posted by Patrick Herron at 10:57 AM
I'm a former (very) amateur cyclist with debilitating arthritis in my left knee. I live my dreams of cycling glory vicariously through people like Lance and Floyd.
My bias in Floyd's favor is offset by the familiarity I developed with performance-enhancing drugs while in high school; I *know* the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs is far more prevalent than is being reported. Later in life I had a good friend who was advised by his college head coach that if he wanted to make the NFL he should take steroids. He did take steroids, and he did make the NFL. That coach is now a division I coacn at a big sports program. If Floyd used, it wouldn't be shocking. Cycling has been dirty for over two decades.
Having said that, I have serious and well-founded doubts that organization ssuch as the WADA or UCI can be effective at making determinations about drug use, at least not without checks and balances and good independent oversight.
My understanding of the underlying issues goes beyond the mere anecdotal. I've worked professionally as a researcher in gene toxicology at the NIEHS and later helped start two organizations in the US federal government that evaluate governmental test method standards both in the US and internationally. Let's just say I'm accustomed the the bureaucratic influences involved in setting standards like the ones used for detecting drug use in pro athletes. I have been first-hand witness to a phenomenon worse than groupthink: political machinations, dictated by greed, deliberately undermining the quality of well-researched test standards.
In December 2006 I completed graduate school. I studied the adoption of innovations by pharmaceutical companies for my master's thesis. My academic study focused on biomedical informatics: consumer health, evidence-based medicine, clinical and biotech data mining, and biomedical text mining. I took the Summer of 2006 off from school, working as an enterprise architect responsible for the reorganization of the SAS corporate support site, optimizing findability for the 4 million or so SAS users. I performed a great deal of language use analysis geared towards making sense out of large collections of expert domain documents, the domain of expertise in this case being statistical analysis.
I am currently seeking employment and have recently enjoyed some good interviews. I haven't found the right match yet. I want to get it right.
In my spare time I write poetry. I've written five books to date but have stopped writing for the moment. The second book of mine to be published will be released this fall by Effing Press. The forthcoming book, written by my puppet Lester, has enjoyed a cult status among poets for years.
9 Comments:
There is lots of anti-Pound sentiment on the web. Here are two more examples for your readers:
Dick Pound Must Go (Transition Game)
IOC President Criticizes Doping Authorities in Armstrong Case (Outside the Whale) (work back from here to see more)
Also here is a more recent NYT article
Pound's public behaviour is (IMO) clearly inappropriate, and a topic that should be more openly discussed. However, this issue is quite far removed from the question of Floyd Landis' guilt or innocence. If Pound is part of some grand conspiracy against Landis, why him, and why now?
mtnwing,
Pound has nothing to do with the UCI. He is head of WADA (World Anti Doping Agency).
Actually I think Dick Pound's poorm example so far is right at the heart of why there's so much speculation around the whole Landis affair. There can be very little doubt that this man has a personal agenda and perhaps a chip on his shoulder that extends way beyond any agenda as the face of WADA. Unfortunately we have to face some facts. On professional cycling in general, he's right. (You have no idea how hard it is for me to find any reason to side with this guy!) I also seriously doubt he'll be thrown out as the WADA chief anytime soon. I sent this open letter which I hope explains my sentiments, concerns and hopes on the matter.
Mr. Pound,
I too believe that cycling should be clean and that is the sport I want to see but I do have concerns about your organisations ability to deliver on this when you consistently seem unable to publicly acknowledge any possible fault or issues within your own organisation. I do believe that the vast majority of the time WADA does get it right but no organisation and no science which relies on human beings is perfect. Therefore it is within reason that one of the labs or an individual could a) make a mistake or b) have another agenda. Unlikely? Yes Impossible? No.
You consistently disregard any action which questions you personally or your organisation. I like your recent comparison to an alcoholic and the admission is that first we have to acknowledge the problem. While I agree that there certainly is a problem in cycling, I'm not convinced that the solution lies in the hands of someone or something completely unprepared to accept any scrutiny or constructive critisism. If the science speaks for itself as you would often suggest, why do you need to start publicly condemning atheletes before there cases have been proven in a court of law. The more personal your attacks, the more I start questioning your ethics and credibility. It seems to me that, as a lawyer yourself, you're somewhat of a traitor to your own profession. Acknowledging that there is a slight possibility that your science could destroy the career of an innocent man would be a good first step on your 'road to recovery'.
I do understand your system of beliefs in this matter but this isn't completely your battle. You also know that all of the science around drug testing is continually evolving. That alone makes it prone to the occasional possible mistake. Perhaps you could do something to help these sports that you care about so much and ask people to hold off judgement until all the facts, evidence and theories have been exhausted in a court of law. I'd also suggest you consider an 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' approach to all drug testing.
Many people have suggested I have to be naive to presume that Floyd Landis might be innocent. Unfortunately I'm not even that confident that the current system (which presumes guilt) will ever be enough to convince me.
I know I'd have to be insane to presume that Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Roberto Heras, Tyler Hamilton and all those others over the past two years are innocent as well.
Prove me wrong. Stop being the mouth of WADA and start being the strong, silent partner of cycling. Clean up the sport I love. Get processes in place that are so beyond reprisal that an athelete can truly be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. Make sure you don't destroy innocent men in the process. You will have my sincerest gratitude.
Sincerely,
James Blackstock
Again I agree that Pound's behaviour is inappropriate for somebody in his position.
However, I don't see how you can say he has it in personally for Floyd, unless you only just now started paying attention. The guy has it in for everybody. Athletics, soccer, cycling, triathlon, swimming ... anybody who is famous enough to get Pound's name in the paper, he'll accuse and convict them -- with or without an actual positive test (see Ullrich, Jan, or Jones, Marion).
arborjimb wrote: It's a high stakes poker game.
In a poker game, Landis would stand some chance of actually winning. WADA holds all of the cards in this case. Landis now has to prove, at the very least, incompetence on the part of the lab, and prove that the incompetence caused his positive tests. It won't be enough to present historical evidence that they've screwed up other cases.
The USADA will be only too happy to rule for a ban and let Landis appeal to the CAS; it's almost a certainty.
Having this trial open to the public is the best news I've heard in ages. While Dick Poung and even Pat McQuaid may 'think' they have the best interest of this sport at heart, I suspect that neither of them is excited at all about their organisations getting publicly scrutinised in an open court. It might be just the kind of thing that makes them think twice about their processes. I really like the fact that Pound's big mouth is the cited reason for requesting an open trial!
Landis Father-in-Law Commits Suicide
ANOTHER THOUGHT: Just read another item that suggested another agenda possibility in a possible conspiracy to strip a TdF winner of his yellow jersey. The UCI Pro Tour. The Pro Tour has been in tatters since the UCI cannot get agreement with the Big Three. Think about it for a second: Roberto Heras drug tested and stripped of his Vuelta title. Basso wins the Giro and suddenly his name crops up in Operacion Puerto. Now the Tour winner gets a positive dope test. It's depressing news but one could also argue that it could actually serve to strengthen the UCI's political position. I may be talking out of my ass on this one....
Dick Pound is a person and a verb
Post a Comment
<< Home