Alan English interviews Paul Kimmage and David Walsh

Earlier this year I had an online conversation with an editor of a popular cycling news website. The exchange involved the idea that journalist David Walsh should have his integrity questioned for not tackling the doping issue earlier in his career. The editor said the following: “David Walsh has done some fantastic journalism down the years, especially on Lance Armstrong. But [he] started covering cycling in 1979-1980. Why did he not pursue the drugs issue pre-Armstrong?” He continued, “the guy was part of the problem for 20 years. His integrity needs to be questioned. When it suited him to look away, he looked away. I know he has done great work, that’s not in dispute. But he pretty much ignored the drug issue for two decades. That needs to be said. It’s not about heroes and villains, it’s not black and white like that. And massive periods of Walsh’s career don’t stand up to scrutiny on the drugs issue”. And he concluded “we need to examine his full contribution, not just the years when he decided to man-up. Drugs in cycling have been very public since Tom Simpson died after using them in 1967. The Festina affair in 1998 came after years of massive drug taking in the peloton. Your refusal to even let someone else question Walsh is very curious. I think he cosied up to Kelly and Roche for years and squeezed the maximum out of them for his own career and decided not to rock the boat to keep everyone sweet. Then when they were gone and he didn’t really need access to riders any more because he was writing about other sports too, only then did he decide to tackle the story he’s been sitting on for 20 years” As the paragraph above suggests, I was in complete disagreement with him. The editor in question suggested I write an article underlining my argument, which is what follows. Walsh’s admission that he was complicit in his early years does not excuse him for it, but in my opinion, it was his actions in the proceeding years that rendered his prior neglect to be rather insignificant…

Armstrong being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey

There aren’t many people who could have felt as vindicated as David Walsh did when the Reasoned Decision containing details of the doping practices of Lance Armstrong and his US Postal team was released last December. Finally, the truth had caught up with Armstrong and he eventually admitted to Oprah Winfrey in a televised interview that he had cheated to win all seven of his Tours de France and had been lying about it ever since. Having watched an unbelievable performance from Armstrong, climbing to victory in Sestriere on Stage Nine of the 1999 Tour, Walsh had spent many of the proceeding moments of his life pursuing this story when most others were happy to let it lie. He wrote two books, ‘L.A. Confidential’ and ‘From Lance to Landis’, which contained many of the details which have since been confirmed to be true by the Reasoned Decision. He has now written a new book called ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ which recounts his dogged pursuit of cycling’s most prominent cheat. But Walsh has been writing about cycling since the late 1970s. Why did he not pursue the drugs issue in the years between then and the Armstrong era? Did it suit him to ignore the tough questions and to use the success of Stephen Roche and Sean Kelly so that he could further his own career as a journalist? Was he actually part of the problem for 20 years? Of course, Walsh was not always a doping pariah. In a public appearance in February at The Pavilion in Dun Laoghaire at an event called ‘Whistleblowers’ where he sat with Paul Kimmage and was answering questions from Alan English, Walsh discussed his attitudes in his early years writing about cycling in the 1980s.

“I was born in Slieverue in County Kilkenny just 18 miles from Kelly’s home town of Carrick On Suir. I was a huge Sean Kelly fan at that time.”

At The Pavilion, the topic was raised of the 1984 edition of Paris-Brussels where Kelly tested positive for the banned substance Stimul and was handed a one month suspended sentence and a fine of one thousand Swiss Francs. Walsh wrote a book about Sean Kelly in 1986 and English asked Walsh to comment on the accusations that he glazed over the doping issue in that book.

“I didn’t glaze over it” said Walsh with a self-deprecating chuckle, “I completely ignored it. I didn’t want to contribute to the story that Kelly was doping.

“At that time, I still found a way of thinking to myself that if I interview guys and I ask about doping, I will not question their answers. I didn’t want to go there.”

When writing the book, simply titled Kelly, Walsh sought the opinions of Roche and Robert Millar about Kelly’s positive test. Millar suggested that Stimul, as a drug of choice for cyclists, would have been absurd as it was ‘ten years out of date’. Roche said “How can they do this to Sean? He has been easily the best rider in the world this season and they accuse him of taking something in a race like Paris-Brussels. I know Sean well enough to know that it is nonsense”. The Irish Cycling Federation also seemed to think it was nonsense as the secretary at the time Karl McCarthy travelled over to Belgium from Cork to attempt to help in absolving Kelly of any wrong doing. Procedural irregularities were blamed in order to get Kelly off the hook. The UCI bought the excuse but they needed the Belgian cycling federation to agree in order to reverse the punishment. The Belgians refused and the fine and sentence were upheld. Walsh defended Kelly in his book. He suggested that because Stimul is a drug which always shows up in tests, surely Kelly would not have taken this drug for a relatively minor race like Paris-Brussels. At the time the top three finishers in a race were guaranteed to face the drug testers, Kelly finished third in that 1984 edition of Paris-Brussels, so Walsh also suggested that if Kelly had actually taken the drug that he would surely have made certain he did not finish in the top three. This twisted logic came at a naive time in Walsh’s career where he admits now that he was willing to ignore evidence which was right in front of him. He writes in ‘Seven Deadly Sins’:

“I tried to make the case that it was hard to believe Kelly had used a substance so easily detectable. I chose to see the ridiculous leniency of the authorities as proof that, at worst, it was a minor infraction. It wasn’t how a proper journalist would have reacted.”

At this point in the 1980s, Walsh had formed a friendship with Kimmage who was busy attempting to forge a professional career of his own. When Kimmage’s own book, ‘A Rough Ride’ was released in 1990 containing stories of doping in the professional peloton, much of it was not news to Walsh. But still, as Walsh admitted in The Pavilion back in February, he was willing to turn a blind eye.

“In the early 1990s, the allure of cycling was very much alive for me. I didn’t want to let go of the Tour de France as a dream. I still had a dream that I would write a Canterbury Tales type book about the Tour” [which he did – ‘Inside the Tour de France’].

Even though Walsh’s interest in the doping had already been piqued in 1988 when Pedro Delgado tested positive on his way to winning the Tour de France, it wasn’t until an incident in 1996, which took place outside the sport of cycling, which would see Walsh’s journalistic radar fully spin toward the direction of the cheats. Michelle Smith had just won four Olympic medals (three gold) for Ireland, swimming at the Atlanta games and stories began to emerge that she had doped in order to do so. Walsh was pursuing the story for the Sunday Tribune while Kimmage was also on the trail for the Sunday Independent. Walsh is careful to acknowledge the role of the sports editor when pursuing controversial stories. He remains grateful to his editors at the Sunday Tribune and Sunday Times who allowed him to pursue these topics when others may not have had the courage. He provides RTE as an example of a media outlet at the time that was unwilling to pursue the Michelle Smith story. An RTE sports reporter had spoken to Walsh about Smith and had decided that she also wanted to report the doping details. However when she approached her RTE sports editor, she was asked ‘do we really want to interfere with the national mood’?

The Festina affair brought doping into the limelight when the Tour started in Dublin in 1998

It takes a certain kind of editor and a certain kind of journalist to decide ‘yes, let’s do it’. Walsh had, eventually, become that kind of journalist.

Not long afterward, the Festina affair erupted at the Tour de France and what had long been left unspoken in cycling was finally emerging. Instead of being buried in back pages and footnotes, doping was suddenly front page news. This gave even more credence to journalists who were willing to write about the difficult stories. What had previously been a taboo subject was now very much on the agenda. Finally, the 1999 Tour de France arrived and Walsh, hardened by the cynicism which had by now escaped from within and materialised, was ready to disbelieve and question what Armstrong was doing on those Alpine inclines. Walsh said in a recent interview with cyclingnews.com

“Maybe I was lucky that Armstrong came along in the right time in my journalistic life. If Armstrong had been there in 1984 would I have asked questions? Probably not.”

There are countless characters in the Armstrong soap opera that require their integrity be questioned. David Walsh is not one of them. To cast aspersions now on Walsh’s probity for not tackling doping in the 1980s is applying the standards of today to an era when the landscape of sports journalism was completely different. He admits that it took him time to see the light on doping, that he was a fan with a typewriter and that he was young and naive.

None of us are naive now, thanks to David Walsh.

A few days ago, Irish journalist Paul Kimmage congratulated Daniel Benson of Cyclingnews for being the only journalist to ask Sky rider Mat Hayman about his relationship with notorious former Sky doctor Geert Leinders. While it’s admirable that a single journalist asked a single rider about a single doctor, how many more doctors should we be asking about, and how many more questions should we be asking?

What follows is a run-down of just some of the more notorious doctors currently earning a living in the sport of cycling.

from Daniele Tarsi’s Twitter feed

Daniele Tarsi – Vini Fantini

A colourful character who has been around for a fair few years. He’s been team doctor at, amongst others, ZG, Refin, Casino, Saeco, Lampre, Phonak, Acqua Sapone, and Farnese Vini.

Back in 1998 Tarsi was involved in the Bologna doping scandal and stood trial along with Ferrari but was eventually acquitted in 2004. In 1998 while doctor at Casino, Rodolfo Massi took the polka dot jersey in the Tour before being arrested the next day for use and distribution of drugs. Other riders Tarsi “coached” included Hamilton, Camenzind, Bo Hamburger, Di Luca, and Piepoli. He was also the doctor in charge when Patrik Sinkewitz was busted in 2011 for HGH use while at Farnese Vini. Interestingly, Tarsi is secretary of the Italian Association of Cycling Doctors.

Andrea Andreazzoli – Astana

Former doctor at Lampre, now at Astana. Andrea was investigated as part of the Mantova investigation, but was cleared in January of 2012 and adjudged to have committed no crime. In fact, he was described as “a respected professional of the first order who had seen his name sullied by a bad history of doping in cycling.”

Marco Pallini with Guido Bontempi

Marco Pallini – Team Columbia (was Astana in 2012)

Another colourful character. Been around a while, doctor at Jolly Componibili, Mercatone-Saeco, then Lampre, Tinkoff, and Astana. Some of his athletes include Cipollini, Salvoldelli, Gotti, Cunego, Astarloza, and Contador. Has followed Marinelli and Bontempi around for a few years. Being investigated currently as part of the Mantova enquiry.

Simone Uliari – Astana

The respected Uliari has had articles published in conjunction with none other than the equally respected Francesco Conconi. Uliari has been overshadowed somewhat by other Conconi disciples such as Ferrari and Cecchini.

Max Testa – BMC

Testa (right) with Eric Heiden in their testing lab

Early in his career, Testa worked as a team physician for several European teams, including 7-11, Motorola, and Mapei. Stephen Swart recalls an occasion when the team gathered in Testa’s room, where he had a centrifuge to check that their hematocrit was as close to 50 as they could get prior to the 1995 Tour de France. Testa even had his own lab on Lake Como where Armstrong, Andreu, Livingston, and Hincapie all lived and trained. Testa told David Walsh for LA Confidentiel “My job was to discourage them from taking things but at the same time leave the door open if they had a problem.” Has worked with a diverse range of cyclists, including Lance Armstrong, Levi Leipheimer, Andy Hampsten, and Davis Phinney. Testa and Dr. Eric Heiden, the former Olympic speed skater and cyclist, are long-time friends and medical colleagues. Heiden persuaded Testa to come to the United States, and together they developed the UC Davis Performance Center in Sacramento, Calif. Heiden and Testa moved their respective practices to Murray, Utah, in 2006 to work with The Orthopedic Specialty Hospital (TOSH) and with various Olympic teams, including speed skaters and cyclists. Testa runs his Max Testa Training Centre there in addition to his work with BMC.

Giovanni Ruffini – BMC

Giovanni was previously at Mapei where he worked with Max Testa, and in 2010 he moved to Footon Servetto were he worked alongside the infamous Ibarguren Taus.

Dario Spinelli – BMC

Worked at Mapei with Ruffini and Testa.

Raquel Ortolano – Euskaltel

The first female on the list. She was the team doctor at Liberty Seguros at the time of the Puerto raids. Somehow she got herself a job at Astana until Vinokourov was caught blood doping, and eventually left the team when Johan Bruyneel arrived and cleaned up the team/brought in his own doctors (depending on which one you believe)

Sergio Quilez – Euskaltel

Also on the medical team at Liberty Seguros with Ortolano at the time of the Puerto raids. Both he and Raquel are called as witnesses in the 2013 trial.

Manuel Rodriguez Alonso – Orica GreenEDGE

Manuel Rodriguez has been around a bit: doctor for the Spanish Olympic committee from 1996 to 2004, and Team Doctor at ONCE, Mapei (with Testa and Ruffini), and Quick Step. He even did a three-year spell at Real Madrid as their professor of nutrition counseling and sports performance. Former pro Patrick Sinkewitz explicitly named Rodriguez as administering doping products at QuickStep.

Massimo Besnati – Katusha

Katusha team have helpfully removed the names of all of their doctors from their website, so maybe they all left at the end of 2012, but up until that point, Besnati was most certainly their lead doctor. Formerly with Mapei-QuickStep, Alessio-Bianchi, and Fuji-Servetto before moving on to work at Footon with Ibarguren and Ruffini. The Italian is a fierce defender of the notorious Luigi Cecchini, and was investigated in 2001 and prosecuted for possession of steroids while Mapei team doctor.

Thomas Klimaschka – Katusha

Formerly at Leopard Trek, he is most well known for being the doctor at Phonak from 2004 to 2006 before moving on to Predictor Lotto. Names such as Botero, Hamilton, and Landis have all tested positive under his supervision. After the publication of The Secret Race, Tyler Hamilton stated in a German news interview that he was transfused during the 2004 Tour de France by Phonak team doctor Klimaschka when Fuentes couldn’t get to him because the hotel was surrounded by press.

Andrei Mikhailov – Katusha

Was the doctor at the centre of the TVM scandal in 1998. Was found guilty of supplying EPO and sentenced to one year probation and fined 60,000 Francs (about $8000). Previously at Collstrop, Lotto, and Unibet.

Carlo Guardascione – Lampre

Been at the team since around 2005 and before that was at Saeco. Is currently being investigated in the Mantova Enquiry.

The happy Cannondale trio of Angelluci, Corsetti, and Magni (photo from the Liquigas Cannondale team page)

Emilio Magni – Liquigas Cannondale

Emilio started out as Team Doctor at Mercatone Uno, where he was hired specifically to look after team leader Marco Pantani. In 2001 he moved to Fassa Bortolo where, in 2001, he was the subject of an investigation into doping practices. He was alleged to be responsible for doping the likes the of Bartoli, Casa Grande and Rumsas. Currently providing medical advice for young talent Peter Sagan.

Roberto Corsetti – Liquigas Cannondale

Believed to be one of the redacted names in the USADA documents. Corsetti represented Franco Pellizotti in his case against the Italian National Anti Doping Agency, which saw Pellizotti cleared.

Jesus Hoyos – Movistar

Formerly at Banesto, Hoyos was one of three doctors, along with Celaya and Fuentes, who went on the offensive in November 2000, attempting to refuting then-UCI President Hein Verbruggen’s claim that “organised doping may exist in the sport.” Oversaw Alejandro Valverde’s training in preparation for his return to cycling as a Movistar rider following a two-year doping suspension.

Jose Ibarguren Taus – Quickstep

Ibarguren really needs no introduction. Formerly the doctor at Lampre, Euskaltel, Saunier Duval, and Footon Servetto. You can read more about him here.

Boonen sees the doctor during the Tour of Qatar 2011

Yvan Van Mol – QuickStep

Formerly the doctor at Mapei, he has now been with Lefevere in excess of ten years. Accused of administering doping products by numerous former riders. In 2007 he admitted being aware of doping at Mapei but denied actively participating in it. Also in 2007, an anonymous QuickStep rider – in a leaked email that forced Johan Museeuw to admit to his own doping – said, “At QuickStep there are three levels. The bottom level, who receive nothing, Lefevere barely knows their names. The second level, the key domestiques, they receive a little. And then you have the top guys, they receive EPO, HGH, Cortisone, whatever they need. You pay Van Mol a set amount each year, and he makes sure you have the supplies and tells you the quantities.”

Pieter Lagrou – Vacansoleil

Part of the 2009 Astana team that was investigated after transfusion products were found dumped in the trash.

Geert Leinders

Geert Leinders (Getty images)

Long and checkered past. Makes a cameo appearance in Joe Parkin’s 2008 book, A Dog in a Hat, as the doctor who doped riders as witnessed by the author during his career racing professionally in the European classics and kermesses. Most recently affiliated with Team Sky, the ex-Rabobank doctor has been in the press a lot of late. Accused by many former Rabobank riders of doping them during his time with the team. Michael Rasmussen named Leinders as being at the heart of the Rabobank doping culture. Leinders was questioned in January for three hours by Belgian cycling authorities as part of their ongoing criminal investigation of him. He joined Sky late in 2010 and left the team in 2012.

Team Sky have undoubtedly made a rod for their own back with their “clean team” policy by then hiring a doctor who we now know was behind much of Rabobank’s doping program during the last decade. But it demands that we all – journalists and fans alike – ask the question, “Why aren’t we asking a lot more questions of a lot more teams about a lot more people?”

Editor’s note: we acknowledge the work of http://www.dopingzaak.nl/ and http://www.dopeology.org/ in creating extensive databases where you can further research this topic.

for the deeper understandin check WADA operating guidelines

and the free text review

then consider this figure

with actual ABP software output:

so

at the basic level

the blood values

are inputted into the software

and 2 things happen

1. the software uses the info

to adapt the thresholds

(the 99.9 confidence limmit)

in an effort to tighten the thresholds

based on the athletes physiology

2. the software the plots the new blood data

and flags values that fall outside the thresholds

the intent is that the software screens for abnormal profiles and flags them so that the profile can go on to expert review.

…

the calculation of thresholds

is called an adaptive model

because while it starts with population norms

(see how the high and low red threshold lines start very wide)

as additional data becomes available

the model automatically adapts

(note how the gap between the high and low narrows)

the method originally proposed

was based on Bayesian inferences

which would open the possibility

to add multiple factors that further improve

the predicted confidence limmits

for example

the population based threshold

ranges from 12 to 17

but

once a rider has a hgb measured

at

13

it becomes much less likely

that their natural value

would ever reach 17

therefore

the upper limmit can be lowered

(at some point it the bayesian approach was not fully implemented or watered down somehow but the details are not entirely clear from the operating guidelines)

ironically as can be seen in the outputs above

slow changes

such as might be seen with long term micro dosing

has the effect of shifting the riders thresholds

to adapt to their doped physiology

while tapering the dope

would have the opposite effect

ie

dope fast or come off fast

get popped

otherwise it’s steady as she goes
…

now

with regards to armstrongs data

this author don’t have the software

and as such

can’t exactly run armstrongs data through it

and

inserting this discussion

into

that post

would have lost the attention

of anybody with a life

so

compromises were made

in simplifying the adaptive thresholds

down to a best fit aproach of static values

so that the

concept

(that the software flags extreme high and low values

not patterns of elevated or suppressed values)

could be illustrated

to

a much broader audience

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.

never made it to expert review:

Armstrong’s blood profile was never submitted to bio-passport experts after May 2009

the question becomes was it incompetence or something far worse?

while its believable that the biopassport software never flagged armstrong:

Why the biopassport software didn’t flag armstrong

the software was about the only thing that didn’t flag armstrong

the suspicious values were first raised in danish media

and picked up stateside by nyvelocity:

Armstrong Tour blood values suspicious

the no-longer-working-must-read link would have taken you to a blog with these figures:

at the same time discussion picked up quickly on cycling forumns:

Lance Armstrong’s blood values from the Tour de France looks suspicious and indicate doping

and also by mainstream media:

Damsgaard responds to speculation about Lance Armstrong’s Tour blood samples

and

Analysis – Armstrong’s Tour blood levels debated

from the cycling news article it is clear that UCI was aware of the suspicious values.

The UCI took the same approach when contacted by Cyclingnews, the governing body stating that it will not speak about athletes unless it wrongdoing has been proven.

Lance Armstrong is part of our Biological Passport,” UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said. “As for all profiles generated within this programme which are submitted on regular basis for reviewing to the independent experts, the UCI doesn’t and won’t make any comment.”

 

And even armstrong defender Damsgaard is in agreement that

“I definitely think it should go all the way to the expert panel and they should reach a consensus,” he said. “We need to establish it beyond any reasonable doubt if something was wrong.

 

At some point from within the biopassport committe itself Ashenden raised concerns:

“It was obvious to an expert eye that his published values during the 2009 Tour were not typical, but until and unless the file was sent to the experts it was completely outside our control,” he told VeloNation. “All that I could do was raise my concern at what I had seen published as Armstrong’s values at one of our passport meetings.

They listened, but I never heard anything more about it. Whether the UCI made a decision to proceed or not proceed is something only they could answer. To this day, I don’t know whether Armstrong’s passport file was ever sent to any of us experts.”

Read more:

Ashenden: I don’t know whether Armstrong’s passport file was ever sent to any of us experts

similarly Armstrong was identified on the UCI suspicion index as suspicious:

• 4: Lance Armstrong, Janez Brajkovic, Bernhard Eisel, Cadel Evans, Pierrick Fédrigo, Juan Manuel Garate, Andriy Grivko, Jesus Hernandez, Ignatas Konovalovas, Sebastian Lang, Levi Leipheimer, David Millar, Daniel Moreno, Serge Pauwels, Manuel Quinziato, Luke Roberts, Samuel Sanchez, Christian Vande Velde, Nicolas Vogondy

yet the profile never goes to expert review

in fact

if armstrong had never published his values

they would never have made it in front of expert eyes.

Which makes UCI’s statements regarding publication

I’ve probably modified my views on that – if riders want to do it, then they put themselves at the mercy of anyone who wants to interpret whatever they interpret from that. You can look at the profile, but unless you’re a Michael Ashenden, who’s building it, you can really put whatever protection you like on it.

Because I think it undermines what we’ve engaged the experts to do, and what they spend hours of their own time analysing and agonising over. It really undermines their expertise, particularly when you have the media picking up on some scientist from the University of Lyons or something that says ‘I think this’ because it’s controversial.

So I would still caution riders doing that unless everybody does it and it’s a level field. People can sit back and think they can interpret these things, but it’s very technical to do it. I know, just from dealing with the nine scientific experts we had, how specialised this concept of interpreting a profile is, and to be honest, to get the full picture you actually need different types of experts.”

a bit ironic.

ashenden sums up the situation well:

 

it is simply untenable to believe that the UCI did not examine the passport profile of the podium finishers from the 2009 Tour de France.

 

but as mcquaid and the UCI are far from “biologically illiterate”

“In the past we’ve seen situations where the level has gone down then back up again, which can be evidence of blood transfusions. But the tests from the Giro look normal and that’s very encouraging.”

 

the only remaining conclusion

is that armstrongs passport data

was knowingly withheld from expert review.

* * * * *

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.

 * * * * *

please note educational license was taken in over simplifying the limmits

so the expert experts kin jist simmer down uh bit

Armstrongs hgb plotted with biopassport limmits from 2 real live dopers

notice armstrongs values never cross the limmit from doper 1

armstrongs retic plotted with the limmits from 2 real live dopers

notice Armstrongs values don cross either dopers limmits

…

a software program that flags based on limmits

is

never

gunna

see

patterns

…

solution

hire sum fuggin interns to screen that shit

or

get sum med students

there very trainable

n

exempt from labor laws

hell

outsource it

to

some night hawk “readers” oversees

what ?

what’s good enough for

real world medicine

ain’t good enough

to catch a doper ?

c’mon thefuggonnow

* * * * *

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.

As Spain’s Operacion Puerto trial neared the end of its second week, the Australian Crime Commission has released a report that exposes what it calls widespread doping in many Australian sports, along with links to organized crime involved in the supply of doping products and match fixing. This report follows up the USADA Armstrong case and further exposes the lie peddled in the Anglo-American world that doping in sport is something that only happens somewhere else, for example in European countries like Spain, or in sports like cycling.

Despite this, in the wake of the Crime Commission report Aurora Andruska  – who is the chief of Australia’s anti-doping agency (ASADA) –  continued to tell the media that Australian athletes are more morally upstanding and less likely to dope than those of other countries. This claim echoes the one made by the Anglophone cycling media and the UCI for many years: that Anglo-American athletes were much cleaner and fairer than their counterparts in countries such as Spain. In a post-Armstrong sporting world and following the Crime Commission report, Andruska’s repetition of this rhetoric appears to be a little out of sync with reality.

On Twitter, the Australian businessman behind the Change Cycling Now group, Jaimie Fuller, has applauded the recent efforts by the Australian Government as another example of how Anglos do it so much better than the Spanish. This is despite the fact that Spain is still the only country to tackle the doping issue at its source. By focusing upon the trafficking and supply of doping products, Guardia Civil Operacions such as Mamut and Puerto have exposed the importation of doping products from the Gropep laboratory which was established with Australian Government money. They have also tackled the problem as a health and systemic issue rather than of individual moral failings by sports people. Rather than applauding this approach, critics such as Fuller have sought to condemn what they call the ongoing coverups by the Spanish Government and Courts in relation to Puerto. However, people who are quick to condemn Spain were very silent and did not scream “cover up” when the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, refused to publicly release the full detail of the Crime Commission report.

The problem for the Australia Government now is that it appears that the public version of the Crime Commission report is just the tip of the iceberg. The Government and ASADA are in damage control and the countriy’s top football leagues (Australian football’s AFL and Rugby League’s NRL) are in crisis. Given one team, Essendon, faces the possibility of having most of its team banned, the head of the AFL, Andrew Demetriou, had to go so far as to calm public concern by reassuring them that the football season would still commence as planned.

To make matters worse, Australia’s national broadcasting network, the ABC, has suggested that there exists, buried deep in a vault, an investigation that exposes institutionalised doping practices in a Government-funded Olympic Sport. In preparing a report for the Commonwealth, Government investigators interviewed Australian Olympic athletes. One interview documents a ‘don’t ask questions’ approach which sounds eerily similar to the stories of the old East Germany, and includes claims by athletes that in the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) environment they are treated as guinea pigs and told by Institute staff to take performance enhancing drugs which in some cases have led to adverse health effects. Claims such as this are similar to those recently made by the former track cyclist Martin Vinnicombe concerning his time in the AIS in the 1980s and 1990s.

As a result of the cover up of the report, its full details are still unknown, but, one thing we now know for certain is that when it comes to doping practices, for too long the Anglo-American world has wrongly pointed the finger elsewhere.

* * * * *

Martin Hardie teaches law at Deakin University. He has worked as a cycling journalist in Spain and contributes on an occasional basis to El Pais newspaper. He has also co-authored the report “I Wish I Was Twenty One Now – Beyond Doping in the Australian Peloton” which is available in print and on Amazon kindle. He organised the New Pathways for Pro Cycling Conference in Geelong held in September of 2012. He is included in the WADA Social Science Research Directory and was been invited by USADA to speak at their symposium on Deterring Athletes from Using Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Atlanta, Georgia, USA in October 2012.

Ben Berry is a business analyst for OptumHealth and a triathlete with a passion for all things cycling. Once a fan and supporter of Lance Armstrong and LiveSTRONG, Ben is now a staunch anti-doping advocate trying to help bring about change in the sport that he loves. He writes about living a healthier life while training for endurance races on his blog, Becoming Tiberman.

* * * * *

A few days ago, as I was pondering some of the consequences of Lance’s confession, I had a Twitter discussion with my friend Jeff, who is both a cycling fan and theologian. I asked him about forgiveness and when it should be given. Jeff’s response was that his faith required it to be given even without being asked.

During the second half of his two-part appearance on Oprah, Lance Armstrong talked a lot about forgiveness, about being involved in a “process” to become a better person, and maybe about doing some positive things for the sport of cycling. Personally I believe him when he said he was sorry he got caught, but I’m having a little trouble believing he’s sorry for the arrogant, dishonorable, mean, and illegal things that he did throughout his career. I also have doubts that he is being 100% honest about when his doping ended, and some of his related actions with regard to the UCI.

Must-see TV? (AP photo)

I’m not sure how we’ve reached this point in society – a seemingly never-ending parade of celebrities committing misdeeds and airing their dirty laundry so that the adoring public will continue to adore. We eat up their teary-eyed apologies, continue to support them financially by watching their movies, buying their music, or voting for them – only to be surprised when we see them making the talk show circuit just a few months later. And in a sport that’s all about speed and the next great thing to come along, it only makes sense that we’d be urged to follow the prescribed path to Lance’s quick absolution.

It’s been reported that Lance told Travis Tygart during their meeting in Denver recently that Lance believes he (Lance) is the person responsible for his own redemption. While that is true, does he understand what that means? It isn’t merely the PR crisis response plan that put him on Oprah, or even making calls apologizing to Betsy Andreu, et al, though that’s clearly a start. It has to be taking those words and putting them into action.

The faith in which I was raised teaches forgiveness, but it also requires contrition and penance for that forgiveness to be achieved. From my point of view, a solid example that Lance (and for that matter some of the other cyclists of the era who have admitted their wrongs, but have done little to actually show they are contrite) could follow would be that of Armstrong’s former teammate, Jonathan Vaughters. I believe JV has earned forgiveness for his cycling sins. He’s come clean, he’s apologized, and most importantly (whether he thinks of it this way or not), he’s done – and continues to do – his penance. It’s not just his words that say he regrets his doping past; Jonathan’s actions in how he runs Garmin-Sharp-Barracuda and his involvement in anti-doping efforts make it clear he is sincere in his remorse.

I mention all of this because I think the natural state of man is to want to forgive one another. As I watched Lance talk to Oprah, about his process and what he went through in telling his kids, as mad as I was at Lance for continuing to lie about some things (such as his PED use in 2009, which is pretty indisputable, and the timeline of his UCI donation), I found myself thinking that at some point in the future I could probably forgive Lance for what he’s done to the sport and to some people I think of as friends, so long as his words become deeds, and those deeds show he’s sincere, and he’s contrite, and he truly wants to be that better person.

At the end of our discussion, Jeff added a caveat that forgiveness and trust are two very different things. While I hope to be able to forgive Lance some day, that day is not today, and not likely to be anytime soon. And though his passion to compete was thoroughly on display in his interview with Oprah, I’m not sure I could trust him to do so without turning to his prior methods. And I think that’s where we as the cycling community can help Lance help himself and the sport we love at the same time, though probably not in a way that he will very much appreciate.

Over the next few months as Lance copes with trying to preserve his fortune and works to reduce the length of his ban, don’t be too quick to forgive, trust, or support him. As he said himself, he’s likely to “slip” from time to time, and if we truly hope to see redemption and ultimately reconciliation for the cyclists of the EPO era of cycling, quite a few things will have to change in and around the sport. Many of those things begin with or flow through Lance right now, and too quick a forgiveness will not be appreciated, and even less likely, earned. Trust given too quickly will certainly be broken, and history has shown support provided too easily will be leveraged for Lance’s personal gain.

* * * * *

You can be pretty sure that one of the people who stayed up in his London home until 2am GMT to watch Lance Armstrong’s back-to-back interviews with Oprah at the back end of last week was his old directeur sportif, Johan Bruyneel.

Remember Johan? The guy who in August tweeted: “When has “seven” been “seven” and then not anymore? NEVER…”.

The guy whose reaction to Tyler Hamilton appearing on 60 Minutes with flowing, wavy locks to discuss his doping expose ‘The Secret Race’ was once again summed up in a succinct tweet back in September: “Thinking about writing a book. Apparently, it makes your hair grow…”.

The guy who recently had a pop at Jonathan Vaughters for blocking him on Twitter – although it is thought that Bruyneel has given the same treatment to around 80% of his own 101,250 followers.

The guy who described the recent Change Cycling Now summit in London as a meeting between “a bunch of douches.”

The guy who in November told his followers that “this ain’t over yet, people.”

The same guy who, a month earlier, stressed that “there’s always two sides to a story. Coming soon!” and who – according to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf – is working on a book that will give his version of events of the U.S. Postal years.

Given that the 48-year-old Belgian is thought to be still planning to go forward with his arbitration with the US Anti-Doping Agency, this promises to be quite a read (although book shops the world over will have their work cut out in deciding whether to place the product on their ‘fiction’ or ‘non-fiction’ shelf).

Anyway, it’s hard to know exactly what’s going through Bruyneel’s head because he’s kept a low profile since being dismissed by RadioShack-Nissan-Trek in the wake of the damning USADA documents being made public.

Bruyneel makes a point at not talking to the press or his critics, preferring to communicate his steely defiance through the odd wine-fuelled tweet.

But while Armstrong himself swiftly took down a reference to his seven Tour de France victories in his Twitter profile, Bruyneel simply updated his to: “7 plus TWO = 13″ (the 7 refers to his Tour wins with Armstrong, the TWO his victories with Alberto Contador, and the 13 his total Grand Tour scalps as DS, including overall wins in the Vuelta and Giro for Roberto Heras and Paolo Savoldelli).

Well, never one to disappoint, Johan could not resist posting a subliminal message the day after the second part of Armstrong’s interview with Oprah elicited such a frosty reception that five inches of snow fell over most of western Europe.

Johan’s Twitter feed contains no reference to the interview but on Sunday he posted a picture of the breakfast table spread for his daughter’s ninth birthday party. And sitting on a plate in the middle of the picture are – at least for those blocked followers like Saddleblaze who can only view a thumbnail of Johan’s pictures – seven yellow cupcakes.

Elsewhere in the cycling world, the fallout from “Doprah” continues with Jan Ullrich – the German juggernaut considered by Armstrong to be his biggest rival both on two wheels and in the doping laboratories – promising not to follow in the footsteps of the American “and speak before an audience of millions – although some have asked me again and again, and perhaps expect it”.

Speaking to the German magazine Focus, the 39-year-old stressed that he was no longer interested in the past, adding: “I live in the here and now – very happily.”

The sausage-obsessed Thomas Gottschalk

But sources close to Saddleblaze have revealed that these denials are a mere smokescreen, with Ullrich in advanced talks with German TV channel ZDF for a two-hour one-on-one live interview with the eccentric talk show host Thomas Gottschalk.

Ullrich is said to have finally caved in to pressure to lift the lid on his past after watching his old foe’s enhanced performance alongside Oprah.

“When he heard Armstrong talk so disparagingly about the East German doping programme of the 70s and 80s, Jan flipped. How do you say in English – it was the stick that whipped the camel’s hump,” said the unnamed Bavarian source (not to be confused with Bavarian Sauce, a curry-based gravy very much enjoyed by Jan Ullrich as a condiment for his daily bratwurst snack at elevenses).

Jan was also said to be “apoplectic” that Armstrong was once overheard bragging that Ullrich was “his bitch,” that he wasn’t as good as cheating and that he was overweight.

“Jan didn’t mind being called a bitch and a cheat and all that other stuff, but – how do you say? – being called fat really pushed him over the ledge,” confided the Munich-based source.

Initially it was thought that David Hasselhoff would conduct the interview in a bid to not alienate audiences in the US – but Ullrich reportedly thought this was too gimmicky. Instead, producers have their hearts set on household favourite Gottschalk, a dapper TV veteran who is the record-breaking face of Haribo and also starred alongside Whoopi Goldberg as a sausage-obsessed German cook in Sister Act 2.

“Jan is a big fan of Gottschalk – not only of his TV work but also his filmography,” said the source.

Ullrich, who won the Tour de France in 1997 and retired in 2007, is currently serving a two-year ban after being implicated in the Operacion Puerto doping ring. Last year, ‘Ulle’ was stripped of his results from 2005 onwards, losing his third place in the 2005.

“Jan’s biggest concern about doing a TV interview is being stripped of his 1997 Tour de France title. It’s easy to see why: for seven years he was bullied by Armstrong and notched more second-places than Raymond Poulidor. But now Armstrong has lost his seven Tours, Jan is set to go down in history as a more successful rider than the Texan. Such a turnaround is life-changing.”

Part of the deal that sees Ullrich open up to Gottschalk would also include a special one-off appearance in the popular gameshow Wetten, dass..?, the most successful Saturday evening television show in Europe.

Following the same format as the British show You Bet! And the American show Wanna Bet?, the Wetten, dass..? Ullrich special is likely to see the Rostock road racer partake in a number of eating challenges as well as some disco dancing.

“Jan is keen to – how do you say? – strike the iron while he is hot. He is also aware that Johan Bruyneel is probably, as we speak, recording a duet with Belgian crooner Johnny Halliday, so his next move must be bold – and this fits the bill,” confirmed the source.

UCI officials say they are unsure what to make of a rambling message left by former U.S. Postal boss Johan Bruyneel on the organisation’s new anti-doping hotline.

The message reportedly runs for almost 45 minutes and covers a broad range of topics.

Bruyneel, who masterminded Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories, begans by delivering Christmas greetings on behalf of his wife Eva and children, Victoria and Christian.

He then provided a recap of the 2012 calendar year, paying personal tribute to diva Whitney Houston and victims of Hurricane Sandy, before spending a full two minutes castigating pop music fans for the popularity of Gangnam Style.

Appearing to become agitated while discussing the poor weather experienced during his family’s summer holiday, Bruyneel at one point launched into a semi-coherent diatribe against climate change scientists.

He criticized scientists for relying on “flimsy evidence” before appearing to drift into another topic, making references to “cowboy justice” and “basic principles such as an individual’s right to be heard.”

“If I could get back the hours I spent with Bill fucking Strickland,” Bruyneel lamented at one point. However, he did not complete the sentence, interrupting the call to answer a knock on the door.

UCI spokesperson Enrico Carpani said the UCI had transcribed the entire call but remained in the dark about what, if any, message Bruyneel had intended to convey.

“After the part where Johan and the family perform The First Noël, sung in harmonic rounds, there’s a long pause,” Carpani said. “You can just hear shuffling and the rustling of wrapping paper. But listen very closely and then you can make out breathing, as though Johan might have put down the phone but he isn’t far away. It’s almost as if he wants to tell us something. But what?”

Charged by USADA at the same time as Armstrong, Bruyneel is expected to appear before an arbitration panel later this month. As of this writing, he has also agreed to cooperate with Belgian anti-doping authorities, and is rumoured to be penning his own version of the U.S. Postal saga to tell his story the right way and “set the record straight.”

Before Armstrong’s televised confession with Oprah Winfrey, Bruyneel had sworn that his own fight against USADA was “not over yet … not by a long shot.” And the UCI confirmed that the Belgian made reference to Winfrey during his call to the hotline.

“He goes on for at least five minutes about Oprah and how she never returns his calls,” Carpani said. “That’s right before the part of the call where you hear CBS on in the background and Johan muttering things like ‘crazed with power’ and ‘justice gone mad’.”

Bruyneel’s message will be forwarded on for further scrutiny by the UCI’s specialists in legal, anti-doping and medical fields, Carpani said

“Our experts’ initial take was that Johan’s call may have been a cry for help,” Carpani said. “But our anti-doping team quickly ruled this out because the hotline specifically states, ‘If this is a cry for help, press 2′.”

The UCI said it was encouraged by the early response to the recently-launched hotline and confident the initiative would begin to contribute to the fight against anti-doping.

Besides Bruyneel’s call, Carpani said the hotline had already received a prank call by Floyd Landis and five messages from Riccardo Riccò attempting to hail a taxi.

Oprah Winfrey: When you placed third in 2009, you did not dope?

Lance Armstrong: “The last time I crossed that line was 2005.”

OW: Does that include blood transfusions? No doping or blood transfusions in 2009… 2010?

LA: “Absolutely not.”

Let’s just think about that, shall we?

Doc has done some homework for us.

Armstrong’s 2009 comeback blood

don’t tell no clean comeback story

first

take uh look at his giro blood

starts at hgb 14.8

drops to hgb 13

uh 12 percent volume expansion

consistent with what’s expected

uv GT guys

the Tour ?

volume expansion

?

fugg no

starts hgb 14.3

after initial volume expansion

hgb 13.7

then it climbs

n finishes

hgb 14.5

or up 2 gm/dL

from expected

at uh conservative 0.25 w/kg

per

gm/dL

good for a bump

uv

0.5 watts/kg

ie there’s no fuggin way

lance finishes top 10

let uh lone

beets 90 days uv SuperBrad

more importantly

lookit the retic

in the fuggin gutter

consistently suppressed for the entire TDF

consistently acting

like there is too much blood in this body

n

we sure the fugg know

it’s not just his natural response

cuz it’s not what happened in the giro

lance

yer

blood

says 2 things

1. yuh sure is fugg weren’t clean

n

2. yuh just weren’t that good neither

(the 2010 blood telss the same blood doped story)

 * * * * *

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.