"Change Cycling Now"

[Grandillusion]

What's the controversy WRT Bugno,the video cassettes in his briefcase which rattle when shaken? Bugno and McQuaid have openly warred in recent years. I would hardly call him a supporter of the current regime. Fact is Ashenden needs Bugno to sell his cure-doping-in-seven-months bot of magic to the peloton. What a pity he's alienated a large part of it by implying Cuddles and Wiggo are dopes and Fuller has alienated much of the rest with his comments about them being too scared to come to the meet-and-greet in London.

I've no idea what you mean about rattling video cassettes in briefcases.

However, Bugno a month ago (post- Reasoned Decision) was making public statements in support of Lance Armstrong's "greatness", and bigging-up the Biological Passport as a great UCI success story.

Whatever spats he may have had with McQuaid I bet will have had more to do with their own ego and turf-war concerns than any genuine concern for the well-being of the sport. I would be grateful for any links to reliable information on their disputes if you have any. Thanks in advance.

Ashenden may be optimistic in any hopes relying on Bugno. Going by his (Bugno's) waffling and vacuous statements today I wouldn't be holding out for much from "The Fifth Beatle"

And Fuller was being diplomatic IMO. Alienating? They need a good kick up the ****. What the hell has Wiggins got to be scared of? Pat McQuaid? Pfff.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I've no idea what you mean about rattling video cassettes in briefcases.

Oh dear

Bugno a month ago (post- Reasoned Decision) was making public statements in support of Lance Armstrong's "greatness", and bigging-up the Biological Passport as a great UCI success story.

Doper defends doper? Gosh, how original! As for defending passport, is shield behind which CPA members hide, remember?

Whatever spats he may have had with McQuaid I bet will have had more to do with their own ego and turf-war concerns than any genuine concern for the well-being of the sport.

Ego and turf war could be used to criticise CCN members too ...

 

[Grandillusion]

Oh dear



Doper defends doper? Gosh, how original! As for defending passport, is shield behind which CPA members hide, remember?



Ego and turf war could be used to criticise CCN members too ...

Er, so Gianni is even worse than I suspected?! So what's not controversial about that? What point are you trying to make exactly?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ashenden has promised to fix it within seven months.

Promised?
Now I see why your comments here and on twitter are incorrect.

Ashenden:
"Independent testing on its own is not sufficient. We want to put into place a system for next year's Tours that guarantees that the winners have not blood doped. It will restore public confidence in the riders and the race's outcome. It's for the riders, but very much by the riders."

That's a wish - not a promise.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hi Babastooey,

I think CCN have those two crucial topics at the forefront of their minds. As far as cultural change goes, they have Dr Hoberman onboard (a widely respected academic with a serious interest in this subject for 25 years).

Also, they have had the foresight to welcome Gianni Bugno, the Professional Riders Association head. This is on the surface a somewhat controversial move considering his recent post RD history and historical support for the UCI. My take is that more insightful members of the CCN panel are hoping to "work on him" and get him on-side, with the longer-term aim of effecting wider cultural change.

As far as CNN convincing the fan base of their bona fides, I rather think it's the other way around to a greater or lesser degree!

Judging by some of the attitudes and apparent obliviousness evident over on the PRR side of this site, CNN have their work cut out to gain critical mass & momentum.

This comes under remit of Hoberman again, who has identified this tendency amongst sports fans (not just in cycling) as one of the key cultural changes to be addressed before meaningful change can be effected.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

But most important of all right now, before any of this, is to get those two out and a (reluctant but willing) Greg in!

+1
And another person who was involved is a guy called Paul O'Kelly, he was moderator at the meetings and has a background in sports as he developed the Strategic Vision and Action plan for the GAA, the biggest sports org in Ireland.
So another person who compliments the committee.

As for Bugno - I have little doubt that he was one of the pioneers of taking EPO but he is an elected person so he had to be there.

 

[Grandillusion]

Cheers for the info Dr. My benefit of the doubt for old Gianni is fast evaporating! but yep, he had to be there.

 

[dpcowboy]

Not in 2013, not ever.

It just isn't going to happen.
The doping culture is IN the sport's genome, and it will take generations of riders, under an authority of strict control, to get to the point where cycling (professional) is considered clean. I fear that the horse has left the barn as far as the amateur ranks go. It is going to be very,very expensive to test even 10%of amateur races, and testing costs will increase tenfold at the professional level.
Who is going to pay for those costs?
The sponsors are leaving because the teams, and the governing bodies are
deeply implicated in doping. The public is disillusioned and walking away. There is no support for the reforms, outside of serious, committed fans and administrators, and all of their wealth will not be able to dent the cost of the reforms. Amateur parents and young people racing as amateurs cannot afford the entry fee increases that are sure to come.
And 7 months is being discussed? Really? Holding on to the notion that this sport, in its present form, can be retained as the 'cleanup' evolves is just folly.
The sport will have to shrink a lot in order to BARELY survive, and that might be a good thing.
I got my first license in 1969, as a fifteen year old Junior. I have raced off and on
since then, but have been an ardent fan until the last fifteen years, when that
'feeling' began to wane. In the last five years, my old cycling friends and I have
lost any love for the sport. We like to ride our bikes, because that is fun, but all of this...well, it ain't fun.

 

[Tinman]

Hate to rain on your parade,but had you read before citicising you'd see that the UCI IC's ToRs specifically refer to conflict of policing vs promoting. But hey, why let facts get in the way of nuttiness? Down the with the UCI IC! Down with it now!

Maybe you need to read the TOR again in the full version, not your own reduced one on twitter? Only with regard to the USADA Armstrong case. Not beyond.

 

[Tinman]

It just isn't going to happen.
The doping culture is IN the sport's genome, and it will take generations of riders, under an authority of strict control, to get to the point where cycling (professional) is considered clean. I fear that the horse has left the barn as far as the amateur ranks go. It is going to be very,very expensive to test even 10%of amateur races, and testing costs will increase tenfold at the professional level.
Who is going to pay for those costs?
The sponsors are leaving because the teams, and the governing bodies are
deeply implicated in doping. The public is disillusioned and walking away. There is no support for the reforms, outside of serious, committed fans and administrators, and all of their wealth will not be able to dent the cost of the reforms. Amateur parents and young people racing as amateurs cannot afford the entry fee increases that are sure to come.
And 7 months is being discussed? Really? Holding on to the notion that this sport, in its present form, can be retained as the 'cleanup' evolves is just folly.
The sport will have to shrink a lot in order to BARELY survive, and that might be a good thing.
I got my first license in 1969, as a fifteen year old Junior. I have raced off and on
since then, but have been an ardent fan until the last fifteen years, when that
'feeling' began to wane. In the last five years, my old cycling friends and I have
lost any love for the sport. We like to ride our bikes, because that is fun, but all of this...well, it ain't fun.

I hear you so loud and clear. I think many of us have been gone and perhaps come back because the love is so deep. I have come back for the hope, but not sure if indeed it is worthwhile.

There is always the hope that as science advances new tests could revolutionize things. That could happen very quickly. We have to have hope. Sport (because sadly it's not just cycling) itself is just so much better when that massive lingering doubt is gone...

Meanwhile we keep riding for fun. And that is THE BEST, for sure.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Er, so Gianni is even worse than I suspected?! So what's not controversial about that? What point are you trying to make exactly?

You are the one who thinks his alleged "post RD history and historical support for the UCI" makes him a controversial choice. I am calling that bull and pointing out he is no better or worse than other members of CCN panel.

 

[fmk_RoI]

That's a wish - not a promise.

You know what gets me abt CCN's legion of cheerleaders, the generosity of the way they read CCN panellists' words. If UCI said they had a 'wish' to cure doping problem in seven months we'd all hold them to that and call them on it when they fail. With CCN ... oh, can't do that, cause they're on the side of the angels. Bull.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Maybe you need to read the TOR again in the full version, not your own reduced one on twitter? Only with regard to the USADA Armstrong case. Not beyond.

Whether the UCI had a conflict of interest between its
roles in promoting the sport of cycling and in investigating
or making adverse findings against Lance Armstrong and
the USPS Team.

1) LA is the perfect example: if there was no conflict between policing and promotion with him then where was there?;
2) That phrasing leaves ample room to widen the scope if the panelists feel that is necessary.

 

[Grandillusion]

You are the one who thinks his alleged "post RD history and historical support for the UCI" makes him a controversial choice. I am calling that bull and pointing out he is no better or worse than other members of CCN panel.

I know I'm the one who thinks he's a somewhat controversial choice to have on board, that's why I said it!

So Bugno is no better or worse than Paul Kimmage or Greg LeMond or Michael Ashenden or Dr Hoberman or... ad nauseam? So he's a drug procuring, drug sanctioned, UCI credibility supporting, Lance Armstrong supporting, fence-sitting, transparently self-serving politicker, and you think he has total moral parity with the likes of those mentioned above?

Parallel worlds.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You know what gets me abt CCN's legion of cheerleaders, the generosity of the way they read CCN panellists' words. If UCI said they had a 'wish' to cure doping problem in seven months we'd all hold them to that and call them on it when they fail. With CCN ... oh, can't do that, cause they're on the side of the angels. Bull.

No - do you know what gets you?
The fact that you attribute to me something you don't know.
You never asked me and have no idea of my views on this.

As you said, bull.

 

[lean mean &green]

It just isn't going to happen.
The doping culture is IN the sport's genome, and it will take generations of riders, under an authority of strict control, to get to the point where cycling (professional) is considered clean. I fear that the horse has left the barn as far as the amateur ranks go. It is going to be very,very expensive to test even 10%of amateur races, and testing costs will increase tenfold at the professional level.
Who is going to pay for those costs?
The sponsors are leaving because the teams, and the governing bodies are
deeply implicated in doping. The public is disillusioned and walking away. There is no support for the reforms, outside of serious, committed fans and administrators, and all of their wealth will not be able to dent the cost of the reforms. Amateur parents and young people racing as amateurs cannot afford the entry fee increases that are sure to come.
And 7 months is being discussed? Really? Holding on to the notion that this sport, in its present form, can be retained as the 'cleanup' evolves is just folly.
The sport will have to shrink a lot in order to BARELY survive, and that might be a good thing.
I got my first license in 1969, as a fifteen year old Junior. I have raced off and on
since then, but have been an ardent fan until the last fifteen years, when that
'feeling' began to wane. In the last five years, my old cycling friends and I have
lost any love for the sport. We like to ride our bikes, because that is fun, but all of this...well, it ain't fun.

things will change because they have to. professional sport, not just cycling, will eventually need to address PED/methods use in a way that has been talked about during the CCN meetings. if not for altruistic reasons in 2013 than on a longer timeline it will be for financial reasons. competitive sport without credibility is unsustainable. the only decision that really needs to be made is when to get serious. for cycling the time is now, for other sports the time is probably later down the road as "lie, deny, cover-up" has worked better for them than it has in cycling up until now.

we don't need to fund anti-doping in club and junior level races and bankrupt the system etc. as you suggest. a trickle down approach is fine for now. you can start at the top and if done successfully controls will weed out the lower level cheats - ie they'll never advance to higher levels of sport where controls are tighter. if someone wants to dope themselves to high heaven to win a meaningless corporate park criterium then we'll let them have some hollow victories for now. and really, rhetorically who cares? why are you racing as an amatuer to begin with? that brings me to the 2nd bolded point. this "ethos" is where you should have been all along. participating beats spectating 10 out of 10 times.

 

[Tinman]

You know what gets me abt CCN's legion of cheerleaders, the generosity of the way they read CCN panellists' words.

You know what gets me about fmk_RoI, the way he twists stuff to create an argument for the sake of it.

You are a great thinker, why the need?

 

[del1962]

Interesting comments from CCN supporter Bassons

From what I can see one of the problems with the riders is that the media turn riders into gods and the riders love that, they love it. And the riders are worried about saying anything or saying that they are not doping.

Why? Because although riders are not doping &#8216]

And that's one of the reasons it's hard to get riders to talk openly about doping. Also, riders want to hang on to their jobs because most of them don't know how to do anything else and a rider is going to have a hard time with the UCI and other authorities like WADA or their Federations. I'm a bad example because I spoke up and I had to leave, I'm like an example of why you shouldn't talk,

Interesting comment he makes about riders when they take legal medecine means they are less likely to talk about doping, is there some guilt around legal products being used?

 

[ElChingon]

Interesting comments from CCN supporter Bassons


Interesting comment he makes about riders when they take legal medecine means they are less likely to talk about doping, is there some guilt around legal products being used?

What in the *&^% is needed to recover that's legal yet beneficial? Sounds like a fudge factor being applied to these treatments.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It's just human nature that riders will fear losing respect if their dirty secrets are aired in public. It's also a massive barrier to truth and reconciliation. Ashenden's omerta article put a big part of the blame on the teams. Perhaps the UCI's role is mostly one of complicity and failure to deal with the problem, because they are inherently sympathetic to the omerta.

The author clarified some of the points below, which puts a very different spin on Bassons words, but of course, far fewer people read those comments.....

@del1962, Phinney has talked about 'finishing bottles' with pain killers and caffeine. There are also claims that many of the peloton are addicted to sleeping tablets. Maybe it's more embarrassment than guilt?

 

[Oldman]

things will change because they have to. professional sport, not just cycling, will eventually need to address PED/methods use in a way that has been talked about during the CCN meetings. if not for altruistic reasons in 2013 than on a longer timeline it will be for financial reasons. competitive sport without credibility is unsustainable. the only decision that really needs to be made is when to get serious. for cycling the time is now, for other sports the time is probably later down the road as "lie, deny, cover-up" has worked better for them than it has in cycling up until now.

we don't need to fund anti-doping in club and junior level races and bankrupt the system etc. as you suggest. a trickle down approach is fine for now. you can start at the top and if done successfully controls will weed out the lower level cheats - ie they'll never advance to higher levels of sport where controls are tighter. if someone wants to dope themselves to high heaven to win a meaningless corporate park criterium then we'll let them have some hollow victories for now. and really, rhetorically who cares? why are you racing as an amatuer to begin with? that brings me to the 2nd bolded point. this "ethos" is where you should have been all along. participating beats spectating 10 out of 10 times.

Totally agree. If the change is to start it has to be now and has to be practically applied. The one addition is that the Riders should be paying for the testing.

 

[meat puppet]

As for the IV stuff, how about rehydration with saline and perhaps even refuelling with glucose or some fat solutions? Technically this is banned but I guess that might fit into what Bassons suggests.

Suppose a hard GT stage that takes place in the 3rd week when you're already consumed. Suppose it's really hot. Suppose it requires a grand total of 6000kcal and ends at 18 PM or so. In any case there's a helluva job of chowing and chuggin ahead, even if the riders spend all day long drinking and eating and even if most of the energy comes from body fat... So I for one would not be too surprised of some of the food / drink intake was regularly done with the IV, but this might be a long shot too.

Replenishing a much more modest 4000kcal debt is a real job in itself to me at least, so perhaps that blurs my vision. Om nom.

 

[oldcrank]

I'm glad Greg Lemond came to England so he had a
chance to meet with Dave Brailsford. If Greg's bid
for the UCI Presidency falls short at least he can
still join Sky and change the sport from within.

 

[thehog]

http://www.changecyclingnow.org/wp-...Michael_Ashenden_truth_and_reconciliation.pdf

Ashenden Op-Ed;

Op-ed on Truth and Reconciliation


Background


The establishment of an independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is a core principle of the Change Cycling Now charter.
More so than any sport I am aware of, and as definitively identified via testimonies evidenced in USADA’s Reasoned Decision, elite cycling has an omerta in place that actively suppresses truth telling. Omerta’s permeation through successive generations of cyclists has led to a contorted, tangled web of lies. Not surprisingly, in its wake there exists deep-seated mistrust and cynicism.

The essence of a truth and reconciliation process is to put the need to achieve reconciliation of past wrongs above the desire for punitive action against individuals. In my view, everything follows from this single element.
What would a truth and reconciliation process involve?

There are many variants of truth and reconciliation processes to which we can refer for guidance. Some entail a completely secret process employed by groups that have no trust in each other. However, a critical element of cycling’s TRC must be to eradicate the cynicism amongst riders that notorious doping ‘hot spots’ within teams or around doctors continue to exist. Secrecy does not seem to meet that goal.

Perhaps only publicly-disclosed, thoroughly cross-examined truth telling by and of suspect individuals would give riders faith that they could put the past behind and race clean in the future, confident they would not be cheated by their peers. Yet this needs to be balanced with compassion and realism.

Compassion because some riders may be excruciatingly embarrassed by what happened in the past. Since it is ultimately for the benefit of riders, they must have input whether publicised, redacted or even anonymous confessions best deliver reconciliation. Realism because in some countries doping is now illegal. To have criminal penalties imposed upon only those citizens strikes me as unconscionable. In order to avert the latter law enforcement and domestic courts must be consulted, in order to respect the former rider’s voices must be heard. Those are both discussions that the WADA seems ideally positioned to broker.

Other truth and reconciliation processes have been tailored to situations where abuses were committed on all sides of the original conflict. My sense is that riders, teams, sponsors, organisers and authorities must all take some responsibility for past doping in cycling. What awaits further discussion by the sport’s stakeholders, and eventually enforcement by the TRC’s mandate, is what consequences attach to each of those parties.

cont....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm glad Greg Lemond came to England so he had a
chance to meet with Dave Brailsford. If Greg's bid
for the UCI Presidency falls short at least he can
still join Sky and change the sport from within.

Oh look, endorsement of an alleged clean team is sought by Sky fanatic. How quaint.

I hope Greg and all his cache stay as far away from any current team or rider as possible, so as not to taint his reputation or unfairly provide an advantage to any single entity in pro cycling.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Ashenden cutting straight to the core issues:
1) Reluctance to participate due to embarrassment
2) Conflict with WADA code, which will be difficult to resolve
3) Possible criminal charges
4) Overall cost of process

He offers some good solutions for one and three, be interesting to see what rabbits they pull out of the hat for two and four.