Ripp and Jonny recap their top stories for 2012 and some of the highlights of the year – including compilations for the Top Five Moments in Suffering sponsored by The Sufferfest, Saddleblaze’s Eurorag Racing Roundup brought to you by sellmybikestuff.co.uk, and of course, the best moments from Undercover Gunn. BUT WAIT! What about bloopers? Yes! We’ve got guest bloopers, and we’ve also got bloopers from Ripp and Jonny. Enjoy the review!

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.

Enough of the jibber jabber, lets get to it.

Not Normal :

1. A term used by Lance Armstrong whilst looking in the mirror.

2. A term used by the rest of the peloton watching Lance Armstrong win 7 Tours de France in succession.

3. Cycling up a 25% incline at 30kph with your mouth closed.

Paniagua :

1. To race on bread and water. For a lot of the peloton during the Lance years, not normal!

2. From the ancient and long-forgotten language Cyclismian, meaning to be beaten by filthy drug cheats.

Marginal Gains :

1: The Team SKY mantra for 2012.

2: Lance Armstrong keeping his wheel just in front of Tyler Hamilton’s on training rides.

Swear Bear :

1. Bradley Wiggins

2. Bradley #!*$-ing Wiggins

Choad :

1. Lance Armstrong’s favourite word to describe people he disliked. i.e., anyone he saw as a threat, the non-believers, the non-dreamers.

2. Lance Armstrong

Edgar Alan Poe :

1. Erythropoietin, otherwise known as EPO, or Edgar Alan Poe by the guys injecting it. Can be shorten to Edgar or Poe.

2. An author I doubt many choads would have read.

Blood Bag :

1. A bag of blood. Usually carried around by Motoman (see below).

Motoman :

1. A man with a pixelated face who was charged with carrying an Esky around France for 3 weeks in July for a fat wad of cash.

Bone-idle Wankers :

1. Everyone in the world except Bradley Wiggins, his family, and anyone associated with Team Sky (although I suspect he applies the term to some of them these days)

Wag War :

1. The Twitter flame war waged between the Wives and Girlfriends of who at first glance would appear to be the harshest of enemies, but upon closer inspection are the first and second place getters in this year’s Tour de France.

Zero Tolerance :

1. A term which describes a team’s policy in regard to performance enhancing drugs. The ZERO part is used very loosely. Zero could mean never having taken drugs, to never having been caught, to never having killed a baby panda with a unicorn’s horn.

2. USADA’s stance taken towards Lance Armstrong and his posse.

Reasoned Decision :

1. A very reasoned decision taken by USADA that made everyone look slightly differently at Lance Armstrong.

Marianne Vos :

1. World-beating female cyclist who could probably hold her own in the men’s peloton.

2. A champion we can all get behind.

Glow Time :

1. The time after an injection of the go go juice wherein it shows up on drug tests.

2. In real time, a matter of minutes to hours, depending on the dope doctor.

White Lunch Bag :

1. A white bag used to deliver lunch. And when I say lunch, I mean Edgar (see above).

2. Not to be confused with the red bag of blood. (see Blood Bag, above)

Sure, there will be plenty more, but hopefully that will start a discussion on what people thought of the turbulent year that was pro cycling 2012.

Thanks to all who made suggestions on Twitter and Facebook.

Dave: Hi everyone, my name is Dave and I’m a doper.

Everyone: Hi Dave.

Dave: I used to think about doping every day, I was abused by my team doctors, directeur sportif and in particular my team captain. He used to… he used to…

Jon: It’s OK Dave, take your time, we’re all here for you.

Dave: *sniff* doping used to be so great, once I was so good I even beat my captain by one second in a time trial. We were all so happy, all except captain Lawrence, that is. He got so angry with me … he told the doctor to give me less blood afterwards because he was jealous. I was so reliant on it, I needed it every (rest) day. I was addicted to earning money at the time, so I could buy more and more expensive and rare comic book figurines for my collection…

Jon: Then what happened Dave?

Dave: Then one day I hit rock bottom and by chance I met Jon, he had gone clean and told me the joys of not using needles. My FTP has dropped from 437w to more like 396 now, but I don’t regret it at all, even though I don’t win as much. I’m happier. I’ve been clean 5 years now.

The group clap politely whilst Dave looks longingly at Jon.

Jon: Thanks Dave, you are very brave, I predict big things for you today. Now we’re going to talk to Christian.

Christian: Hi everyone, I’m Christian and I’m a doper.

Everyone: Hi Christian!

Christian: *sigh* I used to dope all the time. I was the worst kind of doper, I was a U.S. Postal mountain domestique.

Everyone gasps.

Tom: That’s disgusting! You’re disgusting!

Other Dave: Now Tom we’re not here to judge anyone…

Christian: No Other Dave, it is disgusting, I am – or rather I was – disgusting, and if it wasn’t for Jon I would still be a climbing dom on Katusha or some shit … even today…

Christian looks at Jon, as if for support.

Jon: Carry on, Christian…

Christian: I used to transfuse blood almost every week, I was the lowest of the low. Lawrence, my team captain, made me do it, he always told me I was a good boy and he paid me lots of money. It took him a long time to convince me though, and he used to bully me. Once he made me inject myself so many times, I couldn’t find a vein anymore… I… I… I… can’t go on I’m sorry.

Christian quietly sobs and the group looks on sympathetically, even Tom is taken moved.

Jon: It’s OK, Christian. Could you show us on the Credit Lyonnais plushy Lion where he injected you?

Christian sniffs up an extra long snot trail and places his finger on the lion…

More gasps, louder this time. Jon’s jaw drops and stares at Christian. Christian looks down, ashamed.

Jon: Now that really IS disgusting… but it was a long time ago and Christian has been clean for years now… uhhhmmm right, everyone we’ve lost focus and we’re coming to the end of our session now, it’s time for our group hug. Don’t get any of that snot on my new Hawaiian shirt, Christian!

Everyone stands up and hugs, although Tom is initially reluctant to make contact with Christian.

Jon: Oh shit, team tactics, we’re leading out Tyler again, don’t crash this time Tyler…or beat the shit out of anyone.

Everyone off the bus to the sign-on! Quick! Quick! Can someone go and wake up Ryder please?

A classic TdF shot for the viewers – the peloton passes a field of sunflowers (Source: Jasper Juinen/Getty Images Europe)

Bicycling.com recently featured an interview with Phil Liggett about doing Tour de France commentary for American television audiences, and what we could expect to see this year, as TdF coverage has moved from the old Versus channel to NBC Sports Network. Liggett commented that

Coming on board with the NBC Sports Network means our wings are spread even wider, so we have an even more general sports audience now. Our goal becomes to educate viewers who haven’t been watching cycling regularly, and we have to reintroduce the players to the Americans, and reintroduce tactics and other aspects of the race.

This American viewer read that and thought, “Uh-oh. That means filler.” Liggett went on to say

I’ve always been conscious of the new viewers in my commentating, so I’m constantly identifying riders, finding out about their backgrounds, and that’s going to take an even bigger part of the broadcast than when we were on Versus. To someone who is watching cycling for the first time, it can seem so strange. There’s a breakaway, it all comes together for a sprint finish, and nobody can understand that everybody gets the same time. So you have to constantly explain this, but to me this provides a great deal of pleasure.

Yikes! An even bigger part of the broadcast? Past TdF coverage has already been laden with filler and pseudo commercials, and that’s not counting the actual commercial breaks. So let’s envision what this year’s TdF broadcast might look like, shall we?

We’ll probably open our TdF coverage by showing a commentary booth with Liggett, Paul Sherwen, Bob Roll, and a 4^thguy to act as moderator (all wearing matching shirts and Road ID bands in various colors).  They’ll spend half an hour recapping yesterday’s stage, showing the profile for today’s stage, and doing the obligatory predictions contest where they pass around a “best prognosticator” yellow jersey amongst themselves. OK, fine. But the race is on guys. Can we see that instead? Nope, time for a commercial break:

• Road ID “Phil & Paul won’t ride with Bob” version – check.
• Michelob Ultra, non-Lance version – check.
• E-harmony – check.
• IndyCar racing on NBCSN – check.
• Yellow TdF-branded trainer bike that inclines & declines – check.

Now we can begin to show the bike race.  We spend 2 minutes recapping the first 100km, showing the flag wave at Km zero and footage of any early crashes. Then we identify the breakaway participants, and get a couple shots of the chasing peloton. Liggett mentions that this is a good stage for Mark Cavendish, and talks about “his cheeky little eyes.” Paul describes a nearby chateau that really does look great in the helicopter’s hi-def shots.

It’s time to educate the American viewer, so we break away from the race to have a pseudo commercial for Trek feature where an RSNT mechanic shows us several aerodynamic details on Frank Schleck’s bike.  This is followed by a scant few minutes of race coverage, and then it’s time for another commercial break:

• Road ID “Semi-naked Levi won’t ride with Bob” version – check.
• Michelob Ultra, Lance version this time – check.
• eHarmony – check.
• Bull riding on NBCSN – check.
• Yellow TdF-branded trainer bike that inclines & declines – check.

On the way back from commercial, Phil tells us about the Nissan Ultimate Access contest, where we can enter to win a trip to the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, or possibly a Trek bike.

Back to the race: Phil tells us the gap between the peloton and the break has remained steady, and Paul remarks that they haven’t yet begun to turn the pedals in anger. Tommy Voeckler passes briefly across the screen, grimaces, and the camera catches an HD view of his tongue.  Phil & Paul recount Voeckler’s time in yellow in 2004, and tell us about how he impressed a certain Mr. Lance Armstrong.

Now it’s time to educate American viewers some more, so we break away from the race footage for a pseudo commercial for SRAM helpful feature on SRAM’s latest innovations in technology. This time we look at Chris Horner’s bike.

Back to the race, Vasil Kiryienka appears onscreen, and Paul excitedly starts talking about José Iván Gutiérrez. We then get a shot of a RadioShack team car, and Paul mentions that Lance will be coming to watch a few days of the race. Phil and Paul recount the glory days of Lance’s seven TdF wins. And then Paul regales us with facts about a rare, but famous local cheese.

Commercial break: same sponsors, you get the picture.

We return from commercial, and instead of showing the race, we have an interview with Tyler Farrar. Then after a couple minutes of race footage showing the Garmin boys in the peloton, it’s time to educate American viewers some more. This time we get a pre-recorded pseudo commercial for Giro helmets informative segment on the new safety features in bike helmets, presented by a rep from Giro, who uses Farrar’s helmet as a visual aid.

Back at the race, Phil talks about Andy Schleck’s absence. They take this opportunity to do a feature on Andy, showing a series of short interviews, interspersed with dramatic clips of “Chaingate,” with Andy looking angry, Andy being presented with the 2010 maillot jaune, and then brief footage from Andy’s June press conference where his doctor talked about his cracked vertebra. When the feature ends, P&P comment on how unfortunate it was for Andy and the Tour that Alberto Contador had to sully the good reputation of the maillot jaune by doping. They take this opportunity to mention that Floyd Landis is another disgraced rider to have lost his TdF title.

Commercial break.

We return from commercial with an aerial shot of a lovely field of sunflowers, then see Lotto chasing the break. As the camera pans back, Paul mentions that “a Certain Bradley Wiggins” is surrounded by teammates, tucked in safely just behind the Lotto boys. Phil mentions that Sky are working just like U.S. Postal, a strong team that keeps their leader protected at all times throughout the race’s three weeks.

Now they present a recap with video highlights of Wiggins’ season wins to-date. At this time, American viewers clearly need more educating, so we follow up the Wiggins piece with a pseudo commercial for Oakley an informative feature on the latest Oakley eyewear and lenses, with special emphasis on the lenses Bradley prefers for different weather conditions. They neglect to mention what lenses are best worn while warming down with one’s head under a towel.

Commercial break.

We get another reminder about the Nissan Ultimate Access contest, and then finally return to racing.  The peloton has hit some crosswinds, so things are starting to get interesting. Oh no, it’s time to educate American viewers about echelons. We cut away to a computer-generated graphic with tiny riders from RSNT, Garmin, BMC, & Sky rotating through. Then, after two minutes of watching real-life echelons, we cut to Bobke in the booth, wearing his Road ID and talking about whether the break will stay away.

Commercial break.

Returning from commercials, it’s time to show the logos of several sponsors who are bringing us race footage today. The lovely sunflower field appears behind them. More HD eye candy. At last we go back to the race, but the road has turned, so the echelons are over. But hey, there’s the Clean Bottle guy running along the roadside. He looks pretty good in HD too. Phil helpfully tells us that the Clean Bottle unscrews from both ends for easy cleaning. Then we cut to a pre-stage interview with Levi Leipheimer.

Finally we’re in the closing kilometers. As the guys in the break make their last dying efforts, Paul says they are turning themselves inside out and digging deep into their suitcases of courage. The peloton catches them, and a breathless bunch sprint ensues.

And once again we cut to commercial break.

And that is what TdF coverage in America typically looks like. Year in and year out. Gorgeous HD pictures, beautiful scenery. Enough product placement to choke a horse. And a little bit of racing thrown in for good measure.

Sorry, Lance, it's not #unconstitutional

Given the recent failures by federal prosecutors to secure convictions against athletes in court which can be traced back to doping (the Roger Clemens acquittal being the most recent), the USADA case is a welcome change and the appropriate venue for the Lance Armstrong case. Since the USADA was established it “has worked to preserve the true integrity of competition.” With that in mind, it is a non-governmental, non-profit agency whose sole focus is to ensure that all sport competition and athletes under the United States jurisdiction compete fairly and without the assistance of illegal substances.

This mission is different from the FBI, FDA and other governmental agencies which have a role of enforcing federal criminal law. Cheating is not a federal crime; doping is cheating, and that is why Armstrong and company are not being investigated for federal narcotic offenses specifically. The criminal investigation was centered on various aspects of doping, but he was being investigated for crimes relating to racketeering (RICO) and fraud.  Even if federal charges were brought against Lance Armstrong, federal prosecutors would have to prove to a 12-person jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed those offenses.

As someone who has brought cases against individuals, it is a significantly high burden, and rightly so. However, what the Bonds and Clemens cases have proved is that it can be very difficult to achieve a unanimous verdict.  In an adversarial system, there is no such thing as a “slam dunk” case. Now that the USADA has initiated their case, if charges are brought, Armstrong’s accusers will face a significantly lower burden to prove he committed specific anti-doping violations.  Unlike “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case, the accusing party will only have to prove to a “comfortable satisfaction” (Article 3.1-WADA Code) that Armstrong committed anti-doping rule violations.  This is significantly less than beyond a reasonable doubt and usually compared to standards set in professional misconduct cases.

There is little doubt that criminal cases should require the highest burden of proof.  Some argue that the burden in doping cases is too low, and skews the advantage well in favor of anti-doping authorities and creates an unfair advantage against athletes.  Whether or not you agree with it, that is the burden Lance Armstrong’s accuser must meet if and when he is charged, and if the case is eventually brought to the CAS.

In a criminal case, the government has the sole responsibility of proving a defendant is guilty of a crime. Since in our system the Constitution specifies that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, they have no responsibility to prove they are innocent of the crime. In other words, the defense simply needs to raise enough doubt in the eyes of the jurors to prevent the government from meeting their burden of proof. In a doping case, the accused athlete is still required to account for specific evidence or account for a positive test or other accusation against them, unlike a criminal case, nothing is required of a defendant even though they still present their own evidence but only to raise doubt. In the case that will more than likely be brought against Armstrong, he will not have the luxury to simply sit back for force the USADA to make their case without responding directly to the accusations against him, participate and not simply raise doubt in the minds of the arbitrators responsible for hearing the case.

Recently, many Armstrong supporters and even Lance himself have thrown out the term “unconstitutional” or as Lance tweeted, #unconstitutional. I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to figure which amendment violation he could be claiming to be a victim of.  I have yet to fully determine why Lance would allege this, but will assume he believes it is in violation of the 5^th amendment or “double jeopardy.”  This term refers to being tried for the same offense more than once after a criminal case has been brought and adjudicated or ended under specified conditions.

However, the current USADA investigation is not of a criminal nature. The USADA case against Lance Armstrong will not result in his imprisonment or “loss of liberty” since it will be heard before an Administrative Court; because it is not a judicial court like a state or federal court, Lance will not have the Constitutional protections he was provided during his criminal case. It focuses specifically on the rules and procedures for those who fall under them –American athletes – and has nothing to do with federal laws, because it is not officially a government agency no matter how much people want to argue it is because of partial funding through a federal grant.

Lance’s USADA case has nothing to do with the criminal charges he was being investigated for by the Grand Jury, and therefore in no way can it be argued it would fall under Constitutional violation.  Legally, it is important to recognize that even if federal authorities decided to reopen his federal criminal investigation he would still not be able to argue a “double jeopardy” violation, as it only “attaches” once a trial begins. Anyone, including Lance, who attempts to make this anti-doping case a matter of Constitutional issues has a gross misunderstanding of how the 5^th Amendment works in this case.

The differences between the criminal case and current USADA case involving Lance Armstrong for anti-doping violations are apparent and clear.  These are the reason why his case is exactly where it needs to be in order to prove what many people want to know – was Lance Armstrong a drugs cheat as an athlete? A federal criminal conviction still would not have proven he was a doper.  It would have proven he broke federal criminal law with respect to fraud and racketeering, but never that he specifically doped, which is what the anti-doping case will specifically focus on and possibly prove.

In my opinion, the most important part of the USADA case against Lance is information about his blood passport values. There is a precedent for their introduction and use at the CAS if this case is to eventually be heard there, as we have seen with the Franco Pellizotti case.  A piece of evidence like the biological passport would never be brought into a criminal trial had Armstrong been indicted, but again, that goes to show the important difference between the federal government’s and the USADA’s cases, and highlights why the Lance Armstrong anti-doping case is exactly where it belongs.

While the battle lines have essentially been drawn by those for or against Lance, there are still many who really don’t know whether he cheated or not because it has never truly been investigated or adjudicated.

Hopefully, that is what this case will determine.

As I discussed with @festinagirl and @velocast yesterday on the Velocast podcast (you can listen here), there is more to this story than just Lance. Even though Lance wishes this to be all about him, as @festinagirl so eloquently said yesterday, this is more about Lance the team owner and his part in an organised doping conspiracy.

However, if you think this is solely the domain of U.S. Postal cycling team, or Johan Bruyneel’s alleged involvement along with the other four conspirators, you are sorely naïve. This Lance business will expose just how sophisticated doping protocols have become since 1992, and how they continue to be sophisticated to this day. The worst part in all of this is the reaction by many of those who are supposed to be protecting the integrity of the sport overall.

The Belgian Federation? The UCI? USA Cycling?

The Belgian cycling federation has chosen to remain tight-lipped, waiting to see which way the wind blows. The fact that USA Cycling released the list of athletes who specifically removed themselves from Olympic team consideration does demonstrate the pull Armstrong still has in the organisation.  How about the UCI? How can the governing body of the sport, which patted itself on the back merely days before about the success of the biological passport, come out with a cryptic and tight-lipped press release on the Armstrong business?

Panic.

The trouble is all these organisations have fallen prey to the seduction of becoming marketing and PR organisations to promote the sport, instead of staying true to their real function of providing administration and support for those who wish to pursue cycling in a competitive manner. When you have a Federation or a governing body trying to run races themselves or grow the sport themselves, it puts them in the dangerous predicament of being a “fox in charge of the hen-house.” If you happen to have the wrong people at the top level making the decisions, the aims of the organisation can be perverted for less magnanimous ideals.

The superstar and the boss, Lance Armstrong and Hein Verbruggen, former president of the UCI (Photo © Mike Gladu courtesy Cyclingnews)

Is it a coincidence Hein Verbruggen’s rise to the top level in the sport coincided with an era rife with doping challenges?

Many people who are new to the sport of cycling comment on how incestuous the sport really is. Non-profit governing bodies creating private for-profit entities to grow the sport, something that used to be called “misappropriation of funds” in criminal court circles, have been blissfully ignored by the Swiss Parliament, or the criminal investigation units of a particular nation. Journalists participate in blatant public relations campaigns through the guise of their employers, or are blatantly paid by cycling related entities as independent contractors to provide sales or marketing or PR opportunities. These same journalists are expected to remain neutral or report on the negative aspects of the sport. We see the fruits of this now.

Cycling lacks a clear chain of command, and a clear channel of communication. Pat McQuaid speaks directly to athletes. Members of labs have met directly with team managers. Team owners meet directly with race organisers. The governing body decides to wear a race organiser hat. Journalist work directly for members of the pro peloton.  The tough part is that we also rely on all of these individuals to hold themselves accountable and resist the temptation to pervert their position for profit.

This brings us back to Armstrong.

The Armstrong case demonstrates to us just how deep the involvment from all parties truly is. The UCI was involved directly with Lance, which is why they are so tight-lipped at the moment. They have no idea who the witnesses are, or how they could implicate the UCI in the investigation. The same could be said for USA Cycling in many respects. Even the ASO may not be above reproach in this situation. This is a prime example of why the lack of rules, the lack of leadership, and the lack of direction from those who are “in charge” of the sport can become exploited by someone who can potentially increase their respective revenue streams.

It’s hard to hold them all accountable for their actions, as the relationships are murky at best. The trouble with murky lines of communication and responsibility is that it allows for those with less than honourable intentions to operate. Hence why doping doctors are still in the sport. Hence why dodgy team managers are still involved in the sport. Hence why athlete managers or “coaches” are allowed to be part of star riders’ entourages. Hence why federation and governing body directors and managers are involved directly in cycling for-profit ventures.

Cycling needs an entire clean-up from top to bottom. Cycling needs a UCI president who says enough is enough, and passes legislation to create clear channels of communication between the governing body, federations, team owners, teams, riders, manufacturers, media, and the fans. Setting the table properly removes the spectre of potentially dubious activity, and could create the transparency we all crave.

AIGCP should be negotiating contract terms with a riders’ union. This should be approved and ratified by the UCI. It shouldn’t be up to the UCI to mandate from the top down; the UCI should merely be the balance to check the relationship. The UCI should ensure teams are treated fairly by race organisers, and that race organisers follow proper protocol, not necessarily dictate who appears where. The UCI should be helping national federations grow their cycling programmes by providing expertise in conjunction with for-profit race organisers, not organising races themselves.

More importantly, they should be supporting each nation’s anti-doping programmes in spite of what may possibly be an embarrassing public relations event for the sport.  The statements from those at the top of all influential organisations should be different. Based on the reaction from both USA Cycling and the UCI to the impending Armstrong situation, is it any wonder folks feel less than comfortable in coming clean on what truly happens behind closed doors in our sport, and feel the need to talk to “semi-anonymous trolls,” “nom de plume idiots” and Twitter personalities to clear their conscience rather than speak directly with those involved in overseeing the sport?

No wonder at all.

Isaac Howe on the deck (photo by Barbara Dowd)

With that in mind, I wanted to provide my insight as both a bike racer and an officer in the criminal justice system. I feel my experience here supports my assertion that in addition to a lifetime ban from racing, criminal charges should be pressed against Mr. Atkins if the allegations are found to be true in a court of law. While I do not claim he is guilty of a crime (only a court of law can rightfully pass that judgement against a defendant), I believe that criminal charges have their place in this situation and need to be explored and possibly brought.

The bringing of criminal charges is a monumental event in a person’s life whether they are the victim or the perpetrator. In South Carolina, the code section is three-tiered and would fall under the 3rd Degree Assault statute of 16-3-600 (E). From my reading, this essentially means that the accused either attempted to or did unlawfully injure the person in order to meet the criteria for assault under the statute.  In recounting Howe’s version of the events and reviewing the code section, it is clear that an assault took place. Howe suffered a broken bone due to the actions of Atkins. It is clearly within the statute that a crime took place in that Atkins intentionally caused physical harm to Howe. Also, it is important to note that crimes must have the mens rea, the guilty mind and actus rea, the actual act. Based on the account of Howe, after Atkins had to ride off the road he came back to Howe and demanded an apology for supposedly causing him to ride off the road. Atkins again rode next to Howe and deliberately grabbed his handle bars (mens rea) and then pulled Howe and his bike to the ground (actus rea). All the elements of a crime are there. I surely cannot fathom a reason why a rider would place their hands on another rider’s bike and pull it in a direction to make the rider crash. However, the more important aspect I will explore is why criminal charges should be placed.

Crashes in cycling are unfortunately something we all know can happen. A year ago this month we were tragically reminded by Wouter Wyland’s death during the third stage of the Giro d’ Italia that crashes can be fatal. While that was an accident where no foul play was involved, the Electric City Circuit crash is strikingly different in that this was a situation that was intentionally caused against another individual. A lifetime ban is one kind of punishment, but to go one step further, an incident where there appears to be intentional and deliberate malice involved is deserving of a criminal hearing in a court of law. I cannot think of any reason, other than to cause  physical injury, that you would grab and pull a cyclist to the ground.

Some may argue that the police should have no role in this incident, and that the race officials and USA Cycling should have sole responsibility for handling infractions in the discipline; I completely disagree for the reasons I’ve stated above.  If this happened outside a bike race I am certain criminal charges would have been filed if someone intentionally caused physical injury to another person. If there is one reason why criminal charges should be placed it is because of that reason alone. A crime was committed. If Atkins is charged, he will be given his constitutionally-provided day in court to zealously defend himself against these charges, and until he is convicted he is provided with the presumption of innocence of the alleged offense.

The cycling world, racers, and fans at all levels are incredibly well connected and informed about what is going on. If the police determine the elements of a crime are present, charges against Atkins will be appropriately placed. A bike race is no different than any other instance in society where one person intentionally causes physical injury to another, and there should be appropriate consequences for such actions. If actions like this are not swiftly and quickly dealt with by authorities (USA Cycling and law enforcement officials), then I believe we will begin to see these kinds of acts being viewed as  “tolerated behavior” – and other riders who feel they have been wronged during a race or other sporting event will follow suit.  That simply cannot be allowed for the interest of everyone involved.

Crowd sourcing comes to cycling (photo courtesy of Team Traveller)

Worst Five Things of the Week

Numero Cinco

CONI Requests four-year ban for Savio

So the criminal courts clear Gianni Savio from any wrongdoing. Savio has proof of no wrongdoing. However, it seems that CONI feels that he’s done something wrong in reference to the case, and has asked for a four-year ban? If I were Holczer, Vaughters, Bruyneel, or any other manager, I would look upon this development with alarm. Holding managers responsible for members of their team doping? That’s preposterous and completely ridiculous.

Numero Cuatro

Klöden declares WINNING is more important than family

Well, it seems that Andreas Klöden’s trek to the dark side of the force is complete. Eschewing the notion that a happy family is a vital component to a long and stress-free life, Klöden has basically declared that the brothers Schleck need to forget any familial allegiances to achieve greater professional gain. Of course, this sort of selling-your-soul-to-feed-your-own-selfishly-egoistical pursuits is really nothing new for Klöden. And it’s unfortunate that Becca and crew have failed to realize the marketing potential of having the first brother act on the podium at the Tour De France.

Numero Tres

No Place for Alexandr Kolobnev with Katusha in 2012

So once again it’s shown that it never pays to fall on your sword for your team, for your countrymen, or for one-day allegiances. Seems that Kolobnev has been told there’s no room at the Katusha table for him. Shocking. Funny how one guy just seems to have bad luck follow him at every turn. Maybe he should call Floyd Landis for pointers on the next steps to take.

Numero Dos

AFLD ends disciplinary action against Jeannie Longo

What a fooking disaster this is. I blame the Spanish. They started it. Oh wait! Or was it the Italians? No, maybe the Russians. Ah well, at least the Americans still believe in crime and punishment for the guilty, i.e., the end user.

Numero Uno

Vino Vino Vino

Quit being cheap. With the advent of social media platforms, everyone thinks that they don’t need PR people anymore. Guess what? Some people really should turn their PR statements over to someone else to release. Like Vino. Facebook? really? With unfortunate and questionable English usage? Sigh… Even I have an editor for my pieces. Yes, even yours truly isn’t fooking perfect. What? Sorry? Yes, yes, I’ll put the curtain back up. *chuckle*

Best Five Things of the Week

Number Five

Dan Lloyd speaks his mind on leaving Garmin

Why is it that almost every single person who leaves Garmin has nothing nice to say about their experience with the team? Lloyd, Lowe, Hushovd are just three of the latest examples of this. In fact, Lowe actually filed a complaint with the UCI back in June or so. But more on that down the road. Good for Lloyd speaking out, which led to quite an interesting Twitter debate between Shane Stokes of Velonation and Garmin poohbah Jonathan Vaughters, leading to a public apology by JV. Yet, Lionel Birnie just HAD to get his two cents in on it as well. Plus, the Twitter masses lining up to either support or skewer Mr. Vaughters made for an entertaining weekend on the social media platform.

Number Four

James Stout begins a crowdsourcing fund for a cycling team

I’m a big admirer of this lad. First off, he made the decision to leave a full racing calendar in the States to return home to Europe for health reasons after his employer withheld agreed-upon medication necessary to control his Type 1 diabetes. Second, he was unwilling to be “dissuaded” from revealing his unfortunate experiences, and chose to be publicly forthcoming in speaking out about the mistreatment he received. Thirdly, he resisted the temptation to turn his back on the sport, and chose instead to race for a new cycling team, Team Traveller, beginning in June. Now the lad would like to make Team Traveller a haven for those in pro-cycling who have received a raw deal from other teams. I predict a bright future for Stout. Take the time to support his initiative.

Number Three

Evans given vintage Cadillac Coupe as reward for Tour success

What makes this story one of the best of the week is the fact that the Caddy wasn’t a gift from BMC team owner Andy Rihs, but rather from rival WorldTour team owner Gerry Ryan of GreenEDGE. Ryan, is, of course, a fellow countryman to Evans and one really can’t fault his nationalistic largesse to the first Aussie Tour winner. But is this really permissible under UCI WorldTour rules? Absolutely, as we aren’t playing college-level American sports here. The question remains, however, if this could be construed as down payment for a future contract with GreenEDGE. I wonder what the current members of GREENedge have to say about the gift? Reminds me of the Jean-Francois Bernard/Bernard Tapie Porsche debacle.

Number Two

There’s new energy coming into women’s cycling

I’m very thrilled to see Lululemon getting involved in women’s cycling. I’m also very thrilled to see Kristy Scrymgeour move up to the team manager role for the Specialized-Lululemon squad. Here’s hoping this might cause the men’s side to re-examine to whom they pitch sponsorship opportunities, as Lululemon is a solid fit for this aspect of the sport. Those who have been around the team say the energy is overwhelming positive, which should translate into a very successful year for the team.

Number One

Pat McQuaid 2011 Round Up

I am thrilled at the development of the UCI YouTube Propaganda Network. It’s an outstanding way for the organization to disseminate the message directly to the masses. If you say something over and over again, not only will you start to believe it, but the ballyhoo may actually cause the general public and the media to begin to believe as well. It looks like I may have to pull strings at The Guardian, SkyNews, Velonation, Cycling Weekly, and Cyclingnews, though and put some better puppets in place to properly pass on my platitudes without inserting some fooking subjective knife twists pointing out how many holes my propaganda truly has. I’m picking up the phone, you hacks. Be forewarned. *chuckle*