TBV Golden Oldies - Ties that Unwind

With the current UCI/ASO sanctioning fiasco going on before the running of Paris-Nice, a number of recent commentators have been bringing up various auto racing comparisons.

TBV talked about this before most of the current audience arrived, so we draw your attention back to last fall, and the Ties that Unwind.

[More]


[From October 22, 2006]

In yesterday's roundup, Landis said he wanted to take down the UCI. The obvious question that follows is what to replace it with. To TBV, the nearest comparisons are to racing with motors. The parallels between auto racing, and the perils and rewards are illuminating. Here are some things to start thinking about.

• The USAC/CART split for Indy car racing in 1979. The teams, fed up with the incompetence of the sanctioning body, formed their own series. USAC lost the series, but kept the Indy 500, the major event. An uneasy truce let CART teams run and win in the 500, but frustration stewed for years.
  
• The subsequent CART/IRL split as the premier event set up its own sanctioning body and series. Attempts by CART to compete head on failed, and CART eventually went bust, kept alive by buyouts.
• The de-jure world championship of the FIA, Formula-1, has been nurtured to the exclusion of other forms of FIA competition, notably Sports Cars (LeMans) and Rallying. When push comes to shove, all decisions by the FIA have been to strenghten F1 at any cost to other series. The series stuggles to keep full fields and their are constant complaints about the cost structure. Organizers get rich, a few teams do well. Others teamscome and go on the whim of sponsorship money that is difficult to come by without results that require huge budgets.
  
• In the meantime, a closely run parochial series gains massive popular acceptance with competitive racing, full fields and cost-effective technology. Teams, drivers and the series on a gravy train: NASCAR.
• And if you want to get wonky, the World of Outlaws split off from USAC dirt track racing as well, because USAC wouldn't allow wings (among other things).
  

It's easy enough to paint the UCI as the FIA or USAC in the analogy, and the grand tours as events like the Indy 500 or LeMans. Consider mountain biking to be sports cars or rallying -- loved by some, but co-opted by the sanctioning body and marginalized to commercial oblivion.
And you might look at USCF and USACycling as the old USAC.

Looking at the USAC/CART split of '79, there are two important points. One, USAC was toothless, and could do nothing to prevent CART from starting and continuing to run. Two, the breakaway wasn't joined by the big event, and this caused problems later.

This is different than the UCI, which through national federations can discipline riders for participating in things they don't like. The threats made to riders for racing in unsanctioned races against Tyler Hamilton when he was on suspension are a recent example. This is similar to the de-jure power the FIA holds in auto racing. In Europe in particular, the FIA has been very heavy handed and has referred to things as "illegal races" when not under their sanctioning authority. The FIA has been trying to crush LeMans for decades - which sounds a lot like the struggle between the UCI and the Tour. The French parties are similar sounding, but not the same -- the ASO is not related to the ACO that runs LeMans.

Pressure doesn't matter when the drivers and the teams of the independant series don't care to participate in races under the old sanctioning umbrella. It does matter when the breakaway series isn't big enough to keep the teams and drivers fully occupied and they want to do something else, but can't because of pressure from the other body.

What of NASCAR? Drivers and teams that land there stay. It is popular, lucrative, offers good competition, and is "fair enough". There is cheating, but it is managed in a way that is perceived to be effective. To some degree, there is a culture of tolerance of rogues, up to a point, and then a hammer comes down.

If the FIA tried to impose some rule, NASCAR would ignore it. Attempts by the FIA to lean on tracks that run NASCAR events would be met with laughter by the ownership. NASCAR makes everybody money. Running FIA events makes somebody money, but it isn't the promoters or the teams.

The history of Sprint Cars offers some cautionary reading. From time to time the World of Outlaws looked poised for success, but fall back because of politics with the remaining USAC series, and the vaguaries of media ownership changes and interest.

Some Key Lessons of History

1. A breakaway needs a viable schedule so it doesn't need to be concerned with sanctions and pressure from the entrenched or de-jure organizations.
   
2. A breakaway needs good relations with the key events to survive in the long term.
3. A breakaway needs to happen at a moment when there is weak leadership of the incumbent organization.
4. A breakaway needs strong leadership to speak with one voice. This involves teams giving up some of their autonomy.
5. The breakaway gives up some claims of legitimacy, and needs to work as a commercial entity on its own merits. In cycling, that means bailing on the Olympics.
6. You can't count on media support without the key events, and even then, it's fickle.
   

What Else?

The main alternative to doing a breakaway organization is to have a coup that replaces the leadership of the original body. I can't think of a good example of where that has happened.

This post scratches the surface of what might happen with a restructuring of cycling as a sport with regard to the UCI. I'm sure readers will have different opinions and additional thought.

Let's hear what you've got to say!

-TBV


References

An article with perspective, includes the Dan Gurney whitepaper that led to the formation of CART.

Wikipedia on Champ Car, particularly the history section.

Timeline of CART/USAC/IRL. Note the plane crash in '78 that left USAC leadership-challenged in a key period, with link to raw version of Gurney whitepaper.

Another piece, from AutoMedia.

Motorsport magazine opinion piece on CART/IRL.

Atlas F1 Rear View Mirror has a broader perspective.

Bending rules ain't exactly cheating in NASCAR, exactly, but it's not like the old days either.

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

News
French TV interview, TBV coverage here, also AP summary, via ABC/ESPN, and CyclingNews.

Daily Peloton runs a story by Dave Shields about what Cycling can learn from other sports, particularly motor racing. This is in line with our story on the USAC/CART split, "Ties that Unwind", following Landis' "take down the UCI" comment.

Almost zero Landis content, but Tyler Hamilton participated in a Triathlon Relay today, on a team sponsored by Howard Jacobs, the Athlete's Lawyer (and Landis's). At stake, a $100,000 prize for beating 8 hours. Tyler cleaned clock on the competition by over 14 minutes in his cycling leg, but got a 4 minute penalty for not dismounting soon enough - there's a line on the ground thou shalt not cross on the bike in triathlon. It ain't like le Tour. The team's runner was halted for the four minutes, but still could have run a time well within his capability for the prize. But he went out too fast and melted down on course and came to a full stop at 24 miles, finally in at 8:17. Who knows if the penalty stop messed him up physically or mentally. No $33k paycheck for any of them, but the 8:00 looks beatable.

Forums
At DPF, Landis talks about frustration with the system:

What is your opinion of an agency (not cycling in this hypothetical) created by Congress and funded by tax money with no oversight and which requires people to notify them 24 hours a day of their location and activities so that they can be tested is some way. Does that seem to be a violation of any rights or does that seem reasonable. Also, let's assume that this hypothetical agency monitors a category of careers which have only the option to enroll in the program due to the fact that no other option exists. Keep in mind that there is, in this hypothetical, a punishment for failing to notify the agency. This sounds, to me that is, like the treatment for someone who has already been convicted of something.

Then oversight of Labs,

Am I mistaken in the statement that the labs exist to perform scientific tests which are forwarded to the agencies (WADA for example) who later decide what is justice and how is should be served. Or is it reasonable that a lab director or employee is commenting on what is the outcome of a specific test. What I'm trying to get at is, it seems to me that a lab which is given a set of guidelines, should perform a test on a given sample and forward it to the "police" and no longer have any say, or care to have any say, in the outcome of the process thereafter.

and elsewhere

What I'm saying is that the labs should feel no level of failure because the rules and guidelines are indisputable and they do nothing more than hand results over to the next level of prosecution. The mistakes and other mishandling of things are a totaly different level and after a few problems the lab should be suspended. That is, assuming that the line in the sand is final and there are no exceptions.

Blogs
Rant thinks about USADA (and AFT), and wonders if The Fix is in.

PodiumCafe notes that Graham Watson leaves Landis completely out of his 2007 calendar, which is consistent with his firm and expressed belief Floyd was doped on Stage 17.

Brand Destruction Research, which has covered Landis before here and here, reads the AP report of the French interview, and concludes, "Sorry, Floyd, but you're fucked."

TBV's opinion is that Landis was intercoursed the instant the whole thing broke. A lot of his early PR work made things worse, and BDR is right to think that will have long term consequences. But he's wrong in several respects, not least whether Landis had any choice but to have B test done at the same lab, or that he has much affect on the speed of the resolution -- unless he wants to plead guilty.

Florida Masochist reads AP story of French interview, and says, "Give it up, Floyd."

Jeredb thinks pro cycling sucks, and the Landis case is part of it.

[end]

Full Post with Comments...

AFT (Water Carrier) and what people believe

Over at Rant Your Head Off, there have been several articles about the Anonymous Fortune Teller, who we've called AFT.

AFT himself started commenting over there feeling I'd chased him away. I tried to apologize. To make up, I'll give him his own article here...

[more]

[continuation]

At Rant, he expressed annoyance that I'd named him AFT, forgetting he'd said it himself:

Hi from your anonymous fortune teller.

so I feel justified, if not vindicated. I picked "ferret" out of a hat as well, without consulting the designee. Any other Anonymous should be wary if you leave me to the handle giving.

He says he'd rather be called "Water Carrier", and makes the following claims:

1. I almost made it to the Olympics (with a few 1,000 others…)
   
2. I rode with Lance (like a few 1,000 others…)
   
3. I was “in” the Tour (as a rider you ask?)
   
4. I race (what license, you scream!)
   
5. I have contacts who tell me inside scoop.
   
6. I rode with Jan (to hell?)
   
7. Riders have told me about their doping in ways not to endanger themselves(some of it rather amateurish)
8. I have never doped (unless you count caffeine)

For #1, he doesn't say it he got to trials or was ranked for possible selection;
for #2, it might in be the Tour of Roses;
for #3, he's right, we don't know if it was as a rider; nor do we know he's an American;
for #4, he might race SCCA automobiles, or cross-country skiing;
for #5, he may live near a coffeehouse in Girona;
for #6, I don't know what to think;
for #7, hardly surprising;
for #8, who cares unless he's trying to make us think he's not Frankie;

Rant made some guesses, but I'm too lazy to play, and I'm not sure how much I care. The hearts of AFT's claims are interesting rumour, but the import is not clear.

• The "word" is that Floyd blood-doped: there's no evidence of this, but the claim is that this is widely believed in the peloton. There's not easy way for an outsider to validate the claim.
  
• And the blood was contaminated in some way that led to the positive: the science seems to be arguing against this possibility. Given the dubious science used in doping, that is not as strong a counter-argument as it might be. Almost anything could have happened, I suppose.
• There is an Illuminati running American cycling, with Weisel, Lance and Och at the top of the pyramid. You're either on board with them, or not: Let's pretend this is true.
  
• Landis is getting the bum's rush because he's pissed off the conspiratorial Powers of American Cycling by not playing ball with Lance and the Discovery team: Which doesn't compute with the rumours that Lance has given money to the defense, or even with the supportive co-appearance on Larry King. If Lance had wanted hang him out to dry, he could have skipped that show easily enough. Why would these Illuminati want to destroy an American TdF champion, for whatever reason? How can this be good for their long-term investments in the sport and their teams?
  

I said in a comment to his recent post that his stories have the fascination of Area 51 UFO legends. It is not so much what the truth of the story is (which may not be known, ever), but the way they seem like they could be believable. How and why people might believe them are interesting reflections of those believers. Why they might be rejected reflects the worldviews of those people as well.

My opinion about the the whole thing is that circumstances are far more mundane than a grand conspiracy. I've always leaned towards the "he didn't do anything wrong" position, and nothing has moved me from that posture. This may mark me as naive, but so be it.

It seems most likely to me to multiply simple human error by bureucratic entrenchment. Something wrong happened at the lab that wasn't recognized, and an initial positive was made. This rapidly escalated to a point where the heavy rhetoric was employed. It became impossible for any other explanation to be considered by the officialdom, and the same problems were experienced to get the expected results in the B sample. After more spouting, calmer heads prevail in some organizations, but USADA is saddled with a charged case it feels it cannot lose for all kinds of political reasons. This leads them to progressively harden their position into near absurdity.

That's where we are now, I think.

Landis can still get screwed unless he comes up with concrete evidence of problems at the lab, for which he may need discovery he may not get.

It will help if there are provable inconsistencies in the interpretations of the tests as seen at various places by the labs with expertise. Maybe there cases, perhaps Turnbull, that were judged negative or inconclusive by some other labs, but would have been positive by the criteria that appear to have been used in his case. That's tricky -- a narrow view of the rules could say that the Lab gets its own criteria, and the LNDD is entitled to use the set it uses.

It might help Landis can find evidence of an LNDD operator spending August holiday in a Hamburg brothel paid for by some Swiss account, but that seems pretty unlikely.

A lot is going to depend on the neutral arbitrator -- if it is someone who is concerned about the truth, he'll be in better stead than if it is someone with a reputation for strict constructionism.

As for AFT/Water Carrier, I'm happy to have him around. What he says makes us all think, and that is rarely a bad thing to do.

TBV

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Roundup

News
Letters to CyclingNews contain a complaint about the ASO video. Another can't believe innocence because of the angry look. One is sad Landis has so much support.

Blogs
PodiumCafe Rider of the Year results -- Floyd wins popular vote by 1 (out of 177 cast), and PC declares 3 way tie with Valverde and Bettini, and prefers Valverde.

Dugard says Landis is walking without a limp and is starting some long training rides.

Mike and Dana go snarky about Landis at the end.

ChaosCycling likes Floyd and wants to set up a Burning Man of cycling with a beer garden.

Machine translation of German blog says Landis doped: "Completely large tennis."

Forums

Web
Howard Jacobs has a web page I hadn't see before. The background features...cycling. He still has a page at Forgey, Hurrell, Cantrall, but has dropped off their roster. His new one doesn't seem to mention the firm. Maybe he's gone solo? I don't know if there is any meaning, or I'm blind.
[end]

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Roundup

News
Yes, Oscar, you can be Champ if Floyd is DQed, says IHT. Asterix , er, asterisk won't be number #1. Also in VeloNews.

VeloNews describes the video in some detail.

Officially off crutches -- Floyd.com says so in progress report by Dr. Kay:

By the end of the first month he was riding one hour on the trainer and was no longer using crutches. He has no pain and will begin riding on the road now with the goal of gradually building strength over the next 4-6 weeks to allow him to return to normal training in preparation for the 2007 Tour de France.

Comments are closed, alas.

Daily Peloton considers doping in two articles, part one (why) and part two (what do do). Vaughn thinks openness is part of the solution, perhaps a "truth and reconciliation" effort as done in South Africa post apartheid.

CyclingNews picks up the "take down the UCI" comment in Madison, and Michael Henson tap dances and pirouettes.

Amber speaks to Daily Peloton, part 1 of 3. Mrs TBV will recognize this:

Would he bring his doubts and concerns home and talk to you about them? Or would he only talk to his coaches and trainers?

It depends how giving he is that day. He doesn't like to talk about things too much. I have to pry things out of him.

Floyd: The problem is that I feel like I've been talking about everything. It's all just in my head and I don't realize I never said anything out loud!

Amber: That's the thing! He's always thinking it in his head, and he thinks his head talks to my head!

Part I concludes after Stage 16.

Blogs
Velochimp lays into the cracked glass.
Doucheblog does likewise.
Velogal jumps on.

Forums
RBR on Puerto and Landis, provoked by Doucheblog.

Double-Toungued notes Wikipedian Defense based on the Boulder Report of Oct 24 for the lexicographers. Hmmm, I cited FL as saying Wikipedia Defense (no 'n') on Oct 8, so priority is mine! Is the the place to start the citation trail for roostered?

[end]

Full Post with Comments...

Ties that Unwind

In yesterday's roundup, Landis said he wanted to take down the UCI. The obvious question that follows is what to replace it with. To TBV, the nearest comparisons are to racing with motors. The parallels between auto racing, and the perils and rewards are illuminating. Here are some things to start thinking about...
[more]

---

[continuation]

• The USAC/CART split for Indy car racing in 1979. The teams, fed up with the incompetence of the sanctioning body, formed their own series. USAC lost the series, but kept the Indy 500, the major event. An uneasy truce let CART teams run and win in the 500, but frustration stewed for years.
  
• The subsequent CART/IRL split as the premier event set up its own sanctioning body and series. Attempts by CART to compete head on failed, and CART eventually went bust, kept alive by buyouts.
• The de-jure world championship of the FIA, Formula-1, has been nurtured to the exclusion of other forms of FIA competition, notably Sports Cars (LeMans) and Rallying. When push comes to shove, all decisions by the FIA have been to strenghten F1 at any cost to other series. The series stuggles to keep full fields and their are constant complaints about the cost structure. Organizers get rich, a few teams do well. Others teamscome and go on the whim of sponsorship money that is difficult to come by without results that require huge budgets.
  
• In the meantime, a closely run parochial series gains massive popular acceptance with competitive racing, full fields and cost-effective technology. Teams, drivers and the series on a gravy train: NASCAR.
• And if you want to get wonky, the World of Outlaws split off from USAC dirt track racing as well, because USAC wouldn't allow wings (among other things).
  

It's easy enough to paint the UCI as the FIA or USAC in the analogy, and the grand tours as events like the Indy 500 or LeMans. Consider mountain biking to be sports cars or rallying -- loved by some, but co-opted by the sanctioning body and marginalized to commercial oblivion.
And you might look at USCF and USACycling as the old USAC.

Looking at the USAC/CART split of '79, there are two important points. One, USAC was toothless, and could do nothing to prevent CART from starting and continuing to run. Two, the breakaway wasn't joined by the big event, and this caused problems later.

This is different than the UCI, which through national federations can discipline riders for participating in things they don't like. The threats made to riders for racing in unsanctioned races against Tyler Hamilton when he was on suspension are a recent example. This is similar to the de-jure power the FIA holds in auto racing. In Europe in particular, the FIA has been very heavy handed and has referred to things as "illegal races" when not under their sanctioning authority. The FIA has been trying to crush LeMans for decades - which sounds a lot like the struggle between the UCI and the Tour. The French parties are similar sounding, but not the same -- the ASO is not related to the ACO that runs LeMans.

Pressure doesn't matter when the drivers and the teams of the independant series don't care to participate in races under the old sanctioning umbrella. It does matter when the breakaway series isn't big enough to keep the teams and drivers fully occupied and they want to do something else, but can't because of pressure from the other body.

What of NASCAR? Drivers and teams that land there stay. It is popular, lucrative, offers good competition, and is "fair enough". There is cheating, but it is managed in a way that is perceived to be effective. To some degree, there is a culture of tolerance of rogues, up to a point, and then a hammer comes down.

If the FIA tried to impose some rule, NASCAR would ignore it. Attempts by the FIA to lean on tracks that run NASCAR events would be met with laughter by the ownership. NASCAR makes everybody money. Running FIA events makes somebody money, but it isn't the promoters or the teams.

The history of Sprint Cars offers some cautionary reading. From time to time the World of Outlaws looked poised for success, but fall back because of politics with the remaining USAC series, and the vaguaries of media ownership changes and interest.

Some Key Lessons of History

1. A breakaway needs a viable schedule so it doesn't need to be concerned with sanctions and pressure from the entrenched or de-jure organizations.
   
2. A breakaway needs good relations with the key events to survive in the long term.
3. A breakaway needs to happen at a moment when there is weak leadership of the incumbent organization.
4. A breakaway needs strong leadership to speak with one voice. This involves teams giving up some of their autonomy.
5. The breakaway gives up some claims of legitimacy, and needs to work as a commercial entity on its own merits. In cycling, that means bailing on the Olympics.
6. You can't count on media support without the key events, and even then, it's fickle.
   

What Else?

The main alternative to doing a breakaway organization is to have a coup that replaces the leadership of the original body. I can't think of a good example of where that has happened.

This post scratches the surface of what might happen with a restructuring of cycling as a sport with regard to the UCI. I'm sure readers will have different opinions and additional thought.

Let's hear what you've got to say!

-TBV


References

An article with perspective, includes the Dan Gurney whitepaper that led to the formation of CART.

Wikipedia on Champ Car, particularly the history section.

Timeline of CART/USAC/IRL. Note the plane crash in '78 that left USAC leadership-challenged in a key period, with link to raw version of Gurney whitepaper.

Another piece, from AutoMedia.

Motorsport magazine opinion piece on CART/IRL.

Atlas F1 Rear View Mirror has a broader perspective.

Bending rules ain't exactly cheating in NASCAR, exactly, but it's not like the old days either.

Full Post with Comments...