Looking forward -The proactive change of cyclings culture thread

[mrhender]

I think we should use this thread to gather ideas on how to change the culture of cycling that many of us still believe to be very much infuenced by doping...

We have several threads looking backwards, this one is about the future..
Of course it's hard to discuss what should be done without pointing fingers at current problems but the overall objective is to build upon a new road which should lead to the cure, or replacement of the old and hammered one...

Thread not limited to UCI structure..
All ideas are welcome..


(If a thread like this exists, then I apologise, but couldn't find it though)

 

[Almeisan]

WWE buys cycling.

 

[mrhender]

I'll start

http://www.theouterline.com/setting-a-new-ethical-standard-in-pro-cycling/

Great article looking ahead.. Maybe posted here before, but suitable to the thread..

A minor passage:

Professional cycling should create a task force on ethics to bring together experts in the field of business and organizational ethics, and take advice and counsel on how to build and implement a stronger system of ethics in cycling. This task force would work with riders, team owners, UCI and national federation representatives to first understand the problems and choices of the past, and then to develop a new framework of ethics and values for the sport. This first ever true code of ethics for cycling (and perhaps in all of professional sports) would be applicable at all levels – as relevant and formative to the development and behavior of new riders and juniors as it would be to the seasoned pro or masters competitor. In addition, an expanded and more comprehensive blueprint for ethical behavior would be developed for those at the higher management and oversight levels in the UCI and national federations.
This temporary task force should assimilate the emerging results of the CIRC, leveraging the revelations of that process to develop a longer-term ethics framework that can be expanded on by the sport’s leaders. This path may require some additional time, owing to the Commission’s primary goal of repairing the sport; on the other hand, this path may also carry more clout because of on-going discoveries that may help shape the detail and breadth of the ethics model.

 

[Almeisan]

After Armstrong they decided to not have a truth and reconciliation-type of commission. That means they aren't going to do it tomorrow.
UCI is about as corrupt as FIFA. FIFA decided to not have a corruption investigation.
What about UCI?

Today cycling is run by former dopers.


Nothing will change.

 

[mrhender]

After Armstrong they decided to not have a truth and reconciliation-type of commission. That means they aren't going to do it tomorrow.
UCI is about as corrupt as FIFA. FIFA decided to not have a corruption investigation.
What about UCI?

Today cycling is run by former dopers.


Nothing will change.

Well so let this be the only "optimistic" thread in the clinic which purpose is to point out or give birth to new ideas that could change things if implemented..

I'am not holding back pointing out problems in general, but I think i'am obliged to make some sort of statement of what I believe should be done instead...

 

[mrhender]

Have to post more of this brilliant article which is a must-read IMO:

The testing itself needs to be made completely independent from the UCI, and handed over to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) or a third-party independent agency to be designated by WADA. The UCI should also propose an annual funding level and budget necessary to support the requisite testing activities – essentially contracting out these testing requirements to WADA via a professional services agreement. This would allow the UCI to refocus on the more critical issue of instituting a stronger ethics training and maintenance program within the sport.
Although the UCI and WADA have historically engaged in a public spat over who has authority to do what, the delegation of testing responsibilities to WADA seems to be moving forward, and indeed would only be in line with its original charter – to be the world’s independent drug-testing agency for all sport. By facilitating this transition, cycling can finally escape the criticism that the “fox is guarding the henhouse.” It should be clear to all that the current model by which the UCI controls both the testing and punishment in a self-policing model is a glaring conflict of interest – and it must change.
Sporting ethics must start early and be reinforced often. This ethics training program must be adopted by the national Federations and be woven into the promotion and advancement system for all competitors. Junior riders should be exposed to the ethics training as part of their racing license application. Riders applying to move between categories must attest that they have read and will abide by the ethics of the Federation. Professionals should take a refresher course of the most current version of the training program every year. Coaches, soigneurs and medical staff will need to have an attestation every year to maintain certification. There will obviously be many administrative and implementation details to iron out, but other complex organizations have successfully made this change, and cycling can too. Incorporating ethics training as a backbone of the sport will undoubtedly have many other positive benefits.[/B]

http://www.theouterline.com/setting-a-new-ethical-standard-in-pro-cycling/

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I am making the assumption here that ethics are like common sense - not something you can legislate for, or successfully implement via people signing a memorandum of understanding.

I mean. That's what Sky are doing with their ZTP right? And look at Froome go. Or JTL. Or Rogers.

other complex organizations have successfully made this change, and cycling can too

Do you have a single example - does that article provide a single example of a successful change in culture being brought about by an ethics course?

Words are all well and good, but for my money, actions will always speak louder.

Apologies for being such a downer on your ethics idea, only to then offer my own suggestions. I just really struggle with the efficacy of any sort of paper you sign being responsible for a change in culture.

When I look at things that have been implemented in society - like speed limits or seatbelt wearing, drunk driving or DUI, etc, it was a case of education but moreso law creation and enforcement. And people still do it, despite dangers and penalties.

At a higher level, a system implementation should aim to:

Make it difficult to cheat.
Make it painful to cheat.
Make it rewarding to ride clean.

My ideas:
Really cheap tests and more of them.
More in-depth understanding of physiology at this level.
FTP passport or similar.
Lower racing load on riders.
Increased public interaction with riders.
Actual, fair dinkum transparency wrt TUEs, etc.
No single point of failure er influence (eg: Zorzoli approving TUEs).
I am tempted to say stricter penalties for doping violations.

 

[melkemugg]

As long as we live in a capitalistic system that still benefits greedy, corrupted, and narcissistic cheating individuals, nothing will change.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As long as we live in a capitalistic system that still benefits greedy, corrupted, and narcissistic cheating individuals, nothing will change.

I think you're missing the point of the thread.

 

[mrhender]

I am making the assumption here that ethics are like common sense - not something you can legislate for, or successfully implement via people signing a memorandum of understanding.

I mean. That's what Sky are doing with their ZTP right? And look at Froome go. Or JTL. Or Rogers.

I think ethics are a part of your personality and is closely combined with your psychological mentallity.. I do not believe that all dopers suffered from poor ethics from the get-go and this is the core of what I believe to have most importance to doping in general.. In my view doping is a result of psychological factors combined with influence from the culture that has developed over the last century.. I do agree that you cannot legislate/sign papers in order to change ethics. But I do believe that this area of anti-doping is closer to the actual core of the problem than much other is.. As the article suggests there are multiple handles to this approach and signing papers is just one of them.. You have to start somewhere and if you can support the ethics of non-doping from early on and expand this to pro cycling then i welcome it..

Do you have a single example - does that article provide a single example of a successful change in culture being brought about by an ethics course?

First of all I do find it fair to point out flaws in the article. But let me be honest and say that that the point of this thread is to point out ideas that may could contribute to a change.. Yes I Bolded this sentence in between other sentences, and your point is fair. I could easily come up with an analogy but then I would fear that we would be moving away from the important subject by focusing on how much my analogy fits this single sentence which in my opinion is not a core pillar of the article..

Words are all well and good, but for my money, actions will always speak louder.

I agree in general, however (on this ocassion) I regard words as a key to inspiration and to nourish a new way of thinking is a start..

Apologies for being such a downer on your ethics idea, only to then offer my own suggestions. I just really struggle with the efficacy of any sort of paper you sign being responsible for a change in culture.

No need to apologise, you are pointing out things of importance.
I must say though that I do not sign this piece of paper to be anything else but inspiration and worth debating as a tool for change.. The point is not to be right on the money in first post, that is impossible.. Maybe I should have been clearer in the OP but the point is to gather ideas and then maybe, just maybe over time it can be sorted out to something useful.. This article is a drop in the sea, but a drop i consider to have importance.. If we can collect enough then maybe, just maybe something valuable can come of it.. We are so used to pointing fingers that I fear we fail to point out the good things and, work on those instead..
Me for example, I have developed an automatic criticism for Cookson, so every time he says or does something I search for flaws in it.. This thread is meant to be the other way around..

When I look at things that have been implemented in society - like speed limits or seatbelt wearing, drunk driving or DUI, etc, it was a case of education but moreso law creation and enforcement. And people still do it, despite dangers and penalties.

You are right.. I cannot help to compare dopers with people who suffers from compulsive gambling behaviour.. They where not suffering from this in the beginning and now they are living their lives on the edge having to lie to the whole world including families etc. to maintain the very same life they acheived after a life of pursue... Deep down they know it's wrong but they are caught in a web that does not allow ethics and morale.. Gambling is tabu just as omerta is..

At a higher level, a system implementation should aim to:

Make it difficult to cheat.
Make it painful to cheat.
Make it rewarding to ride clean.

The bolded could be very important to change how riders look at this..
It is worth looking at this and try to come up with something..

My ideas:
Really cheap tests and more of them.
More in-depth understanding of physiology at this level.
FTP passport or similar.
Lower racing load on riders.
Increased public interaction with riders.
Actual, fair dinkum transparency wrt TUEs, etc.
No single point of failure er influence (eg: Zorzoli approving TUEs).
I am tempted to say stricter penalties for doping violations.

Good points.. I would add that they should make use of former/convicted dopers with the aim of identifying what drove them to dope -what could be done to minimalize this in current time. They should be compelled to work on fixing the problem now and not just spilling the beans to the past.. If they made a task force for anti-doping they should certainly include former dopers who would know what to look at and be able to identify potential wrong-doings...

Sorry if I'am beeing a bit hairy on this...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

First of all I do find it fair to point out flaws in the article. But let me be honest and say that that the point of this thread is to point out ideas that may could contribute to a change.. Yes I Bolded this sentence in between other sentences, and your point is fair.

To be clear - I was communicating a sincere desire for an example, not seeking to point out flaws. I would be likely to trust that someone writing so clearly and confidently would have more than a couple to hand.

If in fact they did not have any examples to back up their claim, then the article starts to look dodgy / airy fairy / nebulous.

I am guessing from your response that there is no readily available example. Analogies are good, no question, but precdents are better, IMO.

 

[mrhender]

To be clear - I was communicating a sincere desire for an example, not seeking to point out flaws. I would be likely to trust that someone writing so clearly and confidently would have more than a couple to hand.

If in fact they did not have any examples to back up their claim, then the article starts to look dodgy / airy fairy / nebulous.

I am guessing from your response that there is no readily available example. Analogies are good, no question, but precdents are better, IMO.

Okay... It was not my intention to put words in your mouth...
I think it IS a flaw, so that's what i called it... Following the post above i have contacted them through the website asking them to provide an example.. I have no idea if they will reply but will loose nothing for trying...

It might be neboulus but I see nothing at their website that would suggest dodgy behaviour or hidden agendas..

I brought the article as inspiration... Problem with it is that they in general compare with organizations as a whole and not just cycling/sports..
A closer look implies that they are trying to put their suggestion in a larger perspective sidelining UCI and cycling with other branches. If they include details from other organizations having nothing to do with cycling it could be as much a weak point as not including it... Maybe they just made a choice and decided to do something that in their opninion was less nebulous...
I may be wrong though, so let's see if/how they reply on this...

 

[DirtyWorks]

The UCI is a federation of national cycling federations. None of the things you posted would benefit the leaders of those cycling federations, or the current high-level people at the UCI. Remember that most important folks at the UCI have multiple streams of income from cycling because of their role at the UCI.

I admire your optimism though.

I have a simple request: let WADA/NADOs open cases.

 

[mrhender]

Maybe I'am going about this the wrong way..

Let me try another appraoch then..

What kind of end-product would be considered acceptable or at least a significant leap forward..?

If we can find some sort of common ground on this end-product, it would maybe be easier to find realistic solutions to the obvious obstacles achieving this overall "dream"..........

I perfectly understand the scepticism which is deeply rooted in realism, and for the same reason I would like to underline that the purpose of thinking anti-doping in the opposite way of the norm here, is meaningful and important..

 

[nevada]

I think you're missing the point of the thread.

He's hit the nail on the head.

Until all the previous and current generation of cyclist, doctors, mechanics, DS's etc leave the sport nothing much will change.

 

[mrhender]

He's hit the nail on the head.

Until all the previous and current generation of cyclist, doctors, mechanics, DS's etc leave the sport nothing much will change.

And then how would you suggest to make sure that the next generation is not due to do the same when time comes?

Come on!! Read the OP again.. This thread is about solutions not problems.. There are plenty of other threads for mud-slinging -This is not one of them....

 

[TrackCynic]

Ideas:

1. Fire the top 2 tiers of management at USA Cycling. They have blood on their hands.
2. Ban all DS's, coaches, managers who have any history of doping from ANY involvement with pro cycling teams or development teams or junior grassroots programs.
3. Put pressure on brands like Specialized, Oakley, Trek, etc to stop promoting their products using dopers.

 

[proffate]

Hold team management accountable when dopers are caught, regardless of whether they had any involvement. The people who make hiring decisions need to feel their neck on the line.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hold team management accountable when dopers are caught, regardless of whether they had any involvement. The people who make hiring decisions need to feel their neck on the line.

And give them tools to help them make good decisions in terms of hiring and racing their riders.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Christophe Bassons, UCI President

 

[gooner]

Christophe Bassons, UCI President

After reading his recent book, that is something I would love more than anything. He's not just a clean rider but an intelligent guy to add to it and one that would be suited perfectly for a leading position of authority in the sport.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Christophe Bassons, UCI President

At first I thought - why (which would still be an interesting read if you could provide it). But as I considered it, I realised that that sort of thing, more than just about anything else, would feel good for a new-to-the-pro peloton cyclist.

If someone in authority was so clearly anti-doping and had always been known as such.

If you were being pressured at all to start doping.

Imagine if those riders had someone to appeal to.

Hmmm. Because initially I preferred him in his current role - at the youth level, in charge of doping tests. But I am coming around to the whole, "person in power with clean record, clean attitude and legendary status as a clean riding, anti-doping advocate".

hrm hrm.

 

[Tonton]

Sorry for busting your bubbles gents. But at the end of the day, it is about what the public wants. After all, the public is what sponsors target. What TVs targets. Whether they sell bikes, products, ratings, memberships/licenses, the main actors in the world of cycling don't care what you or I think. It is "panem et circenses". So many spectators, the masses, are so nationalists that they don't want to see the truth, defend the indefensible, as long as one of their countryman wins. Pantani, a hero in Italy Jaja and Virenque, the most popular con men in France . BTW, some in the US still refuse to believe that LA doped, and if they do finally concede, well 'he did like everybody else, therefore was on a level playing field, therefore he won". Rubbish.

Why would the system change when (even) we poor blokes keep falling for it, keep watching Phil and Paul, keep drooling when the latest Madone comes out? There is no accountability. This culture, doping is possible because sponsors/teams, organizers/media, and public are happy with the status quo. Like in the major American sports, if the goal is entertainment and $, who cares what the players take?

Hey wife, get me another beer! Allez Richard!

I mentioned American sports, because even if anti-doping is far from the top of the agenda (its not even on it one can say), I like the structure: a powerful Commissioner (UCI Prez), pro teams (franchises) that are stable (they belong to the league, the owner - in cycling sponsor - is a bonified tenant), and sanctions that can be tough and lengthy (ask Pete Rose).

Any serious UCI prez would clean house and first order of business would be to send Riis, Vino, and many others packing. How do you do that? Accountability. Simple rules coupled with a system of sanctions/fines that makes employers (teams) accountable for their employees' (riders) performance/behavior, that forces teams to hire the right people and watch their business. Just like any normal business does, nothing new.

If cycling had such a statute, like a private company, to obtain a pro-license, you would need to answer questions that if later found out to be inaccurate would be a cause for termination. And a drug policy that spells the consequences. That should help against defense lawyers.

Side by side with (long overdue) repression, there must also be a structure of support for riders, more than just toll free, anonymous help/support or TIPS hotline. There have to be rehab programs that can help suspended riders and prevent repeat offenses.

But again, only the fear of losing the public (and its $) will force the system to evolve. And what does 'the public' want?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Who could argue with such emotion-free logic and convincing, rock solid data and anecdote-free, non-projecting impartiality.

Or something.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Accountability. Simple rules coupled with a system of sanctions/fines that makes employers (teams) accountable for their employees' (riders) performance/behavior, that forces teams to hire the right people and watch their business. Just like any normal business does, nothing new.

If cycling had such a statute, like a private company, to obtain a pro-license, you would need to answer questions that if later found out to be inaccurate would be a cause for termination. And a drug policy that spells the consequences. That should help against defense lawyers.

Side by side with (long overdue) repression, there must also be a structure of support for riders, more than just toll free, anonymous help/support or TIPS hotline. There have to be rehab programs that can help suspended riders and prevent repeat offenses.

FTFY. Thanks for the contribution.