Response to Grischa Niermanns Open Letter re the ban on Race Radios

Rabobank rider, Grischa Niermann has been very vocal over the last while in protesting the CI's ban on race radios, which apparently has the bulk of the most experienced riders in the world quaking in their boots with fear for their lives.

Among his stunts was the, admittedly amusing, wearing of an aerial on his helmet which you can see below. Although you would wonder how safe that would be if someone crashed into him!

He' also issued an open letter to the UCI on the subject. Here is my open reply to that:

Grischa

While I appreciate your concern about the UCI ban on race radios, which I support by the way, I do think that there is an element of unreality about the passion with which certain riders, yourself included, are reacting to the issue.

While you have every right to state your experienced opinion I don't think it reflects well on your profession that you all can get so excited and angry on this issue but have remained relatively passive when it comes to the real problem facing the sport, doping.

Where are the open letters condemning the return of Di Luca to the peloton? When did the riders threaten to strike at a race Ricco was due to ride in? Why are the peloton and the AIGCP not organising to insist that Contador is treated in the same way as Li Fuyu?

My feeling is that professional riders have a duty to protect the sport that pays their salaries. And it needs protection from a lot bigger threats than the lack of radios.

Regards, etc

Doping Directeurs

At a time when our beloved sport seems to have some sort of self destruct mechanism inbuilt, those of us who want to see the back of the dopers, and the never ending stories about the dopers, are growing more and more frustrated by the inconsistencies we see everywhere we look.

We read every day of teams that seem to go out of their way to hire the worst of the worst (step forward Astana, Vacansoleil, Androni Giocattoli and Christina Watches). Do they really believe that no publicity is bad publicity? We see federations that profess to be doing everything they can to clean up the sport and yet they can't bring themselves to apply the rules to the biggest names/earners. And we see teams falling over themselves to proclaim their zero tolerance strategies, while at the same time their management teams are packed with ex dopers.

I hadn't though much about the last issue until I read recently that the erstwhile Saxo Bank, and now Team Leopard, DS, Kim Andersen, was handed a life ban for repeated doping in 1987. On reading up more about his case I then discovered that, having wriggled out of the life ban on a technicality, he was subsequently caught again, in 1992. On that occassion he suffered no more than being fired from his team!

I have mulled over this article for a while, trying to decide what angle to take and how I can express my absolute frustration that a man with a history like that can not only still be working in the sport but is in fact leading the biggest team on the planet and is poised to bask in all of the reflected glory that will bring.

I can't find the words so I've decided to let the facts speak for themselves. With a bit of googling I've put together a list that I think stands as an indictment of the UCI strategy of hammering (some) riders while those who pull the strings escape the scrutiny they might deserve.

So, for the sake of transparency, here is a list of current WorldTour team staff who have been tested positive or admitted doping during their riding careers.

Euskaltel - Euskadi:

Igor GONZALEZ DE GALDEANO ARANZABAL (General Manager), six-month ban for Salbutamol in the 2002 Tour de France and 2002 Midi Libre. This was a ban in France only. The UCI reckoned he had a medical cert so didn't ban him, even though reports at the time suggested he exceeded the allowed dose. Also implicated in Puerto affair.
Alvaro GONZALEZ DE GALDEANO ARANZABAL (Team Manager), served a 7 month suspension for Nandrolone in 2000.

HTC-Highroad:

Rolf ALDAG (General Manager), admitted using EPO from 1995 to 1999
Brian HOLM (Team Manager), admitted using EPO twice in 1996 at Team Telekom

Pro Team Astana:

Laurenzo LAPAGE (Ass. Team Manager), disqualified and fined for a positive test for Ephedrine at the 2002 Ghent Six. Claimed it was contained in a food supplement.

Quickstep Cycling Team:

Marco VELO (Team Manager), disqualified from the 2001 Italian National Time Trial Championships for a Lidocaine positive

Saxo Bank Sungard:

Bjarne RIIS (Team Manager), admitted using EPO, growth hormone and cortisone for five years, from 1993 to 1998, including when he "won" the 1996 Tour
Fabrizio GUIDI (Ass. Team Manager), tested positive for EPO at the 2005 HEWCyclassics but his B sample was negative so he was cleared.

Sky Procycling:

Sean YATES (Team Manager) reportedly tested positive in 1989 at the Torhout-Werchter stage race. I can't find out the substance or what his sanction was, if any.

Team Leopard-Trek:

Kim ANDERSEN (Team Manager), as above given a lifetime ban after the 1987 Tour de Limousin later reduced. Positive again in 1992.

I have found references to several others. As these are only allegations or reports of investigations underway it's not appropriate to mention them here.

Sources: The Internet Anti-Doping Database, BBC, Cycling News, Le Soir

Ricco/Rossi "family" hit the headlines again!

I don't know about you but I've been missing our favourite villain, Ricardo Ricco, recently. Apart from transfer gossip, his name's been missing from the headlines for too long. But fear not, because he's back in the news again. That didn't take too long!

Last week there was an easily missed story (here) quoting one of his new Vacansoleil team-mates saying that he was angry with our hero for not being a team player. Belgian rider Bjorn Leukemans accused Ricco of riding against him in the finale of the GP de Wallonie. According to Leukemans, Ricco rode with a chasing group to catch him on the final climb. Instead of winning the race Leukemans finished sixth behind Rabobank's Paul Martens, with Ricco coming in second. Was the ever-lovable Ricco getting revenge for Leukemans questioning before the race why the team had signed the Italian at all? He had told Sporza, "Riccò does not have a UCI point. I still wonder why the team would take a rider with no points."

Enrico Rossi

But things have taken an even more exciting turn today. According to reports from Italy, Ricco's extended "family" are back in the doping spotlight. His former partners brother, and Ricco's former Flaminia Ceramica teammate, Enrico Rossi has been arrested as part of a doping investigation. Police arrested six people, including Rossi, a nurse, a pharmacist and an amateur rider. However that appears to be the tip of the iceberg. Reports suggest they are targetting up to 35 people suspected of dealing in drugs and stealing from hospitals. Apart from the six arrested, the group includes other pro riders, trainers, doctors and gym members.

Where this gets really interesting is that the police operation is codenamed "Operation Cobra-Red". Think about that! Cobra is Ricco's nickname, while Rosso is the Italian for red. Ricco hasn't been named in the investigation so far but that codename has to be more than a co-incidence, doesn't it?

Having chivalrously left the mother of his child, Enrico's sister Vania Rossi, after she was accused of doping because he didn't want it to affect his career (really!!), Ricco would be facing a lifetime ban if he was to be convicted of any more doping offences. What would we do for stories then!

Read more here, here and here  

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

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

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.

How can Pat McQuaid stand over Zabels appointment?

I grew up in Glasnevin, a stones throw from the home of the McQuaid clan. I was in class in school with one of the family. I raced alongside a few of the others and knew pretty much all of them. So when Pat McQuaid was elected to the Presidency of cyclings world governing body, the UCI,  it was natural to have a moment of pride that one of our own could rise to such an exalted position. It was also natural to feel that, at last, one of the good guys was in a position to finally do something about the scourge of doping in our sport.


As recently as a month ago, after a turbulent first term, McQuaid appeared to reinforce what remains of those hopes in his speech accepting a second term. "There is no place for cheats in our sport", he announced to the UCI Congress, later adding "the most important thing is that they recognize the UCI is the government of the sport of cycling worldwide, and its authority as such is indisputable".


A month later the UCI, and therefore McQuaid himself, seem to have gone out of their way to to undermine those words. How? By the unbelievable appointment of Eric Zabel to the UCI Pro-Tour Council is how.


For those who don't know, Eric Zabel is a German ex-rider, renowned as the best sprinter of his day. He won six consecutive Tour De France green points jerseys, collecting 12 stages along the way, in the late nineties and early noughties. He also won four Milan-San Remos, three Paris-Tours and numerous other races in a long career.


However, his achievements have been overshadowed by is own admission, in 2007, that he used EPO in preparation for the 1996 Tour while riding for Team Telekom. He has been applauded in some circles for his "courageous" tearful admission, while still riding professionally. Since his retirement, far from skulking off in disgrace, Zabel has been lauded at the highest level. First in his capacity as coach and "inspiration" to current sprinting ace, Mark Cavendish, and now by this appointment, where he joins ex-riders Vittorio Adorni, Roger Legeay, Charlie Mottet, Stephen Roche, Dario Cioni and Cedric Vasseur, not all of whom are squeaky clean either. 


Now I'm not necessarily one to say all dopers should be shown the door in disgrace. Each case is different and it is possible to make amends for past indiscretions. However, I don't believe Zabel fits that bill.


Firstly, lets look at his confession. Far from being motivated by a desire to come clean and contribute to the future health of the sport, Zabels hand was forced by the imminent publication of a book by Telekom masseur Jef d'Hont, and by the confessions of several of his teammates, all lifting the lid on organised doping within the team. The lies had run out of time.


Second, it wasn't his only brush with doping. In 1994 Zabel tested positive for Clostebol metabolites. Of course he denied it, claiming it was in an ointment innocently used on him. He was let off with a small fine and UCI points deduction.


Thirdly, let's look at what Zabel has said and done to contribute to the fight against doping since his confession. As far as I can find, nothing! David Millar has had his critics since his return from his doping ban but at least he's made some effort to contribute to the good fight. Herr Zabel, it appears, prefers not to dwell on such nasty matters.


In a month when McQuaid came very close to having to present the rainbow jersey to one of the embarrassment (thats the collective noun!) of dopers currently riding in the peleton (Basso, Vino, Valverde come to mind) it beggars belief that the appointment of Zabel to any official post sends anything but the wrong message. I guess there is a place for the cheats in our sport after all. Can the UCIs authority remain "indisputable" if they keep up like this?