Friday, July 6, 2007

The Appearance of Guilt

I've been thinking about the decision to not have any rider wear bib number 1 this year. This makes sense since it is not yet resolved if Floyd Landis will be stripped of his win. Without a confirmed winner from 2006, no one should wear bib number 1. This sends a message and is true to the process. For the same reason, no team will be wearing the numbers 1-10, the tradition for the team of the winning rider. What I disagree with is that bib numbers 11-20 will be worn by the Caisse d'Epargne team, the team of the rider, Oscar Pereiro, who came in second in 2006. This is flat out wrong. It sends the message that Floyd is guilty, and Pereiro is the winner from 2006. The only possible solution that would be fair to the process would be either to let Discovery I'm not sure who should wear 11-20 since Floyd is still the winner of the 2006 Tour (and will be unless he loses all appeals) and Phonak has disbanded (thanks, Bob for pointing out my cognitive lapse). Who wears #1 when the previous tour winner does not compete? What team wears #1-10 when the team of the previous winner is not in the tour? What if it is both? Has this happened before? Maybe the solution is to select team bib numbers randomly. Search for the truth Mr. McQuaid, indeed. I thought I had a clever post. Now I just have questions...


  1. sort of like a 15 story building not having a 13th floor....

    sure there is a 13th floor

    they just do not call it that

    there is no gap between 12 and 14

    they just don't use that number

  2. Why would Discovery get to wear 11 - 19? [No one wears a dossard with a zero on it during the TdF.]

    Floyd rode for Phonak in 2006, not Discovery, but Phonak is gone - and no one has a "proven" reason for its disappearance - just a bunch of botched lab work.

  3. Man, what was I thinking? Now I have to rewrite my post. And take a remedial course in blogging. Thanks for pointing that out. Stupidity on the blogs lasts forever...