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.

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.

“We would have wanted to invite Tyler Hamilton for other reasons. But he has done a lot of wonderful things for a very wonderful sport and he has to be applauded for his courage to act.”

It wasn’t perhaps the most unanimously positive endorsement of his career but Tyler Hamilton could hardly have born any ill will towards the lady wwaho introduced the shamed former cyclist to the stage at the American School in London last week.

After all, this was a prestigious school whose mission is to encourage “students [to] develop integrity and strength of character by learning to make good choices and by taking responsibility for their actions”.

The teacher controlling the Q&A session alongside the school’s head boy was also wary of slipping on any potential banana skins. “It is controversial for us to have you up on this stage and we’re putting ourselves on the line,” he said. “Can you see how your cheating invalidates the message of our school and what we stand for?”

Hamilton – looking tanned and rather boyish with his ragged boscage of wavy hair in stark contrast to the slick, almost shiny, grey suit and smart blue shirt covering his still slender frame – was entirely understanding of the concerns outlined.

“I respect people who can’t forgive me and won’t listen to what I have to say. You guys can ask any tough questions you like and I deserve them,” he said in front of an auditorium of roughly 200 high school pupils, parents, teachers, members of the public and one cycling reporter.

“I feel like it was just yesterday that I was in high school. These kids can learn from me. If I can change one kid’s life then I’m pleased I came.”

Well, he certainly did change one grown kid’s life when approaching Saddles in the foyer ahead of the talk and complimenting him on his Ragpicker vintage cycling cap.

“Nice hat. How you doing? You coming to the talk?” he asked before hands were shaken and names exchanged. It broke the ice nicely – and meant Saddles had a way in after the session to pose a question or two of his own.

To be honest, most of the questioning was rather soft and made Oprah Winfrey look like the Spanish Inquisition – but this wasn’t exactly an audience of specialists and only some of them had read Hamilton’s book, The Secret Race, co-edited with Daniel Coyle.

Early on during the Q&A the school’s head boy asked Hamilton what had been the most difficult aspect about coming out with the truth surrounding what he described as the “dark days”.

“The hardest part was telling my parents the truth in 2010 having lied to them ever since 1997.”

It was a poignant answer, but one which made this blogger think of something doing the viral rounds at the time: a note left from a father for his son on the fridge door.

“Nate,” the note-cum-internet-hit said, “I overheard your phone conversation with Mike last night about your plans to come out to me. The only thing I need you to plan is to bring home OJ and bread after class. We are out, like you now. I’ve known you were gay since you were six, I’ve loved you since you were born. Dad. p.s. your mom and I think you and Mike make a cute couple.”

Something tells Saddles that Hamilton’s parents knew a long time before 2010 about his training methods. If the syringes, fridges full of blood and shirts stained red weren’t enough, then they may have had a hunch around about the time the whole ‘false twin’ theory came into play.

(Although had they left him a note on the fridge it probably wouldn’t have requested extra OJ – for obvious reasons.)

“I wish I’d stood up in ’97 and said no when the first red testosterone pill was held out to me by a doctor wearing a fly fishing jacket filled with pharmaceuticals,” said Hamilton, like an LA screen-writer effortlessly seaming the plot of The Matrix to an episode of Deadliest Catch.

“If I had known what would have happened I would have been on the first plane back to Boston,” he added.

Although blessed (or perhaps hindered?) with a constant grin bordering on a childish smirk, Hamilton came across as genuinely contrite. The critics will say that he’s had enough practice – after all, he’s rivalling Tony Blair on the lecture circuit right now in the wake of his no-holds-barred confessional – but Hamilton nevertheless came over as an honest, humble and decent guy keen to put things right.

“I have two bits of advice for the young people in the crowd,” he said. “First: take time with the decisions you make. Second: If you make the wrong choice then right it as quickly as possible.”

When pressed on whether or not he would have come clean had he not been forced, Hamilton, to his credit, did not reply wholly in the affirmative.

“I hope so. I would like to think that as I got older and more mature I would have,” he said before adding: “But I couldn’t say for sure. I had many opportunities to tell the truth. I waited until the last minute when I was fully backed up in the corner.”

Now 42 and working as a private cycling trainer back home in Colorado, Hamilton said he was happy to be away from the pressures of the professional peloton and the general rat race that can affect students as much as Wall Street execs.

“I’m kind of enjoying just being mediocre,” he said, prompting laughs from the crowd. “I’m 30 pounds heavier now than when I was a cyclist,” he added, prompting gasps (he is still a slight guy). “I’m a jogger, not a runner. I’m enjoying being average.”

Being average is certainly something you wouldn’t hear his former boss Lance Armstrong boasting about – and certainly something Hamilton in his capo days wouldn’t have admitted to. Back then, he was all about pushing things further and never being content with the status quo.

“At CSC one of Danish guys coined the term ‘positive dissatisfaction’. I used that term so many times but it was the root of all the problems.”

Hamilton said it had been painful to go over all his mistakes while writing his book and admitted that the fallout from The Secret Race had been rather testing.

“The president of cycling’s world body called me a scumbag. His name is Pat McQuaid,” Tyler told the audience (many of whom were non-cycling types who couldn’t tell their UCIs from their IOUs (answer: they’re often the same thing). “I understand his frustrations. I know why he would do that. But there are many who continue to deny that they had any knowledge that bad things were happening in the sport.”

Hamilton stressed that there were “still bad apples” in cycling and that “there’s still dome digging to be done.”

Sounding more and more like a character from Goodfellas, he added ominously: “It’s definitely a lot better than back in the dark days but there are many buried bodies and many of us know where those bodies are. We must do some digging or there will be another big situation in the future [like the US Postal scandal].”

With the hour almost up, Hamilton just had enough time to praise former US Postal team-mate Floyd Landis for “getting the ball rolling,” admitting that “we wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for him. He’s suffering a lot still.”

Hamilton confirmed that he didn’t have much to do with any of the other Posties now give or take a few texts. “It’s sad because we were a really cohesive group. Things have changed. It’s sad that doping ripped us apart.”

Of course, the Devil’s advocate would say it was sad doping threw them together in the first place.

As the star of the night signed books on the stage at the end, your faithful blogger went up to the former 1994 Olympic time trial gold medallist and asked him if he thought it was fair that there was so much scrutiny surrounding the highest performing team of the current era, Sky, who had seemingly been tainted by the same brush as US Postal.

“It’s not fair, no,” he said, fixing Saddles with his piercing blue eyes. “It’s unfortunate that’s happening but due to the past it’s the way it is because of what we did and because of the culture that we went through.

“I feel bad because of it. I feel bad that Bradley Wiggins cannot enjoy winning the Tour like he should enjoy it, that he has had to endure all this skepticism.”

At this point, the master of ceremonies tugged Tyler on the sleeve and urged him to return to his signings – but Hamilton was in no rush and was eager to finishing giving his answer.

“The problem is not necessarily Wiggins but the people around the sport. We still have some bad apples in the sport including some – but not all – of the individuals in the UCI.

“I’m sure Bradley Wiggins is not happy with me and I understand that. But if he’s going to be really angry with somebody then it’s still those bad apples that are continuing to rot the sport. He should be pushing those people to be telling the truth.

“Zero tolerance? I don’t believe in that. I’ve got to commend Sky for trying and being proactive – some teams are not even being proactive – but I don’t necessarily agree with that philosophy.

“To clean up the sport truth and reconciliation is the only answer. I’d love to see them maybe invite back some of the guys they forced out like Bobby Julich. And I’m not the biggest fan of Bobby Julich – trust me – but if people are telling the truth they shouldn’t be penalised for it.”

On that note, Saddles and Tyler parted. There hadn’t been a chance to ask him who the most promising crop of apples in the orchard were; or if he sincerely would have indeed traded in the glory years at US Postal and beyond, and the smart grey suit and blue shirt on the lecture circuit, for years of what he described as “hanging on for dear life and surviving at the back” that would have been synonymous with not doping at a time when “ninety to ninety-five percent were on drugs during the Tour”.

Neither had there been a time to ask him who he thought should play him alongside Bradley Cooper’s Lance in a movie version of the “dark days”; whether he preferred the film Twins to Marley & Me; whether, given his background in downhill skiing, he would have insisted on La Manie being kept in the previous weekend’s Milan-San Remo; or if he could give Saddles a tailored Tyler Hamilton Training plan ahead of this reporter’s own big ride in September (2,300 kilometres in the footsteps of Hannibal from Barcelona to Rome).

Perhaps for another time. Tyler, over to you…

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.

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.

Bernard Hinault poses on the podium in Stirling moments before being attacked by an Armstrong supporter (Photo by Jason Kohl Morgan)

The skirmish occurred after the completion of Stage 3 in Stirling, and was apparently prompted by comments made by Hinault in a Rupert Guinness article appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald. Hinault was dismissive of Armstrong and stated the disgraced former age-group swimmer should be completely, utterly, and totally forgotten.

“It was truly unbelievable. The man threatened Hinault with physical harm and then followed up by saying he would spray paint Hinault bright yellow for his verbal transgressions,” recounted an amazed pundit who may or may not have been cyclingnews.com editor Jane Aubrey.

Hinault pushed the supporter off the podium in Stirling, did a double back flip onto the ground below, delivered his trademark “blaireau chop,” and incapacitated the crazed Armstrong fan. In a final display of strength, Hinault grabbed the yellow Livestrong Nikes which were on the feet of said fan, and proceeded to tear them in half with his bare hands, tossing them into the thronging Tour Down Under crowd.

Australian police forces quickly moved in to arrest the zealot, but due to Hinault’s shoe-tearing stunt, the crowds turned surly, attempting to attack the lone Armstrong supporter, prompting the police forces to protect the unfortunate fan. Riot police had to be called in to quell the crowds who were activated by the actions of Hinault, as ardent anti-Lance factions began attacking anyone wearing Oakley or Nike products.

“It was incredible. When he tore apart those running shoes, the crowd just exploded into a massive cheer. It was as if England won the World Cup the noise was so phenomenal,” commented Sky Sports writer Orla Chennaoui, who is in Australia for the Tour Down Under.

“However the joy soon turned to fear, as the crowds turned nasty. It was quite shocking to observe what happened after. I didn’t know clothing could burn that easily,” stated Chennaoui.

Led by noted anti-Lance advocate Martin Hardie, the crowds began building a giant bonfire, tossing in products by companies which had previously sponsored Armstrong. Nike products made up most of the massive stack, but the bonfire also had Oakley and Giro products thrown in as well.

In a scene lifted from Lord of the Flies, hundreds of supporters created makeshift loin-cloths made from modified bib shorts, placed Giro helmets on pikes, and danced around the bonfire for more than 30 minutes before riot police finally made their way into the venue to disperse the angry crowds.

Tour Down Under officials have come under fire, as they had assured the UCI and the teams attending the race that the event would be “100% Lance free” prior to the start.

“We’re rather surprised there are still Lance supporters out there, especially after the Oprah Winfrey interview. We took it for granted that we’d require extra security. Thank goodness Hinault was there to address this situation before it got completely out of hand. Yes there were bonfires and a little rioting, but it could have been much worse,” commented an anonymous TDU official.

Stage 4 begins in Mobury on Friday, with an emergency riot detachment at the ready in case there are any Armstrong supporter copycats looking to stage more trouble for the event.

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.