Tinman said:
The last UCI Congress meeting applauded UCI as a shining light in the fight against doping.
The last UCI Congress meeting applauded UCI as a shining light in the fight against doping.
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
Exactly why this needs to be put in perspective. I bet UCI said similarly under Verbruggen? And probably around 2006 and since.
There need to be some succinct public statements, eg open letter to UCI that the public understands, and that reinforce that the farce that cycling has become will continue to be, unless there is a clear leadership change.
If I had he content know how I would do it myself. And if I had the connections I would ask them to sign. If I was a budding journo I would jump at both.
Anyone or some of you here that can pick this up either solo or as a small collective? As senior members, here is your chance to leverage your know how and contacts. A better chance and better timing in the recent history of cycling is unlikely to come along soon...
There need to be some succinct public statements, eg open letter to UCI that the public understands, and that reinforce that the farce that cycling has become will continue to be, unless there is a clear leadership change.
If I had he content know how I would do it myself. And if I had the connections I would ask them to sign. If I was a budding journo I would jump at both.
Anyone or some of you here that can pick this up either solo or as a small collective? As senior members, here is your chance to leverage your know how and contacts. A better chance and better timing in the recent history of cycling is unlikely to come along soon...
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
sniper said:
I spent some time translating this as this is a critical read. Translation not perfect but you get the drift.
Article in 2 parts:
Doping in cycling
Fear of “Case” Armstrong
09/14/2012, 18:34
By Thomas Kistner
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has denied Lance Armstrong's seven titles at the Tour de France. If the UCI world cycling organization ignores this judgment, the case will go before the Court of Sports Arbitration CAS. A court case would shake the very foundations of the UCI however: it is about Armstrong's ties to former UCI chief Verbruggen and dubious donations by the American.
The situation has changed completely for Lance Armstrong, about whose doping lying there is no longer any doubt in the global sports arena. Trapped also is the UCI, whose officials any day now expect the evidence from U.S. Anti-Doping Agency Usada that led to the dismissal of Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles.
But also for the global anti-doping fight this phase is delicate. Because the handling of the case determines the meaning and substance of this quasi-religious struggle. UCI chief Pat McQuaid has already revealed which solution he prefers for his contaminated sport: For Armstrong's collection of titles not to be redistributed, for an awarded general amnesty to confessed dopers, the Armstrong era to be watered down, and a declaration of it as a "black era". And McQuaid is in a hurry. Next week at the World Championships in Valkenburg, the deal is planned to be sealed: "I would be delighted if we could make this happen," said McQuaid to the AP.
That would be the ideal solution for the UCI. Once the Usada material is available, the UCI only has 21 days to consider whether they implement the sanctions (a lifetime ban, backdated to 1998). If they do, Armstrong's titles are gone. Not only the U.S. insurance agency SCA will initiate a million dollar lawsuit, Armstrong's lawyers have already informed. If the UCI ignores the Usada conclusion, the anti-doping agencies will bring the case before the Court of Sports Arbitration Cas. What will be concluded there can readily be assumed today.
Firstly Armstrong’s in part already publicized doping regime that could trigger other questions (eg. lawsuits). Questions that he can hardly risk. His core problem is not the tour titles. It is about his cancer foundation Livestrong, which will only come into question when its boss admits doping himself. He will never do that - unless a grand jury to compels him to do so. Lying under oath in the U.S. is much more risky than it is here; the doping U.S. Olympic champion Marion Jones has been put behind bars trying exactly that.
But the UCI may have no interest in a legal process. Could then not also Armstrong's ties with Hein Verbruggen be raised? Verbruggen, UCI chief until 2005, has long been the real driver behind cycling coach McQuaid, whom he elevated into office. Verbruggen praised his friend Lance as "living proof of a rider who is not cheating," as one who "does not use a single drug, but still is being suspected as a doper". As recently as 2011 Verbruggen claimed more confidently than any PR professional: "Armstrong has never doped, never, never, never". Now finally this semi-religious “dogma” of this top official needs to be investigated. In addition, Verbruggen’s heads up SportAccord, the Association of Sports Federations. He is also an honorary member of the IOC - and active behind the scenes in the tour of China. This project hurts the cycling theatre in a similar way as the Tour de France. What would sponsors farcically say about "the greatest of all cyclists"?
Disreputable businesses and contacts point to the dark heart in the world of cycling. What about Armstrong's donation to the UCI, after a controversial test in 2001? Exactly what was the EUR 125’000 from Armstrong for? That has never been convincingly explained. This bizarre expense situation also began under Verbruggen. His heir McQuaid got entangled often when trying to explain the monetary gifts of the chronically suspicious Tour-record winner to his organization, the organization that should actually be keeping him under supervision. In the Cycling scene the money is considered “as "debt collection protection". As Greg LeMond, former Tour winner, stated: "silence to pay - it's almost like in the Mafia."
Part 2 shortly.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
tinman, you are a **** stirrer. I like it.
I've been looking at the WADA options. Can't find foundation board / exec rules on the website but I dont think we need them. Govt ministers are ultimately answerable to their citizens, so we can lobby them about how they represent the interests of their citizens. Below is a letter I intend to send to the nz minister of sport and his deputy on the WADA exec.
It doesn't have the kind of populist appeal that tinman craves, but it is one thing I can do, so I'm going to do it. Please, if you live in one of the countries that has a politician on the WADA foundation board or exec, write them a similar letter. I've highlighted the parts that would need to be changed to send this letter to a politician in a different country. Note that some of the wording changes coma about because not all foundation board members are on the exec. Although on their own, these letters are probably futile, who knows how secure Pats position is within WADA, and what it would take to tip the balance?
Ideally of course, we can do something populist/public at the same time, while also putting some heat on through the federations......
Mr Murray McCully
Minister for Sport and Recreation
Mr Chris Tremain
Minister of Internal Affairs
Re: New Zealand Government / Oceania Region representation on WADA Foundation Board and Executive Committee
Mr McCully and Mr Tremain,
As an avid cycling fan, I'm disturbed by some of the recent revelations in that sport. Clearly doping crosses many international boundaries and affects many sporting events globally. Protecting all sports people, including New Zealanders, requires an international effort. I therefore ask that you continue to do whatever is in your power to assist WADA to further its objects.
With these objects in mind, I'm writing to reassure myself that you are aware of the actions, within cycling, of your fellow Executive Committee member, Mr. Pat McQuaid. Mr. McQuaid's actions, as president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), appear at times to be in conflict with the WADA code and spirit of the WADA statutes. One example is the 2009 return to racing of Lance Armstrong where, according to media reports, the WADA code requirement for six months out of competition testing prior to a return were waived. Another is the 2010 allegations of Floyd Landis where, instead of acting impartially by requesting proof or investigating the claims, Mr. McQuaid publicly labeled Mr. Landis a liar.
The athlete bio-passport is frequently touted as evidence that the UCI are committed to clean cycling. However, the number of tests has reduced and there have been no positive cases in the past two years. Anti doping expert Dr. Michael Ashenden also resigned from the project, stating he believed that a new confidentiality clause would prevent him from expressing his doubts.
I have no confidence that Mr. McQuaid is a fit person to sit on the WADA Foundation Board or Executive Committee. Even if his actions are not deliberately contrary to WADA's objectives, his position within the organisation could adversely affect WADA's credibility. I urge you, at the very least, to exercise your utmost vigilance regarding Mr. McQuaid, when carrying out your obligations under Article 10.2 of the WADA statutes.
Although the above claims are based on information in the public domain, I genuinely believe them to be substantively true. Please take a few moments to speak to David Howman at WADA, should you require further information.
Sincerely....
I've been looking at the WADA options. Can't find foundation board / exec rules on the website but I dont think we need them. Govt ministers are ultimately answerable to their citizens, so we can lobby them about how they represent the interests of their citizens. Below is a letter I intend to send to the nz minister of sport and his deputy on the WADA exec.
It doesn't have the kind of populist appeal that tinman craves, but it is one thing I can do, so I'm going to do it. Please, if you live in one of the countries that has a politician on the WADA foundation board or exec, write them a similar letter. I've highlighted the parts that would need to be changed to send this letter to a politician in a different country. Note that some of the wording changes coma about because not all foundation board members are on the exec. Although on their own, these letters are probably futile, who knows how secure Pats position is within WADA, and what it would take to tip the balance?
Ideally of course, we can do something populist/public at the same time, while also putting some heat on through the federations......
Mr Murray McCully
Minister for Sport and Recreation
Mr Chris Tremain
Minister of Internal Affairs
Re: New Zealand Government / Oceania Region representation on WADA Foundation Board and Executive Committee
Mr McCully and Mr Tremain,
As an avid cycling fan, I'm disturbed by some of the recent revelations in that sport. Clearly doping crosses many international boundaries and affects many sporting events globally. Protecting all sports people, including New Zealanders, requires an international effort. I therefore ask that you continue to do whatever is in your power to assist WADA to further its objects.
With these objects in mind, I'm writing to reassure myself that you are aware of the actions, within cycling, of your fellow Executive Committee member, Mr. Pat McQuaid. Mr. McQuaid's actions, as president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), appear at times to be in conflict with the WADA code and spirit of the WADA statutes. One example is the 2009 return to racing of Lance Armstrong where, according to media reports, the WADA code requirement for six months out of competition testing prior to a return were waived. Another is the 2010 allegations of Floyd Landis where, instead of acting impartially by requesting proof or investigating the claims, Mr. McQuaid publicly labeled Mr. Landis a liar.
The athlete bio-passport is frequently touted as evidence that the UCI are committed to clean cycling. However, the number of tests has reduced and there have been no positive cases in the past two years. Anti doping expert Dr. Michael Ashenden also resigned from the project, stating he believed that a new confidentiality clause would prevent him from expressing his doubts.
I have no confidence that Mr. McQuaid is a fit person to sit on the WADA Foundation Board or Executive Committee. Even if his actions are not deliberately contrary to WADA's objectives, his position within the organisation could adversely affect WADA's credibility. I urge you, at the very least, to exercise your utmost vigilance regarding Mr. McQuaid, when carrying out your obligations under Article 10.2 of the WADA statutes.
Although the above claims are based on information in the public domain, I genuinely believe them to be substantively true. Please take a few moments to speak to David Howman at WADA, should you require further information.
Sincerely....
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
sniper said:
Part 2 - translated from German
Doping in cycling
Vexing reports about Armstrong's cancer foundation
09/14/2012, 18:34
By Thomas Kistner
Also the UCI would like to maintain an eloquent silence. That is how McQuaids sudden push for amnesty, empty podiums for past Tour winners, and a "black era" (which is not explained in any detail but instead radically rubbed out of cycling’s history), works like a magician’s trick. A different cultural approach as the solution? That cannot work. It needs a reshuffle at the top of the organization.
Certainly it would be amusing if Armstrong's titles were handed over to other riders. To Ullrich, Zülle, Beloki, Kloden, Basso. However, if the UCI does not do so, she leads her own credibility absurdity: There cannot be any prejudice. So backing the runners-up, as was previously always done, ie. Landis to Contador, would destroy the presumption of innocence. Then there would instead be general suspicion. And that’s where WADA then forces the plan. With sensitive questions to the UCI: Why leave seven Tour titles open? Is there evidence, proof against the runners-up, and if so, what? Exposed like this, pushed bit by bit, McQuaid only further advances the miserable situation that the UCI is in: Pushed into the corner.
McQuaids rather rapid resolution can never condone the anti-doping system. On top of this there is Armstrong's authoritative statement which he made in August. There he never clearly states that he has never doped. Rather, he emphasizes that he has been tested umpteens of times, has always played by the rules, and has never been convicted under these rules. So it’s not about doping, it's about the testing. It’s about positive and negative tests. He sounds like a bank robber who complains that it is unfair that the police picked him because his getaway car was stopped only because it was illegally parked. "The fact that athletes are being condemned without positive A and B samples perverts the system!”, laments the hero. Translated like this: I’ve always thought we only have to replace the lab technicians.
Now Armstrong’s congregation is no longer together. Ultimately at stake stands Livestrong, the Foundation about which there have been disturbing reports with regard to their actual donation to cancer research. Federal prosecutors and senators with close ties to the California cycling or fitness scene are mobilizing against the Usada. Livestrong even sent a lobbyist to Washington, to “blacken” the Usada to representatives from parliament, reports the Wall Street Journal . The Livestrong Foundation called the report "inaccurate". The PR machine is running.
What are Lance's old fellowship companions, from Clinton to Bush & Sarkozy, doing? On the internet, where characterizations like "Pharm Strong" or "Lie Strong" circulate, the simpler minds instead cling to the meaningfulness of drug testing. And bravely ignore that there are also six positive Armstrong samples. The time of the few black sheep that Verbruggen and McQuaid once complained about is over. Now you really should clear out the whole flock all together, in a black era.
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Mate most forums are a crapshoot. This is a unique place. There are many serious insiders here that have insides and insights, and know each other. I do believe that with a bit of virtual teamwork something can be achieved here. And put our money (ie action) where our mouth is. In dutch there is a famous saying "geen woorden, maar daden" - "not only words, but actions".
I will certainly do my bit based on your letter, although not sure which country I will pick - probably all, having lived in many (incl. NZ for many years by the way).
Thanks Bro.
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
HL2037 said:
Spent 2 hours translating a tough German article for posting here, not easy for someone who has rudimentary German at best. But felt it was a great article, useful for an informed audience here.
The challenge with the "case against UCI" is that it requires a huge amount of digging for a guy like me who has only joined this forum recently and is essentially pretty new to all of this. I have been a latent LA cynic from the late 90s and what has transpired doesn't surprise me at all; I am generally a pretty good intuitive reader of people and their deeper motivations.
But articulating this "case against UCI" is totally doable in a few hours for some or more of the forum posters here. And creating a bit of momentum with national cycling feds, WADA, and government reps is not too hard. If for nothing else it generates a good backgrounder/fact sheet/critical questions for journos who may want to know more and have a look here. The social media of today certainly help enormously.
So HL2037 from Denmark, what is your contribution going to be? Or just "trolling" here?
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
JA.Tri said:
That looks interesting. It doesn't have georestrictions. We need to come up with a simple marketable petition letter.
I think we should try to plan something for when the USADA info comes out and / or when the amnesty whitewash starts.
Can anyone suggest some good twitter lines for people to retweet to a hashtag? Is that even the right way to do the whole twitter malarkey?
E.g:
The black era ends when comprehensive retrospective testing begins
Missing bio passport tests prove the black era hasn't ended. Resign McQuaid
The black era doesn't end till Verbruggen is off the UCI management committee. Resign Hein
Amnesty without honesty is a whitewash. Resign McQuaid.
Delays in anouncing Contador AAF prove the black era hasn't ended. Resign McQuaid
.....gotta be something to write about pat knowing sky would win the tour....
Plenty of smart arses who specialist in one lines on the forum, how about contributing some ideas?
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
IWCJ: Nice letter. I correct some spelling and grammar and make some suggestions. (Just suggestions and you should do as you please.)
See http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/About_WADA/Statutes/WADA_Statutes_2009_EN.pdf (particularly, Article 6 and beyond) [Keep in mind that the French Statutes are the official ones, so check the French to be sure.]
What I find amazing is that Pat McQuaid can represent the IOC on the WADA when he is himself an IOC banned athlete. This is just incredible.
Personally I do not believe that McQuaid, Verbruggen, and the UCI are the only problem in cycling. And I do not believe that the UCI is capable of reforming itself.
Wada needs to be the organization that takes the UCI to task and reveals the depth of corruption there.
But Wada is itself enormously compromised by all the IOC and political appointments. Sure doping will always be there in sport. But at the moment there are no real credible anti-doping organizations out there with the exception of some national ADA's. Until Wada looks more like USADA in its own structure and organization, and until the organizations like UCI and USA Cycling are out of the doping control business, then I don't see cycling getting serious about doping.
Writing to our sports ministries might be in some way helpful, I do not believe that at the end of the day this will do the trick. It is the athletes themselves that need to be persuaded to give up their omerta and take actions against the culture of doping in their teams and their organizations.
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
Tinman said:
The question should be where to publish such a letter. Just sending it to the UCI will not do a thing, no matter who signs it.
We could try for the New York Daily News, the New York Times. I doubt The Washington Post would be interested.
In any event, you can expect that the result of the UCI Meeting will simply be another event to showcase all the UCI is doing in the fight against doping in cyling, a leading sport against doping, and closing ranks around McQuaid.
@Tinman: cheers mate! thanks a big bunch for the translations. you were right, it is an insightful piece (especially considering it is a mainstream journal) in which the author asks the right questions, expresses the concerns we all have regarding Verdrugthem, Phat, and Liestrong, and sketches a very plausible scenario in which Phat is going to try and dismiss the Pharmstrong era as a "Black Era", obviously in an attempt to save his own and Verdruggem's ***. The article also nicely outlines the problems Phat will have to explain why he will not name seven new Tour winners after stripping them from Lance. It would go counter to UCI's "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
Funny detail: the author mentions the nicknames Liestrong and Pharmstrong that we use for Lance around here inthe Clinic. I'm not sure how widerspread those nicknames are outside the Clinic, but perhaps he reads in here. Iow, another possible hint that the range and audience of the Clinic is increasing.
@Lauralynn: i tried to find HUMO's open letter to Pat McQuaid but only found a reference to it. If you know where to find it, i'd be thankful if you could post it!
Funny detail: the author mentions the nicknames Liestrong and Pharmstrong that we use for Lance around here inthe Clinic. I'm not sure how widerspread those nicknames are outside the Clinic, but perhaps he reads in here. Iow, another possible hint that the range and audience of the Clinic is increasing.
@Lauralynn: i tried to find HUMO's open letter to Pat McQuaid but only found a reference to it. If you know where to find it, i'd be thankful if you could post it!
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
sniper said:
I posted it here a few days ago: http://www.humo.be/humo-archief/150...orzitter-van-de-internationale-wielerunie-uci
[More work for Tinman.
]LauraLyn said:I posted it here a few days ago: http://www.humo.be/humo-archief/150...orzitter-van-de-internationale-wielerunie-uci
[More work for Tinman.
thanks!
It is certainly not a very strong letter. Doesn't really put any heat on Phat's role in all this mess. And it's in Dutch, so Phat won't read it anyway.
One interesting detail: the letter refers to rumors according to which genetic doping is presently is use in the pro-peloton, and we know from HUMO's article on Contador back in 2010 that their insider knowledge is trustworthy.
- Sep 26, 2009
- 2,848
- 1
- 11,485
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
the big ring said:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...#ixzz26e1jF4h6
I might have one or another opinion about the Senkaku Islands, but I don't see what this has to do with cycling.
Why does the UCI permit these political disputes to enter our sport? What do Japanese riders have to do with the Senkaku Islands dispute?
I think UCI owes us some explanation as to why they are politicizing cycling this way.
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
LauraLyn said:I posted it here a few days ago: http://www.humo.be/humo-archief/150...orzitter-van-de-internationale-wielerunie-uci
[More work for Tinman.
Here's the article translated, not one I subscribe to myself, but I am sure supported by some/many in the Netherlands...
Open letter to Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union (UCI)
HUMO-ARCHIVE Tuesday, September 11, 2012 - 5:23
Dear Chairman,
Mr. McQuaid ,
These are tough times. Your friend Lance Armstrong, who has won seven Tours with a thermos of EPO under his arm, is being named and shamed.
And it looks as if you will have to drop him soon: if the International Cycling Union is not going to nullify his seven wins, it is likely that at the Olympic Games in Rio there will be no road race for professional cyclists. And you cannot take such a risk.
"Clean is about not getting caught – all the top guys know this"
But what do you really think: is Lance Armstrong, as the doping-chasers keep telling us, just an ordinary cheat, a cunning trickster, a criminal crook? No, of course he is not: all those years he did just what everyone else did. Only he kept it hidden better: he thought nothing could happen to him, with his great expertise and extensive network. And that has at long last become his undoing. The ancient Greeks knew it: pride comes before a fall.
I suggest that in this doping discussion for once we don’t lose our sense of nuance: let’s leave the athlete Armstrong remain the athlete. He is a champion, and you also know: they are always a little smarter than the rest, inside and outside the race.
Suppose that indeed you will soon proceed to delete Armstrong on the honor roll of the Tour, what name do you put to fill his place? Jan Ullrich , Ivan Basso , Alex Zülle or God forbid Alexandre Vinokourov ? Few riders who succeeded him in the overall standings are themselves blameless. I just checked: in the top five lists of the seven Tours that Lance Armstrong has won, there are four riders who never have run into trouble. That's about twenty percent. And for the old and hunchbacked Fernando Escartin, Quasimodo on the bike, I would not put my hand in the fire: in the list: "riders possibly produced with the help of advanced genetic engineering in a lab” he lists number one. Anyone less normal is impossible to find.
There is an alarming conclusion that has to make you think: Lance Armstrong was during his career the most tested sportsman on earth. Five hundred tests! But none of them was positive according to the rules of your art – only statements of third parties have hung him. Not occasionally paid for declarations, but Passons (“translated as bribes?”), may I ask you: what value are doping controls if a slightly cheeky athlete and his entourage can circumvent them so easily? In "The Secret Race" Tyler Hamilton says that Dr. Michele Ferrari, the genious companion of Lance Armstrong, needed exactly five minutes to find a solution for the epotest: inject the stuff directly into the veins and basta!
A small survey shows that experimental gene doping has found its way into the peloton already some time ago. You also know how top athletes reason: "What works in experiments on rats and mice in laboratories, will undoubtedly also work for us." The search for the smallest competitive advantage never stops, nothing surpasses the illusion of an untraceable panacea. And as the panacea does not work: no problem - there are plenty of alternatives, which means still no possible test. Growth Hormone for example, what is the situation with that? There they are supposed to already have a test for 30 years, but when push comes to shove, it appears that it is not waterproof anyhow.
I know what you will say: "Armstrong is the past, we will turn over a black page, cycling has never been as clean as today." Not even you have to say it because Johan Museeuw - the most successful classics rider of the 90s - has already done it for you. First it was said that he had never used drugs. Then only once, during a weak point in the twilight of his great career. Now he reports that almost all riders of his generation made the error and need to declare a “mea culpa”, so that we can turn, yes, the black page. The history of cycling is becoming a ridiculous page turner, Mr. McQuaid. When Willy Voet on the eve of the '98 Tour was caught with a pharmacy the size of a Swiss hospital in his trunk, it was declared a new beginning. This never again! And then came Ullrich, Rasmussen, Landis, Contador, and Armstrong coming. Checking out of competition, epotest, biological passport - every time the net around the so-called doping sinners is said to be getting tighter, but still the use of banned stimulants remains business as usual. This is known to anyone on the inside.
There is the eternal argument: doping is not fair. It undermines the principle of equal opportunities for all participants. Come on. In a system where the lie reigns, honesty would now be the norm? The peloton is the mecca of unequal opportunities. One rider is like a F1 car tuned by Dr. Ferrari, the other is like a relic from the stone age injected with snake venom by Dr. Mabuse . How fair is it that one can sleep every night in a high altitude pressure tent, and the other does not have the money for a once a year altitude training session? Do you hear someone talk about that? Life is not fair, is to be feared - and a hypocritical distinction between clean and dirty riders will certainly not change that.
If one argument in this debate is going to count, it is the health of the riders. And that's just it. Speak with any doctor claiming sports medicine and he will tell you that a tour without EPO and testosterone is less healthy than one with. At least, if those things are administered in moderation. But there can be no question of his because it is illegal. Consequence: it happens clandestinely. It is white or black, and that is how riders end up in the grey zone outside the law, with second rate instead of skilled and competent doctors.
Think, Mr. McQuaid, about the huge responsibility that your organization carries. You organize events such as the Tour de France, which demands an above ordinary human performance, but the participants are obliged to seek refuge in risky blood infusions in overheated rooms. Elite sport is not a healthy activity anyway, and I don’t have to quote the names of Fabio Casartelli and Wouter Weylandt to make this point. And yet you add still further to this by leaving epo on the list of banned substances, but not the so much more damaging thyroid hormone. Is it not high time that we take the health of the riders as the measure of these things? Hence my proposal: let us now use medical parameters with clear upper and lower limits, as you have done with EPO, and on that basis determine whether riders may ride or not. Whoever violates these limits doesn’t ride, finished. But let’s cease to prosecute offenders, to suspend them, to take away their livelihood and sometimes even to lock them up. No, just no riding until the medical parameters are correct, and then they can go back in the saddle. The theatre of the repressive doping industry has lasted long enough. The holy commandment "Thou shalt win clean" does not make sense anymore. That you may regret, but it's the way it is. Clean does not exist in top sport. Clean is - and all the top guys know this – about not getting caught. Lance Armstrong is clean.
Of course, in this way we will not ban all excesses from the sport. There will always pop up riders like Ricardo Riccò, who for ten years, winter and summer, used EPO syringes regardless of the health risks associated with them. Suicidal types are everywhere. But these are exceptions. What they all do without distinction is to push the limits - they are after all top athletes. In the original Tour de France the brothers Pelissier were already riding with nitroglycerin in their drink bottles. And so it should be at the top: push the limits . But it's your damn duty to conduct the hunt for the ultimate limit in a safe way. Or at least: as safe as possible.
You are an Irishman, Mr. McQuaid, you will not mind that I conclude with a little prayer to the address of your organization. Redeem your sport at last from the hypocritical desire for purity and honesty. Redeem us from the selective indignation of cheaters in the peloton. Redeem riders made from tar and feathers. Do something. Stop the decline and restore credibility. Because what people through all the hassle sometimes tend to forget: cycling is the best sport in the world.
May the road rise with you.
With kind regards,
Jan Antonissen
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
Tinman said:
Tinman: You're my hero (for today). And to think you could have been out riding.
Good point of your translation: We all get to say what Anotnissen and De Humo are saying.
Bad point: McQuaid can read it now too.
It needs a response in "Open Venster." What do you think?
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram