# Reforming the UCI



## Flying_Monkey (28 Aug 2012)

If anything good is to come out of the whole Armstrong debacle, surely, it is that the way in which cycling is governed should be examined and improved.

But how? Is it just about people? Structure? Policies? What could be done better, how and by whom?

NB: This is not a thread for discussion of Armstrong, and where the Armstrong case is mentioned I would like it to only in this context - please don't start trying to side track it into another version of the Armstrong thread, whatever your views on that case.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2012)

Surely it's about people - the likes of McQuaid and Verbruggen. I don't know a huge amount about the UCI, but it does come across as if McQuaid _is_ the UCI. I'm sure there are good people there, but the leadership is dreadful.


----------



## thom (28 Aug 2012)

A couple of questions : Who are the formal stakeholders in the UCI ? Pro-teams, national governing bodies, race organisers, pro-cyclists ?
Who elected Pat McQuaid ?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Aug 2012)

Here's a brief summary of the UCI and its current organisation (taken from its constitution, with a few comments and interpretations), and some vague ideas for change.

The UCI claims sole global authority over the sport of cycling. In terms of organisation, the UCI is given its mandate by 170 National Federations (NFs) although (just like in football), there are also five Continental Confederations (CCs), which have a rather unclear role. It gets funding from these national associations and from event organisers and teams who have to pay registration fees (which vary depending on the level). However it only represents the National Federations, not event organizers, teams or riders.

Representatives of the National Federations form the UCI Congress. The Congress elects the President for five years at a time. Just like the FIFA elections, this is always a controversial process with allegations of favouritism, bribery, impossible promises etc. etc.

The President is in theory still responsible to the Congress, although in practice he pretty much does what he wants with the conivance of the Management Committee (MC), which is responsible for the day-to-day running of the UCI. There are fifteen full members of MC: ten are elected by Congress, the other five are the heads of the CCs. There are also a few other non-voting members. Finance is dealt with by a nominally independent person selected by the MC. There are also Commissions on particular issues.

Because of the lack of input of event organizers, teams and riders, a Professional Cycling Council (PCC), was set up in 2000. This has ten members: 6 chosen by the MC, 2 by the race-organizer's association, 2 by the teams' assocation and 2 by the riders' association. The PCC is responsible for race rules, but otherwise has nothing but advisory power. As you can see too, despite the sop to riders, teams and race-organizers, the PCC is still controlled by the MC delegates.

In my view, the first thing that needs to change is to increase better balance the role of the National Federations, Race-Organizers, Teams and Riders. My view would be that the PCC should be reformed to include no MC members and more from the other sections and given some kind of power-sharing role with the MC. Both should be able to make proposals to the Congress, for example. Teams, race-organizers and riders should also get votes (somehow) in electing the President. I haven't thought much about how this latter idea would work.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Aug 2012)

As you can see from this, the structure of the UCI is biased towards national federations for historic reasons. So it isn't just a matter of getting rid of McQuaid - in fact, McQuaid retains the support of the NFs so it is difficult to see how you would get rid of him at the moment. The structure needs to change.


----------



## beastie (28 Aug 2012)

It's a can of worms alright. Mcquaid needs to go, and Verbruggen - irrespective of any structural changes.


----------



## johnr (28 Aug 2012)

It seems to me that reform will come as a consequence of change not as a precursor to it. We can see from other sports as well as our own, that the bodies which run them tend to be hidebound, nepotistic and to act as sheet anchors on any process of change.

I saw Stephen Roche commenting on the Cycle Show yesterday on the affair of ' he who shall not be named' (HWSNBN). His view, 'we should put it all behind us'. The establishment was always thus.

There are two pressing questions facing the UCI at the moment: how did HWSNBN avoid detection for so long and suppress results when he was caught, and, who took the decision to line up the UCI behind HWSNBN in his fight with USADA in the US courts and how and why was that decision taken?

An organisation which has the courage to confront issues like these with transparency, learn from them and implement changes to ensure they cannot be repeated will be fit to bring cycling into the 21st century.

And even without HWSNBN, the UCI has presided for years over the farces at the Olympics which, possibly unique among sports, is a shadow of their own world championships.

As this is sport, I shall be watching the money as carefully as we're allowed. In bureaucratic terms that means the teams, the pros and the race organisers. If they themselves are not up to the confrontations needed to clean house, then possibly their own paymasters - the sponsors - will stiffen their spines. And, of course, it could all end in divorce, like many other family rows.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Aug 2012)

One day, in some mad, fantasy dystopian Utopia (forgive the absurdity) all sport will be fair and properly governed and ethical.

Not a soul will watch it.

I hear people bleating about goal-line technology in football.

It is the same thing.

As soon as things are being done flawlessly and beautifully and consistently, professionally brilliantly, much of the fun will leech out of the spectator's day.

For me, a part of the allure of elite sport is the grubby, unfair, inconsistent, corrupt griminess of it all.

I may not be in the majority in that, but I'll wager I'm not alone.


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Here's a brief summary of the UCI and its current organisation (taken from its constitution, with a few comments and interpretations), and some vague ideas for change.


Thanks - the parallels with FIFA aren't encouraging. A big difference is the lack of cash but both sports seem to suffer from a lack of strong internal governance and I think partly this is because Swiss laws aren't very exacting or comparable to say UK standards in this area.

Anyway, the presidential role seems to have scope to set one's own agenda. McQuaid has been particularly interested in internationalising the sport with obligations on pro teams to go race in China for example. I think the model is to have a system of regional competitions, some of which involve the top tier Pro teams so the highest level of competition is opened up around the world.
It's not a bad idea as such and brings a wider raft of sponsors too but I think the problem in European competions is the lack of local sponsors and cash. Many old races are being merged or closed throughout continental europe, right in the traditional heartlands and I think the biggest cause of this is reputational damage to cycling suffered due to myriad doping scandals. The UCI need to work harder to restore the credibility of the sport here.
McQuaid is possibly a key stumbling block to this in light of recent allegations. In my opinion, he has not done enough in the area of doping and indeed in relation to women's cycling. 
So possibly the role is too open ended and that in fact the presidential role ought to be answerable to a defined agenda. What's clear is that amongst pro cyclists and commentators, UCI behaviour is often baffling so there are many relationships that they are not on top of currently.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> McQuaid has been particularly interested in internationalising the sport with obligations on pro teams to go race in China for example.


 
This is a good example of some of the problems. Just today it was announced that the Tour of Hangzhou is going to be postponed because the organisers haven't got their act together. Meanwhile there are excellent race in Asia like the Tour de Langkawi, which could be upgraded to World Tour status with few problems putting more money into the sport in South-East Asia which is a big market for cycling with existing local stars in Malaysia and Indonesia, which are large and emerging economies in themselves. But McQuaid only wants the richest. So the UCI is concentrating on China.


----------



## beastie (29 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> One day, in some mad, fantasy dystopian Utopia (forgive the absurdity) all sport will be fair and properly governed and ethical.
> 
> Not a soul will watch it.
> 
> ...


But sport is at it's best and most watchable and most emotive when it rises above all the grime and the shoot.
Jack Nicklaus at the Ryder Cup. 
Derek Redmond and his dad. 
Giant killing in the FA cup. 
Lionel Messi on top form.
Roger Federer, a beautiful athlete. 
Things like these are the best of sport. Not institutionalized doping, not bribing officials. Not win at all costs. I don't want it sanitised but I do want the organisations behind sport to be morally correct. It is a long way off I will grant you.


----------



## raindog (29 Aug 2012)

We all know Pat needs to go, but who do we replace him with?


----------



## rich p (29 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> We all know Pat needs to go, but who do we replace him with?


 Not Stephen Roche should be top of the candidature list.


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

beastie said:


> But sport is at it's best and most watchable and most emotive when it rises above all the grime and the s***.
> Jack Nicklaus at the Ryder Cup.
> Derek Redmond and his dad.
> Giant killing in the FA cup.
> ...


Yeah I don't buy that point of view either. Good sport is created by clashes of style and personality within the parameters of the game. In cricket and rugby there are great examples as well. 
I don't think anyone really think cricket benefits as a spectacle from match fixing for example.


----------



## johnr (29 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> We all know Pat needs to go, but who do we replace him with?


 Judge Sparkes of course. He's done more to clean up cycling than all their committees


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

Looks like reform needs to go to the DCU as well : http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...hocked-after-board-member-tests-positive.aspx


----------



## Smokin Joe (29 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> We all know Pat needs to go, but who do we replace him with?


Paul Kimmage?

If you're going to shake it up, shake it up.


----------



## rich p (29 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Looks like reform needs to go to the DCU as well : http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...hocked-after-board-member-tests-positive.aspx


 That is embarrassing!


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2012)

I think a change of some sort is inevitable but I don't really have an opinion on what sort of reform _should_ happen. In fact, prior to FM posting the above, I had no idea how the UCI was built. Got to say though, in my opinion that sort of national federation pyramid structure lends itself to back handers and greased palms as votes are bought. It's meant to offer a transparent and democratic system (and theoretically you can see why) but practice is perhaps different.

What I'd like to comment on is what I think might happen. I don't think it's going to be the 'root and branch' reform called for by Kimmage and others either. I think an old boys' network will prevail.

I think the UCI are at present between a rock and a hard place. I think McQuaid will go for sure - pushed onto his own sword, or a timely resignation (he's due to move on/upstairs anyway). I think the IOC will behind-the-scenes ensure that in an attempt to limit the fallout damage. The IOC are simply not going to back UCI over WADA (their baby) so the only give is at UCI.

Why do the IOC carry a deciding vote, the clout? Because they will otherwise turf cycling out of the Olympics and that would not go down well at national level, revolt would ensue. So however it plays out, McQuaid's out of UCI. So he'll go the less tumultuous route, he'll not defy the IOC.

The wild card, as I see it, is the pro-teams. They don't give a toss about the Olympics (the riders might, but not the teams) and they look to sponsors. I would not rule out a breakaway though I think it unlikely. I don't know how the UCI would respond to the threat of loosing pro-cycling. And further, maybe just maybe, this is the best way forward for both pro-cycling and Olympic/amateur cycling - separate governing bodies. Though I don't in all honesty see it happening.

As I said, what I think will happen is that McQuaid will go... and that's all. I think it will be spun as a managed response and voluntary, in no way reflecting the bitterness that went on to secure it. Pro teams will give a tentative acceptance but largely be thankful they haven't had to do anything too radical themselves... and business continues (they're strapped for cash generally speaking and can't afford 'down time' to do anything else).

Sorry if all that sounds cynical and insufficient. It's not meant to sound that way at all, it's just me seeing the expediency that all concerned bodies will want to get this matter behind them.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Aug 2012)

There used to be different international bodies for pro- and amateur cycling for many years. That wouldn't be unprecedented.


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2012)

I didn't know that. Were UCI one of them or did they unify the 2 codes?


----------



## Smokin Joe (29 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> There used to be different international bodies for pro- and amateur cycling for many years. That wouldn't be unprecedented.


The trouble now is there is no amateur cycling, the sport is open. Any breakaway organisation would have to be along the lines of the Premier League in football, with an elite core of teams forming the top tier.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> The trouble now is there is no amateur cycling, the sport is open. Any breakaway organisation would have to be along the lines of the Premier League in football, with an elite core of teams forming the top tier.


 
I think that's what would happen and I don't think I'd support it.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I didn't know that. Were UCI one of them or did they unify the 2 codes?


 
It was down to the IOC back when they were still trying to keep the Olympics amateur. From 1965-1992, the Fédération Internationale de Cyclisme Professionnel (FICP) ran pro-cycling and the Fédération Internationale Amateur de Cyclisme (FIAC) did the amateur side including the Olympics. Technically, the UCI was still the overall governing body. In practice, the two organisations reflected the Cold War, because Communist country sports were all 'amateur' - so FIAC was very much under the control of the Soviet bloc. I guess the coming back together was both because of the end of the Cold War and the recognition that pro-sport couldn't be kept out of the Olympics...


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

Oof, more on the UCI and the tour of Hangzhou : http://inrng.com/2012/08/tour-of-hangzhou/


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Oof, more on the UCI and the tour of Hangzhou : http://inrng.com/2012/08/tour-of-hangzhou/


 
The image of the UCI bosses lending themselves money which wasn't theirs and consulting themselves about races they are organizing under a different name speaks volumes about the current corruption at the top of cycling.


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The image of the UCI bosses lending themselves money which wasn't theirs and consulting themselves about races they are organizing under a different name speaks volumes about the current corruption at the top of cycling.


Sounds like a corporate governance issue too (see earlier point about Switzerland's laws or lack thereof)


----------



## rich p (30 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Oof, more on the UCI and the tour of Hangzhou : http://inrng.com/2012/08/tour-of-hangzhou/


 Good article and another fairly damning indictment of PM and Hein. I thought he had retired to dead head his roses or something.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

Sylvia Schenk has put the boot in too. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-doubts-mcquaid-has-the-credibility-to-clean-up-cycling


----------



## yello (7 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Sylvia Schenk has put the boot in too.


 
Hasn't she just! She seems to have been careful with her wording too. I get the feeling she could be more forthright if she wanted! This for me is the real damning bit (referring to McQuaid's election)....



> They voted for continuity, as McQuaid was promoted by Verbruggen, but real change needs a change of the responsible persons, too


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> In my view, the first thing that needs to change is to increase better balance the role of the National Federations, Race-Organizers, Teams and Riders.


 
The race organisers, teams and riders do have quite some power. Remember the spat between ASO and UCI back in 2008 over who set the rules for the TdeF? UCI threatened excommunication of the organisers and any riders that rode in their races but eventually had to back down after their bluff was called.


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

Sad news regarding Emma Pooley : Likely not to be racing next year.
Why relevent to this thread ? Well just in so far as it follows hot on the heals of her comdemnation of the UCI's running of women's cycling in the telegraph last weekend.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Sad news regarding Emma Pooley : Likely not to be racing next year.
> Why relevent to this thread ? Well just in so far as it follows hot on the heals of her comdemnation of the UCI's running of women's cycling in the telegraph last weekend.


 
I was about to post the same thing. The UCI is an old boy's club in more ways than one.


----------



## thom (20 Sep 2012)

Kimmage was sub-poened yesterday by the UCI to appear in a swiss court in Dec.
Funny they're so keen to go after a journalist at the moment.


----------



## rich p (20 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Kimmage was sub-poened yesterday by the UCI to appear in a swiss court in Dec.
> Funny they're so keen to go after a journalist at the moment.


 Unbelievable going after Kimmage. If they went after everyone who had accused them if being corrupt they'd have no time left to run pro cycling - oh, hang on a minute....


----------



## Hont (20 Sep 2012)

I can't see the problem being solved until the organisation promoting cycling is different from the one in charge of policing anti-doping. It's a fundamental conflict of interest and means they are policed by no-one.


----------



## thom (20 Sep 2012)

Hont said:


> I can't see the problem being solved until the organisation promoting cycling is different from the one in charge of policing anti-doping. It's a fundamental conflict of interest and means they are policed by no-one.


Yeah I think you're right.
It's pure speculation as to why the LA files did not make it to the UCI yet but some are saying it's because USADA don't want to reveal to the UCI what evidence they have showing UCI malfeasance yet. The US UCI org may end up looking very culpable too.
I don't know how the UCI would credibly reform itself unless UCI people are clearly implicated by USADA. If they are, hopefully as well as refreshing the people, there will be an independent investigation to give recommendations on changing the governance structure in place and to investigate misconduct stories.


----------



## BJH (20 Sep 2012)

What needs to be done with the UCI ?

Rip it up and start again as Orange Juice said.

Who would you replace McQuaid with ?

Drag anyone off the street would be a start, but there are many credible candidates without even needing to look outside of BC.


----------



## Red Light (20 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> It's pure speculation as to why the LA files did not make it to the UCI yet but some are saying it's because USADA don't want to reveal to the UCI what evidence they have showing UCI malfeasance yet. The US UCI org may end up looking very culpable too.



Perhaps they're worried Big Pat is going to send the boys round to intimidate their witnesses.


----------



## thom (20 Sep 2012)

The myth of the UCI: It is time for a change


----------



## DogTired (21 Sep 2012)

Great thread.

In terms of professional road cycling, nothing needs the change at the UCI. Quite frankly they have the organisation they deserve. Reading about how the professional peloton used to treat non-dopers like Christophe Basson makes you realise that the problem isnt just confined to the UCI - its endemic (at the very least) throughout professional road cycling. How the UCI is viewed is an accurate portrayal of the riders.

The riders and teams have been guiltlessly out of control for a long time - they definitely have the organisation they deserve.


----------



## thom (21 Sep 2012)

This motion was passed today by the UCI at their annual congress, by 38 votes out of 42. It paints their own efforts in a rather favorable light:

*MOTION *
Adopted by the Congress of the UCI, in its meeting of 21 September 2012 in Maastricht, the Netherlands, 
Considering that : 
The case of former rider Lance Armstrong, whatever its outcome may be, invites to reflect on the effectiveness of the fight against doping, as is confirmed by the creation by WADA of a working group to that effect; 
The UCI has always, as was already confirmed in 2002 in the Festina case by the Court of appeals of Douai (France), used all available means and made all reasonable efforts to fight doping in sport ; 
The UCI has invested in the research for a method to detect EPO since the nineties, was the first sports federation to introduce a no-start ruled based upon the haematocrit level (1997), to introduce the urinary EPO test (2001) and to introduce the homologous blood transfusion
test (2004); 
The UCI was the first sports federation to introduce the athlete blood passport (2008), the most effective tool to prevent and detect blood doping ; 
This testing programme of the UCI which was conducted independently, objectively and without consideration of any individuals has found many riders positive, including high profile riders ; 
The comprehensive anti-doping programme of the UCI expresses both UCI’s awareness of the doping problem and its firm determination to do away with it ; 
Yet various doping scandals have shown that athletes with the help of medical and other experts have managed to escape detection by the most effective doping programme ever implemented; 
Notwithstanding all efforts it has not been possible to avoid doping practices for which science and WADA could not provide detection methods and that can only be detected by police methods that are outside the reach of an international federation ; 
Awareness of what has happened or even sanctions for violations that have been detected many years afterwards do not enable to undo and clean up what has to be accepted as a dark period in cyclings history ; 
There is no point in continuing to reexamine the past of then undetectable doping and stigmatize the sport of the young generations now that the situation has considerably improved through UCI’s continued efforts. 
the Congress of the UCI 
confirms its confidence in the management of the UCI in its fight against doping over the years ; 
asks the Management Committee of the UCI :
to deal with the ongoing cases according to the applicable rules ; 
to ignore attempts to exploit commercially or otherwise the painful aspects of cycling’s past ; 
to concentrate on the anti-doping effort for the future of cycling in order to provide a clean environment for the next generations of riders.


----------



## oldroadman (21 Sep 2012)

Right, all very interesting. Let's take away the old structure and replace it with another. Which has every chance of morphing into a UCI.
The old FIAC/FICP existed simply to keep the amateur myth alive. There never were any amateurs at the highest level, just professionals being paid by some other route ("red army officer") to keep them racing.
Nobody I raced against in early days was an "amateur", although their licences said so. Much more honest now.
To quote "If the was not a x (UCI in this case) someone would have to invent one.

And please don't even mention the IOC. In terms of corruption allegations and all kinds of other alleged chicanery, they make the UCI look like Noddy in Toyland. 100+ people freeloading round the world, all getting paid, on the profits from a four yearly games plus winter games? Gravy train, and no-one wants to get off, unless they get caught being silly (an error in itself).
A bit like FIFA, where there is tons of cash sloshing about..

Next moves? Well, at the end of his term PMcQ will probably move on to IOC (that gravy train again) and the next UCI president will come from eastern europe. There's an awful lot of oil and gas billionaires there and quite a few are very interested in the sport.
Watch this space!


----------



## thom (21 Sep 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Right, all very interesting. Let's take away the old structure and replace it with another. Which has every chance of morphing into a UCI.


But do you think it's a good idea if the UCI both promote cycling events (hence have a financial interest in them) and at the same time have some responsibility for drug testing ?
If they farmed that part out permanently, they would avoid an obvious conflict of interest.

For me it's no good comparing the UCI favourably to the IOC when the allegation is that the UCI were complicit in aspects of the largest sporting fraud in history.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Sep 2012)

Oldroadman, I don't think anyone us suggesting that the IOC or FIFA offer a better a model - they are basically run the same kind of way as the UCI. In any case there are two questions here - one, how are things going to work (basically, much the same way - we all know that), and how _should_ things work? It would be interesting, given your experience, what you think of the latter question. How would you have cycle racing organised?


----------



## rich p (21 Sep 2012)

What's ORM saying? They're all corrupt so let's keep them? Let's change them and they'll all be corrupt soon enough? Blimey, I thought I was cynical.


----------



## Noodley (21 Sep 2012)

I have nothing to add to the thread as I have no idea how it all works, but it seems as if oldroadman may have ridden at a decent enough level (I have such a short attention span that I am not sure if he has ever mentioned if he was pro level or not) so he may know how it all works. But there is a huge difference between knowing how to race and knowing how to govern it all. And knowing how fans view things.

If oldroadman were to tell us what his experience was it might help us understand the compexities and his position - and if (as I think I have picked up from his posts) he is ex-high level I would be very interested on his views on doping, what he did to be "professional" and the rigours of cycling at that level - which I don't think any of have experienced. (apart from when I won a track sprint a few weeks ago and I pumped the air with my fist and shouted at the bloke walking his dog next to the track)


----------



## PpPete (21 Sep 2012)

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/09/a-vexing-verbruggen-in-valkenburg/
Is this for real ?
The whole thing is getting so odd I'm having trouble separating satire from reality.


----------



## johnr (21 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> This motion was passed today by the UCI at their annual congress, *by 38 votes out of 42*. It paints their own efforts in a rather favorable light:
> .


So. There's clearly no ginger group within the UCI. I think the only conclusion we can draw is that there will be no credible conclusion until UCI goes and cycling is run by people of integrity. Sad day.


----------



## johnr (21 Sep 2012)

And another thing... just had a quick glance at their financial report. Two things struck me: the amount of cash the organisation sucks out of road racing, and, how little they've set aside for legal costs.

It would seem that if road racing went it's own way there would be plenty of cash to support it (or alternatively, the threat to secede by decent teams ought to be taken seriously by the expense-account-niks); and, it's confirmed, UCI's legal team is PMcQ's sister's nephew who has just taken his A levels and hopes to go to law school if he gets the grades.


----------



## thom (22 Sep 2012)

An interview with McQuaid:
http://ewoud.home.xs4all.nl/tmp/20120921_nos_smeets_mcquaid.html
He's kissed the Blarney stone I tell ya.
Shifty eyes too...


----------



## rich p (22 Sep 2012)

PpPete said:


> http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/09/a-vexing-verbruggen-in-valkenburg/
> Is this for real ?
> The whole thing is getting so odd I'm having trouble separating satire from reality.


 Having read the cyclingnews interview it's not far off the real thing.


----------



## Noodley (22 Sep 2012)

Serious question: is there anything that us cycling fans and weekend riders can do to note our opposition to the way things are run?

Not renewing BC membership and telling them why?
Contacting Vaughters and telling him to take forward his "breakaway" idea?
Anything?
I am completed fecked off with these nobbers!!


----------



## BJH (22 Sep 2012)

What we can all do is keep the subject of Pat and the gang of thieves alive even if only on forums

I couldn't manage to read that extract from the UCI I just read blah blah blah we have been doing a great job blah blah not our fault yawn yawn

Pro cycling needs a breakaway group that separates control of the sports operation from responsibility for overseeing honesty and governance. 

It could do this by having an organistaion like ASO take responsibility for running racing and put control and drug testing under someone with undoubted credibility, Ashenden would be ideal.


----------



## thom (25 Sep 2012)

A good article in inrng about why it's hard to remove Pat McQuaid.


----------



## oldroadman (28 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Serious question: is there anything that us cycling fans and weekend riders can do to note our opposition to the way things are run?
> 
> Not renewing BC membership and telling them why?
> Contacting Vaughters and telling him to take forward his "breakaway" idea?
> ...


 
How does not renewing BC membership help? It does not, but does reduce the BC lobbying power if the membership drops. They are, so far as I can see, pushing hard to profile the sport and get legislation shifted to help road racing.

The idea of a breakaway league is a financial one, and where money is involved underhand schemes follow. Cycling needss a single entity to control it. Don't forget the UCI introduced the bio-passport programme, something which other sports have failed to do, so far. At last within cycling we acknowledge there is a problem, unlike one senior member of another high profile endurance sport I spoke to a while ago, quote "you don't do much anti-doping testing then?", reply, "no because we know we don't have a problem". So that's all right then.

In any case, a breakaway "league" would only look after the top 20 or so teams in the world, would have trouble persuading organisers to shift to "their" league, and would utterly ignore everyone outside their immediate sphere of financial interest. So what happens to everyone outside the league, "not my problem". Road racing could not reasonably go it's own way, cycle sport is multi-discipline integated and long should be so.

What could be changed is outsourcing the bio-passport and anti-doping and having all results published, good and bad. That may focus the attention of some people, oddly enough quite a few of the JV breakaway leagie brigade! Mind, this would have to be for ALL sport, not just cycling, and I suspect the resistance to this would be insurrmountable, and if this ever happened, performances in some of the "popular" (in UK) sports might just start to level a bit.

In answer to the question about my own history, I was OK but never got much notice, as you don't when there are big stars around, and stay well connected with the sport.


----------



## Buddfox (28 Sep 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Mind, this would have to be for ALL sport, not just cycling, and I suspect the resistance to this would be insurrmountable, and if this ever happened, performances in some of the "popular" (in UK) sports might just start to level a bit.


 
I like the outsourcing idea, but why would it need to happen in all sports? Couldn't cycling blaze a trail?


----------



## oldroadman (30 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I like the outsourcing idea, but why would it need to happen in all sports? Couldn't cycling blaze a trail?


 
Because effectively cycling does that for testing. All tests carried out by anti-doping agancies and independent labs. All that is left is public announcement of all results. When EVERY sport signs up than it would work. But there are issues. In cleaning up, cycling has washed it's dirty linen very publicly, suffered for it, but this pain is necessary to get to where we want to be.
There are other sports where very big money is involved who have no intention of spoiling their image by having some of their big stars fall foul of the testers, and even if they do, want to be able to control what goes public to protect said image (aka a cover up). At the same time pointing fingers at others who are more open (that would be today's cycling then).
Being attached to my hard earned house and small savings, I have no intention of naming names or sports.


----------



## beastie (1 Oct 2012)

User said:


> this blog doesn't seem to have any concerns about naming names..the name of his blog kind of gives you on idea of which direction it headed....
> 
> http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com.es/p/the-case-against-tennis.html



I'm not saying they are wrong, but those guys are a tiny bit fanatic It's too much.


----------



## thom (10 Oct 2012)

I couldn't bear to actually post on the LA thread again !


----------



## oldroadman (11 Oct 2012)

User said:


> this blog doesn't seem to have any concerns about naming names..the name of his blog kind of gives you on idea of which direction it headed....
> 
> http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com.es/p/the-case-against-tennis.html


 
That's a brave blogger. It could be that it's correct, along with other sports. Steroids? Old hat. A closer look at blood values as well might be interesting. But then, the old cry of "human rights" not to be disturbed and tested (when you are a professional sportman/woman?) is heard. If only the "testing pool" used for keeping a random view on many who can subscribe to clean sport could be extended to the top 100 in every single sport. The results may be fascinating, as would the wriggling. Then, I couldn't possibly comment.


----------



## laurence (11 Oct 2012)

that blog tallies with something i was told relating to a, quite serious, illness suffered by a major female tennis player. apparently the respiratory problem is related to steroid (ab)use.


----------



## thom (16 Oct 2012)

Ha ha ha : Matt Seaton suggests :
On Sept 7 McQuaid floats amnesty; Sept 22 he nixes it. Here's an idea: a Truth Commission for UCI. We can decide on any Reconciliation later


----------



## johnr (16 Oct 2012)

There was a discussion about the UCI at the end of the Radio 5 show yesterday. David Millar was interestingly conciliatory: acknowledging the changes which had come about under McQuaid's watch. He vacilated on the question of getting involved when he retires, but seemed open to it.

But it's still going to take some kind of deus ex machina to create the circumstances in which the honest get their hands on the reins.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Oct 2012)

User said:


> this blog doesn't seem to have any concerns about naming names..the name of his blog kind of gives you on idea of which direction it headed....
> 
> http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com.es/p/the-case-against-tennis.html


wowser! And, yes, I've always thought that tennis was dirtier than cycling


----------



## thom (16 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> wowser! And, yes, I've always thought that tennis was dirtier than cycling


Even Wimbledon ? They're always so particular about their whites.

I found the Radio 5 prog yesterday very depressing. Ashendon spoke of doping stories he'd heard from other sports in a quite alarming way (he said he wasn't able to watch the Olympics).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

the solution is simple.

fugginsackemall


----------



## johnr (17 Oct 2012)

This from Cycling Australia:

"We acknowledge that there is now clear evidence that the UCI, until recent times, failed to fully and properly do its part to stamp out doping. We stand by our belief that the UCI deserves significant credit in a number of areas, namely its persistence in dealing with the Operation Puerto files and the ground-breaking introduction of the Biological Passport."

The link is on the Armstrong thread,

I wonder if the honourary president is spending some of Nike's cash on industrial shredders to help rationalise the UCI's filing system. The ozzies seem to be implying that enough's enough.


----------



## thom (18 Oct 2012)

If this report is true, what we've seen so far isn't close to the half of it:

In the spotlight are 20 teams in four seasons between 2008 and 2011: Liquigas, Lampre, Colnago, Geox, Androni, Katusha, Quick Step, Farnese Vini, Acqua & Sapone, Astana, RadioShack, Vacansoleil, Isd, Csf, LPR, Diquigiovanni, Tinkoff, Rabobank, Gerolsteiner and Milram. The prosecution has made all these contracts brokers for comparison with those deposited in the ICU and quantify evasion money.

The UCI will be utter toast - this is coming from a Padua investigation into Schumi.


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> If this report is true, what we've seen so far isn't close to the half of it:
> 
> In the spotlight are 20 teams in four seasons between 2008 and 2011: Liquigas, Lampre, Colnago, Geox, Androni, Katusha, Quick Step, Farnese Vini, Acqua & Sapone, Astana, RadioShack, Vacansoleil, Isd, Csf, LPR, Diquigiovanni, Tinkoff, Rabobank, Gerolsteiner and Milram.The prosecution has made all these contracts brokers for comparison with those deposited in the ICU and quantify evasion money.
> 
> The UCI will be utter toast - this is coming from a Padua investigation into Schumi.


 Wowzer. This could be huge. Is it implying anything about the UCI though? It's unclear due to the clunky translation.


----------



## thom (18 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Wowzer. This could be huge. Is it implying anything about the UCI though? It's unclear due to the clunky translation.


Not directly but for this to happen under McQuaid, with all the other pressure, he must be about to explode.


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Not directly but for this to happen under McQuaid, with all the other pressure, he must be about to explode.


 I take your point.


----------



## oldroadman (18 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I take your point.


 


thom said:


> Not directly but for this to happen under McQuaid, with all the other pressure, *he must be about to explode*.


 
Hein is the one who should go off bang - believe it or not, things have chamged a lot with PM at the top. Balanced against that I understand he was Hein's preferred successor.
Always be careful of hat you wish for, if PM does go, who will replace him? Look east, I think, and then consider the record of teams from that part of Europe, and hope.....


----------



## johnr (19 Oct 2012)

You're right, Thom, this could be the start of a whole new adventure... and I agree it could be a fatal blow to the UCI.

I say this not because I think it threatens them directly, in fact it seems to be individuals engaging in possible criminal activities, but this on top of the Pharmstrong USADA report describes a sport run by crooks and cowboys.

Whilst presidents, past and present, may take the 'nothing to do with me, guv' line, the IOC, at least, and possibly lots of other governmental and non-governmental bodies will be raising serious questions about the UCI's ability to run a safe, clean, legal sport. (I wonder whether Cycling Australia's new found enthusiasm for clean cycling is inspired by their local funders.)

I do not know who handles the UCI's press relations, but Verbruggen needs to be silenced immediately. He's appearing in international media daily and it's no longer just us that see him as a complete fool. He needs to announce his immediate retirement on health grounds to spend more time with his lawyers. As the UCI stumbles from one crisis to another, they can do without their leadership making things constantly worse.

For the first time, I have some optimism that the UCI may indeed be reformed!


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> The trouble now is there is no amateur cycling, the sport is open. Any breakaway organisation would have to be along the lines of the Premier League in football, with an elite core of teams forming the top tier.


 
But learn from the lessons in funding where this stripped money away from those outside the elite group


----------



## Dilbert (19 Oct 2012)

I think they should give Bob Stapleton a go as UCI President. He comes across as hard nosed businessman who is passionate about cycling, but would not need the job, either for money or to make him feel important so would be much less likely to go native.


----------



## Scoosh (19 Oct 2012)

Until they change the process for electing the president of the UCI, there will be little change, I fear.

Too many vested interests/ hangers on/ spongers, IMHO. Now, why does that remind me of the IOC ???


----------



## johnr (20 Oct 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Until they change the process for electing the president of the UCI, there will be little change, I fear.
> 
> Too many vested interests/ hangers on/ spongers, IMHO. Now, why does that remind me of the IOC ???


 You're right, of course, but I think we're getting (hope we're getting) to a stage where powers above and around the UCI will be demanding reform and will be looking for demonstrably clean, competent, honest and professional people to take the reins. If the current shower can identify such people from among their ranks, that may be acceptable, otherwise, ultimata may be issued.

Writing this, even I think it sounds a little fanciful, but things are moving quickly. I have no expectation that UCI's announcement on Monday will do anything to restore confidence in the leadership. And who knows what the state of play will be this time next week: PM and HV may be denying they ever had any presidential role!


----------



## laurence (20 Oct 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Until they change the process for electing the president of the UCI, there will be little change, I fear.
> 
> Too many vested interests/ hangers on/ spongers, IMHO. Now, why does that remind me of the IOC ???


 
same as the FIA and formula 1. probably the same with a majority of sports. i doubt there's a non-corrupt one. the problem is, they are better at covering up their mess... cycling can be too open at times. i bet tennis, football, athletics, etc. are loving the fact their drug problems are ignored whilst cycling airs its dirty laundry.

i love the sport and i am proud of the steps taken to expose the drugs. the non cycling fan will see it differently though and the sports that whitewash their problems will be seen as cleaner.


----------



## BJH (20 Oct 2012)

Having given this one some thought, I have the following suggestion.

One of those rocking drinking bird toys that you stick on the end of a glass.

Failing that lets just leave a drunken chimp operating the controls with power being generated by a hamster on a wheel. They won't have any secret bank accounts that need filling


----------



## oldroadman (21 Oct 2012)

There's been some comment about action the IOC might take if the UCI are found corrupt. Glass houses and stones spring to mind. IOC looks like a long line of things filled with brown liquid running on rails. A gravy train. Remember to get on if it stops at your station, you'll never regret it, or be skint again, or need to worry about the cost of travel (first class), etc.....


----------



## thom (21 Oct 2012)

In the wake of the USADA report, Daley Thompson calls for Cycling to be ejected from the Olympic games.
One thing he definitely has right:

'Armstrong is a cheating b*****d and that's all there is to it,'​


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

So... any more suggestions now the UCI has accepted the USADA findings?


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> So... any more suggestions now the UCI has accepted the USADA findings?


Dignitas ?


----------



## tigger (22 Oct 2012)

They're beyond reform. "We're not as rich as FIFA (so we can be bought by anyone's cash)". The pro teams and fans need to breakaway and start afresh. Now how the hell does anyone do that?

In some ways I don't think Thompson's idea is so crazy. The UCI needs to face some sanctions. Who is the UCI's governing body? Where is their power devolved from?


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> They're beyond reform. "We're not as rich as FIFA (so we can be bought by anyone's cash)". The pro teams and fans need to breakaway and start afresh. Now how the hell does anyone do that?
> 
> In some ways I don't think Thompson's idea is so crazy. The UCI needs to face some sanctions. Who is the UCI's governing body? Where is their power devolved from?


Yes I can see the logic and I think the threat should be there but...
I do think the UCI are further down the road regarding doping than a lot of other sports. Which is not to defend a lot of their behaviour but if there is talk of expelling cycling as an Olympic sport then there needs to be better examination of all other sports first.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

McQuaid shows that he still doesn't quite get it and says that there was nothing wrong with accepting donations from Armstrong, and that he would accept donations from riders in future - surely, any official dues aside, there should simply be no accepting of any individual donations from riders to organisations that are supposed to manage them. It's a recipe for corruption.


----------



## rich p (22 Oct 2012)

I don't see how it will be reformed if there's no willingness by the national committees and their representatives to do so. Nothing I've read has suggested that's likely to happen. Pressure from the IOC may be possible but it still requires Fat Pat to fall on his sword. I've read elsewhere that his likely challenger/successor is Andre Tchmil.
At the very least they should get together and dump Verbruggen from any and all committees.


----------



## beastie (22 Oct 2012)

If the UCI doesn't reform or evolve, what then? @Oldroadman pointed out the risks of busting Fat Pat and replacing him with an oligarch, well if he is right then a breakaway by the Pro teams in line with ASO seems far more attractive. This must surely be a likely strategy with which to force change upon the UCI. 

As an addition, is it correct that there is only one female delegate at the UCI? (out of 41)


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> As an addition, is it correct that there is only one female delegate at the UCI? (out of 41)


 
I'm surprised there is even one.


----------



## johnr (22 Oct 2012)

These are the management committee who will, presumably, be at the extrodinary meeting to determine the radical new programme for addressing ther current crisis:
_President_ 
*Mr Pat McQUAID* 
_IRL_



_Vice-Presidents_ 
*Mr Hee Wook CHO* 
_KOR_ 

Mr Renato DI ROCCO  
_ITA_

*Mr Artur LOPES* 
_POR_ 

_Members_ 
*Mr Mohamed Wagih AZZAM*​_EGY_

*Mr Daniel BAAL*​_FRA_

*Mr José Manuel PELAEZ*​_CUB_

*Mr Mike TURTUR* ​ _AUS_

Mr Sheikh Faisal Bin Humaid AL QASSIMI ​_UAE_

Mr Brian COOKSON  
_GBR_

*Mr David LAPPARTIENT*  _FRA_ 

*Mr Mohamed Jamel LOUAFI*  
_TUN_

*Mr Igor Viktorovich MAKAROV* _RUS_

*Mr Peder PEDERSEN* 
_DEN_

Mr Mike PLANT 
_USA_

_Honorary President_ 
*Mr Hein VERBRUGGEN* 
_NED_

_Honorary Vice-presidents_ 
*Mr Ray GODKIN*  
_AUS_

*Mr Vladimir HOLECEK*  
_CZE_

*Mr Agostino OMINI* 
_ITA_ 


Thom will shortly give us all the low down on their palmares


----------



## rich p (22 Oct 2012)

You have to snigger at Hein Verbruggen - NED!


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> _President_
> Mr Pat McQUAID : IRL, raced 66-82, born 1949
> Irish National road champion 1974, won Tour of Ireland 1975 & 1976
> Disallowed from 1976 Olympics for racing in S Africa on a false name
> ...


 
Clearly there's a lot more to what these guys did than i put here but i'm only so bored while awaiting the Obama-Romney debate... ;-)


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2012)

Robert Millar writes about the UCI. They did the bare minimum.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

Pat McQuaid raced in South Africa whilst the sporting boycott was in place? Wow, okay - he's gone from being merely stupid and incompetent to being a full-on bastard in my book.

As for the rest of them, there is barely an ex-professional cyclist amongst the lot and rather too many who have no more qualifications than any of us to be running the sport, in fact, in some cases, considerably less.


----------



## Scoosh (23 Oct 2012)

This is good from Robert Millar :


> What the UCI have done during the EPO era has been far from enough, they have let down a generation of fans, riders, sponsors and supporters. They and the people behind the 50% farce have been lucky that there weren't deaths. The UCI have been dragged forward by one scandal after another and now the social media generation has cried enough. It's no longer a carefully selected group of people asking if they think it was alright for Armstrong to be invited to respond to a dubious test result. It's all of us shouting: What ? And you took donations from him afterwards? And you thought that was OK? And maybe he asked how you reached those results and you thought he was being helpful? And it's still a 50% limit today despite the evidence that it isn't normal?


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2012)

Apparently Jonathan Vaughters is plotting with the team bosses - they want an independent investigation into the UCI's anti-doping record over the past 10 years.


----------



## Scoosh (23 Oct 2012)

Now _that_ could be interesting !!! 

Oh, hang on - did you mean doping or anti-doping record ??


----------



## Noodley (23 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I'm surprised there is even one.


 
C'mon FM, you've surely heard of Hymen Verbruggen


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Now _that_ could be interesting !!!
> 
> Oh, hang on - did you mean doping or anti-doping record ??


I did have to correct my original wording on that point 

Edit : more comment


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Apparently Jonathan Vaughters is plotting with the team bosses - they want an independent investigation into the UCI's anti-doping record over the past 10 years.


 
This would be good. In fact, Vaughters running the UCI would be good.


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> I did have to correct my original wording on that point
> 
> Edit : more comment



This is good to hear, the teams, individuals and fans need to start taking a lead to clean up the sport. These comments seemed very measured by Vaughters too. He wasn't seemingly criticising the UCI, but rather stating that drug controls per se may not be effective enough? At least that how I read it. A blue Sky approach.

I read this blog the other day which has been posted here before. Now I'm no fan of the UCI but I have wandered, test results aside, if they have made genuine strides towards combating the problem. If these stats are correct, then maybe we should be thankful we don't play tennis?

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/epic-fail-out-of-competition-testing-in.html


----------



## johnr (23 Oct 2012)

Knew you'd come up with the goods Thom, thanks.

The commission is a really good idea. I hope they press ahead with it regardless of the UCI, in fact, the best way for any commission to operate is completely independently. A debate and discussion about its terms of reference should be open to anyone with an interest in the sport. But then a panel of three-five respected individuals should be given the terms of reference and allowed to get on with it.

If budgets allow, they would probably benefit from the expert assistance of someone like Michael Ashenden. The commission would, I am sure, invite testimony and submissions from the UCI, the IOC, WADA, teams' and riders' representatives, other cycling organisations, fans and of course, Thom. Sessions could be open to the public, or private (to allow candid testimony from current or former participants in cycling shenanigans), or both. Their published report would, hopefully, be both a manifesto for change and a blueprint as to how that would be achieved. It would then fall to all parties to decide whether or not to implement it. And, of course, face the consequences of their actions or inactions.

The trouble with trying to get everyone on board at the start is that the haggling and wheeler-dealing goes on behind closed doors. And given the first-class hustlers who are the UCI, that would almost certainly lead to an insipid set of terms of reference and bland conclusions. What needs to be a forward thinking process, would have the sheet anchor of old vested interests and 'what we've always done'.

I would seek to recruit members from outside cycling, but with an interest in the sport. Traditionally, commissions tend to be chaired by judges or barristers, both for their inquisitorial abilities and ability to present clear and logical conclusions (what's Judge Sparks up to after his moment in our sun?). I'd look for a big name from the business world - someone like Alan Sugar - to bring knowledge of the cash issues. A journalist like Jon Snow would bring skills and kudos and a trade union leader, some muscle. I'm sure the rest of the world has similar high-profile individuals.

I hope a commission is established, and with a much wider remit than just doping. Clearly the future of women's cycling needs more than the UCI and issues like pay and pensions and cycling at the olympics are stagnant under the current regimes.


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

After a quick tally on both the ATP and WTA rankings it looks like there are approx 2800 pro tennis players. If the stats are correct then in 2010 there were just 2075 drugs tests in tennis.

In cycling there were over 13,500 in 2010. Do we know how many pro cyclists there are?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> I would seek to recruit members from outside cycling, but with an interest in the sport. Traditionally, commissions tend to be chaired by judges or barristers, both for their inquisitorial abilities and ability to present clear and logical conclusions (what's Judge Sparks up to after his moment in our sun?). I'd look for a big name from the business world - someone like Alan Sugar - to bring knowledge of the cash issues. A journalist like Jon Snow would bring skills and kudos and a trade union leader, some muscle. I'm sure the rest of the world has similar high-profile individuals.


 
Part of the problem right now is that the UCI already has very few people with any experience of professional cycling in its management, and you want even fewer in this committee?


----------



## johnr (23 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Part of the problem right now is that the UCI already has very few people with any experience of professional cycling in its management, and you want even fewer in this committee?


 Yes. An outside commission is not there to run cycling, but to examine a currrent, or historic, situation against robust terms of reference and present a report.

But on, perhaps, the wider point, too many experienced cycling professional cyclists andf their agents and managers are part of the problem, not the solution. That's got to be a question which is addressed somewhere.


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Part of the problem right now is that the UCI already has very few people with any experience of professional cycling in its management, and you want even fewer in this committee?


 
OK, let's tee off:

I think both sides/skills would be beneficial - I was particularly struck by how old the management is. It's clear many are career sports administrators and probably very good to boot but perhaps incapable of taking their own pulse, let alone that of the peloton and that of public opinion. 

Sure you need better representation from professional cyclists but I do think that people with real world experience would be good right now to raise standards of professionalism. It's unreasonable to expect a pro-cyclist to be the sharpest tool in the box and really understand what a strong governance structure is.

Pat McQuaid reported today that LA sent him an SMS at the weekend. McQuaid was about tocomes out with lines like
1) LA has no place in cycling
2) Hamilton and Landis are scumbags (Hamilton wants to visit Aigle and explain what went on but McQuaid has only contempt for him, won't speak to him)
Back to the SMS. So the UCI are in the middle of finalising their report on the guy at the center of the biggest fraud in their sport, if not all sport. Their are allegations of collusion and inappropriate access. So what does McQuaid do ? He calls LA up and speaks to him ! I'm not suggesting he allowed LA to influence proceedings but can you believe it ?

Unfortunately, McQuaid may be one of the better guys in the UCI but I kind of think they need input on a professional level, like @johnr suggests, even if only to establish better internal structures. Remember, the Pro teams like SKY and Garmin have understood that riders left to their own devices stray into dangerous territory, so they have a support network of people to support a different culture and make it hard for things to go wrong.
The UCI need an external governance review to achieve likewise.

Where did the ball land ?


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

Don't know if this is the correct thread, but why can't cycling go further with testing and have an evidence based led testing program?

By that I mean you could make everyone use a power meter in events - if sustainable power looks fishy then investigate further. Make riders use a training log ( gpx/power meters/heart rate monitors) whilst training that the "regulator" has access to. Set some trigger points to investigate further and/or look closer if the event data logged is sufficiently different than the training.

Clearly a lot of things to sort out but start by collecting the raw data then think about the best way to use it.


----------



## Archie (24 Oct 2012)

It seems Pat has been much more equivocal than expected with the UCI written response following his performance before the press on Monday . As expected, Travis doesn't appreciate the criticism.

_In the four-page "Decision" document, however, McQuaid refers to the Usada report's "overstated language", "incorrect and incomplete statements", and questions whether Usada had a sufficient "degree of detachment" to make a disciplinary judgment._
_"The UCI does not point to any specifics in making this ridiculous claim," responded Tygart, via email from Usada's Colorado headquarters, after reviewing the document. "They simply are trying to divert attention away from their own failures in this whole sad saga, and those that love the sport of cycling and clean sport should not allow that to happen. _

Cast not the mote from thine brothers eye, Pat.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

It's sickening, it really is


----------



## thom (24 Oct 2012)

*Armstrong war of words escalates between UCI, USADA*


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

WADA now essentially calling for heads to roll too.


----------



## philipbh (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> WADA now essentially calling for heads to roll too.


 https://www.facebook.com/greglemond/posts/10151127372613494

Greg Lemond's "open letter" to PMcQ


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> https://www.facebook.com/greglemond/posts/10151127372613494
> 
> Greg Lemond's "open letter" to PMcQ


 
I'm not a member of farcebook, but that might make me join up.


----------



## mickle (25 Oct 2012)

Just received this via Faecebook:

Can anyone help me out? I know this sounds kind of lame but I am not well versed in social marketing. I would like to send a message to everyone that really loves cycling. I do not use twitter and do not have an organized way of getting some of my own "rage" out. I want to tell the world of cycling to please join me in telling Pat McQuaid to resign. I have never seen such an abuse of power in cycling's history- resign Pat if you love cycling. Resign even if you hate the sport.
Pat McQuaid, you know dam well what has been going on in cycling, and if you want to deny it, then even more reasons why those who love cycling need to demand that you resign.
I have a file with what I believe is well documented proof that will exonerate Paul.
Pat in my opinion you and Hein are the corrupt part of the sport. I do not want to include everyone at the UCI because I believe that there are many, maybe most that work at the UCI that are dedicated to cycling, they do it out of the love of the sport, but you and your buddy Hein have destroyed the sport.
Pat, I thought you loved cycling? At one time you did and if you did love cycling please dig deep inside and remember that part of your life- allow cycling to grow and flourish- please! It is time to walk away. Walk away if you love cycling.
As a reminder I just want to point out that you recently you accused me of being the cause of USADA's investigation against Lance Armstrong. Why would you be inclined to go straight to me as the "cause"? Why shoot the messenger every time?
Every time you do this I get more and more entrenched. I was in your country over the last two weeks and I asked someone that knows you if you were someone that could be rehabilitated. His answer was very quick and it was not good for you. No was the answer, no, no , no!
The problem for sport is not drugs but corruption. You are the epitome of the word corruption.
You can read all about Webster's definition of corruption. If you want I can re-post my attorney's response to your letter where you threaten to sue me for calling the UCI corrupt. FYI I want to officially reiterate to you and Hien that in my opinion the two of your represent the essence of corruption.
I would encourage anyone that loves cycling to donate and support Paul in his fight against the Pat and Hein and the UCI. Skip lunch and donate the amount that you would have spent towards that Sunday buffet towards changing the sport of cycling.
I donated money for Paul's defense, and I am willing to donate a lot more, but I would like to use it to lobby for dramatic change in cycling. The sport does not need Pat McQuaid or Hein Verbruggen- if this sport is going to change it is now. Not next year, not down the road, now! Now or never!
People that really care about cycling have the power to change cycling- change it now by voicing your thought and donating money towards Paul Kimmage's defense, ( Paul, I want to encourage you to not spend the money that has been donated to your defense fund on defending yourself in Switzerland. In my case, a USA citizen, I could care less if I lost the UCI's bogus lawsuit. Use the money to lobby for real change).
If people really want to clean the sport of cycling up all you have to do is put your money where your mouth is.
Don't buy a USA Cycling license. Give up racing for a year, just long enough to put the UCI and USA cycling out of business. We can then start from scratch and let the real lovers in cycling direct where and how the sport of cycling will go.
Please make a difference.
Greg


----------



## oldroadman (25 Oct 2012)

Hmm...plenty of emotion, but not much substance in the Lemond letter. Before removing an organisation or it's leader, you have to have a viable alternative, which everyone can support, and has a clean record.
Note that Greg never ever failed a control, neither did Hinault, and yet they raced in an era when it is alleged that doping was endemic in the peloton. Just like Lance, and they were all TdF winners.
Remember that Greg was shot, almost died, and came back to success pro racing? An interesting parallel with Lance's almost miraculous return.
Glass house and stones, and all that.

National Federations will not "resign" from UCI, look east to find out why they won't, because that is where the next leader is likely to come from, along with a shedload of dollars.
The daft comment about not buying a US cycling licence (in the facebook comments) is just that - daft. It will have no effect on USC, and all the serious riders will not be involved in any such nonsense. Loss of a couple of 4/5 cats will harm no-one except themselves.

I don't care for the way UCI was run under Verbruggen (not many did) but under PM a lot has been done, and I think the bloke is trtying hard almost despite the system. Just remember it's the riders, managers, doctors who were actually doing the doping, and the system of testing simply couldn't keep up. As ever, one set of chemists are ahead of another!
The Americans are particularly good at that, too, plenty to experiment with in the big money US sports, football, baseball, basketball, - then there's track and field, golf, tennis...need to go on?


----------



## thom (25 Oct 2012)

oldroadman said:


> The Americans are particularly good at that, too, plenty to experiment with in the big money US sports, football, baseball, basketball, - then there's track and field, golf, tennis...need to go on?


Sounds like USADA have a lot of work to do.


----------



## johnr (25 Oct 2012)

any news from Geneva yet?


----------



## oldroadman (25 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Sounds like USADA have a lot of work to do.


 I wouldn't hold your breath - if you think Lance was a difficult one with all the money involved, try taking onall the heavyweigt commercial operators in the sports mentioned. Little wonder Lance was targeted, after this is settled it will be interesting to see if Mr Tygart and his people have the stomach for a fight with, say, the tennis authorities, and get testing full on (plus out of competition) going, or whether there will be a cry of "human rights to privacy" which has been the defence by some top players who refuse to join the whereabouts system (you have to note where you will be for one hour a day, five days a week, not hard if you are a pro sports person), and would appear not to want to be tested. I wonder why?


----------



## rich p (25 Oct 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Hmm...plenty of emotion, but not much substance in the Lemond letter. Before removing an organisation or it's leader, you have to have a viable alternative, which everyone can support, and has a clean record.
> Note that Greg never ever failed a control, neither did Hinault, and yet they raced in an era when it is alleged that doping was endemic in the peloton. Just like Lance, and they were all TdF winners.
> Remember that Greg was shot, almost died, and came back to success pro racing? An interesting parallel with Lance's almost miraculous return.
> Glass house and stones, and all that.
> ...


 There's so much tosh in there I don't know where to start! Has Lemond ever been accused of doping? He has been an advocate of clean cycling for years and if he had skeletons in the cupboard I think he'd be keeping pretty schtum right now. You seem to suggest that because he had an accident from which he recovered and went on to win the tour that he must have doped like Armstrong, otherwise your 'people in glass houses' comment makes no sense.
McQuaid has been on duty during some of the most corrupt, inept and blinkered years in pro-cycling. irrespective of who replaces him, and whether he would be better or worse, PM has to go almost as quickly as Verbruggen. I suggest you do some more reading into the corruption that has been endemic at the UCI.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Oct 2012)

I agree that Lemond is frequently over emotional in his approach, and there isn't a great deal that is constructive in his proposals. However, I can't agree with the insinuations that oldroadman makes, nor are they even necessary if one wants to disagree with his open letter. I also don't think McQuaid is the person we need at the top. Apart from being Verbruggen's hand-picked successor and supporter, he is personally implicated in many of the issues around the Armstrong case. He has to take some significant responsibility and he is still trying to both accept the USADA report and evade those issues and that responsibility.


----------



## johnr (25 Oct 2012)

McQuaid and Verbruggen have to go if cycling is ever going to get out of this mess. If the successor comes from the same stable, they'll be swept away soon enough. But for now, UCI has to get rid of the Dangerous Brothers if it wants to survive as a credible organisation.


----------



## thom (25 Oct 2012)

oldroadman said:


> I wouldn't hold your breath - if you think Lance was a difficult one with all the money involved, try taking onall the heavyweigt commercial operators in the sports mentioned. Little wonder Lance was targeted, after this is settled it will be interesting to see if Mr Tygart and his people have the stomach for a fight with, say, the tennis authorities, and get testing full on (plus out of competition) going, or whether there will be a cry of "human rights to privacy" which has been the defence by some top players who refuse to join the whereabouts system (you have to note where you will be for one hour a day, five days a week, not hard if you are a pro sports person), and would appear not to want to be tested. I wonder why?


After this success, USADA ought really to have a lot of credibility in the bank. I'm sure Tygart has the appetite to take on whoever it is but I'm not sure he has the tools to prize (sp..?) open ways into the issues. Essentially, the key testimony for both the Balco and USPostal affairs were obtained by the Feds (McQuaid's point), so USADA probably have to be very careful. They have an amazing hit rate for winning cases though.
My worry is the curtailing influence of Congress, caused by lobbyists. Livestrong are widely reported to have lobbied on LA's behalf for greater oversight and as you touch on, the "human rights" issue of due process. There is little USADA can do if political forces work against them.


----------



## BJH (25 Oct 2012)

GLMs open letter today seals the deal for me, it's just gotta be him that gets to take over.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> There's so much tosh in there I don't know where to start! Has Lemond ever been accused of doping? He has been an advocate of clean cycling for years and if he had skeletons in the cupboard I think he'd be keeping pretty schtum right now. You seem to suggest that because he had an accident from which he recovered and went on to win the tour that he must have doped like Armstrong, otherwise your 'people in glass houses' comment makes no sense.
> McQuaid has been on duty during some of the most corrupt, inept and blinkered years in pro-cycling. irrespective of who replaces him, and whether he would be better or worse, PM has to go almost as quickly as Verbruggen. I suggest you do some more reading into the corruption that has been endemic at the UCI.


Rumour doing the rounds that Fat Pat's son accused GL of being dirty on Twitter yesterday! Make this up? You could not!


----------



## User169 (26 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Rumour doing the rounds that Fat Pat's son accused GL of being dirty on Twitter yesterday! Make this up? You could not!



He deleted the tweet pretty quickly, but a screenshot was posted on Inner Ring.


----------



## rich p (26 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> He deleted the tweet pretty quickly, but a screenshot was posted on Inner Ring.


 Have you a link to it DP? I can't seem to find it on inring


----------



## Lurpak (26 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Have you a link to it DP? I can't seem to find it on inring



http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm


----------



## rich p (26 Oct 2012)

Lurpak said:


> http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm


 Cheers!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Oct 2012)

Plenty of riders now demanding independent investigation and UCI reform.


----------



## 007fair (26 Oct 2012)

I like Lemond and believe he is clean. However, considering the gravity of the situation his FB appeal is diminished due to a lack of quality, which is annoying as he is on the button. I don't think PM quite gets it .. or at least doesn't quite know what to do, and with someone like that in charge the doping door is always slightly ajar. And once 1 or 2 people push it open and get away with it for even a year or two then many will follow. The difference doping makes to your status and finances in cycling is just too great to leave the solution with individuals consciences. If 95% of the peloton dope the remaining 5% are dismissed. If 95% of the peloton are clean the remaining 5% are in the spotlight. 1 doper is too many. Sky's zero policy is the only way and PM doesn't have the stomach for that.


----------



## thom (26 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Rumour doing the rounds that Fat Pat's son accused GL of being dirty on Twitter yesterday! Make this up? You could not!


Isn't one of his sons the agent of Sean Kelly ? (or is it Stephen Roche)
Anyhow, here are Kelly's transgressions and here are allegations of Roche's.

Either way, or whichever son, you couldn't make it up !


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Isn't one of his sons the agent of Sean Kelly ? (or is it Stephen Roche)
> Anyhow, here are Kelly's transgressions and here are allegations of Roche's.
> 
> Either way, or whichever son, you couldn't make it up !


Andrew MacQuaid is, or was, iirc, agent for Nicolas Roche and Philip Deignan. and a quick cut'n'paste adds Australian Richie Porte, American Taylor Phinney, South African Daryl Impey, Christophe Le Mevel of France, Briton Jeremy Huntto the list.


----------



## thom (26 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Andrew MacQuaid is, or was, iirc, agent for Nicolas Roche and Philip Deignan. and a quick cut'n'paste adds Australian Richie Porte, American Taylor Phinney, South African Daryl Impey, Christophe Le Mevel of France, Briton Jeremy Huntto the list.


I'm pretty sure he's also involved with Kelly as a business associate - Andrew used to race for the Sean Kelly cycling team... and presumably does work for it or it's riders now.


----------



## fozy tornip (27 Oct 2012)

The UCI was born of an act of secession:


> The UCI was founded on 14 April 1900 in Paris by the national cycling organisations of Belgium, the United States, France, Italy, and Switzerland.* It replaced the International Cycling Association by setting up in opposition in a row* over whether Great Britain should be allowed just one team at world championships or separate teams representing England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Britain found itself outflanked and it was not able to join the UCI - under the conditions the UCI had imposed - until 1903


So rather than waiting for it to reform itself why not a rival organisation attuned to the zeitgeist - with robust anti-doping protocols and policies, a commitment to developing the sport at grassroots level globally, nicer people in charge - that national organisations, teams, riders, the IOC, big race organisers and fans might affiliate with in preference to a terminally ill sack of crooks (if such it be?)


----------



## thom (27 Oct 2012)

User said:


> sorry, not sure of the relevance to the changing of the UCI..


It was to point out that for McQuaid's son to have a go at LeMonde (who complained about the UCI), making a doping allegation and calling him a cheat, is a bit rich given his business and other relationships to Sean Kelly (he cycled on Kelly's team and I believe he is Kelly's agent now).
I'm not specifically trying to have a go at Kelly here but pointing out that A McQuaid willfully associates with somebody who has proven doping blemishes in his past, so he's not really in a position to make unsubstantiated accusations against LeMonde.


----------



## johnr (27 Oct 2012)

User said:


> as much as I disagree with andrew mcquaids' twitter statement surly he still as the right to make stupid comments, irrespective of whom he knows or works with..


 The right, yes. But relationships between protagonists and their relationship to drugs, now and historically, is vital information as we enter the next phase. Most of the pro-status quo (at least)-pro-dope (at worst) camp are chucking dirt or saying 'let's move on'. Only the Four Amigos and Boonen seem to be maintaining the 'he didn't do nuffin'' line.

We'll need to note their names and alliances carefully to check against new structures as they emerge before accepting any assurances that fundamental change has occurred.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (27 Oct 2012)

I'd missed it in the British press but l'Equipe has published a cycling manifesto put together by The Times, le Soir, het Nieuwsbad and l'Equipe. It's HERE but I haven't yet found an English version. The Times' version is behind a paywall.

I haven't yet started digesting the 8 point plan yet and it doesn't touch on reforming the UCI per se but it does almost look like they've put the UCI in a secondary position and started to take the lead by setting an agenda for the UCI.

Does anybody have access to an English version? If not, I could do a translation, but not immediately.


----------



## thom (27 Oct 2012)

User said:


> as much as I disagree with andrew mcquaids' twitter statement surly he still as the right to make stupid comments, irrespective of whom he knows or works with..


If you make an honest mistake in public, fine. He should apologise publicly.

The problem is the perception of him deliberately putting an idea into the public domain libelling Lemonde on his father's behalf. I think pointing out the hypocrisy is perfectly justified. 
Remember it was LA who undermined for example Emma O'Reilly, making up unpleasant stories about her to discredit her.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Oct 2012)

User said:


> as much as I disagree with andrew mcquaids' twitter statement surly he still as the right to make stupid comments, irrespective of whom he knows or works with..


No one has the right to libel others.


----------



## albion (27 Oct 2012)

Obviously if they did what other sports do then everything would be fine.

Like boxing where champions have not had even 1 random test in their lifetime, or other sports where they get to stay anonymous and just get a caution when caught.

You can certainly say cycling has been tackling it by the number caught, even if Armstrong eluded them for a while.


----------



## DogTired (28 Oct 2012)

User said:


> as much as I disagree with andrew mcquaids' twitter statement surly he still as the right to make stupid comments, irrespective of whom he knows or works with..


Nope. He has the ability to make stupid comments, but he doesnt have a right to. A lot of people over-estimate their 'rights' confusing it with 'the ability to do and say pretty much whatever I want with no consequences'. No-one has a right to punch someone in the face for disagreeing with them. No-one can just say or accuse anyone with justification of whatever they want as they feel.


----------



## rich p (28 Oct 2012)

User said:


> Maybe he's a member of this forum and like many here, isn't that concerned about making libelous unsubstantiated claims


 Such as? Armstrong is a doper?


----------



## rich p (28 Oct 2012)

User said:


> No, that's a fact  but before it was an unsubstantiated claim..


 Unsubstantiated apart from the mountain of evidence.


----------



## thom (28 Oct 2012)

User said:


> No... before usada took up the case it was all unsubstantiated claims and still would be, if not for usada.


Well, you had people who were prepared to make courtroom(like) statements and in addition the whole story of 7 consecutive wins just kept on becoming more and more implausible as time went on and more and more of the guys who shared the podiums were implicated too. There was a lot of noise about LA.

I have only heard a specific allegation against LeMond made by A. McQuaid on twitter last week. Other than that, I heard the story (told by LeMond and his fishing trip companion) of Lance threatening to make accusations against LeMond. Given the general stories about cyclists at the time, you might presume a fair few people were involved in some kind of doping but my impression was people thought LeMond was one of the clean ones.

LeMond has been very outspoken on doping against a succession of big names, (LA, Landis, Contador) so there would be good reason for stories to emerge about him during his own career. Does anybody actually know of any such story ?


----------



## rich p (28 Oct 2012)

User said:


> No... before usada took up the case it was all unsubstantiated claims and still would be, if not for usada.


 It wasn't unsubstantiated, just un-prosecuted.
The failed EPO tests weren't disputed but were just inadmissable. The late TUE was in the public domain. The evidence was always there but due to reasons that have been well documented lately, nothing was ever done.


----------



## johnr (28 Oct 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/27/uci-fight-credibility-lance-armstrong

A decent summary of the current state of play.


----------



## DogTired (28 Oct 2012)

User said:


> Maybe he's a member of this forum and like many here, isn't that concerned about making libelous unsubstantiated claims


Personally, its a wise idea to have some evidence before going out on a limb. Conversations here can get heated but its rare for someone to shoot from the hip comments wise and for the most part provide some of evidential back-up. This is one of the most informed chat rooms I've come across.

Apart from those who still think he-who-is-not-named-in-this-thread-header is innocent.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2012)

I'm not entirely sure what I think of an agent who is the son of the UCI president hawking on of his riders around when the rider's team boss has said that the rider has to see out his contract. In fact I'm not sure what I think of an agent who is the son of the UCI president. No, I'm not sure at all........


----------



## BJH (28 Oct 2012)

I dodnt recall ever seeing any dirt on LeMond - with the exception of the threats made by Armstrong.

He makes the most credible candidate for my money.


----------



## oldroadman (28 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> I dodnt recall ever seeing any dirt on LeMond - with the exception of the threats made by Armstrong.
> 
> *He makes the most credible candidate for my money*.


 
Candidate for what?


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

It appears that in the desire to clutch onto the belief a clean rider won the TDF with GL being the obvious choice for many but how many have tested the strength of the argument.

We now have many old guard falling by the way side and acceptance of this along with LA guilt with no positive tests. Is it therefore not appropriate that we use the same modern measures of association etc as a way of determining, if only for ourselves, probability of guilt?

Leaving positive tests out what other way can GL be seen as clean or not clean?


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2012)

This is awesome - next year's mascot for world road races.


----------



## thom (29 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> This is awesome - next year's mascot for world road races.


Is it April fools day in Switerland or something ?


----------



## Shadow (29 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> This is awesome - next year's mascot for world road races.


Incroyable! You just cannot make these things up.

edit: sp.


----------



## johnr (29 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> This is awesome - next year's mascot for world road races.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> It appears that in the desire to clutch onto the belief a clean rider won the TDF with GL being the obvious choice for many but how many have tested the strength of the argument.
> 
> We now have many old guard falling by the way side and acceptance of this along with LA guilt with no positive tests. Is it therefore not appropriate that we use the same modern measures of association etc as a way of determining, if only for ourselves, probability of guilt?
> 
> Leaving positive tests out what other way can GL be seen as clean or not clean?


 
No. LA was found guilty on a rather damning mass of evidence. Even Oakley, his most diehard of sponsors have cut his contract along with the rest of them. There are no rational arguments or promoters of arguments left. He is guilty due to the evidence and testimony. He was innocent until proven guilty and that's why only 7 days ago has his TdF wins been taken away.

Quite frankly, anyone who has read the least bit of background is aware that LA has tested positive. This is confirmed, in the public domain and accepted by the UCI.

So Greg LeMond is innocent until someone comes up with some compelling evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired I have read about all the lost sponsors like you have but also watched in amazement as they walk across the line from Athlete Armstrong to Livestrong Armstrong and we see him at events in his Nike gear, Oakley glasses etc. It doesn’t appear to have changed much to me! A stronger message would have been better surely?

I agree about LA and also that anyone caught should suffer what is set down for them. 
I would also add to your post that if anyone has done any research, even a limited amount, cannot be surprised there was/is doping in Cycling as it forms part of its history and accepted as such.

I feel that you have missed the point I have made however in an attempt to defend GL innocence, but possibly also helped reinforce it as well.

With the large number of past riders, managers, etc. admitting to doping Cycling is ground down in debates which rider is next to fall and reasons why they were involved in doping, many with as little evidence as can be associated to GL. 

If we are satisfied to take such an extreme stance why should anyone be left of the list of suspicion present or past including GL?
I read in forums....wow didn’t expect him,.... I knew it he rode with, ......he was in team X and they had a number of dopers etc. etc. 

GL rode with Fignon! Does that mean he doped?
GL was diagnosed as anaemic does that means he doped?
GL received injections at Giro does that mean he doped?
GL has been photographed with LA, JH, SY etc. does that mean he doped?

There is an ability to make the challenge for anyone but where does it all end? 

Why would any athlete want to add the pressure of trying to prove innocence whilst training and competing when a photo in a paper with someone who gets caught later or he was in the Team etc. The current rules of engagement will drive athletes away from Sport.


----------



## bof (29 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> This is awesome - next year's mascot for world road races.


I never realised UCI had a sense of humour!


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal

is there any evidence for Lemond doping? If not you might want to reconsider some of your posts.


----------



## User169 (29 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> This is awesome - next year's mascot for world road races.


 
"The expression of the face is smiling, happy, *positive*, and at the same time almost *amazed/surprised*."


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> I feel that you have missed the point I have made however in an attempt to defend GL innocence, but possibly also helped reinforce it as well.


I thought it was pretty clear in post #161 that you were raising question marks regarding Greg LeMond's record of being clean and not having doped. It's not clear how the statements in #161 reconcile with an attempt to defend LeMonds innocence.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired & dellzeqq the point I am making is that the lines between guilt and innocence are now far closer than they have ever been. In Cycling we are seeing this more acutely than other Sports and only when these new approaches are applied to them shall their fan base and public opinion be tuned in to it.

In defence of WADA they have very little money compared to Sports teams and athletes and the testing regimes are basically worthless to catch dopers so they turn to any means necessary to show they remain a valid and necessary part of Sport. This has been borne from frustration and sterile performance in the role they play.
I am also willing to accept them confirming the rules are changing on Day X but being applied from now but they have not and sanction athletes based exclusively on the rules with no room to manouvre and work outside them when it suits.
Credibility is being lost unecessarily and Elite athletes are must be wondering what I am looked upon as dirty but I am clean!

@dogtired I personally do not believe any GT has been won by a non-doping rider for a very long time and well before GL. I can make as strong an argument for him as I can against him based on what we know. Do I still like him of course I do he was GREAT and I believe is more warranted for his opinion than most others and if he was willing to accept a role in the NEW Cycling era he should be given it.


----------



## Buddfox (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> I can make as strong an argument for him as I can against him based on what we know. Do I still like him of course I do he was GREAT and I believe is more warranted for his opinion than most others and if he was willing to accept a role in the NEW Cycling era he should be given it.


 
But is this really true, that it's possible to make as strong an argument against as it is for? With GL, there has been no (so far as I am aware) substantiated evidence that he took performance enhancing drugs. If we limit our review for now to winners of the Tour de France, we can review the winner each year from 2012 back to 1986 (or whenever), and analyse the evidence that sits for and against them having taken PEDs. In some cases (e.g. Floyd Landis) there was actual failed tests by UCI / WADA standards; for Lance Armstrong, there were failed tests not to the required standards plus the evidence of team mates etc etc that was good enough for USADA and UCI to ban him; for Bjarne Riis, post event confessions; for Pantani, there were reams of circumstantial evidence, the high hematocrit levels, but not actual failed tests I don't think? etc. etc. etc.

For Evans, Wiggins and Sastre, no evidence exists, circumstantial or otherwise (well, perhaps Cadel met Ferrari?) which leads us to conclude they most likely didn't dope - and one can examine the evidence of performance stats, power to weigh ratios, times etc. and build a case which is stronger that they did not dope than that they did.

Big Mig is a trickier case, no evidence or even suggestion at the time, nothing even today widely reported other than his substantial performance improvement from the late 80s to the early 90s which in part led to LeMond calling it a day.

In each case we examine the facts, evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) in front of us and reach an informed conclusion on the likelihood of doping.

In GL's case, does even the performance data indicate evidence of doping? So I'm not sure it is right to say arguments can be constructed which are equal on both sides when it comes to GL. There's no real evidence of any quality, so we are left to speculate on hearsay and judge a man on his character. There is quite a lot of evidence to support the latter part though, in terms of his conduct etc. - so perhaps in fact more evidence to suggest he was not a doper.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@Buddfox thanks for your response with an excellent range of examples in criteria/riders across the whole era you mentioned and considered arguments and it appears you 'get' the point I am making.
Changing from a physical testing regime to deter/catch dopers to the multiple levels of probability to dermine guilt opens up much more areas to be considered which you have addressed. I am sure others may want to add more that have been missed.

I used GL as I feel he is so difficult to make a positive case against and many rear up when you mention this which is not the intention, if a probability argument can be made against him I feel all riders are doomed. There is no physical evidence or 3rd Party statements either that could be deemed credible, in that I am rejecting LA comments at him.

Looking at the other rider you mentioned first which I feel are great examples as they cover most of the areas I have been looking at.

Evans met with Ferrari but no long term relationship that has come to light. Is he guilty by association to a confirmed Doping Doctor?
Wiggins was a member of Cofidis a Confirmed Doping Team. Is he guilty by Association to a known Doping Team?
Sastre no known associations however he has produced some excellent climbing stats against some known EPO Dopers. Is he Guilty of suspicion by Performance Stats that deserve to be analysed in more detail to clear/convict him? 
Big Mig associated with known Doping Doctor and his Performance stats were lower than GL 91 then all well above. His climbing stats for Performance are exceptional and do they deserve closer investigation to determine he is clean/guilty?

There is no physical evidence for any of them but lots of different Probability routes to review. It is no longer acceptable to say no positive tests and I feel for current athletes as they are all now guilty until proven innocent and with the vast media coverage how would a photo look if Wiggins walked through a function meeting and greeting and Ferrari/Fuentes shook his hand and smiled. Wiggo would be spending weeks making denials and that simply is not fair or just. 
There is also Financial records and who pays who but that will now all be washed away with 3rd Party clean companies working as middle men, maybe not!

On GL being clean there is no positive tests, no 3rd party association claims of guilt. Bernard Tapie always spoke about him very highly and stated he was clean. I have no climbing data for his stats before 89 so i dont know if there is a comparison worth looking at for him alone and with other winners up to 88. I also only have output data for his 89 and 90 win not climbing again maybe someone has that to offer. His 89 and 90 output stats were higher than BigMig 91 but lower, I believe, than all years afterwards. 
All the data I have is no more compelling than Wiggins or Evans through the route of Association and we have a positive clean comment from Tapie. His days with Hinualt Team have been considered as a clean Team and no evidence suggests otherwise.

To make an inverse argument against GL takes a lot more consideration and construction and a different Probability approach than we have done with the others mainly due to the large field of Doping targets to latch a Probability factor onto. There is also the change in Doping culture which may or may not have it's timeline correct!

GL rode with Fignon who was a confirmed Doper so he has a link by Association to a Doping Rider.oes that mean he doped?
GL was diagnosed as Anaemic however the source of the diagnosis is in doubt who made the call. The issue for an athlete in these days is Anaemia was associated with Blood Doping through removal and storage of Blood reducing an athletes iron count. If it wasn't the Doctor who made the call from Blood data it is more suspicious than not. There is however no Blood Data from that time to either make the call of suspicion but the question of how the diagnosis was made is relevant. He received Iron Injections as result of the diagnosis.
GL received injections at a time he was suffering and these changed not just his season but his career at that time. iron in itself is not an issue dependant on the reasons for it's application however this period in Sports history had already seen the rise of EPO. I appreciate EPO is associated with ()'s which is correct but 86 to 89 seen EPO deaths from use in Europe in Cycling and Skiing and Skiing recognised it had become a problem in their Sport and banned it in 88. If you consider FDA did not clinically approve it until 89 it was quite available on the Black market in Europe. The relationship between Iron and EPO is simple as you require Iron as an essential part of the EPO solution. The most common view is EPO became part of the Peloton in the 90's however it was used to excess in Skiing and Cycling at times before this with the recorded deaths I assume mainly due to misuse and lack of understanding. Did the Iron Injections being advised form part of EPO or not?
The EPO comments will get I am sure, from some, the derisory rubbish/nonsense comment but hopefully it shall be looked at closer and some conjecture that if 1 less affluent Sport had banned it in 88 where else was it being used? Cycling?

I added the being photographed with LA etc as a joke to see who bit on what.

Sorry for the long post but I hope that you find, whether you agree or not, that I have somewhat issued what I said I would in a reasoned way which I hope stimulates debate although I am sure to hear from the same crowd to dismiss it and offer no critique or cogent assessment.

My Conclusion? Cycling has been a part of my life for years and I have little faith in it for non-doping GT winners and that would include GL however if I can say something to contradict that point of view is that whilst I feel a valid argument is available for any rider GL is the one I would much prefer to make a considered argument as not doping for. I do not however share the perceived timeline of EPO into Cycling and it may have been done with or without rider's knowledge.


----------



## thom (30 Oct 2012)

The independent commission is the last chance for UCI to retain credibility and exist as cycling's governing body, say Brian Cookson.


----------



## Orbytal (30 Oct 2012)

Great article but at the end the day UCI have 1 official body to convince and that is the IOC for recognition. Rogge has already publicly backed UCI so I am not expecting anything other than Pat playing it safe.


----------



## johnr (30 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> The independent commission is the last chance for UCI to retain credibility and exist as cycling's governing body, say Brian Cookson.


 I can feel a Sebastian Coe coming on


----------



## BJH (2 Nov 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Candidate for what?



Chief reformist of the UCI


----------



## Archie (4 Nov 2012)

Wow.

Sponsor SKINZ sue the UCI, McQuaid, Verbruggen.

This really turns the heat up on the named defendants. I can't see their position is tenable now.

I wonder if SKINZ will accept the resignation of McQuaid and Verbruggen as their settlement?


----------



## rich p (4 Nov 2012)

Much as I dislike HV and PM, that looks like a load of kite-flying cock to my untrained eye.


----------



## thom (4 Nov 2012)

Archie said:


> Wow.
> 
> Sponsor SKINZ sue the UCI, McQuaid, Verbruggen.
> 
> ...


Given Henricus Verbruggen has not really been responsible for anything since 2008, I'm not sure why he's a named defendent there. 
Not sure what to feel - the main issue is to have a fully independent, credible commission with a remit to investigate as much as they deem appropriate.


----------



## Buddfox (4 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> Much as I dislike HV and PM, that looks like a load of kite-flying cock to my untrained eye.


 
Hard to disagree - if I received that letter it would go straight in the bin. I could barely describe my eye as semi-trained, but that letter bears no resemblance to the sort of work I'd expect from the law firms I work with. The drafting of that letter does more to discredit Skins than their association with cycling (pro or otherwise).


----------



## Orbytal (4 Nov 2012)

This must be a joke.

The teams/athletes Skins sponsored doped and it's UCI fault?

Time to take out the trash again I think.


----------



## tigger (4 Nov 2012)

I cannot believe thats a genuine letter????


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @dogtired I have read about all the lost sponsors like you have but also watched in amazement as they walk across the line from Athlete Armstrong to Livestrong Armstrong and we see him at events in his Nike gear, Oakley glasses etc. It doesn’t appear to have changed much to me! A stronger message would have been better surely?
> 
> I agree about LA and also that anyone caught should suffer what is set down for them.
> I would also add to your post that if anyone has done any research, even a limited amount, cannot be surprised there was/is doping in Cycling as it forms part of its history and accepted as such.
> ...


 
Interesting parallel with Paul Kimmage and Bradley Wiggins.... he is somewhat scathing about Wiggins and Sky



"“People ask me how I feel about Wiggins leading the Tour de France – I don’t know, I can’t answer the question. I should be jumping up and down and thrilled for the guys, but I don’t like what I am hearing,” he told VeloNation earlier this week. “When asked about doping, the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd.”
“I don’t recognise the Wiggins now, compared to the guy I interviewed in 2007 to when he was sent out of the Tour,” he said. “I can’t compare these two guys as their responses are completely the opposite. I don’t understand what has happened. I don’t know how you can lead the Tour de France and not speak out about doping, yet speak out in the past so openly. There’s also a completely about-turn from Wiggins on his response to Armstrong, when compared to his previous stance on anti-doping"


----------



## Orbytal (4 Nov 2012)

Is everyone a fair target at the moment?

I would also suggest I have a far better chance of getting an interview with SKY than PK just now! lol


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Interesting parallel with Paul Kimmage and Bradley Wiggins.... he is somewhat scathing about Wiggins and Sky
> 
> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx
> "“People ask me how I feel about Wiggins leading the Tour de France – I don’t know, I can’t answer the question. I should be jumping up and down and thrilled for the guys, but I don’t like what I am hearing,” he told VeloNation earlier this week. “When asked about doping, the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd.”
> “I don’t recognise the Wiggins now, compared to the guy I interviewed in 2007 to when he was sent out of the Tour,” he said. “I can’t compare these two guys as their responses are completely the opposite. I don’t understand what has happened. I don’t know how you can lead the Tour de France and not speak out about doping, yet speak out in the past so openly. There’s also a completely about-turn from Wiggins on his response to Armstrong, when compared to his previous stance on anti-doping"


 
Except that he has spoken out openly about doping and Armstrong.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Except that he has spoken out openly about doping and Armstrong.


 
Take it up with Paul Kimmage


----------



## rich p (5 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Take it up with Paul Kimmage


When was that article written by Kimmage? It's old news which has been superceded by Wiggins' recent categorical anti-Armstrong statements.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Take it up with Paul Kimmage


 
I'm taking it up with you because you posted it here clearly with the snide implication that Wiggins might be a bit like Armstrong. You really don't give up, do you?


----------



## thom (5 Nov 2012)

The Danish Cycling Union writes to the UCI demanding Heinricus Vebruggen is removed.
There's a link to video there, including a doc with Tyler Hamilton.


----------



## thom (5 Nov 2012)

The Luxembourg Cycling Federation call for various things from the UCI.
My flaky reading translates to:
1) better governance
2) an investigation for the conduct of the UCI over the past 20 years
3) a truth commission as requested by WADA

If someone who can read french properly cares to clarify if there is more interesting stuff in this then please do.

Edit: I suspect the Danish and Luxembourg stories will be written up later on velonation or similar ;-)


----------



## Scoosh (5 Nov 2012)

Archie said:


> Wow.
> 
> Sponsor SKINZ sue the UCI, McQuaid, Verbruggen.
> 
> ...


Whether the letter is genuine or garbage, reputable or mince, what caught my eye was the list of teams with whom Skins were linked - especially Rabobank.

Is this Rabobank using Skins (and maybe other similarly linked companies) to start the process of getting rid of the UCI/HV/PM ? How many other letters from all the other sponsor companies will it take ? Could it work ? Drip-feed of lawsuits against HV/PM ?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Nov 2012)

Graham Obree calls the UCI a 'chum-ocracy' - pretty much spot-on (like most of the international governing bodies of sports, unfortunately).


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I'm taking it up with you because you posted it here clearly with the snide implication that Wiggins might be a bit like Armstrong. You really don't give up, do you?


 
You really need to learn to read these posts

The discussion prior to this post is about whether everyone is suspect, and this has included Greg Emond etc.

There is nothing "snide about this at all.

Paul Kimmage wrote this and it illustartes clearly the points made by arlier posters, the factthat you seem to take this personally is really not my problem.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> When was that article written by Kimmage? It's old news which has been superceded by Wiggins' recent categorical anti-Armstrong statements.


 
You could click the link ?


----------



## beastie (5 Nov 2012)

I still read these threads, but I can't be arsed to post very often because of the huge amount of farkwittery written. You know who you are.


----------



## rich p (5 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You could click the link ?


 
I knew it was 4 months old and preceded Armstrong's public exposure but I was rather hoping you'd enlighten me as to why such an old quote was relevant in the light of what's happened since. I assume you're still clinging onto some vestige of hope that Santa Claus will make Lance innocent and Wiggins guilty, but I'm not clear why you keep posting red herrings. Obfuscation is so last month.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2012)

Go back and read Orbytal's post about Greg Lemond.

Now read the points amade in parallel about Kimmage's comments.

It is about linking unfounded allegations and suggestions. Neither rider is really suspected of doping.

You are of course entitled to your own bizzare fantasy interpretation.


----------



## thom (5 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> The Luxembourg Cycling Federation call for various things from the UCI.
> If someone who can read french properly cares to clarify if there is more interesting stuff in this then please do.


So @deptfordmarmoset furnished me with a stylish translation of the above letter. It's a little long but quite a spectacular and funny read so I post below (with @deptfordmarmoset's kind permission).




_Dear President,_

_Your letter of 25 October to all the national federations invites us to join you in continuing to help evolve the top priority concern, namely the fight against doping, and to give our suggestions to the UCI._

_After the grave and irrefutable revelations of USADA in the Lance Armstrong affair you have at last addressed the national federations._

_You were forced to accept the report and to suspend LA for life and to strip him of his 7 victories in the TdF._

_In the report, the American anti-doping agency repeatedly and justifiably lambasts the UCI, and underlines its distrust of UCI officials._

_Allow me to remind you that on numerous occasions I have asked that the rules of ''good governance'' be applied to the management of our international institution. In case I need to spell it out, the rules of good governance stipulate that:_

_The UCI, in close collaboration with the national federations, will assure the leadership, the development, the regulations and the controls of cycling in accordance with article 5 of the good governance code, which invokes the general principle of transparency._

_I am obliged to note that these good governance rules have remained nothing but empty words._

_I am also obliged to note that the image and brand of cycling has been more than tarnished and is at the lowest point in public opinion. And it's not just the public!_

_The leadership of the UCI no longer enjoys the confidence nor has the necessary credibility to assure the management, the development, the regulations and the controls of a new cycling, conducted with full transparency with the national federations._

_I therefore happily back the USADA proposition to establish an independent truth and reconciliation commission, which could guide cycling towards real reforms and give birth to the hope of true change._

_I am glad that such an independent commission be established along the lines of the USADA proposition or the IOC._

_Personally, however, I will opt for a WADA proposition in close consultation with Transparency International: the IOC does have the honorary president of the UCI within its fold!_

_The objectives of the commission should not be limited to doping and the LA affair. It is imperative that it extend to the whole management of the UCI over the last 20 years._

_The commission's investigations should also take account of the suggestions of the KNWU (Royal Netherlands Cycling Union) president, Marcel Wintels, contained in his letter of 25 October 2012 to the UCI._

_It goes without saying that the FSCL completely subscribes to the analysis and suggestions of M Wintels._

_Finally, it is imperative that the findings of the commission be submitted to an extraordinary general meeting/Congress of the UCI. Congress to decide which reforms to adopt and what the future mode of governance by the UCI will be._

_Such a voyage into transparency is, in my view, the only way of restoring cycling's prestige, confidence and credibility._

_(Signs off with an altered form of a formal French ending which I have no hope of translating. It's the equivalent of taking the standardised ''Yours truly'' and replacing it with ''Up Yours, truly'')_


I think now the cycling federations of Luxembourg, Denmark and Holland have openly criticised the UCI. Will Belgium be next, to complete the full set of Low countries ?

Many thanks for the translation - it appears a good amount of work.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Neither rider is really suspected of doping


 
And none of this is really even relevant in a thread about reforming the UCI. There's a whole different thread on Kimmage's battles. Can we try to stick at least somewhere near the topic, which I think is pretty important which is why I started the thread, as opposed to carrying on the same discussions from other threads.


----------



## thom (5 Nov 2012)

David Millar interviewed in the Guardian today. He does talk about a few things but I didn't want to start a whole new thread and there's a fair bit about how the UCI seem to be in a place where events are taking their own course and they are no longer in control of how this may play out.


----------



## PpPete (5 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> David Millar interviewed in the Guardian today. He does talk about a few things ....


Just a few .... Wow, that is some piece.


----------



## Orbytal (5 Nov 2012)

It is nice to see the Luxembourg Federation insisting that UCI work within the rules and cite many at them BUT happy for WADA and USADA to just ignore the rules and charge on regardless.

Cherry Pick the rules you like and leave the ones out that you dont like, if only life was that simple!


----------



## rich p (5 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> David Millar interviewed in the Guardian today. He does talk about a few things but I didn't want to start a whole new thread and there's a fair bit about how the UCI seem to be in a place where events are taking their own course and they are no longer in control of how this may play out.


 
say it like it is!


----------



## Crackle (5 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> David Millar interviewed in the Guardian today. He does talk about a few things but I didn't want to start a whole new thread and there's a fair bit about how the UCI seem to be in a place where events are taking their own course and they are no longer in control of how this may play out.


 
I read that before; excellent piece. I wonder if he's right about the momentum towards the UCI. I still feel there's a lack of smoking gun, though Skins suing them is a bit more like it.


----------



## thom (5 Nov 2012)

Crackle said:


> I read that before; excellent piece. I wonder if he's right about the momentum towards the UCI. I still feel there's a lack of smoking gun, though Skins suing them is a bit more like it.


Prima facie, the Skins case looks flimsy though but it shows people are really emboldened to have a pop at the UCI as is. Perhaps it's just about Skins getting publicity but it's a major hassle for the UCI.

Kimmage must have initiated his case on the basis of a decent lawyer looking at the original case so he must think he can nail something on them.

The federations speaking in public however is a play to the public and a show of no confidence that keeps up the pressure on the UCI. It's really important the independent review is established with a broad remit and proper independence. 

Vaughters is suggesting the dope testing component is separated from the UCI and becomes WADA managed.

If you were in the UCI right now, dealing on top of all this with Vino, Padua and potential Fuentes stuff, you wouldn't be feeling great...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> Vaughters is suggesting the dope testing component is separated from the UCI and becomes WADA managed


 
Absolutely. For me, that should happen whatever else gets done with the UCI.


----------



## Orbytal (5 Nov 2012)

Having read it I find it somewhat convenient David tells us the Sport started to clean up from 2008 when he took a business share in Slipstream and not 2006 when he returned to ride! The Sport started to clean up in the last 4 years, really?

I actually have no issue with him doing this as anyone in business would but I do have a problem with the cloak he wears whilst presenting a holier than though view.

He mentions large scale corruption but not a lot more!! If I was interviewing him as a journo as soon as I heard that I would be thinking GOLD lets uncover this but alas no, it was more a marketing ad for David than looking for that smoking gun! It was all too convenient and lame for my liking!

If we take his comments on UCI not doing enough and then look at his comments that the last 4 years the Sport is a lot cleaner is that a happy coincidence with no UCI involvement or not? He makes a lot of serious comments we all are being fed from different quarters and then offers the solution as Pat needs to make changes or ship out! He also mentions PK as being someone good for the UCI but how will that work with Pat in there?

It looks very much like David is trying to back all the horses and hope to come out a winner no matter what happens and look as if he has been doing the good fight all along.

I understand his business dilemma here and the need for a certain public profile but far too many issues in the piece and not enough answers.

David I believe is a decent guy, all Scotsmen are, and I hope he does well but he needs to put far more out there than he has done.


----------



## Orbytal (5 Nov 2012)

JV wants the doping regime separate from UCI. Is JV forgetting who carries out doping test all over the world when athletes are not in competition? Who carried out tests on all those who evaded detection for years like LA, LL, GH et al. It was WADA that does this so I wonder exctly what JV is alluding to?

WADA were as successful as UCI and IOC and we have DM saying the Sport is now a lot cleaner so who achieved that and rather than saying hand it over, tell us all exactly what requires to be done now before we hand it over what exactly is not being done now that needs to be done?

Too much HYPE and nowhere near enough detail and direction. 

Papertalk galore for the masses and trying to look good for the Sponsors I would suggest than anything else and maybe DM and JV need to chat a bit more to align their views better.


----------



## tigger (5 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Absolutely. For me, that should happen whatever else gets done with the UCI.



I agree. It's impossible for one body to be the policeman and promoter


----------



## johnr (5 Nov 2012)

I'm thinking back to that pathetic resolution which was passed virtually unanimously at the AGM in Holland in September. Seems a very long time ago now!

Did we ever find out who were the four who voted against?


----------



## johnr (7 Nov 2012)

Looks like the UCI have gone to the head of CAS to get nominees for the enquiry commission:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/07/uci-lance-armstrong-independent-commission

They, however, have drawn up the terms of reference, so until we see them we'll not be sure whether anything positive will come out of the whole thing.

EDIT: seems my cynicism overtook me. According to the UCI press release:
_"When appointed, the members of the Independent Commission alone will decide the final terms of reference of its wide ranging remit. "_

Full text: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...s/UCI/UCI8/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Nov 2012)

That's actually moderately hopeful. And certainly more open than the UCI usually are.


----------



## 007fair (8 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> Having read it I find it somewhat convenient David tells us the Sport started to clean up from 2008 when he took a business share in Slipstream and not 2006 when he returned to ride! The Sport started to clean up in the last 4 years, really?
> 
> I actually have no issue with him doing this as anyone in business would but I do have a problem with the cloak he wears whilst presenting a holier than though view.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Nov 2012)

I think I spoke too soon. Dick Pound as pointed out the potential conflict of interest between Coates (the guy asked to oversee this independent inquiry) and Verbruggen - they are both on the IOC together. One could see this as just more of the old boys' network...


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Nov 2012)

We are missing a point here.

The drug testing regime was under WADA auspices as well.

If the UCI failed than the WADA also failed in not ensuring it's rules and conditions were met.

The independent inquiry needs to be from completely outside cycling, and if there is a real wish o see what went wrong, look into the WADA conduct in this period as well.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The drug testing regime was under WADA auspices as well.
> 
> If the UCI failed than the WADA also failed in not ensuring it's rules and conditions were met.


 
This is true - and in fact, Alan Garnier, the ex-medical officer of WADA has now made specific allegations against WADA's involvement in covering up the Armstrong case.


----------



## Buddfox (9 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> This is true - and in fact, Alan Garnier, the ex-medical officer of WADA has now made specific allegations against WADA's involvement in covering up the Armstrong case.


 
Reading that article, one is forced to ask the question why he didn't say more at the time, or better still resign. Does he not join an increasing line of officials that say they knew what was going on but couldn't do anything about it?


----------



## oldroadman (9 Nov 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Reading that article, one is forced to ask the question why he didn't say more at the time, or better still resign. Does he not join an increasing line of officials that say they knew what was going on but couldn't do anything about it?


 
Couldn't or wouldn't? Or is he just bandwagon jumping?

As for the Skins sueing business, just a poor attempt at a publicity stunt - I suppose it works because now more people will have heard of them.


----------



## thom (9 Nov 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Couldn't or wouldn't? Or is he just bandwagon jumping?
> 
> As for the Skins sueing business, just a poor attempt at a publicity stunt - I suppose it works because now more people will have heard of them.


This is why Skins are suing - if you can work it out, let me know !


----------



## rich p (10 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> This is why Skins are suing - if you can work it out, let me know !


_We’d have to withdraw because these f—–s have f—-d it up_ - quote Jaimie Fuller!


----------



## thom (10 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> _We’d have to withdraw because these f—–s have f—-d it up_ - quote Jaimie Fuller!


We should create an internet meme, UCI / McQuaid / Verbruggen statements to sue over and the required front page cycling journal retraction :
"The f**kers at the UCI did not indeed f**k it up"


----------



## Orbytal (14 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think I spoke too soon. Dick Pound as pointed out the potential conflict of interest between Coates (the guy asked to oversee this independent inquiry) and Verbruggen - they are both on the IOC together. One could see this as just more of the old boys' network...


 
Just another interview where Mr Pound helps to underline his first name is so appropriate for him!

Perhaps Dick forgets who are all on the IOC Members list and Committees and what they do! 

Dick now wishes us to believe that WADA and not CAS are best organisation to help UCI usher in change after their own spectacular failures in catching doping athletes. Not content with making himself a laughing stock he wants us to believe the UCI decision to reach out to CAS is also potentially a corrupt one!


----------



## Crackle (14 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> _We’d have to withdraw because these f—–s have f—-d it up_ - quote Jaimie Fuller!


He's eminently quotable...

"If that f—-r had done that, 95 percent of people would think the sun shines out his ass" Talking about Armstrong 'fessing up. It's true, it's only about 50%* now.

*unscientific study based on Daily Mail comments


----------



## Orbytal (14 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think I spoke too soon. Dick Pound as pointed out the potential conflict of interest between Coates (the guy asked to oversee this independent inquiry) and Verbruggen - they are both on the IOC together. One could see this as just more of the old boys' network...


 
Just a point for all those who poured scorn on my posts/views within the 'In praise of USADA' thread and jumped to the defence of WADA and Mr D Pound.
Any of you wish to leap to their defence now after hearing from WADA ex Medical Director and his views on WADA not being appropriate and basically MR D Pound as well as President at the time of the issues?

Sport as a whole needs Root and Branch reforms and not just UCI and as I said at the time and for anyone who harboured hope that WADA/USADA etc are carrying out ‘the good fight’ with the same views and morals we have need to seriously think again.
Cycling is under the microscope just now but that doesn’t make it worse than the rest it just means we are currently more visual and as we have a heritage of outing dopers it makes it an easy target to raise anti-doping agencies profiles.
FIFA have ignored all the anti-doping requirements until now and have just started to confirm that Blood Passports shall be phased in, Tennis is now just starting to ehance testing regimes due to the Spanish affairs, Track and Field has probably the worst history in Sport in catching dopers and has done NO retrospective testing like Cycling has gone through! WHY?

Try and see through the HYPE because the whole system has serious issues and all we see from it are Sports Politics in actions. 

What has practically/positively been achieved and put into place just now from finding out what we already knew from the past? 
What has all the Main Players practically/positively done to establish we are now in a better place without issue/argument?
What has been set in motion to ensure the past does not repeat itself just now?
I suggest the answer to all above is NOTHING.

Take the Police Actions out of all of this and where do you think we would have been just now? Yep same place we left behind because no one was going to upset the gravy train!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> Just a point for all those who poured scorn on my posts/views


 
Orbytal, it's not necessarily the content of your posts that most people had a problem with, it's the fact that they sometimes come across like some kind of explosive typing diarrhea! Plus your assumption that anyone else who has a slightly different view than you is a victim of 'HYPE' (your capitals). 

I happen to disagree with your views on WADA. It's doing as much as one could expect given the almost complete lack of cooperation from some sports (tennis is one of the worst of all... ). And I don't think anyone disagrees that in many ways cycling has gone a lot further than those sports, even the UCI itself is seen as rather progressive compared to other sports governing bodies (which is probably why McQuaid genuinely doesn't think he's done anything wrong - he moves in a world where he's the bold radical...). But the Armstrong case is also demonstrating to those other sports what happens when you go down this route: your heroes get revealed for that they are, the marketing value of the sport drops etc etc. So it's hardly surprising that there are contradictory impulses here. But this is a pro-cycling forum so that's what we discuss...


----------



## Orbytal (14 Nov 2012)

@Flying_Monkey thanks for the inappropriate comments on my posts and the emoticon which my kids will appreciate!

Also thank you for the full support you are offereing to WADA despite the recent condemnation. They have been branded inappropriate to lead Doping by their own man which is a concern on many different levels so I would like to know what they are doing, in your opinion, that is helping especially WRT Cycling? 
I did make a number of points and look forward to reading your views on these, WRT Cycling, which you have obviously omitted to respond to in your reply.

On the basis of keeping on topic I would point out my post is very much centred in Cycling however I would like to ask how you will validate your abusive comments c/w emoticon as being relevant to the topic and/or Cycling?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> I would like to ask how you will validate your abusive comments c/w emoticon as being relevant to the topic and/or Cycling?


 
Come off it, that was nowhere near abusive. And the emoticon indicated it was said with humorous intent - that is the point of emoticons: to give cues that are missing in non-verbal communication.

On WADA, let's make it clear what is going on. One ex-officer has made some claims, which have been disputed by WADA. Much more than that, we don't know at this point. They are new allegations AFAIK and I haven't seen any corroboration for them. Doesn't mean they aren't correct, but they could also be outright lies, or more likely a matter of the interpretation of particular events that isn't shared by others involved.I don't think you have anything like evidence that WADA or USADA are not committed to 'fighting the good fight'. You are exaggerating way beyond the limits of what we know.

The wider question that this all relates to is who should be responsible for the anti-doping regime in cycling. A lot of the kinds of people who I have respect for in cycling have argued that this should be taken away from the UCI and given entirely to WADA. Clearly there are politics going on here in response, to try to undermine WADA's credibility so that the UCI can preserve this function despite its manifest failure. At the same time, others like Pat McQuaid have argued that the UCI's failure is already being remedied within the UCI - the biological passport in particular, which is clearly a major advance (although I wouldn't be the first person to point out that it is simply is not being used in the way that it could be).

So my solution is a combination of reform of the UCI (which is why I started the other thread on that issue, there's a lot more on how in that thread from various people) and the removal of anti-doping from the UCI (and indeed from all similar bodies) and placing it, properly funded and supported within WADA and its subsidiary agencies, which were set up to do exactly this, independently of any individual sport's management.

You spend a lot of time telling everyone else that they don't get it - what's your solution?


----------



## rich p (14 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> . At the same time, others like Pat McQuaid have argued that the UCI's failure is already being remedied within the UCI - the biological passport in particular, which is clearly a major advance (although I wouldn't be the first person to point out that it is simply is not being used in the way that it could be).


 
WRT the bio passport; it showed at the time of his comeback in 2009 that Armstrong's blood values were worthy of investigation after his haematocrit went up instead of down during the Giro and was different again at the TdF. Noexplanations were given or indeed sought by the UCI AFAIK. As FM says, the passport can be a great tool but only if used properly.


----------



## Orbytal (14 Nov 2012)

@Flying_Monkey thanks for clearing up my misconceptions with myself, I shall check with you next time I have similar dilemma of thought so I know what to think. On emoticons thanks for the lesson and the social interactive value it offers I must have missed that memo.

On WADA let’s also be clear it was THE Medical Director for 10 Years who was responsible for the whole Doping Strategy and Policy that ALL IOC associated federation’s etc use. This is not just some Office Jock he was at the Centre of what they do which you wish to conveniently suggest to suit your argument!

Thanks however for clearing it all up that he may be lying, making it sensationalist or maybe he is a fantasist? If he is now why would he not have been all the way through his 10 years in Office making them as corrupt as all the rest or is just now he has inherited these traits?

He is placing WADA side by side with all the other IOC associated firms and surprisingly they are no better or worse, all bad basically!

Your comments about WADA taking over doping in Cycling show a lack of understanding of Sports Politics and Sports Business; your suggestion quite simply cannot be achieved. WADA cover all Sport and would have to take it on for everyone in and out of competition. The Political structure in Sports does not facilitate it and WADA could not afford to do it that is why the bulk is done by Federations etc. WADA role was set out the rules and allow them to be implemented but they like to meddle and get it wrong.

Have you never asked yourself WHY Basketball, Football, Tennis etc. have not been forced to take up WADA rules, all wealthy Sports not even pushed hard by WADA? Money talks that why. 

Reform? If you read back I have already stated what I would do so maybe you should have taken some time to read it instead of attacking first!
A reminder for you so you don’t need to tax yourself too much is WADA placed in the hands of Michael Ashenden who would head up and govern the roles, responsibilities and requirements for testing strategy and implementation. I would get rid of everyone else from their past and have a new Team to MA requirements in place. I would have a whole new UCI Management Team in place with people who actually get on with the new WADA Team.
I would also add a strict requirement that there would never be any IOC members as part of WADA at any time and the most important rule I would pass is could never be based in Switzerland or rely on Swiss Law. Scots Law would be best and allow full access and openness of its operations. As soon as you do that all the hiding by IOC, FIFA, UCI et al are removed and they all become more accountable under sensible legal requirements.

So if we do all that then UCI etc become more liable and all WADA need to do is audit the testing regimes for compliance.

The solution is not a simple UCI one it covers everyone but you cannot do that so look at the weakest link and undertake a huge reform there and apply it to add new powers.


----------



## Orbytal (14 Nov 2012)

@Flying_Monkey & richp are you forgetting these passports are also available to WADA regional teams to use so the not using it properly applies to WADA as well as the rest!

It is clear to me that failure is across the board and not within the headlines of press and media. They have all failed and so far we have seen nothing new to show a big change and UCI can in fact claim greater credance than nearly all other Federations so Pat's argument will be we are better by results.

WADA make the rules but dont apply them themselves when it suits them. All IOC affiliated sports are meant to do the same but they dont WHY?


----------



## rich p (14 Nov 2012)

Sorry Orbytal, it's a fault on my part, but I don't have enough hours left in my worthless, lonely LOSER life to read your posts any more.


----------



## Orbytal (15 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> Sorry Orbytal, it's a fault on my part, but I don't have enough hours left in my worthless, lonely LOSER life to read your posts any more.


 
It was nice of you to find the time to post however! You may want to try and shake off that self pity medal you want to wear it only gets others down.

Remember to lift your head off your chest when you are out on your bike however.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Nov 2012)

Orbytal, this is exactly why people don't take you seriously. You can't just arrive here, continuously insult people and then expect them to seriously critique the content of your posts - oh, and also complain if someone makes even a humorous dig at you. I'm afraid I won't be bothering to respond to you again either unless you shape up.


----------



## Orbytal (15 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Orbytal, this is exactly why people don't take you seriously. You can't just arrive here, continuously insult people and then expect them to seriously critique the content of your posts - oh, and also complain if someone makes even a humorous dig at you. I'm afraid I won't be bothering to respond to you again either unless you shape up.


 
Please keep on topic! After all you did open this thread so the least you can do is keep it going without sidetracked nonsense.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> Sorry Orbytal, it's a fault on my part, but I don't have enough hours left in my worthless, lonely LOSER life to read your posts any more.


 
The Omerta again speaks it's worthwhile, wise and wholesome contribution... toe my line or you are a very naughty boy!

You are not allowed opinions outside a certain closed agenda.


----------



## rich p (22 Nov 2012)

Some interesting stuff from Howman at WADA...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/howman-expects-more-riders-to-be-implicated-in-padua-investigation

.._ Howman was guarded when L’Équipe’s Damien Ressiot - the journalist who revealed Armstrong's positive tests from the 1999 Tour de France - suggested that USADA might have yet more information not outlined in its Reasoned Decision on the Armstrong case that would shed more light on allegations of possible collusion between the UCI and Armstrong_


----------



## Orbytal (23 Nov 2012)

This us only interesting if you ant to believe in an organisation who tell you that they had relevant information about doping from 2006 but decided until now to talk about it! This smacks of the same BS we had about hiding confirmed dopers for 2+ years to catch 1 guy and all from anti doping agencies against their own rules.

Rich it is 6 years too late for WADA or did I miss that point?

For Padau read Peurto which us now starting to say they are going to do something and how many years is that?

Sports Politics and Business in action!

Another example of WADA incompetence citing how dad behind they are and how they are neutered without Puce action. No investigation in Sport gas any teeth without a Legal threat.


----------



## thom (23 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> This is only interesting if you want to believe in an organisation who tell you that they had relevant information about doping from 2006 but decided until now not to talk about it! This smacks of the same BS we had about hiding confirmed dopers for 2+ years to catch 1 guy and all from anti doping agencies against their own rules.
> 
> Rich, it is 6 years too late for WADA or did I miss that point?
> 
> ...


My corrections in red - you spelled incompetence correctly.


----------



## Orbytal (23 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> My corrections in red - you spelled incompetence correctly.


 
Forward your CV and I shall if my team will get you on my staff rota.

Thanks.


----------



## oldroadman (23 Nov 2012)

Unfortunate that what was a lively and interesting - if sometimes ill informed - thread has descended into a personal ego trip for one or more posters. How dull.


----------



## Orbytal (24 Nov 2012)

Add something to discuss instead of open ended comments Oldman!


----------



## raindog (24 Nov 2012)

Christ alive, next season's racing can't come quick enough for me.

Talking of which, I'll have two very local stages of the Tour Méditerranéen in february.


----------



## rich p (24 Nov 2012)

raindog said:


> Christ alive, next season's racing can't come quick enough for me.
> 
> Talking of which, I'll have two very local stages of the Tour Méditerranéen in february.


Agreed. We may get back to some normality I hope. Judicious use of the ignore button has rendered this section tolerable if a little disjointed.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Nov 2012)

Is anyone really naive enough to believe that next year's season will be "back to normal"

There are far too many open questions, investigations and allegations still unresolved.

The Press are going to have a field day, and the coverage will be to sell papers, not support professional cycling.

I suspect that we are going to have a couple of tough years before anything approaches a semblance of normality


----------



## montage (24 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> Forward your CV and I shall if my team will get you on my staff rota.
> 
> Thanks.


twat


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Nov 2012)

montage said:


> twat


 

Sometimes one can only be inspired and awed by the high level of intelligence, wit, eloquence and personal standards of some posters on this site


----------



## beastie (24 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Sometimes one can only be inspired and awed by the high level of intelligence, wit, eloquence and personal standards of some posters on this site


Sometimes........


----------



## Noodley (24 Nov 2012)

montage said:


> twat


 what?


----------



## montage (25 Nov 2012)

Noodley said:


> what?


 
Just wanted to get involved, innit mushta


----------



## johnr (28 Nov 2012)

Change Cycling Now organising conference
http://bikepure.org/2012/11/leading-anti-doping-figures-unite-to-form-new-pressure-group/
I think we should send Thom as our representative


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Nov 2012)

I was just about to post the Cyclingnews story on the same issue. This is great news. I will certainly be supporting this initiative.


----------



## Orbytal (28 Nov 2012)

Having looked at the site and the confirmed attendees which has 1 person in Ashenden of credit but no details what they say is wrong and how they intend to fix it, ie their Plan and how it shall be different in the future.

The request is sign their petition without any details what they will do, when it will be done and by whom!

They also suggest independent doping tests but who will do this and his do they intend to get IOC/WADA to agree?

Would anyone vote for a party/person who has no manifesto?


----------



## oldroadman (28 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> Having looked at the site and the confirmed attendees which has 1 person in Ashenden of credit but no details what they say is wrong and how they intend to fix it, ie their Plan and how it shall be different in the future.
> 
> The request is sign their petition without any details what they will do, when it will be done and by whom!
> 
> ...


 
Loooks more like a personal PR talking shop. And a major publicity coup for the Skins boss, which they have all gone along with. When they ask people to sign a petition with no proper stated objective, and don't say where it's intended for, there is no point and it would be daft to do it, like signing an open cheque in principle. The point is they have no idea of who should replace the people they are calling on to resign, no idea of how to implement any reform they might dream up, and no idea how they would fund WADA to carry out more testing. A piece on TV had it right, blood tests in cycling 35% of all tests, track and field 15%, tennis and footy 3%. Explain how cycling is not making huge advances in cleaning up? Walsh and Kimmage have a living to make and good news does not work for them. Ashenden is a slightly loose canon, and who else is invited to this "conference" in London, I wonder?


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Nov 2012)

The differences show why this is in reality bigger than cycling

There is still a need for a totally independent analysis of whet has failed both within the UCI, but also within WADA where the system failed to pick up the cheats despite testing.


----------



## johnr (29 Nov 2012)

Greg LeMond has joinedup with Clean Cycling Now, according to BBC teletext news


----------



## oldroadman (29 Nov 2012)

johnr said:


> Greg LeMond has joinedup with Clean Cycling Now, according to BBC teletext news


 Well he would, wouldn't he? All good PR, maybe. Greg, of course, never had a non--negative test, came back from being almost shot dead, and competed alongside Hinault, in an era when no-one could describe the peloton as squeaky clean. But it was all a long time ago, and if GL really wants to help a clean up of sport get even better, he might look at US track and field athletes, baseball, US football, tennis, as a starting point for some massive testing increases with sanctions to match. But hey, cycling is what he knows and it's easy to throw stones right now.
Everyone at the "conference" should be careful what they wish for when they start "demanding" whatever.


----------



## rich p (30 Nov 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Well he would, wouldn't he? All good PR, maybe. Greg, of course, never had a non--negative test, came back from being almost shot dead, and competed alongside Hinault, in an era when no-one could describe the peloton as squeaky clean. But it was all a long time ago, and if GL really wants to help a clean up of sport get even better, he might look at US track and field athletes, baseball, US football, tennis, as a starting point for some massive testing increases with sanctions to match. But hey, cycling is what he knows and it's easy to throw stones right now.
> Everyone at the "conference" should be careful what they wish for when they start "demanding" whatever.


 
Of course Lemond will be involved and interested in cycling rather tham baseball. Why would he care two hoots about those other sports. He was a cyclist and is passionate about clean cycling and has sacrificed much over the years to keep it top of the agenda despite massive pressures to shut up and take the money.
Have you considered that the reason he never had a non-negative, or positive as we say, was because he was clean? Most people who have followed the sport for a long time beleive him to be the last clean winner of the tour before Cadel Evans.
This 'be careful what they wish for' line you trot out is odd too. They wish, and are willing to work towards, a cleaner cycling peloton and a less corrupt ruling body. Don't we all? You seem to imply that we should stick with the status quo just in case Tchmil gets the top job. Most armchair pundits beleive that the UCI needs root and branch reform and are willing to take accept that a clean-up is long overdue.


----------



## Orbytal (30 Nov 2012)

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ces-shake-up-with-announced-commission_266806

The independent review body now established for UCI review. All selected without an axe to grind or previous/existing legal wrangling with UCI.
This will also open up the full USADA Report to praise/criticism from this CAS appointed body. Are we looking at the new Vrijam Report or something else?

This will hopefully silence all those who wish change without any detailed report outling what they find is wrong, how they will fix it and how it shall be administered and run in future. Their sentiments appear to be well enough founded within themselves but their current Plan is about as much use as taking a blank sheet of paper into Bank seeking a Business Loan.


----------



## PpPete (30 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ces-shake-up-with-announced-commission_266806
> 
> The independent review body now established for UCI review. All selected without an axe to grind or previous/existing legal wrangling with UCI.
> This will also open up the full USADA Report to praise/criticism from this CAS appointed body. Are we looking at the new Vrijam Report or something else?
> ...


 
Please do not take this as a personal criticism but I'm struggling to understand the basis for your last sentence.


----------



## PpPete (30 Nov 2012)

PpPete said:


> Please do not take this as a personal criticism but I'm struggling to understand the basis for your last sentence.


Or perhaps a better question, in what way do you feel the Terms of Reference fall short ?


> *The full terms of reference for the commission are as follows:*
> In consequence of the Reasoned Decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), dated 10 October 2012, in its proceedings against Lance Armstrong as part of the US Postal Service (USPS) Pro Cycling Team Investigation
> AND in light of the decision of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), of 22 October 2012, to recognise the sanction imposed by USADA upon Lance Armstrong and not to appeal the Reasoned Decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and therefore proceeding upon the assumptions that as set out in the Reasoned Decision:-
> (1) Lance Armstrong, whilst a professional cyclist, together with the USPS Team, engaged in the use, administration and trafficking of performance enhancing drugs and methods; and
> ...


----------



## Orbytal (30 Nov 2012)

I can see the confusion although it was crystal clear at the time of writing, in MY Head! lol.
Apology for any confusion.
My last paragraph was referencing the Reform Group with Kimmage and Co who may well have some brilliant ideas but are going ahead getting commitments from people for reform etc. but no details what their primary change is, secondary, etc. How they will manage change, who will be employed, how it shall be sustained and the most important issue how it shall be funded.
That led to my reference of blank paper and Business Loan as you need a fully detailed and costed Plan to achieve that, especially this day and age.

On the UCI Review Committee agenda this is quite extensive however those appointed will not be shy, in my opinion, in extending it into areas they see as being relevant and wont shy away from any of the issues. 
I suspect they will make comments on USADA Report itself outwith the Agenda which I feel is part of UCI engineering with the outlined Agenda that has been issued. 

It looks like a very interesting Event/Project and the findings will make some happy and shock others. 
WADA absence for me is blindingly noticeable but I believe appropriate in this matter and this is being viewed as CAS choice so they should not complain but we shall see.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Nov 2012)

I apologise if this is slightly off-topic but I was very surprised to see how very Anglo-Saxon the trio appointed to look into LA's dealings with the UCI are. I've absolutely no reason to doubt their integrity but isn't 2 Brits and an Aussie (with British law qualifications) appointed by another Aussie a strangely narrow choice for an international organisation?


----------



## thom (30 Nov 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I apologise if this is slightly off-topic but I was very surprised to see how very Anglo-Saxon the trio appointed to look into LA's dealings with the UCI are. I've absolutely no reason to doubt their integrity but isn't 2 Brits and an Aussie (with British law qualifications) appointed by another Aussie a strangely narrow choice for an international organisation?


Guardian article here : http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/30/commission-uci-lance-armstrong-case
Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Sir Philip Otton & Malcolm Holmes QC


----------



## johnr (30 Nov 2012)

Pretty good panel though. I presume they are above reproach, but I await the results of the CC research department.


----------



## thom (30 Nov 2012)

T Grey-Thompson needs no introduction
google....:

Sir Philip Otton :
In the field of sports law, he is a Judge of the International Court of Appeal for cases relating to Formula 1 and he has served as an arbitrator in disputes involving English Football Premier League players and clubs, chaired Football Association disciplinary proceedings, and has served as sole Mediator in disputes relating to Formula 1 Racing companies and the 2007 America's cup.

Malcolm Holmes QC :
He has also acted as an arbitrator with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) based in Lausanne, Switzerland since 1995 and was a member of the Ad Hoc Division of CAS at the Athens Olympic Games in 2004 and at the Torino Olympic Games in 2006.


----------



## rich p (30 Nov 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I apologise if this is slightly off-topic but I was very surprised to see how very Anglo-Saxon the trio appointed to look into LA's dealings with the UCI are. I've absolutely no reason to doubt their integrity but isn't 2 Brits and an Aussie (with British law qualifications) appointed by another Aussie a strangely narrow choice for an international organisation?


I absolutely understand what you're saying but I can't find fault with the selection.


----------



## Buddfox (30 Nov 2012)

I think it's pretty hard across three people to get a geographically diverse representation of cycling. Just go for the best people you can get?


----------



## johnr (1 Dec 2012)

Oh, oh. Big Pat puts out press release stressing how independent the are
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...s/UCI/UCI8/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1

Got to be something dodgy


----------



## thom (3 Dec 2012)

*Greg LeMond : "Je suis prêt à être candidat à la présidence de l'UCI"*


----------



## PpPete (3 Dec 2012)

Je me demande si il osera dire pareil a un journaliste anglophone?


----------



## raindog (3 Dec 2012)

why?


----------



## ColinJ (3 Dec 2012)

I just read this report on cyclingnews.com. I'd love it happen, but somehow I don't think that it will!

(Watching Lemond's 1989 TdF victory is what inspired me to buy a bike, having not ridden one for 20 years.)


----------



## johnr (3 Dec 2012)

Matt Seaton discussing Greg and others' candidacies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/dec/03/greg-lemond-cycling-uci-presidency


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Dec 2012)

The new independent commission has given 'stakeholders' only six days to submit their views to their inquiry. Absolutely ridiculous. Oh, and as the Cylingnews story also says, fans aren't considered to be stakeholders at all and 'there appears to be no way for fans of the sport to participate or be represented in the consultation process"...


----------



## rich p (4 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The new independent commission has given 'stakeholders' only six days to submit their views to their inquiry. Absolutely ridiculous. Oh, and as the Cylingnews story also says, fans aren't considered to be stakeholders at all and 'there appears to be no way for fans of the sport to participate or be represented in the consultation process"...


Unless I'm mistaken, that is the UCI calling for input not the commission.
_"The UCI pointed out that the consultation, which will take place in the first quarter of 2013, is separate from the external Independent Commission, which has been asked to investigate the issues and allegations contained in the USADA decision relating to the Armstrong affair"_


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, that is the UCI calling for input not the commission.
> _"The UCI pointed out that the consultation, which will take place in the first quarter of 2013, is separate from the external Independent Commission, which has been asked to investigate the issues and allegations contained in the USADA decision relating to the Armstrong affair"_


 
You're quite right. I am sure the Commission will be rather better than the UCI. The UCI's consultation is however, rather ridiculous, and even more so because it seems to come in advance of the Commission.


----------



## rich p (4 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You're quite right. I am sure the Commission will be rather better than the UCI. The UCI's consultation is however, rather ridiculous, and even more so because it seems to come in advance of the Commission.


Ridiculous indeed. Unseemly scrabbling for position and credibility.


----------



## oldroadman (4 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> Ridiculous indeed. Unseemly scrabbling for position and credibility.


 If you read what they (the UCI) are asking it's for input from national federations, teams and the like at a high level, in four areas of developing the sport, nothing to do with the inquiry. But that said, it is a very short timespan for submissions.


----------



## johnr (5 Dec 2012)

It also seems rather odd that they are avoiding fan input whilst claiming to be looking for ways to make the sport more interesting for spectators.


----------



## Orbytal (5 Dec 2012)

The timeframe for stakeholders is long enough.

If we take the view any/all people who have an axe to grind and calling for change should have a well enough developed idea what they wish to see and should be able to have this written and issued quickly, if not was it all hype and hot air?

All stakeholders know the system and how it works and if UCI did not do this they would be criticised but they have and some credit is due.

The main reason for this move, IMO, is to galvanise the movers and shakers into UCI and consolidate a move forward and remove any possible threat from a new federation emerging. It is a smart move and some may say the timeframe is short but I would answer them as I have above, if part of UCI, and tell them enough has been said put it in writing we are giving you the chance to be part of change and not just talk about it.

FANS not being involved was never going to happen as no changes would be made. Should a Fans forum be allowed? YES and I would suggest that all the Main Cycling Sites get together and host the same Polls for Common Feedback from a LARGE interested body of active Cyclists who invest in the Sport from Grassroots upwards.

CAN someone on here do something like this and maybe force a FANS Lead Forum towards UCI who may feel compeled to listen if the Likes of this Site, Velonews, Cycling news, Velonation etc are uniformed as 1 voice.

Good/Bad idea?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Dec 2012)

Valverde says his doping ban helped extend his career. Is this a good thing or is he accidentally making the case for longer bans?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Dec 2012)

Orbytal said:


> If we take the view any/all people who have an axe to grind and calling for change should have a well enough developed idea what they wish to see and should be able to have this written and issued quickly


 
It shouldn't be about 'people who have an axe to grind', this is supposed to be a consultation about specific areas and not all national federations or other stakeholders are going to have considered these to the same degree or have had the time or resources to develop a well worked-out opinion in each area, and they certainly aren't going to be able to do so in 6 days. What this will mean is that _only_ those 'with an axe to grind' or those with the resources (the richer national federations and teams able to employ lawyers and other specialist policy advisors) are really going to be able to put together something convincing in time.


----------



## PpPete (5 Dec 2012)

So the UCIIC wants input from CCN...
not sure which of the Terms of Reference in their Mandate CCN can really help with.... or indeed whether it is in CCN's best interests to cooperate ?


----------



## Orbytal (6 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It shouldn't be about 'people who have an axe to grind', this is supposed to be a consultation about specific areas and not all national federations or other stakeholders are going to have considered these to the same degree or have had the time or resources to develop a well worked-out opinion in each area, and they certainly aren't going to be able to do so in 6 days. What this will mean is that _only_ those 'with an axe to grind' or those with the resources (the richer national federations and teams able to employ lawyers and other specialist policy advisors) are really going to be able to put together something convincing in time.


You have described normal life in Sport, Business and Politics where the big and strong get their say and the smaller guys dont but are seen to be accommodated. If you give them 6 weeks the same results will prevail as it normally does.
My point about an axe to grind is if you dont have one then you wont ask for change so you need to grind an axe to negotiate for what you want or the status quo will result.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (6 Dec 2012)

Orbytal said:


> You have described normal life in Sport, Business and Politics


 
I am very much aware of that. The thing is that I believe this should change and I don't think a kind of passive cynicism is the answer. We're at a tipping point in pro-cycling right now, where things could change. If too many people just shrug their shoulders and say 'that's sports politics' then you can be guarranteed that they'll be proved right because that's exactly how the status quo continues.


----------



## Orbytal (7 Dec 2012)

Lets see who makes waves and who dont.

I expect we shall see Hein go probably along with Dick Pound and changes as pointed out by the Commission implemented. 
UCI will not be replaced by CNN anytime soon as too many of these guys who publically argue also feather own nests together as IOC members on the 2nd best gravy train in the world.

I also made comments about how can fans can raise a voice but you have not made any comments on this! You and many others want change and moan that you are not heard but dont say if this proposal is a good/bad idea as current you/me have no voice but I agree we have a place as an active part of the sport. If its bad what can be done to raise a voice?

No point moaning and offering nothing constructive for change is there?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2012)

Orbytal said:


> No point moaning and offering nothing constructive for change is there?


 
You're talking to the guy who started this thread precisely to generate some constructive ideas, mate.


----------



## Orbytal (7 Dec 2012)

I shall await the constructive bit from you then.


----------



## rich p (7 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You're talking to the guy who started this thread precisely to generate some constructive ideas, mate.


I 'liked' your post even though it's precise meaning is lost to me since I put the usual suspects back on ignore a few weeks ago. It really does help in this particular instance!
I know it goes against the grain but it means the rest of us can have a sensible exchange of views.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2012)

Orbytal said:


> I shall await the constructive bit from you then.


 
It's a collective thing - or it should be. My contribution has been in starting the thread, providing some background and trying to keep it on the subject. I'm not quite sure what exactly you think you are contributing yet, but there is still time...


----------



## thom (15 Jan 2013)

WADA & USADA snub the UCI's Independent Commission on various grounds.

What has Lance told Oprah about those meetings in Switzerland and his old mates Pat and Hein ?


----------



## rich p (16 Jan 2013)

I hope Hein is quivering in his crocodile skin slippers and red velvet smoking jacket while puffing furiously on a sobranie in an ivory cigarette holder.


----------



## Crackle (16 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> WADA & USADA snub the UCI's Independent Commission on various grounds.
> 
> What has Lance told Oprah about those meetings in Switzerland and his old mates Pat and Hein ?


 
The terms of reference was always going to be sticky, swervy bit, as we all said right at the beginning. It's all a bit frustrating really, an opportunity is being missed, so far anyway.


----------



## Aperitif (16 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> I hope Hein is quivering in his crocodile skin slippers and red velvet smoking jacket while puffing furiously on a sobranie in an ivory cigarette holder.


Not everyone lounges around like you, Rich.


----------



## thom (17 Jan 2013)

FORMER UCI HEAD DEFENDS MONEY LINK TO LANCE TEAM

Verbruggen gave money via Ochowicz to Thom Wiesel, a financial backer of Tailwind sports that owned Lance's USPostal sponsored team...


----------



## raindog (21 Jan 2013)

http://sport.uk.msn.com/cookson-linked-with-uci-presidency-role


----------



## just jim (21 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> FORMER UCI HEAD DEFENDS MONEY LINK TO LANCE TEAM
> 
> Verbruggen gave money via Ochowicz to Thom Wiesel, a financial backer of Tailwind sports that owned Lance's USPostal sponsored team...


 
For a second I thought that said "MONKEY". Phew!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Jan 2013)

just jim said:


> For a second I thought that said "MONKEY". Phew!


 
I deny everything.


----------



## rich p (22 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I deny everything.


 Another unproven allegation which is typical of the clique on here.


----------



## Crackle (23 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> http://sport.uk.msn.com/cookson-linked-with-uci-presidency-role


 
I've been impressed by Cookson. Seen him interviewed a few times and they were all solid interviews and he hit the right notes in all of them.

Of course it seems unlikely to happen and McQuaid still looks secure, unless Armstrong has something to say.


----------



## johnr (3 Feb 2013)

Amidst all the doping banning, suspending and resigning this week, the UCI has quietly nominated Artur Lopez and Daniel Baal to negotiate with WADA the establishment of the 'truth' and reconciliation process. No Fat Pat.

I don't know enough to make any judgement on the nominated pair (fortunately we can rely on Thom's research department to give us their background), but it's interesting that they've been selected as McQuaid and Verbruggen have kept tight rein thus far on anything which might threaten their hegemony.

I'd guess there is one of three possible explanations:
1. WADA will not speak to the dirty duo because they do not trust them
2. The UCI committee's hormone shots are kicking in and they've eventually developed the guts to recognise the damage being done to their reputation by McQ-V, or
3. The selected duo are straw men, put up by the power brokers to screw around with WADA until everyone forgets about the whole sordid business.


----------



## oldroadman (3 Feb 2013)

Artur Lopez is a UCI Vice-President from South America, I think, and Damial Baal a very well respected person from the French Federation. Lopez has been mentioned as being worried by the GB domination of track (so after the TdF he must be paranoid!) because people lose interest when Gb do all the winning. Funny how that was never as issue when other countries did the same.


----------



## resal (3 Feb 2013)

No idea, so did a search.
Artur Lopez
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTI2Njg&LangId=1
Member of Management Committee (2001-…) 


Damial Baal
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTY1OTQ&LangId=1
Du 1er octobre 2001 au 31 janvier 2004, Directeur du Cyclisme - Amaury Sports Organisation.
Président de la Commission de VTT de l’UCI de 2001 à 2009. 
Membre du Conseil Fédéral d’Appel de la FFC, depuis 2005. 
Membre du Conseil de Lutte contre le Dopage de l’UCI, de 1998 à 2008. 

Was Baal on the team that heard Bauge's case ?

I am not at all hopeful for any of these people that have been around for years. When was it that Walsh/Kimage first raised the issue of the donation from Lance to the UCI ? 2003 or 2004 ? That should have sent up the rockets and anyone with scruples near that bunch should have been battering the door down to see the certified accounts for the year in question. It is just like the BBC and Saville. They sat there waiting for irrefutable proof to be presented to them rather than live up to the responsibilities of their posts. When Lance had chased down Simeoni there was only one conclusion any sane person could come to and these guys at the top had to act.

They didn't . They took the lunches and air tickets out of our subs and let Pat and Hein continue the BS.
Even if they say the right things now, they have proved by their inaction over the last 10 years that they are not up to the job.


----------



## rich p (14 Feb 2013)

Not exactly a vote of confidence around in Fat Pat and his cronies...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/afld-refuses-to-run-controls-in-paris-nice


----------



## johnr (16 Feb 2013)

Another great week for the UCI.

CAS reinstates Katusha and then this from David Howman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/15/drugs-wada-organised-crime

What struck me in particular is the use of UCI as the byword for incompetence and ineptitude:
According to Wada's figures, the number of adverse or atypical findings across sport is just under 2%. But according to a study of blood samples collected after the Daegu World Athletics Championships in 2011, estimates of the prevalence of blood doping averaged 14%. "That means that it's more than what people think, that's all you can say. I would put athletics in that bunch – *as a potential new UCI*. That's an area where we've got to be very attentive. The IAAF, to be fair, are aware of it. They've introduced a [biological] passport and we hope they'll continue with it."

What will next week bring?


----------



## oldroadman (17 Feb 2013)

Here's a very interesting read "The dirtiest race in history" by Richard Moore. Not about cycling, but an Olympic 100 meters final. Ben Johnson got caught, and of the other 7 5 have been caught since. BUt the stuff in the book around "lost" lists linking codes on sample bottles to competitors, which the IOC had custody of, and other ructions between IOC and IAAF make a lot of the current stuff look very tame. Everything but the word "(alleged) corruption" is used. Nothing proved, of course.


----------



## BJH (17 Feb 2013)

If you watch the BBC documentary on the same subject, it is difficult not to believe that almost every runner in that 100 metre final is or was a doper.

I mentioned in a previous post about Don Caitlin's analysis of tests from the Los Angeles games tests - he ended up stopping because they were just so bad that it was depressing.


----------



## oldroadman (18 Feb 2013)

BJH said:


> If you watch the BBC documentary on the same subject, it is difficult not to believe that almost every runner in that 100 metre final is or was a doper.
> 
> I mentioned in a previous post about Don Caitlin's analysis of tests from the Los Angeles games tests - he ended up stopping because they were just so bad that it was depressing.


 
He gets a mention in the book, and now it is being reported that IAAF are investigating what happens in Kenya with the distance runners. Jamaica and the sprinters next? I just hope they get a clean bill of health, but if not, that it is all very public, along with other sports results when they properly check what is going on. Ideally, all clean of course, because no one can take pleasure in finding their sporting heroes have cheated all along. I'm just not completely optimistic that this will be the case, but all sport should be getting this out into the open, so that the public can start to believe a little once again, and not always have the doubt.


----------



## johnr (20 Feb 2013)

Fat Pat is going down with the ship
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/19/pat-mcquaid-uci


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Feb 2013)

johnr said:


> Fat Pat is going down with the ship
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/19/pat-mcquaid-uci


 
"That's no iceberg - tell the band to keep playing!"


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (22 Feb 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> "That's no iceberg - tell the band to keep playing!"


 
That's hardly fair, the man is clearly doing his best and wishes to go on doing so:



> "I would like to do more. What I set out to do was change the culture, from a doping culture to an anti-doping culture. I do believe that is happening and I would like to see it through.


 
Of course I believe him.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Mar 2013)

Oh yeah, Pat - really?


----------



## Crackle (13 Mar 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Oh yeah, Pat - really?


Fascinating. When is Pat due to return to earth?


----------



## BJH (13 Mar 2013)

Yes he is keen to maintain a nice fat cat job which will see him living very comfortably before he finally replace his mate Heiny at the great Olympics gravy train chief steward


----------



## BJH (13 Mar 2013)

oldroadman said:


> He gets a mention in the book, and now it is being reported that IAAF are investigating what happens in Kenya with the distance runners. Jamaica and the sprinters next? I just hope they get a clean bill of health, but if not, that it is all very public, along with other sports results when they properly check what is going on. Ideally, all clean of course, because no one can take pleasure in finding their sporting heroes have cheated all along. I'm just not completely optimistic that this will be the case, but all sport should be getting this out into the open, so that the public can start to believe a little once again, and not always have the doubt.



Revisiting these posts an interesting thought occurred about Kenya. Doesn't our double gold winner train thre too?


----------



## oldroadman (14 Mar 2013)

BJH said:


> Revisiting these posts an interesting thought occurred about Kenya. Doesn't our double gold winner train thre too?


 It is said that this is the case. Which of course proves nothing.


----------



## Crackle (14 Mar 2013)

User said:


> but he does have a point, lance doped yet cycling is in boom times, what do we expect the uci to say...
> outside of the small group of cycling fans nobody is really that bothered, the vast majority of people with an interest in sport, have always thought cycling was full of dopers, at worse, armstrong has comfirmed their beliefs but it's more of a shrug of the shoulders, who gives a s***e rather than ... oh my god lance doped....,
> to me mcquid has a job to do and that interview is what you'd expect the uci to be saying about armstrong...


 
Is cycling in the boom times. Sponsors like Rabobank withdrawing, Coke pulled out years ago, HTC couldn't get a sponsor and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. British Cycling has never been stronger but that's a different thing.

The only point McQuaid has is McQuaid. I see nothing progressive and what is, such as the Bio passport is being given nothing like the potential it has. Talking about Armstrong is just a deflection from much bigger issues.


----------

