negligence with intent to harm. And, as you well know, the accusation is the PROOF. LNDD has been cited in several instances of bad behavior. You or even I might learn from that and mend our ways. LNDD cannot do their masters biding if they mend their ways.
Ludwig said:”Why do you want the sport to be led by people who are comfortable employing such tactics? When did cycling become a mafia?”
Ludwig, I didn’t realize you had seen the light. Why do you think there are so many complaints about WADA World?
You are correct that dopers suck! Corrupt regulators suck as well. Liars also suck, I just don’t know why you defend Dick Pound, the epitome of creative verbage which rarely wanders near the truth. Please post on the Day he actually speaks truth (I am sure it will be unintentional/accidental).
The bottom line is we shouldn’t even being having this argument. If WADA World were doing their job with ethics and integrity, we would all gladly hang the cheats from the highest yardarm. As it currently stands, both sides cheat like hell, unfortunately.
As to Gatlin. While he disputes his positive, my point is that WADA World can search their “Joke Book” and find ways to extend penalties burried in footnotes, while not being able to read the bold print governing their own obligations.
My opinion of course.
Dragon,
Nicely put. but I do not believe that “true believers” want to hear anything other then their own ideas voiced. Don’t waste your breath.
Jean C.
I grant you I am misinformed. I had expect WADA World to act with ethics and integrity.
I cited Ms. Ayotte, not because I give her comments credence, rather because others do (I think I made that point in the original post). I would generally presume her “creative” comment as possibly being a translation ambiguity, yet I give individuals exactly as much benefit of the doubt as they give to others. WADA World gives NO ONE but themselves and pet labs the benefit of the doubt, so they get no corresponding benefit from me.
Did Landis dope? I can’t prove it one way or the other. Did LNDD produce a positive test to get Landis into arbitration? Don’t know for sure, but they can’t prove they didn’t, and I am beginning to like applying WADA World rules to WADA World, when they can prove they didn’t, I’ll take notice. Please don’t tell me how difficult it is to prove a negative.
Your final comment is only valid IF WADA World ever act with ehtics and inegrity, an unlikely possibility.
In my opinion, and factual until WADA World can PROVE different.
Regards,
Morgan,
I could say I have enormous lungs, so there’s plenty of breath to waste.
Actually it has more to do with the enlarged size of my mouth.
On a more serious note.
There seem to be predominantly 2 sides to the argument/discussion. The interesting part to me is that they are not opposing points of view. Rather they are somewhat oblique positions of the same side of the current situation.
Actually both are part of the anti-doping argument. On the one side you have the “kill” the dopers by whatever means it takes…The Judge Roy Bean perspective. The process side of the argument does not condone doping, rather it recognizes the human frailties of ALL the participants and looks to avoid the conviction of the innocent, even if it means letting some guilty unpunished. That does not sit well with the “Judge Roy Bean” contingent, and I am sure makes many of the process side uncomfortable as well.
As an aside, I saw on the news this past weekend that the Feds had arrested 80 odd membars of the “Gambino” family in New York. Heck…it’s 2008, shouldn’t these folks have been rotting in jail for years? If mafia types have rights to be proven guilty not just accused, shouldn’t mere bicycle riders get at least as much due process?
Regards,
Ludwig,
With all due respect, your comment makes no sense. Do you really mean to say that the ends justify the means?
Dragon’s arguments appear to be accurate to me. Your counter argument is, “Armstrong doped. Landis doped.” I was never part of a debate club, but that would seem to be an a-priori proposition.
Maybe we could work from what is knowable?
Dragon,
Wishing you excellent wind for your lungs. (:-))
As one who is accepting of the wish of the majority that there be no doping in cycling – to me does not mean that I am for the “Judge Roy Bean” philosophy. Not that you imply that my stance is.
My personal opinion on doping is simply that if the “rules” are written in a “normal” and “fair manner,” and equal and fair application is practiced – the issue of doping is automatically attended to.
Will this mean that there will be “no doping?” – I honestly doubt this – BUT – we will at least have the means of addressing the innocence or guilt of an accused party. And the accused party will have their rights respected and be given a fair chance to “defend themselves.”
The way WADA wishes to define reality for us is completely unacceptable to any right thinking person. Being that it ignores proper jurisprudence and favors opting for their own belief that “every racer” is basically a “potential doper.” Perhaps – as some point out – if “money” is the single motivation for individuals – this may be true. Maybe. I choose to not have such a view of human beings.
Therefore I demand and will keep demanding that WADA or what ever governing body is in place be made to implement rules that do not discount the rights of the individual – even the right to go against the majority wishes, even if I don’t agree with such a choice.
If the rules are such that an individual may be “accused” – then the accusers must prove their accusations.
If an accusation is made and it costs the accused his means of livelihood – the accusers should have to be held responsible for this, with in reason of course.
On the other hand if the “accusations are made without substance” only to serve the needs of the accuser then there should definitely be a high price to pay for attempting to destroy some one.
It seems to me that the governing bodies have gotten into thinking that they are in someway the “moral conscious” of everyone. The governing bodies should stick to making sure that the conduct of the racing world is correctly and fairly run – nobody asked them to be “moral monitors.”
Bicyclists clearly have it wrong. Put a motor on the thing, and you can make a lot more money and not need to worry about doping…..just the taxes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241011.stm
Michael,
I am all for fair interpretation of the rules, and I certainly can see instances where the ends do not justify the means (ie, actual contracts or laws being broken). I just think cycling has a right to survive. It’s gotta do everything possible to fight sport fraud, maintain sporting integrity, and enforce its own rules. As I said above, I haven’t seen any ethical breeches–nothing Dragon eludicates (they are testing samples–o my what scoundrels!) indicates anything shady at all, especially when we consider the desperation with which these guys defend themselves. It’s easy to tell which side is based on falsehoods, and in the Landis/Armstrong cases it ain’t WADA.
Btw in case Dragon’s arguments are based on the assumption that LNDD/WADA (there are all one big nefarious conspiracy apparently) spike samples and/or actively endeavor to persecute athletes. It’s a strange conspiracy theory, considering he has given no practical reason why these people would do any such thing. Of course, in Landis’ case, the Tour organizers and the UCI are in on it too, because they are all part of the “rush to judgement”. Apparently, it seems these strange and sick people like to go after uppity Americans–probably because they are full of hatred for our glorious nation.
I’m asking for proof of malice, proof of conspiracy. I get nothing.
Sooner or later cycling and cycling fans need to start using their brains, and exercising common sense. If you support every doper’s bad-faith defense, sooner or later there is no anti-doping structure. It would be perfectly honest and straightforward to just say your don’t want dope testing–just let them drug themselves and get on with the race. However the current strategy (undermining the authorities, subtely accusing them of corruption without proof) just muddies up the sport and creates a climate where more divisive scandals are likely.
Cycling is sick from lies. My advice to advocates of fairness is to first try to understand what is really going on on the ground, and then try to move towards solutions. Don’t base your logic and/or solutions on misrepresentatons or press releases–try to figure out what is real and what is really happening.
Ludwig,
Just one little point to consider – as the rules are from WADA – the Accused is “required” to prove his innocence.
Given that – WHEN an accusation is made in todays world – the “accuser” is responsible for proving that the accused is “guilty” as charged – think just about any court case in America – where the law of the land brings someone upon charges – the law of the land must “prove” that their accusation is true.
Then explain to me, to all of us – how it is that the rules from WADA are written so that the “accused” is given the task of proving his innocence?
Easy example1 – I accuse you, Ludwig, of being a drug addicted bank robber. Now in WADA world – YOU would have to prove that YOU ARE NOT a drug addict or a bank robber – NOT I – the one who has made the accusation against you.
So – EXACTLY HOW IS THIS “FAIR AND NORMAL?” since in reality, Ludwig, this is exactly the situation that exists under WADA rules.
And I believe cycling fans are using their brains – since they are questioning the state of affairs. But it may very well be true that many do not come up with your conclusions.
Ludwig,
I think the difference between your approach and mine is really quite simple.
While I find doping ethically reprehensible, on what basis is it sanctionable?
That sanction comes from the WADA World “Joke Book”. I have NO problem sanctioning based on this “Joke Book” as long as ALL rules in the “Joke Book” are applied to ALL the individuals/entities governed by said “Joke Book”.
There is where we seem to part ways. You are happy to have a “Joke Book” sanction against the athlete, and can feel good about “cleaning up” cycling because of said sanction. It seems to me, you have NO similar requirement regarding WADA World being required to also abide by their own “Joke Book”. Dopers are bad, so we sanction them, WHO CARES if WADA World doesn’t abide by it’s own “Joke Book”.
I am being sarcastic, because I didn’t write the “Joke Book”, you didn’t write the “Joke Book”…WADA World wrote the “Joke Book”. Why should anyone put ANY reliance on this “Joke Book” when WADA World only apply it regarding athletes, and ignore those provisions governing their own behavior? Quite frankly, if the “Joke Book” IS NOT important enough to govern their own behavior, why should I value any sanction rendered from any of it’s rules?
One other thing to ponder, and I would like your answer. IF Floyd Landis had submitted the science and results in defense that WADA World submitted in prosecution, I can guarantee ALL the scientists at DPF would be decrying it as shoddy and dismiss it out of hand. I am sure you saw the hoops that had to be jumped through even by the Arbitrators to get their conviction. They had to reach up to try to touch bottom.
You ask for PROOF of malice. Interesting you want proof of malice. You forget, we’re in WADA World, the accusation is the PROOF. You continue to want it both ways. You appear to want to accuse, yet you submit NO PROOF that there is no conspiracy or malice. I expected as much, because WADA World can provide NO SUCH PROOF.
I am a poker player. When I cannot quite understand someone’s behavior I attempt to glean something from HOW they played their hand (handled the situation at issue). I submit, that WADA World was not confident of their hand (testing results), otherwise the Landis case “screamed” out for showing EVERYTHING they had, to prove to even the most ardent skeptic that their testing was above reproach and was to an unquestionable scientific standard. Then, that would be an object lesson to others (athletes) that you’re as good as caught if you continue doping. Did WADA World do this? Not on a dare, they limited evidence, they brought in character assasination, they tested “B” samples their “Joke Book” said they cannot (Oh I forgot that’s why it is called the “Joke Book”).
You, like many, continue the cannard that to require WADA World to abide by their own “Joke Book” is supporting every bad faith defense. So be it. When will you cease defending and excusing WADA World everytime time they find provisions of their own “Joke Book” inconvenient.
I don’t have to undermine WADA World’s authority, they do quite well on their own.
I guess at bottom you think that we will achieve “fairness” by embracing despotism and tyrany.
Regards,
It’s difficult to say that Floyd or other athletes are not treated fairly:
Did he have the possibility to have B samples tested?
Did Landis forbidden to speak to public of his case?
Did he have a hearing?
Could he use hearing and people to build his defense? Did he has access to his case ?
How long was this hearing?
How much time for the panel to draw a conclusion?
Is it possible to make an appeal?
In a civil process, the use of other B samples, his hematocrit testing would be enough to convict him. So if people want a civil case, you have to made your mind with all those supplementary testing which would be available againts Floyd, and draw your own conclusion.
Jean C,
There is a difference between a “show trial” and a hearing process where a defense has a chance to make a difference.
The bottom line is that IF Floyd Landis had video proof and confession that there was malfeasence by WADA World, the Arbitrators would still have ruled 2-1 against. Judge Hue held out hope that the evidence would convince the Arbitrators, he was mistaken.
We will see how CAS decides. I have some optimism that they take their duty seriously. In the past CAS has shown that the “Joke Book” also applies to WADA World. We will know in the fullness of time.
Regards,
I have to assume that Jean C is being sarcastic.
Michael,
I don’t think he is. Not if you recall his previous statements concerning these matters.
Ludwig,
A couple of points regarding your recent post:
“I just think cycling has a right to survive. It’s gotta do everything possible to fight sport fraud, maintain sporting integrity, and enforce its own rules.” This is a false dichotomy; you have arbitrarily reduced a set of many possibilities to only two. Destroy fraud or die. I have contended ad-nauseum, that all sports have had some level of fraud from their inception, which has not led to their death. Therefore, I feel safe to conclude that cheating at sports is not inherently mortal to the endeavor.
“I’m asking for proof of malice, proof of conspiracy.” This is a straw man; You are arguing against a position which you created, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view. I know some people here have gone as far as to claim a deliberate conspiracy, but I think that the general gist is that the governing bodies are grossly mismanaged, with capricious rules, and a lack of accountability.
“If you support every doper’s bad-faith defense, sooner or later there is no anti-doping structure.” Another straw man argument. If WADA and LNDD had released every piece of information even remotely related to the testing and handling of Floyd’s S17 samples, including the color of the tile in the LNDD ladies toilet, and it showed that the tests were performed correctly and completely, then Landis wouldn’t have had much of an argument. As it is, read the lab pack and WADA rules and it is difficult not to come away with the feeling that the rules are vague, the testing procedures are not codified, the lab pack – at best – is inconclusive, and the lab methods are poorly managed.
When you conclude that Landis and Armstrong got what they deserved, therefore justifying the system, you are stating a tautology. (“I’m confident that future info (regarding, for example, the doping habits of Armstrong and Landis) will show that pursuing these guys was perfectly in the interest of fair sport.”) You shouldn’t state a conclusion using the premise as your argument, or vice-versa.
I was not sarcastic but only realistic.
Landis have his defense, as try to convince the extern public but he failed clearly! Neither the arb nor the public has find him innocent.
If it were a clear injustice as some people are saying, it would have been seen.
Jean C.
The Arbs found the test which caused the arbitration was in error and threw it out. End of case, for anyone but WADA World.
They then bought the novel application of an ambiguous Pyschological test…the Rorshach Test to Hard science. They also found that even though the lab was not competent to do the most basic test performed a highly test expertly. Please point me to any of Brenna’s writings (he’s supposed an/the expert in the field) where he has EVER advocated the Eyeball/Rorshach test.
That is like saying that while one cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide. Don’t understand decimels or fractions, yet is the formost Astro Physicist on the planet. Sorry..it doesn’t add up, unless the fix is in at the beginning.
2 of the Arbitrators, probablly consulted their Ouija Board to verify Brenna’s test. I mean, the Ouija Board is one of the most accurate scientific instruments known to humankind.
The clear injustice will be shown once Landis exhausts his administrative remedys (CAS) and this gets into a “real” court where WADA World DOES NOT determine the pre-determine the outcome, and where WADA World will under oath, without pet Arbitrators, and a jury not consisting of WADA World syncophants.
It will be interesting to get Travis Tygert, Dick Pound, Mr. McLaren before a jury, and with their reputations and personal fortunes on the line. And most important the discovery of WADA World files. If the shredders are not already working overtime they will be when the case is filed.
As to public opinion it is easily swayed by a lazy media. About 18 months ago, 3 Lacrosse students were believed guilty of rape. National news magazines had their picture on the covers. Now, these same GUILTY individuals, were declared INNOCENT by the Attorney General of North Carolina (an unprecidented action) and the prosecutor has been disbarred for his handling of the case.
That’s my opinion, since stated, asserting WADA World Rules, is fact.
Regards,
Dragon,
If the science or the lab would have been clearly faulty, a lot of people would be proud to prove it in front of television and media. It would be for them a glory moment, and probably they could receive money from Landis…
But we are far of this.
What is your opinion about hematocrit value of Floyd? Blood manipulation or not ?
Jean C,
You ask the correct question, yet you do not realize/understand the “Joke Book” provisions.
First, By RULE, an athlete CANNOT question/argue the science.
Second, The athlete has NO RIGHT to independently analyze/test the sample. LNDD & WADA World conveniently use up the sample so even in Court proceedings there is NOTHING to independently test.
Third, The accused IS NOT given ALL the results from testing, only that information which WADA World decides to give. Thus, presuming for sake of argument, that WADA World deems it unnecessary to provide information of conflicting test results, or documentation of multiple tests unaccounted for, HOW can anyone prove what you require. They did a movie about this “Catch 22”.
Jean C, your prescient questions are the reasons some of us argue long and loud about process. I personally have NO difficulty in punishing severely, offending athletes. In fact, I presume athletes cheat to get an edge. I expect/require the regulators to have a higher standard of ethics and integrity than the accused. Just like I abhor murderers, yet I expect a higher standard of behavior from the government who prosecutes them. WHY? because otherwise, it’s just one set of animals hunting another set of animals. Neither with a superior moral position to justify their position.
Regards,
“This is a false dichotomy; you have arbitrarily reduced a set of many possibilities to only two. Destroy fraud or die. I have contended ad-nauseum, that all sports have had some level of fraud from their inception, which has not led to their death. Therefore, I feel safe to conclude that cheating at sports is not inherently mortal to the endeavor.”
But this reasoning doesn’t take account of the role of new media. Specifically, it’s not possible to keep the dope in the private realm, and act as it if doesn’t exist. The sport has to do something or the negative publicity will bring it down. I’m not under illusions that you can eliminate cheating completely, but at least you can stop officially condoning it.
“This is a straw man; You are arguing against a position which you created, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view. I know some people here have gone as far as to claim a deliberate conspiracy, but I think that the general gist is that the governing bodies are grossly mismanaged, with capricious rules, and a lack of accountability.”
But you said you agreed with Dragon’s points, and he clearly believes in a willful conspiracy to frame-up Landis without sufficient evidence. I find it amusing when the posters in here and TBV, who use more rational and conciliatory language, praise various conspiracist rants, and then act outraged when an anti-doping dissenter calls foul on enabling and supporting delusional ideas. Either there was a conspiracy or there wasn’t. Get the story straight. If you want to claim conspiracy, then your arguments looks silly if you can’t indiciate a rational motivation for the supposed frame-up.
Either way, whatever imperfections exist at the level of WADA, they pale in comparison to the absurd, mafia-esque corruption of the omerta system. The root of cycling’s problems is the legacy and staying power of the doping omerta—this is the point I keep trying to make, and one which very few rational people seem to disagree with. But then the so-called fairness advocates go on to support the omerta teams and defend their star riders, without any thought to how this must look to clean riders. It’s a maddening spectacle, but certainly cycling is not the only entity in society with irrational and counter-productive institutions. Either way, cycling fandom will not be healthy until it has the knowledge tools necessary to support clean riders pursuing clean sport, and stop being fooled by the hypocrites.
“When you conclude that Landis and Armstrong got what they deserved, therefore justifying the system, you are stating a tautology. (“I’m confident that future info (regarding, for example, the doping habits of Armstrong and Landis) will show that pursuing these guys was perfectly in the interest of fair sport.”) You shouldn’t state a conclusion using the premise as your argument, or vice-versa. ”
But this would indicate that there isn’t abundant empirical and circumstantial evidence that both doped. I believe I’ve demonstrated again and again that there is. I certainly don’t advocate crucifying anyone without evidence, but in this case there is plenty.
The system you’all seem to be advocating is one where law and lawyers become entwined with the sport. A system where it doesn’t matter if riders are doping–it only matters what can be proven legally.
Fuck that. That isn’t sport. That’s WWW wrestling. And it will be the ruin of cycling. What cycling needs is a system where all the teams and riders agree to an anti-doping code, and agree to accept the consequences of doping if they dope.
Anti-doping shouldn’t operate like a law-enforcement agency, it should operate as ethics enforcement within the context of a profession. What anti-doping can and cannot do should be elaborated in contracts (made available to the sponsors and public). Teams and riders who won’t get with the program should then be shown to the way out the door. No more phony efforts towards undermining the laboratories–a positive is a positive. No more lies on Larry King Live or Jay Leno–don’t disgrace the sport by selling bad-faith bs to the public. If riders are unhappy with the lab’s methods, then cycling can take its business elsewhere.
Hematorits? (a) uncalibrated, unofficial instrument readings and (b) dehydration.
Looking at raw data is tricky.
TBV
You know, I wish there was an edit function on these comments, because many times I write stuff I would delete after further reflection.
I don’t claim to know anything definitively about Landis or Armstrong–I don’t know them personally. The evidence looks overwelming to me, but the strengh this case is limited because I’m not personally or professionally affilliated with them. I wouldn’t write something like “I am certain Armstrong and Landis doped” in anything I would publish for real, unless I had access to more first hand testimony.
I would stand by my statements that omerta stinks and that cycling’s problems lie in the integrity of its instutions. If cyclists truly believe the sport can’t exist without dope, they should simply speak their minds, and remember the core tifosi are an extremely forgiving lot.
Trust But Verify.. happy to see you here!
Could you give us an explanation for the fabulous climb of Landis on Alpe d’Huez if the hematocrit measurement were all false? It was similar as Ullrich 2004 time trial and we have learnt since Ullrich and Tmob were all on blood doping program?
It’s clear that Floyd doped or he were a superhuman.
Ludwig,
In a broad sense I think we are in close agreement on the ultimate goal to reduce doping to as few as is humanly possible.
The difference in our points of view is HOW to get there.
You are obviously frustrated in the current condition, and want it gone yesterday. I can’t fault that reasoning.
IF it were ONLY the athlete side (riders & teams) of the equation I think you are on to something.
Unfortunately, like it or not, EVERYBODY in this mess is dirty. There is NO Mother Theresa in this situation.
I have made some post highly critical of WADA World, and I stand by them. Do I have absolute proof? No, yet I can observe behavior and draw conclusions. Similar to your belief in regards to riders and teams.
You decry the omerta of the peloton. It is a fair point, yet you don’t seem to have a problem with the REQUIRED Omerta in WADA World. Neither should exist, NOT one or the other.
I truly believe if WADA World was transparant, held their constituent groups to the highest standards, ALL of us could pull together to reduce doping. In the real world, murderers and robbers and rapists get rights that may seem silly, yet even that seeming handicap on the prosecution of these crimes, the vast majority are convicted. And, once and a while, an innocent individual is freed where the initial evidence seemed damning.
If we as an enlightened society can handle the consequences of due process for the most heinous in society, I don’t see a problem extending similar rights to athletes.
Regards,
OK, we have the answer now.
Who gets to decide? The ASO. And for the second year running, the reigning TdF champ will not be allowed to race.
Larry,
Right you are. And just to make sure they’ve made their point, they’re not going to invite Astana to any ASO events this year. At least Astana will get to ride in the Vuelta, assuming the sponsors don’t bolt and the team doesn’t fold before then.
Ludwig,
I know what you mean about the edit function. More than once I’ve wished for the same thing when posting comments on one blog or another.
Rant, the Astana business is complicated, and I’m sure you’re working on your comment. Just to give you a quick thought: the issue of whether Astana should have been excluded is only one of the issues that you should address. To be honest, I don’t have a huge problem with excluding Astana. That team was a doping mess in 2007. William likes to use NCAA sanctions as a point of comparison, and a college team cannot avoid NCAA sanctions by firing the coaching staff and bringing in a new “clean” recruiting team. So, the idea that Astana would be punished in 2008 for their 2007 doping violations does not trouble me.
There’s the second issue of who gets to decide these things. That’s a bit more troubling. Ideally, there should be a governing body in cycling to make this decision, like the NCAA does for college recruiting. If the NCAA says that a college team should not be sanctioned over a particular problem with recruiting, then that team does NOT have to worry about being excluded by the Rose Bowl organizers from playing in Pasadena on January 1. But I think we’ve already discussed this issue.
There’s a bigger issue of who’s really being punished. ASO can pretend that they’re punishing Astana, and that Contador, Leipheimer and the others are affected only because they ride for Astana. But that ignores the fact that, from what I can see, Astana was the only team that would hire Contador and Leipheimer (not to mention Bruyneel) after Discovery folded.
Now, maybe Contador and Leipheimer are “known” in cycling as dopers. Contador is suspected of some involvement in OP, though the evidence there looks pretty slim. As far as I know, there are no doping allegations against Leipheimer, other than his association with Bruyneel and Discovery. Still, I assume that Leipheimer would have joined one of the more “reputable” cycling teams, if any of them were interested. Why NOT be interested in a guy who finished on the TdF podium in Paris in 2007, and who’s been a consistently strong rider throughout his career? In the brave new world of cycling, where doping pervades every discussion, I assume that Leipheimer was “persona non grata” because he was connected with doping, or because some people connected him with doping, or because some people worried that other people connected him with doping. (As we know from history, you can “blacklist” a person without providing a list with that person’s name on it.)
My assumption is that no team other than Astana would touch Leipheimer (and Contador, and Bruyneel), out of fear than hiring any of these three guys would doom their chances of being invited to the Tour. I further assume that the teams have a line of communication open to ASO. I doubt that ASO would be so crass (so gauche?) as to say that ASO would not allow Leipheimer or Contador (or by extension, any team that dared hire Leipheimer or Contador) to race in France in 2008. My assumption is that these things can be communicated by tone of voice and a raised eyebrow, coupled with a statement that “of course we can provide no guarantees.”
So … consider ASO’s snub of Astana in light of the probability that only Astana was willing to risk hiring Contador and Leipheimer. My belief is that Contador and Leipheimer were effectively banned AS INDIVIDUALS from the 2008 Tour when they were “blackballed” from the club of “respectable” cycling … and that ASO bears some responsibility for this.
[by the way, I apologize if anyone finds “blacklist” or “blackball” to be racist terms. I do not think either term has a racist derivation, see for example http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blackball. I cannot find any synonym for these terms that carries with it a sense of unfair exclusion. Probably the best synonyms are “shun” or “ostracize”, and neither of these terms carries the sense of something unfair or odious that I wish to convey here. But I do try to be sensitive about language that could cause offense, and I would welcome it if anyone has better words I could use here.]
Jean C, I’d start with the power output of Stage 15, which can be located in http://ia351412.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_Case_Documents_14/GDC01091-GDC01100.pdf
There’s lost data on L’Alpe, with w/kg @ 5.9 based on time and modelling. Turning to S17, on not one of the climbs was Landis > 6.0 w/kg. My understanding is that 6.0w/kg is something of a magic number. The reported values are strong, but not insane. What criteria do you want to suggest we use to say they are “extraterrestrial”?
TBV
Wike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez#Fastest_Alpe_d.27Huez_ascents)
cites the fastest times aa
1. pantani 36:40
2. pantani 36:45
3. pantani 37:15
4. ullrich 37:30
5: armstrong 37:36
???
Landis 38:34 (2006)
Kloden 38:35 (2006)
Shleck 40:06 (2006)
We’re now talking about 2 minutes slower than the best times.
TBV
EPO era began in 92-93…. all “your” best times are from that period, and Lemond and Hinault’s record is around 48′!
There is no technical improvements or training methods that can explain a such gap, especially when most of the gap was done just in 4-5 years with Indurain and the begining of EPO use inside peloton.
Dr Ekblom and other searchers published a lot of studies showing that performance could be raise by 15 to 25% with a long term doping program ( blood manipulation and other PED like T, HGH, …).
How could Landis follow the blood doped TMob Klöden ? Why is he able to have a time close of Virenque full of EPO and PED?
The times up L’Alpein ’06 were Landis (38:34), Klöden (38:35), Sastre (38:59), Leipheimer (39:13) and Menchov (39:42).
All faster than the 48:00 LeMond time you cite. Do you want to say they were all doping?
From the Wiki page cited before:
The climb has been timed since 1994 so earlier times are subject to some discussion. From 1994 to 1997 the climb was timed from a point 14.5km from the finish. Since 1999 a photo-finish system was used from 14km to the finish. Other times have been taken from 13.8km from the summit, which is the corner which marks the start of the climb. Other timings have also been taken from the road junction approximately 700m from the start of the climb.
These variations in the distance for timing the climb have led to an ongoing debate as to the fastest times.
…
A number of cycling publications have cited times prior to 1994, although distances for the time are typically not included, making comparisons difficult. For example, Fausto Coppi has been listed with 45’22” for the first ascent in a Tour de France in 1952.
Alpe d’Huez was climbed extensively in the Tour from the 1980s, where Gert-Jan Theunisse, Pedro Delgado, Luis Herrera, and Laurent Fignon rode in times stated to be faster than Coppi’s, but still not breaking the 40′. Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault have been reported as having the times of 48’00” in 1986.
I don’t think you can make the claim you are making with the data available.
And, for what little it’s worth to this discussion, Landis hasn’t been charged with anything likely to notably affect climbing times, nor has Kloden been officially charged with anything.
Where does one decide to stop with accusations?
TBV
There’s also a quote from S15: “Our tactics on the final climb were to be conservative. Again, it worked out that [Andreas] Kloeden was so strong. He did most of the work.”
Cyclingnews reported before the stage:
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/?id=/features/2006/alpedhuez_tdf)
Speaking of times, an analysis of those recorded makes for interesting reading. There is some variation in the records due to the fact that it was 1994 before official timekeeping began, and also because the reference point has changed in the years since.
From 1994 to 1997 the climb was timed from a point 14.5km from the finish. The introduction of a photo finish system in 1999 meant that a point 14 km from the line was used, but in the interests of comparisons the times mentioned below have all been taken from the same location; 13.8 kilometres from the finish, at the corner which marks the start of the climb.
Unofficially, the top twelve times are as follows :
1 Marco Pantani (1995) 36’50
2 Marco Pantani (1997) 36’55
3 Marco Pantani (1994) 37’15
4 Lance Armstrong (2004) 37’36
5 Jan Ullrich (1997) 37’40
6 Lance Armstrong (2001) 38’05
7 Miguel Indurain (1995) 38’10
8 Alex Zülle (1995) 38’10
9 Bjarne Riis (1995) 38’15
10 Richard Virenque (1997) 38’20
11 Iban Mayo (2003) 39’06
12 Giuseppe Guerini (1999) 41’52
From these statistics a number of things are clear. Firstly, the late Marco Pantani may have never won the maillot en pois but he is the real King of the Mountain, recording the three fastest times in history. Interestingly, each of these were faster than Lance Armstrong’s time trial ride in 2004, which was itself 29 seconds faster than his The Look performance in 2001. Jan Ullrich’s 37’40 recorded en route to his 1997 Tour victory splits Armstrong’s two marks, while Miguel Indurain and Alex Zülle’s identical time in 1995 puts them seventh and eighth. Bjarne Riis was five seconds back in the same year, while Virenque’s pursuit of Pantani and Ullrich in 1997 puts him tenth with 38’20.
A big group comes by
Photo ©: Jon Devich (Click for larger image)
Iban Mayo’s 39’06 and Giuseppe Guerini’s 41’52 in 2003 and 1999 are listed as eleventh and twelfth, although our own feeling on this is that Jan Ullrich’s runner up performance in the 2004 l’Alpe d’Huez time trial must surely have been faster than both of these. On that day he was just 1’01 slower than Lance Armstrong, although a flat approach means that this is not necessarily the actual difference between the two on the climb.
Interestingly, eight of the top ten times were recorded between 1994 and 1997.
As stated, there is a lack of clear records available but it is reported that Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond climbed the mountain in a considerable 48 minutes back in 1986. It was a very different era then.
Note this doesn’t go into the timing location differences, or Coppi’s reported time from the days of frames made of igneous rock and tires of dinosaur skin.
I will not begin to dispute that some significant fraction of times are rocket powered. Which is nad isn’t is more open to question Is it proper so say all times faster than X are cheating, and times greater they Y aren’t? Is there any area of “can’t tell?” Where we can say the boundaries are properly drawn?
Let’s, for sake of argument, look at the 2004 time trial results, (run under different conditions than 2006):
http://www.velonews.com/article/6633
1. Lance Armstrong (USA), U.S. Postal Service, 39:41
2. Jan Ullrich (G), T-Mobile, 01:01
3. Andréas KlÖden (G), T-Mobile, 01:41
4. José Azevedo (P), U.S. Postal Service, 01:45
5. Santos Gonzalez (Sp), Phonak, 02:11
6. Giuseppe Guerini (I), T-Mobile, 02:11
7. Vladimir Karpets (Rus), Illes Balears-Banesto, 02:15
8. Ivan Basso (I), CSC, 02:23
9. David Moncoutie (F), Cofidis, 02:23
10. Carlos Sastre (Sp), CSC, 02:27
11. Stephane Goubert (F), Ag2R Prevoyance, 02:33
12. Michael Rogers (Aus), Quick Step-Davitamon, 02:34
13. Gutierrez José Enrique (Sp), Phonak, 03:04
14. Oscar Pereiro Sio (Sp), Phonak, 03:06
15. Marcos Serrano (Sp), Liberty Seguros, 03:09
16. Georg Totschnig (A), Gerolsteiner, 03:15
17. Sandy Casar (F), FDJeux.com, 03:19
18. Mikel Astarloza (Sp), Ag2R Prevoyance, 03:25
19. Juan Miguel Mercado (Sp), Quick Step-Davitamon, 03:25
20. Christophe Moreau (F), Crédit Agricole, 03:25
21. Floyd Landis (USA), U.S. Postal Service, 03:35
22. Axel Merckx (B), Lotto-Domo, 03:40
23. Gilberto Simoni (I), Saeco, 03:40
24. Francisco Mancebo (Sp), Illes Balears-Banesto, 03:41
25. Sylvain Chavanel (F), Brioches La Boulangere, 03:43
26. Michele Scarponi (I), Domina Vacanze, 03:53
27. Pietro Caucchioli (I), Alessio-Bianchi, 03:58
28. Laurent Brochard (F), Ag2R Prevoyance, 04:03
29. Levi Leipheimer (USA), Rabobank, 04:06
30. Ludovic Martin (F), R.A.G.T. Semences-MG Rover, 04:11
31. David Etxebarria (Sp), Euskaltel-Euskadi, 04:16
32. Santiago Perez (Sp), Phonak, 04:16
33. Anthony Charteau (F), Brioches La Boulangere, 04:18
34. Pierrick Fedrigo (F), Crédit Agricole, 04:20
35. Benjamin Noval Gonzalez (Sp), U.S. Postal Service, 04:20
36. Kim Kirchen (Lux), Fassa Bortolo, 04:27
37. Marzio Bruseghin (I), Fassa Bortolo, 04:28
38. Richard Virenque (F), Quick Step-Davitamon, 04:30
39. Marius Sabaliauskas (Lit), Saeco, 04:33
40. Yuriy Krivtsov (Ukr), Ag2R Prevoyance, 04:36
41. Oscar Sevilla (Sp), Phonak, 04:40
42. Bobby Julich (USA), CSC, 04:42
43. Pineau Jérôme (F), Brioches La Boulangere, 04:43
44. Igor Gonzalez Galdeano (Sp), Liberty Seguros, 04:44
45. Santiago Botero (Col), T-Mobile, 04:46
Every single one of these riders soundly beat the 48:00 time credited to Hinault and LeMond — on a course of probably different length.
Do we want to say they were all rocket powered, define a line based on some objective criteria, or just stop when we run into someone we’d prefer to believe was clean at the time — say, Moncoutie or Goubert?
I don’t know what to do. The results are in the books. There are some confessions, some suspicions, and some amount of uncertainty.
The undeniable fact is that Landis was charged with microdosing testosterone. I don’t (and may never) personally accept the tests that were run as proof of anything but a flawed laboratory regimen. Your conclusion may be different, but I’ve yet to see anyone claim that this form of doping would have improved climb time up L’Alpe.
“The performance was good, so it must be cheating” only goes so far. How can we know?
TBV
TBV,
Nice works most appreciated. Thanks
How could I not believe the vast majority of the riders under 44mn were not using PED and all under 40mnwhen I compare with other sports like running or swimming, which have just done 2 to 4% of improvement in the same era! Very far of 20% done by cycling.
Cutting the funding of laboratory is not the path to improve the situation.
TBV:
“The times up L’Alpein “˜06 were Landis (38:34), Klöden (38:35), Sastre (38:59), Leipheimer (39:13) and Menchov (39:42).
All faster than the 48:00 LeMond time you cite. Do you want to say they were all doping? ”
Yes, that’s pretty much what we’re saying when we say blood doping is endemic. You don’t see these guys listed on lists of clean riders do you? How do you explain how Landis was able to compete with the blood doped riders of the T-Mobile team, given the empirical evidence on the advantages of doping?
Jean C and Ludwig, you’re of course free to believe what you want. If you want to believe all times under 40:00 are EPO or blood doped, no one can stop you, and you’ll find plenty of company.
You’ll also get some dissent, in where you draw the line that says maybe there are some clean times below…. where? 40:30? 44:00? 46:00? 48:00? 50:00?
For me, I’m probably inclined to think that times under 37:00 are rocket powered, but I can’t prove it for fact, nor could I attempt to sanction someone who recorded that result without some proof beyond the timing itself.
How did Landis compete on S15/2006? He said he let Kloden do most of the work, and his own w/kg was below the 6.0 w/kg line that seems magical in this context. (And even I can do 6 w/kg, for, oh, 10 seconds.)
And we saw what the effort of keeping up with Kloden on S15 did to Landis on S16 the next day. If I’m being asked to justify S15, how do you explain that? Some could see it as a non-doped response to trying to keep up with dopers, and failing miserably.
I also insist on separating the specific charge of microdosing T from the more general charge that he was doing something else as well.
If Landis was doing something else, for which he was not caught, does that make it “right” for the enforcement system to nail him on something he may not have done?
Finally, I’ve never suggested cutting the funding of the lab, so that is a red-herring.
If it were up to me, I’d (1) triple the funding; (2) remove the director from management responsibility; (3) do a stand-down until a clean sweep was made of questionable practice, tests were properly validated against control groups, and some serious instruction on ethics involving leaks of data had been concluded.
TBV
Chest thump: I just looked, and found that I once did 6.0 w/kg for not 10, but a whole 45 seconds. I may be a dope, but I was not doping at the time.
TBV