Grey Manrod Associates

When we last left the Landis saga, the UCI was threatening to sue Floyd because he had insulted "the honour" of current President Pat McQuaid and past-President Hein Verbruggen in an interview given to a German television show and summarized in the following statement sent to Floyd on Feb 7th.

"For the record, you basically indicate that the UCI and its current and former leaders may protect certain cyclists suspected of doping and not others, may falsify results and create stars, and that they may be corrupt."

Days later, Mr. McQuaid was then interviewed by Cycling Weekly, portions of which appeared in this article dated February 10, 2011.

"A lot of the stuff he [Landis] says in relation to what went on in those years is probably true," admitted McQuaid....."There was a lot of doping going on in those teams in those years....If it [American Supreme Court decision] proves that the US Postal Team were involved in a lot of doping, it wouldn't necessarily surprise me.  In those days it was possible to beat the system."

Last week, however, past-president Hein Verbruggen was back on the warpath as he emerged from the shadows to criticize the cycling media for focusing too much on doping in the sport, which he states only affects "one or two percent of the sport", yet receives "50% of the coverage."  Maybe we should cut the old-timer some slack and chalk this statement up to short-term memory loss.  But to refresh his memory, let's look at the VeloNews article published on the 16th of this month (the day Armstrong retired for a second time) which showed the list of the top 20 of the 2005 Tour de France - both in terms of placing and doping.

1. Lance Armstrong, Discovery Channel

2. Ivan Basso, CSC – confessed to Puerto involvement and banned from 2006 Tour ()
3. Jan Ullrich, T-Mobile – connected to Puerto and banned from 2006 Tour
4. Francisco Mancebo, Illes Balears – connected to Puerto and banned from 2006 Tour
5. Alexander Vinokourov, Astana – tested positive for doping at 2007 Tour
6. Levi Leipheimer, Gerolsteiner — accused of doping by Floyd Landis and former Gerolsteiner manager
7. Michael Rasmussen, Rabobank – ejected from 2007 Tour while in the yellow jersey
8. Cadel Evans, Davitamon-Lotto
9. Floyd Landis, Phonak – disqualified as 2006 Tour winner for doping
10. Oscar Pereiro, Phonak – alleged to have doped by Landis
11. Christophe Moreau, Credit Agricole – admitted EPO use after Festina Affaire
12. Yaroslav Popovych, Discovery Channel – home searched
13. Eddy Mazzoleni, Lampre-Caffita – charged in doping conspiracy after receiving a two-year ban in 2008
14. George Hincapie, Discovery Channel — accused of doping by Floyd Landis
15. Haimar Zubeldia, Euskaltel-Euskadi
16. Jörg Jaksche, Liberty Seguros – admitted doping since 1997
17. Bobby Julich, CSC
18. Oscar Sevilla, T-Mobile – suspended by team in 2006 for Puerto links
19. Giuseppe Guerini, T-Mobile
20. Carlos Sastre, CSC
Also, 23. Leonardo Piepoli, Saunier Duval-Prodir – tested positive for CERA in 2008

2005 was the year that Lance stood on the podium and said to those who doubted the performance of the upper echilon of Tour cyclists, "I feel sorry for you.  I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles."

Even if you exclude everyone on this list that was merely accused or suspected of doping by Floyd, that still leaves 50% of the cyclists finishing in the top 20 guilty of doping.  Hein, if you are reading, even a miracle can't make 50% be less than 1%.

---

How has Floyd responded to all of this seeming hypocrisy?  Enter Mr. Chade O. Grey and Mr. Sigmund Manrod, attorneys at law for a firm entitled Grey Manrod, Associates. 

Under the noms des plume of Grey & Manrod, Floyd has sent a long list of emails to the UCI that are yes, hilarious, but also ask some incredibly good questions.  You can read all the emails at the NYVelocity site: here.

My favorite of which, however, is this one, penned by Mr. Sigmund Manrod to Mr. Ditesheim, the UCI attorney on Feb. 20th.

---

Mr. Ditesheim, the previous letter sent by you, dated 07 Feb 2011 requires a retraction by Mr. Landis. It sets a 15-day window for such a retraction to be submitted. Given the points listed above which detail the fundamental concession that Mr. Landis' statements are "probably true", the established fact that Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen are public figures, and that Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires the predicate of "unlawful attack" to be the basis for legal recourse, we feel that Mr. Landis has acted in a "lawful" manner at all times since he has disclosed his previous behaviours, has told the truth (as accepted by Mr. McQuaid). We consider the threat of any further legal action against him by your clients to be baseless and frivolous, serving the sole purpose of chilling his voice as it relates to his truthful comments to the media, and further exposure of truths about many facets of professional cycling during this period.

It is public knowledge that Mr. Landis has cooperated with the US Food and Drug Administration in providing his eye-witness accounts and conveyed his truthful knowledge of doping during his cycling career. For your information, providing false statements to the US Food and Drug Administration in the course of an investigation carries with it severe penalties. Mr. Landis maintains that he proffered his truthful recollections to the authorities. Mr. Landis understand his responsibility to tell the truth in this matter, and given the radical and direct contradiction of previously made statements by Mr. McQuaid, it is encouraging to see that they, too, understand the import of coming to terms with the truth in the matter.

Please feel free to answer [these] questions.

Primary question: As now Mr. McQuaid has conceded that the "stuff" that Mr. Landis has conveyed is "probably true", are we to still follow Mr. McQuaid's seemingly flippant mention that things he says in the past will be stood by today, despite this being a direct contradiction?In the absence of your direct answers and given the consideration of Mr. McQuaid’s current concession that Mr. Landis' statements are "probably true", we will consider this to be closure to this matter.

Secondary question: If Mr. McQuaid is now allowing for changes to his position and public statement, can you please indicate which part of his "honour" still remains damaged?

Tertiary question: If there still remains some damage, what form is this damage? Please provide documentation as to this damage.

Finest regards,

Sigmund A. Manrod

---

Say what you will about past transgressions, Landis brings up some pretty serious contradictions in the UCI's behavior, both formerly and presently.  If these questions and allegations were raised by a reporter for the NY Times, or Wall Street Journal, I think they would be taken a lot more seriously and obviously reach a wider audience.  But what will the cycling community do with them coming from fictitious (and hilarious) attorneys at law, Grey & Manrod?  The questions are the same and just as relevant regardless who is asking them, even if he is wearing double-middle-finger shades.

Oh yeah, and while all of this is going on, Contador is still racing, despite the WADA rule that ANY clenbuterol found in your system is enough to have you serving a suspension.  When asked about the long delay and current status of Contador's case, McQuaid said he is just following protocol.  But I'm wondering, as are others, what happened to proper protocol for other cyclists like Li Fuyu and Tom Zirbel  whose positive A-sample results were announced before B-samples were even tested.  Both of them are still sitting out, and appropriately so.  Where is the equality amongst cyclists that the UCI is so proud of?  It will be interesting to see what Grey Manrod has to say about all of the upcoming developments....

Translation: "Danger! (out of work)" Further translation: "I've got lots of time on my hands, bitches."

Now, I realize that with all these different names of people and places and entities, this entire saga is getting pretty hard to follow.  So if you are having difficulties keeping track of who's who in this whole mess, I've put together a schematic for you using real pictures of all the places and people involved where I can.  There were a few individuals and locations that I couldn't find pictures of - so I just filled them in with substitutes.  I hope this helps make future discussion of this ongoing story a lot easier.  Click to enlarge.

Defending your honour, losing your credibility

Does anyone know if the Floyd Fairness Fund is still accepting donations?  I'd like to send some money. 

Here's the letter Mr. Landis received last week from the UCI.

Uh-oh.  Pat and Hein-y have had their "honour" offended because Floyd accused the UCI of "protecting certain cyclists."

Fast forward to Feb 12.  UCI press officer Enrico Carpani says that they (the UCI) are "pleased" with the  Spanish Federation's Contador investigation and further notes, "It is not beneficial to cycling to see Contador crucified."  You remember the Spanish Federation - right?  They are the ones that just cleared Contador of doping charges despite the fact that he failed two tests for Clenbuterol in his system.  It's so nice to see the UCI protecting wishing the best for Contador.

Pat McQuaid giving the "award of obscene hand-gestures" to Bertie in recognition of his now copy-protected fingerbang salute.

Floyd has written the UCI's attorney, Rolf Ditesheim (the man in charge of preserving Pat and Hein-y's "honour") two responses:

Response #1:

Hello Mr Ditesheim'

I haven't heard from you in a few days and thought I'd drop you a note with a few things to ponder. I'd like you to please try to reconcile this (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/carpani-says-uci-pleased-with-spanish-federations-handling-of-contador-case) with your threat of litigation in light of todays exoneration of Alberto Contador. I look forward to your explanation.

Thank You
Floyd Landis

And Response #2:

Dear Mr Ditzensheim,
I hope something has not happened to you (!) I have been looking forward to getting to know you good. I have copied Mr. Verbeast at the UCI because a year ago he sent me a similar email asking for some kind of retraction. I don't know what you want retractioned though(!!!).

And I am not living in Switzerland now though and maybe you have a colleague that you trust (and with his records!!!) that can represent me in my upcoming trial. If he can represent me for 500 Swiss Franks that would be GREAT (!!) because I am broke. (that would be 250 swiss franks up front!!!).

One other thing is I want to request that the trial be in Zurich in the summer because it is beautiful there but cold. If Zurich doesn't work possibly San Diego(?????). I live here!!

Thank You!
Floyd

This is a serious matter

(If you are wondering about all the odd (!!!s) and odder word choices in Floyd's response, I believe he's mocking Hein-y's writing style noted in a number of emails he sent to Floyd accusing him of being capable only of winning a yellow jersey in being a nuisance.)

---

At this point, I wish to stop and ask some questions to all those who have, like me, decided to waste far too much time following this saga.

1) Regarding "honour": Who actually sues somebody in order to protect their "honour" these days?  It's like some warped anachronistic medieval sentiment has suddenly sprung up in the midst of the soap opera - only instead of Pat and Hein-y challenging Floyd to a duel themselves, they've sent their briefcase-laden attorney/knight to fight in their stead.  I wonder if the letter also came with a virtual glove-slap across the face?

2) Regarding Contador:  Why isn't anyone testing the boy's hair?  Remember that it was the dark hair of 2008 Olympic silver medalist Dimitrij Ovtcharov which yielded a clean sample and thus provided the evidence that his positive Clenbuterol urine sample was likely from accidental ingestion.  If you didn't knowingly take Clenbuterol and recognized that your hair sample could exonerate you - wouldn't you willingly shave your entire head with the excitement of retaining your jersey and not being banned? (Ok - maybe not your entire head if you're Contador because he's got some scars up there - but at least one measely pointy sideburn. Shit, this investigation has gone on so long - Bertie could have grown an entire moustache and shaved it off to donate to the lab in his defense)

3) Regarding Contador #2:  What about the plasticizers found in Bertie's blood as reported by the NY Times in October?  The same plastic that is used to make transfusion bags was found in his blood at a level of 8 times over the limit during the 2010 Tour de France.

The UCI has now said that they will discuss the Spanish Federation's report with WADA and make a decision if they will appeal it or not - but what else could they say, especially considering the media's general sentiment on the issue of Bertie being cleared a farce.  As a spectator for the 2011 pro season, I think I'm going to be tuning my inner-cynic extra finely, unfortunately.  Cause this whole business is reading pretty damned high on the COMO CYCO Stink-O-Meter:

And if we didn't have Floyd publicly dropping trou' and pressing ham on the windshield of the UCI bus, who else would have the cajones to do it?  In some strange way, as a man with absolutely nothing else to lose, I think Floyd could be the person who could save professional cycling.

Too much snow for the mailman to come - so I'm off on a rant....

Earlier in the week, many read the Floyd Landis interview with Paul Kimmage.  Among many, many other things said during the course of the interview, Landis had some pretty pointed accusations about the UCI and its directors, past and present.  In a nut shell, there were certain suggestions that the UCI has been playing favorites within the pro-peloton for money. Two days ago, current UCI president Pat McQuaid had this to say about the interview:

"I read some it.  It got boring half-way through.  I'll read the rest on a plane some time.  I got about a third of the way in.  It was just boring, the detail he was going into about Landis his background and his philosophy about life."

"I can see about this far in front of my face....past that, nothing interests me."

I've never been the director of anything in my life, but I have a suggestion for Mr. McQuaid.  Pat, even if you think Landis is lying through his teeth about everything now, and you would no more wipe your ass with the transcript of the conversation than actually read it - fair enough.  I still see two more reasonable ways to respond to the question posed to you regarding your thoughts on it.

a) "I did read it.....with great interest as a matter of fact.  Some of the suggestions are pretty serious there and are worth looking into. I have no evidence of corruption in the UCI, but cleaning up the sport means making sure it's clean from both the bottom and the top."

b) "No, I've not read it completely yet, but I'm planning on it when I get a little time.  Regardless of Mr. Landis' history, we should take his present comments seriously.  If cleaning up the sport means we occasionally end up chasing some wild geese - so be it.  It's worth the effort."

Either way, you diffuse the seriousness of the allegations.  And you don't end up sounding like a defensive ass-hat.  Jesus, is it so difficult to not sound like a complete effing moron?  Well if you are Pat McQuaid, apparently it is rather difficult.  And the stupidity doesn't stop there....He and the UCI recently suffered a tongue-lashing by respected cycling writer Joe Lindsey in the Boulder Report regarding their refusal to listen to the very pros they are supposed to be protecting, pissing off promoters (and the president of Tour of California, Andrew Messick) and finally ticking off bike manufacturers.  The general question posed by Lindsey is, "Is the UCI losing the sport?"  Well, even if Pat has lost his common sense and the sport of cycling, he hasn't lost his ability to mack on the ladies.

(That's Mari Holden on the left, 2000 world time trial champion, and also first American woman to win three consecutive U.S. time trial championsihps (1998,1999,2000)  Watch the hands, Pat).

And speaking of the UCI and the Tour of California, does anyone else find it a little odd that in 2008, Amgen Tour of California organizer AEG stood steadfastly by the UCI rule that prohibited cyclists under doping investigations from competing (thus preventing then Rock Racing cyclists Tyler Hamilton, Oscar Sevilla and Santiago Botero from racing) but now in 2011, AEG and UCI have agreed to drop that rule for the Tour of California, when a certain Mr. Armstrong (also under investigation) may be wishing to compete? 

I'm guessing the draw in attendance (and thus revenue) in response to the appearnces of Hamilton, Sevilla and Botero far surpasses that of Armstrong - so there is no monetary incentive behind this decision - right?  Such suggestions would be downright....well "boring" for lack of a better word.

And back to Floyd. I guess, according to Pat, everything he had to say was completely bogus.  Oh wait - except now some of it is being substantiated in hard-copy form.....like Landis' reported dispute with the UCI and the money the UCI owed him when his own team (Mercury) couldn't pay him his salary in 2001. (The UCI has regulations that provide financial support to professional cyclists in the event that their team cannot.)  Apparently, the UCI didn't only withold paying Floyd - but also his teammate Chris Horner who had to "have a garage sale to pay his monthly bills and feed his children....."  You can read all those documents, released today, on the Cyclocosm website.  Past UCI president Hein Verbruggen believed that Landis and Horner's attorney, Michael Rutherford, was too aggressive in his attempt to make the UCI follow their own rules in trying to gain payment for his clients which was not justified by the small amount of the claim:

"Your aggressiveness is not at all justified by a claim of $6,666.66....I have given order to our legal department to take the tone of your approach into account when it comes to following up on your request."

(click to enlargen, or read here).

But the UCI is above reproach - right Pat?  I wonder if the UCI ever treated LA like this?  That old "Floyd has zero credibility" thing that his detractors keep spouting is certainly losing some steam.

Plausibility: One man's bribe is another man's gift

First things first today....congratulations are in order for all those that competed in the State Road Race  in Ste. Genevieve this past weekend.  With the heat and humidity that descended upon Missouri, this race must have been miserable.  Here's how some of our local kids did:

Men's Pro 1,2:

Dave Henderson - 6th place out of 31 that started.

Women's 1/2/3:

Pam Hinton - 2nd place

Men's 4/5:

Colin Mayhan - 5th place out of 65 that started.

Juniors 10-14:

Judah Bennett - 2nd place

Micah Bennett - 3rd place

Juniors 15-18:

Gideon Benett - 1st place

Jack Kohler - 3rd place

Next up...The Pedaler's Jamboree is this Saturday and Sunday.  If you've not yet registered, do not despair!  You can register onsite Saturday morning for $35.

---

Onto other things now.  In my continuing battle with Mediacom, I have refused to subscribe to the Versus channel (which I used to get for free before it was unceremoniously yanked from my channel line-up conveniently prior to Paris-Roubaix) and thus ended up watching the conclusion of the Tour of California online on my laptop over the weekend.  During which, I was surprised to hear that Floyd Landis actually made an appearance at the Tour on Saturday to visit the OUCH VIP tent.  According to one story, he faced some hecklers who shouted "Floyd you suck!" in obvious repsonse to his allegations that Lance Armstrong and others doped and may have blackmailed the anti-doping authorities.  Interestingly, in today's cycling news, UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) President Pat McQuaid acknowledged that the organization did, in fact, accept a $100,000 "donation" from Lance Armstrong in 2002 and further commented that accepting such a donation (the first and only such donation a rider has ever made to the organization) was regrettable since Armstrong was still racing at the time the "donation" was made.  Ever heard of something called "conflict of interest?"

Of course, shortly before Landis was accused of being mentally unstable by Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong, he claimed that the two had bribed the UCI to cover up a positive EPO test.  McQuaid responded to this claim during ths same press conference in which he acknolwedged that the acceptance of the "donation" was unwise:

"There is no way that the UCI or it's former president...could have accepted a bribe.  It's just not possible."

"Just not possible?"...hmmmmm.....Let's create a scale of plausibility.  A 10 on the scale would be represented by things truly not possible, say like me learning how to breathe through my anus.  And a 1 on the scale would be represented by things potentially very possible, no matter how undesirable they may be, say like Sarah Palin remaining politically active. 

Based on this, I'd have to say that the $100,000 the UCI deposited from Mr. Armstrong being bribe-like equals the plausibility and distastefullness of Sarah not going away anytime soon.....yeah...this shit is happening.....