Surprised nobody has posted this yet.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8728/MPCC-calls-on-UCI-and-ProTeams-to-ramp-up-fight-against-doping.aspx
Thoughts?
Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky
It also wants riders subject to disciplinary proceedings to be sidelined from competition until such time as they are cleared.
.It also wants teams, sponsors and race organisers to only allow riders to compete who are not subject to disciplinary proceedings
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
ChrisE wrote:I ask these questions because I think it is not as easy as the link provided by pmc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The MPCC members commit to not [sic] signing riders who have been suspended for doping...
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?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 11 guests
Back to top