Thoughts on Stuff: Doping Edition

This article might alternately be titled: Fuck You, Lance Armstrong

Except that such a title is not very family friendly, and so not in keeping with Bikezilla’s policies and guidelines regarding good taste and objectivity.

— Floyd Landis has openly and repeatedly (and belatedly) admitted that he was a serial doper.

Yet he insists that he did not use testosterone during or immediately prior to the 2006 Tour de France.

Oddly, that’s the substance that he was nailed for using.

Another confessed doper, Gert-Jan Theunisse, was “caught” when he failed a doping control for testosterone. Theunisse also insists that he had not used testosterone.

What are the possibilities for this?

Is the test inaccurate?

Are doping results manipulated by WADA and AFLD at UCI’s request?

This would make sense in the Landis case, especially (or “expecially” as C2 and fav sister say) if an individual in that mafiaesque culture, say someone like Made-Man Lance Armstrong, had a grudge vs Landis and maybe slipped a godfather type figure at UCI a lil cashola and made such a request.

But does that fly with Theunisse?

Did UCI go after him because his conscience had him making uncomfortable statements about the wrongness of doping to PDM management? Uncomfortable statements that were passed on to the-godfather Hein Verbruggen and that made Theunisse a liability within the mafioso hierarchy of the sport and its growing culture of doping?

Here again is the quote of Verbruggen after Theunisse and others came forward to admit to doping and to condemn the practice of doping.

They “cannot bring any good and it makes those riding clean feel guilty. They are giving the impression that doping practices were structured in their teams.”.

And

“A rider is the first one responsible of his doping. They could have said: no to doping. About these three riders, another Dutch rider told me that if they were ethical they would return the prizes they won thanks to doping”.

From these it’s clear that Verbruggen strove to protect the guilty and to promote the use of performance enhancing drugs. And he did it all at the expense of the innocent and of those wishing only for redemption.

But how far would he go to protect and promote?

That brings us, complete with our tinfoil hats, to . . .

— Riccardo Ricco.

Ricco, never accused of being the smartest of guys, recently poisoned himself while transfusing his own spoiled blood.

Oopsy.

He then confessed to the transfusion.

Only to recant that confession.

Now, whether Ricco quits on his own or not is irrelevant. The boy won’t be riding professionally ever again.

Regardless of how dim he may be, he’s got to understand this.

So what could be his motivation for continuing to not only deny his doping history, but to escalate those denials?

Might it be something along the lines of a very personal, very intimate phone call from UCI Pat “Dick” McQuaid, followed by calls from Dick’s lawyers, explaining how opening up this whole, big ole can of worms about doping and who is and isn’t doping, what assistance is given by teams, which doctors and their staffs perform the procedures, really doesn’t benefit anyone and certainly doesn’t benefit the sport in any way? A lil cash across his palm couldn’t hurt, either.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Nah. Couldn’t be that.

— And since none of you can go a single minute without some discussion or another of Lance Armstrong, I’ll talk about him, too.

Mind you, I don’t do this because I want to, but only as a public service. You’re welcome.

Velonews just put out an article about Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston and his crusade to get the FDA investigation into Lance Armstrong’s illegal drug activities shutdown.

Reading Kingston’s comments I can only assume that Hein Verbruggen writes the good Congressman’s copy.

His accusations on Armstrong’s behalf include:

“But it almost appears to me that there’s a little adventurism going on here; that Mr. Novitsky is operating on his own.” — Because Novitksy hasn’t made a name for himself yet. Errrrrrr, or something like that.

And

” . . . because it’s a celebrity, and one great way to make a name for yourself in this town and in politics is to bring down a celebrity.” — Because nobody noticed him after the whole Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire thing.

Kingston even gave a Vergruggenesque rationale for why Lance Armstrong totally deserves a free pass for any wrongdoing:

“This is an icon who revolutionized bike riding and brought it home to so many Americans, this is a huge icon that your agency is trying to take down . . .”

“But you’re really going after somebody whose name is synonymous with health.”

Let me see if I follow, Congressman.

Lance Armstrong is above the law because:

1. He’s an icon.

2. He’s a HUGE icon.

3. He “revolutionized bike riding”.

4. He “brought it home to so many Americans” — Considering the Congressman’s enthusiastic promotion of the sport in Armstrong’s defense, I’m sure we will soon see many pro-bicycle bills with his name in their titles.

5. His “name is synonymous with health” — All I can say to this one is, “Wha . . .?”

I think it’d be interesting to find out how much Lance Armstrong, along with any organization or company that Lance Armstrong has any connection with, “donated” to Congressman Kingston.

I mean, how much exactly does it cost to buy a Congressman these days?

The VeloNews article, after much bullying by Lance Armstrong and his lawyers, has gone through several post-publication changes.

But here’s a quote from the original that you’ll no longer find on the site:

“Sources close to the case told VeloNews that Armstrong’s attorneys have met with Department of Justice officials in Washington in recent months in an effort to stop Novitzky’s investigation. Despite the lobbying effort, the department has increased the number of U.S. attorneys developing a potential indictment against those currently under investigation.”

For now you can find that in an archived copy of the article, HERE. You’ll have to scroll most of the way down the page.

— Remember, girls and boys, your tinfoil hats only work if they’re made of TINfoil. Aluminum foil will actually increase the potency of alien and governmental mind-control rays.

Jonathan Vaughters: Connecting the Dots

The Short:

Jonathan “The Poet” Vaughters feels wrongly and unfairly judged by “new media”. He also feels that they, and the average Joe on the streets, are unqualified to make such judgments.

This digs at The Poet’s emotions, often leaving him “infuriated, saddened and hurt”.

He believes that people who are not in-the-know improperly “connect the dots” regarding his history and his current situations and actions.

The Long:

I can believe all of that. As I’ve mentioned before, The Poet is a guy who is personally connected to his riders as human beings. He truly cares about them. A guy who can invest himself that way, and do it so openly, isn’t gonna be the kind of guy who has criticisms roll off of his back as if it were the protective shell of a tortoise. Criticisms, especially personal criticisms, cut a guy like that, they draw blood, they hurt. Sometimes they hurt a lot.

But Jonathan kind of buys some of that pain, kind of earns it via past and present actions and inactions, and through his refusal to openly address some crucial issues, issues that the “real journalists” of cycling lack the professionalism and courage to properly investigate.

For instance, very recently JV tweeted that he doesn’t ever read forums, save for one thread about a “leak” from Garmin.

So pointing that out as a source of pain comes across as disingenuous, at a minimum.

See, that’s the kind of thing that it’s reasonable to connect some dots on. It’s reasonable to look at those two bits of information and say, “Hmmmmm, they just don’t seem to add up”.

And there are lots of things, lots of times, when it’s reasonable to do that.

It’s reasonable to know that JV laughed about an improperly passed on story concerning Johan Bruyneel dumping a bag of Floyd Landis’ blood down a toilette as punishment for riding a time trial “too hard” and think, “Ok, JV is intimately aware that there IS doping in the peloton, and of specific individuals involved in that doping.”

It’s reasonable to say, “Ok, JV was on Lance Armstrong’s team in 1999, the same year as Lance Armstrong’s retested samples show EPO use.” and then think “It’s likely that JV was fully aware of the US Postal’s doping practices and that he continues to protect Lance, Johan Bruyneel, the UCI and the entire corrupt system from that time with his silence.”

It’s reasonable to note, though JV resents it, that the infamous Dr Luis Garcia del Moral served U.S. Postal during the 1999 season and then wonder, “Did the good Dr work his doping magic on Vaughters during that time?”

It’s reasonable to then say, “It’s possible that JV continues to protect Lance, Johan, Dr del Moral, UCI, etc, for any of several reasons: He’s still personally connected with the doping lifestyle; He’s unwilling to risk being exposed himself: He’s afraid of Lance Armstrong, like so many other people seem to be; . . .”

It’s reasonable to know that JV counseled Floyd Landis to “tell them it’s none of their business” should anyone ask him for names, dates, times and places where doping occurred, and then think, “Yes, it’s very possible that JV is covering things up himself.”

You might look at JV’s occasional excellence as a climber: He held the record for ascending Mount Ventoux until it was broken by Iban Mayo; Iban Mayo is a confirmed doper, failing a doping control for EPO.

Then it would be reasonable to think, “If only a guy pumped full of juice could touch JV’s record, then it seems reasonable that JV was likewise a consumer of EPO and maybe autologous blood transfusions.”

That becomes more reasonable when you take Vaughter’s confession into account.

It’s reasonable to say, “If JV knew about U.S. Postal’s doping, if he’s always protected Lance and continues to do so, if his own sporadically exceptional climbing performances indicate that he himself was likely guilty of doping, too, then maybe his whole “Team Clean” schtick is just that, a schtick, empty words, an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.”

Continue to put your trust in “real journalists” Jonathan. They’re your best hope for keeping the past buried.

Or maybe you’d like to join in being reasonable with us, JV?

Why not just lay it all out on the table? Make a public statement regarding all of that, and do it without prevaricating and without ambiguity.

Shoot, write a book and get rich off of it if you want to.

I’ll give you a starter list of questions to address, since “real journalists” are too busy kissing your ass to present them:

— Were you aware of any U.S. Postal rider doping, at any time, for any reason, while you were a member of U.S. Postal or afterward?

— Did you ever witness, or were you ever aware of Lance Armstrong using performance enhancing drugs?

— Were you ever aware of Dr del Moral or any person or persons associated with him, helping any rider to dope, regardless of the extent of that aid?

— How were doping supplies obtained? From who? At what cost? How were they disposed of? Again, by who? How was all this paid for?? These apply not only on U.S. Postal, but to any team you were a part of on any level and while fulling any function, duty or office?

— What was Johan Bruyneel’s involvement with U.S. Postal’s doping program?

— Were you ever aware of UCI turning a blind eye to U.S. Postal’s doping, or to doping within the peloton in general?

— Were you ever aware of any rider on any team you rode for doping?

— Did you ever use performance enhancing drugs (I know you’ve admitted this, but you did it in a kind of left-handed way and only in the foreign press).

— Why have you not been as honorable and courageous in exposing doping within the peloton to the appropriate authorities as Xavier Tondo has been?

That’s an ok first round.

These are things that “real journalists” should be asking you, but won’t. Which is the reason for your adoration for cycling’s “real journalists”.

I don’t believe for a heartbeat that you posses the courage or principles to answer even these questions openly, truthfully and in a simple, straight-forward manner.

NOTE: But we’ll see. In a 23 Feb 11 Twitter discussion JV invited me to contact him formally for an interview. I submitted that request Saturday, 26 Feb 11. Now we’ll wait to see if I’ll be required to eat crow, or if I’m proven correct. I’m hoping to be proven wrong, and I’ve bought a large supply of condiments to make the crow more palatable. END NOTE

But I do believe it to be the only way that you’ll ever be rid of the horrible unfairness and injustice of “new media’s” poisonous and unfounded speculations.

Riccardo Riccò, Floyd Landis, and Auto-Tranfusions

In his interview with Paul Kimmage, Floyd Landis discussed storing his blood on ice in his fridge and giving himself transfusions.

Riccardo Ricco has confessed, then denied confessing, the same thing, after nearly killing himself by transfusing blood that had gone bad.

What does the trend in auto-transfusions mean?

Does it mean that transfusions are so common and so simple that riders routinely blow off using professional help and do the deed on their own, in the privacy of their own homes / rooms?

Or does it mean that guys like Landis and Ricco were on genuinely clean teams and were forced to do transfusions on the sly?

But who draws the blood from these guys prior to them transfusing it back into themselves?

Is THAT something they can handle on their own? It seems very unlikely.

Do they rely on professional medical help? If so, who? How is it arranged?

With over 400 riders just in the mens elite professional peloton, all spread out around the globe for various camps, races and personal reasons, it would seem to require a medical force of considerable size and diversity to keep up with it all.

How could such a massive workforce be kept under wraps without the collusion of teams and the UCI at a very minimum?

What about medical supplies? You can’t just walk into your friendly neighborhood Walgreen’s and buy a case of transfusion supplies.

Is this where guys like Dr del Moral come in? And even if del Moral is guilty of helping riders dope, he’s just one guy. No matter how successful his practice is, there’s just no way that he alone could meet the logistical demands.

Floyd Landis / Paul Kimmage Full Transcript

First, my thanks to NY Velocity for publishing the godawful long transcript of the interview that Paul Kimmage did with Floyd Landis, which was the basis for the Sunday Times article.

Second, this article is written with the assumption that you’ve read the full transcript. So to get full value out of this, please read that.

Is it really a coincidence that within hours of the transcript going up, that the NY Velocity servers suffered “issues” that kept them down for a good fifteen hours? I’m thinking that just perhaps, the long, malicious arm of Lance Armstrong and his insistence that any negative word about him must be buried was at work.

But that’s just me, sitting here in my tinfoil hat, hiding from space aliens and government mind control rays.

I think it’s clear from that transcript that this was not actually an interview. The interviews occurred over the six months prior to this face to face meeting, while background information was investigated and the timeline and details plotted.

No, this was more of a guided conversation, with Kimmage guiding and Landis narrating.

The pair knew exactly where they were headed and what route they’d take to get there.

Which makes the preparation that lead up to it all, no less impressive.

The first thing that I really liked was seeing Landis naming cycling as a drug, one used to escape reality. I liked it because I know that cycling has performed that function for me, granting me freedom, distraction and a touch of sanity toward the end of my marriage. It’s something that I never forget and a memory of time on my bike that I’ll always cherish.

But the first real “wow” moment for me, and something that it seems no one else either noticed or cared about, was his comparison of the doping culture within professional cycling to the Mafia, even pointing out some of the system’s “made men” in Lance Armstrong, Bill Stapleton, Hein Verbruggen, Jim Ochowicz, Pat McQuaid, Johan Bruyneel, Michele Ferrari. Wouldn’t Jonathan Vaughters have to be on that list, now?

And Floyd isn’t at all shy about admitting that he’d dope all over again if he could achieve the same things. He’d just, uh, be more honest about it. Um . . . ok.

I keep beating on that “The UCI is an unchecked power which has run amok and it needs breaking.” drum. When we hear about UCI’s reaction to Floyd’s insistence on being paid the remainder of the monies due from his Mercury contract, via the stipulations of UCI’s own rules, I think that point is completely driven home:

“Hein Verbruggen (the UCI president) stating that ‘This is not the United States, this is Switzerland’ and that ‘threatening to sue us is going to get the wrong reaction and I’m going to advise all of my people to deal with you accordingly.’

It was basically ‘Fuck off, you’re not getting the money.’

It took two years to get the money, and every time we would try to contact them they would just tell us to fuck off basically and ‘sue us’ and ‘we don’t care’ and it was just one thing after another. So then, as that was happening, and I was still trying to get it (the money) I got hired by the Postal service.”

Floyd tells us that it took two years, but the wait wasn’t enough. Made Man Hein Verbruggen required that Landis also be humiliated prior to paying him money that was technically and legally already his.

Floyd said, “Verbruggen called Lance and had him come to me and say that I had to retract my statement and apologise in Cyclingnews”

And don’t you wonder why Cycling News is Verbruggen’s and UCI’s chosen vehicle? What’s their link to or role in the whole UCI, professional cycling, doping “Mafia” setup?

So it went down like this:

I had started to talk to Lance about doping and he was giving me advice about things we were doing and explaining how Ferrari worked, and the rides that he and I were doing together.

This came up during that time, so one of the conversations was ‘Look Floyd, you have got to do what this guy says because we’re going to need a favour from him at some point. It’s happened in the past. I had a positive test in 2001 at the Tour of Swiss and I had to go to these guys.’

He said ‘It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not.’ He said ‘I don’t doubt it, I’m sure you’re telling the truth, I’m sure they didn’t follow the rules but it doesn’t matter. That’s not one of your choices. You have to apologise.’

So I said ‘Okay, I didn’t know that’s how it worked but fair enough. This is the first time I’ve heard of someone being paid-off to make a test go away but that’s all I need to hear. If that’s the kind of favours I need, I’m not going to insult that guy.’

He said “Here’s what I’ll have you to do. I’ll call Jim Ochowicz (the president of USA cycling) and he’ll arrange a phone call with Verbruggen and you will apologise to him and tell him you’re sorry.’

Jim Ochowicz is also one of Lance’s staunchest personal friends and supporters.

Throughout the transcript Floyd mentions his dissatisfaction with the Stage 17 testosterone pos, not because he wasn’t doping, but because he hadn’t used testosterone during the Tour that year and because of all the errors and issues with the testing itself.

Some take that to mean that he’s using the “bad” pos as a justification and a statement that he didn’t deserve to be caught at all.

I don’t take it that way. I think he’s genuinely pissed off (and always was) about the “too bad, screw you” attitude and the fact that the arbitrators seemed to have been told what to think and say and how to react well in advance. I think he’s pissed that the evidence of incompetence or intentional wrong-doing or errors in judgement were apparent and should have mattered, but again, the judgement was in before any statement was made or evidence was presented.

I think he’s pissed that UCI doesn’t follow its own rules unless following the rules fits their current needs and that they are, as I’ve mentioned before, unassailable and untouchable.

I believe he’s accepted guilt, but not the treatment he received.

Now for your reading enjoyment, a few of Floyd’s gems about Lance Armstrong’s character (or complete lack of it):

“I had heard rumours about what he was like and that he wasn’t really as nice a guy as the book tried to make him out, so I wasn’t caught completely off guard but it was confirmation”

“The more people there were, the more paranoid he became that he couldn’t control the situation in his own mind at least.”

“I started copying more people because I started to get paranoid; I started to get scared because I knew once Lance found out about this, he was going to do whatever he had to do to stop it.”

“he gets all his satisfaction out of preventing other people from winning.” (like lowly, bloggers who don’t sing his praises loudly enough?)

“when I left the team he took it personally – and he sort of does that anyway –

but I think in his mind he justified it as ‘The only reason this guy has anything is because we helped him. He should have a bit of loyalty.’

And because we are a little but alike in certain ways, I was offended because I knew that I did the best job I could possibly have done for $60,000 a year. I was better than the guys making $800,000 a year! How could they hold it against me and say that I owed them something?

I mean – and this is not unique to cycling – but its always business when you want something and friendship when they want something and that’s the way they ended up making it.

And I tried to manage it a little bit but he is so controlling and so adamant that I decided it wasn’t worth managing and I didn’t really care that much about being his friend because by this time I had learned that you couldn’t be his friend, so I said ‘Fuck it. I’m just not going to talk to him anymore.’ I could have been a bit more astute in the way the politics work and thought ‘Maybe I shouldn’t make him my enemy’ and I don’t know that that’s why I am here but…”

As you learn about the true nature and power and control of Lance Armstrong, plus the shady details of the testing, doesn’t it seem ever more likely that Floyd’s pos for testosterone was entirely set up?

Here’s an example of what I mean:

KIMMAGE: “Okay, given your ambition to win the Tour; and given what you know about Lance and his power within the UCI; and given that you had been working with Ferrari and a doping programme: Was there no element of you thinking ‘How do I do this if I step out of that programme? If I break those ties and provoke them, how will I succeed?’ Did you think that through at all?”

LANDIS: “I did, absolutely, and I was worried about…not how I was going to do it myself, but I was worried they were going to prevent me from doing it.

Because by this time I had figured out that all I really needed was blood transfusions and a little bit of anabolic (steroids) over time. I knew I could recover well enough on my own, and could train well enough without other crazy things.

Because that’s all I did up to 2004, and I was extremely good in 2004, I was about as good as I have ever been. And I knew that if I just improved a little bit from there I’d be good enough to win.

So I didn’t really need Ferrari’s advice any more because I didn’t really use his training programmes anyway because I had all his other information.

My main concern was: ‘Is the UCI going to be told to manipulate something or do something against me?’ And when it didn’t happen in 2005 I didn’t worry about it too much any more because by then I was thinking that my career wasn’t going to last too long anyway because of my hip”

And they did manipulate, because while he openly admits to using testosterone he insists that he never used it IN competition for the ’06 Tour de France, only prior to the Tour that year.

So if he had not used testosterone prior to Stage 17 of the ’06 Tour, and failed none of his previous controls during that Tour, then what answer is left? UCI manipulated his samples on Armstrong’s orders and payment? In the context of the entire transcript it seems not only plausible but likely.

Was that a conclusion Kimmage wanted to guide us to, without having the guts to say it himself?

Ya know how Lance keeps saying that he “was just another employee”? Doesn’t it seem odd that “just another employee’s” personal agent calls Floyd Landis just to check up on his intentions on resigning with the team and, how does Stapleton have the authority to tell Floyd what offers will and won’t be made or accepted? Doesn’t sound much like “just another employee” to me.

Floyd Landis spends a lot of time talking about “justifying things in his head” and the burden that lying was on his conscience and that it was the dishonesty of the past few years that really bothered him the most.

But that’s not how I read it.

So Floyd, as is his right in an appeals process that really needs the word “appeals” in finger quotes, exercises his fullest rights.

UCI, just to show their power, tacks on an extra six months to the suspension, punishing Landis for following the farcical “appeal” system to its furthest conclusion.

So he serves his suspension, and upon its completion he finds that he has been left adrift and that while there are potential rescuers within site and only just barely out of reach, they’ve been forbidden from helping him in anyway. Each time he approaches one, his hands desperately outstretched, seeking help, begging for it, they look directly into his eyes and maneuver away from him, sometimes laughing, waiting for him to drown.

The real nudge that sent Floyd into his tell-all journey was not a need to feel the freedom of “truth” it was the two “last straws” of 1. denying floyd a team or the potential for a team and 2. removing him involuntarily from the “out of competition testing list”, effectively ending his opportunity to compete for the next six months.

If UCI had given an ounce of the grace they’d given Lance Armstrong to Floyd Landis, the burden on his conscience would have been entirely bearable. If Lance Armstrong had been less petty and pointlessly vengeful, if he’d said, “I’ve made him suffer enough.” and had offered Floyd a hand up out of the pit he’d sunken into, Floyd would easily have “justified” all the years of lying that so tormented his soul and silently gone on about his rejuvenated career.

The difference between Lance and Floyd, is that Lance doesn’t wall off the negative “what ifs”. Lance considers and prepares for them, he has his answers, his tactics and his attacks planned for their eventuality.

Lance is not a spur of the moment thinker. When he jumps Kimmage or Lemond in a public forum, he’s had his little speech prepared well in advance. It’s another reason he has to have the exchange end one-sidedly and without a return volley being fired or having to carry on a real, intellectual debate / exchange; he’s got no follow up. His mind is just not that quick in a real, unscripted, face to face throw-down.

Here are a few concerns with this “interview”. These things make it seem like openness and honesty weren’t really goals at all, but the telling of a specific story and the making of specific points to fit Floyd and Paul’s agendas.

Why didn’t Kimmage even touch on things like, “Who gave you that first testosterone patch?”, “How did you find out when and where you’d get your next patch, your next shot or pill, your next blood draw or transfusion?”, “Who and how was all of this paid for?”

Why wasn’t the issue of the testing lab’s computers being hacked even mentioned?

Why did Kimmage never so much as hint at Floyd’s mocking of Greg Lemond’s sexual abuse and his (Floyd’s) friend’s / manager’s call to humiliate Greg? Why did they completely ignore Floyd’s attempt to blackmail Greg into silence by threatening to expose the sexual abuse to the world media?

Possibly most puzzling of all, why did Kimmage not once even brush up against discussing Phonak’s involvement in doping? What did they know? What did they contribute? What were the roles of Andy Rihs and John Lelangue.

I mean Rihs, for being well-liked, has a history with doping riders that has to leave him stinking and slimy. Does anyone believe he’s really just an innocent in all of this? Yet Kimmage doesn’t give him so much as a sniff. Why, Paul?

And what about Jonathan Vaughters? The article makes it clear that he had and continues to have an intimate knowledge of professional cycling’s mafioso doping culture.

Yet he pretends to council Landis to give up names, dates, places and times to the feds, while refusing to do the same. Is Jonathan’s reinterpretation of his advice to Landis really believable?

He was fully aware of doping and it’s systemic nature within Johna Bruyneel’s and Lance Armstrong’s teams, and found it amusing. I don’t see how that kind of joviality and frivolity could indicate anything other than his active participation in same, making all the harder to buy into his “Team Clean” claims.

Jonathan Vaughters, Mr Anti-doping Crusader, still seems quite big on protecting those he KNOWS have doped and continue to dope. If this is our great champion against the evils of doping within the ranks of professional cycling, then we have no hope at all.

More Thoughts on Stuff

— Who’s the best rider no one really pays attention to?

The same guy who is the actual #1 ranked rider in the world: Joaquim Rodriguez ( who I, it would seem, misspelled “Joaquin Rodriques” all last season).

And if, like me, you spend a lot of time scratching your head, wondering why we call Spanish riders one name but they’re always on start lists with another, the above linked article explains why: The 1st last name (the one we use) is the paternal last name and the 2nd last name is the maternal last name, which apparently isn’t the actual last name, which is totally fooked, because shouldn’t the last, last name be THE last name? Silly Spaniards.

— Floyd Landis says, the whole damned peloton is a bunch of clenbuterol snarfing junkies.

I have trouble lending much weight to anything Floyd says. This seems like just another “look at me” moment, designed to keep Floyd from sinking into utter obscurity.

But, again, regardless of guilt or innocence, Alberto “It was those damned asthmatic cows” Contador needs to be suspended for a full two years.

And if Kid Squirtgun feels so slighted by this (and he may actually BE grievously slighted)that his indignation compels him to quit professional cycling for good, then, sorry lil pistolero buddy, it’s been great watching you ride, but . . .

— An even cooler bike themed music video.

http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x67xfb_bat-for-lashes-whatys-a-girl-to-do_music?additionalInfos=0
Bat for lashes | What’s a girl to do | Dougal Wilson
Uploaded by Festival-Mecal. – Music videos, artist interviews, concerts and more.

— Tom Boonen says he’s ready to smash it in the spring Classics.

Just one teensy word of advice, Tom (because you’ve seemed to have an issue with this the last two years): Those sparkling white lines on the side of the road? NOT cocaine. So you maybe, I mean just possibly, should avoid the 40 kph attempted snort that always ends with you sprawled on the pavement, licking white paint and crying.