On May 20th, 2010, Floyd Landis’ allegations of extensive doping by Lance Armstrong and others was made public. At the time, Lance was in the middle of the Tour of California. He experienced a rare crash that very same day, which led to an even more rare decision to drop out of the race entirely.

As luck would have it, Bicycling Magazine was riding along in the team car with Johan Bruyneel, filming it all.  Within hours Bicycling had the video up for viewing.  It was a glimpse at a side of Mr. Armstrong that the world had never before seen.

This video showed a worried, nervous, confused, and perhaps even panicky side of Lance.  It seemed surprising to some that this had been posted at all.  Lance was notorious for exerting pressure on the media to make sure he maintained control of the narrative.

Less than two days later, Bicycling removed the video.  At first it seemed possible this was just an error, or that perhaps the content was being rearranged or updated.  But the video never appeared on their site again, and no explanation was ever offered.  For many, this confirmed the authority Lance had over the press.

I was lucky enough to have a cached copy of the web page available, and when I loaded it, the video was still working.  They had removed the link from their video page, but had not yet removed the actual video file, which was a plain mp4 file.  I still wasn’t sure if the removal was an accident or intentional, but I downloaded the file just in case it was about to disappear forever.

I didn’t do anything with the video immediately.  Even when it was clear that Bicycling‘s removal was no accident I sat on the video. Probably more out of laziness than anything. But the story continued.

In May of 2011 (May is not Lance’s month) Tyler Hamilton came out with his allegations on 60 Minutes.  Momentum grew, and a federal case against Lance and others was in the works later in 2011, and in parallel a USADA case against Lance was developed.  The federal case was dropped in early 2012 (although apparently not for lack of evidence), but the USADA case proceeded.  In April of 2012, Lance and Tyler had the unfortunate restaurant incident, and in May of 2012 Lance publicly commented in an Outside Magazine interview that he would not fight the USADA case if it went forward.

I’d been meaning to make this video available in some form for a long time.  With everything heating up, it finally seemed like it was time.  It was really not a decision I undertook lightly.  I did a lot of reading about fair use, and what did and did not qualify.  What I found convinced me that I could publish the entire video and still be protected.

One choice I had was to edit the video, use pieces of it, and add my own interpretations.  This is an approach that I was sure even without any research was standard fair use (although even being well within standard practices doesn’t necessarily prevent a lawsuit).  But (aside from more basic laziness) there was a very good reason why I didn’t want to do that.  In edited form, and with the original video unavailable, anything I did could be questioned for content.  “How do we know that’s what it meant when we can’t see the original?” And perhaps more importantly, I wanted people to consider the question of why the video had been pulled.  Without the entire original video available somewhere, this was impossible.  This is what ultimately convinced me that uploading the entire video was the right choice, and that it was fair use.

On May 14th, 2012 I finally got off my ass and uploaded the video to YouTube.

Fast forward again, to October 20th of this year, when Neil Browne (@neilroad on Twitter, where he is apparently a big deal) wrote an article about Lance’s bad day, and wondered what ever happened to this video.  Twitter was quick to answer, and directed him to my YouTube upload.

Four days later, after the video had been accumulating views for over a year, I received a notice from YouTube that “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Bicycling Magazine.” (I didn’t notice this until November 5th).

When YouTube does this, you can either accept the removal and go on with your life (the wise choice if it’s actually copyright infringement), or you can file a counter claim, which says that basically the claim by Bicycling was a mistake and that I had a right to post the video. This is the harder choice, because then Bicycling might be more likely to choose to sue me.  If they don’t, within ten days the video goes back up. But if they do sue me, that’s not going to be a good time.

It’s interesting to me that they’d pursue this right now.  The original removal made some sense.  Yes, you could call it weak, and caving to the apparent power of Lance.  But back then pretty much everyone was doing that to varying degrees.  Even after the Floyd allegations, Lance remained the golden goose for a long time, and everyone still wanted those eggs.

But now that’s all changed.  Lance confessed.  He’s been stripped of his wins, and had the title “disgraced” officially added to his name.  After the confession the chains were off for the media.  Suddenly we had a whole lot of news coverage that looked very different from what we had seen weeks earlier.

So given that, why would Bicycling request the removal of my uploaded copy of their video now?  One possibility is that they just didn’t want to be reminded of their dirty hands in the original removal of the video.  That’s a bit silly because as I said, most news organizations had dirty hands back then.

The other possibility is that Lance is finding ways to exert his influence again.  Indeed, competely independent of this incident, I’ve seen people online say that it seems that Lance is once again trying to control the story. There’s a movie coming out about him that’s not likely to be very flattering, and a little damage control could go a long way.  CyclingNews just did a big exclusive interveiw with him also, and he’s been more active on Twitter again.

So it’s also possible that the timing of this removal is that Lance is still a nice-looking goose, and Bicycling still wants another golden egg or two.

Ultimately this is what helped me make my choice.  I have filed a counter claim with YouTube.  The same media politics that likely caused its original removal might still be at work here, exerting control.  People should be aware of this, and have an opportunity to weigh in on what this means.

Now that I’ve made my choice, Bicycling has some options.  They can sue me.  I don’t think they can win, and I don’t think that’s going to put much polish on their brand.

Or they can do nothing.  My copy of the video will be back up on YouTube in a couple of weeks, and we can all quietly slink back into our corners and pretend it never happened, like a blind date gone bad.

But I’m going to offer a third choice.  Bicycling could put the video back up on their own website, permanently.  If they did this, I’d have no need of getting this video back up on YouTube.  It’d be a great demonstration that first of all they aren’t really interested in suing people for good faith fair usage of news content.  And more importantly it would demonstrate that they are their own master.  Their video would be home again, and they’d get all the credit and glory.

On the one hand, this may seem like just one little stupid video.  And really it is.  Hardly a game changer in the grand scheme of things and probably only of minor interest to even the most hardcore followers of cycling’s dark side.  But to me it seems that the cycling community has to get away from knee-jerk protectionism, and this is as good a place to do that as any.

Update:

I spoke with Peter Flax, managing editor of Bicycling Magazine this evening and he was able to clarify several issues, and squash some of my “conspiracy theories.”  Killjoy.

He said it was the hope that Bicycling Magazine would be able to get this video back up on their own website. This would be a win for everybody. The original creation and subsequent removal happened prior to his term as managing editor, and he hadn’t had a chance to look at the specifics in this case, but was able to offer some insight into reasons for the removals.

The video was produced in a sponsored content deal, in which the video producer (Bicycling Magazine) makes a deal with a sponsor to gain access for filming. Generally a deal like this is for joint ownership of the material so that Bicycling can use the material on their site, and the sponsor can use it for promotional purposes.

As Mr. Flax understood those events in this case, the sponsor (not specified by Mr. Flax) decided that the material was not consistent with the image they had hoped for, and requested that Bicycling take it down, and they complied.  He also told me that since that sponsorship agreement was no longer in place, it was his hope that this meant that they had the right to repost it on the bicycling.com website, but at the time we spoke he still hadn’t had a chance to look at the specifics of this particular agreement.

He also addressed the more recent removal of the video from YouTube.  First let me clarify that, despite some of my earlier comments on Twitter, Bicycling is apparently a copyright holder of this material, and so they did have every right to file their claim of infringement with YouTube.  He said filing the infringement claim was just normal business practice when they discover copyrighted material, which seems perfectly reasonable. While I still maintain that my particular usage is fair use, most cases of using entire unedited copies of material do not fall under fair use.

These are of course perfectly reasonable explanations that don’t require any so-called conspiracy theories with Lance pulling all the strings (although they don’t entirely preclude some influence).  Still, conspiracy theories are just more fun.

He also expressed some dismay that I had not contacted Bicycling staff prior to publishing this.  He’s probably right.  I’m not a journalist, I’m just some hack on the Internet who felt that this needed to be out in the open.  And in this new world, where ordinary citizens participate more and more in media, it isn’t clear to me exactly what my role should be.  But explanations are not the same as excuses.  With hindsight, I see that I should have contacted them first, and for that I’m sorry.

Landis and Armstrong back in happier, non-criminal complaint times. (Photo courtesy cyclingnews.com)

“There is nothing in the rules that says Lance Armstrong the individual cannot join the Qui Tam lawsuit against Lance Armstrong the corporation. In fact, Lance Armstrong the corporation bullied my client into illegal activities and has been wronged by Lance Armstrong the corporation. Lance Armstrong the individual feels he needs to be made whole after being subjected to the actions of Lance Armstrong the corporation, along with Thomas Weisel, Bill Stapleton and Bart Knaggs,” stated Herman, the attorney representing Armstrong the individual in this action.

In fact, Herman also announced that in addition, the following entities were joining the Qui Tam case after the political winds continued to turn against the aging former superstar who no longer has any relevance:

• Oakley
• Honey Stinger
• Sheryl Crow
• Kristin “Kik” Armstrong
• Phil Liggett
• Paul Sherwen
• Paul Kimmage
• David Walsh
• Pat McQuaid
• Hein Verbruggen
• Jean-Marie Leblanc
• The estate of Marco Pantani
• Jan Ullrich
• Bjarne Riis
• Alberto Contador
• The State of Texas
• Mellow Johnny’s
• Nike

Livestrong representatives refused to confirm or deny reports that they were also considering joining the Qui Tam lawsuit at press time.

However, not everyone was happy about the latest plaintiffs joining the lawsuit. Former Armstrong confidante Emma O’Reilly was surprised by the sudden activity of the Qui Tam lawsuit.

“Only in America can someone actually sue themselves. Not really surprised about that, I guess. What I am surprised about is the fact that Bjarne Riis feels he was wronged in some way, and feels it’s valid for him to join the lawsuit,” commented O’Reilly.

Several pundits weren’t surprised by some who had joined the lawsuit.

“Verbruggen and McQuaid haven’t joined any lawsuits in the past eight months. I guess they were due to jump in somewhere. Considering they’ve drained the UCI coffers completely, it’s no wonder they’ve opted to join a lawsuit rather than start their own. However, didn’t they say that Armstrong no longer existed? Huh… well with money at stake, I guess they’re willing to acknowledge him somewhat,” commented one journalist who may or may not have been Stephen Farrand.

Resident Pantani archivist Daniel Friebe offered his two cents on why the Pantani estate joined the suit.

“I suppose the whole elephantino episode was worth at least a million. I think we’ll see a bandana resurgence in the pro peloton if this motley crew of litigants wins their case,” stated Friebe.

However, Kimmage wasn’t aware he’d signed up for any new lawsuits.

“I think Floyd’s trying to prank me. I’m really not interested in seeing another lawyer anytime soon, thank you very much,” stated an emphatic Kimmage.

Landis offered a written statement on the back of a pizza box, which he photographed and then sent to the press via his Instagram account.

“F**k all the joiners. It’s my money, bitches. You can’t have any,” stated the handwritten note, obviously written with a giant red sharpie on loan from former-cycling-ruiner-now-vindicated iconoclast Neil Browne.

The NYVelocity crew was unavailable for comment. They were busy building a wind tunnel in Andy Shen’s apartment.

Further details on the Qui Tam case will be available late next week, allowing pretty much everyone in the United States and France the opportunity to jump on the filling-up bandwagon.

McQuaid dons the clown face paint to taunt Landis after Swiss Courts side with the UCI. (photo manipulation courtesy of @kiss_my_panache)

The UCI filed suit against Floyd Landis in April of 2011, but as noted by Hein Verbruggen they had trouble locating Landis. This was partly due to the stealth technology employed by Landis courtesy of CERN, and also due to the fact the UCI doesn’t acknowledge bloggers nor bloggers’ domiciles, as Landis has been frequenting the semi-secret location of the blogging website nyvelocity.com

The approved list, as revealed by the UCI merely hours ago, included the following as noted by the decision from the Vaud court:

II. forbids Floyd Landis to state that the Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat) McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of shit, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind

However, as noted by the second press release from the UCI, the judge did not approve the following phrases for inclusion, partly due to the nature of the alleged phrases and the probability of their occurence. The court also noted the improbability of Landis uttering these words to anyone in cycling as they actually might be true. The phrases are as follows:

conducted illegal transfers of funds to the GCP, acquired UCI funds to proceed in lawsuits of a personal nature, referred to cycling fans as “nom de plume idiots” in multiple emails, engaged in inflammatory proceedings against USADA and WADA, used UCI budget for personal wardrobe purchases, used UCI funds for personal holiday ventures, receiving a home and a significant salary still unrevealed to the UCI management committee as compensation as president, browbeating sponsors to ensure WorldTour teams attended Beijing, threatening journalists with blacklisting if potentially negative stories about them were released, leaking information to the press to benefit personally, removing popular events in lieu of events that line their pockets like the individual pursuit, bending WorldTour rules to ensure teams stay in even though the deadline passed like Saxo and RadioShack, hiring family members and friends to key races and key championship bids, illogical appeals of decisions, illogical non-appeals of decisions.

Additionally, the judge also refused to include the following words and phrases as the court determined Landis would never go as far as utter the following:

fucking gangsters, enforcers of cycling’s mafia omerta, nepotistic fucking douchebags, fucking shitbags, complete and total assclowns, in Armstrong’s pocket, payola kings, crime lords of cycling, vampire money suckers, drunk Irish pig, phat Pat, kiss my Heinie Hein, Dickus Henricus, bending over cycling, I hope Kimmage fucks them up in his court case, Weisel’s minions, how much money did Hein get for Keirin anyhow?, McQuaid’s lips are firmly planted on the ass of the IOC, Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine are pussies compared to Pat and Hein, Pat and Hein are a fucking embarrassment to cycling. period., are dirty liars, are no better than Attila the Hun or Napolean or Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il or Manuel Noriega.

As of press time, there was still no reason given by the UCI on why they haven’t filed a lawsuit against Tyler Hamilton, as his accusations mirror many of the same that have been uttered by Landis.

No word on how this judgement will affect the outcome of the current Kimmage action, where the journalist will actually be fighting the UCI on their turf.

Floyd toasts his suspended sentence.

The trial centered around a gentlemen named Alain Quiros (who coincidentally has been approached by the producers of the James Bond franchise for the use of his circumstances in a future unnamed film), accused of performing the actual hacking. Quiros insisted that Landis “most certainly” agreed and activated his activities involved in the trojan horse program used to gain access to a French anti-doping lab. This assertion was refuted by Landis’ partner in crime, Arnie Baker, who said that he thought he was “downloading really good cyber porn.”

When reached for comment on the case, Landis was upbeat and positive about the verdict.

“Look, I was convicted by people in a country that I really could care less about. I really have no desire to visit France in the next twelve months as I’ve been hunting mainly American cougars and had stopped my European escapades with the Monaco set back in 2008,” commented Landis. “This just means that I’ll have to spend time on the Spanish side of the Pyrenees until November of next year. Maybe I’ll just crash at Jonathan’s [Garmin owner Jonathan Vaughters] place in Girona instead of Tommy V’s.”

Landis “feels vindication” in the result of the court case, as in his eyes, it shows that he’s not guilty.

“Just because some dumb cluck sends me stuff, and I got it mixed up with my case doesn’t mean I’m guilty of anything other than keeping bad records,” concluded Landis.

Landis has no intention of appealing the verdict as, “no one really gives a rat’s ass what the French retards think anyways.”

French authorites declined to comment for this report.

7/15 2011
Graham Bensinger sits down with Floyd Landis. The Tour de France champ, who was later stripped of his title, talks about the doping scandal that ruined his career, details Lance Armstrong’s alleged illegal drug use and talks about his own future in NASCAR.