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...

Wednesday Roundup

News
The CyclingNews says that the UCI has threatened teams and riders with sanctions if they take part in ASO events, specifically Paris-Nice. In an email sent out yesterday Pat McQuaid says he has "sympathy" for the riders but at this point he is well prepared to take action against them:

According to the letter, riders who particpate in Paris-Nice face up to six months suspension, a fine of up to 10,000 Swiss francs, the loss of UCI points and "exclusion from participation in UCI World Championships and other events". Teams were threatened with the suspension of their UCI registration, a fine of up to 10,000 Swiss francs and withdrawal of the UCI ProTour licence or Wild Card label

So much for the UCI taking a "pro rider stance" as claimed last week. The teams state they have been forced into proverbial "rock or hard" status:

Gerolsteiner team manager Hans-Michael Holczer refused to say whether or not his team would ride on Sunday, but noted, "If we don't start in Paris-Nice, then you can be sure that we can forget our start in the Tour de France. If we do start, then our riders are threatened by the UCI with a ban and non-participation in the world championships and Olympics. We have our choice of being either quartered or hanged." Gerolsteiner was supposed to send such riders as Davide Rebellin, Bernhard Kohl, Stefan Schumacher and Andrea Moletta to Paris-Nice.

In the meantime McQuaid has refused to meet with the ASO to hash out this dilemma, and the ASO has accepted changes in the language of the Paris-Nice contract which AIGCP found objectionable. And so it goes...

The VeloNews also writes on the above topic, taking the angle this can only be destructive to an already fragile sport.

Later VeloNews passes on word from AFP that says the head of the FFC, Jean Pitallier will take the UCI to CAS if the UCI keeps messing things up. He says he has the backing of French President Nicolas Sarkozy should this me necessary, so is no longer an ASO thing, but a French thing.


ESPN reports that the CONI hearing, through which the Italian Olympic Committee wishes to ban Danilo DiLuca for two years for irregular hormone levels, will take place in April 1. We're still not sure which WADA regulation covers irregular hormone levels, as in, do they constitute an AAF, or is this being chased as a non-analytic positive?

News.com.au reports Prudhomme as ready to take doping on, and scoffs at suggestions made by some to make the event easier to reduce the temptation:

“Ben Johnson took drugs to run a 100 metres, so it's not the race or design of the course. If you staged a sack race, I'm sure some people would take drugs to be the best in a sack race,” he said.

Or as Landis once wrote of the same suggestion: "I think we should shorten the long jump."

Blogs
Racejunkie assesses the major players in the Paris-Nice brouhaha and assigns levels of sympathy for them.

Matt Steinmetz ran into Landis at the Vision Quest camp, with pix.

RobsWorld is getting some indirect help from Allen Lim, and doing a bunch of testing.

Phantom Reflections was happy to see Landis as the ToC finale, seeing as he was the first winner of the event.

MCP also recaps the ToC and includes a nice photo of Floyd Landis.

Benjacat is amused by the Federal Case being pursued against Clemens:

Remember when the Floyd Landis scandal broke and American mainstream media sports news people summarily dismissed cycling as a fraudulent sport while continuing to treat the Big 3 "American" sports as clean and legitimate? Now that was funny.

Alan Foster runs an old article on Mountain Biking, with a quote from a much younger Floyd Landis:

"I like the competition, it's an individual thing, and after a while you get good at crashing," Floyd Landis, 23, a pro rider from Ephrata said. Landis has been a competitive rider for almost half of his life and now is a sponsored rider who travels the circuit. He says it's not a bad life. This year he has been to Big Bear, near Los Angles, now at Seven Springs and will soon be off to Red Wing in Minnesota, then to Canada and Mammoth, Georgia. Sponsored riders fly to these places on the various companies they represent. Landis said the bikes have come a long way and the gears and chains are not as affected by mud the way they used to. "Flat tires are still a problem though," Landis said.

Bruce Hildenbrand at Active.com takes on the UCI and ASO, and thinks the UCI are the bad guys here.

Full Post with Comments...

Tuesday Roundup

News
The CyclingNews' first update of the day finds more detail on the European Cycling Union's rebuffing of the ASO and its plans for Paris-Nice this year. But, they also want to UCI to rethink its stand on the pro tour schedule. Meanwhile Pat McQuaid, fleshes out his call for sanctions against teams who participate in the "outlaw" Paris-Nice event this year. McQuaid sees very dark days ahead for cycling if the ASO persists in its threatened actions. In other UCI news Frank Vandenbrouke is taking the cycling body to court for "sanctioning" his team if they select him:

"This is pure insanity," Paul De Geyter, Vandenbroucke's manager told Belgian newspaper HLN. "There are no other words to describe it [the decision of the UCI]. Frank has been punished for offences that occurred in 2000 the night before Omloop Het Volk. A punishment he has already served. Furthermore, they are accusing him of racing in Italy under another name. They have never questioned us over that at all and have taken all their information from the media. They also accuse him of being good friends with Bernard Sainz. Are they going to determine who a rider can talk to now?"

The VeloNews posts the Mailbag column, and you can guess what the major topic of discussion is.

ESPN reports that the IAAF has requested the CAS double Justin Gatlin's four year ban for PED use. Gatlin himself has appealed the initial ban to the CAS, with a hearing expected sometime in May.

ESPN also says that major European track and field meets will not invite anyone who has ever served any sanction for doping, even if individuals have served their suspensions. This may be a trend for the future in all sports and is being used as a further deterrent against doping. So much for "paying your debt" to sporting society.

Blogs
Racejunkie goes to the heart of the matter with a youtube "special" throwdown "featuring" Pat McQuaid and Christian Prudhomme, or someone. As RJ says at least the ASO admits to being angered over past egg on its face, what's the UCI's excuse?

KTLA Morning News Blog asks all kinds of questions about what is natural, what is medical, and what is PED, and wonders how we can tell the difference, and what can and ought to be allowed. No answers. Landis and testosterone are mentioned as an example -- syn T is a legitamate medical supplement, so why is it banned?

Our tax dollars would be better spent going to the FDA than to televising congressional witch hunts of professional sports figures and their cronies - who turn a doping investigation into a circus of lies and back-stabbing; for which they will forever be remembered.

But the FDA regulation doesn't present nearly as much Theater as congressional hearings, and the public wants entertainment. Or, as was said about the apparent steroid use in baseball, "fans want their dingers". Perhaps Clemens' greatest sin was being a pitcher, and not a hitter.

Cycling4Charity promises pictures, one of Floyd Landis, from the recently completed ToC.

Eat Sleep MTB compares a recent workout to one of Landis' pre-tour as passed by Allen Lim, and concludes that he sucks. TBV compares his to ESMTB, and concludes he is glad he is has a day job.

Team Armada has another picture of Landis on the recumbent at Vision Quest Camp. It looks like he's banging away on his iPhone, using the trike as a convenient seat.

Full Post with Comments...

Monday Roundup

News
The VeloNews' John Wilcoxson opines that this time the "renegade" ASO may have gone too far in the arm twisting and coercion of Eric Boyer and its manipulation of the rules which protect riders. But, not everyone is taking it lying down:

The French Federation's decision to back ASO clearly does not have the full support of other national governing bodies. On Sunday, the European Cycling Union passed a resolution condemning the ASO, FFC actions regarding Paris-Nice by a vote of 18-7

The CyclingNews notes that the UCI has in essence "blackmailed" Team Mitsubishi-Jartazi by granting them "wildcard" status, as long as they exclude Frank Vandenbrouke from their team that is.

In the "why can't we all just get along?" department
Perhaps the ASO and UCI should taken a close look at the implosion of American open wheel racing and the recent, and much too late, reunification of the two main racing series. The flotsam and jetsam that remains hardly causes a blip on the sports radar screen. Learn from history, or you will surely become it.


St Louis Today.com agrees in an article that pre-dates the above comments. It's already too late for open wheel racing here, at least the immediate future look grim. That is the lesson the UCI and ASO must heed, though it may be too late for them as well.

Blogs
Rant takes a considered look at what might be done to facilitate cycling's exit from the morass of doping that it finds itself currently in.

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

Botch of the Week

Iván Gutiérrez lost the lead of the Vuelta a Valenciana on Thursday after the group he was in was led off course by the motorcycle official in the final five kilometres of the third stage. The chasing group of 25 riders was bearing down on two escapees ... and had brought the gap down to less than twenty seconds when they were led the wrong way at a roundabout and onto a highway which was filled with rush-hour traffic.

CyclingNews

The official response: "Sorry, nothing we can do"

News
The CyclingNews says the UCI is claiming the agreement reached by the pro teams to participate in Paris-Nice was in fact not unanimous:

But the UCI insists that not all team managers were present at the meeting, and some were opposed to the AIGCP's proposals. "After having consulted several team managers, the UCI notes that Mr (Eric) Boyer's statements do not correspond to the actual situation: several teams were not consulted. It is thus false to assert that the teams unanimously decided to participate in the Paris-Nice," read a UCI statement issued on Saturday.

Not only did a restricted number of team managers attend the AIGCP meeting, but the majority of these declared that they were opposed to the contents of the press release of 27 February." added the statement. "The truth is thus that the teams did not come out in favor of participation in the Paris-Nice irrespective of the conditions. In fact, several teams contacted UCI seeking to take part in the Paris-Nice under UCI regulations."

ESPN posts an AP interview with Astana's Johan Bruyneel in which, among other assertions, he claims that the now defunct Discovery team failed to secure another sponsor because of the continuing dispute between the UCI and ASO. He doesn't say anything about prejudice ASO may have against him or his ex-Discovery riders.

The Daily Peloton announces the choice of consultant Rock Racing has made to run its in-house anti-doping program, no surprise it's old friend Paul Scott:

“Rock Racing is proud to partner with Scott Analytics in our commitment to change this sport for the better,” said Team Owner Michael Ball. “The Athlete Passport Program will ensure the integrity of our team and reinforce our position that all of our riders should be eligible to race.

The program was developed by respected anti-doping researcher and Scott Analytics Founder and President, Paul Scott, who also served as Director of Clients at the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory and Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Agency for Cycling Ethics, Inc.

Blogs
CyclingFans Anonymous considers the selection of Paul Scott for Rock Racing's anti-doping program by Rock (and Landis)' attorney Maurice Suh to be less than confidence inspiring. Noting that Scott seems to have left ACE, it strikes CFA as just too chummy.


Science of Sport considers punishment for doping, and is taken aback by the vindictiveness expressed, and the confidence some people have:

[

O]thers within the IOC have even suggested that doping offences should be criminalized - jail time the result of a positive test.

The problem with increasing the punishment - testing will be even more vulnerable to attack

What interests me about this is that no one is looking at the testing procedure and systems, but rather assuming that testing is capable of reliably catching athletes who do cheat. For the implicit assumption when one calls for increased bans, is that the process that will ultimately give that ban is sound, and not likely to collapse under what would become even more pressure to be correct. If the system for testing and then processing positive tests is even slightly flawed, increasing the bans simply invites even more legal wrangling and controversy.
...
[i]f you're thinking I'm going soft of dopers, let me address the balance. Because while the chance of "false positive" is a real one, what concerns me more is that dopers who test positive will have even more chance of getting away with it, because the entire process that ultimately delivers their sentence would now be under even more pressure to avoid a false conviction.

There are some interesting comments as well. The Landis case is invoked as one that would probably need to be "let off" in a more punitive system with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Floyd has said he'd be happy with that kind of system, in "Dopers must be stoned"

Archivists Corner
The Smoking Gun has the transcript of the Barry Bonds Grand Jury testimony. TSG's presentation of the indictment seems to show that the counts are about Bonds' memory of the timeline, and knowledge. It doesn't actually say, just underlines parts of responses deemed dubious.

Here's a summary of a quick read of the testimony.

There's 12 pages of discussion of granting him immunity from everything but perjury, then it gets into substance. Then discussion of background with Greg Anderson, and starting training with him as a coach in 1998. Suggestion of blood testing to identify deficiencies on page 19; About 6 blood and about 4 urine tests; Introduced to Victor Conte by Anderson on page 22, sees him perhaps 3 times; "Flax seed oil" around page 25; He doesn't seem to know what a lot of the stuff is, trusting his old friend. Around page 35, he says he did an ad for BALCO as quid-pro-quo because he believed Anderson was getting things from BALCO for free, and that he never paid for it. Page 36 starts discussion of "lotion" -- Bond's says Anderson said, "Here try this it might help", without discussing what it was. Bonds repeatedly says "whatever, just make the pain go away." He didn't think any of what Anderson administered did him any good, since what he was looking for was arthritic pain relief.

Around page 44 talks of learning young not to get into other's peoples business as part of celebrity childhood. He presents himself as intentionally uninquisitive. Page 44 denies Anderson ever injected him, or that he injected himself: "I'm not that talented, no." Page 47, reviewing documents and bills that Bonds says he's never seen, and denying blood draws in February and March when he'd be in spring training. On page 50, Bonds says that, "everyone talks about steroids at one point or another, players or whatever", but he never did one-on-one with Anderson. Page 55 denies EPO, and some other things, at least knowingly; Page 55 begins to have suspicions after BALCO broke in the media that some of the things Anderson gave him might have steroids in them. "If it's a steroid, it ain't working", he says, because he detected no effects. Page 58 shown some documents purporting to be from Anderson, "12-2-02, T, 1 CC, G"; he denies knowing what it is about, specifically that it means testosterone and HgH. Page 63 offers this gem:

Q: Did the Giants training staff have any involvement in working with you with Mr. Anderson?
A. No way.
Q. Okay. And back --
A: We don't trust the ball team. We don't trust baseball.
Q: Why not?
A. Because I was born in this game. Believe me. It's a business. Last time I played baseball was in college. I work for a living now.

[italics added]

On Page 65, he's shown paperwork that seems to be T/E test paperwork. He has know idea what it is about. There are values of 14.0, 10.5 and 1.3; and on Page 69, another test with 16.6, 5.5 and 3.0, which we take as T, E, and ratio. On page 71, we learn he paid Anderson $15,000 for year of training assistance. On page 76, we learn Conte used Quest Diagnostics Incorporated in San Diego for test processing. He's being shown test run by Conte that show apparent positives for Nandrolone and Methenolone. This is the first he's heard of it.

They take a break and come back. He says he always got stuff administered by Anderson at the park before a game, never at home; never got anything sent to him by Conte by mail or Fed-ex. He'd never heard Conte had sent his samples out for steroid testing until this session. On page 98 he specifically denies getting testosterone and Hgh from Anderson in December 2001, per a schedule on a document. On page 101, he does say he takes a bunch of pills, but doesn't know what they are. On page 104 says he could not have done a blood test -- he was at training in Ariziona, and only his doctor here draws blood. Page 108 denies Anderson ever went on the road with him, or that he had the pills, oil or cream with him on the road. On page 110, he thinks the "schedule" before him is odd if it's for steroid doping -- "I'm not overly naive, but I don't think you would do something and then -- I mean, aren't you supposed to do this every day or every other dan and every once a week or something like this? And you go through a cycle think? This is too irregular. It just seems odd to me." On Page 112, he's shown a lab report from BALCO, with a reading of 11.2 and a target rande of 9.5 to 29.7. He doesn't know why BALCO would be testing for it. On page 113, he admits he should have seen the test result documents, but he never inquired. On page 115, it is suggested that Anderson put Bonds' samples in for processing under his, Anderson's name. He's shown some more documents dealing with a Dr. Goldman, who he doesn't know anything about. "I'm shocked at some of these things that I've seen." On Page 120 they address some samples give for MLB testing, paperwork for which seems to have found Anderson's hands. Bonds may have had him check, because he doesn't trust baseball. There's a BACLO test referenced with Goldman that shows free testosterone greater than 5.00, with reference ranges 0.95 to 4.30. He doesn't know why BALCO would have been running such tests. He was never told of any results, except that he was "OK, everything's fine." When he worked out with Anderson, "I mean he works in a gym. I could suspece what goes on in a gym. I don't work out in the richie gym where everybody is rich. I work ina dungeon gym. You know, my thinking of what they may be doing is their own business. I don't get involved into their business. " He says he didn't talk with Anderson about steroids, many many times, and it was a line in their friendship that wasn't crossed: "I don't want to know anything. That's exactly right.", page 126. On pages 128 and 129, he denies planning legal strategies with Anderson. On page 133, some allegations are made about Steve Hoskins and some possible blackmail, and a discussion with the FBI about Hoskins. Bonds does not recall steroids coming up in that interview. The grand jurors ask questions, and he talks about giving big bonuses to lots of people after his 73 home run year, and giving out rings. They, and Anderson's training money are gifts; he doesn't consider Anderson his employee. He hasn't entered any of this on his taxes as gifts, or tried to write them off as expenses. He has another trainer, Harvey Shields, who has also given him different creams over time, but not recently. There is an answer quoted by Smoking Gun, about why he didn't build Anderson a mansion: he's a rare rich black man, and he's keeping his money. There is reiteration that he never paid BALCO, and that the ad was a favor for free protein shakes, including those given to his dad when he was dying of cancer. The end.

All of this, to us, seems reasonably consistent with the reports we've heard of about the testimony over time. He says he didn't know if what he was taking was steroids, and he probably should have checked more than he did.

For perjury, it seems like there would need to be some documentary evidence to contradict the knowledge he denies having about what Anderson was giving him, or testimony that showed he was lying about some point. It is far from clear that, absent the above, it can be proven he knew he was being given steroids. Willfull ignorance and confusion about dates doesn't seem exactly perjurious to us. I don't know that I'd have voted for this indictment absent some other information that is not public. Maybe Bonds is a ham sandwich.

This is the last we'll go into this. Our prurient interest got the better of us, just this once.

Full Post with Comments...

Saturday Roundup

News
ESPN reports the UCI is threatening six month suspensions for riders who do Paris-Nice. We think the UCI is now squarely aiming at its other foot. If we ran a Pro team, we might divide into two squads -- those running the prestigious ASO races, and a B-team that ran the UCI pro tour. That ought to make the UCI happy.

The CyclingNews reports that The International Association of Professional Cycling teams (AIGCP) has expressed some concern over the contract offered it by the ASO and in fact agrees with Pat McQuaid on some of the points he made this week about the matter:

... However, the teams are following up on one of McQuaid's chief concerns - without UCI rules specifying participation, the organizers are able to dictate what teams can ride major events, including immediate expulsion of riders or teams if ASO perceived a threat of image damage for its organization or the event.

On the eve of Het Volk, AIGCP's directing committee studied the ASO agreement in detail for the French race. According to the AFP, AIGCP President Eric Boyer wanted to make sure the team's legitimate concerns were heard. "We'd like to make conditions for starting [events] common," said Boyer, who suggested each team make sure it had assurance of participation in the form of appropriate guaranteeing language in all contract

In other news, The NorCal High School Mountain Bike Racing League has decided to ban caffeine for its high school mountain bikers this year. What's next?

AP runs down the PN/ASO/UCI spat, saying it offers, "a fresh look at an increasingly dysfunctional sport." Ya think?

The VeloNews Mailbag from a couple of days ago rehashes some old familiar subjects.

Full Post with Comments...