A chat with Graham Watson

From Bob Gosford's The Northern Myth

TNM: What does cycling need more of now - more law or a better sense of ethics among the riders?

GW: I would think it needs more clarity in the law and the rules - and the ethics - they will come together. They won’t come without each other.

The laws, you know, they are pretty ambiguous and all over the place - they are not yet controlled by Governments - it is more controlled by the UCI [Union Cycliste Internationale] and they don’t have to powers they need.

The laws should be made world-wide and very clear - the ethics will fit into that. You can’t have one without the other.

TNM: Are there any particular issues that stand out?

GW: As a photographer I don’t really study the ins and out of it. I got tired of all the politics since 2005, when the drugs issue really started being highlighted by the media. In a perfect world all the sports would be getting a closer examination, and I think that is starting to happen now.

TNM: Speaking of other sports, in cricket for example, top cricketers can have cortisone injections and all manner of other medical treatments while they are playing a match, and nobody blinks an eye. But in cycling, and in other sports there seems to be a different set of rules that apply.

GW: It’s not just the rules but also a different set of opinions as well. I think that it goes back all the way to the death of Tommy Simpson [an English pro-cyclist who died on the Mont Ventoux stage of the Tour de France in 1967] , and I think that from then on cycling became the most scrutinised sport and (in many people’s minds) will be forever associated with drugs. And it has never lost that image.

And, because where there is money involved, and where there is money there is corruption, and there is a profit to be made. But, cycling will forever be associated with the death of Tommy Simpson, because there were drugs and a bit of alcohol involved. And we’ve never shaken that image off.

I ride a bike for two hours every other day…whenever I ride a bike for four or five hours I’m buggered for two or three days and I’m in my early fifties. But even allowing for half of my age I don’t know how they do it. I can’t say that it is too extreme but if you take the extremity away from cycling…then there is no more sport. But it is the sort of sport where you are always going to have people looking for…not just the edge but just to be able to ride the next day. I don’t know the answers.

There are people in the marketing side of the sport who say that “We should never let it come out in the public”, because other sports hide their indiscretions. They are trying to protect the business side of the sport, which is what cycling is, a business. The only way to go is to clean up the sport as much as we possibly can, and to be the example to other sports to show that we are doing the best possible.

15 Reasons why Valverde should be able to ride in peace

1. Valverde was in Kelme directed by Vicente Belda.

2. Kelme had a team program (Puerto docs, Manzano etc).

3. Belda is on trial for his part in the Fuentes operation.

4. Valverde left Kelme in 2004 and from that point on had no contact with Fuentes.

5. Fuentes conserved a bag of blood (no. 18) which is alleged to be that of Valverde's.

6. There is a note on folio 106 of the Puerto summary made by Fuentes to the effect that bag no. 18 was kept in case the relationship with “Bala”* recommenced *(Valverde’s nick name – why didn’t he use Piti? see point 8 below).

7. There is no evidence that the relationship which existed under the direction of Belda was recommenced after Valverde left Kelme.

8. Valverde has a dog born in May 2005, the year after he left Kelme.

9. When arrested Fuentes went out of his way to implicate Valverde by asking the Guardia if “had they found everything about Valverde”.

10. The decision of Judge Serrano to not allow the use of evidence in the trial against Fuentes, Saiz, Belda et al, is completely consistent with ordinary legal principles governing a fair trial and with the Spanish legislation governing this.

11. The manner in which the RFEC has dealt with the Spanish riders implicated in Puerto is in no way different to the manner in which ASADA dealt with Allan Davis. The question has to be asked as to why Australia is deemed to be a part of the new cycling culture and Spain a part of the old culture and the problem. What forces are really at play here?

12. CONI's best argument against this (as set out in their appeal documents in Spain) is that the law is not clear, but they do not provide any legal support for this proposition.

13. CONI only has power to prosecute foreigners for events that occurred outside of Italy after 2007. Even if this law covered the relevant events (i.e. from 2004) the retrospective extra territorial application of criminal laws is on general principles problematic constitutionally.

14. In Bareclona on or about 27 February 2009 WADA’s John Fahey told Spanish Sport’s Minister Lissavetzky that the ‘Valverde’ issue was not a matter for WADA but for Spain.

15. On the basis of all of this it is very difficult to see how CONI or the UCI can actually win a case conducted on the basis of law (as opposed to a media lynching).

Where are we going with all this. Maybe someone should ask Hein?

New York Times and the Biological passport

'Interesting' article in the New York Times over the weekend about the biological passport.

"... Mr. Ashenden said, the biological passport is not perfect. Riders who transfuse their own blood may not be caught because the swings in their blood values are not as dramatic as they can be with EPO use. He also said that the passport system would be successful for “about a year or so” until riders figure a way around it."

The question has to be asked ... how much has been spent on this passport and is it worthwhile to spend this money when it will only be effective for a year. Surely there are other ways?

The comments are even more interesting when you consider the comments of Giuseppe Lippi, Massimo Franchini and Gian Cesare Guidi in their article Tour de Crisis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine 2007;41:625-626. There the authors note that the US spends as much as it does on anti blood doping as it does curing blood diseases.

They conclude: "Therefore, in practice, healthcare systems and national governments worldwide are expected to devote to the fight against doping the same resources that the US government dedicates to prevention and treatment of diseases that cause great morbidity, mortality and economic burden for individuals, families and the entire population. Is this really necessary and morally acceptable?"


You really have to wonder if there isn't a better way? Or even what is this all about really?

MR.ADAMS*

By Pedro Horrillo original published in El Pais in Spanish

Mr. Adams entered my life at the same moment as we started the new year, on January 1^st, 2008. To tell the truth, I never approved of him, but he didn't seem to care: he had come to stay and was aware that I knew it. Also, he certainly knew that I could never reject him. Ours has been since then a relationship full of ups and downs – something predictable in any forced relationship- but keeping no secrets at all. I have always told him everything I have done,whom with, where, when, whenever I come and go... Of course it is not the case, but if by any chance it occurred to me, let alone lying to him – that would be really serious – but hiding something from him or telling him just a half-truth – it is the same for me – God help me if he ever finds out ! Then I would be risking the whole family and their bread and butter. Mr. Adam's shadow is very long, extremely long.

So you'd better not take it to heart as living with Adams is not easy at all. That's why we cyclists usually make jokes about the matter and mean to send a message to brother Adams when we think of going to the pictures, for instance. Of course you are free to go out without telling him, although in that case you'd rather pay attention to your mobile phone, select the silence mode and be ready to leave the cinema, may he happen to visit your house. To go to the pictures, for a walk with some friends, play with the kids in the park, have dinner in a restaurant, ....in any situation you like you have to act the same way.

And now a year since our first encounter, in another turn of the screw, Mr. Adams makes me give him daily notice of the exact place and the time that I will be available for him.

If he turns up and I am not there, I will have a big problem, even if my absence is justified.

So that´s how things stand. To begin with, I am of the opinion that random drug testing are one of the most effective ways to fight against fraud. Even though most of them are mere red blood cell extractions for the biological passport program and not doping tests, strictly speaking. But Adams' demands wear me out, they overwhelm and saturate me to the extent that sometimes, out of rebelliousness, I just provide him with the minimum necessary information.

What a rebellion!, you might think. Still I can't nor should complain about it, as we, the cyclists have accepted taking part in that programme and its consequences. And on the other hand, being a sportsperson, I have undertaken the same commitment with my team under contract.

The irony of fate! I started riding the bike because nothing else had ever given me such sense of freedom before. I carried on cycling, free as a bird, and eventually managed to make a living (of it). It is everybody's dream to be able to work in something you love. And all thanks to the bike.

However, I have never felt so inhibited like now when it comes to make decisions. I am not free to improvise in my own life, to hesitate, to make hasty and last minute plans. That is over, freedom is no longer there. Well...not exactly, some people say, you always have the option to get a computer, search for a conexion and voilé! Adams is changed. Or even better, to send an sms. For some people it is basically the same thing, but not for me. If you'll pardon the expression, I call this the being given the third degree.

So that is how it is and far from complaining, I chose to accept it. Given the choice between adapt or die, I prefer the first one, because I want to be a cyclist as long as possible, therefore, I won't pay heed to your attempts to put off my desire to continue, Mr. Adams.

* Adams: Antidoping Administration & Managing System

Lance Armstrong, $3 million and the silence of the Rann

Bob Gosford writes from Yuendumu: (from crikey.com.au)

Lance Armstrong went to Adelaide for a fortnight in January. While there he spoke to a few cancer charities, visited hospitals, charity fund-raisers and cancer victims, and schmoozed with Kevin Rudd, a fawning South Australian Premier Mike Rann, assorted SA Ministers and half the population of Adelaide.

Oh, and between schmoozes he rode around on his bike for seven days during the Tour Down Under.

For his troubles he trousered a wedge understood to be up to $AU3 million in cash.

As an anonymous tipster told Crikey in mid-January:

The SA Government are paying Lance Armstrong USD $1 million to appear at the Pro Tour. USD $500k has been paid up front, with the balance after the race. Think back a few months when it was announced somewhat prematurely that Lance was on his way.

Neither Rann nor Armstrong have denied the figure of $US1 million ($AU1.52 million). While Crikey was in Adelaide there were strong rumours among the media and others closely connected to the race that the figure was more like $US2 million ($AU3.05 million).

Armstrong and 186 other professional cyclists came to South Australia to ride in the Tour Down Under -- Australia's premier cycling road race event and part of the l'Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) Pro-tour.

That Armstrong would be paid at least $1US million large to talk about cancer research, a matter close to his heart, attracted a lot of attention, particularly within the world cycling community. Particularly when the wages of the peloton, the riders that make up the bulk of the pro-cycling community, are reported to have fallen by up to 40% in recent years.

The Boulder Report at the Cycling.com website noted:

...no one's talking. South Australia Premier Mike Rann refused to discuss any negotiations, and other than saying that any money paid "will go to his charity," Rann's spokesman, Lachlan Parker, declined to discuss the matter further with reporters.

...Why's this a big deal? Armstrong is an in demand public speaker, commanding at least $175,000 per engagement.

...It's less the donation than the secrecy surrounding it that seems strange and excessive…But [appearance fees] made with taxpayer dollars, in an ostensibly democratic and open government, fit a different standard of disclosure.

Indeed.

But in South Australia, as is common in too many Australian jurisdictions, answers to questions about what should be publicly available information are deemed "commercial-in-confidence".

The only way you or I will get any closer to the truth is via an expensive, and most likely unsuccessful, Freedom of Information application or if the Opposition asks the right questions during Parliamentary estimates. Neither is satisfactory in the short term or in keeping with the spirit of "ostensibly democratic and open government."

Lachlan Parker's story that the payment to Armstrong was a donation to charity, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, was soon given the lie by Armstrong himself.

As The New York Times reported, Armstrong:

...did not specify the amount of his fee but said Saturday that, contrary to what had been reported here last week, he was not donating the fee to his foundation but treating it as income, the same way he has his other speaking and appearance fees since retirement.

"It's not simply showing up to a bike race and getting paid to race the bike," he said. "I'm not being paid to race. Is there a fee for other things? Yes, but that's not any different than what I've done for the last three years or four years, actually longer than that."

The SA Government -- i.e., the SA taxpayer – is the sole sponsor of the Tour Down Under.

Armstrong has provided an undoubted boost to the public profile of the Tour Down Under and to the worthy cause of cancer research in Australia. Whether his presence made any impact on the SA economy is but one of a number of outstanding questions about the overall cost of the event.

Other questions as yet unanswered include whether the SA economy really got the big 'bang for its buck' that Rann has trumpeted, the total costs involved in staging this year's Tour Down Under and how much Armstrong, and others involved in the Tour, were paid to participate.

That last issue is what Crikey has been trying to confirm for the last week and half.

Crikey sent a brief list of questions to Rann and his media minder Lachlan Parker and to SA Tourism Minister Jane Lomax-Smith. We first sent the questions on 3 February, again on 6 February and again yesterday, advising that this story would be published today.

Up until late yesterday we'd received not a whisper in reply. After we'd advised we were going to run with this story today we finally received the following from Leah Manuel, Jane Lomax-Smith's media minder:

Any payments associated with teams or cyclists taking part in the Tour Down Under are commercial in confidence. This has been the case since the inception of the race 11 years ago.

Another question that Rann and the Australian Taxation Office could be asked is whether the ATO got its slice of Armstrong's income from the SA government.

As the Indian Cricket team found out to its horror in late 2007, the ATO is particularly attentive to earnings in Australia by foreign sportsmen and women.

As the Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Administration Amendment Regulations 2004 (No. 1) notes:

Foreign resident entertainers and sportspersons who derive income in Australia are liable to pay income tax in Australia on that income ... [t]hey are required to lodge an income tax return in Australia.

Dependent upon whether the SA government made the payment to Armstrong personally or to some corporate or charitable entity associated with him, it may have been required to:

...retain an amount and pay that amount to the ATO under section 255 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

But, regardless of how much, and to whom or what the South Australian government paid the money, Armstrong clearly saw that money as his own.

And, as Armstrong told the gathered press in Adelaide, he'll be back for the Tour Down Under in 2010.

There are more than a few wondering what his fee will be next year.

Crikey.com

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/