Recently on Cyclingnews.com
|
Mont Ventoux Photo ©: Sirotti
|
|
|
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
|
|