Tuesday Roundup

News
AP/Eddie Pells flushed some more information out on the financing of the USADA prosecution of Landis at the hearing that starts tomorrow. Turns out WADA is footing most of the bill for USADA's outside attorneys, and the agency is irked the UCI hasn't offered to pony up. The UCI says it is USADA's responsibility. We say: Third base. Everybody is being tight lipped about who the witnesses (if any) are going to be. Don't expect much breaking news.

The AFP previews Floyd Landis' CAS hearing which commences behind closed doors tomorrow at the office's of arbiter Rivkin's law firm in Manhattan. The hearing is expected to last 5-6 days and the announcement of the panel's decision will be made from Lausanne.

The VeloNews reports the UCI has scheduled meetings with rider reps and teams concerning the recent dispute with the ASO , and will also commence disciplinary hearings with the French cycling federation over its role in the divide between the agencies .

The CyclingNews says that the "on again off again" relationship between Rock Racing and Mario Cipollini seems to be OFF, apparently for good this time.

In earlier CyclingNews reported late yesterday, AIGCP has allegedly entered into an agreement with the ASO, thus cutting out completely any authority of the UCI. The agreement concerned team invitations to the Tour de France, and other ASO cycling events, which will be staged under the auspices of the French cycling federation, as was Paris-Nice:

Now, a new chapter in the conflict will be opened, as the teams will negotiate race participation conditions not only for the next event organized by ASO - which would be Paris-Roubaix - but for all of the competitions owned by the organizer. "ASO will announce the team invitations to its races in one week approximately," (AIGCP president Eric) Boyer explained. "Then, we will sign participation contracts for the whole season."

The head of the UCI, Pat McQuaid, had suspended contacts with the AIGCP last week. Still, Boyer insisted that "it's them who cut ties with us, not vice versa. I'm still open to discuss with McQuaid. He just has to understand that our interest is to race, and that we cannot boycott an organizer who owns the most important race on the calendar."

NPR's Talk of the Nation hosted a piece yesterday about PED's and academics, everyone's getting into the act. A link to the podcast can be found with the article.

The AP has a story likely to be widely misread, about a positive in Billiards by German national champion Axel Buescher, for an EPO masking agent. What masking agent is not exactly made clear; as we've learned, the devil is in the details. To be clear, the dude did not test positive for EPO per se, and the "masking agent" might be something as innocuous as Zack Lund's finestride.

Finally, ESPN/Mark (Game of Shadows) Fainaru-Wada has a long piece about Marion Jones going to jail, outlineing her aggressive defense (which no doubt colors US and likening it to what Clemens has done. It also compares the aggessive defense to Kelli White, who confessed and moved on. (Betsy Andreu says we should just substitute a lot of other names for Jones and see if it rings any bells.)

The underlying, unasked questions are whether there is ever anyone falsely accused, and what the appropriate defense would be for such a person.

Blogs
Rant pens a "fictional" tale of two cyclists that has an eerily familiar scenario.

The Boulder Report notes the set is being struck for the Ball and Cipo show, announced with a two line press release, and no availability for interviews. Well, that was fun. Lindsey goes over some of the fallout.

Hmm, we had Basso for one ToC in Disco livery, now Cipo for one in Rock. Next year, maybe we'll get Lance back in Astana for a one-0ff. They still ride Treks.

Racejunkie posts a few juicy tidbits this morning, including an interesting rumor or two, and also gives us a nice blurb. Thanks RJ.

The Steroid Report notes recent biases in the press that seem to go against Floyd Landis. SR has been reading about Landis in some old familiar places, and feels that no taxpayer money should be spent on regulating any sport.

Fatty got lots of well deserved GOOD news yesterday!

Velo Vortmax thinks sniveling disgruntled US taxpayers, who have footed USADA's bill in the Landis case, should seek relief from the AFLD:

If USADA and the taxpayers are burdened with expensive litigation to defend the poor lab performance of LNDD then WADA should encourage the laboratories to train their personnel on how to run the tests, how to set up the equipment, how to code the data on the Lab Document Package, how to make corrections correctly, and how to maintain a credible chain of custody. Then these expensive and prolonged appeals would be prevented saving everyone money. U.S. taxpayer and athlete. Until WADA makes a valiant attempt to correct the existing problems appeals will continue since the laboratory results can not be relied upon to prove the Adverse Analytical Finding

AFLD really needs a new accreditation contractor at this point since COFRAC seems incapable of meeting even the minimal audit standards required for an WADA/IOC laboratory. COFRAC accreditation audit 1 1174 was used to validate the Landis LNDD "B" IRMS tests done at LNDD in order to validate the AFLD suspension; in spite of obvious lab errors. For example, the IRMS operating guide was missing, the IRMS tubing was set up incorrectly. Frelat injected the "B" sample calibration mix into the IRMS five hours before the Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) was run. Between the injection of the calibration mix and the CIR the IRMS was left unattended, an obvious violation of the chain-of-custody requirement. Landis' "B" sample was degraded. Other violations are documented in the Lab Document Package and by witness testimony.

Cycledog digs his fangs into the bad headline that has been used on Pell's piece on the cost of the Landis case. He may want to avoid mistaking the headline writer for the author of the body.

The FredCast runs with the news that WADA is picking up USADA's bill on the Landis appeal, and has little sympathy for the whining by the agencies about the cost:

Personally, I don’t see why anyone is upset that USADA, WADA, or any other alphabet soup group has to foot the bill for this case. Part of the reason they exist is not only to test athletes, but also to adjudicate cases of suspected doping. If this is part of your business and your charter, then budget for it.

Typical pseudo-governmental agency. I’m surprised they aren’t considering a doping tax to be added to the purchase of all new bicycles sold in the U.S.

Full Post with Comments...

Monday Roundup

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

News
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.

Blogs
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!"

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

photo courtesy Mark Kirsch

It's been a long harsh winter throughout the country this year, but the swallows always fly back to Capistrano, just as the buzzards return to Hinckley Ohio, and here in Western New York State we have our first signs of spring as well. In our neighborhood we tap the sugar maples to make syrup. Can warm spring weather be far behind? Get those bikes ready to go!

News
The CyclingNews reports the French cycling federation has made the unlikely request that the UCI executive board resign. FFC president Jean Pitallier invoked images of the storming of the Bastille in a speech made before the beginning of stage six of Paris-Nice in which he said the executive board should resign due to its threatened sanctions against teams participating in the race. In a "counter punch" the UCI has suspended all official contact with AIGCP, the International Association of Professional Cycling Teams, due to its recommendation that teams participate in Paris-Nice despite the UCI's advice not to.

The VeloNews reports a protest staged by the peloton before Paris-Nice today. It was in support of Kevin Van Impe who was asked for a test sample as he was planning the funeral of his infant son. Many riders, though happy that cycling is endeavoring to be as clean and above board as possible, are concerned that the doping controls lack consistency and invade too much of the cyclists' time. They are not, after all, gangsters.

Ohio.com proves that little things like "details" don't really matter much when you're trying to get a reaction to a headline. "Taxpayers to Pay for Landis Defense" insinuates that we have footed the bill not only for USADA's prosecution of the case, but also for all of Floyd Landis' defense as well. Let's never let the truth get in the way of "journalistic" sensationalism. Landis has enough on his plate without being stoned by angry US taxpayers. They are getting hammered in comments.

Full Post with Comments...

Saturday Roundup

News
The AP posts an Eddie Pells report on the fiscal costs of the Landis case to the American taxpayer through USADA, as well as to Landis himself, who is said to be in financial difficulty. Requests for a statement from Landis or his representatives by the AP were unanswered. Pells' research estimates that the case has cost USADA between 5-10% of its budget. The closed CAS hearing takes place as if the previous USADA hearing at Pepperdine never happened with testimony being presented as if new. The hearing starts in a Manhattan law office on Wednesday and is scheduled to last approximately five days. Travis Tygrat repeated a statement he's made before:

"Generally, we would always prefer to spend our time and resources in supporting clean athletes and not having to prosecute guilty ones," USADA CEO Travis Tygart said Friday.

Which makes as little sense now as it did the first few times he's rolled it out. The job of USADA is to prosecute cases, not to "support clean athletes" by anything other than "management" of cases. Pells goes on to note that USOC paid for the first round, but not the appeal which is on USADA's dime, nothing that Landis has never had any intention of competing in the Olympics.

The VeloNews addresses the reasons given for the split in A.C.E. between Paul Scott and Paul Strauss. As suggested earlier in cycling forums Scott resigned from the agency due to his continuing support for the Landis case. Former Rock Racing DS Frankie Andreu is critical of Landis and Scott for working together on the science of his case, but due to WADA rules finding a scientist to testify on an athlete's behalf is easier said than done, as Landis notes:

“I have no choice but to hire somebody, because I don’t know anything about science ... But as soon as I hire someone, everyone is saying, ‘Oh, Floyd’s paying him.’ Well, what choice do I have? You’re stuck either way.

All of the people who express skepticism of Scott wrap it in the position that there is something unseemly with someone involved in ACE taking a position in any case, suggesting conflict of interest. We don't see that. Last time we checked, ACE never tested Landis, nor was ACE hired by Landis' team. It looks to us like the same kind of double-think "ethics" as the WADA code -- a false propriety getting in the way of looking for truth and justice, as if those were some kind of hot-potatoes one should avoid seeking.

And hey, Ace, if someone you were testing is accused of something, and your data doesn't support the conclusion, you darned well better become involved, or those folks you're sticking constantly might not be so appreciative of your efforts. Independence doesn't mean you never take a stand, it means you're not obliged to take a particular stand before the facts are in.

In an earlier edition of CyclingNews Bernard Laporte, the French Secretary for Sport, says that the French cycling federation has come under the protection of the agency who says that all the federation is doing is taking its sport back from the UCI.

Feltet.dk, machine translated, reports The Man came for an OoC test while Kevin van Impe was in the middle of making arrangements for the funeral of his son, who died six hours after birth. No, he could not come back later, or it would have been a "missed test":

"Luckily I had written in my whereabout's that I this week mainly would be at the hospital. Now I can so change next week write that I can meet at Monday in the crematorium in Lochristi. That system is simply not humane", a bitter Kevin van Impe said.

Velonews has an English version, and it doesn't come off any better.

Blogs
Rant thinks that Pat McQuaid and Martin Dugard have something in common this week, they both spoke before they thought about what they were going to say. Rant cites McQuaid's odd doublespeak on Alberto Contador, who he now supports but might ban IF Contador can somehow get the courts to allow him to race the TdF, and Martin Dugard in regards to his turnaround on Floyd Landis' guilt, which he fails to rationalize with any kind of explanation. Rant wonders if maybe Mr. Dugard just doesn't get the science of the case and has decided to find Floyd guilty on the basis of, a hunch? Open mouth, insert foot.

Bicycle.NET has Larry Behrendt write his version of Suh's opening statement for next week's appeal hearing. It focuses on the Elephant in the Room, being the fundamental unfairness of the process as embodied in the actions of the greater WADA community: They're all dopers, so what does it matter?

Potholes and Roadapples writes about hometown boy Floyd Landis' upcoming CAS hearing to begin on Wednesday in NYC. B Harris notes that this hearing will not be covered live either by web stream or blogging.

Velo Vortmax has much more to say about the Dugard drubbing of Floyd Landis' reputation as he notes Dugard's defensive response to outraged "quasi" cycling fans, VV included:

So, Martin, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I don't believe you. I don't believe that Floyd Landis told you in confidence that Lance Armstrong used PEDs. Also, I do not believe that Floyd Landis told Greg LeMond that he used PEDs in the 2006 Tour de France. In America a man has the opportunity to confront his accusers. This is called due process. This opportunity was denied Floyd Landis in the kangaroo court of an AAA hearing. LeMond was whisked out of the court room in a rush before anyone could cross examine his motives and agenda. What a farce.

Phantom Reflections thinks that if the UCI says it will back Alberto Contador in a court fight against the ASO why not back Levi Leipheimer too? Why not Floyd Landis who PR feels has been the victim of a smear campaign? Why not indeed!

20 Million Minutes gives us a tribute to Richard Burke, the founder of Trek Bikes, who passed away earlier this week.

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Roundup

News
The CyclingNews notes that the French Sports Secretary is now proclaiming his interest in mediating the ASO/UCI dustup, with promises to protect French riders IF the UCI follows through on threatened sanctions against them. Meanwhile Pat McQuaid says that the riders are "victims" in the war between the UCI and ASO. McQuaid was in Spain to discuss the reopening of OP and these are his first public comments since the beginning of Paris-Nice:

McQuaid, who prior to Paris-Nice had sent letters and made statements threatening riders with fines and suspensions if they participated in the event outside the UCI's rules backed off from that firm stance a bit this week. "I said what I had to say. The race is taking place outside of the rules of the UCI," he said. "When it finishes we will sit down and look at all the circumstances and consider the data that we have. The riders have asked for a meeting. They are victims and have been forced to take a stand, they are employees of teams that cannot be denied participation because it is their livelihood. The UCI will take this into account in determining sanctions."

The VeloNews reports Pat McQuaid as saying he has Alberto Contador's back should Contador decide to take legal action over his team's exclusion from this year's Tour de France:

"If Contador decides to take legal action in Spain or internationally myself and the UCI will give evidence in his favor and I will be a witness," McQuaid told the daily El Mundo.

"I know Contador and the people around him and I know that he is a clean and honest rider," added McQuaid of the rider who has had to fend off questions regarding his alleged links to Spanish blood-doping probe Operation Puerto.

The VeloNews also reports that former poster child for UCI/ASO dysfunction Unibet is back with a new name, Cycle Collstrop.

ESPN writes Australia's anti-doping agency feels perfectly within its rights to be secretly checking athletes private medical records for evidence of PED use:

John Mendoza, former ASADA boss and now a professor of health science at the University of the Sunshine Coast, said he is concerned the investigation may be too invasive.

"It's certainly a bold move and I am not aware of any other jurisdiction in the world that's taken this move," Mendoza told ABC. "It's potentially a dangerous move because it's casting a question mark against all athletes."

AskMen.com posts the top ten "steroid excuses", Floyd Landis' comes in at number eight. Just two more scandals and he'll drop out of sight.

Blogs
Racejunkie spends a lot of time this morning discussing the ins and outs of various Italian doping scandals, with Patrik Sinkewitz thrown in for good measure.

Dugard responds to criticism of his grenade of yesterday in his blog, and yes,

It was to be a story about me, not Floyd,

We are reminded:

Quasi at the Quackadero

If that doesn't play, try THIS. It's been said of Disney's Beauty and the Beast that we've all known a Gaston. It's also true we've all known an Anita.

Full Post with Comments...

Thursday Roundup

News
Velonews is reporting CSC is not renewing sponsorship of Riis' team. It's this year or never for them to take a Tour for their long-term sponsor.

Boulder Report's Joe Lindsey in a two-fer today, takes on the Dugard piece we reported yesterday, and engages in some handwringing, being unimpressed both by Dugard and by the journalistic standards that allowed a lot to happen over time.

In the same section where he levels Floyd's incrimination of his former team leader, Dugard writes about that contrast between what cycling fans think of athletes and how they really are. "They don't see the riders as being the same as any other human being, capable of great frailty and prone to temptation," he writes. No one's ever accused journalists of being greater than other human beings. But the frailty and temptation parts, that part Dugard got right. Maybe, in the end, the story isn't so much about Floyd's failings or even Lance's, as much as it is about Dugard's own, and the failures of our profession.

The Boulder Report's Joe Lindsey speculates that maybe Paddy "Dean Wormer" McQuaid is just getting his Irish up for St Patrick's Day with all of the machinations over the ASO and Paris-Nice. Lindsey casts Wormer, um McQuaid, in the role of the original "double secret probationer", but is McQuaid all bark and no bite?:

After two years of scuffling that closely resembles a pushing match between eighth-grade boys (a few half-hearted shoves and insults, after which both parties disengage so as not to be late for fourth period), the ASO finally took a real swing. And it may have revealed that McQuaid, for all his bluster and tough talk, has a glass jaw.

ESPN reports that former cyclist Tammy Thomas has once again pleaded not guilty to perjury charges before a grand jury:

A grand jury handed down a new indictment against Tammy Thomas on Tuesday with five counts of perjury -- two more than previously alleged -- and an obstruction charge. She pleaded not guilty Wednesday to the new charges.

The CyclingNews reader mail column is predictably dominated by responses to the ASO/UCI mess.

A reader points us to a Seattle Times article report the Washington State Supreme Court has struck down random, no-suspicion tests on student athletes, for mixed reasons. We take it as a sign the momentum of the pendulum may be changing, and that there are limits in the war on doping.

STLToday/Leuking looks at CSC's departure, and thinks it is doping and/or UCI v ASO related. We're not so sure about that - eight years is a long time for a title sponsor in cycling anytime in the last 30 years.

Blogs
CFA feels that Martin Dugard has stabbed Floyd Landis in the back, and in doing so he has revealed the "thin veneer" of his knowledge about cycling, not to mention people:

Martin Dugard stabs Floyd Landis in the back, with a totally irritating and vacuous article which says nothing much at all. He pretends to be writing about Floyd, but he's not. The whole article is really about himself and his opinions. Dugard cribs the usual bits from Coyle's Lance Armstrong's War, forgets totally the idea of substance over style, showcases his usual blatantly self-important tone, and conveniently pretends to be a cycling expert, which he is not. Just try reading his blog for a while and you'll notice that when it comes to pro cycling, he has a thin veneer of knowledge which only occasionally hides the yawning vacuum of ignorance that lies beneath. I grew increasingly disgusted with his blog long ago after he kept writing total garbage in his so-called Tour coverage, confusing riders and getting their names wrong, totally ignoring the realities of doping, and clearly misunderstanding the most basic of team tactics. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between IBAN Mayo and IVAN Basso has no business passing himself off as an "expert" on cycling. Any half-decent European cycling fan knows about 100 times more than Dugard. I think the only race he's ever heard of is the Tour, and I really couldn't care less what he thinks about Landis

Mike V wonders what happened to the "heroes" of cycling and snarks that Floyd Landis should go ahead and exercise his last appeal, which is very big of him. Mike is tired of reading about dopers anyway, and thinks Landis should just "except" the fact that he doped. Huh?

Chris@Podium Cafe comments on the sponsorship crisis that is engulfing pro cycling.

WADAwatch has instituted a "WADA Signatory of the Year Award for 2007" for breaches to the WADA code, etc. Nominations end March 28 and you can participate:

Nominations to date, would have to include France, the British Olympic Committee for its Chambers case (Which WADAwatch feels is a proper domestic situation, and hasn't addressed the issues, per se), and _______________ (fill in your very favorite by emailing WADAwatch >>>).

Full Post with Comments...

Wednesday Roundup

News
The SunHerald hypes a Martin Dugard piece in Orangecoast.com that purportedly reveals his true opinions on Floyd Landis' guilt or innocence. Here's the link to the (whole?) story:

...In "Doubting Floyd," Dugard, who has covered the Tour de France since 1999, reveals his startling conclusions about the man who rode headlong into the center of the world doping controversy during the 2006 Tour with "the most daring and astonishing ride anyone could remember ... Just two days after being crowned champion, the Tour de France announced it no longer considered him the winner. The urine samples taken just after his ride into Morzine had tested positive. Rather than return to America as a hero -- like Lance -- Floyd did the perp walk on Leno and Larry King ... Floyd became a punch line."

It's a weird piece, where he says Floyd told him that "Lance doped", and concluding that he thinks Floyd did "it", without being clear what "it" is in question. We can probably assume he won't be getting a Christmas card from the Landis family this year.

The CyclingNews cops its now standard attitude towards Floyd Landis as it too cites yesterday's CAS announcement of next week's six day appeal hearing in New York City.

In later CyclingNews Christian Prudhomme reacts to an open letter to the ASO from Germany which states the obvious, cycling is in great danger..

The VeloNews says that the CAS hearings for Italian riders Danilo DiLuca and Alessandro Petacchi have been set. DiLuca's hearing will take place March 20, and Petacchi's on April 2.

In more VeloNews Patrik Sinkewitz is quoted as saying he did NOT pass "concrete" evidence on to officials about former T-Mobile teammates.

SI.com posts a story on steroids in America and wonders who the real dopes are, and how many are out there:

We are a nation looking for enhancement, a way to age gracefully, perform better and longer, and, at the outer edge, vanquish what was once considered that alltime undefeated opponent known as aging. We do that by Botoxing our wrinkles, lifting our faces, reconstructing our noses, despidering our veins, tucking our tummies, augmenting our breasts and taking a little pill to make sure we're ready when, you know, the right time presents itself. We also do it by injecting human growth hormone (HGH) and testosterone, America's new golden pharmaceutical couple

The NY Times reports links between a doctor in California who wrote illegal prescriptions, and several major league baseball players for whom he is alleged to have prescribed PEDs.

Passing
The founder of Trek Bicycles, Richard Burke, died Monday from complications of heart surgery in December. Good obits in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and the AP. TBV still rides his 1983 and '99 road bikes, and the '86 MTB. Mrs. TBV has an '84 road bike and an '85 MTB, all Treks made in Waterloo.

Blogs
Rant takes note of Floyd Landis' closed door last ditch CAS appeal next week, and he speculates that no matter what the outcome the damage done to Landis' career and reputation can likely never be repaired.

The picture painted by the first round of hearings was decidedly unpleasant. One thing became clear, once the case was turned over by USADA to their outside counsel, the focus was no longer on a search for the truth. It was on winning and losing, and doing whatever it takes to win. Fairness was not a part of the equation, at least not for Richard Young and company. Legal maneuvering was. And, to give the devil his due, Young and his associates in certain instances out-maneuvered Landis’ lawyers.

Je writes that though he has little sympathy for Floyd Landis, he hopes that Landis wins his CAS appeal next week so that the testing standards within WADA labs can be amended.

Max reveals optimistic sentiments about the forthcoming appeal hearing. We won't be placing any bets. As before, we're hoping for a reasoned and convincing decision either way, which we did not get the first time around.

Velo Vortmax writes "Doubting Dugard", disputing almost everything Martin Dugard has to say about Floyd Landis in his "expose" from OrangeCoast Magazine. This is a good response that will probably go unnoticed in the forthcoming hysteria about the Lance claim.

Full Post with Comments...

Tuesday Roundup

News
AP/Graham Dunbar previews the Landis Appeal hearing, starting next Weds, March 19th in NY, and running over both sides of the Easter weekend. Joy for all involved, we're sure. It's going to be closed-door, so don't expect live blogging, or daily reports unless people are feeling talkative at the end of each day. It is angling to be a much drier affair than the hearing in Malibu.

The VeloNews Mailbag covers topics ranging from the opinion that Pat McQuaid just doesn't get it, to one respondent who feels it's the riders are traitors. Go figure.

The CyclingNews' last update from yesterday has Pat McQuaid feeling "benevolent" as he relents on a threatened appeal of Jorge Jaksche's one year ban:

"UCI boss Pat McQuaid called me on the weekend and personally told me of the decision," Jaksche, 33, told the German press agency sid. "A stone fell from my heart. Now the hard times are finally over, I can start making plans again."

He added that a cooperative witness like himself "no longer needs to pay for his openness. They have finally realised that doping is an octopus with many arms. It is a system which is carried out by team managers, soigneurs, doctors and athletes." He said that he assumed that now the UCI would take actions against those he named in his confession.

In more recent CyclingNews it appears that thus far the UCI is holding its cards very close to its vest as no sign has been given as to what actions it might seek against riders who are participatiing in Paris-Nice. We hold our collective breath.

Blogs
Sara Best wonders what may of us have wondered over the past year and a half, where would Floyd Landis be now IF he had rolled over and done what he was told?

WADAwatch points to blind spots In L'Equipe regarding substantive discussion of the non-UCI motives in the current disputes. No coincidence that L'Equipe it is owned by the very same ASO that is one of the antagonists. He also points us to an old piece wherein he finds himself introduced to Damien Ressiot.

Racejunkie covers subjects from the defiance of the UCI by its riders to being sure you don't trade your valuable, and rather ironic, equipment to a street pusher for drugs. Sturm und Drang indeed. She's also continuing her windmill tilting over her fave:

[W]here the hell is Iban Mayo's CAS ruling on how completely grotesquely the vindictive cornered rabid snarling raccoons at UCI have chewed him to pieces by ignoring their own rules on B-sample results, I mean, on his perfectly objectively fact-driven prosecution goddammit?

Caught on the Run has borrowed a Cycleops PowerTap 2.4 for two weeks and plans on making good use of it in his training.

A Tad Askew posts what feels like an ancient quote from Floyd Landis. Was life ever really this amusingly simple?:

While eating lunch today, I was reminded of a funny story regarding Floyd Landis and his reaction to someone saying a rider always gave 110%. His reaction was "Why stop there? If you can go over 100%, why not give 100,000% or 1,000,000%? Why stop at 100?"

Full Post with Comments...

Monday Roundup

News
STLToday's Dave Leucking gives his own perspective on the ASO/UCI fight and what might await those who started Paris-Nice yesterday. He sees rival cycling leagues, a Tour of America, and all sorts of chaos:

I then see this whole thing evolving into rival cycling leagues, with the ASO and the Tour deFrance and the other grand tours off on one side and the UCI on the other. The teams … they’ll go where their sponsors want them to go, and I’m not sure that’s automatically the grand tours. Of course, the grand tours have cachet out the ying-yang, but the UCI Pro Tour has a larger global footprint and might be more appealing to sponsors who want to reach a global market. (CSC, for instance, is an American company sponsoring a Danish team. QuickStep, too, is an American company sponsoring a Belgian team.)

The ASO and the grand tours cover four countries — France, Belgium, Spain and Italy, a limited market compared to the UCI. Maybe this will be a chance for the U.S. to get a grand tour, under the UCI auspices. There’s already talk of the Tour of California becoming a three-week event, and the elite riders and teams do seem to like competing in the three big U.S. races — Tour of California, Tour de Georgia and Tour of Missouri.

The CyclingNews posts an interview with Slipstream's David Millar, and the most surprising aspect of the piece is how little doping is mentioned.

The Independant (IE) gives an amusing Q/A about refusing competition to athletes who have finished their bans, concluding:

Q: [...] how can we reasonably trust him to be clean now?

A: We can't. But, then, we can't trust anyone.

Q: So how the hell do we weed out cheats?

A: Polygraph booths maybe?

Which is obviously a joke, because polygraphs aren't reliable either.


Blogs
Fatty names himself as the winner of the 2008 Bloggie for sports. Can you do that? And has his "victory" led to the problems encountered by the Bloggies? Had we only known.

Barry says it's politics on wheels, it's always been politics on wheel we just see it for what it truly is now.

LJ Abram has a post with a bunch of aphorisms, including:

There’s only one rule: the guy who trains the hardest wins. - Floyd Landis (except, for him, sadly, it seems there are two rules...)

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

News
Late CyclingNews covers Paris-Nice, noting the teams showed up -- and the weather helped Thor Hushovd who left the winner of the Prologue. Top US rider was Danny Pate of TSC in 6th; teammate Trent Lowe was 10th and David Millar 12th, which must be a disappointment since he said he was targeting this race. Next American was Craig Lewis, High Road, 20th. Credit Agricole, CSC, and Slipstream Chipotle each had two in the top-10. Lanterne Rouge to Tyler Farrar of TSC, who may not be fully recovered from his woes at the ToC.

They also talk about Kloden denying the claims that Sinkewitz has fingered him as a fellow blood-doper before the 2006 Tour, and frustrated the rumours are being presented as leaks of confidential interviews with the prosecutors.

Cycling Weekly notes that most of the "big stars" have defied the UCI's call for boycott and have started Paris-Nice.

The VeloNews' Andrew Hood writes about the "cloud" under which Paris-Nice starts today. Click here for VeloNews live updates. Here is the first update of the day as the race begins:

It's business as usual at the start of Paris-Nice despite a contentious week of political in-fighting between the UCI and ASO. Cycling has an incredible ability to shrug off adversity and get down to the business of racing bikes. Be it doping scandals, power struggles or other calamities, the power of simply getting on with it seems to the carry the day. That's the sense here in Amilly for the start of the 4.6km opening prologue course. Power struggles be damned - everyone here just wants to race their bikes.

In more VeloNews German prosecutors have offered Jan Ullrich a "deal" which would include a hefty fine and "cooperation" with the authorities.

The CyclingNews is late writing about Paris-Nice as, but rehashes the events of the past few days. In other news Rock Racing is hoping against hope for a spot in Milano-San Remo.

The NY Times writes late yesterday about the bottom line in the dispute between the ASO and UCI, with no less a rider than David Millar saying that this split may ultimately be for the best.

There is sure to be more Paris-Nice news soon, updates are coming

Blogs
PuddinRider says his good news is that the avascular necrosis in his left femoral head (like Landis had) that will need replacement isn't directly related to the multiple myeloma that has him starting radiation treatment next week. He's carrying a positive outlook.

Velo Vortmax reviews how Astana, the ASO, and the UCI arrived at this uncomfortable place in time, which finds all interested parties standing at the brink of a brave new cycling world.

Full Post with Comments...

Saturday Roundup

News
Late, the AP previews Paris-Nice saying the teams are probablyl riding, and the UCI is looking weak. By the time of the morning edition, we'll know for sure.

The VeloNews suggests how closely riders should have read the UCI rule book before they signed the back of their license. It goes on to explain how the UCI can punish them if they ride Paris-Nice. The UCI's Martin Gibbs reiterates Pat McQuaid's email to riders and teams and there is more at stake than just fines:

That rule allows the UCI president to impose penalties "such as” exclusion from the world championships, continental championships or the Olympics.

If nothing else, rule 12.1.004 reveals the UCI president's immense latitude. Which, after this discussion of how the UCI can penalize Paris-Nice riders, raises the question of why he thinks it's in the interest of cycling punish riders for taking part in one of the most prestigious races in the world.

The St Catherines Standard wonders if cycling hasn't now turned into mere tabloid fodder with the ASO/UCI showdown, but despite it all they still remember watching Bob Roll expound on the accomplishments of "deceiver" Floyd Landis. It may all comes down to entertainment, WWE style. Bottom line, we can still love cycling "warts" and all.

The AFP notes Marion Jones' incarceration began yesterday as she turned herself in to begin a six month sentence for perjury. The piece also states that this case indicates doping investigations will no longer be left to sports federations and anti-doping organizations. The federal government is now getting involved as indicated in a widening investigation of Roger Clemens, and the pursuance of the case against Barry Bonds.

Sally Jenkins/Washington Post wrote the other day that the current prosecutions are backwards in targeting users rather than dealers.

A lot of things may come out of this, but truth and justice aren't among them. If Congress and government prosecutors really care about cleaning up steroids, why are they being harder on the users than their connections?
...

It's tempting to say all three of the people under discussion are indefensible. They are cheats and liars. Fine. But even guilty people [Clemens, Bonds, Jones] deserve commensurate treatment under the law. Somewhere along the line, we drifted into the territory of vengeance and political gain, not righteousness.

The fact is, any number of public figures, starting with Big Tobacco executives, have told much bigger lies to Congress than Clemens did, and none faced perjury charges. You want a brazen, damaging public lie? How about, "Tobacco isn't addictive"?
...
In the rank of drug cases, steroid usage is in the same class legally as taking Valium or Vicodin without a legitimate prescription

Jenkins threw Landis under the bus over The Call; perhaps the pendulum is starting to change direction.

The AP reports the Nolan Ryan, the career strikeout leader who set the standard for late-career achievement, is saying Baseball "turned its back" on steroids. It sounds perilously close to LeMond.

The AP also quotes Bud Selig, the Baseball commissioner, as not feeling a need to read the Bonds testimony at this time. No Bud, it's not important and would take too much of your precious time. Fortunately, you don't have to read it yourself, you can read our summary from last Sunday, since we must have more time than you to follow the details of this major case the hangs like a cloud over your entire tenure as Commissioner. No need for you to actually know the details of what Bonds said, it would only cloud your vision. Here's one of the parts he repeated: "I don't trust baseball", meaning the Baseball establishment, which is to say, you.

Blogs
CFA says they're all just lemmings racing for the cliff.

Rant feels the ASO and UCI learned nothing from last year's battles as both sides in the current dispute have dug in their heels, and as always the teams and riders are caught in the middle destined to be collateral damage.

Spinnin'Wheel yesterday watched one retiree who just "loved the game", and gives numerous examples of the courage demonstrated over the years by various cyclists. Who can say that the ASO or UCI shows any kind of courage now?

Belgian Knee Warmers notes ASO's treatment of Astana shows it isn't bluffing, and the riders have the least say of anyone.

Added up, the UCI is threatening to suspend more than 1000 cyclists if 20 teams show up to Paris-Nice.

Such an action may seem inconceivable (in any rational world, it would be), but crazy knows no bounds; it is the mind unfettered by the by the guidance of the creative urge that keeps so many artists and writers part of productive society. It may seem unreasonable to us that the UCI would threaten so many over what seems so minor—racers racing an event that’s been going on since 1933—but if the UCI backs down, its authority will have been effectively broken.

A quick shake of the Magic 8-Ball says: “Things will get worse.”

Full Post with Comments...

McQuaid Open Letter

Full text of letter from McQuaid in Le Monde, reprinted from VeloNews

Today, ASO directors decided that they would no longer comply with the UCI rules. How did we get to this point? The answer is simple: over and above our differences of opinion about the way professional cycling is organised, the very role of the UCI is being called into question by a body that sees it as an obstacle to its own ambitions.

[MORE]


Let there be no mistake: ASO is a limited company, answerable only to its shareholders. The UCI, on the other hand, is a democratic supranational organisation that represents the interests of all those involved in cycling. Its revenues are used for the universal development of all disciplines of cycling.


In their attempt to gain power, while choosing not to exercise it in areas that do not interest them – unlike the UCI, ASO could not care less about defending anyone’s interests other than its own – ASO’s executives have accomplished quite a feat: they have created the belief that they are the Tour de France, and that opposing them is tantamount to attacking the Tour. This has enabled them to insinuate that anything that goes against ASO’s interests is a violation of France’s cycling heritage. This tricolour smokescreen must be cleared away. The Tour does not belong exclusively to the company that organises it: it also belongs to those who love it, and who are its raison d’être, which means, above all, the riders. Those who are passionate about cycling should be warned: agreeing to ASO’s demands would transform professional cycling into a league managed by the dominant organiser, rather than by an international organisation that represents the collective interest.


ASO is currently refusing to register Paris-Nice on a calendar decided through democratic process. It wants its events to take place outside the UCI rules, so that it can decide, by means of contracts, which rules will govern the teams. This has created an unstable situation with adverse effects on many of those involved. ASO is resorting to blackmail by using the Tour, which teams feel obliged to take part in from a financial point of view, and forcing them to choose between their short-term interests (participating illegally in the Paris-Nice in order not to risk being excluded from the Tour) and respect for an institution which guarantees the long-term health of their sport. Placing teams in this position is an act of sabotage on the structure the UCI has developed over the years to guarantee the rights of all those involved. This is why we have reached a situation where the French Cycling Federation is risking suspension, for having consented to the infractions committed by ASO executives; its President will probably be called to appear before a disciplinary commission, for the same reasons; and riders may be suspended for taking part in a race that is not part of the regulatory framework of the UCI. The effectiveness of the anti-doping campaign is also under threat. The UCI has had considerable success in this area, particularly with the biological passport, but it cannot conduct tests in a race that is not on the calendar. I realise that, after reading this list, you may feel the UCI is making a mistake; but I hope you will understand that, if we are to defend the established system, the UCI cannot afford not to take these measures, however painful they may be. If anyone here bears a heavy responsibility, it is the directors of ASO.


It is enormously disappointing that those institutions that should have been the first to defend the role of the international federations that govern their sport according to the Olympic Charter have failed to do so. The French Sports Ministry seems more concerned to support ASO’s projects than to urge a sense of discipline on a body that is breaching international rules. By condoning an organiser’s wish to opt out of the established structure, the Ministry is giving its blessing by default to the creation of a private league. And this is all the more astonishing given the Ministry’s stated wish to avoid this! Is it right for a country to breach international rules, in support of what it believes to be its national interests, when these interests, far from being under threat, are actually being manipulated by a commercial entity? Is it right for a responsible politician to become the accomplice of a private organiser that wants to opt out of an institutional framework that has been so carefully set up? These questions are worth asking.


Pat McQuaid
UCI President

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Roundup

News
AP carries the announcement of the UCI's case against the FFC, that CAS recusal, and has this quote:

“We maintain the French federation didn’t have to accept the request to put the race on the French calendar,” UCI president Pat McQuaid told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Which also doesn't say the FFC was obliged to reject it, either. Pitallier shot back:

It was “regrettable and disastrous that an international association which says it defends federations and its members can hold responsible people who have done nothing wrong,” he said.

CAS issued a press release announcing their rejection of the case by the IPCT. The UCI and ASO claimed CAS was "not competent" to to decide the dispute. CAS has agreed not to try to ajudicate the short-term provisional matters, but says it is available should the parties decide to play nice and accept a decision about who owns the lolipop.

The UCI issued a press release saying they were going to commence disciplinary action against the FFC and Pitallier, and want Boyer to resign the AIGCP. (both found by Larry).

The CyclingNews reports that while the CAS has said it would hear the dispute between the ASO and the UCI, neither party has accepted the judicial body competent to do so adding another complicating layer to this already ponderous situation :

"The CAS informed all the parties concerned that an arbitration hearing could take place on 7 March 2008 on the condition that all the parties agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the CAS to decide the case in question. However, neither the UCI nor the ASO have accepted the jurisdiction of the CAS to decide this dispute," a press release by CAS read. "In these circumstances, the CAS must rule during the day of 7 March 2008 on its competence to decide this dispute and, if necessary, on the request for provisional measures filed by the claimants."

In other CyclingNews cyclist Amber Neben is suing Hammer Nutrition for not including a list of all of the substances it put in one of its nutritional supplements which consequently are alleged to have caused a positive doping control. She, along with several others, will be represented by Howard Jacobs. And the UCI has formally established its own anti-doping foundation which will look for new strategies in the fight against PED use:

The foundation has been allocated a budget of 5 million Euro per year, which will be used to optimise the practical and scientific aspects of the UCI's anti-doping activities by developing new synergies. To ensure transparency of the organization a contributors' committee has been established, which will be spearheaded by former Tour de France second in charge Daniel Baal. The former ASO employee will be joined by yet to be named representative from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), organisers, teams, riders and other parties.

Where they are getting 5 million Euros we don't know, and they are saying the "Passport" system may not be deployed quickly because they are short cash for that -- partly because they say ASO etc. haven't paid up.

The VeloNews posts an open letter from Pat McQuaid which was printed in Le Monde today; full text in our post.

The VeloNews also posts a feature on the UCI's new anti-doping foundation.

ESPN hosts a Reuters report in which Pat McQuaid tells riders that IF they take part in Paris-Nice they are out.

And the AP says Sinkewitz is off the hook from the German Cycling Federation since he dropped his appeal yesterday. No word if the German Federal Prosecutors will carry forward their threats of jail time if he doesn't sing more notes. We suspect he's less motivated now than he may have been before to testify against Landis at the CAS appeal.

Later the other shoe drops, as CyclingNews suggests that Sinkewitz may have implicated Kloden in a trip to the Freiburg University Clinic, this perhaps from a chat with the Federal Prosecutors on Monday. CN has more about the ASO/UCI impasse and history as well.

Blogs
CFA is glad that Paul Scott has resigned from ACE, allegedly because of his continuing participation in the Floyd Landis case. CFA makes a few suppositions about Scott's motivations in the matter, and drags an old chestnut out for good measure:

It makes it seem like he must really believe Landis is innocent...because otherwise he's just helping a doper get off. I do wonder if Scott has studied Landis's blood profile and noticed the increase in hematocrit during the Tour? And if so, what he has to say about it. I also really wish that some cycling journalist would ask Landis to explain that blood profile. I realize that his doping case is only about testosterone and not blood doping, but the bigger question is whether Landis was a doper or not. An increasing hematocrit during the extreme exertion of the Tour is not normal, and so far this issue has not been addressed adequately.

We refer the reader to a discussion of this in comments at Rant. We don't think it leads to any conclusions, and yes, we're pretty sure Scott knows about it. There's really no reason For Landis to address the Hct values unless and until he wins his appeal.

NewsBiscuit snarks , with Photoshop assistance, that Le Tour will let pizza mopeds in this year's tour at the behest of a new sponsor. (from an emailer.)

Full Post with Comments...

Thursday Roundup

News
Reuters reports Patrick Sinkewitz has decided not to appeal his 1 year ban (reduced for cooperation) for his testosterone positive last year. He'll be eligible to race again on July 17th, if he can find an employer and any races that will allow his entry. In the meantime, he may also testify in the Landis appeal, though we can't imagine why.

CyclingNews breaks word that CAS has heard the call, and will rule on the IPCT complaint about Paris-Nice and sanctions by the UCI by Friday night.

AS general secretary Matthieu Reeb told Reuters on Thursday, "The international professional cycling teams have asked us to rule before the start of the race so we will make a decision by tomorrow evening at the latest."

CN also says the riders and teams are "standing up" to the UCI by begging for a mediation to resolve some of the issues. It sounds like tumbleweed asking for the wind to stop, not standing up to us.

Earlier, the CyclingNews posted a call for arbitration in the UCI/ASO dispute from IPCT (the International Professional Cycling Teams):

"In this affair, the teams and their riders are caught between a rock and a hard place," read IPCT's statement which added that the organization "did not want to take part in this conflict, but must protect the interests of members." The IPCT is asking CAS to decide if the teams and their riders have a right to take part in Paris-Nice without being exposed to a risk of sanctions from the UCI.

This edition of CN also reiterates the outrage of the French cycling federation to threats voiced by Pat McQuaid yesterday, as well as Christian Prudhomme's latest comments on the elimination of doping from cycling.

The CyclingNews reader mail column publishes notes on lots of topics, but the majority of the letters posted express opinion on the ASO's exclusion of Astana from its events this year.

The Southwest Daily News community calendar notes an appearance by Floyd Landis in conjunction with a seminar on hip pain and hip resurfacing surgery. The event will take place on Saturday March 15th, and if you live in this part of Louisiana and are interested you can find more information here.

The BBC shows Mr. Pound polishing his image by appearing to take an athlete's position against a federation. In this case, he's saying the British Olympic Committee's rule to prohibit one-time offenders from ever representing the UK in Olympic competition is likely to be successfully challenged. He says that as a signatory to the WADA code, it is obliged to accept the end of a ban as the end of a ban, and not impose additional punishment. We wonder how he feels about cycling promoters dis-inviting riders with a past. If one feels an event organizer can have rules of their own choosing because they are not signatories, then why can't something like, say, the Beijing Organizing Committee decide to refuse entry from athletes who ever had a doping violation? Or a government refusing VISA/entry to anyone with a doping case in the past?

Motor Sport
In marginally relevant news from the world of powered wheels, we see how NASCAR deals with a perceived infraction: Carl Edwards has his win at Las Vegas marked "tainted", had season points taken away, and his crew chief has been suspended for a post-race inspection violation. They claim it was a broken part, but haven't decided if they will appeal:

“We are not yet sure if we will be participating in a 16th-century exercise in the judicial system,” Smith said. “It’s a tough business for any race team to have to pledge $100,000, 100 points and a six-race crew chief suspension as an indemnity payment to NASCAR against a promise forced from us by NASCAR that no bolt will ever fail its purpose under race conditions.”

At the same time, an appeal can work, as Robby Gordon was pleased to have happen.

Robby Gordon received a season-saving reprieve from a NASCAR appeals committee Wednesday when the three-member panel restored the 100 points he had been docked for an infraction at Daytona.

The National Stock Car Racing Commission also lifted crew chief Frank Kerr’s six-week suspension, but raised his monetary fine from $100,000 to $150,000. The fine is the largest in NASCAR history, topping the $100,000 set by Michael Waltrip last season and matched several times.

And to show what a small world it is, Gordon's team was under a lot of time and financial pressure:

Gordon was caught with an unapproved front bumper on his Dodge during the first inspection for the season-opening Daytona 500. He defected from Ford to Dodge just a week before, and his team scrambled to build cars with parts provided by the manufacturer.

Dodge inadvertently sent Gordon a prototype bumper it is hoping to get approved for competition.

...

The victory eases a burden on Gordon that began in January when terrorist threats forced the cancellation of the Dakar Rally. Gordon, a perennial competitor in the 16-day, 5,760-mile trek Europe to Senegal in West Africa, was already in Portugal with two $1 million cars when the event was canceled.

He estimated it cost RGM almost $4.5 million in losses, and wasn’t sure his small race team could survive.

The promoter of the canceled Dakar Rally? Our friends, the ASO, though it is hard to blame them for the violence and political instability of the race route that forced the cancellation.


Blogs
Rant invokes Edwin Starr and asks what good is the UCI/ASO war for? Absolutely nothin', ask the riders who, along with cycling fans, will suffer the most, again.

RaceJunkie is impressed the IPCT grew a spine and asked for CAS to intervene.

Velo Vortmax thinks both sides of the UCI/ASO battle should just "drop dead". Barring that, VV feels the riders should stand up for themselves by striking, and he agrees with Rock Racing's Michael Ball that they should form a union with some bite this time.

WADA Watch tries to find things on the WADA website, and runs into a bunch of dead links and empty pages. Conclusions are drawn about transparency and accessibility of information.

Full Post with Comments...

McQuaid Addresses the ECU, full text

Earlier in the week,McQuaid sent a letter to the European Cycling Union. Here is the full-text, from this link at the UCI.

Presidents and Officials of the member-federations of the European Cycling Union,

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

Welcome to this annual meeting of the UEC Congress. As always, it is an honour and a pleasure to address the representatives of our Sport in Europe, west and east, north and south. Cycling is increasingly becoming global and winning new followers year on year. However, only one region in the world is the birthplace of Cycling and the repository of its heritage. And that is Europe.

All of us in this room are aware that we live in momentous times. Since we know each other very well allow me to dispense with pleasantries and get to the point… with brutal frankness.

[MORE]

Yes, these are troubled times. Our Sport is faced with a clear and present danger. Never before in the history of the International Cycling Union – the worldwide federation of federations— has the institutional foundation of our sport been threatened in the way it is today.

And yet, we stand divided…

Divided, hesitant and unaware of the lethal nature of the challenges that we face.

Therefore, I cannot stand before you today with a “business as usual” attitude. It is my duty to present to you the grave issues at hand and the enormous stakes at risk. I will do so, as you know I always do, in clear and plain language.

It is also my obligation to advise you about UCI’s position in this conflict, formed in strict compliance with its Constitution and its Regulations. Which I will also do so in unmistakable terms.

And finally, as head of the Governing Body for Cycling worldwide, it is appropriate that I brief you on the stance that UCI will take in this crisis. It will be, in a nutshell, the only possible one: We as an organization, and I as its President, will fulfil our mandate.

One word keeps resonating in my mind lately. I think it’s time to say it out loud: The word is

Enough!

In the last two years, those who have opposed UCI at every turn have justified their actions with a smokescreen of false pretences.

• They have misrepresented the facts and played on the good-will of many members of the cycling community to proclaim that their only interest is the regeneration of the sport and its future glory…

• They have discredited the individuals and organizations that defend the principles of fairness and open competition.

• They have undermined each and every effort made to consolidate a stable framework for the Sport’s professional elite segment to ensure its appeal to riders, teams, sponsors and broadcasters as a source of genuine passion for millions around the world.

• And they now even seem to be willing to undermine the great progress achieved in the fight against doping, embodied by the Biological Passport initiative, by not paying their contribution.

Let there be no mistake about who I am referring to. These accusers have a name:

Amaury Sports Organization… A. S. O.

Before going on, I should confess here that I have been too prudent, too patient… some of my closest associates would say I might have even been naïve.

Despite the arrogance and the provocations; despite the breaches of agreements…

I made efforts to keep the dialogue open, to accept mediation, to avoid burning bridges…

Dialogue with many parties may have been difficult –even tense—at times, but it has been honest and ultimately productive. As a result, we have reached meaningful solutions for issues with all members of the cycling family… except for one: ASO.

By deciding to run the Paris-Nice race outside the UCI rules of participation, ASO have crossed the line of what is legal, what is proper and what is fair.

If successful, they will attain their main objective: a total shift in the balance of power in cycling:

• From sport to business.

• From human effort to financial performance.

• From the quest for victory to the pursuit of profit.

Never mind that up to now, ASO’s proclamations have defied credulity. Now, they’ve decided they can defile the integrity of Cycling through their actions.

But those actions expose them. The agenda behind ASO’s relentless attitude of refusal to accept anything but their own conditions –their own business imperatives— has finally come into clear focus.

Look at the contract that ASO proposed to the teams for their participation in Paris-Nice.

This is what they mean by regenerating the sport!

This is what they mean by protecting the legacy of some of the world’s greatest races!

• A draconian contract by which the riders and teams have all the obligations and no rights.

• A carte-blanche to expel any rider or team, at any time, for even the suspicion, rumour or misconduct.

• Criteria for participation based solely on personal invitation,

• An admonishment to remain silent, to forgo any criticism under threat of immediate exclusion…

In summary, one very clear message: “Put-up and shut-up… or get out”.

These most recent events have only one upside. They have once and for all torn down the façade behind which ASO has been hiding its true intent. It is now crystal-clear to all that the merchants will stop at nothing in the pursuit of their exclusive financial interests.

A History professor I met recently at a social event explained to me three key steps in any conspirator’s manual for a successful coup d’état:

• “Take control of the Media” --which in today’s world would extend to the broader multimedia space.

• “Disband the Institutions, revoke the laws and…

• “Secure the Treasure”

The similarities to ASO’s methods in its grab for power are striking.

• Step One –the “Media”— is already achieved through cross-ownership of some print media, with ramifications in broadcast, internet, etc.

• Step Two –repealing the law—is currently at the height of its execution, and…

• Step Three –taking full control of the enormous economics behind the business of cycling—is the final goal.

Let’s not fool ourselves. ASO and their allies are not about the improvement of our Sport.

• They are about definitively turning it into a business category, driven solely by maximum financial gain.

• They are about creating and controlling an economic cartel –actually a conglomerate—among the so-called “Monument” races that no longer responds to the traditions and heritage built up over decades in each of these races but only to a management board.

• And they are about having the power to force every other actor of the Sport –the riders, the teams, their Sponsors, the federations, the broadcast groups and the general media—to accept exactly the formula that, every season, in every race, will generate more cash.

Unaware. Hesitant. Divided. I used those words at the beginning of these remarks.

Yes, sometimes I fear we are not totally conscious of the magnitude of the challenge that is being cast at our feet.

• If we cave in to the wishes of whom I call the merchants, we will be signing the death warrant of elite cycling as we know it.

• It will cease being a sport where the interests of riders and teams are balanced with those of sponsors, broadcasters and all the different players that have a legitimate stake in it.

I said also that we have been hesitant. We felt that by being prudent we were leaving open the door to acceptable compromises for all.

• But our adversaries have mistaken discretion for weakness.

• This is a serious mistake.

• As trustees of the mandate given to UCI by the federations, we have the resolve to carry out our obligations to the fullest extent.

And we are divided…

Today, here, in this room, sits a Federation president that has chosen to throw its support behind the Paris-Nice in the new form that its organizers have imposed

It is difficult for me to witness how the steward that has received the trust of the entire French Federation would take the route of de facto secession to support a private concern. I can not understand how this attitude might preserve the interests of all the constituents of the French Cycling Federation.

And I am saddened when one of our member federations seems unable –or unwilling—to withstand the pressure of economic and political power.

M. Pittalier: Let me make one final appeal to you and your federation today. I make it from the bottom of my heart both as President of the UCI and as a former cyclist…

• Please reconsider the path you are taking.

• Please do not mistake defending France and the traditions of French sport with protecting a business that happens to be French but could be from anywhere else. Money has no nationality.

• Please correct the misconception, apparent even in the Government of your country that the UCI is against France and wishes to destroy the Tour and other legacy races.

The so called “Monuments” of French cycling –the Paris-Roubaix, the Tour-- have been kidnapped and will ultimately become a travesty of their former glory if profit and the blind laws of the market prevail over the values of sport.

And I ask all of you to equally reflect deeply and sincerely on these issues. We have a collective duty here today, and in upcoming days, weeks and months. It is to preserve, to protect and enforce the rules of our Sport. They are there to ensure fairness. They can be changed, of course, through a thoughtful, legal and democratic process… They can be adapted to new demands, to new opportunities… But they can not be thrown out when they cease to serve the interests of just one party.

The UCI is prepared to live up to this duty. And I am personally committed to the two core elements of the mandate I was given when elected to preside our organization:

• Ensure a return to the highest standards of Governance, cohesion and future development for Cycling around the World, and…

• Fight without quarter against the scourge of doping in our sport.

The difficulties of this mission carry a significant toll. I am no longer a popular man in many circles.

But these last events have only strengthened my resolve. I am not only committed. I am totally dedicated to this task.

I will not allow a full-fledged aggression of our Organization.

I will continue ensuring that UCI’s resources apply –rigorously but fairly—the full weight of our regulations.

I have said ENOUGH!

I ask you to say the same here today and act in consequence.

Thank you.

Full Post with Comments...