First off, for those who are boycotting news of the Tour (you know who you are …), you might as well skip to the second half of this post and come back and read the first part on the 28th.
It Was Bound To Happen Sooner or Later
Just four days into the 2008 Tour de France, the Curse of the Yellow Jersey has reared its ugly head. Yep, today’s stage winner, Gerolsteiner’s Stefan (any relation to Michael?) Schumacher not only takes takes the golden fleece away from yesterday’s winner of the maillot jaune, he also wins the honor of being the first rider in the 2008 Tour de France to get caught up in allegations of drug use. Something about testing positive for amphetamines during a traffic stop (if you call crashing your car a traffic stop) after he’d partied just a little too hearty last year.
It was just a matter of time before a rider wearing the famous yellow top would become the subject of controversy. Last year, we had The Chicken Incident. The year before — well, we all know about the year before, let’s not pour any more salt in that particular wound, shall we? And before that was a certain rider named Lance, who’s been dogged by allegations ever since he came back from his near-death experience to win a record 7 straight Tours. Oh, and the year before that there was Festina, which may not technically count as a curse on the golden fleece, or maybe it was the year that the hex was put on all Tours to come. Call it karma or something.
Now, Mr. Schumacher claims he didn’t take any amphetamines, even if he was drunk at the time. But, of course, now that he’s in yellow, he had to face the press. Someone asked the German cyclist why he was allowed to start the Tour when Tom Boonen was unceremoniously uninvited to this year’s event. As VeloNews reports:
“Our cases cannot be compared. Tom Boonen underwent a doping test. I didn’t undergo a doping test. It was a police control when I was coming back from a disco,” said Schumacher as he sat in the race’s yellow jersey.
“I don’t have a problem with Boonen, he’s a big champion and I don’t know why he’s not been invited to the Tour.
“He tested positive, but he hasn’t done anything to break the WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) code, but I can’t comment too much on his case because I don’t know all the details.”
Um, well, see they can be compared, actually. See, what Boonen was accused of wasn’t a doping violation, and neither was Schumacher’s. The fact that one test result came as a result of an out-of-competition test and the other came as a result of a traffic stop is more a matter of luck than anything. Boonen could just as easily have tested positive after a traffic stop or Schumacher could have tested positive during an out-of-competition visit from the vampires. Is Schumacher seriously arguing that had Boonen’s test result come after a run-in with the cops, the Belgian star would have been allowed to race? If so, I’d like to hear the ASO’s Christian Prudhomme explain how the logic for that would work.
Supposedly, riders who would embarrass the 2008 Tour were excluded, and those who embarrass the Tour by testing positive in the next few weeks will be tossed out on their ears while being asked to fork over €100,000 ($156,000 USD). Did the Tour organizers figure that Schumacher was unlikely to be in a position where questions about his regrettable little incident would be asked? If so, they guessed wrong. Now that he’s become the center of a certain kind of unwanted attention, what will the Tour do? Could it be that they will now take the tack that any publicity is good publicity?
Truth be told, I have no problem with Schumacher being allowed to race — as long as the organizers behave in a consistent manner. Booting Boonen while allowing Schumacher to ride smacks of a double-standard to me. Anyway, onwards and upwards.
But Did They Prove It?
I received an email a couple of days ago that contained an interesting argument related to the Landis case and the CAS panel’s recent decision. Trust But Verify apparently got the same email, and has posted the article.
The fundamental question in the Landis case is: Did LNDD’s lab results from Stage 17 — specifically the CIR/IRMS test result — provide convincing proof that Floyd Landis used synthetic testosterone? If so, what documentation and evidence actually proves LNDD’s assertion of an adverse analytical finding?
The main point raised by the emailer is that LNDD violated the ISL by failing to use one of three specified techniques for matching the results of a known solution containing the testosterone metabolites of interest with Landis’ sample. As the emailer observes:
The relevant Technical Document in this case is TD2003IDCR. It states:
TD2003IDCR
The appropriate analytical characteristics must be documented for a particular assay. The Laboratory must establish criteria for identification of a compound. Examples of acceptable criteria are:
Chromatographic separation
For capillary gas chromatography, the retention time (RT) of the analyte shall not differ by more than one (1) percent or ±0.2 minutes (whichever is smaller) from that of the same substance in a spiked urine sample, Reference Collection sample, or Reference Material analyzed contemporaneously. In those cases where shifts in retention can be explained, for example by sample overload, the retention time criteria may be relaxed.
What the TD2003IDCR states is that one has to compare the retention times of the substances (testosterone metabolites) in the athletes sample with the retention times of the same substance in
- a spiked urine sample,
- Reference Material or
- A Reference Collection sample.
Why did LNDD fail to comply with this paragraph?
- LNDD did not use a spiked urine sample
- The Reference Material (Mix Cal AC) did not contain the substances of interest (5 ?-Diol, 5?-Pdiol and Andro). Therefore a comparison of Retention Times between the athletes sample and the Reference Material is not possible.
- LNDD did not use a Reference Collection.
There is a lot of ground that the emailer covers, and it would take as much time to go over it as it would to go to TBV and read the document. Here’s a PDF version of what I received. The argument raised by the emailer is a more detailed discussion, I suspect, than was put forth in Team Landis’ final brief. That’s a shame, as it raises the most serious question of all. Did LNDD actually provide data and documentation that proves the AAF? If not, then Landis should have been exonerated. In fact, if LNDD failed to provide such documentation, USADA should have caught that early on in the process and refuse to prosecute the case.
But I’m afraid that by the time USADA had the lab documentation package the die had already been cast. To refuse to prosecute would have been seen in the media (especially the cycling media) as a cover-up, given the notoriety that Landis’ case had already acquired via the various leaks of information to the press. To prosecute, given the stakes involved, meant that USADA would have to do whatever it takes to win. Anything less would have been met with suspicion and skepticism in certain quarters.
The real question in all of this is whether LNDD established a valid AAF. In the eyes of the emailer, even though the CAS panel accepted USADA’s arguments in the case, the evidence of how LNDD’s technicians performed the CIR/IRMS tests and the documentation of what they did and what they were supposed to do fails to establish the AAF. It appears to be a pretty solid argument. For any serious students of the Landis case, this document is worth the read, and definitely worth pondering.
Re: the second half of this post (so Larry et al, you are safe to read on):
There has been considerable discussion of this over at TBV and it seems perhaps the emailer has confused some things. At any rate, it is largely a mute point. I think that many of us have tended to look at this case with lenses tinted by the US justice system, where (in theory) a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In WADA land, following an AAF, the athlete is guilty and must conclusively prove that any sloppy labwork or “other honest inadequacies” specifically caused the AAF. In a criminal case here in the US, a defendant will often try to cast doubt on prosecution evidence, calling into question all sorts of things. Sometimes causing such doubt works (see OJ) and sometimes it doesn’t, depending on what the jury believes. If Landis had been contesting a DUI, I’d bet he’d have been cleared. But he had no chance in WADA land, as he had to surmount an impossible burden of p roving that any irregularities actually caused the AAF.
This is why so many of us aren’t watching this year (or last year). It’s not so much a boycott as … well, it’s just not interesting any more. It has little to do with racing a bike, and the “winner” will be determined at some date far in the future by people who couldn’t keep a tricycle upright.
William,
Point taken. Though, I think the discussion over at TBV will go on for a bit more. In some ways the document’s argument is a moot point. But, I could also see this as part of a basis for going into the Swiss court system to try and overrule the CAS — assuming that the argument was made in sufficient detail during the hearings, or in the final briefs. I think the Landis final brief wasn’t as detailed as the emailer, however. But I haven’t read the full transcripts of the hearings, yet. Landis still has about 18 or 20 days to decide whether to pursue the matter further, or to move on. That’s going to be a tough choice to make, to press on. The odds seem pretty stacked against him in that regard.
MMan,
The last few years have really sapped my interest in the Tour, that’s for sure. I’m certainly not following it nearly as closely as I did in years gone by.
MMan, what would it cost you to say that you’re boycotting? It’s not like we’re charging a membership fee. C’mon, throw us a bone.
It is day something-or-other of my boycott of the Tour de France. I’ve lost count, and I can’t go on line to find out what stage they finished today, so I don’t know what day it is.
I have come to the conclusion that my boycott of the Tour de France is badly misunderstood, even by my friends here at RYHO. Despite the fact that my boycott has been joined by such cycling luminaries as Michael and Levi Leipheimer (and maybe by MMan), the rest of the world seems confused by what we’re trying to do.
So let me explain.
What we’re doing here is not really a boycott per se. What this is, is more like a principled refusal to acknowledge that a Tour de France is taking place.
What proof do you have that this is really the Tour de France you’re watching, reading about, blogging about? Are you willing to trust the media on this, the same media who’s lied to you before about weapons of mass destruction, Brad Pitt’s marriages and the nutritional value of chocolate donuts? (actually, I didn’t know about the chocolate donut thing until Michael pointed it out to me. This is an example of the value of the boycott.)
C’mon, be honest. Versus could be showing you helicopter shots of the 2003 Tour de France for all you know. 180 guys in bike shots are pretty hard to identify from 500 feet up. This is why kidnappers include the current day’s headline in the photos they send to the police. You would think that Versus, a respectable media outlet, would show you the same courtesy as dirty rotten kidnappers.
Now, if any of you can show me direct evidence of 2008, like a cyclist riding with an Obama bumper sticker, that would be something. Otherwise, I think that you’re watching stock footage of old races mixed in with a few shots taken in some Hollywood sound stage. You know, like the way they filmed the “moon landing”.
Look, I’m not a nutcase, OK? I have no doubt that you’re watching a Tour. And that it’s in France. A Tour in France, or for those of you fluent in French, Un Tour de France. But “Le” Tour?
If this were “Le” Tour, wouldn’t Lance Armstrong be there? I mean, that guy just LIVED for the Tour, and he won it seven times with just one testicle, which is a record ratio of Tour wins to testicles that will probably never be broken. Don’t you think he’d be around somewhere if this were “Le” Tour? Not to mention Indurain and anyone else who’s won the Tour since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And don’t tell me about your latest sighting of Bernard Hinault. Yeah, he shows up at the podium, and shakes the hand of the day’s top finisher with an identical “do I know you” expression on his face. He does this once a day for three weeks, then disappears for 11 months. He either has the easiest job on the face of the earth, or they had him stuffed, and in either event he betrays no knowledge that he knows where he is. I think you could hire him to go to the Olympics and shake the hand of the guy from Kenya who wins the marathon, and he’d STILL whisper something about Laurent Fignon into the winner’s ear.
I won’t belabor the obvious, like where are all the good riders, or Pat McQuaid. I won’t ask why you think any of these riders are under the age of 50, when they’re all reportedly taking Viagra.
Let’s just conclude with what should be conclusive proof for even the most skeptical. You’ve all been to major sporting events before, right? Have you noticed who SPONSORS these events? Icons of sporting culture like Nike, Addidas and Budweiser. Have you noticed the celebrities they attract: Jack Nicholson, Rudy Giuliani, Janet Jackson’s exposed boob? We’re talking “A” list, people! Now, the Tour de France is supposedly the premier event in the cycling world, and you have teams sponsored by such luminaries as:
A South African industrial brand managment company (Barloworld)
Italian and Spanish manufacturers of heaters and radiators (Fondital, Saunier Duval)
An Italian manufacturer of bottled gas for cooking (guess who)
The French manufacturer of tubular metal holding pens for cattle (Agritubel)
Be honest, cycling fans! These are the names you’d expect to see on the back of a Little League baseball uniform.
Tour DAY France? Sorry Bob Roll, but I don’t think so.
Larry,
That’s an absolute classic. And, for the record, I’m not sure why anyone would ever purchase bottled propane from a company called “Leaky Gas”. I mean .. don’t you want that stuff to stay bottled up until the right before the moment you light a match? That name is just too ripe for puns. Not that I’d want to rip on them too much, but such things just have a way quickly escaping from the confines of my keyboard. 😉
On the first topic:
I know it is pretty childish, but I couldn’t get the smile of my face when Schumacher got the yellow jersey.
My smile had everything to do with the fact that the ASO tried so hard to get all the riders out that could damage their image.
And what happens? Schumacher got the yellow jersey!
Since the ASO threw out so much (mountain) competitors it is even not impossible Schumacher could hang on to the yellow jersey much longer then the ASO wishes for.
I know, when I have smiles like this I should have boycotted the Tour.
I didn’t. Not enough courage. 🙂
karuna, my hope is to make the boycott seem so cool, that no one here will be able to resist it.
But the truth is, I don’t know if I myself can endure this all the way to not seeing Paris. You know that they say about boycotting the Tour, the boycott does not really begin until the first mountain stage. Whenever that is.
Larry
🙂 🙂
I think that to boycott the Tour IS cool! A boycott would send a strong message.
I actually tried to get people behind me.
It stayed awfully quiet behind me.
So I deserted my principles and started watching.
Nasty thoughts are the only thing I can bring in now.
I don’t think they will make a big impression. 🙂
I don’t think that the ASO can prove to me that Le Tour is actually taking place. I’ve seen what they consider adequate documentation, and I don’t feel there is any way they are going to be able to satisfy me (and my posse) that Le Tour is positive(ly) occurring.
I have received a response regarding my demands. The ASO won’t give on the Camembert. I’m really pissed. They had the nerve to offer a case of EZ Cheese and Spam. Please. That’s not really French. I don’t think.
Although that can of cheese would fit in a rear jersey pocket.
Maybe I should reconsider?
BTW, I think the e-mail is a compelling and thoughtful analysis of the data, but haven’t we crossed this bridge before? It seems pretty conclusive that the test was inadequate for determining guilt. However, where the test was lacking the governing bodies, their hand-picked arbiters, and their regulations have sufficed. Floyd wasn’t found guilty of doping. He was merely convicted of doping. Once beyond the staggeringly depressing injustice of that, I hope that Floyd can find a way to break the system down. Maybe Floyd can inspire the riders to fight for their interests.
As a counter to that possibility, LeMond has started talking that he wants to join the ASO in destroying the UCI. His past is littered with partners of his that have learned of his character (see Craig Calfee, Jonathan Boyer, or Clark Kent). And I don’t think too many would vouch for him. Perhaps a WADA/LeMond partnership really is just what we need.
Larry,
I’ve been quiet the last week or so, but I’m fully on board with the boycott … In fact, I’m a little upset that I now know that Schumacher held the yellow jersey for at least a day (he WAS a hell of a racecar driver before he retired though!!!)
Michael, I’m pretty sure that SPAM *is* French … it’s just like that foie gras stuff they much such a big deal out of … only thicker, and in a can with a pull tab …
RobW, that’s a great point about spam, and proof of how valuable you’ll be on the boycott team.
For those of you who are statistically minded, the size of the boycott has just increased by a whopping 50%! I think that’s a trend that the folks in Paris cannot afford to ignore. Especially if we can tap into this foie gras thing, which I think has its own boycott.
The foie gras thing definitely has it’s own boycott up here in Portland. Count me in on the boycott – at least through this weekend. Will likely be in Bend watching racing that I can verify is actually taking place (although Let Levi Ride was probably not referring to this…).
The Heathman has a great cheese cave – but the whole pasteurization bit kind of ruins the fun.
i am boycotting … i guess, sort of.
sounds too much like a choice of *action* though. it’s much more of an apathy thing. i’m too lazy to find who’s broadcasting it. and, i’d just have to go enable the channel in my tivo if i did find out. what a hassle.
it could also be the knowing that any glory i might happen to witness can be ruined by the keystone kops at any time later (even YEARS later – samples are forever).
it’s one or the other.
Larry,
You mean the Tour is on now? I guess I’d better crawl out from under my rock. But I won’t go in for your conspiracy theory. I’m in the fleeting minority of Americans that still think we went to the moon. Seriously though, I have had waning interest the past couple of years too. It’s hard to get excited and cheer for someone when the rug can be pulled out from under you at any moment. That cuts both ways – a doper makes you feel cheated, because it was a lie, while a bad doping charge makes you feel cheated, because no one lets you be happy about the win. Personally I feel more cheated by the anti-doping people than I do by the doping people.
And William. I have this theory about how stupid expressions evolve. Like “moot point”. A vaguely common mistake is to say “mute point”, and it’s been commented on before, and it becomes funny. So funny that people (like me) start saying “mute point” just because it’s funny. But that only expands the cycle of stupidity, as it reinforces the mistake for people who don’t get the joke. So the second generation of “mute point” really starts to take hold as legitimate. I also see this happening with “interweb”.
A pet peeve a guess, so whoa is me. I mean woe. I should get over it, because it’s natural. Our language is ripe with such expressions. I mean rife. I’m sure there’s more examples coming down the pipe every day. Make that down the pike. Soon “mute point” will be so normal that people will think it’s just a grey area. Or is that gray? I’m sure that’s not how grey/gray evolved – it’s just a pigment of my imagination…
tom
This is week one of my boycott of the Tour de France. Our ranks grow daily. Cabazon is there, sort of. Snake is a definite maybe. Woo hoo. Feel our wrath.
Actually, this thing is not growing the way I’d hoped it would, probably because the Tour organizers haven’t done anything yet to make anyone angry. But the one thing you learn in a boycott is the value of patience. Pretty soon, they’ll throw someone out of the Tour, or make Bob Roll go to a Berlitz class, and I’ll be flooded with emails from angry cycling fans just begging to join our cause.
In the meantime, the posts from Michael have reminded me that I need to create a list of non-negotiable demands that will have to be satisfied before I end my boycott. In this post, I will focus on merely ONE set of my demands. There might be more demands. ASO, take note. You better settle with me before I can think of more demands.
At the Tour, there are like 19 stages and only six of them matter. You have the stages that end on mountain tops and the time trials — that’s where the race is decided. Then they pad the race with 13 flat stages that can be distinguished only by whether the finishing town is famous for its wine or its cheese. Why can’t we have a Tour where EVERY stage is interesting and EVERY stage matters?
Here are five ideas for making every stage of the Tour as good as the next::
1. Night Racing. The Tour should race a stage or two after sundown. Why not? Tennis does it, golf does it on occasion. Even the Chicago Cubs have installed electric lights. The Tour de Nuit. Sounds kinda sexy. Besides, it’s like 9 hours later in France than it is in California, and I don’t like waking up in the dark for three weeks. Give me a morning when I can sleep in. Also, night racing would be great for the French fans. They could finish work, buy a few things at the Monoprix and head out to the road to picnic, ring cow bells and act like they’re unemployed.
2. Something For The Sprinters. The only reason for the boring, flat stages is to give the sprinters a moment of glory. That’s fine, but why make the other racers pedal for 150 miles just to set up a sprint? Do you think the guys who run the 100 meter dash in the Olympics have to jog together for six hours to the starting line? Of course not. So cut to the chase! Shorten these stages to like 50 feet and let “˜em sprint the entire way. Or, if you really like sprints, set up a stage with nothing but sprints. Sprint! Rest. Sprint! Rest. Sprint! Feed station. (This will give the riders a chance to socialize at the feed station, and eat a proper meal to boot. Having the racers bolt down snacks on the run is a bad example for the children.)
3. If these guys are REALLY the top cyclists in the world, then they ought to be able to do more than ride down a pristine stretch of highway cleared of traffic. I mean, how challenging is that? Let’s see what these guys can REALLY do. Skateboarders can ride down stairs, how about cyclists? Take a page from your local mini golf course, and have the pros cycle through windmills or through a loop de loop. Put in a 5000 foot ramp and let’s see how many buses they can jump over. Make them deliver stuff (bonus points if the pizza is there within 30 minutes).
4. Bring back the team time trial. I have no idea why they dropped the team time trial, that was always a highlight of the race for me. If the team time trial is not interesting enough, then spice it up! Let the top finisher on each team be the team leader. Or do the “Survivor” thing, and without warning, stop the race so the riders can vote someone off the team. If eight guys on eight bikes is not interesting enough, have them race 4 bicycles built for two. Or try the “Breaking Away” approach and have 8 guys share 1 bike. Mix it up. Be Inventive.
5. Do a twist on the team time trial, where you send groups of riders down the road one group at a time, but just for fun, put one rider from each team in each group! Each rider’s time counts, and there’s a bonus for finishing first. This is the stuff of high drama: will the riders cooperate with each other, or not? It would be like a single stage with 20 breakaways. (Actually, it wouldn’t be “like” 20 breakaways, it would BE 20 breakaways. This is a great idea! This boycott is good for my creative soul.)
Okay, the blog family I hang out with thought about a boycott. But, we are weak, and all of us fell in the trap of watching the 4 Americans; and the Aussies, and the Brits, on how well they will do. I will be thrilled if George Hincapie and Christian VV are in the top 10!! Or the top 15 or 20!
But you guys are doing a great job, and I commend you!!!
Rant; I ordered your book; but failed to see the publisher’s link…so I guess I’m on the waiting list.
Also, I’m heading to Joplin MO tomorrow, to test myself on a 77mi ride. (I haven’t done a century yet…putting it off til my 60’s, when I may have more free time!) Anyway, we head south towards Arkansas, and make a sharp turn into Okla and ride back to Joplin. It’s a great ride if you like to suffer on hills and in the heat. Grand Lake Okla, hiway 10, 1200 climbing feet, is what I was told last year! Crap, it about killed me!!!
Larry:
I like your ideas for a “new and improved Tour”, especially the last one. It reminds of the classic of game theory: the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where 2 prisoners are given the choice of fessing up and ratting out the other, in exchange for a reduced sentence; or clamming up. Since the cops don’t have enough evidence for a conviction, if both clam up, both go free, but since they have no communication with each other, one doesn’t know if the other is ratting or not. Turn’s out the best thing to do is to rat.
In your 20 breakaway scenario, an given rider is faced with the question of whether or not to cooperate with other members of his group. If he cooperates, he may help an opponent into an advantageous position on GC. If he chooses not to cooperate, he has the additional choice of whether or not to attack or simply sit in without taking a pull. If he attacks, he may blow up, just sit in and his position may suffer if the group does not do well. The possibilities are staggering.
Thomas:
My error was simply one of spelling, in which I suk. Spell check does not catch errors when the error is also a legitimate word.
Larry,
That’s a heck of a “boycotter’s manifesto” there. Interesting ideas on how to spice up the race. I think a pizza delivery stage would be great. Points are awarded to the rider who makes his delivery in the lowest time. Each delivery should be within a half-hour ride of the stage start, but every rider delivers to a different home. This maximizes the pizza for the local residents, who will doubtless enjoy a typical bit of quasi-Italian cuisine. Another stage could be the messenger stage, where each rider has to make deliveries in a major city (like Paris). Riders will again go in all directions, with each delivery they’re required to make being a set distance from the previous one (assuming they go the quickest route from one to the other). And again, lowest overall time wins. No riding on the Metro allowed, however. 😉
Theresa,
I just added the publisher’s link last night, after some frustrations with certain online retailers who are slow (for whatever reason) to stock the books and fill their existing pre-orders. In looking into why this is happening, I’ve found that there are plenty of copies on hand at the publisher’s warehouse. (I was kind of hoping that the temporarily out of stock thing meant the books were flying off the shelves. But, alas, they aren’t — yet. 😉 ) Sounds like a great ride you’re going on. I’m jealous. Hills plus heat = fun! (That’s my inner St. Louisan talking. I’m a sick puppy.)
Rant, the delivery stage would truly be compelling if the riders got bonus points for who received the largest tips. Rewarding not just speed, but service and courtesy! Now, THERE’S a positive message for the kids.
I’ll publicly add my name to the list of those boycotting that twenty odd day spectacle through the French country side. I’ll go further and say that I’m not watching any professional cycling this year. Why bother when some f-up lab can overturn the results anyways. For me there is no more joy or excitement in watching the sport. I want to know that it is the performance on the bike that determines the outcome of a race not some ill-trained lab tech doing slopping work.
Until professional cyclists stand up for their rights and demand a fair system, I really have no sympathy for them and no desire to watch the sport. The corruption within the system will not get fixed until the cyclists take a stand against the system and demand to be treated fairly. Floyd stood up and I admire him greatly for how he has defended himself. Now it is time for the others to stand up as well.
Oh and speaking of “leaky gas” my wife and I would snicker every time we heard the name. We always wondered if it was referring to the riders.
Ken, all right!
Fair is fair. You’re the one most responsible for hooking me on the Landis story. First place I ever blogged was on your site. Your joining my effort completes the circle.