Brian Cookson: UCI Era of Honesty, Straightforwardness, and Transparency?

Brian Cookson is the new president of the International Cycling Union!  Out with Pat McQuaid who has been accused of infecting cycling with his particular virus of lies, cover-ups, and corruption.  We cycling fanatics hope that the new administration will focus on the ideals of honesty, straightforwardness, and transparency.

But will this be the case?  Brian Cookson does seem an odd choice in light of the current doping scandals that continue to plague Team Sky, Bradley Wiggins, and Chris Froome.  No need to mention the continuing skepticism that plagues the resurgence in British cycling Mr. Cookson seems to be directly involved with as past President of British Cycling.  This British Cycling resurgence allegedly was nothing more than a harmless effort to invest money into a British national cycling program that had the goal of dominating Olympic and UCI track and road races.  Money spent on better facilities attracts better athletes.  Better athletes win more races.  The East Germans had the same philosophy.  But the East German state understood that no matter how athletically gifted her citizens are, it is virtually impossible for a single country to dominate Olympic and UCI cycling without using illegal performance-enhancing drugs.

Here are the most salient questionable points directly related to the absurd success of the recently resurgent British Cycling program quoted directly from the New York Times article composed by Ian Austen.

When Cookson, a modestly successful amateur cyclist, and landscape architect, became president of British Cycling in 1997, it was near bankruptcy.  Britain had won one Olympic gold medal in 76 years, and rare appearances by British teams at the Tour de France were embarrassments.  Development programs and partnerships introduced by Cookson, along with British national lottery money, helped Britain win gold medals in eight cycling events at last year’s Olympics.  The last two Tour de France winners, Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome, ride for Team Sky, the professional offshoot of British Cycling.

"One gold medal in seventy-six years" then gold medals in eight Olympic cycling events!  British teams and riders were once considered embarrassments in previous editions of the Tour de France. Tommy Simpson and British petroleum not excepted. But suddenly, after the newly minted British Cycling program developed by Brian Cookson, Team Sky dominates the Tour de France with wide margins not seen since U.S. Postal and Lance Armstrong!  Bradley Wiggins in spite of his track racing prowess was never considered a good Grand Tour road cyclist; then suddenly he wins the race going away!  Team Sky dominates the peloton like Discovery Channel!  Brian Cookson seems an odd choice to elect as the new president of the UCI in light of the fact that people are declaring this new resurgence in British Cycling suspect, possibly aided by performance-enhancing drug use.  Brian Cookson may be ignorant of any dope related malfeasance among British Cycling or Team Sky riders; but then again, if these incredible results call for an "independent" investigation, the chair of this "independent" investigation may be the fox who is investigating the disappearance of the hens from the coop, for which he bears some responsibility.  Of course, this fox will lead the investigators astray with obscurantism since he and his fellow foxes may be culpable.  Realistically,  money can't buy all of this British success!

The British are making the Italians, French, and Belgians look like fools!  Countries who have produced numerous great cycling champions; Eddy Merckx, Gino Bartali, Bernard Hinault, and Fausto Coppi.  The Spanish have produced many great champions, Alberto Contador excepted.  Federico Bahamontes was a naturally gifted legendary climber of exceptional merit.  What has Britain given us?  Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome?  Both British Tour de France champions are suspected of achieving success from performance-enhancing drug use.

I hope this change in the UCI leadership is something more than a cosmetic sea change which amounts to more of the same.  Of course, who would argue getting rid of Pat McQuaid is wrong?  Cycling was tainted from steroids and those who were accused of facilitating their use.  But what now?  Has cycling evolved, finally into a new "clean" era, and can the UCI administration "finally" be trusted to tell the truth in an honest, straightforward, and transparent manner?  Or when the evidence points to potential wrongdoing will we be fed more lies and deceptions?  Brian Cookson is an odd choice as UCI President given his potential involvement in a resurgence in British Cycling that makes no sense and is clearly suspect.  But why not give the man a chance to hang himself?

Lance Armstrong: Surrender Your Medal!

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) has finally emerged from a thirteen-year comatose state and has demanded that Lance Armstrong voluntarily surrender his misbegotten 2000 Olympic individual time trial bronze medal to the USOC based upon his confession of using performance-enhancing substances; sans a due process arbitration hearing.  I am absolutely convinced this new humiliation of Lance Armstrong will absolutely prove to neophyte aspirants to Olympic success that glory achieved by doping is not worth the risk of detection, apprehension, and punishment.

Of course, this opinion as to the effectiveness of punishment thirteen years after the fact when it is very probable that every medalist in Olympic cycling during the steroid era used performance-enhancing drugs is highly dubious. Olympic cyclists who were never detected let alone punished for performance-enhancing drug use does not act as a deterrent for neophyte Olympic aspirants to refrain from doping. The probability of being caught and punished continues to be astronomically small during the Olympic games, in spite of advancements in dope testing.  Retrograde admissions of performance-enhancing drug use from a retired athlete, and demands for punishment for this admission from sanctioning bodies, deter nobody currently engaged in nefarious doping behavior.  Will the USOC insist that athletes who currently dope will be apprehended years from now in some dragnet, then humiliated with exposure for past crimes, then forced to return Olympic medals and refund prize money?

One of my former heroes, Jan Ullrich won an Olympic gold medal.  Herr Jan Ullrich was not only linked to Operation Puerto: but he also tested positive for amphetamines after taking the drug ecstasy during a rave.  Herr Jan Ullrich was Lance Armstrong's main rival for seven consecutive Tours de France and there is a minuscule chance Jan Ullrich rode clean during any Tour de France. Nevertheless, there is no clamor among the outraged International Olympic Committee (IOC) to investigate Herr Jan Ullrich for possible doping during the 2000 Olympic games where Jan Ullrich won gold and silver medals; or any suggestion that Jan Ullrich admit to doping; or that his teammate's exact revenge in sworn affidavits pointing out all of the doping violations Jan Ullrich engaged in.  Nor did the IOC demand that Rudy Pevenage be banned for life for his alleged involvement in cheating.  Nor did the UCI demand that Herr Jan Ullrich and Team Telekom be made into an international scandal and example of doping subterfuge.

Only in America do we drag our past heroes through the sewage exacting revenge; no other country in the world would ever consider doing something so despicable.  Yet who is the better model for our youth, Mr. Lance Armstrong or Herr Jan Ullrich?  Lance Armstrong is punished for his crimes and deprived of everything, while Jan Ullrich lives in luxurious surroundings fearing nothing, even though both men probably committed the same doping offense at the same time.  It is obviously better to embrace the notion that the ends justify the means; but not to do so for an extended period of time, since the distribution of punishment is arbitrarily applied.

It is also revolting to note that the very people who enforce rules are rooted in bribery and corruption; the very people who demand retribution from doping athletes.  Examine the corruption that occurred during the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC); men who accepted cash bribes, special academic scholarships for their children, and services from local prostitutes.  Graft seems acceptable tokens for the Olympic games, and the city that provides the greatest largess wins the prize.  Revolting conduct that only serves to demean international athletic competition.  But so what?  Cycling has people who are not above accepting cash to provide favors to selected individuals.  Hypocrites who paint our sport with a tawdry brush.  Sadly, the majority of these enforcement people are impossible to eradicate from our sport.  They become entrenched with nothing to fear from outside Independent oversight, no matter how apparent their filth.

Lance Armstrong probably spit upon his Olympic bronze medal before he surrendered it to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).  "One reptile devours another," as Ivan Karamazov stated to his brother Alyosha Karamazov.  The feeblest criminal will be excoriated in disgrace, while those doing the flaying will be extolled as virtuous people who deserve to be emulated by our youth.  Liars!  All of the miscreants should be swept out with a broom!

Court Orders Lance Armstrong to Testify

Lance Armstrong, poor misguided man and ex-doper who foolishly spilled his guts before an indifferent public who could not have cared less about his former doping exploits; has been backed into a corner with a foolishly misguided court order that demands that he openly testify as to whom and when his former confederates knew of his doping offenses during the seven long years that the cheater reigned as king.  The court is also very interested in statements that would implicate the UCI as participants in accepting bribes from the deposed kingpin. Then there are allegations of coverups that occurred over several occasions; allegations denied by Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen as malignant slanders. The Lance Armstrong saga is like an unending revolving door that is annoying like a persistent fly; some insurance company is filing a lawsuit against Lance Armstrong to recover money that was paid out under fraudulent misleading circumstances.

Travis Tygart, the USADA mogul cares very much about the results of this testimony, be assured.  Tygart appeared on some syndicated horse crap sports show talking smack about his private corporation USADA that is funded with public money, as a constitutional entity based upon a decision of U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks; who opined that anti-doping arbitration offered due process to the defendant, not that due process was required.  Where in the constitution is an American citizen denied the option to forgo due process?  Where in the constitution does it state that the prosecution has the option to act as judge, jury, and executioner?  Where in the constitution does it state that solicited testimony may be acted upon without the accused being offered an opportunity to rebut this testimony under cross-examination?

But Travis Tygart would argue that these constitutional protections are unnecessary because doping in sport is not a criminal offense, but a civil matter, and that when given a license to compete, the athlete agrees to abide by certain stipulations, including USADA testing and USADA prosecution of alleged doping offenses: that essentially to compete in professional cycling racing the athlete agrees to sign away certain constitutional rights.  The whole process from licensing to final arbitration and sanctions are private matters that are governed by private rules; rules that are agreed to in advance by the athletes.  So when the process is subjected to capricious and arbitrary changes the athlete has nothing to complain about.  Thus the evolution of the "non-analytical positives," suspensions based upon testimonials of ex-teammates who claim to have witnessed the use of prohibited substances "taken or distributed" by the accused person.  These statements by ex-teammates saves the investigatory agencies a tremendous amount of time and money and the subsequent expulsions of the accused may not require due process because the athlete may waive his rights.

Nevertheless, Travis Tygart will be more than enraptured to read any testimony that Lance Armstrong may provide to the court.  Feeling slighted because Lance Armstrong refused to testify under oath as to his doping past, Travis Tygart hopes that finally, he will have the needed testimony to issue even further "nonanalytical positives" against potential wrongdoers that he failed to catch in the first dragnet.  Of course, this testimony will fill in the gaps that were never explained in the first go around, not to mention a bases for an internal personal justification for the "fair" process that serves to protect the "clean" athlete and ensure "fair" competition.  All free of charge, provided by the chief kingpin, drug racketeer, and disreputable villain Lance Armstrong himself.

Icing on the cake, baby!  Lance Armstrong will be compelled to destroy lives and careers while Travis Tygart cheers from the sidelines!  Hooray!  Champagne!  A toast to the death of villains!  Why consider whether these people were the victims of intimidation when they are such convenient victims of the "non-analytical positive," and serve as such succulent fodder for press releases.  Look at these horrific people peddling dope, our funding is justified, the process is working and generates results, and outsiders have no reason to meddle.