Blah…Blah…Shut this guy up!

Unfortunately, when you are a cyclist, or at least like to ride your bike a lot, people always want to bring their stories of dealing with cyclists to you. You might not think this happens often, but it happens a couple times a month to me at work and a couple more times a month dealing with family and friends.

Yesterday, July 30th, was a particularly bad day. What I want to say is that if you are a triathlete or cyclist, you need to start obeying the rules of the road and stop acting like idiots when you are out there. Also, have the basic skills necessary to handle your bike while on the road.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to commute to work by bike this week due to the fact my ride home is on vacation. So, each morning at 4:50 am I wake up and drive to the YMCA in Waukegan so I can ride my bike on the Robert McClory trail. Well, yesterday at about 5:30 am on the drive in, I was turning off Russell onto Kilbourne headed south. It was still dark as sunrise was not for another 15 minutes. There was a group of six to eight triathletes riding in the dark. Two of them did have lighted belts, but the others did not have anything. So, let’s quickly review Illinois law in this area. First, if riding in the dark, you need a front headlight and a rear reflector. Not a single person followed these rules. None had front lights. None had rear reflectors, with only two having a rear light. By the way, if you are going to use a rear light, invest in one that can actually be seen if you are on a bike. Don’t use the same belt you use for running. The lights on these belts were so bad, I did not even see the lights until I was within 50 yards of the cyclists and even then I had to actually focus to see the light.

The group also seemed to not be riding single-file. This is another place to review Illinois law about riding. Riding two abreast is only permitted as long as the normal and reasonable movement of traffic is not impeded. Think about that… as long as the normal and reasonable movement of traffic is not impeded. This is Illinois people. There isn’t a single road in Lake, Cook or any collar county where you are not going to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. So, when you hear cyclists and triathletes shouting, “Hey the law says we can ride two abreast,” remember that is not what it states. You cannot ride two abreast if you are impeding traffic. Once again, these cyclists were very guilty of that because even though it was early traffic was already coming in both directions on that road.

Finally, if you do not know how to control your bike, do not ride in the dark or on the road. This one seems to be a problem for triathletes. I am not talking about cornering at speed or descending a twisty hill. After all, my bike skills are horrid. Due to frame geometry, when triathletes are not in the aero position, the bike is sketchy in response to slight movements. I do not know why this is, but I am guessing the shorter wheel base and top tube lengths. One of the women in the group, could not keep control of her bike while out of the aero position. She kept veering into traffic. If you cannot control your bike out of the aero position, get off the road or buy a road bike that is easier to control. I do not care if you are a “triathlete.” If you do not have the mastered the skills to handle your bike out of the aero position, you should not own it or you need to learn it, and not while it is dark.

Next up, is the cyclist I could not defend. Later that morning, a woman who is an avid runner and great supporter of all endurance sports, asked me about etiquette with cyclists and runners. She was running on the road, against the flow of traffic (I am not sure if that is correct, but she was doing it) and a cyclist is coming so she stepped onto the shoulder of the road which was narrow, so the cyclist could have more room. The cyclist was riding exactly on the white line. When he passed, he did not move off the white line, thus forcing the jogger into the ditch to avoid being hit. So, what impression does this leave with the public when it comes to cyclists? We are jerks, that is what. This might be a good place to review more law. A cyclist riding on the roadways at less than normal traffic speed, should ride as close as practicable and safe to the right-hand curb. Some exceptions include, passing, preparing for a left turn, avoiding fixed or moving objects, or substandard width lanes (a lane where the cyclist and vehicle cannot travel safely side-by-side). There are others, but those are the main ones. So, the point being this cyclist could have moved over and been within the law without driving a jogger into a ditch. To the cyclist riding on Gelden Road in Lindenhurst, stop being such a jerk.

Finally, on the way home, I was forced to go west on Grand Avenue in Gurnee. There was a cyclist riding in the left lane causing a huge back up in traffic. At first, I thought, well he is getting ready to make a left. First, light came and he did not make the left. Second light came and he did not make the left. I can only assume he was making a left at the third light, but I had passed by then. Now, was this cyclist within his rights? I would argue yes. After all, if he did make a left, Grand Avenue is busy along Gurnee Mills and you might have to move to the left when you get a chance and that might be before your light. He is allowed to “take the lane” to make the left. On the other hand, he might be violating the rule to staying to the right. Assuming he was turning on Hunt Club, the better choice might have been to to the old fashion left by crossing over Hunt Club and waiting for the north-south light on Hunt Club to get across Grand Avenue. The truth is that type of turn in this instance might have actually been quicker, and definitely safer, for the cyclist. Plus, he would have had the added bonus of not ticking off traffic during rush hour.

Finally, we all know that as a cyclist, the rules of the road apply to us. I am not advocating you follow all rules of the road, after all what motorist does? I do advocate though you follow the rules of the road, in regards to cyclists and as a moving vehicle, that promote your safety and help with making cyclists look as if they are trying to not purposely be in the way of vehicles. After all, I would never advocate a cyclist follow the rules of the road when it puts them at greater risk in traffic.

Let’s get one thing straight. Landis cheated; however, the rules of the system bailed out LNDD, the USADA, UCI and WADA.

In English/American jurisprudence there is an argument known as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Simply stated if law enforcement’s original evidence, that leads to other evidence of guilt, is obtained illegally, then all the evidence of guilt that is obtained as a result of the original, illegally obtained evidence, is thrown out. Law Enforcement cannot let illegally obtained evidence lead to other, legally obtained evidence of guilt. A lot of time you will here people saying in that instance the criminal got off on a “technicality.”

Luckily, for cycling fans, the USADA, UCI and WADA, that rule doesn’t apply when trying to catch cheats in sports, nor should it. After reading the majority and dissenting opinions there are some obvious things. First, LNDD messed up the original testing of both the “A” and “B” samples through the GS/MS testing to the point that a positive based on that test alone would not have been enough to find Landis guilty of doping. It was enough though to start the process which led to the testing of numerous “B” samples through a more accurate process for testing for testosterone known as IRMS. These samples came back positive as well and were enough to bolster the testing of the original “B” sample which was tested by this process also.

In an American court, most likely none of that evidence would have been admissible as the original testing, known as the GC/MS test, was so fundamentally flawed it would have to be thrown out. Thus, under the “poisonous tree” argument, all the IRMS testing would have been thrown out as well. This is not an American court though. We are not talking about putting a person behind bars. We are talking about a system that is trying to ensure the integrity of cycling and other sports by catching people that dope. To me it is clear that Landis is guilty as charged.

There is no doubt from the majority opinion that they think LNDD is totally incompetent, even though they state on several occasions, that they think LNDD followed proper procedure on the IRMS testing. Reading between the lines, it seems clear that if not for the subsequent testing of the “B” samples, Landis could easily have won. But, since the evidence against him from the subsequent testing was so overwhelming, they couldn’t let a cheat go.

This isn’t unusual even in American jurisprudence. It is often stated that appellate courts, state supreme courts, and even the US Supreme Court, don’t like to let obviously guilty people go on technicalities. Attorneys arguing for clients on these technicalities, know that they need to at least cast some doubt onto whether their client is actually guilty, if they are going to win the technical issue. The more serious the crime, the more doubt you need that your client might not be guilt.

Well, Landis committed the most heinous of crimes in cycling and sports. He was accused not only of cheating to win, but to win the biggest race in his sport. Thus, after seeing the opinions, it would have taken a lot more doubt to let Landis walk away as innocent. It is clear that the majority opinion would like to have slapped LNDD into its place. It is also clear the majority wasn’t going to make an example of the lab and the system when the evidence clearly demonstrated Landis cheated to win the biggest race in his sport.

It should be noted, that Landis’ defense team did try to show that LNDD was incompetent in performing the IRMS, and I think they were quite successful. Just not to the point that the results on all the tests, on all the “B” samples could be overcome.

Landis is a doper and cycling fans were cheated. Deep down though, I still want to believe he did not. The evidence states otherwise.

I want to start this off by writing thanks the to Prairie Cycling Club for letting me tag along on their Saturday morning ride. You see, my wife doesn’t just like to sit around the house all that much. It didn’t matter that since Memorial Day, the weekend of August 11th and 12th would have been our only free weekend until after September 9th. So, when my wife and sister-in-law, decided we needed to travel down to Champaign, I reluctantly agreed on the one condition I would still ride Saturday morning.

I searched for bike clubs in Champaign and found the Prairie Cycling Club. I found they had a Saturday ride out of Meadowbrook Park in Urbana at 8 am every Saturday. They had all different levels, so I decided before hand, I would choose the “Fitness” category over the “Advanced.” The description for the “Fitness” Category stated, “For experienced cyclists with substantial group riding experience wishing to concentrate on improving individual and group riding skills as well as physical fitness, with an emphasis on pace lines, some sprinting and intervals, etc. Average speed 15-18 mph. Individuals experiencing mechanical difficulties can expect a few members of the group to stop and lend assistance, including “pulls” to rejoin the main group. Group will stop occasionally to regroup with stragglers. Although physically challenging, emphasis is still on group riding for fun.”

The “Advanced” Category stated, “Semi-competitive rides; average speeds of 18+ mph for extended distances. Riders are expected to be fully competent with pace lines, sprints, intervals, etc. These are physically demanding rides — dropped riders will probably be on their own, although those with mechanical difficulties may find a few members of the
group willing to stop and lend assistance, including “pulls” to rejoin the main group.”

I considered riding with the Advanced group as I was guessing that is what I would be my kind of riding. Knowing that Champaign County is flat, flat, flat, 18+ MPH is still within my capabilities, especially if there is a lot of drafting involved. I chose the middle category though due to the fact I would be riding on roads I was unfamiliar with. Although, if lost, I trust my instincts to get me home, it is always nice to think someone will wait for you in case of an emergency mechanical. Also, the worst thing a visitor can do is ruin a serious ride by not being fast enough to keep up. So, I figured I don’t want to be that guy.

I showed up, unloaded my bike, kissed the wife and kids good-bye, and looked around. It was easy to tell from the start where the Advanced Category was grouping. I specifically was looking for this ride:

“Saturday Fitness Ride – Level 3/4
Leader: Rick Francis (351-7587, rikfrancis@hotmail.com)
Depart: Meadowbrook Park, Windsor Road, Urbana
Time: 8:00 am
This ride will average 16-18 mph with distances of around 40 miles. The ride leader will ride the advertised pace and make sure nobody is dropped. Routes will be country roads in Champaign County, with the emphasis on fitness.”

I asked saw a group. Most were not in kits of any sort. The bikes weren’t the latest and greatest technology. Some of the people, like myself, could have stood to loose a few pounds. So, I asked if that was the 3/4 ride. I was told it was. I introduced myself to some of the members. I have to apologize now, I most likely will get some names wrong, as there were a lot and I was concentrating on riding most of the time.

The Advanced Group rolled out. About three minutes later, we rolled out. I stayed near the back as we rode a double-pace line. I tried to get a feel for the group. Not only the riding strength, but etiquette to be used. It was apparent to me that my legs weren’t as fresh as they could have been. All week, I had been suffering from fatigue due to some rowing and increased weightlifting. There was a slight wind. The weather called for five MPH, yet it felt slightly stronger, but not more than ten MPH. For the Prairie Cycling Club riders that read this, I am going to throw out some power numbers, so to let you know my Functional Threshold Power (one hour time trial power) is approximately 265 watts. On a typical Saturday ride, I will average 195-205 watts for about 2:45 with a normalized power (estimated physiological cost of a ride) of 230 watts.
I continued to introduce myself to other people. I met a nice woman name Stacey who was a professor at the University. I never did find out what she taught. She had traveled around. I think I remember her stating she was in Virginia before Champaign. She taught me the ride etiquette about taking turns pulling and how to let the riders behind you know when you are peeling off. She was very nice, as was everyone on the ride.

The ride continued that way, on my second turn to pull, I was told I probably needed to back off some. It wasn’t anything intentional. After all, it is bad form to ride with a group as a guest and then try to shatter them. I was just trying to push as hard as the person in the pace line next to me was pushing. I guess it was one of those things though the harder I perceived them pushing, the more they pushed to keep up with me. I rarely looked down at my power meter, but when I did it seemed that we were pushing hard. The watts seemed to be upwards of 220, yet any time I checked my average it was right around 155 watts, which means sitting in does help and brings down average power.
On one of the pulls, I was upfront for a decent amount of time when a few people rocketed from behind me. At first I thought they were from a different group. I asked the other line’s puller if they were with us and they were. So, I took off to catch them. I did and latched onto the leader’s wheel who was using aerobars. I sat in and by the time I looked back only one guy was behind me. At some point he swung out and passed and I went with him. I didn’t realize it, but we were supposed to be sprinting into town. Since my group doesn’t do that, I didn’t really understand what was going on. I just knew if people were going to ride hard, I wasn’t going to back off.

In town, we took a break about 27 miles into the ride. It was a longer break than I am used to taking. To me five to ten minutes is enough where this seemed to be about 25-30. On the way back, we took the shortest route as the heat was getting up there and it was predicted to hit about 98 that day. The roads we encountered had a lot of gravel and made for some unsafe conditions. At this time, I started talking to Sheldon. He was nice and the guy that led me into the rest stop. At the rest stop he had talked to me and it was apparent he worked for the university. So, on the ride back I asked what he did. He stated he was Chair of the Math Department. I have to admit, I was impressed. After all, he was brilliant and the head of the math at a major university. I had to wonder how often he was calculating simple numbers about his ride while were were going. Turns out he is an active cycling advocate also. His wife works in City Planning (maybe county) and specializes in transportation, so him being a cycling advocate is a perfect fit.

One of the things about riding in a group, is that there are natural ebbs and flows to the the speed. Unfortunately, during one of the ebbs, Stacey had taken her hands off the bars, rode up on another rider, Alex if I remember correctly, and she took a nasty spill. He shoulder was all cut up. Alex’s rear derailer snapped off the frame, but luckily he didn’t go down. The group was extremely nice in helping the two get everything together, organizing transportation back to town, ect. This is why I chose this group. You need people like that when you are out on unfamiliar roads.

After we were sure nobody was seriously injured, a bunch of us remounted our bikes and headed back for town. The ride did heat up. About four of us split off from the rest of the group and pushed the pace. After a few miles we were down to three. Me, Sheldon and Johnathan. The youngest guy in the ride, Jonathan, took off hard. He was moving fast. I had to struggle to pull back up onto his wheel. Definitely about three minutes of work at VO2 max. He let up and the Urbana sign. Sheldon fell way back. I told Johnathan, I didn’t realize it was a sprint. He said, “Oh… were we sprinting?” I smiled. He was posturing with that comment. After all, we were riding really hard. So, although it wasn’t a sprint per se, it was all out to the sign… which I didn’t know. Either way, it was fun.

As I pulled into the parking lot, my wife happened to be pulling in also. I said good-bye to Sheldon and joined my family at the park. It was a fun ride. I will definitely show up again next time I am in the area.  My final ride numbers were 46 miles in 2:18 for 20 MPH.  The power numbers were low for a Saturday ride with the average being 164 and the normalized being 205.  Either way, that was about a 65-75 percent ride, compared to the normal 80-90 percent ride I would have done at about an average 0f 200 and a normalized of 230.

Thanks again to everybody from the Prairie Cycling Club for making me feel welcome.

So, we all watch the first race which is a female race. Then my category is up. It is the CAT5/Citizen 1 race (there is another for the same category later in the morning).

Some notes. I estimate my FT (one hour TT power) to be about 265. Since my bike broke a few weeks ago, training has been more sporadic and I have noticed a decrease in overall power, but especially in the 1-5 minute range. I will throw out some power numbers during the report, but I didn’t know these until downloading after the race.

So, I line up in the front. I did have some apprehension about clipping in, but I figured if I was in the front, then that was less ground I had to make up. The race starts. We aren’t going all that fast into the first sweeping 180 degree turn. No worries. We hit the first straight and things are picking up. Up comes the first 90 degree turn and everyone seems to play it safe, but not all that slow. Same for the second 90 degree turn. The next three turns are sweeping 180 degree turns. It seems everyone is doing a good job of not taking unnecessary risks. Unfortunately for me, I am near the back and the guys I am following are probably just like me. So, we are losing ground on the pack during turns.

It should be noted that after 5 minutes, more that two laps, it looks as though my power output was as follows: average power 315, normalized power 330. Given that my FT is only 265, I was riding those first two laps above VO2 max. Also, even with the turns, average speed was 25.3 MPH.

This race was a learning experience. I knew it was important to save energy in the pack or at least draft. So, I picked a spot where I felt comfortable drafting, but by no means was I mixing it up in the turns. So, I was near the back. Unfortunately, I learned a valuable lesson. The accordion effect is fine on a weekly ride, but not so great when you are doing a bunch of turns in a mile. By the time the 4th lap came around, the guys I was following lost contact with the pack. We were only about 20 feet away, but as hard as I tried, I couldn’t make up the ground as I would lose any gains in the turns. Eventually, the guys I followed dropped behind me and the pack was too far ahead for me to catch. Oh well… chalk it up to first time racing.

Power numbers for the first 10 minutes were still very high. Average power of about 300 with normalized power at about 325. Speed was about 24.8 MPH for that time.

After that I had to get into TT mode and just try to not get lapped. I knew it would be a challenge. I started to look ahead to others that would get dropped and slowly reel them in. There was one guy, I caught him and he dropped behind and didn’t keep up. Then I caught another guy and he actually was smart enough to latch onto my wheel. I did most of the work for a couple of laps, but then when we saw another guy up ahead, we started working together to catch and pass him.

The end of the race had the winner catch me at the finish line. I was a lap behind. I coasted through the last lap. It was nice.

Overall, I am disappointed of course. But, the power numbers are about where I expected for the 30 minutes. My average for the entire race was 275 with a normalized of 295. Far above what I expected to see. I would have to suspect that people in the group didn’t have those kind of power numbers. I mean this is a CAT5 race after all.

My weakness is explosive power and cornering, especially in a group. I was able to handle the corners at high rates of speed when I was by myself. I guess I just have to get used to doing that in a group and I should be okay. It should be noted there were no crashes in either of the CAT5 races (I didn’t do the later one which seemed to be moving slower as the guy I worked with finished easily with the pack in the second race). The other races did have some crashes.

I did have fun. I didn’t get pulled, which I think is rare for a first time racer. So, it was a good experience. I will most likely do some more.

I am going to start this by stating that I truly believe Lance did not dope post-cancer.  I mean you would just have to be a complete idiot to have gone through what he went through and then take the risk of doping.  Does this mean I believe Lance doped pre-cancer? No.  It just means I really don’t care.

So, then how did Lance beat the plethora of cheaters when he himself didn’t cheat?  To the non-cyclist, or endurance athlete, this may seem impossible.  It is not.  I will state this, Lance did for cycling what guys like Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcels did for football.  No detail was too small.  So, I am going to quickly review some of the reasons why Lance did not have to cheat.

First, Lance was already a World Champion and winner of a Tour de France stage even before cancer.  He had the power to be an elite cyclist even before cancer.  Then cancer hit.  This changed him in many ways.  First, it stripped off a lot of his mass.  If you look at early photos of Lance compared to those of him winning the Tour, you would think he took the drug that makes you lose muscle mass.  Weight in cycling is a killer.  So, post-cancer, Lance weighed only about 150-155 lbs compared to about 175 lbs pre-cancer.  So, take World Champion power, reduce body weight by over 10 percent and you have a great climber.

That isn’t all though.  Due to his cancer, Lance could no longer generate power by grinding out big gears.  That situation would be great to win a one-day race or win a Tour stage, but that wasn’t going to win the Tour.  Lance, post-cancer, had to figure out a better way to generate his power.  Thus, he and his team of coaches focused on pealing.  Lance needed to generate the same power by using cadence over strength.  This ended up making Lance 20 percent more efficient. Twenty percent!!!!  Think about that.  Take any elite athlete, world class, and improve one area of their performance by 20 percent and that is a huge edge over the competition which might make gains of a couple of percent.

So, where do we stand with just this… a person with World Champion power decreases his body mass by 10 percent and increases efficiency by 20 percent.  Now that and that alone would make you win the Tour seven times, even against cheaters.  Once again though that isn’t all.

Lance was the first to focus on the little details.  He understood that any wasted watt meant he had to work harder.  So, Nike designed shirts that were tested and retested in wind tunnels to make sure they were not catching wind.  In fact, I heard Nike once spend $100,000 to rework a manufacturing line to move a single seam.  Giro designed a helmet to give him an advantage in time trials, one of the places Lance would gain on his rivals.  Trek, the largest elite bike manufacturer in the world, designed bikes specifically with the goal of Lance winning the Tour.  What other cyclist could state they had the resources of Nike and Trek at their disposal.  Most companies at best make a custom version of their stock bike for their riders.  They don’t design bikes around the rider.

So, now we have world champion power, 10 percent reduction in weight, 20 percent increase in pealing efficiency, and the biggest companies designing the best technology just for one rider?  Does that sound like a 7-time Tour winner yet?

No?  Okay… how about Lance was the first to scout every critical stage of each Tour?  He didn’t ride them just once, but many times to the point that he knew them intimately come race day and how his body would react.  Convinced yet?  How about a guy that once he decided he wanted to ride again post-cancer, didn’t miss a single training session in 10 years?  How much weight did Ullrich gain in the off-season? Sometimes up to 30 lbs and he would take a month off of the bike.  How about a guy that planned every meal around training and recovery.  Do you think Basso did that?  How many guys were getting $15,000 dexascans to determine body fat a couple of times a year?  What this is getting at is Lance was watching every detail  He was single-minded in winning one race.  No other rider has or had that luxury in the past.

Could any great cyclist of done this?  Well, physically they all had the ability to replicate Lance.  Technologywise, maybe a bit harder.  However, no cyclist had the single-minded focus to bring everything together to win.

That is how a person wins without cheating in a world full of cheaters.  To paraphrase the Nike campain, “What is Lance on?  I’ll tell you what he is on.  He is on his bike.”  365/24/7 everything was focused towards winning the Tour.

Let’s see, a rider tested positive for testosterone (the same thing Floyd Landis tested positive for).  We already know the name and the B sample hasn’t been tested yet.  Imagine that!  There was a leak from LNDD.  How could that be?  They have such scruples and ethics in that lab.

I hope Le Tour is as quick to kick the French-based Cofidis team out of the tour as it was Astana.

The doping by the riders makes me sick.  The actions of LNDD and the UCI in these matters is also deplorable.  Let’s see if Le Tour really practices what it preaches when it comes to a local team.

This is out:

“By Philippe LE GARS et Damien RESSIOT

News to l’Equipe: Alexander Vinokourov, 33, leader of team Astana, tested positive for a homologous transfusion Saturday 21 July at the end of the individual Tour de France time trial whch he won at Albi. After analysis by the laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry, the blood taken at the finish showed the presence of two distinct populations of red cells in the A sample. In plain speech, this means that Vinokourov made use of a homologous transfusion shortly before the stage, utilizing blood from a compatible donor.

The Astana rider (about whom the Internation Cycling Union, in statements by its president, Pat McQuaid, had manifested its displeasure after he had admitted working with the sinister Dr. Michele Ferrari) underwent a new blood test in the late afternoon the day before yesterday, Monday, after his second victory in the 15th stage at Loudenvielle-LeLouron. This new sample is currently under analysis at Châtenay-Malabry, and could confirm the first positive result as early as tomorrow, since the two populations of red cells would still be observable.

Homologous transfusions, as distinct from autologous ones (in which the athlete’s own blood is transfused) have been detectable since the Athens Olympic Games in 2004, by means of a method developed by the laboratory at Lausanne (LAD). American Tyler Hamilton was the first cyclist to test positive in this way, during the 2004 Vuelta.

PS. Following this revelation, team Astana, of which he was the leader, has decided to leave the Tour.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not going to defend Vino. Most likely the B sample will come up positive. Most likely his A and B sample from his mountain stage victory will confirm his cheating. I hope it doesn’t, but deep down, those of us following cycling and doping know it will.

With that said, how is it the test results were leaked yet again? Did they come from LNDD? Did they come from UCI? I am sure when the police show up to a hotel to execute a search warrant, you know something is up, but the information came from somewhere and I am guessing the authorities didn’t leak it. So, these continued breaches of the WADA code are disturbing. More disturbing is doping in cycling.

What more could the Brits ask for in a single weekend? They had two of the greatest sporting events to start a weekend. First, they had the Wimbledon finals for both the ladies and the gentleman. Then they had the Prologue and Stage 1 of the Tour de France. Could it get any better? If I were there, assuming I had Wimbledon tickets, I would have been hard pressed to choose one (actually it would be easy… Prologue Saturday, Gentleman’s finals at Wimbledon on Sunday).

At Wimbledon, Venus became the lowest seeded women’s player to win at a seeding of 23. Really, it is kind of a joke. Kind of like Agassi becoming the second unseeded man to win Wimbledon (at least I believe Becker was unseeded in when he won his first). Both were top players in a difficult time and everyone knew they were better than their rankings. I am happy for Venus. I have always thought she would be better off removing herself from her sister and her father when it comes to tennis. Although, I still laugh at her youthful arrogance when she once said she would be No. 1 in the world and her sister No. 2 and they would have every record in the book. I don’t think that combined her and her sister have as many titles as Steffi Graf nor will either of them ever win a “Golden Slam” as Graf did.

On the men’s side, Nadal pushed Federer into a fifth set. It was an incredible match and Nadal could easily have unseated the now 5-time Wimbledon Champion. Federer has tied Borg’s record for consecutive Wimbledon titles, but to be the “King” of Wimbledon, he will still have to win at least two more and tie Pete Sampras. Federer now has 11 grandslam titles along with Borg and Laver. He need s three more to catch Sampras. What is amazing is that Federer has won 11 grandslams in 19 grandslam tournaments. That is just unreal. Talk moves to whether he is the greatest player ever. Well, that is a tough one. I am going to state this, out of 13 matches, on a variety of surfaces, Federer beats any other player in history at least 9 times. He has a complete game. He may never beat Nadal on clay, but that doesn’t even matter. However, as far as the most dominant player of his era, I still give the nod to the man from down under. Rod Laver. After all, the guy won a grand slam when only amatuers were allowed to play. He then goes pro. Doesn’t get to play in a grand slam event for 8 years, until pros are allowed to play and then wins another grandslam. How can you top that? Think about if he had played in grandslams those 7-8 years. He would have like 25 total titles instead of 11.

Onto the Tour de France which started with the Prologue in London. How cool is that? Despite the coverage being dampened by the drug scandals in cycling how can you not be excited to see Fabian Canellara just destroy the field in the 8k TT. Meanwhile, Andreas Kloden establishes himself as a Tour favorite with an awesome Prologue. Meanwhile, in stage 2, the finish comes down to the sprint and a master, Robbie McEwen, emerges from nowhere to out-sprint everyone. I mean in the television coverage the guy isn’t even on the screen with 1 KM to go. How did he do that? The Tour is already shaping up to be exciting.

My fan loyalty at the Tour is torn. I would like to root for an American and an American team in Discovery and Levi Lempheimer. I will be very happy if he wins. I am even pulling for George Hincapie to somehow come up and end up being the number one guy for Discovery; however, I cannot overlook the management of the team being more of the problem than the cure for doping in cycling. They blindly defended a rider which has pled guilty and accepted a suspension. They did everything they could to spin it, but what it comes down to is they wanted a rider that was a favorite at the Tour and they didn’t care about the doping implications surrounding Basso. As a fan, I cannot accept that attitude from a team. So, I have to say I am cheering for a team at the Tour. It just isn’t the team I thought it would be. I am cheering for T-Mobile. They are the only team that seems truly dedicated to cleaning up cycling. So, even though they may not have someone on the front at any time, I will cheer for them and they are now my team. I just wish you could buy their gear in the USA. What is up with that Stapleton?

Recently Trust but Verify  (http://trustbut.blogspot.com) linked to a discussion with LA Times report Michael Hiltzik.  The discussion was very enlightening.  It seemed that there is a segment of the cycling population that thinks the only way Landis can get off is on a “technicality.”  That is just ridiculous.

A technicality would be if the arbitrators state something like this, “We believe both the A and B samples to be positive, but due to the fact the A and B sample were tested by the same technician, thus a violation of WADA procedures, we are forced to dismiss the case.” 

Compare the above to the following, “Due to the fact the same technician tested both the A and B samples, we are unable to determine the accuracy of those results and thus the case must be dismissed.”

 The first one is a technicality.  The second is not.  One states the evidence is untrustworthy, the other states a procedural rule had been violated.  Sometimes, a procedural rule can be violated that makes evidence suspect.  That is not a technicality.

It doesn’t have to be the circumstance stated above, it can be any of the defenses.  Some of Landis’ arguments are “procedural” and others bring the evidence under suspicion.  If Landis wins this case due to the evidence being untrustworthy, it is not a technicality.  After all, if the positive test is untrustworthy, it could mean that either Landis doped and the evidence doesn’t prove it to a high enough burden, or it means that the test was just plain wrong.  There is no way to tell and thus Landis should get the benefit of the doubt.  If Landis wins on a procedural out, even though the arbitrators think the evidence points to his guilt, Landis will lose in the court of public opinion anyway.

It seems to be a common theme throughout his quotes and the mantra for the Floyd Fairness Fund is that the sytem he is going through is patently unfair.  Once again, I will state that I think Floyd is going to come out of this okay, but this role of playing the victim is just absolute nonsense.  The system seems to actually protect athletes.

The system goes like this.  You test positive on your A sample and you are informed of the positive test.  So is your national federation and the athlete has the right to have a representative at the second test.  If the B sample is positive, it is referred back to your national federation for review.  The USADA has an independent review board that analyzes these results.  It is impossible to determine how many athletes have positive A and B tests as the USADA doesn’t release those results.  Why? Who knows, but my guess is to protect the sports and athletes.

 Looking at some stats from WADA, in 2005, the UCLA lab had 538 athletes had tests that produced A and B positives.   World Wide there were 3909.  Assuming just as many US athletes test positive overseas as foreign athletes test positive in the US, we can estimate about 538 US athletes has Adverse Analytical Findings (A and B positives).  Assuming that number is somewhere in the ballpark for US athletes, over 500 of them are dismissed at the independent review board for one reason or another.  Only 32 of them in 2005, made it to the prosecutorial stage we find Landis at now.  According the to the USADA 6 were referred back to the international governing bodies for disposal.  Leaving 26, reaching the USADA prosecutors.  Twenty-six out of over 500.  We are talking about less than five percent.

So, where is the unfairness in the system?  When 95 percent of all cases are dismissed where the A and B sample test positive at the independent review board, how is that unfair to the athletes?  At that point, almost all didn’t even have to hire a defense team (which Floyd has already done before that point).

Plus, why the heck if Floyd’s defense costing over $500,000?  I mean even if the Landis defense team has three attorneys on the case at $500 and hour, assuming they each bill 2000 hours, that is only $300,000.  Throw in some expenses and you are at $400,000.  Remember though, that is assuming there are 3 attorneys working full-time on one case for an entire year.  That is crazy.  No drug case could take that much time.  This isn’t the OJ Simpson murder trial.  Am I doubting Floyd is spending that much?  No.  After all, OJ spent more than the average murder suspect spends on their defense.

What it comes down to is that the average athlete that reaches the Floyd Landis stage isn’t spending $500,000 on the defense.  Most probably don’t spend more than $10,000-$20,000.  The truth is that of the 26 that made it to the Floyd Landis stage of arbitration, about 50 percent were found not guilt and 50 percent guilty.  So, maybe 13 athletes out of over 500 that tested postive in both A and B samples did get screwed and have to spend $10,000.  That doesn’t mean those 13 were innocent, there just wasn’t enough to convict. 

Also, anyone who has been in a prosecutorial office knows the resources aren’t vast.  It isn’t like you are fighting the Pentagon or the NSA.  They have some attorneys, they may have a slim budget to hire an expert and to fly some of the testers in for the arbitration hearings, but they don’t have hundreds of thousands to spend on prosecuting a case.

It isn’t as if Floyd is up against some agency that has unlimited resources.  In fact, he probably has more resources than the agency he is fighting.  So, please Floyd, stop portraying the system as being unfair.

If there is something inherently wrong with the system, and this is not a USADA problem, but a WADA problem, it is that the A and B samples are tested at the same lab.  That needs to be changed.  Other than that, we know 95 percent of US athletes have their cases dismissed by the independent review board.  Seems pretty fair to me.