• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Ashenden & Cycling Australian president on Cycling Central (Aus. TV)

Jun 3, 2009
287
0
0
Visit site
A very interesting and wide ranging panel discussion on doping etc. with Ashenden & Cycling Australian president.

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/2294497565/Cycling-Central-doping-discussion
(much more complete than shown on TV)

This was posted in the lance thread but I think it deserves a thread of it's own as it is much more than that and will get lost there.

A few things I thought were interesting:
• Ashenden said that the plasticiser test has a window of detection of only a couple of hours.
• Vaughters apparently recommended/supported the Matt White being employed by Cycling Australia.
• Matt White was not asked before being employed by Cycling Australia if he had every used PEDs (which when he admitted it resulted in his job loss).
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
Visit site
barn yard said:
mueller needs to be sacked, he is not capable of answering the most basic of questions without spin spin spin

Couldn't agree more about that.

He passes the buck to ASADA in just about every answer.

I came to the conclusion after the bit I watched on tv that while the likes of people like Mueller run the invdividual country federations, we stand no chance of seeing Pat and Hein ousted from their posts.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
blaxland said:
What a joke?He never answered anything honestly,just lots of BS.He needs to start the hunt now(Dodger and Davis should go)
Klaus Muller is a joke.

blaxland. There does NOT NEED TO BE A HUNT.

until the newbies and rubes get something thru their thick heads, the riders at the pointy end, GC, sprint, grimpeur, chrono, classics, they are all on it.

You want the witch hunt, you go to a totalitarian state, or be a guard in Siberia. The riders, the individuals, are not the problem. I dont have a solution, bar a starting point.

Starting point is to disabuse the IGNORANCE.
 
Jun 3, 2009
287
0
0
Visit site
blackcat said:
Klaus Muller is a joke.

blaxland. There does NOT NEED TO BE A HUNT.

until the newbies and rubes get something thru their thick heads, the riders at the pointy end, GC, sprint, grimpeur, chrono, classics, they are all on it.

You want the witch hunt, you go to a totalitarian state, or be a guard in Siberia. The riders, the individuals, are not the problem. I dont have a solution, bar a starting point.

Starting point is to disabuse the IGNORANCE.

Ashenden said in this interview that he also started out wanting to hunt the individual riders but now thinks the focus should be on the governance of cycling (which is what Mueller is a big part of in Australia).
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
a part of the problem, is fans, are fans, like DimSpace/SkyCyclingFan and AusCyclingFan94, who come to the sport with a POV their man must be morally upright, and he cannot possibly dope.

Their definition of morally upright.

In terms of integrity and rigour, how can Dim/SkyCyclingFans, do his research on Armstrong and the jaccuse, whilst maintaing a defense on Sky. "Im shtum on Brailsford, we toooo ethical here."

They are actually enablers. Like the Livestrong cancer identifiers, I call them identitees, they have this bad faith, that Livestrong and cancer is all about them.

Cancer and cycling is mutually exclusive.

The position that the individual rider is unethical or amoral to dope, is a flawed position, and not contributing to a better environment for professional athletes.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
Visit site
I love it how Mueller sugggests a respected university should do a study on doping in pro-cycling.

Um.. Klaus... buddy... remember that New Pathways for Pro Cycling conference that you tried to have stopped - remember it produced a report "I wish I was 21 now" which did exactly as you now suggest?

http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/21-NOW-FINAL-.pdf

You tried to pretend it didn't exist before - why would we expect you to act on it now?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
well done Hog
well done Runitout
well done blackcat

blackcat has it right like runitout



Runitout said:
I love it how Mueller sugggests a respected university should do a study on doping in pro-cycling.

Um.. Klaus... buddy... remember that New Pathways for Pro Cycling conference that you tried to have stopped - remember it produced a report "I wish I was 21 now" which did exactly as you now suggest?

http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/21-NOW-FINAL-.pdf

You tried to pretend it didn't exist before - why would we expect you to act on it now?


blackcat said:
Klaus Muller is a joke.

blaxland. There does NOT NEED TO BE A HUNT.

until the newbies and rubes get something thru their thick heads, the riders at the pointy end, GC, sprint, grimpeur, chrono, classics, they are all on it.

You want the witch hunt, you go to a totalitarian state, or be a guard in Siberia. The riders, the individuals, are not the problem. I dont have a solution, bar a starting point.

Starting point is to disabuse the IGNORANCE.

blackcat said:
note: Mueller was vociferous in contesting the Doping and PEDs in cycling Convention that Martin Hardie put on at Geelong Worlds in 2010.

new pathways for pro cycling

http://www.newcyclingpathway.com
http://www.twitter.com/auskadi

blackcat said:
a part of the problem, is fans, are fans, like DimSpace/SkyCyclingFan and AusCyclingFan94, who come to the sport with a POV their man must be morally upright, and he cannot possibly dope.

Their definition of morally upright.

In terms of integrity and rigour, how can Dim/SkyCyclingFans, do his research on Armstrong and the jaccuse, whilst maintaing a defense on Sky. "Im shtum on Brailsford, we toooo ethical here."

They are actually enablers. Like the Livestrong cancer identifiers, I call them identitees, they have this bad faith, that Livestrong and cancer is all about them.

Cancer and cycling is mutually exclusive.

The position that the individual rider is unethical or amoral to dope, is a flawed position, and not contributing to a better environment for professional athletes.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
problem is, they project their presupposed "morality" and see their "hero" as a mirror of themselves

ergo: criticising their rider, is a personal criticism.

when it is anything but. Hence you have irrationality from the hordes of Armstrong and Livestrong individals
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Ferminal said:
I agree bcat, trying to put people on a pedestal as though they morally superior, on a higher level of existence - I don't like it.

They are normal people like all of us, faced with the same choices, make the same decisions.

Agreed.

Other normal people have previously made the wrong decisions, and now hold themselves up as better than anyone else because they made those decisions and are now claiming to have turned over a new leaf. Like JV and Millar.

Or are you saying something different?
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Agreed.

Other normal people have previously made the wrong decisions, and now hold themselves up as better than anyone else because they made those decisions and are now claiming to have turned over a new leaf. Like JV and Millar.

Or are you saying something different?

Not exactly saying that, but I guess it cuts both ways.
 
Apr 16, 2009
394
0
0
Visit site
Not Riding Enough said:
A very interesting and wide ranging panel discussion on doping etc. with Ashenden & Cycling Australian president.

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/2294497565/Cycling-Central-doping-discussion
(much more complete than shown on TV)

This was posted in the lance thread but I think it deserves a thread of it's own as it is much more than that and will get lost there.

A few things I thought were interesting:
• Ashenden said that the plasticiser test has a window of detection of only a couple of hours.
• Vaughters apparently recommended/supported the Matt White being employed by Cycling Australia.
• Matt White was not asked before being employed by Cycling Australia if he had every used PEDs (which when he admitted it resulted in his job loss).

Perhaps the most telling comment from Ashenden was him saying that the riders know what the drug testers are doing and know how to beat the tests. So the biological passport is a big fail.
 
blackcat said:
Klaus Muller is a joke.

blaxland. There does NOT NEED TO BE A HUNT.

until the newbies and rubes get something thru their thick heads, the riders at the pointy end, GC, sprint, grimpeur, chrono, classics, they are all on it.

You want the witch hunt, you go to a totalitarian state, or be a guard in Siberia. The riders, the individuals, are not the problem. I dont have a solution, bar a starting point.

Starting point is to disabuse the IGNORANCE.

Ok then.But if Cycling Australia doesnt go after the riders,managers and CA board,then this will amount to nothing.
 
Riders are human, some humans tend to try and circumvent the rules, there will always be riders doping, especially given the money involved. Some will get caught, some wont.


Not sure what the answer is other than more testing and to try and stay ahead of the game.

Ashenden, said Armstrong did not test positive!

Hugh
 
Jan 15, 2011
52
0
0
Visit site
Mike Turtur – will an “absolute coup” turn into “quite a mess”?

Unsure if this is the right place for this but ... My take on the challenges facing TDU Director & UCI Committee member Mike Turtur here


"By early October the UCI had backflipped and agreed to allow Armstrong to race in Adelaide. Rann was “thrilled” and congratulated UCI President Pat McQuade on making a “great decision.”

In a statement the UCI said at the time:

This decision has been made after a careful assessment of the situation, taking into account both the applicable regulations and the imperatives of the fight against doping, which is the UCI’s number one priority.

Five weeks later Mike Turtur was elected President of the Oceania Cycling Confederation, an organisation without a website, and according to some at least, an organisation in decay and without a purpose or future. Notwithstanding the merits or otherise of the regional Confederation, election to that position automatically gained Turtur a seat on the UCI’s powerful Management Committee, on which he sat for the first time soon after the running of the 2009 Tour Down Under.

Since late 2008 Mike Turtur has arguably been the most powerful man in Australian cycling and his seat at the table of the body responsible for the world-wide administration of cycling makes him one of the most powerful in world cycling."
...
Since 2010 – and as recently as last week – The Northern Myth has sought a response from Turtur to a number of questions that go to his knowledge of past practices in Australian and international professional cycling.

To date Turtur has failed to provide a response.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
hughmoore said:
Riders are human, some humans tend to try and circumvent the rules, there will always be riders doping, especially given the money involved. Some will get caught, some wont.


Not sure what the answer is other than more testing and to try and stay ahead of the game.

Ashenden, said Armstrong did not test positive!

Hugh

I agree, only I would flesh it out fully:

Riders, team managers, team owners, ABP panel members, UCI managers, race owners, race directors, doping control chaperones and national federation board members, etc, are all human. Some humans tend to try and circumvent the rules. There will always be doping, and people who enable that to go undetected, epsecially given the money or other kickbacks involved. Some will get caught, some won't.

Let's all work together to remove the need or rewards of doping :D
 
Shortleg said:
Unsure if this is the right place for this but ... My take on the challenges facing TDU Director & UCI Committee member Mike Turtur here


"By early October the UCI had backflipped and agreed to allow Armstrong to race in Adelaide. Rann was “thrilled” and congratulated UCI President Pat McQuade on making a “great decision.”

In a statement the UCI said at the time:

This decision has been made after a careful assessment of the situation, taking into account both the applicable regulations and the imperatives of the fight against doping, which is the UCI’s number one priority.

Five weeks later Mike Turtur was elected President of the Oceania Cycling Confederation, an organisation without a website, and according to some at least, an organisation in decay and without a purpose or future. Notwithstanding the merits or otherise of the regional Confederation, election to that position automatically gained Turtur a seat on the UCI’s powerful Management Committee, on which he sat for the first time soon after the running of the 2009 Tour Down Under.

Since late 2008 Mike Turtur has arguably been the most powerful man in Australian cycling and his seat at the table of the body responsible for the world-wide administration of cycling makes him one of the most powerful in world cycling."
...
Since 2010 – and as recently as last week – The Northern Myth has sought a response from Turtur to a number of questions that go to his knowledge of past practices in Australian and international professional cycling.

To date Turtur has failed to provide a response.

Thanks Bob... Keep up the good fight.

I'm waiting for something to happen with Turtur but he seems to be trying to ride it out - a few more voices asking the hard questions would help. His UCI position is probably untouchable, only way he loses that is through a major shakeup of the entire organisation.

Would be interesting to see if SA Tourism go in to bat for him.
 
Sep 6, 2012
65
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
I agree, only I would flesh it out fully:

Riders, team managers, team owners, ABP panel members, UCI managers, race owners, race directors, doping control chaperones and national federation board members, etc, are all human. Some humans tend to try and circumvent the rules. There will always be doping, and people who enable that to go undetected, epsecially given the money or other kickbacks involved. Some will get caught, some won't.

Let's all work together to remove the need or rewards of doping :D

In order to achieve that I think the sport needs a redesign such that the returns of the sport (financial and personal achievement) are not in complete opposition to ethical behaviour as they presently seem to be.
I can name plenty of practical ways this might be tried but I think they're relatively pointless unless everyone agrees on the principle.
I had any pull in the sport I'd be lobbying hard for a rider representative body, owner/employer representative body and the peak administrative body to agree to just that simple principle before moving forward.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Agreed.

Other normal people have previously made the wrong decisions, and now hold themselves up as better than anyone else because they made those decisions and are now claiming to have turned over a new leaf. Like JV and Millar.

Or are you saying something different?

I would contend that JV and Millar are different in their approaches. While Millar certainly is finger-waggy and his attacks have a strong overtone of self-righteousness, Vaughters seems much more pragmatic. Even his criticism of Brailsford to me was more of a critique than a self-endorsement. I suppose it helps that I agree with what he said, that demanding black-and-white truth will encourage that truth to be hidden. But I have found Vaughters to be very careful in his communication, and not as condescending as one might expect, if the person in question appointed themselves as 'white knight' of the anti-doping crusade. Maybe it's a calculated good-cop-bad-cop thing between hiim and Millar, but I tend to give Vaughters a bit more slack on his approach and communication.

Either way, they're both better than Mueller, what an idiot.