Circ

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 13, 2010
458
0
0
staubsauger said:
Contador got covered up twice! Won grand tours when he was concerned in Puerto. Won a Giro during his ban.

But yeah, it's (only) Froome who's the evil protected man and new Armstrong. :rolleyes:
Look, everyone (erm, almost everyone) seems convinced they are both doped to the eyeballs. Yet one of them has the audacity to proclaim themselves spokesperson for clean cycling and the new clean era. Take a wild guess who's who in that respect. That's why most people keep barking up Sky's tree. Ain't that hard to grasp really.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
20-90%. the mean is 55%. We can't go on any of these figures but i would imagine that once a certain critical percentage is reached then it might tend to snowball like it did in the 90s as riders try to stay competitive. So for me it is more likely to be at one end of the scale or the other rather than in the middle? Just a thought
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
The 90% has to be low...more like 99%.

When we look at Astana's team program with top doc Ferrari and now middle pack rider like Lloyd Mondoury getting popped for epo, you got to be PEDing to keep a contract.

CIRC report does seem to know whether to condemn the sport or congratulate it!
 
Also, assuming Di Luca accurately represents what he sees, 90% doping at the races he/Vini Fantini did, is going to be different than the figure a TDF rider Y, or Classics rider X.

My first reaction is that it is trivial to specify the level of doping. But the intervention to eliminate a 90% block of doping is going to be different than narrowing down the 20% block. And even more, doping is not black and white, and we have issues with TUEs, finishing bottles, etc...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
Also, assuming Di Luca accurately represents what he sees, 90% doping at the races he/Vini Fantini did, is going to be different than the figure a TDF rider Y, or Classics rider X.

My first reaction is that it is trivial to specify the level of doping. But the intervention to eliminate a 90% block of doping is going to be different than narrowing down the 20% block. And even more, doping is not black and white, and we have issues with TUEs, finishing bottles, etc...
Di Luca raced for more than Vini Fantini. He rode for katusha and other WT teams.

Also there are lots of Italians racing in the peloton on multiple teams and they talk.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

to date as FmcK points out there is one single measure being taken

Feargal McKay
@EuroHoody There is one single measure announced - the hotline. The rest are "build on", "work with", "ensure that." ie continue as we are.
So after CIRC it seems UCI are happy to continue as they were.......quelle surprise
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
to date as FmcK points out there is one single measure being taken

Feargal McKay
@EuroHoody There is one single measure announced - the hotline. The rest are "build on", "work with", "ensure that." ie continue as we are.
So after CIRC it seems UCI are happy to continue as they were.......quelle surprise
Just because no one called doesn't means there wasn't a hotline
 
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
I say this a lot in conversations, but there is always a lot to admire about the commitment of dopers. Illegality and immorality (and mortality) aside, these techniques require physical, mental, and strategic commitment at the highest level.

I can imagine 5 guys sitting around a table talking about blood bags for hours: Mail? No. Motoman? No. Burying it on the route? No. How about we transport it in his own bloodstream! Genius!...
Just wanted to say I thought this post was very funny, and not just insightful.

Cheers.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
For the 95% its probably simple laziness.

If you had a check a box so they would NOT be included in research, I would bet a good dinner that very few would check the box.

This sort of opt out opt/in is used all the time in marketing e-mails.
I think it's more about the salesmanship of the DCO.

You have to check one box or the other in the presence of the DCO who asks you each and every time they perform a test if you consent to research. If you do, you check a box; if you don't, you check a box.

In OOC testing at home, one often gets the same DCO. Once they've tested you a few times, they're not above falling into normal human routine and assuming that b/c you declined to consent to research three times previously, you'll decline now and so they don't even try to encourage you into it. In fact, during my last OOC control in 2014, the DCO basically pre-answered the question for me b/c she was so accustomed to my refusal to consent to research. USADA had started using ipads instead of paper forms by that point, so you couldn't even tick a box...you had to verbalize your answer. And for whatever reason, at that point when she assumed that I was going to continue to decline to participate, I figured I'd better start participating finally.

Just an observation on how the actual sample collection takes place...

But yeah, I really believe the ADOs are missing the chance to secure more test samples by not providing the DCOs w/ at least a bit of sales-training as part of their continuing education. B/c if they don't even try to encourage recalcitrant RTP-athletes to donate their pee to the research cause, then the flood of specimens will slow to a trickle...
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
staubsauger said:
Contador got covered up twice! Won grand tours when he was concerned in Puerto. Won a Giro during his ban.

But yeah, it's (only) Froome who's the evil protected man and new Armstrong. :rolleyes:
It's absolutely not just one rider being protected. Little doubt in my mind that Froome is being protected however.

The UCI are attempting to manage a brand, not fight doping. If fighting doping helps that brand, great. They will do that. If it doesn't, they clearly have done and will continue to do that as well.
Yes! Managing a brand is exactly right. There is no integrity in the game itself, just perception of a game. Which is why the excellent article by the former female pro just vanishes into a vacuum. Nobody at the UCI is thinking like that.

Good news is 2015 is off to a great start and it's not even May! It's going to get Armstrong crazy in 2015.
 
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
Also, assuming Di Luca accurately represents what he sees, 90% doping at the races he/Vini Fantini did, is going to be different than the figure a TDF rider Y, or Classics rider X.

My first reaction is that it is trivial to specify the level of doping. But the intervention to eliminate a 90% block of doping is going to be different than narrowing down the 20% block. And even more, doping is not black and white, and we have issues with TUEs, finishing bottles, etc...
IMO, technically, the bio passport works okay. It's the sports federations not sanctioning anyone that matters that is what's currently responsible for the unreal performances.

Yes, there are other problems with the doping thresholds and test technology. If the UCI acted like a fair dealer, then we could address some of the many ways test tech still loses to the determined doper. But, we're not even close to that yet.

AND you'll note, anything Cookson has said about the CIRC report, he still is lying about processing positives. As much as the CIRC report stated the UCI hid positives, nothing mentioned or being done about it.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
staubsauger said:
Contador got covered up twice! Won grand tours when he was concerned in Puerto. Won a Giro during his ban.

But yeah, it's (only) Froome who's the evil protected man and new Armstrong. :rolleyes:
Contador has been caught and served a ban. He clearly cannot be the new Armstrong.
Yeah proper ban if you are able to win the Giro during it and basically are out for roundabout 6 months only. Definitely covered up. Mosquera shall agree with me.

And of course Contador was the new Armstrong. Hell that's what Bruyneel just made out of him. Luckily he's never been such an enormous coq like Lance. But he clearly was his successor. How can there be any doubt about that?
 
Re: Re:

staubsauger said:
The Hitch said:
staubsauger said:
Contador got covered up twice! Won grand tours when he was concerned in Puerto. Won a Giro during his ban.

But yeah, it's (only) Froome who's the evil protected man and new Armstrong. :rolleyes:
Contador has been caught and served a ban. He clearly cannot be the new Armstrong.
Yeah proper ban if you are able to win the Giro during it and basically are out for roundabout 6 months only. Definitely covered up. Mosquera shall agree with me.

And of course Contador was the new Armstrong. Hell that's what Bruyneel just made out of him. Luckily he's never been such an enormous coq like Lance. But he clearly was his successor. How can there be any doubt about that?
but how can he be the new Armstrong if he's not a dick and a sociopath :confused:
 
Re: Re:

staubsauger said:
The Hitch said:
staubsauger said:
Contador got covered up twice! Won grand tours when he was concerned in Puerto. Won a Giro during his ban.

But yeah, it's (only) Froome who's the evil protected man and new Armstrong. :rolleyes:
Contador has been caught and served a ban. He clearly cannot be the new Armstrong.
Yeah proper ban if you are able to win the Giro during it and basically are out for roundabout 6 months only. Definitely covered up. Mosquera shall agree with me.

And of course Contador was the new Armstrong. Hell that's what Bruyneel just made out of him. Luckily he's never been such an enormous coq like Lance. But he clearly was his successor. How can there be any doubt about that?
Yeah, only you didn't say Contador was the new Armstrong, you said he is. He may have been in the past, but right now its Froome or Wiggins or Nibali.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Someone already defined it a "smokescreen to hide the failures of WADA". Personally, the voluminous CIRC report seemed partial and disappointing, historically lacking, as well as a sort of encouragement (and source of information) for those who want to continue doping.
http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=156

Dr Michele Ferrari's view on CIRC.

Interesting reading and I bet UCI aren't happy reading his thoughts.
 
Jun 30, 2014
7,060
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Someone already defined it a "smokescreen to hide the failures of WADA". Personally, the voluminous CIRC report seemed partial and disappointing, historically lacking, as well as a sort of encouragement (and source of information) for those who want to continue doping.
http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=156

Dr Michele Ferrari's view on CIRC.

Interesting reading and I bet UCI aren't happy reading his thoughts.
Ferrari's articles put most so called cycling journalists to shame, that's pretty sad.
I enjoyed reading his article on low-carb diets in cycling
http://53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=132
 
Benotti69 said:
Someone already defined it a "smokescreen to hide the failures of WADA". Personally, the voluminous CIRC report seemed partial and disappointing, historically lacking, as well as a sort of encouragement (and source of information) for those who want to continue doping.
http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=156

Dr Michele Ferrari's view on CIRC.

Interesting reading and I bet UCI aren't happy reading his thoughts.
There is a reason Ferrari is unhappy about it as you can see in his pathetic defense of the accusations against him.

n the subsequent pages, the report described alleged episodes that are part of an investigation (Padova) which, five (!) years since its inception, is not yet complete, primarily involving myself.
On page 67, it is described how "a cyclist, positive to EPO in 2013, has received the substance from an amateur cyclist who works in a pharmacy in northern Italy and in the distant past would have been a conduit for a consultation between Dr. Ferrari and such professional cyclist, a service that would be paid for with the delivery of drugs to Ferrari".
A story that I immediately dismiss as "colossal ***", completely made up.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
del1962 said:
Benotti69 said:
Someone already defined it a "smokescreen to hide the failures of WADA". Personally, the voluminous CIRC report seemed partial and disappointing, historically lacking, as well as a sort of encouragement (and source of information) for those who want to continue doping.
http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=156

Dr Michele Ferrari's view on CIRC.

Interesting reading and I bet UCI aren't happy reading his thoughts.
There is a reason Ferrari is unhappy about it as you can see in his pathetic defense of the accusations against him.

n the subsequent pages, the report described alleged episodes that are part of an investigation (Padova) which, five (!) years since its inception, is not yet complete, primarily involving myself.
On page 67, it is described how "a cyclist, positive to EPO in 2013, has received the substance from an amateur cyclist who works in a pharmacy in northern Italy and in the distant past would have been a conduit for a consultation between Dr. Ferrari and such professional cyclist, a service that would be paid for with the delivery of drugs to Ferrari".
A story that I immediately dismiss as "colossal ***", completely made up.
Ferrari's pathetic defence is right up there along with the other pathetic defence stories we ever hear or hear from those in cycling who have something to hide or cannot admit the truth even after being caught.

But he also makes some interesting points about CIRC.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
But he also makes some interesting points about CIRC.
the CIRC makes a mockery of 'independent' reviewing.
They were always going to clear Zorzoli.

As a reminder (posted a few months ago already), meet Zorzoli's compatriot Antonio Rigozzi, the guy who, nota bene, selected the three CIRC panel members:
DirtyWorks said:
Antonio Rigozzi

http://globalarbitrationreview.com/reviews/chapters/authors/805/1160/107/30/antonio-rigozzi/

I've posted this before, but here's a perfect example of the "virtuous circle" of sports administration.
Represents athletes.
Represents federations.
Works for sports federations.
On CAS panels.

All at the same time. Are sports federations getting the best parts of that arrangement?
Now, let's see who's on the current UCI Anti-Doping Policy Board (on the same page as Zorzoli):

"This body is made up of three people: the President of the UCI Anti-Doping Commission (see below), Mr Peder Pedersen, a representative of the UCI external legal counsel, Mr Antonio Rigozzi, and the UCI General Director, Mr Martin Gibbs."
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/

So two guys, same nationality, working for the same company, one guy gets to pick a panel of experts who should then 'independently' review his colleague and compatriot...
right.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY