Circ

[More Strides than Rides]

So what exactly does the CIRC need before taking action? What burden of proof do they need to get a ban on a rider or manager and make it stick? The LA reasoned decision weathered the storm of lawyers and obfuscation, but that boat was packed pull of evidence.

What's the tipping point for all of these "speaks with CIRC" before action can be taken?

 

[DirtyWorks]

So what exactly does the CIRC need before taking action? What burden of proof do they need to get a ban on a rider or manager and make it stick? The LA reasoned decision weathered the storm of lawyers and obfuscation, but that boat was packed pull of evidence.

What's the tipping point for all of these "speaks with CIRC" before action can be taken?

If, and it's a big IF, they use the WADA process, CIRC recommends bans to the UCI who then directs various NADOs to sanction them. IMO, based on the noises Cookson is making about the CIRC, the big losers plucked out of the herd of doping DS's are Vino and Riis.

IMO, what probably makes January 2015 important is WADA's new, tougher standard gives the sports federations more power to ban actors beyond just the athlete. NADOs seem to get some more power too. It probably needs a thread as there are substantial, good, changes to the WADA standards.

I'm disappointed to see it written like Riis and Vino are the source of all doping fraud. At this rate there will be a Belorussian WT squad on podiums with transformed riders declared cleans. Why on earth does Och get a free pass?

 

[Granville57]

Why on earth does Och get a free pass?

Oh, don't tease with even the possibility!

I haven't heard any rumblings about such a thing, but if Och had to finally answer to someone in power, that would be awesome.

 

[mrhender]

So what exactly does the CIRC need before taking action? What burden of proof do they need to get a ban on a rider or manager and make it stick? The LA reasoned decision weathered the storm of lawyers and obfuscation, but that boat was packed pull of evidence.

What's the tipping point for all of these "speaks with CIRC" before action can be taken?

The tipping point is not pre-definable i think.
From the below I would say that if they are in doubt they can invite more people to testify.. I would guess that they are looking for patterns and pursue those with further invites of people who might have information. The aim is then to start a lavine the will multiply testimony/evidence..
A strong incentive for invites to talk is of course the reduced ban and their ability to secure anynomity in further proceedings.. However I'am a little dissapointed that it is only the UCI disciplinary commission who gets the evidence and not also WADA.. Also It doesn't look like they will reccomend bans, they will only further the evidence for the UCI, who then takes action...

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/53/44/AdHocregulationCIRC2014ENG_English.PDF

E. ADRV DISCOVERED BY THE CIRC

69. If the CIRC uncovers evidence that an ADRV was committed within the applicable
statute of limitation period by someone who has not appeared in front of the CIRC, it will either:
(i) forward such evidence to the UCI to take the appropriate action under
Articles 229-233 of the UCI ADR; or (ii) invite the LH who allegedly committed the
ADRV to be heard by the CIRC and to benefit from the Reduced Sanctions provided for under Section IV above.

70. Any disciplinary proceedings instigated upon information forwarded by the CIRC shall be conducted exclusively by the UCI Disciplinary Commission (Article 234 of the UCI
ADR will not be applicable) applying the UCI ADR exclusively.

71. If the CIRC has decided that the evidence provided to prosecute the ADRV will not be
public and that the Additional Valuable Information shall be treated in a confidential
way, the Disciplinary Commission will ensure that the identity of the LH will not be
disclosed in such disciplinary proceedings.

72. The Decision of the UCI Disciplinary Commission will be subject to an appeal to CAS
according to Articles 329, 330, 332 (by analogy), 333 and 334 UCI ADR.

73. If the CIRC has decided that the ADRV will not be public and that the “additional
valuable anti-doping relevant information” shall be treated in a confidential way, the LH
will be heard in CAS as a protected witness.

 

[robertmooreheadlane]

Problem you have is two fold in the jurisdiction and suitable justice

Where is the team based and who has jurisdiction over the team - so who can actually take action against any member of the team management

secondly how do you take action against the team management, how do you prove they knew or suspected, and then there will be a challenge in the courts and those people who testified will have to stand up and prove what they attest to and that will be the hard part.

So how do you get a team - who has a contract that states you will not dope and you will be fired if you do, that has a full on anti doping stance, and that has a consistent message on doping, and you want to take away the livelihoods of all the management on that team on the say of a couple of people who broke those rules and lied to the team - not the most credible witnesses. They are already liars.

It is the same issue we have always had, sports can bring in rules but they need to stand up in a court of law eventually

Because when you are depriving people of a livelihood and ability to earn a living you will end up in court sooner or later.

 

[neineinei]

Jaksche has been talking to CIRC.

http://www.procycling.no/dopet-seg-til-millioner-av-kroner-na-far-sykkelsporten-hele-historien/ (Norwegian)

 

[DirtyWorks]

However I'am a little dissapointed that it is only the UCI disciplinary commission who gets the evidence and not also WADA.. Also It doesn't look like they will reccomend bans, they will only further the evidence for the UCI, who then takes action...

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/53/44/AdHocregulationCIRC2014ENG_English.PDF

Hmm. UCI has the authority and can further manage controversy during 'dark times...'

 

[Granville57]

Hmm. UCI has the authority and can further manage controversy during 'dark times...'

Not sure what happened there, but clicking the link to mrhender's post directs one to a different thread from 2009.

(Some interesting reading though )

 

[Granville57]

From the below...
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/53/44/AdHocregulationCIRC2014ENG_English.PDF

Unless I'm missing something in that document, I don't see where Cookson will have any leverage on people such as Vino if they don't cooperate with CIRC.

Cookson has made statements about "time running out," but what can he, CIRC or the UCI do if someone simply decides not to play along?

I'll have to reread all of that when I'm better rested, but is there any specific stipulation regarding license holders who refuse to participate?


My god though, they do like their acronyms, do they not?

 

[mrhender]

Another danish article
http://www.bt.dk/cykling/hvor-blev-afsloeringerne-af-doping-undersoegelsen-der-aldrig-****ter

-Linking ADD's 2-year ongoing investigation with CIRC.
Confirmation that they are investigating some of the same things.

Google translate:
(I haven't edited but feel free to ask for clarification if needed..)

For almost two years, the Danish cycling sport black doping past come under scrutiny. But the scope of the investigation spreads like ripples in a pond, sounds from the Anti Doping Denmark.

It started with a clean confession and a desire to put everything on the table from Michael Rasmussen's side. And if it was a good start to get the skeletons out of the closet in Danish cycling, the rest figuratively been uphill.

Two years have passed since the Anti Doping Denmark (ADD) together with the Danish Sports Federation (DIF) set out to turn every stone in an era when Danish cycling is not inferior to international stars when it came to tinkering with forbidden substances and shoot a biochemical shortcut.

Yet it is far from the goal. Although the comprehensive examination a year ago supposedly on its last legs.

Faced with BT recognizes Anti Doping Denmark's director, Lone Hansen, the material has been growing pains and counting up to fifty questioned if explanations can be reconciled and verified internationally.

Thus, there is still no prospect of clarifying the role, not least Bjarne Riis in his capacity as team owner has played to the riders who have run teams as Team CSC Saxo Bank.

In the time that has passed since Michael Rasmussen accused Bjarne Riis to have been privy to Kylingens doping at Team CSC-Tiscali, the team has gone from flake Danish to Russian Oleg Tinkov as owner.

Lone Hansen, director of the Anti Doping Denmark still will not set any date for the final report is clear:

- We still have no precise end date, so unfortunately I can not say anything about.

What is the reason behind the delay and soon has lasted for two years?

- It's because we examine what is investigating. We talk to a large number of people within the sport of cycling and undergo what is information. And it sometimes takes his time.

It might seem like Anti Doping Denmark is about to open a Chinese box of this study?

- There are many things to illuminate both the front and rear. That's what happens when you interview people involving others. Then we have a duty to inquire further into the information we receive.

How many have you had for questioning?

- That's a lot. But the exact figure, I will not reveal. But it is very comprehensive. The Norwegians had 25-30 people for questioning in their doping investigation and we are well above those in the number of interviews. But I do not discuss the precise extent. I can say that we work through.

Are there other factors that come into play?

- Yes, there is the fact that the International Cycling Union has set up the Independent Commission CIRC (Cycling Independent Reform Commission, ed.). They examine some of the same things we have been doing and we have also held meetings with them.

 

[mrhender]

Not sure what happened there, but clicking the link to mrhender's post directs one to a different thread from 2009.

(Some interesting reading though )

That must be interference from my multiple accounts
Naah, it's probably because the post was moved and that confuses the system.

Unless I'm missing something in that document, I don't see where Cookson will have any leverage on people such as Vino if they don't cooperate with CIRC.

Cookson has made statements about "time running out," but what can he, CIRC or the UCI do if someone simply decides not to play along?

I'll have to reread all of that when I'm better rested, but is there any specific stipulation regarding license holders who refuse to participate?

My god though, they do like their acronyms, do they not?

There is nothing in that document suggesting you can sanction people from other than ADRV's.
One thing though, is that the CIRC can impose bans up to 8 yers for lying to them.
So if a number of persons has called out a DS (for example).
Then that DS has to decide if they are willing to bet on the lack of evidence/proof, or risk testifying to the CIRC and be cornered in lies?

Pretty interesting dilemma i think.

Cookson may just be using the phrase for rethorical purposes.
But the game is maybe to put players like Vino/Riis in a position where they have to lie or admit to doping offenses. Or bet on that none of the talkers has other than their word to back up claims.

Afterall there could be a element of thruth in Cookson saying that thos who talk can get redemption.
A theory from this is that he does not want a huge scandal, but rather would like the big players to talk and get their redemption. I dunno what to think yet.

Only big problem I have with this is that the CIRC/UCI are entiltled to sweep pretty much anything they might find under the carpet, as well as the action taken from it.
That's not necesarily because I think the proccess is corrupt, but I like to know what is beeing done and said.
Let's see what happens.

 

[Basecase]

When will CIRC report?

Anyone know? Thanks

 

[Dear Wiggo]

They just need a bit more time.

 

[del1962]

That must be interference from my multiple accounts
Naah, it's probably because the post was moved and that confuses the system.



There is nothing in that document suggesting you can sanction people from other than ADRV's.
One thing though, is that the CIRC can impose bans up to 8 yers for lying to them.
So if a number of persons has called out a DS (for example).
Then that DS has to decide if they are willing to bet on the lack of evidence/proof, or risk testifying to the CIRC and be cornered in lies?

Pretty interesting dilemma i think.

Cookson may just be using the phrase for rethorical purposes.
But the game is maybe to put players like Vino/Riis in a position where they have to lie or admit to doping offenses. Or bet on that none of the talkers has other than their word to back up claims.

Afterall there could be a element of thruth in Cookson saying that thos who talk can get redemption.
A theory from this is that he does not want a huge scandal, but rather would like the big players to talk and get their redemption. I dunno what to think yet.

Only big problem I have with this is that the CIRC/UCI are entiltled to sweep pretty much anything they might find under the carpet, as well as the action taken from it.
That's not necesarily because I think the proccess is corrupt, but I like to know what is beeing done and said.
Let's see what happens.

Could they just remain silent?

 

[the sceptic]

They just need a bit more time.

It's important to have enough time. Not to mention following the rules.

Maybe they are waiting for Leinders? Or maybe not

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's going to take a long while to come up with a plausible story where the UCI is somehow a fair dealer. FIFA just didn't release their whole report. UNC blamed two (2!) retired people for handing out hundreds of valid, but fraudulent diplomas in a massive university. I never knew two people could be so effective.

You know, with the UCI creating a supra-international sanctioning body in Lausanne, the UCI can write any story they want and ban anyone to make the released story seem plausible.

Cool system. I need a job at the UCI.

 

[mrhender]

Anyone know? Thanks

They haven't been to informative of late.. I read that the recent Zorzoli debacle will be handed ovér to CIRC. But Originally they were to conclude the investigations 1st of january. However the CIRC commission is entitled to prolong the investigation if they think it is necessary.. I also heard that the reprt would be concluded in february so you are not the only confused here

Could they just remain silent?

Yes, the commission decides what they want to make public..
As I read the original guidelines they have the final word in enclosing any details regarding testimony and secret deals...

But I also heard Cookson say they will publish the report..
Not that it is for him to decide, and i don't think they will publish much other then some conclusions to the work and no details...

But of course IF they have enough ammo to sanction current DS' etc (Vino, Riis) for ex. then we might get some details from a later CAS hearing/decision...

 

[L'arriviste]

They haven't been to informative of late.. I read that the recent Zorzoli debacle will be handed ovér to CIRC. But Originally they were to conclude the investigations 1st of january. However the CIRC commission is entitled to prolong the investigation if they think it is necessary.

CIRC's regulations run until January 31st (this Saturday) with an option to extend for up to 4 months by request to the UCI Management Committee (see para I.4, page 4).

My guess would be that an extension of some sort may be necessary.

 

[del1962]

They haven't been to informative of late.. I read that the recent Zorzoli debacle will be handed ovér to CIRC. But Originally they were to conclude the investigations 1st of january. However the CIRC commission is entitled to prolong the investigation if they think it is necessary.. I also heard that the reprt would be concluded in february so you are not the only confused here




Yes, the commission decides what they want to make public..
As I read the original guidelines they have the final word in enclosing any details regarding testimony and secret deals...

But I also heard Cookson say they will publish the report..
Not that it is for him to decide, and i don't think they will publish much other then some conclusions to the work and no details...

But of course IF they have enough ammo to sanction current DS' etc (Vino, Riis) for ex. then we might get some details from a later CAS hearing/decision...

Sorry a misunderstanding I meant Vino/Riis remaining silent to CIRC thus avoiding having to lie

 

[mrhender]

Sorry a misunderstanding I meant Vino/Riis remaining silent to CIRC thus avoiding having to lie

Ahh.. Of course...

This is how I understand the process..

Person X offers testimony damning to person Y...
Person Y then gets an invite to come and give their version to the commission..

It is ONLY an invite, but if a number of X testimonys is unanswered it could waeken the case for person Y as they don't get a "say"...

So from the various testimony a ban could be suggested by the commission then to be enforced by the UCI...

We know that both Riis/Vino as persons Y has gotten public invites from Cookson saying time was running out...

According to RR Riis may have already been talking to them, but I don't know abt Vino...

So to answer your question my bet would be that Riis might have shown up..
Maybe Admitting to some violations that are prior to the SOL and then been fishing for what they've got on him other then the old Rasmussen/Jachse/tyler stuff...
But it could be risky bussiness if they got newlier testimony that when confronted with he has to lie or say no comment.. Both would be bad for him... But who knows what/if they got anything so that's why I think this is a game of poker and that who blinks first might loose...
I guess it would come in handy to be well-informed if you are Riis/Vino as to who they have been talking to etc...

So imo There is no simple answer to your question -hence making it interesting

 

[More Strides than Rides]

This independent commission is now independent of time and space. Look for their report to appear in the 4th dimension.

 

[Basecase]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/cycling/31012367

"Lance is a scapegoat" - McQuaid

Isn't it all three more pertinent that CIRC report soon given this recent trash talk from Pat and Lance?

I'd hope there'd be clarity and movement out of its deliberations ....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'd hope there'd be clarity and movement out of its deliberations ....

I'll have whatever he's having.

 

[Basecase]

It's called hope.

It permeates around crusaders in others fields too such as climate change and ending world poverty.

I believe it also rests in every frequenter of the Clinic whether they know it or not .....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's called hope.

It permeates around crusaders in others fields too such as climate change and ending world poverty.

I believe it also rests in every frequenter of the Clinic whether they know it or not .....

If you could point to a single instance of Cookson providing any sort of clarity or anything else, I'd buy it.

But to my way of thinking it's been the opposite.