To say that a couple of big dramas in the sports world played out publicly today would be an understatement. Between the verbal fireworks during Congressional hearings over the whole Roger Clemens/Brian McNamee/Mitchell Report brouhaha, and today’s announcement of who won’t be participating in the 2008 edition of every bike race organized by Amaury Sports Organization (they’re the kind folks who bring us the Tour de France, Paris-Nice and a whole bunch of other events), you couldn’t ask for a more “exciting” day.
I have to say, I feel the pain that some baseball fans must be going through right now, watching a star player being grilled by politicians, having his name dragged through the mud and aspersions cast upon their sport. From the descriptions in various media reports, Roger Clemens was put through a real grilling, with one of his main accusers (and former trainer) sitting only a few feet away, with only a “potted plant” separating the men (as one committee member joked about the Mitchell Commission’s lawyer who was also present to testify) .
Clemens came in for his fair share of skeptical and pointed questions. At one point during the hearings, Maryland Congressman Elijah E. Cummings said to Clemens,
“Mr. Clemens, once again I remind you, you are under oath.”
Congressman Cummings remarks came, according to The New York Times, while he was “pounding” the pitcher over comments and testimony by Andy Pettite. Which just about says, “Sir, you’re lying, and you could be prosecuted for that,” without actually calling Clemens a liar to his face. Might just have well done so, however. Later on, the Maryland representative said to Clemens:
“It’s hard to believe you, Sir. I hate to say that. You’re one of my heroes, but it’s hard to believe you.”
McNamee didn’t escape unscathed, either. One representative (Dan Burton, of Indiana) put McNamee through the ringer, too. As The New York Times reported:
In one particularly testy exchange, Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, told Mr. McNamee point blank that he did not believe him.
“Why did you keep those needles and gauze pads,” Mr. Burton said.
Mr. McNamee responded that he kept the materials because he was afraid Mr. Clemens would later hurt him.
“I have done things for other people and been hurt by it so I held on to it,” McNamee said.
“Why didn’t you give them to the Mitchell report?” Mr. Burton replied.
“I felt horrible to be in the position I was in,” Mr. McNamee said.
At that point, Mr. Burton exploded.
“Gee wiz, are you kidding me!” he said. “I know the one thing I don’t believe, that’s you.”
Good question about why McNamee didn’t turn over his evidence sooner. Especially since his deal with the government is only good if he tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Leaving things out could be construed as lying by omission, don’t you think? Apparently McNamee’s memory for how many times he injected Clemens (was it 16, was it 20, who knows?) is changing, as well. Which doesn’t do much to help his credibility.
One person who listened to part of the hearings described a situation where it sounded like McNamee was being forced to admit that some of his prior statements, to the Mitchell Commission and others, weren’t exactly 100% correct. Gotta wonder how that’s going to affect Mr. McNamee’s future. Clemens doesn’t come across as some great person from what I’ve read, either, but he certain asked a very good question when he said:
“How in the world can I prove a negative? No matter what we discuss here today, I am never going to have my name restored. I know that a lot of people want me to say that I have taken steroids and be done with it. But I cannot in good conscience admit to doing something that I did not do; even if it would be easier to do.”
Certainly, how could he prove a negative? Anyone accused in the court of public opinion faces the same problem. No matter what you say, there are people who will take the accusation as proof of guilt. Whether that turns out to be true, or not, is another matter.
And then there’s the whole drama of Astana, the team who currently employ the reigning Tour de France champion Alberto Contador, being given the cold shoulder by the ASO. I understand that it’s their party, and they can invite whomever they want. And I understand that prior teams under the Astana label have cast a pall over the race. But who’s really being punished here? Will Alexander Vinokourov or Andrei Kashechkin suffer any because of the ASO’s decision to keep Astana out? Will the former Astana management suffer any because of the ASO’s decision?
I do understand the parallel in collegiate sports, where teams may suffer sanctions today for something that happened in the past. But the rules and the rule violations that cause such actions are clearly defined, and the governing body who makes such decisions is well known. Who makes the rules in cycling to cover such issues as the behavior of the current and previous iterations of the Astana cycling team? Shouldn’t there be some sort of governing body that does such a thing. Given the number of races the ASO controls, refusing to invite a team — any team — to all of the events they sponsor in the course of the season can have a major impact on the team, and whether the sponsors continue to support that team.
I can understand that the ASO are probably feeling a bit of heat over doping scandals past, perhaps even from some of those big-money sponsors who help bankroll the event. But when you have a team that’s made the changes that Astana has made during the off-season, and when the team includes the previous year’s winner, isn’t that at least worthy of inclusion?
It’s certainly the ASO’s right to invite whatever teams they choose. But how do they justify allowing Rabobank to participate, after the Michael Rasmussen affair, and not allowing Astana. The management shakeups and changes at Rabobank as an outgrowth of that catastrophe are certainly laudable. But couldn’t one argue that the actions of last year’s Rabobank team management damaged the Tour’s precious reputation at least as much as Vinokourov’s blood doping positive did? To eject the rider almost certain to win, just days before the final stage, doesn’t damage the race’s reputation? (And the only other time a rider wearing the maillot jaune was ejected from the race was almost 30 years before, by the way.)
As Larry wrote in a comment to a previous post:
My assumption is that no team other than Astana would touch [Levi] Leipheimer (and Contador, and [Johan] 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 [they] 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 [shunned] from the club of “respectable” cycling … and that ASO bears some responsibility for this.
It’s hard not to believe that Larry’s onto something there. It will be interesting to see how the season shapes up for Astana, and what races they will be riding come May, June and July. Or, for that matter, how many of this year’s sponsors will hang on until next year when, maybe if Bruyneel and company have been very, very good boys, they will be welcomed back into the ASO’s good graces. At least they’ll be racing in the Vuelta. Well, unless the ASO takes over the Vuelta, as has been hinted in several places. In that case, Astana will be well and truly scr*wed.
Either Clemens or McNamee is lying through his teeth, that is a certainty. On the news last night someone seemed to suggest that there could be a perjury case arising out of this. But who is lying? Unless something new turns up, who can tell. The “evidence” that McNamee stored in his beercan is very questionable, I doubt that it would ever be allowed in any court. McNamee was a cop at one time, he should know about things like chain of custody. But here he has this stuff that has been sitting around for years unaccounted for. Even if it is possible to test and link the blood to Clemens and there’s evidence of PED on the stuff, how reliable is that? Given the fact that McNamee (according to Clemens) did inject vitamins, it would be easy, IMO, for McNamee to take gauze, needles, and syringes from legitimate uses and “doctor” them up with steroids or HGH.
I am kind of wondering if Mitchell should have publicly named all the names he did. What good was it? I think he could have produced a report that provided details of what was alleged to have happened without names, and still have been useful to show what has happened in baseball. Anyone named, who does happen to be innocent, will pretty much find it impossible to clear his name.
I’m stunned by the desicion of ASO…
Why only pic Astana as the bad apple, just ridiculous.
I definetly will not follow the Tour if Contador is not allowed to defend his title.
Disgusting ASO..
A man named “PT Barnum” is quoted saying – “There is a sucker born every minute.”
Perhaps ASO believes this of the public. . . Except in the time of PT Barnum – all they had was newspapers and magazines to tell the public what was “going on.”
Maybe today there are as many people who want to “believe” that all is black and white – but there are many of them that can Google.
Sara – ASO may be disgusting – but the rest of the peloton that is left racing are not the bad guys in this circus. I like Contador too – it was terrific watching him and Rasmussen fighting it out. . . The stories of Contador and Rasmussen and ASO are far from over. . . too many people now are in the know.
Have I been asleep and missed the reason why Levi should be a banned rider?? He did what and when??? And Bruyneel condoned what and when? Is this just more anti-lance/anti-USA from the french?? Larry, I don’t get your points.
I’d like at this time to fuel more conspiracy theories and suggest that this may partially be another casualty of the power struggle between the GT organizers and the UCI. ASO doesn’t have Unibet to exclude this year, but they now have a bigger fish in Astana and, at least in their minds, unquestionable justification.
Hi Rant…
I wonder, if ANYONE ELSE but Bruyneel had taken over Astana, would ASO have done the same thing?
Are they not denying entry to the man that, whether you believe the ‘ASO/AFLD/LNDD0’ party line* or not, has won the TdF eight of the last nine times?
I’ve not written about this Astana situation on my blog(s), because I ‘know’ in my gut there’s much more information we’ll need, such as:
– will Astana attack ASO in a FR courtroom?
– will the CPA (Assoc of Pro Riders) or the Team associations take collective action against ASO/RCS (Giro)???
* as I wrote last year, across several blog-items: if ASO was ‘convinced’ that Lance ‘doped’, and if their attempts to ‘get him’ failed (via the l’Equipe article and UCI response via Vrijman), and if their attempts to get Lance failed via ‘pinching’ Landis (thanks to the LNDD work we love and laugh about), then they still can attack Bruyneel… and feel chaste about the whole rancid debacle.
I think as a sidebar, that ASO has really a huge PR problem: what if they graciously invited Astana for 2009, instead of whining about ‘you can’t play with my Tour: MOMMY!!!!’? It’s a SWAG-kinda thought, but it appears that the only thing ASO knows how to do, is to screw itself and the main sport that feeds it!
ZENmud
Easy to see why ASTANA is out:
– ex Liberty Seguros implicated in OP
– Vino , Kascheskhin ‘s case
– Bruyneel The Hog, not a good idea to cleaning a team !
– Contador, not cleared from OP ! who has showed dubious performance last year.
РKl̦den implicated in TMob scandal
Why Rabo is in?
When Rabo fired Rasmussen last year, they probably made an agreement with ASO.
High Road ?
All happened outside TDF.
Cofidis ?
Very small case.
Never forget that every organizers or teams managers know exactly the reality about doping! At least for the uncredible performance. Contador, Rasmussen were sometimes greater than never (Pantani, …)
Maybe someone should ask to JB what was the secret agreement made on last TDF when teams and riders met them after scandals. Did he break those agreements?
BSMB,
I haven’t see anything, anywhere about any allegations against Levi (other than some who would suggest guilt by association). There are a number of people who contend that Bruyneel is the most brilliant of what they term “doping directeur sportifs”. But other than heading up Postal/Discovery and all the allegations against Lance, I’m not sure what there real evidence is on that.
ddt240,
Could be. It certainly puts an exclamation point on the fact that they can exclude whomever they want, doesn’t it? A big “in your face” to the UCI, I would say.
ZENmud,
I really don’t know what they would have done if it hadn’t been Bruyneel heading up the show. The way they’ve positioned their public statements, the ASO is pretty much saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I guess, as an old Who song goes, they “won’t be fooled again.”
Every NFl team knows how to get to the Super Bowl: win enough games to get into the playoffs and then win all your playoff games. Even the Pats, caught cheating at the start of the season, payed their fines, lost a draft pick, and moved on and made it to Glendale. Never any thought they should not have been allowed. Same is true for MLB, NBA, NHL. etc. Much the same is true in European sports, a soccer team knows what is required to get promoted to the next level, or win a cup or whatever. It’s all done on the field, or court or rink.
On the other hand, in the US, some college sports are quite different. This is the problem I have with the current BCS situation: there is too much subjective judgement. Hiawaii, no matter how good they are, will never get to the BCS championship while schools with storied pasts earn votes, not on how good the current team is, but on how good they were back in the days of Knute and the Gipper. However, at least when some team is punished for violations, it comes after an investigation and some sort of official determination by a ruling body. I have never seen anybody suggest that good ol’ State U should not get into a bowl game or tournament because former coach so and so payed players several years past.
How does a team get into the TdF? Are there some rankings, based on team performance? Wouldn’t be too hard to implement such, if none exists at this time. But right now it seems to be based on the politics of the sport. If Astana as a whole, or Brunyel or Levi are guilty of something, then they should be called to account in an appropriate forum and a suitable punishment effected. Since this has not happened, they should not be punished on the basis of innuendoes or guilt by association.
If the Tour is serious about restoring credibility and respectability then it has to disassociate itself from known dope teams. Excluding one team is something of a missed message, perhaps, but it’s a start. A preferable solution would be disassociating with the UCI completely until it installs more accountable leadership.
In any case I don’t understand how anyone who is for a clean sport would root for Bruyneel and Astana, or feel disappionted when they are punished.
Ludwig,
What tangible evidence do you have that Bruyneel is guilty of condoning a doping team? I would think we should have expected team CSC to get shit canned for Riis more than get Bruyneel tarred and feathered.
BSMB, take a look at my longer post under “Who Gets To Decide Part 2.”
“KNOWN DOPE TEAMS.”
I don’t even know what that means.
Punish Astana means punishing such well known cycling dopers as KIREYEV, VAITKUS, SCHÄR, and MORABITO. . .Oh, but the great sport of cycling must be saved from the evil (and to date unimpeachable) Bruyneel. To hell with the collateral damage. Maybe it really is all about ego and power and nothing to due with clearing out those dopers.
Maybe if the cycling pantheon deems Bruyneel persona non grata then they should punish him and leave the “innocent” alone? But I guess this is what happens when a crusade starts without professionalism, righteousness, and justice on its side.
Larry, you said:
“”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. “”
Bitch slap thinks this is deep bull shit. You know nothing about the situation yet you are eager to read into the situation anything you want. Dude, you should work for WADA.
BSMB,
An interesting question to pose to Contador, or Leipheimer, or other former Disco riders who went to Astana would be this:
Frankly, I have no idea what answers we’d get to that question. If I ever get to interview one of those guys, it’s a question I plan on asking.
Rant,
That would be a fine question to ask, but people could have a lack of offers from different teams for reasons other than doping. Levi left the Gerol team for what, better opportunities? Could he have remained there, or did he figure he would get better support with Disco? And in leaving Gerol did he burn bridges with other teams (hey, that guy is too much work to keep happy, etc) so lots of offers were not forthcoming? I can think of lots of reasons why I would not want to hire someone and they don’t necessarily include I think they are dishonest (to stretch an analogy a bit).
I just think Larry “punking” Levi because he assumes he had no other team choices ’cause he is presumed dirty is a tactic LNDD would be proud of.
and maybe the spanish have some questions as well….
http://www.velonews.com/article/72059
Trying to extrapolate “reason” from the ASO/ASTANA decision – is to be missing the point here – I think.
Are we not being as guilty of trying to “draw conclusions and assumptions” from a situation we only know superficially?
It is not that we may not “extrapolate” ideas about the given situation – but unless we can get past “assuming” that our personal “ideas” are in fact – based in fact – extrapolation or any kind of “brain storming” will degenerate into “arguments” on who’s position is “more true.”
When this occurs then we are in fact doing everything that most of us most dislike when Pattie or Prudhomme make “assumptions” “repeat hearsay and innuendo” and present it as “fact.”
Personally – “for whatever reasons” ASO is using the “populist” belief that ASTANA, Bruyneel, Contador are “tainted by “doping.” I believe ASO is chancing that the public is so fractured and reacting that they will get away with it. Let us not forget – whatever we have read about the ASO/UCI battle that is the only real issue here. But is this as it would appear to be?
I think it is safest to assume that ASO has no intentions of “giving control” over to the UCI. The UCI – if one looks at it’s behavior in the last 3 years – has been putting the “squeeze” on ASO. The whole “doping circus” is just a convenient means to this end. It is merely the excuse to get away with the public being misdirected. Both sides have maneuvered to use it as a weapon – to their ends. Some times switching off like a good tag team in wrestling.
I think ASO is quiet aware that it is playing a very dangerous game. The UCI has much less to lose but much to gain from the situation. The UCI does not seem to be aware or is ignoring that they may feel that public pressure will force ASO to capitulate – But this flies in the face of what would appear as reality.
At the moment – ASO has a complete “hold” on the TdeF – and at least a half dozen classics in France alone. This past year – a sub group of ASO purchased two “races in Germany – at least that we know of. Now – there is a “rumor” that ASO is in “negotiations with and for the T de Espana. We also know that ASO is the organizer of the Tour Down Under.
Now – if ASO has “control of all these races – what does it matter what the UCI posturing is? The actual salient point to consider is that the UCI has really pushed the TDU – which is a pro race I believe – but it is “organized” by ASO. How exactly is that worked out in the balance and the apparent “power struggle” between the two bodies?
So – I have to ask myself – what is actually going on here? Why are the Europeans not reacting to Pro Racing being “taken over” by one organization? Or are they all distracted by trying to cover themselves so they are not vulnerable to being accused of running dopers?
I really think we need to follow the money here – other wise we are all merely chasing mirages. We need to dig beyond the appearances and postures. As has been said often – it really is all about money and who controls racing. Unless we “take away the power from the individual governing bodies to dictate how “pro racing” is to exist – we are all pretty much just blowing wind.
BSMB, I assumed earlier that you were failing to understand me. Maybe I was wrong, and you understand me perfectly.
Yes. I think that Contador, Leipheimer Bruyneel and Astana were all essentially “blacklisted” by the powers that be in professional cycling.
Do I know this for a fact? Of course not. It is in the nature of a blacklist that the existence of the blacklist is unofficial, difficult to prove, hidden in shadow.
Am I full of shit for saying that there’s a blacklist? That’s always a possibility.
Does saying so put me in the same league with WADA and LNDD? I don’t think so. How does pointing out the possible existence of a blacklist put me on the same level as the people who maintain and enforce the blacklist? How can you fight a blacklist without first trying to prove that the blacklist exists?
I’m happy to discuss this further. Just want to make sure I’m being understood first.
You don’t have to believe that Leipheimer was blacklisted. You can assume instead that the most popular and successful American cyclist not named Lance or Floyd, formerly the leader of the best known American cycling team in history, received a number of terrific offers from a multitude of cycling teams. And that Leipheimer decided that the best of all these terrific offers was to join a team based on the other side of the globe from his home state of California … in a country that most Americans (myself included) cannot spell and could not find on a globe with both hands. A team that had been tossed out of the Tour de France two years running. A team that was practically synonymous with the phrase “doping scandal.” A team that had been banned from the Vuelta a month before Leipheimer signed up — the same month that the team voluntarily suspended its own operations. A team that did not pay its 2007 riders on time. A team whose 2007 Pro Tour status was never officially acknowledged by the ASO, and whose 2008 Pro Tour license was in serious jeorardy. A team that was told back in September and October that its chances of racing in the Tour were uncertain. http://www.velonews.com/article/13577.
We have discussed here the question of whether ASO should be allowed to bar a Pro Tour team from the Tour de France. But when Leipheimer joined Astana, it was not at all clear that UCI would allow Astana to retain its Pro Tour license for 2008. The UCI had Astana “under surveillance” when Leipheimer announced he would sign with Astana. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep28news2.
Did Leipheimer know all this when he signed up for Astana? Well, Contador certainly knew. “The image of Astana this year has been stained with scandals. I had doubts (about joining Astana), I spoke with my family and I saw that it was the best option,” Contador said last October. (The quote is from the same article cited above.)
Now, Leipheimer has said that he had offers from teams other than Astana. http://www.velonews.com/article/13617. You can believe that if you want. It’s possible that Levi had a number of good choices, and that he made a very bad choice. My own opinion is that, in the fall of 2007, no cyclist was going to join Astana if he had another option.
Larry, well said.
Morgan,
Good points you raise. Follow the money is always good advice. And I wouldn’t be surprised if much of what plays out in public is meant to distract us from what’s really going on.
BSMB,
Interesting point about other reasons for people being undesirable in the eyes of prospective employers. I can see it happening in the peloton. Heck, I know of cases like that in the so-called “real” world.
Gotta wonder though, if these guys had better offers elsewhere, why would they go with Astana? Is Bruyneel that good? Or did he just bring them each a bigger pot of gold (or was it fool’s gold)? Beats me.
So Larry, why stop there?? You need to update your conspiracy theory to include the lack of financial support for Disco to continue. Surely you must think that the reason why Lance could not line up cash for his team must be because everyone knew they were doping, and Bryneel was aiding the process. If you are going to whitewash Levi’s outhouse with that paint brush you gotta do Lance’s as well.
All of these factors surely play a role in Astana being considered a public relations problem…..
1) Bruyneel’s history with Manolo Saiz. His use of doctors and soigneurs formerly associated with Saiz and in some cases implicated in doping.
2) Bruyneel’s history with Lance Armstrong and suspicions about Armstrong’s doping history. Similarly, LA’s association with Ferrari. Ferrari is also associated with Astana as he was working with Vino alst year.
3) Astana’s history as the successor to Saiz’s Liberty and fleeting run at the Tour.
4) Bruyneel hired riders associated with Operation Puerto at a time when other teams were steering clear (think Contador, Basso, Davis, and more).
5) Kloeden is just one example of a rider recently implicated in a blood doping program.
Given that doping stories play so well in the media, why would the Tour want to invite a team with this kind of baggage? What kind of message does it send to the teams trying to compete without doping when Astana gets in over them?
BSMB, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I’m just looking for an explanation for events that on the surface are inexplicable.
You mentioned Lance. Lance is the closest thing I have to a hero. I don’t want to get too personal … probably 99% of us have had a personal brush with cancer, either personally or through a loved one. Lance’s story helped me get through mine. I’m not rational about the subject of Lance. Lance looked kids with terminal cancer in the eye and said that he didn’t dope. That’s good enough for me. I do not believe that Lance doped. I was a cycling fan before Lance appeared on the scene, but if it’s proven to me that Lance doped, then I’m outta here. I will turn in my membership to the Cycling Fan Club, and probably a lot of other fan clubs as well. I don’t discuss the topic of Lance here, because I cannot do so rationally.
So please don’t get me wrong.
Let’s get back to Levi. You want my opinion? I don’t think Levi has come within 100 yards of anything resembling a banned substance. We cannot know anything for certain, but I’ve rarely seen anyone inside or outside of cycling that’s strikes me as being a straighter arrow than Levi.
So please don’t get me wrong.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Levi’s decision to race for Astana is inexplicable if he had bona fide offers from other teams. Levi strikes me as a reasonably smart guy, and I’m sure he has smart advisors, and he must have known that Astana’s prospects for 2008 were uncertain at best. I looked through VeloNews to show you where Astana stood in the cycling world at the time Levi signed on. Levi is 34 years old, and probably does not have many years of great racing left.
If I’m right, and Levi’s only serious offer was from Astana, you then have to ask the question, why should that be? Levi is one of the top racers in the world – in 2007, Levi would have had to be in your top 10 list, probably in your top 5 list. Why NOT hire Levi? He seems like a good guy. He’s not selfish — in spite of the fact that he was the lead racer on the Discovery team, he willingly rode in support of Contador during the 2007 TdF, and not every rider in his position would have made that decision (contrast Hinault and Lemond back in the day). I could understand passing on Levi if he were a bad team guy — a Randy Moss in the world of cycling — but Levi seems like the kind of guy you’d hire to ENHANCE your team chemistry.
Does Leipheimer have some undesirable qualities that are impossible to detect from where I sit? I guess that such a thing is possible, but what could they be? He whistles show tunes on the team bus? Leaves the cap off the toothpaste?
In the wacked-out world that is cycling today, it hardly matters any more whether someone is doping. Sure, if you dope and you get caught, you’ll be punished, but the chances of actually getting caught are pretty close to nil. We also know that if a lab accuses you of doping, you’re as good as convicted, regardless of the evidence. But it gets worse than that.
In cycling, doping guilt is mostly by association. If you run a cycling team, you better be damn careful of who you hire, and to whom you offer a second chance. If you’re a cyclist, you better be damn careful what you say, and who you hang out with, because the powers that be are watching. You may think I’m raving paranoia, but I’m not. I know that there are people in cycling who are afraid to be seen in the same room with Floyd Landis right about now.
Because you have me a wee bit pissed off, I’ll tell you some more things you may not want to know. First. Our friends Ludwig and Jean C are expressing mainstream opinions. They’re in the minority on this blog, but in the cycling world, their opinions are pretty close to the prevailing opinions, and the opinions of people like you, me and Rant are on the fringe. I’ve learned that it pays to listen to them. I don’t think they’re always right — in fact, I usually disagree with them and sometimes I’m willing to take them on — but IMHO they’re usually saying what most people close to cycling are actually thinking.
Second. At least until this year, most people in cycling have assumed that most of the successful cyclists are doping. (This year, the powers that be in cycling are taking a “wait and see” attitude, but seem to be willing to entertain the notion that doping may finally be on the decline.)
Third. If you ask anyone in international cycling where are the hotbeds of doping in cycling, they’ll point to Spain and the United States.
Fourth. Discovery was considered by most of the cycling world to be a “dirty” cycling team, with an organized doping program, with Bruyneel as the mastermind of the program, and with Lance as the primary beneficiary of the program.
So we come back to Levi, who inexplicably takes a slot on the Astana team. Levi, a (1) successful (2) American (3) formerly Discovery cyclist. Stike one, strike two, stike three, guilt by association.
BSMB, if I haven’t made it patently clear along the way, I don’t personally think that being successful, American or ex-Discovery has any real connection to doping. Obviously, neither do you. But it makes no difference what you or I think. What makes a difference is what UCI thinks, and WADA thinks, and ASO thinks. They think that successful American ex-Discovery riders are likely dopers. They think that hiring these riders indicates a willingness to condone doping, a lack of commitment to the anti-doping effort. And they select the teams that ride in their races based on these considerations.
Maybe a team can get away with hiring ONE such rider. But if you’re Astana, and you hire Bruyneel and a bunch of ex-Discovery riders, your guilt by association is assured.
Is this, in your words, “bullshit”? Depends on what you mean by that word. Is it “bullshit” for people to run a sport in this way? IMHO, yes. Is it “bullshit” in the sense that I’m mischaracterizing what goes on in the world of cycling? IMHO, no, but you’re entitled to your own opinion.