Bad Taste

In Hollywood, it seems there’s no story better than that of a fallen hero. Less than a week after cycling champion, Lance Armstrong, admitted to using banned drugs and blood doping to win seven Tour de France titles, there’s already plans to make movies on his life.

Yes, that's right. Less than one week and talks on the movies are so advanced that a host of big names from Matt Damon, to Michael Fassbender, to Christian Bale are being mentioned to be in the running to play Armstrong.

Come on Hollywood, are you that desperate for stories that you are planning a movie on a story that’s less than one week old? In Singapore, the story of Lance Armstrong isn’t that big so maybe that’s why I don’t quite understand it but one week?

I don’t care how fascinating of a character Lance Armstrong is (I don’t find the story that fascinating), but planning a film after just a few days just leave a bad taste in my mouth. Now a movie might be made sooner or later, but it's just bad taste to be rushing them out to take advantage of the current "hot" story. Hopefully, all them bomb big-time at the box-office.

Puzzling And Ridiculous

I totally understand where Lance Armstrong is coming from. Now I’m no fan of the American who bullied his way to 7 Tour de France titles but seriously enough is enough.

Armstrong has over 500 dope tests in his career and never once has any of them came back positive but still the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is claiming that he was guilty of doping. The thing is…no one cares!

Armstrong may be a legend in the cycling world but he won the first of his titles over 10 years ago. And the man is retired! It is stupid and crazy for an anti-doping agency to be pursing a man who is no longer competing. What? Is there a lack of drug cheats currently competing in various sports nowadays?

Armstrong is right. This smells of a grudge and it seems personal. The US anti-doping agency had came out and said that it is stripping Armstrong of his Tour de France titles. That is both puzzling and ridiculous. How in the world can an “anti-doping agency” do that? Is the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency a sporting body now? I always though they are there only to catch drug cheats!

So even though I’m not a fan of him, I understand where Lance Armstrong is coming from. No matter how proud or stubborn you are, some things are just too ridiculous to fight against. If I was him, I would do the exact same thing; I’m retired and I’m going to enjoy my retirement.

Guesswork

How do you kill a sport? You do it by calling your sport’s greatest champion a “cheat” without proving that he had cheated. That’s what cycling seems to be going when they ban Alberto Contador for “cheating”.

For those of you who do not know of the case; Contador tested positive for the banned drug clenbuterol in 2010, however at an amount that is 400 times below what is needed for him to get any advantage from the drug. Contador says the drug came from contaminated meat, which is deemed possible by experts as clenbuterol is used on animals.

That did not matter to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Because their stupid rule state that any trace of banned substance is ground for a ban, they banned Contador from cycling for a year. This even though their own experts agreed that the amount found in Contador’s body was too small to have any effect. Contador successfully appealed against the case and got his ban lifted last year. However the WADA appeal on the lifting of the ban and the case got into the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In a ruling on Monday, the CAS said that the Spaniard was responsible for his failed doping test and banned him for the next 6 months.

Why was the ban changed from a year to 6 months you asked? In a case of covering their ass, the CAS said that Contador’s claim that the test result came from eating a bad steak and WADA’s claim that the positive test result came from a banned performance-enhancing blood transfusion were both “unlikely”. Instead, the CAS said that “most likely scenario” was that Contador took a contaminated food supplement.

That’s right. Contador is now banned because of a “most likely” scenario”! Wow! I didn’t know you can convict someone in court based solely on a “most likely scenario”. I always thought you need proof before you can convict someone of “cheating”. I mean what does “most likely scenario” means anyway? Does it mean the judges in the CAS…took a guess?

Sure sound that way to me!

Innocent Untill Proven Guilty

Earlier this year, 2-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contado tested positive for the anabolic agent clenbuterol which is a banned substance. The Spanish cyclist blamed the positive test on a steak he had eaten and experts believed him as the traces found in his system was about 400 times below what is needed for him to get an advantage from the clenbuterol.

Unfortunately for Contador, the doping rules state that no drugs must be found within his body. Luckily for this case, common sense prevailed. Contador appealed and got his ban overturned. However the strain on his reputation remains.

Now in a tacit admission that there is a problem with the food, the United Kingdom Anti-Doping Association has warned their athletes to avoid eating liver as it “may” cause a positive on a drug test for clenbuterol. Liver is just one of a list of food to avoid for athletes.

With the London Olympics approaching, I can understand why the United Kingdom Anti-Doping Association went for a better safe-than-sorry stance but for me, the warning by them is another admission of the overzealous approach people have towards doping.

I’m all for the "anti-doping" crusade but people need to have some common sense. The main problem is that athletes are getting ban just for eating the wrong food and taking the wrong prescription. They are getting ban despite there being no proof of them using drugs for personal benefit. For example; the case against Contador should have never got as big as it did because there is no proof he ever used drugs to enhance his performance. The traces of clenbuterol found in him were 400 times BELOW what he need to have but he was still going to get ban for it!

That is just ridiculous. Just traces of banned substance should not be reason to ban someone. There must be definitive proof of guilt. As they say, a man is innocent till proven guilty. Unfortunately for athletes, that no longer seems to be the case.

Common Sense

When Tour de France champion Alberto Contador received a one-year ban, I said that the ban was unjust as it seem more like a mistake than cheating. Contador tested positive for the banned drug clenbuterol at an amount that is 400 times below what is needed for him to get an advantage from it.

Most experts agree that he would not have gained any advantage but even then, he was ban from cycling for 1 year. Now the Spanish cycling federation has reverse the ban. Some would call this national pride as Contador is a Spaniard, but that doesn’t change the fact it was the right decision.

Now I can’t say for sure Contador didn’t take drugs (this is cycling after all) but if you are going to ban someone, you should have strong evidence that the man was cheating. This was not the case with Contador. So in the end, common sense prevailed.

Stupid Ruling

Cyclists getting a positive drugs test are so common no one with even a passing interest in the sport is surprised anymore. So when Tour de France champion Alberto Contador received a one-year ban after a positive drugs test, most would expect nothing but a shake of the head right?

Wrong! I feel the ban on Contador is unjust. Now I only have a passing interest in the sport but everything I read so far seem to indicate that he did not take the drug. Contador tested positive for the banned drug clenbuterol, however at an amount that is 400 times below what is needed for him to get an advantage from it.

Would you knowing take a performance enhancing drug if it didn’t enhance your performance? Contador says the drug came from contaminated meat, which is deemed possible by experts as clenbuterol is used on animals. The experts also agree that there was no way the trace amount found in Contador has any gave him an advantage when he won the 2010 Tour de France.

Unfortunately for Contador, the rules state that NO drugs must be found within his body so he is going to be stripped of his 2010 Tour de France and face a 2 year ban from the sport. In a comprise (due the amount found), Contador will only face a 1 year ban instead of the regular 2 years.

Now I know the cycling World Cycling's governing body (UCI) is trying to stamp out drug cheats but I can’t understand why they are banning Contandor when even their own experts agree that the man did not gain any advantage from the drugs in his system.

Contador say this was an error, the clenbuterol went into his system by accident, and all evidence so far seen to indicate he is telling the truth. So why is he facing a 1 year ban? A man is innocent till proved guilty right? Why is the UCI and and the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) trying to ban the man and take away his title when even they don’t believe he got any advantage from the clenbuterol? That is just stupid.

The 95th Tour de France

Here it is again. The media circus of the year in sports the ‘Tour de France’.

Cycling’s most prestigious race begins Saturday and riders will attempt to reach the finish line in three weeks as the new winner of the Tour. Even with doping scandals stirring around, it is still the biggest cycling event of the year.

Which is a pity as the sport is trying and going overboard to shake off its history of drugs and cheating. A whole host of the sport’s biggest names will not be in the Tour as the Tour organizers are in guilt by association mood. Last year’s winner, Alberto Contador, will not be defending his title as his team, Astana, wasn’t invited because of doping scandals it faced in the last two years. Like I said; ‘guilt by association’.

That’s not even counting the fact that Contador only won the title last year after last year’s tour leader Michael Rasmussen was forced to quit amid doping suspicions. Note that it is doping ‘suspicions’ because there was no proof at all. Rasmussen had 17 tests while on the tour, all of which were negative, but was still forced to quit due to suspicions. A Dutch court had already ordered Rasmussen’s former cycling team to pay the Dane $1 million for wrongful dismissal, and rumors are that Rasmussen’s lawyers will go after the Tour de France organizers next.

This year is the 95th edition of the Tour and organizers has said that they hope fans will focus more on the drama of racing, and less on the doping scandals. Hopefully they will take their own advice.

Witch-hunt at the Tour de France

For those people who need some background, the Tour de France is the most famous cycling race in the world. Now cycling has been under a huge cloud as doping scandal after doping scandal has hit the sport.

That however cannot match the sheer stupid actions of the race officals. Current leader of the Tour Michael Rasmussen was sensationally kicked out by his own Rabobank team. The reason; because the 33-year-old Danish climbing specialist missed four random doping controls over the past 18 months and told his team that he was in Mexico when he was in Italy.

Now I am not a cycling fan, but even I know that to be convicted of a doping offence, the cyclist need to test positive for a banned substance. The cyclist will give 2 samples, and only after both samples have tested positive, then is he convicted. Rasmussen has not tested positive for any banned substance in any test on any samples! Yes he gave incomplete and confusing explanations as to why he had failed to inform the authorities of his whereabout; Since when is that all that's needed to throw someone out of a race?

Tour de France race director Christian Prudhomme has been very critical over Rasmussen's missed tests, well he better get his lawyers ready because Rasmussen is going to take the Tour to the cleaners! If Rasmussen sued, he will win. The man has not tested positive for ANYTHING! How the hell does the Tour expect their case to stand up in court? They don't even has one sample of banned substances, much less two!

The race strict ethical policy has truly went overboard here. You cannot say people are doping when you don't even has a single sample of proof! Prudhomme said that he do not want the Tour to be dishonoured and mocked. Dude, you are doing more damage to the Tour de France than anyone. When Rasmussen sued and win (let's admit it, can you see how he can lose?), I cannot even begin to guess the damage it will do to the anti-doping efforts in sports.

Michael Rasmussen has not tested positive for any banned substances. He was kicked out because he was just suspected of doping. If that is all that's needed then all Muslims in America are terrorists and every product out of China is sub-standard. Afterall, that's what every suspect right?

Rasmussen 's lawyers are going to have a field day with the Tour. Stupid!