Thursday, November 27, 2008

Irregular Report 43

Have a great "turkey day" everyone!

Here and There

Racejumkie wishes us all a Happy Thanksgiving too, and throws in a youtube gem and a "photo shopped" tidbit to boot.

Velo Vortmax "debates" the problems and concerns many have with WADA, the UCI, and the new "bio passport" program.

Bikerumor reviews recent activity in "busy" Floyd Landis' career.

The New Common Sense
refers to the Schumacher case and feels Floyd Landis should keep pushing with his federal law suit, even though he has nothing to lose by doing so and Floyd might.


Eightzero said...

"I am Spartacus!"

But on a better note: a happy thanksgiving and holiday season to all in TBV-land.

Unknown said...

Interesting that his federation and the UCI (United Nations on Wheels - S. Cobert) seem happy to leave Schumacher in limbo, rather than move forward with the standard sanction process.

whareagle said...

This Schumacher case warrants further investigation. If what he said is true, then it's deja vu all over again. Add this to the list of names, and you get the usual 'fall-in-to-two-camps-of-absolute-guilt-and-absolute-innocence' situation.

Given what we know, one would hope that WADA watch would send a request for records, or approach Schumi's attorney, and start working the case from the outside, much like Floyd's.

There's a LOT of rotten evidence to go around. Let him present his case, and let him present it publicly, like FL in '06-'07, and let's see what the haters have to say, once again.

I'm sure DPF will be all over it.

DBrower said...

Here's hoping someone will follow Shumacher's case on a blog entitled, "Vertrauen, sondern ├╝berpr├╝fen"


strbuk said...

TBV, good thing *I* don't "sprechen sie Duetch"!!!


Unknown said...

As far as Schumacher is concerned, I'm neither in the absolute innocence or absolute guilt camp.

After the amount of time that has elapsed since the end of the 2008 TdF, I do find it both suspicious and troubling that Schumacher’s federation does not seem to be seeking to take any official action against him. The German Federation and the UCI are apparently content to keep Schumacher off a team and out of competition via an open file or open investigation similar to riders rumored to be implicated in OP. It’s become an overused, deceptive, and gutless ploy exercised to keep riders, perceived as being problematic, from racing when the facts don’t fit the normally available sanctions.

Unknown said...

I'll add that AFLD/Bordry seem content to fan the flames.

Eightzero said...

In my post-tryptophanic haze, it dawned on me that we are less than 3 months to the start of the Amgen Tour of California.

I really, really wanna see FL kick the snot out of everyone on the climb to Mt. Palomar. Not gonna happen if the 'tards at USAC don't grant him a license tho. Really, could someone prod counsel for the plaintiff, and suggest a motion to join USAC and request some injunctive relief against them? (like...I dunno...maybe issuance of a racing license?)

DBrower said...

I think that is the essence of the relief sought in the federal case ... if the fine is removed, then the license would need to be issued.

From the representations made in the complaint, USADA/USACycling have said there will be no license if it's not paid.


Unknown said...

this is why I have no faith in USCycling. IT would be a coup for them to have Landis race. The publicity would be huge. No matter what, Landis has served his time.

And BTW, what other cyclist has been fined 100K??

Eightzero said...

I'm not an edxpert on federal practice, but it seems logical to join the party against whom relief is sought. What's the downside? Alienating USAC? Cost of service? Sure would hate to see a dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party.

On a lighter note, LNDD can be encouraged their DIY testing is catching on:

Unknown said...

Nice reference Eightzero.
A good example of governmental intrusion and an ineffective band aid for disconnected parenting.
Whan will they think of next?!?

AH said...

Why do websites keep commenting that the end of Landis' ban could "see him in the Tour de France in 2009?" Two big issues:

1. HealthNet/OUCH doesn't have the sauce (or the dough) to get a TdF invite.
2. ASO will NEVER allow Landis to race the Tour ever again. No matter what team he's for, he ain't gonna be racing the Tour.

daniel m (a/k/a Rant) said...


Point two is probably cuts closest to the bone. I don't think that OUCH has a high-enough level license to be invited to the Tour at this point, anyway.

There's one other point to be made:

3) What ever happened to the ProTour and the additional two years that ProTour teams aren't supposed to hire someone convicted of a doping violation? Is that still applicable, or has it gone the way of the dinosaurs? If it still applies, then it will be 2011 before he's even eligible, assuming the ASO would relent and let him race. (Which I happen to doubt.)

Unknown said...

The doubling of a sanction wrt the ProTour seems to be a problem based upon other riders coming back.

Ouch is looking at doing primarily a domestic schedule. Floyd seems fine with that. Ouch's license won't make the team grand tour eligable anyway. Again Floyd knows and seems fine with that. He doesn't have much control over erronious media (hacks, some fish hacks) speculation.

Floyd has nearly served a ban he shouldn't have had to. Only the 100k fine is hanging out there and he's chosen to address it in court. Good for him!

If he's ready to go, qualifies, and is on a team that qualifies, but ASO denies him entry, then that reflects much more poorly on ASO than it ever would Floyd.

AH said...

I'm not saying ASO should or shouldn't; I'm saying they WON'T. EVER.

Re. the two year "non-hire of previously sanctioned rider" ProTour clause: My understanding is that this is part of the ProTour Code of Ethics, the participation in which is completely voluntary by ProTour teams.

When Liquigas signed Basso they immediately (within the same day, I believe) bowed out of the Code of Ethics. Apparently with no consequences or repercussions.

daniel m (a/k/a Rant) said...


I think you've hit on the answer to AH's question about various media suggesting that Landis could race the Tour in 2009. The writers and/or editors of those stories are, as you put it, hacks. Hacks who haven't done even the remotest bit of research into the Landis case, and who don't have a very good clue about how pro cycling works, in general.

Any news organization that runs stories suggesting that Floyd could be racing at the 2009 Tour (though I want to add, I would love to see that happen, but it isn't going to), just plain doesn't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about.


Point taken about Liquigas. They signed Basso and dumped the Code of Ethics. I suspect that at this point, none of the ProTour teams feels compelled to follow those "ethics" rules anymore.