Prepare for the Worst... An ASO-FFC renegade Tour de France

(as we wait today, Monday the Last day of June, 2008,
for the imminent publication of the Landis CAS decision,
news comes from Trusted sources that a certain
WADAwatch piece was included in Arnie Baker's WikiDefense2.0;
thank you Dr Baker)

How do pro cyclists spell C*O*N*F*U*S*I*O*N???

The cycling world is waiting with bated breath for the depart, this Saturday, of the first modern Tour de France to be held outside the legal auspices of the Union Cycliste Internationale. The onus of this development lies solely on the Organization that owns the Tour. This private corporation could not undertake such an effort, without express consent and aid of the French Government. The liability for any untoward events, involving staff or riders, spectators or others, lies solely in the hands and insurances of two organizations.

Palliative assurances offered by both the renegade French Cycling Federation, and its outlaw partners from the Tour de France organization, a subsidiary of the French company Amaury Sport Organization, insist that all “is going to be fine”.

Or 'fined'?

We've heard about the unprecedented anti–doping fines that ASO has devised, within the contracts each participating Team has signed. These will be levied from teams having a rider 'convicted' for a doping infraction. Verdicts are anticipated to be announced within 24 hours of the A Sample control analysis.

We know now, that in France, there is no need for a B Sample control analysis, because 'we know' that the French National lab: LNDD, is going to be in charge of doping analysis. And in spite of our not yet knowing whether the LNDD is about to lose, perhaps, its second cycling–testosterone case from its 2006 'testing season', these Teflon–slick French “rules” will provide a curious conflict–of–interest situation.

LNDD, which lost one case (Landaluce) last year, due to its failure to observe a clear and simple WADA – UCI rule prohibiting lab staff from having any substantive role in the performance of the B Sample analysis, if they performed the A Sample analysis, has 'volunteered' its anti–doping service to this year's TdF. Formerly this was a charge–per–analysis fee system, that was paid to LNDD by either the UCI or the TdF organization (or in combination).

This year the doping control analyses are to be provided free–of–charge, by the AFLD. And any team that 'gets caught' by LNDD, will be paying a 100 thousand Euro fine, which moneys aparently go to the FFC, recently suspended by the UCI until the end of 2008. With the lack of substantive funding formerly provided to LNDD, a substantial sum of money totalling tens or hundreds of thousands of Euros net, to it and its parent agency, the AFLD. Remember: FFC is forced to fund the aspects of this renegade Tour de France that previously were charged to the UCI. Teams that have riders 'busted' under this barely–tested system will, de facto, be subsidizing the French cycling Federation.

Moreover, under this precarious French ad–hoc 'Legal process', doping violations will not require more than 24 hours to render a verdict, very similar to how the second and illegitimate process run in France against Floyd Landis was resolved, as noted by WADAwatch several times: remember that his verdict was announced within hours of the receipt of Landis' last and most substantial submission of his legal documentation.

Here's the sticky part.

The FFC, which is currently under suspension by the UCI, will 'convict' riders under its rules, which rely many times on UCI rules, and those convicted riders, will not have been 'convicted' under either WADA or UCI approved regulations.

So would any 'suspended' Tour de France rider, who has been 'convicted' in this renegade Tour under an ad–hoc French regulatory structure without international legal basis or support, be considered suspended anywhere else than in France?

France has pridefully announced that its legal procedures won't pass through the internationally–agreed channels (French arbitrations, rather than CAS in Lausanne); we know from close examination of the illegitimate French decision concerning Landis, that any 'French legal process' regarding sport doping cases is suspect. Should this be added to the long list of evidence, provided by WADAwatch and ignored by all public media, of France's multiple failures to abide by the WADA CODE and its second–level ISL and IST?

Appeals to any decision taken by the French Chamber of Arbitration for Sport (under the French Olympic Committee) will be handled... how? Where?

France has stipulated that the Court of Arbitration for Sport would not be involved. Is the French government, which has enabled every step taken by ASO, the FFC, the AFLD and the French Ministry for Sport, likely to bitchslap its subordinates back into international good standing, or is it more likely to provide support for this ASO–led mutiny?

And, if not appealed to the CAS, is any action taken by this unilateral French alliance of government and business (Political scientists would note how this brushes dangerously near the definition of classic fascism) supported by the new WADA administration? A WADA administration that must deal with France as the current 'president State' of the EU for the next six months?

WADAwatch raises a sincere concern: that if the Tour de France were to 'find' some five to seven 'doping incidents', whose shotgun–wedding–styled justice, within 24 hours of these ad–hoc doping control results, it could 'net' some five hundred to seven hundred thousand Euros for the FFC and the renegade AFLD, amply making up for that agency's loss of per–test financing from the UCI.

What's going on at WADA?

Is it losing its grip on one of the key sporting federations of its Signatory State members? Isn't WADA the 'force for good' (ahem...?) in great part because of the 'machinations' of this devious cycling world, of which only 'France' (mon Dieu!) was aware of the depths of depravity to which cycling sank?

Whatever France IS doing,
it surely will not be awarded with a
'Member State of the YEAR' prize,
either by the UCI or WADA.

If the ASO company is striving towards the 'Microsofting' of the cycling event promotion business (NB: the term in quotes is not meant in complimentary fashion; the single compliment from this author to the French Government is our shared professed affinity for the Open Office open–source computer software system), and if ASO has full government support by a French president whose office was won with, and has amply returned special favours, to a strong pack of powerful media men who are his closest friends, its seems likely to suggest that there could be similar shenanigans as have been duely noted since France went to war against Lance Armstrong several years ago.

How France, ASO, and the Tour de France combined to bite the American champion's hand, whose majestic reign had fed this ensemble through his transforming series of human performances, is of permanent record. Lance's retirement left these French structures reeling, and their ingratitude for his profit–promoting performances was a staunch reminder to the world of the capacity of the French, as no other country can, to whine, whinge and offer sour grapes and illegitimate insinuations as to the source of his victories.

Remember: it was on the routes of the Tour de France, that the French, instigated by the insinuendos from l'Equipe for many years, were wildly supportive of Richard Virenque, a Frenchman who had confessed to extensive EPO use after nearly two years of denials, while howling 'Dopé' at Armstrong throughout his last three or so races.

NB: Microsoft, an acknowledged monopolist through sheer market capture, has a history of acquiring upcoming technological advancements that threatened its total control of the PC software markets (Netscape case, Real Player case, etc). Amaury, who by itself or through separate partners' acquisitions, is capturing a majority of the major racing events (Vuelta, Tours of Germany and California, and others); see here about the two–league theory being under current public debate.

Would the UCI announce, prior to the Tour, what legal effect results recur to any rider's career, if a mad French scientist announces multiple 'A Sample' violations by foreign riders (whether we'll see our first French rider tested positive in many years remains to be determined)?

Tested once;

Betrayed by premature announcements published
within a newspaper owned by the Race Organizers;

'French justice'?

Now, more than ever, the silence of WADA to its mandated 'standardizations' is echoing through the cold and worrisome nightmares of 189 riders, their associates, team directors and sponsors. To what fate are they condemning themselves, to what end? We don't have access to any newer version than the 2006 French doping Regulations, which still bizarrely refer to the old CPLD, now replaced by the AFLD “many moons ago”.

But let us turn to the 'French Rules', and offer a couple of questions.

Title II, of the French Rules concerns Road Racing. Its section 2.6.013 denotes how stage races may issue leaders' jerseys, which selections shall be derived from sporting criteria only. So far, so good. And it stipulates that FOUR jerseys can be awarded 'for the races of the UCI ProTour and for mens' Elite and the under–23s in the classes HC and 1'.

So let's stop right there: French Rules, which (for this Title) were updated and republished as effective January 2008, designate that races held under this rule can award four Jerseys 'for ProTour' races. But the Tour de France is NOT a ProTour race, thanks to the renegade spirit of the AFLD, ASO and FFC. WADAwatch leaves it to the reader to find their own way out of this legal Byzantine labyrinth.

Try another sample law, from the 2006 Title XIV rules on doping violations under FFC.

Article 38 stipulates that the convocation of a rider must occur by registered letter at least fifteen days prior to the hearing, with a signed return receipt, or better: by human courrier, with signed witnessed delivery.

How is the FFC, then, permitted to announce that it can hold a hearing within 24 hours of an A Sample resulting in an AAF, which appears to be in violation of Article 38 of its own Title XIV rules?

The assurances offered, by ASO, by the FFC, by the AFLD, as trumpeted through their publicists at the l'Equipe, are falling on incredulous WADAwatch ears...

One aspect remains very clear: with the money saved on doping control testing and laboratory analyses, the Tour de France organizers will be better able to absorb the huge rising costs associated with the price of fuel for their immense Tour fleet of media, publicity, commissaire and VIP vehicles.

PREDICTION: if you thought the TdF was out of control last year, you may not want to watch it at all this year; it may be as exciting as reading false stories in sham papers about predicted and precarious legal events under renegade and ad–hoc rules:

for a lawn–croquet tournament

We'd enjoy watching this Tour de France, however, in the company of Floyd Landis, or Alberto Contador: true human beings, caught in a whirlpool between an unravelling cycling world, and an unharmonious anti–doping world, both beyond rational control.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Is WADA watching the Tour de France?

We must,

.................@...............WADAwatch

2008 all copyrights reserved

Why does France still enjoy WADA's support?

Only last February, WADAwatch was present at the Third WADA Press Symposium, back in the 'good old Days', when WADA, France and the UCI were crowing about the investments in time and resources, to establish the 'Biological Passport' for cyclists, in yet another effort to prove to the world that the sport of Cycling could emerge victoriously from its image:

an image that was born, bred
and developed to its fullest, in France.

You can read about our opinion(s) of the new-found rebelliousness of France, in light of its role in WADA, from these recent WADAwatch or crystelZENmud articles:

crystelZENmud

11 March 2008: Meeting Damien... Sympathy for the 'Devil-child'

14 February 2008: Open Letter to la famille Amaury...

22 October 2007: Les Surprises d'Octobre

or WADAwatch

30 May 2008: Riders! On the Tour...

24 April 2008: 'CRIME AGAINST SPORTSMANITY'

11 March 2008: Paris NOT nice: part one

29 February 2008: WADA LEAP YEAR 2008


Ww asked, in that public Symposium, why France was not facing, or had not faced, any sanctions for its multiple violations, by multiple violators of the WADA Code?


As the question centered on the Floyd Landis case (in Ww's opinion, France ran an illegitimate 'second' process that violates WADA CODE Article 15.4 on 'Mutual Recognition' (under 2003 Code/p.45; the 2009 version can be found here/p.94), the response from Director-General David Bowman focused on a litigation that had been undertaken "under prior French law".

Nevertheless, and for WADever reason beyond our imagination, France has now, in the space of three years, committed nearly every violation of WADA's CODE, if not its spirit of fair-play, with this most recent announcement from an article at ESPN's website:

ASO is staging the July 5-27 race under the authority of the French national cycling federation -- ignoring the rules and doping controls of the sport's governing body UCI.

There's another change at this year's Tour. France's Chamber of Arbitration for Sport -- which falls under the French national Olympic committee -- will rule on alleged doping cases, Boyer said.

He said the French arbitration body would rule within 24 hours in suspected doping cases -- and would not wait for a second, or "B", sample to confirm a positive test.

If this is NOT a violation of the WADA CODE,
there is no 'CODE'.

If this IS a violation of the WADA CODE,
there should be an announcement soon.

When a State takes internationally agreed rules on conduct, and turns them upside down, where do other Signatories grasp for remnants of the system under attack?


Remember Mr George W Bush in 2002 or 2003, the Geneva Conventions or UN Charter, and Iraq? This sad analogy is very close to perfect (with differing degrees as to outcomes, of course): if France chooses to walk away from the WADA system, at least WADA could acknowledge that this is happening, and face the consequences.


However, the accuracy of certain statements from that ESPN article must be verified: the Féderation française de cyclisme, or FFC, cannot 'ignore the rules and doping controls', per se, of the UCI. This link goes to the latest publicly-published set of FFC rules.


Note (all, of course, in French) that section 2.0.001 of the Road racing rules section, defines who holds a 'License': any remunerated rider for 'a structure' that is recognized by the UCI. This seems to negate the means under which France litigated or prosecuted Landis as a non-licensed rider.


Note also, in the ESPN article above, that the 'ruling' would occur within 24 hours of the 'announcement' of the cyclists' A Sample results (the B Sample, a universally-acknowledged 'fail-safe' redundancy check to confirm the A results, is no longer necessary in France).


One could wonder whether the FFC debated, and refrained, from announcing 'l'Equipe' to be the official legal journal for results management (satirical thought: the new rules Section clearly defines the French Federation's publication: La France Cycliste (subscriptions only), as official journal for publishing these).


There is a new Section to the FFC regulations, concerning Anti-doping. Section, Section XIV: "REGLEMENT RELATIF A LA LUTTE CONTRE LE DOPAGE DE LA FFC" (NB: for Francophobes: 'lutte' is 'fight' in FR; the rest may seem clear enough).


WADAwatch will return with deeper analysis of these items in the coming, pre-Tour weeks, as we await the CAS decision regarding the systemically-abused Floyd Landis.



As the world waits also, especially the Sporting World, with Euro-foot on this month, the Tour de France next month (and Wimbledon, which created the retirement of Martina Hingis) and then the Olympics of Beijing, is it back to the drawing boards, maybe, for Richard Young, John Fahey and David Howman?


Because if WADA doesn't learn how to stand its ground, and prosecute the guilt-ridden layers of French agencies and Federations that have violated its rules wantonly, abusively, continuously, then this year the Tour de France of company ASO will obviously take advantage of its 'carte blanche' to prosecute a great number of 'suspected' riders, on evidence of its own choosing, without recourse to B Samples, and no doubt, through the voice of cycling, the dishonoured L'Equipe sports rag journal.

NB: WADAwatch no longer offers links to L'Equipe.

Sportsmen, Sportswomen, you should be afraid, very afraid: because this system, designed to convince your peers to stop using substances or procedures that disturb clean competitions and competitors, is fragmenting, slowly, due to the machinations of one company, in one country: with full government support.

Case closed?

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

Watching WADA, and France,

.................@...............WADAwatch

2008 all copyrights reserved

WADA: Cast your ballots...

WADAwatch is musing...

Based on our point-blank question that was posited to the president of WADA, John Fahey, last month:

"Given the facts [.....], is WADA contemplating any investigation or sanction, to France as a Signatory, for the second litigation it undertook against Floyd Landis after and during the USADA case?"

... And in light of the recent fiasco involving, directly or indirectly, several Signatories to WADA (Governmental or Federational), concerning this year's professional cycling schedule, a battle royale, a veritable brouhaha, currently underway and pitting the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) versus any number of French entities, specifically ASO group, the Fédération française de cyclisme (FFC)...

BTW: That question (above) earned an 'Oh Jesus....' from Mr. Fahey, former Finance Minister of Australia some years ago, and was answered by Director General David Howman, in referring to the fact that France was able to do this as it was 'under their previous law, which allows for prosecuting foreign riders participating in French events' (paraphrased from notes).

Anyway, WADAwatch thus is contemplating, much in the light of its "TIPPING the Scales of Justice" (aka the 'Unimpressed by the PRESS') monthly awards (see January's and February's winners), to institute an annual...

WADA SIGNATORY OF THE YEAR

...award.

Nominations to date, would have to include France, the British Olympic Committee (for its Chambers case (Which WADAwatch feels is a proper domestic situation, and hasn't addressed the issues, per se), and _______________ (fill in your very favorite by emailing WADAwatch >>>).


Nominations will close before the 28th of March, for the 2007 competition.

Best performance by a Governmental Signatory;

Best performance by a Sporting world Signatory.


This should be fun! (big ZENsmile)

The only rule, is there are NO RULES: Winners in either category, however, MAY BE from the same country, and for the same 'series of breaches' to the WADA CODE.


Stay tuned...

The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the highest possible level of objective, neutral science in sport-doping control.

Rewarding Signatories of WADA

............@............WADAwatch

copyright 2008

paris NOT nice: part one.

This article addresses an ongoing situation that has grave impact on the success of WADA's pilot project for the conception of the ATHLETE'S Passport, which was fully outlined at the 3rd WADA Press Symposium, held at the IOC Museum in Lausanne, February 2008.

If 'Bias 101' was a first–year journalism class, either in the sense of how to recognize, or how to prevent suh practices, a journal in France has all the components necessary to teach such a class.

But first, it must be admitted, that 'L'Equipe' is, by definition, biased.

Undeniably so, irretrievably so... its bias simply is a function of its existence. After all, any paper published by a privately-held French company (which also owns the Tour de France), and which is the 'voice of cycling' to the world of sport, could not possibly exist without continuous bilateral support between itself and its parent organisation.

Sadly, the bias is all the more apparent, when the journal puts its full persuasive talents behind attempts by its parent company, the Amaury Group, which controls the Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), owner of the Tour de France, to wage long-standing battles against the historic Federation, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI).

Strong words, with substantive proof behind them. Those who haven't followed the ongoing UCI – ASO battles, these last five or more years, exploiting each other's weaknesses and exposing the sport to a ratatouille of bad press, could actually stop reading this here.

The basis of this article, simply, is to expose the underbelly of the beast: the lack of objective coverage portrayed in page after page of L'Equipe, when discussing cycling problems.

Before the reader questions this writer's basis for neutrality, WADAwatch would be the first to admit that its own bias is known, and has been since a first thorough reading of the Vrijman report. His report concerned attempts by L'Equipe to smear the just–retired (in 2005), seven-time TdF winner Lance Armstrong, through an investigation and article penned by their 'star' doping reporter, Damien Ressiot (see this little article on meeting Monsieur Ressiot, from crystelZENmud: March, 2008).

Yet if in error, WADAwatch tends to slant towards protection of the rights of those for whom the power of a slanted press impales, and explodes, any semblance of objectivity: the Athletes.

Once accused of doping, these young adults, whether guilty or not are denied any form of 'rights', in the greater frenzy of acceptance of suspicions or insinuations, by an accommodating press that exists via scandal, and strives to the earliest publication possible. 'Damn the facts, we've a deadline!' could be the rallying cry across thousands of newsrooms. Under the WADA CODE, a veritable Prosecutor's Dream Book for success, the Athletes are forewarned; litigation is no longer desired, and rarely do Athletes emerge unscathed.

WADAwatch did some freelance translations, pulled from the Monday edition of L'Equipe (10 March 2008), the day following the prologue of the Paris – Nice race.

(These extracts are protected under the 'Fair Use' educational exemptions found universally in copyright law)

A warning to you, the reader: the following articles cover the first day of the first race since the total rupture of ASO commercial business activities with those of the international sporting federation, under which rules ASO operated and profited for most of its corporate lifespan.

The Paris–Nice race is operating WITHOUT UCI support (rules, medical/doping infrastructure, commissaires, insurance); it is run under the aegis of the Fédération française de cyclisme (FFC Rules here), with an ad-hoc body of antidoping rules (WADAwatch has been waiting for accurate responses from the AFLD for over a week now) that truly have been rushed into service.

As to L'Equipe and 'bias', remember that, if 'framing the issue' is a foreign concept, that how a question is asked (Perry Mason fans remember 'Leading question, Your Honor!'), how issues are presented, yields insights as to both what the Inquisitioners are seeking in responses, and often sends a message by ignoring other obvious topics.

So enjoy this: how L'Equipe published three one–dimensional (IWwHO) articles in today's edition, and their existence in an implosive cycling universe.

[WADAwatch comments follow as this]

L'accalmie
[“The eye of the storm”: article claiming the Paris–Nice race began 'without (legal) obstacle'...]

There was a lot of wind, ... for the 160 riders engaged in the prologue of the Paris–Nice, but there was no storm warning coming from the UCI, nor any obstacle placed across the road, the race was launched once and for all. Under the guidance of the FFC and in all legality with the French law.

Neither the UCI, ... nor its president, ... manifested (announced by rumour) any physical presence in le Loiret. Only a letter delivered by mail to the teams and their riders served to mark the point. One remarks otherwise that the tone did not pursue a rising course, even if, in the preamble, the President of the UCI speaks of being 'very disappointed', and qualified the Paris–Nice race as an 'outlaw race', according to the formula.

In particular, he made no allusion to announced sanctions or suspensions risked by the peleton who entered a race no longer inscribed on the international calendar. That doesn't signify that the threat brandished by the UCI was removed, but the letter didn't contain that the sanctions were clearly applicable.

Thus the game appears to have calmed, even if one can imagine that it's only momentarily so. In fact, the message delivered to the teams and riders is of a catalogue of 'inconveniences' that could come to those participants, as they “stray outside the regulations”, and assuring that “complications, uncertainties and bad surprises are inevitable”.

Still, according to the UCI, there was not, amongst other things, “no guarantee of participation following any objective and neutral criteria clearly fixed in advance” for the ensemble of organised ASO events (property, as is L'Equipe, of the Amaury Group), for which it nevertheless notes the “good reputation in terms of organisation must be recognised”. However, the UCI puts doubt on the organiser's integrity in arguing that “they could decide of their own will by following their [ASO] personal interests”. In the same manner, doubts are cast upon the competences of national commissaires by inferring that the racers have no international commissaires to “protect the riders from arbitrary decisions”.

The UCI is moved to announced that only French law will be applied in any doping cases, of which the controls are assured by the Agence française de lutte contre le dopage (AFLD).

Cedric Vasseur, president of the Conseil des coureurs professionales (CPA) was present as an Observer at Antilly, with a worry notably as to the implementation of these antidoping operations. The operating mode for which AFLD opted doesn't consist, especially, of controlling systematically the winner, even if this was the case yesterday for Thor Hushovd (Crédit Agricole), but is targeting bigger. Numerous other racers were mandated to present themselves, among which Cadel Evans (Silence–Lotto), Bradley McGee (CSC), David Millar (Slipstream), Davide Rebellin (Gerolsteiner) and Damiano Cunego (Lampre), as well as those at the heart of French teams. [Ed: but unnamed here]

In any case, if the political battle is content to take a short pause, the course herself, has taken the road.

[End of L'accalmie... Note that this article devotes most of its space to discussion of the 'points' presented in the UCI communications to its membership: verbs included 'raising doubts' or similar. The racers who normally race under its (UCI) authority, are racing in a legal 'Twilight Zone': of an international caliber race, run this year (uniquely) under 'local' rules, ad hoc as it may be; other than offering readers their one bare assurance that Paris–Nice conformed 'in all legality with French law' (FR: 'et en tout legalité vis-à-vis de la loi française'), not one word on the French laws, the ad hoc procedures, the national commissaires, the rules for any disputes outside of doping ('stuff happens' in a caravan–based cycling race: dogs run across the road, children have been hit by publicity caravan or team cars, etc!]

Hushovd joue le leu [“Hushovd plays the game”]

[This long article is the main story of the Paris–Nice prologue: Hushovd's good performance of the day, and the running of the prologue. Discussions ranged across the participants, the weather factors (wind, rain) Millar's apprehensions, and then comes to the one pertinent point for our analysis...]

[.....] Because Hushovd is openly targeting the Primavera, for which his team [Cred Agri] was selected [by the Italian promoter of this Milan – San Remo Spring Classic], even while being passed over by that promoter for the Tirreno-Adriatico and the Giro. [Hushovd] “It's always frustrating to learn at the last moment that one's team wasn't invited to a race that you'd targeted in your program, ....”

[It could be too transparent to note, and not directly applicable to the discussion du jour, but it's interesting that a promoter would accept a team for one of three races, and at that the only one-day classic, and refuse its presence at its two multi-day races. One couldn't possibly, ever, imagine any form of collusion between the French, Spanish and Italian promoters, to 'divvy up' the best teams in their events, following national sponsorship bases...?]

Now in pausing momentarily before the 'pièce de résistance', the reader may be thinking that some overreaction is itself the basis for this point of view. Begging the indulgence of those skeptics, the truth should be revealed in the third article on the same double page spread in L'Equipe.

Si loin, si proches [So far, so close]

[This article would ordinarily be below the WADAwatch radar screen, but for the fact that bias appears throughout the interviews selected by Equipe editors, taken at a Bretagne Classic, an Amateur bike race, the Manche–Atlantique, which attracted some 10 to 15 thousand fans “far from Paris–Nice and the political battles” (so already in the sub-title, the French audience is positioned emotionally comforted by an allusion. This article on amateurs was twice as large as the principle Paris–Nice article; the appearance is probably greater due to the number of comments on which L'Equipe selectively harvested)]

[This race ... hundreds of km from Paris–Nice, and Hushovd...]

[.....] is very far from the internal quarrels between the UCI and ASO, the organisers of the Tour de France (and property, as is L'Equipe, of the Amaury Group). Certain of them [the spectators] are royally disparaging. “That they do whatever it is they do, at their end, when no one follows pro cycling anymore, they will have accomplished that which they wanted,” barked René, a sixty-something retired fan.

[.....]

“The Pro Tour has carried confusion [notes an amateur team member], already we, who are on 'the inside', have problems following the developments, so, what about the public, who's not privy to these...?”

[.....]

If even the racers sometimes have problems grasping the stakes of the game, they can express exasperation at this long soap opera between the UCI and the three Grand Tours.

“At the debut, I followed and then, I backed off. Between propositions by one party, counteroffers by the others, I am lost, that's now two years' duration, this affair.” [says a 21 year–old racer! From BIC 2000]

[.....]

Rare are those who follow the situation in close detail, and yet _____ is one of these. “I am one of them,” said ____, “have to say that there really isn't much else TO read at the moment. It's a story of Big Money. They should sack the guy at the UCI (McQuaid): threatening the riders by mail, is really lamentable. ”

From one team to the next, one point prompted immediate unanimity: the threats of suspensions or fines launched by the UCI against the riders who are engaged on Paris–Nice were judged totally outrageous [FR: 'ahurrisantes']. The greater part regretted that the racers were 'taken hostage' and without being heard. [One amateur rider said] “Pat McQuaid has possibly forgotten that, when you're a racer, you want to race, and you owe it to yourself to race. He doesn't see anything but his own interests, above the interests of cycling. All that, it's Mafia & Co.”

Among the group, the greater part lean towards the position of the FFC and the ASO. “That ASO would want to choose its teams, that's normal, after the two last Tours de France,” says _____ the unique representative of his team, who came with his parents.

“What ASO is doing is courageous: one must not invite Astana.” indicates ______.

What makes this small amateur world vibrate the most, is the deplorable image given to their discipline by these battles. “It's even more than incredible, that the highest levels of our sport act against our interests,” says another amateur ______.

[.....]

“All that touches the pro world has repercussions throughout the amateur world, to the lowest ranks. Now, it has to go to a clash: that McQuaid and Verbruggen split,” answered André Picouays, an amateur club president. [.....] Another club president confirms, “I don't see how McQuaid is able to stay on his job.”

Stephan Heulot, former Tour Yellow jersey holder, now on the administrative council for the FFC, ... gives a bitter testimony: “We're insulting the people who built this sport. Today, certain people only think of the interests of a closed group, the Pro Tour, who are only thinking of money. We're walking upside down! If you mistrust all the history of these races, these organisers, and the public, it's the end of cycling. The younger racers dream of professionalism. But, today, it's hard to convince them they're en route into the most beautiful JOB in the world.”

[.....]

[in conclusion]

_____ is convinced, “We need pro cycling as pro cycling needs us [amateurs], because we are the base, the future. Even so, it's the Big Races that make children dream, thus it's up to pro cycling to offer our end some good advertising.”

[Succinct analysis may earn more points: at this time of year, the odds were that over ninety per cent of the spectators, from which those who were interviewed would be 'culled' from the herd, were from France (ie: not summer Tour tourists), were avid cycling fans, and were, in a strong majority, likely to be readers of L'Equipe: the odds were that their perceptions of these events were only through the filtration provided them by ASO, as owners of L'Equipe.

'Point for point', the claim presented herein, that the writing and actual responses revealed the inherent bias of the Paper to its Owner, which owns the Event (Paris–Nice) that named respondents who live within the French cycling hierarchy, and who couldn't possibly reply outrageously against the ASO, or Tour, or FFC (which has a turbo-charged year, apparently), are providing 'Bash Pat McQuaid' quotes so energetically it's almost as if they hope for an invitation to this year's Tour, for their amateur team.

Specific points would swiftly highlight the remark by Heulot about 'certain people only think of the interests of a closed group', with WADAwatch wondering if that statement carries more weight, in considering the concerns expressed by ONE commercial operation, against a world Federation, under whose rules hundreds or thousands of teams and tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousand cyclists may be racing this summer?

And as a final analysis point, any comments about the 'last two Tours' being dirty, by any French citizen over eight years old, is a purely selective, brainwashed denial of the Tsunami of Tour scandals: the 1998 French Team Festina station wagon full of kilograms of EPO and other doping products or accessories. The Tours these last two years consist of one case (Landis) in 2006, whose final litigation should be known before May, and for 2007, several 'convergence' cases that exponentially grew in import by proximity of occurrence: Sinkewitz' case from June, was actually properly handled under the current UCI rules, such that confidentiality was not breached (as appears to be counter to LNDD–AFLD–EQUIPE Standard Operating Procedures); the Rasmussen case, lamentable on his end, nevertheless may have pointed out yet another DRAFTING AMBIGUITY based on a rush to implement regulations that incorrectly expressed desired 'anticipations'; the Vinokourov, Moreni and Mayo cases were the only three actual Positive A, B cases presented through Tour 'doping controls'.]

So there you have it; in a double-page spread, there is ZERO examination of ASO motives to divide the world of cycling, in a 'Full speed ahead!' take-no-prisoners fashion. There is ZERO examination of the preparations undertaken by the FFC and AFLD, to ensure one-hundred per cent efficiency in the substitution of UCI rules and procedures, with those necessarily French, home-spun replacements.

ONE could only pray to one's Spiritual Guide, that the racers will be safe on the road, that the laws that weigh upon them are justly formed, and fairly implemented, and that the harshness of UCI rancune is presented to those who caused the separation (and if that is internal to the UCI itself, so be it).

In the end, and with full sympathy from this end, it looks like the most important victim of the ASO FIASCO, will be the WADA Athlete's Passport pilot project. How Fahey will be able to keep the divorcing cycling world from separating, to sustain enough harmony for 'the sake of the children' or Riders, is going to be NOT the entertainment of this new summer cycling season.

DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this article, and the selections of comments from people interviewed by L'Equipe, is NOT to 'bash' either the UCI or Pat McQuaid; the purpose is 180° from that. It serves to point out how L'Equipe, under the direction of the OWNER of Paris-Nice, and le Tour de France, has done exactly that.

Don't kill the messenger!

Watching WADA's signatories,

............@............WADAwatch

© 2008 ZENmud productions