Log in:  

Register

Bike Pure - Are these demands realistic?

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

Bike Pure - Are these demands realistic?

18 Aug 2009 23:02

What do you guys think of these "demands"? I'm of mixed feelings. Some I agree with, some I don't (at least not in their present form). From BikePure... [ie, not my words/ideas!!!]

CYCLESPORT 2.0
BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW START TO BIKE RACING
Bike Pure is making an impact in the fight against doping and it is through the continued support from every member in every corner of the world that we are making steady progress. We have clearly hit a chord with cycling fans everywhere, whose wish is for doping to be eliminated from cycling.

We are compiling a blueprint for the future. A collection of proposals, which we hope once implemented, will improve cycle sport and help eradicate doping in cycle sport. These recommendations will be democratically correlated, into a finished, working document to start a new era of professional bike racing entitled: Cycle Sport 2.0

Cycle sport 2.0 is a new start for a damaged sport. Step one is accepting that there is a problem within cycling. We can either ignore it, or work to bring about change. Bike Pure is about structured repair and preserving our sport for the next generation. At the end of the 2009 season, our complete set of proposals will be formally submitted to the UCI, WADA, professional teams, race organizers and national cycling federations with the hope of bringing about change.

Everybody who has added their name in support of Bike Pure has a voice, their own ideas for an improved sport. We urge that you fill out the form below with your own affirmative, workable suggestions on how to eliminate doping from cycling and improve our sport regardless of how brief or detailed your idea. All members opinions will be taken on board and will form part of the final proposals if deemed appropriate. Please include only as much personal information as you wish.

Alternatively, you can email your own Cyclesport 2.0 suggestions to [email="info@bikepure.org"]info@bikepure.org[/email]

As a starting point, we have outlined several of our own proposals below. The groundswell of support for these proposals and others through our members will give strength to our case:-

1. More stringent sanctions for offending riders, with a minimum 4 year ban and life bans for repeat offenders. It is clear that the current 2 year ban is not deterring riders from doping.

2. All testing to be carried out by an independent testing authority. This independent authority must have no affiliation with any cycling governing body, team or sponsor linked to cyclesport.

3. Life bans and sanctions for management and team personnel working with cyclists to assist doping practices.

4. Suspensions for riders should be fully implemented, regardless of geographical location and/or National Federation.

5. Doping to be seen as a criminal offence in every country.

6. Offending riders and team personnel involved in administration of doping practices and the administers/suppliers of illegal drugs punished accordingly in line with judicial law.

7. The full public disclosure of all riders' medication notes eg. Asthma remedies, Cortisone creams, Testosterone supplements etc.

8. The disclosure of all riders VO2 max measurements, so that profiles can be built up in conjunction with the impending Bio-Passport system.

9. Authorities working with previous offenders of doping to help improve the testing procedures. Former dopers, although part of the initial problem, would be able to provide information on how riders evade detection and the methods and practices involved in doping. Their reasons for doping could also be taken on board.

Bike Pure would like to thank all its members, riders, teams and media for their valued support over the last number of months. Without you we would not be where we are today.
joepa

"There is a proper dignity and proportion to be observed in the performance of every act of life"

[email="joe@joepapp.com"]* email me[/email]
* read my ([color=Red]old) blog[/color]
* visit my website
* read my ([color=Red]new) blog[/color]
User avatar joe_papp
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,267
Joined: 13 May 2009 15:57
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

18 Aug 2009 23:18

keirin 101.

24/7 supervision intra-GT.
Starting (preferably 7 days prior, then supervised) total hemoglobin test.

No team doctors or soigneurs. ASO/RCS/Unipublic bring independent professionals, and rotate them every day.

Seed GT riders. And test them 100 times a season.

Ignore the rest of the peloton. If they know the winners are clean, and if they graduate to the elite tier, they are gonna be subject to a rigorous testing program, then more likely to ride clean.

So: test Contador, Valverde, Sastre, Armstrong, Schlecks, Evans, Kreuzigger, Wiggins, Vande Velde, Leipheimer, Gesink, Menchov, Nibali, Kloden. 100 times each a year.

Boonen, Cavendish, Bennati, Petacchi, Friere, Farrar, Haussler, Cancellara, Devolder, 50-100 times a year.

Marshal and concentrate resources. Target the top tier. If you can prevent winners only winning because they have an unsurmountable advantage via their medical program, then you can get more clean winners. More clean winners, will build the inverted momentum, when riders can accept they can win clean, and do not need to dope, to tread water. Inverted Red Queen effect.

Or I could be deluded as Friedmanites and the neo-classical trickle down theory of economics.

We know you can beat the testing, getting caught requires an error of judgement from the riders. There are enough products that will not show up.

So, the solution is altering the sociological and push factors. If the winners are clean, or less charged so clean riders can get traction, then this removes the greatest incentive to dope. So, target the function of doping, the incentives. Do it via lopping the head off the peloton, because I think it is still prevalent, the thinking that the greatest indictment on doping in 2.HC and 1.HC races (and more selective) is crossing the line first is evidence enough. (simplifying things but that is still a common held belief imo)

Target the winners.

Prevent intra-GT doping.

Get the total hemoglobin test dialed in.
User avatar blackcat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,202
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

19 Aug 2009 02:01

My (overly long) thoughts on the general topic of systems that focus solely on the riders - from something I posted elsewhere ...

I look at the situation from a combination of fan, participant, friend of professional athletes (in a range of sports) and - and sorry about this one folks - the background of my legal training.

In english based legal systems there's a concept called contributory negligence. Put simply it's about seeing all parties who are responsible for a particular harm and working out what level of responsibility each party takes.

Applying the same idea to drugs in cycling - or in fact any sport - you find what to my mind is a pretty simple answer of why the current focus only on athletes doesn't work. My simple analysis runs of responsibility runs something like:
- athletes - obvious issue of personal responsibility and choice. But even within that, there are questions about education and their perception of need and their perception of their future/post-competition prospects that need to be addressed.
- fans - unrealistic expectations of their sporting idols and expectations of constant improvements even if natural human limits are being surpassed, in part because many fans are "enthusiasts" rather than "fanatics". Examples include the expectations that GC contenders wont have a down day in a grand tour (contrast to the late 80's - early 90's) and the ever increasing speeds in a number of races.
- media - although there is a bit more press for anti-PED issues and riders supporting that movement, in general, the media is as willingly blind as many fans. Anyone who had the misfortune to sit through Versus coverage of the Tour (my first year in North America - and from here on out I'm watching French or English Eurosport on my computer) will know what I'm talking about. The media's movitation is to sell copy and advertising space. It creates icons to do that. Typically as a body it doesn't look particularly deeply at who it uses to create the profile it wants - as any number of public meltdowns of "stars" demonstrates. Combine that with what appears to be a real dearth of expert journos (in the english language media at least) and a general pre-occupation with sound bite reporting and the result is an environment where PED's are mostly quietly ignored.
- managers - ranging from turning a blind eye to complicit in PED use. I'd argue that these people have a "duty of care" to their riders. In any other employment field, employers have occupational health and safety responsibilities, why not in pro sports? Allowing or encouraging the use of PED's - which includes not having sufficient internal controls to catch abuse - is to my mind a dereliction of that duty. Jeez, even NZ rugby teams put in place programs to help their pro players build a career beyond their time at the top of their sport - if they can do it, why can't these multi-million dollar pro teams look after their riders better?
- sponsors - some just don't care how their sponsored athletes get the results. One friend (an elite sportsperson, but not a cyclist) was even encouraged by a very, very well known brand to start taking PED's if they wanted to see their sponsorship move to a higher level! In those countries where use of PED's is illegal, the corporation should to my mind be considered an accessory to a crime and directors/officers of the company should be liable for imprisonment - in the same way as they are under health and safety and environmental legislation. And again, as the athlete is a contractor to the sponsor - providing advertising services both on the "field of play" and at events - to my mind the sponsors owe the athletes a duty of care - which again comes into occupational safety.
- race/event organisers - the basic duty here is again akin to workplace safety. An event that encourages widespread PED use because of the difficulty of the course/event or an organiser who fails to provide sufficient controls of their own (irrespective of official testing) is to my mind directly analogous to a factory owner who operates machines without guards, has broken walkways, exposed wires etc. We've seen riders boycott stages and races for safety reasons - what I am talking about is an extension of the same sort of protest on the grounds of PEDs.
- organising bodies - to my mind, the role of the UCI and IOC and the various national federations is like that of a government certifying organisation. They either are - or should be - assessing and certifying events. I am not sure what criteria they assess on, but I believe that an expansion to include various criteria related to PED use should be considered. What they are doing at the moment would be like a national transport certifying agency looking at a new model car and having a certification list that excluded brakes and safety belts.

Ok, so this is getting overly long (apologies for that ... but as you can probably guess, it's something I'm kinda passionate about) - but even so I recognise that I've only skimmed the surface of the issue ... So please take the lack of discussion on establishing evidence etc in that light (ie., rather than dismissing the argument because of it).

I will conclude by saying that any criminology student will tell you that focusing only on making criminals (either literally or in a sporting sense) out of the riders wont ever fix the problem of PEDs when you have the network of pressure that I've described here behind them. The solution as I see it is to build a multi-layered framework that combines education, contracts, regulation and sanctions that are specific to each of these levels. (Again, space prohibits expansion ...) It'll take a generation or so to achieve the desired ends and will result in some pretty major blood spilling in the meantime - but I believe we'd get to where most people would rather be if we could implement something like this.
kiwirider
Junior Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 15:00

19 Aug 2009 02:28

I don't think the fans facilitate it.

I don't think the lust for records from fans drives it. This is a counter argument, when those who criticise the opinion that all winners in the top tier are compromised, they will invoke some hypothetical vocation where no doping occurs.

There IS a set number of wins. Doped or clean, the pool of wins, and the pot of gold to be distributed is finite. Doping does not change it. You could argue, doping decreases it, because it loses fans as an externality. So there is less rewards to be distributed with doping.

Fans will get wins in a clean sport. Fans will get records in a clean sport. The speed and theatre is relative. We are not comparing Bolt to a cheetah, and we are not comparing Contador to Valentino Rossi. In a clean sport, we compare Contador to his contemporaries. So it is all relative. Fans do not drive the performance doping, because there is a show at a VAM of 1600, just like there is a show at a VAM of 1800. There would be no material difference in spectacle.

Fans will protect their mythical champion to the end, in that respect, they are complicit in not holding to account. However, there should be no push factor, in doping, from the fan.

I think the solution is staring everyone in the face. Simple, do not permit the logistics to exist for intra-GT doping. That will create momentum. I do not think this works piecemeal. You need the revolution. Otherwise 98 would have facilitated a policy wonk solution.
User avatar blackcat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,202
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

19 Aug 2009 02:36

No matter how much cycling fans and riders might want it, the criminalization thing would not be easy to put in place.

And European labor laws are very protective of the workers(riders), so there may be limits on what can legally be imposed.
slcbiker
Junior Member
 
Posts: 206
Joined: 12 May 2009 02:13

19 Aug 2009 03:18

While I like a lot of what BikePure are trying to do and a lot of their proposals are what I agree in I think it will be superseded by what is happening in Europe.

There are new and tough laws in a lot of countries there. If Operaction Puerto happened tomorrow it would be very different than what transpired in 2006.
Riders would be facing criminal sanctions - and it would hit them where it hurts, in the pocket.

Also those setting up doping practices would be liable for conviction to - the powers that Police forces have is well beyond anything the UCI or WADA are capable of.

Also one point to note of the BikePure effort is that they have yet only a handful of Pro riders signed up - that says a lot about the mentality of many to this problem.
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

19 Aug 2009 03:27

Myles and Andy are/were members of this site for the first couple of months it got going. Search and you can find their posts under the screen name BikePure. I think Andy was mostly posting them. I don't know if they got too busy, or what, but they haven't posted in a while.

I actually like them a lot, and bought their jersey. It's beautiful, and well worth the money. I have some issues with their list, and anyone who knows me knows why, and what some of my suggestions are (close to BC), but they seem to be dynamic in their approach to stopping doping, not with any dead set ironclad anything, and I think that's something that's needed in these times.

Are you thinking of signing on, Joe? I'm sure if you dropped them a line they'd respond, though they seem to be busy of late.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Senior Member
 
Posts: 8,244
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

19 Aug 2009 04:01

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Myles and Andy are/were members of this site for the first couple of months it got going. Search and you can find their posts under the screen name BikePure. I think Andy was mostly posting them. I don't know if they got too busy, or what, but they haven't posted in a while.

I actually like them a lot, and bought their jersey. It's beautiful, and well worth the money. I have some issues with their list, and anyone who knows me knows why, and what some of my suggestions are (close to BC), but they seem to be dynamic in their approach to stopping doping, not with any dead set ironclad anything, and I think that's something that's needed in these times.

Are you thinking of signing on, Joe? I'm sure if you dropped them a line they'd respond, though they seem to be busy of late.


Well give credit to Dan Martin (BB basically said he was doping), Nicolas Roache, Marco Pinotti, Robbie Hunter, Steve Cummings etc. for all joining up.

Mine:

- 4 year and lifebans for 1st and repeat offenders. Only those who break omarta and name names and the more details they give will get shorter sentences, with the minimum of 1 year out.
- Any rider/s who break omarta and/or blow the whistle who can't get a new team, the UCI will find them a ProTour spot, any team manager who complains, will face the loss of their PT licence.
- If found positive, then said doper will hand back any trophies, jerseys, prize monies won whilst on PEDs.
- Any team manager, DS etc. found to be involved with doping will face a life ban from the sport.
- Riders to be tested at least twice a day during training camps.
User avatar craig1985
Senior Member
 
Posts: 8,316
Joined: 06 May 2009 09:55
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

19 Aug 2009 05:41

The problem with the 24/7 supervision methodology is that it only counters for in competition testing. As we know riders are now doping year round and not just exclusively at the GTs. In essence, they would still be bringing in the benefits from earlier doping to the event through either retained benefits of elevated blood boosting or the physiological benefits of harder doped training. Holding riders any longer would be far too draconian.

I personally think we've got to be taking baby steps before we unravel any of these grand plans. The total haemogloban test would be a good place to start.

Lastly in regards to the list formed by the OP, the 2 key points for mine are 2 & 3 which I agree wholeheartedly. Firstly we will never have a dope free sport if the UCI are in charge. It's been repeatedly shown, they cannot be trusted to run this sport. Secondly, I would love to see all support staff (owners, managers, DS, soigners, drivers) sign a 'magna carta' of sorts which results in life bans for practices that aids doping practices. 1 strike and you're out!! The point is can we trust the UCI to implement such systems? I think Not..
User avatar unsheath
Junior Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 08:03

19 Aug 2009 05:48

The problem with the 24/7 supervision methodology is that it only counters for in competition testing. As we know riders are now doping year round and not just exclusively at the GTs. In essence, they would still be bringing in the benefits from earlier doping to the event through either retained benefits of elevated blood boosting or the physiological benefits of harder doped training. Holding riders any longer would be far too draconian.

I personally think we've got to be taking baby steps before we unravel any of these grand plans. The total haemogloban test would be a good place to start.

Lastly in regards to the list formed by the OP, the 2 key points for mine are 2 & 3 which I agree wholeheartedly. Firstly we will never have a dope free sport if the UCI are in charge. It's been repeatedly shown, they cannot be trusted to run this sport. Secondly, I would love to see all support staff (owners, managers, DS, soigners, drivers) sign a 'magna carta' of sorts which results in life bans for practices that aids doping practices. 1 strike and you're out!! The point is can we trust the UCI to implement such systems? I think Not..
User avatar unsheath
Junior Member
 
Posts: 672
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 08:03

19 Aug 2009 05:49

unsheath wrote:The problem with the 24/7 supervision methodology is that it only counters for in competition testing. As we know riders are now doping year round and not just exclusively at the GTs. In essence, they would still be bringing in the benefits from earlier doping to the event through either retained benefits of elevated blood boosting or the physiological benefits of harder doped training. Holding riders any longer would be far too draconian.

I personally think we've got to be taking baby steps before we unravel any of these grand plans. The total haemogloban test would be a good place to start.

Lastly in regards to the list formed by the OP, the 2 key points for mine are 2 & 3 which I agree wholeheartedly. Firstly we will never have a dope free sport if the UCI are in charge. It's been repeatedly shown, they cannot be trusted to run this sport. Secondly, I would love to see all support staff (owners, managers, DS, soigners, drivers) sign a 'magna carta' of sorts which results in life bans for practices that aids doping practices. 1 strike and you're out!! The point is can we trust the UCI to implement such systems? I think Not..

need to concentrate the testing resources on the heads of state.

When the UCI asked everyone to sign the agreement to pay one year's salary if found to have doped, everyone but Bettini remitted. Then industrial lawyers ark up on behalf of indignant riders and said it was contrary to EU labour laws. Go figure. So you can have everyone signing anything, their word means nothing in this culture unfortunately.
User avatar blackcat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,202
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

19 Aug 2009 10:13

Crazy.

Some other comments. Yes, the support system the problem. Don't just go after the riders. There's also the real problem of letting people who were once part of the problem back into the sport as coaches/trainers/managers, etc. at future dates.

The culture and omerta need to change more than anything. Swing that, and you'll change things. No athlete gets into sports eager to dope. They do because it exists. If dopers were completely driven into the ground and outcast, we could even have honor codes that would work. Right now, we still have whistleblowers being treated like outcasts. Even by the UCI.

Yes, of course the UCI is a huge part of the problem with their selective rules and testing that change like a reed in the wind. They need to put someone like Sylvia Shenk or (gasp!) Greg Lemond in charge.

More testing isn't completely the answer. We need accurate testing. Remember, false negatives are the problem. There's also the issue of when to test. Current UCI rules let riders off the hook during many times. And take a look at the fiasco in this year's Tour when the UCI decided to spring a late morning test (a prime time to catch someone doping) and yet the tester was delayed a half-hour willingly, and drank coffee with team officials!

Sorry BPC, but changing GT's to two weeks won't do a thing. Rides made it just fine for decades before blood boosters came along. Way back 60+ years ago the Tour was over 5000km, with many days over 300km, with the roads often all cobbles and the mountain passes all dirt. And the drug of choice back then was alcohol. So it can be done. Just slower. Distance also doesn't mean anything. Sprinters dope. There's probably more doping in track & field athletics and swimming than cycling.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Senior Member
 
Posts: 8,244
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

19 Aug 2009 10:36

Alpe d'Huez wrote:More testing isn't completely the answer. We need accurate testing. Remember, false negatives are the problem. There's also the issue of when to test. Current UCI rules let riders off the hook during many times. And take a look at the fiasco in this year's Tour when the UCI decided to spring a late morning test (a prime time to catch someone doping) and yet the tester was delayed a half-hour willingly, and drank coffee with team officials!


More testing is the solution in my opinion. Forget about the peloton, and just target the winners. You need to create a peloton where you can win clean, not just like JV says that you can.

So seed the riders, and attack the big hitters. Get the total body hemoglobin test dialed in.

Forget about hitting the small fish. The small fish are your constituents. You give them the opportunity to ride clean. They are on low wages, they would prefer to be able to retain all their salary and prizemoney.

Just knock the top off the two speed peloton. And you only do this by seriously attacking the top end of the peloton.
User avatar blackcat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 9,202
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

19 Aug 2009 12:49

I think what we're saying isn't mutually exclusive. I completely agree that you need to concentrate on the big fish. And absolutely on the hemoglobin test.

I just believe that we're putting so much effort, both mentally and physically, on tests, when by and large they are not accurate enough in catching the cheats. And perhaps an even bigger problem is we need a flush at the UCI.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Senior Member
 
Posts: 8,244
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

19 Aug 2009 13:41

I don't think such measures are, at this point, a good idea.

As far as I can see, there has never been a good analysis of how doping actually works. I'm not talking about what the substances do with the body, but about the following questions:

- Why do pro cyclists dope?
- How is doping organized?
- What is the attitude of riders towards doping?
- How does doping relate to the other factors riders have deal with, like personal life, team pressure, salary, etc.?
- What kind of intervention would make the large majority of riders refrain from using doping?

I think the answers to these questions have never been formulated well, but rather have been assumed to be self-evident by the people involved. Those assumptions make people believe that anything that superficially appears to be a measure against doping will be automatically effective. However, we don't know how effective harsher punishments are. If cyclists believe that evading the controls is very easy, they are going to dope anyway, no matter what the sanctions are.

One solution that I suspect might work is to change the way teams are organized. I think teams should treat their riders more like normal employees of a company and less like athletes. It is my suspicion that riders dope to reach a constant level of achievement, so they can maintain their income at a comparable level. Doping might be the factor that takes the insecurity out of their lifestyle. Therefore, teams offering longer contacts, more secure salaries and making riders less dependent on each season's performance could be an effective countermeasure.

But that is just speculation as long as there is no clear, objective view of the attitudes, factors and relations surrounding doping.
User avatar Jonathan
Junior Member
 
Posts: 419
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 14:51
Location: Amsterdam

19 Aug 2009 13:45

blackcat wrote:More testing is the solution in my opinion. Forget about the peloton, and just target the winners. You need to create a peloton where you can win clean, not just like JV says that you can.

So seed the riders, and attack the big hitters. Get the total body hemoglobin test dialed in.

Forget about hitting the small fish. The small fish are your constituents. You give them the opportunity to ride clean. They are on low wages, they would prefer to be able to retain all their salary and prizemoney.

Just knock the top off the two speed peloton. And you only do this by seriously attacking the top end of the peloton.


Who decides who the big hitters are? What you describe seems like an arbitrary decision on who to test and is open to abuse. Tighten that criteria and I agree it could help, but just saying to target the "heads of state" doesn't hold up. Is it the top 10 in a GT? Top 20? How do you seed riders? Well if that's the case then Evans isn't targeted based of his TDF performance this year, yet I think many of us think of him as a "head of state". Is it based on wins? # of high placements throughout the season, performance the previous season? If it's arbitrary then it requires human judgment and that is faulty without even considering corruption, which most of us believe is already a rampant problem.

The problem with a set formula for determining who's a "big hitter" provides for it's own potential abuse. Manage your results to be lower early in the season and slide in under the radar and target a big race, come out of nowhere and win without being subject to the higher standard of testing. Explain the jump in performance by saying you lost weight, were sick, found out you were lactose intolerant and stopped eating cheese, or were recovering from a fall during training or earlier in the season and now you're home free. This would work especially well for younger riders who don't have a long track record of mediocre results, a fresh face, or someone who had gotten good results in juniors. It's not unreasonable to think that you can dope it up and beat the lower tier controls and slip through the cracks to a big GT win while all the "heads of state" are clean(er) because of a massive targeted testing regimen. Once you get that big win you get the big contract. Of course now you're a targeted "big hitter" and have to cut out the dope and can no longer perform at that level. There's plenty of excuses you can pull out of the hat as to why you can't reach the same level or performance again ("oh I fell in training again and it still hurts" or "I drank the water in Mexico and am fighting these terrible intestinal parasites"), but what do you care, you have the big contract. As long as you can keep up that image of potential you can ride that to the bank for years.

Many will see the cleaner "heads of state" and decide they can now do the right thing and ride clean too. Other less scrupulous riders will see opportunity and jump on the chance to get a big advantage. Targeting the big hitters is good, but they need to expand controls on the lower riders and add new tests for the transfusions as others have suggested.

Staying on the Bike Pure topic, I'm all for #'s 1,2,3,4, and 9. I think 5 and 6 are unlikely to happen because they depend on changes to the judicial systems of various countries. #'s 7 and 8 are going to infringe on privacy concerns. If a rider has a TUE for Valtrex (no I have no idea if you need a TUE for Valtrex or not) then that rider is not going to want it to be public record that he's got the herp, and I agree with his right to that privacy. If TUEs are all in the hands of an independent authority as in #2 then that should be good enough and rider medical data privacy should be respected as much as possible.

Just my opinion.
DonTickles
Junior Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 31 Jul 2009 17:20

19 Aug 2009 13:57

DonTickles wrote:Who decides who the big hitters are? What you describe seems like an arbitrary decision on who to test and is open to abuse. Tighten that criteria and I agree it could help, but just saying to target the "heads of state" doesn't hold up. Is it the top 10 in a GT? Top 20? How do you seed riders? Well if that's the case then Evans isn't targeted based of his TDF performance this year, yet I think many of us think of him as a "head of state". Is it based on wins? # of high placements throughout the season, performance the previous season? If it's arbitrary then it requires human judgment and that is faulty without even considering corruption, which most of us believe is already a rampant problem.

The problem with a set formula for determining who's a "big hitter" provides for it's own potential abuse. Manage your results to be lower early in the season and slide in under the radar and target a big race, come out of nowhere and win without being subject to the higher standard of testing. Explain the jump in performance by saying you lost weight, were sick, found out you were lactose intolerant and stopped eating cheese, or were recovering from a fall during training or earlier in the season and now you're home free. This would work especially well for younger riders who don't have a long track record of mediocre results, a fresh face, or someone who had gotten good results in juniors. It's not unreasonable to think that you can dope it up and beat the lower tier controls and slip through the cracks to a big GT win while all the "heads of state" are clean(er) because of a massive targeted testing regimen. Once you get that big win you get the big contract. Of course now you're a targeted "big hitter" and have to cut out the dope and can no longer perform at that level. There's plenty of excuses you can pull out of the hat as to why you can't reach the same level or performance again ("oh I fell in training again and it still hurts" or "I drank the water in Mexico and am fighting these terrible intestinal parasites"), but what do you care, you have the big contract. As long as you can keep up that image of potential you can ride that to the bank for years.

Many will see the cleaner "heads of state" and decide they can now do the right thing and ride clean too. Other less scrupulous riders will see opportunity and jump on the chance to get a big advantage. Targeting the big hitters is good, but they need to expand controls on the lower riders and add new tests for the transfusions as others have suggested.

Staying on the Bike Pure topic, I'm all for #'s 1,2,3,4, and 9. I think 5 and 6 are unlikely to happen because they depend on changes to the judicial systems of various countries. #'s 7 and 8 are going to infringe on privacy concerns. If a rider has a TUE for Valtrex (no I have no idea if you need a TUE for Valtrex or not) then that rider is not going to want it to be public record that he's got the herp, and I agree with his right to that privacy. If TUEs are all in the hands of an independent authority as in #2 then that should be good enough and rider medical data privacy should be respected as much as possible.

Just my opinion.


The idea of seeded riders is smart and there could be a combination of seeded riders and targeted controls for the top 5 in each stage and/or race. Doping does not just happen in GT's. Just look at Museeuw among others.

Target the races (ProTour or even all races with a UCI sanction), target the cream of the crop riders and target the DS's who coninue to facilitate the "programs". Get dope controls out of the hands of the UCI.
Scott SoCal
 

19 Aug 2009 14:07

Has anyone at the UCI or someone 'high up' in cycling ever commented on full body hemoglobin tests?
User avatar luckyboy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,613
Joined: 26 May 2009 21:26

19 Aug 2009 14:23

The mandates are a great start. 4 years should be 5. Lifetime for second and any doctor or manager involved. All the "sone" substances like cortasone, pregnisone, should be included on a list issued when obtaining a pro license. The list should be handed to every doctor treating any pro. There should also be a list of disqualified doctors and coaches. After the treatment the doctor and the racer should have to sign and send a form saying " I know what I was given and it is not on the current list". The doctor should have to send in a form that says " With my patients special profession I have ensured that no drug has been given knowingly from the forbidden substance list". 3 or 4 tests per year for every pro license holder. I get tested for my job every six months and there are @ 25+ labs I can go to in NYC. They have bar codes on the bottles and tests result are know within 4 or 5 biz days. The fact that there have been no positives at the TDF should stink of scandal and corruption.
fatandfast
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 14 Jul 2009 22:01

19 Aug 2009 16:03

#8 is nonsensical.
acoggan
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,811
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 11:33

Next

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 15 guests

Back to top