JV1973 said:
While I don't disagree with your proposition, it isn't going to be a path I take, for a number of reasons:
1. To assume that a rider was privy to doping programs or even witness to, just because they were on a team is incorrect. Perhaps in 1998, yes, but as enforcement clamped down, so too did the "inner circle" in each team. By early-mid 2000's, there were very few teams where riders would be open or anything less than extremely covert about any possible doping with other riders.
2. I think you vastly underestimate the political strain I have put my team under by even taking the position we have, which you deem "not good enough"... I cannot destroy a 100+ person organization due to being over zealous. My opinion would be that we've moved things in a very positive direction in a very short period of time. Changing a 100 year old culture isn't something that's easy. While Manzano and others have been the catalyst for movement, there actually has to be someone inside the sport that is willing to move things once the fire is set.
I know I catch a lot of heat, from both sides of this issue. But to me, that means I'm navigating it, just right. Get it changed without becoming a martyr.
That's a tightrope.
While I expect that this will get lost in a sea of anally retentive trolling and **** waving, I will respond.
If I am misreading what you are saying then I apologise but from what you've said above and previously I take it then that you have not asked any of your riders who have not been sanctioned about doping on their past teams. While you had some idea of how 'in' the ex-USP riders were from your experience on the team, how can you make the same judgement call about riders who were on teams that you were less closely involved in?
Does this not bring us full circle back to the first question I asked you. Namely have unsanctioned dopers been compelled to confess/disclose their doping in the way in which sanctioned dopers have been.
It appears from what you have told us is that while Dekker was forced to undergo a 're-education' programme as a convicted ex-doper, unconvicted ex-dopers within Garmin are not obliged to do the same. It seems a little bit like a two tier process.
A question - if Dekker had not been caught and had just reached the end of his contract, how would you have approached signing him and dealing with your suspicions of past doping?
Don't you think that part of breaking omerta requires a basic level of openness about the past - even if this is conducted internally and not in public. Do you not also think that talking to people about how they avoided testing positive etc would help you in your anti-doping measures?
The problem with a reactive approach such as the one you propose is twofold. Firstly, it depends upon others to act as the triggers for change and reform. You are never instigators, and this leads to the second problem - the danger of being left behind. As you acknowledge, at the moment, things are for cycling moving relatively fast and we truly have little idea what the landscape will look like in 12 months time.
Although you say you are happy with your approach do you not think you can do more and be more assertive and proactive in encouraging riders to break omerta and to come forward about past doping? It is something of a sophist argument to say well because the radicals and reactionaries disagree with me our policy must be right. It could be that the reactionaries are wrong and the radicals are right. I am certainly more aware of voices saying either you are not radical enough, or you are doing fine, but I've never heard anyone complain that you are too radical.
Within your conservative reform framework, while it would be unrealistic to expect you to compel riders to blow the whistle - would you i) encourage (rather than compel) riders to blow the whistle about activities at their former teams, ii) support those riders who choose to blow the whistle?
Do you think that you have done enough to support whistleblowers? How do you feel about how David Millar reacted to Landis' accusations against Armstrong?