LeMond for Pres - Or Not?

So the sinking Armstrong ship has gone down and now it’s the turn of the ship’s pilot to come under scrutiny. Suffice to say, it’s not going well. Pat McQuaid, Captain UCI himself, is now having his ability to run the sport questioned. In fact, public opinion has already written his resignation letter and started looking for his replacement.

And it seems the world has found it in Greg LeMond, anti-doping poster child, ex-rider and general all-around good guy. LeMond has three Tour de France titles to his name along with years of experience in the cycling industry, and earlier this month the 51-year-old put his hand up to be the ‘interim’ president of the UCI until a long-term replacement can be elected. Fans love the idea. He’s a perfect, noble choice. It’s a great ending and we’ll all live happily ever after like Cinderella. Right. For me, the problem is that LeMond has never been caught doping.

Yes, I said ‘has never been caught’.

LeMond rode during a time when – as we now know – there was a serious doping subculture and more than one of LeMond’s contemporaries tested positive. The Armstrong affair has shown us pretty clearly that the only way to beat doping is with more doping. The astute fan will acknowledge that there’s a possibility that LeMond was doping. There’s never been a positive test or an admission of doping – but again, Lance Armstrong proved that you can be the most successful doper in the history of cycling without a single admission or ‘official’ positive test.

Yes, there’s an equal chance that LeMond might be innocent, that his absence of confession and staunch anti-doping stance are because he’s never used performance-enhancing drugs. But if we’re honest with ourselves, how many of us believed Armstrong, and got burnt? Imagine this – Greg LeMond is made president of the UCI. The post-Armstrong anti-doping arrangements are well underway, everything’s going fine, and then suddenly LeMond is busted for doping as a rider. It could be a retested sample, the testimony of a teammate or even a confession from LeMond himself, but either way the results are the same. We get burnt again. The fallout would be huge. Do we really want to risk that possibility; take that chance? Do we really want a UCI president who will always leave us wondering if he’s telling the truth; always leave us in fear of the announcement that he’s not?

But more than that, the UCI presidency for the next 10 years will be about doping. It’s inevitable – how it started, how to stop it, what measures will be effective. If, as in the hypothetical above, LeMond has doped and lied about it, then we have another lying, cheating rider. We’re getting used to having our hearts broken by these guys. After we get past the denial stage, we kick him out of the house/UCI and never want to hear from him again. And then, of course, we’re back to square one – being alone/needing a new UCI president.

But if, on the other hand, Greg LeMond is one of the seemingly rare ‘clean’ riders who has never doped, how will he be effective as the ‘doping-era president’? If LeMond never engaged in a team doping system, how will he know how riders become a part of a team system, what would discourage them, how a team doping system works and how to take it down? Where is the virtue in promoting a clean rider to the top of the sport when his entire job description for his entire term will be the one thing in which he has no expert knowledge, no experience? Aren’t we just setting ourselves up to fail yet again?

There is, of course, an easy answer to these problems. Instead of choosing LeMond, why not bring in a confessed ex-doper? It sounds crazy and completely counter-intuitive, sure, but think about it. You never need to worry about Jorg Jaksche’s reputation being ruined on the job, and you can guarantee that Tyler Hamilton knows what he’s talking about when it comes to how to dismantle organised doping systems. Counter-intuitive perhaps, but the intuitive measures have been working just great so far, haven’t they? These guys have done their crime, they’ve done their time, and now they could be the key to healing a diseased system that was led astray by the purportedly ‘anti-doping’ guys.

So why not run in the complete opposite direction to the Verbruggen/McQuaid presidencies? Instead of picking another clean, eligible willing candidate, why not choose a reluctant, gritty former doper who has a genuine vested interest in eradicating the doping culture? After all, it was a wise man in Albus Dumbledore who said, “Perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.”

Is anyone else beginning to wonder why LeMond wants the job at all?

An Open Letter by Jeremy Roy (English Translation)

Another rider has joined the ranks of those speaking out against doping in the wake of the Armstrong affair. FDJ-Bigmat’s Jérémy Roy posted an open letter on his website on November 5th, talking about the current state of cycling and of doping in the sport. Below is an English version of this letter, translated by myself.  You can read the original French letter on his website here.

Following recent events in the world of cycling, reactions and admissions from certain riders, and different movements launched to save cycling and to respond to certain people, I want to express my thoughts today through this open letter.

Of course I won’t say that cycling is moving in the best of worlds, but we need to stop stigmatising it and accusing every cyclist. Yes, there are cheats, and there always will be (in sport and in life), but the noose is tightening little by little thanks to the work of the UCI, of WADA (and its national counterparts) and of the police.

Today everyone is talking about the Armstrong affair (which hasn’t yet finished shedding light on certain shadowy areas regarding the transfer of funds), tomorrow I hope that the Padova affair in Italy will come good and that the Puerto affair in Spain, which will reopen in January, will also reveal its secrets.

I discovered the USADA report just like all of you, and yes, I was shocked by this quasi-collective doping system. No, fortunately not all teams work like that. I’m not stonewalling or influenced by omerta, as has been suggested by some journalists who’ve reproached me for the fact that I discovered the story through the media like any man in the street. I turned professional at the end of 2003 and even though I mix with other riders for a quarter of the year (90 days of racing), that doesn’t mean that I know what’s done away from prying eyes. And even if I speak from time to time to other riders, do you think that the cheaters are going to boast of their chemical prowess? The latest confessions (which, in passing, have been revealed only thanks to the inquiry and thus under oath) attest to that; not even their wife or their family was aware (I think that you share more with your loved ones than with your cyclist colleagues or opponents). It’s too easy today to ask forgiveness, to cleanse the conscience. No, I don’t forgive them.

They have stolen (results, glory, income, contracts…). But on the other hand I would say to them nevertheless, “Thanks for having confessed”, if it can contribute to stopping the scourge by taking into account their methods and by trying to find a solution.

And speaking of solutions, it’s worth knowing that the UCI has indeed put in place some tools, though certainly not perfect, but which have the merit of existing. The Whereabouts system: a location system where a cyclist in the target group (World Tour teams, ProContinental teams applying for WildCards and certain riders chosen by a group of experts) must provide their activities and place of residence for every day with a one-hour time slot in which a control can be performed. (A control can also be performed outside of the hourly slot but will not be counted as a no-show if the rider is not present).

There’s the implementation of the biological passport, more accurately haematological for the time being, because the steroid aspect hasn’t yet been taken into account. This profiling of haematological values allows, in conjunction with a classic antidoping control, to target suspect riders, to suspend and to sanction a rider should the case arise, following a meeting of an expert commission. There have been some riders suspended by the passport but legal restrictions greatly limit the actions of the UCI.

Since June 2011 (unfortunately not retroactively), those convicted of violating the Anti-Doping Code cannot occupy a position as a manager, directeur sportif, coach, doctor or medical assistant, mechanic, driver or rider’s agent. This provision will allow us to gradually clean up the environment of cycling. I encourage teams to apply this sanction without delay.

As a suggestion, in addition to increasing the length of sanctions, I can only support antidoping research to improve the tests further and further. Too often the cheaters are a step ahead. The problem which presents itself on top of the cost of the research is the volume of the sample, which is far from infinite. It’s necessary to understand that a sample can’t be tested for all known substances, meaning a choice has to be made (and you can only find what you look for!). That’s how some riders pass a control one day, but not necessarily another.

Preservation of the B-sample for subsequent tests when research has progressed has been mentioned, but I don’t know when that will be. It still has a cost: storage, analysis, which test to apply?

The economic problem is therefore very much present in the fight against doping. Part of the “prize money” is already withdrawn, so what more can be done? As has been suggested by the President of Française des Jeux, Mr Blanchard Dignac (since 2009), an association of cycling team sponsors needs to be created to support the UCI in its fight against doping. In theory a year’s salary must be paid by an offender. I hope that these funds are intended for the fight against doping.

It would also be desirable for WADA to change its attitude regarding the “liberalised” use of corticosteroids. A work stoppage should be mandatory in the case of its use to avoid risking the health of the rider (due to the risk of falling cortisol levels). Only the member teams of the MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling) apply a work stoppage internally in the case of an injection to treat an illness.

The personalised power profile (PPP), notably suggested by F. Grappe and which follows the example of the haematological profile, allows a rider to know their physical limits. This then poses the problem of the reliability of the measure, the consideration of fatigue and the recurrent stresses during a stage, the margin of error (it’s not forbidden to beat records…it’s actually the point of training).

Developing the biological passport with the activation of the steroid profile.

I also join Taylor Phinney in his stance against the painkillers that certain riders take during a race. When there is a problem which requires a painkiller I doubt that participating in competitive cycling will help the problem!

Holding a “States General” bringing together WADA and the UCI would also allow progress.

The creation of a commission independent of the UCI to organise controls seems like a necessity to restore faith in the UCI: we will no longer be able to criticise them for being both judge and jury.

Finally, having the police and Customs reviewing general intelligence should continue to help us in the struggle (the fight against doping, trafficking, suspicious monetary transfers (corruption)…). A number of cases have been uncovered through them.

Despite the storms we’ve weathered and the blows we’ve received, I believe and I still want to believe in the sport that I love. I’ve accepted that I’m not as strong as the others but that doesn’t prevent me from achieving good results with my resources and winning races. Admittedly I’ll certainly never win the Tour de France or the World Championships with my abilities but I always hope that it’s in me, the hope of improving, of giving the best of myself and of never having regrets because I’ve put in everything to get there. I’ve made so many sacrifices, as has my family when I’m away 180 days a year, that I don’t want to give up now. It would be a (another) failure in the face of cheaters.

I’ve wanted to write this open letter for some time, but I haven’t wanted to be seen as a whiner, or to receive the usual criticisms (he has no results because he doesn’t know how to train, he’s too big, he’s stonewalling, he’s being idealistic…).

For those who want to continue bad-mouthing cycling, just keep walking…me, I still want to believe in it. For nearly 10 years I’ve been among the pros and for nearly 10 years I’ve heard at the start-of-year briefings, “Boys, don’t lose hope, things change, the cheaters will be caught sooner or later, things are heading in the right direction.” My improvement and the rise of young riders are certainly not due to coincidence. Since the implementation of geolocation and the passport, the room for movement is decreasing.

Finally, a little soapboxing to finish, because I’ve had enough of seeing certain media only talking about cycling in relation to doping scandals. I’m sorry, dear journalists and spectators, that the flat stages at the start of the Tour bore you (and you make it very clear)…yes, there are stages for the sprinters and there always will be; where is the harm in saving a little with three weeks of racing in mind? You need to stop playing CyclingManager!

For those who are frightened by the average speeds of the peloton (and who also complain when the peloton dawdles a little – yes, often they’re the same people), have they ever ridden competitively? What about in a group? Aspiration effect and relay, does that sound familiar? You can’t compare races or eras, as so many factors can influence a performance (weather, wind, condition of the road, profiles of preceding stages…). We are professional cyclists, our job is to be the fastest on a bike and we train every day for that, so don’t compare your Sunday ride or your local hill climb with a professional race.

I’m not the only one to think this. Lots of riders suffer in silence from this insidious disease which eats away from within and is considered as the “system”. Some no longer even dare to say that they’re cyclists, all because of the transgressions of certain riders. And I maintain that the majority of the peloton rides fairly.

I could elaborate further on certain ideas and tackle other subjects that are equally important for the future of cycling (sustainable development, the modernisation of cycling, the format of races…) but I’m afraid I’d lose you along the way (if I haven’t already).

Thank you for reading and thank you for your support. Cycling needs you too.

Cleaning House

My mum always loved old musical films. So I guess it was no surprise that I immediately thought of the house-cleaning duet from Calamity Jane when I heard that the UCI was establishing an external commission to investigate the UCI in the wake of the Armstrong affair. They’re actually finally doing it. The UCI is cleaning house.

It’s been bruited around for a while, though never more so than now, that the UCI were in Armstrong’s pocket when it came to his literally unbelievable career, and more than one ex-rider has pointed the finger at the UCI when it came to laying blame for cycling’s doping culture. With USADA shining the world’s biggest spotlight into every corner of Lance Armstrong and US Postal, the pressure has been growing for a while now for the UCI to take the same steps and sweep out their own dusty corners too. Unfortunately, with the UCI the highest body in cycling, there was no-one to ensure that they actually would, but it seems they’ve been listening to the voices on the street at last.

It’s a gesture of good faith, certainly, but let’s hope it becomes more than just a gesture. As part of the investigation the UCI has also halted the controversial lawsuit against Irish journalist and ex-rider Paul Kimmage. This gives no guarantee that they won’t relaunch it again either after the conclusion of the commission’s investigation or even before then, but it’s a start, and a much-needed one. Even with all the whisking and mopping that USADA have been doing over in the US, cycling could never start over and be ‘clean’ with such a dark cloud hanging over the sport’s governing body. Scrubbing all the cyclists’ pasts raw would make little difference if the administration wasn’t equally squeaky.

Thankfully, despite all the denials and professions of non-culpability over recent months, the UCI seems to have recognised this fact as well, and they’re taking steps. What we have to wait and see now is whether they’re serious about those steps. Will the UCI give the external commission carte blanche to dig as deep as they need for as long as they need to in order to polish up every single dirty ‘winder’? Will the ‘appropriate terms of reference’ to be negotiated with the committee omit all the key concerns such as alleged cover-ups in the Armstrong era and the culpability of ex-UCI president Hein Verbrugghe and his successor, Pat McQuaid? And will the UCI give due credit to and implement any or all of the recommendations made by the committee at the end of their investigation?

Let us hope that the instigation of the investigation means they will. Maybe, with a completely exposed and absolved past and a clear vision for a clean future, we will finally get to see cycling as the ‘shiny castle’ of which Doris Day and Allyn McLerie sang all those years ago.

Enough is Enough

It’s taken long enough, but Lance Armstrong finally seems to have realised that fighting the doping charges against him is doing no-one any favours. Like a fly caught in a spider’s web, Armstrong finally seems to have recognised that the longer he struggles, the more he tangles himself in the ever-tightening web of brutal public opinion.

He was the golden boy of world cycling. The poster child of the UCI. An angel of charity work. A hero to cancer sufferers worldwide. In short, Lance Armstrong from Plano, Texas, was an all-around good guy on a bike.

So when the drug rumours came knocking, as they seem to have done for every high-profile cyclist throughout time, Armstrong thought that he could beat them. Truth and innocence aside, a reputation as tall as the Texan himself and seven Tour de France titles to boot would surely be currency in dispelling the ugly tales and restoring his good name.

But the problem with drug rumours is that they seem to follow Grisham’s law of economics – ‘Bad money drives out good’. No matter how squeaky his reputation, the tiniest whisper of scandal was enough to taint it in an instant. As soon as the rumours began circulating that those seven Tour titles weren’t as cleanly earned as previously thought, the first cracks began appearing in the armour. No matter whether Armstrong’s lawyering up was a sign of a fight to protect his innocence or a fight to hide his guilt, the implication was clear. Armstrong was taking this seriously. And suddenly every news story featuring Armstrong in the title had ‘doping’ right there with it.

And there lies the point of no return. Once Armstrong’s name was tied to drug allegations, they were tied forever. No amount of fighting to clear his name would ever do that. Had Armstrong succeeded in beating the charges, he would simply have become the seven-time Tour de France winner who was cleared of drug charges. Goodbye, innocent until proven guilty. Drug charges don’t play by those rules.

Armstrong has put his faith in the idea that the truth will out. The truth is no longer what’s at stake. The heart of the matter is that even if the UCI, USADA, WADA and the Plano Cycling Club were all to declare the drug charges baseless and Armstrong a clean man, he has already been tarnished. What he has been fighting so hard to save is just a speck on a distant horizon. His reputation is down the drain, dragging the reputation of world cycling down right along with it.

Armstrong finally seems to have realised that in this case, no news really is good news. The longer he protests his innocence, the longer he drags his own name, and that of cycling, through the Spring Classics-deep mud. With no hope of redemption in sight, the biggest favour Lance Armstrong can do anyone now is to bow out quietly and pray that public opinion will be more lenient towards cycling than it has been towards him.

La Volta a Catalunya

La Volta a Catalunya es una de las carreras más viejas en el UCI WorldTour, y es por esta razón tiene un premio de 100 puntos de la UCI.  Es una carrera de una semana con siete etapas, incluyendo  dos etapas montañosas, cuatro etapas onduladas y una etapa llana, que esto año comprendió 1687,9 kilómetros por todas partes de la región de Cataluña.

La primera etapa era una etapa ondulada en que cinco corredores se escaparon después de la primera hora.   Michael Albasini (GreenEDGE), Ben Gastauer (AG2R La Mondiale), Timothy Duggan (Liquigas-Cannondale), Nicolas Edet (Cofidis) y Anthony Delaplace (Saur Sojasun) decidieron hacer su propia suerte y crearon una renta que logró 6:05 minutos.  Unos 25 kilómetros del final Albasini se escapó de la escapa, disolviendo la escapa, y acabó la etapa 42 segundos por delante de Anthony Delaplace, el corredor más próxima.

Albasini comenzó la segunda etapa en el jersey blanco de líder.  En una etapa montañosa, había unas escapas durante la etapa, pero el británico Bradley Wiggins trabajaba para su compañero Rigoberto Uran, y no permitió una escapa a ganar.  A causa de esto la etapa se terminó en un sprint, sin embargo porque era una etapa montañosa, la mayoridad del corredores en el primer grupo no podían hacer el sprint muy bien, y el puncheur Albasini podía ganar la llegada masiva también.  Como ganador de dos etapas, Albasini sigue líder por comenzar la etapa siguiente en La Vall d'en Bas (Sant Esteve d'en Bas).

La tercera etapa se hubo la etapa decisiva, en un giro de destino.  El tiempo estaba horrible – cinco corredores no empezaron la etapa, 34 de los abandonaron durante el día y la etapa estuvo acortó a causa de la nieve en la ruta y terminó por delante de las montañas grandes.  Una etapa montañosa difícil se volvió más fácil – una etapa que era posible por cualquiera ganar.  A pesar del tiempo, una escapa de 12 corredores dejó del pelotón al principio de la primera subida.  Nueve de estos corredores se acercaron a la meta después de 155 kilómetros, Janez Brajkovic del equipo Astana ganó la etapa.  Los comisarios decidieron que los tiempos del día no contribuyeron a los tiempos de la clasificación general, así Michael Albasini retuvo el jersey de líder por otro día.

Una etapa llena, la cuarta etapa de la Volta a Catalunya tuvo una escapa otra vez.  Tres corredores salieron del pelotón temprano, y un grupo de persecución de 25 corredores los siguió y los cogió en el alto.  Estos 25 corredores terminaron la etapa en grupo, y estaba el colombiano Rigoberto Uran (Sky) ganó el premio de la etapa por delante de Denis Menchov de Katusha y Sylvester Smyzd de Liquigas-Cannondale.  Albasini, el líder del equipo GreenEDGE, terminó en el grupo de 25 para llevar el jersey por otro día.

La quinta etapa era la etapa más larga de la carrera, 207,1 kilómetros de las carreras.  Seis corredores crearon una escapa, pero no podían mantener su renta de siete minutos, un grupo incluyendo todos los favoritos la cogió en el último alto.  El americano Levi Leipheimer condujo esto grupo a una llegada masiva, en que  el velocista francés Julien Simon (FDJ-Bigmat) venció a los ganadores del día anterior, Rigoberto Uran y Sylvester Smyzd.  Albasini terminó otra vez con los líderes y retuvo su jersey todavía.

La penúltima etapa no era muy emocionante, el pelotón se quedó junto hasta la meta de la carrera.  Un kilómetro de la meta, el español Samuel Sanchez (Euskaltel-Euskadi)  se lanzó del pelotón en el último alto y ganó la etapa fácilmente.  El australiano Allan Davis, del equipo GreenEDGE, venció a los otros corredores para terminar segundo.  Su compañero Michael Albasini terminó en el pelotón y comenzó la última etapa en su jersey blanco.

Una etapa corta, la séptima y final etapa fue el partido de desempate para la carrera.  Nueve corredores salieron del pelotón en el sexto kilómetro de la carrera y mantuvo su renta por 70 kilómetros.  Después de esto, unos corredores intentaron escapar, pero no podían.  Todos los corredores se quedaron juntos en una otra llegada masiva, la que ganó Julien Simon por segunda vez.  A causa de la llegada masiva, Albasini mantuvo su renta de un minuto y medio en la clasificación general y se adjudicó la carrera entera, que se deleitó.  Chris Anker Sorenson del equipo Saxobank ganó la clasificación montaña, mientras Tomasz Marczynski (Vacansoleil-DCM) era el mayor velocista. Es un buen resultado para el nuevo equipo australiano, que ganó 100 puntos UCI como resultado de la victoria de Albasini.

Foto gracias a GreenEDGE Cycling a http://www.greenedgecycling.com/