"Change Cycling Now"

[Tinman]

I think the 2 day get together is a great initiative and the late joiners/presenters will add enormously in generating media coverage with the outcome of the discussions.

What cycling needs most at this point is for the senior stakeholders to sit around the table to identify common needs for the future, create media awareness on those so that the administration leadership gets pressured in that direction. There has been plenty of individualism expressed but it is the weight of the collective that has a much higher chance of success.

Good on you Jamie Fuller, Kimmage, as well as Greg/JV/Bugno for getting involved. You have however now created expectations and visibility on this...

 

[hrotha]

Just because somethings sits well with most of the Clinic that doesn't mean it's good PR with the general public. If you read the Facebook comments on Cyclingnews' site, it's pretty obvious many people don't get what Garmin was always all about. At all.

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.

It's not about a chastity belt. It's not about Armstrong. It's about Bugno's whole career and his attitude towards doping. The Armstrong case was simply his latest opportunity to make his stance clear.

 

[sniper]

Just because somethings sits well with most of the Clinic that doesn't mean it's good PR with the general public. If you read the Facebook comments on Cyclingnews' site, it's pretty obvious many people don't get what Garmin was always all about. At all.

what matters most in terms of PR, I assume, is how the press perceive it.

anyway, I'm all for JV's participation. It'll help throw out McDruggem.
my point is that his participation casts an awkward light on his previous statements wrt clean cycling, truces, marginal gains and Sky. He was/is all over the place claiming how cycling has cleaned up and how Sky dominated the GT season on paniagua and marginal gains. That is a massive achievement, imo, as it would mean cycling is a fair and healthy sport again after decades of heavy PED-abuse and cheating. The change happened under Phat's watch. Why aren't JV and Millar (the two who most explicitly claim it) giving Pat any credit for that?
Rethorical question.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Would have preferred if the group stayed clear of team owners, past/likely dopers and people with blatant commercial interest at this point. These type of guys will divide the fan base and distract from the core message and initiative. Nevertheless the group can perhaps still get traction and its certainly better than doing nothing.

 

[simo1733]

what matters most in terms of PR, I assume, is how the press perceive it.

anyway, I'm all for JV's participation. It'll help throw out McDruggem.
my point is that his participation casts an awkward light on his previous statements wrt clean cycling, truces, marginal gains and Sky. He was/is all over the place claiming how cycling has cleaned up and how Sky dominated the GT season on paniagua and marginal gains. That is a massive achievement, imo, as it would mean cycling is a fair and healthy sport again after decades of heavy PED-abuse and cheating. The change happened under Phat's watch. Why aren't JV and Millar (the two who most explicitly claim it) giving Pat any credit for that?
Rethorical question.

Maybe they want Pat's job for themselves.

 

[JimmyFingers]

what matters most in terms of PR, I assume, is how the press perceive it.

anyway, I'm all for JV's participation. It'll help throw out McDruggem.
my point is that his participation casts an awkward light on his previous statements wrt clean cycling, truces, marginal gains and Sky. He was/is all over the place claiming how cycling has cleaned up and how Sky dominated the GT season on paniagua and marginal gains. That is a massive achievement, imo, as it would mean cycling is a fair and healthy sport again after decades of heavy PED-abuse and cheating. The change happened under Phat's watch. Why aren't JV and Millar (the two who most explicitly claim it) giving Pat any credit for that?
Rethorical question.

I think they are saying it happened in spite of Pat, rather than because of him

 

[sniper]

I think they are saying it happened in spite of Pat, rather than because of him

i think they know it didn't happen.

 

[JimmyFingers]

i think it didn't happen.

This much is clear

 

[sniper]

This much is clear

and you seriously believe such a change could happen without pressure from anti-doping bodies (UCI in the case of cycling)? the peloton suddenly start doing fair play? they haven't done so in several decades, and suddenly, kaboom, clean cycling? Phill Liggett would be proud of that degree of naivety.
It either cleaned up under pressure of anti-doping agencies (UCI), or it didn't clean up. If it cleaned up, credit must go to the responsible anti-doping bodies (UCI).

edit: think of it this way: if Sky won the tour clean, that is evidence that the anti-doping rules work. UCI put those anti-doping rules in place.

 

[hrotha]

That's an extremely simplistic view. Cycling has been "cleaning up", relatively speaking, since the introduction of the hematocrit cap in 1996. Under Hein. Who is, as we all know, very much corrupt.

That cap was introduced because of the riders' pressure. Antidoping measures after Festina were largely forced by the media onslaught.

Saying any progress in antidoping has been made despite the top brass at the UCI is not a stretch. It's pretty obvious.

 

[sniper]

That's an extremely simplistic view. Cycling has been "cleaning up", relatively speaking, since the introduction of the hematocrit cap in 1996. Under Hein. Who is, as we all know, very much corrupt.

That cap was introduced because of the riders' pressure. Antidoping measures after Festina were largely forced by the media onslaught.

JV thinks UCI did a good job. And JV thinks cycling cleaned up. He even said it is clean now, although he backtracked after being criticized for it.
It's his views that are simplistic. And his views are not shared by the founding members of CCN.

Saying any progress in antidoping has been made despite the top brass at the UCI is not a stretch. It's pretty obvious.

Perhaps as obvious as the fact that Sky didn't win the TdF on paniagua.

Again, if they did win it clean, the anti-doping rules that are in place work excellently. UCI put those rules in place. Even if the incentive was media pressure, UCI then deserve credit for it, as they've managed to make cycling one of the cleanest prosports on earth. (just imagine a clean football team winning the CL...not in this lifetime)
If the anti-doping rules don't work, there'll be doping cheats at the top. To think otherwise is Phill Liggett-style naivity.

 

[JimmyFingers]

and you seriously believe such a change could happen without pressure from anti-doping bodies (UCI in the case of cycling)? the peloton suddenly start doing fair play? they haven't done so in several decades, and suddenly, kaboom, clean cycling? Phill Liggett would be proud of that degree of naivety.
It either cleaned up under pressure of anti-doping agencies (UCI), or it didn't clean up. If it cleaned up, credit must go to the responsible anti-doping bodies (UCI).

edit: think of it this way: if Sky won the tour clean, that is evidence that the anti-doping rules work. UCI put those anti-doping rules in place.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, just saying that you make your opinion very clear.

 

[martinvickers]

i think they know it didn't happen.

Does what you said not tie in with an earlier discussion of why Millar was keen to throw Verbruggen under the bus, but was giving Pat an escape hatch, a french passport and papers, and a tunnel map?

There is a narrative building here -" Hein is just rotten - Pat is bad, but not as bad as Hein, and therefore under him things marginally improved, even if he wasn't that helpful himself"?

 

[sniper]

Does what you said not tie in with an earlier discussion of why Millar was keen to throw Verbruggen under the bus, but was giving Pat an escape hatch, a french passport and papers, and a tunnel map?

There is a narrative building here -" Hein is just rotten - Pat is bad, but not as bad as Hein, and therefore under him things marginally improved, even if he wasn't that helpful himself"?

might be millar's narrative. not exactly kimmage's narrative.

JV's narrative? has changed from "clean", "cleaner", through to "don't know" and "can't you figure it out yourself?". backtracking is the word. feeding the press with simple equations ("it's so much cleaner now", "marginal gains"), and backtracking when more critical minds call him out for it.

A clean team dominating the GT season is an achievement so big, it would mean no other major prosport can compete with cycling in terms of cleanliness and fair play. Pat made it happen.

 

[babastooey]

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.

Good point. Therefore, Greg & Co. need to stress that this is the reason why regime change is needed -- but stress that it is needed to make testing better and more relevant -- not the same old, same old, which basically sounds like "Pat is evil and needs to go away."

If I was a part of "Change Cycling Now," I would challenge the current leadership to change the way they do testing, especially out of competition testing. You might be thinking "they've had a billion chances to do this right and they aren't getting it done" but from an image standpoint, we cannot have this look like simply a power struggle, a leadership in charge and a shadow leadership looking to topple them in the next election -- no one tunes out faster than when it is politics.

My point is that they should focus on the issues at hand first. And come up with creative solutions, which by the way, aren't coming from the UCI right now. Give people a reason to follow you and not them, because of the issues, and be positive about where the sport can go in the future.

 

[martinvickers]

A clean team dominating the GT season is an achievement so big, it would mean no other major prosport can compete with cycling in terms of cleanliness and fair play. Pat made it happen.

That's a complete non-sequetor - but while we are on the subject - DO you believe there are prosports out there doing as much about doping as cycling? 'Cos i don't.

Some sports put their fingers in their ears and don't want to hear it - Athletics and swimming

Some sports don't bother too much, because they believe natural skill trumps 'roid-fuelled athleticism, and they don't want to upset the cart - Tennis

Some sports practically REQUIRE doping in order to operate - NFL

Some are so strung out on recreational doping, actual PEDs are unnecessary - NBA

Let's be clear. Cycling is rotten. Rotten rider culture, rotten Management culture, rotten governance structure. Even if it is improving, it's undeniable.

But have you ever considered that you know all this, precisely because whatever few steps cycling has taken, and I rant they are few, it's done more than other sports who have done nothing at all worthwhile?

Case in point. I actually had to explain to an OLYMPIC MEDALLING SWIMMER, one I'm certain is clean BTW, in the last week or two what the idea of a blood passport was. She'd not heard of it. She didn't deny it, or denigrate it. she literally never heard of it, at least in that language. blood tests, yes. Blood passport...?

Now, I'm Irish - I remember the bizarre mating of dolphin and test tube that was Michelle Smith De Bruin. The **** she and Eric (coach/husband/drugged to the eyeballs *******) got away with, simply as a matter of practicality would blow you away. and all this while Festina was blowing up (1998)

I remember the national broadcaster (RTÉ) threatening to sack their only swimming expert (Gray O'Toole? not sure of name it escapes me)because he was doubtful on her performances- and this wa a woman who went from sh1te to shark in about a wet weekend - RTÉ had no 'skin' in the game, they had a broadcasting monopoly and didn't sponsor Smith - it was just perverse national pride!

Flip me, we (ireland) even doped the horses in the olympics!! Two olympics in a row - lost a gold medal over it the first time and went back and did it again and and everything. Doping Horses!! This years showjumping individual bronze, btw, is of whom i speak.

This week the third olympic athlete to lose a medal for doping as sprung up - 3 in one games - all eastern europe I think - and most of us think the men's 1500'm less than convincing.

The NFL is literally killing people with lethal headshots delivered by athletes plumped like turkeys by steroid pumping.

And please, don't, don't get me started on doping culture in weightlifting and wrestling...

 

[martinvickers]

might be millar's narrative. not exactly kimmage's narrative..

that's my point.

David is many, many things. Stupid ain't one of them. If he think's Hein is f***ed, but Pat may be salvagable from a general public perspective? I'd tend to watch to see if that unfolds, if you catch my drift...

 

[sniper]

(snipped for brevity)

good post.
yeah, we've gone through this in other threads. of course it's an intriguing question, whether cycling is indeed a frontrunner in anti-doping matters, as the UCI likes to claim. PEDs? indeed, massive in all pro-sports, not just cycling. But what I think the Armstrong case has shown and which I think is one of the main points of concern is that according to the UCI some athletes are more equal than others. IOW, the case of cycling is a unique case, not because PEDs are involved, but mainly because of the overt corruptness of the governing body and the way certain parties have received favorable treatment over others. And the way whistleblowers have been silenced.

But well, yeah, I would agree that the spectacular nature of the doping cases in cycling clouds the fact that PEDs are just as pervasive in many other topsports, and that indeed cycling has a comparatively rigid testing system.

 

[ElChingon]

How much of what cycling is supposedly doing to improve just headline phrases? Blood passport, and how has it gone? The suspected blood passport offenders are still out racing on technicalities and possibly bribes, then some riders on the list take on self imposed bans for what, their colleagues on the same list are still racing. Riders caught that spill the beans can no longer find a job or a quality job. Riders caught who keep their mouth shut get ProTour rider contracts. Riders involved in one of the greatest conspiracies (not the greatest) get a slap on the wrist. Then the mightiest of offenders still benefit without limits to this day.

If that is doing something for doping then maybe Cycling needs to look at what the other sports are doing for a change? Not saying it will prevent it but at least they'll learn to cover it up properly. I know not the best solution but a solution none the less.

 

[martinvickers]

good post.
yeah, we've gone through this in other threads. of course it's an intriguing question, whether cycling is indeed a frontrunner in anti-doping matters, as the UCI likes to claim. PEDs? indeed, massive in all pro-sports, not just cycling. But what I think the Armstrong case has shown and which I think is one of the main points of concern is that according to the UCI some athletes are more equal than others. IOW, the case of cycling is a unique case, not because PEDs are involved, but mainly because of the overt corruptness of the governing body and the way certain parties have received favorable treatment over others. And the way whistleblowers have been silenced.

But well, yeah, I would agree that the spectacular nature of the doping cases in cycling clouds the fact that PEDs are just as pervasive in many other topsports, and that indeed cycling has a comparatively rigid testing system.

Is the truth this - that cycling has the most advanced doping control avoidance of any sport?

Michelle Smith De Bruin poured whiskey in her pee...
Sean Kelly had a bottle of a driver's urine in his armpit...
Lance Arsmtrong paid thousands of dollars to have his withdrawn blood chilled by a practisng doctor before flying for retransfusion...

 

[D-Queued]

... it's an intriguing question, whether cycling is indeed a frontrunner in anti-doping matters, as the UCI likes to claim. ...

Cycling is indeed a front-runner in anti, anti-doping.

Is the truth this - that cycling has the most advanced doping control avoidance of any sport?

Michelle Smith De Bruin poured whiskey in her pee...
Sean Kelly had a bottle of a driver's urine in his armpit...
Lance Arsmtrong paid thousands of dollars to have his withdrawn blood chilled by a practisng doctor before flying for retransfusion...

That is the part I picked up on.

Michelle and Sean were amateurs. The Lance example a bit esoteric.

That cyclists have the support of dedicated Soigneur's who assist their charges with the utmost of professionalism (plasma thinning saline bags at the ready, personal urine donation, excuses for Actovegin...) along with cycling developed avoidance techniques such as the EPO test neutralizing blue powder are far more dramatic examples of how cycling is the leader in managing dope control.

Dave.

 

[martinvickers]

Cycling is indeed a front-runner in anti, anti-doping.



That is the part I picked up on.

Michelle and Sean were amateurs. The Lance example a bit esoteric.

That cyclists have the support of dedicated Soigneur's who assist their charges with the utmost of professionalism (plasma thinning saline bags at the ready, personal urine donation, excuses for Actovegin...) along with cycling developed avoidance techniques such as the EPO test neutralizing blue powder are far more dramatic examples of how cycling is the leader in managing dope control.

Dave.

Hmmm. I think we are agreeing here. That's gotta be wrong

Cycling anti-anti-doping seems the one area of 'Western' sport where GDR levels of coaching corruption occured. If people recall the farce that was 1970's and 1980's female swimming and female track.

(Seriously, guys, Google the video of Marita Koch, 400m world record - she makes a contador attack look like a robin pi$$ing in the snow!)

As communism crumbled, so did GDR dominance - but by that time, especially in track, USA had caught on and gone further -see Flo-Jo - her 10.5 100m makes Contador look like the poor spanish bugg*er was cycling backwards!)

The only difference was that the west, in track or swimming , especially USA never had that GDR level of overarching organisation. It was instead a series of individual cheats, some caught, some not - until BALCO.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good point. Therefore, Greg & Co. need to stress that this is the reason why regime change is needed -- but stress that it is needed to make testing better and more relevant -- not the same old, same old, which basically sounds like "Pat is evil and needs to go away."

Well, no - not really.
If a group wants to make a stand because of the sports credibility lying and not being transparent is not the way to go.
Pat is not evil - but he did look the other way and is corrupt, so he goes.

If I was a part of "Change Cycling Now," I would challenge the current leadership to change the way they do testing, especially out of competition testing. You might be thinking "they've had a billion chances to do this right and they aren't getting it done" but from an image standpoint, we cannot have this look like simply a power struggle, a leadership in charge and a shadow leadership looking to topple them in the next election -- no one tunes out faster than when it is politics.

My point is that they should focus on the issues at hand first. And come up with creative solutions, which by the way, aren't coming from the UCI right now. Give people a reason to follow you and not them, because of the issues, and be positive about where the sport can go in the future.

From everything I have seen that is exactly what is happening.
Proper, credible, experts from a variety of disciplines are meeting to tackle the big horrible job of sorting out this mess.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's a complete non-sequetor - but while we are on the subject - DO you believe there are prosports out there doing as much about doping as cycling? 'Cos i don't.

Some sports put their fingers in their ears and don't want to hear it - Athletics and swimming

Some sports don't bother too much, because they believe natural skill trumps 'roid-fuelled athleticism, and they don't want to upset the cart - Tennis

Some sports practically REQUIRE doping in order to operate - NFL

Some are so strung out on recreational doping, actual PEDs are unnecessary - NBA

Let's be clear. Cycling is rotten. Rotten rider culture, rotten Management culture, rotten governance structure. Even if it is improving, it's undeniable.

But have you ever considered that you know all this, precisely because whatever few steps cycling has taken, and I rant they are few, it's done more than other sports who have done nothing at all worthwhile?

Case in point. I actually had to explain to an OLYMPIC MEDALLING SWIMMER, one I'm certain is clean BTW, in the last week or two what the idea of a blood passport was. She'd not heard of it. She didn't deny it, or denigrate it. she literally never heard of it, at least in that language. blood tests, yes. Blood passport...?

Now, I'm Irish - I remember the bizarre mating of dolphin and test tube that was Michelle Smith De Bruin. The **** she and Eric (coach/husband/drugged to the eyeballs *******) got away with, simply as a matter of practicality would blow you away. and all this while Festina was blowing up (1998)

I remember the national broadcaster (RTÉ) threatening to sack their only swimming expert (Gray O'Toole? not sure of name it escapes me)because he was doubtful on her performances- and this wa a woman who went from sh1te to shark in about a wet weekend - RTÉ had no 'skin' in the game, they had a broadcasting monopoly and didn't sponsor Smith - it was just perverse national pride!

Flip me, we (ireland) even doped the horses in the olympics!! Two olympics in a row - lost a gold medal over it the first time and went back and did it again and and everything. Doping Horses!! This years showjumping individual bronze, btw, is of whom i speak.

This week the third olympic athlete to lose a medal for doping as sprung up - 3 in one games - all eastern europe I think - and most of us think the men's 1500'm less than convincing.

The NFL is literally killing people with lethal headshots delivered by athletes plumped like turkeys by steroid pumping.

And please, don't, don't get me started on doping culture in weightlifting and wrestling...

Sorry, but that's completely wrong.

The ONLY reason cycling made any steps in the first incidence is because Willy Voet was caught driving a car full of gear across a border.
The audacity and volume of what he was doing was what made it such a massive event.

That was the moment for the UCI to take charge and implement tighter restrictions on the sport - not only did they not do that, they prostituted themselves while telling everyone the sport was getting cleaner.

That is the reason cycling is in this mess and thats the reason CCN was set up.

 

[martinvickers]

Sorry, but that's completely wrong.

The ONLY reason cycling made any steps in the first incidence is because Willy Voet was caught driving a car full of gear across a border.
The audacity and volume of what he was doing was what made it such a massive event.

Actually, I don't think it is wrong.

You are saying that UCI ONLY did A, B and C because of the Festina bust, not from the slightest altrusitic motive....

And I completely agree with you.

But nowhere in my post did I say WHY cycling has a larger range of controls than other sports. I never suggested it was for ethically sound reasons, or was anything other than desperate UCI/ASO manoeuvering. It clearly isn't - it was desperation to save their asses that made them move the little they have.

But the MOTIVE is irrelevant to my point.

What you are saying appears to amount to "whatever little they did, they did for selfish pathetic reasons, and so shouldn't count" -and it's the last four words that don't make sense.

Even if UCI controls rate only 2/10, and even that 2 is a furious backtracking attempt to deflect blame - it STILL means more controls than the 1/10 Tennis and 0/10 NFL, Football

Even the pathetic 2/10 has popped a 'relatively' large number of people - see dopeology. In my view, the blood passport might have got us as high as 3.25/10. which is still pretty pathetic i grant you.

what Armstrong proved was that with enough money, bribery, threats and technical and medical sofistication, you could safely ride right around controls - no one can sanely argue otherwise.

But that doesn't detract from the fact that cycling is, bizarrely a it seems, almost at the cutting edge of doping control - unfortunately it is THE cutting edge of anti-anti-doping control.

How many years have the East Africans dominated distance running, and everyone just said 'oh, altitude' - never thinking once, in which case, where are the flipping bolivians and mexicans?

How much work do you think IAAF puts into doping control in Jamaica, or Russia and Belarus?

How soft must dope testing be in Tennis when Federer and Murray are actually complaining they aren't tested enough! )p.s I believe federer on this, not so sure its not pure Murray pr)

Drug controls in cycling are absolute pants.

Drug controls in other major sports are, unbelievably, worse. that's all.