Circ

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Franklin said:
Sorry Coineach, your demand for full transparency is ridiculous.

Would you be okay if your family hears of this anti-Herpes medicine you are prescribed? Are you okay with your boss knowing you are being prescribed Cortisones due to an inflammation you suffered because of your tennis-hobby? Your contract partner learns about your anti-depressant prescription just in this critical week of negotiations?

I'd say that these lists need to be confidentially reviewed by an independent medical board. Full transparency is way to invasive.
I take your point about Herpes (how did you know I was on that, anyway?;);)
But do you really think bosses of teams do not know what medication their riders are on?
Would it be possible to divide medication into catagories which Might have a performance improving effect and those which Have No Know performance improving effect(and thus are exempt from disclosure)?
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Probably Santambrogios story, page 67

In another example, one rider explained how he had got caught for using EPO in 2013. He stated that he had received the substance from an amateur rider working in local pharmacies in northern Italy. The rider had been using Dr Michele Ferrari?s services remotely, through the amateur rider who in return provided Ferrari with doping substances. The amateur rider ordered products from abroad that were unavailable in his local pharmacies, and had them delivered to a Swiss pharmacy where he collected them. The amateur rider told the rider that he also provided substances for professional riders from four pro teams.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
WildspokeJoe said:
Jonathan Vaughters was not allowed to continue when he had a bee sting during one of his Tour rides. It stunk for JV but I think at the time his DS was like we have to be strict on this and follow the rules. So to your point it was unfortunate but nothing more.
we all saw the eye swelling.

we know the wasp/bee sting must have occurred. this, a priori, we dont contest this, we know this.

from here, we do have multiple questions, and multiple responses.

We KNOW Legeay and Vaughters have messaged/communicated, that because of their ethics, they could not use cortisone.

We KNOW that.

Can we question this?

i) Was cortisone a perfect solution to reduce the swelling and allow Vaughters to continue that TdF in 2000(ish) ?

ii) If cortisone could have solved the problem, was this the only reason holding out Vaughters from the dnf?

iii) were TUE's available in 2000(ish)?


The problem is, JV has contradicted himself on quite a few occasions, and I no longer see him as a credulous spokesperson.

I really doubt the conversation ever occurred where he spoke to Legeay on the phone and said he would use doping this year in the TdF to achieve results for Legeay and CA. I call BS. This conversation is incredulous. I dont believe. I would like to get JV on a polygraph. I call BS. j'accuse. #Dreyfus
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
King Boonen said:
Or Di Luca?
Yes. Di Luca also fits the "90% of peloton is doping" statement. But he isn't named as interviewed. Neither is Santambrogio, but he got a reduced ban.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
jay vee must be shocked. how could it be that such a large fraction of cyclists still dope when it stopped being cool years ago?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
sniper said:
Good luck to him trying to explain why it wasn't Sky and how they managed the weight loss if not with corticoids.
It could at least put a nice blush on his face.
AICAR GW501516, Lipotropin (AOD-9604)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
I think this says a lot about CIRC

Michael Rasmussen (@MRasmussen1974):

"it's a bit paradoxical that now I have told all sorts of things under oath, and virtually all is being used in the various cases and later confirmed as credible. But when I say something about an employee of the UCI, it's just a rumor?
http://veloropa.dk/rasmussen-paradoksal-circ-kommentar/

Somehow what Rasmussen has said under oath is good enough for others but not CIRC.....hmmmm

This sport is not going to change soon.
 
neineinei said:
Yes. Di Luca also fits the "90% of peloton is doping" statement. But he isn't named as interviewed. Neither is Santambrogio, but he got a reduced ban.
I wondered if Di Luca did it to try and get his lifetime ban reduced. Definitely one of the two and whether Millar is right in his assessment of their evidence at least they bothered to go and testify...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
King Boonen said:
Wasn't aware of that, thanks. Seems certain it's Di Luca then.
Talansky subsequently went full omerta on Di Luca.

I feel genuine hatred towards Di Luca. He?s a worthless lying scumbag making false statements that hurt the sport I love.

Thankfully his statements are delusional. I wouldn?t be in this sport if it was not possible to succeed at the highest level and do it clean.
http://stevetilford.com/2014/01/22/di-luca-or-talansky-who-to-believe/

omerta lives alright, and it's the likes of Millar, Talansky, and Wiggins who enforce it.
 
hrotha said:
...(And that's counting retired riders and even Joe ****ing Papp)
Whatever, dude.

You have no idea why my testimony and corroborating evidence was important enough to CIRC for them to acknowledge USADA's recommendation and seek my cooperation...cooperation I gave them on advice of wise, respected counsel and genuine encouragement from friends and others active in the anti-doping movement whose judgment I value.

And the fact that I wasn't looking for any reduction in sanction - or any other favor - perhaps made getting the info from me to be a slightly more desirable option than parlaying with someone in an even worse situation who might be desperate to trade the evidence for favor/gain.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
The authors of the CIRC report admit that no rider came forward to voluntarily admit an anti-doping violation and several people including riders, scientists, ex-riders and former UCI staff refused to be interviewed.

This tells us all we need to know about the mindset of the sport. Not one rider came forward to admit to doping!

Doping is still a part of the fabric of this sport and this report will not change that.

But we know this. We just have to see how apart from Armstrong all those other dopers are doing fine, grand fondos, clothing lines, still riding, coaching, etc etc..........
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
joe_papp said:
Whatever, dude.

You have no idea why my testimony and corroborating evidence was important enough to CIRC for them to acknowledge USADA's recommendation and seek my cooperation...cooperation I gave them on advice of wise, respected counsel and genuine encouragement from friends and others active in the anti-doping movement whose judgment I value.

And the fact that I wasn't looking for any reduction in sanction - or any other favor - perhaps made getting the info from me to be a slightly more desirable option than parlaying with someone in an even worse situation who might be desperate to trade the evidence for favor/gain.
thanks joe, appreciate it.
why not stick around a bit.
would love to hear your view on things.
have you had any insight into the parts of the report that weren't published or were edited out?
 
btw...

hrotha said:
They talked to a grand total of 16 riders? :confused:

(And that's counting retired riders and even Joe ****ing Papp)
...while I might have done the majority of my UCI-racing outside the mainstream of Europe, in Latin America and East Asia (exception = 3 stage wins in Tour of Turkey), those were still regions w/ points-rich UCI-sanctioned multi-day road events where anti-doping controls could be subverted on one's behalf for not totally insignificant cash payments to UCI officials/office holders - including confederation presidents and their allies (and sometimes paid via their son(s)).

It's not my fault if the information is considered too sensitive and could possibly be the basis for potential anti-doping and criminal prosecutions such that its casual release in a public report might jeopardize future proceedings against wrongdoers.

Maybe you forget, too, that I also operated one of the most reliable and fastest growing global performance enhancing drug trafficking networks focused on elite endurance athletes (especially cyclists). And that we had dozens and dozens of clients, most of whom none of you know the identities of...and any number of whom could still be active in in pro cycling - information that could certainly merit CIRC's interest (not that it even has to be "justified" in this context to a pseudonymous user posting to online cycling doping forum, right?).

Like I said at the beginning though - whatever. At least I agreed to give testimony, unlike self-loathing David Millar who was invited, rejected the invite b/c he didn't feel it manifested sufficient deference to his awesomely self-focused and demanding life, and then expressed his regret and self-loathing by writing a passive-aggressive combination defense-of-cycling + CIRC hit-piece published in the Telegraph only minutes after the report went live...a piece in which he had the audacity to ask "where were all the current riders who should've appeared before CIRC??" (paraphrasing) when he was their poster-boy!
 
There are 16 named riders, which means that 10 chose to stay anonymous (15% of the 174= 26).

I doubt any of the Garmin/Postal guys would bother staying anonymous. Any former pros could be likely, to protect their name/position in management/future career in cycling. Current pros are less likely, but possible. If any did, they probably fueled the speculative comments: "...90% still doping..." "3-4 teammates clean, 3-4 doping, the rest not sure", "...30 pills per day..." (assuming they were legal combinations, as no one volunteered illegal doping)
 
Joe,

I'd like to thank you for contributing to CIRC.
Hopefully some of the information you gave will lead to further doping convictions.


I'd much rather see due process followed and convictions occur, than a 'juicier' public report and no convictions.
 
joe_papp said:
Maybe you forget, too, that I also operated one of the most reliable and fastest growing global performance enhancing drug trafficking networks focused on elite endurance athletes (especially cyclists). And that we had dozens and dozens of clients, most of whom none of you know the identities of...
Time to name names Joe. LEAK THE LIST!!!!! Leak it....LEEEAAAK IIIIT!!
 
May 25, 2009
76
0
0
Benotti69 said:
The authors of the CIRC report admit that no rider came forward to voluntarily admit an anti-doping violation and several people including riders, scientists, ex-riders and former UCI staff refused to be interviewed.

This tells us all we need to know about the mindset of the sport. Not one rider came forward to admit to doping!

Doping is still a part of the fabric of this sport and this report will not change that.

But we know this. We just have to see how apart from Armstrong all those other dopers are doing fine, grand fondos, clothing lines, still riding, coaching, etc etc..........

To what gain would they confess?

If you're young, you can say you don't know the old ways have have a legitimate excuse for not talking. If you're older, you're beating the system and prolonging your career, maybe even winning, why on earth would you go confess? With something as ingrained as it is, you have to think that the riders are all pretty much okay with it.

If you look at the long view, riders wouldn't even acknowledge doping in previous eras. You're still hard pressed to get straight talk out of old school guys. They'd argue that it didn't work and couldn't help. There was all sorts of bullsh*t, they even argued against in-competition testing because the races were won with out of competition doping and training. Out of competition testing was a downright invasion of privacy..

Now, we know it works, pretty decisively. We know many of the techniques. We know many of the doctors that have facilitated programs. Riders can't deny that it happened. That's huge.

There are riders who claim to be against it, that's a step. Then this CIRC report basically admitting that it's still broken is another big step; I'd say we kind of knew this already as the performances have not been any less dramatic but they codified it. It all comes down to what actions are taken. It seems like another important step on what will be a long road.

There are still some pretty backwards incentives, the sponsors don't get burned; just look at Trek before and after Lance. the teams have relatively little incentive to prevent their mid-tier riders from doping. Riders have no incentive to "whistle blow." We will see what happens with Astana but dopers need to become enemies to their teams and sponsors, until then it's just a risk, perhaps a smallish one for a known gain.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Franklin said:
Sorry, could be any team. Indeed considering Sky I'd bet they managed to keep out of this hooplah.

I know that any mention of weightloss makes everyony jump up and down and think of Sky, but most teams have extremely thin riders. Sky certainly was one of the first (Rasmussen was a trendsetting guy) and probably most aggressive, but I'm willing to bet every team exploits those Tue's.

And then considering the monetary fist of Sky I'm not as hopeful as you are that someone is spilling any beans.

Again: I am as convinced as anyone about Sky and it's practice. I'm just a bit more realistic on shizzle hitting the fan. It took extreme measures to unveil USPS and they were clearly a lot less careful (loose gun Landis, much tweetage between riders, I think they learnt their lessons).

No, I fear very much that the end of this story is going to be "We wish every team was more as Sky".
no no no no no

Rasmussen was not the first.

He was not a "weightloss".

Rasmussen was a JOCKEY.

Froome, Nibali, Wigans, Kennaugh, Porte, they all had the weightLOSS.

Salient term iis LOSS. L O S S.

Rass never had it on him to lose. He developed his FTP without getting larger and muscular, he was always a jockey. please, please, some rigour.


some rigour please.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
coinneach said:
I take your point about Herpes (how did you know I was on that, anyway?;);)?
Argh, reading that back it's rather rude of me. I truly did not intend to offend you, just wanted to give an example of something you would not want to be in the public. :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY