Cycle of Lies

[MarkvW]

I know you're a good guy/gal. No one I've talked to who has read the book questions Juliet's take on me. It's interesting albeit surprising you had a different take. I do think Juliet played both sides at times. In the end, however, if lance thought he was playing her, he was played. He lost again. boo hoo hoo.
Cycle of Lies turned out to be a nightmare for him. If only he'd stop trying to do whatever he can to get back into the sport - it's a losing effort. Losing, buddy, L O S I N G

Lance should have plummeted to a sudden collapse years ago. Once Floyd snitched, the writing was totally on the wall. USADA and everybody else has given him ample room for negotiation, but he drags everything out. His PR nightmare is looking like it's going to continue for a few more months, at least. And it's all his fault. All this despite having advice from the best crisis management that money could buy?

Why the endless drama? Is this something Lance needs in his life? It certainly doesn't help his reinstatement possibilities...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Again, you are assuming the sports federation is promoting some sort of fair game. "Right" and "wrong" have a completely different meaning in this kind of environment. "Right" is winning and never testing positive. "Wrong" is testing positive.

I'd argue that's a very difficult environment in which a young person is required to make a decision that will probably end his/her elite career in the short term, but long term, be the right thing to do. So, any kind of discussion with a more mature person, maybe a parent, is very important.

I agree with your assessment.

What I was trying to get at is that most cyclists at say age 14-16 are not naïve about the fact there is doping in cycling. I suspect many of them have either already been exposed to the decision of whether or not to dope, or are at least thinking that at some point in the not too distant future they are going to be confronted with this decision.

It is not as though suddenly at 18,19 or 20 the issue arises. Although at that age the actual decision may be upon them and that increases the pressure to make a moral decision. Will I or won't I. How badly do I want to win, how badly do I want fame, how badly do I want to make money in this sport?

Mitigating against this is the moral decision. Is it right to dope or is it wrong to dope or am I amoral and don't really care one way or the other? Then of course it would be wise to get the advice of parents or a mentor who are mature enough to understand the dilemma and give advice.

By age 18, the parenting style of parents is pretty well developed and it remains to be seen in each individual case whether or not their advice is responsible advice. If ever there were two cyclists who had grounded parents were Hamilton and Landis, but in both cases neither availed themselves of the advice that could have changed their lives.

I leave you with this story. My brother was a great junior hockey player. He was 6' 2" about 190 of solid muscle. He was a superb skater and puck handler, perfect for being a centreman. There is no question in my mind he would have made the NHL. Because of his size his junior coach consistently sent him out to specifically try to hurt some opposing player (a moral issue). It was suggested he could use steroids to bulk up ( another moral issue).

My brother decided "screw this" He quit hockey, went to University, got his MBA and has had a brilliant career as a banker (regardless of what we think about bankers!) He contents himself with playing Masters hockey albeit at a high competitive level where the comraderie is superb and through which he has made a lot of friends and business contacts. Clearly in my mind he made the right choice. He made this choice on his own at age 18.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree with your assessment.

What I was trying to get at is that most cyclists at say age 14-16 are not naïve about the fact there is doping in cycling. I suspect many of them have either already been exposed to the decision of whether or not to dope, or are at least thinking that at some point in the not too distant future they are going to be confronted with this decision.

It is not as though suddenly at 18,19 or 20 the issue arises. Although at that age the actual decision may be upon them and that increases the pressure to make a moral decision. Will I or won't I. How badly do I want to win, how badly do I want fame, how badly do I want to make money in this sport?

Mitigating against this is the moral decision. Is it right to dope or is it wrong to dope or am I amoral and don't really care one way or the other? Then of course it would be wise to get the advice of parents or a mentor who are mature enough to understand the dilemma and give advice.

By age 18, the parenting style of parents is pretty well developed and it remains to be seen in each individual case whether or not their advice is responsible advice. If ever there were two cyclists who had grounded parents were Hamilton and Landis, but in both cases neither availed themselves of the advice that could have changed their lives.

I leave you with this story. My brother was a great junior hockey player. He was 6' 2" about 190 of solid muscle. He was a superb skater and puck handler, perfect for being a centreman. There is no question in my mind he would have made the NHL. Because of his size his junior coach consistently sent him out to specifically try to hurt some opposing player (a moral issue). It was suggested he could use steroids to bulk up ( another moral issue).

My brother decided "screw this" He quit hockey, went to University, got his MBA and has had a brilliant career as a banker (regardless of what we think about bankers!) He contents himself with playing Masters hockey albeit at a high competitive level where the comraderie is superb and through which he has made a lot of friends and business contacts. Clearly in my mind he made the right choice. He made this choice on his own at age 18.

Ok, but in most cases you are dealing with young people who want nothing else but to ride, race and get to the highest level. Some would even sell their mother to get there.

That's their drive, which, if accompanied by adequate ability, can't be mitigated by parenting, or having a good 'role model,' but is innate.

The issue thus becomes one of how the business behind the scenes has enhanced taking access to those illicit methods that can't be avoided just to play? In which case, the pool attracts whoever dives in.

 

[SundayRider]

Most riders who admit doping, state that they started after they got their first 'big' contract and then realised that they needed to dope to progress. Can't think of any that admit to doping for their entire career. Could be ego, could be true.

 

[blackcat]

Actually, forget about Stapleton. Maybe Linda is running around buying up all the copies before too many find out about the myth, within the myth, within the myth.

oedipus aint no myth.

the greek one? yeah ok.

but the freudian one, aint no myth

 

[MarkvW]

Most riders who admit doping, state that they started after they got their first 'big' contract and then realised that they needed to dope to progress. Can't think of any that admit to doping for their entire career. Could be ego, could be true.

Truth is a rare commodity in pro cycling. We'll never know.

 

[MarkvW]

Ok, but in most cases you are dealing with young people who want nothing else but to ride, race and get to the highest level. Some would even sell their mother to get there.

That's their drive, which, if accompanied by adequate ability, can't be mitigated by parenting, or having a good 'role model,' but is innate.

The issue thus becomes one of how the business behind the scenes has enhanced taking access to those illicit methods that can't be avoided just to play? In which case, the pool attracts whoever dives in.

You're talking about the people who are selected for the next level, not the entire pool of riders riding at the lower levels. Wide variety of personality types...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Most riders who admit doping, state that they started after they got their first 'big' contract and then realised that they needed to dope to progress. Can't think of any that admit to doping for their entire career. Could be ego, could be true.

Two tragic stories, Jenevive Jeanson, Tammy Thomas. Hopefully less tragic story of Greg Strock and Erik Kaiter at least. (pardon any misspellings)

We know for sure Carmichael was doping kids to beat up domestic racers at domestic events. Armstrong was his product for sure, as was Levi and Hincapie. Thom Wiesel's various cycling teams all had PED doctors.

Parents being pitched on their kids joining development teams used to be sold on the team's fantastic medical program. Don't mistake "medical program" for massage therapists and first aid kits.

None of this is "big contracts" time. Again, I'd argue this is the federation not actually serious about containing doping, but very serious about containing doping controversy. My understanding is the U.S. was not the only country with doping personnel for under-23 races. I don't know the situation in 2014.

 

[rhubroma]

You're talking about the people who are selected for the next level, not the entire pool of riders riding at the lower levels. Wide variety of personality types...

I think the people selected for the next level, are selected for reasons beyond mere physical ability, which, only in certain cases, is far beyond the top tier of the rest of the pool. At this point it becomes a question of what are you willing to do.

 

[SundayRider]

Two tragic stories, Jenevive Jeanson, Tammy Thomas. Hopefully less tragic story of Greg Strock and Erik Kaiter at least. (pardon any misspellings)

We know for sure Carmichael was doping kids to beat up domestic racers at domestic events. Armstrong was his product for sure, as was Levi and Hincapie. Thom Wiesel's various cycling teams all had PED doctors.

Parents being pitched on their kids joining development teams used to be sold on the team's fantastic medical program. Don't mistake "medical program" for massage therapists and first aid kits.

None of this is "big contracts" time. Again, I'd argue this is the federation not actually serious about containing doping, but very serious about containing doping controversy. My understanding is the U.S. was not the only country with doping personnel for under-23 races. I don't know the situation in 2014.

Andy Schleck is probably one of those who was doping from very young.

 

[DirtyWorks]

At this point it becomes a question of what are you willing to do.

We know this was the case in the U.S. Lots and lots of bizarre unwritten rules having nothing to do with performance. For example, you couldn't beat Armstrong during a training camp in his development days. It was about your propensity to fit into the hierarchy more than your performance.

Again, this is just the U.S. I don't know how other federations work.

 

[rhubroma]

We know this was the case in the U.S. Lots and lots of bizarre unwritten rules having nothing to do with performance. For example, you couldn't beat Armstrong during a training camp in his development days. It was about your propensity to fit into the hierarchy more than your performance.

Again, this is just the U.S. I don't know how other federations work.

It's a pecking order throughout.

 

[Granville57]

As others have mentioned, I, too am quite curious about the Allen Lim aspects of this book. His stories are some of what stuck out the most to me.

I just dug up this older link of JV talking, sort of. Seems relevant to this conversation.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1129830&postcount=2547

Allen portrayed himself as "just the coach" to Floyd and not more. He always told me he knew something was going on, but he wasn't a part of it. He said Floyd "shielded" him from it all.

I Have no idea if this is just complete crap or true. I still get conflicting stories. Whatever. Allen was straight with us. He was the biggest proponent of the no needles policy when we indexed that in 2008. He never had access to medical files and certainly not blood test records. He coached our guys. Period. He is not an MD. But I haven't spoken to him since 2009 when he left for Radio Shack. That move gave me the impression that he was a little bit "whichever way the wind blows..."

BTW - Allen was hardly central. Our best years have been since he left. As i later found, there are better sports scientists. He was just a very good promotor.

JV

 

[mewmewmew13]

As others have mentioned, I, too am quite curious about the Allen Lim aspects of this book. His stories are some of what stuck out the most to me.

I just dug up this older link of JV talking, sort of. Seems relevant to this conversation.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1129830&postcount=2547

that is the Lim that I remember …

'new Allen Lim' now starring in a surprise role..

 

[Granville57]

Ok, but in most cases you are dealing with young people who want nothing else but to ride, race and get to the highest level. Some would even sell their mother to get there.

That's their drive, which, if accompanied by adequate ability, can't be mitigated by parenting, or having a good 'role model,' but is innate.

The issue thus becomes one of how the business behind the scenes has enhanced taking access to those illicit methods that can't be avoided just to play? In which case, the pool attracts whoever dives in.

Not wanting to derail things too much here, but here's another great JV quote that fits the above discussion perfectly.

But now a real and direct question to you. Did you not have to train your balls of to come to that Ventoux TT? What was the Holy Grail there? The EPO gave you a boost in the race, but how about in training? If I boost my crit to 52 I will not fly up the Ventoux, that's for sure.

The answer is funny as heck. Yes, I trained my balls off, had a good 3-4 months with no colds or sickness... I mean, the 15 years of racing a bike and training quite a bit before the Ventoux helped too. 10 day stage races at 18 yrs old.... Junior World Championships... etc. end of the days, in my era, the guys who doped, doped because they had made it to the highest level, clean, from genetics and training. they were the best guys. But... Then, wham, the speed of the whole damn peloton goes nuts from 94-96 and its a case of dope or leave. And most doped. some left. When I look at it, at the highest level, usually the guys who left had wealthy families, a University education, or whatnot. Those who saw cycling as their only way out, stayed. And doped. I didn't have a wealthy family, but I also didn't need a way out. Probably why I doped, won a bit, then retired at 29. Sort of one foot in, one foot out.

Anyhow, back to your question: That last 2% that allowed me to go crazy fast? Beyond the dope? I had a nasty breakup w a girlfriend and kinda didn't eat much for like a week, mid/Late April. I lost 2kgs because of that. Which put me down around 59kgs. I never raced that light again.

JV

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Ok, but in most cases you are dealing with young people who want nothing else but to ride, race and get to the highest level. Some would even sell their mother to get there.

That's their drive, which, if accompanied by adequate ability, can't be mitigated by parenting, or having a good 'role model,' but is innate.

The issue thus becomes one of how the business behind the scenes has enhanced taking access to those illicit methods that can't be avoided just to play? In which case, the pool attracts whoever dives in.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. Riders who are wedded to the sport will do whatever they can to get to the pro ranks. This is sad but true. Those who do not have the talent, and therefore need the drugs, will cheat. They will also cheat the clean riders who then cannot compete and the vicious cycle repeats itself.

This is why we have anti-doping. This is also why we need an anti doping regime that will be as tough as nails as was Tygart with LA. There cannot be too many Tygarts in this battle. This also realistically means zero tolerance and strict liability which may lead to an unfair system of discipline regarding what level of drug really is performance enhancing. But that is the price riders will have to pay for the last 30 years.

Keep in mind that Armstrong, the classic example of planned, deliberate and intentional doping (to make up for his shortcomings in talent), ultimately earned the reputation as the most despised cyclist on the planet. Juliet Macur has done an excellent job in assassinating him.

In my opinion we need a system where the top guys are totally transparent about publicly publishing bio-markers such as hematocrit, hemoglobin, testosterone levels, in and out of competition test results and requests for TUEs. IMO if every pro cyclist had to do that, it would get their attention.

I am sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say in paragraph 3

 

[tofino]

Usada

I think there's enough out there for a phone call from USADA to Monsieur Lim. I wonder what the word is on those Colorado group rides about that subject?

As others have mentioned, I, too am quite curious about the Allen Lim aspects of this book. His stories are some of what stuck out the most to me.

I just dug up this older link of JV talking, sort of. Seems relevant to this conversation.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1129830&postcount=2547

 

[Neworld]

I think there's enough out there for a phone call from USADA to Monsieur Lim. I wonder what the word is on those Colorado group rides about that subject?

In 'wheelmen', p259...

"Potential witnesses who initially refuse to talk with investigators were issued grand jury subpoenas. Those people included Armstrong's USPS teammates GH, TH, KL and YPop; LA's longtime friend S.McIlvain and her sub and, and Allen Lim. That meant they would be forced to testify-without a lawyer-in front of a sitting grand jury in LA. "

Did their testimonies make into the Reasoned Decision?

 

[MarkvW]

In 'wheelmen', p259...

"Potential witnesses who initially refuse to talk with investigators were issued grand jury subpoenas. Those people included Armstrong's USPS teammates GH, TH, KL and YPop; LA's longtime friend S.McIlvain and her sub and, and Allen Lim. That meant they would be forced to testify-without a lawyer-in front of a sitting grand jury in LA. "

Did their testimonies make into the Reasoned Decision?

No. Grand jury testimony is ultra-secret. There were two separate proceedings: (1) a United States government criminal investigation on behalf of the US Public; and (2) an antidoping action taken by a private agency pursuant to its contractual obligations with the UCI, the IOC and a bunch of other organizations. It is clear (and everybody here agrees) that the US Government did not share the fruits of its investigation with USADA. Everything USADA got, it got on its own.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This is why we have anti-doping. This is also why we need an anti doping regime that will be as tough as nails as was Tygart with LA. There cannot be too many Tygarts in this battle.

Again, USADA got half-lucky and dealt directly with riders. The U.S. federation did their level best to deny USADA their sanction including submitting Armstrong-supporting documentation to Wonderboy's Federal appeal. It's the cycling federation enabling the doping.

There can be plenty of Tygarts, but they are all powerless unless athletes go *directly* to the NADO. Which is why I advocate for NADOs being granted the authority to open cases on any samples in the APMU.

Keep in mind that Armstrong, the classic example of planned, deliberate and intentional doping (to make up for his shortcomings in talent), ultimately earned the reputation as the most despised cyclist on the planet. Juliet Macur has done an excellent job in assassinating him.

Except the bottom line is it wasn't the lone f*(**&ing athlete doping, it was the federation not only protecting the athlete but running the doping.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/03/news/book-excerpt-chapter-18-juliet-macurs-cycle-lies_320274


It all left confused. Soon after the Andreu/Vaughters admissions, he [Zabriskie] once again explained his feelings about the Postal Service team’s doping to Steve Johnson, who recently had been named chief executive of USA Cycling. He wanted help from one of the most powerful men in American cycling—a man who once had been his mentor. Instead, Johnson said Andreu never should have gone public.

The head of USA Cycling knew it. All of it. The federation was running the doping. What's right when the federation rewards an athlete for doping????

I want to be wrong, but I'm not. I'm not saying Canada has gotten to USA Cycling's level of doping because certainly it seems like they are not. But the warning sirens should be going off if Canadian Cycling ever runs a pro team sometime in the future. (COUGH! sky COUGH!!)

 

[MarkvW]

Again, USADA got half-lucky and dealt directly with riders. The U.S. federation did their level best to deny USADA their sanction including submitting Armstrong-supporting documentation to Wonderboy's Federal appeal. It's the cycling federation enabling the doping.

There can be plenty of Tygarts, but they are all powerless unless athletes go *directly* to the NADO. Which is why I advocate for NADOs being granted the authority to open cases on any samples in the APMU.



Except the bottom line is it wasn't the lone f*(**&ing athlete doping, it was the federation not only protecting the athlete but running the doping.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/03/news/book-excerpt-chapter-18-juliet-macurs-cycle-lies_320274


It all left confused. Soon after the Andreu/Vaughters admissions, he [Zabriskie] once again explained his feelings about the Postal Service team’s doping to Steve Johnson, who recently had been named chief executive of USA Cycling. He wanted help from one of the most powerful men in American cycling—a man who once had been his mentor. Instead, Johnson said Andreu never should have gone public.

The head of USA Cycling knew it. All of it. The federation was running the doping. What's right when the federation rewards an athlete for doping????

I want to be wrong, but I'm not. I'm not saying Canada has gotten to USA Cycling's level of doping because certainly it seems like they are not. But the warning sirens should be going off if Canadian Cycling ever runs a pro team sometime in the future. (COUGH! sky COUGH!!)

The written rules of cycling forbid doping, but the unwritten rules do not. There's nothing morally difficult about all of this. Professional cycling is a filthy cesspool from top to bottom, thoroughly permeated by liars and cheats. Moreover, everybody knows it.

Nobody cares. If people cared, US racing cyclists would have followed LeMond's suggestion and resigned their USAC memberships. But cyclists won't do that--they'd rather race and support a corrupt moral structure than sit out and take the moral high ground.

There is no USAC insurgency. USAC members--all of them--prefer doping to the alternative. They can say what they want with their hypocritical mouths, but their money (poured into a corrupt sport) speaks volumes!

I love this sport. It is the filthiest Circus. I can't wait until Weasel pygmalions his next doping wonderboy!

 

[DirtyWorks]

...Moreover, everybody knows it.

That's the only bit I'll argue. Let's pretend the number of viewers is growing for a minute. Start watching the sport now and what's happening behind the scenes (federations) may as well be collider particle physics experiments.

The rest I do not argue. Though, I do not revel in it quite like your post.

 

[rhubroma]

. I am sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say in paragraph 3

At every level the business model, which does nothing to mitigate the worst human instincts (...to the contrary), enhances doping. It isn't at all surprising that as corporate sponsorship has gotten bigger, so too the arms race and the corruption within the UCI.

Some would pin this down to a natural evolution, but as I see it there was nothing natural about it. And you can't tell me that Nike, Oakley, Trek, etc. had no idea of how their investments were being used in LA's case, or that when any franchise decides to sponsor a Euro pro cycling team they are ignorant of what's going on inside a là Robobank.

This is why I say that the moral indignation of such sponsorship, how they say they are scandalized to "find out" their team had been operating an organized doping racket all along (it paid for), and that in the public name of their product image they are pulling out, only wreaks of the most vapid hypocrisy.

I realize this is a problem that’s probably impossible to tackle, but it isn’t even being brought up and it is perhaps the mother of all problems.

 

[MarkvW]

That's the only bit I'll argue. Let's pretend the number of viewers is growing for a minute. Start watching the sport now and what's happening behind the scenes (federations) may as well be collider particle physics experiments.

The rest I do not argue. Though, I do not revel in it quite like your post.

I'd like to see the sport clean up its act, but I'm certain that it won't. But if that certainty ever does fade, no one will be happier than I.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

At every level the business model, which does nothing to mitigate the worst human instincts (...to the contrary), enhances doping. It isn't at all surprising that as corporate sponsorship has gotten bigger, so too the arms race and the corruption within the UCI.

Some would pin this down to a natural evolution, but as I see it there was nothing natural about it. And you can't tell me that Nike, Oakley, Trek, etc. had no idea of how their investments were being used in LA's case, or that when any franchise decides to sponsor a Euro pro cycling team they are ignorant of what's going on inside a là Robobank.

This is why I say that the moral indignation of such sponsorship, how they say they are scandalized to "find out" their team had been operating an organized doping racket all along (it paid for), and that in the public name of their product image they are pulling out, only wreaks of the most vapid hypocrisy

I realize this is a problem that’s probably impossible to tackle, but it isn’t even being brought up and it is perhaps the mother of all problems.

You are correct it is a huge problem. It is as big a problem as working for a clean sport. Americans will churn out T shirts over a tragedy if it will make a buck. In the United States, the corporate attitude is to make as much money as possible. There is a huge culture of greed and entitlement in the US (Madoff, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Armstrong etc.) Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers is the same type of personality as Armstrong and Madoff)

Trek went from very modest sales to huge sales due to their link with Armstrong. Trek would have had several employees handling the Armstrong account. Many of these employees would have been in Europe constantly during the cycling season and had access to Armstrong and other USPS riders.

To think they were brainless and they didn't know what was going on in the peloton say between 1998 and 2010 is impossible to accept. But Trek, Nike, Oakley and the like were making so much money they turned a blind eye. They were wilfully negligent and blind but continued to pump out advertising of their products using the Armstrong narrative. They really didn't care that their promotion of their products was built on a fraud.

We don't know how far up the corporate chain this went. I think Lance knows and he could have done cycling a service by going to USADA and explaining how far up the chain doping was known and tolerated. Not just about his corporate sponsors, but also those at USA Cycling who are still running cycling in the US. But he does not have the moral courage to do that. He likes to claim he is not a rat. He has huge money decisions to make and I suspect he is holding off naming names to ensure he walks away with some money. He is in survival mode.

The sponsors are clearly hypocritical, but when it comes to profit in the USA virtually every corporate entity is. Their dropping Lance was for perception purposes only and not because they were invested in cleaning up cycling or condemning cheats.

The only way they can be hurt is not to buy their products. Don't buy Nike, Trek or Oakley. But the public is fickle and not very principled. If a person thinks they will look good in Nike shoes they will buy them.

Books like Cycle of Lies don't have the print space to go into this in depth. But it would make a fascinating story to investigate the degree of complicity. But in my view it is going to take several whistle blowers to uncover the story. There would have to be one or several Deep Throats.