The Explainer: I’m shocked, shocked, I say
October 13, 2012 by Charles Pelkey
Filed under Mind
There was doping in cycling?!?!?
Dear Explainer,
So, what do you think? I am guessing that USADA’s document dump today (Wednesday) must have caught your attention by now.
Do you have any thoughts on the evidence presented? Any surprises? Will it have any impact given that we’re only seeing one side of the whole case?
Do you have any thoughts on what the UCI might do?
Winners? Losers? Who are they?
– Daniel
Dear Daniel,
Let’s start with the winners and losers. Aside from Armstrong, the list of losers is pretty extensive, starting with Johan Bruyneel, who was fired yesterday, Michele Ferrari, who may be facing additional criminal charges in Italian courts and the rest named in the original June 12, 2012 charging document: Dr. Pedro Celaya, Dr. Luis del Moral and Pepe Marti. When all is said and done, the sport will be rid of these guys. Good-frickin’-riddance, gentlemen. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
To a lesser degree, there is that list of riders who that found themselves in the untenable position of continuing to lie – and risk lengthy suspensions or even criminal perjury charges – or to give up on that whole culture of omerta, the “code of silence” that has long governed the world of professional cycling. I applaud their decisions to “come clean,” but sure do wish it had been 10 years ago.
Also on that list of losers has to be the parade of “journalists” who – for reasons of sycophancy, a desire for profit or both – sang the praises of a man they knew to be a bully and, above all, a cheat. And, no, they can’t claim they didn’t know. The only way they didn’t see the obvious is that their seats on the gravy train were too damn comfortable and they didn’t want to stand up and take a look. They should be ashamed.
Sadly, there is a much larger group of other journo’s – myself included – who, while declining to heap praise on Armstrong, didn’t do nearly enough with the information that we had. We poked around the edges and only did stories when we knew we had our asses completely covered. Few of us took the big risks. Whether driven by fear of lawsuits or losing our jobs, we should, nonetheless, be embarrassed. I know I am.
The winners? That list is a helluva lot shorter. It includes – but is not limited to – Betsy and Frankie Andreu, Emma O’Reilly, Dr. Prentice Steffan, Stephen Swart, Christophe Bassons, Greg LeMond, Filippo Simeoni, David Walsh, Pierre Ballester and Paul Kimmage. Each of those people has consistently stated positions that were often contrary to their own interests, risking career, financial security and reputations to pursue what they saw as the truth.
Wednesday’s revelations show they were right.
I’m shocked, shocked, I say
There have been some who said that Wednesday’s revelations were earth-shattering news. Some even declared they were “shocked.”
Look, the evidence was extensive (you can see that for yourselves), but was it surprising? Not so much.
While blowing off most of the work associated with my current “day job” on Wednesday, I had the feeling that I was reading the unabridged version of “L.A. Confidentiel,” which David Walsh and Pierre Ballester wrote eight years ago.
L.A. Confidentiel : Les secrets de Lance Amstrong: Released in 2004, confirmed in 2012.
Walsh had his suspicions even longer than that. I had the privilege of meeting Walsh for the first time at the 1999 Tour. It wasn’t just a quick introduction, either. We spent the entire Tour together, as it was Walsh’s tradition to join up with the VeloNews crew, coordinate hotel accommodations and meals and the drive from each day’s village departé to the press room at the finish. I was the driver, riding shotgun was my former boss, John Wilcockson and crammed into the back seat were Walsh and Australian journalist – and world famous Hawaiian shirt aficionado – Rupert Guinness.
That meant hours in the car, often at slow speeds, so we could stay in range of race radio, and then more time in the press room as we all crafted our stories and then dinner and then often late nights at the hotel bar. Shallow and myopic as most sports writers are, our conversations pretty much revolved around a single subject. Yup, that would be cycling.
Do recall, that the 1999 Tour came on the heels of the previous year’s devastating “Festina Affair.” With teams arrested, ejected or simply packing up and leaving the Tour under cover of night, a lot of us pretty much expected that by 1999, the costs of doping far exceeded any benefit and that sport would be clean from here on out.
Certainly, that was the hope of 25-year-old Christophe Bassons, who had earned the reputation as a clean rider when teammates testified that he had been the only member of the 1998 Festina team who refused to dope. Now a member of Francaise des Jeux, Bassons saw the 1999 Tour as an opportunity for the entire peloton to speak out against doping.
The new hero of this “clean era” quickly emerged as cancer survivor Lance Armstrong scored an impressive win in the prologue at Le Puy du Fou.
Within days, though, news broke that none other than Armstrong had tested positive for corticosteroids. There hadn’t been a Therapeutic Use Exemption … but the UCI accepted a back-dated prescription for topical cream that Armstrong said was for the treatment of saddle sores. It was quickly called the “butt cream defense,” by skeptics in the press room. So much for the new and clean era.
Had the UCI handled that first positive properly from the start, Armstrong would have been kicked out of the 1999 Tour right then and there. But no, he went on to dominate the race, beating former Festina rider – and admitted doper – Alex Zülle by nearly seven-and-a-half minutes. Really, following the disastrous crash on the Passage du Gois on stage 2, which took out many of Armstrong’s top rivals, and a dominant performance in the stage 8 time trial at Metz, the GC picture was pretty much settled before the race ever hit the mountains.
So instead, Walsh spent his time working on what he viewed was the “real story” of the Tour, namely that Festina had changed nothing in the sport, other than to drive doping deeper underground.
Walsh spent time interviewing riders like Bassons, who was becoming increasingly frustrated both by the lack of a definitive statement from top GC contenders regarding doping and, more importantly, by the social pressure he was getting from other riders to drop the subject. Chief among those pressuring Bassons was the man in the yellow jersey, who, as Walsh reported, had threatened a cajoled the Frenchman, urging him to “shut up” about doping and efforts to clean up the sport.
Walsh saw Bassons as a lone hero. Documents released this week show Armstrong saw him as an idiot and “a pussy.”
By the time we reached Paris, Walsh was pretty much barred from the Postal camp. He left the Tour “with a bad taste” in his mouth, but he had his sights set firmly on Armstrong.
He would return to the Tour, but his reporting continued to focus not on what he believed was a parade of lies, but on the doping that produced those lies.
In 2002, Walsh uncovered evidence that Armstrong had been working with the notorious Dr. Michele Ferrari and had an article ready to run in the Sunday Times of London. Having learned of that fact, Armstrong did a preemptive interview in which he casually stated in passing that he had worked with Ferrari, as if it were no big deal.
Over the next couple of years, Walsh’s Armstrong file grew. He interviewed the Andreus, who consistently stood by their position that Armstrong had revealed his use of performance-enhancing drugs to doctors before beginning chemo-therapy in 1996. Frankie took some serious career hits, both in cycling and in broadcasting, but he stuck by his story. Betsy was characterized in any number of less-than-complimentary ways by the Armstrong camp, but she stuck by her story.
Lance Armstrong offers Filippo Simeoni a lesson on the meaning of “omerta,” but the episode may have also helped Mr. Armstrong learn the definition – and consequences – of “hubris.”
So, too, did former Postal soigneur, Emma O’Reilly, who, after speaking with Walsh in 2003 had to endure personal attacks on her character. But she stuck by her story.
Steffan, the original team doctor at Postal, was fired after some riders complained that he wasn’t doing enough to give them a competitive edge. Under pressure from Armstrong, Steffan was temporarily dismissed from his job on the Slipstream team. He was threatened, essentially blackmailed about his own personal struggles with substance abuse and he stuck by his story.
Working with French journalist Pierre Ballester, Walsh wrote “L.A. Confidentiel,” which was released on the eve of the 2004 Tour. In retrospect, that book still serves as the essential framework for the document bomb that was released this past week. The evidence made available to all of us just adds to the case and reaffirms that Walsh and Ballester were right from the start.
In response, Armstrong’s legal team filed suit in France and in Great Britain, where a translated summary of the book’s main charges appeared in the Sunday Times. The French suit was dropped, but the Times eventually offered an out-of-court settlement and Armstrong declared victory against the man he and Johan Bruyneel privately called “the Troll.”
On stage 18 of that Tour, Armstrong lashed out at another rider – Filippo Simeoni – who had made the “mistake” of testifying against Ferrari in a 2002 criminal matter. He was the only rider to do so. Simeoni never said anything about Armstrong and only testified as to his own experiences with Ferrari and doping practices.
You will probably recall that the tension between the two was already high before the 2004 Tour. When Simeoni found himself in a relatively unthreatening break on Stage 18, it was the man in the yellow jersey who set off in lone pursuit. Armstrong stayed with the break until Simeoni agreed to wait for the peloton, allowing the other escapees a chance.
Armstrong famously gave Simeoni the zip-the-lip gesture as the peloton approached and the Italian testified that the race leader also threatened him. Threat or no, Simeoni’s career was cut short, even though he did get some joy out of earning the 2008 Italian national champion’s jersey … but even then, he was regarded as something of a pariah. Nonetheless, he stuck by his story.
Is there any value to having access to liars?
I missed the Tour that year, as I was slated to cover the Vuelta and being part of a family with a 10-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl in the house didn’t make doing three-week grand tours all that easy at home. That said, I kinda wish I would have been there.
Walsh, as was his practice of many years, joined the VeloNews crew for the three-week journey through France. Embarrassingly, though, after pressure was exerted from the Armstrong camp, Walsh was informed that he was no longer welcome in the Velo-mobile.
WTF? Given a choice between standing by a friend and colleague or having access to “his Lanceness,” Walsh got the boot.
Later at the Vuelta, where I had the pleasure of taking my son with me, I tracked down Michael Barry for a quick post-stage interview. With young Philip at my side, we chatted about the race and the Postal team’s hopes for the Spanish Tour. We were just getting to the interesting part about the apparent tension between Floyd Landis and team management when Johan Bruyneel walked up, grabbed my press badge, glanced at the name and flicked it back into my chest.
“Pelkey, eh?” he said. “So, how’s your little Irish friend?”
“Excuse me?” I asked.
“That fuckin’ troll, Walsh,” Bruyneel growled. “David Walsh … what did you do to get mentioned in the acknowledgments of that piece of shit book of his?”
“I’m not sure,” I said. “We’re friends and we trade information now and then, but ….”
Suddenly Philip piped up and said “Mr. Walsh was at our house for dinner! Dad gave him a ride in our Army jeep. Maybe that was it.”
That made me smile. Bruyneel didn’t see the humor of the moment. He grunted, walked away, taking Barry with him. From that point forward, I had no access to Postal riders for the duration of the Vuelta, save for sitting in on press conferences … and it really didn’t matter.
A one-sided story?
As you note, Wednesday’s “reasoned decision” from USADA is pretty much a one-sided presentation of why the agency reached the conclusion that Lance Armstrong should be banned from competitive sport for life and that his results dating back to 1998 should be negated.
It was the “prosecution’s” case, that which would have been presented to an arbitration panel had it ever gone to arbitration. Personally I would have been interested – perhaps amused – to see how the defense would have presented its side. But remember, it’s not USADA’s fault that it didn’t go to arbitration.
The timing was actually kind of funny. Just one day earlier, Armstrong’s attorney, Tim Herman had sent a scathing five-page letter to USADA demanding the agency send its entire file to the UCI, not just a limited report packaged in a way to support its case.
Be careful what you wish for, dude.
Not only did USADA’s “Discovery Team” drop the whole package in the UCI’s lap, they let the rest of us sort through it, too.
As it turns out, the agency had justification for the delay. They produced the entire case as if it were presented at hearing. The reasoned decision itself was a detailed, beautifully footnoted, 200-page document, accompanied by nearly 1000 pages of appendices and supporting materials. Most damning, were the 26 sworn affidavits from witnesses, 11 of whom were former Armstrong teammates.
Herman didn’t even miss a beat.
“I’m not suggesting that they are all lying, but I am suggesting that each witness needs to have confrontation and cross examination to test the accuracy of their recollection,” he declared, with what I assume was a straight face.
And damn, if he isn’t right. The whole arbitration process is governed by Federal law, under 36 USC § 220522 (a)(8), which requires any athlete charged with a violation that might result in a period of ineligibility be provided “with fair notice and opportunity for a hearing.”
Part of that hearing process, of course, is the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. By gum, Herman hit the nail right on the head … but for the fact that his client declined to participate in the hearing.
It’s a little late now, Tim.
The UCI is left in the awkward position of either accepting the USADA case on its face value, or appealing the whole thing to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport where it will likely be defending its own conflicts of interest and apparent disinterest in pursuing the allegations of the sport’s highest-profile rider.
Read the decision. Scan the documents. Combined, they constitute the richest treasure trove of evidence underscoring just how corrupt riders – and governing bodies – can be. My bet is that the UCI will take a pass. They’ve stood up for Armstrong in the past, but there is considerable risk in doing so now … and very little benefit. The UCI isn’t likely to take a big risk.
No, the only people in this story willing to take risks for little or no benefit were those “winners” I mentioned earlier. And, actually, when you come to think of it, that fact alone suddenly makes the list of “winners” a lot longer. The real “winners” in all of this are those who love the world’s most beautiful sport. Fans and riders alike. Hopefully, cycling will emerge from this embarrassment all the better. I, for one, will keep my fingers crossed. I promise, though, never to say that I am “shocked” if it doesn’t turn out that way.
– Charles
I’m shocked, shocked, I say! – Photo Courtesy of Betsy Andreu
The Explainer is a weekly feature on Red Kite Prayer. If you have a question related to the sport of cycling, doping or the legal issues faced by cyclists of all stripes, feel free to send it directly to The Explainer at Charles@Pelkey.com. PLEASE NOTE: Understand that reading the information contained here does not mean you have established an attorney-client relationship with attorney Charles Pelkey. Readers of this column should not act upon any information contained therein without first seeking the advice of qualified legal counsel licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
MattZ: While High Plains Drifter has addressed some of your concerns I’m going to jump in regarding LeMond. I believe LeMond was clean. I’ve written before that LeMond’s 1990 Tour win was the last win prior to the age of EPO. Yes, Chiappucci was on the stuff, but almost no one else was among grand tour riders. It’s why LeMond got spanked in 1991. With no EPO, he would have won his fourth Tour. And if you want to consider UCI collusion on testing, consider that all the factors were in Fignon’s favor in 1989. If there had been any ability or inclination to swing the Tour in one rider’s favor, it wouldn’t have been to LeMond’s benefit.
BigWagon, Current thinking among may pros I know is the Lance turned riders in for doping when they left the team. Remember that Lance has financial interests in almost every aspect of the sport. Ayn Rand would have loved Lance.
Padraig, I would like to believe that LeMond rode clean, but its a fact than his father in law, the late Dr. David Morris, was an allergist & immunologist and was actively involved on his medical team. EPO was approved for use in 1989. As a practicing immunologist, Dr. Morse would presumably have had full knowledge of and access to the drug. I cried tears of joy when LeMond beat Fignon, but if you are studying the dopeology of the period, IMO, that info should be included in the conversation.
Tom,
Got any evidence of that? USADA threw the kitchen sink at him, so I’m certain if they had any edidecne of that, it would have come out with the report. Otherwise, I guess it’s just easier to blame him for everything bad that ever happened in cycling.
And your accusation still does not address the fact that THEY WERE STILL DOPING after they left his team, by their OWN admission in their USADA affidavits. Are you saying that when Leipheimer and others admitted to doping through at least 2006, after they left Postal, that it was still Lance’s fault?
Maybe just admit that your blind hatred of Lance prevents you from objectively evaluating any other cyclist’s responsibility for their own actions.
I think LeMond has been a voice of reason and shown great bravery taking on the doping issue. It has appeared to me since day one as sincere and from the heart with one motivation. To help turn the tide as we move into a cleaner era. Did he dope, who knows, but if he could keep it secret for all these years he should be directing the CIA. The bottom line is doper or not I welcome anyone who is sincerely making an effort to improve our sport and fight doping. And I despise those that would take us back to a darker era.
Another note: The USADA reported facts supported by hard evidence. What would be amazing to see are the investigation notes that covers the entire body of information collected. We are seeing vast amounts of additional evidence coming out since the “Reason Decision” went public. I think it is time for WADA to take over the investigation world wide.
I’d like to hear something from Bobby Julich. He was on Motorola and Cofidis with Lance and finished 3rd in 1998 behind two dopers, Pantani & Ullrich and he was also on Credit Agricole with Vaughters and now has a manager’s role on Sky. Wonder why no affidavit from him? System is very selective about who they go after and who they let slide.
While the evidence against Lance is convincing pre-2005, the 2009-10 evidence is thin. No affidavits, no testimony from witnesses, only opinion evidence that says Lance’s blood levels were suggestive of doping. Opinion evidence that is based on unproven science and interpretation. I am not saying he didn’t use PEDs in 09/10, I am just saying the evidence is not so convincing for those years.
“While the evidence against Lance is convincing pre-2005, the 2009-10 evidence is thin.”
True, and the same holds true for his achievements on the bike and the Tour in the same period. I mean, 3rd in the Tour is awesome for anyone – except if you won 7 titles in a row.
But I find it unlikely that he was clean, because Lance is Lance after all: besides training and planning, that´s what he knows and do best. But he wasn´t the same in many regards.
What I really want to know is, “will this really change professional cycling?” Clearly UCI is corrupt. But USADA and WADA aren’t blameless either. I would love to see all three governing bodies to clean house.
I’m not holding my breathe though. With big money comes corruption, it’s human nature.
Wsquared: If you look at the rise of EPO in the peloton and you look at the decline of LeMond’s career, you’ll notice those two lines were on opposing trajectories. It’s hard to come up with a rational argument for the idea that LeMond was using EPO. He got trounced in ’91, and had both good and bad days along the way. Just because he knew a doctor who had access to it doesn’t make an argument that he was using. Try to remember that LeMond won his first Tour before there was EPO and won his second in a year when none of the favorites that year have been alleged to have used it. If he’d been on EPO in ’91, he wouldn’t have finished seventh; it seems likely he would have won. I encourage you and everyone who doubts that LeMond was clean to go and read Bill McGann’s account of the ’91 Tour. What I read (and what I remember watching at the time) was a cyclist breaking down over time. He was brilliant in the early part of the race and wore the yellow jersey. But he got his legs handed to him by three guys who have either been shown to be on EPO or strongly implicated: Indurain, Bugno and Chiappucci. We know Bugno and Chiappucci were on EPO. Indurain’s rise to the top coincided with theirs, and given his size, there’s no other rational explanation for how he got over the high mountains with the leaders.
Bigwagon: Let’s ease off the rhetoric, can we? “Blind hatred” is a phrase that’s not really going to further the conversation.
Regarding Lemond, PEDs include more than EPO; steroids,stimulants, and blood transfusions were around in Lemond’s era. You don’t give Indurain the benefit of the doubt, you just say there is no other rational explanation given his size. That is my point with Lemond, he beat guys who are known users of PEDs and his TT time is still the fastest in Tour history over 20k (54.545) which is hard to believe that Lemond did it clean, on an old steel bike with some aero-bars, a disc rear wheel and a regular wheel up front. That was a record for 20 years and there have been some great time trialist since on super-bikes and on PEDs who couldn’t top it. Lemond also seems to know a lot about what was going on in the cycling world with PEDs during Lance’s era and nothing about his time period.
Basically, the whole affair has cast a taint on the history of the sport and we will never know who was clean though we do know many who weren’t.
There is actually a very good reason to believe that Lemond was clean. Google the Lemond Kimmage interview. In that interview Lemond, Kimmage, and his wife Kathy candidly and vulnerably discuss his sexual molestation, his anger at realizing others were doping and the thought of doping became repulsive to him. He breaks down and said it is hard to explain and involves his horrible experience with being molested. Finally Kathy speaks and says, Greg it is out now, people know about the abuse. She says to Kimmage, Paul, it would have killed him to let himself dope. He had to keep this horrible truth about being abused. He knows the importance of doing right, of not living lies. He loved the sport, it was the one pure thing in his life, and he could never defile it by doping.
I believe this is true. It is astonishingly honest and forthcoming. Something we rarely if ever see from the raft of ex dopers who all appear sorry only after riding the gravy train.
Lemond rode that time trial on a somewhat downhill tailwind event. Fignon lost by less than minute. Lemond had aero bars. He had a VO2 max of 95. Folks he was our only true champion the only one to win the TDF clean. And on teams that did not work for him, in a hostile peloton and with a great deal of self determination. Greg is the only one of that era to speak truth to power. Armstrong tried repeatedly and aggressively to destroy him.
I say lay off. It is almost too much that we ignored his efforts and let Armstrong paint him with the falsehood of being unlikeable, jealous, has been, etc.
I say no one is a hero. Greg is human has had his failings, but a good family man and father, who made up for his errors and is honest. Very rare.
Padraig,
I hope what you say is true, but to say that “just because he knew a doctor” that had access to EPO is a bit disingenuous. Dr. Morris traveled with the LeMond and was intimately involved in his health care, both in and out of competition, analyzing his blood and prescribing treatment, including drugs. If he was a proctologist or a vet that treated his dog, and not an immunologist who was part of his entourage, I wouldn’t have even mentioned him.
As for LeMond’s decline while other stars ascended in the EPO era. PEDs can make a big difference in performance, but they are not magical cure alls. They also don’t guarantee you will win every race you enter. LeMond and his team attributed his bad legs and poor performance during his decline to a range of illnesses including mitochondrial myopathy and if I remember correctly, later to over training and to the lingering effects of his gunshot wound. He was still carrying buckshot, some of it near his heart. Ironically, when LeMond came back from that gunshot wound to win the Tour, there was some skepticism as to how he could have done so “naturally,” just like there was when Armstrong came back from cancer. In the 90s, no doubt much of his competition was juiced, but coincidentally, he wasn’t nearly the rider he was during his prime years either, juiced or not.
// While the evidence against Lance is convincing pre-2005, the 2009-10 evidence is thin. No affidavits, no testimony from witnesses, only opinion evidence that says Lance’s blood levels were suggestive of doping. Opinion evidence that is based on unproven science and interpretation. I am not saying he didn’t use PEDs in 09/10, I am just saying the evidence is not so convincing for those years. //
Opinion? Opinion of experts in the field. And I’m looking high and low for a doc unaffiliated with Livestrong to interpret it in some other way.
The out of whack platelet ratios might be the tightest part of evidence. He’s going to need vanishing twin caliber counter-explanations to make that go away.
// “While the evidence against Lance is convincing pre-2005, the 2009-10 evidence is thin.” //
What year was the last payment to Ferrari? I guess that could have been for flu shots, little league sports physicals, and to have a couple of moles checked.
“I believe this is true. It is astonishingly honest and forthcoming. Something we rarely if ever see from the raft of ex dopers who all appear sorry only after riding the gravy train.”
I´m 100% with you Evan, LeMond´s the real deal for me as well. On top of his personal story, now that we know what we know he deserves full support.
I can´t say he rode 100% clean – we must remember that by his time blood transfusions were somewhat commonplace in endurance sports (think USA cycling team from the ´84 LA Olympics). But it´s quite evident that he stayed away from EPO and other heavy PEDs. And he was indeed a trully gifted athlete, no doubt that.
The vehemence, impetuous, assertive and above all, coherent way he expresses against doping and dopers in specific, and against “extraterrestrial performances” in general kinda assures me he´s a clean rider and fights the right war.
bigwagon: Are you saying that when Leipheimer and others admitted to doping through at least 2006, after they left Postal, that it was still Lance’s fault?
No. Where in the world did you read that, and why would it matter?
It’s possible that Armstrong exists somewhere in between saint and responsible for all the world’s ills.
Now, anyone up for a movie session? How about “The Levi Effect – The Untold Story of Cyclist Levi Leipheimer” out this 23rd? Talk about choice of names, bad jokes and perfect timing!
I think there’s a large sliding scale from saint to sinner. On one end we’ve got guys like Kimmage who refused to dope, took lumps for it, and spoke out. In the large grey area in the middle there are people who doped begrudgingly. Some got used to it and kept it up, others did anything they could to be able to stop but stay in the sport.
And then at the other end we have people like Lance, who I suspect would have doped even if he knew nobody else was.
So let us elect Betsy Andreu, Greg Lemond, Bassons, Ashenden Ph.D, to the UCI. Let us fans insist on ALL former dopers to NOT be in management. I like JV but there are too many right now who faked being anti doping and went on to encourage. Matt White for example. Big concerns about Riis. Bruyneel of course. But there are many many ex dopers as management and staff.
As Fans boycott and sign petitions for all sponsors who supported USPS and Armstrong to cut ties. Including demanding Livestrong cut ties with Armstrong or lose support. And start giving to cancer research.
Money talks. Muscle up folks! Ghandi said it, power does not yield to those who allow it to continue.
I need to explain JV opinion. Everything seemed good with him. Had me convinced. But not when he proposed along with BRUYNEEL, yes him to partner in this new league. Just unacceptable.
I still have no solid opinion on JV and Riis. I´m leaning towards accepting them based on their post-doping work ethic and declarations, which I assume as coherent and serious. Yes they doped but compared to USPS´s criminal schemes and general peloton practices at the time, doping kinda feels innocent.
JV in special has been vocal about the topic, and if I remember he seemed a bit reluctant to align with Bruyneel at the time. Not that I condone doping in any way, but it´s really not what´s bothering me more about this. But I keep that Hincapie, Levi and other USPS riders should just go away for good.
As for UCI I don´t think that LeMond, Betsy and Kimmage have what it takes to direct cycling. Yes they have a solid moral compass and love cycling, but I´m not sure their managing skills as up to the task. Plus, with their personalities I´d guess that they´re a hard group to put together into something like this (lol).
Wsquared: The hallmark of the EPO era has been the no-day-day Tour. LeMond had good days, he had bad days. I’m not really going to engage this further than that. If you choose to believe LeMond doped, despite ample evidence he did not, we really can’t stop you.
Rich Wilson: I would encourage you to actually read “Rough Ride.” Kimmage was no saint; he used.
A factor to remember is that Riis is named by Hamilton as promoting doping as a team boss. Also that Contador was indeed found guilty and the evidence most likely points to echo blood transfusion covered by plasma, not just the fat reducing agent. Riis must be investigated.
Padraig
Agree to disagree that there is conclusive evidence that LeMond never doped. As I said before, I hope he didn’t.
As for ending this paticular conversation, that’s fine with me. My experience is that excessive immersion in dopeology rots the brain and is a divisive force in our community. I prefer to experience the things that brought us to ride bikes and follow racing in the first place. I’ll be on my way shortly to enjoy a fine Fall day of riding in the foothills of the Rockies, listening today to “The Very Best of the Doors.” A much better place to be than dwelling on who might have doped 20 years ago.
Hey there is a middle ground! Meaning stop the corruption, bring those accountable, and learn demand as fans a clean sport.
At least we are not in the J.O. camp!
Jim Ochowicz says Lance Armstrong ‘earned every victory he’s had’
Wsquared- I’m not sure how much an allergist/immunologist would use EPO on a day to day basis. Their practice shouldn’t involve the use of EPO. EPO is more in the realm of hematology, oncology, nephrology and in the 80s/90s maybe infectious diseases. I would be much more wary of Dr. Morris is he were in any of those subspecialties. I say this as someone board certified in internal medicine and not as someone who has any clue has to how innocent or nefarious Dr. Morris is.
RUV-
Thanks for your insight. Anything that helps eleviate my paranoid suspicions about my heroes feet of clay is appreciated. Now, back to riding my bike.
Dear Explainer – please explain to me why Floyd Landis’ name is not mentioned in the list of “winners”? He was truly the genesis for all of this when he dropped the bomb in early 2010, and his name has been pretty much mud ever since. I would think that he has been vindicated, at least to some degree. Thank you.
Buford -
Floyd recently pleaded guilty in Federal court to wire fraud charges for defrauding well meaning people who contributed to his “defense fund” of $500,000 when he claimed he never doped. He also wrote a 320-page book “Positively False: The Real Story of How I Won the Tour de France,” that he charged good money for, where he said he never doped. That’s why his name is mud.
Wsquared guess who the big check writers to Floyd were… Wiesel gave 50k and some of his other cronies gave big chunks of that $500k. So the primary lenders are part of Armstrong’s mafia. Ironic no?
Plus 1,763 others.
Listen, it’s completely obvious they all cheat. Regardless how fit they are, they recover like super heroes day in, day out during stage races. Even most of the field fodder has to be doing something to make it three weeks (or even through a week long race). I’m beat after a 40 miler on a windy day!
Here’s what unsettles me: even with the 1999 corticosteroid “positive”, he never tested positive. Look, the old saying “if you don’t cheat, you don’t care” can be applied across all sports. But like my accountant tells me, the IRS gives us the rule book and we play as hard as we can within those rules. Same applies here. If the governing bodies give tolerances for doping levels (or blood levels) that are so far outside the norms (Landis and the testosterone/epi testosterone argument that allowed for a testosterone ratio so out of whack with what a normal male would present) then riders will bend the limits. Yeah, yeah, I know, some riders have naturally high this or that.
It’s like this: I’m driving a car with someone in the passenger seat. I speed. A couple of years later when asked, the passenger says I was speeding. I say, no way, where’s the proof? Where’s the speeding ticket? Where is the accident report?
I’m disappointed and let down, too (but I really don’t care since none of this affects me when I enjoy a nice ride). The again, I have no illusions. That’s why I enjoy watching the local high school teams play. Perhaps those kids are the last ones who do it for love of the game.
Anyone else notice that there has not been a massive outpouring of doping remorse and confessions from the pro peleton?
The unfortunate reality is that in 15 years or so, people will read press about the next big drug scandal in cycling, and the Armstrong affair will be mentioned as a sidenote, like Festina is now, and Hincapie/Leipheimer will be mentioned as strident but ultimately impotent whistleblowers, like Simeoni and Manzano are today.
READ ALL ABOUT IT! Livestrong and UCI form new bike league called the Tour de Pharm. The rules as proposed by john Eustice outspoken USA former racer and Lance apologist are that doping is a science and today’s athletes are raising the bar on performance excitement and fan involvement. Rather than drug testing being banned they are opening a new Ferrari doping sports center in Switzerland funded by Armstrong’s donations. It will study the advanced use of new and better drug enhanced athletes.
The new TDF will consist of 42 stages of 400 km per day over 7 mountain passes per stage. Get ready for the future of cycling.
Please note the political satire and note of sarcasm in above piece. LOL