The Mailbag is a regular department on VeloNews.com. If you have a comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have read in VeloNews magazine or 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 here contain the opinions of the submitting authors and should not be viewed as reflecting the opinions, policies or positions of VeloNews.com, VeloNews magazine or our parent company, Inside Communications, Inc.

---

Remember Floyd?
Dear VeloNews,
Does anyone remember a small gathering of people back in May that wasto decide the fate of a Tour de France winner. I have not heard aword or read an article about the decision regarding Floyd Landis.How can this possibly be taking so long for the three men to come to adecision? I was pretty sure there would be no decision until afterthe Tour.The powers that be would not have wanted anything to interfere withthe mighty Tour. The Tour is now over and still no word. Canyou give us some idea of what is happening at this time?
Thank you,
Danny Davenport
Aliso Viejo, CaliforniaIs no news, good news?
Dear Velo,
I though it was published that we would hear of a decision on Landisby now. Does the delay work in his favor? The way things aregoing right now, he will have served his two year ban by the time a decisionis reached. What a perfect time to have your hip resurfaced.Right in the middle of a suspension. The problems in this last Tour reallytook the focus off of Floyd.
David Jackson
Temecula, CaliforniaDoubt is the defense, not the problem
Dear Editors,
While I agree that there needs to be a supreme amount of confidence in the labs that test riders, the only controversy that exists is produced by the defenders of those who have been caught cheating. None of the labs have ever been accused of poor procedures when the results come back clean. Apparently poor controls will only taint clean urine, and not the other way around. The fact is that the tests are well controlled and the lab technicians are quite professional, in spite of legal arguments to the contrary. They have no idea whose sample they are testing, and the likelihood that nefarious deeds are behind positive tests is laughable.Remember Richard Virenque? The man actually went as far as topublish a book entitled "My Truth" in which he claimed to have never useddrugs. Of course, he later confessed to the same...If the revelations and admissions of so many pro riders in the recent months haven't convinced people that these guys dope, then I'm afraid nothing will.
Stefan Rogers
Durham, North Carolina
Foreseeability, causation, harm...
Dear VN,
Please do what you can to facilitate a ruling from the Landis arbitrators. I'm starting to suffer repetitive motion injuries from hitting the refresh button on your site every twenty minutes.
Nicholas Stevens, Esq.
Starr, Gern, Davison & Rubin, P.C.
Roseland, New JerseyWell counselor, we're not sure about the injuries, but we assume that you know better than anyone as to whether they are actionable. Either way, we're sure it's not workman's comp' claim, since you're most certainly not checking in from the office, are you? Hopefully, you and the rest of us won't be waiting too much longer. We wish we knew when to expect a decision. Who knows? It could be today. - EditorFollow the money
Hi VN,
Reader Peter McIntyre suggested an intriguing process for assuringvalidity of drug test results. (see “Overseeing the overseers” in Friday’sMailbag) It is most certainly a worthy suggestion, this assurancecomes at a tremendous cost. I recall seeing somewhere that a single testis around $500.While I am no expert, I think perhaps pro cycling's current drug issuesare totally predictable from an economics perspective. We do drug analysis"on the cheap" and the peloton knows it (See the interviewwith Joe Papp). If everyone was tested with a process that includedblanks and control samples, along with double blinded A and B samples byseparate personnel and separate facilities, we'd have no drug problem -the cheats would be found with certainty, and there'd be no possibilityof cat and mouse. The unintended consequence, of course, is that no onewould compete, because there'd be no prize money or economic benefit tothe riders - all the money would be going to the testing - and sponsorsaren't thrilled with supporting a race event that's won by John-The-High-School-Kid-Who-Just-Got-a-New-Huffy-for-Christmas.Of course riders wouldn't cheat - the dope would cost more than theprize (and I use "dope" purposely...)By the way, I'm a little puzzled by the editor's response to Peter'ssuggestion. What exactly do people in the press tent have to hide?Hmmmmmmm
Richard Glover,
Seattle WashingtonRichard, we have nothing to hide. Really. We've covered the last 30 Tours on mineral water and years of rigorous typing-specific exercises only. Really. We promise. Why do you ask? We're the most tested editors in all of journalism. Really. Why doubt us now? We're calling our lawyer.- EditorRisk and balance of risk
Dear Editors,
Dr. Ray Truant has written that "a more potent version of EPO has beenshown to stimulate cancer cell growth in patients." (See "Themedical risks of doping" in Friday'sMailbag.)

His stament is wrong, he slants the facts - the article he refers todoes not state that EPO causes cancer cell grows, it states that EPO hastissue-protective effect on "nonhematopoietic tissues" and
raises a question "of a potential direct growth-promoting action ofEPO on cancer cells."That's quite far from a proven statement, it only guesses thatsuch effect may exists (as well that it may not). Moreover, tissue-protectiveeffect (already proven) may be quite desirable by high loads outweighingany speculated risks.

By the way, the original VeloNews.comarticle on the medical risks of doping is biased as well, as all negativeeffects considered in the article results not from doping as such, butfrom clear and ignorant misuse of drugs and all statements concerning thepotential risks of physician-supervised doping are purely speculative andlack supporting evidence.

Yes, it's true that all drugs used in doping have inherent risks butthe same is true for any drugs, as well perfectly legitimate ones. Moreover,hard training and racing have their own inherent risks (and not so small,for that matter). It's really a question of balancing risks: Does a specificproduct's usage increase total risks significantly or not? As far as Iknow, there is no trustworthy research on the matter.
Oleksandr Alesinskyy
Hofheim, Germany

---

The Mailbag is a regular department on VeloNews.com. If you have a comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have read in VeloNews magazine or 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 here contain the opinions of the submitting authors and should not be viewed as reflecting the opinions, policies or positions of VeloNews.com, VeloNews magazine or our parent company, Inside Communications, Inc.

---