|Cyclingnews TV News Tech Features Road MTB BMX Cyclo-cross Track Photos Fitness Letters Search Forum|
Letters to Cyclingnews - August 11, 2006, part 1
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Massive response to Landis situation
Once again the Cyclingnews letters Inbox was full of discussion of the situation of Phonak rider Floyd landis, who returned an adverse analytical finding for testosterone after his solo win in stage 17 of the Tour de France. The result of Landis' B sample analysis is expected this weekend, and meantime the rumour mill has been working overtime.
Over these four pages we present a sample of your opinions, ranging from outrage to humour and scepticism to resignation. We're sorry we're not able to publish them all, but we believe this is a representative sample.
- John Stevenson, letters editor
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
Patrick Lefevere's suggestion, whether serious or not, that legal action should be taken against Floyd Landis for damaging the sport of cycling is ridiculous. While I agree with the sentiment that those who bring shame and dishonour to a beautiful sport should be punished, it is next to impossible to take Mr. Lefevere seriously. After all, his current team has arguably enjoyed its greatest Tour de France success thanks to Richard Virenque, the poster child for the Festina scandal. Moreover, hiring Johan Museeuw as press officer for his team in the midst of the Belgian doping scandal does not make it seem that Mr. Lefevere is concerned with avoiding the appearance of impropriety. While I believe that everyone deserves a second chance, it is difficult to believe that Mr. Lefevere is truly concerned with cleaning up the sport when his actions indicate that he is concerned first with financial success.
It is hypocritical for Mr. Lefevere to have it both ways. You either condemn all riders suspected of doping infractions or you let the investigations and appeals run their course before you condemn them. Keeping Museeuw on as a part of his team is the wrong image to send. At the very least, he should wait until his case is over and the time for any suspension has expired before having him associated with his team. If he is serious about the Pro Tour code of ethics, then the four-year ban applicable to riders should be applied to everyone associated with the team. Only when Mr. Lefevere and others in the sport begin to practice what they preach will the sport finally have a chance to rise above the bad reputation it now has.
Patrick Lefevere wants to vomit when he thinks of the Floyd Landis affair.
I wonder if he puked after all those victories by his doped up "Lion of Flanders" Johan Museeuw?
And then instead of trying to clean up the sport by providing DNA samples to the Operacion Puerto investigators, he denies the request citing "research".
Has he no shame?
Both the UCI and WADA have behaved themselves with no dignity in this matter.
And you wonder why would people believe there is an agenda behind the scenes?
Patrick Lefevere has put forward the idea of legal action against Floyd Landis for damaging the sport of cycling. "We should take him to court for what he is now doing to cycling. I feel like throwing up when I hear (Landis)"
Am I really reading the sentiments of the same Patrick Lefevere who was directeur sportif of Johann Museeuw and numerous other Belgian 'professionals' dating back well before 1998?
Nevertheless it is good to see that Patrick is president of the Professional Teams Association because he is almost certainly eminently qualified to educate the present generation about doping culture.
As for the wisdom of legal action against dopers, perhaps for his own sake Patrick would be wiser to keep the silence that he maintained so successfully in his 'previous life'.
I see that Patrick Lefevere wants to take legal action against Floyd Landis for damaging the sport of cycling. What a hypocrite, or perhaps he has forgotten that a former rider and now PR employee of his Quick Step Innergetic team by the name of Johann Museeuw was sanctioned by the doping authorities and the Belgian authorities for his involvement in a doping ring.
Hypocrisy seems to be in Vogue at the moment, what with a UCI that breaks its own rules regarding confidentiality protocols, a certified lab with links to a French newspaper, and a Tour de France organisation that welcomes the likes of Richard Virenque to the Tour both as a rider and now a TV pundit. If the journalists and Authorities who claim to care about a clean sport show such a lack of integrity, how can they expect the athletes to be virtuous?
So in a fine, upstanding, protect-the-integrity-of-cycling gesture, Patrick Lefevere has called for legal action against Floyd Landis for "damaging the sport", and also called for Phonak to be expelled from the ProTour.
Presumably this is an entirely different Patrick Lefevere from the one who in 2002, when manager of Domo-Farm Frites and then Quick.Step-Davitamon, employed a certain disgraced Richard Virenque.
I agree with Lefevere--"the American approach" should definitely be applied to the Floyd Landis case, and all doping in cycling. Then it would be courts determining things that the UCI and WADA demagogues now decree. We'd have some answers about the reliability (in a legal sense) of the rEPO test. We'd have some "due process" that would prevent the wanton destruction of riders' reputations in advance of "B" samples and appeals. We'd have some police procedure--can you imagine US police agencies providing investigation summaries that they KNEW would be acted on in advance of indictments? Talk about a lawsuit... .the Operation Puerto agents would be homeless and penniless under "the American approach."
Most importantly in my opinion, because I care not a whit about the fools who dope to win races, establishing "the American approach" would give cycling a foundation on which to rebuild. If the current scorched-Earth, get-them-at-any-cost approach continues, UCI will not have a sport to govern because there will be nobody left who rises above suspicion. How can we embrace Oscar as the Tour champion when he also seemed to ride well above himself (in the final time trial) AND we're now so well informed about how to beat the T/E test? No wonder Skoda dropped their sponsorship--the UCI testing shenanigans leave not an impression of confidence, but one of utter chaos in which the criminals are only caught when they make a major mistake.
As a biologist, It seems likely to me that someone gave Landis a testosterone/epitestosterone cocktail in which the epitestosterone had been over-diluted by a factor of ten, resulting in a ratio near 11:1. Since dilutions are commonly made in factors of ten, this is a common lab error and unsurprising for a product (epitestosterone) that must be made on the sly and not bought from a real pharma company that makes a strong quality control effort. But, since the real confirmatory test (the isotope mass ratio) is only applied to samples breaking the T/E limit, we only discovered exogenous testosterone in Landis by someone's mistake--not by the efficacy of the testing procedures. This says to me that had there been ten times more epitestosterone added to Floyd's 'cocktail', we'd still be cheering him as a champion instead of being filled with cynicism.
Let's bring on "the American approach". Let's decide objectively, in advance, which tests are reliable and truly level the playing field (for example: either use the isotope ratio test on every urine sample or drop testosterone from the banned list). Let's process B samples and appeals in private then punish within the bounds of the sport first, instead of within the court of public opinion and media hoopla. Certainly, these attributes do not apply to all of American justice, all the time, but they're laudable goals and would go a long ways towards restoring the sport.
And then, what we don't know and can't really test for... well, we can all just choose to forget that and get on with cheering, like we did in the mid 90's when EPO was popular but undetectable.
Perhaps Mr. Lefevere should take a closer examination of his own team (Quick Step) before he makes threats to sue Floyd Landis for "damaging the sport of cycling". What with such luminaries as Vandenbroucke and Museeuw -- who you might remember was caught RED HANDED -- associated with Lefevere its rather difficult to take his comments with any degree of seriousness. Sheesh, what a hypocritical boob!
Patrick Lefevere, president of the professional teams association and Quick.Step team manager, needs to see the light of day.
In considering legal action against Landis (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug09news2) it shows that he doesn't get that the largess of whole mess was the result of the UCI not following protocols because it didn't want the details to leak from the untrustworthy staff at the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory.
It would have been much less of a media disaster if people played by the rules. Starting with Landis, maybe, but when the officials at the UCI and the labs charged with doing the tests cannot follow theory own protocols, then the whole system is corrupt and needs to be sorted out.
Reengineer the testing system so that it is trustworthy, that would be a better place to start. Going after Landis is like saying that by charging him, there will be no more doping in cycling.
Another big gun in cycling joins Pat McQuaid in not getting how this could have been handled better. It is a sad day for cycling indeed.
On www.cyclingnews.com, it was reported that Patrick Lefevere, team manager of the Quick.Step team, opined that Landis should be sued for setting back bike racing by 20 years, and also called for sanctions against the Phonak team due to it's record of 10 doping infractions by its riders in 3 years.
It's a bit rich, coming from LeFevre, whose own star riders Johan Museeuw and Frank Vandenbroucke were also found guilty of doping- the former just after retiring and the latter ending his career under a cloud and civil legal penalties. Museeuw was given a two year ban from cycling, but is actively involved in the Quick.Step team. And there are other riders associated with LeFevre such as Christophe Brandt and a certain Richard Virenque who have been found to be doping.
Seems to me that LeFevre is the Belgian pot calling the kettle black. Doping is rife in professional sports, more obviously in cycling because it does more aggressive testing than most sports. To think that Landis is an exception or somehow more morally culpable than other people involved in professional cycling is either incredibly naive or Rovian in its disingenuousness.
Tim McNamara <
So Patrick Lefevere wants to sue Floyd Landis for damaging the image of cycling by maintaining his innocence. Makes sense: The more Landis protests his innocence, the more attention it will draw to the issue of doping in cycling, which is of course unwelcome, especially by team managers. If Lefevere goes through with it, I would then expect him to sue that public relations member of his own team, Quick Step: Johan Museeuw, who was himself busted for doping. Personally, any time I see the name Museeuw, I think about aranesp and amphetamines, not bicycles. Take him to court, Mr. Lefevere!
From Cycling New on August 9th, 2006: The president of the professional teams association and Quick.Step team manager Patrick Lefevere has put forward the idea of legal action against Floyd Landis for damaging the sport of cycling. "Actually, we should take him to court for what he is now doing to cycling, " said Lefevere to Sportwereld.be. "Why not? Why not take the American approach of dealing with things and apply it here? As long as Landis continues to maintain that he knows nothing, this sort of scenario becomes more likely. I feel like throwing up when I hear him. Landis has turned the clock back 20 years."
I'm curious to know how old this man is because he sounds like a child. Cycling has been having problems for years with doping scandals. It was 1996 20 years ago and there have been many, many problems since then. Let's not forget the "Festina Affair" of 1998 and didn't Cofidis have problems not 2-3 years ago? What about last years Vuelta? And what about "Operation Puerto"? Lefevere is acting like Floyd Landis' situation is the only one to occur in the last 20 years. It's absolutely ridiculous to blame one man's situation on the plight of cycling. Cyclist will continue to cycle, true fans will continue to watch and there will always be sponsors available out there somewhere. Let's get real. If Lefevere is serious about suing Floyd for "damaging the sport of cycling", he may as well be FAIR (which nobody has been yet in this situation) and add every cyclist name to the list who has either been accused of doping or sanctioned for it.
And as far as Floyd is concerned, I still believe he's innocent. I do believe there's a hidden agenda here and I'll stand by Floyd for as long as he fights this. I've read that a rider is responsible for everything they put it there body, but they have to trust people all along the way. Why is it so hard to believe that if there is synthetic testosterone in his urine, it didn't get there by anything he did? I'm the type of person to think that nobody would do something to me to cause as much misery that this man is going through but let's look at the world today. There's all kinds of mean and nasty people out there. I don't have any doubt it's possible that someone did this to Floyd and is now sitting back somewhere and laughing. Floyd is handling this situation with more maturity than absolutely everybody else. He's trying to find answers and explanations for something that was as shocking to him as it was to the rest of the world. He deserves time and a chance to defend himself and find the truth and he deserved to remain Tour de France Champion until the truth is found out.
Now there's this comment from Pat McQuaid regarding giving blood samples to the Spanish authorities: "The blood of the riders in our possession from doping controls is used for research purposes, " UCI president Pat McQuaid was quoted by AP as saying. "To give it for DNA comparisons is against our rules." So going against there rules is a selective thing. How amusing. Sounds like the rules also only apply to certain riders and certain situations. This has been a "Shoot first, ask questions later" situation and a man's future in the sport he loves and his future in earning a living have been destroyed. For me, I'm more disappointed in how this has all unfolded than in anything Floyd may or may not have done and, frankly, it scared the crap out of me that these organizations have that kind of control.
Floyd Landis is a courageous and gifted rider.
Landis claims that the media had received word of his positive drug test before he did. Then why did he disappear from a Dutch post-tour criterium without cancelling? It happened to be that my parents in the Netherlands went to watch that race hoping to see Floyd in Yellow.
Five minutes before the start the announcement came. "Floyd has disappeared and nobody knows where he is." He had gone to Germany a few hours before the start of the race and was in Madrid, Spain the next day to give a news conference. That night when my parents drove back home they heard on the radio that SOMEONE had tested positive in the 17th stage of the Tour.
Only the next day the news came out that it was Landis. So, Landis did know before his name was linked to the positive test, or anticipated it was him and had already prepared his speech. Why else would he have fled to Spain the night before the news came out? There's an old saying "whoever fits the shoe"... I feel bad for Floyd as I am convinced that the first 15 riders who finished behind him on GC were riding on the same fuel as he did. Maybe he went a little overboard with the dosage or left the testosterone patch on a little too long. Whatever reason there may be Floyd will never admit he used anything.
I guess it must be the way these riders think. Like it is a silent code. As long as you're not tested positive, you are clean. Maybe they should say "I have never used more than that my doctor prescribed to me, and considering that my competitors use the same products, It can not be considered as cheating."
As a frequent reader of your site I have a couple of questions I'm wondering if you can address. You Aussies have had a neutral to skeptical attitude about the whole thing, so maybe I can get a straight answer from you...
1. As Floyd points out, all of his other tests were negative. Supposing he had imbibed enough exogenous testosterone on stage 17 to trigger an 11:1 ratio, would all of that have been removed from his body by two days later when he recovered the yellow jersey (and would have presumably been tested again)?
2. I've seen some reports that state that the epitestosterone was the actual trigger for the positive result (i.e.: it was abnormally low). Is this something that can be caused by natural processes in an endurance athlete? (Speculation, I know...)
As an American fan of cycling, I want to believe Floyd. But then, I wanted to believe Tyler, too. In a country that is all too often consumed by spin/counterspin, I'm looking for some helpful input (one way or the other)...
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
We're working on a lengthy article covering these issues. - Ed.
One thing that seems interesting (and questionable) is that the "leak" in L'Equipe first said he had a too high testosterone level. Then Floyd and his doctor have a press conference and say that he will try to prove that he had a natural high result. Then a day or two later, suddenly it is leaked that it is a synthetic testosterone, which he obviously cannot prove in a physical exam at this late date. It's almost like they deliberately waited to give out the synthetic information, making Floyd look kind of foolish for talking to the press.
This particular lab in France that does all the tests has been questioned in other years. Perhaps the samples should be distributed between a number of different labs, rather than just one, and having the A samples go to a different lab from the B samples, so no one lab will do both tests of any one individual. That way no one could tamper with both samples, which should make people feel more confident.
Reading all the controversy regarding Floyd Landis and his positive for abnormal testosterone levels, I'd like to share my situation. I am hypogonadal, a result of a defect in my pituitary gland, and a result am on hormone replacement, a oral supplement, not a very effective delivery method but safe. I was trialed on a hormone gel, that when rubbed into the upper torso, used the skin as a reservoir for the testosterone. After one dose I felt flushed, got on the bike and rode like the wind and felt really short tempered. Later on that day after a drive into town, the wife said I was going off that gel stuff as I was so agro driving.
Point being in all this, did Floyd get the extra dose of some form of gel or patch? I found out from experience that one strong dose of testosterone, even when I was already on a fairly heavy replacement program, has a big effect. I know that if using a external dosing method for testosterone it doesn't stay in the system very long, a few hours I think. I just wonder if his minders were either overenthusiastic in their dosing or they figured he would burn it out of his system by the time he hit the doping control.
Whatever happens, it's a shame for cycling.
Here's an idea. Use the electoral roll (a list of everyone enrolled to vote - in Australia, nearly everyone) to select at random 20 men and 20 women - give them all the same equipment and let the games begin. The selection process would/could have age grouping if desired.
However it opens up the idea of man against man - especially if done internationally. Of course some would be fitter, some would be fatter some would still have hangovers, be suffering the after effects of recreational drugs, have colds, eating bad food and stressed from everyday life - Joe public!
Keep them all together in hotel with the same diet and no outside contact for 20 days!
No need for coaches, team sponsors, drug testing - just racing and plenty of drama!
Imagine having to climb the Alps without training or ever ridden a bike! forget the testosterone bring on the defibrillator!
While I certainly agree levels of various components of blood should be compared to levels one would expect having competed over 3 weeks worth of extreme exercise, one must remember that it was only Landis that failed the test. No other rider in the tour failed the test, and I am sure that Landis was not the only rider tested. If 3 weeks of hard cycling increases your testosterone to levels beyond 'normal', then why didn't the rest of the peloton test positive?
"I WANT THE TRUTH!" "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
Here's a question (tell me if you can recognize the sport):
The perception is that you have to do drugs to win in this sport. The stronger and leaner you are, the better chance that you have to win the big money and fame. EVERYONE has a Doctor stashed in their hip pocket and the more discrete the Doctor, the better his reputation (i.e. "I can't talk about my methods, I'd be ruined" The winners, after retirement and some appropriate time, finally fess up to the drugs they utilized to win. (Hello Arnold...)
The only difference from the Mr. Olympia contest and International pro cycling seems to be the bicycles. Without the drugs, they cease to exist.
Cynical, YES. Based in truth, YES. Now someone will take offense and say that "not all international pro cyclists dope". THEY'RE RIGHT! Not all bodybuilders dope either. In the Mr. Olympia or the Tour De France, is that a true statement though?
Fed up with the lies,
So UCI is dedicated to fighting doping, and is going to do what it takes to clean up the sport, just so long as what it takes doesn't involve sending blood samples to Spain? I mean, come on! We know there's two dozen riders in Operation Puerto we don't know yet, and instead of catching them, UCI is sitting on the evidence that could clean up the sport? Why do I feel like UCI is more interested in not having any more high-profile doping busts than in having a clean sport?
Right. And shorten the stages to a max of 160k so the speeds stay high and the physical demands are more reasonable. A century a day? That should be more than plenty.
In response to Steve's comments: First off, I agree that a bit of scandal can be good for ratings and publicity. One need only look at this year's events prior to the Tour. However, I think it is important to note that:
1: Landis has not been found guilty of anything yet (however if he is then so be it, I can't stand cheating) so perhaps all should hold judgement until everything is final.
2: If a major doping scandal is going to help "Clean" up the sport of cycling then surely the Operation Puerto events would have scared the living daylights out of all competing at this year's Tour.
3: While I do commend organizations such as WADA et al, for doing the job of trying to keep sport clean, as stated in previous letters from others, these organizations have an obligation not to release/leak premature information. They should be neutral and uncaring of the outcome of any test. I for one will not stop watching this amazing sport or for that matter stop riding my bike, racing, and having fun. The drama of these events does make for an intense off season and I can't wait to see what happens next year.
In addition, how about a rule that would permanently bar the DS and team MD from the sport if the team accrued more than some set number of infractions, say 3? It's hard to believe that riders are doing all this doping in a vacuum.
If it makes sense that Landis' had such an extreme T:E ratio on stage 17 and then passed the same test three more times in the last three stages of the tour.
While, I'm an engineer whose worked with spectroscopy, I believe the results of the test, the results of the following tests make me wonder. With three stages left, and being tested three more times, I would find it hard to believe his T:E ratio would drop that much the subsequent days.
Just two remarks for all those who seem to think procedures are more important than the actual test results.
1) In Floyd's case the evidence was obtained without any violation of due process. There was a leak afterwards, but it was his own team who finally published it on their website. It would be all to easy: athlete & team are informed about positive A sample, they make sure it leaks to the press, abracadabra... case dismissed.
2) Imagine you do have an AIDS test done and read the bad news in the newspaper next morning. Test invalid, case dismissed, close your eyes and don't believe the results?
Come on folks, there's only one important question: did Floyd Landis (or somebody in his environment) do something silly or not? A question to be answered by medical scientists, not by lawyers criticizing procedures.
There is so much uninformed dialogue in the media and amongst the cycling proletariat that I feel it is time to relay a result from one peer reviewed study for the test for exogenous testosterone in athletes that shows how difficult it is to identify doping in many cases. I refer here to the study of Aguilera et al. published in: Clinical Chemistry 47:2292300 (2001). They tested two groups. Group 1, is a control group that included 74 males of all races, medical students, aged 19-29 yrs, no declared ingestion of exogenous testosterone or any other steroid.
The tests reported in this paper listed the range for the control group in the mean del 13C (the parts per thousand difference in the 13C/12C ratio compared to a standard) for three steroids and defined as baseline. No T/E's listed. Group 2 were athletes, 2 permitted to take testosterone for medical purposes, 4 drug behaviour unknown. Multiple samples were taken with varying time intervals with sampling durations from 0 to 4 days to up to 0 to 798 days, for the different individuals. The two taking testosterone, and one with unknown drug behaviour, had sporadic T/Es of 9.8 to 80 over the time periods, and had clearly different del 13C for the most part relative to the control group.
In all 3 cases, the isotopic signal and high T/E persisted during the study and in one individual, for up to 156 days. In one of the individuals taking testosterone for medical purposes, the T/E changed from 29 at day 0 to 9.8 at day 63, with a steady decay of del 13C from 'doping' values to approaching control group compositions over that time. The three other athletes with unknown drug behaviour had T/E over time ranging from 5 to 12.6 and quite variable for each athlete (all high by present WADA standards) with no isotopic signal of exogenous testosterone.
What can we tell from this study? High T/E (i.e. >4) is measured in athletes with no isotopic fingerprint of exogenous testosterone and is not unusual. Others with high T/E have isotopic values that lie in a range between natural and exogenous in an 'unclear interpretation' zone. In the case of all three identified with exogenous testosterone in their samples, one of which the drug behaviour of this individual was unknown, the high T/E and del13C isotopic fingerprint persisted for days to weeks, and in one case, 156 days.
Wasn't Floyd tested several times over that week? Why was only one sample showing high T/E, and what is the del13C value? Is it clear-cut, or is it in the intermediate range where overlapping uncertainties in the averages and measurement errors make it not interpretable?
Conclusions, first, an independent lab chosen by all parties must reproduce the results of the Châtenay-Malabry lab, not just a repeated B by the same lab, to validate the measurement. If not, then given the recent accusations against this lab and its questionable credibility (e.g. Armstrong-L'Equipe affair), both measurements they produce should be taken as suspect.
Second, then the questions have to be asked as to why the isotopic and possibly, T/E signal did not persist for the whole week of racing and beyond (or did it?), and whether the measured del13C measurement is definitive in this case.
The answers are crucial. My take on this is that the doping agencies don't have a case unless they can prove why the signal did not persist, and that the isotopic signal is clear cut, and it has been verified by an independent lab. I emphasize this is just one of many studies I found in the literature regarding the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer test for identifying exogenous testosterone in athletes. There are others, this one shows it is not easy to identify in many cases where high T/Es are found, and one has to then draw the conclusion that maybe Floyd is innocent until 100% proven guilty and if judged guilty by the doping agencies, he may still be innocent. It is just not simple to identify a testosterone doper in many cases.
I would have to agree with Jay Peitzer about taking urine samples from all athletes everyday, If I was an athlete and I was innocent I would give my urine every day to prove my innocence. Not only for myself but to prove that this race or any other race that I do is clean.
Even if Floyd's sample was found to be positive, why is there not any other samples being taken? IF there are other samples being taken do they show a slight incline or decline in the T/E ratio.
These are the questions that need to be taken into consideration. So there definitely needs to be a more clear and concise way of treating these cases. This A and B sample testing is redundant and definitely needs to change. I think in order for McQuaid and all other officials that want to keep cycling clean. There needs to be an appropriate overhaul in the way thing are run! It is only obvious that it needs to be done Now!
Rick - France does not "hate an American winner" - I should know because I live there part of my time. They admire anyone who can produce the result - no matter where they come from.
The trouble with you Americans is that you are becoming paranoid - just look at all the evidence - and try to be objective.
Regardless of who this latest fiasco (i.e. Landis) happened to embroil, a corrupt testing system - which is what the implicated Floyd Landis called it - is exactly what the world has been shown in the weeks since the Tour de France.
The UCI knowingly released an announcement that they shouldn't have because they were afraid the testing lab - known to have ties to L'Equipe - would leak the results.
Put another way, they violated the protocol because the laboratory pressed with the responsibility of testing the riders - a job of high moral standard - is known to be breaching the protocol!
Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, stated in an article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/08/sports/BIKE.php) that he "completely reject[s] the word 'corruption.'".
This is saddening to hear as a cycling fan - more so then the doping case of Landis - because it is clear that the president of the UCI doesn't get it, and that this kind of mess will continue in the future. If he cared dearly about the sport of cycling, he would find another lab and try to follow the protocols when corruption occurs in the system (in this case the leaky employee in the lab at Chatenay-Malabry laboratory and the actions followed thereafter).
Recent letters pages