FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

www.twitter.com/cyclingweekly

www.twitter.com/cyclesportmag



SYSMEX MACHINE STORY STILL DOESN’T ADD UP

Lance Armstrong, the UCI and the Sysmex company have very different versions of events regarding the American rider’s donation to the sport’s governing body and the subsequent purchase of a piece of equipment used to analyse blood samples.



Pat McQuaid said that Armstrong pledged a donation to the UCI after visiting its new HQ at Aigle, Switzerland, some time in 2002. McQuaid said that the money finally came in during 2005 after the UCI had decided it wanted to buy a Sysmex machine.



But this press release on the Sysmex website from July 2005 says that Lance Armstrong specifically suggested that the UCI purchase a Sysmex machine.



The press release says: “Lance Armstrong, a great American cyclist, is keenly aware of this problem [of doping]. He voiced a desire that strict doping testing be conducted as part of the Tour de France 2005. Mr Armstrong recommended that the XE-2100 be used in these tests and personally financed UCI’s purchase of the required XE-2100.”



If the press release is to be believed, it appears that the UCI needed a Sysmex machine because Armstrong said they did. It raises the question, who was running the show?



So far, the UCI, Armstrong and Hein Verbruggen have been unable to give one definitive, consistent version of events surrounding the size and timing of a donation made by an active rider. Why is this?



This issue can only be cleared up with total transparency but the UCI has yet to respond to 19 questions Cycling Weekly has posed regarding the purchase of the Sysmex machine and the timing and size of Armstrong’s donation.



Some people may think this is old news, that it’s irrelevant to rake over old details. It’s become fashionable to draw a line under things and move on, focus on the present, be positive. There is a trend for those who dwell on the detail to be painted as negative trouble-makers.



However, it is imperative to uncover the nature of the relationship between the sport’s most high-profile athlete and the body that was regulating him.



The UCI has said in an email to us, that in a few weeks the receipt will be available for us to see at the UCI’s offices. We await our invite.



Further reading

May 23 Confusion over Armstrong’s donation to the UCI and the Sysmex machine

May 25 McQuaid confirms Armstrong’s donation was $100,000

The Wednesday Comment – June 9



WHAT DID ALPE D’HUEZ TELL US?

It is only natural that people want to put Saturday’s race up Alpe d’Huez at the Critérium du Dauphiné into some kind of context.



Alberto Contador is the overwhelming favourite for the Tour de France and, with three weeks until the start, it was a chance to assess his form on an iconic mountain climb.



And opinions seem to be divided. Either Contador is behind where he needs to be because he couldn’t drop Janez Brajkovic of Radioshack, or he’s ahead of where he was at this time last year because he won the stage.



The problem is people have looked at the time taken to climb the 13.9-kilometre Alpe on Saturday and compared it against the times set in the past. Any such comparisons are pointless. Absolutely pointless.



And it is also flawed thinking to assume that slower times mean cleaner rides. That’s not a slight on the riders taking part on Saturday.



The time it takes to ride a mountain is irrelevant because all that matters is the result on the day and how it affects the general classification.



As Contador crossed the line the Eurosport commentator, Anthony McCrossan, said the climb had taken him 45 minutes. It hadn’t. It had taken 42 minutes and 20 seconds, more than five minutes slower than Marco Pantani’s record, set in 1997.



Clearly, Contador made up his mind quite early on that he was not going to crack the overall leader Brajkovic to the tune of a minute-and-three-quarters. So his objective became to win the stage, which is backed up by the Liquigas rider Sylvester Szmyd, who wrote on his blog that he was annoyed that Contador kept chasing him down.



Tactically it was a cagey affair. Brajkovic had no reason to do anything other than mark Contador, and the Spaniard was not riding a time trial, so had no need to race to the top as quickly as he could. It was also windy and there were some stretches between hairpins when a very stiff breeze almost brought them to a standstill.



It was a tactical battle in the wind. Contador did what he needed to do in order to win the stage. By itself, the time he took to climb Alpe d’Huez tells us nothing. What counts is the win.



WHERE STARS OF TOMORROW ARE MADE

There’s a phrase: show me the boy at seven, and I’ll show you the man.



The same could perhaps be said in cycling. Show me the espoir and I’ll show you the professional.



The Baby Giro (or Girobio as the Italians call it) is running at the moment. It’s a stage race for riders under 26, where the best amateurs compete in their own version of the Giro d’Italia.



A team of Britain’s most talented riders is competing there at the moment. Erick Rowsell, who had been lying seventh overall, crashed out on stage five.



But you have to wonder about the environment these youngsters are being asked to compete in when one of the leading Italian teams – the Lucchini Unidelta squad – was kicked out of the race after a raid by Italian police on the team vehicles.



One of Lucchini Unidelta’s riders had won the previous day’s stage but the squad, run by a former professional Bruno Leali, was expelled the following morning. An Italian newspaper reported that drugs and syringes were found in the team vehicles and riders’ room.



The Baby Giro’s organisers are well aware of the problems of doping. For that reason, they have banned all kinds of medication on the race, even prescribed medicines, without permission from the race doctor. The riders also stay together in dormitories, away from their team managers. The idea is to eradicate the culture of medicines and treatment, pills, preparation and jabs and attempt to introduce one of pasta and mineral water.



And perhaps there’s good reason. If the Baby Giro has had a reputation of being the place that creates the champions of tomorrow, take a look at the winners of the race between 1991 and 1999.



In 1991 Francesco Casagrande (banned twice for testosterone)

1992 Marco Pantani

1994 Leonardo Piepoli (kicked out of the 2008 Tour for CERA positive)

1995 Giuseppe Di Grande (suspended after police raids on the 2001 Giro)

1996 Roberto Sgambelluri (positive for NESP in 2002)

1997 Oscar Mason (positive and banned for six months in 1998)

1998 Danilo Di Luca (banned for CERA positive in 2009)

1999 Tadej Valjavec (withdrawn from racing for biological passport irregularities in 2010)



That’s quite a roll of (dis)honour.



To redress the balance, none of the Baby Giro winners from 2000 to 2009 are associated with any such controversies. Having said that, neither are they household names, although one or two (Dario Cataldo, the 2006 winner, for example) have shown promise in the pro ranks.



But coming a few days after the UCI president Pat McQuaid declared all the samples taken at the grown-up Giro d’Italia to be clear before issuing the sport a clean bill of health, it was a pertinent reminder that the sport needs to look just as carefully at how its future stars are made.



AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Earlier this year, UK Sport appointed the auditor Deloitte to examine the relationship between British Cycling and Team Sky.



British Cycling is funded by members and grants from UK Sport, which come from Lottery funds. Team Sky is a commercial operation sponsored by a broadcaster.



UK Sport said in May that the review would study how Team Sky and the British Cycling squad’s operate together, as well as ensuring that everyone is complying with UK Sport requirements.



Russell Langley, of UK Sport, said: “It is not being done from any negative angle but to ensure that both programmes are working well and can deliver what they need.”



As CW explained at the start of the year Team Sky is owned by a company called Tour Racing Limited, which in turn is owned by BSkyB. On the board of TRL are two key British Cycling figures, it’s chief executive Ian Drake and president Brian Cookson.



With so many staff and services being shared by British Cycling and Team Sky, there might be conflict of interest if, for example, a foreign Sky rider received treatment, coaching or advice at the expense of a British athlete or if Sky’s riders benefited from the relationship and BC was not adequately compensated.



Dave Brailsford explained to CW that he was very aware of the possible conflict of interest and that a set of procedures had been put in place to ensure everything was above board.



But the relationships between British Cycling and Team Sky are complex. Although Brailsford likes to think of it as a Venn diagram, in some areas the relationship is more akin to interlocking fingers.



Deloitte is an independent auditor, appointed by UK Sport, to have a close look at the situation and determine where the lines are drawn.



It may seem curious that as an independent auditor, Deloitte is also keenly involved in cycling – sponsoring the Deloitte Ride Across Britain, a nine-day charity ride that is currently on the road from John O’Groats to Land’s End.



And the event’s partners are companies that are currently, or have previously been heavily involved with British Cycling or Team Sky or both – Boardman Bikes, Halfords, Adidas and Science in Sport.



However, both UK Sport and Deloitte have quashed any suggestion of a conflict of interest.



A spokesman for UK Sport said: “We do not see Deloitte’s support of this charity bike ride as in any way impinging on their ability to carry out the independent review, as commissioned by UK Sport and British Cycling. We have absolutely no doubts about their impartiality and look forward to receiving their report in due course.”



In a statement, Deloitte said: “Deloitte rejects any suggestion of a conflict of interest. We have stringent processes in place to preserve independence and objectivity with all our client work. Deloitte is the title sponsor of Deloitte Ride Across Britain, which is a corporate challenge designed to raise funds for ParalympicsGB and to raise the profile of the Paralympic movement and disability sport across the UK. All commercial supporters of the event were negotiated by Threshold Sport, the event organisers. There is no connection with British Cycling through the sponsorship of this event.



“Deloitte’s relationship with Deloitte Ride Across Britain is managed by our sponsorship and corporate responsibility department.



“The engagement for British Cycling and UK Sport is separate to and unrelated to Deloitte Ride Across Britain.  Deloitte has been commissioned to conduct an independent review to assess the impact of the creation of Team Sky on the World Class Performance Programme.”



CW understands the initial findings from the review are expected in the next month or so.



WHAT’S IN A NAME?

A few readers have been asking why the race is no longer called the Dauphiné Libéré.



This year, for the first time, the French race was called the Critérium du Dauphiné.



In the past, its full name was the Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré. The race was founded and run by the newspaper, the Dauphiné Libéré. However, the newspaper group was taken over by another one, based in Nancy.



As a result it was decided that the bike race was a drain on resources and so it was put up for sale.



Step forward ASO, the owners of the Tour de France and a host of other races. Now ASO’s stranglehold on French cycling is complete one wonders what the future holds for the company.



POWER STRUGGLE BREWING

Johan Bruyneel has used Radioshack’s snub from the Vuelta a Espana to renew his grand plans to change cycling. Bruyneel believes that the sport should become more like Formula 1. The Belgian feels that the teams get a rough deal and need to have more power.



Well, forgive me for saying, but the last thing the teams should be granted is more power. That’d be like letting the animals run the farmyard.



While the riders are indeed the stars of the show, they are merely taking to the stage and reading out the lines. In a decade’s time there will be a new set of actors. The races (and the fans, hopefully) will still be here.



As much as all the team owners and managers would love it to be so, it would not be in the interests of cycling to create a closed-shop of a certain number of elite teams, run in perpetuity by the same people.



Good, ethically-run teams will survive and prosper. Poor or dubious ones should fail, rather than be propped up because a particular bunch of individuals are able to hold onto their golden ticket.



What cycling needs is not so much a power-hungry collection of people running the sport for their own benefit but someone who eschews self-interest in favour of the good of cycling. It’s a crazy notion, I know…

  • Christian Louboutin outlet

    It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d most certainly donate to this superb blog! I suppose for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to fresh updates and will share this website with my Facebook group. Chat soon!
    Christian Louboutin outlet http://www.christianlouboutinshoescheap.net

  • Lionel Birnie

    Paul B, you make some good points, but with respect, the point of highlighting the Sysmex press release is to show precisely that. We all know well enough how the PR industry operates.

    Perhaps, if you haven’t already, it would help set the importance of this Sysmex machine and Armstrong’s donation into context if you read the May 23 and May 25 articles in the ‘further reading’ under the item in the comment.

    The whole point is that no one seems able to say how or why Armstrong paid money to the UCI while he was an active rider. It is important to know why and what his motives were and why the UCI accepted it. None of the answers given so far tally or explain the situation adequately.

    I apologise if that point wasn’t made explicitly clear to you in the comment.

  • Roger R

    Paul B, if this was a publicity stunt then it has to be the worst one in history.

    And CW has been bashing Armstrong and Bruyneel for years. If nothing else, they’re consistent.

    Thanks for your alternative Wednesday Comment though – it’s hilarious! (although I’m not sure it’s meant to be)

  • Paul B

    Well, I’ve read some rubbish in magazines but the Wednesday comment just about takes first prize. Your account of Lance Armstrong/UCI and Sysmex is laughable. Press releases are full of “spin” to show who or what they are about in a very good light. I work in broadcasting and receive numerouse so called press releases every day. It does not take a great mind to see through the “spin”. Sysmex are using Armstrong’s name to add authority to their product. He may have recommended their machine or he may have used their name to illustrate what kind of machine to buy. Then again, maybe someone else may have mentioned Sysmex to him and he may have agreed. Whichever way it happened, you can be sure the press release has been constructed to promote the company in the best possible light – that is the purpose of a press release! That people at Cycling Weekly do not realise this says a lot about modern “journalists”.

    Johan Bruyneel has a point about race organisers chosing which teams to invite to their events. The UCI wanted to ensure that the top teams rode the main races and that was fought against by the race organisers. Imagine if one of the Formula One Grand Prix races decided that Ferrari or Red Bull could not compete in their race, what a mess that would make of the world championship. As Bruyneel has stated; if you want to attract sponsors to the sport they need to know that their name is going to be seen at the big events. Obviously if the team is not performing well enough then it will fall out of the top drawer and will not be eligible to compete in all the top races. But if a team fulfills all the conditions set down by the UCI and has riders and results to keep it in the top rank of teams then it should automatically qualify for all events. That also puts an onus on the team to contest all the events. The Vuelta is really small fry compared with Le Tour and has become a domestic race for Spanish riders. Rejecting teams on a whim will do nothing to enhance its international standing. I bet if Valverde was still riding he would have been welcome in the Spanish event.

    Cycling Weekly seems to be following the latest fashion of bashing Armstrong and Bruyneel at every turn. Contador seems to be your new golden boy, as your defence of his climb up Alpe D’Huez illustrates. As you rightly say, it is of no importance how long it took him (or anyone else) to ride up the Alpe. Each race is different and if there is no need to blast of up the hill like Pantani or Armstrong then so be it. The time it took Contador to ride Alpe D’Huez depended on the riders he was with and how much time he could gain. He read the race and rode it acordingly. He is a great rider. However, your change of attitude towards Armstrong and Bruyneel is breathtakingly insulting. For years your magazines used Armstrong’s image to increase sales – some readers even complained that he was on too many covers. Now he appears to be the devil himself even though there is no evidence that he has ever used performance enhancing drugs. Bruyneel was hailed as the greatest tour team director in history until Armstrong retired and Lemond and company began shouting the odds. Now he seems to be painted as the worst thing to ever happen to cycling. I don’t know whether Armstrong used drugs or whether Bruyneel organized a drug service – there is no evidence to support any accusations; plenty of rumour and snide remarks from people on the sidelines or cycling has-beens – but no hard evidence. Contador sprints up a mountain side and is cheered, Armstrong sprints up a mountain and you ask “what’s he on”. What is Contador on? Operation Puerto was Spanish and the authorities there have dragged their heels over that case. What makes you think that ANY rider is clean? If what Landis has said about evading detection is true, you cannot believe anyone.

    Having a Wednesday comment obviously gets people talking and emailing (like me!) but please can we have less of the tabloid sensationalism and more objective reporting?

  • Dave_1

    Lionel, I had someone else’s clock agree with mine. I swear I saw 41.42 exactly on my timer. I paid attention and posted times as they passed 3km and was laughing thinking Pantani would have been saluting on the line nearly..the thread is on bike radar Dauphine stage 6. Maybe I had too many glasses of wine. I know the climb well though and the start and finish are pretty obvious…but 40 seconds isn’t the issue. But you would agree it is by far the slowest ascent of Alpe D’huez in 20 years. Distance to the climb is irrelevant if we use say Ullrich’s two times in 97 and 04. Thanks for your reply

  • Chuck

    If Johan Bruyneel wants to help the sport of cycling, his best move is to leave for good. He is a continuation of the corrupt, illicit, and dangerous management style perfected by Manolo Saiz. A clean sport has no room for him or his lackeys.

  • G.

    As far as I’m aware, Valjavec has yet to be handed a suspension. The only thing that happened is that UCI told the national federation to start a process. That process has not ended yet, or has it?

  • Hadyn Bosher @ 77in Thailand

    Thanks again Lionel Birnie,this issue should not be swept under the carpet and forgotten,where it will end is anybody”s,guess,but cycling in general is one big mess,made up of liers and cheats in all aspects of the sport.Having been an active cyclist in most disiplines from boyhood to the present day i feel very sad to see what it’s like now..Keep up with your good work.!,at least you know one person reads your column!!

  • Lionel Birnie

    The time I had was 42-20, give or take a second or two, which, incidentally, tallies with what Cyclismag.com timed it at, not 41-40.

    Using the time on a climb as an indicator of whether cycling is cleaner or not is a red herring. Much as the calculations of cyclismag are fascinating, it’s a bit like the VAM calculation on Verbier last year – it stands up to scrutiny about as much as some numbers scribbled on the back of a beer mat.

    The point is the race is what counts, not the pace. In my opinion, there are far too many variables at play to compare a race in 2010 with one in previous years and come to any conclusions.

  • dave_1

    Lionel, times for the Alpe MTT 2004-just the 13.8km-almost exactly on the 38 minutes pace/time of Ullrich in 1997 after a 100 miles to the bottom…so it doesn’t matter at all whether they start in bourg d’oisian or in Saint Etienne a 100 miles away…secondly the average speed for the first 6.5km of the alpe last week was 19.5km compared to 21.5kph-22kph in 1994-2004. It’s estimated the headwind got up at 6.5km,.. cyclismag estimates the pace of the first 6.5km would have got contador to the top in just over 40mins. In addition, you didn’t time it I guess as it was a 41 minute 40 second ascent last week by Contador. The sport is getting cleaner