Changes Cookson has implemented at UCI

[Benotti69]

They don't have to increase testing. They could grant NADO's the authority to open cases. Of course, that would very likely trigger huge waves of positives.

There are two main reasons for the passport system.
1. not kill riders doping. Which, had happened in the past.
2. Better manage doping controversy.

3. Use it to control teams.

 

[DirtyWorks]

3. Use it to control teams.

The reasons are THREE!! Three reasons for the spanish inquisition.

 

[Benotti69]

The reasons are THREE!! Three reasons for the spanish inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion.

Give it time and I will think of more but a modern Spanish Inquistion is not what it once was

 

[MarkvW]

Reluctantly agree.

Until it is criminalized. Then the shift will occur, not completely but fines and jail will start to take their toll.

Can't say I'd agree to that! Then the riders would really be prisoners of the road. Besides, I'd rather have my tax money spent on things like infrastructure, safety, and health care than spent on frivolities like bike racing. I think most citizens would agree. Cycling needs to find the money and resources to police itself (if it wants to).

 

[MarkvW]

They don't have to increase testing. They could grant NADO's the authority to open cases. Of course, that would very likely trigger huge waves of positives.

There are two main reasons for the passport system.
1. not kill riders doping. Which, had happened in the past.
2. Better manage doping controversy.

Do you think that the sport could afford the testing and monitoring needed to make it credible?

I'm not convinced that it could.

 

[RiccoDinko]

more testing controls, more stringent controls, more punishment, lifetime bans, get rid of them.

Draw a line in the sand starting 2015, anyone enabling PEDs, team employees, coaches, sponsors.... 1st offense Lifetime Ban from sport

Riders, 3-5 years ban 1st offense, Lifetime 2nd offense.

Store samples for a 10yr period, retesting for new drugs and with new tests every year or so.

Scare the crapper out of the riders and staff.

 

[BYOP88]

more testing controls, more stringent controls, more punishment, lifetime bans, get rid of them.

Draw a line in the sand starting 2015, anyone enabling PEDs, team employees, coaches, sponsors.... 1st offense Lifetime Ban from sport

Riders, 3-5 years ban 1st offense, Lifetime 2nd offense.

Store samples for a 10yr period, retesting for new drugs and with new tests every year or so.

Scare the crapper out of the riders and staff.

I like this.

I'm a fan of 1 strike and you're out but I know there may be some issues trying to enforce that. So I'll settle for this 1st strike 5 year ban(3 years if you talk and give up useful information) 2nd time see ya.

 

[doperhopper]

3. Use it to control teams.

Sad but true - already Verdruggen defined the era with his "I can make anyone positive"

 

[thehog]

3. Use it to control teams.

Correct. And better still the UCI can send an official letter requesting an "explanation". Much better than a Hein phone call.

I see it more 'positive prevention' program than a anti-doping program.

 

[Catwhoorg]

more testing controls, more stringent controls, more punishment, lifetime bans, get rid of them.

Draw a line in the sand starting 2015, anyone enabling PEDs, team employees, coaches, sponsors.... 1st offense Lifetime Ban from sport

Riders, 3-5 years ban 1st offense, Lifetime 2nd offense.

Store samples for a 10yr period, retesting for new drugs and with new tests every year or so.

Scare the crapper out of the riders and staff.

I think you will like the 2015 WADA code.
4 year standard ban for 1st offense for most substances and a whole lot of other improvements.
Was passed last year, but there may still be a minor tweak or two before it comes into effect.

I particularly like the new offense of associating with banned individuals

Linkto the redlined versus 2009 version

This one is easier to read though

 

[MarkvW]

more testing controls, more stringent controls, more punishment, lifetime bans, get rid of them.

Draw a line in the sand starting 2015, anyone enabling PEDs, team employees, coaches, sponsors.... 1st offense Lifetime Ban from sport

Riders, 3-5 years ban 1st offense, Lifetime 2nd offense.

Store samples for a 10yr period, retesting for new drugs and with new tests every year or so.

Scare the crapper out of the riders and staff.

One of the lifetime ban's side-effects would be an unbreakable omerta. The doping leader would implicate everyone on the team (sound familiar?) and nobody would snitch for fear of permanent ban.

 

[RiccoDinko]

One of the lifetime ban's side-effects would be an unbreakable omerta. The doping leader would implicate everyone on the team (sound familiar?) and nobody would snitch for fear of permanent ban.

Assuming it's team wide? I think we have individuals on programs now, not complete team program. Lifetime, or 5 years for 1st offense would make it insane to cheat unless the reward is huge. Right now, it seems the testing is limited and the sanctions are weak, unless your LA. We need independent body at pro level conducting tests, no inside interests protecting big name riders, sending small fish to fry.

 

[RedheadDane]

One thing I'd love to see is a rule stating that a rider returning from a ban would have to spend the first two years (from the assumption that we're talking four-year bans here) on a Conti-level team.
Think about it; it is rather ridiculous that a guy can have a ban, be out for a number of years, and then go right back to the top.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Correct. And better still the UCI can send an official letter requesting an "explanation". Much better than a Hein phone call.

I see it more 'positive prevention' program than a anti-doping program.

The new sanctions are good in spirit, but Hog's right. It's a positive prevention program. The riders the UCI likes never test positive.

 

[Alpe73]

Until it is criminalized. Then the shift will occur, not completely but fines and jail will start to take their toll.

And that one's outa here .... a monster shot over the left field wall.

 

[Alpe73]

Do you think that the sport could afford the testing and monitoring needed to make it credible?

WADA credible? NO WAY

Clinic credible? Not bloody likely.

Mass audience credible? Sure, why not.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Do you think that the sport could afford the testing and monitoring needed to make it credible?

I'm not convinced that it could.

The bio-passport actually somewhat works. The statistics behind it are generally good. They don't need many, many tests. What's not being done is cases being opened. At this point we have examples of sports federations not opening cases all the way up to the head of the IOC not opening cases.

If the IOC would permit WADA to report rates of negative/suspicious/positive results, I think the bigger culprits, the sports federations would be outed for their role in doping. But, we can't have that!!

The other thing to do is let the NADO open cases. The IOC can't allow that either even though it is pretty cost effective... If you really wanted to spend money?? Test 5 year old samples and let the NADO open cases.

Finally, specific to cycling, there's a "hole" in the APMU for grand tours. They have examples of two riders with red-hot abnormal profiles and neither get flagged. That's actually a bigger effort to address than my opinions above.

 

[zigmeister]

One of the lifetime ban's side-effects would be an unbreakable omerta. The doping leader would implicate everyone on the team (sound familiar?) and nobody would snitch for fear of permanent ban.

Ok, but this is the point of the truth and reconciliation concept. You get riders to come out, don't implement penalties to come clean/tattle tale.

Then, from that point forward, tough nookies. You dope, you pay. Omerta or not.

You can't just keep giving a pass or minor violations. Tough penalties that will have consequences of ending your career hopefully serves as a deterrent to the behavior.

And some people, it could serve to have the opposite effect of the Omerta. Hey, you want to ban me for life, the whole ship is going down in flames with me!!!

Of course, then it just turns into the latest USAC and Dave Z/Steve Johnson situation, Dave Z says one thing, then Steve J says, never happened. He said she said.

I think you are going to start seeing technology, as in other situation, creep into these things. You know, the hidden microphone/cell phone mic recording conversations from here on out to bust people stone cold on their lies. Surprised it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Benotti69]

...........

Clinic credible? Not bloody likely.

..........

Mask is slipping.

The clinic never claimed to be credible.

 

[Alpe73]

Ok, but this is the point of the truth and reconciliation concept.

Truth, reconciliation .... and appeasement.

Credit to Cookson for initiating this, but it is done just as much, more actually, to take the heat of the UCI than to seek truth, justice, blah blah, blah. A fine balance. His primary mandate is to expand pro cycling, even if it's a tad unclean at times. That's pro sports. That's business.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Finally, specific to cycling, there's a "hole" in the APMU for grand tours. They have examples of two riders with red-hot abnormal profiles and neither get flagged. That's actually a bigger effort to address than my opinions above.

I agree with this entirely. Given the expected plasma volume expansion that occurs in a GT, a 'clean' profile is more likely to be flagged as an issue, than someone having a transfusion during a rest day.

Thats a hole you can drive a tank through.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I agree with this entirely. Given the expected plasma volume expansion that occurs in a GT, a 'clean' profile is more likely to be flagged as an issue, than someone having a transfusion during a rest day.

Thats a hole you can drive a tank through.

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Sure DW, the biopassport sets upper and lower limits to create a flag on the various parameters.

The plasma expansions leads to reduces HCT, HGB and Offscore, its possible but admittedly unikely, than one or more of these could cross the lower limits and be flagged.

Someone who takes in blood at just the right amounts, would counter the expansion and have a flat profile, with zero risk of being flagged.

Someone taking too much blood would of course show an increase, and risk broaching the upper limits.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sure DW, the biopassport sets upper and lower limits to create a flag on the various parameters.

The plasma expansions leads to reduces HCT, HGB and Offscore, its possible but admittedly unikely, than one or more of these could cross the lower limits and be flagged.

Someone who takes in blood at just the right amounts, would counter the expansion and have a flat profile, with zero risk of being flagged.

Someone taking too much blood would of course show an increase, and risk broaching the upper limits.

Oh, I see. But disagree entirely that the clean rider could be flagged for low values.

The expansion is likely to be consistent each year, and after their first year of racing, plasma expansion values would be in the system. So only your first year would you expect a potential low value.

But if your blood is low, the key catch there is withdrawal, usually matched with high retics.

I am hoping they look at what you are doing and
1. realise you're not doing a withdrawal in the middle of a GT
2. recognise regardless of your lower threshold to date, that a ~10% reduction is expected.

If these two rather salient points are not taken into consideration, the ABP has very grave problems.

Flat or increases should be far more suspicious, imo.

 

[Benotti69]

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded?

Someone showing no changes of their BP profile ie, a decrease in levels over 3 weeks, but a consistent unchanged BP levels, which is not natural over 3 weeks extreme effort.