Cycling imitates life the way it would be without the corruptive influences of civilization. When you see an enemy lying on the ground, what's your first reaction? To help him to his feet?"
In road racing, you kick him to death".
An excerpt from "The Rider" by Tim Krabbe
Hello all,
This has been a very difficult and emotional week here at the evil lab. Most of you know that 6 of the riders who were former teammates of Lance Armstrong, testified to using Performance Enhancing Drugs, for an extended period of time, thus making it rather evident that Mr. Armstrong has most likely used them as well. The saddness for me was not so much the revelation about Lance, with the mounting evidence over the last few months, that is not shocking. However, when local Lemont resident, and more importantly, friend, Christian VandeVelde, admitted to using PED's, I was stunned and saddened. Christian represented the "everyman" in the pro peleton, at 35 years of age, still hammering out at the front of races all across the globe for team Garmin-Sharp, now facing a 6 month ban in return for admitting under oath to doping. I have known Christian since 2004, when I met him at The Bike Shop in Glen Ellyn, where a number of his jerseys hung. I say hung, b/c owner and close friend to both of us, Rich Ducar, took them down on Thursday when he heard the news. The little faith that Rich still had in cycling had been destroyed when CNN reported the news.
The riders referenced were - Christian, George Hincapie, Tom Danielson and Levi Liepheimer. The Levi news also stung, as he had been working with Kelly Starrett the last 18 months on improving his mobility. Kelly has given at least a dozen interviews in the last 4 days denying any connection with Levi and PED's, which is true, as Levi himself has stated as much. Levi's confession hurts me as well - here is a 40 year old pro, still capable of winning major tours. Now I am forced to look at all his results as false. Levi gave this 39 year old tremedous hope that it could still be done, that age doesn't matter. Apparently it matters less when you cheat.
I am not going to sit here and rehash the entire last week, the last 2 months of absolute destruction that has occured in the world of cycling. The above quote was given to me in 2004, by a friend and respected athlete - Dave Walters. Dave is a member of the old gaurd, in his late 50's, he recently posted a 2:45 marathon in Chicago. When I was starting to make a name in duathlon, Dave handed me a simple sheet of paper with the above words written on it. I still have it. I too am a member of that old gaurd, one of the last gunslingers still standing. Some say that mentality is harsh. Quite frankly folks, its survival in the world of racing. Note what I am saying - I am not saying that its cool to dope - I find athletes who cheat to be abhorrent, vile, and despicable figures in our sport. But the rules of racing still remain as they did decades ago- once you hit the throttle, you never let up.
Mr. Armstrong, through his attorneys, appealed the decision by USAT to deny him a professional license to race triathlons. This affects his ability to race at any races containing a prize purse, particularly Ironman races. Given his penchant for distance, it is a logical step. USAT, not wanting to upset USADA, stayed in lock step with their decision and banned Armstrong from competing in any USAT, ITU, WTA or Rev3 races. The Board denied his appeal, by majority decision. However, I see think USAT missed the more important point - which is why I disagree with their decision.
In re: Appeal of Mr. Lance Armstrong,the issue is to determine whether or not the denial of a professional racing license should be overturned. Mr. Armstrong applied for said license, and initially was granted same on December 20, 2011. At that time, the President and Vice President of USAT stated they were "honoured that Mr. Armstrong wanted to join the ranks of Professional Triathlon." Not 7 months later, these same individuals, stood fast beside the same quasi, and I use that term loosely, quasi-government body in condemning Mr. Armstrong, stating he would be a "black mark on our sport if allowed to compete in the professional triathlon ranks". A truly odd, if not strictly hypocritical statement, considering out sport has done extremely well in making its own "black mark", starting with the former president and vice president of USAT. As memory serves, they are currently on trial for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds derived from yearly dues from the very people that keep our sport going. Perhaps it is true what they say about the mountain air - it does provide a very short memory for people who are exposed to it.
My decision, which undoubtedly be the minority of my peers, is as follows - I vote to allow Mr. Armstrong to appeal the decision denying his pro license and believe he should be given the opportunity to race in the sport of triathlon. The only issue I have is that Mr. Armstrong, although a former professional cyclist with a very outstanding palmares, should have to go through the same process all of us had to - race as an amatuer and achieve the requisite results to then apply for a pro card. Only then can this board make a real decision as to whether or not Mr. Armstrong should be allowed to race in the pro field.
I am not going to debate the deluge of evidence suggesting that Mr. Armstrong has doped or used performance enhancing drugs to obtain victories in one of the most demanding sports, particularly at the most difficult race. He has been stripped of his titles, all wins dating back from 1998. He most likely will face federal charges for committing fraud on the US Postal service (which is rather comical considering they have been defrauding the American people for years), falsely inducing the Discovery Channel, Radioshack, and the Livestrong foundation for distributing funds to his racing, as well as perjury. However all of those ills, all of those issues stem from a completely different sport - professional cycling.
Last I checked, we are not professional cycling. We are not, as our esteemed president stated when comparing triathlon to cycing "apples to apples". I believe we are quite the contrary. We have a different governing body, extremely more complicated and disorganized than the Union of Cyclists Internationale, and definitely more incompetent. One only need to ask the question - who is the World Champion of Triathlon, and discover that there are at least 4 men and 4 women who can claim that title. To say we are somehow on par with the UCI would be quite a step up for our sport.
To simply follow, like lemmings, the ruling of the USADA, shows the lack of intelligence, independent thought, and borders on allowing Martial Law to exist in our sport. In my opinion, following USADA's decision is a cop out, a sign of weakness. Who is running USAT? Its not USADA, however, by following that decision, it seems that we are content to hand the reigns over to a group with its own agenda, its own set of handling or in several cases - mishandling, (let us not forget the Nina Kraft incident) and members appointed based more on who they know, than what they know. For example, I have a very difficult time trying to understand how the USADA deemed it ok for George Hincapie, a former Armstrong team member, and one of the most respected cyclist in the peleton, who came out in April and confessed to the USADA to using PED's for the better part of his early years, to not only avoid suspension, but allowed him to continue to race, and keep all of his wins. And in the same breath, sanction Tom Danielson, Christian VandeVelde, Dave Zabriske, and Levi Liephiemer, all former teammates and current professional cyclists, who admitted, in front of the same tribunal, to using PED's? Where is the equality of treatment? Why the difference? How do they even think they can attempt to square that with the UCI? And why should we, a group of intelligent and forward thinking athletes, neglect that hypocrisy? I for one cannot, and will not bow to USADA.
Triathlon is its own sport. And in our sport, Mr. Armstrong has not tested positive for any PED's. His past transgressions, although terrible and saddening, are his burden in a seperate venue, for which he is being punished. If we are to assume that he will continue to dope, and beat the controls set in place, then we will cross that bridge when we come to it. We are projecting out to a future event that may never take place. Does anyone see the ridiculousness of that notion? Trying to couch it in avoiding a black mark for our sport; that is beyond reproach. Our sport has suffered and survived several dark days, but we never had the indecency to deny someone the opportunity to race without just cause. That just cause is a positive drug test. He has not tested positive in any triathlon he has participated in since December 20, 2011. In fact, USADA's report states that there is no evidence past February 2011 of any PED use by Armstrong. So what exactly would be the reason to keep him from racing? Every individual he has worked with since February of 2011 has been investigated, thoroughly, and nothing was found. USAT is using assumption, and a fear of standing up for its own beliefs.
To state we are doing it to avoid setting a bad example is also a thinly veiled excuse for weakness. We have had so many issues within our own sport, not only positive drug tests by athletes, but severe felonies perpetrated by governing officials, extortion, blackmail, bribery; how can we possibly say that we are keeping Armstrong out to "save face"? Our sport has survived and thrived in the face of adversity. What we are avoiding is the lack of faith we have to fete out the "bad guys" with our doping controls. That lack of faith stems from USADA who, through this entire incident, has been forced to realize they were ones who lacked the ability to stay ahead of the cheats. Now, they are passing down judgement to all of us, telling us to keep people out because of their failings. I cannot abide by that.
This decision will undoubtedly earn me a very pleasant visit from an official from the USADA for a drug test. I welcome the company. I'm always happy to talk to a human robot. It can be rather funny, if you don't mind someone standing over you as you attempt to urinate.
For the aforementioned reasons, I vote to allow Mr. Armstrong to appeal, and be allowed to race while his appeal is being decided.
Respectfully,
Guy Petruzzelli
