The CyclingNews reports Paris-Nice winner Davide Rebellin is not worried about the UCI's threats to suspend and fine riders who took part in the race after, all if they suspend all the riders who else will compete this year? Nice to know someone has such faith that the UCI will do the "right" thing. Rebellin comments further on the "new age" of cycling citing an illustration of how "wrong" things went last week for one cyclist:
According to the Venetian, the new anti-doping programs for which the UCI has taken most of the responsibilities has changed the face of cycling. "We have given our total availability to make our sport the cleanest possible," he underlined. "We give our blood, our urine, our hair. We can't do more than that. We are normal people, not gangsters, so we just ask the controllers to respect our private life. What happened with Kevin van Impe shouldn't be done, we've naturally protested against that today."
KPLC writes about the visit Floyd Landis made to Louisiana this past weekend in support of BHR hip replacement. Landis also rode in a charity find raising event while there.
The Boulder Report writes today mostly about why Cadel Evans is someone who might get on one's nerves, but Joe Lindsey saved some space to whine about why he wants his money back from Floyd Landis:
-From an AP story by Eddie Pells about the still-mounting costs, on both sides, of Floyd Landis’ doping case. Like other curious folks, last spring I paid $35 to hear Floyd speak at one of his Floyd Fairness Fund events in Colorado. At the time, I chalked it up as a cost of doing business. But now, I want my fu***** money back – Hey Herr Doctor, ever hear of Lufthansa?
AP is reporting a study at the Annals of Internal Medicine suggesting that HgH doesn't do much useful as a PED, specifically increasing lactate buildup, which would be bad for cyclists. The cited study admits to being preliminary, and not considering synergetic benefits with other substances.
WSJ reports on the same HGH study.
Rant writes about the split in the Agency for Cycling Ethics that saw Paul Scott leave the fledgling private anti-doping group over his continued work on the Landis case, which predates the creation of A.C.E. Rant feels that members of anti-doping agencies and athletes alike are between a rock and hard place. With WADA rules the way they are, who will explain and represent the science of a case to an athlete accused of doping?
Racejunkie looks at AP/Pells's article last week, and says the conclusion to be drawn is that taxes are Landis' fault too:
[T]here's a brand new outrage to stick on him: he alone is sucking up your precious tax dollars that could be used to fill deserving potholes in your own neighborhood with his malicious selfish whining about "Justice this!" and "Fair play that!"