Letters to Cyclingnews - June 8, 2007

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.

Di Luca's finest win...
Simoni goes 1850 metres / hour
What ever happened to Iban Mayo?
Andy the Dandy
Three Tour wins for Ullrich?
Ullrich getting screwed
Percentage of pros with asthma
Amnesty for doping offenses
Cycling - not yet a real professional sport
Doping and cycling
Greg LeMond and record ITTs
Meaningless defense
We are out of denial - Let's look forward

Di Luca's finest win...

I'll have to admit: when I first heard of the 31 year-old Italian from the southern regions of Tuscany, I blatantly did not like him. I'm not sure if it was his attacking nature, his constant risk taking, or if was just the nickname he has carried throughout his carrier, "The Killer". Pretentious I thought. I just didn't like it, I didn't like him. Some athletes just rub a fan the wrong way: Rasheed Wallace, Kobe Bryant, Colin Montgomery, Terrel Owens... I now realize Danilo Di Luca is not one of these people. I've grown to admire his aggression on two wheels. I've fallen for his versatility and range, his prowess in time trials, climbs, and sprints - in every facet of the race.

In this pathetic time, this depressed period that professional cycling finds itself in with all the allegations, the court trials, the doping, the Bassos, the Landis, the Ulrichs, the impure athletes, these cowards looking for an easy way out - these athletes that have tainted this sport. Cycling was meant to be pure and raw: a man and a machine against another man and his machine, whoever makes it up this hill fastest wins. This has not been the case since the nineties and even before. The idols and heroes of cycling are letting down its fans. They have made poor role-models for the sports younger fans. And hell, its older ones too!

In this tainted world, it's been a joy to watch Di Luca as if a breath of fresh air, a treat to the true fan of sport to see him dominate the Giro d'Italia! A man that once annoyed me, because of his nickname and because of his attacking nature, like a pest always keeping the gruppo on its heels... I now admire and look to him as almost super-human hope for my favorite sport. Di Luca is the description of sport. You can see the pain on his face as his cadence climbs and he climbs further past his rivals. We watch his excitement and enthusiasm as he pumps his fist in the final kilometres on the final time trial of the 2007 Giro. His pain and enthusiasm is pure, as pure as his integrity as an athlete. I am now proud to say that I am a fan again.

It's a shame that his win happens simultaneously with the Landis hearings and as the Basso allegations continue to stir... but it doesn't take anything from this Killer Fan!

Mark Adam Abramowicz
Los Angeles, USA
Monday, June 4, 2007

Respond to this letter

Simoni goes 1850 metres/hour

"Gilberto Simoni (Saunier Duval-Prodir) conquered the 10.1-kilometre Monte Zoncolan in 1850 metres per hour according to La Gazzetta dello Sport. The speed, 39 minutes over the 1203 metres, 1850 VAM (Velocity Ascended, metres per hour Vm/h), was faster than that of Ivan Basso on the Maielletta Passo Lanciano in 2006, 1805 VAM. Marco Pantani blasted up the Alpe d'Huez with a 1791 VAM and Danilo Di Luca did the final four kilometres of Tre Cime di Lavaredo with a 1750 VAM."

Objection.

In my opinion the VAM (Velocity Ascended metres per hour Vm/h) standard is as such an indication of climbing ability, but by no means a suitable absolute criterion for comparing with other climbing performances, apart from achievements on the same climb.

By comparing Gilberto Simoni and Ivan Basso by this VAM standard one suggests, that virtually speaking, Gilberto Simoni would have finished about 60s earlier than Ivan Basso. Recalculate from the VAM of 1805m for the Monte Zoncolan climb the time to achieve this. Time = (3600*1205)/1805=2403s = 40:03.

In the easier, eastern side Monte Zoncolan climb of the Giro 2003 (average gradient of 8.9%), also won by Gilberto Simoni in 2445 sec for 13,5 km; with just 6 metres less altitude gain (1199m vs. 1205m), he only makes a 1765m VAM standard. Recalculate this again to the steeper climb of Wednesday, than you even will find a loss for Simoni of almost 2 minutes. Time = (3600*1205)/1765=2458 = 40:58.

Manfred Nuescheler calculations of climbing power, frequently shown on his websites, indicate however a better power result in 2003 with 403 Watts versus 393 Watts on Wednesday. Just 10 Watts, but such a loss of power is already accountable for about a minute loss.

So here's a clear discrepancy at hand. How can someone with less power still be almost 2 minutes faster?

What time would Lance Armstrong have achieved on the Monte Zoncolan in the form of his famous "with a fall and the gentleman gesture of the nowadays so abused Jan Ullrich" Luz Ardiden TDF 2003 climbs capability? An average gradient of only 7,6 % and his VAM was also only (3600/2115)*1031m=1755m.

Based however on the then for Lance Armstrong claimed 510 Watts ability on this climb he should have gained more than 2 minutes on Gilberto Simoni.

Conclusion: The VAM standard is based on altitude gaining per time unit.

So it speaks for itself that there must be an optimum of steepness in order to gain a maximal altitude gain per hour. A scientist would probably be able to calculate this, I can't. But you just can't fairly compare performances achieved with different gradients.

Gilberto Simoni is by no means a Lance Armstrong 2003 and for quite a number a years, and of cause in lesser form: Ivan Basso 2006, Jan Ullrich 1998/1999 and some other years.

Climbing performances are of course influenced by a lot of variables, which can't all be accounted for. But my comparisons were set up with the sole purpose of stipulating, that the VAM is a ridiculous standard if used as published in several newspapers etcetera.

Frans Rutten
Wijchen, The Netherlands
Thursday, May 31, 2007

Respond to this letter

What ever happened to Iban Mayo?

He's baaaack... latest stage Giro winner Iban Mayo looks like he has regained his long lost winning ways. Not an easy stage either. Iban is not your GC guy if that's what people expect of this long-time classics rider.

Mayo is more of an all-around stage or classics winning cyclist but he'll break on occasion which does not bode well for GC contenders in the long tours.

Tim Freeman
San Francisco CA, USA
Friday, June 1, 2007

Respond to this letter

Andy the Dandy

Great articles on the young Andy Schleck, and heartiest congrats to the youngster. The story of his prodigious success, and the ability of Di Luca to more to the fore of a grand tour, are just what cycling needs most today.

Best regards,

Matt Anderton
Washington, USA
Monday, June 4, 2007

Respond to this letter

Three Tour wins for Ullrich?

Now that we know Bjarne Riis is guilty of doping during his victory of the Tour de France, the question for me becomes, do we strip him of the title and give it to the next person in line who at that time was clean?

If Landis could end up a loser I find it only fair that Riis also does. With the newly focused doping regulation and the mass revelation of past greats being dopers shouldn't the UCI take a serious look into the 96-98 winners?

If we can only have a truly clean champ today, then let us be sure past winners in question were really clean then. If not let us declare a new winner for that year. Cycling can not fully move past this until the past is straightened out. That means looking over the last 10 tours. If Ullrich was truly clean during the 96-98 tours while the other winners were not, let's declare the true champion.

Shaun Murphy
Southern Oregon, USA
Friday, June 1, 2007

Respond to this letter

Ullrich getting screwed

Sure, he likely doped either recently with Puerto, with Telekom in the 1990's, or at both and all points in between, but the fact is Jan Ullrich has never tested positive for performance enhancing substances. Yet.

He was barred from riding last year's tour because of suspicion with Puerto, yet Valverde is somehow being allowed to ride this year.

Tyler Hamilton actually tested positive at the 2004 Olympics and again during the Vuelta afterwards but is allowed to keep his medal, but the IOC is looking to strip Ullrich of his 2000 Olympic medals because some of his professional teammates from the 1990's admitted to doping.

Eric Zabel admitted to doping but didn't even lose his job, while on the mere suspicion of doping, fellow German Ullrich has had his career torn apart and is being charged with fraud by the German people,, with a public crucifixion likely not far behind.

Ullrich is being summarily labeled a doper because many of his former Telekom teammates admitted to doping, yet Lance Armstrong is not being accused despite the fact that many of his former teammates actually tested positive and served suspensions for doping. Ullrich is guilty by association, but Armstrong is not.

Doper or not, Jan Ullrich is being treated unfairly, and I think it makes this sorry state of affairs even sadder.

Rob Found
Canada
Sunday, June 3, 2007

Respond to this letter

Percentage of pros with asthma

The medical literature cites many articles describing a condition known as "Exercise Induced Bronchospasm". It is prevalent in athletes who exercise outdoors (runners, cyclist, and cross-country skiers) especially in dry and cold conditions. As a result, the incidence of needed/proscribed asthma medication increases.

Michael Krane
Sunday, June 03, 2007

Respond to this letter

Amnesty for doping offenses

With the recent flood of doping admissions, I believe the only way to clean up our sport is to implement a sweeping amnesty program for all professional cyclists. While at face value, it seems crazy to allow these athletes to walk away scot-free, there appears to be little alternative if we wish to honestly clean up the sport once and for all.

At this stage, can anyone honestly believe that any accomplishment of note has been obtained without the use of performance-enhancing drugs? I know this is horribly cynical, but what are we left to believe?

My suggestion is to implement a fixed period of time for all cyclists to come clean and admit to doping without the fear of losing their careers. Doing so would not be totally without penalty. While riders would be able to continue their careers without a suspension, the UCI could opt to fine riders, heavily in some cases, for their offenses. Another consequence that cannot be underestimated is the damage to a rider's reputation. Nobody would be pleased to have their careers marked with the stigma as a cheat, but most riders would likely accept this as a path to continue earning a living.

While I normally would never advocate allowing riders to circumvent suspensions, it is the only equitable way to identify all the bad apples. Following the amnesty's grace period, the riders and the UCI must implement a zero-tolerance policy thereafter. Any doping offense would then be met with a lifetime ban and significant financial penalties to the rider, the team and to his director sportif. As an example, should a rider were to fail a control at the Tour de France, his entire team would be disqualified and ejected from the race. It is the only way to restore trust. Additionally, there must be a comprehensive testing program and medical evaluations for every rider that will greatly reduce the possibility of systemic doping programs like Operation Puerto which netted Dr. Fuentes and countless athletes.

As an aside, given the fact that virtually all of Lance Armstrong's key rivals were found to be involved in doping activities (see Basso, Ullrich, Pantani, Zulle and on and on), can anyone honestly believe that he not only beat these riders, but utterly dominated them without the assistance of performance-enhancing drugs? Additionally, look at his former teammates who were later found to be involved in doping (see Hamilton, Landis, and Heras etc). He may be innocent until proven guilty, but this stinks to high heaven.

If they truly love the sport, it's time for every rider to come clean both past and present. How about it Lance? How about it Johan (I did some bad things in my last year of riding.....please) Museeuw?

Being that the sport is funded by corporate sponsors that rely heavily on positive press and advertising, we cannot afford more scandal. Let's right the ship and get back on course before the sponsors abandon us in favor of something or someone with less baggage, leaving us holding the bag. What do you say?

Ken Bellone
New York, USA
Sunday, June 03, 2007

Respond to this letter

Amnesty is the way forward

What an intelligent and well thought out letter. I am especially impressed by her insistence on giving the accused due process. I used to believe this was supported by virtually all of the citizens of the countries where English Common Law is the basis of their legal system, but having read a number of letters from ostensibly citizens of some of these countries, I have serious doubts. .

One of the few advantages of being old and retired is that you have more free time than when you were working. The cold, wet, and windy weather since I have been here has left a lot of indoor free time and I took advantage of quite a bit of it to watch the USADA vs. Floyd Landis arbitration. The whole thing is still available on the net, but it takes over 50 hours even if you skip the recesses and wasted time. It has been a real eye opener as to how vicious the anti-drug establishment is.

I don't see how any reasonable person could watch this and have any confidence in the system. It is obvious that the French lab was determined to find something on Landis after his epic ride. The "A" sample that they tested was so obviously contaminated that according to WADA regulations should have been thrown out. Instead they persevered until they managed to come up with the answer they wanted even though it did not make scientific sense.

Landis's experts absolutely demolished the work done by LADD, (the French lab) and were rock solid in cross examination, in spite of the USADA lawyers using tactics better suited for a defense attorney representing organized crime figures.

One of the things I found extremely interesting and telling is that one of Landis's experts is one of the USADA independent experts on a panel that deals with adverse analytical findings to determine if there is a case to bring to arbitration. He said he spent more than 50 hours reviewing all of the discovery documentation on the Landis case and was not being paid. He volunteered to help Landis because he was convinced that what USADA was doing was wrong.

The scientific evidence presented by Landis's team was so good that the USADA lawyers changed their tactics and spent the rest of their time and nearly all of their closing arguments attacking Landis's character because of the stupid phone call made by his former business manager to Greg Lemond. It is absolutely infuriating to see the American taxpayer funding McCarthyite tactics of guilt by association.

I know it is politically incorrect, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the guy who after he had more than a few drinks decided to pull Lemond's chain a bit. As far as I am concerned he is a despicable crybaby who has been trying to tear down every American cyclist who has accomplished anything significant. He had a story nearly as impressive as Armstrong's but not many Americans were interested in cycling in his day. He just cannot stand seeing LA become a national hero where he has drifted into obscurity until his false accusations make the news. I would give up riding before I would buy a bike with his name on it.

The other person that I would wish nothing good for is Travis Tygart, the head of USADA. The way he directed the USADA lawyers is very clear that he only wanted to win the case at any cost. I am sure that if this were a proper trial, any reasonable judge would have issued a directed verdict. Being arbitration, there is no way of knowing how it will come out.

I am pretty sure from the questions asked by Campbell, he will support Landis, but the other two may well believe all cyclists take drugs and do the politically correct thing and support USADA. All in all, this is just about the most outrageous event I have ever witnessed. It almost makes me wish I was still living in the States because I would like to get involved in bringing political pressure to bear on USADA to clean up their act.

I am copying this to Travis Tygart with whom I have exchanged several letters because I have now seen at least as much USADA's public case as you have and am even more appalled by your tactics.

Bill Kinkead
Briantes, France
Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Respond to this letter

Cycling - not yet a real professional sport

I am in complete agreement with the letters pointing out that cycling fans (including you and me) and sponsors (the big money) are really the ones punished the most by the mess of doping results, confessions of doping, rumors of doping, insinuations of doping, etc. That is true!!

But why don't the real professional leagues have this sort of mess? Why do they have more fans, more money and virtually no doping controversy? By real professional leagues, I mean soccer, American football (yeah, all those muscles are natural), basketball (yeah, those skinny college kids developed their bodies in the weight room), baseball (yeah, home runs are up because the balls are juiced not the players).

The answer is simple and provides a prescription for what ails cycling. Real professional leagues have anti-drug (not anti-doping) rules based on the following principle: the rule must be clear and violations must be reliably identified in a timely manner. If there is no test, there can be no rule! Is it any wonder that more NFL players are suspended for marijuana use than for steroid use? Hello!

Cycling is in a mess due to rules that cannot all be verified in a reliable or timely manner. A rule such as "no hemocrit allowed above 50%" merely demands that the athlete with a 45% hemocrit find (undetectable) ways to raise it to 49%. After all, not doing so would be tantamount to giving other riders a 10% advantage. If cycling wants to keep this rule, then it must understand that methods or reaching up to a 50% hemocrit should be considered sporting.

Rules against the use of specific substances must be specifically tied to testable, verifiable results. For example, the rule "no level of synthetic EPO is allowed" can only be made when there is a reliable, verifiable and timely test as well as the budget and will to test for minute levels of synthetic EPO.

As for athletes that use artificial substances to stay ahead of the rules, that is the history of sport from ancient times. The real professional sports acknowledge that reality and focus on the verifiable. And that's what attracts the fans and the money.

If this sounds cynical to some of you, remember - these are professionals not amateurs.

Personally, I will continue to enjoy the history of cycling the way I remember it - the moments of triumph and tragedy. I will also continue to follow the races and marvel in the drama, the pain and beauty. And isn't that really what professional sports are about?

Brent Koehler
Excelsior, MN
Friday, June 1, 2007

Respond to this letter

Doping and cycling

Doping and cycling obviously have a long history. I find the latest attacks rather trivial. An athlete is always looking for an edge. I feel that punishing athletes for past or present results is foolish.

The consequences should be to those behind the scenes supplying these athletes. Otherwise, it's just pooping in your own back yard. I don't think we want to see that! It is draining the sport. The grand tours need to be friendly to riders that don't rely on doping.

Gino Cetani
San Jose, CA
Monday, June 4, 2007

Respond to this letter

Doping hypocrisy

All of this talk from ASO and France about Riis returning his jersey, there being no winner in 1996, etc. is amazing. What about Virenque returning all of his KOM jerseys and no winner of KOM for all of those years.

Virenque was given a heroes welcome and received some of the loudest cheers at the Tour during the stages that I saw in France in 2004.

Joseph
Thursday, May 31, 2007

Respond to this letter

Greg LeMond and record ITTs

Having watched the recent hearing with regards to Floyd Landis' "AAF" and read all of the recent doping confessions with the same passion and commitment that I follow the racing season with, there's been something that's been bothering me and I feel its time to speak up.

Firstly, let me state clearly that I am saddened by all of the recent revelations and I, as any true cycling fan, want to believe in the heroes that I cheer for. To some, I'm optimistic, and to some I'm naive, and perhaps I just choose to turn a blind eye but my heart still tells me to believe that most racers do race clean and not to judge until "proven" guilty, and I don't mean by some flawed science.

The flawed science I speak of ultimately brings me to the reason I felt compelled to write: one Greg Lemond. I bought my first road bike at age 15 in 1992, a used Panasonic DX2000 with SIS shifting on the down tube. I was in love with the bike and the sport for only one reason, I happened to catch the 30 minute daily highlight show on ESPN about the Tour while doing nothing on those boring summer days away from school. I happened to fall in love with cycling in 1990, watching Lemond win the Tour, not knowing at the time what he had done before. Hell, I even bought a Scott aero bar for that famed Panasonic just to emulate my hero just a bit further. I use all this as a lead in to explain just what my affinity for Greg Lemond was. And yes, the use of the word "was" is intentional.

I wish I could understand what is going on in your head. I wish, like all of us I'm sure, I knew just what you're true motivation is. You continually knock the character of recent American champions, despite not really knowing them. You continually makes accusations, without all the facts (the recent revelations about your troubled childhood notwithstanding, which no matter the circumstances involved is a horrible thing to have to live with and even more horrible to have someone use that past against you).

I don't recall you making accusations against Indurain, or Riis, or Ullrich or Pantani for that matter. It only seems to be the Americans. This provoked me to do a little digging, since I always remember how it's talked about that you, Mr. Lemond used to have the fastest ITT recorded in TDF history. If I'm not mistaken, you still hold the record for fastest ITT (other than a prologue) under 30 km at 54.545 km/hr from 1989. My question is this, Mr. Lemond: given the inevitable advancement of technology and the understanding of human physiology, how is it possible that someone who was not doped can still hold one of the fastest ITT's ever nearly 20 years on?

My hope is it's because you weren't doped, and neither have your recent compatriots been. Either way, the numbers you put up are comparable to the numbers current cyclists put up, and either you're all doped, or you're all not, or even a more accurate explanation, maybe some are just physically gifted, even when facing others who are doped.

I'm a local Cat 3 working stiff who rides and races only for the passion of the sport and nothing else. I know my optimum cadence, heart rate zones, caloric intake and expenditure, and power outputs. I've studied Landis's power output from the legendary stage 17 comeback, and guess what? Even as a Cat 3 that will never amount to a hill of beans on a bicycle who routinely gets his butt handed to him, I don't find those numbers as astronomical as to only be attained by doping. Average of 289 watts for the day? Come on, that's certainly not the biggest number that's ever been posted. I could do that. I could only do it for a half an hour or an hour or so, but if I had the chance to train for 15 to 20 thousand miles a year instead of 5 thousand, do I find it could be possible to attain that? Yes I do, and I know I don't dope.

All these numbers are just the facts. There is no speculation or conjecture. Please, Mr. Lemond, I would like to know, as would many of us, just what motivates you. Obviously, modern day cyclists aren't that far ahead of you, and one could make the argument the only reason things are faster now is due only to the advancement of technology. I really hope your intentions are pure and you really just want to clean up the sport, but mostly, it just sounds like sour grapes. Maybe Mr. Landis did it, maybe he didn't, but when he can't time trial as fast as you did on technology that is 20 years more advanced and you know you raced clean, perhaps......maybe, just maybe......there's a chance that the 2006 edition of Le Tour was won clean as well.

Sean D. Gillette
Westminster, CO, USA
Saturday, June 2, 2007

Respond to this letter

LeMond trying to tear down US riders

Dr Prell is misinformed if he believes that, during the apex of Lemond's career, "blood doping was still unknown". It is consensus that blood doping was going on throughout the 70s and 80s, and the 1984 US Olympic cycling team was engaged in systematic autologous transfusions.

With the advent of EPO in the mid-90s, blood doping was probably seen as a less convenient way to boost results, and therefore went out of vogue. But once the tests for EPO were refined (and even more so since the test for homologous transfusions was introduced) transfusing one's own stored blood has become weapon of choice.

I think what he would like to say is that blood doping was, and is, difficult to prove without a full blood workup history. Conventional wisdom states that HCT levels should drop during a 3-week grand tour, but by how much and when? What of reticulocyte production, etc., in rider A v rider B? So many variables - so many hands to pass through - so many eyes to judge - so little time to get the testing right, especially when tomorrow the race is through.

I doubt that we will ever be able to come up with a foolproof method of testing. There are still gaps in our knowledge of human physical response, and the riders and testers alike are sadly all too human themselves.

Dan Benson
Croydon, Surrey
Friday, June 1, 2007

Respond to this letter

LeMond trying to tear down US riders #2

Blood doping in 1984? Ha! You cyclists are so wonderful! The Finns with Lasse Viren blood doped for the 1972 and 1976 Olympics where Viren won 4 gold medals and got a 5th in the marathon in 1976, despite never having run it before and it being run just 18 hours after the 5,000! Blood doping is the only way a "middle of the pack" runner in the years between the Olympics could do what he did during the Olympics! Although he made the claim with his coach that their focus was the Olympics much like Lance focuses only on the TDF. I'm sure cyclists were doing the same at that time, since and before.

Kam Benfield
Rural Hall, NC
Friday, June 1, 2007

Respond to this letter

Meaningless defense

Here we go again. Another self appointed sage knows that LA was a doper because he beat some people who doped at some time. What brilliant logic! I really do not understand why you continue to print letters like this that border upon, if are not actually libelous. At least you had the decency to follow this nasty attack with Glenn Milano's.

He, along with a number of your correspondents who wrote this week, is convinced that doping controls can always be evaded, but does not seem to know that exogenous (originating outside the body) EPO was not detectable until 2000. The spate of recent confessions deal almost exclusively with use of exogenous EPO prior to that time. .

Bill Kinkead
Briantes, France
Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Respond to this letter

We are out of denial - Let's look forward

There is a lot of talk about Riis' confession and stripping of titles and who should hold the 1996 Maillot June. I don't think this is productive. The confessions of Riis, Zabel, Aldag, Basso and others have served their purpose; the have forces Pro Cycling out of its state of denial. To focus on punishing only the riders misses the big picture. It's the entire system that has failed and not just cycling but sport as a whole.

Now that the Vail of denial has been lifted it's time to look forward to solutions. Simply, by making cheating a crime and calling it what it is, sporting fraud.

This action will have three import benefits. First, criminalization would require a much more stringent burden of proof prior to accusation thus protecting the riders. Secondly, criminalization would open cheaters up to much greater risk than a 2-4 year ban creating a greater deterrent. Namely, civil prosecution from every rider who has ever finished behind a proven cheater, thus stripping them of their ill-gotten wealth and criminal prosecution that would send proven cheaters to prison for a period of time (not an enviable position for a 69k man with shaven legs).

Third, criminalization will force those who may not be cheating but with demonstrable knowledge of others who are to come forward and report the crime or face the possibility of aiding and abetting.

It is only through the criminalization of the act of cheating that we can clean up the sport.

Joe Notarnicola
Saturday, June 2, 2007

Respond to this letter

Recent letters pages

Letters 2007

• June 1, part 1: A thought for cycling's true heroes..., A cunning plan, A great opportunity for the UCI, Admissions of guilt, Let's have some real confessions, Amnesty is the way forward, Suggestions for an amnesty, Amnesty, Amnesty or punishment?, ASO's double standard, Tour Clowns, Bjarne Riis, Bjarne Riis confession, Riis must go, Riis, Basso, Zabel, et al..., Repairing the Magenta Express, Tip of the iceberg, Riis and winning the tour on EPO
  
• June 1, part 2: Confessions?, Honour - Seemingly rare in cycling, How deep do you go?, Who do we give it to?, A week of confessions, Peer pressure, Mind boggling hypocrisy, Pro cycling - Sometimes you make it hard to love you, Meaningless defence, Riding with Lance, Lucky Lance, Cheating by proxy, LeMond trying to tear down US riders , So, if Floyd is right..., Thank you Floyd, Floyd Landis hearing, Mr. Young's closing arguments, Something more important..., What ever happened to Iban Mayo?, Percentage of pros with asthma:
• May 23: Landis case live coverage, LeMond a true champion, Questioning LeMond's motives, LeMond trying to tear down US riders, Saint LeMond, Landis and his character, Landis has made cycling a joke, Landis had his drink spiked?, Landis in a corner, Landis polygraph?, Landis' disclosure of information, The quality of Landis' character, Landis' behaviour, Joe Papp
• May 18: Armstrong can defend himself, Di Brat, Chris Hoy's world kilo record attempt , Hoy in sixty seconds, What ever happened to Iban Mayo?, Hypocrisy of the cycling world, Italian Reactions to Basso, Who's telling the truth?, Basso + Ullrich = Armstrong?, Basso still a legend, Simoni vs Basso, Basso, Landis etc The new mafia?, Landis to ask UCI to boot Pound, Vinokourov to claim second in '05 TdF?, Percentage of pros with asthma, Unibet at Dunkerque
• May 11: An attempt at doping?, Almost as bad as Ullrich, Basso admission, Hats off Basso, Basso still a legend, Basso's attempted plea bargain, Basso and Discovery, Discovery's PR, Basso vs Simoni , Truth and Reconciliation Commission, A means to an end, Hypocrisy of the cycling world, Vinokourov to claim second in '05 TdF? , New Puerto plan, Where is the Puerto money?, Time to start re-stating race results, The morals and math of cycling, Chris Hoy's world kilo record attempt , Unibet at Dunkerque, Davide Rebellin
• May 4: Call that a race?, Reflecting on Schumacher's win, Pose with Landis, at a price, Danielson should leave Discovery, Davide Rebellin, The year of the clean Classics?, Basso and Discovery, Basso this, Landis that, Ullrich the other..., Basso, DNA and whatever else, Basso's DNA, Say it ain't so, Johan, Let's cut them some slack!, Armstrong, head and shoulders above?, Landis, Armstrong vs the Lab, It's not all about the Tour!, Puerto Affair
• April 27: The year of the clean Classics?, David Rebellin, Call that a race?, Reflecting on Schumacher's win, Danielson should leave Discovery, Inspirational O'Grady and those cobbles, L'Equipe does it again!, Tour de France speaks out, The morals and math of cycling, Basso and Puerto, Puerto, part deux, Gilberto, you were right!, Landis, Armstrong vs the Lab, Pose with Landis, at a price?, Taking blood, Gent-Wevelgem and the Kemmelberg, Gent-Wevelgem and water bottles
• April 20: Stuey wins Roubaix, O'Grady Rocks!, An Aussie in Arenberg, Deep-dish carbon versus the cobbles, Gent-Wevelgem and water bottles, Unibet/FdJ/Lotto - Help!, U.S. Open Cycling Championships, Racing in America, Retesting Floyd's B-samples, Taking blood
• April 13: Thoughts on Flanders, Crashes at Gent-Wevelgem, Gent-Wevelgem and water bottles, What about that loose water bottle?, T-Mobile one-two, Popo for the Classics, Racing in America, U.S. Open Cycling Championships, Unibet/FdJ/Lotto - Help!, French hypocrites?, Bjarne Riis, Floyd Landis 'B' sample fiasco, Taking blood, Ullrich DNA match
• April 6: April Fools, Ullrich DNA match, Taking blood, T-Mobile and Puerto, The song remains the same, Ullrich and Hamilton, Tyler Hamilton and flu, Unibet and access into France, Bjarne Riis, Popovych, The death of irony, Armstrong boring?, Ullrich/Armstrong comparisons
• March 30: Basso wind tunnel testing, Bjarne Riis, Riis' response, Drugs in other sports, Dominquez at Redlands, Armstrong boring?, Ullrich/Armstrong comparisons, Popovych - the new Armstrong?, ASO wildcard selections, ASO-UCI split, Boys atop the sport, Cycling at two speeds, Puerto shelved, Tyler Hamilton.
• March 23: Popovych - the new Armstrong?, A few years ago, Tyler Hamilton, Operación Puerto not complete, Puerto shelved, ASO-UCI split, Drugs in other sports, Basso wind tunnel testing, Water bottle and cage sponsorship, Bates' article on Jan Ullrich, Ullrich's retirement, The current state of cycling
• March 16: Don Lefévère, Lefévère tries to reinforce omerta, Spring fever, Ullrich's retirement, UCI has no power, Puerto shelved, Who's been taking what?, ProTour a flawed competition?, UCI-Grand Tour organizer dual!, ASO-UCI split, ASO needs to see benefits in ProTour, Sponsorship, drug use and dinosaurs, The current state of cycling, New Pro Cyclist Union, Congratulations to Unibet, Unibet situation, Unibet.com marketing, Tour of California mistake
• March 9: ASO - UCI split, UCI has no power, UCI vs. ASO, UCI vs. the world, ProTour and contracts, The Unibet fiasco: is it that bad?, Unibet and French law, Unibet situation, Pete Bassinger's Iditarod Trail record ride, Bates' article on Jan Ullrich, Ullrich's retirement, Tour of California expenses, Discovery's profile in Europe, Discovery's reasons for pulling sponsorship, Floyd's big ride
• March 2: Ullrich's retirement, Altitude tents and EPO, Home-made altitude tents, Tyler Hamilton and drug testing, The agony of Unibet?, Discovery's reasons for pulling sponsorship, Discovery's world upside down?, Upside down Disco solved, Tour of California mistake, Graeme Brown, Hats off to Dick Pound?, Grand Tours, who really cares?, ProTour and contracts, ProTour vs wildcards, RCS' decision, UCI vs. the world, Floyd's big ride, Asthma everywhere
• February 23: Altitude tents and EPO, Tour of California mistake, Chavanel's training regime, Discovery's reasons for pulling sponsorship, Discovery's world upside down?, Tyler Hamilton and drug testing, Grand Tours, who really cares?, The Unibet fiasco: is it that bad?, A solution to the Unibet situation, UCI and the ASO, UCI vs. the world, Will the fight never end?, Paris Nice and others, Pro Tour and contracts, RCS decision, Hats off to Dick Pound, Armstrong owes Dick Pound nothing, Graeme Brown, Asthma everywhere, The sorry state of pro-cycling
• February 16: T-Mobile, Adam Hanson and doping, Unibet's new jersey, Double standards for Unibet?, RCS decision, A letter to ASO, Hamilton and Tinkov, Discovery Channel, Asthma everywhere, Bart Wellens' comments at the cross worlds, Best moment?, Crowd control at the cross worlds, Doping reconciliation, Get into 'cross racing, Pound still wants answers from Armstrong, The sorry state of pro-cycling
• February 9: Unibet show they won't be put down, Double standards for Unibet?, Unibet's new jersey, Asthma everywhere, Bart Wellens' comments at the Cross Worlds, Crowd control at the Cross Worlds, Jonathan Page's mechanic beaten, Cheers to Bradley Wiggins, Bradley Wiggins' comments, Jaksche lashes out, Get into 'cross racing, Le Tour was created to sell newspapers, The stakes are too high, Doping reconciliation, Best moment of 2006?, Ivan Basso interview, Ullrich's DNA sample, Ullrich to Relax-GAM?, Ullrich partners with sports-clothing company, Still love to ride, My perfect state of mountain biking, A terrible model for cycling
• February 2: The sanctimonious need to be taken out back, Confidentiality of test results, Oscar Pereiro cleared, Cyclo-cross reader poll results, Fairness in Operation Puerto?, Riders' nicknames, Doping reconciliation, Help for Floyd Landis, Museeuw's insults, Sven Nys, The Floyd Fairness Fund, The sorry state of pro-cycling
• January 26: Drug testing methodologies, Museeuw the PR man, Museeuw's insults, Johan Museeuw and Tyler Hamilton, Sven Nys, Conduct in the pro peloton, McQuaid unhappy with Pereiro, Put doping in the correct context, Moreau wins 2006 TDF, Who wins the 2006 Tour now?, Drapac Porsche's exclusion from the TDU, Bike sponsorship, Compact geometry, The Floyd Fairness Fund
• January 19: Drapac-Porsche and the TDU, Bettini to win the Ronde?, Frame geometry, Phil Liggett's recently stated views, Prudhomme's zealotry, 3 cheers for Christian Prudhomme, Deutschland Tour, 3 cheers for Saunier Duval, Dick Pound, Fairness in Operation Puerto?, Do the maths, The Floyd Fairness Fund
• January 12: Dick Pound, Just 'Pound' him, Pound casts doubt on Landis, Pound comments, The Dick and Pat Show, McQuaid starts cultural polemic, Why the Pro Tour model will never work, The Floyd Fairness Fund, Riders' union, Cyclo-cross reader poll results, Danny Clark - an inspiration, Allan Peiper, Do the maths, Peter Van Petegem's secret, Justice and America, Lance in Leadville, Tubeless road tires
• January 5: Danny Clark - an inspiration, Legal standards and cycling, Peter Van Petegem's secret, Lance a no show for Leadville, Cyclo-cross reader poll results, Do the math, A fair trial, Tubeless road tires, Manzano's polygraph test, Blind trust in implicated riders, A terrible state of affairs, Armstrong's credibility - the conspiracy theories, Best ride ever

Letters 2006

• December 29: Lance in Leadville, Leadville Trail 100, Manzano's polygraph test, British Cycling and the Tour de France, Tell me, what's the problem?, "Disco" team?, Presumption of innocence, Landis and the Landaluze case, Landis' defense fund, American culture, Armstrong's credibility, Back room politics and the IPCT
• December 22: Scott Peoples, Hypocrite?, Landis and the Landaluze case, Landis' defense fund, Rumours and innuendo, Bjarne Riis interview, Enough already, Back room politics and the IPCT, Armstrong's credibility, American culture, Bjarne's ignorance factor, Deutschland Tour and Denmark Tour, Operation Puerto and the UCI
• December 15: A totally predictable situation?, Armstrong's credibility, Deutschland Tour and Denmark Tour, Back room politics and the IPCT, Holczer and others, Holczer and the Discovery exclusion, Bjarne's ignorance factor, Can't we all just get along?, DNA safety, Floyd Landis on Real Sports, Genevieve Jeanson, Mark McGwire, Operación Puerto bungled...deliberately?, Operation Puerto and the UCI
• December 8: Genevieve Jeanson, Floyd Landis on Real Sports, Deutschland Tour, Bjarne's ignorance factor, USADA does it again, Labs and testing, Astana denied ProTour license, Isaac Gálvez, McQuaid, Question about DNA testing, Le Tour de Langkawi 2007
• December 1: Hamilton, Isaac Gálvez, USADA does it again, Bjarne's ignorance factor, Shorten the Vuelta?, Vuelta short, shorter, shortest, Labs and testing, Ullrich to CSC, Clean up cycling's own house first, Fed up with doping, Strange sponsorships, What about Leipheimer?, French anti-doping laboratory, Basso agrees to DNA testing, Basso to Discovery, What's going on behind the scenes?, Graeme Obree
• November 24: Graeme Obree, What about Leipheimer?, French anti-doping laboratory, Basso agrees to DNA testing, Basso to Discovery, Richard Virenque, UCI are the problem, What's going on behind the scenes?
• November 17: Saiz and Tinkoff, Countdown to the 2007 Tour, Improving the reliability of testing, Basso to Discovery, Cycling and DNA testing, Forgetting Tom Simpson, Operación Puerto and national federations, Refusing DNA testing - an admission of guilt?. Reverse blood doping, Richard Virenque, What's going on behind the scenes?
• November 10: Forgetting Tom Simpson, Tour Route, Basso to Discovery, Cycling and DNA testing, What is DNA testing?, Refusing DNA testing - an admission of guilt?, Jan Ullrich, Operación Puerto and national federations, Reverse blood doping, What's going on behind the scenes?, Comments on McQuaid
• November 3: Tour Route, Return of a real good guy, Cameron Jennings, Future Australian ProTour team, Neil Stephens, 2007 Tour Intro Video Snub, Richard Virenque, Reverse blood doping, Comments on McQuaid, Marc Madiot, Who's more damaging?, What's going on behind the scenes?, Wada & Cycling's Governing Body, UCI and Doping, The Pope of Cycling and the Spanish Inquisition, Refusing DNA testing - an admission of guilt?, Put up or shut up!, DNA, its so ‘easy', DNA Testing In Cycling

The complete Cyclingnews letters archive