Duane Gran’s log of thoughts

Professional cycling is unique in the sporting word because they test often and the UCI will disqualify riders on circumstantial evidence. High levels of testosterone, as discovered in this year’s Tour winner, are a possible indicator of various performance enhancements, but it can also happen naturally. They also look for high levels of hemocrit in the blood, but that can happen naturally. This all has the unfortunate effect of making cycling look like a dirty sport, when in fact the authorities and sponsors are just more serious about testing and catching cheaters.

For each stage of the Tour de France (and other large stage races) they always test the winner and a random group of cyclists. They take two samples, creatively called the A and B sample. If the A sample comes up positive, the B sample is then tested. This is done to avoid a single source of authority or error. The organizers of the race, for reasons which escape me, announce when there is a positive A sample. This causes a mad scramble among teams and sponsors to proclaim their riders to be clean which leads to a quick process of elimination whereby everyone knows in 24 hours who is suspected of doping. The media generally bypasses the nuance of the B sample and proclaims the sportsman and the sport to be dirty. That is how we got where we are today.

I think they should confine themselves to solid evidence, but I don’t get to make the rules. I would put my bets on it that Landis rode a clean race, but there is no reason to believe the B sample (due to be tested this week) won’t reveal the same high level of testosterone. He will be stripped of his title and the media will be awash with two exaggerations:

1. The French are crazy and they are out to harass American sportsmen
2. Cycling is a dirty sport

Neither is the case, but it takes a clever journalist to comprehend the history and culture of cycling. There is a fairly simple explanation for the events as of late: professional cyclists are freaks of nature. They are not like you and I. Miguel Indurain, a five time tour winner, has a heart 1/3 larger than the typical human. He was known to be capable of returning to a 60 beat per minute heart rate within a minute after cresting a mountain top during a race. Normal humans can’t do that. Lance Armstrong is an absolute freak of nature, given his VO2 Max (rate of oxygen capacity in blood) and lactic acid threshold.

Some people are born with physical talent and a few work hard to develop it. Fewer still use performance enhancing drugs, but if these collective freaks of nature on bikes register high levels of testosterone it just might be because they are the most elite sportsmen in the world.

This year’s Tour de France had not captivated my attention, given the birth of my son and the absence of several favorites for the race, but I’m really impressed with how the American Floyd Landis won the race. I’ve been watching Landis for the last decade, and he has really matured and deserves this win. Examples like this inspire many newcomers to the sport, like a young fellow from Charlottesville who is getting national attention. I’ve ridden with him, and he is strong.

Will he be on the podium of le Tour some day? Who knows, but he is going to rip apart some races, I’m sure.

I previously wrote about new companies which remove various smut and violence from popular films. Because they operate on a legally purchased copy of the media it was presumed that the producers would be content with their profits and allow the niche service to carry on.

Unfortunately the courts have decided that the practice violates copyright. Michael Apted, president of the Directors Guild of America, commented on the ruling:

Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor.

Yes, the producers can rest easy knowing that their vision of violence and sexual permissiveness will be preserved. The sad part is that the producers appear to make no effort to acknowledge legitimate interests of media consumers who seek a third way between accepting their vision and not patronizing film. Such a third way would have opened to door to various re-imaginations of film, but the companies which produce the material also dictate its final format.

What the plaintiffs fail to understand, or respect, is that the media consumer is a participant and that once a work is made public it takes on a form of community ownership. We sing the “happy birthday song” at birthdays because we know it (but beware since its copyright status is in limbo) or we recognize the 1812 overture as distinctly Russian because it borrows from thematic elements of previous Russian classics. While the producer should retain certain rights, common ownership of media is diminished by the recent court ruling.

Update (11 July 2006): An alternative option, called Clear Play may be useful in the wake of the ruling.