For Some Reason, I believe Landis
Bicycle Magazine's much anticipated October 2006 edition is full of many things: maintenance tips, cycling advice, and articles on the latest technologies in the world of cycling; however, the one thing most avid cyclists and fans of the sport will be focused on this October is a Floyd Landis interview sure to address not one, but two positive doping tests, which have him on the verge of completely losing his 2006 Tour de France title.
Shortly after it was discovered a rider in the tour tested positive for steroids, the Union Cycliste Internationale's (UCI) president Pat McQuaid said it was a "worse case scenario," implying the perpetrator was Landis, the winner of the tour. Landis immediately appeared on several talk shows to offer reasons for the positive test result and to reassure fans that he has "never cheated" during his long and extensive career as a pro cyclist. And for some reason, I believe him.
I'm not unfamiliar to the eggregious behaviors of the French, especially when it comes to their own beloved Tour. I've long heard stories of the jealous French media writing bogus articles of American cyclists testing positive for steroids, specifically meant to unseat the best of American cyclists. Even Lance Armstrong can attest to this, having experienced some of the worst conditions of bad sportsmanship (being spat on at races for one) ever in the history of the tour. The bottom line? The French hate American cyclists, mostly because for the last eight years in a row an American has won the tour.
All things considered, when the first test result was positive, the UCI broke their own rules by making the news public and not contacting Landis and the Phonak team first, which implies they wanted to gain the upperhand with media in terms of public opinion. Not contacting Landis first and leaking the info to the French media forced Landis to defend himself, sometimes awkwardly so. On the other hand, in favor of Landis, the move by the UCI to break their own rules has caused a whirl wind of suspicion about the organization's motives. Together with Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the UCI has committed grave errors in dealing with this matter, even with a second positive test of a back-up sample.
In addition, Pound has long made public remarks concerning 7 time Tour champion Armstrong and has made no secrets about his public stance against the cyclist. For a man who should be as close to objective as possible, Pound is going about it the wrong way. In fact, in 2004, French scientists used frozen urine samples from the 2004 Tour de France in their studies to find a new way of detecting EPO, an oxygen-boosting agent. Some of the samples tested positive. As a result, Pound demanded the coded numbers for the cyclists that provided the positive samples. All this despite WADA's rules and guidelines protecting the identity of specimen-providers. Which comes to my next point in support of Landis. Why weren't his test samples protected under these same guidelines? In short, becuase someone within the UCI or WADA cheated, not Landis.
In an AP article appearing in the August 12 online edition of Sports Illustrated (SI.com), Armstrong came out in support of Landis, saying "I am a fan and supporter of Floyd Landis. I believe in him." Within the same article, Lance offered Floyd advice saying, "I would have encouraged him to just lay low."
Laying low is exactly what Landis needs to do. The UCI and WADA have already made enough mistakes surely to land them in the hotseat when this goes to court. No court in its right mind would rule in favor of two orginizations which have broken their own rules. However, beyond this issue, there is still the fact Landis tested negative 5 times before and 3 times after the positive tests. It is impossible for someone to take steroids a night or even two nights before a race and expect the drugs to work. Steroids do not work that way. Therefore, the suspicion of spiking urine samples lands in the laps of the UCI and WADA.
In the end, I am openly optimistic that Landis' name will be cleared, and America will be able to celebrate with yet another Tour Champion. Until then, boycott French Fries!
Shortly after it was discovered a rider in the tour tested positive for steroids, the Union Cycliste Internationale's (UCI) president Pat McQuaid said it was a "worse case scenario," implying the perpetrator was Landis, the winner of the tour. Landis immediately appeared on several talk shows to offer reasons for the positive test result and to reassure fans that he has "never cheated" during his long and extensive career as a pro cyclist. And for some reason, I believe him.
I'm not unfamiliar to the eggregious behaviors of the French, especially when it comes to their own beloved Tour. I've long heard stories of the jealous French media writing bogus articles of American cyclists testing positive for steroids, specifically meant to unseat the best of American cyclists. Even Lance Armstrong can attest to this, having experienced some of the worst conditions of bad sportsmanship (being spat on at races for one) ever in the history of the tour. The bottom line? The French hate American cyclists, mostly because for the last eight years in a row an American has won the tour.
All things considered, when the first test result was positive, the UCI broke their own rules by making the news public and not contacting Landis and the Phonak team first, which implies they wanted to gain the upperhand with media in terms of public opinion. Not contacting Landis first and leaking the info to the French media forced Landis to defend himself, sometimes awkwardly so. On the other hand, in favor of Landis, the move by the UCI to break their own rules has caused a whirl wind of suspicion about the organization's motives. Together with Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the UCI has committed grave errors in dealing with this matter, even with a second positive test of a back-up sample.
In addition, Pound has long made public remarks concerning 7 time Tour champion Armstrong and has made no secrets about his public stance against the cyclist. For a man who should be as close to objective as possible, Pound is going about it the wrong way. In fact, in 2004, French scientists used frozen urine samples from the 2004 Tour de France in their studies to find a new way of detecting EPO, an oxygen-boosting agent. Some of the samples tested positive. As a result, Pound demanded the coded numbers for the cyclists that provided the positive samples. All this despite WADA's rules and guidelines protecting the identity of specimen-providers. Which comes to my next point in support of Landis. Why weren't his test samples protected under these same guidelines? In short, becuase someone within the UCI or WADA cheated, not Landis.
In an AP article appearing in the August 12 online edition of Sports Illustrated (SI.com), Armstrong came out in support of Landis, saying "I am a fan and supporter of Floyd Landis. I believe in him." Within the same article, Lance offered Floyd advice saying, "I would have encouraged him to just lay low."
Laying low is exactly what Landis needs to do. The UCI and WADA have already made enough mistakes surely to land them in the hotseat when this goes to court. No court in its right mind would rule in favor of two orginizations which have broken their own rules. However, beyond this issue, there is still the fact Landis tested negative 5 times before and 3 times after the positive tests. It is impossible for someone to take steroids a night or even two nights before a race and expect the drugs to work. Steroids do not work that way. Therefore, the suspicion of spiking urine samples lands in the laps of the UCI and WADA.
In the end, I am openly optimistic that Landis' name will be cleared, and America will be able to celebrate with yet another Tour Champion. Until then, boycott French Fries!
posted by Caleab at 12:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home