'Nuff Said

Photo Courtesy of Sky Cycling

See Rule #95: Never Lift Your Bike Over Your Head

My reference today is to the fantastic site Velominati - Keepers of the Cog. This site, among other things, has a set of "rules" that each cyclist must follow.

In a recent recertification for Massachusetts soccer referees, I made the analogy between this rule for cyclists and for referees.

In my analogy referees should never "lift their bike over their head" as a form of public celebration ... the results can be disastrous.

It is my opinion referees should not openly celebrate their decisions as (a) it is a form of hubris no one wants to see as fans are there for the players, not the referee, and (b) these celebrations can be misinterpreted, badly.

Right on cue we have an incident last Sunday between the Bills and Broncos, where line judge John Hussey and umpire Carl Paganelli "fist bumped" each other after a Denver touchdown (video here).

Well as you can imagine this came closer to breaking the internet than other recent events as fans went wild with conspiracy theories about how the officials were openly celebrating the Denver score. (My personal favorite comment was "ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED")

Mike Pereira has a good analysis explaining what had happened.



Even the NFL’s vice president of communications, Michael Signora, had to make a statement telling the Associated Press that the fist bump was “an acknowledgment of good mechanics between the two officials involved in making the call.”

So where does this leave us?

If you make a good decision, don't do a happy dance right there. After the match celebrate with your other referees and family taking pride that you made a good, tough call. To do otherwise invites speculation that no one needs.

It was a damn fine bit of officiating, no doubt about it. It was also (sadly) wasted on the vast majority who saw the reaction, not the action.

Best Black Friday Ad EVER!

So for any who follow me regularly, I am a huge advocate of Skratch Labs, not just because they have, in my opinion, THE BEST sports hydration mix on the planet, and (2) tremendous cookbooks that have a great take on sports nutrition, but because of how they choose to run their company.

Excellent products, on time delivery, personal, handwritten notes, a great sense of humor, and a sane approach about life are just some of the hallmarks of why I believe they are tremendous.

An outstanding example came when I went to their site on Friday ... saw that it was closed ... and was treated to the following ad for Black Friday ... just tremendous ... and a shining example of why I will continue to use Skratch Labs.

Why Upgrade?

During a recent clinic I presented at, we asked for anonymous feedback from the group which included some open response questions, where the person giving the feedback could literally type anything they wanted relevant or not.

One thing that stood out in more than a few cases, was the request for information specific to "... lower levels of competition." Due to the fact that "... I don't want to upgrade at all ... ."

I was struck by this feedback as it had never really occurred to me that some people are content at the refereeing level that they are currently at, and don't want to progress any further.

In my (ever growing administrative) experience the "upgrade question" is a one that is either asked often by an individual, or not at all. Only in very few cases have I seen a middle ground where an individual chooses to upgrade through the referee ranks, then changes course and does not. I have also seen a converse path as well albeit less often where a referee does not want to upgrade, and later chooses to.

While I appreciate the desire to remain at a level an individual is comfortable with, I also grow very concerned that folks in these positions get "stale" and may be doing themselves, and others a disservice by deciding not to upgrade.

Then again, there is something to be said for servicing The Game at the level one feels best equipped to, and (this is a hard truth for some too), there are very limited resources and matches at the highest levels to go around ... so why try?

These are fair points ... and I am wading into these waters not from a refereeing perspective honestly as my day is here and gone for upgrading. I can go no further than I have. I am asking from another perspective ... as a cyclist.

So on 14-OCT-13 I will be racing in the Jamestown Classic, and event that captured my imagination back in 2011 when I raced it for the very 1st time ... in fact it was my very first bike race ever. It was a ton of fun and from that moment on as an amateur bike racer, I knew I wanted to climb the ranks. Not because I was any good (I anticipate I am going to get creamed on the 14th) but because I wanted to get better.

So I've ridden, and ridden, have a spectacular coach, mechanic, friends, and a very forgiving wife in Madame X, and ridden. Freezing cold, baking sun, drowning rain, race after race of DNF or DFL, and comments of "... you're too old to race ... ." I didn't care, I wanted to get better and was willing to put in the work to do so.

Recently when preparing for my upgrade in cycling, I flashed back when I am on the bike to when I upgraded from a Grade 8 to a Grade 7 referee. A night match at U-Mass Amherst at the State Cup. I can still feel the night air. A bit heavy with a little tingle in it from the aura of being a match played at night.

I remember my upgrade match from Grade 6 to Grade 5 as a state referee. A Portuguese league match in RI that was "on the fence" until I happened to be right on the goal line (as a referee) for a deciding call.

National referee was another series of matches I recall too. None the least of which was at amateur regionals in PA, where after 3 days of matches I was selected for the mens final ... and was exhausted. My legs were cement, and my brain mush after so many matches in a short time. Some how ... we got through.

What permeated all of these experiences is how much work had gone into my craft and just how uncomfortable I felt moving from one point to the next. I have never felt "ready" to be at that next level.

So once more unto the breach dear friends, once more as I prepare to take another leap forward with an upgrade in cycling. For any interested, you will be able to see it LIVE starting at around 11a on the @kicking_back Twitter account.

Lot of words that may or may not answer the question for some, why upgrade?

To allow access to higher levels of competition?

To have a commitment to get better with a tangible goal as a result?

To keep hold of that "uncomfortable" feeling?

I'm not entirely sure, but for me, it is the feeling of continuing to move forward. It's not about good or bad performance, wins or losses ... just getting that little bit further the next time I'm out.

Up, Up, and Crap ... More Up

Well the time has come of one of my last events of the year, the first, and hopefully annual, White Mountain Gran Fondo.

Here is the really gross profile of the ride:

It is certainly one that does not favor me at all as I am way more at home on a flat, or in a sprint. In plain english, I am just too big to be effective in the hills.

That said, I will at least make a good show of it and throw myself against the hills and see what comes of it while riding for my team.

While I can't take claim to why I'm doing this with "... because it's there ..." as George Mallory famously did when he was asked why he was climbing Everest, I can say that I am significantly inspired to continue to progress without regard to where I am chronologically in my life.

As you may have guessed, this is a prelude into a bigger topic, as just today I received an EMail from US Soccer regarding what I would consider, significant changes with a serious impact to future referees.

Does this make it too easy to be, and stay, a youth referee, forever?

Is this good?

It makes me wonder ... and wonder I will as I slug it out in the mountains of NH Saturday.

I'll be "off line" until early next week ... but as JAFO has shown recently ... there is no shortage of controversy to discuss. Don't be surprised on an appearance, or just enjoy the archives on the right.

We'll be back at it Monday for certain.

Thanks for reading!
PK

Laser focus ... at 16?

So as many of you know, I am an amateur bike racer on the weekends ... well actually a lot more given the amount I train ... but compete on the weekends.

I was at a local criterium series the other day, and in the race I compete in, there are usually a group of very talented junior teams. These kids, and they are kids, are 14 - 17 years old, and are already tremendous riders that are very well coached.

I was talking to one of the coaches in what they are looking for in a young rider, and attempting to glean a parallel to young referees.

I was not disappointed.

He mentioned the #1 quality was that of commitment. Not genes, not "raw athletic ability", not a fancy bike that was bought for them, commitment and a desire to get better.

I reflected on my own career growing up and how, at times, I was supremely un-focused at 16 years old with my refereeing.

It can be somewhat "unnatural" in have someone at such a young age, have such a laser focus, particularly for something that will take a very long time to develop, like refereeing.

For the referees out there who are youths themselves, I salute you. It ain't easy growing up, and being asked to have such focus at such a young age.

For the referees who are a bit more seasoned, and working with these young referees, take some extra time and look out for these younger referees.

You might just make their day knowing they have a friend who has been there.

Cycling does not have hooligans huh ...

... I beg to differ.

Mark Cavendish 'sprayed with urine' and abused by fans during Tour de France time trial after Tom Veelers crash

Mark Cavendish was left upset after being drenched with urine during Wednesday's time trial as his fellow Briton Chris Froome led the chorus of dismay about the spectre of hooliganism appearing again at the Tour de France.

The festive atmosphere on the route to Mont Saint-Michel was interrupted disgracefully by the abuse thrown at the British champion, culminating in a bottle of urine being sprayed over him.The Manxman’s French team-mate Jérôme Pineau said he felt “ashamed” about the episode as it appeared that Cavendish was targeted because of his part in Tuesday’s controversial sprint finish in Saint-Malo when some other sprinters blamed him for the clash with Tom Veelers in which the Dutchman suffered a heavy fall. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of The Telegraph.

Kicking Back Comments: What was I saying about the race referees applying the rules to all? Well here it is. While the referees have certainly made their decision, other riders, the general public, and future races, have made theirs.

Let's just say the referees don't see it the same way as nearly everyone else.

Should it matter?

Well there are times when a stadium is filled with boos because the home team did not get a break fan(atics) thought they deserved,  and sometimes the stadium is filled with boos because fan(atics) just got a better look than the referee at what was on the jumbotron.

I will let this audience decide for itself based on the incident.

The lesson here is there is no such thing as a friendly match.

Even in an event that is defined with civility, there can be trouble hiding around every corner. Be ready for it.

Tacks on the road last year, urine poured on a former world champion this year ... what's next?

#lettedride

Interview courtesy of NBC

A truly outstanding individual, and teammate. One we should all be proud of.

How @LeTour Robbed @iamtedking and why it matters to referees

So many have been following the criminal mistakes the Tour de France has been making over the opening stages of the tour.

We started with the Orica Green Edge Bus getting wedged under the finishing banner in Stage 1 as we can see here.

Now by itself, this is not a huge deal as frankly, crap happens, and the bus driver made a late decision to go to the finish line, and paid the price frankly by getting stuck under the banner.

Some poor planning on OGE, and maybe even on The Tour for not being more careful.

It is the series of events thereafter however that are really putting Le Tour in a very poor light.

Now, while the bus was getting un-wedged from the banner, the peleton was speeding to that very finish line at speeds around 30MPH. Fearing the worst, the race referees made the on the fly decision to make the finish for the stage at the 3km sport, where there are also cameras (because of there is a crash in the last 3km, all riders get the same time who are involved).

Fair enough, and while the 3km mark was particularly dangerous to finish in, they went with it (Hindsight would have provided the better answer of neutralizing the stage I think).

So with riders getting cross-eyed from oxygen debt, word went out on race radio the finish would be at 3km, not at the finish line.

Now forced to reorganize their teams faster than had been expected, chaos in the peleton ensued and riders scrambled for position. The result, a crash at the 6km mark that caught all of the major contenders, and some of their teams. Some were injured, some seriously, such as NH native and ultra domestique for Cannonade Pro Cycling, Ted King who separated his shoulder in the accident, yet finished, and rode in stages 2 and 3.

On seeing this occur, the race judges made an immediate decision that because they changed the line to the 3km mark, and the crash occurred at the 6km mark, 3km form the NEW finishing line, all riders would get the same time.

This did not sit well for many and the organizers were heavily criticized for their decision.

Stages 2 and 3 go by relatively uneventful from the outside, but many riders were still suffering greatly from their injuries from Stage 1. Even with this being true, these riders were able to make the time cut for each stage (generally a % of the finishing time where riders must finish, or be faced with the possibility of elimination).

Stage 4, the Team Time Trial (TTT) was up, and within the first 150m Ted King was dropped, unable to keep up with his team due to his injuries. He did fight the entire ride however, and clock in at an average speed of approximately 28 MPH ... with a separated shoulder.

At the conclusion of the stage, Cannonade and Ted were told he would be disqualified due to being outside the time cut by 7 seconds.

An international outcry ensued after the decision was renderend by Vicente Tortajada, Le Tour referee jury president. Echos of this protest are still occurring.

Particular commentary, and video about the incident, and the outpouring of support can be found here, here, here, and here.

Now, horrible decision aside, based in history where other "contenders" have been outside the cut, and been allowed to continue, or even the fact that the organizers themseves were the cause of the crash in Stage 1, which was the cause of the injuries, and the cause of being outside the time cut, the worst of it was the president of the referees explanation of the decision.

In short, "... the rules are the rules ... ."

A note to the Tour:
I think Mr. Tortajada is going to be very sorry later in this Tour he ever said those words.

A note to referees out there:
Don't ever say that, you will be sorry you did.

This dear friends is one of those "put on your big boy pants moments" where empathy wins over the text of the regulations. Ted should have been able to ride.

But you may say, he was outside the cut, how can they do that?

The same way they did for others in the past, my taking into account the totality of the situation, and the principals the sport was founded on. Courage, determination, dedication.

As a referee empathy needs to trump the LOTG in some situations where a good decision, needs to outweigh a correct one. What we have here is a decision that is technically correct, and practically wrong.

Also (and referees take note here too), it has limited the decision making ability of the 100th Tour referees to EXACTLY what is in the text of the rule book. They have said it themselves "... the rules are the rules ... ."

To bind yourself to a series of words is a dangerous pretext. Any good referee, any good manager, wants flexibility to deviate when it is necessary to do so. This moment comes when they recognize that strict application of the rules will actually do harm to the spirit of what they are employed to protect.

Mr. Tortajada forgot this completely in his ruling on Ted King.

If the opportunity arises again in this Tour, he will be forced to employ his same singular stance on the topic, and recite the text of the rules.

If he does, good on him for being at least consistent, if not a robot.

If he does not, especially on July 14th if a Frenchman is involved, doping will be the least of Le Tour's problems in 2013 and beyond.

No soccer ANYWHERE today ... BUT ...

THERE IS LE TOUR!!!

So there is lierally no live soccer on national TV on the 4th, but there is other time during the week.

That said, there is a killer stage (Stage 6) of the Tour that is going to be another day for the sprinters.


EN - Analysis of the stage - Stage 6 (Aix-en... by tourdefrance

This Tour so far has seen a number of bizarre and fantastic sights.

A team bus stuck under the finishing banner.

An unexpected Radio Shack yellow jersey for a couple of days.

And for me a "live Tour report" as a friend of mine had the chance to visit at Stage 4, and met some of the boys from Garmin. Just outstanding stuff.

Copyright TD Productions

After my ride that day ... you can bet I am eating crapes, drinking wine ... and watching Peter Sagan take the day. The man is redicilious on a bike. Just watch this one ...

Grand Tour Season Begins ... NOW!

For all interested, here are previews of the route as well.



Strap in for some cycling commentary over the next few months folks!

Just guys in lycra huh ...

... some of the toughest guys in sport.

Check this one out from last weeks Paris-Roubaix.

File under: Professional Misconduct

Well I am happy to say that my beloved Radio Shack Team is off to a good start with Sparticus (Fabian Cancellara) winning the Tour of Flanders, and is a favorite for Paris-Roubaix this Sunday.

In the same breath I am sad to say that one of the best riders in the next generation, Peter Sagan, made an ass out of himself, and Cannonade, by grabbing exactly that.

The Tweet below tells the story.

As is tradition, there are podium girls who kiss the winner of a race, and Peter could not help butt get into the act with his gesture.

I am having a little fun with a play on words, but the situation is serious on a couple of levels.

First is the conduct itself, which is inappropriate, full stop. It would seem clear the young woman did not consent to such an act based on the picture.

Cannonade should act and sanction the young phenom in an appropriate manner. While it is unlikely that he will be asked to sit on Sunday, he should pay at least a hefty fine, and issue a public apology (he did apologize, but it was not exactly as public as this incident).

The other serious issue is the ingrained sexism in the sport of cycling. Look at the Tweet from the organizer ... "Naughty Sagan" almost condoning the act. They too should apologize for the incident as their senseless comments.

Just remember folks, there are cameras everywhere, and just when you least expect, or want a picture taken, is exactly when it will happen ... and potentially ruin your career in the process, or at least derail it for a while.

Opinion: It's not all about Lance Armstrong ...

Opinion: It's not all about Lance Armstrong, and here's how we can fight doping

The blame game, MPCC and just who should clean up cycling

I am wearing a garbage bag. Why, you might ask, thinking that Merino wool is more my thing. Quite simple, I know that in these days of cycling, banana peels and rotten tomatoes are thrown at anyone who dares stick their head up. Rocks also work quite well and, sadly, my garbage bag won’t do much against those. They hurt. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of Cycling News.

Kicking Back Comments: Well it's nice to be back, such as it is. While I am living among mounds of boxes still, and mounds of snow for that matter I wanted to start here for a couple of reasons.

First, this article really struck me as I have been following the continued vilification of Lance Armstrong and have frankly been growing quite tired of it as continues to play out, he will be the only one to "pay" for his misdeeds. JV's take on the whole thing is tremendously well written. He continues to impress as "villain turned hero."

This is true also as Ray Lewis continued to fight accusations of using PEDs prior to his Superbowl matchup with the 49ers. I did like DeadSpin's counter points on this one, and think in part the PED Hysteria can be attributed to Lance.

What put me over the edge was Spain to examine soccer doping allegations, from The Age, detailing allegations by a former club president that Spanish team Real Sociedad had its players use performance enhancing substances.

Where will it end?

Now I have gone on record to say that if consenting adults are open about their use, who cares. I have a BIG problem with kids using PEDs, and also covert use when not allowed by the terms of a sport. Otherwise, why not let them?

This includes referees.

Think about this ... while leagues (like MLS) outlaw the use of PEDs for their participants, referees are not seen as "competitors" in the true sense. Further, referees are often maligned about the fitness they keep and how it is often never good enough. Why not let them use PEDs? Particularly in soccer?

FIFA went so far as to cut the age of "mandator retirement" from 50 to 45 years of age in an effort to have referees that are "more fit."

While there is significant scientific evidence that fitness does not "drop off" after ago 50, there is ample evidence that referees with more "life experience" make better managers of The Game.

Why not fuse the two? For those who want to, allow the use of PEDs for referees to allow them to maintain a level of fitness desired by FIFA, with the proviso that (a) it is allowed by FIFA and the IOC, (b) it is done with notice, and (c) administered by a physician. All (3) have to be met in my eyes.

Why not ... FIFA wants the most fit referee it can get. This would seem like a logical step.

Yes?

Sporting KC Chickens Out

Sporting KC stadium gets new name

Less than two years into a six-year naming-rights deal for Livestrong Sporting Park, both the Livestrong Foundation and Major League Soccer's Sporting KC say the agreement is set to end for different reasons.

The move would be the latest of several by the anti-cancer charity to separate itself from its founder and former chairman, Lance Armstrong, who has been stripped of his seven Tour De France titles.

It also comes just two days before the first part of the disgraced cyclist's interview with Oprah Winfrey in which he admits to using performance-enhancing drugs was set to air. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of ESPN.

Kicking Back Comments: So there are always multiple sides to every story. I think personally Sporting KC comes out the loser in this one.

Their choices were:

(a) We don't have the money, or won't pay it (as Livestrong contends). Well this is not good if true. How solvent is Sporting KC, or how dishonest are they if they failed to pay?

(b) We suddenly don't like the terms of the agreement ... that has existed for 2+ years (as KC contends). This is a weak excuse. Even if (and I think this is reasonable) they were concerned about the "Armstrong Affair", they had a chance to back out a while ago when this first came out, not on the eve of the Oprah debut of Lances' confession.

KC continued to dig their own hole by saying that they "staunchly defend the mission of the foundation."

Frankly, no they don't. If they did they would grow a set and say something like:

While it is now clear based on Mr. Armstrong's own admissions that he took performance enhancing drugs during his time as a professional cyclist, and has been stripped of his titles as a consequence, Sporting KC believes that his surviving cancer and subsequent work in forming Livestrong to aide those who are suffering this horrific disease is alone worthy of associating with Sporting KC who stands beside him in fighting all forms of cancer.

Instead we get drivel from Sporting Club CEO Robb Heineman say we believe in the foundation, we just aren't going to give it any more money because ... well insert (a) or (b) above.

Very cowardly in my opinion Mr. Heineman. You can't have it both ways.

MLS In Lance Armstrong's Corner

Donors standing by Lance's foundation

NEW YORK (AP)
Lance Armstrong's reputation may be in tatters but in the eyes of corporate and individual donors, his charity still wears an unsullied yellow jersey.

Armstrong announced last week he would no longer fight the doping allegations that have dogged him for years. He was subsequently stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles and banned from professional cycling. ...

See the whole story here, from Fox Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: From the article:

"And the home of Major League Soccer club Sporting Kansas City will continue to be called Livestrong Sporting Park. The club, which has promised to donate $7.5 million in stadium revenues to Armstrong's foundation over six years, says it will not consider renaming the Kansas City, Kan., venue."

I had a tough time convincing Anon the other week about how folks would separate the alleged drug cheat from the philanthropist. It would seem form this report, that is exactly is what is happening, and indeed is rallying support for Livestrong.

I'm glad to se it personally, as I have shared here, regardless of if the man cheated, or created a ring of cheaters, he is doing great stuff now, and should be recognized for that.

Lance Armstrong Has Won the War

This one has been stewing in me for the last couple of days. I have gone through a range of emotions from shock and disappointment when Madame X  whispered "Lance quit" in my ear Friday morning, to anger wondering why he quit with Jr. asking me the same thing Friday morning, to elation when I really starting thinking about what the result of Lance refusing to go to arbitration means.

First, let me be clear about my position on steroids, blood manipulation, and the like. They are bad, and even deadly if not used properly. The USADA I believe, serves a legitimate function is assuring that young athletes understand this, and keep those substances and practices out of their growing bodies.

Next, let me equally clear that I believe the USADA has completely exceeded its mandate generally, and with regard to the Lance Armstrong investigation, and is indeed, in Lance's words, on a witch hunt.

In the end, because of the USADA's Travis Tygart singular focus, and what would appear to be personal axe to grind, Lance by refusing to enter arbitration has dealt a death blow to the USADA and Mr. Tygart.

Now a bunch of the bobble heads out there, aside from getting the reporting all wrong, have stated that by Lance not going to arbitration, is an admission of guilt. Some would say implied, some say directly. Some even say stupidly, like the WADA chief John Fahey, who frankly should know better, or if not should really be relieved of his post.

All are wrong, and here's why.

One of the largest arguments that Lance has made all along is regarding the procedure which the USADA follows ... arbitration, and how he believes it is fundamentally unfair.

Well, as the Hon. Sam Sparks held, it is not. There are enough due process safeguards that allow it to pass muster as protecting the process that is due. Is it robust? No, certainly not as the USADA's record in arbitration is 58-2 as I talked about in Back to Arbitration?

Here's the kick about arbitration though ... you don't have to go. The USADA has exactly zero ability to compel (in the legal context) someone to appear before them to give evidence. I think lots of folks are confused, or just don't know, the difference between a criminal court, and a government organization that has limited powers. While Congress created the USADA, it did not make them a "court of sport." By Lance not appearing, it is not a nolo contendere plea, which is generally seen as an admission of guilt. It is just a choice not to appear.

I wonder if Mr. Tygart is having CAS envy?

Not only can the USADA not compel Lance to appear and give testimony, but they can not relive Lance of his TdF titles. That folks is in the sole purview of the UCI, and from what I have heard (plant tongue in cheek because everyone has heard it) the UCI and USADA are not exactly getting along these days. How likely do we really think it is the UCI will enforce a USADA request?

Even past rider Indurain is saying "... the tour victories are his ... " and are seeing the USADA's investigation as many have ... being "... without scruples ... ."

So now what? Why do I think that Lance has won the war? It comes down to a few simple points.

1. He provides no further information (note I do not say evidence) to the USADA regarding the matter.

    This has the following beneficial effects for Lance and team:

• Without this information, the case against Johan Burynell get's much thinner, and may indeed fall apart without it. If there was any actual physical evidence, Tygart would have delivered it personally to folks "... like a grim little Santa Claus ... ."
• It keeps longtime teammates off the stand, and out of trouble. Guys like Big George, Levi, DZ who would have been slapped with a minor sentence for doping as quid pro quo for testifying against Lance. Let's face it, it would have really killed everyone to see that, and frankly Tyler and Floyd are not credible even in USADA's eyes to make this case. It's not going to happen now.

2. He can stop spending money on the matter as there is nothing left for him to do, and again as the

    USADA is essentially toothless to bring an action to Lance, it is the end of the litigation line.

3. He can get on with his life. Litigation take a toll folks as many of us know. It would seem, Lance

    is more at ease now than ever before.

4. He may not, and in my opinion, will not, lose his TdF titles as the UCI will steer clear of that. Not

    only because of the tiff with the USADA, but all the 2nd place riders from those 7 TdF have doping

    issues of their own ... and it is reasonable to ask ... where is the USADA enema on those guys?

5. It denies the media more red meat. To say that the media have generally been unkind is an

    understatement. They have been in some cases, just down right grizzly and hide under the "well

    he's a cheat now" blanket to bash him senseless. Some of the best ones are slightly more neutral such

    as that from Samuel Abt, in "Rip Lance Time."

6. It denies Ahab his whale. By walking away, Lance has won the war because Mr. Tygart is toothless

    to do anything else. It very simply will never come out. So all this time Ahab has been chasing that

    whale is for naught. No ticker tape parade, no head on a mantel, nothing. Even as the camera lights

    dim on Mr. Tygarts 15 minutes, he continues to try to make deals with Armstrong to "go easy" on

    on him. What do you think Lances' reaction is to that?

7. While reaction from the media has been negative, reaction from us common folk has been positive,

    in the majority. Heck, most folks don't care if he doped, or the ring of doping he was accused of

    setting up. They care that his is a cancer survivor, and is helping people through Livestrong, and

    will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

So with all of this, Lance has won the war. It may be uncomfortable for a bit, and his image may take a hit for a short time, but I don't think it will be too long.

At the end of the day, he's just a man that rides a bike, who has survived cancer, and absolutely no one can take that away from him, not even Ahab.

Back to Arbitration?

In a non-suprise of a result, as I opined here in "USADA in trouble on Armstrong?", that Hon. Sam Sparks would rule on procedure, and not on merits.

In his 30 page ruling, that is exactly what he did, and set up the case of the century on jurisdiction between the USADA and UCI, which is likely to wind up in CAS lap later this year.

One aspect that surprised the crap out of me was US Cycling seeming about face in agreeing that UCI should have jurisdiction on the matter, not USADA. This was filed as a late information to the case before Judge Sparks ruled on it August 20.

That said, there was plenty to go around in the ruling for both sides.

The Court indicated in its ruling that it did not want to interfere with an organization that Congress put in place for the express reason that it was acting on. Also any "irreparable harm" that Lance would have suffered as a part of the process was not proven to be there as USADA follows procedures similar to the American Arbitration Association.

The Court was clear this was enough to proceed without due process concerns.

I'll bet Lances' attorneys don't see it that way, particularly in light of the USADA record of 58 wins, 2 losses in arbitration. That's even with each side picking an arbitrator, and agreement on a third for the panel that decides the matter. Strong evidence, or slanted process ... these are the real results the USADA has.

It also does not take into account the very, very relaxed standards of evidence that exist in arbitration as opposed to that in a federal court. I say this knowing that Armstrong's team will at least get to see and cross examine evidence and witnesses in the matter. It is far from a court of law as far as what can be introduced.

Both sides certainly had a bunch to say after the ruling. The USADA heralded the decision as correct and thanked The Court for keeping the US Courts out of the mix, and forcing the matter to arbitration to the USADA, assuming Armstrong's team does not appeal the ruling from The Court, which I do not think it will do.

Armstrong's legal team picked up on a particular damning comment from The Court regarding the USADA promising lesser sanctions to other riders who allegedly doped for their testimony against Armstrong, saying:

"... it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations …"

The Court and I seem to agree on this one.

Even further:

"Despite its many misgivings about USADA's conduct leading up to and during this case, the Court is bound to honor Armstrong's agreement,"

Ouch. Misgivings about conduct?

Throw on top of that Sparks calling the USADA charging letters "woefully inadequate", and I till think the USADA is in deep crap in a court of law ... or CAS.

Now while his comments are not actionable per se, he took the time to make them part of the judicial record, and I would be very surprised if we did not see or hear them again from Armstrong's legal team in the future as part of a disclosure to CAS.

At the end of this, the USADA won the day no question in getting Armstrong to arbitration. I don't think he is going to appeal the ruling as the USADA has never, as in never ever, lost a jurisdictional fight.

If I had to guess, Armstrong's team is going to choose the USADA route, and may even first, seek CAS interference to get the UCI back in the mix so the matter won't even go that far. I am still shocked about US Cycling going with UCI.

I think both parties will fight to the end now. I don't see that either has a choice based on what he has done to date. Whomever loses at the USADA is going to go to CAS.

It's going to make for an interesting off season, that's for sure.

"The answer is to never give them the option."

How to Get Doping Out of Sports

WHY does an athlete dope? I know why, because I faced that choice.

My life on a bike started in middle school. When the buzzer on my Goofy clock snapped on at 5:30 a.m., I popped out of bed with excitement and purpose. Rushing down the stairs, I stretched 20 some odd layers of still baggy spandex onto my 90-pound skeleton and flew out of the garage. Into the dark, freezing Colorado morning I rode. For the next 30 miles, I pushed my heart rate as high as it would go and the pedals as fast as they would go, giving various extremities frostbite and giving my parents cause to question my sanity. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the NYT.

Kicking Back Comments: Here is a preview from Sundays OpEd in the NYT.

A very eloquent admission from one who knows. This is truly the way to end doping, and Jonathan cuts to the heart of it. He recognizes it's a choice. Illegal, not illegal, that won't matter to someone who wants that "2%" as he details it. His IRS analogy is spot on.

Where I think he misses in the article, is where he has flourished as a manager. Garmin takes great steps within the team itself to assure that there is no doping going on by entering ACE, and maintaining a "biological passport" for each rider. They know upfront if they dope, they are out.

This to me is far more of an incentive than USADA or UCI punishments. It allows the free choice, up front, and a clear path otherwise. Like the IRS, the USADA just does not put fear into the hearts of some as the molecular biologists designing this stuff are better than the enforcement ever can be.

Business spend millions every year in accountants that find ways to twist the IRS code to save the companies billions of dollars. People will continue to do so regardless of the regulation.

I still contend, it is the individuals who choose not to dope, or condone it that make the biggest impact. People who are determined will always find a way around the rules.

Think about this in a soccer context. Do players behave themselves during a match just because FIFA is looming, or US Soccer?

Nope.

Players will do what they want, and suffer the consequences if they do. It's all about personal choice and responsibility. Jonathan in his article made it clear the failing to dope was his, and I give him great credit for the admission. He also allows his riders to make a choice, in the most positive of ways. Not under threat of sanctions or dismissal, but with the simple choice of riding for Garmin or not. For any who want to be at that level with that team, it is a Hobson's choice.

"You ride for ME son"

I can almost hear those words coming out of Wiggo's mouth, holder of the yellow jersey, on the Team Sky bus after Stage 11 of the TdF where his climbing Lieutenant, Chris Froome, dropped him like a bad habbit, and had to be called back by the director to again protect Wiggins. As the stories go, Froome defied team orders in dropping Wiggo.

This of course has created much controversy (not as much as the happenings in Radio Shack land sadly) to many watching le Tour. So much in fact that the riders WAG's have got involved and had at each other on Twitter.

Lets face it, Froome is the better rider, yet Wiggo is the named rider. Now what? Hold back someone who can win out of tradition, or ego, or let the best person go forward?

Does this sound like a familiar scenario?

How many times have you as an AR worked for someone in the middle who you KNEW (objectively) you were better than?

How did you react? Did you "ride off" as Froome did and leave the referee to their own devices?

Or did you recognize that you are a team, bury your own personal ambitions, and support them as best you could?

Here is Froome right after the stage in his own words:



Good answer, mostly. His words were fine, how he said them, was less believable.

There are those of us who believe Froome is the better rider, and should be wearing yellow, and is giving up too much by letting Wiggo walk away with it.

My though on this is don't be so driven by ego. If you accept an assignment as an AR, you are there to serve as an AR until such time as you are called on as referee. Don't subvert The Game from the touchline by placing a match into disrepute with your ego.

Imagine, just imagine tomorrow on Stage 19 if Froome, knowing he is about 2:05 seconds back of Wiggo, rode out of his shoes to actually take the yellow jersey off him the day before riding into Paris.

Can you picture that, how horrible it would look, and the shunning of a career Froome would get? He would never be able to race professionally again.

Now just imagine if you did this as an AR ... what do you think the reaction would be?