This interview was recorded before the Oprah interview. I love his comparing Lance with Hollywood bank robbers coming back for "just one more job".
Showing posts with label Lance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lance. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Tour De France 2010 Stage 3 - A trip to the Pavé
I just got back from one of the best cycling related trips I've taken yet. Myself and Stephen O'Shea flew yesterday morning to Charleroi to take in one of the most anticipated Tour stages in a while. The plan was to hire a car at the airport, head to the days only KOH and then dash into France to catch the peloton on one of the days pavé sections and, hopefully, see some real action. Of course, as well as taking the chance to see the Tour, live and in the flesh, it was also an opportunity for two confirmed bike nuts to stand on some of the most hallowed roads in cycling, l'Enfer Du Nord, the Hell of the North.
And the plan worked out to perfection!
After an early start in Dublin, we landed at Charleroi and picked up our nifty little Ford Ka. Thanks to some pre-programming of my sat-nav we had the rough locations of the climb and all of the pavé sections at our fingertips. So it was an easy, ten minute drive to the village of Sombreffe, where traffic was being stopped just before the junction the riders would pass through. We knew the 4th Cat KOH line was a kilometer or two to the east, so we reset the sat-nav to bring us to the junction of the next side road in that direction. We followed the directions and, after passing through a beautiful, sleepy, Belgian village had our first taste of the cobbles as we made our way up to the route.
This part of the day was just what I imagined watching the TDF is like as it winds it's way through the by-ways of Europe. Local families, young and old, lined the roadside. Those whose houses were on the route had their chairs out and were sipping a glass of wine or just chatting among themselves.
The publicity caravan was passing now and the local kids were scrapping for the goodies being thrown from time to time from the speeding advertisements. I'll put up a gallery of the various vehicles seperately.
We set ourselves up, green t-shirts and triclolours on display, at the prime point and were very much a novelty to the locals for a bit. After a long wait, in very pleasant sunshine, the break of 7 arrived led over by Ryder Hesjedal of Garmin-Transitions and Steve Cummings of Team Sky.
Just over four minutes later, the peloton came up the hill, led by the Quick Step team of race leader, Sylvain Chavanel.
Quick Step lead the peloton
Chavanel in the Maillot Jaune
White jersey leader, Tony Martin, leads Juan Manuel Garate
Defending champion, Alberto Contador leads Christophe Moreau
The bandaged Schlecks are protected by their Saxo Bank teammates
World Champion, Cadel Evans, rides ahead of Olympic Champion, Samuel SanchezBefore leaving Dublin, Steve had tweeted Nico Roche to tell him we'd be at the KOH and to keep an eye out. Being the gent he is, Nico did just that and gave us a quick wave as he passed. If you ever do go over, and there's an Irish rider, do remember your tricolour. They do notice and Nico has said it really motivates him to think people have travelled to support him.
Nico Roche spots the tricolour.Once the race had passed, the roads were quickly re-opened and we were on our way to join the motorway for France. This was the bit we were concerned about. We had no idea what, if any, traffic restrictions or crowds might block our way to the pavé. All we could do was get there as fast as we could and hope for the best.
We decided to go for the second last, and longest, section of pavé on the stage route. We had the village of Wandignies-Hamage, the start point for these cobbles, selected on the sat nav and, just over an hour later, we were parked up on the edge of the village, right at the barrier where the minor road we were on intersected the race route. The anticipated delays and crowds never materialised. Just a hundred meters or so to our right was the 20km to go balloon, but we needed to head left, through the village and on to the pavé.
It hadn't occurred to me that the Irish tricolour might have an added significance in France, given recent events on a football pitch, but let's just say we heard the name Thierry Henry shouted at us many, many times as we walked the kilometre or so through the village.
Eventually we took a left hand turn and there it was, the almost mythical pavé. I will admit that, after years of watching epic battles over these roads on TV, my heart leapt at the sight in front of me. The anticipation was palpable and my day was made, regardless of what may follow.
We walked on for about another kilometre to get past the crowds gathered around the start of the section. It was surprisingly hard just to walk on the very uneven surface so I could only imagine what it would be like to ride over it. A few bikes passed as we walked, rattling and shaking in a most unnatural way! I wished I'd brought mine.
Once we'd selected our spot we set about making that small section of Hell into an Irish enclave. Flags were hoisted on bushes and sticks and we were ready for action.
We didn't have too long to wait for the race traffic to arrive. Team and official cars rattled past at bone-shaking speeds, while some of the police outriders had opted, sensibly for off-road bikes, although not all.
First rider through, riding on the sandy gutter to avoid the jarring of the cobbles, was Canadian Ryder Hesjedal of Garmin-Transitions. He'd left the his break-away companions on a previous section and was now making a bid for glory on his own.
Hesjedal was holding off a very strong chasing group, led towards us by the master of the cobbles, Fabian Cancellara, winner of both Paris-Roubaix and Tour of Flanders in the spring. Strung out behind him were the surprisingly strong Andy Schleck, Cadel Evans, Thor Hushovd and Sky team-mates Geraint Thomas and Steve Cummings.
Cancellara drives the chase after Hesjedal
The World Champion, Norwegian Champion and British Champion were all in the chase groupThe question for most people then was, where are Lance and Contador? We added Nicos name to that list. Where was he?
Without a stopwatch it's hard to judge gaps but the next group came along quite soon after, led by (I think) Garmin's Johan van Summeren. This was a big group and tucked in there was Contador and, to our relief, Roche, riding really well with some of the big boys.
Johan Van Summeren heads the "main" bunch from Jurgen Roelandts
Roche powers over the pavé behind Vinokourov, Menchov and Gerdemann"Did anyone see Lance?" was the question going around in several languages after that group passed. No one had. The main group had split! Just a bit behind came another group containing Cavendish and, near the back, Petacchi in the Green Jersey. But still no Lance!
Mark Cavendish rides in the gravel while Danilo Hondo rides the crown.
Green Jersey wearer Petacchi struggles as Sky's Boasson-Hagen loses contactAnd then Lance appeared, trailing his teammate, and chief minder, Yaroslav Popovych. Lance really looked to be struggling. I only found out much later that he had been in the Contador group but had punctured just before reaching us, getting a spare wheel from teammate Gregory Rast. He was now starting what would be a long chase to the finish, trying to limit his losses, on what he later admitted was one of his toughest days on a bike.
Lance catches up with Popovych as they chase his rivals
Lance showing the effects of a tough few days on the Tour.
It's going to be a long lonely chase for the RadioShack pairAfter Lance went through it was down to the survival merchants. Riders were strung over a huge distance in groups and riding solo, all trying hard to just get to the finish in one piece so they could start another day. Chief among the stragglers were Yellow Jersey, Sylvain Chavanel and Giro winner Ivan Basso, struggling on his first taste of the cobbles in competition, but there were lot's of other big names choking in the dust, way down on the leaders. Here are some of them, in the order they passed me:
French Champion Thomas Voeckler
Ivan Basso followed by Swiss Champion, Martin Elmiger
Tour of California winner Mick Rogers
Yellow Jersey, Sylvain Chavanel, twice a puncture victim
Multiple Tour podium finisher Andreas Kloden
Polka Dot Jersey Jerome Pineau chased by German Champion, Christian Knees
Young Rider Leader Tony Martin was involved in the crash that split the field
Jens Voigt was delayed tending to the injured Frank Schleck
Simon Gerrans, bloodied and bruised but still going
Former Estonian Champion Rin Taaramae leads Danish Champion Nicki SorensenNo sooner had the last riders gone past than it was time to find some way of hearing the stage result. I managed to get an over-several-shoulders view of a very small TV screen on a car passenger seat, while Stephen was getting a running commentary from his wife on the mobile from home. She was making a great fist of it until the doorbell rang and her shower of expletives had a small crowd in fits laughing around the speaker phone. I could just about make out Hushovd take the sprint in Arenberg but know little more than that. Ruth, in Dublin, provided the rest of the lowdown, including the great news that Roche had managed to finish in the much deplted second group, moving himself up hugely on GC.
What a stage! Exciting racing, crashes galore, drama featuring most of the favourites and some surprising gainers, none more so than Andy Schleck. How will he go now that his brother is out? Maybe it'll free him from a burden of responsibility he always seem to feel towards his (slightly) less talented sibling. And what about Armstrong? He fought a great fight to limit his losses, and was surprisingly philosophical about his misfortune afterwards. But can a 39 year old get that lost time back, against the young guns, Contador and Schleck?
Anyway, enough of the race analysis. That's what the cycling websites are for. I want to try to get across what it's like to have fulfilled two childhood dreams in one day. Le Tour AND the pavé in one day! I could hardly sleep last night as my mind raced with the enormity of it!
And after the race passed it wasn't over. We drove the pavé and then got to visit the legendary Arenberg forest. But I'll post more about that later.
To finish this post off I thought I should put up some pics that might help to show why the Tour is not just a bike race. It's an event. I mean it got me and Stephen (and the nice lady in the sat nav) on planes and automobiles across two countries, old friends re-united on a mutually-obsessed quest. It gets communities out on the side of the road, neighbours enjoying their own streets in a whole new way. It gets fans from countless nations out on the side of a farm track in a backwater of northern France. It gets companies to spend their marketing budgets on hilariously innovative ways to throw tat to kids at 80kph. It is a part of France, even when it's in Belgium. It's great! I can't wait to go back.
The new flag of Flanders!
Walking home after the Tour de France
Anyone need a wheel?
Shaky baby.Monday, 5 July 2010
TDF Stage 2 descends into farce
I've been boiling over today, after seeing the farce that was the finale of stage 2 of the TDF into Spa. Coming on top of the whinging comments about tomorrows cobbles from riders such as Jens Voigt, it really makes you wonder about todays riders. They sound more like Premiership footballers every day.
I was going to get into details but this post from IrishPeleton.com sums it up for me (http://www.irishpeloton.com/). As Cillian says, you have to feel for Hushovd. Cav was dropped plain and simple, but Thor, despite being able to keep up in all senses of the phrase, couldn't take advantage. And for what? So Cancellara could ensure the Schlecks get to the mountains in one piece?
It all put me in mind of an iconic Tour picture from my youth, of Anderson in yellow and Kelly in green battling the dust over the pave in, I think, the 1982 Tour. I don't remember any complaints from those men. But then again they knew how to ride in all weathers and on all surfaces, because they raced the whole season. They didn't expect to pick and choose their races and then have the organisers oblige them by only having stages they'd prepared for. Where were the Schlecks and Contador in April when they could have been getting some valuable experience? Maybe Lance was on to something by lining up for Flanders.
I was going to get into details but this post from IrishPeleton.com sums it up for me (http://www.irishpeloton.com/). As Cillian says, you have to feel for Hushovd. Cav was dropped plain and simple, but Thor, despite being able to keep up in all senses of the phrase, couldn't take advantage. And for what? So Cancellara could ensure the Schlecks get to the mountains in one piece?
It all put me in mind of an iconic Tour picture from my youth, of Anderson in yellow and Kelly in green battling the dust over the pave in, I think, the 1982 Tour. I don't remember any complaints from those men. But then again they knew how to ride in all weathers and on all surfaces, because they raced the whole season. They didn't expect to pick and choose their races and then have the organisers oblige them by only having stages they'd prepared for. Where were the Schlecks and Contador in April when they could have been getting some valuable experience? Maybe Lance was on to something by lining up for Flanders.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Radioshack not welcome in Spain shocker
So Bruyneel is "speechless" that his golden boys haven't been welcomed with open arms to the Vuelta. Well, when he say's speechless that doesn't include copious tweets and a very long press release on the subject.
Here's his speechless reaction in full:
“I am not only surprised, I am speechless. At first I thought it was a mistake so I called organizer Javier Guillén for some explanation. He told me that the other teams offered him better options on a sporting level. I had to ask him to repeat it as I could not believe this but I heard right: we didn’t offer a good enough team. I cannot accept or understand this decision. With Levi Leipheimer, Andreas Klöden, Chris Horner and Jani Brajkovic we had four potential Vuelta WINNERS on the roster we sent to Unipublic. Our 2010 Team goals were the Tour de France and the Tour of Spain. That’s why - together with the need to perform well in the Tour of California – we skipped the Tour of Italy this year. ”
"Up until now it has never been accepted that a Team Manager stands on a soap box to defend the rights of the teams and the riders. We always have to accept; we don’t have many rights. After what I heard today, I take it as a personal mission: from now on I will fight for the interests of the cycling teams. It will be more than just a goal. I will work for it as hard as I’ve worked for my own team. It is really urgent that action be taken now as this is the time that the organizers will listen to the opinions of the teams. I will do everything that I can to bring all big teams to one level. What happened today is only a detail.”
“In cycling there are three parties: UCI, organizers and teams/riders. Unlike in other professional sports, the teams and riders are the main actors who are never heard. I will fight for our rights and for other things that rightfully belong to us but we never get. There is an abuse of power. Some organizers take away the hunger of potential sponsors to invest in our sport. It is unjust that a new sponsor, coming into cycling with a lot of enthusiasm, is not rewarded for their financial input. For me it is hard to explain to my sponsor that 21 other teams are apparently better than us. Especially when it isn’t true. These actions are unfair to our sponsors as well as a blow to our fans. “
“It is high time for ‘professional’ cycling to become professional. The structure of our sport needs to change towards a model of other successful professional sports like soccer, tennis, Formula 1, etc. Today, this is happening to our team and sponsors, tomorrow it could be any other team. Even if some parties don’t like to see or hear this, I will do anything which is in my power to contribute to making this happen.”
What is he on about?
What model is he suggesting exactly? I always had the impression that F1 and Tennis are totally dominated by the governing bodies/organisers. Is it not an annual event that the F1 bodies (ie Ecclestone and Mosely) change the rules to restrict the cars in some way, followed by the bleating of the teams for a bit, followed by yet another boring, processional season of races where the best machine (not driver) wins. And is that not why the TV audiences are turning off in droves? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a miinute suggesting all is well in the world of cycling but if Bruyneel is going to go on a rant he could at least be a bit more specific.
As far as it being unjust to his sponsor, again you have to ask, what is he on about? RadioShack are a US focussed company, with little or no European presence. The last I heard, the Vuelta is not a major feature on US TV, nor for that matter is the Tour when Lance isn't manufacturing some controversy. So how can it possibly be a blow to the marketing plans of RadioShack to miss the Vuelta? In contrast, Garmin, Sky, Katusha and Cervelo are all sponsors with a significant European presence. If RadioShack were to get in, one of them would have been excluded so how would that not have been "unjust" to an equally valuable sponsor?
Also, although everyone is denying it, is the long term good of the sport really served by pandering to a team and a manager with such a huge black cloud hanging over them, at the expense of other teams who, at least for now, appear to represent the clean, open, honest, unambiguous future we all want?
The best bit is where he says he will fight to defend the rights of his riders. Cast your mind back to July last year when a certain manager was very publicly trampling all over the "rights" of his best rider while favouring the "rights" of his not-quite-so-good best mate and meal ticket. Now think about where the out of favour rider came from? That's right, Spain. Is that a co-incidence? Could Bruyneel be getting a taste of his own medicine from Contadors compatriots?
Here's his speechless reaction in full:
“I am not only surprised, I am speechless. At first I thought it was a mistake so I called organizer Javier Guillén for some explanation. He told me that the other teams offered him better options on a sporting level. I had to ask him to repeat it as I could not believe this but I heard right: we didn’t offer a good enough team. I cannot accept or understand this decision. With Levi Leipheimer, Andreas Klöden, Chris Horner and Jani Brajkovic we had four potential Vuelta WINNERS on the roster we sent to Unipublic. Our 2010 Team goals were the Tour de France and the Tour of Spain. That’s why - together with the need to perform well in the Tour of California – we skipped the Tour of Italy this year. ”
"Up until now it has never been accepted that a Team Manager stands on a soap box to defend the rights of the teams and the riders. We always have to accept; we don’t have many rights. After what I heard today, I take it as a personal mission: from now on I will fight for the interests of the cycling teams. It will be more than just a goal. I will work for it as hard as I’ve worked for my own team. It is really urgent that action be taken now as this is the time that the organizers will listen to the opinions of the teams. I will do everything that I can to bring all big teams to one level. What happened today is only a detail.”
“In cycling there are three parties: UCI, organizers and teams/riders. Unlike in other professional sports, the teams and riders are the main actors who are never heard. I will fight for our rights and for other things that rightfully belong to us but we never get. There is an abuse of power. Some organizers take away the hunger of potential sponsors to invest in our sport. It is unjust that a new sponsor, coming into cycling with a lot of enthusiasm, is not rewarded for their financial input. For me it is hard to explain to my sponsor that 21 other teams are apparently better than us. Especially when it isn’t true. These actions are unfair to our sponsors as well as a blow to our fans. “
“It is high time for ‘professional’ cycling to become professional. The structure of our sport needs to change towards a model of other successful professional sports like soccer, tennis, Formula 1, etc. Today, this is happening to our team and sponsors, tomorrow it could be any other team. Even if some parties don’t like to see or hear this, I will do anything which is in my power to contribute to making this happen.”
What is he on about?
What model is he suggesting exactly? I always had the impression that F1 and Tennis are totally dominated by the governing bodies/organisers. Is it not an annual event that the F1 bodies (ie Ecclestone and Mosely) change the rules to restrict the cars in some way, followed by the bleating of the teams for a bit, followed by yet another boring, processional season of races where the best machine (not driver) wins. And is that not why the TV audiences are turning off in droves? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a miinute suggesting all is well in the world of cycling but if Bruyneel is going to go on a rant he could at least be a bit more specific.
As far as it being unjust to his sponsor, again you have to ask, what is he on about? RadioShack are a US focussed company, with little or no European presence. The last I heard, the Vuelta is not a major feature on US TV, nor for that matter is the Tour when Lance isn't manufacturing some controversy. So how can it possibly be a blow to the marketing plans of RadioShack to miss the Vuelta? In contrast, Garmin, Sky, Katusha and Cervelo are all sponsors with a significant European presence. If RadioShack were to get in, one of them would have been excluded so how would that not have been "unjust" to an equally valuable sponsor?
Also, although everyone is denying it, is the long term good of the sport really served by pandering to a team and a manager with such a huge black cloud hanging over them, at the expense of other teams who, at least for now, appear to represent the clean, open, honest, unambiguous future we all want?
The best bit is where he says he will fight to defend the rights of his riders. Cast your mind back to July last year when a certain manager was very publicly trampling all over the "rights" of his best rider while favouring the "rights" of his not-quite-so-good best mate and meal ticket. Now think about where the out of favour rider came from? That's right, Spain. Is that a co-incidence? Could Bruyneel be getting a taste of his own medicine from Contadors compatriots?
Friday, 21 May 2010
Ringside video of Lance post crash in TOC
Great ringside seat video of the aftermath of Lance's crash in the Tour of California and the decision to abandon.
Kimmage and McQuaid on Newstalk re Landis
24 hours later and the Floyd Landis story has moved on somewhat with all kinds of unsubstantiated accusations flying in both directions.
Not unexpectedly Lance and Bruyneel have responded by essentially labelling Landis as crazy. Lance's statement accuses Landis of harassing him along with some bizarre comments about Landis living alone in the woods with no-one to talk to. Bruyneel accuses Landis of using the allegations to blackmail him and the organisers of the Tour Of California. Naturally neither will get into any specifics about the records of the past members of the US Postal team.
There is an interesting debate happening about the timelines in Landis's emails. Lance made comments that the timelines don't fit. The presumption in most articles I've read is that this refers to the section in the emails referring to events in 2002:
"2002: I was instructed on how to use Testosterone patches by Johan Bruyneel during the During the Dauphine Libere in June, after which I flew on a helicopter with Mr Armstrong from the finish, I believe Grenoble, to San Mauritz Switzerland at which point I was personally handed a box of 2.5 mg patches in front of his wife who witnessed the exchange. About a week later, Dr Ferrari performed an extraction of half a liter of blood to be transfused back into me during the Tour de France. Mr Armstrong was not witness to the extraction but he and I had lengthy discussions about it on our training rides during which time he also explained to me the evolution of EPO testing and how transfusions were now necessary due to the
inconvenience of the new test. He also divulged to me at that time that in the first year that the EPO test was used he had been told by Mr Ferrari, who had access to the new test, that he should not use EPO anymore but he did not believe Mr Farrari and continued to use it. He later, while winning the Tour de Swiss, the month before the Tour de France, tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement with Mr. Vrubrugen to keep the positive test hidden."
Much has been made of the fact that Lance didn't ride the Tour De Suisse in 2002, let alone win it. However, I don't think Landis actually claims that he did. What Landis says is that Lance told him about events "in the first year that the EPO test was used". The fact is that the UCI introduced urine testing for EPO in 2001, the year Lance did win in Switzerland. This, of course, doesn't mean Landis is telling the truth but it does remove one of the rebuttals Lance is using.
What is also interesting is that the UCI, via Pat McQuaid, is playing the man too. McQuaid appeared on an Irish radio show last night following an interview with Paul Kimmage. As you can imagine Kimmage was pretty no-holds-barred, but McQuaid seemed to be solely concerned with implying that Landis has an ulterior motive and so should not be heeded. He doesn't seem to think that the UCI should at least be checking out the story, preferring to leave that to others.
Now, I might be wrong here, but surely there is, at the very least, a learning opportunity for the UCI here. As was the case when Bernard Kohl started shooting his mouth off, there are lots of insights into the methods and mindsets of dopers being aired. The UCI should be making it clear that they take this seriously and want to glean every last shred of info possible in order to improve future anti-doping efforts. Rather than belittling the whistle blower, regardless of whether they think he's right or not at this stage, they should be reacting in a manner that encourages riders to come clean. Or maybe they know it all already, in which case you would have to wonder why they're not ahead of the game more.
McQuaid also, again, pointed to Lances "clean" record as a factor limiting his ability to do anything. But one of the central planks of the Landis mails, and Kohls statements too, is that he was getting away with it for years. If that is the case then the UCI should be immediately taking steps to review the records of the riders mentioned, retesting samples from previous races if necessary. They may not be able to prove anything to the point of legal certainty but, as we saw in Michelle Smiths case, a stars bubble can be burst in many ways. Or, conversely, it would give Lance the data he needs to put the accusations to bed.
The interviews with Kimmage and McQuaid can be heard here
Not unexpectedly Lance and Bruyneel have responded by essentially labelling Landis as crazy. Lance's statement accuses Landis of harassing him along with some bizarre comments about Landis living alone in the woods with no-one to talk to. Bruyneel accuses Landis of using the allegations to blackmail him and the organisers of the Tour Of California. Naturally neither will get into any specifics about the records of the past members of the US Postal team.
There is an interesting debate happening about the timelines in Landis's emails. Lance made comments that the timelines don't fit. The presumption in most articles I've read is that this refers to the section in the emails referring to events in 2002:
"2002: I was instructed on how to use Testosterone patches by Johan Bruyneel during the During the Dauphine Libere in June, after which I flew on a helicopter with Mr Armstrong from the finish, I believe Grenoble, to San Mauritz Switzerland at which point I was personally handed a box of 2.5 mg patches in front of his wife who witnessed the exchange. About a week later, Dr Ferrari performed an extraction of half a liter of blood to be transfused back into me during the Tour de France. Mr Armstrong was not witness to the extraction but he and I had lengthy discussions about it on our training rides during which time he also explained to me the evolution of EPO testing and how transfusions were now necessary due to the
inconvenience of the new test. He also divulged to me at that time that in the first year that the EPO test was used he had been told by Mr Ferrari, who had access to the new test, that he should not use EPO anymore but he did not believe Mr Farrari and continued to use it. He later, while winning the Tour de Swiss, the month before the Tour de France, tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement with Mr. Vrubrugen to keep the positive test hidden."
Much has been made of the fact that Lance didn't ride the Tour De Suisse in 2002, let alone win it. However, I don't think Landis actually claims that he did. What Landis says is that Lance told him about events "in the first year that the EPO test was used". The fact is that the UCI introduced urine testing for EPO in 2001, the year Lance did win in Switzerland. This, of course, doesn't mean Landis is telling the truth but it does remove one of the rebuttals Lance is using.
What is also interesting is that the UCI, via Pat McQuaid, is playing the man too. McQuaid appeared on an Irish radio show last night following an interview with Paul Kimmage. As you can imagine Kimmage was pretty no-holds-barred, but McQuaid seemed to be solely concerned with implying that Landis has an ulterior motive and so should not be heeded. He doesn't seem to think that the UCI should at least be checking out the story, preferring to leave that to others.
Now, I might be wrong here, but surely there is, at the very least, a learning opportunity for the UCI here. As was the case when Bernard Kohl started shooting his mouth off, there are lots of insights into the methods and mindsets of dopers being aired. The UCI should be making it clear that they take this seriously and want to glean every last shred of info possible in order to improve future anti-doping efforts. Rather than belittling the whistle blower, regardless of whether they think he's right or not at this stage, they should be reacting in a manner that encourages riders to come clean. Or maybe they know it all already, in which case you would have to wonder why they're not ahead of the game more.
McQuaid also, again, pointed to Lances "clean" record as a factor limiting his ability to do anything. But one of the central planks of the Landis mails, and Kohls statements too, is that he was getting away with it for years. If that is the case then the UCI should be immediately taking steps to review the records of the riders mentioned, retesting samples from previous races if necessary. They may not be able to prove anything to the point of legal certainty but, as we saw in Michelle Smiths case, a stars bubble can be burst in many ways. Or, conversely, it would give Lance the data he needs to put the accusations to bed.
The interviews with Kimmage and McQuaid can be heard here
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Landis opens a can of worms
In an extraordinary about face Floyd Landis has given an interview to the US press admitting to doping and claiming to have written emails to various people/bodies blowing the whistle on several high profile riders, managers and officials and their allegedly dodgy practices. He's also raised big questions about doping procedures and enforcement.
This is going to be a hell of a sh*t storm! He has tried to open so many cans of worms it's not funny. Needless to say Twitter is alive with this!
Among other things he claims:
- he did dope in 2006, but not with what he was caught for!
- US Postal, including Lance, Hincapie, Vaughters and Bruyneel (among others) were up to their necks in it including blood doping, testosterone patches and other methods
- the UCI and Armstrong colluded in covering up a positive test for money
- Phonak not only turned a blind eye but actually paid for his "treatments"
Of course Landis could be said to be a less than reliable witness with more than enough motives for bitterness and revenge but it remains to be seen what evidence he will be able to produce. This brings previously forgotten incidents back to the fore (the famous Vaughters/Andreu IM messages for example). It also focusses a much needed spotlight back on what was going on at US Postal. It can't be a co-incidence that so many of Lances lieutenants from back then have since been caught or admitted doping of one form or another.
It's early days yet and we need to see how this story develops over the next while but there must be some very uncomfortable people in Aigle, Italy and California today!
Will there be a Lance/Bruyneel backlash or will they keep quiet on it? Will Vaughters live up to his avowed Garmin philosophy and come clean on what he knows? Will Cadel get caught up in it via the Lelangue connection to BMC?
To my mind the inevitable witchhunt for offenders shouldn't obscure the need to look at the systemic issues he raises. I've already posted here about my concerns re the Vania Rossi case. Is it time the UCI/WADA were put under scrutiny too?
The story is here and here
Some of Floyds email is here
This is going to be a hell of a sh*t storm! He has tried to open so many cans of worms it's not funny. Needless to say Twitter is alive with this!
Among other things he claims:
- he did dope in 2006, but not with what he was caught for!
- US Postal, including Lance, Hincapie, Vaughters and Bruyneel (among others) were up to their necks in it including blood doping, testosterone patches and other methods
- the UCI and Armstrong colluded in covering up a positive test for money
- Phonak not only turned a blind eye but actually paid for his "treatments"
Of course Landis could be said to be a less than reliable witness with more than enough motives for bitterness and revenge but it remains to be seen what evidence he will be able to produce. This brings previously forgotten incidents back to the fore (the famous Vaughters/Andreu IM messages for example). It also focusses a much needed spotlight back on what was going on at US Postal. It can't be a co-incidence that so many of Lances lieutenants from back then have since been caught or admitted doping of one form or another.
It's early days yet and we need to see how this story develops over the next while but there must be some very uncomfortable people in Aigle, Italy and California today!
Will there be a Lance/Bruyneel backlash or will they keep quiet on it? Will Vaughters live up to his avowed Garmin philosophy and come clean on what he knows? Will Cadel get caught up in it via the Lelangue connection to BMC?
To my mind the inevitable witchhunt for offenders shouldn't obscure the need to look at the systemic issues he raises. I've already posted here about my concerns re the Vania Rossi case. Is it time the UCI/WADA were put under scrutiny too?
The story is here and here
Some of Floyds email is here
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
2009 Review of the Cycling Year
Another year, indeed another decade, has almost passed and it's time for the first, maybe annual (if I remember), definitely not at all prestigious, Muse-ette Awards
(Disclaimer: no actual awards will be presented ... it's just me thinking out loud).
In my opinion 2009 has been a good year for the bike world. It's been a year that has seen triumph and tragedy, high profile comebacks and (hopefully) good riddances, spectacular TV viewing, great racing, farcical administrative decisions and lot's of talking points. What more could you want?
So here, in no particular order, are the 2009 Muse-ette Awards:
Best Stage Race: Le Tour. Thrills, spills, politics, bitching and, for a change, no early morning arrests.
Best One Day Race: Paris-Roubaix. OK, I've always loved Roubaix but this years was particularly good. Who wouldn't have been rooting for "Charlie" Boonen to do over Pozzatto after his tactics in Flanders the previous week.
Best Performance: Cadel Evans at the Worlds. He kept his head down all day, looked like he'd missed the boat, and then defied every one of his critics by launching a devastating attack at the foot of the final climb to win almost within sight of his European home. That it came off the back of a disastrous Tour was even more impressive. Not sure about his move to BMC though! Honourable Mention: Alberto Contador for winning the Tour so emphatically despite the sore losers in his own team and Andy Schleck for his win at Liege-Bastogne-Liege.
Best Irish Rider: Philip Deignan bags us a Grand Tour stage again at long last and what a fabulous place to do it. Honourable Mention: Nicolas Roche for being in every (it seemed) break in the Tour, made even better by his being in the Irish Champions jersey.
The Bertie Ahern Play the Man not the Ball Award (coupled with the Anglo Irish Bank Self Interest over Ethics Award): Lance Armstrong, for trying to bully Contador out of a Tour title when his legs couldn't do it for him, and for never once taking a position against doping.
The Shackleton Award for Defying the Odds Through Epic Hardness: Joe Barr for not just completing, but winning, the Race Around Ireland with a broken foot. Have you seen the state he was in on that BBC documentary?
The Thierry Henry Cheat of the Year Award: Danilo Di Luca for making us want to believe his Giro exploits were real even though we should have known better. (Dis)Honourable Mention: Rebellin, Hamilton, Astarloza, Colom, Jimenez Sanchez, Bosisio, Nozal, Guerra, Ribeiro, Dekker, Biondo, Landaluze, Serrano, Astarloa, Cauchiolli, etc, etc
The Woodward and Bernstein Award for Asking Awkward Questions: Paul Kimmage for that press conference at the Tour of California.
The "As Welcome as a F**t in a Spacesuit" Award: Jointly to Vino, Basso, Ricco and Rasmussen. Need I say more. Although it was nice to see Basso reduced to attention seeking breaks at the Giro now that he's not got the pharma-boost of old to rely on.
The Martin Cullen E-Voting Machines Award for Stupid Decisions: UCI and IOC for dropping the individual pursuit from the Olympics in favour of the Omnium. Who could argue with swapping the spectacle of the worlds best endurance track athletes (Phinney, Thomas, Wiggins, Romero, etc) fighting it out, head to head, over 4 minutes or so for an event no-one knows anything about and which is won over six days without necessarily winning any of the races?
Finally, 2009 has also been a year when the cycling community sadly lost some of it's finest members including:
Paul Healion, 31, Irish Criterium Champion tragically killed in a car crash just days before the Tour of Ireland.
Frank Vandenbroucke, 34, a sad end to a sad life blighted by drugs and depression.
Johnny Helms, 85, Cycling Weekly cartoonist for over 63 years drew his final Dog Chases Bike scene.
Mark Bell, 48, British RR Champion in the 80's also sadly succumbs to depression.
Frederiek Nolf, 21, promising young Belgian rider died in his sleep during the Tour of Qatar.
Dimitri DeFauw, 28, sadly committed suicide three years after he was involved in a freak accident which took the life of Spanish World Champion Isaac Galvez during the Ghent Six.
May they all rest in peace.
Finally it's only left for me to thank you for visiting my blog and wish you all a very Happy New Year and many enjoyable miles in 2010.
(Disclaimer: no actual awards will be presented ... it's just me thinking out loud).
In my opinion 2009 has been a good year for the bike world. It's been a year that has seen triumph and tragedy, high profile comebacks and (hopefully) good riddances, spectacular TV viewing, great racing, farcical administrative decisions and lot's of talking points. What more could you want?
So here, in no particular order, are the 2009 Muse-ette Awards:
Best Stage Race: Le Tour. Thrills, spills, politics, bitching and, for a change, no early morning arrests.
Best One Day Race: Paris-Roubaix. OK, I've always loved Roubaix but this years was particularly good. Who wouldn't have been rooting for "Charlie" Boonen to do over Pozzatto after his tactics in Flanders the previous week.
Best Performance: Cadel Evans at the Worlds. He kept his head down all day, looked like he'd missed the boat, and then defied every one of his critics by launching a devastating attack at the foot of the final climb to win almost within sight of his European home. That it came off the back of a disastrous Tour was even more impressive. Not sure about his move to BMC though! Honourable Mention: Alberto Contador for winning the Tour so emphatically despite the sore losers in his own team and Andy Schleck for his win at Liege-Bastogne-Liege.
Best Irish Rider: Philip Deignan bags us a Grand Tour stage again at long last and what a fabulous place to do it. Honourable Mention: Nicolas Roche for being in every (it seemed) break in the Tour, made even better by his being in the Irish Champions jersey.
Best Young Rider: Sam Bennett. What a Rás! Honourable Mention: Edvald Boassen Hagen and Jacob Fuglsang
Best Celebration: Fabian Cancellara. Who else could afford to take time to celebrate winning the Worlds TT as if he was away in a road race?
Most Embarrassing Result of the Year: Valverde wins the Vuelta. How can he be winning a Grand Tour in one country when he's banned in another? Farcical.
The Bertie Ahern Play the Man not the Ball Award (coupled with the Anglo Irish Bank Self Interest over Ethics Award): Lance Armstrong, for trying to bully Contador out of a Tour title when his legs couldn't do it for him, and for never once taking a position against doping.
The Shackleton Award for Defying the Odds Through Epic Hardness: Joe Barr for not just completing, but winning, the Race Around Ireland with a broken foot. Have you seen the state he was in on that BBC documentary?
The Thierry Henry Cheat of the Year Award: Danilo Di Luca for making us want to believe his Giro exploits were real even though we should have known better. (Dis)Honourable Mention: Rebellin, Hamilton, Astarloza, Colom, Jimenez Sanchez, Bosisio, Nozal, Guerra, Ribeiro, Dekker, Biondo, Landaluze, Serrano, Astarloa, Cauchiolli, etc, etc
The Woodward and Bernstein Award for Asking Awkward Questions: Paul Kimmage for that press conference at the Tour of California.
The "As Welcome as a F**t in a Spacesuit" Award: Jointly to Vino, Basso, Ricco and Rasmussen. Need I say more. Although it was nice to see Basso reduced to attention seeking breaks at the Giro now that he's not got the pharma-boost of old to rely on.
The Martin Cullen E-Voting Machines Award for Stupid Decisions: UCI and IOC for dropping the individual pursuit from the Olympics in favour of the Omnium. Who could argue with swapping the spectacle of the worlds best endurance track athletes (Phinney, Thomas, Wiggins, Romero, etc) fighting it out, head to head, over 4 minutes or so for an event no-one knows anything about and which is won over six days without necessarily winning any of the races?
Finally, 2009 has also been a year when the cycling community sadly lost some of it's finest members including:
Paul Healion, 31, Irish Criterium Champion tragically killed in a car crash just days before the Tour of Ireland.
Frank Vandenbroucke, 34, a sad end to a sad life blighted by drugs and depression.
Johnny Helms, 85, Cycling Weekly cartoonist for over 63 years drew his final Dog Chases Bike scene.
Mark Bell, 48, British RR Champion in the 80's also sadly succumbs to depression.
Frederiek Nolf, 21, promising young Belgian rider died in his sleep during the Tour of Qatar.
Dimitri DeFauw, 28, sadly committed suicide three years after he was involved in a freak accident which took the life of Spanish World Champion Isaac Galvez during the Ghent Six.
May they all rest in peace.
Finally it's only left for me to thank you for visiting my blog and wish you all a very Happy New Year and many enjoyable miles in 2010.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Love for the Doper
Love for the Doper (http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=1248)
I came across this posting via the Bike Pure website. It's an interesting take on the doping issue although it's not one I'm feeling very comfortable about.
The essence of his argument is that doping in sport is addictive, progressing from amateur dabbling to professional dependence. The thesis is that dopers can't help themselves and therefore should be pitied.
I realise the author, as an alcoholic is, thankfully, better qualified than me to speak about addiction but, as a cycling fan, here are 5 reasons why this makes me uncomfortable, in no particular order:
1) Dopers are not victims! It's undoubtedly true that there has long been an organised system within cycling, leading, or driving, impressionable young riders down a road they may not have traveled unaided. However, it's rare that one of these young "victims", or even supposedly clean riders, elects to come clean once they reach the peaks where that pressure wouldn't be present. Senior riders over the years, some undoubtedly brought up on doping, have been the driving force behind the Omerta, not it's victims. Think Lance and Simeoni!
2) Giving the doper the addict tag implies that they are on an involuntary downward slide. It creates the impression that the doper is spiraling to an inevitable ruin. However, doping is a voluntary activity. Further the intention, and until recently likely outcome, is quite the opposite. Doping is designed to raise the rider upwards to a career steeped in riches and glory.
3) An alcoholic or drug addict may or may not be aware of, or accepting of, their addiction. In contrast the doper is fully aware of what they are doing. Its a deliberate act designed to enrich the doper. Furthermore the history of doping is one of conscious, deliberate striving for that more effective, less detectable drug.
4) An alcoholic or drug addict undoubtedly leaves a trail of hurt among those close to them as they indulge their habit. In contrast a doper brings glory and riches to their immediate circle, with the hurt only coming if and when they are caught, ironically at the point the doping probably stops. Funny enough I can't recall any of those sharing in the glory and riches blowing the whistle either!
5) It's common to hear of a drug addict resorting to stealing from an innocent party to raise the cash to feed their addiction. The doper steals results, money and fame from their opponents as a direct, intended consequence of their doping, not as a by product. And not many of them (even David Millar) feel the need to give back their winnings/bonuses/salaries even with the UCI contract.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "hang-em-all" reactionary and I do feel compassion towards someone who has the prospect of fame and fortune dangled in front of them if only they'll just bend over and take the jab. But when you read Bernard Kohl's latest revelations it's hard to buy the victim line.
I came across this posting via the Bike Pure website. It's an interesting take on the doping issue although it's not one I'm feeling very comfortable about.
The essence of his argument is that doping in sport is addictive, progressing from amateur dabbling to professional dependence. The thesis is that dopers can't help themselves and therefore should be pitied.
I realise the author, as an alcoholic is, thankfully, better qualified than me to speak about addiction but, as a cycling fan, here are 5 reasons why this makes me uncomfortable, in no particular order:
1) Dopers are not victims! It's undoubtedly true that there has long been an organised system within cycling, leading, or driving, impressionable young riders down a road they may not have traveled unaided. However, it's rare that one of these young "victims", or even supposedly clean riders, elects to come clean once they reach the peaks where that pressure wouldn't be present. Senior riders over the years, some undoubtedly brought up on doping, have been the driving force behind the Omerta, not it's victims. Think Lance and Simeoni!
2) Giving the doper the addict tag implies that they are on an involuntary downward slide. It creates the impression that the doper is spiraling to an inevitable ruin. However, doping is a voluntary activity. Further the intention, and until recently likely outcome, is quite the opposite. Doping is designed to raise the rider upwards to a career steeped in riches and glory.
3) An alcoholic or drug addict may or may not be aware of, or accepting of, their addiction. In contrast the doper is fully aware of what they are doing. Its a deliberate act designed to enrich the doper. Furthermore the history of doping is one of conscious, deliberate striving for that more effective, less detectable drug.
4) An alcoholic or drug addict undoubtedly leaves a trail of hurt among those close to them as they indulge their habit. In contrast a doper brings glory and riches to their immediate circle, with the hurt only coming if and when they are caught, ironically at the point the doping probably stops. Funny enough I can't recall any of those sharing in the glory and riches blowing the whistle either!
5) It's common to hear of a drug addict resorting to stealing from an innocent party to raise the cash to feed their addiction. The doper steals results, money and fame from their opponents as a direct, intended consequence of their doping, not as a by product. And not many of them (even David Millar) feel the need to give back their winnings/bonuses/salaries even with the UCI contract.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "hang-em-all" reactionary and I do feel compassion towards someone who has the prospect of fame and fortune dangled in front of them if only they'll just bend over and take the jab. But when you read Bernard Kohl's latest revelations it's hard to buy the victim line.
Saturday, 22 August 2009
A little knowledge...
I got a bit annoyed tonight listening to the radio. The guys on "Off the Ball" on Newstalk started talking about the fact that Lance is here for the Tour of Ireland this week and how low key it all is given we don't get global sporting legends (their words, not mine) competing in this country too often .
They reckoned that journalists (ie them!) might have cared a bit more if he'd actually won the Tour, but since he didn't... who cares!
They proceeded to mention Mark Cavendish and how he won "a few" stages in the Tour and how he got "put to the back" for "something or other" but didn't win Green because "the other sprinter" was more consistent. Then, inevitably, they turned to doping since that's the only subject they think is worthy of a mention when cycling is discussed. After playing an interview snippet of Cav where he spoke about "the cheats" they guys tut-tutted a bit and sympathised with him and previous interviewee Nicholas Roche for having to take part in a sport "riddled with drugs". Oh yeah, Kohl got a mention to prove that cheats don't get caught.
Now am I being defensive when I say that it's surely not too much to expect a journo to actually read up a little about a sport if he intends laying in to it? But then Ger Gilroy's always been among the more cynical second rate hacks on our airwaves, in my humble opinion.
To cap it off, they later read a clarifying text from a listener who informed them that Cav got "put to the back" for not holding his line, which they found hilarious, and that "TOM Hushovd" was the winner of the green jersey!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)