So Vaughters has come out and admitted to doping.

Since he has regularly stated that he is not proud of certain achievements as a rider and mentioned his “colorful past”, this should come as no surprise.

I realize his revelations might still have come as a shock to those who think Vaughters is the second coming of Christ (or the third if you count Lance), but I think that for most people, this won’t change their opinion of him. Man races bike, is not proud of some of his achievements, becomes very driven to start a team focused on clean cycling, gives several ex-dopers a second chance, etc, etc. It’s not rocket science.

The previous paragraph may surprise some people given my comments on Frei and Dekker. However, I have never questioned people’s right to a second chance, my point is only that teams equally have a right to give that chance to somebody else and normally I favor giving a first chance to a new rider over giving a second chance to an old one. Which is why, as has been reported before by Jonathan, I disagreed vehemently with him about giving Dekker a second chance.

But does this mean that Vaughters deserves a second chance, this time as a team director? Not sure “deserving” is the right word, but it’s his good right to accept what people offer him. Doug Ellis heard Vaughters’ story and offered him a chance to execute the vision for a different kind of team. And the team seems to have achieved some success in that regard.

That doesn’t make me a fan of Vaughters, but it does make me a fan of Ellis who I think is one of the bright spots in the often disappointing sport of pro cycling.

To be continued Wednesday, you can subscribe to this blog if you don’t want to miss it.

Last week I commented on why the Schleck case won’t change cycling’s anti-doping quest. First off, I fully understand why nobody is really saying anything right now, as virtually nothing is known, but also when more info comes out, that won’t change. Nor will this be an impetus to drive a wider anti-doping discussion.

And when you think about it, whether this is a case of tainted supplements, poisoning or a top rider still not learning, it would warrant a serious discussion on where cycling wants to take its anti-doping effort. The reason it won’t happen is that everybody in cycling is so intertwined that nobody can take a stance:

• Radioshack is not in a position to take the lead. Schleck is their rider and even if not, the last thing they want to talk about is doping, with Bruyneel facing a possible life-time ban over USADA’s Lance investigation.
• Riis can’t take the lead because Schleck rode for him for years and he supported him when the Schleck-Fuentes link came out.
• GreenEdge can’t take the lead because their PR man used to work for Riis and wrote the now infamous press release when the Schleck-Fuentes situation came up (you can read it here and remember, this was after Schleck denied for 3 months there was any link to Fuentes and somehow ignoring the fact that when you pay 7000 Euro and don’t get anything in return, most people would ask for their money back).
• Then there are probably a half-dozen teams who contacted Schleck in the past month after it became clear the brothers were trying to leave Radioshack, and they wouldn’t want to get into a pissing match of “well, you criticize me now  but last month you thought I was great”. So nothing will come from there.
• Additionally, commenting on Frank Schleck may annoy some of his friends at Radioshack who also want to leave (which may include some VERY desirable riders), so if you’re trying to sign any of them, you will probably stay quiet too.
• Sky won’t take the lead because they don’t want to be associated with anything doping-related right now since their excellent performances are making some people suspicious (unwarranted in my opinion, but that’s another discussion).
• Garmin-Sharp won’t take the lead as they don’t want to put focus back on the USADA five right now (the second paragraph principle, after the main news is put in the first paragraph, the second paragraph is for a related bit of info and on this topic, nobody wants to be that bit).
• The UCI has been “100% behind” Leopard before it even existed, and they have a complicated relationship with Bruyneel, so they will do their duty in this case (unlike some I have no doubt about that) but I would not expect them to use this case to really punch through with sweeping changes.
• The national Luxembourg federation and ADA, what can they be expected to do when Schleck and cycling are one and the same in their small country? (which is why we should forget about national agencies being involved in anti-doping procedures to begin with).

So as a result, this will be a case that will take its course, which may range from a warning to a two-year ban, but it won’t spur any bigger shake-up. And this sort of inter-connectedness is by no means an exception.

In case you wonder, you might think I wouldn’t have anything to say either because Schleck rode on a bike I had something to do with until 2008. But I have already spoken my mind on this, I don’t think I can add much to what I said here.

But it’s not all bad, so in one of the next posts we’ll look on the bright side. Follow it all by subscribing here.

[one day late, I didn’t have a connection yesterday]

Another Tour, another doping case. Or rather, several of them. After Di Gregorio (who looks like he is about to scream a la Edward Munch in the photo accompanying this article about the case) and the USADA five upheaval, we now have Frank Schleck.

Will it ever change? Here is the problem:

1. There is no doubt the peloton has gotten cleaner in the past five years.
2. There is equally no doubt that there are still some who have missed the memo and some new problems have been cropping up (training on far-away islands, micro-dosing, etc).
3. To solve it, the sport needs decisive action.

But who will act decisively? As I have mentioned before, the deafening silence from teams and federations is chilling. In April I said this:

Why aren’t teams speaking up about what they want in the anti-doping fight? They pay the most for the biological passport, and the program doesn’t seem to catch too many people anymore. So I would expect teams to say one of two things. Either they say “we’ve done it, we’ve solved the problem, we spent a ton of money on it and we’re proud of the result” or they say “hang on, we’re paying all this money but not catching the cheats”. Instead they say nothing, giving the impression they don’t have a vested interest in the success of the program. Or that they define success differently.

Nobody stands up to say “this is where we stand, these are the problems, these are the tough steps we’re taking to solve them, and off we go”. I fear there are three main reasons:

1. Too many people have too “colorful” a past to take charge on this issue.
2. Too many people in cycling know about too many skeletons in other people’s closets, and so everybody keeps everybody else in check through fear of mutual annihilation.
3. There are so many connections in cycling that getting on your soap box here will burn you elsewhere, even if you have nothing to hide.

This Schleck case is a perfect example. I will examine that tomorrow so if you don’t want to miss that, subscribe here!

Two comments seem to pop up regularly when it comes to the Lance case:

1. “Lance is hounded so much more than his contemporaries.”
2. “What does it matter, it’s in the past” sometimes combined with “If not Lance, then who are we giving the wins to, Ullrich?”

As for #1, I don’t think that’s really the case. Of course the Novitsky investigation involved heavy artillery, but a lot of that was not about “Lance the rider” doping. Rather it was about fraud, trafficking, suspicions of that nature. Furthermore, his contemporaries can largely be separated into two camps, those who admitted guilt fairly quickly and those who did not. Obviously the first group wasn’t hounded as much, but plenty of riders in the latter group have been hunted down with a vigor not dissimilar to what Lance is experiencing.

Take Ullrich, who has had Spanish, Swiss and German authorities (both sporting and regular) chase him for six years. Valverde was tag-teamed by an army of entities until the puzzle was complete and his suspension globally enforced. Not even the Spanish king could save him. I’m not suggesting they all get together to sing Kumbayah and start a self-help group, but there is definitely no reason for any of them to feel singled out.

As for #2, I don’t think “cleaning up” the results from the past would be a worthwhile benefit. Showing athletes that no matter how sophisticated you are, in the end the cheating will catch up with you and therefore it’s not worth it, that would be a bit more worthwhile. But I think the real benefit would have little to do with Lance, and rather would be to keep certain other individuals (mostly doctors) away from sports in the future. THAT could be the real benefit of sorting out the past.

To me, that would be worth the costs of these investigations. It seems yesterday a first step was made in this regard, with life-long bans for three doctors. Not that these bans will stop these individuals, but at least it will make it much easier to go after the athletes who continue to use their services.