Log in:  

Register

Movement for credible cycling!!

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Movement for credible cycling!!

12 Jun 2011 20:52

pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,481
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

12 Jun 2011 21:40

It also wants riders subject to disciplinary proceedings to be sidelined from competition until such time as they are cleared.


First off, I am totally against riders being suspended until all appeals take place like in the case of for example AC, if that is what they are implying. It must be, because riders are suspended until decision is made by their federations.

It also wants teams, sponsors and race organisers to only allow riders to compete who are not subject to disciplinary proceedings
.

That is BS. Again as an example AC should ride per the rules in place, which are being followed. IF CAS decides against him then sobeit, forfeit the victories. If he wins the UCI appeal in CAS it would be a travesty that he could not compete when he was "innocent". Note I am not arguing that he is innocent; I am arguing the unfairness of a system that punishes the not-found-guilty by restricting them from riding if for example they actually did nothing wrong. People like AC that are probably guilty will get to ride to protect the innocent. So what in my book; protecting the innocent should be the utmost issue here instead of bloodlust.

I also don't care for the 4 year blacklist. There is a fine line between deterrent and harsh enough sentencing to incur coverup, or a small enough sentencing to coerce cooperation. I am for the 2 year suspension, with lessening of it if cooperation takes place exposing others and systems of doping.
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

12 Jun 2011 22:30

ChrisE wrote:I also don't care for the 4 year blacklist. There is a fine line between deterrent and harsh enough sentencing to incur coverup, or a small enough sentencing to coerce cooperation. I am for the 2 year suspension, with lessening of it if cooperation takes place exposing others and systems of doping.


I agree to a degree of what you are saying. But, the deterrents in place now aren't working. The cooperation you cite is weak. I think it is easy to agree that WADA labs are at least 2 years behind current doping practices WITH cooperation!

What we have now at grand tours is not human performance. The riders need to be at a place where it's fruits and veggies on their plates are the only source of PED's. It's easy to call that opinion flat-out crazy. If something near that goal is reached, it becomes one of the safest sports around. That's a win for the next Hampsten or Lemond who doesn't want to dope.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,089
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

12 Jun 2011 22:39

DirtyWorks wrote:I agree to a degree of what you are saying. However, the deterrents in place now aren't working. The cooperation you cite is weak anyway. I think it is easy to agree that WADA labs are at least 2 years behind current doping practices WITH cooperation! To cap it all off, the UCI is aggressively managing positives or near-positives.

What we have now at grand tours is not human performance. The riders need to be at a place where it's fruits and veggies on their plates are the only source of PED's. It's easy to call that opinion flat-out crazy. If something near that goal is reached, it becomes one of the safest sports around. That's a win for the next Hampsten or Lemond who doesn't want to dope.


LOL you are pulling my chain with your last sentence. I won't bite.

So, how do you know the deterrents aren't working? I wrote this in another thread that the cynicism is never ending because we will never know.

There will always be cheats in any sport or business. This will never go away. All you can do is try to contain it and hope in cycling omerta does a 180 and starts chastising the cheats. This will help minimize things alot more than harsher sentences IMO.
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

12 Jun 2011 23:44

ChrisE wrote:So, how do you know the deterrents aren't working? I wrote this in another thread that the cynicism is never ending because we will never know.


We know the current system isn't working from public sources:

The a recent example is Pharmador's positive processing.

This is a critical story with two important topics, testing statistical methods and UCI's clever rules that enable doping: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/6/6/2209300/the-curious-case-of-the-iuml-and-the-epo-positive-that-wasnt.

The fact that the UCI remains cycling's doping authority is another strike.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,089
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

13 Jun 2011 00:58

DirtyWorks wrote:We know the current system isn't working from public sources:

The a recent example is Pharmador's positive processing.

This is a critical story with two important topics, testing statistical methods and UCI's clever rules that enable doping: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/6/6/2209300/the-curious-case-of-the-iuml-and-the-epo-positive-that-wasnt.

The fact that the UCI remains cycling's doping authority is another strike.


You post a link about stuff from 2001. I'm talking today.

Yes, the UCI is obviously corrupt in the past at least and you and I both know AC's positive probably would not have ever become public. How much is it still going on right now with all of the scrutiny? How much are the riders still doping with all of the scrutiny? I really do not know how blatant things are nowadays. We learn things after the fact, not real time.

So we put some other body in charge? Maybe that would be the answer but there is always potential for corruption. I think the whole national federation thing is a farce. If there was one organization with final authority other than appeal to CAS then that may be a start.
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

13 Jun 2011 01:17

ChrisE wrote:LOL you are pulling my chain with your last sentence. I won't bite.

So, how do you know the deterrents aren't working? [color="blue"]I wrote this in another thread that the cynicism is never ending because we will never know[/color].

There will always be cheats in any sport or business. This will never go away. All you can do is try to contain it and hope in cycling omerta does a 180 and starts chastising the cheats. This will help minimize things alot more than harsher sentences IMO.


It should be pointed out that the 'deterrents' now are less than they were in the past - as before a rider was banned for 2 years and then was not allowed to be hired by a ProTour team for a further 2 years.

That agreement is no longer in place.

To the blue - I think a change would be apparent (things were going that way in 2008), riders and staff would talk more, whistleblowers would be encouraged.

ChrisE wrote:You post a link about stuff from 2001. I'm talking today.

Yes, the UCI is obviously corrupt in the past at least and you and I both know AC's positive probably would not have ever become public.
[color="Blue"]How much is it still going on right now with all of the scrutiny? How much are the riders still doping with all of the scrutiny?[/color] I really do not know how blatant things are nowadays. We learn things after the fact, not real time.

So we put some other body in charge? Maybe that would be the answer but there is always potential for corruption. I think the whole national federation thing is a farce. If there was one organization with final authority other than appeal to CAS then that may be a start.


Scrutiny from whom?
It is the same UCI that is doing the controls and tests as before, the only difference now is in the case of a positive that WADA are also informed.

Other than that its the same as before.
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

13 Jun 2011 01:26

I was referring to scrutiny from the media, and paranoia from recent events. But, media scrutiny may have always been there. I was thinking how much more difficult it would be for UCI cover ups taking these things into account. I'm just guessing. Nothing really surprises me anymore.

If the UCI is taken out of the picture would things really change? Do the incentives disappear ie is covering up positives not more profitable than exposing them?

Does the mindset of the peloton change? I think you recall I wrote my bewilderment in another thread about how the comaraderie was amongst dopers and beating tests per TH's interview....how they didn't want their competitors to get caught. How does that go away?

I ask these questions because I think it is not as easy as the link provided by pmc.
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

13 Jun 2011 01:42

Legal changes are a must. I agree that they need a world body that covers all sports not just cycling, that cuts out the need for decisions made by national bodies. At the moment too much risk of conflict of interest and political pressure, especially with someone as high profile as Contador.

I have never understood why teams are so eager to re-sign dopers even after two years ban. Winning riders are in high demand but often the riders being re-signed are not really successful riders. This alone sends out strange signals to followers of the sport. Why risk it ? Is it worth the possible damage if the rider is caught again, re sponsors etc....Are these riders getting paid less just to be signed up ?

I think three years ban for first offence. Lifetime ban for second and any ban at anytime means that that rider cannot hold ANY position in a team in the future including youth level and national level. DS, rider management etc.......

But I think the appeals process has to be there because there is always the chance that innocent riders could be banned without reason due to faulty testing or incorrect sample etc.......Unlikely but has happened before.

As much as I don't like seeing some riders still riding, nothing much can be done without proving that they are cheating and unfortunately the legal process is very slow as arriving at a decision.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,478
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

13 Jun 2011 02:31

ChrisE wrote:I was referring to scrutiny from the media, and paranoia from recent events. But, media scrutiny may have always been there. I was thinking how much more difficult it would be for UCI cover ups taking these things into account. I'm just guessing. Nothing really surprises me anymore.

Ok thanks - I think with WADA over seeing matters a positive would be virtually impossible to hide, however there is still the possibility of tip offs for OOC tests and suspicious values.

The media are not privy to this unless a whistleblower a la Manzano comes forward.

ChrisE wrote:If the UCI is taken out of the picture would things really change? Do the incentives disappear ie is covering up positives not more profitable than exposing them?

Well - personally speaking there will always be a UCI or more correctly a governing body to cycling.
But the problem is the UCI is both promoting the sport and in control of anti-doping. It is a conflict of interest.

Anti-doping needs to be taken away from the UCI (& all sporting bodies) and let them get on with what they were meant to be doing in the first place - governing, promoting and growing the sport.

ChrisE wrote:Does the mindset of the peloton change? I think you recall I wrote my bewilderment in another thread about how the comaraderie was amongst dopers and beating tests per TH's interview....how they didn't want their competitors to get caught. How does that go away?

The doping riders look at doping as necessary part of the job - so broadly speaking no-one doing it would like to see another get caught as they realize it could be them next.

The reason why there is that mentality is that the consequences of being caught are for the individual - to change that sanctions need to also fall on teams and in particular team management.

ChrisE wrote:I ask these questions because I think it is not as easy as the link provided by pmc.


I feel somewhat uneasy at what MPCC are doing. It is teams coming up with 'agreements' that they themselves police.
While I like some of their ideas and appreciate what they are attempting to do it shows they have little faith in the UCI, other teams and that the sport has a serious credibility problem that forces them to set up these agreements.

Ultimately it does little to stop doping in the sport - teams can only control what they do, it is a (preferably outside) governing body who can apply rules and deliver sanctions that can address the problems.
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

Modest Proposal

13 Jun 2011 19:26

I've been on a couple of ideas for a while now.

-Retroactive testing. WADA is holding about 8 years of testing, go back 5 years and run the current test technology. Any positives are processed and old results vanish.

-WADA broadcast an anonymous list of warnings and positives issued in the last 30 days. No names. It brings much needed clarity and puts the burden on the UCI.

Just giving up isn't the thing to do.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,089
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

13 Jun 2011 19:55

With riders suspended during proceedings, at least their lawyers won't be trying to make the whole deal take 2 or 3 popes.

And why allow use of lawyers anyway? Get some folks trained at this, and work within the sport. Pick one, or even: be appointed one. Lawyers are now making the difference between being Contador-rich and for instance Landis-rich. That seems to be against the intent of sports. Equal opportunities.
Cloxxki
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,233
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:25

13 Jun 2011 19:56

DirtyWorks wrote:I've been on a couple of ideas for a while now.

-Retroactive testing. WADA is holding about 8 years of testing, go back 5 years and run the current test technology. Any positives are processed and old results vanish.

-WADA broadcast an anonymous list of warnings and positives issued in the last 30 days. No names. It brings much needed clarity and puts the burden on the UCI.

Just giving up isn't the thing to do.

Amen.
Starting with targeted riders, for effficiency, later have samples always be tested again after 5 years.
Cloxxki
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,233
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:25

13 Jun 2011 20:46

DirtyWorks wrote:I've been on a couple of ideas for a while now.

-Retroactive testing. WADA is holding about 8 years of testing, go back 5 years and run the current test technology. Any positives are processed and old results vanish.

[color="Blue"]-WADA broadcast an anonymous list of warnings and positives issued in the last 30 days. No names. It brings much needed clarity and puts the burden on the UCI.[/color]

Just giving up isn't the thing to do.


To the highlighted - the problem isn't how far you go back, it is who runs the anti-doping. Would you trust the UCI if they said they would retro testing??

Also and more importantly, the volume of tests that would need to be done on all tests for 5 years is simply not practical.
The labs are already struggling trying to test current samples because of the increase with the Biological Passport.
I am all for (outside) retro testing, particularly for a new test like CERA in events where it was likely to be abused ie the Giro in 2008.

To the [color="blue"]blue[/color] - WADA already release a lot of information of positive tests for each individual laboratory and the sport on its website.
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

13 Jun 2011 21:25

The whole system sucks IMO. The UCI should have nothing to do with testing or collecting samples. More than retroactive testing we need strong impartial testing of today's riders, without favoritism and cover up.
I would be in favor of a rider having to be pulled from all competition until the case is concluded, but a case from first AAF to final decision should take no more than 2-3 months tops. That we still won't know who won the 2010 Tour when the 2011 Tour starts is just ludicrous in my opinion.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
User avatar Hugh Januss
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,625
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 00:33
Location: socal

16 Jun 2011 23:10

to make cycling more credible, what about requiring every cyclist to give blood and urine samples once a week, to be stored indefinitely and tested at random, or if/when the suspicion gets too great. ie. failed test, or just great performances. so win a major race and expect to have all your samples from that year tested.

presumably this would be very expensive. but you could require riders/teams pay the costs (as part of their licence)

still retain random testing, just additionally once a week have to go get tested, like people on parole do.

to scale down this you could only make it a requirement for returning dopers for, say, 4 years.
lancaster
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: 15 Apr 2010 17:47

Credible Cycyling = oxymoron

17 Jun 2011 13:11

Hugh Januss wrote:The whole system sucks IMO. The UCI should have nothing to do with testing or collecting samples. More than retroactive testing we need strong impartial testing of today's riders, without favoritism and cover up.
I would be in favor of a rider having to be pulled from all competition until the case is concluded, but a case from first AAF to final decision should take no more than 2-3 months tops. That we still won't know who won the 2010 Tour when the 2011 Tour starts is just ludicrous in my opinion.


With all due respect, you seem to be arguing that cycling can somehow still be saved from the scourge of doping. That is an important question to discuss.

There are many, including myself, who do not believe it is possible. The genie is out of the bottle. Pandora's box has been opened and the evil of doping can never be put back in.

From another perspective, "doping per se" is not a bad thing. It makes riders faster and stronger. It helps them race over mountains for three weeks. It turns good riders into superstars whom the fans love. It makes races more exciting, which means fans enjoy bike races more, which makes them watch more which means more / sponsorship.

"Getting Caught" doping is another matter. It is not a good thing. It negates all of the benefits listed above (and more).

IMHO, the UCI knows this and has always been in the business of "managing" the getting caught part. It used to be to protect the sport. Lately it seems the UCI is most interested in using doping management as another stick to control the pro teams and enforce its own agenda, whatever that may be. Perhaps the UCI sees itself as modernizing cycling, turning it into another big money sports entertainment business. Whatever, we are watching it happen.
User avatar rickshaw
Member
 
Posts: 482
Joined: 14 Jan 2011 15:34

17 Jun 2011 13:58

DirtyWorks wrote:I've been on a couple of ideas for a while now.

-Retroactive testing. WADA is holding about 8 years of testing, go back 5 years and run the current test technology. Any positives are processed and old results vanish.

-WADA broadcast an anonymous list of warnings and positives issued in the last 30 days. No names. It brings much needed clarity and puts the burden on the UCI.

Just giving up isn't the thing to do.

This.

Just imagine that in 2000 all riders would have been given a notice that starting that year all samples would be retro-tested 2 years, 5 years and 8 years from 2000 with the newest techniques available. Make it clear that there would be no testing of samples before 2000, but starting 2000 everyone would be re-tested and no protection being given.

If the riders and teams would believe that this would indeed happen and felt they would not get 'protection' then i just cannot imagine that all the sagas we had in the last decade would have happened. No rasmussen-in mexico case, no fuentes, no twin brother of tyler, no landis drinking whiskey, no armstrong case, no Ricco almost dying, etc. etc.
No blood transfusions, no cera, no epo, etc. etc.

Worst case we would have had a few mega stupid riders doing some stuff on their own who would have gotten caught in the end. Probably a lot less then got caught in the past decade anyway.

Cycling would truly be in a better shape right now imo.
Roninho
Junior Member
 
Posts: 250
Joined: 28 Jul 2009 21:22

Credible?

15 Nov 2012 22:00

From the following article, http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/three-more-teams-join-mpcc
The MPCC members commit to not [sic] signing riders who have been suspended for doping...


This doesn't seem to be followed by all the members.

The obvious example is Dekker on Garmin, I'm sure there's other's I've overlooked.

So is MPCC just good PR?
biokemguy
Junior Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 18 Jan 2010 17:26
Location: Pasadena, Ca

15 Nov 2012 22:32

biokemguy wrote:From the following article, http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/three-more-teams-join-mpcc


This doesn't seem to be followed by all the members.

The obvious example is Dekker on Garmin, I'm sure there's other's I've overlooked.

So is MPCC just good PR?


CVV, Danielson and (?) are all currently on suspension and will be returning next year.

If this really is a rule of the MPCC then it would make no sense for Garmin to be involved.

Howvere, MPCC is clearly a PR exercise in presenting the perception of clean, which is entirely aligned with Garmin's philosophy.
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
User avatar Dear Wiggo
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,087
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 10:11
Location: Sunny Australia

Next

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Back to top