Monday, December 04, 2006

The Wide Brush

Maybe somebody can help me out here.
Hans-Micheal Holczer
, Gerolsteiner's team manager, still has his doubts about Ivan Basso and his plans to participate in the Giro d'Italia and Tour de France in 2007 for the Discovery Channel team. "It's just not going to be as simple as it seems," he said over the weekend.

Here's what I don't quite understand. Just why did Basso, and Jan Ullrich for that matter, drop out just before the start of last year's Tour de France? Just what was it that they did or what was it that they were guilty of? I realize that their names surfaced during the Spanish doping scandal, but who found them guilty -- or at least any more guilty than other top cyclists? You can paint all professional cyclists with a wide brush, like my fellow Crank, Tooth, or you can demand more proof.

I'd still like to see more proof in individual cases.
Like Basso's case.
Like Ullrich's case.

What does Holczer know that he isn't telling us? Does it apply to his former rider, Levi Leipheimer, who now rides for Discovery?

"I don't really want to comment on Basso's statements and prospects. I continue to assume that no rider will be allowed to start in any ProTour race unless he has made a DNA test, as the team managers agreed in Salzburg," Holczer said about Basso's planned 2007 comeback.

There seems to be plenty of anti-Basso and Ullrich sentiment. Deutschland Tour manager Kai Rapp said: "Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme will also be rigorous." Yet even when the Tour is rigorous, as it was with Bad Boy Floyd Landis, there's still doubt.

So, show me the evidence if you're going to paint Basso, or Ullrich, with that wide brush.

10 comments:

Thinnmann said...

Hey crankset3, if you don't know why Basso and Ulrich didn't participate in le Tour this summer, I can't believe you are the fan of cycling that you see yourself as... They were removed from the tour. They did not simply drop out. The team managers had an emergency meeting and agreed to not allow any rider implicated in the Puerto mess to ride the tour. They were upholding the UCI Code of Ethics.

And "BBF" is obviously a victim of a trigger-happy testing lab and a overly self-important guy named Dick. Keep track of fiction and reality here.

Ride on.......

Tour of '03 said...

Hi Thinnmann,
Thanks for your post. I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure you get the gist of what I'm saying (and I'll take responsibility for that). I'm questioning whether just being mentioned in Puerto is analagous to guilt. That's a system of justice I'd don't adhere to, EVEN when it involves cycling. I think that most if not all professional cyclists cycle a thin line; I don't condone that behavior, by the way. But does that mean they outright dope? Just because a name is mentioned, does that mean you're guilty? It sounds like McCarthyism to me.

Thinnmann said...

Of course it is crazy and counter to "innocent until proven guilty". I am not disagreeing with you. Unfortunately, that is the way the UCI's Code of Ethics is written:

"Without prejudice to the right to terminate the contract for serious misconduct, not to enter any licence-holder for events who is subject to judicial proceedings or investigation for facts relating to sporting activity, or any act constituting a breach of the UCI antidoping regulations, or any other intentional criminal act.
1. as from the opening of the investigation or proceedings:
· if the facts are admitted by the party in question, or
· if information from an official source available to the UCI ProTeam shows that the facts in question cannot be seriously contested;
2. in other cases, as from the date of referral by the investigating body or, where no such procedure applies, the date of the summons to the accused to appear before the trial judge for sentencing."


It is McCarthyistic guilty-until-proven-innocent. The pro teams agreed on the document. If a rider is simply implicated that rider can not be given license to race.

Let's all look forward to Dick Pound going down in flames and Floyd defending yellow in '07!

Tour of '03 said...

Thanks for the specifics on the UIC policy. You're right, of course. I guess I'm just P-ing and M-ing. Professional cycling is such a secretive world compared to most other sports. When the cyclists themselves decide to clean up their sport, we'll have a better and more competitive sport.

citizen***146 said...

Backwards BUSH clock, fantastic!
see Thinnmann site....

Thinnmann said...

Thanks for noticing, Citzen. I didn't invent the clock. The code is at backwardsbush.com to integrate into any site.

53rd Tooth said...

I've often wondered how long it would take to electrically charge this otherwise civil blog. It would appear the answer is just north of 400 posts.

Let's address in order, shall we?

1. 03 and I go back and he knows of my fondeness for him so he won't be offended when I dissent from the "wide brush" commentary. To recap 03, I have no choice but to "paint" the peloton a shade of gray.

As I've written frequently, the final nail for me was former pros I have trained with, telling me personally that "THEY ALL DO IT". Does this mean that I think all 177 riders in Le Tour do it? Of course not. I am more comfortable with 176 as I do believe David Millar was sincere this year. Sorry but I, like most of the fan base is tired of being duped by those that dope.

2. Mr. Thinnman apparently is equally passionate about the democratic rights or lack thereof afforded to the pros. Lest I remind Mr. T, that the UCI is not a sovereign government of the people and the constituntional issues of freedom and/or due process do not apply here. This is a self governing private enterprise and thus free to establish whatever code they see fit. The Pros more than understand this. Therefore the McCarthyism is a stretch.

Maybe, just maybe if the sport hasn't been plagued with a century of cheats then the UCI should relax. Otherwise bring your DNA card or go home.

3. This brings me to my next point. Floyd Landis has been found guilty. Period. I know French bashing is en vouge (had to) these days but really, there are US anti-doping officials that concur with the testing procedures. Who knows, maybe the phantom twin Mennonite brother will surface from the fields and end the mystery?

4. Sorry to be a gate keeper here as no one enjoys political debate more than me but can we agree to keep the blog a "politically free" zone? Hats off to 03 for keeping me in line on this issue on an earlier post.

Better pay the electric bill, the meter looks to be running.

Tour of '03 said...

OK, so they all do it.
It.
I HATE pronouns, especially ambiguous pronouns.
What's "it"?
Or is that a Clinton "meaning of 'is'" question?
I still don't know what Basso and Ullrich did other than show up in an investigation. I'd like to know what it was that they supposedly did to lead to them being dropped by their teams before the Tour.
Too many secrets ...
As for Landis, he seems to be having the same problem with the French lab that Lance did. It gets to be so old.
The sport is screwed up. We can all agree with that.
Will DNA testing solve the problems?
Everyone will still push the limits of what is legal and what is not. The UIC needs to raise the threshold so that when then cyclists push the boundaries, the boundaries are more reasonable than not.
And I really wonder if the stage races aren't just too tough, beyond human limits.

53rd Tooth said...

What have pronouns ever done to you? Are THEY not even safe in this mess? I can't imagine the danger facing the dangling participle. (sorry I'm losing my mind I think)

When posing the inquiry as you have, attempting to ascertain "it". The response I recieved from said party(s)was: EPO and human growth hormones were the most prevalent amongst various garden variety methods e.g. blood boosting, etc. Said party(s) also stated that it was "personal preference" and usually "freely available in most team bus refridgerators"

One other thing we can agree about is since Floyd, all we or the majority of the cycling fan base have talked or written about is this issue.

That's the biggest doping offense of all. What once was a topic of great joy and release for many (like me for example) has now too fallen victim to the ills of human greed. Not to wax too philosophic here but it seems as if our thirst for all things commerical, bigger and better have tainted even something as simple as bike racing.

How's Cricket this time of year?

Tour of '03 said...

You don't know about the cricket scandals?!

Monday, December 04, 2006

The Wide Brush

Maybe somebody can help me out here.
Hans-Micheal Holczer
, Gerolsteiner's team manager, still has his doubts about Ivan Basso and his plans to participate in the Giro d'Italia and Tour de France in 2007 for the Discovery Channel team. "It's just not going to be as simple as it seems," he said over the weekend.

Here's what I don't quite understand. Just why did Basso, and Jan Ullrich for that matter, drop out just before the start of last year's Tour de France? Just what was it that they did or what was it that they were guilty of? I realize that their names surfaced during the Spanish doping scandal, but who found them guilty -- or at least any more guilty than other top cyclists? You can paint all professional cyclists with a wide brush, like my fellow Crank, Tooth, or you can demand more proof.

I'd still like to see more proof in individual cases.
Like Basso's case.
Like Ullrich's case.

What does Holczer know that he isn't telling us? Does it apply to his former rider, Levi Leipheimer, who now rides for Discovery?

"I don't really want to comment on Basso's statements and prospects. I continue to assume that no rider will be allowed to start in any ProTour race unless he has made a DNA test, as the team managers agreed in Salzburg," Holczer said about Basso's planned 2007 comeback.

There seems to be plenty of anti-Basso and Ullrich sentiment. Deutschland Tour manager Kai Rapp said: "Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme will also be rigorous." Yet even when the Tour is rigorous, as it was with Bad Boy Floyd Landis, there's still doubt.

So, show me the evidence if you're going to paint Basso, or Ullrich, with that wide brush.

10 comments:

Thinnmann said...

Hey crankset3, if you don't know why Basso and Ulrich didn't participate in le Tour this summer, I can't believe you are the fan of cycling that you see yourself as... They were removed from the tour. They did not simply drop out. The team managers had an emergency meeting and agreed to not allow any rider implicated in the Puerto mess to ride the tour. They were upholding the UCI Code of Ethics.

And "BBF" is obviously a victim of a trigger-happy testing lab and a overly self-important guy named Dick. Keep track of fiction and reality here.

Ride on.......

Tour of '03 said...

Hi Thinnmann,
Thanks for your post. I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure you get the gist of what I'm saying (and I'll take responsibility for that). I'm questioning whether just being mentioned in Puerto is analagous to guilt. That's a system of justice I'd don't adhere to, EVEN when it involves cycling. I think that most if not all professional cyclists cycle a thin line; I don't condone that behavior, by the way. But does that mean they outright dope? Just because a name is mentioned, does that mean you're guilty? It sounds like McCarthyism to me.

Thinnmann said...

Of course it is crazy and counter to "innocent until proven guilty". I am not disagreeing with you. Unfortunately, that is the way the UCI's Code of Ethics is written:

"Without prejudice to the right to terminate the contract for serious misconduct, not to enter any licence-holder for events who is subject to judicial proceedings or investigation for facts relating to sporting activity, or any act constituting a breach of the UCI antidoping regulations, or any other intentional criminal act.
1. as from the opening of the investigation or proceedings:
· if the facts are admitted by the party in question, or
· if information from an official source available to the UCI ProTeam shows that the facts in question cannot be seriously contested;
2. in other cases, as from the date of referral by the investigating body or, where no such procedure applies, the date of the summons to the accused to appear before the trial judge for sentencing."


It is McCarthyistic guilty-until-proven-innocent. The pro teams agreed on the document. If a rider is simply implicated that rider can not be given license to race.

Let's all look forward to Dick Pound going down in flames and Floyd defending yellow in '07!

Tour of '03 said...

Thanks for the specifics on the UIC policy. You're right, of course. I guess I'm just P-ing and M-ing. Professional cycling is such a secretive world compared to most other sports. When the cyclists themselves decide to clean up their sport, we'll have a better and more competitive sport.

citizen***146 said...

Backwards BUSH clock, fantastic!
see Thinnmann site....

Thinnmann said...

Thanks for noticing, Citzen. I didn't invent the clock. The code is at backwardsbush.com to integrate into any site.

53rd Tooth said...

I've often wondered how long it would take to electrically charge this otherwise civil blog. It would appear the answer is just north of 400 posts.

Let's address in order, shall we?

1. 03 and I go back and he knows of my fondeness for him so he won't be offended when I dissent from the "wide brush" commentary. To recap 03, I have no choice but to "paint" the peloton a shade of gray.

As I've written frequently, the final nail for me was former pros I have trained with, telling me personally that "THEY ALL DO IT". Does this mean that I think all 177 riders in Le Tour do it? Of course not. I am more comfortable with 176 as I do believe David Millar was sincere this year. Sorry but I, like most of the fan base is tired of being duped by those that dope.

2. Mr. Thinnman apparently is equally passionate about the democratic rights or lack thereof afforded to the pros. Lest I remind Mr. T, that the UCI is not a sovereign government of the people and the constituntional issues of freedom and/or due process do not apply here. This is a self governing private enterprise and thus free to establish whatever code they see fit. The Pros more than understand this. Therefore the McCarthyism is a stretch.

Maybe, just maybe if the sport hasn't been plagued with a century of cheats then the UCI should relax. Otherwise bring your DNA card or go home.

3. This brings me to my next point. Floyd Landis has been found guilty. Period. I know French bashing is en vouge (had to) these days but really, there are US anti-doping officials that concur with the testing procedures. Who knows, maybe the phantom twin Mennonite brother will surface from the fields and end the mystery?

4. Sorry to be a gate keeper here as no one enjoys political debate more than me but can we agree to keep the blog a "politically free" zone? Hats off to 03 for keeping me in line on this issue on an earlier post.

Better pay the electric bill, the meter looks to be running.

Tour of '03 said...

OK, so they all do it.
It.
I HATE pronouns, especially ambiguous pronouns.
What's "it"?
Or is that a Clinton "meaning of 'is'" question?
I still don't know what Basso and Ullrich did other than show up in an investigation. I'd like to know what it was that they supposedly did to lead to them being dropped by their teams before the Tour.
Too many secrets ...
As for Landis, he seems to be having the same problem with the French lab that Lance did. It gets to be so old.
The sport is screwed up. We can all agree with that.
Will DNA testing solve the problems?
Everyone will still push the limits of what is legal and what is not. The UIC needs to raise the threshold so that when then cyclists push the boundaries, the boundaries are more reasonable than not.
And I really wonder if the stage races aren't just too tough, beyond human limits.

53rd Tooth said...

What have pronouns ever done to you? Are THEY not even safe in this mess? I can't imagine the danger facing the dangling participle. (sorry I'm losing my mind I think)

When posing the inquiry as you have, attempting to ascertain "it". The response I recieved from said party(s)was: EPO and human growth hormones were the most prevalent amongst various garden variety methods e.g. blood boosting, etc. Said party(s) also stated that it was "personal preference" and usually "freely available in most team bus refridgerators"

One other thing we can agree about is since Floyd, all we or the majority of the cycling fan base have talked or written about is this issue.

That's the biggest doping offense of all. What once was a topic of great joy and release for many (like me for example) has now too fallen victim to the ills of human greed. Not to wax too philosophic here but it seems as if our thirst for all things commerical, bigger and better have tainted even something as simple as bike racing.

How's Cricket this time of year?

Tour of '03 said...

You don't know about the cricket scandals?!