Readers respond to the Landis decision

The Mailbag is a regular department on VeloNews.com. Write to webletters@insideinc.com. Please include your full name, hometown and state or nation. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Writers are encouraged to limit their submissions to one letter per month. The letters published should not be viewed as reflecting the opinions, policies or positions of VeloNews.com, VeloNews magazine or our parent company.

Smoking bike
Editors,

re: the photo of the Specialized chainstays.

I really wanted to make note that it was extra classy to include the cigarette butt in Delaney’s report.

For some reason, smokers don’t think that they are littering when they throw butts all over the place. I recall a California Dept. of Transportation poster a couple of years ago that estimated the daily amount of cigarette butts that drivers littered on California roads. It was staggering but not too surprising.
Reid Morris,
Alexandria, Virginia

Why talk money?
Re: The Floyd Landis decision

Editors,

Why does the panel focus any attention to the financial impact of the case? I am sure any legal case can run up its costs. Is this really relevant to the task at hand? Seems like the CAS should have been focusing on a proper response to the flawed process that they seem to continue supporting. I realize the process is getting better, but we are talking about two years ago right? I do not get the feeling that the people chosen for these panels are the most objective.
Barak Pinkston
Austin, Texas

Bad Attitude
Editors,

Whatever the merits of his case, the attitudes shown by CAS, USADA, and WADA towards Floyd Landis are an insult to the basic rights of cyclists or any other person trying to defend themselves against an accusation of wrong doing.

There was certainly some merit in the arguments of his legal team, and an absolute requirement for the judicial bodies to take into account the questionable practices of the labs and governing bodies. The charge that Floyd Landis was attempting to bankrupt WADA was ludicrous. I doubt that even Tiger Woods has that much money.
David Coffin
Glenside, Pennsylvania

A league of their own
Editors,

After witnessing the screw job that Floyd Landis has gotten, especially from the snakes at USADA, I am surprised anybody wants to make a living racing under WADA, USADA, Al-ANON or whatever “oversight” group’s rules. Who willingly wants to have their sole source of income controlled by a bunch of self important bureaucrats, many with an ax to grind?

It’s time for a no-holds barred racing league that doesn’t even pretend to drug test. What a farce it has become. Under the current system, the labs are above reproach but the riders are always guilty. What a bunch of garbage. If you win a race one too many times, the labs go back and test in order to show you are bad. And remember when John Vaughters couldn’t even take a shot for a bee sting in the Tour de Farce one year? The height of lunacy.

As for the weenies who will cry “oh drugs need to be eradicated from the peloton,” get real. The next time you reach for Benadryl because of your allergies, or have that double espresso each morning “just to get yourself going” , just look in the mirror and repeat ” I am a drug user. I need to be banished to Siberia.”

Whoever thinks bike racing is “healthy” hasn’t ever taken a week long bath in lactic acid at Superweek. That’s the ultimate in self destructive behavior, lol.
Scot Grimshaw,
Marcellus, New York

Re: Herbie the Hamster
Editor,

Bravo to Rick Crawford’s article on wasting energy in a energy-challenged world, a long-overdue statement! As a cyclist who never made the cut in the racing world, I’ve been a commuter since the teen years because, frankly, riding the bike is a whole lot more enjoyable than being stuck in an auto … an attitude which sadly puts me in the micro-minority when it comes to Americans.

Like Rick, for quite some time I’ve been amazed me that avid cyclists will drive to the start point of many a joy ride when they could be getting in many good training miles by productively pedaling somewhere they need go, like work or running errands converting that duty time into something enjoyable!

While I greatly appreciate your coverage of racing, maybe it’s time velonews.com expanded a bit to provide logistical advice to would-be bike commuters.

I’ve pretty much figured most things out for myself after all these years by trial-and-error, but advice on dealing with route planning, certain traffic situations, staging food and clothing at work, tips for keeping an eye on weather situations, and the like could be very helpful to build confidence for those starting to commute. Or would you prefer that we look elsewhere …

This year I’ve increased my commuting to a target of four days per week, 38 miles per round trip (last year achieved 3 days/week). I could use a bit more cooperation from the weather, please!

Ya’ll keep riding safely out there,
Jeff Fleming
Augusta, Michigan

Herbie can’t do it all
Editors,

I’d like to respond to Rick Crawford’s article, “Circles, Wasting energy in an energy challenged world”.

First, I think the more our tenuous energy situation is discussed, the better. However I think some articles, such as this one, can leave people with the wrong impression about the severity of the situation.

The tongue-in-cheek proposition of replacing power plants with cyclists on trainers is, however, simply misleading. While it is not advantageous to have so many people running on treadmills in A/C buildings as the author points out, replacing even a tiny fraction of a single power plant with a reasonable number of athletes is not possible. A typical 500MW coal fired power plant (the unfortunate status quo for electricity generation in the US) would require 6.67 million cyclists, assuming 75 percent efficiency from hub power to electricity, and 100W average output from the cyclist. The focus of the article should be on daily changes we can make to ease the grid of our burdens, not far out radical impossibilities that can only distract from the problem at hand.

I’m also motivated to point out the author’s proposition of using an elevator to generate electricity as impracticable. The idea is to have people walk up stairs, and then take an elevator back down, thus using some regenerative braking on the way down to produce electricity. While this system would be better than an elevator with no such regenerative capabilities, it is written to suggest that net power could be produced,and this would not be the case. You must consider how the elevator gets UP to where the people have walked to, and the fact that the elevator’s mass will be far greater than the mass of the people it will be moving down. Frictional losses alone will mean that this type of system will need to CONSUME net power. If the reasoning for having people walk up AND DOWN stairs is that half of America is overweight, I’d have nothing to disagree with.

I’m pleased that VeloNews is running an article discussing our addiction to cheap energy, but when discussing what we should do about it, let’s not replace a power plant with cyclists, let’s just drive our cars less, drive them slower when we do, and turn the lights off behind us …
Erik Turner,
Irvine, California

Herbie might have better things to do
I appreciated reading Rick Crawford’s recent article and commend his creativity and optimism. However, an extremely important factor that he fails to consider is the opportunity cost related to the extra time spent hauling groceries, getting to work, etc. that using a bike as one’s principal mode of transportation supposes. For many of us, our time — measured in terms of gas prices — is worth far more than four dollars a gallon.
Robert Constantino
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Herbie should commute
Editors,

I thoroughly enjoyed Rick Crawford’s “Circles: Wasting Energy” even though in my case he was preaching to the choir. I have raced as long as I can remember and a couple years ago I began getting more serious about commuting to work via bike. I’m not a militant commuter but I do try to ride to work at least two or three days each week.

At first I viewed those miles as “junk” miles; they didn’t count for anything. But (and this aspect should interest a coach such as Rick) I quickly realized that those miles could become quality miles.I am constantly looking for ways to maximize my training time just like any other nine-to-fiver with a family. What if my Monday and Friday commutes were ultra-easy spins? Recovery days! How about leaving a little early on Wednesday and stashing the commuter bag for an extra hour of riding on the way home? Intervals! And finally the commutes home on Tuesday and Thursday can become warmups for the group hammerfests.

Commuting to work started as a reaction to expensive gas and way for me to help our planet. While those goals are still important commuting is also now a way for me to increase the amount of quality training I can do each week while at the same time increasing the amount of quality time with my family.

Thanks for your article, Rick. There just might be something to this whole commuting thing after all.
Aaron Hubbell,
Indianapolis, Indiana

Contador did not roar
Editors,

In the current issue of several prominent American cycling magazines, there is a mention of how Alberto Contador “roar[ed]” to his Giro win (to quote your most recent cover), or “stormed” to an “audacious” victory (Bicycling). Yet he did not win a single stage, or take the race by the horns and shake it up; the only contender who truly
“stormed” to anything was Emanuelle Sella towards the KOM title and several very impressive mountain stage wins. To use such accolades when describing Contador’s win would be to improperly characterize it.

Rather than “roaring” to a GC win, he used a strong tactical sense and a very high fitness level (80 percent? Really? Please) to gain possession of the Maglia Rosa, and knowledge of his rivals’ respective strengths and weaknesses, as well as the previously mentioned tactical sense, to keep it until Milan.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that Contador was certainly a worthy winner. If he wasn’t worthy, he wouldn’t have won. But I think the phraseology used by the American cycling press to describe his accomplishment should be saved for those occasions when someone really does give a performance reminiscent of Hampsten, Pantani, or others who left a deep impression upon the race.
Alex Grossman,
Montclair, New Jersey

Ooops. We got Floyd’s mail
Dear Mr. Landis,

So give it up already: No Dope or Dope. You’re really starting to look like an idiot. Give it up and start training for a “clean” comeback. If you win clean, then we will all believe you and only then.
Joe Schliesman,
Selah, Washington

Wilcockson at bat
Editors,

Congratulations to John Wilcockson for knocking another one out of the park. His piece Inside Cycling: Will pro cycling split into two leagues? Is everything I’d expect from him and from VeloNews: thoughtful, well-researched, even-handed and fully supported by the facts.

Regardless of what happens in the current ASO/UCI imbroglio — and I don’t think anyone, including the participants knows — this is the best analysis I’ve seen on the topic.

Thanks, John, for one more well-written, stimulating piece. You’re one of the reasons I love this magazine.
Rick Vosper,
Seattle, Washington

Two leagues a bad idea
Editors,

As both a fan of cycling and of open wheel auto racing, let me just say that a split between the UCI and ASO would be bad for the sport. Why do I mention auto racing? Because it happened there.

The situation in cycling now is the same as when the Indy Racing League (IRL) was formed and split away from Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART) in the mid ’90s. The owner of the biggest race, the Indy 500, went his own way. People didn’t think that would last, but it did, and eventually became the only organization. That’s what will happen if a split occurs in cycling. In the end, teams, sponsors and fans will side with the organization that has the biggest race in the world, Le Tour de France.

Lance Armstrong didn’t win nearly the amount of races that Eddy Merckx did, but he’s considered by many, especially non-cycling fans, to be the best cyclist ever because he won the Tour seven times.

If the UCI is smart, they’ll find a way out of this situation. If not, say hello to a cycling world dominated by the ASO.
Matt Zegarski,
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania

FILED UNDER: Mailbag TAGS: Mailbag