MikeyOz said:Yep I read this bullsh&t article, which of course he has no link that you can contact him directly on.
Double standarded.... carp.
here is his email address:
[email hidden]
here is the letter I've already sent him:-)
"Dear Greg
Thanks for your unexpected interest in cycling, and thank you for taking the time to write an article on such a minor sport during the footy season. The up-coming resignation of Kevin Sheedy is clearly a major pre-occupation as there are several factual errors in your story. Perhaps the exciting footy season has left you little time to actually research sport stories in areas outside your area of expertise?
For your information, Michael Rasmussen was not disqualified by his team, he was withdrawn by his team as he had lied to his team and broken its code of Conduct. He has not been found guilty of a doping offense despite yours, mine and many other people's suspicions. Technically, Rasmussen has not missed any doping tests, an offence that would result in the immediate suspension of any athlete, rather he had failed to notify the Danish Cycling Union of his whereabouts for possible random testing on 2 occasions and failed to notify the UCI (international cycling union) of hs whereabouts on 2 further occasions. He has therefore missed the opportunity for unscheduled tests to be performed and it is possible (and desireable) that heshould have been not allowd to start the Tour as a result of this. He had been issued written warnings for this but the UCI rules stipulated a 'presumed positive' positive result after omitting 3 notifications to the UCI. Nevertheless, concern and criticism in the Danish press led them to publicly release their information. Clearly there is a need for better co-ordination of testing processes and information sharing but Rasmussen's behaviour had not triggered a ban under the current rules (although clearly they should be tightened).
Rasmussen was not leading the Tour from the start, a Swiss rider, Fabian Cancellara won the London prologue and led the race for the first week, then followed by German rider Linus Gerdeman. Michael Rasmussen only assumed the lead in the Alps during the second week of the Tour.
Professional cycling missed an opportunity following the 'Festina Affair' to clean up it's act and is now paying the price. This may require a generational change, as many team sporting directors and principals developed under the 'old system'. What is significant is that cheaters are now being caught , making this less of a Tour de Farce than any of the last 10 editions of the race. More positively, riders themselves staged a protest before the start of a stage: in previous years it would have been a protest against the imposition of testing and the loss of their rights, this year it was a protest against cheaters in their sport.
'Operation Puerto' has dicovered the name and blood samples of 200 athletes. Only 48 of these have been named , less than 48 named publically. All of those named have been cyclists and the UCI and various European cycling federations appear to be the only sporting bodies interested in pursuing the athletes involved. The process has been made difficult because at the time of the arrests in the case, doping itself was not illegal in Spain, hence doping flourished in Spain. Nobody therefore has been charged with doping, and the Spanish invetigating magistrate had closed the case, restricting access to the information, and then releasing the information to the UCU but not allowing it to be used in prosecutions of athletes, hence the ongoing delay. Those that have been able to be prosecuted are out of the sport (Basso, Ullrich, Hamilton). You may also be interested in Googling information on an ex-pro cyclist called Jesus Manzano who really began this process through his public confession several years ago. His story, whilst discredited by his peers at the time has been largely confirmed by subsequent events.
As you clearly identify, there is a bind for cycling - pursue cheats and risk public censure (exacerbated by inaccurate reporting) or keep quiet to protect the image of your sport. AFL is facing a similar dilemma as you know. Whilst you would never condemn the whole AFL for the sins of a few (or the sins of the many), and never cease to devote 90% of your winter sports coverage space to the AFL, perhaps you could re-examine this story with updated facts. A good place for you to start is our own Australian site, CyclingNews (http://www.cyclingnews.com ) or VeloNews. Both these sites have extensive coverage, and can provide you with some factual information for your next story on cycling. I look forward to reading it:-)"
here's our chance to politely educate a 'sport writer' (he only understands AFL and has often displayed his appaling lack of sports knowledge in articles on soccer and F1)
