Cyclingnews TV News Tech Features Road MTB BMX Cyclo-cross Track Photos Fitness Letters Search Forum | ||||||||||||
|
Letters to Cyclingnews - December 29, 2006Here'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. Lance in Leadville Lance in LeadvilleA comment please to Ken Chlouber, race director for the Leadville 100. He is quoted in the December 23 MTB news stating, "Lance Armstrong coming to Leadville will be our greatest visitor since 1878 when President Grant came here." I'll make an argument that LA is not even the greatest cyclist to visit. I saw Big Mig and his Banesto mates ride through and stop on a training ride. It was sometime in the early 90's. I don't remember what other event they were in Colorado for, but I do recall them racing in the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs. Indurain helped one of his teammates win the event. At the rainy finish area a buddy of mine threw an arm around a somewhat annoyed looking Indurain's shoulder while his wife snapped a picture! I recall following Mig and Banesto, (in a car!), up through Leadville to the Tennessee/Fremont Pass junction where they took the right fork to Fremont Pass. I don't recall if the Red Zinger/Coors Classic ever went through Leadville, but I remember seeing Lemond and Hinault in Vail, and I would not be surprised if they both rode through Leadville on a training ride. My greatest on-bike encounter was with the entire pro peloton coming towards me on a training ride near Cripple Creek when the World's were in Colorado Springs in 86'. I turned around and tagged along the back for about a half-hour. No one said a word to me the entire time. I dropped off, (or was I dropped?), and turned back around after enough crusty stares. Thanks for the reminisce! Alan Schiff Leadville Trail 100Now we're talking! Does anyone else have the feeling that among all the stupid noise in broken professional bike racing these days, the Leadville Trail 100 with Lance and Floyd could become the best race of 2007? And how refreshing to hear the words of race director Ken Chlouber: "We have a deep and abiding appreciation for these two guys, and I'm not going to tolerate anyone being negative about them." Thanks Ken and I'll see you in Leadville! Zak Kelly Manzano's polygraph testI'm possibly one of your few readers who actually (by sheer chance) watched the programme where Jesús Manzano took a "polygraph" test. I use quote marks because at no time did the cameras focus on the graph paper, or the pens. Eventually the presenter - with dramatic pauses and recorded drum-rolls - read the "results" from a sheet of paper which we did not see. I'm not saying the whole thing was staged; but in general the programme was tabloid style, and I found this very stagy. It's beside the point whether I believed Manzano on Tuesday evening or previously; but I wasn't at all convinced by the show. Liz Cochrane Manzano's polygraph test #2That's it! We need the boys up on stage, all hooked up and wired, cameras in their faces, lights on, live to TV and the Net, being asked a list of important questions. It's really very simple. I whole-heartedly applaud Mr. Manzano, and all others brave enough to stand up like men and tell it like it is. Bravo! Chris P. Madden British Cycling and the Tour de FranceSo British Cycling doesn't want to let any riders involved with any doping investigations to be at the start of the Tour in England? They don't mention names but I assume this means those involved in the Operation Puerto debacle. Now I'm not sure that a federation has any jurisdiction over a race they don't own or organise that is starting in their country, so this comment seems unusual. Of course no one wants a repeat of the 2006 Tour nonsense but that statement it seems, goes without needing to be said, surely? The cynic in me says this is just a ploy; a comment from British Cycling designed to curry favour with the UCI. Perhaps to look favourably, sometime in the future, on their application for a ProTour race slot? My feeling is that the UCI, race organisers and national federations should retain their dignity and keep their mouths shut. Let due process take its course - if riders are found guilty of doping - ban them. If not, let them get on with their lives and race. This whole process of side-swiping commentary on unproven allegations is certainly bringing out the worst in the hierarchy of cycling sport and does them no favours. It only reduces their credibility and any confidence that we have in them that they know how to organise this great sport of cycling. David Norwich Tell me, what's the problem?I had to laugh when reading the quote from the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Jacques Rogge, when he spoke out in favor of the creation of a DNA database. He was quoted as saying: "The data would be well-stored and protected. Tell me, what's the problem?" Well, Jacques, consider the track record: "Protected" and confidential medical records are leaked to the press all the time. If confidential medical records were truly confidential, I would be less inclined to think you're trying to exploit riders' rights. To my knowledge, however, you're the only head of a sports governing body who has spoken up about presumption of innocence. Cheers to you for that, and I hope all the other witch hunters out there are shamed into saying the same. I'm embarrassed by doping in cycling. But, I'm more embarrassed by the fact that cyclists can't ride if someone accuses them of doping. What is more basic than believing in a person's innocence until you can prove his or her guilt? In cycling, a sportsman's career can be ruined by presumptions and accusations, rather than fact. That's embarrassing, and we, as sports fans, should protest this violation of basic human rights. Andy Bury "Disco" team?What's with some people nicknaming the Discovery Team the "Disco" team? Makes
me think that with all the fluff about Lance taking in Basso that at some major
race this next season I would like to see Mr. Basso, after having survived the
doping affairs and being the handsome Italian he is, do the Travolta strut up
to the start line to the tune, "Ah, Ah, Ah, staying alive, staying alive..." Susan M. Presumption of innocencePresumed innocent only applies to criminal prosecution. For example, if a woman he did not know sued Basso for child support, would not he demand a DNA test? Wouldn't you? OJ Simpson was presumed innocent in the criminal cases of murder, but no such presumption kept him from being found liable for causing the two deaths. Gary Gromet Landis and the Landaluze caseThis letter is not an attempt to defend Floyd Landis, I am still out on my personal opinion as to whether or not he is guilty of doping. The Landaluze case does seem to give some additional strength to the arguments of Mr. Landis. If the fact that the same person performed the tests on both the A and B sample is sufficient to have that positive test thrown out, despite the fact that the CAS stated that the laboratory acted in good faith, and did not bring into question the tests themselves, then it would seem that errors which bring into question the tests should lead to having the results thrown out. Of course, this does not answer the question as to whether that would prove the actual innocence of Mr. Landis. There have been many letters which argue that various bodies in cycling violate the due process rights of the cyclists. However, each different country has different determinations as to what due process rights, if any, apply to individuals involved in such sporting activities. Personally, I find any comment by members of governing bodies regarding pending doping cases to be inappropriate. After all, what sort of fair hearing can an athlete get when the governing body itself is declaring guilt without the opportunity for a hearing? The only appropriate comment is for them to say "we will not comment on a pending allegation of doping." Andrew Cohen Landis and the Landaluze case #2In response to Steve's letter, about Landis not understanding he's damaged goods. When you look at the bare essentials in this situation, you've got a man that wants to clear his name, not because of racing or because of getting back into the sport (don't forget he's got now got an nice implanted hip which alone could keep him form ever getting back to peak form) but because having a cleared name equates to a clear conscience and a justification of his efforts to win the greatest race on earth and the years of pain and training to get there. He is either incredibly stupid, going all out winning a stage where he knew he'd be tested at the end, of course he'll take a massive amount of testosterone the night before. Or someone, somewhere along the line didn't like him or just another American winning the tour and he's got a tainted urine sample he now has to explain away somehow. The thing that bothers me most in this, is the fact that the guy never tested positive before, or after. I can't blame him for wanting to clear his name. John Caceres Landis and the Landaluze case #3Keep in mind when you speak of "technicalities" that in many senses the case against Landis, as has been the case with a number of athletes from a wide range of sports, is in reality a 'technicality'. How so? The drugs or blood doping that the riders are accused of using are banned because they are performance enhancing. Well, in the Landis case, please recall that his testosterone level was in the normal range. The amount of testosterone in Landis on the day of his wonderful ride was not only not above normal, it wasn't even in the high end of normal, and could not be considered to be a performance enhancer. He won that day with his legs and a fantastic cardiovascular system. If he has his Tour victory taken away, then he has lost on a technicality Gary Stetler Landis and the Landaluze case #4Some people seem to think that when someone gets acquitted "on a technicality" that it means that they are still guilty but some bureaucratic red tape kept them from being properly prosecuted. Those people would do well to remember that those procedural rules are there for a reason: to protect people from false accusations and erroneous prosecution. It's true that to get off on a technicality doesn't mean one is innocent; what
it means is that the accepted process for determining guilt was not followed
correctly (for who knows what reason) and so an accurate determination of guilt
can't be made. Landis and the Landaluze case #5In reply to Mr. Stewart-Sturges, what the Landaluze case shows as you point out is that, "the staff of the laboratory of Châtenay-Malabry had acted in good faith and that the overlap of the different analysis operations performed by the staff was due to a heavy workload in the laboratory." Let me translate that to English for you, they cut corners because they were busy. What other corners did they cut? Did their faulty procedure make the tests more liable to sabotage (in the Landaluze case, obviously, even though it is unlikely anything untoward happened)? Is it too much for the lab to follow the rules? David Beruh Landis' defense fundA better place to put your money is with Jason Sager, the US Mountain Biker who has been issued a sanction for missing an in-competition dope test. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the riders at the race (it was a NORBA National event) did not see the control board up at the start. Mr. Sager did not finish the race, and so did not see the control board at the finish (probably something he should have checked). From what I gather, the officials at the event did not make a reasonable effort to locate the athlete, and subsequently issued him a one or two year ban for missing the test. It seems to me that the officials did not have it all together, and the athlete is somehow paying for that. Not to say he did nothing wrong, but the punishment certainly does not match the crime. Everyone go check out his website and grab a pair of ‘Free Sager' wristbands, a more noteworthy cause than supporting Landis. Lets hope that we see Sager at the Leadville 100 and not Landis. Jordan K Landis' defense fund #2In response to David Crutcher's letter, it is very sad that people are offering funding to Mr. Landis for his defense. One only has to look at the responses posted on www.floydlandis.com to see that there are many blind supporters of his cause. The masses just want a hero to worship and will not accept that there are those that cheat to get ahead in sport. I gave up believing the pleas of innocence from these tainted riders when I heard Tyler Hamilton's ridiculous defense tactics. Peter Lawrence Landis' defense fund #3David, The answer to your question is, yes, the public will bankroll Floyd's defense fund because many of us truly believe he is innocent - I for one cannot say the same thing about his former team leader. Are there other causes to which one can give their money? Yes again, and I do. However, you cannot ignore the realities in this case, among others that it would not have made sense, or a difference, for Floyd to take a large dose of testosterone in hopes of reviving his chances. And, if you really want to call out the jerks, do as another reader asked in his letter, ask Patrick Lefévère when he is going to fire Museeuw. Chet Ritchie Landis' defense fund #4Quite agree David, is it not time that the public recognised that ‘celebrities', as well as the ‘man in the street', should not be able to buy justice? The huge amounts of money which these people can put towards a court case, assures them of the very best legal representation, probably resulting in, as you say, the chance of getting off on a technicality. The end result is a great sport being devalued even more, and the lawyers lining their pockets, as they race off to get another rider acquitted. Andy Cheshire Landis' defense fund #5Recent letter writers have pointed out how unsatisfactory it would be if Floyd Landis were to eventually be cleared of doping charges on "a technicality." But the reality is that, under a system where you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent, such "technicalities" may be the only defence even for those who have done no wrong. If Landis is innocent, then there must be something wrong in the process at places like the amazing Châtenay-Malabry lab. As this is not an episode of ‘Law & Order', it's unlikely that some French lab worker is going to miraculously confess to a hatred of U.S.-based Amish that caused her to tamper with the Landis samples. Instead, demonstrating just a few fragments of a more-mundane broken system is probably the best Landis can hope for. If Landis is guilty ... well, so what? If you discount a "technical" defence for the guilty, then you discount a technical defence for the truly innocent. I don't like the thought of dopers winning, but I prefer that to the destruction of an innocent rider's career. As a fellow Canadian, my Christmas wish is that Dick Pound starts thinking the same way. Steven Bonisteel Landis' defense fund #6I have to agree fully with you! So many causes, so many needs, so many less fortunate need to have a fund raiser. Floyd Landis - who has made more money in the past year than I will see in my lifetime - needs to politely move on. He's not a bad person, and I'm not saying that he even knew testosterone was administered. However, it was certainly in his bloodstream. And as much as I'm a fan of American cycling; American's caught cheating need to take a note from a certain British cyclist in the same situation. Fess up. So much more can be gained, and so much more respect can retained from simply saying, "Yep, I did it. Give me my punishment." John Goonen American cultureTo say that 'American Culture' is to blame for Discovery's 'win-at-all-costs' attitude is ludicrous. Yes, Discovery networks is an American company. That being said, are the top brass at the network dictating who gets signed to the team? If you believe that, sir, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. The guy calling the shots at Discovery is Bruyneel -- a Belgian, for those of you playing at home. In fact, the team itself shouldn't be considered American when there are only two big name American riders on it! I challenge you to name the Americans on Disco besides Leipheimer and Hincapie. So, Mr. Rehm, if we are to subscribe to your theory on the Basso signing reflecting the perversion of American culture, shouldn't the other American-sponsored teams be grabbing up Puerto-linked riders? CSC is an American sponsor, and they seem to have lost their ties to suspected dopers. Are HealthNet or Navigators signing Tyler Hamilton? No, that dubious honor would go to Tinkov, a Russian/Italian team. I certainly hope you've found the peace of mind and clear conscience you desire in Europe, the land where nobody dopes or cheats in any way. Relating the signing of a rumored doper to an American-sponsored cycle racing team to the foreign policy and moral conviction of the US is certifiably insane. Tyler Gregory American culture #2Cristopher Rehm's recent letter is spot-on. Each week lately I risk nausea and read another batch of letters from Discovery fans howling about the mistreatment of their team by the IPTC; and how unfairly their brand-new hero, Ivan Basso, has been treated. Any chance we can shut that spigot off sometime soon? I mean, guys like Basso and Ullrich have had six months now to trot a blood sample to Spain and prove their innocence-- right? For my money, I'm guessing that Discovery's next personnel change will be to bring George Steinbrenner on as owner. One especially maddening trait that Mr. Rehm failed to mention is America's favorite excuse when something goes wrong: those damned foreigners. Whether it's vengeful French scientists, incompetent Spanish investigators, irresponsible English cycling writers (writing books in French, even worse!), or those holier-than-thou German and Danish guys on their anti-doping soapboxes; we can usually find a good scapegoat somewhere across the ocean who's the real culprit. They're all just jealous! I know plenty of great people who are Americans, but taken as a whole we're a pretty sorry lot these days. If countries were cars, we'd be a Hummer - driving in whichever lane we damn well pleased, and those other guys could just watch out for us. Kerry Hardy Armstrong's credibilityI think if Armstrong was set on revenge against Landis then why would he have offered Landis a place back on the team, Discovery have been the top team for quite a while and their main objective is the Tour de France because its financial rewards are the highest. They will go for the rider most likely to win, it's a business first, and picking Basso even through the drug allegations show you where they're at and they like all the other teams, will do what they can to get the best riders, including Landis if he gets his name cleared. Ray Willings Armstrong's credibility - the conspiracy theoriesIf I get Darren Earp's point, he believes Operation Puerto and the Landis affair are the work of Lance Armstrong, or at least linked to him. I have to agree there is something very fishy about both cases. Still, I don't get how the LNDD lab that leaked all his test results to the press in the 1999 Tour, in violation of UCI regulations and local laws, becoming the number one contributor to all allegations brought against Lance in his career, would turn around and become his friend. More to the point, how would Armstrong even consider enrolling them if he did want to destroy Landis. It's ridiculous. The whole problem of the pro cycling world right now is that legal and disciplinary actions are enacted on an arbitrary basis. Officials say it is okay to break the rules they are supposed to uphold, journalists print any available info regardless of the source, managers enact huge sanctions on riders or teams on the basis of hearsay to protect their financial assets. In the middle of this quagmire, I doubt elaborating conspiracy theories with even less proof than the new cycling standard is going to advance anything. Once we have the story straight, we can start looking at the underlying layers of responsibility. Right now, it's just silly. Jean-Christophe Boulay Back room politics and the IPCTOkay, I will grant that I typed Euskaltel, who do not currently have riders involved in Operacion Puerto; they have and have had riders involved in other doping scandals. I believe that the same logic should apply to a team like Euskaltel however because doping is doping, it is a scourge that must be dealt with across the board. To focus on riders involved in one single scandal and who are in a specific set of circumstances is clearly playing to the crowds in an effort to appear like action is being taken. The only logical reason for such a focus is to serve financial bottom lines in the process of creating a positive appearance. Unless we deal with all riders, in all doping incidents with the same regulatory and non-regulatory methods, those that are actually guilty, and treated differently will be able to use this treatment as obfuscation, and those who may actually be innocent could find themselves singled out while the guilty go on unmolested. Such inconsistent actions also only damages credibility in these trying times. In regards to the IPCT, the teams are the group that could potentially have the greatest positive impact on the doping war, as such a loss of credibility is not only unacceptable but telling as it reveals that many of the teams still have not had a true change in attitude at the managerial level, only the appearance of such. Until this occurs the war on doping will be hobbled. John Schmalbach Recent letters pages Letters 2006
|
|
|