"Change Cycling Now"

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

See, you are on about doping controls - all sports will occasionally catch something, but doping controls only catch individuals.

The BIG scandals - Festina, USPS, Puerto, Humanplasma and soon Padova - not a single doping test in any of these.
It has been Police/State intervention that exposes cycling doping culture and that the UCI are full of it.

 

[martinvickers]

See, you are on about doping controls - all sports will occasionally catch something, but doping controls only catch individuals.

The BIG scandals - Festina, USPS, Puerto, Humanplasma and soon Padova - not a single doping test in any of these.
It has been Police/State intervention that exposes cycling doping culture and that the UCI are full of it.

I don't disagree with you - my point was somewhat narrower - simply that, as far as they went, cycling anti-doping controls, or science, or whatever, are more advanced than in most other sports, and while they certainly don't cathc "the big fish" for the reasons i outlined earlier, they do get a steady stream of smaller fry, in ways that other sports haven't begun to understand.

It's not in any way bigging up UCI. F*ck 'em. It's lambasting other sports.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't disagree with you - my point was somewhat narrower - simply that, as far as they went, cycling anti-doping controls, or science, or whatever, are more advanced than in most other sports, and while they certainly don't cathc "the big fish" for the reasons i outlined earlier, they do get a steady stream of smaller fry, in ways that other sports haven't begun to understand.

It's not in any way bigging up UCI. F*ck 'em. It's lambasting other sports.

But again, even this narrow point is wrong.
How are, as you say -"cycling anti-doping controls, or science, or whatever, are more advanced than in most other sports"?

The tests are developed by the labs - not the sports.
WADA have the main input in accreditation and in drawing up the ADRs.

At best cycling does more testing per athlete - but even that figure is misleading as there are variables like numbers in different sports, or adding BP tests in to overall figures etc

 

[Tinman]

cycling anti-doping controls, or science, or whatever, are more advanced than in most other sports

As the administrator responsible for implementing anti doping controls in cycling UCI has been totally incompetent (or worse complicit) in controlling doping in cycling. There are plenty of witness statements and case reports detailing among others lack of and/or inadequate test frequency and/or WADA testing protocol adherence and/or test procedure confidentiality etc etc. Many many experts and insiders who have suggested ways of improving UCI execution for many many years which have not been followed through simply ignored.

Surely you would agree this is now established fact. And that there is overwhelming evidence...

The comparison with other sports is not relevant at all. It merely illustrates the significant problem in other sports, but is no excuse for the continuing UCI mismanagement in cycling. It's a lame media play to obfuscate on the real issue of responsibility and leadership.

 

[Grandillusion]

As the administrator responsible for implementing anti doping controls in cycling UCI has been totally incompetent (or worse complicit) in controlling doping in cycling. There are plenty of witness statements and case reports detailing among others lack of and/or inadequate test frequency and/or WADA testing protocol adherence and/or test procedure confidentiality etc etc. Many many experts and insiders who have suggested ways of improving UCI execution for many many years which have not been followed through simply ignored.

Surely you would agree this is now established fact. And that there is overwhelming evidence...

The comparison with other sports is not relevant at all. It merely illustrates the significant problem in other sports, but is no excuse for the continuing UCI mismanagement in cycling. It's a lame media play to obfuscate on the real issue of responsibility and leadership.

Jesus Tinman, have you read anything anything Martin has posted over the last few weeks?

.."lame media play to obfuscate on the real issue of responsibility and leadership"? WTF? Read his posting history before chiming in with such utter drivel. The guy is an arch realist, and making excuses for nobody.

 

[Tinman]

Actually no, trying to avoid so much of the circular discussions, getting quite tiring to be honest. Particularly the stuff on "evidence". Sorry if I have misinterpreted etc. So why his latest post?

 

[Grandillusion]

Actually no, trying to avoid so much of the circular discussions, getting quite tiring to be honest. Particularly the stuff on "evidence". Sorry if I have misinterpreted etc. So why his latest post?

He was just telling the shocking truth that cycling is better served than many other major sports regarding doping control. Not much better, and wholly inadequate, but statistically better.

Sincere apologies Tinman if my tone sounded aggressive, I don't mean to be a knob

 

[martinvickers]

He was just telling the shocking truth that cycling is better served than many other major sports regarding doping control. Not much better, and wholly inadequate, but statistically better.

Sincere apologies Tinman if my tone sounded aggressive, I don't mean to be a knob

It's ok guys

I think in trying to emphasize his understandable contempt for the UCI and it's actions, Dr Maserati overstretched a little, and attacked an argument I didn't actually make.

My point was pretty limited - other sports don't come close to matching what cycling already does re doping.

That is not to suggest for one second that cycling is close to clean. Sadly, cycling culture is such that dopers are light years ahead of any testing, let alone the pathetic testing standards set up by UCI.

But it's just statistically and anecdotally observable that other sports standards are even worse.

E.g.

The olympic medal swimmer - and i mean recent medal winner- who did not know what a blood passport was.

The good Dr said I was wrong because all the 'major' busts were done by police sting - but as i've explained, that's really nothing to do with my point.

 

[D-Queued]

It's ok guys

I think in trying to emphasize his understandable contempt for the UCI and it's actions, Dr Maserati overstretched a little, and attacked an argument I didn't actually make.

My point was pretty limited - other sports don't come close to matching what cycling already does re doping.

That is not to suggest for one second that cycling is close to clean. Sadly, cycling culture is such that dopers are light years ahead of any testing, let alone the pathetic testing standards set up by UCI.

But it's just statistically and anecdotally observable that other sports standards are even worse.

E.g.

The olympic medal swimmer - and i mean recent medal winner- who did not know what a blood passport was.

The good Dr said I was wrong because all the 'major' busts were done by police sting - but as i've explained, that's really nothing to do with my point.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find these two statements to be at odds with one another.

Yes, the UCI implemented the HCT test and the Biopassport.

But:

1. The HCT test allows doping within a threshold
2. The Biopassport implementation minimally has the risk of threshold management (i.e. why Ashenden left)

Moreover:

1. The UCI was the very last sport to sign the Code
2. The UCI has refused to work with WADA and National Labs at the TdF (no positives) and the ToC (No EPO test)
3. The UCI declined to test riders who were high risk on their BP, and did not test for EPO
4. The UCI Chaperones provide advance notice of tests at the TdF

This does not even touch the issues, including the apparent corruption, related to the Armstrong case.

It is absurd to give credit for the # of Anti-Doping Tests for cyclists as the UCI is not responsible for OOC tests, and has been fundamentally obstructionistic with in-competition tests.

Not suggesting that we disagree, but I suppose I am a bit more strident with respect to extending any credit to the UCI on anti-doping activities.

Dave.

 

[Tinman]

Concluding on the issue of UCI's anti-doping responsibility and achievement (lack thereof) is critical to judging its leadership record. It's the card Pat plays in the media and it is likely to become the whitewash of the Coates enquiry.

Thanks D-Queued for the summary. I for one was unaware OOC tests were not UCI responsibility.

And presumably funding availability underpins all of this. Ie if UCI or event organizers or governments do not fund their respective pieces things fall down rapidly. Maybe someone can summarize how this all fits together and what UCI can/ought to be doing to ensure cycling gets sufficient testing at all events and out of competition, rather than conveniently shifting the blame elsewhere (eg local events, WADA, local givernment & anti doping agencies).

 

[sniper]

Perhaps it is just me, but I find these two statements to be at odds with one another.

Yes, the UCI implemented the HCT test and the Biopassport.

But:

1. The HCT test allows doping within a threshold
2. The Biopassport implementation minimally has the risk of threshold management (i.e. why Ashenden left)

Moreover:

1. The UCI was the very last sport to sign the Code
2. The UCI has refused to work with WADA and National Labs at the TdF (no positives) and the ToC (No EPO test)
3. The UCI declined to test riders who were high risk on their BP, and did not test for EPO
4. The UCI Chaperones provide advance notice of tests at the TdF

This does not even touch the issues, including the apparent corruption, related to the Armstrong case.

It is absurd to give credit for the # of Anti-Doping Tests for cyclists as the UCI is not responsible for OOC tests, and has been fundamentally obstructionistic with in-competition tests.

Not suggesting that we disagree, but I suppose I am a bit more strident with respect to extending any credit to the UCI on anti-doping activities.

Dave.

true points. still, however, there is a point in saying "if I were a PED-abusing pro-cyclist, i'd be more scared of getting caught than if I were a PED-abusing pro-soccer or pro-tennis player."
Arguably the more(/most) disturbing thing in cycling has been the overt corruption and favorable treatment of certain riders/teams over others. The testing system itself seems equally non-effective in all sports.

 

[martinvickers]

Perhaps it is just me, but I find these two statements to be at odds with one another.

Yes, the UCI implemented the HCT test and the Biopassport.

But:

1. The HCT test allows doping within a threshold
2. The Biopassport implementation minimally has the risk of threshold management (i.e. why Ashenden left)

etc...

Yes, that was the point more or less Dr M was making. And as I said, that's irrelevant to the point i'm making, which is much narrower.

They aren't at odds.

Look, in simple terms.

from 1-100, 4 is a low number, a very low number, in the lowest 1/25 of numbers in fact.

It's still twice as big as 2.

So arguing, but 4 is SOO low, i give no credit to 4, while all very true, isn't really relevant to the very basic point I'm making - it's twice as big as 2.

Or to put it another way, it's meaningless to challenge a comparative that it's not a superlative.

 

[martinvickers]

true points. still, however, there is a point in saying "if I were a PED-abusing pro-cyclist, i'd be more scared of getting caught than if I were a PED-abusing pro-soccer or pro-tennis player."
Arguably the more(/most) disturbing thing in cycling has been the overt corruption and favorable treatment of certain riders/teams over others. The testing system itself seems equally non-effective in all sports.

yep, that's the point, more or less.

 

[Tinman]

The website is up. You can add your support. Presumably more content coming over the next few days.

http://www.changecyclingnow.org/

 

[GazelleFormula]

Just saw a piece on CCN at the NOS (Dutch public broadcaster). Interviews with Ashenden and Fuller. Seemed like the NOS wants to make a statement by giving them quite a bit of airtime and some subtle endorsements after the item ("That's some very clear language").

I will post the link here when the item is available online.

 

[sniper]

Just saw a piece on CCN at the NOS (Dutch public broadcaster). Interviews with Ashenden and Fuller. Seemed like the NOS wants to make a statement by giving them quite a bit of airtime and some subtle endorsements after the item ("That's some very clear language").

I will post the link here when the item is available online.

interesting. thanks in advance!

 

[GazelleFormula]

http://nos.nl/video/446876-fuller-eist-aftreden-kopstukken-uci.html

 

[sniper]

http://nos.nl/video/446876-fuller-eist-aftreden-kopstukken-uci.html

great, thanks.

the interview is in english.

Fuller not beating around the bush: I think he's said a total of three or four times that the most important thing is that Pat and Hein be removed.
Very sincere that guy.

former sponsor CSC is also joining the gathering in London this weekend.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's ok guys

I think in trying to emphasize his understandable contempt for the UCI and it's actions, Dr Maserati overstretched a little, and attacked an argument I didn't actually make.

My point was pretty limited - other sports don't come close to matching what cycling already does re doping.

That is not to suggest for one second that cycling is close to clean. Sadly, cycling culture is such that dopers are light years ahead of any testing, let alone the pathetic testing standards set up by UCI.

But it's just statistically and anecdotally observable that other sports standards are even worse.

E.g.

The olympic medal swimmer - and i mean recent medal winner- who did not know what a blood passport was.

The good Dr said I was wrong because all the 'major' busts were done by police sting - but as i've explained, that's really nothing to do with my point.

But I am not the one over stretching things here.

Seriously, what stats etc do you have to back up the highlighted points above?
Because the only people to make such claims are the UCI and some riders.
Your points appear to be based on UCI PR fluff rather then actual proper statistics and one swimmer who doesn't know about the BP.

 

[martinvickers]

But I am not the one over stretching things here.

Seriously, what stats etc do you have to back up the highlighted points above?
Because the only people to make such claims are the UCI and some riders.
Your points appear to be based on UCI PR fluff rather then actual proper statistics and one swimmer who doesn't know about the BP.

Not 'one swimmer' - an olympic medalist of very recent vintage, and one who continues to compete.

and some stats? Well, here's aone with Tennis, for example.

Tennis V Cycling; a drug test regime comparison

Cycling conducted 6,500 more tests than tennis on professional road racers last year and an average of nine tests per rider, compared to an average 3.4 tests per player in tennis.

Of the 642 tested tennis players, 510 were not tested out of competition at all in 2011. By way of comparison, Canadian cyclist Ryder Hesjedal, winner of the Giro d'Italia, has had 22 urine tests and 13 blood controls so far this year.

The ITF budget shows it spent $1.3 million US on testing in 2011, which Miller said doesn't include salaries and other operating expenses.

Cycling says it spent $4.7 million US on testing alone in 2011, with teams, riders, race organizers and the UCI all contributing.

Let's add swimming to the mix, whatdaya say?

Yin and swimming doping controls

Asked about Leonard's comments, FINA president Julio Maglione told The Associated Press that people are free to say "stupid things" if they want.

"It's a big mistake," Maglione said of Ye's doubters. "The people that said this is crazy."

He said FINA spends $1 million to drug-test the top 30 swimmers in the world two or three times a year and "swimming is absolutely clean."

The phrase, howdya like them apples, springs to mind...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not 'one swimmer' - an olympic medalist of very recent vintage, and one who continues to compete.

and some stats? Well, here's aone with Tennis, for example.

Tennis V Cycling; a drug test regime comparison



Let's add swimming to the mix, whatdaya say?

Yin and swimming doping controls



The phrase, howdya like them apples, springs to mind...

Ack, please with the juvenile barp.

But to use it as an analogy - you are comparing apples and oranges.
You have brought in the overall numbers of tests, and at first look cycling wins - but (&this is my point that you miss) is that many of those stats are not dope tests, they form part of the biological passport.

I don't actually have the time to check this - but if you check the WADA site which lists tests per sport cycling does not have the most testing - is it better than many others? Yip, but to suggest that cycling is anyway ahead of all sports is just PR fluff spun by the UCI that is never checked by most media.

 

[martinvickers]

Ack, please with the juvenile barp.

What can i tell ya?

But to use it as an analogy - you are comparing apples and oranges.
You have brought in the overall numbers of tests, and at first look cycling wins - but (&this is my point that you miss) is that many of those stats are not dope tests, they form part of the biological passport.

But I have confirmed swimming uses the biological passport programme, ans still has only a fraction of the tests.

Andas for those sports who don't use the passport - is that not kinda conclusive proof the cycling is ahead if them?

I don't actually have the time to check this - but if you check the WADA site which lists tests per sport cycling does not have the most testing - is it better than many others? Yip, but to suggest that cycling is anyway ahead of all sports is just PR fluff spun by the UCI that is never checked by most media.

Which was my original point, before you tried to tell me I was wrong.

From the 2011 WADA OOC figures they are -
4th on Out of comp (OOC) Urine, way behind weightlifting, just behind track and swimming, well ahead of rest
1st on OOC EPO testing, by a clear margin
Now the worrying ones - they are roughly sixth-eighth on both blood and hGH

On the total annual samples taken - cycling is third behind track and football - I'd have been stunned if it was ahead of football given the numbers who play football around the world - track, oddly, consistently scores highly - possibly because they've had the same problems, and responses, as cycling (think 1980's GDR, US sprinters etc)

Interestingly, the 'ping' number from cycling was the HIGHEST of any sport, and the fifth highest rate after pro basketball (who knew?) and boxing, weightlifting (the shock!) and, wait for it, Curling!

There's something in the Ice, bro, something in the Ice!!


As I said, I'm very much broadly sympathetic with what you feel, honestly, but you were attacking a strawman from the getgo.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Is it possible the more testing carried out the better people get at beating the tests?

How many internal team tests are conducted, and what impact does that have on the effectiveness of ABP testing? Garmin are huge on internal testing, and we have to accept the word of a lying ex-doper that if he ever caught someone he would fire them. Because he has never fired anyone, the assumption is he has never caught someone, but on the balance of probabilities, given the history of the people employed there, I find this too hard to swallow (that no Garmin rider has at any time ever doped). Add in all the alleged "mistakes" and other semi-truths from this ex-doper and my ability to believe is diminished even further. Add in the companies that can do similar testing externally, as a means of tracking parameters, and uh I'm entirely convinced it's all a smoke screen.

 

[D-Queued]

Yes, that was the point more or less Dr M was making. And as I said, that's irrelevant to the point i'm making, which is much narrower.

They aren't at odds.

Look, in simple terms.

from 1-100, 4 is a low number, a very low number, in the lowest 1/25 of numbers in fact.

It's still twice as big as 2.

So arguing, but 4 is SOO low, i give no credit to 4, while all very true, isn't really relevant to the very basic point I'm making - it's twice as big as 2.

Or to put it another way, it's meaningless to challenge a comparative that it's not a superlative.

Yup.

The website is up. You can add your support. Presumably more content coming over the next few days.

http://www.changecyclingnow.org/

Cool!

A constructive critique: "The petition won't be used for any legal purpose" could be interpreted to mean that it could be used for an illegal purpose.

Might be better to note that the petition will not be used as part of any legal proceeding(s).

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What can i tell ya?



But I have confirmed swimming uses the biological passport programme, ans still has only a fraction of the tests.

Andas for those sports who don't use the passport - is that not kinda conclusive proof the cycling is ahead if them?



Which was my original point, before you tried to tell me I was wrong.

From the 2011 WADA OOC figures they are -
4th on Out of comp (OOC) Urine, way behind weightlifting, just behind track and swimming, well ahead of rest
1st on OOC EPO testing, by a clear margin
Now the worrying ones - they are roughly sixth-eighth on both blood and hGH

On the total annual samples taken - cycling is third behind track and football - I'd have been stunned if it was ahead of football given the numbers who play football around the world - track, oddly, consistently scores highly - possibly because they've had the same problems, and responses, as cycling (think 1980's GDR, US sprinters etc)

Interestingly, the 'ping' number from cycling was the HIGHEST of any sport, and the fifth highest rate after pro basketball (who knew?) and boxing, weightlifting (the shock!) and, wait for it, Curling!

There's something in the Ice, bro, something in the Ice!!


As I said, I'm very much broadly sympathetic with what you feel, honestly, but you were attacking a strawman from the getgo.

First up - I did a brief search on swimming and the Bio Passport, it would appear that swimming have adopted a "pilot programme".
That would explain why an athlete would not know that the sport has it.

Secondly - the highlighted above is quite different from your earlier posts:

I think in trying to emphasize his understandable contempt for the UCI and it's actions, Dr Maserati overstretched a little, and attacked an argument I didn't actually make.

My point was pretty limited - other sports don't come close to matching what cycling already does re doping.

That is not to suggest for one second that cycling is close to clean. Sadly, cycling culture is such that dopers are light years ahead of any testing, let alone the pathetic testing standards set up by UCI.

But it's just statistically and anecdotally observable that other sports standards are even worse.

That is why I said you were merely repeating PR fluff and your own research shows your earlier points as being incorrect.