Saturday, December 16, 2006

Saturday Roundup

News BBC Sport quotes what appears to be the same interview cited below...

""Even if I'm proved innocent, my reputation is ruined.This whole affair has ruined my life.

An interview in Het Laatste Nieuws and Gazet van Antwerpen has been filtering back, first on this DPF discussion, then later on this Frech blog (translated), finally in an APF report from VeloNews. Taking no prisoners, Landis will probably not be joining Quick Step. The confusing parts are whether he thinks he'll race again. As I said in the DPF thread, there are probably some context errors in the article and the translation. The first snip says,
But I don't think I will race in 2007. Who wants to have me?

I'm putting all my energy in repairing my name and in the war against a system that gives athletes zero rights.

and the concluding:
And even if I win, I won't be back. In the current system I will never be a rider again."

My reading is that he doesn't think he can win the case quickly and still get a ride this season, and that he thinks the system must change in a significant way for him to ride again in 2008. It is not saying he won't compete again, but that he needs to win the case AND change the power structure to come back. I don't know if I'm that pessimistic -- should he win the case, he could legally come back, and I don't know if the old-boy-network would exclude him as he seems to think. Or maybe he doesn't think he can get motivated in that circumstance.


There is a LeMonde article reported in this Spanish blog, translated. The blog reads it differently than I did yesterday, but I still don't make sense of it. There is something going on with the WADA UNESCO treaty, with implications of France having not signed on to it yet for the Landis case.

John Hawks Weblog entry "Is the Dawn of Gene Doping at Hand?"cites the AP article about WADA and DNA testing with analysis of the testing's actual relevence......
This is the same principle that incriminated Floyd Landis' urine samples -- it wasn't the presence of a high testosterone level, it was the presence of an isotopic signature (supposedly) distinctive to synthetic testosterone.

There is a lot of sense in the piece, suggesting WADA is drumming up FUD to justify funding. Hawks notes that someone who is good enough to genetically hack athletes would also be a candidate for a Nobel prize for medicine, and untold riches for curing various diseases. A good argument would be that the money WADA is spending on genetic doping research would be better spent on improving existing tests, doing large population studies to really validate existing tests, and improve supervision and harmonization of the labs. Not to mention learning what "due process" means. But none of that is as sexy as chasing hypothetical genetic dopers.



Anonymous said...

ORG here ....

An long article about Gatlin from today's Washington Post.

It’s a long Amy Shipley story in today’s Washington Post about Gatlin’s drug case.
Says he believes he might have been sabotaged and USADA has allowed the unusual stop of allowing Federal Investigation to look into it before the arbitration hearing.

Question for you, how does strict liability work in the case of sabotage?

Anonymous said...

I have to say I agree with him somewhat on Lefevere. Great DS, but how can the man on one hand go out blasting dopers and coming down on teams for signing someone like Basso when his team employs Museeuw (in a PR capacity), who is technically banned from working in cycling at all? Why does a doping charge not actually apply to his pet cyclist?

This is what bugs me about the cycling anti-doping platform. Are dopers bad or not? Why is Museeuw employed and still revered if cycling is tough on doping (besides his record in the classics, of course)? How is Virenque a national hero if France is so adamant about anti-doping? Because he cried? How can we give passes to some people, and destroy others?

Where does cycling actually stand anyway? Seems to me they talk out of both sides of their mouth, depending on how it benefits them.

Anonymous said...

Career over? No team will sign him? He already has a deal with former TIAA-Cref. As soon as he is cleared Wauters will take him on.

Anonymous said...

Gary, you are absolutely correct. This is why the FL case is so frustrating for many. Professional cycling has turned into a giant circus. Major reforms have to happen before professional cycling is taken seriously again. If it doesn't change soon, there won't be anything left. If you were a potential sponsor, would you get involved? My only hope that is that somehow Floyd's case will shed enough international attention to necessitate change. Until then, it is not worth watching anymore. It has turned into a joke. The best most talented riders are being systematically eliminated. Who really wants to watch a tour without the worlds best riders? Not I. Perhaps enough change will happen to actually see Landis, Basso, and Ullrich go for the prize. Anything less is a travesty.
Green Mtn.
Ephrata, PA.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Mike. In fact, to be honest, I think the sponsors are going to be the ones who end up fixing the doping problems. After all, cycling is a job and if your paycheck stops arriving eventually someone will figure out why.

The system, as it is, is no better than trying to catch spaghetti with a tennis racket. You're going to catch a few, but you're going to make a huge mess in the process.