Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC
Quote | Reply
In this interview with Lava:

http://lavamagazine.com/...nsion/#ixzz1xyx6Sa6H

Andrew Messick appears to be holding the company line.

The article mentions a meeting of WTC's board of directors....who is on the board?

Certainly solid representation from Providence Equity. Slowman, are you privy to the structure of the board and where the majority of voting shares are. I'd guess they are more or less all in the hands of the Providence folks.

Andrew mentions that all the folks at WTC were looking forward to seeing Lance race, but they are sticking to their rules, which are fine. But it appears that they are being even more stringent than their rules require them to be. Lance is not under investigation YET. He could have raced IM France as a bare minimum.

It is also a bit of a coincidence that Lance was able to start his Kona qual run when the feds dropped their case against him and he was immediately barred by WTC as soon as USADA released their letter. My view is that Andrew Messick who came from the Tour of California saw the upside of involving Lance at the ToC and wanted to enable the same with WTC. Providence may have held that back until the feds dropped their investigation and only then they gave the green light. The red light is on now on account of the USADA letter (not a formal investigation yet as far as I understand).

The guys running WTC are sports guys. The guys running Providence are private equity guys. They probably don't want an association with Lance resulting in a devaluation of the brand on account of an investigation potentially starting, or having Lance win Kona and then an investigation from his cycling days mean he has to server a sanction from triathlon (even though he could keep his hypothetical Kona win).

That's my guess. The guys running WTC are fairly rational when it comes to growing this sport. Like many companies, hands of management can be tied with what board members want. At least this is my take. It just seems weird that the organization that brought Lance in would quickly throw him under the bus this week and distance themselves as far as possible, when only 10 days ago, he was the WTC hero after Honu.
Last edited by: devashish_paul: Jun 16, 12 12:03
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dev,

Full disclosure - I would personally have really liked to have seen Lance Armstrong race at Ironman Hawaii this year.

However, what are you suggesting - that they just change the rules mid-year for this one instance? You start to get out on to a slippery slope with that pretty quick. Sure it's a dumb rule, but to just toss it out, for the sake of this one situation, makes you look even sillier, and where do you draw the line in the sand or does that line keep moving? What if it was another athlete? Would there be all this hand-wringing?


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Last edited by: Fleck: Jun 16, 12 12:29
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fleck wrote:
Dev,

Full disclosure - I would personally have really liked to have seen Lance Armstrong race at Ironman Hawaii this year.

However, what are you suggesting - that they just change the rules mid-year for this one instance. You start to get out on to a slippery slope with that pretty quick. Sure it's a dumb rule, but to just toss it out, for the sake of this one situation, makes you look even sillier, and where do you draw the line in the sand or does that line keep moving? What if it was another athlete? Would there be all this hand-wringing?

Steve, the issue for me with WTC is look at how they have done changes the last few years. Many were shown to be very poorly thought out and they changed some within days. (Why did they not wait until the end of the year on those? ) Others have had suggestions given to them for improvement BEFORE something happens and usually, look what happens. Yep, their actions speak a lot for me on their ability to look outside the box, and get others inputs, either before or after a rule is made.

Yes, many argue this was right to screw Lance. Looks like they screwed the other guy also. But we also have the right to take our business to companies that walk the talk for each of us with our values.
I really do not want to do any of their races based on this, but then I have allowed them to ruin things for me. But I will no longer watch any of their races, and to be honest, no longer care about the pros' since even
though some are on the record for support of a fair process, others have flip flopped that it just is no longer worth it. Based on how so many are total lemmings, WTC will still fill races. But, many of us will never forget
the MANY things they have done wrong over the years, this is far from the first they clearly had not thought out well first. If they really cared about their rule, they NEVER should have gotten in bed with Lance, other than clearly they thought they could make themselves more money. Where was their ethics before they got into bed with Lance?

.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fleck wrote:
Dev,

Full disclosure - I would personally have really liked to have seen Lance Armstrong race at Ironman Hawaii this year.

However, what are you suggesting - that they just change the rules mid-year for this one instance. You start to get out on to a slippery slope with that pretty quick. Sure it's a dumb rule, but to just toss it out, for the sake of this one situation, makes you look even sillier, and where do you draw the line in the sand or does that line keep moving? What if it was another athlete? Would there be all this hand-wringing?

Not unless that asset would benefit the bottom line like LA...

Corporations waffle on internal regulations all the time...I still don't really see the downside of changing the policy when you identify that it is bad...they look silly, but how does it diminish the property value?

Do you think people will flee WTC races because they changed their rules? Do you think sponsors will?

I guess the nightmare scenario of changing the rule is LA wins Kona and then, not only gets his TdF titles stripped, but, also fails a pre-Kona test (cuz once a doper always...) and has that stripped too...

Somehow I don't see that happening.
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Steve, I'm saying that an investigation has not formally started YET at least how I read the USADA letter.

When it starts, fine stick to your WTC stringent rules and if you want change them at the end of the season. Not saying that WTC should change rules in the midst of a qualifying season. The USADA letter is about an investigation that is yet to commence. LA is not under investigation YET, so should be able to race, but I think that Providence Equity is overruling WTC management on this. Lance should technically be allowed to race IM France. Once an investigation starts, then barr him from racing and stick to your rules till the end of the qualifying season.

My feeling is that the management at WTC wants Lance in. They were not allowed to have Lance "in" until the Fed investigation was dropped and as soon as the USADA one started, my feeling is that Providence Equity told WTC management to remove all references to Lance. This is the only logical explanation for their actions. The outward digitial "on/off" position on Armstrong was too abrupt to have been generated internally by WTC Public Relations crew. Like we discussed in another thread, it just does not add up for WTC to behave this way. Up till Wed they were publicly marketing Lance as the marquis feature of the entire season.

Messick's interview in Lava seems to give some more visibility into things if you read one step further in between the lines.
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
Steve, I'm saying that an investigation has not formally started YET at least how I read the USADA letter.

When it starts, fine stick to your WTC stringent rules and if you want change them at the end of the season. Not saying that WTC should change rules in the midst of a qualifying season. The USADA letter is about an investigation that is yet to commence. LA is not under investigation YET, so should be able to race, but I think that Providence Equity is overruling WTC management on this. Lance should technically be allowed to race IM France. Once an investigation starts, then barr him from racing and stick to your rules till the end of the qualifying season.

My feeling is that the management at WTC wants Lance in. They were not allowed to have Lance "in" until the Fed investigation was dropped and as soon as the USADA one started, my feeling is that Providence Equity told WTC management to remove all references to Lance. This is the only logical explanation for their actions. The outward digitial "on/off" position on Armstrong was too abrupt to have been generated internally by WTC Public Relations crew. Like we discussed in another thread, it just does not add up for WTC to behave this way. Up till Wed they were publicly marketing Lance as the marquis feature of the entire season.

Messick's interview in Lava seems to give some more visibility into things if you read one step further in between the lines.

And Dev, that is the issue. Now, since so many keep dragging the other guy in to justify the actions., what are the other details? Are they EXACTLY like Lance's? I could have lived with once USADA opened an OFFICIAL investigation then enforce the rule, but by WTC's own written rule, and I believe "intent", they seem to be ignoring it. I could care less what they do at the end of the year. What they have done now says they can basically do what they want, when they want, and read "intent" into any rule at any time. They have the right to run their business how ever they want. We have the right to speak up and just say some of us do not agree.

.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't feel like this is a slippery slope at all. All one has to do is change "being investigated" to "has been prosecuted for" and there is the fix. The rule is turned into a more just one and upholds one of the most important aspects of our society - that one is innocent until proven guilty. Even if it is this large polarizing figure shining a light on a flaw in the system and changing it because of him would look like favoritism, it would, at its base, be correcting a wrong. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by MLK:

"The time is always right to do what is right".

And in full disclosure I do believe Armstrong is guilty, but our rules must reflect the best in society.

And I want to see him race Kona ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sounds like the liability exposure I keep citing as a major contributor to this decision is the Weiss situation.

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
Steve, I'm saying that an investigation has not formally started YET at least how I read the USADA letter.

When it starts, fine stick to your WTC stringent rules and if you want change them at the end of the season. Not saying that WTC should change rules in the midst of a qualifying season. The USADA letter is about an investigation that is yet to commence. LA is not under investigation YET, so should be able to race, but I think that Providence Equity is overruling WTC management on this. Lance should technically be allowed to race IM France. Once an investigation starts, then barr him from racing and stick to your rules till the end of the qualifying season.

My feeling is that the management at WTC wants Lance in. They were not allowed to have Lance "in" until the Fed investigation was dropped and as soon as the USADA one started, my feeling is that Providence Equity told WTC management to remove all references to Lance. This is the only logical explanation for their actions. The outward digitial "on/off" position on Armstrong was too abrupt to have been generated internally by WTC Public Relations crew. Like we discussed in another thread, it just does not add up for WTC to behave this way. Up till Wed they were publicly marketing Lance as the marquis feature of the entire season.

Messick's interview in Lava seems to give some more visibility into things if you read one step further in between the lines.

I don't understand the investigation has not started yet... If it has not started what have they been doing for the last 4-6 months, investigating to investigate?

If the investigation has not started yet it will start the sooner of 1) LA submits a response to the allegations or 2) June 22nd the last date for LA to submit a response. Both dates are before IMFrance. Unless he wanted to change his race to Regensburg this weekend he will be under investigation by the time IMFrance comes around. IF LA chooses 1) then there will be a panel hearing sometime in the fall, if he chooses 2) and does not submit a response sanctions/actions can be levied at any time.
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dev- - I agree with your conclusion that the WTC is going beyond their own rules. If the rules state that you cannot race if you are under investigation, and the WTC bans you due to a letter saying that you might be under investigation -- what good is the rule? What is next - - if your neighbor writes a letter that the USADA is going to write a letter about possibly investigating you-- - does the WTC ban you then?

I hope Lance strikes an alliance with a competing organization to WTC. I realize that there are not really any organizations that are in the same space when it comes to depth and following- - but Lance might be able to change the game. Frankly- - I would be happy to race non WTC races just to stick it to Providence and the WTC board
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [tmiles] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tmiles wrote:
Dev- - I agree with your conclusion that the WTC is going beyond their own rules. If the rules state that you cannot race if you are under investigation, and the WTC bans you due to a letter saying that you might be under investigation -- what good is the rule? What is next - - if your neighbor writes a letter that the USADA is going to write a letter about possibly investigating you-- - does the WTC ban you then?

I hope Lance strikes an alliance with a competing organization to WTC. I realize that there are not really any organizations that are in the same space when it comes to depth and following- - but Lance might be able to change the game. Frankly- - I would be happy to race non WTC races just to stick it to Providence and the WTC board

We just need to forget wording on rules, it is the "intent" of whoever is in power to decide.

.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Bryancd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bryancd wrote:
Sounds like the liability exposure I keep citing as a major contributor to this decision is the Weiss situation.

I wonder about that too. MarkyV mentioned on another thread that there was a precedent for exceptions to the 'under investigation suspension' and cited Weiss as an example. I am not familiar with the timing of Weiss' investigation and suspension though.

Craig.
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dev, that's not my read. i was in on this pretty much the whole way, from all sides. look, there is one way you can read this that makes pretty good sense and that i can't find fault with. as i trace this back, this existing policy is AT LEAST 13 years old. the point of the policy back then, and throughout its tenure, was to protect the corporate interests of WTC. whenever and wherever you see this policy, it's always primarily to protect corporate interests, rather than athlete interests. if the athletes gain a benefit, great, but that's not this sort of policy's purpose.

if it's in place for that long, and then you up and change it now because, lo, in this PARTICULAR case the corporate interests run contrary to the company's self serving policy, then that's the height of corporate self service.

so, if i was to guess, i'd say it's the old timers, the purists, inside WTC, those who would stand in solidarity with the other pro athletes and who would tick off on their fingers all the times this policy has worked against the athletes, and who would ask, why now? why this particular athlete?

now, i STILL think the policy needs a serious looking at. but i can absolutely understand the optics of changing it now.

i expect i'll be writing a post mortem in a few weeks. but, i'll eat my hat if it turns out this was providence inspired.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [RobAllen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RobAllen wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
Steve, I'm saying that an investigation has not formally started YET at least how I read the USADA letter.

When it starts, fine stick to your WTC stringent rules and if you want change them at the end of the season. Not saying that WTC should change rules in the midst of a qualifying season. The USADA letter is about an investigation that is yet to commence. LA is not under investigation YET, so should be able to race, but I think that Providence Equity is overruling WTC management on this. Lance should technically be allowed to race IM France. Once an investigation starts, then barr him from racing and stick to your rules till the end of the qualifying season.

My feeling is that the management at WTC wants Lance in. They were not allowed to have Lance "in" until the Fed investigation was dropped and as soon as the USADA one started, my feeling is that Providence Equity told WTC management to remove all references to Lance. This is the only logical explanation for their actions. The outward digitial "on/off" position on Armstrong was too abrupt to have been generated internally by WTC Public Relations crew. Like we discussed in another thread, it just does not add up for WTC to behave this way. Up till Wed they were publicly marketing Lance as the marquis feature of the entire season.

Messick's interview in Lava seems to give some more visibility into things if you read one step further in between the lines.


I don't understand the investigation has not started yet... If it has not started what have they been doing for the last 4-6 months, investigating to investigate?

If the investigation has not started yet it will start the sooner of 1) LA submits a response to the allegations or 2) June 22nd the last date for LA to submit a response. Both dates are before IMFrance. Unless he wanted to change his race to Regensburg this weekend he will be under investigation by the time IMFrance comes around. IF LA chooses 1) then there will be a panel hearing sometime in the fall, if he chooses 2) and does not submit a response sanctions/actions can be levied at any time.

I guess it is unclear to many of us when the start of an investigation is. Is it as soon as LA submits a response....or is it as soon as he does not submit a response? What is the definition of the start of an investigation. Serious question. If you want to count the last 4-6 months, today, tomorrow and all the day beyond that, then he should have never raced at Panama, Galveston, St. Croix, Florida and Hawaii. So I'm assuming none of that counts for the "start" of an investigation. I'm all for sanctioning him if an investigation proceeds and he's found guilty of doping (or any of the charges that USAT is bringing up), but until that day, should he not be allowed to race?

This is why I think that Providence is throwing him under the bus and not WTC. They were probably reluctant to have LA in the WTC series in the first place, but agreed after being lobbied by WTC management provided that he is seen as doing triathlon "clean". The moment the USADA thing came up, I'm guessing that Providence told WTC to remove all references to LA. It's the only logical explanation for the extreme flip flop.

Anyway, I felt that here on ST we are blaming WTC but if you've worked with boards of directors, then you know that company management often does not get what they want. In the Lava magazine, Andrew Messick specifically refers to the WTC board of directors meeting to discuss. That is a big distinction from WTC company management.

My gut feeling is that an opportunity for our sport is being squandered by guys who are not really part of our sport. They are private equity guys wanting to turn things around and pull their $$$ out. Don't know how soon, but soon enough that the don't want LA to potentially win Kona and then be sanctioned by USADA on account of his days as a cyclist. Better to not even give him the chance.
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [tmiles] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I realize that there are not really any organizations that are in the same space when it comes to depth and following

This might be a great opportunity for The Challenge Roth Race to re-claim it's title as a legit contender to the most competitive long-distance triathlon all year. I am guessing that even as we speak, moves are afoot to make that happen!

It would be interesting to see if the Challenge folks can get make the right things happen to see Lance Armstrong on the starting line as well as many of the other very best long-course triathletes in the world!



Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you familiar with the genesis of this policy? I read somewhere that it is similar to clauses that many pro cycling teams have in their rider contracts whereby riders under investigation are prohibited from racing even though the UCI does not prohibit them from doing so. If the policy has been in place for 13 years, that would take it back to the post-Festina scandal period which would make sense to me.

Craig.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by pick6 [ In reply to ]
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Bryancd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bryancd wrote:
Sounds like the liability exposure I keep citing as a major contributor to this decision is the Weiss situation.

I see that as the issue too...I wonder what they see as possible exposure? Ostensibly, they would be only be liable for income Weiss could have earned at WTC properties in the interim before his actual suspension? How much might that have been? $100? (pink)
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
if it's in place for that long, and then you up and change it now because, lo, in this PARTICULAR case the corporate interests run contrary to the company's self serving policy, then that's the height of corporate self service.
This rule should never have been put in place and should be revoked immediately. This rule is unfair to Lance in this case, and anyone else it has affected in its 13 year history, regardless of them having been found guilty or not. In the US we do not presume guilt, we presume innocence. I have no way of knowing if he doped or not, and honestly could really care less. I am, however, pretty upset at WTC for not allowing someone to compete because they are being investigated. If a person is found guilty, then by all means, kick them out of triathlon for life, I don't care. But wait until they are found guilty to do it, and not 1 second before.

For those of you outside the US that may have different views of presumption of innocence please remember I'm talking about US citizens competing in a race owned by a US company.


--Chris
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [chriselam] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did anyone hold a gun to LA's head? He happily signed the contract with clause in. He must have known that there was a chance of a USADA investigation occurring.
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is there any chance WTC and perhaps USAC is privy to info ST is not regarding USADAs case? It seems that USADA is playing its cards close on witnesses to avoid LA cornering people in Aspen restaurants. Could it be the case Usada is whispering relevant details to help triathlon and the Olympics from being harmed?
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:

I don't understand the investigation has not started yet... If it has not started what have they been doing for the last 4-6 months, investigating to investigate?

If the investigation has not started yet it will start the sooner of 1) LA submits a response to the allegations or 2) June 22nd the last date for LA to submit a response. Both dates are before IMFrance. Unless he wanted to change his race to Regensburg this weekend he will be under investigation by the time IMFrance comes around. IF LA chooses 1) then there will be a panel hearing sometime in the fall, if he chooses 2) and does not submit a response sanctions/actions can be levied at any time.

I guess it is unclear to many of us when the start of an investigation is. Is it as soon as LA submits a response....or is it as soon as he does not submit a response? What is the definition of the start of an investigation. Serious question. If you want to count the last 4-6 months, today, tomorrow and all the day beyond that, then he should have never raced at Panama, Galveston, St. Croix, Florida and Hawaii. So I'm assuming none of that counts for the "start" of an investigation. I'm all for sanctioning him if an investigation proceeds and he's found guilty of doping (or any of the charges that USAT is bringing up), but until that day, should he not be allowed to race? .




The investigation is already "over" (meaning of course that if someone presents new evidence they'll take it) but otherwise they have their case ready to go. The investigation phase ends in the beginning of the arbitration process. There are 51 steps in the USADA arbitration process. Sending out the charges to the individuals being charged, that's step R4. Lance responding is still part of Step R4. Once that happens and we assume he's going to fight it, he responds, and the review board looks at the charges and makes a decision if it moves forward. If it does (and it should, the review board should be a rubber stamp if the investigators did their job right, because it shouldnt reach that step if there isnt real evidence). Then Lance and Co decide if they want the hearing to be public or not. Also I think they pick if they want 1 or 3 arbitrators in step 4, but thats not as specified as i thought it might be.


So in a way yes, the USADA didnt let lance know they were formally investigating him (they kept saying cycling in general in press during that time) so they could gather evidence without lance's PR machine generating pressure getting at witnesses. So he got to race multiple races while still being investigated. Now that WTC has been formally notified though, its all done
Last edited by: pick6: Jun 16, 12 14:55
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:

i expect i'll be writing a post mortem in a few weeks. but, i'll eat my hat if it turns out this was providence inspired.

Dan,

Maybe on that piece, you can touch up something I haven't been mentioned. Is there a question that Lance Armstrong or any other WTC pro did not sign the waiver? When signing the waiver, weren't the athletes explicitly accepting the clause in question? Did any WTC pro ever questioned this policy, either publicly or to the WTC?

Racing WTC races as a pro is not a right. The athletes willfully signed the waiver and were fully aware of that clause. They had the choice to not sign it if they didn't agree with it. Let me know if you don't agree with any of these points.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [newf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As stated in the Thread on the Olympic team, a number of cyclists asked not to be considered for olympic selection.
Quote Reply
Re: It Sounds like the bad guy is Providence Equity not WTC [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think this is a fairly ridiculous interpretation of the situation. Essentially what you are saying is that "it's a bunch of private equity guys holding Lance back". Providence Equity is WTC, they own it. What they want to do with it is at their discretion. However, they have been consistent in asserting the following -- a) the pros our one of their real assets and b) Lance gets no free pass IMH. The rule of which you complain pre-dates Providence Equity's ownership. They change it mid-season and they are essentially telling their pros (one of their "assets") that you can't trust them to be consistent. That would be a very dumb move and Andrew and, as you term them, "the sports guys" know that would be down right idiotic. People need to separate their Lance fetish from what is good practice for the sport in the long term. Trashing the rules so we can see what Lance can do in Kona would be very bad for the sport, and anyone who knows and loves the sport like yourself should be able to see that.
Quote Reply

Prev Next