Well then......I guess I owe Greg Lemond a big fat apology, and one to anyone else who has painfully listened to my thoughts on one Floyd Landis and his supposed innocence. Talk about the punch to the gut of the century.
For those who have not yet heard, Floyd Landis declared last night that he needed to clear his conscience and admitted to systematic doping throughout the latter part of his career leading up to and including his victory in the 2006 vintage of the Tour de France. You can read the full story as it is currently being told here: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5203604. Of course, this story has gone around the world of the internet about five million times at this point and there will be much more to be learned in the coming days, but start with this article by Bonnie Ford. She is an excellent journalist who gets the real scoop and reports on it accurately and faithfully.
Guess Martin Dugard had it right. Mr. Dugard was originally asked to be the ghost writer on Floyd Landis's autobiography and inexplicably (at the time) later turned down the offer. At the genesis of this story four years ago, he was one of Landis's staunchest defenders. If memory serves, shortly after the original AAA hearing, Mr. Dugard posted on his blog that he believed wholeheartedly Landis doped, much to the dismay, chagrin, and vitriol of the rest of Landis's defenders.
Like most everyone else who defended Landis, I suppose, this morning greeted me with an incredible mix of emotions. Even called my wife to tell her I was sad about this. Although she finds cycling painfully boring, she knows how passionate I was about Landis's cause and how closely I followed it. "Four years of proclaiming innocence and now this," was her response. I agree.
How do we believe anything Landis says at this point? I don't agree with Pat McQuaid (president of the UCI) on a lot, but on this I have to agree on the lack of credibility that exists for Landis. Far be it for me to put into question someone admitting their indiscretions, but the timing and motivation sure seem odd. Landis, in the same breath, mentions the statute of limitations (on opening doping investigations) as his cause for coming forward now, and that he has no proof of anything on anyone other than himself. Why even come forward then? Why mention the statute of limitations if an investigation will ultimately lead to nowhere? Landis became the pariah of the cycling world by fighting the system so hard, and one wonders if he is simply grasping for straws at this point in an attempt to return to the top level of competition before father time finally catches up to him. He does have a lot of circumstantial evidence, and one could certainly argue that no one was better placed to know the secrets of Lance Armstrong than the person Armstrong took under his wing, but there is nothing concrete. We have a smoking gun, but nothing more.
Ah hell, who am I kidding? Can we believe in any of these guys anymore? If doping is what it takes to get to the top, does that mean it wasn't really talent that was killing me at the amateur ranks all those years? I know people I have raced with have suggested that doping is rampant in the amateur ranks because there is no testing, but that's what has to be done to get noticed by someone who will actually pay one to race.
I can't give up on all of my heroes. Nope, not just yet. I'd even forgive them all if every one of them came forward and said they were doping, but now they were putting all of that behind them and starting with a clean slate. Then again, how could anyone possibly ask someone to come forward and admit to something they have never done?
More will be written about this in the coming days, but it smells like crap, and it's coming from Floyd Landis's direction. Is there an agenda? Is he doing this for personal gain of some sort? Or is he really telling the truth? For now, it's any one's guess, and like every other cycling fan, I don't know what to believe anymore.
The Razor's Edge
For those who have not yet heard, Floyd Landis declared last night that he needed to clear his conscience and admitted to systematic doping throughout the latter part of his career leading up to and including his victory in the 2006 vintage of the Tour de France. You can read the full story as it is currently being told here: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5203604. Of course, this story has gone around the world of the internet about five million times at this point and there will be much more to be learned in the coming days, but start with this article by Bonnie Ford. She is an excellent journalist who gets the real scoop and reports on it accurately and faithfully.
Guess Martin Dugard had it right. Mr. Dugard was originally asked to be the ghost writer on Floyd Landis's autobiography and inexplicably (at the time) later turned down the offer. At the genesis of this story four years ago, he was one of Landis's staunchest defenders. If memory serves, shortly after the original AAA hearing, Mr. Dugard posted on his blog that he believed wholeheartedly Landis doped, much to the dismay, chagrin, and vitriol of the rest of Landis's defenders.
Like most everyone else who defended Landis, I suppose, this morning greeted me with an incredible mix of emotions. Even called my wife to tell her I was sad about this. Although she finds cycling painfully boring, she knows how passionate I was about Landis's cause and how closely I followed it. "Four years of proclaiming innocence and now this," was her response. I agree.
How do we believe anything Landis says at this point? I don't agree with Pat McQuaid (president of the UCI) on a lot, but on this I have to agree on the lack of credibility that exists for Landis. Far be it for me to put into question someone admitting their indiscretions, but the timing and motivation sure seem odd. Landis, in the same breath, mentions the statute of limitations (on opening doping investigations) as his cause for coming forward now, and that he has no proof of anything on anyone other than himself. Why even come forward then? Why mention the statute of limitations if an investigation will ultimately lead to nowhere? Landis became the pariah of the cycling world by fighting the system so hard, and one wonders if he is simply grasping for straws at this point in an attempt to return to the top level of competition before father time finally catches up to him. He does have a lot of circumstantial evidence, and one could certainly argue that no one was better placed to know the secrets of Lance Armstrong than the person Armstrong took under his wing, but there is nothing concrete. We have a smoking gun, but nothing more.
Ah hell, who am I kidding? Can we believe in any of these guys anymore? If doping is what it takes to get to the top, does that mean it wasn't really talent that was killing me at the amateur ranks all those years? I know people I have raced with have suggested that doping is rampant in the amateur ranks because there is no testing, but that's what has to be done to get noticed by someone who will actually pay one to race.
I can't give up on all of my heroes. Nope, not just yet. I'd even forgive them all if every one of them came forward and said they were doping, but now they were putting all of that behind them and starting with a clean slate. Then again, how could anyone possibly ask someone to come forward and admit to something they have never done?
More will be written about this in the coming days, but it smells like crap, and it's coming from Floyd Landis's direction. Is there an agenda? Is he doing this for personal gain of some sort? Or is he really telling the truth? For now, it's any one's guess, and like every other cycling fan, I don't know what to believe anymore.
The Razor's Edge
