I’ve become entangled in the Vaughters vs Millar debate. You know, as in Vaughters sat on his doping demons whilst hypocritically setting up a “clean team”. Which ironically gave Dave Millar a ride, too. Dave, the guy who sat on his demons for a shorter period of time and is thus “right” or “better” or perhaps a saint, even. OK, not a saint, but he’s definitely, apparently, a better man than Vaughters, who – as I said – sat on it and only confessed when pushed into it. One has honour intact, the other is to be despised. Well that’s social media at work, and even understandable in a sense. But life is never that simple, is it?
In many ways we truly have to “walk a mile in their shoes” before we can see inside their personal situations. Yes, on the face of it their stories are not dissimilar. But let’s look deeper. I’ll contract it somewhat as you can read the gory details with a quick search, anyway, or simply follow the links I provide at the end.
- Both Millar and Vaughters have confessed to doping, publicly and very clearly. Both have demonstrated remorse, regret and a strong belief to set things right
- Both felt pressured to perform, both by their own competitiveness and by external arguments that they needed to “keep up”
- Vaughters, by his own admission buried his guilt yet turned it into a positive force as well, exorcising his demons in building a “clean team”. He even hired Millar and other reformed dopers
- Millar had the higher profile as World Road TT champ but Vaughters was no slouch, either. He had wins, big wins, both at US national and international level. Neither was just a domestique
- Vaughters, with a lower profile as initially a junior member of USPS and later as one of several good lead riders at Credit Agricole dodged most of the mud throughout his career
- Millar was not so lucky in being in the media hot seat as a World Champion TTer, prologue rider and an Anglo member of a French team under intense doping speculation and police scrutiny
- Neither rider tested positive to doping of any sort in their careers (that I am aware of, anyway!)
- Both confessed publicly after being interviewed by the authorities
- However the timing and situation of their confessions is very different
- Millar has stated that he felt violated and humiliated as he was removed by French police from a public restaurant, searched and relieved of his possessions before being questioned and his apartment turned-over. He was locked in prsion cell. He was at that time an active professional bike racer
- Millar rode for Cofidis, a team under the pressure of media speculation, accusations and police investigations
- Vaughters, however, did not face such scrutiny during his riding career. He has claimed publically that his first pro team was built on clean riding and they were smashed. His second, the USPS team, was spectacularly successful. And whilst speculation existed around that team and its leader, and has grown since, he wasn’t considered a key element, nor publicly humiliated in the way Millar suffered. Indeed Vaughters left USPS and joined a team generally considered “clean”, Credit Agricole. Whilst there Vaughters famously suffered verbal abuse from an unnamed “famous rider” for he and his team refusing to take cortisone (a banned substance) for a wasp sting (as reported in this interview by Anthony Tan of Cyclingnews)
- Vaughters was subsequently interviewed by the US FDA much later, in his own country, with other former USPS team members. He was no longer an active bike racer, rather he was an experienced and well-respected team manager
- Millar denied his doping actions at first, only later confessing
- Vaughters is believed to have cooperated with the US FDA investigators when questioned and whilst we do not yet know exactly what was said, he has subsequently confessed to doping in his recent NYT article
- Millar sat on his demons for a shorter period of time, but he came under pressure almost immediately without the benefit of team and peer support. His team was collapsing under pressure, and he was an Anglo Scot in a French team. He denied, then he confessed. His testimony was initally personal and incriminated just himself, however he subsequently, in media interviews, questioned the team and its staff in supporting doping practices. He served out his suspension and returned to racing
- Vaughters sat on his demons for years, ended his career without doping drama and created a new “clean” career as a team owner and manager. In this he stands accused of long-running hypocrisy but it’s worth noting that unlike Millar he was not a world champ, nor a foreign rider in a French team under intense attack; although his later riding career with Credit Agricole must have given him some pause for thought. In contrast also Vaughters was a US rider on a US-team, and a champion team at that, with a champion rider as “the boss” – one Lance Armstrong. The team was close-knit and tight behind their leader, with any suspicion or allegation firmly denied and stamped out. Dissent was met with fierce rebuttal (check out Frankie Andreu‘s allegations for example)
- So whilst Millar met intense pressure early on and met it with little peer support, Vaughters faced no such immediate pressure to confess. Rather he (allegedly, I hasten to add) faced pressure to stay mute as a party to alleged conspiracy. A conspiracy of such size – allegedly - that it involves literally millions of dollars and multiple Tour de France wins. Only when the FDA investigators gave him the opportunity to tell all as part of a larger investigation, importantly under oath, did he apparently (as we don’t know yet what he testified) come clean
- So where Millar was put in a position to confess – or deny – relatively early, Vaughters had no such opportunity. Indeed his early confession would most likely have met the same robust public derision as met all of the others (such as Andreu, Landis and Hamilton) who have made public allegations about the alleged USPS team conspiracy.
To my mind whilst both men have much in common as dopers, racers and confessors, each had to live their own lives their own way. We cannot therefore say that Millar did the “right thing” and Vaughters the “wrong”, as the detail of their situations were quite different. Millar denied more vehemently, yet confessed anyway. But he was on his own, a Maltese-born Scottish Anglo world champion in a French team. Vaughters faced little such challenge during his racing career but probably felt massive ongoing peer pressure to stand strong with both the old team and the old boss. We can’t underestimate the power of any tightly-drilled team to keep a lid on the dirty washing. Yes, it took an investigation to get his apparent confession, but he wasn’t banged up in a French prison cell either. He now had the opportunity – like others in similar positions – to calmly air the dirt that he had sadly lived with. Allegedly and apparently, I stress, as we still don’t know what transpired in that FDA case, nor the explicit detail of the other apparent evidence collected by USADA against the alleged USPS “conspirators”.
So there, in a nutshell, is it. Well, that’s never “it”, is it? We don’t really know the ins and outs of what really transpired in these people’s lives. We are just going by public knowledge and a bit of guesswork, coupled with speculation and gossip. What did they really feel, what did they actually think? We just don’t know.
Want to read more?
Dopage du Jour
So why write and publish this piece now? It could just be his time. Or, more speculatively he wants to clear the air before bigger news hits the press. He has hinted at it in the past, and written pieces that have touched upon the issue. And he has been as steadfastly anti-doping as he has been refreshingly open to “reformed” dopers. He has given people a second chance. And now, in part, we know why.
David Millar – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They humiliated me and were critiquing my lifestyle, using a classic good cop, bad cop thing. It was psychological warfare. The bad cop literally hated me. He was saying: ‘You’re not a good person – we know that.’ He said: ‘You take three paces and I will bring you down like you’re resisting arrest.’ It was deliberate. I felt completely violated.”
Report: Hincapie Tells FDA Armstrong Took PEDs | Cyclingnews.com
The news agency AP has reported that George Hincapie (BMC) has informed the FDA that he witnessed Lance Armstrong using performance enhancing drugs. The claims come as part of an investigative report by 60 Minutes which also broke the news of Tyler Hamilton’s confession for doping and several similar allegations against Lance Armstrong. Armstrong has denied all accusations levelled against him by Hamilton. Hincapie rode in the US Postal colours from 1997 to 2004 with Armstrong, and was a teammate of Armstrong in each of his seven Tour de France victories.
Hamilton Says He Saw Armstrong Use EPO | Cyclingnews.com
Tyler Hamilton, a former teammate of Lance Armstrong has claimed that the seven time Tour de France winner used performance enhancing drugs, including EPO and testosterone during several of his Tour wins.
Hamilton Says He Saw Armstrong Use EPO | Cyclingnews.com
Another former Armstrong teammate, also a witness in the federal investigation, is Frankie Andreu. He tells “60 minutes” he took banned substances because lesser riders he believed were doping passed him by. “Training alone wasn’t doing it and I think that’s how…many of the other riders during that era felt, I mean, you kind of didn’t have a choice,” said Andreu.
Frankie Andreu – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2006, Andreu and his wife Betsy testified that Lance Armstrong told cancer doctors in their presence in 1996 he had doped with EPO (Erythropoietin), growth hormone and steroids. The Andreus’ testimony was intended to remain sealed in court documents and is among thousands of pages of documents related to litigation between Armstrong and a Texas-based company that was attempting to withhold a $5-million bonus. Armstrong swore under oath it didn’t happen. Frankie Andreu never offered information to media sources on the topic until court documents were released. He then stood by his testimony when giving interviews.
Frankie Andreu – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Andreu was fired as Team Director for the Toyota-United Pro Cycling Team on July 25, 2006. Although the team owner, Sean Tucker, refused to give a reason for the firing, it coincided with the controversy surrounding Andreu at the time.[7] Andreu has stated that he had everything to lose, including his job, by standing by his testimony, but felt that he should not be forced to deny his version of events.[8]
Jonathan Vaughters: The Sleek Geek | Cyclingnews.com
Some 15 years later, on the eve of the 2008 Tour de France, his first outing at the race as general manager of what was then Team Garmin-Chipotle, considered by many to be the staunchest anti-doping crew on the block, he told Paul Kimmage from the London Sunday Times: “He [Nunes] was out to conquer doping… Well, I don’t think ’96 was a really great time to do that.
“My teammates thought it was absolutely ludicrous that we didn’t dope on this team. We got made fun of, quite frankly, by some of the other riders. Mentally, the saving grace for me was that I still had nothing better to do with my life. I was the infinite optimist. ‘I’m going to improve. Things will get better. They will soon develop a test for EPO’.”
He would have to wait; it wasn’t until the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney that a urine test to detect EPO became available
Jonathan Vaughters: The Sleek Geek | Cyclingnews.com
his win atop the Ventoux in ’99 was extraordinary – “massive”, he says. “I felt okay. I wasn’t ecstatic,” he demurred. “Well, for sure, it was the best form of my life as a bike rider, but I wasn’t… I was just sort of… I will leave it at this; I wasn’t overly pleased with that victory. It was interesting to me. It answered a lot of questions. But it wasn’t the most ecstatic moment of my life by any means.”
Jonathan Vaughters: The Sleek Geek | Cyclingnews.com
an incident with an unnamed though “famous rider” the morning following his decision to abandon: “Poor Jonathan and his stupid little team,” the rider spat. “What the f*** are you like? If you were on my team this would have been taken care of, but now you are not going to finish the Tour de France because of a wasp sting.”
Said Vaughters: “I thought, ‘F***! Here I am, on this team that is really trying to stick by the books and this guy is making fun of us for playing by the rules’. My heart just left me after that. It just made me sad, just irrevocably sad. I raced [the following year] in 2002 but that was the moment that effectively ended my career. Phew! I was done. I didn’t want to race any more. It just didn’t seem to matter to me after that.”)
Whilst we are still guessing about the hard evidence that USADA may have on Armstrong, we do know a lot about some of the allegations that have been made – and generally dismissed – in the past. One of these allegations implicates not just Armstrong but a whole army of people, including the governing body, the UCI. Now let me stress it’s just hearsay, really, but the story goes that Armstrong did fail a test, or at least return a result that was “questionable”, in 2001. And that subsequently, either through mishandling or something much more corrupt, all questions were dropped. The fingers are naturally pointed at the rider but also at those who decided to bury the case, if indeed the case ever existed. Unless the USADA has firm evidence of the conspiracy then it’s a non-starter anyway, as well as being somewhat time-expired. So do they have evidence, or indeed something completely different, and perhaps more recent to pursue?
USADA Case Against Armstrong Could Damage UCI, Ashenden Says | Cyclingnews.com
Ashenden’s concern does not relate to the alleged use of banned substances such as EPO or human growth hormone, but an alleged cover up of a doping control at the 2001 Tour de Suisse.
Armstrong took part in the race and, according to USADA, several witnesses have given testimony that Armstrong told them that a positive test had been covered up. Two former teammates, Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, have both gone on record to substantiate the claims.
USADA’s letter of notification also includes reference to their own interview with the Lausanne lab director, Dr Martial Saugy, who conducted the tests in 2001. Saugy told USADA that Armstrong’s samples were indicative of EPO use. In May 2011 Saugy admitted to attending a meeting with former US Postal sports director Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong to discuss details of the early EPO test method.
“For me the thing that has the most far-reaching consequence is that several witnesses said that Armstrong talked about having a test result covered up,” Ashenden told Cyclingnews.
“That has enormous implications. If the evidence supports that charge it’s likely to descend cycling, which is already fending off a fair bit of criticism, into chaos. It’s hard to understate the ramifications. If Armstrong believed that he had a test that was covered up then that story doesn’t just end with him being sanctioned or not because other people must have been complicit with Armstrong.”
Yes, Schleck is out with a broken pelvis, and that’s a shame – even if he hasn’t actually shown good form of late anyway. But the big news is about… Lance Armstrong.
When a 7-time winner of Le Tour is named and shamed like this it must mean something. Either it’s simply the latest shot in a wide-ranging vendetta – nay, global conspiracy – against Armstrong, or it’s umm, a real doping charge with sufficient evidence to back it up? Now beating cancer yet winning Le Tour 7 times is a story in itself, but then falling in total dishonour would be just staggering. Will he get off? Will he lose the case? Will the case actually get off the ground? Do we care anymore?
Oh, yes, he denies everything by the way. And his loyal lieutenant Hincapie announced his retirement the other day, too, in an unrelated story.
The movie rights will be in hot demand. Expect another book – or 5.
Armstrong Charged With Doping By USADA | Cyclingnews.com
Lance Armstrong has been formally charged with doping by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) according to the Washington Post. The seven-time Tour de France winner has been banned from competition effective immediately, including triathlons which he has been racing since he retired from pro road cycling in 2011.
Armstrong Charged With Doping By USADA | Cyclingnews.com
“I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence.”
Missouri fan on team plane in federal drug probe
Hincapie retires — Five-time Olympian and Tour de France veteran George Hincapie will retire from cycling after the 2012 season. Hincapie, 38, is expected to ride his 17th Tour de France later this month, breaking the record he had shared with Dutch rider Joop Zoetemelk for the most Tour starts in history. (AP)
Contador has just lost a lot. A whole lot. Yes, he’s back soon, real soon, but what he has foregone (by choice, error of judgement or otherwise) would be more than enough to make a stellar pro cycling career. Just to ride a Tour de France is a career high, to win it is astounding. And that – and almost 2 years of excellent results, including a Giro win – has just evaporated in an instant. It will hurt.
It’s not that it’s cut and dried, he may well have been innocent, naive and unaware in his drug taking. In all likelihood it was a contaminated food supplement that contained the analobolic agent. It happens. But it was detected, it was there. The Clenbuterol was in his blood – one way or another. And on the basis of consistency (he’s hardly the first) he has to get 2 years off. Yes, others have also been let off or had the peroid reduced, but circumstances were clearly and utterly different. When single, isolated cases of Clenbuterol detection have arisen then the athlete concerned has (AFAIK) received 2 years off. So it’s a win for consistency and fairness, in that sense.
But then again, he may indeed have taken it unknowingly. There is no evidence for deliberate ingestion as a performance-enhancing agent, just a detection and an infringement. We are talking about a trace only, not a large neon sign saying “drugs on board”. Perhaps a plasticiser test may have helped clear the air, but as it stands the personal fairness of this decision is really only known to Contador himself. And if he truly didn’t know then he’d be gutted. Or worse.
But he’s not the first such case, after all. And others less well known have arguably suffered even more. There’s also a certain irony in his old team captain getting let off the hook (for perfectly valid reasons) in the same week.
CAS Sanction Contador With Two Year Ban In Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com
The Court of Arbitration for Sport has handed Alberto Contador a two year sanction for his positive test for clenbuterol at the 2010 Tour de France. After a long-running saga, CAS announced on Monday that it had upheld the UCI and WADA’s joint appeal against the Spanish Cycling Federation’s (RFEC) decision not to suspend Contador.
CAS Sanction Contador With Two Year Ban In Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com
Contador’s positive test dates from July 21, 2010, although the case was not made public until September 30 of that year. In February 2011, the RFEC officially cleared Contador, accepting his explanation that the traces of clenbuterol in his sample had been caused by consuming contaminated meat.
UCI Confirms CAS Decision To Ban Contador | Cyclingnews.com
The UCI had appealed the Spanish cycling federation’s decision to acquit Contador, and the CAS has now upheld the UCI’s view.
“However, the UCI has not derived a sense of satisfaction from the CAS ruling, but rather welcomes the news as the end of a long-running affair that has been extremely painful for cycling,” the organization said in a press release issued Monday midday.
Without wanting to enter into the details of the ruling, UCI President Pat McQuaid said: “This is a sad day for our sport. Some may think of it as a victory, but that is not at all the case. There are no winners when it comes to the issue of doping: every case, irrespective of its characteristics, is always a case too many.”
Pereiro Furious Over Contador’s CAS Ban | Cyclingnews.com
“Two years of sanctions to Alberto Contador and the judgement says that the doping is not proven,” he tweeted. “Then? Sons of a ….”
In another tweet, he referred to Alejandro Valverde, who just came off a two-year ban. “We have two Spaniards sanctioned, without the UCI or CAS proving it. Shame on you (…) Do you know what I think? He is innocent, I know him. Hopefully he will go through with this to the end and then we will see who we pay for and who does their job like shit.”
Pereiro Furious Over Contador’s CAS Ban | Cyclingnews.com
What really is rotten in cycling are the leaders who become millionaires with our sweat and effort. And they wait two years for this and don’t have the balls to say anything at the time? You will see the dust of Mr. McQuaid and company.”
Andy Schleck Reacts To Contador’s Doping Ban | Cyclingnews.com
“There is no reason to be happy now”, Schleck said in a RadioShack-Nissan press release
“First of all I feel sad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence. This is just a very sad day for cycling. The only positive news is that there is a verdict after 566 days of uncertainty. We can finally move on.”
Spanish Champions Spring To Contador’s Defence | Cyclingnews.com
Floyd Landis was at the same time talking to Australian anti-doping expert Michael Ashenden about his own positive test for testosterone at the 2006 Tour.
“I doped with EPO and blood transfusions,” Landis told Ashenden. “But the strange thing is that at no time during that Tour did I take testosterone, which was the substance that condemned me. Before the Tour I did take it, and that must surely have been how it got into my system because it was in one of the blood bags I used. It wouldn’t surprise me if Contador’s clenbuterol hadn’t followed the same path.
Scarponi Responds To Contador Verdict | Cyclingnews.com
While Gadret insisted that he had no problem with Contador’s participation in the Giro at the time, he conceded that in hindsight, the Spaniard’s presence in Italy had completely altered the way in which the other overall contenders approached the race.
“The important point is that without Contador, it wouldn’t have been the same race. He was so far ahead of everyone else,” Gadret said. “Behind, there was a small nucleus of riders who were very close to each other. The Giro wouldn’t have been skewed and it would have been very interesting.”
Gadret also pointed out that while Contador’s ban is officially two years, in practice, he will only be out of action for a shade over six months. “If I’m calculating right, it’s finished in the month of August,” he said. “He’ll come back and win the Vuelta. That’s going to pass very quickly, It’s only six months off the bike for him.”
Dope: Contador banned, stripped of Tour de France title
The CAS panel imposed the ban in a several-times delayed case and after a three-day hearing of all parties in November.
There was no conclusive evidence that Contador’s test was the result of contaminated meat.
“Unlike certain other countries, notably outside Europe, Spain is not known to have a contamination problem with clenbuterol in meat.
Furthermore, no other cases of athletes having tested positive to clenbuterol allegedly in connection with the consumption of Spanish meat are known.
If nothing else Contador will have plenty of motivation and fresh legs come August 5, 2012.
And on the subject of Alberto’s old team captain and later adversary, Phil Liggett has a strong opinion…
Liggett On Armstrong: The Whole Investigation Was A Waste Of Money | Cyclingnews.com
“He told me in a private situation, when I wasn’t working as a journalist. I was sat in the bedroom some years ago, and I asked him point blank, ‘look Lance, the way I talked you up on television, I would have to back off and resign if you one day went positive’. And he looked at me and he said ‘man I’ve seen death in the face and I don’t take drugs.’ And that’s all he said. I have no reason to disbelieve him.”
“But I’ve been with him on his private jet when he’s been reading stuff on Cyclingnews and he’s gone, ‘god damn it look at what they’re saying about me again’ and he just passes his computer over to his friends.”
OK, it’s just an opinion piece – and largely a positive one about cycling cleaning up its act – but why do the authors make these sort of value judgements? Upon what research is cycling deemed to be top of the heap here? And yes, I know it gets said a lot – but why? Because the mass media itself repeats and encourages it? Because cycling is a fringe sport that doesn’t bite back? Because of Landis, Hamilton and Armstrong? Because cycling publicises its own infringements rather than hiding them?
Anyway, here’s the NYT quote and link:
More than any other sport, bicycling has been linked to drugs. Podium finishers in nearly every Tour over at least the last two decades have failed drug tests, admitted to doping or been linked to high-profile investigations.
As I said, it’s mostly positive. It just grates a bit when I know that most cyclists who have obtained PEDs have in my admittedly limited experience got them through other sports people, usually via contacts in a gym. Whilst many of the highest-profile infringements and legal pursuits have indeed been of cyclists, what about the equally infamous drug busts related to football, baseball and athletics? Did they get their PEDs via cyclists, as you may imagine from the anti-cycling hype? Not to my knowledge, no.
Indeed it’s common enough knowledge that for many casual users looking for steroids and other ‘help’ the trail often starts with a conversation at a gym. It’s as logical as going to a dodgy doctor, another anecdotal yet ‘logical’ approach. More recently the internet has gained some credence as a source, too. And whilst I have nothing more than anecdotal evidence for all of this I can’t see any solid evidence that things have greatly changed. It may be more organised than 20 years ago, less haphazard. But it surely affects all sports and especially those cashed-up ones. Gyms are full of sports people of various codes who want to build up and maintain muscular strength or recover from injury. That doesn’t mean that gyms are in on the whole thing, just that they are logical points of first contact, nothing more. If we are going to label cyclists in particular as ‘most bad’ then let’s actually do the hard yards first and investigate the number and depth of penetration across all sports. Please.
Filed under doping, Le Tour, UCI, WADA by Rob.
If Contador really ingested Clenbuterol inadvertently, without any knowledge or intent, then all, surely, is good. Until WADA decides to appeal, I guess. Six months down, another 6 months of goodness to come?
Now we may think Alberto guilty or innocent, but how could we know? We just get fed the same tainted media beef everyone else gets. We may have doubts about the fairness of this decision to others, particularly to those athletes who have been in similar situations of “inadvertence” but were penalised (see the link to Rory Sutherland’s story, below). Now we can’t turn back the clock and reverse such past “unfair” decisions, they are done and dusted – and personal careers delayed, destroyed or at least deflected onto new paths. (Although you can’t help but wonder if some of those penalised athletes may not be thinking ruefully at this outcome and wondering if there’s a compensation angle opening up here. Sadly that’s unlikely.) And yes, we may imagine making valid exceptions where real doubt exists. But we do have a duty to be careful in choosing our exceptions.
Is Contador an exception to the rule for the right reasons? Or for the wrong ones?
Contador’s spokesman confirms that he’s been cleared of Clenbuterol doping charges
“Alberto Contador has been officially cleared by the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation and has been authorized to return to competition immediately,” said Jacinto Vidarte. “If everything goes well, the rider will take the start, tomorrow, at the Volta ao Algarve.”
Media Reactions To Contador’s Clearing On Doping Charges | Cyclingnews.com
My feeling is that this case (and more generally article 296 of the UCI’s regulations) sets an extremely dangerous precedent. The UCI couldn’t show conclusively that Contador had deliberately taken clenbuterol? OK, does that mean the same now applies when a rider tests positive for EPO?
Media Reactions To Contador’s Clearing On Doping Charges | Cyclingnews.com
is the only real difference between Contador and someone like the American Tom Zirbel, banned for two years after accidentally ingesting the hormone DHEA, the money they were able to invest in their defence?
There are parallels with Rory Sutherland’s case, but with a very different outcome (although Rory thankfully got his career back on track after an enforced delay.)
Rory Sutherland Interview: Rory’s Story | Cyclingnews.com
Sutherland claims he had no prior knowledge of the substance until he was told it was present in his body at the time he was tested, which occurred at the Deutschland Tour (Tour of Germany) in August 2005. Evidence reveals the concentration of Clomiphene in his body was in the range of 5-10 nanograms – in other words, 5-10 billionths of a gram – and it was this argument that was put forward to the disciplinary committee at his November 23 hearing.
Furthermore, an independent investigation committee wrote in its report that it did not find “any indication that Sutherland was directly or indirectly implicated in expressing interest in or in using substances classified as doping agents” and that “Sutherland took the substance unknowingly.”
There are many examples of such “alternative endings” to this “inadvertent ingestion” story. Perhaps Alberto’s story will receive an alternative ending when WADA decides to take it further – or not.
The UCI’s over-the-top 1 year’s salary plus suspension rule was arguably more for publicity than effect, and arguably the ‘rider’s commitment to a new cycling’ document was one signed under duress, not by free will. Faced with a crippling financial loss, Vinokourov set about overturning the fine. Now I don’t support doping but I do support fair penalties. This one was unfair.
Did Cristian Moreni actually pay his fine? If so, will he seek a refund? I would.
CAS Finds That UCI’s Vinokourov Fine Is Not Valid | Cyclingnews.com
Alexandre Vinokourov (Astana) will not have to pay a fine equivalent to his then annual salary of €1.2 million as a result of his positive test for a blood transfusion at the 2007 Tour de France. According to El Pais, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) found against the International Cycling Union (UCI) and in favour of Vinokourov at a hearing in Lausanne on August 31.
Vinokourov: Don’t Call Me Stupid | Cyclingnews.com
“Do you really think I was so stupid?” he asked in Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. “Everyone knows that you can easily be caught for a blood transfusion. What did I have left to win in the Tour to take such a risk? After my crash I had already lost my high GC ranking.”
The UCI’s over-the-top 1 year’s salary plus suspension rule was arguably more for publicity than effect, and arguably the ‘rider’s commitment to a new cycling’ document was one signed under duress, not by free will. Faced with a crippling financial loss, Vinokourov set about overturning the fine. Now I don’t support doping but I do support fair penalties. This one was unfair.
Did Cristian Moreni actually pay his fine? If so, will he seek a refund? I would.
CAS Finds That UCI’s Vinokourov Fine Is Not Valid | Cyclingnews.com
Alexandre Vinokourov (Astana) will not have to pay a fine equivalent to his then annual salary of €1.2 million as a result of his positive test for a blood transfusion at the 2007 Tour de France. According to El Pais, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) found against the International Cycling Union (UCI) and in favour of Vinokourov at a hearing in Lausanne on August 31.
Vinokourov: Don’t Call Me Stupid | Cyclingnews.com
“Do you really think I was so stupid?” he asked in Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. “Everyone knows that you can easily be caught for a blood transfusion. What did I have left to win in the Tour to take such a risk? After my crash I had already lost my high GC ranking.”
What a situation the governing body is fiinding itself in… they apparently have 5 riders identified by the biological passport panel of experts – and they just sit on it. Doesn’t mean we won’t do something, we just haven’t done it yet, they say. Even though months are ticking by. Now we may imagine all sorts of reasons to wait and process these things but few of them stack up. Except for the worst sort of reasons, of course. UCI, please explain?
Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight – WSJ.com
A person familiar with the situation said that WADA has received complaints in recent months from several individuals and representatives of antidoping organizations who have raised concerns about the UCI’s oversight.
This person said antidoping officials are particularly concerned about the status of five professional riders who were flagged for doping in December but have not yet been sanctioned by the UCI. The riders, whose names are known only to the UCI, were determined to be doping by an independent committee of nine scientists and experts that was appointed by the UCI to review data from blood and urine tests.
The person said at least two members of the panel have voiced concerns that the UCI may be disregarding these positive tests or shielding guilty riders from punishment.
Pat McQuaid, president of the UCI, said the UCI has complied with all of the guidelines set by WADA for the Passport program and was unaware of any complaints about the UCI’s handling of the drug testing program. “I contest that there is a lack of effort to catch drug cheats,” he said.
What a situation the governing body is fiinding itself in… they apparently have 5 riders identified by the biological passport panel of experts – and they just sit on it. Doesn’t mean we won’t do something, we just haven’t done it yet, they say. Even though months are ticking by. Now we may imagine all sorts of reasons to wait and process these things but few of them stack up. Except for the worst sort of reasons, of course. UCI, please explain?
Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight – WSJ.com
A person familiar with the situation said that WADA has received complaints in recent months from several individuals and representatives of antidoping organizations who have raised concerns about the UCI’s oversight.
This person said antidoping officials are particularly concerned about the status of five professional riders who were flagged for doping in December but have not yet been sanctioned by the UCI. The riders, whose names are known only to the UCI, were determined to be doping by an independent committee of nine scientists and experts that was appointed by the UCI to review data from blood and urine tests.
The person said at least two members of the panel have voiced concerns that the UCI may be disregarding these positive tests or shielding guilty riders from punishment.
Pat McQuaid, president of the UCI, said the UCI has complied with all of the guidelines set by WADA for the Passport program and was unaware of any complaints about the UCI’s handling of the drug testing program. “I contest that there is a lack of effort to catch drug cheats,” he said.
Or some smoke but no fire – yet. Interesting that it’s being taken seriously, interesting also that the UCI “leadership” continues to look emotional and a little too close to the action. Not in a good way either, I mean. You’d think taking a step back and keeping some perspective would be a good idea.
Verbruggen Labels Landis A Nuisance | Cyclingnews.com
In e-mails leaked to Cyclingnews, Verbruggen labels Floyd Landis as “a nuisance” and suggested that he succeeded so well in the role that he should get a “yellow jersey” for his efforts.
Verbuggen initiated the exchange with Landis by forwarding a link to an article written by John Leicester of the Associated Press. The story detailed the feelings of vindication shared by the employees of the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory, which Landis had accused of sloppy work and dishonesty, after the American admitted in May that he had doped during his career.
Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued In Landis Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
The paper didn’t name which witnesses had been or will be issued with subpoenas. It’s known that current BMC Racing Team rider George Hincapie and former professional Tyler Hamilton have been approached by the federal investigators.
Hamilton has previously indicated he would provide investigators with his full cooperation if subpoenaed, telling The Wall Street Journal last month: “I am aware that there is an investigation of other people in progress, and if I am subpoenaed to provide information, I will provide my full cooperation.”
Armstrong Willing To Co-operate With Doping Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
“As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation I will be happy to co-operate but I’m not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt,” he said, according to the New York Times.
He added that he had never been an owner of the team in any way during the U.S. Postal years. “It was not my company, I didn’t have a position, I didn’t have an equity stake, I didn’t have a profit stake, I didn’t have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team. I can’t be any clearer than that,” Armstrong said.
The investigation is said to be concentrating on the team’s finances during the period in which it was sponsored by U.S. Postal Services and owned by Tailwind Sports.
Filed under doping, Landis, UCI by Rob.
Or some smoke but no fire – yet. Interesting that it’s being taken seriously, interesting also that the UCI “leadership” continues to look emotional and a little too close to the action. Not in a good way either, I mean. You’d think taking a step back and keeping some perspective would be a good idea.
Verbruggen Labels Landis A Nuisance | Cyclingnews.com
In e-mails leaked to Cyclingnews, Verbruggen labels Floyd Landis as “a nuisance” and suggested that he succeeded so well in the role that he should get a “yellow jersey” for his efforts.
Verbuggen initiated the exchange with Landis by forwarding a link to an article written by John Leicester of the Associated Press. The story detailed the feelings of vindication shared by the employees of the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory, which Landis had accused of sloppy work and dishonesty, after the American admitted in May that he had doped during his career.
Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued In Landis Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
The paper didn’t name which witnesses had been or will be issued with subpoenas. It’s known that current BMC Racing Team rider George Hincapie and former professional Tyler Hamilton have been approached by the federal investigators.
Hamilton has previously indicated he would provide investigators with his full cooperation if subpoenaed, telling The Wall Street Journal last month: “I am aware that there is an investigation of other people in progress, and if I am subpoenaed to provide information, I will provide my full cooperation.”
Armstrong Willing To Co-operate With Doping Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
“As long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation I will be happy to co-operate but I’m not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt,” he said, according to the New York Times.
He added that he had never been an owner of the team in any way during the U.S. Postal years. “It was not my company, I didn’t have a position, I didn’t have an equity stake, I didn’t have a profit stake, I didn’t have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team. I can’t be any clearer than that,” Armstrong said.
The investigation is said to be concentrating on the team’s finances during the period in which it was sponsored by U.S. Postal Services and owned by Tailwind Sports.
Filed under doping, Landis, UCI by Rob.
Still more smoke, no fire. You’d expect all of this, really. Although the UCI appears increasingly inept at keeping track of donations, doesn’t it?
Hincapie And Hamilton Approached By Federal Investigators | Cyclingnews.com
George Hincapie (BMC) and Tyler Hamilton are among the riders who have been asked to cooperate with the federal investigation into doping practices in American cycling at large and the US Postal Service team in particular, according to the Wall Street Journal.
McQuaid Reveals Armstrong Made Two Donations To The UCI | Cyclingnews.com
The president of the International Cycling Union Pat McQuaid has revealed to Cyclingnews that Lance Armstrong made not one, but two donations to the UCI. Speaking to Cyclingnews during a visit to Britain, McQuaid said that the seven-time Tour de France winner signed a personal cheque for $25,000 in 2002 and then his management company Capital Sports and Entertainment made a second payment of $100,000 in 2005.
Bruyneel Questioned By Belgian Authorities About Landis Allegations | Cyclingnews.com
Johan Bruyneel has been questioned by Belgian federal prosecutors concerning doping claims made by Floyd Landis. The questioning was done at the request of the Koninklijke Belgische Wielrijdersbond (KBWB), the Belgian cycling federation, and the International Cycling Union, the KBWB said in a press release.
Bruyneel denied all accusations made by Landis.
Filed under Landis, UCI by Rob.
Still more smoke, no fire. You’d expect all of this, really. Although the UCI appears increasingly inept at keeping track of donations, doesn’t it?
Hincapie And Hamilton Approached By Federal Investigators | Cyclingnews.com
George Hincapie (BMC) and Tyler Hamilton are among the riders who have been asked to cooperate with the federal investigation into doping practices in American cycling at large and the US Postal Service team in particular, according to the Wall Street Journal.
McQuaid Reveals Armstrong Made Two Donations To The UCI | Cyclingnews.com
The president of the International Cycling Union Pat McQuaid has revealed to Cyclingnews that Lance Armstrong made not one, but two donations to the UCI. Speaking to Cyclingnews during a visit to Britain, McQuaid said that the seven-time Tour de France winner signed a personal cheque for $25,000 in 2002 and then his management company Capital Sports and Entertainment made a second payment of $100,000 in 2005.
Bruyneel Questioned By Belgian Authorities About Landis Allegations | Cyclingnews.com
Johan Bruyneel has been questioned by Belgian federal prosecutors concerning doping claims made by Floyd Landis. The questioning was done at the request of the Koninklijke Belgische Wielrijdersbond (KBWB), the Belgian cycling federation, and the International Cycling Union, the KBWB said in a press release.
Bruyneel denied all accusations made by Landis.
Filed under Landis, UCI by Rob.
It gets bigger and bigger, and someone is going to get burned. I suspect it’ll be Floyd himself, but he’s already had his share and can’t sink much lower, can he? Meanwhile the whole US Postal ‘institutionalised doping’ scenario looks like both a house of cards waiting to fall and an ever-receding mirage. It’s hard to see anything provable coming out of this, but it deserves an airing to get the smell out. The truth may never come out but at least the effort will be made. Or not. Finally the UCI may also look a bit silly and naive, if not actually duplicitous and corrupt, in taking a significant ‘donation’ from a current rider. We shall see…
Investigation Into Landis Claims Widens To Include Interpol | Cyclingnews.com
An investigation into claims of widespread, organized doping made by Floyd Landis against his former teams has been broadened to include the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).
The new development was confirmed by the World Anti Doping Agency’s general director David Howman, whose agency has helped the United States federal investigators gain the cooperation of the European agency.
Statements by Floyd Landis in May led the US Food and Drug Administration to launch the investigation into claims that his former US Postal team engaged in organized doping practices and that Lance Armstrong was one of the riders to take part.
Filed under doping, Landis, UCI, WADA by Rob.
It gets bigger and bigger, and someone is going to get burned. I suspect it’ll be Floyd himself, but he’s already had his share and can’t sink much lower, can he? Meanwhile the whole US Postal ‘institutionalised doping’ scenario looks like both a house of cards waiting to fall and an ever-receding mirage. It’s hard to see anything provable coming out of this, but it deserves an airing to get the smell out. The truth may never come out but at least the effort will be made. Or not. Finally the UCI may also look a bit silly and naive, if not actually duplicitous and corrupt, in taking a significant ‘donation’ from a current rider. We shall see…
Investigation Into Landis Claims Widens To Include Interpol | Cyclingnews.com
An investigation into claims of widespread, organized doping made by Floyd Landis against his former teams has been broadened to include the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).
The new development was confirmed by the World Anti Doping Agency’s general director David Howman, whose agency has helped the United States federal investigators gain the cooperation of the European agency.
Statements by Floyd Landis in May led the US Food and Drug Administration to launch the investigation into claims that his former US Postal team engaged in organized doping practices and that Lance Armstrong was one of the riders to take part.
Filed under doping, Landis, UCI, WADA by Rob.
Filed under Roche, UCI by Rob.
Filed under Roche, UCI by Rob.
There’s money in pro sport – nothing new there. There’s also a mix of prestige, ego, accomplishment and human frailty. Now you can take the money away – go back to the amateur dream many fought so long and hard to protect – but that removes only one driver, one motivator, for cheating. Trouble is, humans dig winning and their big creative brains are always on the lookout for shortcuts. It’s just one way we prosper. It’s so engrained it’s part of our daily lives. We cheat on our partners, we cheat on our fellow drivers by using shortcuts, by speeding, by simply pushing in front of the queue. We do all of this and rationalise it to suit ourselves, despite ethical analysis telling us it’s plain wrong. So drugs – or any performance shortcut – in sport is simply here to stay. We may drive it deeper down but it’ll still be there. And when we step from sport into the real world we find pharmaceuticals, alcohol, caffeine and harder recreational drugs absolutely in abundance. Of course it’s hypocritical, of course it’s a mixed message. Doesn’t make cheating more palatable though, does it?
Floyd Landis, We Hardly Knew You. Or Did We? – Sports Blog – CBS News
Cycling wants to be given a chance, wants to put thirty years of substance abuse behind it in one clean swipe of the guillotine. But how can we pretend that the kids who grew up with one set of rules will simply walk away and let UCI administer the sport under a new one?
Floyd Landis, We Hardly Knew You. Or Did We? – Sports Blog – CBS News
“But therein lies the rub,” Dr. Thomas continues. “If there is a smoking gun buried underneath all of this, either way, cycling and sport more broadly take another deep bruising for behavior that is rabidly, albeit implicitly, encouraged by the public at large. Bigger, faster, stronger, more violent–it all allows us to pimp more light beer, $250 athletic shoes, and car insurance through the rise and fall of real humans with already extraordinary abilities.”
There’s money in pro sport – nothing new there. There’s also a mix of prestige, ego, accomplishment and human frailty. Now you can take the money away – go back to the amateur dream many fought so long and hard to protect – but that removes only one driver, one motivator, for cheating. Trouble is, humans dig winning and their big creative brains are always on the lookout for shortcuts. It’s just one way we prosper. It’s so engrained it’s part of our daily lives. We cheat on our partners, we cheat on our fellow drivers by using shortcuts, by speeding, by simply pushing in front of the queue. We do all of this and rationalise it to suit ourselves, despite ethical analysis telling us it’s plain wrong. So drugs – or any performance shortcut – in sport is simply here to stay. We may drive it deeper down but it’ll still be there. And when we step from sport into the real world we find pharmaceuticals, alcohol, caffeine and harder recreational drugs absolutely in abundance. Of course it’s hypocritical, of course it’s a mixed message. Doesn’t make cheating more palatable though, does it?
Floyd Landis, We Hardly Knew You. Or Did We? – Sports Blog – CBS News
Cycling wants to be given a chance, wants to put thirty years of substance abuse behind it in one clean swipe of the guillotine. But how can we pretend that the kids who grew up with one set of rules will simply walk away and let UCI administer the sport under a new one?
Floyd Landis, We Hardly Knew You. Or Did We? – Sports Blog – CBS News
“But therein lies the rub,” Dr. Thomas continues. “If there is a smoking gun buried underneath all of this, either way, cycling and sport more broadly take another deep bruising for behavior that is rabidly, albeit implicitly, encouraged by the public at large. Bigger, faster, stronger, more violent–it all allows us to pimp more light beer, $250 athletic shoes, and car insurance through the rise and fall of real humans with already extraordinary abilities.”
The second link (below) i steh more detailed but the point is that legal wheels are now turning on the allegation by Landis that former UCI president Verbruggen accepted a bribe to cover up a positive drug test linked to Armstrong and/or his team.
The truth will out, or not, or may come out in a few years time. Pick your preferred reality.
UCI Demands Landis Cease Accusations | Cyclingnews.com
The current president of the UCI, Pat McQuaid, confirmed to the NY Daily News that the letter was sent requesting that Landis retract his accusations that his predecessor, Hein Verbruggen, accepted bribes to cover up a positive drug test by Lance Armstrong.
“They are asking him to cease and desist from making statements he’s made about Mr. Verbruggen in the past few weeks because they are not true,” McQuaid said.
Floyd Landis adds legal muscle, hires Greg LeMond’s attorney in face of potential legal challenges
According to two people with knowledge of the situation, Landis has received an strongly worded letter from the office of Hein Verbruggen, a former president of the sport’s international governing body, whom Landis accused of accepting bribes to suppress a failed Armstrong drug test. Pat McQuaid, who in 2006 succeeded Verbruggen as president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), confirmed that the letter had been sent.
The second link (below) i steh more detailed but the point is that legal wheels are now turning on the allegation by Landis that former UCI president Verbruggen accepted a bribe to cover up a positive drug test linked to Armstrong and/or his team.
The truth will out, or not, or may come out in a few years time. Pick your preferred reality.
UCI Demands Landis Cease Accusations | Cyclingnews.com
The current president of the UCI, Pat McQuaid, confirmed to the NY Daily News that the letter was sent requesting that Landis retract his accusations that his predecessor, Hein Verbruggen, accepted bribes to cover up a positive drug test by Lance Armstrong.
“They are asking him to cease and desist from making statements he’s made about Mr. Verbruggen in the past few weeks because they are not true,” McQuaid said.
Floyd Landis adds legal muscle, hires Greg LeMond’s attorney in face of potential legal challenges
According to two people with knowledge of the situation, Landis has received an strongly worded letter from the office of Hein Verbruggen, a former president of the sport’s international governing body, whom Landis accused of accepting bribes to suppress a failed Armstrong drug test. Pat McQuaid, who in 2006 succeeded Verbruggen as president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), confirmed that the letter had been sent.
Former pro racer turned bike maker made some interesting observations in the article linked to below. In summary, feasible, would be hard to spot but a huge risk for anyone trying to cheat: if caught they’d be dead in the water. I imagine if anyone has tried to do it already they’d be wary of trying again, at least for now…
Boardman Warned The UCI Of Risks Of Bike Doping | Cyclingnews.com
“There is not a shred of doubt that the technology exists to cheat in this way and that a rider could get a definite return from such cheating. With little buttons controlling the gears these days I suspect it would also be pretty simple to disguise,” Boardman said.
Former pro racer turned bike maker made some interesting observations in the article linked to below. In summary, feasible, would be hard to spot but a huge risk for anyone trying to cheat: if caught they’d be dead in the water. I imagine if anyone has tried to do it already they’d be wary of trying again, at least for now…
Boardman Warned The UCI Of Risks Of Bike Doping | Cyclingnews.com
“There is not a shred of doubt that the technology exists to cheat in this way and that a rider could get a definite return from such cheating. With little buttons controlling the gears these days I suspect it would also be pretty simple to disguise,” Boardman said.
Greg LeMond has been consistent with his comments about both Armstrong and Landis, most recently praising Landis for finally coming clean, despite the Landis camp getting a bit personal earlier. And now he has got some press attention again, alleging that in a private conversation Armstrong effectively admitted that “everyone does EPO”. I guess he didn’t mean “everyone with a medical condition that requires it”, but you never know. It’s just LeMond’s interpretation of what he heard – and remembers – and I’m sure Armstrong has a different take on it. Interesting that it keeps rolling along though…
Greg LeMond on doping accusations: I feel vindicated – USATODAY.com
“It seems almost crazy to dare say that Armstrong admitted he used EPO, but he did call me in 2001 and admitted that he used EPO. That was his way of saying, ‘Everybody does EPO, your (1989) win was a miracle just like mine was.’
“My take on it is that I won by eight seconds. If I was doing EPO, I should have won by eight or nine minutes.”
LeMond and Landis are odd partners in their shared criticism of Armstrong. During Landis’ 2007 administrative appeal of his doping penalties, an associate of Landis phoned LeMond, pretending to be an adult who molested LeMond when he was a child. The call was an effort to prevent LeMond from testifying that Landis called him about doping.
“Floyd did call me,” LeMond says. “And in an indirect way confessed to something, like he didn’t know how to talk about it with his family and friends. He was on the fence about which way to go.”
Greg LeMond has been consistent with his comments about both Armstrong and Landis, most recently praising Landis for finally coming clean, despite the Landis camp getting a bit personal earlier. And now he has got some press attention again, alleging that in a private conversation Armstrong effectively admitted that “everyone does EPO”. I guess he didn’t mean “everyone with a medical condition that requires it”, but you never know. It’s just LeMond’s interpretation of what he heard – and remembers – and I’m sure Armstrong has a different take on it. Interesting that it keeps rolling along though…
Greg LeMond on doping accusations: I feel vindicated – USATODAY.com
“It seems almost crazy to dare say that Armstrong admitted he used EPO, but he did call me in 2001 and admitted that he used EPO. That was his way of saying, ‘Everybody does EPO, your (1989) win was a miracle just like mine was.’
“My take on it is that I won by eight seconds. If I was doing EPO, I should have won by eight or nine minutes.”
LeMond and Landis are odd partners in their shared criticism of Armstrong. During Landis’ 2007 administrative appeal of his doping penalties, an associate of Landis phoned LeMond, pretending to be an adult who molested LeMond when he was a child. The call was an effort to prevent LeMond from testifying that Landis called him about doping.
“Floyd did call me,” LeMond says. “And in an indirect way confessed to something, like he didn’t know how to talk about it with his family and friends. He was on the fence about which way to go.”
This would be so much harder to keep track of without computers. Of course wiping Valverde’s points off is easy enough to do but it really doesn’t take into account the influence Alejandro had on the races concerned. Not many options here, really. (Worth noting – in case you fell asleep for a while, which is understandable – that there’s no evidence he had doped in this period, the blood doping evidence all dates back 6 years or so.)
Evans Climbs To World Rankings Lead | Cyclingnews.com
Australian Cadel Evans climbed into the lead in UCI’s World Rankings after the disqualification of leader Alejandro Valverde. The Spaniard was suspended by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Monday for his involvement in the Operacion Puerto doping affair, and stripped of his results since January 1, 2010.
“[Valverde] has been disqualified from all competitions in which he has competed since the beginning of the year and all points allocated to him have been removed. Mr Valverde must also return all prizes received. The UCI World Ranking has been modified accordingly,” a UCI statement read.
Filed under UCI, Valverde by Rob.
This would be so much harder to keep track of without computers. Of course wiping Valverde’s points off is easy enough to do but it really doesn’t take into account the influence Alejandro had on the races concerned. Not many options here, really. (Worth noting – in case you fell asleep for a while, which is understandable – that there’s no evidence he had doped in this period, the blood doping evidence all dates back 6 years or so.)
Evans Climbs To World Rankings Lead | Cyclingnews.com
Australian Cadel Evans climbed into the lead in UCI’s World Rankings after the disqualification of leader Alejandro Valverde. The Spaniard was suspended by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Monday for his involvement in the Operacion Puerto doping affair, and stripped of his results since January 1, 2010.
“[Valverde] has been disqualified from all competitions in which he has competed since the beginning of the year and all points allocated to him have been removed. Mr Valverde must also return all prizes received. The UCI World Ranking has been modified accordingly,” a UCI statement read.
Filed under UCI, Valverde by Rob.
There are many good points made in this long piece in support of transparency on the UCI’s part, something the governing organisation has not shown great desire for – or even talent at – up to now. Accusations are made (see below) about Bruyneel’s influence over the UCI (debatable, I’m sure, but moot) and his manipulation of the media (surely something everyone tries to do?). Another point made is that some riders are pursued to the effect that they are rendered almost unable to get a job, even if they have not been tested positive to a banned substance (eg Rasmussen). Whereas several others do their time and are re-admitted to the fold in good teams. Whilst I can agree with the general sentiment (it seems unfair at times but… sometimes life is unfair) it does overlook matters of detail: Rasmussen, like Basso and Vino has served his time and is available for employment (and currently working as a rider to my knowledge). It’s up to him to market his obvious talent. Rider selection is up to the teams themselves, not the UCI. And in Basso’s case he also did not test positive but admitted to ‘intent’; whereas in contrast Rasmussen has not admitted any more than getting his location wrong, despite a continental-sized location ‘error’ that he ostensibly lied about.
And then there’s Valverde. Yes, he is being pursued where others implicated in Operacion Puerto ride on, case close. But not everyone is convinced of his non-involvement and, unlike other riders his DNA (taken by Italian authorities from a test during a stage of Le Tour that visited Italy) is available and has been (allegedly) positively linked to DNA found in blood collected from Operacion Puerto. Whilst I’d like to see every rider who was implicated in Puerto give up their DNA for matching, it’s only the Italian authorities who have the motivation and the determination to see this through. Should we criticise them for this apparent vendetta or celebrate their perseverance?
Bottom line is that we need transparency and clear evidence of fairness in the process. At the moment it’s a dog’s breakfast. That at least is certainly clear.
Daily Peloton – Pro Cycling News
Martin Hardie views the Gusev case is yet another example of the tendency which has bothered riders, managers and cycle reporters for a long time: It reveals that some riders can do anything without being punished and other riders are being punished even if they are acquitted.
For example, the International Cycling Union works actively at expanding the prohibition to the whole world which the Spanish rider Alejandro Valverde has recieved against riding in Italy. Valverde was allegedly involved in the case of blood doping known as Operation Puerto in 2006, but he has never been banned by the Spanish Cycling Union. However his compatriot Contador who has worked for Bruyneel until recently whose his initials allegedly were found on some of the many blood bags in 2006 is still free to ride. UCI is not running any campaign against him nor are they pursuing Fränk Schleck from Bjarne Riis’ CSC Team although he also was in involved in Operacion Puerto because he send money to the doctor who is charged with running the illegal program.
There are many good points made in this long piece in support of transparency on the UCI’s part, something the governing organisation has not shown great desire for – or even talent at – up to now. Accusations are made (see below) about Bruyneel’s influence over the UCI (debatable, I’m sure, but moot) and his manipulation of the media (surely something everyone tries to do?). Another point made is that some riders are pursued to the effect that they are rendered almost unable to get a job, even if they have not been tested positive to a banned substance (eg Rasmussen). Whereas several others do their time and are re-admitted to the fold in good teams. Whilst I can agree with the general sentiment (it seems unfair at times but… sometimes life is unfair) it does overlook matters of detail: Rasmussen, like Basso and Vino has served his time and is available for employment (and currently working as a rider to my knowledge). It’s up to him to market his obvious talent. Rider selection is up to the teams themselves, not the UCI. And in Basso’s case he also did not test positive but admitted to ‘intent’; whereas in contrast Rasmussen has not admitted any more than getting his location wrong, despite a continental-sized location ‘error’ that he ostensibly lied about.
And then there’s Valverde. Yes, he is being pursued where others implicated in Operacion Puerto ride on, case close. But not everyone is convinced of his non-involvement and, unlike other riders his DNA (taken by Italian authorities from a test during a stage of Le Tour that visited Italy) is available and has been (allegedly) positively linked to DNA found in blood collected from Operacion Puerto. Whilst I’d like to see every rider who was implicated in Puerto give up their DNA for matching, it’s only the Italian authorities who have the motivation and the determination to see this through. Should we criticise them for this apparent vendetta or celebrate their perseverance?
Bottom line is that we need transparency and clear evidence of fairness in the process. At the moment it’s a dog’s breakfast. That at least is certainly clear.
Daily Peloton – Pro Cycling News
Martin Hardie views the Gusev case is yet another example of the tendency which has bothered riders, managers and cycle reporters for a long time: It reveals that some riders can do anything without being punished and other riders are being punished even if they are acquitted.
For example, the International Cycling Union works actively at expanding the prohibition to the whole world which the Spanish rider Alejandro Valverde has recieved against riding in Italy. Valverde was allegedly involved in the case of blood doping known as Operation Puerto in 2006, but he has never been banned by the Spanish Cycling Union. However his compatriot Contador who has worked for Bruyneel until recently whose his initials allegedly were found on some of the many blood bags in 2006 is still free to ride. UCI is not running any campaign against him nor are they pursuing Fränk Schleck from Bjarne Riis’ CSC Team although he also was in involved in Operacion Puerto because he send money to the doctor who is charged with running the illegal program.
It’s nice to see the UCI finally come clean and admit that it should’ve thought twice about accepting a donation from a rider; and nice also that they sent Armstrong a friendly reminder when he overlooked paying up. Such a nice thing all ’round, ain’t it?
That Lance made the promise in 2002 and only paid in 2005 perhaps suggests that (a) $100K is small beans to LA and easily overlooked; (b) the UCI was too polite to ask at first; and then (c) the UCI got a bit desperate about it later and reminded him of the promised donation.
I’m sure we can all read the details and draw our own conclusions. Good to see that investigations into the Landis allegations are underway. I’m sure it’ll all be cleared up before July 4 – or sometime within the next 2 and half years, anyway.
McQuaid Acknowledges Accepting Armstrong Donation A Mistake | Cyclingnews.com
The President of the UCI Pat McQuaid has revealed that Lance Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to UCI and has admitted that in hindsight, the decision to accept $100,000 while the Texan was still racing was regrettable.
Filed under Armstrong, EPO, UCI by Rob.
It’s nice to see the UCI finally come clean and admit that it should’ve thought twice about accepting a donation from a rider; and nice also that they sent Armstrong a friendly reminder when he overlooked paying up. Such a nice thing all ’round, ain’t it?
That Lance made the promise in 2002 and only paid in 2005 perhaps suggests that (a) $100K is small beans to LA and easily overlooked; (b) the UCI was too polite to ask at first; and then (c) the UCI got a bit desperate about it later and reminded him of the promised donation.
I’m sure we can all read the details and draw our own conclusions. Good to see that investigations into the Landis allegations are underway. I’m sure it’ll all be cleared up before July 4 – or sometime within the next 2 and half years, anyway.
McQuaid Acknowledges Accepting Armstrong Donation A Mistake | Cyclingnews.com
The President of the UCI Pat McQuaid has revealed that Lance Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to UCI and has admitted that in hindsight, the decision to accept $100,000 while the Texan was still racing was regrettable.
Filed under Armstrong, EPO, UCI by Rob.
Paul Kimmage may have an axe to grind – and a fairly extreme perspective on Armstrong – but the Landis accusations are certainly major. Interestingly Armstrong apparently donated $100K to the UCI in 2005 for the development of the sport. Nothing wrong with that, unless clearly linked favourable treatment followed. And there’s no evidence of that – is there?
In aid of transparency and the resolution of any apparent or perceived conflicts of interest it’d be interesting to see details of all such donations to the UCI over the past few years. Have other riders given similar sums?
Kimmage: Landis Allegations Will Decide The Sport’s Future | Cyclingnews.com
He did acknowledge that the UCI had received money from Armstrong. “The UCI received $100,000 from Lance Armstrong in 2005, four years after this incident was supposed to have taken place.” McQuaid then explained: “The UCI would accept donations from anyone who’s prepared to give. We’re a non-profit-making organisation so we’re prepared to accept money from anyone who’s prepared to assist us in developing the sport.”
Filed under Armstrong, Landis, UCI by Rob.
Paul Kimmage may have an axe to grind – and a fairly extreme perspective on Armstrong – but the Landis accusations are certainly major. Interestingly Armstrong apparently donated $100K to the UCI in 2005 for the development of the sport. Nothing wrong with that, unless clearly linked favourable treatment followed. And there’s no evidence of that – is there?
In aid of transparency and the resolution of any apparent or perceived conflicts of interest it’d be interesting to see details of all such donations to the UCI over the past few years. Have other riders given similar sums?
Kimmage: Landis Allegations Will Decide The Sport’s Future | Cyclingnews.com
He did acknowledge that the UCI had received money from Armstrong. “The UCI received $100,000 from Lance Armstrong in 2005, four years after this incident was supposed to have taken place.” McQuaid then explained: “The UCI would accept donations from anyone who’s prepared to give. We’re a non-profit-making organisation so we’re prepared to accept money from anyone who’s prepared to assist us in developing the sport.”
Filed under Armstrong, Landis, UCI by Rob.
We are well into the pro cycling year and still it seems that the early-season winners have the edge – although the edge is beginning to crumble.
Haussler took over the UCI world ranking lead from Allan Davis (Quick Step). After another strong performance in Paris-Roubaix, Haussler leads the rankings with 197 points, ahead of País Vasco winner Alberto Contador (Astana) with 188 points. Davis slipped to third with his 183 points.
Nice to see Davis hang in there so long, and good to see Haussler get his name in lights – if only for a little while. The 3 big tours will shake it all up, of course.
|
|
