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.

* * * * *

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.

Follow along with the crew on Twitter: @RippFinklemann, @theJonnyGunn, @CyclismasMercer, @saddleblaze. Follow show updates on Twitter @CCNN_TV.

Or take the show on the road with our iTunes downloads.

Bruyneel gives a thumbs up to anyone who will pay attention to him.

Witnesses reported seeing Bruyneel on his mobile as he walked into the Indian eatery, Veeraswamy in Victory House, in his home city of London, where he was overheard discussing “that asshole Ferrari” within earshot of waiting patrons.

“It was rather strange. His eyes were bugging out, and he walked into the restaurant alone. It seemed like he was talking to other people besides who he was speaking to on the phone, but there wasn’t anyone else with him,” commented one diner who observed the events as they unfolded at the well-known Regent street restaurant.

Bruyneel then harassed the staff and asked why his table for fifteen wasn’t yet ready for him. When queried on when the rest of his party was going to be joining him, Bruyneel blurted “They’re all here, you twat! Get my table ready! Don’t you know who I am? Don’t you recognize Lance Armstrong when you see him?”

“The whole thing was disturbing. His eyes were bloodshot, his speech was rather slurred, and we were concerned for the well-being of our other patrons,” commented a Veeraswamy representative who wished to remain anonymous.

Bruyneel then paraded around the restaurant, madly typing with his thumbs, announcing to the diners that he would be “fixing Vaughters’ wagon. That liar! That asshole! I’ve got all the dirt on him! The press reports will be out in a few hours. Cycling belongs to me!”

Cyclismas Twitter experts confirmed that Bruyneel did, in fact, transmit two strange tweets referencing Jonathan Vaughters. The Garmin boss took to the social media platform to rebut the Bruyneel attack and confirm to his followers that yes, he was a normal human being who had doped and lied about it, but apologized and took personal responsibility for both.

Upon being summoned by restaurant management, police took an extraordinarily long time to make their way to the eatery, as half of the British police force was on Bradley Wiggins guard duty in northwestern England following the cycling superstar’s recent run-in with a rabid vehicle operator.

“Our slow response time to the Bruyneel situation was due to the fact that much of our police force was guarding the entire Lancashire region. However, we all know Bruyneel is merely a man of words and not really one of action, so no one was in any immediate danger of any kind, other than having to sit through an unexpected dinner theatre performance,” stated a police spokesperson.

As police made their way through the restaurant, Bruyneel dropped to a fetal position underneath a table near the window wall, clutching his phone tightly and muttering, “I have over 100,000 followers on Twitter! I’m still important! Lance! Shield me from the police!”

While law enforcement dragged Bruyneel out of the restaurant, the former winningest Tour de France manager was seen hissing at restaurant patrons, telling them to shut up their legs, and that the truth would come out, finishing with a “I am the rightful king of cycling” flourish as he was escorted out.

Police confirm Bruyneel spent several hours in the drunk tank in the aforementioned fetal position, passed out. The Belgian was released under his own recognizance merely hours ago. There is no word yet from police if there will be any criminal charges filed for the outburst. Bruyneel did not return our phone calls for comment, and Twitter-blocked the entire Cyclismas editorial team moments after our message was left.

Once again, we managed to tear @ZimmermanAnna away from feverishly tapping out her epic tome in order to focus all 150 watts of her awesomeness on the upcoming Bruyneel arbitration scenario. Thank you, Anna for putting the Great American Novel on hold for an afternoon of legal fun.

* * * * *

I just want to say that I love Johan Bruyneel. Smoochies from Austin, Texas. I wonder if Mr. Bruyneel knew that by arbitrating the USADA’s claims that Lance Armstrong would likely be called as a witness to testify against him, hence putting Mr. Armstrong in a legal Catch-22 of epic proportions. If Mr. Armstrong refuses to appear, then the USADA can ask a civil court to issue a subpoena ordering him to appear or face arrest. If Mr. Armstrong lies under oath, then he can be criminally prosecuted for perjury. Most importantly for cycling fans still seeking the truth and an admission of wrongdoing, it gives the USADA another opportunity to question Mr. Armstrong about his use of performance enhancing drugs, blood transfusions, and the team-wide conspiracy to compel all other riders to dope. This makes Mr. Bruyneel either the most ill-advised fool on the planet or the most calculating enemy Mr. Armstrong has ever known. Cue the dramatic Mexican Tele-Novella music. Dun-dun-dun!

Of course I expect a barrage of complaints about the USADA harassing Mr. Armstrong if called to testify against Mr. Bruyneel, but I don’t think any of them will pass judicial muster. As Mr. Bruyneel’s star rider, it would be hard to argue that Mr. Armstrong’s testimony would be so irrelevant as to merit his exclusion from the witness stand. But then, the Lance Armstrong Legal Team has argued more laughable points with a straight face, so perhaps I’m being optimistic in thinking they’ll lay down the sword and peacefully allow him to take the stand.

Though Mr. Armstrong can’t opt out of appearing, he can opt out of answering many questions questions, as can Mr. Bruyneel. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being required to incriminate themselves in any criminal matter. The fact that this is an arbitration proceeding for a non-criminal matter is irrelevant. Mr. Armstrong cannot be compelled to provide any information that may result in future criminal charges, no matter how unlikely those charges are, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be asked questions that may cause him to incriminate himself or answer incriminating questions, thereby waiving his right to Fifth Amendment protection. However, he can be required to answer any question the arbitrator determines isn’t likely to be incriminating, such as his name, which is probably the only question that will be asked that doesn’t open the door for a series of questions about doping. If you’ve been following the case, then you’re probably jumping up and down because you know that none of the performance-enhancing drugs and methods used by Mr. Armstrong were criminal acts, which may make it seem like he can be required to testify about his PED use. Doping is fraud and fraud is a crime, which means that if you’re hoping for mandated admissions of guilt while on the witness stand, then you’re likely to be faced with a wall of “I plead the Fifth.”

But what message would a repeated assertion of the Fifth Amendment send? The obvious question will be:  if Mr. Armstrong never actually doped, then why would he need to protect himself from self-incrimination by remaining silent? In a criminal proceeding, a witness’s use of the Fifth Amendment cannot be used against the defendant to infer guilt, but in civil court or arbitration, a witness’s refusal to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds can be considered by the judge or arbitrator(s) when deciding the case. If Mr. Armstrong pleads the Fifth, then he’s likely to sink Mr. Bruyneel’s battleship if for no other reason than his refusal to answer doesn’t disprove the charges against Mr. Bruyneel. In other words, this is a situation when doing nothing isn’t helpful, it’s harmful. Such is the nature of the Fifth Amendment beast.

The other alternative is to continue the bald-faced lie that he never doped. Get on the witness stand, under oath, and perjure himself. What? Lance Armstrong lie? Never! Well, he already has lied under oath in the SCA Promotions depositions circa 2006. US Postal Service purchased an insurance policy that would require SCA Promotions to cover the cost of the contracted bonuses to be paid to Lance Armstrong in the event that he won the Tour de France. Mr. Armstrong won and SCA Promotions refused to pay the claim on the assertion that he doped. Ultimately, SCA Promotions was ordered to pay $7.5M to Mr. Armstrong ($5M bonus + $2.5M in court costs and fees). In fact, the video-taped depositions are the only the only time Mr. Armstrong has ever vehemently denied doping while under oath.

Lies told while under oath are called perjury. People perjure themselves all the time and even though it’s a crime, it’s rarely prosecuted. That doesn’t make the law any less valid or enforceable. In the same way that Martha Stewart was charged, convicted, and served a federal prison sentence for obstructing justice (lying to the FBI when they were trying to nab her for the much more serious crime of insider trading, which I still think was bogus because it’s the government’s responsibility to make their case against you, not your responsibility to do it for them), it’s possible that if Mr. Armstrong perjures himself during arbitration, he may find himself in a criminal court facing perjury charges and then he’ll finally get his precious “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof.

The Constitution functions as a line in the sand. It is a list of enumerated rights that cannot be erased or hidden. Its purpose is to protect the people from abuse by the government, not to shield them from liability for their own wrongdoing. Whoever is on the other side of the line can tease and taunt you, but they cannot drag you across that line against your will. Constitutional rights must be waived before they can be withdrawn. You can choose to cross the line of your own volition, even if you do so haphazardly, foolishly, or unintentionally, and once you do, you can never go back. The Constitution expects people to be ever vigilant and to not play the part of the willing fool.

Mr. Armstrong made a big production about the “unconstitutional vendetta witch hunt kangaroo court” the USADA sought to try him in, however, this “kangaroo court” has almost all of the Constitutional protections of a civil court. The only Constitutional rights Mr. Armstrong doesn’t have in arbitration are the ones he consented to waive via contract. Through his contract with USA Cycling, Mr. Armstrong consented to forego resolving any disputes regarding his actions as a professional cyclist in civil court. Chances are your employment contract requires you to resolve disputes regarding your professional performance via arbitration. There is nothing new about using arbitration to resolve employment disputes. It’s a civilized process that’s governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. But Johan Bruyneel isn’t an American citizen, he doesn’t live in the United States, and he didn’t sign a contract with USA Cycling agreeing to arbitrate disputes about his professional conduct in the United States. So how does the USADA have any authority to pursue claims against him in arbitration? Because he outright consented to arbitration after receiving the charging letter. In all fairness, the USADA’s authority to pursue Mr. Bruyneel was tenuous at best, but he consented anyways. Furthermore, the Constitution applies to anyone within the United States. When Mr. Bruyneel appears to defend himself, the Constitution will protect him to the extent that he doesn’t waive it.

All of this presumes that Mr. Bruyneel actually shows up to defend himself when the arbitration begins and this hasn’t been just a vindictive ploy to compel the USADA to exhaust their resources preparing a case against Mr. Bruyneel that he has no intent to contest. Given the wealth of evidence that Mr. Armstrong validated by refusing to contest the USADA’s allegations, I doubt there is anything Mr. Bruyneel could present that would save him from a lifetime ban. Perhaps the credibility of some of the witnesses could be attacked on cross-examination or perhaps even more damning evidence could be released. Perhaps Mr. Bruyneel is so thoroughly infuriated by the situation that he will take the stand and blame Mr. Armstrong for instigating the doping and doping conspiracy. I think the likelihood of any criminal repercussions for Mr. Bruyneel as so low as to be a non-issue. Sure, he should plead the Fifth just in case, but I doubt he’ll do that.

On a final note, there is no Constitutional protection against incriminating other people or revealing details about yourself that are less than flattering but not incriminating. If Mr. Bruyneel proceeds with arbitration, then Mr. Armstrong will likely be forced to reveal information that he doesn’t want the public to know as well as to decide between perjuring himself or implicating Mr. Bruyneel. In an ironic twist, this is exactly what Mr. Armstrong sought to prevent by refusing to contest the charges and sanctions brought against him.

Tyler Hamilton’s tell-all book, The Secret Race, identifies Maire as the shadowy individual Phillipe the ” Motoman,”  who acted as an EPO mule for Armstrong and select members of his USPS team during their 1999 bid to win the Tour de France.

“Philou has been a great friend to Lance and the boys, but I truly haven’t seen him in 18 months. He hasn’t been around our team at all this year. I’m not sure why all of these past occurrences are relevant today. We are in a new era. A clean era. And I still maintain that Lance never had a positive test,” stated soon-to-be-ex team-management consultant Johan Bruyneel.

However, when photos surfaced on Twitter today showing Fränk Schleck and Jens Voigt posing in 2012 with the mysterious figure from Hamilton’s soon-to-be-#1 New York Times Best Seller, Bruyneel had only two words that he was willing to share with this reporter before he promptly hung up the phone.

“Motoman” poses between Jens Voigt and Frank Schleck in a photo discovered on “Motoman’s” facebook profile by Martijn Hendriks (@hendriksmj)

Fan-favorite Voigt took to Twitter to render his opinion of the Hamilton confessional, and made several simplistic comments asserting that he refused to read Hamilton’s book, ostensibly in the hopes that by not reading the book, none of it could harm him, nor be rendered as true.

Why not?! ?! Because i was racing when he took drugs and cheated on lied to all of us. He lied to you, to me to the whe world.

— Jens Voigt (@thejensie) September 13, 2012

When contacted for the details of the relationship between himself and the nefarious Motoman, Voigt put his fingers in his ears, sang “Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala” and walked away.

However, Fränk Schleck was more than happy to discuss Maire.

“I was forced to work with ‘Motoman’ by Johan Bruyneel. I refused and refused and refused to use what Motoman dropped off to me at the behest of Johan. I firmly believe Motoman was the one who spiked my bottles with that unpronounceable diuretic as payback for wasting Johan’s money. I want out of this team! Let me go back to Bjarne! Where’s Andy? Where’s Kim?” cried Schleck hysterically when called for comment.

Noted cycling pundits around the world were reeling from the shock of their cash cows continuing to disappear from the cycling landscape, like cows being sucked off the range by bloodthirsty aliens. A gobsmacked Ned Boulting managed to eke out a few words:

“My world has changed. Journalists are breaking the omertá. People are picking on me and ITV on Twitter. I just don’t know what to do any more. I want the Armstrong era back. At least that period was predictable and safe for us to profit from mass-produced cycling fiction on a large scale. Now? I actually have to work for a living. It’s a stunning turn of events,” stated Boulting.

The remainder of the professional peloton are on pins and needles to see who will be the next rider fingered in MotomanGate. Rumor is swirling that several ex-Discovery Channel and Astana riders are undertaking their retirements as of press time. Cyclismas will be following the developing story closely.

Cyclismas Let’s start at the beginning. How did you get into doping?

Lance I have never tested positive. I’m walking away from this f**king witch-hunt.

Cyclismas Does this mean you’re having trouble coming to terms with the fact that you’ve been outplayed and outmaneuvered for the first time in your career?

Lance (stony silence, laser-beam eyes boring hole through Mercer’s head)

Cyclismas Let’s change gears here.  Tell about your triathlon plans.

Lance I have none at the current time because f**king Messick doesn’t have a backbone. If it wasn’t for Johnson and the other guys at USA Cycling, I’d be totally screwed. What’s wrong with people these days? Don’t they like the win-at-all-costs mentality? Don’t people like winners anymore? Cycling’s full of losers. I know. I kicked their asses when I came out of retirement to podium in Paris.

Cyclismas Let’s delve into that subject. Why did you come back from retirement? Your return is being discussed as your Achilles heel, opening the door for USADA to move against you.

Lance Honestly?

Cyclismas That would be nice for a change.

Lance Hang on. (dials cellular phone) Hi Mark? Can I spill the beans on why I came out of retirement? Is there any damage to the titles if I share the truth? Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. He didn’t ask about that yet. It’s fine? Alright. I’ll go for it. (hangs up phone)

Cyclismas So you can tell us the truth on that one?

Lance Yes. I did it for the alimony.

Cyclismas Sorry? Alimony? Can you elaborate?

Lance Sure what the hell. All my ex-girlfriends receive a monthly payment in exchange for their signing of a non-disclosure agreement for keeping my activities private and quiet. I also make substantial payments to Kik for the kids and her lifestyle, not to mention taking care of my kids with Anna. Plus, I just can’t help but have extra helpings, if you know what I mean. Seriously, the number of blondies in Colorado for the US Pro is off the hook. The boys have done some good scouting for me the past two weeks.

Cyclismas So, you’re saying that due to the heavy financial burden of your personal decisions, you were experiencing trouble making all your payments?

Lance Hey now, I always make my payments. Well, to those I like… HA! Seriously though, it was getting a bit thin. I mean, when I retired, people started forgetting about me a bit, so I had to do these appearances at various cancer events, but it wasn’t the same as competition. I couldn’t slam dunk a granny for not keeping my wheel, you know? So when Johan [Bruyneel] and Lee [Applbaum] threw 25 million at me to come back, I thought, hey, well, that’ll solve some of the alimony problems.

Cyclismas Is this why “Big Yellow One” was grounded?

Lance Well, yeah, it was getting kind of tough, and Ulman is my conscience, and he said maybe it wasn’t a good thing to keep the jet flying when so many people in America couldn’t afford their houses and food, so I thought, yeah, it might be good PR for me to fly first class instead. Plus, I had that huge water bill in Austin! Wow, that was a shocker. Got rid of the ranch over that.

Cyclismas So what’s next for Lance?

Lance Well, I need to keep those paychecks coming, or the non-disclosure agreements are null and void. And that could be a big problem. Especially since I pissed one of the girls off, apparently, and she’s already talked to Tygart and those witch-hunters. I think me and Johan are just going to do the Breakaway League without Vaughters. Traitor.

Cyclismas What about all those riders who are still supporting you?

Lance Good thing most of them aren’t too bright. Gives me some breathing room. Plus, I have a year before the UCI implodes, so by then the Livestrong Breakaway Series will be up and running.  Glad I’ve got guys like Chris Horner and Hayden Roulsten in my corner. PT Barnum was right, huh?

Cyclismas “Sucker born every minute,” true. So you’ve got a Breakaway Cycling League, and still many endorsements. The question is are you happy with how your life has turned out?

Lance Dude, I’m stoked. I’ve got houses everywhere, and more money than 99% of America. People keep giving me money, and I don’t give them anything back other than “hope” or “awareness” or “air quotes.” They are all still my yellow army. It’s pretty cool. And McDreamy says I can get a walk-on in his next movie, so I’m looking forward to that.  So, yeah, I’m really happy with how my life turned out. Rich, famous, and babes galore. What more do you need?

Cyclismas That’s the question Lance, how much more do you need?

Lance I’m like Weisel, man. I want it all. Blondes in saunas. Blondes in pools, blondes on the table. And maybe a little other action once in awhile.

Cyclismas Thanks for your time, Lance.

Lance Dude, try that sushi there. It’s like 100 bucks a roll. And try that puffer fish thingy. It’s a gooder. Makes you feel like Zeus, baby.

Becca attempts to build a more solid foundation for 2013 (Photo: H2O Solutions)

“I have begun negotiations for HSBC to step in to fill the void being created by the departure of our current crop of sponsors. HSBC shares a similar set of values with myself and my business dealings, not to mention a common philosophy on how we handle our rider accounts and banking clientele,” commented Becca.

HSBC has itself been mired in scandals that will cost the bank $2 billion in fines. HSBC first mis-sold loan insurance and derivatives, amid allegations that traders attempted to rig Libor, and endured a Senate investigation in the Unites States that saw HSBC laundering money for drug dealers out of Mexico.

Becca felt that an alignment with his team, temporarily called RadioShack-Nissan (Trek), would be just the tonic HSBC needed to divert attention from their scandals.

“They are a company that actually needs us. Our scandals pale in comparison to theirs. Just because one of our doctors is under investigation, our team manager/team management consultant is on the verge of a lifetime ban, and a partner in our marketing firm CSE is about to have seven Tour titles stripped, thos are just small potatoes. Throw in dodgy team decisions, non-payment of riders, lawsuits, and threats of benching riders who are signing with other teams – all really no big deal in comparison to HSBC’s problems,” concluded Becca.

HSBC representatives did confirm they spoke with Becca, but would only state the conversations were related to helping Becca fix his taxation troubles at home in Luxembourg, as well as to mention in passing that Becca had left a sponsorship package for them to look over.

“No matter how big the fines and how bad our reputation is, I doubt we’d want to align ourselves with a team that employs a manager facing a lifetime ban from cycling. Becca did tell us that he was willing to look for a new manager in order to secure our involvement, so we’re examining the opportunity for its potential,” commented an HSBC representative who wished to remain anonymous.

When asked about replacing Bruyneel, Becca indicated he has been looking at other candidates.

“I’ve had discussions with former Rock Racing owner Michael Ball. He seems to have a good head for business, and also past experience with champions in the sport. He also still races himself in America, or so I’m told; he might be the best choice for 2013,” stated Becca.

Becca refused to speculate on the status of Andy and Frank Schleck for 2013, but did state his desire to steal Chris Froome away from Team Sky, and also showed his displeasure with Bruyneel in defying his orders to allow Jakob Fuglsang to ride at the Colorado race with the ridiculously long name.

There was no timetable on a decison from HSBC on the potential sponsorship deal, but Becca has approximately two months to solidify the deal prior to WorldTour status review with the UCI.