• 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)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 15, 2011
52
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
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.

Problem is I get no answers to my hard questions.

Same silence as from SA Govt & SA Tourism - though they have said "Bob, I can advise you that the SATC has no current relationship with Lance Armstrong and his related organisations, nor any planned for the future."

I think that he will have to respond (hopefully to journos who know how to frame a question like Sam Lane or Rupert) following the UCI decision due soon ... I'm sure they'll be on his case.
 
Jul 16, 2012
201
0
0
Visit site
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.
This issue really needs a thread of its own - the Mike Turtur thread. You have posed many questions that do need answering.

What I found revealing in the SBS interview was how ill equipped to deal with forensic questioning Klaus appeared. At one point he backed right away and said words to the effect that his position was only "honorary" -

I think that was the word he used. If that is the case who is doing the work/responsible in CA - and did that have anything to do with Hodges resignation?

I said this somewhere else - but the media and Green Edge and I think CA had all reported at one time or other that ASADA had stated that White had no case to answer, had been cleared, or, ASADA has no issue with White being employed. It was reported that ASADA had sent a please explain regarding this to CA - but nothing more has been heard.

Really the only thing that we have heard from ASADA is, that at one point, their investigation was stymied by USADA's investigation, but now apparently - thunderbirds are go - but on the other hand we have heard that ASADA have no real power to compel statements from officials or cyclists. Can anyone add to this?
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
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

It's actually not that hard. If UCI really wanted to nip doping in the **** they can do it easily and quickly. Give the responsibility fully to WADA and the national anti doping agencies, put some decent budget in there, increase testing frequency say 5 fold (to start with), change some of the blood passport arbitration standards (eg onus on rider to explain a positive as false, not on regulator to prove the positive, and 3 strikes out), and do retrospective samples. Secure the sampling logistics to ensure a full arms length chain from sampling until announcement and ensure sample blinding is as secure as can be with as few unblinded (those who have the athlete code/sample number key) staff as possible. I'm sure there are other ideas that can be applied easily and quickly. Up to UCI to hand over to Wada to implement.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Visit site
Tinman said:
It's actually not that hard. If UCI really wanted to nip doping in the **** they can do it easily and quickly. Give the responsibility fully to WADA and the national anti doping agencies, put some decent budget in there, increase testing frequency say 5 fold (to start with), change some of the blood passport arbitration standards (eg onus on rider to explain a positive as false, not on regulator to prove the positive, and 3 strikes out), and do retrospective samples. Secure the sampling logistics to ensure a full arms length chain from sampling until announcement and ensure sample blinding is as secure as can be with as few unblinded (those who have the athlete code/sample number key) staff as possible. I'm sure there are other ideas that can be applied easily and quickly. Up to UCI to hand over to Wada to implement.
Couldn't agree more

I don't trust the UCI to handle this or hand it over due to what might come out to hurt them
 
Jul 16, 2012
201
0
0
Visit site
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...ng-scandal-20121019-27xa2.html?skin=text-only

I think its also important to keep in mind the role of the ASC - it has a new chief - and they appear to want value for money.

The waffley statement that Mueller made about finding a university ethics department to advise them what to do didn't really cut the mustard. I am sure a quick call to WADA would give them all the well researched ethical guidelines regarding athletes and doping that they need. This is an issue that needs action now not in 12 months when a paper is released by a university they haven approached yet!

None of that was very confidence inspiring i must say.
 
Jan 15, 2011
52
0
0
Visit site
Turtur thread, Klaus at the Bar

sairyder said:
This issue really needs a thread of its own - the Mike Turtur thread. You have posed many questions that do need answering.

What I found revealing in the SBS interview was how ill equipped to deal with forensic questioning Klaus appeared. At one point he backed right away and said words to the effect that his position was only "honorary"

I think a Turtur thread may be useful in the coming days.

I too was surprised how awkward Klaus seemed under questioning - though usually it is he asking the questions - this is from his website at the Victorian Bar: "Klaus now practices mainly in personal injuries and appears regularly on circuit at Ballarat. He has appeared at trial and on appeal in a number of lengthy and complicated Personal Injuries, Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment cases. He also practices in White collar Crime, Occupational Health and Safety and Coronial inquests. He has appeared for environmentalists, including the successful defence of Bob Brown and documentary film maker, Peter Vaughan.

Klaus also regularly appears at mediations in a broad range of areas including torts, personal injury and commercial matters.

Klaus is President of Cycling Australia. He has frequently chaired Disciplinary Tribunals, Selection Appeals and other inquiries.
 
Jul 16, 2012
201
0
0
Visit site
Shortleg said:
I think a Turtur thread may be useful in the coming days.

I too was surprised how awkward Klaus seemed under questioning - though usually it is he asking the questions - this is from his website at the Victorian Bar: "Klaus now practices mainly in personal injuries and appears regularly on circuit at Ballarat. He has appeared at trial and on appeal in a number of lengthy and complicated Personal Injuries, Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment cases. He also practices in White collar Crime, Occupational Health and Safety and Coronial inquests. He has appeared for environmentalists, including the successful defence of Bob Brown and documentary film maker, Peter Vaughan.

Klaus also regularly appears at mediations in a broad range of areas including torts, personal injury and commercial matters.

Klaus is President of Cycling Australia. He has frequently chaired Disciplinary Tribunals, Selection Appeals and other inquiries.
Thats really interesting and does suggest he SHOULD be comfortable under pressure and he clearly wasn't.

Is it possible that there are some basically good people in cycling (like Klaus) who always trusted and believed the best in those around them, and the processes, and are now facing the dark underbelly of cycling and realise a lot of people, (like Hodge), that he has worked alongside, have abused that trust. It must be pretty devastating.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
sairyder said:
Thats really interesting and does suggest he SHOULD be comfortable under pressure and he clearly wasn't.

Is it possible that there are some basically good people in cycling (like Klaus) who always trusted and believed the best in those around them, and the processes, and are now facing the dark underbelly of cycling and realise a lot of people, (like Hodge), that he has worked alongside, have abused that trust. It must be pretty devastating.

He's a lawyer. Basically good? I think your logic broke there for me ;)

Klaus might be clueless about the history of the riders in positions around him, coz he was never really in cycling per se - his kid did a bit. But he's not clueless. He's not an idiot.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
Visit site
Shortleg said:
I think a Turtur thread may be useful in the coming days.

I too was surprised how awkward Klaus seemed under questioning - though usually it is he asking the questions - this is from his website at the Victorian Bar: "Klaus now practices mainly in personal injuries and appears regularly on circuit at Ballarat. He has appeared at trial and on appeal in a number of lengthy and complicated Personal Injuries, Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment cases. He also practices in White collar Crime, Occupational Health and Safety and Coronial inquests. He has appeared for environmentalists, including the successful defence of Bob Brown and documentary film maker, Peter Vaughan.

Klaus also regularly appears at mediations in a broad range of areas including torts, personal injury and commercial matters.

Klaus is President of Cycling Australia. He has frequently chaired Disciplinary Tribunals, Selection Appeals and other inquiries.

1. There already is a Turtur thread, if I recall correctly.
2. He may be a barrister. He may not be a good one. (???) Sounds like he has a small 'common law' (ie, personal injury and tort) practice outside the main courts - which are in Melbourne, not Ballarat. But common lawyers generally do a bit of jury work, so who knows - he may be a regular Garfield Barwick, who just likes the fees you can charge on circuit. Certainly, he should not give up his day job based on his recent appearances on national television.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
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.

I've been thinking exactly this the past week that it is indeed fortunate for Dimspace that he no longer posts here. He'd be ripped to shreds and I for one would have fun watching it happen. For someone to go to such lengths in studying Armstrong and his sinister undertakings, drawing huge pools of data together to come up with (from my count) two detailed and complex diagrams, one of which was subtly referenced by McQuaid (Lance's 216 tests Dim could accurately recognise as probably happening) and recognise the signs but not extend that line of thinking to their compatriots is what I cannot fathom.

I don't have anything against these guys personally, but Blackcat is right. They are enablers. People who KNOW HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED and refuse for whatever reason (obstinate, pig headed, pride, misplaced faith, some neurological disorder, take your pick) to extend their reasoning that is sound for one person to another and thus by extension question the entire peloton. It is crystal clear Blackcat's logic holds up. You do not need a witch hunt as most of the top players have either doped or are still doping. It is simply how the sport is. And Blackcat's last paragraph is essentially what JV was talking about in regard to Brailsford and Sky's knee jerk reaction to doping with their 'signed statement.' It forces people to lie and allows Sky to cast you adrift is something goes wrong DESPITE the team already knowing you are doping.

Want to stop the BS? Stop enabling the peloton to use your good faith against you. If the majority of fans assumed everyone had some dodgy history, then questions would be asked. These guys aren't good liars. They can't string a con on without your willing acceptance. Take Anthony Tan and Mike Tomolaris as examples. Those muppets at SBS BLOCKED my comments on their articles that said Armstrong doped because it did not fit with their perception of cycling at the time. I was spot on though. What is their stance now? It's a case of the blind leading the blind. What is it about yourself those people who support Wiggins and Sky or any other team that is clearly doping that allows you to be taken for a suckers ride? Seriously...you're not a groupie and trading in body fluids and you're not a paid for lackey, so what defect has positioned itself in your mind that allows you to whittle away through life in ignorance? When the whole truth comes out, will you act hurt because you believed like all those Armstrong fans? Or will you be 20 moves ahead like most in the Clinic have been and already come to terms with what he did years prior? You are setting yourselves up for a lot of emotional distress.

I think this will get more obvious among the population as a whole. We will see lines drawn in the sand on how far people will believe in riders and other sports stars. We see it all the time (Chinese girl swimmer at the Olympics but not on Phelps or Lochte or those yank girl swimmers with HGH jaws) that people will cut excessive slack to certain groups. People who can be pooled together. Oh they're nice blokes, or they're my countrymen/women, or I like the way they ride. So sure, we question Armstrong NOW, after the hard work has been done by a few brave souls, but how far do you question before it is laid out on a plate for you? I mean really question and see the world for what it is, rather than what some con merchant tells you or before the morons in the media get a hold of it and find their nads? Or is the timing too inconvenient right now? Do you have to be led like a sheep? As I said, be great full people like me aren't born malevolent narcissistic lying sociopath power freaks with an Oedipus complex, I'd take you for everything you have quite easily.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
I've been thinking exactly this the past week that it is indeed fortunate for Dimspace that he no longer posts here. He'd be ripped to shreds and I for one would have fun watching it happen.

..., but how far do you question? I mean really question? As I said, be great full people like me aren't born malevolent narcissistic lying sociopath power freaks with an Oedipus complex, I'd take you for everything you have quite easily.

You express yourself as one tough SoaB. Not sure if you really are in daily life, if you were I pity the folk around you. Thank heavens not everyone has your constitution. Meanwhile maybe respect others for how they are?

Not sure what you have contributed to cycling (or beyond in the broader world for that matter) but I for one hugely respect Dim's (and others here, whether major or minor) contribution to cycling and anti-doping.

This is not about fan gullibility, it's about leadership in cycling administration. Let's keep the debate focused on where it belongs?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
People who KNOW HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED and refuse for whatever reason (obstinate, pig headed, pride, misplaced faith, some neurological disorder, take your pick)

jingoism or jism.

perhaps jingoism and jism

yep. jingoism and jism
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Tinman said:
It's actually not that hard. If UCI really wanted to nip doping in the **** they can do it easily and quickly. Give the responsibility fully to WADA and the national anti doping agencies, put some decent budget in there, increase testing frequency say 5 fold (to start with), change some of the blood passport arbitration standards (eg onus on rider to explain a positive as false, not on regulator to prove the positive, and 3 strikes out), and do retrospective samples. Secure the sampling logistics to ensure a full arms length chain from sampling until announcement and ensure sample blinding is as secure as can be with as few unblinded (those who have the athlete code/sample number key) staff as possible. I'm sure there are other ideas that can be applied easily and quickly. Up to UCI to hand over to Wada to implement.
they cant prevent doping. When there is more money in the doping science than resources to prevent doping, the athletes will always exploit the opportunity.

pro sport, and any elite sport, is predicated on winning, not competition, not ideals, not spectacle.

Only has an emphasis on entertainment, insofar as it can be monetized and exploited as a business.

The doping genie is out of the bottle at any Olympic level competition, with the noun "competition" firmly tongue in cheek
 
Not Riding Enough said:
AA few things I thought were interesting:
• Ashenden said that the plasticiser test has a window of detection of only a couple of hours.

That's nice of Media Mike to tip all the dopers off the the limitations of the test. They know exactly where the stand now.

biker jk said:
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.

So why are you helping them, Ashenden, you clot?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
He's a lawyer. Basically good? I think your logic broke there for me ;)

Klaus might be clueless about the history of the riders in positions around him, coz he was never really in cycling per se - his kid did a bit. But he's not clueless. He's not an idiot.

will the academy take submissions for performances in a news media event, because he did the best acting of a yokel I could imagine. Oscar for mine.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Parker said:
That's nice of Media Mike to tip all the dopers off the the limitations of the test. They know exactly where the stand now.



So why are you helping them, Ashenden, you clot?
they dont need any help.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
blackcat said:
will the academy take submissions for performances in a news media event, because he did the best acting of a yokel I could imagine. Oscar for mine.

If you ever met the man, I think the word you'd use to describe him - just because of his presence, was cunning.

Show me a lawyer who is easily duped and I'll show you 100 who just tricked a courtroom full of people.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
If you ever met the man, I think the word you'd use to describe him - just because of his presence, was cunning.

Show me a lawyer who is easily duped and I'll show you 100 who just tricked a courtroom full of people.
I'm sick of the soundbite defense of "proven liar, Floyd Landis".

Ofcourse Landis lied. If 95% of the peloton are dopers, they are also "proven liars". OK, not many solicit donations to a legal defense fairness fund.

But if Mueller had integrity, he would assess the evidence of what Landis presented, instead of listening to Armstrong's smear and assuming because Lance and his PR team calls him a proven liar, then his evidence has no merit. Ofcourse it has merit, and everyday he practices his profession, a court assesses the evidence on its merits. Landis as a person can be slanted for his actions and choices. Sure. You can smear the person. But that reflects bad on the smearer. Unless you have a masters in scatology painting, it aint a profession I would undetake, unless I were Wim Delvoye.

Mueller put himself in a poor light. He chose to assess others as credible. Like Armstrong. Cos Armstrong was not a proven liar. Who is looking like an idiot now?
 
You gotta love Lawyers.

- We didn't ask Matt White about drugs cos that would be an invasion of privacy, civil liberties etc etc, no way can you ask a question like that.

- Well actually, maybe we should get a University to tell us whether we can ask a question like that?

- When we found out that Matt White used drugs we sacked him, cos we can't have an employee who used drugs 15 years ago... not a chance.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
sairyder said:
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...ng-scandal-20121019-27xa2.html?skin=text-only

I think its also important to keep in mind the role of the ASC - it has a new chief - and they appear to want value for money.

The waffley statement that Mueller made about finding a university ethics department to advise them what to do didn't really cut the mustard. I am sure a quick call to WADA would give them all the well researched ethical guidelines regarding athletes and doping that they need. This is an issue that needs action now not in 12 months when a paper is released by a university they haven approached yet!

None of that was very confidence inspiring i must say.
But Deakin Uni did produce a paper