Lance Armstrong: Impossible to Win the Tour de France Without Doping

While new rumors holds that Yankee capitalists entered a pristine Europe and threw money at the Tour de France, thereby destroying it (and while the current Tour de France comes under new doubts), Lance Armstrong gives an exclusive front-page interview to Le Monde's Stéphane Mandard (excerpts in English), in which the former champion says that, because of the necessity for oxygen in what is essentially an endurance trial, it is impossible to win the French bicycle race without doping.

Related: In the Tour de France's doping race, Lance Armstrong was far behind "King Miguel"

Vous continuez à faire du vélo malgré tous les ennuis que vous a apporté la pratique de ce sport ?

Absolument, je continue à faire du vélo et à m'entraîner. Faire du vélo a toujours été une thérapie pour moi. Et ce qui était vrai lorsque je m'entraînais pour le Tour l'est toujours aujourd'hui. Une bonne grosse sortie de trois ou quatre heures vous vide la tête comme rien d'autre.

 … Vous considérez-vous toujours comme le recordman de victoires ?

Absolument.

Avez-vous gardé vos sept maillots jaunes ou les avez-vous brûlés ?

Ah, ah ! Hors de question. J'ai travaillé dur pour ces maillots. Je les aime pour ce qu'ils sont et tous les souvenirs qu'ils représentent.

Comprenez-vous que l'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) et les organisateurs du Tour vous aient rayé du palmarès ?

Oui et non. C'est bien d'effacer mon nom, mais le Tour a bien eu lieu entre 1999 et 2005, n'est-ce pas ? Il doit donc y avoir un vainqueur. Qui est-il donc ? Je laisse le soin aux autres de débattre à l'infini qui était le vrai vainqueur de ces Tours. Mais personne ne s'est manifesté pour réclamer mes maillots.

Dans son rapport, l'Usada vous accuse d'avoir bénéficié du « programme de dopage le plus perfectionné, le plus professionnel et le plus efficace de l'histoire du sport »...

Tout ça, ce ne sont que des conneries. On a vu que l'affaire « Puerto » [le vaste réseau de dopage sanguin organisé par le médecin espagnol Eufemiano Fuentes] était cent fois plus sophistiquée. Notre système était très simple, très conservateur, et pas maléfique comme je l'ai entendu dans la bouche des représentants de l'Agence mondiale antidopage, entre autres. Il y a beaucoup de preuves de ce que je dis et l'histoire montrera que tout cela n'était qu'une simple posture de l'Usada dans le but de faire du buzz. Par ailleurs, sur combien d'autres équipes l'Usada a-t-elle enquêté ? Si la réponse est aucune, alors comment peut-elle clamer que notre système était si sophistiqué ? C'est totalement irrationnel.

 …  Pourquoi êtes-vous prêt à parler devant une commission de ce type ? Que voulez-vous dire ?

Toute l'histoire n'a pas encore été racontée. La « décision motivée » de l'Usada n'a pas dressé le portrait fidèle du cyclisme de la fin des années 1980 à nos jours. Elle a parfaitement réussi à détruire la vie d'un homme, mais n'a pas du tout bénéficié au cyclisme. Qu'est-ce que je dirais devant la commission ? Je comparaîtrais, je m'assoirais, j'écouterais et je répondrais honnêtement aux questions.

Une des questions pourrait être : quand vous couriez, était-il possible de réaliser des performances sans se doper ?

Cela dépend des courses que tu voulais gagner. Le Tour de France ? Non.
Impossible de gagner sans dopage. Car le Tour est une épreuve d'endurance où l'oxygène est déterminant. Pour ne prendre qu'un exemple, l'EPO ne va pas aider un sprinteur à remporter un 100 m, mais elle sera déterminante pour un coureur de 10 000 m. C'est évident.

 … Comment en finir avec la culture du dopage dans le vélo ?

A bien des égards, ça ne finira jamais. Je n'ai pas inventé le dopage. Désolé Travis [Tygart, le directeur de l'Usada] ! Et il ne s'est pas non plus arrêté avec moi. J'ai simplement participé à ce système. Je suis un être humain. Le dopage existe depuis l'Antiquité et existera sans doute toujours. Je sais que ce n'est pas une réponse très populaire, mais c'est malheureusement la réalité.

Devant la commission d'enquête sénatoriale sur le dopage, votre ancien rival, Laurent Jalabert, dont les urines prélevées lors du Tour 1998 contenaient de l'EPO, a déclaré : « Armstrong était un tortionnaire. » Il a aussi juré qu'il ne s'était jamais volontairement dopé, et que son médecin, dans l'équipe ONCE, était surnommé le « Docteur Citroën », par opposition au vôtre, Michele Ferrari...

Ah, « Jaja », avec tout le respect que je lui dois, il est en train de mentir. Il aurait mieux fait d'éviter de parler de Ferrari et de Citroën, car il sait très bien que Michele était le médecin de la ONCE au milieu des années 1990.

Comprenez-vous la déception, voire la colère, de ceux qui ont cru en votre histoire ?

Je comprends parfaitement, et j'en suis profondément désolé. A bien des égards, je ne parviendrai jamais à réparer cela, mais je passerai ma vie à essayer.

 … Que vous inspire le dénouement de l'affaire « Puerto », où la juge a ordonné la destruction des poches de sang qui auraient pu permettre d'identifier les autres clients non cyclistes du docteur Fuentes ?

Je suis sûr que certains grands clubs de football ont eu de l'influence sur ce jugement. En tout cas, c'est encore le cyclisme qui a été tenu pour seul responsable.

Vous avez le sentiment que le cyclisme est le bouc émissaire du sport professionnel ?

Absolument.

Et vous avez l'impression de payer pour tout le monde ?

Je laisserai les autres décider.

 … Sarkozy semble vouloir revenir pour la présidentielle de 2017. Pourquoi avez-vous fait un come-back en 2009 ?

C'est une bonne question. Cette décision a été la plus grosse erreur de ma vie. Je ferais n'importe quoi pour l'effacer, mais ce qui est fait est fait. J'aurais dû écouter Jean-Marie Leblanc [l'ancien directeur du Tour] lorsqu'il m'écrivit une lettre ouverte à l'automne 2008 pour me conseiller de ne pas revenir. Il avait raison.

This administration is focusing like a laser beam on jobs; or rather like a super-powered death ray

… the country as a whole has decided that the Democratic Party is where their bread has buttered

writes Benny Huang at Patriot Update.

Liberalism is on the march and there’s nothing those squarish, reliably red states in the geographical center can do about it. Florida has gone blue; Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia too.

Obviously, more Americans are voting in their economic best interests now, right? Not so fast.

[The thesis of Thomas Frank’s 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”], which has been borrowed many times over since 2004, is one of the great unexamined assumptions of American politics. Yes it’s true that plenty of Americans have issues in mind besides the economy when they enter the voting booth but it doesn’t follow that the Left offers economic prosperity.

First it’s necessary to define the term “economic best interests.” Words don’t mean the same thing to liberals that they do to other people. For liberals, “economic best interests” does not meaning lower taxes, lower living expenses, or having a job.

It would be in the economic best interests of plenty of Americans to pay less at the pump. There’s a path from here to there but there’s a giant roadblock along the way—the Democrats. They oppose fracking, drilling in ANWR, and the Keystone pipeline. Under no circumstances will they consider reducing state or federal gasoline taxes. In my state, the governor is proposing an increase in the already high gas taxes.

It isn’t just the gas we put in our cars and the heating oil we use to heat our homes that the Democrats want to make more expensive, but the electricity that keeps the lights on. As then-Senator Obama explained in 2008, “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Of course they would. And as bad as that would be for Americans in general, it would be hardest on those who make their living in the coal mines of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Is it really in their economic best interests?

This administration is focusing like a laser beam on jobs; or rather like a super-powered death ray. Everywhere it sees jobs being created it destroys them, and not just in coal country either. Take, for example, the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to prohibit Boeing, our nation’s largest exporter by value, from establishing a new plant in South Carolina because of its right-to-work laws. (Boeing later fought that decision and won.)

Chrysler and General Motors seem to have more latitude. The federal government is still a major stakeholder in both of these companies, yet both are setting up new factories in China. GM announced earlier this year that Shanghai would receive a new Cadillac factory, while Chrysler plans to manufacture Jeeps in China starting in 2014.

How’s that for chutzpah? The federal government arrogantly dictated to a private company that it could not open a factory in a right-to-work state, while two companies with substantial government ownership were setting up shop in an entirely different country.

The great job-killing Death Star of the Obama Administration is its health care fiasco, farcically called the “Affordable Care Act” or Obamacare. There’s nothing affordable about it, and that’s one problem. The other problem is that employers across the country are cutting employees’ hours or laying off workers to avoid the onerous expenses imposed by a law that was supposed to make health care cheaper. Papa John’s has already promised to reduce employees’ hours, as has the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Long Beach, California.

The new law is making it more and more difficult for less educated workers to find full time employment. Soon their only means of survival will be to take on a hodgepodge of part-time jobs without benefits. Temps will fill the jobs once performed by full-time employees.

Yet it is axiomatic to the average liberal that any American who doesn’t own a yacht ought to be voting Democrat. The problem is their definition of the term “economic best interests.” Here’s how they define it: SSDI, EBT, Obamaphones, and section eight housing. “Economic best interests” means never having to work a day in your life, which, given their other economic policies, is a very distinct possibility.

France's Big Brother, by contrast with the United States, is totally illegal

France's Big Brother, by contrast with the United States where the NSA program has been validated by the Congress, is totally illegal, writes Le Monde on its front page, followed by a lengthy article inside the newspaper called Révélations sur le Big Brother français Le Monde (here in (odd) English).

Ce Big Brother français, contrairement aux Etats-Unis où le programme de la NSA est secrètement validé par le Congrès, est totalement illégal.

La Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) confirme que « de telles pratiques ne seraient pas fondées légalement ».

Le député européen Arnaud Danjean, lui-même ancien de la DGSE, confirme que « les moyens techniques d'interception électronique sont entre les mains de la seule DGSE » et que « le système français n'offre pas nécessairement les meilleures garanties ».

Grand Frère Comes To France: "Phone Calls, Emails, Web Use" All Spied On

This weekend's epic indignation by Francois Hollande at the NSA, coupled with his laughable ultimatum for Barack Obama to stop spying, was almost good enough to mask the fact that none other than France has its own version of the NSA happily intercepting and recording every form of electronic communication.

This from Zero Hedge's Tyler Durden (merci à RV).

Almost.

Overnight French Le Monde reported that "France, like the United States with the Prism system, has a large-scale espionage telecommunications device. Le Monde is able to reveal that the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE, special services) has systematically collected and spied on the electromagnetic signals emitted by computers or phones in France, as well as flows between French and abroad all our communications. Politicians are aware of this, but secrecy about the Big Brother operation is the rule."

Reuters has more:

France's external intelligence agency spies on the French public's phone calls, emails and social media activity in France and abroad, the daily Le Monde said on Thursday.

It said the DGSE intercepted signals from computers and telephones in France, and between France and other countries, although not the content of phone calls, to create a map of "who is talking to whom". It said the activity was illegal.

"All of our communications are spied on," wrote Le Monde, which based its report on unnamed intelligence sources as well as remarks made publicly by intelligence officials.

"Emails, text messages, telephone records, access to Facebook and Twitter are then stored for years," it said.

The activities described are similar to those carried out by the U.S. National Security Agency, as described in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The documents revealed that the NSA has access to vast amounts of Internet data such as emails, chat rooms and video from large companies such as Facebook and Google, under a program known as Prism.

They also showed that the U.S. government had gathered so-called metadata - such as the time, duration and numbers called - on all telephone calls carried by service providers such as Verizon.

France's DGSE was not immediately available for comment.

...

France's seven other intelligence services, including domestic secret services and customs and money-laundering watchdogs, have access to the data and can tap into it freely as a means to spot people whose communications seem suspicious, whom they can then track with more intrusive techniques such as phone-tapping, Le Monde wrote.

What is amusing is that some are still surprised by such ongoing revelations. The sad truth is that every "democratic", "developed" government has been violating the privacy of its citizens for years and in this electronic day and age, no such thing as privacy exists.

Which is to be expected: Egypt just showed what happens to "democracy" when it is not properly cultivated by the 1% which has a vested interest in giving the peasantry the impression that people still have rights, and liberties and their vote "counts" just so the public attention is diverted from what truly matters: the endless transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich under the guise of "wealth effect", "democracy", "representation" and other lies.

Buzzfeed: Best Signs From The “Restore The Fourth” Rallies

Buzzfeed's Ellie Hall has the 40 Best Signs From The “Restore The Fourth” Rallies

The truth is: wind energy is just a tax scam

 … what the left and the green movement don't want to talk about regarding windmills is (as usual) the truth 

writes Craig's List (thanks to InstaPundit).

The truth is: windmills, like solar panels, break down. And like solar panels, windmills produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them. That's the part liberals forget: making windmills and solar panels takes energy, energy from coal, oil, and diesel, energy that extracts and refines raw materials, energy that transports those materials to where they will be re-shaped into finished goods, energy to manufacture those goods. More energy than those finished windmills and solar panels will ever produce.

 …  The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it's too cold or the wind speed is too high.

 … The truth is: wind energy is just a tax scam.

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst focusing on energy and environmental issues for the Heritage Foundation, is not surprised. He asks:

"If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end."

And therein lies a lesson for those who seek to make fortunes out of tax payer subsidies, and for those who want to live in a dream world of "clean energy", the whole renewables industry of solar, wind and biomass is just an artificial bubble incapable of surviving without subsides from governments and tax payers. The Green evangelists who push so hard for these wind farms, as usual have not thought the whole idea through.

Assassination Attempt on French Consul in Benghazi

An assassination attempt was made on France's consul in Benghazi, reports Le Monde, which turned out to prove unsuccessful.

"Phew, both of you are alive" were François Hollande's first words to Jean Dufriche and his wife, after none of the bullets targeting his car on July 4 hit either spouse. They were driving through the Libyan city when passengers in another car opened fire upon them. "At least 10 bullets hit the car" said Mohamed Hijazi, spokesman for Benghazi's secret services, "but no one was wounded".

The honorary consul and his wife left the Libyan city for Tunis (but there were no reports of his making a variant of the Samuel S Jackson speech in Pulp Fiction).

Gettysburg: Sweeping Republicans Aside and Redefining History the Leftist Way

Redefining Gettysburg for the Democrat party, at the 1938 commemoration and during the 1963 anniversary:

1938:

Winding up the great three-day ceremonies on the scene of the Civil War’s decisive battle seventy-five years ago, President Roosevelt today [July 3, 1938] told 50,000 cheering veterans of the Civil and World Wars that the present generation is fighting its way through “another conflict as fundamental as Lincoln’s” — a conflict on the battlefield of the mind. “It is being fought not with the glint of steel, but with appeals to reason and justice on a thousand fronts,” he said, “to save opportunity and security for the citizen in a free society.”

 1963:

Fifty years ago, on Memorial Day in 1963, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson gave a speech in Gettysburg, Pa., that foreshadowed profound changes that would be achieved in only 13 months and that mark us still.

The occasion was a speech that almost wasn’t given at all, for an anniversary that was still a month off, delivered by a man who had grown weary of his apparent uselessness in an office that neither interested him nor engaged his capacious gifts.

 … [When the veep was distracted, distressed, and depressed, Juanita Roberts, Johnson’s personal secretary] wrote Johnson directly, saying, “I can’t regret this one yet — I am excited by the possibilities it could offer.” She told the vice president that this was a chance to deliver “a masterpiece to be remembered by” and suggested that Dwight D. Eisenhower, living in Gettysburg in retirement from the presidency, might be drawn to the event.

By then the idea had gained momentum, all except the Eisenhower element. “Bringing in nationally prominent Republicans, however, could reduce the advantage of this situation,” a top Johnson aide, probably Busby, wrote in an unsigned internal memo that now rests in the files of the Johnson Library. 

All politics, in L.B.J.’s time as in ours, is personal.

Wouldn't it be surprising if the Times had dismissed the political element so cavalierly (as "mere" politicizing), had it been a Republican wishing to keep Democrats away from a like event?

In addition, The New York Times has a slide show of Gettysburg, three pictures (one third) of which have nothing to do with the Civil War.
Related: The Last Best Place on Earth

Could You Pass The Literacy Test Given To Black Voters In The 1960s?

Buzzfeed's Brian Galindo asks if you could pass a literacy test given to black voters in the 1960s.

For myself, the answer is: no way.
 
In case you care, I have been called Mensa material several times, and I could not have passed this test for the simple reason that after going through the shock (and, indeed, the insult) of discovering the type of questions asked (15 seconds wasted just there) — which have not an iota of relevance to real life (or to any preparation in real school exams) — I would be wondering if I were answering these — inane — questions entirely right and wasting time every time wondering if there wasn’t some kind of trap somewhere. 

Unfortunately, the article comes in context of the Supreme Court decision to strike down "Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a key provision in the law that mandated nine states with a history of racial discrimination, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before they could change their voter laws", suggesting that such obstacles will now reappear in the South.

Indeed, I take issue with many a comment the Buzzfeed post: To everybody dissing the Republicans , let’s not forget too quickly that from the 1870s to the 1960s and 1970s, the segregationist South was in lockstep with the Democrat  party.  

 In the past — indeed from before the Civil War — the Dems counted on the white vote while demonizing minorities. What’s new is that since the 1970s the Dems count on the minorities while demonizing the white race. (Didn’t LBJ go along with civil rights precisely because he saw that now that, in the civil rights era, the Jim Crow-built society was floundering, this would bring all the “Negro” (LBJ’s word) voters to the Dems?) 

To win their elections nowadays, it is true the Democrats don’t exclude people by giving literacy tests. Instead they demonize their opponents as racist (precisely the reason so many feel it a non-brainer to equalize the Jim Crow laws with the GOP), all the while unleashing the IRS on them — along with various other branches of the federal government.  

In addition, they try to import impoverished workers in need of government help to add millions of Democrat voters to the rolls. 

And why do millions of American go along with this?

Isn’t it precisely because they have been convinced (thank you, U.S. school system) that the caricature of conservatives can’t be anything but factually correct?

Tocqueville: A power that is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild and seeks to keep men in perpetual childhood

Tocqueville also predicted the current danger to the United States (and, through it, to the world), notes Joel B Pollack on Breitbart.com, notably "the slow imposition of Obamacare in the United States, delayed only so that it might never be defeated, creeping gradually into every aspect of life, administered by agencies already shown to be hostile to freedom."

The words of Alexis de Tocqueville in Book Four, Chapter VI of Democracy in America are particularly poignant:

I had remarked during my stay in the United States, that a democratic state of society, similar to that of the Americans, might offer singular facilities for the establishment of despotism...

I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression which will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it, the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest,--his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not;--he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their gate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

This, it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people....

It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other.

Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day, and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions, only exhibits servitude at certain intervals, and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is vain to summon a people, who have been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.

I add, that they will soon become incapable of exercising the great and only privilege which remains to them....

A constitution which should be republican in its head, and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts, has ever appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions, or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master.

Related: Some Thoughts on American Patriotism…

The progressives' ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers

Steve Bartin (thanks to Instapundit) links what he (rightfully) calls "One of the great speeches in American history."

Calvin Coolidge's classic July, 4 speech. We re-link this one:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Yes, writes Instapundit, what the progressives preach is in fact regress.

Related: Some Thoughts on American Patriotism… 

In 2015, a Copy of an 18th-C Frigate Is to Recreate Lafayette's Crossing the Atlantic Aboard the Hermione to America

Benedict Donnelly, the head of the Hermione-La Fayette Association, is looking for 3 million Euros to complete his dream of finishing the building of a copy of an 18th-century ship and have it sail to America (thanks to OlTri), in the footsteps (so to speak) of Lafayette.

Lafayette sailed as a passenger on the Hermione to America in 1780 and the building of the copy of that frigate, writes Le Figaro, has lasted for 15 years now. The copy, like the original, is to sail from Rochefort to Boston.

Deeply held feelings: A mystery that the pro-choicers are curiously uncurious to solve and a question they squirmingly refuse to answer

Disagreements about abortion nearly always end at the same impasse

writes Benjamin Duffy at Patriot Update

—an endless debate about when life begins.

The pro-life position is usually that it begins at conception. The pro-choice position—and I hate calling them that—is more nuanced, which is a nice way of saying convoluted. They’re sure that a human being exists at the moment of birth and that none exists at the moment of conception, but everything in between is a mystery that they are curiously uncurious to solve. While the pro-lifers’ preferred point comes with some of its own problems, it’s at least precise and non-arbitrary. The same cannot be said of pro-choicers’ squirming refusal to answer the question.

 … For the rabidly pro-abortion, the question of when life begins is not a scientific one but a matter of deeply held feelings. If a woman thinks the two-celled organism in her fallopian tube is a child, then she’s right. But if she thinks that a child just minutes before birth is merely a problem, then she’s right too. And it doesn’t stop there! Even when the nurse places the bouncing baby boy in his mother’s arms, his humanity is still an unsettled question.

What’s the verdict, mom? Baby or problem?

If mommy gives the thumbs down, the clump of cells in swaddling clothes can be whisked away to the incinerator. Notice I didn’t say “killed” because killing implies that a life existed in the first place. In the sick mind of [an abortionist like] LeRoy Carhart, the child never existed if his mother never accepted him.

It isn’t possible to understand Carhart’s analysis without considering how the pro-choice crowd perceives the issue. They believe that a child is a burden that no one should have to bear without full consent, ergo he must do a disappearing act if his mother finds him inconvenient.

Yet everyone knows that the question of when life begins has an answer, and it isn’t “when mama says so.” Mama could decide that her four year old is a problem, or her rebellious teenager, but we all agree that she can’t kill them. (Don’t we? Paging Dr. Carhart…) At some point life is an unambiguous fact, not subject to interpretation. Pro-choicers are very, very squeamish about drawing that line because someone will always cross it and then they will be in the position of having to condemn it.

The emergence of quick and legal abortion has warped our thinking in regard to pregnancy. “Baby bumps” are developing children only in the wombs of mothers who want them, as if nature cares at all what mama thinks. Our ability to convince ourselves that unwanted children never really existed in the first place borders on schizophrenic delusion.

 … The reason we’re still having this debate forty years after Roe v. Wade is because ordinary pro-choicers honestly believe that lives are not at stake. People on the inside of the abortion industry know better, but they don’t admit it when they know the cameras are rolling. If they ever spilled the beans the debate would be over because it’s the premise—that a growing fetus is a life—that’s disputed. The conclusion—that lives shouldn’t be tossed into a medical waste container—is not.

Even the NYT Is Forced to Admit that Abroad, Barack "Smart Diplomacy" Obama Is Treated with Discourtesy

[Barack Obama's] first meeting [with Russia's Vladimir Putin] was marked by a nearly hourlong lecture by Mr. Putin about all the ways the United States had offended Moscow. At their second, Mr. Putin kept Mr. Obama waiting 30 minutes.

Even the New York Times is forced to admit that Barack "smart diplomacy" Obama often gets the cold shoulder abroad, as Mark Landler and Peter Baker report on "very blunt conversation[s]" and "bruising encounters", given that the Apologizer-in-Chief's "main counterparts on the world stage are not his friends, and they make little attempt to cloak their disagreements in diplomatic niceties."

While tangling with the leaders of two cold war antagonists of the United States is nothing new, the two bruising encounters in such a short span underscore a hard reality for Mr. Obama as he heads deeper into a second term that may come to be dominated by foreign policy: his main counterparts on the world stage are not his friends, and they make little attempt to cloak their disagreements in diplomatic niceties. 

Even his friends are not always so friendly. On Wednesday, for example, the president is to meet in Berlin with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who has invited him to deliver a speech at the Brandenburg Gate. But Ms. Merkel is also expected to press Mr. Obama about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, which offend privacy-minded Germans. 

For all of his effort to cultivate personal ties with foreign counterparts over the last four and a half years — the informal “shirt-sleeves summit” with Mr. Xi was supposed to nurture a friendly rapport that White House aides acknowledge did not materialize — Mr. Obama has complicated relationships with some, and has bet on others who came to disappoint him. 

“In Europe, especially, Obama was welcomed with open arms, and some people had unrealistic expectations about him,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a longtime senior American diplomat. Noting that Mr. Obama continued some unpopular policies like the use of drones, he said, “People don’t appreciate that American interests continue from administration to administration.”

 … Mr. Obama spent nearly four years befriending Mr. Putin’s predecessor, Dmitri A. Medvedev, hoping to build him up as a counterweight to Mr. Putin. That never happened, and Mr. Obama now finds himself back at square one with a Russian leader who appears less likely than ever to find common ground with the United States on issues like Syria. 

… “You don’t need to be buddies with someone to establish an effective relationship,” said Mr. Burns, who now teaches at Harvard. “Not everyone can be Roosevelt and Churchill forming a personal bond to end the Second World War.”

Even with friends, however, there is tension. President François Hollande of France was initially thrilled with Mr. Obama because he saw him as an ally against Ms. Merkel on economic issues.

But by the time they met at the Group of 8 summit meeting in Northern Ireland on Tuesday, the relationship had soured, according to French analysts, because France is frustrated that the United States did not do more to help with the war in Mali and resisted a more robust response to Syria. 

Mr. Obama differs from his most recent predecessors, who made personal relationships with leaders the cornerstone of their foreign policies. The first George Bush moved gracefully in foreign capitals, while Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush related to fellow leaders as politicians, trying to understand their pressures and constituencies. 

“That’s not President Obama’s style,” said James B. Steinberg, Mr. Clinton’s deputy national security adviser and Mr. Obama’s deputy secretary of state. 

 … For Mr. Obama, no relationship is more prickly, and yet more significant, than that with Mr. Putin. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush forged strong partnerships with their Russian counterparts, Boris Yeltsin and Mr. Putin, respectively. But even that did not prevent ruptures over NATO military action in Kosovo and the Russian war in Georgia. 

Mr. Obama arrived in office determined to invest in Mr. Medvedev, but he underestimated Mr. Putin’s continuing power. Their first meeting was marked by a nearly hourlong lecture by Mr. Putin about all the ways the United States had offended Moscow. At their second, Mr. Putin kept Mr. Obama waiting 30 minutes. 

 … However strained their appearance on Monday, Mr. Obama did not publicly criticize Mr. Putin on human rights or the rule of law. While the White House is frustrated by Russia’s refusal to abandon Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, Mr. Obama has been reluctant to intervene more forcefully on behalf of the rebels.

"Obama did not publicly criticize Mr. Putin on human rights or the rule of law." Well, no, that's something that's reserved for Republicans.

As for R. Nicholas Burns, we mention his FDR quip — “Not everyone can be Roosevelt and Churchill forming a personal bond to end the Second World War” — as we wonder how many media types recall how often they gushed about the One's "smart diplomacy", how often they claimed he was the man to bring respect and love back for America, and how often, precisely, they compared BHO to FDR (if it wasn't to Lincoln, to JFK, or to Reagan).

Obabush in his element in the heart of the Land of the Stasi

He is the spy who came in from the West, writes Arnaud Leparmentier in a column in which the Le Monde writer also reminisces about such things as JFK's speech to Berliners (1963) and Ronald Reagan's (1987), as well as Bill Clinton's many official visits to Germany when he was president (1990s).

Und who ish zhis shpy vrom de Vest zat ve are shpeakink apout? Well, about the White House's current resident, aka "Obabush", and his trip to the land of the Stasi. Indeed, this time (in contrast with his 2008 speech), Barack Obama's visit was held in the part of Berlin that was part of the former East Germany.

In the final analysis, the American president is in his element: at the heart of the former communist dictatorship, which spied upon and filed reports on all its citizens with its sinister political police, the Stasi. Shocking? We will not let him off the hook, this president, a curious winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who refrained from closing Guantanamo, and whose spying on our emails, our phone conversations, and our Facebook accounts has just been discovered. It was a promise, this Democrat was to break with George Bush. Wake up. At least for the present column, we will call him "Obabush."

From Le Monde:

Il est l'espion venu de l'Ouest. Et c'est à Berlin-Est, capitale de l'ancienne RDA, que Barack Obama devait prendre la parole mercredi après-midi 19 juin à Berlin. Non pas devant la porte de Brandebourg, mais derrière, entre les murs de la Pariser Platz. Au fond, le président américain est à sa place : au cœur de l'ancienne dictature communiste, qui espionnait, fichait tous ses concitoyens avec sa sinistre police politique, la Stasi. Schocking ? Nous ne décolérons pas contre ce président, curieux Prix Nobel de la paix, qui n'a pas fermé Guantanamo, et dont on vient de découvrir qu'il espionnait nos mails, nos communications téléphoniques et nos comptes Facebook. C'était promis, ce démocrate devait rompre avec George Bush. Que nenni. L'instant d'une chronique, nous l'appellerons "Obabush".

 … Dans les années 1990, Bill Clinton sillonne l'Allemagne et l'Europe déchirée par la guerre dans les Balkans. "Obabush", rien. Aucune visite officielle lors de son premier mandat. Juste [deux sauts de puce].

My business school is rich, my business school parle "globish".

In Le Monde, Benoît Floc'h presents an amusing article on the prevalence of English-teaching business schools in France, one which will undoubtedly evoke a bitter smile from defenders of the French tongue.

My business school is rich, my business school parle "globish". Il est peu probable que les écoles de commerce françaises se soient senties concernées par la polémique sur l'utilisation de l'anglais à l'université. Elles, l'anglais, elles l'utilisent depuis belle lurette. Et elles en raffolent. Car les business schools sont hype ; elles sont cool ; elles sont trendy.

La tête retournée par les rankings et la globalisation effrénée de l'enseignement supérieur, elles ont résolument adopté le sabir des businessmen jet-lagués, le global english, ou "globish". D'ailleurs, et pour commencer, ces écoles n'en sont plus. Dorénavant, il convient de les appeler "business schools". Leurs slogans ? "Be distinctive", ordonne EM Strasbourg Business School ; "Get ready to love your future", susurre l'école de Marseille, Euromed Management ; "Write your story", recommande celle de Bordeaux. Quant à EM Lyon, sa mission est "Educating entrepreneurs for the world". Et Audencia, à Nantes, se propose d'"Inspiring new leaders".

Dans ces écoles, pardon, ces business schools, les élèves s'inscrivent dans des formations undergraduate ou post graduate pour devenir des managers boostés au leadership. Car, bien entendu, ils sont trop jeunes pour les executive programs.

Ils choisissent des tracks où ils peuvent suivre les workshops, s'adonner aux serious games ou expérimenter les futures learning de ces smart schools. Tout cela sous l'autorité de faculties qui ont (presque) tous un PhD et, of course, un dean. La supply chain, le sustainable business, l'hospitality ou l'outdoor industry n'auront plus aucun secret pour eux, mais ils acquerront également des soft skills. Pour se détendre, ils peuvent participer à la sailing team ou aux entrepreneurship awards. Car devenir un "leader entrepreneurial", c'est essentiel.

L'"ALUMNUS" GLOBE-TROTTER

Bien sûr, il ne faut pas zapper la Luxury Careers Week ou l'International Online Career Day du Career Forum. Le job en dépend.

Euromed Management et Bordeaux Ecole de management ont bien compris l'enjeu. En s'unissant, elles ont choisi de s'appeler Kedge ("l'ancre"). Avant elles, l'ESC Lille et le Céram de Nice avaient donné naissance à Skema, pour School of Knowledge Economy and Management.

De fait, ce sont surtout dans les écoles moyennes de province que l'on prise le chic globish. La grande HEC, dont la réputation internationale n'est plus à faire, n'a pas besoin de recourir aux envolées anglodôlatres. Son slogan ? Le très sobre "Apprendre à oser".

Les autres, celles qui subissent la concurrence de plein fouet surjouent l'excellence de leur formation. Et elles savent bien qu'être moderne passe par l'anglais. L'idée : mettre le grappin sur l'étudiant international, celui qui est né à New Delhi, fera ses études à Orléans, se mariera à Rio de Janeiro, commencera sa carrière à Chicago et la finira à Shanghaï avant de prendre une retraite bien méritée à Moscou.

Et pour lui, rien n'est trop beau. Car, après ses études, il fera partie des alumni. Les anciens, bien trop anciens, ont disparu. Alumni, c'est du latin, bien sûr, mais les business schools, qui ont fait cette trouvaille aux States, croient encore que c'est de l'anglais. Chut ! Don't tell them.

Big Obama Is Watching You: "And When Finally We Get Obama to Listen to Us, This Is What We Get"

Imagine what the situation would be like had Obama not promised to refrain from imitating Bush Jr… 

The Canard Enchaîné joins in railing against Big Obama, aka Big Mama (merci à W2).
François Hollande (according to the satirical weekly):
"And When Finally We Get Obama to Listen to Us, This Is What We Get!"

Meet the American people — " the sorts that Barack Obama apologizes for abroad as guilty of sundry sorts of past class, race, and gender oppression"

Victor Davis Hanson has an outstanding must-read article (thanks to Instapundit) on PJMedia.

The CIA and FBI knew of the suspicious activity of the Boston bombers, of Major Hasan, and of Anwar al-Awlaki. And they did nothing to preempt their violence. The FBI is said to be carefully avoiding monitoring mosques, although all of the above terrorists were known by many fellow Muslim worshipers to be either disturbed or extremist or both. In contrast, the NSA monitors, we are told, nearly everyone’s communications rather than focusing on Middle Eastern male Muslims, even though Middle Eastern male Muslims have been involved in the vast majority of post-9/11 terrorist plots. The NSA is the electronic version of the TSA, which feels it is noble and liberal to stop an octogenarian in a wheel chair for special frisking as proper compensation for every focused look at a West Bank resident or Pakistani visitor on his way into the United States.

The words “Tea Party” and “patriot” in a non-profit’s name would more likely earn a negative appraisal from the IRS than would “Islam” or “Muslim.” One wonders how Lois Lerner’s IRS division would treat a hypothetical “Sarah Palin Foundation” versus “The Dr. Zawahiri Charity.”
 
The IRS is not worried at all about 47% of the nation who pay no federal income taxes. The vast majority of those whom it focuses on are instead the 10% who pay over 70% of all taxes. These are the would-be proverbial “fat cats” who did not build their own businesses. They are reluctant to spread their wealth. They certainly did not know either when to stop making money or when the age of profit altogether had passed. Sometime around 2009 success was deemed failure, and failure success — at least if we collate the president fat-cat rhetoric with the vast expansion in the disability, food-stamp, and unemployment-insurance rolls.

Note that the IRS is not interested in leaking to Democrat senators or former administration official rumors about George Soros’s income or the details of the tax returns of Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, or Bill Gates. Instead, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate bragged that he knew (falsely as it turned out) that Mitt Romney paid no income taxes. And former high administration official Austan Goolsbee claimed (also falsely as it turned out) that he too knew that the Koch brothers were shorting the IRS.

Note that only liberal groups like ProPublica leak information about the confidential donor lists of conservative activists, apparently given their familiar arrangement with the IRS. So far IRS chiefs are not looking at prominent Democrat politicians for tax violations, although for a time — cf. Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis — that might have been a fruitful profile for inquiry. (One encouraging side note: if you are a suspect white, mature, well-off, conservative, heterosexual, Christian male, you can still obtain exemption from federal suspicion by loudly announcing that you also are enthralled by Barack Obama.)

We know who was not an administration suspect in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi — hard-core, al Qaeda-related Islamic terrorists. Instead a  supposedly right-wing unhinged video-maker was the object of vitriol from the secretary of state, the UN ambassador, and the president of the United States. He currently sits in jail. The known perpetrators of the murders walk free.  In contrast, Lisa Jackson, the former EPA director, just got a fat inside job from Apple, despite creating not just a fictitious name (e.g., “Richard Windsor”) to avoid scrutiny when she communicated official business, but also an entirely made-up alter ego: “Richard Windsor” became an ideal employee lauded by the unethical EPA for his supposedly “ethical behavior.”

We also know who in the media is not a target. Not the CBS or ABC News presidents who have siblings working in the White House. Not ABC’s Good Morning America, given that one of its stalwarts is married to Press Secretary Jay Carney. Instead, there are two sorts of suspicious reporters that are considered hostile to the administration and worthy of having their communications monitored. One group are those journalists who leak information that the administration wished to preempt and leak first or who refuse to only leak favorable classified information — the bin Laden trove, the cyber war against Iran, the drone targeting protocol — that makes the president look as if he were a competent commander in chief.

The other target, of course, is Fox News, whose staff, in a variety of ways and on a number of occasions, the Obama administration has previously attacked as in some way illegitimate.
Again, who fits these profiles that our current, vastly expanding big government does not like? If you are an operator of a coal plant that creates needed energy at a profit, then beware that the EPA is after you. If you are a shady insider who wants tens of millions of government dollars to subsidize a money-losing wind and solar plant, you hit the jackpot. Ditto the suspect people who build guitars, loan money to Chrysler, or wish to locate a jet airliner plant in South Carolina. Profits create suspicion; failures earn subsidies.

Then there are the clingers, whom the president long ago blasted as religious zealots and gun-toting xenophobes. These are the sorts whom the attorney general calls “cowards”  (not “my people”) — the “enemies” whom the president advises Latino activists to “punish” at the polls, the sorts that the president apologizes for abroad as guilty of sundry sorts of past class, race, and gender oppression.

In contrast, who is not so worried about government surveillance or audit? The New Black Panthers who turned up at a polling station in Philadelphia to intimidate voters; the “farmers” who, according to the New York Times, filed bogus claims to cash in on the government’s ill-advised and poorly administered Pigford settlement; the Secret Service agents who routinely visited prostitutes while on duty protecting high government officials abroad; and the assistant to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who used her office to enhance her private consulting business.

Americans wonder whom would the immigration services more likely wish to deport: the German Romeike family that was “guilty” of homeschooling their children; Obama’s aunt Zeituni, who lied about her immigration status to illegally obtain state and federal subsidies; or Onyango Obama, who likewise is here illegally (for 21 years) and was recently charged with ramming a police car while driving intoxicated? Is the U.S. so short of DUI offenders and frauds that we must deport homeschoolers to make room for them?

There is currently a climate of fear growing throughout the United States. Millions of Americans are terrified of the IRS, the Department of Justice, the EPA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and even perhaps the FBI, CIA, and State Department.

Why?

These government agencies have never been bigger, more powerful, and more ideologically driven. Citizens fear them for understandable reasons: those who do nothing wrong, whether in filing tax forms or trying to buy a rifle, are considered suspect and deserving to be the target of either federal scrutiny or presidential slurs.  But those who do a great deal of wrong, either by illegally entering the country, disrupting polling, trafficking in weapons in Mexico, eavesdropping on American citizens, pulling tax information for partisan purposes, subverting a government agency, or lying to the public about government activity, seem exempt from punishment — and, more chillingly, sense that they are so exempt.

Ask who now is sitting in prison — a shyster video-maker who had nothing to do with the deaths of four Americans, or their five known terrorist killers lounging about in North Africa? Apparently, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, like EPA director Lisa Jackson, was guilty of creating a fake persona. Like Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, he had a lien on his business. Like former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, he had some unpaid taxes. Like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, he had been visited by government investigators. Like Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, he lied to federal authorities — although they were not quite as high as those in the U.S. Congress. And unlike all of the above, he was therefore jailed.

Of all the legacies of Barack Obama, the most pernicious will be the creation of a rogue government that has cut off and terrified half the population — and for no other reason than that they seem to represent things that Mr. Obama simply does not seem to understand.

In the Tour de France's doping race, Lance Armstrong was far behind "King Miguel"

Antoine Vayer, a former Festina cycling team honcho who is publishing Proof by 21 on the doping scandal inside the Tour de France, claims in Stéphane Mandard's Le Monde interview that, in the pantheon of Tour de France dopers who won the Tour, Lance Armstrong was "almost but a foot soldier compared to King Miguel".

Indeed, only one cyclist in the past 30 years,  Greg LeMond, never demonstrated anything outside of normal "human" capabilities, as is shown in a graph with four levels — normal, suspicious, miraculous, and mutant — in which "the Boss" (Lance) comes in 6th place only. And if Spain's Miguel Indurain was never threatened by doping revelations, says Vayer, it is because the five-time Tour winner's doctor was better the American's.

See also: Cycling News — Vayer casts doubt over performances of Indurain and Jalabert, Says Armstrong was some way behind in doping race

Depuis le "Tour du renouveau", décrété en 1999 après l'affaire Festina, Antoine Vayer passe au crible les performances du peloton en calculant les puissances développées par les coureurs dans les grands cols du Tour de France. Cet été encore, l'ancien préparateur de l'équipe Festina analysera pour Le Monde le relevé des "radars" posés sur le parcours de la 100^e édition. Et vendredi 7 juin, il publie La Preuve par 21 (AlternatiV Edition, 148 p., 8,90 € [available in English through this La Flamme Rouge page]), un hors-série qui compile pour la première fois les performances des vainqueurs du Tour depuis 1983. Un guide utile pour la prochaine Grande Boucle.

Vous avez décrypté les performances des vainqueurs du Tour de ces trente dernières années. Aucun n'échappe au soupçon ?

Un seul coureur semble avoir toujours eu des performances "humaines", Greg LeMond. Il remporte son premier Tour avec une moyenne de 381 watts en 1986, puis 408 watts en 1989, et 407 watts en 1990. Il reste dans le vert. Tous les autres vainqueurs sont "flashés" à un moment ou à un autre de leur carrière au-delà de 410 watts (ce qui représente pour nous le niveau suspect), de 430 watts (miraculeux), voire de 450 watts (mutant). Avec l'arrivée de l'EPO au début des années 1990, un coureur qui pouvait développer 400 watts pendant vingt minutes se met à en développer 440 pendant quarante minutes ! C'est le cas du Danois Bjarne Riis, surnommé "Monsieur 60 %" en raison de son hématocrite largement supérieur aux 50 % autorisés, qui, en 1993, stagne à 399 watts mais passe à 449 watts lors de son Tour victorieux en 1996, à 32 ans. LeMond, lui, restera à 410 watts après 1990 et sera lâché par des ânes devenus des pur-sang.

Lance Armstrong a été décrit par l'Agence antidopage américaine comme le sportif ayant bénéficié du "programme de dopage le plus efficace de l'histoire". Pourtant, il n'est pas en tête de votre classement des vainqueurs du Tour les plus performants ?

Le "boss", avec sa moyenne record de 438 watts sur le Tour 2001, n'arrive en effet qu'en 6^e position de notre palmarès. Il apparaît presque comme un petit joueur à côté du "roi" Miguel Indurain, cinq Tours dans son escarcelle. L'Espagnol paraît indétrônable avec ses 455 watts de moyenne dans l'édition 1 995. Bjarne Riis, Marco Pantani, Jan Ullrich et même Alberto Contador, avec 439 watts en 2009, fait mieux qu'Armstrong. L'Américain a régné sur sept Tours entre 1999 et 2005 en gérant "seulement" entre 428 et 438 watts de moyenne. Le fait que son règne a débuté après l'affaire Festina en 1998 et la mise en place du test de détection de l'EPO l'ont obligé à faire plus "attention". Il n'a pas pu prendre de l'EPO à la louche comme ses prédécesseurs et a dû être plus précis, minutieux, réfléchi, organisé, intelligent.

A la différence d'Armstrong, Indurain n'a pourtant jamais été inquiété par des affaires de dopage...

 Le "roi" Miguel a été contrôlé une fois positif, au salbutamol, en 1994. Mais il a ensuite été blanchi par une formation "disciplinaire" de la Ligue nationale de cyclisme. En fait, le médecin d'Indurain, Sabino Padilla, a été meilleur que celui d'Armstrong, Michele Ferrari. Il a fait d'un coureur de 80 kg un grimpeur ailé montant les cols plus vite que Pantani, 56 kg, dont la plupart des performances dépassent les 450 watts, sur le Tour comme le Giro. A l'instar d'Eufemiano Fuentes, quelques années plus tard, Padilla a permis à un marathonien comme Martin Fiz d'être lui aussi un roi d'Espagne.

Un autre coureur qui n'a jamais été contrôlé positif, c'est Laurent Jalabert. Vous rangez pourtant le Français, de par certaines de ses performances, dans la catégorie des coureurs "mutants" ?

Quand Armstrong a pris connaissance des déclarations de "Jaja" devant la commission d'enquête sénatoriale sur le dopage [le 15 mai], il m'a demandé si c'était bien "under oath", à savoir sous serment. "Est-ce qu'on était dopé ? Moi, je crois que non", a répondu Jalabert aux sénateurs. Mais alors comment a-t-il, de meilleur sprinteur, pu se muer en meilleur grimpeur du Tour sous la férule de Manolo Saiz, le mentor de la ONCE et du cyclisme espagnol, qui était récemment sur le banc des accusés à l'occasion du procès Puerto. Lors de la Vuelta, en 1996 et 1997, l'ex-maillot vert a monté le lagos de Covadonga, 8,5 km à 9,18 %, en moins de vingt-cinq minutes, en poussant respectivement 468 et 478 watts. Sur le Tour, nous avons même dû rebaptiser l'ascension du col de Mende "montée Jalabert", après ses 495 watts en 1995 ! Il a aussi déclaré, sous serment que son médecin de l'époque était surnommé "docteur Citroën" par opposition au docteur Ferrari d'Armstrong. Comment se fait-il alors que "Jalabert" apparaisse dans les documents saisis par un juge de Bologne au domicile de Michele Ferrari ? Pourquoi son numéro de téléphone figure dans le carnet du "Dottore" ? Et pourquoi est-il consigné dans ces fiches que son hématocrite passe de 42 % le 19 janvier 1997 à 54 % le 28 août 1997 ? Si j'avais été sénateur, je lui aurais aussi demandé pourquoi, alors qu'il était 3^e au général, il s'est enfui du Tour de France en 1998 en suivant son père spirituel Manolo Saiz après l'intervention de la police. Armstrong a dit récemment qu'il serait le premier à aller tout raconter si une Commission vérité et réconciliation était mise sur pied. Laurent Jalabert devrait aussi s'y précipiter.

A travers l'analyse des performances, vous identifiez quatre ères du dopage ces trente dernières années ?

Avant 1990, on est dans l'ère pré-EPO : on flirte avec les 410 watts à base de corticoïdes et d'anabolisants. Puis on assiste à un bond à 450 watts avec l'arrivée et l'usage massif d'EPO jusqu'en 1998. Après l'introduction du test EPO, les transfusions sanguines font leur grand retour : c'est l'ère Armstrong, stabilisée aux alentours de 430 watts. Depuis 2011, on peut parler d'une nouvelle ère "mixte", où les performances sont un ton en dessous mais avec des puissances suspectes au-delà de 410 watts. La raison est simple : l'EPO et les transfusions, trop voyantes et détectables, ont fait place à des produits donnant de la "force" comme l'Aicar. On joue moins sur l'oxygénation et davantage sur la fibre du muscle. On pousse moins de watts longtemps, mais on peut contracter le muscle plus longtemps. 

Vous estimez que les performances sont donc redevenues plus humaines ?

Il n'y a plus de coureurs flashés "miraculeux" à nos radars depuis 2011. Cadel Evans est dans le vert, à 406 watts de moyenne cette année-là. En 2012, Bradley Wiggins est jaune à 415 watts avec Christopher Froome et Vicenzo Nibali au-dessus de 410. Cette décroissance des performances permet à des coureurs comme Nibali, à 414 watts de moyenne, de remporter le Giro 2013 avec son équipe Astana, dirigée par Alexandre Vinokourov, un ancien "mutant".

Aujourd'hui, la plupart des coureurs et des préparateurs utilisent le calcul des puissances pour évaluer les limites physiques. Pourquoi l'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) n'utilise-t-elle pas cette mesure comme une preuve indirecte du dopage ?

Depuis 2012, l'UCI interdit la télétransmission de ces mesures de puissance qui sont pourtant collectées par plus de la moitié du peloton du Tour. Parce que jouer la carte de la transparence serait dangereux. C'est plus commode de se cantonner à la première partie de la définition du dopage : "Pratique consistant à absorber des substances ou à utiliser des méthodes interdites", et d'évacuer la deuxième : "afin d'augmenter ses capacités physiques ou mentales : ses performances". Or, comme l'a reconnu lui-même l'ex-patron de l'Agence mondiale antidopage, Dick Pound, déceler les produits est difficile et les contrôles restent facilement contournables. Les performances, elles, ne mentent pas.

Vous faites partie de Change Cycling Now, groupe de pression qui s'est constitué après l'affaire Armstrong. Vous demandiez avec Greg LeMond et son fondateur, Jaimie Fuller, la démission du président de l'UCI, Pat McQuaid. Comment expliquez-vous qu'il soit encore en place et prêt à briguer un nouveau mandat en septembre ?

Pat McQuaid aurait dû démissionner après l'affaire Armstrong. Greg LeMond s'était porté volontaire en décembre 2012 pour assurer un intérim. Mais un chien ne lâche pas une saucisse. J'ai rencontré McQuaid en janvier. Il m'a confié qu'il était sûr d'être réélu. Le mode d'élection qui attribue autant de voix à la France qu'à n'importe quel Etat affilié et ses voyages dans les pays lointains lui ont donné suffisamment de garanties. Développer le cyclisme en Afrique ou à Cuba rapporte plus de voix que lutter contre le dopage. Nous avions proposé à Dick Pound de le soutenir pour prendre la présidence de l'UCI mais il a décliné. Nous allons en Australie rencontrer des personnes impliquées dans la lutte antidopage. Peut-être qu'à notre retour nous aurons trouvé un candidat prêt à affronter McQuaid.

Gay Marriage: Some French Officers Evoking a Coup to Overthrow Leftist Government

Unhappy with the François Hollande's decision to allow gay marriage, a number of officers in the French Army, albeit a small one, are brandying about the idea of a coup to overthrow the French government, report Nathalie Guibert and Caroline Monnot in Le Monde. Evidence came through Jean-Dominique Merchet's Secret-défense blog, which revealed the contents a recent issue of the Revue de l'Arsenal magazine, which shows "the growing frustration" within the ranks.

Après La Manif pour tous, qui a compté de nombreux officiers et familles de militaires ordinaires dans ses rangs, la défense dit prendre "très au sérieux" le mouvement d'humeur qui émane des milieux d'extrême droite catholique traditionalistes et qui est relayé par certains gradés. Les services de renseignement ont placé cette frange, minoritaire mais rendue très visible depuis les manifestations anti-mariage gay, sous surveillance.

La circulation sur Internet de La Revue de l'Arsenal est considérée comme un symptôme. Signalée par le blog "Secret-défense" du journaliste Jean-Dominique Merchet, mercredi 5 juin, cette nouvelle publication évoque "le grand mécontentement" des armées et contient un appel au putsch. Visant un public militaire, Arsenal se présente comme l'émanation d'un Mouvement du 6-Mai jusqu'à présent inconnu, qui dit appartenir à la mouvance du Printemps français. Il aurait été lancé, selon la revue, par les "cellules solidaires du Lys noir", appellation pompeuse derrière laquelle se cache Rodolphe Crevelle, vieux routier de l'extrême droite radicale au passé tumultueux qui, après avoir fréquenté plusieurs de ses chapelles, se réclame de l'"anarcho-royalisme".

Ce n'est pas l'appel au putsch qui est jugé préoccupant en tant que tel, mais le fait que plusieurs officiers généraux catholiques de renom soient, pour l'occasion, présentés comme les fers de lance d'un combat contre "le cabinet franc-maçon"  du ministre Jean-Yves Le Drian : Benoît Puga, chef d'état-major particulier du président de la République, Pierre de Villiers, major général des armées, et  Bruno Dary, ancien gouverneur militaire de Paris qui a quitté ses fonctions actives depuis un an.

"LE SALUT VIENDRA DES CAPITAINES"

Aux dires d'Arsenal, tous trois auraient pu former, en raison de leurs positions, de leurs idéaux nationaux-catholiques et de leur aura opérationnelle, de possibles points d'appui pour un "sursaut". Le fanzine semble déplorer que ces officiers généraux n'aient pas encore sauté le pas. Et finit par estimer que "le salut viendra des capitaines".

Aucun des trois hauts gradés n'a publiquement démenti sa proximité avec les idées politiques qui leur sont prêtées. Pour des raisons obscures, Arsenal a éventé un projet qui, selon nos informations, a, un temps, été caressé dans certains cercles ultra-minoritaires un peu enfiévrés de l'armée. En cas de crise majeure déclenchée par les protestations contre le mariage gay, ces micro-cercles nourrissaient le fantasme d'une sorte de comité de salut public dont le général Puga aurait été la tête pensante et le général Dary la façade consensuelle.

Au-delà de ce projet délirant, l'affaire du mariage homosexuel a révélé la proximité de certains
gradés, estimés pour leur valeur militaire, avec des milieux nationaux-catholiques, contre-révolutionnaires et antirépublicains. A la défense, on estime que cette "humeur", qui mêle l'expression d'illuminés à celle de militants prêts à faire le coup de poing, pourrait être nocive. "Il faut que nous soyons vigilants, estime un officiel. La cristallisation autour du mariage gay a libéré certains comportements et paroles, cela peut avoir des incidences sur de jeunes officiers pour qui défendre la "grande armée" contre les socialo-communistes francs-maçons est un combat."

L'ÉLYSÉE MET EN GARDE CONTRE LES AMALGAMES

L'entourage de M. Le Drian dédouane le major général Pierre de Villiers, "un vrai officier républicain". Le cas de Benoît Puga est plus embarrassant. Son frère, Denis Puga, est lié au mouvement d'extrême droite nationale-catholique Civitas et officie à Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet dont le général est lui-même un familier. Cette église parisienne est accaparée depuis plus de trente ans par la Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie-X, mouvement intégriste de l'évêque schismatique Marcel Lefebvre. Mais à l'Elysée, on met aussi en garde contre les "amalgames" : des mouvements peuvent se servir de noms connus, et le général Puga étant jugé parfaitement loyal, sa vie familiale n'est pas un sujet.

La tête de pont la plus visible est Bruno Dary qui fut coorganisateur de La Manif pour tous et continue d'appeler à "la résistance contre cette mauvaise loi sans impliquer l'institution". Le 24 mai sur LCI, il dénonçait un "hold-up politique" sur le débat de société réclamé par les opposants au mariage homosexuel. Ce général 5 étoiles préside le Comité de la flamme, et ranime, deux fois par semaine, la flamme du Soldat inconnu sous l'Arc de triomphe. Officier de la Légion à la réputation immense, il est très proche du général Puga avec qui il a "sauté sur Kolwezi" en 1978.

"Les jeunes officiers peuvent se dire : si un 5 étoiles peut prendre la parole comme ça, pourquoi pas moi ?", poursuit l'officiel déjà cité. Pour Bruno Dary, ceux qui parlent de putsch sont "des rêveurs" et leurs propos "n'engagent qu'eux". "Actuellement, la défense ramasse, avec les baisses budgétaires, que certains aient un goût amer dans la bouche, c'est possible. Mais ces mouvements ne m'intéressent pas, dit-il au Monde. Je rappelle aux jeunes officiers qu'il y a eu d'autres épisodes douloureux, il faut relativiser. On peut se demander à quoi ont servi les 20 000 soldats français morts en Algérie."

Lire aussi : Le chef d'état-major de l'armée de terre s'alarme des sacrifices demandés

Le ministère a fait enlever les banderoles anti-mariage pour tous des fenêtres de l'immeuble où logent des hauts gradés dans le 15^e arrondissement de Paris. Une poignée d'officiers qui ont passé la ligne jaune auraient été sanctionnés. L'un d'eux a été sorti de la liste des généraux : le colonel R., qui s'était illustré lors de la manifestation de Civitas du 18 novembre 2012 en frappant une militante Femen. La vidéo de l'incident a été largement consultée sur YouTube. D'autres, après s'être imprudemment exposés, se sont faits plus discrets. C'est le cas d'un officier de la réserve opérationnelle des forces spéciales lié aux réseaux nationaux-catholiques d'Ichtus, qui s'était mis en avant au lancement du Printemps français.

The Last Best Place on Earth

Echoing Ronald Reagan's “A Time for Choosing” speech (video), Ted Cruz twitters:

Growing up my dad often told me,

"When we faced oppression in Cuba, we had a place to flee to. If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?"

Why Have Affirmative Action When Even Blacks are (Massively) Against the Procedure??

How much can you say that that positive discrimination is necessary, and indeed a positive for the black race, when a majority of Americans — including all minorities, not least members of the black race themselves (!) — are against using race as factor in college admissions?

 … two recent polls show a majority of Americans are against colleges and universities using race as a factor in admissions 

reports Yahoo's Liz Goodwin (thanks to Instapundit).

A recent ABC News poll finds 76 percent of Americans think colleges should not consider the race of applicants. The poll did not find major differences in race: 79 percent of white people oppose the use of race in admissions, while 71 percent of nonwhites oppose it (including 78 percent of blacks and 68 percent of Hispanics).

Meanwhile, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from this month finds support for affirmative action at a historic low, with just 45 percent of Americans saying such programs are still needed to counter discrimination against minorities, compared with 61 percent who favored it in 1991.

An equal number of those surveyed said affirmative action has gone too far and discriminates against white people. (The NBC poll differs from the ABC one in that it asked about "affirmative action" generally, instead of the specific instance of colleges considering race in admissions.)

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October that the University of Texas violates the Constitution by using race as one factor in admitting a small percentage of its freshman class. (The majority of students are admitted automatically by graduating in the top 10 percent of their high school class.) It's expected to release its decision this month. …

Related:

NEWS YOU CAN USE: The College Admissions Process Is Unfair — Get Used To It.

“There is only a tiny fraction of the pie that is reserved for Asians. They want you to fight for this slice: to die for it.”

And this — while our élites are obsessed with racism (but only when it is politically correct), the following type of news item remains ignored:

SHOCKINGLY, THE DIVERSITY ESTABLISHMENT HAS A DIVERSITY PROBLEM: Gender Inequity Among the Gender Equity Enforcers.

We looked at a random sample of 52 colleges and universities across the country. (Download the data in PDF here.) The sample included public and private institutions, and we attempted to create geographical balance. The only other restriction was that we looked for institutions that have some degree of national recognition. . . . Women are substantially overrepresented in the position of Title IX Coordinator. To be “representative of the student body,” approximately 27 to 29 of the 52 Title IX Coordinator positions (~55 percent) should have been held by women. But in our sample, 43 of the positions (83 percent) are held by women. Likewise women appear overrepresented in the staff positions of the relevant campus offices, but the level of overrepresentation was less than for the top positions (73.1 percent of the positions are held by women). Considering that the overwhelming preponderance of sexual harassment allegations are directed by women at men, the disproportion of women to men in the positions charged with interpreting and enforcing the sexual harassment rules is a legitimate concern. Are male students who are accused of sexual harassment likely to receive fair-minded treatment in these offices?

This is troubling, and calls for Congressional inquiry.