Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[Dear Wiggo]

Immediately I would be tempted to say no, it's only been a matter of months and nothing much has happened. Except for one minor matter: the lack of transparency. None of the old CADF docs + testing stats are any longer available, the CADF annual report is not being made public (and old editions have been withdrawn). Under Cookson, anti-doping has been redefined as Clean Sport and bad news is being buried five layers deep. For the apparently independent CADF to have seemingly decided on a similar policy ... I dunno, it's not independence as I know it.

So the CADF business report is not being released any longer? I think I tweeted that question some time ago but the chances of getting a response are zero.

 

[fmk_RoI]

So the CADF business report is not being released any longer?

It's not published on the UCI website.
It's not published on the CADF website.
The UCI are not answering questions about it.
The CADF are not answering questions about it.

 

[thehog]

So the CADF business report is not being released any longer? I think I tweeted that question some time ago but the chances of getting a response are zero.

Seeing everyone is now clean, why have a report?

 

[RownhamHill]

Immediately I would be tempted to say no, it's only been a matter of months and nothing much has happened. Except for one minor matter: the lack of transparency. None of the old CADF docs + testing stats are any longer available, the CADF annual report is not being made public (and old editions have been withdrawn). Under Cookson, anti-doping has been redefined as Clean Sport and bad news is being buried five layers deep. For the apparently independent CADF to have seemingly decided on a similar policy ... I dunno, it's not independence as I know it.

No, sounds sketchy. What is the business report, and how often did it used to get published?

 

[fmk_RoI]

No, sounds sketchy. What is the business report, and how often did it used to get published?

It's a business report, from when the CADF was first made independent, published annually. Used to be available on UCI website. Like a lot of other docs - eg the newsletter that contained information on proposed calendar reforms - old copies are gone from the UCI website, for some reason.

 

[the sceptic]

All fair enough - I completely agree with this.

To take it a step further, I guess that if you'll know independence when you see it, the opposite might also be true: you might be able to know corruption/nepotism when you see it (as long a you do actually get to see it!). So do you think there is there anything since the CADF was reformulated that suggests that, or are we just in a holding pattern waiting to judge CADF's actions over time?

There is a very good reason why Cookson only wants fake independence and not real independence. Can you guess what it is?

 

[D-Queued]

Disagreeing all the time? Of course that would be stupid. But they would have to disagree sometime, do something sometime which clearly goes against the wishes of the UCI, because it would only be then that you would be able to see them actually acting independent. What could that something be? It could be something as simple as retro-testing, which historically the UCI has been against and refused to do (yes, they promise, but - apart from a couple of isolated, individual examples - they don't do it). So the CADF coming out and saying, "We've a new, more sensitive EPO test, and we're going to apply it to all samples in storage," that might help prove independence, give a lot of people comfort that the CADF really was an independent body, and not merely there to do the UCI's bidding. Defining that something in advance, it's not simple. To get like Martial Saugy on this, it's one of those things which you'll know when you see it. Not a very good definition, but it is what it is. An objective judgement of independence is just too easy to game.

Interesting thought.

I know this was just an example out of the air, but what would be better would be any systematic plan for retroactive testing.

The problem with this example is that you may not be able to test the stored samples more than once, or at least not an infinite number of times.

Thus, you would need to know that:

- The test you have is effective
- The test is effective on retro samples
- Many in the peloton were actually using the substance that you can now test for
- There aren't newer, better tests that will be available within the 8 year period that will detect more things

A systematic plan could include:

- Test samples (e.g. Lance's six positives) to demonstrate the capability of the test on likely positives
- If confirmed, selection of older/oldest samples where a positive is likely (i.e. they were likely using the substance)
- Less testing of most recent samples (to avoid using them up)
- Survey, only, of more recent samples to determine the incidence of the PED

Anyhow, a plan for systematic retro-testing would be fantastic.

One problem, working through the outline above, is that most positives would be the oldest samples. In other words, expect a rash of doping cases that are eight years old. And, expect that on an ongoing basis.

Expect some push-back.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Interesting thought.

I know this was just an example out of the air, but what would be better would be any systematic plan for retroactive testing.

The problem with this example is that you may not be able to test the stored samples more than once, or at least not an infinite number of times.

Thus, you would need to know that:

- The test you have is effective
- The test is effective on retro samples
- Many in the peloton were actually using the substance that you can now test for
- There aren't newer, better tests that will be available within the 8 year period that will detect more things

A systematic plan could include:

- Test samples (e.g. Lance's six positives) to demonstrate the capability of the test on likely positives
- If confirmed, selection of older/oldest samples where a positive is likely (i.e. they were likely using the substance)
- Less testing of most recent samples (to avoid using them up)
- Survey, only, of more recent samples to determine the incidence of the PED

Anyhow, a plan for systematic retro-testing would be fantastic.

One problem, working through the outline above, is that most positives would be the oldest samples. In other words, expect a rash of doping cases that are eight years old. And, expect that on an ongoing basis.

Expect some push-back.

Dave.

Correct.

What you're left with is only one sample and not 2 for each athlete. Retro testing could only occur on samples that weren’t already tested; meaning those athletes who finished not in first position on the stage, in the leader’s jersey or the one random.

The LA 6 EPO samples was indicative on this. There was only one sample to test thus it could never be used for formalised sanction.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I know this was just an example out of the air, but what would be better would be any systematic plan for retroactive testing.

Yes, it was just one example plucked out of the air, and clearly an extreme one insofar as complete re-testing of all samples would be a waste of time and money.

The systematic plan - well they could follow what the IAAF seem to have, retro-testing of major championship samples ahead of their being flushed. Even that, though, is too much for the UCI.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Expect some push-back.

The whole point of the example offered - extreme as it was - was that it would demonstrate the independence of the CADF, prove that they really are the sport's thief-takers and not just a bunch of window-dressers. A truly independent CADF would be above push-back.

 

[the sceptic]

This is why the UCI only has fake independence. If it was real, then something might this might actually happen and that is the last thing the UCI wants.

Imagine if a bunch of new generation clean riders started testing positive for EPO. It would be the UCIs worst nightmare. The "new era" would be dead, sponsors would go away, brits would stop tuning in.

No, I think its best to keep those 2012 samples safely locked away in a nuclear bunker somewhere.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Retro testing could only occur on samples that weren’t already tested; meaning those athletes who finished not in first position on the stage, in the leader’s jersey or the one random.

With all due respect could you please stop talking such BS and go and read the rules as clearly you haven't got a clue how retro testing actually works and is currently being used.

 

[thehog]

With all due respect could you please stop talking such BS and go and read the rules as clearly you haven't got a clue how retro testing actually works and is currently being used.

I know you're upset about your RCS comment thinking it wasn't internal audit which picked up it the issue.

So you'll forgive me for noting your bluster is just a cover for not being furnished with the full set of facts.

If you want to add to the discussion then do so with links and not the usual "I know what I'm talking about because I say it with authority" type tone.

One only needs to look at the way Cookson dealt with the recent 1998 positives:

"The UCI as well as other anti-doping organizations have all been aware of the fact that samples from the 1998 Tour de France were retested in 2004 for the purpose of a research programme. Since 2005, it has also been known that according to these research results a number of samples contained EPO.

"The retroactive testing of the 1998 Tour riders’ samples was carried out by the French laboratory as scientific research and not according to technical standards for anti-doping analyses. In addition, the principles of anonymity and prior consent from the riders for scientific analyses were not respected. The results therefore could not be accepted as valid proof in an anti-doping context - and the UCI could not open retrospective disciplinary proceedings.

"As it was not possible to prove that the riders concerned had doped and no B-analysis was available as a defense, the UCI considered it was not appropriate to disclose their names.

 

[D-Queued]

The whole point of the example offered - extreme as it was - was that it would demonstrate the independence of the CADF, prove that they really are the sport's thief-takers and not just a bunch of window-dressers. A truly independent CADF would be above push-back.

Yes, ideally they would be.

With respect to push-back, I was thinking of pretty much everyone involved being upset when effectively *all* accomplishments would be asterisked for a full 8 years.

Of course, WADA already crossed that bridge when they introduced the retroactive 8 year rule.

Regards, David

 

[fmk_RoI]

With respect to push-back, I was thinking of pretty much everyone involved being upset when effectively *all* accomplishments would be asterisked for a full 8 years.

Retro testing is happening, ahead of Olympics for eg, or by the IAAF, maybe by other feds. But even with better tests, you still need a bit of luck (as regards the timing of the test vis when a doping product might have been taken), you're not going to get that many positives.

 

[thehog]

This is why the UCI only has fake independence. If it was real, then something might this might actually happen and that is the last thing the UCI wants.

Imagine if a bunch of new generation clean riders started testing positive for EPO. It would be the UCIs worst nightmare. The "new era" would be dead, sponsors would go away, brits would stop tuning in.

No, I think its best to keep those 2012 samples safely locked away in a nuclear bunker somewhere.

Sounds like Cookson has done another "Menchov styled" deal with Andy Shleck.

Better keep an eye on the UCI website for any new documents being added in the middle of the night.

 

[Benotti69]

Sounds like Cookson has done another "Menchov styled" deal with Andy Shleck.

Better keep an eye on the UCI website for any new documents being added in the middle of the night.

If Schleck has popped the ABP or some back dated testing of samples, i guess that ASO also have their dirty hands in this.......

 

[the sceptic]

Alex Oates ‏@Velocentric

So @BrianCooksonUCI says "now is not the time" for women to have a minimum wage. Well Brian, if not now, when?


Brian Cookson OBE ‏@BrianCooksonUCI

@Velocentric Actually Alex, what I said was that the women who advise the UCI have told me that now is not the time. Not quite the same.

As usual, Cookson simply needs more time.

 

[fmk_RoI]

As usual, Cookson simply needs more time.

Well thank God he didn't put a timeframe on it when he made it one of the pillars of his manifesto.

Oh, hang on a moment...

"If the UCI is to become a modern and progressive International Federation, we must ensure that there are rules specifying teams guarantee a minimum wage for women pro road riders and proper, modern terms of employment. I commit to achieving this in my first year in office. "

 

[thehog]

As usual, Cookson simply needs more time.

Has Cookson posted a selfie recently? Doesn't his twitter photo have him shaking hands with a female world champion to show that he cares about diversity?

He's becoming more and more like Olli Cookson everyday.

 

[heart_attack_man]

I remembered thinking at the time that the election between Cookson and McQuaid was very much like that South Park episode "****** and Turd"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******_and_Turd

I was very much hoping that I was wrong, but obviously it turns out I was pretty much right.

I do actually believe that Cookson is worse, because at least McQuaid was a moustache-twirling baddie, whereas I feel like Cookson is more like a Bond-villain where you don't know that he's the bad guy until the end.

Fk the both of them. Cookson's biggest crime is that he has somehow managed to mis-manage the LA fallout so badly that he hasn't used the opportunity to actually effect real change in AD policy in the peloton. Everything else is secondary (and there's a lot of it).

His first year of presidency has been a friggin shamozzle.

Please note that this is my opinion.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's a business report, from when the CADF was first made independent, published annually. Used to be available on UCI website. Like a lot of other docs - eg the newsletter that contained information on proposed calendar reforms - old copies are gone from the UCI website, for some reason.

Well, be careful here. The UCI's website is a content management system. They recently got a new one. No one is spending the money backporting the old cms to the new one. It appears the old system was far from free too, so they didn't just put the old site on a sub domain either.

This works out pretty good for a federation always 'moving forward.'

 

[RownhamHill]

Well, be careful here. The UCI's website is a content management system. They recently got a new one. No one is spending the money backporting the old cms to the new one. It appears the old system was far from free too, so they didn't just put the old site on a sub domain either.

This works out pretty good for a federation always 'moving forward.'

It's a trivial job though to export the pdfs from the back end of an old CMS and upload them into a new one - you don't need to spend money on that other than the time the content editor spends clicking the download and upload buttons and then making a new page with links to the documents.

That said, overall migrating a big website from one CMS to another is a non-trivial task, and depending on the size of the UCI's web team, and how recently they moved the site to a new platform, uploading 'old' content might be just one more thing on a long list that a content editor has to get to. Can someone ask Cookson on twitter?

 

[No_Balls]

I do actually believe that Cookson is worse, because at least McQuaid was a moustache-twirling baddie, whereas I feel like Cookson is more like a Bond-villain where you don't know that he's the bad guy until the end.

I´d say Cookson is the classical burecrautical, weak, puppet-president. Where Phat at least gave the impression of a strong, determined, arms-waving, angry leader this farce is surrounding himself with PDF-files, twitter and political correctness.

He is a Saruman. A chief on paper but you´ll know there is a bigger baddie pulling the strings.

 

[Hawkwood]

I´d say Cookson is the classical burecrautical weak puppet-president. Where Phat at least gave the impression of a strong, determined, arms-waving, angry leader this farce is surrounding himself with PDF-files, twitter and political correctness.

He is a Saruman. A chief on paper but you´ll know there is a bigger baddie pulling the strings.

When did McQuaid give an `...impression of a strong, determined, arms-waving, angry leader...'? Do you mean when he was threatening law suits against anyone who claimed the UCI was corrupt?