"Change Cycling Now"

[Dr. Maserati]

Bugno is firmly in the "nothing to see here" camp. He's all for omertà. With him on board, this looks less like a serious attempt to make things right and more like a coup.

I know you're not in charge, and I'm also aware this isn't only about anti-doping, but that's how I see it. I'm seriously concerned that movements like this or the MPCC will be hijacked and defused by PR-inclined weasels.

Yes & no.
Bugno's attendance did raise an eyebrow- but ultimately, if there is to be change in cycling then all stakeholders need to be involved.
Firstly- this is just a summit and appears to be more an exchange to tease out solutions - but if (further down the road) any measures were sought without participation from those involved it would be nothing more than a talking shop.

Ultimately - there are enough diverse interests and broad views attending that it cannot be used as merely PR or self interest.

 

[hrotha]

The lack of a defined direction and leader, along with everyone and their brother standing up and imploring something or other is getting a bit odd. I agree, the risk of cycling jumping abroad a runaway PR train is high. I have said it before and will say it again, I wish WADA would step in, and redirect things in an interim and professional way. We can't have 8 sets of groups with 8 sets of rules, each trying to be even more "zero-tolerancer awesomeness" than the next. Won't work.

Agreed on that, and good to see you share some of my concerns.

I'm willing to wait a bit and see what comes out of this, but I figure all the players are aware that there's many people out there just looking to make the most out of this for not so honorable reasons. Be careful out there, will ya.

 

[theyoungest]

PR? Maybe. As in, bad PR. Potentially damaging to my team's possibility of a WT license type PR? Absolutely.

I don't expect the UCI to refuse Garmin a WT license. Wouldn't reflect well on their attempts to deal with the doping problem (if any).

MPCC seems too Francocentric, this Change Cycling Now thing seems too Anglocentric. Then there's the three Dutch teams coming up with their own policy. Why can't you all just get along?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't expect the UCI to refuse Garmin a WT license. Wouldn't reflect well on their attempts to deal with the doping problem (if any).

MPCC seems too Francocentric, this Change Cycling Now thing seems too Anglocentric. Then there's the three Dutch teams coming up with their own policy. Why can't you all just get along?

There have been a lot of legitimate concerns raised here and on twitter.

Overall when listening to Walsh or LeMond or JV etc I was wishing these guys could get around a table and thrash out some common consensus.
This is what the summit appears to be doing.

Then I was thinking who is holding these people to account? What is their objective? Is it PR? An attempt at a break away? Etc
In one sense there is nearly to many interests (and a lot of mistrust) - so I welcome that there is such a broad range of people there.

The very reason for this summit and why there are so many interests is because of a lack of trust and credibility in cycling and in particular the UCI.
Having people like Kimmage, Walsh, Ashenden (& yes, JV) will I believe allay people's concerns.

 

[arjanh]

MPCC seems too Francocentric, this Change Cycling Now thing seems too Anglocentric. Then there's the three Dutch teams coming up with their own policy. Why can't you all just get along?

Why would that be a bad thing? As long as it cleans up cycling, I'm fine with any approach. Plus, the more approaches are tried, the higher the chance that a solid one is found.

 

[BroDeal]

Bugno is firmly in the "nothing to see here" camp. He's all for omertà. With him on board, this looks less like a serious attempt to make things right and more like a coup.

I know you're not in charge, and I'm also aware this isn't only about anti-doping, but that's how I see it. I'm seriously concerned that movements like this or the MPCC will be hijacked and defused by PR-inclined weasels.

Jeebus! Bugno retired fourteen years ago. Yeah, the 1990 Giro was ridiculous, but his experience and a decade plus of reflection might have given him an idea or two about how things could be improved.

Besides, he looks like the fifth Beatle.

 

[thehog]

Jeebus! Bugno retired fourteen years ago. Yeah, the 1990 Giro was ridiculous, but his experience and a decade plus of relfection might have given him an idea or two about how things could be improved.

Besides, he looks like the fifth Beatle.

Bugno hates Lance. He has got my vote right there.

How in gods hell did Pellazotti get selected for bio violation whilst several others did not?

Selective anti-doping is what Bugno is here to stop.

 

[hrotha]

Jeebus! Bugno retired fourteen years ago. Yeah, the 1990 Giro was ridiculous, but his experience and a decade plus of reflection might have given him an idea or two about how things could be improved.

So I take it you haven't been following what he's said on the Armstrong case.

 

[sniper]

I don't expect the UCI to refuse Garmin a WT license. Wouldn't reflect well on their attempts to deal with the doping problem (if any).

don't bother. that's just JV insulting our intelligence again.

 

[sniper]

The very reason for this summit and why there are so many interests is because of a lack of trust and credibility in cycling and in particular the UCI.
Having people like Kimmage, Walsh, Ashenden (& yes, JV) will I believe allay people's concerns.

JV does not exactly show a lack of trust in cycling.
as of 2008 winning GTs clean has been possible.
Sky dominated the 2012 GTs on paniagua.
That's JV's conviction. If true, Pat did a fantastic job. Period.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

JV does not exactly show a lack of trust in cycling.
as of 2008 winning GTs clean has been possible.
Sky dominated the 2012 GTs on paniagua.
That's JV's conviction. If true, Pat did a fantastic job. Period.

One more time - from the article you yourself posted:

Because everyone wonders if their money is being used efficiently and correctly. Right now you have the governing body of the sport, which is promoting the sport worldwide and running its own races, and they do anti-doping. There should be greater funding and greater separation of church and state.

 

[sniper]

One more time - from the article you yourself posted:

I've noticed.
Yet JV's convinced that cycling is clean(er), that a truce was called for in 2008, and that Sky dominated the 2012 GTs on paniagua. If true, JV and you (and Millar) should stop criticizing UCI and start to acknowledge that in fact the UCI under Pat did a fantastic job in managing anti-doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've noticed.
Yet JV's convinced that cycling is clean(er), that a truce was called for in 2008, and that Sky dominated the 2012 GTs on paniagua. If true, JV and you (and Millar) should stop criticizing UCI and start to acknowledge that in fact the UCI under Pat did a fantastic job in managing anti-doping.

I guess I could do what you did and snip the "UCI anti-doping is doing a good job" quote- and then ignore the word "but" straight after where he articulates his concerns.

 

[sniper]

I guess I could do what you did and snip the "UCI anti-doping is doing a good job" quote- and then ignore the word "but" straight after where he articulates his concerns.

what concerns?
a truce was called for in 2008!
Sky dominated the 2012 GTs on paniagua!
again, what concerns?
you, Millar and JV should start congratulating Pat for the fact that cycling has cleaned up considerably under his watch!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

what concerns?
a truce was called for in 2008!
Sky dominated the 2012 GTs on paniagua!
again, what concerns?
you, Millar and JV should start congratulating Pat for the fact that cycling has cleaned up considerably under his watch!

You wish to discuss JV (yet again) then take it to the appropriate thread.

Serious question:
What do you propose as solutions to professional cyclings ongoing problems?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-ins...nathan-vaughters-talks-doping-reform?page=0,6

Yeah it's still something I am trying to reconcile. JB was right though - JV had to be a part of this or his anti-doping message is diluted.

I think the CCN mandate is short-sighted.

Change Cycling Now proclaimed its intent “is holding the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) to account for alleged mis-handling the sport's global image in the wake of the Lance Armstrong doping scandal and LeMond and his new colleagues will discuss proposals that offer a route towards repairing the sport’s globally damaged reputation.

And Bugno is only addressing the group, not joining it, according to CN.

And Lemond's statement:

LeMond said in the group's press release. “There is still an opportunity to ensure cycling presents itself as a genuine world leader in the elimination of doping and drug taking in sport.

Is this more "perception is reality" talk? Goodness. "Presents itself"?

 

[cathulu]

I for one am going to wait and see what happens, and not get my knickers in a knot. If Bruyneel trolls and calls these guys a bunch of ****** Bags then you know they are probably up to some good.

 

[babastooey]

There is a real opportunity for us to suggest what we would like this group to address because Vaughters is reading and posting on this thread.

Here is what I would like the group to address. Not the same old-same old about the guys in charge and how that should change. We know, we know.

The purpose of this group actually needs to be "change cycling now." In other words, clean up the image of the sport, which is completely broken because of the following reality.

Testing doesn't catch all the cheaters, therefore, testing is irrelevant. Hamilton's book covered everything we need to know about how guys beat the tests all the time. USADA proved Lance was beating these tests even after 2008. It is therefore highly likely that guys are still beating the tests today. Testing is irrelevant. Why bother testing? How can we believe that the current pro peloton is actually clean?

All we have to go on is the word of the riders and the teams. Many of these riders and teams are populated by and led by people who have lied to us (i.e. they cheated and broke the rules). Some teams fire the dopers who are caught and suspended, or the ex-dopers who admit to their past lying and cheating who were never punished, while some teams re-hire the liars and cheaters. If someone has lied to us before, how can you prove you are telling the truth to me now (i.e. you are now clean) when the testing doesn't mean a thing? How is keeping ex-cheaters in the sport going to help a sport with a credibility problem, when the word of a cyclist is all I have to go on?

This group needs to address how to repair the sport of cycling's credibility with the fans -- some knowledgeable fans know the infamous names in charge of the UCI, but most don't care who is in charge -- what fans want to know is the following: is the sport I love clean, and how can we prove it?

It would be nice if this group came up with some creative ways to perform this task. That would be moving the sport forward. It is obviously clear that some in leadership are roadblocks, its true, but this campaign should be about more than simply tilting at those windmills.

I look forward to what they produce. I hope it isn't a let-down.

 

[ElChingon]

Wait a minute, Vaughters is going to these meetings during the bans or was he left off any such ban because he's a DS? What a crock if he is going during the supposed bans even if he's out of reach, hopefully someone will stick a bike pump in his wheels, if virtual. USADA slap on the wrist fell even short of that.

Or are these meetings totally out of the organized cycling circle making it even more farcical than having Vaughters there?

Looks more like "Change Cycling Perception" instead of "Change Cycling Now".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is a real opportunity for us to suggest what we would like this group to address because Vaughters is reading and posting on this thread.

Here is what I would like the group to address. Not the same old-same old about the guys in charge and how that should change. We know, we know.

The purpose of this group actually needs to be "change cycling now." In other words, clean up the image of the sport, which is completely broken because of the following reality.

Testing doesn't catch all the cheaters, therefore, testing is irrelevant. Hamilton's book covered everything we need to know about how guys beat the tests all the time. USADA proved Lance was beating these tests even after 2008. It is therefore highly likely that guys are still beating the tests today. Testing is irrelevant. Why bother testing? How can we believe that the current pro peloton is actually clean?

All we have to go on is the word of the riders and the teams. Many of these riders and teams are populated by and led by people who have lied to us (i.e. they cheated and broke the rules). Some teams fire the dopers who are caught and suspended, or the ex-dopers who admit to their past lying and cheating who were never punished, while some teams re-hire the liars and cheaters. If someone has lied to us before, how can you prove you are telling the truth to me now (i.e. you are now clean) when the testing doesn't mean a thing?

This group needs to address how to establish credibility with the fans -- some knowledgeable fans know the infamous names in charge of the UCI, but most don't care -- what fans want to know is the following: is the sport I love clean, and how can we prove it?

It would be nice if this group came up with some creative ways to perform this task. That would be moving the sport forward. It is obviously clear that some in leadership are roadblocks, its true, but this campaign should be about more than simply tilting at those windmills.

I look forward to what they produce. I hope it isn't a let-down.

The reason testing doesn't work as well as it should is because of how it is implemented. Letting people know when they will be OOC tested, not pursuing cases or Passport suspicions etc.

It is that reason that the sport has a credibility problem - not that riders are doping, but because the authorities are complicit by their failure to act.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

JV is right that some coordinated leadership with a defined direction is necessary to force change. It's not going to happen if everyone who wants change keeps pushing in different directions.

Change cycling now has lots of the right ingredients, including an option to support them on their website. Real change is going to involve the UCI ultimately being held accountable by the federations, clubs and club riders that underpin it. They appear to be onto that aspect: "Change Cycling Now is committed to sending a clear message to the UCI, National Federations and cycling in general."

Of course it could get hijacked by people wanting a whitewash, but Kimmage and LeMond are there and can be relied on to call bull**** for what it is.

This actually could work. The possibility of failure appears to be blinding people to the possibility of success! We need to get behind this initiative.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

PR? Maybe. As in, bad PR. Potentially damaging to my team's possibility of a WT license type PR? Absolutely.

You really need to figure out what "PR" is before using the term. I know it's a bit advanced for your level of thinking. Mr. Sniper. But keep trying!

I was asked to attend, and so I will, despite the pitfalls and advice not to attend.... by folks charged with looking after PR.

PR is public relations. Controlling the flow of information from a company to the public. Has nothing at all to do with the UCI or your WT license. You do PR very well - there's very few people who question your maths, alleged blood profile expertise or team management ability.

The responses immediately following your personal attack on a poster reinforce the fallacy of you, yet again, saying some action you are taking is bad PR, or a mistake, or bad for something.

We are yet to see a single blemish on you or your team from any of these alleged mishaps.

I dare you to follow your PR people's advice and not attend. No. Double dare you. If that really was their advice....

 

[BroDeal]

So I take it you haven't been following what he's said on the Armstrong case.

You cannot have a chastity test that everyone has to pass to participate. Otherwise you end up with the sanctimonious idiocy of Team Sky. If the riders trust Bugno to represent them, then that's who you have to deal with.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You cannot have a chastity test that everyone has to pass to participate. Otherwise you end up with the sanctimonious idiocy of Team Sky. If the riders trust Bugno to represent them, then that's who you have to deal with.

Bingo.
But - technically you could attempt to implement some sort of chastity test, but it simply would not work.

I suppose that is why I am very optimistic on what is happening at the moment. There are enough key people there to be cynics and skeptics.

Bugno is the riders elected rep - he is entitled to be there even if he has history - because if you have a robust system and proper accountability then it doesn't matter who runs what.

 

[sniper]

You wish to discuss JV (yet again) then take it to the appropriate thread.

Serious question:
What do you propose as solutions to professional cyclings ongoing problems?

because you don't have an answer, I should take it to a different thread.

we're here discussing CCN. JV just joined the bunch, which means he is very directly criticising the UCI's anti-doping management over the past few years.
Such hard criticism is in full contradiction with JV's claim that cycling has cleaned up considerably over the past few years under Pat's watch and that Sky has dominated 2012 GTs on paniagua.

Yeah it's still something I am trying to reconcile. JB was right though - JV had to be a part of this or his anti-doping message is diluted.

We are yet to see a single blemish on you or your team from any of these alleged mishaps.
I dare you to follow your PR people's advice and not attend. No. Double dare you. If that really was their advice....

on the head.