Why This is Happening

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 8:03 AM EDT in News

In the immediate sense that is... because Spanish investigators took their results to Cycling's governors to preserve the integrity of the Tour. Some quick repercussions:

There's a piece at the CyclingNews coverage that ASO rejected the decision to include Astana. But does that mean they're upset or they won't let them start? Details unclear... But favorites #1 and #2 are gone... #3 could be too, even though he's not on the list. Mancebo too... jesus...

The clean teams apparently have been protesting that something must be done. Can't say I blame them. But it could be ugly for a while.

Also, teams whose riders got the boot won't be replacing them, they'll just ride with 8 or 7 or whatever. The teams unanimously decided to do this.

Speculate on who's gonna win? Damn... the Americans, the Russians, the Discovery guys, Valverde... at this point maybe someone we haven't even thought of. Who knows?

Tweet Comment 44 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

because I like commenting.

I just said to someone that this could be the best tour ever or it could be a joke. And I think it's going to end up being a joke.

by callmecayce on Jun 30, 2006 8:09 AM EDT reply actions

could Astana

even field a team? It was reported they only brought 15 riders, eight are on the list.

by bethie on Jun 30, 2006 8:09 AM EDT reply actions

If you go by cyclingnews' startlist, they'd lose: Isidro Nozal, Jorg Jaksche (but I don't think he was going anyway), and Joseba Beloki. So, they'd only have to replace three riders. And if it's not Jaksche, then either the other cyclist isn't named or they'll still only need to replace three.

I wonder if they saw this coming and therefore brought replacements on purpose.

by callmecayce on Jun 30, 2006 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Is it too late to try out?

I could be in France with my bike in about eight hours or so.

by Bob Johnson on Jun 30, 2006 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Eurosport

Is reporting that riders who have been suspended will not be replaced. Sheesh, what a bloody mess.

by bethie on Jun 30, 2006 8:28 AM EDT reply actions

While this is crushing news,

for the good of the sport it has to happen. I read recently that the spanish government is going to try and pass legislation making doping offenses a felony crime, complete with prison sentences for everyone (riders included) involved. I think this is the only way to actually steer people away from doing it if they think they'll actually do time and have a record, in addition to being fined, fired from their team, and suspended from the sport. Cheaters have to be hit so hard that they a) never consider screwing up twice or b) never consider it in the first place.

Draconian and naive maybe, but you've got to start somewhere. The sport has to be shaken from the roots up if it's going to get cleaner.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 8:42 AM EDT reply actions

don't agree with criminalizing...

huge fines for both players and teams, permanent suspensions yes, but making doping offenses a crime is over the top. Criminal laws are created to prevent hurting the public... who REALLY gets hurt when a cyclist dopes?.. not the public, just the individual taking the drugs (healthwise) and perhaps the teams and sponsors; but teams and sponsors are only hurt financially, which is what civil penalties are intended to remedy. Make the penalties harsh, but don't put those 58kg cyclists in prison... imagine the fun real felons would have with them!

by Scott. on Jun 30, 2006 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions

i'm there with you

I still think they should ban you for life if they can prove you doped.

by callmecayce on Jun 30, 2006 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Crimes

Felonies would be silly, can you imagine these guys in prison? But it is a form of fraud, in a somewhat indirect way. Criminal law usually requires the more serious crimes to include an element of specific intent to do the action, and the fraud angle is a little too muddled; mostly dopers just want to ride faster, right? Anyway, it's unclear. There is also an element to criminal law of deterrence, though, so that adds back in some pressure to have serious penalties. But prison? Damn, no.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Screw that

Send 'em to the joint.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions

We have found a witch

May we burn her?

Angry Mob: BURN!! BUUUURN HER!
Sir Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Mob Leader: She looks like one!
Sir Bedevere: Bring her forward.
"Witch": I'm not a witch, I'm not a witch!
Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed as one.
"Witch": They dressed me up like this...
Angry Mob: No! Nooo! We didn't! We didn't!
"Witch": And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
Sir Bedevere: [lifts up the fake nose] Well?
Mob Leader: Well, we did do the nose.
Sir Bedevere: The nose....?
Angry Mob: And the hat, but she is a witch.
Sir Bedevere: Did you dress her up like this?
Angry Mob: NO! No!... Yes, a bit, a bit. But she has got a wart.
Sir Bedevere: What makes you think that she is a witch?
Mr. Newt: What, she turned me into a newt.
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Mr. Newt: ........... I got better.
Angry Mob: BURN HER ANYWAY!!!! BURN HER!!!!
Sir Bedevere: Quiet, quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Angry Mob: There are??? Are there??? Tell us. Tell us. Do they hurt?
Sir Bedevere: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
Mr. Newt: Burn them!
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
Mr. Newt: More witches! [Peasant gets slapped]
Peasant #2: Wood!
Sir Bedevere: So, why do witches burn?
Peasant #3: .......... 'Cause they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good! So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant #1: Build a bridge out of her!
Sir Bedevere: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Peasant #1: Oh ya.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me, Does wood sink in water?
Peasant #1: No, no, it floats. Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What also floats in water?
Peasant #1: Bread
Peasant #2: Apples
Peasant #3: Very small rocks
Peasant #1: Cider
Peasant #2: Gravy
Peasant #3: Cherries
Peasant #1: Mud
Peasant #2: Churches
Peasant #3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A duck!
Sir Bedevere: Exactly! So, logically.....
Angry Mob: If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore?
Angry Mob: A Witch!

by bethie on Jun 30, 2006 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions

ahhh, Bach!

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes?

by Scott. on Jun 30, 2006 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions

What exaclty does that mean, ahhh Bach?

Well I think once you've said that you've said it all.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions

ahhh, Bach!... from the 70's TV show MAS*H

... after a wearisomely verbose explanation of classical literature and music by Charles, Radar doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and responds, "Ahhh, Bach" in an attempt to sound semi-educated.

amongst M*A*S*H fans (yes, I'm aging myself), it became an appropriate response when someone goes off on a long tangential discussion that seemingly makes no sense and/or confuses the hell out of you

by Scott. on Jun 30, 2006 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Ummmmmmmmmm

My line was the follow up line that Hawkeye used to respond to the question "what does Ahhh Bach mean".

Good original use though

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not worthy.

Damn, you're good Drew, I completely forgot.

by Scott. on Jul 28, 2006 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Aaaargh!

Best tour in my lifetime just became a scandal-plagued mess. Which teams are actually intact? Are these just step one? Will more names be released later?

by Tiki on Jun 30, 2006 8:47 AM EDT reply actions

Doesn't this just mean

that the rest of the peleton gets their drugs from someone else? Sorry, just speaking as the voice of the jaded...

by ssmith on Jun 30, 2006 8:49 AM EDT reply actions

Could be

I was reading the newest issue of Bicycling last night (and yes you were right, but I got it as part of a project for my daughter's school) and it did have a great article where Dave Zabriskie spends the entire time interviewing Floyd. I highly recommend everyone pick it up as it's pure gold. After you read it you will find out

a) why Lance was probably ecstatic when Zabriskie left the team

b) why DZ and FL drove Lance crazy

c) why they are two of the most refreshing characters in any sport

d) before this morning's news broke I was going to revise my podium to include Floyd 2nd

e) that if anyone is clean in the peleton, it's got to include both of them

You'll understand after you read the article.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions

i found that

magazine while I was waiting for another interview (yay jobs) and started reading and then eventually had to go out and buy it. Such a great interview.

by callmecayce on Jun 30, 2006 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

OK

I'll buy it.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions

Not a fan of Bicycling Mag

The signal to noise ration (or content to crap ratio) of Bicycling Mag makes it not worth buying.

So read the story from the link on Floyd's Blog: http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/wp-content/Bicycling_August06.pdf

by Koppenberg on Jun 30, 2006 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Perfect!

Agreed.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Quick skim

I may actually have to buy it. They're the Terence and Philip of cycling.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Brilliant!

by ELVISGOAT on Jun 30, 2006 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Discovery and Gerolsteiner

seem to be intact, Escargot Bears (Valverde) and Phonak (Floyd) took smaller hits.

I think they released all the names they had (56 or 58 depending on who you read) and riders who fall into that lot and were racing the Tour have been suspended. I would imagine the other riders' names who are implicated but were not scheduled to ride the Tour will be anounced soon enough.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 8:51 AM EDT reply actions

And I guess

we'll find out if Vino can ride and win without a team. That's the most reality shattering thing to come out of this - he's actually going to be lining up by himself. I find myself hoping he'll take the yellow jersey at some point just for the spectacle of it.

We have now officially entered Bizzaro Land.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 8:53 AM EDT reply actions

Just realized this

UCI rules stipulate that a team must field six riders to start one of the three major Tours. So if he does not have enough riders they cannot start regardless.

by Clydesdale on Jun 30, 2006 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Good spot

So he's screwed. I wonder if Kazakstan will cut off oil shipments to France...............

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions

Exception

for extraordinary circs??

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions

No Dice

This ain't ovah.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions

actually tiki

This might yet turn out to be the most interesting Tour of all our lifetimes.

I had said at one point that, if all you have is suspicion, let them ride and boot them after the fact if something comes out. Now I'm totally turned around on this: this shit has been hanging over the sport for a month now, and the idea that the Tour will go forward with only riders who we have no reason to suspect (as far as we know) is the right decision.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 9:08 AM EDT reply actions

agreed re: the most interesting Tour ...

I was not really excited to watch "will it be Jan or Ivan?" but now that there's been this huge shake-up, I think it will be fantastic. We'll get to see what riders who didn't have much of a chance before will now do. Hopefully there will be a lot more agressive racing and agressive tactics. The tour is also technically a team race, so it will be interesting to see what the teams who've lost people will do. The teams that don't have much team cohesion have always bothered me. Of course, T-mobile taking the team trophy last year was kind of a slap in the face to that idea, but hopefully this year will reward teams that have it together ...

by ellie on Jun 30, 2006 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

I am still very excited

about the Tour, maybe even more so now that the initial shock has worn off. It's all about supporting the riders that are not under suspicion rather than lamenting the ones that are.

At least for me.

by Drew on Jun 30, 2006 9:14 AM EDT reply actions

David Millar

has an interesting comment:

"There are always going to be people who cheat," he said at a news conference Thursday, "but this is a fabulous chance for the sport to get rid of the organized rings and the doctors who help them. Cycling has the responsibility to take this thing by the scruff of the neck."

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 9:23 AM EDT reply actions

good point

If you make a big example out of the Drs who have been running the drug rings and suplying large numbers of cyclists, individuals will probably still cheat but it will be much harder, and Drs will be more warey about doping large numbers of them...

by ellie on Jun 30, 2006 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Millar

"They're all just a bunch of Nutters!"

by Koppenberg on Jun 30, 2006 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Found This headline kind of funny

considering the other news today.

CSC

by Clydesdale on Jun 30, 2006 11:30 AM EDT reply actions

snort

That link should have a "no drinking any beverages when clicking on this link" disclaimer ... I imagine people's screens/keyboards could be in grave danger ...

by ellie on Jun 30, 2006 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

My money's

on Bono. Dude is everywhere.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 1:18 PM EDT reply actions

robin williams

by Scott. on Jun 30, 2006 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Hm...

he reconnoitered the Alpe a few times... something is definitely up.

by Chris Fontecchio on Jun 30, 2006 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

penalties

I think making the use of PEDs a criminal offense is a great tool. Using PEDs is a crime, if you think about it. :) Seriously - consider the signal a high-profile cheating rider is sending to young, hopeful riders. What about those 10-18 year old riders that watch a cheater using PEDs? What is that telling them?

What is the problem with making it a crime? If you are not using PEDs, you have nothing to worry about...

Mags

by mags on Jun 30, 2006 2:18 PM EDT reply actions