Monday, August 27, 2007

Monday Roundup

News
The Denver Post interviews Greg LeMond who has more to say about the current state of pro cycling than he did Saturday in his Daily Camera interview. He feels cycling is getting what it deserves and in this interview with John Henderson he specifically talks about the Landis hearings, and his conversation with Floyd Landis:

As in his testimony, LeMond said Friday that he warned Landis before the trial "I told him, 'Floyd, you may think you can get away and hide your lie, but it's always there and it works on you and it works on you,"' LeMond said. "'And in 15-20 years it manifests itself. It's proven throughout psychotherapy and (with) psychologists and psychiatrists that trauma or lying or not being true to yourself has a dramatic effect on self- destructiveness."'

LeMond says he is misunderstood and that he is not against Landis at all, but is against the PR campaign to get people to believe in his innocence, LeMond goes further to say however:
"Everybody's entitled to justice," LeMond said. "Everybody's entitled to defend themselves. But the reality is to go out into the public, like the Floyd Fairness Fund, and be asking people who are so gullible and who really don't know what's going on? I don't know how, in a morally conscious way, that he's able to do that

About doping in cycling, LeMond claims everybody's doing it:
"I know what's going on in the sport, and it's despicable," he said. "It's criminal, actually. Organized blood doping. Secret motorcycles. ... Hiding places. Doing human growth hormone, testosterone, cortisone, insulin growth factor, EPO."...and..."It's because everybody's doing it," LeMond said. "They get caught because of a mistake. There are people getting away. The worst ones that are getting away I don't even want to mention

In the earlier interview from this past weekend LeMond had criticized Pat McQuaid and the UCI, McQuaid fires back:
UCI president Pat McQuaid, reached in Dublin, Ireland, on Saturday, angrily answered: "I completely disagree and completely dispute what Greg LeMond says. Greg LeMond himself is not above suspicion. The UCI is doing a good job in the fight against doping. If he talks about accusations of corruption, let him prove it."

LeMond thinks that if Floyd Landis "gets off on a technicality" it would be a big blow to the anti-doping movement, and LeMond's only comment on what may be inadequacies in the system itself is that he believes in the LNDD.


The CyclingNews reports that
Andrey Kashechkin will defend himself against out of competition doping violations by claiming the UCI's incompetence:
Kashechkin of Team Astana is fighting against the UCI's regulation of conducting blood and urine samples, and his lawyer added that those "cannot be carried unless one has a mandate from the law. A private organisation like the UCI cannot assume the right to monitor people."

Seems like the wrong argument to make. He got a license with conditions that give the UCI that right (and responsibility). If he wants to complain about how they carry out that mandate, he might have more ground under his feet.


Men's Health
website seems to have reposted an old article dating from the 2006 Tour of Georgia, where Landis gives some tips to the writer: Beginning cyclists spin too slowly, for the most part, and standing while climbing isn't always a great idea.


Velonews letters wonder about the delay in publishing a decision in the case, and why no one questions labs when results are negative.

Palatka Daily News
talks about restoring Cycling's credibility, and time might be the answer. Lots of time.

Blogs
An emailer points us at an interesting 5-part series over at Slowtwitch about PED use and enforcement in age-group athletes. What is fair, and what is not? In Part 2, Mark Sisson argues no endurance training is really "healthy" past certain limits. Arnie Baker, in part 3, agrees that what makes one perform best may not make one healthy. He further observes perhaps 20 older members of his cycling club take testosterone supplements for medical reasons, and doesn't know if it's possible to get a TUE for it should they wish to compete in an event where it would be banned. Part 4 considers the general ethics of supplementation, and wonders what business anybody has to tell informed adults they shouldn't do something, for their own good-- like, say, riding down a mountain at 60 mph. And Part 5 wonders about the litigation when some rich triathlete gets popped on a doping charge that affects his professional reputation. No answers, but lots of intriguing discussion.

UltraRob posts another set of pics from the recently contested Leadville 100 with another graphic picture of the "Landis Raspberry". Remember that cycling fandom is about watching other people suffer.

Rant finds himself agreeing in part with Greg LeMond's opinions expressed on Saturday in the Daily Camera on cycling and its current state of affairs -- but not completely.

Jason Macemore
notes that Floyd Landis is riding in the Shenandoah Mountain 100.

Tear-it-down rips "Ultimate Frisbee", and puts together a hypothetical team that would kick butt -- including Barry Bonds, Pete Rose, Floyd Landis, Ben Johnson, Tonya Harding, others ... and G.W. Bush.


BikeWorld says we've had 67 working days, and no decision, and thinks the US Supreme Court usually acts more quickly. This doesn't seem correct to us -- a perusal of recent decisions shows 8 published between June 25 and June 28 2007, and they were argued on 18-Apr, 26-Mar, 4-Dec-2006, 17-Apr, 28-Feb, 19-Mar, 25-Apr, and 19-Mar. The one from December is a really long time, and the ones from February and March weren't exactly quick either. I guess "usually" could apply to the 3 from April, but it still seems like an argument from hyperbole.

In Brown v. Board of Education, perhaps the most significant decision of the post-war period, the Court invited the parties back to re-argue the case. We probably won't see that happen here, even though Landis/USADA may be the Brown v. BoE of the anti-doping system.

17 comments:

Michael said...

Why can't LeMond just keep his mouth shut... I like this quote the best:

"People misunderstand me," LeMond said. "I'm not against Floyd. I'm not against Tyler. The only thing I'm against is a guy who's not an honest person and who lives a façade, that he's really not a good person. That's my only issue with them. But Floyd and Tyler, you don't see European riders who get busted and who go out on this PR campaign and try to tell everybody, 'Believe in me."'

Hmm...Let's see, Basso (I didn't do it), Mayo, Di Luca, Virenque (Nope, never did, well sorta of and I'm still a FRENCH hero), Vino and his merry men, Riis, Zable, Jaske and who know's how many other Euros have denied, denied. Yep, none of them....

Oh yeah, LeMond has been out of for 10 years, how does he know so much about doping in cycling now???

wschart said...

Lemond is sounding more and more like some conspiracy theorist. Secret motorcycles? What's next, black helicopters?

The problem with all this is that when articles like this appear in the mainstream media, to the general public Lemond appears as an "expert" whose word is accepted as truth. He is no more an expert in these matters than I am.

jrdbutcher said...

Greg LeMond as a rider.
First United States citizen to win the Tour de France.
Three time winner of the Tour de France.
Rode clean?
Respected for his cycling prowess.
Reaped what he sowed in cycling.
Champion rider.

Greg Lemond now.
Clairvoyant.
Knows all that goes on in Pro Cycling, post retirement.
All powerful.
Knows the answers and remedies to cycling’s current ills.
Not universally respected for his anti-doping statements. Often disrespected.
May reap what he has sowed in retirement?
Fish Hack anti-doping crusader.

nahual said...

LeMond said. "They get caught because of a mistake. There are people getting away. The worst ones that are getting away I don't even want to mention.........."

Does this ring true for someone who give so much lip service to help cleaning up the sport.

And about why the Euros have not been as aggresive in their defense, it may be as a riding friend mentioned, with the exception for England (and the US) most of Europe law structure has considered the person charged as guilty and they must prove their innocence. A flip of having the authorities having to prove guilt over innocence. Any barristers or esquires know if this is the situation over there today?

Ok, time to helmet up and head out.......

raamman said...

But no one questions if Lemond doped- the pychobabel that he utters nowadays suggests he did and still does- what a nutbar !

jrdbutcher said...

"Rode clean?"

LeMond may or may not have ridden clean in his competitive years. I'll just say there doesn't seem to be any definative proof one way or the other.

Regardless of LeMond protesting that he rode clean and won, despite it being in an era when some of his key competitors have been documented as having used doping products, doesn't prove he did. Just as it doesn't prove any current era riders must have doped to win because some of their competitors have been documented to have used doping products.

LeMond sometimes uses this arguement that can just as easily be turned toward him.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense. I'll give LeMond the benefit of the doubt about him riding clean and assume he did.

It would be nice if could summon a big enough Champion Personality to do the same with regard to current and recent past era Champions.

UltraRob said...

Back when Lemond was racing, I was a big fan of him. I had him autograph my old soft cover helmet when he was in town once. I had actually thought of digging it out and having Floyd sign it at the Leadville 100 but I wasn't sure what his reaction would be. Instead I had Floyd try signing a water bottle but my fine point Sharpie wouldn't work on it.

Lately I've gotten tired of LeMond's spewing. We'd all be better off if he would keep his month shut if he can't find something to say to help cycling.

I actually fall in the everybody is doing it camp. It the same in any sport where there's enough money. I don't like it and it's not right but it still takes being a great athlete. I could probably dope with everything there is and still not ride at the level of the middle of the pack pros.

Since I think everybody is doing it, that means I also think Landis was to win the Tour. I'm all for dopers getting caught fair and square but I don't believe that's the case with Floyd. The leaks, the sloppy paperwork, etc. makes it seem they were on a witch hunt and I have a fair amount of doubt that they actually have valid test results.

Jeffnova said...

Perhaps Lemond has some serious guilt problems from back when he was cycling and winning with PEDs. Maybe he feels that if he yells from the rooftop that everyone is guilty it makes him feel better about his doping back in his time. In light of his child abuse allegation, he may have some serious emotional problems.

Funny how a clean Lemond has one of the fastest TT times ever. And now that everyone is doping, they still can't match his times.

Just wondering also about his recent illness and if it is related to his possible use of PEDs.

Julie said...

It's interesting that years later they can test Lance Armstrong's samples. Why can't the same be done for Greg's? Testing now would be different than it was then. Maybe they would find something...Maybe not. Wonder what he would say if they did.

C-Fiddy said...

Saint Lemond Logic, part one: If you win, then you cheated, (unless you're Saint Lemond).

Therefore, Phinney's Kid? Doper!

Does anyone remember how, uh, large, Greg used to get in the off season? One of my favorite quotes referring to Ulrich one year was that "he managed to out-Lemond Lemond." Performance enhancing Streudel?

Saint Lemond Logic part 2: If you are innocent, keep your mouth shut. Inacurate stories in the press that ruin your career only build character!

pcrosby said...

I have been away from any internet access since August started, so it has taken me a while to catch up. I was afreid that the Landis decsision would be handed down while I was off the web. I see that I need not have worried and want to offer my own thoughts on the delay.

In a jury trial the members of the jury come up with a guilty or innocent verdict and do not need to explain it. They can all have a different reason for reaching the same conclusion. The arbitrators certainly do not feel that they have that freedom.

They may have a situation where 1 wants to hang Floyd and the two others do not agree on the "technical" errors that convince them that the charge has to be found unproved. All three may agree on the conclusion but have different rationales for reaching it. They may be trying to harmonize their reasoning in order to avoid having multiple opinions that reach the same conclusion by different routes.

There may also be argument over the explanation accompanying the rationale/baasis for a conclusion. A few words can make a major difference in how the opinion is interpreted - a strong indictment of lab failure to follow prescribed practice is also an indictment of WADA's lab certification/recertification process.

If this was a criminal jury trial, an attorney would tell you that the longer it takes the better for the defendant. Short deliberations usually mean that the prosecution blew away the defense. In this instance I suspect that the Wicki defense has provided so many points that have to be considered (at least partially because it was a public hearing), that the panel members are having to deal with a multitude of detail and periodically then stepping back to see where they are.

I had been concerned that the developments in this year's Tour would detract from the attention paid to the decision. Enough time has passed that the decision is going to receive even more attention than it would have.

The panel is certainly aware that it is working on a very significant decision that is going to be closely studied and critiqued. I prefer having them take time over it than failing to weigh arguments and facts adequately. It is hard on us and even harder on Floyd, but hopefully it will have been worth the wait.
Pete Crosby

Michael said...

Anyone wondering why the Mayo decision wasn't announced Friday or Today like the UCI said it would be?

("Eightzero") said...

Gotta say, I'm all LeMonded out. Yea, Greg won Le Tour 3 times, and yea he invented aerobars. Yea, he won a very close race (8 seconds) and yea, that's great. He had some medical problems, and courageously came back to compete and win. Yea. I just don't see his relevancy in today's sport of cycling. Is he a doctor with inside knowledge of drug use? No. Does he run team with doping controls? No. Is he a sponsor? Well, he has a bike company, but I don't know that company sponsors anything. And now he's putting words in *my* mouth: "But the reality is to go out into the public, like the Floyd Fairness Fund, and be asking people who are so gullible and who really don't know what's going on? I don't know how, in a morally conscious way, that he's able to do that..." Gee, I'm a FFF donor, and I kind of resent being called gullible, and being told that I "don't know what's going on."

I donated to a cause that worked to increase the due process rights for what I see as a vulnerable individual and individuals as well as a vulnerable sport. I saw a system that uses the awesome power of the state in a way that reminded me of what happens when a kid finds his daddy's gun. Did Floyd dope? I don't think so, but my opinion is irrelevant - I am more afraid of the state using its powers to accuse, convict and deprive people of their reputation without so much as a chance to say boo back.

"I know what's going on in the sport, and it's despicable," [LeMond] said. "It's criminal, actually. Organized blood doping. Secret motorcycles. ... Hiding places. Doing human growth hormone, testosterone, cortisone, insulin growth factor, EPO."...and..."It's because everybody's doing it," LeMond said.

I will match every dollar I've given to the FFF to Greg's choice of charity if he provides open, verifiable evidence this is the case. Mind you he says *everyone* is doing it. He just called Saul Raisin a doper. He just called Oscar Periero a doper. He just called Marianne Vos a doper. And his own words are just inconsistent:

"People misunderstand me," LeMond said. "I'm not against Floyd. I'm not against Tyler. The only thing I'm against is a guy who's not an honest person and who lives a façade, that he's really not a good person. That's my only issue with them. But Floyd and Tyler, you don't see European riders who get busted and who go out on this PR campaign and try to tell everybody, 'Believe in me."'Do you listen to your own words? He says he's not against Floyd or Tyler, but then says he's against people who are not honest, and then says Floyd is not honest. Crikey, you just contradicted yourself. Please, please learn to do interviews, hunh?

Dopers are despicable - I agree. A doper is a person proven to be so, and not until.

Mike Solberg said...

I guess I get to be the first to point out that LeMond did not invent aero-bars (although he was the first to bring them to the TdeF). He borrowed them from the early ironman triathletes like Mark Allen and Dave Scott and Mike Pigg and Paula Newby-Fraser, who probably borrowed them from someone else, more recreational cyclotourists, I think.

Peace

calfeegirl said...

Acutally, the aerobar was invented by Boone Lennon, and produced by Scott Ski Company. They both still own the patent on aerobars, and Profile, HED, and all others still pay them for use of the design. How's that for smart cookies???

Aloha,
kate

calfeegirl said...

Oh, actually, Pete Pensyres had used his own design of clip-on bars when he set his RAAM record back in 1985/86 (year???). So it doesn't even go back to Triathletes, though they sure picked up on it fast once Boone & Scott USA got it going in 1987.

Let's hear for the mother of invention...necesssity!

-k

castor said...

I can't say that there is a 'better' way to communicate here: LeM making blanket statements about a sport without anything to back it up except his general observed knowledge, or Landis making internet threats to LeM. They're both childish ways of communicating.