In a classic case of passive aggression the UCI in their newsletter/blog defended their actions regarding the Alberto Contador/Clenbuterol case. The unnamed author of the editorial said, “Given the impressive progress that has been made in anti-doping programmes and, sadly, the ever-higher number of proceedings we have had to initiate in recent years against some of our sport’s biggest stars, it would be very interesting to know the names of these privileged riders who have enjoyed such favorable treatment.”
The author of the editorial actually starts his column called, “Consistency, Rigour and Serenity” with the statement, “According to a certain person who has a tendency to throw around certain accusations without the slightest effort to back them up, the UCI protects certain riders from the risk of failing a doping test.” It doesn’t take a whole lot of guessing to figure out the unknown UCI author is taking a swipe at our favorite bike racer/computer hacker Floyd Landis. So I gave Landis a call to see what he thought of the piece.
“Jesus,” said Landis, “that really hurt my feelings! I have no credibility? What, is that news?”
I know sarcasm and that was a healthy dose, but I pushed on. I asked him why did he think the UCI wrote this article but didn’t name you by person? Was it legal maneuvering to prevent you from suing the UCI?
“Are they afraid I’ll take ‘legal action’ action, but instead they wrote an editorial?”
Months ago Pat McQuiad stated the UCI was contemplating legal action due to the claims made by Landis. Now they’re reduced to blogging about it anonymously and not naming who the person is, “who lacks all credibility”? So I have to wonder, who has the upper hand in this situation – the UCI or Landis? The governing body has had to anonymously blog in fear of legal retribution while Landis is naming names and not surprisingly hasn’t been sued? Perhaps the reason Landis hasn’t been served papers is that he’s telling the truth and isn’t the crazed uni-bomber we might all hope he is?
So with Pat McQuiad stating that there isn’t going to be a resolution to the Contador fiasco this year was this some flaccid attempt to show that they are doing something in the fight against doping? By penning an unknown authored piece and taking a swipe at someone they won’t name but we all know who they are referring to is the way to show leadership? Is the governing body of our sport that weak that they are reduced to something that occurs in an unmoderated on-line forum?
This is my challenge to you, UCI: stand up and call people out for their crimes or shut the hell up and continue to suckle from the Armstrong teat of wealth. All I’m saying is pick a side and stick with it.
Word is coming to me that there is going to be quite the story in next Wednesday’s Sports Illustrated. I’m feeling that this isn’t going to be a happy Christmas for a few people.