Circ

[joe_papp]

Actually I don't think Cookson is calling the shots..
A system is not persitently rotten only because of the current leader...

My guess is he's fanboy as suggested by freddythefrog.. He might even think that he's doing some good but a lot of people might lose their jobs or worse, if he's walking the talk/being successful.. So he is allowed his PR-campaingn and 3 million euro investigations resulting in general reccomendations rather than individual case-handling... My guess would be that ADD who is practically working in their spare-time might be the only ones actuallay opening cases upon their investigations.. Not that any of this reflects well on Cookson of course.. I just think his aspirations are ower-shadowed by larger forces... I guess we will know more in a couple of weeks -or maybe not...

Err, I can say from direct experience that CIRC is investigating doping-related corruption at the very highest levels of the sport, including targeting individual management committee members and UCI executive leadership.

They're not hamstrung by current UCI leadership at all.

Whether the evidence is used to draw conclusions that make it into final report...we'll see.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Err, I can say from direct experience that CIRC is investigating doping-related corruption at the very highest levels of the sport, including targeting individual management committee members and UCI executive leadership.

They're not hamstrung by current UCI leadership at all.

Whether the evidence is used to draw conclusions that make it into final report...we'll see.

Yeah, that's not happening. That would mean AT LEAST Plant and Makarov getting the boot off the management committee. It also conveniently skips the fact Cookson was on the management committee for years leading up to the USADA sanctions.

A couple of people will get thrown under the bus retelling the stories that are already known. The report closes with the UCI looking forward to the cleanest peloton ever because anti-doping is independent now. With the new race schedule structure riders won't want to dope...

Joe, you'll still be on the blacklist. It's time to move on.

 

[ebandit]

wormy

so brian says he thinks that the coming report will make 'uncomfortable reading'

doe's he know what the 'independent' body will be reporting or is he just
stating that the report will just reflect what he have seen in recent years
through pro cycling?

Mark L

 

[skippythepinhead]

so brian says he thinks that the coming report will make 'uncomfortable reading'

doe's he know what the 'independent' body will be reporting or is he just
stating that the report will just reflect what he have seen in recent years
through pro cycling?

Mark L

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[orbeas]

Fit and proper !!!!


Well let's hope he has a close look at the person who employed Shane Sutton. There's somebody who fits the description "not a fit and proper person" straight off.

MR Sutton has made it clear that he has had nothing to do with doping in the past


". I must have been tested 103 times or something in my career and never ever come up positive.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.

 

[veganrob]

never tested positive

Why do these guys keep blowing the "never tested positive" horn. Anybody who knows anything know that is total BS. That is just stating the obvious that they are guilty. I want to see someone come up with an original line about refuting allegations about past doping. I'll at least give them credit for that.

 

[sniper]

MR Sutton has made it clear that he has had nothing to do with doping in the past


". I must have been tested 103 times or something in my career and never ever come up positive.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.

Sutton, Yates, Julich, De Jongh, Leinders, Brailsford.
6 guys lucky to not be in jail for fraud and drug trafficking.

Ashenden:

"There are questions that need to be asked," he said. "They [Sky] have zero tolerance for doping. Great. But what constitutes doping according to them? Is it an anti-doping rule violation? Is it grounds for suspicion? Or are they merely relying on what the athlete tells them?

"Take Sean Yates as an example, who is pertinent because of his prominent links to Armstrong and photos of him arm in arm with 'Motoman' [Armstrong's alleged drugs mule] floating around on the internet. Let me be clear that I don't know if he's doped in the past or not. But if he tells Sky that he hasn't, is that the end of the matter, or do Sky intend to actively investigate what [team leader David] Brailsford calls reputational risks and act on what they find if there are grounds to suspect someone has been associated with doping? It's a really important issue because unless they can qualify their position, their statement isn't worth the paper it's written on. If they intend only to act when a cyclist is sanctioned, they're being disingenuous to their fans."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/oct/20/doping-team-sky-cyclin

 

[thehog]

so brian says he thinks that the coming report will make 'uncomfortable reading'

doe's he know what the 'independent' body will be reporting or is he just
stating that the report will just reflect what he have seen in recent years
through pro cycling?

Mark L

You've been hacked again. The ........ have gone.

 

[WildspokeJoe]

?I think there will be a lot of uncomfortable reading in it and we should all prepare ourselves for that. That was always going to be part of what was going to happen. I don?t think there will be a lot of new revelations, because mostly we have a good idea of what was happening and how widespread the problems were.?


Is it me or is BC talking out both sides of his mouth? Reading becomes uncomfortable when new revelations brings new names or current riders into the spotlight. They will never get the entire truth because it benefits no one.

It?s convenient they put an imaginary line at 1998. If they went back to say 1990, we might have one less multiple Tour winner. The Festina affair of 1998 wasn?t the start but the peak of unchecked behavior.

It will be funny if the reports narrows it?s focus and puts all the rotten egg in the golden years from 1998-2008 - When everyone obviously stopped doping.

 

[ebandit]

oh

You've been hacked again. The ........ have gone.

......wrong.......................................again

Mark L

 

[thehog]

......wrong.......................................again

Mark L

Apologies. You're back to trolling again.

 

[mewmewmew13]

......wrong.......................................again

Mark L

ignore..............................................................

 

[sniper]

Err, I can say from direct experience that CIRC is investigating doping-related corruption at the very highest levels of the sport, including targeting individual management committee members and UCI executive leadership.

They're not hamstrung by current UCI leadership at all.

Whether the evidence is used to draw conclusions that make it into final report...we'll see.

that's interesting, do tell more.

what i'd like to know is why neither Leinders nor Zorzoli were called to testify let alone offered sentence reduction (Leinders) in exchange for intel.

I also look forward to the testimonies of Julich and De Jongh.

 

[red_flanders]

Can someone offer a legitimate reason why any of this would need to be "redacted"?

 

[filipo]

so brian says he thinks that the coming report will make 'uncomfortable reading'

<b>doe's he know what the 'independent' body will be reporting </b>or is he just
stating that the report will just reflect what he have seen in recent years
through pro cycling?

Mark L

My thoughts exactly. Either it's independent, and Cookson has only a general idea of what's in the can of worms, or cookson's already had a look, rendering the circ independent in name only.

My guess is it's the latter.

 

[thehog]

Can someone offer a legitimate reason why any of this would need to be "redacted"?

If an accusation could not be substantiated and the person it was made against did not contribute then it's hardly fair to print the name. It could be a lie and that person might be defamed, opening up the CIRC to issues of credibility.

 

[sniper]

Can someone offer a legitimate reason why any of this would need to be "redacted"?

one potential reason is that CIRC has offered (or has an option to offer(?)) anonymity to witnesses.
so as i understand it, a witness' name may be redacted if Circ think it's appropriate.

 

[mrhender]

Quite a few reasons for redactions actually:

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.

Cookson also asked the comission to prepare a report that could go public straight away without legal issues. That of course makes it possible that some amount of the work will be redacted..

 

[skippythepinhead]

Can someone offer a legitimate reason why any of this would need to be "redacted"?

Legitimacy is so subjective. I can think of a ton of reasons, from convenience to libel/slander and much between and beside.

I guess the question is, "How do you think you'll judge whether a redaction is legitimate?"

Personally, while I love having all the names named, if there is nothing to be gained by including hearsay on a potential minor player in the grand scheme, I'll sacrifice small fry for a complete narrative. If the narrative becomes diluted or compromised by oversensitive redactions, argument over the legitimacy of the entire report will in actuality render the entire exercise illegitimate. I think there should be a great deal of effort put into avoiding arguments like with FIFA. Or, that could be the end desire--to bog the whole thing down so in the end we're cycling on rollers...

Popcorn ready to pour into popper.

 

[thehog]

Quite a few reasons for redactions actually:



Cookson also asked the comission to prepare a report that could go public straight away without legal issues. That of course makes it possible that some amount of the work will be redacted..

x injected y with EPO as a, b and c watched on. a then did a blood transfusion with f. y then tweeted they were cleans.

 

[mrhender]

x injected y with EPO as a, b and c watched on. a then did a blood transfusion with f. y then tweeted they were cleans.

Yes, and the Clinic will go all:

 

[skippythepinhead]

x injected y with EPO as a, b and c watched on. a then did a blood transfusion with f. y then tweeted they were cleans.

You forgot the text to m to dial back the testing for 4 days

 

[thehog]

Yes, and the Clinic will go all:

x wore sandshoes and finished 17th. y decided to provide AICAR to x who then came 2nd at the Vuelta. y proclaimed that we had a very good responder and continued to provide AICAR to x.

If only...!

 

[mrhender]

Vayer tweeting again

Antoine VAYER @festinaboy 13 min.
CIRC report, for some, will show how many stupid you was again, and again, and again,

Antoine VAYER @festinaboy 11 min.
Gastauer, remember this name.

If he's talking of Ben Gastauer then we have ourselves a luxembourgian on our hands..
Wonder if Schlecks got invites...

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yes, and the Clinic will go all:

LOLOL!!!
good one

(^^^btw that would be me)