Kim Feraday

A black day for cycling

This has been a tough couple of years for cycling. It seems that almost every day another cyclist is caught up in some sort of doping scandal. But through all of this I've felt more optimistic about the future of cycling than at any time in the past ten years. That was because a strong movement that has been embraced by the UCI, pro teams, organizers and many of the riders has emerged that seems to have put the dopers on the rope. But today's announcement by T-Mobile that after 16 years they are ending their sponsorship of both the men's and women's cycling teams, effective immediately (Deutsche Telekom pulls sponsorship, but the team will continue).

The teams and their sponsors, and in particular T-Mobile, CSC and Gerolsteiner, have been the driving force for much of this change. These teams have served as models that other teams are now beginning to embrace and implement. Slipstream is one example of this. T-Mobile's withdrawal is without question a victory for the dopers. What a shame for cycling and what a shame for T-Mobile. Rather than having the courage to continue down the path they started on at the beginning of this year, they have chosen the easy path. I've lost a great deal of the respect I had for them and will certainly let them know. I encourage all cycling fans to do the same.

Dick Pound -- To love him is to hate him

January will see a changing of the guard at the World Anti-Doping Agency. Dick Pound, the first and only President of WADA will be replaced by John Fahey, former Finance Minister of Australia. Last week the Globe & Mail ran a retrospective of Pound's controversial career ("The most hated man in sports). The article highlights how controversial Pound's tenure has been. To many in professional sports he is an arrogant and irresponsible blowhard more interested in building his own profile and his empire than in really solving the doping problem.

I have to say that much of the time I've held the same opinion. Pound frequently went beyond being outspoken. At times his statements were outlandish, even bordering on libellous (at one point he said that about a third of NHL players took performance enhancing drugs, an number he later admitted he just made up on the spot).

As a cycling fan, I've also hated Pound for his seemingly singular and relentless focus on professional cycling for most of his tenure. As an amateur triathelete and cyclist for over 20 years, I've been close enough to the sport to know that doping has been part of cycling for at least 50 years. But I also knew that doping was also at least as prevalent in other professional sports (I can remember hearing stories about Ben Johnson long before his positive test in Seoul).   

His personal crusade against cycling lead (either directly or indirectly) to the demise of some of my favourite riders (Marco Pantani, Ivan Basso, Jan Ulrich...) and I hated him for that. Even as cycling struggles to solve it's doping problems he has been unrelenting. I hate him for that as well.

But the truth is that as the truth has slowly and painfully been drawn out from the old guard of cycling, the extent of the doping may even go beyond what Pound had imagined. Cycling really had become morally bankrupt, willing to support the doping as long as the spectacle continued to draw in fans and sponsors. Now, finally, cycling may be well on the road to recovery. And maybe now riders like Canada's Mike Barry and Svein Tuft, who have been handicapped for most of their careers, will be able to compete on the world stage.

For that I love Dick Pound. And for clearing the way for future cyclists who (hopefully) won't feel that they must dope in order to compete. In the past year or so Pound has turned his attention to other professional sports, Major League Baseball and the NFL in particular. And this already seems to be having some impact (White House official criticizes professional leagues for doping policies). Maybe these leagues too will clean themselves up and send the right message to young athletes with dreams of playing pro football or baseball. Given the extent to which doping has infected college and high school sports in North America, let's hope so.

So here's to you Dick. We love you. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.   

Harper on climate change: more anchor than bridge

While it's discouraging and embarrassing to see that Canada is now seen as one of the last obstacles to serious action on climate change (even India is now on board) there is at least the possibility of one positive outcome of todays events. At least one Commonwealth delegate recognized and commented that Canada's position seems to be based on Harper's personal view. Hopefully Canadians who have been considering switching support to the Harper government in the next election will recognized that the current government makes policy decisions based on Harper's personal ideology and not what is in the best interests of the county. On the other hand now we're now going to have to endure more of Blair's blatherings on how the Harper regime is acting as a bridge between countries that signed on to Kyoto and major emitters like the United States, China, India and Australia.

On a brighter note, the David Suzuki Foundation has launched a Bali Blog. At least we'll be able to get a dose of reality in addition to the propaganda that Baird is sure to be spewing.

With friends like these...

According to a report by Richard Oppel in todays New York Times, "Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials."

The information came from documents and computer files discover by American forces in September. Oppel goes on to report that while Iran may be supplying arms and financing they are not supplying fighters:

"American officials have accused Iran, the largest Shiite nation in the Middle East, of sending powerful bombs to Iraq and of supporting and financing Shiite militias that attack American troops. They also contend that top Iranian leaders support efforts to arm Shiite fighters.

But whatever aid Iran provides to militias inside Iraq does not seem to extend to supplying actual combatants: Only 11 Iranians are in American detention, United States officials say."

You've got to wonder how this is going to affect Cheney's attempt to escalate the current Iranian tensions into at least a limited war.

Harper's drug addled bill

"Punishment is not prevention. History offers cold comfort to those who think grievance and despair can be subdued by force." Robert Kennedy.

I was reminded of these words when the Harper government announced their new anti-drug legislation. The Conservatives claim that the legislation will target organized crime and drug dealers who exploit youth. But history, and in particular decades of failed campaigns against drugs in the United States, it will likely be those who who are suffer the consequences of the legislation.

A 2006 report by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offences: Why Everyone Loses), provides some good insight into why this is a flawed piece of legislation. Some key highlights from the study:

Targeting "drug dealers" what does this mean in practice?

Sometimes it is suggested that mandatory minimum sentences target only “drug dealers,” not people who use drugs. But this distinction is often artifi cial, particularly when harsh minimum sentences are mandated for dealing in any quantity of drugs. The real profiteers in the drug market, those who traffi c in large quantities of illegal drugs, distance themselves from more visible drug-trafficking activities and are rarely captured by law enforcement efforts. Instead, it is people who are addicted and involved in small-scale, street-level drug distribution to support their addictions who commonly end up being charged with drug trafficking and would bear the brunt of harsh mandatory minimum sentences for any drug dealing.

Critics might dismiss this insight, but if you look closer at the highlights of the bill it is likely that many of those who end up serving longer sentences will be small time criminals and drug addicts, not those who should be the real targets, namely organized crime. The two-year mandatory prison sentence for people who sell drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamines to youth or who peddle their wares near schools and other places frequented by young people is one example of this. While I think we would all agree that we want to eliminate the sale of hard drugs to youth, those likely to be caught up in this are drug addicts. In fairness, the Harper government did provide and alternative, by allowing some offenders who qualify for drug treatment courts to escape the automatic jail terms if they are able to successfully complete a program of treatment under judicial supervision. Many those who do not qualify or do not have the strength to enlist (the program is reported to be very tough) will end up in jail where they will likely become even more dangerous and hardened criminals on their release.

But the really boneheaded (there really is no other adjective that's appropriate) parts of this proposed legislation  are those that target the growth and sale of marijuana. Marijuana is a significant revenue source for organized crime in particular. Large scale grow operations seem to have been modelled on alcohol bootleg operations during the American prohibition. And, like the bootleg operations of the 1930's the potency of marijuana has increased over time to the point where it has significant health implications. But rather than use the lessons of history to inform policy, which would dictate that marijuana be legalized,regulated and taxed, Harper has chosen the more dangerous path by increasing the stakes. This will likely result in more cost to the taxpayer, more "marginal" criminals being incarcerated and more profit for organized crime. A poor outcome on all counts.

You only need to look at the results in the United States to confirm that this is another black hole into which Harper is pulling us. The Real Costs of Prisons Weblog, outlines some of these for us. In Vermont, "state spending on corrections has risen faster than any other area of state government; double-digit increases have been the norm for several years. Between 2006 and 2008 the budget rose by 16.4 percent, from $110 million in 2006 to nearly $129 million for fiscal year 2008, and if nothing changes, that trend can be expected for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, a family of four will pay an average of $800 in state taxes just to support corrections."

Some additional statistics worth noting:

In December, the US Justice System announced that 7 million adults - 3 per cent of the US population - were either doing time, on probation, or on parole at the end of 2005. Of that total, 2.2 million were in federal, state or local jails, 4.1 million were on probation, and 784,000 were on parole. Over the past decade, said the Justice Department, the US prison population grew by 35 per cent, with blacks (40 per cent]), whites (35 per cent) and Latinos (20 per cent) making up most inmates.

A recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a US non-profit organisation, sent an even starker message. Unless these grim statistics are improved then, at present growth rates, America's convicts will outnumber the combined populations of Atlanta, Baltimore and Denver within five years.

"Our incarceration rates show that America's crime and punishment policy is completely out of control," says Tracy Huling, a national consultant on prison issues. A tough-on-crime political culture and harsh mandatory sentences for minor crimes, especially drug offences, had criminalised huge numbers. "We send people to prison today for long sentences that 25 years ago would have drawn probation."

Clearly once again, Harper is emulating failed American policy. He would have dragged us into the quagmire of Iraq and now wants to impose another piece of legislation that is destined to cost taxpayers dearly and be a complete failure.

The alternative? Legalize marijuana, make it safe for public consumption through regulation, and then tax the hell out of it. Use some of the proceeds to target the real enemy, organized crime. Make full use of existing legislation (Bill-C95) to make sure that those charged with drug crimes who are affiliated with organized crime suffer severe consequences. Use some of the proceeds to fund social programs and facilities that will keep kids off the streets and away from dealers. Finally use some of the proceeds to fund drug prevention, rehabilitation and harm reduction programs.

Hell, it ain't rocket science. Doing the right thing just memory, intuition and ethics.

Time for the press and WADA to stand up for cycling

Gérard Vroomen wrote an interesting post in his blog this weekend (Doped soccer star retires). His headline refers to the retirement of Jaap Stam, one of the Netherlands best footballers. While the press wrote about his retirement there wasn't a single article that mentioned Stam's positive dope test (for nandralone). Meanwhile, many of the articles on Danish cycling star Michael Boogerd's retirement did include a doping angle even though Boogerd never had a positive drug test.

The press in North America is even worse. Almost every cycling story published in the mainstream press here had a doping angle. Why didn't the press take the same tack with the NFL and MLB where doping is at least as rampant as it was in cycling several years ago?

Vroomen puts forward an interesting proposition which I think has merit. Journalists silence in these sports is due to their dependency on access to athletes for their stories. Write a negative story and you could find yourself out in the cold. Maybe that's why, even though there was ample evidence of widespread doping in baseball and football many journalists skirted the issue. Publishers, who rely on advertising revenue related to North American professional sports, also have an incentive to keep a lid on doping stories.

But while they don't seem capable of exercising any journalistic integrity when it comes to North American pro sports, they can at the very least stop the excessive criticism of cycling. After all it is the only professional sport to have a serious doping program in place. Cycling is still in the process of cleaning house but it's now far cleaner than baseball and football where doping is at least as bad as it was in the bad old days. Instead they should be now pointing to cycling as a model for other sports to emulate -- as should WADA.

At least WADA is now being as openly critical of MLB, which is at least a step in the right direction (Doping Officials Question Baseball's Policy on Drugs). Why Canadian newspapers didn't pick up this story is beyond me -- again showing that they don't really want to rock the boat when it comes to doping in North American professional sports.

A subprime primer

Yesterday, Fortune published an enlightening view into the machinations of the subprime mortgage crisis (Wall Street's money machine breaks down). The article pretty simply lays out a classic case of how Wall Street (from the CEOs offices to the ratings agencies) let greed loosen their grip on reality and rode the subprime wave straight to financial hell. The extent of the exposures and potential losses that some of the biggest financial services companies in the world are facing is mind boggling. Merrill, for example, still has $21 billion in unhedged exposure to subprime bonds. Merrill's current writedowns are $7.9 billion with more to come.

This brings me to a couple of fundamental questions. How is it that these guys aren't in jail? I thought SOX was supposed to mean greater financial transparency and lower risk. Second, why isn't more being done for the real victims in all of this -- the borrowers, most of whom didn't really know what they were getting into?

The Political Trunk Monkey -- an idea whose time has come

If you're at all like me, you're probably pretty much fed up with all of the goings on up at the House of Crazy (aka House of Commons). First there's Harper's obsession with being just like Bush, first with his tough on crime and drugs initiatives, then the bizarre fixation on the elimination of veils at elections and finally deciding to take the country backwards a century by supporting capital punishment.

Then the Odd Couple of Ottawa, Steve and Jack, decided that the country's most pressing issue is reforming the Senate -- a useless but mostly harmless institution. Finally a pack of Liberals (and one NDPer) who, after having a a few cocktails (we assume), decided that it would be a good idea to attend a vigil for S. P. Thamilselvan who is associated with the Tamil Tigers. Did their dinner date with Osama fall through?

This consistent and, to my mind, insane behaviour on the part of all of the parties calls for drastic measure by the citizens of this country, no matter what your political stripe. I propose we install a Trunk Monkey in the office of every MP. Then we appoint an independent panel who can activate the Trunk Monkey whenever an MP's behaviour crosses the sanity line. My preference for the panel -- Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne and Alan Gregg (CBC's At Issue Panel). Oh, and maybe Rex Murphy just to keep them on their toes.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Trunk Monkey, here is a brief overview:

Margaret Wente's last good war

In her Saturday column, A tale of two wars, Ms. Wente looks back nostalgically at WWII, "the last good war".  While Ms. Wente clearly means that WWII was a "good" war because of the nature of the enemy, her romantic view of the war and clear desire for Canada to be more militaristic are disturbing. In her own words:

"War is deeply out of favour now. We prefer peacekeeping. The warrior values – discipline, sacrifice, cohesion, strength, authority – don't figure much in mainstream culture (except in sports), and are even ridiculed. Modern wars operate somewhere on the periphery of our lives, and they divide us more than they unite. They certainly don't inspire much patriotism, another old-fashioned virtue that has become faintly suspect."

War should be out of favour. We should only engage in a war as a matter of last resort and even then reluctantly. Even when a war is necessary it should never be described as "good" in any way. Wars diminish all who are involved.

I've been watching the American series "The War" and some of the coverage of Canadian veterans today. Almost universally they declare that war is stupid and that it should be avoided at all costs. They talk about the terrible things that they had to do in the war. Many of these things have stayed with them for their entire lives.

My father fought in Korea, a war which he thought was necessary, and given the history of Korea since then, he and those who fought with him were right. Nevertheless the brutality of the war left him scarred for the rest of his life. The extent of the damage didn't emerge until late in his life, but when it did emerge, it was gut wrenching to see the terrible toll it took on his spirit. We should celebrate rather than lament our evolution from warriors to peacemakers, as Ms. Wente seems to do.

We should always look for another path to change and peace rather than through war. I believe that this is the lesson that those who have served would want us to learn.

Janice Mackinnon's lessons for federal politicians

Janice Mackinnon, professor of public policy at the University of Saskatchewan has some interesting advice for federal politicians (Beyond prairie politics).

While Ms. Mackinnon's argument that universal programs should be more targeted, and require more imaginative policy choices have merit her examples simply serve to illustrate how the Harper government has been failing the country. Harper's policy choices to address the lack of affordable daycare have been an abysmal failure. The same can be said for Harper's efforts in other areas including seniors, students, etc. Why? Because Harper only seems capable of using one policy tool -- taxation. We need a federal government that sees the country as more than the sum of its parts and can put forward an agenda that will bring the country together and move it forward in a positive manner. Harper's agenda focus on creating a smaller and meaner government (particularly with his agenda on crime, drugs and bizarrely the use of veils when voting) does nothing to move this country forward. Canadian's should rightly be concerned.