Changes Cookson has implemented at UCI

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
Don't worry when everyone who matters asked for their moment of the year no one mentioned Froome.

With the exception of Cookson.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-c...ok-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Story-_-exploit-year

If Froome hasnt been impresive I dont understand wht a lot of people in this forum is usually talking about him.

I understand that him, as english, pointedd that, I think Froome, after being two times a domestique, when he was the strongest, deserve that mention.

I dont think he was the stronger climber anyway.
 
It sounds like it is designed not to accomplish anything. People who were caught have no reason to help, and those were not caught have no reason to mar their reputations by confessing.

It still maintains the idiocy that those who were caught should be treated differently than those who were not.

It will end up being a PR exercise for people like Vaughters.
 
BroDeal said:
It sounds like it is designed not to accomplish anything. People who were caught have no reason to help, and those were not caught have no reason to mar their reputations by confessing.

It still maintains the idiocy that those who were caught should be treated differently than those who were not.

It will end up being a PR exercise for people like Vaughters.

Sadly it looks like a Vaughters sideburns fashion show. Watch JV as he sits on a fence for 4 hours.

Was hoping Lance to show and talk about how hard done by he was and then blow up the UCI.

Looks like Cookson didn't send him an invite. I mean cookie was UCI during the era.
 
Jan 5, 2014
17
0
0
Why would the UCI or the commission properly incentivize Armstrong to talk?

The only really juicy tales that remain as-yet untold are the ones in which the UCI or its officials were complicit.

I'm sure Cookson would love to see those headlines plastered all over home pages and front pages while he tries to rebuild the sport on more stable financial footing.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
thehog said:
Sadly it looks like a Vaughters sideburns fashion show. Watch JV as he sits on a fence for 4 hours.

Was hoping Lance to show and talk about how hard done by he was and then blow up the UCI.

Looks like Cookson didn't send him an invite. I mean cookie was UCI during the era.

Not sure I understand this. Cookson's only been part of uci management for about 5 years as memory serves. Hardly the armstrong era, just it's dying embers...
 
Jan 5, 2014
17
0
0
King Boonen said:
This is great. The independent commission people wanted is set up and already working and still they complain.

I don't have a problem with the commission itself; D¡ck Marty's credentials are impressive. But if you want a cleaner sport in the future, there is still the problem of getting silent dopers to speak up and convicted dopers to cooperate. That doesn't even take into account all of the team managers, DSs, doctors, soigneurs, press officers, and sponsors whose experiences may be meaningful or instructive in some way, or the shadowy bigwigs and anonymous underlings who were at the UCI, ASO, RCS and so on and so on...

Cookson's press release expresses concern about the allegations of impropriety against the UCI, the article on the CN main site says the commission will examine "doping practices in the 1990s and 2000s," and both say that recommendations for change will be made as a result of the inquiries.

That is a hell of a broad mandate. Yes, it's a start and yes, it's early but "great" is a word I would keep in reserve until the commission's findings and recommendations are made public and reviewed.
 
dwightyorke said:
I don't have a problem with the commission itself; D¡ck Marty's credentials are impressive. But if you want a cleaner sport in the future, there is still the problem of getting silent dopers to speak up and convicted dopers to cooperate. That doesn't even take into account all of the team managers, DSs, doctors, soigneurs, press officers, and sponsors whose experiences may be meaningful or instructive in some way, or the shadowy bigwigs and anonymous underlings who were at the UCI, ASO, RCS and so on and so on...

Cookson's press release expresses concern about the allegations of impropriety against the UCI, the article on the CN main site says the commission will examine "doping practices in the 1990s and 2000s," and both say that recommendations for change will be made as a result of the inquiries.

That is a hell of a broad mandate. Yes, it's a start and yes, it's early but "great" is a word I would keep in reserve until the commission's findings and recommendations are made public and reviewed.

Sorry, the "This is great" statement was sarcastic aimed at the people who are trying to get their excuses in beforehand, should have made it clear.

As for getting silent dopers to cooperate, I can't really see anything else they can do. Anyone with a past has to be worried that it might get uncovered now this is going, particularly if the UCI was involved with them in some way so they'd do better to come forward and admit it. Of course many will take the chance and many will get off Scott free but that's always going to be the way.

We will have to see what happens, hopefully the sensible discussion won't be drowned out by the howlers complaining when their pet hate isn't named.

Brian Cookson is keeping his word, that has to be a good start.
 
King Boonen said:
This is great. The independent commission people wanted is set up and already working and still they complain.

This commission looks like it is focused on the UCI. A cynic--not that I would ever be one--might look at it as a tool for the new regime to consolidate power by pushing out people from the old regime. Now that might be a good thing considering the people who were running the UCI before, but while the UCI may have looked the other way and in some cases facilitated doping, the real problem was the drugs themselves. They were effective and, for the most part, undetectable. With the best management in the world, the sport would have still been awash in doping.

Aside from whatever corruption Verbruggen and McQuaid may have gotten the UCI into, what are the records of the UCI going to show? They will not have anything about the rider and team experience of the "doping era." They will not have have anything about dope sellers, dodgy doctors, and team support.

What I am not seeing is a clear admission that nearly everyone was doping. Once that is embraced then the different treatment of those who were caught and those who were not becomes glaring. The UCI is still maintaining that those who tested positive should remain scapegoats, and it is using WADA to support its position. The riders will be hung out to dry, and the UCI will proclaim a clean break from its older version.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
BroDeal said:
This commission looks like it is focused on the UCI. A cynic--not that I would ever be one--might look at it as a tool for the new regime to consolidate power by pushing out people from the old regime. Now that might be a good thing considering the people who were running the UCI before, but while the UCI may have looked the other way and in some cases facilitated doping, the real problem was the drugs themselves. They were effective and, for the most part, undetectable. With the best management in the world, the sport would have still been awash in doping.

Aside from whatever corruption Verbruggen and McQuaid may have gotten the UCI into, what are the records of the UCI going to show? They will not have anything about the rider and team experience of the "doping era." They will not have have anything about dope sellers, dodgy doctors, and team support.

What I am not seeing is a clear admission that nearly everyone was doping. Once that is embraced then the different treatment of those who were caught and those who were not becomes glaring. The UCI is still maintaining that those who tested positive should remain scapegoats, and it is using WADA to support its position. The riders will be hung out to dry, and the UCI will proclaim a clean break from its older version.


"The riders will be hung out to dry, and the UCI will proclaim a clean break from its older version."

Same as it ever was same as it ever was same as it ever was same as it ever was.......................................
 
Sep 23, 2011
536
0
0
It's a bit early to take a view on the new commission, as all that has been announced so far are the names. Cookson has quite reasonably left it to them to decide and announce the terms of reference, saying the UCI will not interfere. Agreements with WADA are not finalised, and these will be key to any incentive to cooperate.

Presumably it will be up to the commission to approach potential participants, including Armstrong.

At first sight the three commissioners look impressive.
 
martinvickers said:
Not sure I understand this. Cookson's only been part of uci management for about 5 years as memory serves. Hardly the armstrong era, just it's dying embers...

He also sat on the board that owns and runs Team Sky.

Brian Cookson, president of British Cycling and a board member of Tour Racing Limited, the company that owns Team Sky.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/all-aboard-the-magic-bus/

I assume Cookson signed off on Leinders?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
martinvickers said:
Not sure I understand this. Cookson's only been part of uci management for about 5 years as memory serves. Hardly the armstrong era, just it's dying embers...

2 years ('09/'10) is a long time in sport.
 
the CIRC(us) lol

war crimes, military lol

these guys torturing roberto pistore( i love this name!)....roberto, did you inject yourself to go faster on a bicycle? si, si e vero but not shoot me per favore!

seriously though they would better investigate 2013.
 
Here's a link: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/international-power-behind-independent-reform-commission

Ulrich Haas,.... Haas is also the only one of the three directly familiar with doping in cycling, having served as an arbitrator for the CAS case the UCI took against Alberto Contador in relation to his 2010 Tour de France clenbuterol positive

If he's chairman, then we can look forward to no satisfactory answers.

Still, they didn't hire Vrijman, and they've got two outsiders, so that's good.

Per Jens_attacks, investigate 2012/13. Please!!
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Benotti69 said:
2 years ('09/'10) is a long time in sport.

Well, it's about one year actually. I don't see how it stretches back as far as 2006, but, you know, whatever maths you like....
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
martinvickers said:
Well, it's about one year actually. I don't see how it stretches back as far as 2006, but, you know, whatever maths you like....


Who mentioned 2006?

"....he was elected to the UCI Management Committee in 2009".


Whatever way you want to split it, Cookson has been around the sport for long enough. LeMond's accusations against Armstrong for working with Ferrari date bate to 2001. So Cookson had a long run up to being on the management committee to understand the doping by Armstrong/Bruyneel, yet it appears did nothing.
 
BroDeal said:
This commission looks like it is focused on the UCI. A cynic--not that I would ever be one--might look at it as a tool for the new regime to consolidate power by pushing out people from the old regime. Now that might be a good thing considering the people who were running the UCI before, but while the UCI may have looked the other way and in some cases facilitated doping, the real problem was the drugs themselves. They were effective and, for the most part, undetectable. With the best management in the world, the sport would have still been awash in doping.

Aside from whatever corruption Verbruggen and McQuaid may have gotten the UCI into, what are the records of the UCI going to show? They will not have anything about the rider and team experience of the "doping era." They will not have have anything about dope sellers, dodgy doctors, and team support.

What I am not seeing is a clear admission that nearly everyone was doping. Once that is embraced then the different treatment of those who were caught and those who were not becomes glaring. The UCI is still maintaining that those who tested positive should remain scapegoats, and it is using WADA to support its position. The riders will be hung out to dry, and the UCI will proclaim a clean break from its older version.


This is where my knowledge of the UCI falls down, but I'd think that investigating riders and team staff isn't really their job, but I don't know. Armstrong was investigated by his anti-doping energy and the government, it was the French government who investigated the 99? tour.

They need to sort out the UCI, that means cleaning out the closet there first. Of course if they find anything about riders of staff they need to pass that on to the relevant authorities (anti-doping, criminal etc.) but their main focus should be the UCI.


My main problem is people rubbishing it before they've even started, even released a first statement. I can be as cynical as most here but to me this is only a good thing and should be applauded. That opinion will of course change if it turns out toothless.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
From Crankpunk

Belgian cycling physician Dr Roland Marlier made a number of proposals to the UCI Medical Commission regarding reforms on anti-doping procedures.

These reforms included:

To institute a system of licensing for doctors attached to cycling teams.
To give more thought to the method of publishing of doping control results, publishing ‘positives’ only after a counter-check has been made.
To allow the rider to be advised by a lawyer and a medical counsellor in cases of alleged doping.
The first point is something which has become more and more relevant in recent years as doctors like Michele Ferrari, Pedro Celaya and Eufemiano Fuentes have all received sanctions from the UCI. There are now UCI rules pertaining to who can and cannot be hired as a team doctor and the specific qualifications they must hold but these rules are currently not enforced.

With regards to the second point, according to the UCI’s own rules, in the case of a positive ‘A’ sample, they are only required to notify the rider, the national federation of the rider and the national anti-doping agency of the rider. In spite of this, it is the UCI’s tendency to release details of positive ‘A’ samples on their website.

The third point is one which has been addressed by the Australian anti-doping agency. They state on their website:

“This initiative provides an athlete, who has been notified of a possible anti-doping rule violation, with free access to independent and confidential counseling with qualified professionals…The aim of this initiative is to provide short-term counseling and strategies to help individuals deal with very stressful and potentially life-changing circumstances.”

Thus far, Australia is the only country in the world which provides this service to its athletes.

None of the reforms suggested above have been adopted by the UCI as policy.

But what is the most unfortunate thing of all, is this – the article I read containing these reform proposals was written in a cycling magazine from 1973.

Will Cookson doing anything about doping doctors? I doubt it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Budget for the CIRC is SFR3M.

Doesn't sound like much, but where would they get the cash from.

Still its a good initiative.

Make the teams pay for it!
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Dazed and Confused said:
lol, quite a few are falling off the cliff already.

Only because they cant attract sponsors to the cesspit.

Maybe if they (the teams) funded cleaning it up it would attract plenty of money. The teams perpetuate this mess.