Letters to Cyclingnews - October 20, 2006

Here's your chance to get more involved with Cyclingnews. Comments and criticism on current stories, races, coverage and anything cycling related are welcomed, even pictures if you wish. Letters should be brief (less than 300 words), with the sender clearly identified. They may be edited for space and clarity; please stick to one topic per letter. We will normally include your name and place of residence, but not your email address unless you specify in the message.

Please email your correspondence to letters@cyclingnews.com.

Recent letters

Landis' presentation
Guilty parties
Vaughters-Andreu revelations
Magni's 1956 Lombardia exploit
Ullrich to Discovery
Rethinking the fifth
Ivan Basso and CSC
Future Australian ProTour team
Guilty or not?
Cycling deaths
Marc Madiot
Doping as sporting fraud

Landis' presentation

I work in an R&D lab that develops personal care products that are regulated by the FDA in the U.S. We are also required to follow certain standard operating procedures when mistakes are made while writing results into a notebook (make a single line through the mistake and write in the correct value and initial and date with a brief explanation of the change). This is 'Lab science 101' and the fact that LNDD did not follow this procedure (where the stakes are much higher) is gross incompetence. Errors like this in my industry can result in the FDA seizing your product, shutting down your operation, or forcing you to operate under a consent decree. When you combine this type of sloppiness with the apparent inability to reproduce B sample results within predefined error bounds and continuing the analysis when the sample was contaminated by WADA definition, one has to question whether LNDD should be accredited as a WADA lab any longer. If this were being tried in a court of law, instead of by the rules of a private organization, all of this evidence would be inadmissible, and there would be no case.

If Landis loses this case, I think it will be due to the USADA and the CAS both interpreting the WADA rules as requiring that only one of the four T/E metabolites be over the limit. However, the scientific literature seems to indicate that you would expect all four of the metabolites to be high. Since they are not, and his overall testosterone level was not at the level you would expect if he did dope, I think the preponderance of evidence shows he didn't do it. If the USADA or CAS agree, and he is declared innocent, all of the damage caused to cycling, the Tour de France, and Floyd's reputation will have been caused by the UCI and WADA making statements to the press before the case is completely adjudicated. I hope Floyd is declared innocent and that this leads to the UCI and WADA realizing the value of due process and protecting the rights of the rider.

Bob Dail
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Landis' presentation

I just finished reading Landis' letter requesting dismissal to the U.S. Anti-Doping Board and also his Power Point presentation (for you non-scientific types, definitely read the Power Point version).

I am a physician, admittedly not an expert in laboratory testing, but certainly of scientific background, and it seems like Landis has made a good case.

A brief summary:

• They mislabeled his sample and then did not follow their protocol for correcting it.
• The tracking sheets also have the wrong number on two separate occasions.
• Next, by WADA's criteria, the sample wasn't pure enough, or, in layman's terms, "spoiled" (whether from the storage problems, normal bacterial or other contamination) and it should have been thrown out.
• There's too much variance when they repeated the same test on the same sample (like a speedometer reading 10 mph one minute, then 100 mph in the same car just a minute later!).
• Finally, on the carbon-isotope testing, only one of the four testosterone metabolites is abnormally high. The wording of the rules is ambiguous, but Landis' lawyers argue four should be abnormal to qualify as a positive. Whether one or four abnormals is required is debatable, but Landis makes a reasonable case (based on an IOC ruling and U.S. Court ruling) that an ambiguous rule shouldn't be used against an athlete when something like the Tour de France is at stake.

Again, I'm not a lab expert, but it seems like they've got a strong case, and they make the lab look really, really sloppy. And whoever's interpreting these results appears not to be following WADA's own rules. What I like about his defense (in contrast to Tyler Hamilton's obscure chimera and vanishing twins theories) is that he shows relatively clearly that the lab violated its own and WADA's standards and protocols. Their case is based on more than just technicalities like mislabeling. It includes evidence that the sample was contaminated or spoiled, the lab results were unacceptably inconsistent, and that they possibly didn't even meet WADA's criteria for being positive.

If arbitration rules in favor of Landis, what a shame it will be for the whole Phonak team. They lost their sponsorship and jobs. And what about Landis' now tarnished reputation? So many official people lambasted and castigated him. They called him a "cheat." Even if he's ruled innocent, irreparable harm has already been done to Landis', Phonak's, and cycling's reputation.

I'll be happy if Landis is vindicated. But I'll also be sad that so much might have been unnecessarily lost based on what appears to be such sloppy work.

E Huang
USA
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Guilty parties

After looking at the so-called evidence in the Landis case and the predictable unraveling of the Operación Puerto 'bru-ha-ha,' it's obvious that Dick Pound, Pat McQuaid, and Jean-Marie Leblanc ought to be the ones banned for life. With their brand of justice, I'm sure they could easily all find jobs within the Bush administration. I sure hope that the riders and teams whose careers and reputations have been ruined by these so-called investigations have legal and financial recourse against these hooligans. This was injustice on the scale of the medieval inquisitions and the red-baiting of the 1950s.

Sean Cridland
Jemez Springs, NM, USA
Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Respond to this letter

Vaughters-Andreu revelations

Thank you for carrying the excerpts from L'Equipe about the "e-conversation" between Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu. It was interesting enough that I hunted up the original article and read it in French (which I would recommend to others, because it casts an interesting light on how much muscle the old trio of Wiesel, Armstrong, and Ochowicz has - and uses - on anyone who sings a tune they don't like). Though Vaughters is probably right to characterize his and Frankie's IM as "nothing that would stand up in court," it has a very authentic, unguarded feel to it that smacks of utter truth to my ears. My only regret is that the media in this country won't give it the attention it deserves, because it certainly goes a long way towards explaining events - not to mention the outcome - of the 2005 Tour.

Doped-up domestiques are a great way of beating the post-race urine tests, because, after all, they never make the podium; that's reserved for the real star. Maybe the UCI needs to pass a specific rule allowing them to disqualify any winner whose teammates are caught, or confess to, doping in an event where they helped that person win. Perhaps someday there will be enough pissed-off ex-domestiques to get together, brave the inevitable lawsuits, and tell us all the truth. I hope they do; I know for my own part I'd find it a lot easier to forgive the Indians than the Chief.

Kerry Hardy
Rockland, ME, USA
Thursday, October 19, 2006

Respond to this letter

Magni's 1956 Lombardia exploit

Les Woodland tells a good story, but, as every schoolboy used to know, Fausto Coppi's team in 1956 was Carpano Coppi, not Legnano. I doubt that Legnano had any involvement at all - the Coppi bikes were built by Fiorelli.

David Benson
Auckland, NZ
Thursday, October 19, 2006

Respond to this letter

Ullrich to Discovery

I wasn't surprised, (but on the other hand why should I be?), when I read the letter by James Thacker. So many people make assumptions and conclusions based on gossip. I'd love it if Basso or Ulrich came to Discovery, and I would support the sponsors eagerly! I'm a little confused; are there any charges against Ulrich or Basso, and even if there are, wouldn't they be innocent until proven guilty? I think this small, but extremely significant point has been missed by a lot of people. Mr. Thacker is making assumptions about things he knows nothing about, of course it's not really his fault since no one really knows anything, or so it seems.

Personally, if I were Ullrich or Basso, I would definitely be looking at the slander or personal defamation laws. I think the UCI and WADA should be held accountable for the negative publicity and slander that can only be blamed on them. I'd love to hear any concrete evidence that they have, and if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I would change my opinion. But living in a democratic society allows many freedoms, but it doesn't allow one person (or organization) to be judge, jury, and executioner!

J Kilmer
USA
Thursday, October 19, 2006

Respond to this letter

Ullrich to Discovery

Has Jan Ullrich been convicted of any crime? Last I heard they found nothing. Let him go to Discovery; he will learn how a true professional road team operates. It might just save his career.

Damian M. McCormick
Chicago, IL, USA
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Ullrich to Discovery

Mr. Thacker vows to boycott Discovery Channel products if they sign Ullrich, though he states they would never do so because of the doping rumours. I feel I should remind Mr. Thacker of the eight years of Armstrong doping rumours, not to mention the positive doping tests of Discovery alumni Hamilton, Heras, and Landis, and the admissions of Andreu, etc.

Rob Found
Jasper, Canada
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Rethinking the fifth

"Last time I looked you were innocent until proven guilty."

Where did you look? There is a tendency, which your reasoning exemplifies, to make the criminal process rules of some nations, the unquestioned source for judging all processes. In everyday life, I do think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt. But pro cycling is not everyday life. The Puerto incident demonstrates fairly conclusively that the testing regimes on which you base your "innocent until proven guilty" standard are failing miserably. Do you honestly doubt that many cyclists have gotten away with doping? And do you really doubt that widespread doping among cyclists is the real problem, not the procedural issues that so many cycling fans seem to have gotten themselves wrapped up in? Pro cyclists agree to certain procedures when they participate in races. When those procedures determine that they have used drugs to win, they are stripped of their titles. They are given lots of chances to contest these revocations, but ultimately a judgment has to be made. Cycling fans and the media don't make those judgments. And so, like people who watch trials, they have no reason to follow the rule of "innocent until proven guilty." They can decide for themselves what has happened based on whatever rule they deem appropriate.

I'm sure the procedures and the practices of cycling officials could be improved; they always can. But cycling fans are doing themselves and their sport a disservice by allowing this to distract them from the real issue: no one today can be confident that a cyclist who wins a race has done it because of his or her physical prowess and mental courage rather than the administration of performance-enhancing substances.

Tom Burke
Cambridge, MA, USA
Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Respond to this letter

Ivan Basso and CSC

I must say, I don't find Bjarne Riis and CSC's treatment of Basso entirely fair. I think it's a case of plausible deniability, or hypocrisy, as in the espionage business. If you're uncovered or exposed, the management or your masters will deny all knowledge of you, or your doping. You're on your own if caught, and I think this is understood by everyone involved. The 'firm' can't be sullied.

Following the recent revelations/allegations of a systematic doping program by Tyler Hamilton when he was at CSC, with his doping closely integrated with all aspects of his training and racing, how could Riis/CSC not have been involved with Basso to the same extent? It beggars belief.

It seems to me that much of the problem with doping today in cycling is that the individual rider is crucified, not the real parties behind the scenes. On these grounds, I think Basso and other well-known riders who have been caught have some grounds to be dissatisfied with their treatment, even if they have cheated.

It took the police - not the UCI - nailing the doping lab in Spain to start to undermine this nexus. You really have to wonder about the extent of the doping and whether this is just the tip of the iceberg, following the speculations last week of why the entire Discovery team could implode for one day on a couple of molehills in Germany in the Tour in 2005 when none could keep pace other than Armstrong. I remember the day it happened; it was astonishing, a very unusual event indeed.

Dirk de Vos
Ottawa, Canada
Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Respond to this letter

Future Australian ProTour team

I read with interest the concept put forward by Neil Stephens regarding an Australian Pro Tour team, and basically agreed with everything he said, as you would when listening and reading the comments of a man with so many years experience in many levels of the sport. My only concern, as I read the article, and looked the pictures of Stephens winning in a Festina jersey, was if we did have a quasi-national/pro tour team, would a DS in the shape of Neil Stephens really be an appropriate choice? From memory, I have never read or heard of any occasion where Neil admitted to, elaborated upon, or regretted his mistakes in regards to doping when at Festina. As a DS and role model within Australian cycling to new, established, and up and coming riders, this apparent silence on the issue is one the sport as a whole is trying to wipe out.

Perhaps I am wrong in raising issues of Stephen's past, and perhaps the reason why whenever he is interviewed or mentioned in the cycling press, no mention is ever made of his involvement in the Festina scandal, is testament to the respect he is held in within Australian cycling and in Europe. If we were to have a national team in any future Pro Tour, I would like to think it is based on a management group with the amount of flawless credibility that currently exists in the British national and Olympic development programs for cycling, as attested to by David Millar. But a man who was once a doper may not be the best-placed person to, privately or publicly, condemn a rider for doping or encouraging a clean approach to the sport. "It is a very, very serious project [to have a ProTour team] and so if we can take it step by step and do things properly, that is best."

I hope, if he does become DS of any such future team, he isn't just talking about administration and sponsorship.

Matt O'Brien
Adelaide, S.A, Australia,
Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Respond to this letter

Guilty or not?

I believe Glenn has pointed out, perhaps without realizing it, the schizophrenic nature of the UCI rules and why there are people (such as myself) who complain about due process needing to be a part of an anti-doping regime. The UCI rules for doping provide that;

"The UCI and its National Federations shall have the burden of proving that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred."

They also provide that the standard of proof shall be

"...in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Rider or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability."

This is the minimum amount of evidence the UCI needs to provide. The standard can be raised (not lowered) "...bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made."

If indeed this is the case, how can any sanctioning take place before a hearing has occurred, to include suspension from competition or the denial of a license? If you look at the anti-doping rules a positive A and B test (or similarly weighted evidence) would result in what in the United States would be called an 'indictment.' At this time no punishment or sanction is leveled, but a trial can now begin because enough evidence is found to warrant a charge sheet. After this it is still the duty of the UCI, according to their rules, to prove that the athlete has violated the anti-doping code. Technically the hearing could take place without the athlete saying a thing if they believed the evidence presented by the UCI did not rise, in and of itself, to the level required for sanction.

The anti-doping rules, which do not provide for immediate suspension from racing and the 'code of conduct' enacted at the creation of the Pro-Tour, clearly contradict each other, as the anti-doping rules make it clear a hearing must take place before sanctioning (such as McQuaid's call for licenses to not be issued) can take place. If a team independently wishes to create a code of conduct that is more expansive than the WADA and UCI anti-doping rules which provide for due process, this is obviously between the team and the athlete and either party can go their separate ways if they can not agree upon this. I feel, however, that the governing body mandating such a contradictory code creates such ambiguity that it hurts the anti-doping process as it allows for, at best, the appearance of inequity, and at worst a situation where innocent athletes can be penalized due to the existence of scandal, and not the presentation of admissible evidence (as Spain has now declared their evidence cannot be presented in sporting federations at this time) before the appropriate governing body.


John Schmalbach
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Cycling deaths

In response to Gary Stetler's letter, I'm sorry to hear about your predicament and similar ones. We have had several cycling deaths recently in nearby towns and cities as well. Still, my opinion is that civil disobedience tends to polarize people and doesn't always solve the problem. People often say that there are too many lawyers around and that we live in an overly-litigious society. That may be true, but it seems like these are the kinds of situations that lawyers can help to fix. The driver who hit you may not have had any criminal intent. Still, she ought to be liable for the damages she caused. The local municipality isn't necessarily responsible for every accident that takes place in their boundaries. But if they are made aware of an unsafe intersection and choose to ignore your warnings, then they may be liable to some extent as well for future accidents if their inaction is so blatant as to constitute negligence. Busy hardworking people don't always have time to deal with lawyers and courts. But with these life and death issues, maybe it is worth the effort.

Mariano Garcia
Ithaca, NY, USA
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Cycling deaths

I would suggest 'sue-ins' would be more effective than public demonstrations. It is only through legal action in civil courts that the insurance companies will be forced to pay and they will then, in turn, put pressure on the 'justice' system to enforce the existing laws.

I've been hit, too, as have most of us. Of course, the police took little action until I and my lawyer made an issue out of it. I took the time to put photos of my injuries and my bicycle on the web and brought them with me to a small claims hearing. I talked about the driver's attempt at leaving the scene of the accident, the perfect weather and so on. I wasn't making any health claims but the driver's insurance company balked at the $2k replacement price of the bicycle! However, I found with a legitimate complaint and a willingness to use the legal system that we can receive our rightful due. Cyclists should be given no less protection than pedestrians or other drivers, but without legal action we are just spitting into the wind.

Justin Seiferth
Pepperell, MA, USA
Monday, October 16, 2006

Respond to this letter

Marc Madiot

You took the words right out of my mouth, Randy. The moment I read the nonsense that Madiot spewed, I immediately thought, "Madiot, C'est les Idiot!" Not only is Madiot forgettable, Francaise des Jeux has not done incredible under his leadership. If Frederic Guesdon had not just taken Paris-Tours, I'd have a very hard time recalling anything memorable that FDJ has accomplished in a very long time.

I'd bet that neither Ullrich's or Basso's agent approached Madiot and begged for him to offer them a contract, so I have no idea what that man means by his comment that he does not want them back. It's not his business, and the sport does not need him running off at the mouth, and indicting people through the press. Madiot was obviously screaming out for attention; he should be ashamed of himself.

Ralph Michael Emerson
West Hempstead, NY, USA
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Doping as sporting fraud

I'm not sure if this is a novel idea or not - I doubt it is, but I think it is a worthy idea. As sport is increasingly a professional business, it makes sense to treat doping as a form of commercial fraud - including criminal sanctions commensurate with commercial fraud.

The essential assumption that is brought to sporting events, such as professional cycling races, is that the event is a contest of natural human ability, augmented only within the rules of the sport (training, permissible equipment, tactics etc.). To dope is to misrepresent that permissibly-acquired natural human ability. It sits perfectly well with the definition of fraud, which is 'dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception.' Whether an athlete gains a benefit through doping he/she is essentially committing theft by deception. Theft of winnings/earnings, theft of opportunity for clean athletes, theft of opportunity of positive exposure for sponsors etc, are some of the outcomes. When will we treat theft in sport as theft?!

Operación Puerto is on the right track in changing how we think of sport and cheating within sport. We have for too long regarded participation in sport as somehow placing athletes in a special preserve where mercenary actions which stand outside social and legal norms are somehow more easily tolerated. For example, it has only been in the last few years here where punches thrown on local football fields would be treated seriously as assault. Professional sport will only mature and gain if we no longer see it as some overblown past-time. Professional sport needs to be seen as a serious and ethically fragile commercial undertaking. Cycling has everything to gain from this approach. Doping is a fraudulent act. Why should this type of deception continue to be an exception to what is considered 'criminal' in any other commercial or social context?

Julian Vince
Melbourne, Australia
Friday, October 13, 2006

Respond to this letter

Recent letters pages

Letters 2006

• October 20: Landis presentation, Guilty parties, Vaughters-Andreu revelations, Magni's 1956 Lombardia exploit, Ullrich to Discovery, Rethinking the fifth, Ivan basso and CSC, Future Australian ProTour team, Guilty or not?, Cycling deaths, Marc Madiot, Doping as sporting fraud
• October 13: Guilty or not?, Forget about whom?, Innocence and DNA testing, Sporting fraud, Ullrich to Discovery, Landis in the court of public opinion, Women's track events, Cheating redefined, Cycling deaths
• October 6: Guilty or not?, Innocence and DNA testing, Women's track events, Cancellara, Cycling deaths, Is Dick Pound credible?, A load of Grappe?, Cheating defined, Floyd's turbo bottle, T-Mobile
• September 29: Bravo Paolo, T-Mobile, Shortened grand tours, Floyd's turbo bottle, Basso's DNA test refusal, Is Dick Pound credible?, Basso cleared, Natural process possible?, Cycling deaths, Frankie Andreu, Double standards, Cancellara
• September 22: Is Dick Pound credible?, Frankie Andreu, Millar's hollow victory, Cycling deaths, Go Chris, go, Tom's OK, Basso's DNA test refusal, Easier racing?, Floyd's turbo bottle
• September 15: Andreu's admission, Millar's hollow victory, Basso's DNA test refusal, The big ugly open secret, Dick Pound, Discovery's Vuelta double-standard, Doping tests and subjective evaluation, Fitting punishment, Hermida is clean, Floyd Landis' motion to dismiss, Easier racing, Operation Puerto, Thank you Chris Horner, The testosterone test, Mano a mano, Turbo bottle
• September 8: Turbo bottle, Discovery's Vuelta double-standard, Hunger Knock, Basso's DNA test refusal, Eneco, DNA testing, Fitting punishment, Natural process possible?, Operacion Puerto etc , Response to 'No Doping Control is Insane', Stage 17 water consumption, The Testosterone test, The Tour, What's up with Sevilla?, Mano a Mano
• September 1, part 1: The Eneco Tour controversy: Details, Reporting, Eneco vs doping, Time bonuses?, Who was at fault?, One of those things, Discovery behaviour, More barricades, No way for Schumacher to stop, Hard to stop, Officials to blame, The rules, Schumacher amazing, Hincapie's 2nd Place Trophy
• September 1, part 2: Dick Pound, Devil is in the detail, Diane Modahl and Floyd Landis, Dick McQuaid?, Fitting punishment, Floyd Landis and polygraph, Jake to play Lance?, La Vuelta coverage, Natural process still possible, likelihood uncertain, Protour rankings, Hour Record & Tour, Response to 'No Doping Control is Insane', Ullrich's trial by media
• August 25: Eneco Tour, Bring on an Hour Record, Cycling needs a dictator, Diane Modahl and Floyd Landis, Natural process still possible, likelihood uncertain, Response to 'No Doping Control is Insane', Testing procedures must be understood and public, A German Pound?, All winners dope?, Change the things we can, Track the testing, Cycling is not flawed, Defamation lawsuit, Dick Pound, How did the testosterone get there?, Julich: "No one is able to cheat anymore", Floyd Landis, Patrick Lefevere follow-up, Systematic doping? Where is the evidence?, Ullrich's trial by media, Unfair dismissals
• August 18, part 1: Natural process still possible - likelihood uncertain, Denial, Dick Pound, Oscar Pereiro, UCI - Pro Tour drug solution?, The problem with legalising doping, Changing the rules won't stop cheating, Scandal reduces respect, Blood tests, Corruption, A couple of questions, A couple of questions, A German Pound?, According to WADA: Who isn't doping?, Collect samples every day from everyone, Corruption in the system
• August 18, part 2: Does the dope fit the crime?, Doping and the death of pro cycling, Change the things we can, Doping, Landis, tests, Dufaux?, Floyd, dope, and cycling, Floyd's only way out, It's the jersey, Julich: "No one is able to cheat anymore", Landis affair, Landis and faulty test equipment, Landis and what he leaves behind, Lefevere, Phonak, and cycling's future, Stand by Our Man Landis, Only one positive, How did the testosterone get there?, Patrick Lefevere, Please help with these questions, Case thrown out, Stage 17 bad tactics or dope?, What were the actual results?, Wouldn't it be great, Zero tolerance
• August 11, part 1: Patrick Lefevere, "The media knew before I did", A couple of questions , Distribute the testing, A possible scenario for Landis, A real Tour, Anti-doping transparency, Anyone hear Jack Nicholson?, Are we fighting doping or not?, Bad for cycling - are you kidding?, Best way to deal with doping, Can some one please tell me... , Case thrown out, CIR and T/E tests, Collect samples every day from everyone, Complaining about drugs in cycling, Corruption in the system
• August 11, part 2: Cycling's reputation, Distortions in the Landis case, Does the dope fit the crime?, Doping, Doping in general, Doping, Landis, tests, Doping - the whole sorry mess, Drug testing for cyclists, Drugs & the Tour Down Under, Enough already!, Flawed process?, Only one positive, Unrealistic expectations
• August 11, part 3: Floyd Landis Affair, Floyd, dope, and cycling, Robbie Ventura, Hoping Floyd soon shows HIS evidence, I will prove it, Is this true (and if so, what's its import)?, Landis, Landis and Merckx, Legal black hole, Media circus, Operacion Puerto Victims, Pat McQuaid and doping... , Penalize teams, organizations
• August 11, part 4: Players, Post race reunion, Robbie Ventura, Solutions are there, Stage 17 Bad Tactics or dope?, T-E testing and Oscar Pereiro, Testosterone cheating, Testosterone Gremlins, The "System", doping, and so on, Who do you believe?, Time to level the playing field, UCI - Pro Tour Drug Solution?, Ullrich, Why process matters, Worse than VDB, Wouldn't it be Great!
• August 4, part 1: I will prove it, Doping, Landis, tests, Why process matters, Robbie Ventura, Rubbish!, Leadership & cleansing, 21st Stage, A few minor thoughts, Stage 17 water consumption, Was it a recovery prep?, Anti-doping transparency, Bad for cycling - are you kidding?, Best way to deal with doping
• August 4, part 2: Case thrown out, Center podium, Collect samples every day from everyone, Complaining about drugs in cycling, Confidence in the testing system, Courage off the bike, Who is Cowboy (2003)?, Crime and punishment, Nothing without the cyclists!, Davis and four others, Does the dope fit the crime?, Doping & money, Doping in cycling, An examination, Drug testing for cyclists, From a fellow pro, In Floyd ..., Do the right thing, Floyd's steroids, Grow Up and Get Real!, Future of testing, Idea for a clean Tour, Landis vs Periero TT, I'm done with cycling, I'm retired as a fan of the pros, Feel like a fool, I'm so disappointed
• August 4, part 3: Team management & doctors, It appears the dope does fit the Crime..., It was the whiskey, It's all a sham, It's everywhere., Nothing is conclusive, Worse than VDB, Cycling needs our support, Of all the tests…, Doesn't add up, Test timing, Players, Legal black hole, B-sample & Marco Pinotti, Landis is guilty of something, Former Phan, Landis Ordeal, Landis Situation, Landis, drugs and cycling, Landis: lab accreditation, The question, Laughingstock, Lawyers in tow, Leaks, Learn from NASCAR, Letter to Editor
• August 4, part 4: Losing hope against the dope..., Mitigating factor, No doping control is insane, One toke over the line, Keystone Cops, Operacion Puerto Victims, Raise the stakes, Something not right, Exhuming McCarthy, Testerone testing, Testing procedure, Landis has been caught, The Jack Daniels defense, The Landis Situation, French testing: a leaky boat, What a positive A sample means, The sieve called doping control, Time to level the playing field, US Perspective, WADA, UCI ruining sport, What about Pereiro?, What's the hold up?, Who's watching the henhouse?
• July 31, part 1: I will prove it, Stop the complaining, Public perception, The process - flawed?, Courage off the bike, Dallas on wheels, Surely not, Sick & insulted, Mitigating factor for Landis, Landis... it is a shame, Landis' abnormal (supernormal) results, Travesty, Who's watching the henhouse?, Could it have been the result of the bonk?, I'm sick of this!, One toke over the line
• July 31, part 2: Why does McQuaid make a bad situation worse, Why does the UCI make a bad situation worse, How one-off testosterone helps, Why risk it? Here's why., Must be natural, Sick of hearing about doping!, Previous reading?, If Landis turns out to be doped, Cycling on trial, All that is gold does not glitter, The science on testosterone, Maybe I am a fool, Loons, Results not yet known, Surely not, Cheated
• July 31, part 3: Who to believe, A slightly inappropriate Landis defence and proposal , Gut feeling, Jaded, Landis, Latest doping allegations, Tired of the system!, Cheating or not, Hard landing for the sport if Landis issue turns sour, Another Landis comment, Why?, Elevated T levels in Landis, Crucified, Floyd Landis, What is happening to cycling?
• July 31, part 4: Testing testosterone, It was the whiskey, Does the dope fit the crime?, Results not yet known, Landis - Say it ain't so!, Doping, Landis, tests, Landis - guilty until proven innocent, T/E ratio and treatment of Floyd Landis, Bad science and a possible solution, Testosterone is a natural substance, Confidence in the testing system
• July 28: Landis - Say it ain't so!, Surely not, The science on testosterone, Results not yet known, Jaded, Leave Landis ALONE!, "Everybody cheats.", Fairness of testing, Crucified, Who to believe?, Landis doping, The A and B test., Why does McQuaid make a bad situation worse?
• July 21, part 2: Legalising doping, Full transparency, Basso and DNA, Doping, lawyers, and Basso, Ullrich's Innocence, Tyler Hamilton, Did Millar come clean, Ullrich's doping plan, Doping and still suffering
• July 21, part 1: Stage 17, 2006 Tour, And the winner is?, Chicken!, Rasmussen not a "team player"?, Enough Lance, Floyd's bad day, Is Discovery really a true U.S. ProTour team?, First-time winners' past records, Kudos to Leblanc, Landis' aero bars, NORBA Nationals, Floyd's not "photogenically challenged", Respect the yellow jersey?, US Nationals, Very unsatisfying
• July 14, part 2: Landis' aero bars, Wide Open Before the Cols- An Average Fan's Predictions, US Nationals, Cipo @ the Tour, And the Winner is?, Boring spots, Disco Boys?, Enough Lance, Is Discovery really a true U.S. Pro Tour Team?, Kloden by default, Millar's new TT position, Photogenically Challenged Champions, Segregation is not the solution
• July 14, part 1: Legalising doping , Small world, Hamilton's fax, Cheats, Come clean, Simoni, Doping and the double standard, Dopers don't affect love of riding, Greg LeMond, Vino, Lance & LeMond
• July 7, part 2: Legalise it!, Doping, Greg LeMond, Plenty of riders don't dope, What I will do, Phonak, Come clean, Hide & Seek, The Early Signs coming True, Doping and sponsors, Santiago Botero not on the list, An alternative
• July 7, part 1: Are we paying these guys enough? Cardiac hypertrophy and sudden death, A cycling scandal? A sad day for cycling fans, Discovery's team leader, Easier racing won't help, Simoni, Cheats, Vinokourov, An open letter to Ivan Basso, Are we alone?, Sharing the road, Searching for an old book
• June 30, part 1: Easier racing won't help, Communidad Valencia and the ASO, Doping & fans, What a Shame, Sunny side of pro dopers, Tyler Hamilton: how long can he deny, The new "performance" enhancer, Greg LeMond, Armstrong's letter to IOC, Armstrong, L'Équipe, WADA & Pound, A call for one more test
• June 30, part 2: Ullrich and the Tour, Mancebo: The Unsung Hero, Hincapie to lead Disco, Jane Higdon, USA junior development, Voigt vs. Hincapie, Operation Puerto, Where there is smoke, there is fire, Watching the wheels come off, Why only cycling?, UCI request for riders to submit signed statements, UCI leadership questioned by reporters
• June 23: "Next!", Hincapie to lead Disco, USA junior development, Jane Higdon, A call for one more test, Armstrong's letter to IOC, Defending Landis, Doping, The Armstrong/L'Équipe/WADA/Pound affair, Spanish doping allegations, Team consequences, Voigt vs. Hincapie
• June 16: Pound should resign, Now I’m really confused, Vinokourov, Saiz, doping and the TdF, The Spanish operation, Misplaced sympathy, Name the suspects, Spanish doping, Opinions from France, ASO, Simoni vs. Basso, Voigt vs. Hincapie, Jens Voigt vs. George Hincapie, Voigt and Hincapie, Jane Higdon, Jeremy Vennell diary
• June 11: Simoni vs. Basso, Basso and Simoni, Simoni versus Basso, Simoni's smile, Sour grapes Simoni, Sarcastic, disgruntled fan?, Congrats to Jan, Non-round rings, Sport, Voigt and Hincapie, Jens Voigt, Three cheers for Jens Voigt, Jens Voigt vs. George Hincapie, Voigt vs. Hincapie, Thanks to Voigt and Manzano, Champion in countless ways, Chapeau Jens!
• June 9 - Special edition: Vino’s position, Astana-Wurth and the TdF, Vinokourov, Saiz, doping and the TdF, Spanish doping allegations, WADA, Vrijman's findings, That Report, WADA and Armstrong, WADA vs. UCI vs. the riders, WADA's double standard, WADA and Pound missing the point, Pound should resign, A Pound of what?, The role of the AIGCP, The Spanish operation, Botero interview, Say it isn't so, Manolo
• June 2: Simoni versus Basso, Simoni and Basso, Simoni, Simoni's smile, Simoni is a crybaby, Basso and Simoni, Sour grapes Simoni, Gibo Si-MOAN-i, Blood, drugs, cash and corruption, Sickening double standard, Spanish federations' reaction to Saiz, Don't be surprised by drug use, Giro d'Italia, Thanks to Voigt and Manzano, Chapeau Jens!, Jens Voigt, Three cheers for Jens Voigt, Jens Voigt is the man, Voigt 2006 vs Boogerd 1999, Voigt and Hincapie, Discovery’s Giro team, Altitude tents and EPO, Not just name-calling, Say it isn't so, Manolo, Spanish doping allegations, Armstrong and L'Equipe, CSC is a class act, Basso and CSC, Jimenez memories, Markers in drugs, Discovery Channel's Giro performance, Pound should resign, Giro live reporting, Banning of altitude tents, Bettini is consistent
• May 26: Their A-game's at home, The Tour and the TT, Jan's good form, Jan bashing, Congrats to Jan, The diesel, Double or nothing, Ivance Bassostrong, Bravo, Basso!, Discovery Channel's Giro performance, Bettini is consistent, Banning of altitude tents, When disqualification isn't enough, WADA should ban intervals
• May 26 - Special edition: Say it ain't so, Manolo, Say it isn't so, Spanish Federations' reaction to Saiz, The doping scandal to end them all
• May 19: Bettini is consistent, Banning of altitude tents, Hypoxic tents, WADA and altitude tents, Latest WADA crusade, WADA bans another, Congrats to Jan, Criticism of Jan Ullrich, Jan bashing, Jan ready for the Tour, Jan's good form, Armstrong - the New American Idol, The same old Lance, Defeatism in Discovery, Giro reactions, One of Savoldelli's secrets, Rasmussen's time trial position, Riders under helmets, Difference between following and leading, The Tour and the TT, Bruyneel's Giro comments, When disqualification isn't enough
• May 12: Marion Clignet, Bruyneel's Giro comments, Criticism of Jan Ullrich, Jan bashing, Jan's weight, Defeatism in Discovery, Lance talking up Basso, The same old Lance, Rasmussen's time trial position, Giro team time trial, Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix, Riders under helmets
• May 5: Criticism of Jan, Criticism of Ullrich, The Ullrich-bashing bandwagon, Ullrich in 2006, Jan dramas, More Jan dramas, Bruyneel's Giro comments, Team helmets, Volunteering at bike races, Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix
• April 28: Working for the team in Georgia, Ullrich's thick skin, Ullrich and the 2006 Tour, Jan Ullrich racing, Ullrich and THAT wheel, Jan Ullrich, Jan dramas, Paris-Roubaix technology, Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Roubaix controversy, Paris-Roubaix comments, Paris-Roubaix tech, Team helmets
• April 21: Paris-Roubaix final say, Paris-Roubaix controversy, Paris-Roubaix and technology, George and the fork issue, Quotable quotes, Cycling technology, Behaving like a champion, Paris-Roubaix: UCI Code of Ethics
• April 14: Continuing to behave like a champion, No curse of the rainbow jersey, Tom Boonen, Hang in there, Saul, The gods of cycling, Trek and Paris-Roubaix, Looking out for George, Paris-Roubaix and technology, Broken forks and broken dreams, Jan Ullrich, Jan dramas, Disqualifications, So you know, Paris - Roubaix, THAT railway crossing incident, Need for consistency, Paris-Roubaix - poor Cancellara, Paris Roubaix disqualification, Paris-Roubaix: setting a good example, Roubaix disqualification decision, UCI Roubaix disgrace, Paris Roubaix disqualification, Paris Roubaix affair, Paris-Roubaix fiasco, Paris-Roubaix sham, Racing's railroad crossings, George's bike failure, Let them race, Roubaix controversy
• April 12 (Special Paris Roubaix edition): Paris-Roubaix disqualification, Disqualification on the pave, Level crossing in Paris-Roubaix, Rules are rules, Paris-Roubaix, McQuaid's reasoning, Pat McQuaid and train barriers, Railway crossing at Paris-Roubaix, Disqualifications in Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Roubaix crossing, Roubaix controversy, Grade crossings, Railroad crossings, Safety at Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Roubaix sham, Paris-Roubaix safety, Paris-Roubaix rail crossing, Boonen and friends cross the tracks, McQuaid's explanation, Roubaix disqualification decision
• April 7: Hang in there Saul, De Ronde parcours, Edwig van Hooydonk, Discovery’s American riders, Tom Boonen, April fools, Hair care product line, Brave new world, Commonwealth Games time trial, Photo of the year

The complete Cyclingnews letters archive