Tilting At Windmills — McQuixote Style

Here’s an interesting thought I had about this situation. I am not sure where I am on this, but I’ll toss it out here for discussion.

We have already discussed the idea that the TdF is an “invitational”. Now, would it be any different if ASO were to say “We’re going to invite the top 15 Pro Tour teams and the top 5 Continental teams.)? (Insert your own numbers here.) As opposed to saying outright “We are not going to invite team so and so.”

I don’t know where Astana would stand on any sort of rating system. Given some time, however, I’d bet it would be possible to devise some rating system that would put them on the bottom.

Such a system of picking who’s going to get into any given race would not eliminate controversy, witness all that goes on every December re the BCS, or what will go on next month when teams are picked for the NCAA BB tournament. However, while they is often questions raised about why a certain team is or isn’t picked, I don’t ever recall seeing it suggested that the powers that be in these competitions are excluding any team for other than whatever perception they have about how good the team is, and or what sort of fan base the team has.

Compare all this with the Super Bowl, World Series, World Cup, etc. There, a team “earns” its way in on the field or court. There is little controversy about who gets and and who doesn’t: if your favorite team doesn’t make the playoffs, it’s because they didn’t win enough games.

William

How it was recently ? Look at

Selection criteria from 2001 made by ASO
* The team of the winner of the Tour de France 2000
* The team winner of the teams classification of the Tour de France 2000, Giro 2000 and Vuelta 2000
* The team winner of the UCI 2000 World Cup
* The first 10 teams of the UCI Classification on 15th November 2000, under the condition, however, that they are still among the first 16 teams of the classification after transfers.
* The UCI regulations will apply this procedure from the 2002 season for the three major Tours (Spain, Italy, France)
* 4 remaining wild cards will be attributed at the end of April 2001.
This is to avoid the problems of the TDF 2000, where French teams were left at home during our national tour .

So 20 teams of 9 riders chosen in two rounds: January 2001 and May 2001, with the criteria based on “sporting and ethics.”

The PT was a good concept for classic but bad for GT because every PT team cannot have a strong team for every GT, that needs a lot of money to build 3 competitive team for each GT. So as we see for GIRO, some PT send just a “second class” team or a training team.

Hey BSMB

If you think ASTANA is spiking the food – wait till what happens when the Olympics gets rolling!

OR – it is obvious that the teams got “sloppy” – not realizing that they were in a third world country…but wait – this is California we’re talking about!

Well then maybe – all the “team chefs” got together and Visine spiked all the food? Hey that could happen! Yeah they’re the team chefs are doing their own “silent protests!”

OR – it is a little known fact that The ASTANA riders are all dark chocolate junkies – I heard that stuff will definitely “bind you!”

Rant,

Just trying to keep it professional – wouldn’t want it “misinterpreted” – aha… really… I mean that…

Imagine that Rant, William – the standings of the individual riders and teams are determined by PERFORMANCE!!! Wow – the sheer simplicity of this blows my mind…therefore let me give you a majority response – IT WILL NEVER WORK!!!

Really – I mean that….I do…..yeah baby…

Thanks for that info Jean. Kind of what I had in mind. Pretty clear cut, anyone would have a clear idea of why or why not any team was in. Notice what was first on the list.

lost the close italics above; everything from “Refreshing our memories” is mine, not quoted from Jean C.

TBV

TBV,

Back at you baby! – Rock on!

As you may have noticed though – when you “insist” on reliable testing – people seemed to get bent out of shape. Why iis that exactly? I don’t get it….is it because they assume secretly that they have to oppose any critical appraisals and methods being applied to “testing” at this time?

Couldn’t be that just maybe – it works best for the governing bodies to keep things structured so THEY are the only ones who can claim the rightness or wrongness of any testing done by them? I ask myself – “Now – why would they create such a scenario? What do they get out of it?”

Perhaps what they get is an apparent power to point the finger, label whom ever they may not want winning? Or participating?

This all is so wrong man! The majority of people who are fans all want “clean racing” – what do we actually have? We find ourselves in a “catch 22” situation.

Up to now – we have taken for granted that there is Fair play when it comes to rules and regulations. Well – that is up to the time when Floyd Landis allowed us into the court room. Then anyone with half a brain could see for themselves that things were not exactly kosher. (“kosher” is a NY expression meaning not balanced or fair)

When the sheer transparency of the state of affairs that exist in cycling, the fuzzy rules that govern the sport as a whole, the conflict of interests that exist within the individuals who populate the governing bodies – the conscious ignoring of the general publics outcry against such behavior – the repeated attempts at “spinning” the facts that have occurred and are still occurring right this minute, it rankles the hackles of every fair thinking person. It has to!

All the above are a personal opinionated response to the state of cycling today and to the statements of the comments of TBV – the opinions are solely that of the writer and do not represent as a whole the Rant Line or its affiliates.

TBV,

About Alpes d’Huez time, to sort rider, you have to do a difference between a time make on a TT just with one climb and a full stage of 160-200km with 2 or 3 great cols.

The example of cyclismag I quote regularly use only the time on the last col to do the calculation.

That is why I chose to compare Landis 2006 time on a regular stage with Ullrich TT stage of 2004 TDF!

BTW, the time of 2004 TT are a bit greater than the real time of climbing (around 1’20 less).

When I draw a line it’s not a line to sanction cyclist, it’s a line where I don’t trust a caught rider!

For the cutting fund I was referring to Landis’ statement and appeals to write to senators, and of course I wanted your reaction which I would share with you but there is a lot of people around the world who are very far of our problem of rich! But that is an other problem.

Jean,

Yes, last to last comparisons are more valid; I don’t think TT vs. last climbs are valid. I’d expect better times on a last climb than a TT, which is what we see in reality. Despite the work of the earlier climbs, there is usually some recovery time before the last one, and effort has been planned to save some in the tank for the last., which is competitive against whoever is in the group.

On a TT, the goal is minimum total time, and the approach is also flat out with no recovery possible before hitting the base. This makes the climb harder and slower, and possibly also being done with a heavier TT bike and helmet. Thus direct comparisons not valid.

I have seen the cyclisme graph discussed many times. Its supporting data is somewhat dubious, for the reasons I mentioned before, and it isn’t revealed in details for examination. It is relatively easy to go along with the conclusions the EPO era made big differences, and then we saw a drop as there was enforcement.

It’s not clear that the second rise is exclusively doping related; there doesn’t appear to have been investigation of a linear regression of predictable increases over the same periods, because the artificial fluctuations were so great.

In any event, the Landis win seems to me to be right in the middle of the grey area of “can’t really tell”.

I will grant that Basso and other non-starting favorites might very well have smoked Landis. Which doesn’t prove anything either.

As to funding, I don’t believe Landis was referring to UCLA, but to USADA, which has not carried his case forward in a manner consistent with a search for truth. As soon as HRO, the outside counsel became involved, it became scorched earth “win at all cost” litigation, and I don’t see any reason for taxpayers to be funding that. I’d rather they paid UCLA and Catlin on time than Mr. Young.

TBV

TBV,

I suppose that you are writing about that graph:
http://www.cyclismag.com/photos/evolution_20060711180734.jpg

I interpret the graph like this

* progressively increasing performance by a progressively icncreasing of EPO use and more experience of its use
* then the 50% limit of Hematocrit level.
* then Festina’s affair where some teams dropped their EPO (Voet’s testimony)
* then EPO testing
* then increasing of performance by EPO microdosing and blood transfusion

Jean C,

You may not realize it, but citizens of the United States have Constitutional Rights. It may be something you find useless, yet MY TAX DOLLARS were used in the Landis farce.

Ammendment 1: to the US Constitution grants EVERY citizen the right to FREE SPEECH, RIGHT to PETITION their Government for the REDRESS of GREIVENCES, and the FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

These rights CONNOT be abridged, EVEN by WADA World, no matter corrupt they become.

Landis has the right, GRANTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION to request individuals to write their Senators. I am sorry if you and WADA World don’t like that fact.

I on my own accord have collected petitions to be given to my Congressional Representative and Senators. I DID NOT do it at anyone’s behest. I did it because I have that right, and I can complain at INJUSTICE when I see it, particularly when funded with MY TAX DOLLARS. Just as I would do if the government funded the KKK, although, I suspect the blacks in the South got more due process from the KKK, then Landis got from WADA World.

But you are in good company, as USADA and WADA World denegrate Constitutional Rights. Prior to the Arbs decision, I HAD NOT made a contribution to FFF, partially because I make my contributions anonymously. I contacted a lawyer, and I sent notice to USADA that should they persue their witchhunt in FFF Contributions, and at least, accoring to my lawyer, I would have a Civil Rights action against USADA and WADA World.

Regards,

I wanted to send out a congratulations to “Michael” for providing some extremely interesting reading over the last several days and to ask him (or her for that matter) a very serious question. As you seem to have some an excellent grasp of the nuances of the “doping question” and more importantly, have an inordinate amount of perspective regarding cycling, my question to you is this….would you consider running for UCI chief or even better, CEO of USA cycling (they both really need you!) I am not kidding here. Having suffered over the last year or so reading the immense overreactions in the press and public in general, watching the sport of cycling keep picking at the scab while it cuts off yet another appendage, and getting generally pissed off at the idiocy and incompetency of the FL prosecution, I have finally read something that makes sense and has the right of historical perspective…maybe not perfect, but damn good!!! The sporting world needs this perspective in such a huge way. Only one problem, it doesn’t feed the insatiable need for scandal, but I’m sure something could be worked out.

Ludwig,

I’d like to observe what appears to be a misreading of what I wrote in your response:

I wrote, “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 answered:

“Well, first I’d point out that it isn’t consistent with the testimonies of whistleblowers or common-sense analysis of how doping and omerta work in cycling to say dopers are only a few bad apples.”

I said you would find plenty of company in your belief; and I will agree that your general belief is in general supported by general testimonies, and general trends. And I’ve never used the “few bad apples” posturing myself.

My first problem comes when it gets down to deciding /specific/ cases, which still, to me, need to be based on concrete, solid evidence and not just extrapolation and assumption. I believe there is wider variability in human performance than is often claimed, and the regions where there may or may not be doping are a lot harder to determine than many are inclined to believe.

Second, you wrote, “It does justify those who point out that cycling’s credibility on doping is in the gutter and that it needs a change of leadership if it wants sponsors and fans to continue to believe in it as a respectable sport.”

I agree with the second part of this statement, if not the first. Yes, I totally agree the leadership needs to change, and the goal of being a “respectable sport” is completely appropriate. I salute you on that wise choice of terms, because it admits a reality that many do not admit — you did not ask for a “completely clean sport”, which is likely an impossibility. A “respectable sport” is something that ought to be achievable with an enlightened leadership. As compared to what we have now.

One of the things an enlightened leadership can do, in my opinion, is stop chest-beating about the doping and find some actions that are likely to control it effectively and lead to fewer explosive scandals. Not the least of the problems leading to a perception cycling’s credibility is in the gutter are people who ought to be supporting the sport, but say that it is in the gutter instead, because of their own agendas. For examples, see Mr. LeMond and Mr. Pound. What Michael wrote earlier today is part of the equation: “a sport cannot be successful if the promoters and the organizers are telling the fans that the riders are all cheats. ” This is not saying “bad apples”, it is doing discipline in a quiet, effective manner. Today’s penalties from NASCAR are significant, but are not done in a way that brings the “credibility of the sport” into question. This is effective in terms of the credibility of the racing product, and in the viability of the sport on a commercial basis.

Those running the UCI, WADA, and the GTs do not seem to be much interested in the commercial viability of the sport; WADA does not seem concerned much with the viability of ANY sport, as it’s sole concern seems to be agitating a moral panic in the name of the mythological spirit of the Olympics, and the heath of the overall Olympic “movement”. Individual sports can go to hell, as far as the WADA/IOC is concerned.

I don’t really want any of these bozos in charge. but if forced to chose a poison, it’d be for a few promoters working under a reasonably transparent rule set to produce racing objectively free of pre-determined results, with credible detection of cheating, and having reasonable and low-key punishments for violations. That is to say, NASCAR is a better model than that of the FIA/FOCA hegemony over F1.

Anyone who brings in the pro-wrestling examples is completely off-base. There’s a big difference between staging entertainments and having truly competitive events where some participants are pushing the boundaries of the rules.

TBV

William, Michael,

—“Is cheating only breaking the rules in effect at the time, or can it include doing things which might not be covered in the rules. Of course, we can’t sanction an athlete for doing something which wasn’t banned at the time, but perhaps we can question the ethics here.” (W)

—“I also take your point regarding the “˜84 Olympic team. They didn’t cheat. But there is no doubt that they were playing loose with the ethics.” (M)

You both bring up an excellent “ethical question.” Perhaps I am being thick here but both your comments seem to split but are discussing two different points.

One — the question of rules is as far as I can see — should only be determined by what is written in black and white. The rules that are written down are “accepted” by the participating individuals as a means to the conditions of their participation, No?

For example — if the rules say that you cannot wear RED — VIOLET and FUCHSIA on Tuesdays — this is “clear and direct” — just as a rule saying – “you may not use EPO”– is direct and clear.

On the other hand — when you are “talking ethics” you are discussing a worthy concept but are not addressing the rules. You both are addressing how you believe the rules should be interpreted with an ethical basis.

Ethics “mean” different things to different people. The belief in what may be “right or wrong” is a societal development. For example, today there is an ethical clash between the east and the west over “what is considered ethical in war.”

One side would have us believe that it is ethical and right to target all individuals of a society as “enemy” and therefore ethically correct to kill. The other side holds a belief that the only legitimate “targets” for killing are military, therefore it is unethical and immoral to kill none participating parties, citizens as targets.

Personally — I am against killing. In my ethics therefore – BOTH PARTIES “ethical” perspective is wrong — my ethics do not allow for targeting people for destruction in the name of any cause.

I once read a short story — and for the life of me, I can’t recall the author or the title — but — in the story a young man makes a bet with a member of the establishment — the bet was simply that the young man would stay in isolation for years, seeing no one, talking to no one. If the young man could survive this then the “establishment person” would transfer all his wealth to the young man. The story was simple and addressed directly this question of “ethics.” Is it right for the state to take a life?

The story’s summation of the question ended with this observation. “Can the state have the right to take away what it cannot give — in this case — life.”

Rules are written in black and white, the work of making them clear and understandable and therefore acceptable to the participating parties are agreed upon by said parties. If the rules are correctly written, they may be simple in appearance or complicated but their boundaries of control should be clearly defined. On Tuesdays — no one may wear – RED — VIOLET and FUCHSIA. Or simply — “you may not use EPO.”

Now — there may be conditionality in the rules — for example — it is found that EPO helps someone combat a disease. Then it is the “responsibility” of the rule makers – to clearly define how a subset of individuals who medically need EPO — may or may not participate in the activity under discussion.

A decision may be made to exclude such individuals – or – that such individuals must meet very clearly defined parameters. (TUE’s?) – are supposedly of this category.

I put to you then — that “ethics” may come into question when “rules and regulations are being born” but they have little to do with the understanding of the written rules themselves. That is how clear “rules and regulations must be to be effective.”

If the case is submitted that such rules are impossible to create – then I contend that either the “rule makers” are being lazy or that it is impossible for them or anyone else to develop “fair rules.” Therefore the question of having an organized activity controlled by “rules and regulations” is moot. You cannot have it both ways.

So to cap off the above — ethics may very well be used in writing rules and regulations. But to discuss ethics and rules and mix them in the discussion, discussing two separate issues presents a moral conflict that cannot solve the problem. Rules “are” – once they are put into black and white — as they are written. While the question of ethics will remain an unfixed concept since different people adhere to different ethics.

William, Michael, thank you both for bringing forth a very subtle question. These are my thoughts on the subject.

Dragon,

I am not contesting Landis’ right to appeal to congress and so …
I am just pointing the stupidity of Landis’ request which is like a cutting demand of funding US justice or police even after their failure !

If you are complaining because the WADA world is using old equipements, have not the better staff, and so it’s stupid to think to resolve the solution by cutting the funding.

A request to congress for better equipement, better training, better staff, … would have been more justified.

Best regards

———————————————————-

TBV,

Those running the UCI, WADA, and the GTs do not seem to be much interested in the commercial viability of the sport; WADA does not seem concerned much with the viability of ANY sport, as it’s sole concern seems to be agitating a moral panic in the name of the mythological spirit of the Olympics, and the heath of the overall Olympic “movement”. Individual sports can go to hell, as far as the WADA/IOC is concerned.

I don’t really want any of these bozos in charge. but if forced to chose a poison, it’d be for a few promoters working under a reasonably transparent rule set to produce racing objectively free of pre-determined results, with credible detection of cheating, and having reasonable and low-key punishments for violations. That is to say, NASCAR is a better model than that of the FIA/FOCA hegemony over F1.

The battle between UCI and GT is a commercial battle. Verddrugen dreamed to make a cycling F1.
But the GT organizers with the history of F1 have seen the bullets. They were afraid to have to pay UCI to be allowed to run their races.

In a battle or a war there is always colateral damage. Here of course it was the teams and riders.

Collateral damage – my ass! (sorry)

Lets kill the kittens and the puppies – nobody wants them either!

Jean C,

As I have posted on numerous occasions, I would be happy to request more funding…IF WADA World was an organization that operated with ETHICS and INTEGRITY. At the moment IMHO, that is NOT the case.

I REFUSE to support my TAX MONEY going to an organization who sees their mission as destroying people while NOT applying ALL their own rules to themselves.

Regards,

BSMB, CSC have all their rides also still in, wonder what’s in their water.
Lame.

Thanks Ange. But I think I will keep my day job.

FYI: I dress to the right – except on the bike.

William, I think your take on the public perception regarding drug use is correct.

Morgan, One of the problems with fighting against doping is clearly defining doping. Because all sorts of things qualify as performance enhancing. Some legal products will accomplish the same thing as illegal products. Some of these legal things may fall into the gray area of ethics. But I don’t think it’s necessary to muddy the waters with those types of questions. EPO = bad. Altitude tent = gray area. Assuming the test for EPO is actually sound (perhaps a bad assumption) then we can make a rule stating that EPO is against the rules – but how do we ban a tent? Let’s say we pick an arbitrary hematocrit ceiling for the riders (like 50 – don’t ask where I came up with such an arbitrary number), then we could test for EPO with our rock-solid test, and weed out the guys who spend 15-hours a day in their tent. Clearly, the punishment for using EPO should be more severe than the punishment for having a high hematocrit level, because you can only have EPO by cheating, but you could have a high hematocrit level by smart training (which we don’t want to discourage). Now this is system is very close to what actually occurs today. So why does WADA tell us that this doesn’t work? The only conclusion I can come up with is that the test must suck.

Therefore, WADA must go, because they then have obviously been lying to us for years.

My understanding is that the test for EPO detects the presence of artificial EPO through variations in the ph of urine. I have not checked this. But WADA claims their test is solid. I was merely using it as an example of how hard it is to define cheating and doping and then enforce such rules.

Michael, tbv,

I do not know what the test for EPO is – I am certain that tbv knows if any one does – my point was not to call the EPO test in to question – I am not knowledgeable enough to do this – But I don’t have to be knowledgeable about the testing procedures to have observed that the execution of testing appears to be less then consistent – from what I learned reading the transcripts of the Landis case. As tbv points out – there are inconstancies in the performance of tests and procedures.

As to the difficulty of the testing procedures – I am not so certain this should be considered an excuse or a justification. If you ban a substance then you had better have means of proving WHEN AN ATHLETE IS ACCUSED OF BREAKING THE RULES by using a banned substance. A mistrusted test result backed up by media accusations and innuendos is not good enough.

The concept of “this is all we got – so it’s got to be good enough” – that the WADA people are employing – is not acceptable. The rules as they are are a “closed system” so that no one except WADA may call a test good. In fact it is not allowed to question their testing, but we are to take their “word for it,” the events do not support this to be the truth about their testing methods.

tbv – how many of the testing procedures for the various doping substances that are on the banned list – have been “vetted” by scientist OTHER then WADA’s chosen?

Michael – the point I was aiming for is simply this – when you deal with the lives and means of livelihood of individuals – It is not acceptable to stack the deck merely so you can come out the “winner.” Nor is “good enough” acceptable as a description of any type of testing – unless it is accepted by the majority and vetted by the scientific community.

I apologize for any “misleading” or erroneous inferences you may have read from my comment – I hope this clears it up.

TBV,

I agree with you you – and if I was trying to make a point it was that I come away not trusting the rules – because I am left with the impression that I may not question them. That my comprehension is severely curtailed by the language of the rules and laws being applied as they are.

Larry wrote as a response to Mike in the comment section in the blog that you reference above ( the blog spot is FANTASTIC) – here is the exchange:

—“You can write rules, but the people have to follow them. You can have sound principles of science, but the scientists have to follow them. You can have oversight, but you’re still relying on a human over-seer.

The law does not protect us because it sits on a shelf in a library. The science does not protect us because it sits on a different shelf in the same library. We say that words have power, but that’s not quite true. An unread word has no power. A word that is read but not understood has no power either.

When the word is read and is understood, then it has power.”

To me – these words are truly wonderful. Easily understood by everyone who cares to read them. Larry’s response to Mike is inspirational, but also they are a statement of clarity and beauty in of themselves, and they happen to state how I see the human condition in action as far as WADA and the present situation in cycling exists today.

If I gave another impression – less clear – then Larry’s words above – for that I am sorry – but I am not as elegant and able as Larry is in expressing himself.

TBV,

To my other confused point, “And even should they be reasonably accurate, they don’t tell one anything about a particular performance, especially one that is under the highest envelope values.”

You can look at a scatter plot and make some general observations; you may run regressions to identify a trend. But with wide variations and multiple causalities, it is not possible to make a conclusive ruling about the effect of one agent on individualpoints because of the distribution. Above, below, or exactly on the trend line, we really can’t know without solid additional information. That is, just looking at performance as Cyclisme did does not tell us what we need to know to judge a particular case. As soon as you are talking trends, you are talking “most”, and “most” is not “all”. Then you have to end up looking at the specifics of a case, determining whether this set of evidence proves the particular charge being made.

If a policeman thinks you were speeding (and maybe you were, along with everyone else in your lane), but he didn’t get a reading, and he writes you up for running a red light that you stopped at, has justice been served? If someone else confesses to running a stop light, does that mean you must have done it too?

I don’t undestand well your point. There is some questions:

Do you not see any correlation between the curve and EPO evenement?
or
do you say the curve has some correlations with EPO evenement but we cannot make any conclusion for a particuliar individual?

Devon,

As I stated right at the beginning – I could not even assure anyone that it was Greg or now as you say Ms McIlvain – All I knew is that it was on the net and available – I tried to point out that I make no conclusions from it.

None the less – the dialogue itself was interesting – in that 1. the “character Lemond” reassures the woman that she is “not being recorded.”

If one listens to the entire tape – 2. – the personalities and opinions of the individuals certainly betray themselves. BOTH OF THEM do not come off as “stellar” individuals – since they both tend to gossip about any parties they mention – with the direct intent to show their own characters as being more pristine – BUT THEIR OWN WORDS CONDEMN THEM…

Thanks for clearing up who the female is – how do you know this for sure – and is this Lemond or just someone who sounds like him? Since neither persons come off as being very honorable in character.

the curve has some correlations with EPO evenement but we cannot make any conclusion for a particuliar individual

Yes. We’re back to correlation and causation. A trend does not prove anything about particular data points.

Since I’ve answered your question, would you please answer mine:

If a policeman thinks you were speeding (and maybe you were, along with everyone else in your lane), but he didn’t get a reading, and he writes you up for running a red light that you stopped at, has justice been served? If someone else confesses to running a stop light, does that mean you must have done it too?

And let me add: If he writes you up for speeding, but has no readings and makes up a value for the ticket, is that OK?

TBV

TBV

If the policeman see a driver speeding, he can at least stop it. To give a fine probably not but if the driver were exceding 2 or 3 times the limits probably he can arrest him.
No? Should he wait an accident to act ?

Ludwig:

I am not sure how believing that Armstrong won clean encourages doping. To the contrary, I would think that believing that it was possible for him to dope his way to a record 7 in a row TdF victories without being detected would be more likely to encourage doping. If up and coming cyclists looking to LA for inspiration think he is clean, wouldn’t they want to emulate him?

Of course, he couldn’t have confessed to winning the TdF while doped during the incident in question, since that occurred before any of his TdF wins.

William,

It encourages doping because it encourages the notion that you can get away with it. That people don’t really care–at least not enough to pursue the issue with the vigilance necessary to arrive at the truth.

The incident in question is just a representative example of the lengths LA and his team have gone through to cover the situation up.

Let me be clear here–I think LA and his associates may have good and noble reasons for covering up the doping. He may believe with all his heart that doping in cycling is too complex a problem to speak publicly about–he may believe that omerta is the best of all possible worlds because it acknowledges the inevitable/unspeakable (that cyclists will dope and the authorities can’t stop them) while also discouraging the idea that drug use is acceptable in any way.

So I acknowledge without hesitation that there are noble reasons to practice omerta, and that it’s frequently short-sighted to morally condemn cyclists who are faced with difficult choices. I simply believe omerta is not sustainable in the long run and brings cycling’s reputation into disrepute. As a system for dealing with a problem, omerta is profoundly unaccountable, irrational, and anti-egalitarian. It’s also an insult to the concept of fairness, which has to be a key value for any respectable sport.

Sure, I may be wrong–that’s why I would like to see a (at least a limited) public debate on the issue–to really sort out the pros and cons of banning drugs vrs. tolerating them and determine what cyclists actually think. But either way, continuing to lie/practice omerta will lead to further scandals and perhaps worsen the situation. And it’s gratuitously unfair to those actors whose voices and interests are quashed in the interest of protecting dirty secrets.

Forgetting for just a moment – that my original question had nothing to do with LA – rather it had to do with a simple query – Have we some kind of “proof” other then Devon responding and saying that it is St Greg on that “taped conversation” – meaning – has it proven that the “taped conversation” is between Lemond and as Devon claims – McIlvain?

Personally – I have come to not like Lemond for his behavior and public stances – but I certainly am not willing to simply take Devon’s word for it alone that the characters speaking are the ones who it is purported to be.

Anything may be cast out into the Net and then touted as some true event – but this doesn’t make it so.

Has a “voice recognition program” been run on this tape? After all – there are “recordings of Lemond’s voice” that are in the public domain – It should be rather easy to check this against that.

There are at least 3 places where the “recording” changes ambiance, even though the overall “poor quality” of the tape is maintained.

Did – as is claimed – Lemond “make this recording?” Or is it a spliced together piece of work that is made to seem as “one continuous conversation?”

In otherwords – even admitting to not being a fan of Mr Lemond – I would not automatically jump to the conclusion that he is – AS CLAIMED, the star of this little recording. Nor can I just jump to the conclusion that the other person is Ms McIlvain.

So I ask again – DO WE HAVE PROOF that the recording is what it claims to be? Responding to my simple question about the veracity of the “tape recording” HAS NOTHING TO DO with whether LA is guilty of anything!

Ignoring the question’s need of a direct response does point to a simple conclusion and that is that it is mere convenience on the part of some to “believe” what suits them without proof – can be nothing more then a bad habit.

The tape is purported to be a “taped conversation” between Lemond and McIlvain – that Lemond supposedly made of McIlvain – after assuring her that their conversation was NOT being taped.

So – AGAIN – is this tape what it purports itself to be? Before we go one more step further and draw “conclusions” about it – wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually KNOW that it is not a piece of “creative fiction?”

Ludwig:

I will concede that if someone believes that LA won dirty but was able to get away with it, that person would be more likely to dope. But I don’t see how the fact that some people believe he was clean would encourage someone to dope.

Does the fact that many people believe Greg Lemond to have won clean (which is probable true, IMO) encourage doping?

Speaking of Greg Lemond, he was voted #10 at Vogue in all time best sporting rivalries with Bernard Hinault http://www.mensvogue.com/health/slideshows/2008/01/rivalries?slide=1 .
He was beat out by car racers and chess players! Can you call that sport?

About Saint Greg, as some people call ironically, certainly not risk to harm their family and no double standard:

Pr. Mondenard who supervised 4000 riders of TDF stated : “The only rider for who I have never seen a clue of doping is Greg Lemond”!

The same Pr. Mondenard requested many times a debate with DS, manager or/and riders who proclaimed that cycling was clean during Festina’s affair. All refused.

Jean C, you have made extensive arguments that the speed of the pelogon is related to EPO and blood doping. Many riders have been convicted of one, and there have been confessions to the other.

Landis is charged with neither one; he’s charged with something others have also been found to hae done, and confessed to.

To my knowledge, no one has made the case that testostesterone is a cause of the speed of the peloton — not even you.

I take your position on Landis to be: everybody is speeding (taking EPO or blood doping). They don’t have the good on Landis to charge him with that, so they’ve written him up for running a stop sign. Sinkewitz and others have been guilty of and confessed to running stop signs.

Landis says the evidence of his running the stop is flawed and wrong. We can debate that elsewhere.

Are you saying that T-doping is the cause of the speed rises you cite as reason to say “everybody dopes”?

(1) If he writes you up for something else you did not do, is that right?
(2) If someone else confesses to speeding, does that make you guilty?
(3) If he has no reading on you, and makes up a number for the ticket, is that OK?

To me, they are very relevant questions, and it still feels like they have been evaded.

TBV

TBV:

I see the point you are trying to make, and in general agree with it. However, the situation re Landis is a bit different. It is not really a case of a cop making up a case for one violation because he couldn’t get him for something else, but rather a case of the cop writing you up because a witness said you ran a stop sign.

I see USADA as the cop here. LNDD is the witness. USADA took the position that LNDD’s evidence was good enough to warrant a hearing, and the 2 arbs there felt it was good enough to convict. As you say, we can argue that elsewhere. But there was evidence. Maybe LNDD concocted the results to “get” Landis, maybe they just screwed up, or maybe it is valid after all. But there was evidence.

What line did Floyd cross? Does he owe USADA, the UCI, or ASO any respect? They didn’t give him any. Is there a “do not cross” line that I have missed? When the USADA called Lemond as a witness, was this to support their quality scientific proof, as part of the lively discussion? Quite frankly, short of accusing the USADA of sleeping with pigs, I really wouldn’t blame him for any sort of bazaar comments. It’s his prerogative. What unprecedented level has he gone to? And more importantly, what if he is telling the truth (god forbid!!)?
Ludwig you are merely making a bunch of hyperbolic statements based upon presuppositions. They are really quite meaningless to this discussion and not very helpful.

I’m happy to be on the sidelines for once, reading through the current debate.

But I think y’all have misunderstood Ludwig when he said “the arbitration is already over–consequently the line has already been crossed when it becomes fair to assume [Landis is] guilty”.

I read this to say no more that in a conversation like this one, Landis lost the presumption of innocence when the arbitration went against him.

Before the arbitration, the most that one could fairly state was that the lab had made an adverse analytical finding, and that USADA had decided to bring a sanctions case against Landis. Any pronouncement of “guilt” prior to the arbitration would be a statement of opinion, and should have been properly qualified as such.

But the arbitration is over, and Landis has had his day in court (so to speak). He lost the arbitration. You might believe as I believe that the arbitrators reached the wrong decision. But Landis WAS found to be guilty of doping. The fact that Landis still has avenues of appeal open to him does not change the fact that the arbitration went against him.

In criminal law, a defendant loses the presumption of innocence after a conviction, regardless of whether the defendant can appeal the decision. I don’t think that Ludwig is saying anything more than this. If Ludwig wants to say that Landis is “guilty of doping”, I think this is a technically correct statement, as well as a fair statement to make in a discussion like this one. In this sense, a line WAS crossed when the arbitrators reached their decision. Of course, those of us who think that the arbitrators were wrong are free to so argue.

TBV,

Testosterone can be use for a better recovering.
Police investigations like Ferrari, Fuentes, …Voet, riders confessions show that it is used in combination with other products. Moreni could be an exception.
Landis’s case showed too his blood profile which were dubious even if you alleged that measurement are inaccurate.

Why have some teams their own equipements to measure hematocrit when we know that hct could only decrease?
How are the range of variation for hematocrit in case of “deshydratation”?
With a small deshydration like 2%, how big are the effect on rider’s performance ?
Why a lot of riders had/have their hct level close of 50% if measurement are inaccurate?

In the thread http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=462,
I request to Richard his help for this points:

As R. Wharton is a professional of cycling, he is probably one of the most able to:

* Listing the principal reasons of the different types of “big” bonks
* describe their effects on the body
* and what consequences will or would be for the next days of racing.
He may limit his review to the case of clean cyclist participating at TDF .

I hope he could help us.

I will demonstrate that after a natural bonk (outside a fringale / raging hunger?), Landis’ body could not recover in a night. So it would be impossible to be in front of the peloton, he would have difficulties to stay with the peloton.
His bonk was probably the same bonk as Zuelle, a bad mix of PED!

As speeding I would say that Landis was caught speeding inside a group who were not caught, and we, as spectator could easily evaluate that the group were speeding. Maybe one of them could have been just overtaken in front of us and not be speeding but it’s very very unlikely.

Larry,

That’s why I think your search for “truth” with Jean seems a little off the mark. Does testosterone help? Jean would have you believe so, but I can’t find any proof. All gains in the last 20-years due to blood doping? Maybe. But this is a post hoc argument that confuses correlation with causation. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible; it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. Until actual scientific studies are performed on doped and non-doped riders (and variations thereof), what difference does it make how fast guys are riding? We won’t ever know what the ultimate effect of different doping methods are. The number of variables is too staggering. Therefore, I think we just accept certain things as against the rules (regardless of effectiveness) until we know better.

BTW, at the time of Landis’ bonk and subsequent recovery, most people argued that it represented clean riding. Now people look at the same situation and claim that it represents doping. Funny how a post hoc arguement can rub either way.

Larry,

For Testosterone, when we are young we can do “easily” 48 H with few sleeping, night being used for recreative activities. Older it’s become more difficult, in the same time our body provides less testosterone. That is an explanation from a doctor.
It would be good to have a study with athletes of 30-35 year old.

I agree with TBV testosterone only will never compete against EPO. There is more reasons to use it in combination with other products as we can see with variations of hct level.

—-
For your other post, yes today no one has confidence in any results. Too much doping , too many cases, … the crowd has sometimes difficulties to see the truth, and propably that is not the same who cry doped at all time.

But, there is still people able to identify with a high probality the athletes who dope. By targeting those most probable dopers some good results could be reached.

Ullrich or more Riis are heavier than Rasmussen or Contador, so even with doping the physical laws are still available:
– a light rider will be better on steeper slope
– a heavier rider will be better on slope with 5-6% like Hautacam for Riis, Ullrich or Indurain

And the big body will ever be “faster” on flat race than lighter rider at the same wattage/kg! 2 advantages : more watt to beat the drag and proportionnaly less drag. Luckyly big riders have more diificulties to have a good drag protection inside peloton.

—-
Landis’ bonk could have been see as no doping without the 17th stage.

Dragon –

The Landis arbitrators (correctly, in my view) found that an AAF for exogenous testosterone could be based on either the T/E ratio test or on the CIR test.

True, under the LNDD procedures, the LNDD would never have performed the CIR test on the Landis samples if they hadn’t first made a positive finding based on the T/E test. But the screw-up on the first test does not necessarily invalidate the second test, so long as the WADA rules view each test as an independent basis for an adverse analytical finding.

This is pretty much common sense. Imagine for the moment that the police get a report that a bunch of kids are acting up at a local park, but they misunderstand the report, go to the wrong park, and catch a mugger there. The mugger doesn’t get to go free just because the police screwed up and went to the wrong park.

The situation would be different if the police screw up involved a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. That kind of “initial error” can end a case.

Now … there are more than a few of us who believe that the LNDD screwed up BOTH the T/E test and the CIR test … that in fact, the same flaw that existed in the T/E testing ALSO existed in the CIR testing, and that the arbs should have thrown out both tests on the same grounds.

I don’t know if this answers your question. If not, please follow up.

HOLD THE PRESSES!!

The UCI has totally freaking declared war on the ASO.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3264373.

I don’t understand what the UCI is doing, and whether they can just withold what they appear to be renegging on.

Taking Rant’s earlier post, “Who gets to decide II” (http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=457) at face value, either PN and other ASO races on on the PT calendar, but not PT licensed races or not. The decision to place them on the calendar was to be done by the PT Council.

Assuming they were on the calendar, they they are to be run under the PT rules, except for some omitted clauses.

I don’t see how the UCI can decide they are “unsanctioned” if run by the FFC, or under what of their own rules would allow them to deny officials and doping control for a race on their own calendar run under their rules.

My first reaction that the UCI is going to lose this badly, and we may have the evidence others need to conclude it is time for McQuaid to go.

TBV

TBV, we should continue this discussion over on the new post. But based on Saturday’s Cycling News interview with McQuaid, I think he thinks he has an agreement with the 18 Pro Tour teams that none of them will race unless all of them race.

Ken S said:
“All this has got me thinking. And I’ve thought back to times like one July when I came into the clubhouse with my brothers after another sad excuse for golf and watched Pantani fly up the mountain. Truth is, I still have fond memories of that and enjoy moments like that even if he was on cocaine. I’m disappointed, but I just can’t get all outraged over it.”

I can understand if the cheating doesn’t bother you. But Pantani’s death ought to bother you. Cycling’s culture of omerta and Pantani being scapegoated played a role in Pantani’s sad, lonely death. Cyclists choose to take the drugs of their own free will but it must be remembered that they are people, not gladiators. They don’t exist for our amusement.

In his testimony, Manzano elaborated on the fact that most cyclists come from humble backgrounds. They don’t necessarily have the luxury of choosing other professions. And they don’t have the luxury to refuse to do what needs to be done to win. Omerta means you don’t have to think about this when you watch it on TV. But omerta also means you don’t have the right to simply assume the results are clean.

Michael,

I don’t know Landis personally–I have no opinion on his character. I think it’s obvious he has made a lot of untrue statements and that it’s also obvious why. When I talk about when he “crossed the line” I’m simply explaining that the moment Landis decided it is ok to slander institutions and threaten individuals in order to get his way, it also became fair to highlight the empirical and circumstantial evidence that he is lying, even if not directly relevant to the offense at hand. If he had simply hired his lawyers and made his case on empirical grounds without all the PR and the deceit then there wouldn’t be so much hostility. When you say “Does he owe USADA, the UCI, or ASO any respect? They didn’t give him any” it gets at the stakes involved. Landis was willing to slander all these organizations, even on the basis of falsehoods, if it helped him raise money, escape suspension and clear his name. That’s something cycling fans have a right to get upset about.

I’m not saying these organizations don’t deserve criticism. But because Landis waged his defense in bad faith, he was forced to criticize them for the wrong reasons.

Landis should have told the truth and accepted the consequences. It’s not necessary to like or dislike the guy to come to that conclusion.

But doesn’t “˜t the elevated hmct and blood values indicate blood doping?

I don’t believe the hmct values have been explored in any degree beyond casual speculation. We know nothing of the accuracy of the machines in question, the times of day and state of hydration under which they samples were collected, or whether there were other medical issues that would explain the raw values.

I look at those values and can conclude they indicate nothing, except that different samples were measured at different times and had different results.

It’s important to keep in mind in the course of this discussion that all evidence indicates that UCI controls were/are not an effective deterrent to blood doping or EPO use. This is why I find the argument that the testers/authorities are abusing their power or pursuing vendettas for no reason so absurd–the truth is that for whatever reason they don’t have the means to detect and/or deter most doping.

I thought we were of the belief that EPO use had been controlled.

I’d agree there isn’t a good control for doping with your own blood.

I see no relation of either of those to the issue of testers/authorities abusing their power; nor do I see any cases of “pursuing vendettas for no reason”. What I do see is completely typical bureaucratic ass-covering and unwillingness to admit weakeness or mistakes for fear of diminishing credibility.

The implicit assumption in how Jean and I interpret the data is there was blood doping in the 2006 peloton, and most likely all of the Top 10 are suspect. According to this explanation, testosterone (being a common part of doping programs) was what was found. Testosterone alone can’t explain Landis winning the Tour–it’s the drugs that weren’t found either in Landis or in any of his rivals that do more to explain the data.

Suspect, OK; but where is the evidence beyond the performance itself?

I think we are now clearly in agreement that, at least, the claimed testosterone use does not explain or account for Landis’ victory.

Great. Moving on,

When I talk about when he “crossed the line” I’m simply explaining that the moment Landis decided it is ok to slander institutions and threaten individuals in order to get his way,

Since I’m unaware of instance where he’s “slandered” institutions (truth is a defense against such things, at least in the US), or personally threatened individuals to get his way in a way that is improper, I don’t know what you’re referencing.

I do think people have prejudged him, and based on that premise, have painted many things with nefarious intent. Since doing so presumes the conclusion, it feels like Alice in Wonderland to me.

TBV

thanks!
-dB

The values that were in question were not even mainly vampire values; they were a mix of vampire and Phonak internal tests taken at various times on different machines. This is why simple comparison is tricky.

I can’t find the reported values at first glance; I’ll look later.

TBV