My Fantasy UCI/Pat "Dick" McQuaid Press Conference

Good morning. As you may know, I am Pat "Dick" McQuaid, proud president of UCI, the preeminent pro--uh, anti! anti!--doping organization in cycling. I apologize for the lousy audio feed, but as you can imagine, here in the unmapped rainforest in Borne--uh, I meant Brazil! I meant Brazil!--where I'm in hiding, there's not exactly primo cell phone coverage. So good luck tracking me down to face criminal charges, mother!@#$ers!

Anyway, I've called this press conference to address the very serious and upsetting USASA report on Lance Armstrong. First, I'd like to say what a privilege and pleasure it's been all these years of willfully blind slutty obsequiousness to ride to personal fame, glory, and untold wealth on Lance's golden-jersey anti-cancer-hero coattails. Now, of course, I'm gonna have to pull a Nike and completely throw his dirty doping !@# under the bus even though I absolutely knew--uh, heard! with shock and disbelief! through third-hand rumor and innuendo only!--he was a cheating scumwad the entire time. In that vein, I hereby blame everything on honorary UCI prez/former head honcho Hein Verbruggen, who, despite my personally grabbing Lance for a urine sample every six seconds which was then immediately tested in the half-million dollar testing machine that Lance bought for us and totally coincidentally very generously calibrated by hand himself prior to each test, totally thwarted my every sincere and noble effort to substitute pig urine for Lan--I mean, to catch that filthy druggy cheat every race. And naturally, we won't be appealing the decision on Lance to WADA, primarily because I won't be here to give a cra--uh, provide the in-depth commitment of time and analysis that a thorough pursuit of justice requires.

I next want to address the ridiculous allegations that UCI treated certain riders more favorably than others, which is not only offensive, but downright inaccurate. If you look carefully, you'll see that it's not the *riders* I treated unfairly, it's the *teams*. Look, did Tyler or Floyd or Heras ever come up positive while they were still riding for Lance? No! I only went after their sorry !@#es when Lance ordered me to after they left his service at USPostalDiscovery--I mean, when the testing protocols caught up to their nefarious actions! And that snotty little twerp Contador--when he was still smart enough to stay Lance's meek little beeyotch, uh, when he was just an innocent boy trying to navigate the treacherous roiling waters of the peloton, did I *ever* get on his case? Nyet again! Apropos of nothing, however, I think it's very interesting that a recent statistical analysis shows that Hein Verbruggen, by contrast, routinely nailed individual riders in direct proportion to their personal failure to provide him with piles of cocaine, conflict diamonds, spa weekends, and booze.

Despite the clear slanderousness of the unjust witch-hunt against me, and in order to protect the sanctity of my untraceable and ginormous Swiss bank account--uh, to spend more time with my friends and family! yeah, them!--I have decided to resign from my cherished position at UCI to accept a new gig as a DS-in-absentia for my fellow anti-doping advocates at Garmin-Sharp. Therefore, I hereby announce that my replacement at the reins of UCI will be Lance Armstrong himself. Just kidding!--it's Frank Schleck.

Well, I see this call is about to become traceable, so unfortunately, I won't be taking any questions. Thank you and goo--holy !@#$, is that a freakin' panther up there?!--(call ends with sounds of shrieks, chomping)

Yer Point/Counterpoint on the Lance Armstrong Doping Report; Including, the Hincapie Conundrum

Jane, You Ignorant Slut: yep, the USADA report is out, the links are here, and let's get straight to the arguments (and counterarguments) flooding the twitsphere with outrage:

1. It's Hearsay From a Bunch of Lying D!@#chebags!: No, it isn't. It's *direct observations* from a bunch of lying d!@#chebags. And USADA made it perfectly clear which d!@#chebags they believed. Move on.

2. USADA's Lawyers are Tangentially Associated With Big Tobacco!: Frankly, who gives a !@#$? It's not like they're personally dressed in a cute cartoon-character costume named "Smoky" passing out cigs to 10-year-olds. And no, Lance, it *doesn't* mean they're bad because they "defend cancer" and you're good 'cause you fight it. Really, taking legitimately life-saving (or life-extending) drugs for a banned purpose just to win a !@#$in' bike race is any *less* morally reprehensible?

3. He's a Hero to Millions!: Noted and duly appreciated. Everyone knows someone who's been touched by cancer, and inspiration for people who need it is good. It's still not cool to use your advocacy for a noble cause as both a shield and a weapon against your wrongdoing. It also doesn't mean that as athlete, you're not a cheat and an ass.

4. Everyone Else Was Doing It!: Not as well, they weren't, so yes, it still matters. Honestly, does anyone think a magnificent train wreck like Jan Ullrich could've held it together to do this !@#$ so well? And don't *make* me make some priggish analogy about jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge just because your friends all did it, you lemming!

5. The French Are Just A Whiny Pack o' Whiny Elitist Socialists Pissed Off That an American Kicked Their !@# for 7 Years!: Yes, they are. They drink wine instead of p!@#-water beer, they eat cheese instead of "cheez," and they haven't won their own Tour in a generation despite having their own disgusting cheat-weasels in the ranks. Lance is still a cheating thieving jerk, so what's your point?

6. Hincapie and Those Guys Did It Too!: Yes, it seems they did. And everyone loves them, and it sucks. Who doesn't want to root for a time-trial genius who still plays with action figures at age 35 or a guy who was *so close* to the GC at the Tour de France or a really, really humble and dog-loyal mentor to a whole younger generation of cyclists? The question is, though, what becomes of them now. And I don't actually think it's crap they got *some* sort of a deal for talking. Strip their wins from them? Sure, why not, especially since most are on the verge of retirement anyway, some of 'em managed to pile up some pretty stellar palmares in their own rights (or wrongs), and a simple ban now won't mean that much. But punish 'em as hard as Lance? No. Lance was offered a deal. He rejected it, as is his right, he actively fought the charges, as is his right--hey, no hard feelings. But he also openly--and really quite viciously--tried to destroy anyone who tried to tell the truth, which is completely !@#holian. Omerta exists for more than one reason, greed and the desire for personal glory among them. Fear, though, is an even greater reason, and *that* is what has damn near destroyed this sport. If Lance was its worst enforcer and its greatest beneficiary, why *shouldn't* he go down the hardest?

7. He Never Tested Positive!: Yes, he did. Just not the way that holds up a ban. And while I generally think that total stupidity *should* be a jailable offense, I don't think you give a guy bonus points for being a cheating dirty pig really, really well.

8. It's a Witch-Hunt!: no, it's not. It's a buncha people doing the job that those disgusting glory-whore enablers at UCI completely failed, or were unable, to do. Justice is often messy, dirty, lengthy, and complicated. And yes, you're going after Lance over anyone else. You glorify yourself as a hero and a saint and just the bestest bestest athlete ever to walk the planet, you go for blood on everyone who correctly called you out, you lose your right to bitch about it when people reasonably ask questions. Really--the witch hunt was *against* Lance, not *by* him? Tell that to Frankie Andreu!

9. It's Too Far in the Past! There's No Point!: yes, there is. Somewhere, right now, in the !@#-end of the autobus, is a really talented rider who dreams of winning races but knows he can't because the sport is *still*--however improved, if it even is--tainted, and he doesn't want to, or is just afraid to, dope playing a buncha life-threatening games with his body. And it would be awful, awful nice too, if you could count on the governing bodies that are supposed to police the sport weren't sticking their noses so far up the butts of their favored riders that their noses are pokin' out the other end. So if *this* blows over, why would that rider think all the little stupid things that add up poison the sport *now* won't blow over?

Okay, fanboys 'n' girls, cynics and romantics, deniers and paranoid conspiracy theorists--have at. Me, I'm gonna go back to wondering where that dreamy Cav is gonna end up!

Cycling Goes to War; or, Pat "Dick" McQuaid, Defender of Virtue

Except If He's Kissed Your !@# For the Last Decade, That Is: yes, folks, from WADA to USADA to UCI, cycling's now found itself in a grand conundrum: whether to look honestly if ashamedly at the problem of doping in the sport by one of its greatest heroes, a 7-time Tour de France winner, warrior against cancer, inspirational figure to millions, and blindly-adored national icon, or whether to look like a repulsive rump-nosing selectively-prosecuting obsequious hypocrite weasel toady so desperate to keep the fame it has won that it--well, he--will do damn near anything north of pimping his own grandma to protect the guy who donated huge wads of cash to his organization, provided him with a life-changing outlet for reflected personal glory, and, totally coincidentally, is alone among the team he minutely controlled in every detail in being clearly absolutely innocent of doing absolutely anything as an internationally-revered anti-doping-by-other-people's organization's completely objective investigation would inevitably determine. Wanna guess which route UCI president Pat "Dick" McQuaid has taken?

Look, I get the crap about "this is pointless so late in the game" and "everyone else did it anyway" and "who the hell's a !@#$in' Vino fan to take the high road on this?" But frankly, there's value for the sport--and more importantly, for less-flashy but still talented riders--in determining whether winning is even in part a luxury purchase for the most loaded and sophisticated buyer, and I'll take any cyclist who at least calls bull!@#$ on the favored-nations status of certain popularity-contest publicity sluts over a bunch of crocodile-tear-spewing whingers who dedicate themselves to policing everyone else's purity only after their own !@#es are forced to compete on a level playing field. So Pat, I beseech you--even if you really, truly wanted to--and let's face it, that's a big freakin' if--you can't evaluate Lance objectively. You can't even appear to, if you could. Because you courted him so relentlessly, your legacy is inextricably entwined with his, and there is no possible way on this earth you don't know that. Worse, you openly went after any rider who threatened you. USADA, at least, has been nothing but ripped to pieces for asking uncomfortable questions and is screwed no matter which way it comes out--so why not let it do its job?