Kimmage-Landis: Exploring the Depths of Tragedy
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 1:50 AM EST
in News
Email
Print
The big news, as you can tell from several of the posts on this page, is the transcript of a seven-hour (!) interview between writer Paul Kimmage and Floyd Landis. Given Kimmage's history of reporting on and speaking out against doping, this has to be his most significant journalistic contribution to the cause, thus far. It's not Frost-Nixon -- that would be Kimmage-Armstrong... or maybe Chris/Gav-Armstrong is a better analogy ("we just have a few friendly questions for you..."). It's something quite different. What Kimmage has accomplished is putting doping in its full, proper context, as I don't believe it has ever been done before.
I found the story, in its entirety, devastating. I know I am supposed to speak out on behalf of clean cycling -- obviously that's what everyone who loves the sport wants, full stop. But I still can't see Landis in such simple terms, and Kimmage's ultra-long format approach only fortifies my impression. As a work of journalism, this interview is something entirely different from the who-what-where reporting and legalese wrangling we're accustomed to when the subject of doping comes up. This is not to criticize the news sites like CN and VN, who report on a daily basis in appropriately-sized bites, using the quotes and information people on all sides of the discussion want them to have. When Sirloin-gate broke this fall, Contador didn't go to the media with a long confession detailing the progress of his cycling life and the choices he made. Nevertheless, all that information feels pretty inadequate right now, because the story of what doping does to cyclists and cycling defies short and simple explanations.
Maybe Floyd is lying -- he's done it before -- but I doubt it. Riders lie when they have secrets to keep, whereas Landis has very few secrets left, if any. In fact, that is what makes the story so remarkable. Floyd is broke, confessed, exiled and reviled. His personal life has undergone unfathomable turmoil. He sits in front of Kimmage, cyclo-journalism's ultimate confessor, with nothing left to hide. He's at rock bottom. Why lie?
So when he tells of his carefree entrance into cycling, his resigned choice to get with the program, and all the subsequent fallout, with Postal, the UCI, his wife -- it sounds credible enough. I don't know to what extent there's a system that protects Lance Armstrong from exposure and which trumped up the testosterone positive for which he was disgraced, a system within USA cycling and/or the UCI. My trust of the UCI is close to zero, but who knows. What Landis says of Lance is what keeps making the headlines, but the value of this story lies elsewhere.
Maybe it's just me, but I really appreciated the chance to understand more deeply who Landis is, now that his guard is down, in order to understand why he doped -- why riders dope. There are aspects particular to his situation, being disgraced after winning the Tour (for reasons he still disputes), and being among the Postal machine, whose story feels like it's about to go to a whole other level when that next shoe drops. But more generally, Landis describes how easy the decision to dope was back then. He describes the whole arc of his career, which collided with doping just as it was taking flight. Landis didn't dope because he was a nut, or a raging egotist, or even a cynic. He doped because he was ambitious and serious about trying to win the Tour. He looked around, decided that cycling stood no chance of changing things before his window would close, and chose doping over giving up his dream. It doesn't exonerate him... but it does continue to increase my respect for the Christophe Bassons of the world. Dopers aren't especially weak, they simply lack the kind of extreme fortitude it took to say no.
That's not really news. But what was truly enlightening was his description of the tragedy that unfolded. The scene where he smashes the black porcelain cup you get for winning the Tour sounds like a Hollywood moment of defiance, but really it was just sad on so many levels. To Landis it's a brief cathartic departure from his life of constant frustration and shame, but from how his wife reacted, it became a moment that crystallized and accelerated his self-destruction. She's angry about it, seemingly at the recklessness and the waste of a valuable item when they needed the money, and shortly after they separate because, as he tells it, he had walled himself off from her in pursuit of ... some way out of his situation. Landis was groping for a fix to his troubles that didn't exist. Amber couldn't take much more, after two years of this. Smashing the Tour trophy was just another tumble in his long, excruciating descent.
Anyway, people can take Landis's story for what they wish; he's pretty radioactive for many cycling fans, and I would guess plenty of serious tifosi saw today's headline and thought, no way am I reading what that guy has to say. I did get lured in, once more, and I know why -- Stage 17. Anything that will help me understand better what I saw that day, to what extent it was real or a fraud, I'm willing to read. If you know everything you need to about the subject of doping, there are far better, happier ways to spend a couple hours. But if your thirst for understanding of cycling's dark side isn't fully quenched, well, by taking the extreme long format approach Kimmage has done a remarkable job of illuminating the reality of doping, circa 2000-06.
Photos by Denis Doyle and Doug Pensinger, Getty Images Sport
334 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Only about halfway through
But I agree this is an incredible insight on the cycling world, and on the psychological state the riders are in when they are faced with doping…
Oh and by the way, isn’t the whole Landis story an incredible movie script?
Because
Lance would get a court order to stop it. Someday though I think it can all be told.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:07 AM EST up reply actions
But even without the Lance stuff (which might never be settled)
From Mennonite country to California to Morzine to the gutter, it’s a hell of a ride, and a hell of a movie character…
by FrenchKheldar on Feb 1, 2011 2:16 AM EST up reply actions
the breaking of the trophy is such a cinematic moment, reminiscent of the scene in Raging Bull where LaMotta/DeNiro smashes his champion’s belt
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Feb 1, 2011 8:21 AM EST up reply actions
Any screenwriters at the Cafe?
This sounds like a movie waiting to happen.
Flahutes: Harden the F--k Up!
There are movies based on less premiss than this (any Adam Sandler, for instance)
From Mennonite where he felt he couldn’t ask hard questions, to the “world” where he felt he could, to the cycling world where he once again couldn’t ask questions and had to suppress to get along.
by Seat Shifter on Feb 2, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
You're right
“Anyway, people can take Landis’s story for what they wish; he’s pretty radioactive for many cycling fans, and I would guess plenty of serious tifosi saw today’s headline and thought, no way am I reading what that guy has to say.”
I’m no longer interested in what a self serving, proven liar and exploitive reporter have to say so I didn’t waste my time reading the interview.
"Don’t put your beer in the microwave, eh. It’ll boil."-Bob McKenzie
I think it's safe to say that there's a lot of lying re. doping going on in many sports,
but seeing the person behind the actions is important I think. Much has been written about Kimmage in the last few days, some good, some not, but this interview doesn’t feel exploitative to me.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Well, not reading something certainly makes this as well-informed a post as it could possibly be.
Honestly, I’m perplexed.
if you’re not going to read the item being talked about, what’s the point of commenting, just to say that you have nothing new to add, because you’re opposed to reading the item in question? If you want to comment on Landis’s overall reputation, I can direct you to a post that’s 6 months old, which should do just fine, for what you’ve got to say.
Not meaning to be too harsh. I know you’re a bona fide cycling fan, not a troll, and you didn’t (quite!) call us stupid for bothering to read or discuss the transcript.
But I’d say that Landis coming up with 7 hours of fairly internally consistent discussion does have relevance. As much of a trainwreck as Landis’ life has been…what’s the chance that he could cook up some total piece of fabrication, and then stick consistently to that fabrication for so many hours? It’s a lot easier to lie for 15 minutes, or lie on a document that you’ve edited and re-edited. In that sense, no matter how much you distrust him, you might find a transcript informative, in a “meta-analysis” sort of way.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
As much of a trainwreck as Landis’ life has been…what’s the chance that he could cook up some total piece of fabrication, and then stick consistently to that fabrication for so many hours?
It’s the same story he’s told over and over, so I don’t think he’d have trouble sticking to whatever bits of it might have been fabrication. Not saying any of it is or isn’t, but there’s very little new in the interview—I don’t think I’ve read what he said about Pereiro and Boogerd elsewhere, but the rest of it is familiar.
Just to add, that’s how you lie convincingly: drop a few falsehoods into a narrative that’s essentially true. Again, I don’t know whether he is lying, but he’s given us no reason to trust him.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
What bits do you think he's lying about?
Just the bits where he names other riders? Or his divorce? Or the death of his father-in-law?
I don’t see it, really. I never believed he was clean – well, not after 2004 – and his statements in 2006 and following did nothing to persuade me that he was telling the truth. But what I get here is a broken man trying to find redemption, but without malice. I don’t think he’s trying to throw others under a bus. He just can’t describe what he did without saying how, and how common it is – and that involves other people. It’s the rest of us who scavenge around his statements like hungry dogs – just as the USADAs and FDAs do too.
Read my post again
and note that it was a response to JFS_PGH’s assertion that it’s unlikely that Landis is lying because he managed to be ‘fairly internally consistent’ over the course of a long interview. I just don’t find that argument particularly convincing.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
Granted - but I was wondering which bits stuck in your craw
As your response also made it clear that it was not JFS_PGH’s reasons that did not convince you, but Landis himself.
No, I think she's just addressing the logic of my argument.
And to some degree, I agree with what she says. He’s had time to repeat the story to himself ad nauseum. That makes a lie easier to reproduce, for sure—it does not surprise me when a liar reproduces the same lie at 20 short press conferences. However, it doesn’t make you any better at integrating questions that come a bit out of left field. I guess I should say that while the ground he covers isn’t really new, I feel that the questions force him to use different words and take a different tack on covering the same ground. That’s what tends to unearth inconsistencies, not mere length, per se.
We obviously can’t know what, if anything, was edited during the raw transcription, or struck from the record, or whatever.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
this is essentially Kimmage's take
anyone can lie in simple situations, but to put together such a complex web over 7 hours, without any inconsistencies? Kimmage’s claim is that Landis would have to be a…can’t remember the word, I think he said sociopath, to hold together what would amount to an alternative reality.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Feb 1, 2011 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
In reality, a lot of psychotics can do it...
…paranoid delusional systems, for instance, are often very, very coherent. Internal consistency doesn’t equal truth, but it does help.
True, but in my limited experience,
the folks with the obsessive delusional systems either don’t recognize other people’s reality as well as Landis does, or perhaps don’t care too much about integrating their reality with that of other people.
I recently heard one woman explain at length how the shape of letters / writing contains more meaning than the writing itself, and that the deepest lie is to write a statement that’s proved to be fake by the shape of the letters used to form the words. She had a highly developed internally consistent argument which she was VERY willing to share. But every bit of it oozed obvious mental disturbance.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Oh I wasn't suggesting Landis is psychotic...
…just pointing out that you don’t even have to be sane to put together a complex and consistent system of untruth.
Yup.
But I don’t buy that sanity is helpful in forming a consistent system of untruth. Quite the opposite. Delusions seem to free people very effectively from all the irritating little facts that would otherwise interfere with their internally consistent systems. Doing that in a sane framework that meshing with other sane frameworks has got to be harder, not easier.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
No, just not infallible, and I only skimmed it.
With an in-depth reading, who knows what someone might pick up.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
What's interesting
is how aware Landis seems to be of the fragility of memory.
In many places he concedes that stuff he thought he remembered was actually inaccurate, one semi-example: the story about the phone call to Verbruggen using Armstrong’s phone where he partially recalls that Armstrong probably wouldn’t have hung around while he talked. A better one—his false memory of when his father-in-law committed suicide.
Also, he hasn’t tried to explain the ‘disconnected’ state he was in before . . .
Perhaps Landis is really gaming us, but someone who’s willing to admit that his memory isn’t totally accurate, and who’s had to struggle to assemble an account of what happened to him, ironically enough, seems more credible to me, for admitting the limits of his memory.
And studies support that.
The weakest link in the court system turns out to be reliance on suspect ID by people who saw the crime—-but didn’t remember the face or the details correctly, especially when prompted to think back and remember.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
There was a great experiment in the UK
where an incident was set up in a pub, & when the witnesses were asked about it after, the majority identified the victim as the attacker. Scary stuff.
by Sarah Connolly on Feb 1, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
yep - scary
endless studies and recently a few wrongly convicted (usually black) victims in the USA finally released thx to DNA evidence.
Bob Dylan’s “The Hurricane” is a great song …. and a great example
moo
heh
in law school criminal law class they had two guys burst in the back door, run through the class and out the front. Then they asked us who was wearing what. Not good.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
Hearing Landis' voice through this interview
removes any doubt about his credibility for me. Not that I ever really doubted the bulk of truth in his confession, it was more that the way it was being presented by the media gave it a flavor of pure revenge.
But the fact remains, sadly enough, that if he had received a good second chance, we wouldn’t have heard this story.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Aye. Whistleblowers usually have a reason to feel aggrieved before they reach for the whistle.
It’s why so many of them are so easily silenced.
It’s also why in organised crime, the group always takes care of those who have done time and kept schtum. You reward that kind of faith, or people do a Landis.
I just find it odd
when people advertise how they’re sticking their head in the sand.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
See. no sand
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
in fairness
on an emotional level, that’s a very tempting way to go.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, on an emotional level
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Funnily enough, people are human
People try to do the right thing – or what they think is best for them, that doesn’t hurt other people. Often, they mess it all up. You see it at work. You see it in relationships. You see it in every gaol cell in every city.
There are not too many people who are deliberately arseholes. Those few who are, are sociopaths. I don’t think Landis is a sociopath. He just f%^&d up.
The value of this is interview, as you alluded to Chris, is to see the man behind the slogan. When you have a man with nothing, the adornments and trappings and hopes and dreams are are spent, you have what is left – a man and his life story. It’s compelling because his descent is so understandable, and so absolute. Every choice he makes is like a gate closing on whatever hope he has left in his life.
So sorry, ExPatCapFan – I disagree. Kimmage has not exploited Landis. He’s given him the only thing he has left – his story – some air. And whatever you think of Landis – this time it does sound like the truth, or something that rhymes with it.
You seahorsed...otherwise I'd have simply said i agree under your post, which as usual, is so eloquent...
(I’ve chosen a couple of homesick angels on my VDS team this year :))
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
That's very kind - thanks.
My VDS team will be a fog of mediocrity. I even picked some of my biggest failures from last year (hope springs eternal). Alas, no room for the Cobra. And I picked a couple of ‘clean’ riders (well, I’m as sure as you can be!) even though they won’t get a point this year. Sometimes failure can be beautiful, too.
I have the Cobra...but I also have Stuey and the boys in the band :)
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Stage 16 failure, stage 17 epic comeback.
I was also really curious, he mentioned blood doping, I think 3 times thay Tour. I wish he talked in detail what/when he did stuff in relation to those stages.
I think as more and more info comes out about doping in the past decade, the story mat well be how much blood doping took place. As it seems very effective, and very difficult to detect.
moo
The question was asked,
but this is an area where Floyd is still (imo) being untruthful.
Stage 17 – go in breakaway, fade on the last climb, lose stage and thereby avoid that day’s testing. Next day day off, no testing. Next day time trial. Now 60 hours later, drugs undetectable. Win the Jersey, and test clean. Ride to Paris.
But no one went in the breakaway, and Floyd the stage winner got tested.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
I don't understand your comment
stage 17 was the Joux Plane huge break-way win. As Kimmage said ….. (overstating) …. one of the greatest rides ever.
If you meant stage 16 at La Toussuire — He certainly didn’t intentionally lose that much time. That was a Landi disaster up Col du Glandon and then the final climb.
moo
I think
rAndb was suggesting that Landis had not intended to win that day. That is, instead, he’d hoped to join early break that stayed away, but allow someone else from the break to win the stage, so that Landis would avoid testing. When no one else joined the break, that tactic went out the window.
I suppose it’s possible, though it doesn’t really fit Landis, really.
by Jen See on Feb 1, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
OK - makes sense
but maybe the greatest part of that victory …. was how he time trialed on the long flat stretch before Joux Plane while the entire Peloton in chase mode struggled to gain time.
He was FLYING! Not just uphill but on the flats which is tough solo.
moo
This reminds me of Paul Sherwen's X's and O's explanation in 2007
that Landis’ ride was not all that fast, it just looked like it.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
ah, don't get me going...
He was a brilliant cronoman, doping or no. Big engine, it seems. But what I so loved about that day was the echo of Coppi, and how badly guys like Pereiro and Kloden needed a smack upside the head for never, ever attacking. They were a pretty passive bunch. That move wouldn’t work against Contador or the Schlecks. Maybe not even against Menchov 2.0.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
I like the idea of Floyd realizing too late
that peeing into a cup might not be the best thing to do today..and then keeping going…death wish ride!
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
Just so I understand
Finishing in the pack doesn’t guarantee no drug test that evening, it just reduces the odss (compared to being on the podium). Yes? (and thx)
moo
Not qualified to answer but think yes (for 2006?)
Jersey and stage winner 100% will be tested.
Others as selected.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps ...... it puts into perspective
when Valverde gifted Szmyd the Dauphiné Ventoux stage. Because VV practically stopped cycling to get passed
moo
Booo, Willj!
Don’t you go about slandering my favourite Spanish meatball with completely unfounded speculations and insinuations like that!
Yep
He could still get pulled for a random if he finished in the field.
It was Yellow Jersey, stage winner, plus like three randoms at that point, I believe.
Adding
I don’t really think he was playing it this way, myself.
I suspect he thought, based on what he’d seen in the past, that it wouldn’t matter if he tested positive, that the UCI – or someone – would make it go away.
Yes, and this is also a beyond dumb strategy
Interesting to think of it this way – a jock living in unreality. Who has eva hearda that?
Floyd tested positive for Testosterone.
Jamming down the Lab unfortunately in cycling is too valid, but it’s also a shared strategy with Armstrong and part of gaming the doping.
I lump this in with every busted doper like Basso that claims his unbusted victories were clean – in USA the excuse is typically that the athlete cannot be honest or he will perjure himself…always the same.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
from 100% to 2-4% depending on number of finishers...
That’s a big reduction.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
eh
but if you believe him, all he did was take a transfusion a few days earlier, so he had no disincentive to pee in the cup that day. He was going to get tested soon anyway, being in yellow and all. And he’d been tested after stage 15 for sure.
Now, if you don’t believe him and think he loaded up on testosterone the night before, then it’s dumb beyond belief. But that’s always been my problem with the way the case came out… it’s too stupid for me to think that’s what happened. Floyd is a sentient being, right?
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
that's why I was curious his regime in between those two stages
It seems to reek of Blood Doping not something else …. but what do I know
moo
it’s too stupid for me to think that’s what happened.
Yup. I still don’t think my attendance at the Floyd Fairness Fund was wholly a waste of time.
This
is the cruellest twist of all. If only they’d busted him for what he knew he’d done, he’d probably still be married.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
I've read through Arne Baker's 'analysis' of the case
and spent a lot of time looking at the images of the test results compared to more straightforward ones.
They do look a little odd, but that’s not my field, so . . .
Speaking of Arnie
any news on his hacking trial
hehe yeah, to pick up an earlier conversation, that just adds to the cinematic element of the whole thing
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Feb 1, 2011 6:57 PM EST up reply actions
don't forget
landis had the benefit of a trailing team car on his break-a-way. remember how many bottles he poured on himself that day, it was hot. pereiro, kloden, and the others had to rely on their domestiques to ferry water, which ultimately slowed their chase. well at least thats my theory for now!
"Race radios in Cat 4?"
one guy
beats a piss-poor mini-peloton often enough. Cancellara vs. the Roubaix field!
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
No cobbles on the road to Morzine...
though there should be.
So you're saying that Floyd had a hidden motor in his bike?
Jens! Voigt puts the 'laughter' in 'manslaughter'
there was also talk of the helicopter above him
can’t remember if it was something along the lines of ‘it created a tailwind’ or ‘it cooled him down’.
probably bs.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
If there's anything we've learned from Floyd,
it’s that gaming the testing is plan A in bike racing doping.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, I thought everyone knew 'the scenario.'
I read somewhere that had he not finished first on the stage 17 – and he did try to negotiate a breakaway with others – he would not have been tested (or so I understand).
He was supposed to fade on the last climb, and lose, but he was alone. So he was tested.
So, going with testosterone patch on Jack Daniels night – even though Floyd now gives us this extensive blood doping tutorial and connects it to the 2006 TDF – hard to understand, but that’s what I’m going with. Truths and lies mixed together.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
another theory of mine
landis wasn’t concerned about consuming alcohol, because he was planning on a blood transfusion that evening and thus he wouldn’t have to worry about a hangover.
"Race radios in Cat 4?"
Blood transfusions erase hangovers?
Why didn’t I know about this sorcery in college?
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
-Orwell, Politics and the English Language
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 2, 2011 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
Hard to flush the blood bags down the toilet when you're hugging it, though.
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
by JustJoshinYa on Feb 2, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
What’s amazing when you read the transcript is to compare it with what the ST printed in the Mag on Sun. Boiled down to less than five thousand words and with very little new in it it was an odd piece. It was also more or less untrailed, and buried at the back fo the mag, playing third fiffle to Elton John and chalet girls. Now the Sunset Times has history with the Texan’s dogs of law and reason to heavily lawyer anything that even touches on him, I know, but even so, it was just a colour piece, not very revelatory. You knew there was a motehrlode behind it, but you were left wondering when that was gonna be opened up to the world.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Oh yeah. I was looking for this because of the ST piece. The sense of sympathy in the ST piece made me think of it. Something PK wrote in 2007. Millar’s just been told that Vino doped. Here’s his reaction, and PK’s reaction to that:
Millar picks up the microphone and resumes. "It makes me very sad," he says, "because Vino was . . . well, I’ll still put it in the present tense; Vino is one of my favourite riders. He is one of the most beautiful riders in the peloton and I think this is f****** tragic because if a guy of his stature and class has done that in cycling’s current situation then we may as well pack our bags and go home." And then something quite extraordinary happens. Millar’s eyes well with tears. He looks like he might cry. Tears for a cheat who defrauded his compatriot Bradley Wiggins at Albi. Tears for a cheat who has been playing the system for years. Tears for a cheat who had no problem hitching his wagon to the notorious Dr Ferrari. Tears for a cheat.
What the hell is Millar on?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
fractured dreams?
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Oh, and money quote in whole interview:
There is only one thing worse than reading Cyclingnews…talking to them.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
that's why i never do :)
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
For those interested
Landis’s cyclingnews interview with Tim Maloney in 2003 as discussed in the Kimmage transcript http://bit.ly/eX2Mo1
and the subsequent retraction by Landis which Maloney promised to print on the front page of cyclingnews http://bit.ly/fzdbdh
http://www.irishpeloton.com/
Wow.
Just read the whole thing – what an amazing interview. Still digesting it all, but the human frailties and failings in this epic journey were fascinating.
A little bit of Canadiana
I found his mention of Gord Fraser v. interesting, because, after Steve Bauer, and before Ryder Hesjedal, he was one of the few Canadians to make a name for himself in Europe, on the Motorola team in the mid ‘90s. He’s from my hometown, so I followed him, and noticed that after a few years at Motorola, he came back and raced in North America for the rest of his career, and I always thought that was a waste.
Now I know why he left. He didn’t like needles, and he didn’t like the doping. Makes me more proud of him than I was before.
+1
There’s a short list of people who walked away under those circumstances. We should make a wing in the cycling hall of fame for them.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
I know I came away from that interview thinking...
“Ok, so Bassons is clean?”
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Can I get into that hall of fame? I attribute my anti-doping stance as the reason for not being able to get out of Cat 5
"Thanks again, Floyd Landis, Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category"
i think my main problem is Fat Tire, not flat tires
"Thanks again, Floyd Landis, Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category"
"If I had some EPO, I could start more than 10 mass-start races"
Well, that’s true I suppose.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn't change anything for me.
Landis is just another doper, who points fingers at two retired riders and LA. Talks a bit about his life and the general state of affairs of the peloton (doping all over) along with the corrupt UCI. Its all sad, but it is not surprising or news.
One thing landis is not:
“just another doper”
by R Mc on Feb 1, 2011 8:34 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
From what I can tell, he is just another doper.
Could have been Kohl, Schumacher, Vino, Riis, Andersen, Contador. To me these guys come and go and sometimes come again. If you remove his name from the Interview, it could have been any of a bunch of guys (with a different upbringing). Again this is just my view.
But it's not the identity of the doper
that is important here. It’s the message he is trying to convey, that the UCI is complicit in all of these doping problems whilst concurrently maintaining the facade that they are doing their utmost to fight doping.
Who cares who is saying it?
http://www.irishpeloton.com/
+1
there have been lots of dopers. none have gone this in depth about what happens behind the scenes. and i don’t think any of the names mentioned above have lost everything as a result of doping. that’s a big difference, to me at least.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Yep
a few. But Landis is the only guy on the TOur winner level to take up the charge.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Landis didn't invent the UCI corruption theory. It came up during the Rasmussen
affair (at least in Denmark) as well and I am sure during other situations as well. My point is that it happens with dopers. This is just another incident to me. Not saying the message is not important, its just not news to me.
also depends how many languages you read,
and whose exposes you trust. Might do to re-read some of the more vitriolic stuff in the French press.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Well said...
…and this is why fmk’s taking apart of that older Verbruggen statement is so very, very important, since it provides huge amounts of necessary context to what Landis is saying here.
It remains possible that Landis is lying about some things, but the degree to which his statement is consistent with known elements of the story and shows the tendencies embodied in those elements to be persisting gives it a great deal of credibility, and makes it impossible to ignore.
+1
This is just me, but in my pantheon of doping villains the UCI is still #1. Not saying they were handing out transfusions, but they had the greatest chance of stopping the madness.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
Except . . . that significant factions within the UCI
do not believe that professional cycling is possible without doping.
So, they took it upon themselves to produce the gennaion pseudos
ultimately
don’t we have to have the discussion about having a UCI leader who was a cyclist during a period of wide spread doping …..
moo
Well, see . . . that's why he went to South Africa
to get a feel for the conditions that would lead to the necessity for a Truth and Reconciliation commission.
Always a stroke or two ahead, that one.
no matter what one thinks about flandis, or the veracity of his statements,
this is one hell of a story. there’s lots of things in there about the sport i love that i wish weren’t true, and who knows, maybe they aren’t all true, but i’m sure glad i read it. i was never a big fan of the uci. this didn’t help. i always thought them incompetent, now is see them as utterly corrupt. Utterly Corrupt and Incompetent.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
it is still a very beautiful sport...
it’s just a really shitty business. more money, more problems.
I wonder if it would be different/easier to fix if there were more chances to succeed. right now it’s all or nothing. you want to have a top team? have to get in the tour. you want to be the best rider? you have to win the tour. when one race makes or breaks teams/careers/sponsors it’s just not a good thing. this year it’s geox/Pegasus. ten years ago it was mercury. same old story.
if there were 10 ‘Tours’ a year maybe there wouldn’t be such a push to be ‘great’. there are so many beautiful races, it’s a shame that cycling, as a business model, gets condensed into 3 weeks in July. what a waste.
by mr. rogers on Feb 1, 2011 10:00 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Totally agree
It took me about 2 hours to get through the entire transcript, I was pretty much transfixed on the page the entire time.
Corrupt? Yes.
Incompetent? Clearly not. They are very competent at what they do. But what they do is corrupt and cynical.
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
-Orwell, Politics and the English Language
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 2, 2011 9:10 AM EST up reply actions
one example of incompetence
would be the uci approved frame sticker thing. another would be their fight against doping. a third would be their ability to lay out simple and understandable criteria for PT status. a fourth would be the unification of the race schedule (pt vs historical). a fifth would be the one size fits all rules for what teams can enter what events (and how that screws some teams/events in the us).
but if your point is that they are very good at corruption, then i agree completely.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Ah, but you're assuming
that things like the fight against doping and the desire to lay out simple and understandable criteria for PT status are actually goals of the UCI. If they are, then, yes, utter incompetence. But if, by some chance, they are not (and them saying they are doesn’t mean they actually are), then UCI’s performance on (some of) these issues is understandable.
by Le Comte on Feb 2, 2011 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Makes you feel like a kid.
When your parents told you " it’s complicated".
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the Flag and carrying the Cross."
--Sinclair Lewis
heh
My kids are just young enough that that still works.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
very true
to which i will reply that if those things are not their goals, then they are incompetent at realizing what their purpose is. which might actually be the problem here. they see themselves as the owners of pro cycling, when they should only be the governors of the sport.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Let's not assume that the UCI is unified.
Instead, assume that the UCI is riven by various factions struggling for control of what little power the organization actually has.
While professional cycling might be in the midst of a transformation to a higher-profile type of sporting concern, for generations it was essentially a poor-relation run on shoe-string budgets. Look at the sponsors in the 60s and 70s . . . look at the old footage of races: smaller peletons, and, as near as I can figure, smaller crowds watching, too.
Not the sort of circumstance to draw in major talent to the business . . . Add to this the unsettling fact that most pro cyclists leave the peleton enter and leave their careers woefully unprepared to do anything else but ride a bike—and you have the ingredients and recipe for a system run by survivors of the previous generation . . . for their financial benefit.
As just one example, (and probably an incorrect one, since it is necessarily speculative): such a system leads to Riccos—i.e. led to dope as a junior because the advisors are acting in their interest rather than his.
Back to the UCI somehow: as something of an umbrella-organization anyway, it has a hopeless task, but that task is made more difficult by the lack of a coherent understanding of what it should do.
Another ‘tip-of-the-iceberg’ example: what really led to Anne Gripper’s departure from UCI?
re: the contrast between Armstrong's responses to allegations
and Landis’s (and many others):
there’s an old photo of a TX state championship race (1990?). Every time I look I can’t find it on the interwebs, but it gets posted to txbra every year or so when the inevitable grousing about center-line violations turns up.
What’s it got to do with Armstrong and doping allegations? Maybe nothing.
In the image, Armstrong leads the P12 field. He’s like 2 feet from the left-hand edge of the road with the what’s left of the bunch hanging on his wheel (race was NOT ridden with rolling-road enclosure).
The driver of an on-coming car—I think an old Buick—has had to swerve onto the shoulder to avoid slamming into the bunch. Armstrong appears to be making no effort to shift his position.
Please expound R Mc.
I’m interested in where you’re going with this. I recall the young “brash Texan” back then and his riding style as one of those guys with crazy stoopid strength that won by riding everyone off his wheel.
Cycling is the reason for my life - D. Bennati
a snapshot of 1 young man's
Sense of personal limits and responsibility to others.
I will ride on the edge of the center-line if I have to, and have gone over it often in races. But . . . I have also dropped myself from groups that were guttering completely over the line: risk wasn’t worth it to me for a bike race. I’ve never thought about playing chicken with a Buick . . . for a bike race.
Nor have I ever played chicken with a Buick knowing full well that there were 15-25 other people lined up directly behind me.
If critical moments in sporting events reveals one’s true character . . .
It's hard to feel sorry for Landis
but I do. It’s hard to say he deserves anything, but I kinda wish he could get paid for telling that story.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
+0.9
I don’t know if I’d go so far as wishing he could get paid, but I do feel sorry for him in some ways. Being stripped of the TdF title, being suspended for 2 years, I have no problem with. But the revulsion he’s gotten since admitting he doped seems, to me, very disproportionate in relation to how any other rider who has been shown to have doped has been treated, like Landis is a uniquely evil human being or something.
I suppose
that he didn’t have enough of a personal fanbase prior to getting popped, and the one he did create (immediately after) was based almost entirely on his lie (and not something he’d done before). Compare Tyler Hamilton, who similarly treated his post-positive fanbase like they were a bunch of morons, yet when he came back, he still had fans lining up to talk to him. I think this was b/c he was enormously popular before getting popped, creating a more dedicated fanbase.
(Not even mentioning, of course, a rider who may yet turn out to the biggest example of the benefits of this model that we’ve ever seen.)
and a twin
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Whether he was paid or not makes very little difference to me.
One thing is for sure however: rarely do people engage in stuff without a motive.
I think he's fairly transparent about some of his motives...
…to explain / tell the story / get this off his chest. Giving an account of yourself, if you’re someone in Fl’s position, is a pretty powerful motive, and he’s pretty clearly engaged in that.
Whether we believe the account, or find it satisfying, is a separate question. But I see no need for an additional motive beyond that one.
Thats pretty much was Riis said after he confessed.
And just to make it clear, I don’t care what Landis’s motives are.
I find the part about Periero 100% believable
I can’t remember another example in the modern age of cycling of a rider having such a dramatic improvement in form in such a short period of time, he went from riding in the grupetto in the first mountain chain to attacking Kloden and Evans on the stage where Landis blew up, it was surreal seeing him do that.
Here's the REALLY interesting bit about the Pereiro charge:
Landis claims: “Yeah, we talked openly about this in the peloton, that’s why I couldn’t believe no one did this before I did it. We literally just spoke openly; he did a blood transfusion and some artificial haemoglobin.”
Catch that last bit? “artificial haemoglobin” as in Hemassist or Hemapure, right?
But that can’t be possible since the stuff stopped production, so Landis must have cooked this up after hearing about the SI story right? Except that this interview took place in November of 2010 . . .
so . . . hmmmmm.
yep
i noticed that too. very interesting, to say the least.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
There are many open-ended questions there
which confuse me… so maybe I’m missing the point…
but, there are lots of artificial hemoglobin products in the peloton… Oxycyte, Polyhem (sp?), Oxygent, Perftorin(sp?), HemAssist, Oxyglobin,
Ding, ding, ding!
but, there are lots of artificial hemoglobin products in the peloton… Oxycyte, Polyhem (sp?), Oxygent, Perftorin(sp?), HemAssist, Oxyglobin,
Still available in South Africa for years.
Risky stuff, compared to clean blood. Far less risky when compared to questionable medical practices and an astronomical HIV rate.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Floyd is a fascinating and divisive character...
…and the debate about him, in these comments and everywhere else, is obviously the main story here. I don’t have much to add – I’m a Landis agnostic.
However, I’m an unabashed Kimmage apologist. I must be the only man in existence who went from bike-hating (I fall off them) to massive fan of pro cycling as a result of reading Rough Ride. I think he is a superb writer and a fascinating man. I accept that he has agenda (well, an agendum, really) with regard to cycling, but he is right so often that I can’t really fault him for that.
So, to my point, which is a little o/t. Isn’t this a wonderful insight into journalism? One of the best sports interviewers/feature writers in the UK, returning to the sport on which he is most knowledgeable, and giving us access to the full transcript. I think that the skill, compassion and insight that Kimmage shows is one of the reasons this transcript is such an astounding read. The comparisons with Frost are, I think, accurate.
I've had mixed feelings
but not anymore. Kimmage’s behavior here is both very professional and kind of touching at the end. I’m a fan now. Before I thought he was too scattershot, but what do I know?
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
What's most striking to me is Landis's utter lack of remorse for doping
I think most of us believe doping by professional athletes is wrong. Landis doesn’t.
Landis didn’t dope because he was a nut, or a raging egotist, or even a cynic. He doped because he was ambitious and serious about trying to win the Tour. He looked around, decided that cycling stood no chance of changing things before his window would close, and chose doping over giving up his dream.
I think this is right on, but it probably applies not just to Landis but to almost all dopers.
Shorter Landis:
I had to choose between cheating and winning, or not cheating and not winning, and I chose to cheat.
I’d do it all over again.
How is this any different than what Di Luca would probably say, or Vinokourov, or Tyler Hamilton, or any other long-term doper?
I agree with irishpeloton that what distinguishes Landis from the doping pack is the depth of his revelations about the corruption in the system. Whatever his motives (my guess is revenge and a desire to take others down with him), Landis has revealed new and detailed information that could prove extremely valuable in the fight against doping. I don’t need to find him sympathetic in order to appreciate that.
+many
He is not very remorseful — just resigned to the need. Maybe fair enough.
Perhaps worse is his lack of remorse to the people that donated to his defense fund. He seems to imply they’d understand if they knew him more???
the least likeable part of the interview for me.
moo
same here
i got from it that he knew he wasn’t innocent, but that it wasn’t fair. and if the people just knew how things worked and how the system cheated him, they would agree that it wasn’t fair. that’s a bit of a stretch for me.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Huuuuuuuuge stretch for me. To the point where it really pissed me off.
Also agree with Will on the lack of remorse for people who’s money he gladly took and then stiffed. Maybe deep down he does feel really terrible, but if he does he did a poor job of presenting it.
One thing for sure, he is one large mass of fucked-up-ed-ness. If he’s not seeing a therapist to talk about, it he might want to start. I’m betting it will help him at least partially heal.
"Your not going won't unbreak her arm."
I do see a difference between doping
when there is literally no secret within the sport that 95%+ of the people of your calibre do it, and when there is hush-hush talk of 40 or 50% of the people of your calibre doing it. In the first scenario, your choice is to be a doped rider, a whistleblower, or go start a bike shop somewhere. Scenario #2, you can get occasional small wins and big satisfaction while beating the “riding clean” drum, and feel like you’ve done something good as a rider.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
this is key, it seems
Nowadays do riders have the option of riding clean? Because if they believe that, a lot of guys would try it. Not out of idealism but peace of mind (OK, and maybe idealism too). I mean, nobody wants to live with cheating if they have a meaningful alternative. Obviously, some guys will anyway, but it changes the proportion of cheaters a lot, particularly if there’s a cop on the beat to catch the guys who still cheat. It’s only when there’s no cop that riders give up and give in en masse.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
I think at least in Floyd’s mind, there was neither a cop nor a real option of doing it otherwise. How much of that is self-serving is really hard to parse, but his sense that the UCI was enabling this is a pretty big deal. Floyd simply doesn’t seem to see it as a ‘moral’ choice one way or another, especially because clean riders are, effectively, not part of the game.
Figuring out how to feel about that is another thing…or more precisely, at what point to just get off the bus with feeling sympathy for him.
I think he did an excellent job of explaining why he had no remorse about cheating
in an environment of cheat or get cheated. I think he explained his remorse of hurting others off the bike especially with his lies, which would include those who made donations to his defence fund. By stating that he would do it again, he made it clear he wouldn’t lie again. He just wants to tell his story so he can hopefully be understood.
I think he’s done a pretty good job of playing therapist for himself (I’m amazed he’s not insane), without saying he couldn’t benefit with some help.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
I think he mentioned that he did get some sort of counseling
specifically related to his fondness for alcohol. Can’t find the passage off hand…
Jens! Voigt puts the 'laughter' in 'manslaughter'
how I took it
resigned. And I will give him credit for not insulting our intelligence by saying “Oh, I so wish I didn’t dope, if only I’d walked away from the money and the scene.” His point is, he wanted to win the Tour, and that’s how you went about it.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
I have no problem with that part, nor most of the interview.
I did have a problem with his remorse towards some people, but not to others. Most people are complex though, and maybe some day he’ll get there. He doesn’t seem to be having a particularly good time of it, if that’s any consolation to anyone.
"Your not going won't unbreak her arm."
I think he's is proportioning it out over time.
He sort of said that at one point in the interview. So I think you’re right… “maybe some day he’ll get there.”
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
agreed
i’m afraid most, if not all, cyclists at some point in their career have to make that decision. it’s not that they’re bad people, it’s that they want to race their bikes/win bike races.
this might be where JV’s slipstream model is most effective (not saying it is, but at least it claims to be). it gives riders the ability to not have to make that choice.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
+1
also, it seems that if you want a career in pro-cycling, you keep your mouth shut and stick to the program. not saying you have to dope but you definitely have to be a blind, deaf, mute monkey.
JV gets it. he may or may not be running a clean team but he wouldn’t be running a pro team at all if he broke ranks. there is a reason that so many managers and ds’s have a dirty past; they now how the system works. I’m not saying that they all cheat but they do know the right things to say and do to keep their place.
by mr. rogers on Feb 1, 2011 1:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Smart lady
(and she has the Giro-tickets to prove it)
Motives and personal feelings towards Landis are to me uninteresting. What matters is the quality of information he provides and the credibility with which he provides it.
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
+1
Totally agreed. What we want (and by we …. I mean cycling and it’s fans) in my opinion, is information — hard, cold, facts. We don’t need heros, we don’t need angels, we don’t need martyrs, we need facts. Facts lead us to solutions, angels don’t.
Once we’ve built a system that is ‘working’ for the most part, we can work on rebuilding the folklore and the heros… until then it is more of the same.
I hugely respect Landis and Manzano and anyone else who comes out and tells the facts. It’s certainly not the easiest option.
I believe anyone who holds hard feelings against the guy now, which is one’s right, is living in the old world of cycling. Holding onto a faint illusion.
It’s easy to type “he’s a dirtbag, I’d never do that.” But that’s typing.
What has one given up for their dreams? If one has even gone far enough to give up the fear of failure, and actually pursued them.
It’s not like these guys can just leave their firm and find another one next state over – start anew. It’s a one shot deal… or it was. And that’s not to excuse… it’s just to understand.
Agree almost totally
except . . . that I hear from casual fans all the time that what they really DO want from cyclists are heroes and angels.
Or, at least, they want to project their desires for heroes and angels onto a bunch of guys and gals, most of whom never asked for that duty.
Not disagreeing with the overall view. However lots of other "jobs" have similar
characteristics:
A lawyer taking a bribe, A doctor doing “black market” donor work, a banker siphoning a clients account, a policeman “sharing” drugs with a dealer etc. I understand these are criminal issues versus cheating, but still.
Also I have a hard time respecting Landis just because he finally “speaks” out about his medical habits.
lol, thanks!
I was going to take this week’s notoriously hard Trivia Monday quiz today, but maybe I’ll put it off until tomorrow, just to preserve the illusion of my smartitude that little bit longer.
by Susie Hartigan on Feb 1, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
nope, just lazy ;-)
actually, i can’t do them on mondays because I’m in my office all day, and I’m always worried my boss will come up and waste my time while my three minutes is running out. Tuesdays I telecommute, so that’s a good day for the quiz.
by Susie Hartigan on Feb 1, 2011 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, exactly.
In his view, people who weren’t cheating were playing an entirely different game, one that effectively didn’t include the Tour, for instance.
Periero has a response up on Velonews - or things that make you go Hmmm!
Its sad when it comes to this, but after reading and understanding better the non-denial denial used by guilty athletes, I couldn’t help but notice the way the lak of a real negative response from Periero. Not once in the interview on Velonews does he actual say he didn’t dope to win the Tour. His only denial is that he talked to Landis about doping during the tour.
Just spinning the pedals in the hills of Western Maryland
my favorite part...
is when he says the UCI will tell him when he doped. really? convenient.
by mr. rogers on Feb 1, 2011 2:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
"in 2006?"
gold.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
+10000000000000000000000000000
If that doesn’t at least get nominated for funniest interview-answer at the end of the year we are in for a good year for comedy.
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
Pereiro
is dead to me now. I never liked him, ever since he sucked Jens’ wheel for all of the gift stage. Good on Jens! for yelling at him during the sprint.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
ah
I have a long track record of not liking the guy. I assume our search function is sharp enough to prove that. The only difference is that I once felt a slight need to be diplomatic.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
And I want my 2 VDS points back from last year
and from 2009.
and from 2008
"Not once in the interview on Velonews does he actual say he didn’t dope to win the Tour. His only denial is that he talked to Landis about doping during the tour."
Think what you like about him, but don’t misrepresent what he says:
I am going to repeat – we are here at a team presentation — I am innocent. Why do I have to prove my innocence? I am not guilty. I’m innocent.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
There is more to it than just the doping. And if you don’t see the whole picture you don’t know anything. You might as well not know. And I didn’t want to be the guy to have to explain it, but ultimately I wasn’t going to be okay if I didn’t explain it, so here we are.
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
That to me is the most important bit. I believe him when he says he didn't want to be the one telling the story.
I think he knows and shows that he’s not perhaps the best suited to tell the tale, but now figured out he has to in order to live with himself. To me this makes him believable.
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
For me, there were lots of those "bits" that made it all believable.
I also came to the conclusion that where I once would have liked to have a beer with Lance, now I’d pass.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Yeah, I know what you mean.
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
Not even if it was 65 calories?
At a really nice strip club where he was being pseudo genuine to you?
"Does that mean over or resolved?" Arkady Renko
by frans verbiage on Feb 1, 2011 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
Hey, I had a day with Sui just like that
Only it wasn’t so much a strip club as it was a belgian pub with some random drunk belgian dude taking his shirt off.
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
there is no way
I am opening this link.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
A beer at 65 calories? Ack!
My beer tastes/snobbery would not allow me to drink anything so light.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Re the UCI role
Cycling Weekly are visiting UCI headquarters & asking for Qs from readers for the UCI/Pat McQ….
(Yes, I know…)
Question 1
why should we believe anything you tell us today?
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
on thing i'm still curious/unsure about
is the whole Lim thing. anybody care to comment?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
watching stage 17, 2006 now
1. You can see Landis favor his right hip when he gets out of the saddle.
2. That boy has some big-ass feet.
I watched the beginning of it last night
Despite all that we know now, that stage still stands out to me as my hands-down favorite of all time. Period.
Jens! Voigt puts the 'laughter' in 'manslaughter'
+2
I was on vacation with friends & family, including mostly non-cyclists, and they will attest that my insufferability reached a level not seen before or since that day.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
you, insufferable? scoff
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Wierd, I think I'm the only one who hated that day?
After all the theater of Puerto, no, none of you can start, you’re all under investigation, we have to have a clean Tour. Then, deep in the third week of this “clean” Tour, this rider, and it didn’t really matter who it was at that point, cracks completely one day, only to ride six minutes up the road the next day? And I’m supposed to believe that the sport was anything other than a complete fucking farce? I turned off whatever I was watching and walked away.
Later, when I read that interview with David Walsh, I think it was at NY V, actually. Walsh talked about being in the press room at the Tour in ’99, and how the journalists laughed in derision when they saw Armstrong, the post-Festina “clean rider,” attack the field. I understood what they meant. Because for me, that stage 17 stands out as a similar moment.
Well, if that's your view
that’s cool. I’m not going to refight this one four years later. I was just saying, hey, that was my reaction to the stage. it was not for me a great moment in the sport, because I just couldn’t see it as anything other than a doping exploit of one kind of another. Maybe I was too cynical on the day, but perhaps I also had reason to be so.
Professor?
Can you rephrase the question?
If you’re asking whether I think he doped for that stage, I’m saying yes, I do. And I say that after reading all the endless stuff on the case. And rewatching it later. And I say that believing that Landis is telling the truth, but maybe not the entire truth, in his current public statements.
What I mean is:
if I assume that everyone—with the possible exceptions of Evans, Sastre, and Cunego—in the final of that stage were doped, then I watch it like I watch pro or college football—for the athletic performances, without reference to moral judgments.
right
what’s a level playing field? Is that enough? “doped” comes in a continuum, so where you draw the line and call them phonies is not a simple question.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 1, 2011 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
And these are all talented people who have worked really hard to get where they are
It’s not like they all just got off the sofa and started riding. Sometimes dopers win. Sometimes they lose. Look at valverde, he has won a lot. Probably doped to the gills most of the time. Sill hasn’t won a tour. Didn’t win a gt at all until 09. It doesn’t gaurantee a win.
I guess I can look past it. To me there are a lot of things that effect the outcome of a bike race. Doping is just one of those things.
Yes
I paint them all with the same brush. Fair? Meh. It’s my entertainment.
It's funny isn't it?
I loved watching VdB. Pantani. I loved Ricco in the Giro and Tour. Landis’ stage win on stage 17 left me in awe. It was a staggering feat. I (knew) it was performed doped – but I was still staggered. I didn’t feel cheated for knowing that – it’s just that my joy at watching the feat was more muted, and subject to the understanding that it wasn’t all real.
So yes – the entertainment was great – but Iurking underneath it was a sort of profound, resigned regret, that I never saw these guys race clean. To really see a clean performance and not have to have that slimy undercurrent. That would be fab. I haven’t seen cycling that way since Pantani sat on his arse in 1998.
I agree it would be fab to see them all race clean and see what was what
But no regrets for me. I don’t pay to watch a race. In person, on tv,or on the net. They aren’t cheating me out of anything. I’m not in the peloton. If they want to fuck each other over, so be it. I choose the amount of time I want to waste following this sport.
I would rather watch Ricco race than see AC and AS hold hands across the line. I also just stopped caring about GT contenders.
Well, I concede that
We don’t pay directly. That’s part of why the riders get so sick of the fans: ‘I perform for you. Do what you want me to do. Stop asking questions and making me feel bad about doing my job. You don’t understand what it’s like, 25-30hrs a week on the bike. know nothing. You’re just a fan.’
But the only differences between Ricco and AC/AS is that one was caught, and the other two are more boring riders. So yes, in that case, give me the Cobra anytime.
It’s also the Charly Mottets of this world that give me cause for regret. How many Tours would he have won if his opponents were also clean?
I can't deal with the would-be contenders
going to sleep and not waking up. If bouncing one’s hematocrit up to insane levels had no health risks, then the argument about good competition holds. But when it’s death by sludge-blood in the night, and passing out from various cardiac oddities, dying from exploding arterial defects, developing strange blood-borne diseases, toxing out on steroids, or blowing their brains out from mood swings + inability to get off the Pot Belge? Too high a price.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Not being a doper myself
There are presumably many ways that one can enhance one’s performance in the saddle without risking one’s health. This is what Schwarzenegger said – sometime after he finished that monstrous fatty at the end of Pumping Iron. He basically said, look, I was on the roids, but I was supervised by doctors who knew what they were doing, so what’s the big deal?
Right or wrong, it’s entirely possible to take performance enhancers without putting your health into jeopardy.
As I noted above, I’ve kind of slid into a state of ambivalence about this whole thing. But if the health-related arguments can – at least to some extent – be refuted, what does that say about the case against doping (I ask rhetorically)?
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
-Orwell, Politics and the English Language
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 2, 2011 9:30 AM EST up reply actions
it's probably true
under medical supervision, a lot of what they do might be harmless, or relatively so. the problem is, they don’t always have medical supervision, and when they do, it’s not exaclty from experts, or respectable doctors. i’m sure gynecologist know their stuff, but their stuff is not PEDs. on top of that, to get to the big leagues, where one can afford medical supervision, you probably have to go through an unsupervised doping period.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
and
while it may be possible to take PEDs safely, if everyone’s doing so, some will be tempted to get even a little bit of an edge by pushing the limit.
exactly
banning doping and allowing a limited amount of doping are not really any different. there will be people that push too far .
moo
agreed
which is why I would like to see some different penalties handed out. 2yrs obviously isn’t much a a deterrent so why even bother? if you get popped the 1st time make it a 6 month sentence but it has to be between march and October. so ac would be out until august 1st. guys would still probably fight it but maybe not as much and we wouldnt have all these long drawn out episodes that have nothing to do with bike racing. more like the NFL where you get caught, sit out 4 real games and then it all goes away.
by mr. rogers on Feb 2, 2011 11:29 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Research is research
I.e. being a gynecologist does not necessarily disqualify one from understanding risks and benefits of blood doping regimes.
Problem is that ‘research’—or what we think we know based upon scientific testing lags behind practice, and with new substances like recombinant epo that might have delayed effects, we don’t know what we can’t know yet . . .
In some ways, doped riders form a huge longitudinal test group . . .
maybe not
but research, or at least credible research, is peer reviewed, and the work you do is not hidden from the various associations and boards that oversee doctors and the care they provide patients. basically, what i’m saying is that the current dope doctors are not what i consider medical supervision. medical assistance maybe. more like drug dealers in my opinion.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I'm not convinced you HAVE to dope to get into the big leagues
when you are young and very talented every race is a big race. every win is a big win. there are plenty of chances to succeed and the expectations are much lower. you can have bad days. as you progress upwards those opportunities get fewer and fewer… down to only the big races, the competition gets tougher, an the expectations go up up up.
by mr. rogers on Feb 2, 2011 11:18 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
possibly not
you could have an unreal amount of talent. but with all the stories about masters racers doping, the rumors about certain pros being on the juice as juniors, whoever makes up joe papp’s client list, i assume that it’s really hard to get there clean. some might be able to, but not the majority.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I'm sure there are some that do
take the example of Mottets above…he is assumed to have rode clean and he won the dauphine a bunch of times, 4th at the tour…
so if you can win some big races clean I’m sure you can make a team as a 20yr clean. yes you have to be talented ( or connected) but we are talking about the pro peloton. it’s an elite group to begin with.
by mr. rogers on Feb 2, 2011 11:35 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
The long term effects of 'roids are as mysterious to docs
as they are to anyone else. A medical degree isn’t a time machine, or a crystal ball. you can’t really extrapolate data on new pharma and new mixes. A doc’s best guess might be 90% as good as a researcher’s best guess, but the researcher only has a limited number of human subjects (at best) and some rats to go on. That’s assuming you’re including some item that’s pretty new / not tested for, or something that’s been used in secret, so that it takes 25 years for people to figure out what all the extra [circulatory problems, strokes, cancers, shrinking testicles, etc] are all about. Yes, docs can stop you from doing a lot of stupid stuff. But they can’t guarantee that what you’re doing doesn’t have major side effects, down the road. Sometimes they can’t even guarantee next year, or next month. False sense of security.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
yeah
I have been a HUGE DiLuca fan too. bah!
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
I could almost forgive him everything because of 2005 and 2009 Giri
He’s magnificent on a bike. A real racer.
Man, I hate doping. There are no heroes in life, and particularly not in sport. But does doping have to rub our noses in that fact so contemptuously?
I wonder if the natural end-state of all this is merely ambivalence.
I don’t see how doping can ever be removed from the realm of possibility. And I don’t know if that bothers me or not. I don’t know if this means that we should just accept it, condone it, or just go on tilting at windmills. I’m just ambivalent.
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
-Orwell, Politics and the English Language
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 2, 2011 9:25 AM EST up reply actions
I hear ya. I think we all have plenty of reasons to be cynical about every rider to this day. I choose to be entertained. It's easier that way.
And IF all flandis says is true, then they are mainly exploiting each other. Cheats cheating cheats. Oh well…
For sure
There is frequently a suspension of disbelief involved in watching cycling. I think I get frustrated when they ask me to suspend too much ;)
But, i also don’t believe that every rider is doping, or that all hope is lost, by any means.
Gav- this is it
I’ve spoken to a few pros, who have NO reason to lie to me. In fact, just the opposite. (It’s complicated). And they swear black and blue they they are clean. And that they don’t like the doping. But ratting on the dopers means ratting out your mates and teammates. Causing scandal in sport that gives you your job. How the f$#k can you do that?
But to say, ‘F#4k it – they all dope.’ is a cop out. And it favours the doper. Let’s them off. People do finish grand tours clean. It might half kill them, but they do it.
I just wish they were angrier about the blokes who are cheating us all, and the teams and organisers and officials who facilitate it or expect it or demand it.
This is the thing, I think...
…my LBS guys have been horrified by all of this, not, I think, b/c they support the doping (lots of racers there, grifters but guys and gals who aren’t giving up on it, love it), but b/c they feel like it all coming out is just going to be ‘bad for cycling.’ They’re afraid of what it might mean here, and while I think that’s ultimately a short sighted view, I can see why from their point of view, it’s sensible.
It's why people are allowing this charade to continue
“People blabbing is damaging cycling.” No, you shit (not you, Ed K), dopers are damaging cycling. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Adam Myerson had it right, though. We might have to burn the whole thing down to make it right again. And how can you do that when the IOC/UCI has its ‘under the rug’ attitude to doping in sports? If you live in denial, confronting the problem is too… confronting. better to be like Hein – stop them from actually dying mid-race, and then rake in the cash.
"Bad for cycling"?
That goes beyond stupid and into ridiculous. Burn this motherfucker down, kids, and let’s build on what’s left.
I'm not endorsing it...
…but when you’re afraid that your business might take a hit in the middle of a recession, I can see being nervous. I think they don’t see it as effecting them directly (cat 2 road or even elite cross isn’t a level where you’re confronted with that choice), except in the impact it might have on the business that keeps them all going.
Anyway, the reason I raised it at all is just to bring up the sense that lots of people in the sport who are utterly not benefitting from doping might have that somehow their livelihood might be threatened if doping is exposed, or the sport taken apart piece by piece, etc. I think most of us here don’t share that view, but I always find it interesting to remember that at some point, there are a lot of people who react to this stuff on the basis of very different kinds of personal investments than those having to do with either ‘caring’ or ‘not caring’ about whether it’s honest or above board.
yes
I’m feeling a bit pissed off at the minute myself (& am reading the Kimmage-Landis piece very slowly), not because I’m under any illusions or because I think all this is “bad for cycling” but because there is only so much of it I can personally deal with at certain points, & this is one of them. I’ll get round to it eventually but…
Plus, I don’t feel I have any strong connection to Landis. I disliked 2006 pretty much full stop, wasn’t shocked when he returned a positive & felt dismay, more than anything, at his campaign.
"What happened in British Cycling, a lot of people doubted me. I've come back, got this victory, and done it my way." - Adam Blythe after his first pro win at Circuit Franco Belge
my experience matches yours.
Which is why I don’t think all hope is lost, and why I’m still here ;)
It’s also why, occasionally, I get really pissed off about doping.
no, you really aren't
"What happened in British Cycling, a lot of people doubted me. I've come back, got this victory, and done it my way." - Adam Blythe after his first pro win at Circuit Franco Belge
OOOOOOO...
good idea, I didn’t get to see it live, now i just need to find it
Perhaps the Sunday Times
Did not allow the Pereiro allegations in their paper? Seems no other explanation. Too juicy.
Or are they there? can’t cross reference now – subscription only for original interview. News is too old!
Or too irrelevant
Not to piss on any newspaper bashing (tis always fun), but seriously, does anyone know who the hell Oscar Pereiro is? Nope. And, in the end, that’s for good reason.
No, sorry, not newspaper bashing. 'Too juicy' was a poor choice of words.
Just comment that the newspaper (and I can’t access the article, sorry again) would not print all nasty stuff without their own filter, just on Landis’ word.
A 5,000 word article is pretty long, long enough to include the Pereiro and Boogerd stuff.
The stuff about Pereiro and Floyd casually going over their drug plans during (while riding) the 2006 TDF is some of the most inflammatory info of all and very hard to believe, highlighting the challenges on Floyd’s credibility.
Verdict: relevant.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
except, that, during the 2006 tour
Pereiro repeatedly mentioned how hard it was for him to be leading his ex-team leader and friend, Landis.
Pereiro transferred to CdE from Phonak, remember.
Yes, but even if true it's a huge cultural snapshot and much more relevant to bikes than stories about Floyd lettering at Smallville High.
Boogerd defended himself well – made Landis sound insane.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
mistaken maybe, but not insane
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
What point are you trying to make?
Follow the story, please – not everyone goes around assuming Contador and the Schlecks use the same fridge for their….
But since this is obvious to you, why didn’t you mention it before?
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 1, 2011 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
They don't?
They look like such great pals
You claimed that it was hard to believe that Pereiro would tell Landis about his doping regime
I suggested that it wasn’t THAT hard to believe, given that 2006 Pereiro frequently mentioned how close he was to Landis—and that they had been team-mates.
What I don’t follow is your “stories about Floyd lettering at Smallville high”—where did THAT come from?
Smallville refers to the huge amount of
biographical material in the interview, the Floyd story – which a lot of people here have commented on as poignant or whatever – and I skipped over.
by rubesANdbabes on Feb 2, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
not the first time that Boogerd has been fingered.
Most recently in the HumanPlasma mess, along with Dekker, but I don’t think that was the first time the topic came up. Hearsay, each time.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
VDB pointed a finger at him too
I never believed you could have teeth like that naturally, anyway.
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
Yup. Can't find hard copy references,
but the Dutch spouse considers him to have “all but confessed” and then backpedaled some to avoid the PR storm.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
I'm conflicted
I’ve been around this sport for almost 50 years,seen fire and rain and etc. Part of me does not buy Floyd’s narrative,part says ;Won’t you help him sing this songs of Freedom ,cause all we ever have : Redemption Songs. Rabbi Nahum claimed that no man was beyond redemption.That redemption was established before the creation of the world itself. That’s how important redemption is. I hope the Landis song is true , helps lead to the positive changes most of us hope for and is redemptive for him.On the other hand, from the Google translate of the Cyclimag editorial finale; “One can never say how much the bike has it’s ready -to -think inlaid in the hose.”
"Does that mean over or resolved?" Arkady Renko
Regardless of whether he's telling the truth about others
I think what Landis says in this interview guarantees him a spot in the Bad Life Choices Hall of Fame. And Kimmage didn’t even ask about the bizarre Lemond episode or the French lab hacking.
"It's just a bike race" - Frank Schleck
Floyd may have had little to do with both those incidents for all we know?
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
LeMond
The LeMond incident, well, Landis threatened LeMond early on in his guise as a DDIFP. By all accounts, he was present when Geohagen (er, that’s not spelled right, sorry) made the call.
From this inty
Floyd sounds like he was pretty far off the deep end during this time, so I don’t doubt he was at least a little complicit.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
Considering his childhood, making mistakes in the "big old scary world" that we all live in...
seems rather understandable. I mean, this is a guy who flew on his first plane something like 6 years before he raced in the Tour, right? It’s not like this guy was raised hearing his parents talk about life decisions like this. Their life was way different.
So, yeah, I agree with you – clearly some bad life choices were made. But, I feel that a lot of how we process things like this comes from how we’re raised and what tools we have to deal with the choices we have to make.
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
by JustJoshinYa on Feb 2, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
it really is
a parable. Right up there with Bob Seger’s “Hollywood Nights” and the time Chris Elliott went to the Big City and became wallet boy.
OK, I’m losing it…
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
Really, if we're gonna go there
Gram Parsons or the Eagle’s Hotel California work better.
Especially “Life in the Fast Lane.”
thank you
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
I flew on my first plane when I was 25
but I had been from northern Scotland to southern Greece before that.
You're European
who needs planes?
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
On a slightly different tack, I think this whole interview makes it look pretty bad for Contador - especially in 2007
I know there is general resistance to the calling of people dopers without evidence, and some of what I am going to say is supposition, so I am going to say what we know, and what we have a right to suppose, and let people see in it what they want
What we know:
- AC grew up on a team with known doping issues
- AC was implicated in Puerto – though the implication didnt lead anywhere specific
- AC joined Disco – a team with a thoroughly institutionalised, and top end, doping program
- Disco’s DS did not just turn a blind eye – he was an active agent and enabler
- AC – at 25 – was able to track race up mountains, and go toe to toe with the best climber in the Peloton, who was, himself, doped to the bones
- Johan was losing his sponsor and desperate for results
- AC was busted for Clen
What we could suppose:
- Johan saying “this is how we did it with Lance”
- Johan saying “this is [CERA precursor] – they can’t test for this yet” [the supposition here is that Johan said it – we know this conversation would have been had a year later to Vino, Ricco et al]
Having thought all the above through, I find it hard not to follow my nose on this one.
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
It's silly that anyone is presuming AC to be clean at this point.
And that the Clen is from tainted beef. One of the first people to throw their support behind AC was Bruyneel. I understand not liking the current rule and ignoring the plasticizer test because it’s not “sanctified” yet, but not using your nose and playing connect the dots at this point and standing by your man is…?.
And addict, your not calling someone a doper without evidence in this case. You’re just being very polite.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
+1
the fact that he’s a convicted (if not fully appealed yet) doper makes it pretty ok, in my book, to call him a doper.
now maybe he won clean in 07, and 09, and only started doping in 2010 because AS was getting a little too good, but i’m not giving him that benefit of the doubt anymore. it’s probably not fair, but if you get caught doping once, i’ll go ahead and assume you’ve always doped.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I guess what I am saying is that I don't believe, or care about his Clen case
To me, I look at 2007, and think – with what we know now – well, you can see what I think. This aint tainted meat. And it aint just Clen. And it aint just 2011. The guy’s a fraud to me. Shame, but there it is
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
I think the various procedural explanations
as to why one might have clen in one’s system are pretty convincing, alas.
"What happened in British Cycling, a lot of people doubted me. I've come back, got this victory, and done it my way." - Adam Blythe after his first pro win at Circuit Franco Belge
he is a liar and a cheat
but a fraud? come one. hardly. the guys got skills.
by mr. rogers on Feb 2, 2011 8:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I wonder
All year he struggled – “allergies” my painted *ss
Stage 10 – it’s clear he is the weaker rider and Schlecklet cracks him.
Post rest day – not so much. Standard Operating Procedure for Disco-Alumni seems to be to soup up at the rest day… certainly AC got stronger post rest day than AS… from hanging on and cracking to strolling up the tourmalet side by side
I know there were differences in the situation and what needed to be done, but it looks to me (now) like AC had the famous extra 3%…
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
How do you know ASchleck wasn't also doped?
I’m not saying he necessarily was, but I have to confess, in my cynical, hardened state, I tend to think they all are (just as in every pro sport), or at least, all the top guys. I have to admit, seeing Andy get angry over the dropped-chain incident but being so totally dismissive about the possibility that maybe, just maybe, AC had some pharmaceutical help (to the extent that Andy has said that he still considers AC the winner) makes me wonder about Andy.
Though, I have to admit, and I’m going on a bit of a tangent here, one thing that has always puzzled me is that the sprinters never seem to get implicated. I’ve never heard of sprinters being involved in PEDs (except for Zabel, who claims he did, but about whom I had never heard anything before). It seems weird to me, as they have similar incentives (to win races) and they get tested frequently (the stage winner always does, at least in the TdF, and I assume the same is true in other stage races) but… nothing. Not even rumors. Admittedly, I would expect sprinters to emphasize things like steroids or HGH rather than EPO or blood doping, but still, they do test for these things and… nothing. I wonder why that is.
(I am discounting Boonen’s travails in recent years as being non-PED. No one has claimed his doping, so to speak, had anything to do with enhancing performance, at least in bike races)
On the sprinters, I think the answer is a bit depressing...
the PEDs for them mainly go into two categories…
*Roids and amphetamines – which are very easily caught and therefore are a bit too unsafe to use
*HGH – for which there is no test (so may be being used in rampant amounts)
EPO does a little less for them because they are more about top end speed than endurance and blood capacity (though clearly that would help)
That having been said, the fastest sprinter in the world is currently Cav – and I have a (potentially naive) faith in British Cycling (the org) and its grads to be clean.
On the Schlecklet – I take your point, but I like to assume innocence until there is at least smoke; and the closest you get to smoke around AS is his brother, some time ago. Also, he is a favorite rider of mine, so I see no evil… :)
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
EPO helps cuz
cycling sprinters are sprinting at the end of 200km. Arriving at the finish more fresher is a clear advantage.
Makes sense
though my point isn’t about the specific drugs a sprinter may or may not take, I’m just curious as to why you (or, at least, I) never hear rumors or implications about sprinters nor do any of them ever seem to get caught (at least so far as I can remember; perhaps I’m forgetting someone). The only sprinter I can name who has been implicated for doping is Zabel, and we’d have never known it if he hadn’t come out and said he had done it.
I just find that curious…
lotsa rumors used to circle about Cipo
and his best buddy Scirea got in a bit of trouble, if memory serves correctly . . .
Scirea is a major player in Oil for Drugs
There is an infamous phone tap, very likely a distributor too.
DS at Liquigas today. Awesome.
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
Sean Kelly, Djamolidine Abdoujaparov, Johan Museeuw, Jo Planckaert, Ludovic Capelle, Fabrizio Guidi, Danilo Hondo, Alessandro Petacchi, Tom Boonen, Alejandro Valverde and last but not least Davide Rebellin.
I probably missed a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
I guess that's what I'm missing
a better sense of history. I only started following the sport in 2003 and was unaware those guys (well, except Boonen, in a sense, and Valverde) having been implicated in doping. Not sure how I had forgotten about Petacchi, though.
I have to say, I was thinking about guys like Boonen, Petacchi, Cipo, McEwan & the like. I don’t really think of AV or DR in the same sense as the others. Yeah, they may have a decent sprint, but I have a hard time seeing them contesting any of the flat GT stages unless there’s a hill right very close to the finish (which drops off the guys who I am thinking of, like Cav, et al).
Petacchi in specific, and
Albuterol/salbutamol more generally, for those with asthma always a hard call. It’s an obvious medical exemption to some dosage, but also a stimulant. As anyone who’s had asthma can tell you, it’s mighty hard not to take a spare puff, and just wait for the first to work, if you’re gasping at the same time. So dosage is always tough to hit right on the mark.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
agree it helps
but not as big a factor as for GC guys.
Roids etc used to be big before th tests got good, yes?
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
agree
that you’ve got too much supposition in there, but then again, one would be a fool not to at least wonder.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 2, 2011 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
To me, the real bad guy in all of this is Bruyneel.
It’s very hard to prove organised team doping, but USPS / Disco / Astana / Shack reeks to high heaven. If 20% of what FL says is true, Bruyneel should get a minimum 2 year ban just like his riders. To me, he was at least as culpable. My take is Tailwind sports, under its many guises, was at least as organised a doping ring as Festina.
Furthermore, I’ve always wondered about the number of ex-Postal guys who got popped. Having read Floyd, I think that it isnt because the ex-Postals were any less careful – rather, they lost the political contacts / protection when they left USPS. They were doing the same stuff, just had less capable and conntect consiglieres.
Radioshack should be embarrassed to be associated with this guy. Is that the brand they want? Someone who is a fraud, who cheats, and who corrupts? They should fire JB and / or pull the sponsorship, soonest. Tough on those RS riders who are clean, but the DS should have as much skin in the game as the riders.
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
And another, even more dubious thought, occurs...
Did the ex-Postals get popped BECAUSE they were ex-Postals? Does JB have a (metaphorical) body count?
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
Rats - now I am seeing conspiracy as well as cheating.
I’ll get my coat
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
I like that Landis never really waved the conspiracy flag
but I think he had one stuffed in his back pocket and was reaching for it a couple times.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Presumably such a meeting might already have happened?
But perhaps Novitzky did not make it that far.
" . . . too much supposition . . . . " Ha!
This entire site runs on too much supposition!
It would be boring as hell otherwise.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
yeah
I suppose that’s fanhood for ya. Maybe there’s no such thing as “too much”?
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Feb 3, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
give me 5 minutes, and the terms
“Atlantic Salmon,” “epo,” and McDonalds and I’d bet you’d retract that comment.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
