Floyd, whatever? Options

[jr.]

newbee, I'm also a relative newbie, but there are some excellent canned histories of doping in cycling and for a more interesting perspective, try cycling news website, go to the archive, start with the oldest articles first and start reading (it may take a while). You can see the more recent history of the sport played out as it happens chronologically. Since you don't have too much familarity with the sport, you should be able to look at some things with less bias because you haven't already made up your mind about particular personalities and events from the past.

[vaunTrevi]

My screen name is the same as my email address on my hotmail account, which was created long before I or Floyd came to this thread. Honestly, I've been thinking how thankful I am that I happened to google "Floyd Landis" yesterday to see what if anything is going on in his case because I'm intrigued by the sport as well as the "scandal" surrounding all of these doping allegations within the sport (not just Floyd's). That is when I discovered the USA Today reference to his posts on this thread. I'm grateful for finding this forum not for Floyd, because he'll come and go (no offense Floyd but I think we all agree that you'd better get off these boards and back on the bike as soon as the doctor clears you), but for the wealth of knowledge that is contained within the posts.
Sorry if you find the newbie posts annoying and distracting. I was hoping to stay and learn from you all long after Floyd pedals off into the sunset. This forum is an invaluable resource and I'm thankful to everyone for taking the time to share their knowledge and intellectual thoughts on cycling.

However, perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but from the outside looking in it seems to me to go against all notions of fundamental economics and business sense to air your dirty laundry publicly through the mainstream media before working it out internally. And, I'm referring to your governing agency all the way down the chain to individual American cyclists who like to speak out against other cyclists and speculate about the doping. Why doesn't everyone involved realize that their individual actions adversely affect the cycling industry as a whole, which can adversely affect everyone's pocketbooks?

Can anybody who's more involved in the sport share their thoughts as to why that is? Are pro cyclists not motivated by money and/or fame? Is it because the pro-cycling community really does not want to be a mainstream sport? If so, I think that's a shame because it's a great spectator sport as well as an awesome one to get our kids involved in. If neither scenario is accurate, then I'm still scratching my head at the repeated self-destruction.

Please understand these are questions and observations from an admitted outsider looking in, so if I'm way off base I appreciate being educated on the issue in a respectful manner. (PLEASE STOP THROWING ROOSTERS AT ME).

First off Welcome to all the new Forum Members and thank you for the positive comments on the quality of posts and information available.
One of the purposes of the forum is to help new cyclists gain more insight and understanding of the sport from the other members. The forum's quality is due to the forum members so thanks to all of you. We all learn a lot about the sport around the world from the members.
Glad to have you on board newbee, and all the new members.
Please read guidelines and rules so we can keep the civil level of communication high.

Regards your question about the sport I'll recommend you read the expert opinion piece by Ray Cippolini's (Navigator's Insurance D.S.)

Cycling: Can we handle the truth? We are our own worst enemy
This is an open letter of my opinion on the subject of cheating, the constant trampling and indecent and incorrect treatment of our athletes, the realities of the Anti-Doping Agencies, and a call to action.

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=9850

I think Ray said it best (I wish I had written it.) Let me know what you think after you have read it.

[floyd]

My screen name is the same as my email address on my hotmail account, which was created long before I or Floyd came to this thread. Honestly, I've been thinking how thankful I am that I happened to google "Floyd Landis" yesterday to see what if anything is going on in his case because I'm intrigued by the sport as well as the "scandal" surrounding all of these doping allegations within the sport (not just Floyd's). That is when I discovered the USA Today reference to his posts on this thread. I'm grateful for finding this forum not for Floyd, because he'll come and go (no offense Floyd but I think we all agree that you'd better get off these boards and back on the bike as soon as the doctor clears you), but for the wealth of knowledge that is contained within the posts. Sorry if you find the newbie posts annoying and distracting. I was hoping to stay and learn from you all long after Floyd pedals off into the sunset. This forum is an invaluable resource and I'm thankful to everyone for taking the time to share their knowledge and intellectual thoughts on cycling.

When I started cycling, it was for fitness and I thought you just get on a bike and pedal as fast as you can. I had no idea the science and technology behind the sport. But now I'm like a sponge, trying to learn as much as possible about the sport. I admit that I get lost in all the science you all discuss with such ease so my draw to this forum is different. As an attorney, I'm interested in the legal issues and debate. And, to be frank, the most intriguing thing to me that I've never quite understood is why the cycling industry is so willing to throw it's fellow members under the bus at the expense of the industry. I understand the sport supposedly has a doping issue. However, perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but from the outside looking in it seems to me to go against all notions of fundamental economics and business sense to air your dirty laundry publicly through the mainstream media before working it out internally. And, I'm referring to your governing agency all the way down the chain to individual American cyclists who like to speak out against other cyclists and speculate about the doping. Why doesn't everyone involved realize that their individual actions adversely affect the cycling industry as a whole, which can adversely affect everyone's pocketbooks? Like him, hate him or whatever, but the image of Lance helped bring this sport into the mainstream in the US which should mean more mainstream sponsorships and more money to everyone involved, including the cyclists. From the outside looking in, the cycling industry has a small window of opportunity to take the sport to the next level, but it seems like it is going to pee that opportunity down its leg if it continually self-implodes through talking trash at every turn. Can anybody who's more involved in the sport share their thoughts as to why that is? Are pro cyclists not motivated by money and/or fame? Is it because the pro-cycling community really does not want to be a mainstream sport? If so, I think that's a shame because it's a great spectator sport as well as an awesome one to get our kids involved in. If neither scenario is accurate, then I'm still scratching my head at the repeated self-destruction.

Please understand these are questions and observations from an admitted outsider looking in, so if I'm way off base I appreciate being educated on the issue in a respectful manner. (PLEASE STOP THROWING ROOSTERS AT ME).

Because cycling is an Olympic sport, while the Olympics does very little for cycling, we are subject to WADA. The problem comes from the fact that mutualy, cycling and the olympics do very little for each other. Therefore it is the perfect whipping boy for Dick Pound who makes it clear that he cares very little about the reputation of the sport and because it is big enough to get publicity but not wealthy enough to make him go away, he makes it one of a few which he would destroy for his agenda. Furthermore to that end, he and WADA have no financial interest in the sport progressing, so why be reasonable, since the more positive tests they can produce (at any cost) the more credibility they gain. The sport needs to leave the Olympics if it will ever become self governed and make wise business decisions from every aspect, not doping alone.

[Deleted User]

Sorry. I need an assistant.

You wanna make a bet that you get at least one offer from someone, either PM (if you ever clear it out) or on these boards . . . yesterday it was burgers, today it will be free secretarial services. Of course, the bet is already tainted by my post.

Sorry, but I don't work for free. I do REALLY NEED A JOB, though. Qualified support person with years of media experience for hire here. All interested PM me. I'll try an check in when I get back from MIAMI!

What do the broke and unemployed do when all else fails? You got it! They go to MIAMI with their best friend who just happens to be an Exotic Dancer! D*** the money that woman can make in a night is more than I clear in a couple of weeks - WHEN I'M WORKING - WHICH I'M NOT - BUT Life's a Beach; and then, you go to it!

I can't believe I'm doing this. Nothing like a good friend to cheer you up a bit.

Oh, the subject is "Doping"? Well, this is DOPE!

This post has been edited by skydunc14: Oct 11 2006, 05:14 AM

[vaunTrevi]

Because cycling is an Olympic sport, while the Olympics does very little for cycling, we are subject to WADA. The problem comes from the fact that mutualy, cycling and the olympics do very little for each other.
Therefore it is the perfect whipping boy for Dick Pound who makes it clear that he cares very little about the reputation of the sport and because it is big enough to get publicity but not wealthy enough to make him go away, he makes it one of a few which he would destroy for his agenda.

Furthermore to that end, he and WADA have no financial interest in the sport progressing, so why be reasonable, since the more positive tests they can produce (at any cost) the more credibility they gain. The sport needs to leave the Olympics if it will ever become self governed and make wise business decisions from every aspect, not doping alone.

Wow is that dead on Target Floyd!
The only power that WADA has comes from the desire of sports to compete in the Olympics and the Olympic Committee. (Add in the prestige of the chance for someone to move up from a job at the national level to a sweet cushy high paying job on the Olympic organization and you have it in a nutshell.) OBN = Old Boys Network.

I've said it before that Cycling should leave the Olympics and dump WADA and hire another testing group to do the tests. We don't need WADA or Dick the Pound... They provide a service that could easily be supplied by other independent companies.

[MacRoadie]

Wow is that dead on Target Floyd!
The only power that WADA has comes from the desire of sports to compete in the Olympics and the Olympic Committee. (Add in the prestige of the chance for someone to move up from a job at the national level to a sweet cushy high paying job on the Olympic organization and you have it in a nutshell.) OBN = Old Boys Network.

I've said it before that Cycling should leave the Olympics and dump WADA and hire another testing group to do the tests. We don't need WADA or Dick the Pound... They provide a service that could easily be supplied by other independent companies.

I think you need to step back a bit and look at what you both said from a broader standpoint. Does Floyd's analysis hold true? From a professional standpoint, probably yes. The problem is, Olympic cycling is comprised of 18 medal events: ten on the track, four on the road (RR and TT), and two each in mountain biking and BMX. With the possible exception of the mountain bike and BMX events, the road events are the only ones which really affect professionals and the road and TT events only affect members of the pro peloton.

For most of the track riders as well as some of the mountain bikers and BMX'ers, the Olympics are the pinnacle of their possible achievements. If the UCI were to leave the Olympic movement, what would these athletes be left with? Would you then have to sever those disciplines from the UCI so as to allow them to remain Olympic athletes? Last time I checked, we are all licensed under the governance of USA Cycling and the UCI....

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Oct 11 2006, 05:40 AM

[Will]

I think you need to step back a bit and look at what you both said from a broader standpoint. Does Floyd's analysis hold true? From a professional standpoint, probably yes. The problem is, Olympic cycling is comprised of 18 medal events: ten on the track, four on the road (RR and TT), and two each in mountain biking and BMX. With the possible exception of the mountain bike and BMX events, the road events are the only ones which really affect professionals and the road and TT events only affect members of the pro peloton.

For most of the track riders as well as some of the mountain bikers and BMX'ers, the Olympics are the pinnacle of their possible achievements. If the UCI were to leave the Olympic movement, what would these athletes be left with? Would you then have to sever those disciplines from the UCI so as to allow them to remain Olympic athletes? Last time I checked, we are all licensed under the governance of USA Cycling and the UCI....

You claim that these non-professional events have the Olympics as their ultimate goal and end. Perhaps this is what is holding them back. Ask youself what USA Cycling or the UCI does, commercially, to package and sell Track and BMX. It is easy to keep the yoke on neck of these forms of the sport when the business development of them is limited to pimping them out every 4 years.

You logic is flawed in that you believe that if these forms of cycling left USA Cycling/UCI/Olympics they would have nothing. They would in fact have everything: their freedom. The freedom to build sustainable businesses out of the ashes of USA Cycling and the like.

You ask "Does Floyd's analysis hold true? From a professional standpoint, probably yes." And you are correct, since this is what these athletes should have the freedom to aspire to become. True professionals who can feed/clothe their families while living a dream.

Compare this to how the NCAA runs football. They run the athletes through their meat grinder, extracting every penny, all while the athletes have their eye on the NFL Draft. The Olympics run the same scam but there is no draft for most, just poorly run NGB's with no commercial viability, just stringing the athletes along until the 4 year cycle repeats itself again.

[floyd]

I think you need to step back a bit and look at what you both said from a broader standpoint. Does Floyd's analysis hold true? From a professional standpoint, probably yes. The problem is, Olympic cycling is comprised of 18 medal events: ten on the track, four on the road (RR and TT), and two each in mountain biking and BMX. With the possible exception of the mountain bike and BMX events, the road events are the only ones which really affect professionals and the road and TT events only affect members of the pro peloton.

For most of the track riders as well as some of the mountain bikers and BMX'ers, the Olympics are the pinnacle of their possible achievements. If the UCI were to leave the Olympic movement, what would these athletes be left with? Would you then have to sever those disciplines from the UCI so as to allow them to remain Olympic athletes? Last time I checked, we are all licensed under the governance of USA Cycling and the UCI....

I miss spoke, I meant road racing. You woud be surprised how disconnected the different events are at the pro level.

I miss spoke, I meant road racing. You woud be surprised how disconnected the different events are at the pro level.

Furthermore, I was invited to the Olympics and declined. I am not speaking out of spite. There is no value in the Olympics for a road racer.

[MacRoadie]

You claim that these non-professional events have the Olympics as their ultimate goal and end. Perhaps this is what is holding them back. Ask youself what USA Cycling or the UCI does, commercially, to package and sell Track and BMX. It is easy to keep the yoke on neck of these forms of the sport when the business development of them is limited to pimping them out every 4 years.

You logic is flawed in that you believe that if these forms of cycling left USA Cycling/UCI/Olympics they would have nothing. They would in fact have everything: their freedom. The freedom to build sustainable businesses out of the ashes of USA Cycling and the like.

You ask "Does Floyd's analysis hold true? From a professional standpoint, probably yes." And you are correct, since this is what these athletes should have the freedom to aspire to become. True professionals who can feed/clothe their families while living a dream.

Compare this to how the NCAA runs football. They run the athletes through their meat grinder, extracting every penny, all while the athletes have their eye on the NFL Draft. The Olympics run the same scam but there is no draft for most, just poorly run NGB's with no commercial viability, just stringing the athletes along until the 4 year cycle repeats itself again.

I think that your logic is flawed in that you assume the universal possibility of commercial sustainability for each and every sport now competing under the umbrella of the Olympics.

I say each sport, and actually each discipline within each sport has to be looked at on it's own merits. An extreme example would be table tennis and curling. Go to China or Canada and you might find some commercial viability for each of those sports, but do you think a curler or table tennis player from the US would find that same commercial/professional success available to him or her here?

You model generally follows a free-market economic model. Unfortunately, under that model it is also a Darwinian model of survival of the fittest, and left to sink or swim on their own, in a purely professional environment I fear some of those sports would not survive.

[floyd]

I think you need to step back a bit and look at what you both said from a broader standpoint. Does Floyd's analysis hold true? From a professional standpoint, probably yes. The problem is, Olympic cycling is comprised of 18 medal events: ten on the track, four on the road (RR and TT), and two each in mountain biking and BMX. With the possible exception of the mountain bike and BMX events, the road events are the only ones which really affect professionals and the road and TT events only affect members of the pro peloton.

For most of the track riders as well as some of the mountain bikers and BMX'ers, the Olympics are the pinnacle of their possible achievements. If the UCI were to leave the Olympic movement, what would these athletes be left with? Would you then have to sever those disciplines from the UCI so as to allow them to remain Olympic athletes? Last time I checked, we are all licensed under the governance of USA Cycling and the UCI....

My real point was that the problem is that the testers have no financial stake in the sport and therefore have no reason to be objective. It's called capitalism and it works.

I think that your logic is flawed in that you assume the universal possibility of commercial sustainability for each and every sport now competing under the umbrella of the Olympics.

I say each sport, and actually each discipline within each sport has to be looked at on it's own merits. An extreme example would be table tennis and curling. Go to China or Canada and you might find some commercial viability for each of those sports, but do you think a curler or table tennis player from the US would find that same commercial/professional success available to him or her here?

You model generally follows a free-market economic model. Unfortunately, under that model it is also a Darwinian model of survival of the fittest, and left to sink or swim on their own, in a purely professional environment I fear some of those sports would not survive.

Again. I was specificaly refering to Road Racing.

[MacRoadie]

My real point was that the problem is that the testers have no financial stake in the sport and therefore have no reason to be objective. It's called capitalism and it works.
Again. I was specificaly refering to Road Racing.

And I agree with you 100%. I think there is a real purpose to the Olympics; providing a showcase for the truly amateur sports that otherwise would not enjoy a world stage. Road cycling, track and field, basketball, and other sports which already enjoy high levels of success at the professional level probably don't belong in the Olympic movement, for all the reasons you and Will gave.

[floyd]

And I agree with you 100%. I think there is a real purpose to the Olympics; providing a showcase for the truly amateur sports that otherwise would not enjoy a world stage. Road cycling, track and field, basketball, and other sports which already enjoy high levels of success at the professional level probably don't belong in the Olympic movement, for all the reasons you and Will gave.

And I agree with the ameteur point. I guess I am speeking from a personal standpoint, about Road Racing. It is the perfect target, big and poor.

[froggie]

And I agree with you 100%. I think there is a real purpose to the Olympics; providing a showcase for the truly amateur sports that otherwise would not enjoy a world stage. Road cycling, track and field, basketball, and other sports which already enjoy high levels of success at the professional level probably don't belong in the Olympic movement, for all the reasons you and Will gave.

Good point, unfortunately the Olympics are now being as medal count races and therefore these already mentioned sports are essential for countries to dominate (and win) this race. The medal count is typically the first & last info shown for every Olympic sport coverage. The showcasing of amateur sports takes a back seat.

[floyd]

And I agree with the ameteur point. I guess I am speeking from a personal standpoint, about Road Racing. It is the perfect target, big and poor.

Check out the statistics on the USADA home page, I have had more out of competition tests at home for the year than all of basketball last time I checked. An example of a rich Olympic sport.

Check out the statistics on the USADA home page, I have had more out of competition tests at home for the year than all of basketball last time I checked. An example of a rich Olympic sport.

I, for one, have no interest in the olympics. There are sports there which are not even sports and I do not wish to take part.

[Will]

I think that your logic is flawed in that you assume the universal possibility of commercial sustainability for each and every sport now competing under the umbrella of the Olympics.

I say each sport, and actually each discipline within each sport has to be looked at on it's own merits. An extreme example would be table tennis and curling. Go to China or Canada and you might find some commercial viability for each of those sports, but do you think a curler or table tennis player from the US would find that same commercial/professional success available to him or her here?

You model generally follows a free-market economic model. Unfortunately, under that model it is also a Darwinian model of survival of the fittest, and left to sink or swim on their own, in a purely professional environment I fear some of those sports would not survive.

Why do they "HAVE" to survive? Did the dinosaurs survive? or the Dodo?

If they can make the cut, great. If not, what can you do? The answer is not to prostrate yourself to the frequent and improper probing of the WADA/IOC jack-booted thugs and gangsters. These sports need to have some pride and fight. If they brought half the fight they should, they would figure out a way to format their sports to survive.

The IOC is a poisoned teat.

[sundaymorning]

i dont think the uci should be administering the tests, the leagues that do so such as nfl and mlb (whose pro's shun the olympics) are seen as enabling more than policing. and it seems like we are seeing the discrepencies that individual country's feds provide in prosecuting the puerto cases. so we are left with wada. i totally agree that the only thing dick pound does when he opens his mouth is give the impression he's a self promoter. i believe that doping is fairly common in pro cycling, but the tests aren't catching many riders, the perception is that they merely change the doping practice. so pound has no recourse other than to puff himself up (rooster?) and cycling receives the bluster (it's pretty high profile but not soccer). the obvious answer is to get rid of pound and tighten up the ship. but that's diametrically opposite of what's happening everywhere in these hysterical days of pro cycling.

[floyd]

i dont think the uci should be administering the tests, the leagues that do so such as nfl and mlb (whose pro's shun the olympics) are seen as enabling more than policing. and it seems like we are seeing the discrepencies that individual country's feds provide in prosecuting the puerto cases. so we are left with wada. i totally agree that the only thing dick pound does when he opens his mouth is give the impression he's a self promoter. i believe that doping is fairly common in pro cycling, but the tests aren't catching many riders, the perception is that they merely change the doping practice. so pound has no recourse other than to puff himself up (rooster?) and cycling receives the bluster (it's pretty high profile but not soccer). the obvious answer is to get rid of pound and tighten up the ship. but that's diametrically opposite of what's happening everywhere in these hysterical days of pro cycling.

Fair enough, testing needs to be objective and Pound has roostered up just about everything. There must be something in the middle. The fact remains, WADA and the UCI are not the answer.

[MacRoadie]

Check out the statistics on the USADA home page, I have had more out of competition tests at home for the year than all of basketball last time I checked. An example of a rich Olympic sport.
I, for one, have no interest in the olympics. There are sports there which are not even sports and I do not wish to take part.

Of course. If you think about it, cycling, running and soccer are the three most widely participated sports in the world so it stands to reason that Pound and WADA would target (if he really does have an agends) cycling. It has a huge following, world-wide press, but has little or no financial impact on the Olympics.

Go ahead and target basketball or track and field (which it appears they do reluctantly) and you piss off Nike and Adidas and Reebok. Remember how quickly Nike dropped Kobe? Thats god-awful big money to lose/piss off. With cycling what do they lose? Adidas loses T-Mobile and Nike loses Discovery? I've been racing for almost 30 years and I've never owned any Nike cycling stuff, ever. May have had a pair of Adidas shoes I won once and I think they hurt like hell....

[sundaymorning]

Fair enough, testing needs to be objective and Pound has roostered up just about everything. There must be something in the middle. The fact remains, WADA and the UCI are not the answer.

it seems like you are satisfied with usada, floyd (i mean as much as you can be during this unfortunate circumstance). usada was slammed during the late 80's and early 90's for all kinds of shenanigans, covering up tests and stuff. they got their act together and seem to be based on following strong protocol. too bad wada can't do the same. problem is the heads of the ioc and wada are such high profile positions i guess they attract power mongers.

[Jimmy]

Floyd: "My real point was that the problem is that the testers have no financial stake in the sport and therefore have no reason to be objective."

Sundaymorning:

"i dont think the uci should be administering the tests, the leagues that do so such as nfl and mlb (whose pro's shun the olympics) are seen as enabling more than policing."

I think Sundaymorning has it - you don't want people with a financial stake in the sport doing the testing - there is the possibility of covering up results to protect the image of the sport. I don't know where Floyd was coming from with this - that if people have a financial interest they are more likely to be objective? Seems backwards to me.