check it man: http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13062.0.html

odds that contador doped and has been caught: 5:1
odds that contador doped and has not been caught: 7:6

odds that contador has been implicated in wrong doing: 2.5:1
odds that contador has not been implicated in wrong doing: off

odds that if implicated contador will relinquish his tdf victory: 9:1
odds that if implicated contador will retire from cycling: 15:1
odds that if implicated contador will launch a legal defense: 3:2

over under on months of appeal process (+15 5:2, <=15 2:1) note: must appeal
over under on number of press conferences in next 6 months (+4 3:2, <=4 3:1)

parlays may be accepted. inquire immediately.
-sg

the post has an article today that is rather lacking in perspective.  the shrill and blaring headline trumpets that 42% of seniors are proficient in economics.  but the spin starts int he fourth paragraph:

"While there is clear room for improvement, the results are not discouraging," said Darvin M. Winick, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees policy for the NAEP tests, in a statement before a news conference in Washington this morning. "Given the number of students who finish high school with a limited vocabulary, not reading well, and weak in math, the results may be as good as or better than we should expect."

ridiculous.  the soft pedaling of the results is simply weak.  to say that abyssmal performance is okay given how dumb all the students are is so ridiculously elitist and indiciative of the way the bourgeoisie view the world.  these types of stereotypes are unforgivable.  i wonder if the guy had to put down his cognac and cigar and straighten his bow tie before offering this farcical interpretation.

but the real embaressment is the mis-direction involved in the conclusions drawn.  yes people, there is a reason that our young scholars who get degrees in economics are awarded a bachelors of arts rather than a bachelors of science.  the fact that our young scholars did not provide the anticipated answer is not necessarily proof that they don't understand the world around them.  is itnot also possible thta understand the world quite well and can provide answers that so not fit well with the expectations of the mordern, urbane mandarins who are writing the questions?

40 percent determined why industries can successfully lobby for tariff protection

60% likely indicated the truth that ike eisenhower rather bluntly told the nation on January 17th, 1961.  corporations get what they want.  they are run by mordern day plutocrats, answerable to virtually no one.  even the law recognizes a ridiculous amount of rights on their behalf.  the fact that we even discuss protecting these entites is actually quite amazing.  they feed at the public trough to an extent never before seen, in a symbiotic relationship with legislative leaders.  why do corporation get pretty much everything they want?  because there is no powerful force in our current society or government that opposes them; effectively providing a check on their power or or a check on the flow of funds to their coffers. 

32 percent identified how investment in education can impact economic growth;

the point of education is not economic growth but social change.  however, there is also a relationship between social change and economic growth.  this is the quesitons that needs to be answered.  all the kids know that come the revolution, economic groth will not be a goal that we seek to maximize.  it pleases me that 68% of students tested did not conflate these two things automatically.

11% analyzed how a change in the unemployment rate affects income, spending, and production.

many probably could have written eloquent essays on how bicycle ownership and safe avenues for riding and commuting activity affect happiness, and how this happiness affects production.  but the byzantine econometric relationships implied, which dismiss critical aspects as externalities, cannot be succinctly explained given the factors offered for discussion.  without the social force of revolution and the complex andminfold dynamics of cycling, discussions of production can be superficial at best.

just below the headline, the paper echoes: " 'results are not discouraging' says official ".  idiots.  of course the results are discouraging.  for them.  the results are only discouraging to one who's greatest aspiraiton in life is to attend the university of chicago school of economics, and then make dumptruck loads of money of the backs of the serfs you have toil under the ponderous yoke of the global economy.  there is a special circle of the inferno for you all.

this is getting my dander up....

-sg

Hats off to washcycle for awarding Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) as the "tool of the month."  More like BONEHEAD OF THE MONTH!  Why?  Check it out the video .

Yep, that's right, on the floor of the US House of Representatives, Rep. Bonehead (er, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-NC, 202-225-2576) has decided to use the bicycle as a tool in his his partisan game.  Here it is straight from the Congressional Record:

A major component of the Democrats' energy legislation and the Democrats' answer to our energy crisis is, hold on, wait one minute, wait one minute, it is promoting the use of the bicycle. Oh, I cannot make this stuff up. Yes, the American people have heard this. Their answer to our fuel crisis, the crisis at the pumps, is: Ride a bike.

Democrats believe that using taxpayer funds in this bill to the tune of $1 million a year should be devoted to the principle of: ``Save energy, ride a bike.'' Some might argue that depending on bicycles to solve our energy crisis is naive, perhaps ridiculous. Some might even say Congress should use this energy legislation to create new energy, bring new nuclear power plants on line, use clean coal technology, energy exploration, but no, no. They want to tell the American people, stop driving, ride a bike. This is absolutely amazing.

Apparently, the Democrats believe that the miracle on two wheels that we know as a bicycle will end our dependence on foreign oil. I cannot make this stuff up. It is absolutely amazing.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the Democrats, promoting 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. If you don't like it, ride a bike. If you don't like the price at the pumps, ride a bike.

Stay tuned for the next big idea for the Democrats: Improving energy efficiency by the horse and buggy.

The simple-minded McHenry represents a district that's relatively rural in nature, so I suppose it's easier for him to overlook the value of the bicycle, especially in urban areas, where alternative transportation solutions make a great deal of sense.  Of course, a congressman is supposed to think like a leader, and consider how legislation might make sense beyond the narrow reaches of their own mind and congressional district, but that concept seems to escape simpletons such as McHenry.

Comrades, I give you Congressman Patrick McHenry:  Bonehead of the Month.

- posted by Chris

.

more proof that modern sports, especially in america, are nothing but business.  listen to this interview and then try to picture kevin dillard, curtis, fj hughes and others wearing saab and international motors bibs to cover mabra bar events.  too funny (and sad) to contemplate.  thanks to mikhail for tipping me off this.  and on a related note, would anyone care to take a stab at why unionization in american pro sports is flourishing while unionization nationwide is at a low-water mark?  that latter topic probably deserves it's own post as it has some unusual dynamics.  

i laughed out loud when i read jay's triumphant coda to this particular thread.  first off, a commendation to jay.  the last two lines of that email are pure art, and show that he loved his bike and deserves it back.  it's also a painfully powerful glimpse into how relatively unimportant the theft of bicycles is to the relatively few people who have some power to do something about it.  i'm not singling out police or detectives, as they likely come in each morning to a huge folder of stolen merchandise claims.  i would defy anyone to work there for a month and not become pathologically cynical to the lamentations of the disenfranchised.  it's nice to help when you can but what do you seriously think the recovery rate is?  i'm more frustrated that such a significant black market exists.  it's obviously not some sort of centralized warehouse, the size of your average ikea, holding bikes for a few months until they fan front them fairly easily.  rather, it's lots of little transactions.  bikes aren't hard to fence.  until something happens that makes bikes hard to fence, you'll see them stolen.  serious question: would laws denying pawnshops the right to buy and sell bikes reduce the rate of theft of bikes? is anyone aware of such laws that have been put into practice?  has anyone contracted the bicycle coordinators in dc, arlington, alexandria, fairfax or mont.co. to see if they have any ideas about what to do.  that would seem to fall under their jurisdiction as well...

i am most of the way done with two more posts on the intersection of sports, doping, money and society.  i'll be rolling them out shortly.  I need to validate one thing in one post and look up a something for the other.  in the meantime, if anyone is sufficiently interested, i will welcome a guest post from someone on the topic(s) if the text is emailed to me (gimme_pravda_now@racingunion.org) and has a valid email address to denote authorship.

-sg

racing union blog policy change: bpc-64-s5dft-000-08022007-03.  revision to official blog policy as sanctioned by the ministry of outreach under the wise and benevolent leadership of the supreme revolutionary council for propogation of message.  this document is hereby incorporated into existing blog policies and is to be identified as version 4.3.5.  this supercedes all documents in the 4.3 series which address this topic.

racing union, leaders of the glorious cause that is the revolution in cycling and the social order, bold vanguard in the jihad against the hated four-wheeled hegemon, early adopter of the systeme international d'unites, proud member of the reality-based community, and fiercely protective of the effective and proper use of logic, announces a formal change to our posting policies.  blog posts and associated comments are now forbidden from using the phrase "n-dimensional" in a general context to refer to a vector space which cannot be described in euclidian or simple three-dimensional terms.  blog posts, and all submissions from commenters, including but not limited to correspondence with the authors through internal union messaging systems, or external-standard-public-access-non-revolutionary systems, must from this point on, reference the object or abstraction as a "hilbert space".  

the hilbert space is named in honour of doctor and professor david hilbert, born january 23, 1862, königsberg, east prussia; died february 14, 1943, göttingen, germany.  this policy is to take effect immediately.  for actionable purposes, date of time of implementaiton will be date and time of posting as described in section 1.4.5 (a)(3) of the existing blog post guidelines.  concurrence on the material in this revision was achieved on day 583 of the revolution: full records available within the racing union archives as defined by union protocols laid out in separate documents.

i'm briefly switching gears here this morning.  since the revolution we keep yabbering about concerns both cycling _and_ the social order, issues concerning the social order are fair game.  i have been a bit distraught recently that some of our riders have been hearing stuff.  you know, just warming up before a race or what not, they ride by people and hear something like the following...

rider 1: "racing union, what's that..."

rider 2: "those are the communists"

rider 1: "the what?"

rider 2: "i don't know, the cycling communists or something like that..."

i don't expect a nuanced appreciation from everyone but i do want to be clear about a few things.  first, i don't think anyone on the team is an actual communist, in the literal sense of being a card-carrying member of the communist party.  second, it would be very difficult to characterize the individuals on the team as having any sort of common ideology.  sure, there are a few people who have unconventional political beliefs, relative to current american standards and norms, but the racing union does not at this time dictate how people should think and act.  people, in the near term, are free to go where they like, talk to whomever they choose and pursue such interests as they find appropriate.  as long as they are careful about what they say. 

so as you can see, we're all actually just a bunch of fun guys (and a gal) who like to ride bikes.  nothing to see here, nothing to worry about.  next time you see a racing union jersey, simply introduce yourself and you'll find that we can all get along.  we're nothing to be afraid of.  but if you're the kind of person who is looking for something to be afraid of, well, we've got you covered, and we're off to the second point of this morning's post. 

i'm sure that as educated and interested members of the republic, you all spat out your coffee this morning while reading this.  the short version is that a major us corporation has been funding death squads in columbia.  and that they continued to do this after their corporate counsel told them it was illegal.  though not shocking to anyone who was awake in the 1980's, this is pretty disturbing.  and though you'd think that such a blunt fact would be a great hook for a story, i experienced growing frustration as i read paragraph after paragraph that basically reduced this down to an issue of high level bureaucratic infighting between oligarchic corporate types in private industry and oligarchic corporate types who now control government.  that whole funding the death squads thing appears to be of considerably less interest and importantance than an extended essay on washington dc kremlinology.  the washington post can normally be counted on to view everything through this type of conceptual filter, but you know, death squads, well that's gotta be important too.  right?  it's not really until you get to the fourth paragraph form the end that you get some real context:

An Organization of American States report in 2003 said that Chiquita participated in smuggling thousands of arms for paramilitaries into the Northern Uraba region, using docks operated by the company to unload thousands of Central American assault rifles and ammunition

who knew that the banana trade was so rough?  actually, pretty much anyone who is paying attention because it's painfully well documented.  we could go on about the nexus between this and popular culture or politics or ngo's or business.  but the point i would like to stress is a bit different.  whatever you think about noam chompsky, he has made a very fair point over and over again: that you can't judge socialist- and communist-type governments in centeal and south america by their performance becuase they were so actively undermined by the united states**.  chompsky actually makes it even more explicit, asking non-rhetorically if the westernized carribean islands such as haiti and the dominican republic are better off than cuba.  but putting that aside, one must acknowledge that when government and corporate and social pressure are all being focused on a bogeyman, say communism, of course it won't flourish.  and of course there will be a residual social stigma associated with that as a result of the best efforts of people like senator mccarthy.

which brings us full circle to what i wrote at the beginning of the post: people referring to unionistas as commies.  americans still use the title "communist" as a pejorative.  and they do so unthinkingly.  i think that this needs to end, but i'm not hopeful when i read post articles liek the one that's there today.  we're all coming to see the hypocrisy that's involved in doping in sport and our attitudes towards it.  we need to do a bit of navel gazing on our political hypocrisy as well.

-sg

**brief aside to the "patriots" who lurk in the comments: the same unfortunate dynamic is playing out in iraq right now.  "freedom"(c)(r)(tm) is not taking hold because the place is a chaotic maelstrom of death squads.  anyone who says that the iraqis are incapable of understanding or receiving the gift of freedom is either lying on purpose or delusional.  you cannot logically advocate that the people there should be entitled to self-govern and self-determine their future,and that this requires our total support, but that the people in central and south america should not be entitled to the same privledges and support.  i generally refer to this as maliki-chavez paradox.  and it's so obviously self-evident that i will take no mail on this topic.

 

Commendations to comrade scott for posting about testing and the pitfalls, fallacies and assumptions in correctly determining illegal drug use. However I believe sending the samples to different labs would be an improvement over the current regime, but not because it would necessarily produce more accurate results (i.e., fewer false negatives or false positives). Rather, splitting the samples between facilities might solve other problems and answer other questions:

1. Why is it that the press seems to get wind of A sample test results well before the protocol dictates? How is it that the test results from the LNDD are matched to the athlete control numbers and reported by L'Equipe so quickly?
2. How can a B sample test be considered reliable if the testers already know the desired outcome? These tests are supposed to be double-blind, are they not?
3. Why is it so easy for an accused rider to claim "error" or "conspiracy"?

I think these questions at least could be addressed by sending the samples to separate labs, accredited by different governing bodies. Test the samples simultaneously and report the results at the same time. Known positive samples should be intermixed and sent along to the labs as well, and perhaps even not all of the samples taken should go, for example: 10 riders sampled, 11 samples go to be tested, 2 are dummies (other 9 selected at random from the 10 collected samples), 1 of the 2 dummies is a known positive. This could be "blinded" further by randomly changing the number of dummies and number of known positives in the dummies.

It ought to be a pretty rare occurrence for all of the test results between the labs not to match. (If it's common, there are other issues.) Yes, there will continue to be false results, but the likelihood of undetected error due to human intervention or equipment problems should be reduced. I won't believe you if you tell me the results are never affected by testing error. And having both samples tested at the same lab in succession after the first results are known makes no sense; this is not double-blind testing. The lab and the whole of professional cycling have a vested interest (more on that in another post) in the second test matching the first. With this kind of procedure in place, it will be much more difficult for a rider to claim that there was a problem with the test itself. It will also be more difficult for labs to collude with the press to leak results.

-Michael

introducing a new feature which will investigate the many dynamics of a changing landscape for doping in sports.  topics will include expected subjects such as detection methods and athlete behaviours.  however, we will take in a wider view of topics as well, such as the larger societal impact, media and marketing responses to doping and the science of detection.

the topic i am personally most interested in is the explicit and more subtle or implicit goals behind testing for drugs, and what it means to have clean sports.  however, to kick it off i want to look at a common misconception with regards to testing for drugs.  several of us have been batting around a number of topics with regards to doping and the one i hear, that rears up all too often, is that samples should be sent to different labs, or split and saved so that additional independent confirmations can be made later.  it's important to think more carefully about whether this idea is a good one or not.  this proposed solution pre-supposes that the problem with catching dopers is that the lab is not doing a sufficiently rigorous or thorough job.  this is very likely not the case.  to understand why, one needs to look at the possible outcomes from a doping detection regime.

this is an issue with two dimension: actual state and test result.  the first dimension is the athlete's actual state or behaviour.  you have an athlete.  there are two mutually exclusive possibilities: athelete doped (we'll call this one (1)) or athlete not doped (we'll call this zero (0)).  like schroedingers cat, you know nothing about the state of doping until you intervene by testing.  the second dimension is the test for doping.  as before, there are two outcomes: test revealed presence of compound associated with doping (we'll call this one (1)) or test did not reveal presence of compound associated with doping (we'll call this one (0)).

you can obviously never get an answer to the first dimension directly without cooperation.  the second dimension, however, you control completely.  and this is what makes it both interesting and frustrating, because this is the dimension where the breakdown occurs.  the breakdown is not in the process itself but in the inferences you try to draw from it.

• possible outcome 1: athlete dopes, tests positive.  correct positive identification
• possible outcome 2: athlete dopes, does not test positive.  false negative
• possible outcome 3: athlete does not dope, tests positive.  false positive
• possible outcome 4: athlete does not dope, does not test positive.  correct negative identification

it's helpful to understand what it means to produce a false positive and a false negative.  false positives, where a rider is determined to have doped without having done so, can only arise during testing.  the rider cannot contribute to the cause of a false positive.  a false positive can result from bad handling (contamination or poor care of sample) or from poor analysis that can arise because of several reasons including, but not restricted to, operator error of machinery, bad calibration or bad standards, or machinery malfunction.  false negatives on the other hand can arise for a variety of reasons. 

1. avoidance: many performance enhancing products are only in the body (system) for a few days so cannot be detected afterwards.  if an athlete takes the drug outside a window when testing will occur, they have the effect but will not show the evidence.  this is well documented and well understood.  cycling has an extensive system of out of competition tests and the real meat of the current doping scandal is how lax the international sanctioning body has been about athletes who thwart this system of out of competition checks.  special bonus for cycling fans: anyone who hasn’t read the section of willy voet’s book on how cyclists delivered “clean” urine samples after races under close scrutiny needs to see my prior post on qualifications for discussing these topics.
2. masking agents: there is well established chemistry that will prevent sure recognition of doping compounds.  ambiguous test results favor the athlete (tie goes to the runner) so masking can be an effective strategy.  unless you give yourself away.  garzelli, a very good cyclist was almost dumped during the giro several years back for having vast amounts of probenecid in his system.  http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2002/may02/may20news  the link is almost comical in indicating no real benefit in either performance or masking.  classic euro old school flavor in that one. 
3. undetectable compounds.  mostly because they are not known.  think how many molecules are in your blood or urine.  they can only identify things they are looking for.  if they don’t know athletes are taking it, they can’t look for it.  if they can’t look for it, they can’t find it.  and if they can’t find it, the athlete is not guilty.  qed. 
4. maintenance of the sample.  one of hamilton’s samples degraded to the point where it could not be tested due to bacterial contamination.  again, tie goes to the runner.  under the current regime, you are innocent until proven guilty.  as it should be.  but this happens more often that the labs would like to admit.  because it should never happen.  it’s a custodial and stewardship issue.
5. limits of detection.  this is a complicated issue.  the labs are able to detect compounds at levels much smaller than the limits that are published.  the limits are there in part because they represent what would be a strictly performance enhancing level of the compound (i.e. caffeine, all riders drink coffee but no one ever tests out for that) and in part based on levels of detection.  the compounds may be there but not in sufficient amounts to pass a threshold to call it a positive test.

this implicit assumption described above is that there is a sufficient amount of information for correctly classifying the cases present.  it represents a problem in understanding what type i and type ii errors are really caused by and how they are identified.  it's like sleight of hand.  you could impose twice the amount of testing on the existing samples, four times, ten times, and in spite of all that extra work, you'd be no more certain about anything other than the variation in laboratory analysis.  and yet changes in the frequency of outcome 1 relative to outcome 2 would be ascribed to this testing.  but it's not real.  the factors that are likely causing outcome 2 cannot be identified by refinements in the way existing samples are tested.  short of testing every 2-3 days for epo, there is no way to be positive that your sampling regime is capturing it's presence.  the mistake here is in the collection regime, not the analysis regime.

the interesting but unintended effect of subscribing to the more analysis of existing samples approach is that it further obscures the important factors contributing to false negatives.  we have a social idea that more testing makes one more confident, but it’s an illusion.  above is only a partial list of the reasons why false negatives might occur and cross lab testing, or additional sample splitting doesn’t address any of them.  it’s a classic case of addressing the symptom and not the cause.  there’s no good evidence right now that the labs are the problem so why would people spend a lot of time and money addressing possible inter-laboratory variation in analysis?  this is the easiest to quantify and the laboratory accreditation process addresses it directly.

assuming that more testing of the current samples would provide better results is not correct.  if this was true, and easy to demonstrate, no one would support the current testing regime.  it's expensive and a hell of a lot of work and people's livelihoods are on the line.  simple statistical power analysis would be enough to show that the protocol was inadequate.  you need to know that your detection regime is robust before you start.  and the thing is that the detection regime is fine.  in other words, more testing, in statistical or probability terms, won't tell you anything you don't know already.  hence, one can expect negligible change for the better in the prevalence of type i and type ii errors based solely on increased attention to this factor.
add to all these factors, that adjudication of this process takes place in what is, obviously, a legal context.  as a result, all protocols must be followed exactly and spelled out explicitly.  one mistake in a remarkably long chain of administrative minutiae is effectively a get out of jail free card.  in addition, pitting labs against each other if they produce different test results will put any scientific credibility out the window.  labratories will be reduced to the humiliating status of dueling subject experts in a trial.

assuming that we desire "clean" sports, and this is a discussion which is emerging, we need to focus on the sources of the false negatives.

(ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101997.html )

- posted by scott

 

after i say some hurtful things about people jumping on the kick-cycling-while-it's-down bandwagon and all bein' like knowin' about the dopin' and the stuff, scott c calls me out quite eloquently...

A column from the US sports press, but relegated to ESPN.com's Page 2
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070731&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

Also, I've noticed that the use of capital letters has crept into your emails recently. You must be vigilant and true to your cause.

the tour winds down.  done.  discussion lingers.  i'll bring up a few things over the next few days with regards to the '07 tour.  but for now, i simply wish to reproduce the wisest thing i have seen in years of observing cycling.  from our resident professor of cyclingology, the esteemed dr. von doctorstein:

...suddenly the people i know who wouldn't say two words about the tour have this uncanny knowledge of and desire to discuss the perceived "scandal". well, fuck off all of you. just go back to not caring about my sport. i'd much prefer it that way. remember, i don't care about your sports either so it's only fair, right...?

got that?  good.  all you espn-zone types quaffing $1.50 miller lites and batting around bits of knowledge about drugs in cycling can hit the bricks, take it on the arches.  water cooler types who want to pick your brain about it ("hey, you race bikes like lance right?  are they all doing it?  I can't imagine how hard that must be...") never stop to wonder why major league baseball and football only recently started testing and don't find the size and speed of football players to be slightest bit thought provoking. 

it's not so much hypocrisy as obliviousness.  i had a coworker for years who had a degree in philosophy.  she had what i thought was a great policy: she never debated anyone.  it wasn't because she didn't want to, but because she felt they didn't do it right.  philosophy is about constructing arguments.  arguments are not always right, but they represent a formal approach to thinking and communicating.  She felt like people were sloppy and half-assed about constructing arguments and it was more frustrating than productive.  she felt as though itwasnt'worth engaging with someone who wasn't willing to put any real time in with the basics.

when you think of someone like michael johnson or jackie joyner kersey, you know they were runners.  but they studied running.  In your foot stroke, how much should you push with the quads versus pulling with the hams and glutes?  what is a good leg angle to have before beginning the catchup?  How do you change your posture as you move down the track to maximize speed and power?  In the same way these athletes studied running, philosophers study how to think and construct arguments.  they know a lot about the history of thought, they have a solid foundation in different approaches, and critically assess all aspects of the process.  you can'tjust wander in off the streets and engage with these people.  and this is the very point the good doctor was making above.  you can't have anything approaching a rewarding discussion of drugs in cycling with someone, the extent of whose knowledge appears to be a 500 word article on espn.com or a 10 minute summary by al trautwig on abc sports.  the npr interviews with some velonews writer earlier this week were particularly egregious.  the washington post provided more factual information than that guy did, and that's saying something. 

- - - posted by scott

a few amusing odds and ends this fine morning.  i remind our loyal readers that i forecast things for a living, and though i'm not infallible, it's how i put bread on the table, and based on my girth, i'm pretty damn good at it.  so listen up!

prediction number 1: john edwards will never be president.  serious presidential candidates don't ride bikes.  witness the kerry campaign's stunning mediocrity in '04 that was way too bike focused and not enough win_the_%#$*ing_election election focused.  they show up in hybrids and jawbone endlessly about how committed they are to green alternatives and then they go somewhere else and talk about something else.  haven't the mountain biking excursions on the texas ranch ruined the nexus of cycling and politics?  we need a timeout.  note: the union makes a wide and deep exception for fenty: mr. mayor is the real deal.  he takes his pulls at hains and doesn't sit on and delegate.  he leads by example.  love and respect to the man on that count.  bonus side prediction: re-election for him with 82% of the vote.

prediction number 2: tom boonen will not be busted for drug use this year.  now note the careful use of language.  not sayin' he didn't take drugs.  just sayin' you don't talk shit like this ("Vino is a dirty cheat who they ought to suspend for his lifetime," Boonen told HLN.be. "He is causing immense damage to everyone. There are so many teams in search of a new sponsor. This case will not make it easier.")  about your peers unless you are totally certain you won't get busted.  unless you are a world class idiot with a blinding ego.  this is profesisonal sports so anything is possible.  i'd put the not busted at a 70-75% favorite and the world class idiot with a blinding ego collapse at 8:1.  that gravy train is too thick and delicious to risk ruining over an off the cuff remark delivered to a journalist from your massage table.

prediciton number 3: the economics of pro cycling are not going to change, they have changed.  from the same interview with boonen in the link above, here he is throwing vino under a bus because his own financial future is at stake: "I am a victim of people such as Vinokourov, because I am in the same circus they are. I can only hope that I will be believed when I say that I don't have anything to do with doping. I underwent five controls before the Tour: four unannounced controls and once after the Belgian championship."  translation: vino is a known badness, other cyclists may be bad but we're not sure, but i need to work and you're screwing with my livelihood.  this may seem like a vague prediciton but it lays out a general change in tone.  now, when a single rider tests positive, the whole team withdraws.  aso and societie du tour de france pressure uci as opposed ot the other way around.  fans know the deal and demand removal of the tainted and strongly suspected.  look for scarcer sponsorship, more amateur teams in high profile races, follow through on dropping cycling from olympics, restructuring of sponsorships, etc.  and check this headline: Predictor-Lotto to sue Vino and Astana.  presumably for screwing up the gravy train alluded to above.  yes, a sea change is here.

prediciton number 4: comrade peanut emerges as the bright and energetic leader of the racing union, deposing dear leader in a bloodless coup of charisma.  tender vittles for all who struggle and strive on two wheels.  viva comrade peanut!  rally to the banner!

-posted by scott

Over on Gwadzilla (http://gwadzilla.blogspot.com), my friend Joel makes an interesting comparison: that, because of his doping, Michael Rasmussen is sort of like Keith Richards, but not (different kind of dope, you see...).  

I wonder what Keef thinks about all this...

    

At any rate, here's what Comrade Peanut thinks:

But wait, there's more:  Someone else in the pro peloton has something in common with Keith Richards.  Alexandre Vinokourov and Keith Richards have both had blood transfusions (again, a different kind of dope, but still...).

 

                    

 

Comrade Peanut will now change the channel.

 

---posted by josh